FULL HEARING: Van Hollen, Gillibrand, Kennedy & Reed Clash With Todd Blanche in Fiery Hearing — AC1G

[0:00] it'll be reviewed by the five commissioners. [0:03] Are those commissioners appointed by the president? [0:06] No, they're appointed by, [0:08] four of them are appointed by the attorney general [0:11] and one of them is appointed by the attorney general [0:13] in consultation with leadership of this body. [0:16] Will the information related to the claims [0:20] be publicly reported? [0:23] So that's a good question. [0:24] I mean, look, there's privacy laws that exist. [0:25] So I don't wanna sit here today and say every scintilla [0:30] of data collected will be released. [0:32] But of course, I mean, of course there's accountability [0:37] that the commission has a quarterly report [0:38] that has to come to the attorney general, [0:41] which will certainly be public. [0:43] There's a process that you all will get information [0:46] and there's a FOIA process. [0:47] So I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, [0:51] the basis in the amount will for sure [0:54] be made public along the way. [0:57] Let me switch to a different issue [0:59] which Chairman Moran brought up, [1:02] along with Chairman Moran and other members [1:06] of this committee. [1:07] I was one of the lead sponsors [1:10] of the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization [1:14] of 2022. [1:17] These programs are critical [1:20] to reducing violence against women, [1:22] ensuring that justice is served, [1:25] and strengthening services to victims and survivors [1:29] of domestic violence, dating violence, [1:32] sexual assault, and stalking. [1:35] In Maine, the Rural Victims Program is especially critical. [1:41] Despite the importance and effectiveness of these programs, [1:46] the department's budget request proposes reducing funding [1:50] to combat domestic violence and to support survivors. [2:05] Well, first of all, I completely agree with you [2:08] that these are extraordinarily important programs [2:10] and the funds are well used to support these programs. [2:15] We have asked for $539 million, I believe, [2:19] in money to support all these programs. [2:21] And that, I mean, look, there's a lot of money that goes, [2:25] $190 million for grants to combat, you know, [2:28] to stop the stop grants, which is extraordinarily important. [2:31] And so it is a priority. [2:34] Obviously, there's, we have to make choices [2:37] and the president's budget has to make choices [2:39] on where to spend that money, [2:40] but it is extraordinarily important. [2:42] And the $539 million that we've asked for [2:45] will go to support all these programs. [2:47] I mean, so yes, there's, we are asking less for less money [2:50] than the budget had last year, [2:52] but it's not because we don't view it [2:54] as extraordinarily important. [2:56] Well, I would suggest that cutting the budget [3:00] for these important programs by 25% is a huge cut. [3:06] And I hope that's something the subcommittee [3:09] will take a close look at. [3:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:12] Thank you, Senator Collins. [3:13] Senator Van Hollen. [3:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [3:16] Mr. Attorney General, this is an outrageous, [3:19] unprecedented slush fund that you set up. [3:23] Simple question, will individuals who assaulted [3:26] Capitol Hill police officers be eligible for this fund? [3:30] Well, as it makes plain, anybody is- [3:33] Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund. [3:35] As was made plain yesterday, [3:38] anybody in this country is eligible to apply [3:42] if they believe they're a victim weaponization. [3:43] Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. [3:45] Are there gonna be rules that say that if you've assaulted [3:49] a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a violent crime, [3:52] you will not be eligible? [3:54] Why not make that a rule? [3:55] I expect that, well, because I'm not one of the commissioners [3:58] setting up the rules, I expect that there will be rules- [4:00] You're appointing four of the five members, [4:01] aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? [4:02] Pardon me? [4:03] You're appointing four of the five members. [4:04] I am appointing all five members. [4:05] You can simply set up the rules. [4:06] I would hope you would make a rule that anyone convicted [4:09] of assaulting a police officer or a violent crime [4:11] is simply not eligible. [4:12] They should not apply. [4:13] Well- [4:14] Let me ask you this, because you compared it [4:16] to the Keeps Eagle case, but I think you know full well [4:20] that in that case, the settlement agreement was approved [4:23] by a federal judge, including the payments to people [4:27] who were not originally parties to the lawsuit. [4:30] No federal judge has approved this fund, [4:32] have they, Mr. Attorney General? [4:33] No, no federal judge did approve this. [4:35] So that's a big difference between this case [4:37] and the case that you compared it to. [4:38] No, it's not. [4:40] Did a judge sign off on this case? [4:42] No. [4:43] A judge did sign off on the other one. [4:45] Yes, but your question was whether it's a big difference. [4:47] It's not. [4:48] Of course it is, because that allows [4:49] for an independent person to look at it [4:52] rather than the hand- [4:53] There was no independence. [4:54] The former personal attorney. [4:55] There was no independence. [4:56] There was a single commissioner. [4:57] A judge signed off on it. [4:58] A judge had nothing to do with deciding the money. [5:00] There was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it. [5:03] So to compare that case to this one [5:06] is incredibly deceptive. [5:09] Let me ask you this about the Epstein case, [5:12] because as we speak, many Epstein survivors [5:15] are in New York. [5:17] They're reading portions of the Epstein files [5:19] about the abuse that they suffered. [5:22] Otherwise, they might have been here with us today. [5:25] At a House hearing, your predecessor refused [5:27] to acknowledge the pain experienced [5:30] by some of those victims [5:31] when the administration improperly released their names [5:35] in identifying information. [5:36] So I want to know where you stand. [5:39] I spoke to the representatives [5:41] of some of the Epstein survivors yesterday. [5:44] They are extremely frustrated [5:46] that you keep calling for people to come forward [5:48] with more evidence, but you have not met with them [5:52] to hear their stories. [5:53] So simple question. [5:55] If I connect you with these survivors, [5:57] will you meet with them? [5:59] Absolutely, and what you just said is false. [6:02] I have met with them. [6:03] I've met with many of the lawyers [6:05] for the survivors of victims, [6:06] as did Attorney General Bondi. [6:08] So whoever told you that, [6:09] unfortunately gave you bad information. [6:11] I would encourage them, [6:13] I would encourage them to reach out [6:14] to the Department of Justice, [6:15] because like we do every single day, [6:18] we absolutely care for victims, [6:20] and we absolutely want to hear from them [6:21] and their lawyers. [6:23] Well, I've been told directly from the representatives [6:28] they've not had a chance, [6:29] at least this group, to meet with you. [6:31] So I'm glad to hear that. [6:33] Did they represent they asked for a meeting? [6:34] Can I ask you to commit [6:39] that the Justice Department will not recommend [6:42] a pardon for anyone named in the Epstein files? [6:47] Can you repeat that question? [6:48] I'm sorry, I didn't hear what you said. [6:49] Can you commit that the Justice Department, [6:52] you, the Acting Attorney General, [6:54] would not recommend a pardon [6:56] for people named in the Epstein files? [6:58] When you say people named, [7:00] I have no, there's tens of thousands, [7:02] hundreds of thousands of quote, people named. [7:05] How about Jelaine Maxwell? [7:06] Can you commit that you- [7:07] Yes, I can commit to that, of course. [7:09] Let me go back to this slush fund, [7:13] because there's also an individual who, [7:18] after being pardoned by the president, [7:21] went on to molest two children. [7:25] And that person actually tried to buy the silence [7:28] of these children by saying that he would pay them [7:31] some of the funds that he was hoping to get [7:33] from your slush fund. [7:35] Can you commit to making the rules [7:38] so that that person is not eligible [7:41] for a payout under this fund? [7:43] Well, you're obviously lying in your question, [7:45] because there's no way that this person committed to that. [7:48] But the slush fund, as you call it, [7:50] which is not, didn't exist, but I can commit- [7:52] Mr. Attorney General, don't ever do that again. [7:57] I am reporting what he said. [7:59] He said on the expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds from a payout. [8:04] You said from the slush fund, Senator, [8:07] and that didn't exist when he said that. [8:09] This is the fund that the president and all of you have been telegraphing [8:13] all along that you're going to use to help the president's friends. [8:17] Can you point to a single telegraph on that? [8:19] Mr. Attorney General, I have a last question. [8:20] I have a last question for you. [8:23] Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress? [8:29] I am very well aware of that. [8:31] I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. [8:35] Senator Kennedy. [8:40] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:43] General, how are you? [8:45] I'm great. Thank you, Senator. [8:49] In America, unlike other countries where they let you die in a ditch, [9:00] in America, if you're too poor to be sick, we'll pay for your doctor. [9:05] Isn't that right? [9:06] It is. [9:07] And one of the programs we do that through is Medicaid. [9:12] Correct. [9:13] Okay. [9:13] And this money for Medicaid, it didn't just fall from heaven. [9:19] It, we thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, didn't it? [9:23] Every dime of it. [9:25] And some of that money is stolen, isn't it? [9:30] Yes. [9:31] And the states, not all of them, but many of them, allow it to be stolen, don't they? [9:37] Yes. [9:39] Let's take Medicaid in California, for example. [9:43] I don't mean to just pick on California, but because this happens in other states. [9:48] We saw it happen in Minnesota, for example. [9:52] But in California, for every dollar that the California state government puts up for Medicaid, [10:02] for the Obamacare portion of Medicaid, we put up, the federal taxpayer puts up $9, don't they? [10:10] And so, is that right? [10:12] That's correct, Senator. [10:13] And so, as a result, California has allowed thousands and thousands of these social assistance [10:24] and so-called healthcare providers pop up in California, haven't they? [10:29] Yes. [10:31] And some of those providers steal the money, don't they? [10:34] Yes, we know that to be true. [10:35] And the money never gets to the people they supposedly are trying to help, correct? [10:39] Correct. [10:40] That's correct. [10:40] And the other way that California and others abuse the fact that they're putting up $1 and [10:46] the American taxpayers putting up $9. Did I mention it was $9? [10:51] I think some say it's even more, but yeah, nine were. [10:53] Yeah. [10:53] They expand the services, don't they? [10:56] Yes. [10:56] Because some states, like California, and I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, [11:01] it's not everybody in California's state government, but it's a lot of them, [11:04] they see this as free money, don't they? [11:08] They're not paying for it, yes. [11:10] Isn't it a fact that, for example, Medicaid in California [11:16] will pay a provider to provide tribal prayers? [11:20] I looked all this up. [11:22] I mean, I'll accept that. [11:24] I didn't know that, but yes. [11:25] That California will actually pay a healthcare provider, [11:29] I didn't know this was a medical expertise, [11:31] to pay for exorcisms. [11:34] Is that right? [11:37] I'll accept that, Senator, but that's... [11:38] The California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, meal deliveries. [11:47] They'll pay for housing. [11:49] I don't know what housing has to do with healthcare. [11:52] Is that correct? [11:53] Yes. [11:54] Were you aware that the Medicaid program using federal money, taxpayer money, [12:00] will pay for an in-home chef? [12:03] Yes. [12:05] Okay. [12:06] If it's a family member, yes. [12:07] Yeah, they'll even pay for gymnasium fees through Medicaid in California. [12:12] Um, they'll pay for bicycles, scooters, gym memberships. [12:19] Did you know that? [12:20] Uh, yes. [12:22] Several states do, but California does for sure. [12:24] They'll even repay your student loans. [12:27] Were you aware of that? [12:28] I was not aware of the student loans. [12:31] Yeah, yeah. [12:32] They'll repay somebody's student loans to encourage them to become a healthcare provider. [12:37] Um, I mean, California, they're just setting all kinds of records. [12:41] They, they, these folks are, are, uh, they're wild people. [12:46] Um, California's got 12% of the population. [12:51] In the last, uh, 10 years, they're responsible for half of these new so-called health providers [12:58] to provide extra systems and other things. [13:01] Now, what the hell are we doing about it? [13:03] Why has this gone on for so long? [13:06] It's a, Senator, listen, it's a great question. [13:08] And what you just described are, are programs that are allowed under the program. [13:12] You have a whole other issue in California where a lot of these folks are just stealing [13:16] the money, not even, not even running it through for exorcism. [13:19] They're thieves, aren't they? [13:20] They're thieves. [13:21] Correct. [13:22] Correct. [13:22] And, and California just watches it happen, don't they? [13:26] Not everybody in California. [13:29] The government does though, doesn't it? [13:31] Well, that's the challenge in a lot of states is that we don't have a state government, which we, [13:36] you all have entrusted to run these programs and take care of the money that you all give them. [13:40] There's state structures that, that absolutely do not do any compliance and they don't do their job. [13:45] And because they don't have no incentive to, they're getting free money. [13:49] Isn't that right? [13:50] Yes. [13:51] I think so. [13:52] Yes. [13:52] We got to change this general. [13:54] We're trying. [13:55] I call this a slush fund. [13:57] You want to talk about slush fund. [13:59] This is, this is a tier one slush fund. [14:03] It's been going on for years and years and years. [14:07] Billions and hundreds of billions of dollars is stolen. [14:10] Yes, Senator. [14:13] And that's why, look, this department stood up a whole new fraud division [14:18] and AUSAs around the country prosecute fraud every day. [14:20] So it's not as if we weren't, we weren't, we didn't have the work out there, but it's so [14:24] systematically taking money from the American