i don't understand how these people could be in a position of having sensitive information about security and not have a security clearance. if president obama would have -- [indiscernible] host: more than 100 staffers securitynterim clearance is one year after the election. is that unusual? guest: the use of interim clearances is not unusual in itself. when you people come into the government these background checks take from six months to nine months, generally.they could even take longer if you are a person who has a lot of things that need to be investigated. they should be wrapped up after nine months.

the white house is the one issuing the interim clearances, vetting theis information and coming back to the white house and saying everything looks good, you make your decision. to have that many on interim clearances, they should have those by now. "washington journal" continues.e founder and president of the national association of assistant u.s. attorneys. guest: it is an organization that represents our nation's federal prosecutors. attorneys assistant across our country. our association represents those who joined our association's members. host: are you affiliated with the justice department formally? .uest: no

i am an assistant united states attorney, and all our members are, but nothing that i say should be considered to be the representation of my office, for kenya, or the department of justice. i'm here only in my capacity as president of the national association of assistant u.s. attorney. to be a spokesperson for them issues that impact on what we do day in and day out as our nation's federal prosecutors. we prosecute federal and civil cases. any case before the united states district court judge will representing the government, criminal cases or civil cases. host: one's criminal justice reform. your thoughts on the florida by some for a call stricter gun control. guest: it is a terrible tragedy

and something we have to fix as a country. assistant united states attorneys feel deeply about these situations. be potentially federal crimes. they tend to be more dressed at the local level. i think that we need to look at the frequency of the kinds of weapons being used and perhaps limit those kinds of weapons. we will not eliminate the problem. there will always be people that are deranged that do terrible things, but we should limit the causey of them to destruction by limiting the weapons available to them. host: where get this be a violation of federal law? are clearlyeapons probably not made in florida, so the interstate nexus would give us federal jurisdiction. host: what then? guest: we would prosecute them for a firearms offense. they being the people using the

weapons illegally. the government would prosecute those who violate firearms laws. there may be a violation, i just don't know all of the facts to save we would go forward with a federal prosecution or leave it to the state. host: the company, the gun, explain that. guest: the possession of the weapon and the way that it was used, if it was manufactured in a place other than where the crime occurred, that would give us jurisdiction. host: will happen if the federal government took over the case? conduct thebi would investigation and present it to prosecution. we would bring it under the fifth amendment of our constitution. probable cause to indict, then the matter would be set down for trialing go before a federal district judge and the defendant would get his rights to counsel, trial by jury, etc.. host: how long do those cases take?

we have a speedy trial act, 70 days from when the trial occurs the law requires us to bring it before the jury. there are some exceptions, but basically within 70 days. host: when it comes to criminal justice reform, i want to read an article to you. the headline is the attorney general faces multiple battles, one is the fight over sentencing legislation. the issue that sparked chuck grassley's comments on thursday is one of the most personal. he spent years pushing changes to the criminal justice system and producing legislation to cut mandatory minimum sentences for nonviolent offenders and establishing recidivism. confronting rising overdose focusingd efforts on providing law enforcement more tools. his legislation could have

"potentially dire consequences mr.untering the efforts" sessions wrote in a letter to congress. what do you think? what are the provisions in it and your thoughts? the association's thoughts. to the letterrd by the attorney general we were with him. the system is not broken at the federal level and there are a lot of people that conflate the state system with the federal system of justice. they believe the federal system adequately addresses the crime problem, especially at the internationall at trafficking of drugs into the country. mandatory minimums are a vital tool for us as prosecutors to move up the food chain and prosecute those who are major traffickers and dealers in ,heroin

methamphetamine, those types of drugs. the federal system is working well. there is a lot of confusion about how the system works. prisonersf federal are serving minimum sentences. anymore are charged with mandatory minimum crimes, but as a result of the mandatory minimums they cooperate and get sentences reduced. we have a safety valve to where if you are a first-time offender did not use a weapon, are not the leader, you avoid the mandatory minimums to start with. and: what are the myths misunderstandings/ there is a bipartisan push on capitol hill to do something about the nation's prisons and alleviate the population. some see mandatory sentencing as a way to do that. guest: the myth is the misperception that many of our federal offenders are serving mandatory minimum sentences. that is not the case.

is that we have what they call low level, nonviolent drug offenders. we do not prosecute low-level, nonviolent drug offenders. possession is 4% of our cases, and most are on the border where we have people carrying in kilograms of marijuana. the numbers are so great that we plead them down to simple possession. the possession on our federal highways, those people are put in diversion programs. .o one is going to jail 96% to 97% of those we prosecute our drug traffickers, someone selling poison drugs for money. host: where is the myth coming from, the misunderstanding, do you think? guest: from a lot of people that provide congress with this information. in some ways, it is our fault.

