THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR ALABAMA SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS TO BE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRASSLEY: Morning, everybody. I welcome everyone back for our second day of hearing on Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination for Attorney General. As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others. So officers will remove individuals as they have previously. Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I want to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how we're going to proceed today. Senator -- Senator Whitehouse will be acting as Ranking Member today and I will give an opening statement and he can if he wants to as well. I welcome that. Then we'll turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Following the statements, we'll begin with the first rounds of questions, in which each senator will have seven members (sic). After we finish asking questions of the first panel, we'll turn to the final panel for their testimony. And in regard to the timing of that, it will kind of depend on when this panel is completed. But if we get this panel completed, let's say around lunch or 12:30 or 1 o'clock, we may adjourn for an hour or so at that time. But I won't be able to make that determination until we finish here with this panel. Yesterday, we met here from 9:30 until about 8 p.m., so that every Senator, both Democrat and Republican could ask Senator Sessions as many questions as they wanted to. We had great cooperation every day, yesterday, and I should thank everybody for that cooperation, and we'll press ahead into today. We heard from Senator Shelby and Collins, who gave their strong endorsement of Senator Sessions. Their introductions describes Senator Sessions extensive experience, outstanding qualifications and character. I also want to note that yesterday, Senator Feinstein participated in her first nomination hearing as the new Ranking Member. I'm looking forward to working with her in her new capacity as I said yesterday. In her opening statement yesterday, Senator Feinstein correctly observed and I'd like to quote, fairly long quote, "Today we're not being asked to evaluate him, meaning Senator Sessions, as a Senator. We're being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement for the largest and best democracy in America." She continued, "As attorney general, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs, rather the job of attorney general is to enforce federal law, even if he voted against a law, even if he spoke against it before it passed, even if he disagreed with the President, seeing that the law is constitutional." Then she concluded, "This hearing must determine whether this Senator will enforce the laws that he voted against." end of quote. And yesterday, through 10 and a half hours of testimony, we got a clear and unequivocal answer to this threshold question. He was asked repeatedly if he would enforce the law, even if he disagreed with that law as a matter of policy. Time and again, Senator Sessions reaffirmed his commitment to this fundamental principle. As Attorney General of the United States his solemn duties are, as we all know and expect, are to the Constitution and to enforce the law duly enacted. His fundamental commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central theme of our discussion yesterday. And as I made clear in my opening statement, that's what I believe the department desperately needs. Yesterday -- yesterday's testimony further convinced me that Senator Sessions is the right choice to serve as our nation's chief law enforcement officer at this critical time. We know that he is very well qualified for the position having served for 15 years as a prosecutor and now 20 years as a Senator, so that's three decades of public service. We all know (ph) Senator Sessions will be up front with you when you say that he's going to do something, he will do it. Senator Sessions will be an independent attorney general, as he's been asked so many times yesterday and about his enforcement of the law. That's the bottom line. I now turn to Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much Chairman. Let me, just make some very brief remarks. First, I can't help but note as a general proposition, hearing after hearing, the effort to push nominees into confirmation hearings before their FBI background checks are complete. Before their ethics and financial disclosure filings are concluded, and I'd like to put into the record, this hearing, the letter that Senator Schumer, Minority Leader Schumer wrote to Majority Leader McConnell. In which, he took a letter that Majority Leader McConnell had written, Minority Leader McConnell had written to Majority Leader Reed and simply changed the names. He wrote, Dear Mitch, in place of dear Harry, and he signed his own name at the bottom and it was thus a verbatim letter. And what we have been asking for is exactly what Republicans asked for over and over again, what has long been the tradition of the Senate. It is not the Senate's fault that the Trump administration was not prepared and that it did not have its nominees vetted. In place, I know that Senator Sessions has been one of the nominees who has been prepared but I can't help but point out that across the board the ramming of unvetted nominees, the stacking of hearings on top of hearings, and the jamming of all of this up against an unprecedented vote-a-rama for a no-hearing budget, creates I think an unfortunate new precedent in the Senate. The point that I'll make about the Department of Justice is somebody who has served in the Department of Justice, like many of my colleagues or a number of my colleagues, is that I think there's legitimate concern based on the hectoring in the right wing groups for a general house cleaning of career staff, and for a particular targeting of named career staff. As I mentioned in my questioning yesterday, one of the Heritage Foundation spokespeople made the comparison to the Aegean Stables and filth as having to be washed out of the Aegean Stables. I don't think it's fair to characterize the career of employees of the United States Department of Justice as filth, and, nor do I think it is proper to assert that this should not be secular. And, I think it's a matter of concern when an attorney general thinks that a secular attorney may have a lesser, or different appreciation of truth than a religious attorney. Particularly coming from what I want more, freedom of conscience has been such a principle of core values since the days of Roger Williams. When Providence was a tiny settlement in the wilderness, where people who thought freely were able to get away from the theocracy of Massachusetts. We have a long history of concern about that kind of evaluation of career department professionals. And finally I'd say that, after a very divisive campaign, that left a lot of Americans and a lot of communities feeling very wounded and very vulnerable and very set upon, and after a promise that he would be a President for all Americans over and over and over and over again, we're seeing an array of cabinet nominees who run far to the right. And frankly, in many cases, come out of the swamp that the President-elect promised to drain. So, I thank you Chairman for the, I think, thoughtful and fair way in which you have run this hearing. I thought that Senator Sessions handled himself very well by staying until all the questions were answered. I appreciate the procedure that you have gone through, but I did want to make a record of those concerns from our side about the larger process in which these nominations hearings are taking place. And with that, I yield back to you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you. (Inaudible) witnesses and introduce them. I think, so I don't forget it, I promised Senator Coons point of personal privilege on one of the nominations. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I -- I had asked for the opportunity to introduce my friend and colleague Cornell Brooks, but I'm perfectly happy to wait to do so until there are other introductions a foot or to do it right now. GRASSLEY: I'd rather have you do it now if you would please. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Cornell Brooks, the President and CEO of the NAACP, as one of our many witnesses on this distinguished panel here today. Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that Americans truly enjoy the promise of equal protection of the law. Before assuming leadership of the NAACP in 2014, he was head of the Newark, New Jersey based Institute for Social Justice. And fittingly, for a hearing on the nominee to lead the Department of Justice, his early experience was of being a part of the Department of Justice, as a trial attorney, where he secured the largest government settlement for victims of housing discrimination. And filed the government's first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. He was also Executive Director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, a trial attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a law clerk to the Honorable Samuel J. Ervin III on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He's a fellow alum with Yale Law School, holds a Master of Divinity degree from Boston University School of Theology. He is not just a lawyer and social advocate, but a fourth generation ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a husband and father of two sons. Mr. Brooks, thank you for your leadership in the work of justice throughout our nation and I look forward to your testimony here today. BROOKS (?): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: I'm going to ask you to stand and swear before we -- before I introduce you. Would you raise your right hand? Will you -- do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the whole truth -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? OK. I noticed that all of you affirmed that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. The 81st Attorney General of the United States was the Honorable Michael Mukasey. Mr. Mukasey has also served as a U.S. attorney and a district court judge, southern district of New York. We thank him for coming. Our second witness, Oscar Vasquez, he became a citizen of the United States 2011 and served honorably in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. We welcome you and thank you, obviously, for your military service. Our next witness, Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is very familiar with this committee and we're familiar with you. Thank you for coming. Next is Amita Swadhin, she is a sexual assault survivor and co-founder of Mirror Memoirs. I hope I'm right on that. Welcome to you. Then we have Jayann Sepich, the mother of Katie Sepich. She's the founder of Surviving Parents Coalition. Our next witness Cornell Brooks, you've heard introduced, but let me further say that he's President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and he's well known to us as well. Thank you for being here today. Chuck Canterbury is the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. He's familiar to a lot of us as well, so we welcome you. Next we'll hear from David Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He's also a professor at the Georgetown Law Center. We welcome you. And finally, we'll hear from Larry Thompson. He served as Deputy Attorney General under President Bush. As a well known U.S. attorney for the northern district of Georgia, and we welcome back to the committee Mr. Thompson. So, I think we'll start with Mr. Mukasey and we're going to hear testimony from all of you. And then, we'll have questions as I indicated, seven minute rounds. So proceed will you General Mukasey. MUKASEY: Thank you. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member -- sorry Chairman Grassley, not yet, right? Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, this is one of those occasions that's both an honor and a pleasure. An honor to appear before this committee and a pleasure to speak to the qualifications of Senator Sessions to serve as attorney general. I submitted a statement to the committee and I'm happy to answer any questions relating to it or any other subject that the committee thinks that's relevant to passing on the qualifications of Senator Sessions. But, of course I'm here for the convenience of the committee, not simply to orate. And after watching yesterday's hearing, and Senator Sessions responses to the committee's questions, I think the only thing I have to add to what I've already submitted at this point, is to say that the person you saw and heard yesterday is very much the person I came to know beginning in 2007, when I first appeared before this committee. Principled, intelligent, knowledgeable, thorough, modest and thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and to the mission of the department. which is to enforce the law and to preserve our freedoms. So I thank you very much for hearing me. GRASSLEY: Does that complete your testimony? MUKASEY: It does. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Now, Sergeant Vasquez. Thank you. Please proceed. VASQUEZ: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Oscar Vasquez and I am proud to be an American. I was born in a small town in Mexico. I was 12 years old when my mother and I boarded a bus to the border. Although I did not make the choice to come to America, this country quickly became my home. As soon as we were settled in America, my parents made sure I was enrolled in school, because they wanted me to understand the value of education. It was at this point that I started to develop a passion for math and science, since the formulas and equations transcended the language barrier. In high school, I joined the JROTC program, where my drill instructors were Vietnam veterans. They thought as a valley of selfless service, whether you able to provide it in the military or not. They wanted us to be better Americans. I loved the order and discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC officer of the year. In my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the Band of Brothers mini series and I knew then, I wanted to join the Army. But when I met with the recruiter, I was told I could not enlist because I was undocumented. I left that meeting not knowing what to do, or what was next. I was devastated. I then had to figure out what else to do with my life. At the beginning of my senior year, I joined the robotics club. Our team of undocumented (ph) students enter a national competition and would design the underwater robot which we named Stinky. Beyond our wildest dreams, my high school team won the grand prize for the competition, against some of the countries top technical universities. Winning the competition was proof that we as DREAMers have something to offer to the country we always considered our home. Although I could not contribute to my country by joining the military, I enrolled Arizona State University and decided I could contribute by becoming an engineer. In 2005, I married my wife Carla, a U.S. citizen. She started a process of petitioning for my legal status, but it is the case of many DREAMers there were enormous legal obstacles and substantial risks. While I was a student at Arizona State, the Arizona legislator passed a law prohibiting undocumented citizens from receiving state financial aid and paying the state tuition. Even doors, that I've had in my home for many years and I was married to a U.S. citizen, I was treated like an outsider. The law tripled my tuition, (inaudible) by working construction, I scraped the money together to pay for college and support my family. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in mechanical engineering. This was three years before the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established. So even though I had a (inaudible) degree and there were jobs available, no one would hire me in this field because I didn't have legal status. In 2010, after completing a legal process that involved substantial hardship to my family, I was able to get a green card. Having legal resident status changed my life. I was able to get a drivers license, travel freely within the United States and pursue a career in engineering. The biggest note is -- the biggest note is -- the biggest change that I noticed was the fear. I was no longer afraid of being deported or being forcibly separated from my family. I could also pursue my dream of joining the military and becoming a paratrooper. I enlisted in the United States Army and started basic training in February 2011. I went in to fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country wasn't enough. I wanted to let my actions speak for themselves. Shortly before I finished basic training, I became a U.S. citizen. A couple weeks later, I found myself jumping out of a C-130 flying over Fort Benning, Georgia. And a couple months after that, I was deployed to Afghanistan. I look forward to combat because I wanted to protect the United States. Serving in the Army allowed me to contribute fully to this country and make it safer. I was following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have proudly served the United States. In Afghanistan, I fought side by side with my Army brothers. We wore the same uniform, wore the U.S. flag on the same shoulder. It mattered more that we were willing to be there (ph) for each other and for our country than where we came from. To this day, I remember how I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put my life on the line for my brothers and for my country and I felt really proud to be an American. I felt then, for the first time, that no one could again question whether I am an American. It has been a great honor to serve my country. My son Oscar Maximus is 4 years old and in preschool. My daughter, Samantha is 8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of Fort Worth, Texas where I volunteer at two different high schools in their respective robotics program. I feel that my family is living the American dream. But I want to continue serving my country and I will soon join the Army Reserve. I think now about all the doors that were unlocked for me when I became a lawful, permanent resident. The ability to get the job of my dreams, provide for my family and live without fear. I can't imagine what it will be like to have that taken away from me today. I also can't imagine what it is like today for my former teammates and the nearly 100,000 DACA recipients who do not have a legal status and who are afraid of what could happen to them in a matter of days. Of course, DACA is only a temporary solution and now even that is at risk. I hope that you will not view my story of that as someone exceptional, rather I am where I am today because of the many great people who have believed in me and have given me a chance. I also want to acknowledge most DREAMers and mostly (ph) undocumented immigrants who do not have a path to legal status right now. I wanted to come here today because our countries top law enforcement officer must be someone who understands that immigrants make our country stronger. Most Americans agree that it's not right to deport someone who was brought here as a child. Deport them to a country that might not even remember. We need an attorney general who will protect American people from those who will do us harm, but who will also show mercy to those who deserve it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much, Sergeant. Now Mr. Kirsanow. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) GRASSLEY: Have you pushed the red button? Or whatever color the button is? KIRSANOW: Thank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, I'm Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Benesh, Friedlander and I'm here on a personal capacity. Youth commission on civil rights was established pursuant to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to among other things, act as a national clearing house for matters pertaining to denials of equal protection, discrimination and voting rights. And in furtherance of that clearing house function, my assistant and I reviewed the bills, sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Sessions in his tenure, in the Senate as well as his public activities and actions that are at least arguably related to civil rights. Our examination found that Senator Sessions' approach to civil rights matters, both in terms of his legislative record and his other actions is consistent with mainstream, textbook (ph) interpretation of rolled in statutory and constitutional authority as well as governing precedent. Our examination also reveals, that Senator Sessions approach to civil rights is consistent, is legally sound, enrichingly (ph) honest and has appreciation and understanding of the historical basis for civil rights laws. And our examination found that several aspects of Senator Sessions -- Sessions' -- Senator Sessions' record unfortunately have been mischaracterized and distorted to portray him as somehow being indifferent, if not hostile to civil rights. The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things, and this is probably least consequential, Senator Sessions has sponsored or co- sponsored a plethora of bills honoring significant civil rights leaders, events, icons, such as Reverend Martin Luther King, Loretta Scott King, Reverend Shuttlesworth's fight against segregation. Three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks, a Senate apology to the descendants of victims of lynching. A bill to honor participants in the Selma voting rights march. A bill to honor the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and on and on and on, but Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights transcends resolutions in support of civil rights. He has authored, co-sponsored, or sponsored a number of bills to protect and enhance voting rights. Such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 2001, the Voter Fraud Protection Act of 2009, a number of bills to protect and enhance the voting rights of service members, particularly those serving overseas. He's a strong proponent of religious liberty, having sponsored or co-sponsored several bills to prevent discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent the government from substantially burdening free exercise of a person's religious beliefs. But in our estimation, his most profound and important impact is on preserving and protecting the rights of American workers, particularly black workers. The employment and wage levels of black workers in America have been abysmal for several decades. The labor force participation rate for black males, 61.8 percent and following. The unemployment rate for black males has nearly doubled that of white males. Evidence introduced (ph) before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that 40 percent of the 18 point decline in black employment levels is attributable to government failure or refusal to enforce existing integration laws. And this has a cascade effect by increasing the competition within the unskilled and low skilled marketplace, driving out black workers, slashing wages, particularly among black males. And this has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not slightly over 1 million blacks having lost their jobs, directly due to this phenomenon, and it has broader sociological implications as well, related to incarceration and family formation rates. No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Jeff Sessions in protecting and enhancing the prospects of black workers in America. But for his emphatical efforts in this regard, the plight of black workers now and in the immediate future and the foreseeable future will be demonstratively worse. His leadership on this matter, and his leadership on sub-committee, on immigration and the national interests has been key to restoring an even deeper downward trajectory for black workers in this country. And I'll conclude Mr. Chair by simply, respectfully offering that his record on civil rights legislation, his actions as a U.S. attorney and state attorney demonstrate an unwavering commitment to equal protection under the law, and a genuine fidelity to the rule of law that should make him an outstanding attorney general. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) SWADHIN: I'm not sure if this is working. Great. Good morning. My name is Amita Swadhin, I am a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in Ohio to two immigrants from India and raised in New Jersey. And I'm grateful to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. In October, miked (ph) tapes were released of President-elect Trump describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the genitals. In the wake of these comments becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating, "He doesn't characterize that behavior as sexual assault." Millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered in the wake of these events. I was one of those survivors. My father raped me at least once a week for age four to age 12. I endured psychological, verbal and physical abuse from him for years. I also grew up watching my father abuse my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape. When I disclosed the sexual abuse to my mother, at age 13, she called a therapist engaging mandating reported -- mandated reporting. The prosecutors threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit. They told me I would be harshly cross-examined by the defense attorney, and did not connect me to any victim support services. I was too afraid to tell them my story. My father received five years probation and no jail time and his violence continued for two years, until my mother finally found the support to leave him. I am here today on behalf of rape and sexual assault survivors to urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as attorney general. As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people have downplayed the impact of this violence on my present day life. I live with complex post traumatic stress disorder, and struggle everyday to be well. It directly and negatively impacts me when people minimize sexual assault. So to hear Senator Sessions initially say President- elect Trump's comments do not constitute sexual assault, and then to consider him leading the Department of Justice has been incredibly worrisome. I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. More than 320,000 Americans over age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted every year. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before age 18. These are public health issues occurring in the private sphere. In 80 percent of adult sexual assaults, and 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust our perpetrators. For this reason, most victims of violent crime never seek healing or accountability from the state. Most violent crimes remained unreported. Thankfully we have improved the response of the criminal justice system with the creation of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The stock (ph) formula grants under VAWA provide training to judges, prosecutors and police officers and other law enforcement personnel to better support survivors. In 1991, the police did not contact victim services for me, but today thanks to VAWA, law enforcement is encouraged to provide victims and advocates to support them in breaking their silence. Yet despite this progress, rape, sexual assaults and domestic violence still happen at epidemic rates and survivors at the intersections of oppression are especially vulnerable. LGBT people and particularly transgender women of color are disproportionally victimized. One in two transgender people will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims are transgender women. In fact, only 11 days into the new year, two transgender women of color have already been murdered, Misha Caldwell (ph), an African-American transgender woman from Mississippi and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow (ph), a two spirit Oglala Lakota woman from South Dakota. We need an attorney general who is committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing. Time and again, Senator Sessions voting record has shown us he is not the man for the job. Despite his claim to be a champion for victims of violent crime, he has not been a friend to vulnerable survivors. While Senator Sessions voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act in the bill's early years, when VAWA was expanded in 2013, to ensure LGBT, immigrant and tribal populations of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are protected and have access to services. Senator Sessions voted against the bill. We must trust the attorney general to enforce and apply our laws fairly, per our Constitution's provisions on equal protection. We must trust the attorney general to respect the humanity of all Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for our most vulnerable victims of crime. Given his voting record on VAWA and on LGBT rights, we have no reason to put our faith or our trust in Senator Sessions as attorney general. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that members of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including but not limited to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the YWCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, UGEMA (ph), the National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, and Jewish Women International opposed Senator Sessions nomination because of the issues I am raising today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. And now we'll go to Ms. Sepich. SEPICH: Good morning Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee. My name is Jayann Sepich and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. In 2003, my daughter Katie, a vivacious 22 year old graduate student was brutally raped, murdered and set on fire. It is never easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror of losing our daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. No suspects emerged in Katie's case, but Katie fought for her life and underneath her fingernails were found the blood and skin of her attacker, and a DNA profile was extracted and uploaded into the National Forensic DNA Database called CODIS. I made the comment to the investigators that the man who had killed Katie was such a monster that surely he would be arrested for another crime. His cheek would be swabbed and we would soon know his identity and he would not be able to harm another woman. That's when I learned it was not legal in New Mexico, my home state, or in most states to take DNA at the time of felony arrest. It could only be taken after conviction. I was stunned. We don't use DNA to accurately identify arrested for serious crimes. We release them from law enforcement without a check of the DNA database for a possible match to other unsolved crimes. We collect fingerprints, mug shots, and check what other crimes a person may have been involved in but we do not collect DNA. After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the collection of DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the non- profit association DNA Saves. We know we can't bring Katie back, but we absolutely believe that we may be able to prevent new crimes. Prevent this horrible pain from being visited on other families, by advocating for laws that allow for the collection of DNA from persons arrested for serious crimes. To date, 30 state legislatures in the United States Congress have enacted laws requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that taking DNA at the time of booking for a felony arrest is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Senator Sessions helped craft the legislative language that became the DNA Fingerprint Act, to provide federal authorities with the authorization to collect DNA from arrestees. In 2008, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as original co- sponsor introduced the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. This federal law provides additional funding to the Debbie Smith Backlog Elimination Act to those states who have enacted laws to expand their databases. Once again, as a judiciary committee's ranking member during that time, in which this legislation was pending, Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping us to craft a bill that would gain bipartisan support and eventually pass Congress unanimously. As a result of stronger state and federal DNA database laws, we have seen many heinous criminals identified through arresting DNA testing. My home state of New Mexico has seen over 1,200 cases matched. California has seen 10 cases matched everyday on their DNA database. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one of the most successful programs in the country and they credit Senator Sessions for must of the success, largely due to the support he's provided from the outset of the state's forensic DNA program during his term as Alabama Attorney General. Alabama has utilized the DNA database to solve over 6,500 previously unsolved cases. In Katie's case, after more than three long years, DNA finally identified Gabriel Avila as Katie's killer. But he would have been identified after only three months, if law enforcement had been permitted to collect DNA at arrest. Over the past 11 years, our family has worked to change DNA laws across the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of both parties. We have also seen opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Forensic DNA is a very complex issue and it is vitally important that policy makers take the time to fully understand these complexities in a truly non-partisan manner. Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he has stood in strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He knows that when a DNA match is made on CODIS, it is completely blind to race, ethnicity and social economic status. DNA is truth. It is science. Senator Sessions said in a 2002 floor speech, we are spending only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an honest and effective way. As a result justice is being delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to that philosophy that it is the core responsibility of our government to protect public safety. He cares about victims. He has been a leader on forensics policy for years and consistently has supported vital funding for DNA. In conclusion, our lives were shattered was brutally murdered. We know intimately the pain that violent crime brings to families. Senator Sessions has shown he understands the pain of victims and has put that understanding into action to help make changes that will make a difference. Senator Sessions will provide strong leadership to the United States Department of Justice and I hope you will support his nomination for attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: And thank you Ms. Sepich. Now, Mr. Brooks. BROOKS: Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and esteemed Senators of this committee. My name is Cornell William Brooks, I serve as President and CEO of the NAACP. I greatly appreciate the invitation to testify before you today to express the deep concerns of the NAACP regarding the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General. As you well know, the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Particularly for such a time as this, with racial divisions deepening, hate crimes rising from sanctuaries to school yards with state imposed, racially motivated voter suppression spreading in state legislatures as well as being struck down in federal courts, with police involved shootings reduced to (inaudible) homicides and viralized videos. It is critical that this committee closely examine Senator Sessions entire record as a prosecutor and as a legislator, to determine whether he is fit to serve as the chief enforcer of our nation's civil rights laws. Based upon a review of the record, the NAACP firmly believes that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as attorney general. Accordingly, we representing multiple civil rights and human rights coalitions we urge this committee not to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. As our written testimony details, Senator Sessions record reveals a consistent disregard for civil and human rights of vulnerable populations, including African- Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBT community and others. Further his Senate voting record reflects a fundamental disregard for many of the Department of Justice's programs which are vital for the protection of Americans. Senator Sessions votes against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 and the Violence Against Woman Act in 2012 and 2013, demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern regarding violent crimes, rape, assault, murder committed against minorities and an American majority of women. These crimes in particular make victims of individuals as well as the groups to which they belong and the American values we cling to. His opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act indicates a hostility to the claims of employment discrimination and more specifically to allowing legal redress for paid discrimination against women. This consistent opposition to any meaningful gun control, shows an unwillingness to stand up to the firearms lobby and a lack of concern regarding the destructive impact of gun violence on our children and communities. His failure to condemn the President-elect's call for an unconscionable and unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants, as well as his opposition to his Senate resolution condemning a government imposed litmus test on a global religion, evidences an unwillingness to protect the rights of the vulnerable and the unpopular, which is something that an attorney general must do. His call for the reevaluation of a basic constitutional principle, that persons born in this country, are citizens of this country, reflects a form of unconstitutional xenophobia that is fundamentally inconsistent to the duty of the attorney general to protect the rights of all Americans. His calling into question the legitimacy of consent decrees causes us to question whether he will use this powerful tool to hold accountable police departments, such as Ferguson, that engaged in predatory policing and a pattern and practice of discrimination. With his consistent support for mandatory minimums, as a prosecutor and a legislator, he stands in opposition to bipartisan efforts to bring to an end this ugly era of mass incarceration, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, with overpopulated prisons and jails and depopulated families and communities. It is Senator Sessions' record on voting rights, however, that is perhaps the most troubling. As this committee is well aware, of the infamous Marion Three Case, in which civil rights activists were prosecuted by then U.S. Attorney Sessions for voter fraud, all of whom were acquitted by a jury in less than four hours on 29 counts. This chilling prosecution against innocent civil rights workers, who were later given gold medals by Congress, painfully reverberates in the hearts of black voters in Alabama and the history of this country. Senator Sessions' record of prosecuting so called voter fraud and both intimidating and suppressing voters then is now reflected in a legislative record of supporting voter ID requirements that suppress votes based on the myth of voter fraud today. His record of vote suppressing prosecution is connected to a record of vote suppressing legislation today. Rather than condemn, he's commended voter ID laws like that is own state of Alabama affecting a half million voters. Similar to laws struck down in Texas and North Carolina in the fourth and fifth circuits. If we could imagine, a Senator Sessions leading a Department of Justice and Michael Brown's Ferguson, Freddie Gray's Baltimore, towns with rising hate crime, communities of vulnerable population -- populations and a democracy divided by voter suppression in his twitter -- civil rights -- twitter a civil rights movement. We can imagine that. Imaging that, we must face the reality that Senator Sessions should not be our attorney general. With that said, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) CANTERBURY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitehouse, distinguished members of the committee and of course my own Senator Lindsey Graham. My name is Chuck Canterbury, the National President of the 330,000 rank and file police officer organization. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to testify before this committee. I've testified before on cabinet nominations, agency head nominations and even a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. I can say without reservation, that I've never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm as I do today for Senator Jeff Sessions. We wholeheartedly support his position and nomination as Attorney General of the United States. Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap Senator Sessions, we immediately issued a statement to the press indicating our strong support for his nomination. He's been a true partner to law enforcement in his time as a U.S. attorney, Attorney General for the state of Alabama and throughout his tenure in the United State Senate. Senator Sessions is demonstrated commitment, not just to so-called law and order issues, but also to an issue very important to my members, officer safety. He was the leading co-sponsor of the FOP's efforts to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which was authored by our friend and former chairman of this committee Senator Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions was the Republican lead co-sponsor of S.1132, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act improvements, which made important and needed changes to the original law. He has provided true leadership in this successful and bipartisan effort. More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage of S.2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating Cots Expansion Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the legislation, which passed the Senate and then the House before being signed into law by the President. That law gives the Office of Community Ordinance Policing Services, the authority to award grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to get active shooter response training for their officers. The need for this training is obviously been identified by numerous law enforcement leaders and by the FOP. Senator Sessions played a key role in the efforts to pass the Fallen Hero Flag Act. The bill which provides a flag to be flying over this Capital to surviving -- to be provided to surviving members of public officers killed in the line of duty. Now this may not sound like much to you, but in a time when officers are being assassinated at the highest rate since the '70s and officers being assaulted at record rates, officers in the field want to know who has my back. Who will protect me while I protect my community? Bills like this, which acknowledge and respect the sacrifices -- sacrifices made by the rank and file truly resonate with my members and with the public safety community. Members of the committee may remember that years that were spent trying to do away with the disparity between the sentencing on the possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. There was a considerable gulf between the position of the FOP and many members of this committee. But in 2001, Senator Sessions introduced a bill to address this issue and he worked tirelessly to bring it together. He made sure the voice of law enforcement was heard and also asserted his belief that the disparity, as existing in the current law, was unjust. In 2010, as a ranking member of this committee, he brokered to compromise that led to the passage, with our support of the Fair Sentencing Act. We accepted that compromise because it was fair, it was just and it reflected the perspective of law enforcement and the law enforcement community. The importance of his direct role on this issue cannot be overstated. Without Jeff Sessions, I believe we might be here today still trying to remain unsolved. That said, I understand that there's a certain amount of partisanship and it's expected in these nomination hearings. But I ask all the members of this committee, to recollect Senator Sessions has worked in a bipartisan manner on many issues, officer safety issues with the FOP and members of the left. More than many times that I've been here, has Senator Sessions been one of the sole members to stand up for law enforcement, especially when it came to the issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership, the support in the Equitable Sharing Program may have been dismantled. For us, that demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man who can reach across the aisle to get things done for the rank and file officer and to protect the citizens of this country. Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly and faithfully for the majority of his adult life. He is above all, a man who reveres the law and reveres justice. I believe he will be an exemplary attorney general and we urge you to move this nomination forward to the Senate for passage. Thank you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Canterbury. Now Mr. Cole. COLE: Thank you for inviting me to testify. The ACLU is a non- partisan organization with a long standing policy of neither endorsing nor opposing nominees for federal office. We rarely testify in confirmation hearings as a result. We do so today, because we believe Senator Sessions' record raises serious questions about the fitness of -- of Senator Sessions to be the attorney general for all the American people. We take no position on how you should ultimately vote, but we urge you to painstakingly probe the many serious questions that his actions, words and deeds raise about his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties. Our concerns arise from his conduct as a prosecutor and from his record as a Senator. As a prosecutor, when he exercised the power to prosecute, the most powerful -- the most serious power that any government official in the United States exercises, he abused that power. Cornell Brooks has already talked about his prosecution, ultimately baseless of civil rights heroes for seeking to increase the black vote in Alabama. He didn't investigate those who sought to help white voters in Alabama, but he did investigate and prosecute those who sought to aid black voters. Many of the charges in that case were dismissed before they even went to the jury because they were baseless. The jury then acquitted of all the charges. In a second case, the Tyco (ph) case, Senator Sessions collaborated with campaign contributors to his senatorial campaign, to use the office of the criminal prosecutor to intervene in a private business dispute, on behalf of his campaign contributors. He filed a 222-count indictment against Tyco (ph), a -- a -- a engineering supply service -- corporation. All charges in the case were dismissed. Many were dismissed because, again, they were baseless, there was no evidence whatsoever to support them. The others were dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and the judge who dismissed them said this was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in his career on the bench. Mr. Sessions successor, Mr. Pryor did not even appeal that decision. So those actions raise serious questions about his fitness to become the most powerful prosecutor in the land. Second, his record as a Senator. Here he has shown blindness or outright hostility to the concerns of the people who's rights he will be responsible to protect. On voting rights, he supported felon disenfranchisement laws and voter ID laws that suppressed the black vote. When the Supreme Court gutted the single most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act, the most important statute in getting -- African-Americans the right to vote in this country, Senator Sessions called that a good day for the south. On religious tolerance, he called Islam a toxic ideology. It is in fact a religion practiced by millions of Americans. Imagine if he called Christianity a toxic ideology. Now, he says he opposes a Muslim ban on entrance to the United States, but when Donald Trump proposed that, he stood up and opposed a resolution introduced here in the Senate to keep religion out of immigration decisions. On women's right, now he says that grabbing women's genitals is sexual assault. But when Donald Trump's tape recording, bragging about his doing precisely that was made public, Senator Sessions said, and I quote, "I don't characterize that as a sexual assault. That's a stretch." When he voted against extending the hate crimes law, to crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation, he said, and I quote, "I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." Well if you don't see discrimination, you can't very well enforce the laws against discrimination. On torture he now says, that torture, water boarding is illegal, but he praised Michael Mukasey for not ruling out water boarding. And he opposed Senator McCain's amendment which was designed to make it clear that water boarding was illegal. On criminal justice he is an outlier, departing even with many of his Republican colleagues who seek to make the criminal justice system more fair and less harsh. If someone applying to intern for one of your offices had as many questions in his record as Senator Sessions has, racist comment, unethical conduct, padding of his resume, you would not hire him, absent the most thorough investigation and inquiry, if then. Senator Sessions is not seeking to be an intern. He's nominated to be the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation. The Senate and more importantly the American people deserve satisfactory answers to these questions before Senator Sessions is confirmed. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Cole. Now Mr. Thompson. THOMPSON: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and other members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I want to add this morning, a bit of a personal perspective on Senator Sessions. I've known Senator Sessions for over 30 years and I am honor to consider him a good friend. Over the years, we have talked frequently, had dinners together and enjoyed each other counsel and support. When I first met Senator Sessions, he was the United States attorney in Mobile and I was the United States attorney in Atlanta. In order to stretch our limited government per diems on travel to Department of Justice conferences, we sometimes shared a room together. We were simply two young prosecutors trying to save money. In 1982, when I was asked by Attorney General William French Smith, to head the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, simply because of the strategic location in Atlanta, where my office was, a delicate situation was represented. The task force consisted of 11 other United States attorney offices, but any potential problem was avoided because my friend, Senator Sessions rallied the other United States attorneys around our common cause and my leadership. Senator Sessions had a lot to do with the success of the task force under my leadership. Senator Sessions was highly thought of by his colleagues and -- and served on the prestigious Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Membership to this committee is by invitation only. I thought about this a lot and can identify for you without any equivocation whatsoever, three things in which the Senator will lead the Department of Justice. First, Senator Sessions will vigorously, but impartially enforce our laws. Senator Sessions has a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment on criminal justice matters. He also understands the importance of what former Attorney General Robert Jackson said, about what constitutes a good prosecutor. That being one who displays sensitivity to fair play and who appreciates his or her tasks with humility. Next, Senator Sessions will continue to make certain that the traditional role of federal law enforcement is carried out with vigor, effectiveness and independence. The Department of Justice under his leadership will attack such critical crime problems, as complicated fraud schemes by individuals and organizations, civil rights violations, serious environmental violations, terrorism and espionage. Finally Senator Sessions will seriously look at the role of federal law enforcement to help our citizens achieve a greater sense of personal safety in their homes and neighborhoods. This will be especially important for some of our minority and low income citizens against whom violent crime has a disproportionate impact. Of all our important civil rights, the rights to be safe and secure in one's home and neighborhood is perhaps the most important. We all know that Senator Sessions has strongly but honestly held political and policy views. But the Senator also has a record of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice issues. We talked yesterday, a great deal, was presented to the committee on Senator Sessions' effort under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and his work with Senator Durbin on that important legislation. It's interesting as I, as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in the Bush administration, I opposed this legislation. Senator Sessions was right and I was wrong. A son of the south who has had up close experiences with our great civil rights movement, Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do in the area of racial equality. He noted in a speech praising the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, that more needs to be done, we need to join closer hands. So, as a lawyer myself, who has spent a fair amount of time during my 43 year legal career, supporting diversity in our great profession and equal rights, this statement touched me greatly. Because, it reflects the man I have known for over 30 years and who I'm proud to call my friend. Senator Sessions deserves confirmation as our next attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. We'll have seven minute rounds now. And I'm going to start with General Mukasey. Senator Sessions, himself, has noted the attorney general is not the President's lawyer. In your opinion, would Senator Sessions have the independence and of course the ability to say no the President if they disagree? MUKASEY: Absolutely, and I think he made that both clear and explicit yesterday, saying that if necessary the alternative was to resign. GRASSLEY: Also to you, we heard Senator Sessions testify yesterday about the appropriate scope of communication between the White House and the Department of Justice. He said he thought that there was merit in your December 2007 on that topic. So could you tell us what you believe the merits of your approach to be, which would be your explaining in further detail what Senator Sessions said yesterday. MUKASEY: OK. What's in the memo is, the contact between the White House and the Justice Department is limited to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are pending legislation, which is the subject of communication between lower level people and the White House and people in the office of legal policy and other routine budget matters. Other than that, there is to be no contact between anyone at the Justice Department and anyone in the White House. And if anybody gets such a call, they are instructed that the polite response is thank you very much, I'll refer you to the person who can respond to you. GRASSLEY: OK. Mr. Thompson, you've known Senator Sessions for 35 years and in that time you worked very closely with him. So you've already said something about your service together, but could you tell us about that service in more detail than you did in your opening statement? THOMPSON: Yes, Senator Grassley. I've known, as I said, Senator Sessions for a number of years. He has a great deal of respect for the Department of Justice. He had been an Assistant United States Attorney when I'd met him. He had already been promoted to become the United States attorney. He's a fine lawyer, was a very effective prosecutor, but has great fidelity to the principles of fair prosecution in the traditions of the Department of Justice. GRASSLEY: And would you, knowing him as you do. Would you say that he's going to be that independent head that we expect of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Absolutely. I would expect Senator Sessions to understand and appreciate and to practice the traditional independent role of the Department of Justice. And he would be an attorney general, I think, that all the Senators on this committee would be proud of. GRASSLEY: Further, since you know him. How do you think he would fair standing up to a strong willed President, who wants to take certain actions that Senator Sessions in his capacity as attorney general may not feel, that would feel would be inappropriate? THOMPSON: That's a good question. As I said, Senator Sessions is not only an experienced prosecutor, but he's a mighty fine lawyer. He would understand his role to counsel the President and to bring the President around to what position is appropriate. But he, at the end of the day, would be independent if the President insisted upon doing something that was inappropriate. GRASSLEY: Mr. Canterbury, of course you're no stranger to these, sort of, attorney general hearings. You testified in support of Attorney General Eric Holder eight years ago, reflecting on the last eight years of leadership of the Department of Justice from the perspective of arguably the largest law enforcement advocacy group. How did DOJ fair? And how might it be different if the person you're supporting today were attorney general? CANTERBURY: Senator, it's our position that we have to work with whoever is in that office. And we have historically worked with every attorney general, personally I've worked with every attorney general since Janet Reno. And we believe that with Senator Sessions, the communications, the lines of communications will be more direct than they have been. We've had good success with career employees at DOJ. They're very professional. We believe it's an outstanding organization. But we also believe, with Senator Sessions, information and the knowledge that he's had from serving on this committee, he'll be able to serve us well in the area of criminal justice with reform efforts and with training and equitable sharing and those types of things. We feel that communications will be excellent with Senator Sessions. GRASSLEY: Another question for you. The Sheriff's Association at the national level recently noted that in the past year, this country has seen the highest number of law enforcement fatalities in five years, including 21 officers who were ambushed, shot, and killed. If confirmed for the position of attorney general, what steps do you think that Senator Sessions could take to reverse the trend? CANTERBURY: First and foremost, we believe that Senator Sessions, as attorney general, will not speak out on incidents that arise before a thorough and -- and -- and full investigation. And we believe that the anti-police rhetoric comes from people that make comments without knowledge of the situation and prior to the facts being released to the media, and so, we believe that there will be a much more positive tone about reconciliation. Nobody in this country wants our communities and police to reconcile more than my members Senator. GRASSLEY: Mr. Kirsanow, Senator Sessions has received some criticism for his enforcement of voting rights while he was a federal prosecutor and Alabama attorney general. Would you evaluate Senator Sessions record on voting rights? This will probably have to be my last question. KIRSANOW: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to. I've heard testimony and I've heard media reports with respect to cases related to voting rights that Senator Sessions was prosecuting. And if he had failed to prosecute the Perry County case, that would have been an extraordinary dereliction of duty. I would advise everybody who's interested in facts as opposed to optics to read the indictment, read all the available pleadings, read all of the contemporaneous reporting and you will have wasted about two days doing so, as I did. The multi count indictment, if you go through it, details in excruciating detail all of the violations here. If you look at the facts of the case, what happened is you had two separate factions of black Democrats in Perry County who were vying for seats. One faction went to the attorney -- U.S. attorneys office and said, wait a minute here, we believe there's rampant voter fraud going on here. And in fact, if you look at the FBI's affidavit related to this, they found 75 forged signatures on absentee ballots. There were multiple counts where individuals who were part of, who were candidates, were taking absentee ballots, changing them, altering them or filling them out on behalf of individuals and then giving them to the elections board. One family had a candidate, for whom they voted who was their cousin. All six members testified that their ballot, none the less, was checked for the other person and they said it was false. There was copious evidence that, in fact, there was voter fraud in fact that it occurred. Now, it is true, these people were acquitted. But we've seen this circumstance before. The person who literally wrote the book on voter fraud prosecutions, Craig Don Santo, he's legendary head of the former -- former head of Public Integrity Unit of DOJ was the man who told Senator Sessions, go forward with this. He surmised as did many other contemporary witnesses is that this was a classic case of voter nullification. I think as he testified, or he indicated that this is a matter in which there was no way in the world, a jury was going to convict these individuals, who were in fact civil rights advocates. The facts of the case established that had a prosecutor not taken this and pursued this, there would have been some serious questions about his integrity. GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you Chairman. Mr. Canterbury, I was my state's attorney general and Rhode Island is one of the states where the attorney general has full prosecuting authority. There are only three. So I worked very closely with my police department, I was always my state's United States attorney, in that capacity worked very, very closely with police chiefs. My experience was that a police chief in Providence, which is say urban good size city, and a police chief in small coastal Merganser (ph), Rhode Island would have very different law enforcement priorities. And that it, in my view, is appropriate for a police chief to be able to pursue their own law enforcement priorities within their communities. Would you agree with that? CANTERBURY: Yes, Senator. I mean, the same thing with sheriffs. Constitutionally elected officers, their going to police their communities as they think they need to be policed and set priorities that way. WHITEHOUSE: And an important part of that for a police chief, is to maintain the kind of community relations between the department and the community that support effective pursuit of those law enforcement priorities. Is that not the case also? CANTERBURY: I don't think it's any different in a city with five police officers than it is in Providence. Where ever you are, community relations is the key to -- to successfully perform in our job. WHITEHOUSE: And it's going to be different in different communities. The method is going to be different of effective community relations in different communities. CANTERBURY: It can be. Yes sir. WHITEHOUSE: And so, would you agree for the Department of Justice to try to dictate what local law enforcement priorities should be? Or how a police department should chose to deal with its community could be a stretch too far? CANTERBURY: In -- in matters of law, no, but in matters of policy and procedure, yes sir. I would agree with you. WHITEHOUSE: And prioritization as well correct? CANTERBURY: Absolutely. WHITEHOUSE: The reason I asked that, is that one of the concerns that I've heard from Rhode Island police chiefs has been that a relentless or unthinking pursuit of very low level immigration violations could disrupt everything from orderly community relations with a Latino community to even ongoing significant gang investigations. In which cooperators might get, lose their willingness to cooperate if somebody came in and decided to try to deport their mother. My point isn't that one is right and the other is wrong. My point is decision at the community level as to priorities and to maintaining community relations is an important one, correct? CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, it would be, but to cut more to the core of what I think you're asking, sanctuary city decisions are usually made by politicians and not police chiefs, and very rarely... WHITEHOUSE: Sanctuary city, in fact, is not even a legal term, is it? CANTERBURY: And -- and very rarely should law enforcement officers make those decisions. As you know, senator, politicians pass the laws and we're charged with enforcing them, not -- don't necessarily have to agree or disagree with them. WHITEHOUSE: And in doing so, you do establish law enforcement priorities. CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, we would. WHITEHOUSE: You don't put people out on the street to do jaywalking. You go after murders first. You go after robberies first. That's standard law enforcement practice, correct? CANTERBURY: Emergency protocol requires the highest level of crime first and -- and down from there. WHITEHOUSE: Down from there. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Canterbury said earlier something that I agree very much with, which was to applaud the career employees of the Department of Justice and to say that right now the Department of Justice was an outstanding organization. You and I and others have served as United States attorneys. What do you think about the career attorney core of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Well, the career attorneys at the Department of Justice through my years of experience, Senator, like yours, these are very good lawyers. They are dedicated to law enforcement. They're dedicated to the work of the Department of Justice. I've had nothing but positive experiences in my years at the Department of Justice and in dealing with the Department of Justice as a defense lawyer. WHITEHOUSE: Should a career attorney in a new administration be punished for following properly the policy direction of a previous administration? THOMPSON: I -- I don't actually think a career attorney should be punished for anything other than not doing his or her work. WHITEHOUSE: Clearly a career attorney shouldn't be judged on whether they are secular or religious in their lives, correct? THOMPSON: Absolutely not. WHITEHOUSE: OK. Mr. Brooks, the Sessions candidacy has achieved expressions of support from people like David Duke and from what's described as a white supremacist neo-Nazi news site called the Daily Stormer, whose site founder wrote that the Sessions appointment was like "Christmas. Basically we are looking at a Daily Stormer dream team in the Trump administration." Now you can't fault a nominee for the people who choose to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. This is not, obviously, Senator Sessions' fault, but do you believe that he has distinguished himself away from whatever the causes are for that support so that you feel comfortable going forward that he has addressed that? BROOKS: Based on the record, I do not believe that the Senator has sufficiently described a Department of Justice fully committed to enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, where we have hate crime rising, most of which is perpetuated not in bars, not in streets, but in K through 12 schools. Speaking against hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to prosecute hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to enforce the nation's civil rights laws, voting rights, the Voting Rights Act to the full measure in a full-throated way. I do not believe we have heard that. So he is not responsible for who endorses him, but he is in fact responsible for what he endorses and his vision for the Department of Justice. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Now Senator Hatch. HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Mukasey, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. You became attorney general after nearly two decades as a federal district court judge. The current attorney general had nearly two decades of experience as a federal prosecutor. Jeff Sessions will become attorney general after two decades as a U.S. senator. No matter where an attorney general comes from, he or she has the duty described yesterday by one of my Democratic colleagues as "enforcing the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias." You were here yesterday and heard as I did the repeated suggestion that Senator Sessions would not be able to enforce the law personally that he personally disagrees with. Do you agree that someone's political party, general ideological perspective or personal opinions do not by themselves mean that he or she cannot be impartial and fair? MUKASEY: I -- I certainly agree that a person's political background does not disqualify that person from enforcing the law and does not disable that person from enforcing the law. I think Senator Sessions made it entirely clear that he understood the difference between advocating a position, on the one hand, as a legislator, and the oath that he takes to enforce the law on the other. He was very clear, very precise about that, and I think everybody who passes from one status to another -- be it from a judge to attorney general, be it from a lawyer to a judge -- understands that they are changing their responsibilities, and he's not alone in -- in that, but he certainly is very much allowed to it. HATCH: How confident are you that Senator Sessions, a conservative Republican senator, will enforce the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias? MUKASEY: I think his statement's yesterday make it entirely clear that he understands his responsibility to do that, and I see no reason why he won't do it. HATCH: Mr. Kirsanow, in his written testimony, Mr. Brooks argued that Senator Session lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as attorney general. Even more, he questioned whether Senator Sessions would actually prosecute hate crimes. I'd welcome your response to that. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) HATCH: Put your -- put your... KIRSANOW: I haven't known Mr. Sessions as long as Mr. Thompson has, but I've known him for more than 10 years, and what I can tell you is that I've worked with several senators here who've been very concerned about issues related to civil rights, particularly with respect to one issue that's within my wheelhouse as labor attorney, and that is the interests of black and other workers and their employment prospects. We had hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, several hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, about a lot of deleterious policies to the prospects of black employment, and these were rectifiable policies, but they had pronounced effects, negative effects, on black employment. We even had a hearing where every single witness that spanned the ideological spectrum from left to right agreed, for example, that massive illegal immigration has a decidedly negative impact on wage and employment levels. I provided these reports to a number of senators and other congressmen. Many of the senators here were alarmed by it and questioned me about it, and we had interactions and other members of the Civil Rights Commission. I also provided it to members of Congress, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The one senator who reached out, being very alarmed and pursing this case with ultimate vigor, was Senator Sessions. He was very concerned about this. In a number of private conversations we talked about a number of the steps that could be taken aside from reforming immigration law, which we all know here is something that's a significant challenge, but what can we do to improve employment prospects of black Americans? He was the only senator to act in that fashion. I heard nothing whatsoever from the Congressional Black Caucus, despite copious detail about the negative impact of this. I'm ultimately convinced that Senator Sessions would take the appropriate actions to enforce the law as written, because that's what we are talking about, existing immigration law, and he was adamant in doing that without fear or favor and without bias. HATCH: Knowing him as well as I do I agree with you. Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you so much for what you and thousands of officers who represent us each and every day have said here for Senator Sessions. The Pew Research Center today released one of the largest polls of police officers ever conducted involving some 8,000 officers in departments across the country. As a result of the high profile fatal encounters between officers and blacks, three-quarters of officers are more reluctant to use force when it is appropriate, and 72 percent have become less willing to stop and question people who seem suspicious. Now I believe this effect stems from what has become almost a presumption that police have done something wrong when such encounters occur. That is a pernicious and dangerous shift in the general attitude toward our police, and it is totally without foundation. . Now it seems to me that this change in attitude can not only negatively affect officers and actually put police safety at risk, but also make much more difficult important efforts at -- at community policing. Do you agree with me on that? CANTERBURY: Ab -- Absolutely agree with you. I think the case in Chicago of the young female officer that decided to take a beating rather than deploy a Taser because she said it wasn't worth what she would put herself through to deploy a Taser is -- is a -- a microcosm of what's happening in law enforcement where it's not worth what -- what you may have to put yourself through. HATCH: Well, that same poll found that 93 percent of officers have become more concerned about their own safety in this country. Yesterday the chairman noted that the number of police killed in the line of duty has significantly increased. You've made that point. Also yesterday Senator Sessions noted that most police are local rather than federal. The Fraternal Order of Police and other national law enforcement groups support his nomination. How do you think that a change in leadership of the justice department can concretely affect and improve things at the local level? CANTERBURY: Well, first of all the Byrne JAG Grant Program, the COPS Program, the Community Oriented Policing teams, consent decrees, pattern of practice investigations. When you have open lines of communication where rank and file management as well as citizen and activist groups can discuss those -- those cases, I think you can -- you can get to a place where the communities will face -- feel safer and the police officers will feel safer. And we've got to reduce the violence in this country. You know, Senator Hatch, we've been saying for a long time systemic poverty is an issue that law enforcement is not charged with nor has the ability to fix, but we're willing to be good partners, and we believe with Jeff Sessions as attorney general we'll be able to work in all of those sections of the Justice Department to try and improve. (CROSSTALK) HATCH: We're pleased that you're here today, and we're pleased that you're willing to testify for and on his behalf. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the panel who are here today, and especially Oscar Vasquez, who came as my invitee, for telling his inspiring life story. Thank you. You've given a face to an issue which is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of Americans. Thank you for serving our country. General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too. I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity? And I think you've addressed this. Forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat. Could you give me some clarity? When you served as attorney general, if you received a call from on high, from the White House, from any person in the White House, relative to an investigation, an ongoing investigation or a prosecution, what do you believe was the appropriate response in that situation? MUKASEY: The appropriate response is that whatever investigation it is is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, which is to say where the facts and the law lead. I'm glad that the question was in the hypothetical, because I in fact did not get such a call, although I have gotten -- did get calls with respect to other matters, and my response was generally that the department would pursue its agenda as already said. DURBIN: So do you -- is it your position the attorney general is independent in this decision making when it comes to other members of the executive branch? MUKASEY: Correct. The Attorney General is, obviously, is a member of an administration and pursues priorities that are set by an administration, but when you're talking about particular investigations and particular cases, that's something altogether different, and I think Senator Sessions made it clear he understood it was altogether different. DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations? MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're -- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year. I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis. If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: And when it comes to the appointment of a special counsel involving the pre- the conduct of the president, is it your feeling that the attorney general should, as a general rule, consider special counsel? MUKASEY: No. It would depend on the case. The -- The -- A special counsel has to be appointed when there is a good reason why the department headed by the attorney general cannot pursue that case. I think what Senator Sessions had in... I'm not familiar with the op-ed that you mentioned, so I'm -- I'm speculating, but it sounds like what he had in mind was not simply the position of the attorney general, but rather the tarmac conversation with -- with President Clinton, that put her in a -- in a difficult situation. I don't think that simply had to do with the fact that she was attorney general appointed by the president. DURBIN: I see. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, since the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act is in a perilous situation, and I commended to my colleagues and I commend to you a book entitled "White Rage" by Carol Anderson who teaches at Emory, and she talks about the evolution of the issue of race since the Civil War. It strikes me now that we are in dangerous territory about the future of the Voting Rights Act. If preclearance is not required, and the Department of Justice is reacting after the fact, there could be some delay in justice here in an intervening election or no action taken. I asked my staff to give me a listing of the cases initiated by the Department of Justice relative to the Voting Rights Act for the last several years, and it goes on for pages. Can you address this issue about your belief of the commitment of Senator Sessions to enforce the Voting Rights Act in principal post-Shelby County? BROOKS: Certainly. So, as you well know, Senator, the Voting Rights Act is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights statutes, and Section 5 was regarded as the most effective provision of the most effective civil rights statute. In the wake of the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision, which debilitated Section 5, being via Section 4(b), we have seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other. And so that means that the Department of Justice has taken on more responsibility and civil rights organizations have taken on more responsibility with fewer tools. It has meant the debilitation, literally, of our democracy. Where we have citizens who have to wait for the violation to occur, as we saw in North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the state legislature engaged in intentional racial discrimination with respect to voter suppression carried out with surgical precision. It took an army of lawyers, an army of experts, in order to vindicate the rights of the people, and a mass movement by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP with so many others and so many other legal groups. The point being here is the Department of Justice -- Not only is the democracy in a perilous place, but the Department of Justice is in a perilous place. It needs strong leadership. It needs resources, and we need the Voting Rights Advancement Act -- to fix the Voting Rights Act. DURBIN: And post-Shelby County, if the attorney general is not timely and aggressive in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the damage will be done. BROOKS: The damage is absolutely done. And when we think about all of the many members of this body that went to Selma, that commemorated the foot soldiers of the movement, on the Edmond Pettus Bridge. All that they died for, all that they sacrificed is hanging in the balance. So we need strong leadership there, because literally, literally, we can squander the fruit of -- of -- of their efforts and the civic sacrament of our democracy, namely the right to vote. DURBIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you Senator. Senator Cornyn. CORNYN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. There's a lot to cover in seven minutes. So let me try to be somewhat selective. First of all, thanks to all of you for being here. I can't help but believe that, in spite of the fact that we've had a national election that the election is still ongoing. The campaign is still ongoing. I respect each one of your rights to express your point of view. And -- but I at the same time, it's amazing to me that, with the Senator having cast 6,000 votes in the United States Senate, we're focused on a handful of policy differences and somehow people are saying, well those are dispositive of the qualification of this person who we've served along side of for 15 years, in my case, and 20 years in the case of others. So I guess our job is, sort of, like the jury in a regular lawsuit, that we have to not -- we have to give weight to the testimony and we have to figure out who's testimony is entitled to greater weight. Because frankly, the description we've heard today are so wildly disparate that it's, I -- I would imagine for people who didn't know Senator Sessions and know his record as I do and those of us who've served with him, it would be hard to reconcile. But I -- I want to ask General Mukasey, Senator Hatch alluded to this, but this is really important to me and I just want to reiterate this. You've had the distinction of serving in the two branches of our three branches of government, as a federal district judge with great distinction and as attorney general in the executive branch. I, at a much lower level, have had the chance to serve now in three branches myself as a state court judge and as attorney general of my state and now as a legislator here at the federal level. Each of those roles are different aren't they? And indeed I think that's the point that Senator Sessions made eloquently yesterday, even though he may have some policy differences or have cast a vote against a bill in the Senate. He would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Isn't that what you understood? MUKASEY: That's precisely what I understood. And he recognized the difference in the different roles that he plays as a legislator, from what he would play as attorney general. CORNYN: And I thought yesterday he did a magnificent job responding to the questions and acknowledging the policy differences do exist. That's just the way it is. Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you a little bit about the role of the federal government and the attorney general's office and the Department of Justice in supporting local and state law enforcement. I believe the figure is roughly $2 billion a year, that the federal government hands out, or -- or -- or distributes in terms of grants to local and state law enforcement. I think your testimony, you mentioned the active shooter training that we've tried to enhance through the Police Act, which passed the Congress and was signed by President Obama. Making sure that more officers were -- got that training which is even more relevant, sadly today than perhaps even in the past. I would just add to that, the -- the work that we did recently on mental health and it's intersection with the criminal justice system. The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that was part of the 21st Century Cures Bill. Again, recognizing that our jails and our streets and our emergency rooms have become the treatment centers by default for people with mental illness. We need to do more to try to get people who need help the help they need, but not treat mental illness as a crime, per say. We also need to make sure that we train our law enforcement officials because we know how dangerous, at least from the stories and the statistics that we see, how dangerous it can be when police officer encounters a person with mental illness. And they don't have the training they need to de-escalate the -- the -- the scene. But could you talk a little bit about your experience and your organization's experience as law enforcement officials dealing with people with -- with mental illness? CANTERBURY: Well I would say in the last 10 or 15 years, the number of mentally ill individuals that law enforcement comes in contact as exponentially gone up as mental health services at the state and local level have gone down. And, I've explained this recently to a -- a Vice-President Biden when he asked about that same question. And my response was, in many of these situations, regardless on whether a police officer or a law enforcement professional realizes that there's a mental illness, the circumstances are dictated by the actions. And so, whether or not we can recognize the particular mental illness, is not as important as recognizing that there is an issue. The problem is that there's very little assistance at that level anymore for street level mental illness. And, making sure that they're not a danger to themselves or others should not, cannot be the responsibility of a first responding officer. We just will never have the training to be able to do it to that extent. So there is -- it's a huge issue for local and state officers and I don't know what we're going to do to fix that. But, the biggest thing is that the community based mental health facilities are just not there anymore. CORNYN: Well I think you'll find a friend in -- in Senator Sessions as attorney general in recognizing the priorities for local law enforcement -- state law enforcement and making sure that the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which will provide priority for that kind of training and assistance for local and state law enforcement is there. Ms. Sepich, thank you for your outstanding work and rising out of a terrible tragedy, you and your family experienced in your lives. But -- but I know you're committed to making sure not only that that doesn't happen to other families, but also that through your work on DNA Saves that we are able to bring people responsible to justice. There's been so much work that we've done here and Senator Sessions has been front and center as you've noticed. Things like Senator Hatch's rapid DNA legislation act. The Paul Coverdale National Forensic Science Improvement Act, which was just renewed in the Justice for All Act that Senator Leahy and I co-sponsored and was signed by President Obama. But, it is so important to make sure that we do provide all these essential tools and good science to make sure we do convict the guilty, but we also exonerate people who are innocent of crimes. And would you, I just want to say thank you. I know the Chairman has the gavel in his hand and he's getting ready to gavel me out of order here. But I just want to express my gratitude to you for your leadership on that issue. But you're right, Senator Sessions has been front and center at all of those efforts, not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Now Senator Leahy. LEAHY: Thank you. I wasn't going to interrupt Senator Cornyn as long as your praising a legislation you and I wrote -- wrote together. I mention that only because contrary to what people believe, Republicans and Democrats do work together on a lot of things here in the Congress. Mr. Thompson, you and I have worked together on things as you know. And, I just want to say something to Sergeant Vasquez -- Vasquez, I'm sorry for the pronunciation. I watched some of your testimony earlier. It is so moving. And, my wife did too, and we're both so proud of you and thank you for what you have done, your service for the country. And as parents of one who served in the military, we, like all parents everywhere, you worry about those who serve and you worry what they do, but you think. Thank everybody, the fact that we have people who are willing to serve our country. Are you concerned about what might happen under the new administration for young people registered under DACA? VASQUEZ: Definitely Mr. Senator. There -- there is a huge concern for those roughly 800,000 people that raise their hand and say they were undocumented right? I think that the biggest point that makes is that when there was a path, there was a way for us to come out of the shadows, right. And a dozen people raised their hand and say they were undocumented. Now the fact of the matter is that there was no other way, right;the Congress, the Senate has not passed any meaningful laws that could guarantee them a path to citizenship, to (inaudible) legislation (ph), to whatever you want to call it. But unless there is a path, unless there is a way they can find a permanent solution, we are definitely concerned that the next administration is going to stop the DACA and that those students are going to have to go back into the shadows. Senator Sessions stated yesterday that there is not enough financial support to report 800,000 people and at the same time he opposed every single legislation that will give them a way to become legal. So what are the students to do? What are the young adults to do when they are faced with opposition? So it is definitely concerning. LEAHY: You must know an awful lot of people who are nearing the DACA, is there a sense of concern about the rhetoric that we're hearing with the new administration? VAZQUEZ: There is definitely a sense of concern. There is a lot of fear most of all. I know students -- one of the other, my teammate has won the competition so many years ago; he is a father to two U. S. citizen children now and he will be facing -- he is facing the unknown (ph) given the next administration. I mean there has been statement saying that DACA is going to be repealed, maybe there is not, so we are not sure what's going to happen in that scenario. There is a lot of fear out there. LEAHY: Thank you. Ms. Swadhin, I -- I raised on behalf -- I probably should raise the question yesterday and I'm hearing about comments that the President-Elect has made regarding sexual assault and gave Mr. Sessions a chance to explain where-- his first response is that he seemed to be basically minimize and improving what President might have said, he expanded what he meant yesterday and yesterday he is under oath, I will accept that. But I think -- my own daughter -- I think of -- my three beautiful granddaughters; and I think about somebody in the Hollywood video on the President-elect jokes about what is sexual assault. Mr. Sessions now when he is asked further about it, in midst of what President-elect Trump brags about doing is sexual assault. You've dedicated your life to helping others heal after sexual assault. You're a survivor yourself. What -- sort of a two-part question; what kind of a message to somebody, especially somebody in power trivializes sexual assault, even jokes about it; how is the prosecutor -- I prosecuted sexual assault cases. What does it do for victims' willingness to come forth if they see people in power trivialize something that might be a lifelong trauma for them? (Inaudible). SWADHIN: Thank you for the question, Senator Leahy. You know, it's highly relevant on several levels that the impact that it has on survivors watching people in power and in this case, someone who -- you know, has been elected to be the President of The United States make these kind of jokes and brag about this kind of so- called locker room behavior about sexually assaulting women. I think it's important to go back to the point I made in my testimony that the majority of victims of violent crime are assailed (ph) by people who they know intimately. In cases of adult rape and sexual assault, 80 percent of survivors know their assailant and in 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse,the person sexually abusing the child is known and trusted and often loved by the person who is perpetrating the violence. So it's already so hard for survivors to come forward because it means that we have to testify against the people that we put our trust in. In my case it was my father and that's not an uncommon story, it's someone very close to you; that's how these crimes happen. And so to be able to trust the state more than we fear are intimately known perpetrators,we have to see people in control of the state who take a hard-line stance against sexual assault and whom -- you know, say publicly that they would support and believe survivors. And unfortunately in this political climate, we're looking at an administration led by a man who not only does not seem to prioritize helping sexual assault survivors heal and come forward to be able to trust the state but -- you know, may have actually engaged in assault himself, the things that he was bragging about. So it's incredibly concerning. Add to that the fact that the violence that we live through has very traumatizing impacts. I myself live with complex PTSD, so your mental health on a day-to-day basis is already negatively impacted. So to be able to stay grounded enough to come forward and put your trust in a stranger, social worker, a prosecutor, a police officer in order to get the services healing and the accountability that you deserve, it's incredibly difficult. LEAHY: Thank you. Because I -- I remember, on the sexual assault cases where detectives at my office, assistant prosecutors and myself having to tell people you can trust us. We actually care about what you're saying. We do believe it's a crime. And frankly, those who trivialize it and say it's not a crime are ignoring too many people in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Leahy, now Senator Cruz. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the distinguished panel for being here today and I want to take a special moment to thank Larry Thompson who was my boss at the Department of Justice; although I would note that you should not hold Larry accountable for my missteps in the years that followed. I want to start, Mr. Cole by addressing your testimony. And I would note that the ACLU -- I have worked alongside the ACLU on any number of the issues here in the senate, including we've worked alongside each other on issues of indefinite detention, we've worked on the same side concerning the USA Patriot Act, we worked on the same side working to stop the efforts of Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution and to amend the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment and so I'm grateful for many of the good things the ACLU does. You're a professor at Georgetown; I would like to ask you as a professor, how would you react to a student who submitted List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 WITNESSES: FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DAVID COLE, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CORNELL BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAACP CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, U.S. VETERAN PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, MIRROR MEMOIRS JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, DNA SAVES SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. WILLIE HUNTLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA. JESSE SEROYER, FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA. WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 WITNESSES: FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DAVID COLE, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CORNELL BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAACP CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, U.S. VETERAN PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, MIRROR MEMOIRS JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, DNA SAVES SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. WILLIE HUNTLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA. JESSE SEROYER, FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA. WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Age 13

A police officer walking towards his squad car parked in a Californian suburb.

