Acting Attorney General Blanche testifies before Senate committee — NBC News

[2:07] The Subcommittee on Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies will come to order. [2:11] The hearing will consider the President's, I hope the hearing will consider the President's [2:15] FY 2077 budget request for the Department of Justice. [2:19] Last week, the Subcommittee reviewed the President's request for the Department's [2:24] four law enforcement components, the FBI, the DEA, U.S. Marshals, and ATF, and the, let [2:33] me do that again, the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, ATF, and DEA. [2:36] That was a very good hearing, General, and I appreciate your allowing their presence [2:42] here in advance of your appearance today. [2:45] I appreciate the Department's participation as we work to complete our budget hearings and [2:49] draft the FY 27 CGS bill. [2:52] Attorney Blanche, I appreciate your support for law enforcement in the states, and I look [2:58] forward to welcoming you to Kansas in the future. [3:01] Overall, DOJ is requesting an increase of approximately $4.7 billion, or roughly $12 to $30 billion, [3:08] 13% above FY 26 enacted levels. [3:11] Much of that request reflects the reality that after several years of effectively flat funding, [3:17] all while facing inflationary costs, many of the Department's components were under significant [3:22] strain. [3:23] Last year, I worked with my colleagues. [3:25] This committee worked together to maintain critical funding for both federal law enforcement [3:29] agencies and the state and local departments that continue to serve as the backbone of public [3:34] safety in communities across Kansas and the country. [3:37] Attorney General, I saw the note in your written remarks about what a serious challenge FY 26 [3:43] resources have been and will continue to be. [3:46] I particularly understand the enormous strain that the Bureau of Prisons, the One Beautiful [3:51] Bill Act, provided $5 billion to BOP for both recruitment and retention of staff and [3:56] to address severe maintenance backlog. [3:59] Additionally, the Department is requesting an increase of $2.2 billion, or 27% for BOP. [4:05] I assume that this reflects serious ongoing resource challenges. [4:11] At the same time, I have some concerns about cuts proposed to the Department's three grant-making [4:15] offices. [4:16] The grants administered by these offices provide significant support for state and local law [4:21] enforcement, juvenile delinquency prevention, support for victims, and the safety of our nation's [4:25] police and deputy sheriffs. [4:27] For example, this budget proposes a cut to youth mentoring programs. [4:32] This would have a significant impact on those organizations that mentor and operate in Kansas [4:37] and across the country. [4:39] Veteran treatment courts have been a program that I've been particularly interested in. [4:43] As I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, I've worked closely with many in Kansas [4:49] and across the country in regard to VTCs. [4:51] The Violence Against Women program is facing a cut, which would have serious impacts on victims, [4:57] and the services provided to victims through organizations such as the Kansas Coalition [5:02] Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. [5:04] I agree the Department requires additional resources to fulfill its mission and keep our [5:08] communities safe. [5:10] This is especially true for our federal law enforcement agencies, U.S. Attorneys' Offices, [5:15] and the Bureau of Prisons. [5:17] As this committee evaluates the Department's request, we also have a responsibility to examine [5:21] whether reductions to many of these community-based programs could ultimately replace additional [5:26] strains on law enforcement and local communities in the longer term. [5:30] Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the Department's resource needs [5:34] and your FY27 request, and I would recognize Senator Van Hollen for his opening statement. [5:41] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [5:42] Mr. Blanche, welcome. [5:43] The acting Attorney General is supposed to be the people's lawyer and defend the rule of law [5:50] and not act as the President's personal lawyer. [5:54] But in this administration, the Department of Justice is solely focused on pleasing one man, [6:00] no matter the cost. [6:02] Lest anyone forget, huge banners with Donald Trump's face hang from both sides of the main [6:08] justice building. [6:11] This is the big banner of Donald Trump on one side of it. [6:15] So that every single person who enters that building will see it and remember exactly what [6:22] that man wants them to do. [6:25] You're his former personal attorney, and you know exactly what he wants. [6:29] In fact, he often posts it right here on social media, his Truth Social account. [6:34] He wants to weaponize the Department for his own political ends. [6:38] And right from the start, you and your cohorts have worked to deliver what he wants, doing [6:44] his political dirty work. [6:47] Two days ago, you even suggested that there was, quote, a ton of evidence that the 2020 [6:52] election was rigged against Trump. [6:54] And here you are at a budget hearing asking for taxpayer funds to pursue the Department's [7:00] mission when you're using those funds to punish Trump's adversaries, reward his friends, [7:05] and pursue his personal vendettas. [7:09] It began with pardoning the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th and assaulted police [7:15] officers. [7:16] The revenge continued with the firing of more than a dozen lawyers who represented the Justice [7:22] Department in those cases. [7:25] Yesterday, you created a $1.8 billion slush fund to dole out taxpayer dollars to the president's [7:31] supporters, including those who attacked this Capitol on January 6th. [7:36] That is pure theft of public funds. [7:40] And rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. [7:45] Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme. [7:50] You have also misspent resources on the blatant political prosecutions of James Comey and others. [7:56] You couldn't find a single career lawyer to bring the first case against Comey. [8:01] And lawyers resign rather than participate in that charade. [8:04] Now you've launched a ludicrous, vindictive prosecution in the Seashell case. [8:10] It's a shameful dereliction of your duty to pursue impartial justice without fear or favor. [8:17] You've also brought criminal charges against journalists who were doing their jobs in Minneapolis. [8:21] You've refused to hold accountable the DHS agents who shot and killed Rene Good. [8:25] Instead, while members of the administration called both Rene Good and Alex Preddy domestic terrorists, [8:32] you ordered a criminal investigation of Rene Good's partner. [8:37] Hardworking professional attorneys resigned rather than engage in that abuse of power. [8:43] Others in the department have been fired for telling the truth to the courts, an insidious message to send to officers of the court. [8:51] You have fired immigration judges who rendered decisions the administration didn't like. [8:57] More gross political interference in what is supposed to be an independent process. [9:01] All told, DOJ lost over 8,500 staff last year and nearly one quarter of its lawyers. [9:12] It's so bad that you're now offering $25,000 signing bonuses and hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience, [9:21] seeking applicants who personally pledged support to the president. [9:24] You've also refused to share with members of Congress the Office of Legal Counsel's purported legal justification [9:30] for the blatantly illegal war the president and prime minister Netanyahu started in Iran. [9:37] You have clear conflicts of interest between your prior job as the president's personal lawyer and your duty to ensure justice. [9:46] This is especially true with respect to the cases of the survivors of the heinous crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein. [9:53] Many of those survivors are in New York City today as we speak as part of a 24-hour public reading of the Epstein Files. [10:02] Many reading excerpts from their own FBI 302 reports documenting the abuses they endured. [10:09] These survivors have tried to share their stories with you. [10:13] Instead, you spent two days interviewing his convicted associate, Jelaine Maxwell, [10:18] and shortly thereafter she was moved to a lower security prison camp with special perks. [10:25] Mr. Blanche, the record is crystal clear. [10:29] You are still acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as acting attorney general. [10:36] It is hard to justify giving you any funds that will enable this pattern of wrongdoing to continue. [10:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [10:46] Senator Van Hollen, thank you. [10:48] Senator Collins, you have an opening statement? [10:49] I don't, Mr. Chairman. [10:51] I look forward to asking questions after hearing from the witness. [10:57] Thank you. [10:58] Thank you, Senator Collins, for joining us. [10:59] With that, General, you are recognized for your opening statement. [11:03] Thank you very much, Senator Moran. [11:07] Good morning to all of you. [11:09] Ranking Member Van Hollen, Senator Collins, Senator Moran, good morning. [11:13] Thank you for the opportunity to present President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget for the Department of Justice. [11:19] As Senator Moran noted, the request totals $41.2 billion, a 13% increase over fiscal year 2026. [11:29] This underscores our Department's renewed focus on reducing violent crime, combating the fentanyl crisis, strengthening border and immigration enforcement, [11:39] expanding fraud prevention, and ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect the American people. [11:46] Violent crime reduction remains one of the Department's highest priorities since January 20th of last year. [11:55] The DOJ has indicted hundreds of members of TDA, crippling their leadership and dismantling operational networks. [12:03] Across our major law enforcement components, the results have also been historic. [12:09] Federal law enforcement helped drive a 20% decrease in the national murder rate in 2025, arrested 44,000 violent offenders, [12:20] which is double the prior year, by the way, and seized over 2,200 kilograms of fentanyl. [12:27] Last year, law enforcement captured eight of the FBI's 10 most-wanted fugitives, [12:33] located 6,300 missing children, and arrested more than 2,000 child predators. [12:38] The DEA has made thousands of fentanyl-related arrests and seized millions of fentanyl pills and hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl powder. [12:48] In one August surge alone, DEA executed over 600 arrests, seized multi-ton quantities of narcotics, [12:56] and recovered more than $11 million in drug proceeds. [13:00] With 82 offices in 62 countries and 26 U.S. field divisions, DEA continues to disrupt global supply chains [13:08] from source to street of illegal narcotics. [13:12] The U.S. Marshal Service, one of the smallest federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, [13:17] with roughly 3,800 deputies, arrested more than 73,000 fugitives last year, [13:23] conducted 308,000 prisoner movements, and housed over 55,000 detainees, [13:29] and provided protection for 18 federal protectees, including Supreme Court justices and their residences. [13:35] The Marshals also manage over $10 billion in seized assets and are obviously essential to federal judicial security. [13:47] ATF continues to be a leader in the federal effort to combat violent firearms crime. [13:51] Since January of last year, ATF has arrested more than 8,700 violent offenders [13:58] and seized nearly 44,000 firearms, including 5,100, which were interdicted before reaching Mexico, [14:07] which was their intended destination. [14:09] ATF agencies seized 2.7 million rounds of ammunition, more than 28,000 illegal explosives, [14:16] and conducted over 3,500 arson and explosives investigations. [14:21] They process hundreds of thousands of traces every year, 856,000 last year alone, [14:28] and are continuing to do great work. [14:32] To sustain these historic results, the fiscal year 2027 budget includes $22.2 billion [14:38] for DOJ's law enforcement components and U.S. attorney's offices. [14:43] This is a 16% increase over fiscal year 26, [14:46] and these investments will build on our tremendous progress and continue and will ensure our continued [14:53] momentum in violent crime reduction nationwide. [14:56] We are also strengthening immigration enforcement efforts. [15:01] The Executive Office for Immigration Review has completed well over 1 million immigration cases [15:05] and reduced backlog by more than 447,000 cases since President Trump took office last year. [15:12] This budget provides for $899 million for Eeyore. [15:18] This is to continue rebuilding our workforce and modernizing our case processing systems. [15:24] Across the department, nearly $4 billion supports immigration-related enforcement activities. [15:31] Finally, the department launched the National Fraud Enforcement Division earlier this year [15:36] to expand federal fraud enforcement and better protect taxpayer-funded programs. [15:41] The budget includes $30 million to hire 100 attorneys and enhanced data analytics capabilities [15:48] to combat large-scale criminal fraud schemes. [15:51] DOJ is also modernizing the grants process by consolidating COPS, OJP, and OVW into the new Bureau of Justice grants, [15:59] providing a unified and simplified approach to federal grant-making, [16:04] while obviously continuing to preserve the mission, important missions, of each office. [16:09] The department faces serious budgetary constraints. [16:14] Fiscal year 2026 marked the second year of flat budgets for several components, [16:20] basically equating to a decrease in funding because costs and expenses increase every year, [16:26] but the budget remained flat. [16:29] The Bureau of Prisons remains under-resourced, funded at $8.1 billion, [16:34] almost $300 million below fiscal year 2025, [16:38] and risks insolvency without additional support. [16:42] The president's request of $10.3 billion for the Bureau of Prisons is essential to restore staffing [16:47] and maintaining safe and secure federal facilities. [16:52] In closing, the fiscal year 2027 budget reflects our unwavering commitment [16:56] to public safety, strong law enforcement partnerships, [17:00] and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. [17:03] With your combined continued support, the Department of Justice will remain strong, [17:09] effective, and fully equipped to protect the American people. [17:14] Thank you again for the opportunity to appear in front of you, and I look forward to your questions. [17:19] Attorney General, thank you. [17:21] I recognize now the chairwoman of the full committee, Senator Collins. [17:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [17:26] Mr. Attorney General, yesterday the Justice Department announced the creation [17:33] of a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund to compensate individuals [17:42] who were purportedly targeted by the Biden administration [17:48] in exchange for which President Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS [17:56] for the completely inappropriate leak of the president and his organization's tax data. [18:06] Amounts for this new fund will come from the Judgment Fund, [18:10] a permanent law appropriation for paying claims and settlements brought against the United States government. [18:20] Amounts in the Judgment Fund have traditionally been used for the payment of specific claims [18:28] against the government or amounts owned for the settlement of those claims, [18:34] but not for future claims that have yet to be bought. [18:38] So, I have some questions for you. [18:42] First, has the DOJ ever used amounts in the Judgment Fund to pay claims [18:49] that have yet to be brought against the United States government [18:54] based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case? [19:01] Thank you, Senator. [19:02] So, the short answer is yes. [19:04] I mean, we have done this in the past. [19:05] This was done during the Obama administration, something almost identical in structure [19:10] to what we announced yesterday. [19:12] In that case, there were allegations made by Native Americans [19:16] that the Department of Agriculture had systematically treated them unfairly, [19:22] and some had filed claims. [19:24] There was a pending lawsuit, but many had not. [19:26] A fund very similar to the one that was established yesterday was set up. [19:34] It was funded by, in today's dollars, a little over a billion dollars, [19:38] and a single claims commissioner was appointed to review the claims [19:44] and to distribute funds. [19:47] In that case, at the end, there was around $300 million left over, [19:52] and the Obama administration had set it up so that that money from the Judgment Fund [19:58] was distributed to nonprofits and other NGOs. [20:02] So, what we've done with this fund, and by the way, it is true that this is unusual. [20:08] That is true. [20:09] But it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address something [20:13] that had never happened again either. [20:15] So, there is an unprecedented nature of what we did yesterday [20:18] in response to years and years of weaponization. [20:22] Just to correct a few things, Senator, it's not limited to Republicans. [20:28] It's not limited to Biden. [20:29] I didn't say it was. [20:31] It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. [20:35] It's not limited to, in any way, scope or form, [20:38] to January 6th or to Jack Smith. [20:43] There's no limitation on the claims. [20:46] So, and the other thing we've done, just to finish up in comparison [20:51] to what was done previously, is we intend to appoint five commissioners, [20:56] and also, at the end, the money goes back. [20:59] Any leftover funds go back to the federal government, not to nonprofits. [21:02] So, how would the commission that you've just referenced [21:06] that oversees the fund determine whether future claims from the fund [21:11] are eligible to be paid out of it, and how will they determine [21:17] how much will be paid for each claim? [21:19] What's the legal basis for those decisions? [21:23] So, there's, well, there's commissions that are established all the time [21:28] where a commissioner is charged with determining the correct amount, [21:32] if any, to repay a claimant who's asking for funds. [21:35] So, in this case, what we expect is the commissioners will take in information. [21:41] It's entirely voluntary if an individual wants to apply [21:45] and assert that they were a victim of weaponization, [21:48] and the commission can do anything, according to what was set up yesterday, [21:52] from issuing an apology to the claimant, [21:56] to awarding compensation and the monetary compensation. [21:59] So, it depends on the claim, and there will be five commissioners [22:05] who will review each claim. [22:06] It won't be reviewed by me. [22:08] It won't be reviewed by others in the administration. [22:11] It will be reviewed by the five commissioners. [22:13] Aren't those commissioners appointed by the president? [22:17] No. [22:17] Who are they appointed by? [22:19] Four of them are appointed by the attorney general, [22:21] and one of them is appointed by the attorney general [22:23] in consultation with leadership of this body. [22:26] Will the information related to the claims be publicly reported? [22:33] So, that's a good question. [22:34] I mean, look, there's privacy laws that exist, [22:36] so I don't want to sit here today and say [22:38] every scintilla of data collected will be released, [22:42] but of course, I mean, of course, there's accountability [22:46] that the commission has, a quarterly report [22:49] that has to come to the attorney general, [22:52] which will certainly be public. [22:53] There's a process that you all will get information, [22:57] and there's a FOIA process. [22:58] So, I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, [23:02] the basis and the amount will for sure be made public along the way. [23:08] Let me switch to a different issue, [23:10] which Chairman Moran brought up. [23:13] Along with Chairman Moran and other members of this committee, [23:17] I was one of the lead sponsors of the Violence Against Women Act [23:22] reauthorization of 2022. [23:27] These programs are critical to reducing violence against women, [23:33] ensuring that justice is served, [23:36] and strengthening services to victims and survivors [23:39] of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and stalking. [23:45] In Maine, the rural victims program is especially critical. [23:51] Despite the importance and effectiveness of these programs, [23:57] the department's budget request proposes reducing funding [24:01] by about 25%. [24:05] Why is the department proposing a reduction in funding [24:10] to combat domestic violence and to support survivors? [24:16] Well, first of all, I completely agree with you [24:18] that these are extraordinarily important programs, [24:20] and the funds are well used to support these programs. [24:25] We have asked for $539 million, I believe, [24:29] in money to support all these programs. [24:32] And that, I mean, look, there's a lot of money [24:35] that goes, $190 million for grants to combat, [24:38] you know, to stop, the stop grants, [24:40] which is extraordinarily important. [24:42] And so it is a priority. [24:44] Obviously, there's, we have to make choices, [24:48] and the