Acting US AG Todd Blanche testifies before Senate Appropriations Subcommittee

[0:00] Let me do that again. The FBI, U.S. Marshal Service, ATF, and DEA. [0:04] That was a very good hearing, General, and I appreciate your allowing their presence here in advance of your appearance today. [0:13] I appreciate the Department's participation as we work to complete our budget hearings and draft the FY27CJS bill. [0:19] Attorney Blanche, I appreciate your support for law enforcement in the states, and I look forward to welcoming you to Kansas in the future. [0:29] Overall, DOJ is requesting an increase of approximately $4.7 billion, or roughly 12 to 13 percent, above FY26 enacted levels. [0:39] Much of that request reflects the reality that after several years of effectively flat funding, all while facing inflationary costs, [0:47] many of the Department's components were under significant strain. [0:51] Last year, I worked with my colleagues. This committee worked together to maintain critical funding for both federal law enforcement agencies [0:57] and the state and local departments that continue to serve as the backbone of public safety in communities across Kansas and the country. [1:05] Attorney General, I saw the note in your written remarks about what a serious challenge FY26 resources have been and will continue to be. [1:13] I particularly understand the enormous strain that the Bureau of Prisons, the One Beautiful Bill Act, provided $5 billion to BOP [1:21] for both recruitment and retention of staff and to address severe maintenance backlog. [1:26] Additionally, the Department is requesting an increase of $2.2 billion, or 27 percent, for BOP. [1:34] I assume that this reflects serious ongoing resource challenges. [1:39] At the same time, I have some concerns about cuts proposed to the Department's three grant-making offices. [1:43] The grants administered by these offices provide significant support for state and local law enforcement, [1:49] juvenile delinquency prevention, support for victims, and the safety of our nation's police and deputy sheriffs. [1:54] For example, this budget proposes a cut to youth mentoring programs. [1:59] This would have a significant impact on those organizations that mentor and operate in Kansas and across the country. [2:06] Veteran treatment courts have been a program that I've been particularly interested in. [2:11] Again, as I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs, I've worked closely with many in Kansas [2:16] and across the country in regard to VTCs. [2:20] The Violence Against Women program is facing a cut which would have serious impacts on victims, [2:25] and the services provided to victims through organizations such as the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. [2:32] I agree the Department requires additional resources to fulfill its mission and keep our communities safe. [2:38] This is especially true for our federal law enforcement agencies, U.S. Attorney's offices, and the Bureau of Prisons. [2:45] As this committee evaluates the Department's request, we also have a responsibility to examine whether reductions [2:50] to many of these community-based programs could ultimately place additional strains on law enforcement [2:54] and local communities in the longer term. [2:58] Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the Department's resource needs and your FY27 request, [3:05] and I would recognize Senator Van Hollen for his opening statement. [3:08] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, welcome. [3:11] The Acting Attorney General is supposed to be the people's lawyer and defend the rule of law [3:18] and not act as the President's personal lawyer. [3:22] But in this administration, the Department of Justice is solely focused on pleasing one man, [3:28] no matter the cost, lest anyone forget, huge banners with Donald Trump's face [3:34] hang from both sides of the main justice building. [3:38] This is the big banner of Donald Trump on one side of it. [3:43] So that every single person who enters that building [3:47] will see it and remember exactly what that man wants them to do. [3:52] You're his former personal attorney, and you know exactly what he wants. [3:56] In fact, he often posts it right here on social media, his Truth Social account. [4:02] He wants to weaponize the Department for his own political ends. [4:06] And right from the start, you and your cohorts have worked to deliver what he wants, [4:12] doing his political dirty work. [4:14] Two days ago, you even suggested that there was, quote, [4:18] a ton of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. [4:22] And here you are at a budget hearing asking for taxpayer funds to pursue the Department's mission [4:28] when you're using those funds to punish Trump's adversaries, reward his friends, [4:33] and pursue his personal vendettas. [4:36] It began with pardoning the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th [4:41] and assaulted police officers. [4:43] The revenge continued with the firing of more than a dozen lawyers who represented [4:48] the Justice Department in those cases. [4:52] Yesterday, you created a $1.8 billion slush fund to dole out taxpayer dollars to the president's supporters, [5:00] including those who attacked this Capitol on January 6th. [5:04] That is pure theft of public funds. [5:08] And rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. [5:13] Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme. [5:18] You have also misspent resources on the blatant political prosecutions of James Comey and others. [5:24] You couldn't find a single career lawyer to bring the first case against Comey. [5:29] And lawyers resigned rather than participate in that charade. [5:33] Now you've launched a ludicrous, vindictive prosecution in the Seashell case. [5:37] It's a shameful dereliction of your duty to pursue impartial justice without fear or favor. [5:44] You've also brought criminal charges against journalists who were doing their jobs in Minneapolis. [5:49] You've refused to hold accountable the DHS agents who shot and killed Renee Good. [5:54] Instead, while members of the administration called both Renee Good and Alex Preddy domestic terrorists, [6:00] you ordered a criminal investigation of Renee Good's partner. [6:05] Hardworking professional attorneys resigned rather than engage in that abuse of power. [6:11] Others in the department have been fired for telling the truth to the courts. [6:15] An insidious message to send to officers of the court. [6:19] You have fired immigration judges who rendered decisions the administration didn't like. [6:24] More gross political interference in what is supposed to be an independent process. [6:30] All told, DOJ lost over 8,500 staff last year and nearly one quarter of its lawyers. [6:39] It's so bad that you're now offering $25,000 signing bonuses and hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience. [6:48] Seeking applicants who personally pledged support to the president. [6:52] You've also refused to share with members of Congress the Office of Legal Counsel's purported legal justification [6:58] for the blatantly illegal war the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu started in Iran. [7:05] You have clear conflicts of interests between your prior job as the president's personal lawyer [7:12] and your duty to ensure justice. [7:14] This is especially true with respect to the cases of the survivors of the heinous crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein. [7:21] 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. [7:29] Many reading excerpts from their own FBI 302 reports documenting the abuses they endured. [7:37] These survivors have tried to share their stories with you. [7:41] Instead, you spent two days interviewing his convicted associate, Jelaine Maxwell, [7:47] and shortly thereafter she was moved to a lower security prison camp with special perks. [7:52] Mr. Blanche, the record is crystal clear. [7:57] You are still acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as acting attorney general. [8:04] It is hard to justify giving you any funds that will enable this pattern of wrongdoing to continue. [8:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:12] Senator Van Hollen, thank you. [8:15] Senator Collins, do you have an opening statement? [8:16] I do, Mr. Chairman. [8:19] I look forward to asking questions after hearing from the witness. [8:25] Thank you. [8:25] Thank you, Senator Collins, for joining us. [8:27] With that, General, you are recognized for your opening statement. [8:31] Thank you very much, Senator Moran. [8:35] Good morning to all of you. [8:37] Ranking mentor Van Hollen, Senator Collins, Senator Moran, good morning. [8:41] Thank you for the opportunity to present President Trump's fiscal year, [8:45] 2027 budget for the Department of Justice. [8:47] As Senator Moran noted, the request totals $41.2 billion, a 13% increase over fiscal year 2026. [8:57] This underscores our Department's renewed focus on reducing violent crime, combating the fentanyl [9:04] crisis, strengthening border and immigration enforcement, expanding fraud prevention, and [9:09] ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect the American people. [9:15] Violent crime reduction remains one of the Department's highest priorities. [9:20] Since January 20th of last year, the DOJ has indicted hundreds of members of TDA, [9:26] crippling their leadership and dismantling operational networks. [9:31] Across our major law enforcement components, the results have also been historic. [9:37] Federal law enforcement helped drive a 20% decrease in the national murder rate in 2025, [9:43] arrested 44,000 violent offenders, which is double the prior year, by the way, [9:50] and seized over 2,200 kilograms of fentanyl. [9:54] Last year, law enforcement captured eight of the FBI's 10 most wanted fugitives, [10:01] located 6,300 missing children, and arrested more than 2,000 child predators. [10:07] The DEA has made thousands of fentanyl-related arrests and seized millions of fentanyl pills [10:13] and hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl powder. [10:16] In one August surge alone, DEA executed over 600 arrests, seized multi-ton quantities of narcotics, [10:24] and recovered more than $11 million in drug proceeds. [10:29] With 82 offices in 62 countries and 26 U.S. field divisions, DEA continues to disrupt global supply [10:36] chains from source to street of illegal narcotics. [10:40] The U.S. Marshal Service, one of the smallest federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, [10:44] with roughly 3,800 deputies, arrested more than 73,000 fugitives last year, conducted 308,000 [10:53] prisoner movements, and housed over 55,000 detainees, and provided protection [10:59] for 18 federal protectees, including Supreme Court justices and their residences. [11:05] The marshals also manage over $10 billion in seized assets and are obviously essential [11:11] to federal judicial security. [11:13] ATF continues to be a leader in the federal effort to combat violent firearms crime. [11:20] Since January of last year, ATF has arrested more than 8,700 violent offenders and seized nearly 44,000 [11:27] firearms, including 5,100 which were interdicted before reaching Mexico, which was their intended [11:35] destination. ATF agencies 2.7 million rounds of ammunition, more than 28,000 illegal explosives, [11:44] and conducted over 3,500 arson and explosives investigations. [11:50] They process hundreds of thousands of traces every year, 856,000 last year alone, [11:57] and are continuing to do great work. To sustain these historic results, the fiscal year 2027 budget [12:03] includes $22.2 billion for DOJ's law enforcement components and U.S. attorney's offices. [12:10] This is a 16 percent increase over fiscal year 26, and these investments will build on our tremendous [12:17] progress and continue and will ensure our continued momentum in violent crime reduction nationwide. [12:25] We are also strengthening immigration enforcement efforts. The Executive Office for Immigration [12:30] Review has completed well over 1 million immigration cases and reduced backlog by more than 447,000 [12:37] cases since President Trump took office last year. This budget provides for $899 million for Eeyore. [12:45] This is to continue rebuilding our workforce and modernizing our case processing systems. Across the [12:52] department, nearly $4 billion supports immigration-related enforcement activities. Finally, the department [13:00] launched the National Fraud Enforcement Division earlier this year to expand federal fraud enforcement and [13:06] better protect taxpayer-funded programs. The budget includes $30 million to hire 100 attorneys and [13:13] enhanced data analytics capabilities to combat large-scale criminal fraud schemes. DOJ is also modernizing the [13:21] grants process by consolidating COPS, OJP, and OVW into the new Bureau of Justice grants, providing a unified and [13:29] simplified approach to federal grant-making while obviously continuing to preserve the mission, important [13:35] missions, of each office. The department faces serious budgetary constraints. Fiscal year 2026 marked the [13:44] second year of flat budgets for several components, basically equating to a decrease in funding because costs [13:51] costs and expenses increase every year, but the budget remained flat. The Bureau of Prisons remains [13:58] under-resourced, funded at $8.1 billion, almost $300 million below fiscal year 2025, and risks insolvency [14:08] without additional support. The President's request of $10.3 billion for the Bureau of Prisons is essential [14:14] to restore staffing and maintaining safe and secure federal facilities. In closing, the fiscal year [14:21] 2027 budget reflects our unwavering commitment to public safety, strong law enforcement partnerships, [14:28] and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. With your combined continued support, the Department [14:34] of Justice will remain strong, effective, and fully equipped to protect the American people. [14:42] Thank you again for the opportunity to appear in front of you, and I look forward to your questions. [14:47] Attorney General, thank you. I recognize now the chairwoman of the full committee, [14:52] Senator Collins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, [14:57] yesterday the Justice Department announced the creation of a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization [15:08] fund to compensate individuals who were purportedly targeted by the Biden administration, [15:16] in exchange for which President Trump dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS for the [15:26] completely inappropriate leak of the President and his organization's tax data. Amounts for this new fund [15:35] will come from the Judgment Fund, a permanent law appropriation for paying claims and settlements brought [15:44] against the United States government. Amounts in the Judgment Fund have traditionally been used for the [15:53] payment of specific claims against the government or amounts owned for the settlement of those claims, [16:02] but not for future claims that have yet to be bought. So I have some questions for you. [16:10] First, has the DOJ ever used amounts in the Judgment Fund to pay claims that have yet to be brought [16:20] against the United States government based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case? [16:27] Thank you, Senator. So the short answer is yes. I mean, we have done this in the past. This was done [16:33] during the Obama administration, something almost identical in structure to what we announced [16:39] yesterday. In that case, there were allegations made by Native Americans that the Department of [16:45] Agriculture had systematically treated them unfairly, and some had filed claims. There was a pending [16:52] lawsuit, but many had not. A fund very similar to the one that was established yesterday was set up. It was [17:02] funded by, in today's dollars, a little over a billion dollars, and a single claims commissioner was [17:09] appointed to review the claims and to distribute funds. In that case, at the end, there was around 300 [17:19] million left over, and the Obama administration had set it up so that that money from the Judgment Fund [17:26] was distributed to nonprofits and other NGOs. So what we've done with this fund, and by the way, it is [17:34] true that this is unusual. That is true. But it is not unprecedented, and it was done to address [17:40] something that had never happened again either. So there is an unprecedented nature of what we did [17:45] yesterday in response to years and years of weaponization. Just to correct a few things, Senator, [17:52] it's not limited to Republicans. It's not limited to Biden. I didn't say it was. It's not limited to the [18:01] Biden weaponization. It's not limited to in any way scope or form to January 6 or to Jack Smith. There's no [18:11] limitation on the claims. And the other thing we've done, just to finish up in comparison to what was [18:20] done previously, is we intend to appoint five commissioners. And also, at the end, the money [18:26] goes back. Any leftover funds go back to the federal government, not to nonprofits. [18:30] So how would the commission that you've just referenced