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR ALABAMA SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS TO BE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRASSLEY: Morning, everybody. I welcome everyone back for our second day of hearing on Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination for Attorney General. As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others. So officers will remove individuals as they have previously. Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I want to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how we're going to proceed today. Senator -- Senator Whitehouse will be acting as Ranking Member today and I will give an opening statement and he can if he wants to as well. I welcome that. Then we'll turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Following the statements, we'll begin with the first rounds of questions, in which each senator will have seven members (sic). After we finish asking questions of the first panel, we'll turn to the final panel for their testimony. And in regard to the timing of that, it will kind of depend on when this panel is completed. But if we get this panel completed, let's say around lunch or 12:30 or 1 o'clock, we may adjourn for an hour or so at that time. But I won't be able to make that determination until we finish here with this panel. Yesterday, we met here from 9:30 until about 8 p.m., so that every Senator, both Democrat and Republican could ask Senator Sessions as many questions as they wanted to. We had great cooperation every day, yesterday, and I should thank everybody for that cooperation, and we'll press ahead into today. We heard from Senator Shelby and Collins, who gave their strong endorsement of Senator Sessions. Their introductions describes Senator Sessions extensive experience, outstanding qualifications and character. I also want to note that yesterday, Senator Feinstein participated in her first nomination hearing as the new Ranking Member. I'm looking forward to working with her in her new capacity as I said yesterday. In her opening statement yesterday, Senator Feinstein correctly observed and I'd like to quote, fairly long quote, "Today we're not being asked to evaluate him, meaning Senator Sessions, as a Senator. We're being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement for the largest and best democracy in America." She continued, "As attorney general, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs, rather the job of attorney general is to enforce federal law, even if he voted against a law, even if he spoke against it before it passed, even if he disagreed with the President, seeing that the law is constitutional." Then she concluded, "This hearing must determine whether this Senator will enforce the laws that he voted against." end of quote. And yesterday, through 10 and a half hours of testimony, we got a clear and unequivocal answer to this threshold question. He was asked repeatedly if he would enforce the law, even if he disagreed with that law as a matter of policy. Time and again, Senator Sessions reaffirmed his commitment to this fundamental principle. As Attorney General of the United States his solemn duties are, as we all know and expect, are to the Constitution and to enforce the law duly enacted. His fundamental commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central theme of our discussion yesterday. And as I made clear in my opening statement, that's what I believe the department desperately needs. Yesterday -- yesterday's testimony further convinced me that Senator Sessions is the right choice to serve as our nation's chief law enforcement officer at this critical time. We know that he is very well qualified for the position having served for 15 years as a prosecutor and now 20 years as a Senator, so that's three decades of public service. We all know (ph) Senator Sessions will be up front with you when you say that he's going to do something, he will do it. Senator Sessions will be an independent attorney general, as he's been asked so many times yesterday and about his enforcement of the law. That's the bottom line. I now turn to Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much Chairman. Let me, just make some very brief remarks. First, I can't help but note as a general proposition, hearing after hearing, the effort to push nominees into confirmation hearings before their FBI background checks are complete. Before their ethics and financial disclosure filings are concluded, and I'd like to put into the record, this hearing, the letter that Senator Schumer, Minority Leader Schumer wrote to Majority Leader McConnell. In which, he took a letter that Majority Leader McConnell had written, Minority Leader McConnell had written to Majority Leader Reed and simply changed the names. He wrote, Dear Mitch, in place of dear Harry, and he signed his own name at the bottom and it was thus a verbatim letter. And what we have been asking for is exactly what Republicans asked for over and over again, what has long been the tradition of the Senate. It is not the Senate's fault that the Trump administration was not prepared and that it did not have its nominees vetted. In place, I know that Senator Sessions has been one of the nominees who has been prepared but I can't help but point out that across the board the ramming of unvetted nominees, the stacking of hearings on top of hearings, and the jamming of all of this up against an unprecedented vote-a-rama for a no-hearing budget, creates I think an unfortunate new precedent in the Senate. The point that I'll make about the Department of Justice is somebody who has served in the Department of Justice, like many of my colleagues or a number of my colleagues, is that I think there's legitimate concern based on the hectoring in the right wing groups for a general house cleaning of career staff, and for a particular targeting of named career staff. As I mentioned in my questioning yesterday, one of the Heritage Foundation spokespeople made the comparison to the Aegean Stables and filth as having to be washed out of the Aegean Stables. I don't think it's fair to characterize the career of employees of the United States Department of Justice as filth, and, nor do I think it is proper to assert that this should not be secular. And, I think it's a matter of concern when an attorney general thinks that a secular attorney may have a lesser, or different appreciation of truth than a religious attorney. Particularly coming from what I want more, freedom of conscience has been such a principle of core values since the days of Roger Williams. When Providence was a tiny settlement in the wilderness, where people who thought freely were able to get away from the theocracy of Massachusetts. We have a long history of concern about that kind of evaluation of career department professionals. And finally I'd say that, after a very divisive campaign, that left a lot of Americans and a lot of communities feeling very wounded and very vulnerable and very set upon, and after a promise that he would be a President for all Americans over and over and over and over again, we're seeing an array of cabinet nominees who run far to the right. And frankly, in many cases, come out of the swamp that the President-elect promised to drain. So, I thank you Chairman for the, I think, thoughtful and fair way in which you have run this hearing. I thought that Senator Sessions handled himself very well by staying until all the questions were answered. I appreciate the procedure that you have gone through, but I did want to make a record of those concerns from our side about the larger process in which these nominations hearings are taking place. And with that, I yield back to you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you. (Inaudible) witnesses and introduce them. I think, so I don't forget it, I promised Senator Coons point of personal privilege on one of the nominations. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I -- I had asked for the opportunity to introduce my friend and colleague Cornell Brooks, but I'm perfectly happy to wait to do so until there are other introductions a foot or to do it right now. GRASSLEY: I'd rather have you do it now if you would please. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Cornell Brooks, the President and CEO of the NAACP, as one of our many witnesses on this distinguished panel here today. Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that Americans truly enjoy the promise of equal protection of the law. Before assuming leadership of the NAACP in 2014, he was head of the Newark, New Jersey based Institute for Social Justice. And fittingly, for a hearing on the nominee to lead the Department of Justice, his early experience was of being a part of the Department of Justice, as a trial attorney, where he secured the largest government settlement for victims of housing discrimination. And filed the government's first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. He was also Executive Director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, a trial attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a law clerk to the Honorable Samuel J. Ervin III on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He's a fellow alum with Yale Law School, holds a Master of Divinity degree from Boston University School of Theology. He is not just a lawyer and social advocate, but a fourth generation ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a husband and father of two sons. Mr. Brooks, thank you for your leadership in the work of justice throughout our nation and I look forward to your testimony here today. BROOKS (?): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: I'm going to ask you to stand and swear before we -- before I introduce you. Would you raise your right hand? Will you -- do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the whole truth -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? OK. I noticed that all of you affirmed that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. The 81st Attorney General of the United States was the Honorable Michael Mukasey. Mr. Mukasey has also served as a U.S. attorney and a district court judge, southern district of New York. We thank him for coming. Our second witness, Oscar Vasquez, he became a citizen of the United States 2011 and served honorably in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. We welcome you and thank you, obviously, for your military service. Our next witness, Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is very familiar with this committee and we're familiar with you. Thank you for coming. Next is Amita Swadhin, she is a sexual assault survivor and co-founder of Mirror Memoirs. I hope I'm right on that. Welcome to you. Then we have Jayann Sepich, the mother of Katie Sepich. She's the founder of Surviving Parents Coalition. Our next witness Cornell Brooks, you've heard introduced, but let me further say that he's President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and he's well known to us as well. Thank you for being here today. Chuck Canterbury is the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. He's familiar to a lot of us as well, so we welcome you. Next we'll hear from David Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He's also a professor at the Georgetown Law Center. We welcome you. And finally, we'll hear from Larry Thompson. He served as Deputy Attorney General under President Bush. As a well known U.S. attorney for the northern district of Georgia, and we welcome back to the committee Mr. Thompson. So, I think we'll start with Mr. Mukasey and we're going to hear testimony from all of you. And then, we'll have questions as I indicated, seven minute rounds. So proceed will you General Mukasey. MUKASEY: Thank you. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member -- sorry Chairman Grassley, not yet, right? Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, this is one of those occasions that's both an honor and a pleasure. An honor to appear before this committee and a pleasure to speak to the qualifications of Senator Sessions to serve as attorney general. I submitted a statement to the committee and I'm happy to answer any questions relating to it or any other subject that the committee thinks that's relevant to passing on the qualifications of Senator Sessions. But, of course I'm here for the convenience of the committee, not simply to orate. And after watching yesterday's hearing, and Senator Sessions responses to the committee's questions, I think the only thing I have to add to what I've already submitted at this point, is to say that the person you saw and heard yesterday is very much the person I came to know beginning in 2007, when I first appeared before this committee. Principled, intelligent, knowledgeable, thorough, modest and thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and to the mission of the department. which is to enforce the law and to preserve our freedoms. So I thank you very much for hearing me. GRASSLEY: Does that complete your testimony? MUKASEY: It does. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Now, Sergeant Vasquez. Thank you. Please proceed. VASQUEZ: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Oscar Vasquez and I am proud to be an American. I was born in a small town in Mexico. I was 12 years old when my mother and I boarded a bus to the border. Although I did not make the choice to come to America, this country quickly became my home. As soon as we were settled in America, my parents made sure I was enrolled in school, because they wanted me to understand the value of education. It was at this point that I started to develop a passion for math and science, since the formulas and equations transcended the language barrier. In high school, I joined the JROTC program, where my drill instructors were Vietnam veterans. They thought as a valley of selfless service, whether you able to provide it in the military or not. They wanted us to be better Americans. I loved the order and discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC officer of the year. In my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the Band of Brothers mini series and I knew then, I wanted to join the Army. But when I met with the recruiter, I was told I could not enlist because I was undocumented. I left that meeting not knowing what to do, or what was next. I was devastated. I then had to figure out what else to do with my life. At the beginning of my senior year, I joined the robotics club. Our team of undocumented (ph) students enter a national competition and would design the underwater robot which we named Stinky. Beyond our wildest dreams, my high school team won the grand prize for the competition, against some of the countries top technical universities. Winning the competition was proof that we as DREAMers have something to offer to the country we always considered our home. Although I could not contribute to my country by joining the military, I enrolled Arizona State University and decided I could contribute by becoming an engineer. In 2005, I married my wife Carla, a U.S. citizen. She started a process of petitioning for my legal status, but it is the case of many DREAMers there were enormous legal obstacles and substantial risks. While I was a student at Arizona State, the Arizona legislator passed a law prohibiting undocumented citizens from receiving state financial aid and paying the state tuition. Even doors, that I've had in my home for many years and I was married to a U.S. citizen, I was treated like an outsider. The law tripled my tuition, (inaudible) by working construction, I scraped the money together to pay for college and support my family. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in mechanical engineering. This was three years before the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established. So even though I had a (inaudible) degree and there were jobs available, no one would hire me in this field because I didn't have legal status. In 2010, after completing a legal process that involved substantial hardship to my family, I was able to get a green card. Having legal resident status changed my life. I was able to get a drivers license, travel freely within the United States and pursue a career in engineering. The biggest note is -- the biggest note is -- the biggest change that I noticed was the fear. I was no longer afraid of being deported or being forcibly separated from my family. I could also pursue my dream of joining the military and becoming a paratrooper. I enlisted in the United States Army and started basic training in February 2011. I went in to fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country wasn't enough. I wanted to let my actions speak for themselves. Shortly before I finished basic training, I became a U.S. citizen. A couple weeks later, I found myself jumping out of a C-130 flying over Fort Benning, Georgia. And a couple months after that, I was deployed to Afghanistan. I look forward to combat because I wanted to protect the United States. Serving in the Army allowed me to contribute fully to this country and make it safer. I was following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have proudly served the United States. In Afghanistan, I fought side by side with my Army brothers. We wore the same uniform, wore the U.S. flag on the same shoulder. It mattered more that we were willing to be there (ph) for each other and for our country than where we came from. To this day, I remember how I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put my life on the line for my brothers and for my country and I felt really proud to be an American. I felt then, for the first time, that no one could again question whether I am an American. It has been a great honor to serve my country. My son Oscar Maximus is 4 years old and in preschool. My daughter, Samantha is 8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of Fort Worth, Texas where I volunteer at two different high schools in their respective robotics program. I feel that my family is living the American dream. But I want to continue serving my country and I will soon join the Army Reserve. I think now about all the doors that were unlocked for me when I became a lawful, permanent resident. The ability to get the job of my dreams, provide for my family and live without fear. I can't imagine what it will be like to have that taken away from me today. I also can't imagine what it is like today for my former teammates and the nearly 100,000 DACA recipients who do not have a legal status and who are afraid of what could happen to them in a matter of days. Of course, DACA is only a temporary solution and now even that is at risk. I hope that you will not view my story of that as someone exceptional, rather I am where I am today because of the many great people who have believed in me and have given me a chance. I also want to acknowledge most DREAMers and mostly (ph) undocumented immigrants who do not have a path to legal status right now. I wanted to come here today because our countries top law enforcement officer must be someone who understands that immigrants make our country stronger. Most Americans agree that it's not right to deport someone who was brought here as a child. Deport them to a country that might not even remember. We need an attorney general who will protect American people from those who will do us harm, but who will also show mercy to those who deserve it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much, Sergeant. Now Mr. Kirsanow. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) GRASSLEY: Have you pushed the red button? Or whatever color the button is? KIRSANOW: Thank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, I'm Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Benesh, Friedlander and I'm here on a personal capacity. Youth commission on civil rights was established pursuant to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to among other things, act as a national clearing house for matters pertaining to denials of equal protection, discrimination and voting rights. And in furtherance of that clearing house function, my assistant and I reviewed the bills, sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Sessions in his tenure, in the Senate as well as his public activities and actions that are at least arguably related to civil rights. Our examination found that Senator Sessions' approach to civil rights matters, both in terms of his legislative record and his other actions is consistent with mainstream, textbook (ph) interpretation of rolled in statutory and constitutional authority as well as governing precedent. Our examination also reveals, that Senator Sessions approach to civil rights is consistent, is legally sound, enrichingly (ph) honest and has appreciation and understanding of the historical basis for civil rights laws. And our examination found that several aspects of Senator Sessions -- Sessions' -- Senator Sessions' record unfortunately have been mischaracterized and distorted to portray him as somehow being indifferent, if not hostile to civil rights. The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things, and this is probably least consequential, Senator Sessions has sponsored or co- sponsored a plethora of bills honoring significant civil rights leaders, events, icons, such as Reverend Martin Luther King, Loretta Scott King, Reverend Shuttlesworth's fight against segregation. Three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks, a Senate apology to the descendants of victims of lynching. A bill to honor participants in the Selma voting rights march. A bill to honor the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and on and on and on, but Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights transcends resolutions in support of civil rights. He has authored, co-sponsored, or sponsored a number of bills to protect and enhance voting rights. Such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 2001, the Voter Fraud Protection Act of 2009, a number of bills to protect and enhance the voting rights of service members, particularly those serving overseas. He's a strong proponent of religious liberty, having sponsored or co-sponsored several bills to prevent discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent the government from substantially burdening free exercise of a person's religious beliefs. But in our estimation, his most profound and important impact is on preserving and protecting the rights of American workers, particularly black workers. The employment and wage levels of black workers in America have been abysmal for several decades. The labor force participation rate for black males, 61.8 percent and following. The unemployment rate for black males has nearly doubled that of white males. Evidence introduced (ph) before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that 40 percent of the 18 point decline in black employment levels is attributable to government failure or refusal to enforce existing integration laws. And this has a cascade effect by increasing the competition within the unskilled and low skilled marketplace, driving out black workers, slashing wages, particularly among black males. And this has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not slightly over 1 million blacks having lost their jobs, directly due to this phenomenon, and it has broader sociological implications as well, related to incarceration and family formation rates. No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Jeff Sessions in protecting and enhancing the prospects of black workers in America. But for his emphatical efforts in this regard, the plight of black workers now and in the immediate future and the foreseeable future will be demonstratively worse. His leadership on this matter, and his leadership on sub-committee, on immigration and the national interests has been key to restoring an even deeper downward trajectory for black workers in this country. And I'll conclude Mr. Chair by simply, respectfully offering that his record on civil rights legislation, his actions as a U.S. attorney and state attorney demonstrate an unwavering commitment to equal protection under the law, and a genuine fidelity to the rule of law that should make him an outstanding attorney general. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) SWADHIN: I'm not sure if this is working. Great. Good morning. My name is Amita Swadhin, I am a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in Ohio to two immigrants from India and raised in New Jersey. And I'm grateful to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. In October, miked (ph) tapes were released of President-elect Trump describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the genitals. In the wake of these comments becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating, "He doesn't characterize that behavior as sexual assault." Millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered in the wake of these events. I was one of those survivors. My father raped me at least once a week for age four to age 12. I endured psychological, verbal and physical abuse from him for years. I also grew up watching my father abuse my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape. When I disclosed the sexual abuse to my mother, at age 13, she called a therapist engaging mandating reported -- mandated reporting. The prosecutors threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit. They told me I would be harshly cross-examined by the defense attorney, and did not connect me to any victim support services. I was too afraid to tell them my story. My father received five years probation and no jail time and his violence continued for two years, until my mother finally found the support to leave him. I am here today on behalf of rape and sexual assault survivors to urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as attorney general. As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people have downplayed the impact of this violence on my present day life. I live with complex post traumatic stress disorder, and struggle everyday to be well. It directly and negatively impacts me when people minimize sexual assault. So to hear Senator Sessions initially say President- elect Trump's comments do not constitute sexual assault, and then to consider him leading the Department of Justice has been incredibly worrisome. I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. More than 320,000 Americans over age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted every year. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before age 18. These are public health issues occurring in the private sphere. In 80 percent of adult sexual assaults, and 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust our perpetrators. For this reason, most victims of violent crime never seek healing or accountability from the state. Most violent crimes remained unreported. Thankfully we have improved the response of the criminal justice system with the creation of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The stock (ph) formula grants under VAWA provide training to judges, prosecutors and police officers and other law enforcement personnel to better support survivors. In 1991, the police did not contact victim services for me, but today thanks to VAWA, law enforcement is encouraged to provide victims and advocates to support them in breaking their silence. Yet despite this progress, rape, sexual assaults and domestic violence still happen at epidemic rates and survivors at the intersections of oppression are especially vulnerable. LGBT people and particularly transgender women of color are disproportionally victimized. One in two transgender people will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims are transgender women. In fact, only 11 days into the new year, two transgender women of color have already been murdered, Misha Caldwell (ph), an African-American transgender woman from Mississippi and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow (ph), a two spirit Oglala Lakota woman from South Dakota. We need an attorney general who is committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing. Time and again, Senator Sessions voting record has shown us he is not the man for the job. Despite his claim to be a champion for victims of violent crime, he has not been a friend to vulnerable survivors. While Senator Sessions voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act in the bill's early years, when VAWA was expanded in 2013, to ensure LGBT, immigrant and tribal populations of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are protected and have access to services. Senator Sessions voted against the bill. We must trust the attorney general to enforce and apply our laws fairly, per our Constitution's provisions on equal protection. We must trust the attorney general to respect the humanity of all Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for our most vulnerable victims of crime. Given his voting record on VAWA and on LGBT rights, we have no reason to put our faith or our trust in Senator Sessions as attorney general. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that members of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including but not limited to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the YWCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, UGEMA (ph), the National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, and Jewish Women International opposed Senator Sessions nomination because of the issues I am raising today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. And now we'll go to Ms. Sepich. SEPICH: Good morning Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee. My name is Jayann Sepich and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. In 2003, my daughter Katie, a vivacious 22 year old graduate student was brutally raped, murdered and set on fire. It is never easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror of losing our daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. No suspects emerged in Katie's case, but Katie fought for her life and underneath her fingernails were found the blood and skin of her attacker, and a DNA profile was extracted and uploaded into the National Forensic DNA Database called CODIS. I made the comment to the investigators that the man who had killed Katie was such a monster that surely he would be arrested for another crime. His cheek would be swabbed and we would soon know his identity and he would not be able to harm another woman. That's when I learned it was not legal in New Mexico, my home state, or in most states to take DNA at the time of felony arrest. It could only be taken after conviction. I was stunned. We don't use DNA to accurately identify arrested for serious crimes. We release them from law enforcement without a check of the DNA database for a possible match to other unsolved crimes. We collect fingerprints, mug shots, and check what other crimes a person may have been involved in but we do not collect DNA. After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the collection of DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the non- profit association DNA Saves. We know we can't bring Katie back, but we absolutely believe that we may be able to prevent new crimes. Prevent this horrible pain from being visited on other families, by advocating for laws that allow for the collection of DNA from persons arrested for serious crimes. To date, 30 state legislatures in the United States Congress have enacted laws requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that taking DNA at the time of booking for a felony arrest is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Senator Sessions helped craft the legislative language that became the DNA Fingerprint Act, to provide federal authorities with the authorization to collect DNA from arrestees. In 2008, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as original co- sponsor introduced the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. This federal law provides additional funding to the Debbie Smith Backlog Elimination Act to those states who have enacted laws to expand their databases. Once again, as a judiciary committee's ranking member during that time, in which this legislation was pending, Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping us to craft a bill that would gain bipartisan support and eventually pass Congress unanimously. As a result of stronger state and federal DNA database laws, we have seen many heinous criminals identified through arresting DNA testing. My home state of New Mexico has seen over 1,200 cases matched. California has seen 10 cases matched everyday on their DNA database. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one of the most successful programs in the country and they credit Senator Sessions for must of the success, largely due to the support he's provided from the outset of the state's forensic DNA program during his term as Alabama Attorney General. Alabama has utilized the DNA database to solve over 6,500 previously unsolved cases. In Katie's case, after more than three long years, DNA finally identified Gabriel Avila as Katie's killer. But he would have been identified after only three months, if law enforcement had been permitted to collect DNA at arrest. Over the past 11 years, our family has worked to change DNA laws across the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of both parties. We have also seen opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Forensic DNA is a very complex issue and it is vitally important that policy makers take the time to fully understand these complexities in a truly non-partisan manner. Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he has stood in strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He knows that when a DNA match is made on CODIS, it is completely blind to race, ethnicity and social economic status. DNA is truth. It is science. Senator Sessions said in a 2002 floor speech, we are spending only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an honest and effective way. As a result justice is being delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to that philosophy that it is the core responsibility of our government to protect public safety. He cares about victims. He has been a leader on forensics policy for years and consistently has supported vital funding for DNA. In conclusion, our lives were shattered was brutally murdered. We know intimately the pain that violent crime brings to families. Senator Sessions has shown he understands the pain of victims and has put that understanding into action to help make changes that will make a difference. Senator Sessions will provide strong leadership to the United States Department of Justice and I hope you will support his nomination for attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: And thank you Ms. Sepich. Now, Mr. Brooks. BROOKS: Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and esteemed Senators of this committee. My name is Cornell William Brooks, I serve as President and CEO of the NAACP. I greatly appreciate the invitation to testify before you today to express the deep concerns of the NAACP regarding the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General. As you well know, the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Particularly for such a time as this, with racial divisions deepening, hate crimes rising from sanctuaries to school yards with state imposed, racially motivated voter suppression spreading in state legislatures as well as being struck down in federal courts, with police involved shootings reduced to (inaudible) homicides and viralized videos. It is critical that this committee closely examine Senator Sessions entire record as a prosecutor and as a legislator, to determine whether he is fit to serve as the chief enforcer of our nation's civil rights laws. Based upon a review of the record, the NAACP firmly believes that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as attorney general. Accordingly, we representing multiple civil rights and human rights coalitions we urge this committee not to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. As our written testimony details, Senator Sessions record reveals a consistent disregard for civil and human rights of vulnerable populations, including African- Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBT community and others. Further his Senate voting record reflects a fundamental disregard for many of the Department of Justice's programs which are vital for the protection of Americans. Senator Sessions votes against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 and the Violence Against Woman Act in 2012 and 2013, demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern regarding violent crimes, rape, assault, murder committed against minorities and an American majority of women. These crimes in particular make victims of individuals as well as the groups to which they belong and the American values we cling to. His opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act indicates a hostility to the claims of employment discrimination and more specifically to allowing legal redress for paid discrimination against women. This consistent opposition to any meaningful gun control, shows an unwillingness to stand up to the firearms lobby and a lack of concern regarding the destructive impact of gun violence on our children and communities. His failure to condemn the President-elect's call for an unconscionable and unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants, as well as his opposition to his Senate resolution condemning a government imposed litmus test on a global religion, evidences an unwillingness to protect the rights of the vulnerable and the unpopular, which is something that an attorney general must do. His call for the reevaluation of a basic constitutional principle, that persons born in this country, are citizens of this country, reflects a form of unconstitutional xenophobia that is fundamentally inconsistent to the duty of the attorney general to protect the rights of all Americans. His calling into question the legitimacy of consent decrees causes us to question whether he will use this powerful tool to hold accountable police departments, such as Ferguson, that engaged in predatory policing and a pattern and practice of discrimination. With his consistent support for mandatory minimums, as a prosecutor and a legislator, he stands in opposition to bipartisan efforts to bring to an end this ugly era of mass incarceration, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, with overpopulated prisons and jails and depopulated families and communities. It is Senator Sessions' record on voting rights, however, that is perhaps the most troubling. As this committee is well aware, of the infamous Marion Three Case, in which civil rights activists were prosecuted by then U.S. Attorney Sessions for voter fraud, all of whom were acquitted by a jury in less than four hours on 29 counts. This chilling prosecution against innocent civil rights workers, who were later given gold medals by Congress, painfully reverberates in the hearts of black voters in Alabama and the history of this country. Senator Sessions' record of prosecuting so called voter fraud and both intimidating and suppressing voters then is now reflected in a legislative record of supporting voter ID requirements that suppress votes based on the myth of voter fraud today. His record of vote suppressing prosecution is connected to a record of vote suppressing legislation today. Rather than condemn, he's commended voter ID laws like that is own state of Alabama affecting a half million voters. Similar to laws struck down in Texas and North Carolina in the fourth and fifth circuits. If we could imagine, a Senator Sessions leading a Department of Justice and Michael Brown's Ferguson, Freddie Gray's Baltimore, towns with rising hate crime, communities of vulnerable population -- populations and a democracy divided by voter suppression in his twitter -- civil rights -- twitter a civil rights movement. We can imagine that. Imaging that, we must face the reality that Senator Sessions should not be our attorney general. With that said, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) CANTERBURY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitehouse, distinguished members of the committee and of course my own Senator Lindsey Graham. My name is Chuck Canterbury, the National President of the 330,000 rank and file police officer organization. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to testify before this committee. I've testified before on cabinet nominations, agency head nominations and even a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. I can say without reservation, that I've never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm as I do today for Senator Jeff Sessions. We wholeheartedly support his position and nomination as Attorney General of the United States. Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap Senator Sessions, we immediately issued a statement to the press indicating our strong support for his nomination. He's been a true partner to law enforcement in his time as a U.S. attorney, Attorney General for the state of Alabama and throughout his tenure in the United State Senate. Senator Sessions is demonstrated commitment, not just to so-called law and order issues, but also to an issue very important to my members, officer safety. He was the leading co-sponsor of the FOP's efforts to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which was authored by our friend and former chairman of this committee Senator Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions was the Republican lead co-sponsor of S.1132, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act improvements, which made important and needed changes to the original law. He has provided true leadership in this successful and bipartisan effort. More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage of S.2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating Cots Expansion Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the legislation, which passed the Senate and then the House before being signed into law by the President. That law gives the Office of Community Ordinance Policing Services, the authority to award grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to get active shooter response training for their officers. The need for this training is obviously been identified by numerous law enforcement leaders and by the FOP. Senator Sessions played a key role in the efforts to pass the Fallen Hero Flag Act. The bill which provides a flag to be flying over this Capital to surviving -- to be provided to surviving members of public officers killed in the line of duty. Now this may not sound like much to you, but in a time when officers are being assassinated at the highest rate since the '70s and officers being assaulted at record rates, officers in the field want to know who has my back. Who will protect me while I protect my community? Bills like this, which acknowledge and respect the sacrifices -- sacrifices made by the rank and file truly resonate with my members and with the public safety community. Members of the committee may remember that years that were spent trying to do away with the disparity between the sentencing on the possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. There was a considerable gulf between the position of the FOP and many members of this committee. But in 2001, Senator Sessions introduced a bill to address this issue and he worked tirelessly to bring it together. He made sure the voice of law enforcement was heard and also asserted his belief that the disparity, as existing in the current law, was unjust. In 2010, as a ranking member of this committee, he brokered to compromise that led to the passage, with our support of the Fair Sentencing Act. We accepted that compromise because it was fair, it was just and it reflected the perspective of law enforcement and the law enforcement community. The importance of his direct role on this issue cannot be overstated. Without Jeff Sessions, I believe we might be here today still trying to remain unsolved. That said, I understand that there's a certain amount of partisanship and it's expected in these nomination hearings. But I ask all the members of this committee, to recollect Senator Sessions has worked in a bipartisan manner on many issues, officer safety issues with the FOP and members of the left. More than many times that I've been here, has Senator Sessions been one of the sole members to stand up for law enforcement, especially when it came to the issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership, the support in the Equitable Sharing Program may have been dismantled. For us, that demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man who can reach across the aisle to get things done for the rank and file officer and to protect the citizens of this country. Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly and faithfully for the majority of his adult life. He is above all, a man who reveres the law and reveres justice. I believe he will be an exemplary attorney general and we urge you to move this nomination forward to the Senate for passage. Thank you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Canterbury. Now Mr. Cole. COLE: Thank you for inviting me to testify. The ACLU is a non- partisan organization with a long standing policy of neither endorsing nor opposing nominees for federal office. We rarely testify in confirmation hearings as a result. We do so today, because we believe Senator Sessions' record raises serious questions about the fitness of -- of Senator Sessions to be the attorney general for all the American people. We take no position on how you should ultimately vote, but we urge you to painstakingly probe the many serious questions that his actions, words and deeds raise about his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties. Our concerns arise from his conduct as a prosecutor and from his record as a Senator. As a prosecutor, when he exercised the power to prosecute, the most powerful -- the most serious power that any government official in the United States exercises, he abused that power. Cornell Brooks has already talked about his prosecution, ultimately baseless of civil rights heroes for seeking to increase the black vote in Alabama. He didn't investigate those who sought to help white voters in Alabama, but he did investigate and prosecute those who sought to aid black voters. Many of the charges in that case were dismissed before they even went to the jury because they were baseless. The jury then acquitted of all the charges. In a second case, the Tyco (ph) case, Senator Sessions collaborated with campaign contributors to his senatorial campaign, to use the office of the criminal prosecutor to intervene in a private business dispute, on behalf of his campaign contributors. He filed a 222-count indictment against Tyco (ph), a -- a -- a engineering supply service -- corporation. All charges in the case were dismissed. Many were dismissed because, again, they were baseless, there was no evidence whatsoever to support them. The others were dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and the judge who dismissed them said this was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in his career on the bench. Mr. Sessions successor, Mr. Pryor did not even appeal that decision. So those actions raise serious questions about his fitness to become the most powerful prosecutor in the land. Second, his record as a Senator. Here he has shown blindness or outright hostility to the concerns of the people who's rights he will be responsible to protect. On voting rights, he supported felon disenfranchisement laws and voter ID laws that suppressed the black vote. When the Supreme Court gutted the single most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act, the most important statute in getting -- African-Americans the right to vote in this country, Senator Sessions called that a good day for the south. On religious tolerance, he called Islam a toxic ideology. It is in fact a religion practiced by millions of Americans. Imagine if he called Christianity a toxic ideology. Now, he says he opposes a Muslim ban on entrance to the United States, but when Donald Trump proposed that, he stood up and opposed a resolution introduced here in the Senate to keep religion out of immigration decisions. On women's right, now he says that grabbing women's genitals is sexual assault. But when Donald Trump's tape recording, bragging about his doing precisely that was made public, Senator Sessions said, and I quote, "I don't characterize that as a sexual assault. That's a stretch." When he voted against extending the hate crimes law, to crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation, he said, and I quote, "I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." Well if you don't see discrimination, you can't very well enforce the laws against discrimination. On torture he now says, that torture, water boarding is illegal, but he praised Michael Mukasey for not ruling out water boarding. And he opposed Senator McCain's amendment which was designed to make it clear that water boarding was illegal. On criminal justice he is an outlier, departing even with many of his Republican colleagues who seek to make the criminal justice system more fair and less harsh. If someone applying to intern for one of your offices had as many questions in his record as Senator Sessions has, racist comment, unethical conduct, padding of his resume, you would not hire him, absent the most thorough investigation and inquiry, if then. Senator Sessions is not seeking to be an intern. He's nominated to be the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation. The Senate and more importantly the American people deserve satisfactory answers to these questions before Senator Sessions is confirmed. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Cole. Now Mr. Thompson. THOMPSON: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and other members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I want to add this morning, a bit of a personal perspective on Senator Sessions. I've known Senator Sessions for over 30 years and I am honor to consider him a good friend. Over the years, we have talked frequently, had dinners together and enjoyed each other counsel and support. When I first met Senator Sessions, he was the United States attorney in Mobile and I was the United States attorney in Atlanta. In order to stretch our limited government per diems on travel to Department of Justice conferences, we sometimes shared a room together. We were simply two young prosecutors trying to save money. In 1982, when I was asked by Attorney General William French Smith, to head the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, simply because of the strategic location in Atlanta, where my office was, a delicate situation was represented. The task force consisted of 11 other United States attorney offices, but any potential problem was avoided because my friend, Senator Sessions rallied the other United States attorneys around our common cause and my leadership. Senator Sessions had a lot to do with the success of the task force under my leadership. Senator Sessions was highly thought of by his colleagues and -- and served on the prestigious Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Membership to this committee is by invitation only. I thought about this a lot and can identify for you without any equivocation whatsoever, three things in which the Senator will lead the Department of Justice. First, Senator Sessions will vigorously, but impartially enforce our laws. Senator Sessions has a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment on criminal justice matters. He also understands the importance of what former Attorney General Robert Jackson said, about what constitutes a good prosecutor. That being one who displays sensitivity to fair play and who appreciates his or her tasks with humility. Next, Senator Sessions will continue to make certain that the traditional role of federal law enforcement is carried out with vigor, effectiveness and independence. The Department of Justice under his leadership will attack such critical crime problems, as complicated fraud schemes by individuals and organizations, civil rights violations, serious environmental violations, terrorism and espionage. Finally Senator Sessions will seriously look at the role of federal law enforcement to help our citizens achieve a greater sense of personal safety in their homes and neighborhoods. This will be especially important for some of our minority and low income citizens against whom violent crime has a disproportionate impact. Of all our important civil rights, the rights to be safe and secure in one's home and neighborhood is perhaps the most important. We all know that Senator Sessions has strongly but honestly held political and policy views. But the Senator also has a record of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice issues. We talked yesterday, a great deal, was presented to the committee on Senator Sessions' effort under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and his work with Senator Durbin on that important legislation. It's interesting as I, as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in the Bush administration, I opposed this legislation. Senator Sessions was right and I was wrong. A son of the south who has had up close experiences with our great civil rights movement, Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do in the area of racial equality. He noted in a speech praising the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, that more needs to be done, we need to join closer hands. So, as a lawyer myself, who has spent a fair amount of time during my 43 year legal career, supporting diversity in our great profession and equal rights, this statement touched me greatly. Because, it reflects the man I have known for over 30 years and who I'm proud to call my friend. Senator Sessions deserves confirmation as our next attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. We'll have seven minute rounds now. And I'm going to start with General Mukasey. Senator Sessions, himself, has noted the attorney general is not the President's lawyer. In your opinion, would Senator Sessions have the independence and of course the ability to say no the President if they disagree? MUKASEY: Absolutely, and I think he made that both clear and explicit yesterday, saying that if necessary the alternative was to resign. GRASSLEY: Also to you, we heard Senator Sessions testify yesterday about the appropriate scope of communication between the White House and the Department of Justice. He said he thought that there was merit in your December 2007 on that topic. So could you tell us what you believe the merits of your approach to be, which would be your explaining in further detail what Senator Sessions said yesterday. MUKASEY: OK. What's in the memo is, the contact between the White House and the Justice Department is limited to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are pending legislation, which is the subject of communication between lower level people and the White House and people in the office of legal policy and other routine budget matters. Other than that, there is to be no contact between anyone at the Justice Department and anyone in the White House. And if anybody gets such a call, they are instructed that the polite response is thank you very much, I'll refer you to the person who can respond to you. GRASSLEY: OK. Mr. Thompson, you've known Senator Sessions for 35 years and in that time you worked very closely with him. So you've already said something about your service together, but could you tell us about that service in more detail than you did in your opening statement? THOMPSON: Yes, Senator Grassley. I've known, as I said, Senator Sessions for a number of years. He has a great deal of respect for the Department of Justice. He had been an Assistant United States Attorney when I'd met him. He had already been promoted to become the United States attorney. He's a fine lawyer, was a very effective prosecutor, but has great fidelity to the principles of fair prosecution in the traditions of the Department of Justice. GRASSLEY: And would you, knowing him as you do. Would you say that he's going to be that independent head that we expect of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Absolutely. I would expect Senator Sessions to understand and appreciate and to practice the traditional independent role of the Department of Justice. And he would be an attorney general, I think, that all the Senators on this committee would be proud of. GRASSLEY: Further, since you know him. How do you think he would fair standing up to a strong willed President, who wants to take certain actions that Senator Sessions in his capacity as attorney general may not feel, that would feel would be inappropriate? THOMPSON: That's a good question. As I said, Senator Sessions is not only an experienced prosecutor, but he's a mighty fine lawyer. He would understand his role to counsel the President and to bring the President around to what position is appropriate. But he, at the end of the day, would be independent if the President insisted upon doing something that was inappropriate. GRASSLEY: Mr. Canterbury, of course you're no stranger to these, sort of, attorney general hearings. You testified in support of Attorney General Eric Holder eight years ago, reflecting on the last eight years of leadership of the Department of Justice from the perspective of arguably the largest law enforcement advocacy group. How did DOJ fair? And how might it be different if the person you're supporting today were attorney general? CANTERBURY: Senator, it's our position that we have to work with whoever is in that office. And we have historically worked with every attorney general, personally I've worked with every attorney general since Janet Reno. And we believe that with Senator Sessions, the communications, the lines of communications will be more direct than they have been. We've had good success with career employees at DOJ. They're very professional. We believe it's an outstanding organization. But we also believe, with Senator Sessions, information and the knowledge that he's had from serving on this committee, he'll be able to serve us well in the area of criminal justice with reform efforts and with training and equitable sharing and those types of things. We feel that communications will be excellent with Senator Sessions. GRASSLEY: Another question for you. The Sheriff's Association at the national level recently noted that in the past year, this country has seen the highest number of law enforcement fatalities in five years, including 21 officers who were ambushed, shot, and killed. If confirmed for the position of attorney general, what steps do you think that Senator Sessions could take to reverse the trend? CANTERBURY: First and foremost, we believe that Senator Sessions, as attorney general, will not speak out on incidents that arise before a thorough and -- and -- and full investigation. And we believe that the anti-police rhetoric comes from people that make comments without knowledge of the situation and prior to the facts being released to the media, and so, we believe that there will be a much more positive tone about reconciliation. Nobody in this country wants our communities and police to reconcile more than my members Senator. GRASSLEY: Mr. Kirsanow, Senator Sessions has received some criticism for his enforcement of voting rights while he was a federal prosecutor and Alabama attorney general. Would you evaluate Senator Sessions record on voting rights? This will probably have to be my last question. KIRSANOW: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to. I've heard testimony and I've heard media reports with respect to cases related to voting rights that Senator Sessions was prosecuting. And if he had failed to prosecute the Perry County case, that would have been an extraordinary dereliction of duty. I would advise everybody who's interested in facts as opposed to optics to read the indictment, read all the available pleadings, read all of the contemporaneous reporting and you will have wasted about two days doing so, as I did. The multi count indictment, if you go through it, details in excruciating detail all of the violations here. If you look at the facts of the case, what happened is you had two separate factions of black Democrats in Perry County who were vying for seats. One faction went to the attorney -- U.S. attorneys office and said, wait a minute here, we believe there's rampant voter fraud going on here. And in fact, if you look at the FBI's affidavit related to this, they found 75 forged signatures on absentee ballots. There were multiple counts where individuals who were part of, who were candidates, were taking absentee ballots, changing them, altering them or filling them out on behalf of individuals and then giving them to the elections board. One family had a candidate, for whom they voted who was their cousin. All six members testified that their ballot, none the less, was checked for the other person and they said it was false. There was copious evidence that, in fact, there was voter fraud in fact that it occurred. Now, it is true, these people were acquitted. But we've seen this circumstance before. The person who literally wrote the book on voter fraud prosecutions, Craig Don Santo, he's legendary head of the former -- former head of Public Integrity Unit of DOJ was the man who told Senator Sessions, go forward with this. He surmised as did many other contemporary witnesses is that this was a classic case of voter nullification. I think as he testified, or he indicated that this is a matter in which there was no way in the world, a jury was going to convict these individuals, who were in fact civil rights advocates. The facts of the case established that had a prosecutor not taken this and pursued this, there would have been some serious questions about his integrity. GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you Chairman. Mr. Canterbury, I was my state's attorney general and Rhode Island is one of the states where the attorney general has full prosecuting authority. There are only three. So I worked very closely with my police department, I was always my state's United States attorney, in that capacity worked very, very closely with police chiefs. My experience was that a police chief in Providence, which is say urban good size city, and a police chief in small coastal Merganser (ph), Rhode Island would have very different law enforcement priorities. And that it, in my view, is appropriate for a police chief to be able to pursue their own law enforcement priorities within their communities. Would you agree with that? CANTERBURY: Yes, Senator. I mean, the same thing with sheriffs. Constitutionally elected officers, their going to police their communities as they think they need to be policed and set priorities that way. WHITEHOUSE: And an important part of that for a police chief, is to maintain the kind of community relations between the department and the community that support effective pursuit of those law enforcement priorities. Is that not the case also? CANTERBURY: I don't think it's any different in a city with five police officers than it is in Providence. Where ever you are, community relations is the key to -- to successfully perform in our job. WHITEHOUSE: And it's going to be different in different communities. The method is going to be different of effective community relations in different communities. CANTERBURY: It can be. Yes sir. WHITEHOUSE: And so, would you agree for the Department of Justice to try to dictate what local law enforcement priorities should be? Or how a police department should chose to deal with its community could be a stretch too far? CANTERBURY: In -- in matters of law, no, but in matters of policy and procedure, yes sir. I would agree with you. WHITEHOUSE: And prioritization as well correct? CANTERBURY: Absolutely. WHITEHOUSE: The reason I asked that, is that one of the concerns that I've heard from Rhode Island police chiefs has been that a relentless or unthinking pursuit of very low level immigration violations could disrupt everything from orderly community relations with a Latino community to even ongoing significant gang investigations. In which cooperators might get, lose their willingness to cooperate if somebody came in and decided to try to deport their mother. My point isn't that one is right and the other is wrong. My point is decision at the community level as to priorities and to maintaining community relations is an important one, correct? CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, it would be, but to cut more to the core of what I think you're asking, sanctuary city decisions are usually made by politicians and not police chiefs, and very rarely... WHITEHOUSE: Sanctuary city, in fact, is not even a legal term, is it? CANTERBURY: And -- and very rarely should law enforcement officers make those decisions. As you know, senator, politicians pass the laws and we're charged with enforcing them, not -- don't necessarily have to agree or disagree with them. WHITEHOUSE: And in doing so, you do establish law enforcement priorities. CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, we would. WHITEHOUSE: You don't put people out on the street to do jaywalking. You go after murders first. You go after robberies first. That's standard law enforcement practice, correct? CANTERBURY: Emergency protocol requires the highest level of crime first and -- and down from there. WHITEHOUSE: Down from there. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Canterbury said earlier something that I agree very much with, which was to applaud the career employees of the Department of Justice and to say that right now the Department of Justice was an outstanding organization. You and I and others have served as United States attorneys. What do you think about the career attorney core of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Well, the career attorneys at the Department of Justice through my years of experience, Senator, like yours, these are very good lawyers. They are dedicated to law enforcement. They're dedicated to the work of the Department of Justice. I've had nothing but positive experiences in my years at the Department of Justice and in dealing with the Department of Justice as a defense lawyer. WHITEHOUSE: Should a career attorney in a new administration be punished for following properly the policy direction of a previous administration? THOMPSON: I -- I don't actually think a career attorney should be punished for anything other than not doing his or her work. WHITEHOUSE: Clearly a career attorney shouldn't be judged on whether they are secular or religious in their lives, correct? THOMPSON: Absolutely not. WHITEHOUSE: OK. Mr. Brooks, the Sessions candidacy has achieved expressions of support from people like David Duke and from what's described as a white supremacist neo-Nazi news site called the Daily Stormer, whose site founder wrote that the Sessions appointment was like "Christmas. Basically we are looking at a Daily Stormer dream team in the Trump administration." Now you can't fault a nominee for the people who choose to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. This is not, obviously, Senator Sessions' fault, but do you believe that he has distinguished himself away from whatever the causes are for that support so that you feel comfortable going forward that he has addressed that? BROOKS: Based on the record, I do not believe that the Senator has sufficiently described a Department of Justice fully committed to enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, where we have hate crime rising, most of which is perpetuated not in bars, not in streets, but in K through 12 schools. Speaking against hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to prosecute hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to enforce the nation's civil rights laws, voting rights, the Voting Rights Act to the full measure in a full-throated way. I do not believe we have heard that. So he is not responsible for who endorses him, but he is in fact responsible for what he endorses and his vision for the Department of Justice. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Now Senator Hatch. HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Mukasey, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. You became attorney general after nearly two decades as a federal district court judge. The current attorney general had nearly two decades of experience as a federal prosecutor. Jeff Sessions will become attorney general after two decades as a U.S. senator. No matter where an attorney general comes from, he or she has the duty described yesterday by one of my Democratic colleagues as "enforcing the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias." You were here yesterday and heard as I did the repeated suggestion that Senator Sessions would not be able to enforce the law personally that he personally disagrees with. Do you agree that someone's political party, general ideological perspective or personal opinions do not by themselves mean that he or she cannot be impartial and fair? MUKASEY: I -- I certainly agree that a person's political background does not disqualify that person from enforcing the law and does not disable that person from enforcing the law. I think Senator Sessions made it entirely clear that he understood the difference between advocating a position, on the one hand, as a legislator, and the oath that he takes to enforce the law on the other. He was very clear, very precise about that, and I think everybody who passes from one status to another -- be it from a judge to attorney general, be it from a lawyer to a judge -- understands that they are changing their responsibilities, and he's not alone in -- in that, but he certainly is very much allowed to it. HATCH: How confident are you that Senator Sessions, a conservative Republican senator, will enforce the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias? MUKASEY: I think his statement's yesterday make it entirely clear that he understands his responsibility to do that, and I see no reason why he won't do it. HATCH: Mr. Kirsanow, in his written testimony, Mr. Brooks argued that Senator Session lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as attorney general. Even more, he questioned whether Senator Sessions would actually prosecute hate crimes. I'd welcome your response to that. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) HATCH: Put your -- put your... KIRSANOW: I haven't known Mr. Sessions as long as Mr. Thompson has, but I've known him for more than 10 years, and what I can tell you is that I've worked with several senators here who've been very concerned about issues related to civil rights, particularly with respect to one issue that's within my wheelhouse as labor attorney, and that is the interests of black and other workers and their employment prospects. We had hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, several hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, about a lot of deleterious policies to the prospects of black employment, and these were rectifiable policies, but they had pronounced effects, negative effects, on black employment. We even had a hearing where every single witness that spanned the ideological spectrum from left to right agreed, for example, that massive illegal immigration has a decidedly negative impact on wage and employment levels. I provided these reports to a number of senators and other congressmen. Many of the senators here were alarmed by it and questioned me about it, and we had interactions and other members of the Civil Rights Commission. I also provided it to members of Congress, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The one senator who reached out, being very alarmed and pursing this case with ultimate vigor, was Senator Sessions. He was very concerned about this. In a number of private conversations we talked about a number of the steps that could be taken aside from reforming immigration law, which we all know here is something that's a significant challenge, but what can we do to improve employment prospects of black Americans? He was the only senator to act in that fashion. I heard nothing whatsoever from the Congressional Black Caucus, despite copious detail about the negative impact of this. I'm ultimately convinced that Senator Sessions would take the appropriate actions to enforce the law as written, because that's what we are talking about, existing immigration law, and he was adamant in doing that without fear or favor and without bias. HATCH: Knowing him as well as I do I agree with you. Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you so much for what you and thousands of officers who represent us each and every day have said here for Senator Sessions. The Pew Research Center today released one of the largest polls of police officers ever conducted involving some 8,000 officers in departments across the country. As a result of the high profile fatal encounters between officers and blacks, three-quarters of officers are more reluctant to use force when it is appropriate, and 72 percent have become less willing to stop and question people who seem suspicious. Now I believe this effect stems from what has become almost a presumption that police have done something wrong when such encounters occur. That is a pernicious and dangerous shift in the general attitude toward our police, and it is totally without foundation. . Now it seems to me that this change in attitude can not only negatively affect officers and actually put police safety at risk, but also make much more difficult important efforts at -- at community policing. Do you agree with me on that? CANTERBURY: Ab -- Absolutely agree with you. I think the case in Chicago of the young female officer that decided to take a beating rather than deploy a Taser because she said it wasn't worth what she would put herself through to deploy a Taser is -- is a -- a microcosm of what's happening in law enforcement where it's not worth what -- what you may have to put yourself through. HATCH: Well, that same poll found that 93 percent of officers have become more concerned about their own safety in this country. Yesterday the chairman noted that the number of police killed in the line of duty has significantly increased. You've made that point. Also yesterday Senator Sessions noted that most police are local rather than federal. The Fraternal Order of Police and other national law enforcement groups support his nomination. How do you think that a change in leadership of the justice department can concretely affect and improve things at the local level? CANTERBURY: Well, first of all the Byrne JAG Grant Program, the COPS Program, the Community Oriented Policing teams, consent decrees, pattern of practice investigations. When you have open lines of communication where rank and file management as well as citizen and activist groups can discuss those -- those cases, I think you can -- you can get to a place where the communities will face -- feel safer and the police officers will feel safer. And we've got to reduce the violence in this country. You know, Senator Hatch, we've been saying for a long time systemic poverty is an issue that law enforcement is not charged with nor has the ability to fix, but we're willing to be good partners, and we believe with Jeff Sessions as attorney general we'll be able to work in all of those sections of the Justice Department to try and improve. (CROSSTALK) HATCH: We're pleased that you're here today, and we're pleased that you're willing to testify for and on his behalf. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the panel who are here today, and especially Oscar Vasquez, who came as my invitee, for telling his inspiring life story. Thank you. You've given a face to an issue which is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of Americans. Thank you for serving our country. General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too. I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity? And I think you've addressed this. Forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat. Could you give me some clarity? When you served as attorney general, if you received a call from on high, from the White House, from any person in the White House, relative to an investigation, an ongoing investigation or a prosecution, what do you believe was the appropriate response in that situation? MUKASEY: The appropriate response is that whatever investigation it is is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, which is to say where the facts and the law lead. I'm glad that the question was in the hypothetical, because I in fact did not get such a call, although I have gotten -- did get calls with respect to other matters, and my response was generally that the department would pursue its agenda as already said. DURBIN: So do you -- is it your position the attorney general is independent in this decision making when it comes to other members of the executive branch? MUKASEY: Correct. The Attorney General is, obviously, is a member of an administration and pursues priorities that are set by an administration, but when you're talking about particular investigations and particular cases, that's something altogether different, and I think Senator Sessions made it clear he understood it was altogether different. DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations? MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're -- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year. I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis. If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: And when it comes to the appointment of a special counsel involving the pre- the conduct of the president, is it your feeling that the attorney general should, as a general rule, consider special counsel? MUKASEY: No. It would depend on the case. The -- The -- A special counsel has to be appointed when there is a good reason why the department headed by the attorney general cannot pursue that case. I think what Senator Sessions had in... I'm not familiar with the op-ed that you mentioned, so I'm -- I'm speculating, but it sounds like what he had in mind was not simply the position of the attorney general, but rather the tarmac conversation with -- with President Clinton, that put her in a -- in a difficult situation. I don't think that simply had to do with the fact that she was attorney general appointed by the president. DURBIN: I see. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, since the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act is in a perilous situation, and I commended to my colleagues and I commend to you a book entitled "White Rage" by Carol Anderson who teaches at Emory, and she talks about the evolution of the issue of race since the Civil War. It strikes me now that we are in dangerous territory about the future of the Voting Rights Act. If preclearance is not required, and the Department of Justice is reacting after the fact, there could be some delay in justice here in an intervening election or no action taken. I asked my staff to give me a listing of the cases initiated by the Department of Justice relative to the Voting Rights Act for the last several years, and it goes on for pages. Can you address this issue about your belief of the commitment of Senator Sessions to enforce the Voting Rights Act in principal post-Shelby County? BROOKS: Certainly. So, as you well know, Senator, the Voting Rights Act is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights statutes, and Section 5 was regarded as the most effective provision of the most effective civil rights statute. In the wake of the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision, which debilitated Section 5, being via Section 4(b), we have seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other. And so that means that the Department of Justice has taken on more responsibility and civil rights organizations have taken on more responsibility with fewer tools. It has meant the debilitation, literally, of our democracy. Where we have citizens who have to wait for the violation to occur, as we saw in North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the state legislature engaged in intentional racial discrimination with respect to voter suppression carried out with surgical precision. It took an army of lawyers, an army of experts, in order to vindicate the rights of the people, and a mass movement by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP with so many others and so many other legal groups. The point being here is the Department of Justice -- Not only is the democracy in a perilous place, but the Department of Justice is in a perilous place. It needs strong leadership. It needs resources, and we need the Voting Rights Advancement Act -- to fix the Voting Rights Act. DURBIN: And post-Shelby County, if the attorney general is not timely and aggressive in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the damage will be done. BROOKS: The damage is absolutely done. And when we think about all of the many members of this body that went to Selma, that commemorated the foot soldiers of the movement, on the Edmond Pettus Bridge. All that they died for, all that they sacrificed is hanging in the balance. So we need strong leadership there, because literally, literally, we can squander the fruit of -- of -- of their efforts and the civic sacrament of our democracy, namely the right to vote. DURBIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you Senator. Senator Cornyn. CORNYN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. There's a lot to cover in seven minutes. So let me try to be somewhat selective. First of all, thanks to all of you for being here. I can't help but believe that, in spite of the fact that we've had a national election that the election is still ongoing. The campaign is still ongoing. I respect each one of your rights to express your point of view. And -- but I at the same time, it's amazing to me that, with the Senator having cast 6,000 votes in the United States Senate, we're focused on a handful of policy differences and somehow people are saying, well those are dispositive of the qualification of this person who we've served along side of for 15 years, in my case, and 20 years in the case of others. So I guess our job is, sort of, like the jury in a regular lawsuit, that we have to not -- we have to give weight to the testimony and we have to figure out who's testimony is entitled to greater weight. Because frankly, the description we've heard today are so wildly disparate that it's, I -- I would imagine for people who didn't know Senator Sessions and know his record as I do and those of us who've served with him, it would be hard to reconcile. But I -- I want to ask General Mukasey, Senator Hatch alluded to this, but this is really important to me and I just want to reiterate this. You've had the distinction of serving in the two branches of our three branches of government, as a federal district judge with great distinction and as attorney general in the executive branch. I, at a much lower level, have had the chance to serve now in three branches myself as a state court judge and as attorney general of my state and now as a legislator here at the federal level. Each of those roles are different aren't they? And indeed I think that's the point that Senator Sessions made eloquently yesterday, even though he may have some policy differences or have cast a vote against a bill in the Senate. He would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Isn't that what you understood? MUKASEY: That's precisely what I understood. And he recognized the difference in the different roles that he plays as a legislator, from what he would play as attorney general. CORNYN: And I thought yesterday he did a magnificent job responding to the questions and acknowledging the policy differences do exist. That's just the way it is. Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you a little bit about the role of the federal government and the attorney general's office and the Department of Justice in supporting local and state law enforcement. I believe the figure is roughly $2 billion a year, that the federal government hands out, or -- or -- or distributes in terms of grants to local and state law enforcement. I think your testimony, you mentioned the active shooter training that we've tried to enhance through the Police Act, which passed the Congress and was signed by President Obama. Making sure that more officers were -- got that training which is even more relevant, sadly today than perhaps even in the past. I would just add to that, the -- the work that we did recently on mental health and it's intersection with the criminal justice system. The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that was part of the 21st Century Cures Bill. Again, recognizing that our jails and our streets and our emergency rooms have become the treatment centers by default for people with mental illness. We need to do more to try to get people who need help the help they need, but not treat mental illness as a crime, per say. We also need to make sure that we train our law enforcement officials because we know how dangerous, at least from the stories and the statistics that we see, how dangerous it can be when police officer encounters a person with mental illness. And they don't have the training they need to de-escalate the -- the -- the scene. But could you talk a little bit about your experience and your organization's experience as law enforcement officials dealing with people with -- with mental illness? CANTERBURY: Well I would say in the last 10 or 15 years, the number of mentally ill individuals that law enforcement comes in contact as exponentially gone up as mental health services at the state and local level have gone down. And, I've explained this recently to a -- a Vice-President Biden when he asked about that same question. And my response was, in many of these situations, regardless on whether a police officer or a law enforcement professional realizes that there's a mental illness, the circumstances are dictated by the actions. And so, whether or not we can recognize the particular mental illness, is not as important as recognizing that there is an issue. The problem is that there's very little assistance at that level anymore for street level mental illness. And, making sure that they're not a danger to themselves or others should not, cannot be the responsibility of a first responding officer. We just will never have the training to be able to do it to that extent. So there is -- it's a huge issue for local and state officers and I don't know what we're going to do to fix that. But, the biggest thing is that the community based mental health facilities are just not there anymore. CORNYN: Well I think you'll find a friend in -- in Senator Sessions as attorney general in recognizing the priorities for local law enforcement -- state law enforcement and making sure that the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which will provide priority for that kind of training and assistance for local and state law enforcement is there. Ms. Sepich, thank you for your outstanding work and rising out of a terrible tragedy, you and your family experienced in your lives. But -- but I know you're committed to making sure not only that that doesn't happen to other families, but also that through your work on DNA Saves that we are able to bring people responsible to justice. There's been so much work that we've done here and Senator Sessions has been front and center as you've noticed. Things like Senator Hatch's rapid DNA legislation act. The Paul Coverdale National Forensic Science Improvement Act, which was just renewed in the Justice for All Act that Senator Leahy and I co-sponsored and was signed by President Obama. But, it is so important to make sure that we do provide all these essential tools and good science to make sure we do convict the guilty, but we also exonerate people who are innocent of crimes. And would you, I just want to say thank you. I know the Chairman has the gavel in his hand and he's getting ready to gavel me out of order here. But I just want to express my gratitude to you for your leadership on that issue. But you're right, Senator Sessions has been front and center at all of those efforts, not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Now Senator Leahy. LEAHY: Thank you. I wasn't going to interrupt Senator Cornyn as long as your praising a legislation you and I wrote -- wrote together. I mention that only because contrary to what people believe, Republicans and Democrats do work together on a lot of things here in the Congress. Mr. Thompson, you and I have worked together on things as you know. And, I just want to say something to Sergeant Vasquez -- Vasquez, I'm sorry for the pronunciation. I watched some of your testimony earlier. It is so moving. And, my wife did too, and we're both so proud of you and thank you for what you have done, your service for the country. And as parents of one who served in the military, we, like all parents everywhere, you worry about those who serve and you worry what they do, but you think. Thank everybody, the fact that we have people who are willing to serve our country. Are you concerned about what might happen under the new administration for young people registered under DACA? VASQUEZ: Definitely Mr. Senator. There -- there is a huge concern for those roughly 800,000 people that raise their hand and say they were undocumented right? I think that the biggest point that makes is that when there was a path, there was a way for us to come out of the shadows, right. And a dozen people raised their hand and say they were undocumented. Now the fact of the matter is that there was no other way, right;the Congress, the Senate has not passed any meaningful laws that could guarantee them a path to citizenship, to (inaudible) legislation (ph), to whatever you want to call it. But unless there is a path, unless there is a way they can find a permanent solution, we are definitely concerned that the next administration is going to stop the DACA and that those students are going to have to go back into the shadows. Senator Sessions stated yesterday that there is not enough financial support to report 800,000 people and at the same time he opposed every single legislation that will give them a way to become legal. So what are the students to do? What are the young adults to do when they are faced with opposition? So it is definitely concerning. LEAHY: You must know an awful lot of people who are nearing the DACA, is there a sense of concern about the rhetoric that we're hearing with the new administration? VAZQUEZ: There is definitely a sense of concern. There is a lot of fear most of all. I know students -- one of the other, my teammate has won the competition so many years ago; he is a father to two U. S. citizen children now and he will be facing -- he is facing the unknown (ph) given the next administration. I mean there has been statement saying that DACA is going to be repealed, maybe there is not, so we are not sure what's going to happen in that scenario. There is a lot of fear out there. LEAHY: Thank you. Ms. Swadhin, I -- I raised on behalf -- I probably should raise the question yesterday and I'm hearing about comments that the President-Elect has made regarding sexual assault and gave Mr. Sessions a chance to explain where-- his first response is that he seemed to be basically minimize and improving what President might have said, he expanded what he meant yesterday and yesterday he is under oath, I will accept that. But I think -- my own daughter -- I think of -- my three beautiful granddaughters; and I think about somebody in the Hollywood video on the President-elect jokes about what is sexual assault. Mr. Sessions now when he is asked further about it, in midst of what President-elect Trump brags about doing is sexual assault. You've dedicated your life to helping others heal after sexual assault. You're a survivor yourself. What -- sort of a two-part question; what kind of a message to somebody, especially somebody in power trivializes sexual assault, even jokes about it; how is the prosecutor -- I prosecuted sexual assault cases. What does it do for victims' willingness to come forth if they see people in power trivialize something that might be a lifelong trauma for them? (Inaudible). SWADHIN: Thank you for the question, Senator Leahy. You know, it's highly relevant on several levels that the impact that it has on survivors watching people in power and in this case, someone who -- you know, has been elected to be the President of The United States make these kind of jokes and brag about this kind of so- called locker room behavior about sexually assaulting women. I think it's important to go back to the point I made in my testimony that the majority of victims of violent crime are assailed (ph) by people who they know intimately. In cases of adult rape and sexual assault, 80 percent of survivors know their assailant and in 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse,the person sexually abusing the child is known and trusted and often loved by the person who is perpetrating the violence. So it's already so hard for survivors to come forward because it means that we have to testify against the people that we put our trust in. In my case it was my father and that's not an uncommon story, it's someone very close to you; that's how these crimes happen. And so to be able to trust the state more than we fear are intimately known perpetrators,we have to see people in control of the state who take a hard-line stance against sexual assault and whom -- you know, say publicly that they would support and believe survivors. And unfortunately in this political climate, we're looking at an administration led by a man who not only does not seem to prioritize helping sexual assault survivors heal and come forward to be able to trust the state but -- you know, may have actually engaged in assault himself, the things that he was bragging about. So it's incredibly concerning. Add to that the fact that the violence that we live through has very traumatizing impacts. I myself live with complex PTSD, so your mental health on a day-to-day basis is already negatively impacted. So to be able to stay grounded enough to come forward and put your trust in a stranger, social worker, a prosecutor, a police officer in order to get the services healing and the accountability that you deserve, it's incredibly difficult. LEAHY: Thank you. Because I -- I remember, on the sexual assault cases where detectives at my office, assistant prosecutors and myself having to tell people you can trust us. We actually care about what you're saying. We do believe it's a crime. And frankly, those who trivialize it and say it's not a crime are ignoring too many people in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Leahy, now Senator Cruz. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the distinguished panel for being here today and I want to take a special moment to thank Larry Thompson who was my boss at the Department of Justice; although I would note that you should not hold Larry accountable for my missteps in the years that followed. I want to start, Mr. Cole by addressing your testimony. And I would note that the ACLU -- I have worked alongside the ACLU on any number of the issues here in the senate, including we've worked alongside each other on issues of indefinite detention, we've worked on the same side concerning the USA Patriot Act, we worked on the same side working to stop the efforts of Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution and to amend the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment and so I'm grateful for many of the good things the ACLU does. You're a professor at Georgetown; I would like to ask you as a professor, how would you react to a student who submitted List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 WITNESSES: FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DAVID COLE, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CORNELL BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAACP CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, U.S. VETERAN PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, MIRROR MEMOIRS JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, DNA SAVES SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. WILLIE HUNTLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA. JESSE SEROYER, FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA. WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR ALABAMA SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS TO BE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRASSLEY: Morning, everybody. I welcome everyone back for our second day of hearing on Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination for Attorney General. As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others. So officers will remove individuals as they have previously. Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I want to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how we're going to proceed today. Senator -- Senator Whitehouse will be acting as Ranking Member today and I will give an opening statement and he can if he wants to as well. I welcome that. Then we'll turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Following the statements, we'll begin with the first rounds of questions, in which each senator will have seven members (sic). After we finish asking questions of the first panel, we'll turn to the final panel for their testimony. And in regard to the timing of that, it will kind of depend on when this panel is completed. But if we get this panel completed, let's say around lunch or 12:30 or 1 o'clock, we may adjourn for an hour or so at that time. But I won't be able to make that determination until we finish here with this panel. Yesterday, we met here from 9:30 until about 8 p.m., so that every Senator, both Democrat and Republican could ask Senator Sessions as many questions as they wanted to. We had great cooperation every day, yesterday, and I should thank everybody for that cooperation, and we'll press ahead into today. We heard from Senator Shelby and Collins, who gave their strong endorsement of Senator Sessions. Their introductions describes Senator Sessions extensive experience, outstanding qualifications and character. I also want to note that yesterday, Senator Feinstein participated in her first nomination hearing as the new Ranking Member. I'm looking forward to working with her in her new capacity as I said yesterday. In her opening statement yesterday, Senator Feinstein correctly observed and I'd like to quote, fairly long quote, "Today we're not being asked to evaluate him, meaning Senator Sessions, as a Senator. We're being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement for the largest and best democracy in America." She continued, "As attorney general, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs, rather the job of attorney general is to enforce federal law, even if he voted against a law, even if he spoke against it before it passed, even if he disagreed with the President, seeing that the law is constitutional." Then she concluded, "This hearing must determine whether this Senator will enforce the laws that he voted against." end of quote. And yesterday, through 10 and a half hours of testimony, we got a clear and unequivocal answer to this threshold question. He was asked repeatedly if he would enforce the law, even if he disagreed with that law as a matter of policy. Time and again, Senator Sessions reaffirmed his commitment to this fundamental principle. As Attorney General of the United States his solemn duties are, as we all know and expect, are to the Constitution and to enforce the law duly enacted. His fundamental commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central theme of our discussion yesterday. And as I made clear in my opening statement, that's what I believe the department desperately needs. Yesterday -- yesterday's testimony further convinced me that Senator Sessions is the right choice to serve as our nation's chief law enforcement officer at this critical time. We know that he is very well qualified for the position having served for 15 years as a prosecutor and now 20 years as a Senator, so that's three decades of public service. We all know (ph) Senator Sessions will be up front with you when you say that he's going to do something, he will do it. Senator Sessions will be an independent attorney general, as he's been asked so many times yesterday and about his enforcement of the law. That's the bottom line. I now turn to Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much Chairman. Let me, just make some very brief remarks. First, I can't help but note as a general proposition, hearing after hearing, the effort to push nominees into confirmation hearings before their FBI background checks are complete. Before their ethics and financial disclosure filings are concluded, and I'd like to put into the record, this hearing, the letter that Senator Schumer, Minority Leader Schumer wrote to Majority Leader McConnell. In which, he took a letter that Majority Leader McConnell had written, Minority Leader McConnell had written to Majority Leader Reed and simply changed the names. He wrote, Dear Mitch, in place of dear Harry, and he signed his own name at the bottom and it was thus a verbatim letter. And what we have been asking for is exactly what Republicans asked for over and over again, what has long been the tradition of the Senate. It is not the Senate's fault that the Trump administration was not prepared and that it did not have its nominees vetted. In place, I know that Senator Sessions has been one of the nominees who has been prepared but I can't help but point out that across the board the ramming of unvetted nominees, the stacking of hearings on top of hearings, and the jamming of all of this up against an unprecedented vote-a-rama for a no-hearing budget, creates I think an unfortunate new precedent in the Senate. The point that I'll make about the Department of Justice is somebody who has served in the Department of Justice, like many of my colleagues or a number of my colleagues, is that I think there's legitimate concern based on the hectoring in the right wing groups for a general house cleaning of career staff, and for a particular targeting of named career staff. As I mentioned in my questioning yesterday, one of the Heritage Foundation spokespeople made the comparison to the Aegean Stables and filth as having to be washed out of the Aegean Stables. I don't think it's fair to characterize the career of employees of the United States Department of Justice as filth, and, nor do I think it is proper to assert that this should not be secular. And, I think it's a matter of concern when an attorney general thinks that a secular attorney may have a lesser, or different appreciation of truth than a religious attorney. Particularly coming from what I want more, freedom of conscience has been such a principle of core values since the days of Roger Williams. When Providence was a tiny settlement in the wilderness, where people who thought freely were able to get away from the theocracy of Massachusetts. We have a long history of concern about that kind of evaluation of career department professionals. And finally I'd say that, after a very divisive campaign, that left a lot of Americans and a lot of communities feeling very wounded and very vulnerable and very set upon, and after a promise that he would be a President for all Americans over and over and over and over again, we're seeing an array of cabinet nominees who run far to the right. And frankly, in many cases, come out of the swamp that the President-elect promised to drain. So, I thank you Chairman for the, I think, thoughtful and fair way in which you have run this hearing. I thought that Senator Sessions handled himself very well by staying until all the questions were answered. I appreciate the procedure that you have gone through, but I did want to make a record of those concerns from our side about the larger process in which these nominations hearings are taking place. And with that, I yield back to you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you. (Inaudible) witnesses and introduce them. I think, so I don't forget it, I promised Senator Coons point of personal privilege on one of the nominations. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I -- I had asked for the opportunity to introduce my friend and colleague Cornell Brooks, but I'm perfectly happy to wait to do so until there are other introductions a foot or to do it right now. GRASSLEY: I'd rather have you do it now if you would please. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Cornell Brooks, the President and CEO of the NAACP, as one of our many witnesses on this distinguished panel here today. Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that Americans truly enjoy the promise of equal protection of the law. Before assuming leadership of the NAACP in 2014, he was head of the Newark, New Jersey based Institute for Social Justice. And fittingly, for a hearing on the nominee to lead the Department of Justice, his early experience was of being a part of the Department of Justice, as a trial attorney, where he secured the largest government settlement for victims of housing discrimination. And filed the government's first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. He was also Executive Director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, a trial attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a law clerk to the Honorable Samuel J. Ervin III on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He's a fellow alum with Yale Law School, holds a Master of Divinity degree from Boston University School of Theology. He is not just a lawyer and social advocate, but a fourth generation ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a husband and father of two sons. Mr. Brooks, thank you for your leadership in the work of justice throughout our nation and I look forward to your testimony here today. BROOKS (?): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: I'm going to ask you to stand and swear before we -- before I introduce you. Would you raise your right hand? Will you -- do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the whole truth -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? OK. I noticed that all of you affirmed that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. The 81st Attorney General of the United States was the Honorable Michael Mukasey. Mr. Mukasey has also served as a U.S. attorney and a district court judge, southern district of New York. We thank him for coming. Our second witness, Oscar Vasquez, he became a citizen of the United States 2011 and served honorably in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. We welcome you and thank you, obviously, for your military service. Our next witness, Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is very familiar with this committee and we're familiar with you. Thank you for coming. Next is Amita Swadhin, she is a sexual assault survivor and co-founder of Mirror Memoirs. I hope I'm right on that. Welcome to you. Then we have Jayann Sepich, the mother of Katie Sepich. She's the founder of Surviving Parents Coalition. Our next witness Cornell Brooks, you've heard introduced, but let me further say that he's President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and he's well known to us as well. Thank you for being here today. Chuck Canterbury is the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. He's familiar to a lot of us as well, so we welcome you. Next we'll hear from David Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He's also a professor at the Georgetown Law Center. We welcome you. And finally, we'll hear from Larry Thompson. He served as Deputy Attorney General under President Bush. As a well known U.S. attorney for the northern district of Georgia, and we welcome back to the committee Mr. Thompson. So, I think we'll start with Mr. Mukasey and we're going to hear testimony from all of you. And then, we'll have questions as I indicated, seven minute rounds. So proceed will you General Mukasey. MUKASEY: Thank you. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member -- sorry Chairman Grassley, not yet, right? Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, this is one of those occasions that's both an honor and a pleasure. An honor to appear before this committee and a pleasure to speak to the qualifications of Senator Sessions to serve as attorney general. I submitted a statement to the committee and I'm happy to answer any questions relating to it or any other subject that the committee thinks that's relevant to passing on the qualifications of Senator Sessions. But, of course I'm here for the convenience of the committee, not simply to orate. And after watching yesterday's hearing, and Senator Sessions responses to the committee's questions, I think the only thing I have to add to what I've already submitted at this point, is to say that the person you saw and heard yesterday is very much the person I came to know beginning in 2007, when I first appeared before this committee. Principled, intelligent, knowledgeable, thorough, modest and thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and to the mission of the department. which is to enforce the law and to preserve our freedoms. So I thank you very much for hearing me. GRASSLEY: Does that complete your testimony? MUKASEY: It does. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Now, Sergeant Vasquez. Thank you. Please proceed. VASQUEZ: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Oscar Vasquez and I am proud to be an American. I was born in a small town in Mexico. I was 12 years old when my mother and I boarded a bus to the border. Although I did not make the choice to come to America, this country quickly became my home. As soon as we were settled in America, my parents made sure I was enrolled in school, because they wanted me to understand the value of education. It was at this point that I started to develop a passion for math and science, since the formulas and equations transcended the language barrier. In high school, I joined the JROTC program, where my drill instructors were Vietnam veterans. They thought as a valley of selfless service, whether you able to provide it in the military or not. They wanted us to be better Americans. I loved the order and discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC officer of the year. In my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the Band of Brothers mini series and I knew then, I wanted to join the Army. But when I met with the recruiter, I was told I could not enlist because I was undocumented. I left that meeting not knowing what to do, or what was next. I was devastated. I then had to figure out what else to do with my life. At the beginning of my senior year, I joined the robotics club. Our team of undocumented (ph) students enter a national competition and would design the underwater robot which we named Stinky. Beyond our wildest dreams, my high school team won the grand prize for the competition, against some of the countries top technical universities. Winning the competition was proof that we as DREAMers have something to offer to the country we always considered our home. Although I could not contribute to my country by joining the military, I enrolled Arizona State University and decided I could contribute by becoming an engineer. In 2005, I married my wife Carla, a U.S. citizen. She started a process of petitioning for my legal status, but it is the case of many DREAMers there were enormous legal obstacles and substantial risks. While I was a student at Arizona State, the Arizona legislator passed a law prohibiting undocumented citizens from receiving state financial aid and paying the state tuition. Even doors, that I've had in my home for many years and I was married to a U.S. citizen, I was treated like an outsider. The law tripled my tuition, (inaudible) by working construction, I scraped the money together to pay for college and support my family. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in mechanical engineering. This was three years before the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established. So even though I had a (inaudible) degree and there were jobs available, no one would hire me in this field because I didn't have legal status. In 2010, after completing a legal process that involved substantial hardship to my family, I was able to get a green card. Having legal resident status changed my life. I was able to get a drivers license, travel freely within the United States and pursue a career in engineering. The biggest note is -- the biggest note is -- the biggest change that I noticed was the fear. I was no longer afraid of being deported or being forcibly separated from my family. I could also pursue my dream of joining the military and becoming a paratrooper. I enlisted in the United States Army and started basic training in February 2011. I went in to fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country wasn't enough. I wanted to let my actions speak for themselves. Shortly before I finished basic training, I became a U.S. citizen. A couple weeks later, I found myself jumping out of a C-130 flying over Fort Benning, Georgia. And a couple months after that, I was deployed to Afghanistan. I look forward to combat because I wanted to protect the United States. Serving in the Army allowed me to contribute fully to this country and make it safer. I was following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have proudly served the United States. In Afghanistan, I fought side by side with my Army brothers. We wore the same uniform, wore the U.S. flag on the same shoulder. It mattered more that we were willing to be there (ph) for each other and for our country than where we came from. To this day, I remember how I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put my life on the line for my brothers and for my country and I felt really proud to be an American. I felt then, for the first time, that no one could again question whether I am an American. It has been a great honor to serve my country. My son Oscar Maximus is 4 years old and in preschool. My daughter, Samantha is 8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of Fort Worth, Texas where I volunteer at two different high schools in their respective robotics program. I feel that my family is living the American dream. But I want to continue serving my country and I will soon join the Army Reserve. I think now about all the doors that were unlocked for me when I became a lawful, permanent resident. The ability to get the job of my dreams, provide for my family and live without fear. I can't imagine what it will be like to have that taken away from me today. I also can't imagine what it is like today for my former teammates and the nearly 100,000 DACA recipients who do not have a legal status and who are afraid of what could happen to them in a matter of days. Of course, DACA is only a temporary solution and now even that is at risk. I hope that you will not view my story of that as someone exceptional, rather I am where I am today because of the many great people who have believed in me and have given me a chance. I also want to acknowledge most DREAMers and mostly (ph) undocumented immigrants who do not have a path to legal status right now. I wanted to come here today because our countries top law enforcement officer must be someone who understands that immigrants make our country stronger. Most Americans agree that it's not right to deport someone who was brought here as a child. Deport them to a country that might not even remember. We need an attorney general who will protect American people from those who will do us harm, but who will also show mercy to those who deserve it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much, Sergeant. Now Mr. Kirsanow. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) GRASSLEY: Have you pushed the red button? Or whatever color the button is? KIRSANOW: Thank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, I'm Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Benesh, Friedlander and I'm here on a personal capacity. Youth commission on civil rights was established pursuant to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to among other things, act as a national clearing house for matters pertaining to denials of equal protection, discrimination and voting rights. And in furtherance of that clearing house function, my assistant and I reviewed the bills, sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Sessions in his tenure, in the Senate as well as his public activities and actions that are at least arguably related to civil rights. Our examination found that Senator Sessions' approach to civil rights matters, both in terms of his legislative record and his other actions is consistent with mainstream, textbook (ph) interpretation of rolled in statutory and constitutional authority as well as governing precedent. Our examination also reveals, that Senator Sessions approach to civil rights is consistent, is legally sound, enrichingly (ph) honest and has appreciation and understanding of the historical basis for civil rights laws. And our examination found that several aspects of Senator Sessions -- Sessions' -- Senator Sessions' record unfortunately have been mischaracterized and distorted to portray him as somehow being indifferent, if not hostile to civil rights. The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things, and this is probably least consequential, Senator Sessions has sponsored or co- sponsored a plethora of bills honoring significant civil rights leaders, events, icons, such as Reverend Martin Luther King, Loretta Scott King, Reverend Shuttlesworth's fight against segregation. Three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks, a Senate apology to the descendants of victims of lynching. A bill to honor participants in the Selma voting rights march. A bill to honor the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and on and on and on, but Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights transcends resolutions in support of civil rights. He has authored, co-sponsored, or sponsored a number of bills to protect and enhance voting rights. Such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 2001, the Voter Fraud Protection Act of 2009, a number of bills to protect and enhance the voting rights of service members, particularly those serving overseas. He's a strong proponent of religious liberty, having sponsored or co-sponsored several bills to prevent discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent the government from substantially burdening free exercise of a person's religious beliefs. But in our estimation, his most profound and important impact is on preserving and protecting the rights of American workers, particularly black workers. The employment and wage levels of black workers in America have been abysmal for several decades. The labor force participation rate for black males, 61.8 percent and following. The unemployment rate for black males has nearly doubled that of white males. Evidence introduced (ph) before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that 40 percent of the 18 point decline in black employment levels is attributable to government failure or refusal to enforce existing integration laws. And this has a cascade effect by increasing the competition within the unskilled and low skilled marketplace, driving out black workers, slashing wages, particularly among black males. And this has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not slightly over 1 million blacks having lost their jobs, directly due to this phenomenon, and it has broader sociological implications as well, related to incarceration and family formation rates. No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Jeff Sessions in protecting and enhancing the prospects of black workers in America. But for his emphatical efforts in this regard, the plight of black workers now and in the immediate future and the foreseeable future will be demonstratively worse. His leadership on this matter, and his leadership on sub-committee, on immigration and the national interests has been key to restoring an even deeper downward trajectory for black workers in this country. And I'll conclude Mr. Chair by simply, respectfully offering that his record on civil rights legislation, his actions as a U.S. attorney and state attorney demonstrate an unwavering commitment to equal protection under the law, and a genuine fidelity to the rule of law that should make him an outstanding attorney general. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) SWADHIN: I'm not sure if this is working. Great. Good morning. My name is Amita Swadhin, I am a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in Ohio to two immigrants from India and raised in New Jersey. And I'm grateful to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. In October, miked (ph) tapes were released of President-elect Trump describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the genitals. In the wake of these comments becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating, "He doesn't characterize that behavior as sexual assault." Millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered in the wake of these events. I was one of those survivors. My father raped me at least once a week for age four to age 12. I endured psychological, verbal and physical abuse from him for years. I also grew up watching my father abuse my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape. When I disclosed the sexual abuse to my mother, at age 13, she called a therapist engaging mandating reported -- mandated reporting. The prosecutors threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit. They told me I would be harshly cross-examined by the defense attorney, and did not connect me to any victim support services. I was too afraid to tell them my story. My father received five years probation and no jail time and his violence continued for two years, until my mother finally found the support to leave him. I am here today on behalf of rape and sexual assault survivors to urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as attorney general. As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people have downplayed the impact of this violence on my present day life. I live with complex post traumatic stress disorder, and struggle everyday to be well. It directly and negatively impacts me when people minimize sexual assault. So to hear Senator Sessions initially say President- elect Trump's comments do not constitute sexual assault, and then to consider him leading the Department of Justice has been incredibly worrisome. I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. More than 320,000 Americans over age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted every year. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before age 18. These are public health issues occurring in the private sphere. In 80 percent of adult sexual assaults, and 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust our perpetrators. For this reason, most victims of violent crime never seek healing or accountability from the state. Most violent crimes remained unreported. Thankfully we have improved the response of the criminal justice system with the creation of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The stock (ph) formula grants under VAWA provide training to judges, prosecutors and police officers and other law enforcement personnel to better support survivors. In 1991, the police did not contact victim services for me, but today thanks to VAWA, law enforcement is encouraged to provide victims and advocates to support them in breaking their silence. Yet despite this progress, rape, sexual assaults and domestic violence still happen at epidemic rates and survivors at the intersections of oppression are especially vulnerable. LGBT people and particularly transgender women of color are disproportionally victimized. One in two transgender people will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims are transgender women. In fact, only 11 days into the new year, two transgender women of color have already been murdered, Misha Caldwell (ph), an African-American transgender woman from Mississippi and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow (ph), a two spirit Oglala Lakota woman from South Dakota. We need an attorney general who is committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing. Time and again, Senator Sessions voting record has shown us he is not the man for the job. Despite his claim to be a champion for victims of violent crime, he has not been a friend to vulnerable survivors. While Senator Sessions voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act in the bill's early years, when VAWA was expanded in 2013, to ensure LGBT, immigrant and tribal populations of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are protected and have access to services. Senator Sessions voted against the bill. We must trust the attorney general to enforce and apply our laws fairly, per our Constitution's provisions on equal protection. We must trust the attorney general to respect the humanity of all Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for our most vulnerable victims of crime. Given his voting record on VAWA and on LGBT rights, we have no reason to put our faith or our trust in Senator Sessions as attorney general. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that members of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including but not limited to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the YWCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, UGEMA (ph), the National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, and Jewish Women International opposed Senator Sessions nomination because of the issues I am raising today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. And now we'll go to Ms. Sepich. SEPICH: Good morning Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee. My name is Jayann Sepich and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. In 2003, my daughter Katie, a vivacious 22 year old graduate student was brutally raped, murdered and set on fire. It is never easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror of losing our daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. No suspects emerged in Katie's case, but Katie fought for her life and underneath her fingernails were found the blood and skin of her attacker, and a DNA profile was extracted and uploaded into the National Forensic DNA Database called CODIS. I made the comment to the investigators that the man who had killed Katie was such a monster that surely he would be arrested for another crime. His cheek would be swabbed and we would soon know his identity and he would not be able to harm another woman. That's when I learned it was not legal in New Mexico, my home state, or in most states to take DNA at the time of felony arrest. It could only be taken after conviction. I was stunned. We don't use DNA to accurately identify arrested for serious crimes. We release them from law enforcement without a check of the DNA database for a possible match to other unsolved crimes. We collect fingerprints, mug shots, and check what other crimes a person may have been involved in but we do not collect DNA. After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the collection of DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the non- profit association DNA Saves. We know we can't bring Katie back, but we absolutely believe that we may be able to prevent new crimes. Prevent this horrible pain from being visited on other families, by advocating for laws that allow for the collection of DNA from persons arrested for serious crimes. To date, 30 state legislatures in the United States Congress have enacted laws requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that taking DNA at the time of booking for a felony arrest is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Senator Sessions helped craft the legislative language that became the DNA Fingerprint Act, to provide federal authorities with the authorization to collect DNA from arrestees. In 2008, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as original co- sponsor introduced the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. This federal law provides additional funding to the Debbie Smith Backlog Elimination Act to those states who have enacted laws to expand their databases. Once again, as a judiciary committee's ranking member during that time, in which this legislation was pending, Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping us to craft a bill that would gain bipartisan support and eventually pass Congress unanimously. As a result of stronger state and federal DNA database laws, we have seen many heinous criminals identified through arresting DNA testing. My home state of New Mexico has seen over 1,200 cases matched. California has seen 10 cases matched everyday on their DNA database. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one of the most successful programs in the country and they credit Senator Sessions for must of the success, largely due to the support he's provided from the outset of the state's forensic DNA program during his term as Alabama Attorney General. Alabama has utilized the DNA database to solve over 6,500 previously unsolved cases. In Katie's case, after more than three long years, DNA finally identified Gabriel Avila as Katie's killer. But he would have been identified after only three months, if law enforcement had been permitted to collect DNA at arrest. Over the past 11 years, our family has worked to change DNA laws across the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of both parties. We have also seen opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Forensic DNA is a very complex issue and it is vitally important that policy makers take the time to fully understand these complexities in a truly non-partisan manner. Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he has stood in strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He knows that when a DNA match is made on CODIS, it is completely blind to race, ethnicity and social economic status. DNA is truth. It is science. Senator Sessions said in a 2002 floor speech, we are spending only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an honest and effective way. As a result justice is being delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to that philosophy that it is the core responsibility of our government to protect public safety. He cares about victims. He has been a leader on forensics policy for years and consistently has supported vital funding for DNA. In conclusion, our lives were shattered was brutally murdered. We know intimately the pain that violent crime brings to families. Senator Sessions has shown he understands the pain of victims and has put that understanding into action to help make changes that will make a difference. Senator Sessions will provide strong leadership to the United States Department of Justice and I hope you will support his nomination for attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: And thank you Ms. Sepich. Now, Mr. Brooks. BROOKS: Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and esteemed Senators of this committee. My name is Cornell William Brooks, I serve as President and CEO of the NAACP. I greatly appreciate the invitation to testify before you today to express the deep concerns of the NAACP regarding the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General. As you well know, the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Particularly for such a time as this, with racial divisions deepening, hate crimes rising from sanctuaries to school yards with state imposed, racially motivated voter suppression spreading in state legislatures as well as being struck down in federal courts, with police involved shootings reduced to (inaudible) homicides and viralized videos. It is critical that this committee closely examine Senator Sessions entire record as a prosecutor and as a legislator, to determine whether he is fit to serve as the chief enforcer of our nation's civil rights laws. Based upon a review of the record, the NAACP firmly believes that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as attorney general. Accordingly, we representing multiple civil rights and human rights coalitions we urge this committee not to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. As our written testimony details, Senator Sessions record reveals a consistent disregard for civil and human rights of vulnerable populations, including African- Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBT community and others. Further his Senate voting record reflects a fundamental disregard for many of the Department of Justice's programs which are vital for the protection of Americans. Senator Sessions votes against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 and the Violence Against Woman Act in 2012 and 2013, demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern regarding violent crimes, rape, assault, murder committed against minorities and an American majority of women. These crimes in particular make victims of individuals as well as the groups to which they belong and the American values we cling to. His opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act indicates a hostility to the claims of employment discrimination and more specifically to allowing legal redress for paid discrimination against women. This consistent opposition to any meaningful gun control, shows an unwillingness to stand up to the firearms lobby and a lack of concern regarding the destructive impact of gun violence on our children and communities. His failure to condemn the President-elect's call for an unconscionable and unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants, as well as his opposition to his Senate resolution condemning a government imposed litmus test on a global religion, evidences an unwillingness to protect the rights of the vulnerable and the unpopular, which is something that an attorney general must do. His call for the reevaluation of a basic constitutional principle, that persons born in this country, are citizens of this country, reflects a form of unconstitutional xenophobia that is fundamentally inconsistent to the duty of the attorney general to protect the rights of all Americans. His calling into question the legitimacy of consent decrees causes us to question whether he will use this powerful tool to hold accountable police departments, such as Ferguson, that engaged in predatory policing and a pattern and practice of discrimination. With his consistent support for mandatory minimums, as a prosecutor and a legislator, he stands in opposition to bipartisan efforts to bring to an end this ugly era of mass incarceration, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, with overpopulated prisons and jails and depopulated families and communities. It is Senator Sessions' record on voting rights, however, that is perhaps the most troubling. As this committee is well aware, of the infamous Marion Three Case, in which civil rights activists were prosecuted by then U.S. Attorney Sessions for voter fraud, all of whom were acquitted by a jury in less than four hours on 29 counts. This chilling prosecution against innocent civil rights workers, who were later given gold medals by Congress, painfully reverberates in the hearts of black voters in Alabama and the history of this country. Senator Sessions' record of prosecuting so called voter fraud and both intimidating and suppressing voters then is now reflected in a legislative record of supporting voter ID requirements that suppress votes based on the myth of voter fraud today. His record of vote suppressing prosecution is connected to a record of vote suppressing legislation today. Rather than condemn, he's commended voter ID laws like that is own state of Alabama affecting a half million voters. Similar to laws struck down in Texas and North Carolina in the fourth and fifth circuits. If we could imagine, a Senator Sessions leading a Department of Justice and Michael Brown's Ferguson, Freddie Gray's Baltimore, towns with rising hate crime, communities of vulnerable population -- populations and a democracy divided by voter suppression in his twitter -- civil rights -- twitter a civil rights movement. We can imagine that. Imaging that, we must face the reality that Senator Sessions should not be our attorney general. With that said, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) CANTERBURY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitehouse, distinguished members of the committee and of course my own Senator Lindsey Graham. My name is Chuck Canterbury, the National President of the 330,000 rank and file police officer organization. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to testify before this committee. I've testified before on cabinet nominations, agency head nominations and even a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. I can say without reservation, that I've never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm as I do today for Senator Jeff Sessions. We wholeheartedly support his position and nomination as Attorney General of the United States. Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap Senator Sessions, we immediately issued a statement to the press indicating our strong support for his nomination. He's been a true partner to law enforcement in his time as a U.S. attorney, Attorney General for the state of Alabama and throughout his tenure in the United State Senate. Senator Sessions is demonstrated commitment, not just to so-called law and order issues, but also to an issue very important to my members, officer safety. He was the leading co-sponsor of the FOP's efforts to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which was authored by our friend and former chairman of this committee Senator Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions was the Republican lead co-sponsor of S.1132, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act improvements, which made important and needed changes to the original law. He has provided true leadership in this successful and bipartisan effort. More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage of S.2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating Cots Expansion Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the legislation, which passed the Senate and then the House before being signed into law by the President. That law gives the Office of Community Ordinance Policing Services, the authority to award grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to get active shooter response training for their officers. The need for this training is obviously been identified by numerous law enforcement leaders and by the FOP. Senator Sessions played a key role in the efforts to pass the Fallen Hero Flag Act. The bill which provides a flag to be flying over this Capital to surviving -- to be provided to surviving members of public officers killed in the line of duty. Now this may not sound like much to you, but in a time when officers are being assassinated at the highest rate since the '70s and officers being assaulted at record rates, officers in the field want to know who has my back. Who will protect me while I protect my community? Bills like this, which acknowledge and respect the sacrifices -- sacrifices made by the rank and file truly resonate with my members and with the public safety community. Members of the committee may remember that years that were spent trying to do away with the disparity between the sentencing on the possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. There was a considerable gulf between the position of the FOP and many members of this committee. But in 2001, Senator Sessions introduced a bill to address this issue and he worked tirelessly to bring it together. He made sure the voice of law enforcement was heard and also asserted his belief that the disparity, as existing in the current law, was unjust. In 2010, as a ranking member of this committee, he brokered to compromise that led to the passage, with our support of the Fair Sentencing Act. We accepted that compromise because it was fair, it was just and it reflected the perspective of law enforcement and the law enforcement community. The importance of his direct role on this issue cannot be overstated. Without Jeff Sessions, I believe we might be here today still trying to remain unsolved. That said, I understand that there's a certain amount of partisanship and it's expected in these nomination hearings. But I ask all the members of this committee, to recollect Senator Sessions has worked in a bipartisan manner on many issues, officer safety issues with the FOP and members of the left. More than many times that I've been here, has Senator Sessions been one of the sole members to stand up for law enforcement, especially when it came to the issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership, the support in the Equitable Sharing Program may have been dismantled. For us, that demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man who can reach across the aisle to get things done for the rank and file officer and to protect the citizens of this country. Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly and faithfully for the majority of his adult life. He is above all, a man who reveres the law and reveres justice. I believe he will be an exemplary attorney general and we urge you to move this nomination forward to the Senate for passage. Thank you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Canterbury. Now Mr. Cole. COLE: Thank you for inviting me to testify. The ACLU is a non- partisan organization with a long standing policy of neither endorsing nor opposing nominees for federal office. We rarely testify in confirmation hearings as a result. We do so today, because we believe Senator Sessions' record raises serious questions about the fitness of -- of Senator Sessions to be the attorney general for all the American people. We take no position on how you should ultimately vote, but we urge you to painstakingly probe the many serious questions that his actions, words and deeds raise about his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties. Our concerns arise from his conduct as a prosecutor and from his record as a Senator. As a prosecutor, when he exercised the power to prosecute, the most powerful -- the most serious power that any government official in the United States exercises, he abused that power. Cornell Brooks has already talked about his prosecution, ultimately baseless of civil rights heroes for seeking to increase the black vote in Alabama. He didn't investigate those who sought to help white voters in Alabama, but he did investigate and prosecute those who sought to aid black voters. Many of the charges in that case were dismissed before they even went to the jury because they were baseless. The jury then acquitted of all the charges. In a second case, the Tyco (ph) case, Senator Sessions collaborated with campaign contributors to his senatorial campaign, to use the office of the criminal prosecutor to intervene in a private business dispute, on behalf of his campaign contributors. He filed a 222-count indictment against Tyco (ph), a -- a -- a engineering supply service -- corporation. All charges in the case were dismissed. Many were dismissed because, again, they were baseless, there was no evidence whatsoever to support them. The others were dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and the judge who dismissed them said this was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in his career on the bench. Mr. Sessions successor, Mr. Pryor did not even appeal that decision. So those actions raise serious questions about his fitness to become the most powerful prosecutor in the land. Second, his record as a Senator. Here he has shown blindness or outright hostility to the concerns of the people who's rights he will be responsible to protect. On voting rights, he supported felon disenfranchisement laws and voter ID laws that suppressed the black vote. When the Supreme Court gutted the single most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act, the most important statute in getting -- African-Americans the right to vote in this country, Senator Sessions called that a good day for the south. On religious tolerance, he called Islam a toxic ideology. It is in fact a religion practiced by millions of Americans. Imagine if he called Christianity a toxic ideology. Now, he says he opposes a Muslim ban on entrance to the United States, but when Donald Trump proposed that, he stood up and opposed a resolution introduced here in the Senate to keep religion out of immigration decisions. On women's right, now he says that grabbing women's genitals is sexual assault. But when Donald Trump's tape recording, bragging about his doing precisely that was made public, Senator Sessions said, and I quote, "I don't characterize that as a sexual assault. That's a stretch." When he voted against extending the hate crimes law, to crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation, he said, and I quote, "I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." Well if you don't see discrimination, you can't very well enforce the laws against discrimination. On torture he now says, that torture, water boarding is illegal, but he praised Michael Mukasey for not ruling out water boarding. And he opposed Senator McCain's amendment which was designed to make it clear that water boarding was illegal. On criminal justice he is an outlier, departing even with many of his Republican colleagues who seek to make the criminal justice system more fair and less harsh. If someone applying to intern for one of your offices had as many questions in his record as Senator Sessions has, racist comment, unethical conduct, padding of his resume, you would not hire him, absent the most thorough investigation and inquiry, if then. Senator Sessions is not seeking to be an intern. He's nominated to be the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation. The Senate and more importantly the American people deserve satisfactory answers to these questions before Senator Sessions is confirmed. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Cole. Now Mr. Thompson. THOMPSON: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and other members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I want to add this morning, a bit of a personal perspective on Senator Sessions. I've known Senator Sessions for over 30 years and I am honor to consider him a good friend. Over the years, we have talked frequently, had dinners together and enjoyed each other counsel and support. When I first met Senator Sessions, he was the United States attorney in Mobile and I was the United States attorney in Atlanta. In order to stretch our limited government per diems on travel to Department of Justice conferences, we sometimes shared a room together. We were simply two young prosecutors trying to save money. In 1982, when I was asked by Attorney General William French Smith, to head the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, simply because of the strategic location in Atlanta, where my office was, a delicate situation was represented. The task force consisted of 11 other United States attorney offices, but any potential problem was avoided because my friend, Senator Sessions rallied the other United States attorneys around our common cause and my leadership. Senator Sessions had a lot to do with the success of the task force under my leadership. Senator Sessions was highly thought of by his colleagues and -- and served on the prestigious Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Membership to this committee is by invitation only. I thought about this a lot and can identify for you without any equivocation whatsoever, three things in which the Senator will lead the Department of Justice. First, Senator Sessions will vigorously, but impartially enforce our laws. Senator Sessions has a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment on criminal justice matters. He also understands the importance of what former Attorney General Robert Jackson said, about what constitutes a good prosecutor. That being one who displays sensitivity to fair play and who appreciates his or her tasks with humility. Next, Senator Sessions will continue to make certain that the traditional role of federal law enforcement is carried out with vigor, effectiveness and independence. The Department of Justice under his leadership will attack such critical crime problems, as complicated fraud schemes by individuals and organizations, civil rights violations, serious environmental violations, terrorism and espionage. Finally Senator Sessions will seriously look at the role of federal law enforcement to help our citizens achieve a greater sense of personal safety in their homes and neighborhoods. This will be especially important for some of our minority and low income citizens against whom violent crime has a disproportionate impact. Of all our important civil rights, the rights to be safe and secure in one's home and neighborhood is perhaps the most important. We all know that Senator Sessions has strongly but honestly held political and policy views. But the Senator also has a record of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice issues. We talked yesterday, a great deal, was presented to the committee on Senator Sessions' effort under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and his work with Senator Durbin on that important legislation. It's interesting as I, as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in the Bush administration, I opposed this legislation. Senator Sessions was right and I was wrong. A son of the south who has had up close experiences with our great civil rights movement, Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do in the area of racial equality. He noted in a speech praising the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, that more needs to be done, we need to join closer hands. So, as a lawyer myself, who has spent a fair amount of time during my 43 year legal career, supporting diversity in our great profession and equal rights, this statement touched me greatly. Because, it reflects the man I have known for over 30 years and who I'm proud to call my friend. Senator Sessions deserves confirmation as our next attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. We'll have seven minute rounds now. And I'm going to start with General Mukasey. Senator Sessions, himself, has noted the attorney general is not the President's lawyer. In your opinion, would Senator Sessions have the independence and of course the ability to say no the President if they disagree? MUKASEY: Absolutely, and I think he made that both clear and explicit yesterday, saying that if necessary the alternative was to resign. GRASSLEY: Also to you, we heard Senator Sessions testify yesterday about the appropriate scope of communication between the White House and the Department of Justice. He said he thought that there was merit in your December 2007 on that topic. So could you tell us what you believe the merits of your approach to be, which would be your explaining in further detail what Senator Sessions said yesterday. MUKASEY: OK. What's in the memo is, the contact between the White House and the Justice Department is limited to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are pending legislation, which is the subject of communication between lower level people and the White House and people in the office of legal policy and other routine budget matters. Other than that, there is to be no contact between anyone at the Justice Department and anyone in the White House. And if anybody gets such a call, they are instructed that the polite response is thank you very much, I'll refer you to the person who can respond to you. GRASSLEY: OK. Mr. Thompson, you've known Senator Sessions for 35 years and in that time you worked very closely with him. So you've already said something about your service together, but could you tell us about that service in more detail than you did in your opening statement? THOMPSON: Yes, Senator Grassley. I've known, as I said, Senator Sessions for a number of years. He has a great deal of respect for the Department of Justice. He had been an Assistant United States Attorney when I'd met him. He had already been promoted to become the United States attorney. He's a fine lawyer, was a very effective prosecutor, but has great fidelity to the principles of fair prosecution in the traditions of the Department of Justice. GRASSLEY: And would you, knowing him as you do. Would you say that he's going to be that independent head that we expect of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Absolutely. I would expect Senator Sessions to understand and appreciate and to practice the traditional independent role of the Department of Justice. And he would be an attorney general, I think, that all the Senators on this committee would be proud of. GRASSLEY: Further, since you know him. How do you think he would fair standing up to a strong willed President, who wants to take certain actions that Senator Sessions in his capacity as attorney general may not feel, that would feel would be inappropriate? THOMPSON: That's a good question. As I said, Senator Sessions is not only an experienced prosecutor, but he's a mighty fine lawyer. He would understand his role to counsel the President and to bring the President around to what position is appropriate. But he, at the end of the day, would be independent if the President insisted upon doing something that was inappropriate. GRASSLEY: Mr. Canterbury, of course you're no stranger to these, sort of, attorney general hearings. You testified in support of Attorney General Eric Holder eight years ago, reflecting on the last eight years of leadership of the Department of Justice from the perspective of arguably the largest law enforcement advocacy group. How did DOJ fair? And how might it be different if the person you're supporting today were attorney general? CANTERBURY: Senator, it's our position that we have to work with whoever is in that office. And we have historically worked with every attorney general, personally I've worked with every attorney general since Janet Reno. And we believe that with Senator Sessions, the communications, the lines of communications will be more direct than they have been. We've had good success with career employees at DOJ. They're very professional. We believe it's an outstanding organization. But we also believe, with Senator Sessions, information and the knowledge that he's had from serving on this committee, he'll be able to serve us well in the area of criminal justice with reform efforts and with training and equitable sharing and those types of things. We feel that communications will be excellent with Senator Sessions. GRASSLEY: Another question for you. The Sheriff's Association at the national level recently noted that in the past year, this country has seen the highest number of law enforcement fatalities in five years, including 21 officers who were ambushed, shot, and killed. If confirmed for the position of attorney general, what steps do you think that Senator Sessions could take to reverse the trend? CANTERBURY: First and foremost, we believe that Senator Sessions, as attorney general, will not speak out on incidents that arise before a thorough and -- and -- and full investigation. And we believe that the anti-police rhetoric comes from people that make comments without knowledge of the situation and prior to the facts being released to the media, and so, we believe that there will be a much more positive tone about reconciliation. Nobody in this country wants our communities and police to reconcile more than my members Senator. GRASSLEY: Mr. Kirsanow, Senator Sessions has received some criticism for his enforcement of voting rights while he was a federal prosecutor and Alabama attorney general. Would you evaluate Senator Sessions record on voting rights? This will probably have to be my last question. KIRSANOW: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to. I've heard testimony and I've heard media reports with respect to cases related to voting rights that Senator Sessions was prosecuting. And if he had failed to prosecute the Perry County case, that would have been an extraordinary dereliction of duty. I would advise everybody who's interested in facts as opposed to optics to read the indictment, read all the available pleadings, read all of the contemporaneous reporting and you will have wasted about two days doing so, as I did. The multi count indictment, if you go through it, details in excruciating detail all of the violations here. If you look at the facts of the case, what happened is you had two separate factions of black Democrats in Perry County who were vying for seats. One faction went to the attorney -- U.S. attorneys office and said, wait a minute here, we believe there's rampant voter fraud going on here. And in fact, if you look at the FBI's affidavit related to this, they found 75 forged signatures on absentee ballots. There were multiple counts where individuals who were part of, who were candidates, were taking absentee ballots, changing them, altering them or filling them out on behalf of individuals and then giving them to the elections board. One family had a candidate, for whom they voted who was their cousin. All six members testified that their ballot, none the less, was checked for the other person and they said it was false. There was copious evidence that, in fact, there was voter fraud in fact that it occurred. Now, it is true, these people were acquitted. But we've seen this circumstance before. The person who literally wrote the book on voter fraud prosecutions, Craig Don Santo, he's legendary head of the former -- former head of Public Integrity Unit of DOJ was the man who told Senator Sessions, go forward with this. He surmised as did many other contemporary witnesses is that this was a classic case of voter nullification. I think as he testified, or he indicated that this is a matter in which there was no way in the world, a jury was going to convict these individuals, who were in fact civil rights advocates. The facts of the case established that had a prosecutor not taken this and pursued this, there would have been some serious questions about his integrity. GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you Chairman. Mr. Canterbury, I was my state's attorney general and Rhode Island is one of the states where the attorney general has full prosecuting authority. There are only three. So I worked very closely with my police department, I was always my state's United States attorney, in that capacity worked very, very closely with police chiefs. My experience was that a police chief in Providence, which is say urban good size city, and a police chief in small coastal Merganser (ph), Rhode Island would have very different law enforcement priorities. And that it, in my view, is appropriate for a police chief to be able to pursue their own law enforcement priorities within their communities. Would you agree with that? CANTERBURY: Yes, Senator. I mean, the same thing with sheriffs. Constitutionally elected officers, their going to police their communities as they think they need to be policed and set priorities that way. WHITEHOUSE: And an important part of that for a police chief, is to maintain the kind of community relations between the department and the community that support effective pursuit of those law enforcement priorities. Is that not the case also? CANTERBURY: I don't think it's any different in a city with five police officers than it is in Providence. Where ever you are, community relations is the key to -- to successfully perform in our job. WHITEHOUSE: And it's going to be different in different communities. The method is going to be different of effective community relations in different communities. CANTERBURY: It can be. Yes sir. WHITEHOUSE: And so, would you agree for the Department of Justice to try to dictate what local law enforcement priorities should be? Or how a police department should chose to deal with its community could be a stretch too far? CANTERBURY: In -- in matters of law, no, but in matters of policy and procedure, yes sir. I would agree with you. WHITEHOUSE: And prioritization as well correct? CANTERBURY: Absolutely. WHITEHOUSE: The reason I asked that, is that one of the concerns that I've heard from Rhode Island police chiefs has been that a relentless or unthinking pursuit of very low level immigration violations could disrupt everything from orderly community relations with a Latino community to even ongoing significant gang investigations. In which cooperators might get, lose their willingness to cooperate if somebody came in and decided to try to deport their mother. My point isn't that one is right and the other is wrong. My point is decision at the community level as to priorities and to maintaining community relations is an important one, correct? CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, it would be, but to cut more to the core of what I think you're asking, sanctuary city decisions are usually made by politicians and not police chiefs, and very rarely... WHITEHOUSE: Sanctuary city, in fact, is not even a legal term, is it? CANTERBURY: And -- and very rarely should law enforcement officers make those decisions. As you know, senator, politicians pass the laws and we're charged with enforcing them, not -- don't necessarily have to agree or disagree with them. WHITEHOUSE: And in doing so, you do establish law enforcement priorities. CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, we would. WHITEHOUSE: You don't put people out on the street to do jaywalking. You go after murders first. You go after robberies first. That's standard law enforcement practice, correct? CANTERBURY: Emergency protocol requires the highest level of crime first and -- and down from there. WHITEHOUSE: Down from there. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Canterbury said earlier something that I agree very much with, which was to applaud the career employees of the Department of Justice and to say that right now the Department of Justice was an outstanding organization. You and I and others have served as United States attorneys. What do you think about the career attorney core of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Well, the career attorneys at the Department of Justice through my years of experience, Senator, like yours, these are very good lawyers. They are dedicated to law enforcement. They're dedicated to the work of the Department of Justice. I've had nothing but positive experiences in my years at the Department of Justice and in dealing with the Department of Justice as a defense lawyer. WHITEHOUSE: Should a career attorney in a new administration be punished for following properly the policy direction of a previous administration? THOMPSON: I -- I don't actually think a career attorney should be punished for anything other than not doing his or her work. WHITEHOUSE: Clearly a career attorney shouldn't be judged on whether they are secular or religious in their lives, correct? THOMPSON: Absolutely not. WHITEHOUSE: OK. Mr. Brooks, the Sessions candidacy has achieved expressions of support from people like David Duke and from what's described as a white supremacist neo-Nazi news site called the Daily Stormer, whose site founder wrote that the Sessions appointment was like "Christmas. Basically we are looking at a Daily Stormer dream team in the Trump administration." Now you can't fault a nominee for the people who choose to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. This is not, obviously, Senator Sessions' fault, but do you believe that he has distinguished himself away from whatever the causes are for that support so that you feel comfortable going forward that he has addressed that? BROOKS: Based on the record, I do not believe that the Senator has sufficiently described a Department of Justice fully committed to enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, where we have hate crime rising, most of which is perpetuated not in bars, not in streets, but in K through 12 schools. Speaking against hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to prosecute hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to enforce the nation's civil rights laws, voting rights, the Voting Rights Act to the full measure in a full-throated way. I do not believe we have heard that. So he is not responsible for who endorses him, but he is in fact responsible for what he endorses and his vision for the Department of Justice. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Now Senator Hatch. HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Mukasey, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. You became attorney general after nearly two decades as a federal district court judge. The current attorney general had nearly two decades of experience as a federal prosecutor. Jeff Sessions will become attorney general after two decades as a U.S. senator. No matter where an attorney general comes from, he or she has the duty described yesterday by one of my Democratic colleagues as "enforcing the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias." You were here yesterday and heard as I did the repeated suggestion that Senator Sessions would not be able to enforce the law personally that he personally disagrees with. Do you agree that someone's political party, general ideological perspective or personal opinions do not by themselves mean that he or she cannot be impartial and fair? MUKASEY: I -- I certainly agree that a person's political background does not disqualify that person from enforcing the law and does not disable that person from enforcing the law. I think Senator Sessions made it entirely clear that he understood the difference between advocating a position, on the one hand, as a legislator, and the oath that he takes to enforce the law on the other. He was very clear, very precise about that, and I think everybody who passes from one status to another -- be it from a judge to attorney general, be it from a lawyer to a judge -- understands that they are changing their responsibilities, and he's not alone in -- in that, but he certainly is very much allowed to it. HATCH: How confident are you that Senator Sessions, a conservative Republican senator, will enforce the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias? MUKASEY: I think his statement's yesterday make it entirely clear that he understands his responsibility to do that, and I see no reason why he won't do it. HATCH: Mr. Kirsanow, in his written testimony, Mr. Brooks argued that Senator Session lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as attorney general. Even more, he questioned whether Senator Sessions would actually prosecute hate crimes. I'd welcome your response to that. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) HATCH: Put your -- put your... KIRSANOW: I haven't known Mr. Sessions as long as Mr. Thompson has, but I've known him for more than 10 years, and what I can tell you is that I've worked with several senators here who've been very concerned about issues related to civil rights, particularly with respect to one issue that's within my wheelhouse as labor attorney, and that is the interests of black and other workers and their employment prospects. We had hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, several hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, about a lot of deleterious policies to the prospects of black employment, and these were rectifiable policies, but they had pronounced effects, negative effects, on black employment. We even had a hearing where every single witness that spanned the ideological spectrum from left to right agreed, for example, that massive illegal immigration has a decidedly negative impact on wage and employment levels. I provided these reports to a number of senators and other congressmen. Many of the senators here were alarmed by it and questioned me about it, and we had interactions and other members of the Civil Rights Commission. I also provided it to members of Congress, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The one senator who reached out, being very alarmed and pursing this case with ultimate vigor, was Senator Sessions. He was very concerned about this. In a number of private conversations we talked about a number of the steps that could be taken aside from reforming immigration law, which we all know here is something that's a significant challenge, but what can we do to improve employment prospects of black Americans? He was the only senator to act in that fashion. I heard nothing whatsoever from the Congressional Black Caucus, despite copious detail about the negative impact of this. I'm ultimately convinced that Senator Sessions would take the appropriate actions to enforce the law as written, because that's what we are talking about, existing immigration law, and he was adamant in doing that without fear or favor and without bias. HATCH: Knowing him as well as I do I agree with you. Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you so much for what you and thousands of officers who represent us each and every day have said here for Senator Sessions. The Pew Research Center today released one of the largest polls of police officers ever conducted involving some 8,000 officers in departments across the country. As a result of the high profile fatal encounters between officers and blacks, three-quarters of officers are more reluctant to use force when it is appropriate, and 72 percent have become less willing to stop and question people who seem suspicious. Now I believe this effect stems from what has become almost a presumption that police have done something wrong when such encounters occur. That is a pernicious and dangerous shift in the general attitude toward our police, and it is totally without foundation. . Now it seems to me that this change in attitude can not only negatively affect officers and actually put police safety at risk, but also make much more difficult important efforts at -- at community policing. Do you agree with me on that? CANTERBURY: Ab -- Absolutely agree with you. I think the case in Chicago of the young female officer that decided to take a beating rather than deploy a Taser because she said it wasn't worth what she would put herself through to deploy a Taser is -- is a -- a microcosm of what's happening in law enforcement where it's not worth what -- what you may have to put yourself through. HATCH: Well, that same poll found that 93 percent of officers have become more concerned about their own safety in this country. Yesterday the chairman noted that the number of police killed in the line of duty has significantly increased. You've made that point. Also yesterday Senator Sessions noted that most police are local rather than federal. The Fraternal Order of Police and other national law enforcement groups support his nomination. How do you think that a change in leadership of the justice department can concretely affect and improve things at the local level? CANTERBURY: Well, first of all the Byrne JAG Grant Program, the COPS Program, the Community Oriented Policing teams, consent decrees, pattern of practice investigations. When you have open lines of communication where rank and file management as well as citizen and activist groups can discuss those -- those cases, I think you can -- you can get to a place where the communities will face -- feel safer and the police officers will feel safer. And we've got to reduce the violence in this country. You know, Senator Hatch, we've been saying for a long time systemic poverty is an issue that law enforcement is not charged with nor has the ability to fix, but we're willing to be good partners, and we believe with Jeff Sessions as attorney general we'll be able to work in all of those sections of the Justice Department to try and improve. (CROSSTALK) HATCH: We're pleased that you're here today, and we're pleased that you're willing to testify for and on his behalf. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the panel who are here today, and especially Oscar Vasquez, who came as my invitee, for telling his inspiring life story. Thank you. You've given a face to an issue which is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of Americans. Thank you for serving our country. General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too. I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity? And I think you've addressed this. Forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat. Could you give me some clarity? When you served as attorney general, if you received a call from on high, from the White House, from any person in the White House, relative to an investigation, an ongoing investigation or a prosecution, what do you believe was the appropriate response in that situation? MUKASEY: The appropriate response is that whatever investigation it is is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, which is to say where the facts and the law lead. I'm glad that the question was in the hypothetical, because I in fact did not get such a call, although I have gotten -- did get calls with respect to other matters, and my response was generally that the department would pursue its agenda as already said. DURBIN: So do you -- is it your position the attorney general is independent in this decision making when it comes to other members of the executive branch? MUKASEY: Correct. The Attorney General is, obviously, is a member of an administration and pursues priorities that are set by an administration, but when you're talking about particular investigations and particular cases, that's something altogether different, and I think Senator Sessions made it clear he understood it was altogether different. DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations? MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're -- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year. I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis. If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: And when it comes to the appointment of a special counsel involving the pre- the conduct of the president, is it your feeling that the attorney general should, as a general rule, consider special counsel? MUKASEY: No. It would depend on the case. The -- The -- A special counsel has to be appointed when there is a good reason why the department headed by the attorney general cannot pursue that case. I think what Senator Sessions had in... I'm not familiar with the op-ed that you mentioned, so I'm -- I'm speculating, but it sounds like what he had in mind was not simply the position of the attorney general, but rather the tarmac conversation with -- with President Clinton, that put her in a -- in a difficult situation. I don't think that simply had to do with the fact that she was attorney general appointed by the president. DURBIN: I see. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, since the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act is in a perilous situation, and I commended to my colleagues and I commend to you a book entitled "White Rage" by Carol Anderson who teaches at Emory, and she talks about the evolution of the issue of race since the Civil War. It strikes me now that we are in dangerous territory about the future of the Voting Rights Act. If preclearance is not required, and the Department of Justice is reacting after the fact, there could be some delay in justice here in an intervening election or no action taken. I asked my staff to give me a listing of the cases initiated by the Department of Justice relative to the Voting Rights Act for the last several years, and it goes on for pages. Can you address this issue about your belief of the commitment of Senator Sessions to enforce the Voting Rights Act in principal post-Shelby County? BROOKS: Certainly. So, as you well know, Senator, the Voting Rights Act is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights statutes, and Section 5 was regarded as the most effective provision of the most effective civil rights statute. In the wake of the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision, which debilitated Section 5, being via Section 4(b), we have seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other. And so that means that the Department of Justice has taken on more responsibility and civil rights organizations have taken on more responsibility with fewer tools. It has meant the debilitation, literally, of our democracy. Where we have citizens who have to wait for the violation to occur, as we saw in North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the state legislature engaged in intentional racial discrimination with respect to voter suppression carried out with surgical precision. It took an army of lawyers, an army of experts, in order to vindicate the rights of the people, and a mass movement by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP with so many others and so many other legal groups. The point being here is the Department of Justice -- Not only is the democracy in a perilous place, but the Department of Justice is in a perilous place. It needs strong leadership. It needs resources, and we need the Voting Rights Advancement Act -- to fix the Voting Rights Act. DURBIN: And post-Shelby County, if the attorney general is not timely and aggressive in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the damage will be done. BROOKS: The damage is absolutely done. And when we think about all of the many members of this body that went to Selma, that commemorated the foot soldiers of the movement, on the Edmond Pettus Bridge. All that they died for, all that they sacrificed is hanging in the balance. So we need strong leadership there, because literally, literally, we can squander the fruit of -- of -- of their efforts and the civic sacrament of our democracy, namely the right to vote. DURBIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you Senator. Senator Cornyn. CORNYN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. There's a lot to cover in seven minutes. So let me try to be somewhat selective. First of all, thanks to all of you for being here. I can't help but believe that, in spite of the fact that we've had a national election that the election is still ongoing. The campaign is still ongoing. I respect each one of your rights to express your point of view. And -- but I at the same time, it's amazing to me that, with the Senator having cast 6,000 votes in the United States Senate, we're focused on a handful of policy differences and somehow people are saying, well those are dispositive of the qualification of this person who we've served along side of for 15 years, in my case, and 20 years in the case of others. So I guess our job is, sort of, like the jury in a regular lawsuit, that we have to not -- we have to give weight to the testimony and we have to figure out who's testimony is entitled to greater weight. Because frankly, the description we've heard today are so wildly disparate that it's, I -- I would imagine for people who didn't know Senator Sessions and know his record as I do and those of us who've served with him, it would be hard to reconcile. But I -- I want to ask General Mukasey, Senator Hatch alluded to this, but this is really important to me and I just want to reiterate this. You've had the distinction of serving in the two branches of our three branches of government, as a federal district judge with great distinction and as attorney general in the executive branch. I, at a much lower level, have had the chance to serve now in three branches myself as a state court judge and as attorney general of my state and now as a legislator here at the federal level. Each of those roles are different aren't they? And indeed I think that's the point that Senator Sessions made eloquently yesterday, even though he may have some policy differences or have cast a vote against a bill in the Senate. He would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Isn't that what you understood? MUKASEY: That's precisely what I understood. And he recognized the difference in the different roles that he plays as a legislator, from what he would play as attorney general. CORNYN: And I thought yesterday he did a magnificent job responding to the questions and acknowledging the policy differences do exist. That's just the way it is. Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you a little bit about the role of the federal government and the attorney general's office and the Department of Justice in supporting local and state law enforcement. I believe the figure is roughly $2 billion a year, that the federal government hands out, or -- or -- or distributes in terms of grants to local and state law enforcement. I think your testimony, you mentioned the active shooter training that we've tried to enhance through the Police Act, which passed the Congress and was signed by President Obama. Making sure that more officers were -- got that training which is even more relevant, sadly today than perhaps even in the past. I would just add to that, the -- the work that we did recently on mental health and it's intersection with the criminal justice system. The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that was part of the 21st Century Cures Bill. Again, recognizing that our jails and our streets and our emergency rooms have become the treatment centers by default for people with mental illness. We need to do more to try to get people who need help the help they need, but not treat mental illness as a crime, per say. We also need to make sure that we train our law enforcement officials because we know how dangerous, at least from the stories and the statistics that we see, how dangerous it can be when police officer encounters a person with mental illness. And they don't have the training they need to de-escalate the -- the -- the scene. But could you talk a little bit about your experience and your organization's experience as law enforcement officials dealing with people with -- with mental illness? CANTERBURY: Well I would say in the last 10 or 15 years, the number of mentally ill individuals that law enforcement comes in contact as exponentially gone up as mental health services at the state and local level have gone down. And, I've explained this recently to a -- a Vice-President Biden when he asked about that same question. And my response was, in many of these situations, regardless on whether a police officer or a law enforcement professional realizes that there's a mental illness, the circumstances are dictated by the actions. And so, whether or not we can recognize the particular mental illness, is not as important as recognizing that there is an issue. The problem is that there's very little assistance at that level anymore for street level mental illness. And, making sure that they're not a danger to themselves or others should not, cannot be the responsibility of a first responding officer. We just will never have the training to be able to do it to that extent. So there is -- it's a huge issue for local and state officers and I don't know what we're going to do to fix that. But, the biggest thing is that the community based mental health facilities are just not there anymore. CORNYN: Well I think you'll find a friend in -- in Senator Sessions as attorney general in recognizing the priorities for local law enforcement -- state law enforcement and making sure that the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which will provide priority for that kind of training and assistance for local and state law enforcement is there. Ms. Sepich, thank you for your outstanding work and rising out of a terrible tragedy, you and your family experienced in your lives. But -- but I know you're committed to making sure not only that that doesn't happen to other families, but also that through your work on DNA Saves that we are able to bring people responsible to justice. There's been so much work that we've done here and Senator Sessions has been front and center as you've noticed. Things like Senator Hatch's rapid DNA legislation act. The Paul Coverdale National Forensic Science Improvement Act, which was just renewed in the Justice for All Act that Senator Leahy and I co-sponsored and was signed by President Obama. But, it is so important to make sure that we do provide all these essential tools and good science to make sure we do convict the guilty, but we also exonerate people who are innocent of crimes. And would you, I just want to say thank you. I know the Chairman has the gavel in his hand and he's getting ready to gavel me out of order here. But I just want to express my gratitude to you for your leadership on that issue. But you're right, Senator Sessions has been front and center at all of those efforts, not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Now Senator Leahy. LEAHY: Thank you. I wasn't going to interrupt Senator Cornyn as long as your praising a legislation you and I wrote -- wrote together. I mention that only because contrary to what people believe, Republicans and Democrats do work together on a lot of things here in the Congress. Mr. Thompson, you and I have worked together on things as you know. And, I just want to say something to Sergeant Vasquez -- Vasquez, I'm sorry for the pronunciation. I watched some of your testimony earlier. It is so moving. And, my wife did too, and we're both so proud of you and thank you for what you have done, your service for the country. And as parents of one who served in the military, we, like all parents everywhere, you worry about those who serve and you worry what they do, but you think. Thank everybody, the fact that we have people who are willing to serve our country. Are you concerned about what might happen under the new administration for young people registered under DACA? VASQUEZ: Definitely Mr. Senator. There -- there is a huge concern for those roughly 800,000 people that raise their hand and say they were undocumented right? I think that the biggest point that makes is that when there was a path, there was a way for us to come out of the shadows, right. And a dozen people raised their hand and say they were undocumented. Now the fact of the matter is that there was no other way, right;the Congress, the Senate has not passed any meaningful laws that could guarantee them a path to citizenship, to (inaudible) legislation (ph), to whatever you want to call it. But unless there is a path, unless there is a way they can find a permanent solution, we are definitely concerned that the next administration is going to stop the DACA and that those students are going to have to go back into the shadows. Senator Sessions stated yesterday that there is not enough financial support to report 800,000 people and at the same time he opposed every single legislation that will give them a way to become legal. So what are the students to do? What are the young adults to do when they are faced with opposition? So it is definitely concerning. LEAHY: You must know an awful lot of people who are nearing the DACA, is there a sense of concern about the rhetoric that we're hearing with the new administration? VAZQUEZ: There is definitely a sense of concern. There is a lot of fear most of all. I know students -- one of the other, my teammate has won the competition so many years ago; he is a father to two U. S. citizen children now and he will be facing -- he is facing the unknown (ph) given the next administration. I mean there has been statement saying that DACA is going to be repealed, maybe there is not, so we are not sure what's going to happen in that scenario. There is a lot of fear out there. LEAHY: Thank you. Ms. Swadhin, I -- I raised on behalf -- I probably should raise the question yesterday and I'm hearing about comments that the President-Elect has made regarding sexual assault and gave Mr. Sessions a chance to explain where-- his first response is that he seemed to be basically minimize and improving what President might have said, he expanded what he meant yesterday and yesterday he is under oath, I will accept that. But I think -- my own daughter -- I think of -- my three beautiful granddaughters; and I think about somebody in the Hollywood video on the President-elect jokes about what is sexual assault. Mr. Sessions now when he is asked further about it, in midst of what President-elect Trump brags about doing is sexual assault. You've dedicated your life to helping others heal after sexual assault. You're a survivor yourself. What -- sort of a two-part question; what kind of a message to somebody, especially somebody in power trivializes sexual assault, even jokes about it; how is the prosecutor -- I prosecuted sexual assault cases. What does it do for victims' willingness to come forth if they see people in power trivialize something that might be a lifelong trauma for them? (Inaudible). SWADHIN: Thank you for the question, Senator Leahy. You know, it's highly relevant on several levels that the impact that it has on survivors watching people in power and in this case, someone who -- you know, has been elected to be the President of The United States make these kind of jokes and brag about this kind of so- called locker room behavior about sexually assaulting women. I think it's important to go back to the point I made in my testimony that the majority of victims of violent crime are assailed (ph) by people who they know intimately. In cases of adult rape and sexual assault, 80 percent of survivors know their assailant and in 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse,the person sexually abusing the child is known and trusted and often loved by the person who is perpetrating the violence. So it's already so hard for survivors to come forward because it means that we have to testify against the people that we put our trust in. In my case it was my father and that's not an uncommon story, it's someone very close to you; that's how these crimes happen. And so to be able to trust the state more than we fear are intimately known perpetrators,we have to see people in control of the state who take a hard-line stance against sexual assault and whom -- you know, say publicly that they would support and believe survivors. And unfortunately in this political climate, we're looking at an administration led by a man who not only does not seem to prioritize helping sexual assault survivors heal and come forward to be able to trust the state but -- you know, may have actually engaged in assault himself, the things that he was bragging about. So it's incredibly concerning. Add to that the fact that the violence that we live through has very traumatizing impacts. I myself live with complex PTSD, so your mental health on a day-to-day basis is already negatively impacted. So to be able to stay grounded enough to come forward and put your trust in a stranger, social worker, a prosecutor, a police officer in order to get the services healing and the accountability that you deserve, it's incredibly difficult. LEAHY: Thank you. Because I -- I remember, on the sexual assault cases where detectives at my office, assistant prosecutors and myself having to tell people you can trust us. We actually care about what you're saying. We do believe it's a crime. And frankly, those who trivialize it and say it's not a crime are ignoring too many people in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Leahy, now Senator Cruz. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the distinguished panel for being here today and I want to take a special moment to thank Larry Thompson who was my boss at the Department of Justice; although I would note that you should not hold Larry accountable for my missteps in the years that followed. I want to start, Mr. Cole by addressing your testimony. And I would note that the ACLU -- I have worked alongside the ACLU on any number of the issues here in the senate, including we've worked alongside each other on issues of indefinite detention, we've worked on the same side concerning the USA Patriot Act, we worked on the same side working to stop the efforts of Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution and to amend the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment and so I'm grateful for many of the good things the ACLU does. You're a professor at Georgetown; I would like to ask you as a professor, how would you react to a student who submitted List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 WITNESSES: FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DAVID COLE, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CORNELL BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAACP CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, U.S. VETERAN PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, MIRROR MEMOIRS JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, DNA SAVES SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. WILLIE HUNTLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA. JESSE SEROYER, FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA. WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Two police officers at scene of outdoor spray-painting (vandalism), three teenage boys facing / leaning against wall, hands up, legs spread, police car in foreground. One officer watches from side while other officer pats boys down.