president's budget has to make choices [24:49] on where to spend that money, [24:50] but it is extraordinarily important, [24:52] and the $539 million that we've asked for [24:55] will go to support all these programs. [24:58] I mean, so yes, there's, we are asking less, [25:00] for less money than the budget had last year, [25:02] but it's not because we don't view it [25:05] as extraordinarily important. [25:07] Well, I would suggest that cutting the budget [25:10] for these important programs by 25% is a huge cut, [25:16] and I hope that's something the subcommittee [25:19] will take a close look at. [25:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [25:23] Thank you, Senator Collins. [25:24] Senator Van Hollen. [25:25] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [25:27] Mr. Attorney General, [25:28] this is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund [25:32] that you set up. [25:33] Simple question. [25:34] Will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers [25:38] be eligible for this fund? [25:41] Well, as it makes plain, anybody is... [25:43] Just let me know if they're eligible for the fund. [25:45] As was made plain yesterday, [25:48] anybody in this country is eligible to apply [25:52] if they believe they're a victim of weaponization. [25:53] Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. [25:56] Are there going to be rules that say [25:57] that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer [26:01] or committed a violent crime, you will not be eligible? [26:04] Why not make that a rule? [26:05] I expect that the... [26:07] Well, because I'm not one of the commissioners [26:08] setting up the rules, I expect... [26:09] You're appointing four of the five members, [26:11] aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? [26:12] Pardon me? [26:13] You're appointing four of the five members. [26:15] I am appointing all five members. [26:16] I would hope you make a rule [26:18] that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer [26:21] or a violent crime is simply not eligible. [26:23] They should not apply. [26:24] Well... [26:25] Let me ask you this, [26:26] because you compared it to the Keeps Eagle case. [26:29] But I think you know full well [26:30] that in that case, [26:32] the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, [26:35] including the payments to people [26:37] who were not originally parties to the lawsuit. [26:40] No federal judge has approved this fund, [26:42] have they, Mr. Attorney General? [26:43] No, no federal judge did approve this. [26:45] So that's a big difference between this case [26:47] and the case that you compared it to? [26:49] No, it's not. [26:50] Did a judge sign off on this case? [26:53] No. [26:53] A judge did sign off on the other one? [26:55] Yes, but your question was whether it's a big difference. [26:58] It's not. [26:58] Of course it is, [26:59] because that allows for an independent person [27:02] to look at it, [27:03] rather than the... [27:04] There was no independence. [27:04] ...warmer personal... [27:05] There was no independence. [27:06] There was a single commissioner. [27:07] A judge signed off on it. [27:09] A judge had nothing to do with deciding the money. [27:11] There was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it. [27:13] So to compare that case to this one [27:16] is incredibly deceptive. [27:19] Let me ask you this about the Epstein case, [27:22] because as we speak, [27:24] many Epstein survivors are in New York. [27:27] They're reading portions of the Epstein files [27:30] about the abuse that they suffered. [27:32] Otherwise, they might have been here with us today. [27:34] At a House hearing, [27:36] your predecessor refused to acknowledge the pain [27:39] experienced by some of those victims [27:41] when the administration improperly released [27:44] their names in identifying information. [27:47] So I want to know where you stand. [27:50] I spoke to the representatives [27:51] of some of the Epstein survivors yesterday. [27:54] They are extremely frustrated [27:56] that you keep calling for people [27:58] to come forward with more evidence, [28:00] but you have not met with them [28:01] to hear their stories. [28:04] So simple question. [28:05] If I connect you with these survivors, [28:08] will you meet with them? [28:10] Absolutely. [28:10] And what you just said is false. [28:12] I have met with them. [28:13] I've met with many, many of the lawyers [28:15] for the survivors of victims, [28:17] as did Attorney General Bondi. [28:18] So whoever told you that, [28:20] unfortunately, gave you bad information. [28:22] I would encourage them. [28:23] I would encourage them to reach out [28:25] to the Department of Justice, [28:26] because like we do every single day, [28:28] we absolutely care for victims [28:30] and we absolutely want to hear from them [28:32] and their lawyers. [28:33] Well, I've been told directly [28:36] from the representatives [28:38] they've not had a chance, [28:40] at least this group, [28:41] to meet with you. [28:42] So I'm glad to hear that. [28:43] Did they represent they asked for a meeting? [28:45] Can I ask you to commit [28:48] that the Justice Department [28:51] will not recommend a pardon [28:53] for anyone named in the Epstein files? [28:57] Can you repeat that question? [28:58] I'm sorry. [28:59] I didn't hear what you said. [28:59] Can you commit that the Justice Department, [29:03] you, the Acting Attorney General, [29:04] would not recommend a pardon [29:06] for people named in the Epstein files? [29:09] When you say people named, [29:10] I have no... [29:11] There's tens of thousands, [29:13] hundreds of thousands of, quote, [29:14] people named. [29:15] How about Jelaine Maxwell? [29:16] Can you commit that you... [29:17] Yes, I can commit to that. [29:19] Of course. [29:19] Let me go back to this slush fund [29:23] because there's also an individual [29:27] who, after being pardoned by the president, [29:32] went on to molest two children. [29:35] And that person actually tried [29:37] to buy the silence of these children [29:39] by saying that he would pay them [29:42] some of the funds [29:42] that he was hoping to get [29:43] from your slush fund. [29:46] Can you commit to making the rule [29:48] so that that person is not eligible [29:51] for a payout under this fund? [29:53] Well, you're obviously lying [29:55] in your question [29:55] because there's no way [29:57] that this person committed to that. [29:59] The slush fund, as you call it, [30:01] which is not, didn't exist. [30:02] I am sure... [30:02] But I can commit... [30:03] Mr. Attorney General, [30:06] don't ever do that again. [30:08] I am reporting what he said. [30:10] He said on the expectation [30:11] that he hoped to get [30:13] some of the funds from a payout. [30:15] He's been... [30:15] You said from the slush fund, Senator, [30:17] and that didn't exist [30:18] when he said that. [30:19] This is the fund [30:20] that the president [30:21] and all of you [30:22] have been telegraphing [30:23] all along [30:24] that you're going to use [30:25] to help the president's friends. [30:28] Can you point to a single telegraph? [30:30] Mr. Attorney General, I have a last question. [30:30] What telegraph did I have? [30:31] I have a last question for you. [30:33] Do you know [30:35] that it is a criminal offense [30:37] to lie to Congress? [30:40] I am very well aware of that. [30:42] I'm glad to hear that. [30:43] Thank you. [30:46] Senator Kennedy. [30:47] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [30:54] General, how are you? [30:55] I'm great. [30:56] Thank you, Senator. [30:56] In America, [31:05] unlike other countries [31:06] where they let you die in a ditch, [31:10] in America, [31:11] if you're too poor to be sick, [31:14] we'll pay for your doctor. [31:15] Isn't that right? [31:16] It is. [31:18] And one of the programs [31:19] we do that through [31:20] is Medicaid. [31:21] Correct. [31:23] Okay. [31:25] And this money for Medicaid, [31:28] it didn't just fall from heaven. [31:30] We thank heaven for it, [31:32] but it came out of people's pockets, [31:33] didn't it? [31:34] Every dime of it. [31:35] And some of that money [31:38] is stolen, isn't it? [31:40] Yes. [31:41] And the states, [31:43] not all of them, [31:44] but many of them, [31:46] allow it to be stolen, [31:47] don't they? [31:48] Yes. [31:50] Let's take Medicaid [31:51] in California, for example. [31:54] I don't mean to just [31:54] pick on California, [31:56] but because this happens [31:58] in other states. [31:59] We saw it happen [31:59] in Minnesota, for example. [32:03] But in California, [32:04] for every dollar [32:07] that the California [32:10] state government [32:11] puts up for Medicaid, [32:13] for the Obamacare portion [32:14] of Medicaid, [32:16] we put up, [32:17] the federal taxpayer [32:18] puts up $9, don't they? [32:21] And so, [32:22] is that right? [32:23] That's correct, Senator. [32:24] And so as a result, [32:26] California has allowed [32:27] thousands and thousands [32:30] of these social assistance [32:34] and so-called [32:35] health care providers [32:36] pop up in California, [32:39] haven't they? [32:40] Yes. [32:41] And some of those providers [32:42] steal the money, [32:43] don't they? [32:44] Yes, we know that [32:45] to be true. [32:46] And the money never gets [32:47] to the people they supposedly [32:48] are trying to help, [32:49] isn't that correct? [32:50] That's correct. [32:51] And the other way [32:52] that California [32:53] and others abuse the fact [32:55] that they're putting up $1 [32:56] and the American taxpayers [32:58] putting up $9. [32:59] Did I mention it was $9? [33:01] I think some say [33:02] it's even more, [33:02] but yes, $9 work. [33:04] They expand the services, [33:05] don't they? [33:06] Yes. [33:06] Because some states [33:08] like California, [33:10] and I don't want to paint [33:10] with too broad a brush, [33:12] it's not everybody [33:12] in California state government, [33:14] but it's a lot of them, [33:15] they see this as free money, [33:17] don't they? [33:19] They're not paying for it, yes. [33:20] Isn't it a fact [33:21] that, for example, [33:23] Medicaid in California [33:25] will pay a provider [33:28] to provide tribal prayers? [33:32] I looked all this up. [33:33] I mean, I'll accept that. [33:34] I didn't know that, [33:35] but yes. [33:36] That California [33:37] will actually pay [33:38] a health care provider. [33:39] I didn't know [33:40] this was a medical expertise, [33:42] to pay for exorcisms. [33:45] Is that right? [33:47] I'll accept that, [33:48] Senator, [33:48] but that's... [33:49] They pay... [33:50] The California Medicaid program [33:52] will pay for herbal medicines, [33:56] meal deliveries. [33:58] They'll pay for housing. [34:00] I don't know what housing [34:01] has to do with health care. [34:03] Is that correct? [34:03] Yes. [34:04] Were you aware [34:05] that the Medicaid program [34:07] using federal money, [34:10] taxpayer money, [34:11] will pay for [34:12] an in-home chef? [34:16] Yes. [34:17] Even if it's a family member. [34:18] Yes. [34:18] Yeah, they'll even pay [34:19] for gymnasium fees [34:21] through Medicaid [34:22] in California. [34:25] They'll pay for bicycles, [34:27] scooters, [34:29] gym memberships. [34:30] Did you know that? [34:32] Yes. [34:33] Several states do, [34:34] but California does for sure. [34:35] They'll even repay [34:36] your student loans. [34:38] Were you aware of that? [34:39] I was not aware [34:41] of the student loans. [34:42] Yeah. [34:42] Yeah, they'll repay [34:43] somebody's student loans [34:45] to encourage them [34:46] to become a health care provider. [34:49] I mean, California, [34:50] they're just setting [34:51] all kind of records. [34:53] These folks are, [34:54] they're wild people. [35:00] California's got 12% [35:01] of the population. [35:02] In the last 10 years, [35:05] they're responsible [35:06] for half of these new [35:07] so-called health providers [35:09] to provide extra systems [35:10] and other things. [35:11] Now, what the hell [35:12] are we doing about it? [35:14] Why has this gone on [35:16] for so long? [35:17] Senator, listen, [35:18] it's a great question. [35:19] And what you just described [35:20] are programs [35:21] that are allowed [35:22] under the program. [35:23] You have a whole other issue [35:23] in California [35:24] where a lot of these folks [35:25] are just stealing the money, [35:27] not even running it through [35:29] for exorcism. [35:30] They're thieves, aren't they? [35:31] They're thieves. [35:31] Correct. [35:32] Correct. [35:33] And California [35:34] just watches it happen, [35:36] don't they? [35:37] Not everybody in California. [35:39] The government does, [35:41] though, doesn't it? [35:41] Well, that's the challenge [35:43] in a lot of states [35:43] is that we don't have [35:45] a state government, [35:46] which you all have entrusted [35:47] to run these programs [35:48] and take care of the money [35:49] that you all give them. [35:51] There's state structures [35:52] that absolutely do not [35:54] do any compliance [35:54] and they don't do their job. [35:56] Because they don't have [35:57] no incentive to. [35:57] They're getting free money. [36:00] Isn't that right? [36:01] Yes. [36:02] I think so. [36:02] Yes. [36:03] We've got to change this, [36:04] general. [36:05] We're trying. [36:05] I call this a slush fund. [36:08] You want to talk about slush fund? [36:10] This is a tier one slush fund [36:13] that's been going on [36:14] for years and years and years. [36:17] Billions and hundreds [36:18] of billions of dollars [36:19] is stolen. [36:23] Yes, Senator. [36:24] And that's why, look, [36:25] this department stood up [36:27] a whole new fraud division. [36:28] And AUSAs around the country [36:29] prosecute fraud every day. [36:31] So it's not as if we weren't, [36:32] we weren't, [36:32] we didn't have the work out there. [36:34] But it's so systematically [36:35] taking money [36:37] from the American taxpayer [36:38] that we very much believe [36:40] that it needs [36:41] its own stand-up structure. [36:42] And I think it's true [36:43] for the reasons [36:44] that you just said. [36:46] If you need an extra system, [36:47] you can go to California King. [36:48] Thank you, Senator. [36:51] Thank you, Chairman Moran, [36:52] Ranking Member Van Hollen. [36:54] Thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche [36:55] for appearing before us today. [36:57] I want to talk about some areas [36:59] where I think we're making progress [37:00] and we can work together [37:01] and then raise some real concerns I have. [37:03] I do think it's worth [37:06] recognizing the hard work [37:07] of the men and women [37:08] of the department [37:09] and the progress you're making [37:10] on combating fentanyl [37:11] and a violent crime. [37:13] I've long been involved [37:14] in criminal justice reform, [37:15] talked with and worked [37:17] with your predecessor on this. [37:18] I was pleased to see [37:19] the president's message [37:20] during Second Chance Month [37:22] where he said he wants [37:24] to ensure those [37:24] who take responsibility [37:25] and seek to rebuild their lives [37:27] have a chance to succeed. [37:29] Senator Lee and I have a bill [37:30] called the Safer Supervision Act. [37:32] It's co-sponsored [37:33] by Senators Tillis [37:35] and Wicker, [37:35] Kramer, and Langford. [37:37] It's got strong law enforcement [37:38] and conservative support [37:39] and it fits squarely [37:40] in that framework. [37:42] Currently, federal supervision [37:43] is imposed in nearly every case, [37:46] leading to badly overworked [37:47] federal probation officers [37:48] who then can't properly supervise [37:50] those who actually most need it. [37:52] There's more than 120,000 people [37:54] on average per year [37:56] being supervised. [37:57] And this bill would help [37:58] ensure courts are more thoughtful, [38:00] more analytic [38:01] when deciding [38:02] when to impose supervision. [38:03] Is this a piece of legislation [38:05] you can support? [38:07] So, what you just said [38:08] I very much agree with. [38:10] So, without looking at [38:11] every word of the legislation, [38:13] there's no disagreement [38:15] from me on a word [38:15] you just uttered. [38:16] Well, thank you. [38:17] I'd like to work with you on that. [38:18] Yes, I look forward to that. [38:20] Let me raise two questions. [38:22] I've been gravely concerned [38:23] about IP theft, [38:24] especially from China [38:25] the whole time I've served. [38:26] I was struck [38:28] that the department's [38:29] proposed budget [38:29] cuts the funds [38:30] for IP enforcement. [38:33] Why? [38:33] And is the department [38:34] under your leadership [38:35] committed to protecting [38:36] American innovation? [38:37] Very committed. [38:38] And while you're calling it [38:41] a cut, Senator, [38:41] I would say that it's [38:43] a major focus of every year. [38:44] It's a lack of an increase? [38:46] Well, no, no, no. [38:46] I don't mean lack of an increase. [38:48] I mean that it's, [38:48] we're focused on it [38:50] at the U.S. Attorney's Office level. [38:52] So, when we take money [38:53] and spend it [38:54] around the U.S. Attorney's Offices [38:55] and so it's baked [38:57] into that big number, [38:59] rest assured, [38:59] every U.S. Attorney's Office, [39:01] all 93 of them, [39:01] are focused on [39:02] the threats [39:03] that we have from there. [39:04] And so, we're trying [39:05] to spend our money [39:06] more wisely. [39:06] Chair Collins [39:07] raised a concern [39:08] about the Violence [39:09] Against Women Act funds. [39:10] Let me raise a concern [39:12] about the Victims [39:13] of Child Abuse Act programs. [39:15] Senator Roy Blunt [39:16] and I worked [39:16] to reauthorize this program. [39:17] I've long been [39:18] actively engaged with it. [39:19] I've seen how [39:20] Children's Advocacy Centers [39:21] in Delaware [39:22] make a critical difference, [39:24] bringing together [39:24] law enforcement, [39:25] medical, [39:26] mental health professionals [39:27] to do child abuse investigations [39:29] in a child-centered way [39:31] to make sure children [39:32] are not re-victimized. [39:34] The number of victims [39:34] served by these centers [39:35] has increased four-fold [39:37] over 25 years. [39:38] Why are you proposing [39:40] cutting this program? [39:42] So, we have asked [39:43] for $41 million [39:44] for that program [39:45] and I agree with you [39:46] and I want to work with you [39:48] to make sure [39:48] that we're spending [39:49] that $41 million [39:50] where we should. [39:51] I agree with you. [39:52] It's extraordinarily important [39:53] and has had a lot of success [39:54] over the past 15, 20 years [39:56] as it's been up and running. [39:58] Thank you. [39:59] Let me return [39:59] to the line of questioning [40:00] from the ranking member, [40:01] Senator Van Hollen, [40:02] that I strongly agree with. [40:05] I'm just looking [40:06] at the settlement agreement [40:07] in Trump versus IRS [40:08] and I just want to make sure [40:10] I heard you properly [40:11] when you responded previously. [40:14] Your announcement said [40:16] that the fund [40:16] will send you quarterly reports. [40:18] Will you commit [40:20] to making these reports [40:21] fully public [40:22] so Americans know [40:23] who's getting taxpayer dollars [40:25] out of the settlement fund? [40:26] This says they'll be confidential. [40:28] This is Section 4, Part E [40:30] of the settlement agreement. [40:31] The reason why [40:32] I want to be careful [40:33] in my answer [40:33] is because there's obviously [40:34] laws that exist [40:36] around privacy [40:36] that may prevent [40:38] some of the information [40:39] that the commission takes in [40:41] from being fully public. [40:43] Beyond that, [40:44] there will be full transparency [40:46] and I commit to you that [40:47] beyond the applicable laws [40:49] that exist around privacy [40:50] and privileges and whatnot. [40:52] But as far as being transparent [40:54] and having those quarterly reports [40:56] released, yes. [40:57] Thank you. [40:58] You referenced a previous case. [41:00] I think it was Keeps Eagle [41:01] versus Vilsack [41:02] under the previous administration. [41:04] Did that case involve [41:06] a president suing his own government [41:08] and then settling that case [41:09] before it could be reviewed [41:11] or approved by a judge? [41:12] So no, [41:13] neither does the commission. [41:15] It did not. [41:15] And so when you suggested [41:17] that they're nearly identical, [41:18] they're not identical. [41:19] I think there's a critical [41:20] difference here. [41:21] President Trump is the first [41:22] president to sue his own [41:24] government and then direct [41:26] his chosen acting attorney [41:28] general to reach this kind [41:30] of settlement. [41:31] Will you commit that none [41:33] of President Trump's family [41:34] will receive a direct payout [41:36] from this fund? [41:38] Well, yes, [41:39] but what you just said [41:40] is not true. [41:41] I mean, [41:42] if I can correct that. [41:43] Please. [41:43] The president did not direct me [41:45] to do anything. [41:46] And secondly, [41:47] when we said it was [41:48] that the structure [41:49] of the commission [41:49] is similar to Keeps Eagle, [41:52] that's true. [41:53] It wasn't the case. [41:55] The underlying case [41:55] is not the same. [41:56] The structure of the commission [41:57] is the same [41:58] as the Keeps Eagle commission. [41:59] Has it ever happened [42:00] that a sitting president [42:02] sued his own government [42:04] for $10 billion [42:05] and then directed [42:07] the settlement of the case [42:08] and the establishment [42:09] of a payout