Transcripts For CSPAN Deputy AG Knows Of No Reason To Fire Special Prosecutor Mueller 20170617

Chairman shelby the committee will come to the order. Mr. Deputy attorney general, welcome to the congresss Appropriations Committee, which we will hear in the fiscal year 2018 budget request. I am pleased to welcome you here to your first hearing before this subcommittee. I am grateful that you and the attorney general brought the new leadership to the doj. Your input is helpful and necessary as we reviewed the priorities for the Justice Department to ensure that National Security and Law Enforcement is funded appropriately and sufficiently. This is a challenging budget climate as you know. Violent crime has risen and terrorists have escalated fiscal constraints. The president proposes to decrease funding at the department of justice by 630 million in 2018 for the new total of 28. 3 billion. Since the start of the new administration, in the early days of your tenure as Deputy Attorney general, im pleased the department is refocusing on the core mission of enforcing a constitution and newly enacted laws. Its critical to target the finite lawenforcement resources towards the worst criminals in our society and i agree with the attorney general directive to federal prosecutors to go after the most violent offenders we have in the country. Additionally, the importance of prosecuting Violent Crime is reflected in the president s budget request for 230 new assistant attorneys to address the problem. This reordering of priorities was further underscored by the obama administrations policies requiring federal prosecutors now to pursue the most serious charges and sense as possible. The stronger federal Law Enforcement approach toward drug crimes i believe it is critical and this is a key area where i hope, and i hope you will, see results for more stringent prosecution and the sentencing. The drug crisis that we have is fueled by drug traffickers that must be brought to justice under the law. The department is focused on the google problem of illegal immigration, making it a priority for prosecutors and empowering them to bring charges whenever possible under the law. Illegal immigration is one of the paul the most critical problems facing our nation, so it is encouraging to learn that the new approach has reduced the border crossings. The newfound ephesus on ephesus on immigration seeks marshals to address the alien problem. 70 Additional Support staff for immigration litigation assistance. I also appreciate the departments efforts to place Immigration Judges in jurisdiction where they are most needed and quickly hire the Immigration Judges, which the subcommittee has previously funded. Over the last eight years, dozens of the benches have gone due to the form administrations failure to act. In the meantime, the backlog of to aration cases has grown Staggering Number of 600,000. The reposed budget seeks to 65 million for the executive office to hire another 65 immigration judge tea on top teams on top of the 10 just provided. We will closely review the details of this request to balance the tremendous need with a restrictive budget requirement we are facing. I trust the recent establishment of the task force on Crime Reduction and Public Safety will continue to provide new ideas and recommendations on how the nation can best combat Violent Crime, illegal immigration and other lawenforcement challenges. Cyber security and counterterrorism remain two of the top National Security concerns, and we would want to know more about how the budget supports departments efforts for these critical fields. Thank you for the testimony today and we look forward to hearing you. And the questions. Your written statement will be made part of the hearing record in its entirety. You may proceed. Wait a minute. I am moving too fast. Sen. Shaheen. Sen. Shaheen thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to make a statement and your being here. The committee not only holds the Purse Strings for their federal government, but it also has a key role in performing oversight for all agencies under its jurisdiction, in this case for the department of justice. I am troubled i have to say, because for this subcommittee it is unusual to hold a hearing with the Deputy Attorney general when there is a sitting attorney general. This is the second time the attorney general has declined to appear before this subcommittee, canceling just days before hes scheduled to appear in an open public setting. As the nations chief lawenforcement officer, the attorney general is the most appropriate person to come for the subcommittee and testify the important work of the department of justice. The doj is on the front lines fighting the deadly Opioid Epidemic and it is still gaining strength. The doj hiring freeze for the officers correctional in federal prisons and curiously the request from the federal bureau of investigation is less than congress provided for fiscal year 2017. Even while the bureau conducts a counterintelligence investigations into russian influence in our 2016 process. While providing testimony before a newly scheduled Senate Intelligence Committee Hearing is important, and i understand that, the attorney general is still responsible for answering critical questions from the committee. He needs to provide his explanation for the budget as , well as the defense of his policies in an open public hearing for not only us that the but for the american public. I applaud your appointment as as the specialer counsel to oversee the Ongoing Investigation into the russian interference in the 2016 election. However, many questions remain both about your and the attorney generals role in this manner and your knowledge of resource requests made by the director of your involvement in the firing and your prior meetings with russian officials among many concerns. I will return to the subject s during my and your prior meetings with qur and know that my colleagues will express their concern and questions as well. I look forward to your testimony, our discussion today and at some future date having the attorney general appear before us in an open session. Thank you. Thank you and Ranking Member shaheen. I will not mince words. You are not the witness we were supposed to hear from today or the witness that should be behind the table. That responsibility lies with the attorney general of the United States. The attorneys general of the past did not shy away from the questions, regardless of the topic and regardless of the party. The attorneys general to fulfill of the questions, regardless of the topic and regardless of the party. The attorneys general to fulfilm responsibility, and they didnt agree to come and then canceled in the last minute. And send the secondincommand instead. Members of the committee have questions they may not want to answer. Until nowadays. With respect, i voted for you as you know. You are not who i am interested in hearing from today but i do have questions for the attorney general. I want to know why he has provided false testimony to me and to senator franken. I want to know why is he is recused in the Russian Investigation he played any role in the dismissal of fbi director james comey. I want to know how he believes he can credibly lead the Justice Department for which he has requested 28. 3 billion, amid pressing questions on his actions and integrity. And i believe the attorney general, the chief itenforcement officer, owes to more than the 116,000 Justice Department agents, intelligence analysts, and support personnel, the roughly one Million Police officers, and staff supporting more than 4500 assistance programs in every state to justify the budget request to the department of justice. Them that courtesy because the budget request for the Justice Department is the is abysmal. Cut the budget by 643 million from the fy 2016 and active level. The departments request is built on unrealistic assumptions , but worse than that its also built on the backs of crime victims. 1. 3 billion from the Crime Victims Fund. Let me repeat that. The president and administration have talked about how they support victims of crime, but they are asking for 1. 3 billion decision for the Crime Victims Fund. I do not know how you have tried to combine the rhetoric with the reality, how you can say you are for the victims of crime, but by the way, we will close the door on you. Ironically, in a budget touted as tough on crime the president operationsg for fbi and investigations by 44 million. We know we have to move ahead with the new fbi director. I have my own suspicions about why the president might seek out the fbi operations and personnel, but i want the attorney general to come in and talk about it. Just this week the attorney general quote about how he has theenforcements back, but Justice Department slashes the million in326 assistance to states, everyone represented in this dais. It slashes money for opioid initiatives by more than 27 million and includes eliminating ,10 million from the task force in those places that are worst hit by the opioid investigations, going after street traffickers. Everybody calls the opioid situation in Public Health crisis. I do not know how the Justice Department justifies cutting with those communities who have prevention, education and treatment. I am not surprised they want to cut the money for opioids, and they have proposed millions of dollars to hire lawyers to focus on seizing private land from hardworking americans along the southwest border, so the president can build his misguided wall. We wont protect our people but by golly we will take their land. Prioritiesce in the makes one thing clear, the trump and attorney general are intended on making our communities less safe abandoning the victims of crime , and victimizing those in the communities. Finally, regardless of the circumstances of your appearance today, i will raise one point with you. On may 1, the office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion, arguing the executive branch is not obligated to meet legitimate oversight request of the individual members of congress. Only the request from the chairs of the committees must be met. This is a coequal branch of in manyve been here republican and democratic administrations, i have been here when republicans have had control and democrats have had control. Ive never heard anybody, republican or democrat make this claim, we have checked on both sides of the aisle, chairman withley whom i have worked , called your opinion nonsense. Now the attorney general has the authority, i think he has an obligation to withdraw that opinion. May seek toration hide things from the American People, but they should know this. The Ranking Members and committee chair, objecting congressional oversight will do nothing to advance the interest of the American People and they should be withdrawn. Chairman shelby thank you. Without objection. Mr. Rosenstein, you may proceed. Dep. Att. Gen. Rosenstein good morning. Ranking member shaheen, members of the committee. I am honored to present the 2018 budget for the department of justice. The proposed budget matches the interest of the American People by allowing the dedicated men and women of the department to continue their outstanding work. We are grateful for your strong support and we look forward to building on our successes as we work to protect the nation from the rule of law and to ensure to promote the rule of law and to ensure equal justice for all. The 2018 request shows a strong commitment to the Justice Departments top