Todd Blanche testifies before Senate panel on DOJ’s 2027 budget

[0:00] Last week, the subcommittee reviewed the president's request for the department's four law enforcement components, the FBI, the DEA, U.S. Marshals, and ATF, and the, let me do that again, the FBI, U.S. Marshals Service, ATF, and DEA. [0:16] That was a very good hearing, General, and I appreciate your allowing their presence here in advance of your appearance today. [0:25] I appreciate the department's participation as we work to complete our budget hearings and draft the FY27CGS bill. [0:32] Attorney Blanche, I appreciate your support for law enforcement in the states, and I look forward to welcoming you to Kansas in the future. [0:41] Overall, DOJ is requesting an increase of approximately $4.7 billion, or roughly 12 to 13 percent, above FY26 enacted levels. [0:52] Much of that request reflects the reality that after several years of effectively flat funding, all while facing inflationary costs, many of the department's components were under significant strain. [1:03] Last year, I worked with my colleagues. [1:05] This committee worked together to maintain critical funding for both federal law enforcement agencies and the state and local departments that continue to serve as the backbone of public safety in communities across Kansas and the country. [1:18] Attorney General, I saw the note in your written remarks about what a serious challenge FY26 resources have been and will continue to be. [1:26] I particularly understand the enormous strain that the Bureau of Prisons, the One Beautiful Bill Act, provided $5 billion to BOP for both recruitment and retention of staff and to address severe maintenance backlog. [1:40] Additionally, the department is requesting an increase of $2.2 billion, or 27 percent, for BOP. [1:45] I assume that this reflects serious ongoing resource challenges. [1:51] At the same time, I have some concerns about cuts proposed to the department's three grant-making offices. [1:56] The grants administered by these offices provide significant support for state and local law enforcement, juvenile delinquency prevention, support for victims, and the safety of our nation's police and deputy sheriffs. [2:08] For example, this budget proposes a cut to youth mentoring programs. [2:11] This would have a significant impact on those organizations that mentor and operate in Kansas and across the country. [2:19] Veteran treatment courts have been a program that I've been particularly interested in as I chair the Senate Committee on Veterans Affairs. [2:26] I've worked closely with many in Kansas and across the country in regard to VTCs. [2:32] The Violence Against Women program is facing a cut which would have serious impacts on victims. [2:37] And the services provided to victims through organizations such as the Kansas Coalition Against Sexual and Domestic Violence. [2:45] I agree the department requires additional resources to fulfill its mission and keep our communities safe. [2:50] This is especially true for our federal law enforcement agencies, U.S. Attorney's offices, and the Bureau of Prisons. [2:57] As this committee evaluates the department's request, we also have a responsibility to examine whether reductions to many of these community-based programs [3:04] could ultimately replace additional strains on law enforcement and local communities in the longer term. [3:11] Attorney General, I look forward to learning more about the department's resource needs and your FY27 request. [3:17] And I would recognize Senator Van Hollen for his opening statement. [3:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, welcome. [3:24] The acting attorney general is supposed to be the people's lawyer and defend the rule of law and not act as the president's personal lawyer. [3:33] But in this administration, the Department of Justice is solely focused on pleasing one man, no matter the cost. [3:42] Lest anyone forget, huge banners with Donald Trump's face hang from both sides of the main justice building. [3:51] This is the big banner of Donald Trump on one side of it. [3:55] So that every single person who enters that building will see it and remember exactly what that man wants them to do. [4:04] You're his former personal attorney and you know exactly what he wants. [4:09] In fact, he often posts it right here on social media, his Truth Social account. [4:15] He wants to weaponize the department for his own political ends. [4:19] And right from the start, you and your cohorts have worked to deliver what he wants, doing his political dirty work. [4:27] Two days ago, you even suggested that there was, quote, a ton of evidence that the 2020 election was rigged against Trump. [4:34] And here you are at a budget hearing asking for taxpayer funds to pursue the department's mission when you're using those funds to punish Trump's adversaries, reward his friends and pursue his personal vendettas. [4:48] It began with pardoning the rioters who stormed the Capitol on January 6th and assaulted police officers. [4:56] The revenge continued with the firing of more than a dozen lawyers who represented the Justice Department in those cases. [5:05] Yesterday, you created a $1.8 billion slush fund to dole out taxpayer dollars to the president's supporters, including those who attacked this Capitol on January 6th. [5:16] That is pure theft of public funds. [5:21] And rewarding individuals who committed crimes is obscene. [5:25] Every American can see through this illegal, corrupt, self-dealing scheme. [5:30] You have also misspent resources on the blatant political prosecutions of James Comey and others. [5:37] You couldn't find a single career lawyer to bring the first case against Comey. [5:41] And lawyers resigned rather than participate in that charade. [5:45] Now you've launched a ludicrous, vindictive prosecution in the Seashell case. [5:50] It's a shameful dereliction of your duty to pursue impartial justice without fear or favor. [5:57] You've also brought criminal charges against journalists who were doing their jobs in Minneapolis. [6:01] You've refused to hold accountable the DHS agents who shot and killed Renee Good. [6:06] Instead, while members of the administration called both Renee Good and Alex Preddy domestic terrorist, [6:12] you ordered a criminal investigation of Renee Good's partner. [6:17] Hardworking professional attorneys resigned rather than engage in that abuse of power. [6:23] Others in the department have been fired for telling the truth to the courts, an insidious message to send to officers of the court. [6:31] You have fired immigration judges who rendered decisions the administration didn't like. [6:37] More gross political interference in what is supposed to be an independent process. [6:42] All told, DOJ lost over 8,500 staff last year and nearly one quarter of its lawyers. [6:52] It's so bad that you're now offering $25,000 signing bonuses and hiring prosecutors with no prior legal experience. [7:00] Seeking applicants who personally pledge support to the president. [7:05] You've also refused to share with members of Congress the Office of Legal Counsel's purported legal justification for the blatantly illegal war the president and Prime Minister Netanyahu started in Iran. [7:16] You have clear conflicts of interest between your prior job as the president's personal lawyer and your duty to ensure justice. [7:27] This is especially true with respect to the cases of the survivors of the heinous crimes committed by Jeffrey Epstein. [7:33] 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. [7:42] Many reading excerpts from their own FBI 302 reports documenting the abuses they endured. [7:49] These survivors have tried to share their stories with you. [7:52] Instead, you spent two days interviewing his convicted associate, Jelaine Maxwell, and shortly thereafter she was moved to a lower security prison camp with special perks. [8:06] Mr. Blanche, the record is crystal clear. [8:09] You are still acting as the president's personal lawyer, not as acting attorney general. [8:16] It is hard to justify giving you any funds that will enable this pattern of wrongdoing to continue. [8:24] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [8:25] Senator Van Hollen, thank you. [8:28] Senator Collins, you have an opening statement? [8:30] I don't, Mr. Chairman. [8:32] I look forward to asking questions after hearing from the witness. [8:37] Thank you. [8:38] Thank you, Senator Collins, for joining us. [8:40] With that, general, you are recognized for your opening statement. [8:43] Thank you very much, Senator Moran. [8:47] Good morning to all of you. [8:49] Ranking Member Van Hollen, Senator Collins, Senator Moran, good morning. [8:53] Thank you for the opportunity to present President Trump's fiscal year 2027 budget [8:58] for the Department of Justice. [9:00] As Senator Moran noted, the request totals $41.2 billion, a 13% increase over fiscal year 2026. [9:10] This underscores our department's renewed focus on reducing violent crime, combating the fentanyl crisis, [9:17] strengthening border and immigration enforcement, expanding fraud prevention, [9:21] and ensuring our law enforcement agencies have the resources they need to protect the American people. [9:27] Violent crime reduction remains one of the department's highest priorities. [9:32] Since January 20th of last year, the DOJ has indicted hundreds of members of TDA, [9:39] crippling their leadership and dismantling operational networks. [9:43] Across our major law enforcement components, the results have also been historic. [9:49] Federal law enforcement helped drive a 20% decrease in the national murder rate in 2025, [9:56] arrested 44,000 violent offenders, which is double the prior year, by the way, [10:02] and seized over 2,200 kilograms of fentanyl. [10:07] Last year, law enforcement captured eight of the FBI's 10 most-wanted fugitives, [10:13] located 6,300 missing children, and arrested more than 2,000 child predators. [10:19] The DEA has made thousands of fentanyl-related arrests and seized millions of fentanyl pills [10:25] and hundreds of kilograms of fentanyl powder. [10:28] In one August surge alone, DEA executed over 600 arrests, seized multi-ton quantities of narcotics, [10:36] and recovered more than $11 million in drug proceeds. [10:40] With 82 offices in 62 countries and 26 U.S. field divisions, DEA continues to disrupt global supply chains [10:48] from source to street of illegal narcotics. [10:52] The U.S. Marshal Service, one of the smallest federal agencies, law enforcement agencies, [10:57] with roughly 3,800 deputies, arrested more than 73,000 fugitives last year, [11:04] conducted 308,000 prisoner movements, and housed over 55,000 detainees, [11:10] and provided protection for 18 federal protectees, including Supreme Court justices and their residences. [11:16] The Marshals also manage over $10 billion in seized assets [11:21] and are obviously essential to federal judicial security. [11:27] ATF continues to be a leader in the federal effort to combat violent firearms crime. [11:31] Since January of last year, ATF has arrested more than 8,700 violent offenders [11:38] and seized nearly 44,000 firearms, including 5,100, which were interdicted before reaching Mexico, [11:47] which was their intended destination. [11:49] ATF agencies seized 2.7 million rounds of ammunition, more than 28,000 illegal explosives, [11:56] and conducted over 3,500 arson and explosives investigations. [12:01] They process hundreds of thousands of traces every year, 856,000 last year alone, [12:09] and are continuing to do great work. [12:12] To sustain these historic results, the fiscal year 2027 budget includes $22.2 billion [12:18] for DOJ's law enforcement components and U.S. attorney's offices. [12:23] This is a 16% increase over fiscal year 26, [12:26] and these investments will build on our tremendous progress [12:30] and will ensure our continued momentum in violent crime reduction nationwide. [12:37] We are also strengthening immigration enforcement efforts. [12:41] The Executive Office for Immigration Review has completed well over 1 million immigration cases [12:46] and reduced backlog by more than 447,000 cases [12:50] since President Trump took office last year. [12:53] This budget provides for $899 million for Eeyore. [12:58] This is to continue rebuilding our workforce [13:00] and modernizing our case processing systems. [13:04] Across the department, nearly $4 billion supports immigration-related enforcement activities. [13:11] Finally, the department launched the National Fraud Enforcement Division [13:14] earlier this year to expand federal fraud enforcement [13:18] and better protect taxpayer-funded programs. [13:21] The budget includes $30 million to hire 100 attorneys [13:25] and enhanced data analytics capabilities [13:28] to combat large-scale criminal fraud schemes. [13:32] DOJ is also modernizing the grants process [13:34] by consolidating COPS, OJP, and OVW [13:37] into the new Bureau of Justice grants, [13:40] providing a unified and simplified approach to federal grantmaking [13:43] while obviously continuing to preserve the important missions of each office. [13:51] The department faces serious budgetary constraints. [13:54] Fiscal year 2026 marked the second year of flat budgets for several components, [14:00] basically equating to a decrease in funding [14:02] because costs and expenses increase every year, [14:06] but the budget remained flat. [14:09] The Bureau of Prisons remains under-resourced, [14:13] funded at $8.1 billion, [14:14] almost $300 million below fiscal year 2025, [14:19] and risks insolvency without additional support. [14:23] The president's request of $10.3 billion for the Bureau of Prisons [14:26] is essential to restore staffing [14:27] and maintaining safe and secure federal facilities. [14:32] In closing, the fiscal year 2027 budget [14:35] reflects our unwavering commitment [14:36] to public safety, strong law enforcement partnerships, [14:40] and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars. [14:43] With your combined continued support, [14:46] the Department of Justice will remain strong, [14:49] effective, and fully equipped [14:51] to protect the American people. [14:54] Thank you again for the opportunity to appear in front of you, [14:57] and I look forward to your questions. [15:00] Attorney General, thank you. [15:01] I recognize now the chairwoman of the full committee, [15:04] Senator Collins. [15:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [15:07] Mr. Attorney General, [15:09] yesterday the Justice Department announced the creation [15:13] of a nearly $1.8 billion anti-weaponization fund [15:20] to compensate individuals who were purportedly targeted [15:25] by the Biden administration in exchange for which President Trump [15:31] dropped his $10 billion lawsuit against the IRS [15:36] for the completely inappropriate leak of the president [15:42] and his organization's tax data. [15:46] Amounts for this new fund will come from the judgment fund, [15:50] a permanent law appropriation for paying claims [15:55] and settlements brought against the United States government. [16:00] Amounts in the judgment fund have traditionally been used [16:05] for the payment of specific claims against the government [16:09] or amounts owned for the settlement of those claims, [16:14] but not for future claims that have yet to be bought. [16:18] So I have some questions for you. [16:22] First, has the DOJ ever used amounts in the judgment fund [16:28] to pay claims that have yet to be brought [16:32] against the United States government [16:35] based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case? [16:41] Thank you, Senator. [16:42] So the short answer is yes. [16:44] I mean, we have done this in the past. [16:45] This was done during the Obama administration, [16:47] something almost identical in structure [16:50] to what we announced yesterday. [16:52] In that case, there were allegations made by Native Americans [16:56] that the Department of Agriculture [16:58] had systematically treated them unfairly. [17:03] And some had filed claims. [17:04] There was a pending lawsuit, but many had not. [17:08] A fund very similar to the one [17:11] that was established yesterday was set up. [17:13] It was funded by, in today's dollars, [17:16] a little over a billion dollars. [17:19] And a single claims commissioner was appointed [17:22] to review the claims and to distribute funds. [17:27] In that case, at the end, [17:30] there was around $300 million left over. [17:33] And the Obama administration had set it up [17:36] so that that money from the judgment fund [17:38] was distributed to nonprofits and other NGOs. [17:41] So what we've done with this fund... [17:45] And by the way, it is true that this is a fund. [17:48] That is true. [17:49] But it is not unprecedented. [17:51] And it was done to address something [17:53] that had never happened again either. [17:56] So there is an unprecedented nature [17:57] of what we did yesterday in response [17:59] to years and years of representation. [18:02] Just to correct a few things, Senator, [18:04] it's not limited to Republicans. [18:08] It's not limited to... [18:10] It's not limited to the Biden weaponization. [18:15] It's not limited to, in any way, scope or form [18:18] to January 6th or to Jack Smith. [18:23] There's no limitation on the claims. [18:27] And the other thing we've done, [18:29] just to finish up in comparison [18:31] to what was done previously, [18:33] is we intend to appoint five commissioners. [18:37] And also, at the end, the money goes back... [18:39] Any leftover funds go back to the federal government, [18:41] not to nonprofits. [18:42] So how would the commission [18:44] that you've just referenced [18:46] that oversees the fund [18:48] determine whether future claims from the fund [18:51] are eligible to be paid out of it? [18:54] And how will they determine [18:57] how much will be paid for each claim? [19:00] What's the legal basis for those decisions? [19:03] So there's... [19:04] Well, there's commissions [19:06] that are established all the time [19:08] where a commissioner is charged [19:10] with determining the correct amount, if any, [19:13] to repay a claimant who's asking for funds. [19:16] So in this case, what we expect [19:18] is the commissioners will take in information. [19:21] It's entirely voluntary [19:22] if an individual wants to apply [19:25] and assert that they were a victim of weaponization. [19:29] And the commission can do anything, [19:30] according to what was set up yesterday, [19:32] from issuing an apology to the claimant [19:35] to awarding compensation [19:38] and the monetary compensation. [19:40] So it depends on the claim. [19:43] And there will be five commissioners [19:45] who will review each claim. [19:46] It won't be reviewed by me. [19:47] It won't be reviewed by others [19:50] in the administration. [19:51] It will be reviewed by the five commissioners. [19:53] Aren't those commissioners [19:55] appointed by the president? [19:57] No. [19:57] Who are they appointed by? [19:59] Four of them are appointed [20:00] by the attorney general, [20:01] and one of them is appointed [20:02] by the attorney general [20:03] in consultation with leadership of this body. [20:07] Will the information related [20:09] to the claims be publicly reported? [20:13] So that's a good question. [20:14] I mean, look, there's privacy laws that exist, [20:16] so I don't want to sit here today [20:18] and say every scintilla of data collected [20:22] will be released. [20:23] But of course, I mean, [20:23] of course there's accountability [20:26] that the commission has, [20:28] a quarterly report that has to come [20:30] to the attorney general, [20:32] which will certainly be public. [20:34] There's a process that you all will get information, [20:37] and there's a FOIA process. [20:38] So I very much anticipate [20:40] that the claims that are awarded, [20:42] the basis in the amount, [20:43] will for sure be made public along the way. [20:47] Let me switch to a different issue [20:50] which Chairman Moran brought up. [20:53] Along with Chairman Moran [20:55] and other members of this committee, [20:57] I was one of the lead sponsors [21:00] of the Violence Against Women Act [21:03] reauthorization of 2022. [21:07] These programs are critical [21:10] to reducing violence against women, [21:13] ensuring that justice is served, [21:16] and strengthening services [21:18] to victims and survivors [21:19] of domestic violence, dating violence, [21:23] sexual assault, and stalking. [21:26] In Maine, the Rural Victims Program [21:29] is especially critical. [21:32] Despite the importance [21:33] and effectiveness of these programs, [21:37] the Department's budget request [21:39] proposes reducing funding [21:41] by about 25%. [21:45] Why is the department proposing [21:48] a reduction in funding [21:50] to combat domestic violence [21:53] and to support survivors? [21:56] Well, first of all, [21:57] I completely agree with you [21:58] that these are extraordinarily important programs, [22:01] and the funds are well used [22:03] to support these programs. [22:05] We have asked for $539 million, [22:09] I believe, in money [22:10] to support all these programs. [22:12] And that, I mean, look, [22:14] there's a lot of money that goes, [22:16] $190 million for grants [22:17] to combat, you know, [22:19] to stop the stop grants, [22:20] which is extraordinarily important. [22:22] And so it is a priority. [22:24] Obviously, there's, [22:27] we have to make choices, [22:28] and the president's budget has to make choices [22:29] on where to spend that money, [22:30] but it is extraordinarily important. [22:32] And the $539 million that we've asked for [22:35] will go to support all these programs. [22:38] I mean, so yes, [22:39] we are asking for less money [22:41] than the budget had last year, [22:43] but it's not because we don't view it [22:45] as extraordinarily important. [22:47] Well, I would suggest [22:48] that cutting the budget [22:50] for these important programs [22:52] by 25% is a huge cut. [22:57] And I hope that's something [22:58] the subcommittee will take a close look at. [23:01] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [23:03] Thank you, Senator Collins. [23:04] Senator Van Hollen. [23:05] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [23:07] Mr. Attorney General, [23:08] this is an outrageous, [23:10] unprecedented slush fund [23:12] that you set up. [23:14] Simple question. [23:15] Will individuals [23:16] who assaulted Capitol Hill police officers [23:18] be eligible for this fund? [23:21] Well, as it makes plain, [23:22] anybody is... [23:23] Just let me know [23:24] if they're eligible for the fund. [23:26] As was made plain yesterday, [23:28] anybody in this country [23:30] is eligible to apply [23:32] if they believe [23:33] they're a victim of weaponization. [23:34] Mr. Attorney General, [23:34] let me ask you this. [23:36] Are there going to be rules [23:37] that say that [23:38] if you've assaulted [23:39] a Capitol Hill police officer [23:41] or committed a violent crime, [23:43] you will not be eligible? [23:44] Why not make that a rule? [23:46] I expect that... [23:47] Well, because I'm not [23:48] one of the commissioners [23:48] setting up the rules, [23:49] I expect that there will be rules... [23:50] You're appointing four of the five members, [23:51] aren't you, Mr. Attorney General? [23:52] Pardon me? [23:53] You're appointing four [23:54] of the five members. [23:55] I am appointing all five members. [23:56] You can certainly set up the rules. [23:57] I would hope you make a rule [23:58] that anyone convicted [23:59] of assaulting a police officer [24:01] or a violent crime [24:01] is simply not eligible. [24:03] They should not apply. [24:04] Well... [24:05] Well, let me ask you this [24:06] because you compared it [24:07] to the Keeps Eagle case. [24:09] But I think you know full well [24:10] that in that case, [24:12] the settlement agreement [24:13] was approved [24:14] by a federal judge, [24:15] including the payments [24:17] to people [24:17] who were not originally [24:18] parties to the lawsuit. [24:20] No federal judge [24:21] has approved this fund, [24:22] have they, [24:23] Mr. Attorney General? [24:24] No, no federal judge [24:25] did approve this. [24:25] So that's a big difference [24:26] between this case [24:27] and the case [24:28] that you compared it to. [24:29] No, it's not. [24:31] Did a judge sign off [24:32] on this case? [24:33] No. [24:34] A judge did sign off [24:35] on the other one. [24:35] Yes, but your question [24:37] was whether it's [24:37] a big difference. [24:38] It's not. [24:38] Of course it is [24:39] because that allows [24:40] for an independent person [24:42] to look at it [24:43] rather than the... [24:44] There was no independence. [24:44] ...warmer personal... [24:45] There was no independence. [24:46] There was a single commissioner. [24:48] A judge signed off on it. [24:49] A judge had nothing to do [24:50] with deciding the money. [24:51] There was a judge [24:51] who looked at it [24:52] and signed off on it. [24:53] So to compare [24:54] that case to this one [24:56] is incredibly deceptive. [24:59] Let me ask you this [25:00] about the Epstein case [25:02] because as we speak [25:04] many Epstein survivors [25:05] are in New York. [25:07] They're reading portions [25:08] of the Epstein files [25:10] about the abuse [25:11] that they suffered. [25:12] Otherwise they might have [25:13] been here with us today. [25:15] At a House hearing [25:16] your predecessor [25:17] refused to acknowledge [25:18] the pain [25:19] experienced by [25:20] some of those victims [25:21] when the administration [25:23] improperly released [25:24] their names [25:25] and identifying information. [25:27] So I want to know [25:28] where you stand. [25:30] I spoke to the representatives [25:31] of some of the Epstein survivors [25:33] yesterday. [25:35] They are extremely frustrated [25:36] that you keep calling [25:37] for people to come forward [25:39] with more evidence [25:40] but you have not met with them [25:42] to hear their stories. [25:44] So simple question. [25:46] If I connect you [25:47] with these survivors [25:48] will you meet with them? [25:50] Absolutely. [25:51] And what you just said [25:52] is false. [25:52] I have met with them. [25:54] I've met with many [25:54] of the lawyers [25:55] for the survivors of victims [25:57] as did Attorney General Bondi. [25:59] So whoever told you that [26:00] unfortunately gave you [26:01] bad information. [26:02] But I would encourage them [26:03] I would encourage them [26:04] to reach out [26:05] to the Department of Justice [26:06] because like we do [26:07] every single day [26:08] we absolutely care for victims [26:10] and we absolutely [26:11] want to hear from them [26:12] and their lawyers. [26:13] Well, I've been told [26:15] directly from [26:17] the representatives [26:18] they've not had a chance [26:20] at least this group [26:21] to meet with you. [26:22] So I'm glad to hear that. [26:24] Did they represent [26:24] they ask for a meeting? [26:25] Can I ask you [26:27] to commit [26:28] that the Justice Department [26:31] will not recommend [26:33] a pardon for anyone [26:34] named in the Epstein files? [26:37] Can you repeat that question? [26:38] I'm sorry. [26:39] I didn't hear what you said. [26:39] Can you commit [26:40] that the Justice Department [26:43] you, the Acting Attorney General [26:44] would not recommend [26:45] a pardon [26:46] for people named [26:48] in the Epstein files? [26:49] When you say [26:49] people named [26:50] I have no... [26:51] There's tens of thousands [26:53] hundreds of thousands [26:54] of quote [26:54] people named. [26:55] How about Jelaine Maxwell? [26:57] Can you commit [26:57] that you will [26:58] Yes, I can commit [26:58] to that, of course. [27:00] Let me go back [27:01] to this slush fund [27:03] because there's also [27:06] an individual [27:07] who after being pardoned [27:10] by the president [27:11] went on to molest [27:13] two children [27:14] and that person [27:16] actually tried [27:17] to buy the silence [27:18] of these children [27:19] by saying that [27:20] he would pay them [27:22] some of the funds [27:22] that he was hoping [27:23] to get [27:23] from your slush fund. [27:26] Can you commit [27:27] to making the rule [27:29] so that that person [27:30] is not eligible [27:31] for a payout [27:32] under this fund? [27:33] Well, you're obviously [27:34] lying in your question [27:36] because there's no way [27:37] that this person [27:38] committed to that. [27:39] The slush fund [27:40] as you call it [27:41] which is not [27:41] didn't exist. [27:42] But I can commit [27:43] Mr. Attorney General [27:44] don't ever do that again. [27:48] I am reporting [27:49] what he said. [27:50] He said on the expectation [27:51] that he hoped to get [27:53] some of the funds [27:54] from a payout. [27:55] He's been hearing [27:56] the revolving hearing. [27:56] You said from the slush fund, [27:57] Senator, [27:57] and that didn't exist [27:58] when he said that. [27:59] This is the fund [28:00] that the president [28:01] and all of you [28:02] have been telegraphing [28:03] all along [28:04] that you're going to use [28:05] to help the president's friends. [28:08] Can you point to a single telegraph? [28:10] Mr. Attorney General, [28:10] I have a last question. [28:10] What telegraph did I have? [28:11] I have a last question for you. [28:14] Do you know [28:15] that it is a criminal offense [28:18] to lie to Congress? [28:20] I am very well aware of that. [28:22] I'm glad to hear that. [28:23] Thank you. [28:26] Senator Kennedy. [28:31] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [28:34] General, how are you? [28:36] I'm great. [28:36] Thank you, Senator. [28:40] In America, [28:45] unlike other countries [28:46] where they let you die in a ditch, [28:51] in America, [28:51] if you're too poor to be sick, [28:54] we'll pay for your doctor. [28:55] Isn't that right? [28:56] It is. [28:58] And one of the programs [29:00] we do that through is Medicaid. [29:01] Correct. [29:03] Okay. [29:06] And this money for Medicaid, [29:09] it didn't just fall from heaven. [29:10] We thank heaven for it, [29:12] but it came out of people's pockets, [29:14] didn't it? [29:14] Every dime of it. [29:16] And some of that money [29:18] is stolen, isn't it? [29:21] Yes. [29:22] And the states, [29:23] not all of them, [29:24] but many of them, [29:26] allow it to be stolen, [29:27] don't they? [29:28] Yes. [29:30] Let's take Medicaid [29:32] in California, for example. [29:34] I don't mean to just pick on California, [29:37] but because this happens [29:38] in other states. [29:39] We saw it happen in Minnesota, [29:42] for example. [29:42] But in California, [29:46] for every dollar [29:47] that the California state government [29:51] puts up for Medicaid, [29:53] for the Obamacare portion of Medicaid, [29:56] we put up, [29:57] the federal taxpayer [29:58] puts up $9, [29:59] don't they? [30:01] And so, [30:02] is that right? [30:03] That's correct, Senator. [30:04] And so as a result, [30:06] California has allowed [30:08] thousands and thousands [30:10] of these social assistance [30:14] and so-called healthcare providers [30:17] pop up in California, [30:20] haven't they? [30:20] Yes. [30:21] And some of those providers [30:22] steal the money, [30:23] don't they? [30:25] Yes, we know that to be true. [30:26] And the money never gets [30:27] to the people [30:28] they supposedly are trying to help, [30:29] isn't that correct? [30:30] That's correct. [30:31] And the other way [30:32] that California [30:33] and others abuse the fact [30:35] that they're putting up $1 [30:36] and the American taxpayers [30:38] putting up $9. [30:39] Did I mention it was $9? [30:41] I think some say [30:42] it's even more, [30:43] but yes, [30:43] nine were. [30:44] They expand the services, [30:46] don't they? [30:46] Yes. [30:47] Because some states, [30:49] like California, [30:50] I don't want to paint [30:51] with too broad a brush, [30:52] it's not everybody [30:53] in California state government, [30:54] but it's a lot of them, [30:55] they see this as free money, [30:58] don't they? [30:59] They're not paying for it, [31:00] yes. [31:00] Isn't it a fact [31:01] that, for example, [31:04] Medicaid in California [31:05] will pay a provider [31:08] to provide tribal prayers. [31:12] I looked all this up. [31:13] I mean, I'll accept that. [31:14] I didn't know that, [31:15] but yes. [31:16] That California [31:17] will actually pay [31:18] a health care provider, [31:20] I didn't know [31:20] this was a medical expertise, [31:22] to pay for exorcisms. [31:25] Is that right? [31:26] I'll accept that, [31:28] Senator, [31:29] but that's... [31:30] They pay, [31:30] the California Medicaid program [31:32] will pay for herbal medicines, [31:36] meal deliveries. [31:39] They'll pay for housing. [31:40] I don't know what housing [31:41] has to do with health care. [31:43] Is that correct? [31:44] Yes. [31:44] Were you aware [31:45] that the Medicaid program [31:47] using federal money, [31:50] taxpayer money, [31:51] will pay for an in-home chef? [31:56] Yes. [31:57] Okay. [31:57] If it's a family member, yes. [31:58] Yeah, they'll even pay [31:59] for gymnasium fees [32:01] through Medicaid [32:02] in California. [32:05] They'll pay for bicycles, [32:08] scooters, [32:09] gym memberships. [32:10] Did you know that? [32:12] Yes, several states do, [32:14] but California does for sure. [32:15] They'll even repay [32:16] your student loans. [32:18] Were you aware of that? [32:19] I was not aware [32:21] of the student loans repayment. [32:22] Yeah. [32:23] Yeah, they'll repay [32:23] somebody's student loans [32:25] to encourage them [32:26] to become a health care provider. [32:30] I mean, California, [32:31] they're just setting [32:31] all kinds of records. [32:33] These folks are... [32:35] They're wild people. [32:40] California's got 12% [32:41] of the population. [32:42] In the last 10 years, [32:45] they're responsible [32:46] for half of these new [32:47] so-called health providers [32:49] to provide extra systems [32:50] and other things. [32:52] Now, what the hell [32:52] are we doing about it? [32:54] Why has this gone on [32:56] for so long? [32:57] Senator, listen, [32:58] it's a great question. [32:59] And what you just described [33:00] are programs that are allowed [33:02] under the program. [33:03] You have a whole other issue [33:04] in California [33:04] where a lot of these folks [33:06] are just stealing the money, [33:07] not even running it through [33:09] for exorcism. [33:10] They're thieves, aren't they? [33:11] They're thieves. [33:11] Correct. [33:12] Correct. [33:13] And California [33:14] just watches it happen, [33:16] don't they? [33:17] Not everybody in California. [33:19] The government, though, [33:20] does, though, doesn't it? [33:22] Well, that's the challenge [33:23] in a lot of states [33:24] is that we don't have [33:25] a state government, [33:26] which you all have entrusted [33:27] to run these programs [33:28] and take care of the money [33:29] that you all give them. [33:31] There's state structures [33:32] that absolutely do not [33:34] do any compliance [33:35] and they don't do their job. [33:36] Because they don't have [33:37] no incentive to. [33:38] They're getting free money. [33:40] Isn't that right? [33:41] Yes. [33:42] I think so, yes. [33:43] We've got to change this, General. [33:45] We're trying. [33:46] I call this a slush fund. [33:48] You want to talk [33:48] about slush fund. [33:50] This is a tier one slush fund [33:53] that's been going on [33:55] for years and years and years. [33:57] Billions and hundreds [33:59] of billions of dollars [34:00] is stolen. [34:03] Yes, Senator. [34:04] And that's why, look, [34:05] this department stood up [34:07] a whole new fraud division [34:08] and AUSAs around the country [34:10] prosecute fraud every day. [34:11] So it's not as if we weren't, [34:12] we didn't have the work out there. [34:14] But it's so systematically [34:16] taking money [34:17] from the American taxpayer [34:18] that we very much believe [34:20] that it needs its own [34:21] stand-up structure. [34:22] And I think it's true [34:23] for the reasons [34:24] that you just said. [34:26] If you need an exorcism, [34:27] you can go to California camp. [34:29] Thank you, Senator. [34:31] Thank you, Chairman Moran, [34:33] Ranking Member Van Hollen. [34:34] Thank you, Acting Attorney General Blanche, [34:36] for appearing before us today. [34:37] I want to talk about some areas [34:39] where I think we're making progress [34:40] and we can work together [34:41] and then raise some real concerns [34:42] I have. [34:44] I do think it's worth recognizing [34:47] the hard work of the men [34:48] and women of the department [34:49] and the progress you're making [34:50] on combating fentanyl [34:51] and a violent crime. [34:53] I've long been involved [34:54] in criminal justice reform, [34:56] talked with and worked [34:57] with your predecessor on this. [34:58] I was pleased to see [34:59] the president's message [35:01] during Second Chance Month [35:02] where he said he wants [35:04] to ensure those [35:05] who take responsibility [35:06] and seek to rebuild their lives [35:07] have a chance to succeed. [35:08] Senator Lee and I have a bill [35:10] called the Safer Supervision Act. [35:13] It's co-sponsored by Senators Tillis [35:15] and Wicker, Kramer, and Lankford. [35:17] It's got strong law enforcement [35:18] and conservative support [35:19] and it fits squarely [35:21] in that framework. [35:22] Currently, federal supervision [35:23] is imposed in nearly every case, [35:26] leading to badly overworked [35:27] federal probation officers [35:28] who then can't properly supervise [35:30] those who actually most need it. [35:33] There's more than 120,000 people [35:35] on average per year being supervised [35:36] and this bill would help [35:38] ensure courts are more thoughtful, [35:40] more analytic when deciding [35:42] when to impose supervision. [35:44] Is this a piece of legislation [35:45] you can support? [35:47] So what you just said, [35:49] I very much agree with. [35:50] So without looking at every word [35:52] of the legislation, [35:53] there's no disagreement from me [35:55] on a word you just uttered. [35:56] Well, thank you. [35:57] I'd like to work with you on that. [35:58] Yes, I look forward to that. [36:00] Let me raise two questions. [36:02] I've been gravely concerned [36:03] about IP theft, [36:04] especially from China, [36:05] the whole time I've served. [36:06] I was struck that the department's [36:09] proposed budget cuts the funds [36:11] for IP enforcement. [36:13] Why? [36:14] And is the department [36:14] under your leadership committed [36:16] to protecting American innovation? [36:17] Very committed. [36:18] And while you're calling it a cut, [36:21] Senator, I would say [36:22] that it's a major focus of every- [36:25] It's a lack of an increase? [36:26] Well, no, no, no. [36:27] I don't mean lack of an increase. [36:28] I mean that we're focused on it [36:30] at the U.S. Attorney's Office level. [36:32] So when we take money [36:33] and spend it around [36:34] the U.S. Attorney's Offices [36:36] and so it's baked into that big number, [36:39] rest assured, [36:40] every U.S. Attorney's Office, [36:41] all 93 of them, [36:42] are focused on the threats [36:44] that we have from there. [36:44] And so we're trying [36:45] to spend our money more wisely. [36:47] Chair Collins raised a concern [36:48] about the Violence Against Women Act funds. [36:51] Let me raise a concern [36:52] about the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs. [36:55] Senator Roy Blunt [36:56] and I worked to reauthorize this program. [36:58] I've long been actively engaged with it. [36:59] I've seen how [37:00] Children's Advocacy Centers [37:02] in Delaware [37:03] make a critical difference, [37:04] bringing together law enforcement, [37:06] medical, mental health professionals [37:07] to do child abuse investigations [37:10] in a child-centered way [37:11] to make sure children [37:12] are not re-victimized. [37:14] The number of victims [37:15] served by these centers [37:16] has increased fourfold [37:17] over 25 years. [37:19] Why are you proposing [37:20] cutting this program? [37:22] So we have asked [37:24] for $41 million for that program [37:25] and I agree with you [37:27] and I want to work with you [37:28] to make sure [37:28] that we're spending [37:29] that $41 million [37:30] where we should. [37:31] I agree with you. [37:32] It's extraordinarily important [37:33] and has had a lot of success [37:35] over the past 15, 20 years [37:36] as it's been up and running. [37:38] Thank you. [37:39] Let me return [37:40] to the line of questioning [37:40] from the ranking member, [37:41] Senator Van Hollen, [37:42] that I strongly agree with. [37:45] I'm just looking [37:46] at the settlement agreement [37:47] in Trump versus IRS [37:49] and I just want to make sure [37:50] I heard you properly [37:51] when you responded previously. [37:54] Your announcement said [37:56] that the fund [37:57] will send you quarterly reports. [37:59] Will you commit [38:00] to making these reports [38:01] fully public [38:02] so Americans know [38:03] who's getting taxpayer dollars [38:05] out of this settlement fund? [38:07] This says they'll be confidential. [38:09] This is Section 4, Part E [38:10] of the settlement agreement. [38:11] The reason why [38:12] I want to be careful [38:13] in my answer [38:14] is because there's obviously laws [38:15] that exist around privacy [38:17] that may prevent [38:18] some of the information [38:19] that the commission takes in [38:21] from being fully public. [38:23] Beyond that, [38:24] there will be full transparency [38:26] and I commit to you that [38:28] beyond the applicable laws [38:29] that exist around privacy [38:30] and privileges and whatnot. [38:32] But as far [38:33] as being transparent [38:34] and having those quarterly reports [38:36] released, yes. [38:37] Thank you. [38:38] You referenced a previous case. [38:40] I think it was [38:41] Keeb Siegel v. Vilsack [38:42] under the previous administration. [38:44] Did that case involve [38:46] a president suing [38:47] his own government [38:48] and then settling that case [38:50] before it could be reviewed [38:51] or approved by a judge? [38:52] So no, [38:53] neither does the commission. [38:55] It did not. [38:55] And so when you suggested [38:57] that they're nearly identical, [38:58] they're not identical. [38:59] I think there's [39:00] a critical difference here. [39:01] President Trump [39:02] is the first president [39:03] to sue his own government [39:05] and then direct his chosen [39:07] acting attorney general [39:09] to reach this kind of settlement. [39:11] Will you commit [39:12] that none of President Trump's family [39:14] will receive a direct payout [39:17] from this fund? [39:18] Well, yes, [39:19] but what you just said [39:21] is not true. [39:22] I mean, [39:22] if I can correct that. [39:23] Please. [39:23] The president did not direct me [39:25] to do anything. [39:26] And secondly, [39:27] when we said it was [39:28] that the structure [39:29] of the commission [39:30] is similar to Keeb Siegel, [39:32] that's true. [39:34] It wasn't the case, [39:35] the underlying case [39:36] is not the same. [39:36] The structure of the commission [39:37] is the same [39:39] as the Keeb Siegel commission. [39:39] Has it ever happened [39:41] that a sitting president [39:42] sued his own government [39:44] for $10 billion [39:45] and then directed [39:47] the settlement of the case [39:48] and the establishment [39:49] of a payout fund? [39:51] Not that I'm aware, [39:52] but there's a lot of things [39:53] that President Trump's [39:53] the first of. [39:54] No president had been indicted [39:55] one, two, three, four, five, [39:57] six, seven, eight times either. [39:58] Correct. [39:58] No president's been indicted. [40:00] And will you commit [40:01] that none of this money [40:02] will go to President Trump's [40:03] campaign donors? [40:04] I am not committing [40:06] to anything beyond [40:07] the settlement agreement itself. [40:08] When you say campaign donors, [40:10] that they are not excluded [40:11] from seeking compensation. [40:13] Last question. [40:14] During police week, [40:15] I heard from a number [40:16] of law enforcement friends [40:17] who found it appalling [40:18] that there was the possibility [40:20] that folks like the peace, [40:22] the oath keepers, [40:23] the proud boys [40:25] who had assaulted [40:26] Capitol police officers [40:28] could receive [40:29] multimillion dollar payouts [40:30] from this fund. [40:32] Will you commit [40:32] that no one [40:33] who has been convicted [40:34] of assaulting [40:35] a police officer [40:36] will receive a payout [40:37] from this fund? [40:38] So I shared the concerns [40:40] that apparently members [40:41] of law enforcement [40:42] gave to you last week, [40:43] although none of this [40:43] was announced last week, [40:44] so that's surprising. [40:46] They had heard rumors [40:47] there would be [40:47] a settlement fund. [40:48] Okay. [40:49] But anybody can apply. [40:51] The commissioners will set rules, [40:53] I'm sure. [40:54] That's not for me to set. [40:55] That's for the commissioners. [40:57] And whether an individual, [40:59] an oath keeper, [41:00] as you just mentioned, [41:01] applies for compensation, [41:03] anybody in this country can apply. [41:05] Well, we'll be watching [41:06] this very closely [41:07] as this goes forward. [41:08] I don't think the settlement fund [41:10] should be set up this way [41:11] or for these purposes. [41:12] I appreciate your answers today. [41:14] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:15] Thank you. [41:15] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:17] Mr. Attorney General, [41:19] thank you for being here this morning [41:20] and responding to our questions. [41:22] I want to follow on a couple [41:23] that have been asked [41:24] with regards to the Department [41:27] of Justice's state [41:28] and local law enforcement programs. [41:32] $1.2 billion in proposed cuts. [41:35] We're looking at it very carefully [41:36] because many of these grants [41:38] and programs have significant impact [41:40] on our state's small population, [41:42] large area to deal with. [41:45] The budget also calls [41:46] for consolidation of the Office [41:48] of Violence Against Women. [41:50] the Community-Oriented Policing Services [41:53] and the OJP programs. [41:57] Is the Office of Tribal Justice [42:01] one of the offices [42:01] that are also intended [42:03] to be consolidated? [42:05] We're just consolidating [42:07] the grant components, [42:08] so OJP, COPS, and then OVIDA. [42:11] And by the way, [42:11] we're not combining them. [42:13] We're just making them [42:14] more efficient. [42:15] So they will still maintain [42:16] their own independence [42:18] and brand, for lack of a better word. [42:20] But what we heard from the field [42:22] is that there were inappropriate [42:25] inconsistencies and inefficiencies [42:27] in having three separate [42:28] kind of bureaucracies running [42:31] each of those programs. [42:32] So that's what we're trying to fix. [42:33] Don't disagree with wanting [42:34] to reduce bureaucracies. [42:36] My interest is making sure [42:37] that the fidelity of these grants [42:39] and the availability [42:40] to very rural, [42:43] and oftentimes just very high cost [42:45] because of what we're dealing [42:47] with out there, [42:48] that they do not get overlooked. [42:52] Because when you have cuts [42:54] to the level that you're proposing, [42:57] one has to assume that, [42:58] okay, you can talk about [43:00] reducing the bureaucracy [43:01] and just what the program itself [43:04] might look like. [43:05] But again, my interest [43:06] is making sure [43:07] that this much-needed assistance [43:10] is still pushed down [43:12] to the very, very local levels. [43:14] Senator, I assure you [43:16] that the rural communities, [43:18] and I appreciate that they have [43:20] the most challenges [43:21] applying for grants [43:22] because of just the way [43:23] they're structured. [43:23] Lack of capacity. [43:24] Of course. [43:25] And there's obviously, [43:27] I forget the exact percentage, [43:29] but a large percentage [43:30] of our grants [43:30] do go to rural communities [43:31] as they should [43:32] and rural police departments [43:33] as they should. [43:35] And we are going [43:36] to continue to do that. [43:37] I mean, there's, [43:38] the COPS office is required [43:39] to distribute half of it, [43:40] half of the grants [43:41] to rural communities. [43:42] But just, [43:43] and I don't want [43:44] to take up all your time, [43:45] Senator, [43:45] but that's one of the reasons [43:46] why we built in, [43:47] we're trying to make it [43:48] more efficient [43:49] because the field said, [43:51] especially rural communities, [43:52] big cities don't have issues [43:53] applying for grants. [43:54] They have a bunch of people [43:55] that can do it. [43:56] And so, yes, [43:57] we are very focused on that [43:58] in tribal justice space [44:00] but also in the grant space. [44:01] Well, [44:02] know that we're watching [44:03] this one very carefully. [44:05] I understand that [44:06] in response to Senator Collins, [44:07] you acknowledge 25% cut [44:10] to the Office [44:11] on Violence Against Women. [44:14] I was very involved [44:16] in that reauthorization. [44:17] And within that, [44:19] we provide that OVW [44:20] may not be subsumed [44:22] by another grant-making component [44:24] within DOJ. [44:25] So we want to make sure [44:27] that, again, [44:29] DOJ is going to maintain [44:31] OVW's statutory responsibilities [44:34] and how they move forward [44:36] with their grant-making [44:38] and not losing out [44:39] on that subject. [44:40] We will. [44:40] And we're aware of that. [44:41] Yes, ma'am. [44:42] Let me ask about [44:43] the Not Invisible Act. [44:46] This was legislation [44:47] that I introduced [44:48] some years ago. [44:50] It became law. [44:52] May 5th is the day [44:53] that we recognize [44:54] as Missing and Murdered [44:56] Indigenous Persons Awareness Day. [44:57] We had a big roundtable [45:00] that Senator Sullivan [45:01] helped to organize [45:02] just a couple weeks ago. [45:03] We had a lot of the folks [45:05] from your department [45:06] along with Alaska state [45:08] and local [45:09] as well as tribal. [45:10] One of the things [45:11] that kept coming up [45:12] was the commission [45:15] issued its final report. [45:17] I thought it was [45:18] pretty substantive. [45:19] They issued it [45:20] November 1 of 2023 [45:22] after great testimony [45:24] and consultation [45:25] all across Indian country. [45:28] But then it was removed. [45:30] The report was removed [45:32] very early on [45:34] in the second Trump administration [45:36] and the related materials [45:37] have been removed [45:39] from DOJ [45:40] and the Department [45:41] of Interior websites. [45:43] So people keep asking me [45:44] where'd it go, why, [45:46] what is happening. [45:48] And we tried to get [45:50] further information [45:51] to that again [45:53] up in Anchorage [45:53] a couple weeks ago. [45:54] So the question to you [45:57] is why was the report [45:58] taken down? [45:59] When will it be restored? [46:01] And more importantly, [46:02] what concrete steps [46:03] is DOJ taking [46:04] with the Department [46:06] of others and others [46:08] to implement [46:09] the recommendations? [46:11] We don't want [46:11] the work of this [46:12] really important commission [46:13] to just kind of sit [46:15] and be ignored. [46:17] Yes, so I don't have [46:19] an answer as to why [46:19] it was taken down, [46:20] but I will get back [46:21] to you promptly. [46:22] I will tell you... [46:23] I appreciate that, yeah. [46:23] And your big-picture question, [46:26] we are on the same page [46:27] when it comes [46:28] to tribal justice [46:30] and the work [46:30] that we have to do [46:31] with our Native American community [46:33] and making sure [46:34] that we're giving them [46:35] the resources, [46:37] the law enforcement. [46:37] I've visited two so far [46:40] as the Deputy Attorney General. [46:42] My staff has gone out [46:43] to multiples, [46:44] to Northern New York, [46:45] the Dakotas, Oklahoma, [46:47] and we'll continue [46:48] to do that. [46:49] I think that at the end [46:50] of the day it is a funding [46:51] and training issue [46:52] that is our responsibility [46:55] and I recognize that [46:57] and it's a priority. [46:58] Well, and we've seen [46:59] positive signals [47:00] in the first Trump administration. [47:02] That was when [47:03] Operation Lady Justice [47:04] was stood up. [47:05] I think that that is good. [47:06] We need to continue on that. [47:07] You've put good people [47:09] tasked to this, [47:11] but this is where [47:12] it gets confusing [47:13] because when you have [47:14] a public-facing website [47:16] that helps people navigate [47:18] through some of the reporting [47:20] and the lack of data, [47:22] that's where we could [47:23] use a little help. [47:24] So if you can get back [47:24] with me on that, [47:25] I would appreciate it. [47:26] I will. [47:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [47:30] Thank you, Mr. Acting [47:32] Attorney General, [47:32] for being here. [47:34] As you alluded to [47:35] in your opening statement, [47:36] there is an acute staffing [47:37] shortage at the Bureau [47:38] prisons. [47:40] At FCI Berlin [47:41] in New Hampshire, [47:42] staffing levels have dropped [47:44] to 58% of authorized levels. [47:46] And that's at a time [47:48] when correctional officers [47:50] are being asked [47:51] to take on added duties [47:52] where they have detainees [47:54] being sent to our federal prison. [47:57] And the retention incentives [47:59] have dropped significantly. [48:01] So as you point out, [48:03] the Bureau received [48:04] an additional $3 billion [48:05] in the reconciliation bill [48:07] to address staffing issues. [48:09] And you're asking [48:10] for additional funding, [48:12] which I appreciate. [48:13] But how do you plan [48:14] to use those supplemental funds [48:16] to address recruitment [48:17] and detention of staff [48:18] at facilities like FCI Berlin? [48:21] Thank you for that question. [48:22] It is a crisis. [48:24] And the crisis on staffing [48:25] is twofold. [48:27] One is we're not paying them enough [48:28] and they can walk across the street [48:30] to county jails [48:30] and make more money. [48:31] And two, [48:32] because we're not paying them enough, [48:33] there's shortages, [48:34] so they're required [48:35] to work overtime. [48:36] They're required to actually- [48:38] I understand the problem. [48:39] Can you explain [48:40] what you're going to do [48:40] to address it? [48:41] We're doing both. [48:42] I mean, we're addressing [48:43] the compensation [48:44] and we've already worked [48:46] with Director Marshall [48:47] over the past several months [48:48] to give some retention money [48:50] to officers who are staying. [48:52] But we have to pay them more [48:53] and we have to make it worthwhile [48:55] for them to stay. [48:56] And the only way to do that [48:58] is with money. [48:58] The only way to do that [48:59] is with more hiring. [48:59] Well, I can tell you [49:00] that FCI Berlin has not seen [49:02] that money yet [49:02] and it's going to be critical [49:04] to get it out. [49:05] Let me change [49:06] to another topic [49:08] because we have a new DEA drug lab [49:10] in Londonderry, New Hampshire. [49:12] I'm very pleased [49:13] that we've got that [49:14] New England regional drug lab. [49:16] I worked hard to try [49:18] and support the effort [49:19] to get it there. [49:20] But I'm concerned now [49:21] that DEA doesn't have [49:22] the personnel that they need [49:24] in order to fully operate it. [49:26] And when we raised this [49:27] at hearings, [49:28] both in the House [49:28] and Senate with DEA, [49:31] what they told us [49:32] was that DOJ has routinely [49:34] denied its request [49:36] for greater allocations [49:38] of personnel, [49:39] meaning that they are going [49:41] to have difficulties [49:42] hiring the sufficient personnel [49:43] they need [49:44] to fully operate this new lab. [49:46] So can you commit [49:48] that you will