he is a fabulous addition to our office. >> thank you very much. we know you have a busy schedule ahead of you so thank you for speaking with us this morning. atty gen. sessions: thank you all. [applause] announcer: c-span, where history unfolds daily. in 1979, c-span was created as a public service by america's television companies and today we continue to bring you unfiltered coverage of congress, the white house, that supreme policy eventslic in washington, d.c., and rom the country. the country. c-span is brought to you by your cable or television provider.

to gonzales, the former u.s. attorney general, now the dean of belmont university school of law, thank you for being with us. good morning. let me begin with news from the justice department involving bump stocks in the debate over guns. the president saying he wants to eliminate this device that essentially turns weapons into automatic machine guns. what is the authority of the justice department? what can the president do with no legislation? guest: the president of the united states, the executive branch has a certain amount of discretion because of the execution of laws passed by congress. so i think that with respect to the department of justice looking at this issue, there is a division within the council, a memory of the executive branch with respect to authorities and you look at this issue and make determinations in

the executive branch. there is authority to take action that would affect the bump stocks, so the attorney --eral exercises his law for law-enforcement authority and can move forward and take this kind of action. my perspective is someone who is concerned of some bump stocks, and they are in our society, i would prefer to see legislative and congressional action, which makes it more permanent. to those of us concerned about bump stocks as a possible danger within our society, and within some sort of fashion, make sense, and attorney general sessions has the ability to take some kind of action and the department of justice is going to take action. host: is this something that onld face litigation based the second amendment, the right to bear arms, could the nra or others tried to block this in courts? guest: no question about it but

it is clear to me that the supreme court has ruled that these restrictions upon gun ownership is certainly consistent with the second amendment rate that is why we are allowed to have background checks and the courts have allowed certain bands in the past. yes, i suspect the nra or someone will take some kind of action challenges but the question is, is this a reasonable this section of gun ownership under the second amendment? courts will find it is reasonable. host: the justice department made news when the attorney general traveled into sacramento and went over california as a sanctuary state, taking aim at the mayor of oakland, california. here's what he said -- [video clip] >> we have a problem, a series of actions and events have adversely impacted the work of our federal office.

for example, the mayor of oakland has actively -- has been actively seeking to help illegal aliens avoid apprehension. actions support those who plowed the law, for the validate illegality. there's no other way to interpret those remarks. to make matters worse, the elected lieutenant governor of the state praised her for doing so, bragging about and encouraging the obstruction of lawlaw enforcement and the -- i'm afraid this is an embarrassment to the proud state of california. host: jeff sessions, the u.s. attorney general, and when he says california, we have a problem -- what is the issue and what can the justice department do when it comes to sanctuary cities or states? guest: to me, this is a very, located situation. i, for one, have a great deal of

respect of the rights of states and local communities, cities to take action on behalf of their citizens and community. cityve a state or purposely abstract, to take deliberate action, to make it more difficult for the federal government to enforce our laws, to me, it is problematic. it is different than the city or state making a decision and saying to the department of justice, we're not going to cooperate in any way, but actions to impede the work is problematic. this has gone too far, and i support general sessions and taking steps to ensure that the department is able to do its job. we have to remember, the department of justice exist to

enforce federal law. and the department is simply trying to do its job and to have the city -- and to have the city to purposely impede the action is problematic and that the general sessions is probably doing the right thing. host: after he delivered his speech, with protesters outside, the governor brown saying these immigrants come to california to pick berries, clean hotels. they are here to find employment and turn that money back to their families and mexico. they're not here to commit crimes. if you buy the arguments, is the solution to illegal immigration a wall or do you go after the employers in the u.s. who hire them? guest: i think it is a combination, frankly. i think the right immigration policy happens with some type of border security and we have to know who is in this country and

laws, wein a nation of are a nation of immigrants and laws, and we cannot have people in this country who were not some kind of legal status. the fact that we have some kind status with millions of people, i think it is automatic. do provide a service and are very helpful in promoting certain industries, but they need to be in some kind of legal status, so we need a comprehensive plan that puts those people who qualify into the legal status. when i say qualify, people who don't have a criminal record, they pay back taxes, the qualify, but i also believe in immigration policy needs to punish those employers who routinely and repeatedly hire people they should not be hiring. i also believe that a comprehensive immigration policy is one that revises our process.

half of the people in this country unlawfully came under a lawful visa, student or were, and expired and they were in the country. we need to prevent that from happening. finally, i support putting our dreamers in a legal status. president trump tim allen a proposal and said many of those folks would be eligible for some kind of citizenship. i believe these people were brought here with no fault of their own, the only home they have known, and i support putting dreamers in a legal status. it is a comprehensive plan. i think you cannot just have one or the other. to deal with the problem effectively, we need an immigration policy that deals with all of the factors and parts of immigration policy. host: our guest is a graduate of pricing university, earned his -- of rice university, earned his degree of law from harvard and joins us from nashville. our phone lines are open at