priority, it provides more funding to fight cybercrime to reduce violent , crime and tackle the illegal immigration and also gives the resources that we need to support the state, local and tribal partners and essential Law Enforcement work. ,t attacks central themes efficiency and focusing on prries these changes are critical and they support the executive order of the president to reorganize Government Agencies for the goal of increasing efficiency and effectiveness. First, the budget is an honest one, eliminated from the books thousands of previously unfunded and vacant positions that give a misleading impression of the personnel we have in the department. Those ghost positions in most cases have been vacant for years or have never been at all. Secondly, the budget seeks to identify areas we can afford to cut back without harming our mission. And finally, the budget improves the allocation of our precious resources so we can do the most , Effective Work with every tax dollar that we spend. National security remains the highest priority. We face a wide array of evolving threats from terrorism to espionage and the cybercrime. We also need to come to terms, senators, with the growing dark challenge which you are all familiar with. Going dark refers to law increasingly increasing inability to access a andective Communications Store data. As a result, this technology impairs our ability to conduct investigations and to bring the criminals to justice. A lot of force officers operate within the constitution and respect the private interests. When there is a legitimate need to access electronic information and we have a court order or other legal authority, Public Safety is jeopardized when we are not able to obtain that information. Our Department Must keep adapting to the evolving challenges. To that end, the budget provides an extra 98. 5 million to combat terrorism, espionage and Cyber Security threats. The Justice Department is also committed to protecting the American People from violentto t crimes and from the adverse effects of the illegal drug distribution. Both of which are spiking at alarming rates. Rising in manys areas of the nation and drugrelated injuries and deaths are increasing across the country. Senators, the evidence is indisputable, rising Violent Crime and drug abuse are devastating american families. The Justice Department is facing these head on and we need your help. The proposed budget provides the departments Law Enforcement agencies with extra support so they can target the criminals, transnational crime organizations and Drug Trafficking rings. , as theprovides chairman mentioned, 230 additional assistant u. S. Attorneys to focus specifically on the efforts to fight Violent Crimes. Those Additional Resources will enhance the ability of federal Law Enforcement to fight crime and keep our communities safe. We are focusing on getting illicit drugs off of the streets through strong enforcement efforts and through the drug takeback programs. In addition to that, we call on doctors, pharmacists and pharmaceutical companies to take a hard look at their practices and help us develop ways to reduce the pharmaceutical drugs. And there over prescription. The American People also expect the government to secure our borders and restore a lawful system of immigration. The department of justice will do our part in conjunction with Homeland Security. The proposed budget provides muchneeded funding to hire 75 additional Immigration Judges and support personnel to reduce the unacceptable backlog on the Immigration Courts. It will also allow us to hire more deputy u. S. Marshals and more border enforcement prosecutors, so that we can effectively apprehend and prosecute criminal aliens who threaten the communities. The federal government doesnt maintain Public Safety alone. 85 of the lawenforcement officers in the country are not. They are not federal. They work for state, local and tribal partners and we rely on them heavily. Men and women serving on the front lines are the first line of defense and they help to keep communities safe. They deserve our support. The budget maintains our commitments to partners and has funding to grant those highperforming programs that have proven to be effective. We will do all we can to be good stewards of the departments resources and we have the duty to avoid waste and safeguard taxpayer money so that it will be available to fight crime and protect people. The department of justice is the for 150,000 honorable men and women who work every day to serve, protect and defend the American People and respects the constitution of the United States. This budget makes it possible for us to do our jobs, with investments set forth in the with your support, we will continue to enforce the nations laws and ensure safety and equal justice for all americans. I look forward to working with the subcommittee and the congress in the months and years ahead. And if i may, senators come in it has come to my attention a few moments ago, i learned about an incident in georgia that we understand that to Correctional Officers were murdered in the course of transporting prisoners in georgia. We talked with david harlow this morning and we are committed to providing federal resources to help catch the fugitives and hold the perpetrators accountable. He talked with victims and their families and in support of the lawenforcement personnel, we are working on the case as we sit here today and an attack on any Law Enforcement officer is an attack on every lawenforcement officer. I am happy to take questions. Thank you. Thank you fory your testimony. I am happy to take any questions thank you for the testimony. What specifically is the department to doing to hire the judges . Dep. Att. Gen. Rosenstein thank you. Ive been in the job for six weeks and i learned when i took the position i learned pretty early in my tenure about the backlog in immigration cases and it has been one of my Top Priorities to address that. Our fiscal year budget includes 145 million to enhance Border Security and immigration and it includes, as i mentioned, 75 new immigration judge teams, approximately 450 people with the judges and its support staff, and a to address the 75 million backlog which exceeds 500000 and is approaching 600,000. It also includes u. S. Attorneys and 7 million to prosecute Immigration Law and additional deputy u. S. Marshals and additional attorneys in the civil division, but with regards specifically to your question about the backlog, we are very focused on that. One challenge we had was bureaucratic delay in hiring and filling vacancies, so in addition to creating 75 new judges and filling those positions and support personnel, we are also expediting the hiring of Immigration Judges to fill the vacancies. So it is a big challenge. The top of the leadership in that office. And we will make it a top priority to first put an end to the increase in the backlog and then work on ways to more efficiently and quickly reduce the backlog because anybody that has a case pending in the Immigration Court deserves an expeditious resolution on the case. Chairman shelby can you move and are you moving some judges around to where they are most in need . Dep. Att. Gen. Rosenstein yes we are. Chairman shelby there has to be a surge summer. Dep. Att. Gen. Rosenstein we have moved some to the border districts and we will continue looking at that. Proposed in this budget, 56 vacancies i believe already exist and we will put those judges where we think they can do the most good. Chairman shelby getting into counterterrorism, that is a top priority for this subcommittee and for the Justice Department, i believe. Of course the fbis analytical center, it is critical given that ieds are still prevalent and a dangerous tools, as you and it will visit us in a big way in this country. The forensics investigation is , and terrace. El so the budget request includes 76 million reduction proposal for the fbis construction account, which includes facilities for tea back it is hard for us to swallow. Dep. Att. Gen. Rosenstein and my understanding, as you mentioned, it was formally designated to serve as our single Strategic Center to investigate these devices. I think it has been extremely valuable. As you mentioned. In investigation and training. My understanding is that with regard to the 76 million, based upon experts behind us, this was a onetime nonreoccurring request and we did not have the need for additional funds this year. It does not reflect lack of support for operations. I believe it is an effective operation we intend to continue supporting and we do not need the additional funding this year. Sanctuary cities. This is an ongoing problem in our country. You know this very well. Grants awarded to state and are tied toictions compliances with federal law. The bureau of prisons must give priority regarding federal detainees, is that correct . Can you state that again . Mr. Rosenstein i am sorry, priority . That is correct. The bureau of prisons sen. Shelby the Bureau Prisons should and must give immigrations and Customs Enforcement officials priority . Mr. Rosenstein that is correct, senator. Sen. Shelby but this is a problem, is it not . Mr. Rosenstein it is a challenge in regards to some state and locals. Of. Shelby there are a lot people wanting to question you, so senator shaheen. Outletsheen many news last night and this morning are isorting that trump considering firing special counsel robert. Under the regulations governing the appointment of a special counsel, and i quote, these special counsel may be removedned or move from office only by the attorney general. The attorney general may remove a special counsel for dereliction of duty and other cause, including violation of departmental policy. Shalltorney general inform in writing the specific reason for his or her removal. Matter,erstand, in this you are the one exercising hiring and firing authority, because attorney general sessions is recused, is that correct . Mr. Rosenstein that is correct. Sen. Shaheen at this point, heidi seen any evidence of good cause for firing of special counsel molar . Mr. Rosenstein i have not. Sen. Shaheen have you given the special counsel full independence from the Justice Department to conduct the investigation . Sen. Shaheen yes mr. Rosenstein yes, senator, i appreciate that question. Amthe last hearing, i confident he has full independence. And regulation was written incremented under the authority of attorney general reno. Who wrote that. They wrote it to deal with these situations. I am confident he will have significant independence. It is possible the attorney general could fire him, but that is only person who could fire him. He chain of command for special counsel is only to the acting attorney general, so no one else partment has authority to do that. Director mueller will have the independence he needs. Recordaheen is there a as to where that happens . Mr. Rosenstein yes, it was done on the order which i think was may 17. The regulation is the source of his authority. Sen. Shaheen thank you. You mentioned in your opening comments about the importance of 230budget request for assistant u. S. Attorneys. I certainly agree that is important. Wem concerned, however, that firing of u. S. Attorneys across the country. At least in New Hampshire, we have not made any nominations to replace the person who was fired. Can you tell me how many u. S. Attorneys have been nominated throughout the country . Mr. Rosenstein i believe that the president announced his first nominations yesterday. I believe there were seven or eight in that first round. I assure you that we are moving expeditiously. I think there was some press that was misleading about that. I think we are ahead of most recent administrations in this bead by which we are appointing attorneys. I spent 12 years serving as u. S. Attorney. I know how important good u. S. Attorneys are to the department of justice. Spent interviewing candidates. So we anticipate by the end of the summer we will see a large number of u. S. Attorneys nominated throughout the country. Sen. Shaheen i am certainly glad to hear that. It is my understanding, at least in New Hampshire, we have not seen wholesale firing of u. S. Attorneys as we have with this administration. Is there a reason and for u. S. Attorney was fired on the same day . Mr. Rosenstein i am pleased to tell you that not everyone was fired, because i was one of them that day. There were four who were not fired, but i was not in the department at that time. I learned about the firings after that decision was made. So i have no insight as to why that decision was made. Sen. Shaheen you mentioned, in your opening statement, the tragedy in georgia and officers who were killed, murdered. As a reminder that those who work in our prisons do have a very difficult job that is very dangerous. D to have a very difficult job that is very dangerous so i am troubled by the fact that while the administrations hiring freeze was in april that the department of justice imposed a hiring freeze so while there was a blanket exemption it does not include the bureau of prisons which is still under the freeze. And with those offers could do to that imposition of a hiring freeze that was canceled so they could not go forward with the hiring and as you point out it was a difficult job. And then to have a hiring freeze within the bureau of prisons . There may be some misunderstanding so at the headquarters of washington it is my in standing to allow these to continue that if people left so in love that discretion that is most critical to do the operation. And is that personnel . I will talk to the director about that and then he is still fill those positions of the think it is appropriate. I appreciate your willingness for those that were not officially filled but they were cancelled by doj. I will look into that. Deputy attorney general mr. Rosen stein i have a couple of questions as the president ever discussed the appointment of special counsel in any way . So second of president drum borders due to fire what would you do . I would not follow those of us they were awful. I understand he could be fired only for good cause. So that is why i would do so that it doesnt matter what anybody says. I want to turn to be open your a crisis opioid as it was responsible for more than 59,000 deaths including a record 376 such deaths in maine that is more than the year before. So the situation is actually getting worse. Last year i was briefed by federal Law Enforcement officers that say have a major influx with the direct ties to gangs in major cities. With the mexican drug cartels between new haven in connecticut and banker maine , they traded that for firearms then distributed those two other gang members upon their return to connecticut. We need a multi pronged approach with education prevention so key to that of lawenforcement plague of this tool is Cooperation Among federal state or local officials. The department of budget request that was appropriated for the comprehensive addiction and recovery act programs and even more troubling to me to be proposed for that antiheroin task force those that seized heroin and arrested the drug dealer so why is the administration proposing that cut and eliminating the funding with the task force . There are important issues. One of the most important to talk about today and i brought a charge of Drug Overdose in the United States of america. This came to my attention to your four years ago it was a significant spite of death to be opioid drugs and it has only accelerated since then. Soda final statistics from 2015 reflect 52,000 americans lost their lives and we believe 2016 projections before we have final numbers more than half of those go to the opioid drugs. People all think about here when and increasingly that it imposes a drug to the First Responders because of how deadly and dangerous that can be. With the gangs coming into the home state that is the area where the federal prosecutors can do a lot of good. But the only solution to the heroin crisis if that is one of the key tools and then to put the matter of business so one of the thing is a we will do with 900 additional employees. But this isnt so because of budgetary constraints. To have additional federal prosecutors to combat that. And their other areas that which we ran away to the Justice Department to focus. Rarely of lawenforcement. But the cops program is in this budget but with the 7 million funding with additional federal funding for that the enforcement program. And then we think that would be more effective. And that is intended to illustrate and to enhance operations for that distribution into enhanced regulatory enforcement for those Prescription Drug programs for growth and then to be diverted to illegal uses. I remember watching those and i will not be satisfied. And start going via other direction. Thinks for being here. Could you put it in as clear and . The attorney general recusal on Public Record and don that attacked and acting attorney general and actually does not know what we are investigating. So what appears to be the only comment Jeff Sessions made on this on march 2nd march 2nd, 2017 i decided to recuse myself for any matters related in any way to the president of the United States. So to understand the extent there may be counterintelligence investigation with those criminal investigations so who decides where the line is . And then to have a multiple process going on in those that was engaged in those measures against us. And there is no clarity from what he is recused from. Can we do have clarity because those that made that determination and that official works in the deputys office. So can you tell the public what the attorney general has recused from . Director and trying to explain that would be inappropriate for me because we dont talk that subject matter while they are ongoing. That is what the prosecutors are doing. So with the Public Agency here is the delineation and also a process that we could determine so is there such a document . That is not necessary so nothing gets to the attorney general, as they come to my office. If they come through the office . Were not briefing the oval office either i dont know how they get there. Maybe it is my lack of though what degree that i am missing but the most basic question is if the attorney general had a press conference and said given all of these challenges i about i ever accused now the question is what matters . So i will ask one final time if you can try to describe to the public for the layperson who was following following, what is he allowed to be involved in and what is he not and how we know he is complying . Appreciate that since your question senator i will try to explain. I think about these differently than the people who were not a lawyer. But it is important for me to explain that means a lot to me i have a responsibility not to talk publicly to or what we are investigating because that could adversely affect the investigation that would that be fair to those who are under investigation. And if that attorneygeneral is a witness . If he was the would not talk about it. Senator i will not be talking about the investigation. If so there would be Public Confidence. And if there are questions they should be directed to him and he will hold the integrity of the investigation. If you become a witness in this investigation. There will not answer hypothetical questions. I am working with professionals who know these rules and i can assure you we will do the right thing. Can you please put it in black and white for the committee the scope of the recusal and how this works . Day understand you have to be careful and i get back to put the public deserves turgot how this plays out i cannot imagine you cannot describe that even in the abstract to be sure there is a full and fair process. We will make an effort to do that in writing. But i want to assure you that and to make a fair result. Been working with those officials of the department. Mr. Chairman you have testified in front of every senator in closed session ended fundys Intelligence Committee in open session theres a lot of conversation on this. And to help clarify one thing a read with some interest that there was a secret plan to privately remove the special celts will and to see that i could just think of director, restatements with those of unnamed sources that those are completely false end is there anything to that secret plan that they tried to remove the special counsel . But nobody is above the of law if not faced with accountability and checks and balances. The president meant every judge has a checks and balance in the system i cannot understand to say we need to create a special counsel and theres only person that has no accountability anywhere for anything. I assume everybody has won everywhere but that does not mean it is under consideration. Also thanks to the department of justice because senator warren and i cannot agree on everything but we started to work on a process for the department of justice to stop the slush fund in the background to spend the money and not revealing the nature of those settlements. Just last week it announced your stopping the process. Thank you that is something youve worked on a couple of years and you just implemented negative. I appreciate that. Also i will say the question about the Crime Victims Fund and recission help me understand that recision. The Department Budget request 3 billion from the Crime Victims Fund and this will build models state million provided and includes 2. 2 billion from Assistance Grants for 25 million to improve the treatment of the victims and 150 million to set aside for travel. The cut is from the excess balances because of record high collection in the past. Ive made Business School graduate i know it can be complex have talked to officials who have said that is what the number represents of the cut of the excess palace because of record high collections in the past in the past. There will tell you why this is over important for the last two years in the subcommittee i have raised this issue that has set aside dollars coming into a specifically to help by definition and crime victims that has been used that way multiple places appropriately but what has happened because it has the access balance of 9 billion Congress Says we will spend that that it doesnt but takes that 9 billion and spends it somewhere else on paper then the next year since that save 9 billion again on paper. So it is above the budget caps that is the changes of mandatory programs i have raised the last two years of possibility those dollars would be spent one time and could not be spent again i have been unsuccessful to do that now you bring in another problem of trying to figure out how do we get transparency . That this is actually used for the victims of crime not as an offset to for our budget whereas a recision somewhere else actually used for the victims of crime. Anyway we can get that transparency the way it was originally intended then i am in favor of that. How can we Work Together to solve this . I appreciate that question and i have reviewed this question i know you recognize it is very technical. But not that we overspent and additional 9 million on paper. I think that is of another broader issue of the thinkpad is a question that i am best to answer. I hope to be able to Work Together of backed that we actually use those dollars for victims of crime and i will try to follow put the question for the record and then we will followup. Thanks for being here today. The attorney general session ends abruptly canceled his commitment to appear before this committee. It is his job to be here today the fact he has chosen to skip the shearing is unacceptable for go to the attorneygeneral i believe is skipping it to avoid difficult questions over his recusal. They conduct important forensic interviews to help meet the needs of child victims. Im pleased that the budget request fully funds these programs. I thought we would start with at least one positive thing to talk about. As has been discussed, it is the scope of recusal that is unclear to lawyers and non lawyers. You are here instead of the attorney general and you are here as acting attorney general with regards to special counsel and you exercise the higher end of decisions with regard to special counsel. Thats because attorney just general sessions is recused. On may 9 you delivered a memo entitled restoring Public Confidence in the fbi. In your memo it focused on director James Cummings conduct during the clinton investigation and concluded the way he handled the conclusion of the investigation was wrong and you stated having refused to admit his heirs he could not be expected to implement the corrective actions. Is that correct. I believe it is. On that same day Jeff Sessions sent a memo to President Trump relying on your memo where the attorney general recommends james comey be removed. Is that correct. I believe thats correct. During the january 10 confirmation hearing he said he would recuse himself from matters involving campaigns for the president of the United States and specifically investigations into secretary clintons email server. Is that correct. Thats my understanding. Why did you write a memo to attorney general sessions exclusively discussing the matter that as i understand it, Jeff Sessions was recused from and why was that an appropriate basis for him to make the hire, fire recommendation to the president. I dont think that is a question for me to answer. I have said in my previous briefings with the senate in the house that my memo truthfully reflects my views. Im not in the position to comment on anyone else. From my perspective that memo is about what its about. I do not know what was in anyone elses mind. I understand there are serious allegations that have been raised and i think its up to director muller to determine whether any of these issues are within the scope of the investigation. Thats why i havent commented on it. I just appointed him several weeks ago. I havent talked to him about the substance of the investigation since then but i recognize the importance and i think the director should review that and make a determination of whether or not he believes its in the scope of the investigation. I appreciate that answer. Its distinct from an answer i got in another setting. Its distinct from another answer i got from you in a different setting. Is it not your argument that the attorney general made a recommendation to hire or fire the fbi director because that is outside his recusal. The scope of his recusal doesnt affect his ability to manage the department. I do have a personal opinion about that, i just dont think its appropriate for me to express my personal opinion. I hope i havent said anything inconsistent then i said elsewhere. If i have please let me know. I do not want, on the recusal. I think the attorney general made the decision to recuse but i wasnt there at the time, as you know, and there were decisions that have been made before i arrived about what matters would be appropriate for the attorney general to handle. When i stepped in i continued, consistent with what had been done by these career professionals and i believe i have faithfully, within the department, honored that recusal regarding matters of justice. I just dont want to comment on what mightve been in someone elses mind or offer an opinion about that. This is exactly why the senator asked the whole questions. I am a lawyer. I also am having difficulty understanding the scope of the recusal, its contours and definitions, and i have an unresolved question about whether or not thats why the attorney general failed to appear today to avoid having to answer direct questions about the scope of his recusal. I do appreciate and respect your appointment of a highly talented special counsel and there have been questions from both sides that imply strong support for his independence and his conduct and i appreciate the care with which you are answering my questions, but i simply conclude by saying i have Unanswered Questions that can perhaps only be answered by the attorney general himself and its my hope will have him appear by the Judiciary Committee and the Appropriations Committee charged with overseeing the funding for the department he is currently directing. Senator graham. Thank you. Why isnt Jeff Sessions here today . My understanding is consistent with what was in the attorney generals letter. I dont have any other reasons beyond what he set forth publicly. Do you know of any reason or cause to fire mr. Muller as of this date . No i do not. That would be your decision if that ever happened. Thats correct. And you are going to make it and nobody else. As long im in this position it would be my responsibility. Im glad youre in that position. Is giving a political donation a reason to disqualify someone from serving in the special counsels office. No it is not a disqualification. As a matter of fact, many states judges and prosecutors are actually elected and donations are part of that system. Yes thats true. Would be a disqualification for somebody in the special counsels office who had represented ms. Clinton in the past to serve . It would depend on the facts and circumstances. As a general matter, no. Is in fact closer to a conflict of interest. I dont answer hypothetical. Everyone needs to make a determination based on the facts and circumstance. What process to the member of the senate used to inform the special counsel that you have a concern about hiring someone who represented clinton. We have a process within the department of justice so i encourage you, if you have those concerns to raise them with director muller or me. Should i do it to you or him. Well, you could do to both. I dont know if ill do that but ive read some things , i dont think donations are disqualifying at all but if you disqualified the Clinton Foundation or clinton herself, that would be disturbing to me. As to russia, do you have any doubt that the 17 Intelligence Agency report that was submitted last year or early this year, that russia interfered in our election as accurate. This is an issue that was discussed in my confirmation hearing in several of you attended that. At that point i had only access to the Public Information from what. I now have access to classified information and i think that assessment made by the Intelligence Community is justified based on the investigation and the evidence they had. Thank you very much. What role did you play in crafting this budget . Where does this budget come from . I appreciate that question for the it is career professionals in the department. Its very complicated. Some of them are seated behind me but they have a whole team behind them and i suspect there are dozens of folks involved. Is their desire to cut the budget by 2 or did that come from somewhere else. I do not know the answer to that. Could you find that answer. We are accountable for that. Im not suggesting those with their decisions. They implement the priorities given to them. I do not mean to shed responsibility for the bottom line, but the assistance we have in preparing the budget. Its a simple question. Were you directed to cut the budget or did you agree to cut the budget. Did that come within the department of justice or mandate. I honestly do not know the answer. Thats fine. You can get back to me. In terms of threats to the country, are they going up or down. I havent done a study to characterize it but i think everyone recognizes the Terror Threat is extremely serious. What we have more fbi agents or less than last year. I believe we will have, i apologize according to the numbers that i have, the fbi will have an increase of 150 for a total of 12484. Is that more agents than a hundred and 50. That is my understanding. I will check and get back to. You agree the fbi, department of justice National Security and other form. s National Security in another form, the role of the department as well as a domestic role. It is National Security in reality. Heres my final question. We are dramatically increasing the Defense Department because it has suffered mightily over sequestration. Can you make an argument that if you are a National Security component of our overall defense strategy, why we would cut you now given the threats we face. I believe if you look at the budget we are not cutting in areas like cybercrime and all those areas. There will not be cuts there. There will only be cuts in areas that are not critical. I can assure you our goal is to use these resources more effectively to reduce crime and drug abuse and to fight terrorism. We are not going to relent in our commitment to those goals. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its good to see you. I will say, it is the height of arrogance for the attorney general not to come before the committee that oversees the Justice Department budget. That being said, i am glad to have you here. As you know, during the confirmation process, you and i had a conversation about the Consent Decree between the Justice Department and the Baltimore City Police Department and Baltimore City. Since our conversation the courts have approved the Consent Decree and i just want your continued assurance that you will work in your capacity as Deputy Attorney general to make sure we further that agreement and make sure we can get the parties together and move it along. Our goal is to reduce Violent Crime and protect constitutional rights. I know you are aware, and its very painful to me, we have a crisis of Violent Crime in baltimore. The murder rate this year is on track to reach a record high in Baltimore City. We need to do everything we can to support our local partners and we are working in many ways to support the local Police Department. Last year we had 318 murders. The year before 342. We are on track to have more and baltimore this year. That is a very high priority for me although im no longer there physically, every day, we are engaged in i will continue to work with our authorities and federal agencies in the u. S. Attorneys office to do anything we can to help support our partners and baltimore and turn around that trend of violence in that city. Thank you. I look forward to continuing to work with you on what is an unacceptable increase. Seeing this bike is something we have to tackle with urgency. I do want to follow up on some of my colleagues questions regarding the special counsel and its especially pressing in light of these reports that did come out yesterday that folks at the white house, maybe the president were looking at ways to fire special counsel muller, and as you testified today, given the Current Situation you are the only person today in a position to actually do that firing. Is that correct. That is correct. As i understand your testimony, you said this is a matter that is within your jurisdiction so based on that, i would assume it would be a violation of the attorney generals recusal if he were to try to fire the special counsel. Is that right. I do not expect that to happen. What it would be a violation, this is a matter under your jurisdiction if he attempted to do so. I think thats probably fair, but that is not going to happen. Im glad to hear that. Im actually more worried about the scenario at this point where, if you were to receive an order from the white house to fire the special counsel, i am less worried about you doing it because you just testified today that you would only do it based on good cause. I am worried about circumstances where the president tries to keep going until he find someone willing to take that action. My question relates to the definition of good cause. You are very clear in your testimony that the authority to remove special counsel is based on a finding of good cause. Is that correct. Yes thats correct. Is an order from the president to fire the special counsel good cause . It doesnt matter who its come from, it would be based on the reasons for the proposed removal. And removing the special counsel in order to prevent them from pursuing the investigation, that would not constitute good cause, correct. Correct. If somebody else were to fire the special counsel, in other words if the president were to find somebody to do it, my question is what is the protection in that good cause definition . In your view, could the special counsel contest his firing if he did not believe it was good cause. Senator, i hope i wont have to answer that. The purpose of that regulation , the folks who wrote it put a lot of thought into it and the anticipated people would follow the rules. Your question is what if somebody doesnt follow the rules, what happens next . We have wellinformed folks and great lawyers that would deal with that if it arrived but i do not anticipate that. In your opinion, im hoping it doesnt arise either, but we know there are scenarios with historical precedent where this could arise. My question is with the department or special counsel have recourse in the courts arguing that there was not good cause for firing. I dont know the answer to that. As long as im in this position he will not be fired without the cost. If you were it would be my response ability, but that is like a law school hypothetical when i would be reluctant to answer without doing research first. Welcome Deputy Attorney general. I had a conversation in my office with the attorney general prior to his confirmation and we spoke about the department of justice government to government work and he admitted to me at that time that his familiarity with the tribes and alaska was limited. It was important for him to hear the depth of some of the issues we are facing as we deal with any level of Law Enforcement. Many of our communities have none whatsoever. As a consequence we are dealing with troubling statistics within our state. I was pleased to note they are making notes for implementation and also requesting funds to continue work in fy 18. I think we have some things we would like to discuss with you and your folks with regard to fy 17. Funding levels are perhaps a bit problematic. Tribal Court Funding is one that i have a great deal of interest with, but i do want to find a path forward with d. O. J. As it relates to some of the more immediate and very unique issues that we have as we deal with our tribal villages and the issues they face. You would think we are far enough away and remote enough that the Opioid Epidemic would not be hitting us in the state, but it is on a level of Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault that we face in terms of the statistics. The uptick of Violent Crime that we are seeing in urban alaska, these are areas we believe deserve a more specific approac approach, and we would like to work with you. We have invited and welcomed the attorney general as well as you and others within the department of justice to come up to the state and sit down with our native leadership to discuss these issues. I reiterate that and essentially ask for your continued willingness to work with us in some innovative ways to address the issue of justice and Law Enforcement in rural alaska. Yes. I would welcome that opportunity. We didnt have this issue in my home state of maryland but many of my colleagues have talked with me about the challenges that we have on the native american issues. Early in my tenure we talked about some of these issues and i welcome the opportunity to work with you on that. Good. We need to do that. Let me switch gears. We been talking about opioid and addiction but lets talk about another issue, alaska is one of those states that has enacted medical marijuana statutes but through Ballot Initiative weve allowed for broader sale and use of marijuana that is regulated as we regulate alcohol. In the state we think the Regulatory Regime is a fairly strong and consistent one. That memorandum suggests the federal government will not get in the way of states which maintain strong Regulatory Regimes. I had some correspondence with the prior attorney general relating to this, but the fact is the Banking Sector is close to those in the marijuana business, making it difficult for states to access paper trail to ensure those in the business are compliant. We recently heard they believe they can sees tax payments sent by mail from people in the marijuana business. I understand d. O. J. Wants to eliminate the appropriations writer prohibiting federal interference with state medical marijuana laws. I am concerned and im speaking for a lot of people in my state who are worried about the inconsistency between this date marijuana laws as well as federal policy. The department of justice does not take the position that state marijuana laws are preempted by the substance act. I dont know if youre headed in that direction. The coal memorandum suggests deference to state laws but were not seeing the federal government doing much to ensure those laws are enforceable. The bigger question is, where are we headed with marijuana. I appreciate your concern. Its a very difficult issue. We do have a conflict between federal law and the law in some states. It is a difficult issue for parents of teenagers who have to provide guidance to our kids about how they should treat. Believe me, i agree with that. Ive talked with Chuck Rosenberg about this and we filed the law and from a legal and scientific perspective, marijuana is an unlawful drug. Therefore we have this conflict. Jim tried to deal with it in that memorandum and that memorandum is still in effect at the moment. Maybe there will be changes in the future, but it was still operating under that policy which is an effort to balance the conflicting interest with regard to marijuana so i can assure you that will be a high priority for me as new attorneys general, board to talk about how to deal with that challenge in the states the hype legalized or decriminalized Legal Marijuana , but we are still, in the department of justice. They mentioned that we are responsible for enforcing the law, its illegal and that is the federal policy with regard to marijuana. Confusing. Thank you. Senator feinstein. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, i would like to say i associate myself with the remarks of senator shaheen and senator collins. Yesterday mr. Rosenstein, i was in new york and a distinguished lawyer came up to me after i finish speaking and said, beware, this president is going to act to terminate the special counsel, and i said he couldnt possibly do that, it would be catastrophic. He said just wait. I came home and turned on the television, and this morning, thats what i heard. Its very hard to know what to believe. I do believe it would be catastrophic, and i do believe it would destroy any shred of trust in the president s judgment that remains over here. I do not know, with specifics, what the procedure is if that were to happen, but as i understand what you said, that could not be done without your consent. Is that correct . Yes that is correct. What you have said you would not ascend under the present situation because theres no cause. Yes, thats correct. Is it fair to put that to rest. As far as im concerned, yes senator. I appointed him, i stand by the decision. I think it was right thing to do under those circumstances. I am going to defend the integrity of that investigation. Thank you. Let me go on to the methamphetamine grant. That is a program i helped establish in 2014. If i understand what you said, very quickly, the cut is 7 million in math and 10 million in heroin, but the addition is 40. 4 million for dea. Is that correct. That is my understanding senator and i have been briefed by career officials that whisper in my ear saying yes that is correct. We will commit more resources to combating heroin and opioid drugs over the next year. Good. So, the cops anti meth and that amine program will remain intact. I think the answer to that is what we intend to do is to fund taskforces in a different way. I think that funding went directly to state and local Law Enforcement. Our idea is to fund it directly through dea. There will be task force but they will be state and local. So you are canceling the funding that goes to local police organizations. The direct funding to establish the grants, those local taskforces are proposed to be eliminated but there is additional funding the da will used to fund state and local officers. So the answer is yes, you are defunding community Police Departments. I believe the answer is we are proposing to defund the 7 million that went directly to local task force. Okay, i just want you to know that in california alone, in the past few months thereve been 61 arrests, 428 kilograms of math seized, 242 kilograms of heroin, 10728 kilograms of marijuana and 11 firearms. It is a very busy task force and it no doubt, if the money is not there, could likely be eliminated. Secondly, there is a growing concern that the rush investigation is taking too long. I heard a congressman expressing that point of view. Mr. Conley briefed senator grassley and myself three months ago and it was a very full and good brief. Do you have any estimate as to the time this investigation will take or when we might be expected to have some conclusion. I regret that i do not. In a way, our investigations, it depends on a lot of factors and so its generally very difficult to predict in advance how long the investigation will take. I can assure you its important to me that it be done expeditiously and i communicated that to the director and im sure he also appreciates the importance of moving as quickly as we can. How do we move it expeditiously . It requires having resources which i believe we do have and always have had to conduct the investigation and making good decisions about how to conduct the investigation. I believe we can rely on him to do that. So there is no estimate as to when we might expect some resolution. Correct. Okay. Lets go to the wall. It is my understanding that for the 600 miles of wall, there are 400 lawsuits pending. Is that correct. I dont believe i have a number for you. I can try to get back to you on that. I dont have a number. My understanding is you put additional attorneys in the budget to handle these. Is that