that oversees the fund determine whether [18:37] future claims from the fund are eligible to be paid out of it? And how will they determine how [18:45] much will be paid for each claim? What's the legal basis for those decisions? [18:51] So there's, well, there's, there's commissions that are established all the time where a commissioner [18:57] is charged with determining the correct amount, if any, to repay a claimant who's asking for funds. [19:03] So in this case, what we expect is the commissioners will, will take in information. It's entirely [19:09] voluntary if, if an individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization. [19:16] And the commission can do anything according to, to what was set up yesterday, from issuing an apology [19:22] to the, to the claimant, to awarding, um, to awarding compensation and the monetary comments [19:27] compensation. So it depends on, on the claim. And there will be five commissioners who will review each, [19:33] each claim. It won't be reviewed by me. It won't be reviewed by, by others in the administration. [19:38] It'll be reviewed by the five commissioners. Aren't those commissioners appointed by the president? [19:44] No, they're appointed by, four of them are appointed by the attorney general. And one of them is appointed [19:50] by the attorney general in consultation with leadership of this body. Will the information [19:56] related to the claims be publicly reported? So that's a good question. I mean, look, [20:02] there's privacy laws that exist. So I, I don't want to sit here today and say every [20:07] scintilla of data collected will be released, but of course, I mean, of course there's, [20:12] there's the, there's accountability that, that the commission has a quarterly report that has to come to [20:18] the attorney general, which will, will certainly be public. There's a process that, that you all will get [20:24] information and there's a FOIA process. So I very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded, [20:30] the basis in the amount will, will for sure be, be made public along the way. [20:35] Let me switch to a different issue, which chairman Moran brought up, [20:40] along with chairman Moran and other members of this committee. I was one of the lead sponsors of the [20:48] Violence Against Women Act reauthorization of 2022. These programs are critical to reducing violence [20:59] against women, ensuring that justice is served and strengthening services to victims and survivors [21:08] of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking. In Maine, the rural victims program is [21:17] especially critical. Despite the importance and effectiveness of these programs, the department's [21:25] budget request proposes reducing funding from, by about 25 percent. Why is the department proposing [21:36] a reduction in funding to combat domestic violence and to support survivors? [21:43] Well, first of all, I completely agree with you that these are extraordinarily important programs and [21:49] the funds are, are well used, um, to, to support these programs. We have asked for 539 million dollars, [21:56] I believe, in, in, in money to support all these programs. And, and that, I mean, look, there's a lot of [22:02] money that goes, 190 million for grants to combat, you know, to stop, the, the stop grants, which is extraordinarily [22:09] important. And so it is a priority. Um, obviously there's, we have to make choices and the president's [22:16] budget has to make choices on where to spend that money, but it is extraordinarily important. And, and [22:20] the 539 million dollars that we've asked for will, will go to support all these programs. I mean, so yes, [22:26] there's, we are asking less, for less money than, than the budget had last year, but it's not because we [22:32] don't view it as, as extraordinarily important. Well, I would suggest that cutting the budget for [22:38] these important programs by 25 percent is a huge cut. And I hope that's something the subcommittee [22:47] will take a close look at. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Senator Collins. Senator Van Hollen. [22:53] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, this is an outrageous, unprecedented slush fund that you set [23:00] up. Simple question. Will eligible, will individuals who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers be [23:06] eligible for this fund? Well, as it makes plain, anybody is, just let me know if they're eligible [23:13] for the fund. As, as, as was made plain yesterday, anybody in this country is eligible to apply [23:20] if they believe they're a victim of weaponization. Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. [23:23] Are there going to be rules that say that if you've assaulted a Capitol Hill police officer or committed a [23:29] violent crime, you will not be eligible? Why not make that a rule? I expect that the, well, because [23:35] I'm not one of the commissioners setting up the rules, I expect that there will be rules set up. [23:38] You're appointing four of the five members, aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? Pardon me? [23:40] You're appointing four of the five members. I am appointing all five members. You can certainly set [23:44] up the rules. I would hope you make a rule that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer of [23:48] violent crime is simply not eligible. They should not apply. Well, let me, let me ask you this, [23:54] because you compared it to the Keeps Eagle case. But I think you know full well that in that case, [23:59] the settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge, including the payments to people who were [24:05] not originally parties to the lawsuit. No federal judge has approved this fund, have they, Mr. Attorney [24:11] General? No, no federal judge did approve this. So that's a big difference between this case and [24:15] the case that you compared it to. No, it's not. Did a judge sign off on this case? No. A judge did sign [24:22] off on the other one. Yes, but it's, your question was whether it's a big difference. It's not. Of [24:26] course it is, because that allows for an independent person to look at it rather than the hand. There [24:31] was no independence. There was no independence. There was a single commissioner. A judge signed [24:36] off on it. A judge had nothing to do with deciding the money. Mr. Attorney General, there was a judge who [24:39] looked at it and signed off on it. So to compare that case to this one is incredibly deceptive. Let me ask [24:48] you this about the Epstein case, because as we speak, many Epstein survivors are in New York. [24:55] They're reading portions of the Epstein files about the abuse that they suffered. Otherwise, [25:00] they might have been here with us today. At a House hearing, your predecessor refused to acknowledge [25:06] the pain experienced by some of those victims when the administration improperly released their names [25:13] in identifying information. So I want to know where you stand. I spoke to the representatives [25:19] of some of the Epstein survivors yesterday. They are extremely frustrated that you keep calling for [25:25] people to come forward with more evidence, but you have not met with them to hear their stories. So, [25:32] simple question. If I connect you with these survivors, will you meet with them? Absolutely. And [25:38] what you just said is false. I have met with them. I've met with many, many of the lawyers for the [25:43] survivors of victims, as did Attorney General Bondi. So whoever told you that, unfortunately, [25:48] gave you bad information. I would encourage them to reach out to the Department of Justice, [25:53] because like we do every single day, we absolutely care for victims, and we absolutely want to hear [25:59] from them and their lawyers. Well, I've been told directly from the representatives they've not had a [26:07] chance, at least this group, to meet with you. So I'm glad to hear that. Did they [26:11] represent they asked for a meeting? Can I ask you to commit that the Justice Department will not [26:20] recommend a pardon for anyone named in the Epstein files? Can you repeat that question? I'm sorry. [26:26] I didn't hear what you said. Can you commit that the Justice Department, you, the Acting Attorney [26:32] General, would not recommend a pardon for people named in the Epstein files? When you say people named, [26:38] I have no, there's tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of quote, people named. How about [26:43] Jelaine Maxwell? Can you commit that you- Yes, I can commit to that, of course. [26:47] Let me go back to this slush fund, because there's also an individual who, after being pardoned by the [26:58] President, went on to molest two children. And that person actually tried to buy the silence of these [27:06] children by saying that he would pay them some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush [27:12] fund. Can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this [27:20] fund? Well, you're obviously lying in your question, because there's no way that this person committed [27:26] to that. The slush fund, as you call it, which is not, didn't exist. But I can commit- Mr. Attorney [27:32] General, don't ever do that again. I am reporting what he said. He said on the expectation that he [27:40] hoped to get some of the funds from a payout. He's been hearing- You said from the slush fund, [27:44] Senator, and that didn't exist when he said that. This is the fund that the President and all of you [27:49] have been telegraphing all along that you're going to use to help the President's friends. [27:56] Can you point to- Mr. Attorney General, I have a last question. What telegraph did I- [27:59] I have a last question for you. Do you know that it is a criminal offense to lie to Congress? [28:07] I am very well aware of that. I'm glad to hear that. Thank you. Senator Kennedy. [28:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, how are you? I'm great. Thank you, Senator. [28:31] In America, unlike other countries where they let you die in a ditch, in America, if you're too poor to [28:40] be sick, we'll pay for your doctor. Isn't that right? It is. And one of the programs we do that [28:48] through is Medicaid. Correct. Okay. And this money for Medicaid, it didn't just fall from heaven. [28:58] We thank heaven for it, but it came out of people's pockets, didn't it? Every dime of it. And some of [29:04] that money is stolen, isn't it? Yes. And the states, not all of them, but many of them, [29:13] allow it to be stolen, don't they? Yes. Let's take Medicaid in California, [29:20] for example. I don't mean to just pick on California, but because this happens in other [29:26] states. We saw it happen in Minnesota, for example. But in California, for every dollar [29:36] that the California state government puts up for Medicaid, for the Obamacare portion of Medicaid, [29:44] we put up, the federal taxpayer puts up $9, don't they? And so, is that right? [29:50] That's correct, Senator. And so, as a result, California has allowed thousands and thousands [29:59] of these social assistance and so-called healthcare providers pop up in California, [30:07] haven't they? Yes. And some of those providers steal the money, don't they? [30:11] Yes, we know that to be true. Yes. And the money never gets to the people they supposedly are trying [30:16] to help, isn't that correct? Correct. That's correct. And the other way that California and [30:21] others abuse the fact that they're putting up $1 and the American taxpayers putting up $9. Did I [30:27] mention it was $9? I think some say it's even more, but yes, nine were. They expand the services, [30:33] don't they? Yes. Because some states, like California, I don't want to paint with too broad a brush, [30:39] it's not everybody in California state government, but it's a lot of them, they see this as free money, [30:45] don't they? They're not paying for it, yes. Isn't it a fact that, for example, Medicaid in California [30:54] will pay a provider to provide tribal prayers? I looked all this up. I mean, I'll accept that. [31:02] I didn't know that, but yes. That California will actually pay a healthcare provider, [31:07] I didn't know this was a medical expertise, to pay for exorcisms. Is that right? I'll accept that, [31:16] Senator, but that's, that's... They pay, the California Medicaid program will pay for herbal medicines, [31:24] meal deliveries. They'll pay for housing. I don't know what housing has to do with healthcare. [31:30] Is that correct? Yes. Were you aware that, that the Medicaid program using federal money, [31:38] taxpayer money will pay for an in-home chef? Yes. Okay. If it's a family member, yes. Yeah, [31:46] they'll even pay for gymnasium fees through Medicaid in California. They'll pay for bicycles, [31:55] scooters, gym memberships. Did you know that? Yes, several states do, but California does for sure. [32:03] They'll even repay your student loans. Were you aware of that? I was not aware of the student loans. [32:09] Yeah, they'll repay somebody's student loans to encourage them to become a healthcare provider. [32:17] I mean, California, they're just setting all kinds of records. These folks are, they're wild people. [32:27] California's got 12% of the population. In the last 10 years, they're responsible for half of these [32:35] new so-called health providers to provide exorcisms and other things. Now, what the hell are we doing [32:41] about it? Why has this gone on for so long? Senator, listen, it's a great question. And what you just [32:47] described are programs that are allowed under the program. You have a whole other issue in California [32:52] where a lot of these folks are just stealing the money, not even running it through for exorcism. [32:57] They're thieves, aren't they? They're thieves. Correct. Correct. [33:01] And California just watches it happen, don't they? Not everybody in California. The government [33:08] does, though, doesn't it? Well, that's the challenge in a lot of states, is that we don't have a state [33:13] government, which you all have entrusted to run these programs and take care of the money that you [33:17] all give them. There's state structures that absolutely do not do any compliance, and they [33:23] don't do their job. Because they don't have no incentive to. They're getting free money. [33:28] Isn't that right? Yes. I think so, yes. We've got to change this, General. We're trying. [33:33] I call this a slush fund. If you want to talk about slush fund, this is a tier one slush fund. [33:41] It's been going on for years and years and years. Billions and hundreds of billions of dollars is [33:48] stolen. Yes, Senator. And that's why, look, this department stood up a whole new fraud division. [33:56] And AUSAs around the country prosecute fraud every day. So it's not as if we weren't, we weren't, [34:00] we didn't have the work out there. But it's so systematically taking money from the American [34:05] taxpayer that we very much believe that it needs its own stand-up structure. And I think it's true [34:11] for the reasons that you just said. If you need an extra system, you can go to California camp. [34:16] Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Chairman Moran, [34:20] Ranking Member Van Hollen. Thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche, for appearing before us [34:24] today. I want to talk about some areas where I think we're making progress and we can work together [34:29] and then raise some real concerns I have. I do think it's worth recognizing the hard work of the men and [34:35] women of the department and the progress you're making on combating fentanyl and a violent crime. [34:40] I've long been involved in criminal justice reform, talked with and worked with your predecessor in [34:45] this. I was pleased to see the president's message during Second Chance Month, where he said he wants [34:51] to ensure those who take responsibility and seek to rebuild their lives have a chance to succeed. [34:57] Senator Lee and I have a bill called the Safer Supervision Act. It's co-sponsored by Senators [35:02] Tillis and Wicker, Cramer and Langford. It's got strong law enforcement and conservative support [35:07] and it fits squarely in that framework. Currently, federal supervision is imposed in nearly every [35:13] case, leading to badly overworked federal probation officers who then can't properly supervise [35:18] those who actually most need it. There's more than 120,000 people on average per year being [35:24] supervised. And this bill would help ensure courts are more thoughtful, more analytic when deciding [35:30] when to impose supervision. Is this a piece of legislation you can support? [35:35] So what you just said, I very much agree with. So I, without looking at every word of the legislation, [35:41] what you, I, there's no disagreement for me on a word you just uttered. [35:44] Well, thank you. I'd like to work with you on that. [35:46] Yes, I look forward to that. [35:48] Let me raise two questions. I've been gravely concerned about IP theft, especially from China, [35:53] the whole time I've served. I was struck that the department's proposed budget cuts the funds for [35:58] IP enforcement. Why? And is the department under your leadership committed