    [House Hearing, 115 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                     OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

    =======================================================================

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                         ONE HUNDRED FIFTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                               NOVEMBER 14, 2017

                                   __________

                               Serial No. 115-47

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

            Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                                    _________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
     32-380                     WASHINGTON : 2018

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman
    F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr.,         JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
        Wisconsin                        JERROLD NADLER, New York
    LAMAR SMITH, Texas                   ZOE LOFGREN, California
    STEVE CHABOT, Ohio                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
    DARRELL E. ISSA, California          STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
    STEVE KING, Iowa                     HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
    TRENT FRANKS, Arizona                    Georgia
    LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas                 THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida
    JIM JORDAN, Ohio                     LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois
    TED POE, Texas                       KAREN BASS, California
    JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah                 CEDRIC L. RICHMOND, Louisiana
    TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania             HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York
    TREY GOWDY, South Carolina           DAVID CICILLINE, Rhode Island
    RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho                 ERIC SWALWELL, California
    BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas              TED LIEU, California
    DOUG COLLINS, Georgia                JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland
    RON DeSANTIS, Florida                PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
    KEN BUCK, Colorado                   BRAD SCHNEIDER, Illinois
    JOHN RATCLIFFE, Texas
    MARTHA ROBY, Alabama
    MATT GAETZ, Florida
    MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
    ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
              Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff and General Counsel
           Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               NOVEMBER 14, 2017
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page
    The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, Virginia, Chairman, Committee on the
      Judiciary......................................................     1
    The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., Michigan, Ranking Member,
      Committee on the Judiciary.....................................     4

                                   WITNESSES

    The Honorable Jefferson B. Sessions III, Attorney General, United
      States Department of Justice
        Oral Statement...............................................     7

                            OFFICIAL HEARING RECORD

    Questions for the record submitted to The Honorable Jefferson B.
      Session........................................................    92

                     OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                           TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 14, 2017

                            House of Representatives

                           Committee on the Judiciary

                                Washington, DC.

        The committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in Room
    2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Bob Goodlatte
    [chairman of the committee] presiding.
        Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Smith,
    Chabot, Issa, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Marino,
    Gowdy, Labrador, Farenthold, Collins, DeSantis, Buck,
    Ratcliffe, Bishop, Roby, Gaetz, Johnson of Louisiana, Biggs,
    Rutherford, Handel, Conyers, Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson Lee,
    Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Gutierrez, Bass, Richmond,
    Jeffries, Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, and
    Schneider.
        Staff Present: Shelley Husband, Staff Director; Branden
    Ritchie, Deputy Staff Director; Zach Somers, Parliamentarian
    and General Counsel; Bobby Parmiter, Chief Counsel,
    Subcommittee on the Constitution and Civil Justice; Perry
    Apelbaum, Minority Chief Counsel, Chief of Staff, and Staff
    Director; Danielle Brown, Minority Parliamentarian and Chief
    Legislative Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Minority Chief Oversight
    Counsel; Joe Graupensperger, Minority Chief Counsel,
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
    Investigations; Monalisa Dugue, Minority Deputy Chief Counsel,
    Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and
    Investigations; David Greengrass, Minority Counsel; Maunica
    Sthanki, Minority Counsel; Arya Hariharan, Minority Counsel;
    and Veronica Eligan, Minority Professional Staff Member.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The Judiciary Committee will come to
    order. And, without objection, the chair is authorized to
    declare recesses of the committee at any time.
        We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on oversight
    of the Department of Justice. I will begin by recognizing
    myself for an opening statement.
        Good morning. Today, we welcome Attorney General Jeff
    Sessions for the Judiciary Committee's annual Department of
    Justice oversight hearing.
        Mr. Attorney General, you have a long and distinguished
    career in public service. You've continued that service by
    leading the Department of Justice, an agency that, by its very
    nature, is prone to controversy because of the public's varied
    opinions on what it seeks to see--what it means to seek and
    obtain justice. However, you clearly understand that the
    department you lead must have the confidence of the American
    people, even when your decisions are not always well-received.
        Your first year leading the Department of Justice has not
    been without difficulty, which is expected at the outset of a
    new administration. While much has been done to correct the
    improper political engagement by the Department of Justice
    under the Obama administration, more work must be done to
    ensure the Department is operating to impartially administer
    justice.
        Our last DOJ oversight hearing was beyond disappointing.
    Attorney General Loretta Lynch gave the least fulsome and least
    transparent testimony that I can recall in my time in Congress.
    It was plainly a disservice to the American people. Ms. Lynch
    failed to respond substantively to nearly every question posed
    by members of this committee.
        Before Ms. Lynch, former Attorney General Eric Holder
    became the first Attorney General in history to be held in
    contempt by the House of Representatives for his own
    stonewalling with regard to documents connected to the reckless
    operation Fast and Furious.
        I expect, Mr. Attorney General, that you will be more
    willing to candidly answer questions from members on both sides
    of the aisle.
        You are going to hear question after question today
    concerning your knowledge of or involvement with Russia and its
    alleged efforts to interfere in the 2016 Presidential election.
    Whether it concerns your work on behalf of now-President Trump
    during the campaign or your service in the Senate, I suspect
    this theme will be a constant refrain from my friends on the
    other side of the aisle.
        While I understand your decision to recuse yourself was an
    effort by you to do the right thing, I believe you, as a person
    of integrity, would have been impartial and fair in following
    the facts wherever they led.
        I have chosen, as chairman of this committee, to let
    Special Counsel Robert Mueller do his job, free from undue
    political influence. At the same time, however, this committee
    will do its duty and conduct oversight of the Department of
    Justice.
        To that end, we sent two letters to you, one in July and
    another in September, calling on you to name a second special
    counsel to restore the public's confidence in our justice
    system. Numerous matters connected to the 2016 election remain
    unresolved. To date, the Department has not appointed a second
    special counsel.
        Consequently, this committee had no choice but to open our
    own joint investigation with the House Oversight and Government
    Reform Committee to review DOJ and FBI's handling of the
    investigation into former Secretary Hillary Clinton and her
    mishandling of classified information.
        As we said earlier this year, it is incumbent on this
    committee, in its oversight capacity, to ensure that the
    agencies we oversee are above reproach and that the Justice
    Department, in particular, remains immune to accusations of
    politicization. Whoever is Attorney General, the Justice
    Department must evenhandedly administer justice.
        You have recused yourself from matters stemming from the
    2016 election, but there are significant concerns that the
    partisanship of the FBI and the Department has weakened the
    ability of each to act objectively. I look forward to hearing
    your thoughts on this and what steps you are taking to remove
    politics from law enforcement.
        However, these investigations are but a few of the many
    important issues we need to discuss today. For instance, we
    just overwhelmingly reported the USA Liberty Act out of
    committee last week. This bipartisan legislation would
    reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act.
        The administration has chosen to oppose any reform of the
    law. I understand the desire for a clean reauthorization of
    this vital program. However, I believe this stance is a
    miscalculation that risks further eroding trust in our
    intelligence apparatus. We hope we can work with you, now that
    the USA Liberty Act, which reauthorizes a law that is vital to
    our Nation's battle against terrorism while protecting American
    civil liberties, has been reported out the committee.
        This is especially important given the ongoing threat of
    terrorist attacks in the United States. As we all know, not 2
    weeks ago, eight people were killed and almost a dozen injured
    when an ISIS-inspired jihadist drove a rented pickup truck into
    a crowded bicycle path near the World Trade Center in New York.
    The terrorist threat is real and ongoing. We can not afford to
    play politics with national security.
        I also look forward to continuing to work with you on
    efforts to reform our Nation's criminal justice system. There
    is bipartisan support to do this in Congress, and, with your
    help, we can make changes that crack down on violent offenders
    while also doing more to rehabilitate Federal prisons and curb
    abuses in the system as well as excessive punishments.
        To your credit, since you assumed leadership of the
    Department of Justice, there has been a significant increase in
    the prosecution of firearms offenses in the United States. For
    years, I have criticized lax enforcement of the gun laws
    already on the books. Enforcing these laws is the most
    effective way to combat violent crime in our cities and
    neighborhoods.
        Under your leadership, the number of defendants charged
    with unlawful possession of a firearm has increased by nearly
    25 percent; the number of defendants charged with armed drug
    trafficking has increased 10 percent. I commend you for your
    focus on these prosecutions, because they will help make our
    streets safer.
        There are many other matters on which we share common
    ground, especially when it comes to rectifying the failures of
    the Obama administration.
        For example, earlier this year, the House passed
    legislation to ban settlement payments to non-victim third
    parties following your policy directive to shut down the use of
    such mandatory donations. These reform initiatives followed a
    concerted effort by the Obama administration to use settlements
    to benefit its political allies.
        We commend your efforts to combat illegal immigration,
    protect our citizens from criminal aliens, and to fight back
    against so-called sanctuary cities. More than 2 years has
    passed since Kate Steinle was murdered by an illegal immigrant
    who had been deported five times. We have addressed this issue
    head-on by moving legislation to combat sanctuary cities and
    find and remove criminal gang members.
        Mr. Attorney General, our country is at a crossroads. Our
    constituents are gravely concerned that our justice system does
    not work for them. Under your leadership, the Justice
    Department has taken strides to mitigate the harms done in the
    prior administration. I implore you to work with us to continue
    that trend, and I thank you sincerely for your appearance here
    today.
        I now recognize the ranking member of the committee, the
    gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for his opening
    statement.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Top of the morning.
        In the ordinary course of business, any one of the dozen
    topics related to the Department of Justice would be worthy of
    its own hearing. And, to be clear, I would rather spend our
    time today discussing the upkeep of the criminal justice
    system, the enforcement of civil rights, and the work we must
    all do to ensure access to the ballot box.
        Instead, we must spend our time debating the troubles of a
    wayward administration, how the Attorney General conducts
    himself before Congress, how President Trump undermines the
    integrity of the justice system, and how the Department
    continues to ignore the oversight requests of this committee.
        Although this is the Attorney General's first appearance
    before the House, he's already made three visits to our
    colleagues in the Senate.
        At his confirmation hearing, he testified that he did not
    have communications with the Russians. Last month, he testified
    that a continuing exchange of information between Trump
    surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian Government ``did
    not happen, at least to my knowledge, and not with me.''
        We now know, of course, that neither of these statements is
    true. Shortly after the Attorney General made the first
    comment, The Washington Post reported that he met with the
    Russian Ambassador at least twice during the campaign. In the
    past month, we've also learned that the Attorney General must
    have been very much aware of a continuing exchange of
    information between the Trump campaign and the Russian
    Government.
        In charging documents unsealed last month, George
    Papadopoulos, a foreign policy adviser to the Trump campaign,
    admits to extensive communications with Russian contacts. At a
    March 31, 2016, meeting of the campaign's national security
    advisory committee, attended by candidate Trump and chaired by
    Senator Sessions, Mr. Papadopoulos stated, in sum and
    substance, that he had connections that could help arrange a
    meeting between then-candidate Trump and President Putin.
        It does not matter and has been reported that the Attorney
    General remembers this meeting after the fact--remembers it so
    vividly, in fact, that two unnamed sources say the Senator
    ``shot George down.''
        Under oath, knowing in advance that he would be asked about
    this subject, the Attorney General gave answers that were, at
    best, incomplete. I hope the Attorney General can provide some
    clarification on this problem in his remarks today.
        I also hope that he can assure us that the Department is
    weathering near-daily attacks on its independence by President
    Trump and that no office of the Department is being used to
    pressure the President's political enemies.
        In recent months, President Trump has attacked the
    ``beleaguered'' Attorney General and criticized his ``very weak
    position on Hillary Clinton crimes,'' in quotation.
        The President has talked openly about firing the leadership
    of the Department, including the Attorney General, the Deputy
    Attorney General, the former Acting Director of the FBI and
    Special Counsel, Robert Mueller.
        He did fire former FBI Director Comey, in his own words,
    quote, because of that ``Russia thing with Trump and Russia,''
    end quotation, as well as Acting Attorney General Sally Yates
    and all 46 sitting United States attorneys.
        Last year, he denigrated a Federal judge because of his,
    quote, ``Mexican heritage,'' end quote. And Judge Curiel was
    born in Indiana, by the way.
        Last month, in a radio interview, President Trump said he
    was ``very unhappy'' with the Justice Department. Hours later,
    he proclaimed the military justice system ``a complete and
    total disgrace.''
        But the one that sticks with me is the President's July
    interview with The New York Times. In that interview, he begins
    by once again attacking the Attorney General's credibility.
    ``Sessions never should have recused himself,'' the President
    complains. Then the conversation takes a sinister turn. ``When
    Nixon came along, out of courtesy, the FBI started reporting to
    the Department of Justice, but the FBI person really reports
    directly to the President of the United States.'' He goes on,
    ``I could have ended [the Flynn investigation] just by saying--
    they say it can't be obstruction because you can say: `It's
    ended. It's over. Period.' ''
        As is often the case, the President requires some
    correction. The Director of the FBI reports directly to the
    Attorney General, and, since the founding of the Bureau, it can
    be obstruction of justice if the President orders an
    investigation closed with a corrupt motive.
        But what strikes me about these comments is the President's
    view that the criminal justice system serves him and not the
    public. President Trump seems to believe that on a whim he can
    bring pressure to bear on his enemies, dismiss charges against
    his allies, and insulate himself and his family from any
    consequence. I cannot overemphasize the danger this perspective
    poses to our Republic.
        And I have served on this committee long enough to remember
    another President who shared this view. I was, myself, on
    Richard Nixon's enemies list. And although we worked to hold
    that administration accountable, our work is not complete. We
    must all remember our common responsibility to prevent that
    kind of abuse from happening again.
        I will look to the Attorney General's partnership in this
    effort, but I have begun to worry about his resolve. Last
    night, in a letter sent by the Department to Chairman
    Goodlatte--without so much as a copy to the ranking member, by
    the way--the Assistant Attorney General seems to leave the door
    open to appointing a new special counsel to cater to the
    President's political needs. The fact that this letter was sent
    to the majority without the customary and appropriate notice to
    me indicates that the charge given to the Department officials
    to evaluate these issues has political motivations.
        Now, in his own words, the Attorney General is recused from
    any questions involving investigations that involve Secretary
    Clinton. Further, we cannot refer an investigation to a second
    counsel if we lack the evidence to predicate a criminal
    investigation in the first place.
        Virtually every Clinton-related matter that President Trump
    complains about has been long litigated, carefully examined,
    and completely debunked. Still, to quote former Attorney
    General Michael Mukasey, ``putting political opponents in jail
    for offenses committed in a political setting is something that
    we don't do here.'' The threat alone resembles, in his words, a
    ``banana republic.''
        Finally, there is the matter of routine oversight between
    hearings. In the recent history of this committee, new
    Attorneys General usually come to see us within 2 or 3 months
    of taking office. No Attorney General in recent memory has
    taken more than 6 months before making an appearance here.
    Attorney General Sessions has broken that norm. He has had more
    than 10 months to settle in, making our communications with the
    Department between hearings that much more important.
        To date, my colleagues and I have sent more than 40 letters
    to the Trump administration asking for information necessary to
    carry out our oversight responsibilities. We have sent more
    than a dozen of these letters directly to the Attorney General.
    To date, we have not received a single substantive response.
        We can disagree on matters of policy, Mr. Attorney General,
    but you cannot keep us in the dark forever. When we make a
    reasonable oversight request, we expect you to reply in a
    prompt and responsive manner. And I hope you can explain why
    your Department has chosen to ignore these letters.
        More importantly, I hope that you will be more forthcoming
    with your answers, both in your testimony today and in the
    weeks to come. And I look forward to your testimony.
        And, Mr. Chairman, I thank you and yield back the balance
    of my time.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, Mr. Conyers.
        Without objection, all other members' opening statements
    will be made a part of the record.
        We welcome our distinguished witness.
        And if you would please rise, I'll begin by swearing you
    in. Please raise your right hand.
        Do you solemnly swear that the testimony that you are about
    to give shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
    the truth, so help you God?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you.
        Let the record show that the witness answered in the
    affirmative.
        Mr. Jeff Sessions was sworn in as the 84th Attorney General
    of the United States on February 9, 2017. From 1996 to his
    confirmation to lead the Department of Justice, Mr. Sessions
    served as a United States Senator for Alabama.
        Previously, Attorney General Sessions served as an
    assistant United States attorney and United States attorney for
    the Southern District of Alabama, Alabama attorney general, and
    captain in the United States Army Reserve.
        Attorney General Sessions is a graduate of Huntington
    College and the University of Alabama Law School.
        Welcome, Attorney General Sessions. Your entire written
    statement will be entered into the record, and we ask that you
    summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. But I noted that the
    ranking member took a few more minutes than that. If you find
    that necessary, please feel free to do that as well.
        Welcome.

    TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS III, ATTORNEY
              GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, it's an honor to be before this distinguished
    committee, having served 20 years on your counterpart in the
    Senate, the Senate Judiciary Committee.
        Mr. Chairman, I must note that I note with regret your
    announcement of retirement. And I know that our relationship
    has been good in the past, and I hope it will continue to be
    good after you serve here. You've done a fabulous job in
    leading this committee.
        On my first day as Attorney General, I spoke about, quote,
    ``the critical role we at the Department play in maintaining
    and strengthening the rule of law, which forms the foundation
    of our liberty, our safety, and our prosperity. In this rule of
    law, we are blessed beyond all nations''--and I truly believe
    that--``and at this department, we must do all we can to ensure
    that it is preserved and advanced. Such ideals transcend
    politics.''
        From that day to today, we at the Department of Justice
    have worked to be faithful to that mission. Let me share some
    things we've done initially.
        The President sent us an order to reduce crime, not to
    allow crime to continue to increase, and we embraced that
    mission. The violent crime rate has risen and the homicide rate
    has risen by more than 20 percent in just 2 years, really after
    30 years of decline in violent crime.
        After a careful review, we have established a reinvigorated
    Project Safe Neighborhood program as the foundational policy
    for public safety. It has been proven to get results. In its
    first 7 years of implementation, PSN reduced violent crime by
    4.1 percent, with case studies showing reductions in certain
    areas where it was intensely applied of up to 42 percent.
        So we're also focusing on criminals with guns. As you
    mentioned, Mr. Chairman, we've seen a 23-percent increase in
    gun prosecutions in the second quarter of this fiscal year, my
    first year.
        And I'm honored to lead the superb men and women of the
    FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, ATF, and the United
    States Marshals Service, who work together every day with our
    State and local partners in this core crime-fighting mission
    that is the responsibility of the Department.
        Last year, we saw a staggering 61-percent increase in the
    number of law enforcement officers killed in the line of duty
    because of a felony. And, on average, more than 150 officers
    were assaulted every single day. These numbers are
    unacceptable.
        Fortunately, the President understands this. He's directed
    us at the beginning of my administration to back our men and
    women in blue. We are making it clear that we stand with our
    law enforcement partners 100 percent. They are the solution to
    crime, not the problem.
        We've also protected the rule of law in our own department.
    We've prohibited so-called third-party settlements that were
    being used to bankroll special interest groups. We've settled
    civil cases regarding the Affordable Care Act's birth control
    mandate; settled the cases of many groups, tax-exempt groups,
    whose status was significantly and wrongfully delayed by the
    Internal Revenue Service.
        We've also provided legal counsel to this administration in
    favor of ending several other unlawful policies. This includes
    President Trump's order ending billions in funding for
    insurance companies that were not appropriated by Congress
    under the Affordable Care Act.
        This action, which the House had filed a lawsuit to stop,
    put an end to one of most dramatic erosions of the
    congressional appropriations power in our history. House
    Members, you are correct to challenge that. You won in the
    district court. We believed you were correct, and we had that--
    we reversed the policy and had that matter withdrawn--the
    policy withdrawn.
        We put an end to actions by the previous administration to
    circumvent Congress' duly passed immigration laws on the DACA.
    The policy gave individuals that were here illegally
    certificates of lawful status, work permits, and the right to
    participate in Social Security. We withdrew that unlawful
    policy, and now the issue is in the hands of Congress--really
    where it belongs.
        We have filed briefs defending properly enacted State voter
    identification laws, lawful redistricting plans, religious
    liberty and free speech on college campuses.
        In short, it is our mission to restore the American
    people's confidence in the Department of Justice by defending
    the rule of law and enforcing the laws as you have passed them.
    And it is a mission we are honored to undertake.
        In response to letters from this committee and others, I've
    directed senior Federal prosecutors to make recommendations as
    to whether any matters not currently under investigation should
    be open, whether any matters currently under investigation
    require further resources, and whether any matters under
    consideration may merit the appointment of a special counsel.
        And, as you are aware, the Department's inspector general
    has an active review of allegations that FBI policies and
    procedures were are not followed last year in a number of
    matters that you have addressed. And, Mr. Chairman, the letter
    was addressed to you because it was a response to your letter,
    and that's how it was sent.
        We will make such decisions without regard--hear me--
    without regard to politics, ideology, or bias.
        As many of you know, the Department has a longstanding
    policy not to confirm or deny the existence of investigations.
    This policy can be frustrating, I understand, especially when
    there's great public interest about a matter, but it enhances
    justice when we act under the law with professionalism and
    discipline.
        This policy necessarily precludes any discussion on cases I
    may be recused from, because to do so would confirm the
    existence of underlying investigations. To the extent a matter
    comes to the attention of my office that may warrant
    consideration of recusal, I review the issue, consult with the
    appropriate Department ethics officials, and make my decision,
    as I promised the Senate committee when I was confirmed.
        Lastly, I would like to address the false charges made
    about my previous testimony. My answers have not changed. I
    have always told the truth. And I have answered every question
    as I understood them, to the best of my recollection, as I will
    continue to do today.
        I would like to address recent news reports regarding
    meetings during the campaign attended by George Papadopoulos
    and Carter Page, among others.
        Frankly, I had no recollection of this meeting until I saw
    these news reports. I do now recall the March 2016 meeting at
    the Trump Hotel that Mr. Papadopoulos attended, but I have no
    clear recollection of the details of what he said at that
    meeting. After reading his account and to the best of my
    recollection, I believe that I wanted to make clear to him that
    he was not authorized to represent the campaign with the
    Russian Government or any other foreign government, for that
    matter.
        But I did not recall this event, which occurred 18 months
    before my testimony of a few weeks ago. And I would gladly have
    reported it had I remembered it, because I pushed back against
    his suggestion that I thought may have been improper.
        As for Mr. Page, while I do not challenge his recollection,
    I have no memory of his presence at a dinner at the Capitol
    Hill Club or any passing conversation he may have had with me
    as he left the dinner.
        All of you have been in campaigns, let me just suggest, but
    most of you have not participated in a Presidential campaign,
    and none of you had a part in the Trump campaign. And it was a
    brilliant campaign, I think, in many ways, but it was a form of
    chaos every day from day one. We traveled sometimes to several
    places in one day. Sleep was in short supply. And I was still a
    full-time Senator with a very full schedule.
        During this year, I've spent close to 20 hours testifying
    before Congress before today. I have been asked to remember
    details from a year ago, such as who I saw on what day in what
    meeting and who said what to whom. In all of my testimony, I
    can only do my best to answer your questions as I understand
    them and to the best of my memory.
        But I will not accept, and reject, accusations that I have
    ever lied. That is a lie. Let me be clear: I have at all times
    conducted myself honorably and in a manner consistent with the
    high standards and responsibilities of the office of Attorney
    General, which I revere. I spent 15 years in that department. I
    love that department. I honor that department and will do my
    dead-level best to be worthy of your Attorney General.
        So, as I said before, my story has never changed. I've
    always told the truth. And I've answered every question to the
    best of my recollection, and I will continue to do so today.
        With that, Mr. Chairman, I'm honored to take your
    questions.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Well, thank you, General Sessions.
        We will now proceed under the 5-minute rule with questions,
    and I will begin by recognizing myself.
        Under your leadership, the prosecution of firearms offenses
    have increased 23 percent over the same period of the previous
    year. Furthermore, the number of defendants charged with using
    a firearm in violent crimes of drug trafficking rose 10 percent
    over the previous year.
        We have a slide which shows the increase as compared to the
    Obama-era numbers.
        What do these increased prosecutions of firearms offenses
    indicate about the Department of Justice's commitment to
    fighting violent crime, particularly with the use of firearms,
    in this country?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Chairman, as a former
    Federal prosecutor who emphasized gun prosecutions, I've long
    believed that they have a significant impact in reducing
    violent crime. Professors, earlier this year, have explained
    that they share that view based on scientific analysis. It will
    be a high priority of ours. You are correct that prosecutions
    fell.
        One instance that was raised during the Texas--terrific,
    horrible shooting at the church there in Sutherland, Texas, was
    the ability of an individual to get a firearm and whether or
    not they filed correctly their form before you get one that--it
    requires questions about criminal convictions and court
    marshals.
        Those prosecutions, I've noticed, have dropped by over 50
    percent in the last 3 or 4 years. I think those are worthy
    prosecutions. And when a criminal is carrying a gun during a
    criminal act of some other kind, that is a clear and present
    danger to the public. And those cases are important, and the
    impact: reduction of crime.
        Chairman Goodlatte. As you're aware, I and a majority of
    the members of this committee have on multiple occasions
    requested a special counsel to investigate former Secretary
    Hillary Clinton's mishandling of classified information and the
    actions of former Attorney General Lynch with respect to former
    FBI Director Comey's decision not to prosecute former Secretary
    Clinton.
        I am in receipt of the Department's letter from yesterday
    stating that senior Federal prosecutors will review our letters
    and make recommendations as to whether any matters not
    currently under investigation should be open, require further
    resources, or merit the appointment of a special counsel.
        Do I have your assurance that these matters will proceed
    fairly and expeditiously?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, you can, Mr. Chairman. And
    you can be sure that they will be done without political
    influence and they will be done correctly and properly.
        Chairman Goodlatte. You also reference an ongoing inspector
    general investigation into many of the matters we have raised.
    Will you ensure that the I.G. briefs this committee on his
    finding, in closed session if necessary?
        Attorney General Sessions. I will do my best to comply with
    that. The inspector general is able to announce investigations
    in a way that we do not on the normal criminal side of
    Department of Justice, and I assume he would be able to do
    that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Over the past year, we have seen
    numerous apparent disclosures of unmasked names of U.S.
    citizens in the context of intelligence reports.
        Which crimes are violated when these unmasked names are
    disclosed, for example, to the press? How does the Department
    of Justice investigate such unauthorized disclosures?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Chairman, that could
    implicate a number of legal prohibitions. It could be clearly a
    release of classified information contrary to law. And it's a
    very grave offense and certainly goes against the core policies
    of this government to protect those matters from disclosure.
        And the second part of your question was----
        Chairman Goodlatte. How the Department investigates such
    unauthorized disclosures.
        Attorney General Sessions. We have--members of the
    committee, we had about nine open investigations of classified
    leaks in the last 3 years. We have 27 investigations open
    today. We intend to get to the bottom of these leaks. I think
    it reached--has reached epidemic proportions. It cannot be
    allowed to continue, and we will do our best effort to ensure
    that it does not continue.
        Chairman Goodlatte. And on April 11 you issued a memorandum
    to all Federal prosecutors requesting that they make
    prosecution of certain immigration offenses a higher priority.
        To your knowledge, have the number of Federal prosecutions
    increased nationwide for offenses such as harboring aliens,
    improper entry, and illegal reentry?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not have the statistics on
    that, but I believe there have been some increases in those
    cases.
        One thing we've seen is a reduction of attempts to enter
    the country illegally, and that is good news and should result
    in some decline in some prosecutions.
        Chairman Goodlatte. And, finally, as you know, this
    committee did a great deal of work to enact criminal justice
    reform legislation last Congress.
        Will you continue to work in good faith with me and the
    members of this committee on both sides of the aisle to
    identify and craft responsible reforms?
        Attorney General Sessions. I certainly will, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Thank you, General Sessions.
        I now recognize the ranking member of the committee, Mr.
    Conyers, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And welcome again, Mr. Attorney General.
        I'd like to begin by putting a few statements by the
    President up on the screen.
        The first, from July 24, 2017: ``So why aren't the
    Committees and investigators, and of course our beleaguered
    [Attorney General], looking into Crooked Hillarys crimes &
    Russia relations?''
        The second, from November the 3rd: ``Everybody is asking
    why the Justice Department (and the FBI) isn't looking into all
    of the dishonesty going on with Crooked Hillary & the Dems.''
        The third, also from November 3rd: ``Pocahontas just stated
    that the Democrats, lead by the legendary Crooked Hillary
    Clinton, rigged the Primaries! Lets go FBI and Justice Dept.''
        I believe he is referring to Senator Elizabeth Warren in
    that last one. When Richard Nixon spoke about us that way, at
    least he had the courtesy to do it behind closed doors.
        Mr. Attorney General, a few questions for you. ``Yes'' or
    ``no,'' please.
        In a functioning democracy, is it common for the leader of
    the country to order the criminal justice system to retaliate
    against his political opponents?
        Attorney General Sessions. Is that a question?
        Mr. Conyers. Yes, that's the question.
        Attorney General Sessions. Is it proper? Is that what you
    were----
        Mr. Conyers. No. You answer to me whether it is, ``yes'' or
    ``no.'' Your response?
        Attorney General Sessions. But I didn't quite catch the
    beginning of the question. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Conyers. All right. In a functioning democracy, is it
    common for the leader of the country to order the criminal
    justice system to retaliate against his political opponents?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Conyers, I would say that
    it's--the Department of Justice can never be used to retaliate
    politically against opponents, and that would be wrong.
        Mr. Conyers. I interpret that as ``no.'' You----
        Attorney General Sessions. My answer stands for itself, I
    guess.
        Mr. Conyers. Well, I would just--that would make it a
    little easier, if you just responded ``yes'' or ``no,'' if you
    can.
        Here's another: Should the President of the United States
    make public comments that might influence a pending criminal
    investigation?
        Attorney General Sessions. Take great care in those issues.
        Mr. Conyers. Could you respond ``yes'' or ``no''?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I don't know exactly the
    facts of what you're raising and what amounts to the concern
    you have. I would say it's improper to influence--it would be--
    a President cannot improperly influence an investigation.
        Mr. Conyers. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. And I have not been improperly
    influenced and would not be improperly influenced.
        Mr. Conyers. All right.
        Attorney General Sessions. The President speaks his mind.
        Mr. Conyers. Yes, sir.
        Attorney General Sessions. He's bold and direct about what
    he says.
        Mr. Conyers. But----
        Attorney General Sessions. The people elected him. But we
    do our duty every day based on the law and facts.
        Mr. Conyers. Reclaiming my time, I'm not impugning these
    comments to you or what you would do in advance.
        Last night, sir, the Assistant Attorney General sent the
    chairman a letter suggesting that the Attorney General has
    directed senior Federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues,
    like the sale of Uranium One in 2010.
        Now, at your confirmation hearing, you said, ``I believe
    the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself from
    any questions involving those kinds of investigations that
    involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the
    campaign or to be otherwise connected to it.''
        Now for my ``yes'' or ``no'' question. Are you recused from
    investigations that involve Secretary Clinton?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Chairman, it's--I cannot
    answer that ``yes'' or ``no,'' because, under the policies of
    the Department of Justice, to announce recusal in any
    investigation would reveal the existence of that investigation,
    and the top ethics officials have advised me I should not do
    so.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Conyers. You----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Wisconsin, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Thank you very much.
        Welcome, Mr. Attorney General.
        We're debating whether section 702 should be reauthorized,
    and I want to talk about that issue.
        At the beginning, let me show you a poster that my campaign
    committee put up on the University of Whitewater campus in the
    2014 election during a debate on the USA Liberty Act. And it
    says, ``The GOVERNMENT knows what you did LAST NIGHT! The NSA
    has grabbed your phone calls, texts, Facebook posts, and
    emails. Jim Sensenbrenner thinks that's an outrageous invasion
    of your privacy.'' And it shows that I passed the bill and
    asked the students to vote for me. It worked. My percentage on
    that campus went up 20 points from the previous election.
        Now, we're talking about many of the same issues in terms
    of section 702. And the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
    was designed to collect foreign intelligence, not domestic
    intelligence, but, in reality, we know that a vast number of
    Americans' communications are also collected.
        The committee took a great step in trying to balance
    security and privacy last week when we reported out the USA
    Liberty Act, which made significant changes to the program.
    Notably, this legislation specifies two ways the government can
    query the information under section 702: either foreign
    intelligence or evidence of a crime. USA Liberty Act ensures
    that the government does not abuse 702 by requiring that a
    warrant be issued to access content after querying information
    for evidence of a crime.
        Now, Attorney General Sessions, you have stated on several
    occasions that you believe that a warrant requirement would
    hinder the government's ability to detect and stop terrorists.
    Yet this bill already provides the government to move forward
    without a warrant on foreign intelligence in emergency
    situations.
        Why can't the USA Liberty Act be the compromise? Can't we
    allow the intelligence community to stop terrorists while
    protecting the constitutional rights of Americans?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, we can. And the
    constitutional rights of Americans should be protected. And I
    know you worked on the PATRIOT Act when it came up, with
    Senator Hatch and Senator Leahy and others. And I know you're a
    champion of civil liberties.
        So I would just say that we can do that. The act, as
    written, as in law today, has been approved by the courts and
    has not been found to be in violation of the law. And so that's
    first and foremost.
        I know the committee has decided to put some additional
    restrictions on the way the act is conducted. We did not think
    that was lawfully required. Congress can make its own
    decisions, and we will continue to be able to share our
    thoughts about how the legislation should be crafted.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Well, Mr. Attorney General, the day
    before the committee marked up this bill, the Justice
    Department was actively lobbying members of the committee to
    oppose the measure, stating that it would dismantle section
    702.
        Now, this is a huge gamble, because 702 expires at the end
    of the year. We have a very short timeline. And I want to ask
    you, with a ``yes'' or ``no,'' following my friend from
    Michigan, do you want to risk the real possibility that this
    program will expire by insisting upon a clean reauthorization
    without a sunset?
        Attorney General Sessions. No, we don't want to take that
    risk.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Will you commit to working with
    Congress, and not against us, to make sure that section 702 is
    reauthorized, either the way you want it or the way we want it?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr.--I almost said ``Mr.
    Chairman.'' I know you've held that office. Congress gets to
    dispose; we get to give our opinion.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe the act, as passed--
    and it had been reauthorized with an even larger vote last
    time--is constitutional. I believe it works. And I am worried
    about additional burdens, particularly a warrant requirement,
    which could be exceedingly damaging to the effectiveness of the
    act.
        We are willing to talk to you about some of the concerns
    that exist out there. Hopefully we can work our way through it
    and accept the concerns and fix the concerns you have without
    going too far.
        Mr. Sensenbrenner. But, with all due respect, there is an
    emergency exemption in the USA Liberty Act, as reported from
    the committee, and that should take care of the problem. And
    yet people in your department were saying this was no good.
        You know, I take your offer, you know, at face value. And I
    will let you know if I hear of members of your department
    actively lobbying to defeat the bill rather than to work
    something out.
        And I yield back the balance of my time.
        Attorney General Sessions. I know you'll let us know, Mr.
    Sensenbrenner.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    New York, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Mr. Attorney General, following up on the questions from
    Mr. Conyers, at your confirmation hearing, you said, ``I
    believe the proper thing for me to do would be to recuse myself
    from any questions involving these kinds of investigations that
    involve Secretary Clinton and that were raised during the
    campaign or to be otherwise connected to it,'' close quote.
        Do you stand by that statement, ``yes'' or ``no''?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        Now, I want to show you an image from March 31, 2016, of a
    meeting of the Trump campaign national security advisory
    committee, which you chaired, with yourself in attendance,
    along with then-candidate Donald Trump and Mr. George
    Papadopoulos. Mr. Papadopoulos pled guilty on October 5 to
    making false statements to the FBI.
        The charging papers filed by Special Counsel Mueller
    describe the March 31 meeting, where Mr. Papadopoulos told the
    group that he had connections and could help arrange a meeting
    between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. After the meeting, Mr.
    Papadopoulos continued to communicate with the Russian
    Government on behalf of the Trump campaign and appears to have
    told several senior campaign officials about it.
        Now, here is the problem. On October 18 of this year, you
    said under oath in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee,
    quote, ``A continuing exchange of information between Trump's
    surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian Government did
    not happen, at least not to my knowledge and not with me.''
        Senator Franken asked, ``You don't believe that surrogates
    from the Trump campaign had communications with the
    Russians?'', to which you responded, ``I did not, and I'm not
    aware of anyone else that did,'' unquote.
        Now, we now know that, one, the campaign had communications
    with the Russians through Mr. Papadopoulos and others, and,
    two, you seem to have been aware of the fact at the time. So
    let's try and correct the earlier testimony now for the record.
        ``Yes'' or ``no,'' did you chair the March 31, 2016,
    meeting of the national security advisory committee?
        Attorney General Sessions. I did chair that meeting.
        Mr. Nadler. Thank you.
        ``Yes'' or ``no,'' did Mr. Papadopoulos mention his
    outreach to the Russian Government during that meeting?
        Attorney General Sessions. He made some comment to that
    effect----
        Mr. Nadler. ``Yes.'' Thank you.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. As I remember----
        Mr. Nadler. I don't have----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. After having read
    it in a newspaper----
        Mr. Nadler. I asked for ``yes'' or ``no.'' I don't have
    time.
        Attorney General Sessions. All right.
        Mr. Nadler. There are reports that you ``shut George
    down,'' unquote, when he proposed that meeting with Putin. Is
    this correct, ``yes'' or ``no''?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes. I pushed back, I will just
    say it that way, because it was----
        Mr. Nadler. ``Yes.'' Your answer is ``yes.''
        So you were obviously concerned by Mr. Papadopoulos'
    connections and his possibly arranging a meeting with Putin.
        Now, again, ``yes'' or ``no,'' did anyone else at that
    meeting, including then-candidate Trump, react in any way to
    what Mr. Papadopoulos had presented?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. So your testimony is that neither Donald
    Trump nor anyone else at the meeting expressed any interest in
    meeting the Russian President or had any concerns about
    communications between the campaign and the Russians?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        Now, we know from multiple sources, including the
    Papadopoulos guilty plea, Carter Page's interview with the
    Intelligence Committee, and Donald Trump, Jr.'s emails, among
    others, that, contrary to your earlier testimony, there were
    continued efforts to communicate with the Russians on behalf of
    the Trump campaign.
        We have established that you knew about at least some of
    these efforts. They caused you such concern that you, quote,
    ``shut George down.'' I want to know what you did with this
    information.
        ``Yes'' or ``no,'' after the March 31 meeting, did you take
    any steps to prevent Trump campaign officials, advisers, or
    employees from further outreach to the Russians?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Nadler, let me just say it
    this way. I pushed back at that. You made statements that he,
    in fact----
        Mr. Nadler. But did you----
        Attorney General Sessions. At the meeting, I pushed back.
        Mr. Nadler. We know that. But did you----
        Attorney General Sessions. All right.
        Mr. Nadler [continuing]. After the meeting?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have to be able to answer. I
    can't--I can't be able to----
        Mr. Nadler. I only have 5 minutes. I'm asking you----
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not going to be able to
    answer if I can't answer completely.
        Mr. Nadler. You said you pushed back. We accept that. After
    the meeting, did you take any further steps to prevent Trump
    campaign officials, advisers, or employees from further
    outreach to the Russians after you stopped it or pushed back at
    that meeting?
        Attorney General Sessions. What I want to say to you is you
    allege there were some further contacts later. I don't believe
    I had any knowledge of any further contacts----
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. And I was not in
    regular contact with Mr. Papadopoulos.
        Mr. Nadler. So your answer is ``no'' because you don't
    think there were any such contacts. So you----
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of it.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay. So I was going to ask you a question of
    did you raise the issue with various people, but your answer is
    ``no.''
        Attorney General Sessions. To the best of my recollection.
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        So your testimony today is that you communicated with
    nobody in the campaign about this matter after the March 31
    meeting because nothing happened.
        Attorney General Sessions. Repeat that.
        Mr. Nadler. Your testimony, therefore, is that you
    communicated with nobody in the campaign about this matter
    after the March 31 meeting----
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall it.
        Mr. Nadler. You don't recall.
        At some point, you became aware that the FBI was
    investigating potential links between the Trump campaign and
    the Russian Government. After you became aware of the
    investigation, did you ever discuss Mr. Papadopoulos' effort
    with anybody at the FBI?
        Attorney General Sessions. Did I discuss the matter with
    the FBI?
        Mr. Nadler. Yes.
        Attorney General Sessions. To ask them questions about what
    they may have found?
        Mr. Nadler. Did you discuss the Papadopoulos question with
    the FBI?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have not had any discussions
    with Mr. Mueller or his team or the FBI concerning any factors
    with regard to this----
        Mr. Nadler. Nobody else at the FBI either?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mr. Nadler. At the Department of Justice?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mr. Nadler. At the White House?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mr. Nadler. Any Member of Congress?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I don't know if these
    conversations may have come up at some time, but not to obtain
    information. In any--let----
        Mr. Nadler. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. With regard to your broad
    question, I don't recall at this moment, sitting here, any such
    discussion.
        Mr. Nadler. All right. I have one further----
        Attorney General Sessions. It's important for me to say
    that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    We've got a lot of people waiting to ask questions.
        And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr.
    Chabot, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, does your recusal from investigations
    related to the interference by Russia in the 2016 Presidential
    campaign apply to any investigations regarding efforts by the
    Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign to
    secretly fund a scurrilous and widely discredited dossier on
    candidate Donald Trump?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Chairman, anything that
    arises in this nature that may be or may not be connected to my
    recusal on the question of the campaign and Russia would be
    discussed between me, the senior ethics adviser at the
    Department of Justice, and that's how I make my decision.
    That's what I promised to do when I was confirmed before the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, and that's what I will do. And I'm
    unable to provide information to you as to what decision has
    been made in this matter.
        Mr. Chabot. Great. Thank you very much.
        I'm not and never was a prosecutor, but I did some criminal
    defense work back in the day when I practiced law for almost 20
    years. It seems to me that a Presidential campaign using a law
    firm as a conduit to pay for activities with which the campaign
    itself doesn't want to be directly associated is more than just
    dirty politics; it's also, quite possibly, illegal. To me, it
    seems that this is at least a violation of campaign finance
    laws for failure to accurately disclose the actual recipients
    of campaign disbursements.
        However, this type of arrangement is not illegal--if it's
    not illegal under current law, I fear that we're risking
    opening Pandora's box with all sorts of underhanded activities
    by campaigns being laundered through law firms and shielded
    under attorney-client privilege.
        As the chief law enforcement official in this country, do
    you share similar concerns? And, in your opinion, is it legal
    under current law for a Presidential campaign to hide its
    funding of the compilation and dissemination of political dirt
    on its opponent by using a law firm to directly pay for the
    work?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would think that those matters
    are worthy of consideration. But as to the details of them and
    for me to express an ultimate comment today, I'm unable to so.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay. Thank you.
        Let me shift over to something entirely different. Federal
    law currently still cites marijuana as a dangerous drug. It's
    still prohibited. It's still illegal under Federal law. Yet a
    number of States have, for both medical purposes and now even
    for recreational purposes, have basically made it legal.
        What is your department's policy on that relative to
    enforcing the law?
        Attorney General Sessions. Our policy is that the same,
    really, fundamentally, as the Holder-Lynch policy, which is
    that the Federal law remains in effect, and a State can
    legalize marijuana for its law enforcement purposes, but it
    still remains illegal with regard to Federal purposes.
        Mr. Chabot. Okay. It seems to me that there's always been a
    tremendous amount of gray area in that whole field, which I
    think, as a Nation, you know, we need to look much more closely
    at, both from the State's point of view and the Federal
    Government point of view. But that's just my feeling on that.
        I'm running out of time. I had about four other things, but
    let me just go to one final thing here.
        I've been very involved in the area of victims' rights. I
    was the--following Henry Hyde's leadership on this, introduced
    a victims' rights constitutional amendment years back, various
    pieces of legislation on victims' rights. And I've also worked
    closely with the parents of murdered children. And when you
    talk about something that affects one's family, there's nothing
    that affects a family more adversely than something like that
    happening.
        And we still have capital punishment on the books, both at
    the Federal level and many of our States. Yet these families
    are dragged left and right, up and down, back and forth, into
    hearing after hearing. These cases can drag on for more than 20
    years before the imposition of capital punishment actually
    occurs. And, in many instances, obviously, it never does.
        And while these people are behind bars, oftentimes they
    attack, sometimes kill guards, attack, sometimes kill other
    inmates.
        So what is--I'd be interested to see, what is your--what is
    your intentions relative to capital punishment in this country?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, many States have capital