fund? [42:10] Not that I'm aware, [42:11] but there's a lot of things [42:12] that President Trump's [42:13] the first of. [42:14] No president had been indicted [42:15] one, two, three, four, five, [42:17] six, seven, eight times either. [42:18] Correct. [42:18] No president's been indicted. [42:20] And will you commit [42:21] that none of this money [42:22] will go to President Trump's [42:23] campaign donors? [42:25] I am not committing [42:26] to anything beyond [42:27] the settlement agreement itself. [42:28] When you say campaign donors, [42:30] that they are not excluded [42:31] from seeking compensation [42:33] if they were weaponized. [42:33] Last question. [42:34] During Police Week, [42:35] I heard from a number [42:36] of law enforcement friends [42:37] who found it appalling [42:38] that there was the possibility [42:40] that folks like the peace, [42:42] the Oath Keepers, [42:43] the Proud Boys [42:45] who had assaulted [42:46] Capitol Police officers [42:48] could receive [42:48] multi-million dollar payouts [42:50] from this fund. [42:52] Will you commit [42:52] that no one [42:53] who has been convicted [42:54] of assaulting a police officer [42:56] will receive a payout [42:57] from this fund? [42:58] So I shared the concerns [43:00] that apparently members [43:01] of law enforcement [43:01] gave to you last week, [43:02] although none of this [43:03] was announced last week, [43:04] so that's surprising. [43:05] But they had heard rumors [43:07] there would be [43:07] a settlement fund. [43:08] Okay. [43:09] But anybody can apply. [43:11] The commissioners [43:12] will set rules, I'm sure. [43:14] That's not for me to set. [43:15] That's for the commissioners. [43:16] And whether an individual, [43:19] an Oath Keeper, [43:20] as you just mentioned, [43:21] applies for compensation, [43:23] anybody in this country [43:24] can apply. [43:25] Well, we'll be watching [43:26] this very closely [43:27] as this goes forward. [43:28] I don't think [43:29] the settlement fund [43:30] should be set up this way [43:31] or for these purposes. [43:32] I appreciate your answers today. [43:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:36] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [43:37] Mr. Attorney General, [43:39] thank you for being here [43:39] this morning [43:40] and responding [43:40] to our questions. [43:42] I want to follow on [43:43] a couple that have been asked [43:44] with regards to [43:45] the Department of Justice's [43:48] state and local [43:48] law enforcement programs. [43:52] $1.2 billion [43:53] in proposed cuts. [43:55] We're looking at it [43:55] very carefully [43:56] because many of these [43:57] grants and programs [43:58] have significant impact [44:00] on our state, [44:01] small population, [44:02] large area, [44:02] to deal with. [44:04] The budget also calls [44:06] for consolidation [44:06] of the Office of Violence [44:09] Against Women, [44:10] the Community-Oriented [44:11] Policing Services [44:12] and the OJP programs. [44:17] Is the Office of Tribal Justice [44:20] one of the offices [44:21] that are also intended [44:23] to be consolidated? [44:25] We're just consolidating [44:26] the grant components, [44:28] so OJP, COPS, [44:30] and then OVIDA. [44:31] And by the way, [44:31] we're not combining them. [44:33] We're just making them [44:34] more efficient. [44:35] So they will still [44:35] maintain their own [44:37] independence and brand, [44:39] for lack of a better word. [44:40] But what we heard [44:41] from the field [44:42] is that there were [44:43] inappropriate inconsistencies [44:46] and inefficiencies [44:47] in having three separate [44:48] kind of bureaucracies [44:50] running each of those programs. [44:52] So that's what we're trying to fix. [44:53] Don't disagree with [44:53] wanting to reduce bureaucracies. [44:55] My interest is making sure [44:57] that the fidelity of these grants [44:59] and the availability [45:00] to very rural [45:01] and oftentimes just very high cost [45:05] because of what we're dealing [45:07] with out there, [45:08] that they do not get overlooked [45:11] because when you have cuts [45:14] to the level that you're proposing, [45:17] one has to assume that, [45:18] okay, you can talk about reducing [45:20] the bureaucracy [45:21] and just what the program [45:24] itself might look like. [45:25] But again, my interest [45:26] is making sure [45:27] that this much needed assistance [45:29] is still pushed down [45:32] to the very, very local levels. [45:34] Senator, I assure you [45:36] that the rural communities [45:38] and I appreciate [45:39] that they have the most challenges [45:40] applying for grants [45:41] because of just the way [45:42] they're structured. [45:43] Lack of capacity. [45:44] Of course. [45:45] And there's obviously, [45:47] I forget the exact percentage, [45:48] but a large percentage [45:49] of our grants [45:50] do go to rural communities [45:51] as they should [45:52] and rural police departments [45:53] as they should. [45:54] And we are going [45:55] to continue to do that. [45:57] I mean, there's, [45:58] the COPS office is required [45:59] to distribute half of it, [46:00] half of the grants [46:01] to rural communities. [46:02] Right. [46:02] But just, [46:03] and I don't want to take up [46:04] all your time, Senator, [46:05] but that's one of the reasons [46:06] why we built in, [46:07] we're trying to make it more efficient [46:08] because the field said, [46:10] especially rural communities, [46:12] big cities don't have issues [46:13] applying for grants. [46:14] They have a bunch [46:14] of people that can do it. [46:15] And so, yes, [46:16] we are very focused on that [46:18] in tribal justice space, [46:20] but also in the grant space. [46:21] Well, know that we're watching [46:23] this one very carefully. [46:24] I understand that in response [46:26] to Senator Collins, [46:27] you acknowledge 25% cut [46:30] to the office on violence [46:32] against women. [46:33] And I was very involved [46:35] in that reauthorization. [46:37] And within that, [46:39] we provide that OVW [46:40] may not be subsumed [46:42] by another grantmaking component [46:44] within DOJ. [46:45] So we want to make sure [46:47] that, again, [46:49] DOJ is going to maintain [46:51] OVW's statutory responsibilities [46:54] and how they move forward [46:56] with their grantmaking [46:57] and not losing out [46:59] on that subject. [47:00] We will. [47:00] And we're aware of that. [47:01] Yes, ma'am. [47:02] Let me ask about [47:03] the Not Invisible Act. [47:06] This was legislation [47:07] that I introduced [47:08] some years ago. [47:09] It became law. [47:12] May 5th is the day [47:13] that we recognize [47:14] as Missing and Murdered [47:15] Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. [47:17] We had a big roundtable [47:19] that Senator Sullivan [47:20] helped to organize [47:21] just a couple weeks ago. [47:23] I had a lot of the folks [47:24] from your department [47:26] along with Alaska state [47:28] and local as well as tribal. [47:30] One of the things [47:31] that kept coming up [47:32] was the commission [47:35] issued its final report. [47:37] I thought it was [47:37] pretty substantive. [47:39] They issued it November 1 [47:41] of 2023 [47:42] after great testimony [47:44] and consultation [47:45] all across Indian country. [47:47] But then it was removed. [47:50] The report was removed [47:52] very early on [47:54] in the second Trump administration [47:56] and the related materials [47:57] have been removed [47:58] removed from DOJ [48:00] and the Department [48:01] of Interior websites. [48:03] So people keep asking me [48:04] where did it go? [48:05] Why? [48:06] What is happening? [48:07] And we tried to get [48:10] further information [48:11] to that again up in Anchorage [48:13] a couple weeks ago. [48:14] So the question to you [48:17] is why was the report [48:18] taken down? [48:19] When will it be restored? [48:21] And more importantly, [48:22] what concrete steps [48:23] is DOJ taking [48:24] with the Department [48:26] of others and others [48:28] to implement [48:28] the recommendations. [48:30] We don't want [48:31] the work of this [48:32] really important commission [48:33] to just kind of sit [48:35] and be ignored. [48:36] Yes. [48:37] So I don't have an answer [48:39] as to why it was taken down [48:40] but I will get back [48:41] to you promptly. [48:42] I will tell you [48:42] I would appreciate that. [48:43] And your big picture question [48:45] we are on the same page [48:47] when it comes to [48:48] tribal justice [48:50] and the work [48:50] that we have to do [48:51] with our Native American [48:53] community [48:53] and making sure [48:54] that we're giving them [48:55] the resources, [48:56] the law enforcement. [48:57] I've visited two so far [49:00] as the Deputy Attorney General. [49:02] My staff has gone out [49:03] to multiples [49:04] to Northern New York, [49:05] the Dakotas, Oklahoma [49:06] and we'll continue [49:08] to do that. [49:09] I think that [49:09] at the end of the day [49:10] it is a funding [49:11] and training issue [49:12] that is our responsibility [49:15] and I recognize that [49:16] and it's a priority. [49:18] Well and we've seen [49:18] positive signals [49:19] in the first Trump administration [49:21] that was when [49:23] Operation Lady Justice [49:24] was stood up. [49:24] I think that that is good. [49:25] We need to continue on that. [49:27] You've put good people [49:29] tasked to this [49:30] but this is where [49:32] it gets confusing [49:33] because when you have [49:34] a public facing website [49:35] that helps people navigate [49:38] through some of the reporting [49:40] and the lack of data [49:41] that's where we could use [49:43] a little help. [49:43] So if you can get back [49:44] with me on that [49:45] I would appreciate it. [49:46] I will. [49:47] Thank you Mr. Chairman. [49:50] Thank you Mr. Acting [49:51] Attorney General [49:52] for being here. [49:53] As you alluded to [49:55] in your opening statement [49:56] there is an acute staffing [49:57] shortage [49:57] at the Bureau of Prisons. [49:59] At FCI Berlin [50:01] in New Hampshire [50:02] staffing levels [50:03] have dropped [50:03] to 58% [50:04] of authorized levels [50:06] and that's at a time [50:08] when correctional officers [50:09] are being asked [50:10] to take on added duties [50:12] where they have detainees [50:14] being sent [50:14] to our federal prison [50:16] and the retention incentives [50:19] have dropped significantly. [50:21] So as you point out [50:22] the Bureau received [50:23] an additional $3 billion [50:25] in the reconciliation bill [50:27] to address staffing issues [50:28] and you're asking [50:30] for additional funding [50:31] which I appreciate [50:32] but how do you plan [50:33] to use those supplemental funds [50:35] to address recruitment [50:37] and detention of staff [50:38] at facilities [50:39] like FCI Berlin? [50:41] Thank you for that question. [50:42] It is a crisis [50:43] and the crisis [50:44] on staffing [50:45] is twofold. [50:47] One is we're not [50:47] paying them enough [50:48] and they can walk [50:49] across the street [50:49] to county jails [50:50] and make more money [50:51] and two [50:52] because we're not [50:52] paying them enough [50:53] there's shortages [50:54] so they're required [50:54] to work overtime. [50:56] They're required [50:56] to actually [50:57] I understand the problem. [50:59] Can you explain [50:59] what you're going [51:00] to do to address it? [51:01] We're doing both. [51:02] I mean we're addressing [51:03] the compensation [51:03] and we've already [51:04] worked with [51:06] with Director Marshall [51:07] over the past several months [51:08] to give some retention money [51:10] to officers [51:11] who are staying [51:12] but we have to pay them more [51:13] and we have to make it [51:14] worthwhile for them to stay [51:16] and the only way [51:17] to do that is with money. [51:18] The only way [51:19] to do that is with hiring. [51:19] I can tell you [51:20] that FCI Berlin [51:21] has not seen that money yet [51:22] and it's going to be critical [51:23] to get it out. [51:25] Let me change [51:26] to another topic [51:27] because we have [51:28] a new DEA drug lab [51:30] in Londonderry, New Hampshire. [51:32] I'm very pleased [51:32] that we've got [51:34] that New England [51:35] regional drug lab. [51:36] I worked hard [51:36] to try and support [51:39] the effort [51:39] to get it there [51:40] but I'm concerned [51:41] now that DEA [51:42] doesn't have the personnel [51:43] that they need [51:44] in order to fully operate it [51:45] and when we raised [51:46] this at hearings [51:47] both in the House [51:48] and Senate [51:49] with DEA [51:51] what they told us [51:52] was that DOJ [51:53] has routinely [51:54] denied its request [51:56] for greater allocations [51:58] of personnel [51:58] meaning that they are [52:00] going to have difficulties [52:01] hiring the sufficient [52:02] personnel they need [52:03] to fully operate [52:04] this new lab [52:05] so can you commit [52:07] that you will ensure [52:09] that the personnel [52:10] that are needed [52:11] to operate the lab [52:12] are able to be hired? [52:14] Yes and our budget [52:15] asks for that funding [52:16] and I agree with you [52:17] Senator that it's crucial [52:19] to have that [52:19] and that there are shortages. [52:21] You're right. [52:21] Let me weigh in on [52:25] with Senator Collins [52:28] and Senator Murkowski [52:29] and their concerns [52:30] about the Office of Violence [52:32] Against Women [52:32] and the grants [52:33] I don't support [52:35] the cut of 25% [52:37] for that budget [52:38] but we have [52:40] a greater issue [52:41] because my staff [52:43] has heard from [52:43] organizations [52:44] in New Hampshire [52:45] working on [52:46] domestic violence concerns [52:47] that the department [52:49] is continuing [52:50] to hold [52:50] fiscal year 25 funding [52:53] for the office [52:54] and for some [52:55] of these organizations [52:56] they had their grants [52:57] canceled early in 2025 [52:59] this disruption [53:01] has caused [53:01] those organizations [53:02] to scale back [53:03] to start laying off staff [53:05] which limits their ability [53:06] to help survivors [53:07] so when is the department [53:09] going to make available [53:10] the fiscal year 25 [53:13] and 26 grant funds [53:15] that have already been approved [53:16] by Congress? [53:18] So we [53:19] the NOFOs [53:21] for two of the three agencies [53:22] are all out and back [53:23] there's one NOFO [53:26] that's pending [53:27] from 25 [53:28] that we expect to get out [53:29] any day now [53:30] and then we'll start working [53:31] on 26 [53:32] and so it's done [53:34] on a rolling basis [53:35] and we're working [53:38] every day [53:39] very hard [53:40] to get that money out [53:41] as far as grants [53:43] that were canceled [53:44] I believe [53:46] 330 some [53:48] were canceled [53:48] just about five or six percent [53:50] of the overall grants awarded [53:52] for various reasons [53:53] but grants [53:55] that were [53:55] more than that [53:56] were initially canceled [53:57] and the grant [53:58] But those are grants [53:58] that had been approved [53:59] by Congress [54:00] that had already been sent out [54:01] why is the department [54:03] canceling funding [54:04] that our organizations [54:05] are depending on [54:06] in order to help survivors? [54:07] Well it's not that [54:08] they were approved [54:09] by Congress [54:09] the money was [54:10] and so for a very small portion [54:12] of grants [54:15] they simply [54:15] they were canceled [54:16] for various reasons [54:17] so [54:17] Well they were canceled [54:18] because Doge came in [54:19] and made significant cuts [54:21] and the department [54:22] the administration [54:23] has made cuts [54:24] I guess [54:25] I'm not going to argue [54:26] with you about [54:27] why that happened [54:28] I think it was wrong [54:29] I'm going to [54:31] acknowledge your commitment [54:33] to ensure [54:34] that those funds [54:34] are going to go out [54:35] to the organizations [54:36] that are depending on them [54:37] so that they can serve [54:38] the people who need it [54:40] I commit to that [54:40] thank you [54:41] last fall [54:44] the U.S. trustee [54:45] for region 1 [54:46] didn't name [54:47] a new chapter 13 [54:48] standing trustee [54:49] for New Hampshire [54:50] instead he assigned [54:51] New Hampshire's duties [54:52] to Maine's standing trustee [54:55] over the objections [54:56] of the New Hampshire [54:57] bankruptcy bar [54:58] the transition [54:59] from New Hampshire [55:00] standing trustee [55:02] to the new [55:03] Maine trustee [55:04] who's supposed to be [55:05] serving both states [55:06] has not gone well [55:07] debtors who had completed [55:10] their payments [55:10] were not being discharged [55:11] from bankruptcy [55:12] creditors and attorneys [55:13] were not getting paid [55:14] in fact a motion [55:16] to remove [55:17] the New Hampshire [55:18] and Maine trustee [55:19] was filed [55:19] and the New Hampshire [55:20] bankruptcy judge [55:22] admonished the trustee [55:24] but unfortunately [55:25] didn't ultimately [55:26] remove him [55:27] I am very concerned [55:29] that we have [55:29] granite staters [55:30] who need to use [55:32] the chapter 13 [55:33] bankruptcy [55:34] and that they're [55:35] being disadvantaged [55:36] because of this [55:37] decision [55:37] for whatever reason [55:38] we have no idea [55:39] because [55:40] the US government [55:43] doesn't pay [55:44] those standing trustees [55:45] there's no reason [55:46] that's not a benefit [55:48] in terms of savings [55:50] so [55:50] I don't know [55:51] if it was a shot [55:52] at New Hampshire [55:53] or what the issue was [55:54] but will you commit [55:55] to naming [55:56] a New Hampshire [55:57] only chapter 13 [55:58] standing trustee [55:59] and look into this [56:00] because it's a real problem [56:02] so we have that [56:03] and Mr. General [56:04] the time has expired [56:04] so if you can quickly [56:05] wrap that up [56:06] I would appreciate it [56:06] we have that [56:07] in many districts [56:09] not just New Hampshire [56:09] and we're working [56:11] very hard [56:12] to rectify it [56:13] for the reasons [56:14] that you say [56:14] the challenges [56:15] it presents [56:15] so you will [56:17] look into that [56:18] and try [56:18] been looking into it [56:20] and will continue [56:20] to do so [56:21] Senator [56:21] yes [56:21] thank you [56:25] Mr. General [56:26] appreciate you [56:26] being here today [56:27] I wanted to start [56:27] with an issue [56:28] that I raised [56:28] with you [56:29] in your confirmation [56:30] hearing in the [56:31] Senate Judiciary Committee [56:32] we talked about [56:33] the Executive Office [56:34] for Immigration Reform [56:36] some people call it E-O-I-R [56:38] some people call it Eeyore [56:40] but ultimately [56:41] it oversees [56:42] our immigration courts [56:43] as you're aware [56:45] there was [56:46] a significant backlog [56:47] that was left [56:48] by the Biden-Harris administration [56:49] unfortunately [56:50] they created a culture [56:51] of that [56:52] of dragging their feet [56:52] not actually completing [56:54] these cases [56:54] I know [56:56] they also rolled back [56:57] a number of reforms [56:58] that were put in place [56:59] during the first Trump [57:00] administration [57:01] to ensure that [57:01] our immigration courts [57:03] functioned [57:04] in an efficient manner [57:05] by contrast [57:06] obviously [57:06] under the current [57:07] Trump administration [57:08] the courts [57:09] in FY25 [57:10] have completed [57:11] the highest number [57:12] of cases [57:13] that we have seen [57:14] in a single year [57:15] in Eeyore's history [57:17] finally achieved [57:19] a reduction [57:20] in the case backlog [57:21] and hopefully [57:22] that's something [57:23] that we can continue [57:24] I saw in your budget [57:25] that you increased [57:26] this by 12% [57:27] I wanted to talk [57:28] is that going to help [57:29] you continue [57:30] on that [57:31] on eliminating [57:32] this backlog [57:33] improve efficiencies [57:34] and operations [57:35] of these immigration [57:36] courts [57:37] and then also [57:38] on that [57:38] how does the budget [57:39] request support efforts [57:41] to actually modernize [57:42] this process [57:43] making sure [57:44] that we're not only [57:44] using the current system [57:45] but we're looking at [57:46] how can we be more [57:47] efficient in the future [57:48] yes thank you senator [57:49] the first answer [57:50] in reverse order [57:52] we have asked [57:53] for $37 million [57:54] to modernize [57:55] the IT programs [57:57] that the immigration [57:58] courts use [57:58] that in and of itself [58:00] will create efficiencies [58:01] that will help us [58:02] in ways that [58:04] should have happened [58:05] years and years ago [58:05] and it didn't [58:06] we're also asking [58:07] for more money [58:08] because we need [58:08] more judges [58:09] and the big beautiful bill [58:10] gave us authority [58:12] to hire a bunch [58:13] of immigration judges [58:14] and we're hiring a ton [58:15] we have a graduation [58:16] tomorrow [58:17] the largest graduation [58:18] of immigration judges [58:19] in many many years [58:21] if not history [58:22] and we're continuing [58:23] to try to find [58:24] good judges [58:26] that will work hard [58:27] and the budget also [58:29] you know [58:29] a judge needs staff [58:30] so a judge needs clerks [58:32] to help process [58:33] the cases [58:33] you know [58:34] we have almost [58:35] 500,000 cases [58:37] were processed last year [58:38] that's extraordinary [58:39] and we're getting [58:41] into the backlog [58:41] but when you have [58:43] something like [58:43] 4 million immigration cases [58:46] 4 million immigration cases [58:48] backed up [58:49] even if you cut it down [58:50] by a million a year [58:52] you're still looking [58:53] at three or four years [58:54] to catch up [58:54] but we're very focused [58:56] on doing that [58:57] we tell our new judges [58:59] they're going to be [58:59] working harder [59:00] than they've ever [59:00] worked in their lives [59:01] and we expect that [59:03] and so this budget [59:05] is really addressing that [59:07] the IT problem [59:08] and the staffing [59:09] challenge that we have [59:10] good [59:11] thank you [59:11] changing gears [59:13] a little bit [59:13] obviously we are [59:15] so proud [59:15] to see the crackdown [59:17] on crime [59:17] across the country [59:18] lowest murder rate [59:20] that we have [59:21] seen [59:21] the significant [59:23] just you know [59:24] actually getting back [59:25] to the mission [59:26] of getting the bad guys [59:27] and putting criminals [59:28] behind bars [59:29] I talked to Director Patel [59:31] about this last week [59:32] but there's great work [59:33] being done by the FBI [59:35] and DOJ [59:36] and my home state [59:37] Operation Southern Star [59:39] in Montgomery [59:40] has been significant [59:42] that's where I live [59:43] we appreciate that effort [59:45] I know that communities [59:47] across the country [59:48] appreciate the work [59:49] that you're doing [59:50] can you discuss [59:51] how this request [59:52] increase in resources [59:54] that you have [59:55] in this budget [59:55] is going to allow us [59:56] to build on the current [59:57] successes [59:58] and enhance cooperation [59:59] with state and local [1:00:00] partners across the country [1:00:02] so that we can do more [1:00:03] of what we've seen [1:00:04] in Montgomery [1:00:04] over the Operation [1:00:05] Southern Star [1:00:06] yes [1:00:07] so there is nothing [1:00:09] more important [1:00:10] than our state [1:00:11] and local partnerships [1:00:11] when it comes to [1:00:12] combating violent crime [1:00:13] nearly every violent [1:00:14] criminal that's arrested [1:00:15] by the feds [1:00:16] the feds are assisted [1:00:18] by a cop [1:00:19] or a detective [1:00:19] or a trooper [1:00:20] in that case [1:00:21] and so when we talk [1:00:22] about the work [1:00:23] that the federal government [1:00:24] and the FBI [1:00:25] and DEA [1:00:25] and marshals [1:00:26] and ATF [1:00:26] and HSI [1:00:27] have done [1:00:27] over the past year [1:00:28] we are really talking [1:00:30] about the work [1:00:30] that they did [1:00:31] partnering with the state [1:00:32] and local [1:00:32] so our budget reflects that [1:00:33] we want 2.9 billion [1:00:35] for state and local grants [1:00:37] that's money [1:00:37] that's going to go [1:00:38] to law enforcement [1:00:39] to combat violent crime [1:00:40] 12 billion [1:00:41] for our budget [1:00:42] for violent crime [1:00:44] and you said that [1:00:45] but I want to make sure [1:00:47] I'm giving props [1:00:48] to the great men [1:00:49] and women [1:00:49] of law enforcement [1:00:50] in our country [1:00:51] it worked [1:00:52] and we did see [1:00:53] meaningful reductions [1:00:54] in violent crime [1:00:55] which means [1:00:55] everybody's streets [1:00:57] are safer [1:00:57] than they were [1:00:58] a year and a half ago [1:00:59] well as someone [1:01:00] who is raising [1:01:00] two teenagers [1:01:02] and wants these streets [1:01:03] to be safer [1:01:04] particularly the ones [1:01:05] you know [1:01:06] where all these families [1:01:07] are trying to [1:01:08] build their lives [1:01:10] we say thank you [1:01:11] last question [1:01:12] I know that the budget [1:01:13] also [1:01:15] is going to stand up [1:01:17] the national fraud [1:01:18] enforcement division [1:01:19] I know that there's been [1:01:20] a lot of misnomers [1:01:21] about that out there [1:01:22] it is important [1:01:23] we make sure [1:01:24] that taxpayer dollars [1:01:24] are used judiciously [1:01:26] and the people [1:01:26] who do not do that [1:01:27] are held accountable [1:01:28] can you talk about [1:01:30] some of the work [1:01:31] that the division [1:01:31] has been doing [1:01:32] and how the funding [1:01:33] will allow DOJ [1:01:34] to continue protecting [1:01:35] Americans [1:01:36] and their hard-earned [1:01:37] tax dollars [1:01:37] yes [1:01:38] so we asked for [1:01:39] 30 million dollars [1:01:40] because we need lawyers [1:01:40] to help build [1:01:41] this new division up [1:01:42] and what we've done [1:01:43] already [1:01:44] and you've seen it [1:01:45] in the news [1:01:45] in Minnesota [1:01:47] and other locations [1:01:48] really everywhere [1:01:49] Minnesota's been a focus [1:01:50] but in every state [1:01:51] the national fraud division [1:01:53] has an AUSA [1:01:54] assigned to that division now [1:01:55] and their goal [1:01:58] is very simple [1:01:59] to find criminals [1:02:00] who are stealing [1:02:00] from the government [1:02:01] that's it [1:02:01] and so that comes [1:02:03] in the area of health care [1:02:04] but it comes in [1:02:05] in a lot of different places [1:02:07] and I expect that [1:02:09] everybody in this body [1:02:10] will be very satisfied [1:02:11] with the work [1:02:12] when I come back [1:02:13] next time [1:02:14] because it's doing great work [1:02:15] Americans are sick [1:02:16] of people not being [1:02:16] held accountable [1:02:17] so we hope that we see [1:02:19] some people actually [1:02:20] prosecuted for these crimes [1:02:22] thank you so much [1:02:23] thank you [1:02:23] Senator Merkley [1:02:24] thank you Madam Chair [1:02:27] and Senator Murray [1:02:30] do you want to jump in first [1:02:32] okay [1:02:32] thank you [1:02:34] Acting Attorney General [1:02:35] so the budget has a [1:02:36] 500 million dollar cut [1:02:38] to the COPS grants [1:02:40] those grants [1:02:41] are certainly important [1:02:42] to our local law enforcement [1:02:43] for staff [1:02:44] for equipment [1:02:45] for investigations [1:02:46] is there any particular [1:02:48] reason that you think [1:02:49] the police departments [1:02:50] need less money now [1:02:51] than they did before [1:02:53] and would you be supportive [1:02:54] if we advocate [1:02:56] for more funding [1:02:57] rather than less [1:02:58] so local law enforcement [1:03:00] much [1:03:02] and whether we would [1:03:03] I would be supportive [1:03:04] of more money [1:03:06] that you all come together [1:03:07] for local law enforcement [1:03:08] yes I will [1:03:09] I mean look [1:03:09] this budget [1:03:10] thank you [1:03:10] I appreciate that [1:03:11] there is a bill [1:03:13] called the Stop [1:03:13] Institutional Child Abuse Act [1:03:15] that senators on both sides [1:03:17] of the aisle supported [1:03:18] including Senators Tuberville [1:03:19] and Corning [1:03:20] and this is about [1:03:21] the troubled teen industry [1:03:23] where there are [1:03:24] are basically all kinds [1:03:26] of fairly unregulated [1:03:29] without oversight [1:03:30] companies [1:03:30] that say hey [1:03:32] send your teen to us [1:03:34] and we'll get them [1:03:35] on the right path [1:03:36] this institutional care [1:03:39] often results [1:03:41] in institutional abuse [1:03:42] and what we did [1:03:44] when we passed [1:03:45] and funded that bill [1:03:46] because we had both [1:03:46] authorized it [1:03:47] and then we funded it [1:03:49] was to have [1:03:50] the National Academies [1:03:51] of Science studied [1:03:52] because there's 50,000 kids [1:03:53] that are in these [1:03:54] institutional settings [1:03:55] each year [1:03:55] they're often taken away [1:03:57] in the middle of the night [1:03:58] under arrangements [1:03:59] with the parents [1:04:00] the parents think [1:04:01] they're sending their kids [1:04:02] to get help [1:04:03] but often they're sending [1:04:04] their kids into abuse [1:04:05] will you take a look [1:04:07] at this issue [1:04:08] and just kind of track [1:04:10] the National Academies [1:04:11] as they proceed [1:04:12] to study this [1:04:13] and if there are ways [1:04:14] that we can reduce abuse [1:04:16] help us find that path [1:04:19] yes of course [1:04:21] thank you [1:04:22] to follow up [1:04:23] you noted that [1:04:25] it would be up [1:04:25] to the five commissioners [1:04:27] that you appoint [1:04:28] to determine [1:04:28] whether there are [1:04:29] any guidelines [1:04:30] will you encourage [1:04:32] the folks that you select [1:04:34] to ensure that folks [1:04:36] who were convicted [1:04:37] of violent acts [1:04:38] against police officers [1:04:39] do not get compensation [1:04:41] from this fund [1:04:42] well I expect [1:04:43] they will [1:04:44] they don't have the option [1:04:45] of establishing guidelines [1:04:46] the commissioners [1:04:47] will establish guidelines [1:04:48] and so [1:04:49] will you encourage them [1:04:50] to have a guideline [1:04:51] that says [1:04:51] those who have been convicted [1:04:53] of violent acts [1:04:54] against police officers [1:04:55] are not eligible [1:04:56] I will definitely [1:04:58] encourage the commissioners [1:04:59] to take everything [1:05:00] into account [1:05:01] when determining [1:05:02] who should get compensation [1:05:03] but why not [1:05:03] this specific issue [1:05:04] of violent acts [1:05:06] convicted of violent acts [1:05:07] against police officers [1:05:07] do you feel [1:05:08] they should get compensation [1:05:09] after being convicted [1:05:11] of violent acts [1:05:11] my feelings don't [1:05:13] don't matter senator [1:05:13] in my mind [1:05:14] my mind is not limiting [1:05:16] to um to say [1:05:17] yes I will commit [1:05:18] to this or that [1:05:19] what I will commit to [1:05:20] is making sure [1:05:21] that the commissioners [1:05:22] are effectively [1:05:23] doing their jobs [1:05:24] and that includes [1:05:25] setting guidelines [1:05:26] like you're describing [1:05:27] okay I I I'm disappointed [1:05:31] that you feel [1:05:32] it's acceptable [1:05:32] that those who are [1:05:34] convicted [1:05:35] I definitely did not say that [1:05:36] definitely did not say that [1:05:38] I didn't say I found [1:05:39] it acceptable senator [1:05:40] will you agree [1:05:41] to encourage [1:05:42] those commissioners [1:05:43] to set a guideline [1:05:45] that compensation [1:05:46] will not go to [1:05:47] individuals who are [1:05:48] convicted of assaulting [1:05:51] police officers [1:05:51] I expect [1:05:52] I just a yes [1:05:53] would answer my question [1:05:54] or no [1:05:54] a yes will not answer [1:05:55] that question [1:05:56] I mean you're asking [1:05:56] whether I will encourage [1:05:57] I don't think that's a fair word [1:05:59] I don't think it's the [1:05:59] attorney general's job [1:06:00] to encourage commissioners [1:06:02] to do or not do anything [1:06:03] okay well we'll move on [1:06:04] but I will say that you [1:06:06] have complete power [1:06:07] over who you appoint [1:06:08] so you have huge influence [1:06:09] you are going to be [1:06:10] evaluating the [1:06:11] uh inclinations [1:06:13] and and attitudes [1:06:14] of those who will serve [1:06:16] and certainly this looks [1:06:18] extraordinary [1:06:18] you described it as [1:06:19] as as parallel [1:06:20] to a fund set up [1:06:22] to compensate [1:06:22] Native Americans [1:06:24] who were discriminated against [1:06:25] in the agricultural world [1:06:26] it's not parallel [1:06:28] at all [1:06:29] uh [1:06:29] President Obama [1:06:30] did not sue his own [1:06:32] Department of Justice [1:06:33] he did not have [1:06:34] a judge [1:06:35] saying [1:06:36] that [1:06:37] um [1:06:37] Williams had [1:06:38] let's see [1:06:39] let's [1:06:40] how did she put it [1:06:41] Kathleen Williams [1:06:42] the judge handling [1:06:43] the lawsuit [1:06:43] dismissed the case [1:06:44] and in her finally [1:06:45] admonished the government [1:06:46] agency [1:06:46] notably the Justice Department [1:06:48] for not being transparent [1:06:50] about the settlement [1:06:51] deal [1:06:52] Williams previously [1:06:55] assigned a group [1:06:55] of attorneys [1:06:56] to determine whether [1:06:57] there was a conflict [1:06:57] of case [1:06:58] since as sitting [1:06:59] President Trump [1:07:00] was suing entities [1:07:00] quote entities [1:07:01] whose decisions [1:07:02] are subject to his [1:07:03] direction [1:07:04] this type of conflict [1:07:05] of interest [1:07:06] did not at all [1:07:08] involved in the fund [1:07:09] set up to compensate [1:07:10] those who are [1:07:11] discriminated against [1:07:12] uh in the agricultural [1:07:13] realm [1:07:14] I want to go on [1:07:15] to the Epstein [1:07:15] investigation [1:07:16] is it closed or open [1:07:17] when you say [1:07:19] the Epstein investigation [1:07:20] what are you referring to [1:07:21] senator [1:07:21] well the FBI said [1:07:22] in in uh last year [1:07:24] in July [1:07:25] that it had closed [1:07:25] the Epstein investigation [1:07:26] so I'm just using [1:07:27] their words [1:07:28] is it open or closed [1:07:29] I don't believe [1:07:30] the FBI said that [1:07:33] the the that's [1:07:34] well [1:07:34] I mean if you're referring [1:07:35] you're you're head [1:07:35] of the department of justice [1:07:36] is the Epstein investigation [1:07:37] open or closed [1:07:38] but I I guess [1:07:39] I don't understand [1:07:39] what Epstein investigation [1:07:40] means [1:07:41] the Epstein [1:07:41] well let me put it [1:07:42] Jeffrey Epstein himself [1:07:43] yes he's dead [1:07:44] any investigation [1:07:45] into potential [1:07:46] other bad guys [1:07:48] will always be open [1:07:49] if we have evidence [1:07:50] that supports [1:07:51] in any way [1:07:52] shape or form [1:07:53] that we can make a case [1:07:54] okay so uh Trump said [1:07:56] in November [1:07:57] this is after the FBI [1:07:58] it was the FBI [1:07:59] words when they said [1:08:00] the investigation was closed [1:08:01] but what Trump wrote [1:08:03] in November of last year [1:08:05] I'll be asking [1:08:06] the Attorney General [1:08:07] Pam Bondi [1:08:08] and the Department of Justice [1:08:10] together with our great [1:08:11] patriots the FBI [1:08:12] to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's [1:08:14] involvement and relationships [1:08:15] with and he gave a [1:08:16] specific list [1:08:17] Bill Clinton [1:08:18] Larry Summers [1:08:19] Reid Hoffman [1:08:20] people at JP Morgan [1:08:22] and many other people [1:08:23] to determine what was [1:08:24] going on [1:08:24] is there a list [1:08:27] particularly targeted [1:08:28] at Democrats [1:08:30] as opposed to being [1:08:32] if you will [1:08:33] blind [1:08:34] uh blind to party [1:08:36] affiliation [1:08:37] investigations that are [1:08:38] being pursued [1:08:39] under your direction [1:08:40] the [1:08:40] the [1:08:41] any investigation [1:08:42] no matter [1:08:43] Republican [1:08:44] Democrat [1:08:44] man [1:08:45] woman [1:08:45] old [1:08:45] young [1:08:46] any investigation [1:08:47] will be open [1:08:48] if the Department of Justice [1:08:49] and the FBI [1:08:50] have evidence [1:08:50] that a crime's been committed [1:08:51] and that doesn't [1:08:52] I mean [1:08:52] you're talking about [1:08:53] you commit to pursue [1:08:54] regardless of political affiliation [1:08:56] excuse me senator [1:08:57] you commit to pursuing [1:08:58] investigations [1:08:59] free of prejudice [1:09:01] about party affiliation [1:09:03] of course [1:09:03] yes [1:09:04] well you say of course [1:09:05] but this enemy has [1:09:06] repeatedly [1:09:07] this president has repeatedly [1:09:09] spoken of an enemies list [1:09:10] that he wants to go after [1:09:12] and I must say [1:09:13] it's one of the symbols [1:09:15] of the breakdown [1:09:15] of a democratic republic [1:09:17] when a president uses [1:09:18] his Department of Justice [1:09:19] which you now head [1:09:20] to go after his perceived [1:09:21] political enemies [1:09:22] I hope you won't be party [1:09:24] to that [1:09:24] thank you [1:09:25] I mean I couldn't agree [1:09:26] with you more [1:09:27] and that's why [1:09:27] what happened when [1:09:28] during the Biden administration [1:09:29] was so disgusting [1:09:31] that is completely [1:09:32] inappropriate and wrong [1:09:33] there is no comparison [1:09:35] to the absolute [1:09:37] fair-minded pursuit [1:09:38] of justice [1:09:39] under the previous administration [1:09:40] and this administration's [1:09:42] pursuit of an enemies list [1:09:43] thank you [1:09:44] senator murray [1:09:44] I believe senator fisher [1:09:47] was next [1:09:48] yeah [1:09:50] senator fisher [1:09:52] so glad of you [1:09:53] to join us [1:09:54] thank you [1:09:56] trying to ingratiate myself [1:09:58] with the ranking member [1:09:59] of the committee [1:09:59] no you didn't see me [1:10:00] at the kiddie table [1:10:01] it's fine [1:10:02] so Mr. Attorney General [1:10:04] welcome [1:10:05] senator murkowski [1:10:07] brought up to you [1:10:09] about the consolidation [1:10:10] of the grant programs [1:10:12] and also [1:10:13] that the budget request [1:10:15] is 1.2 billion dollars [1:10:17] a cut [1:10:18] to the state [1:10:19] and local grants [1:10:20] all right [1:10:21] thank you [1:10:22] for clarifying [1:10:23] that [1:10:24] this consolidation [1:10:26] what it [1:10:27] what it [1:10:27] is intent [1:10:29] is [1:10:30] but I'm still [1:10:31] concerned about [1:10:32] the impact [1:10:32] of funding reductions [1:10:34] and what that would have [1:10:35] on our state [1:10:36] and local [1:10:37] law enforcement [1:10:38] agencies [1:10:38] so I hope [1:10:40] that you will [1:10:41] be very cognizant [1:10:42] of that [1:10:43] as you look [1:10:44] at the rural [1:10:46] and really [1:10:46] the under-resourced [1:10:48] agencies [1:10:49] that are out there [1:10:50] the will center [1:10:51] yes [1:10:51] thank you [1:10:51] in 2024 [1:10:53] I passed legislation [1:10:55] the recruit [1:10:56] and retain act [1:10:57] and that was signed [1:10:58] into law [1:10:59] and this authorized [1:11:00] law enforcement agencies [1:11:02] to use those [1:11:03] COPS grants [1:11:04] for recruitment [1:11:05] and retention [1:11:07] activities [1:11:08] it required a study [1:11:10] the study came out [1:11:12] not surprisingly [1:11:14] it identified [1:11:15] a relationship [1:11:16] between local [1:11:18] law enforcement [1:11:18] staffing levels [1:11:20] and crime rates [1:11:21] more staff [1:11:22] leads to lower crime [1:11:24] and the study [1:11:26] also found [1:11:27] that from 2019 [1:11:30] through 2024 [1:11:31] officer resignations [1:11:34] and retirements [1:11:36] have increased [1:11:37] and that's [1:11:38] obviously then a decrease [1:11:40] in officer staffing [1:11:42] so Mr. Attorney General [1:11:43] how do you anticipate [1:11:45] that DOJ's proposal [1:11:47] to consolidate [1:11:49] its grant making [1:11:50] components [1:11:51] reducing that funding [1:11:53] for that account [1:11:55] how's that going [1:11:56] to impact [1:11:57] recruitment [1:11:57] and retention [1:11:58] by those local [1:11:59] agencies [1:12:01] and how do you plan [1:12:02] to address that [1:12:03] so we will spend [1:12:06] tons and tons [1:12:07] of grant money [1:12:08] on that issue [1:12:09] and not only giving [1:12:10] money to state [1:12:10] and locals [1:12:11] to get them [1:12:12] new bodies [1:12:13] but also overtime [1:12:14] and equipment [1:12:15] which all goes [1:12:16] to keeping people [1:12:17] on the job [1:12:17] more meaningfully [1:12:18] and beyond [1:12:20] the grant program [1:12:21] itself [1:12:21] we are working [1:12:22] we are making [1:12:23] law enforcement [1:12:24] a very good thing [1:12:25] to be part of now [1:12:26] and that was one [1:12:27] of the reasons [1:12:27] that there was [1:12:28] a steep decline [1:12:29] in a lot of retirements [1:12:30] during the 2019 [1:12:31] to 2024 [1:12:32] because there was [1:12:33] this inappropriate [1:12:34] stigma [1:12:35] that law enforcement [1:12:35] or cops were bad [1:12:36] that's not the case [1:12:37] anymore [1:12:38] and so we're working [1:12:39] every day [1:12:39] we have our [1:12:40] homeland security [1:12:40] task forces set up [1:12:42] which is a partnership [1:12:43] with state and local [1:12:44] law enforcement [1:12:44] and sheriffs [1:12:45] they're getting money [1:12:46] they're getting overtime pay [1:12:47] we're thanking them [1:12:48] we're giving them cars [1:12:49] we're giving them vehicles [1:12:50] and so that's what [1:12:51] we're going to continue [1:12:51] to do [1:12:52] have you reached out [1:12:53] to local [1:12:55] local agencies [1:12:57] to see if their [1:12:58] recruitment [1:12:59] has improved [1:13:00] because I can attest [1:13:01] to disappointment [1:13:04] by many [1:13:04] by many [1:13:05] police departments [1:13:06] OPPD Omaha [1:13:08] for example [1:13:09] did see their numbers [1:13:11] really decrease [1:13:12] have you reached out [1:13:13] and have any numbers [1:13:15] on what it is now [1:13:16] regularly [1:13:17] including last week [1:13:18] during police week [1:13:19] I met with a lot [1:13:19] it's still a problem [1:13:21] we have not fixed it yet [1:13:22] I mean look at what [1:13:23] happened over the past year [1:13:24] with law enforcement [1:13:25] officers getting doxed [1:13:26] and having rocks thrown [1:13:28] at them [1:13:28] having local leaders [1:13:29] say to good [1:13:30] hardworking cops [1:13:31] you can't help [1:13:32] so this isn't something [1:13:33] that we've won yet [1:13:34] but it's a priority [1:13:35] to win that fight [1:13:36] and I'll keep on talking [1:13:38] to state and local [1:13:39] sheriffs and cops [1:13:40] and detectives [1:13:40] and letting them know [1:13:41] that we appreciate them [1:13:43] and not only with our mouth [1:13:44] but with our pocketbooks [1:13:45] as well [1:13:45] we do [1:13:46] thank you [1:13:47] last year [1:13:48] the FBI [1:13:49] and Homeland Security [1:13:50] investigations [1:13:51] announced a new [1:13:52] Homeland Security [1:13:53] task force [1:13:54] based out of [1:13:55] Kansas City, Missouri [1:13:56] and that included [1:13:58] a location in Omaha [1:13:59] and focus is obviously [1:14:02] combating trafficking [1:14:04] of humans [1:14:05] and drugs [1:14:06] and weapons [1:14:07] money laundering [1:14:08] aliens smuggling [1:14:09] homicide extortion [1:14:11] on and on [1:14:12] we did see [1:14:14] members of this task force [1:14:16] they arrested [1:14:18] a MS-13 gang leader [1:14:20] in Grand Island Nebraska [1:14:22] in the middle eastern [1:14:24] part of the state [1:14:26] the 27 budget request [1:14:29] cites the elimination [1:14:31] of the organized crime [1:14:33] drug enforcement [1:14:34] task force's component [1:14:36] and instead requests [1:14:38] appropriations [1:14:39] be made directly [1:14:41] to agencies [1:14:42] like DEA [1:14:44] and FBI [1:14:44] can you share [1:14:46] how this proposed [1:14:47] reorganization [1:14:48] is still going to [1:14:50] ensure strong [1:14:52] interagency coordination [1:14:53] so that we can see [1:14:55] a continued focus [1:14:57] on transnational [1:14:58] crime threats [1:15:00] and specifically [1:15:01] with those local [1:15:03] law enforcement agencies [1:15:05] it's very important [1:15:06] I agree [1:15:07] so look [1:15:08] we dissolved [1:15:08] the OCDF executive office [1:15:11] that is true [1:15:12] but the money [1:15:12] that we're asking for [1:15:14] the money that we're going [1:15:14] to spend [1:15:15] is exactly like [1:15:16] we've been spending [1:15:17] for a long time [1:15:18] except for more efficiently [1:15:19] so the HSTF model [1:15:20] is built off [1:15:22] of the OCDF model [1:15:23] but with a lot [1:15:24] of improvement [1:15:25] like there was a lot [1:15:25] of overlap [1:15:26] in OCDF money [1:15:28] that we are now just [1:15:29] that we're now being [1:15:30] more efficient with [1:15:31] so there is no doubt [1:15:33] as a matter of fact [1:15:34] the opposite is true [1:15:35] that we're spending [1:15:36] that same OCDF type money [1:15:38] we're spending more of it [1:15:39] and we're getting more [1:15:40] of it out to the field [1:15:41] through the Homeland Security [1:15:42] Task Force [1:15:43] and so that's what we're [1:15:44] that's the goal [1:15:46] so is that a line item [1:15:49] within your agency [1:15:51] or does it need to be [1:15:52] a line item [1:15:53] on appropriations [1:15:55] so it's a [1:15:56] to make sure [1:15:57] that it's covered [1:15:58] so it's a line item [1:15:59] through the appropriations [1:16:01] I believe [1:16:02] although I'll double check [1:16:03] that and get back [1:16:04] to you if I'm wrong [1:16:05] I will yes [1:16:06] okay thank you [1:16:07] senator fisher thank you [1:16:08] now I would like [1:16:09] to recognize [1:16:09] the vice chair [1:16:10] of the full committee [1:16:11] senator murray [1:16:11] thank you mr chairman [1:16:12] acting attorney general [1:16:14] right now families [1:16:15] are paying four or five [1:16:17] even six or seven dollars [1:16:18] for gas [1:16:19] inflation is at its highest [1:16:22] level in years [1:16:23] because of the president's [1:16:24] policies [1:16:25] but instead of helping [1:16:26] americans get by [1:16:28] president trump [1:16:29] is literally [1:16:30] using their tax dollars [1:16:33] to set up a slush fund [1:16:34] to enrich his own friends [1:16:36] on monday [1:16:38] your department settled [1:16:39] the president's lawsuit [1:16:40] by setting up a fund [1:16:42] with 1.8 billion dollars [1:16:45] and you and the president [1:16:46] will pick the handful [1:16:48] of people who decide [1:16:50] how that money [1:16:50] gets doled out [1:16:51] so let's be clear [1:16:53] what we're talking about [1:16:54] is nothing short [1:16:55] of the sitting president [1:16:57] of the united states [1:16:58] looting from the treasury [1:16:59] for his own gain [1:17:01] do you seriously think [1:17:03] this arrangement [1:17:03] is appropriate [1:17:04] the president telling [1:17:06] the federal government [1:17:07] to settle a case [1:17:08] and let him pay [1:17:09] billions to the people [1:17:11] that he chooses [1:17:12] what you just described [1:17:13] wouldn't be appropriate [1:17:14] and that's absolutely [1:17:15] not what happened [1:17:16] and that's not what's [1:17:16] happening now [1:17:17] so you just set up [1:17:18] a series of facts [1:17:19] most of which were not true [1:17:20] to say is it [1:17:21] no it's not [1:17:22] the president has set up [1:17:24] a slush fund [1:17:25] however you want to say [1:17:26] that it got set up [1:17:27] and he literally [1:17:29] will get to choose [1:17:30] through his handpicked [1:17:31] appointees [1:17:32] who gets paid that fund [1:17:34] that is absurd [1:17:35] the president did not [1:17:36] set up this fund [1:17:38] it's not a slush fund [1:17:39] it's been done many times [1:17:41] we have lots of funds [1:17:43] I heard your response [1:17:44] earlier to Senator Van Hollen [1:17:45] this is not comparable [1:17:47] to the case that you cited [1:17:48] a judge was not involved [1:17:50] this is the president [1:17:51] versus himself [1:17:53] setting up a fund [1:17:54] the judge wasn't involved [1:17:55] in the distribution [1:17:56] in the Keep Segal case [1:17:57] at all [1:17:58] it just wasn't [1:17:59] there was a single commissioner [1:18:00] that was set up [1:18:01] not five [1:18:02] and so when I [1:18:04] the judge signed off [1:18:05] on that case [1:18:06] yes it was at a much [1:18:07] later point in litigation [1:18:08] that's my point [1:18:09] that is all of our point [1:18:11] and it just [1:18:11] I just have to tell you [1:18:13] this is corruption [1:18:14] that has never been [1:18:15] more blatant [1:18:15] or more right sped [1:18:17] what is happening [1:18:18] is you write the check [1:18:19] Trump and his corny's [1:18:21] cash it [1:18:21] American taxpayers [1:18:23] who are already being [1:18:24] whacked with high prices [1:18:25] are going to foot the bill [1:18:26] that's what we are seeing [1:18:28] today and that is [1:18:29] what many of us [1:18:30] are really really angry about [1:18:32] so let me move [1:18:33] to another topic [1:18:34] this Department of Justice [1:18:37] is sending the message [1:18:39] that if you're wealthy [1:18:40] if you're powerful [1:18:42] if you are well connected [1:18:43] you won't be held accountable [1:18:45] even if you abuse children [1:18:47] you know us [1:18:48] after Congress passed [1:18:49] the Epstein Files [1:18:50] Transparency Act [1:18:51] and DOG finally [1:18:52] began to release the files [1:18:54] your department [1:18:55] exposed survivors [1:18:58] names [1:18:58] their sensitive [1:19:00] personal information [1:19:01] and even nude photos [1:19:03] while redacting names [1:19:05] of alleged perpetrators [1:19:07] of those crimes [1:19:07] the message that sends [1:19:09] is this Department of Justice [1:19:11] worked harder [1:19:12] to protect the privacy [1:19:13] of potential child abusers [1:19:15] than the survivors [1:19:17] your predecessor refused [1:19:19] to apologize [1:19:20] to those victims [1:19:21] but I want to give you [1:19:23] the same opportunity [1:19:24] to apologize [1:19:25] for the way the department [1:19:27] handled the release [1:19:29] of these documents [1:19:30] will you apologize [1:19:31] to the survivors [1:19:33] when the president passed [1:19:34] the Epstein Transparency Act [1:19:36] that was the only time [1:19:37] when the president signed [1:19:39] the Transparency Act [1:19:40] that was when we were [1:19:42] legally allowed [1:19:43] to release the files [1:19:44] prior to the passage [1:19:45] of the act [1:19:46] which you all passed [1:19:47] I agree [1:19:47] that is so not the question [1:19:48] I'm asking [1:19:49] it was the question you asked [1:19:51] you asked five or six questions [1:19:52] I'm answering them in order [1:19:53] that was one of the questions you asked [1:19:53] the question I want you to answer [1:19:56] is will you apologize [1:19:57] to the victims [1:19:58] whose names [1:20:00] sensitive personal information [1:20:02] and even nude photos [1:20:04] were not redacted [1:20:05] by your department [1:20:06] will you apologize [1:20:07] of course [1:20:07] that was [1:20:08] we never want to release [1:20:09] a single victim's name [1:20:10] that is what they are hearing [1:20:11] but can I answer the question [1:20:12] please [1:20:13] I'm asking if you'll apologize [1:20:15] so I [1:20:15] and I just said yes [1:20:16] but I wanted to [1:20:17] I would like an explanation [1:20:18] to be given to that [1:20:19] what this act did [1:20:21] is it required us [1:20:23] to review [1:20:23] over six million pieces of paper [1:20:25] in a very short period of time [1:20:27] and so 0.001% [1:20:29] we made mistakes [1:20:30] and we owned up to them [1:20:32] and the second that a victim [1:20:33] or their lawyer told us [1:20:34] that we made a mistake [1:20:35] we pulled that document down [1:20:37] and we put lawyers 24-7 [1:20:39] in being responsive to victims [1:20:41] and their lawyers [1:20:41] to make sure that we fixed [1:20:43] every single problem [1:20:44] and so yes [1:20:45] I hear your anger [1:20:46] I'm not angry [1:20:47] I'm not angry [1:20:47] I'm just making sure [1:20:48] it's understood [1:20:49] that we matter [1:20:51] their nude photos released [1:20:52] I just want to hear you say [1:20:54] I apologize to those victims [1:20:55] so as I just said [1:20:58] of course [1:20:58] any time we release [1:21:00] a victim's name [1:21:01] that shouldn't be released [1:21:01] we have failed [1:21:02] as a department of justice [1:21:03] and so we [1:21:04] we have to do everything [1:21:05] that we can to not fail [1:21:06] well I still [1:21:07] I haven't heard the words [1:21:08] I apologize to those victims [1:21:09] I'm trying to give you [1:21:09] an explanation of what happened [1:21:10] I don't think you're really [1:21:11] interested in that [1:21:12] because you keep on cutting me off [1:21:13] I have a few more questions here [1:21:15] and I want to know [1:21:16] and I know that [1:21:16] Senator Van Hollen [1:21:17] raised this [1:21:17] but I want to ask [1:21:18] will you personally commit [1:21:20] to meeting with the survivors [1:21:21] I have heard from them [1:21:23] personally [1:21:24] that DOJ refused to meet them [1:21:26] and I'm asking about you [1:21:28] I'm asking about the justice department [1:21:30] reaching out to them [1:21:32] to be heard [1:21:33] not waiting for them [1:21:34] to navigate a legal system [1:21:35] that has obviously [1:21:37] repeatedly failed them so far [1:21:39] can I answer [1:21:40] yeah [1:21:41] will you reach out to them [1:21:42] so as we have said repeatedly [1:21:43] of course [1:21:45] any lawyer [1:21:45] now if a victim has a lawyer [1:21:47] I'm not allowed to reach out [1:21:48] to the victim directly [1:21:49] you know that [1:21:49] but any lawyer [1:21:50] can reach out to the Department of Justice [1:21:52] they have [1:21:53] and I've met with many victims [1:21:54] and their lawyers [1:21:55] as has the FBI [1:21:56] as has the SDNY [1:21:57] we will always [1:21:59] always [1:22:00] meet with victims counsel [1:22:02] any victim or the lawyer [1:22:03] can come forward to the FBI [1:22:04] at any time [1:22:05] with these women [1:22:05] and I've met with them [1:22:06] and I know Senator Van Hollen [1:22:08] has [1:22:08] and so many other [1:22:09] they are personally [1:22:11] so feeling abused [1:22:13] again and again [1:22:14] again by what happened [1:22:15] to them originally [1:22:16] and now [1:22:17] but what's happening by them [1:22:18] I am saying to you [1:22:19] as a human being [1:22:20] don't make them navigate [1:22:22] a system that is impossible [1:22:24] to navigate [1:22:24] that's already abused them [1:22:26] reach out [1:22:27] and ask to meet with them [1:22:28] that is all I'm asking [1:22:29] you want me to personally [1:22:31] call the victims [1:22:31] is that what you're asking me to do [1:22:31] I can help you reach them [1:22:32] oh that would be great [1:22:34] yes because we have said [1:22:35] from day one [1:22:36] and you will meet with them [1:22:36] if I reach out to you [1:22:37] of course there have been [1:22:37] members that have done that [1:22:38] and we immediately reach out [1:22:40] to the victims [1:22:40] or their lawyers [1:22:41] when the lawyers want [1:22:42] and say they want to do it [1:22:43] we will follow up on that [1:22:45] thank you very much [1:22:46] let me ask you a few questions [1:22:49] and then we'll get to [1:22:51] Senator Reed and Senator Peters [1:22:53] and then we'll have [1:22:55] a conclusion of the hearing [1:22:56] I want to [1:22:57] oh yes [1:22:58] and Senator Gillibrand [1:23:00] excuse me for my [1:23:01] lack of peripheral vision [1:23:02] the [1:23:03] we'll make certain [1:23:04] Senator Gillibrand [1:23:05] that you are called on [1:23:06] General [1:23:08] worried about staffing [1:23:11] and operational strains [1:23:13] at the Bureau of Prisons [1:23:14] this committee [1:23:16] this subcommittee [1:23:17] and our full committee [1:23:18] has tried to help [1:23:19] in the last several years [1:23:20] and there was money [1:23:22] in the reconciliation bill [1:23:23] five billion dollars [1:23:24] to support recruitment [1:23:25] and retention efforts [1:23:26] to address the BOP's [1:23:29] maintenance backlog [1:23:31] in correctional facilities [1:23:34] in Kansas [1:23:35] and we have certainly [1:23:36] a major federal [1:23:37] and lots of state [1:23:38] correctional facilities [1:23:39] but officers, wardens, [1:23:41] stakeholders [1:23:41] continue to hear concerns [1:23:43] about staffing shortages [1:23:45] aging infrastructure [1:23:47] deferred maintenance [1:23:48] officer retention [1:23:49] long-term strain [1:23:50] placed on both [1:23:51] personnel and inmates [1:23:52] what can you tell me [1:23:55] about this budget request [1:23:57] and can you help me [1:23:59] understand the circumstances [1:24:01] you see at the Bureau of Prisons [1:24:02] in this regard [1:24:03] so thank you Senator [1:24:04] we were given a broken agency [1:24:06] when we took over [1:24:07] not enough money [1:24:08] morale was very low [1:24:10] and many of the prisons [1:24:12] needed serious repairs [1:24:13] and so the president's budget [1:24:16] this year [1:24:16] tries to rectify a lot of that [1:24:18] as did the big beautiful bill [1:24:19] the vacancy rate [1:24:21] is still 20% [1:24:23] for corrections officers [1:24:24] I talked about this earlier [1:24:25] that has to do with retention [1:24:27] it has to do with how much [1:24:28] we're paying them [1:24:28] and creating an environment [1:24:30] at the BOP [1:24:31] that they want to work at [1:24:32] and so that's something [1:24:33] we have to work on [1:24:34] we have some of the investments [1:24:36] we want to make [1:24:37] $450 million [1:24:38] to attack the vacancy rate [1:24:40] and start paying some of our [1:24:42] correction officers more [1:24:43] and then also a lot of money [1:24:47] to make repairs [1:24:48] and so these are just [1:24:49] safety repairs [1:24:50] but also structural repairs [1:24:52] at prisons [1:24:52] so that again [1:24:54] it makes sure inmates [1:24:55] are protected [1:24:56] and are safe [1:24:57] and that we're safe from them [1:24:59] and also creates an environment [1:25:01] that's safe for the staff [1:25:02] and the corrections officers [1:25:04] that are working there [1:25:05] and so it's a big number [1:25:06] but it's extraordinarily important [1:25:08] As recently as yesterday [1:25:09] General [1:25:10] I continued to hear [1:25:12] from state and local [1:25:13] law enforcement agencies [1:25:15] about their desire [1:25:16] and therefore the demand [1:25:18] for training [1:25:19] on drones [1:25:21] and counter UAS systems [1:25:23] Kansas City is a FIFA site [1:25:26] but that demand is significant [1:25:28] and can you tell me [1:25:31] how the department [1:25:32] is working with the FBI [1:25:33] to address this issue [1:25:35] and I think FIFA [1:25:37] is a significant component of it [1:25:38] but with the prevalence of UAVs [1:25:41] I think it's just a broadly [1:25:42] an issue that needs [1:25:44] to be broadly addressed [1:25:45] Yes, so we're training [1:25:48] the FBI is training [1:25:48] a ton of state and locals [1:25:49] every day [1:25:50] and we're on the clock [1:25:52] because of FIFA [1:25:53] but we're also doing it [1:25:54] beyond FIFA [1:25:55] because the UAS [1:25:57] the drones are a big problem [1:25:59] in every single state [1:26:00] in this country [1:26:00] and so we have ATF also [1:26:03] that a certain portion of ATF [1:26:05] also helps with the training [1:26:06] as well at the FBI facility [1:26:08] and we're going to continue [1:26:10] to do that [1:26:11] meaning we're going to continue [1:26:12] to offer and provide training [1:26:13] to state and locals [1:26:14] we're also asking for money [1:26:16] in our budget [1:26:16] to help shore that up [1:26:18] a little bit [1:26:19] so that we can continue [1:26:20] to not only offer training [1:26:21] but have a defense to the UAS [1:26:24] I would suggest that [1:26:26] the FBI training center [1:26:28] is over capacity [1:26:29] needs more officers [1:26:32] and capabilities [1:26:32] and if the Department of Justice [1:26:34] is interested in pursuing that [1:26:36] I'd be interested in trying [1:26:37] to be helpful [1:26:38] I'm interested in working [1:26:39] with you Senator [1:26:39] Thank you [1:26:40] Grant administration [1:26:42] I think things are getting better [1:26:44] but the Department of Justice [1:26:45] particularly in its grants [1:26:47] to local law enforcement [1:26:48] it's been a really slow process [1:26:50] this year [1:26:51] in getting the money out the door [1:26:52] Congress shut down [1:26:54] the list is long [1:26:56] for reasons that could be the case [1:26:59] but I want to give you [1:27:02] the opportunity [1:27:03] to tell me [1:27:04] that you are now positioned [1:27:05] to see that [1:27:06] local law enforcement [1:27:07] in particular [1:27:07] but grants in general [1:27:09] and those grants [1:27:10] exceed just local law enforcement [1:27:12] it's other community grants [1:27:14] mentoring grants [1:27:15] I want to make sure [1:27:17] that you believe [1:27:18] you're now positioned [1:27:18] in terms of [1:27:20] staffing and administrative abilities [1:27:23] to make that process work better [1:27:25] we are working on that [1:27:27] and you're right [1:27:28] it's been slow [1:27:29] we now have all the 25s out [1:27:31] except for maybe one [1:27:32] we're starting on 26 now [1:27:34] one program or one grant [1:27:36] one grant [1:27:37] one grant [1:27:37] it could be off [1:27:39] a couple of grants [1:27:39] but we're mostly finished [1:27:41] with that process [1:27:42] you're right [1:27:42] we didn't get the number [1:27:44] from you guys [1:27:44] until January [1:27:45] late January [1:27:46] so we had a late start [1:27:47] and we're going to turn [1:27:48] to 26 now [1:27:49] and get as much done [1:27:51] as we can [1:27:51] as you know [1:27:52] they're distributed [1:27:52] on a rolling basis [1:27:53] so it's not as if [1:27:54] there's no money [1:27:56] and then a ton of money [1:27:56] so we're trying [1:27:57] to get the wheels turning [1:28:00] as quickly as we can [1:28:01] to get money out [1:28:03] thank you [1:28:03] Senator Reid [1:28:04] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:28:06] Mr. Blanche [1:28:08] how many taxpayers [1:28:09] returns were leaked [1:28:10] by the IRS contractor [1:28:12] in the 2020 breach [1:28:13] how many taxpayers [1:28:15] excuse me [1:28:15] how many taxpayers [1:28:17] returns were leaked [1:28:18] by the IRS contractor [1:28:19] in the 2020 breach [1:28:21] I don't know [1:28:22] the exact amount [1:28:22] but a lot [1:28:23] 405,427 [1:28:27] one of them [1:28:28] was Donald Trump [1:28:29] correct [1:28:31] one of them [1:28:32] was Donald Trump [1:28:33] correct [1:28:33] it was Donald Trump [1:28:34] and his family [1:28:34] were others [1:28:35] correct [1:28:36] right [1:28:36] and Donald Trump [1:28:38] was president at the time [1:28:39] correct [1:28:40] so it was his [1:28:41] IRS department [1:28:42] that allowed [1:28:43] this breach [1:28:44] of privacy [1:28:45] correct [1:28:46] it was a criminal [1:28:47] who worked in the IRS [1:28:48] yes [1:28:48] well he was hired [1:28:52] under Trump's [1:28:53] this is one of the Trump [1:28:54] there was a criminal breach [1:28:56] that led to this [1:28:57] yes [1:28:57] very good [1:28:58] how many of these [1:29:00] 400,000 people [1:29:02] have received [1:29:02] monetary reimbursement [1:29:04] for the breach [1:29:04] I don't think any have [1:29:06] including the president [1:29:06] no they haven't [1:29:08] but you've authorized [1:29:09] the president [1:29:10] do you agree [1:29:11] the president should have [1:29:12] a reimbursement [1:29:14] correct [1:29:15] no he settled the case [1:29:16] no there's no reimbursement [1:29:17] to president Trump [1:29:18] well [1:29:20] that's interesting [1:29:22] so president Trump [1:29:23] you're going to assure us [1:29:24] president Trump [1:29:25] and his family [1:29:25] will get no proceeds [1:29:27] from this [1:29:28] correct [1:29:28] he will not [1:29:30] he will not get [1:29:31] his family will not get [1:29:32] correct [1:29:33] and who will direct [1:29:35] the disposition [1:29:36] of these [1:29:36] who gets the money [1:29:38] from the [1:29:39] from the [1:29:40] victims fund [1:29:41] well there will be [1:29:41] a commission [1:29:42] of five individuals [1:29:43] that will be set up [1:29:44] and they will [1:29:45] take in requests [1:29:46] and claims [1:29:47] and decide whether [1:29:48] to do anything [1:29:49] permission [1:29:49] who will name [1:29:50] the commissioners [1:29:50] I will [1:29:51] the attorney general [1:29:52] whoever the attorney general is [1:29:53] the attorney general [1:29:55] okay [1:29:55] sorry just to correct [1:29:57] and one of them [1:29:57] will be done [1:29:58] in consultation [1:29:59] with leadership [1:29:59] of this body [1:30:00] consultation [1:30:02] well that's good [1:30:02] but when he first [1:30:05] announced this [1:30:06] suit [1:30:07] on January 30th [1:30:08] he said [1:30:09] I think what we'll do [1:30:11] is something for charity [1:30:12] where I'll give [1:30:13] the money to charity [1:30:14] I'm talking about [1:30:16] the American Cancer Society [1:30:17] I would say [1:30:18] established [1:30:18] and respected charities [1:30:20] will you fulfill [1:30:22] the president's wish [1:30:23] that it goes [1:30:23] to respected charities [1:30:25] I'm aware [1:30:26] that he put that in [1:30:27] or said that [1:30:28] but that's not [1:30:28] ultimately what [1:30:29] the settlement calls for [1:30:30] well the settlement [1:30:31] was negotiated [1:30:32] between his lawyers [1:30:33] and the [1:30:35] Department of Justice [1:30:36] correct [1:30:36] correct [1:30:37] so his lawyers [1:30:38] did not urge [1:30:39] that they adopt [1:30:40] the president's [1:30:40] vision of giving it [1:30:42] to a respectable charity [1:30:44] I am confident [1:30:45] his lawyers [1:30:45] urged the president's [1:30:47] desires [1:30:47] obviously there's not [1:30:48] a charity [1:30:49] the order [1:30:55] that you signed [1:30:56] yesterday [1:30:57] states that the [1:30:57] government [1:30:58] pay their settlement [1:30:59] if the secretary [1:31:00] of treasury [1:31:01] has certified [1:31:02] the payment [1:31:03] is that correct [1:31:03] correct [1:31:04] is it a coincidence [1:31:06] that the general [1:31:07] counsel [1:31:08] of the department [1:31:08] of treasury [1:31:08] resigned yesterday [1:31:10] I don't know [1:31:11] if it's a coincidence [1:31:12] have you looked [1:31:13] or checked [1:31:14] have I checked [1:31:15] yeah [1:31:15] I have not [1:31:17] as to why he resigned [1:31:18] it just seems [1:31:20] to be very coincidental [1:31:21] that a high ranking [1:31:22] member of the department [1:31:23] of treasury [1:31:24] senate confirmed [1:31:25] would resign [1:31:26] the day [1:31:26] that the treasury [1:31:28] department [1:31:28] was required [1:31:28] essentially [1:31:30] to certify [1:31:32] these payments [1:31:32] well I believe [1:31:34] the IRS [1:31:35] signed the settlement [1:31:36] agreement as well [1:31:37] but yes [1:31:38] but I don't [1:31:39] I can't speak [1:31:40] to why he resigned [1:31:40] senator [1:31:41] well [1:31:42] this all [1:31:45] seems [1:31:46] to be [1:31:48] an obvious [1:31:50] abuse of power [1:31:52] by the department [1:31:54] of justice [1:31:54] by the president [1:31:55] he negotiated [1:31:57] essentially [1:31:57] with himself [1:31:58] you're his appointee [1:32:00] the IRS [1:32:01] are his appointees [1:32:02] he's the plaintiff [1:32:04] and the American people [1:32:05] I don't think [1:32:06] are surprised [1:32:07] that suddenly [1:32:07] all this money [1:32:08] is going to his [1:32:09] friends [1:32:10] or people [1:32:11] that he [1:32:12] in his orbit [1:32:13] will you ensure [1:32:15] that none of this money [1:32:16] goes to anyone [1:32:17] convicted [1:32:17] on the January 6th [1:32:18] attack [1:32:19] on the congress [1:32:19] well [1:32:21] the commissioners [1:32:22] will determine [1:32:23] who is eligible [1:32:24] to receive the money [1:32:25] who are the commissioners [1:32:27] they're not named yet [1:32:28] who will name them [1:32:29] I will [1:32:30] or the attorney general [1:32:31] it's not me [1:32:32] so [1:32:33] with the suggestion [1:32:34] of the president [1:32:35] of the United States [1:32:35] excuse me [1:32:36] with the suggestion [1:32:37] of the American [1:32:38] of the president [1:32:39] of the United States [1:32:39] your boss [1:32:40] I do not make suggestions [1:32:41] I will [1:32:41] no no [1:32:42] he won't make suggestions [1:32:43] to you [1:32:44] I have no idea [1:32:46] if he will or not [1:32:46] I really don't [1:32:48] I have no idea [1:32:49] if he will or not [1:32:49] I would be shocked [1:32:54] if he didn't tell you [1:32:54] exactly who to put on [1:32:56] and I'd be more shocked [1:32:57] if you did not [1:32:58] put them on [1:32:58] this is a travesty [1:33:03] of the law [1:33:04] in the United States [1:33:05] and the constitution [1:33:05] you had an opportunity [1:33:08] to go down [1:33:09] and talk to [1:33:10] Jocelyn Maxwell [1:33:12] and then a few days later [1:33:15] she was transferred [1:33:15] from a high security prison [1:33:17] to a very comfortable [1:33:21] I mean that's [1:33:22] very comfortable [1:33:23] it's just not true [1:33:24] she was not [1:33:25] in a high security prison [1:33:26] she was transferred [1:33:27] from a low security prison [1:33:28] to a low security prison [1:33:29] I mean you're looking at me [1:33:30] like that's [1:33:30] that's verifiable [1:33:31] well [1:33:33] I don't think [1:33:35] at the other prison [1:33:36] she had her own room [1:33:37] she had access [1:33:39] to a private shower [1:33:40] she could have [1:33:41] pet therapy [1:33:42] and [1:33:44] I don't know [1:33:45] if any of that is true [1:33:45] I'm not disagreeing with you [1:33:46] it is true [1:33:47] and you should know it [1:33:48] Mr. Attorney General [1:33:49] I should know that [1:33:49] you should know [1:33:50] whether an inmate [1:33:51] has access [1:33:52] to her own shower [1:33:52] no no [1:33:53] this is a person [1:33:55] of extra special interest [1:33:57] to the president [1:33:57] of the United States [1:33:58] he's known her [1:33:59] why did he send you down [1:34:02] to talk to her [1:34:03] he didn't send me [1:34:04] I went [1:34:05] what do you mean [1:34:06] you think President Trump [1:34:07] called and asked me [1:34:08] to go interview [1:34:09] a witness in federal prison [1:34:10] honestly [1:34:11] yes I do [1:34:11] frankly [1:34:12] because you know why [1:34:13] he didn't [1:34:13] because the deal was in [1:34:14] he needed somebody [1:34:15] he could rely upon [1:34:18] to talk to her [1:34:18] and say [1:34:19] what would she say [1:34:20] if she was asked [1:34:21] about Jeffrey Epstein [1:34:22] and you were the perfect choice [1:34:23] and you went down there [1:34:25] and suddenly [1:34:26] shazam [1:34:26] she's out of what is [1:34:28] a more confining situation [1:34:30] into a much more relaxed [1:34:36] federal prison [1:34:36] every word that I asked her [1:34:38] is recorded [1:34:40] and available to you to review [1:34:41] if there's criticisms [1:34:43] of the question that I asked her [1:34:44] go ahead and make them [1:34:45] but the president did not [1:34:47] have anything to do [1:34:48] with my choice [1:34:48] to go interview Ms. Maxwell [1:34:50] if I wouldn't have went [1:34:51] and a career would have went [1:34:52] you would have said [1:34:53] why didn't you go yourself [1:34:54] just like you expect me [1:34:55] to know whether she has access [1:34:56] to her own shower [1:34:57] so I did go [1:34:58] everyone in the United States [1:35:00] who reads the newspapers [1:35:01] know that [1:35:02] I guess you don't [1:35:04] you know [1:35:04] read things like that [1:35:05] you know [1:35:06] this whole hearing [1:35:07] I think is exposing something [1:35:08] which is to me [1:35:09] very frightening [1:35:10] you're a very gifted lawyer [1:35:12] but from my perspective [1:35:15] you have [1:35:16] very little faith [1:35:18] to the constitution [1:35:19] and the people of America [1:35:20] and you're [1:35:21] the president's consigliore [1:35:23] your perspective [1:35:24] is completely wrong [1:35:25] well I think the facts [1:35:27] will prove me right [1:35:28] thank you [1:35:29] thank you [1:35:32] Mr. Chairman [1:35:33] Mr. Blanche [1:35:34] last May [1:35:36] my staff [1:35:37] at Homeland Security [1:35:38] and Government Affairs [1:35:39] Committee [1:35:39] released a report [1:35:41] documenting [1:35:41] that the inspectors general [1:35:43] that President Trump [1:35:45] fired [1:35:45] had together [1:35:46] collectively [1:35:47] had uncovered [1:35:48] billions of dollars [1:35:49] in fraud [1:35:51] waste [1:35:51] and abuse [1:35:52] we oversee IGs [1:35:55] and believe [1:35:56] that they're [1:35:57] incredibly important [1:35:58] to hold [1:35:59] government accountable [1:36:00] which needs to be done [1:36:02] so that American people [1:36:04] have trust [1:36:04] and confidence [1:36:05] in the work [1:36:05] that we do here [1:36:06] in fact [1:36:07] it was quite [1:36:08] I thought striking [1:36:10] the study showed [1:36:11] that for every dollar [1:36:13] that we spend [1:36:14] on IGs [1:36:15] it's been estimated [1:36:17] the return [1:36:17] on that investment [1:36:18] is roughly [1:36:19] 18 times [1:36:20] what we put [1:36:22] into the IGs [1:36:23] but despite [1:36:25] the administration's [1:36:27] purported focus [1:36:28] on fraud [1:36:29] your department [1:36:30] FY27 request [1:36:32] would actually [1:36:33] cut these IGs [1:36:34] their budget [1:36:35] by nearly a third [1:36:37] these are folks [1:36:38] that have an 18 to 1 [1:36:40] return on investment [1:36:41] prior to being [1:36:42] in public service [1:36:44] I spent 20 plus years [1:36:45] in the investment business [1:36:46] if I told investors [1:36:48] this is an investment [1:36:49] I'd like you to make [1:36:50] and you're going to have [1:36:50] an 18 to 1 return [1:36:52] they would jump out [1:36:54] of their chair [1:36:54] in excitement [1:36:55] and say absolutely [1:36:56] how much money [1:36:57] can I put in [1:36:58] to get an 18 to 1 return [1:37:00] so while the request [1:37:02] and this happens [1:37:04] while you're requesting [1:37:05] an increase [1:37:05] for your overall agency [1:37:07] through the reconciliation [1:37:08] so you're going to be [1:37:09] gaining additional funding [1:37:10] which I would argue [1:37:12] requires oversight [1:37:13] as you get additional funding [1:37:14] that happens [1:37:15] every government agency [1:37:16] not just yours [1:37:17] and have a massive [1:37:18] cut of IGs [1:37:19] with an 18 to 1 ROI [1:37:21] why was that decision made [1:37:24] and how do you intend [1:37:25] to have robust oversight [1:37:26] of the department [1:37:26] when you're cutting [1:37:27] the folks who are [1:37:28] responsible for that [1:37:29] and have a brilliant [1:37:30] track record of doing that [1:37:32] with every administration [1:37:33] Democratic or Republican [1:37:35] before you [1:37:36] so I agree the IGs [1:37:38] are extraordinarily important [1:37:39] the budget that was proposed [1:37:41] it was developed [1:37:43] consulting with the IGs [1:37:44] and so this is a budget [1:37:45] that OMB and DOJ [1:37:47] worked with the IG's office [1:37:49] to come up with [1:37:50] and this was an agreed upon [1:37:52] budget from them [1:37:53] so while not [1:37:54] just because you're not [1:37:56] you're not giving more money [1:37:58] and you're even taking away money [1:37:59] doesn't mean the conclusion [1:38:00] you reached is accurate [1:38:01] which is that it's going to result [1:38:02] in less work [1:38:04] or less return on our investment [1:38:06] I just don't think that's true [1:38:07] well that makes no sense [1:38:09] of course [1:38:09] if you have one third [1:38:11] fewer folks working [1:38:13] granted maybe they're [1:38:15] incredibly more productive [1:38:16] but it's really clear [1:38:18] with an 18 to 1 return [1:38:20] investing [1:38:21] as your budget is growing [1:38:22] you're going to have [1:38:23] that kind of return [1:38:25] and it makes no sense [1:38:28] to do that [1:38:29] why [1:38:29] there's no financial sense [1:38:31] to do it [1:38:32] so is there another reason [1:38:33] you just don't want IGs [1:38:34] on the job [1:38:34] as I just said [1:38:36] the IGs themselves [1:38:37] work with OMB and DOJ [1:38:39] to develop this budget [1:38:40] in a way that made them feel [1:38:42] that they could get [1:38:43] their job done [1:38:43] so it wasn't like [1:38:45] we've got a budget for it [1:38:46] you can either take this [1:38:47] or you're going to get a lot less [1:38:49] I wasn't part of the conversation [1:38:50] but I assure you [1:38:51] I can't imagine [1:38:51] IGs are going to say [1:38:53] okay we want fewer of us [1:38:54] even though we have [1:38:54] an 18 to 1 return [1:38:55] and we're the guardian [1:38:57] to make sure that [1:38:58] people can trust [1:39:00] what happens in federal government [1:39:01] and it makes no sense [1:39:02] to me to have that cut [1:39:03] and I think it speaks volumes [1:39:06] of what this administration [1:39:09] is really focused on [1:39:11] and it's not about [1:39:11] reducing waste, fraud, and abuse [1:39:13] you don't do that [1:39:14] by decimating the IG Corps [1:39:16] we certainly saw him fire [1:39:18] a number of IGs earlier [1:39:19] and have serious concerns [1:39:20] Mr. Blanche [1:39:21] the president also signed [1:39:23] an executive order [1:39:23] on March 31 [1:39:24] directing the Department of Justice [1:39:26] the Department of Homeland Security [1:39:27] and the Postal Service [1:39:29] to take a series of actions [1:39:30] related to federal elections [1:39:32] including the creation [1:39:33] of a federal citizenship list [1:39:35] and new rules [1:39:36] on mail ballot distribution [1:39:38] that order is rightly [1:39:40] being challenged [1:39:42] in federal court [1:39:43] as these are state functions [1:39:44] but recent reporting indicated [1:39:46] that the implementation [1:39:47] of that order [1:39:47] is being coordinated [1:39:48] through the White House meetings [1:39:50] involving senior [1:39:51] Department of Justice leadership [1:39:52] including Assistant Attorney General [1:39:55] Harmet Dillon [1:39:56] so my question for you sir [1:39:58] is what is the department's role [1:40:00] in implementing [1:40:00] the March 31st executive order [1:40:03] well it's [1:40:04] I want to be careful [1:40:05] because it is under litigation [1:40:06] but it's as you just described [1:40:07] it's working with [1:40:08] other agencies [1:40:10] within the administration [1:40:11] to implement the goals [1:40:13] which I think are [1:40:14] appropriate goals [1:40:15] to make sure that we have [1:40:16] free and fair elections [1:40:17] to make sure that those [1:40:19] are implemented [1:40:20] whether it's DOJ [1:40:20] that needs to implement them [1:40:21] or some other federal agency [1:40:23] well you have other agencies [1:40:25] the same reporting [1:40:27] identified the official [1:40:28] leading the Department of Homeland Security's work [1:40:30] as you said [1:40:30] you're all working together on this [1:40:32] who now serves as the DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary [1:40:35] for Election Integrity [1:40:37] her name is Heather Honey [1:40:39] who is in that position [1:40:41] Ms. Honey's prior claims [1:40:43] were central [1:40:45] to the effect [1:40:46] to challenge the 2020 election results [1:40:49] claims as you have [1:40:50] as you know [1:40:51] have been widely disproven [1:40:53] it's not true [1:40:54] none of this stuff [1:40:55] she's a key player there [1:40:56] so my question for you sir [1:40:58] is the department [1:40:58] taking policy direction [1:41:00] either formally or informally [1:41:02] you say they are [1:41:03] from your previous answer [1:41:04] but from an official [1:41:05] whose prior work [1:41:06] was built on disproven claims [1:41:08] about a prior federal election [1:41:11] our policy direction [1:41:12] comes from President Trump [1:41:14] and his leadership team [1:41:15] so I know the person [1:41:16] you're speaking about [1:41:17] she's part of DHS [1:41:19] and certainly in meetings [1:41:20] that we have [1:41:20] about election integrity [1:41:21] but as far as whether [1:41:23] myself or Harmeet Dillon [1:41:25] take policy directions [1:41:26] we take them from the president [1:41:28] so interesting [1:41:32] a person who was part of [1:41:34] these widely disproven [1:41:36] false allegations [1:41:37] and a president who of course [1:41:38] subscribes to that as well [1:41:40] so that's what you're telling me [1:41:41] that's what's driving [1:41:42] this effort by the federal government [1:41:44] to basically [1:41:45] take powers [1:41:47] that the constitution [1:41:48] reserves for our states [1:41:50] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:41:51] appreciate it [1:41:52] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:41:58] welcome General Blanche [1:41:59] General Blanche [1:42:01] last week I took this topic up [1:42:04] with Director Patel [1:42:04] I'd like to revisit it with you [1:42:05] that has to do with [1:42:06] the work that's taking place [1:42:08] in various jurisdictions [1:42:09] across the country [1:42:10] to make them more safe [1:42:12] and I want to commend the department [1:42:13] for the work on Memphis safe [1:42:14] the task force there [1:42:16] has resulted in a 43% decrease [1:42:19] in violent crime [1:42:20] since the operation commenced [1:42:22] I think it's a shining example [1:42:24] of what happens [1:42:24] when you have state [1:42:25] and local governments [1:42:26] cooperating [1:42:27] with the federal government [1:42:29] and the dramatic improvements [1:42:31] that we've seen [1:42:31] in violent crime [1:42:32] and enhancing safety [1:42:34] are really very much appreciated [1:42:37] I just wanted to ask you [1:42:37] to take a few minutes [1:42:38] and walk us through [1:42:39] the whole of government approach [1:42:41] that you've taken [1:42:42] and how that's been executed [1:42:44] and from that [1:42:45] what lessons we might learn [1:42:47] that could be applied [1:42:47] to other jurisdictions [1:42:48] thank you Senator [1:42:49] yes in your state [1:42:50] the Memphis task force [1:42:52] is one of the shining stars [1:42:55] of law enforcement [1:42:56] over the past year [1:42:57] also DC as well [1:42:58] and the way that it works [1:43:00] is that we no longer care [1:43:01] about stats within an agency [1:43:03] the FBI, DEA, marshals [1:43:04] HSI, state and local [1:43:06] it's just one government [1:43:07] it's a one government approach [1:43:08] so what happens in Memphis [1:43:10] and what should happen [1:43:11] in every city in this country [1:43:12] is every day [1:43:13] law enforcement gets together [1:43:14] in a room [1:43:15] and they decide [1:43:16] who they're going to go out [1:43:17] and get that day [1:43:18] whether it's someone [1:43:19] wanted for murder [1:43:20] rape [1:43:21] any other burglary [1:43:23] whether it's just somebody [1:43:24] who has a warrant out [1:43:25] for their arrest [1:43:25] and then they focus on doing it [1:43:27] and they do it [1:43:28] if they need a prosecutor [1:43:29] to write a warrant [1:43:29] they go to get the prosecutor [1:43:31] to write a warrant [1:43:31] if they need a state DA [1:43:32] to help [1:43:33] because it's a state charge [1:43:34] they get the state DA's office [1:43:35] and what you saw [1:43:36] you just described [1:43:37] the reduction in crime [1:43:38] but you have streets [1:43:40] in Memphis now [1:43:41] that were unwalkable [1:43:42] six months ago [1:43:43] and that now [1:43:44] there was a few new restaurants [1:43:46] opening [1:43:46] I heard last week [1:43:47] and that's complete success [1:43:50] I wish we could do [1:43:51] what we were able to do [1:43:52] in Memphis [1:43:52] in every city in this country [1:43:53] Can we stay on that [1:43:54] for just a moment [1:43:55] because I understand [1:43:57] that there are other jurisdictions [1:43:58] in the United States [1:43:58] that are refusing to cooperate [1:44:00] is there anything [1:44:01] that we could do [1:44:01] any tool that we could provide [1:44:03] to help you with this [1:44:04] with these non-compliant jurisdictions [1:44:06] look I think one thing [1:44:07] we can do [1:44:08] is just keep on doing [1:44:09] showing the American people [1:44:10] what it looks like [1:44:12] when you do it right [1:44:12] and hopefully [1:44:13] these local politicians [1:44:15] that are doing it wrong [1:44:16] will be shamed [1:44:17] into doing it right [1:44:18] we also are [1:44:19] in many cases [1:44:20] suing [1:44:20] filing lawsuits [1:44:21] against some of these cities [1:44:22] where they're actually [1:44:23] violating the constitution [1:44:24] and violating federal law [1:44:25] in the way that they're [1:44:27] that they're treating [1:44:28] federal law enforcement [1:44:29] and the work that law enforcement [1:44:30] federal law enforcement [1:44:31] is doing [1:44:31] but all I can do [1:44:33] as the acting attorney general [1:44:34] is offer everybody [1:44:37] that we will work [1:44:39] as hard as we can [1:44:39] with our law enforcement [1:44:40] to work with the state [1:44:41] and locals [1:44:42] to combat crime [1:44:43] and that's what [1:44:44] President Trump [1:44:45] ordered me to do [1:44:46] and that's what [1:44:46] I will continue to do [1:44:47] well thank you for that [1:44:48] I would just like [1:44:49] to show my colleagues [1:44:50] I get a daily report [1:44:51] on the results [1:44:53] of what's happening [1:44:53] in Memphis [1:44:53] from your team [1:44:54] and many others [1:44:55] and it's quite impressive [1:44:56] the accountability [1:44:57] makes a real difference [1:44:58] I'd like to turn [1:44:59] to another issue though [1:45:00] one that's deeply concerning [1:45:01] I think it is concerning [1:45:02] to me [1:45:02] it should be concerning [1:45:03] to every American [1:45:04] and that's bringing to light [1:45:06] what happened [1:45:07] to the previous administration [1:45:08] the Biden Department's [1:45:09] Department of Justice [1:45:10] when they weaponized [1:45:13] the extraordinary powers [1:45:15] of your department [1:45:16] with arctic frost [1:45:17] if you think about it [1:45:20] they used this arctic frost [1:45:22] to persecute the president [1:45:24] and also go after [1:45:25] his closest allies [1:45:26] including me [1:45:27] and you know [1:45:29] I was shocked [1:45:30] to find out last year [1:45:31] that under President Biden [1:45:34] the DOJ [1:45:35] had secretly obtained [1:45:36] my phone records [1:45:37] from Verizon [1:45:38] and even though Verizon [1:45:40] was obligated [1:45:40] to let me know that [1:45:41] they chose not to [1:45:43] and when I brought [1:45:44] the problem [1:45:45] to Verizon's attention [1:45:46] all they've done [1:45:47] is tried to stonewall me [1:45:48] and we brought it [1:45:49] before the FCC [1:45:51] in the form of a complaint [1:45:52] again Verizon [1:45:53] simply continues [1:45:54] to stonewall [1:45:55] and if I think about [1:45:57] what Verizon [1:45:59] what the Biden DOJ did [1:46:01] they specifically chose [1:46:02] to ignore the fact [1:46:03] that nothing [1:46:04] can or should [1:46:05] stop a phone provider [1:46:07] from notifying [1:46:08] a member of Congress [1:46:09] when their constitutional rights [1:46:10] are being violated [1:46:11] as mine were violated [1:46:12] it turns out [1:46:13] that Verizon's [1:46:14] chief legal officer [1:46:15] Vandana Venkatesh [1:46:19] used to work [1:46:20] for Henry Waxman [1:46:21] one of the most [1:46:22] partisan players up here [1:46:24] and she is [1:46:26] the general counsel [1:46:27] I'm seriously concerned [1:46:29] at least [1:46:29] that Ms. Venkatesh [1:46:31] and Verizon [1:46:33] may have collaborated [1:46:34] with their friends [1:46:34] at the Biden DOJ [1:46:35] they never told me [1:46:37] or my colleagues [1:46:37] about it [1:46:38] because they might have [1:46:39] been worried [1:46:40] that the truth [1:46:41] would come out [1:46:41] they might have been [1:46:43] worried that that [1:46:43] would endanger [1:46:44] their plans [1:46:44] to make a $20 billion [1:46:46] acquisition [1:46:47] of Frontier Communications [1:46:49] it's contemptible [1:46:50] it's damning [1:46:51] but I think there may be [1:46:53] may have been [1:46:53] a real reason there [1:46:54] I want justice [1:46:55] to be done here [1:46:56] and I really would [1:46:57] appreciate your help [1:46:58] getting to the bottom [1:46:59] of it [1:46:59] so here's my question [1:47:00] can I get your commitment [1:47:02] that the DOJ [1:47:03] will work with me [1:47:04] and my colleagues [1:47:04] Senator Grassley [1:47:05] and Senator Johnson [1:47:06] in bringing full [1:47:07] accountability [1:47:08] to this abuse of power [1:47:09] absolutely [1:47:11] and obviously [1:47:12] Senator [1:47:12] one way we do that [1:47:14] is by the work [1:47:15] we're doing [1:47:15] to make sure [1:47:16] you all get [1:47:17] your oversight [1:47:18] responsibilities [1:47:19] as much as you deserve [1:47:21] to get the materials [1:47:22] that we're reviewing [1:47:23] and collecting [1:47:24] but then also [1:47:25] and proactively [1:47:25] the work that we're doing [1:47:26] to make sure [1:47:27] that what happened [1:47:27] never happened again [1:47:28] I mean make [1:47:29] I mean understand [1:47:29] that there are times [1:47:31] when we subpoena [1:47:32] phone records [1:47:32] we do not want [1:47:33] the bad guys [1:47:34] to know that [1:47:34] we did it [1:47:36] because we're still [1:47:36] investigating [1:47:37] but the idea [1:47:38] that that could be done [1:47:38] to a United States [1:47:39] Senator [1:47:39] and that it would be [1:47:40] okay for a prosecutor [1:47:42] to just do it [1:47:43] not even a scintilla [1:47:45] of evidence [1:47:45] anybody did anything wrong [1:47:46] and then not provide [1:47:48] notice to [1:47:48] is in some ways [1:47:50] the worst form [1:47:51] of abuse [1:47:52] by the Department of Justice [1:47:54] in fact [1:47:54] there's a constitutional ban [1:47:56] and I think a first year [1:47:56] law student should know that [1:47:57] you know [1:47:58] when AT&T was requested [1:48:00] to provide the same records [1:48:01] they saw the constitutional problem [1:48:03] they stopped [1:48:04] Verizon was willingly [1:48:05] handing over my records [1:48:07] and those of other [1:48:07] my colleagues [1:48:08] and I just asked myself [1:48:09] what was the purpose [1:48:10] what was the motivation [1:48:11] for them to violate [1:48:12] my constitutional rights [1:48:13] was it because [1:48:14] they wanted to make friends [1:48:15] with the FCC [1:48:15] maybe Ms. Venkatesh [1:48:16] to get an appointment [1:48:17] sometime later [1:48:18] I don't know [1:48:18] was it because [1:48:19] of this frontier acquisition [1:48:21] that they had in mind [1:48:22] I don't know [1:48:23] but we need to get [1:48:23] to the bottom of it [1:48:24] thank you [1:48:24] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:48:25] you're welcome [1:48:25] Senator Gillibrand [1:48:27] thank you Mr. Attorney General [1:48:28] Acting Attorney General [1:48:29] for being here [1:48:30] thank you [1:48:30] I've listened to your testimony today [1:48:32] and I have a concern [1:48:35] about your focus [1:48:36] New York City [1:48:39] was the site [1:48:40] of the last major terrorist attack [1:48:42] against the United States [1:48:42] at 9-11 [1:48:43] we benefit greatly [1:48:46] from what you've mentioned [1:48:47] this whole of government approach [1:48:48] where we integrate [1:48:51] CIA [1:48:52] NSA [1:48:53] DOD [1:48:54] FBI [1:48:55] DOJ [1:48:56] all integrated [1:48:57] seamlessly [1:48:58] NYPD [1:48:59] to keep our city safe [1:49:01] it's one of the biggest cities [1:49:03] in the country [1:49:04] it's one of the most dynamic cities [1:49:05] in the country [1:49:06] and our public safety [1:49:07] is paramount [1:49:08] but I've looked at your record [1:49:10] and I am deeply concerned [1:49:11] that you are not using [1:49:13] this whole of government approach [1:49:14] because I see you slashing programs [1:49:16] left and right [1:49:16] that we know work [1:49:17] for all certain things [1:49:18] all sorts of things [1:49:19] from drugs [1:49:19] to gun trafficking [1:49:21] to community policing [1:49:23] to cops program [1:49:24] slashing [1:49:25] so many programs [1:49:26] that I know work [1:49:27] so I want to take you through them [1:49:29] and hear from you [1:49:30] why your focus [1:49:31] isn't where [1:49:32] New York City [1:49:33] and the state [1:49:34] and the country [1:49:35] need you to be [1:49:36] which is our public safety [1:49:37] so first of all [1:49:39] do you think [1:49:39] that China [1:49:40] Iran [1:49:41] Russia [1:49:41] want to do us harm [1:49:43] and would undermine [1:49:44] our elections [1:49:45] yes [1:49:45] why did you delete [1:49:48] the whole department [1:49:49] then [1:49:49] that is supposed to [1:49:50] protect [1:49:51] against the undermining [1:49:52] of our elections [1:49:53] we [1:49:54] so we spend [1:49:55] a ton of time [1:49:56] a ton of money [1:49:57] a ton of man hours [1:49:58] a ton of resources [1:49:59] on that very issue [1:50:00] yeah but you cancelled [1:50:02] the FBI's [1:50:03] foreign influence task force [1:50:04] that's a task force [1:50:05] that's not [1:50:06] that's literally just [1:50:07] you know where the task force is [1:50:08] that's not getting rid of anything [1:50:09] I was here in 2016 [1:50:10] I know what happened [1:50:12] and after that [1:50:13] we did a whole of government approach [1:50:15] we put experts in at CISA [1:50:17] we put experts in at the FBI [1:50:19] and we put experts in at the Department of Defense [1:50:22] together [1:50:22] whole of government approach [1:50:24] they went state by state by state [1:50:26] to make sure [1:50:26] that our electoral infrastructure [1:50:28] was sound [1:50:29] however [1:50:30] your department [1:50:31] and this administration [1:50:32] has aggressively [1:50:35] fired [1:50:36] all the people [1:50:37] that were put in charge of this [1:50:38] so they were the people [1:50:39] at the FBI in charge of it [1:50:40] so why [1:50:41] have you dismissed those operations [1:50:43] where that failed [1:50:44] there were no state and local involved [1:50:46] it was all just a bunch of federal people [1:50:48] mostly out of Washington DC [1:50:49] okay [1:50:50] and the FBI agents [1:50:51] were all Washington DC [1:50:52] the way they were agents [1:50:54] not around the country [1:50:55] where we needed them [1:50:55] so the way that we're addressing it [1:50:56] by closing down that task force [1:50:58] is by having HSTF set up [1:51:01] in every single [1:51:01] including in New York City [1:51:02] every single agent [1:51:04] every single state now has a HSTF [1:51:06] and that is one of their main focuses [1:51:07] and it does work with state and local [1:51:09] I want a complete report on this [1:51:11] because I don't have confidence [1:51:12] that you are doing what needs to be done [1:51:14] because if all the 300, 400 expert people [1:51:18] that were in our previous administrations [1:51:21] multiple administrations [1:51:22] democrat and republican administrations [1:51:24] if none of them are good [1:51:25] and you're starting over from scratch [1:51:27] that doesn't sound like the recipe for success [1:51:29] I didn't say none of them are good [1:51:30] that's not what I said [1:51:31] well they've all been dismissed [1:51:32] and they've all been fired [1:51:34] in all three areas [1:51:35] that's not true [1:51:36] they have not all been dismissed [1:51:37] we fired the people from DOD [1:51:38] we fired the people from CISA [1:51:39] we fired the people at the FBI [1:51:41] they were all dismissed [1:51:42] they were not all dismissed [1:51:43] many of them are still here [1:51:44] if you ask for a briefing [1:51:45] look into it [1:51:46] and give a report to this committee [1:51:48] because I'm telling you [1:51:49] if you agree [1:51:50] that our adversaries [1:51:51] do not have our goodness in mind [1:51:54] they don't have our [1:51:55] protecting elections in mind [1:51:57] I need laser-like focus [1:51:59] on solving this problem [1:52:01] you're getting laser-like focus [1:52:02] alright I'd like a report on that [1:52:03] second issue [1:52:04] gun trafficking [1:52:05] we have been working so hard [1:52:07] as a federal government [1:52:08] to stop the flow of illicit guns [1:52:10] into our communities [1:52:11] where someone can sell [1:52:13] guns out of the backs [1:52:14] of their trucks [1:52:15] from some criminal gun dealer [1:52:19] who's trying to get these guns [1:52:21] into the hands of criminals [1:52:22] and we're supposed to get data [1:52:24] every year [1:52:24] so we can show [1:52:25] that our gun trafficking laws [1:52:26] are working [1:52:27] these new enhanced laws [1:52:28] where police officers [1:52:30] can now go across state lines [1:52:31] to do their investigation [1:52:32] why are you not giving me [1:52:34] the data about gun trafficking [1:52:35] I need to know if it's working [1:52:36] I need to know if these [1:52:37] cases are being prosecuted [1:52:39] and I can't even get data [1:52:40] out of your department [1:52:41] well the cases are being prosecuted [1:52:43] we did [1:52:44] will you give me the data [1:52:45] so I can assess it [1:52:46] I don't know what data [1:52:46] you're talking about [1:52:47] just the number of [1:52:48] number of weapons [1:52:49] that have been seized [1:52:50] the number of cases [1:52:51] that are being prosecuted [1:52:52] we keep track [1:52:54] of how many weapons [1:52:55] have been seized [1:52:56] that are trafficked [1:52:57] and I'm waiting [1:52:58] from your department [1:52:59] over a year [1:53:00] to get that data [1:53:01] to the extent [1:53:01] there's data [1:53:02] that we're required [1:53:03] will you send it [1:53:03] okay next point [1:53:05] I got like five points [1:53:06] I only get five minutes [1:53:07] next point [1:53:08] community violence [1:53:09] intervention grants [1:53:10] you are slashing [1:53:11] these community violence [1:53:12] intervention grants [1:53:12] they work [1:53:13] we know they work [1:53:14] one of them was [1:53:15] to New York [1:53:15] for 4.2 million [1:53:17] slashed [1:53:17] it prevents youth violence [1:53:19] these are programs [1:53:21] that are working [1:53:21] did you analyze [1:53:22] whether this program [1:53:23] was working [1:53:24] before you slashed [1:53:24] the funding [1:53:25] yes there's still [1:53:26] a ton of funding [1:53:27] for those programs [1:53:28] not the ones in New York [1:53:29] you just deleted them [1:53:31] delete delete delete [1:53:32] it's shocking [1:53:33] it wasn't delete delete delete [1:53:34] that is absolutely not true [1:53:35] okay well 4.2 was deleted [1:53:37] for the local initiative [1:53:38] support corporation [1:53:39] that funds [1:53:40] it's not a deletion [1:53:41] it's just that we're not [1:53:42] seeking funding for it [1:53:43] through this exact process [1:53:44] no no I'm seeking funding for it [1:53:45] I've asked for the money [1:53:46] and we've gotten grants [1:53:47] for this [1:53:48] and you've just suspended [1:53:49] this grant program [1:53:50] I'm happy to work with you [1:53:51] to make sure we're spending [1:53:52] the grant money [1:53:52] in the right way [1:53:53] I don't have any more time [1:53:54] but there's a community oriented [1:53:55] policing grant cuts [1:53:56] as well [1:53:57] the COPS funds [1:53:58] this is something [1:53:58] our police officers [1:54:00] and our community policing [1:54:01] development micro grants [1:54:02] they benefit from it [1:54:04] de-escalation training grants [1:54:05] programs that work [1:54:06] our police officers need it [1:54:08] and then drugs [1:54:09] we have an anti-heroine [1:54:10] an anti-methamphetamine [1:54:11] methamphetamine task force [1:54:15] and we need to be funded [1:54:18] and it's not being funded [1:54:19] so I just [1:54:20] it is being funded [1:54:21] absolutely [1:54:22] there's a different amount [1:54:23] of funding [1:54:24] but it is being funded [1:54:25] no no [1:54:25] you've eliminated funding [1:54:26] for both the anti-heroine [1:54:28] and anti-methamphetamine [1:54:29] task force [1:54:30] I'm sorry [1:54:32] which is the task force [1:54:34] that stops the trafficking [1:54:35] of heroin [1:54:36] fentanyl [1:54:36] and the very long word [1:54:38] I can't pronounce [1:54:39] I mean senator [1:54:40] there's nothing more important [1:54:43] to president trump [1:54:43] and to this department of justice [1:54:45] than combating [1:54:46] the illegal flora narcotics [1:54:47] so to the extent [1:54:48] that there is a particular [1:54:50] funding revenue stream [1:54:53] that is not being funded [1:54:54] the same way [1:54:54] I commit to you [1:54:56] that it is of the highest priority [1:54:57] to combat drug [1:54:58] last is the public safety [1:54:59] officer benefit program [1:55:00] you say [1:55:01] we just had police week [1:55:02] you say you stand [1:55:03] with law enforcement [1:55:04] when you do not support [1:55:06] this program [1:55:06] and when these funds [1:55:07] are not getting back [1:55:08] to the loved ones [1:55:09] who have lost their police officer [1:55:10] loved one [1:55:11] it is not right [1:55:12] I need you to focus on this [1:55:13] I need you to get this right [1:55:14] we're committed [1:55:15] thank you senator [1:55:16] thank you [1:55:30] thank you acting attorney general [1:55:32] thank you for being here [1:55:33] thank you [1:55:33] I want to talk about [1:55:35] the ATS national [1:55:36] training center [1:55:37] tracing center [1:55:37] which you know [1:55:38] is located in [1:55:39] Martinsburg West Virginia [1:55:40] I think this is a stunning [1:55:41] statistic [1:55:42] for people to realize [1:55:44] that in fiscal year 2024 [1:55:45] alone [1:55:46] the national tracing center [1:55:47] processed [1:55:49] more than 600,000 requests [1:55:52] I mean that [1:55:52] is an immense amount of work [1:55:55] it also helped to [1:55:57] identify the deranged [1:55:59] individual who attempted [1:56:00] to assassinate [1:56:02] President Trump [1:56:03] in Pennsylvania [1:56:04] so obviously [1:56:06] it's great work out there [1:56:08] but I am concerned [1:56:10] that we have to [1:56:11] prevent the release [1:56:13] of firearm trace data [1:56:14] to anyone [1:56:15] other than law enforcement [1:56:17] for investigative purposes [1:56:18] can you elaborate [1:56:19] on the importance [1:56:20] of the NTC [1:56:22] but also how it functions [1:56:23] within the ATF [1:56:25] and can you describe [1:56:26] how your budget requests [1:56:27] will sustain [1:56:28] these critical services [1:56:29] yes of course senator [1:56:31] and I agree with you [1:56:32] it is an extraordinarily [1:56:33] valuable law enforcement tool [1:56:35] but it can be abused [1:56:37] and so what the ATF [1:56:39] has to make sure [1:56:39] we're doing [1:56:40] is we're using [1:56:40] the tracing data [1:56:42] and by the way [1:56:43] it's not just for federal cases [1:56:45] it's for state [1:56:45] and local cases [1:56:46] it's for local crimes [1:56:47] and so it's a true testament [1:56:49] of the power [1:56:50] of the federal government [1:56:51] to help the states [1:56:51] we have to make sure [1:56:53] that that data is shared [1:56:54] only where it needs [1:56:54] to be shared [1:56:55] and only to further [1:56:56] law enforcement investigations [1:56:57] our director [1:56:59] is laser focused on that [1:57:01] we have the benefit [1:57:03] of having somebody [1:57:04] who's been an ATF agent [1:57:05] for two decades [1:57:06] and so we'll continue [1:57:08] to make sure [1:57:08] that not only [1:57:09] we're spending the money [1:57:10] to make sure [1:57:11] that we're successful [1:57:12] but also making sure [1:57:13] that we have guardrails [1:57:15] around it [1:57:15] so that it doesn't get abused [1:57:18] either by ATF [1:57:19] or by anybody [1:57:20] state and local wise [1:57:21] thank you [1:57:22] thank you very much [1:57:23] I want to talk about [1:57:24] the Haida task force [1:57:25] collaboration [1:57:26] I know DOJ [1:57:27] is a valuable member [1:57:28] of the Haida task force [1:57:29] and honestly [1:57:30] we had the [1:57:31] the ONDCP director [1:57:34] Sarah Carter [1:57:34] came to West Virginia [1:57:35] a few weeks ago [1:57:36] we had a round table [1:57:37] US attorneys were there [1:57:38] local partners [1:57:39] local law enforcement [1:57:40] very interesting [1:57:42] conversation [1:57:43] I personally [1:57:45] want to see [1:57:46] the high intensity [1:57:47] drug trafficking [1:57:48] the Haida program [1:57:49] stay within the White House [1:57:51] I know this may not be [1:57:53] a decision [1:57:53] that you're actively [1:57:55] involved in [1:57:56] because there's always [1:57:57] through several administrations [1:57:59] a desire to move it over [1:58:01] to DOJ [1:58:02] do you have any perspectives [1:58:03] on that [1:58:04] and what does this budget [1:58:05] have to say about it? [1:58:06] look I know that [1:58:07] President Trump [1:58:08] is going to give [1:58:08] a ton of money [1:58:09] I think over [1:58:10] 11.4 billion dollars [1:58:12] to combat [1:58:14] the drug crisis [1:58:15] and that includes [1:58:16] a lot of money [1:58:17] to Haida [1:58:17] the way that [1:58:19] the way that it's [1:58:20] running through [1:58:21] the ONDCP now [1:58:22] as opposed to [1:58:23] directly DOJ [1:58:24] doesn't make a difference [1:58:25] to how [1:58:26] to the effectiveness [1:58:26] that we can have [1:58:27] to run in these programs [1:58:28] it hasn't made a difference [1:58:29] over the past year [1:58:30] it will not make a difference [1:58:31] in the coming years [1:58:32] to the contrary [1:58:33] remember [1:58:34] another big part [1:58:35] of the drug fight [1:58:36] is DHS [1:58:37] and HSI [1:58:38] and so one benefit [1:58:39] of having [1:58:40] having it go through [1:58:41] kind of one higher place [1:58:43] is that [1:58:44] we make sure [1:58:44] we're spending the money [1:58:45] across the federal government [1:58:46] in the ways that it's smart [1:58:47] so I have had zero issues [1:58:49] with that set up [1:58:50] and I don't think [1:58:51] Administrator Cole [1:58:53] has had any issues with it [1:58:54] or any other law enforcement [1:58:55] I mean personally [1:58:56] I think the issue [1:58:57] is so large [1:58:57] and you heard [1:58:58] Senator Gillibrand [1:58:59] talking about it [1:58:59] in New York [1:59:00] our state has [1:59:01] a particular issue [1:59:02] and I'm so pleased [1:59:05] with the president's [1:59:06] southern border initiatives [1:59:08] fentanyl seizures [1:59:10] are way [1:59:11] are down [1:59:12] meaning less fentanyl [1:59:13] into the country [1:59:14] but it's just [1:59:14] such a devastating [1:59:15] and terrifying [1:59:17] drug [1:59:19] that's killing [1:59:19] too many people [1:59:20] I did want to make [1:59:22] I noticed in your opening statement [1:59:23] you made a comment [1:59:24] about the Bureau of Prisons [1:59:24] I just had a conversation [1:59:26] with my fellow [1:59:26] West Virginian [1:59:27] Billy Marshall [1:59:28] who's head of the BOP [1:59:29] I am in full support [1:59:31] of the $10 billion request [1:59:32] that you've made [1:59:34] he's made great strides [1:59:35] there in getting good leadership [1:59:36] and they're safer [1:59:38] we have several [1:59:38] federal prisons [1:59:39] in and around [1:59:41] West Virginia [1:59:41] and not only are [1:59:43] the staff safer [1:59:44] but the inmates [1:59:46] are safer as well [1:59:47] and I would encourage you [1:59:49] to keep pounding that drum [1:59:51] we will [1:59:51] thank you senator [1:59:52] let me ask you a question [1:59:53] in the last few minutes [1:59:55] that I have [1:59:55] there's a few seconds [1:59:57] alright jeez [1:59:58] there's always a headline [2:00:01] about assistant attorney general [2:00:03] leaves DOJ [2:00:04] and it sounds [2:00:05] you know like [2:00:06] it's a political statement [2:00:09] rather than [2:00:09] or a lack of confidence statement [2:00:11] or doesn't like the way [2:00:12] the direction [2:00:13] that the department is going [2:00:15] and I know you see this [2:00:17] the public reports [2:00:18] isn't this [2:00:19] the way it's always been [2:00:20] at DOJ [2:00:21] people moving in and out [2:00:23] and you yourself [2:00:24] were at DOJ [2:00:25] at one point [2:00:26] before you went into [2:00:27] private practice [2:00:27] I don't know [2:00:28] if you want to talk about [2:00:29] at the upper echelons [2:00:31] of your leadership team [2:00:32] where you see this going [2:00:34] and is it a political statement [2:00:36] or is it [2:00:37] the cost of doing business [2:00:39] and ebb and flow [2:00:40] of workforce [2:00:41] I think we have a great team [2:00:43] and not only DOJ [2:00:45] but President Trump's [2:00:46] entire administration [2:00:47] that necessarily means [2:00:48] that sometimes people come in [2:00:49] and sometimes people leave [2:00:50] I was a federal prosecutor [2:00:51] until I had no money left [2:00:54] and I had to go to the private sector [2:00:55] and I think there's pressures on family [2:00:58] and there's [2:00:59] so it's not a political statement [2:01:02] I think the president has assembled [2:01:03] a phenomenal cabinet [2:01:04] and the cabinet has then assembled leadership [2:01:07] that I think is every day working hard [2:01:09] to fulfill the president's agenda [2:01:11] and when it comes to DOJ [2:01:12] to make America safe again [2:01:13] and so my team [2:01:15] that works at DOJ [2:01:18] some of them will save for four years [2:01:20] and some of them will probably leave [2:01:21] in the next month or two [2:01:22] and that's natural [2:01:23] and all we can do is thank them [2:01:25] for their public service [2:01:26] and to keep on hiring great people [2:01:28] thank you for your service [2:01:31] thank you [2:01:31] thank you [2:01:31] thank you Senator Capito [2:01:32] we're going to conclude this hearing [2:01:34] in just a moment [2:01:35] Senator Van Hollen and I [2:01:36] have the practice of like [2:01:37] wrapping up our thoughts [2:01:39] with questions or statements [2:01:40] and then we'll conclude [2:01:43] I'm in a particular hurry [2:01:45] to get to the defense appropriation [2:01:47] subcommittee [2:01:47] to ask questions there [2:01:48] so if I quit explaining [2:01:51] what we're going to do [2:01:52] I'll get there sooner [2:01:52] and I now recognize [2:01:53] Senator Van Hollen [2:01:54] thank you [2:01:56] thank you Mr. Chairman [2:01:57] Mr. Blanche [2:01:58] in response to Senator Coon [2:02:00] saying that Capitol Hill [2:02:02] police officers were worried [2:02:04] that people who assaulted them [2:02:06] on January 6th [2:02:08] might benefit from a slush fund [2:02:11] you said that couldn't be true [2:02:14] because it hadn't been set up [2:02:17] I didn't say it couldn't be true [2:02:18] Senator [2:02:18] I didn't say it couldn't be true [2:02:19] it was surprising it was true [2:02:21] ah okay [2:02:21] so it is very possible [2:02:24] that people have been anticipating [2:02:27] getting payments [2:02:28] from the administration [2:02:29] people who were part [2:02:31] of the attack [2:02:31] on the Capitol [2:02:32] on January 6th [2:02:34] right [2:02:34] you're asking me [2:02:35] to speculate [2:02:36] on the possibility [2:02:37] of something [2:02:37] have you not heard [2:02:38] of anybody anticipating [2:02:39] getting payments [2:02:40] from that [2:02:41] no I haven't [2:02:43] I don't know [2:02:44] what that means actually [2:02:44] but I won't speculate [2:02:46] I want to put it [2:02:47] in the record [2:02:48] submit for the record [2:02:49] a January 2026 [2:02:51] Washington Post story [2:02:53] a long story [2:02:54] entitled [2:02:56] for many January 6th rioters [2:02:57] a pardon from Trump [2:02:58] wasn't enough [2:02:59] and it goes on to quote [2:03:01] the President of the United States [2:03:02] when asked about these payments [2:03:04] said [2:03:05] a lot of people in government [2:03:07] now talk about it [2:03:08] because a lot of people [2:03:09] in government [2:03:10] really like that group of people [2:03:12] unquote [2:03:12] referring to the January 6th rioters [2:03:14] are you not aware [2:03:15] of that statement [2:03:15] from the President [2:03:16] I have never read [2:03:17] the Washington Post [2:03:18] well I can tell you [2:03:20] that there are a lot of people [2:03:21] I accept that you read it [2:03:23] for a long time [2:03:23] who've been anticipating payments [2:03:25] you're not aware of that [2:03:26] in fact when I asked [2:03:28] you're telling me [2:03:29] there's a lot of people [2:03:30] that were anticipating payments [2:03:31] yes [2:03:31] no [2:03:31] well [2:03:32] I'm not aware [2:03:33] okay [2:03:33] well Mr. Attorney General [2:03:35] you are in a bubble [2:03:36] because the reality [2:03:38] because I don't read [2:03:39] the Washington Post [2:03:39] no [2:03:40] no no [2:03:41] obviously you should be in touch [2:03:42] with some of these [2:03:43] these folks [2:03:44] because [2:03:44] I asked you specifically [2:03:47] about an individual [2:03:49] who had [2:03:50] molested kids [2:03:52] and been convicted [2:03:53] about [2:03:54] his anticipation [2:03:55] of getting a payment [2:03:56] and you said [2:03:57] that couldn't be true [2:03:58] in fact that was a lie [2:03:59] I want to read you [2:04:00] I didn't say that [2:04:01] I got the transcript right [2:04:02] good [2:04:02] you said [2:04:04] it was obvious [2:04:05] I'm obviously lying [2:04:06] the question [2:04:06] because there's no way [2:04:07] the person committed to that [2:04:09] because the slush fund [2:04:10] did not exist [2:04:11] that's what you said [2:04:12] I'm going to read from you [2:04:13] Mr. Attorney General [2:04:14] an affidavit [2:04:15] from the [2:04:16] Hernando County [2:04:18] Florida [2:04:18] Sheriff's Office [2:04:19] and I want you to listen [2:04:21] carefully to what [2:04:22] this police officer said [2:04:24] about this criminal [2:04:26] criminal named Andrew [2:04:28] pardoned by the president [2:04:29] now being charged [2:04:31] for child molestation [2:04:32] he says [2:04:34] Andrew also told [2:04:36] that since he was pardoned [2:04:37] for storming the Capitol [2:04:38] on January 6th 2021 [2:04:40] and he was being awarded [2:04:42] 10 million dollars [2:04:44] as a result of being [2:04:45] a January Sixer [2:04:47] Andrew did tell [2:04:49] that he would be putting [2:04:50] him in his will [2:04:51] referring to one of the [2:04:52] victims of his molestation [2:04:53] he would be putting him [2:04:55] in his will [2:04:55] to take any money [2:04:57] he had left over [2:04:58] this tactic [2:04:59] was believed to be used [2:05:01] to keep from exposing [2:05:02] what Andrew had done to him [2:05:04] signed under penalty [2:05:06] of perjury [2:05:07] by someone in the [2:05:08] sheriff's office [2:05:09] and you're telling me [2:05:10] you don't know about [2:05:11] all these people [2:05:12] who have been signaled [2:05:13] by the president [2:05:14] of the United States [2:05:15] and others [2:05:15] that they're going to get payments [2:05:16] I think that that's [2:05:17] what you just read [2:05:18] is disgusting [2:05:19] I'm very horrible [2:05:20] that that happened [2:05:21] but that's not what I said [2:05:23] you can say [2:05:24] you're telling me [2:05:25] and then make up something [2:05:26] that I'm not saying [2:05:27] or you can let me speak [2:05:28] Mr. Attorney General [2:05:29] I'm reading from the statement here [2:05:30] I got a transcript [2:05:31] of what we [2:05:32] exchanged earlier [2:05:33] and you essentially said [2:05:34] well you're obviously [2:05:35] lying in your question [2:05:36] because there's no way [2:05:36] this person committed to that [2:05:38] because the slush fund [2:05:39] of which you called it [2:05:40] did not exist [2:05:41] just as you suggested [2:05:42] right [2:05:42] and it's true [2:05:44] that even the affidavit [2:05:46] that you just read [2:05:47] said that he would be awarded [2:05:48] but this criminal [2:05:49] suggested he would be awarded [2:05:50] 10 million dollars [2:05:51] now you're playing [2:05:51] absolute word games [2:05:53] I am not playing a word game [2:05:54] of course you are [2:05:55] because people [2:05:55] are anticipating [2:05:56] and also words matter [2:05:56] words matter [2:05:57] so if you're going to quote me [2:05:58] quote me accurately [2:05:59] Mr. Chairman [2:06:00] I'd like to put in the record [2:06:01] January 6th writer [2:06:03] pardoned by Trump [2:06:04] was sentenced to life [2:06:05] in prison for child abuse [2:06:06] pardoned Capitol Hill writer [2:06:08] tried to bribe [2:06:09] child sex victim [2:06:10] with promise of January 6th payout [2:06:11] and I will close with this [2:06:12] Mr. Attorney General [2:06:14] you can't tell us today [2:06:16] that this individual [2:06:18] would not be eligible [2:06:20] for a payout [2:06:21] from this fund [2:06:22] I find that obscene [2:06:23] and I'm going to ask you [2:06:24] one last time [2:06:25] you keep comparing this case [2:06:27] to the Keep Eagle case [2:06:30] in that case [2:06:31] as you've admitted [2:06:32] a judge ultimately signed off [2:06:33] I'm asking you [2:06:35] before you proceed [2:06:35] with this fund [2:06:36] will you have a federal judge [2:06:38] sign off on it [2:06:39] I didn't compare the cases [2:06:40] what I said is [2:06:41] the commission [2:06:41] that we set up yesterday [2:06:42] is nearly identical [2:06:44] to the commission [2:06:45] that was set up [2:06:45] during Keeps Eagle [2:06:46] so please [2:06:47] you repeatedly put words [2:06:48] in my mouth [2:06:49] and then you say [2:06:50] oh I'm playing words [2:06:51] words matter [2:06:52] Mr. General [2:06:52] they do matter [2:06:53] you said they were [2:06:54] I got [2:06:55] look the transcript [2:06:56] will speak first [2:06:57] it will [2:06:57] but you [2:06:58] but you compared [2:06:59] in your own release [2:07:00] in the Department of Justice [2:07:02] own release [2:07:02] you compared it [2:07:03] to this case [2:07:03] and in this case [2:07:04] a judge signed [2:07:05] my final question [2:07:06] I am comparing [2:07:06] will you agree [2:07:07] as they did in that case [2:07:09] that before you proceed [2:07:10] with this fund [2:07:10] a federal judge [2:07:12] will sign off [2:07:12] and approve it [2:07:13] will you agree to that [2:07:14] federal judge [2:07:14] so there's no mechanism [2:07:16] actually there is [2:07:17] a federal judge [2:07:17] presiding over this case [2:07:19] the case was dismissed [2:07:21] by the judge last night [2:07:22] yeah because you moved [2:07:23] to create this fund [2:07:24] I didn't move [2:07:25] I did not move [2:07:26] the settlement result [2:07:27] Mr. Attorney General [2:07:28] come on [2:07:29] so let me [2:07:30] let me [2:07:30] so you're not going to [2:07:31] you're not going to [2:07:32] submit this proposal [2:07:34] to any federal judge [2:07:35] or independent [2:07:36] there is no judge [2:07:37] any independent authority [2:07:38] an independent [2:07:39] what does that mean [2:07:39] an independent authority [2:07:40] what does that mean [2:07:41] it's not somebody [2:07:41] who's getting to pick [2:07:42] five of the members [2:07:43] who is the president's [2:07:44] former personal attorney [2:07:46] that would be somebody [2:07:47] who would be independent [2:07:48] I'm the acting [2:07:49] Attorney General [2:07:49] okay [2:07:50] the fact that I used [2:07:51] to be President Trump's [2:07:52] lawyer is just a fact [2:07:54] but I'm the acting [2:07:55] Attorney General [2:07:55] so don't say the [2:07:56] president's former [2:07:56] personal lawyer [2:07:57] will do something [2:07:58] the acting Attorney General [2:07:59] will do something [2:08:00] Mr. Attorney General [2:08:00] you are acting today [2:08:02] like the president's [2:08:03] personal attorney [2:08:03] and that's the whole problem [2:08:05] you've got his whole [2:08:06] you have a whole banner [2:08:08] of his face [2:08:09] hanging over [2:08:10] the Department of Justice [2:08:11] and you and everybody else [2:08:12] walks under it [2:08:13] and you are acting [2:08:14] like you're his current [2:08:15] personal attorney [2:08:17] Mr. Chairman [2:08:17] I have no further questions [2:08:18] Attorney General [2:08:21] let me ask this question [2:08:24] in this regard to the fund [2:08:25] is there in your mind [2:08:27] a nature or a description [2:08:30] of the individuals [2:08:31] that you hope to find [2:08:33] to serve [2:08:34] on that board [2:08:37] that makes the decisions [2:08:38] that we're talking about [2:08:39] yeah we want [2:08:40] we want people [2:08:41] who will have the ability [2:08:43] to evaluate [2:08:44] I mean with a couple [2:08:45] of the questions [2:08:45] from the senator [2:08:46] and from others today [2:08:47] evaluate whether [2:08:48] somebody who's applying [2:08:49] for compensation [2:08:51] is entitled to it [2:08:52] and if they are entitled [2:08:53] to it [2:08:54] what amount [2:08:55] and how to go [2:08:56] about doing that [2:08:57] so we expect [2:08:58] there'll be experienced [2:08:59] people [2:08:59] it'll be public [2:09:00] people can be critical [2:09:01] if they so choose [2:09:02] and so we haven't come up [2:09:03] with names yet [2:09:04] and we will [2:09:05] I think we have 30 days [2:09:06] to do so [2:09:06] and when we have the names [2:09:08] we'll announce them [2:09:09] and what's the standard [2:09:10] by which a determination [2:09:11] is made that compensation [2:09:13] should be had [2:09:14] so in the broadest sense [2:09:16] it's weaponization [2:09:17] it's not limited to Republicans [2:09:19] it's not limited to Democrats [2:09:20] it's not limited to January 6th defendants [2:09:23] it's limited only by the term weaponization [2:09:26] and so I expect that the commissioners [2:09:28] and what I expect they will do [2:09:30] because they'll have to [2:09:31] is set up guidelines [2:09:32] and set up procedures [2:09:34] for individuals to apply for that [2:09:36] the weaponization [2:09:37] then gets defined [2:09:39] could be [2:09:39] I assume you can't expand [2:09:41] the word weaponization [2:09:42] but you can narrow [2:09:44] where it seems to be [2:09:45] most applicable [2:09:46] where the weaponization [2:09:49] if it occurred [2:09:50] is the most egregious [2:09:51] make [2:09:52] is there some kind of standard [2:09:54] by which you would evaluate [2:09:55] a case-by-case basis [2:09:56] I think there has to be standards [2:09:58] and I think it is a case-by-case basis [2:10:00] I think that it will depend on [2:10:02] but by [2:10:03] when you say there's a standard [2:10:04] and then say it's case-by-case [2:10:06] that's the issue [2:10:07] right [2:10:07] is that the case [2:10:08] the case-by-case analysis [2:10:09] is what's going to have to be done [2:10:11] and I expect that it will be done [2:10:14] I mean I think it's telling [2:10:15] that everybody on the left [2:10:18] and everybody in the liberal side of the media [2:10:20] immediately says it's a slush fund [2:10:22] for President Trump's friends [2:10:23] if anything else [2:10:25] that's an outright admission [2:10:27] that they know [2:10:28] that the people that really had [2:10:29] this Department of Justice [2:10:30] weaponized against them [2:10:31] were President Trump [2:10:33] and his friends [2:10:33] but that is not [2:10:35] what the commission says [2:10:36] that is not what the [2:10:37] what the AG order [2:10:38] that I signed yesterday says [2:10:40] it does not limit it [2:10:41] to President Trump [2:10:42] or President Trump's friends [2:10:43] to the contrary [2:10:44] President Trump isn't taking a dime [2:10:46] and so [2:10:46] the fact that there's a view [2:10:49] that this slush fund [2:10:50] which it's not [2:10:51] is going to be only given [2:10:53] to Republicans [2:10:54] or friends of the President [2:10:55] is one, not true [2:10:58] but two, it's very telling [2:11:00] that that's the reaction [2:11:01] from Democrats [2:11:02] because it proves the point [2:11:04] that President Trump [2:11:05] has been saying [2:11:06] for a very long time [2:11:07] which happens to be true [2:11:08] which was for the first time [2:11:10] in our nation's history [2:11:11] you had an administration seek [2:11:13] to destroy [2:11:14] the previous administration [2:11:16] not just President Trump [2:11:17] anybody that came in contact [2:11:19] with him [2:11:19] I've said it before [2:11:20] but you're talking about [2:11:21] his gardeners [2:11:22] being put in the grand jury [2:11:23] his secret service detail [2:11:25] being put multiple times [2:11:26] in the grand jury [2:11:27] that's what the last administration [2:11:28] did to try to destroy [2:11:30] President Trump [2:11:30] and he has said publicly [2:11:32] and I very much agree with him [2:11:35] that he doesn't want this [2:11:36] to ever happen again [2:11:37] to anybody [2:11:37] and so how do you go about [2:11:39] making sure it doesn't happen [2:11:40] again to anybody [2:11:41] well, you change the culture [2:11:43] which is what we're doing [2:11:43] you also set up a mechanism [2:11:46] where people that did [2:11:47] have it weaponized [2:11:47] have this Department of Justice [2:11:49] and this federal government [2:11:50] weaponized against them [2:11:51] can apply [2:11:52] does it mean they're going [2:11:53] to get money? [2:11:53] No, it doesn't mean [2:11:54] they're going to get money [2:11:55] it just invites them to apply [2:11:56] and they make a case [2:11:59] of some kind [2:11:59] to meet some standard, right? [2:12:01] Yes [2:12:02] and you know [2:12:02] there's a flaw in the legal system [2:12:04] because this legal system [2:12:05] was not set up [2:12:06] to compensate [2:12:07] for what the Democrats [2:12:09] and what Biden [2:12:09] and what Garland did [2:12:11] for four years [2:12:13] it doesn't know [2:12:14] how to cope with the fact [2:12:15] that hundreds and hundreds [2:12:16] of administration officials [2:12:18] had their phones [2:12:18] taken from them [2:12:19] members of the Senate [2:12:21] had their phone records [2:12:24] subpoenaed [2:12:25] and weren't told about it [2:12:26] the system isn't [2:12:27] set up for that [2:12:28] In answers to questions [2:12:30] previously put before you [2:12:32] this morning [2:12:33] you took [2:12:35] I assume [2:12:36] because what the settlement [2:12:37] agreement says [2:12:38] you eliminated [2:12:40] certain individuals [2:12:41] from being qualified [2:12:42] to receive benefits [2:12:44] from this fund [2:12:45] what's the list [2:12:46] of those individuals? [2:12:48] Well the plaintiffs [2:12:49] in the underlying lawsuit [2:12:50] have agreed to accept [2:12:51] an apology [2:12:51] so that's President Trump [2:12:53] and his sons [2:12:54] I believe [2:12:55] and otherwise [2:12:57] there is no limitation [2:12:58] so whether you're [2:13:00] Hunter Biden [2:13:00] or whether you're [2:13:02] another individual [2:13:03] who believed [2:13:03] they were a victim [2:13:04] of weaponization [2:13:05] they can all apply [2:13:07] to this fund [2:13:09] and again [2:13:09] it doesn't mean [2:13:10] the commissioners [2:13:11] will agree [2:13:11] it doesn't mean [2:13:13] that they're getting [2:13:14] 10 million dollars [2:13:15] or whatever [2:13:15] was just read [2:13:16] a few minutes ago [2:13:16] it just means [2:13:17] that you can apply [2:13:18] And the decision [2:13:19] by the commission [2:13:20] is by a majority? [2:13:22] Yes [2:13:23] Three of five? [2:13:23] Correct [2:13:24] And finally [2:13:26] this issue [2:13:27] while it's of interest [2:13:28] to all of us [2:13:30] as United States senators [2:13:31] this committee [2:13:32] has no jurisdiction [2:13:33] over this issue [2:13:34] in a sense [2:13:35] because this is [2:13:36] mandatory spending [2:13:37] have you had [2:13:38] conversations [2:13:39] with Senator Durbin [2:13:40] or Senator Grassley [2:13:41] or the Judiciary Committee? [2:13:44] I have not had [2:13:45] conversations [2:13:45] over the past [2:13:46] you know [2:13:46] 24 hours about this [2:13:47] no I have not [2:13:48] General anything [2:13:51] you'd like to add [2:13:52] to what you've said [2:13:52] today or take away [2:13:54] from whatever you said [2:13:55] today? [2:13:55] No just thank you [2:13:57] and the committee [2:13:57] for their time today [2:13:58] There are no further [2:14:01] questions [2:14:01] Senators may submit [2:14:02] additional questions [2:14:03] for the subcommittee's [2:14:04] official hearing record [2:14:05] we request that [2:14:06] the Attorney General [2:14:07] respond to those [2:14:08] questions within 30 days [2:14:10] the subcommittee [2:14:11] stands at recess [2:14:12] to the call of the chair [2:14:13] that [2:14:37] you