WIDE ANGLE OF POLICE CARS AND POLICEMEN OUTSIDE OF BUILDING, POSSIBLY FOR BANK ROBBERY OR CRIME SCENES. SEE ENTRANCE DOOR. SEE SWAT TEAM AND PEOPLE INSIDE BUILDING RUN OUT. SEE PART OF STEERING WHEEL IN FOREGROUND, COULD BE FROM DRIVER POV

THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR ALABAMA SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS TO BE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL. THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HOLDS A CONFIRMATION HEARING FOR ALABAMA SENATOR JEFF SESSIONS TO BE THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL. GRASSLEY: Morning, everybody. I welcome everyone back for our second day of hearing on Senator Sessions' nominee -- nomination for Attorney General. As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others. So officers will remove individuals as they have previously. Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I want to go over a couple of housekeeping items and explain how we're going to proceed today. Senator -- Senator Whitehouse will be acting as Ranking Member today and I will give an opening statement and he can if he wants to as well. I welcome that. Then we'll turn to our witnesses for their opening statements. Following the statements, we'll begin with the first rounds of questions, in which each senator will have seven members (sic). After we finish asking questions of the first panel, we'll turn to the final panel for their testimony. And in regard to the timing of that, it will kind of depend on when this panel is completed. But if we get this panel completed, let's say around lunch or 12:30 or 1 o'clock, we may adjourn for an hour or so at that time. But I won't be able to make that determination until we finish here with this panel. Yesterday, we met here from 9:30 until about 8 p.m., so that every Senator, both Democrat and Republican could ask Senator Sessions as many questions as they wanted to. We had great cooperation every day, yesterday, and I should thank everybody for that cooperation, and we'll press ahead into today. We heard from Senator Shelby and Collins, who gave their strong endorsement of Senator Sessions. Their introductions describes Senator Sessions extensive experience, outstanding qualifications and character. I also want to note that yesterday, Senator Feinstein participated in her first nomination hearing as the new Ranking Member. I'm looking forward to working with her in her new capacity as I said yesterday. In her opening statement yesterday, Senator Feinstein correctly observed and I'd like to quote, fairly long quote, "Today we're not being asked to evaluate him, meaning Senator Sessions, as a Senator. We're being asked to evaluate him for the Attorney General of the United States, the chief law enforcement for the largest and best democracy in America." She continued, "As attorney general, his job will not be to advocate for his beliefs, rather the job of attorney general is to enforce federal law, even if he voted against a law, even if he spoke against it before it passed, even if he disagreed with the President, seeing that the law is constitutional." Then she concluded, "This hearing must determine whether this Senator will enforce the laws that he voted against." end of quote. And yesterday, through 10 and a half hours of testimony, we got a clear and unequivocal answer to this threshold question. He was asked repeatedly if he would enforce the law, even if he disagreed with that law as a matter of policy. Time and again, Senator Sessions reaffirmed his commitment to this fundamental principle. As Attorney General of the United States his solemn duties are, as we all know and expect, are to the Constitution and to enforce the law duly enacted. His fundamental commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central theme of our discussion yesterday. And as I made clear in my opening statement, that's what I believe the department desperately needs. Yesterday -- yesterday's testimony further convinced me that Senator Sessions is the right choice to serve as our nation's chief law enforcement officer at this critical time. We know that he is very well qualified for the position having served for 15 years as a prosecutor and now 20 years as a Senator, so that's three decades of public service. We all know (ph) Senator Sessions will be up front with you when you say that he's going to do something, he will do it. Senator Sessions will be an independent attorney general, as he's been asked so many times yesterday and about his enforcement of the law. That's the bottom line. I now turn to Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you very much Chairman. Let me, just make some very brief remarks. First, I can't help but note as a general proposition, hearing after hearing, the effort to push nominees into confirmation hearings before their FBI background checks are complete. Before their ethics and financial disclosure filings are concluded, and I'd like to put into the record, this hearing, the letter that Senator Schumer, Minority Leader Schumer wrote to Majority Leader McConnell. In which, he took a letter that Majority Leader McConnell had written, Minority Leader McConnell had written to Majority Leader Reed and simply changed the names. He wrote, Dear Mitch, in place of dear Harry, and he signed his own name at the bottom and it was thus a verbatim letter. And what we have been asking for is exactly what Republicans asked for over and over again, what has long been the tradition of the Senate. It is not the Senate's fault that the Trump administration was not prepared and that it did not have its nominees vetted. In place, I know that Senator Sessions has been one of the nominees who has been prepared but I can't help but point out that across the board the ramming of unvetted nominees, the stacking of hearings on top of hearings, and the jamming of all of this up against an unprecedented vote-a-rama for a no-hearing budget, creates I think an unfortunate new precedent in the Senate. The point that I'll make about the Department of Justice is somebody who has served in the Department of Justice, like many of my colleagues or a number of my colleagues, is that I think there's legitimate concern based on the hectoring in the right wing groups for a general house cleaning of career staff, and for a particular targeting of named career staff. As I mentioned in my questioning yesterday, one of the Heritage Foundation spokespeople made the comparison to the Aegean Stables and filth as having to be washed out of the Aegean Stables. I don't think it's fair to characterize the career of employees of the United States Department of Justice as filth, and, nor do I think it is proper to assert that this should not be secular. And, I think it's a matter of concern when an attorney general thinks that a secular attorney may have a lesser, or different appreciation of truth than a religious attorney. Particularly coming from what I want more, freedom of conscience has been such a principle of core values since the days of Roger Williams. When Providence was a tiny settlement in the wilderness, where people who thought freely were able to get away from the theocracy of Massachusetts. We have a long history of concern about that kind of evaluation of career department professionals. And finally I'd say that, after a very divisive campaign, that left a lot of Americans and a lot of communities feeling very wounded and very vulnerable and very set upon, and after a promise that he would be a President for all Americans over and over and over and over again, we're seeing an array of cabinet nominees who run far to the right. And frankly, in many cases, come out of the swamp that the President-elect promised to drain. So, I thank you Chairman for the, I think, thoughtful and fair way in which you have run this hearing. I thought that Senator Sessions handled himself very well by staying until all the questions were answered. I appreciate the procedure that you have gone through, but I did want to make a record of those concerns from our side about the larger process in which these nominations hearings are taking place. And with that, I yield back to you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you. (Inaudible) witnesses and introduce them. I think, so I don't forget it, I promised Senator Coons point of personal privilege on one of the nominations. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I -- I had asked for the opportunity to introduce my friend and colleague Cornell Brooks, but I'm perfectly happy to wait to do so until there are other introductions a foot or to do it right now. GRASSLEY: I'd rather have you do it now if you would please. COONS: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I'm pleased to introduce Dr. Cornell Brooks, the President and CEO of the NAACP, as one of our many witnesses on this distinguished panel here today. Mr. Brooks has dedicated his entire career to ensuring that Americans truly enjoy the promise of equal protection of the law. Before assuming leadership of the NAACP in 2014, he was head of the Newark, New Jersey based Institute for Social Justice. And fittingly, for a hearing on the nominee to lead the Department of Justice, his early experience was of being a part of the Department of Justice, as a trial attorney, where he secured the largest government settlement for victims of housing discrimination. And filed the government's first lawsuit against a nursing home alleging discrimination based on race. He was also Executive Director of the Fair Housing Council of Greater Washington, a trial attorney with the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and a law clerk to the Honorable Samuel J. Ervin III on the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He's a fellow alum with Yale Law School, holds a Master of Divinity degree from Boston University School of Theology. He is not just a lawyer and social advocate, but a fourth generation ordained minister in the African Methodist Episcopal Church, a husband and father of two sons. Mr. Brooks, thank you for your leadership in the work of justice throughout our nation and I look forward to your testimony here today. BROOKS (?): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: I'm going to ask you to stand and swear before we -- before I introduce you. Would you raise your right hand? Will you -- do you affirm that the testimony you're about to give before this committee will be the whole truth -- the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? OK. I noticed that all of you affirmed that. Thank you very much. Please sit down. The 81st Attorney General of the United States was the Honorable Michael Mukasey. Mr. Mukasey has also served as a U.S. attorney and a district court judge, southern district of New York. We thank him for coming. Our second witness, Oscar Vasquez, he became a citizen of the United States 2011 and served honorably in Afghanistan with the U.S. Army. We welcome you and thank you, obviously, for your military service. Our next witness, Peter Kirsanow is a member of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights and is very familiar with this committee and we're familiar with you. Thank you for coming. Next is Amita Swadhin, she is a sexual assault survivor and co-founder of Mirror Memoirs. I hope I'm right on that. Welcome to you. Then we have Jayann Sepich, the mother of Katie Sepich. She's the founder of Surviving Parents Coalition. Our next witness Cornell Brooks, you've heard introduced, but let me further say that he's President of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and he's well known to us as well. Thank you for being here today. Chuck Canterbury is the National President of the Fraternal Order of Police. He's familiar to a lot of us as well, so we welcome you. Next we'll hear from David Cole, National Legal Director of the American Civil Liberties Union. He's also a professor at the Georgetown Law Center. We welcome you. And finally, we'll hear from Larry Thompson. He served as Deputy Attorney General under President Bush. As a well known U.S. attorney for the northern district of Georgia, and we welcome back to the committee Mr. Thompson. So, I think we'll start with Mr. Mukasey and we're going to hear testimony from all of you. And then, we'll have questions as I indicated, seven minute rounds. So proceed will you General Mukasey. MUKASEY: Thank you. Chairman Whitehouse, Ranking Member -- sorry Chairman Grassley, not yet, right? Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, this is one of those occasions that's both an honor and a pleasure. An honor to appear before this committee and a pleasure to speak to the qualifications of Senator Sessions to serve as attorney general. I submitted a statement to the committee and I'm happy to answer any questions relating to it or any other subject that the committee thinks that's relevant to passing on the qualifications of Senator Sessions. But, of course I'm here for the convenience of the committee, not simply to orate. And after watching yesterday's hearing, and Senator Sessions responses to the committee's questions, I think the only thing I have to add to what I've already submitted at this point, is to say that the person you saw and heard yesterday is very much the person I came to know beginning in 2007, when I first appeared before this committee. Principled, intelligent, knowledgeable, thorough, modest and thoroughly dedicated to the rule of law and to the mission of the department. which is to enforce the law and to preserve our freedoms. So I thank you very much for hearing me. GRASSLEY: Does that complete your testimony? MUKASEY: It does. GRASSLEY: Thank you. Now, Sergeant Vasquez. Thank you. Please proceed. VASQUEZ: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, thank you for the opportunity to testify before the committee. My name is Oscar Vasquez and I am proud to be an American. I was born in a small town in Mexico. I was 12 years old when my mother and I boarded a bus to the border. Although I did not make the choice to come to America, this country quickly became my home. As soon as we were settled in America, my parents made sure I was enrolled in school, because they wanted me to understand the value of education. It was at this point that I started to develop a passion for math and science, since the formulas and equations transcended the language barrier. In high school, I joined the JROTC program, where my drill instructors were Vietnam veterans. They thought as a valley of selfless service, whether you able to provide it in the military or not. They wanted us to be better Americans. I loved the order and discipline and was eventually awarded the JROTC officer of the year. In my sophomore year, soon after 9/11, I saw the Band of Brothers mini series and I knew then, I wanted to join the Army. But when I met with the recruiter, I was told I could not enlist because I was undocumented. I left that meeting not knowing what to do, or what was next. I was devastated. I then had to figure out what else to do with my life. At the beginning of my senior year, I joined the robotics club. Our team of undocumented (ph) students enter a national competition and would design the underwater robot which we named Stinky. Beyond our wildest dreams, my high school team won the grand prize for the competition, against some of the countries top technical universities. Winning the competition was proof that we as DREAMers have something to offer to the country we always considered our home. Although I could not contribute to my country by joining the military, I enrolled Arizona State University and decided I could contribute by becoming an engineer. In 2005, I married my wife Carla, a U.S. citizen. She started a process of petitioning for my legal status, but it is the case of many DREAMers there were enormous legal obstacles and substantial risks. While I was a student at Arizona State, the Arizona legislator passed a law prohibiting undocumented citizens from receiving state financial aid and paying the state tuition. Even doors, that I've had in my home for many years and I was married to a U.S. citizen, I was treated like an outsider. The law tripled my tuition, (inaudible) by working construction, I scraped the money together to pay for college and support my family. I graduated in 2009 with a degree in mechanical engineering. This was three years before the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals was established. So even though I had a (inaudible) degree and there were jobs available, no one would hire me in this field because I didn't have legal status. In 2010, after completing a legal process that involved substantial hardship to my family, I was able to get a green card. Having legal resident status changed my life. I was able to get a drivers license, travel freely within the United States and pursue a career in engineering. The biggest note is -- the biggest note is -- the biggest change that I noticed was the fear. I was no longer afraid of being deported or being forcibly separated from my family. I could also pursue my dream of joining the military and becoming a paratrooper. I enlisted in the United States Army and started basic training in February 2011. I went in to fight for the country that raised me. Saying I love this country wasn't enough. I wanted to let my actions speak for themselves. Shortly before I finished basic training, I became a U.S. citizen. A couple weeks later, I found myself jumping out of a C-130 flying over Fort Benning, Georgia. And a couple months after that, I was deployed to Afghanistan. I look forward to combat because I wanted to protect the United States. Serving in the Army allowed me to contribute fully to this country and make it safer. I was following in the footsteps of countless other immigrants who have proudly served the United States. In Afghanistan, I fought side by side with my Army brothers. We wore the same uniform, wore the U.S. flag on the same shoulder. It mattered more that we were willing to be there (ph) for each other and for our country than where we came from. To this day, I remember how I felt after our first firefight in Afghanistan. I had put my life on the line for my brothers and for my country and I felt really proud to be an American. I felt then, for the first time, that no one could again question whether I am an American. It has been a great honor to serve my country. My son Oscar Maximus is 4 years old and in preschool. My daughter, Samantha is 8 years old and in third grade. We live outside of Fort Worth, Texas where I volunteer at two different high schools in their respective robotics program. I feel that my family is living the American dream. But I want to continue serving my country and I will soon join the Army Reserve. I think now about all the doors that were unlocked for me when I became a lawful, permanent resident. The ability to get the job of my dreams, provide for my family and live without fear. I can't imagine what it will be like to have that taken away from me today. I also can't imagine what it is like today for my former teammates and the nearly 100,000 DACA recipients who do not have a legal status and who are afraid of what could happen to them in a matter of days. Of course, DACA is only a temporary solution and now even that is at risk. I hope that you will not view my story of that as someone exceptional, rather I am where I am today because of the many great people who have believed in me and have given me a chance. I also want to acknowledge most DREAMers and mostly (ph) undocumented immigrants who do not have a path to legal status right now. I wanted to come here today because our countries top law enforcement officer must be someone who understands that immigrants make our country stronger. Most Americans agree that it's not right to deport someone who was brought here as a child. Deport them to a country that might not even remember. We need an attorney general who will protect American people from those who will do us harm, but who will also show mercy to those who deserve it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to answering your questions. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much, Sergeant. Now Mr. Kirsanow. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) GRASSLEY: Have you pushed the red button? Or whatever color the button is? KIRSANOW: Thank you Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse, members of the committee, I'm Peter Kirsanow of the U.S. Commission of Civil Rights and a partner in the Labor and Employment Practice Group of Benesh, Friedlander and I'm here on a personal capacity. Youth commission on civil rights was established pursuant to the 1957 Civil Rights Act to among other things, act as a national clearing house for matters pertaining to denials of equal protection, discrimination and voting rights. And in furtherance of that clearing house function, my assistant and I reviewed the bills, sponsored and co-sponsored by Senator Sessions in his tenure, in the Senate as well as his public activities and actions that are at least arguably related to civil rights. Our examination found that Senator Sessions' approach to civil rights matters, both in terms of his legislative record and his other actions is consistent with mainstream, textbook (ph) interpretation of rolled in statutory and constitutional authority as well as governing precedent. Our examination also reveals, that Senator Sessions approach to civil rights is consistent, is legally sound, enrichingly (ph) honest and has appreciation and understanding of the historical basis for civil rights laws. And our examination found that several aspects of Senator Sessions -- Sessions' -- Senator Sessions' record unfortunately have been mischaracterized and distorted to portray him as somehow being indifferent, if not hostile to civil rights. The facts emphatically show otherwise. Among other things, and this is probably least consequential, Senator Sessions has sponsored or co- sponsored a plethora of bills honoring significant civil rights leaders, events, icons, such as Reverend Martin Luther King, Loretta Scott King, Reverend Shuttlesworth's fight against segregation. Three separate bills honoring Rosa Parks, a Senate apology to the descendants of victims of lynching. A bill to honor participants in the Selma voting rights march. A bill to honor the victims of the 16th Street Baptist Church bombing and on and on and on, but Senator Sessions' commitment to civil rights transcends resolutions in support of civil rights. He has authored, co-sponsored, or sponsored a number of bills to protect and enhance voting rights. Such as the Federal Election Reform Act of 2001, the Voter Fraud Protection Act of 2009, a number of bills to protect and enhance the voting rights of service members, particularly those serving overseas. He's a strong proponent of religious liberty, having sponsored or co-sponsored several bills to prevent discrimination against the religiously observant and to prevent the government from substantially burdening free exercise of a person's religious beliefs. But in our estimation, his most profound and important impact is on preserving and protecting the rights of American workers, particularly black workers. The employment and wage levels of black workers in America have been abysmal for several decades. The labor force participation rate for black males, 61.8 percent and following. The unemployment rate for black males has nearly doubled that of white males. Evidence introduced (ph) before the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights shows that 40 percent of the 18 point decline in black employment levels is attributable to government failure or refusal to enforce existing integration laws. And this has a cascade effect by increasing the competition within the unskilled and low skilled marketplace, driving out black workers, slashing wages, particularly among black males. And this has resulted in hundreds of thousands, if not slightly over 1 million blacks having lost their jobs, directly due to this phenomenon, and it has broader sociological implications as well, related to incarceration and family formation rates. No one has been more committed or engaged than Senator Jeff Sessions in protecting and enhancing the prospects of black workers in America. But for his emphatical efforts in this regard, the plight of black workers now and in the immediate future and the foreseeable future will be demonstratively worse. His leadership on this matter, and his leadership on sub-committee, on immigration and the national interests has been key to restoring an even deeper downward trajectory for black workers in this country. And I'll conclude Mr. Chair by simply, respectfully offering that his record on civil rights legislation, his actions as a U.S. attorney and state attorney demonstrate an unwavering commitment to equal protection under the law, and a genuine fidelity to the rule of law that should make him an outstanding attorney general. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) SWADHIN: I'm not sure if this is working. Great. Good morning. My name is Amita Swadhin, I am a resident of Los Angeles, California, born in Ohio to two immigrants from India and raised in New Jersey. And I'm grateful to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee for the opportunity to be here today. In October, miked (ph) tapes were released of President-elect Trump describing forcibly kissing women and grabbing women by the genitals. In the wake of these comments becoming public, Senator Sessions was quoted stating, "He doesn't characterize that behavior as sexual assault." Millions of sexual assault survivors were triggered in the wake of these events. I was one of those survivors. My father raped me at least once a week for age four to age 12. I endured psychological, verbal and physical abuse from him for years. I also grew up watching my father abuse my mother in a textbook case of domestic violence and marital rape. When I disclosed the sexual abuse to my mother, at age 13, she called a therapist engaging mandating reported -- mandated reporting. The prosecutors threatened to prosecute my mother for being complicit. They told me I would be harshly cross-examined by the defense attorney, and did not connect me to any victim support services. I was too afraid to tell them my story. My father received five years probation and no jail time and his violence continued for two years, until my mother finally found the support to leave him. I am here today on behalf of rape and sexual assault survivors to urge you not to confirm Senator Sessions as attorney general. As a publicly out survivor of child sexual abuse, many people have downplayed the impact of this violence on my present day life. I live with complex post traumatic stress disorder, and struggle everyday to be well. It directly and negatively impacts me when people minimize sexual assault. So to hear Senator Sessions initially say President- elect Trump's comments do not constitute sexual assault, and then to consider him leading the Department of Justice has been incredibly worrisome. I am unfortunately far from alone in my experience. More than 320,000 Americans over age 12 are raped or sexually assaulted every year. One in four girls and one in six boys will be sexually abused before age 18. These are public health issues occurring in the private sphere. In 80 percent of adult sexual assaults, and 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse, victims know and trust our perpetrators. For this reason, most victims of violent crime never seek healing or accountability from the state. Most violent crimes remained unreported. Thankfully we have improved the response of the criminal justice system with the creation of the Violence Against Women Act in 1994. The stock (ph) formula grants under VAWA provide training to judges, prosecutors and police officers and other law enforcement personnel to better support survivors. In 1991, the police did not contact victim services for me, but today thanks to VAWA, law enforcement is encouraged to provide victims and advocates to support them in breaking their silence. Yet despite this progress, rape, sexual assaults and domestic violence still happen at epidemic rates and survivors at the intersections of oppression are especially vulnerable. LGBT people and particularly transgender women of color are disproportionally victimized. One in two transgender people will be raped or sexually assaulted in their lifetime. Furthermore, the majority of hate violence homicide victims are transgender women. In fact, only 11 days into the new year, two transgender women of color have already been murdered, Misha Caldwell (ph), an African-American transgender woman from Mississippi and Jamie Lee Wounded Arrow (ph), a two spirit Oglala Lakota woman from South Dakota. We need an attorney general who is committed to improving and enforcing our laws to ensure the most vulnerable victims of crime can come forward to seek accountability and to access healing. Time and again, Senator Sessions voting record has shown us he is not the man for the job. Despite his claim to be a champion for victims of violent crime, he has not been a friend to vulnerable survivors. While Senator Sessions voted in favor of the Violence Against Women Act in the bill's early years, when VAWA was expanded in 2013, to ensure LGBT, immigrant and tribal populations of domestic violence and sexual assault survivors are protected and have access to services. Senator Sessions voted against the bill. We must trust the attorney general to enforce and apply our laws fairly, per our Constitution's provisions on equal protection. We must trust the attorney general to respect the humanity of all Americans, and especially to be committed to seeking justice for our most vulnerable victims of crime. Given his voting record on VAWA and on LGBT rights, we have no reason to put our faith or our trust in Senator Sessions as attorney general. In conclusion, I want to emphasize that members of the National Task Force to End Sexual and Domestic Violence, including but not limited to the National Coalition Against Domestic Violence, the YWCA, the National Council of Jewish Women, UGEMA (ph), the National Center on Violence Against Women in the Black Community, the National Alliance to End Sexual Violence, the National Coalition of Anti- Violence Programs, Break the Cycle, and Jewish Women International opposed Senator Sessions nomination because of the issues I am raising today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. And now we'll go to Ms. Sepich. SEPICH: Good morning Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and members of the committee. My name is Jayann Sepich and thank you for the opportunity to testify today in support of the nomination of Senator Sessions as Attorney General of the United States. In 2003, my daughter Katie, a vivacious 22 year old graduate student was brutally raped, murdered and set on fire. It is never easy to lose a child for any reason, but the pain and horror of losing our daughter in this violent manner is beyond description. No suspects emerged in Katie's case, but Katie fought for her life and underneath her fingernails were found the blood and skin of her attacker, and a DNA profile was extracted and uploaded into the National Forensic DNA Database called CODIS. I made the comment to the investigators that the man who had killed Katie was such a monster that surely he would be arrested for another crime. His cheek would be swabbed and we would soon know his identity and he would not be able to harm another woman. That's when I learned it was not legal in New Mexico, my home state, or in most states to take DNA at the time of felony arrest. It could only be taken after conviction. I was stunned. We don't use DNA to accurately identify arrested for serious crimes. We release them from law enforcement without a check of the DNA database for a possible match to other unsolved crimes. We collect fingerprints, mug shots, and check what other crimes a person may have been involved in but we do not collect DNA. After considerable research, I became a national advocate for the collection of DNA upon arrest. My husband and I started the non- profit association DNA Saves. We know we can't bring Katie back, but we absolutely believe that we may be able to prevent new crimes. Prevent this horrible pain from being visited on other families, by advocating for laws that allow for the collection of DNA from persons arrested for serious crimes. To date, 30 state legislatures in the United States Congress have enacted laws requiring that a DNA sample be taken for qualifying felony arrests. In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court upheld these laws, ruling that taking DNA at the time of booking for a felony arrest is a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. Senator Sessions helped craft the legislative language that became the DNA Fingerprint Act, to provide federal authorities with the authorization to collect DNA from arrestees. In 2008, Senator Bingaman, along with Senator Schumer as original co- sponsor introduced the Katie Sepich Enhanced DNA Collection Act, which was passed in 2012. This federal law provides additional funding to the Debbie Smith Backlog Elimination Act to those states who have enacted laws to expand their databases. Once again, as a judiciary committee's ranking member during that time, in which this legislation was pending, Senator Sessions played a significant role in helping us to craft a bill that would gain bipartisan support and eventually pass Congress unanimously. As a result of stronger state and federal DNA database laws, we have seen many heinous criminals identified through arresting DNA testing. My home state of New Mexico has seen over 1,200 cases matched. California has seen 10 cases matched everyday on their DNA database. The Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences remains one of the most successful programs in the country and they credit Senator Sessions for must of the success, largely due to the support he's provided from the outset of the state's forensic DNA program during his term as Alabama Attorney General. Alabama has utilized the DNA database to solve over 6,500 previously unsolved cases. In Katie's case, after more than three long years, DNA finally identified Gabriel Avila as Katie's killer. But he would have been identified after only three months, if law enforcement had been permitted to collect DNA at arrest. Over the past 11 years, our family has worked to change DNA laws across the country. We have been supported by lawmakers of both parties. We have also seen opposition from both Republicans and Democrats. Forensic DNA is a very complex issue and it is vitally important that policy makers take the time to fully understand these complexities in a truly non-partisan manner. Senator Sessions has done that. And with that understanding, he has stood in strong support of the use of forensic DNA to both identify the guilty and exonerate the innocent. He knows that when a DNA match is made on CODIS, it is completely blind to race, ethnicity and social economic status. DNA is truth. It is science. Senator Sessions said in a 2002 floor speech, we are spending only a pittance on getting our scientific evidence produced in an honest and effective way. As a result justice is being delayed and justice delayed is justice denied. I believe that Senator Sessions is committed to that philosophy that it is the core responsibility of our government to protect public safety. He cares about victims. He has been a leader on forensics policy for years and consistently has supported vital funding for DNA. In conclusion, our lives were shattered was brutally murdered. We know intimately the pain that violent crime brings to families. Senator Sessions has shown he understands the pain of victims and has put that understanding into action to help make changes that will make a difference. Senator Sessions will provide strong leadership to the United States Department of Justice and I hope you will support his nomination for attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: And thank you Ms. Sepich. Now, Mr. Brooks. BROOKS: Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and esteemed Senators of this committee. My name is Cornell William Brooks, I serve as President and CEO of the NAACP. I greatly appreciate the invitation to testify before you today to express the deep concerns of the NAACP regarding the nomination of Senator Jefferson Sessions to be U.S. Attorney General. As you well know, the attorney general is the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Particularly for such a time as this, with racial divisions deepening, hate crimes rising from sanctuaries to school yards with state imposed, racially motivated voter suppression spreading in state legislatures as well as being struck down in federal courts, with police involved shootings reduced to (inaudible) homicides and viralized videos. It is critical that this committee closely examine Senator Sessions entire record as a prosecutor and as a legislator, to determine whether he is fit to serve as the chief enforcer of our nation's civil rights laws. Based upon a review of the record, the NAACP firmly believes that Senator Sessions is unfit to serve as attorney general. Accordingly, we representing multiple civil rights and human rights coalitions we urge this committee not to favorably report his nomination to the full Senate. As our written testimony details, Senator Sessions record reveals a consistent disregard for civil and human rights of vulnerable populations, including African- Americans, Latinos, women, Muslims, immigrants, the disabled, the LGBT community and others. Further his Senate voting record reflects a fundamental disregard for many of the Department of Justice's programs which are vital for the protection of Americans. Senator Sessions votes against the Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2000, 2002, 2004, 2007 and 2009 and the Violence Against Woman Act in 2012 and 2013, demonstrate a disturbing lack of concern regarding violent crimes, rape, assault, murder committed against minorities and an American majority of women. These crimes in particular make victims of individuals as well as the groups to which they belong and the American values we cling to. His opposition to the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act indicates a hostility to the claims of employment discrimination and more specifically to allowing legal redress for paid discrimination against women. This consistent opposition to any meaningful gun control, shows an unwillingness to stand up to the firearms lobby and a lack of concern regarding the destructive impact of gun violence on our children and communities. His failure to condemn the President-elect's call for an unconscionable and unconstitutional ban on Muslim immigrants, as well as his opposition to his Senate resolution condemning a government imposed litmus test on a global religion, evidences an unwillingness to protect the rights of the vulnerable and the unpopular, which is something that an attorney general must do. His call for the reevaluation of a basic constitutional principle, that persons born in this country, are citizens of this country, reflects a form of unconstitutional xenophobia that is fundamentally inconsistent to the duty of the attorney general to protect the rights of all Americans. His calling into question the legitimacy of consent decrees causes us to question whether he will use this powerful tool to hold accountable police departments, such as Ferguson, that engaged in predatory policing and a pattern and practice of discrimination. With his consistent support for mandatory minimums, as a prosecutor and a legislator, he stands in opposition to bipartisan efforts to bring to an end this ugly era of mass incarceration, with 2.3 million Americans behind bars, with overpopulated prisons and jails and depopulated families and communities. It is Senator Sessions' record on voting rights, however, that is perhaps the most troubling. As this committee is well aware, of the infamous Marion Three Case, in which civil rights activists were prosecuted by then U.S. Attorney Sessions for voter fraud, all of whom were acquitted by a jury in less than four hours on 29 counts. This chilling prosecution against innocent civil rights workers, who were later given gold medals by Congress, painfully reverberates in the hearts of black voters in Alabama and the history of this country. Senator Sessions' record of prosecuting so called voter fraud and both intimidating and suppressing voters then is now reflected in a legislative record of supporting voter ID requirements that suppress votes based on the myth of voter fraud today. His record of vote suppressing prosecution is connected to a record of vote suppressing legislation today. Rather than condemn, he's commended voter ID laws like that is own state of Alabama affecting a half million voters. Similar to laws struck down in Texas and North Carolina in the fourth and fifth circuits. If we could imagine, a Senator Sessions leading a Department of Justice and Michael Brown's Ferguson, Freddie Gray's Baltimore, towns with rising hate crime, communities of vulnerable population -- populations and a democracy divided by voter suppression in his twitter -- civil rights -- twitter a civil rights movement. We can imagine that. Imaging that, we must face the reality that Senator Sessions should not be our attorney general. With that said, thank you for this opportunity to testify. I welcome your questions. GRASSLEY: (OFF-MIKE) CANTERBURY: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Whitehouse, distinguished members of the committee and of course my own Senator Lindsey Graham. My name is Chuck Canterbury, the National President of the 330,000 rank and file police officer organization. I'm very pleased to have the opportunity to be here today to testify before this committee. I've testified before on cabinet nominations, agency head nominations and even a nominee for the Supreme Court of the United States. I can say without reservation, that I've never testified with more optimism and enthusiasm as I do today for Senator Jeff Sessions. We wholeheartedly support his position and nomination as Attorney General of the United States. Following the news that President-elect Trump intended to tap Senator Sessions, we immediately issued a statement to the press indicating our strong support for his nomination. He's been a true partner to law enforcement in his time as a U.S. attorney, Attorney General for the state of Alabama and throughout his tenure in the United State Senate. Senator Sessions is demonstrated commitment, not just to so-called law and order issues, but also to an issue very important to my members, officer safety. He was the leading co-sponsor of the FOP's efforts to enact the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act, which was authored by our friend and former chairman of this committee Senator Leahy. In 2010, Senator Sessions was the Republican lead co-sponsor of S.1132, the Law Enforcement Officers Safety Act improvements, which made important and needed changes to the original law. He has provided true leadership in this successful and bipartisan effort. More recently, Senator Sessions was deeply involved in the passage of S.2840, the Protecting Our Lives by Initiating Cots Expansion Act. He helped build bipartisan support for the legislation, which passed the Senate and then the House before being signed into law by the President. That law gives the Office of Community Ordinance Policing Services, the authority to award grants to state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies to get active shooter response training for their officers. The need for this training is obviously been identified by numerous law enforcement leaders and by the FOP. Senator Sessions played a key role in the efforts to pass the Fallen Hero Flag Act. The bill which provides a flag to be flying over this Capital to surviving -- to be provided to surviving members of public officers killed in the line of duty. Now this may not sound like much to you, but in a time when officers are being assassinated at the highest rate since the '70s and officers being assaulted at record rates, officers in the field want to know who has my back. Who will protect me while I protect my community? Bills like this, which acknowledge and respect the sacrifices -- sacrifices made by the rank and file truly resonate with my members and with the public safety community. Members of the committee may remember that years that were spent trying to do away with the disparity between the sentencing on the possession of crack cocaine versus powder cocaine. There was a considerable gulf between the position of the FOP and many members of this committee. But in 2001, Senator Sessions introduced a bill to address this issue and he worked tirelessly to bring it together. He made sure the voice of law enforcement was heard and also asserted his belief that the disparity, as existing in the current law, was unjust. In 2010, as a ranking member of this committee, he brokered to compromise that led to the passage, with our support of the Fair Sentencing Act. We accepted that compromise because it was fair, it was just and it reflected the perspective of law enforcement and the law enforcement community. The importance of his direct role on this issue cannot be overstated. Without Jeff Sessions, I believe we might be here today still trying to remain unsolved. That said, I understand that there's a certain amount of partisanship and it's expected in these nomination hearings. But I ask all the members of this committee, to recollect Senator Sessions has worked in a bipartisan manner on many issues, officer safety issues with the FOP and members of the left. More than many times that I've been here, has Senator Sessions been one of the sole members to stand up for law enforcement, especially when it came to the issue of asset forfeiture. Without his leadership, the support in the Equitable Sharing Program may have been dismantled. For us, that demonstrates that Jeff Sessions is a man who can reach across the aisle to get things done for the rank and file officer and to protect the citizens of this country. Senator Sessions has worked tirelessly and faithfully for the majority of his adult life. He is above all, a man who reveres the law and reveres justice. I believe he will be an exemplary attorney general and we urge you to move this nomination forward to the Senate for passage. Thank you sir. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Canterbury. Now Mr. Cole. COLE: Thank you for inviting me to testify. The ACLU is a non- partisan organization with a long standing policy of neither endorsing nor opposing nominees for federal office. We rarely testify in confirmation hearings as a result. We do so today, because we believe Senator Sessions' record raises serious questions about the fitness of -- of Senator Sessions to be the attorney general for all the American people. We take no position on how you should ultimately vote, but we urge you to painstakingly probe the many serious questions that his actions, words and deeds raise about his commitment to civil rights and civil liberties. Our concerns arise from his conduct as a prosecutor and from his record as a Senator. As a prosecutor, when he exercised the power to prosecute, the most powerful -- the most serious power that any government official in the United States exercises, he abused that power. Cornell Brooks has already talked about his prosecution, ultimately baseless of civil rights heroes for seeking to increase the black vote in Alabama. He didn't investigate those who sought to help white voters in Alabama, but he did investigate and prosecute those who sought to aid black voters. Many of the charges in that case were dismissed before they even went to the jury because they were baseless. The jury then acquitted of all the charges. In a second case, the Tyco (ph) case, Senator Sessions collaborated with campaign contributors to his senatorial campaign, to use the office of the criminal prosecutor to intervene in a private business dispute, on behalf of his campaign contributors. He filed a 222-count indictment against Tyco (ph), a -- a -- a engineering supply service -- corporation. All charges in the case were dismissed. Many were dismissed because, again, they were baseless, there was no evidence whatsoever to support them. The others were dismissed on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct and the judge who dismissed them said this was the worst case of prosecutorial misconduct he had seen in his career on the bench. Mr. Sessions successor, Mr. Pryor did not even appeal that decision. So those actions raise serious questions about his fitness to become the most powerful prosecutor in the land. Second, his record as a Senator. Here he has shown blindness or outright hostility to the concerns of the people who's rights he will be responsible to protect. On voting rights, he supported felon disenfranchisement laws and voter ID laws that suppressed the black vote. When the Supreme Court gutted the single most effective provision of the Voting Rights Act, the most important statute in getting -- African-Americans the right to vote in this country, Senator Sessions called that a good day for the south. On religious tolerance, he called Islam a toxic ideology. It is in fact a religion practiced by millions of Americans. Imagine if he called Christianity a toxic ideology. Now, he says he opposes a Muslim ban on entrance to the United States, but when Donald Trump proposed that, he stood up and opposed a resolution introduced here in the Senate to keep religion out of immigration decisions. On women's right, now he says that grabbing women's genitals is sexual assault. But when Donald Trump's tape recording, bragging about his doing precisely that was made public, Senator Sessions said, and I quote, "I don't characterize that as a sexual assault. That's a stretch." When he voted against extending the hate crimes law, to crimes motivated by gender and sexual orientation, he said, and I quote, "I am not sure women or people with different sexual orientations face that kind of discrimination. I just don't see it." Well if you don't see discrimination, you can't very well enforce the laws against discrimination. On torture he now says, that torture, water boarding is illegal, but he praised Michael Mukasey for not ruling out water boarding. And he opposed Senator McCain's amendment which was designed to make it clear that water boarding was illegal. On criminal justice he is an outlier, departing even with many of his Republican colleagues who seek to make the criminal justice system more fair and less harsh. If someone applying to intern for one of your offices had as many questions in his record as Senator Sessions has, racist comment, unethical conduct, padding of his resume, you would not hire him, absent the most thorough investigation and inquiry, if then. Senator Sessions is not seeking to be an intern. He's nominated to be the most powerful law enforcement officer in the nation. The Senate and more importantly the American people deserve satisfactory answers to these questions before Senator Sessions is confirmed. Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you Mr. Cole. Now Mr. Thompson. THOMPSON: Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Whitehouse and other members of this distinguished committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you in support of the nomination of Senator Jeff Sessions to be Attorney General of the United States. I want to add this morning, a bit of a personal perspective on Senator Sessions. I've known Senator Sessions for over 30 years and I am honor to consider him a good friend. Over the years, we have talked frequently, had dinners together and enjoyed each other counsel and support. When I first met Senator Sessions, he was the United States attorney in Mobile and I was the United States attorney in Atlanta. In order to stretch our limited government per diems on travel to Department of Justice conferences, we sometimes shared a room together. We were simply two young prosecutors trying to save money. In 1982, when I was asked by Attorney General William French Smith, to head the Southeastern Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force, simply because of the strategic location in Atlanta, where my office was, a delicate situation was represented. The task force consisted of 11 other United States attorney offices, but any potential problem was avoided because my friend, Senator Sessions rallied the other United States attorneys around our common cause and my leadership. Senator Sessions had a lot to do with the success of the task force under my leadership. Senator Sessions was highly thought of by his colleagues and -- and served on the prestigious Attorney General's Advisory Committee. Membership to this committee is by invitation only. I thought about this a lot and can identify for you without any equivocation whatsoever, three things in which the Senator will lead the Department of Justice. First, Senator Sessions will vigorously, but impartially enforce our laws. Senator Sessions has a strong record of bipartisan accomplishment on criminal justice matters. He also understands the importance of what former Attorney General Robert Jackson said, about what constitutes a good prosecutor. That being one who displays sensitivity to fair play and who appreciates his or her tasks with humility. Next, Senator Sessions will continue to make certain that the traditional role of federal law enforcement is carried out with vigor, effectiveness and independence. The Department of Justice under his leadership will attack such critical crime problems, as complicated fraud schemes by individuals and organizations, civil rights violations, serious environmental violations, terrorism and espionage. Finally Senator Sessions will seriously look at the role of federal law enforcement to help our citizens achieve a greater sense of personal safety in their homes and neighborhoods. This will be especially important for some of our minority and low income citizens against whom violent crime has a disproportionate impact. Of all our important civil rights, the rights to be safe and secure in one's home and neighborhood is perhaps the most important. We all know that Senator Sessions has strongly but honestly held political and policy views. But the Senator also has a record of bipartisan leadership in the Senate, especially on criminal justice issues. We talked yesterday, a great deal, was presented to the committee on Senator Sessions' effort under the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010 and his work with Senator Durbin on that important legislation. It's interesting as I, as the Deputy Attorney General of the United States in the Bush administration, I opposed this legislation. Senator Sessions was right and I was wrong. A son of the south who has had up close experiences with our great civil rights movement, Senator Sessions is not oblivious to the fact that we have more to do in the area of racial equality. He noted in a speech praising the foot soldiers of the civil rights movement, that more needs to be done, we need to join closer hands. So, as a lawyer myself, who has spent a fair amount of time during my 43 year legal career, supporting diversity in our great profession and equal rights, this statement touched me greatly. Because, it reflects the man I have known for over 30 years and who I'm proud to call my friend. Senator Sessions deserves confirmation as our next attorney general. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you. We'll have seven minute rounds now. And I'm going to start with General Mukasey. Senator Sessions, himself, has noted the attorney general is not the President's lawyer. In your opinion, would Senator Sessions have the independence and of course the ability to say no the President if they disagree? MUKASEY: Absolutely, and I think he made that both clear and explicit yesterday, saying that if necessary the alternative was to resign. GRASSLEY: Also to you, we heard Senator Sessions testify yesterday about the appropriate scope of communication between the White House and the Department of Justice. He said he thought that there was merit in your December 2007 on that topic. So could you tell us what you believe the merits of your approach to be, which would be your explaining in further detail what Senator Sessions said yesterday. MUKASEY: OK. What's in the memo is, the contact between the White House and the Justice Department is limited to the attorney general and the deputy attorney general, with a couple of exceptions. Those exceptions are pending legislation, which is the subject of communication between lower level people and the White House and people in the office of legal policy and other routine budget matters. Other than that, there is to be no contact between anyone at the Justice Department and anyone in the White House. And if anybody gets such a call, they are instructed that the polite response is thank you very much, I'll refer you to the person who can respond to you. GRASSLEY: OK. Mr. Thompson, you've known Senator Sessions for 35 years and in that time you worked very closely with him. So you've already said something about your service together, but could you tell us about that service in more detail than you did in your opening statement? THOMPSON: Yes, Senator Grassley. I've known, as I said, Senator Sessions for a number of years. He has a great deal of respect for the Department of Justice. He had been an Assistant United States Attorney when I'd met him. He had already been promoted to become the United States attorney. He's a fine lawyer, was a very effective prosecutor, but has great fidelity to the principles of fair prosecution in the traditions of the Department of Justice. GRASSLEY: And would you, knowing him as you do. Would you say that he's going to be that independent head that we expect of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Absolutely. I would expect Senator Sessions to understand and appreciate and to practice the traditional independent role of the Department of Justice. And he would be an attorney general, I think, that all the Senators on this committee would be proud of. GRASSLEY: Further, since you know him. How do you think he would fair standing up to a strong willed President, who wants to take certain actions that Senator Sessions in his capacity as attorney general may not feel, that would feel would be inappropriate? THOMPSON: That's a good question. As I said, Senator Sessions is not only an experienced prosecutor, but he's a mighty fine lawyer. He would understand his role to counsel the President and to bring the President around to what position is appropriate. But he, at the end of the day, would be independent if the President insisted upon doing something that was inappropriate. GRASSLEY: Mr. Canterbury, of course you're no stranger to these, sort of, attorney general hearings. You testified in support of Attorney General Eric Holder eight years ago, reflecting on the last eight years of leadership of the Department of Justice from the perspective of arguably the largest law enforcement advocacy group. How did DOJ fair? And how might it be different if the person you're supporting today were attorney general? CANTERBURY: Senator, it's our position that we have to work with whoever is in that office. And we have historically worked with every attorney general, personally I've worked with every attorney general since Janet Reno. And we believe that with Senator Sessions, the communications, the lines of communications will be more direct than they have been. We've had good success with career employees at DOJ. They're very professional. We believe it's an outstanding organization. But we also believe, with Senator Sessions, information and the knowledge that he's had from serving on this committee, he'll be able to serve us well in the area of criminal justice with reform efforts and with training and equitable sharing and those types of things. We feel that communications will be excellent with Senator Sessions. GRASSLEY: Another question for you. The Sheriff's Association at the national level recently noted that in the past year, this country has seen the highest number of law enforcement fatalities in five years, including 21 officers who were ambushed, shot, and killed. If confirmed for the position of attorney general, what steps do you think that Senator Sessions could take to reverse the trend? CANTERBURY: First and foremost, we believe that Senator Sessions, as attorney general, will not speak out on incidents that arise before a thorough and -- and -- and full investigation. And we believe that the anti-police rhetoric comes from people that make comments without knowledge of the situation and prior to the facts being released to the media, and so, we believe that there will be a much more positive tone about reconciliation. Nobody in this country wants our communities and police to reconcile more than my members Senator. GRASSLEY: Mr. Kirsanow, Senator Sessions has received some criticism for his enforcement of voting rights while he was a federal prosecutor and Alabama attorney general. Would you evaluate Senator Sessions record on voting rights? This will probably have to be my last question. KIRSANOW: Thank you Mr. Chair. I'd be happy to. I've heard testimony and I've heard media reports with respect to cases related to voting rights that Senator Sessions was prosecuting. And if he had failed to prosecute the Perry County case, that would have been an extraordinary dereliction of duty. I would advise everybody who's interested in facts as opposed to optics to read the indictment, read all the available pleadings, read all of the contemporaneous reporting and you will have wasted about two days doing so, as I did. The multi count indictment, if you go through it, details in excruciating detail all of the violations here. If you look at the facts of the case, what happened is you had two separate factions of black Democrats in Perry County who were vying for seats. One faction went to the attorney -- U.S. attorneys office and said, wait a minute here, we believe there's rampant voter fraud going on here. And in fact, if you look at the FBI's affidavit related to this, they found 75 forged signatures on absentee ballots. There were multiple counts where individuals who were part of, who were candidates, were taking absentee ballots, changing them, altering them or filling them out on behalf of individuals and then giving them to the elections board. One family had a candidate, for whom they voted who was their cousin. All six members testified that their ballot, none the less, was checked for the other person and they said it was false. There was copious evidence that, in fact, there was voter fraud in fact that it occurred. Now, it is true, these people were acquitted. But we've seen this circumstance before. The person who literally wrote the book on voter fraud prosecutions, Craig Don Santo, he's legendary head of the former -- former head of Public Integrity Unit of DOJ was the man who told Senator Sessions, go forward with this. He surmised as did many other contemporary witnesses is that this was a classic case of voter nullification. I think as he testified, or he indicated that this is a matter in which there was no way in the world, a jury was going to convict these individuals, who were in fact civil rights advocates. The facts of the case established that had a prosecutor not taken this and pursued this, there would have been some serious questions about his integrity. GRASSLEY: Senator Whitehouse. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you Chairman. Mr. Canterbury, I was my state's attorney general and Rhode Island is one of the states where the attorney general has full prosecuting authority. There are only three. So I worked very closely with my police department, I was always my state's United States attorney, in that capacity worked very, very closely with police chiefs. My experience was that a police chief in Providence, which is say urban good size city, and a police chief in small coastal Merganser (ph), Rhode Island would have very different law enforcement priorities. And that it, in my view, is appropriate for a police chief to be able to pursue their own law enforcement priorities within their communities. Would you agree with that? CANTERBURY: Yes, Senator. I mean, the same thing with sheriffs. Constitutionally elected officers, their going to police their communities as they think they need to be policed and set priorities that way. WHITEHOUSE: And an important part of that for a police chief, is to maintain the kind of community relations between the department and the community that support effective pursuit of those law enforcement priorities. Is that not the case also? CANTERBURY: I don't think it's any different in a city with five police officers than it is in Providence. Where ever you are, community relations is the key to -- to successfully perform in our job. WHITEHOUSE: And it's going to be different in different communities. The method is going to be different of effective community relations in different communities. CANTERBURY: It can be. Yes sir. WHITEHOUSE: And so, would you agree for the Department of Justice to try to dictate what local law enforcement priorities should be? Or how a police department should chose to deal with its community could be a stretch too far? CANTERBURY: In -- in matters of law, no, but in matters of policy and procedure, yes sir. I would agree with you. WHITEHOUSE: And prioritization as well correct? CANTERBURY: Absolutely. WHITEHOUSE: The reason I asked that, is that one of the concerns that I've heard from Rhode Island police chiefs has been that a relentless or unthinking pursuit of very low level immigration violations could disrupt everything from orderly community relations with a Latino community to even ongoing significant gang investigations. In which cooperators might get, lose their willingness to cooperate if somebody came in and decided to try to deport their mother. My point isn't that one is right and the other is wrong. My point is decision at the community level as to priorities and to maintaining community relations is an important one, correct? CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, it would be, but to cut more to the core of what I think you're asking, sanctuary city decisions are usually made by politicians and not police chiefs, and very rarely... WHITEHOUSE: Sanctuary city, in fact, is not even a legal term, is it? CANTERBURY: And -- and very rarely should law enforcement officers make those decisions. As you know, senator, politicians pass the laws and we're charged with enforcing them, not -- don't necessarily have to agree or disagree with them. WHITEHOUSE: And in doing so, you do establish law enforcement priorities. CANTERBURY: Yes, sir, we would. WHITEHOUSE: You don't put people out on the street to do jaywalking. You go after murders first. You go after robberies first. That's standard law enforcement practice, correct? CANTERBURY: Emergency protocol requires the highest level of crime first and -- and down from there. WHITEHOUSE: Down from there. Mr. Thompson, Mr. Canterbury said earlier something that I agree very much with, which was to applaud the career employees of the Department of Justice and to say that right now the Department of Justice was an outstanding organization. You and I and others have served as United States attorneys. What do you think about the career attorney core of the Department of Justice? THOMPSON: Well, the career attorneys at the Department of Justice through my years of experience, Senator, like yours, these are very good lawyers. They are dedicated to law enforcement. They're dedicated to the work of the Department of Justice. I've had nothing but positive experiences in my years at the Department of Justice and in dealing with the Department of Justice as a defense lawyer. WHITEHOUSE: Should a career attorney in a new administration be punished for following properly the policy direction of a previous administration? THOMPSON: I -- I don't actually think a career attorney should be punished for anything other than not doing his or her work. WHITEHOUSE: Clearly a career attorney shouldn't be judged on whether they are secular or religious in their lives, correct? THOMPSON: Absolutely not. WHITEHOUSE: OK. Mr. Brooks, the Sessions candidacy has achieved expressions of support from people like David Duke and from what's described as a white supremacist neo-Nazi news site called the Daily Stormer, whose site founder wrote that the Sessions appointment was like "Christmas. Basically we are looking at a Daily Stormer dream team in the Trump administration." Now you can't fault a nominee for the people who choose to be enthusiastic about his candidacy. This is not, obviously, Senator Sessions' fault, but do you believe that he has distinguished himself away from whatever the causes are for that support so that you feel comfortable going forward that he has addressed that? BROOKS: Based on the record, I do not believe that the Senator has sufficiently described a Department of Justice fully committed to enforcing the nation's civil rights laws, where we have hate crime rising, most of which is perpetuated not in bars, not in streets, but in K through 12 schools. Speaking against hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to prosecute hate crimes, making it clear that you're going to enforce the nation's civil rights laws, voting rights, the Voting Rights Act to the full measure in a full-throated way. I do not believe we have heard that. So he is not responsible for who endorses him, but he is in fact responsible for what he endorses and his vision for the Department of Justice. WHITEHOUSE: Thank you, Chairman. My time has expired. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Now Senator Hatch. HATCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Mukasey, welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. You became attorney general after nearly two decades as a federal district court judge. The current attorney general had nearly two decades of experience as a federal prosecutor. Jeff Sessions will become attorney general after two decades as a U.S. senator. No matter where an attorney general comes from, he or she has the duty described yesterday by one of my Democratic colleagues as "enforcing the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias." You were here yesterday and heard as I did the repeated suggestion that Senator Sessions would not be able to enforce the law personally that he personally disagrees with. Do you agree that someone's political party, general ideological perspective or personal opinions do not by themselves mean that he or she cannot be impartial and fair? MUKASEY: I -- I certainly agree that a person's political background does not disqualify that person from enforcing the law and does not disable that person from enforcing the law. I think Senator Sessions made it entirely clear that he understood the difference between advocating a position, on the one hand, as a legislator, and the oath that he takes to enforce the law on the other. He was very clear, very precise about that, and I think everybody who passes from one status to another -- be it from a judge to attorney general, be it from a lawyer to a judge -- understands that they are changing their responsibilities, and he's not alone in -- in that, but he certainly is very much allowed to it. HATCH: How confident are you that Senator Sessions, a conservative Republican senator, will enforce the law fairly, evenly and without personal bias? MUKASEY: I think his statement's yesterday make it entirely clear that he understands his responsibility to do that, and I see no reason why he won't do it. HATCH: Mr. Kirsanow, in his written testimony, Mr. Brooks argued that Senator Session lacks the judgment and temperament to serve as attorney general. Even more, he questioned whether Senator Sessions would actually prosecute hate crimes. I'd welcome your response to that. KIRSANOW: (OFF-MIKE) HATCH: Put your -- put your... KIRSANOW: I haven't known Mr. Sessions as long as Mr. Thompson has, but I've known him for more than 10 years, and what I can tell you is that I've worked with several senators here who've been very concerned about issues related to civil rights, particularly with respect to one issue that's within my wheelhouse as labor attorney, and that is the interests of black and other workers and their employment prospects. We had hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, several hearings at the Civil Rights Commission, about a lot of deleterious policies to the prospects of black employment, and these were rectifiable policies, but they had pronounced effects, negative effects, on black employment. We even had a hearing where every single witness that spanned the ideological spectrum from left to right agreed, for example, that massive illegal immigration has a decidedly negative impact on wage and employment levels. I provided these reports to a number of senators and other congressmen. Many of the senators here were alarmed by it and questioned me about it, and we had interactions and other members of the Civil Rights Commission. I also provided it to members of Congress, including members of the Congressional Black Caucus. The one senator who reached out, being very alarmed and pursing this case with ultimate vigor, was Senator Sessions. He was very concerned about this. In a number of private conversations we talked about a number of the steps that could be taken aside from reforming immigration law, which we all know here is something that's a significant challenge, but what can we do to improve employment prospects of black Americans? He was the only senator to act in that fashion. I heard nothing whatsoever from the Congressional Black Caucus, despite copious detail about the negative impact of this. I'm ultimately convinced that Senator Sessions would take the appropriate actions to enforce the law as written, because that's what we are talking about, existing immigration law, and he was adamant in doing that without fear or favor and without bias. HATCH: Knowing him as well as I do I agree with you. Mr. Canterbury, I want to thank you so much for what you and thousands of officers who represent us each and every day have said here for Senator Sessions. The Pew Research Center today released one of the largest polls of police officers ever conducted involving some 8,000 officers in departments across the country. As a result of the high profile fatal encounters between officers and blacks, three-quarters of officers are more reluctant to use force when it is appropriate, and 72 percent have become less willing to stop and question people who seem suspicious. Now I believe this effect stems from what has become almost a presumption that police have done something wrong when such encounters occur. That is a pernicious and dangerous shift in the general attitude toward our police, and it is totally without foundation. . Now it seems to me that this change in attitude can not only negatively affect officers and actually put police safety at risk, but also make much more difficult important efforts at -- at community policing. Do you agree with me on that? CANTERBURY: Ab -- Absolutely agree with you. I think the case in Chicago of the young female officer that decided to take a beating rather than deploy a Taser because she said it wasn't worth what she would put herself through to deploy a Taser is -- is a -- a microcosm of what's happening in law enforcement where it's not worth what -- what you may have to put yourself through. HATCH: Well, that same poll found that 93 percent of officers have become more concerned about their own safety in this country. Yesterday the chairman noted that the number of police killed in the line of duty has significantly increased. You've made that point. Also yesterday Senator Sessions noted that most police are local rather than federal. The Fraternal Order of Police and other national law enforcement groups support his nomination. How do you think that a change in leadership of the justice department can concretely affect and improve things at the local level? CANTERBURY: Well, first of all the Byrne JAG Grant Program, the COPS Program, the Community Oriented Policing teams, consent decrees, pattern of practice investigations. When you have open lines of communication where rank and file management as well as citizen and activist groups can discuss those -- those cases, I think you can -- you can get to a place where the communities will face -- feel safer and the police officers will feel safer. And we've got to reduce the violence in this country. You know, Senator Hatch, we've been saying for a long time systemic poverty is an issue that law enforcement is not charged with nor has the ability to fix, but we're willing to be good partners, and we believe with Jeff Sessions as attorney general we'll be able to work in all of those sections of the Justice Department to try and improve. (CROSSTALK) HATCH: We're pleased that you're here today, and we're pleased that you're willing to testify for and on his behalf. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Senator. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the panel who are here today, and especially Oscar Vasquez, who came as my invitee, for telling his inspiring life story. Thank you. You've given a face to an issue which is near and dear to my heart and the hearts of millions of Americans. Thank you for serving our country. General Mukasey, during the course of this hearing, I sense that there is an evolving context relative to Russia and the involvement of Russia in the election. Many of the questions we've posed to Senator Sessions related to his values, his votes, and now I think there's a growing concern of a question that you've addressed yourself, too. I'm going to ask you to speak to again, about his role if he becomes attorney general vis-a-vis the White House, the president. We now have allegations, unconfirmed, relative to Russian activity relating to the president-elect. As I said, alleged, unconfirmed, and Director Comey of the FBI saying at this point he would not talk about whether there was an ongoing investigation relative to Russia's role in the election. So can you give me some clarity? And I think you've addressed this. Forgive me if I'm asking you to repeat. Could you give me some clarity? When you served as attorney general, if you received a call from on high, from the White House, from any person in the White House, relative to an investigation, an ongoing investigation or a prosecution, what do you believe was the appropriate response in that situation? MUKASEY: The appropriate response is that whatever investigation it is is going to be pursued to its logical conclusion, which is to say where the facts and the law lead. I'm glad that the question was in the hypothetical, because I in fact did not get such a call, although I have gotten -- did get calls with respect to other matters, and my response was generally that the department would pursue its agenda as already said. DURBIN: So do you -- is it your position the attorney general is independent in this decision making when it comes to other members of the executive branch? MUKASEY: Correct. The Attorney General is, obviously, is a member of an administration and pursues priorities that are set by an administration, but when you're talking about particular investigations and particular cases, that's something altogether different, and I think Senator Sessions made it clear he understood it was altogether different. DURBIN: Can I ask you another question related to that? Investigations undertaken by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, what authority does the attorney general have over the commencement or the conclusion of those investigations? MUKASEY: The attorney general, theoretically, is -- is -- The FBI director reports to the attorney general. I say theoretically because there're -- occasionally one gets the idea that the attorney general is independent. If we had more time, I could tell you the story, but it will have to wait until (inaudible) meeting. The FBI director works for the attorney general. DURBIN: So, I guess my question, it -- Repeatedly Senator Sessions has called for attorneys general to recuse themselves rather than participate in investigations with political ramifications -- most recently called for Attorney General Lynch to appoint a special counsel for Hillary Clinton in an op-ed that he wrote on November 5 of last year. I am trying to work this through. I asked him pointedly whether he would recuse himself if there were any accusations against the president-elect once he becomes president or other people involved in the Trump campaign, and he basically answered me that he was going to take this on a case-by-case basis. If he has the authority and power to stop an investigation at the FBI, is that what you're telling me? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: So, if there is an investigation underway, he could stop it if he wished? MUKASEY: Yes. DURBIN: And when it comes to the appointment of a special counsel involving the pre- the conduct of the president, is it your feeling that the attorney general should, as a general rule, consider special counsel? MUKASEY: No. It would depend on the case. The -- The -- A special counsel has to be appointed when there is a good reason why the department headed by the attorney general cannot pursue that case. I think what Senator Sessions had in... I'm not familiar with the op-ed that you mentioned, so I'm -- I'm speculating, but it sounds like what he had in mind was not simply the position of the attorney general, but rather the tarmac conversation with -- with President Clinton, that put her in a -- in a difficult situation. I don't think that simply had to do with the fact that she was attorney general appointed by the president. DURBIN: I see. Thank you. Mr. Brooks, since the Shelby County decision, the Voting Rights Act is in a perilous situation, and I commended to my colleagues and I commend to you a book entitled "White Rage" by Carol Anderson who teaches at Emory, and she talks about the evolution of the issue of race since the Civil War. It strikes me now that we are in dangerous territory about the future of the Voting Rights Act. If preclearance is not required, and the Department of Justice is reacting after the fact, there could be some delay in justice here in an intervening election or no action taken. I asked my staff to give me a listing of the cases initiated by the Department of Justice relative to the Voting Rights Act for the last several years, and it goes on for pages. Can you address this issue about your belief of the commitment of Senator Sessions to enforce the Voting Rights Act in principal post-Shelby County? BROOKS: Certainly. So, as you well know, Senator, the Voting Rights Act is regarded as the crown jewel of civil rights statutes, and Section 5 was regarded as the most effective provision of the most effective civil rights statute. In the wake of the Shelby v. Holder Supreme Court decision, which debilitated Section 5, being via Section 4(b), we have seen nothing less than a Machiavellian frenzy of voter disenfranchisement from one end of the country to the other. And so that means that the Department of Justice has taken on more responsibility and civil rights organizations have taken on more responsibility with fewer tools. It has meant the debilitation, literally, of our democracy. Where we have citizens who have to wait for the violation to occur, as we saw in North Carolina, where the Fourth Circuit, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, held that the state legislature engaged in intentional racial discrimination with respect to voter suppression carried out with surgical precision. It took an army of lawyers, an army of experts, in order to vindicate the rights of the people, and a mass movement by the North Carolina State Conference of the NAACP with so many others and so many other legal groups. The point being here is the Department of Justice -- Not only is the democracy in a perilous place, but the Department of Justice is in a perilous place. It needs strong leadership. It needs resources, and we need the Voting Rights Advancement Act -- to fix the Voting Rights Act. DURBIN: And post-Shelby County, if the attorney general is not timely and aggressive in enforcing the Voting Rights Act, the damage will be done. BROOKS: The damage is absolutely done. And when we think about all of the many members of this body that went to Selma, that commemorated the foot soldiers of the movement, on the Edmond Pettus Bridge. All that they died for, all that they sacrificed is hanging in the balance. So we need strong leadership there, because literally, literally, we can squander the fruit of -- of -- of their efforts and the civic sacrament of our democracy, namely the right to vote. DURBIN: Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you Senator. Senator Cornyn. CORNYN: Thank you Mr. Chairman. There's a lot to cover in seven minutes. So let me try to be somewhat selective. First of all, thanks to all of you for being here. I can't help but believe that, in spite of the fact that we've had a national election that the election is still ongoing. The campaign is still ongoing. I respect each one of your rights to express your point of view. And -- but I at the same time, it's amazing to me that, with the Senator having cast 6,000 votes in the United States Senate, we're focused on a handful of policy differences and somehow people are saying, well those are dispositive of the qualification of this person who we've served along side of for 15 years, in my case, and 20 years in the case of others. So I guess our job is, sort of, like the jury in a regular lawsuit, that we have to not -- we have to give weight to the testimony and we have to figure out who's testimony is entitled to greater weight. Because frankly, the description we've heard today are so wildly disparate that it's, I -- I would imagine for people who didn't know Senator Sessions and know his record as I do and those of us who've served with him, it would be hard to reconcile. But I -- I want to ask General Mukasey, Senator Hatch alluded to this, but this is really important to me and I just want to reiterate this. You've had the distinction of serving in the two branches of our three branches of government, as a federal district judge with great distinction and as attorney general in the executive branch. I, at a much lower level, have had the chance to serve now in three branches myself as a state court judge and as attorney general of my state and now as a legislator here at the federal level. Each of those roles are different aren't they? And indeed I think that's the point that Senator Sessions made eloquently yesterday, even though he may have some policy differences or have cast a vote against a bill in the Senate. He would respect the Constitution and enforce the law. Isn't that what you understood? MUKASEY: That's precisely what I understood. And he recognized the difference in the different roles that he plays as a legislator, from what he would play as attorney general. CORNYN: And I thought yesterday he did a magnificent job responding to the questions and acknowledging the policy differences do exist. That's just the way it is. Mr. Canterbury, let me ask you a little bit about the role of the federal government and the attorney general's office and the Department of Justice in supporting local and state law enforcement. I believe the figure is roughly $2 billion a year, that the federal government hands out, or -- or -- or distributes in terms of grants to local and state law enforcement. I think your testimony, you mentioned the active shooter training that we've tried to enhance through the Police Act, which passed the Congress and was signed by President Obama. Making sure that more officers were -- got that training which is even more relevant, sadly today than perhaps even in the past. I would just add to that, the -- the work that we did recently on mental health and it's intersection with the criminal justice system. The Mental Health and Safe Communities Act that was part of the 21st Century Cures Bill. Again, recognizing that our jails and our streets and our emergency rooms have become the treatment centers by default for people with mental illness. We need to do more to try to get people who need help the help they need, but not treat mental illness as a crime, per say. We also need to make sure that we train our law enforcement officials because we know how dangerous, at least from the stories and the statistics that we see, how dangerous it can be when police officer encounters a person with mental illness. And they don't have the training they need to de-escalate the -- the -- the scene. But could you talk a little bit about your experience and your organization's experience as law enforcement officials dealing with people with -- with mental illness? CANTERBURY: Well I would say in the last 10 or 15 years, the number of mentally ill individuals that law enforcement comes in contact as exponentially gone up as mental health services at the state and local level have gone down. And, I've explained this recently to a -- a Vice-President Biden when he asked about that same question. And my response was, in many of these situations, regardless on whether a police officer or a law enforcement professional realizes that there's a mental illness, the circumstances are dictated by the actions. And so, whether or not we can recognize the particular mental illness, is not as important as recognizing that there is an issue. The problem is that there's very little assistance at that level anymore for street level mental illness. And, making sure that they're not a danger to themselves or others should not, cannot be the responsibility of a first responding officer. We just will never have the training to be able to do it to that extent. So there is -- it's a huge issue for local and state officers and I don't know what we're going to do to fix that. But, the biggest thing is that the community based mental health facilities are just not there anymore. CORNYN: Well I think you'll find a friend in -- in Senator Sessions as attorney general in recognizing the priorities for local law enforcement -- state law enforcement and making sure that the Mental Health and Safe Communities Act, which will provide priority for that kind of training and assistance for local and state law enforcement is there. Ms. Sepich, thank you for your outstanding work and rising out of a terrible tragedy, you and your family experienced in your lives. But -- but I know you're committed to making sure not only that that doesn't happen to other families, but also that through your work on DNA Saves that we are able to bring people responsible to justice. There's been so much work that we've done here and Senator Sessions has been front and center as you've noticed. Things like Senator Hatch's rapid DNA legislation act. The Paul Coverdale National Forensic Science Improvement Act, which was just renewed in the Justice for All Act that Senator Leahy and I co-sponsored and was signed by President Obama. But, it is so important to make sure that we do provide all these essential tools and good science to make sure we do convict the guilty, but we also exonerate people who are innocent of crimes. And would you, I just want to say thank you. I know the Chairman has the gavel in his hand and he's getting ready to gavel me out of order here. But I just want to express my gratitude to you for your leadership on that issue. But you're right, Senator Sessions has been front and center at all of those efforts, not only to convict the guilty, but also to exonerate the innocent. Thank you Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Now Senator Leahy. LEAHY: Thank you. I wasn't going to interrupt Senator Cornyn as long as your praising a legislation you and I wrote -- wrote together. I mention that only because contrary to what people believe, Republicans and Democrats do work together on a lot of things here in the Congress. Mr. Thompson, you and I have worked together on things as you know. And, I just want to say something to Sergeant Vasquez -- Vasquez, I'm sorry for the pronunciation. I watched some of your testimony earlier. It is so moving. And, my wife did too, and we're both so proud of you and thank you for what you have done, your service for the country. And as parents of one who served in the military, we, like all parents everywhere, you worry about those who serve and you worry what they do, but you think. Thank everybody, the fact that we have people who are willing to serve our country. Are you concerned about what might happen under the new administration for young people registered under DACA? VASQUEZ: Definitely Mr. Senator. There -- there is a huge concern for those roughly 800,000 people that raise their hand and say they were undocumented right? I think that the biggest point that makes is that when there was a path, there was a way for us to come out of the shadows, right. And a dozen people raised their hand and say they were undocumented. Now the fact of the matter is that there was no other way, right;the Congress, the Senate has not passed any meaningful laws that could guarantee them a path to citizenship, to (inaudible) legislation (ph), to whatever you want to call it. But unless there is a path, unless there is a way they can find a permanent solution, we are definitely concerned that the next administration is going to stop the DACA and that those students are going to have to go back into the shadows. Senator Sessions stated yesterday that there is not enough financial support to report 800,000 people and at the same time he opposed every single legislation that will give them a way to become legal. So what are the students to do? What are the young adults to do when they are faced with opposition? So it is definitely concerning. LEAHY: You must know an awful lot of people who are nearing the DACA, is there a sense of concern about the rhetoric that we're hearing with the new administration? VAZQUEZ: There is definitely a sense of concern. There is a lot of fear most of all. I know students -- one of the other, my teammate has won the competition so many years ago; he is a father to two U. S. citizen children now and he will be facing -- he is facing the unknown (ph) given the next administration. I mean there has been statement saying that DACA is going to be repealed, maybe there is not, so we are not sure what's going to happen in that scenario. There is a lot of fear out there. LEAHY: Thank you. Ms. Swadhin, I -- I raised on behalf -- I probably should raise the question yesterday and I'm hearing about comments that the President-Elect has made regarding sexual assault and gave Mr. Sessions a chance to explain where-- his first response is that he seemed to be basically minimize and improving what President might have said, he expanded what he meant yesterday and yesterday he is under oath, I will accept that. But I think -- my own daughter -- I think of -- my three beautiful granddaughters; and I think about somebody in the Hollywood video on the President-elect jokes about what is sexual assault. Mr. Sessions now when he is asked further about it, in midst of what President-elect Trump brags about doing is sexual assault. You've dedicated your life to helping others heal after sexual assault. You're a survivor yourself. What -- sort of a two-part question; what kind of a message to somebody, especially somebody in power trivializes sexual assault, even jokes about it; how is the prosecutor -- I prosecuted sexual assault cases. What does it do for victims' willingness to come forth if they see people in power trivialize something that might be a lifelong trauma for them? (Inaudible). SWADHIN: Thank you for the question, Senator Leahy. You know, it's highly relevant on several levels that the impact that it has on survivors watching people in power and in this case, someone who -- you know, has been elected to be the President of The United States make these kind of jokes and brag about this kind of so- called locker room behavior about sexually assaulting women. I think it's important to go back to the point I made in my testimony that the majority of victims of violent crime are assailed (ph) by people who they know intimately. In cases of adult rape and sexual assault, 80 percent of survivors know their assailant and in 90 percent of cases of child sexual abuse,the person sexually abusing the child is known and trusted and often loved by the person who is perpetrating the violence. So it's already so hard for survivors to come forward because it means that we have to testify against the people that we put our trust in. In my case it was my father and that's not an uncommon story, it's someone very close to you; that's how these crimes happen. And so to be able to trust the state more than we fear are intimately known perpetrators,we have to see people in control of the state who take a hard-line stance against sexual assault and whom -- you know, say publicly that they would support and believe survivors. And unfortunately in this political climate, we're looking at an administration led by a man who not only does not seem to prioritize helping sexual assault survivors heal and come forward to be able to trust the state but -- you know, may have actually engaged in assault himself, the things that he was bragging about. So it's incredibly concerning. Add to that the fact that the violence that we live through has very traumatizing impacts. I myself live with complex PTSD, so your mental health on a day-to-day basis is already negatively impacted. So to be able to stay grounded enough to come forward and put your trust in a stranger, social worker, a prosecutor, a police officer in order to get the services healing and the accountability that you deserve, it's incredibly difficult. LEAHY: Thank you. Because I -- I remember, on the sexual assault cases where detectives at my office, assistant prosecutors and myself having to tell people you can trust us. We actually care about what you're saying. We do believe it's a crime. And frankly, those who trivialize it and say it's not a crime are ignoring too many people in this country. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Leahy, now Senator Cruz. CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank all the members of the distinguished panel for being here today and I want to take a special moment to thank Larry Thompson who was my boss at the Department of Justice; although I would note that you should not hold Larry accountable for my missteps in the years that followed. I want to start, Mr. Cole by addressing your testimony. And I would note that the ACLU -- I have worked alongside the ACLU on any number of the issues here in the senate, including we've worked alongside each other on issues of indefinite detention, we've worked on the same side concerning the USA Patriot Act, we worked on the same side working to stop the efforts of Senate Democrats to amend the Constitution and to amend the Free Speech protections of the First Amendment and so I'm grateful for many of the good things the ACLU does. You're a professor at Georgetown; I would like to ask you as a professor, how would you react to a student who submitted List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 WITNESSES: FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL MICHAEL B. MUKASEY DAVID COLE, LEGAL DIRECTOR, ACLU LARRY THOMPSON, FORMER DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CORNELL BROOKS, PRESIDENT AND CEO, NAACP CHUCK CANTERBURY, NATIONAL PRESIDENT, FRATERNAL ORDER OF POLICE OSCAR VAZQUEZ, FORMER DREAMER, U.S. VETERAN PETER KIRSANOW, COMMISSIONER, UNITED STATES COMMISSION ON CIVIL RIGHTS AMITA SWADHIN, FOUNDER, MIRROR MEMOIRS JAYANN SEPICH, CO-FOUNDER, DNA SAVES SEN. CORY BOOKER, D-N.J. WILLIE HUNTLEY, FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. JOHN LEWIS, D-GA. JESSE SEROYER, FORMER UNITED STATES MARSHAL, MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA REP. CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, D-LA. WILLIAM SMITH, FORMER CHIEF COUNSEL, ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS SUBCOMMITTEE, SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA - JULY 4, 2023: Police officer arrives on emergency call during transportation collapse and chaos at rush hour in Santa Monica, Los Angeles, California. The motor vehicle crash data provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administrations' General Estimates System , which began operation in 1988.