one reason i'm talking to you today is that our association decided that we need to get the truth out about what we do, why we do it, and how we do it. try tof organizations confuse the truth with their version of what they think reality is. host: you mentioned a difference between federal and state prosecution. what is happening on the state level? guest: i used to be a state prosecutor. i started my career in new jersey as a state prosecutor. the volume of cases at the state level to deal with is so overwhelming that often plea-bargaining cases to a lesser crime than the one actually committed does not really address the problem we thataced with and profits can be made from drug trafficking. at the federal level we have more resources and i think we do a better job and are more effective in dealing with the kinds of crimes that our congress has enacted.

a renewed push for sentencing overhaul hits familiar roadblock. a new version of the measure passed the senate judiciary committee 16-5 on thursday. what happens next will determine whether that coalition can persuade senator mcconnell to allow a full senate vote. legislation,s which has the support of 120 democrats and republicans with significantly reduced mandatory sentences for nonviolent drug offenses has a new system for determining which would be eligible for early release and create programs to allow them to better returned to a life outside of prison. what are your questions and comments about the criminal justice system? those with experience, we want to hear from you at (202) 748-8003. brian, independent, go ahead.

caller: i have an older question, but it is relevant for today. in 2009 special counsel fbiler was the head of the and there was a special investigation around uranium one. the first time since 57 we did not have an inspector general with a staff of 300 at the state department looking at this. when you fast forward today, how can robert mueller not be conflicted? nows what went on with uranium one. we had 2 interim inspector general's, a critical position in the state department. i did not hear any crying out about it, not much. i do not understand how we are such a big country that we limit

ourselves to someone like robert mueller. host: do you have any thoughts? [laughter] host: the inspector general does a great job in monitoring the activity of the department. if there is impropriety i'm sure that the general will act appropriately. we have a tremendous system of justice in our country. noted a study done by university professor over a 15-year period of people convicted for murder. was that in .003% of someone at the federal and state level convicted of murder was actually innocent. 99.7% of the time the system of justice got it right. next --dependent, your

you are next. while backittle there had been reports that trump was personally interviewing for federal ausa's for ther district where trump tower is located. i was wondering how your association looks at that. his federal judiciary nominations, a lot of them went through, but they were not approved by the ada. how do you and your brothe etheren look upon those things? justice, our system of the night before attorneys offices are manned by 93 u.s. attorneys. they are all political appointees. they serve at the pleasure of the president. they are traditionally interviewed by the department of

justice and the recommendation goes to the white house. in niche instance the senators from the state for the u.s. attorneys offices are located heavily weighs in on who they think is the most appropriate to serve as the united states attorney. my colleagues are career professional prosecutors, not political appointees. we stay on regardless of who the u.s. attorney is from one administration to the next. host: next. mike, good morning. yes, i was wondering about what he thinks about the criminal justice system where it seems to me that poor people go to jail and rich people pay a pretty, get away with you know, criminal stuff.

had --as i think someone host: let's take your question about poor people going to jail. guest: in our system at the federal level and the state level under this sixth amendment everyone is entitled to representation by an attorney, whether you are poor or rich. the system protects everybody and makes sure that everyone will get a fair shot at proving, or forcing the government to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, the person is guilty. no one has to prove their innocence. the burden is on the united states to prove guilt unanimously. host: and want to have you reacted to congressman we had on our show. they were talking about their legislation, the safe accountability fair and

effective state justice act. listen to congressman scott first, then we will get your reaction. [video clip] the problem is with the federal government does in terms of policy is mimicked by the states. when we had mandatory minimum sentences for low-level drug haveses, they tend to three strikes and you're out. we passed in the early 1990's, it was picked up. we serve as a model for the states. the states have gotten to the point where they cannot afford to keep up. i know that washington state is faced with prison extensions. they did a study to come up with what has been shown to reduce crime on a cost-effective basis. they went to early childhood education, working with prisoners in second chance programs to reduce the in-prison rate,

rehabilitation so they are better prepared to stay out. a continuum. then you have the fair justice of initiatives that is designed from a research-based perspective to reduce crime and save money. one is a significant reduction in mandatory minimums, which will require judges at some that to pose sentences defied common sense. because of the mandatory minimum he has to whether it makes sense or not. lawrence leiser, your reaction? guest: there is not a lot of accuracy in these reports that the state systems do it better system. federal we prosecute different kinds of crimes than the states

prosecute, a different kind of instances. many we found out through research that the recidivism rate at the federal level three years out is 34% based upon re-arrest. some of these do not look at re-arrest, they look at re-conviction. they do not look at people who commit crimes in other cases or at a federal level. the statistics they used to claim that their system does better than ours is not true. is what isandard your cynicism rate -- your recidivism rate based on arrests? at three years out, 34%. some of the programs that we inmate,his is just one micro computing, plumbing apprenticeship, nutrition

classes, pre-release personal health, pre-release counseling, wellnessse employment, intermediate, psychology of human behavior, job fairs, job searches. the prison does a terrific job at trying to rehabilitate our inmates and prepare them for release. one year before they are released they go to a more intensive program. six months they go to a halfway house will stop when they are released they are given supervised release where you u.s. probation officer -- where u.s. probation officer monitors with a are doing to help them get back into society. everyone wants to have a situation where no one who is convicted and served their sentence will recommit another crimes. host: senators consider revoking first inn pell grant's