correct. That is correct. How many are there . We have proposed 27 additional attorneys in the Environmental Division and 4 million be available to meet litigation requirements associated with increased enforcement. Thats not just about the law but it would include any irrigation. That would be 400 cases that are now pending. What is your estimate of lawsuits on the remainder of the wall. Im not familiar with that. I can try to get back to. I really would like you to because i think its going to be extraordinary. I think as you get into the rio grande valley, you will find Property Owners are not very pleased, and i think we ought to know about it as we budget. But i ask that you get back to me prior to the time we mark this bill up . I can try to give you the information we have. Its important to keep in mind we are the lawyers on these issues but its Homeland Security that would have the primary responsibility for operational decisions. I will give you whatever we can but i think Homeland Security might be in better positions,. Thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Chairman. thank you mr. Rosenstein. Thats easy for me to remember. We Work Together all time. I want to ask you about something different, probably not at the top of your agenda, but i hope it will be on your agenda. Outdated federal Consent Decrees and how things affect songwriters in nashville. In 2006 i introduced legislation based upon a book called democracy by decree, what happens when courts run government by professor sandler and attorneys for the National Defense counsel. It was about the growing number of federal Consent Decrees that seem to manage everything. A lot of it had to do with education, some with the environment and clean air education and a variety of other things. It took the issues out of the hands of legislators and courts were running the government. 75 years ago the Justice Department noticed an antitrust regulating how songwriters are paid for their work. I was with some songwriters and i had gone out of it pharmacy old couple and said how are you doing . The lady said we are falling apart together. I mention that to a songwriter and he said i think we can do something with that. They wrote a song called falling apart together. I get royalties for that week is that is how nashville works. Last year i got 110 for my royalty even though it is on prices album and he is a wellknown singer. Decree 75dissent years old you have a course that sets was songwriters are paid that doesnt reflect the market value. The second is more immediate. Your Department Issues regulations and interpretations of regulations based upon the Consent Decrees. One recent regulations said if montana, and i, billy and another writer are sitting around writing we have to see who represents us and made a deal with a bar or a restaurant that affects the rest of us. It would turn common everyday practices of songwriting in nashville upside down. Im not surprised someone in the department of justice wouldnt know. Yuko write songs, you may sit down in formally, sit down for a weekend and write six songs. This would tear that apart songwriters, not wealthy people, would have to consult lawyers. Songwriters have an appeal, a Justice Department interpretation. The Federal District court agreed. Youre appealing it further to a higher court. My question is not for you to answer me on how to solve that problem, but would you put on your agenda somewhere at general issue of democracy by decree out decrees,eral consent it is not the time to give governors, mayors, legislators, the opportunity to vacate those dissent degrees and give them back to the democratic process. Second, would you consider the department of justice interpretation that is an appeal to the Federal District court that if you are successful, it would turn the everyday business of songwriting in nashville upside down. Im sure it is not what is intended, but that would be the practical track. I happen to be a Country Music fan, something i passed on to my daughters, so i am tempted to comment. There is pending litigation and comment onliberty to pending litigation. With Consent Decrees, there are questions we should ask with regard to the proposed dissent degrees, will it help solve a problem . How do we evaluate success . How much is it going to cost . It end . L those are appropriate to the extent that we are considering imposing dissent degrees and recognizing that i can send decrees consent between the parties, so there are opportunities to revisit if there is a disagreement. If not, maybe litigation. I regret id you not have anything to offer on proposed legislation, but i can assure ourthat we and investigations will think seriously about all of those and other issues. I thank you for your answer. In whichssent decree rate was establish was put in place in 1941. It seems to keep something out of the hands of the democracy. Thank you. Mr. Rosen designed, it is good to have you here. One question i have is was the couple falling apart every get anything . There is nothing left after each of the four songwriters got hundred and 10 the year. The system he put in place as far special prosecutor and mr. , it is doing his job quite assuring and comforting to all of us. To do talk with Robert Mueller about his investigation and resources he might need to do his job in the proper way sufficiently supporting that effort . I have not it has the assistant attorney divisions to consult with mr. Mueller. That gentleman is behind me. He has talked with mr. Mueller about it. I can assure you he will get the resources he needs. There is no concern whether he will be able to do his job the way it is intended to be done . He will. Mr. Rosenstein, could you be terminated without cause . Yes. Who would appoint your replacement as your position as attorney general . Deputy attorney general . The president. So that is a possibility. Anything is possible. I understand, that is what we know kerry there is great concern in all of this, as you can tell. Ill have another opportunity to and to you, deput attorney general sessions. A lot of my colleagues dont have the same opportunity, so they are concerned about him not being here. I want to thank you for being here. In West Virginia we have a devastating epidemic. We have gotten hit harder than any other state and lost more people per capita than any other state. We are doing everything humanly possible. It without help from the attorney generals office, department of justice, everyone involved. I guess i would ask, what is your main approach to fighting the war on opiate addiction . Thank you. This is an extremely high priority with me. Im familiar of the opiate challenges in West Virginia. In fact, the u. S. Attorney, the administration worked closely with me on issues and participated closely in meetings that we held in baltimore and the Capital Region about the opioid challenge. Some of the drugs that are in West Virginia are sourced to baltimore. We had cases in common. Im aware of how serious of a problem this is in West Virginia. I have talked with potential candidates for u. S. Attorney in your state and others, and this is one of the issues i talk about. It will be a high priority for this administration. Attorney general sessions travel ando houston in may gave opening remarks at the heroine response summit. This 360 degree strategy recognizes the need to work in coordination with state local officials. It is not only about Law Enforcement, it is Engaging Community resources to deter people from becoming drug affects. Drug addicts. In a little town in greenville county, kermit, West Virginia population 392,utofstate Drug Companies legitimate businesses, sent 9 million highly addictive hydrocodone over two years to a town of 392 people. Where we need. It is unbelievable what is being sent. We have ongoing suits against drug suppliers. Are you involved . The dea does have a diversion strategy and a group that focuses on drug diversion. We are certainly aware insignificant proportion of the aioid drug problem is significant proportion of the opioid drug problem is a Prescription Drug problem. That is a significant portion of the problem. I believe we need to work with pharmaceutical manufacturers, distributors, pharmacists, doctors for those overprescribing and hold them accountable. Drug courts have had a tremendous impact on us. We are concerned about the drug courts, the funding of drug courts in our state and across the country. If you can tell me what your administration is supporting on drug courts, the expansion of drug courts, continuing support for drug courts. We are proposing funding for state, local, drug courts. That funding will enable them to develop and implement drug courts that includes Substance Abuse treatment and mandatory drug treatment, sanctions, and incentives with the goal to get people off of drugs. The comprehensive addiction and recovery act in which some people refer to as crar care. Thank you. Key is just yielding right back. Thank you deput the resources for the special counsel. You said more than once that you anticipate and you know the resources that would be needed for the full investigation will be there in full measure for the council, correct . What kind of oversight do you because we know as appropriators and folks looking over the budgets in on and one way to sqe or chase the direction is to have tighter oversight or to squeeze down on the resources available. Do you have the ability to do that or do you tell the director that he can basically have whatever resources he needs to have, who has the oversight of the budget . Within limits, the administrative officers felt if there was something inappropriate they would bring it to my attention but i dont expect that to happen. I think the resources will be reasonable and there will be no dispute. I would anticipate that as well. Thank you for the answer. The attorney general sessions to talk about the 360 seems to be a good program thats gotten off to a great start. Im not sure that it is least defensiblit is found in. They are the challenges with fentanyl. People will become increasingly aware with it over the years because it is an emerging threat with small quantities that can be very dangerous. It can be sent in the mail and we are aware that it is coming into the United States primarily in two ways. Through the Mexican Border and by mail with china, so we need to work with the dea and the Postal Inspection Service and i think also with authorities we need to get help in china and mexico to deal with them. It is at the top of my agenda as ive been in the job only six week but ive already talked with a number of folks including the administrator and we are going to find a way to combat that threat. It also affects First Responders who got the cleanup seem, everything was clean but then at some point something came off his glove and he had to be revised with just a miniscule exposure to something dangerous. You are alsthere are also i am e of the background check fbi facilities located in virginia, and it is processing millions of background checks. I am concerned in the budget it was implemented for the fees collected that they previously used to update. We know how important the it infrastructure is to get it right in this important issue. What can you say about that with your department, and do you feel, what would they have over that . Im not sure that i know about the recession. I would be happy to look into it for you. I dont have any information about it. Let me ask another question. Weve been hearing about the backlog and the department of justice, well they reversed the trend expressed by the committee affirming a stronger commitment to increase the necessary resources for this particular purpose and direction we are committed to working with our state, local and travel partners to include other forensics testing that includes 500 million for the other programs and specifically with regards to your question it that includes 45 million for the national assault alleged to be socalled sanctuary cities under 18 usc section 1373. We sent letters to ten jurisdictions and these were those that had been inspected last year as the jurisdictions of the Inspector General and nearby potentially in violation of their obligation under the grant to comply with federal law so we notified all ten localities. I would hope that we would have those responses by the end of the month. Which three have you heard back from . Have you heard from new orleans . Wouldve a jurisdictionwith a jw orleans comes back to you and says they are in compliance, take my word for it. As with all of our primary dealing with governments, the primary check is the Self Certification that they apply to the grant requirements there is an auditing capacity so in some cases, there may be reviews and if they found violations we would have to deal with the applications as we do in ordinary grants. I dealt with matters in which the grant recipients violated the question of the appropriate remedy. So, there is a potential for auditing and oversight we have received from the staff new orleans is one of the free and they have responded and certified and it is complying. The other two are in nevada and the state of connecticut. I want to be sure may i call you general . I want to be sure to understand. The department sent letters to the ten jurisdictions that have alleged to be sanctuary cities. Are you a sanctuary city, and you expect they bring you back and say no. Are you complying with 1373 the sanctuary whether it is defined as a sanctuary city is a different issue. The question is are you complying with 1373. Its not. Is of course about immigration versus illegal immigration but its also about respect from the law. On the one hand it says im in complete compliance with section 1373 im not a sanctuary city but on the other hand is as a i refuse to be a part of the Deportation Force a. This is america you can believe what you want to believe that we are a nation of laws. That bothered me. So, what is going to be done to develop . Let me make a prediction. All of the cities are going to stay down on compliance. I want to make sure that i clarify this. If somebody certifies to the department of justice compliance we expect them to be in compliance so it would be a serious matter if somebody sends a certification to be signed by a person and they need to be confident that they are right if somebody signs a certification compliance we will review them because theyve been identified by the Inspector General where there was concern he will review the submissions and if they are not in compliance therefore they are in violation of the contract we will pursue appropriate remedies that could be pre terminating the contract or the funds so it is a serious matter. Ive gone over but over what period of time are you going to check the comply in the ordinary grants that you process, theres a lot of conditions and there is a review process in that department with other grantmaking components there is a potential for the investigations by the Inspector General so we do review those in the ordinary course and on a prospective basis we will require the certifications and jurisdictions in compliance with 1373, and i am hopeful that if people were not following the law in the first place they will certify and change the practices so that they are following in the future. Thank you mr. Chairman and thank you for your indulgence and allowing me to go over. Thank you mr. General. You lost a little time. Is fine. He was going to visit with the president. Thank you so much for being here. I just want to echo first with my colleagues have set up the drug courts on both sides of the aisle. That is something that really does reduce recidivism and does a great job. In arkansas both the regular drug court and also the veteran drug courts working with the pa and usinvaand using the resourct they have it is just a Great Partnership thats making a big difference. I am pleased that they are reinvesting this strategy that targets Violent Crime and i understand that you created a Violent Crime Strategy Task force. Can you elaborate on the details including what agencies are playing what polls and do you ru have the necessary resources to carry out the mission which is so very important . With comparing the Violent Crime as i know you are aware in 2015 and increased by more than 3 which to put that in context its the largest increase theyve experienced since 1991 nationwide. In 2015 and increased by 11 which was the largest increase since 1971, so we consider this to be an urgent problem for us. The attorney general established a task force on the Public Safety and the task force is drawing the expertise from throughout the department to come up with strategies, and we have a number of proposals, some of them which are in this budget that would help us to reinvigorate the fight against Violent Crime including, i am hopeful we will be able to reinstitute what was referred to as the project safe neighborhood i was involved in back when i first became u. S. Attorney. State and local partners they deal with a large volume of offenders, people that have committed crimes who are drug addicts. In the federal system when we are prosecuting the cases that are distributors, we deal with a different type of defendant for the state and local partners they are able to help those folks overcome their drug addiction, they will be able to reduce crime so i think it is critically important to support those efforts. Very good. Chairing the Homeland Security appropriations subcommittee one of my concerns is the number of Immigration Judges we have about a 500,000 backlog and i think theres 75 million to put more resources and judges. Can you talk a little bit about that and the efforts that youre making in that regard and kind of put the plan is to eliminate the backlog how youre going to resource those judges. There are two ways we are acting on for the backlog. First is filling existing vacancies because there was a delay in filling the immigration judge vacancies as they arose and so we had a lot of judicial slots that were already funded both were vacant and now we are moving quickly to fill those positions and in addition to that, the budget request of 500 million for the office and the department is called the executive Office Review that is the office that handles those cases and that will include 75 million for new judges, 75 new judges and a total of 450 staff which includes the folks that support those judges and so once we get all those folks out into the field, we anticipate we will be able to make a big impact on the backlog of representing 21 increase in the staff and would be able to adjudicate those resources i believe much more fair and expeditiously and in addition to that we are working to fill 36 vacancies that already exist and weve already hired 38 Immigration Judges this year, and we hope to have all of the 345 judicial slots filled by the end of the here. Are you going to realign or are you in the process of realigning where they are as . Conferencing things like that, do we use this kind of technologys . We are looking at a alignment of the judges and putting them into places that are more valuable. I do hope to look at ways that we can operate more efficiently. You mentioned teleconferencing technology to move the cases quicker. It isnt good for anybody to have the cases pending for so long. The director of the preview now has an acting director and i plan to work closely with him and his successor when we appoint a permanent director and the challenge ive given to him as lets fill the vacancies but also figured out if there are efficiencies to move the cases through the system more quickly because i think it is in everybodys interest. The Justice Department holds over 4 billion in the funds that are set up. The department is now in year number six of the fund, and to date to my knowledge no assets have been disbursed to the victims. In addition, the report indicates that the special master of the fund has collected over 40 million in fees. Questions have been raised about the methodology of making the distributions to determine the validity of the claims that these methodologies are unorthodox so they are not working if theres been no distribution. What the department began kind to review this matter in other words look at this as something wrong and see ways that they can be made more quickly and efficiently because the fund was set up to compensate the victims. Youve been a prosecutor. Will you comment on that . From the perspective of the prosecutors and the agents one of the most important things we can do is reimburse victims. That was the purpose of the fund. We should do it as quickly as possible. I just turned about this issue this week so i need to look into it a bit more but my understanding is the problem here was the volume of the claims that we received i understand 65,000 claims, so it is a process that each one of those dealt with individually and then we dont distribute the money until we are confident about the pool of people that ought to receive it. So i do appreciate your concern and i can commit to you we will look into that and see why it is taking so long. Will you get back to the committee on this . Its been raised by a number of people. Will you do that . My understanding is we have begun to notify the claimants so there are some people who are getting answers from us but i will report back to you on that. Counterterrorism, how does the departments budget particularly the funding for the fbi and prove its partnership with the United Kingdom and other partners in the global war on terror, and what benefits do you feel will come from the new Bilateral Agreement between the u. S. And the uk to expand the data sharing in this area . National security is the highest priority. The key is to work with our partners in foreign countries, that is critically important. With regards to this issue in the Bilateral Agreement in the u. S. And uk that is critical to allow us to efficiently access electronic data sharing is critical in one of the challenges is we share the data and we need to maintain the confidentiality. What we introduced last month was a legislative proposal to enable the Bilateral Agreements and the benefits would include helping allies investigate and fight those that have information it may be lawful and one but not another s limited ts Bilateral Agreement process will allow us to bring them into harmony reducing the incentive to the localized data by the companies, so we look forward to working with the congress and we look forward to addressing any other concerns you may have about it. In the area of cybersecurity the past couple of years we have all witnessed a series data breaches occurring in the u. S. Government and also the private sector, including some of the nations Largest Companies and financial institutions. The department is requesting additional funding in the year 2018 budget to combat cyber crime across several agencies including the fbi and National Security division and the Criminal Division and attorneys offices. What is the department proposing to combat cyber crime that its unable to publish with existing funds. There are some changes in technology that are actually developed in an effort to end debate could defeat endorsement ever thinks of the enhancements include 41. 5 million to enhance the cyber efforts. That will include the technological tools and expanding the highspeed networks and includes 20 million to address threats posed by foreign intelligence and insiders and 22 million to address a problem that is the most significant Law Enforcement challenge. This technology is a tremendous challenge for us because they we always trying to stay a step ahead of us in this epidemic as you may be aware in New Hampshire we are second only to West Virginia in terms of the percentage of Overdose Deaths that we have ended this year sadly we have seen it arrived in New Hampshire and had six people die in the state. I guess i just disagree with you in a couple of areas. One is on the eliminating the task force grants program. Senator feinstein talked about her efforts to focus which has been successful. Hes been able to direct some support to local Law Enforcement and a while i think a lot of our agents and federal Law Enforcement officials do a great job we dont have as many of them in New Hampshire as we do local and we need to provide some resources for the local Law Enforcement because they are the people that day in and day out are on the frontline so i would urge you to go back to think of eliminating the task force, the antiheroine Task Force Program is what we are trying to accomplish and i would also ask what youre doing to address you talked about meeting china are what we are seeing from a mail order drugs coming into the United States. Theres a story this weekend by the New York Times reporting on the dark web thats being used. Can you tell me what youre doing to shut down those sites . For the task forces on the point i would like to make is we have different ways of addressing the same issue but we are committed to spending the same resources. Can i just interrupt you because the other issue thats been brought up by several of my colleagues has been the drug courts which we found to be very effective in New Hampshire yet youve reduced funding in the 2018 budget. I have a number. From 43 million to 4 billion. And while it may not seem like a lot of money come in New Hampshire that is a lot of money. That is a lot of money to me also, senator and it does reflect the commitment on our confidence that the program can be effective and im sure if the program is funded we will work with the office of Justice Programs to make sure tha that s a spenspent effectively. To address the question on china, ive been in this job for six weeks, have not met with china but i do hope to talk with the dea and the Postal Inspection Service and any other federal agencies that have a stake in this to figure out what we can do. The problem with the story that you are referring to is that its a very effective tool for criminals to commit a crime with limited ability to be detected, but we do have ways to catch those criminals. We had a case just a couple years ago involving a dark website in which the defendant was caught and successfully prosecuted in new york and will no longer be in the position to use the internet at the tool to distribute drugs and facilitate other crimes, so we do have the ability to catch the offenders but it is challenging because the technological burdens. But i will work with fbi, dea, secret service and other agencies to do everything we can to get ahead of the problem. Thank you. If there are legal changes in the policy i hope you will share that with us so we can try to support your efforts. With the move tlet me move to ac very quickly because in april the Marshal Service publicly released the detail for the education secretary to be 1 million a month. By the end of september this is going to triple 8 million. I just wonder if you can tell us why the Marshal Service is playing the role in her protective detail i understand four to eight deputy marshals at a time on the detail when the department of education has their own security team. Can you tell me who made this determination about why this was necessary and my understanding is the only time that this has ever been done before was for the drugs are in the 90s. I do not know and the decision was made before i was confirmed by would like to get back to you. I was a governor and ive had Credible Threats against me. Ive never had four to eight people on my detail 24 hours a day. Thank you mr. Chairman. Deputy attorney general, i appreciate the chance to talk with you about some of the budgetary details relating to the department of justice. First, just to follow up on a number of senators have talked with you about the crisis i would commend to you to stop acts of the bipartisan bill led by the senators. Many of us are cosponsors many i saw concluded that tries to deal with some of the issues around the shipment into the United States and to strengthen some of our abilities. On the appropriations subcommittee where i am the ranking, we have responsibility for the office of National Drug control policy. Its not the subject of this hearing today but i do intend to push back on the elimination of the funding because i think that its been particularly helpful. The Bullet Proof Vest Program is a program i wont support it and its given roughly 13,000 jurisdictions bulletproof vests that are anatomically appropriate to the current best technology for the federal role is making sure that they are highperforming bulletproof vests and theyve literally saved the lives of Law Enforcement officials, some of whom i know personally from a home state. Im pleased to maintain funding for this important funding that makes it a carveout in the Justice System grant rather than being funded separately as it has been the case in the past to be at the partnership is a carveout of the justice Assistance Grant program, so effectively, the two programs would cut the justice assistant grand by 45 million by carving the amount rather than having them separately funded on top of the 71 million. In the budget focus on addressing Violent Crime in a supporting Law Enforcement, why did the Administration Resources for state and local Law Enforcement by making the bulletproof vest a carveout of the Larger Program rather than funding them separately . My understanding is that we have recommended 22. 5 for the program that i agree with important and as you pointed out it is consistent i and the amout allocated of the last two fiscal years. My understanding is that it set aside within the program, i dont know the technical reasons for that, but i can tell you that i think it is an Important Program and we have a budget that proposes to spend 22. 5 billion on the vests and if approved im sure we will. I look forward to working with you in a longterm predictable way. I was pointing out the production that joined the letter opposing the reduction is even greater because these are programs previously separately funded. In my hometown of wilmington and is one of the number of cities where weve seen a significant spike in Violent Crime and the Violence Reduction network was s an effective highimpact partnership between federal Law Enforcement and local Law Enforcement. To give an example before homicide clearance rates that jumped from below 20 to about 50 , and i want to specifically thank again the justice assistance and their Hardworking Team for their efforts that made possible the baltimore leader coming to wilmington and coordinating the whole series of Law Enforcement interventions that were cumulatively very powerful. In your response to the questions in the confirmation hearings that reducing Violent Crime would be a top priority and youve reviewed the funding in a variety of resources. Will you ensure the resources continue to assist the cities like wilmington who partnered and made progress and have shown themselves to be good partners with federal Law Enforcement into programs like they are in the past . Yes, senator. In fact i knew him from baltimore, and i worked with the department and the rollout. Very pleased the program was detected in wilmington. The author requesting funding of 5 million for the national Crime Reduction Assistance Network that is the formal name of the Violence Reduction network and i think that is a very important opportunity to consult. People have proven track records because we have a lot of committed Law Enforcement officers out there who will come those that come in and give a fresh look so i strongly support the program and we have a symposium maybe even next week that is part of the initiative and i do intend on making that a priority. Anything we can do to partner with federal Law Enforcement and municipalities that continue to see sustained and elevated and stubbornly difficult levels of crime to have gotten worse in the past year we have new leadership in the city and dedicated Law Enforcement officers and the previous chief was quite responsive but we need to continue to engage on this and i appreciate the investment in learning from and carrying forward what they were able to do. Thank you for appearing here today. If there are no further questions this afternoon, senators will have the ability to submit additional questions for iraq or that will b do thatt of the hearing record and we would request that enforcement answer the questions because some senators were in other committees today. The subcommittee stands in recess until thursday june 29 at 10 a. M. Where we will take the testimony of the acting administrator. The committee is adjourned. [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] cspans washington journal live every day with the news and policy issues that impact you. Newt gingrich talks about his new book understanding trump how president s past have shaped his life and governing. And discussing the book economy, how consumers are transforming the lives of animals. Describing what change in our political coulter means for liberalism and western values. Watch cspans washington journal at 7 00 a. M. Join the discussion. Tomorrow on newsmakers, looking at congressional oversight of the Veterans Affairs department and the veterans accountability act which the house passed this week. He is a Ranking Member on the Veterans Affairs committee. Newsmakers sunday at 10 00 a. M. And 6 00 p. M. Eastern on cspan. This weekend, book tv on cspan two a Panel Discussion on race in america at 5 15 p. M. Eastern moderated by the Washington Bureau chief for American Radio Networks and the presidency in black and white. I remember this lady watching us, talking for us when we didnt have voices. Letting us know that we count and matter at a time when many of us were not at the table. If you dont have a seat at the table, bring a folding chair. Author of how exceptional they women lead, author of cant kill us all, and the author of are we better off . Sunday at 1 00 15 p. M. Eastern a poster prize winning with charlesaks gibson about his collection of speeches on american principles. I think the great president s through the years that have been avid readers of history, many of them wrote history, including john kennedy, even those who didnt have the benefit of a college education, like harry, read history all their lives. Like harry truman, read history all their lives. They realized it was essential to a leader, whether the presidency or any leadership. History matters. Go to book tv. Org for the complete schedule. Ts ier