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Immigration Enforcement Policies LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS AND WITNESSES GRASSLEY: For the benefit of the audience and the witnesses, generally, and in this case, too, Senator Feinstein is the Ranking Member for this hearing, and she and I will make opening comments. Then we'll go to our first panel. This Committee continues to honor its pledge to conduct oversight over the implementation of the laws Congress has passed, as well as the policies and practices of the executive branch. Today we will focus on how this Committee's (sic) immigration policies and practices are hurting American families. The Committee will hear powerful testimony from a number of relatives who have lost loved ones as a direct result of the administration's failure to deport aliens or its tolerance of sanctuary policies. I'll begin by extending a special welcome to our witnesses, especially family members of victims. I hope you will accept our deepest sympathies for the losses each of you have suffered. Thank you very much for your willingness to share your stories under difficult circumstances and to pay tribute to those who, though no longer with us in body, are surely with us in spirit. Today we will honor Josh, Kate, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and many others whose lives were tragically cut short because of the administration's lax immigration policies. We had many families and relatives who wanted to testify today, but unfortunately we had to turn them away because we were limited in time and space. However, we welcome all testimony for the record and encourage them to commemorate their loved ones with stories and written letters to this Committee. We will examine the administration's policies from top down. We'll look at how federal benefits are being granted to deportable criminals by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while criminals are being released by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, and how enforcement of the laws can be better achieved. We will look at how we can improve cooperation between government agencies and we'll look into how we can improve cooperation between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies. After all, we all work for the same taxpayer; we ought to be cooperating. We'll look at sanctuary jurisdictions and try to understand why policies that protect criminal aliens are in place. In the past few weeks, we have learned that there are thousands of detainers placed each year on federal agents -- by federal agents on undocumented immigrants with criminal records that are ignored. According to government data, between January and September 2014, there were 8,811 declined detainers in 276 counties, 43 states, including Columbia District. Of the 8,811 declined detainers, 62 percent were associated with over 5,000 individuals who were previously charged or convicted of a crime or presented some other public safety concern. And nearly 1,900 of the released offenders were arrested for another crime after being released by sanctuary jurisdiction. This is obviously disturbing, not only to me but to most Americans. There is no good rationale for noncooperation between federal-level and state and local law enforcement. Public safety is needlessly and recklessly put at risk when state and local officials provide sanctuary to law-abiding immigrants just to make a political point. This administration in too many cases has turned a blind eye to enforcement, even releasing thousands of criminals at its own discretion, many of whom have gone on to commit serious crimes, including murder. The administration has also granted deferred action to criminal aliens who have committed heinous crimes after receiving this relief from deportation. I've written to Secretary Johnson about four specific cases in which such individuals have received President Obama's deferred action for childhood arrivals, and that it is referred to as DACA in this town. One of these beneficiaries was a known gang member when he applied and received DACA, then went on to kill four people in North Carolina. Another DACA recipient used his work authorization to gain employment at a popular youth camp in California where he was recently arrested for child molestation and distribution of child pornography. I'm still waiting for responses on some of these cases. Further, the administration's completely failed to do anything about sanctuary cities, while -- all the while challenging states that took a more aggressive approach to enforcing immigration laws. I recently sent a letter to Attorney General Lynch and Homeland Security Secretary Johnson about sanctuary cities. I urged them to take control of the situation to ensure detainers are not ignored and non-documented individuals are safely transferred to federal custody and put into deportation proceedings. I implored them to take a more direct role in the matter and on that -- on those letters I have not received a response. But this isn't a new issue for this administration. I wrote to then-Secretary Napolitano and then-Attorney General Holder in 2012 and asked them to intervene in Cook County, Illinois, and other sanctuary jurisdictions. Nothing happened. In fact, since then the administration officials have publicly stated that they neither believe detainers have to be honored, nor that they even want them to be mandatory. Enforcing the immigration laws in this country is not a voluntary or trivial matter. Real lives are at stake. Things cannot continue this way. We're a nation based upon the rule of law and if that rule of law isn't respected, only chaos will succeed. That is why I'm introducing legislation today that will hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable. It will require the executive branch to withhold certain federal funding if states or local law enforcement refuse to cooperate with federal government in holding and transferring criminal aliens. My bill will require the state and local cooperate on criminal aliens or risk losing law enforcement-related grants that are distributed by Homeland Security and DOJ. My bill will also require a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence in addition to possible fines for individuals who enter the United States after having been deported. Current law does not require prison time and caps the possible prison sentence at two years. This section of my bill is aimed at individuals who ignore our laws time and again. No more people should die at the hands of those who break our laws just by being here. No more families should have to go through what these families and others have gone through again. I'd like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. Your strength and determination to change the unacceptable status quo won't go unnoticed. I will now turn to Senator Feinstein. And after she does, I'll introduce the witnesses. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley. I want to say that our Ranking Member, Patrick Leahy, would be here but there is an urgent family appointment that he had to keep this morning. And so I sit in in his stead. And I know this is a hearing that he very much would have wanted to have attended. Yesterday I had occasion to meet with the Steinle family. And Jim Steinle is sitting front and center at the dock. And what I saw was a very hurt family, but very resolute and very concerned about doing the right thing, whatever that may be in a case like this. So I want to voice my very clear sympathy and condolences to the family members that are here today. I can't think of anything that's harder to do than what you're going to do today. And I think your strength in doing it is noted and very much appreciated. It is very clear to me that we have to improve cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement. The overriding concern, and a deep belief of mine, is that convicted felons should not be removed from the country -- should be removed from the country, but not released onto our streets. When immigration authorities ask that a state or local law enforcement agency notify them of an impending release of an alien with a serious felony record, that request should be honored. I strongly believe that local law enforcement should have notified the immigration authorities in the case of the accused murderer of Kate Steinle. The man who killed Kate is a classic case of multiple felonies and prior deportations. And a simple phone call would have been enough. But that did not happen. In fact, the San Francisco County Sheriff adopted his own policy on March of 2015, just four months ago. The memo states, "SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or ask access to ICE representatives," end-quote. One of the items listed in the department's memo is, quote, "release dates and times," end-quote. In other words, the Sheriff's Department barred its own deputies from informing ICE about an individual's release date and time. That, I believe, is wrong. I believe it is not required by San Francisco's ordinance as the Mayor has made clear to the Sheriff in a letter dated July 14. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that letter in the record, if I may. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. FEINSTEIN: Thank you. I agree with the Mayor and to prevent a similar tragedy I hope and expect that my home state of California and the city of San Francisco in particular will agree to take part in the Department of Homeland Security Priority Enforcement Program, known as PEP. This program focuses on felons and others who are high priorities for removal from the country. Under PEP, ICE can request notification of an alien's release date from a state or local -- from state or local custody. And so that they would have the opportunity, if the circumstances warranted it, to take custody of that individual itself. In some instances, PEP also allows for ICE to lodge a detainer request with local law enforcement, asking that they hold an alien for up to 48 hours. It seems to me that a simple notification to ICE could have prevented Kate Steinle's death. I have urged Mayor Lee and the board of supervisors to participate in this new program, which the Secretary announced late last year. This program prioritizes those who threaten our nation's national security. I'm pleased that Mayor Lee is taking this request seriously and is in the process of communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about participating. We all know that most undocumented immigrants are otherwise law-abiding, hard-working, and just want to provide for their families. I believe that deeply. But that's not the element of the undocumented population we're talking about today. I'm currently working on a bill, as is our Chairman and I think others on this -- in this Committee, that would require state and local law enforcement to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the impending release from a detention center of an illegal alien who has previously been convicted of a felony, if ICE requests such notification. This bill is a work in progress. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony today and to working with other members of this Committee so that we might produce a bill that is worthy of consideration and passage. And I thank the Chair. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Our first witness, Ms. Susan Oliver. Ms. Oliver is a widow of Deputy Danny Oliver, a police officer in Sacramento. Danny was killed while on duty by an undocumented immigrant who was previously arrested on two separate occasions on drug-related charges and twice deported. Ms. Oliver has established a foundation in her husband's name to help kids in school. Our second witness, Ms. Grace Huang, she is Public Policy Program Coordinator for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a non-profit network of domestic violence founded in 1990. Our third witness, Mr. Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant Ronnebeck. He was a 21-year-old convenience store clerk who was gunned down earlier this year by an undocumented immigrant. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released Grant's alleged murderer who was awaiting deportation. Grant was born in Iowa, but resided in Arizona and had two brothers and a sister. Our fourth witness, the Reverend Gabriel Salguero. Reverend Salguero and his wife are the co-lead pastors of Lambs Church of the Nazarene, New York City. He is also a founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition. Our fifth witness, Mr. Jim Steinle, of Pleasanton, California, the father of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down 20 days ago while walking on a pier in San Francisco alongside this father. Her alleged killer had seven prior felony convictions and had been deported five times. Sanchez was shielded by San Francisco's sanctuary policy, which allowed for his release in March despite an ICE detainer placed on him. Sixth person, Chief J. Thomas Manger. Chief Manger has been a chief of police, Montgomery County, since February 2004. Chief Manger also serves as president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Our seventh witness is Dr. Brian McCann. Mr. McCann's brother, Dennis, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County, Illinois's sanctuary city policies. Our final witness, Ms. Laura Wilkerson, of Pearland, Texas. She's a mother of Josh Wilkerson. Josh was 18-years-old when he was kidnapped and murdered by his high school classmate, an illegal immigrant, after offering his classmate a ride from school. Josh's murderer was sentenced to life imprisonment and will be eligible for parole in 30 years. I want to thank all of you for being here. And I expressed to you privately our condolences, I say so now publicly. You are very brave to come forward and testimony and we -- we welcome that very much. And we'll start with Ms. Oliver. You -- I know you folks have been told about a four-minute rule. The red light comes on. If you have a longer statement, it will be put in the record. That doesn't mean that just exactly when the red light comes on I'm going to gavel you down. But please cut it short because this is a very important hearing. We want to get the witnesses in. But the most important thing after you tell your stories is for us to hear from the administration and to question the administration. Will you start, Ms. Oliver? OLIVER: Good morning. I just wanted to first state that I'm honored that the bill has been named after my husband, Deputy Oliver, as well as Detective Davis, who were killed on October 24, 2014. Over the past nine months, my life has changed dramatically because of the loss of my husband, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver. Danny Oliver was a special person that knew that treating people with dignity and kindness resulted in stronger, healthier, and safer communities, and he worked every day to help make that a reality for communities that needed it the most. As a 15-year veteran of Sacramento County's Sheriff's Office, Danny Oliver was not a man to boast or gloat of his professional accomplishments. In fact, when he was given a standing ovation at a community meeting, he felt unsure of how to handle this overwhelming approval. Danny simply felt he was doing his job and that was all that was needed to feel accomplished. My husband's last shift with the Sacramento County's Sheriff's Office ended by doing something he had done countless times before in his career. He was policing his community and trying to make a difference. Danny was a POP officer, also known as a problem-oriented police officer. His job was to identify possible community challenges and try to get ahead of them. He had put himself into harm's way every day that he put his uniform on. And on Friday, October 24, 2014, my husband and father of two approached a car on his beat. But this time it was the last time. The last thing my husband attempted to do as a POP officer was to ask the man inside the car how his day was going. But he never made it to the driver's window. At about 10:30 a.m., that man was in the country illegally and armed with numerous illegal weapons. He aimed one outside the car of a parking lot of Motel 6 in Sacramento and opened fire, killing my husband with a shot to the forehead. I can honestly say that not a day goes by that this has not affected me. It may not be visible always. It may not be written in bold for all to see. It may not even be recognized, but it's always in the background of my mind. Sorry. It's there daily, sometimes moment by moment, as it should be. Many people ask if I've gotten past that terrible day and the answer is no. Honestly, I don't think I will ever get past that day. I lost the man I was married to for 25 years. Each day I look for parental backup for rearing my child who's 12-years-old, and I feel that loss. Each day my children reach milestones. My daughter recently got engaged and there will be a marriage that he will not be at. There will be school graduations and even our weekly family brunches that we held. I am reminded that I no longer have my husband by my side. I was with him since I graduated high school 25 years ago, and we watched each other grow up. We made careers together and we raised two children. We could just look at each other and know what we needed. Perhaps it was support, a loving smile, or even an "I'll talk to you when we get home" look. It is hard to build this trust and understanding, but we had it mastered with ease. But because of the actions of one criminal, this all ended on October 24. My life will never be the same. Unlike law enforcement, there are few professions that consistently send our loved ones into harm's way. It's frightening always knowing that each time they walk out the door it could be the last time that you see them. At the same time, not many professions consciously or intentionally give the order to take a life through the use of deadly force in order to protect others who can't protect themselves, an awesome responsibility that my husband understood clearly. And this continues to be -- to create a lot of ongoing dialogue without communities throughout the country as we see a lack of -- of -- of -- as we see a lack of -- of -- as we see a lack of continuity among law enforcement groups and communities that they serve. Every single day law enforcers at the state, local, and federal level put themselves -- themselves, their loved ones, and their communities that they serve at risk when they are forced to release criminals who are illegal, who pose a threat to community safety, all in violation of current laws that require deportation. In just the last two years, ICE released back into the nation's streets 76,000 convicted criminals who were in this country illegally. There are 169 (ph) criminals in the United States who are here illegally right now. That means there are 169,000 people in our streets who have criminal convictions and were formerly and lawfully ordered departed, but who remain here to commit other crimes, to possibly kill someone else's loved one. The administration's tolerance of sanctuary cities has also resulted in another 10,000 potentially deported illegal immigrant criminals being released by local law agencies since January of last year. And 121 of these criminals have been ordered deported in the last three years and yet were released by ICE, have now -- and have now been charged with additional homicide offenses. The man that killed my husband, Danny Oliver, was deported several times for various felonies before killing my husband on October 24, 2014. However, due to the lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies, he was allowed back into the country and in one day he committed another crime, only this time his illegal crime status impacted many in a direct and profound way when he shot and killed my husband. It would be remiss if I didn't also mention that it wasn't my -- it wasn't my life -- it wasn't just my life that was changed that day. That same criminal eluded hundreds of officers from Sacramento to Auburn, California, during a six-hour crime spree that also left Placer County Sheriff Detective Michael Davis Jr. dead, Placer County Sheriff Deputy Jeff Davis wounded, and a motorist in serious condition from a gunshot to the head. Many lives changed on October 24. Today I honor my husband, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver, and the other fallen heroes throughout this nation who are always with us in our hearts and in our memories. I wonder if I would even be here today talking to you about my loss if the government -- if the government better enforced immigration law. Unfortunately, this is now my reality. Thank you for honoring Danny and the others who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I hope by being here today and telling you about the grief my family has unnecessarily endured I can help save the life of someone else's friend, husband, or father. I hope that my husband's death won't be in vain. I hope that I can be here to make a difference. My life is forever changed and saddened. Please help put policy in place to make sure that criminal immigrants are in this country -- who are in this country illegally are never allowed to dictate (ph) the life of a true humanitarian like my husband, Deputy Danny Oliver. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Ms. Oliver. Ms. Huang? HUANG: Thank you, Chairman Grassley and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Grace Huang from the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. I am deeply honored to be here to comment on the impact of local law enforcement policies regarding federal immigration enforcement on victims of domestic violence. The issue of violence in our communities is challenging, complex, and deeply emotional. As someone who's worked with survivors of violent crimes for over 22 years, I know how important it is for people to feel that -- to feel that they can prevent future tragedies. And I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families here today. Over the years -- over the years in my work at the Coalition, I've had the honor to work with -- work in helping families make it -- work in the advocacy process in advancing effective policy solutions. Through open and honest dialogue, I hope that we can work to find solutions that are -- that make our communities safer for everyone. One crucial thing we can do is to build strong police and community relationships, which means establishing an environment of trust. If victims and witnesses do not feel safe coming forward, the police cannot do their jobs and are -- we are all less safe. Congress has affirmed that principle that immigrant victims and witnesses should feel safe to come forward by creating the U visa for victims of crime in 2000 in the Violence Against Women Act, which was recently reauthorized. I thank you all for everything you have done to make women in our communities as a whole more safe. I ask that you remember these lessons as you work to address this new challenge. As a victim advocate, I'm deeply concerned that mandating local police cooperation with immigration enforcement will strengthen the hands of violent perpetrators, helping them silence their victims and witnesses. I'm also concerned that vulnerable immigrant victims brave enough to step forward will face detention, separation from their children, and swift deportation. This was what many communities encountered with Secure Communities, and the chilling effect it had on police-community relations was both traumatic (ph) and counterproductive. One example of this chilling effect is the case of Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl living in Colorado. Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her parents, who were undocumented, were terrified of reporting the crime to the police after having been told by friends and family that they would be reported to Immigration if they stepped forward. A year later, that same perpetrator sexually abused another child. In the end, after the father of that child contacted Cecilia's parents, they went to the police together and the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted. But because of their initial fear to report, another child was harmed. When immigrants are afraid to come forward with information about a crime, the entire community is less safe. When reaching out to police to address domestic violence may end up in deportation, law enforcement is effectively removed as an option for safety, which has life-threatening impacts. For example, one client, Maria, so distrusted the police that when her abuser tracked her down after she fled to another state, she tried to call her lawyer instead of calling 911. It was midnight, he was pounding on the door, and she was frantically calling over and over the closed office of her attorney, who was, of course, not at work. For Maria, the idea of calling the police was simply not an option that put her life in danger. Imagine being so fearful that even though somebody is trying to break into your house, you cannot turn to the police. As victim advocates, we're also concerned that immigrant survivors will be caught up in deportation cases when there are mandates for local police cooperation with ICE. It's not unusual for immigrant victims to be convicted of crimes stemming from their victimization. For example, in California, Cindy, a Taiwanese woman on a student visa, was arrested and convicted of felony domestic violence charges and spent nearly a month in jail before she was able to speak to somebody in her own language. She had bitten her abuser while fighting him off when he tried to rape her. Although the jury determined that she had acted to defend herself, she was convicted of felony domestic violence because the jury determined that the force she used to defend herself was greater than the assault. Because Cindy was not automatically referred to ICE, she was able to complete her studies, expunge her criminal record, and become a productive member of society. Police -- policies limiting local police cooperation with ICE may provide just enough respite for victims like Cindy to access the resources they need. Again, I want to say that we in the domestic violence advocacy field greatly appreciate the work that Congress has done, and many members of this Committee, in particular, have done to support a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Proposals that are under consideration to limit funds to so- called sanctuary cities will allow violent crimes to go un- investigated and leave victims without redress. Federal funding of law enforcement supports critical training, equipment, and staff that assists victims all over the country every day. Without such funding there will be cases that go un-investigated, protection orders that will not be served or enforced, rape kits that will not be tested, the child abuse, sexual abuse victims that will not have trained interviewers. These victims are not limited to immigrants. We recognize the fact that there are victims both with lawful status and those without that are harmed by some immigrants. We want -- we all want justice for victims and to prevent future crimes. We urge Congress to proceed with measured, thoughtful policies in order to enhance the safety of all of our communities. Thank you. RONNEBECK: Good morning, distinguished Committee members. Grant Ronnebeck was a 21-year-old son, brother, nephew, and grandson. He was a bright, young man with an infectious smile and love of life. He had a positive outlook on life and everyone he met knew it. Grant had no enemies. He was a friendly, outgoing, lovable guy. As a 21-year-old American, he was just starting out in life, starting to realize his dreams, starting to follow his heart in matters of career choices and just discovering his life's opportunities. His desire was to work his way up at the job he loved, working for the QuikTrip Corporation as he had for the previous five years, or possibly later to become a member of the law enforcement community. He loved four-wheeling in the desert around his home in Mesa, Arizona, spending time with friends and family, and watching the Broncos play during the football season. He was a pretty typical young American man, but to us he was a very special family and community member. At 4 a.m. on January 22, 2015, just six months ago, while working the overnight shift at his QuikTrip store, Grant assisted a man buying cigarettes. The man dumped a jar of coins on the counter and demanded those cigarettes. Grant tried to explain that he needed to count the coins before he could give the man the cigarettes. The man pulled a gun and said, "You're not going to take my money and you're not going to give me my cigarettes." Grant immediately offered up the cigarettes to the man. He shot him point blank in the face, killing him. Seemingly unaffected, the man coldly and callously stepped over Grant's dying body, grabbed a couple of packs of cigarettes, and then left the store. After a 30-minute high-speed pursuit through the streets of Mesa and Phoenix, Arizona, the man was taken into custody. Inside his car were the cigarettes and two handguns, one of which was believed to have been used to kill Grant. Apolinar Altamirano, the alleged murderer, is an illegal alien. According to a new article detailing his 2012 arrest, he was a self- proclaimed member of the Mexican Mafia and says he has ties to the Sinaloa drug cartel. The news article states that in August of 2012 he was arrested with two others after kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman and burglarizing her apartment. She was allegedly held naked and against her will for a full week prior to escaping. He took a plea deal and pled guilty to a charge of felony burglary for that incident. He was sentenced to two years' probation and turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency due to his undocumented status in the United States. He never served any time in custody related to that -- to that offense. ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, released the now-convicted felon Altamirano on a $10,000 bond pending a deportation hearing. In the two years since then, while awaiting his deportation hearing, Altamirano has had two orders of protection filed against him, including one from a woman who claimed he threatened to kill her and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. ICE was reportedly notified of the protection orders by a Mesa Superior Court judge. Altamirano was still allowed to remain free in our country. In addition to Altamirano, ICE reported that they released 66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of our country in 2013 and 2014, and another 10,246 as of March 2015. This group included aliens convicted of violent and serious crimes, including homicides, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. At least 123 American citizens have been murdered by one of these released criminal aliens, including my nephew, Grant Ronnebeck. There are a number of immigration bills that have been introduced in the last several months. Among those, Grant's Law, for my nephew, Kate's Law, for Kate Steinle, the Davis-Oliver Act for law -- for law enforcement officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis, and Jamiel's Law, for Jamiel Shaw, all Americans killed by illegal immigrants. Each of these potential laws have a specific component that would help protect American lives. I ask that each of you give consideration and priority to passing these important bills into laws. It is my family's greatest desire that Grant Ronnebeck's legacy will be more than a (inaudible) obituary, a cemetery plot, or a fond memory. Instead, we want Grant's death to be a force for change and reform in the immigration policies of this great nation. In closing, I am asking you, our elected leaders, scholars, lawyers, to make these changes, to rise above your political differences, to set aside your personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, with the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in mind. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Ronnebeck. Now Reverend Salguero? SALGUERO: My name is Gabriel Salguero. Together with my wife, Jeanette, I am the pastor of the multi-ethnic Lambs Church of the Nazarene, where immigrants, police officers, whites, African Americans, and Asians worship together. I'm also the founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, which represents some of the 8 million Hispanic Evangelicals living in the United States. I offer my sincere thanks to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and the other members of the Committee. I'm honored to be here today. I want to begin by saying that I'm heartbroken by the senseless violence and tragedy that we are discussing here today. I've prayed and asked the Lord to bless these families and provide grace and comfort to each family member here today. I could only imagine that every family member, friend, and community member continues to reel from the shock, loss, and grief at the remembrance of these lost loved ones. My prayers and sincere condolences go to each of you and your families. Nothing I can do here today will heal that grief, but your families will remain in my prayers. I pray for an end to violent acts such as these, and I pray that those who would commit such acts face just consequences and redemption. I'm here to speak about my belief that we should take care to ensure that while we work to prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future, we do not harm entire communities in the process. Faith organizations, including my Evangelical community, have historically played a critical role in promoting community trust and providing safe haven to refugees, those fleeing violence, and other immigrants facing daunting challenges of opportunity in the United States. I do not believe that the tragedies we discuss here today are the result of policies that seek to promote trust and cooperation with immigrant communities. The values of sanctuary churches in the United States are deeply rooted in safety, family unity, and trust. These values are critical in the promotion of healthy, vibrant, and non-violent communities, and they are the foundation of hundreds of communities across the country who have chosen to embrace local law enforcement policies that foster and protect trust. These policies should be designed to prevent dangerous crimes, not encourage them. In the midst of our collective grief, I pray we avoid criminalizing or casting collective blame on entire communities for the actions committed by one or even a small number of individuals. In order to uphold our criminal justice system and ensure that our communities feel safe enough to come forward and interact with law enforcement, cities across the United States need to work on their role in collaborating with federal immigration authorities and in the use of immigration detainers in an effort to ensure that both survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and other serious crimes will cooperate with law enforcement and come forward. If we fail to create smart policies that promote trust, victims and witnesses will remain silent due to their fear that they or their loved ones face deportation after seeking protection from the police. Silence can create fear and expose all communities to greater risk. We, as a nation, should focus on solutions that will make our communities more integrated and, yes, more safe. I believe that legislation targeting immigrant communities would just lead to more crime, as it may silence many of the more than 11 million immigrants who will fear cooperation with police at the risk of deportation. I urge Congress to resist politicizing the murders and the grief of these families with sweeping measures and to instead work with local communities and churches and others to ensure community safety. Let's work together to reform our immigration laws. Faith communities should work to keep families safe, to keep families together, and to keep children with their parents. Faith communities should not permit our grief to turn us against each other or against entire communities. Yes, our immigration system is broken and it needs reform. But we should not move forward with reactionary legislation that does not address the real issues at hand. The real solution to our immigration challenges is broad, just, and humane immigration reform, which would place undocumented immigrants on an earned path to citizenship, get many people on the roles that way we know who the criminals are and who isn't, allowing them -- also, those hardworking immigrants to contribute to their families, communities, and country. As a pastor, I want to avoid scapegoating entire communities by passing legislation that focuses solely on deportation and not on integrating hardworking families in the United States. So let's work together to promote community safety. We can and should look at state and local policies carefully. I encourage communities to carefully tailor their policies to keep people safe. I encourage the federal government to carefully review its own policies and work with these localities across the country to ensure that our systems appropriately meet the goals of violence prevention against all community members. But I do not encourage us to force states and localities to pursue a one-size-fits-all policy. As we continue to mourn and pray for these families, let's work together to find real solutions that promote peace and security, not fear and not collective punishment. I pray for an end to senseless acts of violence. I pray for every policymaker here and beyond to make rational and deliberate decisions. I pray for reform that promotes thoughtful community safety policies, immigration integration, and common sense comprehensive immigration reform. I pray for the comfort for each of the families speaking here today and those who are not here. And I thank you again for inviting me here today. GRASSLEY: Reverend Salguero. Now Mr. Steinle? STEINLE: First of all, on behalf of my family, I would like to thank the members of this Committee for the honor to speak to you about our daughter, Kate. All children are special in their own way and Kate was special in the way she connected with people. We called it the "Kate effect." Kate was beautiful, kind, happy, caring, loving, deep in faith. Kate had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room. Kate loved to travel, spend time with her friends, and most of all, spend time with her family. In fact, the day she was killed, we were walking arm-in-arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco, enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked to me and said, "Help me, Dad." Those were the last words I will ever hear from my daughter. The day Kate died she changed her Facebook cover photo to a saying that said, "Whatever's good for your soul, do it." That was true -- that truly describes Kate's spirit. After graduating from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, she went to work for a title company and saved her money so she could see the world. She traveled to Spain, Thailand, Amsterdam, Dubai, South Africa, just to mention a few. She even met her way -- made her way to the slums of Dubai, India, to reach out to friends (inaudible). She spent time there with the woman's family and came back a changed person. Everywhere Kate went throughout the world she shined the light of a good citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on many levels, the U.S. has suffered a self-inflicted wound in the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should have never been on the streets of this country. I say this because the alleged murderer is an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies in the U.S. and already deported five times. Yet in March of this year, he was released from jail and allowed to stay here freely because of those legal loopholes. It's unbelievable to see so many innocent Americans that have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in the recent years. In fact, we recently came across a statistic that says between 2010 and 2014, 121 criminal aliens who had an active deportation case at the time of release were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses. Think about that. 121 times over the past four years and the illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions that later went on to be charged with murder when they should have been deported. That is one every 12 days. Our family realizes the complexity of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted, or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good. We'd be proud to see Kate's name associated with some of this new legislation. We feel if Kate's Law saves one daughter, one son, a mother, a father, Kate's death won't be in vain. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Steinle. Now Chief Manger? MANGER: Chairman Grassley, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. I come to you this morning representing -- as the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents the largest cities in the United States. As cops, we see the good and the bad every day. We're witnesses to the immense benefits of immigration -- that immigration brings to our nation, but we also see the sinister side. Our priority in local law enforcement is exactly what I think you'd want and expect -- the safety of our communities across the nation and our priorities should be the prevention of crime and the protection of the public that we are sworn to serve. And that's every resident of our community. In order to do our job, local law enforcement has to have the trust and confidence of the communities that we serve. If -- if we fail, if the public or any segment of the public does not trust the police and will not come forward when we need them or when they need us. I want to talk to you this morning about the Major Cities Chiefs Association's policy with regard to immigration. And I want to start by -- by making a statement I want to be very clear. While we do not believe that local law enforcement should be saddled with the responsibility of immigration enforcement, we do believe that it is our duty to cooperate with ICE in a manner that is consistent with our duty to protect the public. To this end, we've developed a policy which I think strikes the right balance, and I'm pleased to share some of the aspects of that policy this morning. First and foremost, federal -- immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It is today and has always been. Local agencies cannot be expected to take on these additional duties. Secondly, we must secure our borders. Immigration is a national issue and the federal government should first act to secure the national borders, preventing any further illegal entry into the United States. Federal agents must consistently enforce existing laws prohibiting employers from hiring undocumented workers. Our member agencies are united in their commitment to continue arresting anyone who violates criminal laws of our jurisdictions, regardless of their immigration status. Those individuals who commit criminal acts will find no safe harbor or sanctuary from the criminal violations of law within any major city, but will instead face the full force of criminal prosecution. The decisions related to how law enforcement agencies allocate their resources, direct their workforce, and define their duties to best serve and protect their communities must be left to the control of local governments. The decision to have local police officers perform the functions and duties of immigration agents should be left to local government. This shall not be mandated or forced upon them by the federal government through the threat of sanctions or withholding of existing police assistance funding. The Major Cities Chiefs Association supports the Priority Enforcement Program that has been developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DHS listened to our concerns and they've included us in the development of this new program that includes procedures for notification to ICE by local police agencies. My own jurisdiction, Montgomery County, Maryland, serves as an example of how the new program works well. While it's not our policy to inquire or investigate immigration status, we provide electronic notification to DHS whenever we make an arrest. Likewise, we provide notification if such person in our custody is to be released. This is a model policy of the Major Cities Chiefs and the policy of Montgomery County. Local law enforcement is cooperating with DHS through the notification process, but not engaged in routine immigration enforcement. In our view, this notification policy represents a balance that the Judiciary Committee should consider. With recognition of immigration enforcement as a federal responsibility, we ask the Committee to resist initiatives that would seek to force routine aspects of federal responsibility upon local police. Finally, regarding federal funding -- federal assistance programs of the Justice Department and Homeland Security were established to strengthen criminal justice and domestic security, not to compel local agencies to perform federal duties. Their purpose was to help local police and sheriffs, not require that we take over the job of federal agencies. It is right to call upon us for actions to protect the public from crime and violence. But it's wrong to demand that we engage in matters related solely to immigration enforcement by withholding federal funds to coerce performance of federal duties by local police. This is not why these programs were established. We welcome this dialogue and commit to our partnership with this Committee. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Chief Manger. And now, Mr. McCann? MCCANN: On behalf of the McCann family, I want to thank you, Senator Grassley, and the other members of the Committee, for this opportunity to share with you my efforts to return justice to our family after the violent death of my brother four years ago and about six weeks. Denny was crossing Kinsey Avenue on Chicago's north side to visit with a client of his. He was a commercial insurance broker. The restaurant was named El Cid. And he and the owner would frequently dine together in the evening. And as he was crossing a walk that was at that international mark (ph), this kid, Chavez, came by, drunk as a skunk, and dragged him for about a block and a half and killed him. Chavez was charged with aggravated DUI and two days later ICE issued the detainer, and we went to court, a bunch of us, family, a couple -- I guess a week later for the arraignment. And they assured us -- see, I didn't know anything about detainers, but they assured us that the federal government had these holds and detainers and that no way would he be able to post bond and -- and -- and leave. And his bond was, what, $250,000, so -- so we were comforted, if you can use that word, that he would be prosecuted and -- and a few people in the neighborhood, one a retired judge, told me he'd probably six to eight years. So that's some measure of -- of -- of comfort that we were assured of. Well, unbeknownst to us, that summer, members of the Cook County board in Cook County, you know, they're the administrators of justice in my hometown, Chicago, they worked tirelessly without my knowledge -- you know, we have this witness -- witness notification system in Illinois that's in the Constitution. Well, nobody notified me what they were doing. And they ran through an ordinance, after the August recess, in September, without going to Committee. Now you all know how important committee work is. Well, Cook County apparently didn't in this case, and they got a -- they got it passed 10 to 5. Well, we didn't even -- we weren't even notified of that, nor was the prosecutor. She wasn't even aware of it. So somehow there's this lack of communication that the County passes this very important ordinance and they don't even tell the 400, 500 assistant states- attorneys. Because our -- our -- the lady who was prosecuting my brother's killer was never notified. So here I am sitting at home, the day -- Sunday before Thanksgiving, and I get a recorded message from some kid at the jail and said that Chavez left. He posted bond and ran. And who do I call on a Sunday? You know, nobody's working. I couldn't get a hold of the prosecutor. So I got a hold of my niece, who is a deputy sheriff in that county and she verified he in fact did -- he had been released. But I wasn't able to call the -- the prosecutor until next day. Well, she immediately runs to her supervisor and they send out a couple of cops to look for him. Well, he's gone. You know, the brother said that he never sees him and that he lives in the basement. You know, they're a bunch of -- lies are everywhere, you know. So anyhow, long story short, we also learned, and I failed to mention, this kid was prosecuted for a prior felony two years earlier and he was put on probation. And ICE was never notified because Secure Communities had just, I guess just gotten off the ground in 2008 or something, and so the notification for that -- that system that police used, it was an electronic system, was --oh, I'm going way over time here. So anyhow, long story short, we -- we've been fighting for the last couple of years. We've got a lawsuit pending. Judicial Watch is here and they've helped us. We're before the Illinois Supreme Court currently. We worked with the prior ICE guy, Morton. He was very helpful. And it's just -- it's just been a pathetic miscarriage of justice visited upon my family and hundreds of other families across the country, and I'm so glad you all were able to spend some time listening to this. (Inaudible) around both the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. I'm convinced this is where resolution rests because the sanctuary jurisdictions, they're going to get away with literally murder, passing these policies, and you guys got to do it. And I regret that my Senator had to -- had to leave and couldn't hear my testimony, but maybe I'll talk to him later. All right, thanks. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. McCann. And Ms. Wilkerson? WILKERSON: Thank you for allowing me to tell the story of my son, Josh, and his murder. My son's name was Joshua Wilkerson. On November 16, 2010, he was beaten, strangled, tortured until he died. He was tied up, thrown in a field, and set on fire. His killer, Hermilo Moralez, was brought here illegally by his illegal parents when he was 10 years old, so he fit the Dream kid description. He was sentenced to life in prison, which means it will be 30 years before he is up for parole. He'll be a 49-year-old man who I don't expect to be deported and I just hope he doesn't come to live in your city. We had to hear this kid from the stand muttering about, in my country, in my country, never to finish that sentence. He went on to tell -- we listened to him tell us repeatedly that his killing skills took over. That Josh had kicked his dog, his killing skills took over. His parents somehow managed to provide lessons that he acquired so that he acquired a black belt in mixed martial arts. Josh, who had never been in a fight in his life, very quiet, old soul. He didn't speak a lot, but when he did, you listened to him. Like I said, he had never been in a fight in his life. So his killing skills were those martial arts that somehow his parents provided here for him. Instead of getting Joshua home that day from school, we got an autopsy report that reads, in part, "This body is received in a gray body bag. There's a tag on his toe that reads in part, "Joshua Wilkerson". He is a white male, weighing at 100lbs. He is tied up with gray rope, 13 loops around his neck with a slipknot. It goes behind his back through his back belt loop. It goes to his hands and his feet, behind his body. He has multiple fractures in his face, and nasal cavity. His throat and his voice box are crushed. He was kicked so hard in the stomach that it sent his spleen into his spine, and sliced it in two, so it was painful. The medical examiner said is it was torture. This body has significant skin loss on his buttocks, his abdomen, his penis, his hands, and his face. He has one stick of gum, and a tardy slip in his pocket. This was our family's 9-1-1 terrorist attack by a foreign invader, whether you want to recognize it, or whether you do not. This government continues fail, or even recognize that we have an issue. Americans are dying daily at the hands of criminals that we don't even know are here. You're officially notified today there's a problem when this happens. You can't deny it any longer, you can not stand by and ignore our families -- our American families. You're elected by Americans, not any other country. You should be for Americans. If you want to sit quietly by the sidelines, you've thrown your hat into the ring already. You silence speaks volumes. You're either for Americans, or you're not. I will not give up control on another one of my children so that a foreign person can have a nicer life, I'm not going to do it. You don't understand the pain. It's so deep in the soul in a place you don't even recognize you have. There aren't words to describe the pain to someone who has not gone through it. I'm not given' up another kid. Sanctuary city policies scream to the criminal element of all of illegals in this country. There is a criminal element. It screams to screams to them, "Come to our town USA, we'll protect you from our terrible policemen, we'll protect you from these tough American laws that you -- because you had a life you are not able -- to go through same motions that an American is." They are buying to that fact. Until -- it's going to take another life lost by a Senator, Congressman, a President, even another of today's heroes, someone from Hollywood before someone in a position moves on this. I urge you, you're in a position to do something about this for Americans. A thank you to Mr. Trump for getting a message out about the nation in two minutes that for four and a half years solidly, Maria Espanoza at the Remembrance Project, and countless families like my own have been trying to say for five or six years. It feels good to be heard, whether you love him, or whether you don't. I felt heard. Our family is shattered. It's shattered. It will never be the same. We'll manage, we function, we'll put on a happy face. My kids have changed, the surviving kids -- everything about us has changed. If, by the grace of God, that in our broken hearts we have a stream of memories of the loving memories that we had with Joshua. Joshua had a very deep, intense, spiritual relationship, leaving us four of five scriptures in the weeks before he died. I'm ok with where Josh is today. It's not just about missing Josh, it's about what you're doing to an entire family -- not just our immediate family, his friends, the teachers, the community, our extended family, it's incredible. I can't even explain that to you. America lost that day, you lost a good citizen that was on the brink of becoming who knows what. He had mentioned going into the Air Force like his older brother who had to come home for two weeks and bury -- he was out defending this country, Americans, and we had to bring him home for two weeks to bury his little brother when he wasn't -- being defended right here at home. It's absurd to me. Thank you for your time -- and I do want to say to, just a little bit of a rebuttal about -- they're not scared to come here. We're inviting them. Sanctuary city says, "Come on down, you can have a pass in our city," you know? You're tying policeman's hands. I'm not for mandating them to ask them where they're from, but if they pull someone for a reason, valid cause, and they're investigating them for something, they have a right to ask them. They have a right to ask me, stop me on the freeway, and ask me, "Where you goin, Ms. Wilkerson? Where you coming from? Do you have drugs?" I'm going to answer those in about 15 minutes, hopefully. It'll come out in the wash that I'm ok to leave. Why are you creating a class of people who seem to say, "We can't do that,"? They're not afraid to come here. They're not afraid to trapse across the desert. I've been to the border, I've stood there with border agents and watched them come across from jet skis. I will -- I'll finish quickly. Sympathy has never trumped the law in this country, ever. You know, you sympathize with me, can I go break the federal law? Anyone? Anyone here like to let me do that? Everyone of them here threaten national security because we don't know who they are, so they are a threat. We don't know who them -- they make a decision to come here. They're not scared, they're invited by Sanctuary -- city policies. They're not scared of standing in line for a hand out that every American has paid in the system for our children if need be. You know, they mistrust police because they come from the countries that mistrust police. They're not scared here. I want you know that our family is broken forever. We're forever broken. I thank you for your time, and I don't want the sympathy. I want you to do something. Everyone here is in a position to do something. Just throw your hat into the ring for Americans. Quit sitting silent because it's going to help you get a vote. Throw your hat into the ring for American families. (APPLAUSE) GRASSLEY: First of all, thank you for your testimony. I've heard frustration and anger about our immigration policies. We can learn a lot from you about how our immigration system needs fixed, and for me that starts with border security. Can I ask my members, 'because were here for oversight of the administration, how many of you have questions that you want to ask of this panel? If none of you want to ask questions of this panel, then I will dismiss them after thanking them. Thank you all very much for coming, and lending your expertise to this hearing, and I'll call the next panel. (OFF MIKE): Our children that are dead, and the criminals -- we should (INAUDIBLE)... GRASSLEY): ...If we could have order. (OFF MIKE): Thousands of people. Thousands. GRASSLEY: Today's hearing deals with a very special issue. I trust that members of the public here will act accordingly. I want to note at the outset that the rules of the Senate prohibit outbursts, clapping, and demonstration of any kind. This includes blocking the view of people around you. Please be mindful that those -- of those rules as we conduct the hearing, and if it isn't abided by, I will, of course, have to ask Capitol Police to remove anyone who violates the rules. Before our next panel's seated, if I -- I would like -- I would ask deliver an oath, Ms. Saldana, and Mr. Rodriguez, would you come please? But, before you sit, I'd like to -- and before I introduce you, I'd like to ask you to affirm. Do you affirm that the testimony that you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? RODRIGUEZ: I do... SALDANA: ...I do. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. Leon Rodriguez is Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He was confirmed by the Senate on June the 24th, 2014. Director Rodriguez was born in Brooklyn, New York. Graduated from Brown University, and earned J.D. Degree, Juris Doctorate from Boston College. Sarah Saldana is Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration, and Customs Enforcement. She was confirmed by the Senate, December 16th, last year. She's born in Corpus Christi, Texas. Graduated from Texas A&I University, and received her Juris Doctorate from Southern Methodist University. Director Rodriguez, would you please begin, and then we'll call the other Director. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, members of the committee. In August of 1988, I was sworn in as an Assistant District Attorney in New York -- Kings County, New York. At the time that I was sworn in, New York City, like many other large jurisdictions throughout the country, was witnessing unprecedented crime rates. High homicide rates, high sexual assault rates, high robbery rates, high narcotics trafficking rates. It was in to this environment that I started as a young 26 year old prosecutor. Among my assignments as an Assistant District Attorney were homicide investigations, sex crimes special victims prosecutions, organized crime investigations and prosecutions. During my tenor as Assistant District Attorney, I sat by the side many hundreds of victims of violent crime, family members of victims crime, including homicides. I witnessed the same kind of grief without limit that I saw among the crime victims families that you saw here this morning. I witnessed the sense of profound injustice that was felt by those families. I did everything I could as an Assistant District Attorney to honor the oath that I had taken in August of 1988, and I have frequently remembered throughout my many years of government service, frequently remembered and felt the grief, and sense of injustice that I saw in those years in Brooklyn, New York. I learned another lesson as an Assistant District Attorney, and that is that in law enforcement on size does not fit all. One size fits all is the surest way to let violent criminals go free, to let the worst crimes go unaddressed. It is for that reason that there are homicide detectives that specialize in homicide. Those detectives are not asked to go and arrest the individuals who jump the turnstile at the subway. The DACA program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program provides a way to take young people who came to this country not of their own volition, but were brought by their parents. It takes such young people who have not been convicted of a criminal offense, who do not present a threat to national security, who are not members of gangs, and who either are pursuing a course of study, or have pursued a course of study, and does nothing more than to delay their deportation, and to offer them work authorization. Now, let me be clear about one of the points that I made here. Those individuals are not supposed to have committed, and been convicted of, a prior felony, significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors, and they may not be, or have been, a member of a gang. Now, as several of you are well aware there are situations in my agency where that policy was not understood, and as a result, in a small number of cases -- approximately 20, individuals who were identified in law enforcement databases were afforded deferred action nonetheless. That is unacceptable. We took decisive steps to correct our procedures, to retrain our staff, to ensure that that bedrock requirement of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was fully understood. As a result, a number of individuals have had their Deferred Action terminated. In a small number of cases, we determined that the individuals were actually not gang members at all after a thorough investigation. But, you have my pledge that we will conduct our business as USCIS, at U.S. Citizen Immigrations Service, in a way that prevents gang members from ever receiving Deferred Action. Having said that, I realize the topics that we are here to talk about are important, and grave ones. I look forward to, what I think, is the very important dialogue that, Chairman, you have convened here today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Now, Ms. Saldana. SALDANA: Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Ranking member Feinstein, and other members of this distinguished committee. Like you all, and everyone in this country, I am greatly moved by the stories that I've heard this morning, and the tragedies that have occurred, and the pain -- the very palpable pain that's been reflected on the families that we've heard from today. To them I say, "I am so sorry for the loss each of you has experienced." I know many of you have shared those condolences as well. I say that not only as the Director of Immigration Customs Enforcement, but I say it as a mother, a sister, and a grandmother -- one of my grandchildren being here today with me. I can only imagine what such a loss would -- be like.I want to say that for a decade, first as a prosecutor, then as a United States Attorney for North Texas, and now as the head of Immigration and Custom Enforcement, the largest law enforcement agency in the Department of Homeland Security, I am committed to do all I can to prevent violent crime. I had been, and I continue today to do so. I consider myself a law enforcement officer, and have for several years. While the things we did as prosecutors will not bring back the victims of any violent crime, there is some very small solace that I gained, at least, in bringing the perpetrators to justice, and I'm very proud of that work. As you know, the men and women of ICE play an integral role in public safety, and in national security. Tragic situations like the ones that the family members find themselves in are deplorable, and highlight the need to continue our work to focus on the apprehension and removal of convicted criminals who pose the greatest threat to public safety and national security. This is exactly what our Priority Enforcement Program is designed to do. We spent months talking with all kinds of people from all -- from all of the stakeholders that are interested in our program in designing it. Our objective is to take custody of dangerous individuals before they commit further crimes, and before they're released into the community. As has been said before, it's not a onesize fits all. We have been working across the country to bring people to the table to -- work with them to reach the -- their communities and the needs of the communities when it comes to public safety. Just as Senator Feinstein has done in San Francisco, I am asking for the help of each one of you, and those other members of the entire Senate, to assist us in this effort to try to have jurisdictions who have not cooperated with us in the past to start doing so now. Now. I urge, quite frankly, as a part of all that, to help with respect to a comprehensive change to immigration law. It is complex, it is broken. These are the statutes and the codes of regulations that our folks have to deal with every day, and it is -- I implore your help in that regard. Secretary Johnson has made it clear that our borders are not open to illegal migration. As such, ICE, our Enforcement and Removal Operations Director, ERO, is dedicating our resources to the removal of individuals considered enforcement priorities. We are making some progress. Along the Southwest border this year, apprehensions are done 110,000. That, I see, is a significant positive sign. Thirty-four percent from last year at this time. I likewise -- our interior enforcement efforts are also paying off. Of those people detained in our detention centers, 96 percent of them meet our top two priorities. Seventy-six percent of them, 76 percent of them meet our top priority, so I believe that our people are doing a good thing, and focusing on where the focus should be with respect to these hardened criminals. You all know, of course, the enforcement work and investigative work that other side of the house does, Homeland Security Investigations. Very fine work with respect to Transnational Crime with very good results, and one in particular that I want to point out, with respect to gang enforcement. We had an operation recently called, Operation Wildfire which netted 32,000 criminal arrests, and -- 1,000 gang members in that particular group. Some were charged with criminal offenses, of those thousand, 913, and it is very meaningful work as well. I do know that we're going to focus on the Enforcement and Removal side, and I stand ready to take any questions from this committee. GRASSLEY: I thank both of you very much for being here, and most importantly, I want to thank you for coming, and listening to the testimony of the first panel. I'm going to ask questions, then Senator Feinstein will, and because Judiciary -- the Finance committee's meeting on taxes upstairs, I'm going to half to turn over the meeting to Senator Sessions, if you'll do that please. Start with you, Mr. Rodriquez. You said that certain actions of people in your department was unacceptable in regard to DACA. So, a natural follow up to that is somebody didn't do their job right. In this particular case, somebody probably didn't do their job right, and we know that people have died as a result of it. So, then, if it's unacceptable, who's been fired, or disciplined for writing DACA to gang members? RODRIGUEZ: Senator, there was action taken to correct, and counsel, individuals who did not understand. Back in 2013, the proper manner in which to utilize the text (ph) database that identifies an individual as gang members -- we have undertaken extensive efforts to ensure that both the policy very clearly excludes gang members from Deferred Action, and the processes of our agency are fully understood. I would also add that we have run the entire population of Deferred Action DACA recipients back through the text database to identify all those instances where gang membership was not handled appropriately by our officers. So, there has been counseling in appropriate incidences. GRASSLEY: So there 323 -- how many were -- changed after review? RODRIGUEZ: Actually, sir, as I indicated, there were, of the six, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, we identified 20 cases in which an indication of gang membership appeared in the law enforcement databases for individuals who had previously received Deferred Action. Eight of those individuals have already been terminated. Others have been turned over to ICE for appropriate handling. Several others continue to be adjudicated, and in a few cases we actually determined that, notwithstanding the identification as gang members in the database -- they were not after investigation gang members. GRASSLEY: What process, if any, do you have in your agency in place to learn about DACA's recipients criminal activity in order to immediately terminate the benefit? RODRIGUEZ: We obviously have ongoing contacts and discussion above all with ICE. We are notified in situations where individuals have either been convicted of a crime, or where information is discovered that they are gang members. When we receive that information, we act on it. We're also in the middle of the DACA renewal process right now. Some individuals have been identified as being gang members during the course of that process, and have been denied renewal, and other appropriate action taken. GRASSLEY: Does your agency require an interview in every DACA applicant that has a criminal record? RODRIGUEZ: We do interviews in those cases where in order to resolve an outstanding issue -- for example, one related to either criminality, or gang membership, we do utilize interviews in those cases to resolve those concerns. GRASSLEY: Ms. SALDANA, in March you told the House Judiciary Committee that you supported mandatory detainers. The following day, you change your position. Sanctuary cities, as you have heard, do very little to protect the public safety. They're in place to protect certain groups of lawbreakers, but there are real consequence. Can you tell the family members here today, including the Steinle family that you don't think state and local law enforcement should have to abide by detainers -- criminal aliens? SALDANA: I'm not going to say that, Senator Grassley, what I am going to say is that we are working very hard, very hard, with respect to a host -- there are about 200 last time I checked, of jurisdictions, and when I say jurisdictions, I'm talking about countries, cities, all over the country who have declined to cooperate with us in the past. As the Secretary testified last week, Senator, we're making some progress. We have actually identified the top, almost, jurisdictions that we've had little progress in the past couple of -- in the past couple of several months. We're going and meeting with those local officials to try to engage them in why the program is actually different from what their experience was with Secured Communities. We -- and you heard from some of the witnesses this morning, that there is some fear out there, and some concerns about even the impact on local law enforcement if there is a feeling of distrust between a community and law enforcement. So -- my answer, the question to me was would it be helpful. Clarity is always helpful to law enforcement, but what I would like to do is, since we've just rolled out this program, we've been working on the design and implementation of it for months, but we just rolled out this program. I want us to be given a chance to work with folks. As U.S. Attorney, my whole existence relied on relationships with state and local law enforcement. I had to work with sheriff's, D.A.'s all across North Texas to try and get them to work with us, and it's a mutual cooperation. They help us, and we help them, and I'd like to continue those efforts through that. GRASSLEY: Can you admit, yes or no, that Sanctuary cities pose a problem to public safety? SALDANA: Well, I don't know exactly what Sanctuary cities definition is, but I do know, and I've said this in the past, sir, and so has the Secretary, that not cooperating with us does -- expose our officers to greater risk because now they have to go out at large and try to recover some of these convicted criminals. And, it's a resource expenditure much greater than it would be if we could just get these people from the jails directly into our custody and through the process. GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein. FEINSTEIN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the two witnesses and the very moving witnesses we heard in the prior panel. I would like to put in the record the record of Lopez-Sanchez because you see the felonies, and you see the number of deportations, and you really see the failure of the system. So, the question really comes what to do about it. It's clear to me that this man that's convicted, and served time in more than one state, deported five times, kept coming back, and this is how it ended. It shouldn't happen that way. Maybe the price on deportation is too low because it doesn't seem to be a deterrent at all, at least in this case. Mr. Ronnebeck said the following, "ICE reported that they released 66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of our country in 2013 and 2014, and another 10,246 as of March 2015. This group included aliens convicted of violent, and serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault." Then, it goes on. It says, "123 Americans have been murdered by one of those released criminal aliens, including Mr. Ronnebeck's nephew." Are those numbers correct? SALDANA: They are. FEINSTEIN: They are, OK. SALDANA: They are, Senator. FEINSTEIN: Then how does it happen that those numbers, an additional 123 Americans have been murdered by them? SALDANA: How is it that that happened or... FEINSTEIN: ...Yes... SALDANA: ...Or how was it that they came to be released... FEINSTEIN: ...Yes. This seems to me that we've got one size fits all, that you do for the worst felon what you do for someone without that kind of record. SALDANA: And, you've really struck on the heart of our efforts in talking to jurisdictions who have not been working with us in the recent past. We tried to tell them -- work with us. Let look at your statutes, let's look you've passed, and let's see if one, we have to urge you to try and tweak it, or two, if we can work within it -- in whatever ordinance or legislation there is. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that we can bring reasonable minds to the table to work something out, and that's why we talk about one size not fitting all. It's because we're really trying to accommodate the needs of the communities. They're so different, whether West Coast, East Coast, North and South. I come from Texas, our problems there are not the same as problems in California, or New York, or in the heartland. So, that's one of the beauties of PEP (ph). Again, I need local and state law enforcement... FEINSTEIN: ...Let me ask you what should happen to somebody convicted of seven felonies in this country, in a number of different states, and someone who has been deported five times who comes back to eventually commit a heinous crime... SALDANA: ...And, of course... FEINSTEIN: ...What should -- how should that be prevented? SALDANA: My belief is in developing those relationships in communications here that was a three way law enforcement -- communication. The Bureau of Prisons, San Francisco (ph) Sheriff's Office), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So, I'm doing all I can to try and look into -- and we actually have directed my senior staff to start opening doors, and there have been some conversations already with the Bureau of Prisons, which is overseen by my old department, the Department of... GRASSLEY: (INAUDIBLE) SALDANA: ...Prisons to try and talk about, at least with respect to federal agency, the federal agency, what we can do better. I invite your thoughts. FEINSTEIN: One last question. Supposing the Sheriff did consult with you, the city did consult with you. The record is still there. Seven felonies, five deportations, and he came back, and he's tried a number of different states and managed to commit felonies there too. What would happen to him? What would you do with him? Well, we would probably, with someone with that kind of a record, if he came into our custody, present him to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution... FEINSTEIN: ...On what? SALDANA: On illegal reentry, and there are escalating punishments if you have -- depending on your criminal record. We can do that. Right now it's up to 20 years depending on the nature of the person's background. FEINSTEIN: Are there cases where you have done that? SALDANA: Oh, yes. Oh yes... FEINSTEIN: ...Can you tell me approximately how many? Where somebody with multiple deportations and multiple felonies actually goes, based on the last deportation, to jail, to federal prison, for a long time? SALDANA: We present it in every occasion that those effects arise. Unfortunately, the prosecution decision isn't up to us, it's up to the U.S. Attorney's Office. They have their own priorities. I can't quibble with that, but we do present it every time we see those facts, ma'am. FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask you. There are members here who have bills that would like to put a minimum sentence on deportations that's violated. In other words, the individual comes back. What do you think of that? SALDANA: I've got to start, quite frankly, rather than a piecemeal approach to this tremendous problem, a more comprehensive approach to reform, a more comprehensive approach to reform, but, if we're just looking at that, I'd like to take a look at that language and what the statute provides. This fella' in Ms. Steinle's case, actually served sentences for illegal reentry, and substantial, not insubstantial sentences... FEINSTEIN: ..Yes, I have... SALDANA: ...the average sentence is 18 months to two years. In this case we have 36, 56, 46 months that this individual served. Obviously, it did not deter him. FEINSTEIN: Right. My time is up. I will put in the record two different copies of the criminal record of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. Senator Sessions? SESSIONS: Thank you. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. You made some important points. I would note that San Francisco proudly calls itself a Sanctuary city. They're not hiding it. They're proud of it. They directed their police chief and police officers to act in that acord too. We are focused, I think, more today on the Sheriff's Department, who even the mayor has concluded, acted improperly. I would offer for the record a letter just a week ago on behalf of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs that work for the sheriffs there. In that letter to the Sheriff says this, "As evidence to the tragic death of Kate Steinle on July 1st, the departments refusal to coordinate, much les cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies recklessly compromises the safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come to San Francisco area. This association hereby demands that the department immediately rescind the directives and comply with the statutory and contractual obligations to meet and confer in good faith." They go over to say, "Moreover it is the associations sincere belief that any changes that the department might pursue should honor Ms. Steinle's life by correcting the departments flawed philosophy so that the people of San Francisco, citizens, visitors, employees alike are safer in the future." Ms. Saldana, you're in charge of filing the detainers, and dealing with these issues. Do you agree with that letter from the Deputy Sheriff of San Francisco? SALDANA: (OFF MIKE) I would just say, first of all, with the lessons (ph) of what the request is, we must get cooperation. FEINSTEIN: Could you put on your microphone please? SALDANA: Thank you, Senator. Let's get cooperation. Let's do what all we can to do because we're all in the same business, and that's public safety. SESSIONS: ...Well, you are exactly right. What this is all about is protecting public safety, and isn't it a fact, Ms. Saldana, that everybody that would like to come to the United States is not entitled to be admitted on their demand? SALDANA: That's why we have these statutes and the process, sir. SESSIONS: Can you make evaluations based on people? And, if they have certain risk factors, they get here legally, or illegally, they evidence dangerous tendencies, they can be deported? SALDANA: That's certainly laid on in the statute. SESSIONS: And that's required in certain instances by the statutes. It says they shall be deported... SALDANA: There are mandatory provisions, yes sir. SESSIONS: So, I think we have a serious problem here. I believe it's directly from the top of this administration, and I believe you've been directed to carry out administration policies, and when you are asked about the Sanctuary city reform, as Senator Grassley said, you said, "Absolutely. A'men," and the next day, did you have a conversation with someone and decided to change your statement on that? SALDANA: As I said before, Senator, truly, my response was a straight out law enforcement response. It is -- what I did the next day was to clarify. I am not going against what we have -- that all our efforts in establishing, and now implementing the PEP program... SESSIONS: ...Well... SALDANA: ...We want to work with those jurisdictions. That's what I have always done, is try to set up relationships with state and local governments... SESSIONS: ...I agree with you. You and I -- United States Attorney, you gave a law enforcement response. Which is this is unacceptable. Every jurisdiction in America that I know of participates in a detainer policy that honors detainers from other jurisdictions. They don't ask whether a case is a good case, or not. They don't retry the case if a -- United States federal, state, or local jurisdiction places a detainer hold on a prisoner, that's honored. Isn't it a historic -- and really unbelieveable act that major cities in this country are refusing to comply with that basic requirement of law enforcement? SALDANA: This is why I needed the next day to clarify, sir. That, yes, we need to get there, but we've got this program that we're about to roll out, and it's all hands on deck. We can't afford not to work together in this Area. It's too dangerous... SESSIONS: ...Well, what if they don't cooperate? What if they just refuse, as they refused before? Didn't your predecessor, Mr. Morton, call on Chicago, Cook County, to stop its Sanctuary policies? SALDANA: I -- I'm sorry sir, I wasn't following that, I'm not aware... SESSIONS: ...Well, he made a clear statement about it, and -- it was a call on them to change. Now the administration, apparently, has changed and stopped pushing it. Now, after this -- these events that have achieved so much publicity, you're beginning to talk about it again. Mr. Rodriguez, you represent the Citizens on Immigration Services -- Citizenship and Immigration Service. Your council president has made a series of statement, Mr. Palinkas -- he's a head official, say, quote, "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications, instead of conducting diligent case review, and investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags, and in discouraging the denial of any applications USCIS has turned into an an approval machine." He goes on to say, "USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens, that in accordance with law, should be placed into immigration removal proceedings before a federal judge are prevented from exercising their authority, and responsibility." He goes on to say, Ms. Saldana, the ICE offices morale is reported to lowest in the entire federal government. They filed a lawsuit against your predecessor, the Offices Association did, claiming that they are being ordered to violate their oath to enforce the law. What actions have you taken to end this, and create -- -and meet with those officers to created a system in which they are encouraged to follow the law, not violate the law? SALDANA: I listen, Senator. I have been to several of our offices across the country. I wish I had time to do all of them in my first year on the job, but I do go there. I do listen. I meet with the Union Officers. I meet with employees top to bottom, and we discuss what our mission is, and how it's so important that commonsensical it is to focus on the most heinous crimes and convicted criminals, and I get a very good response, so I -- and, by the way, I may be a named defendant in that lawsuit. I think I've been replaced in there, so -- I take those allegations seriously, and I work with our employees across the country to discuss it. SESSIONS: Well, I've never seen the kind of morale problems from Mr. Palinkas' statement, to you Mr. Rodriguez in your official actions, and you Ms. Saldana, in your predecessor really. This is not healthy. It's very bad, and it's a product of the trends we're seeing of non-enforcement, rather than enforcement. FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin is not here. Senator Schumer is not here... SESSIONS: Senator Durbin is here. FEINSTEIN: I will call on Senator Durbin. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Madame Chair. First I was not able to stay at the hearing for Brian McCann's testimony. Brian McCann is from Chicago. I agreed to speak at an Alzheimer's Association research meeting, came back, got him on the phone. We're working with him through the FBI to try to help bring this fugitive to justice who is responsible for this terrible tragedy in this family. I want to put that on the record. Let me see if I can put some perspective on this for a minute. There seem to be two or three basic elements here that we ought to keep in mind. First is the belief of local law enforcement, that if they are called on to enforce the status crimes, that is persons who are here undocumented, that it could infringe on their ability to maintain order in a community. If every time a police car drove by, folks in a certain neighborhood thought they're looking for undocumented people, those folks are less likely to step up and cooperation with police and find real wrongdoers, real criminals, so that they be brought to justice. That seems to be a starting point I've heard over, and over again. Ms. Saldana? SALDANA: I agree. I've heard it also because I've met with quite a few officials, and they have a tough job. We all have a tough job. I Recognize those arguments. One jurisdiction, Oregon, has been sued, and in other jurisdictions -- and in these days of tough financial budgets, I can understand why people are concerned about being exposed to constitutional challenges like some of the law states. DURBIN: What the President has proposed in both DACA and DAPA, DACA referring to young people, "Dreamers", who were brought here as children and are undocumented, and DAPA, for those millions who are here undocumented, working, raising families and such. In both instances, the President has insisted that there be a criminal background check before they're even given a temporary permission to stay, to either live, go to school, or work. Is That not true? SALDANA: Well, certainly. My colleague, Director Rodriguez and speak more clearly to this, but yes, that is my understanding. DURBIN: Then, Director Rodriguez, out 680,000 who have successfully applied for DACA status, "Dreamers" who are able to stay on a temporary basis for a few years, and not be deported, of that number 680,000, that roughly 323, about one half of one percent have either been engaged in crime, or had a criminal record where they were disqualified from the DACA program. Is that close to what you've heard? RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. Most of those were the result of criminal conviction, some of them were because of information received that some of them were gang members, or some of them were threats to national security. DURBIN: So, they were disqualified... RODRIGUEZ: ...Correct... DURBIN: ...from the program. RODRIGUEZ: And, by the way, Senator, I would cite that as an instance where we did not rubber stamp as Mr. Palinkas, my union head, would suggest. We have certainly dug into those allegations. The President's proposal, when it comes to the millions who are here undocumented, they too will not only be subjected to a criminal background check before they're eligible to stay and work on a temporary basis. They're subject to review every time that permit comes up to see if they've committed a crime. Is that not true. RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, Senator, and it is a multi-step process of biographic, and biometric checks that are conducted on all such individuals to eliminate criminals, eliminate threats to our national security, eliminate gang members access to those... DURBIN: ...For the record, on both of these programs, DACA and DAPA, proposed by President Obama, there's been general opposition from the other side of the aisle. What the President's proposed for regular criminal background checks about these people living, who are undocumented in America, has been resisted. But, that's been a starting point in each of these proposals. Yesterday I went to Jay Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security. He just visited in Chicago to meet with some of our political leaders to talk about the specific issue that brings us here today. What do we do about those who are convicted of crimes, and also undocumented? They are working now to come to an agreement to the PEP Program, that there be an understanding that certain levels of crime will result in reporting. They have not reached an agreement, don't get me wrong, but they are moving in that direction. Can you explain to me the difference between a civil detainer, and a criminal detainer, and whether that is significant to our conversation here? RODRIGUEZ: Senator, I think I'm a little -- I do have some insight into those distinctions based on prior positions that I've held as a federal prosecutor, and also as County Prosecutor in Montgomery County, but given that it's Director Saldana's portfolio, I think I may defer to her. SALDANA: Yes. Quite frankly I'm not familiar with -- the distinction that weighed. It's more important to me that there are -- when there is a criminal case that's been presented to the United States Attorney, they've accepted it. There will be a criminal warrant, and a detainer notice sent to -- if the person is in somebody else's custody, and that has -- it's a court order. It is not administered, which is a large part of what our function is. Our function is civil, and administrative. There are some groups of illegal immigrants that we do refer to the U.S. Attorney's for criminal prosecution, but that's only where the -- that's the only place where the criminal documentation would arrive. DURBIN: What I'm trying to get to is this. If we are dealing with someone who is incarcerated, and has been found guilty of, let's say, a serious felony. No questions asked, it's over the line, serious felony. From your point of view, what you're asking is that before that they be released in their undocumented status, there be a report to your agency? SALDANA: A notice. DURBIN: A notice? SALDANA: Yeah. Please advise us, with respect to the notification part where there is not -- we've not actually established probable cause, or where we have, a detainer notice. DURBIN: But, instead of dealing with a serious felony, we are dealing with the question of illegal reentry, and illegal reentry may occur with someone who has been deported from the United States, and attempts to return, even if there's not criminal history other than that action of returning after deportation. Is that correct? SALDANA: Yes, that is right, and the U.S. Attorney's across the country are not necessarily enforcing those because of their priorities. It's just too low-level of an offense. DURBIN: So, the suggestion that we make a mandatory minimum five year sentence for people who have been deported and come back across the border with, let's say, no other criminal -- no criminal history, and no other history from the government's point of view, that seems to me to be an invitation for a lot of prosecutions. SALDANA: We're stretched on our resources already, and we're focusing on convicted criminals to expand it to just illegal entries or entries, would be very -- a very big problem for us. DURBIN: Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you, I believe Senator Lee has yielded to Senator Cruz? Thank you. Senator Cruz? CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Senator Lee. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. The testimony we've heard today is powerful. Ms. Saldana, you are a Texan. You were a prosecutor in our state, you had a good reputation as a prosecutor, but you're serving an administration that consistently refuses to follow the law, and we heard this morning the very real consequences of that. Now, in March when you were testifying before the House you were asked about Sanctuary cities. Cities like San Francisco that defy federal law, and that because of their defiance of federal law, Kate Steinle is no longer with us. She was murdered because of the refusal of local officials to recognize federal law. You were asked in that House hearing, "Should federal law compel state officials to comply with federal law?" And your answer, and I want to quote verbatim, was, "Thank you. Amen. Yes." Now, in my view, that was the former federal prosecutor speaking and giving an answer. Yet, the next day, you issued a statement retracting what you'd said, and saying, in fact, although you'd said, "Amen", which is a pretty powerful statement from the heart, you didn't in fact mean that federal law should force local officials to comply with federal laws. I want to ask you what political officials pressured you to change your statement? SALDANA: Not a single one. This came from a -- the original statement came from my heart. The clarification came from my heart. I don't mean to quibble with you, Senator, I respect you greatly. But, I will say this. The question was not asked. The question was very specific. "Would it be helpful for detainers to be mandatory?" The law enforcement response is clarity is always helpful. But, I wanted to be sure that people were not reacting to that as an indictment of PEP, or working with communities, and that's what I'm committed to do. CRUZ: So, let me make sure I understand your testimony correctly then. You said then it would be helpful, presumably helpful is something is good, is beneficial, is something you support. So, are you saying then that ICE supports making it mandatory to comply with federal detainers. SALDANA: No. CRUZ: So, it's helpful, but you don't support it? SALDANA: Well -- no sir, I support what we have proposed, and what we've been spending many hours on... CRUZ: ...But you just said it's helpful... SALDANA: ...Yes, sir... CRUZ: ...You just said you don't support it... SALDANA: ...Clarity is always helpful, but cooperation and working with our state and local partners is something I've always done, and I will continue to do it, and I'm committed to see it through, with respect to these jurisdictions that haven't been working. CRUZ: It is difficult to work in an administration where you're required to take a position where, although something would be, in your own words, "helpful" -- you nonetheless don't support it -- let me shift to a different topic. In the year 2013, how many criminal illegal aliens did the Obama administration release? SALDANA: In 2014 it was a little over 30,000. CRUZ: How many murderers? SALDANA: In that year, sir, I can't remember the number right now, but I know that we had the statistic that was said earlier. The four year period from 2010 to 2014 that there were 121 persons who committed crimes afterwards. But, I can't provide you with the exact number. CRUZ: How many rapists? SALDANA: I am not sure right now, I'd have to pull that number. CRUZ: How many drunk drivers? SALDANA: Same answer. I can certainly break that down for you, and, in fact, I think we're working on that right now. It's been requested before. CRUZ: Yesterday, how many murderers did the Obama administration release? SALDANA: Now, Senator, I don't know the answer to that question, but I want the American people to understand our job and our mission if I may. We don't release people willy-nilly. We release people pursuant to these statutes and regulations. There are only a limited number of crimes that we are required to detain people. It is mandatory. They're spelled out here very clearly. Many of them related to drug distributions and conspiracies. With the rest of the people, as you know very well, Zubaidas (ph) requires us to release some. I think that's a small percentage of the total. Also, the immigration courts have half a million case backlog. They have the proceedings they go through. They will order release because many of these folks challenge their bond, or detention. But, in the rest, and I think it's like 49 percent this past year, in the rest where ICE has discretion, where this statute has given us discretion, we have very well trained, very well experience law enforcement officers who look at the entire case just like a magistrate judge, or a federal judge... CRUZ: ...Ms. Saldana, I want to note that your testimony here, when I asked you how many criminals ICE released in 2013, you were off by a factor of three. You said 30,000, the correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000 criminals, criminal illegal aliens that ICE declined to begin deportation proceedings against, despite the fact, as Senator Sessions observed, the federal law that you're holding up there says they shall be deported. The Obama administration refused to deport them. That's 68,000. In addition to that there were 36,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal convictions that the Obama administration released, and I would note that among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions, 426 people with sexual assault convictions, where over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions released by this administration because this administration refuses to follow the law. SALDANA: Sir, those numbers, I'm looking straight at them. You asked me, I thought, about 2014. That is 30,558. The good news is that at least that went down from 2013 when it was 36,007. CRUZ: But you're omitting the 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that ICE did not begin deportation proceedings against at all, and you gotta' add both of those together. It's over 100,000. SALDANA: Yes, sir, that's absolutely right. All done pursuant to this statute that the Congress has outline. CRUZ: Now, Ms. Saldana, you heard the testimony from the victim's family. I've introduced Kate's Law in the Senate, a mandatory minimum of five years in prison for anyone -- apprehended with an illegal reentry. Does ICE support Kate's Law? SALDANA: I sure would like to look at that. I haven't had a chance to, I'm not sure when it was introduced, if it has been... CRUZ: ...It was introduced last week. SALDANA: OK, I have not had a chance to look at it, I'm sorry Senator, but I'm certainly willing to look at any proposal along those lines, and consider it and work with you if I find some objection to it. CRUZ: Ms. Saldana, I will note in your opening statement here -- you said that after listening to the victim's family that you were so sorry for their loses. And yet, the Obama administration keeps doing it. When I asked you how many murders were released yesterday, you don't know. There is a reason the American people are upset. If President Obama had the courage of his convictions, he would come and look in the eyes of these men and women who have lost their sons, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers and the administration would stop releasing murderers and rapists. It is within your power to follow federal law, and this administration refuses to do so, and that is altogether unacceptable. Thank you. SESSIONS: Senator Klobuchar. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Senator Sessions, and thank you to those -- you, Director, and also to the assistant secretary, for your work. I also wanted to -- I know Senator Grassley had to step out for another hearing, but I wanted to thank him for bringing together the first panel of witnesses. I thought their testimony was moving, and I know from being a former prosecutor how difficult it can be for victims and their families to come forward, and I'm sure some of the families are still in the room today, so I thank you for being willing to come forward today. I also wanted to thank Senator Feinstein for her frankness in the criticism of the sheriff in her own state. Clearly there should have been cooperation and they should have been working with ICE, and I think it's very important to remember that there are some of us who are willing to look at these policies and look at them in a way to figure out what best helps public safety. And Deputy Secretary, you talked about some of the work that's being done to work with these local jurisdictions. In listening to the head of the major city chiefs talk about their policy, which he made clear was cooperating with ICE, but clearly that didn't happen in the case in San Francisco. Are there other sheriffs and other law enforcement people have taken that position and have policies where they are not willing to -- and I understand the mayor said that wasn't what happened in San Francisco -- but where they are not going to work with you and notify you when a repeat felon is being released? SALDANA: Well, the last time I checked the number of communities that had passed some kind of ordinance or legislation, it was a little bit over 200, 208. KLOBUCHAR: Is there -- is that correct? SALDANA: Excuse me? KLOBUCHAR: Do they vary? SALDANA: Oh, tremendously. KLOBUCHAR: OK, what I'm talking here about is that I think that is the most glaring thing is this idea that someone who has been deported several times and been convicted of lengthy felonies, that there was no notification to either try to deport him, or as you made a better point for someone who's a repeat felon like that, bring them to the U.S. attorney's office. So do you know how many have that policy that was as severe as what the sheriff did in San Francisco? SALDANA: Maybe a handful. Maybe a handful. You know, we've identified, I think I said earlier, the top 49 which have jurisdictions who have not been cooperating with us, that it would have the greatest impact with respect to their immigrant populations in their communities, and we have made real progress. As the secretary testified last week, about 33 of them have now said, over the efforts of the secretary, the deputy and quite a few officials, that they will work with us in some manner. We are working with them. KLOBUCHAR: It just seems like in a case like this it should be mandatory that something gets reported to ICE, and that's what I am trying to grapple with, and I know Senator Feinstein is. SALDANA: It's a very commonsense approach, Senator. I agree with you, and I think that PEP covers that. These are severe, heinous and dangerous criminals that we are targeting and that we are trying to work with these jurisdictions to say, can't we all agree on this category of individual and this criminal history. KLOBUCHAR: When we used to have cases sometimes -- in fact, I was just reading about one where we had convicted a man of murder. He had hacked up his wife into pieces, left her head in a bowl. It was a horrible case. He was from Russia and he's been making requests to go back to Russia, and my successor is saying no to that. And I remember the pressure he would sometimes get -- not necessarily from defendants. He wouldn't care about that. But from sometimes family members, people say, oh, send him back to the other country. I think it's an argument clearly for serving out sentences in the U.S. for public safety, but then also we brought up the U.S. attorney's office, and obviously they can't handle all these cases. But when there are the serious ones with a number of felonies, I would think this should become more of a priority when it comes to these prosecutions. Has there been discussion about this with the Justice Department at all? SALDANA: Yes, I have actually met with the deputy attorney general and discussed where we can work together to strengthen this. I've met with the Board of Immigration security subcommittee of the attorney general's advisory committee, the U.S. attorneys, and we have discussed specifically what can you do to help us make an impact with respect to some of these cases. And they seem very interested and cooperative. KLOBUCHAR: I've been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. I think there's a lot of focus on things that we need for economy with that bill, and allowing, you know, everyone from engineers on to be able to get green cards and to stop training our competition, and there's many important things in that bill, this bipartisan bill. But I think one of them, as you know, as also director, is more money for the border, more money for enforcement, those kinds of things. Do you think that that would be helpful as well, to pass some kind of comprehensive immigration reform? Either of you can answer this. SALDANA: It's essential. I mean -- KLOBUCHAR: And I'm talking about from a public safety perspective. SALDANA: Yes. It's like one of these very wise victims indicated this morning, that when you hear something that simply stated, you wonder why do we get bogged down. And that was, put aside political interests and let's get to work on a better immigration system comprehensively. KLOBUCHAR: Did you want to add? RODRIGUEZ: I would like to add to that. One of the issues that we've heard about this morning is the notion that individuals who are here illegally, we don't know who they are. They are not registered, they are off the grid essentially. Both what the deferred action programs and, more helpfully, comprehensive immigration reform provides is a way to know who those people are, to hold them accountable, to know who they are in those rare instances where they do commit crimes. So that's just one example of many where public safety would be promoted by immigration reform. KLOBUCHAR: And the last thing I wanted to bring up is just -- this is a different issue to me and I don't want it to get scrambled into it is the U visa program for victims of crime. We worked hard on this. I know that I had many experiences where people would be preyed upon because they thought they had power over them because -- a family member, someone else could be deported. The U visa program has been helpful in bringing cases, as one of the witnesses pointed out, who works in the domestic violence area. Could you speak to that? SALDANA: I can certainly. I prosecuted human trafficking cases and we often requested T visas, and I am happy to say that many of the victims that were involved in some of these cases actually ended up staying in the country and applying for residency, and ultimately I'm sure citizenship, and will make extraordinary American citizens if they get to that point. KLOBUCHAR: All right, thank you very much, and we look forward to working with you. SESSIONS: Senator Lee. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks to both of you for coming here, for your willingness to serve our country and your willingness to talk to us today. I believe that the great majority of those who have come to the United States in violation of our laws have probably done so for very sympathetic reasons and have probably been living their lives in a way that, aside from the illegal manner in which they chose to enter the country, are otherwise living good lives, respectable lives. This fact does not, and I don't think it ever can, vest them with the right to citizenship. And it certainly cannot override the need that we have to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from violence, including the type of violence that might result from someone who came here who should not have come here, someone with a known criminal record who has been allowed to remain here in violation of our laws. I've spoken at length in other hearings and on the floor of the Senate about some concerns I have about the use of a legal remedy known as parole within our immigration law. For those who are not steeped in immigration law, parole is a very narrow exception, one that allows a person to enter the country temporarily. The law governing parole within the immigration context is fairly specific. It points out that this needs to be narrow, it needs to be either for urgent humanitarian reasons on the one hand, or significant public benefit on the other hand. This temporary parole is meant to allow people to enter the country for temporary, finite occasions, such as the need to get medical treatment. That would be an urgent humanitarian reason to allow someone to get parole. Or if we are talking about significant public benefit, we might add to that the hypothetical of someone needing to come in to testify as a witness in a trial. But these things are temporary and they are time-sensitive. Temporary nature of parole in its narrow nature is very important because when she be granted parole, if you've been paroled into the country, you've removed an otherwise present and significant legal impediment to gaining access to citizenship. So if parole is abused, if it's granted excessively, indiscriminately, or outside the framework of what the law allows, this you can understand could really create a giant gaping hole in our immigration laws. The president has cleverly, and some might say surreptitiously, spread the definition of parole wide enough to give DACA and DAPA recipients access to citizenship in circumstances in which citizenship would otherwise be not available to them. We are now seeing the president expanding that program again, expanding yet again the use of parole. First, as Vice President Biden announced in November, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are establishing a refugee parole program that would allow those who failed to get refugee status to enter the country under parole. I reiterate, parole is meant to be a temporary admission to get past the border on a case-by-case basis, either for urgent humanitarian reasons or for a significant public benefit. It is not a substitute for refugee status and should not be used to permanently relocate non-refugees to the United States where refugee status isn't available. Second, the president announced in a report released just last week that the Department of Homeland Security will propose an expanded parole program for entrepreneurs. Now, entrepreneurs are valuable. We all love entrepreneurs in this country. In fact, we have a lot of programs that are designed specifically to help encourage more entrepreneurs, not just within the United States but to come here from other countries because we like entrepreneurs. But any program that encourages entrepreneurs to come into the United States, to this country should be established by statute, by law, not shoehorned into a narrow exception that is meant to allow the administration to step outside the normal process only under extraordinary circumstances. So Mr. Rodriguez, I'll start with you. Do you believe these programs are consistent with the limited intent and the temporary nature of the statutory text regarding parole? RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator, for that question. The short answer is yes, I do. And I do precisely for the point that you made, which is that these are programs that are meant to be limited. They are meant to either afford a permanent immigration benefit, nor are they meant to be utilized by everybody. LEE: So you agree with my characterization of... RODRIGUEZ: I don't agree with your characterization of the program... LEE: You agree that they are limited? RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, and that these programs are limited. So when we talk about the Central American minors program, it is a limited number of individuals who will be able to seek parole. There are very specific requirements, very specific circumstances which afford people that parole, and parole is, as you say, a temporary program. LEE: OK, so you agree that it's intended to be temporary and limited. And yet when we look at, in the DACA application for advanced parole, there's a form called form I-131, and it defines the statutory term, significant public benefit. Again, which historically is understood to refer to something like the need for someone to come into the country to testify at a trial. It defines that to include semester abroad programs and meetings with clients. Do you think that's a fair interpretation of the statute? Is it fair to shoehorn meetings with clients or semester abroad programs into a significant public benefit, something intended to give somebody the right to enter the country and testify at trial? RODRIGUEZ: So understand what we are talking about when we talk about the advanced parole. These are individuals who are participants in a deferred action, not a parole program, whose ability to temporarily remain in the United States is under a deferred action program. In other words... LEE: OK, so if it's not a parole program, then why are you using parole? RODRIGUEZ: That is basically the manner in which those individuals on either humanitarian or significant public interest basis are able then to reenter the United States. LEE: Reenter the United States. RODRIGUEZ: It permits them to temporarily leave the United States and then return to the United States. LEE: And when they return they have had a significant impediment that would otherwise exist to their pathway to citizenship lifted. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it does not make them qualify for either legal permanent resident status or for citizenship. In fact, like anybody else, they need to have an actual basis. There must be... LEE: Correct. Remember, it's not independently adequate, but it removes an impediment that would otherwise be there, namely, by virtue of the fact that they entered illegally. That would impede them from getting a green card but for the use of parole. Isn't that right? Is that correct? RODRIGUEZ: It is correct to a point, sir. The critical aspect is they need to qualify for whatever the basis is, be it for residents, for a visa, for citizenship. They need to qualify that. Advanced parole won't make them qualify. LEE: It won't make them qualify but it is a condition precedent, a condition without which they couldn't otherwise have gotten there. You have distorted this law. You have manipulated it beyond what the statutory text will bear, and that does cause me great concern. I see my time -- over my time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Lee. That is technical and important issue. It will be Senator Vitter, Perdue and Tillis, in that order. Senator Vitter. VITTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to thank the full committee chairman and Senator Flake for a lot of work and cooperation with me on legislation which we want to bring forward, and will be bringing forward, to stop sanctuary cities policy, to put teeth in existing federal law, which says that local law enforcement has to cooperate with immigration enforcement. So I thank you. You have been very active on that. And the full committee chairman, and Senator Flake and others who are working with me on that. And hopefully I think we're going to move that soon in committee. Thanks to you both for your service. Ms. Saldana, the White House through the press secretary recently suggested that the murder of Kate Steinle was made possible because Republicans refuse to pass the large immigration bill, which included an amnesty, during the last Congress. Do you agree with that? SALDANA: Sir, I decline to engage in this political discussion. I'm just interested in law enforcement and making sure that the immigration laws are enforced. VITTER: OK. Do you agree or disagree with that suggestion? SALDANA: I have no opinion one way or the other. I am focused on a very important job under the immigration laws, and we would prefer to work on that and answer questions related to that than political questions. That just doesn't advance the ball forward. VITTER: Well, I agree it doesn't advance the ball, and I agree Josh Ernest's (ph) statement was insulting to a lot of people, including the victims. Let me ask you this. How is your action to block sanctuary city policy through the priority enforcement program going to be any more effective than it has been through the secure communities program? Obviously it has been completely ineffective through that. SALDANA: Lots of controversy, lots of litigation arising out of secure communities. The differences are significant, particularly, I believe, as we talk to more jurisdictions, they will see this more clearly. The distinctions are material. For example, one of the problems in that Clapham's (ph) County case was that there is no basis to detain someone at the state or local level beyond 48 hours, which is what our request was. To detain them beyond 48 hours beyond what their underlying offense called for. Under PEP we will have -- we are only asking for 48 hours notice before the release of an individual, unless we have probable cause, in which case we've got indications of a true violation, with evidence that we can show the local jurisdiction. Then we ask for detaining that person the 48 hours. VITTER: And so under this new policy, to try to stop these abuses from happening, first of all, I'm glad that we are finally doing this from the administration. Under this new policy what's going to happen if and when a local jurisdiction does not comply? SALDANA: Well, this is one of the things I'm considering. I, along with the victims this morning, do not want to see their lives go, you know, without being... VITTER: I hope we can all agree about that, but the bottom line is there is no consequence now. There is no teeth now. Nothing happens to these local jurisdictions. So if this is a brand-new day brought on by these horrific incidents, what's going to happen to these local jurisdictions? SALDANA: I'm in the middle of looking at that because, as you know, we just started implementing PEP within the last couple of weeks. VITTER: So you don't know that anything is going to happen to them. SALDANA: No, we are going to work towards that, sir. I want to talk to more jurisdictions to understand exactly what the problems are with respect to their accepting our -- cooperating with us. Once I understand their local problems, I think I can help them better to help figure out a solution. I don't want to be one of these... VITTER: And after you say pretty, please... SALDANA: ...I'm the federal government and I'm here to help you. VITTER: And after you say pretty, please three times and they don't comply, is there going to be any negative consequence? SALDANA: I'm looking at that, sir, and working with the secretary to see what we can do with respect to that. VITTER: So you have not determined yet that there will be any negative consequence. SALDANA: The program has been in effect for about three weeks, sir. We just started. We ask for a chance. VITTER: Well, there are some victims' families here who asked for a chance, and their chance is gone in terms of their family member. Three weeks. This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those jurisdictions. When is that going to change? SALDANA: I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps it can be addressed there. VITTER: Oh, now we're going to the Josh Ernest line, right? SALDANA: The what, sir? VITTER: Ridiculous. Now we are going to the political line you just disavowed. SALDANA: Comprehensive immigration reform to me is not political. It's essential legislative effort to try.. VITTER: And absent Congress passing that bill that you and the Obama administration prefer, you don't think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law? You don't think right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law and with immigration enforcement? SALDANA: And that's what I understand you all are working on. And ... VITTER: Are you working on it? You have the authority to do that now. SALDANA: Sir, not according to certain jurisdictions. A federal District Court in Oregon, for example, has ruled against us on mandatory detainers. Even citing the language that sells "shall." So I'm looking forward to -- looking at the legislation that being proposed to address these questions. I want a solution too, sir. VITTER: Well, we've been asking to a solution for that about sanctuary cities for years. There's been absolutely no effort from the administration before. Now there's a promise of an effort, but still today after these tragedies, you're not prepared to say that you support any negative consequence to sanctuary city jurisdictions if they don't properly cooperate. I eagerly await y'all to finally say that. To finally say, yes, there needs to be some consequence, because that is the only way it's going to stop throughout hundreds of jurisdictions around the United States. SALDANA: Mr. Vitter, I offer you my assistance if you would like my input with respect to any legislation you propose, to try and resolve this and get -- VITTER: I'm asking for your input right now. What should the negative consequence be that you will support? SALDANA: Well, I'm hopeful that I don't have to hit somebody over the head with a federal hammer, and work with the state and local jurisdictions, which have their own specific problems to address. I think you understand that, Senator, and that's why I'd like to work with you to try to address it jurisdiction by jurisdiction. VITTER: Unfortunately, the biggest thing I understand is that you are not prepared today as we speak, even after these horrible tragedies, to support a single negative consequence against a sanctuary city jurisdiction if they do not properly cooperate with immigration enforcement. That's unfortunately the biggest thing I understand. If that's incorrect, please tell me how. I am eager to hear that. SALDANA: It is incorrect. VITTER: OK, so what negative consequence will you support? SALDANA: Whatever you all propose with respect to legislation, I would like to work with you on it to see what we can do to help our communities, as opposed to put roadblocks in their way in their community policing. VITTER: And will you tell us what you would support in that regard right now? SALDANA: You know, sir, I am so focused on trying to correct the problem through our PEP program that I would be happy to work with you with respect to any legislation you propose. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Vitter. I would note that there was nothing in the gang of eight (ph) the comprehensive bill that fixed the sanctuary city problem. It was just one of the loopholes in that legislation. Senator Perdue. PERDUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you for being here today. This is a tremendously important crisis, as I would call it, not just an immigration crisis but a national security crisis. There are only six reasons why 13 colonies got together in the first place, six reasons. And one of those was to provide for the national defense. And we heard from six families this morning. There are many other thousands out there who have similar experiences, including in my home state, with similar tragedies. We've both got to work together and solve this thing. We heard this morning that between 2000 and 2014 there were 100 convicted criminal aliens released and then subsequently arrested again for murder, after they had been released. Those convicted criminals were in our communities because the government let them go free instead of deporting them. In 2013 alone ICE released over 36,000 criminal illegal immigrants into American communities. These illegal aliens had almost 90,000 convictions on their records, including 193 murder convictions and over 16,000 drunk driving convictions. All told, and I know this is a debatable number, but all told, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are over 340,000 criminal illegal immigrants walking the streets right now. I would argue that this is a national emergency. It's absolutely outrageous in my opinion. I don't think there are innocent parties in this debate. In 2000, in my home state we had a 16-year-old kid killed by an illegal immigrant. Today, 15 years later, the perpetrator of that crime is still at large. This is unconscionable when you hear the stories of these families. But we could bring thousands in here. It's time for us to do something. I just have a real quick question, Director Saldana. Thank you for your service in Texas and now nationally. But if you had this perpetrator in California in your custody -- you answered this question earlier. I just want to ask it again for clarity. What's ICE's policy? What are you driving in your organization? How would you have treated this particular incident where they were released back into the custody of the authorities in San Francisco? SALDANA: Well, as we mentioned earlier, the difference between a criminal warrant and a notice of detainer from ICE, we expect for other jurisdictions to respect the court orders that we get when we get a judicial warrant or a criminal warrant. And so... PERDUE: And what if they don't? SALDANA: Well, we -- that's not an issue we have when it comes to court orders. We take them to court then and say this individual, this jurisdiction has failed to honor this court order. That has teeth, right? When coming from a federal judge or even a local judge. And then we ask other jurisdictions to honor our criminal warrants that we get in our investigations. So to us it's a mutual benefit, and we would honor that criminal warrant typically now. The secretary testified last week on something I know he and I are going to have many more conversations about, and that is what more could be done to try to ensure that we have -- when we have a jurisdiction that's not cooperating with us, that we work, in this case with the Bureau of Prisons or someone else, to try and ensure we get custody of that person. PERDUE: I want to come back to Bureau of Prisons in just a second. But in that particular case I'm a little confused because -- and this is not a trick question, but I want to know if the policy is consistent in your organization about how you would have treated that particular perpetrator because just last week one of your senior officials inside your staff told the Judiciary Committee staff that in their opinion that ICE would have done exactly the same thing as the BOP did in that particular instance, and would have release that individual back into the authorities in San Francisco. Is that pretty much correct? SALDANA: And that's correct, sir. Here's the deal. Here's how typically law enforcement works. We have a criminal warrant signed by a judge. We call the jurisdiction -- or we see that, and we call the jurisdiction and say, are you -- is this still a live warrant, and are you going to pursue prosecution? And we work with that jurisdiction. Depending on what the answer is, we work with that jurisdiction to ensure where we are going to get the biggest bang for our buck. Is it the state prosecution or the federal prosecution? And that's where that cooperation is so important, and why I truly recommend against forcing these jurisdictions because that breaks relationships. PERDUE: I'm not worried about relationships. I'm worried about results. And right now we've got cities not adhering to federal law. And I just think that's a tremendous problem, whether it's regarding immigration or highway issues. Let me change topics some more. We just mentioned PEP earlier. You know, we sent a letter, several senators sent a letter to Secretary Johnson a couple of weeks ago. We still haven't received a response yet, by the way, but we are concerned about PEP. I really believe that, as we said to the secretary, it's pretty clear that PEP will lead to the release of additional, maybe thousands of additional criminal aliens from federal custody. And I'm really concerned about what effect that could have, just like we heard this morning. Let me ask you this. With regard to these communities and PEP, given that these communities did not previously honor ICE detainers or cooperate with federal immigration at all, why do we have confidence that they're going to work with us on PEP? Why do we think that's going to be a better approach? SALDANA: Because of the distinction, the differences that we've weaved into the new PEP program. I mentioned one earlier, and that is we are removing the objection, the constitutional objection that we are detaining people or asking for them to hold people without a basis. They've already completed their state or local sentence, and so now we're saying, okay, don't hold them 48 hours in the typical situation. Just give us notice 48 hours before. We've got some differences to communicate to them and to show them, and I think they will make a difference in many cases. And I don't remember if I shared with you, Senator. I'd like you to know this. We have identified the top 49 jurisdictions that would have the greatest impact based on their illegal populations. And 33 have already said they're going to work with us in one way or another. And 11 are still in the process of considering it. We're going to keep working that, and that will have a great impact. PERDUE: Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, Director Rodriguez, I'm sorry. I'm almost out of time but I want to talk about the Martinez case with regard to the exception relative to gang membership and the potential loophole. I mean, this thing is pretty obvious to me. We talked about this in an earlier committee hearing, but I would like to get your opinion on isn't this just another loophole for someone to falsely claim a threat that if they were to going back home, they are under threat; therefore, they should get asylum here? RODRIGUEZ: It certainly our view that, you know, you should not be able to use your prior criminality as a way to claim particular social group. We do think that rulemaking is the right path to resolving -- or the right way to handle this issue, and we can certainly meet, Senator, and talk more about solutions to the issue that you presented. PERDUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SESSIONS: Senator Flake, we're going to Senator Tillis, or are you going next? Senator Tillis. All right, thank you. TILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Saldana and Director Rodriguez, thank you for your service. I know you've got a tough job. A lot of people have quoted some numbers, but I want to make sure that we unify around what I think are very, very important numbers. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that there are some 347,000 criminal immigrants at large today. According to a March 2nd report, ICE weekly departures and detentions report, there's 168,000 convicted criminal immigrants who had final orders of removal but are now at large in the United States. Now in 2013, I think that Senator Perdue mentioned there were some 36,000 aliens released. Now they represented a total of 88,000 convictions, 193 homicide convictions, including one willful killing of a police officer with a gun, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075 aggravated assault convictions, 1,160 stolen vehicles, 9,187 dangerous drug convictions, and 1,670 drunk or drunk driving convictions. After they were released -- now that's what they mounted. And by the way, that's on average, if my back of the napkin math is right, releasing someone who is convicted of a homicide some two or three times a week. Now after these people were released, 1,000 were convicted of another crime following their release. This is a significant problem. Those stats were only for 2013. We could quote stats before and after that. It's a serious problem, and I think that it's something that the sanctuary cities need to recognize. Senator Saldana -- or Director -- SALDANA: Quite a promotion, sir. TILLIS: I'm not sure. (LAUGHTER) TILLIS: But I guess I'm a little bit confused with the PEP program. I understand that you are trying to work with local law enforcement, but to a certain extent it seems to me that we are really excusing the fact that they are not really reading at least the spirit of the law, and some would say the letter. We've talked about whether or not we should pass legislation to be very specific about the mandatory requirements, and you don't want to do it. And it seems to me that a part of that is because you are concerned with the relationship damage that could be done by forcing them. Is that accurate? SALDANA: Well, sir, as I said, our local law enforcement relationships are vital, not just what we do in immigration. I mentioned homeland security investigations earlier. We rely on our local law enforcement partners to assist us with crime that is part of the homeland security investigations purview. TILLIS: I understand that, but shame on them if they all the sudden are not going to cooperate on these other matters of homeland security. Because we want to take a very specific, direct stand that they should obey the law. I mean, that -- that to me is like, well, we'll do a favor here or cut them some slack so they'll work with us. That's their job; that's what they're sworn to do. SALDANA: Yes, and -- and -- and just because I've worked here in law enforcement over a decade, I -- I just want to be sure you understand. Most of the jurisdictions work with us every day; thank goodness they do. And -- and let me set some context here. I think I mentioned about 200, a little over 200 jurisdictions that are not -- that have passed some kind of an ordinance or other legislation not to work with us. There are thousands of jurisdictions that do already. I'm very proud of my home state of Texas that has 254 jurisdictions in it and we have very good relationships with 99.9 percent of those. Do -- please do not assume that these 208 represent the total number of the vast majority of jurisdictions out there. TILLIS: I understand. I do think, though, that we -- we need to keep in mind that the numbers that I went through are significant. And each and every year, there's roughly the same sorts of numbers. This is a significant challenge. And I don't feel like for the bad -- what I would consider bad actor cities, sanctuary cities, shame on them. They need to cooperate with you all; you need to be able to do your job and they need to help you do your job, not because it's some sort of favor or accommodation, because that's their responsibility. Now, the -- the last question that I have relates to the DACA program. And Director Rodriguez, this may be appropriate for you. I asked the secretary when he was here if he felt certain -- you know, you're -- you're probably familiar with the Rangel-Hernandez quadruple murder down in Charlotte 20 minutes from where I live. That was someone who was granted deferred action. Determined he did have some affiliation with gang violence. And he was one of -- of the cases that I think that spurred you all's review of the other actions. Are you absolutely certain that we've scrubbed those who have received deferred action and that we don't have another Rangel- Hernandez out there waiting to happen? RODRIGUEZ: I'll -- I'll -- I'll take that as -- as -- as two -- as really two questions. So, the -- the -- the first is am I absolutely certain? I am satisfied that my staff engaged in a very thorough process of running the entire DACA cohort back through the law enforcement databases that we used to identify gang membership. I do believe that the label of gang member in that database is a reliable label so that if the individual is identified, that gives us what we need to either deny them outright or to conduct further investigation. So, that as we speak today, that does leave me with confidence that -- that as of the date that we ran and we did that review, that we were able to address all cases of -- of gang membership. If we have future cases where people either become gang members or commit crimes, we will address those, as we have. We will terminate DACA in the manner that we have in other cases. TILLIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SESSIONS: Senator Flake? FLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Saldana, in response to a letter that I sent to -- to you along with Chairman Grassley, you mentioned that in the Altamirano case, he posted -- quote, "he posted $10,000 bond after his immigration hearing, which means that he became obligated to report to ICE upon demand and that at the time of the most recent criminal offense, ICE had not triggered his obligation to report upon demand." Now, he was released from custody in January of 2013. He was arrested for murder January 22nd, 2015, over two years. Was there any contact with ICE during that period, between ICE and Mr. Altamirano? SALDANA: He was in proceedings. It's -- that's then involved -- he's involved with the court through the immigration courts. Whether ICE had some communication with him, I -- in those -- that two-year period, I don't know, Senator. FLAKE: Do you know if the immigration court or anybody had any contact with him? SALDANA: You know, I haven't looked at that specifically, sir. FLAKE: Is that typical for somebody to go two -- two full years with seemingly no contact at all? SALDANA: It can happen, given the half a million case backlog with the immigration courts. FLAKE: ICE's policy for triggering a convicted alien's obligation to report, you mentioned that you didn't see him because there was nothing that triggered an obligation to report. Has that policy been changed, in terms of triggers for -- for reporting? In light of this case and others, has there been any change? SALDANA: Not that I'm aware of, sir. FLAKE: How many times has ICE revoked bail for those that -- that have been put out on bail like this? SALDANA: Oh, it -- it happens with some regularity. I can't give you a percentage but I'm happy to provide that to you for a specific period. FLAKE: One thing that was just striking about this is the lack of cooperation and coordination and even notification between federal and local officials. And in response to the letter that Chairman Grassley and I sent to you, you mentioned that ICE is working to implement a new initiative called the law enforcement notification system or LENS. In your testimony, you mentioned that LENS has been deployed in 11 states and full implementation is expected by the end of the year. What's stopping that from being implemented in the other 39 states? SALDANA: Because we have to work with each state office that -- that gets notices out to their counties and communities. Some like mine have a lot of counties. It's complex. We have to make our systems compatible to -- to talk. And so, we started with three states as test cases, Texas being one of them, and it worked pretty well there. We've expanded it to these -- now to the total of 11. And there's a period of time that you have to work out kinks because we want to be sure to get this right, and that's what we've been going through right now, is just the test program; we've passed that. We now have expanded it to the 11. We're liking what we're seeing and I think we'll be there by the end of the year. FLAKE: Is this being handled with a little more urgency now? SALDANA: I -- I would like to see it done earlier than the end of the year, sir. I will stay on it, I -- I assure you, to -- to make sure it done -- it gets done as quickly as we possibly can. FLAKE: So, by the end of the year, you believe that we'll be able to -- to say that in all 50 states, we have better notification requirements? SALDANA: Yes, sir. FLAKE: Thank you. Miss Saldana, in Director Rodriguez's testimony he mentioned that 43,375 new DACA requests were denied; 414 renewal requests have been denied. Of these, you know, approximately 44,000 denied requests, how many have been deported? SALDANA: Of what -- I'm sorry, sir. FLAKE: These -- there are 43,375 DACA requests that were denied and then 414 renewal requests have been denied. If somebody is not able to access DACA, then they are still eligible for deportation or that is demanded. How many of those have been deported? SALDANA: I can't give you the specific number but they go in -- it -- whether they're DACA or not eligible, sir, we look at ours the same way we do anybody else. The -- DACA doesn't get them a free pass. We have to look at them on a case by case basis as to -- as to what's the next step, whether we detain someone, whether, you know, what level of bond we place if we release them, that kind of thing. So, it's all done on the whole facts and circumstances surrounding that individual, including criminal history. FLAKE: But if they are -- if they've done something or have an offense that makes them ineligible, you would assume that they're -- they're being looked at now. Can you give me any ballpark of -- of how many of those have been deported of the 44,000 DACA cases that -- people who were not able to access DACA? SALDANA: I assure you I will get that to you, sir, as soon as I can get someone to look -- to look at it and get us an accurate number for you. I'd rather not throw out a ballpark. FLAKE: All right, thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, in the case of the murder of Kate Steinle, the individual, Mr. Sanchez, was here in the country illegally. Obviously he'd been deported five times; that means that he was able to come back across the border illegally five times. Obviously border security is something that we're very concerned about in Arizona and this committee is extremely concerned about. There's one program that we've had, Operation Streamline, in Arizona, a secure or sure (ph) consequences program. And it's helped significantly in Yuma. We've been able to bring repeat crossings down significantly, yet the Department of Justice seems to be now backing away from that program. What are your thoughts there? RODRIGUEZ: Well, Senator, I -- as you know, I -- I administer the immigration benefits structure. I -- I don't operate border security... FLAKE: I understand that, but... RODRIGUEZ: I certainly support border security. And I'm sure Commissioner Kerlikowske would be able to address those concerns that you have, sir. FLAKE: Those are serious concerns. We want to make sure the programs that we actually have working continue. And we have one that's working here there in Arizona and we're very concerned that it's not being fully implemented. The fact that Mr. Sanchez was able to so easily return across the border five times in the case, you know, in California is very disturbing, but not surprising, frankly. So, I thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Flake. Well, the Streamline program, I don't think either one of you operate that but I hope you'll fight for it. Because backing away from it, as Senator Flake has said, was very much a retrograde step. We're also familiar with the 287(g). Miss Saldana, you know you talked about cooperating with fed -- state and local officials. Your department, Homeland Security, has dramatically weakened the 287(g) program which trains local law enforcement officers how to properly and legally assist the Homeland Security in carrying out its function. Do you support the 287(g) and what's the status of that? SALDANA: Oh, yes. I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to weakening. We welcome any 287(g) partners and -- and -- and it -- it's not that... SESSIONS: Well, I would ask you then to just check the records and see if there hasn't been a diminution the -- the 287(g) program which I think should be expanded regularly. SALDANA: There has been, sir, but it's not because of us not wanting that partnership. It's because jurisdictions have either withdrawn or are not coming to the table anymore. SESSIONS: Well, we think it could be advanced and should be. Look, what the American people know and what the family of victims of violent crime know is that this administration has consistently and steadfastly placed the goal of amnesty above the goal of public safety; time and time and time again, that's been the fact. And you're just functionaries in that system. You've been asked to do a system but within the rules been given by the political leaders and it's just not right and it's wrong. We need to do more about that and we need to see that end. If this administration spent one-tenth of the effort on enforcement and protecting people from crimes and punishing people who are criminals who violate our immigration laws rather than on amnesty, we'd be a lot safer today. Many of the people that have been injured, robbed or killed by illegal aliens would be alive today. That's just fact and everybody knows it. So, I'm concerned about it. Miss Saldana, Chris Crane is the head of the association -- the ICE officers association; 7,000 officers. They have -- they're the ones that filed a lawsuit against your predecessor, saying that he was ordering them to carry out policies that required them to violate their oath to enforce the law. I've never heard of anything like that. The statements, Mr. Rodriguez, that your offices said, 12,000 led by Chris Crane -- on Ken Palinkas are just stunning in their criticism of supervisors and political leaders. Morale is down and it's because we're not doing what they're paid to do and they -- they know it. This is what Mr. Crane says, Miss Saldana: "ICE is crumbling from within. Morale is at an all-time low as criminal aliens are released to the streets and ICE instead takes disciplinary action against its own officers for making lawful arrests. It appears clear that federal law enforcement officers are the enemy, not those who break the laws," close quote. He goes on to say, "ICE officers requested a meeting with President Obama and are still waiting. In that time, the White House has met with big business, big labor, illegal alien activists. The administration has ramped up its non-enforcement directives, putting officers and the public in danger. Every day, dangerous and violence criminal aliens are released back into our communities," close quote. That's just what it -- that's the true facts of the situation here. And you can do better if you had leadership that would let you do better. We could -- we could do so much better. We've added thousands of officers since the last dustup in 2007 over amnesty. And we ought to be in a position that we can make real progress. SALDANA: Senator, may I say something on that point? SESSIONS: Yes, you may, I'm... SALDANA: I am very -- I was -- that's one of the first things that caught my attention when I joined the agency late last year or early this year. I am putting a lot of effort in trying to engage employees and what they do. I will tell you this, though; I don't -- I have met with Mr. Crane several times now. I've met with Mr. Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, as well, and -- to discuss our mutual -- their concerns, our mutual interests. And I will say when I get out in the field, this is somewhat inconsistent with the portrayal that you've just described of our employees. They are so proud of the work they do and they're so proud of being able to focus on criminal convicted aliens and removing them from the country and they go about their business in a very efficient and -- and good way and -- and they take pride in that. And I just want to mention that to you because that's a fact. I mean, that's what I've seen as I've traveled across the country. SESSIONS: Well, I believe the facts show that this administration in a host of ways has failed to take strong action to help those officers do their duty and comply with their oath. Mr. Rodriguez, on the -- Secretary Jeh Johnson, your supervisor, testified recently before the House. And you said that comprehensive immigration reform, had it passed, we would know who the criminal aliens are. But so -- but that's not so well said because I don't think anyone that has a criminal warrant out for them or has a history of criminal activities is going to register for any of these programs that you've got. In fact, Mr. Johnson admitted as much, saying, "Most criminals do not subject themselves to criminal background checks." I agree with that. So, you're not saying, are you, that if we call for people to come and register under DACA or the president's executive amnesty that people with criminal records are going to waltz in and file with you so they can be arrested, are you? RODRIGUEZ: Well, so, let me point out a few things, Senator, if -- Chairman, if I may. One, some have, to their detriment, even in the DACA program; some who had disqualifying criminal records did come and apply and in many cases became the subjects of notices to appear. But part -- part of my point also is that those who are not criminals, those who committed no other illegal act other than their illegal entering into the United States but who are not murderers, robbers or rapists are now on the record so that should they become criminals down the line, we know who they are. For the most part, I think you're right. Your ordinary criminal will not register in the manner you describe; they know what the detriment is. SESSIONS: Well, I appreciate that. RODRIGUEZ: I would also, Senator, if I could, invite you to tour a field office with me. Because if you did that with me, you would see what I have seen is that our officers take pride in their work, they feel empowered in their ability to do their work and they exercise their discretion and the chips fall where they will, meaning that if there is a case to be denied, they do that; I've seen them do it firsthand, sir. SESSIONS: Well, with regard to this DACA program and the process of providing a legal status to people in the country in the country illegally, isn't it a fact that you've set it up so that there will not be in-person interviews for the people? RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, to my -- and my point it -- it is... SESSIONS: But isn't it a fact that experts tell us that an in- person interview is critical to a proper evaluation of a person who's applying for legal status? RODRIGUEZ: And -- and we do do in-person interviews in those cases that raise concerns that need to be investigated by (ph) officers (ph). (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Well, how do you know if it's going to raise concern if you haven't met with them? RODRIGUEZ: Because again, another one of the things that I do is look through our files. And I know that at the time that we are reviewing a file, there is extensive information about that individual where our experienced, trained officers can identify is if there is the kind of information about that individual that warrants a -- an actual in-person (ph) interview (ph). (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Well, Mr. Palinkas has been very clear in this -- in his opinion on what ICE (ph) going to work in the real world. And it's been set up so there'll be very few in-person interviews and he says that denies your officers the ability to make rational choices that can protect the public's safety. So, I guess you just disagree with him on that. RODRIGUEZ: I respectfully do. SESSIONS: Now, with regard to your -- your processes, is it true that over 95 percent of the DACA applicants have been improved? Or 90 -- maybe 99 percent? RODRIGUEZ: I -- I wouldn't be able to tell you the specific percentages other than to say that there are a significant number who have been denied or... SESSIONS: So you don't know what percentage have been denied? RODRIGUEZ: I couldn't as I stand before you other than to say that it's substantial -- substantial number who have been denied because of criminality or national security (ph). SESSIONS: Would you say less than one half of 1 percent is a substantial number? RODRIGUEZ: I -- I wouldn't say what the percent is. SESSIONS: You don't know? I mean, you're the director of this program. RODRIGUEZ: What matters to me is -- is the manner in which... SESSIONS: I just asked a question. What matters to me is what percentage are being denied? RODRIGUEZ: I -- again, I couldn't tell you as I sit here before you. Again, I know that a significant number have been denied because of these kinds of issues (ph). SESSIONS: Well, I'm looking at a sworn statement by Mr. Palinkas in the lawsuit that --in Texas that we've referred to. According to the most recent data I've seen -- this is his quote under oath; quote, "According to the most recent data I've seen, U.S. CIS reports a 99.5 percent approval rate for all DACA applicants. "The approval rate is high because U.S. CIS leadership," you, "prevented immigration officers from conducting case by case investigations of DACA applications. Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and enforcement and in so doing, it has guaranteed that applications will be rubberstamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk." So, I'll ask you, does this process allow for person to person interviews for even a substantial minority of the applicants? (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: As I mentioned, when there are concerns that warrant such an interview, yes, the process does allow for it. SESSIONS: He goes on to say, "As explained above, by routing DACA applications through service centers instead of field offices all over the country, U.S. CIS management has intentionally created an application process that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained U.S. CIS adjudications officers." So, now the way this will work, I guess somebody sends in an e- mail or mails in a document. Is that what they do, and they're approved based on that? RODRIGUEZ: Well, there -- there -- there is obviously a lot of information that is collected. SESSIONS: How? How is the information collected? (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: From -- from requestors; there -- there are specific items that are request -- required as part of the initial request. There are requests for evidence that are subsequently sent to the requesters. There is a full suite of biographic and biometric checks to examine either criminal history issues or national security issues. That forms the entirety of the file. In those cases where those raise concerns, then yes, those are referred for interview. SESSIONS: Well, let me show -- go further with what our Mr. Palinkas said under oath. "For example, new U.S. CIS computer systems -- to use a new U.S. CIS computer system to screen applications known as, quote, 'transformation' has proved to be a disaster as the agency has spent upwards of $2 billion for a system that would eventually allow an alien, now referred to as a customer under U.S. CIS policy, as I previously stated, to upload their own information via the Internet for adjudication purposes," close quote. So, it'll be information sent through some $2 billion computer system by Internet and there won't be an interview of most of the applicants. Isn't that correct? RODRIGUEZ: I'm -- I'm not sure that -- no, I really don't agree with that premise at all, Senator. The -- the -- a few things. One, I believe we are -- we have turned the corner on the transformation process. There is no doubt that historically, there was a development approach that was not working. We recently launched the replacement green card; that has gone very, very well. It actually built a number of functionalities that we're going to be able to apply to other forms. The -- the use of electronic filing as the means of receiving and the adjudicating applications does not change which programs will have interviews associated with them. That -- that -- that is not set to change as part of the transformation process. SESSIONS: Well, look, it's not going to be an in -- in-person interview. Mr. Palinkas has said for years now this is -- they're overwhelmed and cannot do the kind of proper background check. You need to be defending the people's public safety. If you need more money to do this, you need to ask for it. If you want to rubberstamp the process, keep doing the way you're doing. Now, Miss Saldana, section 1373 of Title VIII of the U.S. code provides, among other things, quote, "a federal, state or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from ICE information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of any individual," close quote. Don't you think that resolutions by city councils or state governments or sheriffs in certain jurisdictions directing their offices not to honor (ph) detainers (ph) or otherwise notify ICE that they've arrested someone that's in -- unlawfully in the country could violate or would violate section 1373? SALDANA: Well, you know, all of that is part of litigation, Senator. Quite frankly, I think we've taken that position in litigation that -- that -- that is the case. SESSIONS: That they do have to supply information? In other words, you've taken a position which I think is -- I understand you correctly, you are correct to say, cities, you have to comply with this law. SALDANA: Yes. And again, is it more practical to work through all this morass of litigation or can we work with these jurisdictions to try to get them to cooperate? SESSIONS: Well... SALDANA: I -- I think it's the latter. SESSIONS: I understand you're saying that but forgive me if I'm not persuaded. This has been going on for many years. It came up in 2007 when we had a debate about all of this and it was wrong then and it's wrong now. It's gotten to be I think it's 300 or so jurisdictions that are sanctuary jurisdictions out of, what, 17,000 maybe? So, but some are very big cities who have very large immigrant populations. And so, it's a huge matter, but most cities are -- are cooperating. And if you want to know what I hear, the complaints about the federal government enforcement from our law -- law enforcement officers is that you won't allow them to help you, that they -- if they arrest somebody and they call your office, nobody comes, nobody cares, nobody responds. And so, that's the big problem we've got in the country, is maybe bigger than the other. But at any rate, I hope that you will understand, Miss Saldana, that you're talking with them is not going to change the situation. Do you have any cities that have indicated to you they're going to make a change in their policy? SALDANA: I mentioned -- I mentioned the numbers earlier, sir. We -- we're -- just as a matter of focus, we've looked at these 49 in particular and 33 are working, have come and said that they will work with us in some way or another, again, tailored to their needs. And we've only had five that really have said of those 49 no; and we'll continue working with them. SESSIONS: Well, I'm sure they -- after all the events of the last few months certainly should be willing to listen about this. But I have serious doubts that we're going to see any change unless Congress takes some action or unless this administration takes some action. Miss Saldana, one problem I know you have that's -- I'm sure it's frustrating to you is countries not taking back criminals that you've arrested and ordered deported. Can you tell us the status of that situation? SALDANA: Yes, as you know, the Department of State obviously has a vast interest in this and I have worked with the Department of State and met -- met with the -- the individual who is -- oversees these relationships and we are working very closely to try to open doors. I went to China a couple of months ago, Beijing in particular, and China has been a challenge for us. And we've signed together and -- a kind of astounding agreement that they will actually have two people here to help process Chinese going back to the country who are repatriating from this country; that's some progress. But we continue to work with them. I've worked with South American countries. I visited Guatemala and El Salvador and we -- we're -- continue to work with our -- my counterparts there to try to ensure that we have -- and we actually have signed memorandum understanding with them regarding their -- their citizens. SESSIONS: Working with them -- working with them is one thing. But this has been going on for years also, many years. How long have you been in office? SALDANA: Seven months. SESSIONS: Seven months; so, I can't blame you for all that's gone on over the years. (CROSSTALK) SALDANA: Oh, you can. (LAUGHTER) SESSIONS: But I want you to know I understand that you -- you have professional training and you understand the world. So, it -- are there powers and actions the United States government can take without legislation that would put pressure on these countries to accept back individuals who we have ordered deported? SALDANA: Obviously this isn't the province of the Department of State largely because there relationships with -- with international countries. But yes, I -- I understand that they -- they have some authorities to do that. As you know, Senator, it's a very complex picture when it comes to international relationships and one agency's issues may not hold (ph) sway (ph) over the bigger picture in the relationship with that country. SESSIONS: Well, I remember Senator Specter, the former chairman of this committee a number of years ago, now, I was outraged by all of this. And actually, I offered legislation that would mandate reducing our -- mandate a reduction of visas from countries that don't comply. Doesn't it cost you a lot of money and -- and create huge time involvements in dealing with situations where a country won't take back one of their own? SALDANA: It's a great challenge, sir, and -- and that's where we face issues under (ph) Salvador (ph) for example, where we can't get papers or cooperation from those countries and we actually have to release them under that Supreme Court opinion after a certain period of time. SESSIONS: On the Supreme Court opinion, if a country won't take them back and a year goes by? SALDANA: Oh, I think it's actually more like 180 days and we have to -- we have to -- we got to... (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Hundred-and-eighty-days and you have to release them? SALDANA: Well, we can extend that period of time but there's a point at which we've got to release them. SESSIONS: And that takes a lot of your officers' and agents' time and effort. SALDANA: It does, sir. SESSIONS: And you have to pay to house people in high quality prisons while you're waiting on this instead of being able to deport them promptly. SALDANA: Yes, that's correct. SESSIONS: I think we -- I have a recollection. Was it Mr. Von (ph) Rob (ph) the customs chief in years gone by? When he shut the border down with Mexico over some disagreement over their responsibilities, caused quite a stir; he just closed the border. But I would just say to you, Miss Saldana, I think it's time for the State Department and your department to stand up and say we're not going to accept this anymore. If you don't accept back promptly people we deport, then you're going to suffer serious consequences. And any relationship that deals in visas is a reciprocal relationship, isn't it, so that if we accept people, then they agree to take them back and likewise if they accept individuals from the United States and they deport them, we accept them back. Isn't that a -- isn't that -- is there a law that requires that or is that just State Department agreements with -- with these countries? SALDANA: Sir, I'm sorry, you're way above my -- my knowledge here when it comes to the State Department and -- and... SESSIONS: Well, you're going to have to stand up to the State Department; looks like we all are. This cannot continue. We don't have the money to continue to bicker with these countries for years and years and years and not get this matter settled; so, we'll try to work on that. I think legislation would be appropriate, too, although it's not necessary. If the president and the State Department stood up and were clear on it, I could be fixed promptly, in my opinion. I may submit some additional questions for the record. Mr. -- but we're having some problems getting answers to our records. Mr. Rodriguez, when do you plan to send us your responses to our questions for the record following the March hearing on oversight of your agency? RODRIGUEZ: As soon as possible. I thought -- I thought we had satisfied all of those requests. We will make sure to get those to you as soon as possible, sir. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: I'm not -- I don't believe we have. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, if -- if there are outstanding requests, that is -- I'm obviously not happy about that and we will -- we will act quickly to -- to respond, sir. SESSIONS: Thank you. Well, the record will remain open for one week. And if there's nothing further -- but I will say one more thing. (LAUGHTER) Both of you are good law officers. You know how the system works. And I hope you know that things are going as well as they should; a lot of that is because of administration policy. At some point, you'll have to decide whether you're going to execute that policy or not. Some of the policies I think cannot be defended. But I respect your integrity and I appreciate your commitment to your country and your service to your country. The hearing is adjourned. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Chairman. SALDANA: Thank you. CQ Transcriptions, July 21, 2015 List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 VITTER, R-LA. SEN. DAVID PERDUE, R-GA. SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C. SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. RANKING MEMBER SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF. 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. WITNESSES: SUSAN OLIVER, WIFE OF DEPUTY SHERIFF DANNY OLIVER GRACE HUANG, PUBLIC POLICY COORDINATOR FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MICHAEL RONNEBECK, UNCLE OF GRANT RONNEBECK REV. GABRIEL SALGUERO OF THE LAMBS CHURCH, NEW YORK CITY JIM STEINLE, FATHER OF KATHRYN STEINLE J. THOMAS MANGER, CHIEF OF POLICE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT BRIAN MCCANN, BROTHER OF DENNIS MCCANN LAURA WILKERSON, MOTHER OF JOSH WILKERSON LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SARAH SALDANA, DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