    punishment. The Federal Government has capital punishment for a
    number of offenses, and it is specifically controlled. We have
    within the Department a recommendation process through our
    appointed committee to seek or not seek a death penalty when a
    case is charged. Sometimes it's a complex thing.
        But I believe the death penalty, the Federal death penalty,
    is a part of our law. I think it's a legitimate penalty. It's
    constitutional. And we will do our duty, even in those
    circumstances that require the imposition of the death penalty.
        Mr. Chabot. Thank you very much. My time has expired.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
    from California, Ms. Lofgren, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here today.
        Former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn is under
    investigation because of his work and ties to foreign
    governments. According to various reports, much of his work
    with these foreign governments went unreported when Mr. Flynn
    was required to make certain disclosures by law.
        Now, as chairman of the Trump campaign national security
    advisory committee and lead adviser on the Trump transition
    team, I think you worked closely with Mr. Flynn, and I'd like
    you to answer a few yes-or-no questions about Mr. Flynn. And
    knowing that Mr. Flynn is under investigation, I'm going to
    stick to subject matter that predates both the special
    counsel's investigation and your appointment as attorney
    general.
        Now, the foreign policy platform at the Republican National
    Convention undertook dramatic changes. Did you discuss changes
    to the Republican foreign policy platform with Mr. Flynn at any
    point during the campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall it. I was not at
    the convention when the platform committee met.
        Ms. Lofgren. You were the lead of the campaign, but you
    don't recall discussing it with him?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that may be a bit of a
    stretch. I was asked to lead, inform, and find some people who
    would join and meet with Mr. Trump to give him advice and
    support regarding foreign policy, and I did so, although, we
    were not a very effective group, really.
        Ms. Lofgren. You met with Ambassador Kislyak in November of
    2016. Did you discuss your meetings with Ambassador Kislyak
    with Mr. Flynn?
        Attorney General Sessions. Did I discuss Mr. Flynn with
    him?
        Ms. Lofgren. Did you discuss your meeting with the
    Ambassador with Mr. Flynn?
        Attorney General Sessions. No. The Ambassador--I met with,
    I think, some 25 ambassadors that year. I did meet once in my
    office with Mr. Kislyak. And I do not recall and don't believe
    I communicated any of that information to Mr. Flynn.
        Ms. Lofgren. Are you aware of any meetings between
    Ambassador Kislyak and Mr. Flynn that might have occurred
    around the time of your meeting with the Ambassador?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not.
        Ms. Lofgren. Okay. In her testimony before the Senate in
    May, former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified that
    1 week into the Trump administration she notified the
    administration that Mr. Flynn had lied to Vice President Pence
    about discussing sanctions with Ambassador Kislyak.
        As part of the transition team and the President's pick for
    attorney general, in January were you notified when the
    administration was notified of Mr. Flynn's lie and his
    susceptibility to Russian blackmail?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe so.
        Ms. Lofgren. All right. We now know that you were aware of
    the efforts of Carter Page and George Papadopoulos to meet and
    establish communications with the Russian Government. Did you
    at any point----
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that's not necessarily so,
    at least from what Mr. Carter Page says, and I don't recall
    that.
        Ms. Lofgren. All right. Did you at any point discuss with
    Michael Flynn the possibility of then-candidate Trump or his
    surrogates meeting with the Russian Government?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not recall such a
    conversation.
        Ms. Lofgren. Did you know that Flynn was working for the
    Turkish Government while acting as a surrogate for the Trump
    campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe I had
    information to that effect.
        Ms. Lofgren. Did you know that he was working for the
    Turkish Government at any point after the election?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe so.
        Ms. Lofgren. Were you or anyone on the Trump campaign aware
    of Mr. Flynn's efforts to extradite Turkish cleric Gulen?
        Attorney General Sessions. I've read that in the paper
    recently, but I don't recall ever being made aware of that
    before this recent release in the paper.
        Ms. Lofgren. So you just read about it in the newspaper
    afterwards?
        After the inauguration you did not know that the FBI was
    requested to conduct a new review of Turkey's 2016 extradition
    request for Mr. Gulen?
        Attorney General Sessions. The FBI was----
        Ms. Lofgren. Do you know about that?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm aware that the Turkish
    Government continued to press the Federal Government with
    regard to seeking the return of Mr. Gulen to Turkey.
        Ms. Lofgren. Did you know----
        Attorney General Sessions. And our Department had a role to
    play in that, although I'm not at liberty to discuss the
    details of that.
        Ms. Lofgren. Did you know that the Turkish Government
    allegedly offered $15 million for Mr. Flynn to kidnap Mr.
    Gulen?
        Attorney General Sessions. Absolutely not.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for
    5 minutes.
        Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, General Sessions, for your testimony here
    today and your service to our county over the years that you
    have been front and center.
        A number of things I wanted to discuss. One of them is the
    DACA situation. And it seems, as I recall, that you had made a
    public statement some time back about the constitutionality of
    the policy that was implemented by President Obama. Would you
    care to reiterate that position today?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, the President--President
    Obama--indicated multiple times that he felt that DACA--he
    didn't have the power to do DACA in the way it was done. And
    eventually they must have changed their mind and executed this
    policy to take persons who were in the country unlawfully and
    to give them lawful status, work permits, and even
    participation in Social Security.
        So I felt, for some time, that that was not proper. A
    Federal district court in Texas so held, and the Fifth Circuit
    Court of Appeals also so held that it was unlawful. So what
    happened was, we helped work on the research, but the
    Department of Homeland Security withdrew the policy because it
    was not defensible, in my view.
        Mr. King. And established a date to close it down of March
    5, I think, of next year?
        Attorney General Sessions. That's right. The Homeland
    Security asked for time to wind this program down, and I
    thought that was appropriate.
        Mr. King. And there's a lot of public dialogue about what
    kind of legislation might be passed in conjunction with the
    DACA policy, and that's up in the air right now. I'm noticing
    that Democrats are saying: We're going to have everything we
    want on DACA or we'll shut the government down. So it causes me
    to think about what should happen if Congress reaches an
    impasse and there is no passage of any legislation to extend
    the DACA policy.
        If the President should decide on or before that March 5
    date, around that period of time, that he wants to extend the
    DACA policy, what would your position be at that time?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that's hypothetical
    Senator King. I'm not--I don't think I should speculate on
    that. But I do think Congress will have to give it thought. We
    have a law now, it's in place, as Congress passed, and Congress
    would have to change it.
        Mr. King. And I would just remark that I'm watching a lot
    of people be rewarded for the violation of the rule of law, and
    I appreciate your emphasis on rule of law in your testimony
    today, multiple times coming back to that point.
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. King, I would just say, it
    is correct, in my view, and I think you'd probably share it,
    that something is lost whenever you provide an amnesty. It's a
    price that will be paid if that's done, but sometimes
    circumstances are such it may need to be done. But we need to
    be careful.
        Mr. King. Thank you.
        And it's been--we've been made aware in this committee that
    there's a significant backlog in immigration cases. Have you
    presented any requests to Congress or a statement that could
    inform us as to how many resources you might need, how many
    judges you might need to get this backlog caught up, and then
    an idea how many we might need to maintain an anticipated
    level?
        Attorney General Sessions. That's a very good question.
    Yes, we've worked on it, we have some preliminary information.
    We're seeking a total of about 360, 370 judges. We've added
    about 50 to the total. We've shortened the time process for
    selecting people--not shorting the training program--and we are
    adding judges.
        I would say on the backlog, it's gone up dramatically. It's
    now over 600,000. But the last 2 or 3 months we're almost not
    adding to the backlog. And I'm told, by the additional work
    we're doing, by January we will not be adding to the backlog,
    but hopefully reducing it. That would be a real change in the
    trends that we were heading on.
        Mr. King. Well, thank you.
        Then I'd just ask you to reflect, as this committee
    anticipates the potential of a special counsel, to broaden this
    look that I think is forced upon us in a reluctant way. But I
    certainly support the special counsel to look back at some
    times here that I believe should be incorporated into this.
        And that is, I look back at October 16, 2015, when Barack
    Obama was speaking of Hillary Clinton and whether she might
    have violated any security clauses in our statute, in
    particular 18 U.S.C. 793, when he said that he had no
    impression that Mrs. Clinton had purposely tried to hide
    something or to squirrel away any information. Made the point
    of intent.
        Behind that, in April, after that, April 10, a similar
    statement: She would never--meaning Hillary Clinton--she would
    never intentionally put America in any kind of jeopardy.
        Those words of intent caught my attention when I heard
    James Comey use that very word July 5 of 2016. And it seems as
    though he latched on to the statements made by President Obama,
    and a more or less implied, and implemented it into an
    interpretation of the statute, that word ``intent,'' as if it
    were a condition before there could be any prosecution for a
    violation of 18 U.S.C. 793.
        And I don't know that I have a question on that. I wanted
    to make sure that I put that into the record so that it's under
    consideration by the DOJ.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas, Ms.
    Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you very much.
        Mr. General, do you believe in this book, the Constitution
    of the United States?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And will abide by it with all of your
    intentions?
        Attorney General Sessions. That is exactly correct.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank you so very much.
        I took the liberty of reviewing Federal crimes against
    children, particularly those dealings with sexual or physical
    abuse. As you well know, Leigh Corfman, Wendy Miller, Debbie
    Watson Gibson, Gloria Thacker Deason, and Beverly Young Nelson,
    these young women have accused this individual, Judge Moore,
    who is running for a Federal office, the United States Senate,
    of child sexual activity.
        Do you believe these young women?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have no reason to doubt these
    young women.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. And with that in mind, if you believe
    these young women, do you believe Judge Moore should be seated
    in the Senate if he wins? And would you introduce
    investigations by the DOJ regarding his actions?
        Attorney General Sessions. We will evaluate every case as
    to whether or not it should be investigated. This kind of case
    would normally be a State case.
        I would say, Representative Jackson Lee, that the Ethics
    people at the Department of Justice, and I've talked to them
    about that when this campaign started, it's the seat I used to
    hold, they advised me that the Attorney General should not be
    involved in this campaign. I have friends in the campaign.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. General. I have
    a short period of time. I want to make sure that if he comes to
    the United States Senate----
        Attorney General Sessions. I have steadfastly adhered to
    that view. And I think I should continue to do so.
        Ms. Jackson Lee [continuing]. If he comes to the United
    States Senate, that there would be the possibility of referring
    his case for at least a Federal review by the Department of
    Justice.
        Attorney General Sessions. We will do our duty.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me also refer you back to the meeting
    on March 31, 2016, with Mr. Papadopoulos. You well know that
    Mr. Papadopoulos, in addition to his comments in the meeting
    regarding a meeting between Trump and Mr. Putin, had a series
    of meetings dealing with--and as you can see, Trump, Mr.
    Papadopoulos, and you leading that committee. I cannot imagine
    your memory would fail you so much.
        But moving on, he was in that meeting, but you also had
    Stephen Miller, who was a senior policy adviser, who was noted
    in the stipulated statement of offense to receive conversations
    from Mr. Papadopoulos about his constant interaction with the
    Russians to intrude in the 2016 election.
        You continued in the October 18 meeting before the
    Judiciary Committee or hearing in the Senate to not answer the
    question. Now, in light of the facts that are now part of the
    record, do you wish to change your testimony before the Senate
    Intelligence Committee on June 13, 2017, where you said, ``I
    have never met with or had any conversation with any Russians
    or any foreign official''?
        Let me jump to the final part: ``I have no--I have no
    knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the
    Trump campaign.''
        Do you want to admit under oath that you did not tell the
    truth or misrepresented, or do you want to correct your
    testimony right now?
        Attorney General Sessions. You're referring to my testimony
    at confirmation?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Before the Senate Intelligence Committee.
    My time is short and I have two more questions, please.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I'm not able to respond
    because I don't think I understand what you were saying.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm asking, your Intelligence Committee
    testimony, do you want to change it, where you indicated you
    had no knowledge of involvement of the Trump individuals
    involved in conversations regarding the Trump campaign and
    Russians? And Mr. Miller gave--supported Mr. Trump's press
    conference where he said, ``Russia, if you're listening, I hope
    you'll be able to find the 30,000 emails.''
        Do you want to change your testimony that was--where you
    said, I have no knowledge of any such conversations by anyone
    connected to the Trump campaign regarding Russians involved in
    the campaign? That was a testimony on June 13.
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to understand----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right. Let me move forward to the----
        Attorney General Sessions. Let me say this, Mr. Chairman.
    Can I----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The Black identity. Let me move to a
    document that you have prepared.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The witness will be allowed to answer
    the question.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman keeps saying he cannot
    recall, he cannot recall. So I am reclaiming my time.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The gentlewoman will suspend. The
    witness wants to answer the question she asked him.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Then I should be given extra time and I do
    not have extra time. Let me move to the Black identity----
        Chairman Goodlatte. Will the gentlewoman suspend?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I will suspend.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The witness will answer the question.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes or no, does he want to change his
    testimony in the Intelligence Committee?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would just say this. I stand
    by this testimony at the Intelligence Committee. I have never
    met with or had any conversation with any Russians or any
    foreign officials concerning any type of interference with the
    campaign or election in the United States. Further, I have no
    knowledge of any such conversations by anyone connected to the
    Trump campaign.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much for that.
        Attorney General Sessions. What I did say in my opening
    statement, I explained that when I was asked in October, just a
    few weeks ago, when I was asked about the matter, did I have
    any knowledge of anyone who had talked to the Russians. I
    indicated that I had not recalled that meeting when that
    occurred. But I would have been pleased to have responded and
    explained it if I had recalled it.
        I've tried to be honest about that and give you my best
    response and did throughout all the testimony I've given, Ms.
    Lee.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. You stand by your testimony. Thank you
    very much.
        Are you familiar with the names Eric Garner, Walter Scott,
    Tamir Rice? My question is, as I hold up the poster dealing
    with the report under your jurisdiction, Black identity
    extremists, it is interesting to me that you are opposing
    individuals who are posing lethal force similar to the attack
    on Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King on COINTELPRO, but there
    seems to be no report dealing with the tiki torch parade in
    Charlottesville, chanting, ``Jews will not replace us.''
        Why is there an attack on Black activists versus any
    reports dealing with the alt-right and the White nationalists?
    Can you answer that question quickly?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm a not aware----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Is anyone investigating that?
        Attorney General Sessions. When was that report completed?
        Ms. Jackson Lee. In August of 2017.
        Attorney General Sessions. I am not aware. I have not
    studied that report.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I ask you to because it's an attack on
    individuals who are simply trying to petition the government in
    the redress of grievances.
        Let me move to criminal justice reform. We have found that
    mandatory minimums and over-incarceration has been the history
    of criminal justice. We were moving toward criminal justice
    reform, which you opposed as a United States Senator, and now
    you intend to return toward discredited Nixon-era law and order
    criminal justice policies going to make American great or waste
    precious taxpayer dollars.
        Do you have any interest in rehabilitating those
    incarcerated, recognizing that mandatory minimums created the
    opportunity for over-incarceration, rather than telling your
    prosecutors to prosecute on every single crime? Is there any
    opportunity to work with your office to deal with progressive
    ways of dealings with criminal justice reform at this time, yes
    or no?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. All right.
        Attorney General Sessions. I would just respond and say
    that Senator Durbin and I worked together to reduce the crack
    cocaine penalties some years ago. It probably remains the
    largest single----
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Will you pull back on----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Will you pull back on your position on
    mandatory minimums?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired. The witness is allowed to answer the last question.
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm sorry.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Issa, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        General Sessions, it's good to see you again.
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, sir.
        Mr. Issa. I don't speak Russian and I don't meet with
    Russians and I don't really want to ask about those questions
    today. But I do have some very important questions.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, Congressman Issa, you said
    that, but I bet you have met with some Russian, and if you--in
    your lifetime--and taking those words at face value, somebody
    might accuse you of not being honest.
        Mr. Issa. You're absolutely----
        Attorney General Sessions. That's what they have done to
    me.
        Mr. Issa. You're absolutely right, General Sessions, that
    that is the challenge, that as a member of the Foreign Affairs
    Committee, I met with a lot of ambassadors. And I don't want to
    try to remember everyone and everything that was discussed in
    what I thought was a pro forma meeting.
        But there are a couple of areas that are left over from the
    previous administration that I would like to talk to you about.
    One of them is we sent Loretta Lynch, General Lynch, a letter
    related to sober homes and a predicament. And the predicament
    is fairly straightforward. And her answer, to be honest, to
    Chairman Goodlatte and the rest of us was not satisfactory, and
    we have given your staff a copy of it.
        Essentially sober living homes are nothing but boarding
    houses. They are required to provide no care whatsoever to the
    alcoholic or recovering drug abuser because that has to be done
    somewhere else, so they don't qualify as sober homes.
        And yet, currently, there are in the Ninth Circuit
    decisions that cause cities to be unable to regulate them in a
    way that would prevent people from simply buying houses in a
    row in a very prestigious neighborhood and turning them into
    these, if you will, sober living homes, which are, again,
    boarding houses with 15 or more people.
        Will you agree to work with us to try to find an
    appropriate way to align your enforcement of the Americans with
    Disability Act and your enforcement of the Fair Housing Act
    with the necessity for cities to be able to essentially
    regulate how many people live in a home?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, I would be pleased to do
    that. These are important issues because a lot of money is
    being spent, and some of it not wisely, in these areas.
        Mr. Issa. A lot of it is Federal dollars being squandered
    to the benefit of people that are speculating.
        The second one is a trial court ruling in the Duarte
    Nursery v. the Army Corps of Engineers case. Are you even
    familiar with this case?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not.
        Mr. Issa. Well, I would like you to become familiar,
    because during your administration an Assistant U.S. Attorney
    on your behalf argued that the Waters of the U.S., which is not
    a valid regulation delivered to Congress and eligible under CRA
    to be considered or rejected, continued to argue that that was
    law.
        Would you agree that your attorneys, on your behalf, should
    not argue regulations which have not been delivered to Congress
    and as a result are not eligible for CRA review?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Issa, I have now recalled
    the case. I didn't recall it by name.
        That matter was intensely reviewed by a new Assistant
    Attorney General for the--acting, at least--for the Environment
    and Natural Resources Division. After great consideration, we
    felt--it was advised to me and I approved going forward with
    that position in court. So I will take responsibility for it.
    But I got to tell you, we did look at it very hard.
        Mr. Issa. But, in general, you would agree that if a
    regulation is created or some other words of the executive
    branch, they don't have the weight of law unless they're
    delivered to Congress so we have an opportunity to review them
    under the Congressional Review Act.
        Attorney General Sessions. That would sound correct.
        Mr. Issa. Thank you.
        My last question is less of a softball, and neither one of
    these are softballs, they are very important to California. But
    in the previous Congress, the Ways and Means Committee of the
    United States House voted for and referred criminal charges
    against Lois Lerner. I also was involved in investigating her
    wrongful activity.
        They referred criminal charges, and they did so under a
    statute that says, and I'll paraphrase it as well as I can,
    that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia shall
    present to the grand jury the following--and then they laid out
    the criminal charges.
        The previous Attorney General ordered the U.S. Attorney, or
    the U.S. Attorney in the District, made a decision not to
    enforce that. Now, the statute, as we understand it, is not a
    statute that says, you will look at this and decide
    independently. It actually says, it shall be presented to the
    grand jury.
        Will you commit to review that, and if you agree with us as
    to what the statute says, and we think it's pretty plain
    English, order a U.S. Attorney to present to a grand jury--and
    if they ``no bill'' it, fine--but, in fact, to present it
    consistent, with congressional and statutory law?
        Attorney General Sessions. I will review that more
    personally. But the Department of Justice view has been it
    takes a full vote of the House to accomplish that act. And I'm
    not sure where that leaves us. But I will give it a personal
    review, which I have not done at this point.
        Mr. Issa. Mr. Chairman, if you can stop the clock for 1
    second. If the entire House voted to----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr.
    Cohen, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir.
        Mr. Attorney General, first, I noted that you went to the
    50th anniversary of the Selma, Alabama, Selma/Montgomery, I
    want to commend you for that, and you were a sponsor of the
    gold medal for those folks that marched.
        Having done that, I would like to ask you, what you have
    done as Attorney General to see to it that African Americans
    and others who have been discriminated for years in voting have
    more access to the ballot box?
        Attorney General Sessions. We will absolutely, resolutely
    defend the right of all Americans to vote, including our
    African American brothers and sisters. It cannot ever be
    suggested that people are blocked from voting. And we have done
    a number of things in the Department of Justice.
        Mr. Cohen. Let me ask you this, Mr. Attorney General. It is
    a fact, there have been studies to show that voter ID is more
    discriminatory in its effect on African Americans and Latinos
    than anything else. Will you stop defending voter ID law cases?
        Attorney General Sessions. No. The Supreme Court has
    approved voter ID, if properly done. Other courts have, too. It
    can be done in a discriminatory way, which is not proper and
    should not be approved. But I believe it's settled law that a
    properly handled and written voter ID law is lawful.
        Mr. Cohen. Let me suggest, sir, with all due respect, we
    come from the similar region. I think we have a greater
    responsibility than anybody else in this country to see to it
    that African Americans get a chance at the ballot. When they
    were discriminated against, they were slaves for 200-plus
    years, they were under Jim Crow, they weren't allowed to vote,
    and they're still being discriminated against.
        And I would submit to you and ask you to look at voter ID
    laws, access to ballot, election day voting, early voting, and
    other indices that will allow people to vote that have been
    stopped.
        Secondly, on marijuana, you said that you are basically
    doing the same as Holder and Lynch. I believe General Holder
    and General Lynch abided by congressional appropriations that
    limited the Justice Department in enforcing marijuana laws
    where States had passed laws on medical marijuana and others.
        Will you abide by congressional appropriations limitations
    on marijuana when it would conflict with State laws?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe we are bound by that.
        Mr. Cohen. Thank you, sir. That's great.
        I saw what you did on crack cocaine was good. It wasn't as
    good as it could have been. Your proposal was a 20 to 1 ratio,
    Mr. Durbin's was a 10 to 1 ratio, you all decided on 18 to 1.
    You were a good negotiator. Mr. Durbin took what he could get.
    But it should have been 1 to 1. But you admitted in that
    hearing that it could discriminate against the disparity
    against African Americans and minorities, and you ought to look
    at that.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I'll just say that the net
    effect of that legislation was to significantly reduce----
        Mr. Cohen. It was good, sir.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. The penalty one is
    subjected for dealing with crack cocaine.
        Mr. Cohen. Yes, sir, and that was good.
        Attorney General Sessions. That may be a better analysis
    than the 18 to 1 or whatever it is. It's generally considered a
    more dangerous drug.
        Mr. Cohen. Marijuana is not as dangerous as heroin. Would
    you agree with that?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think that's correct.
        Mr. Cohen. Well, thank you, sir. I would hope that in your
    enforcement that you would look at the limitation that you've
    got. There's always an opportunity cost, and put your
    opportunity cost, your enforcement on crack, on cocaine, on
    meth, on opioids, and on heroin. Marijuana is the least
    bothersome of all.
        Twenty-eight States or 29 States and the District of
    Columbia have legalized it for medical purposes, eight States
    and the District of Columbia for recreational purposes. Justice
    Brandeis famously said that the States are the laboratories of
    democracy. I would hope you'd look at marijuana and look at the
    States as laboratories of democracy and see how they've helped.
        In States where they've got medical marijuana, they have 25
    percent less opioid use. It gives people a way to relieve pain
    without using opioids, which inevitably leads to death and
    crime. And so I would hope you'd take a look at that.
        Attorney General Sessions. We will take a look at it, and
    we'll be looking at some rigorous analysis of the marijuana
    usage and how it plays out. I'm not as optimistic as you.
        Mr. Cohen. You said one time that good people don't smoke
    marijuana. Which of these people would you say are not good
    people?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, let me explain how that
    occurred.
        Mr. Cohen. All right. Quickly.
        Attorney General Sessions. I talked about----
        Mr. Cohen. Is John Kasich a good person? George Pataki,
    Rick Santorum, Newt Gingrich, Ted Cruz, Jeb Bush, George Bush,
    Arnold Schwarzenegger, Judge Clarence Thomas, which of those
    are not good people?
        Attorney General Sessions. Let me tell you how that came
    about, Congressman. So the question was, what do you do about
    drug use, the epidemic we're seeing in the country, and how you
    reverse it. Part of that is a cultural thing. I explained how
    when I became a United States Attorney in 1981 and the drugs
    were being used widely over a period of years, it became
    unfashionable, unpopular, and people were seeing--and it was
    seen as such that good people didn't use marijuana. That was
    the context of that statement.
        Mr. Cohen. It might have affected your short-term memory.
    What years were those.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan,
    for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cohen. One last question. Alabama or Auburn?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman's time has expired.
        Attorney General Sessions. War Eagles. I went to law
    school. I love Alabama.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, did the FBI pay
    Christopher Steele?
        Attorney General Sessions. Where am I?
        Mr. Jordan. Right here. Did the FBI pay Christopher Steele,
    the author of the dossier?
        Attorney General Sessions. Those are matters you'll have to
    direct to the--I think maybe the special counsel.
        Mr. Jordan. And why is that? I'm just asking if someone
    paid, it was the FBI.
        Attorney General Sessions. But I'm not able to reveal intel
    on investigatory matters here that is under the investigation
    of anybody, but particularly, I think, the----
        Mr. Jordan. This happened in the summer of 2016. We know
    the Clinton campaign, the Democrat National Committee, paid
    through a law firm, Fusion GPS, to produce the dossier. We know
    the author was Christopher Steele. It's been reported that he
    was on the payroll of the FBI. I'm just wanting to know if, in
    fact, that is the case.
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to provide an
    answer to you.
        Mr. Jordan. Did the FBI present the dossier to the FISA
    court?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to answer that.
        Mr. Jordan. Do you know if the FBI did the established
    process protocol in evaluating claims made in the dossier?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to answer that.
        Mr. Jordan. On January 6, then FBI Director James Comey
    briefed President-Elect Trump up in New York about the dossier.
    Shortly thereafter, that--the fact that that meeting took
    place, and the subject of the meeting was the dossier, was
    leaked to CNN. Do you know who leaked that information?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not.
        Mr. Jordan. Are you investigating who leaked that
    information?
        Attorney General Sessions. That would be a matter within
    the investigatory powers of the special counsel or the
    Department of Justice.
        Mr. Jordan. You've got a number of investigations going on,
    Mr. Attorney General, regarding leaks. Is that likely one of
    those that you're investigating?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to reveal the
    existence of investigations or not.
        Mr. Jordan. Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate your service
    in the Senate, I appreciate your service at the Justice
    Department, I consider you a friend. And, frankly, I appreciate
    yesterday's letter saying you were considering appointing a
    special counsel, that you sent to us.
        But my concern is we sent you a letter 3\1/2\ months ago
    asking for a second special counsel. And if you're now just
    considering it, what's it going to take to get a special
    counsel?
        We know that former FBI Director James Comey misled the
    American people in the summer of 2016 when he called the
    Clinton investigation a matter. It was obviously an
    investigation.
        We know FBI Director Comey was drafting an exoneration
    letter before the investigation was complete.
        We know, Loretta Lynch, 1 day before the Benghazi report
    came out, 5 days before Secretary Clinton was scheduled to be
    interviewed by the FBI, met with former President Bill Clinton
    on a tarmac in Phoenix.
        We know after that meeting, when she was corresponding with
    public relations people at the Justice Department, she was
    using the name Elizabeth Carlisle. As I've said before, it
    seems to me if you're just talking gold and grandkids, you can
    probably use your real name.
        We know that Mr. Comey publicized the investigation and we
    know he made the final decision on whether to prosecute or not.
        And then, when he gets fired, he leaks a government
    document through a friend to The New York Times, and what was
    his goal? To create momentum for a special counsel. And, of
    course, it can't just be any special counsel, it has got to be
    Bob Mueller, his best friend, his predecessor, his mentor; the
    same Bob Mueller who was involved, we've now learned, in this
    whole investigation with the informant regarding Russian
    businesses wanting to do business in the uranium business here
    in the United States regarding the Uranium One Deal.
        So I guess my main question is, what's it going to take, if
    all of that, not to mention the dossier information, what's it
    actually going to take to actually get a special counsel?
        Attorney General Sessions. It would take a factual basis
    that meets the standards of the appointment of a special
    counsel.
        Mr. Jordan. And is that analysis going on right now?
        Attorney General Sessions. It's in the manual of the
    Department of Justice about what's required. We've only had
    two. The first one was the Waco, Janet Reno, Senator Danforth
    who took over that investigation as special counsel, and Mr.
    Mueller. Each of those are pretty special factual situations.
        Mr. Jordan. Let me ask it this way.
        Attorney General Sessions. And we will use the proper
    standards. And that's the only thing I can tell you, Mr.
    Jordan.
        Mr. Jordan. Well, I appreciate that, but----
        Attorney General Sessions. You can have your idea, but
    sometimes we have to study what the facts are and to evaluate
    whether it meets the standard that requires a special counsel.
        Mr. Jordan. Well said, but let me ask you this. If in
    fact--well, we know one fact. We know the Clinton campaign, the
    Democrat National Committee paid for, through the law firm,
    paid for the dossier. We know that happened. And it sure looks
    like the FBI was paying the author of that document. And it
    sure looks like a major political party was working with the
    Federal Government to then turn an opposition research
    document, the equivalent of some National Enquirer story, into
    an intelligence document, take that to the FISA court, so that
    they could then get a warrant to spy on Americans associated
    with President Trump's campaign. That's what it looks like.
        And I'm asking you, doesn't that warrant--in addition to
    all this things we know about James Comey in 2016--doesn't that
    warrant naming a second special counsel, as 20 members of this
    committee wrote you 3-\1/2\ months ago asking you to do?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, Mr. Comey is no longer the
    Director of the FBI.
        Mr. Jordan. Thank goodness.
        Attorney General Sessions. We have an excellent man of
    integrity and ability in Chris Wray, and I think he's going to
    do an outstanding job. And I'm very happy about that. And I
    would say----
        Mr. Jordan. He's not here today, Attorney General Sessions,
    you are, and I'm asking for a special counsel.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Attorney General Sessions. And I would say ``looks like''
    is not enough basis to appoint a special counsel.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr.
    Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        General, you have let a remarkable and notable career over
    the last 42 years as an attorney in private practice, as the
    Attorney General of Alabama, then the U.S. Attorney in Alabama,
    later the U.S. Senator of Alabama, and now the Attorney General
    of the United States of America.
        And you made a professional judgment call when you recused
    yourself from the investigation of the Russian interference in
    the 2016 elections, and you've caught a lot of flak for that
    decision.
        What I want to know is, why did you recuse yourself?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, thank you very much.
        I told the Senate Judiciary Committee when I was confirmed
    that I would evaluate those matters, I would seek the counsel
    of the senior ethics adviser----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. My question is, why did you recuse
    yourself?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'll get there.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. I don't want you to filibuster.
        Attorney General Sessions. Okay. I did do that. I evaluated
    that. And they showed me something I was not familiar with, one
    of the Code of Federal Regulations. It says, if you participate
    in a substantial role in a campaign, a Department of Justice
    employee should not participate in investigating that campaign.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
        Attorney General Sessions. I felt that was correct. It was
    not because I had any concern about anything I had done
    previously, but it was, to me, if I were not bound by that, I
    don't see how other people in the Department of Justice could
    be expected to follow the rules of the Department either.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, sir.
        And after you recused yourself, you did participate in the
    firing of the FBI Director who was leading the investigation
    into the Russian interference with the 2016 elections.
        Prior to Jim Comey's termination, were you contacted by the
    Donald Trump administration, anyone in that administration,
    Donald Trump himself or any of his political or campaign
    officials, about their quest to fire Jim Comey?
        Attorney General Sessions. I am not able to and cannot
    reveal conversations with the President of the United States or
    his top advisers.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this question. With
    regards to the AT&T proposed acquisition of Time Warner, which
    owns CNN, it appears to be a vertical merger much like the
    Comcast-NBCUniversal merger that DOJ approved. But unlike its
    treatment of Comcast-NBCUniversal, DOJ has suggested strongly
    that it will not approve the AT&T-Time Warner merger unless
    Time Warner sells off CNN's parent company, Turner
    Broadcasting.
        It's well known that your boss, President Trump, has great
    disdain for CNN, which he calls fake news. And what I want to
    know is, has the White House or any individual in or on behalf
    of the Trump administration or the Trump political team or
    campaign, excluding staff from FCC or DOJ, has anybody
    contacted you, your office or your assigns, regarding that
    AT&T-Time Warner acquisition?
        Attorney General Sessions. First, I would say that I don't
    accept and cannot accept the accuracy of that news report. We
    have a professional----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Your Department has not told Time
    Warner and AT&T that they must shed Turner Broadcasting?
        Attorney General Sessions. Our work is professional. They
    do meet with the----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Is that a false report or is it a
    true report?
        Attorney General Sessions. I just would tell you, I don't
    think it's--I'm able to accept as accurate the news reports
    that have been coming out on that.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Let me ask you this question. On
    October the 18th, when testifying before the Senate Judiciary
    Committee, Senator Sasse asked you if the Department had taken
    adequate action to prevent election meddling in the future. You
    stated that there was no review underway of the cybersecurity
    vulnerabilities.
        Have you requested a review of what laws need to be updated
    in order to protect our elections from foreign influence?
        Attorney General Sessions. We have discussed those matters,
    but no completion has been done at the----
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Are you conducting a review at this
    time?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes. Our team is looking at
    that. The FBI has real skills in that area, and I think we are
    not anywhere near where I would like us to be yet, Mr. Johnson.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Let me ask you this
    question. What individual with your Department is leading that
    inquiry?
        Attorney General Sessions. We would be working with our
    Voting Rights Section, our Criminal Section. Our National
    Security Section probably is the most knowledgeable in the
    hacking area, as well as the expertise in the FBI.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Smith, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, first of all, I want to thank you for
    all your efforts to restore the rule of law. Nothing could be
    more important to our justice system, and nothing could be more
    important to protecting the lives of Americans, and, frankly,
    not just protecting the lives, but keeping all Americans safe.
        In particular, many of us appreciate your efforts to crack
    down on sanctuary cities that blatantly ignore Federal
    immigration laws, to combat criminal gangs that prey on our
    communities, to return to robust prosecutions of drug cases, to
    protect children from dangerous child predators, and to
    safeguard religious liberties that are enshrined in our
    Constitution.
        I'd like to go back for a second to sanctuary cities. I
    have been waiting 20 years for a President and an
    administration that would enforce current immigration laws. It
    so happens that I introduced a bill in 1996 with Senator Al
    Simpson that, among other things, outlawed sanctuary cities. So
    the law is there, and I want to thank you for being willing to
    enforce that law, which will protect many innocent Americans
    from harm and perhaps save their lives.
        More generally, I'd like to ask you if you feel that there
    are any immigration laws, and if so, which ones, that need to
    be better enforced?
        Attorney General Sessions. There absolutely are, and maybe
    even some improved. I know you've worked on that and the
    chairman has worked on that with some excellent legislation. I
    totally believe that the professional legislation I know the
    chairman has worked on and you've worked on would be
    tremendously helpful.
        We've got to deal with numbers. And so when you create a
    mechanism by which whole--we had 5,000 people in 2005 who
    claimed a credible fear. Last year it was 95,000. This is
    creating hearings and backlogs that were never intended to be
    part of the system. It did not happen before.
        And so there's so many things out there that burden our law
    enforcement officers, make it more difficult, more expensive,
    more lengthy to complete these things. We've just got to make
    up our mind. We've got to make up our mind, do we want a lawful
    system of immigration that serves the national interest or do
    we want open borders and we are not going to enforce it?
        Thank you for your leadership, Mr. Smith. I know you'll be
    leaving this body also. And I've enjoyed so much the honor of
    working with you.
        Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        I'm not going to ask any questions, and I'm going to end
    with that, Mr. Chairman. I'll yield back. Thank you.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        We're going to take a break, Attorney General Sessions. So
    the committee will stand in recess for 10 minutes.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The committee will reconvene.
        And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Deutch, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Attorney General Sessions, thanks for being here.
        General Sessions, who do you work for? Do you work for the
    American people or do you work for the President of the United
    States?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I'm a member of executive
    branch and I work for the American people.
        Mr. Deutch. And it's with that in mind, your work on behalf
    of the American people, that I want to ask you some questions
    about facts in public media reports.
        On February 14, the President asked FBI Director about the
    Flynn investigation, and I quote, he said, ``I hope you can see
    your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He's a
    good guy. I hope you can let this go,'' close quote.
        On May 9, the President fired Comey. On May 11, he went on
    television and announced that he fired Comey because of, and I
    quote again, ``the Russia thing with Trump and Russia,'' close
    quote.
        General Sessions, do you think it would be reasonable for
    the members of this committee to conclude that the President by
    first interfering in one investigation and then interfering in
    an investigation into himself committed obstruction of justice?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe that's a fair
    conclusion. But it's a matter that, I guess, would be in the
    breast of the special counsel.
        Mr. Deutch. And the obstruction of justice being any, among
    other definitions, the most popular one in statute, any
    communication that endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede
    the due administration of justice. That's exactly what the
    President did in both of those cases.
        And in spite of moving on to the special counsel, you
    brought up, in spite of efforts, bipartisan efforts to protect
    the special counsel, Mr. Mueller, Republican leadership and
    this committee have refused to take action to ensure that he's
    protected.
        Do you believe that the President has the legal authority
    to fire Special Counsel Mueller?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to express an
    opinion on that.
        Mr. Deutch. Can he fire members of the special counsel's
    team?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able--I'm not able to
    answer that.
        Mr. Deutch. General Sessions, do believe that the President
    should have the authority to be able to block investigations
    into his own campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. Investigations have to be
    conducted by the appropriate law enforcement officers without
    fear and favor, without politics or bias.
        Mr. Deutch. Right. And without fear of being dismissed by
    the President in order to block that investigation, because,
    again, that would certainly appear to represent obstruction of
    justice. And when you fail to acknowledge that, it is
    essentially a green light to the President to go ahead and do
    that.
        I wanted to talk about the special counsel's investigation.
    Thus far there have been some indictments, there's a guilty
    plea.
        Can you tell me, in your opinion, does the President have
    the power to pardon George Papadopoulos?
        Attorney General Sessions. It would be premature for me to
    comment on that, I believe.
        Mr. Deutch. Because?
        Attorney General Sessions. The President has the power to
    pardon, there is no doubt about that.
        Mr. Deutch. Right. Does he have the power to pardon Paul
    Manafort and Rick Gates ahead of a trial and a conviction?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to comment on that.
    I haven't researched that question. I think it's settled--maybe
    settled law, but I'm not----
        Mr. Deutch. What do you think the settled law is?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't know.
        Mr. Deutch. And does he have the power to pardon Michael
    Flynn, any other member of the President campaign?
        Let me ask you this. Does the President have the power to
    pardon his own family member? Could the President today pardon
    Donald Trump, Jr., for, among other things, being in contact
    with WikiLeaks regarding these emails? Can he make those
    pardons today before there is anything further that comes from
    the special counsel's investigation?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would not be able to answer
    that at this moment with any authority.
        Mr. Deutch. General Sessions, you started by telling us
    that you're the American people's lawyer. Now you're not
    recused from giving us answers on these. You're not comfortable
    giving us answers on these.
        But here's the problem that we have. You said when you
    started your testimony today that there is nothing more
    important than advancing the rule of law. And when you answer
    the way you have, it suggests that the rule of law is crumbling
    at our feet.
        You took an oath to uphold the Constitution. We took an
    oath to uphold the Constitution. And while members of this
    committee in the majority may choose to abdicate their
    responsibility with regard to these very important matters, you
    cannot.
        And the interference--what you've told us today in just
    this exchange, what we should all be concerned about is another
    Saturday Night Massacre, if you can't tell us that the
    President shouldn't fire or can fire the special counsel and
    everyone who works for him.
        We should be worried if you're telling us that the
    President may be able to pardon in advance all of those who are
    being investigated. We should be worried about the pursuit of
    the rule of law.
        General Sessions, again, we may in this committee----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Attorney General can respond if he chooses to do so.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, just briefly. One of the
    things if you respect the rule of law is the Attorney General
    should not be giving legal opinions from the seat of his
    britches. So you need to be careful about that, and that's what
    I'm saying to you today.
        Mr. Deutch. I do appreciate that, General Sessions.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe.
        Mr. Deutch. These are not new issues that I would think
    require you to give these opinions from the rule of your
    britches.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Poe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Sessions, I'm over here on this side.
        If pursuant to a warrant there is a wiretapped conversation
    seized under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and one
    person is a foreign agent, the other person is an American
    citizen, is the release of the information regarding who the
    American citizen is and/or the conversation of the American
    citizen a violation of Federal law?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe it is.
        Mr. Poe. And if somebody releases that information----
        Attorney General Sessions. May be a factual distinction.
        Mr. Poe. I know. It's a hypothetical.
        If somebody releases the information of the name of that
    person and/or the information contained by that person, that is
    a Federal offense.
        Attorney General Sessions. Unacceptable, and it could be a
    Federal offense.
        Mr. Poe. So has anybody been prosecuted under your regime
    for doing that, whether it's been in the White House or some
    other government agency where we hear about leaks of classified
    information? Are you prosecuting anybody for that?
        Attorney General Sessions. For release of FISA-obtained
    information?
        Mr. Poe. Release of the information of who the American is
    and/or the conversation by the American, that's classified
    information, is your Department investigating anybody for that?
        Attorney General Sessions. I cannot confirm or deny the
    existence of----
        Mr. Poe. Are you prosecuting anybody for that?
        Attorney General Sessions. Nobody is under indictment.
    Although we've got at least four indictments this year of leaks
    of classified information. And we will continue to press those
    cases.
        Mr. Poe. All right. Good.
        I want to talk about the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
    Act. Secret courts, issuing secret warrants to get information
    on terrorists overseas, that's generally the purpose of the
    FISA law and FISA courts. Would you agree with that?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, it's not a perfect
    summary, but it's--there's substance to it.
        Mr. Poe. It's too short. It's too short.
        We know we can't trust the NSA. James Clapper testified
    before this committee in 2013 that the NSA was not spying on
    Americans. Then all of a sudden this guy named Snowden showed
    up and we found out--I don't like Snowden at all, he ought to
    be prosecuted, I think. But anyway we learned that the American
    public was being spied on by the NSA.
        Part of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act gives the
    NSA authority to seize information like emails, text messages,
    communications by these bad guys, foreign agents or terrorists
    overseas, to collect their information to make sure that
    America is safe.
        During that process, as you know, incidentally--they call
    it incidental information--information on Americans, who they
    are, and what those conversations may be is also seized. NSA
    says that's incidental information.
        Now, it's my understanding that the Justice Department is
    opposed to the USA Liberty Act, which would require that before
    government goes into that information on Americans, where they
    are not the target, the target's these terrorists, goes into
    that information on Americans, that there has to be a warrant
    signed by a real judge that states probable cause before that
    information can be seized.
        Now, my understanding is the Justice Department under your
    leadership is opposed to that warrant requirement. Is that
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. That is absolutely correct.
        Mr. Poe. So you're a former judge.
        Attorney General Sessions. A would-be judge.
        Mr. Poe. Pardon?
        Attorney General Sessions. A would-be judge.
        Mr. Poe. A wannabe judge. Yeah, I'm a former judge too.
        You don't think probable cause and a warrant requirement is
    required to go into that information that is--first of all, the
    seizure is done by government without a warrant. So it's seized
    already. And before it can be then searched you also don't
    require or believe that a warrant should be required by any
    court to go into that information.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well----
        Mr. Poe. I'm just asking the same question.
        Attorney General Sessions. The courts have so held.
        Mr. Poe. I'm not asking that question.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I agree with the courts,
    not you, Congressman, on that. You get lawfully obtained
    records, documents----
        Mr. Poe. Don't you think--reclaiming my time.
        Attorney General Sessions. All right.
        Mr. Poe. You agree with the courts on that, not me. But let
    me tell you something. It is the responsibility of Congress to
    set the privacy standard for Americans.
        Attorney General Sessions. That is correct.
        Mr. Poe. It's my personal opinion, and I think the
    Constitution supports it, that before the government can go in
    and seize something and then search it on an American citizen
    that is incidental to the search on the target, the government
    should get a warrant for that conduct. That's spying on
    Americans. And we know that we can't trust the NSA to keep from
    doing that.
        Is that data ever, ever destroyed on Americans or is it
    kept forever?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe it definitely has a
    limited time span. I think it's 5 years.
        Mr. Poe. So Americans shouldn't be concerned that
    information is being collected on them----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        Mr. Poe [continuing]. But you don't have any say-so about a
    warrant?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Illinois, Mr.
    Gutierrez, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Mr. Chairman, before I begin, I think I have
    a solution that could allow the committee to move on to other
    important national matters like gun control and immigration.
        Your side clearly wants an investigation of Hillary
    Clinton, and our side has been begging for months to hold
    hearings and start an investigation of the Trump administration
    and campaign's improper ties to Mr. Putin and the Russian
    Government.
        My solution would save the American taxpayers a lot of
    grief and a lot of money by eliminating the need for the
    investigation. I propose we simply go to the President and the
    former Secretary of State and ask them both to resign. I'll go
    to Hillary Clinton, and you can go to Donald Trump, and we'll
    tell them both to resign. Then we can move on as a Nation from
    an election that just never seems to end.
        Now, I did Google organizations that Hillary Clinton leads
    and it came out zero, so I'm not quite sure what you're going
    to get her to resign from, because she doesn't appear to be in
    charge of anything. Last time I checked, she got 3 million more
    votes than Donald Trump, but she lost the election. So I don't
    know why don't we move on and really look at the Nation.
        So, Attorney General, I'd like to ask you, you said earlier
    today it was a brilliant campaign, referring to the Donald
    Trump campaign. Is that true? Do you feel that?
        Attorney General Sessions. It was a remarkable thing. It
    overcame a lot of obstacles----
        Mr. Gutierrez. Remarkable, brilliant campaign.
        Now, in campaigns, candidates make promises during
    campaigns. Do you think candidates should fulfill the promises
    they make during campaigns?
        Attorney General Sessions. People make a lot of promises
    and you should strive to honor your promises.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Do you think they should fulfill those
    promises? It was a brilliant campaign, remarkable campaign. And
    as a member of the Cabinet of President Trump, do you feel an
    obligation to fulfill those campaign promises? When he asked
    you to come on, did you think you should fulfill the campaign
    promises?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe the Attorney General
    should enforce the law first and foremost.
        Mr. Gutierrez. I understand enforce the law, but he said--
    you're helping him on the Muslim ban, on immigration issue. I
    mean, you think he should fulfill those promises?
        Attorney General Sessions. The President makes decisions,
    and if it's lawful we defend it.
        Mr. Gutierrez. If it's lawful. If it's lawful. Okay, I like
    that, if it's lawful. But you said it was a remarkable and
    brilliant campaign.
        He said, quote, during the second debate, ``If I win, I'm
    going to instruct my Attorney General''--that would be you,
    because he chose you--``to get a special prosecutor to look
    into your situation''--referring to Hillary Clinton--``because
    there's never been so many lies, so much deception,'' end
    quote. And when Hillary Clinton responded, she said, ``Because
    you'd be in jail.''
        Are you going to fulfill that campaign promise that he made
    during the second debate, because he did say he'd put her in
    jail. He said he'd asked the Attorney General, you, to set a
    special prosecutor. That's what he says, it's a quote. I didn't
    make it up. What do say you, are you going to keep that
    campaign promise?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'll fulfill my responsibilities
    under the law.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Are you going to keep the campaign promise,
    yes or no? It's a promise that your boss, he hired you to
    fulfill. Are you going fulfill that?
        Attorney General Sessions. We will comply with the law with
    regard to special prosecutor appointments.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Are you going to appoint one as he promised
    during the campaign? He's reminded you a couple of times in a
    few of his tweets that that's what he wants to you do.
        Attorney General Sessions. I will fulfill my duty as
    Attorney General.
        Mr. Gutierrez. So the brilliant campaign, remarkable
    campaign, big smile on your face, you love the campaign, but
    you're not going to fulfill his campaign promises? I hope you
    don't in this particular case, so I'm kind of happy with your
    answer up to now.
        So, Mr. Attorney General, I'm going to ask you another
    series of questions, and I'd like to go back to the beginning
    of the hearing and get you to answer the following question.
        Are you aware that you are under oath and that your answers
    must be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
    Mr. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm aware of that.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Okay. Good. So I brought this little salt
    shaker here, and you'll forgive me if I just put a little bit
    of doubt into that answer and just to remind myself that I
    might need this.
        And I ask unanimous consent that this article from Mother
    Jones magazine be entered into the record with the headline,
    ``Three Times Jeff Sessions made False Statements Under Oath to
    Congress.''
        I ask this because I don't want to hear in a few days or in
    a few weeks that your answers, Mr. Attorney General, have
    changed based on newly uncovered evidence that what you told us
    before was in fact false, misleading, or something other than
    the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. I ask
    unanimous consent.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a
    part of the record.
        This material is available at the committee and can be
    accessed online at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/
    20171114/106709/HHRG-115-JU00-20171114-SD001.pdf.
        Mr. Gutierrez. Thank you.
        Under oath in the Senate you said as a surrogate, quote,
    ``a time or two for the Trump campaign,'' you did not have
    communication with Russians, but in March it was revealed you
    did.
        Did you have campaign communications with the Russians?
    Because it appears you have had campaign communications with
    the Russians, Mr. Attorney General.
        Attorney General Sessions. That is--I'd like to respond to
    that. I thought I had the paper right here. And surely--here it
    is.
        Mr. Chairman, take a couple of minutes. I'd like to respond
    to that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman may respond to that.
        Attorney General Sessions. Colleagues--I guess say former
    colleagues--Senator Franken asked me this question. ``Okay, CNN
    has just published a story, and I'm telling you about a new
    story that's just been published. I'm not expecting you to know
    whether or not it's true, but CNN just published a story
    alleging that the intelligence community of the United States
    of America, the intelligence community provided documents to
    the President-elect last week that included information that,
    quote, `Russian operatives claim to have compromising personal
    and financial information about Mr. Trump,' '' close quote.
        ``These documents also allegedly say, quote, `There was a
    continuing exchange of information during the campaign between
    Trump's surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian
    Government,' '' close quote.
        He goes on to say, ``Now, again, I am telling you this is
    all coming out, so, you know, but if it's true it's obviously
    extremely serious. And if there is any evidence that anyone
    affiliated with the Trump campaign communicated with the
    Russian Government in the course of this campaign, what will
    you do?''
        I was taken aback by this. I'd never heard. This happened
    while I was testifying, I suppose. And I said, ``Senator
    Franken, I'm not aware of any of those activities. I have been
    called a surrogate a time or two in the campaign and I didn't
    have--did not have communications with the Russians and I'm
    unable to comment on it.''
        Mr. Gutierrez. And you're not going to correct that today?
        Attorney General Sessions. My answer was responsive to his
    charge about a continuing----
        Mr. Gutierrez. But do you want to correct it or clarify it
    today for us?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The attorney general can answer the question, but then we're
    moving on.
        Attorney General Sessions. So this is really important, I
    appreciate the opportunity to share it.
        So my focus was on responding to the concern that I as a
    surrogate was participating in a continuing series of meetings
    with intermediaries for the Russian Government. And I certainly
    didn't mean I'd never met a Russian in the history of my life.
        So I didn't think to--didn't think it was responsive, and
    my response was according to the way I heard the question as
    honestly I could give it at the time. I hope you will treat me
    fairly when you evaluate that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Marino. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you, General, for being here. I appreciate it.
        I'm going to ask you some questions because I am the
    chairman of the Regulatory Reform and Antitrust Subcommittee on
    Judiciary, and antitrust is an issue that is now surfacing
    moreso than it ever has in the past. And the Justice
    Department's role is very critical in antitrust issues to
    determine whether there is an antitrust violation.
        I understand that the Justice Department's position on the
    AT&T merger will require divestment of some assets. Behavioral
    conditions have been used in vertical mergers since they pose a
    lesser danger to competition than horizontal mergers. Is it the
    structural condition in vertical mergers a policy for DOJ at
    this point?
        Attorney General Sessions. Antitrust policy is important.
    I've never been an expert at it. It was one subcommittee of the
    Judiciary I never chose to be a part of.
        But we have an experienced team in the Department of
    Justice. We do try to handle each case professionally. We have
    a good chief now of the Antitrust Division. And I am not able
    to announce any new policies at this time, Congressman.
        Mr. Marino. Will there be a discussion concerning vertical
    and horizontal mergers when it comes to the so-called term
    behavioral conditions where two companies that are merging may
    have to divest? Could there be future discussion as to when
    this behavioral condition would be implemented?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, the vertical, horizontal
    issue is something that has always been part of the discussion.
    I don't think it's dispositive of any final decision. But I'm
    really not able at this time to comment on anything that would
    be part of an ongoing matter.
        Mr. Marino. I understand.
        Attorney General Sessions. And I appreciate you giving me
    an opportunity to not attempt to answer that.
        Mr. Marino. I'm going to switch to human trafficking now.
    When I was an U.S. attorney, we handled some very heartbreaking
    and very severe situations concerning human trafficking. And I
    know that you understand, like I understand, the challenges
    involved there.
        What can you tell me what DOJ has done in upping the
    prosecutions, the investigations for antitrafficking?
        Attorney General Sessions. We believe strongly that we can
    do even more. It's been a priority for a number of years. I was
    recently in the Minnesota United States Attorney's Office. They
    had a major international case and I was surprised how much
    money was involved, almost as much as drug dealers may make.
        We have a recent report of our people meeting with the
    child exploitation group. My Associate Attorney General, number
    three, Rachel Brand, is very interested in this. And I've
    empowered her to be engaged in advancing our efforts in this
    regard, and she's enthusiastically responding to that.
        Mr. Marino. If I may make a suggestion as well. Several
    years ago we in the Middle District of Pennsylvania prosecuted
    one of the biggest sex trafficking cases on the East Coast,
    obviously, for the most part, involving women and very young
    girls. We had a good conviction. These people went away for 30
    or 40 years.
        But one of the areas that we have to help more with the
    victims is the protection side of things, of course during the
    investigation and during the trial, but subsequent to the
    convictions that these people are--these women and children
    aren't forgotten and there are protections there to keep them
    from anybody else attempting to do what's been done in the
    past.
        And I thank you so very much for your service to us.
        And I yield back.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you, thank you for your
    service.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
    from California, Ms. Bass, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Bass. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Between 1956 and 1971 the FBI ran a counterintelligence
    program named COINTELPRO that was initiated by J. Edgar Hoover.
    COINTELPRO mainly targeted civil rights leaders such as Martin
    Luther King, and it's commonly understood that this was an
    abuse of its surveillance power in a manner to suppress a
    peaceful movement.
        So I would like to ask, Mr. Chair, unanimous consent to
    enter this report into the record, which is ``Black Identity
    Extremists Likely Motivated to Target Law Enforcement
    Officers.''
        Ms. Bass. I believe earlier you said you were not familiar
    with the report. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I haven't read it. I know
    some of the alleged targeting of officers by a certain group.
        Ms. Bass. So I would like to know--and I'll ask you about
    that in a minute. So you are somewhat familiar with it. Who had
    the power in your Department to order a report like this?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not sure how that report got
    ordered. I don't believe I explicitly approved it or directed
    it.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. So you haven't necessarily read the record,
    but you are familiar with the term ``Black identity
    extremists''?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I think so, yes.
        Ms. Bass. So could you tell me what that term means to you?