taxpayer that we very much believe that it needs [14:30] its own standup structure. [14:32] And I, and I think it's true for the reasons that you just said. [14:35] If you need an extra system, you can go to California King. [14:37] Thank you, Senator. [14:41] Thank you, Chairman Moran, Ranking Member Van Hollen. [14:43] Thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche for appearing before us today. [14:47] I want to talk about some areas where I think we're making progress and we can [14:50] work together and then raise some real concerns I have. [14:53] I do think it's worth recognizing the hard work of the men and women of the department and the [14:58] progress you're making on combating fentanyl and a violent crime. [15:02] I've long been involved in criminal justice reform, talked with and worked with your predecessor [15:07] in this. [15:08] I was pleased to see the president's message during Second Chance Month where he said he [15:13] wants to ensure those who take responsibility and seek to rebuild their lives have a chance to succeed. [15:18] Senator Lee and I have a bill called the Safer Supervision Act. [15:22] It's co-sponsored by Senators Tillis and Wicker, Kramer and Langford. [15:26] It's got strong law enforcement and conservative support and it fits squarely in that framework. [15:31] Currently, federal supervision is imposed in nearly every case, [15:35] leading to badly overworked federal probation officers who then can't properly supervise [15:40] those who actually most need it. There's more than 120,000 people on average per year being [15:45] supervised and this bill would help ensure courts are more thoughtful, more analytic when deciding [15:51] when to impose supervision. Is this a piece of legislation you can support? [15:56] So what you just said, I very much agree with. So I, without looking at every word of the legislation, [16:02] what you, I, there's no disagreement for me on a word you just uttered. [16:06] Well, thank you. I'd like to work with you on that. [16:08] Yes. I look forward to that. [16:09] Let me raise two questions. I've been gravely concerned about IP theft, especially from China, [16:15] the whole time I've served. I was struck that the department's proposed budget cuts the funds for [16:20] IP enforcement. Why? And is the department under your leadership committed to protecting American [16:26] innovation? Very committed. And while you're calling it a cut, Senator, I would say that, [16:31] that it's a, a major focus of every- It's a lack of an increase? [16:35] Well, no, no, no. I don't mean lack of an increase. I mean that it's, we're, we're focused on it at the [16:40] U.S. Attorney's Office level. So when we take money and spend it around the U.S. Attorney's offices, [16:45] and so it's, it's, it's baked into that big number, rest assured, every U.S. Attorney's Office, [16:50] all 93 of them are focused on, on the threats that we have from there. And so we're trying to spend our [16:55] money more wisely. Chair Collins raised a concern about the violence against women act funds. Let [17:00] me raise a concern about the victims of child abuse act programs. Senator Roy Blunt and I worked to [17:05] reauthorize this program. I've long been actively engaged with it. I've seen how children's advocacy [17:10] centers in Delaware make a critical difference, bringing together law enforcement, medical, [17:15] mental health professionals to do child abuse investigations in a child-centered way to make [17:20] sure children are not re-victimized. The number of victims served by these centers has increased [17:26] fourfold over 25 years. Why are you proposing cutting this program? So we're, we have asked for [17:33] $41 million for that program. And I could, I agree with you and I, I want to work with you to make [17:37] sure that we're spending that 41 million where we should. I agree with you. It's extraordinarily important [17:42] and it's had a lot of success over the past 15, 20 years as it's been up and running. Thank you. Let me [17:48] return to the line of questioning from the ranking member, Senator Van Hollen, that I strongly agree [17:53] with. I'm just looking at the settlement agreement in Trump versus IRS. And I just want to make sure [18:00] I heard you properly when you responded previously. Your announcement said that the fund will send you [18:07] quarterly reports. Will you commit to making these reports fully public so Americans know who's getting [18:13] taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? This says they'll be confidential. This is section four, [18:19] part E of the settlement agreement. The reason why I want to be careful [18:22] in my answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around privacy that would may prevent [18:27] some of the information that the, that the commission takes in from being fully public. Beyond that, [18:34] there will be full transparency. And I commit to you that beyond the, the applicable laws that exist [18:39] around privacy and privileges and whatnot. But as far as being transparent and having those quarterly [18:45] reports released, yes. Thank you. You referenced a previous case. I think it was Keep Siegel versus [18:51] Vilsack under the previous administration. Did that case involve a president suing his own government [18:57] and then settling that case before it could be reviewed or approved by a judge? So no, and neither does the [19:03] commission. It did not. And so when you suggested that they're nearly identical, they're not identical. I [19:08] think there's a critical difference here. President Trump is the first president to sue his own [19:14] government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach this kind of settlement. [19:21] Will you commit that none of President Trump's family will receive a direct payout from this fund? [19:28] Yes, but you, what you just said is not true. I mean, if I can correct that, the president did not [19:34] direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we said it was that the structure of the commission [19:39] is similar to, to Keep Siegel, you're, that's true. It wasn't the case. The underlying case is not the [19:45] same. The structure of the commission is the same as the Keep Siegel. Has it ever happened [19:50] that a sitting president sued his own government for $10 billion and then directed the settlement of the [19:57] case and the establishment of a payout fund? Not that I'm aware of, but there's a lot of things that [20:02] President Trump's the first of. No president had been indicted one, two, three, four, five, six, [20:06] seven, eight times either. Correct. No president's been indicted. And will you commit that none of [20:11] this money will go to President Trump's campaign donors? I am not committing to anything beyond the [20:16] settlement agreement itself. When you say campaign donors, that they are not excluded from seeking [20:21] compensation. Last question. During police week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who [20:27] found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks like the peace, the oath keepers, [20:33] the proud boys who had assaulted Capitol police officers could receive multi-million dollar payouts [20:40] from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting a police officer [20:46] will receive a payout from this fund? So I shared the concerns that apparently members of [20:50] law enforcement gave to you last week, although none of this was announced last week. So that's surprising, [20:55] but they have heard rumors there would be a settlement fund. Okay. But anybody can apply. [21:00] The commissioners will set rules, I'm sure. That's not for me to set. That's for the commissioners. [21:06] And whether an individual, an oath keeper, as you just mentioned, applies for compensation, [21:12] anybody in this country can apply. Well, we'll be watching this very closely as this goes forward. [21:18] I don't think the settlement fund should be set up this way or for these purposes. I appreciate your [21:23] answers today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, [21:28] thank you for being here this morning and responding to our questions. I want to follow [21:32] on a couple that have been asked with regards to the Department of Justice's state and local law [21:38] enforcement programs. $1.2 billion in proposed cuts. We're looking at it very carefully because [21:46] many of these grants and programs have significant impact on our state, small population, large area [21:52] to deal with. The budget also calls for consolidation of the Office of Violence Against Women, the community [22:00] oriented policing services, and the OJP programs. Is the Office of Tribal Justice one of the offices that [22:11] are also intended to be consolidated? We're just consolidating the grant components. So OJP, COPS, [22:19] and then OVD. And by the way, we're not combining them. We're just making them more efficient. So they [22:24] will still maintain their own independence and brand, for lack of a better word. But what we heard from [22:31] the field is that there were inappropriate inconsistencies and inefficiencies in having three [22:37] separate kind of bureaucracies running each of those programs. So that's what we're trying to fix. [22:42] Don't disagree with wanting to reduce bureaucracies. My interest is making sure that the fidelity of [22:48] these grants and the availability to very rural and oftentimes just very high cost because of what we're [22:56] dealing with out there, that they do not get overlooked. Because when you have cuts to the level that [23:04] you're proposing, one has to assume that, okay, you can talk about reducing the bureaucracy and just [23:12] what the program itself might look like. But again, my interest is making sure that this much needed [23:18] assistance is still pushed down to the very, very local levels. Senator, I assure you that the rural [23:27] communities, and I appreciate that they have the most challenges applying for grants because of just the [23:32] way they're structured. Lacking capacity. Of course. And there's obviously, I forget the exact [23:37] percentage, but a large percentage of our grants do go to rural communities as they should and rural [23:42] police departments as they should. And we are going to continue to do that. I mean, there's, the COPS [23:48] office is required to distribute half of it, half of the grants to rural communities. But just, and I don't [23:53] want to take up all your time, Senator, but that's one of the reasons why we built in, we're trying to make it [23:57] more efficient because the field said, especially rural communities, big cities don't have issues [24:03] applying for grants. They have a bunch of people that can do it. And so, yes, we are very focused [24:07] on that in tribal justice space, but also in the grant space. Well, know that we're watching this [24:13] one very carefully. I understand that in response to Senator Collins, you acknowledge 25% cut to the [24:20] office on violence against women. Um, I was very involved in that reauthorization. And within that, [24:28] we provide that OVW may not be subsumed by another grant making component within DOJ. So we want to [24:36] make sure that again, DOJ is going to maintain OVW statutory responsibilities, um, and how they move [24:45] forward with their grant making and, and not losing out on that subject. We will. And we're aware of that. [24:51] Yes, ma'am. Let me, let me ask about, uh, the Not Invisible Act. Uh, this was legislation that I [24:57] introduced some years ago. It became law. Um, May 5th is the day that we recognize as Missing and [25:05] Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. We had a big, a round table that Senator Sullivan helped to [25:10] organize, uh, just a couple of weeks ago. I had a lot of the folks from, from your department, [25:15] along with Alaska state and local, as well as tribal. One of the things that kept coming up was [25:22] we, uh, the, the, the commission issued its final report. I thought it was pretty substantive. Um, [25:29] they issued it November 1 of 2023 after great testimony and consultation all across Indian country, [25:37] but then it was removed. The report was removed, um, uh, very early on in, in the second Trump [25:45] administration and the related materials have been removed from DOJ and the Department of Interior [25:51] websites. So people keep asking me where'd it go, why, what is happening? And, uh, I tweet, tried to get [25:59] further information to that, um, again, up in Anchorage a couple of weeks ago. So the question to you is, [26:07] why was the report taken down? When will it be restored? And more importantly, what concrete [26:12] steps is DOJ taking with, um, the department of others and others to implement the recommendations? [26:20] We don't want the work of this really important commission to just kind of sit and be ignored. [26:26] Yeah. So I, I don't have an answer as to why it was taken down, but I will get back to you [26:31] promptly. I will tell you. I would appreciate that. Yeah. And, and, and your big picture question, [26:35] we are on the same page when it comes to, um, to tribal justice and the work that we have to do [26:41] with our native American community and making sure that we're giving them the resources, [26:46] the law enforcement I visited, um, to so far as, as the deputy attorney general, [26:51] my staff has gone out to multiples to Northern New York, the Dakotas, Oklahoma. Um, and we'll continue [26:58] to do that. I think that at the end of the day, it is a funding and training issue that, that is, [27:03] that is our responsibility. And, and I recognize that and it's a priority. [27:07] Well, and we've seen positive signals, um, in the first Trump administration, [27:11] that was when operation lady justice was stood up. I think that that is good. We need to continue on [27:16] that. You've put good people, um, tasked to this, but this is where it's, it gets confusing because [27:23] when you have a public facing website that helps people navigate through some of the reporting and [27:29] the lack of data, uh, that's where we could use a little help. So if you can get back with me on [27:34] that, I would appreciate it. I will. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. Um, thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney [27:41] General for being here. Um, as you alluded to in your opening statement, there is an acute staffing [27:47] shortage at the Bureau prisons at FCI Berlin in New Hampshire. Staffing levels have dropped to 58% of [27:54] authorized levels. And that's at a time when correctional officers are being asked to take [28:00] on added duties where they have detainees being sent to our federal prison and the retention incentives [28:09] have dropped significantly. So as you point out, the Bureau received an additional $3 billion in the [28:15] reconciliation bill to address staffing issues. And you're asking for additional funding, which I [28:21] appreciate, but how do you plan to use those supplemental funds to address recruitment and [28:26] detention of staff at facilities like FCI Berlin? Thank you for that question. It is a crisis [28:33] and the crisis on staffing is, is twofold. One is we're not paying them enough and they can walk [28:38] across the street to county jails and make more money. And two, because we're not paying them enough, [28:43] there's shortages. So they're required to work overtime. They're required to, to actually, [28:47] I understand the problem. Can you explain what you're going to do to address it? [28:50] We're doing both. I mean, we're, we're, we're addressing the compensation and we've already [28:55] worked with, with director Marshall over the past several months to give some retention money to, [29:00] to officers who are staying, but we have to pay them more and we have to make it worthwhile for [29:05] them to stay. And that the only way to do that is with money. The only way that I can, I can tell you [29:09] that FCI Berlin has not seen that money yet and it's going to be critical to get it out. Um, let me change to [29:16] another topic because we have a new DEA drug lab in Londonderry, New Hampshire. I'm very pleased [29:23] that we've got that New England regional drug lab. I worked hard, um, to try and support the effort [29:28] to get it there, but I'm concerned now that DEA doesn't have the personnel that they need in order [29:33] to fully operate it. And when we raised this at hearings, both in the House and Senate, um, with DEA, [29:40] what they told us was that DOJ has routinely denied its request for greater allocations of personnel, [29:49] um, meaning that they are going to have difficulties hiring the sufficient personnel they need to fully [29:53] operate this new lab. So can you commit that you will ensure that the personnel that are needed to [30:00] operate the lab are able to be hired? Yes. And our budget asks for that funding. And, and I agree [30:07] with you, Senator, that it's crucial to have that and that there's shortages. You're right. As let me [30:14] weigh in on with Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski and their concerns about the Office of Violence [30:21] Against Women and the grants. Um, I don't support the cut of 25% for that budget. Um, but we have a [30:30] greater issue because my staff has heard from organizations in New Hampshire working on domestic [30:36] violence concerns that the department is continuing to hold fiscal year 25 funding for the office. And [30:44] for some of these organizations, they had their grants canceled early in 2025. This disruption has [30:50] caused those organizations to scale back, um, to start laying off staff, which limits their ability to help [30:56] survivors. So when is the department going to make available that fiscal year 25 and 26 grant funds [31:04] that have already been approved by Congress? So we, the, the NOFOs for two of the three agencies are all [31:12] out and back. Um, there's one NOFO that's, that's, that's pending from 25 that we expect to get out any day [31:19] now, and then we'll start working on, on 26. And so we're, it's done on a rolling basis. And, um, we, [31:26] and we're working, um, every day, very hard to get that money out. As far as, um, grants that were [31:33] canceled, I believe 330 some were canceled, just about five or 6% of the overall grants awarded, [31:42] um, for various reasons, but grants that were, more than that were initially canceled. And, and the [31:47] grant. But those are grants that had been approved by Congress that had already been sent out. [31:51] Why is the department canceling funding that our organizations are depending on in order to help [31:56] survivors? Well, it's not that they were approved by Congress, the money was. And, and so for, [32:01] for a very small portion of a very small portion of grants, they simply, they were canceled for [32:06] various reasons. So, well, they were canceled because DOGE came in and made significant cuts [32:11] and the department, the administration has made cuts. I, I guess the, I'm not going to argue with [32:16] you about why that happened. I think it was wrong. I'm going to acknowledge your commitment to ensure [32:23] that those funds are going to go out to the organizations that are depending on them so [32:27] that they can serve the people who need it. I commit to that. Thank you. Um, last fall, [32:33] the U.S. trustee for region one didn't name a new chapter 13 standing trustee for New Hampshire. [32:40] Instead, he assigned New Hampshire's duties to Maine's standing trustee over the objections of the [32:46] New Hampshire bankruptcy bar. The transition from New Hampshire standing trustee to the new [32:52] Maine trustee who's supposed to be serving both states has not gone well. Um, debtors who had [32:59] completed their payments were not being discharged from bankruptcy, creditors and attorneys were not [33:03] getting paid. In fact, a motion to remove the New Hampshire and Maine trustee was filed and the New [33:09] Hampshire bankruptcy judge admonished the trustee, but unfortunately didn't ultimately remove him. [33:17] I am very concerned that we have granite staters who need to use the chapter 13 bankruptcy and that [33:24] they're being disadvantaged because of this decision. For whatever reason, we have no idea because [33:31] the U.S. government doesn't pay those standing trustees. There's no reason that's not a benefit in [33:38] terms of savings. So I don't know if it was a shot at New Hampshire or what the issue was, but will you [33:44] commit to naming a New Hampshire only chapter 13 standing trustee and look into this? Because it's [33:50] a real problem. So we have that. Mr. General, the time has expired. So if you can quickly wrap that up, [33:55] I would appreciate it. We have that in many districts, not just New Hampshire, and we're working very [34:01] hard to rectify it for the reasons that you say the challenges it presents. So you will look into that [34:07] and try? Been looking into it and we'll continue to do so, Senator. Yes. Thank you. Mr. General, [34:15] appreciate you being here today. I wanted to start with an issue that I raised with you [34:19] in your confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. We talked about the Executive Office for [34:24] Immigration Reform. Some people call it EOIR, some people call it EOR, but ultimately it oversees our [34:32] immigration courts. As you're aware, there was a significant backlog that was left by the Biden-Harris [34:38] administration. Unfortunately, they created a culture of that, of dragging their feet and not [34:42] actually completing these cases. I know they also rolled back a number of reforms that were put in [34:48] place during the first Trump administration to ensure that our immigration courts functioned in [34:53] an efficient manner. By contrast, obviously under the current Trump administration, the courts in FY25 [35:00] have completed the highest number of cases that we have seen in a single year in EOR's history. [35:07] Finally achieved a reduction in the case backlog and hopefully that's something that we can continue. [35:13] I saw in your budget that you increased this by 12 percent. I wanted to talk, is that going to help you [35:18] continue on that, on eliminating this backlog, improve efficiencies and operations of these immigration courts, [35:26] and then also on that, how does the budget request support efforts to actually modernize this process, [35:33] making sure that we're not only using the current system, but we're looking at how can we be more [35:36] efficient in the future? Yes, thank you, Senator. The first answer in reverse order, [35:42] we have asked for 37 million dollars to modernize the IT programs that the immigration courts use. [35:48] That, in and of itself, will create efficiencies that will help us in ways that should have happened [35:54] years and years ago and it didn't. We're also asking for more money because we need more judges. [35:59] And the big, beautiful bill gave us authority to hire a bunch of immigration judges and we're hiring [36:04] a ton. We have a graduation tomorrow, the largest graduation of immigration judges in many, many [36:10] years, if not history. And we're continuing to try to find good judges that will work hard. And the budget [36:18] also, you know, a judge needs staff. So a judge needs clerks to help process the cases. You know, [36:24] we have almost 500,000 cases were processed last year. That's extraordinary. And we're getting into [36:30] the backlog. But when you have something like 4 million immigration cases, 4 million immigration [36:37] cases backed up, even if you cut it down by a million a year, you're still looking at 3 or 4 years [36:43] to catch up. But we're very focused on doing that. We tell our new judges they're going to be working [36:49] harder than they've ever worked in their lives. And we expect that. And so this budget is really [36:55] addressing that, the IT problem and the staffing challenge that we have. Good. Thank you. Changing [37:02] gears a little bit. Obviously, we are so proud to see the crackdown on crime across the country, [37:08] lowest murder rate that we have seen, the significant, just, you know, actually getting [37:14] back to the mission of getting the bad guys and putting criminals behind bars. I talked to [37:20] Director Patel about this last week, but there's great work being done by the FBI and DOJ and my home [37:26] state. Operation Southern Star in Montgomery has been significant. That's where I live. We appreciate [37:34] that effort. I know that communities across the country appreciate the work that you're doing. Can [37:39] you discuss how this request increase in resources that you have in this budget is going to allow us [37:46] to build on the current successes and enhance cooperation with state and local partners across [37:51] the country so that we can do more of what we've seen in Montgomery over the Operation Southern Star? [37:56] Yes. So there is nothing more important than our state and local partnerships when it comes to [38:01] combating violent crime. Nearly every violent criminal that's arrested by the feds, the feds are assisted by [38:08] a cop or detective or a trooper in that case. And so when we talk about the work that the federal [38:13] government and the FBI and DEA and marshals and ATF and HSI have done over the past year, [38:18] we are really talking about the work that they did partnering with the state and locals. So our budget [38:22] reflects that. We want $2.9 billion for state and local grants. That's money that's going to go to [38:27] to law enforcement to combat violent crime. $12 billion for our budget for violent crime. And you said [38:35] that, but I want to make sure I'm giving props to the great men and women of law enforcement in our [38:40] country. It worked. I mean, we did see meaningful reductions in violent crime, which means everybody's [38:46] streets are safer than they were a year and a half ago. Well, as someone who is raising two teenagers [38:51] and wants these streets to be safer, particularly the ones where all these families are trying to build [38:58] their lives, we say thank you. Last question. I know that the budget also is going to stand up the [39:06] National Fraud Enforcement Division. I know that there's been a lot of misnomers about that out [39:11] there. It is important we make sure that taxpayer dollars are used judiciously and the people who do [39:16] not do that are held accountable. Can you talk about some of the work that the division has been doing [39:22] and how the funding will allow DOJ to continue protecting Americans and their hard-earned tax dollars? [39:27] Yes. So we asked for $30 million because we need lawyers to help build this new division up. And [39:32] what we've done already, and you've seen it in the news in Minnesota and other locations, really [39:38] everywhere. Minnesota has been a focus, but in every state the National Fraud Division has an AUSA [39:43] assigned to that division now. And their goal is very simple, to find criminals who are stealing from [39:50] the government. That's it. And so that comes in the area of healthcare, but it comes in a lot of different [39:56] places. And I expect that everybody in this body will be very satisfied with the work when I come [40:02] back next time because it's doing great work. Americans are sick of people not being held [40:06] accountable. So we hope that we see some people actually prosecuted for these crimes. Thank you so [40:12] much. Thank you. Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Murray, do you want to jump in [40:21] first? Okay. Thank you, Acting Attorney General. So the budget has a $500 million cut to the COPS [40:29] grants. Those grants are certainly important to our local law enforcement, for staff, for equipment, [40:34] for investigations. Is there any particular reason that you think the police departments need less money [40:41] now than they did before? And would you be supportive if we advocate for more funding rather than less? [40:48] So local law enforcement needs all the money we can get. I agree with that very much. And whether [40:52] we would, I would be supportive of more money that you all come together for local law enforcement. [40:58] Yes, I will. I mean, look, thank you. I appreciate that. There is a bill called the Stop Institutional [41:04] Child Abuse Act that centers on both sides of the aisle supported, including Senators Tuberville and [41:09] Cornyn. And this is about the troubled teen industry, where there are basically all kinds of [41:17] fairly unregulated, without oversight companies that say, hey, send your teen to us and we'll get [41:25] them on the right path. This institutional care often results in institutional abuse. And what we did [41:33] when we passed and funded that bill, because we had both authorized it and then we funded it, [41:39] was to have the National Academies of Science study. Because there's 50,000 kids that are in these [41:43] institutional settings each year. They're often taken away in the middle of the night under [41:48] arrangements with the parents. The parents think they're sending their kids to get help, but often [41:53] they're sending their kids into abuse. Will you take a look at this issue and just kind of track the [42:00] National Academies as they proceed to study this? And if there are ways that we can reduce abuse, [42:06] help us find that path? Yes, of course. Thank you. To follow up, you noted that it would be up to the [42:15] five commissioners that you appoint to determine whether there are any guidelines. Will you encourage [42:22] the folks that you select to ensure that folks who were convicted of violent acts against police officers [42:29] do not get compensation from this fund? Well, I expect they will. They don't have [42:34] the option of establishing guidelines. The commissioners will establish guidelines. And so [42:39] Will you encourage them to have a guideline that says those who have been convicted of violent [42:43] acts against police officers are not eligible? I will definitely encourage the commissioners to [42:49] take everything into account when determining who should get compensation. But why not this specific [42:54] issue of violent acts convicted of violent acts against police officers? Do you feel they should [42:58] get compensation after being convicted of violent acts? My feelings don't matter, Senator, in my mind. [43:04] My mind is not limiting to say, yes, I will commit to this or that. What I will commit to [43:10] is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs. And that [43:14] includes setting guidelines like you're describing. Okay, I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable [43:22] that those who are convicted of violently assaulting- I definitely did not say that. Definitely did not [43:27] say that. I didn't say I found it acceptable, Senator. Will you agree to encourage those commissioners [43:33] to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals who are convicted of assaulting police [43:40] officers? I expect- I just a yes would answer my question or no. Yes will not answer that question. [43:45] I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. I don't think that's a fair word. I don't think [43:48] it's the attorney general's job to encourage commissioners to do or not do anything. Okay. [43:53] Well, we'll move on. But I will say that you have complete power over who you appoint. So you have huge [43:58] influence. You are going to be evaluating the inclinations and attitudes of those who will serve. [44:06] And certainly, this looks extraordinary. You described it as parallel to a fund set up to [44:11] compensate Native Americans who were discriminated against in the agricultural world. It's not [44:17] parallel at all. President Obama did not sue his own Department of Justice. He did not have a judge [44:25] saying that Williams had- let's see. How did she put it? Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the [44:32] lawsuit dismissed the case and then finally admonished the government agency, notably the [44:37] Justice Department, for not being transparent about the settlement deal. Williams previously assigned a [44:45] group of attorneys to determine whether there was a conflict of case since as sitting President Trump [44:49] was suing entities, quote, entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. This type of conflict [44:55] of interest did not at all involved in the fund set up to compensate those who are discriminated [45:01] against in the agricultural realm. I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. Is it closed or open? [45:08] When you say the Epstein investigation, what are you referring to, Senator? Well, the FBI said in last year [45:14] in July that it had closed the Epstein investigation. So I'm just using their words. Is it open or closed? [45:18] I don't believe the FBI said that. Well, you're head of the Department of Justice. Is the Epstein [45:26] investigation open or closed? But I guess I don't understand what Epstein investigation means. [45:30] Well, let me put it different. Jeffrey Epstein himself, yes, he's dead. Any investigation into [45:35] potential other bad guys will always be open if we have evidence that supports in any way, [45:42] shape or form that we can make a case. Okay. So Trump said in November, this was after the FBI, [45:47] and it was the FBI awards when they said the investigation was closed. But what Trump wrote [45:53] in November of last year, I'll be asking the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, [46:00] together with our great Patriots FBI, to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationships with, [46:05] and he gave a specific list, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, people at JP Morgan, [46:11] and many other people to determine what was going on. Is there a list particularly targeted [46:18] at Democrats, as opposed to being, if you will, blind, blind to party affiliation, [46:27] investigations that are being pursued under your direction? [46:29] The, the, any investigation, no matter Republican, Democrat, man, woman, old, young, [46:36] any investigation will be open if the Department of Justice and the FBI have evidence that a crime [46:40] has been committed. And that doesn't, I mean, you're talking about Epstein. [46:42] You commit to pursue, regardless of political affiliation. [46:46] Excuse me, Senator? [46:47] You commit to pursuing investigations free of prejudice about party affiliation. [46:52] Of course, yes. [46:53] Well, you say, of course, but this enemy has repeatedly, this president has repeatedly spoken [46:59] of an enemies list that he wants to go after. And I must say, it's one of the symbols of the [47:04] breakdown of a democratic republic, when a president uses his Department of Justice, [47:08] which you now head, to go after his perceived political enemies. I hope you won't be party to that. [47:14] Thank you. [47:14] I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. And that's why what happened when, [47:18] during the Biden administration was so disgusting. [47:21] That is completely inappropriate and wrong. There is no comparison [47:25] to the absolute fair-minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration [47:30] and this administration's pursuit of an enemies list. Thank you. [47:33] Senator Murray. [47:34] I believe Senator Fischer was next. [47:37] Yeah. [47:39] Senator Fischer, so glad of you to join us. [47:44] Thank you. [47:46] I'm trying to ingratiate myself with the ranking member of the committee. [47:48] No, you didn't see me at the kiddie table. It's fine. So, Mr. Attorney General, welcome. [47:54] Senator Murkowski brought up to you about the consolidation of the grant programs and also [48:03] that the budget request is $1.2 billion, a cut to the state and local grants. I thank you for clarifying [48:13] that this consolidation, what its intent is, but I'm still concerned about the impact of funding [48:23] reductions and what that would have on our state and local law enforcement agencies. [48:29] So, I hope that you will be very cognizant of that as you look at the rural and really the [48:36] under-resourced agencies that are out there. [48:39] Yes, I will, Senator. [48:40] Yes. [48:40] Thank you. [48:41] Thank you. In 2024, I passed legislation, the Recruit and Retain Act and that was signed into law [48:48] and this authorized law enforcement agencies to use those COPS grants for recruitment and retention [48:57] activities. It required a study. The study came out. Not surprisingly, it identified a relationship [49:06] between local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates. More staff leads to lower crime. [49:15] And the study also found that from 2019 through 2024, officer resignations and retirements have [49:26] increased and that's obviously then a decrease in officer staffing. So, Mr. Attorney General, [49:33] how do you anticipate that DOJ's proposal to consolidate its grant making components, [49:41] reducing that funding for that account, how's that going to impact recruitment and retention by those [49:48] local agencies and how do you plan to address that? [49:53] So, we will spend tons and tons of grant money on that issue and not only giving money to state and [50:00] locals to get them new bodies, but also overtime and equipment, which all goes to keeping people on [50:06] the job more meaningfully and beyond the grant program itself, we are working, we are making law [50:13] enforcement a very good thing to be part of now. And that was one of the reasons that there was a steep [50:18] decline in a lot of retirements over the, during the time, 2019 to 2024, because there was this [50:23] inappropriate stigma that law enforcement or COPS were bad. That's not the case anymore. And so we're [50:28] working every day. We have our Homeland Security Task Forces set up, which is a partnership with state [50:33] and local law enforcement and sheriffs. They're getting money. They're getting overtime pay. We're [50:37] thanking them. We're giving them cars. We're giving them vehicles. And so that's what we're going to [50:41] continue to do. Have you reached out to local agencies to see if their recruitment has improved? [50:49] Because I can attest to disappointment by many, by many police departments. OPPD Omaha, for example, [50:59] has seen, did see their numbers really decrease. Have you reached out and have any numbers on what it is [51:05] now? Regularly, including last week during police week, I met with a lot. It's still a problem. We have [51:10] not fixed it yet. I mean, look at what happened over the past year with law enforcement officers getting [51:15] doxxed and having rocks thrown at them, having local leaders say to good, hardworking cops, [51:20] you can't help. So this isn't something that we've won yet, but it's a priority to win that fight. [51:26] And I'll keep on talking to state and local sheriffs and cops and detectives and letting them know that [51:31] we appreciate them and not only with our mouth, but with our pocketbooks as well. We do. Thank you. [51:37] Last year, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations announced a new Homeland Security Task Force [51:44] based out of Kansas City, Missouri, and that included a location in Omaha. And focus is obviously [51:52] combating trafficking of humans and drugs and weapons, money laundering, alien smuggling, homicide, [51:59] extortion, on and on. We did see members of this task force. They arrested a MS-13 gang leader in [52:11] Grand Island, Nebraska, in the Middle Eastern part of the state. The 27 budget request cites the [52:20] elimination of the organized crime drug enforcement task force's component and instead requests [52:27] appropriations be made directly to agencies like DEA and FBI. Can you share how this proposed [52:36] reorganization is still going to ensure strong interagency coordination so that we can see a [52:45] continued focus on transnational crime threats and specifically with those local law enforcement [52:54] agencies? It's very important. I agree. So look, we dissolved the [52:59] OCDF executive office. That is true. But the money that we're asking for, the money that we're going to [53:04] spend is exactly like we've been spending for a long time except for more efficiently. So the HSTF [53:10] model is built off of the OCDF model, but with a lot of improvement. Like there was a lot of overlap [53:16] in OCDF money that we are now just, that we're now being more efficient with. So there is no doubt, [53:23] as a matter of fact, the opposite is true, that we're spending that same OCDF type money. We're spending [53:28] more of it and we're getting more of it out to the field through the Homeland Security Task Force. [53:33] And so that, that's what we're, that's the goal. So is that a line item within your agency, [53:40] or does it need to be a line item and on, on appropriations? So it's a, to make sure that it's [53:47] covered. So it's a line item through the appropriations, I believe, although I'll double [53:52] check that and get back to you if I'm wrong. I will. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Senator Fisher, [53:56] thank you. Now I would like to recognize the vice chair of the full committee, Senator Murray. [54:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting attorney general right now, families are paying four or five, [54:06] even six or $7 for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years because of the president's policies. [54:15] But instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set [54:23] up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department settled the president's [54:29] lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion. And you and the president will pick the handful of [54:38] people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be clear. What we're talking about is nothing [54:45] short of the sitting president of the United States looting from the treasury for his own gain. [54:50] Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal [54:56] government to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he chooses? [55:02] What you just described wouldn't be appropriate. And that's absolutely not what happened. And that's [55:06] not what's happening now. So you just set up a series of facts, most of which were not true. [55:10] No, it's not. The president has set up a slush fund, however you want to say that it got set up, [55:17] and he literally will get to choose through his handpicked appointees who gets paid that fund. [55:23] That is absurd. The president did not set up this fund. It's not a slush fund. It's been done many [55:31] times. We have lots of funds. I heard your response earlier to Senator Van Hollen. This is not comparable [55:36] to the case that you cited. A judge was not involved. This is the president versus himself [55:42] setting up a fund. The judge wasn't involved in the distribution [55:46] in the Keeps Eagle case at all. It just wasn't. There was a single commissioner that was set up, [55:51] not five. The judge signed off on that case. Yes, it was a much later point in litigation. [55:58] That's my point. That is all of our point. And I just have to tell you, this is corruption that has [56:04] never been more blatant or more right-spent. What is happening is you write the check, [56:09] Trump and his cronies cash it, American taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices [56:15] are going to foot the bill. That's what we are seeing today, and that is what many of us are really, [56:20] really angry about. So let me move to another topic. This Department of Justice is sending the message [56:29] that if you're wealthy, if you're powerful, if you are well-connected, you won't be held accountable, [56:35] even if you abuse children. You know us after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act [56:41] and DOG finally began to release the files, your department exposed survivors' names, their sensitive [56:49] personal information, and even nude photos, while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. [56:57] The message that sends is this Department of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy of potential [57:04] child abusers than the survivors. Your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims, but I want [57:12] to give you the same opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release of these [57:19] documents. Will you apologize to the survivors? When the president passed the Epstein Transparency Act, [57:25] that was the only time, when the president signed the Transparency Act, that was when we were legally [57:32] allowed to release the files prior to the passage of the act, which you all passed, I agree. [57:37] That is so not the question I'm asking. It was the question you asked. You asked five or six [57:41] questions. I'm answering them in order. No, the question I want you to answer is, will you apologize to [57:47] the victims whose names, sensitive personal information, and even nude photos were not [57:54] redacted by your department? Will you apologize to them? Of course. That was, we never want to release [57:59] a single