Senate Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing on Immigration Enforcement Policies LIST OF PANEL MEMBERS AND WITNESSES GRASSLEY: For the benefit of the audience and the witnesses, generally, and in this case, too, Senator Feinstein is the Ranking Member for this hearing, and she and I will make opening comments. Then we'll go to our first panel. This Committee continues to honor its pledge to conduct oversight over the implementation of the laws Congress has passed, as well as the policies and practices of the executive branch. Today we will focus on how this Committee's (sic) immigration policies and practices are hurting American families. The Committee will hear powerful testimony from a number of relatives who have lost loved ones as a direct result of the administration's failure to deport aliens or its tolerance of sanctuary policies. I'll begin by extending a special welcome to our witnesses, especially family members of victims. I hope you will accept our deepest sympathies for the losses each of you have suffered. Thank you very much for your willingness to share your stories under difficult circumstances and to pay tribute to those who, though no longer with us in body, are surely with us in spirit. Today we will honor Josh, Kate, Dennis, Danny, Grant, and many others whose lives were tragically cut short because of the administration's lax immigration policies. We had many families and relatives who wanted to testify today, but unfortunately we had to turn them away because we were limited in time and space. However, we welcome all testimony for the record and encourage them to commemorate their loved ones with stories and written letters to this Committee. We will examine the administration's policies from top down. We'll look at how federal benefits are being granted to deportable criminals by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services while criminals are being released by U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement, and how enforcement of the laws can be better achieved. We will look at how we can improve cooperation between government agencies and we'll look into how we can improve cooperation between the federal government and state and local law enforcement agencies. After all, we all work for the same taxpayer; we ought to be cooperating. We'll look at sanctuary jurisdictions and try to understand why policies that protect criminal aliens are in place. In the past few weeks, we have learned that there are thousands of detainers placed each year on federal agents -- by federal agents on undocumented immigrants with criminal records that are ignored. According to government data, between January and September 2014, there were 8,811 declined detainers in 276 counties, 43 states, including Columbia District. Of the 8,811 declined detainers, 62 percent were associated with over 5,000 individuals who were previously charged or convicted of a crime or presented some other public safety concern. And nearly 1,900 of the released offenders were arrested for another crime after being released by sanctuary jurisdiction. This is obviously disturbing, not only to me but to most Americans. There is no good rationale for noncooperation between federal-level and state and local law enforcement. Public safety is needlessly and recklessly put at risk when state and local officials provide sanctuary to law-abiding immigrants just to make a political point. This administration in too many cases has turned a blind eye to enforcement, even releasing thousands of criminals at its own discretion, many of whom have gone on to commit serious crimes, including murder. The administration has also granted deferred action to criminal aliens who have committed heinous crimes after receiving this relief from deportation. I've written to Secretary Johnson about four specific cases in which such individuals have received President Obama's deferred action for childhood arrivals, and that it is referred to as DACA in this town. One of these beneficiaries was a known gang member when he applied and received DACA, then went on to kill four people in North Carolina. Another DACA recipient used his work authorization to gain employment at a popular youth camp in California where he was recently arrested for child molestation and distribution of child pornography. I'm still waiting for responses on some of these cases. Further, the administration's completely failed to do anything about sanctuary cities, while -- all the while challenging states that took a more aggressive approach to enforcing immigration laws. I recently sent a letter to Attorney General Lynch and Homeland Security Secretary Johnson about sanctuary cities. I urged them to take control of the situation to ensure detainers are not ignored and non-documented individuals are safely transferred to federal custody and put into deportation proceedings. I implored them to take a more direct role in the matter and on that -- on those letters I have not received a response. But this isn't a new issue for this administration. I wrote to then-Secretary Napolitano and then-Attorney General Holder in 2012 and asked them to intervene in Cook County, Illinois, and other sanctuary jurisdictions. Nothing happened. In fact, since then the administration officials have publicly stated that they neither believe detainers have to be honored, nor that they even want them to be mandatory. Enforcing the immigration laws in this country is not a voluntary or trivial matter. Real lives are at stake. Things cannot continue this way. We're a nation based upon the rule of law and if that rule of law isn't respected, only chaos will succeed. That is why I'm introducing legislation today that will hold sanctuary jurisdictions accountable. It will require the executive branch to withhold certain federal funding if states or local law enforcement refuse to cooperate with federal government in holding and transferring criminal aliens. My bill will require the state and local cooperate on criminal aliens or risk losing law enforcement-related grants that are distributed by Homeland Security and DOJ. My bill will also require a mandatory minimum five-year prison sentence in addition to possible fines for individuals who enter the United States after having been deported. Current law does not require prison time and caps the possible prison sentence at two years. This section of my bill is aimed at individuals who ignore our laws time and again. No more people should die at the hands of those who break our laws just by being here. No more families should have to go through what these families and others have gone through again. I'd like to thank our witnesses for taking the time to be with us today. Your strength and determination to change the unacceptable status quo won't go unnoticed. I will now turn to Senator Feinstein. And after she does, I'll introduce the witnesses. FEINSTEIN: Thank you very much, Chairman Grassley. I want to say that our Ranking Member, Patrick Leahy, would be here but there is an urgent family appointment that he had to keep this morning. And so I sit in in his stead. And I know this is a hearing that he very much would have wanted to have attended. Yesterday I had occasion to meet with the Steinle family. And Jim Steinle is sitting front and center at the dock. And what I saw was a very hurt family, but very resolute and very concerned about doing the right thing, whatever that may be in a case like this. So I want to voice my very clear sympathy and condolences to the family members that are here today. I can't think of anything that's harder to do than what you're going to do today. And I think your strength in doing it is noted and very much appreciated. It is very clear to me that we have to improve cooperation between local, state, and federal law enforcement. The overriding concern, and a deep belief of mine, is that convicted felons should not be removed from the country -- should be removed from the country, but not released onto our streets. When immigration authorities ask that a state or local law enforcement agency notify them of an impending release of an alien with a serious felony record, that request should be honored. I strongly believe that local law enforcement should have notified the immigration authorities in the case of the accused murderer of Kate Steinle. The man who killed Kate is a classic case of multiple felonies and prior deportations. And a simple phone call would have been enough. But that did not happen. In fact, the San Francisco County Sheriff adopted his own policy on March of 2015, just four months ago. The memo states, "SFSD staff shall not provide the following information or ask access to ICE representatives," end-quote. One of the items listed in the department's memo is, quote, "release dates and times," end-quote. In other words, the Sheriff's Department barred its own deputies from informing ICE about an individual's release date and time. That, I believe, is wrong. I believe it is not required by San Francisco's ordinance as the Mayor has made clear to the Sheriff in a letter dated July 14. And Mr. Chairman, I would like to put that letter in the record, if I may. GRASSLEY: Without objection, so ordered. FEINSTEIN: Thank you. I agree with the Mayor and to prevent a similar tragedy I hope and expect that my home state of California and the city of San Francisco in particular will agree to take part in the Department of Homeland Security Priority Enforcement Program, known as PEP. This program focuses on felons and others who are high priorities for removal from the country. Under PEP, ICE can request notification of an alien's release date from a state or local -- from state or local custody. And so that they would have the opportunity, if the circumstances warranted it, to take custody of that individual itself. In some instances, PEP also allows for ICE to lodge a detainer request with local law enforcement, asking that they hold an alien for up to 48 hours. It seems to me that a simple notification to ICE could have prevented Kate Steinle's death. I have urged Mayor Lee and the board of supervisors to participate in this new program, which the Secretary announced late last year. This program prioritizes those who threaten our nation's national security. I'm pleased that Mayor Lee is taking this request seriously and is in the process of communicating with the Department of Homeland Security about participating. We all know that most undocumented immigrants are otherwise law-abiding, hard-working, and just want to provide for their families. I believe that deeply. But that's not the element of the undocumented population we're talking about today. I'm currently working on a bill, as is our Chairman and I think others on this -- in this Committee, that would require state and local law enforcement to notify Immigration and Customs Enforcement of the impending release from a detention center of an illegal alien who has previously been convicted of a felony, if ICE requests such notification. This bill is a work in progress. And Mr. Chairman, I look forward to hearing the testimony today and to working with other members of this Committee so that we might produce a bill that is worthy of consideration and passage. And I thank the Chair. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Senator Feinstein. Our first witness, Ms. Susan Oliver. Ms. Oliver is a widow of Deputy Danny Oliver, a police officer in Sacramento. Danny was killed while on duty by an undocumented immigrant who was previously arrested on two separate occasions on drug-related charges and twice deported. Ms. Oliver has established a foundation in her husband's name to help kids in school. Our second witness, Ms. Grace Huang, she is Public Policy Program Coordinator for the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence, a non-profit network of domestic violence founded in 1990. Our third witness, Mr. Michael Ronnebeck, the uncle of Grant Ronnebeck. He was a 21-year-old convenience store clerk who was gunned down earlier this year by an undocumented immigrant. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement released Grant's alleged murderer who was awaiting deportation. Grant was born in Iowa, but resided in Arizona and had two brothers and a sister. Our fourth witness, the Reverend Gabriel Salguero. Reverend Salguero and his wife are the co-lead pastors of Lambs Church of the Nazarene, New York City. He is also a founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition. Our fifth witness, Mr. Jim Steinle, of Pleasanton, California, the father of Kate Steinle, who was gunned down 20 days ago while walking on a pier in San Francisco alongside this father. Her alleged killer had seven prior felony convictions and had been deported five times. Sanchez was shielded by San Francisco's sanctuary policy, which allowed for his release in March despite an ICE detainer placed on him. Sixth person, Chief J. Thomas Manger. Chief Manger has been a chief of police, Montgomery County, since February 2004. Chief Manger also serves as president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association. Our seventh witness is Dr. Brian McCann. Mr. McCann's brother, Dennis, was killed in 2011 by a drunk driver who was in the country illegally and driving without a license. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement had placed a detainer on the drunk driver, but he was released under Cook County, Illinois's sanctuary city policies. Our final witness, Ms. Laura Wilkerson, of Pearland, Texas. She's a mother of Josh Wilkerson. Josh was 18-years-old when he was kidnapped and murdered by his high school classmate, an illegal immigrant, after offering his classmate a ride from school. Josh's murderer was sentenced to life imprisonment and will be eligible for parole in 30 years. I want to thank all of you for being here. And I expressed to you privately our condolences, I say so now publicly. You are very brave to come forward and testimony and we -- we welcome that very much. And we'll start with Ms. Oliver. You -- I know you folks have been told about a four-minute rule. The red light comes on. If you have a longer statement, it will be put in the record. That doesn't mean that just exactly when the red light comes on I'm going to gavel you down. But please cut it short because this is a very important hearing. We want to get the witnesses in. But the most important thing after you tell your stories is for us to hear from the administration and to question the administration. Will you start, Ms. Oliver? OLIVER: Good morning. I just wanted to first state that I'm honored that the bill has been named after my husband, Deputy Oliver, as well as Detective Davis, who were killed on October 24, 2014. Over the past nine months, my life has changed dramatically because of the loss of my husband, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver. Danny Oliver was a special person that knew that treating people with dignity and kindness resulted in stronger, healthier, and safer communities, and he worked every day to help make that a reality for communities that needed it the most. As a 15-year veteran of Sacramento County's Sheriff's Office, Danny Oliver was not a man to boast or gloat of his professional accomplishments. In fact, when he was given a standing ovation at a community meeting, he felt unsure of how to handle this overwhelming approval. Danny simply felt he was doing his job and that was all that was needed to feel accomplished. My husband's last shift with the Sacramento County's Sheriff's Office ended by doing something he had done countless times before in his career. He was policing his community and trying to make a difference. Danny was a POP officer, also known as a problem-oriented police officer. His job was to identify possible community challenges and try to get ahead of them. He had put himself into harm's way every day that he put his uniform on. And on Friday, October 24, 2014, my husband and father of two approached a car on his beat. But this time it was the last time. The last thing my husband attempted to do as a POP officer was to ask the man inside the car how his day was going. But he never made it to the driver's window. At about 10:30 a.m., that man was in the country illegally and armed with numerous illegal weapons. He aimed one outside the car of a parking lot of Motel 6 in Sacramento and opened fire, killing my husband with a shot to the forehead. I can honestly say that not a day goes by that this has not affected me. It may not be visible always. It may not be written in bold for all to see. It may not even be recognized, but it's always in the background of my mind. Sorry. It's there daily, sometimes moment by moment, as it should be. Many people ask if I've gotten past that terrible day and the answer is no. Honestly, I don't think I will ever get past that day. I lost the man I was married to for 25 years. Each day I look for parental backup for rearing my child who's 12-years-old, and I feel that loss. Each day my children reach milestones. My daughter recently got engaged and there will be a marriage that he will not be at. There will be school graduations and even our weekly family brunches that we held. I am reminded that I no longer have my husband by my side. I was with him since I graduated high school 25 years ago, and we watched each other grow up. We made careers together and we raised two children. We could just look at each other and know what we needed. Perhaps it was support, a loving smile, or even an "I'll talk to you when we get home" look. It is hard to build this trust and understanding, but we had it mastered with ease. But because of the actions of one criminal, this all ended on October 24. My life will never be the same. Unlike law enforcement, there are few professions that consistently send our loved ones into harm's way. It's frightening always knowing that each time they walk out the door it could be the last time that you see them. At the same time, not many professions consciously or intentionally give the order to take a life through the use of deadly force in order to protect others who can't protect themselves, an awesome responsibility that my husband understood clearly. And this continues to be -- to create a lot of ongoing dialogue without communities throughout the country as we see a lack of -- of -- of -- as we see a lack of -- of -- as we see a lack of continuity among law enforcement groups and communities that they serve. Every single day law enforcers at the state, local, and federal level put themselves -- themselves, their loved ones, and their communities that they serve at risk when they are forced to release criminals who are illegal, who pose a threat to community safety, all in violation of current laws that require deportation. In just the last two years, ICE released back into the nation's streets 76,000 convicted criminals who were in this country illegally. There are 169 (ph) criminals in the United States who are here illegally right now. That means there are 169,000 people in our streets who have criminal convictions and were formerly and lawfully ordered departed, but who remain here to commit other crimes, to possibly kill someone else's loved one. The administration's tolerance of sanctuary cities has also resulted in another 10,000 potentially deported illegal immigrant criminals being released by local law agencies since January of last year. And 121 of these criminals have been ordered deported in the last three years and yet were released by ICE, have now -- and have now been charged with additional homicide offenses. The man that killed my husband, Danny Oliver, was deported several times for various felonies before killing my husband on October 24, 2014. However, due to the lack of coordination between law enforcement agencies, he was allowed back into the country and in one day he committed another crime, only this time his illegal crime status impacted many in a direct and profound way when he shot and killed my husband. It would be remiss if I didn't also mention that it wasn't my -- it wasn't my life -- it wasn't just my life that was changed that day. That same criminal eluded hundreds of officers from Sacramento to Auburn, California, during a six-hour crime spree that also left Placer County Sheriff Detective Michael Davis Jr. dead, Placer County Sheriff Deputy Jeff Davis wounded, and a motorist in serious condition from a gunshot to the head. Many lives changed on October 24. Today I honor my husband, Sacramento County Sheriff Deputy Danny Oliver, and the other fallen heroes throughout this nation who are always with us in our hearts and in our memories. I wonder if I would even be here today talking to you about my loss if the government -- if the government better enforced immigration law. Unfortunately, this is now my reality. Thank you for honoring Danny and the others who have made the ultimate sacrifice. I hope by being here today and telling you about the grief my family has unnecessarily endured I can help save the life of someone else's friend, husband, or father. I hope that my husband's death won't be in vain. I hope that I can be here to make a difference. My life is forever changed and saddened. Please help put policy in place to make sure that criminal immigrants are in this country -- who are in this country illegally are never allowed to dictate (ph) the life of a true humanitarian like my husband, Deputy Danny Oliver. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Ms. Oliver. Ms. Huang? HUANG: Thank you, Chairman Grassley and distinguished members of the Committee. My name is Grace Huang from the Washington State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. I am deeply honored to be here to comment on the impact of local law enforcement policies regarding federal immigration enforcement on victims of domestic violence. The issue of violence in our communities is challenging, complex, and deeply emotional. As someone who's worked with survivors of violent crimes for over 22 years, I know how important it is for people to feel that -- to feel that they can prevent future tragedies. And I want to extend my heartfelt condolences to the families here today. Over the years -- over the years in my work at the Coalition, I've had the honor to work with -- work in helping families make it -- work in the advocacy process in advancing effective policy solutions. Through open and honest dialogue, I hope that we can work to find solutions that are -- that make our communities safer for everyone. One crucial thing we can do is to build strong police and community relationships, which means establishing an environment of trust. If victims and witnesses do not feel safe coming forward, the police cannot do their jobs and are -- we are all less safe. Congress has affirmed that principle that immigrant victims and witnesses should feel safe to come forward by creating the U visa for victims of crime in 2000 in the Violence Against Women Act, which was recently reauthorized. I thank you all for everything you have done to make women in our communities as a whole more safe. I ask that you remember these lessons as you work to address this new challenge. As a victim advocate, I'm deeply concerned that mandating local police cooperation with immigration enforcement will strengthen the hands of violent perpetrators, helping them silence their victims and witnesses. I'm also concerned that vulnerable immigrant victims brave enough to step forward will face detention, separation from their children, and swift deportation. This was what many communities encountered with Secure Communities, and the chilling effect it had on police-community relations was both traumatic (ph) and counterproductive. One example of this chilling effect is the case of Cecilia, a young Guatemalan girl living in Colorado. Cecilia was sexually abused by a family friend at the age of 5. Her parents, who were undocumented, were terrified of reporting the crime to the police after having been told by friends and family that they would be reported to Immigration if they stepped forward. A year later, that same perpetrator sexually abused another child. In the end, after the father of that child contacted Cecilia's parents, they went to the police together and the perpetrator was caught and prosecuted. But because of their initial fear to report, another child was harmed. When immigrants are afraid to come forward with information about a crime, the entire community is less safe. When reaching out to police to address domestic violence may end up in deportation, law enforcement is effectively removed as an option for safety, which has life-threatening impacts. For example, one client, Maria, so distrusted the police that when her abuser tracked her down after she fled to another state, she tried to call her lawyer instead of calling 911. It was midnight, he was pounding on the door, and she was frantically calling over and over the closed office of her attorney, who was, of course, not at work. For Maria, the idea of calling the police was simply not an option that put her life in danger. Imagine being so fearful that even though somebody is trying to break into your house, you cannot turn to the police. As victim advocates, we're also concerned that immigrant survivors will be caught up in deportation cases when there are mandates for local police cooperation with ICE. It's not unusual for immigrant victims to be convicted of crimes stemming from their victimization. For example, in California, Cindy, a Taiwanese woman on a student visa, was arrested and convicted of felony domestic violence charges and spent nearly a month in jail before she was able to speak to somebody in her own language. She had bitten her abuser while fighting him off when he tried to rape her. Although the jury determined that she had acted to defend herself, she was convicted of felony domestic violence because the jury determined that the force she used to defend herself was greater than the assault. Because Cindy was not automatically referred to ICE, she was able to complete her studies, expunge her criminal record, and become a productive member of society. Police -- policies limiting local police cooperation with ICE may provide just enough respite for victims like Cindy to access the resources they need. Again, I want to say that we in the domestic violence advocacy field greatly appreciate the work that Congress has done, and many members of this Committee, in particular, have done to support a coordinated community response to domestic violence. Proposals that are under consideration to limit funds to so- called sanctuary cities will allow violent crimes to go un- investigated and leave victims without redress. Federal funding of law enforcement supports critical training, equipment, and staff that assists victims all over the country every day. Without such funding there will be cases that go un-investigated, protection orders that will not be served or enforced, rape kits that will not be tested, the child abuse, sexual abuse victims that will not have trained interviewers. These victims are not limited to immigrants. We recognize the fact that there are victims both with lawful status and those without that are harmed by some immigrants. We want -- we all want justice for victims and to prevent future crimes. We urge Congress to proceed with measured, thoughtful policies in order to enhance the safety of all of our communities. Thank you. RONNEBECK: Good morning, distinguished Committee members. Grant Ronnebeck was a 21-year-old son, brother, nephew, and grandson. He was a bright, young man with an infectious smile and love of life. He had a positive outlook on life and everyone he met knew it. Grant had no enemies. He was a friendly, outgoing, lovable guy. As a 21-year-old American, he was just starting out in life, starting to realize his dreams, starting to follow his heart in matters of career choices and just discovering his life's opportunities. His desire was to work his way up at the job he loved, working for the QuikTrip Corporation as he had for the previous five years, or possibly later to become a member of the law enforcement community. He loved four-wheeling in the desert around his home in Mesa, Arizona, spending time with friends and family, and watching the Broncos play during the football season. He was a pretty typical young American man, but to us he was a very special family and community member. At 4 a.m. on January 22, 2015, just six months ago, while working the overnight shift at his QuikTrip store, Grant assisted a man buying cigarettes. The man dumped a jar of coins on the counter and demanded those cigarettes. Grant tried to explain that he needed to count the coins before he could give the man the cigarettes. The man pulled a gun and said, "You're not going to take my money and you're not going to give me my cigarettes." Grant immediately offered up the cigarettes to the man. He shot him point blank in the face, killing him. Seemingly unaffected, the man coldly and callously stepped over Grant's dying body, grabbed a couple of packs of cigarettes, and then left the store. After a 30-minute high-speed pursuit through the streets of Mesa and Phoenix, Arizona, the man was taken into custody. Inside his car were the cigarettes and two handguns, one of which was believed to have been used to kill Grant. Apolinar Altamirano, the alleged murderer, is an illegal alien. According to a new article detailing his 2012 arrest, he was a self- proclaimed member of the Mexican Mafia and says he has ties to the Sinaloa drug cartel. The news article states that in August of 2012 he was arrested with two others after kidnapping and sexually assaulting a woman and burglarizing her apartment. She was allegedly held naked and against her will for a full week prior to escaping. He took a plea deal and pled guilty to a charge of felony burglary for that incident. He was sentenced to two years' probation and turned over to the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency due to his undocumented status in the United States. He never served any time in custody related to that -- to that offense. ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency, released the now-convicted felon Altamirano on a $10,000 bond pending a deportation hearing. In the two years since then, while awaiting his deportation hearing, Altamirano has had two orders of protection filed against him, including one from a woman who claimed he threatened to kill her and pointed a gun at her boyfriend. ICE was reportedly notified of the protection orders by a Mesa Superior Court judge. Altamirano was still allowed to remain free in our country. In addition to Altamirano, ICE reported that they released 66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of our country in 2013 and 2014, and another 10,246 as of March 2015. This group included aliens convicted of violent and serious crimes, including homicides, sexual assault, kidnapping, and aggravated assault. At least 123 American citizens have been murdered by one of these released criminal aliens, including my nephew, Grant Ronnebeck. There are a number of immigration bills that have been introduced in the last several months. Among those, Grant's Law, for my nephew, Kate's Law, for Kate Steinle, the Davis-Oliver Act for law -- for law enforcement officers Danny Oliver and Michael Davis, and Jamiel's Law, for Jamiel Shaw, all Americans killed by illegal immigrants. Each of these potential laws have a specific component that would help protect American lives. I ask that each of you give consideration and priority to passing these important bills into laws. It is my family's greatest desire that Grant Ronnebeck's legacy will be more than a (inaudible) obituary, a cemetery plot, or a fond memory. Instead, we want Grant's death to be a force for change and reform in the immigration policies of this great nation. In closing, I am asking you, our elected leaders, scholars, lawyers, to make these changes, to rise above your political differences, to set aside your personal interests, and to use your resources to make sensible immigration reform a reality in the coming months, with the safety and security of American citizens first and foremost in mind. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Ronnebeck. Now Reverend Salguero? SALGUERO: My name is Gabriel Salguero. Together with my wife, Jeanette, I am the pastor of the multi-ethnic Lambs Church of the Nazarene, where immigrants, police officers, whites, African Americans, and Asians worship together. I'm also the founder of the National Latino Evangelical Coalition, which represents some of the 8 million Hispanic Evangelicals living in the United States. I offer my sincere thanks to Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member Feinstein, and the other members of the Committee. I'm honored to be here today. I want to begin by saying that I'm heartbroken by the senseless violence and tragedy that we are discussing here today. I've prayed and asked the Lord to bless these families and provide grace and comfort to each family member here today. I could only imagine that every family member, friend, and community member continues to reel from the shock, loss, and grief at the remembrance of these lost loved ones. My prayers and sincere condolences go to each of you and your families. Nothing I can do here today will heal that grief, but your families will remain in my prayers. I pray for an end to violent acts such as these, and I pray that those who would commit such acts face just consequences and redemption. I'm here to speak about my belief that we should take care to ensure that while we work to prevent these tragedies from occurring in the future, we do not harm entire communities in the process. Faith organizations, including my Evangelical community, have historically played a critical role in promoting community trust and providing safe haven to refugees, those fleeing violence, and other immigrants facing daunting challenges of opportunity in the United States. I do not believe that the tragedies we discuss here today are the result of policies that seek to promote trust and cooperation with immigrant communities. The values of sanctuary churches in the United States are deeply rooted in safety, family unity, and trust. These values are critical in the promotion of healthy, vibrant, and non-violent communities, and they are the foundation of hundreds of communities across the country who have chosen to embrace local law enforcement policies that foster and protect trust. These policies should be designed to prevent dangerous crimes, not encourage them. In the midst of our collective grief, I pray we avoid criminalizing or casting collective blame on entire communities for the actions committed by one or even a small number of individuals. In order to uphold our criminal justice system and ensure that our communities feel safe enough to come forward and interact with law enforcement, cities across the United States need to work on their role in collaborating with federal immigration authorities and in the use of immigration detainers in an effort to ensure that both survivors of domestic violence, human trafficking, and other serious crimes will cooperate with law enforcement and come forward. If we fail to create smart policies that promote trust, victims and witnesses will remain silent due to their fear that they or their loved ones face deportation after seeking protection from the police. Silence can create fear and expose all communities to greater risk. We, as a nation, should focus on solutions that will make our communities more integrated and, yes, more safe. I believe that legislation targeting immigrant communities would just lead to more crime, as it may silence many of the more than 11 million immigrants who will fear cooperation with police at the risk of deportation. I urge Congress to resist politicizing the murders and the grief of these families with sweeping measures and to instead work with local communities and churches and others to ensure community safety. Let's work together to reform our immigration laws. Faith communities should work to keep families safe, to keep families together, and to keep children with their parents. Faith communities should not permit our grief to turn us against each other or against entire communities. Yes, our immigration system is broken and it needs reform. But we should not move forward with reactionary legislation that does not address the real issues at hand. The real solution to our immigration challenges is broad, just, and humane immigration reform, which would place undocumented immigrants on an earned path to citizenship, get many people on the roles that way we know who the criminals are and who isn't, allowing them -- also, those hardworking immigrants to contribute to their families, communities, and country. As a pastor, I want to avoid scapegoating entire communities by passing legislation that focuses solely on deportation and not on integrating hardworking families in the United States. So let's work together to promote community safety. We can and should look at state and local policies carefully. I encourage communities to carefully tailor their policies to keep people safe. I encourage the federal government to carefully review its own policies and work with these localities across the country to ensure that our systems appropriately meet the goals of violence prevention against all community members. But I do not encourage us to force states and localities to pursue a one-size-fits-all policy. As we continue to mourn and pray for these families, let's work together to find real solutions that promote peace and security, not fear and not collective punishment. I pray for an end to senseless acts of violence. I pray for every policymaker here and beyond to make rational and deliberate decisions. I pray for reform that promotes thoughtful community safety policies, immigration integration, and common sense comprehensive immigration reform. I pray for the comfort for each of the families speaking here today and those who are not here. And I thank you again for inviting me here today. GRASSLEY: Reverend Salguero. Now Mr. Steinle? STEINLE: First of all, on behalf of my family, I would like to thank the members of this Committee for the honor to speak to you about our daughter, Kate. All children are special in their own way and Kate was special in the way she connected with people. We called it the "Kate effect." Kate was beautiful, kind, happy, caring, loving, deep in faith. Kate had a special soul, a kind and giving heart, the most contagious laugh, and a smile that would light up a room. Kate loved to travel, spend time with her friends, and most of all, spend time with her family. In fact, the day she was killed, we were walking arm-in-arm on Pier 14 in San Francisco, enjoying a wonderful day together. Suddenly a shot rang out, Kate fell, and looked to me and said, "Help me, Dad." Those were the last words I will ever hear from my daughter. The day Kate died she changed her Facebook cover photo to a saying that said, "Whatever's good for your soul, do it." That was true -- that truly describes Kate's spirit. After graduating from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo, she went to work for a title company and saved her money so she could see the world. She traveled to Spain, Thailand, Amsterdam, Dubai, South Africa, just to mention a few. She even met her way -- made her way to the slums of Dubai, India, to reach out to friends (inaudible). She spent time there with the woman's family and came back a changed person. Everywhere Kate went throughout the world she shined the light of a good citizen of the United States of America. Unfortunately, due to disjointed laws and basic incompetence on many levels, the U.S. has suffered a self-inflicted wound in the murder of our daughter by the hand of a person that should have never been on the streets of this country. I say this because the alleged murderer is an undocumented immigrant who had been convicted of seven felonies in the U.S. and already deported five times. Yet in March of this year, he was released from jail and allowed to stay here freely because of those legal loopholes. It's unbelievable to see so many innocent Americans that have been killed by undocumented immigrant felons in the recent years. In fact, we recently came across a statistic that says between 2010 and 2014, 121 criminal aliens who had an active deportation case at the time of release were subsequently charged with homicide-related offenses. Think about that. 121 times over the past four years and the illegal immigrant with prior criminal convictions that later went on to be charged with murder when they should have been deported. That is one every 12 days. Our family realizes the complexity of immigration laws. However, we feel strongly that some legislation should be discussed, enacted, or changed to take these undocumented immigrant felons off our streets for good. We'd be proud to see Kate's name associated with some of this new legislation. We feel if Kate's Law saves one daughter, one son, a mother, a father, Kate's death won't be in vain. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Steinle. Now Chief Manger? MANGER: Chairman Grassley, thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify. I come to you this morning representing -- as the president of the Major Cities Chiefs Association, which represents the largest cities in the United States. As cops, we see the good and the bad every day. We're witnesses to the immense benefits of immigration -- that immigration brings to our nation, but we also see the sinister side. Our priority in local law enforcement is exactly what I think you'd want and expect -- the safety of our communities across the nation and our priorities should be the prevention of crime and the protection of the public that we are sworn to serve. And that's every resident of our community. In order to do our job, local law enforcement has to have the trust and confidence of the communities that we serve. If -- if we fail, if the public or any segment of the public does not trust the police and will not come forward when we need them or when they need us. I want to talk to you this morning about the Major Cities Chiefs Association's policy with regard to immigration. And I want to start by -- by making a statement I want to be very clear. While we do not believe that local law enforcement should be saddled with the responsibility of immigration enforcement, we do believe that it is our duty to cooperate with ICE in a manner that is consistent with our duty to protect the public. To this end, we've developed a policy which I think strikes the right balance, and I'm pleased to share some of the aspects of that policy this morning. First and foremost, federal -- immigration enforcement is a federal responsibility. It is today and has always been. Local agencies cannot be expected to take on these additional duties. Secondly, we must secure our borders. Immigration is a national issue and the federal government should first act to secure the national borders, preventing any further illegal entry into the United States. Federal agents must consistently enforce existing laws prohibiting employers from hiring undocumented workers. Our member agencies are united in their commitment to continue arresting anyone who violates criminal laws of our jurisdictions, regardless of their immigration status. Those individuals who commit criminal acts will find no safe harbor or sanctuary from the criminal violations of law within any major city, but will instead face the full force of criminal prosecution. The decisions related to how law enforcement agencies allocate their resources, direct their workforce, and define their duties to best serve and protect their communities must be left to the control of local governments. The decision to have local police officers perform the functions and duties of immigration agents should be left to local government. This shall not be mandated or forced upon them by the federal government through the threat of sanctions or withholding of existing police assistance funding. The Major Cities Chiefs Association supports the Priority Enforcement Program that has been developed by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. DHS listened to our concerns and they've included us in the development of this new program that includes procedures for notification to ICE by local police agencies. My own jurisdiction, Montgomery County, Maryland, serves as an example of how the new program works well. While it's not our policy to inquire or investigate immigration status, we provide electronic notification to DHS whenever we make an arrest. Likewise, we provide notification if such person in our custody is to be released. This is a model policy of the Major Cities Chiefs and the policy of Montgomery County. Local law enforcement is cooperating with DHS through the notification process, but not engaged in routine immigration enforcement. In our view, this notification policy represents a balance that the Judiciary Committee should consider. With recognition of immigration enforcement as a federal responsibility, we ask the Committee to resist initiatives that would seek to force routine aspects of federal responsibility upon local police. Finally, regarding federal funding -- federal assistance programs of the Justice Department and Homeland Security were established to strengthen criminal justice and domestic security, not to compel local agencies to perform federal duties. Their purpose was to help local police and sheriffs, not require that we take over the job of federal agencies. It is right to call upon us for actions to protect the public from crime and violence. But it's wrong to demand that we engage in matters related solely to immigration enforcement by withholding federal funds to coerce performance of federal duties by local police. This is not why these programs were established. We welcome this dialogue and commit to our partnership with this Committee. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Chief Manger. And now, Mr. McCann? MCCANN: On behalf of the McCann family, I want to thank you, Senator Grassley, and the other members of the Committee, for this opportunity to share with you my efforts to return justice to our family after the violent death of my brother four years ago and about six weeks. Denny was crossing Kinsey Avenue on Chicago's north side to visit with a client of his. He was a commercial insurance broker. The restaurant was named El Cid. And he and the owner would frequently dine together in the evening. And as he was crossing a walk that was at that international mark (ph), this kid, Chavez, came by, drunk as a skunk, and dragged him for about a block and a half and killed him. Chavez was charged with aggravated DUI and two days later ICE issued the detainer, and we went to court, a bunch of us, family, a couple -- I guess a week later for the arraignment. And they assured us -- see, I didn't know anything about detainers, but they assured us that the federal government had these holds and detainers and that no way would he be able to post bond and -- and -- and leave. And his bond was, what, $250,000, so -- so we were comforted, if you can use that word, that he would be prosecuted and -- and a few people in the neighborhood, one a retired judge, told me he'd probably six to eight years. So that's some measure of -- of -- of comfort that we were assured of. Well, unbeknownst to us, that summer, members of the Cook County board in Cook County, you know, they're the administrators of justice in my hometown, Chicago, they worked tirelessly without my knowledge -- you know, we have this witness -- witness notification system in Illinois that's in the Constitution. Well, nobody notified me what they were doing. And they ran through an ordinance, after the August recess, in September, without going to Committee. Now you all know how important committee work is. Well, Cook County apparently didn't in this case, and they got a -- they got it passed 10 to 5. Well, we didn't even -- we weren't even notified of that, nor was the prosecutor. She wasn't even aware of it. So somehow there's this lack of communication that the County passes this very important ordinance and they don't even tell the 400, 500 assistant states- attorneys. Because our -- our -- the lady who was prosecuting my brother's killer was never notified. So here I am sitting at home, the day -- Sunday before Thanksgiving, and I get a recorded message from some kid at the jail and said that Chavez left. He posted bond and ran. And who do I call on a Sunday? You know, nobody's working. I couldn't get a hold of the prosecutor. So I got a hold of my niece, who is a deputy sheriff in that county and she verified he in fact did -- he had been released. But I wasn't able to call the -- the prosecutor until next day. Well, she immediately runs to her supervisor and they send out a couple of cops to look for him. Well, he's gone. You know, the brother said that he never sees him and that he lives in the basement. You know, they're a bunch of -- lies are everywhere, you know. So anyhow, long story short, we also learned, and I failed to mention, this kid was prosecuted for a prior felony two years earlier and he was put on probation. And ICE was never notified because Secure Communities had just, I guess just gotten off the ground in 2008 or something, and so the notification for that -- that system that police used, it was an electronic system, was --oh, I'm going way over time here. So anyhow, long story short, we -- we've been fighting for the last couple of years. We've got a lawsuit pending. Judicial Watch is here and they've helped us. We're before the Illinois Supreme Court currently. We worked with the prior ICE guy, Morton. He was very helpful. And it's just -- it's just been a pathetic miscarriage of justice visited upon my family and hundreds of other families across the country, and I'm so glad you all were able to spend some time listening to this. (Inaudible) around both the Senate and the House Judiciary Committee. I'm convinced this is where resolution rests because the sanctuary jurisdictions, they're going to get away with literally murder, passing these policies, and you guys got to do it. And I regret that my Senator had to -- had to leave and couldn't hear my testimony, but maybe I'll talk to him later. All right, thanks. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. McCann. And Ms. Wilkerson? WILKERSON: Thank you for allowing me to tell the story of my son, Josh, and his murder. My son's name was Joshua Wilkerson. On November 16, 2010, he was beaten, strangled, tortured until he died. He was tied up, thrown in a field, and set on fire. His killer, Hermilo Moralez, was brought here illegally by his illegal parents when he was 10 years old, so he fit the Dream kid description. He was sentenced to life in prison, which means it will be 30 years before he is up for parole. He'll be a 49-year-old man who I don't expect to be deported and I just hope he doesn't come to live in your city. We had to hear this kid from the stand muttering about, in my country, in my country, never to finish that sentence. He went on to tell -- we listened to him tell us repeatedly that his killing skills took over. That Josh had kicked his dog, his killing skills took over. His parents somehow managed to provide lessons that he acquired so that he acquired a black belt in mixed martial arts. Josh, who had never been in a fight in his life, very quiet, old soul. He didn't speak a lot, but when he did, you listened to him. Like I said, he had never been in a fight in his life. So his killing skills were those martial arts that somehow his parents provided here for him. Instead of getting Joshua home that day from school, we got an autopsy report that reads, in part, "This body is received in a gray body bag. There's a tag on his toe that reads in part, "Joshua Wilkerson". He is a white male, weighing at 100lbs. He is tied up with gray rope, 13 loops around his neck with a slipknot. It goes behind his back through his back belt loop. It goes to his hands and his feet, behind his body. He has multiple fractures in his face, and nasal cavity. His throat and his voice box are crushed. He was kicked so hard in the stomach that it sent his spleen into his spine, and sliced it in two, so it was painful. The medical examiner said is it was torture. This body has significant skin loss on his buttocks, his abdomen, his penis, his hands, and his face. He has one stick of gum, and a tardy slip in his pocket. This was our family's 9-1-1 terrorist attack by a foreign invader, whether you want to recognize it, or whether you do not. This government continues fail, or even recognize that we have an issue. Americans are dying daily at the hands of criminals that we don't even know are here. You're officially notified today there's a problem when this happens. You can't deny it any longer, you can not stand by and ignore our families -- our American families. You're elected by Americans, not any other country. You should be for Americans. If you want to sit quietly by the sidelines, you've thrown your hat into the ring already. You silence speaks volumes. You're either for Americans, or you're not. I will not give up control on another one of my children so that a foreign person can have a nicer life, I'm not going to do it. You don't understand the pain. It's so deep in the soul in a place you don't even recognize you have. There aren't words to describe the pain to someone who has not gone through it. I'm not given' up another kid. Sanctuary city policies scream to the criminal element of all of illegals in this country. There is a criminal element. It screams to screams to them, "Come to our town USA, we'll protect you from our terrible policemen, we'll protect you from these tough American laws that you -- because you had a life you are not able -- to go through same motions that an American is." They are buying to that fact. Until -- it's going to take another life lost by a Senator, Congressman, a President, even another of today's heroes, someone from Hollywood before someone in a position moves on this. I urge you, you're in a position to do something about this for Americans. A thank you to Mr. Trump for getting a message out about the nation in two minutes that for four and a half years solidly, Maria Espanoza at the Remembrance Project, and countless families like my own have been trying to say for five or six years. It feels good to be heard, whether you love him, or whether you don't. I felt heard. Our family is shattered. It's shattered. It will never be the same. We'll manage, we function, we'll put on a happy face. My kids have changed, the surviving kids -- everything about us has changed. If, by the grace of God, that in our broken hearts we have a stream of memories of the loving memories that we had with Joshua. Joshua had a very deep, intense, spiritual relationship, leaving us four of five scriptures in the weeks before he died. I'm ok with where Josh is today. It's not just about missing Josh, it's about what you're doing to an entire family -- not just our immediate family, his friends, the teachers, the community, our extended family, it's incredible. I can't even explain that to you. America lost that day, you lost a good citizen that was on the brink of becoming who knows what. He had mentioned going into the Air Force like his older brother who had to come home for two weeks and bury -- he was out defending this country, Americans, and we had to bring him home for two weeks to bury his little brother when he wasn't -- being defended right here at home. It's absurd to me. Thank you for your time -- and I do want to say to, just a little bit of a rebuttal about -- they're not scared to come here. We're inviting them. Sanctuary city says, "Come on down, you can have a pass in our city," you know? You're tying policeman's hands. I'm not for mandating them to ask them where they're from, but if they pull someone for a reason, valid cause, and they're investigating them for something, they have a right to ask them. They have a right to ask me, stop me on the freeway, and ask me, "Where you goin, Ms. Wilkerson? Where you coming from? Do you have drugs?" I'm going to answer those in about 15 minutes, hopefully. It'll come out in the wash that I'm ok to leave. Why are you creating a class of people who seem to say, "We can't do that,"? They're not afraid to come here. They're not afraid to trapse across the desert. I've been to the border, I've stood there with border agents and watched them come across from jet skis. I will -- I'll finish quickly. Sympathy has never trumped the law in this country, ever. You know, you sympathize with me, can I go break the federal law? Anyone? Anyone here like to let me do that? Everyone of them here threaten national security because we don't know who they are, so they are a threat. We don't know who them -- they make a decision to come here. They're not scared, they're invited by Sanctuary -- city policies. They're not scared of standing in line for a hand out that every American has paid in the system for our children if need be. You know, they mistrust police because they come from the countries that mistrust police. They're not scared here. I want you know that our family is broken forever. We're forever broken. I thank you for your time, and I don't want the sympathy. I want you to do something. Everyone here is in a position to do something. Just throw your hat into the ring for Americans. Quit sitting silent because it's going to help you get a vote. Throw your hat into the ring for American families. (APPLAUSE) GRASSLEY: First of all, thank you for your testimony. I've heard frustration and anger about our immigration policies. We can learn a lot from you about how our immigration system needs fixed, and for me that starts with border security. Can I ask my members, 'because were here for oversight of the administration, how many of you have questions that you want to ask of this panel? If none of you want to ask questions of this panel, then I will dismiss them after thanking them. Thank you all very much for coming, and lending your expertise to this hearing, and I'll call the next panel. (OFF MIKE): Our children that are dead, and the criminals -- we should (INAUDIBLE)... GRASSLEY): ...If we could have order. (OFF MIKE): Thousands of people. Thousands. GRASSLEY: Today's hearing deals with a very special issue. I trust that members of the public here will act accordingly. I want to note at the outset that the rules of the Senate prohibit outbursts, clapping, and demonstration of any kind. This includes blocking the view of people around you. Please be mindful that those -- of those rules as we conduct the hearing, and if it isn't abided by, I will, of course, have to ask Capitol Police to remove anyone who violates the rules. Before our next panel's seated, if I -- I would like -- I would ask deliver an oath, Ms. Saldana, and Mr. Rodriguez, would you come please? But, before you sit, I'd like to -- and before I introduce you, I'd like to ask you to affirm. Do you affirm that the testimony that you're about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? RODRIGUEZ: I do... SALDANA: ...I do. GRASSLEY: Thank you very much. Leon Rodriguez is Director of U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. He was confirmed by the Senate on June the 24th, 2014. Director Rodriguez was born in Brooklyn, New York. Graduated from Brown University, and earned J.D. Degree, Juris Doctorate from Boston College. Sarah Saldana is Assistant Secretary for U.S. Immigration, and Customs Enforcement. She was confirmed by the Senate, December 16th, last year. She's born in Corpus Christi, Texas. Graduated from Texas A&I University, and received her Juris Doctorate from Southern Methodist University. Director Rodriguez, would you please begin, and then we'll call the other Director. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Ranking Member. Thank you, members of the committee. In August of 1988, I was sworn in as an Assistant District Attorney in New York -- Kings County, New York. At the time that I was sworn in, New York City, like many other large jurisdictions throughout the country, was witnessing unprecedented crime rates. High homicide rates, high sexual assault rates, high robbery rates, high narcotics trafficking rates. It was in to this environment that I started as a young 26 year old prosecutor. Among my assignments as an Assistant District Attorney were homicide investigations, sex crimes special victims prosecutions, organized crime investigations and prosecutions. During my tenor as Assistant District Attorney, I sat by the side many hundreds of victims of violent crime, family members of victims crime, including homicides. I witnessed the same kind of grief without limit that I saw among the crime victims families that you saw here this morning. I witnessed the sense of profound injustice that was felt by those families. I did everything I could as an Assistant District Attorney to honor the oath that I had taken in August of 1988, and I have frequently remembered throughout my many years of government service, frequently remembered and felt the grief, and sense of injustice that I saw in those years in Brooklyn, New York. I learned another lesson as an Assistant District Attorney, and that is that in law enforcement on size does not fit all. One size fits all is the surest way to let violent criminals go free, to let the worst crimes go unaddressed. It is for that reason that there are homicide detectives that specialize in homicide. Those detectives are not asked to go and arrest the individuals who jump the turnstile at the subway. The DACA program, the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program provides a way to take young people who came to this country not of their own volition, but were brought by their parents. It takes such young people who have not been convicted of a criminal offense, who do not present a threat to national security, who are not members of gangs, and who either are pursuing a course of study, or have pursued a course of study, and does nothing more than to delay their deportation, and to offer them work authorization. Now, let me be clear about one of the points that I made here. Those individuals are not supposed to have committed, and been convicted of, a prior felony, significant misdemeanor, or multiple misdemeanors, and they may not be, or have been, a member of a gang. Now, as several of you are well aware there are situations in my agency where that policy was not understood, and as a result, in a small number of cases -- approximately 20, individuals who were identified in law enforcement databases were afforded deferred action nonetheless. That is unacceptable. We took decisive steps to correct our procedures, to retrain our staff, to ensure that that bedrock requirement of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program was fully understood. As a result, a number of individuals have had their Deferred Action terminated. In a small number of cases, we determined that the individuals were actually not gang members at all after a thorough investigation. But, you have my pledge that we will conduct our business as USCIS, at U.S. Citizen Immigrations Service, in a way that prevents gang members from ever receiving Deferred Action. Having said that, I realize the topics that we are here to talk about are important, and grave ones. I look forward to, what I think, is the very important dialogue that, Chairman, you have convened here today. Thank you. GRASSLEY: Thank you, Mr. Rodriguez. Now, Ms. Saldana. SALDANA: Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Ranking member Feinstein, and other members of this distinguished committee. Like you all, and everyone in this country, I am greatly moved by the stories that I've heard this morning, and the tragedies that have occurred, and the pain -- the very palpable pain that's been reflected on the families that we've heard from today. To them I say, "I am so sorry for the loss each of you has experienced." I know many of you have shared those condolences as well. I say that not only as the Director of Immigration Customs Enforcement, but I say it as a mother, a sister, and a grandmother -- one of my grandchildren being here today with me. I can only imagine what such a loss would -- be like.I want to say that for a decade, first as a prosecutor, then as a United States Attorney for North Texas, and now as the head of Immigration and Custom Enforcement, the largest law enforcement agency in the Department of Homeland Security, I am committed to do all I can to prevent violent crime. I had been, and I continue today to do so. I consider myself a law enforcement officer, and have for several years. While the things we did as prosecutors will not bring back the victims of any violent crime, there is some very small solace that I gained, at least, in bringing the perpetrators to justice, and I'm very proud of that work. As you know, the men and women of ICE play an integral role in public safety, and in national security. Tragic situations like the ones that the family members find themselves in are deplorable, and highlight the need to continue our work to focus on the apprehension and removal of convicted criminals who pose the greatest threat to public safety and national security. This is exactly what our Priority Enforcement Program is designed to do. We spent months talking with all kinds of people from all -- from all of the stakeholders that are interested in our program in designing it. Our objective is to take custody of dangerous individuals before they commit further crimes, and before they're released into the community. As has been said before, it's not a onesize fits all. We have been working across the country to bring people to the table to -- work with them to reach the -- their communities and the needs of the communities when it comes to public safety. Just as Senator Feinstein has done in San Francisco, I am asking for the help of each one of you, and those other members of the entire Senate, to assist us in this effort to try to have jurisdictions who have not cooperated with us in the past to start doing so now. Now. I urge, quite frankly, as a part of all that, to help with respect to a comprehensive change to immigration law. It is complex, it is broken. These are the statutes and the codes of regulations that our folks have to deal with every day, and it is -- I implore your help in that regard. Secretary Johnson has made it clear that our borders are not open to illegal migration. As such, ICE, our Enforcement and Removal Operations Director, ERO, is dedicating our resources to the removal of individuals considered enforcement priorities. We are making some progress. Along the Southwest border this year, apprehensions are done 110,000. That, I see, is a significant positive sign. Thirty-four percent from last year at this time. I likewise -- our interior enforcement efforts are also paying off. Of those people detained in our detention centers, 96 percent of them meet our top two priorities. Seventy-six percent of them, 76 percent of them meet our top priority, so I believe that our people are doing a good thing, and focusing on where the focus should be with respect to these hardened criminals. You all know, of course, the enforcement work and investigative work that other side of the house does, Homeland Security Investigations. Very fine work with respect to Transnational Crime with very good results, and one in particular that I want to point out, with respect to gang enforcement. We had an operation recently called, Operation Wildfire which netted 32,000 criminal arrests, and -- 1,000 gang members in that particular group. Some were charged with criminal offenses, of those thousand, 913, and it is very meaningful work as well. I do know that we're going to focus on the Enforcement and Removal side, and I stand ready to take any questions from this committee. GRASSLEY: I thank both of you very much for being here, and most importantly, I want to thank you for coming, and listening to the testimony of the first panel. I'm going to ask questions, then Senator Feinstein will, and because Judiciary -- the Finance committee's meeting on taxes upstairs, I'm going to half to turn over the meeting to Senator Sessions, if you'll do that please. Start with you, Mr. Rodriquez. You said that certain actions of people in your department was unacceptable in regard to DACA. So, a natural follow up to that is somebody didn't do their job right. In this particular case, somebody probably didn't do their job right, and we know that people have died as a result of it. So, then, if it's unacceptable, who's been fired, or disciplined for writing DACA to gang members? RODRIGUEZ: Senator, there was action taken to correct, and counsel, individuals who did not understand. Back in 2013, the proper manner in which to utilize the text (ph) database that identifies an individual as gang members -- we have undertaken extensive efforts to ensure that both the policy very clearly excludes gang members from Deferred Action, and the processes of our agency are fully understood. I would also add that we have run the entire population of Deferred Action DACA recipients back through the text database to identify all those instances where gang membership was not handled appropriately by our officers. So, there has been counseling in appropriate incidences. GRASSLEY: So there 323 -- how many were -- changed after review? RODRIGUEZ: Actually, sir, as I indicated, there were, of the six, nearly 700,000 DACA recipients, we identified 20 cases in which an indication of gang membership appeared in the law enforcement databases for individuals who had previously received Deferred Action. Eight of those individuals have already been terminated. Others have been turned over to ICE for appropriate handling. Several others continue to be adjudicated, and in a few cases we actually determined that, notwithstanding the identification as gang members in the database -- they were not after investigation gang members. GRASSLEY: What process, if any, do you have in your agency in place to learn about DACA's recipients criminal activity in order to immediately terminate the benefit? RODRIGUEZ: We obviously have ongoing contacts and discussion above all with ICE. We are notified in situations where individuals have either been convicted of a crime, or where information is discovered that they are gang members. When we receive that information, we act on it. We're also in the middle of the DACA renewal process right now. Some individuals have been identified as being gang members during the course of that process, and have been denied renewal, and other appropriate action taken. GRASSLEY: Does your agency require an interview in every DACA applicant that has a criminal record? RODRIGUEZ: We do interviews in those cases where in order to resolve an outstanding issue -- for example, one related to either criminality, or gang membership, we do utilize interviews in those cases to resolve those concerns. GRASSLEY: Ms. SALDANA, in March you told the House Judiciary Committee that you supported mandatory detainers. The following day, you change your position. Sanctuary cities, as you have heard, do very little to protect the public safety. They're in place to protect certain groups of lawbreakers, but there are real consequence. Can you tell the family members here today, including the Steinle family that you don't think state and local law enforcement should have to abide by detainers -- criminal aliens? SALDANA: I'm not going to say that, Senator Grassley, what I am going to say is that we are working very hard, very hard, with respect to a host -- there are about 200 last time I checked, of jurisdictions, and when I say jurisdictions, I'm talking about countries, cities, all over the country who have declined to cooperate with us in the past. As the Secretary testified last week, Senator, we're making some progress. We have actually identified the top, almost, jurisdictions that we've had little progress in the past couple of -- in the past couple of several months. We're going and meeting with those local officials to try to engage them in why the program is actually different from what their experience was with Secured Communities. We -- and you heard from some of the witnesses this morning, that there is some fear out there, and some concerns about even the impact on local law enforcement if there is a feeling of distrust between a community and law enforcement. So -- my answer, the question to me was would it be helpful. Clarity is always helpful to law enforcement, but what I would like to do is, since we've just rolled out this program, we've been working on the design and implementation of it for months, but we just rolled out this program. I want us to be given a chance to work with folks. As U.S. Attorney, my whole existence relied on relationships with state and local law enforcement. I had to work with sheriff's, D.A.'s all across North Texas to try and get them to work with us, and it's a mutual cooperation. They help us, and we help them, and I'd like to continue those efforts through that. GRASSLEY: Can you admit, yes or no, that Sanctuary cities pose a problem to public safety? SALDANA: Well, I don't know exactly what Sanctuary cities definition is, but I do know, and I've said this in the past, sir, and so has the Secretary, that not cooperating with us does -- expose our officers to greater risk because now they have to go out at large and try to recover some of these convicted criminals. And, it's a resource expenditure much greater than it would be if we could just get these people from the jails directly into our custody and through the process. GRASSLEY: Senator Feinstein. FEINSTEIN: Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me thank the two witnesses and the very moving witnesses we heard in the prior panel. I would like to put in the record the record of Lopez-Sanchez because you see the felonies, and you see the number of deportations, and you really see the failure of the system. So, the question really comes what to do about it. It's clear to me that this man that's convicted, and served time in more than one state, deported five times, kept coming back, and this is how it ended. It shouldn't happen that way. Maybe the price on deportation is too low because it doesn't seem to be a deterrent at all, at least in this case. Mr. Ronnebeck said the following, "ICE reported that they released 66,564 other criminal aliens back onto the streets of our country in 2013 and 2014, and another 10,246 as of March 2015. This group included aliens convicted of violent, and serious crimes, including homicide, sexual assault, kidnapping and aggravated assault." Then, it goes on. It says, "123 Americans have been murdered by one of those released criminal aliens, including Mr. Ronnebeck's nephew." Are those numbers correct? SALDANA: They are. FEINSTEIN: They are, OK. SALDANA: They are, Senator. FEINSTEIN: Then how does it happen that those numbers, an additional 123 Americans have been murdered by them? SALDANA: How is it that that happened or... FEINSTEIN: ...Yes... SALDANA: ...Or how was it that they came to be released... FEINSTEIN: ...Yes. This seems to me that we've got one size fits all, that you do for the worst felon what you do for someone without that kind of record. SALDANA: And, you've really struck on the heart of our efforts in talking to jurisdictions who have not been working with us in the recent past. We tried to tell them -- work with us. Let look at your statutes, let's look you've passed, and let's see if one, we have to urge you to try and tweak it, or two, if we can work within it -- in whatever ordinance or legislation there is. I truly believe in my heart of hearts that we can bring reasonable minds to the table to work something out, and that's why we talk about one size not fitting all. It's because we're really trying to accommodate the needs of the communities. They're so different, whether West Coast, East Coast, North and South. I come from Texas, our problems there are not the same as problems in California, or New York, or in the heartland. So, that's one of the beauties of PEP (ph). Again, I need local and state law enforcement... FEINSTEIN: ...Let me ask you what should happen to somebody convicted of seven felonies in this country, in a number of different states, and someone who has been deported five times who comes back to eventually commit a heinous crime... SALDANA: ...And, of course... FEINSTEIN: ...What should -- how should that be prevented? SALDANA: My belief is in developing those relationships in communications here that was a three way law enforcement -- communication. The Bureau of Prisons, San Francisco (ph) Sheriff's Office), and Immigration and Customs Enforcement. So, I'm doing all I can to try and look into -- and we actually have directed my senior staff to start opening doors, and there have been some conversations already with the Bureau of Prisons, which is overseen by my old department, the Department of... GRASSLEY: (INAUDIBLE) SALDANA: ...Prisons to try and talk about, at least with respect to federal agency, the federal agency, what we can do better. I invite your thoughts. FEINSTEIN: One last question. Supposing the Sheriff did consult with you, the city did consult with you. The record is still there. Seven felonies, five deportations, and he came back, and he's tried a number of different states and managed to commit felonies there too. What would happen to him? What would you do with him? Well, we would probably, with someone with that kind of a record, if he came into our custody, present him to the U.S. Attorney's Office for prosecution... FEINSTEIN: ...On what? SALDANA: On illegal reentry, and there are escalating punishments if you have -- depending on your criminal record. We can do that. Right now it's up to 20 years depending on the nature of the person's background. FEINSTEIN: Are there cases where you have done that? SALDANA: Oh, yes. Oh yes... FEINSTEIN: ...Can you tell me approximately how many? Where somebody with multiple deportations and multiple felonies actually goes, based on the last deportation, to jail, to federal prison, for a long time? SALDANA: We present it in every occasion that those effects arise. Unfortunately, the prosecution decision isn't up to us, it's up to the U.S. Attorney's Office. They have their own priorities. I can't quibble with that, but we do present it every time we see those facts, ma'am. FEINSTEIN: Well, let me ask you. There are members here who have bills that would like to put a minimum sentence on deportations that's violated. In other words, the individual comes back. What do you think of that? SALDANA: I've got to start, quite frankly, rather than a piecemeal approach to this tremendous problem, a more comprehensive approach to reform, a more comprehensive approach to reform, but, if we're just looking at that, I'd like to take a look at that language and what the statute provides. This fella' in Ms. Steinle's case, actually served sentences for illegal reentry, and substantial, not insubstantial sentences... FEINSTEIN: ..Yes, I have... SALDANA: ...the average sentence is 18 months to two years. In this case we have 36, 56, 46 months that this individual served. Obviously, it did not deter him. FEINSTEIN: Right. My time is up. I will put in the record two different copies of the criminal record of Mr. Lopez-Sanchez. Senator Sessions? SESSIONS: Thank you. Thank you, Senator Feinstein. You made some important points. I would note that San Francisco proudly calls itself a Sanctuary city. They're not hiding it. They're proud of it. They directed their police chief and police officers to act in that acord too. We are focused, I think, more today on the Sheriff's Department, who even the mayor has concluded, acted improperly. I would offer for the record a letter just a week ago on behalf of the San Francisco Deputy Sheriffs that work for the sheriffs there. In that letter to the Sheriff says this, "As evidence to the tragic death of Kate Steinle on July 1st, the departments refusal to coordinate, much les cooperate with federal law enforcement agencies recklessly compromises the safety of sworn personnel, citizens, and those who merely come to San Francisco area. This association hereby demands that the department immediately rescind the directives and comply with the statutory and contractual obligations to meet and confer in good faith." They go over to say, "Moreover it is the associations sincere belief that any changes that the department might pursue should honor Ms. Steinle's life by correcting the departments flawed philosophy so that the people of San Francisco, citizens, visitors, employees alike are safer in the future." Ms. Saldana, you're in charge of filing the detainers, and dealing with these issues. Do you agree with that letter from the Deputy Sheriff of San Francisco? SALDANA: (OFF MIKE) I would just say, first of all, with the lessons (ph) of what the request is, we must get cooperation. FEINSTEIN: Could you put on your microphone please? SALDANA: Thank you, Senator. Let's get cooperation. Let's do what all we can to do because we're all in the same business, and that's public safety. SESSIONS: ...Well, you are exactly right. What this is all about is protecting public safety, and isn't it a fact, Ms. Saldana, that everybody that would like to come to the United States is not entitled to be admitted on their demand? SALDANA: That's why we have these statutes and the process, sir. SESSIONS: Can you make evaluations based on people? And, if they have certain risk factors, they get here legally, or illegally, they evidence dangerous tendencies, they can be deported? SALDANA: That's certainly laid on in the statute. SESSIONS: And that's required in certain instances by the statutes. It says they shall be deported... SALDANA: There are mandatory provisions, yes sir. SESSIONS: So, I think we have a serious problem here. I believe it's directly from the top of this administration, and I believe you've been directed to carry out administration policies, and when you are asked about the Sanctuary city reform, as Senator Grassley said, you said, "Absolutely. A'men," and the next day, did you have a conversation with someone and decided to change your statement on that? SALDANA: As I said before, Senator, truly, my response was a straight out law enforcement response. It is -- what I did the next day was to clarify. I am not going against what we have -- that all our efforts in establishing, and now implementing the PEP program... SESSIONS: ...Well... SALDANA: ...We want to work with those jurisdictions. That's what I have always done, is try to set up relationships with state and local governments... SESSIONS: ...I agree with you. You and I -- United States Attorney, you gave a law enforcement response. Which is this is unacceptable. Every jurisdiction in America that I know of participates in a detainer policy that honors detainers from other jurisdictions. They don't ask whether a case is a good case, or not. They don't retry the case if a -- United States federal, state, or local jurisdiction places a detainer hold on a prisoner, that's honored. Isn't it a historic -- and really unbelieveable act that major cities in this country are refusing to comply with that basic requirement of law enforcement? SALDANA: This is why I needed the next day to clarify, sir. That, yes, we need to get there, but we've got this program that we're about to roll out, and it's all hands on deck. We can't afford not to work together in this Area. It's too dangerous... SESSIONS: ...Well, what if they don't cooperate? What if they just refuse, as they refused before? Didn't your predecessor, Mr. Morton, call on Chicago, Cook County, to stop its Sanctuary policies? SALDANA: I -- I'm sorry sir, I wasn't following that, I'm not aware... SESSIONS: ...Well, he made a clear statement about it, and -- it was a call on them to change. Now the administration, apparently, has changed and stopped pushing it. Now, after this -- these events that have achieved so much publicity, you're beginning to talk about it again. Mr. Rodriguez, you represent the Citizens on Immigration Services -- Citizenship and Immigration Service. Your council president has made a series of statement, Mr. Palinkas -- he's a head official, say, quote, "USCIS adjudications officers are pressured to rubber stamp applications, instead of conducting diligent case review, and investigation. The culture at USCIS encourages all applications to be approved, discouraging proper investigation into red flags, and in discouraging the denial of any applications USCIS has turned into an an approval machine." He goes on to say, "USCIS officers who identify illegal aliens, that in accordance with law, should be placed into immigration removal proceedings before a federal judge are prevented from exercising their authority, and responsibility." He goes on to say, Ms. Saldana, the ICE offices morale is reported to lowest in the entire federal government. They filed a lawsuit against your predecessor, the Offices Association did, claiming that they are being ordered to violate their oath to enforce the law. What actions have you taken to end this, and create -- -and meet with those officers to created a system in which they are encouraged to follow the law, not violate the law? SALDANA: I listen, Senator. I have been to several of our offices across the country. I wish I had time to do all of them in my first year on the job, but I do go there. I do listen. I meet with the Union Officers. I meet with employees top to bottom, and we discuss what our mission is, and how it's so important that commonsensical it is to focus on the most heinous crimes and convicted criminals, and I get a very good response, so I -- and, by the way, I may be a named defendant in that lawsuit. I think I've been replaced in there, so -- I take those allegations seriously, and I work with our employees across the country to discuss it. SESSIONS: Well, I've never seen the kind of morale problems from Mr. Palinkas' statement, to you Mr. Rodriguez in your official actions, and you Ms. Saldana, in your predecessor really. This is not healthy. It's very bad, and it's a product of the trends we're seeing of non-enforcement, rather than enforcement. FEINSTEIN: Thank you, Senator Sessions. Senator Durbin is not here. Senator Schumer is not here... SESSIONS: Senator Durbin is here. FEINSTEIN: I will call on Senator Durbin. DURBIN: Thank you very much, Madame Chair. First I was not able to stay at the hearing for Brian McCann's testimony. Brian McCann is from Chicago. I agreed to speak at an Alzheimer's Association research meeting, came back, got him on the phone. We're working with him through the FBI to try to help bring this fugitive to justice who is responsible for this terrible tragedy in this family. I want to put that on the record. Let me see if I can put some perspective on this for a minute. There seem to be two or three basic elements here that we ought to keep in mind. First is the belief of local law enforcement, that if they are called on to enforce the status crimes, that is persons who are here undocumented, that it could infringe on their ability to maintain order in a community. If every time a police car drove by, folks in a certain neighborhood thought they're looking for undocumented people, those folks are less likely to step up and cooperation with police and find real wrongdoers, real criminals, so that they be brought to justice. That seems to be a starting point I've heard over, and over again. Ms. Saldana? SALDANA: I agree. I've heard it also because I've met with quite a few officials, and they have a tough job. We all have a tough job. I Recognize those arguments. One jurisdiction, Oregon, has been sued, and in other jurisdictions -- and in these days of tough financial budgets, I can understand why people are concerned about being exposed to constitutional challenges like some of the law states. DURBIN: What the President has proposed in both DACA and DAPA, DACA referring to young people, "Dreamers", who were brought here as children and are undocumented, and DAPA, for those millions who are here undocumented, working, raising families and such. In both instances, the President has insisted that there be a criminal background check before they're even given a temporary permission to stay, to either live, go to school, or work. Is That not true? SALDANA: Well, certainly. My colleague, Director Rodriguez and speak more clearly to this, but yes, that is my understanding. DURBIN: Then, Director Rodriguez, out 680,000 who have successfully applied for DACA status, "Dreamers" who are able to stay on a temporary basis for a few years, and not be deported, of that number 680,000, that roughly 323, about one half of one percent have either been engaged in crime, or had a criminal record where they were disqualified from the DACA program. Is that close to what you've heard? RODRIGUEZ: That is correct. Most of those were the result of criminal conviction, some of them were because of information received that some of them were gang members, or some of them were threats to national security. DURBIN: So, they were disqualified... RODRIGUEZ: ...Correct... DURBIN: ...from the program. RODRIGUEZ: And, by the way, Senator, I would cite that as an instance where we did not rubber stamp as Mr. Palinkas, my union head, would suggest. We have certainly dug into those allegations. The President's proposal, when it comes to the millions who are here undocumented, they too will not only be subjected to a criminal background check before they're eligible to stay and work on a temporary basis. They're subject to review every time that permit comes up to see if they've committed a crime. Is that not true. RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, Senator, and it is a multi-step process of biographic, and biometric checks that are conducted on all such individuals to eliminate criminals, eliminate threats to our national security, eliminate gang members access to those... DURBIN: ...For the record, on both of these programs, DACA and DAPA, proposed by President Obama, there's been general opposition from the other side of the aisle. What the President's proposed for regular criminal background checks about these people living, who are undocumented in America, has been resisted. But, that's been a starting point in each of these proposals. Yesterday I went to Jay Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security. He just visited in Chicago to meet with some of our political leaders to talk about the specific issue that brings us here today. What do we do about those who are convicted of crimes, and also undocumented? They are working now to come to an agreement to the PEP Program, that there be an understanding that certain levels of crime will result in reporting. They have not reached an agreement, don't get me wrong, but they are moving in that direction. Can you explain to me the difference between a civil detainer, and a criminal detainer, and whether that is significant to our conversation here? RODRIGUEZ: Senator, I think I'm a little -- I do have some insight into those distinctions based on prior positions that I've held as a federal prosecutor, and also as County Prosecutor in Montgomery County, but given that it's Director Saldana's portfolio, I think I may defer to her. SALDANA: Yes. Quite frankly I'm not familiar with -- the distinction that weighed. It's more important to me that there are -- when there is a criminal case that's been presented to the United States Attorney, they've accepted it. There will be a criminal warrant, and a detainer notice sent to -- if the person is in somebody else's custody, and that has -- it's a court order. It is not administered, which is a large part of what our function is. Our function is civil, and administrative. There are some groups of illegal immigrants that we do refer to the U.S. Attorney's for criminal prosecution, but that's only where the -- that's the only place where the criminal documentation would arrive. DURBIN: What I'm trying to get to is this. If we are dealing with someone who is incarcerated, and has been found guilty of, let's say, a serious felony. No questions asked, it's over the line, serious felony. From your point of view, what you're asking is that before that they be released in their undocumented status, there be a report to your agency? SALDANA: A notice. DURBIN: A notice? SALDANA: Yeah. Please advise us, with respect to the notification part where there is not -- we've not actually established probable cause, or where we have, a detainer notice. DURBIN: But, instead of dealing with a serious felony, we are dealing with the question of illegal reentry, and illegal reentry may occur with someone who has been deported from the United States, and attempts to return, even if there's not criminal history other than that action of returning after deportation. Is that correct? SALDANA: Yes, that is right, and the U.S. Attorney's across the country are not necessarily enforcing those because of their priorities. It's just too low-level of an offense. DURBIN: So, the suggestion that we make a mandatory minimum five year sentence for people who have been deported and come back across the border with, let's say, no other criminal -- no criminal history, and no other history from the government's point of view, that seems to me to be an invitation for a lot of prosecutions. SALDANA: We're stretched on our resources already, and we're focusing on convicted criminals to expand it to just illegal entries or entries, would be very -- a very big problem for us. DURBIN: Thank you very much. GRASSLEY: Thank you, I believe Senator Lee has yielded to Senator Cruz? Thank you. Senator Cruz? CRUZ: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to Senator Lee. Thank you to the witnesses for being here. The testimony we've heard today is powerful. Ms. Saldana, you are a Texan. You were a prosecutor in our state, you had a good reputation as a prosecutor, but you're serving an administration that consistently refuses to follow the law, and we heard this morning the very real consequences of that. Now, in March when you were testifying before the House you were asked about Sanctuary cities. Cities like San Francisco that defy federal law, and that because of their defiance of federal law, Kate Steinle is no longer with us. She was murdered because of the refusal of local officials to recognize federal law. You were asked in that House hearing, "Should federal law compel state officials to comply with federal law?" And your answer, and I want to quote verbatim, was, "Thank you. Amen. Yes." Now, in my view, that was the former federal prosecutor speaking and giving an answer. Yet, the next day, you issued a statement retracting what you'd said, and saying, in fact, although you'd said, "Amen", which is a pretty powerful statement from the heart, you didn't in fact mean that federal law should force local officials to comply with federal laws. I want to ask you what political officials pressured you to change your statement? SALDANA: Not a single one. This came from a -- the original statement came from my heart. The clarification came from my heart. I don't mean to quibble with you, Senator, I respect you greatly. But, I will say this. The question was not asked. The question was very specific. "Would it be helpful for detainers to be mandatory?" The law enforcement response is clarity is always helpful. But, I wanted to be sure that people were not reacting to that as an indictment of PEP, or working with communities, and that's what I'm committed to do. CRUZ: So, let me make sure I understand your testimony correctly then. You said then it would be helpful, presumably helpful is something is good, is beneficial, is something you support. So, are you saying then that ICE supports making it mandatory to comply with federal detainers. SALDANA: No. CRUZ: So, it's helpful, but you don't support it? SALDANA: Well -- no sir, I support what we have proposed, and what we've been spending many hours on... CRUZ: ...But you just said it's helpful... SALDANA: ...Yes, sir... CRUZ: ...You just said you don't support it... SALDANA: ...Clarity is always helpful, but cooperation and working with our state and local partners is something I've always done, and I will continue to do it, and I'm committed to see it through, with respect to these jurisdictions that haven't been working. CRUZ: It is difficult to work in an administration where you're required to take a position where, although something would be, in your own words, "helpful" -- you nonetheless don't support it -- let me shift to a different topic. In the year 2013, how many criminal illegal aliens did the Obama administration release? SALDANA: In 2014 it was a little over 30,000. CRUZ: How many murderers? SALDANA: In that year, sir, I can't remember the number right now, but I know that we had the statistic that was said earlier. The four year period from 2010 to 2014 that there were 121 persons who committed crimes afterwards. But, I can't provide you with the exact number. CRUZ: How many rapists? SALDANA: I am not sure right now, I'd have to pull that number. CRUZ: How many drunk drivers? SALDANA: Same answer. I can certainly break that down for you, and, in fact, I think we're working on that right now. It's been requested before. CRUZ: Yesterday, how many murderers did the Obama administration release? SALDANA: Now, Senator, I don't know the answer to that question, but I want the American people to understand our job and our mission if I may. We don't release people willy-nilly. We release people pursuant to these statutes and regulations. There are only a limited number of crimes that we are required to detain people. It is mandatory. They're spelled out here very clearly. Many of them related to drug distributions and conspiracies. With the rest of the people, as you know very well, Zubaidas (ph) requires us to release some. I think that's a small percentage of the total. Also, the immigration courts have half a million case backlog. They have the proceedings they go through. They will order release because many of these folks challenge their bond, or detention. But, in the rest, and I think it's like 49 percent this past year, in the rest where ICE has discretion, where this statute has given us discretion, we have very well trained, very well experience law enforcement officers who look at the entire case just like a magistrate judge, or a federal judge... CRUZ: ...Ms. Saldana, I want to note that your testimony here, when I asked you how many criminals ICE released in 2013, you were off by a factor of three. You said 30,000, the correct answer is 104,000. There were 68,000 criminals, criminal illegal aliens that ICE declined to begin deportation proceedings against, despite the fact, as Senator Sessions observed, the federal law that you're holding up there says they shall be deported. The Obama administration refused to deport them. That's 68,000. In addition to that there were 36,000 in deportation proceedings with criminal convictions that the Obama administration released, and I would note that among those were 193 murderers with homicide convictions, 426 people with sexual assault convictions, where over 16,000 criminal illegal aliens with drunk driving convictions released by this administration because this administration refuses to follow the law. SALDANA: Sir, those numbers, I'm looking straight at them. You asked me, I thought, about 2014. That is 30,558. The good news is that at least that went down from 2013 when it was 36,007. CRUZ: But you're omitting the 68,000 criminal illegal aliens that ICE did not begin deportation proceedings against at all, and you gotta' add both of those together. It's over 100,000. SALDANA: Yes, sir, that's absolutely right. All done pursuant to this statute that the Congress has outline. CRUZ: Now, Ms. Saldana, you heard the testimony from the victim's family. I've introduced Kate's Law in the Senate, a mandatory minimum of five years in prison for anyone -- apprehended with an illegal reentry. Does ICE support Kate's Law? SALDANA: I sure would like to look at that. I haven't had a chance to, I'm not sure when it was introduced, if it has been... CRUZ: ...It was introduced last week. SALDANA: OK, I have not had a chance to look at it, I'm sorry Senator, but I'm certainly willing to look at any proposal along those lines, and consider it and work with you if I find some objection to it. CRUZ: Ms. Saldana, I will note in your opening statement here -- you said that after listening to the victim's family that you were so sorry for their loses. And yet, the Obama administration keeps doing it. When I asked you how many murders were released yesterday, you don't know. There is a reason the American people are upset. If President Obama had the courage of his convictions, he would come and look in the eyes of these men and women who have lost their sons, their daughters, their mothers, their sisters, their brothers and the administration would stop releasing murderers and rapists. It is within your power to follow federal law, and this administration refuses to do so, and that is altogether unacceptable. Thank you. SESSIONS: Senator Klobuchar. KLOBUCHAR: Thank you very much, Senator Sessions, and thank you to those -- you, Director, and also to the assistant secretary, for your work. I also wanted to -- I know Senator Grassley had to step out for another hearing, but I wanted to thank him for bringing together the first panel of witnesses. I thought their testimony was moving, and I know from being a former prosecutor how difficult it can be for victims and their families to come forward, and I'm sure some of the families are still in the room today, so I thank you for being willing to come forward today. I also wanted to thank Senator Feinstein for her frankness in the criticism of the sheriff in her own state. Clearly there should have been cooperation and they should have been working with ICE, and I think it's very important to remember that there are some of us who are willing to look at these policies and look at them in a way to figure out what best helps public safety. And Deputy Secretary, you talked about some of the work that's being done to work with these local jurisdictions. In listening to the head of the major city chiefs talk about their policy, which he made clear was cooperating with ICE, but clearly that didn't happen in the case in San Francisco. Are there other sheriffs and other law enforcement people have taken that position and have policies where they are not willing to -- and I understand the mayor said that wasn't what happened in San Francisco -- but where they are not going to work with you and notify you when a repeat felon is being released? SALDANA: Well, the last time I checked the number of communities that had passed some kind of ordinance or legislation, it was a little bit over 200, 208. KLOBUCHAR: Is there -- is that correct? SALDANA: Excuse me? KLOBUCHAR: Do they vary? SALDANA: Oh, tremendously. KLOBUCHAR: OK, what I'm talking here about is that I think that is the most glaring thing is this idea that someone who has been deported several times and been convicted of lengthy felonies, that there was no notification to either try to deport him, or as you made a better point for someone who's a repeat felon like that, bring them to the U.S. attorney's office. So do you know how many have that policy that was as severe as what the sheriff did in San Francisco? SALDANA: Maybe a handful. Maybe a handful. You know, we've identified, I think I said earlier, the top 49 which have jurisdictions who have not been cooperating with us, that it would have the greatest impact with respect to their immigrant populations in their communities, and we have made real progress. As the secretary testified last week, about 33 of them have now said, over the efforts of the secretary, the deputy and quite a few officials, that they will work with us in some manner. We are working with them. KLOBUCHAR: It just seems like in a case like this it should be mandatory that something gets reported to ICE, and that's what I am trying to grapple with, and I know Senator Feinstein is. SALDANA: It's a very commonsense approach, Senator. I agree with you, and I think that PEP covers that. These are severe, heinous and dangerous criminals that we are targeting and that we are trying to work with these jurisdictions to say, can't we all agree on this category of individual and this criminal history. KLOBUCHAR: When we used to have cases sometimes -- in fact, I was just reading about one where we had convicted a man of murder. He had hacked up his wife into pieces, left her head in a bowl. It was a horrible case. He was from Russia and he's been making requests to go back to Russia, and my successor is saying no to that. And I remember the pressure he would sometimes get -- not necessarily from defendants. He wouldn't care about that. But from sometimes family members, people say, oh, send him back to the other country. I think it's an argument clearly for serving out sentences in the U.S. for public safety, but then also we brought up the U.S. attorney's office, and obviously they can't handle all these cases. But when there are the serious ones with a number of felonies, I would think this should become more of a priority when it comes to these prosecutions. Has there been discussion about this with the Justice Department at all? SALDANA: Yes, I have actually met with the deputy attorney general and discussed where we can work together to strengthen this. I've met with the Board of Immigration security subcommittee of the attorney general's advisory committee, the U.S. attorneys, and we have discussed specifically what can you do to help us make an impact with respect to some of these cases. And they seem very interested and cooperative. KLOBUCHAR: I've been a supporter of comprehensive immigration reform. I think there's a lot of focus on things that we need for economy with that bill, and allowing, you know, everyone from engineers on to be able to get green cards and to stop training our competition, and there's many important things in that bill, this bipartisan bill. But I think one of them, as you know, as also director, is more money for the border, more money for enforcement, those kinds of things. Do you think that that would be helpful as well, to pass some kind of comprehensive immigration reform? Either of you can answer this. SALDANA: It's essential. I mean -- KLOBUCHAR: And I'm talking about from a public safety perspective. SALDANA: Yes. It's like one of these very wise victims indicated this morning, that when you hear something that simply stated, you wonder why do we get bogged down. And that was, put aside political interests and let's get to work on a better immigration system comprehensively. KLOBUCHAR: Did you want to add? RODRIGUEZ: I would like to add to that. One of the issues that we've heard about this morning is the notion that individuals who are here illegally, we don't know who they are. They are not registered, they are off the grid essentially. Both what the deferred action programs and, more helpfully, comprehensive immigration reform provides is a way to know who those people are, to hold them accountable, to know who they are in those rare instances where they do commit crimes. So that's just one example of many where public safety would be promoted by immigration reform. KLOBUCHAR: And the last thing I wanted to bring up is just -- this is a different issue to me and I don't want it to get scrambled into it is the U visa program for victims of crime. We worked hard on this. I know that I had many experiences where people would be preyed upon because they thought they had power over them because -- a family member, someone else could be deported. The U visa program has been helpful in bringing cases, as one of the witnesses pointed out, who works in the domestic violence area. Could you speak to that? SALDANA: I can certainly. I prosecuted human trafficking cases and we often requested T visas, and I am happy to say that many of the victims that were involved in some of these cases actually ended up staying in the country and applying for residency, and ultimately I'm sure citizenship, and will make extraordinary American citizens if they get to that point. KLOBUCHAR: All right, thank you very much, and we look forward to working with you. SESSIONS: Senator Lee. LEE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thanks to both of you for coming here, for your willingness to serve our country and your willingness to talk to us today. I believe that the great majority of those who have come to the United States in violation of our laws have probably done so for very sympathetic reasons and have probably been living their lives in a way that, aside from the illegal manner in which they chose to enter the country, are otherwise living good lives, respectable lives. This fact does not, and I don't think it ever can, vest them with the right to citizenship. And it certainly cannot override the need that we have to ensure that U.S. citizens are protected from violence, including the type of violence that might result from someone who came here who should not have come here, someone with a known criminal record who has been allowed to remain here in violation of our laws. I've spoken at length in other hearings and on the floor of the Senate about some concerns I have about the use of a legal remedy known as parole within our immigration law. For those who are not steeped in immigration law, parole is a very narrow exception, one that allows a person to enter the country temporarily. The law governing parole within the immigration context is fairly specific. It points out that this needs to be narrow, it needs to be either for urgent humanitarian reasons on the one hand, or significant public benefit on the other hand. This temporary parole is meant to allow people to enter the country for temporary, finite occasions, such as the need to get medical treatment. That would be an urgent humanitarian reason to allow someone to get parole. Or if we are talking about significant public benefit, we might add to that the hypothetical of someone needing to come in to testify as a witness in a trial. But these things are temporary and they are time-sensitive. Temporary nature of parole in its narrow nature is very important because when she be granted parole, if you've been paroled into the country, you've removed an otherwise present and significant legal impediment to gaining access to citizenship. So if parole is abused, if it's granted excessively, indiscriminately, or outside the framework of what the law allows, this you can understand could really create a giant gaping hole in our immigration laws. The president has cleverly, and some might say surreptitiously, spread the definition of parole wide enough to give DACA and DAPA recipients access to citizenship in circumstances in which citizenship would otherwise be not available to them. We are now seeing the president expanding that program again, expanding yet again the use of parole. First, as Vice President Biden announced in November, the Department of Homeland Security and the Department of State are establishing a refugee parole program that would allow those who failed to get refugee status to enter the country under parole. I reiterate, parole is meant to be a temporary admission to get past the border on a case-by-case basis, either for urgent humanitarian reasons or for a significant public benefit. It is not a substitute for refugee status and should not be used to permanently relocate non-refugees to the United States where refugee status isn't available. Second, the president announced in a report released just last week that the Department of Homeland Security will propose an expanded parole program for entrepreneurs. Now, entrepreneurs are valuable. We all love entrepreneurs in this country. In fact, we have a lot of programs that are designed specifically to help encourage more entrepreneurs, not just within the United States but to come here from other countries because we like entrepreneurs. But any program that encourages entrepreneurs to come into the United States, to this country should be established by statute, by law, not shoehorned into a narrow exception that is meant to allow the administration to step outside the normal process only under extraordinary circumstances. So Mr. Rodriguez, I'll start with you. Do you believe these programs are consistent with the limited intent and the temporary nature of the statutory text regarding parole? RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator, for that question. The short answer is yes, I do. And I do precisely for the point that you made, which is that these are programs that are meant to be limited. They are meant to either afford a permanent immigration benefit, nor are they meant to be utilized by everybody. LEE: So you agree with my characterization of... RODRIGUEZ: I don't agree with your characterization of the program... LEE: You agree that they are limited? RODRIGUEZ: That is correct, and that these programs are limited. So when we talk about the Central American minors program, it is a limited number of individuals who will be able to seek parole. There are very specific requirements, very specific circumstances which afford people that parole, and parole is, as you say, a temporary program. LEE: OK, so you agree that it's intended to be temporary and limited. And yet when we look at, in the DACA application for advanced parole, there's a form called form I-131, and it defines the statutory term, significant public benefit. Again, which historically is understood to refer to something like the need for someone to come into the country to testify at a trial. It defines that to include semester abroad programs and meetings with clients. Do you think that's a fair interpretation of the statute? Is it fair to shoehorn meetings with clients or semester abroad programs into a significant public benefit, something intended to give somebody the right to enter the country and testify at trial? RODRIGUEZ: So understand what we are talking about when we talk about the advanced parole. These are individuals who are participants in a deferred action, not a parole program, whose ability to temporarily remain in the United States is under a deferred action program. In other words... LEE: OK, so if it's not a parole program, then why are you using parole? RODRIGUEZ: That is basically the manner in which those individuals on either humanitarian or significant public interest basis are able then to reenter the United States. LEE: Reenter the United States. RODRIGUEZ: It permits them to temporarily leave the United States and then return to the United States. LEE: And when they return they have had a significant impediment that would otherwise exist to their pathway to citizenship lifted. RODRIGUEZ: Well, it does not make them qualify for either legal permanent resident status or for citizenship. In fact, like anybody else, they need to have an actual basis. There must be... LEE: Correct. Remember, it's not independently adequate, but it removes an impediment that would otherwise be there, namely, by virtue of the fact that they entered illegally. That would impede them from getting a green card but for the use of parole. Isn't that right? Is that correct? RODRIGUEZ: It is correct to a point, sir. The critical aspect is they need to qualify for whatever the basis is, be it for residents, for a visa, for citizenship. They need to qualify that. Advanced parole won't make them qualify. LEE: It won't make them qualify but it is a condition precedent, a condition without which they couldn't otherwise have gotten there. You have distorted this law. You have manipulated it beyond what the statutory text will bear, and that does cause me great concern. I see my time -- over my time. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Lee. That is technical and important issue. It will be Senator Vitter, Perdue and Tillis, in that order. Senator Vitter. VITTER: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I also want to thank the full committee chairman and Senator Flake for a lot of work and cooperation with me on legislation which we want to bring forward, and will be bringing forward, to stop sanctuary cities policy, to put teeth in existing federal law, which says that local law enforcement has to cooperate with immigration enforcement. So I thank you. You have been very active on that. And the full committee chairman, and Senator Flake and others who are working with me on that. And hopefully I think we're going to move that soon in committee. Thanks to you both for your service. Ms. Saldana, the White House through the press secretary recently suggested that the murder of Kate Steinle was made possible because Republicans refuse to pass the large immigration bill, which included an amnesty, during the last Congress. Do you agree with that? SALDANA: Sir, I decline to engage in this political discussion. I'm just interested in law enforcement and making sure that the immigration laws are enforced. VITTER: OK. Do you agree or disagree with that suggestion? SALDANA: I have no opinion one way or the other. I am focused on a very important job under the immigration laws, and we would prefer to work on that and answer questions related to that than political questions. That just doesn't advance the ball forward. VITTER: Well, I agree it doesn't advance the ball, and I agree Josh Ernest's (ph) statement was insulting to a lot of people, including the victims. Let me ask you this. How is your action to block sanctuary city policy through the priority enforcement program going to be any more effective than it has been through the secure communities program? Obviously it has been completely ineffective through that. SALDANA: Lots of controversy, lots of litigation arising out of secure communities. The differences are significant, particularly, I believe, as we talk to more jurisdictions, they will see this more clearly. The distinctions are material. For example, one of the problems in that Clapham's (ph) County case was that there is no basis to detain someone at the state or local level beyond 48 hours, which is what our request was. To detain them beyond 48 hours beyond what their underlying offense called for. Under PEP we will have -- we are only asking for 48 hours notice before the release of an individual, unless we have probable cause, in which case we've got indications of a true violation, with evidence that we can show the local jurisdiction. Then we ask for detaining that person the 48 hours. VITTER: And so under this new policy, to try to stop these abuses from happening, first of all, I'm glad that we are finally doing this from the administration. Under this new policy what's going to happen if and when a local jurisdiction does not comply? SALDANA: Well, this is one of the things I'm considering. I, along with the victims this morning, do not want to see their lives go, you know, without being... VITTER: I hope we can all agree about that, but the bottom line is there is no consequence now. There is no teeth now. Nothing happens to these local jurisdictions. So if this is a brand-new day brought on by these horrific incidents, what's going to happen to these local jurisdictions? SALDANA: I'm in the middle of looking at that because, as you know, we just started implementing PEP within the last couple of weeks. VITTER: So you don't know that anything is going to happen to them. SALDANA: No, we are going to work towards that, sir. I want to talk to more jurisdictions to understand exactly what the problems are with respect to their accepting our -- cooperating with us. Once I understand their local problems, I think I can help them better to help figure out a solution. I don't want to be one of these... VITTER: And after you say pretty, please... SALDANA: ...I'm the federal government and I'm here to help you. VITTER: And after you say pretty, please three times and they don't comply, is there going to be any negative consequence? SALDANA: I'm looking at that, sir, and working with the secretary to see what we can do with respect to that. VITTER: So you have not determined yet that there will be any negative consequence. SALDANA: The program has been in effect for about three weeks, sir. We just started. We ask for a chance. VITTER: Well, there are some victims' families here who asked for a chance, and their chance is gone in terms of their family member. Three weeks. This has been going on for years and you still are not prepared to say that there is ever going to be any negative consequence to those jurisdictions. When is that going to change? SALDANA: I presume when you all address comprehensive immigration reform. Perhaps it can be addressed there. VITTER: Oh, now we're going to the Josh Ernest line, right? SALDANA: The what, sir? VITTER: Ridiculous. Now we are going to the political line you just disavowed. SALDANA: Comprehensive immigration reform to me is not political. It's essential legislative effort to try.. VITTER: And absent Congress passing that bill that you and the Obama administration prefer, you don't think right now we can stop sanctuary cities from flaunting federal law? You don't think right now there can be any negative consequences when they do not properly cooperate under existing federal law and with immigration enforcement? SALDANA: And that's what I understand you all are working on. And ... VITTER: Are you working on it? You have the authority to do that now. SALDANA: Sir, not according to certain jurisdictions. A federal District Court in Oregon, for example, has ruled against us on mandatory detainers. Even citing the language that sells "shall." So I'm looking forward to -- looking at the legislation that being proposed to address these questions. I want a solution too, sir. VITTER: Well, we've been asking to a solution for that about sanctuary cities for years. There's been absolutely no effort from the administration before. Now there's a promise of an effort, but still today after these tragedies, you're not prepared to say that you support any negative consequence to sanctuary city jurisdictions if they don't properly cooperate. I eagerly await y'all to finally say that. To finally say, yes, there needs to be some consequence, because that is the only way it's going to stop throughout hundreds of jurisdictions around the United States. SALDANA: Mr. Vitter, I offer you my assistance if you would like my input with respect to any legislation you propose, to try and resolve this and get -- VITTER: I'm asking for your input right now. What should the negative consequence be that you will support? SALDANA: Well, I'm hopeful that I don't have to hit somebody over the head with a federal hammer, and work with the state and local jurisdictions, which have their own specific problems to address. I think you understand that, Senator, and that's why I'd like to work with you to try to address it jurisdiction by jurisdiction. VITTER: Unfortunately, the biggest thing I understand is that you are not prepared today as we speak, even after these horrible tragedies, to support a single negative consequence against a sanctuary city jurisdiction if they do not properly cooperate with immigration enforcement. That's unfortunately the biggest thing I understand. If that's incorrect, please tell me how. I am eager to hear that. SALDANA: It is incorrect. VITTER: OK, so what negative consequence will you support? SALDANA: Whatever you all propose with respect to legislation, I would like to work with you on it to see what we can do to help our communities, as opposed to put roadblocks in their way in their community policing. VITTER: And will you tell us what you would support in that regard right now? SALDANA: You know, sir, I am so focused on trying to correct the problem through our PEP program that I would be happy to work with you with respect to any legislation you propose. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Vitter. I would note that there was nothing in the gang of eight (ph) the comprehensive bill that fixed the sanctuary city problem. It was just one of the loopholes in that legislation. Senator Perdue. PERDUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thanks to both of you for being here today. This is a tremendously important crisis, as I would call it, not just an immigration crisis but a national security crisis. There are only six reasons why 13 colonies got together in the first place, six reasons. And one of those was to provide for the national defense. And we heard from six families this morning. There are many other thousands out there who have similar experiences, including in my home state, with similar tragedies. We've both got to work together and solve this thing. We heard this morning that between 2000 and 2014 there were 100 convicted criminal aliens released and then subsequently arrested again for murder, after they had been released. Those convicted criminals were in our communities because the government let them go free instead of deporting them. In 2013 alone ICE released over 36,000 criminal illegal immigrants into American communities. These illegal aliens had almost 90,000 convictions on their records, including 193 murder convictions and over 16,000 drunk driving convictions. All told, and I know this is a debatable number, but all told, according to the Center for Immigration Studies, there are over 340,000 criminal illegal immigrants walking the streets right now. I would argue that this is a national emergency. It's absolutely outrageous in my opinion. I don't think there are innocent parties in this debate. In 2000, in my home state we had a 16-year-old kid killed by an illegal immigrant. Today, 15 years later, the perpetrator of that crime is still at large. This is unconscionable when you hear the stories of these families. But we could bring thousands in here. It's time for us to do something. I just have a real quick question, Director Saldana. Thank you for your service in Texas and now nationally. But if you had this perpetrator in California in your custody -- you answered this question earlier. I just want to ask it again for clarity. What's ICE's policy? What are you driving in your organization? How would you have treated this particular incident where they were released back into the custody of the authorities in San Francisco? SALDANA: Well, as we mentioned earlier, the difference between a criminal warrant and a notice of detainer from ICE, we expect for other jurisdictions to respect the court orders that we get when we get a judicial warrant or a criminal warrant. And so... PERDUE: And what if they don't? SALDANA: Well, we -- that's not an issue we have when it comes to court orders. We take them to court then and say this individual, this jurisdiction has failed to honor this court order. That has teeth, right? When coming from a federal judge or even a local judge. And then we ask other jurisdictions to honor our criminal warrants that we get in our investigations. So to us it's a mutual benefit, and we would honor that criminal warrant typically now. The secretary testified last week on something I know he and I are going to have many more conversations about, and that is what more could be done to try to ensure that we have -- when we have a jurisdiction that's not cooperating with us, that we work, in this case with the Bureau of Prisons or someone else, to try and ensure we get custody of that person. PERDUE: I want to come back to Bureau of Prisons in just a second. But in that particular case I'm a little confused because -- and this is not a trick question, but I want to know if the policy is consistent in your organization about how you would have treated that particular perpetrator because just last week one of your senior officials inside your staff told the Judiciary Committee staff that in their opinion that ICE would have done exactly the same thing as the BOP did in that particular instance, and would have release that individual back into the authorities in San Francisco. Is that pretty much correct? SALDANA: And that's correct, sir. Here's the deal. Here's how typically law enforcement works. We have a criminal warrant signed by a judge. We call the jurisdiction -- or we see that, and we call the jurisdiction and say, are you -- is this still a live warrant, and are you going to pursue prosecution? And we work with that jurisdiction. Depending on what the answer is, we work with that jurisdiction to ensure where we are going to get the biggest bang for our buck. Is it the state prosecution or the federal prosecution? And that's where that cooperation is so important, and why I truly recommend against forcing these jurisdictions because that breaks relationships. PERDUE: I'm not worried about relationships. I'm worried about results. And right now we've got cities not adhering to federal law. And I just think that's a tremendous problem, whether it's regarding immigration or highway issues. Let me change topics some more. We just mentioned PEP earlier. You know, we sent a letter, several senators sent a letter to Secretary Johnson a couple of weeks ago. We still haven't received a response yet, by the way, but we are concerned about PEP. I really believe that, as we said to the secretary, it's pretty clear that PEP will lead to the release of additional, maybe thousands of additional criminal aliens from federal custody. And I'm really concerned about what effect that could have, just like we heard this morning. Let me ask you this. With regard to these communities and PEP, given that these communities did not previously honor ICE detainers or cooperate with federal immigration at all, why do we have confidence that they're going to work with us on PEP? Why do we think that's going to be a better approach? SALDANA: Because of the distinction, the differences that we've weaved into the new PEP program. I mentioned one earlier, and that is we are removing the objection, the constitutional objection that we are detaining people or asking for them to hold people without a basis. They've already completed their state or local sentence, and so now we're saying, okay, don't hold them 48 hours in the typical situation. Just give us notice 48 hours before. We've got some differences to communicate to them and to show them, and I think they will make a difference in many cases. And I don't remember if I shared with you, Senator. I'd like you to know this. We have identified the top 49 jurisdictions that would have the greatest impact based on their illegal populations. And 33 have already said they're going to work with us in one way or another. And 11 are still in the process of considering it. We're going to keep working that, and that will have a great impact. PERDUE: Thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, Director Rodriguez, I'm sorry. I'm almost out of time but I want to talk about the Martinez case with regard to the exception relative to gang membership and the potential loophole. I mean, this thing is pretty obvious to me. We talked about this in an earlier committee hearing, but I would like to get your opinion on isn't this just another loophole for someone to falsely claim a threat that if they were to going back home, they are under threat; therefore, they should get asylum here? RODRIGUEZ: It certainly our view that, you know, you should not be able to use your prior criminality as a way to claim particular social group. We do think that rulemaking is the right path to resolving -- or the right way to handle this issue, and we can certainly meet, Senator, and talk more about solutions to the issue that you presented. PERDUE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. SESSIONS: Senator Flake, we're going to Senator Tillis, or are you going next? Senator Tillis. All right, thank you. TILLIS: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Director Saldana and Director Rodriguez, thank you for your service. I know you've got a tough job. A lot of people have quoted some numbers, but I want to make sure that we unify around what I think are very, very important numbers. The Center for Immigration Studies estimates that there are some 347,000 criminal immigrants at large today. According to a March 2nd report, ICE weekly departures and detentions report, there's 168,000 convicted criminal immigrants who had final orders of removal but are now at large in the United States. Now in 2013, I think that Senator Perdue mentioned there were some 36,000 aliens released. Now they represented a total of 88,000 convictions, 193 homicide convictions, including one willful killing of a police officer with a gun, 426 sexual assault convictions, 303 kidnapping convictions, 1,075 aggravated assault convictions, 1,160 stolen vehicles, 9,187 dangerous drug convictions, and 1,670 drunk or drunk driving convictions. After they were released -- now that's what they mounted. And by the way, that's on average, if my back of the napkin math is right, releasing someone who is convicted of a homicide some two or three times a week. Now after these people were released, 1,000 were convicted of another crime following their release. This is a significant problem. Those stats were only for 2013. We could quote stats before and after that. It's a serious problem, and I think that it's something that the sanctuary cities need to recognize. Senator Saldana -- or Director -- SALDANA: Quite a promotion, sir. TILLIS: I'm not sure. (LAUGHTER) TILLIS: But I guess I'm a little bit confused with the PEP program. I understand that you are trying to work with local law enforcement, but to a certain extent it seems to me that we are really excusing the fact that they are not really reading at least the spirit of the law, and some would say the letter. We've talked about whether or not we should pass legislation to be very specific about the mandatory requirements, and you don't want to do it. And it seems to me that a part of that is because you are concerned with the relationship damage that could be done by forcing them. Is that accurate? SALDANA: Well, sir, as I said, our local law enforcement relationships are vital, not just what we do in immigration. I mentioned homeland security investigations earlier. We rely on our local law enforcement partners to assist us with crime that is part of the homeland security investigations purview. TILLIS: I understand that, but shame on them if they all the sudden are not going to cooperate on these other matters of homeland security. Because we want to take a very specific, direct stand that they should obey the law. I mean, that -- that to me is like, well, we'll do a favor here or cut them some slack so they'll work with us. That's their job; that's what they're sworn to do. SALDANA: Yes, and -- and -- and just because I've worked here in law enforcement over a decade, I -- I just want to be sure you understand. Most of the jurisdictions work with us every day; thank goodness they do. And -- and let me set some context here. I think I mentioned about 200, a little over 200 jurisdictions that are not -- that have passed some kind of an ordinance or other legislation not to work with us. There are thousands of jurisdictions that do already. I'm very proud of my home state of Texas that has 254 jurisdictions in it and we have very good relationships with 99.9 percent of those. Do -- please do not assume that these 208 represent the total number of the vast majority of jurisdictions out there. TILLIS: I understand. I do think, though, that we -- we need to keep in mind that the numbers that I went through are significant. And each and every year, there's roughly the same sorts of numbers. This is a significant challenge. And I don't feel like for the bad -- what I would consider bad actor cities, sanctuary cities, shame on them. They need to cooperate with you all; you need to be able to do your job and they need to help you do your job, not because it's some sort of favor or accommodation, because that's their responsibility. Now, the -- the last question that I have relates to the DACA program. And Director Rodriguez, this may be appropriate for you. I asked the secretary when he was here if he felt certain -- you know, you're -- you're probably familiar with the Rangel-Hernandez quadruple murder down in Charlotte 20 minutes from where I live. That was someone who was granted deferred action. Determined he did have some affiliation with gang violence. And he was one of -- of the cases that I think that spurred you all's review of the other actions. Are you absolutely certain that we've scrubbed those who have received deferred action and that we don't have another Rangel- Hernandez out there waiting to happen? RODRIGUEZ: I'll -- I'll -- I'll take that as -- as -- as two -- as really two questions. So, the -- the -- the first is am I absolutely certain? I am satisfied that my staff engaged in a very thorough process of running the entire DACA cohort back through the law enforcement databases that we used to identify gang membership. I do believe that the label of gang member in that database is a reliable label so that if the individual is identified, that gives us what we need to either deny them outright or to conduct further investigation. So, that as we speak today, that does leave me with confidence that -- that as of the date that we ran and we did that review, that we were able to address all cases of -- of gang membership. If we have future cases where people either become gang members or commit crimes, we will address those, as we have. We will terminate DACA in the manner that we have in other cases. TILLIS: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. SESSIONS: Senator Flake? FLAKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Saldana, in response to a letter that I sent to -- to you along with Chairman Grassley, you mentioned that in the Altamirano case, he posted -- quote, "he posted $10,000 bond after his immigration hearing, which means that he became obligated to report to ICE upon demand and that at the time of the most recent criminal offense, ICE had not triggered his obligation to report upon demand." Now, he was released from custody in January of 2013. He was arrested for murder January 22nd, 2015, over two years. Was there any contact with ICE during that period, between ICE and Mr. Altamirano? SALDANA: He was in proceedings. It's -- that's then involved -- he's involved with the court through the immigration courts. Whether ICE had some communication with him, I -- in those -- that two-year period, I don't know, Senator. FLAKE: Do you know if the immigration court or anybody had any contact with him? SALDANA: You know, I haven't looked at that specifically, sir. FLAKE: Is that typical for somebody to go two -- two full years with seemingly no contact at all? SALDANA: It can happen, given the half a million case backlog with the immigration courts. FLAKE: ICE's policy for triggering a convicted alien's obligation to report, you mentioned that you didn't see him because there was nothing that triggered an obligation to report. Has that policy been changed, in terms of triggers for -- for reporting? In light of this case and others, has there been any change? SALDANA: Not that I'm aware of, sir. FLAKE: How many times has ICE revoked bail for those that -- that have been put out on bail like this? SALDANA: Oh, it -- it happens with some regularity. I can't give you a percentage but I'm happy to provide that to you for a specific period. FLAKE: One thing that was just striking about this is the lack of cooperation and coordination and even notification between federal and local officials. And in response to the letter that Chairman Grassley and I sent to you, you mentioned that ICE is working to implement a new initiative called the law enforcement notification system or LENS. In your testimony, you mentioned that LENS has been deployed in 11 states and full implementation is expected by the end of the year. What's stopping that from being implemented in the other 39 states? SALDANA: Because we have to work with each state office that -- that gets notices out to their counties and communities. Some like mine have a lot of counties. It's complex. We have to make our systems compatible to -- to talk. And so, we started with three states as test cases, Texas being one of them, and it worked pretty well there. We've expanded it to these -- now to the total of 11. And there's a period of time that you have to work out kinks because we want to be sure to get this right, and that's what we've been going through right now, is just the test program; we've passed that. We now have expanded it to the 11. We're liking what we're seeing and I think we'll be there by the end of the year. FLAKE: Is this being handled with a little more urgency now? SALDANA: I -- I would like to see it done earlier than the end of the year, sir. I will stay on it, I -- I assure you, to -- to make sure it done -- it gets done as quickly as we possibly can. FLAKE: So, by the end of the year, you believe that we'll be able to -- to say that in all 50 states, we have better notification requirements? SALDANA: Yes, sir. FLAKE: Thank you. Miss Saldana, in Director Rodriguez's testimony he mentioned that 43,375 new DACA requests were denied; 414 renewal requests have been denied. Of these, you know, approximately 44,000 denied requests, how many have been deported? SALDANA: Of what -- I'm sorry, sir. FLAKE: These -- there are 43,375 DACA requests that were denied and then 414 renewal requests have been denied. If somebody is not able to access DACA, then they are still eligible for deportation or that is demanded. How many of those have been deported? SALDANA: I can't give you the specific number but they go in -- it -- whether they're DACA or not eligible, sir, we look at ours the same way we do anybody else. The -- DACA doesn't get them a free pass. We have to look at them on a case by case basis as to -- as to what's the next step, whether we detain someone, whether, you know, what level of bond we place if we release them, that kind of thing. So, it's all done on the whole facts and circumstances surrounding that individual, including criminal history. FLAKE: But if they are -- if they've done something or have an offense that makes them ineligible, you would assume that they're -- they're being looked at now. Can you give me any ballpark of -- of how many of those have been deported of the 44,000 DACA cases that -- people who were not able to access DACA? SALDANA: I assure you I will get that to you, sir, as soon as I can get someone to look -- to look at it and get us an accurate number for you. I'd rather not throw out a ballpark. FLAKE: All right, thank you. Mr. Rodriguez, in the case of the murder of Kate Steinle, the individual, Mr. Sanchez, was here in the country illegally. Obviously he'd been deported five times; that means that he was able to come back across the border illegally five times. Obviously border security is something that we're very concerned about in Arizona and this committee is extremely concerned about. There's one program that we've had, Operation Streamline, in Arizona, a secure or sure (ph) consequences program. And it's helped significantly in Yuma. We've been able to bring repeat crossings down significantly, yet the Department of Justice seems to be now backing away from that program. What are your thoughts there? RODRIGUEZ: Well, Senator, I -- as you know, I -- I administer the immigration benefits structure. I -- I don't operate border security... FLAKE: I understand that, but... RODRIGUEZ: I certainly support border security. And I'm sure Commissioner Kerlikowske would be able to address those concerns that you have, sir. FLAKE: Those are serious concerns. We want to make sure the programs that we actually have working continue. And we have one that's working here there in Arizona and we're very concerned that it's not being fully implemented. The fact that Mr. Sanchez was able to so easily return across the border five times in the case, you know, in California is very disturbing, but not surprising, frankly. So, I thank you for your testimony. Appreciate it, Mr. Chairman. (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Senator. SESSIONS: Thank you, Senator Flake. Well, the Streamline program, I don't think either one of you operate that but I hope you'll fight for it. Because backing away from it, as Senator Flake has said, was very much a retrograde step. We're also familiar with the 287(g). Miss Saldana, you know you talked about cooperating with fed -- state and local officials. Your department, Homeland Security, has dramatically weakened the 287(g) program which trains local law enforcement officers how to properly and legally assist the Homeland Security in carrying out its function. Do you support the 287(g) and what's the status of that? SALDANA: Oh, yes. I'm not sure what you're talking about with respect to weakening. We welcome any 287(g) partners and -- and -- and it -- it's not that... SESSIONS: Well, I would ask you then to just check the records and see if there hasn't been a diminution the -- the 287(g) program which I think should be expanded regularly. SALDANA: There has been, sir, but it's not because of us not wanting that partnership. It's because jurisdictions have either withdrawn or are not coming to the table anymore. SESSIONS: Well, we think it could be advanced and should be. Look, what the American people know and what the family of victims of violent crime know is that this administration has consistently and steadfastly placed the goal of amnesty above the goal of public safety; time and time and time again, that's been the fact. And you're just functionaries in that system. You've been asked to do a system but within the rules been given by the political leaders and it's just not right and it's wrong. We need to do more about that and we need to see that end. If this administration spent one-tenth of the effort on enforcement and protecting people from crimes and punishing people who are criminals who violate our immigration laws rather than on amnesty, we'd be a lot safer today. Many of the people that have been injured, robbed or killed by illegal aliens would be alive today. That's just fact and everybody knows it. So, I'm concerned about it. Miss Saldana, Chris Crane is the head of the association -- the ICE officers association; 7,000 officers. They have -- they're the ones that filed a lawsuit against your predecessor, saying that he was ordering them to carry out policies that required them to violate their oath to enforce the law. I've never heard of anything like that. The statements, Mr. Rodriguez, that your offices said, 12,000 led by Chris Crane -- on Ken Palinkas are just stunning in their criticism of supervisors and political leaders. Morale is down and it's because we're not doing what they're paid to do and they -- they know it. This is what Mr. Crane says, Miss Saldana: "ICE is crumbling from within. Morale is at an all-time low as criminal aliens are released to the streets and ICE instead takes disciplinary action against its own officers for making lawful arrests. It appears clear that federal law enforcement officers are the enemy, not those who break the laws," close quote. He goes on to say, "ICE officers requested a meeting with President Obama and are still waiting. In that time, the White House has met with big business, big labor, illegal alien activists. The administration has ramped up its non-enforcement directives, putting officers and the public in danger. Every day, dangerous and violence criminal aliens are released back into our communities," close quote. That's just what it -- that's the true facts of the situation here. And you can do better if you had leadership that would let you do better. We could -- we could do so much better. We've added thousands of officers since the last dustup in 2007 over amnesty. And we ought to be in a position that we can make real progress. SALDANA: Senator, may I say something on that point? SESSIONS: Yes, you may, I'm... SALDANA: I am very -- I was -- that's one of the first things that caught my attention when I joined the agency late last year or early this year. I am putting a lot of effort in trying to engage employees and what they do. I will tell you this, though; I don't -- I have met with Mr. Crane several times now. I've met with Mr. Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, as well, and -- to discuss our mutual -- their concerns, our mutual interests. And I will say when I get out in the field, this is somewhat inconsistent with the portrayal that you've just described of our employees. They are so proud of the work they do and they're so proud of being able to focus on criminal convicted aliens and removing them from the country and they go about their business in a very efficient and -- and good way and -- and they take pride in that. And I just want to mention that to you because that's a fact. I mean, that's what I've seen as I've traveled across the country. SESSIONS: Well, I believe the facts show that this administration in a host of ways has failed to take strong action to help those officers do their duty and comply with their oath. Mr. Rodriguez, on the -- Secretary Jeh Johnson, your supervisor, testified recently before the House. And you said that comprehensive immigration reform, had it passed, we would know who the criminal aliens are. But so -- but that's not so well said because I don't think anyone that has a criminal warrant out for them or has a history of criminal activities is going to register for any of these programs that you've got. In fact, Mr. Johnson admitted as much, saying, "Most criminals do not subject themselves to criminal background checks." I agree with that. So, you're not saying, are you, that if we call for people to come and register under DACA or the president's executive amnesty that people with criminal records are going to waltz in and file with you so they can be arrested, are you? RODRIGUEZ: Well, so, let me point out a few things, Senator, if -- Chairman, if I may. One, some have, to their detriment, even in the DACA program; some who had disqualifying criminal records did come and apply and in many cases became the subjects of notices to appear. But part -- part of my point also is that those who are not criminals, those who committed no other illegal act other than their illegal entering into the United States but who are not murderers, robbers or rapists are now on the record so that should they become criminals down the line, we know who they are. For the most part, I think you're right. Your ordinary criminal will not register in the manner you describe; they know what the detriment is. SESSIONS: Well, I appreciate that. RODRIGUEZ: I would also, Senator, if I could, invite you to tour a field office with me. Because if you did that with me, you would see what I have seen is that our officers take pride in their work, they feel empowered in their ability to do their work and they exercise their discretion and the chips fall where they will, meaning that if there is a case to be denied, they do that; I've seen them do it firsthand, sir. SESSIONS: Well, with regard to this DACA program and the process of providing a legal status to people in the country in the country illegally, isn't it a fact that you've set it up so that there will not be in-person interviews for the people? RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, to my -- and my point it -- it is... SESSIONS: But isn't it a fact that experts tell us that an in- person interview is critical to a proper evaluation of a person who's applying for legal status? RODRIGUEZ: And -- and we do do in-person interviews in those cases that raise concerns that need to be investigated by (ph) officers (ph). (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Well, how do you know if it's going to raise concern if you haven't met with them? RODRIGUEZ: Because again, another one of the things that I do is look through our files. And I know that at the time that we are reviewing a file, there is extensive information about that individual where our experienced, trained officers can identify is if there is the kind of information about that individual that warrants a -- an actual in-person (ph) interview (ph). (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Well, Mr. Palinkas has been very clear in this -- in his opinion on what ICE (ph) going to work in the real world. And it's been set up so there'll be very few in-person interviews and he says that denies your officers the ability to make rational choices that can protect the public's safety. So, I guess you just disagree with him on that. RODRIGUEZ: I respectfully do. SESSIONS: Now, with regard to your -- your processes, is it true that over 95 percent of the DACA applicants have been improved? Or 90 -- maybe 99 percent? RODRIGUEZ: I -- I wouldn't be able to tell you the specific percentages other than to say that there are a significant number who have been denied or... SESSIONS: So you don't know what percentage have been denied? RODRIGUEZ: I couldn't as I stand before you other than to say that it's substantial -- substantial number who have been denied because of criminality or national security (ph). SESSIONS: Would you say less than one half of 1 percent is a substantial number? RODRIGUEZ: I -- I wouldn't say what the percent is. SESSIONS: You don't know? I mean, you're the director of this program. RODRIGUEZ: What matters to me is -- is the manner in which... SESSIONS: I just asked a question. What matters to me is what percentage are being denied? RODRIGUEZ: I -- again, I couldn't tell you as I sit here before you. Again, I know that a significant number have been denied because of these kinds of issues (ph). SESSIONS: Well, I'm looking at a sworn statement by Mr. Palinkas in the lawsuit that --in Texas that we've referred to. According to the most recent data I've seen -- this is his quote under oath; quote, "According to the most recent data I've seen, U.S. CIS reports a 99.5 percent approval rate for all DACA applicants. "The approval rate is high because U.S. CIS leadership," you, "prevented immigration officers from conducting case by case investigations of DACA applications. Leadership has intentionally stopped proper screening and enforcement and in so doing, it has guaranteed that applications will be rubberstamped for approval, a practice that virtually guarantees widespread fraud and places public safety at risk." So, I'll ask you, does this process allow for person to person interviews for even a substantial minority of the applicants? (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: As I mentioned, when there are concerns that warrant such an interview, yes, the process does allow for it. SESSIONS: He goes on to say, "As explained above, by routing DACA applications through service centers instead of field offices all over the country, U.S. CIS management has intentionally created an application process that bypasses traditional in-person investigatory interviews with trained U.S. CIS adjudications officers." So, now the way this will work, I guess somebody sends in an e- mail or mails in a document. Is that what they do, and they're approved based on that? RODRIGUEZ: Well, there -- there -- there is obviously a lot of information that is collected. SESSIONS: How? How is the information collected? (CROSSTALK) RODRIGUEZ: From -- from requestors; there -- there are specific items that are request -- required as part of the initial request. There are requests for evidence that are subsequently sent to the requesters. There is a full suite of biographic and biometric checks to examine either criminal history issues or national security issues. That forms the entirety of the file. In those cases where those raise concerns, then yes, those are referred for interview. SESSIONS: Well, let me show -- go further with what our Mr. Palinkas said under oath. "For example, new U.S. CIS computer systems -- to use a new U.S. CIS computer system to screen applications known as, quote, 'transformation' has proved to be a disaster as the agency has spent upwards of $2 billion for a system that would eventually allow an alien, now referred to as a customer under U.S. CIS policy, as I previously stated, to upload their own information via the Internet for adjudication purposes," close quote. So, it'll be information sent through some $2 billion computer system by Internet and there won't be an interview of most of the applicants. Isn't that correct? RODRIGUEZ: I'm -- I'm not sure that -- no, I really don't agree with that premise at all, Senator. The -- the -- a few things. One, I believe we are -- we have turned the corner on the transformation process. There is no doubt that historically, there was a development approach that was not working. We recently launched the replacement green card; that has gone very, very well. It actually built a number of functionalities that we're going to be able to apply to other forms. The -- the use of electronic filing as the means of receiving and the adjudicating applications does not change which programs will have interviews associated with them. That -- that -- that is not set to change as part of the transformation process. SESSIONS: Well, look, it's not going to be an in -- in-person interview. Mr. Palinkas has said for years now this is -- they're overwhelmed and cannot do the kind of proper background check. You need to be defending the people's public safety. If you need more money to do this, you need to ask for it. If you want to rubberstamp the process, keep doing the way you're doing. Now, Miss Saldana, section 1373 of Title VIII of the U.S. code provides, among other things, quote, "a federal, state or local government entity or official may not prohibit or in any way restrict any government entity or official from sending to or receiving from ICE information regarding the citizenship or immigration status lawful or unlawful of any individual," close quote. Don't you think that resolutions by city councils or state governments or sheriffs in certain jurisdictions directing their offices not to honor (ph) detainers (ph) or otherwise notify ICE that they've arrested someone that's in -- unlawfully in the country could violate or would violate section 1373? SALDANA: Well, you know, all of that is part of litigation, Senator. Quite frankly, I think we've taken that position in litigation that -- that -- that is the case. SESSIONS: That they do have to supply information? In other words, you've taken a position which I think is -- I understand you correctly, you are correct to say, cities, you have to comply with this law. SALDANA: Yes. And again, is it more practical to work through all this morass of litigation or can we work with these jurisdictions to try to get them to cooperate? SESSIONS: Well... SALDANA: I -- I think it's the latter. SESSIONS: I understand you're saying that but forgive me if I'm not persuaded. This has been going on for many years. It came up in 2007 when we had a debate about all of this and it was wrong then and it's wrong now. It's gotten to be I think it's 300 or so jurisdictions that are sanctuary jurisdictions out of, what, 17,000 maybe? So, but some are very big cities who have very large immigrant populations. And so, it's a huge matter, but most cities are -- are cooperating. And if you want to know what I hear, the complaints about the federal government enforcement from our law -- law enforcement officers is that you won't allow them to help you, that they -- if they arrest somebody and they call your office, nobody comes, nobody cares, nobody responds. And so, that's the big problem we've got in the country, is maybe bigger than the other. But at any rate, I hope that you will understand, Miss Saldana, that you're talking with them is not going to change the situation. Do you have any cities that have indicated to you they're going to make a change in their policy? SALDANA: I mentioned -- I mentioned the numbers earlier, sir. We -- we're -- just as a matter of focus, we've looked at these 49 in particular and 33 are working, have come and said that they will work with us in some way or another, again, tailored to their needs. And we've only had five that really have said of those 49 no; and we'll continue working with them. SESSIONS: Well, I'm sure they -- after all the events of the last few months certainly should be willing to listen about this. But I have serious doubts that we're going to see any change unless Congress takes some action or unless this administration takes some action. Miss Saldana, one problem I know you have that's -- I'm sure it's frustrating to you is countries not taking back criminals that you've arrested and ordered deported. Can you tell us the status of that situation? SALDANA: Yes, as you know, the Department of State obviously has a vast interest in this and I have worked with the Department of State and met -- met with the -- the individual who is -- oversees these relationships and we are working very closely to try to open doors. I went to China a couple of months ago, Beijing in particular, and China has been a challenge for us. And we've signed together and -- a kind of astounding agreement that they will actually have two people here to help process Chinese going back to the country who are repatriating from this country; that's some progress. But we continue to work with them. I've worked with South American countries. I visited Guatemala and El Salvador and we -- we're -- continue to work with our -- my counterparts there to try to ensure that we have -- and we actually have signed memorandum understanding with them regarding their -- their citizens. SESSIONS: Working with them -- working with them is one thing. But this has been going on for years also, many years. How long have you been in office? SALDANA: Seven months. SESSIONS: Seven months; so, I can't blame you for all that's gone on over the years. (CROSSTALK) SALDANA: Oh, you can. (LAUGHTER) SESSIONS: But I want you to know I understand that you -- you have professional training and you understand the world. So, it -- are there powers and actions the United States government can take without legislation that would put pressure on these countries to accept back individuals who we have ordered deported? SALDANA: Obviously this isn't the province of the Department of State largely because there relationships with -- with international countries. But yes, I -- I understand that they -- they have some authorities to do that. As you know, Senator, it's a very complex picture when it comes to international relationships and one agency's issues may not hold (ph) sway (ph) over the bigger picture in the relationship with that country. SESSIONS: Well, I remember Senator Specter, the former chairman of this committee a number of years ago, now, I was outraged by all of this. And actually, I offered legislation that would mandate reducing our -- mandate a reduction of visas from countries that don't comply. Doesn't it cost you a lot of money and -- and create huge time involvements in dealing with situations where a country won't take back one of their own? SALDANA: It's a great challenge, sir, and -- and that's where we face issues under (ph) Salvador (ph) for example, where we can't get papers or cooperation from those countries and we actually have to release them under that Supreme Court opinion after a certain period of time. SESSIONS: On the Supreme Court opinion, if a country won't take them back and a year goes by? SALDANA: Oh, I think it's actually more like 180 days and we have to -- we have to -- we got to... (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: Hundred-and-eighty-days and you have to release them? SALDANA: Well, we can extend that period of time but there's a point at which we've got to release them. SESSIONS: And that takes a lot of your officers' and agents' time and effort. SALDANA: It does, sir. SESSIONS: And you have to pay to house people in high quality prisons while you're waiting on this instead of being able to deport them promptly. SALDANA: Yes, that's correct. SESSIONS: I think we -- I have a recollection. Was it Mr. Von (ph) Rob (ph) the customs chief in years gone by? When he shut the border down with Mexico over some disagreement over their responsibilities, caused quite a stir; he just closed the border. But I would just say to you, Miss Saldana, I think it's time for the State Department and your department to stand up and say we're not going to accept this anymore. If you don't accept back promptly people we deport, then you're going to suffer serious consequences. And any relationship that deals in visas is a reciprocal relationship, isn't it, so that if we accept people, then they agree to take them back and likewise if they accept individuals from the United States and they deport them, we accept them back. Isn't that a -- isn't that -- is there a law that requires that or is that just State Department agreements with -- with these countries? SALDANA: Sir, I'm sorry, you're way above my -- my knowledge here when it comes to the State Department and -- and... SESSIONS: Well, you're going to have to stand up to the State Department; looks like we all are. This cannot continue. We don't have the money to continue to bicker with these countries for years and years and years and not get this matter settled; so, we'll try to work on that. I think legislation would be appropriate, too, although it's not necessary. If the president and the State Department stood up and were clear on it, I could be fixed promptly, in my opinion. I may submit some additional questions for the record. Mr. -- but we're having some problems getting answers to our records. Mr. Rodriguez, when do you plan to send us your responses to our questions for the record following the March hearing on oversight of your agency? RODRIGUEZ: As soon as possible. I thought -- I thought we had satisfied all of those requests. We will make sure to get those to you as soon as possible, sir. (CROSSTALK) SESSIONS: I'm not -- I don't believe we have. RODRIGUEZ: Yeah, if -- if there are outstanding requests, that is -- I'm obviously not happy about that and we will -- we will act quickly to -- to respond, sir. SESSIONS: Thank you. Well, the record will remain open for one week. And if there's nothing further -- but I will say one more thing. (LAUGHTER) Both of you are good law officers. You know how the system works. And I hope you know that things are going as well as they should; a lot of that is because of administration policy. At some point, you'll have to decide whether you're going to execute that policy or not. Some of the policies I think cannot be defended. But I respect your integrity and I appreciate your commitment to your country and your service to your country. The hearing is adjourned. RODRIGUEZ: Thank you, Chairman. SALDANA: Thank you. CQ Transcriptions, July 21, 2015 List of Panel Members and Witnesses PANEL MEMBERS: SEN. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, R-IOWA CHAIRMAN SEN. JEFF SESSIONS, R-ALA. 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 VITTER, R-LA. SEN. DAVID PERDUE, R-GA. SEN. THOM TILLIS, R-N.C. SEN. PATRICK J. LEAHY, D-VT. RANKING MEMBER SEN. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, D-CALIF. 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. WITNESSES: SUSAN OLIVER, WIFE OF DEPUTY SHERIFF DANNY OLIVER GRACE HUANG, PUBLIC POLICY COORDINATOR FOR THE WASHINGTON STATE COALITION AGAINST DOMESTIC VIOLENCE MICHAEL RONNEBECK, UNCLE OF GRANT RONNEBECK REV. GABRIEL SALGUERO OF THE LAMBS CHURCH, NEW YORK CITY JIM STEINLE, FATHER OF KATHRYN STEINLE J. THOMAS MANGER, CHIEF OF POLICE, MONTGOMERY COUNTY, MARYLAND POLICE DEPARTMENT BRIAN MCCANN, BROTHER OF DENNIS MCCANN LAURA WILKERSON, MOTHER OF JOSH WILKERSON LEON RODRIGUEZ, DIRECTOR, U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION SERVICES SARAH SALDANA, DIRECTOR, U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT

PRESIDENT BARACK OBAMA delivers remarks and takes questions from the National Governors Association; VICE PRESIDENT JOE BIDEN also attends State Dining Room Pooled Press STIX / HEADON President meets with the nation's Governors DC Slug: 1110 WH GOVERNORS STIX FS33 73 & 1110 WH GOVERNORS CUTS FS34 74 AR: 16x9 Disc #899/060 & 876/061 NYFS: WASH3 (4523) / WASH4 (4524) 11:29:09 OBAMA: Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Thank you. Everybody please have a seat. Thank you so much. Thank you. Please have a seat, everybody. It is wonderful to see all of you. I hope you had just the right amount of fun last night, and not too much fun. You know, it's hard to believe that that was the final dinner Michelle and I get to host for you. Like me, some of you might be in the final year of your last term, working as hard as you can to get as much done as possible for the folks that you represent. Fixing roads, educating our children, helping people re-train, appointing judges, the usual stuff.(LAUGHTER) OBAMA: Those of you who've been in office for a while have also witnessed all the progress that we have made together, and it has been a partnership; the millions of new jobs created, the millions of people newly covered with health insurance, the new energy projects that are popping up all across every state that's represented here. 11:30:17 I do want to comment, before I take questions, on the issue of security for the American people. Whatever our party, we all raise our hand and take an oath and assume the solemn responsibility to protect our citizens. And that is a mission that should unite us all as Americans. Today, we're focused on three threats in particular. First and foremost is terrorism. The attacks in Garland, Texas, in Chattanooga, in San Bernardino, were attacks in -- in good and decent communities, but they were also attacks on our entire country. As Americans, we are united in support of the men and women in uniform from every state who lead the coalition we built with the mission to destroy ISIL. We're working with other nations to prevent terrorists from entering the United States. We're unwavering in our efforts to prevent attacks here at home, and that's where the partnership with your states come in. This is a shared mission. We have to stay vigilant. Across the country, we've got more than 100 joint terrorism task forces -- federal, state, local experts working together to disrupt threats -- and at the state level, your fusion cells are pushing information out to law enforcement. We've also -- we also need to make sure our extraordinary law enforcement professionals and first responders have the equipment and the resources that they need, and we've got to stay united as one American family, working with communities to help prevent loved ones from becoming radicalized, and rejecting any politics that tries to divide the American people on the basis of faith. So this is something that -- this is a shared project. It's not -- something that we do together. And one of the genuine areas of progress that I've seen since I came into office -- and it was started in the previous administration, and this is one of the findings of 9/11 -- was breaking down some of the silos between federal, state, and local law enforcement when it comes to countering terrorism. We've made progress on that, but that's where state and local partners are absolutely critical. This is not something the federal government can do alone, particularly because many of the attacks may end up being lone wolf attacks, rather than those imported from the outside. I do want to comment, before I take questions on the issue of 11:32:42 The attack in San Bernardino killed 14 of our fellow Americans, and here's a hard truth. We probably lost even more Americans than that to guns this weekend alone. On Saturday, another one of our communities was terrorized by gun violence. As many of you read, six people were gunned down in a rampage in Kalamazoo, Michigan. Before I joined all of you, I called the mayor, the sheriff and the police chief there and told them that they would have whatever federal support they needed in their investigation. Their local officials and first responders, by the way, did an outstanding job in apprehending the individual very quickly. But you got families who are shattered today. Earlier this year, I took some steps that will make it harder for dangerous people like this individual to buy a gun. But clearly, we're gonna need to do more if we're gonna keep innocent Americans safe. And I have got to assume that all of you are just as tired as I am of seeing this stuff happen in your states. So that's an area where we also need to partner and think about what we can do in a common-sense way, in a bipartisan way, without some of the ideological rhetoric that so often surrounds that issue. 11:34:10 A second area of threats that we're focused on is cyber threats. The technology that connects us like never before also allows our adversaries to do us harm. Hackers and nations are -- have targeted our military, our corporations, the federal government and state governments. They're a threat to our national security. They're also a threat to our economic leadership. They're a threat to our critical infrastructure. They're a threat to the privacy and public safety of the American people. This is a complex challenge, and we're not gonna be able to meet it alone. We've made a lot of progress these past seven years, including sharing more information with industry and with your states, but all of us are still vulnerable. OBAMA: So this is why, earlier this month, I launched the cyber security national action plan and proposed significant funding to push our cybersecurity efforts in a more aggressive direction. We're going to start a major overhaul of federal computer systems. I want to do more with your states, including sharing more information about threats, improving our joint response capabilities. We have initiated a joint bipartisan commission made up of one of my national security advisers -- former national security advisers, Tom Donilon, joined with the former CEO of IBM so that they can work together to help provide us a sense of direction both at the federal and state levels, as well as the private sector in terms of how we move forward on this. We're going to want your input and I think that we probably have some good ideas about where your vulnerabilities are in terms of your state databases and what you're doing there, so that's an area where I think we can probably work together. 11:36:18 Finally, we all have to remain vigilant when it comes to the spread of disease. Since late last year, my administration has been focused on the threat of Zika. So far, while there is no evidence of Zika transmission from mosquitoes here in the continental United States, there are confirmed cases in Puerto Rico. And as leaders, it's important that we convey very basic facts, including the fact that Zika is not like Ebola. Ebola was primarily spread from human to human. Based on what we know right now, Zika spreads predominately through the bite of certain kind of mosquito that's limited to certain parts of the country. The symptoms are generally very mild. Most folks don't even realize that they have it. But as all of you have read, the possible connection between Zika, birth defects and other serious health problems means that we've got to take precautions, particularly with respect to women who are pregnant or are trying to get pregnant. So we're going to be fighting this disease at every level with every tool at our disposal. I've called -- I've called on Congress to approve about $1.9 billion in emergency funding for efforts at home and abroad, including research into better diagnostic tools, new vaccines, improved methods to -- of mosquito control and support for Puerto Rico and territories where there are confirmed cases. And we're going to launching an aggressive coordinated campaign with the NGA to stop Zika at the source and keep Americans healthy. I hope each of you join us, especially if you are in some of the southern states where the risk of transmission may be higher. So fighting terrorism and gun violence, combating cyber attacks and cyber threats, guarding against the outbreak of disease, these are some areas where there shouldn't be any dispute, we've got to be working together to keep our country safe and strong. I look forward to the partnership with the NGA and each and every one of you in all of these areas. 11:38:13 I should point out that one of the things I'm proudest of over the course of the last seven years is that the federal coordination with state and local governments with respect to disaster response I think has been extraordinary. You know, I'm really proud of the work that Craig Fugate and FEMA has done and I think that that kind of model of partnership across many of these threats is exactly what's needed to give the American people the confidence that government's on their side when they need it most. All right. So with that, I'm going to take some questions and I'm going to start with your chairman, Governor Herbert. You can use the microphone. 11:38:56 HERBERT: Well, thank you, Mr. President. We, again, are appreciative of your willingness to let us come and -- and talk with you about the vice president about issues that are near and dear to us as governors and near and dear to us as an association of the NGA. I'm struck by the ability we have had to have cordial relations with your cabinet. I want to complement your -- your people there. In fact, one of them talked about the importance of communication and used the term cooperative federalism as really a way for us to get things done better in a collaborative fashion between the states and the federal government. I'll just mention one that comes to my mind, and that's working with your Department of Interior -- Sally Jewell -- secretary. During the federal shutdown, we were able to work together, communicate and collaborate, and open up the five national parks in Utah to the benefit of the people of Utah and Americans and people -- really world travelers overall. So again, an effort of communication and cooperation, which I think is a great success. HERBERT: I do harken back to a failure, maybe an epic failure, a lack of communication on a previous administration where a national monument was designated in Utah, larger than the state of Delaware, 2.5 times larger than Rhode Island. (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) (LAUGHTER) HERBERT: Still, still -- the vice president made a little... OBAMA: Where's Jack (ph)? HERBERT: Yeah, yeah. At any rate, the problem was that Governor Mike Leavitt and -- found out about that designation by reading The Washington Post. That was the other side of the coin of not good communication. I expect all of the governors have got successes and probably where we can do better. And so, my question to you, Mr. President, really is in the effort of the National Governors Association. What can we do, as an NGA, as states, to communicate better with the federal government? And what can a federal government do better to communicate with the states, so that we have this spirit of cooperation? And really, this should -- should go post-us. We'll all ride off into the sunset some time. But it would be nice if we have some kind of institutional process to make sure that we work together in a collaborative fashion, communicate better, and have better outcomes on behalf of the American people. 11:41:23 OBAMA: Good. Well, first of all, I think the NGA generally has been a terrific partner for us. I hope you feel the same way. My instructions to my cabinet, to my secretaries, have always been that we have certain laws, statutes, mandates that we have to abide by. We have certain policies that we care deeply about. But my instructions to them have been, "You check with the governors and the localities that are being impacted, and if they have ideas about how to achieve the mission in a more flexible, sensible way, and we have got that flexibility, we should exercise it." And that has been my consistent message, and I think many of you have benefited from those kinds of interactions. What I do is, Gary, throw the question back at you, not for today, but maybe one of the projects we can do jointly together, is sort of do an inventory -- what has worked and what hasn't, institutionally, in terms of communication? Where have been -- there are areas where governors are concerned that they have not gotten the heads-up fast enough? Where are the areas where communication has been strong? And let's see if we could improve that communication. But my overall impression has been communication with the cabinet secretaries has been good. 11:42:53 I think our Intergovernmental Affairs Office has tried to be very active. There may be additional things we can do to improve that. And I would be happy to hear ideas from your side about what could be done. I will tell you probably where there is the biggest gap in communications has to do with our interactions with governors versus our interactions with your congressional delegations. That is where, oftentimes, things converge. So, we will have a conversation with governors, and they will identify a priority, we work out some approach to get something done, and then it turns out the congressional delegations have an entirely different idea. And you know, the biggest example would be on transportation, for example, where Anthony Foxx probably traveled to every single one of your states, talked -- and before that, Ray LaHood talked about things that needed to get done. Everybody was excited about getting them done, but we just couldn't get Congress to move. And so, one of the things that I would think would be interesting as we explore better communications, is how do we maybe create a triangle where we have some interaction with states, states governors, and congressional delegation at the same time? Now, sometimes, that is difficult, because there have different parties, maybe different political agendas. Sometimes, though, there may be commonality and it is a matter of closing the loop, so that Congressional staff know what the governors' staff is saying, know what our staff is saying. (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) 11:44:34 OBAMA: Just assign the Congress to them, generally. (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: Well, they have got their own legislatures. I know that -- I know that they enjoy those interactions tremendously. Next, Terry McAuliffe. Where is Terry? There he is. MCAULIFFE: Thank you, Mr. President. Let me first -- great night last night. Thank you on behalf of all of the governors.(APPLAUSE) 11:44:59 MCAULIFFE: Chaka Khan. I've been listening to her for 40 years. OBAMA: That -- that was -- that was Michelle, basically, that put that together. I tried to take credit last night, and nobody believed me. (LAUGHTER) And rightly so. MCAULIFFE: Well, let me just say that we just finished, Mr. President, four great days of the Governors Association with the great leadership of Gary, but we me -- Gary and I met with your team, Jerry, about six weeks ago, and Valerie. We laid out what we needed. Your administration gave us everything we needed. We had the secure briefing at the FBI, so let me just say this. This has been a great meeting. On behalf of all the governors here, let's give a round of applause to the administration and the great work that they did. Thank you very much. (APPLAUSE) We're here from 50 states, different political parties, we all have different interests in our states, but one issue that brings a lot of us together is the issue of trade. It is a global economy that we have today, many of us do international trade trips. I've done 13 in my first two years. I just got asked from the Middle East and from Cuba. Ninety-five percent of the world's customers live outside of America; 81 percent of the growth in the next five years will occur outside America. Trade is critical to grow our economies, so Mr. President, could you give us an update on the trade policy, where the legislation is, and most importantly, what can we do to help you push trade with the Congress? Thank you. 11:46:22 OBAMA: Well, I appreciate -- appreciate that question, Terry, and Governor Herbert and I were talking about this a little bit yesterday. When I visited Utah, you told me how much of Utah's economy depends on exports and international trade. And that's true for so many of us. Now, maybe the way to answer this is to give sort of a broad overview of how I think the politics have shaped the narrative around trade and then let me give you some of the facts and what's going on with TTP. Over our lifetimes, and certainly accelerated over the last 25, 30 years, this has become a global economy and not a national economy. The global supply train, distribution, the fact that a company can set up house anywhere where there is an Internet service, the fact at these big cargo containers can ship things more efficiently than ever before, the logistical hubs and speed with which they can move goods and services around the world, all of this has created a global marketplace. The good news is that we are best positioned to take this -- take advantage of this global marketplace than anybody else. We've got the best cars, we've got the best businesses, we've the best technology, the best innovation, we've got the best workers. 11:47:59 We are a free market, dynamic economy like nobody else. The challenge is that there have been disruptions as a consequence of that global trade. There's no doubt about it. And in every one of your states, there have been times where somebody has been affected, and not all the trade deals in the past were designed just to look out for workers. There were times where it was good for consumers, it was good for the businesses that may have found lower wages. But it wasn't always good for those communities that had big plants, particularly in manufacturing, that got shipped overseas. And that's made people suspicious about trade, and understandably so. You know, on the one hand, people benefit from low prices and low inflation and the degree to which globalization has given people access to more products, lower prices than ever before. That's something that people maybe take for granted. But what they see very directly oftentimes around trade is that this plant closed, you used to be able to walk in even without a college education and get a job. If you worked hard, you'd have a middle-class life with benefits and health care and could take care of your family, and now, those jobs have contracted. So that's the prism through which a lot of folks have been looking at trade. And I understand and am sympathetic because I've seen this in my own home state, of why people are suspicious. 11:49:47 But if you look at what's happened over the last seven years since I came into office, first of all, exports drove the early part of this recovery That was true in every state and in almost every sector. If you're an agricultural state, the ag community was making out great for the vast majority of this administration because of exports. OBAMA: The second thing that happened was we actually rebuilt manufacturing and started bringing manufacturing jobs back here, because what folks started to figure out was, U.S. workers have become so competitive, and we remain such a significant marketplace, and our energy costs here are low, that it makes sense often times to locate here, even if you're paying a higher wage, because net and net, it's gonna be more profitable. So we have created more manufacturing jobs than at any time since the 1990's, despite an open trade regime. 11:50:43 And it is because of my confidence in our ability to compete, and the fact that we have no choice but to compete, that we said, where's the -- where's the next big market where folks are selling us goods, but we're not able to sell them goods? And we looked at the Asia-Pacific region that is the fastest growing, most dynamic, youngest population in the world, and where, invariably, economic activity is going to be driving much of the world economy for decades to come. And our concern there was that China was the 800-pound gorilla. And if we allowed them to set trade rules out there, American businesses and American workers were gonna be cut out. And if we got in there and we set the terms of trade, making sure there were high labor standards, making sure that there were high environmental standards, making sure that intellectual property was protected, making sure that the things that we do well were protected, and that those countries that are selling to us right now, but are keeping our goods out lower those barriers. If we did all those things, then it would be an improvement for American businesses and American workers, and we would know that we would be able to compete in those areas for years to come. So we got TPP done. Mr. Michael Froman is here. He can -- if he hasn't already, he will brief you on every paragraph, every comma, every "T" that's crossed and "i" that's dotted on the agreement. 11:52:29 But the bottom line is this. It is, I believe, indisputable that, once we have TPP in place, we, American companies and American workers, will be better off than the existing trade regime that we have right now. I mean, I'll just give you a very simple example. Right now, there are 18,000 tariffs -- taxes, essentially -- on American goods and services that would all be eliminated. So if you're -- you got a rancher in Colorado, they can sell beef to Japan in ways that they cannot do right now, and that is a huge market for them. If you are interested in selling cars in Southeast Asia, right now, often times, they're gonna slap a 70 percent tax on the value of the car, which means you're not competitive. We're gonna bring those down. Nobody has described for me -- none of the critics of this trade regime -- trade deal have described for me how we're better off with the current status quo, where those folks are all keeping tariffs high, than we would be with TPP. What they argue against is old trade deals, and I keep on explaining to them, look, I can't do anything about what may have happened 40, 30 years ago. But I can do something about what's going on right now. And by the way, because Mexico and Canada are signatories to this deal, it actually does strengthen labor and environmental protections within NAFTA, which previously had been one of the main complaints of critics. Now, having said all that, the emotions around trade are still strong. Labor unions, and I am a big labor guy, you know -- they're not happy with me on this. They disagree with me, because they have memories of this weakening the manufacturing base in America. And no matter how much I indicate that the facts show this will improve the position of American workers, and we will slowly raise labor standards overseas as a consequence, they are -- they're adamant in their opposition. OBAMA: Which means that we have -- in order to get this passed through Congress, have to depend on a set of strong, pro-trade Democrats who recognize the importance of trade to their economies and their membership -- their constituencies, and Republicans who, historically, at least, have been in favor of the free market and in favor of trade. I am cautiously optimistic that we can still get it done. Leader McConnell and Speaker Ryan both have been supportive of this trade deal. They have had some concerns along the margins of the trade deal. You know, I'll just give you one example with respect to tobacco. We said very explicitly in this trade deal that any country that regulates tobacco is not somehow violating trade agreements, as long as it is done fairly, as long as they're not discriminating against Americans tobacco companies versus their own or those of other countries. 11:55:51 But as a public health matter, they can regulate tobacco. That raises some sensitivities in Kentucky. So you know, there are those kinds of issues, but overall, they have been supportive. The presidential campaigns have created some noise within and -- and -- and roiled things a little bit within the Republican Party, as well as the Democratic Party around this issue. I think we should just have a good, solid, healthy debate about it. We're going to sign to enter this -- enter this agreement, present it formally with some sort of implementation documents to Congress at some point this year and my hope is that we can get votes. What Congress can do -- what all of you can do to -- to help is to talk to your congressional delegations and let them know this is really important. It is inconceivable, if, for example, you are in California, that you don't want a Trans-Pacific Partnership that ensures the gateway for commerce in the Pacific is open to California businesses and workers for decades to come. It's inconceivable that you would be opposed to that. I mean, we've got longshoremen in California who are opposed to that. I said, "Where do you think your jobs come from?" It's from moving stuff off those containers, onto trucks and rail, just fan out all across the country. This creates jobs for you. But that gives you some sense of some of the emotions that I think are sometimes blocking this up. All of you, though, can really lift up the benefits for your states and talk to your congressional delegations directly. Talk to your businesses, by the way, because they will tell you how important this is to them. Alright. Who else have we got? 11:57:56 MEAD: Mr. President, Matt Mead from Wyoming. A great celebration is going on this year, it's the 100th anniversary of the National Park Service. And as the state with the first national park, we're very proud this -- great opportunity for the country to celebrate parks and what they bring not only to our nation, but to the world. OBAMA: You've got some pretty nice ones. MEAD: Well, you could even say the best, if really you wanted to. (LAUGHTER) OBAMA: I wasn't -- I wasn't going to go there, but they're really nice. I've got to... MEAD: Just interested in accuracy, Mr. President. But anyway, Mr. President, thank you for last night. We all enjoyed that. So I'm chair of the Natural Resources Committee for the National Governors Association and we had a good meeting this week. There was discussion and certainly we don't all agree as governors in terms of sort of national -- national energy policy and where we should go. As you know, we are a big mineral state in Wyoming and there's other mineral states here as well. And I know you've addressed climate change and we may have different points of view on that, but it does seem, from -- from my perspective that if the concern is fossil fuels, we have to continue to invest in R&D to say listen, it is real. I mean, coal produces 40 percent of electricity in this country. If it's -- if that's the concern, let's work to clean it up. We appreciate the work of the secretary of energy in doing that. We now see, though, a five percent reduction in R&D in terms of where that may go. And at least from our standpoint, we're investing in R&D in our state on how to make improvements in coal and other energy resources, and so I think from the National Governors' perspective, is there -- what is the long-term view in how we make things better better where we have areas of concerns? Thank you, Mr. President. 11:59:46 OBAMA: Sure. Well, I appreciate the constructive conversations that have taken place between the NGA and the energy producing states. Number one, climate change is real. The science is clear. We can debate how we approach the problem, but we can't debate the science. I just have to be very clear about that. At least, you know, the analogy I have used is that if you went to a doctor and he said, "You have got a disease," and you said, you wanted a second opinion. The second doctor said you have the disease. You went to 100 doctors, and 99 of them said you had the disease. At a certain point, you would say, "I have got to do something about this." And that, essentially, is the situation with respect to climate change -- 99 percent of scientists are saying this is a really serious problem. Not a sort of, kind of, maybe off in the distant future problem, this is a problem that is going to get worse in the lifetime of our children and grandchildren, and there is such a thing as being too late on this. Because if you start getting into a feedback loop, where fundamental weather patterns and ocean temperatures are changing, we can't reverse it. And the effects will be profound. So, that is point number one. Point number two is, in order to grow the economy, we have got to have energy. And economic growth remains a top priority for Democrats and Republicans alike, and every governor and every president. Whoever takes my place, they are going to want to grow the economy. And by the way, that is true internationally. In fact, there are countries like India where it is even more desperate. They do not have electricity, they have got to visit in order to develop. And if we are not giving them options, if the only message we have for them is, "Stay poor," we're not going to solve the problem. So, this is not an either/or issue. We have got to grow the economy, which means we have got to produce energy and we've got to deal with climate change. 12:02:10 The good news is that technology and research and development are accelerating rapidly, and because of the Paris agreement that we struck, you are going to see more investment from the private sector -- not just governmental sectors -- and that is going to accelerate progress even more. You take an example like solar. When I came to office, we set goals we thought were really ambitious. And the amount of solar energy that is being produced now and the unit costs dropping faster than any of us imagined means that we could be on a path where a huge portion of our energy needs can readily be provided through renewable energy, clean energy, much faster than any of us would have anticipated even a few years earlier. Now, with respect to those states that continue to have a significant, traditional fossil fuel extractive set of industries, number one, we have not discouraged, we've encouraged production. Throughout my presidency, oil and gas production have gone up significantly. We have put ourselves in a position, because of new technologies, to produce more than ever before and that has changed the geopolitical landscape. We have -- you know, Sally Jewell, I think has been -- and prior to her, Ken Salazar, have tried to be very flexible in thinking about how do we continue to meet our energy needs. We haven't shut down energy production outside of very sensitive areas that are of significant concern. 12:04:07 The main shift that has taken place is, because the U.S. production has been so high, prices have plummeted, and that has changed the equation for private sector companies. That is a global price issue. And the second thing that has changed, frankly, is natural gas starts supplanting coal, because it came so cheap, and that hurt coal industries. Now, having said that, I continue to believe that there are areas of research and development that have to be done, because we are going to continue to use fossil fuels for our lifetime. Those aren't going to immediately go away. And certainly, they will be used in other countries. OBAMA: And if we can figure out how to make those cleaner, that helps all of us. I want India and China to know how to use clean coal, because they're going to be building coal plants anyway. And I -- if we've got technology that can help make sure that it is not emitting huge amounts of carbon, all the better. So historically, since I've come into office, we have invested in technologies to capture carbon from coal-fired plants. The technologies are there, the problem is that they're just really expensive right now. And so given relative prices to natural gas and other options, they haven't been deployed. 12:05:30 We are going to continue to invest in trying to bring those costs down, but frankly, in this marketplace, it may be a while before it is economical for anybody to imagine wanting to use that. Ironically, what would actually accelerate clean coal technology, so-called clean coal technology, would be the work that we did in Paris to restrict the amount of carbon that's being produced. You know, that means that it starts becoming more expensive to generate carbon and there's greater incentive, then to -- for private sector dollars as well as public money to go into researching how do we capture coal. Similarly when it comes to oil and gas, you know, a lot of methane is generated from the extraction of oil and gas, you know, and we want to invest in research that helps us figure out how to reduce the methane that also causes climate change. 12:06:30 So my goal is to increase, overall, research and development dollars in energy, in the energy sector. We underinvest as a nation relative to, for example, our expenditures on health care research. I'm all for that. We've got our cancer moonshot and we're significantly increasing our investment in medical research. But we should be doing the exact same thing on energy. How it's allocated is something that probably I'll make sure that Ernie meets with your governors to talk about. But I want to be honest with you. If those states with extractive industries are not currently preparing for the fact that the energy mix is going to continue to change over time, you're probably doing a disservice to your constituencies. And what we should be doing at the federal government level is helping maximize your production, minimizing your pollution, but also preparing you for the fact that 20 or 30 years from now, there is going to be a higher mix of clean energy and a lower mix of traditional fossil fuels. That is almost inevitable. Even if -- even if there's somebody in this seat, in this White House who disagrees with me on all of this stuff, it's still going to happen just because of trend lines internationally, and we should prepare ourselves for that. All right, yeah. 12:08:38 DAYTON: Mr. President, I've had the chance to speak with you before about the -- appreciate the chance to speak with you before about the impact of China's dumping on Minnesota's iron ore, and thank you again for sending your chief of staff up to meet there. As I've talked with other governors here this weekend, the impact of China's exports and dumping have been affecting a lot of other industries too, and I'm wondering if it's -- you know, given your emphasis on free trade -- and you're right about that -- if there's also a way that you can be more aggressive preventing China from doing what it's doing? 12:08:49 OBAMA: Well, first of all, the good news is we've been more aggressive than previous administrations when it comes to bringing enforcement actions, and, you know, this is an area where even the steelworkers, as much as they may object to TPP, would acknowledge we've done a lot on this front. The other piece of good news is that we actually had a companion bill to our trade promotion authority that just passed the House and the Senate and that I'm getting prepared to sign, that will give us additional tools for enforcement. More resources, more personnel allows us to take more aggressive actions. OBAMA: So you're going to see firm, tough enforcement of our existing trade laws. What is important is that we don't get confused by thinking that we should close off trade as an enforcement tool because that is not possible. What is possible is making sure that everyone's playing on a level playing field and that people are operating fairly. And frankly, I don't -- I don't think it's any secret that China, in the past, has not always operated fairly. They are now in a process where they're trying to transition their economic model. They recognize that they can't forever sustain an export-driven growth model. But it's gonna take some time, and it's tempting for them to solve short-term problems by just dumping a bunch of state-subsidized goods into the U.S. market. And we've been very clear with them about the fact that that's not gonna work. We're gonna put in place tools to make sure it doesn't work. This is similar to the issue of currency manipulation. In the past, there has been currency manipulation by the Chinese. Right now, frankly, their interventions to prop up their -- their currency, rather than to devalue it, because a lot of people have been nervous about the Chinese economy -- but we've said to them, you've gotta have an orderly, market-based currency system that's not designed to advantage your companies over ours. And we are consistently pushing them very hard on that, and we've got some new tools to make progress on that, thanks to the bill that was just passed. Yeah, Governor Hogan? 12:11:52 HOGAN: Thank you, Mr. President. First of all, as your next-door neighbor in Maryland, thank you again for the hospitality. And on a personal note, I want to thank you for you personally reaching out when I was going through my cancer bout. It meant an awful lot to me. I'm the chairman of the Economic Development and Commerce Committee for the NGA, and we had a terrific meeting on Saturday. I, unfortunately, was not in attendance, because we had a funeral for one of our fallen law enforcement officers that -- killed in the line of duty. But Governor Tomblin from West Virginia did a terrific job running the meeting. He's the vice chair. There was a lot of terrific discussions that came out of that, a lot of agreement between the governors, a lot of bipartisan corporation and people focused on a number of important issues. One of them was regulatory reform, something that we're doing in Maryland and finding a lot of bipartisan support on. I think there are Democratic and Republican governors who believe that this is important to help us grow businesses and grow jobs. And I -- I believe it's something that you feel is important. And I remember, last year when we had our meeting, you talked about that as well. So my question for you is, would you be willing to commit to have the administration work with the RGA -- with a task force on taking a look at this regulatory review at the federal, state, and local level? 12:13:04 OBAMA: Absolutely, although I think you said RGA and I assume you meant NGA... (CROSSTALK) (LAUGHTER) HOGAN: I was talking about bipartisanship, and then said RGA. That was a dumb mistake. OBAMA: I'll -- I was about to say. I mean, you just cut out your Democratic brethren here. But just -- just a quick word about regulation. And this, I think, reiterates something that I've said in the past. There are some regulations we have put forward that some of you don't like. More commonly, there are regulations that we are obliged to enforce. They didn't -- they didn't just pop out of our heads, but we -- we have to enforce them, and you don't like them. There are some regulations I don't like, that I think are hugely inefficient, or were well-intended, but prove not to work well. Or just the economy's changed. I mean, my favorite example was there were a bunch of rules around rail, right, or trucks, where they didn't account for the fact that there's GPS now. And so what I have done is assigned my cabinet and the Office of Management and Budget -- OMB -- to work vigorously, not only to scrub new regulations we may be proposing, but to look back and see what are the old ones on the books that don't make sense anymore. The good news is we've made some progress. We don't get a lot of credit for that, because -- you know, it's sort of the dog that doesn't bark. If we get rid of wasteful regulations, we don't get a lot of applause for it. OBAMA: But we have eliminated tons of paperwork. We have eliminated tons of forms that have to be filled out. We have streamlined a whole lot of processes, and we're interested in doing more. And this is an area, during the next year, where we've got room to do more because we don't need Congress on a lot of this stuff to do it. 12:15:21 So I am very much in favor of the NGA give us a list of those regulatory actions or constraints that you find most troublesome, most illogical, most frustrating, and I can't guarantee you that we will be able to eliminate all of those regulations. Some of those maybe statutory, we've got no choice, even though we agree with you. Some of them, we may just not agree with you. I mean, there are going to be some environmental regulations where some governors think this is inconvenient, it's impeding development, and we're going to say well, you know, this is protecting children's health, for example. So there are going to be some -- some areas of disagreement. My suspicion is there are going to be some areas where we really welcome your advice and we'll do everything we can to see if we can strike some of these ineffective regulations off the books before we get out of here. So I -- I'm very eager to work on you on this. And by the way, if any of you doubt my claim that we have actually eliminated a bunch of regulations, we can give you a whole manual. Shaun Donovan knows because I've charged him with this and prior to that, Mr. Froman and others and Sylvia before she was HHS secretary. They have all been working on this. They know how important I think this is. I do not believe in regulation for regulation's sake, contrary to rumor. I -- this idea that somehow, I get a kick out of big government, it is just not the case. You know, the truth of the matter is if something's working without us being involved, we've got more than enough to do without getting involved in it. We really do. 12:17:18 It's not like I'm waking up every morning thinking, how can I add more work for me? (LAUGHTER) I don't think that way. So -- so if there's something that we can stop doing or do smarter, do better, we're happy to do it. But a lot of times, when folks say this is a bad regulation that's burdening government and not helping anybody, they're just looking at one side of the equation and when you actually subject it to the cost-benefit analysis, it turns out that it's saving a lot of lives, it's keeping a lot of people out of the hospital, it's -- you know, it's making a big difference. I should mention, by the way, when I was coming up back in the '80s, when I was a law student, cost-benefit analysis was considered a really radical, conservative idea and this administration has been more vigorous in applying cost-benefit analysis than any prior administration, including the one that just proceeded. I mean, we have been stringent and very tight and our numbers all check out when it comes to the cost and the benefits that we apply to the asses -- even on some of the big regulations you hear about that you don't like, they're not -- they're not issued unless we think the benefits substantially outweigh the costs. And we can -- we have the numbers to prove it. So for those of you who think that I'm just a big government crazy liberal, you know, we're -- we're actually -- we -- we crunch some numbers around here. We take it very seriously. Yes? 12:19:09 SHUMLIN: Mr. President, thank you. I'm always amazed to be in these sessions where you spend so much time with us and your next answer is even more brilliant than the last. So thank you so much for being such a great... OBAMA: He's a Democrat, isn't he? (LAUGHTER) SHUMLIN: A Republican just said that to me. (LAUGHTER) We spoke on Friday (inaudible) about the opiate crisis. I want to give you both an update and ask you a question. I think that we are probably united in making real progress across America, governors, congress folks, certainly you and your administration are helping us to fight this battle. SHUMLIN: And as someone who was on the front lines of this pretty early, you know, I think much like your frustration with the gun challenges, where you're constantly consoling moms and dads and parents, we had at our Health and Welfare Committee, which is chaired by Governor Baker and Governor Hassan, we heard from another mom who lost her son. There was someone there who told me that they had -- in their state, one of our governors had a family lose their. son and their daughter. So, I think what we are all trying to do, and frankly, director of the FBI, Loretta Lynch is a huge partner with us in this, is do criminal justice reform, start treating this as a disease and not a crime, get treatment built out as fast as we can. And get Narcan out as fast as we can, so we stop losing lives unnecessarily. Those are three things, I think, we are all doing in some way. I mentioned Friday if -- one of my challenges, and I think other governors', is you build out treatment, and particularly in rural America, we can't get enough docs who are able to meet the demand of our waiting list. So, if we could get physician assists, nurse practitioners to be able to prescribe the recovery drugs, we would all be better off. I mean, as probably know, they can now pass the stuff out, they can, you know, prescribe OxyContin. We do not let them prescribe the stuff to get you get off the OxyContin. But the most important one -- and I just want to get an update. Our committee voted unanimously to adopt protocols on prescribing practices for OxyContin and other painkillers. And I am curious. You know, we can do that as governors. It takes time. It's not -- does not apply to all 50 states. When you look at the numbers on this stuff, it is just staggering. Now, I know you know this. But in 2010, we prescribed enough OxyContin to keep every adult in America high for a month. In 2012, we prescribed enough OxyContin to give a 250 million doses, to give every adult American their own personal bottle. And I guess, I'm asking you if by rule, or with putting pressure on FDA, you might consider a national approach, which simply says, you know, for minor procedures, we're going to limit this to 10 pills, and after that, you have got to come back for more, because there is a direct correlation between the lives we're losing -- the kids are the biggest victims of this. I have got my agency of human services struggling to come up with enough foster kids, as we put more and more kids into custody, because their parents do horrid, horrid things to them when they are under the influence of this stuff. It is such an epidemic. You know, and if this was -- we are losing 130 people a day. If this was -- imagine that we were losing 130 people per day in America to terrorism. I mean, you know, we have got to come up with a more rational approach to prescribing prescription drugs. The -- to be candid, the docs, the AMA are resistant to listening to politicians like us, talking about how many pills to prescribed. But is there something you could do, on a national level, that would help us get out of this tragic mess? OBAMA: OK. Well, first of all, I appreciate the work that Governor Baker, and Governor Hassan, and you and others are doing on this. As all of you know, you know, I went down to West Virginia and had an entire hearing on this. And you know, the stories you hear are heartbreaking. 12:23:23 And what was striking was the number of high-ranking elected officials in the state whose own families had been affected directly by this. And so, the good news is, that there is strong bipartisan support to address the issue. I would be remiss if I did not also say the good news is that the broader society is recognizing the importance of taking a public health approach, as well as a criminalization approach when it comes to drug addiction and abuse generally. Because, I think when it was isolated to certain low-income communities or minority communities, the tendency was jail was a sufficient deterrent or approach. And as it has affected a broader and broader cross-section of America, people start realizing, you know, this is a complicated problem. There has to be a law enforcement element, but there also has to be a public health element to it. I want to thank -- Sylvia Burwell has been at the front lines of this at HHS -- also, by the way, a native West Virginian, so she has seen her own community affected by this. OBAMA: Loretta Lynch has been hugely active in thinking about how does the criminal element of this fit with the public health process. I want to recognize Tom Vilsack as well, though, one of your own as a former governor, who has been outstanding in chairing our rural council. And just two weeks ago, we convened -- Tom convened a meeting in which we said how do we get all hands on deck, all the agencies to focus on this in a comprehensive way. 12:25:24 And my hope is that they start to share with you and your committee what it is that we're looking at. I think there's going to be a lot of overlap. My suspicion is we're going to be seeing the same things. A couple of point I just want to make very quickly. Number one, the most striking statistic that I -- that came out of that meeting -- and I wasn't in the entire meeting -- was that in 85 percent of rural counties in America, there is insufficient or none -- or no drug treatment or mental health treatment available, so part of what's happening here, we talked about this at an earlier meeting, Peter, you know, you've got somebody who works on a farm, gets injured, they don't even have a doctor close by, it takes them two hours to drive, and finally the pain gets so bad they head out there, they get to the doctor, they don't necessarily have health insurance, although they should at this point, depending on what state they're living in -- just a -- just a small comment on the Affordable Care Act... (LAUGHTER) ... and Medicaid expansion. But if they don't have health insurance, they drive out and the doc says, well you know what? You need an operation, you need rotator cuff surgery, you need this, you need that. Doc, I can't afford that, can you just give me something to kill the pain. They get a bottle, they drive off, they get hooked on it and then it turns out that it's a lot cheaper to refill the prescription with heroin on the street than it is to try to manage getting more of these pills. And then folks are off to the races, and what we've seen is that those who are marketing heroin are now tracking where the -- which communities are most vulnerable. 12:27:26 So what we have to do I think is to make a big push for additional treatment and mental health services in rural communities generally, make a big push for public health and prevention in communities generally, and then have a very specific approach to working with the docs, the hospitals, the providers so they are not overprescribing. And that can be done at a national level, but it is most profitably done, I think, if we have bipartisan support from the governors so that by the time it gets to the national level, there is consensus and there's not a lot of politics involved in it. But I guess my point -- the reason I raise the general issues of public health is that if we go to doctors right now and say don't overprescribe without providing some mechanisms for people in these communities to deal with the pain that they have or the issues that they have, then we're not going to solve the problem because the pain is real, the mental illness is real, the -- in some cases, addiction is already there. In some cases, you know, these are underserved communities when it comes to the number of doctors and nurses and practitioners. I agree with you, by the way, that we should be pushing the doctors. This is true for our health-care system generally. Advanced practice nurses and physicians assistants can do more than they currently are allowed to do. And that could save the whole system money but it could also prevent some of the overprescribing that is currently taking place. But we're looking at a comprehensive approach. What I'd suggest -- Cynthia, have you guys already met with the governors task force on this to... (UNKNOWN): (OFF-MIKE) had a chance to... OBAMA: Yeah. But we're all over this and I -- we appreciate your interest. 12:29:39 This is an area where I can get agreement from Bernie Sanders and Mitch McConnell. That doesn't happen that often, but this one, and it indicates the severity of the -- of the issue. All right, yeah.(UNKNOWN): As a non-Democrat, I can't be quite as gratuitous, but I do appreciate the graciousness, the generosity of your time, Mr. President. OBAMA: Thank you. 12:30:00 (UNKNOWN): Quick question -- something that affects each of us as governors individually is debt. It -- it's crippling to some of us, less so to others. Curious as to your thoughts on the debt of this nation and the lack of any political discourse on either side of the aisle in any of the debates on this issue, and what, in the next 10 months, your administration can do to draw attention to this, to address it, to change -- start to change the course of direction that is currently underway? 12:32:06 OBAMA: Well, we're gonna be releasing a budget, so that will be a significant topic of conversation. Maybe I'll just break it out into its component parts. Obviously, the federal government, unlike state governments, does not have in the constitution that at the end of each year it has to balance its budget. I know that there are those in this room who would probably be for the federal government having a balanced budget amendment. I would not be one of those, because, in modern economic history, what is clear is that there has to be some flexibility for the federal government -- the sovereign nation -- to issue debt in order to deal with recession, national emergencies and so on. What is also true is that the way that the federal government keeps the books is different than an ordinary business. A lot of times, people will use a family or a business as an example, but, just to take one instance, the federal government doesn't have a separate accounting for capital expenditures, which -- you know, would then depreciate, and so you'd have a whole another way of doing bookkeeping. There you go. That happens to me all the time. (LAUGHTER) So -- so -- so the analogy is not exactly the same as the federal government versus state governments, or businesses, or families. Now, having said that, the good news is that, since I came into office, we've reduced the deficit by two-thirds. That is a combination of the recovery, which brought in more tax revenue, raising taxes on the top 2 percent, which everybody claimed was gonna be a jobs killer, but we've now had 14 million jobs created, or more, essentially over the last six years. And we've made some cuts in spending, and all of that has led to a two-thirds reduction. And that, our budget will reflect, we will sustain, more or less, in the out-years over the next decade. The real problem that we have when it comes to debt is very simple. It is that our population's getting older, and we use a lot of health care. and health care -- we spend more for less, frankly, than most other advanced nations, partly because we do a lot of emergency room care. Some of it is because we -- you know, overprescribe, we over- test. Some of it is we drive innovation and technology, and people always want the best stuff, but that costs money. Some of it is because -- the accident of how our health care system evolved means that we got private-sector involvement, and they've gotta make a profit, and they've got overhead, and so forth. So there are a whole bunch of reasons, but essentially, we spend about 6 to 8 percent more than our wealthy nation counterparts, per capita, on health care. That delta -- that difference -- is our debt. And that is the reason why, since I came into office, I was interested in reforming health care. It was not just the compassion I felt for people personally being impacted -- getting sick and losing their home, or not being able to get care for their kids, or having to go to the emergency room because of -- of routine issues that should have been dealt with by a primary care physician. It also had to do with the fact that this system is hugely inefficient, and if we don't make it more efficient, then we're not gonna solve our debt problem. OBAMA: So what you'll see reflected, I think, in the budget that I present is we have stabilized what we're adding to it each year in terms of discretionary spending, you know, taxes, revenue, income and -- but what we're going to have to tackle long-term is health care spending. And if we don't do that, then, you know -- we -- we can cut food stamps and we can cut WIC programs and we can cut education programs and you can cut out Head Start. 12:35:39 You can cut out every single discretionary program that Democrats support and a lot of governors -- Republican governors support, but sometimes, members of Congress say are a waste or big government or what have you. You can get rid of all that discretionary spending. It won't matter because the big-ticket item is Medicare, Medicaid, and in the private sector, the big-ticket item, that's where the inflation is is on the health care side. So -- so my hope is is -- is that we get into a serious conversation. 12:36:51 Maybe it'll have to happen once I'm gone because the Affordable Care Act and the debate around health care has gotten so politicized, so toxic that we can't have a sensible conversation about it, despite the fact that I implemented a measure that was passed by a Republican governor, but that's a whole other question. Used -- and we've embraced cost-saving measures that used to be championed by Republican governors and then suddenly now, this is some Obama scheme or plot. But maybe once I'm gone, we can go back to have a sensible conversation between Democrats and Republicans about how we should -- how -- how we should incentivize greater efficiency, better outcomes, higher quality for lower cost in our health care system. And if we do that, that's going to make the biggest difference. The single biggest thing that we were able to do to bring down any additions to the debt since I've been in office was over the last three to four years, we've kept health care inflation at its lowest rate in 50 years since the Affordable Care Act. And because of that, the Medicare Trust Fund, we essentially saved well over $100 billion. I think it was about $160 billion and counting just by making health care more efficient. And by the way, people got just as good or better care. This wasn't done through rationing, it wasn't done through us cutting people out of the program, it just had to do with better delivery. That's part of the reason, buy the way, why I think that Medicaid expansion, where it has been implemented, is smart. It is going to prevent you from having bigger problems down the road that your states are going to have to pay for. I don't expect any of you to agree with me right now, but if you just look at where it's been implement effectively, it's going to save you money over the long-term. It's been done really well in Kentucky, but that's a whole other question. I've got time for one more question or two. I'm going to make it two. Jack? 12:38:34 MARKELL: Mr. President, thank you. On a topic that I know is of significant interest to you and the attorney general talked to us earlier about criminal justice reform. You know, most of our conversation here is always about policy, but I do have one specific thought regarding your convening power, which I have seen play out incredibly well when it comes to some health care issues, as well as some college access issues. We all know that one of the most important predictors regarding the 97 percent of the people who are in our prisons when they come out whether or not they're going to be on a decent path is whether or not they can get a job. And so there's a lot of great work going on around the country, both Democratic and Republican governors alike. The beauty of this is it really is a bipartisan issue. But in addition to all the great policy work is that's being done, one of the most important things I think is getting employers to the table, and this is an issue -- as I was speaking with Valerie last night, an issue I was invited a couple of months ago to New Orleans by the Koch brothers to speak at a conference on criminal justice reform. Never really expected to be invited by the Koch brothers to speak at -- speak at something, but really doing some terrific work. MARKELL: But I do think there really is an opportunity to get employers across the country to the table to recognize the importance of this issue, the fact that a lot of these folks could actually do a good job. And I think if we can move the needle not only on all the policy work but on also getting employers to take a chance on some folks -- a lot of them really very low risk ex-offenders -- we can really make a difference. We can keep them out of prison and contributing. Because I think we all recognize that, you know, there is just no way we as a country, we as any community can be successful when we have so many able- bodied, able-minded people who are staying on the fringes. And we have lots of populations in that category, but I think the ex-offenders is one, specifically, where the White House's convening authority could make a huge difference. OBAMA: OK. Well, I appreciate that, Jack. Let me compliment a number of governors around this table who initiated their own reforms at the state level. 12:40:47 Part of the reason why we have confidence that we can do crime smarter, keep crime rates low, reduce long-term sentences for non- violent offenders is because there are a lot of states that already showed the way, including some very conservative states. I mean, this is an area where, for example, Texas did some really smart stuff. And it has worked. And so, I would urge all of you to take a look at what has been done in -- at the state level, as well as some of the data and the reports that we are generating as we push for federal criminal justice reform. But to your specific point, I was up in Newark to highlight best practices. There was a federal judge there, relatively young woman, district court judge, who had partnered with the local community, the U.S. attorney there. They had gotten a little bit of money out of a tiny little program that we are trying to expand within the Justice Department to make reentry work. 12:42:07 And there was a young man who is there. He was 37 years old, had spent 10 years in prison, had gotten in trouble before that, then finally got nabbed for a serious, though non-violent drug offense. Went to jail for 10 years. And he described what it was like; he had decided he was going to turn his life around. And he gets out, and by lying on his resume, he gets a job at Burger King. And he is dropped off in the same neighborhood that had produced him and had gotten him into this trouble, and so, he is standing there, 27 year old -- or 30 year old man, you know, wearing the Jack in the Box -- I think it was Jack in the Box outfit -- you know, his old gang-banger friends are coming up and saying, "Man," you know, "you are wearing the same shoes you went into jail with," and you know, "you sure you want to keep on doing this for minimum wage?" And he described the temptations that were involved. He couldn't -- he did not have permanent housing. He did not have money for a car. He did not have new cloths. He had no idea how to write a resume. But he wanted to do the right thing. And this program, the federal judge dug into her own pocket and some -- the probation officers were this great team, incredible, really humane, caring folks, helped him get into a community college, helped him study to become an EMT. And by the time I met him, he is like a 37 year-old man who is working for the state as an EMT. Paying taxes, law-abiding, mentoring younger people. And the amount of money that was spent to save this young man was a fraction of what had been -- it cost to incarcerate him. And the likelihood of recidivism has dropped precipitously as a consequence of him having a whole new identity. So, what that tells me is, is that we can be really smart about this, and I'm very proud that there has been bipartisan support around this. I do think that there is a convergence of, you know, liberals, conservatives, evangelicals who have terrific prison missions and believe in redemption; libertarians who are concerned about, you know, the growth of prison populations; the fiscal conservatives who are concerned about how much this all cost. And it is all coming together. 12:45:31 OBAMA: So -- but the last point I will make is this is the role of employers. There was, at this same roundtable, this young man, who'd had a family business for years. And for years, they had hired ex-offenders, very quietly, not as a systematic thing. They -- it was -- it was a produce and -- and meat wholesaler, and they'd hire guys in. And so this kid, who's now running the company -- this young man who had inherited the company, he described how, when he was growing up, you know, there'd always be some big guys around, that he just took for granted. And -- turned out that his dad had hired them as -- as ex- offenders. And he described how important it was to understand the -- the mentality of somebody who has never had an opportunity to work before in a -- in a -- in a regular setting. Simple things, like under -- the employer has to understand that they may not smile right off of the bat, because where they've just come from, if you smile, you don't know what might happen to you. And so there's a whole adjustment process in terms of letting your guard down. You know, talking about how the employer has to make an investment, and say, look, you -- you need the right kind of shoes, and you need the -- the right -- you know, clothes for the -- for the cooler. And we're gonna take this out of your check, but if you're here for six months, we'll -- you know, we'll -- we'll pay for it. Just all the steps that are taken. And when an employer ends up being committed like that, what they've discovered is that they will not have a more loyal employee who will go to bat for them, work harder, be more productive, because they've been given a second chance. And so us getting a critical mass of employers who are willing to give that second chance, I think, has to be part of this whole process. 12:46:52 All right. Last question. Go ahead -- my host for my outstanding Alaska trip. Those of you who have not gone to Alaska, I strongly recommend you go, because it was gorgeous up there. Now, I did go there in the summer. I don't know what it's like during the winter. It's a little cold. 12:47:08 WALKER: It's even nicer in the winter. It's even nicer in the winter. OBAMA: That's what I hear. WALKER: I -- I just want to quickly thank you and your administration for what you've done in Alaska the -- during -- I've been governor for one year. Every -- every cabinet member here, I have met with so many times -- some more than I've wanted to -- than they've wanted to. They've been to Alaska. Secretary Moniz -- we had lunch in Bethel last week, and went out to the village of Oscarville. Mr. President, Alaska was so excited about your unprecedented trip. We get a lot of business with people that are refueling, and you didn't -- you didn't refuel, but you stayed there and came back. That was your destination. What -- what you did with rural Alaska, we've never seen before. You brought a -- a hope and excitement there that -- that -- and I'm saying -- I'm -- I'm -- I'm nonpartisan. I can -- I can do this. I mean, I'm not -- I'm not -- I'm the only nonpartisan governor in the nation. So I don't have to worry about if I'm picking sides on -- on one or the other. You are as (ph) well. But my -- my question is, I -- I just -- I'm going to continue to work with your administration, because the door's always open. We don't always agree. We have a problem. I inherited a similar situation -- I've got a deficit that is -- that is huge. A $4 billion deficit with a $5.6 billion budget. We're -- we got problems. We have an oil pipeline that's empty. I need to fill it up. There's a lot of -- a lot of oil up there, and we're going to get it safely, and -- and thank you for your -- some of the positions you've taken, but we need to put oil in that pipeline. We need access to 1 percent of our national park to be able to do that. So I'm gonna continue to work with your administration on Medicaid expansion. Put -- get -- I accepted it unilaterally, after the legislature didn't -- didn't approve -- or didn't -- didn't vote. Ten thousand more people have health care, and one law firm has more work, because they sued me as a result of that. But that's OK. That's another story. (LAUGHTER) But thank you very much for -- for what you've done. Thank you. OBAMA: I appreciate that, and I mean what I say. The -- you know, Bill's hospitality up in Alaska was extraordinary. It is -- it fills up your soul, being up there -- just the landscape and the expanse -- the sheer scale of everything is remarkable, and the people could not have been more gracious and wonderful. You know, this goes back to the issue we had talked about earlier, in terms of energy. You know, we have encouraged exploration in some areas. There are some areas that are just real sensitive. And one of the ironies when I -- you're up in Alaska -- and I mean this sincerely -- it shows you that everybody can be two minds about this. I'd have some people say, in the same breath, "protect this beauty and scenic areas and make sure that nobody's polluting it," and then, "oh, and by the way -- you know, let's get going on some oil drilling" at the same time. 12:50:06 OBAMA: And our goal has been to try to balance those equities, and to make sure that economic development's taking place in Alaska, that folks are being well served, but that we're also p And I appreciate what you said, though, Bill. We -- we are always going to work with all of you and we will put all our cards on the table. My instructions to my Cabinet are, listen, if you can find a way to make something work, make it work. If you can't, at least explain why it is you can't. Make sure that it's not just because that's how we've always done things. I don't care how we've always done it in the past, if we can do it smarter this time, let's do it smarter this time. And as a consequence, we've made significant progress with many of you on a number of issues. We can make even more over the next year. And since this will be the last meeting in which I am addressing all of you, I just want to thank all of you for your service. reserving the very thing that makes that place so unique and people care about it so deeply. 12:51:08 Part of the reason we invited the cameras here -- usually, when I have Q&A with anybody, we try to restrict the press just so the people feel open and don't feel like if they ask a question, that they have to be guarded about it. But the truth is, after so many years interacting with you, every time we've had a conversation, it's been constructive and useful. I thought it'd actually be useful for the American people to see that the folks in charge aren't always just posturing. They are actually trying to get some work done. You guys are a good model of that and my hope is that -- that seeps into the broader political debates and conversations that we have. The benefit of being a chief executive, being a governor is that you can make as many political arguments as you want, but if the stuff doesn't work, people are going to notice. All of you have taken that to heart, so we appreciate your sacrifice, we appreciate your families' sacrifice and we look toward to making continued progress in the months to come. 12:52:21 For those of you who are not term-limited, good luck. (LAUGHTER) (APPLAUSE)

