Jeff Sessions

We will not end the refugee program. I would not favor that. But we do have a responsibility to be careful and make sure that those who are admitted have been properly vetted and are not a danger.

I have been made aware in the last several years how this process works.

I think it would be incumbent upon anybody who is holding the office of Attorney General at that time to carefully think his way through that to seek the advice and to follow the normal or appropriate special prosecutor standards.

These are big issues and you have to be sensitive to the power that the Department of Justice has.

I think some of them are truly valuable in evaluating cases, but fundamentally, the criticism I think that was legitimate is that they may not have been followed.

I will not commit to never enforcing Federal law, Senator Leahy, but absolutely, it is a problem of resources for the Federal Government.

Not unless it is such that they cannot perform their duties in an honorable way, consistent with the law.

The President is subject to certain lawful restrictions, and they would be required to be applied by the appropriate law enforcement official when appropriate, yes.

Clearly, it would be.

I do not believe that the statute can be disregarded, and it should be followed.

I will follow the law, yes, sir.

I would agree with that. As you formulated, I believe it would be wrong to further some other separate, discrete agenda that is not reasonably connected to the merger itself.

It is probably good for the American Republic that Department and Agency officials seek legal advice before they act.

I do think they are entitled to be evaluated and proper requests, I would assume, would continue to be valid.

If we get away from that principle, we erode the respect for law and the whole constitutional structure.

A guidance document cannot amount to an amendment of a law. Bureaucrats do not have... to rewrite the law.

Well, I would have to make a legal decision on that. I am not able to do so today.

As a Member of Congress, I was uneasy with it, did not think it was a good approach, and I believe eight out of nine Republicans on the Committee shared that concern and did vote against it.

You cannot allow improper erosion of the right of Americans to vote.

Roe v. Wade is firmly ensconced as the law of the land, and I do not know if we would see a change in that.

The problem as I see it with Roe v. Wade is that it denies the people the right to make laws that they might feel appropriate.

I am a pro-life advocate.

I firmly believe that Roe v. Wade and its descendants represent one of the worst, colossally erroneous Supreme Court decisions of all time.

We could work out a lot more of these issues rather than having the heavy hand of the Federal litigation system come to play into forcing compliance by States.

I remember almost all the cases had an interstate commerce nexus. It was not the theft of an automobile that you prosecuted.