victim's name. That is what they are hearing to hear. Can I answer the question, please? [58:02] Is it fair? I'm asking if you'll apologize. So I, and I just said yes, but I wanted to, I would like an [58:07] explanation to be given to that. What this act did is it required us to review over six million pieces of [58:15] paper in a very short period of time. And so 0.001%, we made mistakes and we owned up to them. And the [58:22] second that a victim or their lawyer told us that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and [58:27] we put lawyers 24 seven in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we fixed [58:32] every single problem. And so yes, I hear your anger. I'm not angry. No, I'm not angry. I'm just making sure [58:38] it's understood that we matter. There are nude photos released. I just want to hear you say I [58:44] apologize to those victims. So as I just said, of course, anytime we release a victim's name that [58:50] shouldn't be released, we have failed as a department of justice. And so we, we have to do everything [58:54] that we can to not fail. Well, I still, I haven't heard the words. I apologize. I'm trying to give [58:59] you an explanation of what happened. I don't think you're really interested in that because you keep [59:02] on cutting me off. I have a few more questions here and I want to know, and I know that Senator [59:06] Van Hollen raised this, but, but I want to ask you, will you personally commit to meeting with the [59:10] survivors? I have heard from them personally, the DOJ refused to meet them. And I'm asking about you. [59:17] I'm asking about the justice department reaching out to them to be heard, not waiting for them to [59:24] navigate a legal system that has obviously repeatedly failed them so far. Can I answer? [59:30] Yeah. Will you reach out to them? Okay. So as we have said repeatedly, of course, [59:34] any lawyer, now, if a victim has a lawyer, I'm not allowed to reach out to the victim directly. You know [59:39] that, but any lawyer can reach out to the department of justice. They have, and I've met with many [59:43] victims and their lawyers, as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. We will always, always meet with victims [59:51] counsel. Any victim or the lawyer can come forward to the FBI. What these women, and I've met with them, [59:56] and I know Senator Van Hollen has, and so many other, they are personally so feeling abused again and [1:00:03] again and again by what happened to them originally, and now what, but what's happening by them. I am [1:00:08] saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a system that is impossible to navigate, [1:00:14] that's already abused them. Reach out and ask to meet with them. Wait, you're asking me to call, [1:00:19] you want me to personally call the victims? I can help you reach them. Oh, that would be great. [1:00:23] Yes, because we have said from day one, of course, there have been members that have done that. And we [1:00:28] immediately reach out to the victims or their lawyers when the lawyers want, and they say they [1:00:32] want to do it. We will follow up on that. Thank you very much. Let me ask a few questions, and [1:00:40] then we'll get to Senator Reed and Senator Peters, and then we'll have a conclusion of the hearing. [1:00:46] I want to, oh yes, and Senator Gillibrand, excuse me for my lack of peripheral vision. We'll make [1:00:54] certain, Senator Gillibrand, that you are called on. General, worried about staffing and [1:01:01] operational strains at the Bureau of Prisons. This committee, this subcommittee and our full [1:01:07] committee has tried to help in the last several years. And there was money in the reconciliation [1:01:12] bill, $5 billion to support recruitment and retention efforts to address the BOP's maintenance [1:01:20] backlog. Correctional facilities in Kansas, and we have certainly a major federal and lots of state [1:01:28] correctional facilities. But officers, wardens, stakeholders continue to hear concerns about [1:01:34] staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, officer retention, long-term strain [1:01:40] placed on both personnel and inmates. What can you tell me about this budget request? And can you help [1:01:48] me understand the circumstances you see at the Bureau of Prisons in this regard? [1:01:52] So, thank you, Senator. We were given a broken agency when we took over. Not enough money, morale was [1:01:59] very low, and many of the prisons needed serious repairs. And so, the President's budget this year [1:02:06] tries to rectify a lot of that, as did the big, beautiful bill. The vacancy rate is still 20% for [1:02:13] corrections officers. I talked about this earlier. That has to do with retention. It has to do with how [1:02:17] much we're paying them and creating an environment at the BOP that they want to work at. And so, that's [1:02:22] something we have to work on. We have some of the investments we want to make, $450 million to attack [1:02:29] the vacancy rate and start paying some of our correction officers more. And then also a lot of money to [1:02:37] make repairs. And so, these are just safety repairs, but also structural repairs at prisons so that, again, [1:02:43] it makes sure inmates are protected and are safe, and that we're safe from them, and also creates an [1:02:50] environment that's safe for the staff and the corrections officers that are working there. And so, [1:02:54] it's a big number, but it's extraordinarily important. As recently as yesterday, General, [1:03:00] I continue to hear from state and local law enforcement agencies about their desire and, [1:03:06] therefore, the demand for training drones and counter UAS systems. Kansas City is a FIFA site, [1:03:16] but that demand is significant. And can you tell me how the department is working with the FBI to [1:03:23] address this issue? And I think FIFA is a significant component of it, but with the prevalence of UAVs, [1:03:30] I think it's just a broadly, an issue that needs to be broadly addressed. [1:03:35] Yes. So, we're training, the FBI is training a ton of state and locals every day. And we're on the [1:03:42] clock because of FIFA, but we're also doing it beyond FIFA because the UAS, the drones are a big [1:03:48] problem in every single state in this country. And so, we have ATF also, a certain portion of ATF also [1:03:55] helps with the training as well at the FBI facility. And we're going to continue to do that, meaning [1:04:01] we're going to continue to offer and provide training to state and locals. We're also asking for [1:04:05] money in our budget to help shore that up a little bit so that, so that we can continue to not only [1:04:10] offer training, but, but have a defense to the UAS. I would suggest that the FBI training center is over [1:04:18] capacity, needs more officers and the capabilities. And if the Department of Justice is interested in [1:04:25] pursuing that, I'd be interested in trying to be helpful. I'm interested in working with you, [1:04:29] Senator. Thank you. Grant administration, I think things are getting better, but the [1:04:34] Department of Justice, particularly in its grants to local law enforcement, it's been a really slow [1:04:39] process this year in getting the money out the door. Congress shut down. The list is long for reasons [1:04:47] that could be the case. But I would, I want to give you the opportunity to tell me that you are now [1:04:54] positioned to see that local law enforcement in particular, but grants in general, and those [1:04:59] grants exceed just local law enforcement. It's other community grants, mentoring grants. I want to make [1:05:06] sure that you believe you're now positioned in terms of staffing and administrative abilities to make [1:05:14] that process work better. We are, we are working on that. And you're right. It's, it's been slow. [1:05:19] We now have all the 25s out, except for maybe one. We're starting on 26 now. One program or one grant? [1:05:25] One grant. One grant. One, one, I could be off a couple of grants, but we're, we're mostly finished [1:05:30] with that process. You're right. It didn't, you know, we didn't get the number from you guys till [1:05:34] January, late January. So we had a late start. Um, and we're going to turn to 26 now and, and get as [1:05:40] much done as we can. As you know, they're distributed on a rolling basis. So it's not as if there's no money [1:05:45] and then a ton of money. So we're trying to, to get the, the wheels turning as quickly as we can, [1:05:51] um, to, to get money out. Thank you. Senator Reed. [1:05:54] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Blanche, how many taxpayers returns were leaked in, [1:06:00] by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach? How many taxpayers, excuse me? [1:06:05] How many taxpayers returns were leaked by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach? [1:06:11] I don't know the exact amount, but a lot. Uh, 405,427. One of them was Donald Trump, [1:06:20] correct? One of them was Donald Trump, correct? It was Donald Trump and his family [1:06:24] were others. Correct. Right. And, uh, Donald Trump was president at the time. Correct. [1:06:30] So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy. Correct? It was a criminal who [1:06:37] worked in the IRS. Yes. Well, he was hired under Trump's, this is one of the Trump. [1:06:44] Well, there was a criminal breach that led to this. Yes. Very good. Uh, how many of these 400,000 [1:06:51] people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach? I don't think any have, [1:06:55] including the president. No, they haven't, but you've authorized the president. Do you agree [1:07:00] the president should have, uh, reimbursement, correct? No, he settled the case. No, there's [1:07:06] no reimbursement to president Trump. Well, that's interesting. So president Trump, [1:07:13] you're going to assure us president Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this. Correct. [1:07:19] He will not. He will not get, his family will not get. Correct. And who will direct the disposition [1:07:25] of these, uh, who gets the money? From the, from the victims fund? Well, there'll be a commission [1:07:32] of five individuals that will be set up and they will take in requests and claims and decide whether [1:07:37] to do anything from Michigan. Who will name the commissioners? I will. The attorney general, [1:07:42] whoever the attorney general is. The attorney general. Okay. Um, sorry, [1:07:46] just to correct. And one of them will be done in consultation with leadership of this body. [1:07:51] Consultation. Well, that's good. But, um, when he first announced this, uh, suit on January 30th, [1:07:58] he said, I think what we'll do is something for charity, where I'll give the money to charity. [1:08:04] I'm talking about the American cancer society. I would say established and respected charities. [1:08:10] Uh, will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to respected charities? [1:08:15] I'm aware that he put that in or said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for. [1:08:20] Well, the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the department of justice, correct? [1:08:26] Correct. So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's [1:08:30] vision of giving it to a respectable charity. [1:08:34] I am confident his lawyers urged the president's desires. Um, obviously there's not a, uh, a charity. [1:08:40] Um, the order that you signed yesterday states that the government [1:08:48] pay their settlement if the secretary of treasury has certified the payment. Is that correct? [1:08:53] Correct. Uh, is it a coincidence that the general counsel of the department of treasury resigned yesterday? [1:08:59] I don't know if it's a coincidence. Have you looked or checked? [1:09:04] Have I checked? Yeah. I have not. As to why he resigned? [1:09:08] It just seems to be very coincidental that the high ranking member of the department of treasury [1:09:14] Senate confirmed would resign the day that the treasury department was required to [1:09:18] required essentially to certify these payments. [1:09:22] Well, I believe the IRS signed the settlement agreement as well. Um, but yes, but I, I don't, [1:09:29] I can't speak to why he resigned Senator. Well, uh, this all seems, uh, to be an obvious, uh, abuse of power [1:09:42] by the department of justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially himself. You're his appointee, [1:09:50] the IRS or his appointees. He's the plaintiff and the American people. I don't think a surprise that [1:09:56] suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that he in his orbit. Uh, will you ensure [1:10:04] that none of this money goes to anyone convicted on the January 6th attack on the Congress? [1:10:10] Well, the commissioners will determine who is eligible to receive the money. [1:10:14] And who are the commissioners? They're not named yet. [1:10:18] Who will name them? I will. Or the attorney general will. It's not me. [1:10:22] So, uh, with the suggestion of the president of the United States. [1:10:25] Excuse me? With the suggestion of the American, [1:10:28] of the president of the United States, your boss. [1:10:29] I do not make suggestions. I will. [1:10:31] No, no. He will make suggestions to you. [1:10:34] I have no idea if he will or not. I really don't. I have no idea if he will or not. [1:10:40] Uh, I would be shocked if he didn't tell you exactly who to put on. And I'd be more shocked [1:10:46] if you did not put them on. This is a travesty of the war in the United States and the Constitution. [1:10:56] You had an opportunity to go down and talk to Jocelyn Maxwell. And then a few days later, [1:11:04] she was transferred from a high security prison to a, um, very comfortable, very comfortable. [1:11:12] It's just not true. She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from [1:11:16] a low security prison to a low security prison. I mean, you're looking at me like that's, that's [1:11:20] verifiable. Well, uh, I don't think at the other prison, she had her own room. [1:11:27] She had access to a private shower. She could have pet therapy. And I don't know if any of that is true. [1:11:35] I'm not disagreeing with you. It is true. And you should know it, Mr. [1:11:38] Attorney. I should know that? You should know. Whether an inmate has access to her own shower? [1:11:42] No, no. Uh, this is a person of extra special interest to the president of the United States. [1:11:48] He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk to her? He didn't send me. I went. [1:11:55] What do you mean? Do you think President Trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in [1:11:59] federal prison? Honest? Yes, I do, frankly. Because you know why? Because the deal was in. [1:12:04] He needed somebody to rely upon to talk to her and say, what would she say if she was asked about [1:12:11] Jeffrey Epstein? And you were the perfect choice. And you went down there and suddenly, shazam, [1:12:16] she's out of what is a more confining situation into a much more relaxed federal prison. [1:12:26] Every word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. If there's criticisms [1:12:32] of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make them. But he did, the president did not have [1:12:37] anything to do with my choice to go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't have went and a career [1:12:41] would have went, you would have said, why didn't you go yourself? Just like you expect me to know [1:12:44] whether she has access to her own shower. You should go. Everyone in the United States [1:12:49] who reads the newspapers know that. I guess you don't, you know, read things like that. You know, [1:12:55] this whole hearing I think is exposing something, which is to me very frightening. You're a very [1:13:01] gifted lawyer. But from my perspective, you have very little faith to the constitution and the people [1:13:10] of America and you're the president's consigliore. Your perspective is completely wrong, [1:13:15] Senator, respectfully. Well, I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you. [1:13:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, last May, my staff at Homeland Security and Government Affairs [1:13:28] Committee released a report documenting that the inspectors general that President Trump fired [1:13:35] had together, collectively, had uncovered billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse. We oversee [1:13:44] IGs and believe that they're incredibly important to hold government accountable. [1:13:51] which needs to be done so that American people have trust and confidence in the work that we do here. [1:13:56] In fact, it was quite, I thought, striking. The study showed that for every dollar that we spend on [1:14:04] IGs, that's been estimated, the return on that investment is roughly 18 times what we put into the IGs. [1:14:14] But despite the administration's purported focus on fraud, [1:14:18] your department, FY27 request, would actually cut these IGs, their budget, by nearly a third. [1:14:27] These are folks that have an 18 to 1 return on investment. Prior to being in public service, [1:14:33] I spent 20 plus years in the investment business. If I told investors, this is an investment I'd like [1:14:39] you to make and you're going to have an 18 to 1 return, they would jump out of their chair in excitement [1:14:44] and say, absolutely. Can I put, how much money can I put in to get an 18 to 1 return? So while the [1:14:51] requests, and this happens while you're requesting an increase for your overall agency through the [1:14:57] reconciliation, so you're going to be gaining additional funding, which I would argue requires [1:15:02] oversight as you get additional funding. That happens every government agency, not just yours. [1:15:07] And to have a massive cut of IGs with an 18 to 1 ROI, why was that decision made and how do you intend [1:15:14] to have robust oversight of the department when you're cutting the folks who are responsible for [1:15:18] that and have a brilliant track record of doing that with every administration, Democratic or [1:15:24] Republican, before you? So I agree the IGs are extraordinarily important. The budget that was [1:15:30] proposed, it was developed consulting with the IGs. And so this is a budget that OMB and DOJ worked with [1:15:38] the IGs office to come up with. And this was an agreed upon budget from them. So while not, just [1:15:44] because you're not, you're not giving more money and you're even taking away money, it doesn't, [1:15:48] doesn't mean the conclusion you reach is accurate, which is that it's going to result in less work or [1:15:54] less return on our investment. I just don't think that's true. Well, that makes no sense, of course. [1:15:59] If you have one third fewer folks working, granted, maybe they're, they're incredibly more productive, [1:16:06] but it's really clear with an 18 to one return investing as your budget is growing, you're going [1:16:12] to have that kind of return. And, and it makes no sense to do that. Why, why? There's no financial [1:16:20] sense to do it. So is there another reason you just don't want IGs on the job? [1:16:24] I, as I just said, the IGs themselves work with OMB and DOJ to develop this budget in a way that made [1:16:31] them feel that they could get their job done. So it wasn't like, uh, we've got a budget for it. [1:16:35] You can either take this or you're going to get a lot less. I wasn't part of the conversation, [1:16:39] but I assure you. I can't imagine IGs are going to say, okay, we want fewer of us, [1:16:43] even though we have an 18 to one return and we're the same, we're the, we're the guardian to make sure [1:16:48] that people can trust what happens in federal government. And it makes no sense to me to have that cut. [1:16:53] Um, and I think it's, it speaks volumes of what this administration is really focused on. And it's [1:17:00] not about reducing waste, fraud and abuse. You don't do that by decimating the IG Corps. You [1:17:06] certainly saw him fire a number of IGs earlier and have serious concerns. Mr. Blanche, the president [1:17:12] also signed an executive order on March 31, directing the department of justice, the department of [1:17:16] Homeland security and the postal service to take a series of actions related to federal elections, [1:17:22] including the creation of a federal citizenship list and new rules on mail ballot distribution. [1:17:28] That order, uh, is rightly, uh, being challenged, uh, in federal court as these are state functions, [1:17:34] but recent reporting indicated that the implementation of that order is being [1:17:37] coordinated through the white house meetings involving senior department of justice leadership, [1:17:42] including assistant attorney general, uh, Harmet, uh, Dylan. So my question for you, [1:17:47] sir, is what is the department's role in implementing the March 31st executive order? [1:17:52] Well, it's, I want to be careful because it is under litigation, but it's, as you just described, [1:17:57] it's working with, um, other, other agencies within the administration to, to implement, um, the goals, [1:18:03] which I think are appropriate goals to make sure that we have free and fair elections, um, to make sure [1:18:08] that those are implemented, whether it's DOJ that needs to implement them or some other federal agency. [1:18:13] Well, yeah, you have other agencies, the same, same reporting identified the official leading [1:18:18] the department of Homeland security's work. As you said, you're all working together on this, [1:18:22] uh, who now serves as the DHS deputy assistant secretary for election integrity. [1:18:27] Um, her name is, uh, Heather honey, uh, who is in that position. Uh, Ms. Honey's prior claims [1:18:33] were central to the effect to challenge the 2020 election results. [1:18:39] Claims, as you have, as you know, have been widely disproven. It's not true. None of this stuff. [1:18:45] She's a key player there. So my question for you, sir, is the department taking policy direction [1:18:49] either formally or informally, you say they are from your previous answer, but from an official [1:18:55] whose prior work was built on disproven claims about a prior federal election? [1:19:00] Our policy direction comes from president Trump and his leadership team. So I, I, I, [1:19:05] I know the person you're speaking about, she's, she's part of a DHS and certainly in meetings [1:19:09] that we have about election integrity, but as far as whether myself or Harmeet Dillon take policy [1:19:15] directions, we take them from the president. So, uh, interesting person who, uh, is, was part of [1:19:24] these widely disproven false allegations and a president who of course subscribes to that as well. [1:19:30] So that's what you're telling me. That's, what's driving this effort by the federal government to, [1:19:34] to basically, uh, take powers that the constitution reserves for our states. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:19:40] I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, General Blanche. General Blanche. Um, last week, [1:19:52] I took this topic up with director Patel. I'd like to revisit it with you. That has to do with [1:19:56] the work that's taking place in various jurisdictions across the country to make them more safe. And I want [1:20:02] to commend the department for the work on Memphis safe. The task force there has resulted in a 43% [1:20:08] decrease in violent crime since the operation commenced. I think it's a shining example of what [1:20:13] happens when you have state and local governments cooperating with the federal government, uh, and, [1:20:19] and the dramatic improvements that we've seen in, in violent crime, uh, and enhancing safety, uh, [1:20:24] are, are really very much appreciated. I just wanted to ask you to take a few minutes and walk us through [1:20:29] the whole of government approach that you've taken and, and, and how that's been executed. And, and from [1:20:35] that, what lessons we might learn that could be applied to other jurisdictions? Thank you, Senator. [1:20:38] Yes. Um, in your state, the Memphis task force is one of the shining stars of law enforcement over [1:20:46] the past year, also DC as well. And the way that it works is that we no longer care about stats within [1:20:52] an agency, the FBI, DEA, marshals, HSI, state and local. It's just one government and it's a one [1:20:57] government approach. So what happens in Memphis and what should happen in every city in this country [1:21:02] is every day law enforcement gets together in a room and they decide who they're going to go out [1:21:06] and get that day, the, whether it's a, a, someone wanted for murder, um, rape, um, any other burglary, [1:21:13] whether it's just somebody who has a warrant out for their arrest. And then they focus on doing it [1:21:17] and they do it. If they need a prosecutor to write a warrant, they go to get the prosecutor to write a [1:21:20] warrant. If they need a state DA to help, because it's a state charge, they get the state DA's office. [1:21:25] And what you saw, you just described the reduction in crime, but you have streets in, in, in Memphis now [1:21:30] that, that were unwalkable six months ago. And that now that there was a few new restaurants opening, [1:21:36] I heard, um, last week, and, and that's complete success. I wish we could do what we were able to [1:21:41] do in Memphis and in every city in this country. Can we stay on that for just a moment? Because [1:21:45] Yes. I understand that there are other jurisdictions in the United States that are refusing to cooperate. [1:21:50] Is there anything that we could do, any tool that we could provide to, to, to help you with this, [1:21:54] with these non-compliant jurisdictions? Look, I think one thing we can do is just keep on doing, [1:21:58] showing the American people how, what, what it looks like when you do it right. And hopefully [1:22:03] these local politicians that are doing it wrong will be shamed into doing it right. And we also [1:22:08] are in many cases, suing, filing lawsuits against these, some of these cities where they're actually [1:22:13] violating the constitution and violating federal law in the way that they're, um, that they're treating [1:22:17] federal law enforcement and the work that law enforcement, federal law enforcement is doing. [1:22:21] But all I can do as the acting attorney general is, is, is offer everybody, um, that we will work [1:22:28] as hard as we can with our law enforcement to work with the state and locals to, to combat crime. [1:22:32] Okay. Um, and that's what president Trump ordered me to do. And that's what I will continue to do. [1:22:37] Well, thank you for that. I would just like to show my colleagues, I get a daily report [1:22:41] on the results of what's happening in Memphis from, from your team and many others. And it's quite [1:22:45] impressive. The accountability makes a real difference. I'd like to turn to another issue though, [1:22:49] one that's deeply concerning. I think it is concerning to me, it should be concerning to every [1:22:53] American and that's bringing to light what happened to the previous administration, [1:22:58] the Biden department's department of justice, uh, when they weaponized the extraordinary, [1:23:04] the extraordinary powers of your department with Arctic frost. Um, if you think about it, [1:23:09] they used this Arctic frost to persecute the president and also go after his closest allies, [1:23:16] including me. And in, in, you know, I was shocked to find out last year that under president Biden, [1:23:23] the DOJ had secretly obtained my phone records from Verizon. And even though Verizon was obligated [1:23:30] to let me know that they chose not to. And when I brought the problem to Verizon's attention, [1:23:36] all they've done is tried to stonewall me and we brought it before the FCC in the form of a complaint. [1:23:42] Again, Verizon simply continues to stonewall. And if I think about what Verizon, what the, [1:23:49] the Biden DOJ did, they specifically chose to ignore the fact that nothing can or should provide, [1:23:55] stop a phone provider from notifying a member of Congress when their constitutional rights are [1:24:00] being violated as mine were violated. It turns out that, uh, Verizon's chief legal officer, [1:24:05] Vandana Venkatesh used to work for Henry Waxman, one of the most partisan players up here. And she [1:24:15] is the general counsel. You know, I'm seriously concerned at least that Ms. Venkatesh and Verizon [1:24:22] may have collaborated with their friends at the Biden DOJ. They never told me or my colleagues about [1:24:27] it because they might've been worried that the truth would come out. They might've been worried [1:24:32] that that would endanger their plans to make a $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications. [1:24:39] It's contemptible, it's damning, but I think there may be, may have been a real reason there. [1:24:44] I want justice to be done here and I really would appreciate your help getting to the bottom of it. [1:24:49] So here's my question. Can I get your commitment that the DOJ will work with me and my colleagues, [1:24:54] Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson in bringing full accountability to this abuse of power? [1:24:58] Absolutely. And obviously Senator, one way we do that is by the work we're doing to make sure you, [1:25:06] you all get your oversight responsibilities, um, as much as you deserve to get the materials that [1:25:12] we're reviewing and collecting, but then also in proactively, the work that we're doing to make [1:25:16] sure that what happened never happened again. I mean, make, I mean, understand that there are times [1:25:20] when, when we subpoena phone records, we do not want the bad guys to know that, that, that we, we did it [1:25:25] because we're still investigating, but the idea that that could be done to a United States Senator [1:25:29] and that it would be okay for a prosecutor to just do it, not even a scintilla of evidence, [1:25:35] anybody did anything wrong and then not provide notice to is, is in some ways the worst form of, [1:25:40] um, of abuse by the Department of Justice. In fact, there's a constitutional ban and I think [1:25:45] a first year law student should know that, you know, when AT&T was requested, uh, to, to provide the [1:25:50] same records, they saw the constitutional problem. They stopped. Verizon was willingly handing over my [1:25:56] records and those of other, my colleagues. And I just asked myself, what was the purpose? What [1:26:00] was the motivation for them to violate my constitutional rights? Was it because they [1:26:03] wanted to make friends with the FCC? Maybe Ms. Venkatesh to get an appointment sometime later? I [1:26:07] don't know. Was it because of this frontier acquisition that they had in mind? I don't know, [1:26:12] but we need to get to the bottom of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. [1:26:15] Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, Acting Attorney General for being here. [1:26:19] Thank you. I've listened to your testimony today and I have a concern about your focus. [1:26:27] New York City, uh, was the site of the last major terrorist attack against the United States [1:26:32] at 9-11. We benefit greatly from what you've mentioned, this whole of government approach, [1:26:39] where we integrate CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, DOJ, all integrated seamlessly, NYPD, to keep our city safe. [1:26:51] It's one of the biggest cities in the country. It's one of the most dynamic cities in the country. [1:26:55] And our public safety is paramount. But I've looked at your record and I'm deeply concerned [1:27:01] that you are not using this whole of government approach because I see you slashing programs left [1:27:05] and right that we know work for all certain things, all sorts of things from drugs to gun trafficking, [1:27:11] to community policing, to cops program, slashing so many programs that I know work. So I want to take [1:27:17] you through them and hear from you why your focus isn't where New York City and the state and the [1:27:24] country need you to be, which is our public safety. So first of all, do you think that China, Iran, [1:27:30] Russia want to do us harm and would undermine our elections? Yes. Why did you delete the whole [1:27:38] department then that is supposed to protect against the undermining of our elections? [1:27:43] We, so we, we spend a ton of time, a ton of money, a ton of man hours, a ton of resources [1:27:49] on that very issue. Yeah, but you canceled the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. [1:27:54] That's a task force. That's not, that's literally just a group. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. [1:27:59] I was here in 2016. I know what happened. And after that, we did a whole of government approach. [1:28:05] We put experts in at CISA, we put experts in at the FBI, and we put experts in at the [1:28:10] Department of Defense. Together, whole of government approach, they went state by state by state to make [1:28:16] sure that our electoral infrastructure was sound. However, your department and this administration [1:28:22] has aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this. So they were the people [1:28:29] at the FBI in charge of it. So why have you dismissed those operations? [1:28:33] Were that failed? There were no state and local involved. It was all just a bunch of federal [1:28:37] people, mostly out of Washington, DC. Okay. And the FBI agents were all Washington, DC, [1:28:42] the way they were agents, not around the country where we needed them. So the way that we're addressing [1:28:46] it by closing down that task force is by having HSTF set up in everything, including in New York City, [1:28:52] every single agency, every single state now has a HSTF. And that is one of their main focuses. [1:28:57] And it does work with state and local. I want a complete report on this, because I don't have [1:29:01] confidence that you are doing what needs to be done. Because if all the 300, 400 expert people [1:29:08] that were in our previous administrations, multiple administrations, Democrat and Republican [1:29:13] administrations, if none of them are good, and you're starting over from scratch, that doesn't [1:29:17] sound like the recipe for success. I didn't say none of them were good. That's not what I said. [1:29:20] Well, they've all been dismissed and they've all been fired in all three areas. That's not true. [1:29:25] They have not all been dismissed. We fired the people from DOD. We fired the people from CISA. [1:29:29] We fired the people of the FBI. They were all dismissed. They were not all dismissed. [1:29:32] Many of them were still here. If you ask for a briefing, look into it and give a report to this [1:29:37] committee, because I'm telling you, if you agree that our adversaries do not have our goodness in mind, [1:29:44] they don't have our protections in mind. I need laser-like focus on solving this problem. [1:29:50] You're getting laser-like focus. [1:29:51] All right. I'd like a report on that. Second issue, gun trafficking. We have been working [1:29:56] so hard as a federal government to stop the flow of illicit guns into our communities where someone [1:30:02] can sell guns out of the backs of their trucks from some criminal gun dealer who's trying to get [1:30:10] these guns into the hands of criminals. And we're supposed to get data every year so we can show [1:30:15] that our gun trafficking laws are working. These new enhanced laws where police officers can now [1:30:20] go across state lines to do their investigation. Why are you not giving me the data about gun [1:30:24] trafficking? I need to know if it's working. I need to know if these cases are being prosecuted. [1:30:28] And I can't even get data out of your department. [1:30:31] Well, the cases are being prosecuted. We did- [1:30:34] Will you give me the data so I can assess it? [1:30:35] I don't know what data you're talking about. [1:30:36] Just the number of weapons that have been seized, the number of cases that are being prosecuted. [1:30:42] We keep track of how many weapons have been seized that are trafficked. And I'm waiting [1:30:48] from your department over a year to get that data. [1:30:50] To the extent there's data that we're required- [1:30:52] Will you send it? [1:30:53] To- [1:30:53] Okay, next point. [1:30:54] Okay. [1:30:54] I got like five points. I only get five minutes. Next point. Community violence intervention grants. [1:30:59] You are slashing these community violence intervention grants. They work. We know they work. [1:31:03] One of them was to New York for 4.2 million. Slashed. It prevents youth violence. These are [1:31:09] programs that are working. Did you analyze whether this program was working before you slashed the [1:31:14] funding? [1:31:15] Yes. There's still a ton of funding for those programs. [1:31:18] Not the ones in New York. They do. [1:31:19] You just deleted them. Delete, delete, delete. It's shocking. [1:31:23] It wasn't delete, delete, delete. That is absolutely not true. [1:31:24] Okay. Well, 4.2 was deleted for the local initiative support corporation that funds- [1:31:29] It's not a deletion. It's just that we're not seeking funding for it through this exact- [1:31:33] No, no. I'm seeking funding for it. I've asked for the money. And we've gotten grants for this. [1:31:37] And you've just suspended this grant program. [1:31:39] I'm happy to work with you to make sure we're spending the grant money in the right way. [1:31:42] I don't have any more time, but there's a community oriented policing grant cuts as well. [1:31:46] The COPS funds. This is something our police officers and our community policing development [1:31:51] microgrants, they benefit from it. De-escalation training grants, programs that work. [1:31:56] Our police officers need it. And then drugs. We have an anti-heroine and anti-metha- [1:32:01] methamphetamine task force, and we need to be funded and it's not being funded. [1:32:09] So I just- It is being funded. Absolutely. There's a different amount of funding, [1:32:13] but it is being funded. No, no. You've eliminated funding for both the anti-heroine and anti-metha- [1:32:18] task force. I'm sorry. Which is the task force that stops the trafficking of heroin, [1:32:25] fentanyl and the very long word I can't pronounce. Yeah. I mean, Senator, there's nothing more [1:32:32] important to President Trump and to this Department of Justice than combating the illegal [1:32:36] flora narcotics. So to the extent that there is a particular funding revenue stream that is not [1:32:43] being funded the same way, I commit to you that it is of the highest priority to combat drugs. [1:32:47] Last is the public safety officer benefit program. You say, we just had police week, [1:32:52] you say you stand with law enforcement. When you do not support this program and when these funds are [1:32:57] not getting back to the loved ones who lost their police officer loved one, it is not right. I need [1:33:02] you to focus on this. I need you to get this right. We're committed. Thank you, Senator. Thank you. [1:33:20] Thank you, Acting Attorney General. Thank you for being here. Thank you. I want to talk about the ATS [1:33:25] National Training Center, Tracing Center, which you know is located in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I think [1:33:30] this is a stunning statistic for people to realize that in fiscal year 2024 alone, the National Tracing [1:33:37] Center processed more than 600,000 requests. I mean, that is an immense amount of work. It also helped to [1:33:47] identify the deranged individual who attempted to assassinate President Trump in Pennsylvania. [1:33:54] So, obviously, it's great work out there, but I am concerned that we have to present, prevent the [1:34:02] release of firearm trace data to anyone other than law enforcement for investigative purposes. Can you [1:34:08] elaborate on the importance of the NTC, but also how it functions within the ATF? And can you describe how [1:34:16] your budget requests will sustain these critical services? Yes, of course, Senator. And I agree with you. [1:34:21] It is an extraordinarily valuable law enforcement tool, but it can be abused. And so what the ATF has [1:34:28] to make sure we're doing is we're using the tracing data. And by the way, it's not just for federal [1:34:34] cases. It's for state and local cases. It's for local crimes. And so it's a true testament of the power of [1:34:40] the federal government to help the states. We have to make sure that that data is shared only where it [1:34:44] needs to be shared and only to further law enforcement investigations. Our Director Sakata is laser focused on [1:34:51] that. We have the benefit of having somebody who's been an ATF agent for two decades. And so we'll [1:34:57] continue to make sure that not only we're spending the money to make sure that we're successful, [1:35:02] but also making sure that we have guardrails around it so that it doesn't get abused either by ATF or by [1:35:09] anybody state and local wise. Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to talk about the Hyda Task Force [1:35:15] collaboration. I know DOJ is a valuable member of the Hyda Task Force. And honestly, we had the [1:35:22] the ONDCP director, Sarah Carter, came to West Virginia a few weeks ago. We had a round table. [1:35:26] U.S. attorneys are there, local partners, local law enforcement. Very interesting conversation. [1:35:34] I personally want to see the high intensity drug trafficking in the Hyda program stay within the [1:35:40] White House. I know this may not be a decision that you're actively involved in because there's [1:35:47] always, through several administrations, a desire to move it over to DOJ. Do you have any perspectives [1:35:53] on that? And what does this budget have to say about it? Look, I know that President Trump is going [1:35:58] to give a ton of money, I think over $11.4 billion to combat the drug crisis. And that includes a lot of [1:36:06] money to Hyda. The way that it's running through the ONDCP now as opposed to directly DOJ doesn't make [1:36:14] a difference to the effectiveness that we can have to run these programs. It hasn't made a difference [1:36:19] over the past year. It will not make a difference in the coming years. To the contrary. Remember, [1:36:24] another big part of the drug fight is DHS and HSI. And so one benefit of having it go through kind of [1:36:31] a one higher place is that we make sure we're spending the money across the federal government [1:36:36] in the ways that it's smart. So I have had zero issues with that setup. And I don't think [1:36:41] Administrator Cole has had any issues with it or any other law enforcement. [1:36:44] Hey, I mean, personally, I think the issue is so large and you heard Senator Gillibrand talking about [1:36:49] it in New York. Our state has a particular issue. And I'm so pleased with the president's [1:36:55] Southern border initiatives, fentanyl seizures are way down, meaning less fentanyl into the country. [1:37:03] But it's just such a devastating and terrifying drug that's killing too many people. I did want to [1:37:11] make, I noticed in your opening statement, you made a comment about the Bureau of Prisons. I just had a [1:37:15] conversation with my fellow West Virginia and Billy Marshall, who's head of the BOP. I am in full support [1:37:20] of the $10 billion request that you've made. And he's made great strides there and getting good [1:37:25] leadership and they're safer. We have several federal prisons in and around West Virginia and not [1:37:31] not only are the staff safer, but the inmates are safer as well. And I would encourage you to keep [1:37:39] pounding that drum. We will. Thank you, Senator. Let me ask you a question in the last few minutes that [1:37:44] I have. There's a few seconds. All right. Geez. There's always a headline about, oh, [1:37:51] assistant attorney general leaves DOJ. And it sounds like it's a political statement rather than, [1:37:59] or a lack of confidence statement, or it doesn't like the way the direction that the department is [1:38:04] going. And I know you see this, the public reports, isn't this the way it's always been at DOJ? People [1:38:11] moving in and out and you yourself were at DOJ at one point before you went into private practice. [1:38:17] I don't know if you want to talk about the, at the upper echelons of your leadership team, [1:38:22] where you see this going and is it a political statement or is it the cost of doing business [1:38:29] and ebb and flow of workforce? I think we have a great team and, and not only DOJ, but President [1:38:35] Trump's entire administration. That necessarily means that sometimes people come in and sometimes [1:38:39] people leave. I was a federal prosecutor until I had no money left and I had to go to the private [1:38:44] sector. And I think there's, there's pressures on, on family and there's, so it's, it's not a political [1:38:51] statement. I think the president has assembled a phenomenal cabinet and the cabinet has then [1:38:55] assembled leadership that I think is every day working hard to, to fulfill the president's agenda. [1:39:00] And when it comes to DOJ to make America safe again. And so my team, my team that, that works at DOJ, [1:39:08] some of them will, will save for four years and some of them will probably leave in the next month [1:39:11] or two. And that's, that's natural. And, and all we can do is thank them for their public service [1:39:16] and, and to keep on hiring great people. Thank you for your service. Thank you. [1:39:20] Thank you, Senator Capito. We're going to conclude this hearing in just a moment. Senator Van Hollen and [1:39:25] I have the practice of like wrapping up our thoughts with questions or statements. And then we'll conclude. [1:39:32] I'm in a particular hurry to get to the defense appropriation subcommittee to ask questions there. [1:39:38] So I, if I quit explaining what we're going to do, I'll get there sooner. And I now recognize [1:39:43] Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, in response to Senator [1:39:49] Coon saying that Capitol Hill police officers were worried that people who assaulted them on January 6 [1:39:58] might benefit from a slush fund. You said that couldn't be true because it hadn't been set up. [1:40:06] I didn't say it couldn't be true from Senator. I didn't say it couldn't be true. It was surprising. [1:40:10] It was true. Okay. So it is very possible that people have been anticipating getting payments [1:40:18] from the administration. People who were part of the attack on the Capitol on, on January 6, right? [1:40:24] You're asking me to speculate on the possibility of something? [1:40:27] Have you not heard of anybody anticipating getting payments from that? [1:40:32] No, I haven't. I don't know what that means actually, but I won't speculate. [1:40:35] I w I w I want to put it in the record, um, submit for the record a January, 2026 Washington [1:40:41] Post story, a long story entitled for many January 6 rioters, a pardon from Trump wasn't enough. [1:40:49] And it, it goes on to quote the president of the United States when asked about this, [1:40:53] these payments said a lot of people in government now talk about it because a lot of people in [1:40:59] government really like that group of people, unquote, referring to the January 6 rioters. [1:41:04] Are you not aware of that statement from the president? I have never read the Washington Post. [1:41:08] Well, I can tell you that there are a lot of people. [1:41:11] I accept that you read a long time who've been anticipating payments. You're not aware of that. [1:41:17] That you're telling me there's a lot of people that were anticipating payments. [1:41:20] Yes. No, well, I'm not aware. [1:41:23] Okay. Well, Mr. Attorney General, you are in a bubble because the reality, [1:41:28] because I don't read the Washington Post. [1:41:29] No, no, no. Obviously you should be in touch with some of these, these folks because, um, [1:41:35] I asked you specifically about an individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his [1:41:44] anticipation of getting a payment. And you said that couldn't be true. In fact, that was a lie. [1:41:48] I want to read you. I didn't say that. [1:41:50] You, I'm, I got the transcript right. Good. [1:41:52] You said it was obvious. I'm obviously lying to the question because there's no way the person [1:41:57] committed to that because the slush fund did not exist. That's what you said. I'm going to read from [1:42:02] you, Mr. Attorney General, an affidavit from the Hernando County, Florida Sheriff's Office. And I want [1:42:09] you to listen carefully to what this police officer said about this criminal, criminal named Andrew, [1:42:18] pardoned by the president, now being charged for child molestation. He says, Andrew also told that [1:42:25] since he was pardoned for storming the Capitol on January 6th, 2021, and he was being awarded $10 million [1:42:34] as a result of being a January Sixer, Andrew did tell that he would be putting him in his will. [1:42:40] referring to one of the victims of his molestation. He would be putting him in his will to take any [1:42:46] money he had left over. This tactic was believed to be used to keep from exposing what Andrew had [1:42:53] done to him, signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the sheriff's office. And you're telling [1:42:59] me you don't know about all these people who have been signaled by the president of the United States [1:43:04] and others that they're going to get payments. I think that that's what you just read is disgusting. [1:43:08] I'm very horrible that that happened, but that's not what I said. I mean, you can, you can say you're [1:43:14] telling me and then make up something that I'm not saying, or you can let me speak. [1:43:17] Mr. Attorney General, I'm reading from the statement here. I got a transcript of what we, [1:43:21] our exchange earlier. And you essentially said, well, I'm, you're obviously lying in your question [1:43:25] because there's no way this person committed to that because the slush fund of which you called it [1:43:29] did not exist, just as you suggested. Right. And, and I, and it's true that even the affidavit [1:43:35] that you just read said that he would be awarded this, this criminal suggested be awarded $10 [1:43:40] million. Now you're playing absolute word games. I am not playing a word game. Of course you are [1:43:44] because people. And also words matter, words matter. So if you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. [1:43:49] Uh, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put in the record January 6th rioter pardoned by Trump was sentenced [1:43:54] to life in prison for child abuse. Pardoned Capitol Hill rioter tried to bribe child sex victim with [1:43:59] promise of January 6th payout. And I will close with this, Mr. Attorney General. You can't tell us today [1:44:06] that this individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund. I find that obscene. [1:44:13] And I'm going to ask you one last time, you keep comparing this case to the keep Eagle case. In that [1:44:20] case is you've admitted a judge ultimately signed off. I'm asking you before you proceed with this fund, [1:44:26] will you have a federal judge sign off on it? I didn't compare the cases. What I said is the [1:44:30] commission that we set up yesterday is nearly identical to the commission that was set up during keeps [1:44:35] the goal. So please, you repeatedly put words in my mouth and then, and then you say, oh, [1:44:39] I'm playing words. Words matter. Mr. Chairman, they do matter. You said there were, I, I got, [1:44:45] look, the transcript will speak first. It will. But you, but you compared in your own release [1:44:50] in the department of justice on release, you compared it to this case. And in this case, [1:44:54] a judge signed, my final question, will you agree as they did in that case that before you proceed with [1:44:59] this fund, a federal judge will sign off and approve it. You agree to that federal judge. [1:45:04] So there's no mechanism. Actually, there was a federal judge presiding over this. [1:45:09] That was the case was dismissed by the judge last night. [1:45:12] Yeah. Because you moved to create this fund. I didn't move. I did not move. [1:45:15] The settlement result, Mr. Attorney General, come on. So let me, let me, so you're not going to, [1:45:21] you're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent. [1:45:25] There is no judge. Any independent authority? An independent, what does that mean? An independent [1:45:29] authority? It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who is the president's [1:45:34] former personal attorney. That would be somebody who would be independent. I'm the acting attorney [1:45:38] general. Okay. The fact that I used to be president Trump's lawyer is just a fact, but I'm the acting [1:45:44] attorney general. So don't say the president's former personal lawyer will do something. The acting [1:45:48] attorney general will do something. Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's [1:45:52] personal attorney. And that's the whole problem. You've got his whole, you have a whole banner [1:45:57] of his face hanging over the department of justice and you and everybody else walks under it and you [1:46:03] are acting like you're his current personal attorney. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. [1:46:10] Attorney general, let me, let me ask this question in this regard to the fund. Is there in your mind [1:46:17] the nature or description of the individuals that you hope to find to serve on that board that makes [1:46:27] the decisions that we're talking about? Yeah, we want people who will have the ability to evaluate, [1:46:33] I mean, with a couple of the questions from the senator and from others today, evaluate whether [1:46:38] somebody who's applying for compensation is entitled to it. And if they are entitled to it, [1:46:44] what amount and, and how to go about doing that. So we expect there'll be experienced people. [1:46:49] It'll be public. People can be critical if they so choose. And so we haven't come up with names yet [1:46:53] and, and we will, you know, I think we have 30 days to do so. And, and when we, when we have the names, [1:46:58] we'll, we'll announce them. And what's the standard by which a determination is made that compensation [1:47:03] should be had? So in the broadest sense is weaponization. It's not limited to Republicans. [1:47:09] It's not limited to Democrats. It's not limited to January six defendants. It's, it's, it's limited [1:47:14] only by the term weaponization. And so I expect that the commissioners and what I expect they will [1:47:19] do, because they'll have to, is set up guidelines and set up procedures for individuals to apply for [1:47:25] that. The weaponization then gets defined, could be, I assume we can't expand the word weaponization, [1:47:32] but you, you can narrow where it seems to be most applicable, where the weaponization, [1:47:39] if it occurred is the most egregious, make, is there some kind of standard by which you would [1:47:44] evaluate a case by case basis? I think there has to be standards. And I think it is a case by case [1:47:49] basis. I think that it, it will depend on, but, but by when you say there's a standard and then say it's [1:47:55] case by case, that's, that's the issue, right? Is that the case, the case by case analysis is what's [1:47:59] going to have to be done. And, and I expect that it, that it will be done. I mean, I think it's [1:48:04] telling that everybody on the left and everybody in the, the liberal side of the media immediately [1:48:11] says, it's a slush fund for president Trump's friends. If anything else, that's an outright [1:48:16] admission that they know that the people that really had this department of justice weaponized [1:48:20] against them were president Trump and his friends. But that is not what the commission says. [1:48:26] That is not what the, what, what the AG order that I signed yesterday says. It does not limit [1:48:30] it to president Trump or president Trump's friends. To the contrary, president Trump isn't [1:48:34] taking a dime. And so, so the, the, the fact that there's a view that this slush fund, which it's not, [1:48:41] is going to be only given to Republicans or friends of the president is, is for, is one, not true, [1:48:48] but two, it's very telling that that's the reaction from Democrats, because it proves the point that, [1:48:54] that president Trump has been saying for a very long time, which happens to be true, [1:48:58] which was, was for the first time in our nation's history, you had an administration seek to destroy [1:49:04] the previous administration, not just president Trump, anybody that came in contact with him. [1:49:09] I've said it before, but you're talking about his gardeners being put in the grand jury, [1:49:13] his secret service detail being put multiple times in the grand jury. That's what the last [1:49:17] administration did to try to destroy president Trump. And, and he has said publicly, and, and I very much [1:49:23] agree with him that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody. And so how do you go [1:49:29] about making sure it doesn't happen again to anybody? Well, you change the culture, which is [1:49:32] what we're doing. You also set up a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized, have this, [1:49:37] this department of justice and this federal government weaponized against them can apply. [1:49:41] Does it mean they're going to get money? No, it doesn't mean they're going to get money. It just [1:49:45] invites them to apply. And they, they make a case of some kind to meet some, some standard, right? [1:49:51] Yes. And you know, there's a flaw in the legal system because this legal system was not set up [1:49:56] to compensate for what the Democrats and what Biden and what Garland did for four years. It doesn't [1:50:03] know how to cope with the fact that, um, hundreds and hundreds of administration officials had their [1:50:08] phones taken from them. Members of the Senate had their, um, had, had, had, had their phone records [1:50:14] subpoenaed and weren't told about it. The system isn't set up for that. [1:50:18] In answers to your questions previously put before you this morning, did you, you took, [1:50:24] I assume because what the settlement agreement says, you eliminated certain individuals from being [1:50:31] qualified to receive benefits from this fund. What's the list of that, those individuals? [1:50:37] Well, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed to accept an apology. So that's President Trump [1:50:42] and his son, um, sons, I believe. And, and otherwise there is no limitation. So, um, whether you're [1:50:49] Hunter Biden or whether you're another, um, individual who believed they were a victim of, of, of weaponization, [1:50:55] they can all apply for, um, to this fund. And again, it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. [1:51:01] It doesn't mean that they're getting $10 million or whatever was just read a few minutes ago. It just [1:51:06] means that you can apply. And the decision by the commission is by a majority? Yes. Three of five. [1:51:13] Correct. And, um, finally this issue, while it's of interest to all of us as United States senators, [1:51:21] this committee has no jurisdiction over this issue in a sense, because this is mandatory spending. [1:51:27] Have you had conversations with Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley or the judiciary committee? [1:51:34] I have not had conversations over the past, you know, 24 hours about this. No, I have not. [1:51:38] Uh, general, anything you'd like to add to what you've said today or take away from whatever you [1:51:44] said today? No, just thank you and the committee for their time today. Um, there are no further [1:51:50] questions. Uh, senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's official hearing [1:51:54] record. We request that the attorney general respond to those, uh, questions within 30 days. [1:52:00] The, uh, subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair.