Forfeitur forfeitures. Im going to have an Accountability Office on all of these cases and we will not accept abuses of the law. Thank you very much. The chair recognizes the gentle woman from alabama, mrs. Robey for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. This is a great to have you here today. Were really excited to have the attorney general sessions and we just thank you for your many years of service to the state of alabama and now your continued work as our for our 98s as our attorney general. Ive known you a long time. You served our state and the people of alabama know you well. Weve heard a lot about russia and things you may or may not have heard and that somehow youre guilty of collusion with russia. So i have two questions for you. Have you ever worked with russians to influence an election. No. Have you ever in any capacity personally, politically or officially ever done anything to hurt our harm the National Security of the United States of america. I dont believe i have. Ive tried to protect the National Security of our country. Thank you. Thank you. I want to move on to a different subject. I was pleased to see that your first act, official act, after being sworn in as attorney general was to present President Trump an executive order to strengthen the enforcement of federal law on Trans National criminal organizations. This is an Important Initiative to curtail the International Trafficking of drugs, weapons and human beings, often victims of sex trafficking, including Young Children. One of the reasons that i was eager when asked to join the Judiciary Committee earlier in this congress was to work towards making a difference on this issue. We have worked with the department of justice already on some very important policy changes, particularly to our criminal code, to that effect. Both the house and the senate Judiciary Committees have held hearings regarding specifically the legal liability of websites hosting advertisements for prostitution to include the prostitution and abuse of children. Section 230 of the Communications Decency act shields websites such as back page, craig list, facebook, many other from legal liability regarding content posted by their users. We had a hearing on this. Im interesting in fining the right balance between protecting the freedom of expression and protecting the rights of Young Children that are victims, that are being abused without impacting the innovation of the internet. And so i would appreciate your thoughts on this issue. I know you were already asked a question specific to this. This is very important to get this right and do so working together. At the end of the day, we have to find a solution and we all want to do everything that we can to protect these children from these horrible, horrible abus abuses. Thank you very much. Its a valuable thing for us to address. Many recent days, ive talked about it with my staff. We havent formed a clear picture of where we will go. To the extend to which we can work with you on that, i would be pleased to. I do want to. Like i said, the most important thing here is that we get this right and strike that balance. Again, as a member of this committee to have this opportunity to fight for those that run able to fight for themselves is a tremendous privilege and i appreciate the partnership with the department making sure that we get this right. Thanks so much. We appreciate you. Thank you for your service. Thanks for your service to the state of alabama and the United States. No doubt. The chair recognizes the gentlemen from texas. Thank you. Attorney general sessions, always good to see you. Thank you. The short hearing looks like unless somebody else comes in. First of all, you know, seemed like to me, you got mistreated a little bit. There were questions about your answer that senator frankens question. Ive got a copy of what he said. Now, he is explaining his question. He said if theres evidence that anyone affiliated with the Trump Campaign communicated with the russian government in the course of this campaign, what will you do . Then we even had somebody offer into the record that mother jones basically said you lied. I would submit this committee doesnt need mother jones to inaccurately describe or depict or tell us what happened when we can look at the conversations, see for ourselves. Let me ask you. Was your meeting with the russian diplomats, was that in the course and scope of your obligations with the campaign or in the course and scope of your duty as a United States senator . Well, really they were mostly official business. As a u. S. Senator . I did speak at the Republican Convention but the conversation on the floor after i finished my remarks were brief. I was and then with regard to the meeting in my office, substantively essentially about Foreign Relations between the United States and so with you talking with them about the convention. It was not about the president ial campaign of donald trump. It was in your capacity as a United States senator, correct . Well, i think so. You can say i was invited for other reasons. When you had talked before about that you had consulted with the career people about whether or not to recuse yourself, can you tell us whether or not one of those people with whom you consulted was Rod Rosenstein . Yes, i could say how that occurred. Did you im just asking if you did. I was thinking out loud if thats consultive im not asking you to reveal what was said. I talked to another senior official in the department of justice who holds a position. He also consults others in the department before he makes opinions. Were you aware when you recused yourself of the investigation