    Do you believe that there is a movement of African Americans
    that identify themselves as Black identity extremists and what
    does that movement do?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, it would be interesting to
    see the conclusions of that report. But I'm aware that there
    are groups that do have an extraordinary commitment to their
    racial identity, and some have transformed themselves even into
    violent activists.
        Ms. Bass. Are you aware of White organizations that do this
    as well? Given that White supremacy is well-documented, well-
    researched movements, such as the neo-Nazis, the Ku Klux Klan,
    et cetera, are they White identity extremists?
        Attorney General Sessions. I didn't follow that question.
    Please again.
        Ms. Bass. Is there a term or a report on White identity
    extremists? You mentioned you were familiar with Black people
    who identified with their racial identity.
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, but it is not coming to me
    at this moment.
        Ms. Bass. It is not coming to you?
        Attorney General Sessions. It's----
        Ms. Bass. Certainly a group such as the Ku Klux Klan would
    be----
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes. And then the skinhead
    movements. But there are racial identity White movements that
    have been identified for sure.
        Ms. Bass. Well, has the FBI done a report on White identity
    extremists that are likely motivated to target law enforcement
    officers?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of that.
        Ms. Bass. Okay. Are you aware of a group called the
    Sovereign Citizens?
        Attorney General Sessions. I've heard that group, yes.
        Ms. Bass. And I believe that the Sovereign Citizens is
    primarily a White organization that absolutely has targeted
    police officers and killed police officers. You're not aware of
    that?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of all their
    crimes, but I know they are a group that's known to have
    violent tendencies.
        Ms. Bass. Could you name an African American organization
    that have committed violent acts against police officers? Could
    you name one today? In this report they name organizations from
    30, 40 years ago, but can you name one today that has targeted
    police officers in a violent manner?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe I could, but I would
    want to be--to confirm that and submit it to you in writing.
    But I believe we had within the last year or so four police
    officers killed by a group that some have described as
    extremists.
        Ms. Bass. So what has happened is, is that there have been
    a couple of incidents in which African Americans did kill
    police officers who were not associated with a Black
    organization. And so one, for example, in Baton Rouge was
    associated with Sovereign Citizens, which is primarily a White
    group.
        So you should know that there is a lot of concern in the
    community, especially from organizations such as Black Lives
    Matter. By the way, would you consider Black Lives Matter a
    Black identity extremist group?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to comment on that.
    I'm not--I have not so declared it.
        Ms. Bass. So you should know that a lot of activists around
    the country are very concerned that we're getting ready to
    repeat a very sad chapter of our history, where people who are
    rightfully protesting what they consider to be an injustice in
    their community, which is their relationship with police
    officers, are now being targeted and labeled as extremists and
    are going through periods of surveillance and harassment.
        And so I would like to know, what is your Department going
    to do to protect the rights of average citizens to protest if
    they have a concern about police officers?
        Attorney General Sessions. This Department will not
    unlawfully target people.
        Ms. Bass. So if that's the case, then, I would ask that you
    review this report, ``Black Identity Extremists Likely
    Motivated to Target Law Enforcement Officers,'' because I
    personally don't believe that any such organizations exist. The
    organizations that are referred to in this report are
    organizations from decades ago.
        And so I would like to know what will you do to essentially
    roll back what is listed in this report, because it's not
    accurate. Sir?
        Attorney General Sessions. We will look at the report. I
    actually would be interested in reading it. But they usually do
    an excellent job, objective and fair, on those kinds of
    reports.
        Ms. Bass. Okay, well----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, Mr.
    Gowdy, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        I want to cover a couple of areas, but I want to start with
    something that's very important to me. I think it's important
    to all people in this country of good conscience, irrespective
    of their political ideation, and that is the independence of
    the Department of Justice. And in my judgment, 2016 and 2017
    have been challenging years for the Department of Justice.
        You know, the decision to charge someone carries with it
    multiple layers of review. There's a grand jury, there's a
    petit jury, there is a trial judge, there are post-trial
    motions, there is appellate courts, there are courts of habeas
    corpus. And then there's the media and then there's Congress.
        But the decision not to charge someone does not carry with
    it the same corresponding layers of review. But in some
    instances it's every bit as important to understand why law
    enforcement did not do something and why prosecutors did not do
    something.
        I'm not interested in relitigating the FBI's decision not
    to charge Secretary Clinton. That decision's been made, it's
    been explained, and I'm not interested in relitigating it.
        I am, however, interested in reviewing 2016 and 2017 with
    respect to the Department of Justice. And, Mr. Attorney
    General, there was a time when my colleagues on the other side
    of the aisle were interested in having some of these questions
    answered as well. It wasn't a year ago that some of my
    Democratic friends wanted Jim Comey investigated and prosecuted
    for a Hatch Act violation. That was 12 months ago. And it was
    absurd then and it is absurd now.
        But what's not absurd is when my Democratic colleagues ask:
    Why did you decide to publicize one investigation but not
    another? Why did you decide to appropriate a decision away from
    the Justice Department, which is very unusual for the head of
    the FBI to serve as both the investigator and the
    decisionmaker?
        Just like Republicans wanted to know, Mr. Comey, did you
    reach your conclusions before the end of the investigation? Did
    you make decisions whether to charge or not to charge before
    you interviewed all of the witnesses?
        These are questions that to me go to the core of whether or
    not the Department can be respected separate and aside from
    politics. I mean, I get, I guess, that certain departments are
    just inherently political, but the Department of Justice should
    not be.
        And so I tell you that up front, that Chairman Goodlatte
    and I are going to be looking into the decisions made in 2016
    and 2017. And I think I can speak for him and I know I can
    speak for myself, my motivation is a love for that Department
    and a love for the concept of blind justice that doesn't care
    whether it's an even-numbered year or an odd-numbered year.
        And to the extent that there were decisions made, including
    the decision to write a public letter in October of last year
    and follow that up with another public letter in November,
    those are legitimate questions.
        And I hope that the Department will cooperate both with
    respect to making witnesses available, but also with respect to
    documents, so Congress can better understand the decisions that
    were made and not made and restore some modicum of trust that
    all people, whether they agreed with the decisions or not, at
    least understand why they were made.
        Now, Mr. Conyers asked you whether or not it was
    appropriate for the President to----
        Attorney General Sessions. May I respond briefly to that?
        Mr. Gowdy. Yes, sir.
        Attorney General Sessions. You're familiar with the
    inspector general.
        Mr. Gowdy. I am meeting with him----
        Attorney General Sessions. And they make public their
    investigations. And several of the matters that involve the FBI
    are under full and intense review by the inspector general and
    perhaps they can--under their rules of disclosure, perhaps you
    can inquire more about how that's ongoing. But I'm not able to
    give the details to you at this time. That's a serious matter,
    it's in my response to the chairman of yesterday.
        Mr. Gowdy. Well, I didn't intend to ask you to respond to
    it, because you're right, Mr. Horowitz is looking into it. In
    fact, I'm meeting with Mr. Horowitz this afternoon, not in that
    capacity, but in another. And you're right, at some point he's
    going to let Congress know what he found. But that does not
    absolve us of our responsibility to also look into it.
        Mr. Conyers asked you whether or not it was appropriate for
    the President to weigh in on an ongoing investigation, and of
    course the answer to that is no. It is not appropriate. It's
    not appropriate in 2017. It wasn't appropriate when President
    Obama did it in the IRS targeting scandal. It wasn't
    appropriate when President Obama did it in the ongoing
    investigation into Hillary Clinton's server.
        It is never appropriate for a President to tell a
    Department of Justice what outcome it should research. I just
    wish my friends on the other side had the same outrage when
    President Obama did it as they do now.
        I mean, I guess that's what I'm--this will be my last
    question to you. You're nominated by a President, you're
    approved by a Senate, but yet you work for a virtue. You work
    for a blindfolded woman holding a set of scales. And that is
    what makes our culture different.
        How do you restore people's trust, Republicans and
    Democrats, confidence in a Department of Justice when it seems
    like different rules apply depending on who's in power?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The Attorney General will be permitted to answer.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, it's a good question and
    an important question.
        We intend to do our work according to the established
    principles of the Department of Justice. We will not be
    infected by politics or bias. We will make only decisions we
    believe are right and just. And we're not going to use the
    Department to unlawfully advance a political agenda. We're
    going to enforce the laws of this country effectively as
    Congress has passed them.
        And I am determined that when the years go by that people
    will say, this Department of Justice did not crumble, it stayed
    firm and true to the great principles that I was taught in the
    15 years I served in the Department of Justice, 2\1/2\ as an
    assistant, 12 as a United States attorney, and looking up to
    the Attorney General as somehow so far removed from me that it
    was beyond recognition.
        But now I'm in that position. I think I understand the
    gravity of it. I think I understand the importance of
    responding to your question. And we'll do our best.
        Mr. Gowdy. Thank you.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Louisiana, Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Richmond. Mr. General, I have the honor of serving as
    chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. You were not there,
    but I'm sure you are aware--and if you're not aware, I'm
    telling on myself--that I testified against your nomination.
        And I did so because I was afraid that we would go back to
    a time where discrimination was rampant, and that diversity was
    not appreciated, and that the right to vote for minorities and
    African Americans would be further--more obstacles would be set
    up.
        And I listened to your opening statement and I listened to
    your remarks since then and you talked about voter ID. The
    Veasey case, which in Texas ruled that their vote--the Texas
    voter identification law had discriminatory portions against
    African Americans, the district court ruled that way, the
    appellate court affirmed that ruling, and then you withdrew
    from the case after two courts ruled that it was
    discriminatory.
        How does that mesh--and then argued on the side of Texas--
    how does that mesh with the right to make sure that African
    Americans had unfettered access to the voting polls?
        Attorney General Sessions. Congressman, the way that
    happened was that Texas had passed a voter ID law that the
    courts did not approve but struck down. An election was coming
    up, I believe, and the court approved a voter ID procedure that
    they approved for that election. And the Texas Legislature then
    repealed its previous law that had been found to be
    unconstitutional or improper and passed the one that the court
    had approved.
        So we felt that the voter ID law has been approved--a
    proper voter ID law is constitutional, and we believe that one
    is constitutional, and that's why the position was changed.
        Mr. Richmond. And also in judging the Department of
    Justice, in terms of nominating judges to the bench, our
    information tells us that out of all the judges that have been
    nominated, I think 91 percent have been White males. Does that
    foster diversity?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of the numbers,
    but we should look for quality candidates, and I think
    diversity is a matter that has significance.
        Mr. Richmond. Well, the National Bar Association could
    recommend and has recommended a number of African American and
    minority attorneys who are qualified.
        So let me just ask you, and if you don't know the answer to
    these, just let me know that you'll get me the information, but
    how many African Americans do you have on your senior staff?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not have a senior staff
    member at this time that's an African American.
        Mr. Richmond. Out of all----
        Attorney General Sessions. I would note in Alabama, I
    participated in recommending an African American judge, and
    I've had African American judges before and----
        Mr. Richmond. We're talking about this administration,
    though. Of all of the U.S. attorneys that have been nominated
    or confirmed, how many have been African American?
        Attorney General Sessions. One in Alabama that I've
    recommended that I've recommended that I knew, he's been
    confirmed.
        Mr. Richmond. And I believe it's--I believe it's only that
    one.
        Out of all of the special agents in charge of FBI bureaus
    around the country, how many are African American?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not know.
        Mr. Richmond. Would you get that for me?
        And here is the gist of what I'm saying. For a lot of
    people who objectively look from the back, like I do and many
    people where I live, the question is whether we're going
    towards inclusion and diversity or whether we're going back.
        So I applaud the President for his approach to the opioid
    epidemic which everyone in this room is concerned about. We're
    losing over 100 people a day. But your decision to reverse Eric
    Holder's Smart on Crime Initiative goes back to the crack tough
    on crime. And I think you specifically said that you wanted
    U.S. attorneys to charge and pursue the most serious readily
    provable offenses and sentences. But with opioids, we are
    treating it as a mental health crisis.
        And the question becomes, from the outside looking in, is
    it because of who the opioid crisis is affecting as opposed to
    crack? Our answer to crack cocaine was mandatory minimum
    sentences.
        So the question is, how does an outside observer reconcile
    how we treated crack, which led to mass incarceration, which
    now with an epidemic we're losing thousands and thousands of
    people a year and we're treating it with hugs and kisses and
    treatment as opposed to tough on crime, lock 'em up? How do I
    reconcile that and not conclude that the only difference is
    race and income?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I would say that the
    Federal court focuses on serious offenders, not users. We talk
    about international drug cartels, we talk about distribution
    networks, serious gangs, MS-13. We focus aggressively on that.
        But the PSN, the new reinvigorated crime problem, focuses
    more, and I've been convinced of this, on the leading criminals
    in a neighborhood. And the Federal Government will not seek
    mass incarceration so much as we will be focusing on
    identifying the people who really are the driving force, maybe
    sucking other young people into crime that would never have
    been brought in there if they hadn't had this leadership drive.
    It's worked in New York, it's worked in other agencies, and I
    think it will work here.
        And, Congressman, I would note that the average Federal
    sentence in the last 3 or 4 years has dropped 19 percent and
    the Federal prison population is down 14 percent, while we are
    beginning to see a spike in homicides, the likes of which we
    hadn't seen since the 1960s.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr.
    Farenthold, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Farenthold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here.
        Before I got to Congress, I was a computer consultant, so
    I'm a little--I sometimes dive into the nerdier end of things.
    The incursion into the DNC servers is back in the news
    recently.
        My question is, can you tell us if anyone at the DOJ, FBI,
    or any other Federal law enforcement agency has been able to
    take a look and forensically examine that server to determine
    who hacked it, whether it was the Russians, an inside job, or
    somebody else?
        Attorney General Sessions. You said the DS----
        Mr. Farenthold. DNC.
        Attorney General Sessions. DNC. I'm not able to comment on
    that. It's an ongoing investigation.
        Mr. Farenthold. I appreciate that.
        We've also talked a little bit today about the FISA court
    and 702 and surveillance. And one of the things that I don't
    think has been completely answered is, why does the DOJ think
    it's so problematic to require a warrant from the FISA court
    before--or any court--before accessing or disseminating the
    contents of communications that aren't related to foreign
    intelligence that deal with American citizens?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, the way--maybe I should
    explain this. When you have a warrant or you have a
    surveillance on a foreign individual that may be connected to
    terrorism or any foreign individual, you listen to who they
    talk to. And if they call an American and you have a terrorist
    on the phone in Syria, you want to know who that American is.
        Mr. Farenthold. But the USA Liberty Act includes exceptions
    for emergencies and for individuals who are reasonably believed
    to be engaged in international terrorism or foreign--or
    furthering their goals.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I'm not sure I understand
    that.
        Mr. Farenthold. There is an exception for dealing with
    emergencies and people believed to be terrorists.
        Attorney General Sessions. All right. So let me just say
    this. So if we get a lawful intercept from a Federal judge of a
    Mafia person in New York, he is not likely to be talking about
    to many people not in the United States. And we are listening
    to the conversations of the people he talks to and they are
    American citizens. And if they are talking about a crime, you
    can use that evidence against them and you don't have to have a
    separate warrant to access it.
        We're talking about in the 702--I hope you will think
    through with me now. So you lawfully obtained this information.
    You could do it by hand in the old days, but now the computers
    do much of the work for us. So you know the names of the people
    that may be involved in this activity and you can access those
    records just like you could access bank records that you got.
        Mr. Farenthold. But if it came up in any other way you
    would have had to have gotten a warrant to get that wiretap?
        Attorney General Sessions. But the problem with the warrant
    is--let's say this. Let's say you have information from an
    airport that somebody wants to learn to fly a plane but does
    not want to learn how to land the plane, as we saw one time.
        Mr. Farenthold. And you go to the court and you can get a
    warrant in a matter of hours.
        Attorney General Sessions. That does not give probable
    cause to search, tap that person's phone.
        Mr. Farenthold. I've got a couple of other questions. I
    appreciate your answer on that.
        Attorney General Sessions. Okay. I'm sorry.
        Mr. Farenthold. I do want to talk--in the last Congress we
    passed and enacted into law the Stop Advertising Victims of
    Exploitation Act, or the SAVE Act. This legislation makes it a
    criminal offense to advertise for commercial sex acts.
        Has the DOJ used this provision to prosecute online sex
    traffickers or websites they use, and if not, why not?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not sure about that,
    Congressman. I'll have to--maybe I can get back to you on that?
        Mr. Farenthold. I would appreciate that.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Mr. Farenthold. All right. I've got a couple more here I
    want to hit. But I'm going to kind of take a step back and look
    at the big picture.
        I'm a lawyer, I went to law school. I've always considered
    the Attorney General to be the people's attorney. And I feel
    like over the past few years under previous Attorney Generals
    that the Attorney General has been more the President's
    attorney rather than the people's attorney.
        Can you tell me what you are doing in office to restore the
    confidence in the American people, both in the office of the
    Attorney General and agencies like the FBI? Which most people
    used to have a very high respect for, but I believe that level
    of respect and trust has dropped dramatically in recent times.
        Attorney General Sessions. These are serious questions. I
    believe as you get to know the FBI Director, Chris Wray, the
    new Director, you will find him to be a man of high
    intelligence, great integrity, great character, and great
    capability. Clearly, one of the Nation's great lawyers in
    private practice, but many years in the Department of Justice
    as a prosecutor working with the FBI agents. That's one thing
    we've got. I can tell you I have great confidence in him.
        My deputy, 27 years of professional--that I chose to be my
    primary deputy, my Associate Attorney General, likewise is a
    woman of the highest character and academic excellence and
    experience in the Department. We are setting a tone of
    professionalism every day in what we do. So I think that's
    something we need to do.
        There are some matters that do need to be completed. The
    inspector general is doing investigations of some significance,
    as in my letter, I believe you received a copy, involving the
    FBI and the allegations that are there. We intend to make sure
    that no agency of the government, not just the FBI, is not
    following the kind of disciplines and practices they should
    follow.
        So I guess I would say to you watch what we do. We're not
    going to be driven by politics. We're going to try to do the
    right thing. And I believe that time will show that to be true.
        Mr. Farenthold. I see my time has expired. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Mr. Sessions, I have a copy of the transcript
    of your testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee in
    October. You stated under oath, ``I don't recall,'' in some
    form or fashion 29 times. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have no idea.
        Mr. Jeffries. I have a copy of the transcript of your
    testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee in June. You
    stated under oath, ``I don't recall,'' in some form or fashion
    approximately 36 times. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't know.
        Mr. Jeffries. In your testimony today you have stated, ``I
    don't recall,'' at least 20 times. Is that fair to say?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have no idea.
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, on October 4, 2016, during a TV
    interview with Lou Dobbs, you criticized Hillary Clinton for
    telling FBI investigators, ``I can't remember,'' approximately
    35 times. You also stated during that Lou Dobbs interview that
    the intentional failure to remember can constitute perjury.
        Mr. Attorney General, do you still believe that the
    intentional failure to remember can constitute a criminal act?
        Attorney General Sessions. If it's an act to deceive, yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Now, you testified in January that you
    had no contact with Russian operatives during the Trump
    campaign. Earlier today you testified that your story has,
    quote, ``never changed.'' Is that correct? That was your
    testimony earlier today, that your story has never changed,
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe that's fair to say.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. We might could--we've added
    things that I did not recall at the time.
        Mr. Jeffries. Right.
        Attorney General Sessions. But my statement at the time was
    my best recollection of the circumstances, and I, as things are
    brought up----
        Mr. Jeffries. Reclaiming my time. I understand.
        Attorney General Sessions. All right.
        Mr. Jeffries. Sir, you now acknowledge meeting with
    Ambassador Kislyak during the Republican National Convention,
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. I remember I made a speech. He
    came up to me afterwards. I was standing in front of a speaker,
    Corker, and did chat with him.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. Thank you. And you also----
        Attorney General Sessions. And it was an encounter, not a
    meeting. It was just an encounter at that time.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And you also met with the Ambassador in
    September of 2016 in your office, as you've acknowledged,
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. He asked for an appointment. I
    had two senior staffers, both full colonels in the United
    States Army, retired, in the meeting----
        Mr. Jeffries. Now, you testified--I'm sorry--you testified
    in June before the Senate Intelligence Committee that you had
    not heard even a whisper about possible Russian involvement in
    the Trump campaign. Yet we understand that you attended this
    March 31 meeting with George Papadopoulos, talked about
    potential communications with Russian operatives.
        But also, according to your third quarter 2016 FEC filing,
    you hosted a Trump campaign dinner meeting on June 30, 2016, at
    the Capitol Hill Club. Is that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. That's correct, I believe.
        Mr. Jeffries. And your Senate reelection campaign paid for
    that meeting. Is that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think that may be so.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay. And Carter Page and George Papadopoulos
    both attended that June 30 meeting, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. That has been reported.
        Mr. Jeffries. And at that meeting Carter Page told you that
    he was going to Moscow in a few days. Is that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. And he----
        Mr. Jeffries. Thank you. Thank you.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. He said it was a
    brief meeting as we were walking out the door. I don't recall
    that conversation, but I'm not able to dispute it.
        Mr. Jeffries. Understood. Reclaiming my time. I've got
    limited time available.
        Attorney General Sessions. That does not--does that
    establish a--some sort of improper contact with a Russian?
        Mr. Jeffries. I think you understand--I think you
    understand----
        Attorney General Sessions. He's not Russian either, you
    know.
        Mr. Jeffries. You understand, sir, I get to ask the
    questions and you provide the answers in this capacity. You're
    no longer in the United States Senate.
        You voted in 1999 to remove Bill Clinton from office on
    charges of perjury, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. That is correct. There were
    other charges.
        Mr. Jeffries. Simple question.
        Attorney General Sessions. I voted for impeachment, yes.
        Mr. Jeffries. Yes, I understand. To remove him, actually.
    Impeachment's in the House.
        In connection with that vote to remove President Clinton
    from office, you gave this speech on the Senate floor on
    February 29, 1999, and in it you acknowledged that while
    serving as U.S. attorney you once prosecuted a young police
    officer who lied in a deposition. And in that speech you
    decided to prosecute that young police officer, even though he
    corrected his testimony.
        Now, you've testified under oath before the Senate
    Judiciary Committee in January. You subsequently corrected that
    testimony in a March 6 written submission and have been forced
    repeatedly to come back to the Senate and now the House to
    clarify.
        When explaining your vote on the Senate floor to remove
    Bill Clinton from office, you stated that you refused to hold a
    President accountable to a different standard than the young
    police officer who you prosecuted.
        Let me be clear, the Attorney General of the United States
    of America should not be held to a different standard than the
    young police officer whose life you ruined by prosecuting him
    for perjury.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman may respond, if he
    chooses to.
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Jeffries, nobody, nobody,
    not you or anyone else, should be prosecuted, not me, or
    accused of perjury for answering the question the way I did in
    this hearing. I've always tried to answer the questions fairly
    and accurately.
        But to ask, did you ever do something, did you ever meet
    with Russians and deal with the campaign, you're saying Mr.
    Carter Page, who left that meeting, according to the press
    reports and all--and I guess his deposition or interview--has
    been reported as saying, I'm going to Russia. I made no
    response to him, didn't acknowledge it. And you're accusing me
    of lying about that?
        I say that's not fair, Mr. Jeffries. I would say that's not
    fair, colleagues. That's not any indication that I in any way
    participated in anything wrong.
        And the same with Mr. Papadopoulos. He talked about--it's
    reported in the paper that he said something about going to
    Russia and dealing with the Russians. And I pushed back and
    said, you shouldn't do it.
        So I don't think I'm--it is right to accuse me of doing
    something wrong. I had no participation in any wrongdoing with
    regard to influencing this campaign improperly.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, thank you.
        Mr. Attorney General, you didn't do anything wrong in that
    testimony. This question was jarbled. That's just not giving
    you any benefit of the doubt at all, to do what these guys are
    doing to you. So I hear what you're saying, and you didn't do
    anything wrong there.
        I do want to talk to you about your recusal from the
    Russian case. You cited 28 CFR 445.2, saying you were involved
    with the campaign; that triggered recusal. However, that
    regulation only applies to criminal prosecutions or
    investigations. When you recused yourself under James Comey's
    admission, that was a counterintelligence investigation, not a
    criminal investigation.
        So why did you cite that regulation to recuse from a
    counterintelligence investigation when its only applicability
    is for a criminal investigation?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not sure that that was
    expressed to me when I was given advice about it, in those
    terms, number one. Number two, it could likely be interpreted
    as both. And so I felt----
        Mr. DeSantis. Comey said that he--after you were recused,
    he testified March 20. He said, ``I'm authorized to say there's
    a counterintelligence investigation.'' He was telling the
    President, ``You're not under investigation.'' So that's what
    he said. So I think that that may have been misapplied. But I
    understand what you're saying. You----
        Attorney General Sessions. I did follow the advice I was
    given.
        Mr. DeSantis. No, I know you did. I know you did.
        You've talked about you can't confirm or deny
    investigations. I think that's a good policy.
        Why was Comey allowed to confirm that investigation on
    March 20, which invited all kinds of irresponsible speculation?
    You were recused. Somebody in the Department authorized him to
    do that. Why did they break with the policy?
        Attorney General Sessions. This was--this is March 20
    you're talking about?
        I'm not--I don't recall how that exactly occurred. But I do
    agree with you, Congressman, that Mr. Comey talked more than he
    should. And he had no power, right, or justification in
    announcing the conclusion of a criminal investigation. He was
    the investigator, not the----
        Mr. DeSantis. I agree. I don't want to--I'm sorry to
    interrupt, but I've got limited time. I agree with you.
        Let me move on. Uranium One case, I know you've been asked
    about it. Can you say--forget about whether it's under
    investigation. In the past, did the FBI or DOJ inform either
    President Obama, Secretary Clinton, or any Cabinet Secretary
    that it had uncovered evidence that Rosatom's main U.S.
    executive, Vadim Mikerin, was engaged in bribery, kickbacks,
    and money laundering before the Obama administration approved
    the Uranium One sale in 2010?
        Attorney General Sessions. It--that Mikerin matter is
    prosecuted in Maryland, and----
        Mr. DeSantis. 2014. But there was an informant in 2009-
    2010. The FBI had evidence of bribery, kickbacks, and money
    laundering. Was that information conveyed to any of the
    relative people on the CFIUS board--Clinton, other Cabinet
    Secretaries--or was it given to the President?
        Attorney General Sessions. The way I understand that matter
    is that the case in which Mr. Mikerin was convicted was not
    connected to the CFIUS problem that occurred 2 to 3 years
    before. When the case came to the United States attorney's
    office, Mr. Rosenstein's office in Maryland, CFIUS had already
    been approved by 2 years or more.
        Mr. DeSantis. There was an FBI informant starting in 2009.
    Have you----
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, you're going to--I have
    not talked with him, but Department of Justice, I understand,
    has approved him providing information to the Congress. And
    he's--I understand it'll be set up in a few days, and you'll be
    able to hear from him directly.
        Mr. DeSantis. Well, I think you should, too, because, you
    know, from everything I've been proffered, he has evidence of
    illegal conduct, 2009 and 2010, before this deal was agreed to,
    involving Uranium One. It was all connected. And so I think
    that that's something that we need to do.
        And let me move on. The leaking you mentioned. You can't
    confirm or deny the existence of the leaks, Michael Flynn, some
    of these other leaks used politically against the
    administration.
        So let me ask you this. Since the President was elected,
    has anybody been held accountable, criminally or
    administratively, for leaking information against the
    administration in a political--with a political motive?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I think the individual in
    Georgia had a motive that's been charged. And--but a number--we
    have 27 ongoing investigations. Some of those involve leaks
    before President Trump took office and some after.
        Mr. DeSantis. Final question----
        Attorney General Sessions. But, before that, there was only
    three per year, only nine. There's three times as many this
    year as the entire 3 years before being investigated.
        Mr. DeSantis. Final question, very--why can't you just tell
    us whether or not the FBI expended resources to give money to
    Christopher Steele? It's not about going into the
    investigation. We have oversight over your department. Were
    taxpayer dollars used to give to Christopher Steele, yes or no?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to do that, I
    think, for several reasons. It's an ongoing matter, and also it
    may well involve classified information.
        Mr. DeSantis. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Rhode Island, Mr. Cicilline, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And I apologize in advance, Mr. Attorney General. I'm going
    to try to go through some questions quickly.
        Multiple trustworthy reports revealed last week that the
    Justice Department may require AT&T to sell CNN, among other
    assets, as a requirement for the approval of its proposed
    acquisition of Time Warner. Subsequently, more reports have
    surfaced that Rupert Murdoch, the chairman of 21st Century Fox
    and a confidant of President Trump, has twice contacted AT&T in
    an effort to buy CNN. This is, of course, very disturbing to
    those of us that are responsible for oversight of these issues.
        And my first question is, has any White House employee or
    official, including the President, contacted the Justice
    Department regarding the AT&T-Time Warner transaction or any
    other transaction?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to comment on the
    conversations or communications the Department of Justice top
    people have with top people at the White House.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'd ask that the witness
    be directed to answer the question.
        Either you're invoking the Fifth Amendment or you're
    invoking executive privilege. You just can't decline to answer
    because it's uncomfortable.
        So I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that the witness be directed
    to answer my question.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The witness can answer the question in
    the fashion that he has determined.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, reserving my right, Mr. Chairman, I'll
    move on.
        Mr. Sessions, are you not going to answer the question,
    whether any White House or--any White House officials have
    attempted to interfere or speak to the Justice Department about
    this transaction?
        Attorney General Sessions. According to longstanding
    Department of Justice policy, the Department of Justice does
    not reveal privileged conversations or conversations----
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. Reclaiming my time, then, Mr.----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Between the White
    House and Department of Justice.
        Mr. Cicilline. I'm going to move on to a new area. The
    Foreign Agents Registration Act, you're familiar with it?
        Attorney General Sessions. Right.
        Mr. Cicilline. Do you think it's good policy?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think it's a good law----
        Mr. Cicilline. You enforce it, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. And it has value.
    Yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. In addition to Paul Manafort and Michael
    Flynn, have any other Trump campaign advisers or senior
    administration officials lobbied for foreign governments
    without disclosing it under the Foreign Agents Registration
    Act?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to comment on that.
        Mr. Cicilline. Why not?
        Attorney General Sessions. Repeat the question. Perhaps I
    misunderstood it.
        Mr. Cicilline. In addition to Paul Manafort and Michael
    Flynn, have any Trump campaign advisers or senior
    administration officials lobbied for foreign governments
    without disclosing it under the Foreign Agents Registration
    Act?
        Attorney General Sessions. That would be a matter that
    should be directed to Mr. Mueller, I believe.
        Mr. Cicilline. Moving to a new question, on October 6, the
    Department of Justice--actually, you, on the behalf of the
    Department of Justice, issued a 25-page memo to all Federal
    agencies, purporting to provide guidance on religious liberty
    protections under Federal law.
        In the guidance, you direct--you indicate that an exemption
    or accommodation for religious organizations from anti-
    discrimination law might be required even where Congress has
    not expressly exempted religious organizations.
        You remember that, right?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Would that mean, under your interpretation,
    that an employee of FEMA could refuse to provide disaster
    assistance to an unmarried couple who live together based on
    the employee's religious belief that men and women should not
    cohabitate before marriage?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe that it could be
    interpreted that way. It's just a----
        Mr. Cicilline. Would----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Policy document. We
    didn't try to write it----
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. Reclaiming my time, I'd really
    like to----
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm just trying to answer.
        Mr. Cicilline. This is a ``yes'' or ``no.'' Would the
    guidance you provided permit a HUD-funded shelter to refuse to
    house an unmarried pregnant woman based on the grant
    recipient's belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin?
        Attorney General Sessions. Every----
        Mr. Cicilline. Yes or no?
        Attorney General Sessions. Every manner--first, I don't
    think so, number one, under the guidance. But, also, the
    guidance does not repeal established laws that are in place.
    And it was written, that guidance was, to clarify the
    established----
        Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Principles of
    religious freedom.
        Mr. Cicilline. I have very limited time. I appreciate
    your----
        Attorney General Sessions. Well----
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Answer.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Mr. Cicilline. Now, returning to the Papadopoulos issue, in
    your October 18 testimony, you purport to have forgotten this
    conversation about--by Mr. Papadopoulos about Russia that you
    put an end to. You said you weren't being dishonest, you
    weren't making false--you simply forgot it. Do you remember
    that testimony?
        Attorney General Sessions. Something like that, yes.
        Mr. Cicilline. Okay. When did you remember the remarks of
    Mr. Papadopoulos? When did that memory come back to you?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think it was when the press
    came up with it or some--it was revealed in the press.
        Mr. Cicilline. That was the first time you remembered it?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would recall that my October
    statements was a broad question.
        Mr. Cicilline. No, I understand. I'm just----
        Attorney General Sessions. And I'm----
        Mr. Cicilline. I have a limited time. Reclaiming my time,
    you were a senior----
        Attorney General Sessions. This event occurred over----
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Sessions, you were a senior----
        Attorney General Sessions. It was over 18 months before----
        Mr. Cicilline [continuing]. Campaign official and a member
    of the national security team. Did you ever exchange any email,
    text message, or any other communication to or from Mr.
    Papadopoulos about Russia or any other subject?
        Attorney General Sessions. Repeat the category--the list of
    things.
        Mr. Cicilline. Did you exchange any email, text message, or
    any communication to or from Mr. Papadopoulos about any
    subject?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not believe so. I'm
    confident I----
        Mr. Cicilline. Did anybody----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Did not.
        Mr. Cicilline. Did anybody every forward to you a
    communication from Mr. Papadopoulos?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall it.
        Mr. Cicilline. Did anybody from the campaign ever
    communicate with you about Mr. Papadopoulos?
        Attorney General Sessions. I can't say that there were no
    conversations about him before or after this event.
        Mr. Cicilline. Were you told about the----
        Attorney General Sessions. I did push back at him----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The witness can answer the question.
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't have a specific
    recollection, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Cicilline. Mr. Chairman, I'd ask to make a unanimous
    consent request.
        I would ask unanimous consent to insert the following
    materials into the record: a letter from me and Ranking Member
    Conyers requesting a hearing on the President's interference
    with antitrust enforcement matters before the Justice
    Department; a letter from Senators Amy Klobuchar, Dianne
    Feinstein, and several others to the Justice Department urging
    it to oppose any attempt by the White House to interfere with
    antitrust laws, enforcement decisions, particularly for
    political reasons; a July article in The New York Times
    reporting that senior White House advisers have discussed using
    the AT&T-Time Warner merger as a potential point of leverage
    over CNN; and nine letters from as far as back as February of
    this year from various members of the Judiciary Committee
    seeking information on a wide range of subjects, addressed to
    the Attorney General of the United States, that have been
    ignored, that we have received no response on. And I ask----
        Chairman Goodlatte. Without objection, the documents will
    be made part of the record.
        This information is available at the Committee and can be
    accessed online at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/
    20171114/106709/HHRG-115-JU00-20171114-SD002.pdf
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Ratcliffe, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, good to see you.
        If FBI Director Chris Wray held a press conference tomorrow
    without your knowledge to announce a charging decision in a
    major Federal investigation, would you consider that an
    inappropriate departure from longstanding Department of Justice
    and FBI policies?
        Attorney General Sessions. Under the situation today, under
    the letter that Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein wrote with
    regard to Mr. Comey, I think it would be a terminateable
    offense.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. All right.
        Attorney General Sessions. That is not disciplined. We need
    to be disciplined in this department. We don't need to be
    leaking, and we don't need to have people taking actions
    outside their realm. Maybe sometimes people make an honest
    mistake, but that would be a very dramatic thing, which he
    would never do.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. So I'll take that as an emphatic ``yes.''
        Now, to your knowledge, are there currently Federal
    prosecutors in your office that are predetermining cases prior
    to the interviewing of key witnesses, to include the subjects
    or targets of those investigations?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe so.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Is it a practice in your Department of
    Justice to allow immunized witnesses to sit in the interviews
    of the subject or target of Federal investigations?
        Attorney General Sessions. That would not be a normal
    process, for sure.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Attorney General, these are just a few
    of the irregularities or anomalies that have taken place in how
    the Department of Justice and the FBI have handled these
    investigations and prosecutions prior to 2016, and, now,
    apparently, a departure from how you're handling them. It's
    also these irregularities that have shaken the faith and trust
    of people in our Department of Justice.
        Look, I'm of the opinion that for the last 8 years we have
    survived the worst Presidency of my lifetime. My colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle have spent their time today trying
    to convince you that we have to survive a bad President right
    now. That's okay. For 240 years, our Republic has withstood
    that. Elected officials come and go.
        But, right now, where we are and what our history won't
    tell us is, what happens to our Republic if people lose all
    faith and trust in the Department of Justice and the FBI to
    fairly investigate and to prosecute violations of the rule of
    law?
        Now, at one point in time, you and I held the same position
    in the Department of Justice. I was a U.S. attorney, as were
    you. You've obviously been promoted. If public opinion polls
    tell us anything, the chair that I hold right now signals that
    I've been demoted. But my time as U.S. attorney taught me
    something that you said in your opening, which is that the
    Department of Justice must always transcend politics to uphold
    the rule of law.
        I think, more than anything else, what the American people
    want to hear from you today is that that is, in fact, the case.
    As Mr. Gowdy said in his line of questioning, Lady Justice is
    supposed to be holding a set of scales, wearing a blindfold;
    she is not supposed to have her finger on the scales. And I
    think that the American people have every reason to question
    whether or not that's where we are right now.
        So, more than anything else, what I'm asking from you is to
    hear from you that you are prepared--no, that you are committed
    to go wherever the facts and evidence lead you, regardless of
    the political consequences for any political party or any
    person, to include Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton or yourself.
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, I am and the Department of
    Justice is. You will soon have Director Wray, I believe, coming
    before your committee. I hope you'll ask him these questions,
    and I think you'll be impressed with his commitment in that
    regard.
        As United States attorneys, it was--we were raised in that
    idea. I've never forgotten--I'm glad I had my 15 years in the
    Department of Justice before I came to Congress. You get your
    values shaped maybe at a younger age. But I think I understand
    the role I have, the responsibility we have to do justice.
        And I would say this, that, in the long run, if I want the
    respect of this body, both sides of the aisle, I've got to
    follow the rules in the Department. And it may frustrate you
    that I can't answer questions or confirm you or other members
    on this side, it may frustrate people on this side, but if I'm
    not prepared to do that, then I don't think I'll ever restore
    the Department of Justice.
        And that's what our goal would be, to hopefully--hopefully
    it's not as bad as you say, but I think there's danger out
    there, and we want to fix it.
        Mr. Ratcliffe. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your
    continued service.
        I yield back.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair would advise members of the
    committee that there are about 8\1/2\ minutes remaining in this
    vote. The gentleman from California has persuaded me that we'll
    permit him to proceed, but other members are advised we will
    reconvene immediately following this vote series.
        And the gentleman from California, Mr. Swalwell, is
    recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Thank you for appearing, Mr. Attorney General. And please
    express my gratitude to the men and women who serve the
    Department of Justice.
        You stated in your opening statement that ``my story has
    never changed.'' But, Mr. Attorney General, it's changed three
    times, and today we heard the third edition when you told us
    that you do now recall Mr. Papadopoulos mentioning that he had
    contacts in Russia.
        And so I have a slide for you that I'd like to display.
    It's a January 10, 2017, exchange with Senator Franken where he
    asks about campaign communications with Russia. And you stated,
    ``Senator Franken, I'm not aware of any of these activities.''
        Mr. Attorney General, if were you asked that question
    today, recalling that you are now aware of what Mr.
    Papadopoulos said on March 31, would you answer that question
    differently?
        Attorney General Sessions. All I would say to you,
    Congressman, is, if you fairly treat the exchange I had with
    Senator Franken, I think you can understand where, when I
    answered the question, I felt like I was answering it properly.
        Mr. Swalwell. But you would agree, today, it should be
    answered differently, if it was asked in the same form today,
    considering your recollection that you just gave us.
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe that when I was--
    you're asking me today, explicitly, did you meet with any other
    Russians----
        Mr. Swalwell. Today----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. I am prepared to
    say I did. I met with the Ambassador in my office with at least
    two of my staff, senior, respected patriots, colonels, retired,
    in the Army.
        Mr. Swalwell. And, Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Sessions. And nothing improper occurred at
    all.
        Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. Once and for all, can we answer
    the question?
        Attorney General Sessions. I am once and for all answering
    the----
        Mr. Swalwell. Well----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Question,
    Congressman. I don't understand why you won't take my answer.
        Mr. Swalwell. Well, we're on the third edition, Mr.
    Attorney General.
        So, during your time on the campaign, did any person on
    Earth state that they were communicating with Russians,
    traveling to Russia, or ask the campaign to meet with Russians,
    to your recollection?
        Attorney General Sessions. Did you get--was I asked that
    question?
        Mr. Swalwell. No. I'm asking you today, to your knowledge,
    did any person on the campaign tell you they were going to
    Russia----
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm prepared to answer the
    question, but I just will not answer it in a way that suggests
    that I in any way intentionally misled anyone when I answered
    the question. And----
        Mr. Swalwell. What's the answer to the question, Mr.
    Attorney General?
        Attorney General Sessions. The answer is I met with the
    Ambassador in my office for less than an hour, I believe. And I
    met--he came up to me after a speech at the convention. When it
    was raised to me that this--months later. Nobody said
    immediately it was an error. By a press--I immediately revealed
    and acknowledged or told them the meetings I'd had.
        Mr. Swalwell. With respect to Carter Page, he told you, as
    you just acknowledged, that he was going to Russia. He was also
    on the national security team. And this is the second person
    within about 3 months now that is bringing up Russian contacts.
    And you did not tell him to not go to Russia. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. No, I didn't tell him not to go
    to Russia.
        Mr. Swalwell. And you didn't tell anyone else on the
    campaign that he'd told you that----
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't recall him saying that,
    but--so am I supposed to stop him from taking a trip?
        Mr. Swalwell. Well, at that point, did you think that, now
    that two people have talked about either going to Russia or
    having contacts with Russia, that the campaign, where you were
    the chairman of the national security team, might have a Russia
    problem?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, if I read what's been said
    about the Papadopoulos meeting, the one that was a little--
    somewhat earlier than that, I did say, don't--you don't
    represent--something to that--I pushed back at his trip and was
    concerned that he not go off somewhere pretending to represent
    the Trump campaign. He had no authority for that. This young
    man didn't have any ability and ought not to be going off
    representing the campaign.
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Sessions. Then the next one--the next one
    is Carter Page, and he says, from what I see in his testimony--
    interviews, he said, after the meeting was over, he goes out
    and he----
        Mr. Swalwell. Moving on, Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Sessions. He goes out, and he says he's
    going to Russia. I made no response.
        Mr. Swalwell. CIA Director Pompeo has called----
        Attorney General Sessions. What does that mean?
        Mr. Swalwell. Well, Mr.--the American people----
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't think it means that I've
    done anything dishonest----
        Mr. Swalwell. Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. And certainly
    doesn't----
        Mr. Swalwell [continuing]. The CIA Director has judged that
    WikiLeaks is a hostile nonstate intelligence service. Do you
    agree?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to disagree with
    that.
        Mr. Swalwell. But candidate Trump, who you were working
    for----
        Attorney General Sessions. He's more aware of its
    activities, perhaps, than I.
        Mr. Swalwell. But candidate Trump said throughout the
    campaign, ``I love WikiLeaks.''
        Do you love WikiLeaks, Mr. Attorney General?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not a fan of WikiLeaks.
        Mr. Swalwell. Do you think it was appropriate that Donald
    Trump, Jr., communicated with WikiLeaks during the course of
    the campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to make a judgment
    about that.
        Mr. Swalwell. Thank you again for appearing.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The committee will stand in recess until immediately after
    this vote.
        [Recess.]
        Chairman Goodlatte. The committee will reconvene.
        And the chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Gaetz, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        On how many investigations have you recused yourself?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't have the number of that.
    I'll recuse whenever it's appropriate. Doesn't mean there's
    anything improper, of course. It just means that----
        Mr. Gaetz. Not to--have you reused on more than one
    investigation since you've been Attorney General?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. More than 10?
        Attorney General Sessions. No more--I don't--could be close
    to that number.
        Mr. Gaetz. On all of the matters in which you've recused
    yourself, is Mr. Rosenstein functionally the Attorney General
    for those matters?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. Are there any matters where you've recused
    yourself where Mr. Rosenstein has also recused himself?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of it.
        Mr. Gaetz. If there was such a circumstance, would you be
    aware of it?
        Attorney General Sessions. Probably.
        Mr. Gaetz. You're aware of the July 27 letter that the
    Judiciary chairman and 20 members of the committee sent
    demanding a special counsel?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. And you're aware of the November 13 response
    that we received late last evening provided by the Assistant
    Attorney General?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. Did you correct Mr. Boyd to draft that response?
        Attorney General Sessions. We discussed that, and he
    drafted it, yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. Did anyone else direct Mr. Boyd to draft this
    response, or was it just you?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think it would've been a
    direction from me.
        Mr. Gaetz. Did you review the letter before it was sent?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Gaetz. And you agree with what's laid out in the
    letter?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think so.
        Mr. Gaetz. So I'm going to now quote--I think it's in the
    third paragraph. It says, ``The Attorney General has directed
    senior Federal prosecutors to evaluate certain issues raised in
    your letters. These senior prosecutors will report directly to
    the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General.''
        When you say the Deputy Attorney General, you're referring
    to Mr. Rosenstein?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm impressed with Mr.
    Rosenstein. Yes. He's a friend.
        Mr. Gaetz. So, in this circumstance, you contemplate where
    senior prosecutors are doing the analysis of the issues raised
    in Chairman Goodlatte's letter and then reporting back. Do you
    contemplate, by using the conjunction ``and,'' that you and Mr.
    Rosenstein would be briefed simultaneously?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would think so.
        Mr. Gaetz. Who is the final decisionmaker, you or Mr.
    Rosenstein, on these matters?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would make a--the final
    decision, I would assume, unless it implicates an issue that
    I'm not--that I'm recused in or it'd be improper for me to be
    involved with.
        Mr. Gaetz. And that goes to the very basis of my questions.
    I'm trying to find out, on the very issues raised in Chairman
    Goodlatte's letter, on the very issues referenced in this
    response, it is stated in this response that it is the Attorney
    General and the Deputy Attorney General that make a decision.
    So are you saying that it is the Attorney General, it is your
    decision that is dispositive on those matters?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, unless there's a conflict
    or--that I would make a decision, yes. But he would report to
    both of us.
        Mr. Gaetz. Do you see such a conflict as we sit here now?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, some of the matters could
    implicate matters that Mr. Mueller has, for example, that I
    have recused myself from----
        Mr. Gaetz. Well, let's go----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. And other matters.
        Mr. Gaetz. Other than the matters that Mr. Mueller is
    dealing with, are there any other matters that you would see a
    circumstance where the issue has been raised in Chairman
    Goodlatte's letter where you would anticipate a recusal on your
    part?
        Attorney General Sessions. I won't prejudge that, but it's
    possible.
        Mr. Gaetz. Do you have the authority today, subject to your
    recusal, to appoint a special counsel to investigate the
    Uranium One matter?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe I do.
        Mr. Gaetz. Do you have the authority to appoint a special
    counsel to investigate the Fusion GPS dossier?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe that I should be
    talking about evaluating cases here today.
        Mr. Gaetz. I'm not asking you to evaluate----
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, you basically are.
        Mr. Gaetz. I'm asking you to evaluate your authority to
    appoint a special counsel, not the--I don't want to know
    anything about the investigations. I don't even want to know if
    the investigations are happening or not happening.
        Attorney General Sessions. So if I'm not recused, I have
    the authority, yes, and the duty and the responsibility to make
    that decision.
        Mr. Gaetz. Okay.
        As it relates to Loretta Lynch using the pseudonym
    ``Elizabeth Carlisle,'' are you recused on that matter?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't think so. And--but----
        Mr. Gaetz. Are you recused in the Fusion GPS matter?
        Attorney General Sessions. There, again, I'm not able to
    comment about that.
        But I would say, in defense of Attorney General Lynch, I
    use the same--I have a pseudonym also. I understand all Cabinet
    officials do, and maybe some sub-Cabinet officials do. So she
    would----
        Mr. Gaetz. Well, let's go back to----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Probably have been
    following the advice----
        Mr. Gaetz. I understand.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Of the Department
    of Justice. I'm just saying----
        Mr. Gaetz. That's fine.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. We have to be
    careful----
        Mr. Gaetz. I'm no longer interested in that.
        So you--I just want to be clear that, as it relates to the
    Uranium One matter, you do believe you have the authority to
    appoint a special counsel, and you do not believe that that
    authority that you have is subject to any recusal at this time.
        Attorney General Sessions. I cannot say that.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from California, Mr.
    Lieu, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Hello, Mr. Sessions.
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Lieu. Donald Trump has asked various individuals to
    pledge an oath of loyalty to him. Did Donald Trump ever ask you
    to pledge an oath of loyalty to him?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mr. Lieu. If Donald Trump were to ask you to pledge loyalty
    to him or to take such an oath, would you do so?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I don't know what a
    pledge-of-loyalty oath is. We all owe loyalty to our
    supervisors. I've always done that to my bosses and
    supervisors. So, you know, people are expected to be loyal to
    their----
        Mr. Lieu. The correct answer is----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Executive branch
    head. But if you're----
        Mr. Lieu. Reclaiming my time----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Talking about some
    sort of improper loyalty oath that goes beyond a commitment
    to----
        Mr. Lieu. Thanks you, Mr. Sessions. Let's----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Following a law, I
    have not.
        Mr. Lieu. Thanks you, Mr. Sessions.
        Reclaiming my time, let's talk about your contacts with a
    foreign power.
        So, last year, how many interactions did you have with the
    Russian Government official Sergey Kislyak? I just need a
    number. Is it three?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well--of all foreign officials
    or just----
        Mr. Lieu. Russian Government official Ambassador Sergey
    Kislyak. Last year, how many interactions did you have with
    him?
        Attorney General Sessions. I spoke at the Republican
    convention. I came off the platform, and people were there, and
    we chatted a moment, had an encounter. Several--a couple months
    later, I believe in September, he asked for a meeting, and I
    provided that. I met with over--approximately 25 ambassadors--
    --
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you. So----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Last year. And I
    had that same day--well, excuse me. Go ahead.
        Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Mr. Sessions. Thank you.
        As Attorney General, you have a security clearance,
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes.
        Mr. Lieu. And to get that security clearance, you submitted
    a security clearance application, also known as an SF-86 Form,
    correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. That's correct.
        Mr. Lieu. I submitted such a form when I served on Active
    Duty in the U.S. Air Force, and the form requires you to
    certify, under penalty of perjury, that information submitted
    was true, complete, and correct, to the best of your knowledge.
        You certified your security clearance form, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. That is correct.
        Mr. Lieu. All right.
        I'm going to, on the video screen, show you a question from
    that form. And it says, ``Have you or any of your immediate
    family in the past 7 years had any contact with a foreign
    government, its establishment, such as embassy, consulate
    agency, military service, intelligence, or a security service,
    et cetera, or its representatives, whether inside or outside
    the U.S.?''
        The answer that you gave was ``no.'' What you just told us
    under oath was exactly the opposite. So I'm going to ask you,
    Mr. Sessions, were you lying then when you filled out the form
    or are you lying now?
        Attorney General Sessions. What I was told by my executive
    assistant when we did this form earlier and then again when I
    was nominated for Attorney General, that the FBI authority said
    Members of Congress and, effectively, government officials
    meeting people on an official basis, you were not required to
    list all these contacts.
        Mr. Lieu. Nothing in that question says you get to answer
    any differently because you're a U.S. Senator rather than, say,
    a young police officer. Isn't that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well----
        Mr. Lieu. Nothing in that question authorizes you to answer
    any differently. Isn't that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would say that nobody at the
    FBI or any other place, to my knowledge, said, ``You left that
    blank. Surely you've met with some foreign officials in the
    last 7 years.''
        I have not had any private business dealings or any things
    of that nature. My contacts would be in the normal course of--
    --
        Mr. Lieu. Let me ask you----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Senatorial
    business.
        Mr. Lieu. Let me ask you about one----
        Attorney General Sessions. So I thought that was a
    reasonable answer.
        Mr. Lieu. You said under oath today that you had a meeting
    with Ambassador Kislyak of under an hour. That's pretty long.
    Was it more than 50 minutes?
        Attorney General Sessions. I doubt it was 50 minutes, but
    it may have been.
        Mr. Lieu. Forty-five?
        Attorney General Sessions. Forty-five, 50 minutes.
        Mr. Lieu. All right. Did you discuss campaign----
        Attorney General Sessions. The Ambassador of----
        Mr. Lieu. Did you discuss campaign-related items, such as
    Ukraine, with an Ambassador?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that's not campaign-
    related.
        Mr. Lieu. All right. I'm going to ask you two simple
    questions----
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, we did talk about Ukraine.
    We actually had an argument about the Ukraine, because, the day
    before, the Ukrainian Ambassador was in my office making his
    case against Russia. And I raised those issues with Mr.
    Kislyak, and he was, as I referred to it, I think, the classic,
    ``We did nothing wrong, and Ukraine did everything wrong.''
    That was his----
        Mr. Lieu. Let me ask you two simple questions, because, in
    a sense, you've already answered it.
        You did have communications with the Russians last year.
    Isn't that right?
        Attorney General Sessions. Repeat that.
        Mr. Lieu. You did have communications with the Russians
    last year. Isn't that right? Just ``yes'' or ``no.''
        Attorney General Sessions. I had a meeting with the Russian
    Ambassador, yes.
        Mr. Lieu. Great. That is exactly the opposite answer you
    gave under oath to the U.S. Senate. So, again, either you're
    lying to the U.S. Senate or you're lying to the U.S. House of
    Representatives.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that's----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The witness can answer it any further if he chooses to.
        Attorney General Sessions. I won't repeat it, Mr. Chairman.
    But I hope the Congressman knows and I hope all of you know
    that my answer to that question, ``I did not meet with the
    Russians,'' was explicitly responding to the shocking
    suggestion that I, as a surrogate, was meeting on a continuing
    basis with Russian officials, and the implication was to impact
    the campaign in some sort of nefarious way. And all I did was
    meet in my office with the Ambassador, which we didn't discuss
    anything like that.
        So I just want to say, I appreciate the Congressman's
    right. I guess he can say it's free speech, he can't be sued
    here. So I just--my response--and I'm sorry that--that's my
    response.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Louisiana, Mr. Johnson, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And, Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your service to
    this country. Thank you for being here today.
        Much has been said in recent months about the aggressive
    agendas of hostile foreign actors to undermine our Nation's
    democratic process, as we've talked a lot about today. The
    American people are rightfully concerned about these subversive
    efforts, because it seems to taint our public policy and our
    elections. That's at least the agenda that some have.
        And it's been almost 70 years since Congress first enacted
    the Foreign Agents Registration Act to limit and keep track of
    outside influences. And, as you know, that law created critical
    disclosure requirements for any lobbying group that works on
    behalf of foreign interests here in the U.S. so their advocacy
    and activities can be properly evaluated in light of their
    associations.
        General Sessions, the question today is: As you know, the
    current special counsel investigation has revealed several
    high-profile Washington elites, on both sides of the aisle--for
    example, Mr. Podesta and Mr. Manafort--who have violated the
    Foreign Agents Registration Act. Would you agree that without
    the special investigation these cases would likely not have
    become public?
        Attorney General Sessions. Perhaps. But I--let me back off
    of that to say, I really have not followed that closely, and
    I'm not have--I do not have privy to the information and that
    it would be inappropriate, really, for me to express an
