host: to see the interviews or stops, visit our c-span page, ty c-span.org/community. hat will do it for today's "washington journal," we'll see you back here tomorrow morning a.m. 0 a.m. eastern, 4:00 pacific. in the meantime, have a great saturday. announcer: attorney general jeff senates at us -- at a hearing. then, the senate judiciary committee considers legislation to protect the special counsel. house minority leader nancy

pelosi holds a town hall meeting for students. jeff sessions testified to a senate subcommittee wednesday on 2019ustice department's budget request. answered questions on his recusal from the russia investigation and whether it applies to the case of president trump's attorney, michael cohen.

[no dialogue]

-- mr. attorney general, welcome to the committee. we're here to examine the department of justice's fiscal year 2019 budget request. i'm pleased to welcome you to the subcommittee. my colleagues and i are very much interested in hearing from you and your hearing your testimony considering your testimony today. your input is not only helpful but necessary, as we review the president's spending priorities for the justice department. while this hearing is about the department's fy 2019 budget request, i would suspect that you will hear about a number of other issues unrelated to the department's resource and funding needs. my focus is better understand your top funding priorities and emphasize those that are important to our nation. the department of justice is responsible for and involved in many important national priorities. arguably, the greatest responsibility includes keeping americans safe, which carries a

new meaning given the growing national security threats of today and upholding the rule of law. this requires that congress adequately fund our nation's law enforcement efforts, including counter terrorism and cybersecurity initiatives. in kansas, the department recently and is successfully investigated and convicted individuals who conspired to bomb residents of somali immigrants to our state. the work done by the fbi, by the liberal kansas police department, the sheriff's department, the ford county sheriff's department, the garden city police department, the dodge city police department, along with the kansas highway patrol and kansas bureau of investigation and the united states attorney's office showed, -- should, in my mind, ba model for federal and local partnerships. i trust the department will seek to replicate the successes of these entities with the funds in this request. the president's fy 2019 budget proposal of $28.4 billion for the department of justice, i note that -- however, i note

that the many agencies and departments this budget request was created and produced before the recently enacted fiscal year 2018 bill, which was finalized and recently become law. for example, both fix nix act and the stop school violence act authorized important safety initiatives but were signed into law in the 2018 on the and of this --2018 on the omnibius after your fy 2019 budget submission. as a cosponsor of both pieces of legislation, i look forward to hearing the department's plan to implement these policies. this administration made it a priority to combat violent crime. which is reflected as one of the department's highest priorities. specifically, the administration seeks $109.2 million to combat transactional criminal organizations in the fy 2019 budget request. for example, the department requested increased funding to

expand the project safe neighborhood initiative. project safe neighborhoods' main focus is the extradition of illegal firearms -- i'm sorry, the eradication of illegal firearms and violent gang activity. the program is designed to improve police and community relation which is is strongly supported by many from law enforcement officials in my state of kansas. the subcommittee looks forward to hearing more details about this program. i also look forward to hearing about the impact of emerging technologies such as those being utilized by the national integrated ballistics network. that network allows law enforcement officials to share ballistic intelligence across the united states making law enforcement resources more efficient and effective. the department administration has also prioritized solving the problem of illegal immigration. the fy 2019 request seeks $65.9 million in immigration-related programs.

and, fornhancements, example, the 2019 request outlines that this funding would hire 150 attorneys for the executive office for immigration review, which oversees the nation's immigration courts and the board of immigration appeals and provide $25 million for technology improvements to transform current paper operating system to electronic filing system. the department is also involved in helping to combat ongoing opioid epidemic. according to the center for disease control and prevention, opioid overdoses in the u.s. have surpassed motor vehicle accidents as the number one cause for accidental death in the country. the crisis needs to be aggressively addressed. and i look forward to working with the department to ensure adequate resources are provided to do that. lastly, mr. attorney general, i want to thank you for your attention and acknowledgment of a letter that senator shaheen and i sent to you exactly one week ago regarding the executive

office of immigration review legal orientation and immigration help desk programs. we also spoke on the phone earlier this week, and i would appreciate it if you address the matter in more detail in this hearing. i know that you would agree that ensuring congressional direction is followed is extremely important. again, i thank you for your services as our attorney general and the important testimony we'll hear from you today is our -- as our subcommittee begins its work on the fy 2019 budget for the department of justice. i now recognize the senator from new hampshire, senator shaheen. the ranking member. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. this is our first hearing together. so i look forward to working with you on this subcommittee. i'm pleased that the attorney general sessions is here with us this afternoon. thank you for being here. and thank you for taking time to

speak with me last week on the phone. i want to begin by thanking the 115,000 career employees of the department of justice. speak with me last week on the they're working hard every day to keep americans safe from crime and terrorism. and, the breadth of issues that the department handles on a daily basis is vast. i do have a concern that as i look at the budget proposal for fiscal year 2019, the department has requested addressing these missions with less funding. a reduction of $1.9 billion, which is 6.2% less than the level we passed last month. now, while i was very pleased to see the funding levels preserved for life saving grant programs under the office of violence against women, i'm concerned about some of those drastic reductions and eliminations that have been proposed for other programs. as you know very well, the justice department is on the front lines fighting the deadly, uncontrolled opioid epidemic.

as the senator said, and every member of this subcommittee knows, this is an epidemic that we have seen across this country. it's an epidemic that is gaining strength. i just came from a group of family members from the addiction policy forum who are here to advocate, who talked about the challenges that they face and they reminded me that we lost, as senator moran said, about 63,000 americans last year to the opioid epidemic, and for every one of those people lost, they have a family who is suffering and is experiencing that loss. so i certainly support enforcement and prosecution efforts, but i believe they should be paired with prevention and treatment responses, as well. this balanced approach is something that i've heard from police chiefs, judges, and from other criminal justice professionals in new hampshire.

the critical need to help children and families grappling with the opioid crisis in their neighborhoods and within their own families is very real. even the dea has focussed on a comprehensive approach with their 360 strategy that targets enforcement, diversion control, and community outreach. manchester, new hampshire, which is our largest city, and i know as attorney general, you've already been there. and we appreciate that. , it was one of the first locations chosen for the 360 program and the dea has seen real success there. not only in tackling heroin and opioid trafficking, but by partnering with social service and other community groups like the boys and girls clubs of manchester to provide that prevention and education programs for young people that are so critical. new hampshire is also grappling with the dramatic rise of fentanyl, the synthetic opioid

that is approximately 50 times more potent than heroin, 100 times more powerful than morphine. unfortunately new hampshire leads this nation in overdose deaths from fentanyl. sadly, it's now spreading across the country and it's something that has overwhelmed state crime labs already backlogged with testing crime scene evidence. we provided a total of $447 million for justice grant programs to help communities respond to the opioid crisis with a balance of enforcement, treatment, and prevention programs. i'm interested to hear how the department plans to expand these programs, and what your fy 2019 budget request will do. i'm concerned that right now it calls for eliminating key programs like the cops anti-heroin task forces, which

we funded at $32 million. it calls for dramatic cuts in programs like the program which we talked about. i know it's something you care a lot about because you authored that legislation. i'm also concerned about the continued hold on the fy 2017 burn jag awards to our states. this program is the backbone for helping states and local law enforcement with crime prevention efforts across the country. and i know that my police chiefs in new hampshire are very frustrated waiting to receive funding that they had expected months ago. according to the police chief in manchester, nick willard, a city that responded to 800 overdose calls last year, he has fewer police officers on the street conducting drug operations without their burn jag funding. i know you would agree that getting these grant awards to law enforcement for programs

like this is critically important. now, when we spoke last week, you indicated that once a decision was reached in the pending seventh circuit court of appeals case, that the justice department would release burn jag funding for 2017. the court did issue its decision on april 19th, so i'm interested to know when these awards will be released and i'm concerned when i see that the justice department has filed yet another motion on monday evening that will further delay these awards. so, mr. attorney general, thank you, again, for being here. i look forward to your testimony and our discussion today. >> senator shaheen, thank you very much. and the newness of the moment of actually having the gavel in my hand, i failed to acknowledge my desire to work closely with you and to make certain this subcommittee does its work in a timely and bipartisan way. i will tell you that the previous subcommittees i've

chaired, both of those bills have passed through the full committee with unanimous vote. i look forward to accomplishing that in this arena, as well. i would say i have a high priority of making certain all 12 appropriation bills that our full appropriations committee will address march their way across the senate floor and signed by the president. i want the process to work and i pledge to do everything i can to accomplish that goal in that regard. i'm honored to recognize the chairman of the committee who has stated on so many occasions this committee is going to do its work. and i look forward to not only hearing senator shelby's remarks today, but in particular, working with him to make sure that we accomplish our goals in this subcommittee. its work. the senator from alabama, the chairman of the committee is recognized. >> thank you, senator moran. i will be brief. i just want to welcome my former colleague, jeff sessions, attorney general of the united states to this appropriation hearing. we will be working with the justice department to help fund requisite programs.