by the Justice Department into email accounts, was it your email accounts in the criminal complaint . No. Were you aware that s got a motion to seal here. I dont think so. Ill say it that way. Yeah, this was the investigation into russian trying to corner the market with u. S. Uranium. There is actually a motion to seal. Im sure you filed them many times as a u. S. Attorney. This was respectfully submitted rod j. Rosenstein, u. S. Attorney and adam ackey as the assistant u. S. Attorney asking judge connelly to have this russian investigation, the investigation into the russian effort to corner our market to seal those records. So you were not aware that rosensteined that had this prior dealing with russian uranium before you recused yourself, had you . You werent aware of that, right . My recusal that we made public was for the mueller investigation, the Campaign Russian mueller was appointed. But you werent aware that mueller had been central in the investigation before james comey took over the fbi september of 2013. So you were not aware of the Mueller Comey investigation into russian uranium, were you, before you recused yourself . I dont think so. No, i was not. I wasnt in the department of justice and was aware of that when it was going on. My time is running out here. We have a chart here that shows how integration the relationship with mr. Rosenstein, mr. Mueller into this whole uranium one thing. It stinks to high heaven and doesnt appear they ought to be involved in investigating. My time has run out. I appreciate your service. Thank you. I appreciate your service. Mr. Chairman, i would just note on that, the matter that was prosecuted concerning uranium and Russian Business Companies was two years after this investigation. Thats when mr. Rosenstein handled brought to his office. Didnt hit his office until two years afterwards. Really unrelated to the allegations about uranium one as i understand it. The gentleman from florida is recognized for five minutes. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney general, thanks for your service and your time here today. Ill try to make this as short as i can. But representing and speaking for the sheriffs across the country and other police as well, one of the issues that i know they have great concern about, theres your grand process, if you can have someone look at the situation where nonrelevant criteria are placed on grants to require agencies to meet some performance criteria. One i was familiar with is national implement management systems. Had nothing to do with the grant but put that as a criteria for a grant application. What it does, it takes away home rule from local Law Enforcement. I know several sheriffs and chiefs are concerned about that. Have you had any issues with that that youre aware of . The statute Congress Passed for the Grant Program allows the department of justice to place special conditions on grants. But the one we placed that deals in the future with sanctuary cities does is minimal, simply require as cooperative relationship where federal officials can go to the jail, and that the people at the jail can communicate with the federal Law Enforcement offices. Does not require the states to go arrest people or hold them past their release date. None of those things. Its a very reasonable thing. May still be some conditions on those grants from previous administrations. But thats the one i think that we have added to it. Well, i can tell you, that is not the one that im concerned about. Okay. In fact, the sheriffs and chiefs that ive spoken to have supported that whole heartedly. I will be glad to look at that. The other issue, if they can force you to be nims compliant, they can force you to carry revolvers versus semiautomatics, it goes down a slippery slope. More important than that, i wanted to talk to you briefly about the vipr program under tsa. Visible intermodal prevention and response teams. They work surface transportation. Some around our rail or buses or subways, those sorts of things. There was a move at one time actually by tsa to move the vipr operations out on public roads and highways. Theres a lot of pushback within local Law Enforcement on those issues as well. Have you looked into that, the legality of it . Clearly those searches that you go through and every air traveler in america has been through that. Its a suspicionless search that you go through at the airport, as you know. Its based on special needs out of a Supreme Court decision that suspends the fourth amendment. Under those special needs, that is you have a significant threat. You have a verifiable threat to Public Safety. None of that exists on those public roads. Now, if there was a specific threat, then i dont think anybody would have issue with that. However, thats never been the case. In fact, i was told they want to do that for training purposes within tsa. And that, i think, should be unacceptable. I have not looked at that. Because theyre not in the department of justice. We may have legal opinions that could be relevant to that. I have not engaged in that issue, congressman. Thats why i bring it up here today, to see what is your legal opinion of those suspicionless searches by tsa without the special needs concerns out of that Supreme Court decision about significant risk and the verifiable Public Safety threat. All right. If you can look into that id appreciate that. Ill ask about it. I will. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, i yield back. Thank you. I recognize the gentleman from new york to place in the record. I ask to place in the record an article from todays washington as entitled, has Jeff Sessions has the worlds worst memory or what. Without objection. And a parliamentary inquirin. And i want to put in the record, Senate Judiciary hearing on the nomination of the attorney general and october 18, 2017, a judiciary hearing on oversight of the Justice Department. Parliamentary inquiry is to without objection. Thank you. General said a number of things i hope we can Work Together on. But in particular, parliamentary inquiry to put in the record and require an answer to the creation of a task force on sexual crimes against children i dont think thats a parliamentary inquiry objection. If i can put it in the record please. Its a parliamentary inquiry objection im sorry . The parliamentary inquiry is that we will have an opportunity for questions to be put in the record on the 702 reauthorization regarding sharing of information with a foreign entity that interfered with the election. You can submit questions. Thank you. I yield back. Thank you. I recognize myself for five minutes. General sessions, you have to know that i hold you in tremendously high regard. I know youve had a bumpy ride. Theres some of us that appreciate who you are. With that as the Justice Department knows, the house and senate have conducted investigations into the illegal sale of little body parts of little babies by some planned parenthood executives, as made clear via undercover videos that surfaced two years ago. According to a report yesterday published in the hill, the fbi sought documents the senate obtained from abortion providers as a result of the sale of these little body parts. If the fbi last requested what is several thousand pages of testimony and findings the senate has gathered through their investigation of planned parenthood, that could mean there could be readying indictments of individuals that have sold these body parts for profit. Generally speaking, are findings made by any senate investigation, any subsequent referral sufficient evidence for the Justice Department to bring charges upon any party guilty of violating federal law . Depends on the substance of those congressional findings. They certainly can provide a basis for starting an investigation. Verifying the findings of the congress and could provide a basis for charges. I hope i think thats an appropriate way for us to relate to one another. Yes, sir. I hope the Justice Department will take a very close look at the evidence that the senate is providing to the fbi. Given the standard that you have personally demonstrated for recusal to avoid the appearance of partiality, it seems clear to me, my opinion, that mr. Mueller should recuse himself based on your standard here from investigating involving russian collusion a long time ago. They my perspective. I have suggested many times that the existing russia trump investigation that mr. Mueller is conducting is a snipe hunt. As many of the members of this committee have indicated, however, there does seem to be damning evidence related to russia and Hillary Clintons state department. If theres as much evidence in my judgment against the president as we have against the Obama Administration and mrs. Clinton, im afraid mr. Trump would have been burned at the stake by now. Theres a clear inequity. The fbi and the department of energy Court Documents detail an extensive coordinated scheme of kim backs, extortion and general wrong doing related to the acquisition of a uranium Trucking Firm in the Canadian Mining Company uranium one but the russian company. The fbi obtained an eye witness account routing millions of dollars to the u. S. Which benefitted the Clinton Foundation. Despite this evidence, rather than bring charges in 2010, that was not on your watch, the fbi continued the investigation for four more years and allowed the acquisition of 20 percent of our strategic uranium supply to take place without informing congress. The head of the fbi was robert mueller. So general sessions, my question is sort of one for the record here. I think committee is about to close up here. What do you think the Justice Department can do to correct this seeming lack of or reversal of priority here and what appears to be to some to be an injustice . How can we look at the evidence and the facts for what they are and do what appears to be the right thing . Well, you have raised a question that we have much, much going on in the department of justice. Yesterday i sent i believe to you and to the chairman 15 or more members of this committee a response to a request that you made some time ago that were going to bring in independent prosecutors to review a host of matters out there so i can look you in the eye and tell you that weve done the right thing and weve done an objective evaluation of matters that have been raised and raised by this committee and hopefully we can decide if theres some matters that need to be investigated, some might need to be closed, some night need more money and resources and agents. I feel like thats my responsibility. I dont believe that is a giving in to politics. I believe that i should evaluate your request on the merits. You raised some matters that i think im dutybound to respond to. Well, general sessions, ill just put it like this. That sounds pretty good to me. I appreciate you appearing for the committee today. We have other i dont have a question. The battle is over. They always show up for dinner. I was going to ask unanimous consent since theres been this stir about senators meeting or not meeting with russians. I would ask, have this part of the record, it is article from march 3, 2017, katie pavlich. Its a list of democrats who also met with the Russian Ambassador and also this article from june 26 regarding senator mccaskil