    opinion.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I accept that. The point is that
    a lot of these things have stayed below the radar because
    there's not been appropriate focus and attention on it, and the
    special investigation has brought that. And, in the view of
    many of us, it's long overdue.
        There's historical evidence, going back as far as the
    administration of George H.W. Bush, highlighting failed
    attempts to reform the law in this area. And this is despite
    repeated recommendations to develop a strategy integrated with
    the DOJ's overall national security efforts and similar calls
    for higher means of enforcement. But there's been no
    substantive action by any Congress over all that time. And
    there's been a sharp decline, a corresponding decline, in
    compliance over the last two decades.
        So, clearly, everybody can agree much has changed in the
    world since the FARA law first was enacted in 1938. The
    question is, would you agree to work with us--us, me, and this
    committee--to correct these very serious problems so we can
    update our disclosure laws so that the American people can see
    what's going on behind the veil?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would. I believe our
    professional staff, who've been at this for some time, have
    communicated with some Senators who've got ideas and probably
    have communicated with you, and I would be glad to continue
    that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. And we appreciate it. Senator
    Grassley----
        Attorney General Sessions. We have taken some action. I
    think it's only seven cases in, what, years?
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes.
        Attorney General Sessions. Decades?
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. In decades.
        Attorney General Sessions. And so we've brought one
    enforcement action against RT--Russian TV, I guess it is----
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. In effect, some
    part of that. And so it's a matter worth serious consideration.
    I thank you for giving it that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes, sir. Senator Grassley and I
    have filed companion bills to clear up the ambiguities in
    existing law and allow DOJ more oversight. So we do appreciate
    your attention.
        Another issue. On September 5, I led a letter to your
    office, with 17 other Members from Louisiana and Texas,
    requesting a thorough investigation of Planned Parenthood Gulf
    Coast actions, harvesting and transferring fetal tissue for
    financial gain.
        And I would ask, Mr. Chairman, for unanimous consent to
    enter a copy of that letter into the record.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Without objection, it will be made a
    part of the record.
        This material is available at the Committee and can be
    accessed online at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/
    20171114/106709/HHRG-115-JU00-20171114-SD003.pdf
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Specifically, we requested that
    your office look into the congressional findings of the Select
    Investigative Panel on Infant Lives from last year. The panel
    stated that this was just 1 of 15 criminal and regulatory
    referrals made to various State and Federal agencies, 4 of
    which were referred to the Justice Department.
        So the question is, do you have any updates on that today,
    on those issues or our request? And if not, could we get one of
    those soon?
        Attorney General Sessions. I will review the letter. I do
    not have it at the top of my head, I'm sorry to say, but we'll
    look at it.
        And I believe that Congress, Mr. Chairman and members here,
    are entitled to a prompt response from the Attorney General and
    the Department of Justice. We've already reduced a backlog of
    some 400 letters by half. And we're going to--when the dust
    settles on our time here, I think you'll see we far--were more
    responsive than you've in the past. Because I was in your
    shoes, and I had, as Chairman Grassley reminded me, letters
    that I had had pending for a long time not answered, so----
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Fair enough. And I know you've
    been busy.
        Third issue. I'm almost out of time. But October 12, you
    made remarks to the Executive Office for Immigration Review,
    and you stated how the immigration court system is being gamed
    in many ways. Today, you mentioned again about the ``credible
    fear'' process being abused.
        Is it your belief that Congress should act to enhance the
    ``credible fear'' standard? And if we do that, what impact
    would it have on fraudulent and dilatory claims filed in
    immigration courts?
        Attorney General Sessions. It could have a very significant
    impact. We have--about 90 percent of the people who make those
    claims are referred for some sort of hearing. Many of those are
    quickly determined not to be substantial.
        I remember when the bill passed, and I remember an
    experienced Senator--I will say--Senator Jon Kyl of Arizona, he
    said, ``This is a huge thing. You don't know how big this is
    going to turn out to be.'' And it took a number of years, but
    it certainly proved to be--his prediction proved to be correct.
    We did not need to do that then, and we ought to go--we need to
    curtail it.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We filed some legislation----
        Attorney General Sessions. At least Chairman Goodlatte's
    proposals will fix some of that.
        Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We're working on that.
        Appreciate your time, and I yield back.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair thanks the gentleman.
        The chair recognizes the gentleman from Maryland, Mr.
    Raskin, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Mr. Attorney General, President Trump has called the press
    the ``enemy of the people,'' although I think the Founders
    probably thought that a free press was the people's best
    friend.
        As Attorney General, will you commit not to prosecute
    investigative journalists for maintaining the confidentiality
    of their professional sources?
        Attorney General Sessions. I will commit to respecting the
    role of the press and conducting my office in a way that
    respects that and the rules within the Department of Justice.
        Mr. Raskin. But nothing specific----
        Attorney General Sessions. We have not had a conflict in my
    term in office yet with the press, but there are some things
    that the press seems to think they have an absolute right to
    they----
        Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Do not have an
    absolute right----
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you very much.
        Does your May 10, 2017, memorandum instructing Federal
    prosecutors to seek the most serious possible charges for
    criminal defendants and the longest possible sentences extend
    to defendants who are charged by Special Counsel Mueller, like
    Paul Manafort, Rick Gates, George Papadopoulos, and so on?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would think so. I haven't
    given that much thought.
        I would say it's not--it does not call for the most maximum
    sentence. It simply calls for charging the crime--the most
    serious crime and----
        Mr. Raskin. With the highest sentence.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. The minimum
    sentence for that most serious crime.
        Mr. Raskin. Gotcha.
        I was confused about one thing that came up in the various
    questioning about the meetings with Mr. Papadopoulos. At one
    point, I heard you to say that you told him essentially, ``No,
    don't go.'' You tried to shut it down, the trip. At another
    point, I thought I heard you to say, ``Don't represent yourself
    as speaking for the campaign.''
        And I'm just wondering whether you could clarify that. Were
    you telling him not to go or just not to go and officially
    speak for the Trump campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have no specific--I remember
    the pushback. I remember that he suggested an ability to
    negotiate with Russians or others, and I thought he had no
    ability or it would not be appropriate for him to do so. And I
    was pretty clear about that he shouldn't be pretending to
    represent----
        Mr. Raskin. And were you equally clear with Mr. Gates at
    the June meeting, not to go to Russia and not to represent the
    campaign? Or Mr. Page, rather.
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Page?
        Mr. Raskin. Mr. Page, yeah.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, let me tell you what he
    says. I don't recall it. He says he was in the dinner, and as
    he walked out, he told me, ``I'm going to Russia,'' that I made
    no response whatsoever. He said it looked like it went in one
    ear and out the other, and that he did nothing improper when he
    went to Russia.
        So I don't know what he did and have no knowledge of it. He
    didn't report to me and didn't act for me, and, so far as I
    know, he didn't act for the campaign.
        Mr. Raskin. Fair enough.
        You've taken the position that Members of Congress have no
    standing to sue in Federal court to challenge President Trump's
    continuing receipt of foreign government payments at the Trump
    Hotel, the Trump Tower, the Trump golf courses, and so on.
        As Attorney General, our leading law enforcement official,
    what is the appropriate constitutional remedy for a President
    who collects foreign emoluments without obtaining congressional
    permission to do so? As a matter of law, what is the
    appropriate remedy?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would have to take a look at
    that. I'm not prepared to give you an answer. Our people have
    vastly----
        Mr. Raskin. Well, you've taken the position that we don't
    have any standing to raise it in court. So I guess what--in
    taking that position, that we don't have standing to raise it,
    what is the appropriate constitutional remedy?
        This was very serious business for the Founders of the
    country, who didn't want the President compromised by foreign
    government payoffs and by the intervention of foreign
    governments. So what do we do?
        Attorney General Sessions. The Emoluments Clause has not
    been the subject of a great deal of litigation. The Department
    of Justice has longstanding rules about standing and raised the
    defense of standing against Congress, against private parties,
    against groups, and it's pretty well-established law. I'd have
    to get you information----
        Mr. Raskin. Would you clarify that for us? Thank you.
        So, as Attorney General, you said you'd be a defender of
    the voting rights of the people. And America faces a number of
    voting rights crises today. We've got millions of people who
    are disenfranchised in Puerto Rico and the other territories.
    We have 650,000 people right here in Washington, D.C., who have
    no voting representation in Congress. We've got continuing
    voter purges and suppression at the State level. And we've got
    warnings from our intelligence community that there will be
    further attempts at cyber sabotage of our elections.
        What do you consider the most serious threat to our voting
    rights, and what are you doing about it?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, we will not accept
    suppression and illegal activities against voters. So, if you
    have any, I'd appreciate you sending it to me.
        Mr. Raskin. We will absolutely will.
        Attorney General Sessions. We will make sure it's
    investigated by career attorneys in our Civil Rights Division.
        Mr. Raskin. And on the cybersecurity side, what are you
    doing to protect us from another hacking of our election,
    attempts to infiltrate with political sabotage, essentially?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe that this is a danger,
    that I believe investigations have been ongoing and it's being
    considered. But, Congressman, I have to say, I'm not up to date
    on the latest of that. And I would be pleased to try to get you
    something in writing as to what we need to do--or, at least,
    what we are doing and what we may need to do to protect the
    integrity of our elections.
        Mr. Raskin. Thank you.
        I yield back, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Arizona, Mr. Biggs, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Goodlatte. Please turn on your microphone.
        Mr. Biggs. Thanks.
        Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. Appreciate you being here
    today. Appreciate your frank testimony.
        And I'm going to try to go over some ground that's been
    covered without plowing it too much deeper. But please help me
    understand, what's Rod Rosenstein's role at the Department
    right now?
        Attorney General Sessions. The Department of Justice has a
    number of key positions. The Deputy Attorney General has
    supervisory control--responsibility for all of our
    investigative agencies and, basically, the most of--well, the
    entire Department.
        The Associate handles a part of that, and the Deputy--and
    the Associate reports through the Deputy to the Attorney
    General. And the Deputy--the FBI Director, for example, reports
    through the and to the Deputy, not directly to the Attorney
    General.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. And so what's Andrew McCabe's
    responsibility and role?
        Attorney General Sessions. I think he's classified as the
    number-two guy at the FBI.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. And in their positions--for instance, when
    Mr. Comey's position was terminated, Mr. McCabe was Acting
    Director, I think, for a period of time until a new Director
    was nominated, and Mr. Rosenstein's been serving with you and
    had served previously--was anything done to question or vet any
    potential conflicts those two gentlemen might have had with
    things like the Mueller investigation, with the Russia
    investigation, or anything like that?
        Attorney General Sessions. It's the responsibility, I
    guess, of a person involved in an investigation to be sure that
    nothing they do has a conflict of interest or that should
    require recusal.
        Mr. Biggs. So I appreciate that that's an individual
    responsibility, but--so I guess nothing formally or from the
    Department was done to vet--say, you know, we've got this going
    on, there's potential questions, particularly with regard to
    Mr. Rosenstein's and Mr. McCabe's roles all the way back to the
    Fusion One investigations and continuing on for that period of
    10 years. I suppose, if I understand you correctly, there was
    nothing done there formally to vet them.
        Attorney General Sessions. I think I understand you
    correctly, and I think that's correct.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay.
        And I know that you've answered this, so I'm going to go
    very quickly with these.
        With regard to the Fusion GPS dossier, it's been reported
    widely in the media that the FBI at least paid for some portion
    of it or reimbursed some expenses for that document. Do you
    know whether that's accurate or not, accurate reporting in the
    media?
        Attorney General Sessions. I do not.
        Mr. Biggs. And I guess it's also been widely reported in
    the media that the FBI at some point reviewed that dossier,
    particularly under Mr. Comey. So do you know if that ever
    occurred?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not able to comment on that.
        Mr. Biggs. Okay. When you say you're not able to comment,
    that means----
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I don't----
        Mr. Biggs. You may not know, or there's an investigation--
    --
        Attorney General Sessions. I have not been involved----
        Mr. Biggs. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions. In that investigation, and I
    don't even read the newspapers that closely.
        Mr. Biggs. Good for you, I must say.
        And then we had an exchange earlier today with you and the
    Representative from Ohio, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan,
    and he said, seems like this, it seems like that, seems like
    this.
        And at the end of that, you made a comment, and I don't
    want--I can only paraphrase, because I didn't write down the
    exact comment. My note just says ``seems like.'' You were
    saying, well, you can't base a case on something that ``seems
    like'' something.
        But, in essence, the notion--very notion of probable cause
    indicates that something seems like something and it seems like
    that person probably committed that act which seems like it's
    in violation of the law.
        And so I guess I'm trying to get clarification of that.
        Attorney General Sessions. This Congress has a right to ask
    for information, and it has a right to express its opinion
    about whether special counsel should be appointed, but it's my
    responsibility to evaluate it. And I would have to feel or, in
    some cases, the Deputy would have to feel that there are the
    kind of circumstances that would justify.
        And we just have to know that--I want you all to know that
    if a special counsel is required, I or, I'm sure, anyone else
    in the Department that had the responsibility would name one.
    If not, we have to say it is not required.
        I would say that our department, with Chris Wray at the FBI
    and our team at the Department of Justice, I feel like we can
    do work, but there are some cases that get so significant and
    have such a level that it becomes a public interest question
    that has to be evaluated.
        So I have no prejudgment. And----
        Mr. Biggs. Sure.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. I really hope
    you'll give me--the chairman might have to give you a second.
        I did not mean to suggest I was taking a side, one way or
    the other, on that subject. I was simply responding that we
    would have to have full and effective and detailed, factual
    evaluation before we make a decision on whether or not a
    special counsel is required. And I make no--I have made no
    prejudgment.
        Mr. Biggs. And I appreciate that. But I guess what I'm
    getting at, in particular: Is that so, even with the idea that
    many people are questioning the impartiality of Mr. Rosenstein,
    who would be ostensibly in line to help make that decision on
    special counsel?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware that he has a
    problem in that regard. But, if so, we have senior counsels in
    the Department who would give advice on that. So I--and we all
    have to be sure that we're not crossing that line.
        Mr. Biggs. Thank you.
        And thank you, Mr. Chairman, for indulging me.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
    from Washington, Ms. Jayapal, for 5 minutes.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being with us.
        I'd like to go back to some of your testimony on contacts
    with Russia. At the beginning, in your opening statement, you
    said, ``My testimony has not changed.'' Later, in response to
    some questions, you said, ``I do now recall.''
        And, Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, it's
    difficult to take your assurances under oath when you seem to
    change your testimony each time new evidence emerges.
        And, specifically, you denied contact with Russians under
    oath during your confirmation hearings. That was revealed to be
    untrue, given multiple meetings with an ambassador.
        Later, you refined your response to more narrowly focus on
    discussion of campaign-related matters, but you denied that
    campaign surrogates communicated with Russian agents. That was
    revealed to be untrue, given the sworn statement offered by
    George Papadopoulos.
        You later again refined your answer, saying that you didn't
    remember Papadopoulos raising the issue in the March 2016
    meeting, but, once you remembered the meeting, you then
    remembered telling Papadopoulos to cease those conversations.
        You say that you cannot be expected to remember the details
    of what happened a year ago, but you are, in fact, a very
    seasoned prosecutor and a 20-year Member of the United States
    Senate--United States Congress, who is presumably capable of
    mind and memory.
        So, Attorney General Sessions, did you as a prosecutor
    accept a defense of lack of recall?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, absolutely, people have a
    lack of recall----
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. And would you----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. In the environment
    that we were operating in, with so much happening and meetings
    occurring. You assume a lot of matters that aren't accurate----
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Sessions.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. I would suggest, in
    the----
        Ms. Jayapal. Would you instruct the----
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. Nature of the
    question that----
        Ms. Jayapal. Would you instruct the attorneys who work for
    you at the Department of Justice to take at face value a
    defense of ``I don't recall''?
        Attorney General Sessions. If a person says they don't
    recall and has a justified reason for it, I certainly do.
        Ms. Jayapal. And that was not the case in the situation of
    the police officer that Mr. Jeffries referred to.
        Let me move on to another matter. On November 11, President
    Trump not only trusted the word of Vladimir Putin over the
    brave men and women who serve in our intelligence community, he
    proceeded to trash the reputations of its leaders. And I quote
    here, he said, ``Give me a break. They are political hacks.''
        The President went on to say that he believes that
    Vladimir--he believes Vladimir Putin when Putin says he
    absolutely did not meddle in our elections.
        Mr. Sessions, do you consider the leaders of our
    intelligence community, past and present, as political hacks?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would say to you the President
    speaks his mind as he chooses.
        Ms. Jayapal. Is that a ``yes'' or a ``no''?
        Attorney General Sessions. He also says he accepts their
    position.
        Ms. Jayapal. I'm not asking about the President, Mr.
    Sessions.
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not giving a ``yes'' or
    ``no.'' I'm giving you my answer.
        Ms. Jayapal. So you have no opinion on whether they're
    political hacks or not?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm saying to you--I respect and
    value our intelligence community.
        Ms. Jayapal. Great. That's good to hear.
        And when President Trump said that he believes Vladimir
    Putin when Putin says he absolutely did not meddle in our
    election, help me refresh my memory: In January of this year,
    was it the unanimous opinion of our intelligence community that
    the Russian Government did, in fact, meddle in our election?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe an opinion was
    expressed, and----
        Ms. Jayapal. That was a ``yes''?
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. I'm not aware of
    any dissent from that.
        Ms. Jayapal. Okay. And, to your knowledge, in the months
    since, has the intelligence community in any way changed its
    conclusion?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not aware of it.
        Ms. Jayapal. And on October 18, when testifying before the
    Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Sasse asked you if the
    Department had taken adequate action to prevent election
    meddling in the future. You just said in response to some
    questions that you do believe this is a danger.
        Have you requested a review of what laws need to be updated
    in order to protect our elections from foreign interference?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have not and would be pleased
    to work with you to deal with the deficiencies we have.
        Ms. Jayapal. That's great.
        Attorney General Sessions. It would be--Congress would have
    to deal with that, not the--have to pass the laws.
        Ms. Jayapal. You would want to appoint a special counsel on
    that issue?
        Attorney General Sessions. On what--maybe I misunderstood
    your question. What--special counsel? I thought you were
    asking, should we have laws, new laws to deal with----
        Ms. Jayapal. Well, I'm asking if you're going to
    investigate what has happened with the meddling in our
    elections.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, that's part of the special
    prosecutor.
        Ms. Jayapal. Great.
        Attorney General Sessions. It's not--I'm not participating
    in that. He has responsibility for----
        Ms. Jayapal. Let me move on to Mr. Miller, because I just
    have a few seconds here.
        Considering your prominent role in the Trump campaign, did
    you work closely with and communicate with Stephen Miller when
    he worked on the campaign?
        Attorney General Sessions. I worked with him. He'd worked
    with me previously.
        Ms. Jayapal. Thank you. And did Mr. Miller tell you that he
    was working on a letter with President Trump which detailed the
    President's reasons for firing then-FBI Director Comey?
        Attorney General Sessions. Mr. Miller is a high government
    official close to the President of the United States, and I'm
    not at liberty to reveal the nature of any conversations we may
    have had.
        Ms. Jayapal. Are you claiming executive privilege then?
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm not claiming executive
    privilege.
        Ms. Jayapal. So I'm not----
        Attorney General Sessions. I'm following the long-
    established policies of the Department of Justice.
        Ms. Jayapal. The President has not invoked executive
    privilege. And so I understand your----
        Chairman Goodlatte. The time of the gentlewoman has
    expired.
        Mr. Cicilline. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The gentleman will state his
    parliamentary inquiry.
        Mr. Cicilline. Is there authority in this committee to
    permit a witness to refuse to answer a question without
    properly invoking a privilege?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The----
        Mr. Cicilline. And, if not, what is the appropriate
    response from the chairman to enforce the committee's ability
    to do proper oversight?
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes that senior
    officials from both administrations, the current and past, and
    longstanding before that, have long stated their ability to not
    answer questions regarding communications at the highest level
    of our government.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, Mr. Chairman, if I may be heard, I do
    not believe there is any such privilege or any right to assert
    a refusal to answer a question simply because----
        Chairman Goodlatte. If the gentleman is not stating a
    parliamentary inquiry, the gentleman will suspend.
        Mr. Cicilline. Well, I'm asking the chairman to rule so we
    can appeal the ruling of the chair if you're going to prevent
    us from getting answers to these questions.
        Chairman Goodlatte. There is no ruling of the chair, and
    the gentleman is out of order.
        Mr. Cicilline. Then I would ask that the witness be
    directed to answer the gentlelady from Washington's questions.
        Chairman Goodlatte. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
        The gentlewoman from Georgia, Mrs. Handel, is recognized
    for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Handel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        And thank you, Attorney General Sessions, for being here.
        And I want to say a special thank you to Mrs. Sessions for
    being here, as well, and for, frankly, your patience and
    commitment through the many chapters of General Sessions'
    distinguished career. So thank you.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you for those comments.
        Mrs. Handel. I wanted to ask a pretty direct question,
    because there's been so much said here today about Russia and
    what you've testified to and not testified to and a great deal
    of parsing of words, along with what I would call not-so-veiled
    comments that, frankly, are an attempt to impugn your candor,
    your integrity, and your reputation.
        So I will ask very bluntly, have you ever deliberately lied
    or sought to deliberately mislead the United States Senate or
    this body here today?
        Attorney General Sessions. No, I have not.
        Mrs. Handel. Thank you.
        Let the record show that it was a direct ``yes'' or ``no''
    on that, and it was an emphatic ``no.''
        I want to ask about the civil asset forfeiture program. As
    you know, under your leadership, the program was reinstated
    back in July, and you started some additional practices there.
        In March, the inspector general had a report and offered
    several different suggestions that might be put in place,
    recommendations put in place for the program. Can you give an
    update on that? Or if you don't have it today, you can send it
    to me.
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, thank you. I can.
        We spent considerable time evaluating the program. We
    recognized the concerns expressed in Congress, and I have been
    well aware of that, having seen it come up in the Judiciary
    Committee in the Senate. So we worked hard to produce a policy
    that had--reproduce, I guess, the policy that had been in place
    for as much as 40 years, that only recently, in the last 3 or 4
    years, 2 or 3 years, had been reversed.
        The law enforcement community was very concerned about the
    reversal of the sharing and the partnership that we have
    established. Every Federal agency and every U.S. attorney has
    to work closely every day with our State and local law
    enforcement. Eighty-five percent of all law enforcement in
    America is State and local. This has been one of the glues that
    hold that team together.
        So I would say that we've given--also, when we reinstated
    it, I appointed--directed the appointment, which will occur
    soon, of an individual to be an accountability officer for the
    whole forfeiture process----
        Mrs. Handel. Oh, great. Okay.
        Attorney General Sessions [continuing]. To receive any
    complaints we get from Congress or judges or lawyers or victims
    that claim victimhood and make sure we are doing it in a right
    way.
        We've added--we've shortened the time for the government to
    respond. We've said that we won't partner with a local law
    enforcement agency if they don't undergo training from the
    Federal Government to ensure they know how to handle
    forfeitures. And I've cautioned against seizing of homes and
    real estate unless people know--have clear proof.
        Mrs. Handel. Super. Thank you.
        Moving to a different topic, as you probably know, there
    was a recent media firestorm around what was a bipartisan piece
    of legislation, the Ensuring Patient Access and Effective Drug
    Enforcement Act, a 2016 law which, as I said, had great
    bipartisanship. It raised the standard for DEA to issue
    immediate suspension orders against pharmacies and prescription
    drug distributions who might be contributing to the opioid
    epidemic.
        From your viewpoint, however, have you seen--what have been
    the actual effects on prosecution and administrative actions
    around the drug distributors? And has the DEA been negatively
    impacted by that particular law?
        Attorney General Sessions. First, we would use the laws we
    have aggressively, both as to physicians and pharmacies and
    also distribution companies for Big Pharma, and we will hold
    them to account. Congress will establish the laws.
        So this bill passed with both DEA and Department of Justice
    acknowledgement or acquiescence, and I'm not sure to what
    extent it may have had a negative impact. I would have to get
    back with you to make sure I'm accurate in my statements.
        Mrs. Handel. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Illinois, Mr. Schneider, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Schneider. Thank you, Chairman.
        Thank you to the Attorney General, General Sessions, for
    coming here today. I wish you had been here earlier, but we're
    glad you're here. I appreciate your patience and giving us all
    the opportunity to speak very much.
        As I've sat, listening to the hearing today, there were a
    number of things that I was looking to hear or better
    understand.
        First, this was, I believe, an opportunity for you to set
    the record straight on contacts between the Trump campaign and
    Russia. As has been noted by others, we continue to learn new
    evidence that demonstrates previous answers have been at best
    incomplete, at worst inaccurate. And I think there are still
    some questions around that.
        Second, I'm looking to understand what steps the Department
    of Justice is taking to protect our elections from foreign
    interference in the future.
        Mr. Schneider. Two thousand sixteen wasn't the first time,
    it won't be the last time, that Russian and others will try to
    interfere in our elections. And we have to take steps to make
    sure that the integrity of our elections remains solid and that
    we thwart any efforts, regardless of where they are coming
    from, from foreign entities to undermine our elections.
        And third, I've been looking for answers on policies
    pursued by this Department of Justice that I believe are taking
    aim at the rights of Americans, from undermining voting rights,
    to restricting LGBTQ rights, to targeting immigrants.
        We've talked about a lot of things. I would really like to
    turn my attention, though, to the idea of ensuring the
    integrity of our elections, protecting them from foreign
    influence.
        You've been asked a couple times today, I believe, what
    steps you've taken since you spoke a couple weeks ago, October
    18, in the Senate Judiciary Committee, what you were doing.
    Senator Sasse asked you there if the Department is doing enough
    to prevent foreign interference on our elections.
        Just to repeat what you said, and I'll quote, ``Probably
    not. We're not. And the matter is so complex that for most of
    us, we are not able to grasp the technical dangers that are out
    there.'' These are real dangers to our elections, and our
    elections are the foundations of our democracy.
        You also said at that time, several weeks ago, it requires
    a real review. But today you said there is no review taking
    place.
        So my first question is--I'm very concerned. With the 2018
    elections less than 1 year away, and given your acknowledgment
    that this is a serious, complex matter that is deserving of a
    real review, specifically what steps have you taken to protect
    our elections next year?
        Attorney General Sessions. You raise a good point. I have
    not followed through to see where we are on that. And I will
    personally take action to do so.
        There are a lot of things that have been happening. We're
    working on a lot of great agenda items. But this one is
    important and I acknowledge that. And I'm not--I should be able
    to give you better information today than I am.
        Mr. Schneider. And I appreciate that there are many things
    that are important, but I would hazard to state nothing more
    important to our democracy than the integrity of our elections.
    And as the head of the Department of Justice, it is important
    that as a Nation, as others have said, that justice remained
    blind, carrying the balanced scale, without a finger on the
    scale. We need do that. But protecting our elections is
    important.
        What steps does the Department need to do to address these
    issues? What can we be looking forward as the next steps?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, one of things that needs
    to be done is our States need to review their own
    vulnerabilities. I would say our FBI has extraordinary
    capabilities when it comes to hacking and those kind of issues.
    We probably need to work on that with them. They should have a
    very important role. They are highly sophisticated in that.
        And then our intelligence communities also. To the extent
    that this is driven by some foreign power, then we're dealing
    with international--potential international involvement.
        So all of those agencies and the States need to be
    involved, I would think. And Congress. I appreciate your
    interest, because if we need legislation, it'll take some
    aggressive push to get anything through.
        Mr. Schneider. Hold that thought. I'm going to come back to
    that.
        Attorney General Sessions. At least through the Senate.
        Mr. Schneider. Another question. But you said earlier
    that--others have touched on this--that the intelligence
    community has said Russia has tried--did try to interfere in
    our elections in 2016. Do you feel that that is still a
    statement of truth or is it open for question?
        Attorney General Sessions. I have no basis to dispute that.
    I do think they have said that they don't believe votes were
    changed.
        Mr. Schneider. As I see I'm about to run out of time, my
    last question, I'll jump to the end, is to what you were just
    touching on. Can I ask for your commitment to provide a
    briefing to those of us on this committee that are interested
    in addressing this problem, making sure, irrespective of
    whether it's a Democratic or Republican State, community, that
    we have safe, sound elections with integrity, will you meet
    with us?
        Attorney General Sessions. I would be glad to. I think that
    would be valuable.
        Mr. Schneider. With that, I yield back.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Attorney General Sessions, thank you for appearing before
    our committee today. It's always great to talk to you and it's
    always great to have the opportunity to communicate.
        As a foundational principle of our great American
    experiment enshrined in our Constitution, religious liberty
    ought to be protected at every turn in our Nation's history,
    under every administration. Last month you issued a memo which
    focused on ensuring First Amendment protections for religious
    groups and individuals.
        The last two Congresses Senator Lee and I introduced the
    First Amendment Defense Act, which you were a cosponsor of. As
    you know, this legislation ensures the fundamental right to
    exercise one's religion by prohibiting the Federal Government
    from denying or excluding a person from receiving a Federal
    grant, contract, loan, license, certification, accreditation,
    employment, or other similar position or status based on their
    religious belief in marriage.
        Can you explain to us what inspired your October 6 memo and
    why you think it is important for the Department of Justice to
    issue such guidelines?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I've cared about this for
    a long time, and there's a lot of work has been done. I felt
    that there's some abuses that have occurred pretty clearly.
    We've had to settle some lawsuits because the government
    overreached.
        And I would say we will--what we need to understand at the
    most fundamental level is the First Amendment allows the free
    exercise of religion. It doesn't just allow you to think what
    you want to think, to meet in a closet somewhere and never
    express yourself. It allows the free exercise. And I think to a
    degree we've not respected that in recent years.
        And our opinion is based on the law. We believe it is based
    on the Constitution. And it's a guidance to ensure that the
    agencies of our government know what the fundamental principles
    are when they issue regulations and cite people for wrongdoing.
        Mr. Labrador. So what more could Congress do to protect the
    First Amendment and religious liberty?
        Attorney General Sessions. Repeat that.
        Mr. Labrador. What more could Congress do to protect the
    First Amendment and religious liberty?
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you. We've got religious
    liberty, and also in the First Amendment is speech.
        Mr. Labrador. Yes.
        Attorney General Sessions. And I think it's time for us to
    take seriously the erosion it seems of the fundamental respect
    for the right of people to express differing views that's
    occurring today. We've seen it on the college campuses. We
    believe that free speech is a civil right, and the Department
    of Justice will not stand idly by if Federal constitutional
    rights are being constricted by unwise activities limiting
    speech.
        Mr. Labrador. So just as important to me as the First
    Amendment is also the Fifth Amendment to our Constitution,
    which prohibits the government from depriving the people of
    their property without due process. I'm concerned that the
    practice of civil asset forfeiture is increasingly threatening
    rights guaranteed under the Fifth Amendment to every American.
        While forfeiture can be an important tool for law
    enforcement, it has been abused. Unfortunately, in Idaho and
    throughout the country you have some--a number of cases where
    the practice of civil asset forfeiture has been used to
    improperly deprive individuals of their homes, their cash, and
    their property.
        Because of this, I have supported several pieces of
    legislation and floor amendments that make reforms to the
    Federal civil asset forfeiture.
        In light of the mounting evidence that civil asset
    forfeiture is being used improperly, how do you think we can
    strike the proper balance between justice and making sure
    criminal laws are being followed and preventing harm to
    innocent Americans?
        Attorney General Sessions. I know you care about that,
    Congressman Labrador, and other Members of Congress have
    expressed concerns to me. I do not take them lightly.
        I truly believe that if there is probable cause to believe
    that an item of value--often for police officers it's a stash
    of cash that they may catch in an automobile--if there's
    probable cause to believe it's connected to a drug enterprise,
    they have a right to seize it. Then we need to give the person
    who claims it a prompt and fair hearing.
        You can arrest a person on probable cause and put them in
    jail. I think it's appropriate to hold proceeds of a drug deal,
    at least for a trial.
        Mr. Labrador. I think it is appropriate to hold them.
        Attorney General Sessions. With probable cause.
        Mr. Labrador. But I don't think it's appropriate to take
    them until there has been guilty funding. In fact, Justice
    Thomas recently criticized the forfeiture laws.
        And I hope we can have a longer conversation about this,
    because I think this is an important issue. I've always found
    you to be very fair in our communications. And I think we need
    to reform the asset forfeiture laws in the United States and we
    need to make sure that people are protected.
        The Fifth Amendment is, to me, it's just as important as
    the First Amendment and every other amendment of the
    Constitution. I think that we should work together to make sure
    that we strengthen it.
        Attorney General Sessions. Some of the complaints that
    you've read about are State and local forfeitures and not
    Federal. We believe our people are operating at a high
    standard. I'm going to have an accountability office on all of
    these cases and we will not accept abuses of the law.
        Mr. Labrador. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentlewoman
    from Alabama, Mrs. Roby, for 5 minutes.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        This is so great to have you here today. We are really
    excited to have you, Attorney General Sessions. And we just
    thank you for your many years of service to the State of
    Alabama and now your continued work for our Nation as our
    Attorney General.
        And I've known you for a very long time, and you've served
    our State for a very long time, and the people of Alabama know
    you well.
        So we've heard a lot about Russia today and things you may
    or may not have heard and that somehow you're guilty of
    collusion with Russia. So I have two questions for you.
        Have you ever worked with Russians to influence an
    election?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mrs. Roby. Have you ever, in any capacity, personally,
    politically, or officially, done anything to hurt or harm the
    national security of the United States of America?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't believe I have. I've
    tried to protect the national security of our country.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Mrs. Roby. I want to move on to a different subject.
        I was pleased to see that your first act, official act
    after being sworn in as Attorney General, was to present
    President Trump an executive order to strengthen the
    enforcement of Federal law on transnational criminal
    organizations. And since this is an important initiative to
    curtail the international trafficking of drugs, weapons, and
    human beings, often victims of sex trafficking, including young
    children.
        One of the reasons that I was eager when asked to join the
    Judiciary Committee earlier in this Congress was to work
    towards making a difference on this issue. And we have worked
    with the Department of Justice already on some very important
    policy changes, particularly to our criminal code, to that
    effect.
        Both the House and the Senate Judiciary Committees have
    held hearings regarding specifically the legal liability of
    websites hosting advertisements for prostitution, to include
    the prostitution and abuse of children.
        Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields
    websites such as Backpage, Craigslist, Facebook, and many
    others from legal liability regarding content posted by their
    users.
        So I'm interested--we had a hearing just recently on this,
    and I'm really interested in finding the right balance between
    protecting the freedom of expression and protecting the rights
    of these young children who are victims, who are being abused,
    without impacting the innovation of the internet. And so I
    would appreciate your thoughts on this issue.
        I know that Mr. Farenthold already asked you a question
    specific to the SAVE Act, but I think this is very important
    for us to get this right and to do so working together. Because
    at the end of the day, we have to find a solution and we all
    want to do everything that we can to protect these children
    from these horrible, horrible abuses.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you very much. I think
    that's a valuable thing for us to address.
        In recent days I've talked about it with my staff. We
    haven't formed a clear picture of where we will go. But to the
    extent to which we could work with you on that, I would be
    pleased to.
        Mrs. Roby. Well, I do want to. And like I said, I think the
    most important thing here is that we get this right and strike
    that balance. Again, as a member of this committee, to have
    this opportunity to fight for those who are unable to fight for
    themselves is a tremendous privilege. And I appreciate the
    partnership with the Department on making sure that we get this
    right.
        So thank you so much. We appreciate you. And thank you for
    your service.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you. Thank you for your
    excellent service to the State of Alabama.
        Mrs. Roby. Thank you.
        I yield back.
        Attorney General Sessions. No doubt. And the United States.
        Chairman Goodlatte. The chair recognizes the gentleman from
    Texas, Mr. Gohmert, for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Gohmert. Thank you.
        And, Attorney General Sessions, always good to see you.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Mr. Gohmert. And it's end of a short hearing, looks like,
    unless somebody else come in.
        First of all, you know, it seemed like to me you got
    mistreated a little bit. There were questions about your answer
    to Senator Franken's question. And I've got a copy of what he
    said.
        Now, he is explaining his question, he said: If there is
    evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign
    communicated with the Russian Government in the course of this
    campaign, what will you do? And we even had somebody offer into
    the record that Mother Jones basically said you lied. And I
    would submit this committee doesn't need Mother Jones to
    inaccurately describe, or depict, or tell us what happened when
    we can look at the conversation to see for ourselves.
        So let me ask you, was your meeting with the Russian
    diplomats, was that in the course and scope of your obligations
    with the campaign or in the course and scope of your duties as
    a United States Senator?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, really they were mostly
    official business.
        Mr. Gohmert. As a U.S. Senator.
        Attorney General Sessions. I did speak at the Republican
    convention, but the conversation on the floor after I finished
    my remarks were brief. And I was in--and then with regard to
    the meeting in my office, it was substantively, essentially
    about foreign relations between the United States and----
        Mr. Gohmert. So what you talked about with them there are
    at the convention, it was not about the Presidential campaign
    of Donald Trump, it was as--in your capacity as a United States
    Senator, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, I think--so, you could
    say, I guess, that I was invited for other reasons, but----
        Mr. Gohmert. When you had talked before about that you had
    consulted with the career people about whether or not to recuse
    yourself, can you tell us whether or not one of those people
    with whom you consulted was Rod Rosenstein?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes, I could say how that
    occurred.
        Mr. Gohmert. But did you--no, I'm just asking if you did.
        Attorney General Sessions. I understand. So I was just
    thinking out loud whether that's the kind of consultative
    relationships that I should----
        Mr. Gohmert. I'm not asking you to reveal what was said.
        Attorney General Sessions. I talked to another senior
    official in the Department of Justice who holds a position, and
    he also consults others within the Department before he makes
    opinions.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, were you aware when you recused yourself
    of the investigation by the Justice Department into Yandex
    email account Slapai2009@Yandex(ph)? Are you--Google email
    account Marvajodo@gmail.com (ph). Are you aware of those, the
    criminal complaint and all?
        Attorney General Sessions. No.
        Mr. Gohmert. All right. Were you aware that--and I've got a
    motion to seal here----
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't think so, I'll just say
    it that way.
        Mr. Gohmert. Yeah. Well, this was an investigation into
    Russia trying to corner the market with U.S. uranium. And there
    is actually a motion to seal--I'm sure you've filed them many
    times as a U.S. attorney--and this one is: Respectfully
    submitted, Rod J. Rosenstein, U.S. attorney, and Adam Hickey is
    the assistant U.S. attorney, asking Judge William Connelly to
    have this Russian investigation, the investigation into the
    Russian effort to corner our market, to seal those records.
        So you were not aware that Rosenstein had had this prior
    dealing with Russian uranium before you recused yourself, had
    you? You weren't aware of that, right?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, my recusal that we made
    public was for the Mueller investigation, the campaign, Russian
    interference.
        Mr. Gohmert. Right. But that's--Mueller was appointed, but
    you weren't aware that Mueller had been central in the
    investigation before Jim Comey took over at the FBI, September
    of 2013. So you were not aware of the Mueller, Comey
    investigation into Russian uranium, were you, before you
    recused yourself?
        Attorney General Sessions. I don't think so. No, I was not
    of course. I wasn't in the Department of Justice and wasn't
    unaware of that when it was going on.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, my time is running out, but we've got a
    chart here that shows just how integral the relationship is
    with Mr. Rosenstein, Mr. Mueller into this whole Uranium One
    thing. It sure stinks to high heaven and it doesn't appear to
    me they ought to be involved in investigating.
        But my time has run out, and I sure appreciate your
    service.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you. I appreciate your
    service.
        Mr. Chairman, I would just note that the matter that was
    prosecuted concerning uranium and Russian business companies
    was 2 years after this CFIUS investigation. That's when Mr.
    Rosenstein handled--it was brought to his office. It didn't hit
    his office until 2 years afterwards. And it is really unrelated
    to the allegations about Uranium One, as I understand it.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Franks [presiding]. The gentleman from Florida, Mr.
    Rutherford, is recognized for 5 minutes.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Mr. Attorney General, thank you very much for service and
    your time here today. I'll try to make this as short as I can.
        But representing and speaking for the sheriffs across the
    country and other chiefs of police as well, one of the issues
    that I know that they have great concern about is through your
    grant process, if you could just have someone look at this
    situation where nonrelevant criteria are placed on grants to
    require agencies to meet some performance criteria.
        For example, one that I was familiar with was NIMS
    compliant, National Incident Management System. Had absolutely
    nothing to do with the grant, but they put that on as a
    criteria for grant application. And what that does is it takes
    away home rule from local law enforcement. And I know several
    sheriffs and chiefs are very concerned about that.
        Have you had any issues with that that you're aware of?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, the statute Congress
    passed for the grant program allows the Department of Justice
    to place special conditions on grants. But the one we placed
    that deals in the future with sanctuary cities does--is
    minimal. It simply requires a cooperative relationship where
    Federal officials can go to the jail and that the people at the
    jail can communicate with the Federal law enforcement officers.
    It does not require the States to go arrest people or hold them
    past their release date, none of those things.
        We think it is a very reasonable thing. May still be some
    conditions on those grants from previous administrations. But
    that's the one I think that we have added to it.
        Mr. Rutherford. Well, I can tell you that's not the one
    that I'm concerned about.
        Attorney General Sessions. Okay.
        Mr. Rutherford. In fact, the sheriffs and the chiefs that I
    was talking to support that wholeheartedly.
        Attorney General Sessions. All right. Well, thank you. I
    will be glad to look at that.
        Mr. Rutherford. The other issue dealing with--you know, if
    they can force you to be NIMS compliant, they can force you to
    carry revolvers versus semiautomatics, you know, it just goes
    down a slippery slope.
        But more important than that I want to talk to you briefly
    about the VIPR program under TSA. That's the Visible Intermodal
    Prevention and Response teams that work surface transportation
    around--some around our rail, our buses, our subways, those
    sorts of things.
        But there was a move at one time to actually--by TSA--to
    actually move those VIPR operation out on to public roads and
    highways. And there's a lot of pushback within local law
    enforcement on those issues as well.
        Have you looked into that, the legality of it? Because
    clearly those suspicionless searches that you go through--and
    every air traveler in America has been through that, they get
    the suspicionless search as you go through at the airport, as
    you know.
        And it's based on special needs out of a Supreme Court
    decision that suspends the Fourth Amendment under those special
    needs, and that is you have a significant threat, you have a
    verifiable threat to public safety. And none of that exists out
    on those public roads.
        Now, if there was a specific threat, then I don't think
    anybody would have issue with that. However, that's never been
    the case. And in fact I was told they want do that for training
    purposes within TSA, and that I think should be unacceptable.
        Attorney General Sessions. I have not looked at that. Of
    course they are not in the Department of Justice, but we may
    have legal opinions that could be relevant to that. But I have
    not engaged in that issue, Congressman.
        Mr. Rutherford. Right. And that's why I bring it up here
    today to see what is your legal opinion of those suspicionless
    searches by TSA without the special needs concerns out of that
    Supreme Court decision about significant risk and the
    verifiable public safety threat.
        If you could look into that, I would appreciate it.
        Attorney General Sessions. I will ask about it, I sure
    will. Thank you.
        Mr. Rutherford. Thank you.
        Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. I thank the gentleman.
        I now recognize the gentleman from New York; he has
    something to place in the record.
        Mr. Nadler. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to place
    in the record an article from today's Washington Post entitled,
    ``Has Jeff Sessions Got the World's Worst Memory or What?''
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        This material is available at the Committee and can be
    accessed online at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/
    20171114/106709/HHRG-115-JU00-20171114-SD004.pdf.
        Mr. Franks. And I understand the gentlelady from Texas has
    something to place in the record.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes, sir. And a parliamentary inquiry. I
    just want to put in the record a January 10, 2017, Senate
    Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the Attorney General,
    and October 18, 2017, Senate Judiciary hearing on oversight of
    the Justice Department.
        Parliamentary inquiry is to----
        Ms. Franks. Without objection.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
        The General said a number of things that I hope we can work
    together on, but in particular a parliamentary inquiry to be
    able to put in the record and require an answer to the creation
    of a task force on sexual crimes against children by the DOJ.
        Mr. Franks. I don't think that's a parliamentary objection.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. If I could put it in the record, please.
    And then also a----
        Mr. Franks. I don't think that's a parliamentary objection.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm sorry. Pardon me?
        And then also the parliamentary inquiry is that we will
    have opportunity for questions to be put in the record and one
    on the 702 reauthorization regarding sharing information with a
    foreign entity that interfered with the election.
        Mr. Franks. The gentlelady can submit questions for the
    record.
        Ms. Jackson Lee. I thank the gentleman.
        I thank the General for his kindness.
        I yield back.
        Mr. Franks. Thank you.
        I now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
        General Sessions, you have to know that I hold you in
    tremendously high regard. I know you've had a bumpy ride, but
    there are some of us who truly appreciate who you are.
        With that, as the Justice Department knows, the House and
    the Senate have conducted investigations into the illegal sale
    of little body parts of little babies by some Planned
    Parenthood executives, as made clear via undercover videos that
    surfaced 2 years ago.
        And according to a report yesterday published in The Hill,
    the FBI sought documents the Senate obtained from abortion
    providers as a result of their investigation into illegal sale
    of these little body parts. And so if the FBI has requested
    several what is now several thousand pages of testimony and
    findings the Senate has gathered through their investigation of
    Planned Parenthood, that may mean that they could be readying
    indictments against individuals who have committed the sale of
    these little body parts for profit.
        So I want to ask a question that you can answer and not put
    you in an impossible spot. But generally speaking, are findings
    made by any Senate investigation, any subsequent referral
    sufficient evidence for the Justice Department to bring charges
    upon any party guilty of violating Federal law?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, it depends on the
    substance of those congressional findings, but they certainly
    can provide a basis for starting an investigation, verifying
    the findings of the Congress, and could provide a basis for
    charges.
        Mr. Franks. Well, I hope that----
        Attorney General Sessions. I think that's an appropriate
    way for us to relate to one none.
        Mr. Franks. Yes, sir. Well, I hope the Justice Department
    obviously will take a very close look at the evidence that the
    Senate is providing to the FBI.
        Given the standard that you have personally demonstrated
    for recusal to avoid even the appearance of partiality, it
    seems clear to me, this is my opinion, that Mr. Mueller should
    recuse himself based on your standard here from investigating
    involving Russian collusion a long time ago. That's my
    perspective.
        I've suggested many times that the existing Russia-Trump
    investigation that Mr. Mueller is conducting is a snipe hunt.
    And as many of the members of this committee have indicated,
    however, there does seem to be damning evidence related to
    Russia and Hillary Clinton's State Department.
        If there had been as much evidence, in my judgment, against
    the President as we have against the Obama administration and
    Mrs. Clinton, I'm afraid Mr. Trump would have been burned at
    the stake by now.
        There is a clear inequity. The FBI and the Department of
    Energy court documents detail an extensive, coordinated scheme
    of kickbacks, bribery, extortion threats, and general
    wrongdoing related to the acquisition of an American uranium
    trucking firm and the Canadian mining company Uranium One by
    the Russian nuclear giant, Rosatom. The FBI investigation
    obtained an eyewitness account, backed by documents indicating
    Russian nuclear officials, of routing millions of dollars to
    the U.S. which benefited the Clinton administration--or Clinton
    Foundation, the Clinton Foundation.
        Despite this evidence, rather than to bring charges in
    2010--that was not on your watch--the FBI continued the
    investigation for 4 more years and allowed the acquisition of
    20 percent of our strategic uranium supply to take place
    without informing Congress. The head of the FBI at that time
    was Robert Mueller.
        So, General Sessions, I guess my question is really sort of
    just one for the record here. I think the committee is about to
    close up here.
        What do you think the Justice Department can do to correct
    this seeming lack of or reversal of priority here and what
    appears to be to some to be an injustice? How can we just look
    at the evidence and the facts for what they are and do what
    appears to be the right thing?
        Attorney General Sessions. Well, you raised a question that
    we have much, much going on in the Department of Justice.
        Yesterday, I sent, I believe to you and to the chairman, 15
    or more members of this committee, a response to a request that
    you've made some time ago, that we are going to bring an
    independent prosecutors to review a host of matters out there
    so I can look you in the eye and tell you that we've done the
    right thing and we've done an objective evaluation of matters
    that have been raised, and raised by this committee.
        And hopefully, we can decide if there are some matters that
    need to be investigated. Some may need to be closed. Some need
    to be opened. Some may need more money and resources and
    agents.
        So I feel like that's my responsibility. I don't believe
    that is a giving in to politics. I believe that I should
    evaluate your request on the merits. And you raised some
    matters that I think I'm duty bound to respond to.
        Mr. Franks. Well, General Sessions, I'll just put it like
    this. That sounds pretty good to me. And I appreciate you
    appearing before the committee today.
        Are there other--oh, we have other--I'm sorry.
        Mr. Gohmert. Well, I don't have a question.
        Mr. Franks. After the battle is over, they always show up
    for dinner, you know?
        Mr. Gohmert. I just was going to ask unanimous consent,
    since there's been all this stir about Senators meeting or not
    meeting with Russians, I would ask to have this part of the
    record. It is an article from March 3, 2017, 17 by Katie
    Pavlich. It is a list of Democrats who also met with the
    Russian ambassador.
        And then also this article from June 26 regarding Senator
    McCaskill's tweet that she got no call or meeting with the
    Russian ambassador ever. And then it turns out, the article
    points out, actually she met with the Russian ambassador at his
    home.
        And I would like those in the record.
        Mr. Franks. Without objection.
        This material is available at the Committee and can be
    accessed online at: https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/
    20171114/106709/HHRG-115-JU00-20171114-SD005.pdf.
        Mr. Franks. And now the gentleman from Georgia is
    recognized for 5 minutes. I'm sorry you snuck up on me there.
        Mr. Collins. No. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I've been in that
    other little thing we've got going on tax reform. Getting ready
    to do that tonight.
        Attorney General Sessions and Mary, thank you for being
    here.
        Now, I will say I'm from Georgia. There was something that
    was said earlier in this hearing that I was going to just pass
    by, was going to let it go. But that sound of fingernails on a
    chalkboard, especially this week, when I heard War Eagle.
        Congratulations. Y'all did well and we didn't.
        But I think the biggest thing is, one, I want to thank you
    for coming. I want to thank you for answering. I've listened to
    your questions. I have listened to the answers. I appreciate
    your honesty, even if we disagree, because I sat here before
    and talked to previous Attorney Generals that I couldn't even
    get them to admit that 65 in a 55 was against the law.
        You would agree that is against the law, correct?
        Attorney General Sessions. It is against the law.
        Mr. Collins. There we go. We are far ahead of where we were
    last time.
        But I do have an interesting issue and it is bipartisan,
    because I believe that this committee actually works, and I do
    believe your work in the Senate shows that we can come together
    and there is compromise.
        One of the areas that is very important to this committee,
    but it is very important to our chairman, also bipartisan and
    important to me, is criminal justice reform. One of the
    problems we always have, though, is we seem to go to the--we
    seem to gravitate toward the sticking points instead of finding
    areas where we can work together.
        Wouldn't you say that an approach in which we can start
    finding solutions would help us get to those points maybe where
    we have sticking points? Do you think that would be a good
    thing?
        Attorney General Sessions. Yes. I think there are things
    that definitely are doable that we all could agree need to be
    fixed.
        Mr. Collins. Well, I think so. And I have worked across the
    aisles, and we've worked from a very conservative to a very
    liberal perspective, it doesn't matter. Because at the end of
    day, I believe that those in our system are valued human beings
    by the gift of God that's given to each. They've made mistakes,
    they are paying for those mistakes many times. It's a money and
    moral issue: Are we doing what we can to redeem the folks who
    are in there and actually give them a chance, if they choose
    to, to have a better life as they get out?
        We have a bill called the Redemption Act, and it is
    bipartisan, we have been working on this. It is something that
    is for basically taking those once they get into the Federal
    system, starting them early, and making sure that they have a
    path toward getting back out and having a--lowering their
    recidivism rate.
        What we've run into, though, and we've talked to the White
    House about this, and there seems to be always this knee-jerk,
    well, we'll just package it together with a bigger bill.
        I believe, and I would love to get your work on this, that
    if we could work with the Bureau of Prison to start this one
    bill, this simple bill that doesn't deal with the sentencing,
    it just gives them time to get time off, transition earlier to
    work release, to give them settable, attainable goals that is
    about accountability and responsibility, so that when they come
    out the recidivism rate is lower because they have marketable
    skills and things that we can do.
        What I would like to know is, do you think, if we could
    work that in the House and the Senate, get that to the
    President, who has been supportive of this and his
    administration, do you believe that is a workable solution,
    given your time in the Senate? We get so stuck on things we
    can't do, wouldn't it be good if we start on something we could
    do?
        Attorney General Sessions. I believe a pre-release program
    can be effective. Most of the time, according to my experience,
    they don't achieve huge results, but if they achieve 10, 15, 20
    percent improvement, that's of value.
        What I have learned, and perhaps you'd like to examine it,
    the inspector general at the Department of Justice has done a
    review of pre-release programs and found some of them are not
    very effective, some of them are effective, and not enough
    attention has been put on it. And maybe the money could be
    better and more effectively spent.
        And we got a new prison commissioner, Bureau of Prisons.
    He's open to this. We've talked about it. So I'm hopeful that
    we can improve that.
        And fundamentally, we do need to make sure that anything
    that's done with regard to these reentry programs, that we
    studied the best ones and try to make sure our money is going
    to the better programs as opposed to some that may not be as
    efficient.
        Mr. Collins. Well, thank you for the rousing endorsement of
    the bill, because that's exactly what it does. It gets the
    people from the minute they start in so that the Bureau of
    Prisons evaluates them and puts them on a plan while they are
    in still prison. We are not talking about this get them out
    quick. We are saying, here's while they are serving their
    sentence and earning that time up to where they are able to
    then have skills and skill sets so that when they do leave the
    recidivism rate is down.
        It's based on science, it's based on an evidence-based
    approach. We're not saying just put them out because we're soft
    on crime or not soft on crime. This is an evidence-based
    approach that we've seen work in places like Georgia, Texas,
    Kentucky, I mean, all over the place, conservative States that
    have said, this is something we need to do.
        I appreciate your commitment to law and order. And my
    father's a Georgia State trooper, he was 31 years. Believe me,
    I fought the law every day and lost. But he's still my dad. And
    I understand law enforcement's role, but I also understand,
    after we get there, after they've paid for that crime, what can
    we do as a society to make sure our money is well spent, and
    also actually look into these folks eyes and say, we're going
    to give you a chance, but it's up to you.
        And I appreciate your discussion on that. I want to see
    that move forward. It's something I think we can move forward
    both in the House and the Senate and gives the President and
    the Department of Justice something to build on as we get to
    the tougher issues of sentencing reform and mandatory minimums
    and those kind of things that we know always bog us down.
        I appreciate you being here today, the President, and what
    you all are working on has been appreciated. And it is always
    good to see Mary as well. So thank you all for being here.
    Thanks much.
        Attorney General Sessions. Thank you.
        Mr. Collins. And, Chairman, I yield back.
        Chairman Goodlatte [presiding]. Thank you very much. I want
    to thank the gentleman from Georgia for ending on a high note.
        And I will say that, General Sessions, Mr. Conyers and I
    both look forward to working with you and others in the
    administration on criminal justice reform. I think you'll find
    the approach here will be very bipartisan, perhaps in contrast
    to some of the other issues that have come up here today.
        But I also want to say to you thank you for your time,
    thank you for the careful manner in which you have listened to
    questions and concerns here on this committee for the better
    part of 5-1/5 hours.
        And I truly believe that this has been a very, very good
    hearing. Some of the members asked you questions for which
    answers have already been provided. Apparently, they've
    forgotten that those questions were asked and answered
    previously. But you've answered all of our questions here today
    in what I think is a manner that befits you as the Attorney
    General of the United States. I thank you very much for that.
        And with that, I want to thank you, and I want to thank all
    the members for participating.
        Without objection, all members will have 5 legislative days
    to submit additional written questions for the witness or
    additional materials for the record.
        And the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]