cars -- revoking pell grant's for incarcerated students. lamar alexander and the chair of thecommittee says that committee would consider reinstating the federal financial aid grant and the reauthorization of the higher education act under way. 20 make of that? guest: we should do everything rehabilitate our criminals. obviously, there are limited resources and there is much need for non-criminals to get benefits to advance their education and their ability to live productive lives. i think that it is an obligation of our society to do what we can to rehabilitate people who made the choice of committing crimes. host: republican, on the air. caller: good morning. i am in arizona.

we have a girls prison, we have a man's prison, and my son six years ago got a dui. he went to the state prison. i'm so upset with my son because he was with a girl and got another dui and went in for four years. he had education, classes to go to for domestic violence and alcoholism. at the end of last year that he was there he did more classes. it did help. there are lots of people in the want thehat don't help. they want to go back because they are afraid to come out. my son cannot get a drivers license. he is home and doing great, but he can't get a job. a tempbeen working at service that pays minimum wage. he gets up every morning and we

taken to the temp service at 6:30. hopefully he has a job, but no one will give him a chance. system is not helping those that come out. that is what i am mad about. it doesn't work. i sent a letter about how the prisons are working. did you know he didn't answer me once? host: let's take your story. that is a good example of the state system versus the federal system. in the federal system we monitor prisoners that we release during the supervisory time. then there is a determination to should be, from three to five years. unlike in arizona, at the federal level there is ongoing supervision and assistance to help the inmates turn the corner and make better choices. host: her son sounds like he is

is up against roadblocks. he cannot get a drivers license or job. guest: i think people that are rehabilitated should have an opportunity to benefit from the advantages our society offers, including a drivers license and job.ent this checks the box that a lot of people are looking at in deciding if we should continue to punish these people beyond the time that they serve after they have been rehabilitated. is a form that many employers required to indicate if you were ever convicted of a crime. host: that could go away? it.t: they are discussing employers have a right to know what kind of person they are hiring. it is difficult, but we have to opportunityeople an to lead productive lives and not go back to lives of crime. host: independent. guest: good morning.

you are excellent as always and i appreciate your guest. i have 2 statements and a question. i'm reading an article called no sexual wary from the rule of law. it states under article one of the constitution that congress has power for immigration and naturalization that takes priority over state laws. --intending sous deferred and established institution. i worry about attorney general sessions' priorities. it is clear that governor brown of california stated that mexico owns california anyway. rob emanuel is spitting in the face of americans and the constitution. mr. sessions is doing very little. he sat at a meeting and he was

giggling. i don't know of someone is blackmailing him, but i want to ask your guests who will slay the dragon of international organized crime in this country? that is what it amounts to. guest: i think that we are trying to slay the dragon of international crime. we do it every day and we have some success. we would like to be more successful. this attorney general is a believer in the rule of law and is requiring, in the area of sanctuary cities, he is making it more difficult for these cities to continue to not conform to the federal system of rule of law. we have the rule of law under the constitution, the supreme law of the land, is the federal law. it has to be enforced. this attorney general is taking steps to enforce that. host: democrat.

caller: thank you for having me on your show today. i appreciate what c-span does. about whated to ask his views are on privatized jail systems. host: we will take that, jacob. guest: the privatized jail systems, they have to abide by the same rules and regulations and provide the same services. issue orsee it as an problem as long as they are obligated to follow the federal rules and regulations to rehabilitate and provide the same services. it seems to be working. host: the house is about to gavel in. i will let the viewers know very -- they are just coming in for a pro forma session. we will bring you there when that happens. we have a couple of minutes left with our guest. comewe say goodbye we will

back and continue on "the washington journal." or two.a minute what do prosecutors have in the thebox now that -- in toolbox now that you could lose under a new administration, and what tools would you like the government to give you to do your job better? .uest: the tools are efficient there is always room for improvement. and then a mums are critical told use effectively, fairly, and justly. it has provided for a safety valve where if it was your first leader into are not in a role you would get out from under the mandatory minimum. is ifelps us the most someone is trafficking and one kilogram of heroin, that is a mandatory 10-years. if it is their first offense they get out from the mandatory minimum. if it is not, they look at the

mandatory minimum. the only way they can get out of that is cooperation. that is how we move up the food chain. host: explain that. thet: the people they got drugs from, internally in the united states, mexico, or afghanistan. that is the target. separates federal and state prosecution is that we have the ability to cross state borders and international boundaries and are interested in going after the more serious violator. mandatory minimums give us the opportunity. in the federal system there are only 13% or 14% of people serving mandatory minimums. they are people that did not meet the safety valve and refused to cooperate. the congress of the united states says those are the people that we want to serve the mandatory minimum sentence.