(202)-748-8000 but democrats. and (202)-748-8001 for republicans. we have a line for independents, send us a tweet at --@cspanwj. i want to get your reaction to what president trump, the latest volley back-and-forth with his justice department and general sessions -- why is ag jeff sessions asking the inspector general to investigate potentially massive fisa abuse? it will take forever. it has no prosecutable power and already late with reports on comey, etc. isn't the ig and obama got? why not use the justice department lawyers? disgraceful! if president bush named a tweet at you, what would your reaction have been? guest: we are talking about something that would not have happened, frankly. i had the type of relationship with the president -- we would have a private conversation. we have to understand something about the relationship between

the department of justice and attorney general and the white house and president. the attorney general, mike -- unlike any other cabinet member, one, you were chosen to promote and carry out the president's he enforcement agenda, which campaigned on in the presidential election. you are part of his team, but you also work at different hats, with their spec to investigation and prosecution, and that is you follow evidence where it may take you, even within the white house. your job is to enforce the law. people lose sight of the fact that the attorney general where's this two hats. it is appropriate because you are a member of the president's cabinet to be subject to criticism of the president of the united states. you serve at the pleasure of the presidents of the united states. if he no longer has pleasure in your service, you leave, you are fired, or resign. if the president has displeasure

in sessions' service, it is appropriate to convey it to the attorney general. i think normally, i think it is fair to say, normally, it is conveyed privately. it the president is unhappy with the performance, generally what happens is the chief of staff contacts the cabinet official and tells them, we think this is a good time for you to leave and quietly the cabinet official leaves in three or four weeks. what we are seeing publicly is different, but my own sense is that this is the way that this president deals with people he is unhappy with, issues that make him uncomfortable, and it may very well be professional. i don't know this to be the facts, but there may have been a private conversation between the president, and attorney general, where he says, listen, i am unhappy about the situation.

i will be critical about this. i know you are tough and can take it. i want you to understand this is not going to result in you losing your job but i'm going to make public comments. that conversation may have happened. timeis not the first president trump has been critical of general sessions, yet, he remains. perhaps this is a way donald trump deals with the attorney general and the attorney general understands that continues to do his. it is unusual and different than the way president bush dealt with his cabinet officials. we have a different residence, dealing with a different attorney general in different circumstances. host: jeff sessions responding and it reads -- "we have initiated the appropriate process that will ensure complaints against the departmental be fully and fairly acted upon, it necessary. as long as i am attorney general, i will continue to discharge my duties with

integrity and honor and this department will continue to do its work in a fair and impartial manner according to the law and constitution." gary directly, if you were jeff sessions and you base this public criticism, would you personally state believe? -- they only -- stay or leave? guest: it depended on the circumstances. if privately the president assured me i am happy with your performance and said i will say comments that are tough, that would be ok with me, but if i have the feeling the president is truly not supportive and doesn't have confidence in my work, that would make a big difference in terms of whether i would stay or not. i would say i have been very pleased and very happy with the response of general sessions throughout his tenure as attorney general. i think the appropriate response is to say, listen, i have a job to do. i will do my job with honor and

integrity. his honor is to protect the justice of the men and women can work there day in and day out. he needs to be sure the men and women of the department of justice focus and not be in any way demoralized or discouraged by the criticism. i will say it is the one thing i worry about that even though the president may be criticizing only the attorney general, it is inevitable the morale may be affected in a negative way with constant criticism of the work of the department or leadership at the department, so that is something that i do have some concerns about. host: we will go to michael in indiana. good morning. thank you for waiting period caller: good morning. -- thank you for waiting. caller: good morning. i think i don't care if he is a mayor, governor, whoever he is. if they swear on that bible,

they swear to uphold the laws. the law says it is legal. change the law or fire the going by there not law. host: thank you. guest: well, i agree with that sentiment. obviously, every mayor, governor, and every cabinet official takes notes of the laws, and that is what general sessions is trying to do. i think politically, the action is taken by the officials in california may resonate with the public, and that may be part of the reasons and motivation behind action they are taking. in this instance, while i respect the rise of state and local officials to do what they think is right for their constituents, the fact they would take action to affirmatively abstract to work at the department of justice is

problematic. host: leo is next from new hampshire. independent line. caller: good morning, people. question -- you mentioned earlier we are a country of laws. do you feel that president trump has broken the law by releasing the old federal post office downtown in washington and renting it out as a motel and particular countries going in there and spending lavishes amount of money? guest: i have to admit that the appearance is troubling. as to whether or not there has been a violation of law, that is something that don't have enough obviously, heout. will be getting advice from his counsel, the department of justice. congress can look into whether or not there is a violation of law. if they believe there is evidence to support the prosecution of a violation, they

can make a referral to the department of justice. i remember that in the early day of the bush administration, we had conversations about the convex that we caution the cautiont -- conduct we the president about. with president bush, it was clear to us we did not want to do anything that would create the appearance of a conflict of interest. i am assuming those kinds of conversations happened at the beginning of the trump administration. as to whether or not there has been a violation of law, i don't have enough information to offer that opinion. host: we are talking to former u.s. attorney general alberto gonzales, adviser to the bush campaign, white house general counsel, and u.s. attorney general. he is now the dean at belmont university school of law, joining us from nashville, tennessee. anthony's next from maryland. good morning. caller: mr. gonzales, i think

there iz plenty of evidence -- mr. gonzalez, i think there's plenty of evidence that demonstrates he violated the law. weren't you brought here as a dreamer? as young guy by your parents, who were illegal, that is my question? guest: i was born in sending to a, in this country as an american citizen -- i was born in san antonio, texas, in this country as an american citizen. sanarents were born in antonio, texas. i understand this is an emotional issue with how we appeal to dreamers. i am in the majority of americans who understand that polls show a majority of americans provide -- support providing some kind of legalization and diamond that camp. we have not been able to deal with that issue because it the competitions with

respect to immigration policy. i think like so many issues and washington, it has been hijacked by politics and i think it is unfortunate. i am with the caller with respect to providing some kind of relief for the dreamers and some kind of legal status. host: for you, personally, what is a more challenging learning curve, the coming attorney general or dean of a law school? guest: [laughter] clearly, becoming the attorney general but that doesn't mean being dean is not challenging in its own right. it certainly is a different kind of challenge and i think in many ways, as dean, you feel you have less authority to deal with individuals at the law school that when i was attorney general . host: what makes a good lawyer? guest: judgment and integrity. i think those are a couple of things that would make a good lawyer. when i talked to students, i talk about the importance of

judging comes from wisdom and wisdom from experience. no one is born with wisdom. it comes from succeeding, and that isfailing, something you acquire over time. judgment is very important and integrity. you have to have total integrity with clients, in dealing with colleagues on the other side, reputation is very important. to talk about the importance of integrity, judgments, and quite frankly, being a lawyer, it is and the compensation can be very good. you work long hours and people have great expectations of you. sometimes we talk about life and liberty at stake, and finances at stake, so you want to do it right. you want to work hard for your clients, so it can be a

difficult job but i think lawyers are a force for good. despite all the jokes to hear in america, when people get in trouble, they turn to lawyers, and when i am asked, will i be able to get a job today? if you are good lawyer. given the nature of our society, if you are a good lawyer, there will always be a place for you, so i have seen the best of our profession in so many ways and am proud to be a lawyer. host: ralph is joining us next in washington, d.c. good morning. caller: good morning. a few points to make. i agree about sessions going after this mayor. she was way out of line. the whole problem of this immigration policy is the rapid innate kraft sandwich called racism. a few disagree with me on immigration on racism, you have

to be a racist. you are looking at the total number of people working. and it represents 70% of construction jobs. if you don't believe me, i walk into home depot's and see how many monday through friday americans are in their shopping for something as opposed to illegal aliens. this is the last point. this goes into wages -- they are stagnated in this country. if i have an unlimited supply of cheap labor, not only does it impact the lower labor classes. because of black labor, black income has marked -- marched backwards the last five years but it propagates the pool. it impacts everybody. host: thank you. you will get a response. guest: i agree that we need to have an immigration policy that

doesn't hurt the ability of american workers to get a job. if we had a policy where we put people in some kind of legal status, we have the ability to gauge as to how that is going to impact american workers. i think it is fair to say that -- i believe this to be true -- there are some jobs americans simply are not interested in doing because of the amount of wages that are tied to those jobs, but i do believe that if we simply deported 15 million undocumented immigrants, it would prove devastating to certain industries and take a while to recover. or not even recover. i believe there is value in those people here unlawfully today doing some of those jobs. or my perspective, the answer is to put them in some kind of legal status.

as i have said earlier, it has been tolerable we have so many people in this country not here as some kind of lawful status and to make sure that we know who is in this country and it is the responsibility of our government to control our borders. that is where i think we have really failed. host: we will go to bruce from pennsylvania. on the democrat line, good morning. caller: hi. is, it is about that florida gun law that they just passed in florida. actually, it is about the age group, raising the age limit from 18 to 21. group are in that age for something -- they are law-abiding citizens. and they are adults now and they

are added there home now from the family and that. defenselesse left because they cannot by any guns to protect themselves, their , maybe him and his wife, whatever. i do not see how that flies. now withbeing compared felons. when they go to buy a gun, well, you are not 21 and they do the same thing to a failing. a failing tries to buy a gun and they deny him for nothing happens to the felling. they let him go and he is a law-abiding citizen with no crime, criminal record, and he is not defenseless. thanks. we should point out going back to the issue of the second amendment, the nra is going

after florida on the very point that bruce is talking about. guest: i don't -- i must confess, i don't know all the particulars of the florida legislation. raiseght it prohibited a of age with respect to assault rifles and i did not realize it would cover handguns, as well. maybe it does or doesn't. i understand the concern or the optics of having individuals who may go into the military and are trained to use these weapons at andr 20, and yet, come home is unable to purchase such a weapon in florida. we will see. it will be a challenge. this is an action taken by the tote as to how they want lower gun violence in the state of florida. in response to the call, in respect to the difference

between the slot and felons, a felling but not be able to purchase a gun at all, ever, or beyond the age of 21. we are not saying that all individuals are prohibited from owning go up forever, but only until 21. whether or not the courts will say this is a reasonable destruction, and we will defer to the legislation of florida remains to be seen. the test is whether or not -- it isn't whether or not you have a restriction but whether or not the restriction is feasible under the second amendment and the legislators in the state of florida and the governor believe it is reasonable. host: what is your assessment of robert mueller and his investigation? are you confident he is conducting it in a fair and equitable way? guest: i have confidence in bob mueller. he was the fbi director when i was attorney general of the united states, so i know him pretty well. diligence, and

determined. i think there have been some mistakes and hiring some of his team, and some of his members of bias andhave expressed some email communications. i think that has been unfortunate and hurt the reputation of the investigation, the perception of the investigation that may be biased and it has been harmful. as a general matter, i have confidence in him and the way the investigation is conducted, methodical, slow, and there are so much we don't know. yes, to answer your question, i have confidence in him. i think this represents the best opportunity to find out what happens with respect to the election and russian meddling. we need to be careful about how far the investigation goes with of the into the finances

president, his family, his business, but that has always been the criticism of special counsel. they're often given a mandate and often we see investigations go from the initial mandate into something else beyond that, so we will have to see what happens. host: one final point because there was news late last week that the white house was still trying to negotiate with robert mueller that they would allow the president to talk to him in exchange for an agreement to a drop of this investigation. guest: i think as to whether or not -- obviously, if you are the council of the president, you are going to try to get some kind of deal like that to get it wrapped up. i think it has been a distraction within the white house and i think the perception around the country's people want to get it wrapped up but they want to know what happens. if someone did something wrong, they should be held accountable. by that, i mean the country of

russia. depression did something wrong, there has to be some accountability and we need a public pronouncement about that, we need to punish russia in some way for doing what they did and put measures in place to make sure it doesn't happen again. this is very serious and we need to find out what happened, so i support the investigation moving forward. getting back to your initial whytion, yes, i understand the president's lawyers would want to have that kind of agreement. as to whether or not robert mueller will agree to it, perhaps, or maybe he is close to wrapping up in any event. a lot will depend on where he is with respect to the investigation. host: you spent seven years here during the bush administration. do you miss it? guest: iguest: miss going to work every day at the white house, standing in the oval office and advising the president of the united states, who should he appointed the supreme court. i miss driving to work every day

to the department of justice and working with 100,000 people who i know are dedicated to the pursuit of justice. and incredible privilege to work at the white house and department of justice, but i don't miss a lot of local stuff, testifying, dealing with it felt itsometimes was unfair. at the end of the day, i would do it again because it was quite a ride. host: alberto gonzales, announcer: c-span's washington journal, live every day with news and policy issues that impact you. coming up monday morning, we .ill preview then, how much will it cost to

audit the pentagon? watch washington journal each sunday for our on 1968, "america and turmoil." look at the latest agenda for congress when they return this week. the houses is back tuesday at noon eastern for general business. 2:00.ative business at then, the house discusses preventing gun violence in school. are expected to discuss government funding past the deadline. then, banking deregulation discussion, of voting is expected by the end of the week. patrolustoms and border

nominations. >> while testifying on capitol hill last week about the trump andnistration infrastructure priorities, transportation secretary elaine chao was questioned on whether the president intervened on a multibillion-dollar hudson river rail tunnel project by asking blockspeaker paul ryan to the funding. this hearing is just over three hours. [indistinct chatter] [gavel pound] >> the committee will come to