Police crime scene, yellow tape and numbered ammo shells on street, police, New Orleans Louisiana

Aerial panning LA Opera House Building in downtown LA on a bright sunny day - Stunning Aerials of LA

FTG OF PRESSER, NEWSER, PRESS CONFERENCE W/ NEW JERSEY GOVERNOR PHIL MURPHY TO UPDATE ON CORONAVIRUS / COVID-19 Governor Murphy, Department of Health Commissioner Judith Persichilli, State Epidemiologist Dr. Christina Tan, Department of Health Assistant Commissioner Chris Neuwirth, Attorney General Gurbir Grewal, and State Police Superintendent Colonel Patrick Callahan to Hold Coronavirus Briefing TVU 11 GOV MURPHY CORONAVIRUS PRESSER WPVI [12:06:25] Good afternoon, everyone. Judy, how are you? Nice to see you. Good beer. Well, good afternoon. [12:06:38] We have a lot to get caught up on. Pat Callahan will not and will not speak to me unless I. You were said you were leaving me a note, I thought. [12:06:49] OK. Sorry. [12:06:52] OK, thank you, Pat Callahan will not speak to me unless I say that he has established and we've established a new Web site for folks who want to donate personal protective equipment and God knows we need it email rather. And that is peopIe donations that NJ S.P. dot org PPE donations at NJ, S.P. dot org mind. May I ask, can we add that from going forward to this placard? So that's for peopIe donations. I assume this is Dr. Presidents. I want to give him a particular shout out. He's with us today. He's the former state epidemiologist. He's joined us as an advisor. Dr. Presense, we can't thank you enough for your help. I know you've got your eyes clearly focused on Dr. Tand, who's now in your former seat. So if devil that's. Listen, you've done well, as I say so. Thank you so much for being with us today. I'm honored to be with, as usual, a distinguished group, the health team to my right, the woman who needs no introduction, the commissioner of health, Judy, Persis Kelly to her right, Assistant Commissioner Chris Neuvirth into his right as the aforementioned Dr. Christina, 10, who is our state's epidemiologist. [12:08:15] Immediately to my left. I don't know where we'd be without him. The Attorney General, Gorbier, Great Wall to his left and another guy who's indispensable, the director of Homeland Security. Jared Maples. And to his left, the aforementioned superintendent of state police, Colonel Pat Callahan. [12:08:33] Let's get right at it. I want to thank the overwhelming number of New Jerseyans who are heeding our call to stay home unless they are needed for our frontline response efforts. I cannot say it enough. Social distancing works and slowing the spread of Cauvin 19 only happens if we take steps to protect ourselves and others. So when we hear of people hosting parties or other GOOUT gatherings, we will not take it lightly. We will ask law enforcement to cite them for their irresponsible behavior and the attorney general. We'll have more on that in a few minutes. And before I continue to all school districts, we have received your questions. We continue to receive them. And we need you to continue your food service operations and to provide meals to the students who need them. The reality is that schools will likely we've not made an official decision, but they were overwhelmingly likely remain closed for a long and extended period of time. And we must ensure that every student is taken care of. There is an enormous amount going on, as you can imagine. We had our pre call earlier. I've been on with members of Congress to try to get a sense of where things stand both on the House side. [12:09:52] But frankly, even more importantly on the Senate side, Senator Menendez and I had a conversation. We've been in touch with Minority Leader Schumer's office. We continue to watch that very, very closely. And among other things, to beat the drum again, we are desperate for direct state cash assistance. I mentioned this before, but Governor Cuomo, Governor Wolf. Governor Lamont and I believe our region alone is in need of something like 100 billion dollars. That is essential. Again, think of this. We are at the frontlines. We're at the point of attack with folks who are sick and need health care, in some cases hospitalization with workers who have lost their jobs, with small businesses, in particular businesses of all shapes and sizes that have impacted. We need to continue to work to do our job. And in order to do so, we need the federal government to come in with a big bucket of money to help us all. Allow us to continue to do that. And so we're very anxious to see where the congressional road takes as we have been weighing in aggressively, not just with our own delegation, but beyond as well as with other governors. We are doing this at noon today because we have a video call at 2:00 p.m. with the president, vise president and their teams. That's the weekly Monday call. Again, I think we flipped it today. I just got off a call with the executive board of the AFL CIO in New Jersey, both to update brothers and sisters in labor as to the Corona fight, as well as to take some questions. As you all likely know, the AFL CIO is a very broad labor umbrella and it includes everything from bricklayers to retail workers to firefighters and everyone in between, educators, et cetera. So. I want to give them a big shout out, they gave me the opportunity in one compact gathering by telephone to give a sense of where we are. I just got off a one on one call with President Trump, thanked him for help and pleaded on three different fronts. Number one, to reiterate the need for personal protective equipment, I said to the president on the phone with just the two of us. As I've said in our video gathering's, we understand that the Lord helps those that help themselves. And so we're doing everything we can. In New Jersey, led by the likes of Judy and her team and Pat and others who were turning over literally every stone, I mentioned the Web site I'll repeated. Donations that end GSP dot org and GSP is a New Jersey State Police. But we still need a slug of support from the federal government. We got a fraction of our ask. We need a lot more. And we're hearing this all over the state. Secondly, I reiterated that I had hoped the kong. Congressional Road would lead toward a result with a big chunk of direct cash assistance for states. That's too early to know where that comes out. The president did indicate and acknowledged that he knows there were support for that from both sides of the aisle. And we did hear that at the end of the week and over the weekend. Red and blue states agree on this. And then thirdly, after having gotten off a call with Judy and actually this entire team up here, I thanked the president for the particular support out of FEMA region, to which she, by the way, includes our two of our testing sites. And I'll get to that in a minute. But I asked him for his support for four pop up field hospitals that FEMA Region 2 would be the primary federal interface with the president, to his credit, said he would support that and that I should relay that onto FEMA Region 2 leadership, which we have in the intervening very few minutes between that call of being here. We have done that. Judy will go through some either today or in the coming days as to exactly how we see capacity over the next number weeks. But we are clearly going to need these field hospitals. And I want to thank again FEMA region to for their partnership, as well as President Trump personally for his support of that. Since our briefing yesterday, 935 additional positive cases have been identified. That brings our statewide total, Judy, I believe, to two thousand eight hundred and forty four. And as usual, Judy will go through the some of the details associated with that. [12:14:40] As I have said, as we have said, this increase is not a surprise, nor is it necessarily a cause for great alarm to us seated up here. There's clearly community spread going on. And when Judy goes through some of the concentrations by county, you'll see that. But there's also a lot more testing going on. And we've said all along, as the testing regime expands, we're going to see these numbers go up in a big way. And we've been saying now for many days, these will go into the many thousands. And on the one hand, folks that I'm sure will have a reaction, oh, my lord, that's a lot of positives. On the other hand, the more data we have at our disposal, the better, more equipped we are to be able to break the back of this virus as we begin, as I said, more rigorous collection statewide. We are actually, in actuality, getting a clearer and better sense of how far the Corona virus has already spread. We expect, as I said, these numbers to continue to rise as more testing sites open. [12:15:43] And I'm going to say something. I actually out over my skis and I don't ski. So bear with me on this one. [12:15:50] Some of today's numbers may already include early results from Bergen Community College or we don't know yet. We don't know yet. Somebody use the word may still. We just got by the way, we're doing this two hours earlier than normal. And again, want to remind you two things. The earlier we do it, the less comfortable or insight we have as to the data. [12:16:12] And secondly, we continue to have the gap between what the Department of Health knows in terms of the demographics of the people they test versus the increasing scaled operations by the private sector firms. Somebody's going to keep the words in my remarks as prepared, which is today's numbers may include early results from Friday's tests at Burgin Community College. And by the way, in the coming days, we know we'll be adding results not just from there, but from the PNC Arts Banks Arts Center as well as county sites. Additionally, Homeland Security director Jerry Maples to my left in coordination with Commissioner Commissioner Percy Kelly to my immediate right today directed all private labs conducting covered 19 tests to report their results directly to the Department of Health. The centralization of data is critical for us to get desk testing results in real time so we can make further decisions on mitigation in real time. And again, there is that gap that exists. At one level it's understandable, but at a certain point it can't go on. We need that information. So I want to thank the director and the commissioner for that. Sadly, we have seven more covered 19 related deaths to report. And as always, these families, these lost souls are in our prayers. God bless each and every one of them. Again, Judy will provide not only more color on the positive cases, but also on these fatalities. I alluded to this this morning, the drive through testing site at the PNC Bank Arts Center opened at 8 a.m. and it quickly hit capacity. It will reopen at 8:00 a.m. tomorrow and every day, assuming we have the supplies and the manpower and will remain open until daily capacity is met. We urge everyone to please be patient. And we know this has required patients. We've seen the stories. We've heard them directly from folks who have waited in long lines. And please ask you to follow the directions of state and local law enforcement, as well as the brave women and men of the New Jersey National Guard who are on site. Again, I thank each and every one of them. And I express our tremendous gratitude again to FEMA region to for their partnership in getting this site open, as they did with the site of Bergen Community College and also to the Department of Health's teams and all the medical personnel on site. Additionally, and I cannot stress this enough, again, you're not hearing this for the first time. If you are not exhibiting symptoms, if you do not show signs of respiratory illness, you will not be tested. We know there is pent up demand. We get that. We understand that. And we are working as best we can to ensure that the testing resources we have available to us are properly distributed and preserved for residents who are exhibiting symptoms and need to be tested. So please help us out there. Also, I mentioned Union County over the weekend. I want to mention that Hudson County has announced the opening of a testing site for its residents and first responders at Hudson Regional Hospital in Secaucus. I just got a text as I walked in from the CEO of that hospital. This site is open by appointment only to individuals exhibiting systems of respiratory illness. And if you need testing, this is for the Hudson County site. Please call 2 0 1 3 8 8 1 0 9 7. Again, 2 0 1 3 8 8 1 0 9 7. Again, you must be either a Hudson County resident or a first responder working in the county. And you must be exhibiting symptoms. And again, you must call on that particular site for an appointment. Do not just show up. I want to thank the leadership of Hudson County, led by county executive, one of the greats, Tom DAGES. The leadership of Hudson County or Hudson Regional Hospital, part me and Secaucus Mayor Mike gonella and their teams for their partnerships and efforts before I go on and testing in a world of limited resources and manpower. [12:20:25] We're gonna be, by the way, whippin as aggressive on testing as any American state. We'vebeen is out there expanding as we predicted, testing dramatically. We are going to come to a moment sooner than later, I would guess, as it relates to manpower, health care workers in particular, PPE, the actual specimen collecting equipment that is needed to take the intake. We're gonna come to sort of forks in the road between again. Be beyond my pay grade, commissioner. But between resources and manpower dedicated to testing versus resources and man power dedicated to care. And that's a balance we're gonna have to get. Right. And as much as we want to continue to be a leader in testing in our country, the fact of the matter is, in a limited resource world and a limited manpower world, we may have to tilt the machine more toward the care side. As Attorney General Gray Wall has announced today, this morning, I believe certain low level offenders will be released. [12:21:38] Was that this morning to begin the process? Process to start this morning? Offender low level, certain low level offenders will be. Leased from county jails to prevent the spread of coronavirus within our corrections system. This is a prudent measure and all efforts have been made to ensure public safety. The attorney general will address this shortly. I don't know that there's any other American state that's done this. We've got a lot of questions over the weekend on it. And I applaud the attorney general for beginning that process. More on that in a moment. Additionally, this morning, I signed an executive order suspending all elective surgeries or invasive procedures, both medical and dental, effective at 5:00 p.m. this Friday, March 27, 5:00 p.m. this Friday, March 27. No operation that can be safely delayed is determined by a patient's doctor or dentist will be performed after this time. And until further notice, we must take this step. And it doesn't bring us joy to take this step, but we have to to lessen the burden on our health care system and to preserve especially the personal protective gear that our medical responders need and which, as we know, is in short supply, not just in New Jersey, but nationally. I am pleased that the New Jersey Hospital Association, in partnership with the Department of Health, the New Jersey State Police and the Office of Emergency Management are, as we call it, OEM. We'll be centralizing effective, I think immediately the efforts. I believe this is immediate to manage our PPE supplies. OEM at the Rock where I'm headed after this for the video call with the president vise president OEM. We'll be coordinating with the hospital association to maintain an ongoing inventory of statewide PPE supplies to ensure that the individual needs of hospitals are and first responders are being properly and efficiently fulfilled. I think our health care systems for their partnership in sharing their inventory and for their cooperation, as I've said many times, we are all in this together. And that doesn't just mean all nine million of us as residents, but also our various health care networks. So thank you to each and every one of them. And again, Kevin Slavin and I spoke about this over the weekend and I want to give him as its chair of the association and particularly Shadow. I know you'd want to add Kathy Bennett to that list as well. The Diabetes Foundation has also opened a hotline for individuals living with all types of diabetes to receive a free backup emergency kit. Anyone needing an emergency backup kit can apply to receive one by visiting Diabetes Foundation Inc. Dot org. That's Diabetes Foundation Inc. Dot org or calling 9 7 3 8 4 9 5 2 3 4. Again, Diabetes Foundation Inc. Dot org and 9 7 3 8 4 9 5 2 3 4. I thank both the Diabetes Foundation it as well as its corporate partners. And again, the signs of corporate goodwill are everywhere in this case. Becton, Dickinson, Novo Nordisk. Essentially a diabetes care are Krey List pharmacy and in Sara Shoprite supermarkets for their efforts. I also had a very good call with the president of my former employer, Goldman Sachs, who maintains a significant presidents and Jersey presence in Jersey City. And they've got some important equipment and supplies they're looking to donate. And I give them a shout out as well. Again, it's all about our entire New Jersey families. Also, while we know that many New Jersey residents are currently working from home, we are definitely aware of those who are currently out of work because of our efforts to promote social distancing. And again, we were presented with two choices from the get go. Again, we started meeting on this in January. On the one hand, let this virus run its course. No social distancing. Ultimately, a lot of people will lose their lives and a lot of sick people and our economy will be cratered. That's one choice. The other choice is to get out ahead of this as best we can to aggressively enforce, implement and enforce social distancing. We will take short term enormous economic pain, but we are ripping the bandage off, as it were, and God willing, as a result, lessening the amount of fatalities and sickness. At the end of the day, we chose affirmatively, unanimously to take door number two and we continue to do that. But that does not come without a price. So we understand that. Now, for those who are out of work, I want to make sure that they are listening in particular. At the same time, critical businesses remain open and some of them are desperately seeking people to help them on the frontlines of our response by art. Ali, there are more than 8000 available jobs, including grocery workers, warehouse and manufacturing, distribution personnel and many others. The Department of Labor and the Economic Development Authority have partnered to create a single page where anyone willing to pitch in and work to help us respond to this emergency can find and apply for one of those jobs. That site is live and available through a link on our information portal. Again, I want to repeat this. This is the sort of central repository covered 19 dot and jay dot gov co vid, 19 dot nj dot gov. Finally, I know that many New Jerseyans have been reaching out to state offices for answers to questions or to apply for necessary benefits. We know this can be frustrating given longer than usual wait times or down online systems because of the tremendous volume. To be perfectly clear, no one is going to go without the vital services they need. No one will be left behind and the women and men on the other end of the line are working tirelessly to help while also worrying about their own families. I ask everyone to please be patient. We know you may need to vent your anxieties and frustrations. We understand that it's human nature, but we are all in this together. We will all get through this together. And to do that. We all have to be understanding of one another before you call. May I make this suggestion? Take a moment again to visit the same Web site covered 19 dot NJ dot gov Koven 19 dot NJ dot gov. To see if your question can be answered online in the first 24 hours. This site was setup up. It was accessed more than 1.6 million times more than 1.6 million times. It is continually updated. It is there for you all nine million members of our New Jersey extraordinary family. As a first resource, I want to again give our chief innovation officer and her team, Beth Noveck, a big shout out for helping us set that up. Finally, I reiterated what I said. I want to reiterate where I started. Unless you are needed as part of our frontline efforts, please stay home. Look, I know the numbers that you hear every day are worrying because they're not yet going down and they're going to continue to go up. But let's remember that each number is a fellow New Jersey and who needs us to rally together behind them and behind each other to flatten the curve and slow the spread of disease. Let's all do our part. And when we do, there is nothing that can defeat us. Period. Full stop. I mentioned several times over the past number of days. We are at war and you'll win wars like World War 2. Not because you panic, but because you're aggressive. You're smart, you're proactive. You shoot straight with each other. You've got courage. That's what we need right now. We're all in this together. And if each and every one of us does our part from the little things like washing with soap and water for 20 seconds all the way to the stuff that's painful, staying at home, keeping social distance, we have no choice. If we do all of our parts, we will cut through this unequivocally. We will survive and be stronger as one family than ever before. So thank you to each and every one of you with that. Please help me welcome the woman who needs no introduction, the commission or the Department of Health. Judy person Kelly. [12:30:24] Thank you, Governor, and good afternoon. I also want to welcome Dr. Presidents for joining us. I have to say to the people of New Jersey, I cannot think of a better team than Dr. Briskness and Dr. Tan to nationally recognized epidemiologists to help guide us through this journey. I also want to thank all the New Jersey residents who are following our guidance to stay at home. Social distancing, good respiratory etiquette and hand hygiene are the best tools we have to slow the spread of covered 19. This effort is vital because it helps us conserve health care resources. Our health care professionals are making sacrifices every day. They're caring for sick individuals, sick patients and leaving their loved ones at home. So this is our part. This is what we can do. This is what we can do to support them. The goal of social distancing measures are to reduce the peak numbers of cases and the related demands on the health care system. Now, this effort to reduce peak cases is underway. We are also working to expand hospital capacity and most importantly, to increase the supplies needed to protect our health care workers. And to take care of our patients, increasing resources for our hospitals and replenishing supplies to keep our health care workforce safe are definitely our top priorities. We are working around the clock to secure those resources. We know the pressure on the health care system will escalate as our cases increase. And that's why we're urging the public to take personal responsibility to reduce the spread of covered 19. By staying home, as the governor has said repeatedly, we are all in this together. So we must take steps to protect ourselves, our families and one another. I am sad to report that we have seven new deaths for a total of 27 deaths, and we certainly send our thoughts, prayers and condolences to the families. [12:32:37] The information I have right now, five of those were males, two females ages 57 to 91. We do know that two of the individuals have had preexisting conditions. One of the individuals was from Warren, one from Somerset, one from Union, two from Bergen, one from Passaic and one from Essex. One of the individuals was associated with a long term care facility in New Jersey. As the governor has shared with nine hundred and thirty five newly reported positive cases, as I've done in the past, I'll go through the counties for you. One in Atlantic. A hundred and twenty eight in Bergen. Ten in Burlington. Eleven in Camden. Ninety six in Essex. Five in Glouster. 58 in Hudson. Two in hundred and ten in Mercer. 61 in Middlesex. Eighty in Monmouth. Fifty five in Morris. 42 in Ocean. 42 in Passaic. Thirteen in Somerset. Three in Sussex. Sixty six in Union. Three in marren. And we are still investigating two hundred and forty nine. As to the county attribution. It's nine hundred and thirty five cases for a total of two thousand eight hundred and forty four cases in New Jersey. As the governor has said, not surprising. We've expected this, and we do expect the increase in cases to continue as we increase the availability of testing. We certainly understand the level of concern about Koven, 19, is high in our state. We monitor the calls to our call center and NJ to one one. And it certainly reflects that since opening the call center in at the end of January, where we have trained health care professionals, they've answered over 11000 calls. NJ to one one was launched just last week and it's taken more than three thousand five hundred calls and approximately 100000 residents have opted to send in texts about Cauvin 19. We urge you to continue to use these credible sources of information. Visit Koven 19.00 NJ dot gov, which has information on this illness. It has information, unemployment benefits, educational resources and more and closing. As I've done in the past, I encourage and urge all of you to follow the mandates of staying at home. Thank you, Julie. [12:35:37] Thank you. I realized I did not shut my mike off. I assume yours was working, right? Yeah, I think apologies. So just tell me if you agree with this. And then I got two quick points before we turn to the attorney general. So not new cases, but total cases. The top five counties far and away burgin number one was six hundred nine, if I'm reading this correctly. Number two is Essex County with 273. [12:36:01] Number three is now mammoth with 238. Number four is Middlesex with 210. And 5 is Hudson with one night. I read that right. Secondly, I was as I was listening to you, as I always do intently, I was staring at the curve that we had asked to have back with us. Chris, thank you for bringing along with you today. I believe this is accurate. The volume of go back to geometry or the volume under each of those curves is the same. Right. So this is an important point. We really have two missions here. And again, if I get this wrong, the experts will correct me. Number one, obviously, through the aggressive social distancing to keep the number of folks who get sick and get the virus as low as we can humanly do it. I know Judy and her team are working on modeling, as she had said over the weekend, in the next couple of days. We'll have more to report on that. But keeping the total number as low as possible. But even in a scenario where you have the same amount of people who get sick. Had we not done anything. The key is that blue that blue reality is one that we can manage as a health care system, whereas the red reality is unmanageable. You with me? So even if you have the exact same number of cases giving us no credit at all for our ability to try to lessen the amount of cases with the same amount of cases, smoothing that out over time gives our health care system number of beds. I mentioned field hospitals. Judy's aggressively with Chris and team trynna with Pat Kelly and try to reopen wings of hospitals and complete hospitals have been shuttered, et cetera, et cetera. Assuming that we're able to latch on to the blue reality and that that red reality, it is manageable. And that's an important point that I felt we should make only because Chris lugged the truck back with him today. So I want to make sure we had not left that gone unsaid. Judy, thank you. I don't know where we would be without you and your team. Extraordinary, extraordinary work with that. It is my honor to introduce the guy to my left. I don't know where we'd be without him either. Leading the nation in so many fights. Please help me welcome the attorney general, the great state of New Jersey, Gorbier. Gray. [12:38:12] Well, thank you, Governor, and thank you for inviting me today to today's briefing. And thank you for your leadership as we work together to meet these unprecedented challenges. Before I speak about the enforcement actions that we're undertaking at the Department of Law and Public Safety, I too want to take a moment and recognize all the heroes on the frontlines of this war as a governor so eloquently put it. Our first responders, our nurses, our doctors and our law enforcement officers, they are putting their health and safety at risk to protect ours. We've got their backs because they have ours. But our officers and our first responders can't do it alone. [12:38:52] And it's time for each and every one of us in this state to do our part to help stop the spread of Koven, 19, in New Jersey. And for those who refuse to do their part. Let me assure you that there will be serious legal consequences. My office is committing committed to cracking down on those individuals who refuse to comply in three ways. First, we're pursuing violations of the stay at home order. Second, we're going after companies and individuals that illegally price gouge. And third, we're stopping those who are using this pandemic as an excuse to justify acts of bias and acts of hate. Let me start with, you know, 170 excuse me. Let me start with the 0 1 0 7 to stay at home order during this public health emergency. The governor has extensive authority to take bold action to protect the residents of this state against the spread of Koven, 19. And he used that authority in issuing EO 1 0 7, which shuts down all nonessential retail businesses and requires everyone to stay at home with limited exceptions. While we shouldn't even be getting to the conversation about applicable penalties, let me be clear that violating these orders is a criminal offense in this state and there are a range of charges available to us to ensure compliance. They include everything from disorderly persons offenses to second degree to third degree and fourth degree indictable charges. Last week we established a network of prosecutors across this state. In each of our counties who stand ready to give law enforcement officers guidance on how to charge violations of the governor's orders. In addition, we hosted a number of conference calls and virtual meetings with our state's police chiefs and other law enforcement leaders. And I thank the governor for joining the call last Friday. The purpose of these calls was to let our chiefs and law enforcement leaders know that the time for warnings is over and the time to ensure compliance by using all of the tools available to us is here. So if you're a retail store or an entertainment center and you stay open, or if you're a bar and you keep serving patrons in your establishment, consider this as your final warning. Your actions are against the law, New Jersey, and you will be held accountable. The same goes for individuals. If you and your friends decide to throw a party at your home and you invite 20 of your closest friends, stop, law enforcement officers will have to break that party up and there will be criminal consequences. It's simple. Shut down your non-essential businesses. Stay at home whenever possible. And let's keep everyone safe. This will not only allow our law enforcement agencies to conserve their resources at this time and to focus on critical public safety issues. But it will also avoid putting additional and unnecessary strains on our criminal justice system, our courts and our jails. At the same time that we are enforcing the governor CEOs, we're continuing to take action to address price gouging related to Kove at 19. We know that this is a concern to many people and to date, our division of consumer affairs has received over fourteen hundred Koven 19 related complaints concerning some 900 distinct business locations across New Jersey. And let me tell you that our investigators have been on top of this. They're working with our county partners to complete about 350 inspections to date. And we've issued about 160 cease and desist letters and served nearly 30 subpoenas. The complaints that we received included allegations that retailers are unfairly raising prices on surgical masks, on hand sanitizer, on disinfectant sprays and wipes, food, bottled water and similar items. The good news is that our investigators are finding that only a small percentage of the retailers we received complaints about may be raising prices inappropriately in many cases. The price increase we're seeing is being driven by the manufacturer or the wholesaler, not your neighborhood retailer. That's the good news. But the fact that we're not seeing too many egregious cases right now is only a credit to the warnings that we've issued and the inspections that we've done. That's a credit to the work of our investigators and our local partners. But let me tell you that we have to remain vigilant. Having been a prosecutor for the majority of my career, I will guarantee you absolutely guarantee you that additional fraud cases are going to come. Additional cyber frauds are going to come. Additional financial fraud cases are going to come, particularly when federal money start to flow in and the recovery efforts across this state. So we have to remain vigilant and to do so. We've upgraded the complaint form on our d.c's Web site, New Jersey Consumer Affairs Stock Up. We've done that to ensure that consumers can give us the best information they have so we can conduct our investigations as efficiently as possible. Finally, we're cracking down on bias offenses like we always do. This should go without saying, but unfortunately it bears repeating right now. Cauvin, 19, is no excuse for intolerance or for hate. There have been disturbing reports from around the country and also in this state of discrimination, of harassment and even assault against people of East Asian descent. We can't let ignorance or fear of Cauvin 19 lead to stereotyping and prejudice. Cauvin, 19, has been declared a worldwide pandemic. It doesn't discriminate based on race, race, national origin or religion. And no one community is more at risk of contracting it or transmitting it. We have zero tolerance here in this state for any kind of discrimination or hate. And we're here to help. If you've been the victim of a hate crime, including one related to Koven 19, contact law enforcement immediately. We're here to protect you. Now, as always, and if you face Koven, 19 related discrimination or harassment in employment, housing or place of public accommodation, then reach out to our division of civil rights, which is in my office and available at NJ Civil Rights Stocco. I'm certain that there's going to be some questions from the media about the numbers. So let me just say this to begin with in terms that unfortunately we can all relate to right now hate in all of its forms, whether it's discrimination, whether it's bias crimes is a disease. It's a disease that we have to contain in this moment, like in all moments. So in my mind, even though there are a handful of incidents, that's a handful too many in this state. Let me finish by addressing the order that the governor referred to that Chief Justice Ravinder signed late last night. It's a consent order that allows us to initiate a process where offenders who are serving a county jail sentence, which means people who are serving a sentence of a year or less, 364 days or less, will be considered for release. These are individuals typically who've been sentenced to county jail as a condition of probation or they've been sentenced there because of municipal court convictions or serving time for fourth degree offenses or disorderly persons offenses under the process, which is a landmark process that we've established working with the public defender, working with the Supreme Court, working with other stakeholders. Offenders will be released unless unless there's an individual specific objection from a county prosecutor or. From my office, in which case there will be a hearing on it. If a prosecutor objects, the public defender will have a chance to respond. And a special master will decide the outcome. But to be clear, all of these individuals will have to comply with the same stay at home orders that are in effect right now, and they'll have to complete their sentences. When our public health emergency concludes, the order also creates a process to ensure that inmates who are being released have a safe place to go and that we connect inmates to the necessary help they need outside of the wall, whether it's medical treatment or shelter or other housing services. We've been in contact with Human Services Commissioner Carol Johnson, who's agreed to help wherever possible so that inmates who need access to these types of services receive them. As I mentioned just a moment ago, I'm a career prosecutor and I take no pleasure in temporarily releasing or suspending county jail sentences, even for the lowest level inmates that are contemplated by today's consent order. But this is the most significant public health crisis we faced in our state's history, and it's forcing us to take actions that we wouldn't consider during normal times. We know and we've seen across the river that jails can be incubators for disease. So we have to take bold and drastic steps. And so when this pandemic concludes, I need to be able to look my daughters in their eyes to say that we took every step possible to help all the residents of this state, including those serving county jail sentences. So I want to thank the 21 county prosecutors who have joined us in this effort. I want to thank the Supreme Court and Chief Justice Ravinder for his leadership. The Office of Public Defender, the ACLU, all the other stakeholders who came together in this unprecedented moment to help individuals who are at extreme risk right now. Behind the wall to get them to a place where we could help flatten the curve and slow the spread of covert 19. Thank you, Governor. [12:48:29] Thank you. Gorbier, other than saying I don't know where we'd be without you and without your leadership, I too. Reactions on the last point as it relates to the county jail and the groundbreaking resolution that you've worked out with the chief justice. And I want to thank him in absentia as well. A.C.L.U. Your own office. The 21 county prosecutors. You said it well, we're doing something because we're in unchartered water. And I'm proud of the fact that you've taken that step. And we are the first step in America, as far as I know, for state and American who have taken that step. So thank you and bless you for that. Secondly, in a slightly less optimistic note, there is a special place in hell for the people who take advantage of this health crisis. Whether your price. Price gouging or you view this as a as an excuse to pursue racist or behavior or bullying behavior. There literally is no time for that in a normal time. And there sure as heck is no time for it. In the midst of a war that we're under and I appreciate enormously the steps you're taking to address that explicitly, the Office of Homeland Security and Preparedness has been busy. It usually is busy in both peacetime and at war. And in particular, I mentioned earlier that working with the Department of Health and Commissioner Percy Kelly, the director, is mandating that we get a lot more insight into the comprehensive testing data that's being done, particularly now by our private sector colleagues. And we should give them a shot up. By the way, they've ramped up from zero to doing thousands of these tests overnight. So they deserve an enormous amount of credit. But it is important that we get access to the information and to give you a little bit more color on that. Anything else that's on his mind, please help me welcome the director of the department, Homeland Security Preparedness, Jared Maples. [12:50:30] Thank you, Governor. Thank you for your leadership. The governor's direction, we are marshaling the full resources of the state of New Jersey to combat this fight, this war against COVA 19. As part of that effort, we're constantly trying to sharpen our data to make informed decisions and resource decisions and allow the governor to make those as well. Today, I directed all commercial laboratories that are certified to test for Cauvin 19 to report their data test data every day to the Department of Health. It will allow the Department of Health and indeed the entire government in New Jersey and our citizens to make informed decisions and gain the best data possible to make resource to have resource managed, etc. as we continue to adapt and focus our risk mitigation strategies. This data will only help us get through this effort, as the governor has mentioned, often as a stronger New Jersey. [12:51:23] With that lead, back to the governor. Jared, thank you. Judy and I were doing an off line, but we were. [12:51:30] Sure, we're paying attention. So thank you for that leadership. So Pat Callahan, Chris Dilworth, Dr. Christina Tan, as usual, are with us to answer the tough questions while not having a speaking role per say. I am certain that we'll get to each of the three of you as well as Dr. potentially Dr. Breslin's presence as well. Let's start here. We'll go to some questions and answers asked. One is back with the blue glove and the microphone. [12:52:00] Governor, you today have mentioned a lot about social distancing as you have for several days. The importance of this has been, you know, talked about over and over and over and over the weekend going to different stores. I noticed some larger stores are doing absolutely nothing with regard to counting people going in. I know we've done away with a 50 limit, but we're still trying to keep it very low. No gathering's. Obviously, some other stores that are smaller that are food stores are giving people hand. Why sanitizing lotion as they go in? They are wiping down carts and then other stores are cleaning belts for each customers. They hit the checkout counter, but they're still not implementing any specific limits on how many people can go in the store. Do you have any specific directives and do you feel it's important? Because I think there's a lot of confusion and it's like right now it's just up to whatever they think they either could or shouldn't be doing. What should they be doing? What should we try to be doing? And is there a question about enforcing this, too? We'd have enough police to check on supermarkets. [12:53:13] Well, let me let me do my best to address some of this, and I may ask my colleagues to come in. I'm also fresh eyes, as I think I mentioned earlier, off a call with the executive board of the New Jersey AFLCIO. And that includes a lot of retail worker representatives in this. This, in fact, came up as a discussion point. And my advice not just on that call, but my advice to our retail brothers and sisters has been from the get go, particularly to the folks literally who are at the front line to be excessive in their wiping down with the right with the right quality cloth, the surfaces around them, including the belts, exercising extreme hand hygiene and in finding some way to keep distance from each other as it is a general matter. We have said there's a list of essential and nonessential. That's what the world's broken down into. And so I'm at a focus on the essential side, because those are the that's that those are the places that are open, as you rightfully point out. We expect nothing less than not just good hygiene, but social distancing going on inside those locations. Just because there open does not mean that it's a free for all. And I appreciate the fact that, you know, it's early days. So this is now only three days into this and there is uneven behavior. But we must reiterate that the mandate that the behavior is mandated, it has to be. That's everything from probably restricting the amount of people who are physically in the place and importantly, how far they are from each other. I'll ask the attorney general to weigh in. But let me just say this as a non law enforcement official, and that is if we extend our enforcement capabilities to every corner of the state, there will still be some corners that we can't get to inside of people's houses is the obvious example, including inside of even in some cases, essential businesses. That's not to say that we're not going to necessarily spot check, but it is certainly to say that we expect a level of behavior. Look at the Italian example. Look at what they're living through. I think, thank God, overnight cases and fatalities are finally down today versus yesterday. And I hope that's the beginning of a trend. But there was too much business as usual. And so I said as many times, just as it just as it is not a time to panic. It is just as importantly, not a time for business as usual. [12:55:52] CABRERA You want anything to let you know? [12:55:54] I said in my remarks, I wish we didn't have to talk about penalties and consequences and that people would take the personal responsibility. We don't have unlimited resources on good days and we certainly don't have unlimited resources today when you have law enforcement agencies trying to balance shifts. So in case they do have employees that are infected, it doesn't spread to a larger number of individuals who are on that force. So they're they're shifting resources and priorities. So we need public cooperation and then we're going to prioritize, as we always do if we see and received complaints about large private gatherings or. We receive and see non-essential businesses functioning when they're not supposed to. Those are clear cut cases and we're going to start our enforcement efforts in those places. [12:56:40] If I may just quickly follow, Governor. Specifically, though, I mean, if it's a store that normally holds 500 people, should they have 50 store that normally has 50 people? Should they have 10? I mean, is there any way that we can start to do this or not? [12:56:55] I would I would say this. We dropped our gatherings from infinity to 250 to 50 to zero. So that should be where we start. And I think these stores have to. And by the way, for the most part, they get it and they're doing this. I've seen it with my own eyes. They've got to aggressively manage the amount of people in the building and the amount of distance in particular people have from each other in the building. A room, a store this size versus one that's ten times the size, obviously has a different dynamic. May I say something else on law enforcement? Law enforcement members, first responders, just like health care workers are not immune to the challenges that face us. Pat and I were back and forth yesterday about a police officer in the state who's, you know, who's got the virus and is was up against that. And God willing, help doing a little bit better today based on what we heard overnight. And so not only do we have the best of the nation in terms of first responders, law enforcement, fire, EMT is and certainly health care workers, but we only have so many of them. And these folks are indispensible and we've got to make sure we're caring for their health as well. Dr. Tannen, anything you would add in terms of the the general question that we're going to move over to Matt here, ask one. [12:58:10] Yeah, just to echo all the comments is that, you know, we have to make sure that there's also concurrent to what we're seeing with the increase in cases that there's also an outbreak of common sense as far as what grocery stores and others might need to implement to keep in mind all the social distancing guidance that has been put put forth by the governor as well as all of our other agencies. You know, threshold numbers are helpful guides for most businesses and grocery stores in general. But again, an outbreak of common sense about how to implement that. I love that. Thank you, Matt. [12:58:49] Governor. Yes. With more than 2000 cases, have we reached the point where contract tracing is stopped? If it's still being done, to what extent is it happening? And why is it it is still important? And at what time would that effort effectively cease? [12:59:07] Me just say this sadly, Matt, when you said we've got two thousand, in fact we've almost got 3000. And those numbers, as we said, listen, we expected this did. This is not we're not having a holy cow moment here that oh my lord. These numbers have exploded and we weren't expecting this. We knew this would happen, particularly as we expanded the testing regime. And that's even prior to getting the full modeling returns that Judy and her team are working on. [12:59:35] So good question. Judy, do you want to. Do you want to hit this or. Dr. Tanner, let's go to Dr. Tannen again. [12:59:40] Yeah. As we've been mentioning for the last several weeks, we know that the you know, it's a continuum of containment and community mitigation efforts. And, you know, there's no on off switch as far as when contact tracing will stop versus, you know, when we implement all these community mitigation efforts that I'm try to promote social distancing. And we are seeing, for example, in our state that, you know, there fewer cases in certain areas of our state, like the southern areas where the contact tracing might be more reasonably achieved, where containment measures such as the contact tracing and the more aggressive tracing related to that might be effective. But, you know, as we've started to see in our northeastern area moving southward and westward, there's been more of that shift toward trying as best as possible with the local resources to do as best as possible possible identifying contacts. But again, the same strategies as far as community mitigation still would remain the same, the social distancing, the other efforts that have been employed already in the state. [13:00:52] You make a fair point. There are still four counties with single digit cases. The reality to your question, Matt, may be very different there than a Bergen where you've got over 600 cases. Thank you, Elise. [13:01:05] Two questions. Could you open close to that one with them? Yes. Two questions, potentially. How many county inmates would be released? Also, you signed an executive order mandating that testing centers report their figures to the state. It was my understanding that they were doing that all along. So what was the need for? This mandate. Yeah. [13:01:31] So I would just say on the second one that I want to have the health folks and Jarod address that. It wasn't that that was it that they're not doing a good job, in fact, that the scale. I think this was spoken would Bill has of led LabCorp I think was Friday were at Bergen Community College. He said they're up to 20000 tests. Batching overnight. I said, where were you two weeks ago? And he said they were still working on developing the actual test two weeks ago. So this is not a this is not looking a gift horse in the mouth, as they say. We thank them. But the fact of the matter is, I think we've said this, that every one of our gatherings is but a gap in our knowledge of what we can control and oversee directly that the Department of Health versus both in timing and in an in depth of information that we get from these entities. But let me actually let's stay with that for a second. Any of the health side want to add to the the the what we're getting, what we hope to get now that we weren't getting before? [13:02:31] Yeah. Actually, to your point, the Department of Health has been by our regulations, we're supposed to be getting all the positive results. And actually many of our commercial laboratories and the largest volume commercial laboratories have also been providing the negative results. We have over 60 commercial laboratories that are providing us results. It's a matter of just kind of compiling all that information and getting this in a more systemic way. That's what that's what we're aiming toward, getting that more complete data at this point. [13:03:07] We think it's fair to say, folks, we think for a moment. 1, knowing what the total denominator is, the total positives and the total negatives is not just good for our ability to manage this this this challenge, but that gives. I think folks, you know, in our job of trying to lessen anxiety, I think that's a step toward lessening anxiety. Jared, your name was on that letter. Any any particular insight as to why you're particularly associated with this? [13:03:33] Yeah, I would. One bit of clarification. You mentioned executive order is actually a directive for me in my role as director or the chair of the Domestic Security Preparedness Task Force. So it's a directive to compel those laboratories or report the full results. It becomes a homeland security concern to make sure we have the full data picture as we again marshal all of our resources across the state in New Jersey and advise the governor in his role in allocating those resources. And, of course, Commissioner Percy Kelly in prosecuting her duty as the commissioner of health. And so really becomes about getting the full picture in a timely manner, in an accurate manner. That's really the end result. [13:04:08] General, to Lisa's first question, how many how big a population is this of LA County jails so that that work is ongoing? [13:04:15] We're getting lists of those inmates who fall into the categories that I outlined. And our prosecutors across the state are now trying to strike that difficult balance of public safety, public health, the rights of crime victims to see which we're going to object to and which we're going to consent to of those inmates who fall into those categories. Our objections across the state are due by 5:00 p.m., I believe, today. And so we'll know at that point how many we consent to. Then it would be a question of lining up services for those who need them, whether they're on medication assisted treatment behind the wall. We don't want that to slip. We don't want to trade one issue for another. So we are very mindful of all those issues. So we'll take the time that's needed to line up all those services as well. So we'll know better by the end of the day and a little bit better tomorrow after the hearings that'll take place on the objections. [13:05:02] So when we do get the information, we'll promise either the general will be with us or I will, or somehow we'll get that information. We'll push it out. Yeah. Thank you. [13:05:12] A couple of education questions shot by that shot. I don't know. You're surprised. You said the schools would likely at this point be having be closed for an extended period. Are we talking at this point close to the closing for the rest of the school year? That's only really two and a half months at this point. Yeah. Yet to be determined. But longer than the nough. Yes. And testing. And you said say it doesn't exist today. [13:05:38] I know we owe you an answer on that. And we are again, we've got a group of folks who are trying to understand the federal directive that came out at the end of the week, as well as our own reality. We know we owe you an answer, but we're not there yet. I think it's not just me, not I don't know. [13:05:58] I like the broad view that you use in the 9 million members of the New Jersey family. And just last question on education. [13:06:06] A group of advocacy groups today called for an education task force to be formed to keep an eye on on this process as we go forward, especially concerned about loss of learning for special needs students. But but all students, for that matter. Would you consider something like that? So I hadn't seen that. [13:06:25] I would want to first go to the commissioner of the Department of Education. We've got a state. Of education, I want to go to the professionals who are currently working on this. I don't begrudge just hearing it for the first time. I don't begrudge that interest because I think it's something that we're all keenly interested in. [13:06:41] I've got four kids myself who are all doing remote learning right now, and you want to make sure that you know where the number one public education system in America. Were there for a reason. That has a lot to do with the model that we have prosecuted for decades, if not centuries. We want to keep it that way. So I'll come back to that separately. Do you have one, sir? Yes. [13:07:05] Good afternoon, Governor. There's a question about constitutional rights. [13:07:08] You had a long list of businesses that are exempt from the closures, but you didn't exempt self-defense centers, gun stores, FFL, US and gun ranges. Your bill is your executive order specifically says that people that are low income will be protected against any type of essential services. Why do you believe that a liquor store which you exempt and homophobic stores that you exempt are more important than a place where somebody can acquire tools to protect themselves? One specific woman can wear public low income African-American woman saying one woman to one woman's message to politicians. Don't leave me defenseless. Now, my second question is to Mr. callagan. Would you use your authority in the executive order to make an exception for gun stores? Make the next background check. Go live again, because currently it's down because of the executive order so that thousands and tens of thousands of residents can be able to protect themselves. [13:08:06] Governor, just as you're about to ask your question, I was about to say, you know, you don't normally only show up at gun events. So I could have predicted this as you got you got time on your hands, obviously. Listen, we made the call on essential versus nonessential. The attorney general is walking away on that, as well as the as well as the colonel. I'm comfortable where we landed. And I'll ask the attorney general to give you a bit more color. [13:08:34] I would just. There's a lawsuit, as you probably know, that's been filed on this very topic today. So I won't comment on the litigation. And we're not going to comment on more specifics right now until we review the lawsuit and we'll respond accordingly in court. But I will say that the governor's executive order tracks every other executive order, that that has a stay at home provision. And none of those none of those contain an exemption for firearm stores. And nor does the federal guidance from homeland security contain that type of exemption when it comes to essential facilities and nonessential facilities. So we're consistent with every other executive stay at home. An executive order that calls for a stay at home and work consistent with federal guidelines. And we'll defend the governor's executive order in court at any one time. [13:09:22] The only thing I'll add is I've fielded several emails, phone calls over the past several days with regard to that very issue and to the governors and attorney general's point in consultation with the governor's chief counsel and the attorney general. Those stores at this juncture are deemed non-essential, and that was my response. [13:09:42] Thank you, ma'am. And I'll get you. [13:09:45] I pose this question for Corporal Callahan with Governor Murphy, briefly mentioned the recruit who had tested positive over the weekend, resulting in a number of team members who are now quarantine. How is all this affecting the way state police do their. What do you guys do different? And is any of that trickling down? Has there been any directive to local departments on how officers are to do things differently, to protect themselves and therefore protect everybody else? [13:10:15] With regards to the first part of that question in the training academy myself, the attorney general commissioner Percy Kelly, struggled daily with that decision. And I'll give you some insight. Last Sunday, we put in a process to basically checking with the recruits and one said Sunday afternoon gave a few symptoms. We told that recruit to stay home. We had canceled physical training, swimming. We had tried to do all the mitigation strategies and social distancing within the academy and did on Thursday afternoon with an afternoon that recruit that was home tested positive. And I happened to be sitting right across the table from the commissioner at the time and in concert with her guidance and counsel, as well as the attorney general's. We decided to send all of those recruits home, and it was one hundred and ninety six. And is this as much as I want to deem them essential to protect those that will ultimately protect us? It was not an easy decision. They all went home with a laptop and we'll be doing to the extent that they can. All of the blocks of instruction, just like we're asking our students and college students to do remotely difficult decision. They are at this juncture. Our goal is to have them come back on April 6th. That would fit this 14 day window. It was a difficult decision because we thought them being housed in together at Sieger helped us in some way because then we send them home on the weekends and it becomes that back and forth and balance of what mitigation we could have done there. So very, very difficult. And as far as our troopers to the attorney general's point, there'll be no different level of service or impact to response times. But we have in order to preserve and make sure there is a, quote unquote, bullpen of troopers. We have split up our squads to have the same amount of troopers there. But. On the road, meeting the minimum staffing requirement, but making sure that if his whole squad goes down or perhaps a station that between the troopers assigned to field operations as well as all the other response, the troopers and admin section investigations that we have, that Cordray of troopers to make sure that we don't skip one beat because when somebody calls 9-1-1, as I said to the police chiefs the other day, somebody has got to respond to those calls and that level of service will remain the same. We just need to be smart about our scheduling. [13:12:43] Thank you for that. [13:12:44] Chuck, you've talked to a lot today about the need for data to make better decisions for the public to be assured of these things and the denominator. Can you tell us today the total number of testing and if not, at some point, will these briefings include a number of total tests and as that number of hospitalizations? Can you tell us a number of actual people tested positive for over 19 hospitalized? And does the Department of Health have a dashboard of sorts like the private health systems do, to know the number of occupied hospital beds in total, the number of occupied ICU beds in order for you to know what hospitals will be stressed and not stressed? And can you give us an update on the ventilator acquisitions? [13:13:27] So jury and team will give you all the above. I would just say, as a general matter, the data. You're absolutely right. The more data we have that are at our ready that's available to us, the better informed we are to make the right decisions. There's no question about that. I think what you're going to need I'm going to give you the non-health expert's answer here. We're going to need the order that both Judy and Jared signed today to actually take effect in order to really effectively address the first question you asked. How many positives, how many negatives, what's the denominator? That's something we obviously want to have at our disposal, as you can imagine. I think you have to bear with us a little bit for that to take take effect. I think that's our expectation. Please correct that record, Judy, and please address the hospitalization of the ventilator in question, if you could. Thank you. [13:14:14] You're certainly right on the first account on the hospitalizations. We are working with the hospital association and all of the hospitals to populate our predictive modeling algorithm. There's some information that is still outstanding. For example, not only how many patients you have in your critical care units, but what their average length of stay is for us to be able to project out. I can tell you as of Friday evening, there are about 600 patients in our hospitals in New Jersey that are considered persons under investigation. So they're waiting for their test results to return. And we have another hundred that have positive results on the record. That's the latest I have. We have a 5:00 call with the hospital association this afternoon to start getting more regular data. So that gives you some indication of what our hospitals are dealing with. I don't have the critical care numbers, you know. You know, patients move back and forth. They get admitted to a medical surgical bed, depending on their condition. They may go to an ICU bed for a number of days. Then they go back to a step down and then med surge and then discharge to either home care, rehab or. So it's it's a process. But there are the statistics I have right now. [13:15:47] Judy, what about ventilators? [13:15:51] We have a total inventory of ventilators. [13:15:53] Well, let me start with a number of critical care beds. We have almost 2000 critical care beds in our hospitals. We have an inventory of seventeen hundred ventilators. Not all of them are in use at this time. We do believe for every critical care bed, there should be a one to one ratio ventilator to critical care bed. So looking at our full inventory and our number of beds, we have a deficit of about 300. We've asked the HHS for 400 ventilators because you should always have ventilators on standby. That will just cover our existing licensed critical care beds. We do expect with a surge that we will have to increase our volume of critical care beds and therefore increase our requirement for ventilators. That's still under review. [13:16:52] Thank you for that. Can we very quickly, just because we have to go back to the connect with the White House, John, you OK? [13:17:00] Real quick, a follow up on that. How are you? How is the board of Health able to track the timing of the surge without all that data? And Governor, on a quick budget. I heard you're meeting with the treasurer and. City leaders. Where do you stand in terms of revenues? Particuarly sales tax and the casino revenues coming in in terms of the budget, possibly going for the algorithm that we're using. [13:17:25] It's populated by the data that we do have. I think I shared that the average length of stay in our CEO and the average length of stay in the hospital is still outstanding. I don't know, Dr. BRESNEHAN says. My eye has been our key individual looking. Working with the team on the algorithms. Do you have anything you want to add? [13:17:46] Just that we've reached out to folks. Well, one person in particular tried to give an estimate based on their experience in their hospital, what the average length of stay is for those who are hospitalized, but not in an ICU. And what it is for those who have unfortunately been in ICU. That information will impact on the modeling of what the surge capacity will be. So, for example, if the average length of stay is lower than that, makes more beds available over a period of time. The average length of stay is longer than it decreases the capacity to basically handle any excess number of cases. And that is an important element in the model and hope that hopefully we'll have that today. [13:18:30] Thank you. Real quick. I don't have a crisp answer for. We do have a leadership meeting. So we'll get a video call with the president, vise president. Then we'll get a leadership meeting after that. But the impact is significant would be a word. I would use material meaningful, large. It's this is a big deal, which is why we need. That's why we need so desperately the federal back and fill direct cash assistance. Anything back here? Good. Real quick. [13:18:56] Your meetings last week, the Army Corps of Engineers. Are there any possible sites that could potentially be used to house patients that could be start to be worked on in the near future? [13:19:06] Yeah, I think the answer is yes. We're an intense engagement with them. He just went there. [13:19:14] We're looking at the full continuum, the life, the continuum lifecycle of a patient. And we do expect that patients that would maybe be acceptable for a medical surgical bed. We might be opening up med surge beds in hotels and have them appropriately cared for with all of the supplies. So we're looking at the whole continuum so that the patients in New Jersey will be taken care of at the same level of care. It just may be a different venue. [13:19:47] Just two quick things on that. Number one, I think you've heard the word displace before, so you might be taking patients who are in Category X and putting them over here to then have available space for category Y in this particular facility. Secondly, while the cat if I say this wrong, please correct me. While the population is larger in the north and unfortunate, the population impacted by the virus is larger in the north. We started before this virus hit. While the population may be smaller and the infection rate may be less at the moment in the south. We entered this with a mismatch in the south between critical care beds in the population to begin with, which is why that's a particular point of focus of Judy and her team. Please, real quick. We'll have an answer on this for. [13:20:38] But the prison question for a colleague, it's my spotlight. Have there been any positive cases at all in the prisons, either inmates or staff? And is there more that can be done in terms of restrictions on people coming in and out of the prisons? [13:20:52] Well, they've already restricted the commissioner of Department of Corrections has already made significant restrictions. Whether or not he's prepared or will go further, I don't know. How about cases inside of the system? [13:21:03] I can just share with you at the state level. We have not had any cases to date. I know the county I don't know I don't know this. [13:21:12] But I want to reiterate, what we're doing is, is we're the only state in America doing this. So at least I'll come out you. Lisa, thank you. Good. [13:21:20] With regard to your call with the president who initiated the call, how long did you speak? Why was the call taking place? [13:21:31] And did you tell him that you're appealing to Citizens for PPE? [13:21:40] So I want to give a shout out where credit is due. Here we put a request in for a call this morning and he called me back this morning so that I have to say that Terk, turnaround, when you talk about the president, states as is meaningful. Secondly, Elise, we spoke about he personally knows New Jersey well. So we talked a little bit about New Jersey. The call was probably in the 5 to 10 minute range I raised with him. I said, Mr. President. He said, what's on your mind? The three big ass continue to be PPE. We need a big bucket of federal money and we need to stand up as soon as possible. In this case, really FEMA region, too. But I know the Army Corps is involved for field hospitals, just having gotten off the phone with Judy, not 10 minutes before that. So I had the right the right ask. And he said the federal the congressional support for direct aid to states. He said, I don't know where this is going to turn out, but I understand that's something that's important. Both sides of the aisle. He talked for a minute about some of these malaria drugs that he is very focused on and that they he, he believes, can change people's outcomes, even those who are very sick. I'm not a health expert, so I don't have an opinion on that. And peopIe was sort of more of a reiteration. I'm not sure I walked away with the call with anything specific on Peepee. In fact, I know I didn't, but there was a very specific discussion about the field hospitals and we pursued that immediately. [13:23:20] That another from a colleague. I'll try to speed through this one here for you. But we had a story today following your comments yesterday about Prudential donating one hundred fifty three thousand mass and respirators to the state. Could you also tell us if any other companies have similarly stepped up with any assistance? And what is Prudential's donation mean for New Jersey? And how does the state intended to st distribute those items? Because several hospitals have called us directly asking how they can get some of those supplies. [13:23:48] To give you a general answer and then I'm an ask you, Pat, to give to give you the specifics on Prudential. And I called its CEO and texted him and thanked him immediately. And he was very gracious in his reply. Prudential's on a list of really good corporate citizens who are stepping up at this crisis, and we need that to continue to happen. Just think of the following. Think of it. If I get this wrong, anybody up here, please come in and correct me. Think of the PPE process as going from a series of parallel inputs and then a series of parallel outputs that particular this is now, Chris. This is now being funneled in to one input point and one coordinated output point. So we've now gone to an hourglass. Is that fair to say on its side? So Pat can comment on Prudential in a second, although what folks say, we have to respect this. This is what we're prepared to do. And we would ask you to pay particular attention to healthcare institution X because it happens to be in their town. We're not going to ignore that as a as a point. We may have a reaction to it, but others Goldman Sachs, by the way, I'm not sure where, where or why or how much, but I want to give them credit for making that offer today. George Howell, me as we as I walked in here, was following up with them. Home Depot, I gave a shout out to already. And those are the three that I know particularly come to my we've got a lot of folks who are are coming up with good ideas and potential places in particular to buy PPE. But again, we could use as many donations as possible, and that's PPE donations at GSP dot org pad. Any more color on Prudential? [13:25:42] Prudential. It was really amazing. I got that phone call at about 10 o'clock yesterday morning and by yesterday afternoon we had all the mass can sanitizes gloves picked up by troupers and stored in a location in North Jersey. University Hospital received a portion of that last night. That's how quickly that came together. We then working in conjunction with health. We have all of the hospitals in the state of New Jersey. And we had to make the decision about based upon what we were seeing across the state, how we were going to most appropriately prioritize the distribution of that. It is like bitrate charging of this PPE. On another note, just this afternoon, I had the attorney general's office assist in drafting a letter that was sent out today through the commissioner of education to all of the school districts, public school districts, knowing that they have a lot of PPE in their schools and the schools are closed and we're not asking for it all, but knowing that that PPE that they purchased in the wake of Ebola is sitting there. This is and as the gov says, all hands on deck, pull out all the stops and a 600+ school districts can step up. I requested it. I would think I do have the authority to mandate it. That's not where we want to be. I think every school district in the state of New Jersey wants to pitch in. And primarily this is gonna be for health care. This is about keeping the hospitals open. First was. Founders are a close second, but I think it's our doctors and nurses and those folks in the hospitals that we got to make sure that they're protected. So Gub, said Home Depot. That email address that he gave out, that's for anybody, any pub- private, public, anybody who wants to donate it. We have a private sector desk set up at the FCC phenominal Partners and we have that email. We'll go to our donations management folks and we will make sure that we have that full inventory. And based upon the priority hospitals, that's where it's gonna go to. [13:27:46] Again, that's PPE donations at NJ, S.P. dot org. At least one other point I made to the president and I made this to to him and Vitt by video at the end of the week. And I this is a quote on yours on my behalf. I know that the Lord helps those that help themselves. So I wanted to make sure that that nobody thinks New Jersey sit back with their feet up, not doing everything we can to to track and source PPE. The folks up at this table and all their colleagues are literally turning over every stone. So it's a little bit like our Community College Opportunity Grant. That's a last dollar program. The student has to exhaust and prove they've exhausted all the other avenues before they get to get that grant. That's the mindset that we're having with the federal government. Our ask is big, but I want to make sure that the president knows himself and his team knows it's big, but it's legitimate and it envisions aggressive behavior across the whole spectrum of channels available to us. We're going to end here if we could place. [13:28:57] A.G., a question for you with regard to releasing certain low level prisoners. How does this impact who police are now going to arrest take into custody? What kinds of crimes and so forth, if at all? And related question, Governor, for you. We got Easter coming up. You see families going out for walks, for bike rides. They're probably figuring, well, you know, if we have a family gathering and, you know, we can invite the Antón uncle, what's the big deal there regard to some guidance on that from, you know, sugar? [13:29:31] We there's a question earlier about guidance to law enforcement. We issued guidance last Monday about exercising discretion. And this is not to say that if there's an imminent public safety threat to ignore it, certainly we're going to respond to those cases. But if there are cases that we can wait and charge later, the old check fraud case that's been sitting around for a month, the old financial fraud case that hasn't moved for months, there's not a reason to charge that right now when we're in the midst of this pandemic. We've also told them to increasingly use complaints, summonses over complaint warrants, a complaint warrant, bring somebody into the jail system, a complaint summons, gives them a date, a future date in which to appear in court. So those are two steps we've taken and we've encouraged them to exercise their discretion. And certainly we're releasing folks who are serving less than a year sentence. In some cases, they're to be released in a matter of weeks, if not months. But we're also mindful we're not calling for the release of those who we've detained pretrial, who we've argued are dangerous to the public or flight risks. These are people who will assess their dangerousness to themselves and to others before we consent to their release. But it's a common sense approach that we have to take right now. [13:30:39] Sadly, I wish I had a more upbeat answer from God knows. I hope by the time April 12th throws rolls around that we're in a dramatically different and better place. [13:30:50] But with both Easter and Passover coming up to pick at least two big religious holidays and religious seasons, really when you factor in the days of Passover and the holy week, we can't allow to to let happen what your question implied. [13:31:07] You look at the the Blessed Fosco family who at a family gathering a couple of Sundays ago and literally multiple fatalities and sicknesses that have come out of that. I don't want to be the Grinch. I guess I don't know what the equivalent of the Grinch is for Easter or Passover, but we're gonna have to we're gonna have to enforce the social distancing stuff that we're talking about. I don't know. That brings me no joy to say that. Again, if we get to holy week, if we get to Passover and we're in a different place, I'll be the happiest guy in New Jersey. We're gonna shut down again and forgive me because we've got to get over to the rock. If I'm if I'm not mistaken, my hand the next couple of days, both at 2 o'clock and both in Newark, at Rutgers. Newark is all right. One more time tomorrow. Rutgers, Newark, Wednesday, as I mentioned, at Trenton back here at the War Memorial. Okay. I apologize. I want to thank Dr Presidents for coming out out of the bullpen to help us out. Big deal, sir. Thank you. Have you. Thank you for coming back. Put the band back together, Doctor Tan, to you as well. Chris, thank you. Judy, I don't know where I'd be without you and your whole team, so thank you. Likewise. Mr. Attorney General, Director Colonel, to each and every one of you. God bless you. Thank you. Stay safe. See you soon.

