Acting Attorney General Blanche Testifies on Oversight of Justice Department

[0:00] Committee hearing, where Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche is testifying before Congress. [0:05] This is his first time appearing since taking over for former Attorney General Pam Bondi [0:09] at the Justice Department. [0:11] This is live coverage. [0:12] The FBI, U.S. Marshal Service, ATF, and DEA. [0:21] That was a very good hearing, General, and I appreciate your allowing their presence [0:26] here in advance of your appearance today. [0:29] I appreciate the Department's participation as we work to complete our budget hearings [0:32] and draft the FY27 CGS bill. [0:36] Attorney Blanche, I appreciate your support for law enforcement in the states, and I look [0:42] forward to welcoming you to Kansas in the future. [0:46] Overall, DOJ is requesting an increase of approximately $4.7 billion, or roughly 12 to 13 percent, [0:53] above FY26 enacted levels. [0:56] Much of that request reflects the reality that after several years of effectively flat [1:00] funding, all while facing inflationary costs, many of the department's components were under [1:06] significant strain. [1:07] Last year, I worked with my colleagues. [1:09] This committee worked together to maintain critical funding for both federal law enforcement [1:13] agencies and the state and local departments that continue to serve as the backbone of public [1:18] safety in communities across Kansas and the country. [1:22] Attorney General, I saw the note in your written remarks about what a serious challenge FY26 resources [1:27] have been and will continue to be. [1:30] I particularly understand the enormous strain that the Bureau of Prisons, the One Beautiful [1:35] Bill Act provided $5 billion to BOP for both recruitment and retention of staff and to address [1:41] severe maintenance backlog. [1:43] Additionally, the department is requesting an increase of $2.2 billion, or 27 percent, [1:49] for BOP. [1:50] I assume that this reflects serious ongoing resource challenges. [1:55] At the same time, I have some concerns about cuts proposed to the department's three grant-making [1:59] offices that grants administered by these offices provide significant support for state and [2:04] local law enforcement, juvenile delinquency prevention, support for victims and the safety of [2:08] our nation's police and deputy sheriffs. [2:12] For example, this budget proposes a cut to youth mentoring programs. [2:16] This would have a significant impact on those organizations that mentor and operate in Kansas [2:22] and across the country. [2:24] Veteran treatment courts have been a program that I have been particularly interested in [2:27] as I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. [2:30] I have worked closely with many in Kansas and across the country in regard to VTCs. [2:37] The Violence Against Women program is facing a cut which would have serious impacts on victims [2:41] and the services provided to victims through organizations such as the Kansas Coalition Against [2:46] Sexual and Domestic Violence. [2:49] I agree the department requires additional resources to fulfill its mission and keep our communities [2:53] safe. [2:54] This is especially true for our federal law enforcement agencies, U.S. Attorney's offices, and the Bureau [2:59] of Prisons. [3:01] As this committee evaluates the department's request, we also have a responsibility to examine [3:06] whether reductions to many of these community-based programs could ultimately place additional [3:10] strains on law enforcement and local communities in the longer term. [3:15] Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the department's resource needs [3:19] and your FY27 request. [3:21] And I would recognize Senator Van Hollen for his opening statement. [3:24] SEN. [3:25] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:26] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:27] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:28] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:30] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:31] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:32] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:33] SEN. [3:34] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:35] SEN. [3:36] SEN. [3:37] SEN. [3:38] VAND HOLLEN, SEN. [3:39] SEN. [3:40] SEN. [3:41] SEN. [3:42] SEN. [3:43] SEN. [3:44] SEN. [3:46] SEN. [3:47] SEN. [4:09] SEN. [4:10] SEN. [4:11] SEN. [4:12] SEN. [4:13] SEN. [4:14] SEN. [4:15] SEN. [4:16] SEN. [4:17] SEN. [4:18] SEN. [4:19] SEN. [4:20] SEN. [4:21] SEN. [4:22] SEN. [4:23] SEN. [4:24] SEN. [4:25] SEN. [4:26] SEN. [4:27] SEN. [4:28] SEN. [4:29] SEN. [4:30] SEN. [4:31] SEN. [4:32] SEN. [4:33] SEN. [4:34] SEN. [4:35] SEN. [4:36] was rigged against Trump. [4:39] And here you are at a budget hearing [4:40] asking for taxpayer funds [4:42] to pursue the department's mission [4:44] when you're using those funds [4:46] to punish Trump's adversaries, [4:48] reward his friends, [4:50] and pursue his personal vendettas. [4:53] It began with pardoning the rioters [4:55] who stormed the Capitol on January 6 [4:57] and assaulted police officers. [5:00] The revenge continued [5:01] with the firing of more than a dozen lawyers [5:03] who represented the Justice Department [5:07] in those cases. [5:09] Yesterday, you created a $1.8 billion slush fund [5:13] to dole out taxpayer dollars [5:15] to the president's supporters, [5:16] including those who attacked this Capitol [5:18] on January 6. [5:20] That is pure theft of public funds. [5:25] And rewarding individuals [5:26] who committed crimes is obscene. [5:29] Every American can see through [5:31] this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme. [5:34] You have also misspent resources [5:36] on the blatant political prosecutions [5:38] of James Comey and others. [5:40] You couldn't find a single career lawyer [5:43] to bring the first case against Comey. [5:45] And lawyers resigned [5:46] rather than participate in that charade. [5:48] Now you've launched [5:50] a ludicrous, vindictive prosecution [5:52] in the Sechell case. [5:54] It's a shameful dereliction [5:55] of your duty to pursue impartial justice [5:58] without fear or favor. [6:01] You've also brought criminal charges [6:02] against journalists [6:03] who were doing their jobs in Minneapolis. [6:05] You've refused to hold accountable [6:07] the DHS agents [6:08] who shot and killed Rene Good. [6:10] Instead, while members of the administration [6:12] called both Rene Good [6:13] and Alex Preddy domestic terrorists, [6:16] you ordered a criminal investigation [6:18] of Rene Good's partner. [6:21] Hardworking professional attorneys resigned [6:23] rather than engage [6:25] in that abuse of power. [6:27] Others in the department [6:28] have been fired [6:29] for telling the truth to the courts, [6:32] an insidious message [6:33] to send to officers of the court. [6:35] You have fired immigration judges [6:37] who rendered decisions [6:38] the administration didn't like, [6:41] more gross political interference [6:42] in what is supposed to be [6:44] an independent process. [6:46] All told, [6:47] DOJ lost over 8,500 staff last year [6:52] and nearly one-quarter of its lawyers. [6:55] It's so bad [6:57] that you're now offering [6:58] $25,000 signing bonuses [7:00] and hiring prosecutors [7:02] with no prior legal experience, [7:05] seeking applicants [7:06] who personally pledge support [7:07] to the president. [7:09] You've also refused [7:10] to share with members of Congress [7:11] the Office of Legal Counsel's [7:13] purported legal justification [7:14] for the blatantly illegal war [7:16] the president [7:17] and prime minister Netanyahu [7:18] started in Iran. [7:20] You have clear conflicts of interest [7:24] between your prior job [7:26] as the president's personal lawyer [7:28] and your duty to ensure justice. [7:30] This is especially true [7:32] with respect to the cases [7:33] of the survivors [7:34] of the heinous crimes [7:35] committed by Jeffrey Epstein. [7:37] Many of those survivors [7:38] are in New York City today [7:40] as we speak [7:42] as part of a 24-hour public reading [7:44] of the Epstein files, [7:46] many reading excerpts [7:47] from their own FBI 302 reports [7:50] documenting the abuses [7:51] they endured. [7:53] These survivors have tried [7:54] to share their stories with you. [7:57] Instead, you spent two days [7:59] interviewing his convicted associate, [8:02] Jelaine Maxwell, [8:03] and shortly thereafter, [8:04] she was moved [8:05] to a lower security prison camp [8:07] with special perks. [8:10] Mr. Blanche, [8:10] the record is crystal clear. [8:13] You are still acting [8:14] as the president's personal lawyer, [8:17] not as acting attorney general. [8:20] It is hard to justify [8:21] giving you any funds [8:23] that will enable [8:24] this pattern of wrongdoing [8:26] to continue. [8:28] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:31] Senator Van Hollen, thank you. [8:32] Senator Collins, [8:32] you have an opening statement? [8:34] I don't, Mr. Chairman. [8:36] I look forward to asking questions [8:38] after hearing from the witness. [8:41] Thank you. [8:42] Thank you, Senator Collins, [8:43] for joining us. [8:43] With that, general, [8:44] you are recognized [8:45] for your opening statement. [8:47] Thank you very much, [8:49] Senator Moran. [8:51] Good morning to all of you, [8:53] ranking mentor Van Hollen, [8:54] Senator Collins. [8:55] Senator Moran, good morning. [8:57] Thank you for the opportunity [8:58] to present [8:59] President Trump's fiscal year [9:01] 2027 budget [9:02] for the Department of Justice. [9:03] As Senator Moran noted, [9:07] the request totals [9:07] $41.2 billion, [9:09] a 13% increase [9:11] over fiscal year 2026. [9:13] This underscores [9:14] our department's [9:16] renewed focus [9:18] on reducing violent crime, [9:19] combating the fentanyl crisis, [9:20] strengthening border [9:21] and immigration enforcement, [9:23] expanding fraud prevention [9:25] and ensuring [9:25] our law enforcement agencies [9:27] have the resources [9:28] they need [9:28] to protect the American people. [9:31] Violent crime reduction [9:32] remains [9:33] one of the department's [9:34] highest priorities. [9:36] Since January 20th [9:37] of last year, [9:39] the DOJ has indicted [9:40] hundreds of members of TDA, [9:43] crippling their leadership [9:44] and dismantling [9:45] operational networks. [9:47] Across our major [9:48] law enforcement components, [9:50] the results have also been historic. [9:54] Federal law enforcement [9:55] helped drive a 20% decrease [9:57] in the national murder rate [9:58] in 2025, [9:59] arrested 44,000 [10:02] violent offenders, [10:04] which is double the prior year, [10:05] by the way, [10:06] and seized over [10:07] 2,200 kilograms of fentanyl. [10:11] Last year, [10:11] law enforcement captured [10:12] eight of the FBI's [10:14] 10 most-wanted fugitives, [10:17] located 6,300 missing children [10:19] and arrested [10:20] more than 2,000 [10:21] child predators. [10:24] The DEA has made [10:25] thousands of fentanyl-related arrests [10:27] and seized millions [10:28] of fentanyl pills [10:29] and hundreds of kilograms [10:30] of fentanyl powder. [10:32] In one August surge alone, [10:35] DEA executed [10:36] over 600 arrests, [10:38] seized multi-ton quantities [10:39] of narcotics [10:40] and recovered [10:41] more than $11 million [10:42] in drug proceeds. [10:45] With 82 offices [10:46] in 62 countries [10:47] and 26 U.S. field divisions, [10:49] DEA continues to disrupt [10:51] global supply chains [10:52] from source to street [10:54] of illegal narcotics. [10:56] The U.S. Marshal Service, [10:58] one of the smallest [10:58] federal agencies, [11:00] law enforcement agencies, [11:01] with roughly 3,800 deputies, [11:03] arrested more than [11:04] 73,000 fugitives last year, [11:08] conducted 308,000 [11:10] prisoner movements [11:10] and housed over 55,000 detainees [11:13] and provided protection [11:14] for 18 federal protectees, [11:17] including Supreme Court justices [11:18] and their residences. [11:19] The marshals also manage [11:22] over $10 billion [11:24] in seized assets [11:25] and are obviously essential [11:27] to federal judicial security. [11:31] ATF continues to be a leader [11:32] in the federal effort [11:33] to combat violent firearms crime. [11:36] Since January of last year, [11:38] ATF has arrested [11:39] more than 8,700 violent offenders [11:42] and seized nearly 44,000 firearms, [11:45] including 5,100 [11:46] which were interdicted [11:48] before reaching Mexico, [11:51] which was their intended destination. [11:53] ATF agencies [11:54] 2.7 million rounds [11:56] of ammunition, [11:58] more than 28,000 [11:59] illegal explosives [12:00] and conducted [12:00] over 3,500 arson [12:03] and explosives investigations. [12:05] They process [12:07] hundreds of thousands [12:08] of traces every year, [12:10] 856,000 last year alone. [12:13] and are continuing [12:14] to do great work. [12:16] To sustain [12:16] these historic results, [12:18] the fiscal year [12:18] 2027 budget [12:19] includes $22.2 billion [12:22] for DOJ's [12:23] law enforcement components [12:25] and U.S. attorney's offices. [12:27] This is a 16% increase [12:28] over fiscal year 26, [12:31] and these investments [12:32] will build [12:32] on our tremendous progress [12:34] and continue [12:35] and will ensure [12:36] our continued momentum [12:37] in violent crime reduction [12:39] nationwide. [12:40] We are also strengthening [12:42] immigration enforcement efforts. [12:44] The Executive Office [12:46] for Immigration Review [12:47] has completed [12:48] well over 1 million [12:49] immigration cases [12:49] and reduced backlog [12:51] by more than [12:52] 447,000 cases [12:54] since President Trump [12:55] took office last year. [12:58] This budget provides [12:59] for $899 million [13:00] for Eeyore. [13:02] This is to continue [13:03] rebuilding our workforce [13:04] and modernizing [13:05] our case processing systems. [13:08] Across the department, [13:09] nearly $4 billion supports [13:10] immigration-related [13:13] enforcement activities. [13:15] Finally, the department [13:16] launched the National Fraud [13:17] Enforcement Division [13:18] earlier this year [13:20] to expand federal [13:21] fraud enforcement [13:22] and better protect [13:23] taxpayer-funded programs. [13:26] The budget includes [13:27] $30 million [13:27] to hire 100 attorneys [13:29] and enhance data analytics [13:31] capabilities [13:32] to combat large-scale [13:33] criminal fraud schemes. [13:35] DOJ is also modernizing [13:37] the grants process [13:38] by consolidating [13:39] COPS, OJP, [13:40] and OVW [13:41] into the new [13:42] Bureau of Justice Grants, [13:43] providing a unified [13:44] and simplified approach [13:46] to federal grant-making [13:47] while obviously [13:48] continuing to preserve [13:50] the mission, [13:51] important missions, [13:52] of each office. [13:54] The department [13:55] faces serious [13:56] budgetary constraints. [13:58] Fiscal year 2026 [14:00] marked the second year [14:01] of flat budgets [14:02] for several components, [14:04] basically equating [14:05] to a decrease [14:06] in funding [14:06] because costs [14:07] and expenses [14:08] increase every year, [14:10] but the budget [14:11] remained flat. [14:11] The Bureau of Prisons [14:14] remains under-resourced, [14:17] funded at $8.1 billion, [14:19] almost $300 million [14:20] below fiscal year 2025, [14:23] and risks insolvency [14:25] without additional support. [14:26] The president's request [14:27] of $10.3 billion [14:29] for the Bureau of Prisons [14:30] is essential [14:30] to restore staffing [14:31] and maintaining [14:32] safe and secure [14:33] federal facilities. [14:36] In closing, [14:37] the fiscal year 2027 [14:38] budget reflects [14:39] our unwavering commitment [14:40] to public safety, [14:42] strong law enforcement [14:43] partnerships, [14:44] and responsible stewardship [14:45] of taxpayer dollars. [14:48] With your combined [14:49] continued support, [14:50] the Department of Justice [14:51] will remain strong, [14:53] effective, [14:54] and fully equipped [14:55] to protect [14:56] the American people. [14:58] Thank you again [14:59] for the opportunity [15:00] to appear in front of you, [15:01] and I look forward [15:01] to your questions. [15:03] Attorney General, [15:04] thank you. [15:05] I recognize now [15:06] the chairwoman [15:07] of the full committee, [15:08] Senator Collins. [15:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [15:11] Mr. Attorney General, [15:13] yesterday, [15:14] the Justice Department [15:15] announced the creation [15:17] of a nearly $1.8 billion [15:21] anti-weaponization fund [15:24] to compensate individuals [15:26] who were purportedly [15:28] targeted by the Biden [15:31] administration [15:32] in exchange for which [15:34] President Trump [15:35] dropped his $10 billion [15:37] lawsuit against the IRS [15:40] for the completely [15:43] inappropriate leak [15:45] of the president [15:46] and his organization's [15:48] tax data. [15:50] Amounts for this new fund [15:52] will come from [15:53] the Judgment Fund, [15:54] a permanent law [15:56] appropriation [15:57] for paying claims [15:59] and settlements [16:00] brought against [16:01] the United States [16:03] government. [16:04] Amounts in the Judgment Fund [16:06] have traditionally [16:07] been used [16:09] for the payment [16:09] for the payment [16:09] of specific claims [16:12] against the government [16:13] or amounts owned [16:15] for the settlement [16:16] of those claims [16:18] but not for future claims [16:21] that have yet to be bought. [16:23] So I have some questions [16:25] for you. [16:26] First, [16:27] has the DOJ [16:28] ever used amounts [16:30] in the Judgment Fund [16:32] to pay claims [16:33] that have yet to be brought [16:36] against the United States [16:38] government [16:38] based on the settlement [16:40] of a completely [16:42] unrelated case? [16:45] Thank you, Senator. [16:46] So the short answer is yes. [16:48] I mean, we have done this [16:48] in the past. [16:49] This was done during [16:50] the Obama administration, [16:52] something almost identical [16:53] in structure [16:54] to what we announced yesterday. [16:56] In that case, [16:57] there were allegations [16:59] made by Native Americans [17:00] that the Department [17:01] of Agriculture [17:02] had systematically [17:04] treated them unfairly [17:06] and some had filed claims. [17:08] There was a pending lawsuit [17:09] but many had not. [17:11] A fund very similar [17:14] to the one [17:15] that was established [17:16] yesterday was set up. [17:18] It was funded by, [17:19] in today's dollars, [17:20] a little over a billion dollars [17:22] and a single claims commissioner [17:25] was appointed [17:26] to review the claims [17:28] and to distribute funds. [17:31] In that case, [17:32] at the end, [17:34] there was around [17:35] $300 million left over [17:36] and the Obama administration [17:38] had set it up [17:40] so that that money [17:41] from the judgment fund [17:42] was distributed [17:43] to nonprofits [17:44] and other NGOs. [17:46] So what we've done [17:47] with this fund, [17:49] and by the way, [17:49] it is true [17:50] that this is unusual. [17:52] That is true. [17:53] But it is not unprecedented [17:54] and it was done [17:56] to address something [17:57] that had never happened [17:59] again either. [18:00] So there is an unprecedented [18:01] nature of what we did [18:01] yesterday in response [18:03] to years and years [18:05] of weaponization. [18:06] Just to correct [18:06] a few things, Senator, [18:08] it's not limited [18:09] to Republicans. [18:12] It's not limited to Biden. [18:13] I didn't say it was. [18:15] It's not limited [18:15] to the Biden weaponization. [18:19] It's not limited [18:20] to in any way scope [18:22] or form to January 6 [18:24] or to Jack Smith. [18:26] There's no limitation [18:28] on the claims. [18:30] The other thing we've done, [18:33] just to finish up [18:34] in comparison [18:35] to what was done previously, [18:37] is we intend [18:38] to appoint five commissioners [18:40] and also at the end, [18:42] the money goes back. [18:43] Any leftover funds [18:44] go back to the federal government, [18:45] not to nonprofits. [18:46] So how would the commission [18:48] that you've just referenced [18:50] that oversees the fund [18:52] determine whether future claims [18:54] from the fund [18:55] are eligible to be paid [18:57] out of it [18:58] and how will they determine [19:01] how much will be paid [19:02] for each claim? [19:04] What's the legal basis [19:05] for those decisions? [19:07] So there's, well, [19:08] there's commissions [19:10] that are established [19:11] all the time [19:12] where a commissioner [19:13] is charged [19:14] with determining [19:14] the correct amount, [19:16] if any, [19:17] to repay a claimant [19:18] who's asking for funds. [19:20] So in this case, [19:21] what we expect [19:22] is the commissioners [19:23] will take in information. [19:25] It's entirely voluntary [19:26] if an individual [19:28] wants to apply [19:29] and assert [19:29] that they were [19:30] a victim of weaponization [19:32] and the commission [19:33] can do anything [19:34] according to what [19:35] was set up yesterday [19:36] from issuing an apology [19:38] to the claimant [19:39] to awarding compensation [19:42] and the monetary [19:43] compensation. [19:44] So it depends [19:45] on the claim [19:47] and there will be [19:48] five commissioners [19:49] who will review [19:49] each claim. [19:50] It won't be reviewed [19:51] by me. [19:51] It won't be reviewed [19:52] by others in the administration. [19:55] It will be reviewed [19:55] by the five commissioners. [19:57] Aren't those commissioners [19:59] appointed by the president? [20:01] No. [20:01] Who are they appointed by? [20:03] Four of them [20:03] are appointed [20:04] by the attorney general [20:05] and one of them [20:06] is appointed [20:06] by the attorney general [20:07] in consultation [20:08] with leadership [20:09] of this body. [20:10] Will the information [20:12] related to the claims [20:14] be publicly reported? [20:17] So that's a good question. [20:18] I mean, look, [20:19] there's privacy laws [20:19] that exist [20:20] so I don't want [20:21] to sit here today [20:22] and say every scintilla [20:24] of data collected [20:25] will be released [20:26] but of course, [20:27] I mean, of course, [20:28] there's accountability [20:30] that the commission [20:32] has, [20:32] a quarterly report [20:33] that has to come [20:34] to the attorney general [20:36] which will certainly [20:37] be public [20:37] there's a process [20:38] that you all [20:40] will get information [20:41] and there's a FOIA process [20:42] so I very much anticipate [20:43] that the claims [20:44] that are awarded [20:45] the basis [20:46] and the amount [20:47] will for sure [20:48] be made public [20:50] along the way. [20:52] Let me switch [20:53] to a different issue [20:54] which chairman Moran [20:55] brought up. [20:57] Along with chairman Moran [20:59] and other members [21:00] of this committee, [21:01] I was one of the lead [21:03] sponsors [21:04] of the Violence [21:05] Against Women Act [21:06] reauthorization [21:08] of 2022. [21:11] These programs [21:12] are critical [21:13] to reducing violence [21:15] against women, [21:17] ensuring that justice [21:18] is served [21:19] and strengthening services [21:21] to victims [21:22] and survivors [21:23] of domestic violence, [21:26] dating violence, [21:27] sexual assault [21:28] and stalking. [21:30] In Maine, [21:30] the Rural Victims Program [21:33] is especially critical. [21:35] Despite the importance [21:37] and effectiveness [21:38] of these programs, [21:41] the department's [21:42] budget request [21:43] proposes reducing funding [21:45] by about 25%. [21:49] Why is the department [21:51] proposing a reduction [21:53] in funding [21:54] to combat domestic violence [21:57] and to support survivors? [22:00] Well, first of all, [22:01] I completely agree with you [22:02] that these are extraordinarily [22:03] important programs [22:05] and the funds [22:06] are well used [22:07] to support these programs. [22:09] We have asked [22:10] for $539 million, [22:13] I believe, [22:13] in money [22:14] to support all these programs. [22:16] And that, [22:18] I mean, look, [22:18] there's a lot of money [22:19] that goes, [22:19] $190 million for grants [22:21] to combat, [22:22] you know, [22:22] to stop, [22:23] the stop grants, [22:24] which is extraordinarily important. [22:26] And so it is a priority. [22:28] Obviously, [22:29] there's, [22:30] we have to make choices [22:31] and the president's budget [22:32] asked to make choices [22:33] on where to spend that money, [22:34] but it is extraordinarily important. [22:36] And the $539 million [22:38] that we've asked for [22:39] will go to support [22:41] all these programs. [22:42] I mean, so, yes, [22:42] there's, [22:43] we are asking less, [22:44] for less money [22:45] than the budget [22:45] had last year, [22:47] but it's not because [22:48] we don't view it [22:49] as extraordinarily important. [22:50] Well, [22:51] I would suggest [22:52] that cutting the budget [22:54] for these important programs [22:56] by 25% [22:58] is a huge cut. [23:01] And I hope [23:02] that's something [23:02] the subcommittee [23:03] will take a close look at. [23:05] Thank you, [23:06] Mr. Chairman. [23:07] Thank you, [23:07] Senator Collins. [23:08] Senator Van Hollen. [23:09] Thank you, [23:09] Mr. Chairman. [23:11] Mr. Attorney General, [23:12] this is an outrageous, [23:14] unprecedented slush fund [23:16] that you set up. [23:17] Simple question. [23:18] Will individuals [23:20] who assaulted Capitol Hill [23:21] police officers [23:22] be eligible for this fund? [23:25] Well, as it makes plain, [23:26] anybody is... [23:27] Just let me know [23:28] if they're eligible [23:29] for the fund. [23:30] As was made plain yesterday, [23:32] anybody in this country [23:34] is eligible to apply [23:36] if they believe [23:37] they're a victim of weaponization. [23:37] Mr. Attorney General, [23:38] let me ask you this. [23:40] Are there going to be rules [23:41] that say that if you've assaulted [23:42] a Capitol Hill police officer [23:45] or committed a violent crime, [23:47] you will not be eligible? [23:48] Why not make that a rule? [23:49] I expect that... [23:50] Well, because I'm not one [23:52] of the commissioners [23:52] setting up the rules, [23:53] I expect that there will be rules... [23:54] You're appointing four [23:54] of the five members, [23:55] aren't you, [23:56] Mr. Attorney General? [23:56] Pardon me? [23:57] You're appointing four [23:57] of the five members. [23:59] I am appointing all five members. [23:59] You can certainly set up the rules. [24:01] I would hope you make a rule [24:02] that anyone convicted [24:03] of assaulting a police officer [24:05] of violent crime [24:05] is simply not eligible. [24:07] They should not apply. [24:08] Well... [24:09] Let me ask you this, [24:10] because you compared it [24:11] to the Keepsegal case, [24:13] but I think you know full well [24:14] that in that case, [24:16] the settlement agreement [24:16] was approved by a federal judge, [24:19] including the payments [24:21] to people who were not [24:22] originally parties [24:23] to the lawsuit. [24:24] No federal judge [24:25] has approved this fund, [24:26] have they, [24:27] Mr. Attorney General? [24:28] No, no federal judge [24:29] did approve this. [24:29] So that's a big difference [24:30] between this case [24:31] and the case [24:32] that you compared it to? [24:33] No, it's not. [24:34] What... [24:35] Did a judge sign off [24:36] on this case? [24:37] No. [24:37] A judge did sign off [24:39] on the other one? [24:39] Yes, but your question [24:40] was whether it's [24:41] a big difference. [24:42] It's not. [24:42] Of course it is, [24:43] because that allows [24:44] for an independent person [24:46] to look at it [24:46] rather than the... [24:48] There was no independence. [24:48] ...the former personal attorney. [24:49] There was no independence. [24:50] There was a single commissioner. [24:51] A judge signed off on it. [24:53] A judge had nothing to do [24:54] with deciding the money. [24:55] There was a judge [24:55] who looked at it [24:56] and signed off on it. [24:57] So to compare that case [24:59] to this one [25:00] is incredibly deceptive. [25:03] Let me ask you this [25:04] about the Epstein case, [25:06] because as we speak, [25:08] many Epstein survivors [25:09] are in New York. [25:10] They're reading portions [25:12] of the Epstein files [25:14] about the abuse [25:15] that they suffered. [25:16] Otherwise, [25:17] they might have been here [25:17] with us today. [25:19] At a House hearing, [25:20] your predecessor refused [25:22] to acknowledge the pain [25:23] experienced by some [25:25] of those victims [25:25] when the administration [25:27] improperly released [25:28] their names [25:29] in identifying information. [25:31] So I want to know [25:32] where you stand. [25:33] I spoke to the representatives [25:35] of some of the Epstein [25:36] survivors yesterday. [25:38] They are extremely frustrated [25:40] that you keep calling [25:41] for people to come [25:42] forward with more evidence, [25:44] but you have not met [25:45] with them to hear [25:46] their stories. [25:48] So simple question. [25:50] If I connect you [25:51] with these survivors, [25:52] will you meet with them? [25:54] Absolutely. [25:54] And what you just said [25:55] is false. [25:56] I have met with them. [25:57] I've met with many, [25:58] many of the lawyers [25:59] for the survivors [26:00] of victims, [26:01] as did Attorney General Bondi. [26:02] So whoever told you that, [26:04] unfortunately, [26:04] gave you bad information. [26:06] Okay. [26:06] I would encourage them. [26:07] I would encourage them [26:08] to reach out [26:09] to the Department of Justice [26:10] because like we do [26:10] every single day, [26:12] we absolutely care [26:13] for victims [26:14] and we absolutely [26:15] want to hear from them [26:16] and their lawyers. [26:17] Well, I've been told [26:19] directly from [26:21] the representatives [26:22] they've not had a chance, [26:24] at least this group, [26:25] to meet with you. [26:26] So I'm glad to hear that. [26:27] Did they represent [26:28] they asked for a meeting? [26:29] Can I ask you [26:31] to commit that [26:33] the Justice Department [26:35] will not recommend [26:36] a pardon [26:37] for anyone named [26:39] in the Epstein files? [26:41] Can you repeat [26:42] that question? [26:42] I'm sorry. [26:43] I didn't hear what you said. [26:43] Can you commit [26:44] that the Justice Department, [26:47] you, the acting [26:48] Attorney General, [26:48] will not recommend [26:49] a pardon [26:50] for people named [26:52] in the Epstein files? [26:53] When you say [26:53] people named, [26:54] I have no... [26:55] There's tens of thousands, [26:57] hundreds of thousands [26:58] of, quote, [26:58] people named. [26:59] How about [27:00] Jelaine Maxwell? [27:00] Can you commit [27:01] that you will... [27:02] Yes, I can commit [27:02] to that, of course. [27:03] Let me go back [27:05] to this slush fund [27:07] because there's also [27:10] an individual [27:11] who, after being pardoned [27:14] by the president, [27:16] went on to molest [27:17] two children. [27:19] And that person [27:20] actually tried [27:21] to buy the silence [27:22] of these children [27:23] by saying that [27:24] he would pay them [27:26] some of the funds [27:26] that he was hoping [27:27] to get from your slush fund. [27:30] Can you commit [27:31] to making the rule [27:32] so that that person [27:33] is not eligible [27:35] for a payout [27:36] under this fund? [27:37] Well, you're obviously [27:38] lying in your question [27:39] because there's no way [27:41] that this person [27:42] committed to that. [27:43] The slush fund, [27:44] as you call it, [27:45] which it's not, [27:45] didn't exist. [27:46] But I can commit... [27:47] Mr. Attorney General, [27:50] don't ever do that again. [27:52] I am reporting [27:52] what he said. [27:54] He said on the expectation [27:55] that he hoped to get [27:57] some of the funds [27:58] from a payout. [27:59] He's been hearing... [28:00] You said from the slush fund, [28:01] Senator, [28:01] and that didn't exist [28:02] when he said that. [28:03] This is the fund [28:04] that the president [28:05] and all of you [28:06] have been telegraphing [28:07] all along [28:08] that you're going to use [28:09] to help the president's friends. [28:12] Can you point to... [28:13] Mr. Attorney General, [28:13] I have a last question. [28:14] What telegraph did I... [28:15] I have a last question for you. [28:17] Do you know [28:19] that it is [28:20] a criminal offense [28:21] to lie to Congress? [28:24] I am very well aware of that. [28:26] I'm glad to hear that. [28:27] Thank you. [28:30] Senator Kennedy. [28:35] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [28:38] General, how are you? [28:39] I'm great. [28:40] Thank you, Senator. [28:44] In America, [28:49] unlike other countries [28:50] where they let you die in a ditch, [28:54] in America, [28:55] if you're too poor to be sick, [28:58] we'll pay for your doctor. [28:59] Isn't that right? [29:00] It is. [29:02] And one of the programs [29:03] we do that through [29:04] is Medicaid. [29:06] Correct. [29:07] Okay. [29:09] And this money for Medicaid, [29:12] it didn't just fall from heaven. [29:14] We thank heaven for it, [29:16] but it came out [29:16] of people's pockets, didn't it? [29:18] Every dime of it. [29:19] And some of that money [29:22] is stolen, isn't it? [29:24] Yes. [29:25] And the states, [29:27] not all of them, [29:28] but many of them, [29:30] allow it to be stolen, [29:31] don't they? [29:32] Yes. [29:34] Let's take Medicaid [29:35] in California, for example. [29:38] I don't mean to just pick on California, [29:40] but because this happens [29:42] in other states. [29:43] We saw it happen in Minnesota, [29:46] for example. [29:46] But in California, [29:49] for every dollar [29:51] that the California state government [29:55] puts up for Medicaid, [29:57] for the Obamacare portion of Medicaid, [30:00] we put up, [30:01] the federal taxpayer [30:02] puts up $9, don't they? [30:05] And so, [30:06] is that right? [30:07] That's correct, Senator. [30:08] And so, as a result, [30:10] California has allowed [30:11] thousands and thousands [30:14] of these social assistance [30:18] and so-called health care providers [30:21] pop up in California, [30:23] haven't they? [30:24] Yes. [30:25] And some of those providers [30:26] steal the money, [30:27] don't they? [30:28] Yes, we know that to be true. [30:30] And the money never gets [30:31] to the people [30:32] they supposedly are trying to help. [30:33] Correct. [30:34] Isn't that correct? [30:34] That's correct. [30:35] And the other way [30:36] that California [30:37] and others abuse the fact [30:39] that they're putting up $1 [30:40] and the American taxpayers [30:42] putting up $9. [30:43] Did I mention it was $9? [30:45] I think some say [30:46] it's even more, [30:46] but yes, $9 were. [30:47] They expand the services, [30:49] don't they? [30:50] Yes. [30:51] Because some states, [30:53] like California, [30:54] I don't want to paint [30:54] with too broad a brush. [30:56] It's not everybody [30:56] in California state government, [30:58] but it's a lot of them. [30:59] They see this as free money, [31:01] don't they? [31:03] They're not paying for it, yes. [31:04] Isn't it a fact [31:05] that, for example, [31:07] Medicaid in California [31:09] will pay a provider [31:12] to provide tribal prayers? [31:16] I looked all this up. [31:16] I mean, I'll accept that. [31:18] I didn't know that, [31:19] but yes. [31:20] That California [31:21] will actually pay [31:22] a health care provider, [31:24] I didn't know [31:24] this was a medical expertise, [31:26] to pay for exorcisms. [31:29] Is that right? [31:31] I'll accept that, [31:32] Senator Irva. [31:33] That's... [31:33] They pay... [31:34] The California Medicaid [31:35] program will pay [31:36] for herbal medicines, [31:40] meal deliveries. [31:42] They'll pay for housing. [31:44] I don't know what housing [31:45] has to do with health care. [31:47] Is that correct? [31:47] Yes. [31:48] Were you aware [31:49] that the Medicaid program [31:51] using federal money, [31:54] taxpayer money, [31:55] will pay for an in-home chef? [32:00] Yes. [32:01] Okay? [32:01] If it's a family member, [32:02] yes. [32:02] Yeah, they'll even pay [32:03] for gymnasium fees [32:05] through Medicaid [32:06] in California. [32:09] They'll pay for bicycles, [32:11] scooters, [32:13] gym memberships. [32:14] Did you know that? [32:16] Yes. [32:17] Several states do, [32:18] but California does for sure. [32:19] They'll even repay [32:20] your student loans. [32:22] Were you aware of that? [32:24] I was not aware [32:25] of the student loans. [32:26] Yeah. [32:26] Yeah, they'll repay [32:27] somebody's student loans [32:29] to encourage them [32:30] to become a health care provider. [32:33] I mean, California, [32:34] they're just setting [32:35] all kind of records. [32:37] These folks are... [32:38] They're wild people. [32:44] California's got 12% [32:45] of the population. [32:46] In the last 10 years, [32:49] they're responsible [32:50] for half of these new [32:51] so-called health providers [32:53] to provide exorcisms. [32:54] and other things. [32:55] Now, what the hell [32:56] are we doing about it? [32:58] Why has this gone on [33:00] for so long? [33:01] Senator, listen, [33:02] it's a great question. [33:03] And what you just described [33:04] are programs that are allowed [33:06] into the program. [33:07] You have a whole other issue [33:07] in California [33:08] where a lot of these folks [33:09] are just stealing the money, [33:11] not even running it through [33:13] for exorcism. [33:14] They're thieves, aren't they? [33:15] They're thieves. [33:15] Correct. [33:16] Correct. [33:17] And California just watches [33:19] it happen, don't they? [33:21] Not everybody in California. [33:22] The government, though, [33:24] does, though, doesn't it? [33:26] Well, that's the challenge [33:27] in a lot of states [33:28] is that we don't have [33:29] a state government, [33:30] which you all have entrusted [33:31] to run these programs [33:32] and take care of the money [33:33] that you all give them. [33:35] There's state structures [33:36] that absolutely do not do [33:38] any compliance [33:38] and they don't do their job. [33:40] Because they don't have [33:41] no incentive to. [33:41] They're getting free money. [33:44] Isn't that right? [33:45] Yes. [33:46] I think so, yes. [33:47] We've got to change this, [33:48] general. [33:49] We're trying. [33:49] I call this a slush fund. [33:52] You want to talk about slush fund? [33:54] This is a tier one slush fund [33:57] that's been going on [33:58] for years and years and years. [34:01] Billions and hundreds of billions [34:03] of dollars is stolen. [34:07] Yes, Senator. [34:08] And that's why, look, [34:09] this department stood up [34:11] a whole new fraud division. [34:12] And AUSAs around the country [34:13] prosecute fraud every day. [34:15] So it's not as if we weren't, [34:16] we weren't, we didn't have [34:17] the work out there. [34:18] But it's so systematically taking money [34:21] from the American taxpayer [34:22] that we very much believe [34:24] that it needs its own stand-up structure. [34:26] And I think it's true [34:27] for the reasons that you just said. [34:30] If you need an extra system, [34:31] you can go to California camp. [34:32] Thank you, Senator. [34:35] Thank you, Chairman. [34:36] Moran, ranking member Van Hollen. [34:38] Thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche [34:39] for appearing before us today. [34:41] I want to talk about some areas [34:43] where I think we're making progress [34:44] and we can work together [34:45] and then raise some real concerns I have. [34:47] I do think it's worth [34:50] recognizing the hard work [34:51] of the men and women [34:52] of the department [34:53] and the progress you're making [34:54] on combating fentanyl [34:55] and a violent crime. [34:57] I've long been involved [34:58] in criminal justice reform, [34:59] talked with and worked [35:01] with your predecessor on this. [35:02] I was pleased to see [35:03] the president's message [35:04] during Second Chance Month [35:06] where he said he wants [35:08] to ensure those who take responsibility [35:09] and seek to rebuild their lives [35:11] have a chance to succeed. [35:13] Senator Lee and I have a bill [35:14] called the Safer Supervision Act. [35:17] It's co-sponsored [35:17] by Senators Tillis [35:19] and Wicker, Kramer, and Langford. [35:21] It's got strong law enforcement [35:22] and conservative support [35:23] and it fits squarely [35:24] in that framework. [35:26] Currently, federal supervision [35:27] is imposed in nearly every case, [35:30] leading to badly overworked [35:31] federal probation officers [35:32] who then can't properly supervise [35:34] those who actually most need it. [35:36] There's more than 120,000 people [35:38] on average per year being supervised [35:40] and this bill would help [35:42] ensure courts are more thoughtful, [35:44] more analytic when deciding [35:46] when to impose supervision. [35:48] Is this a piece of legislation [35:49] you can support? [35:51] So what you just said, [35:52] I very much agree with. [35:54] So without looking at every word [35:56] of the legislation, [35:57] there's no disagreement for me [35:59] on a word you just uttered. [36:00] Well, thank you. [36:01] I'd like to work with you on that. [36:02] Yes, I look forward to that. [36:04] Let me raise two questions. [36:06] I've been gravely concerned [36:07] about IP theft, [36:08] especially from China [36:09] the whole time I've served. [36:10] I was struck that the Department's [36:13] proposed budget cuts the funds [36:14] for IP enforcement. [36:17] Why? [36:17] And is the Department, [36:18] under your leadership, [36:19] committed to protecting [36:20] American innovation? [36:21] Very committed. [36:22] And while you're calling it a cut, [36:25] Senator, I would say [36:26] that it's a major focus of every- [36:28] It's a lack of an increase? [36:30] Well, no, no, no. [36:30] I don't mean lack of an increase. [36:32] I mean that it's- [36:33] we're focused on it [36:34] at the U.S. Attorney's Office level. [36:36] So when we take money [36:37] and spend it around [36:38] the U.S. Attorney's Offices, [36:40] and so it's- it's- it's baked [36:41] into that big number. [36:42] Rest assured, [36:43] every U.S. Attorney's Office, [36:45] all 93 of them, [36:46] are focused on- on the threats [36:47] that we have from there. [36:48] And so we're trying to spend [36:49] our money more wisely. [36:50] Chair Collins raised a concern [36:52] about the- the Violence [36:53] Against Women Act funds. [36:54] Let me raise a concern [36:56] about the Victims of Child Abuse [36:58] Act programs. [36:59] Senator Roy Blunt [37:00] and I worked to reauthorize [37:01] this program. [37:01] I've long been actively engaged [37:03] with it. [37:03] I've seen how Children's [37:04] Advocacy Centers in Delaware [37:06] make a critical difference, [37:08] bringing together law enforcement, [37:09] medical- mental health professionals [37:11] to do child abuse investigations [37:13] in a child-centered way [37:15] to make sure children [37:16] are not re-victimized. [37:17] The number of victims served [37:19] by these centers [37:19] has increased four-fold [37:21] over 25 years. [37:22] Why are you proposing [37:24] cutting this program? [37:26] So we're- we have asked [37:27] for $41 million for that program. [37:29] And- and I- I agree with you. [37:30] And I- I want to work with you [37:32] to make sure that we're spending [37:33] that $41 million where we should. [37:35] I agree with you. [37:36] It's extraordinarily important. [37:37] And it's had a lot of success [37:38] over the past 15-20 years [37:40] as it's been up and running. [37:42] Thank you. [37:43] Let me return to the line [37:44] of questioning from the ranking member, [37:45] Senator Van Hollen, [37:46] that I strongly agree with. [37:49] I'm just looking at the settlement agreement [37:51] in Trump versus IRS. [37:53] And I just want to make sure [37:54] I heard you properly [37:55] when you responded previously. [37:58] Your announcement said [38:00] that the fund will send you quarterly reports. [38:02] Will you commit to making these reports [38:05] fully public so Americans know [38:07] who's getting taxpayer dollars [38:09] out of the settlement fund? [38:10] This says they'll be confidential. [38:12] This is Section 4, Part E [38:14] of the settlement agreement. [38:15] The reason why I want to be careful [38:17] in my answer is because [38:18] there's obviously laws [38:19] that exist around privacy [38:20] that would- may prevent [38:22] some of the information [38:23] that the- that the commission [38:25] takes in from being fully public. [38:27] Beyond that, [38:28] there will be full transparency [38:30] and I commit to you that [38:31] beyond the applicable laws [38:33] that exist around privacy [38:34] and privileges and whatnot. [38:36] But as far as being transparent [38:38] and having those quarterly reports [38:40] released, yes. [38:41] Thank you. [38:42] You referenced a previous case. [38:44] I think it was Keeb Siegel [38:45] versus Vilsack [38:46] under the previous administration. [38:48] Did that case involve [38:50] a president suing his own government [38:52] and then settling that case [38:53] before it could be reviewed [38:55] or approved by a judge? [38:55] So, no, neither does the commission. [38:59] It did not. [38:59] And so, when you suggested [39:01] that they're nearly identical, [39:02] they're not identical. [39:03] I think there's a critical difference here. [39:05] President Trump is the first president [39:07] to sue his own government [39:09] and then direct his chosen [39:11] acting attorney general [39:13] to reach this kind of settlement. [39:15] Will you commit that none [39:17] of President Trump's family [39:18] will receive a direct payout [39:20] from this fund? [39:22] Well, yes, but what you just said [39:24] is not true. [39:25] I mean, if I can correct that. [39:27] Please. [39:27] The president did not direct me [39:29] to do anything. [39:30] And secondly, [39:31] when we said it was [39:32] that the structure of the commission [39:33] is similar to Keeb Siegel, [39:36] that's true. [39:37] It wasn't the case, [39:39] the underlying case is not the same. [39:40] The structure of the commission [39:41] is the same as the Keeb Siegel commission. [39:43] Has it ever happened [39:44] that a sitting president [39:46] sued his own government [39:48] for $10 billion [39:49] and then directed [39:51] the settlement of the case [39:52] and the establishment [39:53] of a payout fund? [39:54] Not that I'm aware, [39:55] but there's a lot of things [39:56] that President Trump's the first of. [39:58] No president had been indicted [39:59] one, two, three, four, five, six, [40:01] seven, eight times either. [40:02] Correct. [40:02] No president's been indicted. [40:04] And will you commit [40:05] that none of this money [40:06] will go to President Trump's campaign donors? [40:08] I am not committing [40:10] to anything beyond [40:11] the settlement agreement itself. [40:12] When you say campaign donors, [40:14] that they are not excluded [40:15] from seeking compensation. [40:17] Last question. [40:18] During Police Week, [40:19] I heard from a number [40:20] of law enforcement friends [40:21] who found it appalling [40:22] that there was the possibility [40:24] that folks like the Oath Keepers, [40:27] the Proud Boys, [40:29] who had assaulted Capitol Police officers [40:32] could receive multimillion-dollar payouts [40:34] from this fund. [40:36] Will you commit [40:36] that no one who has been convicted [40:38] of assaulting a police officer [40:40] will receive a payout from this fund? [40:42] So I shared the concerns [40:44] that apparently members [40:45] of law enforcement gave to you last week, [40:46] although none of this was announced last week, [40:48] so that's surprising, [40:49] but I accept that. [40:50] They had heard rumors [40:51] there would be a settlement fund. [40:52] Okay. [40:53] But anybody can apply. [40:55] The commissioners will set rules, I'm sure. [40:58] That's not for me to set. [40:59] That's for the commissioners. [41:00] And whether an individual, [41:03] an Oath Keeper, [41:04] as you just mentioned, [41:05] applies for compensation, [41:06] anybody in this country can apply. [41:09] Well, we'll be watching this very closely [41:11] as this goes forward. [41:12] I don't think the settlement fund [41:14] should be set up this way [41:15] or for these purposes. [41:16] I appreciate your answers today. [41:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:18] Thank you. [41:19] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:21] Mr. Attorney General, [41:23] thank you for being here this morning [41:24] and responding to our questions. [41:26] I want to follow on a couple [41:27] that have been asked [41:28] with regards to the Department of Justice's [41:32] state and local law enforcement programs. [41:35] $1.2 billion in proposed cuts. [41:39] We're looking at it very carefully [41:40] because many of these grants and programs [41:42] have significant impact on our state, [41:45] small population, large area to deal with. [41:48] The budget also calls for consolidation [41:50] of the Office of Violence Against Women, [41:53] the Community-Oriented Policing Services [41:56] and the OJP programs. [42:01] Is the Office of Tribal Justice [42:04] one of the offices [42:05] that are also intended to be consolidated? [42:09] We're just consolidating the grant components. [42:12] So OJP, COPS, and then OVIDA. [42:15] And by the way, we're not combining them. [42:17] We're just making them more efficient. [42:19] So they will still maintain their own independence [42:22] and brand, for lack of a better word. [42:24] But what we heard from the field [42:26] is that there were inappropriate inconsistencies [42:30] and inefficiencies in having three separate [42:32] kind of bureaucracies running each of those programs. [42:36] So that's what we're trying to fix. [42:36] Don't disagree with wanting to reduce bureaucracies. [42:39] My interest is making sure that the fidelity [42:42] of these grants and the availability to very rural [42:46] and oftentimes just very high cost [42:49] because of what we're dealing with out there. [42:52] that they do not get overlooked [42:55] because when you have cuts to the level [42:59] that you're proposing, [43:01] one has to assume that, okay, [43:02] you can talk about reducing the bureaucracy [43:05] and just what the program itself might look like. [43:09] But again, my interest is making sure [43:11] that this much-needed assistance [43:13] is still pushed down to the very, very local levels. [43:18] Senator, I assure you [43:20] that the rural communities, [43:22] and I appreciate that they have the most challenges [43:25] applying for grants [43:26] because of just the way they're structured. [43:27] Lack of capacity. [43:28] Of course. [43:29] And there's obviously, [43:30] I forget the exact percentage, [43:32] but a large percentage of our grants [43:34] do go to rural communities as they should [43:36] and rural police departments as they should. [43:38] And we are going to continue to do that. [43:41] I mean, there's the COPS office is required [43:43] to distribute half of it, [43:44] half of the grants to rural communities. [43:46] Right. [43:46] But just, [43:47] and I don't want to take up all your time, Senator, [43:49] but that's one of the reasons why we built in, [43:51] we're trying to make it more efficient [43:53] because the field said, [43:54] especially rural communities, [43:56] big cities don't have issues applying for grants. [43:58] They have a bunch of people that can do it. [43:59] And so, yes, [44:01] we are very focused on that [44:02] in tribal justice space, [44:04] but also in the grant space. [44:05] Well, [44:06] know that we're watching this one very carefully. [44:08] I understand that in response to Senator Collins, [44:11] you acknowledged 25% cut to the office [44:15] on violence against women. [44:17] I was very involved in that reauthorization. [44:21] And within that, [44:23] we provide that OVW may not be subsumed [44:26] by another grant making component within DOJ. [44:29] So we want to make sure that, again, [44:33] DOJ is going to maintain OVW's statutory responsibilities [44:38] and how they move forward with their grant making [44:41] and not losing out on that subject. [44:44] We will. [44:44] And we're aware of that. [44:45] Yes, ma'am. [44:46] Let me ask about the Not Invisible Act. [44:50] This was legislation that I introduced some years ago. [44:53] It became law. [44:56] May 5th is the day that we recognize [44:58] as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. [45:01] We had a big round table [45:03] that Senator Sullivan helped to organize [45:06] just a couple weeks ago. [45:07] I had a lot of the folks from your department [45:10] along with Alaska state and local as well as tribal. [45:14] One of the things that kept coming up was [45:16] the commission issued its final report. [45:21] I thought it was pretty substantive. [45:23] They issued it November 1 of 2023 [45:26] after great testimony and consultation [45:29] all across Indian country. [45:31] But then it was removed, [45:34] the report was removed very early on [45:38] in the second Trump administration [45:40] and the related materials have been removed [45:42] from DOJ and the Department of Interior websites. [45:47] So people keep asking me where'd it go, why, [45:50] what is happening? [45:51] And we tried to get further information to that [45:55] again up in Anchorage a couple weeks ago. [45:59] So the question to you is, [46:01] why was the report taken down? [46:03] When will it be restored? [46:05] And more importantly, [46:06] what concrete steps is DOJ taking [46:08] with the Department of Others and others [46:12] to implement the recommendations? [46:14] We don't want the work [46:16] of this really important commission [46:17] to just kind of sit and be ignored. [46:20] Yes, so I don't have an answer [46:23] as to why it was taken down, [46:24] but I will get back to you promptly. [46:26] I will tell you... [46:26] I would appreciate that, yeah. [46:27] And your big picture question, [46:30] we are on the same page [46:31] when it comes to tribal justice [46:34] and the work that we have to do [46:35] with our Native American community [46:37] and making sure that we're giving them [46:39] the resources, the law enforcement. [46:41] I've visited two so far [46:44] as the Deputy Attorney General. [46:46] My staff has gone out to multiples, [46:48] to Northern New York, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, [46:50] and we'll continue to do that. [46:53] I think that at the end of the day, [46:54] it is a funding and training issue [46:56] that is our responsibility, [46:59] and I recognize that, [47:01] and it's a priority. [47:02] Well, and we've seen positive signals [47:03] in the first Trump administration. [47:06] That was when Operation Lady Justice [47:08] was stood up. [47:08] I think that that is good. [47:09] We need to continue on that. [47:11] You've put good people on task to this, [47:15] but this is where it gets confusing [47:17] because when you have a public-facing website [47:19] that helps people navigate [47:22] through some of the reporting [47:24] and the lack of data, [47:26] that's where we could use a little help. [47:27] So if you can get back with me on that, [47:29] I would appreciate it. [47:30] I will, Senator. [47:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [47:34] Thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney General, [47:36] for being here. [47:37] As you alluded to in your opening statement, [47:40] there is an acute staffing shortage [47:42] at the Bureau of Prisons. [47:43] At FCI Berlin in New Hampshire, [47:46] staffing levels have dropped [47:47] to 58% of authorized levels, [47:51] and that's at a time [47:52] when correctional officers are being asked [47:54] to take on added duties [47:56] where they have detainees being sent [47:58] to our federal prison, [48:01] and the retention incentives [48:03] have dropped significantly. [48:05] So as you point out, [48:07] the Bureau received an additional $3 billion [48:09] in the reconciliation bill [48:11] to address staffing issues, [48:13] and you're asking for additional funding, [48:15] which I appreciate, [48:17] but how do you plan [48:18] to use those supplemental funds [48:19] to address recruitment [48:21] and detention of staff [48:22] at facilities like FCI Berlin? [48:25] Thank you for that question. [48:26] It is a crisis, [48:28] and the crisis on staffing is twofold. [48:31] One is we're not paying them enough [48:32] and they can walk across the street [48:33] to county jails and make more money, [48:35] and two, because we're not paying them enough, [48:37] there's shortages, [48:38] so they're required to work overtime. [48:40] They're required to actually... [48:41] I understand the problem. [48:43] Can you explain what you're going to do to address it? [48:45] We're doing both. [48:46] I mean, we're addressing the compensation, [48:48] and we've already worked with Director Marshall [48:51] over the past several months [48:52] to give some retention money [48:54] to officers who are staying, [48:56] but we have to pay them more, [48:57] and we have to make it worthwhile for them to stay, [49:00] and the only way to do that is with money. [49:02] The only way to do that is with more hiring. [49:03] Well, I can tell you that FCI Berlin [49:05] has not seen that money yet, [49:06] and it's going to be critical to get it out. [49:09] Let me change to another topic, [49:12] because we have a new DEA drug lab [49:14] in Londonderry, New Hampshire. [49:16] I'm very pleased [49:16] that we've got that New England regional drug lab. [49:20] I worked hard to try [49:21] and support the effort to get it there, [49:24] but I'm concerned now [49:25] that DEA doesn't have the personnel [49:27] that they need in order to fully operate it, [49:29] and when we raised this at hearings, [49:31] both in the House and Senate with DEA, [49:35] what they told us was that DOJ has routinely denied its request [49:40] for greater allocations of personnel, [49:43] meaning that they are going to have difficulties hiring [49:46] the sufficient personnel they need [49:48] to fully operate this new lab. [49:50] So can you commit that you will ensure [49:53] that the personnel that are needed [49:55] to operate the lab are able to be hired? [49:57] Yes, and our budget asks for that funding, [50:00] and I agree with you, Senator, [50:02] that it's crucial to have that, [50:04] and that there are shortages. [50:05] You're right. [50:07] Let me weigh in on with Senator Collins [50:12] and Senator Murkowski [50:13] and their concerns about the Office of Violence Against Women [50:16] and the grants. [50:17] I don't support the cut of 25% for that budget, [50:22] but we have a greater issue, [50:25] because my staff has heard from organizations [50:28] in New Hampshire working on domestic violence concerns [50:32] that the department is continuing [50:34] to hold fiscal year 25 funding for the office, [50:38] and for some of these organizations, [50:40] they had their grants canceled early in 2025. [50:44] This disruption has caused those organizations [50:46] to scale back to start laying off staff, [50:49] which limits their ability to help survivors. [50:52] So when is the department going to make available [50:54] the fiscal year 25 and 26 grant funds [50:59] that have already been approved by Congress? [51:02] So we, the NOFOs for two of the three agencies [51:06] are all out and back. [51:08] There's one NOFO that's pending from 25 [51:12] that we expect to get out any day now, [51:14] and then we'll start working on 26, [51:17] and so it's done on a rolling basis, [51:19] and we, and we're working every day very hard [51:24] to get that money out. [51:25] As far as grants that were canceled, [51:29] I believe 330-some were canceled, [51:33] just about five or 6% of the overall grants awarded [51:36] for various reasons, [51:37] but grants that were, more than that [51:40] were initially canceled, and the grantee's- [51:42] But those are grants that had been approved [51:43] by Congress that had already been sent out. [51:46] Why is the department canceling funding [51:48] that our organizations are depending on [51:50] in order to help survivors? [51:52] Well, it's not that they were approved by Congress. [51:54] The money was, and so for, for a very small portion of, [51:57] for a very small portion of grants, [51:59] they simply, they were canceled for various reasons, so- [52:01] Well, they were canceled because DOGE came in [52:03] and made significant cuts, [52:05] and the department, the administration has made cuts. [52:08] I, I guess, I'm not gonna argue with you [52:11] about why that happened. [52:12] I think it was wrong. [52:13] I'm gonna acknowledge your commitment [52:17] to ensure that those funds are gonna go out [52:19] to the organizations that are depending on them [52:21] so that they can serve the people who need it. [52:24] I commit to that. [52:25] Thank you. [52:26] Last fall, the U.S. trustee for Region 1 [52:30] didn't name a new Chapter 13 standing trustee [52:33] for New Hampshire. [52:34] Instead, he assigned New Hampshire's duties [52:36] to Maine's standing trustee [52:39] over the objections of the New Hampshire bankruptcy bar. [52:43] The transition from New Hampshire's standing trustee [52:46] to the new Maine trustee [52:48] who's supposed to be serving both states [52:50] has not gone well. [52:52] Debtors who had completed their payments [52:54] were not being discharged from bankruptcy. [52:56] Creditors and attorneys were not getting paid. [52:59] In fact, a motion to remove [53:01] the New Hampshire and Maine trustee was filed, [53:04] and the New Hampshire bankruptcy judge [53:06] admonished the trustee, [53:08] but unfortunately didn't ultimately remove him. [53:11] I am very concerned that we have granite staters [53:14] who need to use the Chapter 13 bankruptcy [53:18] and that they're being disadvantaged [53:20] because of this decision for whatever reason. [53:22] We have no idea because the U.S. government [53:27] doesn't pay those standing trustees. [53:30] There's no reason. [53:31] That's not a benefit in terms of savings. [53:34] So I don't know if it was a shot at New Hampshire [53:37] or what the issue was, [53:38] but will you commit to naming a New Hampshire-only [53:41] Chapter 13 standing trustee [53:44] and look into this because it's a real problem? [53:46] So we have that... [53:47] And, Mr. General, the time has expired, [53:49] so if you can quickly wrap that up, I would appreciate it. [53:50] We have that in many districts, not just New Hampshire, [53:54] and we're working very hard to rectify it [53:57] for the reasons that you stated the challenges it presents. [54:00] So you will look into that and try... [54:03] We've been looking into it, [54:04] and we'll continue to do so, Senator, yes. [54:05] Thank you. [54:09] Mr. General, appreciate you being here today. [54:11] I wanted to start with an issue that I raised with you [54:13] in your confirmation hearing [54:14] in the Senate Judiciary Committee. [54:16] We talked about the Executive Office for Immigration Reform. [54:20] Some people call it EOIR. [54:23] Some people call it EOR. [54:24] But ultimately, it oversees our immigration courts. [54:28] As you're aware, there was a significant backlog [54:31] that was left by the Biden-Harris administration. [54:33] Unfortunately, they created a culture of that, [54:36] of dragging their feet [54:36] and not actually completing these cases. [54:39] I know they also rolled back a number of reforms [54:42] that were put in place during the first Trump administration [54:45] to ensure that our immigration courts functioned [54:48] in an efficient manner. [54:49] By contrast, obviously, [54:51] under the current Trump administration, [54:53] the courts in FY25 have completed the highest number [54:56] of cases that we have seen in a single year [54:59] in EOR's history, [55:01] finally achieved a reduction in the case backlog. [55:05] And hopefully, that's something that we can continue. [55:08] I saw in your budget that you increased this by 12%. [55:11] I wanted to talk, is that going to help you continue on that, [55:15] on eliminating this backlog, improve efficiencies [55:18] and operations of these immigration courts. [55:21] And then also, on that, how does the budget request [55:24] support efforts to actually modernize this process, [55:27] making sure that we're not only using the current system, [55:29] but we're looking at how can we be more efficient in the future? [55:32] Yes, thank you, Senator. [55:33] The first answer in reverse order, [55:36] we have asked for $37 million to modernize the IT programs [55:41] that the immigration courts use. [55:43] That, in and of itself, will create efficiencies [55:45] that will help us in ways that should have happened years [55:49] and years ago, and it didn't. [55:50] We're also asking for more money because we need more judges. [55:53] And the big, beautiful bill gave us authority [55:56] to hire a bunch of immigration judges, [55:58] and we're hiring a ton. [55:59] We have a graduation tomorrow, [56:01] the largest graduation of immigration judges [56:04] in many, many years, if not history. [56:06] And we're continuing to try to find good judges [56:10] that will work hard. [56:11] And the budget also, you know, a judge needs staff. [56:14] So a judge needs clerks to help process the cases. [56:18] The, you know, we have almost 500,000 cases [56:21] were processed last year. [56:22] That's extraordinary. [56:24] And we're getting into the backlog. [56:26] But when you have something like 4 million immigration cases, [56:30] 4 million immigration cases backed up, [56:33] even if you cut it down by a million a year, [56:36] you're still looking at three or four years to catch up. [56:38] But we're very focused on doing that. [56:41] We tell our new judges they're going to be working harder [56:44] than they've ever worked in their lives. [56:46] And we expect that. [56:47] And so this budget is really addressing that, [56:51] the IT problem and the staffing challenge that we have. [56:54] Good. [56:55] Thank you. [56:55] I'm changing gears a little bit. [56:57] Obviously, we are so proud to see the crackdown on crime [57:01] across the country, lowest murder rate [57:04] that we have seen, the significant just, you know, [57:08] actually getting back to the mission of getting the bad guys [57:11] and putting criminals behind bars. [57:13] I talked to Director Patel about this last week, [57:16] but there's great work being done by the FBI and DOJ [57:20] and my home state. [57:22] Operation Southern Star in Montgomery has been significant. [57:26] That's where I live. [57:27] We appreciate that effort. [57:29] I know that communities across the country [57:32] appreciate the work that you're doing. [57:34] Can you discuss how this request increase in resources [57:38] that you have in this budget is going to allow us to build [57:41] on the current successes and enhance cooperation [57:43] with state and local partners across the country [57:46] so that we can do more of what we've seen in Montgomery [57:49] over the Operation Southern Star? [57:51] Yes. [57:52] So there is nothing more important than our state [57:55] and local partnerships when it comes to combating violent crime. [57:57] Nearly every violent criminal that's arrested by the feds, [58:01] the feds are assisted by a cop or a detective or a trooper [58:05] in that case. [58:05] And so when we talk about the work that the federal government [58:08] and the FBI and DEA and marshals and ATF and HSI have done [58:11] over the past year, we are really talking about the work [58:14] that they did partnering with the state and locals. [58:16] So our budget reflects that. [58:18] We want $2.9 billion for state and local grants. [58:21] That's money that's going to go to law enforcement [58:23] to combat violent crime. [58:25] $12 billion for our budget for violent crime. [58:28] And you said that, but I want to make sure I'm giving props [58:32] to the great men and women of law enforcement in our country. [58:35] It worked. [58:36] And we did see meaningful reductions in violent crime, [58:39] which means everybody's streets are safer [58:41] than they were a year and a half ago. [58:43] Well, as someone who is raising two teenagers [58:46] and wants these streets to be safer, [58:48] particularly the ones where all these families are trying [58:51] to build their lives, we say thank you. [58:55] Last question. [58:56] I know that the budget also is going to stand up [59:01] the National Fraud Enforcement Division. [59:03] I know that there's been a lot of misnomers about that out there. [59:06] It is important we make sure that taxpayer dollars [59:08] are used judiciously, and the people who do not do that [59:11] are held accountable. [59:13] Can you talk about some of the work that the division [59:15] has been doing and how the funding will allow DOJ [59:18] to continue protecting Americans [59:20] and their hard-earned tax dollars? [59:21] Yes, so we asked for $30 million [59:23] because we need lawyers to help build this new division up. [59:27] And what we've done already, and you've seen it in the news [59:29] in Minnesota and other locations, really everywhere. [59:33] Minnesota has been a focus, but in every state, [59:36] the National Fraud Division has an AUSA assigned [59:38] to that division now. [59:40] And their goal is very simple, [59:43] to find criminals who are stealing from the government. [59:45] That's it. [59:46] And so that comes in the area of health care, [59:48] but it comes in a lot of different places. [59:51] And I expect that everybody in this body [59:54] will be very satisfied with the work [59:56] when I come back next time because it's doing great work. [59:59] Americans are sick of people not being held accountable, [1:00:01] so we hope that we see some people [1:00:03] actually prosecuted for these crimes. [1:00:06] Thank you so much. [1:00:07] Thank you. [1:00:08] Senator Merkley. [1:00:10] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:00:13] And Senator Murray, do you want to jump in first? [1:00:16] Okay. [1:00:16] Thank you, Acting Attorney General. [1:00:19] So the budget has a $500 million cut to the COPS grants. [1:00:24] Those grants are certainly important [1:00:26] to our local law enforcement for staff, [1:00:28] for equipment, for investigations. [1:00:31] Is there any particular reason that you think [1:00:33] the police departments need less money now [1:00:35] than they did before? [1:00:37] And would you be supportive if we advocate [1:00:40] for more funding rather than less? [1:00:42] So local law enforcement needs all the money we can get. [1:00:45] I agree with that very much. [1:00:46] And whether I would be supportive of more money [1:00:50] that you all come together for local law enforcement, [1:00:52] yes, I will. [1:00:53] I mean, look, this budget... [1:00:54] Thank you. [1:00:54] I appreciate that. [1:00:55] Sure. [1:00:56] There is a bill called the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act [1:00:59] that senators on both sides of the aisle support it, [1:01:02] including Senators Tuberville and Cornyn. [1:01:04] And this is about the troubled teen industry where there are basically all kinds [1:01:10] of fairly unregulated, without oversight companies that say, [1:01:15] hey, send your teen to us and we'll get them on the right path. [1:01:21] This institutional care often results in institutional abuse. [1:01:26] And what we did when we passed and funded that bill, [1:01:30] because we had both authorized it and then we funded it, [1:01:33] was to have the National Academies of Science study. [1:01:36] Because there's 50,000 kids that are in these institutional settings each year. [1:01:40] They're often taken away in the middle of the night [1:01:42] under arrangements with the parents. [1:01:44] The parents think they're sending their kids to get help, [1:01:47] but often they're sending their kids into abuse. [1:01:49] Will you take a look at this issue and just kind of track the National Academies [1:01:55] as they proceed to study this? [1:01:57] And if there are ways that we can reduce abuse, help us find that path. [1:02:04] Yes, of course. [1:02:05] Thank you. [1:02:06] To follow up, you noted that it would be up to the five commissioners [1:02:11] that you appoint to determine whether there are any guidelines. [1:02:14] Will you encourage the folks that you select to ensure that folks [1:02:20] who were convicted of violent acts against police officers [1:02:23] do not get compensation from this fund? [1:02:27] Well, I expect they will. [1:02:28] They don't have the option of establishing guidelines. [1:02:30] The commissioners will establish guidelines. [1:02:32] And so I feel... [1:02:33] Will you encourage them to have a guideline that says [1:02:35] those who have been convicted of violent acts against police officers [1:02:39] are not eligible? [1:02:40] I will definitely encourage the commissioners to take everything [1:02:44] into account when determining who should get compensation. [1:02:47] But why not this specific issue of violent acts, [1:02:50] convicted of violent acts against police officers? [1:02:52] Do you feel they should get compensation after being convicted of violent acts? [1:02:56] My feelings don't matter, Senator, in my mind. [1:02:58] My mind is not limiting to say, yes, I will commit to this or that. [1:03:03] What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners [1:03:06] are effectively doing their jobs, [1:03:08] and that includes setting guidelines like you're describing. [1:03:12] Okay, I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable [1:03:16] that those who are convicted and violently assaulting... [1:03:19] I definitely did not say that. [1:03:21] Definitely did not say that. [1:03:22] I didn't say I found it acceptable, Senator. [1:03:25] Will you agree to encourage those commissioners [1:03:27] to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals [1:03:32] who are convicted of assaulting police officers? [1:03:35] I expect... [1:03:36] I just... [1:03:37] A yes would answer my question, or a no. [1:03:38] A yes will not answer that question. [1:03:40] I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. [1:03:41] I don't think that's a fair word. [1:03:43] I don't think it's the Attorney General's job [1:03:44] to encourage commissioners to do or not do anything. [1:03:47] Okay. [1:03:47] Well, we'll move on, but I will say that you have complete power [1:03:51] over who you appoint, so you have huge influence. [1:03:54] You are going to be evaluating the inclinations [1:03:57] and attitudes of those who will serve, [1:04:00] and certainly this looks extraordinary. [1:04:02] You described it as parallel to a fund set up [1:04:06] to compensate Native Americans who were discriminated against [1:04:09] in the agricultural world. [1:04:10] It's not parallel at all. [1:04:14] President Obama did not sue his own Department of Justice. [1:04:17] He did not have a judge saying that Williams had... [1:04:23] Let's see. [1:04:24] How did she put it? [1:04:25] Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, [1:04:28] dismissed the case, [1:04:28] and inter-filingly admonished the government agency, [1:04:31] notably the Justice Department, [1:04:33] for not being transparent about the settlement deal. [1:04:38] Williams previously assigned a group of attorneys [1:04:40] to determine whether there was a conflict of case, [1:04:42] since as sitting President Trump was suing entities, [1:04:45] quote, entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. [1:04:48] This type of conflict of interest is not at all involved [1:04:53] in the fund set up to compensate those who are discriminated against [1:04:56] in the agricultural realm. [1:04:58] I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. [1:05:00] Is it closed or open? [1:05:02] When you say the Epstein investigation, [1:05:04] what are you referring to, Senator? [1:05:05] Well, the FBI said in last year, in July, [1:05:09] that it had closed the Epstein investigation. [1:05:11] So I'm just using their words. [1:05:12] Is it open or closed? [1:05:13] I don't believe the FBI said that. [1:05:18] Well, you're head of the Department of Justice. [1:05:20] Is the Epstein investigation open or closed? [1:05:22] But I guess I don't understand what Epstein investigation means. [1:05:25] Well, let me put it differently. [1:05:26] Jeffrey Epstein himself, yes, he's dead. [1:05:28] Any investigation into potential other bad guys [1:05:32] will always be open if we have evidence that supports [1:05:35] in any way, shape, or form that we can make a case. [1:05:38] Okay, so Trump said in November, this was after the FBI, [1:05:42] and it was the FBI words when they said the investigation was closed. [1:05:45] But what Trump wrote in November of last year, [1:05:49] I'll be asking the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, [1:05:52] and the Department of Justice, [1:05:54] together with our great patriots, the FBI, [1:05:56] to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement [1:05:58] and relationships with, and he gave a specific list, [1:06:01] Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, [1:06:04] people at J.P. Morgan, and many other people [1:06:07] to determine what was going on. [1:06:09] Is there a list particularly targeted at Democrats, [1:06:15] as opposed to being, if you will, blind, [1:06:19] blind to party affiliation, [1:06:21] investigations that are being pursued under your direction? [1:06:24] The, the, any investigation, [1:06:27] no matter Republican, Democrat, man, woman, old, young, [1:06:30] any investigation will be open [1:06:32] if the Department of Justice and the FBI [1:06:34] have evidence that a crime's been committed. [1:06:35] And that doesn't, I mean, you're talking about... [1:06:37] You commit to pursue, [1:06:38] regardless of political affiliation... [1:06:41] Excuse me, Senator? [1:06:41] You commit to pursuing investigations [1:06:43] free of prejudice about party affiliation. [1:06:47] Of course, yes. [1:06:48] Well, you say, of course, [1:06:49] but this enemy has repeatedly... [1:06:51] This president has repeatedly spoken [1:06:53] of an enemy's list that he wants to go after. [1:06:56] And I must say, [1:06:57] it's one of the symbols of the breakdown [1:06:59] of a democratic republic [1:07:01] when a president uses his Department of Justice, [1:07:03] which you now head, [1:07:04] to go after his perceived political enemies. [1:07:07] I hope you won't be party to that. [1:07:08] Thank you. [1:07:09] I mean, I couldn't agree with you more, [1:07:11] and that's why what happened when, [1:07:12] during the Biden administration, [1:07:13] was so disgusting. [1:07:15] That is completely inappropriate and wrong. [1:07:18] There is no comparison [1:07:19] to the absolute fair-minded pursuit of justice [1:07:23] under the previous administration [1:07:24] and this administration's pursuit of an enemy's list. [1:07:27] Thank you. [1:07:28] Senator Murray. [1:07:30] I believe Senator Fisher was next. [1:07:33] Yeah. [1:07:35] Senator Fisher, so glad of you to join us. [1:07:39] Thank you. [1:07:41] I was trying to ingratiate myself [1:07:42] with the ranking member of the committee. [1:07:43] No, you didn't see me at the kiddie table. [1:07:46] It's fine. [1:07:47] So, Mr. Attorney General, welcome. [1:07:49] Senator Murkowski brought up to you [1:07:53] about the consolidation of the grant programs [1:07:56] and also that the budget request is $1.2 billion, [1:08:01] a cut to the state and local grants. [1:08:05] I thank you for clarifying that this consolidation, [1:08:10] what its intent is, [1:08:14] but I'm still concerned about the impact [1:08:16] of funding reductions [1:08:18] and what that would have [1:08:19] on our state and local law enforcement agencies. [1:08:23] So, I hope that you will be very cognizant of that [1:08:27] as you look at the rural [1:08:30] and really the under-resourced agencies [1:08:33] that are out there. [1:08:34] Yes, I will, Senator. [1:08:35] Yes. [1:08:35] Thank you. [1:08:35] In 2024, I passed legislation, [1:08:39] the Recruit and Retain Act, [1:08:41] and that was signed into law, [1:08:43] and this authorized law enforcement agencies [1:08:46] to use those COPS grants [1:08:48] for recruitment and retention activities. [1:08:53] It required a study. [1:08:54] The study came out. [1:08:57] Not surprisingly, [1:08:58] it identified a relationship [1:09:00] between local law enforcement staffing levels [1:09:04] and crime rates. [1:09:06] More staff leads to lower crime. [1:09:09] And the study also found [1:09:12] that from 2019 through 2024, [1:09:16] officer resignations and retirements [1:09:20] have increased, [1:09:21] and that's obviously then a decrease [1:09:24] in officer staffing. [1:09:26] So, Mr. Attorney General, [1:09:27] how do you anticipate that DOJ's proposal [1:09:32] to consolidate its grant-making components, [1:09:35] reducing that funding for that account, [1:09:39] how is that going to impact recruitment [1:09:41] and retention by those local agencies, [1:09:45] and how do you plan to address that? [1:09:48] So, we will spend tons and tons of grant money [1:09:52] on that issue, [1:09:53] and not only giving money to state and locals [1:09:55] to get them new bodies, [1:09:57] but also overtime and equipment, [1:09:59] which all goes to keeping people on the job. [1:10:01] More meaningfully, [1:10:03] and beyond the grant program itself, [1:10:05] we are working, [1:10:06] we are making law enforcement [1:10:08] a very good thing to be part of now. [1:10:10] And that was one of the reasons [1:10:11] that there was a steep decline [1:10:13] in a lot of retirements [1:10:14] during the 2019 to 2024, [1:10:17] because there was this inappropriate stigma [1:10:19] that law enforcement or COPS were bad. [1:10:21] That's not the case anymore. [1:10:22] And so, we're working every day. [1:10:24] We have our Homeland Security Task Forces set up, [1:10:26] which is a partnership with state [1:10:27] and local law enforcement and sheriffs. [1:10:29] They're getting money. [1:10:30] They're getting overtime pay. [1:10:32] We're thanking them. [1:10:33] We're giving them cars. [1:10:34] We're giving them vehicles. [1:10:35] And so, that's what we're going to continue to do. [1:10:36] Have you reached out to local agencies [1:10:41] to see if their recruitment has improved? [1:10:44] Because I can attest to disappointment [1:10:48] by many police departments. [1:10:51] OPPD, Omaha, for example, [1:10:53] did see their numbers really decrease. [1:10:56] Have you reached out [1:10:57] and have any numbers on what it is now? [1:11:01] Regularly, including last week during Police Week, [1:11:03] I met with a lot. [1:11:04] It's still a problem. [1:11:05] We have not fixed it yet. [1:11:06] I mean, look at what happened over the past year [1:11:08] with law enforcement officers getting doxxed [1:11:10] and having rocks thrown at them [1:11:12] and having local leaders say to good, hardworking cops, [1:11:15] you can't help. [1:11:16] So, this isn't something that we've won yet, [1:11:18] but it's a priority to win that fight. [1:11:20] Thank you. [1:11:21] And I'll keep on talking to state [1:11:22] and local sheriffs and cops and detectives [1:11:24] and letting them know that we appreciate them, [1:11:27] and not only with our mouth, [1:11:28] but with our pocketbooks as well. [1:11:29] We do. [1:11:30] Thank you. [1:11:31] Last year, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations [1:11:35] announced a new Homeland Security Task Force [1:11:38] based out of Kansas City, Missouri, [1:11:41] and that included a location in Omaha. [1:11:44] Yes. [1:11:44] And focus is obviously combating trafficking [1:11:48] of humans and drugs and weapons, [1:11:51] money laundering, aliens smuggling, [1:11:53] homicide extortion, on and on. [1:11:56] We did see members of this task force [1:12:00] they arrested a MS-13 gang leader [1:12:04] in Grand Island, Nebraska, [1:12:07] in the Middle Eastern part of the state. [1:12:10] The 27 budget request cites the elimination [1:12:15] of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force's component [1:12:20] and instead requests appropriations [1:12:23] be made directly to agencies like DEA and FBI. [1:12:28] Can you share how this proposed reorganization [1:12:32] is still going to ensure strong interagency coordination [1:12:37] so that we can see a continued focus [1:12:41] on transnational crime threats [1:12:44] and specifically with those local law enforcement agencies? [1:12:49] It's very important. [1:12:51] I agree. [1:12:51] So look, we dissolved the OCDF executive office. [1:12:55] That is true. [1:12:56] But the money that we're asking for, [1:12:58] the money that we're going to spend, [1:13:00] is exactly like we've been spending for a long time [1:13:02] except for more efficiently. [1:13:03] So the HSTF model is built off of the OCDF model [1:13:07] but with a lot of improvement. [1:13:09] Like there was a lot of overlap in OCDF money [1:13:12] that we are now just, [1:13:13] that we're now being more efficient with. [1:13:15] So there is no doubt, as a matter of fact, [1:13:18] the opposite is true, [1:13:19] that we're spending that same OCDF type money, [1:13:22] we're spending more of it [1:13:23] and we're getting more of it out to the field [1:13:25] through the Homeland Security Task Force. [1:13:27] And so that's what we're, that's the goal. [1:13:30] So is that a line item within your agency [1:13:35] or does it need to be a line item on appropriations? [1:13:39] To make sure that it's covered. [1:13:42] So it's a line item through the appropriations, I believe. [1:13:46] Although I'll double check that [1:13:47] and get back to you if I'm wrong. [1:13:49] I will, yes. [1:13:50] Okay, thank you. [1:13:51] Senator Fisher, thank you. [1:13:52] Now I would like to recognize the vice chair [1:13:54] of the full committee, Senator Murray. [1:13:55] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:13:57] Acting Attorney General right now, [1:13:59] families are paying four or five, [1:14:01] even six or $7 for gas. [1:14:04] Inflation is at its highest level in years [1:14:07] because of the president's policies. [1:14:09] But instead of helping Americans get by, [1:14:12] President Trump is literally using their tax dollars [1:14:17] to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. [1:14:21] On Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit [1:14:24] by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion [1:14:28] and you and the president will pick the handful of people [1:14:33] who decide how that money gets doled out. [1:14:36] So let's be clear. [1:14:37] What we're talking about is nothing short [1:14:39] of the sitting president of the United States [1:14:42] looting from the treasury for his own gain. [1:14:45] Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? [1:14:49] The president telling the federal government [1:14:51] to settle a case and let him pay billions [1:14:54] to the people that he chooses? [1:14:56] What you just described wouldn't be appropriate [1:14:58] and that's absolutely not what happened [1:15:00] and that's not what's happening now. [1:15:01] So you just set up a series of facts, [1:15:03] most of which were not true. [1:15:04] No, they were... [1:15:05] To say, is it... [1:15:05] No, it's not. [1:15:07] I mean, I... [1:15:07] The president has set up a slush fund, [1:15:09] however you want to say that it got set up, [1:15:12] and he literally will get to choose [1:15:14] through his hand-picked appointees [1:15:16] who gets paid that fund. [1:15:18] That is absurd. [1:15:19] The president did not set up this fund. [1:15:22] It's not a slush fund. [1:15:23] It's been done many times. [1:15:26] We have lots of funds... [1:15:26] Oh, I heard your response earlier [1:15:28] to Senator Van Hollen. [1:15:29] This is not comparable to the case that you cited. [1:15:33] A judge was not involved. [1:15:34] This is the president versus himself setting up a fund. [1:15:38] The judge wasn't involved in the distribution [1:15:40] in the Keeps Eagle case at all. [1:15:42] It just wasn't. [1:15:43] There was a single commissioner that was set up, [1:15:46] not five, and so... [1:15:48] The judge signed off on that case. [1:15:50] Yes, it was at a much later point in litigation. [1:15:52] That's my point. [1:15:54] That is all of our point, [1:15:55] and it just... [1:15:56] I just have to tell you, [1:15:57] this is corruption [1:15:58] that has never been more blatant or more rights-spent. [1:16:01] What is happening is you write the check, [1:16:04] Trump and his cronies cash it, [1:16:05] American taxpayers, [1:16:07] who are already being whacked with high prices, [1:16:10] are going to foot the bill. [1:16:11] That's what we are seeing today, [1:16:12] and that is what many of us [1:16:14] are really, really angry about. [1:16:17] So let me move to another topic. [1:16:19] This Department of Justice [1:16:21] is sending the message [1:16:23] that if you're wealthy, [1:16:25] if you're powerful, [1:16:26] if you are well-connected, [1:16:28] you won't be held accountable, [1:16:29] even if you abuse children. [1:16:31] You know us after Congress [1:16:33] passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act [1:16:35] and DOG finally began to release the files, [1:16:39] your department exposed survivors' names, [1:16:43] their sensitive personal information, [1:16:45] and even nude photos [1:16:47] while redacting names [1:16:49] of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. [1:16:52] The message that sends [1:16:53] is this Department of Justice [1:16:55] worked harder [1:16:56] to protect the privacy [1:16:57] of potential child abusers [1:16:59] than the survivors. [1:17:02] Your predecessor refused [1:17:04] to apologize to those victims, [1:17:06] but I want to give you [1:17:07] the same opportunity [1:17:08] to apologize [1:17:09] for the way the department [1:17:11] handled the release [1:17:13] of these documents. [1:17:14] Will you apologize [1:17:15] to the survivors? [1:17:17] When the president [1:17:18] passed the Epstein Transparency Act, [1:17:20] that was the only time... [1:17:21] Pardon me? [1:17:22] When the president signed [1:17:23] the Transparency Act, [1:17:25] that was when we were legally [1:17:26] allowed to release the files. [1:17:28] Prior to the passage of the act, [1:17:30] which you all passed, [1:17:31] I agree. [1:17:31] That is so not the question [1:17:32] I'm asking. [1:17:33] It was the question you asked. [1:17:35] You asked five or six questions. [1:17:36] I'm answering them in order. [1:17:37] That was one of the questions you asked. [1:17:38] No, the question I want you to answer [1:17:40] is will you apologize [1:17:41] to the victims [1:17:42] whose names, [1:17:44] sensitive personal information, [1:17:46] and even nude photos [1:17:48] were not redacted [1:17:49] by your department? [1:17:50] Will you apologize to them? [1:17:51] Of course. [1:17:52] That was... [1:17:52] We never want to release [1:17:53] a single victim's name. [1:17:54] That is what they are hearing [1:17:55] to hear. [1:17:55] Can I answer the question, please? [1:17:57] Is it fair? [1:17:57] I'm asking if you'll apologize. [1:17:59] So I... [1:17:59] And I just said yes, [1:18:00] but I wanted to... [1:18:01] I would like an explanation [1:18:02] to be given to that. [1:18:03] What this act did [1:18:05] is it required us [1:18:07] to review [1:18:07] over six million pieces of paper [1:18:09] in a very short period of time. [1:18:11] And so 0.001% [1:18:13] we made mistakes [1:18:14] and we owned up to them. [1:18:16] And the second that a victim [1:18:17] or their lawyer told us [1:18:18] that we made a mistake, [1:18:20] we pulled that document down [1:18:21] and we put lawyers 24-7 [1:18:23] in being responsive to victims [1:18:25] and their lawyers [1:18:25] to make sure [1:18:26] that we fixed [1:18:27] every single problem. [1:18:28] And so yes... [1:18:29] I hear your anger. [1:18:30] I'm not angry. [1:18:30] No, I'm not angry. [1:18:31] I'm just making sure [1:18:32] it's understood [1:18:33] that we matter. [1:18:35] There are nude photos released. [1:18:37] I just want to hear you say [1:18:38] I apologize to those victims. [1:18:40] So as I just said, [1:18:42] of course, [1:18:43] any time we release [1:18:44] a victim's name [1:18:45] that shouldn't be released, [1:18:46] we have failed [1:18:46] as a Department of Justice. [1:18:48] And so we have to do [1:18:49] everything that we can [1:18:50] to not fail. [1:18:51] Well, I haven't heard the words [1:18:52] I apologize to those victims. [1:18:53] I'm trying to give you [1:18:53] an explanation of what happened. [1:18:55] I don't think you're [1:18:55] really interested in that [1:18:56] because you keep on cutting me off. [1:18:57] I have a few more questions here [1:18:59] and I want to know [1:19:00] and I know that Senator [1:19:00] Van Hollen raised this [1:19:01] but I want to ask you, [1:19:03] will you personally commit [1:19:04] to meeting with the survivors? [1:19:06] I have heard from them [1:19:07] personally [1:19:08] that DOJ refused to meet them [1:19:10] and I'm asking about you. [1:19:12] I'm asking about [1:19:13] the Justice Department [1:19:14] reaching out to them [1:19:16] to be heard, [1:19:17] not waiting for them [1:19:18] to navigate a legal system [1:19:19] that has obviously [1:19:21] repeatedly failed them so far. [1:19:23] Can I answer? [1:19:24] Yeah, will you reach out to them? [1:19:26] So, as we have said repeatedly, [1:19:28] of course, any lawyer. [1:19:29] Now, if a victim has a lawyer, [1:19:31] I'm not allowed to reach out [1:19:32] to the victim directly. [1:19:33] You know that. [1:19:34] But any lawyer can reach out [1:19:35] to the Department of Justice. [1:19:36] They have and I've met [1:19:37] with many victims [1:19:38] and their lawyers [1:19:39] as has the FBI [1:19:40] as has the SDNY. [1:19:42] We will always, [1:19:44] always meet with [1:19:45] victims counsel. [1:19:46] Any victim or the lawyer [1:19:47] can come forward to the FBI [1:19:48] at any time. [1:19:49] With these women [1:19:49] and I've met with them [1:19:50] and I know Senator Van Hollen [1:19:52] has and so many other people. [1:19:54] They are personally [1:19:55] so feeling abused [1:19:57] again and again and again [1:19:58] by what happened [1:19:59] to them originally [1:20:00] and now by what's happening [1:20:02] by them. [1:20:02] I am saying to you [1:20:03] as a human being [1:20:04] don't make them navigate [1:20:06] a system that is impossible [1:20:08] to navigate [1:20:08] that's already abused them. [1:20:10] Reach out [1:20:11] and ask to meet with them. [1:20:12] Wait, you're asking me [1:20:13] to call? [1:20:14] You want me to personally [1:20:15] call the victims? [1:20:15] I can help you reach them. [1:20:17] Oh, that would be great. [1:20:18] Yes, because we have said [1:20:19] from day one, [1:20:20] of course, [1:20:21] there have been members [1:20:22] that have done that [1:20:22] and we immediately reach out [1:20:24] to the victims [1:20:24] or their lawyers [1:20:25] when the lawyers want [1:20:26] and say they want to do it. [1:20:27] We will follow up on that. [1:20:29] Thank you very much. [1:20:31] Let me ask you [1:20:32] a few questions [1:20:33] and then we'll get [1:20:35] to Senator Reed [1:20:35] and Senator Peters [1:20:37] and then we'll have [1:20:39] a conclusion of the hearing. [1:20:41] I want to... [1:20:42] Oh, yes. [1:20:43] And Senator Gillibrand, [1:20:44] excuse me for my lack [1:20:45] of peripheral vision. [1:20:47] We'll make certain, [1:20:49] Senator Gillibrand, [1:20:49] that you are called on. [1:20:50] General, [1:20:53] I'm worried about staffing [1:20:55] and operational strains [1:20:57] at the Bureau of Prisons. [1:20:59] This committee, [1:21:00] this subcommittee [1:21:01] and our full committee [1:21:02] has tried to help [1:21:03] in the last several years [1:21:04] and there was money [1:21:06] in the reconciliation bill, [1:21:07] $5 billion to support [1:21:09] recruitment [1:21:09] and retention efforts [1:21:11] to address the BOP's [1:21:13] maintenance backlog. [1:21:17] In correctional facilities [1:21:18] in Kansas [1:21:19] and we have certainly [1:21:20] a major federal [1:21:21] and lots of state [1:21:22] correctional facilities [1:21:23] but officers, wardens, [1:21:25] stakeholders [1:21:25] continue to hear concerns [1:21:27] about staffing shortages, [1:21:30] aging infrastructure, [1:21:31] deferred maintenance, [1:21:32] officer retention, [1:21:33] long-term strain [1:21:34] placed on both personnel [1:21:35] and inmates. [1:21:37] What can you tell me [1:21:39] about this budget request [1:21:41] and can you help me [1:21:43] understand the circumstances [1:21:45] you see at the Bureau of Prisons [1:21:46] in this regard? [1:21:47] So, thank you, Senator. [1:21:48] We were given a broken agency [1:21:50] when we took over. [1:21:51] Not enough money, [1:21:52] morale was very low [1:21:54] and many of the prisons [1:21:56] needed serious repairs. [1:21:58] So, the president's budget [1:22:00] this year tries to rectify [1:22:02] a lot of that [1:22:02] as did the big, beautiful bill. [1:22:04] The vacancy rate [1:22:05] is still 20% [1:22:07] for corrections officers. [1:22:08] I talked about this earlier. [1:22:09] That has to do with retention. [1:22:11] It has to do with how much [1:22:12] we're paying them [1:22:12] and creating an environment [1:22:14] at the BOP [1:22:15] that they want to work at. [1:22:16] So, that's something [1:22:17] we have to work on. [1:22:18] We have some of the investments [1:22:20] we want to make. [1:22:21] $450 million [1:22:22] to attack the vacancy rate [1:22:24] and start paying some [1:22:26] of our correction officers more. [1:22:27] And then also a lot of money [1:22:31] to make repairs. [1:22:32] So, these are just safety repairs [1:22:34] but also structural repairs [1:22:36] at prisons so that, again, [1:22:38] it makes sure inmates are protected [1:22:40] and are safe [1:22:41] and that we're safe from them [1:22:43] and also creates an environment [1:22:45] that's safe for the staff [1:22:46] and the corrections officers [1:22:48] that are working there. [1:22:49] And so, it's a big number [1:22:50] but it's extraordinarily important. [1:22:52] As recently as yesterday, [1:22:54] General, I continued to hear [1:22:56] from state and local [1:22:57] law enforcement agencies [1:22:59] about their desire [1:23:00] and therefore the demand [1:23:02] for training [1:23:03] on drones [1:23:05] and counter UAS systems. [1:23:08] Kansas City is a FIFA site. [1:23:10] But that demand is significant. [1:23:13] And can you tell me [1:23:15] how the department [1:23:16] is working with the FBI [1:23:17] to address this issue? [1:23:20] And I think FIFA [1:23:21] is a significant component of it [1:23:22] but with the prevalence of UAVs, [1:23:25] I think it's just a broadly [1:23:26] an issue that needs [1:23:28] to be broadly addressed. [1:23:30] Yes. [1:23:30] So, we're training, [1:23:32] the FBI is training [1:23:32] a ton of state and locals [1:23:33] every day [1:23:34] and we're on the clock [1:23:36] because of FIFA [1:23:37] but we're also doing it [1:23:38] beyond FIFA [1:23:39] because the UAS's drones [1:23:42] are a big problem [1:23:43] in every single state [1:23:44] in this country. [1:23:45] And so, we have ATF also [1:23:47] that a certain portion [1:23:49] of ATF also helps [1:23:50] with the training as well [1:23:51] at the FBI facility [1:23:52] and we're going to continue [1:23:54] to do that [1:23:55] meaning we're going to continue [1:23:56] to offer and provide training [1:23:57] to state and locals. [1:23:59] We're also asking for money [1:24:00] in our budget [1:24:00] to help shore that up [1:24:02] a little bit [1:24:03] so that we can continue [1:24:04] to not only offer training [1:24:05] but have a defense [1:24:07] to the U.S. [1:24:08] I would suggest [1:24:10] that the FBI training center [1:24:12] is over capacity [1:24:13] needs more officers [1:24:16] and capabilities [1:24:16] and if the Department of Justice [1:24:18] is interested in pursuing that [1:24:20] I'd be interested [1:24:21] in trying to be helpful. [1:24:22] I'm interested in working [1:24:23] with you, Senator. [1:24:24] Thank you. [1:24:25] Grant administration, [1:24:26] I think things are getting better [1:24:28] but the Department of Justice [1:24:29] particularly in its grants [1:24:31] to local law enforcement [1:24:32] it's been a really slow process [1:24:34] this year [1:24:35] in getting the money [1:24:36] out the door. [1:24:37] Congress shut down. [1:24:39] The list is long [1:24:40] for reasons that could be the case [1:24:43] but I want to give you [1:24:46] the opportunity [1:24:47] to tell me [1:24:48] that you are now positioned [1:24:49] to see that local law enforcement [1:24:51] in particular [1:24:51] but grants in general [1:24:53] and those grants [1:24:54] exceed just local law enforcement [1:24:56] it's other community grants [1:24:58] mentoring grants [1:24:59] I want to make sure [1:25:01] that you believe [1:25:02] you're now positioned [1:25:02] in terms of staffing [1:25:05] and administrative abilities [1:25:07] to make that process work better. [1:25:10] We are working on that [1:25:11] and you're right [1:25:12] it's been slow [1:25:13] we now have all the 25s out [1:25:15] except for maybe one [1:25:16] we're starting on 26 now. [1:25:18] One program or one grant? [1:25:20] One grant. [1:25:21] One grant. [1:25:21] One grant. [1:25:21] It could be off [1:25:23] a couple of grants [1:25:23] but we're mostly finished [1:25:25] with that process [1:25:26] you're right [1:25:26] we didn't get the number [1:25:28] from you guys [1:25:28] until January [1:25:29] late January [1:25:30] so we had a late start [1:25:31] and we're going to turn [1:25:32] to 26 now [1:25:33] and get as much done [1:25:35] as we can. [1:25:35] As you know [1:25:36] they're distributed [1:25:36] on a rolling basis [1:25:37] so it's not as if [1:25:38] there's no money [1:25:40] and then a ton of money [1:25:40] so we're trying [1:25:41] to get the wheels turning [1:25:44] as quickly as we can [1:25:45] to get money out. [1:25:47] Thank you. [1:25:47] Senator Reid. [1:25:48] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [1:25:51] Mr. Blanche [1:25:52] how many taxpayers [1:25:53] returns were leaked [1:25:54] by the IRS contractor [1:25:56] in the 2020 breach? [1:25:58] How many taxpayers [1:25:59] excuse me? [1:26:00] How many taxpayers [1:26:01] returns were leaked [1:26:02] by the IRS contractor [1:26:03] in the 2020 breach? [1:26:05] I don't know [1:26:06] the exact amount [1:26:06] but a lot. [1:26:08] 405,427. [1:26:11] One of them [1:26:12] was Donald Trump [1:26:13] correct? [1:26:15] One of them [1:26:16] was Donald Trump [1:26:17] correct? [1:26:17] One of them [1:26:18] was Donald Trump [1:26:18] and his family [1:26:18] were others [1:26:19] correct. [1:26:20] Right. [1:26:20] And Donald Trump [1:26:22] was president at the time? [1:26:23] Correct. [1:26:24] So it was his [1:26:25] IRS department [1:26:26] that allowed [1:26:27] this breach [1:26:28] of privacy [1:26:29] correct? [1:26:30] It was a criminal [1:26:31] who worked [1:26:31] in the IRS [1:26:32] yes. [1:26:35] Well he was hired [1:26:36] under Trump's [1:26:37] this is one of the [1:26:37] Trump [1:26:38] Well there was [1:26:39] a criminal breach [1:26:40] that led to this [1:26:41] yes. [1:26:41] Very good. [1:26:43] How many of these [1:26:44] 400,000 people [1:26:46] have received [1:26:46] monetary reimbursement [1:26:48] for the breach? [1:26:49] I don't think any have [1:26:50] including the president. [1:26:51] No they haven't [1:26:51] but you've [1:26:53] authorized the president [1:26:54] do you agree [1:26:55] the president [1:26:55] should have [1:26:56] reimbursement [1:26:58] correct? [1:26:59] No he settled [1:27:00] the case [1:27:00] no there's no [1:27:01] reimbursement [1:27:01] to president Trump [1:27:02] Well that's interesting [1:27:06] so president Trump [1:27:07] you're going to [1:27:08] assure us [1:27:08] president Trump [1:27:09] and his family [1:27:09] will get no [1:27:10] proceeds from this [1:27:12] Correct [1:27:12] he will not [1:27:14] He will not get [1:27:15] his family [1:27:15] will not get [1:27:16] Correct [1:27:16] and who will direct [1:27:19] the disposition [1:27:20] of these [1:27:20] who gets [1:27:21] the money [1:27:22] from the [1:27:23] from the [1:27:24] victims fund [1:27:25] well there will be [1:27:25] a commission [1:27:26] of five individuals [1:27:27] that will be set up [1:27:28] and they will [1:27:29] take in requests [1:27:30] and claims [1:27:31] and decide whether [1:27:32] to do anything [1:27:33] from issuing a [1:27:33] who will name [1:27:34] the commissioners [1:27:34] I will [1:27:35] the attorney general [1:27:36] whoever the attorney general is [1:27:37] the attorney general [1:27:39] okay [1:27:39] sorry just to correct [1:27:41] and one of them [1:27:42] will be done [1:27:42] in consultation [1:27:43] with leadership [1:27:43] of this body [1:27:44] consultation [1:27:46] well that's good [1:27:46] but when he first [1:27:49] announced this [1:27:50] suit on January 30th [1:27:53] he said [1:27:53] I think what we'll do [1:27:55] is something for charity [1:27:56] where I'll give [1:27:57] the money to charity [1:27:58] I'm talking about [1:28:00] the American Cancer Society [1:28:01] I would say [1:28:02] established [1:28:02] and respected charities [1:28:04] will you fulfill [1:28:06] the president's wish [1:28:07] that it goes [1:28:08] to respected charities [1:28:09] I'm aware [1:28:10] that he put that in [1:28:11] or said that [1:28:12] but that's not [1:28:12] ultimately what [1:28:13] the settlement calls for [1:28:14] well the settlement [1:28:15] was negotiated [1:28:16] between his lawyers [1:28:17] and the Department of Justice [1:28:20] correct [1:28:20] correct [1:28:21] so his lawyers [1:28:22] did not urge [1:28:23] that they adopt [1:28:24] the president's [1:28:24] vision of giving it [1:28:26] to a respectable charity [1:28:28] I am confident [1:28:29] his lawyers [1:28:29] urged the president's desires [1:28:31] obviously there's not [1:28:32] a charity [1:28:33] the order that you signed [1:28:40] yesterday states [1:28:41] that the government [1:28:42] pay their settlement [1:28:43] if the secretary of treasury [1:28:45] has certified the payment [1:28:47] is that correct [1:28:47] correct [1:28:48] is it a coincidence [1:28:50] that the general counsel [1:28:52] of the Department of Treasury [1:28:52] resigned yesterday [1:28:54] I don't know [1:28:55] if it's a coincidence [1:28:56] have you looked [1:28:57] or checked [1:28:58] have I checked [1:28:59] have I checked [1:28:59] I have not [1:29:01] as to why he resigned [1:29:02] it just seems to be [1:29:04] very coincidental [1:29:05] that a high-ranking member [1:29:07] of the Department of Treasury [1:29:08] Senate confirmed [1:29:09] would resign [1:29:10] the day [1:29:10] that the Treasury Department [1:29:12] was required [1:29:12] essentially [1:29:14] to certify [1:29:16] these payments [1:29:16] well I believe [1:29:18] the IRS [1:29:19] signed the settlement agreement [1:29:20] as well [1:29:21] but yes [1:29:22] but I don't [1:29:23] I can't speak [1:29:24] to why he resigned [1:29:24] Senator [1:29:25] well [1:29:26] this all [1:29:29] seems [1:29:30] to be [1:29:32] an obvious [1:29:34] abuse of power [1:29:36] by the Department of Justice [1:29:38] by the President [1:29:39] he negotiated [1:29:41] essentially [1:29:41] with himself [1:29:42] you're his appointee [1:29:44] the IRS [1:29:45] are his appointees [1:29:46] he's the plaintiff [1:29:48] and the American people [1:29:49] I don't think [1:29:50] are surprised [1:29:50] that suddenly [1:29:51] all this money [1:29:52] is going to his [1:29:53] friends [1:29:54] or people [1:29:55] that he [1:29:56] in his orbit [1:29:57] will you ensure [1:29:59] that none of this money [1:30:00] goes to anyone [1:30:01] convicted [1:30:01] on the January 6th [1:30:02] attack on the Congress [1:30:03] well [1:30:05] the commissioners [1:30:06] will determine [1:30:07] who is eligible [1:30:08] to receive the money [1:30:09] and who are [1:30:10] the commissioners [1:30:11] they're not named yet [1:30:12] who will name them [1:30:13] I will [1:30:14] or the Attorney General [1:30:15] will [1:30:15] it's not me [1:30:16] so [1:30:17] with the suggestion [1:30:18] of the President [1:30:19] of the United States [1:30:19] excuse me [1:30:20] with the suggestion [1:30:21] of the American [1:30:22] of the President [1:30:23] of the United States [1:30:23] your boss [1:30:24] I do not make suggestions [1:30:25] I will [1:30:25] no no [1:30:26] he won't make [1:30:27] suggestions [1:30:27] to you [1:30:28] I have no idea [1:30:30] if he will [1:30:30] or not [1:30:30] I really don't [1:30:32] I have no idea [1:30:33] if he will [1:30:33] or not [1:30:33] I would be shocked [1:30:38] if he didn't tell you [1:30:38] exactly who to put on [1:30:40] and I'd be more shocked [1:30:41] if you did not [1:30:42] put them on [1:30:42] this is a travesty [1:30:47] of the law [1:30:48] in the United States [1:30:49] and the Constitution [1:30:49] you had an opportunity [1:30:52] to go down [1:30:53] and talk to [1:30:54] Jocelyn Maxwell [1:30:56] and then [1:30:58] a few days later [1:30:59] she was transferred [1:30:59] from a high security [1:31:00] prison [1:31:01] to a [1:31:02] very comfortable [1:31:05] very comfortable [1:31:07] it's just not true [1:31:08] she was not [1:31:09] in a high security prison [1:31:10] she was transferred [1:31:11] from a low security prison [1:31:12] to a low security prison [1:31:12] I mean you're looking [1:31:13] at me like [1:31:14] that's [1:31:14] that's verifiable [1:31:15] well [1:31:17] I don't think [1:31:19] at the other prison [1:31:20] she had her own room [1:31:21] she had access [1:31:23] to a private shower [1:31:24] she could have [1:31:25] pet therapy [1:31:26] and [1:31:28] I don't know [1:31:29] if any of that is true [1:31:29] I'm not disagreeing [1:31:30] with you [1:31:30] it is true [1:31:31] and you should know [1:31:32] it Mr. Attorney General [1:31:33] I should know that [1:31:33] whether an inmate [1:31:35] has access [1:31:36] to her own shower [1:31:36] no no [1:31:37] this is a person [1:31:39] of extra special interest [1:31:41] to the president [1:31:42] of the United States [1:31:42] he's known her [1:31:43] why did he send you [1:31:45] down [1:31:46] to talk to her [1:31:47] he didn't send me [1:31:48] I went [1:31:49] what do you mean [1:31:50] do you think [1:31:51] President Trump [1:31:51] called and asked me [1:31:52] to go interview [1:31:53] a witness [1:31:53] in federal prison [1:31:54] yes I do [1:31:55] frankly [1:31:56] because you know why [1:31:57] because the deal [1:31:58] was in [1:31:58] he needed somebody [1:31:59] he needed somebody [1:32:01] he could rely upon [1:32:02] to talk to her [1:32:02] and say [1:32:03] what would she say [1:32:04] if she was asked [1:32:05] about Jeffrey Epstein [1:32:06] and you were [1:32:07] the perfect choice [1:32:07] and you went down there [1:32:09] and suddenly [1:32:10] shazam [1:32:10] she's out of [1:32:12] what is a more [1:32:12] confining situation [1:32:14] into a [1:32:16] not a [1:32:18] much more relaxed [1:32:20] federal prison [1:32:20] every word [1:32:21] that I asked her [1:32:22] is recorded [1:32:24] and available [1:32:24] to you to review [1:32:25] if there's criticisms [1:32:27] of the question [1:32:27] that I asked her [1:32:28] go ahead and make them [1:32:29] but the president [1:32:31] did not have anything [1:32:31] to do with my choice [1:32:32] to go interview [1:32:33] Ms. Maxwell [1:32:34] if I wouldn't have went [1:32:35] and a career would have went [1:32:36] you would have said [1:32:37] why didn't you go yourself [1:32:38] just like you expect me [1:32:39] to know whether she has [1:32:39] access to her own shower [1:32:41] so I did go [1:32:42] everyone in the United States [1:32:44] who reads the newspapers [1:32:45] know that [1:32:46] I guess you don't [1:32:48] you know [1:32:48] read things like that [1:32:49] you know [1:32:50] this whole hearing [1:32:51] I think is exposing [1:32:52] something [1:32:52] which is to me [1:32:53] very frightening [1:32:54] you're a very gifted lawyer [1:32:56] but from my perspective [1:32:59] you have [1:33:00] very little faith [1:33:02] to the constitution [1:33:03] and the people of America [1:33:04] and you're [1:33:05] the president's consigliore [1:33:07] your perspective [1:33:08] is completely wrong [1:33:09] well [1:33:10] I think the facts [1:33:11] will prove me right [1:33:12] thank you [1:33:13] thank you [1:33:16] Mr. Chairman [1:33:17] Mr. Blanche [1:33:18] last May [1:33:20] my staff [1:33:21] at Homeland Security [1:33:22] and Government Affairs [1:33:23] Committee [1:33:23] released a report [1:33:25] documenting [1:33:25] that the inspectors general [1:33:27] that President Trump fired [1:33:29] had together collectively [1:33:31] had uncovered billions of dollars [1:33:33] in fraud, waste, and abuse [1:33:36] we oversee IGs [1:33:39] and believe that [1:33:40] they're incredibly important [1:33:42] to hold government accountable [1:33:44] which needs to be done [1:33:46] so that American people [1:33:48] have trust and confidence [1:33:49] in the work that we do here [1:33:50] in fact [1:33:51] it was quite [1:33:52] I thought striking [1:33:54] the study showed [1:33:55] that for every dollar [1:33:57] that we spend [1:33:58] on IGs [1:33:59] it's been estimated [1:34:01] the return on that investment [1:34:02] is roughly 18 times [1:34:04] what we put into the IGs [1:34:07] but despite [1:34:09] the administration's [1:34:11] purported focus on fraud [1:34:13] your department [1:34:14] FY27 request [1:34:16] would actually cut these IGs [1:34:18] their budget [1:34:20] by nearly a third [1:34:22] these are folks [1:34:22] that have an 18 to 1 [1:34:24] return on investment [1:34:26] prior to being in public service [1:34:28] I spent 20 plus years [1:34:29] in the investment business [1:34:31] if I told investors [1:34:33] this is an investment [1:34:33] I'd like you to make [1:34:34] and you're going to have [1:34:34] an 18 to 1 return [1:34:37] they would jump out [1:34:38] of their chair in excitement [1:34:39] and say absolutely [1:34:40] how much money can I put in [1:34:42] to get an 18 to 1 return [1:34:45] so while the request [1:34:47] and this happens [1:34:48] while you're requesting [1:34:49] an increase [1:34:49] for your overall agency [1:34:51] through the reconciliation [1:34:52] so you're going to be [1:34:53] gaining additional funding [1:34:55] which I would argue [1:34:56] requires oversight [1:34:57] as you get additional funding [1:34:58] that happens [1:34:59] every government agency [1:35:00] not just yours [1:35:02] and have a massive cut [1:35:03] of IGs [1:35:03] with an 18 to 1 ROI [1:35:06] why was that decision made [1:35:08] and how do you intend [1:35:09] to have robust oversight [1:35:10] of the department [1:35:11] when you're cutting [1:35:11] the folks who are [1:35:12] responsible for that [1:35:13] and have a brilliant [1:35:14] track record of doing that [1:35:16] with every administration [1:35:18] Democratic or Republican [1:35:19] before you? [1:35:20] So I agree the IGs [1:35:22] are extraordinarily important [1:35:23] the budget that was proposed [1:35:25] it was developed consulting [1:35:27] with the IGs [1:35:28] and so this is a budget [1:35:29] that OMB and DOJ worked [1:35:32] with the IGs office [1:35:34] to come up with [1:35:34] and this was an agreed upon [1:35:36] budget from them [1:35:37] so while not just because [1:35:39] you're not giving more money [1:35:42] and you're even taking away [1:35:42] money doesn't mean the [1:35:44] conclusion you reach is accurate [1:35:45] which is that it's going to [1:35:46] result in less work [1:35:48] or less return on our investment [1:35:50] I just don't think that's true [1:35:52] Well that makes no sense [1:35:53] of course [1:35:53] if you have one third [1:35:55] fewer folks working [1:35:58] granted maybe they're [1:35:59] incredibly more productive [1:36:00] but it's really clear [1:36:02] with an 18 to 1 return [1:36:05] investing as your budget [1:36:06] is growing [1:36:07] you're going to have [1:36:07] that kind of return [1:36:09] and it makes no sense [1:36:12] to do that [1:36:13] there's no financial sense [1:36:15] to do it [1:36:16] so is there another reason [1:36:17] you just don't want IGs [1:36:18] on the job [1:36:18] As I just said [1:36:20] the IGs themselves [1:36:21] work with OMB and DOJ [1:36:23] to develop this budget [1:36:24] in a way that made them [1:36:26] feel that they could get [1:36:27] their job done [1:36:27] So it wasn't like [1:36:29] we've got a budget for [1:36:30] you can either take this [1:36:31] or you're going to get a lot [1:36:32] less [1:36:32] I wasn't part of the [1:36:33] conversation but I assure you [1:36:35] I can't imagine [1:36:35] IGs are going to say [1:36:37] okay we want fewer of us [1:36:38] even though we have an 18 to 1 [1:36:39] return [1:36:39] and we're the guardian [1:36:41] to make sure that people [1:36:43] can trust what happens [1:36:44] in federal government [1:36:45] and it makes no sense [1:36:46] to me to have that cut [1:36:47] and I think it speaks volumes [1:36:50] of what this administration [1:36:53] is really focused on [1:36:55] and it's not about [1:36:55] reducing waste, fraud and abuse [1:36:57] you don't do that [1:36:58] by decimating the IG corps [1:37:00] you certainly saw him fire [1:37:02] a number of IGs earlier [1:37:03] and have serious concerns [1:37:04] Mr. Blanche [1:37:05] the president also signed [1:37:07] an executive order [1:37:07] on March 31 [1:37:08] directing the Department of Justice [1:37:10] the Department of Homeland [1:37:11] Security [1:37:12] and the Postal Service [1:37:13] to take a series of actions [1:37:14] related to federal elections [1:37:16] including the creation [1:37:17] of a federal citizenship list [1:37:19] and new rules on mail [1:37:21] ballot distribution [1:37:22] that order is rightly [1:37:24] being challenged in federal [1:37:26] court as these are state [1:37:27] functions [1:37:28] but recent reporting [1:37:29] indicated that the [1:37:30] implementation of that order [1:37:31] is being coordinated [1:37:32] through the White House [1:37:33] meetings involving senior [1:37:34] Department of Justice [1:37:35] leadership [1:37:36] including Assistant Attorney [1:37:38] General Harmet [1:37:39] Dillon [1:37:40] so my question for you sir [1:37:41] is [1:37:42] what is the department's [1:37:43] role in implementing [1:37:44] the March 31 [1:37:45] executive order [1:37:46] well it's [1:37:47] I want to be careful [1:37:48] because it is under [1:37:49] litigation [1:37:50] but it's as you just [1:37:51] described [1:37:52] it's working with [1:37:53] other agencies [1:37:54] within the administration [1:37:55] to implement [1:37:56] the goals [1:37:57] which I think [1:37:58] are appropriate goals [1:37:59] to make sure [1:38:00] that we have free [1:38:01] and fair elections [1:38:02] to make sure [1:38:03] those are implemented [1:38:04] to make sure [1:38:05] that we need to implement [1:38:06] them [1:38:07] or some other federal agency [1:38:08] well you have other [1:38:09] agencies [1:38:10] the same reporting [1:38:11] identified the official [1:38:12] leading the department [1:38:13] of homeland security's [1:38:14] work [1:38:15] as you said you're all [1:38:16] working together on this [1:38:17] who now serves as the DHS [1:38:18] deputy assistant secretary [1:38:19] for election integrity [1:38:21] her name is Heather Honey [1:38:23] who is in that position [1:38:25] Ms. Honey's prior claims [1:38:27] were central to the effect [1:38:29] to challenge the 2020 [1:38:31] election results [1:38:32] claims as you have [1:38:34] as you know have been [1:38:35] widely disproven [1:38:38] it's not true [1:38:39] none of this stuff [1:38:40] she's a key player there [1:38:41] so my question for you sir [1:38:42] is the department [1:38:43] taking policy direction [1:38:44] either formally or [1:38:45] informally [1:38:46] you say they are [1:38:47] from your previous answer [1:38:48] but from an official [1:38:49] whose prior work [1:38:50] was built on [1:38:51] disproven claims [1:38:52] about a prior [1:38:54] federal election [1:38:55] our policy direction [1:38:56] comes from [1:38:57] president trump [1:38:58] and his leadership team [1:38:59] so I know the person [1:39:00] you're speaking about [1:39:01] she's part of DHS [1:39:02] and certainly in meetings [1:39:03] that we have [1:39:04] about election integrity [1:39:05] but as far as [1:39:06] whether myself [1:39:08] or Harmeet Dillon [1:39:09] take policy directions [1:39:10] we take them [1:39:11] from the president [1:39:12] so interesting [1:39:16] person who is [1:39:17] was part of these [1:39:19] widely disproven [1:39:20] false allegations [1:39:21] and a president [1:39:22] who of course [1:39:23] subscribes to that as well [1:39:24] so that's what you're [1:39:25] telling me that's what's [1:39:26] driving this effort [1:39:27] by the federal government [1:39:28] to basically take powers [1:39:31] that the constitution [1:39:32] reserves for our states [1:39:34] thank you mr. chairman [1:39:35] appreciate it [1:39:41] thank you mr. chairman [1:39:42] welcome general blanche [1:39:43] thank you [1:39:44] general blanche [1:39:45] last week I took this [1:39:46] topic up with director [1:39:47] Patel [1:39:48] I'd like to revisit it with you [1:39:49] that has to do with [1:39:50] the work that's taking place [1:39:51] in various jurisdictions [1:39:52] across the country [1:39:53] to make them more safe [1:39:55] and I want to commend the [1:39:56] department for the work [1:39:57] on memphis safe [1:39:58] the task force there has [1:39:59] resulted in a 43 percent [1:40:01] decrease in violent crime [1:40:03] since the operation commenced [1:40:05] I think it's a shining [1:40:07] example of what happens [1:40:08] when you have state and [1:40:09] local governments [1:40:10] cooperating with the [1:40:11] federal government [1:40:13] and the dramatic [1:40:14] improvements that we've [1:40:15] seen in violent crime [1:40:17] and enhancing safety [1:40:19] are really very much [1:40:20] appreciated [1:40:21] I just wanted to ask you [1:40:22] to take a few minutes [1:40:23] and walk us through the [1:40:24] whole of government [1:40:25] approach that you've taken [1:40:26] and how that's been [1:40:28] executed and from that [1:40:29] what lessons we might [1:40:30] learn that could be [1:40:31] applied to other [1:40:32] jurisdictions [1:40:33] thank you senator yes [1:40:34] your state the memphis task [1:40:37] force is one of the shining [1:40:39] stars of law enforcement [1:40:40] over the past year also [1:40:41] D.C. as well and the way [1:40:43] that it works is that we no [1:40:44] longer care about stats [1:40:45] within an agency the fbi [1:40:47] dea marshals hsi state and [1:40:48] local it's just one [1:40:49] government it's a one [1:40:50] government approach so what [1:40:51] happens in memphis and [1:40:52] what should happen in every [1:40:53] city in this country is [1:40:54] every day law enforcement [1:40:55] gets together in a room and [1:40:56] they decide who they're [1:40:57] going to go out and get [1:40:58] that day whether it's a [1:40:59] someone wanted from [1:41:00] memphis or [1:41:01] murder [1:41:02] rape any other burglary [1:41:03] whether it's just [1:41:04] somebody who has a [1:41:05] warrant out for their [1:41:06] arrest and then they focus [1:41:07] on doing it and they do [1:41:08] it if they need a [1:41:09] prosecutor to write a [1:41:10] warrant they go to get [1:41:11] the prosecutor to write a [1:41:12] warrant if they need a [1:41:13] state da to help because [1:41:14] it's a state charge they [1:41:15] get the state da's office [1:41:16] and what you saw you just [1:41:17] described the reduction in [1:41:18] crime but you have [1:41:19] streets in memphis now [1:41:20] that were unwalkable six [1:41:21] months ago and that now [1:41:22] there was a few new [1:41:23] restaurants opening I [1:41:24] heard there was a few [1:41:25] new restaurants opening I [1:41:26] heard there was a few [1:41:28] restaurants opening I [1:41:29] last week and that's [1:41:31] complete success I wish [1:41:32] we could do what we were [1:41:33] able to do in memphis [1:41:34] and in every city in this [1:41:35] country [1:41:36] can we stay on that for [1:41:37] just a moment because [1:41:38] yes [1:41:39] I understand that there [1:41:40] are other jurisdictions [1:41:41] in the United States [1:41:42] that are refusing to [1:41:43] cooperate is there [1:41:44] anything that we could do [1:41:45] any tool that we could [1:41:46] provide to help you with [1:41:47] this with these [1:41:48] non-compliant [1:41:49] jurisdictions look I [1:41:50] think one thing we can [1:41:51] do is just keep on [1:41:52] doing showing the [1:41:53] American people what it [1:41:54] looks like when you do [1:41:55] it right and hopefully [1:41:56] these local politicians [1:41:58] that are doing it wrong [1:42:00] will be shamed into doing [1:42:01] it right and we also are [1:42:03] in many cases suing [1:42:04] filing lawsuits against [1:42:05] some of these cities [1:42:06] where they're actually [1:42:07] violating the [1:42:08] constitution and violating [1:42:09] federal law in the way [1:42:10] that they're that they're [1:42:11] treating federal law [1:42:12] enforcement and the work [1:42:13] that law enforcement [1:42:14] federal law enforcement is [1:42:15] doing but all I can do [1:42:17] as the acting attorney [1:42:18] general is is is offer [1:42:20] everybody that we will work [1:42:22] as hard as we can with [1:42:23] our law enforcement to work [1:42:24] with the state and [1:42:25] locals to combat crime [1:42:26] and that's what president [1:42:28] trump ordered me to do [1:42:29] and that's what I will [1:42:30] continue to do [1:42:31] well thank you for that [1:42:32] I'm just like to show my [1:42:33] colleagues I get a daily [1:42:34] report on the results [1:42:37] what's happening in Memphis [1:42:38] from from your team and [1:42:39] many others and it's quite [1:42:40] impressive the [1:42:41] accountability makes a real [1:42:42] difference I'd like to [1:42:43] turn to another issue [1:42:44] though one that's deeply [1:42:45] concerning I think it is [1:42:46] concerning to me it should [1:42:47] be concerning to every [1:42:48] American and that's [1:42:49] bringing to light what [1:42:51] happened to the previous [1:42:52] administration the Biden [1:42:53] department's Department of [1:42:54] Justice when they [1:42:56] weaponized the extraordinary [1:42:59] the extraordinary powers of [1:43:00] your department with arctic [1:43:01] frost if you think about it [1:43:04] they used this arctic frost to [1:43:06] persecute the president and [1:43:08] also go after his closest [1:43:09] allies including me and in [1:43:12] you know I was shocked to [1:43:13] find out last year that under [1:43:16] president Biden the DOJ had [1:43:19] secretly obtained my phone [1:43:20] records from Verizon and even [1:43:22] though Verizon was obligated to [1:43:24] let me know that they chose not [1:43:26] to and and when I brought the [1:43:28] problem to Verizon's [1:43:29] attention all they've done is [1:43:30] tried to stonewall me and we [1:43:32] brought it before the FCC in [1:43:34] the form of a complaint again [1:43:35] Verizon simply continues to [1:43:37] stonewall and if I think about [1:43:41] what Verizon with the the Biden [1:43:43] DOJ did they specifically chose [1:43:45] to ignore the fact that nothing [1:43:46] can or should provide stop a [1:43:48] phone provider from notifying a [1:43:49] member of Congress when their [1:43:50] constitutional rights are being [1:43:51] violated as mine were violated [1:43:52] it turns out that Verizon's chief [1:43:57] legal officer Vandana Venkatesh [1:44:01] used to work for Henry Waxman [1:44:04] one of the most partisan players [1:44:06] up here and she is the general [1:44:10] counsel you know I'm seriously [1:44:12] concerned at least that Miss [1:44:14] Venkatesh and Verizon may have [1:44:17] collaborated with their friends [1:44:18] at the Biden DOJ they never told [1:44:20] me or my colleagues about it [1:44:22] because they might have been [1:44:23] worried that the truth would come [1:44:25] out they might have been worried [1:44:26] that that would endanger their [1:44:27] plans to make a $20 billion [1:44:30] acquisition of Frontier [1:44:32] Communications it's [1:44:33] contemptible it's damning but I [1:44:35] think there may be may have been [1:44:36] a real reason there I want [1:44:38] justice to be done here and I [1:44:40] really would appreciate your help [1:44:41] getting to the bottom of it so [1:44:42] here's my question can I get your [1:44:44] commitment that the DOJ will work [1:44:47] with me and my colleagues Senator [1:44:48] Grassley and Senator Johnson in [1:44:50] bringing full accountability to [1:44:52] this abuse of power [1:44:53] absolutely and obviously Senator [1:44:56] one way we do that is by the work [1:44:58] we're doing to make sure you you [1:45:00] all get your oversight [1:45:02] responsibilities as much as you [1:45:04] deserve to get the materials that [1:45:06] we're reviewing and collecting [1:45:08] but then also in proactively the [1:45:09] work that we're doing to make [1:45:10] sure that what happened never [1:45:11] happened again I mean make I [1:45:12] mean understand that there are [1:45:13] times when when we subpoena phone [1:45:15] records we do not want the bad [1:45:16] guys to know that that we did it [1:45:17] because we're still investigating [1:45:18] but the idea that that could be done [1:45:21] to a United States Senator and that [1:45:23] it would be okay for a prosecutor [1:45:25] to just do it not even a scintilla [1:45:27] of evidence anybody did anything [1:45:28] wrong and then not provide notice [1:45:31] to is in some ways the worst form [1:45:34] of abuse by the Department of [1:45:37] Justice. [1:45:38] Well in fact there's a [1:45:39] constitutional ban and I think a [1:45:40] first-year law student should know [1:45:41] that you know when AT&T was [1:45:42] requested to provide the same [1:45:45] records they saw the [1:45:46] constitutional problem they [1:45:47] stopped Verizon was willingly [1:45:49] handing over my records and those [1:45:51] of other my colleagues and I just [1:45:52] asked myself what was the purpose [1:45:54] what was the motivation for them to [1:45:55] violate my constitutional rights [1:45:57] was it because they wanted to [1:45:58] make friends with the FCC maybe [1:45:59] Ms. Venkatesh to get an [1:46:00] appointment sometime later I [1:46:01] don't know was it because of this [1:46:03] frontier acquisition that they [1:46:05] had in mind I don't know but we [1:46:07] need to get to the bottom of it [1:46:08] thank you thank you Mr. [1:46:09] Chairman. [1:46:10] Senator Gillibrand. [1:46:11] Thank you Mr. [1:46:12] Attorney General acting [1:46:13] Attorney General for being here [1:46:14] thank you I've listened to your [1:46:16] testimony today and I have a [1:46:18] concern about your focus New York [1:46:21] City was the site of the last [1:46:24] major terrorist attack against the [1:46:26] United States at 9-11 we benefit [1:46:29] greatly from what you've mentioned [1:46:30] this whole of government approach [1:46:32] where we integrate CIA NSA DOD [1:46:38] FBI DOJ all integrated seamlessly [1:46:41] NYPD to keep our city safe it's one [1:46:45] of the biggest cities in the [1:46:47] country it's one of the most [1:46:48] dynamic cities in the country and [1:46:49] our public safety is paramount but [1:46:52] I've looked at your record and I'm [1:46:54] deeply concerned that you are not [1:46:56] using this whole of government [1:46:57] approach because I see you [1:46:58] slashing programs left and right [1:47:00] that we know work for all [1:47:01] certain things all sorts of [1:47:02] things from drugs to gun [1:47:03] trafficking to community policing [1:47:06] to cops program slashing so many [1:47:09] programs that I know work so I want [1:47:12] to take you through them and hear [1:47:13] from you why your focus isn't [1:47:15] where New York City and the state [1:47:18] and the country need you to be [1:47:20] which is our public safety so first [1:47:22] of all do you think that China [1:47:24] Iran Russia want to do us harm and [1:47:27] would undermine our elections yes [1:47:29] why did you delete the whole [1:47:32] department then that is supposed to [1:47:34] protect against the undermining of [1:47:36] our elections we so we spend a ton of [1:47:40] time a ton of money a ton of man [1:47:42] hours a ton of resources on that [1:47:43] very issue so I'm not cancel the [1:47:46] FBI's foreign influence task force [1:47:48] that's a task force that's not [1:47:50] that's literally just a group it was [1:47:51] the task force no no no no no no no [1:47:53] I was here in 2016 I know what [1:47:55] happened and after that we did a [1:47:57] whole of government approach yes we [1:47:59] put experts in at CISA we put [1:48:01] experts in at the FBI and we put [1:48:04] experts in at the Department of [1:48:05] Defense together whole of [1:48:07] government approach they went [1:48:08] state by state by state to make [1:48:10] sure that our electoral [1:48:11] infrastructure was sound however [1:48:14] your department and this [1:48:15] administration has aggressively [1:48:18] fired all the people that were [1:48:20] put in charge of this so they [1:48:22] were the people at the FBI in [1:48:23] charge of it so why have you [1:48:25] dismissed those operations where [1:48:26] that failed there were no state [1:48:28] and local involved it was all just [1:48:30] a bunch of federal people mostly [1:48:32] out of Washington DC okay and the [1:48:34] FBI agents were all Washington DC [1:48:36] the way they were agents not [1:48:37] around the country where we needed [1:48:38] them so the way that we're [1:48:39] addressing it by closing down that [1:48:41] task force is by having HSTF set [1:48:43] up in everything including in New [1:48:45] York City every single agents [1:48:47] every single state now has HSTF [1:48:49] and that is one of their main [1:48:50] focuses and it does work with state [1:48:51] and local which I want a complete [1:48:53] report on this because I don't [1:48:54] have confidence that you are doing [1:48:57] what needs to be done because if [1:48:58] all the 300 400 expert people that [1:49:02] were in our previous [1:49:03] administrations multiple [1:49:04] administrations Democrat and [1:49:06] Republican administrations if [1:49:07] none of them are good and you're [1:49:09] starting over from scratch that [1:49:11] doesn't sound like the recipe for [1:49:12] success I didn't say none of them [1:49:13] were good that's not what I said [1:49:14] well they've all been dismissed and [1:49:15] they've all been fired in all [1:49:17] three areas that's not true they [1:49:19] have not all fired the people from [1:49:21] DOD we fired the people from CISA [1:49:23] we fired the people of the FBI they [1:49:25] were all just they were not all [1:49:26] dismissed many of them are still [1:49:27] here ask for a briefing look into [1:49:30] it and give a report to this [1:49:31] committee because I'm telling you if [1:49:33] you agree that our adversaries do [1:49:35] not our have our goodness in in [1:49:37] mind they don't have our [1:49:39] elections in mind yes I need laser [1:49:42] like focus on solving you're getting [1:49:44] laser like focus all right I'd like [1:49:46] a report on that second issue gun [1:49:48] trafficking we have been working so [1:49:50] hard as a federal government to stop [1:49:52] the flow of illicit guns into our [1:49:54] communities where someone can sell [1:49:56] guns out of the backs of their [1:49:58] trucks from some criminal gun dealer [1:50:03] who's trying to get these guns into [1:50:05] the hands of criminals and we're [1:50:07] supposed to get data every year so [1:50:08] we can show that our gun trafficking [1:50:10] laws are working these new enhanced [1:50:12] laws where police officers can now go [1:50:14] cross state lines to do their [1:50:15] investigation why are you not giving [1:50:17] me the data about gun traffic I need [1:50:19] to know if it's working I need to [1:50:20] know if these cases are being [1:50:22] prosecuted and I can't even get data [1:50:23] out of your department well the cases [1:50:26] are being prosecuting we did will you [1:50:28] give me the data so I can I don't [1:50:29] know what data you're talking about [1:50:30] number of number of number of [1:50:32] weapons that have been seized the [1:50:34] number of cases that are being [1:50:35] prosecuted we keep track of how many [1:50:38] weapons have been seized it that are [1:50:40] that are trafficked and I'm waiting [1:50:42] from your department over a year to [1:50:43] get that data to the extent there's [1:50:45] data that we're going to send it to [1:50:47] okay I got like five points I only [1:50:50] get five minutes next point community [1:50:52] violence intervention grants you are [1:50:54] slashing these community violence [1:50:55] intervention grants they work we know [1:50:57] they work one of them was it to New [1:50:59] York for what 4.2 million slash it [1:51:01] prevents youth violence these are [1:51:03] programs that are working did you [1:51:05] analyze whether this program was [1:51:07] working before you slash the funding [1:51:08] yes we there's still a ton of funding [1:51:11] for those programs not the ones in [1:51:13] New York you just deleted them delete [1:51:15] delete delete it's it's shocking it [1:51:17] wasn't delete delete delete that okay [1:51:18] well 4.2 was deleted for the local [1:51:21] initiative support corporation that [1:51:23] funds not a deletion it's just that [1:51:25] we're not seeking funding for it through [1:51:27] this exact I've asked for the money [1:51:30] and we've gotten grants for this and [1:51:31] you've just suspended this grant [1:51:33] program I'm happy to work with you to [1:51:35] make sure we're spending the grant [1:51:36] money in the right way I don't have [1:51:37] any more time but there's a community [1:51:38] oriented policing grant cuts as well [1:51:40] the cops funds this is something our [1:51:42] police officers and our community [1:51:44] policing development micro grants they [1:51:46] benefit from it de-escalation training [1:51:48] grants programs that work our police [1:51:50] officers need it and then drugs we [1:51:52] have an anti heroin and anti [1:51:55] methamphetamine task force and we [1:52:00] need to be funded and it's not being [1:52:02] funded so I just it is being funded [1:52:04] absolutely there there's a different [1:52:06] amount of funding but it is being [1:52:08] funded no no you've eliminated funding [1:52:10] for both the anti heroin and anti [1:52:12] methamphetamine task force I'm sorry [1:52:15] which is the task force that stops the [1:52:18] trafficking of heroin fentanyl and the [1:52:21] very long word I can't pronounce I [1:52:23] mean senator there's there's nothing [1:52:25] more important to president trump and [1:52:27] to this department of justice than [1:52:28] combating the illegal flora narcotics [1:52:30] so to the extent that there is a [1:52:32] particular funding revenue stream that [1:52:37] is not being funded the same way I [1:52:38] commit to you that it is of the [1:52:40] highest priority to combat drug [1:52:42] last is the public safety officer [1:52:43] benefit program you say we just had [1:52:46] police week you say you stand with [1:52:48] law enforcement when you do not [1:52:49] support this program and when these [1:52:50] funds are not getting back to the [1:52:52] loved ones who have lost their police [1:52:53] officer loved one it is not right I [1:52:54] need you to focus on this I need you [1:52:57] to get this right we're committed [1:52:59] thank you senator thank you thank you [1:53:14] acting attorney general thank you for [1:53:16] being here thank you I want to talk [1:53:18] about the ATS national trade training [1:53:20] center tracing center which you know [1:53:22] is located in in Martinsburg West [1:53:24] Virginia I think this is a stunning [1:53:25] statistic for people to realize in [1:53:27] fiscal year 2024 alone the national [1:53:30] tracing center processed more than [1:53:32] 600,000 requests I mean that is [1:53:36] an immense amount of work it also [1:53:40] helped to identify the deranged [1:53:43] individual who attempted to [1:53:45] assassinate President Trump in [1:53:47] Pennsylvania so obviously it's great [1:53:52] work out there but I am concerned [1:53:54] that we have to present prevent the [1:53:56] release of firearm trace data to [1:53:59] anyone other than law enforcement for [1:54:01] investigative purposes can you [1:54:03] elaborate on the importance of the [1:54:05] NTC but also how it functions within [1:54:08] the ATF and can you describe how your [1:54:10] budget requests will sustain these [1:54:12] critical services yes of course [1:54:14] senator and I agree with you it is [1:54:16] an extraordinarily valuable law [1:54:18] enforcement tool and and but it can [1:54:20] be abused and so what the ATF has [1:54:22] to make sure we're doing is we're [1:54:24] using those tracing the tracing data [1:54:26] and by the way it's not just for [1:54:27] federal cases it's for state and [1:54:29] local cases it's for local crimes [1:54:31] and so it's a true testament of the [1:54:33] power of the federal government to [1:54:35] help the states we have to make sure [1:54:36] that that data is shared only where [1:54:38] it needs to be shared and only to [1:54:40] further law enforcement [1:54:41] investigations our director is [1:54:44] laser focused on that he's we have [1:54:46] the benefit of having somebody who's [1:54:48] been an ATF agent for two decades [1:54:50] and so we'll continue to make sure [1:54:52] that not only we're spending the [1:54:54] money to make sure that we're [1:54:55] successful but also making sure that [1:54:57] we have have guardrails around it so [1:54:59] that so that it doesn't get abused [1:55:01] either by ATF or by anybody state [1:55:04] and local wise thank you thank you [1:55:06] very much I want to talk about the [1:55:08] Hyda task force collaboration I know [1:55:10] DOJ is a valuable member of the [1:55:12] Hyda task force and honestly we had [1:55:14] the the ONDCP director Sarah [1:55:17] Carter came to West Virginia a few [1:55:19] weeks ago we had a round table [1:55:20] U.S. Attorneys were there local [1:55:22] partners local law enforcement very [1:55:24] interesting conversation I [1:55:28] personally want to see the high [1:55:30] intensity drug trafficking in the [1:55:32] Hyda program stay within the White [1:55:34] House I know this may not be a [1:55:36] decision that you're actively [1:55:38] involved in or because there's [1:55:40] always through several [1:55:42] administrations a desire to move [1:55:44] it over to DOJ do you have any [1:55:46] perspectives on that and what does [1:55:48] this budget have to say look I [1:55:50] know that President Trump is going [1:55:52] to give a ton of money I think [1:55:53] over $11.4 billion to combat the [1:55:57] drug crisis and that includes a [1:55:59] lot of money to Hyda the way that [1:56:02] the way that it's running through [1:56:04] the ONDCP now as opposed to [1:56:06] directly DOJ doesn't make a [1:56:08] difference to how to the [1:56:10] effectiveness that we can have to [1:56:11] run in these programs it hasn't [1:56:12] made a difference over the past [1:56:13] year it will not make a [1:56:14] difference in the coming years to [1:56:15] the contrary remember another [1:56:18] big part of the drug fight is [1:56:20] DHS and HSI and so one benefit of [1:56:23] having having it go through kind of [1:56:25] one higher place is that we make [1:56:27] sure we're spending the money [1:56:29] across the federal government in [1:56:30] the ways that it's smart so I have [1:56:32] had zero issues with it that set [1:56:33] up and I don't think [1:56:35] administrator Cole has had any [1:56:36] issues with it or any other law [1:56:37] enforcement [1:56:39] personally I think the issue is so [1:56:40] large and you heard Senator [1:56:41] Gillibrand talking about it in New [1:56:42] York our state has a particular [1:56:43] issue and I'm so pleased with the [1:56:48] president's southern border [1:56:50] initiatives fentanyl seizures are [1:56:53] way down meaning less fentanyl into [1:56:56] the country but it's just such a [1:56:58] devastating and terrifying drug [1:57:02] that's killing too many people I [1:57:04] did want to make I noticed in your [1:57:05] opening statement you made a [1:57:06] comment about the Bureau of [1:57:07] Prisons I just had a conversation [1:57:08] with my fellow West Virginia and [1:57:10] Billy Marshall who's head of the [1:57:11] BOP I am in full support of the [1:57:15] 10 billion dollar request that [1:57:17] you've made he's made great [1:57:18] strides there and getting good [1:57:19] leadership and they're safer we [1:57:21] have several federal prisons in [1:57:24] and around West Virginia and not [1:57:25] not only are the staff safer but [1:57:28] the inmates are safer as well and [1:57:31] I would encourage you to keep [1:57:33] pounding that drum we will thank [1:57:35] you senator let me ask you a [1:57:37] question in the last few minutes [1:57:38] that I have there's a few seconds [1:57:40] all right geez there's always a [1:57:45] headline about assistant attorney [1:57:46] general leave DOJ and it sounds [1:57:49] you know like it's a political [1:57:52] statement rather than or a lack of [1:57:54] confidence statement or doesn't [1:57:55] like the way the direction that [1:57:57] the department is going and I know [1:57:59] you see this the public reports [1:58:02] isn't this the way it's always been [1:58:04] at DOJ people moving in and out [1:58:06] and you yourself were at DOJ at one [1:58:09] point before you went into private [1:58:10] practice I didn't know if you want [1:58:12] to talk about at the upper echelons of [1:58:14] your leadership team where you see [1:58:16] this going and is it a political [1:58:19] statement or is it the cost of doing [1:58:21] business look ebb and flow of [1:58:23] workforce I think we have a great [1:58:25] team and and not only DOJ but [1:58:28] President Trump's entire [1:58:29] administration that necessarily means [1:58:31] that sometimes people come in and [1:58:32] sometimes people leave I was a federal [1:58:35] prosecutor until I had no money left [1:58:37] and I had to go to the private sector [1:58:39] and I think there's there's pressures [1:58:41] on family and and there's so it's [1:58:44] not a political statement I think [1:58:46] the president has assembled a [1:58:47] phenomenal cabinet and the cabinet [1:58:49] has then assembled leadership that [1:58:51] I think is every day working hard to [1:58:53] fulfill the president's agenda and [1:58:55] when it comes to DOJ to make [1:58:56] America safe again and so my team [1:58:59] that works at DOJ some of them will [1:59:02] save for four years and some of them [1:59:03] will probably leave in the next [1:59:05] month or two and that's that's [1:59:06] natural and and all we can do is [1:59:08] thank them for their public [1:59:09] service and and to keep on hiring [1:59:11] great people. [1:59:13] Thank you for your service thank [1:59:14] you. [1:59:16] Senator Capito we're going to [1:59:17] conclude this hearing in just a [1:59:18] moment senator van holland and I [1:59:19] have the practice of like wrapping [1:59:21] up our thoughts with questions or [1:59:23] statements and then we'll conclude [1:59:25] I'm in a particular hurry to get [1:59:28] to the defense appropriation [1:59:30] subcommittee to ask questions [1:59:31] there. [1:59:32] So I if I quit explaining what [1:59:34] we're going to do I'll get there [1:59:35] sooner and I now recognize [1:59:37] Senator van holland. [1:59:39] Thank you. [1:59:40] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [1:59:41] Mr. Blanche in response to [1:59:43] Senator Coon saying that Capitol [1:59:45] Hill police officers were worried [1:59:48] that people who assaulted them on [1:59:50] January 6 might benefit from a [1:59:53] slush fund. [1:59:55] You said that couldn't be true [1:59:57] because it hadn't been set up. [2:00:00] I didn't say it couldn't be true [2:00:01] Senator. [2:00:02] I didn't say it couldn't be true [2:00:03] as it was surprising it was true. [2:00:04] Okay. [2:00:05] So it is very possible that people [2:00:08] have been anticipating getting [2:00:10] payments from the administration [2:00:12] people who were part of the [2:00:14] attack on the Capitol on January [2:00:16] 6 right. [2:00:17] You're asking me to speculate on [2:00:19] the possibility of something. [2:00:21] Have you not heard of anybody [2:00:22] anticipating getting payments [2:00:23] from that. [2:00:24] No I haven't. [2:00:25] I don't know what that is [2:00:27] actually. [2:00:28] All right. [2:00:29] But I won't speculate. [2:00:30] I want to put in the record [2:00:32] submit for the record a January [2:00:34] 2026 Washington Post story long [2:00:37] story entitled for many January [2:00:40] 6 rioters a pardon from Trump [2:00:42] wasn't enough in it. [2:00:43] It goes on to quote the president [2:00:45] of the United States when asked [2:00:46] about this these payments said a [2:00:48] lot of people in government now [2:00:50] talk about it because a lot of [2:00:53] people in government really like [2:00:54] that group of people unquote [2:00:57] referring to the January 6 [2:00:58] writers. [2:00:59] Are you not aware of that [2:01:00] statement from the president. [2:01:01] I have never read the [2:01:02] Washington Post. [2:01:03] Well I can tell you that there [2:01:04] are a lot of people. [2:01:05] I accept that you read it. [2:01:06] For a long time who have been [2:01:08] anticipating payments. [2:01:09] You're not aware of that. [2:01:10] That you're telling me there's [2:01:12] a lot of people that were [2:01:13] anticipating payments. [2:01:14] Yes. [2:01:15] No. [2:01:16] Well I'm not aware. [2:01:17] Okay. [2:01:18] Well Mr. Attorney General you [2:01:19] are in a bubble because the [2:01:20] reality. [2:01:22] Because I don't read the [2:01:23] Washington Post. [2:01:24] No. [2:01:25] No. [2:01:26] Obviously you should be in [2:01:27] touch with some of these these [2:01:28] folks because I asked you [2:01:30] specifically about an individual [2:01:33] who had molested kids and been [2:01:35] convicted about his anticipation [2:01:38] of getting a payment. [2:01:39] And you said that couldn't be [2:01:40] true. [2:01:42] In fact that was a lie. [2:01:43] I want to read you. [2:01:44] I didn't say that. [2:01:45] I got the transcript right. [2:01:46] Good. [2:01:47] You said it was obvious. [2:01:49] I'm obviously lying the question [2:01:50] because there's no way the [2:01:51] person committed to that because [2:01:52] the slush fund did not exist. [2:01:55] That's what you said. [2:01:56] I'm going to read from you Mr. [2:01:57] Attorney General an affidavit [2:01:59] from the Hernando County Florida [2:02:02] Sheriff's Office. [2:02:03] And I want you to listen carefully [2:02:05] to what this police officer said [2:02:08] about this criminal. [2:02:10] Criminal named Andrew pardoned by [2:02:12] the president. [2:02:13] Now being charged for child [2:02:15] molestation. [2:02:16] He says, Andrew also told that [2:02:20] since he was pardoned for storming [2:02:22] the Capitol on January 6, 2021, [2:02:25] and he was being awarded $10 [2:02:27] million as a result of being a [2:02:30] January Sixer, Andrew did tell [2:02:32] that he would be putting him in [2:02:34] his will, referring to one of the [2:02:36] victims of his molestation. [2:02:37] He would be putting him in his [2:02:39] will to take any money he had [2:02:41] left over. [2:02:42] This tactic was believed to be [2:02:44] used to keep from exposing what [2:02:46] Andrew had done to him. [2:02:48] Signed under penalty of perjury [2:02:51] by someone in the Sheriff's [2:02:52] Office. [2:02:53] And you're telling me you don't [2:02:54] know about all these people who [2:02:56] have been signaled by the [2:02:57] president of the United States [2:02:58] and others that they're going to [2:02:59] get payments. [2:03:00] I think that that's what you [2:03:01] just read is disgusting. [2:03:02] I'm very horrible that that [2:03:04] happened. [2:03:05] But that's not what I said. [2:03:06] I mean you can say you're [2:03:07] telling me and then make up [2:03:09] something that I'm not saying [2:03:10] or you can let me speak. [2:03:11] Mr. Attorney General. [2:03:12] Yes. [2:03:13] I'm reading from the statement [2:03:14] here. [2:03:15] of what we are exchanged [2:03:16] earlier. [2:03:17] And you essentially said well [2:03:18] I'm you're obviously lying in [2:03:19] your question because there's [2:03:20] no way this person committed to [2:03:21] that because the slush fund of [2:03:23] which you called it did not [2:03:24] exist. [2:03:25] Just as you suggest. [2:03:26] Right. [2:03:27] And it's true that even the [2:03:29] affidavit that you just read said [2:03:31] that he would be awarded this [2:03:32] criminal suggested be awarded [2:03:34] ten million dollars. [2:03:35] Now you're playing absolute word [2:03:36] games. [2:03:37] I am not playing a word game. [2:03:38] Of course you are because [2:03:39] people are anticipating this [2:03:40] And also words matter. [2:03:41] Words matter. [2:03:42] So if you're going to quote me [2:03:43] accurately. [2:03:44] Mr. Chairman I'd like to put in [2:03:45] the record. [2:03:46] January six writer pardoned by [2:03:47] Trump was sentenced to life in [2:03:48] prison for child abuse. [2:03:50] Pardoned Capitol Hill writer [2:03:51] tried to bribe child sex victim [2:03:53] with promise of January six payout [2:03:54] and I will close with this Mr. [2:03:56] Attorney General. [2:03:57] You can't tell us today that this [2:04:00] individual would not be eligible [2:04:03] for a payout from this fund. [2:04:05] I find that obscene. [2:04:07] And I'm going to ask you one last [2:04:08] time. [2:04:09] You keep comparing this case to the [2:04:11] Keep Eagle case. [2:04:13] In that case as you've admitted a [2:04:15] judge ultimately signed off. [2:04:17] I'm asking you before you proceed [2:04:18] with this fund will you have a [2:04:20] federal judge sign off on it. [2:04:22] I didn't compare the cases. [2:04:23] What I said is the commission that [2:04:24] we set up yesterday is nearly [2:04:26] identical to the commission that [2:04:28] was set up during Keeps Eagle. [2:04:29] But it's not. [2:04:30] So please you repeatedly put words [2:04:31] in my mouth. [2:04:32] And then and then you say oh I'm [2:04:33] playing words. [2:04:34] Words matter. [2:04:35] Mr. [2:04:36] General. [2:04:37] They do matter. [2:04:38] You said they were. [2:04:39] Look the transcript will speak [2:04:40] first. [2:04:41] It will. [2:04:42] But you but you compare it in [2:04:43] your own release. [2:04:44] In the Department of Justice [2:04:45] own release you compared it to [2:04:46] this case. [2:04:47] And in this case a judge signed. [2:04:48] My final question. [2:04:49] I am comparing. [2:04:50] Will you agree as they did in [2:04:51] that case that before you proceed [2:04:53] with this fund a federal judge [2:04:55] will sign off and approve it. [2:04:56] You agree to that. [2:04:57] Federal judge. [2:04:58] So there's no mechanism. [2:04:59] Actually there was a federal [2:05:01] judge presiding over this [2:05:02] case. [2:05:03] That was the case was [2:05:04] dismissed by the judge last [2:05:05] night. [2:05:06] Yeah because you moved to [2:05:07] create this fund. [2:05:08] I didn't move. [2:05:09] I did not move. [2:05:10] The settlement result. [2:05:11] Mr. Attorney General. [2:05:12] Come on. [2:05:13] So let me. [2:05:14] Let me. [2:05:15] So you're not going to. [2:05:16] You're not going to submit [2:05:17] this proposal to any federal [2:05:18] judge or independent. [2:05:19] There is no judge. [2:05:20] Any independent authority [2:05:21] that. [2:05:22] An independent. [2:05:23] What does that mean an [2:05:24] independent authority. [2:05:25] It means not somebody who's [2:05:26] getting to pick five of the [2:05:27] members who was the [2:05:28] former personal attorney. [2:05:29] That would be somebody who [2:05:31] would be independent. [2:05:32] I'm the acting attorney [2:05:33] general. [2:05:34] Okay. [2:05:35] The fact that I used to be [2:05:36] President Trump's lawyer is [2:05:37] just a fact. [2:05:38] But I'm the acting attorney [2:05:39] general. [2:05:40] So don't say the president's [2:05:41] former personal lawyer will [2:05:42] do something. [2:05:43] The acting attorney general [2:05:44] will do something. [2:05:45] Mr. Attorney General you are [2:05:46] acting today like the [2:05:47] president's personal attorney. [2:05:48] And that's the whole [2:05:49] problem. [2:05:50] You've got his whole. [2:05:51] You have a whole banner of [2:05:52] his face hanging over the [2:05:54] Department of Justice and you [2:05:55] and everybody else walks under [2:05:56] it. [2:05:57] And you are acting like you're [2:05:59] his current personal attorney. [2:06:01] Mr. Chairman I have no further [2:06:02] questions. [2:06:04] Attorney General let me let me [2:06:06] ask this question in this [2:06:07] regard to the fund. [2:06:08] Is there in your mind the nature [2:06:11] or description of the individuals [2:06:14] that you hope to find to serve [2:06:17] on that board that makes the [2:06:21] decisions that we're talking [2:06:22] about. [2:06:23] Yeah. [2:06:24] We want people who will have the [2:06:26] ability to evaluate. [2:06:27] I mean with a couple of the [2:06:28] questions from the senator and [2:06:29] from others today. [2:06:30] Evaluate whether somebody who's [2:06:32] applying for compensation is [2:06:35] entitled to it. [2:06:36] And if they are entitled to it [2:06:37] what amount and how to go about [2:06:40] doing that. [2:06:41] So we expect there will be [2:06:42] experienced people. [2:06:43] It will be public. [2:06:44] People can be critical if they [2:06:45] so choose. [2:06:46] And so we haven't come up with [2:06:47] names yet. [2:06:48] And we will you know I think we [2:06:49] have 30 days to do so. [2:06:50] And when we have the names [2:06:52] will announce them. [2:06:53] And what's the standard by [2:06:54] which a determination is made [2:06:55] that compensation should be [2:06:56] had. [2:06:57] So in the broadest sense it's [2:06:58] weaponization. [2:06:59] It's not limited to [2:07:00] Republicans. [2:07:01] It's not limited to [2:07:02] Democrats. [2:07:03] It's not limited to [2:07:04] January 6 defendants. [2:07:05] It's limited only by the term [2:07:06] weaponization. [2:07:07] And so I expect that the [2:07:08] commissioners and what I expect [2:07:09] they will do because they'll [2:07:10] have to is set up guidelines [2:07:11] and set up procedures for [2:07:12] individuals to apply for [2:07:13] that. [2:07:14] The weaponization then gets [2:07:15] defined could be I assume you [2:07:16] can't expand the word [2:07:18] weaponization but you can [2:07:19] narrow where it seems to be [2:07:20] most applicable where the [2:07:22] weaponization if it occurred [2:07:24] is the most egregious. [2:07:26] Is there some kind of [2:07:27] standard by which you would [2:07:28] evaluate a case by case [2:07:29] basis? [2:07:30] I think there has to be [2:07:31] standards and I think it is [2:07:32] a case by case basis. [2:07:33] I think there has to be [2:07:34] standards and I think it is [2:07:35] a case by case basis. [2:07:36] I think it will depend on but [2:07:37] when you say there is a [2:07:38] standard and then say it is [2:07:39] case by case. [2:07:40] That's the issue. [2:07:41] The case by case analysis is [2:07:42] what's going to have to be [2:07:43] done and I expect that it will [2:07:44] be done. [2:07:45] It is telling that everybody on [2:07:51] the left and everybody on the [2:07:52] left and the liberal side of [2:07:54] the media immediately says [2:07:55] it's a slush eye. [2:07:56] Is there some kind of [2:08:01] standard which you would [2:08:02] evaluate a case by case [2:08:03] basis? [2:08:04] I think there has to be [2:08:05] standards and I think it [2:08:06] fund for President Trump's friends. [2:08:08] If anything else, that's an outright admission [2:08:11] that they know that the people that really had this Department [2:08:14] of Justice weaponized against them [2:08:16] were President Trump and his friends. [2:08:18] But that is not what the commission says. [2:08:20] That is not what the AG order that I signed yesterday says. [2:08:24] It does not limit it to President Trump or President [2:08:27] Trump's friends. [2:08:27] To the contrary, President Trump isn't taking a dime. [2:08:30] And so the fact that there's a view that this slush fund, [2:08:35] which it's not, is going to be only given to Republicans [2:08:39] or friends of the president is, one, not true. [2:08:43] But two, it's very telling that that's [2:08:45] the reaction from Democrats. [2:08:47] Because it proves the point that President Trump has been saying [2:08:50] for a very long time, which happens to be true, which [2:08:53] was for the first time in our nation's history, [2:08:56] you had an administration seek to destroy [2:08:59] the previous administration. [2:09:00] Not just President Trump. [2:09:01] Anybody that came in contact with him. [2:09:03] I've said it before. [2:09:04] You're talking about his gardeners being [2:09:06] put in the grand jury, his secret service detail [2:09:09] being put multiple times in the grand jury. [2:09:11] That's what the last administration did [2:09:13] to try to destroy President Trump. [2:09:15] And he has said publicly, and I very much agree with him, [2:09:19] that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody. [2:09:22] And so how do you go about making sure it doesn't happen again [2:09:25] to anybody? [2:09:25] Well, you change the culture, which is what we're doing. [2:09:28] You also set up a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized, [2:09:32] have this Department of Justice and this federal government weaponized [2:09:34] against them can apply. [2:09:36] Does it mean they're going to get money? [2:09:37] No. [2:09:38] It doesn't mean they're going to get money. [2:09:39] It just invites them to apply. [2:09:41] And they make a case of some kind to meet some standard, right? [2:09:45] Yes. [2:09:46] And there's a flaw in the legal system, because this legal system [2:09:49] was not set up to compensate for what the Democrats and what Biden [2:09:54] and what Garland did for four years. [2:09:57] It doesn't know how to cope with the fact [2:09:59] that hundreds and hundreds of administration officials [2:10:02] had their phones taken from them. [2:10:04] Members of the Senate had their phone records subpoenaed [2:10:09] and weren't told about it. [2:10:10] The system isn't set up for that. [2:10:12] In answers to questions previously put before you this morning, [2:10:18] did you, you took, I assume, because what the settlement agreement [2:10:22] says you eliminated certain individuals from being qualified [2:10:27] to receive benefits from this fund? [2:10:30] What's the list of those individuals? [2:10:32] Well, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed [2:10:34] to accept an apology. [2:10:36] So that's President Trump and his sons, I believe. [2:10:40] And otherwise, there is no limitation. [2:10:42] So whether you're Hunter Biden or whether you're another individual [2:10:47] who believe they were a victim of weaponization, they can all [2:10:51] apply to this fund. [2:10:53] And again, it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. [2:10:56] It doesn't mean that they're getting $10 million or whatever [2:10:59] was just read a few minutes ago. [2:11:00] It just means that you can apply. [2:11:03] And the decision by the commission is by a majority? [2:11:06] Yes. [2:11:07] Three of five? [2:11:07] Correct. [2:11:08] And finally, this issue, while it's of interest to all of us [2:11:14] as United States senators, this committee has no jurisdiction [2:11:18] over this issue, in a sense, because this is mandatory spending. [2:11:21] Have you had conversations with Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley [2:11:26] or the Judiciary Committee? [2:11:28] I have not had conversations over the past, you know, [2:11:30] 24 hours about this. [2:11:31] No. [2:11:34] I have not. [2:11:35] General, anything you'd like to add to what you've said today [2:11:37] or take away from whatever you said today? [2:11:39] No. [2:11:40] Just thank you and the committee for their time today. [2:11:44] There are no further questions. [2:11:46] Senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's [2:11:48] official hearing record. [2:11:49] We request that the attorney general respond to those questions [2:11:53] within 30 days. [2:11:54] The subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair. [2:12:37] Democracy Unfiltered. [2:12:42] C-SPAN brings you democracy unfiltered in real time. [2:12:46] Democracy doesn't take sides, neither does C-SPAN. [2:12:49] In a world full of opinions, C-SPAN gives you direct access to the [2:12:53] people and institutions that shape our nation. [2:12:56] Unfiltered coverage of Congress as laws are debated and decided. [2:13:00] Live proceedings from the United States Supreme Court, presidential speeches, [2:13:04] briefings, and historic moments as they happen. [2:13:08] No commentary, no spin, no agenda. [2:13:11] Just the democratic process presented in full without interruption. [2:13:15] So you can watch the debates, hear every word, and make up your own mind. [2:13:20] C-SPAN's respected nonprofit service has offered Americans unfiltered, gavel-to-gavel coverage [2:13:27] of their government in action. [2:13:28] C-SPAN, bringing democracy unfiltered. [2:13:33] C-SPAN is brought to you by the cable, satellite, and streaming companies that provide C-SPAN as [2:13:38] a public service. [2:13:39] Today, Justice Department officials will hold a news conference on an antitrust case related [2:13:46] to China and the COVID-19 pandemic. [2:13:48] Watch live coverage at 3 p.m. Eastern on C-SPAN 3, C-SPAN Now, our free mobile app, and online [2:13:55] at c-span.org. [2:13:56] Next, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown-Jackson discussing her memoir titled Lovely One. [2:14:05] She also comments on current issues facing the Supreme Court, such as the frequent use of the [2:14:11] emergency docket and concerns about public trust in the court. [2:14:14] Thank you. [2:14:26] You may be seated. [2:14:30] So I am so delighted to be back at ALI. [2:14:36] It's one of the things that I miss the most about having been elevated to my position, [2:14:41] but it does give me the opportunity to come back and do things like this. [2:14:47] Thank you for indulging me. [2:14:49] I'd like to start these sessions by reading a little bit from the preface of my book, because [2:14:54] for those of you who don't know me, it will give you some background and get us warmed [2:14:59] up. [2:15:01] The preface is called A Sacred Trust. [2:15:06] I had to keep reminding myself this moment was real. [2:15:12] It was just before noon on the 30th day of June 2022, and I was standing in front of a [2:15:20] plain wooden door that would soon open into the Grand West Conference Room of the Supreme [2:15:26] Court of the United States. [2:15:29] My family was already inside. [2:15:32] My husband, Patrick, our daughters, Talia and Layla, and my parents, Johnny and Ellery Brown, [2:15:38] were there among the family members and friends who had gathered to witness my historic swearing [2:15:44] in. [2:15:46] My heart was hammering so loudly that I wondered if the two black-robed men standing on either [2:15:53] side of me, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., and Retiring Associate Justice Steven G. Breyer [2:16:00] could hear it too. [2:16:03] Only two hours before, they and the other seven justices of the Supreme Court had issued their [2:16:09] final decision of the 2021-22 term. [2:16:13] Justice Breyer, a pragmatic consensus builder, was now stepping down from that august body, having [2:16:21] been privileged to serve as one of his law clerks more than two decades before. [2:16:27] I would be stepping up in his place. [2:16:32] I drew a deep breath to steady myself as the door in front of us swung wide and a court officer [2:16:37] stepped aside to allow our passage into the room. [2:16:41] Suddenly blinded by bright lights, I took a moment to understand that the source was a bank [2:16:48] a video camera set up to record the ceremony. [2:16:52] As my eyes adjusted and I processed into the chamber behind the two justices, I was heartened [2:16:59] at the sight of my loved ones beaming at me from rows of chairs on the right side of the [2:17:04] room. [2:17:06] Chief Justice Roberts began by warmly welcoming those present. [2:17:12] Then he turned toward me, now assuming a ceremonial air. [2:17:18] Are you prepared to take the oath, he asked, his tone more formal than it had been a moment [2:17:26] before. [2:17:27] Um, I responded in a voice that sounded firmer than I felt. [2:17:37] Patrick positioned himself between Chief Justice Roberts and me and held out a stack of two [2:17:44] Bibles. [2:17:48] Please raise your right hand, the Chief Justice said. [2:17:51] And I did so briskly, simultaneously resting my left palm on the pair of Boholi books. [2:17:58] On top was our ancient Jackson Family Bible. [2:18:03] Its brittle pages protected by the black leather binding that Patrick had had the foresight to [2:18:09] get refurbished in 2013 when I'd been appointed to the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. [2:18:15] I had sworn every oath since then on this cherished family Bible. [2:18:21] Just as I would now swear the constitutional oath to be administered by Chief Justice Roberts, [2:18:27] followed by the judicial oath to be given to me by Associate Justice Breyer. [2:18:32] Nominated by President Joe Biden four months earlier, I, the daughter of African American parents, [2:18:40] who had come of age in the segregated South during the 1950s and early 1960s, would become [2:18:47] the 116th Justice and the first black woman to sit on the Supreme Court in its 233-year history. [2:18:56] These details made the other sacred volume on which I would swear my historic oath doubly significant. [2:19:15] Tucked beneath our family's holy book was the Harlan Bible, donated to the court in 1906 by Associate [2:19:24] Justice John Marshall Harlan. [2:19:26] This tome had been used for the oath-taking by every Supreme Court appointee since then. [2:19:34] Each new justice had also signed one of the book's fly leaves after being sworn in. [2:19:41] When the court curator brought the Bible to me in my temporary chambers later that afternoon, [2:19:46] so that I could add my own signature to the venerated role, I thought about the justices of Harlan's era, [2:19:54] who collectively decided, in the Plessy v. Ferguson opinion, that state laws mandating the separation of people by race [2:20:03] did not violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution, so long as the separate facilities were equal. [2:20:13] Harlan had been the sole dissenter in that notorious 1896 case. [2:20:21] And now here I was, affixing my signature to his Bible in black fountain pen ink. [2:20:30] Only one generation after my mother and father had experienced the spirit-crushing effects of racial [2:20:38] segregation in housing, schooling, and transportation while growing up in Florida, [2:20:44] their daughter was standing on the threshold of history, the embodiment of our ancestors' dreams, [2:20:51] ascending to a position that Justice Harlan and his colleagues likely never imagined possible for someone [2:20:59] like me. But if Justice Harlan and his contemporaries could not have pictured this moment, [2:21:06] my family and I, and indeed most of America, were fully cognizant of the significance of my nomination [2:21:14] and confirmation to our nation's highest court. In subsequent conversations with people from across the country, [2:21:22] I learned that I had been carried on a million prayers lifted up on my behalf since the day of my nomination. [2:21:30] I also fielded an avalanche of invitations to speak or appear in person as excited well-wishers [2:21:39] wanted to know my story in whatever form or fashion I might be willing to tell it. [2:21:45] How was it, they wondered, that someone with such an unusual name and from such an unconventional background [2:21:55] came to stand in such an unprecedented place swearing an oath on two stacked Bibles that symbolized [2:22:05] how far our nation has traveled. Mine has been an unlikely journey in many respects. And the book that I've written [2:22:17] is about that journey. Thank you for being here this evening and allowing me to talk with you about it. [2:22:21] And if we could pull up the PowerPoint. Thank you. Yes, Jackson, you spoke in your book about the [2:22:39] great trails of your family experienced on American shores. Yes. And you and I have this great love of [2:22:46] family history and you talk a great deal about your maternal grandparents and the great influence they had [2:22:52] on you. But I want to talk about the generation before of your great grandparents who you never [2:22:58] knew who lived in rural Georgia. Tell us about them and what remarkable lives they lived. Well, as you say, [2:23:06] I didn't know them. And I actually grew up in Florida because of the migration of my grandparents. But [2:23:12] my grandparents on both sides were from rural Georgia. And my this is my grandfather's father [2:23:21] was a well digger. And he had his own business. And this is which is not normal for African American [2:23:28] families in southern Georgia. In southern Georgia in the early 1900s. And my grandfather used to tell [2:23:35] stories about being a little boy who was put in the bucket and rolled down into the well to clear away [2:23:43] all the leaves and the sticks and things as part of his grandfather's or his father's business. And I [2:23:50] think it really sparked in him the idea that you could work hard and make a way for yourself even [2:23:59] within the confines of the society for African Americans at the time. Now you mentioned that your [2:24:08] your grandparents, Horace and Uriza. Uriza. Uriza. Uriza. Uriza. Thank you. [2:24:13] Uriza. Thank you. And they moved, they migrated to Miami. Tell about that because I think a lot of [2:24:19] people think about the great migration north. Yes. Well, some some African Americans went south. [2:24:25] This is these are my grandparents. They grew up in Georgia without with very little schooling, [2:24:33] formal schooling in the 1920s and 30s. They got married pretty young. My grandmother was, [2:24:42] well, my grandfather was a chauffeur for a wealthy white family. And my grandmother worked in the [2:24:48] big house. And that was a good job. It was a good, a good job. But they really did see that there were [2:24:55] more opportunities. They wanted more for their lives and for our family. And they heard that Miami, [2:25:02] Florida was actually establishing, and even though segregated, a sort of middle class black community. [2:25:10] And so they moved south to Miami in 1939. My grandfather got a job as a driver for a beer [2:25:19] company. And he did that for a little while. But then he went into business just like his father did. [2:25:24] Exactly. He got fed up with how he was being treated. And he quit that job. And he was always very good [2:25:33] at gardening and taking care of his lawn and other people's lawns. And so he started a gardening business. [2:25:41] And he, his three sons participated in that. Just like he had done for his dad. [2:25:45] Just like he had done. And he ended up with his very hard labor, putting all five of his children [2:25:53] through college. Because he knew. All graduates at HBCU. All graduates. And he knew that that was going [2:26:03] to be the key. Making that investment in education was going to be the way in which our family would [2:26:10] be able to survive and improve. Your mom had Ellery. Ellery. And then she had four other siblings. She did. [2:26:19] Tell us about what happened to them. Because they raised in this family of strivers. They were [2:26:24] a family of strivers. They all went to college. I had three uncles and an aunt. One of my uncles, [2:26:32] two of my uncles went into law enforcement. One became the chief of police of the City of Miami Police [2:26:36] Department. One was a detective in Miami-Dade. The other worked for the electric company, Florida [2:26:46] Edison Electric Company. And then my aunt actually became a missionary. She traveled all around the [2:26:53] world. She spoke fluent French. She was in the Peace Corps right out of college. But she had a big [2:27:00] influence on you. She had a huge influence on me to include giving me my name. My aunt was in the [2:27:08] Peace Corps in West Africa when I was born. And my mother asked her to send African names. Because [2:27:15] we're talking now about the 1970s. I was born in 1970. My parents, as you mentioned, [2:27:21] were graduates of HBCUs. They had a fierce pride in their African-American identity. And my mother said, [2:27:29] I want to give... [2:27:29] We brought up your parents there. [2:27:30] There are my parents as young people. [2:27:35] They wanted to give their daughter an African name. And so my aunt sent the list of names. And my [2:27:42] mother picked Kitanjianyika, which she was told means lovely one. [2:27:48] And they were initially teachers in Washington, D.C. [2:27:51] So they moved. Both of my parents went to separate different colleges, even though they had started [2:27:57] dating in high school in Miami. My mother went to Tuskegee, Alabama. And my father went to the University of [2:28:06] North Carolina Central. And they graduated and moved to Washington, D.C. And what's so interesting [2:28:12] to me about this part of the story is how many African-Americans I've met of my generation who [2:28:20] were born in Washington, D.C. Because we're talking about a few years after the Civil Rights Act and the [2:28:27] Voting Rights Act and the end of Jim Crow segregation. And there were a number of African-Americans, [2:28:33] especially young people like my parents, who saw this opening in society as a real opportunity [2:28:39] for black people. And they went to the place where their help had come from. [2:28:44] But your parents were teachers. Your dad gets a wild idea about a mid-career change. [2:28:50] He did. So my father actually was a history teacher, public school, Baloo, [2:28:57] for those of you who know, which is a school here in Washington, D.C. And he was taking his kids to [2:29:04] the Capitol and to the Supreme Court. And he said, you know what, I think I might want to go to law [2:29:09] school. And so when I was four years old, we packed up everything. My father applied to law school and [2:29:16] he got into the University of Miami. And so we went back to Miami, which is where both of my parents were [2:29:21] from. And my earliest memories are of being at the kitchen table on the University of Miami law school. [2:29:30] I'm sitting at the table and my father has his law books. You know, back in the day you had books, [2:29:35] law books. And I have my coloring books and we are working together. And I actually never thought you [2:29:42] could do anything other than be a lawyer because that's what I knew. You know, when you grow up on the [2:29:49] campus of a law school, education becomes what you know. Law became what I was interested in from that [2:29:57] from that young. And tell me about your father's career as a lawyer. So my father graduated from [2:30:02] the University of Miami law school. He did corporate kinds of law. He was always in-house. He was never [2:30:08] at a law firm. He worked for Winn-Dixie, which was a grocery store chain. He worked for Burger King. [2:30:14] He did that kind of in-house work. And then he finished his career as the lawyer for the school [2:30:24] board for the Dade County Public Schools, which was a pretty big deal because it's a pretty big, [2:30:31] big school district. And when you went to the Supreme Court for your interview with Justice Breyer, [2:30:36] what was his father's career? So I'm to this day convinced I got the interview or got the job with [2:30:41] Justice Breyer because Justice Breyer's father was the lawyer for the school board in San Francisco. [2:30:49] And he was so excited when he heard that. He thought he had something in common with me, so. [2:30:55] Well, you, as a child, you would hear your parents talk about Constance Baker Motley. [2:31:02] Yes. And that fascinated you. Tell us about your-