On Wednesday the Department of Justice restarted a controversial federal program making it easier for state and local police to permanently take cash and property from people not charged with a crime.

Speaking before law enforcement officials, Attorney General Jeff Sessions described what he saw as the need for the program and offered up the rare full-throated defense of civil forfeiture at a time when it’s come under increasing criticism from the left, the right and center.

We’re annotating the Attorney General’s remarks below, using Genius.

ATTORNEY GENERAL SESSIONS: Good morning, and thank you all for being here. I especially want to thank our law enforcement partners like the Fraternal Order of Police, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Major City Chiefs Association, the IACP, and so many others from all over the country who are here. Thank you for your service to this country and for keeping us all safe.

As any of these law enforcement partners will tell you and as President Trump knows well, civil asset forfeiture is a key tool that helps law enforcement defund organized crime, take back ill-gotten gains, and prevent new crimes from being committed, and it weakens the criminals and the cartels. Even more importantly, it helps return property to the victims of crime. Civil asset forfeiture takes the material support of the criminals and instead makes it the material support of law enforcement, funding priorities like new vehicles, bulletproof vests, opioid overdose reversal kits, and better training. In departments across this country, funds that were once used to take lives are now being used to save lives.

It also removes the instrumentalities of crimes, such as illegal firearms, ammunition, explosives and property associated with child pornography from criminals—preventing them from being able to use these tools in further criminal acts.

President Trump has directed this Department of Justice to reduce crime in this country, and we will use every lawful tool that we have to do that. We will continue to encourage civil asset forfeiture whenever appropriate in order to hit organized crime in the wallet.

At the same time, we must protect the rights of the people we serve. Law-abiding people whose property is used without their knowledge or without their consent should not be punished because of crimes that others have committed.

Now, let me just say, in the vast majority of cases, this is not an issue. Our law enforcement officers do an incredible job. In fact, over the last decade, four out of five administrative civil asset forfeitures filed by federal law enforcement agencies were never challenged in court.

Even so, we must take every precaution to protect the rights of claimants in that small minority of cases.

And so today, the Department of Justice is issuing legal guidance that will clarify DOJ policy on the adoption of seized assets. It will return us to longstanding DOJ policy—and also provide additional, supplemental protections for law-abiding Americans. This will make us more effective at bankrupting organized criminals and at safeguarding the property of law-abiding Americans.

Under today’s guidance, the federal government will not adopt seized property unless the state or local agency involved provides information demonstrating that the seizure was justified by probable cause. We will accomplish this through a new adoption form that state and local law enforcement must fill out before we will agree to adopt any property, which will include the necessary information to allow Department lawyers to carefully review and determine whether adoption is proper. Further, law enforcement agencies who wish to participate in the Department’s Equitable Sharing Program now must now provide their officers with enhanced training on asset forfeiture laws.

The Department will adopt smaller seizures of cash—between $5,000 and $10,000—only if there exists some level of criminality or with the express concurrence of the U.S. Attorney’s office.

When I was in the Senate, I worked with Senator Schumer to make modifications to the civil asset forfeiture program. We required probable cause for the seizure of property. And we raised the burden on the government, who has the initial burden in all of these cases, to the same preponderance of the evidence standard used in all civil cases. In addition, if the government lost the case, then the government pays attorneys’ fees. I believe those were good reforms that strengthened the program.

Further, to better protect claimants, the Department will expedite the review of civil asset forfeiture cases. State and local law enforcement agencies requesting federal adoption must do so within 15 calendar days following the date of seizure. The adopting federal agency must then send notice to interested parties within 45 days of the date of seizure. This is twice as fast of a review as is required by statute. This streamlined process will ensure that people receive speedy resolutions of their cases, and that rightful owners will get their property back as soon as possible.

In addition to these safeguards on federal adoptions, I am asking Department attorneys to proceed with an abundance of caution when handling all forfeitures involving vehicles and especially residences. I think that Department attorneys should think hard before they agree to forfeit these types of property, or waive any asset thresholds associated with them. Just like with cash seizures, if we operate this program in a careful and responsible way, something I believe the American people expect and deserve with a program such as this, the Department’s federal asset forfeiture program will be an effective tool, while at the same time protecting the rights of property owners.

Finally, I am directing agencies and components adopting seized property to prioritize assets that will most effectively advance our overall goal of reducing violent crime. We need to send clear message that crime does not pay.

This policy is effective immediately and applies to all new requests for adoption.

With this new policy, the American people can be confident knowing that we are taking action to defund criminals and at the same time protecting the rights of law-abiding people.

BREAKING: Congressional budget analysts estimated Wednesday that a Senate plan to repeal part of the Affordable Care Act with no immediate replacement would increase the number of people without health coverage by 17 million next year and 32 million at the end of a decade. The forecast by the Congressional Budget Office of the impact on coverage of the Senate GOP’s latest health-care legislation is nearly identical to estimates the CBO made in January based on a similar bill that passed both the House and Senate in late 2015 – and was vetoed by then-President Barack Obama.

The new report also said the legislation would decrease federal deficits by $473 billion over that 10-year window.

The measure, which appears to have little chance of passing, would get rid of ACA premium subsidies as of 2020 and would eliminate the penalty most Americans face if they go without health insurance. It would end Medicaid expansion as of 2020 as well as repeal several of the ACA’s taxes. And the cost-sharing subsidies that have been paid to insurers to help lower-income consumers afford their deductibles and other health expenses would be repealed in 2020.

Hoping to avoid a humiliating political defeat, President Trump on Wednesday demanded that Republican senators resume their efforts to approve a plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act, insisting that lawmakers are “very close.”

A day after the GOP strategy to roll back the ACA appeared dead, Trump invited Republican senators to lunch at the White House and challenged them to work out an agreement even if it means remaining in Washington through their summer recess next month. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) had previously announced that the recess would be delayed by two weeks.

“People should not leave town unless we have a health insurance plan, unless we give our people great health care,” Trump said at the beginning of the lunch. “We’re close, very close … We have to hammer this out and get it done.”

The president’s effort to resurrect negotiations came a day after he declared that it was time to give up on the contentious process to overturn President Barack Obama’s signature legislative achievement and “let Obamacare fail.”

With Sen. Dean Heller (R-Nev.), a key vote who has wavered on the GOP’s repeal proposal, sitting to his right, Trump touted what he said were benefits of the plan — including the repeal of the individual mandate, expanded coverage options and getting rid of “burdensome taxes.”

The president appeared to issue a veiled threat that he would campaign against Republicans who stood in his way.

“He wants to remain a senator, doesn’t he?” Trump said with a laugh of Heller, who also chuckled. “And I think the people of your state, which I know very well, I think they’re going to appreciate what you hopefully will do.’’

Trump added: “Any senator voting against starting debate is telling the American people you’re fine with Obamacare.” But the current health-care law, approved in 2010, has “failed,” Trump declared. “It’s gone.”

Yet Trump’s remarks were sharply at odds with the comments from Senate GOP leaders over the past day who have said the reality is that there is not enough support for a replacement plan.

The effort by Senate Republicans to undo Obamacare has been fraught with internal divisions and apparent discord between the White House and GOP leaders. With little room for error, McConnell abruptly switched course Monday after several Republicans announced they would block efforts to vote on a replacement bill that, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would leave up to 22 million more Americans without health insurance.

Instead, McConnell announced plans to vote early next week on a straight repeal of the law with a two-year delay. But that strategy appeared doomed as at least three GOP members said they would oppose that course of action, enough to block it. A repeal of the ACA without a replacement plan would leave even more people uninsured, according to the CBO.

McConnell told reporters after the lunch that he still intends to hold the vote next week on a repeal plan, but other key senators suggested they would need an acceptable replacement before agreeing to move forward.

“I’m glad @POTUS agrees that we cannot move to repeal Obamacare without a replacement plan that addresses the needs of West Virginians,” Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.) wrote on Twitter.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, told reporters upon returning to the Capitol, “I don’t think there are 40 votes” for a repeal-only bill.

Marc Short, the White House’s legislative director, told reporters after the lunch that there was “general enthusiasm” among senators “that this is not something that we can walk away from . . .We are confident that we will get this bill passed.”