A police officer getting out of his squad car and walking onto the curb in a Californian suburb.

1140 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG SIDE2 FS4 73 1335 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG SIDE2 FS4 81 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives.

1145 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 89 1345 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG CMTE FS1 78 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives. When uninsurance rate goes up -- when insurance rates go down rather, more people without healthcare often lose their lives. There are -- there is not one senator on the Republican side or Democratic pride (ph) who has not seen -- I've only been here five years and I've seen the culture of Washington change because of the obscene amount of dark money pouring into our political process, corrupting our political exhausts (ph), rigging the system. This -- this nomination will have an effect on that. I've seen Americans all over this country, it's the bipartisan work that I've done with senators on either side who feel entrapped by a broken criminal justice system, one that is, we know and unassailably disproportionally targets black and brown Americans. Where many Americans believe, and one famous American said we have a system that now treats you better than if you're rich and guilty than poor and innocent. These issues are in the balance now, and everyone who's concerned about these issues and more are wondering

This time lapse from Francisco Street in downtown Los Angeles features several buildings on S Figueroa Street, including Wilshire Grand, 777 Tower and 801 Tower.

1130 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG WITNESS FS2 90 1325 SEN JUDICIARY KAVANAUGH SCOTUS HRG WITNESS FS2 79 UNITED STATES SENATE COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY HEARING: Nomination of the Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States Full Committee DATE: Tuesday, September 4, 2018 TIME: 09:30 AM LOCATION: Hart Senate Office Building 216 PRESIDING: Chairman Charles Grassley MEMBER STATEMENTS: Senator Chuck Grassley (R - IA) Senator Dianne Feinstein (D - CA) Senator Patrick Leahy (D - VT) Senator Dick Durbin (D - IL) Senator Amy Klobuchar (D - MN) Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D - RI) Senator Christopher A. Coons (D - DE) Senator Richard Blumenthal (D - CT) Senator Mazie Hirono (D - HI) Senator Kamala Harris (D - CA) WITNESSES: INTRODUCERS The Honorable Condoleezza Rice Former Secretary of State Senior Fellow at Hoover Institution Professor at Stanford University Stanford, CA The Honorable Rob Portman United States Senator State of Ohio Ms. Lisa S. Blatt Partner Arnold & Porter Washington, DC PANEL I The Honorable Brett M. Kavanaugh PANEL II Mr. Paul T. Moxley Chair American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Salt lake City, UT Mr. John R. Tarpley Principal Evaluator American Bar Association Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary Nashville, TN PANEL III MINORITY Mr. Luke McCloud Former Law Clerk Associate Williams & Connolly LLP Washington, DC Ms. Louisa Garry Teacher Friends Academy Locust Valley, NY The Honorable Theodore B. Olson Partner Gibson Dunn & Crutcher Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC Ms. Colleen E. Roh Sinzdak Former Student Senior Associate Hogan Lovells LLP Washington, DC Professor Akhil Amar Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science Yale Law School New Haven, CT The Honorable Cedric Richmond U.S. Representative, Louisiana, 2nd District Chairman, Congressional Black Caucus Ms. Rochelle Garza Managing Attorney Garza & Garza Law Brownsville, TX Ms. Elizabeth Weintraub Advocacy Specialist Association of University Centers on Disabilities Silver Spring, MD Ms. Alicia Baker Indianapolis, IN Professor Melissa Murray Professor of Law New York University School of Law New York, NY PANEL IV MAJORITY Mr. A.J. Kramer Federal Public Defender Office of the Federal Public Defender for the District of Columbia Washington, DC Ms. Rebecca Taibleson Former Law Clerk Assistant U.S. Attorney Eastern District of Wisconsin Foxpoint, WI Ms. Maureen E. Mahoney Former Deputy Solicitor General of the United States Washington, DC Mr. Kenneth Christmas Executive Vice President, Business & Legal Affairs Marvista Entertainment Los Angeles, CA Ms. Aalayah Eastmond Parkland, FL Mr. Jackson Corbin Hanover, PA Mr. Hunter Lachance Kennebunk, ME Ms. Melissa Smith Social Studies Teacher U.S. Grant Public High School Oklahoma City, OK PANEL V MAJORITY: Ms. Monica Mastal Real Estate Agent Washington, DC The Honorable Paul Clement Partner Kirkland & Ellis LLP Former Solicitor General United States Department of Justice Washington, DC MINORITY: Professor Adam White Executive Director The C. Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Professor Jennifer Mascott Former Law Clerk Assistant Professor of Law Antonin Scalia Law School George Mason University Arlington, VA Mr. John Dean Former Counsel to the President President Richard M. Nixon Professor Rebecca Ingber Associate Professor of Law Boston University School of Law Boston, MA Professor Lisa Heinzerling Justice William J. Brennan Jr. Professor of Law Georgetown University Law Center Washington, DC Professor Peter Shane Professor Law Moritz College of Law Ohio State University Columbus, OH BREAK FOR 30 MINUTES GRASSLEY 1:19:10 PM >>> Over half of the committee is still missing but they are gavelled back and here is senator grassley who has started the second session. >> They attacked the president for attacking the independents and they applaud the judiciary for standing up to the president. I just listened to some of my colleagues here, one of them spent 18 minutes attacking the personal integrity of justices of the supreme court. He said five justices had been bought and sold by private interests. Accused him of deciding cases to the benefit of favored parties. So I think it's pretty clear a double standard and we shouldn't have to tolerate such double standard. And particularly from a press that is a policeman of our whole democratic process. That without a free press, our government would be less than what it is. 1:20:12 PM And it seems to me that's something that I hope some of you will take into consideration. Probably won't. But at least I said my piece. Then I also -- senator, several senators have brought up about the 6% and the 99% and things like that that I thought I ought to clear up because I could say myself that when I first started finding out how much paper judge Kavanaugh had on his record, I mean, for his background, I started talking about 100 -- a million pages. Then when we finally got 488,000, then I could say I got about 48% of of what we ought to have. But there's a good explanation why we don't have it. So I want to read. Some of my colleagues keep 1:21:14 PM saying that we have only 6% of judge Kavanaugh's white house records. But that 99% of justice Kagan's white house records were made public before the hearing. This is fuzzy math. My colleagues calibrate the phony 6% figure on two inaccurate numbers. First, there's the 6% figure count. Based upon their historical practice before the unprocessed e-mails and attached attachments are actually reviewed. When Kavanaugh's white house e-mails that we received the pages being significantly less. One reason is because we're able to use technology to call out the exact duplicate e-mails. 1:22:16 PM Instead of having to read 13 times an e-mail that judge Kavanaugh sent to 12 white house colleagues, we only had to read the e-mail once. Second, the 6% figure counts millions and millions of pages of documents that we never yeast requested or needed. We received 100% of the documents we requested from judge Kavanaugh's time as an executive branch lawyer. While we may have received 99% of justice Kagan's white house records, we received zero records from her most relevant legal service as a solicitor general, the federal government's top supreme court advocate. We received much less than 99% of the records as a lawyer. And we didn't receive 60,000 e-mails from justice Kagan so 1:23:18 PM 99% is an overestimate. Even though we never received them, justice Kagan solicitor general records were much more needed at the time because Kagan was a blank slate as a judge. Instead, unlike judge Kavanaugh, with his 12 years of judicial service and over 10,000 pages of judicial writings on the nation's most important federal circuit court, just Kagan had zero years of judicial service and zero pages of judicial writing before appointment to the highest court. Senator klobuchar. >> Thank you. Before I begin, I wanted to respond to just a few things. None of that takes away from the fact that 42,000 documents were dumped on us last night and I don't think anyone would go to trial and allow a trial to go 1:24:20 PM forward or allow a case to go forward if one side got 4,000 documents the night before and the other side -- and you can't simply review them as pointed out by senator Whitehouse. You'd have to review 7,000 documents every hour. That happened last night. GRASSLEY >> Let me respond without taking time away from you. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. GRASSLEY >> Democrats got exactly the same amount of money we did to do the work, the massive amount of work we had to do. And we got it done at 11:00 last night. KLOBUCHAR >> The point is that no one could prepare and review 42,000 documents in one evening. We know that. No matter how much coffee you drink. And the second point is it is true that executive privilege has never been used before to block the release of records to the senate during a confirmation hearing. So I will begin my opening statement but those are two points I don't believe are 1:25:22 PM refuted. >> I'll refute it from this point. Proceed. KLOBUCHAR >> Thank you. Welcome, we welcome your family as well. On its face, this may look like a Normal confirmation hearing. It has all the trappings. All of us up here. All of the cameras out there. The statements, the questions, all of it looks Normal. But this is not a Normal confirmation hearing. First, as we have debated this morning, we are being asked to give advice and consent when the administration has not consented to give us over 100,000 documents, all of which detail a critical part of the judges career. The time he spent in the white house. And in addition the majority party has not consented to make 180,000 of the documents we do have public. 1:26:22 PM As a former prosecutor, I know that no lawyer goes to court without reviewing the evidence and record. I know and I know you know judge Kavanaugh that a good judge would not decide a case with only 7% of the key document. A good judge would not allow a case to move forward if one side dropped 42,000 pages of documents on the other side the night before the case started. And yet that is where we are today. This isn't Normal. It's an abdication of the role of the senate and a disservice to the American people and it is our duty to speak out. Secondly, this nomination comes before us at a time when we are witnessing seismic shifts in our democracy. Foundational elements of our government including the rule of law have been challenged and undermined. Today, our democracy faces 1:27:25 PM threats that we never would have believed would be occurring not that long ago. Our intelligence agencies agree a foreign adversary a tempted to interfere in our recent election and it's happening again. In the words of the president's director of national intelligence, the lights are blinking red. There's an extensive ongoing investigation by the president's counsel. The president's private lawyer and campaign chairman have been found guilty of multiple crimes. The man appointed as special counsel in this investigation, a man who has served with distinction under presidents from both parties, has been under siege. The dedicated public servant who work in our justice department including the attorney general and the FBI have been subjected to repeated threats and have had their work politicized and their 1:28:25 PM motives questions. In fact, just this past weekend, federal law enforcement was called out, was rebuked, by the president of the United States for simply doing their jobs. For prosecuting two white color defendants. One for insider trading. One for campaign theft. Why. Because the defendants were personal friends and campaign supporters of the president of the United States. As a former prosecutor, as someone who has seen federal law enforcement do their jobs, this is abhorrent to me. So no, this is not Normal. And the last branch, the third branch of government are courts and individual judges have been under assault. Not just by a solitary disappointed litigant but by the president of the United States. Our democracy is on trial. And for the pillars of our democracy and our constitution 1:29:27 PM to weather this storm, our nation's highest court must serve as a ballast in these turbulent times. Our very institutions and those nominated to protect these institutions must be fair, impartial and unwavering in their commitment to truth and justice. So today we will begin a hearing in which it is our duty to carry on the American constitutional tradition that John Adams stood up for many centuries ago, and that is to be in his words a government of laws and not men. To me that means figuring out what your views are, judge, on whether a president is above the law. It is a simple concept we learned in grade school, that no one is above the law. So I think it's a good place to start. There were many highly credentials nominees like 1:30:27 PM yourself that could have been sitting before us today. But to my colleagues, what concerns me is that during this critical juncture in history, the president has hand picked a nominee to court with the most expansive view of presidential power possible. A nominee who has actually written that the president on his own can declare laws unconstitutional. Of course we are very pleased when a judge submits an article to the university of Minnesota law review. And even more so when that article receives so much national attention. But the article you wrote that I'm referred to, judge, raises many troubling questions. Should a sitting president really never be subject to an investigation? Should a sitting president never be questioned by a special counsel? Should a president really be given total authority to remove a special counsel? In addition to the article, 1:31:30 PM there are other pieces of this puzzle which demonstrate that the nominee before us has an incredibly broad view of the president's executive power. Judge Kavanaugh, you wrote for example, that a president can disregard a law passed by congress if he deemed it to be unconstitutional even if a court has upheld it. What would it mean when it comes to laws protecting the special counsel? What would that mean when it comes to women's health care? The days of the divine rights of kings ended with the magna carta in 1215 and centuries later, in the wake of the American revolution, a check on the executive was a major foundation of the United States constitution. For it was James Madison who may not have had a musical named after him, was a top scholar of his time, who wrote in federalist 47, it is a 1:32:30 PM cumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hand, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tourney. So what does that mean in real-life terms today? It means whether an air force veteran, mother and business owner who is here from Tennessee and is living with stage 4 breast cancer can afford medical treatment. At a time when the administration is arguing that protections to ensure people with pre-existing conditions can't be kicked off their health insurance are unconstitutional, we cannot and should not confirm a justice who believes the president's views alone carry the day. One opinion I plan to ask about, when judges appointed by presidents of both parties joined in upholding the consumer financial protection bureau, you, judge, dissented. Your dissent concluded that the 1:33:32 PM bureau, an agency which served us well in bringing back over $12 billion to consumers for fraud, from credit cards to loans to mortgages was unconstitutional. Or in another case, you wrote a dissent against the rules that protect net neutrality. Rules that help all citizens and small businesses have an even playing field when it comes to accessing the internet. Another example that seems mired in legalese, antitrust law. A recent majority on the supreme court has made it harder to enforce the nation's antitrust laws. Ruling in favor of consolidation and market dominance. Yet two of judge Kavanaugh's major and anti trust opinions suggest that he would push the court even further down this pro-merger path. We should have more competition and not less. Now, to go from my specific 1:34:33 PM concerns and end on a higher plane. All of it is a tacks on the rule of law in our justice system over the past year have made me, and I would guess some of my other colleagues on this committee, pause and think many times about why I decided to come to the senate and get on this committee and much further back why I even decided to go into law in the first place. Now, I will tell you that not many girls in my high school class said they dreamed of being a lawyer. We had no lawyers in my family and my parents were the first in their families to go to college. But somehow my dad convinced me to spend a morning sitting in a courtroom watching a state court district judge Handal a calendar of criminal cases. The judge handed out misdemeanor sentences. It was certainly nothing glamorous like the work for the job you've been nominated for, but it was important just the same. I realize that morning that behind every single case, there 1:35:35 PM was a story and there was a person, no matter how small. Each and every decision the judge made that day affected that person's life. And I noticed how often he had to make gut decisions and had to take account of what his decisions would mean for that person and his or her family. This week I remembered that day. I remembered I'd written an essay about it at the ripe old age of 17. I went back and looked at what I had said. It is something I still believe today. And that is that to be part of an imperfect system, to have a chance to better that system was and is a cause worth fighting for, a job worth doing. Our government is far from perfect, judge. Nor is our legal system. But we are at a crossroads in our nation's history where we must make a choice. Are we going to dedicate ourselves to improving our democracy, improving our justice system or not. The question we are being asked 1:36:36 PM to address in this hearing among others is whether this judge, at this time in our history, will administer the law with equal justice as it applies to all citizens, regardless of if they live in a poor neighborhood or a rich neighborhood or if they live in a small house or the white house. Our country needs a supreme court justice who will better our legal system, a justice who will serve as a check and balance on the other branches of government. Who will stand up for the rule of law without consideration of politics or partisanship. Who will uphold our constitution without fear or favor and who will work for the betterment of the great American experiment in democracy. That is what this hearing is about. Thank you. >> Senator sasse. BEN SASSE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I really want to riff with Amy for a while. Senator klobuchar, you did Madison, the magna carta and 1:37:37 PM your dad taking you to court. Well done. I had all that on my bingoast what my dad was doing? >> Wisdom in Minnesota. Congratulations, judge, on your nomination. Ashley, congratulations and condolences. This process has to stink. I'm glad your daughters could get out of the room. Let's do some good news bad news. The bad news first. Judge, since your nomination in July, you've been accused of hating women, hating children, hating clean air, wanting dirty water, you've been declared a quote/unquote existential threat to our nation. Alumni of Yale law school incensed that faculty members at your ALMA mater praised your selection wrote a public letter to the school saying, quote, 1:38:38 PM people will die if Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed. This drivel is patently absurd. I worry we're going to hear more of it over the next few days. But the good news is it is absurd and the American people don't believe any of it. This stuff isn't about Brett Kavanaugh. When screamers say it stuff for cable TV news. The people who know you better, not those who are trying to get on TV, they tell a completely different story about who Brett Kavanaugh is. You've earn high praise during your 12 years on the D.C. Circuit. People in legal circles invariably applaud your mind, your work, your temperament, your collegiately. That's who Kavanaugh is. To quote an attorney from the left who's known you for a decade, quote, sometimes the superstar is just a superstar and that's the case with this judge, the senate should confirm him. It's obvious to most people 1:39:39 PM going about their work today that the deranged comments don't have anything to do with you. We should figure out why do we talk like this now. There's a bunch that's atypical in the last 19, 20 months in America. Senator klobuchar is right, the white house comments about trying to politicize the department of justice, they were wrong, and they can be taken because of Donald Trump. It's not because of anything the last 20 months. These confirmation hearings haven't worked for 30 years in America. People are going to pretend that Americans have no memory and supposedly there aren't screaming protesters saying women are going to die for decades. There's nothing really new the last 18 months. The fact the hysteria has nothing to do with you means we should ask. The hiss store Ya around supreme court hearings is coming from a 1:40:40 PM fact we have a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of the supreme court in American life now. Our political commentary talks about the supreme court like there are people wearing red and blue Jerseys. That's a really dangerous thing. By the way, if they have red and blue Jerseys, I would welcome my colleagues to introduce the legislation that ends lifetime tenure for the judiciary. The people should have power and they shouldn't have lifetime appointments. Until you introduce that lex lation, I don't believe you really want the supreme court to be a politicized body, though that's the way we constantly talk about it now. We can and we sh better with this. It's predictable, overblown, politicized circus. It's because we accepted a new herery how the hearing should work. What it should be about is an opportunity to go back and do school house rock civics for our 1:41:40 PM kids. We should talk about how a bill becomes a job and article 2 and 3. Let's try. How did we get here and how can we fix it? I want to make just four brief points. In our system, the legislative branch is supposed to be the center of our politics. Number two, it's not. Why not. Because for the last century an increasing by the decade now more and more legislative authority is delegated to the executive branch every year. Both parties do it. The legislature is impotent. Weak. And most people here want their jobs more than they legal want to do legislative work so they punt most of the work to the next branch. Third consequence is that this transfer of power means the people earn for a place where politics can be done. When we don't do a lot of big actually political debating here, we transfer it to the supreme court. And that's why the supreme court is increasingly a substitute political battleground in America. It's something our founders 1:42:41 PM wouldn't be able to make any sense of. Fourth and finally, we badly need to restore the proper duties and the balance of power from our constitutional system. So point one, the legislative branch is supposed to be our politics properly understood. We're tempted to start with article three but really we need article three as part of the constitution that sets up the judiciary. Article one, which is us, what is the legislature's job? These are equal branch, but article one comes first for a reason. That means that this is supposed to be the institution dedicated to political fights. If we see lots and lots of protests in front of the supreme court, that's a pretty good litmus test barometer of the fact our Republican isn't healthy. Because people shouldn't be thinking they -- protesting in 1:43:41 PM front of supreme court. They should be protesting in front of this body. The legislature is designed to be controversial, noisy, sometimes even rowdy, because making laws mean we have to hash out the reality we don't all agree. Government is about power. Government is not just another word for things we do together. The reason we have limited government in America is because we believe in freedom. We believe in souls. We believe in persuasion. We believe in love. And those things aren't done by power. But the government acts by power. We should be reticent to use power. So it means when you differ about power, you have to have a debate and this institution is supposed to be dedicated to debate and should be based on the premise we know since we don't all agree we should try to constrain that power just a little bit but then we should have a vote in front of the American people and then what happens. The people get to decide whether they want to hire us or fire us. They don't have to hire us again. 1:44:42 PM This body is the political branch where policy making fights should happen. And if we are the easiest people to fire, it means the only way people can maintain power in our system is if all the politicized decisions happen here. How do we get to a place where the legislature decided to give away its power? Over the last century, but especially since the 1930s, a whole lot of the responsibility in this body has been kicked to a bunch of alphabet soup bureaucracies. All the acronym names that people know about their government or don't know about their government are the places where most actual policy making kind of in a way law making is happening right now. This is not what school house rock says. There's no verse that says give power to the alphabet soup agencies and let them decide. 1:45:42 PM Because the people don't have any way to fire bureaucrats. What we mostly do is give permission to the secretary or the administrator of bureaucracy xy or Z to make law-like regulations. That's mostly what we do here. We can go home and present we make laws. No we don't. We write giant pieces of legislation that people haven't read filled with all these terms that are undefined and we say the secretary of such and such shall promulgate rules that do the rest of our dang jobs. That's why there's so many fights about the executive branch and about the judiciary because this body rarely finishes its work. And the house is't any better. J see L Y nd troni us in S I admre rna gusne C M the new system. The congress can't manage all the nitty-gritty details of everything about modern government. And this system tries to give power and control to experts in 1:46:44 PM their fields where most of us in congress don't know much of anything. About technical matters for sure. But you can also impugn our wisdom if you want. When you're talking about technicals, complicated matters, it's true that the congress would find a hard time sorting out every final dot about every detail. But the real reason at the end of the day that this institution punts most of its power to executive branch agencies is because it's a convenient way for legislatures to have to be able to avoid taking responsibility for controversial and often unpopular decisions. If people want to get re-elected over and over again, that's your highest goal. If your biggest long-term thought around here is your own incumbency, then it's a pretty good strategy for incumbency. At the end of the day, a lot of lower delegation that happens is because the congress decided to self-neuter. The important thing isn't whether or not congress has lame 1:47:44 PM jobs, the important thing is that when the congress neuters itself and gives power to an unaccountable fourth branch of government, it means the people are cut out of the process. There's nobody in Nebraska. There's nobody in Minnesota or Delaware who elected the deputy assistant administrator of plant quarantine at the usda. Yet if they do something to make nebraskans lives really difficult, which happens, who do they protest to? How do they navigate the thicket of all the lobbyists in this town to do executive agency lobbying? They can't. So what happens is they don't have any ability to speak out and to fire people through an election. And so ultimately when the congress is neutered, when the administrative state grows, when there is this fourth branch of government, it makes it harder for the concerns of citizens to be represented and articulated by people that the people know they have power over. 1:48:45 PM All the power right now happens offstage. That leaves a lot of people wondering who's looking out for me. That bring us to the third point. The supreme court becomes our substitute political battleground. It's only nine people. You can know them. You can demonize them. You can try to make them messiahs. Ultimately because people can't navigate their way through the bureaucracy, they turn to the supreme court looking for politics. Knowing our elected officials no longer care hard enough, and deciding to shroud our power at times, it means that we look for nine justices to be superlegislatures. We look for nine justices to try to right the wrongs from other places in the process. When people talk about wanting to have empathy from their justices, this is what they're talking about. They're talking about trying to make the justices do something that the congress refuses to do as it constantly abdicates its responsibility. The hyperventilating we see in this process and the way today's hearings started with 90 minutes 1:49:46 PM of theatrics that are planned with certain numbers of the other side, it shows a system out of whack. Thus a final point. The solution here is not to try to find judges who will be policymakers. The solution is not to try to turn the supreme court into an election battle for TV. The solution is to store a proper the solution is to restore to a proper constitutional order with the balance of powers. We need schoolhouse rock back, and we need a congress that writes the laws and then stands before the people, and suffers the consequences and gets back to our own mt. Vernon if that is what the elector or thes decide, and we need an executive branch who enforces the laws and not trying to write the laws in the congress' absence and we need a judiciary to apply the written a laws to the facts and cases that the are actually before it. This is the elegant and the fair process that the founders created and it is the process where the people who were elected two and six years in this institution and four years in the executive branch can be 1:50:48 PM fired, because the justices and the judges and the men and the women who serve the American people by wearing black robes are insulated from that. This is why they are an independent judiciary and why we should not talk about the democratic and Republican justices, and that is why we say that justice is blind and that is why we give them lifetime tenure, and this is why this is the last job interview that Brett Kavanaugh is ever going to have, because he is going to the job where he is not supposed to be a super legislator and the question before sus not what Brett Kavanaugh think 11 years in a block and put them aside. And if you think that he has the temperament then vote yes, and if not, then stop the charades, 1:51:50 PM because we know that Brett Kavanaugh knows that he is not to rewrite laws that he wishes they were and he is not being interviewed not to be a super legislator and his job is not to seek popularity, but it to be fair and dispassionate and not to exercise empathy, but to follow the written laws and contrary to the onion-like smear S outside, judge Kavanaugh does not hate women and children and lust after dirty water and stinky air and no, looking at the record what it seems to me is what he likes is dislikes legislators who are too lazy and risk-averse to do our jobs. So if you are reading the 300-plus opinions, the opinions reveal a dissatisfaction and he would say a compelled constitutional satisfaction to have the bureaucrats to do our job when we fail to do that, and when he has this view, he is aligned with the found aers and the constitution places the powers not in the hands of this city's bureaucracy which cannot 1:52:51 PM be fired, but our constitution is going to place the policy into the 535 of our hands, because the es can fire and hire us, and if the voters are going to retain the power, and they can be a legislature that is responsive to politics and not a judiciary that is are responsive to politic, and it seems too many that judge Kavanaugh is ready to do his job, and are we ready to do ours?. >> And when senator sasse mentions we are not ready to do our job, there was 569 delegations of authority to bureaucrats to write the regulations, because congress did not know how the reorganize health care. Senator Coons? CHRIS COONS >> Thank you, senator. Welcome judge Kavanaugh and you and your family who are here, and as you know well, we went to the same law school, and clerked in the same courthouse in Delaware. So I have known you and your 1:53:52 PM reputation for nearly 30 years and I know well that you have a reputation as a good friend and a good classmate and good roommate and husband and family man and that you have contributed to your community that we will hear later, that we have even a heard that you have been a great youth basketball coach. But frankly, are not here to consider you as the president of the neighborhood civic association or to rereview whether you have been a great youth basketball coach, but we are here to consider you for a lifetime appointment for the the United States supreme court, and you will shape the country and have an impact on the lives of millions of Americans for decades to om co, and to make that decision to exercise our constitutional role, we have to look closely at the decisions and the writings and the statements and writings to understand how you might interpret our constitution. The next justice is going to play a pivotal role in defining a wide range of political issues including the scope of the president's power and in determining whether he is above the law, and the next judge is going to enact central rights in 1:54:52 PM the modern understanding of the constitution, and including the right to privacy and contraception and intimacy and abortion and the right to participate in the democracy as full citizens under the promise of equal protection, because the cases that come before the case are not academic or esoteric or academic, but they have consequences that are very high. And so with the stakes this high, I deeply regret this process of the excesses and the gamesmanship of the recent years and that history bears recently repeating. When justice Scalia passed, I called president Obama to have a justice appointed who would help to build a strong center of the court. And when he nominated chief justice merrick garland 1:55:57 PM colleagues refused to meet with him. In the 400 days that the majority was not filled, president trump released a list of the X-- of the candidates, and so after he was elected he picked a person from that list, Neil Gorsuch, and he testified here and told us how he deeply respected precedent and he cited a book on precedent that he had co-authored for you, and in the first 15 months of service, he has decided to overturn five supreme court precedents and one just labor, and justice Gorsuch voted to gut public sector unions and overturning a 41-year-old precedent of which there were great reliance interest and impacting millions of workers in the country, but my point is that justice Gorsuch was confirmed to the the court in one of the most concerning processes in partisan history and after the majority deployed 1:56:57 PM the nuclear option tibuster the supreme court option, that brings us to today and your nomination. When justice Kennedy announced his nomination, I called the white house and asked for president trump to consider someone who could win broad support from both sides of the aisle. And judge Kavanaugh, I am concerned that you are not that nominee. Your record, prior to joining the bench places you in the midst of some of the most pitched and partisan battles in our lifetimes from Ken Starr's investigation of the president, and to the recount and the controversies of the bush administration and including torture and access to the culture wars, and so, judge, it is critical that this committee and the American people fully examine your record to understand what kind of justice you would be. Unfortunately as we have all discussed at length, it is rendered impossible. The majority has blocked access of millions of pages to your 1:58:02 PM documents of a critical role in the white house, and for the first time since watergate, the national archives have been cut out of the process for reviewing and producing the records, and senate Republicans have been working to keep the committee confidential nearly 200,000 pages of documents that the public can't view them and we cannot ask you about them, and others have decided what documents this committee will see. And for the first time in the history the president has invoked presidential executive privilege to block some to be held to this committee. And so the question is what might president trump or the majority try to hide? Mr. Chairman, I want to make an appeal to work together to restore the integrity of this committee, we are better than this process. Are better than proceeding with a nominee without engaging in a full and transparent 1:59:02 PM 1:59:02 PM process, this committee is failing the American people by proceeding in this way and I fully support the motions by my colleagues early in the proceeding and I regret that we have proceeded without observing ING the rules. And with that said, I have reviewed the parts of the record that I have been able to access and what I have been able to see from the speeches, and the writings and the decision, and I have to it is a troubles me. While serving on the bench, you have dissented higher than any surrogate to the bench since 198 1980 and that includes justice Bork. And your view is well outside of the mainstream of legal thought. You have suggested as has been referenced that the president has the authority to refuse to enforce the law of the affordable health care act where you decided it is unconstitutional, and you have voted down gun safety laws and the protection bureau and your decisions would strike down anti-discrimination law, and 2:00:04 PM praised justice Rehnquist's dissent in roe. You have approached a process of due process to undermine the rights of millions of Americans from the basis protection os for lgbt Americans and access to contraceptions and ability of Americans to love and marry whom they love and wish. Am a worried that your writings show a distraction to civil rights and most importantly, you have repeatedly and enthusiastically embraced presidential power so expansive, it could result in the dangerous unaccountable president at a time when we are most in need of the checks and balance. I want to pause, because the access of the nomination is the most. In your records you have questioned the ruling of Nixon V. United States. 2:01:03 PM You said that correctness of a subpoena, and Morris of a 30-year-old precedent that congress can create an independent authority to investigate a president who the president cannot just fire on a whim, and questioned whether an aide or the president should be subject to any civil or criminal investigation while in office. And given these position about the presidential power which I view as being at one extreme of is circuit of judges, we have to confront the uncomfortable, and the important question if president trump may have selected you with an eye towards protecting him. So I will ask you about these issues as I did when we met in my office and I expect you the address them. When we spoke, you agreed that we have a shared concern about the legitimacy of the supreme court and critical to our system of rule of law, and in my view, it is today in jeopardy. You're participating in a process that is featuring 2:02:04 PM unprecedented concealment and partisanship around your record. A few moments ago, president Durbin asked a bold statement for you suspend this hearing until all of your records are reviewed by the committee and the American people. I encourage you to do that. And also, members of both parties who have not stated how they will vote, and I urge you to answer our questions about the prior work and the writings and the precedent and the constitution itself. To trust the American people and to help trust our trust on the court which you may soon well serve. I have been to too many hearings where the judicial nominees have said they will even handedly apply the constitution, and then a ascend to the bench to obvious turn long settled precedent. This supreme courcancy comes at a critical time for the country, when the institutions of law and the foundations of democracy are gravely tested F. 2:03:04 PM We are going to safeguard the rule of law in country, the courts and the supreme court must be a bull work against deprivations of freedom and abuses of power by anyone, including our president. No one said it better than our former colleague senator McCain who once asked about America, what mas us exceptional? The wealth, the natural resources, the military, the big and bountiful resources? No, it is the fidelity to them and the conduct in the world. They are the source of the wealth and power that we live under the rule of law. That enables us to face threats with confidence and values stronger than the enemies. Judge Kavanaugh, we are here to determine whether you would uphold or undermine those founding ideals and the role of law. We are here to determine whether you would continue in the traditions of the court or transform it into a body more conservative than a majority of 2:04:08 PM the Americans. We are here to determine whether your confirmation would compromise or undermine the legitimacy of the court, itself. I urge you to answer our questions and to confront these significant challenges. These are weighted questions, and the American people deserve real answers. Thank you. I look forward to your testimony. GRASSLEY >> You know, you can easily get the impression not just from senator coons but other senators that somehow you are judging Kavanaugh are out of the mainstream some way, so I looked at your record and the D. C. Circuit, and have found that judges have agreed with you and your rulings in an overwhelming majority of the matters across the board, 94% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh heard were decided unanimously in 97% of the matters, judge Kavanaugh 2:05:09 PM heard, he voted with the majority and judge Kavanaugh issued dissenting opinions in 2 7/10 of the matters that you heard. I would also like to clarify what the presidential records act requires. Our documents process has fully complied with the presidential records act under the federal statute. President bush has the right to request his own records and he has the authority to review the records before the senate receives them, and indeed the archives may not produce them no the committee without giving president bush and his statutory representatives an opportunity to review first. This is what president bush has done in the -- and the national 2:06:10 PM archives do not have a are right to second-guess the records issued to us. The national archives was not cut out of the process as president bush informed the committee, quote, because we have sought, received and followed NARA, and that means the archivist's views on any documents withheld as personal documents the resulting productions of document nos the committee is essentially the same as if the archivist had conducted the are review first and then sought our views, and the current administrative view as required by law, end of quote. Senator flake. JEFF FLAKE >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Congratulations, judge Kavanaugh, and congratulations to your family as well. Let me just say a few things about the issue that has been discussed here a lot today. Tsue of documents and document production. The standard historically that 2:07:13 PM we use to, to look at nominees is what is relevant and probative. I would suggest that we certainly get that from the 12 years that you have served on the circuit court, the D.C. Circuit court that considers when you are looking at the docket, the items that more than any other circuit court that the supreme court would perhaps be called to rule on O. In the past, senators on this panel have argued on both sides of the aisle that confirming a judge, confirming a judge the best we can look at is his or her judicial record and you have that record. It is a long one, and over 300 opinions, and I would suggest that, that's where we need to start. If other records are duplicative and do not meet the standard of 2:08:16 PM relative or probative and may not demonstrate the type of justice that you will be. Senator Sasse talked about what we are called to do here which is to look at your temperament and your judgment and your character. I think that you can see a lot of that by the type of life that you have lived outside of the courtroom. When we met in my office, I was impressed obviously with your respect for the law and quick intellect, but also struck by kindness and decency. I found out that we share a deep love of sports, and we both played football back in the day. I am sure that you are looking forward to this weekend not just when these hearings are concluded, but when the Redskins and the cardinals play on Sunday. I have learned that you have run the Boston marathon twice. I wonder if the aba took that into account when they gave you a favorable rating. I am not sure what that says 2:09:17 PM about your soundness of mind, myself. But in all seriousness, but training for a marathon and completing two marathons like that is a huge accomplishment, and it demonstrates not just your competitive spirit, but a strong sense of the purpose and commitment and says something about your temperament and character. Of course, you have no greater commitment than to your family, your wife, Ashley, and your two daughters. I know that you beamed with pride when talking about them, and talking about has been mentioned earlier coaching your daughter's elementary school basketball teams. I have a letter for the record written by a group of parents who play for basketball teams that judge Kavanaugh coach, and Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would like to enter that letter into the record. 2:10:17 PM >> So ordered. >> The parents of the team say that he has been a devoted coach and mentor to the daughters and As they note that coach K and that is you and not the duke famous one, stresses the importance of playing as a team and provides an opportunity to play with humility, and hard work and competitiveness and integrity, and again going back to temperament and character. Judge Kavanaugh's commitment as a volunteer basketball coach, I think that it demonstras and says a gool about the character. And congratulations to you and the blessed sacrament bulldogs for winning the city championship this past year and I know that you must be proud of your team. Aside from running marathons and Wenning basketball championships, I have known that you are serving on the D.C. Circuit court, and you have 2:11:17 PM earned from colleagues of both sides of the aisle, a solid careful judge, and a thorough and clear writer and someone who promotes collegiality on the court, and working with people across the ideological lines. I have a New York Times' article for the record written by a professor akeel ar who describes your career as being an objective record. I submit that to the record. >> So ordered. >> He has written more than 300 opinions and joining the colleague in issues thousands of additional cases. And that is where we need to look first when we are looking at how you will judge on the 2:12:19 PM supreme court. I know that it has been brought up today that a lot of the concern from the other side of the aisle stems from the concern of administration that doesn't seem to understand and appreciate separation of powers and the rule of law. I have that concern as well. If you are looking at what was said just yesterday by the president. I think it is very concerning that he said in a tweet too long running obama-era investigations of two popular congressmen brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterm S by the Jeff Session's justice department he calls it. Two easy wins in doubt now, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. That is why a lot of people are concerned about this the administration and why they want to ensure that our institutions hold thus far they have 2:13:23 PM gratefully. Jeff sessions has are resisted pressure from the president to punish his enemies and relieve pressure on his friends. And many of the questions that you will get on the other side of the aisle and from me will be how you view that relationship. Where you believe that the article I powers end and article II powers of the administration begin. So I expect to have a number of questions on that subject. I, again, appreciate your willingness to put yourself through this process and I look forward to the hearing moving ahead in the next week. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSLEY >> Okay. Senator Blumenthal. BLUMENTHAL >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your conducting these hearings as fairly and patiently as you have, and I am going to be 2:14:25 PM remarking further on what procedurally I think is appropriate here. I want to begin by thanking judge Kavanaugh and your family for your commitment to public service. I want to thank the many, many Americans who are paying at a tension to this hearing not only in this room, but also across the country. I want to thank them for their interest and indeed the passion. That is what sustains democracy. That commitment to ordinary, everyday Americans participating and engaging in this process. There is a t-shirt worn by a number of folks walking around the building that says "I am what's at stake." 2:15:26 PM This vote and this proceeding could not be more consequential in light of what is at stake, and whether women can decide when they want to have children and become pregnant, whether the people of America can decide whom they would like to marry, whether we drink clean water and breathe clean air, and whether consumers are protected against defective product and financial abuses and whether we have a real system of checks and balances or alternatively, an imperial presidency. I will not cast a vote more important than this one. And I suspect few of my colleagues will as well. What is at stake also is the 2:16:29 PM rule of law. My colleague, senator flake quoted the president's tweet yesterday and I want to the repeat it. Two long-running obama-era investigation of two poplar Republican congressmen were brought to a well publicized charge just ahead of the midterms by the Jeff sessions' justice department. Two easy wins now in doubt, because there is not enough time. Good job, Jeff. I have had my disagreements with the department of justice and I want to note that for the record that at least one high-ranking member of the department of justice was in this room. I want to urge the department of justice to stand strong and hold fast against this onslaught which threats the basic principles of our democracy. I want to join my colleague, senator sasse in his hope that 2:17:31 PM you will, judge Kavanaugh, would condemn this the attack on the rule of law and our judiciary, because at the the end of this dark era, when the history of this time is written, I believe that the heroes will be our independent judiciary and our free press. You are nominated by that very president who has launched this attack the on our department of justice, on the rule of law, on law enforcement like the FBI law enforcement at every level whose integrity he has questioned and your responses to these questions will be highly 2:18:35 PM enlightening about whether you join us in defending the judiciary and the rule of law. That very president has nominated you in this unprecedented time. Unprecedented because he is an unindicted co-conspirator who has nominated a potential justice, who will cast the swing vote on issues relating to his possible criminal culpability. And whether he is required to the obey a subpoena to appear before the grand jury and whether he is required to testify in the prosecution of friends, associates or other officials in the administration, and whether in fact he is required to stand trial if he is indicted as president of the united States. There is a basic principle of 2:19:37 PM our constitution, and it was a articulated by the founders. No one can select a judge in his own case. That is what the president is potentially doing here. Selecting a justice on the supreme court who potentially will cast a decisive vote in his own case. That is a reason why this proceeding is so consequential. Sen or the sasse urged to us do our job. I agree. And part of that is to review the record as deliberately as possible looking for the relevant and probative evidence. We can't do that on this record. 2:20:37 PM Mr. Chairman, you said multiple times that your staff has reviewed the 42,000 pages of documents produced to the committee at 5:41 P.M. Yesterday. Both sides are using the same computer platform. To are review the documents from Mr. Burr, and the documents had to to be loaded into this platform overnight and could not be concluded until 6:45 A.M. This morning. How is it possible that your staff concluded its rereview last night before the documents were even uploaded? That is the platform that both sides are using here. Simply not possible. Mr. Chairman, that any senator has seen the new materials and much less all of the other relevant documents that have been screened by Bill Burke who 2:21:38 PM is not the national archivist and this situation when we say it is unprecedented, it is truly without parallel in our history, and I'm going to quote from the national archivist, it is quote, "Something that has never happened before." And the archivist continued the effort by former president bush does not represent the national archives or the George W. Bush presidential library, end quote. So Mr. Chairman, I renew the motion to adjourn, so that we have time to conclude our review of these documents and so that also my request under the freedom of information act which is now pending to the national archivist to, department of justice and to other relevant agencies can be considered and judged. That freedom of information act 2:22:40 PM will require some time some time I assume to conclude, and I renew my motion, Mr. Chairman, and ask for a vote on the motion to adjourn as I said earlier rule 4 provides, quote, the committee chairman, shall, shall and not may, but shall entertain a non debatable motion to bring a matter before the committee to a vote, and that seems pretty clear to me, Mr. Chairman. I have made a motion to bring the before the committee to a motion to adjourn under the rules with all due respect, you are required to entertain my motion. I would add this final point. All of these documents will come out. They will come out eventually as soon as 2019 and 2020. 2:23:44 PM By law, these documents belong to the American people. They don't belong to president bush or president trump. They belong to the American people, and it is only a matter of time, my Republican colleagues before you will have to answer for what's in these documents. We don't know what is in them, but the question is, what are they concealing that you will have to answer to history. So Mr. Chairman, I restate my motion. >> And you quote them exactly, and those rules apply no the executive business session, and we are not in executive business session, so I deny your motion. >> And Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, I ask you the point to me the language in rule 4 or anywhere else in the rules that limits its scope to executive business meetings. There is so much language. 2:24:50 PM >> You quotet me the contrary. >> Could you quote me. >> No, you tell me where there is language to the contrary? >> And so there is nothing in the session now that precludes the vote in the hearing at this exact time. >> I have ruled and you want to proceed, do you? >> Well, if the chair with all due respect is voting against me, I move to the appeal the ruling of the chair with all due respect, and the chairman is not above the rules of the committee, and you ask for a roll call vote to overturn the ruling of the chair and to allow for a vote on my motion to adjourn these proceedings. >> And that would be an appropriate motion if we were in executive business session, but we are not, and so it is denied. >> Mr. Chairman, I will proceed under protest. We have had a lot of rhetoric, so far, about rules and norms 2:25:53 PM and I am regretful that the chair has adopted this stance which in my view contradicts the basic rules and norms, but I will proceed. Mr. Chair -- I have fears about what this nominee will do with respect to our rule of law, but also about basic rights that have been established by past supreme court precedent. The only way to test what his fidelity to the rule of law is in fact is to ask as I have asked every judicial nominee coming before me when I have served on the committee in hearings, whether he believes past decisis of the supreme court were correctly decided. So I'm going to be asking you, judge Kavanaugh, what you 2:26:54 PM believe roe V. Wade was correctly decided. I'm going to be asking you -- >> Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question -- I am under the impression that each of us had 10 minutes for opening statement, and we will have 50 minutes for questions. >> Let me clarify. >> And then plus I would ask, Mr. Chairman, the various members have been making speeches all day long and have not been confined to the ten-minute opening statement. >> Okay. Well, like I said told you -- >> I think that I have time. >> I am going to let you finish. Just a minute. I was hoping that the 10:00 rule would stand, but we got off to a very bad start. And we got off to a bad start, and everybody started exceeding their time limits. So I guess as long as we have to stay here and get this all done 2:27:55 PM here today and stay into the night, we will stay, but I am not going to be cutting anybody off now they did not do it right away, and like you said, mob rule, I have always said to myself when advising other people, either you run the committee or tet let the committee run me. And I let the committee run me this time, and so let's just proceed as we have, and let senatomenthal take what time he wants, and I hope he won't go too long? >> I will be judicious, Mr. Chairman. >> Thank you. I don't know what that ans? >> Yeah, I don't either. [ Laughter ] >> He is not answering. >> I am sorry, senator Cornyn, I can't agree with you. Just proceed. Senator Blumenthal. >> Next time, chairman. >> So I will be asking judge Kavanaugh whether roe V. Wade is correctly decided and judicial nominees have figured out all kinds of ways to the avoid 2:28:56 PM answering the question, and first they said that they felt it would violate the cannons of ethic, and there are no Canons of ethics that preclude a response, and then they said that they felt a decision might come before them an issue or case that might arise, and recently adopted the mantra that all supreme court decisions are correctly decide, but you are in a different position, because you nominate nod the highest court in the land, and your decisions as a potential swing vote could overturn even well settled precedent. There are indications in your writings, your opinions, as well as to a articles that you have written and some of the memos that have come to light that you believe for example roe V. Wade could be overturned. That is why I want to know from you whether you think it is 2:29:58 PM correctly decided in the first place, and other the decisions that are regarded as well settled or long established. In fact, I have these fears because judge Kavanaugh, this system and process has changed so radically, and in fact, you have spent decades showing us in many ws what you believe. Or to put it more precisely, you have spent decades showing those groups like the federalist society and the heritage foundation and others what you believe. They're the ones who have really nominated you. Because the president outsourced this decision to them. In those opinions and writings and statements and interviews, 2:30:58 PM you have done everything in your power to show those far right groups that you will be a loyal soldier on the court. And I'm going to use some of those writings and the timing and other indications to show that you are more than a nominee. In fact, a candidate in a campaign that you have conducted. That seems to be unfortunately the way that the system has worked in your case. The norms have been dumbed down and the system has been degraded, but I think that we have an obligation to do our job and elicit from you where you will go as a justice on the United States supreme court based on what you have written and said and also what you will 2:31:59 PM tell the American people in these hearings. I join in the request that has been made of you that you show the initiative and ask for a postponement on these hearings. I think that this process has been a grave disservice to you, as well as the committee and the American people. If you are confirmed after this truncated and concealed process, there will always be a taint. There will always be an asterisk after your name, appointed by a president named as an unindicted co-conspirator after the vast are request for documents in the most instructive period of his life were conceal and the 2:32:59 PM question is always going to be why was all of that material concealed. You have coached and you've mentored judges in going through the process. You are as sophisticated and knowledgeable as anyone who will ever come before us as a judicial nominee, so you know that we have an obligation to inquire as to everything that can be relevant. It is not the numbers of documents, but it is the percentage. There were no e-mails when justice Ginsburg was the nominee. The documents that we have been provided contain duplicates, and full of junk. We need everything that is relevant including the three years that you served in the bush white house as staff secretary. The most instructive period of your professional career. 2:34:03 PM So let me conclude by saying that what we share, I think is a deep respect and reverence for the United States supreme court. It was a law clerk, as you were. I have argued cases before the court, and most of my life has been spent in the courtro, as a U.S. Attorney or attorney general, and the power of the supreme court depends not only armies or police force, because it has none, but the credibility, and the trust and the confidence of the American people. I ask you the help us to uphold the trust by asking this committee to suspend this hearing and come back when we have a full picture with the full sunlight that our chairman is so fond of espousing, so that we can fully and fairly evaluate 2:35:05 PM your nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. >> Once again, I would remind everybody that we have a half a million -- half a million documents on this gentleman's record and also I'd like to respond to the fact that you can't go 42,000 pages, which I guess is way over the number of documents that, that we actually received. The majority and the minority received documents in two ways. One is a format that can be uploaded to reviewing platforms, and the second is in a standard document file format called PDFs and given the importance of reviewing documents in a timely manner, my staff reviewed the PDF versions, and the production was relatively small, and therefore there was no need to upload them to a reviewing platform. (Very Loud shouting) 2:36:13 PM GRASSLEY Senator Kennedy, you are next. You're next, senator Kennedy. KENNEDY >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with the interest today. I agree so much with what senator sasse said. I have listened today and it is no wonder to me that so many Americans think that the united States supreme court is nothing more than a little congress. A political body. I think that like the united States senate. Let me try to explain what I am looking for in a supreme court justice. I want a judge. I don't want a politician. 2:37:18 PM Now, I am not naive and it is true that senator booker and I are new to the senate. We didn't come here when Moses walked the Earth. But, we're not new to politics. I understand that human relations are about politics. I get that, but I don't believe that our founders ever intend United States supreme court to become a political body. I don't. I'm not looking for an ideologue or a hater. But what I am looking for is somebody who is whip smart, who's intellectually curious, who writes cleanly and crisply, who knows what a semicolon is for and who is willing to 2:38:23 PM protect the United States' constitution and the bill of writes and understands that the bill of rights is not an a la carte menu. Every one of them counts. Let me try to explain further why I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. This is not a news flash. Our country is divided. We have been divided before and we will be divided again, but it seems that the division in the country today seems to me to be especially sharp, and what concerns me so much about that division is the basis for it. It is not honest disagreement, and so much of it nger. There have been thousands and millions of pages written about the anger. And we all have opinions, and you know what they say about 2:39:23 PM opinions. Here's mine. I think that a big part of the anger in America today is because we have too many Americans who aren't sharing in the great wealth of this country. Not economically, not socially, not culturally and not spiritually. And those Americans believe that the American dream has become the American game. And that game is fixed. Let me give you one example of why I say that. I don't hear it so much today. I'm biased, but I happen to think that the tax Cutts and jobs bill act worked. When I ran two years ago I would hear it every single day and people would stop me and say, Kennedy, you know what is wrong with us economically? 2:40:25 PM They would tell me that I look around, Kennedy, and I see too many undeserving people, and I emphasize undeserving people, and I don't want to paint with a broad bush, but too many undeserving people at the top getting the bailouts and too many undeserving people at the bottom getting handouts. And I'm here just to work and min the middle, and stuck in the middle, and I can't pay the freight anymore, because my health insurance has gone up, and my kid's tuition has gone up and my taxes have gone up, but I will tell you what has not gone up, my income. I happen to think that we are doing better in that regard. But we still have to work a long way to go, and but here he's the point. Who is supposed to fix that for the American people? It's us, the United States 2:41:26 PM congress. It is not the United States supreme court that is supposed to fix this country culturally, economically, socially, spiritually, and that is why I say that I agree with so much of what senator sasse said. It is almost cliche, but the role of the judge is or at least should be to say what the law is. Not what the law ought to be. Now it has become cliche, but cliches become cliches, because ey are true. Judges are not put there to try to bypass the ballot. Courts should not try to fix problems that are within the province of the United States congress, even if the united States congress doesn't have the courage to address those problems. Our courts were not meant to decide these kinds of issues. 2:42:28 PM I am not, again, I'm not naive and I know that the judges are not robots. We can't replace you, and we should not try to replace you with a software program based on artificial intelligence. You have discretion, and we will talk about that, and if we ever get to the questioning part of this exercise. But I wanted to say it again, I understand why listeninday that so many Americans believe that the law, which I think that all of us revere has become politics just pursued in another way. It is not the way it is supposed to be, judge. That is not what I am looking for. I am going to end and I have plenty of time left and I have two hours allotted, Mr. Chairman, and somebody said that they had seen this movie before and I commented to my friend senator the Tillis, this thing is as 2:43:28 PM long as a movie. These are the words of justice Curtis. In 1857, when he dissented in the red Scott case. When a strict interpretation of the constitution according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we have no longer a constitution. We are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the constitution is. According to their own views of what it ought to mean. That is not the rule of law. Justice Scalia put it another way. I truly will end with that, he said that the American people 2:44:30 PM love democracy. And the American people are not fools. The people know their value judgments and our quietest good is taught in any law school and maybe better. Value judgments after all should be voted on and not dictated. That is what I am looking for, judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. MAZIE HIRONO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Kavanaugh and your family, welcome. Mr. Chairman, earlier on today, I pointed to an op-ed that had been written by two former white house staff secretaries John podesta and Todd stern entitled staff secretaries are not traffic cops and stop treating Kavanaugh as if he were one, and I noted in the op-ed what they 2:45:31 PM said. I will quote part of it. They say that when we, they, handle the job for president Bill Clinton in such the same way they did for George H.W. Bush, we wrote the concise cover memos for every decision memo that went to the president. We summarized the underlying memo, and underlined the court decision and options and conveyed the news of the key staff members from whom we had taught comment, and we wrote hundreds of these memos and it is a wonder that judge Kavanaugh has deemed his time as white house staff secretary as so important to his performance as a judge, but unfortunately as we have said already, we don't have any of the documents for judge Kavanaugh's time as staff secretary. Dana sabre, and Dave Kilson, and Colleen Kohler telly, and John Buckwald 2:46:35 PM and John bates and Derrick Watson are some of the judges who have bifurcated by the rule of law in the last year and half. These are the women and the men appointed by Republican and democratic president who order the government to reunite parents with their children ripped from their arms at the border who rejected attempts to deny the federal funds to cities refusing to be drawn into the war against immigrants. Who stopped executive orders aimed at knee capping the public sector unions and who stopped the implementation of the ugly ban of transgender Americans serving in the military, and who ruled that public officials can cannot block citizens from their Twitter feeds and who stopped the government from banning muslims from entering the united States. These judges stood firm in defense of the constitution, and the American values that it exposes and the system of checks and Bala 2:47:41 PM enshrines. At this moment of our democracy, it is these judges and others like them who have pushed back against the efforts of the president eager to wield unlimited and unchecked power. In Normal times, we would be here today to determine the fits on of a nominee no the supreme court of the United States chosen for his or her legal talent and reputation for fairness. But these are not Normal times. Instead, we are here to decide whether to rubber stamp Donald Trump's preselected political ideologue nominated because he believes that a sitting president should be shielded from criminal lawsuits and prosecution no matter the facts. Let's not forget that during his campaign, Donald Trump needed to the shore up the report from the Republican base who questioned whether he was sufficiently conservative, and to help, he the turned to the federalist society and the heritage foundation to build a pre-approved list of names and promised to pick from among them when selecting nominees for the 2:48:41 PM supreme court. These groups are long standing right-wing organizations that advocate for conservative causes and legal positions. The heritage foundation focuses on developing policy, too, and among other things, opposing climate change, and repeal the affordable care act and reduce regulations for big business, and the federal ace society focuses to change the American legal system to align with a conservative interpretation of the constitution including the overturning of Roe V. Wade. When given the opportunity to nominate a new supreme court justice, Donald Trump did exactly as he promised, he did not select someone who demonstrates Independence and fidelity to the rule of law, and instead, Donald Trump sent up a preapproved name in order to guarantee the vote for his nominations. 2:49:47 PM -- To guarantee a fifth vote for the dangerous anti-worker, and anti-consumer, and anti-woman, and anti-procorporate and anti-american agenda. And the president is trying as hard as he can to protect himself from the independent, should be considered in a broader context. The president has been packing our courts with ideologically driven judges who come to the bench with firm positions and clear agendas, who then go on to rule in ways consistent with those agendas. For example, trump nominee James holk, a judge on the fifth circuit has written in favor of unlimited campaign contributions and publicly a red his views in opposition to abortion. Trump nominee don Ouellet a judge on the fifth circuit has voted to curtail the Independence of a federal agency that helped rescue the economy after the mortgage crisis of 2:50:49 PM 2008. Trump nominee Steven bibos, now a judge on the third circuit wrote a dissent to explain that he does not believe title IX requires school districts to provide transgender students appropriate changing facilities and bathrooms. Trump nominee Amy kony Barrett a judge on the seventh circuit. Ruled to keep out of court employees trying to challenge an arbitration proceeding and cast the deciding vote to allow a business to continue to segregate its workforce. And trump nominee John K. Bush now a judge on the sixth circuit ruled to keep out of court a woman accusing her employer of age discrimination, despite a dissenting judge's view that there was sufficient evidence to go forward. When these trump-nominated judges came before this judiciary committee as nominees, my democratic colleagues and I tried to find out how they would go about deciding tough cases, what they would base their decisions on when the law did 2:51:50 PM not give a clear-enough direction as is often the case. And time and again we were told don't worry about my personal background or my history as a partisan political advocate. Don't worry about what I've done, written or said until now. When I get on the bench I'll just follow the law. But clearly they have not. Why should we expect this supreme court nominee -- you -- to be any different? President trump selected Brett Kavanaugh because of his fealty to the partisan political movement he has been part of his entire political life from his clerkship, to his apprenticeship to Ken Starr and the Florida recount and the white house, judge Kavanaugh has been knee-deep in partisan politics. The first reward for that service was his nomination to the D.C. Circuit. It was a tough fight, but Republican aligned special 2:52:52 PM interests fought more more than three years to get him confirmed. And for the past 12 years as a judge, he has ruled whether in dissent or majority in ways aligned with their political and ideological agenda. Now president trump has selected judge Kavanaugh to provide the decisive fifth vote in cases that will change some of the most basic assumptions Americans have about their lives and their government. There are more than 730 federal judges working on thousands of cases across the country every day. And most of these cases end in trial courts. Some of them are appealed and heard in appellate courts. The closely divided supreme court hears very few cases. Many times fewer than 100 every year. Before Justice Kennedy retired, so many important constitutional rights were hanging in the balance. Decided on narrow grounds by 5-4 votes. And now that justice Kennedy has left the court, the forces opposed to workers' rice, 2:53:53 PM women's rights, lgbtq rights, voting rights, civil rights of all kinds and environmental protections are eager to secure a solid majority on the court to support their right-wing views. These ultra right-wing forces have been working for decades to prepare for this moment. Because they know that a single vote, a single vote for one justice is all it would take to radically change the direction of this country. It could take just one vote on the supreme court to overturn roe V. Wade and deny women control over their reproductive rice. It could take just one vote to Claire the ACA's preexisting condition protections unconstitutional. It could take just one vote to dismantle environmental protections that keep ourary safe to breathe and our water clean to drink. It could take just one vote to dismantle common-sense gun safety laws that keep our communities safe. And it could take just one vote to further erode protections for working people and unions. Since this nominations with 2:54:55 PM announced I have been asked many times why the Democrats will even bother to go through the motions when we know that our Republican colleagues will do anything to support this administration's judicial nominees. There are battles worth fighting regardless of the outcome. A lifetime appointment to the supreme court of someone who will provide the fifth vote on issues impacting the lives of every working American is a battle worth fighting. So I intend to use this hearing to none straight to the American people precisely why who sits on the supreme court matters. Why a fifth ideologically driven conservative and political vote on the court is dangerous for our country. Why the senate should reject this president's latest attempt to rig the system in his favor. As senators begin to ask their questions in the coming days, I ask the American people to listen carefully to what the nominee says and compare it with what we heard only a short time ago from Neil Gorsuch at his confirmation hearing. 2:55:55 PM Just 18 months ago judge Gorsuch told thus quote all precedent of the United States supreme court deserves the respect of precedent. Which is quite a lot. It's the anchor of the law. Judge Gorsuch said it's not whether I agree or disagree with any particular precedent. That would be an act of hubris, because a precedent once decided it carries far more weight than what I personally think. He said judge Gorsuch made these promises when he was asking for our votes. But early this year, he joined a majority of the court to overturn precedent in a 41-year-old case that protected government workers and their ability to form a union. In a 5-4 decision. I expect judge Kavanaugh to make similar promises over the next few days, only to do, sadly, the exact opposite if confirmed. Our job here is important because every American should be concerned about what our government and country would look like if judge Kavanaugh is confirmed. We owe it to American people and 2:56:57 PM to all the independent-minded judges I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks to preserve the integrity of our constitution, and the fairness and order of a system that has served us well for so long. Judge Kavanaugh, what may be going through your mind right now is to simply and stoically endure this hearing. But don't you think you owe it to the American people to disclose all of the documents being requested? Because you have nothing to hide. Because you have nothing to hide. I agree with my colleague, senator Durbin, judge Kavanaugh, if you stand behind your full record in public life, fundamental fairness would dictate that you join us in our call for this committee to suspend until we receive all relevant documents and have a chance to review them. Your failure to do so would reflect a fundamental mistrust of the American people. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and I would like to have entered into 2:57:58 PM the record the op-ed piece I referred to by John podesta and Todd stern. GRASSLEY >> Without objection, it will be entered. Let's go to senator Crapo is next. MIKE CRAPO >> Thank you, Mr. Chairman, judge Kavanaugh, welcome, thank you for your service to this country and thank you for the willingness you have expressed to take this additional assignment. Thank you to your family. We welcome them as well. The process on which we're about to embark is one of maybe not the most important duties, and trusted to the senate. Advice and consent on judicial nominations. Ultimately a fair and proper judge, supreme court or otherwise, must follow the law and not make laws from the bench. Upon receiving his nomination to serve as associate justice of the supreme court, judge Kavanaugh stated, my judicial philosophy is straightforward. A judge must interpret statutes 2:58:58 PM as written, and a judge must interpret the constitution as written informed by history and tradition and precedent. Isn't that the ideal of a judge steadfastly committed to the law? No one seriously questions judge Kavanaugh's qualifications to serve as an associate justice on our nation's highest court. He's experienced and respected for his intellect, honestly and legal acumen. With over 300 authored opinions and 12 years of service on the bench he is a judge with a clear record, demonstrating that he applies the law as written and enforces the constitution. He values precedent and has written along with justice Gorsuch and others the law of judicial precedent. A scholarly piece on the importance of stare decisis. Sadly much of the discourse surrounding judge Kavanaugh's nomination deals not with the 2:59:58 PM content of his legal opinions, Temperament, but rather as today's discussion has shown, the spurious notion that our distinguished chairman has not been rigorous or fair or transparent in navigating the requisite document production efforts required by this committee. Those claims are wholly without foundation. There have been 57 days since the announcement of judge Kavanaugh's nomination on July 9. And today's confirmation hearing. This is longer period of time than senators had for justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Gorsuch. Justice Kavanaugh also submitted over 17,000 pages with his bipartisan judiciary committee questionnaire. The most extensive questionnaire ever returned by a nominee to the supreme court. The committee also received more than 440,000 pages of documents related to his service in the 3:01:06 PM executive branch. This, too, is more than any supreme court nominee to date. As has been said earlier, in fact is more than the last five nominees combined. I applaud chairman grassley and his dedicated staff for their tireless work in reviewing these documents and making the vast majority publicly available as quickly as possible. And frankly, Mr. Chairman, I believe the American people appreciate your efforts, your transparency and your commitment to a fair process. Now I want to make one side note. It was said here today that the number of documents provided by justice, now justice Kagan, who was also a nominee who had served in the white house and had many, many documents relating to her service, that 9% of the documents requested for her were provided. One problem with that fact. And that is that when justice Kagan was before us, she had 3:02:06 PM been the solicitor-general there were probably more pages relevant to her service there than to your service. We don't know the number. Because the Republicans agreed after a strong disagreement with the Democrats, we wouldn't request those documents. Because the white house claims they were sensitive. The Democrats have not made that agreement with the Republicans. This time. But it's notable I think it's incredibly important to note that this argument that is going on today, about the balance of document production, is simply a trumped-up argument. These facts aside. Many of my colleagues continue to criticize this process. Their motives are clear. Use any means available to attempt to delay the confirmation process of a well-qualified jurist fit for the job. Indefinitely. I strongly agree with the 3:03:07 PM comments of many of my colleagues here today, senator Cruz pointed out what was really at stake. Senator sasse pointed out why it is that congress needs to be the part of our federal government that makes the law. Not the judiciary. Senator Kennedy has followed up on that thought, as have many of my other colleagues here today. I think one point that senator Cruz made deserves repeating. Much of what we are hearing today and will hear for the remainder of this process is ultimately, an effort to relitigate the last presidential election. In fact, we have just heard judge Kavanaugh attacked and stated to be unqualified, because he is a trump nominee. Other trump nominees have also been attacked here today. The attack is on president trump. Not on their nominees. Because of an unwillingness to 3:04:08 PM accept the outcome of the last presidential election. Judge Kavanaugh as the nominee has been widely recognized for his judicial temperament and his detailed legal writings in defense of the constitution. His opinions are widely cited by his fellopellate judges and even the supreme court and although his integrity was challenged, stating that no matter what he says to this committee, he will vote the other way once put into the supreme court, the fact is, that his record as the chairman has already out disproves that he serves on the D.C. Circuit court of appeals. A court on which more of the judges who serve have been appointed by Democrat presidents than Republican presidents. Yet, he has voted 97% of the time with his colleagues in the majority on that court. Showing that he will follow the 3:05:10 PM law and that he does so with the majority support of broad and I was going to say bipartisan, but nonpartisan judges who are appointed by Republican and Democrat presidents. And who consider some of the most important cases in America today. That is the judge we have before us. He's a judge's judge. Many critics argue that justice Kavanaugh would play an instrumental role in reversing a number of supreme court precedent. However, I wonder how one can draw that conclusion, given his record of exhaustive and weighty consideration of important legal questions. On a court such as the D.C. Circuit. I recognize that it is politics driving these attacks. And so do the American people. They know what's at stake here. Moreover, in his legal opinions, judge Kavanaugh has consistently 3:06:12 PM demonstrated a willingness to rein in both congressed aed executive branch when they overstep their respective constitutional grounds. Judge Kavanaugh understands and is focused on the principle that a judge is a servant of the law, not the maker of it. We should take him at his own words. The judge's judge is to interpret the law, not to make the law or policy. So read the words of the statute as written. Read the text of the constitution as written. Mindful of history and tradition. Don't make up new constitutional rights that are not in the text of the constitution. Don't shy away from enforcing constitutional rights that are in the text of the constitution. Those are judge Kavanaugh's words. That is the man who sits before us. Nominated to be a justice on the highest court of our land. Judge Kavanaugh has the backing of his former law clerks and law students, his colleagues on the bench appointed by both 3:07:13 PM Republican and Democrat presidents and many members of his local community in which he remains so closely involved. He is a man of honor, integrity and well respected in the legal community. There is no dispute he is qualified to serve on our nation's highest court. Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the hearing from the nominee himself when we all get done with our statements. [ Protester shouting ] >> As we discuss with judge Kavanaugh for the public to hear, in his own words the proper role of a judge in our constitutional system. I look forward to this hearing and again, judge Kavanaugh, thank you for being willing to be here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. GRASSELY >> Senator booker. BOOKER >> Thank, Mr. Chairman. Welcome judge Kavanaugh I want to say welcome to your family sincerely as well. We're all Americans taking part in what is truly historic 3:08:14 PM moment. Mr. Chairman, chairman grassley, I hope you do not think earlier this morning that in any way I was questioning your integrity or decency, I was appealing to it earlier before and you have conducted this hearing giving myself and others at least the opportunity to speak and make our case, even though you've not ruled in our favor, of which I'm disappointed, I do hope you understand that I value your friendship and frankly some of the most valuable moments I've had on the senate I still remember shaking your hand and coming to agreement with you on criminal justice reform and I've could have Tom a deep respect for you. >> If you worry about our friendship being affected, it will not be. That gives me an opportunity it say something to the public at large. That is, about this committee. You would think that Republicans and Democrats don't talk to each other. But I'd like to remind the public that when they think that happens, they ought to think of the record of this committee. No the just this chairman. But this committee, in the three and a half years, maybe even 3:09:14 PM before I got to be chairman. But in the three and a half years I've been chairman, every bill that got out of this committee has been a bipartisan bill. Proceed, senator. >> Thank you, very much, sir. I appreciate that. It doesn't detract from the fact that I just fundamentally disagree with the way you've been concluding today. When I first got to the senate I was very fortunate that a lot of senior statesmen, yourself, senator hatch included, pulled me aside and gave me hard wisdom. I came to the senate in a special election at a time we were changing some of the senate rules. Senator Levin brought me aside and gave me a hard talking to. Senator McCain gave me a hard talking to. All of them made similar points, about this idea that sometimes you need to be as objective as possible and see how you would react if the pendulum was swung the other way. In other words they warned me that what goes around in this place, comes around. And to really think that if the shoe was on the other foot and I've been struggling with that, 3:10:14 PM sir, with all honesty of what would the Republicans be saying, what would we be saying if we had a democratic president right now, a democratic nominee right now. And this process was in the reverse. And I would like to believe, how I would behave and I'm pretty confident, I would be a betting man, be willing to bet, that if the Republicans were being denied effectively about 90% of the documents about a person's public record, and I actually do believe that some of the analogies that are made to senator, to excuse me justice Kagan and her solicitor-general time, is not a fair analogy. This is a part of the nominee's history that he himself has said was one of his most formative times. I would not hire an intern in my office knowing only 90% of their resume. There's not a person here that would buy a home only seeing -- excuse me, only seeing 10% of the rooms. I just believe what we're doing 3:11:15 PM here, just on the objective view of fairness, is sincerely unfair and it's insulting to the ideals that we, that we try to achieve with some sense of comity and some sense of rules. I want to go deeper than that. I'm trying to figure out what the jeopardy would be, what the jeopardy would be if we just waited for the documents. Last night we had a document dump of tens thousands of pages. It's been said already there's no judge that would allow a court proceeding to go on, no judge that would move forward if one of the parties had just got documents as of 5:00 last night or potentially as of 11:00. What I don't understand is what's the jeopardy of just waiting, not just for us to digest these documents, but other documents? The reality is, is that senator grassley, you yourself have asked for specific more finite 3:12:16 PM set, more limited set of documents, that you haven't even gotten. And so whether it's not seeing 90% of the resume of the gentlemen before us or 50% or 40% that should come within time and there's no jeopardy when we have a lifetime appointment. He'll be there for decades and decades, waiting another week or five days or two weeks for those documents that you yourself have requested, which is a more limited subset, for even those documents to come through. I don't understand what the rush is, especially given all that is at stake. And so those are the reasons why I say to you with sincere respect, that this is an absurd process. It just seems unfair to me and it could easily be solved by us putting a pause here in this process, waiting for the documents, evaluating the documents and it would be a much more robust set of hearings, on this nominee. As I said I would not hire an intern if I had not seen, if I 3:13:19 PM had only seen 10% of their resume. To be a fuller body of the work of this gentleman before us, who as one of my colleagues called popping up in some of the most interesting times in the last decade or two, on some of the most important issues, already the limited amount that we call 7% of the documents that I've seen, unfortunately those are things that being held committee confidential. Which I don't even know if I can use in my questioning here, I think the penalties is being ousted from the senate. Even the little limited documents that have potentially made my questioning far more rich and substantive to get to the heart of the issues of this individual nominee. I try to summon the spirit of some of the elder statespeople I had the privilege of serving with from Rockefeller to Levin to McCain, to summon that spirit, to be as objective as possible, I do not think it is unreasonable for us to wait for a week or two to get the full body of those documents. It will cause no harm or damage, 3:14:20 PM except to have more of a full telling of what is at stake here. This is, the stakes are too high on what this nominee represents for us to rush through this process without a full sharing of the documents. And with that, I'll continue, sir, with my opening statement. I have said before are that -- >> I'll take this opportunity to probably say that you said I didn't get all the documents I requested. You, you probably heard the first sentence of something I said after our break. And that was, that I could, I first started talking about expecting a million documents. We end up I think with 488,000. But then I went on to explain that the process with all the software and everything else that can speed things up, duplicates were, were 3:15:22 PM eliminated, et cetera, et cetera. So we've gotten all the documents I requested. Just to correct you. >> Sir and to my understanding -- >> Go ahead with your opening statement. >> I want to make a point to that if you don't mind. You requested a limited set of documents of his time in the white house counsel's office. We have not received all the documents from his time, they're still being vetted slowly through a system of not a representative from the committee, but the bill Burke individual is still reading through those documents as we speak. I imagine some of them will be dumped on to us as this process is going on and predict with quite confidence that some of those documents might still be trickling out in the days before the actual full senate vote. Please, sir. >> You're talking about committee confidential. And you have access to them right now. They just, there hasn't been a determination that like, 80% of all the documents are on the website, so the public can see them, but in regard to some, 3:16:23 PM they were forwarded to us. Without a second review. The second review gives, gives an opportunity then get them out to the public. If there's not no reason that they are excluded under the law and you can read those committee confidential documents right now. >> Well, sir, I submitted a letter days ago asking for that I will resend it in the next 24 hours before tomorrow. >> We responded to your letter. >> Again, did you not respond our letter by allowing committee confidential documents. >> Lease go to your opening statement. >> Look I was -- you know, former, now former vice president Biden talked about not questioning your colleague's motives and some of the colleagues across the aisle have called the efforts by some of us sincerely to get access to these documents, a sham, a charade. I can go through a lot of the words that were used. To question the motivations I 3:17:24 PM have or doing what I believe, sir, is perhaps the most grave and important duty that I have as a senator. Yes as senator Cornyn has pointed out. I announced my decision already. But my duty is to fully vet an individual. That's why I think the documents are important. That the full record is made clear and we have chance to ask questions about them. I also have said that I oppose this nomination happening right now because of the moment we are in American history. Which is very unprecedented. I remind thaw we have had bipartisan statements by senators working in tangent about the attack on the united States of America. Which was an attack going to the core of what our democracy is about. The voting processes. A special counsel was put into place and that has led to dozens of people being indicted. People around the president of the United States. It has led to dozens and dozens 3:18:24 PM of charges and that investigation is ongoing. We have seen the president of the United States credibly accused by his own personal lawyer as being an unindicted co-conspirator. We have one judge being chosen who was not on the original list. He wasn't on the outsourced federal society's original list. He wasn't on the second version of that list. He got on to that list after this special investigation got going. After the president was in jeopardy. He was added to the list and the president pulled the one person from all of that list, that was added late. That would give him in a sense the ability to pick a judge. That has already spoken vly about a president's ability to dismiss or end an investigation. So that's the second reason why 3:19:25 PM I've asked to put a pause on this process. Judge lar were hand said this, as powerful and profound as the documents of this country are, our founding documents, they're not worth much if the people themselves lose faith in them. And I believe the nom nay of a judge from ongoing investigation prosecution, will shake the faith that millions and millions of Americans have in the fairness of the process and the system and I've asked judge Kavanaugh time and time again to recuse himself to restore that faith, to alleviate the concerns of Americans and he has thus far refused to do so. Now I am upset about the process. And this is not manufactured outrage this is sincere concern for a process that seems wrong 3:20:27 PM and just not objective and fair. I am concerned about as my colleagues are on both sides of the aisle. A Russian atag on our nation. But there's a lot more going on here that makes this nomination of great concern. And it's frankly some of the things I've heard from both sides of the aisle. When we travel this country and what we are hearing from individuals. And how that relates to a position on the supreme court. Right now millions of American families are watching this, in sincere concern and fear, I've heard them, I've gotten the calls. I've traveled the country. I've talked to Republicans and Democrats, they're fearful about where the supreme court is going and what it will do when it has the power to shape law, shape the lives and liberties for individuals for decades to come. I've talked to workers all over my state, all over this nation. Workers that now work in a country where wages are at a 60-year low as a portion of our gdp. Whose labor protections, workers 3:21:28 PM whose labor protections are being diluted and whose unions are under attack. So many of those individuals are asking whether the supreme court of their lifetimes will be an institution that elevates the dignity of American workers, or one that allows powerful corporate interests to continue to weaken labor protections that didn't just happen. Labor protections that were fought for. That people struggled for. That some, you know the labor movement actually died for. Are these labor rights going to become aggravated? Are they going to become limited? Further increasing the vast disparities of wealth and power in our country? We know this, we've talked to both sides of the I'll. We've talked to cancer survivors, Americans with disabilities. Survivors of domestic hay wus, parents with beautiful children that happen to have disabilities, who because of the affordable care act can no longer be denied coverage because of quote a preexisting 3:22:29 PM condition. There's a Texas case where that's being challenged right now. That's moving up. It could likely go before the supreme court. Well knowing your record, it is right that these Americans, so many of them with preexisting conditions are asking whether the supreme court will be an institution that affirms and protects the rights of people with access to health care. Many people who rightfully believe when they read our founding documents that talk about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness in, that health care they believe is fundamental. We all know too many people who have set aside prescription drugs because they're too high because of what corporations are doing there. People who have put off going to see the doctor because a visit is too expensive. That is in the balance with this nomination. I've gone across the state and senator Durbin, I was in your state talking to a Republican farmer, about how the farm country is changing so dramatically the livelihoods of so many independent family 3:23:30 PM farmers are being threatened by the consolidation of large, multinational corporations. These corporations have acquired so much power this consolidation now from the seeds that they buy, the prices going up to who they have the ability to sell to, the abuse of corporate consolidation is driving so many farmers out of business. You see, one farmer was telling me about the suicide rates. Now people are saying this is histrionics, this is not life or death. I know these things are. Often a matter of life or death when our insurance rates go down, more people without health care often lose their lives. When uninsurance rate goes up -- when insurance rates go down rather, more people without healthcare often lose their lives. There are -- there is not one senator on the Republican side or Democratic pride (ph) who has not seen -- I've only been here five years and I've seen the culture of Washington change because of the obscene amount of dark money pouring into our political process, corrupting our political exhausts (ph), rigging the system. This -- this nomination will have an effect on that. I've seen Americans all over this country, it's the bipartisan work that I've done with senators on either side who feel entrapped by a broken criminal justice system, one that is, we know and unassailably disproportionally targets black and brown Americans. Where many Americans believe, and one famous American said we have a system that now treats you better than if you're rich and guilty than poor and innocent. These issues are in the balance now, and everyone who's concerned about these issues and more are wondering

Medium close up shot of road sign for City of Los Angeles, trees in background, California; 1971 (ESB6547R/00 - AEVZ001J)