to protecting American [36:04] innovation? [36:05] Very committed. And while you're calling it a cut, [36:09] Senator, I would say that, that it's a, a major focus of every- [36:12] It's a lack of an increase? [36:13] Well, no, no, no. I don't mean lack of an increase. I mean that it's, [36:16] we're, we're focused on it at the U.S. Attorney's Office level. So when we take money [36:21] and spend it around the U.S. Attorney's offices, and so it's, it's, it's baked into that big number, [36:26] rest assured every U.S. Attorney's Office, all 93 of them are focused on, on the threats that we [36:31] have from there. And so we're trying to spend our money more wisely. [36:34] Chair Collins raised a concern about the violence against women act funds. Let me raise a concern [36:40] about the victims of child abuse act programs. Senator Roy Blunt and I worked to reauthorize [36:44] this program. I've long been actively engaged with it. I've seen how children's advocacy centers [36:50] in Delaware make a critical difference, bringing together law enforcement, medical, mental health [36:54] professionals to do child abuse investigations in a child-centered way to make sure children are not [37:00] re-victimized. The number of victims served by these centers has increased four-fold over 25 years. [37:06] Why are you proposing cutting this program? So we're, we have asked for 41 million dollars for [37:12] that program. And, and I could, I agree with you. And I, I want to work with you to make sure that we're [37:16] spending that 41 million where we should. I agree with you. It's extraordinarily important and has [37:21] a lot of success over the past 15, 20 years as it's been up and running. [37:25] And thank you. Let me return to the line of questioning from the ranking member, [37:29] Senator Van Hollen, that I strongly agree with. I'm just looking at the settlement agreement in [37:35] Trump versus IRS. And I just want to make sure I heard you properly when you responded previously. [37:42] Your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports. Will you commit to making these [37:49] reports fully public so Americans know who's getting taxpayer dollars out of the settlement fund? [37:54] This says they'll be confidential. This is section four, part E of the settlement agreement. [37:59] The reason why I want to be careful in my answer is because there's obviously laws that exist around [38:04] privacy that would may prevent some of the information that the, that the commission takes in [38:09] from being fully public. Beyond that, there will be full transparency. And I commit to you that [38:15] beyond the, the applicable laws that exist around privacy and privileges and whatnot. [38:20] But as far as being transparent and having those quarterly reports released, yes. [38:25] Thank you. You referenced a previous case. I think it was Keeps Eagle versus Vilsack [38:30] under the previous administration. Did that case involve a president suing his own government [38:36] and then settling that case before it could be reviewed or approved by a judge? [38:40] So no, and neither does the commission. [38:42] No, it did not. And so when you suggested that they're nearly identical, [38:46] they're not identical. I think there's a critical difference here. President Trump is the first [38:50] president to sue his own government and then direct his chosen acting attorney general to reach this [38:57] kind of settlement. Will you commit that none of President Trump's family will receive a direct [39:04] payout from this fund? [39:05] Well, yes, but you, what you just said is not true. I mean, if I can correct that. [39:10] Please. [39:11] The president did not direct me to do anything. And secondly, when we said it was [39:16] that the structure of the commission is similar to, to Keeps Eagle, you're, that's true. [39:21] It wasn't the case. The underlying case is not the same. The structure of the commission [39:25] is the same as the Keeps Eagle. [39:27] Has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own government for $10 billion [39:34] and then directed the settlement of the case and the establishment of a payout fund? [39:38] Not that I'm aware, but there's a lot of things that President Trump's the first of. [39:41] No president had been indicted one, two, three, four, five, six, seven, eight times either. [39:46] Correct. No president's been indicted. And will you commit that none of this money [39:50] will go to President Trump's campaign donors? [39:52] I am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself. When you say campaign donors, [39:58] that they are not excluded from seeking compensation. [40:00] Last question. [40:01] During police week, I heard from a number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling [40:06] that there was the possibility that folks like the peace, the Oath Keepers, [40:12] the Proud Boys who had assaulted Capitol Police officers could receive multi-million [40:17] dollar payouts from this fund. Will you commit that no one who has been convicted of assaulting [40:22] a police officer will receive a payout from this fund? [40:25] So I shared the concerns that apparently members of law enforcement gave to you last week, [40:30] although none of this was announced last week, so that's surprising, but I accept that. [40:33] They had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund. [40:36] Okay. But anybody can apply. The commissioners will set rules, I'm sure. That's not for me to set, [40:43] that's for the commissioners. And whether an individual, an Oath Keeper, as you just mentioned, [40:48] applies for compensation, anybody in this country can apply. [40:52] Well, we'll be watching this very closely as this goes forward. I don't think the settlement [40:57] fund should be set up this way or for these purposes. I appreciate your answers today. Thank [41:02] you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. [41:03] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here this morning and responding to [41:08] our questions. I want to follow on a couple that have been asked with regards to the Department of [41:15] Justice's state and local law enforcement programs. $1.2 billion in proposed cuts. We're looking at a very [41:23] carefully because many of these grants and programs have significant impact on our state, small [41:29] population, large area to deal with. The budget also calls for consolidation of the Office of Violence [41:37] Against Women, the Community Oriented Policing Services, and the OJP programs. Is the Office of Tribal [41:48] Justice one of the offices that are also intended to be consolidated? [41:52] No, we're just consolidating the grant components. So OJP, COPS, and then Oviedo. And by the way, [41:59] we're not combining them. We're just making them more efficient. So they will still maintain their own [42:05] independence and brand, for lack of a better word. But what we heard from the field is that there were [42:11] inappropriate inconsistencies and inefficiencies and having three separate kind of bureaucracies running [42:18] each of those programs. So that's what we're trying to fix. [42:20] Don't disagree with wanting to reduce bureaucracies. My interest is making sure that the fidelity of [42:26] these grants and the availability to very rural and oftentimes just very high cost because of what we're [42:34] dealing with out there that they do not get get overlooked. Because when you have cuts to the level [42:42] that you're proposing, one has to assume that, okay, you can talk about reducing the bureaucracy and just [42:50] what the program itself might look like. But again, my interest is making sure that this much needed [42:57] assistance is still pushed down to the very, very local levels. [43:01] Senator, I assure you that the rural communities, and I appreciate that they have the most challenges [43:08] applying for grants because of just the way they're structured. [43:11] Lack of capacity. [43:11] Of course. And there's obviously, I forget the exact percentage, but a large percentage of our grants do [43:18] go to rural communities, as they should, and rural police departments, as they should. And we are going [43:23] to continue to do that. I mean, there's the COPS office is required to distribute half of it, [43:28] half of the grants to rural communities. But just, and I don't want to take up all your time, [43:32] Senator, but that's one of the reasons why we built in, we're trying to make it more efficient, [43:36] because the field said, especially rural communities, big cities don't have issues [43:41] applying for grants. They have a bunch of people that can do it. And so, yes, we are very focused on [43:45] that in tribal justice space, but also in the grant space. [43:49] Well, know that we're watching this one very carefully. I understand that in response to Senator [43:55] Collins, you acknowledged 25% cut to the office on violence against women. I was very involved in [44:03] that reauthorization. And within that, we provide that OVW may not be subsumed by another grant-making [44:11] component within DOJ. So we want to make sure that, again, DOJ is going to maintain OVW's statutory [44:21] responsibilities and how they move forward with their grant-making and not losing out on that [44:27] subject. We will, and we're aware of that. Yes, ma'am. Let me ask about the Not Invisible Act. [44:34] This was legislation that I introduced some years ago. It became law. May 5th is the day that we [44:41] recognize as Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. We had a big roundtable that Senator [44:48] Sullivan helped to organize just a couple weeks ago. I had a lot of the folks from your department, [44:54] along with Alaska state and local, as well as tribal. One of the things that kept coming up was [45:00] we, the commission issued its final report. I thought it was pretty substantive. They issued it [45:08] November 1 of 2023 after great testimony and consultation all across Indian country. But then [45:15] it was removed, the report was removed very early on in the second Trump administration and the related [45:24] materials have been removed from DOJ and the Department of Interior websites. So people keep [45:31] asking me where'd it go, why, what is happening, and we tried to get further information to that [45:39] again up in Anchorage a couple weeks ago. So the question to you is why was the report taken down, [45:47] when will it be restored, and more importantly what concrete steps is DOJ taking with the Department [45:54] of others and others to implement the recommendations. We don't want the work of this really important [46:00] commission to just kind of sit and be ignored. Yes, so I don't have an answer as to why it was taken [46:07] down, but I will get back to you promptly. I will tell you. I would appreciate that. And your big [46:12] picture question, we are on the same page when it comes to tribal justice and the work that we have [46:18] to do with our Native American community and making sure that we're giving them the resources, the law [46:24] enforcement. I've visited two so far as the Deputy Attorney General. My staff has gone out to multiples, [46:31] to Northern New York, the Dakotas, Oklahoma, and we'll continue to do that. I think that at the end [46:38] of the day, it is a funding and training issue that is our responsibility, and I recognize that, [46:44] and it's a priority. Well, and we've seen positive signals in the first Trump administration. That was [46:50] when Operation Lady Justice was stood up. I think that that is good. We need to continue on that. You've put [46:56] good people tasked to this, but this is where it gets confusing, because when you have a public facing [47:03] website that helps people navigate through some of the reporting and the lack of data, that's where [47:10] we could use a little help. So if you can get back with me on that, I would appreciate it. I will. [47:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Acting Attorney General for being here. As you alluded to in your [47:23] opening statement, there is an acute staffing shortage at the bureau prisons. At FCI Berlin in New [47:29] Hampshire, staffing levels have dropped to 58 percent of authorized levels, and that's at a time when [47:36] correctional officers are being asked to take on added duties where they have detainees being sent to [47:43] our federal prison, and the retention incentives have dropped significantly. So as you point out, [47:50] the bureau received an additional three billion dollars in the reconciliation bill to address [47:55] staffing issues, and you're asking for additional funding, which I appreciate. But how do you plan to [48:01] use those supplemental funds to address recruitment and detention of staff at facilities like FCI Berlin? [48:09] Thank you for that question. It is a crisis, and the crisis on staffing is twofold. One is we're not paying [48:15] them enough, and they can walk across the street to county jails and make more money, and two, because we're not [48:20] paying them enough. There's shortages, so they're required to work overtime. They're required to actually- [48:25] I understand the problem. Can you explain what you're going to do to address it? [48:29] We're doing both. I mean, we're addressing the compensation, and we've already worked with [48:34] Director Marshall over the past several months to give some retention money to officers who are staying, [48:40] but we have to pay them more, and we have to make it worthwhile for them to stay, and the only way to do [48:45] that is with money. The only way to do that is- [48:46] Well, I can tell you that FCI Berlin has not seen that money yet, and it's going to be critical to [48:51] get it out. Let me change to another topic, because we have a new DEA drug lab in Londonderry, New [48:59] Hampshire. I'm very pleased that we've got that New England regional drug lab. I worked hard to try and [49:06] support the effort to get it there, but I'm concerned now that DEA doesn't have the personnel that they [49:11] need in order to fully operate it, and when we raised this at hearings both in the House and Senate [49:18] with DEA, what they told us was that DOJ has routinely denied its request for greater allocations [49:25] of personnel, meaning that they are going to have difficulties hiring the sufficient personnel they [49:31] need to fully operate this new lab. So can you commit that you will ensure that the personnel that [49:38] are needed to operate the lab are able to be hired? Yes, and our budget asks for that funding, and [49:44] and I agree with you, Senator, that it's crucial to have that, and that there's shortages. You're right. [49:51] As- let me weigh in on with Senator Collins and Senator Murkowski and their concerns about the Office [49:59] of Violence Against Women and the grants. I don't support the cut of 25 percent for that budget, [50:05] but we have a greater issue because my staff has heard from organizations in New Hampshire [50:13] working on domestic violence concerns that the department is continuing to hold fiscal year 25 [50:20] funding for the office, and for some of these organizations they had their grants canceled early [50:26] in 2025. This disruption has caused those organizations to scale back to start laying off staff which limits [50:34] their ability to help survivors. So when is the department going to make available the fiscal year 25 and 26 [50:42] grant funds that have already been approved by Congress? So we, the NOFOs for two of the three agencies [50:50] are all out and back. There's one NOFO that's pending from 25 that we expect to get out any day now, [50:58] and then we'll start working on 26, and so we're, it's done on a rolling basis, and we, and we're working [51:06] every day very hard to get that money out. As far as grants that were canceled, I believe 330 some were [51:16] canceled, just about five or six percent of the overall grants awarded for various reasons, but grants that [51:22] were, more than that were initially canceled, and, and the grant- [51:25] Those are grants that had been approved by Congress that had already been sent out. Why is the department [51:30] canceling funding that our organizations are depending on in order to help survivors? [51:36] Well, it's not that they were approved by Congress. The money was, and, and so for, for a very small portion of, [51:40] of a very small portion of grants, they simply, they were canceled for various reasons, so- [51:45] Well, they were canceled because DOGE came in and made significant cuts, and the department, [51:50] the administration has made cuts. I, I guess the, I'm not going to argue with you about [51:55] why that happened. I think it was wrong. I'm going to acknowledge your commitment to ensure that [52:02] those funds are going to go out to the organizations that are depending on them, so that they can serve [52:06] the people who need it. I commit to that. Thank you. Um, last fall, the U.S. trustee for region one [52:14] didn't name a new chapter 13 standing trustee for New Hampshire. Instead, he assigned New Hampshire's [52:20] duties to Maine's standing trustee over the objections of the New Hampshire bankruptcy bar. [52:26] The transition from New Hampshire's standing trustee to the new Maine trustee