ensure [49:49] that the personnel [49:50] that are needed [49:51] to operate the lab [49:52] are able to be hired? [49:54] Yes, and our budget [49:55] asks for that funding. [49:56] And I agree with you, Senator, [49:58] that it's crucial to have that [50:00] and that there are shortages. [50:01] You're right. [50:03] As let me weigh in [50:05] on with Senator Collins [50:08] and Senator Murkowski. [50:09] in their concerns [50:11] about the Office of Violence [50:12] Against Women [50:13] and the grants. [50:14] I don't support the cut [50:16] of 25% for that budget. [50:18] But we have a greater issue [50:21] because my staff has heard [50:23] from organizations [50:24] in New Hampshire [50:25] working on domestic violence [50:27] concerns that the department [50:29] is continuing to hold [50:31] fiscal year 25 funding [50:33] for the office. [50:34] And for some [50:35] of these organizations, [50:36] they had their grants [50:37] canceled early in 2025. [50:40] This disruption has caused [50:41] those organizations [50:42] to scale back [50:43] to start laying off staff, [50:46] which limits their ability [50:47] to help survivors. [50:48] So when is the department [50:50] going to make available [50:51] the fiscal year 25 [50:53] and 26 grant funds [50:55] that have already been approved [50:57] by Congress? [50:57] So we, the NOFOs [51:01] for two of the three agencies [51:02] are all out and back. [51:04] There's one NOFO [51:06] that's pending from 25 [51:08] that we expect to get out [51:09] any day now. [51:10] And then we'll start working [51:12] on 26. [51:13] And so we're, [51:14] it's done on a rolling basis. [51:15] And we, and we're working every day [51:19] very hard to get that money out. [51:21] As far as grants [51:24] that were canceled, [51:25] I believe 330 some were canceled, [51:29] just about five or 6% [51:30] of the overall grants awarded [51:32] for various reasons. [51:34] But grants that were, [51:35] more than that [51:36] were initially canceled. [51:37] And the grant- [51:38] But those are grants [51:38] that had been approved [51:39] by Congress [51:40] that had already been sent out. [51:42] Why is the department [51:43] canceling funding [51:44] that our organizations [51:45] are depending on [51:46] in order to help survivors? [51:48] Well, it's not that [51:49] they were approved by Congress. [51:50] The money was. [51:51] And so for a very small portion [51:53] of, for a very small portion [51:54] of grants, [51:55] they simply, [51:56] they were canceled [51:56] for various reasons. [51:57] Well, they were canceled [51:58] because DOGE came in [51:59] and made significant cuts. [52:01] And the department, [52:03] the administration [52:03] has made cuts. [52:05] I guess, [52:05] I'm not going to argue [52:06] with you about why [52:07] that happened. [52:08] I think it was wrong. [52:10] I'm going to acknowledge [52:12] your commitment [52:13] to ensure that [52:14] those funds [52:15] are going to go out [52:15] to the organizations [52:16] that are depending on them [52:17] so that they can serve [52:19] the people who need it. [52:20] I commit to that. [52:21] Thank you. [52:22] Last fall, [52:24] the U.S. trustee [52:25] for Region 1 [52:26] didn't name a new [52:27] Chapter 13 [52:28] standing trustee [52:29] for New Hampshire. [52:30] Instead, [52:31] he assigned New Hampshire's [52:32] duties to Maine's [52:34] standing trustee [52:35] over the objections [52:36] of the New Hampshire [52:37] bankruptcy bar. [52:39] The transition [52:40] from New Hampshire [52:41] standing trustee [52:42] to the new Maine [52:44] trustee [52:45] who's supposed [52:45] to be serving [52:46] both states [52:46] has not gone well. [52:49] Debtors who had [52:49] completed their payments [52:50] were not being discharged [52:51] from bankruptcy. [52:52] Creditors and attorneys [52:53] were not getting paid. [52:55] In fact, [52:56] a motion to remove [52:57] the New Hampshire [52:58] and Maine trustee [52:59] was filed [52:59] and the New Hampshire [53:00] bankruptcy judge [53:02] admonished the trustee [53:04] but unfortunately [53:05] didn't ultimately [53:06] remove him. [53:08] I am very concerned [53:09] that we have [53:10] Granite staters [53:11] who need to use [53:12] the Chapter 13 bankruptcy [53:14] and that they're [53:15] being disadvantaged [53:16] because of this decision [53:17] for whatever reason. [53:19] We have no idea [53:19] because the U.S. government [53:23] doesn't pay [53:24] those standing trustees. [53:26] There's no reason. [53:27] That's not a benefit [53:28] in terms of savings. [53:30] So I don't know [53:32] if it was a shot [53:32] at New Hampshire [53:33] or what the issue was [53:34] but will you commit [53:35] to naming [53:36] a New Hampshire-only [53:38] Chapter 13 [53:39] standing trustee [53:40] and look into this [53:41] because it's a real problem? [53:43] So we have that- [53:43] And Mr. General, [53:44] the time has expired [53:45] so if you can quickly [53:46] wrap that up [53:46] I would appreciate it. [53:47] We have that [53:48] in many districts [53:49] not just New Hampshire [53:50] and we're working [53:51] very hard [53:52] to rectify it [53:53] for the reasons [53:54] that you say [53:54] the challenges it presents. [53:56] So you will look into that [53:58] and try and- [53:59] Been looking into it [54:00] and will continue [54:00] to do so, Senator, yes. [54:04] Thank you. [54:05] Mr. General, [54:06] appreciate you being here today. [54:07] I wanted to start [54:08] with an issue [54:08] that I raised with you [54:09] in your confirmation hearing [54:11] in the Senate Judiciary Committee. [54:12] We talked about [54:14] the Executive Office [54:15] for Immigration Reform. [54:16] Some people call it EOIR. [54:19] Some people call it EOR. [54:20] But ultimately [54:22] it oversees [54:22] our immigration courts. [54:24] As you're aware [54:25] there was [54:26] a significant backlog [54:27] that was left [54:28] by the Biden-Harris administration. [54:29] Unfortunately [54:30] they created a culture [54:31] of that [54:32] of dragging their feet [54:33] and not actually completing [54:34] these cases. [54:35] I know they also [54:37] rolled back [54:37] a number of reforms [54:38] that were put in place [54:39] during the first [54:40] Trump administration [54:41] to ensure [54:42] that our immigration courts [54:43] functioned [54:44] in an efficient manner. [54:45] By contrast, [54:46] obviously under [54:47] the current Trump administration [54:48] the courts in FY25 [54:50] have completed [54:51] the highest number [54:52] of cases [54:53] that we have seen [54:55] in a single year [54:56] in EOR's history. [54:58] Finally achieved [54:59] a reduction [55:00] in the case backlog [55:01] and hopefully [55:02] that's something [55:03] that we can continue. [55:04] I saw in your budget [55:05] that you increased this [55:06] by 12%. [55:07] I wanted to talk [55:08] is that going to help you [55:09] continue on that [55:11] on eliminating this backlog [55:13] improve efficiencies [55:14] and operations [55:15] of these immigration courts [55:17] and then also on that [55:19] how does the budget request [55:20] support efforts [55:21] to actually modernize [55:22] this process [55:23] making sure [55:24] that we're not only using [55:25] the current system [55:26] but we're looking at [55:26] how can we be more efficient [55:27] in the future. [55:29] Yes. [55:29] Thank you, Senator. [55:30] The first answer [55:31] in reverse order [55:32] we have asked [55:33] for $37 million [55:34] to modernize [55:35] the IT programs [55:37] that the immigration courts use [55:38] that in and of itself [55:40] will create efficiencies [55:41] that will help us [55:42] in ways that [55:44] should have happened [55:45] years and years ago [55:46] and it didn't. [55:47] We're also asking [55:47] for more money [55:48] because we need more judges [55:49] and the big beautiful bill [55:51] gave us authority [55:52] to hire a bunch [55:53] of immigration judges [55:54] and we're hiring a ton. [55:55] We have a graduation tomorrow [55:57] the largest graduation [55:58] of immigration judges [56:00] in many, many years [56:01] if not history [56:02] and we're continuing [56:04] to try to find good judges [56:06] that will work hard [56:07] and the budget also, [56:09] you know, [56:09] a judge needs staff [56:10] so a judge needs clerks [56:12] to help process the cases. [56:14] You know, [56:14] we have almost 500,000 cases [56:17] were processed last year. [56:19] That's extraordinary [56:19] and we're getting [56:21] into the backlog [56:22] but when you have [56:23] something like [56:24] 4 million immigration cases, [56:26] 4 million immigration cases [56:28] backed up, [56:29] even if you cut it down [56:31] by a million a year, [56:32] you're still looking [56:33] at three or four years [56:34] to catch up [56:34] but we're very focused [56:37] on doing that. [56:37] We tell our new judges [56:39] they're going to be working [56:40] harder than they've ever [56:40] worked in their lives [56:41] and we expect that [56:43] and so this budget [56:45] is really addressing that, [56:47] the IT problem [56:48] and the staffing challenge [56:50] that we have. [56:51] Good. [56:51] Thank you. [56:51] I'm changing gears a little bit. [56:53] Obviously, we are so proud [56:56] to see the crackdown [56:57] on crime across the country. [56:58] Lowest murder rate [57:00] that we have seen. [57:02] The significant just, [57:04] you know, [57:04] actually getting back [57:05] to the mission [57:06] of getting the bad guys [57:07] and putting criminals [57:08] behind bars. [57:09] I talked to Director Patel [57:11] about this last week [57:12] but there's great work [57:13] being done by the FBI [57:15] and DOJ [57:16] and my home state. [57:17] Operation Southern Star [57:20] in Montgomery [57:20] has been significant. [57:22] That's where I live. [57:23] We appreciate that effort. [57:26] I know that communities [57:27] across the country [57:28] appreciate the work [57:29] that you're doing. [57:30] Can you discuss [57:31] how this request increase [57:33] in resources that you have [57:35] in this budget [57:36] is going to allow us [57:37] to build on the current [57:37] successes and enhance [57:39] cooperation with state [57:40] and local partners [57:41] across the country [57:42] so that we can do more [57:43] of what we've seen [57:44] in Montgomery [57:45] over the Operation [57:46] Southern Star? [57:47] Yes. [57:48] So there is nothing [57:49] more important [57:50] than our state [57:51] and local partnerships [57:52] when it comes to combating [57:53] violent crime. [57:54] Nearly every violent criminal [57:55] that's arrested by the feds, [57:57] the feds are assisted [57:58] by a cop or a detective [58:00] or a trooper in that case. [58:01] And so when we talk [58:02] about the work [58:03] that the federal government [58:04] and the FBI [58:05] and DEA and marshals [58:06] and ATF and HSI [58:07] have done over the past year, [58:09] we are really talking [58:10] about the work [58:10] that they did partnering [58:12] with the state and local. [58:12] So our budget reflects that. [58:14] We want $2.9 billion [58:16] for state and local grants. [58:17] That's money that's going [58:18] to go to law enforcement [58:19] to combat violent crime. [58:21] $12 billion for our budget [58:23] for violent crime. [58:24] And you said that, [58:26] but I want to make sure [58:27] I'm giving props [58:28] to the great men [58:29] and women of law enforcement [58:30] in our country. [58:31] It worked. [58:32] And we did see meaningful [58:34] reductions in violent crime, [58:35] which means everybody's streets [58:37] are safer than they were [58:38] a year and a half ago. [58:39] Well, as someone [58:40] who is raising two teenagers [58:42] and wants these streets [58:43] to be safer, [58:44] particularly the ones [58:45] where all these families [58:47] are trying to build their lives, [58:50] we say thank you. [58:52] Last question. [58:53] I know that the budget also [58:56] is going to stand up [58:57] the National Fraud Enforcement [58:59] Division. [58:59] I know that there's been [59:00] a lot of misnomers [59:01] about that out there. [59:02] It is important we make sure [59:04] that taxpayer dollars [59:05] are used judiciously, [59:06] and the people who do not do [59:07] that are held accountable. [59:09] Can you talk about some [59:11] of the work that the division [59:12] has been doing [59:13] and how the funding will allow [59:14] DOJ to continue protecting [59:15] Americans and their hard-earned tax dollars? [59:18] Yes, so we asked for $30 million [59:20] because we need lawyers [59:21] to help build this new division up. [59:23] And what we've done already, [59:24] and you've seen it in the news [59:26] in Minnesota and other locations, [59:28] really everywhere. [59:29] Minnesota has been a focus, [59:30] but in every state, [59:32] the National Fraud Division [59:33] has an AUSA assigned [59:34] to that division now. [59:36] And their goal is very simple, [59:39] to find criminals who are stealing [59:40] from the government. [59:41] That's it. [59:42] And so that comes in the area [59:44] of health care, [59:45] but it comes in a lot [59:46] of different places. [59:47] And I expect that everybody [59:49] in this body will be very satisfied [59:52] with the work when I come back [59:53] next time because it's [59:54] doing great work. [59:55] Americans are sick of people [59:56] not being held accountable. [59:57] So we hope that we see some people [1:00:00] actually prosecuted for these crimes. [1:00:02] Thank you so much. [1:00:03] Thank you. [1:00:04] Senator Merkley. [1:00:07] Thank you, Madam Chair. [1:00:09] And Senator Murray, [1:00:10] do you want to jump in first? [1:00:12] OK. [1:00:13] Thank you, Acting Attorney General. [1:00:15] So the budget has a $500 million cut [1:00:18] to the COPS grants. [1:00:20] Those grants are certainly important [1:00:22] to our local law enforcement, [1:00:24] for staff, for equipment, [1:00:25] for investigations. [1:00:27] Is there any particular reason [1:00:29] that you think the police departments need less money now [1:00:32] than they did before? [1:00:34] And would you be supportive if we advocate for more funding [1:00:37] rather than less? [1:00:38] So local law enforcement needs all the money we can get. [1:00:41] I agree with that very much. [1:00:42] And whether I would be supportive of more money [1:00:46] that you all come together for local law enforcement, [1:00:48] yes, I will. [1:00:49] I mean, look, this budget. [1:00:50] Thank you. [1:00:50] I appreciate that. [1:00:51] Sure. [1:00:52] There is a bill called the Stop Institutional Child Abuse Act [1:00:56] that senators on both sides of the aisle support it, [1:00:58] including Senators Tuberville and Cornyn. [1:01:00] And this is about the troubled teen industry, [1:01:03] where there are basically all kinds of fairly unregulated, [1:01:09] without oversight, companies that say, hey, send your teen [1:01:13] to us, and we'll get them on the right path. [1:01:17] This institutional care often results [1:01:21] in institutional abuse. [1:01:23] And what we did when we passed and funded that bill, [1:01:26] because we had both authorized it and then we funded it, [1:01:29] was to have the National Academies of Science study. [1:01:32] Because there's 50,000 kids that are [1:01:34] in these institutional settings each year. [1:01:36] They're often taken away in the middle of the night [1:01:39] under arrangements with the parents. [1:01:40] The parents think they're sending their kids to get help, [1:01:43] but often they're sending their kids into abuse. [1:01:46] Will you take a look at this issue [1:01:49] and just kind of track the National Academies [1:01:52] as they proceed to study this? [1:01:53] And if there are ways that we can reduce abuse, [1:01:58] help us find that path? [1:02:00] Yes, of course. [1:02:01] Thank you. [1:02:03] To follow up, you noted that it would [1:02:05] be up to the five commissioners that you appoint [1:02:08] to determine whether there are any guidelines. [1:02:11] Will you encourage the folks that you select [1:02:15] to ensure that folks who were convicted of violent acts [1:02:19] against police officers do not get compensation from this fund? [1:02:23] Well, I expect they will. [1:02:25] They don't have the option of establishing guidelines. [1:02:27] The commissioners will establish guidelines. [1:02:28] And so I feel you- [1:02:29] Will you encourage them to have a guideline that says, [1:02:32] those who have been convicted of violent acts [1:02:34] against police officers are not eligible? [1:02:37] I will definitely encourage the commissioners [1:02:40] to take everything into account when determining who should [1:02:42] get compensation. [1:02:43] But why not this specific issue of violent acts, [1:02:46] convicted of violent acts against police officers? [1:02:48] Do you feel they should get compensation [1:02:50] after being convicted of violent acts? [1:02:52] My feelings don't matter, Senator, in my mind. [1:02:54] My mind is not limiting to say, yes, I will commit to this or that. [1:02:59] What I will commit to is making sure that the commissioners are effectively [1:03:04] doing their jobs. [1:03:05] And that includes setting guidelines like you're describing. [1:03:08] OK, I'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable [1:03:13] that those who are convicted and violently assaulting- [1:03:15] I definitely did not say that. [1:03:17] Definitely did not say that. [1:03:18] I didn't say I found it acceptable, Senator. [1:03:21] Will you agree to encourage those commissioners [1:03:24] to set a guideline that compensation will not go to individuals [1:03:28] who are convicted of assaulting police officers? [1:03:32] I expect- [1:03:32] Just a yes would answer my question, or a no. [1:03:35] A yes will not answer that question. [1:03:36] I mean, you're asking whether I will encourage. [1:03:38] I don't think that's a fair word. [1:03:39] I don't think it's the attorney general's job [1:03:40] to encourage commissioners to do or not do anything. [1:03:43] OK, well, we'll move on. [1:03:45] But I will say that you have complete power over who you appoint, [1:03:48] so you have huge influence. [1:03:50] You are going to be evaluating the inclinations [1:03:53] and attitudes of those who will serve. [1:03:56] And certainly, this looks extraordinary. [1:03:58] You described it as parallel to a fund set up [1:04:02] to compensate Native Americans who were discriminated against [1:04:05] in the agricultural world. [1:04:07] It's not parallel at all. [1:04:10] President Obama did not sue his own Department of Justice. [1:04:13] He did not have a judge saying that Williams had- [1:04:19] Let's see, how did she put it? [1:04:21] Kathleen Williams, the judge handling the lawsuit, [1:04:24] dismissed the case, and then finally admonished [1:04:26] the government agency. [1:04:27] Notably, the Justice Department, for not being transparent about [1:04:31] the settlement deal. [1:04:34] Williams previously assigned a group of attorneys to determine [1:04:37] whether there was a conflict of case, since as sitting [1:04:39] President Trump was suing, quote, [1:04:41] entities whose decisions are subject to his direction. [1:04:45] This type of conflict of interest is not at all involved in the fund set up to compensate those who are [1:04:51] discriminated against in the agricultural realm. [1:04:55] I want to go on to the Epstein investigation. [1:04:56] Is it closed or open? [1:04:59] When you say the Epstein investigation, what are you referring to, Senator? [1:05:01] Well, the FBI said in last year in July that it had closed the Epstein investigation. [1:05:07] So I'm just using their words, is it open or closed? [1:05:09] I don't believe the FBI said that. [1:05:11] Well, your head of the Department of Justice, is the Epstein investigation open or closed? [1:05:18] But I guess I don't understand what Epstein investigation means. [1:05:21] Well, let me put it differently. [1:05:22] Jeffrey Epstein himself? [1:05:23] Yes, he's dead. [1:05:24] Any investigation into potential other bad guys will always be open if we have evidence [1:05:30] that supports in any way, shape, or form that we can make a case. [1:05:34] OK, so Trump said in November, this is after the FBI, and it was the FBI awards when they [1:05:39] said the investigation was closed, but what Trump wrote in November of last year, [1:05:45] I'll be asking the Attorney General, Pam Bondi, and the Department of Justice, together with our [1:05:51] great Patriots FBI to investigate Jeffrey Epstein's involvement and relationships with, and he [1:05:56] gave a specific list, Bill Clinton, Larry Summers, Reid Hoffman, people at JP Morgan, and many [1:06:02] other people to determine what was going on. [1:06:05] Is there a list particularly targeted at Democrats, as opposed to being, if you will, blind, blind [1:06:16] to party affiliation, investigations that are being pursued under your direction? [1:06:21] Any investigation, no matter Republican, Democrat, man, woman, old, young, any investigation will [1:06:27] be open if the Department of Justice and the FBI have evidence that a crime has been committed. [1:06:31] And that doesn't, I mean, you're talking about Epstein. [1:06:33] You commit to pursue, regardless of political affiliation. [1:06:36] Excuse me, Senator? [1:06:38] You commit to pursuing investigations free of prejudice about party affiliation. [1:06:43] Of course, yes. [1:06:44] Well, you say of course, but this enemy has repeatedly, this president has repeatedly spoken of an [1:06:49] enemies list that he wants to go after. [1:06:53] And I must say, it's one of the symbols of the breakdown of a democratic republic when a [1:06:57] president uses his Department of Justice, which you now head, to go after his perceived political [1:07:02] enemies. [1:07:03] I hope you won't be party to that. [1:07:04] Thank you. [1:07:05] I mean, I couldn't agree with you more. [1:07:07] And that's why what happened during the Biden administration was so disgusting. [1:07:11] That is completely inappropriate and wrong. [1:07:14] There is no comparison to the absolute fair-minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration [1:07:21] and this administration's pursuit of an enemies list. [1:07:23] Thank you. [1:07:24] Senator Murray. [1:07:26] I believe Senator Fischer was next. [1:07:29] Yeah. [1:07:30] Senator Fischer, so glad of you to join us. [1:07:34] Thank you. [1:07:36] I was trying to ingratiate myself with the ranking member of the committee. [1:07:39] No, you didn't see me at the kiddie table. [1:07:42] It's fine. [1:07:43] So, Mr. Attorney General, welcome. [1:07:45] Senator Murkowski brought up to you about the consolidation of the grant programs and also [1:07:53] that the budget request is $1.2 billion, a cut to the state and local grants. [1:08:01] I thank you for clarifying that this consolidation, what its intent is, but I'm still concerned [1:08:11] about the impact of funding reductions and what that would have on our state and local law enforcement [1:08:18] agencies. [1:08:19] So, I hope that you will be very cognizant of that as you look at the rural and really the [1:08:27] under-resourced agencies that are out there. [1:08:30] Yes, I will, Senator. [1:08:31] Yes. [1:08:31] Thank you. [1:08:32] In 2024, I passed legislation, the Recruit and Retain Act, and that was signed into law. [1:08:39] And this authorized law enforcement agencies to use those COPS grants for recruitment and [1:08:47] retention activities. [1:08:48] It required a study. [1:08:50] The study came out. [1:08:52] Not surprisingly, it identified a relationship between local law enforcement staffing levels [1:09:00] and crime rates. [1:09:02] More staff leads to lower crime. [1:09:04] And the study also found that from 2019 through 2024, officer resignations and retirements have [1:09:16] increased and that's obviously then a decrease in officer staffing. [1:09:22] So, Mr. Attorney General, how do you anticipate that DOJ's proposal to consolidate its grant making [1:09:30] components, reducing that funding for that account? [1:09:35] How's that going to impact recruitment and retention by those local agencies? [1:09:41] And how do you plan to address that? [1:09:44] So, we will spend tons and tons of grant money on that issue and not only giving money to state [1:09:50] and locals to get them new bodies, but also overtime and equipment, which all goes to keeping people [1:09:57] on the job more meaningfully and beyond the grant program itself. [1:10:01] We are making law enforcement a very good thing to be part of now. [1:10:06] And that was one of the reasons that there was a steep decline in a lot of retirements [1:10:10] during the time of 2019 to 2024, because there was this inappropriate stigma that law enforcement [1:10:16] or COPS were bad. [1:10:17] That's not the case anymore. [1:10:18] And so, we're working every day. [1:10:19] We have our Homeland Security Task Forces set up, which is a partnership with state and local [1:10:24] law enforcement and sheriffs. [1:10:25] They're getting money. [1:10:26] They're getting overtime pay. [1:10:27] We're thanking them. [1:10:28] We're giving them cars. [1:10:29] We're giving them vehicles. [1:10:30] And so, that's what we're going to continue to do. [1:10:32] Have you reached out to local agencies to see if their recruitment has improved? [1:10:40] Because I can attest to disappointment by many police departments. [1:10:47] OPPD Omaha, for example, did see their numbers really decrease. [1:10:52] Have you reached out and have any numbers on what it is now? [1:10:57] Regularly, including last week during Police Week, I met with a lot. [1:11:00] It's still a problem. [1:11:01] We have not fixed it yet. [1:11:02] I mean, look at what happened over the past year with law enforcement officers getting doxxed [1:11:06] and having rocks thrown at them and having local leaders say to good, hardworking cops, [1:11:11] you can't help. [1:11:12] So, this isn't something that we've won yet, but it's a priority to win that fight. [1:11:16] And I'll keep on talking to state and local sheriffs and cops and detectives [1:11:21] and letting them know that we appreciate them. [1:11:23] And not only with our mouth, but with our pocketbooks as well. [1:11:25] We do. [1:11:26] Thank you. [1:11:28] Last year, the FBI and Homeland Security Investigations announced a new Homeland Security Task Force [1:11:34] based out of Kansas City, Missouri. [1:11:37] And that included a location in Omaha. [1:11:39] Yes. [1:11:40] And focus is obviously combating trafficking of humans and drugs and weapons, money laundering, [1:11:48] alien smuggling, homicide, extortion, on and on. [1:11:53] We did see members of this task force. [1:11:57] They arrested a MS-13 gang leader in Grand Island, Nebraska, in the Middle Eastern part of the state. [1:12:06] The 27 budget request cites the elimination of the Organized Crime Drug Enforcement Task Force's component [1:12:17] and instead requests appropriations be made directly to agencies like DEA and FBI. [1:12:25] Can you share how this proposed reorganization is still going to ensure strong interagency coordination [1:12:34] so that we can see a continued focus on transnational crime threats and specifically with those local [1:12:44] law enforcement agencies? [1:12:45] It's very important. [1:12:46] I agree. [1:12:47] So look, we dissolved the OCDEF executive office. [1:12:51] That is true. [1:12:52] But the money that we're asking for, the money that we're going to spend, [1:12:56] is exactly like we've been spending for a long time except for more efficiently. [1:12:59] So the HSTF model is built off of the OCDEF model but with a lot of improvement. [1:13:05] Like there was a lot of overlap in OCDEF money that we are now just, that we're now being more efficient [1:13:11] with. [1:13:11] So there is no doubt, as a matter of fact, the opposite is true, that we're spending [1:13:16] that same OCDEF type money, we're spending more of it and we're getting more of it out to the field [1:13:21] through the Homeland Security Task Force. [1:13:23] And so that's what we're, that's the goal. [1:13:26] So is that a line item within your agency or does it need to be a line item on appropriations? [1:13:36] So it's a- [1:13:36] To make sure that it's covered. [1:13:38] So it's a line item through the appropriations, I believe. [1:13:42] Although I'll double check that and get back to you if I'm wrong. [1:13:45] I will. [1:13:45] Yes. [1:13:46] Okay. [1:13:46] Thank you very much. [1:13:47] Senator Fisher, thank you. [1:13:48] Now I would like to recognize the vice chair of the full committee, Senator Murray. [1:13:51] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:13:53] Acting Attorney General right now, families are paying four, five, even six or seven dollars [1:13:59] for gas. [1:14:00] Inflation is at its highest level in years because of the president's policies. [1:14:05] But instead of helping Americans get by, President Trump is literally using their tax dollars [1:14:13] to set up a slush fund to enrich his own friends. [1:14:17] On Monday, your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a fund with 1.8 billion [1:14:24] dollars. [1:14:25] And you and the president will pick the handful of people who decide how that money gets doled [1:14:31] out. [1:14:32] So let's be clear. [1:14:33] What we're talking about is nothing short of the sitting president of the United States [1:14:38] looting from the treasury for his own gain. [1:14:41] Do you seriously think this arrangement is appropriate? [1:14:45] The president telling the federal government to settle a case and let him pay billions to the [1:14:50] people that he chooses? [1:14:52] What you just described wouldn't be appropriate. [1:14:54] And that's absolutely not what happened. [1:14:56] And that's not what's happening now. [1:14:57] So you just set up a series of facts, most of which were not true. [1:15:00] No. [1:15:01] To say, is it? [1:15:01] No, it's not. [1:15:02] I mean, I... [1:15:03] The president has set up a slush fund, however you want to say that it got set up. [1:15:08] And he literally will get to choose through his handpicked appointees who gets paid that [1:15:13] fund. [1:15:14] That is absurd. [1:15:15] The president did not set up this fund. [1:15:18] It's not a slush fund. [1:15:20] It's been done many times. [1:15:21] We have lots of funds. [1:15:23] I heard your response earlier to Senator Van Hollen. [1:15:25] This is not comparable to the case that you cited. [1:15:29] A judge was not involved. [1:15:30] This is the president versus himself setting up a fund. [1:15:34] The judge wasn't involved in the distribution in the Keeps Eagle case at all. [1:15:38] It just wasn't. [1:15:39] There was a single commissioner that was set up, not five. [1:15:43] And so when I... [1:15:44] The judge signed off on that case. [1:15:46] Yes, it was at a much later point in litigation. [1:15:48] That's right. [1:15:49] That's my point. [1:15:50] That is all of our point. [1:15:51] And I just have to tell you, this is corruption that has never been more blatant or more [1:15:56] rights-spent. [1:15:57] What is happening is you write the check, Trump and his cronies cash it, American taxpayers, [1:16:03] who are already being whacked with high prices, are going to foot the bill. [1:16:07] That's what we are seeing today, and that is what many of us are really, really angry about. [1:16:13] So let me move to another topic. [1:16:16] This Department of Justice is sending the message that if you're wealthy, if you're powerful, [1:16:22] if you are well-connected, you won't be held accountable, even if you abuse children. [1:16:27] You know us, after Congress passed the Epstein Files Transparency Act and DOG finally began to release [1:16:34] the files, your department exposed survivors' names, their sensitive personal information, [1:16:42] and even nude photos, while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes. [1:16:48] The message that sends is this Department of Justice worked harder to protect the privacy [1:16:54] of potential child abusers than the survivors. [1:16:58] Your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims, but I want to give you the same opportunity [1:17:05] to apologize for the way the Department handled the release of these documents. [1:17:10] Will you apologize to the survivors? [1:17:13] When the President passed the Epstein Transparency Act, that was the only time, [1:17:18] when the President signed the Transparency Act, that was when we were legally allowed to release [1:17:23] the files. [1:17:24] Prior to the passage of the Act, which you all passed, I agree. [1:17:27] That is so not the question I'm asking. [1:17:30] It was the question you asked. [1:17:31] You asked five or six questions. [1:17:32] I'm answering them in order. [1:17:33] That was one of the questions you asked. [1:17:34] The question I want you to answer is, will you apologize to the victims whose names, [1:17:40] sensitive personal information, and even nude photos were not redacted by your department? [1:17:46] Will you apologize to them? [1:17:47] Of course. [1:17:47] That was, we never want to release a single victim's name. [1:17:50] That is what they are hearing to hear. [1:17:51] Can I answer the question, please? [1:17:53] Is it fair? [1:17:53] I'm asking if you'll apologize. [1:17:55] And I just said yes, but I wanted to, I would like an explanation to be given to that. [1:17:59] What this Act did, is it required us to review over six million pieces of paper in a very short [1:18:06] period of time. [1:18:07] And so 0.001 percent, we made mistakes, and we owned up to them. [1:18:12] And the second that a victim or their lawyer told us that we made a mistake, we pulled that document [1:18:17] down and we put lawyers 24-7 in being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we [1:18:23] fixed every single problem. [1:18:24] And so yes, the states were- [1:18:25] I hear your anger. [1:18:26] I'm not angry. [1:18:27] No, I'm not angry. [1:18:27] I hear your anger. [1:18:28] I'm just making sure it's understood. [1:18:29] This is really angry. [1:18:30] We matter. [1:18:31] There are nude photos released. [1:18:33] I just want to hear you say, I apologize to those victims. [1:18:36] So as I just said, of course, any time we release a victim's name that shouldn't be released, [1:18:42] we have failed as a Department of Justice. [1:18:44] And so we have to do everything that we can to not fail. [1:18:46] Well, I haven't heard the words, I apologize to those victims. [1:18:49] I'm trying to give you an explanation of what happened. [1:18:51] I don't think you're really interested in that because you keep on cutting me off. [1:18:53] I have a few more questions here, and I want to know, and I know that Senator Van [1:18:57] Holland raised this, but I want to ask you, will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors? [1:19:02] I have heard from them personally that DOJ refused to meet them, and I'm asking about you. [1:19:08] I'm asking about the Justice Department reaching out to them to be heard, [1:19:13] not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has obviously repeatedly failed them so far. [1:19:19] Can I answer? [1:19:20] Yeah, will you reach out to them? [1:19:22] So as we have said repeatedly, of course, any lawyer, now if a victim has a lawyer, [1:19:27] I'm not allowed to reach out to the victim directly, you know that. [1:19:29] But any lawyer can reach out to the Department of Justice. [1:19:32] They have, and I've met with many victims and their lawyers, as has the FBI, as has the SDNY. [1:19:38] We will always, always meet with victim's counsel. [1:19:42] Any victim or the lawyer can come forward to the FBI at any time. [1:19:45] With these women, and I've met with them, and I know Senator Van [1:19:47] Holland has and so many others, they are personally so feeling abused, again and again, [1:19:54] again by what happened to them originally and now by what's happening by them. [1:19:59] I am saying to you as a human being, don't make them navigate a system that is impossible to [1:20:04] navigate that's already abused them, reach out and ask to meet with them. [1:20:08] So wait, you're asking me to call, you want me to personally call the victims? [1:20:11] I can help you reach them. [1:20:13] Oh, that would be great. [1:20:14] Yes, because we have said from day one, of course, there have been members that have done that. [1:20:19] And we immediately reach out to the victims or their lawyers when the lawyers want and [1:20:22] say they want to do it. [1:20:23] We will follow up on that. [1:20:25] Thank you very much. [1:20:27] Let me ask you a few questions, and then we'll get to Senator Reed and Senator Peters, [1:20:33] and then we'll have a conclusion of the hearing. [1:20:36] I want to, oh, yes, and Senator Gillibrand, excuse me for my lack of peripheral vision. [1:20:44] We'll make certain, Senator Gillibrand, that you are called on. [1:20:48] General, worried about staffing and operational strains at the Bureau of Prisons. [1:20:55] This committee, this subcommittee and our full committee has tried to help in the last several [1:21:00] years, and there was money in the reconciliation bill, $5 billion to support recruitment and [1:21:06] retention efforts to address the BOP's maintenance backlog. [1:21:13] In correctional facilities in Kansas, and we have certainly a major federal and lots of state [1:21:18] correctional facilities, but officers, wardens, stakeholders continue to hear concerns about [1:21:25] staffing shortages, aging infrastructure, deferred maintenance, officer retention, [1:21:29] long-term strain placed on both personnel and inmates. [1:21:32] General, what can you tell me about this budget request, and can you help me understand the [1:21:40] circumstances you see at the Bureau of Prisons in this regard? [1:21:43] So, thank you, Senator. We were given a broken agency when we took over. Not enough money, [1:21:49] morale was very low, and many of the prisons needed serious repairs. And so the president's budget [1:21:56] this year tries to rectify a lot of that, as did the big, beautiful bill. [1:22:00] The vacancy rate is still 20% for corrections officers. I talked about this earlier. That has to [1:22:06] do with retention, it has to do with how much we're paying them, and creating an environment at the BOP [1:22:11] that they want to work at, and so that's something we have to work on. [1:22:15] We have some of the investments we want to make, $450 million to attack the vacancy rate and start [1:22:21] paying some of our correction officers more, and then also a lot of money to make repairs. [1:22:28] And so these are just safety repairs, but also structural repairs at prisons, [1:22:33] so that, again, it makes sure inmates are protected and are safe, and that we're safe from them, [1:22:39] and also creates an environment that's safe for the staff and the corrections officers that are [1:22:44] working there. And so it's a big number, but it's extraordinarily important. [1:22:48] As recently as yesterday, General, I continued to hear from state and local law enforcement agencies [1:22:55] about their desire, and therefore the demand for training on drones and counter UAS systems. [1:23:03] We have, Kansas City is a FIFA site, but that demand is significant. And can you tell me how [1:23:11] the department is working with the FBI to address this issue? And I think FIFA is a significant component [1:23:18] of it. But with the prevalence of UAVs, I think it's just a broadly an issue that needs to be broadly [1:23:25] addressed. [1:23:26] Yes. So we're training. The FBI is training a ton of state and locals every day. And we're on the clock [1:23:33] because of FIFA, but we're also doing it beyond FIFA because the UAS drones are a big problem in every [1:23:39] single state in this country. And so we have ATF also. A certain portion of ATF also helps with the [1:23:46] training as well at the FBI facility. And we're going to continue to do that, meaning we're going [1:23:51] to continue to offer and provide training to state and locals. We're also asking for money in our budget [1:23:57] to help shore that up a little bit so that so that we can continue to not only offer training, but but [1:24:03] have a defense to the UAS. I would suggest that the FBI training center is over capacity, needs more [1:24:11] officers and capabilities. And if the Department of Justice is interested in pursuing that, [1:24:16] I'd be interested in trying to be helpful. [1:24:18] I'm interested in working with you, Senator. Thank you. [1:24:21] Grant administration, I think things are getting better, but the Department of Justice, [1:24:26] particularly in its grants to local law enforcement, it's been a really slow process [1:24:30] this year in getting the money out the door. Congress shut down. The list is long for reasons [1:24:38] that could be the case. But I want to give you the opportunity to tell me that you are now positioned [1:24:45] to see that local law enforcement in particular, but grants in general, and those grants exceed just [1:24:51] local law enforcement. It's other community grants, mentoring grants. I want to make sure that you [1:24:57] believe you're now positioned in terms of staffing and administrative abilities to make that process work [1:25:05] better. We are working on that. And you're right. It's been slow. We now have all the 25s out, [1:25:11] except for maybe one. We're starting on 26 now. One program or one grant? [1:25:16] One grant. One grant. I could be off a couple of grants, but we're mostly finished with that [1:25:21] process. You're right. We didn't get the number from you guys until January, late January, [1:25:26] so we had a late start. And we're going to turn to 26 now and get as much done as we can. As you know, [1:25:32] they're distributed on a rolling basis, so it's not as if there's no money and then a ton of money. [1:25:37] So we're trying to get the wheels turning as quickly as we can to get money out. [1:25:43] Thank you. Senator Reid. [1:25:44] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanch, how many taxpayers' returns were leaked by the IRS contractor [1:25:52] in the 2020 breach? How many taxpayers? Excuse me? How many taxpayers' returns were leaked by the [1:25:58] IRS contractor in the 2020 breach? I don't know the exact amount, but a lot. [1:26:03] 405,427. One of them was Donald Trump, correct? One of them was Donald Trump, correct? [1:26:13] It was Donald Trump and his family were others, correct? [1:26:16] Right. And Donald Trump was president at the time? [1:26:19] Correct. So it was his IRS department that allowed this breach of privacy, correct? [1:26:26] It was a criminal who worked in the IRS, yes. [1:26:28] Well, he was hired under Trump's... This is one of the Trump... [1:26:34] Well, there was a criminal breach that led to this, yes. [1:26:37] Very good. How many of these 400,000 people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach? [1:26:45] I don't think any have, including the president. [1:26:47] No, they haven't, but you've authorized the president. [1:26:50] Do you agree the president should have a reimbursement, correct? [1:26:55] No, he settled the case. No, there's no reimbursement to President Trump. [1:26:58] Well, that's interesting. He filed a suit, Senator, but... [1:27:03] So President Trump, you're going to assure us President Trump and his family will get no proceeds from this? [1:27:08] Correct. He will not. [1:27:10] He will not get. His family will not get. [1:27:12] Correct. [1:27:13] And who will direct the disposition of these? Who gets the money? [1:27:19] From the Victims Fund? All right. [1:27:21] Well, there'll be a commission of five individuals that will be set up, [1:27:24] and they will take in requests and claims and decide whether to do anything from issue an apology. [1:27:29] Who will name the commissioners? [1:27:31] I will. The attorney general, whoever the attorney general is. [1:27:34] The attorney general. Okay. [1:27:35] Sorry, just to correct. And one of them will be done in consultation with leadership of this body. [1:27:40] Consultation. Well, that's good. [1:27:43] But when he first announced this suit on January 30th, he said, [1:27:49] I think what we'll do is something for charity, where I'll give the money to charity. [1:27:55] I'm talking about the American Cancer Society. I would say established and respected charities. [1:28:01] Will you fulfill the president's wish that it goes to respected charities? [1:28:06] I'm aware that he put that in or said that, but that's not ultimately what the settlement calls for. [1:28:11] Well, the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the Department of Justice, correct? [1:28:16] Correct. [1:28:17] So his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's vision of giving it to a respectable charity? [1:28:24] I am confident his lawyers urged the president's desires. Obviously, there's not a charity. [1:28:35] The order that you signed yesterday states that the government [1:28:38] pay the settlement if the Secretary of Treasury has certified the payment. Is that correct? [1:28:44] Correct. [1:28:45] Is it a coincidence that the general counsel of the Department of Treasury resigned yesterday? [1:28:50] I don't know if it's a coincidence. [1:28:52] Yeah. Have you looked or checked? [1:28:54] Have I checked? [1:28:55] Yeah. [1:28:55] I have not. As to why he resigned? [1:28:58] It just seems to be very coincidental that a high-ranking member of the Department of Treasury, [1:29:04] Senate confirmed, would resign the day that the Treasury Department was required, [1:29:10] essentially, to certify these payments. [1:29:12] Well, I believe the IRS signed the settlement agreement as well, but yes. I can't speak to why he resigned, Senator. [1:29:20] Well, this all seems to be an obvious abuse of power by the Department of Justice, by the president. [1:29:35] He negotiated, essentially, with himself. You're his appointee. The IRS are his appointees. He's the plaintiff. [1:29:44] And the American people, I don't think, are surprised that suddenly all this money is going to his [1:29:50] friends or people in his orbit. Will you ensure that none of this money goes to anyone convicted on [1:29:57] the January 6th attack on the Congress? Well, the commissioners will determine who is eligible to [1:30:04] receive the money. And who are the commissioners? [1:30:07] They're not named yet. Who will name them? [1:30:10] I will. Or the Attorney General will. It's not me. [1:30:12] So, with the suggestion of the President of the United States. [1:30:16] Excuse me? [1:30:17] With the suggestion of the President of the United States, your boss. [1:30:20] I do not make suggestions. I will- [1:30:22] No, no. He won't make suggestions to you. [1:30:24] I have no idea if he will or not. I really don't. I have no idea if he will or not. [1:30:29] I would be shocked if he didn't tell you exactly who to put on. And I'd be more shocked if you did [1:30:37] not put them on. This is a travesty of the law in the United States and the Constitution. [1:30:47] You had an opportunity to go down and talk to Jocelyn Maxwell. And then, a few days later, [1:30:55] she was transferred from a high security prison to a very comfortable- [1:31:01] I mean, that's- [1:31:02] Very comfortable. [1:31:03] That's just not true. [1:31:04] She was not in a high security prison. [1:31:06] She was transferred from a low security prison to a low security prison. [1:31:09] I mean, you're looking at me like that's- that's verifiable. [1:31:13] Well, uh, I don't think at the other prison, she had her own room. [1:31:18] She had access to a private shower. [1:31:20] She could have pet therapy, and- [1:31:24] I don't know if any of that is true. [1:31:25] I'm not disagreeing with you. [1:31:26] Uh, it is true. [1:31:27] And you should know it, Mr. Tranger. [1:31:29] I should know that? [1:31:30] You should know. [1:31:30] Whether an inmate has access to her own shower? [1:31:32] No, no. [1:31:33] Uh, this is a person of extra special interest to the President of the United States. [1:31:39] He's known her. [1:31:40] Why did he send you down to talk to her? [1:31:43] He didn't send me. [1:31:44] I went. [1:31:45] What do you mean? [1:31:46] Do you think President Trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in federal prison? [1:31:50] Honestly? [1:31:51] Yes, I do, frankly. [1:31:52] Well- [1:31:52] Because you know why? [1:31:53] He didn't. [1:31:53] Because the deal was in. [1:31:54] He needed somebody to rely upon to talk to her and say, what would she say if she was asked [1:32:01] about Jeffrey Epstein? [1:32:02] And you were the perfect choice. [1:32:04] And you went down there, and suddenly, shazam. [1:32:07] She's out of what is a more confining situation into a much more relaxed federal prison. [1:32:16] Every word that I asked her is recorded and available to you to review. [1:32:22] If there's criticisms of the question that I asked her, go ahead and make them. [1:32:26] But the President did not have anything to do with my choice to go interview Ms. Maxwell. [1:32:30] If I wouldn't have went and a career would have went, you would have said, [1:32:33] why didn't you go yourself? [1:32:34] Just like you expect me to know whether she has access to her own shower. [1:32:37] You should. [1:32:37] So I did go. [1:32:38] Everyone in the United States who reads the newspapers know that. [1:32:43] I guess you don't, you know, read things like that. [1:32:45] You know, this whole hearing, I think, is exposing something, which is, to me, very frightening. [1:32:51] You're a very gifted lawyer. [1:32:53] But from my perspective, you have very little faith to the Constitution and the people of America. [1:33:01] And you're the President's consigliore. [1:33:04] Your perspective is completely wrong, Senator, respectfully. [1:33:06] I think the facts will prove me right. [1:33:09] Thank you. [1:33:11] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:14] Mr. Blanche, last May, my staff at Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee [1:33:19] released a report documenting that the inspectors general that President Trump fired had together, [1:33:26] collectively, had uncovered billions of dollars in fraud, waste, and abuse. [1:33:33] We oversee IGs and believe that they're incredibly important to hold government accountable, [1:33:41] which needs to be done so that American people have trust and confidence in the work that we do here. [1:33:47] In fact, it was quite, I thought, striking. [1:33:51] The study showed that for every dollar that we spend on IGs, it's been estimated, [1:33:57] the return on that investment is roughly 18 times what we put into the IGs. [1:34:05] But despite the administration's purported focus on fraud, your department, [1:34:11] FY27 request would actually cut these IGs, their budget, by nearly a third. [1:34:17] These are folks that have an 18 to 1 return on investment. [1:34:21] Prior to being in public service, I spent 20 plus years in the investment business. [1:34:27] If I told investors, this is an investment I'd like you to make and you're going to have an 18 to 1 return, [1:34:33] they would jump out of their chair in excitement and say, absolutely. [1:34:36] Can I put, how much money can I put in to get an 18 to 1 return? [1:34:40] So while the request, and this happens while you're requesting an increase for your overall agency [1:34:47] through the reconciliation, so you're going to be gaining additional funding, [1:34:50] which I would argue requires oversight as you get additional funding. [1:34:54] That happens every government agency, not just yours. [1:34:58] And have a massive cut of IGs with an 18 to 1 ROI. [1:35:02] Why was that decision made and how do you intend to have robust oversight of the department [1:35:07] when you're cutting the folks who are responsible for that [1:35:09] and have a brilliant track record of doing that with every administration, [1:35:14] Democratic or Republican, before you? [1:35:16] So I agree the IGs are extraordinarily important. [1:35:19] The budget that was proposed, it was developed consulting with the IGs. [1:35:24] And so this is a budget that OMB and DOJ worked with the IG's office to come up with, [1:35:30] and this was an agreed upon budget from them. [1:35:33] So just because you're not giving more money, and you're even taking away money, [1:35:39] doesn't mean the conclusion you reached is accurate, [1:35:41] which is that it's going to result in less work or less return on our investment. [1:35:46] I just don't think that's true. [1:35:47] Well, that makes no sense, of course. [1:35:50] If you have one-third fewer folks working, granted, maybe they're incredibly more productive, [1:35:56] but it's really clear with an 18 to 1 return investing, as your budget is growing, [1:36:03] you're going to have that kind of return. [1:36:05] And it makes no sense to do that. [1:36:10] There's no financial sense to do it, so is there another reason? [1:36:13] You just don't want IGs on the job. [1:36:14] As I just said, the IGs themselves work with OMB and DOJ to develop this budget [1:36:21] in a way that made them feel that they could get their job done. [1:36:23] So it wasn't like, we've got a budget for it. [1:36:26] You can either take this, or you're going to get a lot less. [1:36:28] I wasn't part of the conversation, but I assure you it was not. [1:36:31] I can't imagine IGs are going to say, [1:36:33] okay, we want fewer of us, even though we have an 18 to 1 return, [1:36:36] and we're the guardian to make sure that people can trust what happens in federal government. [1:36:41] And it makes no sense to me to have that cut. [1:36:44] And I think it speaks volumes of what this administration is really focused on, [1:36:51] and it's not about reducing waste, fraud, and abuse. [1:36:54] You don't do that by decimating the IG Corps. [1:36:57] We certainly saw him fire a number of IGs earlier and have serious concerns. [1:37:01] Mr. Blanche, the President also signed an executive order on March 31 directing the [1:37:05] Department of Justice, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Postal Service to take a [1:37:10] series of actions related to federal elections, including the creation of a federal citizenship [1:37:15] list and new rules on mail ballot distribution. [1:37:19] That order is rightly being challenged in federal court, as these are state functions. [1:37:25] But recent reporting indicated that the implementation of that order is being coordinated through the [1:37:29] White House meetings involving senior Department of Justice leadership, including Assistant Attorney [1:37:34] General Harmet Dillon. [1:37:38] So my question for you, sir, is what is the Department's role in implementing the March 31 executive order? [1:37:43] Well, I want to be careful because it is under litigation, but it's as you just described. [1:37:48] It's working with other agencies within the administration to implement the goals, [1:37:54] which I think are appropriate goals, to make sure that we have free and fair elections, [1:37:57] to make sure that those are implemented, whether it's DOJ that needs to implement them or some other [1:38:03] federal agency. [1:38:03] Well, you have other agencies. [1:38:06] The same reporting identified the official leading the Department of Homeland Security's work, [1:38:10] as you said, you're all working together on this, who now serves as the DHS Deputy Assistant [1:38:15] Secretary for Election Integrity. [1:38:18] Her name is Heather Honey, who is in that position. [1:38:22] Ms. Honey's prior claims were central to the effect to challenge the 2020 election results. [1:38:29] Claims, as you know, have been widely disproven. [1:38:33] It's not true, none of this stuff. [1:38:35] She's a key player there. [1:38:37] So my question for you, sir, is the Department taking policy direction either formally or informally? [1:38:42] You say they are, from your previous answer. [1:38:44] But from an official whose prior work was built on disproven claims about a prior federal election? [1:38:51] I mean, our policy direction comes from President Trump and his leadership team. [1:38:55] So I know the person you're speaking about. [1:38:57] She's part of DHS and certainly in meetings that we have about election integrity. [1:39:02] But as far as whether myself or Harmeet Dillon take policy directions, [1:39:07] we take them from the president. [1:39:08] So, interesting. [1:39:12] A person who was part of these widely disproven false allegations, [1:39:17] and a president who, of course, subscribes to that as well. [1:39:20] So that's what you're telling me. That's what's driving this effort by the federal government [1:39:24] to basically take powers that the Constitution reserves for our states. [1:39:30] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Appreciate it. [1:39:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, General Blanche. [1:39:40] Thank you. [1:39:41] General Blanche, last week I took this topic up with Director Patel. [1:39:44] I'd like to revisit it with you. [1:39:46] That has to do with the work that's taking place in various jurisdictions across the country [1:39:50] to make them more safe. [1:39:52] And I want to commend the department for the work on Memphis Safe. [1:39:55] The task force there has resulted in a 43 percent decrease in violent crime [1:40:00] since the operation commenced. [1:40:02] I think it's a shining example of what happens when you have state and local governments [1:40:07] cooperating with the federal government. [1:40:09] And the dramatic improvements that we've seen in violent crime and enhancing safety [1:40:15] are really very much appreciated. [1:40:17] I just wanted to ask you to take a few minutes and walk us through the whole of government [1:40:20] approach that you've taken and how that's been executed. [1:40:24] And from that, what lessons we might learn that could be applied to other jurisdictions. [1:40:28] Thank you, Senator. Yes. [1:40:29] In your state, the Memphis task force is one of the shining stars of law enforcement over the past year, [1:40:37] also DC as well. [1:40:39] And the way that it works is that we no longer care about stats within an agency, the FBI, [1:40:44] DEA, marshals, HSI, state and local. It's just one government. It's a one-government approach. [1:40:48] But what happens in Memphis and what should happen in every city in this country is every day, [1:40:53] law enforcement gets together in a room and they decide who they're going to go out and get that [1:40:57] day, whether it's someone wanted for murder, rape, any other burglary, whether it's just somebody [1:41:04] who has a warrant out for their arrest. And then they focus on doing it. And they do it if they need a [1:41:08] prosecutor to write a warrant, they go to get the prosecutor to write a warrant. If they need a state DA to help, [1:41:13] because it's a state charge, they get the state DA's office. And what you saw, you just described [1:41:17] the reduction in crime. But you have streets in Memphis now that were unwalkable six months ago, [1:41:24] and that now there was a few new restaurants opening, I heard last week. And that's complete [1:41:29] success. I wish we could do what we were able to do in Memphis in every city in this country. [1:41:34] Can we stay on that for just a moment? Because I understand that there are other jurisdictions in [1:41:38] the United States that are refusing to cooperate. Is there anything that we could do, any tool that we [1:41:42] could provide to help you with this, with these non-compliant jurisdictions? [1:41:46] Look, I think one thing we can do is just keep on showing the American people what it looks like [1:41:52] when you do it right. And hopefully these local politicians that are doing it wrong [1:41:56] will be shamed into doing it right. And we also are in many cases suing, filing lawsuits against [1:42:02] some of these cities where they're actually violating the Constitution and violating federal law [1:42:06] in the way that they're treating federal law enforcement and the work that federal law enforcement [1:42:11] is doing. But all I can do as the acting Attorney General is offer everybody that we will work as [1:42:19] hard as we can with our law enforcement to work with the state and locals to combat crime. [1:42:23] Thank you. [1:42:24] And that's what President Trump ordered me to do, and that's what I will continue to do. [1:42:28] Well, thank you for that. I would just like to show my colleagues I get a daily report [1:42:32] on the results of what's happening in Memphis from your team and many others, and it's quite [1:42:36] impressive. The accountability makes a real difference. I'd like to turn to another issue, [1:42:40] though, one that's deeply concerning. I think it is concerning to me. It should be concerning to every [1:42:44] American. And that's bringing to light what happened to the previous administration, the Biden [1:42:49] Department's Department of Justice, when they weaponized the extraordinary powers of your [1:42:56] department with Arctic Frost. If you think about it, they used this Arctic Frost to persecute the [1:43:04] president and also go after his closest allies, including me. And, you know, I was shocked to find [1:43:10] out last year that under President Biden, the DOJ had secretly obtained my phone records from Verizon. [1:43:19] And even though Verizon was obligated to let me know that, they chose not to. And when I brought the [1:43:25] problem to Verizon's attention, all they've done is tried to stonewall me. And we've brought it before [1:43:30] the FCC in the form of a complaint. Again, Verizon simply continues to stonewall. And if I think [1:43:37] about what Verizon, what the Biden DOJ did, they specifically chose to ignore the fact that nothing [1:43:44] can or should stop a phone provider from notifying a member of Congress when their constitutional rights [1:43:50] are being violated as mine were violated. It turns out that Verizon's chief legal officer [1:43:56] Vandana Venkatesh used to work for Henry Waxman, one of the most partisan players up here. And she [1:44:06] is the general counsel. I'm seriously concerned, at least, that Ms. Venkatesh and Verizon may have [1:44:13] collaborated with their friends at the Biden DOJ. They never told me or my colleagues about it, [1:44:18] because they might have been worried that the truth would come out. They might have been worried that [1:44:23] that that would endanger their plans to make a $20 billion acquisition of Frontier Communications. [1:44:30] It's contemptible. It's damning. But I think there may have been a real reason there. I want justice [1:44:35] to be done here. And I really would appreciate your help getting to the bottom of it. So here's my [1:44:40] question. Can I get your commitment that the DOJ will work with me and my colleagues, Senator Grassley [1:44:45] and Senator Johnson, in bringing full accountability to this abuse of power? [1:44:49] Absolutely. And obviously, Senator, one way we do that is by the work we're doing, [1:44:55] to make sure you all get your oversight responsibilities as much as you deserve to [1:45:02] get the materials that we're reviewing and collecting, but then also in proactively [1:45:05] the work that we're doing to make sure that what happened never happened again. [1:45:08] I mean, understand that there are times when we subpoena phone records. We do not want the bad [1:45:14] guys to know that we did it, because we're still investigating. But the idea that that could be [1:45:18] done to a United States Senator, and that it would be OK for a prosecutor to just do it, not even a [1:45:25] scintilla of evidence, anybody did anything wrong, and then not provide notice is, in some ways, [1:45:30] the worst form of abuse by the Department of Justice. Well, in fact, there's a constitutional ban, [1:45:36] and I think a first-year law student should know that. You know, when AT&T was requested to provide [1:45:41] the same records, they saw the constitutional problem. They stopped. Verizon was willingly [1:45:46] handing over my records and those of other of my colleagues. And I just asked myself, [1:45:49] what was the purpose, what was the motivation for them to violate my constitutional rights? [1:45:53] Was it because they wanted to make friends with the FCC, maybe Ms. Venkatesh, to get an appointment [1:45:57] sometime later? I don't know. Was it because of this frontier acquisition that they had in mind? [1:46:02] I don't know. But we need to get to the bottom of it. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:46:05] You're welcome. Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, [1:46:08] Acting Attorney General, for being here. Thank you. [1:46:11] I've listened to your testimony today, and I have a concern about your focus. [1:46:18] New York City was the site of the last major terrorist attack against the United States at 9-11. [1:46:24] We benefit greatly from what you've mentioned, this whole-of-government approach, [1:46:28] where we integrate CIA, NSA, DOD, FBI, DOJ, all integrated seamlessly, NYPD, to keep our city safe. [1:46:41] It's one of the biggest cities in the country. It's one of the most dynamic cities in the country, [1:46:46] and our public safety is paramount. But I've looked at your record, and I am deeply concerned [1:46:52] that you are not using this whole-of-government approach, because I see you slashing programs left [1:46:56] and right that we know work for all certain things, all sorts of things, from drugs to gun trafficking [1:47:01] to community policing to cops program, slashing, so many programs that I know work. So I want to take [1:47:08] you through them and hear from you why your focus isn't where New York City and the state and the [1:47:15] country need you to be, which is our public safety. So first of all, do you think that China, Iran, [1:47:21] Russia, want to do us harm and would undermine our elections? Yes. Why did you delete the whole [1:47:28] department, then, that is supposed to protect against the undermining of our elections? [1:47:34] So we spend a ton of time, a ton of money, a ton of man hours, a ton of resources on that very issue. [1:47:40] Yeah, but you canceled the FBI's Foreign Influence Task Force. [1:47:44] That's a task force. That's literally just a group. You know what the task force is. [1:47:48] No, no, no, no. No, no, no. I was here in 2016. [1:47:51] I know what happened. And after that, we did a whole of government approach. [1:47:55] We put experts in at CISA, we put experts in at the FBI, and we put experts in at the Department [1:48:01] of Defense. Together, whole of government approach, they went state by state by state to make sure [1:48:07] that our electoral infrastructure was sound. However, your department and this administration [1:48:13] has aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this. So they were the people at the [1:48:20] FBI in charge of it. So why have you dismissed those operations? [1:48:23] Where that failed, there were no state and local involved. It was all just a bunch of federal [1:48:27] people, mostly out of Washington, D.C., okay? And the FBI agents were all Washington, D.C., [1:48:33] the way they were agents, not around the country where we needed them. So the way they were addressing [1:48:36] it by closing down that task force is by having HSTF set up in everything, including in New York City. [1:48:43] Every single agent, every single state now has a HSTF, and that is one of their main focuses. And it does [1:48:48] work with state and local. I want a complete report on this, because I don't have confidence [1:48:53] that you are doing what needs to be done. Because if all the 300, 400 expert people that were in our [1:49:00] previous administrations, multiple administrations, Democrat and Republican administrations, [1:49:04] if none of them are good, and you're starting over from scratch, that doesn't sound like the recipe [1:49:09] for success. I didn't say none of them were good. That's not what I said. [1:49:11] Well, they've all been dismissed, and they've all been fired in all three areas. [1:49:15] That's not true. They have not all been dismissed. We fired the people from DOD. [1:49:18] We fired the people from CISA. We fired the people of the FBI. They were all dismissed. [1:49:22] They were not all dismissed. Many of them are still here. [1:49:24] If you ask for a briefing, look into it, and give a report to this committee, because I'm telling you, [1:49:29] if you agree that our adversaries do not have our goodness in mind, they don't have our [1:49:35] protective elections in mind, I need laser-like focus on solving this problem. [1:49:41] You're getting laser-like focus. All right, I'd like a report on that. [1:49:43] Second issue, gun trafficking. We have been working so hard as a federal government to stop [1:49:49] the flow of illicit guns into our communities where someone can sell guns out of the backs of their [1:49:55] trucks from some criminal gun dealer who's trying to get these guns into the hands of criminals, [1:50:03] and we're supposed to get data every year so we can show that our gun trafficking laws are working. [1:50:07] These new enhanced laws where police officers can now go across state lines to do their investigation. [1:50:12] Why are you not giving me the data about gun trafficking? I need to know if it's working. [1:50:16] I need to know if these cases are being prosecuted, and I can't even get data out of your department. [1:50:21] Well, the cases are being prosecuted. We did- [1:50:24] Will you give me the data so I can assess it? [1:50:26] I don't know what data you're talking about. [1:50:27] Just the number of weapons that have been seized, the number of cases that are being prosecuted. [1:50:32] We keep track of how many weapons have been seized that are trafficked, and I'm waiting from your [1:50:39] department over a year to get that data. [1:50:41] To the extent there's data that we're required- [1:50:43] Will you send it? [1:50:43] To- [1:50:44] Okay, next point. [1:50:45] Okay, come on. [1:50:45] I got like five points. I only get five minutes. Next point. [1:50:48] Community Violence Intervention Grants. You are slashing these Community Violence [1:50:52] Intervention Grants. They work. We know they work. One of them was to New York for 4.2 million, [1:50:57] slashed. It prevents youth violence. These are programs that are working. Did you analyze whether [1:51:03] this program was working before you slashed the funding? [1:51:05] Yes, there's still a ton of funding for those programs. [1:51:08] Not the ones in New York. [1:51:09] They do. [1:51:10] You just deleted them. Delete, delete, delete. It's shocking. [1:51:13] It wasn't delete, delete, delete. That is absolutely not true. [1:51:15] Okay, well 4.2 was deleted for the local initiative support corporation that funds- [1:51:20] It's not a deletion. It's just that we're not seeking funding for it through this exact process. [1:51:24] No, no. I'm seeking funding for it. I've asked for the money, [1:51:26] and we've gotten grants for this, and you've just suspended this grant program. [1:51:30] I'm happy to work with you to make sure we're spending the grant money in the right way. [1:51:33] I don't have any more time, but there's a Community Oriented Policing grant cuts as well. [1:51:37] The COPS funds. This is something our police officers and our Community Policing Development [1:51:42] microgrants, they benefit from it. De-escalation training grants, programs that work. [1:51:46] Our police officers need it. And then drugs. We have an anti-heroin and anti-methe- [1:51:51] methamphetamine task force, and we need to be funded, and it's not being funded. [1:51:59] So I just- It is being funded. Absolutely. There is a different amount of funding, [1:52:04] but it is being funded. No, no. You've eliminated funding for [1:52:07] both the anti-heroin and anti-methamphetamine task force. I'm sorry. [1:52:13] Which is the task force that stops the trafficking of heroin, fentanyl, and the very long word I can't [1:52:19] pronounce. I mean, Senator, there's nothing more important to President Trump and to this [1:52:24] Department of Justice than combating the illegal flora narcotics. So to the extent that there is [1:52:29] a particular funding revenue stream that is not being funded the same way, I commit to you that [1:52:36] it is of the highest priority to combat drugs. Last is the public safety officer benefit program. [1:52:41] You say- We just had police week. You say you stand with law enforcement. [1:52:45] When you do not support this program and when these funds are not getting back to the loved ones [1:52:49] who have lost their police officer loved one, it is not right. I need you to focus on this. I need [1:52:54] you to get this right. We're committed. Thank you, Senator. [1:52:56] Thank you. Thank you, Acting Attorney General. Thank you for being here. [1:53:13] Thank you. I want to talk about the ATS National [1:53:16] Training Center- Tracing Center, which you know is located in Martinsburg, West Virginia. I think [1:53:21] this is a stunning statistic for people to realize that in fiscal year 2024 alone, the National Tracing [1:53:27] Center processed more than 600,000 requests. I mean, that is an immense amount of work. It also helped to [1:53:37] identify the deranged individual who attempted to assassinate President Trump in Pennsylvania. [1:53:44] So, obviously, it's great work out there, but I am concerned that we have to present- prevent the [1:53:52] release of firearm trace data to anyone other than law enforcement for investigative purposes. Can you [1:53:59] elaborate on the importance of the NTC, but also how it functions within the ATF? And can you describe how [1:54:06] your budget requests will sustain these critical services? Yes, of course, Senator. And I agree with you. It is an [1:54:13] extraordinarily valuable law enforcement tool, but it can be abused. And so what the ATF has to make [1:54:19] sure we're doing is we're using the tracing data. And by the way, it's not just for federal cases. It's [1:54:25] for state and local cases. It's for local crimes. And so it's a true testament of the power of the federal [1:54:31] government to help the states. We have to make sure that that data is shared only where it needs to be [1:54:35] shared and only to further law enforcement investigations. Our Director Sakata is laser-focused on that. [1:54:41] We have the benefit of having somebody who's been an ATF agent for two decades. And so we'll continue to [1:54:48] make sure that not only we're spending the money to make sure that we're successful, but also making sure that we [1:54:54] have guardrails around it so that it doesn't get abused either by ATF or by anybody, state and local-wise. [1:55:01] Thank you. Thank you very much. I want to talk about the Hyda Task Force collaboration. I know DOJ is a valuable member of the Hyda Task Force. And honestly, we had the- [1:55:09] the ONDCP director, Sarah Carter, came to West Virginia a few weeks ago. We had a roundtable. [1:55:17] U.S. Attorneys were there, local partners, local law enforcement. Very interesting conversation. [1:55:24] I personally want to see the high-intensity drug trafficking, the Hyda program, stay within the [1:55:31] White House. I know this may not be a decision that you're actively involved in or because there's [1:55:37] always, through several administrations, a desire to move it over to DOJ. Do you have any perspectives on [1:55:43] that? And what does this budget have to say about it? Look, I know that President Trump is going to give [1:55:49] a ton of money. I think over $11.4 billion to combat the drug crisis. And that includes a lot of money to [1:55:57] Haida. The way that it's running through the ONDCP now, as opposed to directly DOJ, doesn't make a [1:56:05] difference to the effectiveness that we can have to run in these programs. It hasn't made a difference [1:56:09] over the past year. It will not make a difference in the coming years. To the contrary. Remember, [1:56:14] another big part of the drug fight is DHS and HSI. And so one benefit of having it go through [1:56:22] kind of one higher place is that we make sure we're spending the money across the federal government [1:56:26] in the ways that it's smart. So I have had zero issues with that setup. And I don't think [1:56:32] Administrator Cole has had any issues with it or any other law enforcement. [1:56:35] Hey, I mean, personally, I think the issue is so large. And you heard Senator Gillibrand talking [1:56:39] about it in New York. Our state has a particular issue. And I am so pleased with the president's [1:56:47] southern border initiatives. Fentanyl seizures are down, meaning less fentanyl into the country. [1:56:54] But it's just such a devastating and terrifying drug that's killing too many people. [1:57:00] Yes. [1:57:00] I did want to make, I noticed in your opening statement, you made a comment about the Bureau [1:57:04] of Prisons. I just had a conversation with my fellow West Virginian, Billy Marshall, who's head of [1:57:08] the BOP. I am in full support of the $10 billion request that you've made. And he's made great strides [1:57:15] there in getting good leadership. And they're safer. We have several federal prisons in and around West [1:57:21] Virginia. And not only are the staff safer, but the inmates are safer as well. And I would encourage [1:57:29] you to keep pounding that drum. [1:57:31] We will. Thank you, Senator. [1:57:32] Let me ask you a question in the last few minutes that I have. There's a few seconds. All right, geez. [1:57:40] There's always a headline about, Assistant Attorney General leaves DOJ. And it sounds, you know, like [1:57:46] it's a political statement rather than, or a lack of confidence statement, or doesn't like the way the [1:57:52] direction that the department is going. And I know you see this, the public reports. Isn't this the way [1:58:00] it's always been at DOJ? People moving in and out. And you yourself were at DOJ at one point before you [1:58:06] went into private practice. I didn't know if you wanted to talk about, at the upper echelons of your [1:58:11] leadership team, where you see this going. And is it a political statement? Or is it the cost of doing [1:58:18] business and ebb and flow of workforce? I think we have a great team. And not only DOJ, but President [1:58:25] Trump's entire administration. That necessarily means that sometimes people come in and sometimes [1:58:29] people leave. I was a federal prosecutor until I had no money left. And I had to go to the private [1:58:35] sector. And I think there's pressures on family. And so it's not a political statement. I think [1:58:42] the president has assembled a phenomenal cabinet. And the cabinet has then assembled leadership that [1:58:47] I think is every day working hard to fulfill the president's agenda and when it comes to DOJ to make [1:58:52] America safe again. And so my team that works at DOJ, some of them will save for four years and some of [1:59:00] them will probably leave in the next month or two. And that's natural. And all we can do is thank them [1:59:05] for their public service and to keep on hiring great people. Thank you for your service. Thank you. [1:59:11] Thank you, Senator Capito. We're going to conclude this hearing in just a moment. Senator Van Hollen and [1:59:16] I have the practice of like wrapping up our thoughts with questions or statements. And then we'll conclude. [1:59:23] I'm in a particular hurry to get to the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee to ask questions there. [1:59:29] So if I quit explaining what we're going to do, I'll get there sooner. And I now recognize Senator Van [1:59:34] Hollen. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Blanche, in response to Senator Coon saying that Capitol Hill [1:59:42] police officers were worried that people who assaulted them on January 6 might benefit from a slush fund, [1:59:52] you said that couldn't be true because it hadn't been set up. I didn't say it couldn't be true, Senator. [1:59:58] I didn't say it couldn't be true. It was surprising it was true. [2:00:01] Ah, okay. So it is very possible that people have been anticipating getting payments from the [2:00:08] administration, people who were part of the attack on the Capitol on January 6, right? [2:00:15] You're asking me to speculate on the possibility of something? [2:00:18] Have you not heard of anybody anticipating getting payments from that? [2:00:21] No, I haven't. I don't know what that means, actually. [2:00:25] Mr. Chairman. But I won't speculate. [2:00:26] I want to put it in the record, submit for the record, a January 2026 Washington Post story, [2:00:33] a long story entitled, for many January 6 rioters, a pardon from Trump wasn't enough. [2:00:39] And it goes on to quote, the President of the United States, when asked about this, [2:00:44] these payments said, a lot of people in government now talk about it. Because a lot of people in [2:00:49] government really like that group of people, unquote, referring to the January 6 rioters. [2:00:54] Are you not aware of that statement from the President? [2:00:56] I have never read the Washington Post. [2:00:59] Well, I can tell you that there are a lot of people. [2:01:02] I accept that you read it. [2:01:03] For a long time, who've been anticipating payments. You're not aware of that? [2:01:08] You're telling me there's a lot of people that were anticipating payments? [2:01:11] Yes. [2:01:11] No. [2:01:12] Well, I'm not aware. [2:01:13] Okay. Well, Mr. Attorney General, you are in a bubble. [2:01:16] Because the reality is- [2:01:18] Because I don't read the Washington Post? [2:01:20] No, no, no. [2:01:21] Obviously, you should be in touch with some of these folks. Because I asked you specifically [2:01:27] about an individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his anticipation of getting a [2:01:36] payment. And you said that couldn't be true. In fact, that was a lie. I want to read you- [2:01:40] I didn't say that. [2:01:41] I got the transcript right. [2:01:42] Good. [2:01:43] You said it was obvious- I'm obviously lying to the question because there's no way the person [2:01:48] committed to that because the slush fund did not exist. That's what you said. [2:01:52] I'm going to read from you, Mr. Attorney General, an affidavit from the [2:01:57] Hernando County, Florida Sheriff's Office. And I want you to listen carefully to what [2:02:02] this police officer said about this criminal, a criminal named Andrew, pardoned by the President, [2:02:10] now being charged for child molestation. He says, Andrew also told that since he was pardoned for [2:02:17] storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021, and he was being awarded $10 million as a result of being [2:02:26] a January Sixer, Andrew did tell that he would be putting him in his will, referring to one of the [2:02:32] victims of his molestation. He would be putting him in his will to take any money he had left over. [2:02:38] This tactic was believed to be used to keep from exposing what Andrew had done to him, [2:02:45] signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the Sheriff's Office. And you're telling me [2:02:50] you don't know about all these people who have been signaled by the President of the United States [2:02:55] and others that they're going to get payments? I think that that's what you just read is disgusting. [2:02:59] I'm very horrible that that happened, but that's not what I said. I mean, you can say you're telling me [2:03:05] and then make up something that I'm not saying, or you can let me speak. Mr. Attorney General, [2:03:09] I'm reading from the statement here. I got a transcript of what we are exchanged earlier. [2:03:13] And you essentially said, well, you're obviously lying in your question because there's no way this [2:03:17] person committed to that because the slush fund of which you called it did not exist, just as you [2:03:22] suggested. Right. And it's true that even the affidavit that you just read said that he would be [2:03:28] awarded this criminal suggested he would be awarded $10 million. Now you're playing absolute word games. [2:03:33] I am not playing a word game. Of course you are. And also words matter. [2:03:37] Words matter. So if you're going to quote me, quote me accurately. [2:03:40] Mr. Chairman, I'd like to put in the record January 6 rioter, pardoned by Trump, was sentenced to life [2:03:45] in prison for child abuse. Pardoned Capitol Hill rioter, tried to bribe child sex victim with promise [2:03:50] of January 6 payout. And I will close with this, Mr. Attorney General. You can't tell us today that this [2:03:57] individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund. I find that obscene. And I'm going to [2:04:04] ask you one last time. You keep comparing this case to the Keeps Eagle case. In that case, [2:04:11] as you've admitted, a judge ultimately signed off. I'm asking you before you proceed with this fund, [2:04:16] will you have a federal judge sign off on it? I didn't compare the cases. What I said is the [2:04:21] commission that we set up yesterday is nearly identical to the commission that was set up [2:04:25] during Keeps Eagle. So please, you repeatedly put words in my mouth. And then, and then you say, [2:04:30] oh, I'm playing words. Words matter. Mr. Chairman, they do matter. You said they were, [2:04:35] look, the transcript will speak first. It will. But you, but you compared in your own release, [2:04:40] in the Department of Justice own release, you compared it to this case. And in this case, [2:04:44] a judge signed. My final question is, will you agree, as they did in that case, that before you [2:04:49] proceed with this fund, a federal judge will sign off and approve it? You agree to that? [2:04:54] A federal judge. So there's no mechanism. Actually, there is a federal judge presiding over this case. [2:04:59] The case was dismissed. That was, the case was dismissed by the judge last night. [2:05:02] Yeah, because you moved to create this fund. I didn't move. I did not move. [2:05:06] The settlement result, Mr. Attorney General, come on. So let me, let me, so you're not going to, [2:05:12] you're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent. There is no judge. [2:05:17] Any independent authority? An independent, what does that mean, [2:05:20] an independent authority? What does that mean? It means not somebody who's getting to pick five of [2:05:23] the members who is the president's former personal attorney. That would be somebody who would be [2:05:28] independent. I'm the acting attorney general, okay? The fact that I used to be President Trump's [2:05:32] lawyer is just a fact, but I'm the acting attorney general. So don't say the president's former [2:05:37] personal lawyer will do something. The acting attorney general will do something. Mr. Attorney General, [2:05:41] you are acting today like the president's personal attorney, and that's the whole problem. [2:05:45] You've got his whole, you have a whole banner of his face hanging over the Department of Justice, [2:05:51] and you and everybody else walks under it. And you are acting like you're his current [2:05:56] personal attorney. Mr. Chairman, I have no further questions. [2:06:01] Attorney General, let me, let me ask this question in this regard to the fund. Is there in your mind [2:06:08] the nature or description of the individuals that you hope to find to serve on that board that makes [2:06:18] the decisions that we're talking about? Yeah, we want people who will have the ability to evaluate, [2:06:24] I mean, with a couple of the questions from the senator and from others today, [2:06:27] evaluate whether somebody who's applying for compensation is entitled to it. And if they are [2:06:33] entitled to it, what amount and how to go about doing that. So we expect they'll be experienced people. [2:06:39] It'll be public. People can be critical if they so choose. And so we haven't come up with names yet, [2:06:44] and we will, you know, I think we have 30 days to do so. And when we have the names, we'll announce them. [2:06:49] And what's the standard by which a determination is made that compensation should be had? [2:06:55] So in the broadest sense, it's weaponization. It's not limited to Republicans. It's not limited [2:07:00] to Democrats. It's not limited to January 6th defendants. It's limited only by the term weaponization. [2:07:06] And so I expect that the commissioners, and what I expect they will do, because they'll have to, [2:07:11] is set up guidelines and set up procedures for individuals to apply for that. [2:07:16] The weaponization then gets defined, could be, I assume you can't expand the word weaponization, [2:07:23] but you can narrow where it seems to be most applicable, where the weaponization, [2:07:29] if it occurred, is the most egregious. Is there some kind of standard by which you would evaluate [2:07:35] a case-by-case basis? I think there has to be standards. And I think it is a case-by-case basis. [2:07:40] I think that it will depend on, but by, when you say there's a standard and then say it's case-by-case, [2:07:46] that's the issue, right? Is that the case, the case-by-case analysis is what's going to have to be [2:07:51] done. And I expect that it will be done. I mean, I think it's telling that everybody on the left and [2:07:58] everybody in the liberal side of the media immediately says it's a slush fund for President Trump's [2:08:03] friends. If anything else, that's an outright admission that they know that the people that [2:08:09] really had this Department of Justice weaponized against them were President Trump and his friends. [2:08:14] But that is not what the commission says. That is not what the AG order that I signed yesterday says. [2:08:20] It does not limit it to President Trump or President Trump's friends. To the contrary, [2:08:24] President Trump isn't taking a dime. And so, the fact that there's a view [2:08:29] that this slush fund, which it's not, is going to be only given to Republicans or friends of the [2:08:35] President, is one, not true. But two, it's very telling that that's the reaction from Democrats, [2:08:43] because it proves the point that President Trump has been saying for a very long time, [2:08:47] which happens to be true, which was for the first time in our nation's history, [2:08:52] you had an administration seek to destroy the previous administration, not just President Trump, [2:08:57] anybody that came in contact with him. I've said it before, but you're talking about his gardeners [2:09:02] being put in the grand jury, his Secret Service detail being put multiple times in the grand jury. [2:09:07] That's what the last administration did to try to destroy President Trump. And he has said publicly, [2:09:13] and I very much agree with him, that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody. And so, [2:09:19] how do you go about making sure it doesn't happen again to anybody? Well, you change the culture, [2:09:23] which is what we're doing. You also set up a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized, [2:09:28] have this Department of Justice and this federal government weaponized against them, [2:09:31] can apply. Does it mean they're going to get money? No, it doesn't mean they're going to get money. [2:09:35] It just invites them to apply. And they make a case of some kind to meet some standard, right? [2:09:41] Yes. And, you know, there's a flaw in the legal system, because this legal system was not set up [2:09:46] to compensate for what the Democrats and what Biden and what Garland did for four years. [2:09:53] It doesn't know how to cope with the fact that hundreds and hundreds of administration officials [2:09:58] had their phones taken from them. Members of the Senate had their phone records [2:10:04] subpoenaed and weren't told about it. The system isn't set up for that. [2:10:08] In answers to questions previously put before you this morning, you took, I assume, [2:10:16] because what the settlement agreement says, you eliminated certain individuals from being [2:10:22] qualified to receive benefits from this fund. What's the list of those individuals? [2:10:28] Well, the plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed to accept an apology. So that's President [2:10:32] Trump and his sons, I believe. And otherwise, there is no limitation. So whether you're Hunter Biden [2:10:41] or whether you're another individual who believed they were a victim of weaponization, [2:10:46] they can all apply to this fund. And again, it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree. [2:10:52] It doesn't mean that they're getting $10 million or whatever was just read a few minutes ago. [2:10:56] It just means that you can apply. [2:10:58] And the decision by the commission is by a majority? [2:11:02] Yes. [2:11:03] Three of five? [2:11:04] Correct. [2:11:04] And finally, this issue, while it's of interest to all of us as United States senators, [2:11:12] this committee has no jurisdiction over this issue, in a sense, because this is mandatory spending. [2:11:17] Have you had conversations with Senator Durbin or Senator Grassley or the Judiciary Committee? [2:11:23] I have not had conversations over the past, you know, 24 hours about this. No, I have not. [2:11:30] General, anything you'd like to add to what you've said today or [2:11:33] take away from whatever you've said today? [2:11:35] No, just thank you and the committee for their time today. [2:11:40] There are no further questions. Senators may submit additional questions for the [2:11:43] subcommittee's official hearing record. We request that the Attorney General respond [2:11:48] to those questions within 30 days. The subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair. [2:11:53] Thank you. [2:11:54] Thank you. [2:11:58] I'll call the chair. [2:12:00] Thank you. [2:12:08] Thank you.