of course it includes the fbi because it has to be done. and i hope under the chairman and ranking member shaheen we can move this bill to the floor as fast as possible and not go from crisis to crisis. with that i'm going to have a number of questions, but i would would like to do them for the record. i would ask unanimous consent that my opening statement be made part of the record. mr. chairman. >> without objection. so ordered. the honor of recognizing the ranking member of the full committee, the senator from vermont, senator leahy. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman, i'm glad to hear what you said. senator shelby and i have been working closely on that. we had a long meeting the two of us with the republican and democratic leaders last night. and plotting out ways to get most of the bills done within the fiscal year. attorney general sessions, welcome.

glad to have you here in the appropriations committee. i'm sorry this is your first appearance here in 16 months because we have to make it appropriations. then we have to ask to makes -- we have to ask after we make appropriations, how the funds are expended. and in my years in this committee, and i think it can be said by members of both sides of the aisle, that we consider the oversight operation to this committee very important. and the operations of your department there is an urgent , need for oversight. you and i may disagree on many policies, i have known you long enough to know that one area where we are in total agreement, total agreement and that is we care deeply about the integrity of the justice department.

you and i felt that way whether we've had a republican or democratic president. we are concerned about the integrity of the justice department. and i worry that through all intended to protect the independence and credibility are -- that the walls intended to protect the independence and credibility are at the risk of crumbling. i'm very concerned how the president's relentless and , i think baseless attacks on , senior doj and fbi and leadership including attacking you for your recusal for the russia investigation. something you were required to do. you just followed the law. you did the right thing. that is simply without precedent. and i believe it's wrong. we've also learned that the

president wanted to fire robert mueller last year. the president was on television apparently at the direction of the white house requiring your second in command, rod rosenstein. some in the congress talked about impeaching rosenstein. now i've been here 44 years, , and i've never seen such attacks. are forhether people the democratic or republican administration. i worry that they're being done to interfere with your department, the department of justice a place that you and i , have always tried to protect. they're going to complete an investigation into how and with whom russia attacked. you're at the helm of the

justice department under siege. this is your chance to talk about how you're going to protect it. and, in that regard, don't let the justice department turn its back on a proud tradition of being a guardian of equal justice for all. including the most vulnerable in our society, the most disadvantaged. be careful, voting rights, civil rights, immigration, giving equal protection to all, including the most vulnerable in our society. it is the department of justice that is there for all of us, every american. i want to make sure the attorney general has the tools and the ability to do that. leahy, thank you very

much. we will welcome our witness today. i welcome attorney general sessions to this subcommittee hearing. and i recognize you for your opening statement. mr. sessions: thank you, very much, chairman moran and chairman shaheen. friends and former colleagues, thank you for the opportunity to be with you. to bearticularly pleased able to congratulate my former senior senator for 20 years, senator shelby chosen to chair this historic committee. it is a tremendous honor. my sincere congratulations to new -- to you. it has been an honor of a lifetime to serve as the attorney general of the united states and to represent the men and women of the department of justice. i can be really sure

understand the importance of the office i hold and i will strive to be worthy of it every single day, the 115,000 men and women work toepartment protect our national security threats,errorist reduce violent crime in community, stop deadly drug dealers, and strengthen the rule of law. today i would like to lay out some of the priorities in our budget request. rapidly moved has to improve partnerships with about 85% of law enforcement officers who serve at the state, local and tribal levels. we know that we cannot succeed without them to make america safe. and yesterday we were once again reminded of the sacrifice we ask of our men and women in blue. officer crystal almeda and another responded to a

routine call at a home depot in dallas, but they did not return home. off --e mourn with the with the family of officer santander and pray for the recovery of almeda. the men and women of law enforcement deserve our respect, they deserve our support. toy deserve our commitment work and reduce crime. after two decades, of declining crime in 2015 and 2016, the violent crime rate went up by nearly 7%. assaults went up 10%. rape went up nearly 11%. murder increased in those two years more than 20%. that's the largest increases since 1968. president trump, our federal officers, our local law enforcement partners, are determined that this crime rate rise will not continue. our prosecutions of illicit

drugs, drug violators violent , crime, gangs, opioids and immigration offenses are going to go up, too. in we brought cases against more 2017 violent criminals than any year in decades. we charged the most federal firearms prosecutions in a decade. we convicted nearly 500 human traffickers, and 1,200 gang members. your strong support, congress's support for our work means that , we can sustain our project safe neighborhood program where our united states attorneys will meet with your local community leaders and law enforcement leaders to develop crime reduction plans based on local needs. this is a program that has proven to work, scientifically it has been analyzed. i feel great support for it when i travel around the country. in there good signs

preliminary data that increases in murder and violent crime appeared to have been slowed and violent crime may have actually begun to decrease. we also embrace the president's goal of reducing prescription drugs in the united states by 1/3 over the next three years. this is an important step in reducing addiction and overdose deaths. we are simply prescribing too many drugs in this country. this department is going after drug companies, doctors, pharmacists, and others who violate the law. and we will use civil, criminal, and regulatory powers to do so. i've directed every united states attorney's office establish an opioid coordinator to focus on this dramatic problem. as senator shaheen noted, the largest cause of death for americans under age 50 is overdose, drug overdoses. that is a stunning statistic. we have got to do something

about it. we have already charged hundreds of people suspected of contributing to the ongoing opioid crisis, including over 50 doctors, for opioid-related crimes. some very serious criminals. 16 of these doctors prescribed to more than 20.3 million pills illegally. our organized crime drug task forces have indicted more than 6500 defendants and forfeited more than $50 million. with powerful drugs like fentanyl and heroin on our streets we are experiencing overdose deaths the likes of which we have never seen before. this must end. we are out of time. we have to see results now. i truly believe we can change this dynamic. amazingly, in the last month alone the dea seized more than kilograms, 2.2 pounds per

kilogram, of suspected fentanyl in cases from detroit to new york to boston. fentanyl is 50 times as powerful as heroin. it is so powerful that an amount equivalent to a pinch of salt is powerful enough to be deadly. we must acknowledge that the vast majority of fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin and cocaine first come across our southern border. it almost all is coming across the southern border. we are working with our homeland security partners to reduce and ultimately end illegal will alson, which help us take on transnational criminal organizations and reduce the drugs pouring across the border. we are streamlining prosecutions and targeting criminal aliens. congress has provided us, thankfully, enough funding for 100 new immigration judges.

and a recent omnibus which will help us keep up with the caseload. mr. chairman, i'd like to one matter i know is important to the committee, the legal orientation program. you and senator shaheen both raised it with me. i reviewed the situation. and i have previously expressed some concerns about the program. the executive office for immigration review has expressed its intent cause two parts of the five-part program, pending the results of a formal review of the program. i recognize, however, that spoken onttee has this matter, and out of deference to the committee, i've ordered there be no pause while the review is conducted. i look forward to evaluating such findings as are produced, and will be in communication with this committee when they are available. our explicit goal for the department of justice are to

reduce violent crime reduce the , surging increase in homicides, reduce overdose deaths, and to reduce prescription opioids. are thee these priorities of the american people, and i believe, your priorities. finally let me say, with all the strength that i can muster, no nation has a finer group of law officers than those who comprise the fbi, the dea, the atf, and the united states marshals service. they are now in 24 hours a day in every corner of america working courageously and faithfully to protect this nation and our all. and when we face criticism, we are not going to be defensive. when questions arise, even if misplaced, we will take necessary action to establish that concerns are either not true or take strong action against any wrongdoing. this department above all others

can never get too big for its britches or think itself in any way as above the law that we must apply to others. we know the government always wins when justice is done. lookingrman, i am forward to discussing these matters with you and members of the committee. >> mr. attorney general, thank you very much. let me use this opportunity to say how wholeheartedly i agree with your assessment of the law enforcement officials at the department of justice and across the country and how worthy they are of our respect and support. i appreciate the sentiments that you expressed on their behalf. i assume i join my colleagues indicating our full faith and belief in those who work every day to protect the lives and safety of americans here at home. thank you for those strong words i commend you for them.

, secondly, let me thank you for your response. as i indicated in my opening statement, senator shaheen and i corresponded with you in regard to the pause in the legal orientation program. the pause would be in contravention of this subcommittee and the full appropriations committee. there was congress direction no pause occur. i appreciate you again recognizing the rule of law and your support for members of this committee. thank you for the response, i am pleased to hear it. let me turn to my questions. the opening statements by other members of the subcommittee can sevene part of your minutes or as a request by unanimous consent to be made part of the record. let me ask about the census. mr. attorney general, this past december the department of

justice sent an official letter to the census bureau requesting it reinstate a question on the citizenship status to the 2020 census forms. this subcommittee also has jurisdiction over the funding of the census. let me give you the opportunity to explain why the department made this request and will you elaborate on how the data gathered would be used? i would be pleased to discuss it as much as i can. the matter is in litigation, so i have some handicap in discussing all matters you might be interested in. the census, i believe, it's common sense, and it would be appropriate to ask whether or not an individual being surveyed is a citizen of the united states or not. it had previously been in the census and remains a part of the annual survey that is done.

i think that is where we are. it can help us in determining a number of issues, particularly in our civil rights division, and our attorneys have compiled some legal reasons we think that would justify that question and would be pleased to send that to you. >> general, thank you very much. let me turn to the cops program. your fy 19 request proposes the cops office, but it will take a $176 million -enactedn from fy 18 levels. it has received broad bipartisan support from this committee in the past. attorney general, could you explain to the committee why this restructuring is useful or necessary?

mr. sessions: it is popular with the this committee and the congress. most presidents have not been a supportive as the congress is. our budget is below the request you had asked. we do believe we can save money and provide more money for the grants themselves by programating the cops in the office of justice programs and its subcomponent, bureau statistics. they have the infrastructure, teamwork and capability of grants and we think that would be a nice step to improve productivity and efficiency. it would not undermine the program, in my view, and anyway. it is popular with our law enforcement officers. circumstance and

recommending more of the money be available and a priority to school resource officers to deal with violence in schools. >> thank you for your response. let me turn to high intensity drug trafficking areas. your fy 19 request you propose to transfer the hida program from the office of national drug control policy to the executive office of the president to the drug enforcement administration. so hida initiatives provide assist thans through state grants operating in areas determined to be critical drug traffickings region in the united states, including unfortunately several in kansas. often these work hand-in-hand with of the drug enforcement administration. i understand some are solely dedicated to the hida program. while i understand the rationale for transporting the program to

dea, i also recognize the concerns expressed by colleagues and law enforcement entities in kansas that this transfer may hamper an important and successful grant program by moving it to an agency with no grant making experience. can you address these concerns and elaborate on what you believe this programmatic shift is necessary? mr. sessions: chairman moran, the president challenged all of us to seek to improve the efficiency and productivity of the government. you are correct that dea and the hida organization have worked closely together for many, many years. i guess, actually since the beginning. i remember when it was created. hida reports to or through the nationale office of drug control policy. that is a policy function.

bill bennett was the first, i believe, director. was supposed to coordinate and make sure budgets were constructive for all, whether state department, defense, or health and human services, wherever funds are spent on drugs. i believe it is a better organizational structure that that function of ondpc remain as its priority and the actual investigating and prosecuting of cases be done through the dea. but the hida teams, the hida people, the community leaders that form the councils that lead the hidas will remain in effect. the only difference would be that the grant money be managed through dea and we hope that would engender an even closer relationship. >> general, thank you. it's now my opportunity to recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee for her questioning. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

and thank you attorney general sessions for the legalon on the orientation program. i am pleased to hear you have responded to the concerns senator moran and i have raised. one of the other items in that letter was a request for information regarding the methodology of the efficiency study underway. i would hope that information would be forthcoming to us as soon as that is available. mr. sessions: i would make sure that happens. ms. shaheen: thank you. i wanted to follow-up on senator moran's question about the hida program. that has been important in new hampshire. yousure when you were there heard how helpful it has been in addressing our opioid epidemic and capturing some of the drugs that have been coming across the border into new hampshire. --ppreciate the interest and

and efficiency. although i've heard from the folks who participate in hida in new hampshire that they are very happy where they are. but my question is, as senator moran pointed out, and as you acknowledged, the dea is not a grant making agency. what is their plan for managing funding with this proposed move? mr. sessions: well, we at the department of justice have tremendous experience in grant programs, in managing. we will be very supportive of dea, which is our subordinate agency, and helping them to establish that kind of activity. but, again, i would say the actual funding, of course, will be congress's decision. the leadership and the hida community organizations would remain the same, but the grant money would be managed from dea, which i do believe would help make that a tighter and better relationship, but still have

their own independence and own leadership teams. i think it could enhance that. was probablyondpc never created to be a grant program of this kind. anyshaheen: is there assessment of what the cost of setting up that grantmaking mechanism would be within dea? is sessions: i believe there some expense in the initial setup, but we can do the grant program at certainly no more expense than currently exists and may be better with our experience with grantmaking in the department of justice. house department, ondcp, to the department of justice. i am hearing from

police chiefs throughout new hampshire that the expended burn jag m the program has not yet been forthcoming. the seventh circuit released 19,r decision on april placing conditions on burn jack -- jag. win ornted out that, lose, those would go out. i wondered what we should tell the police chiefs in new hampshire about when they might expect funding. to getsions: we intend that money out sooner rather than later. but the litigation is an important piece of litigation. and we placed only the most minor of requirements on the grant program. we asked our state and local partners if you want to get the , burn law enforcement grant, we

ask them to do two things. one was to give us notice 48 hours before an illegal alien who you've arrested for some crime is released, and to allow us to pick that individual up at the detention facility, rather than releasing them on the streets and having our i.c.e. officers and others try to find a criminal that needs to be arrested. that is a very dangerous thing places law officers at risk. , that's what the homeland security officials pleaded with us to ask for. so we pared it down to a minimal thing we ask of them. we did not ask the police to interview people or arrest people for us or anything like that. only to give us notice before and to allow us to pick the individual up. far more safely at the detention facility. this is an:

long-standing congressionally mandated formula grant program. why does doj think it can place conditions on this program that's been operating for so many years based on the mandate that congress has given it? could you also address whether you plan to hold on funding for fiscal year 18 in the same way you have been holding it for 17? mr. sessions: well, to the first part of your question. this is a statue congress passed, 34 usc 10102a6. and it says the assistant attorney general of ojp shall exercise such powers and functions as may be vested in the assistant attorney general, presented to this chapter or by delegation of the attorney general, including placing special conditions on all grants and determining priority purposes for formula grants.

we felt, when we went to court, these minor conditions for receiving a federal grant were very reasonable and deeply disappointed that the court has not, at least to this moment, seen itself able to agree. we will of course abide by the law, but we do want to review the situation and see if we cannot improve it. ms. shaheen: i am out of time, but briefly, i know the doj filed another motion with the on seventh circuit april 23. so do you expect to continue to go all the way up to the supreme court with your motions if you are denied again in the seventh circuit? mr. sessions: i have to talk with our lawyers, they worked hard in this case. it, it is onet thing to deal with the merits.

it is another matter to deal with the preliminary injunction. we have an injunction i think went beyond the law, in the case was first raised in chicago. it had its own unique set of laws and policies, but the judge issued an order which bound the entire unit -- united states. many of those perfectly happy to comply with these requirements of the department of justice. it is a big deal and i have to been appreciative of our law enforcement leaders who i think, by and large, agree these minimum requirements are legitimate. they have been patient with us, but i am worried about it. hard to drive to a conclusion. ms. shaheen: i appreciate that for states like new hampshire where we have no say sherry cities. it puts us at a disadvantage.

>> thank you, i recognize senator leahy. attorney general, last week i sent you a letter regarding your the futureto recuse investigation of any matters related in any way to campaign for the president. are you recused from the federal president'sn, the attorney, michael choen, which had purported to possible campaign violation? mr. sessions: senator leahy, i am honoring the recusal in every case in every matter. i committed to that in my confirmation hearing. i have honored that and will continue to honor that.

it is the policy of the department of justice that those -- have recused themselves not the state the details of it are confirmed the existence of an investigation or the scope or nature of that investigation. i feel like following the rules of the department, which i am trying to teach all of our people to do, that i should not answer that question, it would be inappropriate for me to do so. sen. leahy: i know the question was not a surprise to you, nor was your answer a surprise to me. recusal is not discretionary. it's required by justice department regulations when you have a political relationship with the president, which you have already acknowledged. and the president has a specific and substantial interest in the investigation.

now, the federal judge granted the president's request to formally intervene in this matter, which is here in the judge's order. i would be glad to give you a copy of this, if you like. judge wood allows the president to intervene. it would suggest specific and substantial interest. doesn't that require you to be recused? leahy, ions: senator am required to be recused from any matter involving the

substance of the cases, matters that you raised in your opening statement, absolutely. i will comply with that. it is a policy of the department into discussing the details of those matters you , can reveal the existence, scope, or breadth or nature of a matter that might be -- that would be inappropriate. i think the best answer for me, having given it some thought, i should not announce that. in fact, recusals that happen all the time in the department, are not made public, but they are internally binding. sen. leahy: have you saw any advice of career ethics officials whether you should or should not recuse yourself in the cohen matter? mr. sessions: i have saw advice in those matters.

i have not met with the top ethics person on it, but i have not violated my recusal. you do agree they require what use a when you have a political relationship with somebody who has a specific and substantial interest in the investigation? that is basically the regulation, is it not? mr. sessions: that is the regulation i believe, 600.1. that is a regulation i felt required me to recuse myself. sen. leahy: as reported last week, you told the white house counsel you would consider resigning as attorney general if the president fired deputy attorney general rod rosenstein. i'm not going to ask about that conversation. but if the president were to improperly fire either the

deputy attorney general, who supervised the rush investigation, or the special counsel, would you resign in opposition? mr. sessions: senator leahy, that calls for a speculative answer. i am not able to do that. you were surprised by that question. you don't have to answer that. your smile answers the question. lastly, you have been asked about lp. whatever studies is being done there, that would be open and transparent, will it not? we will do so. look, i have some doubts about that program. the committee believes in that program. we will talk about it before action occurs.

we have directed the program to go forward. i would hope you don't take any action on it before -- without being in touch with the committee's, both the senior republicans, and senior democrats of the committees that have instructed. thank you, mr. chairman. >> vice chairman, thank you very much. senator from maine, senator collins. -- senator collins: let me congratulate you. i look forward to working with you. mr. attorney general, before i turned to my question some i want to thank you for your leadership on an issue that matters greatly to me, and that and scamsfraud against our senior citizens. you have really taken a leadership role on this. i know the department announced in february that more than 250

defendants had been charged with scamming more than one million americans for a total amount in excess of half $1 billion. it is an issue we have been trying to get the justice department a attention to for years and a very much appreciate your leadership. i would now like to turn to my questions, which may not be quite as pleasing to your years ears as my thank you. the administration has now lost the third daca case in federal court. that program and the fate of the group of young people for whom there is a pretty widespread consensus that we should try to help, continues to be clouded by uncertainty. given the repeated failures in court, and the fact that the president has repeatedly

indicated that border security remains a high priority for him, wouldn't it make sense for the administration to revisit the bipartisan daca compromise that was proposed earlier this year that received 54 votes on the senate floor, which would have funded the president's border security program in its entirety, while providing a pathway to citizenship for daca young people who have good records? senator collins, i do believe there is an opportunity for legislation by congress. i served 20 years on your side of the table. my feeling is that that is possible. in a number oft hearings i have been in since i have been attorney general. i think that is possible. i would say that two district courts, one in new york and

california, did issue injunctions stopping the simple removal of the memoranda, really is all it was, of the homeland security, to enact daca. daca was basically rejected by congress. congress did not pass it. and the president had said repeatedly he could not do it on his own. but once it was not passed in congress, then the president got his homeland security team to enact this matter. i think it was unlawful. it's pretty much the finding of the fifth circuit in a related case involving daca. maryland a court in that rejected this kind of injunction, so three courts ruled on this daca. two said it was not sustainable. and one said it was.

so we believe that the right thing is legislation. i would like to see law enforcement -- look, i'll be frank. in my view, it's a plan that end the illegality, along with relief for the daca young people is possible. it can be done. the president has laid out a number of options. it is unfortunate it has not come together. sen. collins: mr. attorney general, many of us on this hard to try tory get that done and to put daca in law. i think half the department of issued asecurity not

very misleading press release the night before the vote, accompanied by a veto threat by the president, we were there. at 1.i could count the 60 votes. we want to legislate in that area, i agree with you it should be legislated. i hope that with the court rulings, that there is an extra impetus for the administration to work with us. and it's also an opportunity for the president to get a very high priority of his in strengthening the border, which we also need to do. so i thank you. hon. sessions: senator, let me say, i think this is doable. but, it cannot be done if we have not fixed the illegal immigration flow. my concern about the bill that you referred to was it did not sufficiently close the loop holes and fix some of the problems that we have.

if we can get that done, i think the possibility of a successful legislation would be great. that's what the president said. and i think it can be done. sen. collins: thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator shots. >> thank you, mr. chairman. congratulations, i am looking forward to working with you. i will miss you on the subcommittee, but i understand and forgive you. general, thank you for being here. i want to follow up on the question that chairman moran asked about the citizenship communities of color, advocacies question of the senses. communities of color, advocacies excuse me advocacy organizations around the census are frankly worried that the presence of that question is going to discourage participation in immigrant communities. and i understand that it's on the long form and i understand it's not without precedent we

are doing that, but i have two questions for you. how do you respond to the communities of color who are thised best -- worried will scare people and not respond to the senses at all? number two is, you indicated that the civil rights division wants the data, and i'm wondering why? hon. sessions: i will be glad to send you the letter we produced regarding this issue detailing the advantages of it, having the information. it is being asked on and i wouldrvey it is thehave learned 12th question on the form, the shouldestion i believe, not scare people. they do not have to answer it.

i would think that is a reasonable thing and i believe the concerns of it are overblown. let's move on. i appreciate what you are doing on opioids and especially pleased this committee and others are working in a bipartisan fashion to solve this problem. i want you to interpret the following line of questioning not in an adversarial way. i want to ask you about medical marijuana. i want to tell you i am the son of a principal investigator and i came to marijuana with great skepticism. but, there are credible scientific studies that show where medical marijuana is legal, opioid overdose deaths have gone down. these studies are published in the journal of the medical association and the rand organization with input from the institute of drug abuse. the opioid epidemic is major crisis.

i am wondering whether you think, given your history, as a successful conservative politician with a certain set of beliefs about marijuana in particular, whether given two things happening at once, there is all kinds of new data that shows inverse correlation between the availability of medical marijuana and opioid deaths and opioid prescriptions and opioid illegal activity, and your commitment to try to reduce this opioid epidemic, do you have at least an aperture to look at these data and reconsider your opposition to medical marijuana and marijuana in general? hon. sessions: medical marijuana, as one physician told me, whoever heard of taking a medicine when you have no idea how much medicine you are taking and

ingesting it in the fashion that it is, which is in itself unhealthy. however, i think there can be, there may well be some benefits for medical marijuana. it is perfectly appropriate to study that. pointot believe at this -- i think one study suggested there is some sort of inverse relationship between increased marijuana use and reducing of deaths. i did see that. i've asked my staff to take a look at it because science is very important. and i don't believe that will be sustained in the long run. america medical association is absolutely resolutely opposed to marijuana use. i think so is the pediatric association. it is a matter of science. my final question,

the dea in august of 2016 called for applications to produce more federally approved research grade marijuana. since then, the department of justice has received 25 applications, but none of them have been responded to, either with approval or denial. what is the status of those applications? hon. sessions: we are moving forward. and we will add fairly soon, i believe, the paperwork and reviews will be completed, and we will add additional suppliers of marijuana under the controlled circumstances. but there is, a lot of people didn't know, i did not know a , treaty, international treaty of which we all remember, that requires certain controls in that process. previous proposal violated that treaty. we have now gotten language, i believe, complies with the treaty, and will allow this process to go forward. sen. schatz: if the chair will indulge me one final comment.

we are all evolving on this issue, some quicker than others, maybe some too quick. and i really believe that we have to do this in the proper way. i think there are good civil rights reasons for decriminalizing and for pursuing a federalist approach around this. but, if we are narrowly addressing the question of whether or not this is medicine, then we do need the department of justice, fda, and everybody to work together to pursue that question double blind studies , and all. i also think we need to understand we are in a humanitarian crisis when it comes to the opioid crisis, which means we may have to cast aside some of the things we believed all our lives, as it relates to drugs and harm reduction. i appreciate you keeping an open mind. sen. moran: thank you, senator shatz. senator from oklahoma, senator lankford. senator lankford: thank you, mr. chairman.

i am one of those skeptical individuals that has not evolved on this issue of marijuana. i have a hard time believing if only more of our parents smoked more marijuana our kids and families would be so much better, employment would be so much better. i have a hard time believing that. several billion dollars the appropriations committee has allocated to them to study pain medications that are nonaddictive to address that. we haven't opioid epidemic. i would rather not swap and opioid epidemic with addiction to marijuana and say we solved the problem. we did not solve the problem long-term. i would love to be able to maintain this. there are ways to manage other different kinds of thing to manage pain. my preference would be that our nation does not become more and more addicted to marijuana to solve our opioid addiction. let me mention a couple things.

budget-related -- you made recommendations moving things around specifically with atf. ,i would like to get a chance to talk to you about what proposals are you making with atf in particular to work on efficiencies? hon. sessions: atf originally came out of the department of treasury. collected revenue, the old moonshine-chasing atf dies, because you were not paying taxes on your moonshine. that is the history of it. over the years atf has shifted , far more to being in the frontline agents on violent crime, bombs, explosives, arson, and firearms. that is where the trend has gone. this agreement is a smart one. it moves the tax part of atf back to treasury, and keeps a leaner, more focused atf on

firearms and explosives in the department of justice. sen. lankford: how long do you think it would take to make that transition. hon. sessions: i think we could do it with and i year, if congress could approve it. atf has accepted it. leadership is supportive. i believe it is something that would be good, efficient, a smart realignment of resources. ok. lankford: any other areas of realignment of resources you would recommend the dea, atf, fbi of those that you would recommend similar to that? hon. sessions: we made recommendations for consolidation in bureau of prisons made some within , some of the regional offices of community relations services. we have had a number of other changes we are proposing. we believe every dollar we can properly expend at the point of , effectively carrying out the taxpayer desire, rather

than feeding bureaucracy, is good for america and that is our goal. sen. lankford: that would be helpful. your predecessor eric holder had multiple conversations over the years about atf and fbi and their processes, how they do an investigation. fbi has one set of processes, atf has another. it came out most evident in the fast and furious time period around when there was a close of the011, examination processes atf went through for the investigation for fast and furious. fbi agents stepped up and said, we would never be allowed to do what atf did. is there a study to figure out if these two processes need to be more aligned? is atf needs a structure like fbi, how does that look? eric holder said he would look at it, but i never got a report back. could you take a look at that?

ifare trying to figure out, we have good, established processes, why do we have two different processes for two different entities? hon. sessions: i would be happy to discuss that. i do not think there are any processes that should've fast and furious where assault weapons are allowed to walk across the border. happenedknow how that yet. i know you dug into it as much as anybody in congress, so thank you for that. sen. lankford: let me ask one more strange question. are we out of crime victim needs? so the crime victims fund is out there. it has about $10 billion sitting in it. do we have that fully established, all crime victim issues are taken care of and we do not need to allocate additional dollars towards that area? hon. sessions: no. have had sake we

spending year after year. i did notice in your budget you are recommending we not use that as a pay for, that we set a spending, save the money for crime victims, and not try to shift that over to somewhere else. hon. sessions: our budget would eliminate that procedure. it is something i have opposed, but it has stuck. member of this committee, something might happen, but it is something that has continued for a long time. we propose fixing that problem. sen. lankford: i met yesterday with a group of crime victims and they had a real concern that that money is not used for crime victims, but a gimmick in congress. they would love to see the money actually go to crime victim organizations and uses for that. i yield back. sen. moran: thank you. senator von holland.

senator von holland: thank you, mr. chairman, congratulations and i look forward to working with you and others. i want to associate myself with the comments of senator collins with respect to daca and that's obviously part of an ongoing discussion, but we have to address this critical issue. the senate of judiciary committee, you made a statement i agree with -- the power to pardon is a legitimate power. it is one that ought to be exercised with great care. and you ended with, i believe in the role of the pardon attorney, unquote. the pardon attorney is an office within the doj, is it not? hon. sessions: i believe so. sen. lankford: starting with of

the obama administration -- senator von holland: starting with the obama administration. right, the comment you made was in connection with pardons made by president clinton, but my question to you is, do you stand by that statement you made back during that hearing? that the pardon power ought to be exercised with care and you believe in the role of the pardon attorney? do you stand by that statement? hon. sessions: i do not believe that needs modifying. it is in context. the united states has the constitutional power -- let me finish -- execute pardons without inquiring of the pardon attorney. it has been done very frequently

in history. sen. von holland: i am not pardonng the president's authority. i'm quoting a statement you made that i agree with wrist respect to the role of the pardon attorney. at the time he made comments saying, not going through that process was an abuse of power. my question to you is, whether you think not going through the pardon attorney is an abuse of the power? not an unauthorized power, but do you think it's an inappropriate use of that power? i do not know if i used the phrase abuse of power, it is clearly within the power of the president to execute pardons without the pardon attorney. if you are doing a lot of cases and want them reviewed by an independent pardon attorney, they provide a real asset to achieve executive before executing a pardon. did -- goolland:

through? did the pardon of scooter libb go through they office? hon. sessions: i don't believe it did. sen. von holland: the do you agree that is the appropriate course of action for the pardon? i am asking what you think the appropriate course of action is to make sure the public has confidence in the integrity of the process. usedsessions: they can be very effectively and has been over time. i do not think it is required that any question -- sen. van hollend: i am quoting when you said it was an abuse of process, in a particular case made by president clinton. let me ask you about something else that i also think we agree on in part. hon. sessions: well, i would just say that pardons that

president clinton were made were stunning, shocking and unacceptable on the merits. one pardon was 80 something years of age and convicted of a misdemeanor. mr. libby is well-known in the circuit court in that case. sen. van hollend: what you described was the appropriate process. let me ask you about the psp, which is a program established by the administration to help fight violent crime. the city of baltimore was invited to apply in a letter from the justice department in the justice department said to 2017. the city, we have concluded your jurisdictions the violence that exceed national average and you can get assistance from the department. then they got three criteria listed by the department with respect to what you were referred to as sanctuary cities. and the city's application was denied. here's what i want to say at this point in time. baltimore city does not have

jurisdiction over the detention centers in baltimore city. that's a state of maryland decision. so we may have differences on the criteria you set out with, and as senator shaheen said, the seventh circuit has reviewed this. i think that will apply to your criteria in the national public safety partnership program. but setting that aside, i hope you will work with me on this in baltimore city. we have a violent crime program, and the city of baltimore does not have the laws or state laws regarding dhs, access the department of homeland security jail. i ask you if we can look for ways to see if they can qualify for the funds? hon. sessions: i would be glad to do that. than one, atore least one circumstance, in which the jail was run by someone else

other than the jurisdiction. that created a problem and went through the approval on the grant. i would be glad to look at that. .en. moran: sen. murkowski thank you, iwski: look forward to working with you . i look forward to that commitment. mr. attorney general, thank you for the conversation. i wanted to raise again with you the subject of marijuana. alaska is one of those states that has moved forward not only with medical marijuana, but the sale and cultivation of recreational use. a very aggressive state regulation. this was not something i supported through the statewide initiative in fact, i worked , against it. but, it passed resoundingly through the state. my constituents expect me to work to represent them. mr. chairman, i'd like unanimous

consent to enter into the record a resolution recently passed by the alaska legislature. sen. moran: without objection. sen. murkowski: this is hjres 21 passed unanimously out of both houses and urges the federal government to respect the authority of the state of alaska to regulate marijuana use, production, and distribution, and generally respect states rights. mr. attorney general, we have talked about this in the aftermath of your decision to withdraw the coal memorandum. i had been disappointed with that and expressed i was concerned the department of justice was less than a full partner with the states. i understand the white house has expressed support for legislation that will respect states a primacy when it comes to regulation in the spirit of federalism.

i think the comments that were made by my colleague from hawaii in terms of members evolving on this is important, but i do think as we are seeing the states move forward, legislation like this is timely. the states are telling us they need the department of justice to be a partner in the orderly administration of states regulatory regimes and not standing in the way as an obstacle. so i understand your position on this. again, we've had many conversations. i would hope we could have your assurance that within the department of justice that the department will not be an obstacle to the consideration of this sort of legislation that may move forward. hon. sessions: i can't make a commitment about what position we would take at this time until we know exactly what is involved. it is not so much a question of supremacy as a question of simple law.

alaska can pass laws about drugs that make certain drugs illegal that washington does not make illegal. therefore can't be prosecuted in , federal court, but could be in alaska. likewise, the federal government has passed some laws regarding congress has passed them. they are on the books. i just feel like our priorities -- i will be frank. priorities are fentanyl, methamphetamine, cocaine. people are dying by massive amounts as a result of those drugs. we had very few, virtually zero, small marijuana cases. but if they are a big dealer and illegally acting, violating federal law, federal agents may work that case. i don't feel like i'm able to

give a past or some protection or sanctuary for it. that's may be only difference we have at this point. sen. murkowski: i do understand that. again, i recognize that it there is a venue or opportunity for us to advance legislation on this, that there is that open door for conversation about truly the inherent conflicts we are seeing coming out of the states and working on the federal level. about another issue i raised with you earlier. this is regarding support for tribal justice programs. budget, we were able to include a funding stream for victims of crime act funds for tribes. it is five percent set aside, about $130 million, to help

victims on tribal lands. we had completed a study in alaska. actually, it was a broader study in 2016 from the national institute of justice. more than four out of five alaskan native and american indian women report having experienced violence in their lifetime. more than half report experiencing sexual violence. nearly 40% experienced violence in the past year. 14% experienced violence in the last year. those are statistics when it comes to alaska native women and american native women, they are horrible when it comes to domestic violence and sexual assault. i think we are making a small step forward with this small set aside. the first time ever to see anything going towards those on ,ribal lands and in alaska

where we have different issues in the sense of not having indian country, but a recognition that we must address this. 5%, i would like to see that increase. i would hope we could work with the department of justice to address this issue, because we have not made a difference in reducing these horrible statistics. atty. gen. sessions: senator murkowski, thank you for raising that. i have heard that before i was confirmed. you and i talked about it. i have traveled the country meeting with u.s. attorneys. i hear it a lot in their districts. i just came back from albuquerque. we talked about the navajo tribal lands and the problems they have. this budget, the president's is frugal, buty has more for the tribal issues t

han even the 2018 budget. it does it the way you suggested, through set asides. 7% set aside is recommended that the office of justice programs. would be set aside for tribal individuals, and 5% of the crime victims fund. i believe congress has not yet gotten to those numbers, but i do agree with you that it is a very difficult situation and alaska has a particularly unusual situation without having specific tribal lands that receive specific funds from the government. i will be glad to continue to work with you on it. sen. murkowski: that's why so many of these for -- funds, the dna backlogs, crimes against children, all of these are so significant for it.

i wouldn. sessions: know that just yesterday, i had a state'swith attorney, brian schroeder, on the advisory committee. he and the u.s. attorney from northern oklahoma share the subcommittee on indian affairs. talked about this specifically. they would like to see us do some things better than we have in the past. they provided strong leadership. share he would be glad to his thoughts with you and your staff. sen. murkowski: thank you. >> the senator from california, ms. feinstein. back,einstein: welcome attorney general. i'm sure you missed us terribly. [laughter]

i want to follow up on something senator collins said. and senator manchin. they essentially convened a large group of bipartisan senators on the dock a situation to see if some proposal could be put together. virtually everything went down on the floor. conversation since, what i have learned is that in negotiations with the president, senator schumer tried to consummate a deal where the president essentially got what he wanted with respect to border security if the daca bill went through. well, that was clearly not successful. certainrred to loopholes in your conversation with senator collins. i'm wondering if you could be more precise, because we are very interested in trying to find a solution. atty. gen. sessions: thank you.

your support for this would be very important. i think there's a bipartisan andrtunity to join together say once and for all we believe we should have a lawful system of immigration and we are going to support things that actually work to help achieve that. i have not so jokingly said for pass, congress will anything on immigration as long as it doesn't work. got the consent decree that has been in place for 20 years, causing monumental , particularly in california. we have a situation in which the critics say magic words and you are in, backlog case systems, people cap released on bail, they don't show up for hearings,

there's a whole host of problems like that. i think most members of congress of both parties would probably like to fix it. number in the bill that senator graham and senator durbin were cosponsors of, i think it was 3.3 million. i don't know what the problem was in the bill because it was discussed and discussed, and it was different and about. it would be helpful if you could identify some suffix that we can look at and try to put something together. would you do that? atty. gen. sessions: that is certainly a fair request, yes, i will. let me go ton: bump stocks. move- doj made the possible to van bump stocks under the national firearms act. i have it in my assault weapons

bill, which has 29 or 30 cosponsors right now, but atf has said for years it cannot ban bump stocks because the national firearms act does not allow it. in repeated this position april 2017 and has repeatedly stated in public that atf cannot ban bump stocks under current law. that's why we have proposed legislation to do so. how long do you expect this take, and if you find out what we found out, will you support a legal ban? i wouldn. sessions: need to review the legislation, but we have done intensive legal research. it always seemed to me that a bump stock converts a gun ineffectively to a fully automatic weapon. how can this be a close call?

i acknowledge that the lawyers at atf did a lot of research, a lot of complicated -- it's a complicated matter. they concluded it was not. we have continued to review that. changedve that we have that view in the department of justice. we believe the regulation could be effective to solve the , and it's up for comment now and made public. hopefully, that would move forward and solve the problem. sen. feinstein: by wendy you expect the rulemaking will conclude? atty. gen. sessions: i think it won't be much longer. i'm not sure, but i think just a few months. 90 days i believe is what's left. sen. feinstein: thank you. the justice department announced the policy change one month ago indicating that it would remove records of certain fugitives from the fbi's gun background

check databases. previously, all fugitives were recorded in the database so they couldn't buy guns. only fugitives who crossed state lines are included in the database. i understand that local law enforcement organizations have strongly opposed the change. it is puzzling to me as to why did apartment would do that, why you would want armed fugitives? atty. gen. sessions: the issue i am most familiar with is the one involving whether or not a warrant for your arrest, and a a fugitive,erefore running from arrest, but have not been convicted. the statute is pretty clear. you have to be convicted before you have your second amendment

right -- sen. feinstein: even indicates the case a fugitive has committed a major felony? atty. gen. sessions: apparently, that is the law. in other words, you lose your right if you have been convicted -- sen. feinstein: across state lines? i don't understand what the department sees the need to do this. i willen. sessions: review the state line question. i should be able to answer that, but i'm not able to. but i do know the wind problem is a product of statutory language. sen. feinstein: ok, i'm over my time. thank you. >> thank you senator feinstein. the senator from arkansas. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general sessions for being here.

we do appreciate your hard work and the great job you are doing. i would like to talk a little this also, in the sense that in arkansas, we are doing a great job in helping you in your efforts regarding following the law, being helpful. as i go around the state and talk to county sheriffs, local law enforcement, and individuals regarding the importance of this, this is not a whole lot of money, but it is the difference in standing up to the drug task force versus -- forces they have . these are small departments. when you talk to the people on the ground, again, not having this funding, really is making a big difference in a negative way. can you talk about for those

states, those individuals doing a good job, when it's going to get released? atty. gen. sessions: senator bozeman, it is maddening to us that people who totally support our eye's officers and allow them to do minimal things they have asked for cannot get this money. a suit was filed in chicago that said they may or may not be in violation of our grant conditions, and they not only wanted to block us from denying chicago, they denied the whole judge issue, a nationwide injunction. and chicago's line circumstances are unique. all these other people who complied, who have different and joinedckgrounds,

by the same single federal judge, one out of 600, the whole process was stopped. law enforcement has been impacted. it to determined to try this-- to try to deal with issue and an appropriate way. it is painful to me to not see the money go out, particularly for the people who want to help us every day. they have been pretty supportive and understanding, although it's difficult for them. i hear you. we are working on it. it's a high priority of mine. we appreciate that. it is an important issue. another thing i would like to talk to you a little bit about is, when we look at the fiscal year 2019 budget request, it will reduce drug court funding -- 40%,than funding then rinse treatment courts by 70%. when you look at the recidivism

rate as a result of being in drug court, it is dramatically lower than those people being incarcerated. also, when you put somebody in not only is it the recidivism rate and all that, but also the family will wind up probably on some kind of public welfare system because you have lost an income earner. i really appreciate if you would look at that and just review that, look at the statistics and things. if there is an answer instead of reducing those programs, i think they should be increased dramatically. atty. gen. sessions: congress works its will. we have a tight budget. i do agree with you, senator boseman. -- senator boozman. the drugestablish

court in mobile, alabama and early 1980's, one of the first in the country, and it is still in existence. i think it's positive in general. i have kept up with it over the users -- the years. the state cases are often smaller offenders, addicted offenders, single mothers or it's just ars, difficult time. some of them can work their way through the drug court and stay with their families and save the incarceration. sen. boozman:. you are right. and again, they have to work, they have to stay clean. atty. gen. sessions: if they misbehave, they come before the judge repeatedly and he addresses them directly. it has a real impact. sen. boozman: thank you very much. thank you, mr. chairman. >> madam chair. >> thank you, senator boseman --

senator boozman. senator manchin. sen. manchin: thank you. aank you, there has been major drug raid, and you were involved in that and made it happen. i personally want to thank you for the state of west virginia. it was major in huntington. you had all agencies working together. and made a big, big impression and a big help, so thank you for that. there'swant to say that a process known as augmentation to assign custodial gaps. at the hazelton federal correction center in west virginia, there have been only -- over 60 major security incidents since the beginning of this year, including one inmate's death earlier this month. to make sure the recently passed on the this bill includes language to cartel overreliance

-- curtailtion overreliance on augmentation, and instead hire additional full-time staff before augmenting existing staff. despite all this, the director of bureau of prisons sent a memo out last week stating that augmentation is an important mechanism used by our agency to operate safely and efficiently. anything i can ask, mr. justice, is what we have to do to get some attention and help. atty. gen. sessions: the augmentation has gone on for a long time. it is an established policy. everybody that participates in augmentation is supposed to, and trained ins also incarceration management, number one.

manchin: this is a tough prison here. atty. gen. sessions: the facts can be different in the situations, but the augmentation problem, to eliminate that would be highly expensive. you have to hire an entirely new guard for one person to spend two hours through the lunch room helping keep an eye on things. justmanchin: we are understaffed. that is it in a nutshell. with that prison, with the population we have, if you could look at that and if your staff could give us attention, we would be greatly appreciative. serious having problems. staff morale is low. we have a hard problem keeping people because of the danger. that's all we ask for. i know you will do that. we appreciate that. i have another one too. i'm proud to have an fbi presence in west virginia. wide friday of functions like housing the criminal justice information system or the fbi's, national criminal background check system

is working, implementing cutting-edge biometrics in criminal justice, being a re-force for -- resource in combating cybercrime. to protect the important work at these facilities, there are approximately 75 police officers assigned to the site in clarksburg. additionally, there are about 173 other officers serving at sites in washington d.c., quantico, virginia, and new york city. because of an inadvertent error committed while drafting the legislation intended to establish the fbi police force, these officers, they are not receiving the same pay and benefits that they are entitled to with what jobs they are doing. i think it's a snafu. i mentioned this to the director yesterday. he knows and his staff has it, but i wanted to put it on your radar screen. i would just like to have your help, if you will, on this.

because it's just unfairness in the system that we have been trying to correct. this was done in 2002. atty. gen. sessions: that is a reasonable request and we will follow up with director wray. if we can be of assistance, we will. sen. manchin: the opiate addiction we have, trying to change the law to wear the dea can do its job, you and i have talked about it. you are telling me you need the language from us to do that, or do you have the ability to change that? atty. gen. sessions: i appreciate the conversations we have had on it. i thought we had reached an accord on the language, but if not, i will be glad to follow up and see if we can't get that done. i appreciate your interest in leadership on it. sen. manchin: well, we are

ground zero. we had 909 deaths in a population that is small. we are off the charts. your attention will be greatly appreciated. it is helping immensely. the drug raid made a difference. atty. gen. sessions: the u.s. attorney was so excited. i got a letter from him and it reminded me when i was a young like he was on steroids compared to me. he was so excited. really fired up to make changes. we are going to support -- he is well-liked. we are proud to have mike. thank you. >> senator graham. sen. graham: mr. attorney general, i think you've done a very good job for the country and many of us have your back and i want you to know that. as to the budget, it's a 6% reduction of the fy 18 levels. do you think now is the time to

reduce the department of justice's budget? atty. gen. sessions: we submitted and approval budget. it comes to the office of management and budget trying to achieve a total number for the government. i would just follow up to say it was submitted before the 2018 appropriations, and did in fact help us some money after -- extra. sen. graham: so the money you got extra, you think you can spend it wisely? atty. gen. sessions: we will work very hard to do that. absolutely. sen. graham: the wire act. i know you have recused yourself from reviewing that. atty. gen. sessions: that's correct. sen. graham: i spoke to mr. rosenstein several months ago. senator feinstein is worried about the bizarre interpretation by the obama administration will lead to holy hell when it comes

to internet gambling. can you please tell him to give me an answer? atty. gen. sessions: deputy rosenstein? sen. graham: yes. other than that, do you agree he's doing a good job? atty. gen. sessions: he works everyday day to do the job he is called upon to do. sen. graham: do you have confidence in him? atty. gen. sessions: i do. do, too.am: i gitmo. the president issued an executive order saying he would use gitmo when appropriate. you agree? do you think we will use it in my lifetime? atty. gen. sessions: i agree. you and i spent a lot of time working on it since i've been attorney general and before. i don't know. i would just have to be honest. it could be, certainly, if we have a surge in arrestees. sen. graham: we've got 489 prisoners we captured from

operations around raqqa. they are in a makeshift prison held by the syrian democratic forces. these are really hard-core killers, some of them. two of them, the beatles, you've heard of them, not the rock group, but the beheaders? two of these people are in our custody. they are insisting on fair process and i intend to give them one, but they have cut off the heads of american citizens allies. i know where you are at, i would appreciate it if you could push the administration to live up to the president's promise to use it wisely when it comes to gitmo. would you please do that? atty. gen. sessions: i will remain focused on that. sen. graham: when it comes to the war on terror, raqqa may have been taken back, but we've got to hold it. from your point of view, the threat streams you are aware of, are they growing regarding radical islam threats for the

homeland? atty. gen. sessions: we don't think that any significant reduction. i do believe general mattis deserves credit for his tactics of crushing isis, and i think a lot fewer of them got out then than perhaps they intended, which means there are fewer of them available to come to america to kill americans. i think time will tell how many come out of that war zone and attacked us. definitely there are many that prefer to do that and desire to do that. sen. graham: is this a priority of your department to make sure we are up and running when it comes to these threats? atty. gen. sessions: it is. fbi, maybe almost a third of its budget, his national security matters. i asked if that was enough

sometime time ago, and i was told the right answer. the answer was, we've got enough because we will assign anybody doing anything to focus on terrorism if it is a threat to us, it is our number one priority. sen. graham: one of the tools they use to recruit out of area is social media outlets like facebook and other social media devices. i know you are aware of the recent dustup with cambridge , but with terrorists using social media, would you support congress in trying to gain support for this? atty. gen. sessions: i think it is a growing, real problem. the fbi has a great deal of insight into this program. we want to encourage them to be forthcoming about ideas to deal

with the future, but you are correct, it needs more attention. sen. graham: congratulations on the cloud act, it helps our ally great britain. it is terrific. thank you. atty. gen. sessions: senator graham, you are the number one advocate for that, one of my top priorities in the department of justice. without your help, it would not have passed. >> senator koonce. >> i look forward to working with you and ranking membership impaired mr. attorney general, welcome. act was anthe cloud important step forward. i have three questions i would like to ask. end, aswe are at the long as it occurs within five minutes.

>> we have crafted and instituted a bill which recognizes that if someone is a person prohibited, convicted felon, convicted of domestic shop,ce, goes into a gun fills out their background check form, says i can buy a gun, and are denied, that is information that would be helpful for local law-enforcement to know. would you agree? >> yes it would be. >> there are 120,000 mix denials last year. state of pennsylvania, virginia, and the state police run it. they know when there is a denial. they have prosecuted hundreds of people. state, about 30 others, it is running independently of law enforcement. it would require notification to state law enforcement when there

is a denial of a next application. do you think that would be a constructive step forward? empowering where a person prohibited is trying to get access to a weapon. to review be pleased that. i'm aware you are offering something of that nature. i think it has potential. we also are directing our united states attorneys to prosecute more aggressively, people who live together. -- most of them are next denials of people who have lied. >> i look forward to working with you on that. the high intensity drug trafficking program under ondcp, i worked hard to make sure new council county, delaware was

included in the philadelphia-camden area. i'm concerned about changes you are proposing that would lead it to focus on enforcement activities, but not combating addiction. other ondcp programs have balanced enforcement with community efforts to try to fight addiction. why reinvent the wheel when ondcp has already been providing needed assistance? been a matter discussed for many years. have been asked to reorganize the government to make it more effective. teams that areve funded through this grant of anm have been a part of drug control

policy. it was set up as a policy entity. a little bit like the national come -- national security council, we spend money to make your these departments are using it right. think ondcp needs to focus back on that and the actual of tasknt in the field forces that prosecute and investigate drug use is better coordinated with the dea. of theicials, the people local communities that serve, would retain the grant money, which would be managed by tec a. it would create a closer working relationship. >> i look forward to looking into that. i agree it is a long-standing debate. let me close with a few questions about the u.s. attorney's office in the southern district investigation of michael cohen.

your exchange with senator leahy earlier, if you discover any connection between this investigation into michael: and the ongoing investigation into russian interference, or anything related to the 2016 election, would you recuse yourself? >> yes. you discussed that investigation with anyone outside of the doj, including the president? i don't think it is significant. the communications i might have to anyone in the white house i believe are the kind of communication that should not be revealed. i believe i have the right and responsibility to remain confidence in those. executiveting privilege, i will move forward. president, or anyone in

the administration, discussed the possibility of president trump pardoning michael: -- michael cohen? any not >> able to reveal conversations i may have had with the president or his top staff. >> given the previous conversation, it is my hope if president trump preceded to pardon him in terms of long-standing policy and did not consult with an attorney or the doj, you would express wrong objection to that and would consider resigning if that step for taking? >> thank you for your service. spreadou senator cowan -- thank you senator cowan's. >> i was hoping senator kunz would leave before the second round. is there anything you want to add? thank you for the

opportunity, i have completed my questions. i want to follow up on issues that senator graham raised about guantanamo. he specifically mentioned the beatles. on march 5, i sent the justice department a letter based on discussions that we have been having with families of the americans who were killed, we think, by the beatles, which was a constituent of mine, one of them. one of the things we heard very strongly from the families of those americans murdered by the is theyts, executed, wanted to see that the people who killed them were brought to justice. i didn't feel like putting them

in guantanamo, where no one would know and other terrorists would not be able to see they were brought to justice and held accountable, was an appropriate way to deal with them. i wonder if today you can tell the justice department and you will advocate with the administration that those terrorists be brought to justice, it either in some or inational venue, civilian courts in the u.s.. >> i can say with certainty they will be brought to justice. discussion,en a senator graham, for example, has studied this for years, he has spent time at prisons in afghanistan. normal and best

procedure is for people to be brought to guantanamo as prisoners of war so they can be interrogated. they're not provided attorneys and are not set for trial, they don't get discovery. if a decision is made to bring them to the united states for trial or tried by military commission in guantanamo, that's the best approach. i have advocated that with him when i was in the senate. that is my general view. we have had success drawing a lot of these cases in federal evidenceen though the rules are stricter. the discovery rules require the government to produce more evidence, sometimes intend to reveal how they got called, techniques of catching them. no dispute about these

individuals being brought to trial. disappointed that the british, they were british citizens, they renounce their citizenship, they are not willing to try the cases. but they want to tell us how to try them. they have certain evidence. it is a complex matter. we are spending a good deal of time on it. you can say with confidence that we expect to have these individuals tried and held accountable for the horrific acts. >> thank you. we have been successful in federal court, when we brought the terrorists cases before the court. we have been more successful in civilian courts than we have in military tribunals. i would urge you and you administration to take into

account the families who lost their loved ones because of those terrorists and not provide another opportunity for terrorists to be able to use guantanamo as a recruiting tool. i certainly hope you will do that. i would like to change the subject. there have been a number of questions relative to your recusal from issues relating to the 2016 presidential campaign and the work of special counsel robert mueller. i do have a couple of general questions i hope you can answer, despite your recusal from questions regarding the investigation. misconduct, dereliction of duty, incapacity conflict of interest or other good cause, the conditions outlined fbar 600.

can the attorney general or his designee fire is special counsel? this. me just say i expected somebody would press this. matter.used from that and i amr at stake recused from that. i believe it is not appropriate for me to pine or give my thoughts at this point, given the fact that i am recused. inquiry, but iur think it is not appropriate for me to comment. >> will you not comment on whether the legal view the president can fire a special counsel appointed under the same regulation? >> i feel the same way about that question. one morean ask

question, i know i am over my time. back to the senses questions. there have been questions about citizens that ship questions to be included in the next census. my understanding is the last time this question was included was in 1950. nowve a question about why the justice department feels like it needs to include that question. the answer i have been given is because it's used in enforcing the voting rights act. but since we haven't used it since 1950, why is it necessary now russian mark does the justice department plan on using the information for immigration enforcement? we submitted a written statement about that.

the matter is under litigation today. i am reluctant. it wouldn't be appropriate for me to discuss the merits and argue the pros and cons about it. document toitten we aresus bureau representing them in court. >> senator from louisiana. >> general. i think you are doing a wonderful job. you are a better man than i am. you have shown a lot of patience. first they won't you to recuse yourself, then they want you to answer questions about it. we have talked about this before.

immigrants,ion of which we are proud of. country thanto our any other nation, i am flattered people want to come here. went the last time you read about somebody trying to sneak into china? they want to come here. , and we nation of laws are not following our laws on immigration. is there anything we can do about the sanctuary cities, in terms of legislation? >> absolutely. i think we could authorize explicitly, i thought it was already sufficiently authorized, but explicitly authorize or pass legislation that mandates cooperative relationship with

state and local areas. there is nothing like the improvement we have seen in law enforcement. parishesana you have and cities, all of these jurisdictions that have borders and jails. we honor each other and hold people so somebody can pick them up because they got charges in another jurisdiction. ideological open policy that al city or county refuses after they have apprehended somebody who has entered the country unlawfully, who has perhaps

committed a major crime. they refused to honor officers went they pick them up. that means the officers have to go into the community, place themselves and neighbors at risk to try to apprehend sometimes dangerous criminals. i cannot agree to that. i cannot accept having our office is placed with that kind of risk. it is not a little matter. i think cities need to reevaluate what they are saying. i don't think they know what they're saying. i don't think they understand the implications of their refusal to cooperate with officers. hasooperate with them, that been part of the 30 year decline in crime, the partnership between federal and state officers. this is a breach of that relationship. we talked a lot lately about

the robert law and mueller investigation, which i am not going to ask you to comment on, because you did recuse yourself. we talked a lot about the rule involved. it doesn't seem to apply when we talk to immigration law. there are parts i don't agree with, but i'm going to follow it. help myng to try to colleagues and fellow state or local government officials to follow it. we change it. i just don't get it. i'm sorry i don't. i understand the politics of it, but when you have the mayor of the city, except the phone and the folks in violation of federal law may be arrested. i don't understand it world like that. cross therson can

border on monday and end up in san francisco on wednesday, hauling dope and gets arrested with cocaine or heroin, why would not the city want the ice after they have served their time, to take them out of the country like the law contemplates? i find that is amazing. billions and billions, i saw a figure of 36 billion, i'm sure that may be inaccurate. on borderend enforcement. in my state, if you make it to new orleans, you are home free. our mayor disagrees with us on that, but it is an attitude. i will call you separately. i want to stay within my time. thank you for your service. alert toyou for being this issue and helping us raise it. >> i think we are about to

conclude. let me ask you couple of follow-up questions i have. department has requested funding for 75 new immigration judges and support staff to help alleviate the court system as you would know, the committee provided funding for judges in the fy 18 offices. can you explain how these editions will enable the court to decrease the backlog and speak to the expedited hearing they have developed? >> we have had a real problem for a number of years. in 2014, we had 284 judges. with this funding, we believe we will hit 559. that may not be the optimal number, but is a monumental improvement. we have more and more making facial claims for solemn or other relief that

justifies hearings. it is placing more stress on it. to haveto be able prompt hearings, it gives people fair adjudication, really they need to be held in custody until the hearing is over. them fromelease custody, you can't bring them to a speedy trial they are entitled to, you can be ordered by the courts to release them and they are coming back for trial. a loophole of monumental proportions. that is one of the biggest. i can't tell you how appreciated we are to the congress for doing that. it also helps the legitimate immigrant claimant to get their case heard promptly. in thise a lot to learn

new capacity. one of the surprises was to learn the executive office of immigration review utilizes a management system based on paper. includes 25 million dollars to develop electronic case management systems. can you tell us how this will work and what a difference it will make? >> we are looking to get more legitimatey iand more decision-making processes from our judges. we think the $25 million will pay for itself many times over. we would appreciate that reform. i believe it will help the system considerably. >> is this a one-time request? or will they be more? >> i think the initial cost will be the most significant, whether we will have the annual cost in the budget line item or not, i

don't know. >> are you aware of other places within your department in which you are operating officer a paper-based system? we are working to process by which firearms and their serial numbers are noted. that is not sufficiently computerized, either. it slows that down and cost money in the long run. we would like to be able to get a much quicker turnaround on that. we were planning to improve that system, also. >> let me ask about a spend plan. i look forward to receiving the departments spend plan. know, several programs in

the department, such as a veterans court and tribal assistance grants programs, received an indignant -- significant increase. they received a $14 million increase and $35 million increase, respectively. as we also indicated, there is a six next and stop act passed in the omnibus bill, which i hope will be outlined in your spend plan you intend to spend and implement those laws. additionally, the appropriations thatttee improved money to provided money to aid in the opioid crisis. some specifically included to defend anti-opioid grant programs. can you speak to the type of comprehensive planning and issues the department has undertaken to ensure these investments will have a maximum benefit? >> we are excited about that. you we aree to

determined to use that money quickly. we don't need new hampshire waiting without having this debt reduced. ideas, theeries of dea, how to improve it. we can extend people from 57-60. if we go through the normal hiring process, we may be two or three years before we get to the numbers we are authorized to get to. we can even take people who have retired and can work 20 hours a week. we are thinking about contracting with state and local police departments with people ,ho have retired from them experienced narcotics officers, many highly trained and experienced.

we can contract with them. has been on top of it. we are going to have 400 added to task horses that we will be able to fund. 7 we intend to have you a plan. give the rosenstein and i have talked about it. helping me has been at this for many years. we are determined to try to meet the goal and have plans that we can use the money you have given us not three years from now, but now. we face a crisis. >> i expected perhaps a more pro forma response to my question. i am pleased to see you are moving with alacrity. that is an encouraging development. let us know how we can be of help. we want to see the results when

we authorize spending. let me ask a final question. on the opioid battle, how well can you assure me of the cooperation and coordination between the department of justice and other federal agencies in this battle? reached asident bipartisan solution, to spend 6 billion additional dollars on the opioid crisis. that is a sizable increase. only a small part of it. i don't know exactly what percentage, but it is not the major. i expect the prevention program, which i support, will be funded. it doesn't need on unlimited amount of money. a good prevention program for a reasonable amount of money. and you have treatment, which is expensive.

i'm sure that will get more money. there will be research. i am talking about fda, the department of homeland security, the department of health and ofan services, the v.a., all them have roles to play and others in the drug matters. say you are entitled to keep an eye on all of us, and probably need to, because you run a massive department. you get more money for a certain project and the secretary has one million challenges to deal with. sometimes things don't get done with the alacrity we would like to see. >> we have a funding responsibility as congress. we have an oversight of equal value at my view. we need to do both better. thank you very much, i

appreciate your testimony. it has been a long afternoon. i appreciate the responses you have given. hearing, i asked the witnesses if they have anything they would like to add for the record, something they would like to correct, something they would like to add. you may feel like you have been asked everything. >> i don't have much to add except i would appreciate it if i have misspoken and, i will try to correct that. because the 2018 beneficialons was and provided us additional resources. our best to to do use them as he would like us to. >> thank you very if there are no further questions this afternoon, the senders may submit additional questions to the subcommittees. for the official hearing record. we were pressed the department

of justice respond within 30 days. the subcommittee stands adjourned. [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2017]

president trump is scheduled to speak at a rally at macomb county, michigan. time as theme correspondents dinner, which the president has declined to attend. watch coverage of the annual white house correspondents dinner, featuring comedian michelle wolf here on c-span. at seven p.m. on monday evening, james comey live on both tv in primetime. best-selling autobiography, a higher loyalty. he will discuss several of the issues he faced as fbi director including the investigation, hillary clinton females and his views on -- hillary clinton and his views on.

monday landmark cases, new york times versus the united states, better known as the pentagon neighbors case. in 1971 former analyst daniel ellsberg released a top-secret study to the new york times and .he washington post the supreme court's decision restricted the government's power of the press and broadened journalists protections. our guest to discuss this case are two of the nations top litigators. ted olson, a former solicitor general under president bush. watch at nine eastern on c-span and join the conversation. follow us at c-span. we have resources on our website for background on each case, the

landmark cases companion book and the landmark cases podcast. members of the senate judiciary committee approved a bill that would protect the special counsel from being fired. the measure passed by a vote of 14-7 some republicans supported. mitch mcconnell said he will not bring it to a folk on the senate floor. this portion of the meeting is just one hour.