who's supposed [52:33] to be serving both states has not gone well. Debtors who had completed their payments were not being [52:38] discharged from bankruptcy. Creditors and attorneys were not getting paid. In fact, a motion to remove [52:45] the New Hampshire and Maine trustee was filed and the New Hampshire bankruptcy judge admonished the [52:51] trustee but unfortunately didn't ultimately remove him. I am very concerned that we have granite staters [52:58] who need to use the chapter 13 bankruptcy and that they're being disadvantaged because of this decision [53:05] for whatever reason. We have no idea because, um, the U.S. government doesn't pay [53:11] those standing trustees. There's no reason that's not a benefit in terms of savings. So I don't know [53:19] if it was a shot at New Hampshire or what the issue was, but will you commit to naming a New Hampshire [53:25] only chapter 13 standing trustee and look into this because it's a real problem. So we have that, [53:31] Mr. General, the time has expired. So if you can quickly wrap that up, I would appreciate it. [53:34] We have that in many districts, not just New Hampshire, and we're working very hard to rectify it. [53:41] for the reasons that you stated the challenges it presents. So you will look into that and try? [53:46] We've been looking into it and will continue to do so, Senator. Yes. [53:49] Thank you. Mr. General, appreciate you being here today. I wanted to start with an issue that I raised [53:56] with you in your confirmation hearing in the Senate Judiciary Committee. Um, we talked about the Executive [54:02] Office for Immigration Reform. Some people call it EOIR. Some people call it EOR. Um, but ultimately it [54:10] oversees our immigration courts. As you're aware, there was a significant backlog that was left by [54:15] the Biden-Harris administration. Unfortunately, they created a culture of that, of dragging their [54:20] feet and not actually completing these cases. Um, I, I know they also rolled back a number of reforms [54:26] that were put in place during the first Trump administration to ensure that our immigration [54:30] courts functioned in an efficient manner. By contrast, obviously, under the current Trump administration, [54:36] um, the courts in FY25 have completed the highest number of cases that we have seen in a single year [54:43] in EOR's history. Um, finally achieved a reduction in the case backlog, and hopefully that's something [54:50] that we can continue. I saw in your budget that you increased this by 12%. I wanted to talk, is that going [54:56] to help you continue, um, on that, on eliminating this backlog, improve efficiencies and operations of these immigration [55:04] courts? And then also on that, how does the budget request support efforts to actually modernize this [55:10] process, making sure that we're not only using the current system, but we're looking at how can we be [55:14] more efficient in the future? Yes. Thank you, Senator. The first answer the, in reverse order, [55:20] we have asked for $37 million to, to modernize the IT programs that the immigration courts use. [55:26] That in and of itself will create efficiencies that will help us in, in ways that, that should have [55:32] happened years and years ago and it didn't. We're also asking for more money because we need more [55:36] judges. And the big, beautiful bill gave us, uh, uh, authority to hire a bunch of immigration judges [55:41] and we're hiring a ton. Um, we have a graduation tomorrow, the largest graduation of, of immigration [55:47] judges, um, in, in, in many, many years, if not history. And we're continuing to try to find good [55:53] judges that will work hard. And, and the, the budget also, you know, a judge needs staff. So a judge needs [55:59] clerks to help process the cases. The, you know, we've, we, we have almost 500,000, um, cases were [56:05] processed last year. That's extraordinary. And we're, we're getting into the backlog. But when you're, [56:10] when you have something like 4 million immigration cases, 4 million immigration cases backed up, [56:17] even if you, you cut it down by a million a year, you're still looking at three or four years to catch [56:22] up. But, but we're, we're very focused on doing that. We, we tell our new judges they're going to be [56:27] working harder than they've ever worked in their lives. And, and we expect that. And, and so this [56:32] budget is, is really addressing that the IT problem and the staffing challenge that we have. [56:38] Good. Thank you. Um, I'm changing gears a little bit. Uh, obviously we are so proud to see the [56:44] crackdown on crime across the country. Um, lowest murder rate that, that we have, we have seen, um, [56:50] the significant, just, you know, actually getting back to the mission of getting the bad guys and putting [56:55] criminals behind bars. I talked to our director Patel about this last week, but there's great [57:01] work being done by the FBI and DOJ and my home state, um, operation Southern Star in Montgomery [57:08] has been significant. That's where I live. We appreciate that effort. Um, I know that communities [57:14] across the country, um, appreciate the work that you're doing. Can you discuss how this request [57:20] increase in resources that you have in this budget is going to allow us to build on the current [57:25] successes and enhance cooperation with state and local partners across the country so that we can [57:30] do more of what we've seen in Montgomery over the operation Southern Star? Yes. So there is nothing [57:37] more important than our state and local partnerships when it comes to combating violent crime. Nearly every [57:42] violent criminal that's arrested by the feds, the feds are assisted by a cop or a detective or a trooper [57:48] in that case. And so when we talk about the work that the federal government and the FBI and DEA and [57:53] marshals and ATF and HSI have done over the past year, we are really talking about the work that [57:58] they did partnering with the state and locals. So our budget reflects that. We want $2.9 billion for [58:03] state and local grants. That's money that's going to go to law enforcement to combat violent crime. [58:08] $12 billion for our budget for violent crime. And you said that, but I want to make sure I'm giving props [58:16] to the great men and women of law enforcement in our country. It worked. And we did see meaningful [58:21] reductions in violent crime, which means everybody's streets are safer than they were a year and a [58:26] half ago. Well, as someone who is raising two teenagers and wants these streets to be safer, [58:31] particularly the ones where all these families are trying to build their lives, we say thank you. [58:39] Last question. I know that the budget also is going to stand up the National Fraud Enforcement Division. [58:47] I know that there's been a lot of misnomers about that out there. It is important we make sure that [58:51] taxpayer dollars are used judiciously and the people who do not do that are held accountable. [58:57] Can you talk about some of the work that the division has been doing and how the funding will [59:01] allow DOJ to continue protecting Americans and their hard earned tax dollars? Yes. So we asked for [59:06] $30 million because we need lawyers to help build this new division up. And what we've done already, [59:12] and you've seen it in the news in Minnesota and other locations, really everywhere. Minnesota has [59:17] been a focus, but in every state the National Fraud Division has an AUSA assigned to that division now. [59:24] And their goal is very simple, to find criminals who are stealing from the government. That's it. [59:29] And so that comes in the area of healthcare, but it comes in a lot of different places. And I expect that [59:37] everybody in this body will be very satisfied with the work when I come back next time because it's [59:42] doing great work. Excellent. Americans are sick of people not being held accountable. So we hope [59:46] that we see some people actually prosecuted for these crimes. Thank you so much. Thank you. [59:51] Senator Merkley. Thank you, Madam Chair. And Senator Murray, do you want to jump in first? [1:00:00] Okay. Thank you, Acting Attorney General. So the budget has a $500 million cut to the COPS grants. [1:00:08] Those grants are certainly important to our local law enforcement, for staff, for equipment, [1:00:13] for investigations. Is there any particular reason that you think the police departments need [1:00:18] less money now than they did before? And would you be supportive if we advocate for more funding [1:00:25] rather than less? So local law enforcement needs all the money we can get. I agree with that very much. [1:00:30] And whether I would be supportive of more money that you all come together for local law enforcement, [1:00:36] yes, I will. I mean, look, this budget... Thank you. I appreciate that. Sure. [1:00:39] There is a bill called the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act that senators on both sides of the [1:00:45] aisle support it, including Senators Tuberville and Cornyn. And this is about the troubled teen [1:00:50] industry, where there are basically all kinds of fairly unregulated, without oversight companies [1:00:59] that say, hey, send your teen to us and we'll get them on the right path. This institutional care [1:01:07] often results in institutional abuse. And what we did when we passed and funded that bill, [1:01:13] because we had both authorized it and then we funded it, was to have the National Academies of Science [1:01:19] study. Because there's 50,000 kids that are in these institutional settings each year. [1:01:23] They're often taken away in the middle of the night under arrangements with the parents. The parents [1:01:28] think they're sending their kids to get help, but often they're sending their kids into abuse. Will [1:01:34] you take a look at this issue and just kind of track the National Academies as they proceed to study [1:01:40] this? And if there are ways that we can reduce abuse, help us find that path? Yes, of course. [1:01:48] Thank you. To follow up, you noted that it would be up to the five commissioners that you appoint to [1:01:55] determine whether there are any guidelines. Will you encourage the folks that you select to ensure [1:02:03] that folks who were convicted of violent acts against police officers do not get compensation from [1:02:09] this fund? Well, I expect they will. They don't have the option of establishing guidelines. The commissioners [1:02:15] will establish guidelines. Will you encourage them to have a guideline that says those who have been [1:02:20] convicted of violent acts against police officers are not eligible? I will definitely encourage the [1:02:26] commissioners to take everything into account when determining who should get compensation. But why [1:02:31] not this specific issue of convicted of violent acts against police officers? Do you feel they should [1:02:36] get compensation after being convicted of violent acts? My feelings don't matter, Senator, in my mind. [1:02:42] My mind is not limiting to say, yes, I will commit to this or that. What I will commit to [1:02:48] is making sure that the commissioners are effectively doing their jobs, and that includes setting guidelines [1:02:54] like you're describing. Okay. I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable that those who are [1:03:02] convicted and violently assaulting— I definitely did not say that. Definitely did not say that. [1:03:06] I didn't say I found it acceptable, Senator. Will you agree to encourage those commissioners [1:03:11] to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals who are convicted of assaulting [1:03:18] police officers? I expect— I just—a yes would answer my question, or a no. A yes will not answer [1:03:23] that question. I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. I don't think that's a fair word. I don't [1:03:27] think it's the attorney general's job to encourage commissioners to do or not do anything. Okay. Well, [1:03:31] we'll move on. But I will say that you have complete power over who you appoint, so you have huge influence. [1:03:37] You are going to be evaluating the inclinations and attitudes of those who will serve, and certainly [1:03:45] this looks extraordinary. You described it as parallel to a fund set up to compensate Native Americans who [1:03:52] were discriminated against in the agricultural world. It's not parallel at all. President Obama did not [1:03:59] sue his own Department of Justice. He did not have a judge saying that Williams had—let's see, [1:04:08] how did she put it? Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, dismissed the case, and [1:04:12] then finally admonished the government agency, notably the Justice Department, for not being transparent [1:04:18] about the settlement deal. Williams previously assigned a group of attorneys to determine whether [1:04:24] there was a conflict of case, since as sitting President Trump was suing, quote, entities whose [1:04:29] decisions are subject to his direction. This type of conflict of interest is not at all involved [1:04:36] in the fund set up to compensate those who are discriminated against in the agricultural realm. [1:04:42] I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. Is it closed or open? When you say the Epstein [1:04:47] investigation, what are you referring to, Senator? Well, the FBI said in last year, in July, [1:04:52] that it had closed the Epstein investigation. So I'm just using their words. Is it open or closed? [1:04:57] I don't believe the FBI said that. Well, your head of the Department of Justice, [1:05:04] is the Epstein investigation open or closed? But I guess I don't understand [1:05:07] what Epstein investigation means. Jeffrey Epstein himself, yes, he's dead. Any investigation into [1:05:13] potential other bad guys will always be open if we have evidence that supports in any way, [1:05:20] shape or form that we can make a case. Okay, so Trump said in November, [1:05:24] this is after the FBI, and it was the FBI boards when they said the investigation was closed. [1:05:29] But what Trump wrote in November of last year, I'll be asking the Attorney General, [1:05:35] Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our great Patriots FBI, [1:05:40] to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationships with, and he gave a specific list, [1:05:45] Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, people at J.P. Morgan, [1:05:50] and many other people to determine what was going on. Is there a list particularly targeted [1:05:57] at Democrats, as opposed to being, if you will, blind, blind to party affiliation, [1:06:05] investigations that are being pursued under your direction? [1:06:07] The, the, any investigation, no matter Republican, Democrat, man, woman, old, young, [1:06:14] any investigation will be open if the Department of Justice and the FBI have evidence that a crime's [1:06:18] been committed. And that doesn't, I mean, you're talking about... [1:06:21] You commit to pursue, regardless of political affiliation? [1:06:24] Excuse me, Senator? [1:06:25] You commit to pursuing investigations free of prejudice about party affiliation? [1:06:31] Of course, yes. [1:06:31] Well, you say of course, but this enemy has repeatedly, this President has repeatedly [1:06:36] spoken of an enemy's list that he wants to go after. And I must say, it's one of the symbols of [1:06:42] the breakdown of a Democratic Republic, when a President uses his Department of Justice, [1:06:47] which you now had to go after his perceived political enemies. I hope you won't be party to [1:06:51] that. Thank you. [1:06:52] I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. And that's why what happened when, [1:06:56] during the Biden administration was so disgusting. [1:06:58] That is completely inappropriate and wrong. There is no comparison to the absolute fair-minded [1:07:05] pursuit of justice under the previous administration and this administration's pursuit of an enemy's [1:07:11] list. Thank you. Senator Murray. [1:07:12] I believe Senator Fischer was next. Yeah. [1:07:17] Senator Fischer, so glad of you to join us. [1:07:22] Thank you. [1:07:24] I was trying to ingratiate myself with the ranking member of the committee. [1:07:27] No, you didn't see me at the kiddie table. It's fine. So, Mr. Attorney General, welcome. [1:07:33] Senator Murkowski brought up to you about the consolidation of the grant programs and also [1:07:41] that the budget request is $1.2 billion, a cut to the state and local grants. All right, thank you. [1:07:49] Thank you for clarifying that this consolidation, what its intent is, but I'm still concerned about [1:07:59] the impact of funding reductions and what that would have on our state and local law enforcement agencies. [1:08:07] So, I hope that you will be very cognizant of that as you look at the rural and really the under-resourced [1:08:15] agencies that are out there. [1:08:18] Yes, I will, Senator. Yes. [1:08:20] So, in 2024, I passed legislation, the Recruit and Retain Act, and that was signed into law, [1:08:26] and this authorized law enforcement agencies to use those COPS grants for recruitment and retention [1:08:35] activities. It required a study. The study came out. Not surprisingly, it identified a relationship [1:08:44] between local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates. More staff leads to lower crime. [1:08:53] And the study also found that from 2019 through 2024, officer resignations and retirements have [1:09:04] increased, and that's obviously then a decrease in officer staffing. So, Mr. Attorney General, [1:09:12] how do you anticipate that DOJ's proposal to consolidate its grant-making components, reducing that [1:09:20] funding for that account? How's that going to impact recruitment and retention by those local [1:09:28] agencies, and how do you plan to address that? [1:09:31] So, we will spend tons and tons of grant money on that issue, and not only giving money to state and [1:09:38] locals to get them new bodies, but also overtime and equipment, which all goes to keeping people on [1:09:44] the job. More meaningfully, and beyond the grant program itself, we are working, we are making law [1:09:51] enforcement a very good thing to be part of now. And that was one of the reasons that there was a steep [1:09:56] decline in a lot of retirements over the, during the time, 2019 to 2024, because there was this [1:10:01] inappropriate stigma that law enforcement or COPS were bad. That's not the case anymore. And so, we're [1:10:06] working every day. We have our Homeland Security Task Forces set up, which is a partnership with state [1:10:11] and local law enforcement and sheriffs. They're getting money. They're getting overtime pay. We're [1:10:16] thanking them. We're giving them cars. We're giving them vehicles. And so, that's what we're going to [1:10:19] continue to do. Have you reached out to local agencies to see if their recruitment has improved? [1:10:28] Because I can attest to, um, disappointment by many, by many, uh, police departments. OPPD Omaha, [1:10:36] for example, has seen, did see their numbers really decrease. Have you reached out, uh, and have any [1:10:42] numbers on what it is now? Regularly, including last week during police week, I met with a lot. [1:10:47] It's still a problem. We have not fixed it yet. I mean, look at what happened over the past year with [1:10:52] law enforcement officers getting doxxed and getting, having rocks thrown at them, having local leaders [1:10:57] say to good, hardworking cops, you can't help. So, this isn't something that we've won yet, [1:11:02] but it's a priority to win that fight. And, and, and I'll keep on talking to state and local sheriffs [1:11:07] and cops and detectives and letting them know that we appreciate them and not only with our mouth, [1:11:12] but with our pocketbooks as well. We do. Thank you. Uh, last year, the FBI and Homeland Security [1:11:18] Investigations announced a new Homeland Security Task Force based out of Kansas City, Missouri, [1:11:25] and that included a location in Omaha. Yes. And focus is obviously combating trafficking of humans [1:11:33] and drugs and weapons, money laundering, alien smuggling, homicide, extortion, on and on. Uh, [1:11:40] we did see members of this task force, uh, they arrested a MS-13 gang leader in Grand Island, Nebraska, [1:11:51] in the Middle Eastern part of the state. Um, the 27 budget request cites the elimination [1:11:59] of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force's component and instead requests appropriations [1:12:07] be made directly to agencies like DEA and FBI. Can you share how this proposed reorganization [1:12:16] is still going to ensure strong interagency coordination so that we can see a continued [1:12:24] focus on transnational crime, uh, threats and specifically with those local, um, law enforcement [1:12:32] agencies. It's very important. I agree. So look, we dissolved the, the OCDF executive office. That is [1:12:39] true. But the money that we're asking for, the money that we're going to spend, is exactly like we've [1:12:44] been spending for a long time except for more efficiently. So the HSTF model is, is built off [1:12:50] of the OCDF model, but with a lot of improvement. Like there was a lot of overlap in OCDF money that [1:12:56] we are now just, that we're now being more efficient with. So, so the, there is no doubt, as a matter of [1:13:02] fact, the opposite is true, that we're spending that same OCDF type money. We're spending more of it [1:13:07] and we're getting more of it out to the field through the Homeland Security Task Force. And so that, [1:13:12] that's what we're, that's the goal. So is that a line item, uh, within your agency or does it need [1:13:19] to be a line item and on, uh, on appropriations? So it's a, to make sure that it's covered. So it's [1:13:26] a line item through the appropriations, I believe. Although I'll double check that and, and, and get [1:13:32] back to you if I'm wrong. I will. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Senator Fisher. Thank you. Uh, now I would [1:13:36] like to recognize the vice chair of the full committee, Senator Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:13:40] Acting Attorney General right now, families are paying four or five, even six or seven dollars [1:13:46] for gas. Inflation is at its highest level in years because of the president's policies. [1:13:53] But instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars to set [1:14:01] up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. On Monday, your department settled the president's [1:14:07] lawsuit by setting up a fund with $1.8 billion and you and the president will pick the handful [1:14:16] of people who decide how that money gets doled out. So let's be clear. What we're talking about [1:14:22] is nothing short of the sitting president of the United States looting from the treasury for his own [1:14:28] gain. Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? The president telling the federal [1:14:34] government to settle a case and let him pay billions to the people that he chooses? [1:14:40] What you just described wouldn't be appropriate and that's absolutely not what happened and that's [1:14:44] not what's happening now. So you just set up a series of facts, most of which were not true. [1:14:48] No, it's not. The president has set up a slush fund, however you want to say that it got set up, [1:14:55] and he literally will get to choose through his hand-picked appointees who gets paid that fund. [1:15:01] That is absurd. The president did not set up this fund. It's not a slush fund. It's been done [1:15:09] many times. We have lots of funds. I heard your response earlier to Senator Van Hollen. This is not [1:15:14] comparable to the case that you cited. A judge was not involved. This is the president versus himself [1:15:21] setting up a fund. The judge wasn't involved in the distribution in the Keeps Eagle case at all. [1:15:26] It just wasn't. There was a single commissioner that was that was set up, not five. And so when I [1:15:31] The judge signed off on that case. Yes, it was a much later point in litigation. That's my point. [1:15:37] That is all of our point. And it just, I just have to tell you, this is corruption that has never been [1:15:42] more blatant or more right sped. What is happening is you write the check. Trump and his cronies cash it. [1:15:49] American taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices are going to foot the bill. That's [1:15:55] what we are seeing today. And that is what many of us are really, really angry about. So let me move to [1:16:01] another topic. This Department of Justice is sending the message that if you're wealthy, if you're powerful, [1:16:10] if you are well connected, you won't be held accountable, even if you abuse children. You know [1:16:15] us after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act, and DOG finally began to release [1:16:21] the files, your department exposed survivors' names, their sensitive personal information, and even [1:16:30] nude photos, while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. The message that [1:16:36] sends is this Department of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy of potential child abusers [1:16:44] than the survivors. Your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims. But I want to give you [1:16:51] the same opportunity to apologize for the way the department handled the release of these documents. [1:16:58] Will you apologize to the survivors? [1:17:01] When the President passed the Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time, [1:17:05] when the President signed the Transparency Act, that was when we were legally allowed to release [1:17:11] the files. Prior to the passage of the Act, which you all passed, I agree. [1:17:15] That is so not the question I'm asking. [1:17:17] It was the question you asked. You asked five or six questions. I'm answering them in order. [1:17:21] No, the question I want you to answer is, will you apologize to the victims whose names, [1:17:28] sensitive personal information, and even nude photos were not redacted by your department? [1:17:34] Will you apologize to them? Of course. We never want to [1:17:37] release a single victim's name. That is what they are hearing to hear. [1:17:39] Can I answer the question, please? Is it fair? I'm asking if you'll apologize. [1:17:43] And I just said yes, but I would like an explanation to be given to that. What this Act did [1:17:49] is it required us to review over six million pieces of paper in a very short period of time. [1:17:55] And so 0.001%, we made mistakes and we owned up to them. And the second that a victim or their lawyer [1:18:01] told us that we made a mistake, we pulled that document down and we put lawyers 24-7 in being [1:18:07] responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we fixed every single problem. And so yes, [1:18:12] I hear your anger. [1:18:13] I'm not angry. No, I'm not angry. I'm just making sure it's understood that we matter. [1:18:19] There are nude photos released. I just want to hear you say I apologize to those victims. [1:18:24] So as I just said, of course, any time we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, [1:18:29] we have failed as a Department of Justice. And so we have to do everything that we can to not fail. [1:18:34] Well, I haven't heard the words I apologize to those victims. [1:18:36] I'm trying to give you an explanation of what happened. I don't think you're really interested [1:18:39] in that because you keep on cutting me off. [1:18:41] I am, but I have a few more questions here. And I want to know, and I know that Senator Van [1:18:44] Holland raised this, but I want to ask, will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? [1:18:49] I have heard from them personally that DOJ refused to meet them. And I'm asking about you. [1:18:56] I'm asking about the Justice Department reaching out to them to be heard, [1:19:01] not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has obviously repeatedly failed them so far. [1:19:07] Can I answer? [1:19:07] Yeah. Will you reach out to them? [1:19:09] Okay. So as we have said repeatedly, [1:19:12] of course, any lawyer. Now, if a victim has a lawyer, I'm not allowed to reach out to the [1:19:16] victim directly. You know that. But any lawyer can reach out to the Department of Justice. They [1:19:20] have, and I've met with many victims and their lawyers, as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. We will [1:19:26] always, always meet with victim's counsel. Any victim or the lawyer can come forward to the FBI. [1:19:32] With these women, and I've met with them, and I know Senator Van [1:19:35] Holland has, and so many others. They are personally so feeling abused again and again, [1:19:42] again, by what happened to them originally, and now what's happening by them. I am saying to you, [1:19:47] as a human being, don't make them navigate a system that is impossible to navigate, [1:19:52] that's already abused them. Reach out and ask to meet with them. [1:19:55] Wait, you're asking me to call? You want me to personally call the victims? [1:19:59] I can help you reach them. Oh, that would be great. Yes, [1:20:02] because we have said from day one, of course, there have been members that have done that, [1:20:06] and we immediately reach out to the victims or their lawyers when the lawyers want and [1:20:10] they say they want to do it. We will follow up on that. Thank you very much. [1:20:13] Let me ask a few questions, and then we'll get to Senator Reed and Senator Peters, [1:20:21] and then we'll have a conclusion of the hearing. I want to, oh, yes, and Senator Gillibrand, [1:20:28] excuse me for my lack of peripheral vision. We'll make certain, Senator Gillibrand, that you are [1:20:33] called on. General, worried about staffing and operational strains at the Bureau of Prisons. [1:20:43] This committee, this subcommittee and our full committee has tried to help in the last several [1:20:48] years, and there was money in the reconciliation bill, $5 billion to support recruitment and retention [1:20:54] efforts to address the BOP's maintenance backlog. In correctional facilities in Kansas, and we have [1:21:04] certainly a major federal and lots of state correctional facilities, but officers, wardens, [1:21:09] stakeholders continue to hear concerns about staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, [1:21:15] officer retention, long-term strain placed on both personnel and inmates. What, what can you tell me [1:21:22] about this budget request, and can you help me understand the circumstances you see at the Bureau [1:21:29] of Prisons in this regard? So, thank you, Senator. We were given a broken agency when we took over. [1:21:35] Not enough money, morale was very low, and, and many of the prisons needed serious repairs, and so [1:21:42] the president's budget this year tries to rectify a lot of that, as did the big, beautiful bill. The, the vacancy [1:21:49] rate is still 20% for corrections officers. I talked about this earlier, that has to do with retention, [1:21:54] it has to do with how much we're paying them, and creating an environment at the BOP that they want [1:21:59] to work at, and so that's something we have to work on. We have some of the investments we want to make, [1:22:05] $450 million to attack the vacancy rate, and, and start paying some of our correction officers more, [1:22:11] and then, and then also a lot of money to make repairs, and so these are just safety repairs, [1:22:18] but also structural repairs at prisons, so that, again, it makes sure inmates are protected and are [1:22:24] safe, and, and that we're safe from them, and also creates an environment that's safe for the staff and [1:22:30] the corrections officers that, that are working there, and so it's a, it's a big number, but it's [1:22:34] extraordinarily important. As recently as yesterday, General, I continued to hear from state and local [1:22:41] law enforcement agencies about their desire, and therefore the demand for training on drones and [1:22:49] counter UAS systems. We have, Kansas City is a FIFA site, but that, that demand is significant, and [1:22:58] can you tell me how the department is working with the FBI to address this issue, and, and I think FIFA [1:23:05] is a significant component of it, but with the prevalence of UAVs, I think it's just a broadly, [1:23:10] uh, an issue that needs to be broadly addressed. Yes, so we're training, the FBI is training a ton of [1:23:16] state and locals every day, and, and we're on the clock because of FIFA, but we're also doing it beyond [1:23:23] FIFA, because the UAS is, the drones are, are a big problem in every single state in this country, and so [1:23:29] we're, we have ATF also that, a certain portion of ATF also helps with the training as well at the FBI [1:23:35] facility, and we're going to continue to, to do that, meaning we're going to continue to offer and [1:23:40] provide training to state and locals. We're also asking for money in our budget to help, um, shore [1:23:46] that up a little bit so that, so that we can continue to not only offer training, but, but have a defense [1:23:51] to the UAS. Um, I would suggest that, uh, the FBI training center is over capacity, needs more, uh, [1:23:59] officers and the capabilities, and if the Department of Justice is interested in pursuing that, [1:24:04] I'd be interested in trying to be helpful. I'm interested in working with you, Senator. [1:24:07] Thank you. Uh, grant administration, I think things are getting better, but, uh, the Department [1:24:13] of Justice, particularly in its grants to local law enforcement, it's been a really slow process, [1:24:18] uh, this year in getting the money out the door. Congress shut down, um, the list is long [1:24:25] for reasons that could be the case, uh, but I would, I want to give you the opportunity to tell [1:24:31] me that you are now positioned to see that local law enforcement in particular, but grants in general, [1:24:37] and those grants exceed, uh, just local law enforcement, it's other community grants, mentoring [1:24:42] grants, uh, I want to make sure that you believe you're now positioned in terms of, uh, staffing and, and [1:24:49] administrative abilities to, to make that process work better. We are, we are working on that and, [1:24:55] and you're right, it's, it's been slow. We now have all the 25s out except for maybe one. [1:25:00] We're starting on 26 now. One program or one grant? One grant. One grant. One grant. One, one, [1:25:06] I could be off a couple of grants, but we're, we're mostly finished with that process. You're right, [1:25:10] it didn't, you know, we didn't get the number from you guys till January, late January, so we had a late [1:25:14] start. Um, and we're going to turn to 26 now and, and get as much done as we can. As you know, [1:25:19] they're distributed on a rolling basis. So it's not as if there's no money and then a ton of money. [1:25:24] So we're trying to, to get the, the wheels turning as quickly as we can, um, to, to get money out. [1:25:30] Thank you. Senator Reed. [1:25:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Uh, Mr. Blanche, how many taxpayers returns were leaked in by the IRS [1:25:39] contractor in the 2020 breach? How many taxpayers, excuse me? How many taxpayers returns were leaked [1:25:46] by the IRS contractor in the 2020 breach? I don't know the exact amount, but a lot. [1:25:50] Uh, 405,427. One of them was Donald Trump, correct? One of them was Donald Trump, correct? [1:26:01] It was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct? Right. And, uh, Donald Trump was president [1:26:06] at the time. Correct. So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct? [1:26:14] It was a criminal who worked in the IRS. Yes. Well, he was hired under Trump's, [1:26:20] this is one of the Trump. Well, there was a criminal breach that led to this. Yes. [1:26:25] Very good. Uh, how many of these 400,000 people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach? [1:26:33] I don't think any have, including the president. No, they haven't. But you've authorized the president. [1:26:38] Do you agree the president should have, uh, reimbursement, correct? No, [1:26:43] we settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to president Trump. [1:26:48] Well, that's interesting. So president Trump, you're going to assure us, [1:26:52] president Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this. Correct. He will not. [1:26:58] He will not get, his family will not get. Correct. And who will direct the disposition of these, [1:27:04] uh, who gets the money? From the, from the victims fund. Well, there'll be a commission [1:27:10] of five individuals that will be set up and they will take in requests and claims and decide whether [1:27:16] to do anything from issue. Who will name the commissioners? I will. The attorney general, [1:27:20] whoever the attorney general is. The attorney general. Okay. Um, sorry, just to correct. [1:27:25] And one of them will be done in consultation with leadership of this body. Consultation. Well, [1:27:30] that's good. But, um, when he first announced this, uh, suit on January 30th, he said, [1:27:37] I think what we'll do is something for charity where I'll give the money to charity. I'm talking [1:27:43] about the American cancer society. I would say established and respected charities. Uh, [1:27:49] will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to respected charities? [1:27:53] I'm aware that he put that in or said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for. [1:27:58] Well, the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the department of justice, correct? [1:28:04] Correct. So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's [1:28:09] vision of giving it to a respectable charity? I am confident his lawyers urged the president's [1:28:14] desires. Um, obviously there's not a, uh, a charity. Um, the order that you signed yesterday states [1:28:25] that the government pay this settlement if the secretary of treasury has certified the payment. [1:28:30] Is that correct? Correct. Uh, is it a coincidence that the general counsel [1:28:35] department of treasury resigned yesterday? I don't know if it's a coincidence. [1:28:40] Have you looked or checked? Have I checked? Yeah. I have not. As to why he resigned? [1:28:47] It just seems to be very coincidental that the high ranking member of the department of treasury [1:28:52] Senate confirmed would resign the day that the treasury department was required to, required essentially to [1:28:59] certify these payments. Well, I believe the IRS signed the settlement agreement as well. Um, but yes, [1:29:05] but I, I don't, I can't speak to why he resigned, Senator. Well, uh, this all seems, uh, to be an obvious, uh, abuse of power [1:29:21] by the department of justice, by the president. He negotiated essentially himself. You're his appointee. [1:29:28] The IRS are his appointees. He's the plaintiff. And the American people, I don't think, [1:29:34] a surprise that suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that he, in his orbit. Uh, [1:29:42] will you ensure that none of this money goes to anyone convicted on the January 6th attack on the [1:29:47] Congress? Well, the commissioners will determine who is eligible to receive the money. And who, [1:29:53] who are the commissioners? They're not named yet. Who will name them? I will. Or the attorney general will, [1:29:59] it's not me. So, uh, with the suggestion of the president of the United States. Excuse me? [1:30:04] With the suggestion of the American, of the president of United States, your boss. I do not [1:30:08] make suggestions. I will. No, no. He won't make suggestions to you. I had, I have no idea if he [1:30:14] will or not. I really don't. I have no idea if he will or not. Uh, I, I would be shocked if he didn't [1:30:22] tell you exactly who to put on. And I'd be more shocked if you did not put them on. This is a travesty of the [1:30:31] law in the United States and the constitution. Uh, you had an opportunity to go down and talk to [1:30:38] Jocelyn Maxwell. And then a few days later, she was transferred from a high security prison to a, [1:30:46] um, very comfortable. I mean, that's very comfortable. It's just not true. [1:30:52] She was not in a high security prison. She was transferred from a low security prison to a low [1:30:56] security prison. I mean, you're looking at me like that's, uh, that's verifiable. Well, uh, I don't [1:31:02] think at the other prison, she had her own room. She had access to a private shower. She could have [1:31:09] pet therapy. And I don't know if any of that is true. I'm not disagreeing with you. It is true. [1:31:15] And you should know it. Mr. I should know that you should know whether an inmate has access to her [1:31:20] own shower. No, no. Uh, this is a person of extra special interest to the president of the United States. [1:31:26] He's known her. Why did he send you down to talk to her? He didn't send me. I went, [1:31:33] but what do you mean? Do you think president Trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in [1:31:37] federal prison? Honestly, I do frankly, because you know why? Because the deal was in, he needed [1:31:42] somebody he could rely, he needed somebody to rely upon to talk to her and say, what would she say [1:31:48] if she was asked about Jeffrey Epstein? And you were the perfect choice. And you went down there [1:31:53] and suddenly, shazam, she's out of what is a more confining situation into a much more relaxed [1:32:03] federal prison. Every word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. [1:32:09] If there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make them. But he did, [1:32:14] the president did not have anything to do with my choice to go interview Ms. Maxwell. If I wouldn't [1:32:18] have went and a career would have went, you would have said, why didn't you go yourself? Just like you [1:32:22] expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower. So I did go. [1:32:25] Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know that. I guess you don't, [1:32:31] you know, read things like that. You know, this whole hearing I think is exposing something, [1:32:36] which is to me very frightening. You're a very gifted lawyer. But from my perspective, [1:32:43] you have very little faith to the constitution and the people of America and you're the president's [1:32:50] consigliore. Your perspective is completely wrong. [1:32:53] Well, I think the facts will prove me right. Thank you. [1:32:59] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, last May, my staff at Homeland Security and Government Affairs [1:33:06] Committee released a report documenting that the inspectors general that President Trump fired [1:33:13] had together collectively had uncovered billions of dollars in fraud, waste and abuse. We oversee [1:33:21] IGs and believe that they're incredibly important to hold government accountable, which needs to be [1:33:29] done so that American people have trust and confidence in the work that we do here. In fact, [1:33:35] it was quite, I thought, striking. The study showed that for every dollar that we spend on IGs, it's been [1:33:44] estimated. The return on that investment is roughly 18 times what we put into the IGs. But despite the [1:33:54] administration's purported focus on fraud, your department, FY27 request, would actually cut these IGs, [1:34:02] their budget, by nearly a third. These are folks that have an 18 to 1 return on investment. Prior to being [1:34:10] in public service, I spent 20 plus years in the investment business. If I told investors, this is an investment [1:34:17] I'd like you to make and you're going to have an 18 to 1 return, they would jump out of their chair in [1:34:22] excitement and say, absolutely. Can I put, how much money can I put in to get an 18 to 1 return? So while the [1:34:30] requests, and this happens while you're requesting an increase for your overall agency through the [1:34:35] reconciliation, so you're going to be gaining additional funding, which I would argue requires oversight as you get [1:34:41] additional funding. That happens every government agency, not just yours. And to have a massive cut [1:34:46] of IGs with an 18 to 1 ROI, why was that decision made and how do you intend to have robust oversight [1:34:54] of the department when you're cutting the folks who are responsible for that and have a brilliant track [1:34:58] record of doing that with every administration, Democratic or Republican, before you? So I agree, [1:35:05] the IGs are extraordinarily important. The budget that was proposed, it was developed consulting with the [1:35:11] IGs. And so this is a budget that OMB and DOJ worked with the IGs office to come up with, and this was [1:35:19] an agreed upon budget from them. So while not, just because you're not, you're not giving more money and [1:35:25] you're even taking away money, doesn't, doesn't mean the conclusion you reach is accurate, which is that [1:35:29] it's going to result in less work or less return on our investment. I just don't think that's true. [1:35:35] Well, that makes no sense, of course. If you have one third fewer folks working, granted, [1:35:42] maybe they're incredibly more productive, but it's really clear with an 18 to 1 return, [1:35:48] investing as your budget is growing, you're going to have that kind of return. And it makes no sense [1:35:56] to do that. Why? There's no financial sense to do it. So is there another reason you just don't want [1:36:01] IGs on the job? As I just said, the IGs themselves work with OMB and DOJ to develop this budget in a [1:36:08] way that made them feel that they could get their job done. So it wasn't like, we've got a budget for [1:36:14] it. You can either take this or you're going to get a lot less. I wasn't part of the conversation, [1:36:18] but I assure you it was not. I can't imagine IGs are going to say, [1:36:20] okay, we want fewer of us, even though we have an 18 to 1 return, and we're the guardian to make sure [1:36:26] that people can trust what happens in federal government. And it makes no sense to me to have that cut. [1:36:31] And I think it speaks volumes of what this administration is really focused on. And it's [1:36:39] not about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. You don't do that by decimating the IG Corps. [1:36:44] We certainly saw him fire a number of IGs earlier and have serious concerns. [1:36:48] Mr. Blanche, the president also signed an executive order on March 31 directing the Department of Justice, [1:36:54] the Department of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service to take a series of actions related to [1:36:59] federal elections, including the creation of a federal citizenship list and new rules on mail [1:37:05] ballot distribution. That order is rightly being challenged in federal court, as these are state [1:37:11] functions. But recent reporting indicated that the implementation of that order is being coordinated [1:37:16] through the White House meetings involving senior Department of Justice leadership, including [1:37:21] Assistant Attorney General Harmet Dhillon. So my question for you, sir, is what is the department's role in [1:37:28] implementing the March 31 executive order? [1:37:30] Well, it's – I want to be careful because it is under litigation, but it's as you just described. [1:37:35] It's working with other agencies within the administration to implement the goals, [1:37:41] which I think are appropriate goals, to make sure that we have free and fair elections, [1:37:46] to make sure that those are implemented, whether it's DOJ that needs to implement them [1:37:49] or some other federal agency. [1:37:51] Well, you have other agencies. The same reporting identified the official leading the Department [1:37:57] of Homeland Security's work – as you said, you're all working together on this – who now serves as [1:38:01] the DHS Deputy Assistant Secretary for Election Integrity. Her name is Heather Honey, who is in that [1:38:09] position. Ms. Honey's prior claims were central to the effect to challenge the 2020 election results. [1:38:16] Claims, as you have – as you know, have been widely disproven. It's not true, none of this stuff. [1:38:23] She's a key player there. So my question for you, sir, is the department taking policy direction [1:38:28] either formally or informally – you say they are from your previous answer – but from an official [1:38:33] whose prior work was built on disproven claims about a prior federal election? [1:38:38] Our policy direction comes from President Trump and his leadership team. So I know the person you're [1:38:44] speaking about. She's part of DHS and certainly in meetings that we have about election integrity. [1:38:50] But as far as whether myself or Harmeet Dhillon take policy directions, we take them from the president. [1:38:57] So interesting – a person who was part of these widely disproven false allegations and a president [1:39:06] who, of course, subscribes to that as well. So that's what you're telling me. That's what's driving [1:39:10] this effort by the federal government to basically take powers that the constitution reserves for our [1:39:17] states. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, General Blanche. [1:39:27] General Blanche, last week I took this topic up with Director Patel. I'd like to revisit it with you. [1:39:33] That has to do with the work that's taking place in various jurisdictions across the country to make [1:39:38] them more safe. And I want to commend the department for the work on Memphis Safe. [1:39:42] The task force there has resulted in a 43 percent decrease in violent crime since the operation [1:39:49] commenced. I think it's a shining example of what happens when you have state and local governments [1:39:54] cooperating with the federal government. And the dramatic improvements that we've seen in violent [1:40:00] crime and enhancing safety are really very much appreciated. I just wanted to ask you to take a few [1:40:06] minutes and walk us through the whole-of-government approach that you've taken and how that's been [1:40:11] executed. And from that, what lessons we might learn that could be applied to other jurisdictions? [1:40:16] Thank you, Senator. Yes. In your state, the Memphis task force is one of the shining stars of law [1:40:23] enforcement over the past year, also DC as well. And the way that it works is that we no longer care [1:40:29] about stats within an agency, the FBI, DEA, marshals, HSI, state and local. It's just one government. [1:40:35] It's a one-government approach. So what happens in Memphis and what should happen in every city in this [1:40:39] country is every day law enforcement gets together in a room and they decide who they're going to go [1:40:44] out and get that day, whether it's someone wanted for murder, rape, any other burglary, whether it's [1:40:51] just somebody who has a warrant out for their arrest. And then they focus on doing it. And they do it, [1:40:55] if they need a prosecutor to write a warrant, they go to get the prosecutor to write a warrant. If they [1:40:59] need a state DA to help because it's a state charge, they get the state DA's office. And what you saw, [1:41:04] you just described the reduction in crime. But you have streets in Memphis now that were unwalkable [1:41:10] six months ago. And that now there was a few new restaurants opening, I heard last week. And [1:41:16] that's complete success. I wish we could do what we were able to do in Memphis in every city in this [1:41:21] country. [1:41:21] Can we stay on that for just a moment? Because I understand that there are other jurisdictions [1:41:25] in the United States that are refusing to cooperate. Is there anything that we could do, [1:41:29] any tool that we could provide to help you with this, with these non-compliant jurisdictions? [1:41:34] Look, I think one thing we can do is just keep on showing the American people [1:41:39] what it looks like when you do it right. And hopefully these local politicians that are doing [1:41:43] it wrong will be shamed into doing it right. And we also are where they're actually violating the [1:41:51] Constitution and violating federal law in the way that they're treating federal law enforcement and [1:41:57] the work that federal law enforcement is doing. But all I can do as the acting attorney general is [1:42:02] is offer everybody that we will work as hard as we can with our law enforcement to work with the [1:42:09] state and locals to combat crime. [1:42:11] Thank you. [1:42:11] And that's what President Trump ordered me to do. And that's what I will continue to do. [1:42:15] Well, thank you for that. I would just like to show my colleagues I get a daily report [1:42:19] on the results of what's happening in Memphis from your team and many others. And it's quite [1:42:23] impressive. The accountability makes a real difference. I'd like to turn to another issue, [1:42:27] though, one that's deeply concerning. I think it is concerning to me. It should be concerning to every [1:42:31] American. And that's bringing to light what happened to the previous administration, the Biden [1:42:37] Department's Department of Justice, when they weaponized the extraordinary powers of your [1:42:43] department with arctic frost. If you think about it, they used this arctic frost to persecute the [1:42:51] president and also go after his closest allies, including me. And, you know, I was shocked to find [1:42:58] out last year that under President Biden, the DOJ had secretly obtained my phone records from Verizon. [1:43:06] And even though Verizon was obligated to let me know that, they chose not to. And when I brought the [1:43:12] problem to Verizon's attention, all they've done is tried to stonewall me. And we brought it before [1:43:18] the FCC in the form of a complaint. Again, Verizon simply continues to stonewall. And if I think about [1:43:25] what Verizon, what the Biden DOJ did, they specifically chose to ignore the fact that nothing can or [1:43:33] should stop a phone provider from notifying a member of Congress when their constitutional rights [1:43:38] are being violated as mine were violated. It turns out that Verizon's chief legal officer, Vandana [1:43:45] Venkatesh, used to work for Henry Waxman, one of the most partisan players up here. And she is the [1:43:54] general counsel. I'm seriously concerned, at least, that Ms. Venkatesh and Verizon may have [1:44:01] collaborated with their friends at the Biden DOJ. They never told me or my colleagues about it, [1:44:06] because they might have been worried that the truth would come out. They might have been worried that [1:44:11] that would endanger their plans to make a $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications. [1:44:17] It's contemptible. It's damning. But I think there may have been a real reason there. [1:44:22] I want justice to be done here. And I really would appreciate your help getting to the bottom [1:44:27] of it. So here's my question. Can I get your commitment that the DOJ will work with me and [1:44:31] my colleagues, Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson, in bringing full accountability to this abuse of [1:44:36] power? Absolutely. And obviously, Senator, one way we do that is by the work we're doing to make [1:44:44] sure you all get your oversight responsibilities as much as you deserve to get the materials that we're [1:44:50] reviewing and collecting, but then also in proactively the work that we're doing to make sure [1:44:54] that what happened never happened again. I mean, understand that there are times when we subpoena [1:44:59] phone records. We do not want the bad guys to know that we did it, because we're still investigating. [1:45:05] But the idea that that could be done to a United States Senator and that it would be okay for a [1:45:09] prosecutor to just do it, not even a scintilla of evidence, anybody did anything wrong, and then not [1:45:15] provide notice is, in some ways, the worst form of abuse by the Department of Justice. [1:45:22] In fact, there's a constitutional ban, and I think a first-year law student should know that. [1:45:25] You know, when AT&T was requested to provide the same records, they saw the constitutional problem. [1:45:31] They stopped. Verizon was willingly handing over my records and those of other my colleagues. [1:45:36] And I just asked myself, what was the purpose, what was the motivation for them to violate my [1:45:40] constitutional rights? Was it because they wanted to make friends with the FCC, maybe Ms. Venkatesh, [1:45:44] to get an appointment sometime later? I don't know. Was it because of this frontier acquisition [1:45:49] that they had in mind? I don't know. But we need to get to the bottom of it. Thank you. [1:45:52] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You're welcome. Senator Gillibrand. [1:45:55] Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, Acting Attorney General, for being here. [1:45:58] Thank you. I've listened to your testimony today, [1:46:01] and I have a concern about your focus. New York City was the site of the last major terrorist [1:46:09] attack against the United States at 9-11. We benefit greatly from what you've mentioned, [1:46:15] this whole-of-government approach where we integrate CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, DOJ, [1:46:24] all integrated seamlessly, NYPD, to keep our city safe. It's one of the biggest cities in the country. [1:46:32] It's one of the most dynamic cities in the country, and our public safety is paramount. [1:46:36] But I've looked at your record, and I am deeply concerned that you are not using this whole-of-government [1:46:41] approach because I see you slashing programs left and right that we know work for all certain things, [1:46:46] all sorts of things, from drugs to gun trafficking to community policing to cops program, slashing so [1:46:53] many programs that I know work. So I want to take you through them and hear from you why your focus [1:46:59] isn't where New York City and the state and the country need you to be, which is our public safety. [1:47:05] So first of all, do you think that China, Iran, Russia want to do us harm and would undermine our elections? [1:47:12] Yes. [1:47:13] Why did you delete the whole department then that is supposed to protect against the undermining of our elections? [1:47:21] We spend a ton of time, a ton of money, a ton of man hours, a ton of resources on that very issue. [1:47:28] Yeah, but you canceled the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. [1:47:32] That's a task force. That's literally just a group. You know where the task force is. [1:47:35] No, no, no. I was here in 2016. I know what happened. And after that, we did a whole-of-government [1:47:42] approach. We put experts in at CISA, we put experts in at the FBI, and we put experts in at the Department [1:47:49] of Defense. Together, whole-of-government approach, they went state by state by state to make sure that our [1:47:55] electoral infrastructure was sound. However, your department and this administration has [1:48:02] aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this. So they were the people at the [1:48:07] FBI in charge of it. So why have you dismissed those operations? [1:48:11] Where that failed, there were no state and local involved. It was all just a bunch of federal people, [1:48:15] mostly out of Washington, D.C., okay? And the FBI agents were all Washington, D.C., the way they were [1:48:21] agents, not around the country where we needed them. So the way they were addressing it, [1:48:24] by closing down that task force, is by having HSTF set up in everything, including in New York City. [1:48:30] Every single agency, every single state now has an HSTF, and that is one of their main focuses. And [1:48:35] it does work with state and local. I want a complete report on this, because I don't have [1:48:39] confidence that you are doing what needs to be done. Because if all the 300, 400 expert people [1:48:46] that were in our previous administrations, multiple administrations, Democrat and Republican [1:48:51] administrations, if none of them are good, and you're starting over from scratch, that doesn't [1:48:56] sound like the recipe for success. I didn't say none of them were good. That's not what I said. [1:48:59] Well, they've all been dismissed and they've all been fired in all three areas. That's not true. [1:49:04] They have not all been dismissed. We fired the people from DOD, [1:49:06] we fired the people from CISA, we fired the people at the FBI. They were all dismissed. [1:49:10] They were not all dismissed. Many of them were still here. [1:49:12] Ask for a briefing, look into it, and give a report to this committee. Because I'm telling you, [1:49:17] if you agree that our adversaries do not have our goodness in mind, they don't have our [1:49:23] protecting elections in mind, I need laser-like focus on solving this problem. [1:49:28] You're getting laser-like focus. [1:49:30] All right, I'd like a report on that. Second issue, gun trafficking. We have been working so hard as a [1:49:35] federal government to stop the flow of illicit guns into our communities where someone can sell [1:49:41] guns out of the backs of their trucks from some criminal gun dealer who's trying to get these [1:49:48] guns into the hands of criminals. And we're supposed to get data every year so we can show that our gun [1:49:54] trafficking laws are working. These new enhanced laws where police officers can now go across state [1:49:58] lines to do their investigation. Why are you not giving me the data about gun trafficking? I need to [1:50:03] know if it's working. I need to know if these cases are being prosecuted. And I can't even get data out [1:50:08] of your department. Well, the cases are being prosecuted. We did- Will you give me the data so I can [1:50:13] assess it? I don't know what data you're talking about. Just the number of weapons that have been [1:50:18] seized, the number of cases that are being prosecuted. We keep track of how many weapons have been seized [1:50:24] that are trafficked. And I'm waiting from your department over a year to get that data. To the extent [1:50:29] there's data that we're required- Will you send it? Okay, next point. I got like five points. I only [1:50:34] get five minutes. Next point. Community violence intervention grants. You are slashing these [1:50:38] community violence intervention grants. They work. We know they work. One of them was to New York [1:50:43] for 4.2 million. Slashed. It prevents youth violence. These are programs that are working. Did you [1:50:49] analyze whether this program was working before you slashed the funding? Yes, there's still a ton of funding [1:50:55] for those programs. They do work. Not the ones in New York. They do. You just deleted them. Delete, [1:50:59] delete, delete. It's shocking. It wasn't delete, delete, delete. That is absolutely not true. Okay, [1:51:02] well 4.2 was deleted for the local initiative support corporation that funds- It's not a deletion. [1:51:09] It's just that we're not seeking funding for it through this exact process for that exact- No, no, [1:51:12] I'm seeking funding for it. I've asked for the money and we've gotten grants for this and you've just [1:51:16] suspended this grant program. I'm happy to work with you to make sure we're spending the grant money in the [1:51:20] right way. I don't have any more time, but there's a community-oriented policing grant cuts as well. The cops [1:51:25] funds, this is something our police officers and our community policing development microgrants, [1:51:30] they benefit from it. De-escalation training grants, programs that work, our police officers need it, [1:51:36] and then drugs. We have an anti-heroin and anti-methe, meh, meh, methamphetamine task force, [1:51:43] and we need to be funded, and it's not being funded, so I just- It is being funded, absolutely. There's a [1:51:50] different amount of funding, but it is being funded. No, no, you've eliminated funding for both the [1:51:55] anti-heroin and anti-methe task force. I'm sorry. Which is the task force that stops the trafficking [1:52:03] of heroin, fentanyl, and the very long word I can't pronounce. I mean, Senator, there's nothing [1:52:10] more important to President Trump and to this Department of Justice than combating the illegal [1:52:14] flora narcotics. So to the extent that there is a particular funding revenue stream that is not [1:52:21] being funded the same way, I commit to you that it is of the highest priority to combat drugs. [1:52:26] Last is the Public Safety Officer Benefit Program. You say, we just had Police Week, you say you stand [1:52:31] with law enforcement. When you do not support this program and when these funds are not getting back [1:52:36] to the loved ones who have lost their police officer loved one, it is not right. I need you to focus on [1:52:41] this. I need you to get this right. We're committed. Thank you, Senator. [1:52:44] Thank you. Thank you, Acting Attorney General. Thank you for being here. [1:53:01] Thank you. [1:53:01] I want to talk about the ATS National Tracing Center, which you know is located in Martinsburg, [1:53:07] West Virginia. I think this is a stunning statistic for people to realize that in fiscal year 2024 alone, [1:53:14] the National Tracing Center processed more than 600,000 requests. I mean, that is an immense amount of work. [1:53:23] It also helped to identify the deranged individual who attempted to assassinate President Trump in [1:53:31] Pennsylvania. So, obviously, it's great work out there, but I am concerned that we have to present, [1:53:39] prevent the release of firearm trace data to anyone other than law enforcement for investigative purposes. [1:53:46] Can you elaborate on the importance of the NTC, but also how it functions within the ATF, [1:53:52] and can you describe how your budget requests will sustain these critical services? [1:53:57] Yes, of course, Senator, and I agree with you. It is an extraordinarily valuable law enforcement tool, [1:54:04] but it can be abused, and so what the ATF has to make sure we're doing is we're using those tracing, [1:54:09] the tracing data, and by the way, it's not just for federal cases. It's for state and local cases. It's [1:54:14] for local crimes, and so it's a true testament of the power of the federal government to help the states. [1:54:20] We have to make sure that that data is shared only where it needs to be shared and only to further law [1:54:24] enforcement investigations. Our Director Sakata is laser focused on that. We have the benefit of [1:54:31] having somebody who's been an ATF agent for two decades, and so we'll continue to make sure that not [1:54:36] only we're spending the money to make sure that we're successful, but also making sure that we have [1:54:42] guardrails around it so that it doesn't get abused either by ATF or by anybody, state and local-wise. [1:54:49] Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to talk about the Hyda Task Force collaboration. I know DOJ [1:54:55] is a valuable member of the Hyda Task Force, and honestly, we had the ONDCP Director Sarah Carter came [1:55:02] to West Virginia a few weeks ago. We had a round table. U.S. attorneys are there, local partners, [1:55:07] local law enforcement. Very interesting conversation. I personally want to see the high-intensity drug [1:55:15] trafficking, the Hyda program stay within the White House. I know this may not be a decision that you're [1:55:23] actively involved in, because there's always, through several administrations, a desire to move it [1:55:29] over to DOJ. Do you have any perspectives on that, and what does this budget have to say about it? [1:55:34] Look, I know that President Trump is going to give a ton of money, I think over $11.4 billion [1:55:41] to combat the drug crisis, and that includes a lot of money to Hyda. The way that it's running through [1:55:48] the ONDCP now, as opposed to directly DOJ, doesn't make a difference to the effectiveness that we can [1:55:55] have to run in these programs. It hasn't made a difference over the past year. It will not make a [1:55:59] difference in the coming years. To the contrary. Remember, another big part of the drug fight [1:56:04] is DHS and HSI, and so one benefit of having it go through kind of one higher place is that we make [1:56:12] sure we're spending the money across the federal government in the ways that it's smart. So I have [1:56:16] had zero issues with that setup, and I don't think Administrator Cole has had any issues with it or any [1:56:22] other law enforcement. Personally, I think the issue is so large, and you heard Senator Gillibrand talking [1:56:27] about it in New York. Our state has a particular issue, and I am so pleased with the President's [1:56:34] southern border initiatives. Fentanyl seizures are down, meaning less fentanyl into the country, [1:56:42] but it's just such a devastating and terrifying drug that's killing too many people. [1:56:48] Yes. [1:56:48] I did want to make, I noticed in your opening statement you made a comment about the Bureau of [1:56:52] prisons. I just had a conversation with my fellow West Virginian, Billy Marshall, who's head of the BOP. [1:56:57] I am in full support of the $10 billion request that you've made, and he's made great strides there [1:57:03] in getting good leadership, and they're safer. We have several federal prisons in and around West [1:57:09] Virginia, and not only are the staff safer, but the inmates are safer as well, and I would encourage you [1:57:16] to keep pounding that drum. We will. Thank you, Senator. Let me ask you a question in the last [1:57:22] few minutes that I have. There's a few seconds. All right, geez. There's always a headline about, [1:57:30] Assistant Attorney General leaves DOJ, and it sounds like it's a political statement rather than, or a lack [1:57:38] of confidence statement, or doesn't like the way the direction that the department is going, [1:57:43] and I know you see this, the public reports. Isn't this the way it's always been at DOJ, [1:57:49] people moving in and out, and you yourself were at DOJ at one point before you went into private [1:57:55] practice. I don't know if you want to talk about, at the upper echelons of your leadership team, [1:58:00] where you see this going, and is it a political statement, or is it the cost of doing business [1:58:06] and ebb and flow of workforce? Look, I think we have a great team, and not only DOJ, but President [1:58:13] Trump's entire administration. That necessarily means that sometimes people come in and sometimes [1:58:17] people leave. I was a federal prosecutor until I had no money left, and I had to go to the private [1:58:22] sector, and I think there's pressures on family, and so it's not a political statement. I think the [1:58:30] President has assembled a phenomenal cabinet, and the cabinet has then assembled leadership that I think [1:58:35] is every day working hard to fulfill the President's agenda, and when it comes to DOJ, to make America [1:58:40] safe again, and so my team that works at DOJ, some of them will save for four years, and some of them [1:58:48] will probably leave in the next month or two, and that's natural, and all we can do is thank them for [1:58:53] their public service, and to keep on hiring great people. Thank you for your service. Thank you. [1:58:59] Thank you, Senator Capito. We're going to conclude this hearing in just a moment. Senator Van Hollen and I [1:59:04] have the practice of like wrapping up our thoughts with questions or statements, [1:59:09] and then we'll conclude. I'm in a particular hurry to get to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee [1:59:15] to ask questions there, so if I quit explaining what we're going to do, I'll get there sooner, [1:59:20] and I now recognize Senator Van Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, [1:59:26] in response to Senator Coon saying that Capitol Hill police officers were worried that people who [1:59:33] assaulted them on January 6 might benefit from a slush fund. You said that couldn't be true, [1:59:42] because it hadn't been set up until yesterday. I didn't say it couldn't be true, Senator. I didn't [1:59:46] say it couldn't be true. It was surprising it was true. Ah, okay. So it is very possible that people have [1:59:53] been anticipating getting payments from the administration, people who were part of the [1:59:59] attack on the Capitol on January 6, right? You're asking me to speculate on the possibility of [2:00:04] something? Have you not heard of anybody anticipating getting payments from that? No, I haven't. I don't [2:00:11] know what that means, actually. All right, all right. But I won't speculate. I want to put it in the [2:00:15] record, submit for the record, a January 2026 Washington Post story, a long story entitled, [2:00:23] For many January 6 rioters, a pardon from Trump wasn't enough. And it goes on to quote, [2:00:29] the president of the United States, when asked about this, these payments said, [2:00:33] a lot of people in government now talk about it. Because a lot of people in government really like [2:00:38] that group of people, unquote, referring to the January 6 rioters. Are you not aware of that [2:00:43] statement from the president? I have never read the Washington Post. Well, I can tell you that [2:00:48] there are a lot of people. I accept that you read it. For a long time who've been anticipating [2:00:52] payments. You're not aware of that? You're telling me there's a lot of people that were anticipating [2:00:58] payments? Yes. No. Well, I'm not aware. Okay. Well, Mr. Attorney General, you are in a bubble, [2:01:04] because the reality is- Because I don't read the Washington Post? No, no, no. Obviously, [2:01:09] you should be in touch with some of these, these folks, because I asked you specifically about an [2:01:16] individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his anticipation of getting a payment. And you [2:01:25] said that couldn't be true. In fact, that was a lie. I want to read you- I didn't say that. [2:01:28] I got the transcript right. Good. You said it was obvious- I'm obviously lying in the question, [2:01:34] because there's no way the person committed to that because the slush fund did not exist. That's [2:01:39] what you said. I'm going to read from you, Mr. Attorney General, an affidavit from the [2:01:44] Hernando County, Florida Sheriff's Office. And I want you to listen carefully to what this police officer [2:01:52] said about this criminal, criminal named Andrew, pardoned by the president, now being charged for [2:01:59] child molestation. He says, Andrew also told that since he was pardoned for storming the Capitol on [2:02:07] January 6, 2021, and he was being awarded $10 million as a result of being a January Sixer, Andrew did tell [2:02:16] that he would be putting him in his will, referring to one of the victims of his molestation. He would [2:02:22] be putting him in his will to take any money he had left over. This tactic was believed to be used to [2:02:28] keep from exposing what Andrew had done to him, signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the [2:02:36] sheriff's office. And you're telling me you don't know about all these people who have been signaled by [2:02:41] the president of the United States and others that they're going to get payments. I think that that's [2:02:45] what you just read is disgusting. I'm very horrible that that happened. But that's not what I said. I [2:02:51] mean, you can you can say you're telling me and then make up something that I'm not saying, or you can [2:02:55] let me speak. Mr. Attorney General, I'm reading from the statement here. I got a transcript of what we [2:02:59] are exchanged earlier. And you essentially said, well, you're obviously lying in your question because [2:03:04] there's no way this person committed to that because the slush fund of which you called it did not [2:03:08] exist. Just as you suggested. Right. And I and it's true that even the affidavit that you just read [2:03:15] said that he would be awarded this this criminal suggested be awarded 10 million dollars. Now [2:03:19] you're playing absolute word games. I am not playing a word game. Of course you are because [2:03:23] people are anticipating these payments. And also words matter. Words matter. So if you're going to quote me, [2:03:26] quote me accurately. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put in the record January 6th rioter pardoned by Trump was [2:03:32] sentenced to life in prison for child abuse. Pardoned Capitol Hill rioter tried to bribe child sex victim [2:03:37] with promise of January 6th payout. And I will close with this, Mr. Attorney General. You can't [2:03:43] tell us today that this individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund. I find that [2:03:51] obscene. And I'm going to ask you one last time. You keep comparing this case to the Keep Eagle case. [2:03:58] In that case, as you've admitted, a judge ultimately signed off. I'm asking you, before you proceed with [2:04:03] this fund, will you have a federal judge sign off on it? I didn't compare the cases. What I said is [2:04:08] the commission that we set up yesterday is nearly identical to the commission that was set up during [2:04:13] Keep Siegel. But it's not. So please, you repeatedly put words in my mouth. And then, and then you say, [2:04:17] oh, I'm playing words. Words matter. Mr. Chairman, they do matter. You said they were, I got, look, [2:04:23] the transcript will speak first. It will. But you, but you compared in your own release, in the [2:04:28] Department of Justice's own release, you compared it to this case. And in this case, a judge signed. [2:04:32] My final question is, will you agree, as they did in that case, that before you proceed with this fund, [2:04:38] a federal judge will sign off and approve it? Will you agree to that? There's no federal judge. [2:04:42] So there's no mechanism. Actually, there is a federal judge presiding over this case. The case was dismissed. [2:04:47] That was, the case was dismissed by the judge last night. Yeah, because you moved to create this fund. [2:04:52] I didn't move. I did not move. That's not true. Mr. Attorney General, come on. [2:04:56] Yes. So let me, let me, so you're not going to, you're not going to submit this proposal to any [2:05:02] federal judge or independent. There is no judge. Any independent authority? An independent, [2:05:07] what does that mean, an independent authority? What does that mean? It means not somebody who's [2:05:09] getting to pick five of the members who was the president's former personal attorney. That would [2:05:14] be somebody who would be independent. I'm the acting attorney general. Okay. The fact that I used to be [2:05:19] President Trump's lawyer is just a fact, but I'm the acting attorney general. So don't say the [2:05:24] president's former personal lawyer would do something. The acting attorney general will do [2:05:27] something. Mr. Attorney General, you are acting today like the president's personal attorney, [2:05:31] and that's the whole problem. You've got his whole, you have a whole banner of his face hanging over the [2:05:38] Department of Justice, and you and everybody else walks under it, and you are acting like you're his [2:05:43] current personal attorney. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. Attorney General, let me, let me ask this [2:05:51] question in this regard to the fund. Is there in your mind the nature or description of the individuals [2:05:59] that you hope to find to serve on that board that makes the decisions that we're talking about? [2:06:07] Yeah, we want people who will have the ability to evaluate. I mean, with a couple of the questions [2:06:13] from the senator and from others today, evaluate whether somebody who's applying for compensation [2:06:19] is entitled to it. And if they are entitled to it, what amount and how to go about doing that. So we [2:06:25] expect they'll be experienced people. It'll be public. People can be critical if they so choose. And so [2:06:30] we haven't come up with names yet. And we will, you know, I think we have 30 days to do so. And when we [2:06:35] when we have the names, we'll announce them. And what's the standard by which a determination is made [2:06:40] that compensation should be had? So in the broadest sense, it's weaponization. It's not limited to [2:06:46] Republicans. It's not limited to Democrats. It's not limited to January 6 defendants. It's limited [2:06:52] only by the term weaponization. And so I expect that the commissioners and what I expect they will do, [2:06:58] because they'll have to, is set up guidelines and set up procedures for individuals to apply for that. [2:07:04] The weaponization then gets defined, could be, I assume you can't expand the word weaponization, [2:07:10] but you can narrow where it seems to be most applicable, where the weaponization, if it [2:07:17] occurred, is the most egregious. Make, is there some kind of standard by which you would evaluate [2:07:23] a case by case basis? I think there has to be standards. And I think it is a case by case basis. [2:07:28] I think that it will depend on, but by when you say there's a standard and then say it's case by case, [2:07:34] that's the issue, right? Is that the case, the case by case analysis is what's going to have to be done. [2:07:39] And, and I expect that it, that it will be done. I mean, I think it's telling that everybody on the [2:07:45] left and everybody in the, the liberal side of the media immediately says it's a slush fund for [2:07:50] President Trump's friends. If anything else, that's an outright admission that they know that the [2:07:56] people that really had this Department of Justice weaponized against them were President Trump and [2:08:01] his friends. But that is not what the commission says. That is not what the, what, what the AG order [2:08:06] that I signed yesterday says. It does not limit it to President Trump or President Trump's friends. [2:08:11] To the contrary, President Trump isn't taking a dime. And so, so the, the fact that there's a view [2:08:17] that this slush fund, which it's not, is going to be only given to Republicans or friends of the [2:08:23] President is, is for, is one, not true. But two, it's very telling that that's the reaction from [2:08:30] Democrats. Because it proves the point that, that President Trump has been saying for a very long time, [2:08:34] which happens to be true, which was, was for the first time in our nation's history, [2:08:39] you had an administration seek to destroy the previous administration, not just President Trump, [2:08:45] anybody that came in contact with him. I've said it before, but you're talking about his gardeners [2:08:49] being put in the grand jury, his secret service detail being put multiple times in the grand jury. [2:08:55] That's what the last administration did to try to destroy President Trump. And, and he has said [2:09:00] publicly, and, and I very much agree with him, that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody. [2:09:05] And so, how do you go about making sure it doesn't happen again to anybody? Well, you change the culture, [2:09:10] which is what we're doing. You also set up a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized, [2:09:15] have this, this Department of Justice and this federal government weaponized against them, [2:09:19] can apply. Does it mean they're going to get money? No, it doesn't mean they're going to get money. [2:09:23] It just invites them to apply. [2:09:24] And they, they make a case of some kind to meet some, some standard, right? [2:09:29] Yes. And you know, there's a flaw in the legal system because this legal system was not set up [2:09:34] to compensate for what the Democrats and what Biden and what Garland did for four years. [2:09:41] It doesn't know how to cope with the fact that, um, hundreds and hundreds of administration officials [2:09:46] had their phones taken from them. Members of the Senate had their, um, had, had, had their phone [2:09:51] records subpoenaed and weren't told about it. The system isn't set up for that. [2:09:56] In, in answers to your questions previously put before you this morning, did you, you took, [2:10:03] I assume because what the settlement agreement says, you eliminated certain individuals from being [2:10:09] qualified to receive benefits from this fund. What's the list of that, those individuals? [2:10:15] Well, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed to accept an apology. [2:10:19] So that's president Trump and his son, um, sons, I believe. And, and otherwise there is no limitation. [2:10:26] So, um, whether you're Hunter Biden or whether you're another, um, individual who believed they [2:10:31] were a victim of, of, of weaponization, they can all apply for, um, to this fund. And again, [2:10:37] it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. It doesn't mean that they're getting 10 million [2:10:42] dollars or whatever was just read a few minutes ago. It just means that you can apply. [2:10:45] And the decision by the commission is by a majority? [2:10:49] Yes. [2:10:50] Three of five. [2:10:51] Correct. [2:10:52] And, um, finally, this issue, while it's of interest to all of us as United States senators, [2:10:59] this committee has no jurisdiction over this issue in a sense, because this is mandatory spending. [2:11:05] Have you had conversations with Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley or the judiciary committee? [2:11:11] I have not had conversations over the past, you know, 24 hours about this. No, I have not. [2:11:16] Uh, general, anything you'd like to add to what you've said today or take away from whatever you said, [2:11:23] No, just thank you and the committee for their time today. [2:11:26] Um, there are no further questions. Uh, senators may submit additional questions for the subcommittee's [2:11:32] hearing record. We request that the attorney general respond to those, uh, questions within 30 days. [2:11:37] The, uh, subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair.