Todd Blanche full DOJ hearing: Acting AG talks Donald Trump 'slush fund,' Epstein files

[0:00] Subcommittee will be in order. [0:03] Without objection, the chair is authorized to declare a recess at any time. [0:09] I'll begin by recognizing myself for an opening statement. [0:13] I want to welcome our witness, the Honorable Todd Blanche, [0:19] Acting Attorney General of the United States, [0:23] to testify before our subcommittee today. [0:26] Last month, the fiscal year 2027 Commerce Justice Science and Related Agencies Bill [0:33] cleared the full House Appropriations Committee. [0:41] And the Attorney General's leadership of the Department of Justice comes at a crossroads. [0:49] On the one hand, the subcommittee recognizes the strides taken by the Department [0:56] to make communities safe again across the United States [1:00] and to address the misguided priorities of the previous administration. [1:07] On the other hand, the subcommittee recognizes areas for improvement, [1:12] such as communicating with the subcommittee [1:16] and the lack of testimony ahead of our bill moving forward. [1:22] Additional areas of concern deal with getting appropriated dollars out the door [1:28] and making progress with already approved projects. [1:33] From the proposed federal prison in Leisure County, Kentucky, in my district, [1:39] that has been stalled to the delay of several grant programs, [1:43] including the prescription drug monitoring program, [1:47] which I worked to start in response to the opioid crisis. [1:52] And that's vital for many communities like mine. [1:56] It's critical for this department to move with speed and meet congressional intent. [2:03] Finally, to date, we're still waiting on responses to questions for the record [2:09] from two fiscal 26 department hearings. [2:13] While I would have preferred to start the fiscal 27-year cycle differently by having this conversation [2:23] prior to last month's markup, this hearing is hopefully the start of productive dialogue [2:30] between the subcommittee and the department under your leadership. [2:36] I look forward to hearing your priorities and vision for the department [2:42] and responses to our questions regarding the recent announcements. [2:48] Your testimony will still be valuable to the committee [2:51] as the fiscal year 27 appropriations process continues. [2:58] Over the past year, the Department of Justice has made great strides [3:03] in combating drug cartels and curbing the flow of illicit drugs, including fentanyl. [3:10] The Drug Enforcement Administration, and Department of Justice have taken down some of the most [3:18] notorious cartel bosses, such as El Mayo, the co-founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, [3:26] and Nicolas Maduro, the leader of the Cartel of the Sons and former president of Venezuela. [3:34] While these are significant wins, the department must continue this fight [3:41] to eradicate the flow of illicit drugs and bring more cartel leaders to justice. [3:50] While issues such as illegal immigration have been addressed head-on, [3:55] other issues have emerged over the past year. [3:58] I applaud the department's efforts to tackle emerging issues, such as fraud, [4:05] that pits the underworld against American and their hard-earned taxpayer dollars, [4:11] and we look forward to hearing more about the department's plans to continue these efforts. [4:17] I also look forward to hearing about the Department of Efforts [4:21] in supporting state, local, and tribal law enforcement agencies. [4:28] Over the past year, from Washington to Memphis, Tennessee, [4:34] the Department of Justice has aided local law enforcement agencies [4:38] in surge operations to combat violent crime. [4:42] American streets are safer now because of the actions of this department [4:49] and the Trump administration. [4:52] General Black, I stand ready to support you in your efforts to ensure [4:56] that the American public lives in a society that is free from crime and abuse. [5:04] I look forward to hearing more from you today regarding areas of progress, [5:09] areas of need and plans, and to continue the department's momentum. [5:15] While the fiscal 27 appropriation cycle has already commenced, [5:22] there are critically important funding decisions ahead of us, [5:27] and I hope we gain a better sense of your priorities today [5:32] so that we can make the best decisions on behalf of the American people. [5:39] Before I turn to Mrs. Meng for opening remarks, [5:44] on behalf of this subcommittee, [5:45] I would like to send well wishes for a quick and healthy recovery [5:50] to former Attorney General Bondi. [5:55] Let me now recognize the ranking member of this subcommittee, Mrs. Meng, [6:03] for any remarks that she cares to make. [6:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and welcome Acting Attorney General Blanche, [6:10] and thank you, everyone, for your patience [6:11] as we finished up the prior hearing with Secretary Rubio. [6:14] Tens of thousands of public servants at the Department of Justice [6:19] work very hard to protect public safety [6:21] and try their best to uphold the rule of law. [6:25] However, the leadership of the department [6:27] has greatly damaged it over the past 16 months. [6:31] Hardworking Americans continue to struggle [6:34] with higher and higher costs of gas, groceries, and other necessities. [6:40] Yet the Trump administration is doing nothing to help them. [6:43] President Trump himself has said that he doesn't, quote, [6:47] think about Americans' personal financial situation. [6:51] At the same time, a growing number of Trump administration officials [6:55] and their family members are enriching themselves [6:58] in the millions of dollars by making personal business deals [7:03] directly connected to their official government decisions. [7:07] Working and middle-class Americans are paying their taxes, [7:11] but the Acting Attorney General signed an order two weeks ago [7:14] directing the IRS to permanently avoid auditing past tax returns [7:19] of the Trump family. [7:21] Members of the Trump family are now off the hook [7:25] for at least $100 million in taxes. [7:29] On top of that, the Trump administration [7:31] and the Justice Department are actively working [7:35] to hand $1.8 billion in taxpayer dollars [7:39] over to insurrectionists and other violent felons, [7:43] hundreds of whom assaulted police officers here in the Capitol. [7:49] One of the insurrectionists, Jared Wise, [7:52] openly encouraged fellow rioters to attack [7:55] and to kill police officers. [7:57] He was hired last year by the Trump administration [8:01] as a senior advisor and counselor at the Justice Department. [8:05] There have been many other outrages over the past 16 months. [8:09] Under this department's leadership [8:11] and following an interview by then Deputy Attorney General Blanche, [8:15] Jeffrey Epstein's closest associate, [8:17] the convicted child sex trafficker, Jelaine Maxwell, [8:21] was moved to a cushy minimum security prison [8:24] and was given special treatment and unique privileges. [8:27] Hundreds of experienced career agents, investigators, [8:32] and prosecutors have been fired or forced out of DOJ [8:35] as part of a campaign of political retribution [8:39] by the Trump administration. [8:42] Just days before the launch of U.S. military strikes in Iran this year, [8:46] at least 10 FBI counterintelligence agents and support staff, [8:51] including those specializing in the Middle East and Iran, [8:55] were fired in retaliation for work [8:57] that they had been ordered to do several years ago [9:00] in the Mar-a-Lago classified documents case. [9:04] As the New York Times reported in March, [9:06] after a year of continuous firings, resignations, [9:10] and other disruptions to work, [9:12] elite counterterrorism and counterintelligence units [9:15] at the Justice Department have been stretched thin [9:18] and left short-staffed. [9:20] But the threats to our country are growing. [9:23] As part of their retribution campaign, [9:25] the Trump administration and DOJ have also deliberately targeted [9:29] and investigated numerous current and former public officials [9:33] for criminal prosecution on extremely flimsy grounds, if any. [9:40] DOJ has also trampled on the First Amendment [9:43] by targeting journalists engaged in investigative reporting, [9:47] including an FBI criminal probe of a reporter [9:50] from The Atlantic magazine after its recent reporting [9:53] about the FBI director's dereliction of his duties. [9:57] Multiple news outlets have also reported [9:59] on the administration's corrupt practice [10:02] of receiving pay for pardons [10:04] or clemency for millionaire and billionaire criminals. [10:08] For example, we know that the founder of Binance [10:11] was pardoned last October [10:13] after the company took actions [10:15] that enriched the Trump family [10:17] by hundreds of millions of dollars. [10:19] In December, President Trump pardoned [10:22] the former president of Honduras, [10:24] Juan Orlando Hernandez, [10:25] who had been sentenced to 45 years in prison [10:28] for allowing drug traffickers [10:31] to export more than 400 tons of cocaine into the U.S. [10:36] Not only was he pardoned, [10:37] but the Bureau of Prisons helped relocate him [10:39] from a federal prison in West Virginia [10:42] to the Waldorf Astoria Hotel in New York City [10:45] after his release. [10:47] All of this has happened in full public view, [10:50] and the Trump administration [10:51] has simultaneously gutted the DOJ's [10:54] public integrity section [10:56] and shut down the public corruption squad [10:59] of the FBI Washington field office. [11:02] There's more. [11:03] Over the past 16 months, [11:05] the DOJ's highly respected civil rights division [11:08] has been gutted. [11:09] The FBI has stopped using a national database [11:12] that tracks hate crime cases, [11:15] and DOJ is proposing to eliminate [11:17] the three grant programs [11:19] aimed at fighting and preventing hate crimes, [11:22] while hate crimes are at a record high. [11:25] The administration also wants to eliminate [11:26] the Community Relations Service, [11:28] which was created by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [11:32] to prevent and resolve conflicts [11:34] in American communities. [11:36] At the same time, [11:37] DOJ is seizing state voting records [11:39] and has sued more than 30 states [11:42] to access their voter information. [11:44] Nearly all of the roughly 30 career lawyers [11:47] in the voting section [11:48] of the Civil Rights Division are gone. [11:52] Last month, [11:52] Acting Attorney General Blanche stated [11:54] that he sees no problem [11:56] with deploying ICE officers [11:57] to polling places, [11:59] even though 18 U.S. Code Section 592 [12:02] prohibits sending armed personnel [12:04] to polling places. [12:06] And equally as egregious, [12:08] the Justice Department has taken steps [12:10] to allow criminals to own guns [12:12] and continues to illegally restore [12:15] the gun possession rights [12:16] of convicted felons and domestic abusers. [12:19] These actions and much more prove [12:21] that since the start [12:22] of this Trump administration, [12:24] the Justice Department [12:25] has failed the American people. [12:27] I look forward to the discussions [12:29] of these critically important issues today. [12:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [12:33] and I yield back. [12:36] Chair now recognizes the ranking member [12:39] of the House Appropriations Committee. [12:42] Ms. DeLaro, for any remarks [12:44] you may wish to make. [12:46] Thank you very much, [12:47] Chairman Rogers [12:48] and ranking member Meng. [12:50] Acting Attorney General Blanche, [12:52] welcome. [12:54] There's much I would like [12:54] to cover today. [12:56] The President's budget [12:57] proposes steep cuts [12:59] to important programs [13:00] that combat hate crimes, [13:02] protect civil rights, [13:03] prevent gun violence, [13:05] along with other changes [13:06] that I believe will weaken efforts [13:09] to keep our community safe. [13:11] In an ordinary time, [13:14] during an ordinary administration, [13:16] these are topics [13:17] that I would focus on. [13:20] But these are not ordinary times. [13:23] And this is not [13:24] an ordinary administration. [13:28] No, this administration has engaged [13:31] in what are perhaps [13:33] the most brazen acts [13:34] of flagrant corruption [13:36] I've ever seen. [13:39] And you are at the center [13:40] of many of them, Mr. Blanche. [13:43] I know you do not like it [13:44] when people bring up the fact [13:45] that before you joined [13:46] the Justice Department, [13:48] you were President Trump's [13:49] personal attorney. [13:52] But when you are issuing memos [13:54] granting the president, [13:56] his children, [13:58] and their companies [13:59] immunity from audits [14:01] or prosecution [14:02] for tax offenses, [14:06] your previous role [14:08] becomes relevant information. [14:10] When you preside over a deal [14:13] to take $1.8 billion [14:16] of taxpayer money [14:17] to create a slush fund [14:20] to pay out violent criminals [14:22] who pleaded guilty [14:24] to assaulting police officers, [14:26] you cannot be surprised [14:29] when people question [14:31] your impartiality. [14:35] Federal courts have blocked [14:36] the fund from paying out [14:38] any claims for the time being. [14:41] But I am not at all convinced [14:42] that this administration [14:44] has given up. [14:45] You left yourself [14:46] a lot of room [14:47] with your carefully worded statement, [14:50] Mr. Blanche. [14:51] There is effectively [14:52] no oversight [14:53] to this slush fund. [14:56] You appoint every member [14:57] of the commission [14:58] and the president [15:00] can fire any of them [15:02] at any time [15:03] for any reason. [15:06] There is no definite standard [15:08] for who is [15:09] and is not eligible [15:10] to receive a payout. [15:14] Quote, [15:14] weaponization [15:15] and lawfare [15:17] are not legally [15:19] defined terms. [15:22] Who does [15:22] and does not qualify [15:24] appears to be entirely [15:25] at the discretion [15:27] of the people [15:28] that you appoint. [15:31] There is no transparency [15:32] built into the fund. [15:34] There is no congressional oversight. [15:37] The public has no way [15:38] of knowing [15:38] who has filed a claim [15:39] of how much [15:40] or on what grounds. [15:43] Conversely, [15:44] we do not know [15:45] who has been denied a claim [15:46] or why it was denied. [15:49] We do not even know [15:50] the process [15:50] by which claims [15:51] will be filed [15:52] or payments dispersed. [15:55] All we know [15:56] for certain [15:56] is that President Trump's [15:59] personal lawyer [15:59] turned acting attorney general [16:02] set up a $1.8 billion fund [16:05] with taxpayer money [16:07] that can be used [16:08] to pay off [16:09] just about anyone [16:11] for just about anything. [16:14] It can be used [16:15] to pay out [16:15] violent criminals [16:16] who assaulted [16:18] police officers [16:19] and ransacked [16:20] the Capitol [16:20] on January 6th. [16:23] I was evacuated [16:24] from the Capitol [16:25] on January 6th. [16:28] These are the people [16:29] who were arrested, [16:30] they were tried, [16:31] convicted, [16:32] and then pardoned [16:33] by the administration. [16:35] And now, [16:36] he wants to raid [16:38] the Treasury [16:39] to pay them. [16:41] It is unconscionable. [16:44] This is sort of a scandal [16:45] that it would ruin [16:48] any other administration [16:49] and any other time. [16:51] But because President Trump [16:52] has rendered [16:53] House Republican leadership [16:54] so completely impotent, [16:56] there will be likely [16:57] no accountability [16:58] until the next Congress. [17:01] In addition to the slush fund, [17:03] you issued a memo [17:03] stating that the United States [17:05] is, quote, [17:06] hereby forever barred [17:09] and precluded [17:10] from prosecuting [17:12] or pursuing [17:13] any and all claims, [17:16] end quote, [17:16] against the President, [17:18] his family, [17:19] or their businesses [17:20] related to ongoing [17:22] tax investigations. [17:25] Retroactive immunity [17:26] would be a curious benefit [17:28] to bestow on someone [17:29] who has done nothing wrong. [17:32] If the President, [17:33] his associates, [17:34] and family members [17:35] were innocent [17:36] of whatever they were [17:37] being investigated for, [17:39] the investigation [17:40] would surely bear that out. [17:42] But now, [17:42] we will never know. [17:44] Congress [17:44] and the American people [17:46] are left to speculate [17:48] what could have possibly [17:49] prompted [17:50] this unprecedented settlement [17:53] that exempts the President [17:54] from any accountability [17:56] for his actions. [17:59] This is staggering. [18:01] I had not planned [18:02] on using my time [18:03] during this hearing [18:04] to raise these issues, [18:05] but I would be deficient [18:07] in my duty [18:07] as a member of the Congress [18:09] were I to ignore [18:10] this extraordinary display [18:12] of self-dealing, [18:13] self-service, [18:14] self-enrichment [18:15] by this administration, [18:17] beginning with [18:18] the President on down. [18:21] All year on this committee, [18:22] we have seen dramatic cuts [18:23] to programs [18:24] that help American families [18:26] who are struggling [18:27] with the cost of living. [18:29] We do not have money [18:30] for food or for housing [18:32] to bring down the cost [18:33] for utilities [18:34] or gasoline [18:35] or health care. [18:37] The President said [18:37] there will be no money [18:39] for daycare, [18:39] for Medicaid, [18:40] for Medicare, [18:41] but by God, [18:43] we do have $1.8 billion [18:46] for a corrupt payout scheme [18:49] for the President [18:49] and his political allies. [18:52] It is shameful. [18:54] I look forward [18:55] to hearing your answers [18:56] to our questions today, [18:57] Mr. Blanche. [18:59] Thank you, [18:59] and I yield back. [19:06] Now I want to recognize [19:07] our witness, [19:09] acting Attorney General Blanche, [19:11] for an opening statement. [19:13] Without objection, [19:15] your written statement [19:15] will be entered [19:16] into the record. [19:18] The floor is yours. [19:21] Thank you. [19:22] Thank you very much, [19:22] Chairman Rogers [19:23] and Ranking Member Meng [19:25] as well [19:26] and members of the subcommittee. [19:27] Thank you for the opportunity [19:29] to present [19:29] President Trump's [19:30] fiscal year 2027 budget [19:32] for the Department of Justice. [19:35] As you all know, [19:36] the request totals $41.2 billion, [19:39] which is a 13% increase [19:40] over fiscal year 2026, [19:43] underscoring our department's [19:44] renewed focus [19:45] on reducing violent crime, [19:47] combating the fentanyl crisis, [19:49] strengthening the border [19:50] and immigration enforcement, [19:51] expanding fraud prevention, [19:52] and ensuring [19:54] that our law enforcement agencies [19:56] have the resources they need [19:57] to protect the American people. [20:01] Violent crime reduction remains [20:02] one of the department's [20:04] highest priorities. [20:05] Since January 20th, 2025, [20:08] the Department of Justice [20:09] has indicted [20:10] more than 260 TDA members, [20:14] crippling leadership [20:15] and dismantling [20:16] operational networks. [20:19] Across our major [20:20] law enforcement components, [20:22] the results have been historic. [20:23] Federal law enforcement [20:25] helped drive a 20% decrease [20:27] in the national murder rate [20:30] in 2025, [20:32] arrested 44,000 violent offenders, [20:34] which was double the previous year, [20:37] and seized over 2,200 kilograms [20:39] of fentanyl. [20:41] Last year, law enforcement [20:42] captured eight [20:43] of the FBI's 10 [20:45] most wanted fugitives, [20:47] located 6,300 missing children, [20:49] and arrested more than [20:50] 2,000 child predators. [20:52] The DEA has made [20:54] thousands of fentanyl-related arrests [20:56] and seized millions [20:57] of fentanyl pills [20:58] and hundreds of kilograms [21:00] of fentanyl powder. [21:02] In an August surge alone, [21:05] DEA executed over 600 arrests, [21:08] seized multi-ton quantities [21:09] of narcotics, [21:10] and recovered more than [21:11] 11 million in drug proceeds. [21:16] DEA continues to disrupt [21:17] global supply chains [21:18] from source to street. [21:21] The United States Marshal Service, [21:22] which is one of the smallest [21:23] federal law enforcement agencies [21:25] with roughly 3,800 deputies, [21:28] arrested more than 73,000 fugitives, [21:31] conducted 308,000 prisoner movements, [21:34] housed over 55,000 detainees, [21:38] and provided protection [21:39] for 18 federal protectees, [21:41] including Supreme Court [21:42] justices' residences. [21:44] The marshals also, [21:45] as you all know, [21:46] manage over $10.4 billion [21:48] in seized assets [21:49] and remain essential [21:51] to federal judicial security. [21:52] ATF continues to be a leader [21:55] in the federal effort [21:56] to combat violent crime. [21:59] Since January 2025, [22:01] ATF has arrested [22:01] more than 8,700 violent offenders [22:04] and seized nearly 44,000 [22:07] illegal firearms, [22:10] including 5,100 interdicted [22:12] before reaching [22:12] their destination of Mexico. [22:15] ATF agents also seized [22:17] 2.7 million rounds [22:18] of illegal ammunition, [22:20] more than 28,300 illegal explosives, [22:22] and conducted over 3,500 [22:25] arson and explosives investigations. [22:28] To sustain these historic results, [22:31] the fiscal year 2027 budget [22:32] includes $22.2 billion [22:35] for DOJ's law enforcement components [22:37] and U.S. attorney's offices. [22:39] This is a 16% increase [22:41] over fiscal year 2026. [22:44] These investments build [22:46] on our tremendous progress [22:47] and will ensure continued momentum [22:49] and violent crime reduction nationwide. [22:52] We are also strengthening [22:54] immigration enforcement efforts. [22:57] The Executive Office [22:58] for Immigration Review [22:59] has reduced the immigration case backlog [23:01] by more than 447,000 cases [23:05] since President Trump took office. [23:08] The budget provides [23:09] almost $900 million for Eeyore [23:11] to continue rebuilding its workforce [23:13] and to modernize case processing systems. [23:18] Across the entire Department of Justice, [23:20] nearly $4 billion [23:21] supports immigration-related enforcement activities. [23:26] And finally, [23:26] the Department launched [23:27] the National Fraud Enforcement Division [23:29] to expand federal fraud enforcement [23:31] and better protect [23:32] taxpayer-funded programs. [23:35] The budget includes $30 million [23:36] to hire 100 attorneys [23:38] and enhance data analytics capabilities [23:40] with a goal of combating [23:43] large-scale criminal fraud schemes. [23:46] DOJ is also modernizing [23:48] the grants process [23:49] by consolidating COPS, OJP, and OVW [23:52] into the new Bureau of Justice grants. [23:56] The goal is to provide [23:57] a unified and simplified approach [23:59] to federal grant-making [24:00] while preserving the missions [24:01] of each office. [24:05] The Department also faces [24:06] serious budgetary constraints. [24:09] Fiscal year 2026 marked [24:11] the second year of flat budgets [24:12] for several components, [24:14] basically equating [24:15] to a decrease in funding [24:16] because costs and expenses [24:18] increase year over year. [24:20] The Bureau of Prisons [24:21] remains under-resourced, [24:24] funded at $8.1 billion, [24:25] almost $300 million [24:26] below fiscal year 2025. [24:30] It risks insolvency [24:31] without additional support. [24:34] The President's request [24:34] of $10.3 billion [24:36] is essential [24:36] to restore staffing [24:38] and to maintain [24:39] safe and secure facilities. [24:42] In closing, [24:43] the fiscal year 2027 budget [24:45] reflects our unwavering commitment [24:47] to public safety, [24:48] strong law enforcement partnerships, [24:50] and responsible stewardship [24:51] of taxpayer dollars. [24:53] With your continued support, [24:54] the Department of Justice [24:55] will remain strong, [24:56] effective, [24:57] and fully equipped [24:58] to protect the American people. [25:01] Thank you, [25:02] and I look forward [25:02] to answering your questions, [25:04] Chairman. [25:06] Thank you, General. [25:07] We will now proceed [25:09] under the five-minute rule [25:10] with questions for the witness. [25:13] I'll begin by recognizing myself. [25:19] We all too well, [25:21] drug trafficking [25:22] and drug abuse [25:23] continue to devastate [25:26] our communities in town. [25:30] In December of 25, [25:33] President Trump designated fentanyl [25:36] as a weapon of mass destruction [25:39] by executive order. [25:43] How has that historic designation [25:45] aided the Department [25:48] in its fight [25:49] against illicit fentanyl? [25:52] And please share [25:53] how your 27 budget request [25:55] reflects that designation. [25:58] Thank you. [26:00] So, look, [26:01] I think calling [26:02] the men [26:05] that are sending poison [26:07] to this country terrorists [26:08] is exactly what they are. [26:10] And what it does [26:11] by President Trump doing that [26:13] is not only [26:13] there's resources [26:14] that are more readily available [26:16] because of that designation, [26:17] but it also allows [26:18] our Homeland Security Task Force [26:20] around the country, [26:22] there's one in every single state, [26:24] to effectively focus [26:25] on not only [26:27] the narco-terrorists [26:28] that are in Mexico [26:29] and South America, [26:30] but the drug dealers [26:32] that are on our streets [26:33] and our communities, [26:34] rural communities, [26:34] city communities, [26:35] everybody's affected [26:36] by fentanyl. [26:37] It remains a priority [26:39] of this department. [26:40] It will be a priority [26:41] for as long as [26:42] President Trump [26:42] is in office. [26:44] And that's why you see [26:45] that we have an increase [26:47] that we're asking [26:48] for more DEA agents, [26:49] we're asking for more money, [26:51] and it's exactly [26:52] to combat that problem. [26:56] Let me turn [26:56] to the issue [26:57] of illicit vape products, [27:00] which is something [27:01] that is sending children [27:03] to the hospital, [27:06] some as young [27:07] as middle schoolers [27:08] in my district, [27:09] and it's true [27:10] around the country. [27:11] I'm pleased to see [27:13] that the department [27:14] and its components, [27:16] such as DEA, [27:19] ATF, and others, [27:21] directing its efforts [27:22] to tackle [27:23] this emerging threat, [27:25] such as last year's [27:26] Operation Vapor Trail. [27:29] Please share [27:30] how the department [27:31] is tackling that issue [27:33] and outline your plans [27:35] to continue this effort [27:36] in fiscal 27. [27:39] Look, this is an example [27:41] of an all-of-government [27:42] approach to tackle [27:43] this problem. [27:44] It means working [27:45] with other agencies [27:46] outside of DOJ. [27:47] It means working [27:48] with state [27:48] and local partners [27:49] to combat [27:51] this very serious problem [27:54] that affects the youth. [27:56] It affects a lot [27:57] of our most vulnerable, [27:58] and it's been a priority [28:01] for the past 14 months. [28:02] It will remain a priority, [28:04] and part of it [28:05] is not only enforcement, [28:06] but it's also education [28:07] and making people [28:08] understand the importance [28:10] and the dangers [28:11] associated with this, [28:12] and look, [28:13] we've been doing that [28:15] for the past year, [28:15] and we'll continue [28:16] to do it going forward. [28:19] As I mentioned [28:19] in my opening statement, [28:22] I applaud [28:22] the department's efforts [28:24] to take an aggressive stance [28:26] on those who defraud [28:29] the American taxpayer. [28:31] In recent weeks, [28:32] we've seen several examples [28:35] of charges brought guilty pleas entered [28:38] and successful convictions [28:40] of those who have committed fraud. [28:44] Tell us about the department's [28:45] new National Fraud Enforcement Division [28:49] and highlight some of the division's [28:52] early successes. [28:53] This is a, look, [28:54] this is one of the most important things [28:56] we're doing at the Department of Justice. [28:59] We set up a new fraud division, [29:01] not because we haven't prosecuted fraud [29:03] for a long time, [29:05] but because we want to make sure [29:06] that there is a renewed focus [29:07] out of Washington, D.C. [29:09] and at every U.S. attorney's office [29:10] to combat fraud, [29:12] and these are individuals, [29:14] the people that we're targeting [29:15] are literally stealing [29:16] from this country. [29:17] So they are signing up [29:18] for programs [29:18] where they're not entitled to it, [29:20] whether it's daycare centers, [29:21] whether it's SNAP benefits, [29:24] and the focus will be [29:26] not only on the big, big players, [29:28] but on the small players, too, [29:30] and we've asked for money [29:31] for 100 prosecutors [29:32] to help with that effort, [29:33] but this is, again, [29:34] an all-DOJ effort [29:36] to combat fraud. [29:37] You mentioned it. [29:39] You're already seeing results, [29:40] and you're going to continue [29:41] to see results [29:41] in the coming months and years [29:43] as we continue to focus on this. [29:46] The National Fraud Enforcement Division [29:49] established after the passage [29:52] of the fiscal year 26 [29:55] Commerce Justice Appropriations Act. [30:00] For this current fiscal year, [30:02] tell us how the department plans [30:05] to fund and staff that division [30:08] that seems to be [30:10] hitting the ground running. [30:12] So a couple different ways. [30:14] We moved prosecutors [30:15] from the criminal division [30:16] that were doing fraud work [30:18] to the new division. [30:20] A different prosecutor [30:22] from every U.S. attorney's office [30:23] has been designated [30:24] to work within this division, [30:25] although they'll stay, obviously, [30:27] in their U.S. attorney's office, [30:28] and then with the expected money [30:31] that we're getting, [30:32] we're going to hire, [30:33] and so it's a combination [30:34] of existing talent [30:36] within the department [30:37] and bringing more talent in [30:39] over the next year or so. [30:44] How does this new division [30:45] interact with other parts [30:46] of the agency? [30:50] Closely, [30:50] and so it's a partner. [30:51] It's working with not only [30:54] FBI and HSI [30:55] and state AGs [30:56] and state inspector generals, [30:58] but also U.S. attorney's offices, [31:00] and again, [31:03] this is not a new thing [31:04] to tackle fraud, [31:05] but it's a renewed effort [31:07] by the Department of Justice [31:08] to combat what has become [31:10] a very big problem [31:12] in this country [31:13] with a lot of people [31:15] just stealing from the money, [31:17] from the generosity [31:18] of the American taxpayer. [31:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [31:28] Mr. Attorney General, [31:30] I wanted to ask a few questions [31:32] about the Anti-Weaponization Fund. [31:35] We know that the department [31:37] has agreed to pause this effort [31:39] until at least June 12th. [31:42] I wanted to ask what your plans [31:44] were for the fund [31:45] after June 12th. [31:47] So, thank you. [31:48] So, look, [31:49] we're not moving forward [31:50] with the fund. [31:51] You're right that there's a date [31:52] that in the case [31:54] in the East District of Virginia [31:55] in June, [31:56] but we are not moving forward [31:58] with the fund, period. [32:01] The reasons for the fund [32:03] is something that President Trump [32:04] talked about for a long time, [32:05] which is the fact [32:06] that there were a lot of people [32:08] in this country [32:08] who had their government [32:09] weaponized against them. [32:11] The reasons for the fund, [32:12] I think, [32:13] remain as important [32:16] as they were before, [32:17] but we are not moving forward [32:19] with the fund. [32:19] Not moving forward ever? [32:21] Correct. [32:22] Oh, there's no more fund then? [32:25] Well, to the extent [32:26] there was a fund. [32:26] Remember, the fund [32:27] wasn't set up yet. [32:28] There were no commissioner's name. [32:29] There was no claimants [32:32] brought anything in front of, [32:33] there was no claims made yet. [32:35] So, yes, [32:36] we're not moving forward [32:37] with the fund. [32:38] You and Associate Attorney General [32:41] Woodward signed earlier documents [32:43] regarding the settlement [32:45] and this fund. [32:47] Would both of you now [32:48] sign and release documents [32:50] reversing the DOJ's position [32:53] on the fund? [32:55] I'm not, [32:55] we're not moving forward [32:56] with the fund. [32:57] I'm not sure what that means [32:58] to sign documents reversing. [32:59] There's nothing to reverse. [33:00] We're not moving forward [33:01] with the fund. [33:02] We know about the court case, [33:05] the decision, [33:06] when we've heard press reports, [33:08] obviously, [33:09] but is there any way [33:10] that you could put this in writing? [33:12] I don't know if there are other ways [33:14] that you could use another vehicle [33:16] to move forward [33:17] with a similar fund [33:19] or similar intention, [33:20] and we just want to reassure [33:22] the American public. [33:23] We've heard from both Republicans [33:24] and Democrats constituents [33:26] and Americans across the country [33:28] about this fund [33:30] and I think they would love [33:32] to be reassured [33:33] that this fund [33:34] will not progress. [33:35] I'm telling you it's not. [33:38] I guess I'm not sure. [33:39] I'm not trying to be flippant with you. [33:41] I'm just saying I'm telling you it's not. [33:42] I'm not, [33:43] I'm not, [33:45] there's a, [33:46] we put out a statement yesterday. [33:47] There's been an injunction, [33:51] a temporary injunction filed in EDDA. [33:53] There's litigation in D.C. [33:54] There's litigation [33:54] in the Southern District of Florida, [33:56] but notwithstanding what we do [33:58] in those litigations [33:59] and defending our rights [34:00] and making sure our rights are protected, [34:02] we're not moving forward with the fund. [34:03] Okay. [34:04] Yeah, the statement, [34:05] I thought, [34:06] was just about until June 12th, [34:08] so if it won't progress after June 12th, [34:11] that's great to hear [34:11] and we hope to see this in writing. [34:15] I mean, [34:18] I think there'll be a transcript [34:19] to what I say here, [34:20] so that will be in writing. [34:21] Okay. [34:21] Well, we will work with you [34:23] and hold you to it. [34:24] Thank you very much. [34:25] I wanted to quickly ask, [34:27] with my remaining time, [34:29] about hate crimes. [34:31] We are concerned [34:32] about the President's budget request [34:34] eliminating three largest sources [34:36] of federal support [34:37] to local law enforcement [34:39] for hate crimes responses [34:40] and prevention. [34:41] Legislation passed [34:42] in a bipartisan basis, [34:44] Jabara Hire, [34:45] No Hate, [34:46] Shepard Byrd, [34:46] Hate Crimes Prevention [34:47] and community-based approaches [34:49] to prevent and address [34:50] hate crimes grant programs. [34:53] Why is the proposal, [34:55] why are we proposing [34:56] to eliminate the very programs [34:58] that are helping our law enforcement [35:00] and targeted communities? [35:03] Well, look, [35:03] there's a lot of money [35:05] that we have asked for [35:06] to combat violent crime, [35:08] to combat this type of crime. [35:10] A lot of overlap includes hate crime. [35:12] I am happy to have my team [35:15] work with you [35:15] to make sure [35:16] that we're getting money [35:17] where it needs to be. [35:18] That's an important issue [35:19] to President Trump [35:20] and it's an important issue [35:21] to the Department of Justice as well. [35:22] Can you describe [35:23] or name the areas of overlap? [35:26] Well, there's, yes, [35:28] I mean, sure, [35:28] there's billions of dollars. [35:30] I think we asked for $12 billion [35:31] to combat violent crime [35:33] and grants and things like that. [35:34] A lot of those grants [35:36] will go to programs [35:37] that at least part of it [35:38] includes combating hate crime. [35:41] And so, [35:42] and there's other individualized grants, [35:43] some of which are earmarked [35:44] along the way [35:45] that we're certainly, [35:47] we've funded for a long time [35:48] and that we will continue [35:50] to work with you [35:50] on making sure [35:52] that we're addressing that. [35:54] Yeah, I just want to make sure [35:55] that we're working together [35:56] as we have seen [35:57] and worked together [35:58] here in Congress, [35:59] bipartisan, bicameral ways [36:02] that hate crimes, [36:04] combating hate crimes [36:04] isn't just about prosecution, [36:07] but also about prevention [36:08] and working with community [36:10] organizations as well. [36:12] So, I don't have time left, [36:14] but I would love to continue [36:15] to work together on this issue. [36:17] I agree with that. [36:17] I yield back. [36:18] Thank you. [36:18] I agree with that. [36:20] Judge Carter. [36:22] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [36:23] and Attorney General, [36:26] thank you for being here. [36:27] Thank you. [36:28] We appreciate very much [36:29] hearing from you. [36:31] I've got to ask you [36:32] about something [36:32] that's dear to my heart. [36:33] I authored the Justice Served Act [36:37] a while back, [36:39] and it was allowed to, [36:40] its purpose was to help [36:42] law enforcement use [36:44] advanced DNA technology [36:47] to solve crime. [36:49] A lot of them don't have it advanced. [36:52] Today is forensic, [36:54] the forensic generic genealogy [36:58] is the next generation [37:00] of capability. [37:03] The FBI has already used it successfully [37:06] in cases like Rachel Morin [37:09] and Brian Knoeberger. [37:13] However, many unsolved [37:15] violent crimes remain [37:17] at state and local levels. [37:20] These agencies lack the funding [37:22] to scale for these investigations. [37:28] Can you discuss the DOJ's version [37:33] of forensic generic genealogy [37:36] and whether you can support [37:38] the Carla Walker Act, [37:40] which would help state [37:42] and local enforcement [37:44] solve violent crimes? [37:47] We very much support it, sir, [37:49] and I think that we have, [37:51] it's extraordinarily important [37:52] to federal law enforcement [37:54] and to state [37:54] and local law enforcement. [37:56] We have, I think, [37:57] over a dozen DOJ grant programs [38:00] that are designed [38:01] to further the research [38:02] and further the technology [38:04] in that space. [38:05] I think that's an important place [38:06] for us to be spending our money [38:08] because it does solve crime. [38:09] And in turn, [38:13] local people are going to get [38:14] the opportunity to petition you [38:16] to get help on that. [38:18] Correct. [38:18] On their crimes [38:19] that they consider very important. [38:23] As I think you may know, [38:24] I was a former district judge [38:25] in Texas, [38:26] and I see the damages [38:29] caused by lenient policies [38:32] and judicial overreach. [38:33] I think that creates damages [38:35] and not only in moving cases along, [38:42] but also in the people's view [38:44] of justice [38:46] and whether justice is being served. [38:50] How is the department responding [38:51] to the activist judges [38:53] who issued nationwide injunctions [38:56] against President Trump's immigration [38:59] and national security actions? [39:01] And what is your strategy [39:03] for defending the executive authority [39:07] in the courts? [39:09] Look, we are fiercely fighting [39:11] for what we believe the law is. [39:14] And when we have judges [39:15] that disagree with that [39:16] at the district court level, [39:18] we are appealing constantly. [39:21] And we have had extraordinary success [39:23] at the appellate level, [39:25] even in places like the Ninth Circuit, [39:27] but in other circuits as well, [39:28] because we're right. [39:29] We are not violating the law. [39:31] We're complying with the law [39:32] that you all passed [39:33] when it comes to immigration [39:34] and the way that we're handling [39:36] the immigration enforcement. [39:38] We will continue to do that [39:39] when we lose at the district court level, [39:42] which we do, [39:43] especially with some of these judges [39:44] that we think are just not following the law. [39:47] We fight and we go back [39:48] and we go back and we appeal. [39:49] And that's what the system suggests we do. [39:52] And that's exactly what we're doing. [39:55] At least where I come from, [39:56] judges don't make new law [39:59] or avoid the law that is written. [40:02] But they follow the law. [40:04] And it's a dilemma as far as I'm concerned. [40:08] As a district judge, [40:10] I swore to apply the law fairly. [40:13] I appreciate the department's effort [40:15] to restore equal justice under the law. [40:19] The president's executive order [40:21] ending weaponization of federal government [40:25] was an important first step. [40:28] Under the prior administration, [40:29] the DOJ challenged several state laws [40:33] restricting gender transition procedures for minors. [40:38] What steps has the department taken [40:40] to ensure the DOJ's decisions [40:43] are guided by the Constitution, [40:46] the public safety, [40:47] and equal application of the law [40:49] rather than politics? [40:50] Look, it includes both active investigations [40:54] in the civil space [40:55] when there's hospitals [40:56] or institutions [40:57] that we believe are not complying with the law. [41:00] And those are ongoing. [41:01] We have multiple investigations going on [41:03] in the civil space. [41:04] It also includes active litigation [41:07] against individuals or states [41:09] that we believe are violating the Constitution. [41:11] And we've been doing that [41:13] almost since we came in a year, [41:16] a little over a year ago. [41:17] And we're having, again, [41:19] it's, you know, we're having success. [41:21] And we're having success [41:22] because we're right under the law. [41:23] And even if it's not at the first step [41:25] with the district court, [41:26] when we appeal, we're having success. [41:28] And we, our appellate lawyers, [41:30] our civil lawyers are very busy, [41:32] but they're doing a good job. [41:34] Thank you. [41:34] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:35] Thank you, Judge. [41:37] Mr. Delaro? [41:38] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [41:43] If I could just follow up [41:45] on my colleague, Congresswoman Meng's questions. [41:49] I have here, this is the order [41:55] on the settlement, the $1.8 billion. [41:58] And then this is the addendum to the order, [42:02] which is about tax immunity. [42:04] And this is a copy of the settlement agreement. [42:08] And the Associate Attorney General signed this. [42:10] These two documents were signed by yourself. [42:14] Now, this is all in writing. [42:16] This is all our, can you tell us here today [42:19] that you are going to disavow this, [42:23] that you're going to rescind [42:24] what you said to Ms. Meng [42:29] in writing with these efforts? [42:31] These three documents are in writing. [42:33] Is that a yes or a no? [42:35] I can't answer that yes or no. [42:36] Do you want an answer? [42:37] Yeah. [42:38] Okay, so not yes or no. [42:39] You gave me three documents. [42:40] The only document I said [42:41] we're not moving forward on today [42:43] is the first document identified, [42:44] which is the Anti-Weaponization Fund. [42:48] There was still a settlement agreement. [42:50] And there's still, [42:51] the second document I signed [42:53] is not an addendum. [42:54] It's a separate Attorney General order. [42:56] Okay. [42:57] Okay. [42:58] So, but you're not, [42:59] you're not going to rescind the addendum, [43:02] not an addendum, the second order? [43:04] No. [43:05] The only thing you're talking about here, [43:07] so the blanket immunity [43:08] is not something [43:10] that you're going to move back on? [43:12] It's not blanket immunity. [43:13] That's not true. [43:15] It is. [43:15] No, it's not. [43:19] I'll read it. [43:25] Okay. [43:26] United States releases waves, [43:27] acquits, [43:28] and forever discharges [43:29] each of the plaintiffs from [43:30] and is hereby forever barred [43:33] and precluded [43:34] from prosecuting [43:35] or pursuing any and all claims, [43:37] counterclaims, [43:38] causes of actions, [43:39] appeals, [43:39] requests for any reliefs. [43:41] I mean, [43:43] this is an order [43:46] from you, [43:47] but you're not prepared. [43:49] You are prepared to say [43:50] that the president [43:51] and his family [43:52] will be barred, [43:55] are immune from, [43:59] that's a yes. [44:01] No, it was not a yes. [44:03] I had not answered the question. [44:04] I can't answer if you want me to. [44:06] What are you doing with this? [44:06] Okay, so there was a settlement, [44:08] which is one of the documents [44:09] you showed. [44:10] Okay. [44:11] Part of the settlement included [44:12] the second order [44:14] that you just held up, [44:17] and that is still, [44:18] nothing has changed with that. [44:19] What I said today, [44:20] what I've said a couple times today, [44:22] as what we talked about yesterday, [44:23] is we're not moving forward [44:24] with the anti-weaponization fund. [44:27] Okay. [44:28] But you are moving forward [44:30] with this second order. [44:32] It's not moving forward. [44:33] There's a settlement. [44:34] There's a settlement [44:35] that the IRS entered into [44:36] with President Trump [44:38] and others, [44:39] his family and his companies. [44:40] As part of that settlement, [44:42] as is customary [44:42] in IRS settlements, [44:44] there's a separate AG order. [44:48] Friends, [44:48] listen to what is being said here, [44:51] today here. [44:53] This is really pretty extraordinary, [44:56] that we are going to [44:59] forever barred [45:02] and precluded [45:03] from examining [45:04] or prosecuting [45:05] the president, [45:06] his sons, [45:07] and the Trump organization's [45:09] current tax violence. [45:11] Simply put, [45:12] you just gave [45:13] the president and his family [45:14] a tax immunity [45:15] to the tune of about [45:16] $100 million. [45:18] Not true. [45:19] Well, yes, you have, [45:20] my friend. [45:20] No, it's not true. [45:21] You know? [45:23] Look, and I just want to say this. [45:25] The Save America, [45:26] you paid nearly $10 million [45:29] between March of 2024 [45:31] and December of 2024 [45:32] to serve as the President Trump's [45:34] personal defense attorney. [45:38] My God, [45:39] don't you not find [45:40] there's any conflict [45:41] of interest [45:42] in what you are doing here [45:44] as the acting attorney general [45:46] of the United States? [45:48] I didn't, [45:49] what are you saying [45:50] is a conflict? [45:51] I don't understand [45:51] what you're saying. [45:54] Listen. [45:55] The fact that I used to have a job [45:56] and I have a current job. [45:57] I've got less time left, [45:58] but I take on what you're doing [46:06] on this [46:06] is that you've taken one piece [46:08] and you said, [46:09] okay, [46:09] we have had a ton of backlash [46:11] on this $1.8 billion slush fund. [46:19] However, [46:19] so we'll not move on that, [46:22] but as part of the settlement, [46:24] which you've said, [46:25] which is this immunity [46:27] for the President [46:29] and his family [46:30] and his business, [46:31] et cetera, [46:31] that stands. [46:32] Thank you for that. [46:33] It's not immunity, ma'am. [46:35] Thank you. [46:36] It's a promise. [46:37] Thank you. [46:37] It's immunity. [46:37] It's not immunity. [46:40] It's not immunity. [46:42] Okay, [46:42] so it's not immunity. [46:43] What it says [46:43] is like any time [46:45] the IRS settles [46:46] with an individual taxpayer [46:47] or another company [46:48] as part of the settlement, [46:50] it's standard. [46:51] It's typical [46:52] to get rid [46:54] of past ongoing audits. [46:55] It's not a forward-looking document. [46:57] It's nothing that gives [46:58] any sort of immunity [46:59] in the future [47:00] to the President [47:01] or his family [47:01] or his organizations. [47:03] And so by you saying that, [47:04] it's just, [47:04] it's not true. [47:06] By you saying [47:07] what you've said, [47:07] it is not true. [47:09] So thank you [47:10] and I yield back. [47:11] Time of the gentlelady [47:12] has expired. [47:14] Mr. Clyde. [47:15] Thank you. [47:15] You're an attorney. [47:17] I never got something. [47:21] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [47:23] And thank you, [47:25] Acting Attorney General Blanche [47:27] for being here today. [47:28] I want to commend [47:29] the Department of Justice's work [47:30] in protecting Americans' [47:32] Second Amendment rights. [47:33] Your fiscal year 27 budget [47:35] requested $1.4 million [47:36] to establish [47:37] a second amendment rights section [47:38] within the Civil Rights Division. [47:40] And I was proud [47:41] to lead an amendment [47:42] in the FY27 CJS Appropriations Act [47:45] to codify it. [47:48] This section monitors [47:49] state and local laws [47:50] for unconstitutional infringements [47:52] and pursues enforcement [47:53] where necessary. [47:54] Unlike the Biden DOJ, [47:56] which sought to charge [47:57] service-disabled veterans [47:58] with felonies [47:59] for using stabilizing braces, [48:01] the Trump Department of Justice [48:02] has already sued [48:03] multiple jurisdictions [48:04] over unconstitutional gun laws, [48:07] and I look forward [48:07] to ensuring that this office [48:09] has the resources [48:10] that it needs. [48:12] Congressional Republicans [48:13] and President Trump [48:14] also delivered [48:14] the biggest Second Amendment [48:16] victory in over 90 years [48:17] by eliminating the NFA transfer [48:20] and manufacturing taxes [48:21] on short-barrel firearms [48:22] and suppressors [48:23] in the one big, [48:24] beautiful bill. [48:25] For 91 years, [48:26] the NFA subjected gun owners [48:28] to these unconstitutional [48:29] infringements. [48:30] Removing these taxes [48:31] is a major step [48:32] towards restoring [48:33] those freedoms. [48:35] However, [48:35] Congress's intent [48:36] was to remove both [48:37] the taxation [48:38] and the registration requirements, [48:40] as they are inseparably linked. [48:43] Without the NFA tax, [48:44] there is no foundation [48:45] for the registration requirement, [48:47] since, as I understand it, [48:49] the registration exists [48:50] solely to account [48:51] for the taxes paid, [48:53] literally by the serial number [48:54] of the firearm. [48:56] Yet, the Department of Justice [48:57] is currently not following [48:58] this congressional intent. [49:01] So, sir, [49:03] do you agree [49:04] that the National Firearms Act [49:05] codified in the [49:06] Internal Revenue Code [49:07] and originally part [49:08] of the Treasury Department [49:09] is a tax law? [49:12] Yes, although my disagreement, [49:14] respectfully, [49:15] is on the intent of Congress. [49:17] If that's the congressional intent, [49:19] I welcome it. [49:20] It's not an objection [49:22] the Department has [49:23] to the goal [49:24] you're talking about. [49:25] It's just understanding [49:25] the congressional intent [49:27] when it comes to [49:27] whether the tax is extended. [49:28] Well, if it's a tax law [49:31] and you eliminate the tax, [49:33] then, you know, [49:34] then the registration, [49:36] in my opinion, [49:36] has no foundation, [49:37] and I wrote it. [49:38] So... [49:39] Well, that's pretty good [49:41] on the tech, I suppose. [49:42] If the NFA registry [49:43] no longer records [49:44] the payment of a tax [49:45] on the zero-tax firearms [49:46] and it exists solely [49:48] to register them, [49:49] then this appears [49:50] to be in direct conflict [49:51] with the Firearm Owners [49:52] Protection Act of 1986, [49:54] which explicitly prohibits [49:56] any federal database [49:57] or system [49:58] that tracks firearms [49:59] or their owners. [50:00] And I would like [50:01] to repeat that for you. [50:06] And it says in 926, [50:08] Section U.S.C. 18, 926, [50:11] it says, [50:11] no such rule [50:12] or regulation [50:13] prescribed [50:13] after the date [50:14] of the enactment [50:16] of the Firearm Owners [50:17] Protection Act [50:18] may require [50:18] that any system [50:20] of registration [50:20] of firearms, [50:21] firearms owners, [50:23] or firearms transactions [50:24] or dispositions [50:25] be established. [50:26] That's the FOPA [50:27] of 1986. [50:30] So, [50:31] in your view, [50:34] is the Department [50:35] of Justice [50:35] complying with the FOPA's [50:37] prohibition [50:37] against the Firearm Registry [50:39] for these zero-taxed firearms? [50:42] Look, [50:43] I think I am familiar [50:45] with this issue. [50:45] I know it's under [50:46] active litigation, [50:47] so I want to be careful. [50:48] I will tell you [50:49] that that is something [50:51] that we're working on [50:53] getting into [50:53] a good answer to. [50:54] Okay, [50:55] well, [50:56] I encourage you [50:57] to have a great answer, [50:59] and that is [50:59] to eliminate [51:00] the registration [51:01] for those things [51:02] that are not taxed [51:03] when the database [51:04] is indeed [51:05] a tax database. [51:06] Understood. [51:07] Thank you. [51:08] Now, [51:08] I was happy to see [51:09] that this committee [51:10] to take action [51:11] on this very important issue [51:12] by issuing, [51:14] by prohibiting [51:15] the registration [51:16] of zero-taxed firearms [51:17] in the FY27 [51:19] CGS appropriations bill, [51:20] and I look forward [51:21] to continuing [51:22] this fight [51:22] moving forward, [51:23] so I'm going to give you [51:24] some ammunition there, [51:25] okay? [51:26] Okay. [51:26] All right, [51:27] thank you. [51:29] Now, [51:29] Acting Attorney General Blanche, [51:31] I also want to applaud [51:32] the fantastic work [51:33] the Trump administration [51:34] and your DOJ [51:35] have done [51:36] in curbing the waste, [51:37] fraud, [51:37] and abuse [51:38] of taxpayer dollars. [51:39] Vice President Vance's [51:40] task force [51:41] to eliminate fraud [51:43] is already leading [51:43] to results, [51:44] uncovering billions [51:45] of dollars in fraud, [51:46] and specifically, [51:47] your department [51:47] has created [51:48] the National Fraud [51:49] Enforcement Division [51:50] to lead [51:51] the federal government's [51:51] efforts to investigate, [51:53] prosecute, [51:53] and remedy [51:54] rampant fraud. [51:55] My constituents [51:55] want accountability [51:56] for the fraud [51:57] that has siphoned away [51:59] their hard-earned tax dollars, [52:01] so I certainly [52:01] welcome the click [52:02] of handcuffs [52:03] on those stealing [52:04] from the American taxpayers. [52:07] So, [52:08] can you elaborate [52:08] on some of the most [52:09] egregious cases [52:10] that your department [52:11] is prosecuting [52:12] or has already prosecuted? [52:13] I mean, look, [52:14] yes, [52:14] so there's a couple [52:16] of examples. [52:17] The most egregious cases [52:18] are when individuals [52:19] create completely [52:20] fictitious organizations, [52:22] whether it's a daycare center, [52:23] whether it's an autism center, [52:26] and so this is money, [52:27] our tax dollars, [52:28] going to completely [52:29] fictitious entities, [52:31] and it runs through the state, [52:33] and what we found [52:34] in some states [52:35] is there's virtually [52:36] no compliance, [52:36] there's no check [52:37] on the system, [52:38] and so it's, [52:39] in some ways, [52:40] a very easy crime [52:41] to catch once we identify it [52:42] because it's completely [52:43] made up, [52:44] and so this isn't an example [52:46] of a doctor [52:46] checking the wrong box [52:48] but is actually [52:49] performing a service. [52:50] This is pure theft, [52:51] and we've seen that, [52:52] unfortunately, [52:53] too much in this country, [52:56] and so that's, [52:57] again, [52:57] one of the main reasons [52:58] why we started [52:58] the new fraud division [52:59] is because we will save [53:02] hundreds of millions, [53:04] if not billions, [53:04] of dollars [53:05] through this effort. [53:06] Thank you very much, [53:07] and Mr. Chairman, [53:08] I yield back. [53:08] Mr. Reiffey. [53:11] Thank you, [53:11] Mr. Chairman, [53:12] to the ranking member. [53:14] I did want to follow up [53:15] on ranking member [53:17] Meng's questions [53:19] about Binance, [53:21] which, frankly, [53:23] looks to me like [53:24] a blatant pay-for-pardon scheme, [53:27] so let me walk through [53:28] some of the facts [53:29] that lead me [53:31] to that conclusion. [53:32] In late 2023, [53:34] Binance and CEO Zhao [53:36] agreed to pay a penalty [53:37] of $4.36 billion. [53:39] A U.S. judge approved [53:40] the guilty plea [53:41] for multiple federal crimes [53:43] and a civil settlement [53:45] for anti-money laundering [53:46] and sanctions, [53:47] and that was in 2023. [53:52] Donald Trump [53:53] was elected president [53:54] in November 2024. [53:56] December 2024, [53:57] Mr. Zhao and Mr. Whitkoff [53:59] meet in Abu Dhabi [54:00] at a Bitcoin conference. [54:03] In March of 2025, [54:06] a couple months later, [54:08] you're confirmed [54:09] as Deputy Attorney General. [54:11] March 25, 2025, [54:13] World Liberty Financial [54:14] announced that it would [54:15] launch a stable coin [54:16] called USD1. [54:17] World Liberty Financial [54:18] is a family-owned business [54:21] by the Trump family. [54:24] Two of his sons are in it, [54:25] and Mr. Whitkoff's [54:25] got interest in it as well. [54:28] One month later, [54:29] in April 2025, [54:31] Binance's founder, [54:32] Mr. Zhao, [54:32] was sentenced to federal prison [54:33] for money laundering [54:34] and other federal crimes [54:35] that included funding [54:37] to terrorist groups [54:38] like ISIS, [54:39] al-Qaeda, [54:40] and the Iranian [54:41] Revolutionary Guard. [54:42] On May 1, [54:45] World Liberty Financial [54:46] announces that [54:47] an Emirati company [54:48] called MGX [54:51] that also has ties [54:52] to Mr. Whitkoff [54:53] would use $2 billion [54:54] on the stable coin [54:56] I just mentioned, [54:57] USD1, [54:59] to invest in Binance. [55:01] This gave President Trump [55:02] and his family [55:02] a revenue stream [55:03] that could be worth [55:05] tens of millions of dollars. [55:06] According to [55:06] The Wall Street Journal, [55:08] Binance took steps [55:09] that catapulted [55:10] the Trump family's ventures [55:12] into stable coin product, [55:13] enhancing its credibility [55:15] and pushing its market [55:16] capitalization up [55:18] from $127 million [55:20] to over $2.1 billion. [55:22] Now, on May 5, [55:25] Mr. Zhao publicly stated [55:26] that he had applied [55:27] for a presidential pardon [55:28] for the crimes [55:29] that he'd previously [55:30] pled guilty to [55:31] and had been sentenced [55:32] to jail for. [55:33] And the restitution amount [55:37] of $4.3 billion plus [55:39] was put in place. [55:41] A few months later, [55:41] on October 21, 2025, [55:43] President Trump [55:45] grants him a full pardon [55:47] with no explanation, [55:48] by the way, [55:48] in the document, [55:49] at least, that I saw. [55:50] So this looks like [55:54] a pay-to-play kind of scenario. [55:57] You've got the meeting [55:59] that takes place. [56:00] You've got the money [56:01] that's transferred [56:02] to an entity [56:03] that's owned [56:04] by the Trump family. [56:05] I don't think [56:06] the president's actually [56:07] divested his interest [56:08] there necessarily, [56:09] but I could stand [56:10] corrected on that. [56:11] But certainly, [56:12] his family still has interest [56:13] in it, [56:14] as does Mr. Whitcoff. [56:16] And then a few months [56:16] after that, [56:17] he issues a pardon. [56:18] So why haven't you [56:22] appointed a special prosecutor [56:23] to take a look at this? [56:25] This looks on its face. [56:26] It just looks like [56:27] a quid pro quo scenario [56:28] that should be investigated. [56:30] Why haven't you [56:30] taken that step? [56:32] Well, to be, [56:33] look, the power to pardon [56:34] in our Constitution [56:35] is given to the president [56:38] of the United States. [56:39] The Constitution [56:40] does not require him [56:41] to provide any explanation [56:42] for who he chooses [56:44] to pardon or not pardon [56:45] or commute or not commute. [56:46] And so I don't, [56:48] I very much reject [56:49] the idea that this, [56:51] the premise that [56:52] this looks like something [56:53] is as a basis [56:55] for me to appoint [56:56] a special prosecutor. [56:56] Let me reclaim my time. [56:58] The Constitution [56:58] gives him absolute [56:59] power to pardon. [57:00] It does not give power [57:01] to pardon in exchange [57:03] for payments, clearly. [57:04] And a $2.1 billion payment [57:07] to his family, [57:08] and we'll set aside [57:09] the fact that he should [57:10] have divested [57:10] from all of those interests [57:11] anyway, [57:12] but the fact that he gave [57:13] the $2 billion, [57:14] that he gets the $2 billion piece [57:15] and then a few months later [57:17] pardons the guy [57:18] who was guilty [57:19] of money laundering [57:20] and providing money to, [57:22] or helping to finance [57:23] the money laundering operation [57:24] for ISIS and Al-Qaeda [57:27] and the guys [57:28] we're fighting in Iran [57:28] right now, [57:29] the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. [57:31] I just, I don't. [57:31] That's not a problem. [57:34] Who he chooses to pardon [57:35] is not a problem, period. [57:36] And you're saying [57:37] all these things [57:38] that are just not true. [57:38] What's the legal basis [57:39] for that statement? [57:41] The Constitution [57:41] of our United States. [57:42] The Constitution [57:43] does not give you [57:44] the authority [57:44] to pardon in exchange [57:46] for payments. [57:47] It does not permit bribery. [57:48] You told me nothing [57:50] about exchange for payments. [57:51] You said there's... [57:51] Well, I just told you. [57:52] You just put a bunch [57:53] of facts together. [57:53] That's why you need [57:54] a special prosecutor. [57:55] Shouldn't somebody take... [57:56] Clearly, you're not [57:57] going to do it. [57:58] Shouldn't somebody [57:59] be appointed [57:59] a truly experienced prosecutor [58:02] to take a look at this [58:04] and conduct the investigation? [58:05] And then if he reaches [58:06] the conclusion [58:07] that you're right, [58:07] that's fine. [58:08] But if he finds [58:09] that there's a problem [58:10] with what the president did [58:12] or his family, [58:14] then he should move forward [58:16] with prosecuting that case. [58:17] The chairman has expired. [58:19] I very much disagree. [58:20] Mr. Strong. [58:21] Thank you, Chairman Rogers [58:23] and Ranking Member Ming [58:24] for convening this hearing. [58:25] Acting Attorney General Blanche, [58:27] thank you for being here [58:28] with us today. [58:29] I appreciate you [58:30] and the department [58:31] for your work [58:32] supporting law enforcement [58:33] and addressing evolving threats [58:35] across this country. [58:37] As you know, [58:38] North Alabama [58:38] and Redstone Arsenal [58:39] have become a premier hub [58:41] for the DOJ [58:42] and FBI operations [58:43] supporting critical work [58:45] in counterterrorism explosives [58:47] and ballistic analysis, [58:49] emerging UAS threats [58:52] and coordination [58:53] across federal agencies. [58:55] North Alabama [58:56] has repeatedly demonstrated [58:57] it can support [58:58] the nation's [58:59] most critical missions [59:00] with a highly skilled workforce, [59:02] state-of-the-art facilities [59:03] and room for continued growth. [59:05] The funds this committee [59:07] approved last month [59:08] include a planned investment [59:10] in advanced training [59:12] and operational support [59:13] at Redstone Arsenal [59:14] as part of the department's [59:15] broader efforts [59:16] to strengthen the FBI's [59:18] readiness and capabilities. [59:20] As Acting Attorney General, [59:21] how do you plan [59:22] to ensure that these investments [59:24] support Redstone Arsenal's [59:26] continued growth [59:27] as a center for FBI training [59:29] and operations? [59:31] Look, I think [59:31] you're absolutely right [59:33] that the facilities [59:34] that the FBI and ATF have [59:36] in that area [59:38] is key to protecting our borders [59:41] and key to everything [59:43] from our drone, [59:45] anti-drone capabilities [59:47] that we're working on. [59:48] And so we're doing things [59:49] like getting FBI personnel [59:51] out of D.C. [59:52] and down there [59:53] where they should be working. [59:54] And same with ATF. [59:56] And look, there's a very, [59:58] it's an important law enforcement [1:00:00] priority of this administration [1:00:02] and of me [1:00:03] to continue that effort. [1:00:05] So I expect that you will see [1:00:07] not infrastructure, [1:00:08] which we've asked for money on, [1:00:10] which we're spending money on, [1:00:11] but also getting more [1:00:12] of our talented personnel there [1:00:14] to continue the mission [1:00:16] of the FBI. [1:00:17] Thank you. [1:00:17] I also want to echo [1:00:18] what my colleagues have said [1:00:20] and commend the department [1:00:21] for the DOJ's recent [1:00:24] aggressive work [1:00:24] to combat fraud. [1:00:26] For years, [1:00:27] bad actors have treated [1:00:28] taxpayer-funded programs [1:00:30] from pandemic relief loans [1:00:33] to Medicaid and SNAP benefits [1:00:35] like their own personal piggy banks. [1:00:38] In Minnesota, [1:00:39] the Feeding Our Future scheme alone [1:00:41] involved more than $250 million [1:00:44] in fraud tied [1:00:45] to federal children's nutrition [1:00:47] and pandemic-era programs. [1:00:49] And just last month, [1:00:50] the DOJ announced charges [1:00:52] against 15 defendants [1:00:53] accused of participating [1:00:55] in more than $90 million [1:00:56] in Medicaid fraud schemes. [1:01:00] What steps does the department [1:01:03] in taking to ensure [1:01:05] that we are not just [1:01:06] prosecuting these criminals [1:01:08] but actively clawing back [1:01:10] every single stolen [1:01:12] taxpayer dollar possible? [1:01:14] It's a great question, [1:01:16] and I will tell you, [1:01:16] every single indictment [1:01:18] that you have seen [1:01:18] from this department [1:01:19] includes meaningful forfeiture efforts, [1:01:22] whether it's freezing accounts [1:01:23] the day of the arrest [1:01:25] or in the time leading up [1:01:26] to the arrest [1:01:26] or going after the assets [1:01:28] that have been purchased [1:01:29] by the defendants [1:01:30] as part of our criminal [1:01:31] forfeiture efforts. [1:01:32] It's as important [1:01:33] as arresting the bad guy [1:01:35] as trying to recover [1:01:36] the assets that they stole [1:01:37] from the American taxpayer. [1:01:40] It's every single, [1:01:41] like I said, [1:01:42] every time we make an arrest, [1:01:43] every part of our investigation [1:01:44] is focused on [1:01:45] not only identifying [1:01:47] the bad actors [1:01:48] but recovering our assets. [1:01:49] Thank you. [1:01:50] Hardworking Americans [1:01:51] go to work every day [1:01:52] and follow the rules. [1:01:55] You know, [1:01:55] they're sick and tired [1:01:56] of seeing their tax dollars [1:01:58] stolen by scammers [1:02:00] and non-U.S. citizens. [1:02:02] The time is past due [1:02:04] to make sure [1:02:05] that we do [1:02:06] what needs to be done, [1:02:07] and I think that's [1:02:07] what America's looking for. [1:02:09] I was pleased [1:02:10] to vote with the committee [1:02:11] to provide the full request [1:02:13] of $30 million [1:02:13] for the department [1:02:15] to hire 100 more attorneys [1:02:17] to more effectively [1:02:19] combat fraud [1:02:20] targeting government programs [1:02:21] and the American public. [1:02:24] Attorney General Blanche, [1:02:26] how will you, [1:02:27] the additional attorneys, [1:02:29] help ensure [1:02:30] the large fraud investigation [1:02:32] does not stop [1:02:32] with first round [1:02:34] of indictments [1:02:34] but continue [1:02:35] until every individual [1:02:36] who knowingly participated [1:02:38] has been identified [1:02:39] and where appropriate [1:02:41] and they're appropriately prosecuted? [1:02:43] Yes, [1:02:43] and thank you [1:02:44] for the vote [1:02:45] on the funding. [1:02:46] Those prosecutors [1:02:46] will help lead that effort, [1:02:48] and what we're doing [1:02:49] is we're working. [1:02:50] This is, again, [1:02:52] an all-government approach, [1:02:53] so we're working [1:02:53] with HHS, [1:02:54] with our other federal partners [1:02:56] to identify bad actors. [1:02:58] We're working [1:02:59] with inspector generals [1:03:01] from all these locations [1:03:02] and working those cases, [1:03:04] FBI, HSI, [1:03:05] state and locals [1:03:06] in the states [1:03:07] that are willing to help us, [1:03:08] and that's the whole point [1:03:10] of the new fraud division [1:03:11] is to leave, [1:03:12] whether you have committed [1:03:13] a $1,001 fraud [1:03:15] or whether you've committed [1:03:16] a $100 million fraud, [1:03:18] you should face a felony [1:03:19] in this country [1:03:20] for stealing [1:03:20] from the American taxpayer, [1:03:22] and that's what [1:03:23] we're committed to doing. [1:03:26] We started it a year ago, [1:03:29] and we're not stopping. [1:03:30] Thank you. [1:03:31] Mr. Chairman, [1:03:31] I'll yield back. [1:03:32] Mr. Morelli. [1:03:34] Yes, thank you, [1:03:35] Mr. Chairman, [1:03:35] and thank you [1:03:36] for convening this. [1:03:37] Thank you to [1:03:38] Ranking Member Meng [1:03:39] and Ranking Member DeLauro [1:03:40] as well, [1:03:42] and thank you [1:03:42] to the Attorney General [1:03:43] for appearing. [1:03:44] I want to associate [1:03:46] myself with the remarks [1:03:47] by the Chairman. [1:03:49] Just to say [1:03:50] I'm deeply frustrated [1:03:51] that the Department [1:03:51] is appearing [1:03:53] and the Attorney General [1:03:54] is appearing here [1:03:55] nearly three weeks [1:03:56] after the subcommittee [1:03:57] and full committee [1:03:58] have marked up [1:03:59] Commerce, Justice, [1:04:00] and Science Appropriations Bill. [1:04:02] It's deeply troubling. [1:04:04] This is not how [1:04:04] the appropriations process [1:04:06] is expected to work, [1:04:07] and we would love [1:04:09] to hear from you [1:04:09] in the future, [1:04:10] and I think we should [1:04:11] ought to your budget priorities, [1:04:13] question your leadership, [1:04:14] what the leadership [1:04:15] believes about these, [1:04:16] so I just deeply frustrated. [1:04:19] I hope it doesn't, [1:04:20] I hope next year [1:04:21] we don't repeat this, [1:04:22] so I just wanted [1:04:23] to associate myself [1:04:24] with that. [1:04:25] I was just curious, [1:04:26] just as a follow-up [1:04:27] to Mr. Ivey's line [1:04:29] of question, [1:04:29] is it your testimony [1:04:30] that if someone paid [1:04:32] the President [1:04:33] of the United States [1:04:33] a million dollars [1:04:34] for a pardon, [1:04:35] that that would not [1:04:36] violate federal law? [1:04:38] No, that is not [1:04:39] my testimony. [1:04:40] What is your testimony about? [1:04:41] My testimony is [1:04:42] that the power to pardon [1:04:42] in our Constitution [1:04:43] is not limited. [1:04:45] So what I mean by that [1:04:46] is the President [1:04:48] doesn't have to say [1:04:49] why he's pardoned [1:04:49] or not pardoned. [1:04:49] No, I didn't say that. [1:04:50] I'm asking you. [1:04:51] So if someone wrote [1:04:53] in the memo of a check [1:04:54] for a million dollars [1:04:55] to the President [1:04:55] of the United States, [1:04:56] any President, [1:04:57] said for issuance [1:04:58] of a pardon, [1:04:59] would that be a violation [1:05:00] of federal law? [1:05:02] Yes. [1:05:02] It would. [1:05:03] I mean, I would [1:05:04] under what section of it? [1:05:05] I mean, I think [1:05:06] there would be a [1:05:07] violation of the bribery law, [1:05:10] yes. [1:05:11] Bribery law, [1:05:12] even though the Constitution [1:05:13] gives you unlimited power [1:05:14] as president. [1:05:15] The person that paid [1:05:15] the bribe would be, [1:05:17] for the president himself [1:05:18] who accepted the money, [1:05:19] I think you would need [1:05:20] to impeach him in that case. [1:05:21] Gotcha. [1:05:22] At least under my reading [1:05:23] of the Constitution. [1:05:24] I just wanted to make sure [1:05:26] I understood [1:05:26] what you were saying. [1:05:28] I wanted to ask you [1:05:29] on a completely different topic. [1:05:30] I serve as the ranking member [1:05:31] of the Committee [1:05:32] on House Administration, [1:05:33] which has jurisdiction [1:05:34] over federal elections. [1:05:35] As you know, [1:05:36] federal law prohibits [1:05:37] the deployment [1:05:38] of military personnel [1:05:39] or armed federal law [1:05:40] enforcement officers [1:05:41] from polling places. [1:05:43] Yes. [1:05:43] Federal law also prohibits [1:05:44] intimidating, threatening, [1:05:45] or coercing any person [1:05:47] for the purpose of interfering [1:05:48] with the right to vote. [1:05:49] Violators of either [1:05:50] of these laws [1:05:51] are subject to criminal penalties, [1:05:52] as you know, [1:05:53] under federal law. [1:05:54] The president has continued [1:05:55] to talk about [1:05:56] and issued rhetoric [1:05:57] which suggests [1:05:58] that he might be willing [1:05:59] to deploy military personnel [1:06:01] or federal agents, [1:06:03] perhaps even FBI, [1:06:04] at polling places. [1:06:07] And I just want [1:06:09] your assurance [1:06:09] that you will not [1:06:12] allow Department of Justice [1:06:13] personnel around election places, [1:06:16] polling places, [1:06:17] this November. [1:06:18] I'm sorry, [1:06:18] that I won't allow [1:06:19] DOJ personnel [1:06:20] around election places. [1:06:22] We will comply with the law. [1:06:24] You will comply with the law, [1:06:25] with federal law. [1:06:25] Yes. [1:06:26] And will you commit [1:06:27] to investigating [1:06:27] and prosecuting individuals [1:06:29] who violate those protections [1:06:31] or otherwise interfere [1:06:32] with an American's right to vote? [1:06:32] We will definitely [1:06:34] comply with the law [1:06:35] and the law enforcement [1:06:36] will investigate [1:06:37] alleged violations of law. [1:06:38] Thank you, sir. [1:06:40] Just weeks ago, [1:06:41] changing topics, [1:06:42] ATF announced [1:06:43] 34 regulatory changes [1:06:45] affecting the agency's efforts [1:06:46] to combat violent gun crime. [1:06:50] At that announcement, [1:06:50] you said, [1:06:51] what we're doing today [1:06:52] will actually help law enforcement. [1:06:54] And then director, [1:06:54] I think it's Cicada, [1:06:56] added, [1:06:56] we believe that these rules [1:06:57] will not negatively impact [1:06:58] public safety. [1:06:59] Those are your words. [1:07:01] Your regulations [1:07:02] tell a different story. [1:07:03] In the rule that allows [1:07:04] a potential prohibited purchaser [1:07:06] to skip a second background check, [1:07:08] the department warns [1:07:09] a prohibited person [1:07:11] who obtains a firearm [1:07:12] under the proposed rule [1:07:13] and uses that firearm [1:07:14] to inflict mass casualties [1:07:16] would have been prevented [1:07:17] under the current requirement, [1:07:19] which the department [1:07:19] is asking be taken away. [1:07:21] And in the rule [1:07:22] restricting law enforcement [1:07:23] from effectively tracing guns, [1:07:25] the department, again, [1:07:27] in the body of the regulatory reforms, [1:07:30] warned that the change [1:07:32] that you are asking for [1:07:33] could delay or hinder [1:07:35] federal, state, [1:07:36] and local enforcement offers [1:07:37] to track and stop [1:07:38] violent offenders. [1:07:41] Those are the department's warnings. [1:07:42] Your own analysis acknowledges [1:07:44] the changes could make it easier [1:07:46] for prohibited individuals [1:07:48] to obtain firearms [1:07:49] and harder for law enforcement [1:07:50] to track violent criminals. [1:07:52] So you're the nation's [1:07:55] chief law enforcement. [1:07:56] I hope you talked a lot [1:07:56] about violent crime. [1:07:57] Why is the department [1:07:59] pursuing actions [1:08:00] when the department analysis states [1:08:03] it would potentially create [1:08:04] a much higher risk [1:08:05] of violent gun crime [1:08:06] for the public? [1:08:07] The analysis you're talking about [1:08:09] is not, that is not true, right? [1:08:10] So that is, [1:08:11] when we talk about potentials [1:08:13] with the new regulations, [1:08:14] that includes a variety [1:08:16] of possibilities. [1:08:18] When it comes to the regulation [1:08:19] you're speaking about directly, [1:08:21] the problem that existed [1:08:23] that we were trying to fix [1:08:24] with that is making it [1:08:25] more efficient [1:08:25] and make it easier [1:08:27] for law enforcement [1:08:29] and for FFLs [1:08:31] to make sure [1:08:32] that only people [1:08:33] who could have guns [1:08:33] have guns. [1:08:34] And so the regulations [1:08:36] that exist now [1:08:37] that we're changing [1:08:38] don't do that. [1:08:40] They're actually outdated [1:08:41] and they're not, [1:08:43] the systems are not up to date [1:08:45] and that's what the regulation [1:08:46] that you're speaking about, [1:08:47] I believe, [1:08:48] is designed to fix. [1:08:50] But I would just suggest [1:08:51] that the analysis [1:08:51] by the department [1:08:52] in issuing these, [1:08:53] the elimination [1:08:55] of these regulations [1:08:56] actually identifies [1:08:57] threats and potential harm [1:08:59] to the public [1:08:59] by doing the regulatory [1:09:01] reforms you're suggesting. [1:09:03] I'd ask you to look [1:09:03] at it further [1:09:04] and I know my time is out [1:09:05] and I want to yield back, [1:09:07] Mr. Chair. [1:09:07] Mr. Reef. [1:09:13] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:09:16] Mr. Attorney General, [1:09:17] it's encouraging, [1:09:22] it's encouraging [1:09:23] to see overdose deaths [1:09:24] decline over so much [1:09:27] of our country, [1:09:28] including in my home [1:09:29] state of Indiana. [1:09:30] and yet fentanyl [1:09:32] remains the leading cause [1:09:34] of death [1:09:35] for Americans [1:09:36] between ages 18 and 45. [1:09:40] We've made progress [1:09:41] but we haven't knocked it down. [1:09:42] So communities [1:09:43] throughout my district [1:09:44] continue to feel [1:09:46] the consequences [1:09:47] of this epidemic. [1:09:49] Too many families [1:09:50] are still grieving [1:09:52] from the loss [1:09:53] of loved ones [1:09:54] from fentanyl-related overdoses. [1:09:56] I commend the administration [1:09:57] for the actions [1:09:59] it you have taken [1:10:01] to secure our southern border [1:10:02] for aggressively prosecuting [1:10:05] drug traffickers [1:10:06] and for holding China [1:10:08] accountable [1:10:09] for its role [1:10:11] in supplying [1:10:11] the precursor chemicals [1:10:13] that have in part [1:10:14] fueled this crisis. [1:10:16] Those efforts are crucial [1:10:17] and I appreciate [1:10:18] your leadership on this. [1:10:20] However, [1:10:22] despite the stronger [1:10:23] enforcement measures [1:10:24] here at home, [1:10:25] fentanyl continues [1:10:25] to reach across our borders [1:10:27] too often times [1:10:29] through Mexico [1:10:30] where the cartels [1:10:31] use these precursor chemicals [1:10:32] I've described [1:10:33] to manufacture [1:10:36] and traffic [1:10:37] these drugs [1:10:38] into the United States. [1:10:41] Mr. Blanche, [1:10:42] would you update us [1:10:43] on what the DOJ [1:10:45] under your leadership [1:10:45] is doing [1:10:46] to strengthen [1:10:47] interdiction efforts [1:10:49] real time [1:10:50] this year [1:10:51] over the year ahead [1:10:53] through coordination [1:10:54] and particularly [1:10:54] with foreign [1:10:55] law enforcement partners. [1:10:57] Yes, thank you. [1:10:59] Major transit HUD. [1:11:00] Thank you. [1:11:01] Look, the biggest thing [1:11:02] I can say [1:11:02] is the Homeland Security [1:11:03] Task Force effort [1:11:04] which is focused, [1:11:06] it's priority [1:11:07] is stopping the flow [1:11:08] of illegal narcotics [1:11:09] especially fentanyl [1:11:10] into our communities [1:11:11] and you're right [1:11:13] that we've made progress [1:11:14] but we are nowhere near [1:11:15] our goal [1:11:16] and with DEA, [1:11:19] with HSI, [1:11:20] with the FBI, [1:11:21] we are now, [1:11:22] every federal law enforcement agent [1:11:23] is targeting [1:11:24] and working with [1:11:25] state and local law enforcement agent [1:11:27] and also international partners [1:11:29] including in Mexico, [1:11:30] in Ecuador, [1:11:31] in Colombia, [1:11:32] even in Venezuela [1:11:32] to stop not only [1:11:35] the flow from South America [1:11:36] and Mexico [1:11:37] but also to the extent [1:11:38] there's fentanyl [1:11:39] in our communities, [1:11:41] we're also completely focused [1:11:43] on ridding the drug dealers [1:11:44] and the fentanyl [1:11:45] out of the communities as well. [1:11:46] So this is not a problem [1:11:48] that gets fixed overnight. [1:11:50] It is such a crisis [1:11:52] in this country [1:11:52] that I promise you [1:11:54] the next time [1:11:54] that I'm before you [1:11:55] we will still be talking about it [1:11:57] but that doesn't mean [1:11:58] that we're not making [1:11:59] extraordinary progress [1:12:00] and that we're not getting [1:12:01] fentanyl off the streets [1:12:02] and we're putting [1:12:03] bad guys in jail [1:12:04] who are dealing it [1:12:04] and I commit to you [1:12:06] that President Trump [1:12:08] all the way down [1:12:09] to every federal prosecutor [1:12:10] in this country [1:12:11] and every FBI and DEA agent [1:12:12] is focused on it. [1:12:15] And in your view, [1:12:16] your budget [1:12:17] will reflect [1:12:18] that increased prioritization [1:12:21] in working with [1:12:23] our foreign law enforcement partners. [1:12:25] Yes. [1:12:25] Yes. [1:12:28] Effective information sharing [1:12:29] across our federal [1:12:30] or state, local [1:12:31] and our tribal [1:12:32] law enforcement agencies [1:12:34] is one of the key tools [1:12:35] that we have. [1:12:37] Programs like the regional [1:12:39] information sharing systems, [1:12:41] the risks are key [1:12:43] to supporting [1:12:44] criminal investigations [1:12:45] and I see that [1:12:48] back in my home district. [1:12:49] I was in Columbus, Indiana [1:12:51] this past week. [1:12:53] Police department, [1:12:54] city of 50,000 people [1:12:56] is using risk technology [1:12:57] to enhance audio [1:12:59] and video evidence [1:13:00] leading to the identification, [1:13:03] arrest and prosecution [1:13:04] of armed robbery suspects. [1:13:07] These programs [1:13:07] deliver results [1:13:08] from my constituents [1:13:09] and the constituents [1:13:11] of everyone else [1:13:11] that I serve with [1:13:13] up here today. [1:13:14] I appreciate the work [1:13:15] that Congress and DOJ [1:13:16] continues to prioritize [1:13:18] information sharing [1:13:19] across all levels [1:13:21] of law enforcement. [1:13:23] Mr. Blanche, [1:13:25] what is your department, [1:13:29] how is your department [1:13:30] prioritizing information [1:13:32] sharing this year, [1:13:34] going into the next year [1:13:35] with these partnerships [1:13:36] that are so crucial [1:13:37] to bringing in these results? [1:13:40] So we work with, [1:13:42] at the basic level [1:13:44] in the districts [1:13:44] around this country, [1:13:45] we work with our state [1:13:47] and local partners [1:13:47] in every single case [1:13:49] that whether it's a state case [1:13:53] or a federal case, [1:13:53] we're working with them. [1:13:54] And you're totally right, [1:13:56] that includes sharing information [1:13:57] and making sure the systems [1:13:58] can talk to each other. [1:14:00] That costs money and upkeep. [1:14:01] We have multiple grants [1:14:03] that are designed [1:14:04] to go to state [1:14:04] and local law enforcement [1:14:06] to make sure [1:14:07] they're able to continue [1:14:08] to have information technology [1:14:11] that allows it to be effective [1:14:12] with the federal government. [1:14:13] And I agree with you [1:14:15] that we cannot solve violent crime, [1:14:17] we cannot solve the drug problem, [1:14:18] we cannot help with murders [1:14:20] and narcotics trafficking [1:14:22] without strong information sharing. [1:14:26] And we spend a lot of money on that, [1:14:28] and it's money [1:14:28] that we should be spending. [1:14:31] Thank you, [1:14:32] and I yield back. [1:14:32] Thank you, Chairman Rogers. [1:14:37] Thank you to our ranking members. [1:14:39] Welcome, Acting Attorney General. [1:14:42] I want to speak about [1:14:43] justice for the Epstein victims [1:14:45] and survivors, [1:14:46] and I'm going to begin [1:14:47] with the closing words [1:14:49] of Virginia Roberts-Duffray [1:14:51] in her book. [1:14:52] It's literally the last paragraph. [1:14:54] She writes, [1:14:55] I hope for a world [1:14:56] in which predators are punished, [1:14:58] not protected. [1:14:59] Victims are treated with compassion, [1:15:02] not shamed, [1:15:02] and powerful people [1:15:04] face the same consequences [1:15:05] as anyone else. [1:15:07] I yearn, too, [1:15:08] for a world [1:15:09] in which the perpetrators [1:15:10] face more shame [1:15:11] than their victims do, [1:15:13] and where anyone [1:15:14] who's been trafficked [1:15:15] can confront their abusers [1:15:17] when they are ready. [1:15:18] No matter how much time has passed, [1:15:21] we don't live in this world yet. [1:15:22] I mean, seriously, [1:15:24] where are those videotapes [1:15:26] the FBI confiscated [1:15:27] from Epstein's houses, [1:15:29] and why haven't they led [1:15:31] to prosecution [1:15:31] of any more abusers? [1:15:35] That's from Virginia. [1:15:37] It was printed, [1:15:38] as you know, [1:15:39] posthumously after her death. [1:15:41] Mr. Blanche, [1:15:42] you and I had a chance [1:15:43] a couple of weeks ago [1:15:44] at the Department of Justice [1:15:45] to speak about these cases. [1:15:48] We discussed three things [1:15:49] in connection [1:15:50] with this monstrous, [1:15:51] decades-long crime spree. [1:15:53] Number one, [1:15:54] your failure to fully redact [1:15:55] survivor information. [1:15:57] Number two, [1:15:58] your failure to follow the law [1:16:00] and release the remaining files. [1:16:02] And number three, [1:16:03] your refusal to prosecute [1:16:04] anybody else. [1:16:07] Mr. Blanche, [1:16:08] let's continue that [1:16:09] inane conversation, [1:16:10] but this time it's public. [1:16:12] This time, [1:16:13] and more importantly, [1:16:14] it's under oath [1:16:14] you're speaking to Congress. [1:16:16] So let's get into it. [1:16:18] When will you comply with the law [1:16:19] and release all of the files? [1:16:22] As I said to you [1:16:23] when we spoke before, [1:16:24] we have complied with the law. [1:16:28] There are three million [1:16:29] more documents [1:16:30] and you know what you said to me? [1:16:32] They're all duplicative [1:16:33] and they include [1:16:33] another guy named Epstein. [1:16:35] No, I didn't say that. [1:16:36] Nobody's buying. [1:16:36] That's what you said. [1:16:36] I did not say that. [1:16:37] That's what you said. [1:16:37] So look, [1:16:38] reclaiming my time. [1:16:39] Can I answer? [1:16:39] Can I answer the question? [1:16:40] No, you may not. [1:16:40] I just gave you the answer [1:16:41] you gave me. [1:16:46] No, actually, [1:16:46] it's my time, [1:16:47] Mr. Chairman. [1:16:48] I think those are the rules [1:16:49] of this committee. [1:16:50] I told him the answer [1:16:51] he gave me [1:16:52] and now in public [1:16:53] he's trying to say something else. [1:16:55] Please stop the clock. [1:16:56] Can I get that time back? [1:16:57] May I have 20 seconds back, [1:16:59] Mr. Chairman? [1:17:00] Thank you. [1:17:00] I very much appreciate that. [1:17:04] Mr. Blanche. [1:17:05] You don't want me [1:17:05] to answer the question. [1:17:06] Mr. Blanche, [1:17:07] as you know, [1:17:07] I've visited DOJ [1:17:09] three times [1:17:09] for as much as 10 hours [1:17:11] and I'll be going back. [1:17:13] Does the Epstein File [1:17:14] Transparency Act [1:17:15] say that the file [1:17:16] should be available [1:17:17] to members of Congress [1:17:18] with a minder at DOJ [1:17:19] where you're in a secure room, [1:17:21] you can't write on [1:17:23] any of the binders, [1:17:25] you can take your own notes? [1:17:26] Is that what [1:17:27] the Transparency Act says? [1:17:28] It doesn't require [1:17:29] we allow you [1:17:29] to come to DOJ at all. [1:17:30] We did that on our own. [1:17:31] What does it say [1:17:32] in terms of transparency? [1:17:34] It says that they should [1:17:35] be made publicly available. [1:17:36] And they were. [1:17:37] Am I correct? [1:17:38] And they were. [1:17:39] Publicly available. [1:17:39] And they were. [1:17:40] Oh, let's talk about that. [1:17:41] Okay. [1:17:45] Time of the gentlelady [1:17:46] has expired. [1:17:48] I beg your pardon. [1:17:49] And I'd actually [1:17:52] like to get 20 seconds back. [1:17:53] How do I get cut off [1:17:54] two minutes into this? [1:17:58] Time of the gentlelady [1:17:59] has expired. [1:18:00] I beg your pardon, [1:18:01] Mr. Chairman. [1:18:02] No, that's not right. [1:18:02] What rules [1:18:03] are we operating under? [1:18:04] Because he's under [1:18:06] a little bit of heat [1:18:07] for not prosecuting anyone [1:18:08] in these monstrous crimes? [1:18:11] I've been in the room. [1:18:13] I have been there. [1:18:14] This is what I had to do [1:18:16] to transcribe, [1:18:18] to show what is true. [1:18:20] What is true [1:18:21] is that the president [1:18:21] has lied [1:18:22] about being on Epstein's plane, [1:18:25] and the unredacted files [1:18:27] prove that. [1:18:28] There's a lot in here. [1:18:29] I am shocked at this. [1:18:31] There's also this set [1:18:33] of files in the file. [1:18:36] This is investigation [1:18:37] into the potential [1:18:38] co-conspirators [1:18:39] of Jeffrey Epstein. [1:18:41] I almost used up [1:18:42] all the blank ink [1:18:43] in the hallway [1:18:44] because it's all covered up. [1:18:47] It's all covered up. [1:18:49] The American people [1:18:50] are not stupid. [1:18:52] They know that [1:18:53] when members of Congress [1:18:54] have to go in [1:18:55] and actually unredacted, [1:18:57] try to find the truth [1:18:59] for these victims, [1:19:01] something is corrupt. [1:19:03] Something is corrosive. [1:19:04] You were paid $10 million [1:19:08] to represent the president. [1:19:11] You hang a 30-foot banner [1:19:13] of the president's [1:19:14] menacing face [1:19:15] over the entrance [1:19:16] to the Department of Justice. [1:19:18] You said that [1:19:19] if you were terminated [1:19:20] or not moved forward [1:19:21] as attorney general, [1:19:22] you would say to the president, [1:19:23] I love you, sir. [1:19:25] So I have one question for you. [1:19:28] Is your obligation [1:19:29] to the victims [1:19:30] and survivors [1:19:31] of Epstein's heinous crimes [1:19:33] and all his perpetrators, [1:19:35] or is your first obligation [1:19:36] to the president [1:19:37] of the United States? [1:19:38] So without a doubt, [1:19:41] we want to bring justice [1:19:43] to every victim. [1:19:44] When will you bring [1:19:45] that justice? [1:19:45] Can I please finish? [1:19:47] Excuse me. [1:19:48] Can I finish? [1:19:49] It's been decades. [1:19:49] Can I finish? [1:19:51] When will you bring the justice? [1:19:52] So as I was saying, [1:19:53] when will you prosecute? [1:19:54] Oh. [1:19:55] And who will you prosecute? [1:19:56] Please allow the witness [1:19:58] to ask for the question. [1:19:58] You told me in our conversation [1:20:00] you blamed the victim. [1:20:01] So every victim, [1:20:02] every victim of Mr. Epstein, [1:20:04] he told me [1:20:04] that the victims [1:20:05] didn't give good names. [1:20:06] Let me be crystal clear [1:20:09] that this Department of Justice [1:20:11] will always, [1:20:13] will always protect victims [1:20:15] and will always prosecute [1:20:17] anybody we can. [1:20:19] Okay? [1:20:19] Full stop, [1:20:21] no ifs, ands, or buts. [1:20:22] Okay? [1:20:22] What you are showing [1:20:23] in a game of showmanship [1:20:25] are redactions [1:20:26] because of victims. [1:20:27] Because that prosecution memorandum [1:20:29] talks about, [1:20:30] excuse me? [1:20:31] Perpetrators too. [1:20:32] How do you know that? [1:20:34] Go ahead. [1:20:35] Talk to the victims. [1:20:36] So they're victims, [1:20:38] they're victims' names [1:20:39] which we are required [1:20:40] to redact, [1:20:41] required by law [1:20:42] to redact, [1:20:43] which we did. [1:20:44] Okay? [1:20:45] So I take umbrage [1:20:47] to the idea. [1:20:47] Mr. Chairman, [1:20:48] I realize I'm over time. [1:20:49] Thank you for that indulgence. [1:20:50] I have, [1:20:51] I want to ask [1:20:52] for unanimous consent [1:20:53] to enter records [1:20:54] into the, [1:20:55] onto the record. [1:20:56] May I do that now? [1:20:57] Without objection. [1:20:58] Thank you. [1:20:59] The first... [1:20:59] Time of the gentlelady [1:21:00] has expired. [1:21:01] Mr. Alford... [1:21:02] I would like to enter [1:21:04] these records. [1:21:04] May I please list [1:21:05] what they are, sir? [1:21:06] You, [1:21:08] you've had your chance. [1:21:10] Mr. Alford... [1:21:11] You're denying me [1:21:12] the chance to list [1:21:12] what these records are? [1:21:14] Mr. Alford. [1:21:15] Thank you, Chair. [1:21:16] Mr. Attorney General, [1:21:18] would you like to respond [1:21:19] to any of these allegations? [1:21:21] Well, look, [1:21:21] I think that, [1:21:22] that the idea [1:21:24] that this Department of Justice [1:21:26] does not stand up [1:21:27] to victims [1:21:28] and does not do [1:21:29] everything we can, [1:21:29] stand up for victims rather, [1:21:31] do everything we can [1:21:32] to prosecute anybody [1:21:33] who harms our most vulnerable [1:21:34] ignores the facts. [1:21:36] We will always protect victims. [1:21:38] We have said from the beginning, [1:21:40] anybody, [1:21:40] whether it's their lawyer, [1:21:42] whether it's a victim [1:21:43] who wants to meet [1:21:44] with the FBI [1:21:45] or who has information, [1:21:46] they don't have to come in. [1:21:47] They can use their lawyers. [1:21:48] They can use nonprofit groups. [1:21:50] I've spoken to nonprofit groups. [1:21:51] My leadership team [1:21:52] has spoken to nonprofit groups [1:21:54] and victims. [1:21:54] When we released [1:21:55] the Epstein files [1:21:56] earlier this year, [1:21:57] I spent the whole weekend [1:21:58] on the phone [1:21:59] with many of Epstein's [1:22:01] victims' lawyers [1:22:02] and Director Patel [1:22:04] has said the same thing [1:22:05] and so I will say again, [1:22:07] if there is a lawyer [1:22:08] or a victim [1:22:09] who has information, [1:22:11] please come forward. [1:22:12] It doesn't mean [1:22:12] coming forward [1:22:13] to a congressman's office. [1:22:14] It means coming forward [1:22:15] to the FBI [1:22:15] and if there's nervousness [1:22:17] or if there's something [1:22:19] that it's a difficult thing to do, [1:22:21] we will work with you. [1:22:22] That's what we do. [1:22:23] That's what the FBI does [1:22:24] and that's what we've said [1:22:26] for months and months [1:22:27] and it remains as true today [1:22:28] as it was the first time we said. [1:22:30] I had no intention [1:22:30] of asking about Epstein [1:22:32] but there were three allegations [1:22:33] made a failure [1:22:34] to fully redact victims' names. [1:22:35] Have you done that? [1:22:37] So we were required by law [1:22:40] to redact victims' names. [1:22:42] We did not get to choose victims. [1:22:44] So what the judge told us [1:22:45] in New York [1:22:45] was if somebody identified [1:22:46] themselves as a victim, [1:22:48] we had to redact that [1:22:49] and that's what we did. [1:22:52] Has there been a failure [1:22:52] to prosecute perpetrators? [1:22:54] Never. [1:22:55] And if we learn of a bad guy [1:22:58] that we can prosecute today, [1:22:59] we will prosecute him today. [1:23:01] Has there been a failure [1:23:02] to release all the files? [1:23:03] No. [1:23:04] So we reviewed more than enough. [1:23:06] We overcollected on purpose [1:23:07] to make sure we could comply [1:23:08] with the law [1:23:09] and so necessarily [1:23:10] by overcollecting [1:23:11] some of the materials [1:23:12] we collected [1:23:13] were not responsive. [1:23:14] They had nothing to do [1:23:15] with the Epstein files [1:23:16] or the Transparency Act. [1:23:17] I want to dramatically [1:23:18] shift gears now [1:23:19] and talk about [1:23:20] what's going on in New Jersey. [1:23:22] Our federal officers [1:23:23] are being assaulted [1:23:24] by people who are funded, [1:23:28] we believe, [1:23:29] from outside sources. [1:23:31] One man was arrested recently [1:23:33] for death threats [1:23:35] on ICE officers. [1:23:36] It's no wonder [1:23:37] they don't want to wear masks. [1:23:38] I mean, [1:23:39] they want to wear masks [1:23:40] to protect their identity, [1:23:41] to protect their families, [1:23:42] to protect their lives [1:23:44] while they're trying [1:23:44] to deport criminal [1:23:45] illegal aliens [1:23:47] and protect this detention center, [1:23:49] which is legally there. [1:23:52] What is going on in America? [1:23:54] Who is funding [1:23:56] these people, [1:23:59] Antifa and these other groups [1:24:01] that are causing these issues, [1:24:03] criminals, [1:24:05] that are causing chaos [1:24:07] in our country? [1:24:08] And what is the Department of Justice [1:24:09] doing about it? [1:24:10] So thank you for that question. [1:24:11] Look, [1:24:12] if you look at the people [1:24:12] who were arrested in New Jersey, [1:24:14] very few of them [1:24:15] were from New Jersey. [1:24:16] There was one [1:24:16] that was from as far away [1:24:17] as Portland. [1:24:18] There were a ton [1:24:19] from New York, [1:24:19] a ton from further out west. [1:24:21] And so you do have [1:24:22] a concerted effort [1:24:23] by national organizations [1:24:25] to disrupt [1:24:26] and really just try [1:24:27] to create chaos [1:24:28] because you also have [1:24:29] a ICE-run facility [1:24:31] that is completely compliant [1:24:34] with the law. [1:24:36] And the men and women [1:24:37] that are defending [1:24:38] that facility [1:24:38] are just doing their jobs. [1:24:40] And what we saw [1:24:41] until earlier this week [1:24:43] was unfortunately [1:24:44] a local government [1:24:45] didn't let their cops [1:24:46] come and help. [1:24:47] Even though I'm sure [1:24:48] every one of those cops [1:24:49] would have loved to. [1:24:50] And so until we had [1:24:51] that happen, [1:24:52] there was chaos. [1:24:54] But we have it [1:24:55] under control. [1:24:56] And we will always [1:24:58] defend ICE. [1:24:59] We will always prosecute [1:25:00] anybody who touches [1:25:01] an ICE officer. [1:25:02] And that's what we can do. [1:25:04] But, Mr. Attorney General, [1:25:05] that is great. [1:25:07] How is the investigation [1:25:08] going into finding out [1:25:10] this illegal funding [1:25:12] of these illegal groups [1:25:14] that are committing [1:25:15] illegal activities? [1:25:16] ICE. [1:25:18] We have multiple [1:25:19] investigations [1:25:19] and they're ongoing [1:25:20] and we will find them. [1:25:22] And do what? [1:25:23] Well, prosecute them. [1:25:25] Because what they're doing [1:25:26] is absolutely [1:25:27] a violation of the law. [1:25:28] So the money [1:25:29] they're raising [1:25:29] is being used for, [1:25:31] without a doubt, [1:25:32] they're not telling [1:25:32] the IRS, for example, [1:25:34] that they're going [1:25:34] to spend their money [1:25:35] on umbrellas [1:25:38] to hand out [1:25:38] at riots. [1:25:41] And so that's [1:25:42] the kind of information [1:25:44] that they're lying about [1:25:45] and that they're [1:25:45] raising money to do. [1:25:46] Is this outside money [1:25:48] from overseas coming in [1:25:50] or is this funded [1:25:50] within our borders? [1:25:52] I think both. [1:25:54] Our investigation to date [1:25:55] is ongoing. [1:25:56] But certainly, [1:25:57] a lot of it's [1:25:58] from in our borders. [1:25:59] A lot of it, [1:25:59] unfortunately, [1:26:00] is from here. [1:26:01] But there's no doubt [1:26:02] that there's also [1:26:02] foreign funding involved. [1:26:05] Well, thank you [1:26:05] for the work you're doing. [1:26:06] And, Mr. Chair, [1:26:07] I'll yield back 15 seconds. [1:26:11] Thank you, Mr. Alford. [1:26:15] And, Mr. Klein. [1:26:18] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:26:19] Attorney General, welcome. [1:26:20] I want to discuss [1:26:22] a troubling development [1:26:24] in my home state [1:26:25] of Virginia [1:26:25] and in states [1:26:27] across the country. [1:26:28] And that's crimes [1:26:30] committed by illegal immigrants [1:26:32] who are released [1:26:33] back into communities [1:26:35] like Virginia [1:26:37] to continue [1:26:39] to commit crimes, [1:26:41] not deported [1:26:43] to their countries [1:26:44] of origin. [1:26:45] For years, [1:26:46] under the leadership [1:26:46] of Governor Glenn Youngkin, [1:26:48] Virginia law enforcement [1:26:50] agencies partnered [1:26:51] with the federal government [1:26:52] under a 287G agreement. [1:26:55] These agreements [1:26:56] allowed trained [1:26:56] law enforcement officers [1:26:57] to work with [1:26:58] federal immigration authorities [1:26:59] to identify [1:27:00] and remove criminal [1:27:01] illegal aliens [1:27:02] who had already been involved [1:27:03] in the criminal justice system. [1:27:04] Now, Governor Spanberger [1:27:05] has chosen to revoke [1:27:06] these agreements [1:27:07] and move Virginia [1:27:09] in the direction [1:27:10] of a sanctuary [1:27:10] commonwealth. [1:27:12] At a time [1:27:13] when Americans [1:27:14] are demanding [1:27:14] secure borders [1:27:15] and safer communities, [1:27:16] Virginia is walking away [1:27:17] from one of the most [1:27:18] effective cooperative tools [1:27:19] available to law enforcement. [1:27:21] The result is [1:27:21] that dangerous individuals [1:27:22] who could have been [1:27:23] transferred to federal custody [1:27:25] may instead be released [1:27:26] back into the communities. [1:27:28] And we heard [1:27:28] from the inept [1:27:30] commonwealth's attorney [1:27:31] of Fairfax County, [1:27:33] Steve Descano, [1:27:34] in Judiciary Committee [1:27:36] two weeks ago [1:27:37] who was confronted [1:27:38] with crime after crime [1:27:40] committed by illegal immigrants [1:27:42] who were released [1:27:43] back into the community [1:27:44] because they were not [1:27:45] prosecuted [1:27:45] or held to account [1:27:47] by his office. [1:27:48] So, from the DOJ's perspective, [1:27:51] does this lack [1:27:52] of cooperation [1:27:53] between federal government [1:27:56] and state law enforcement agencies [1:27:58] make it more difficult [1:27:59] to identify [1:28:00] and remove criminal aliens? [1:28:02] I mean, more difficult [1:28:03] and a lot less safe. [1:28:04] It puts everybody at danger, [1:28:05] not only the community, [1:28:06] but the federal law enforcement [1:28:08] that have to then go [1:28:09] and arrest the person [1:28:10] who should have been [1:28:11] just picked up in jail [1:28:12] when they were there. [1:28:13] And the best way [1:28:14] to know that it's not working [1:28:15] is because when you go [1:28:16] to the jurisdictions [1:28:17] where it does work, [1:28:18] where there is law enforcement [1:28:19] working, local law enforcement [1:28:21] working with the federal government, [1:28:23] it's safer, it's efficient, [1:28:25] and it complies [1:28:26] with all the laws. [1:28:27] And so the best way [1:28:28] to know which way works [1:28:30] is to just do [1:28:31] a compare and contrast. [1:28:32] One of the things [1:28:34] we have in this committee [1:28:36] is the power of the purse. [1:28:37] And there's a lot [1:28:37] of money flowing [1:28:38] through COPS grants [1:28:39] and other federal support [1:28:41] for our local law enforcement agencies. [1:28:43] We support our local [1:28:44] law enforcement agencies. [1:28:45] We stand with our men [1:28:48] and women in law enforcement. [1:28:49] We back the blue. [1:28:50] But in those jurisdictions [1:28:52] where you see a refusal [1:28:54] or reluctance [1:28:54] to enter into these types [1:28:56] of 287G agreements, [1:28:58] could it be encouraged [1:29:01] through the tying [1:29:03] of these COPS grants [1:29:04] to these 287G agreements? [1:29:05] Could that be a productive [1:29:06] use of the funds? [1:29:09] Yes. [1:29:10] And look, [1:29:10] the problem is [1:29:11] or the challenge [1:29:13] is that we love our COPS [1:29:14] and we want them [1:29:15] to have funding. [1:29:16] And it's usually not them. [1:29:18] It's usually the leadership [1:29:19] in the local jurisdictions. [1:29:21] And so we do want [1:29:22] to be sensitive [1:29:23] to taking away the money [1:29:24] that they need [1:29:24] because it's not their fault. [1:29:26] But yes, [1:29:26] the power of the purse [1:29:27] is exactly that. [1:29:28] It's power. [1:29:30] Well, [1:29:30] I'm hopeful [1:29:31] that the legislation [1:29:32] I've introduced, [1:29:32] which would do just that, [1:29:34] will move through [1:29:34] the legislative process. [1:29:36] I also want to discuss [1:29:39] your department's [1:29:40] data security program [1:29:41] administered [1:29:41] through the National Security Division. [1:29:44] For years, [1:29:45] Congress has become [1:29:45] increasingly concerned [1:29:46] that foreign adversaries [1:29:47] like the Chinese Communist Party [1:29:49] have been acquiring [1:29:50] vast quantities [1:29:51] of Americans' [1:29:51] personal information [1:29:52] through data brokers, [1:29:53] corporate acquisitions, [1:29:54] commercial relationships, [1:29:55] and other means. [1:29:56] In the hands [1:29:57] of a foreign adversary, [1:29:58] this information [1:29:59] can be used [1:30:00] to identify intelligence targets, [1:30:01] facilitate surveillance, [1:30:02] support cyber operations, [1:30:04] and strengthen [1:30:04] artificial intelligence capabilities. [1:30:06] The department's [1:30:07] data security program [1:30:08] represents an important step [1:30:10] toward addressing [1:30:11] these vulnerabilities [1:30:12] and protecting Americans [1:30:13] from exploitation [1:30:14] by foreign adversaries. [1:30:16] Since implementation [1:30:17] of the program, [1:30:18] can you answer [1:30:19] what the DOJ [1:30:19] has learned [1:30:20] about the scale [1:30:21] of foreign efforts [1:30:21] to obtain U.S. data [1:30:22] through commercial channels? [1:30:24] I mean, [1:30:25] it happens every day. [1:30:27] And it's a constant effort [1:30:30] by not only [1:30:31] the Department of Justice, [1:30:32] but a lot of the federal government [1:30:34] to combat that [1:30:35] because the voice [1:30:37] foreign actors [1:30:37] are spending a lot of money, [1:30:39] a lot of resources, [1:30:40] and they're smart [1:30:40] to try to get our data. [1:30:42] And so you're right. [1:30:44] The money that we've put up [1:30:45] in these agencies, [1:30:46] NSD and other places, [1:30:48] it's because we have [1:30:50] to make sure [1:30:51] that we're not only stopping it, [1:30:53] but also putting [1:30:54] preventative measures [1:30:55] in place [1:30:56] so it's not worth it [1:30:57] for them to try. [1:30:59] And has the DOJ [1:31:01] identified any gaps [1:31:02] in current law [1:31:03] that make it difficult [1:31:04] to prevent sensitive U.S. data [1:31:06] from reaching [1:31:06] these foreign adversaries? [1:31:08] I don't think gaps [1:31:09] is the right way to say it, [1:31:10] but I think that it's [1:31:11] we need to make sure [1:31:11] that we're constantly robust [1:31:13] and that we remain strong [1:31:15] in our regulatory efforts [1:31:17] to stop it. [1:31:18] Thank you. [1:31:19] Yield back. [1:31:19] That concludes the regular hearing. [1:31:26] However, there is a request [1:31:28] for a second round. [1:31:31] The Attorney General [1:31:32] has important matters [1:31:34] to attend to, [1:31:36] so we will attempt [1:31:37] to shorten [1:31:38] what would normally [1:31:40] be a second round [1:31:42] and keep it to two minutes [1:31:44] per member, [1:31:46] if that's okay with you, [1:31:48] Ms. Ming. [1:31:49] Well, in that case, [1:31:54] I recognized myself [1:31:56] for two minutes. [1:31:58] Let me ask you, [1:31:59] John, all about [1:31:59] the surge operations [1:32:01] that the Department [1:32:02] has conducted [1:32:05] on cities [1:32:06] across the United States. [1:32:09] Our state and local partners [1:32:11] have mixed feelings [1:32:13] about the success [1:32:15] of that program. [1:32:16] Can you share [1:32:17] the impact [1:32:18] these operations [1:32:19] have had [1:32:20] on officer morale, [1:32:22] for example, [1:32:23] in large cities [1:32:25] with historically [1:32:25] high crime rates? [1:32:28] And is the Department [1:32:29] planning to continue [1:32:30] these efforts? [1:32:32] And if so, [1:32:33] what resources [1:32:33] are needed [1:32:34] to continue those efforts? [1:32:38] So the surges [1:32:40] have been [1:32:41] extraordinarily successful [1:32:43] from August 25, [1:32:45] sorry, [1:32:45] from August of last year [1:32:46] to April of this year, [1:32:48] we directed [1:32:49] almost $44 million [1:32:50] and over 1,100 agents [1:32:52] to these surge efforts. [1:32:53] And in D.C. [1:32:55] and in Memphis, [1:32:56] you see a remarkable [1:32:57] reduction in crime, [1:32:58] but you also see [1:33:00] a community [1:33:00] that's appreciative. [1:33:02] In this city, [1:33:02] we work very well [1:33:03] with local leadership [1:33:05] and including the mayor [1:33:06] because the results [1:33:08] of the surges [1:33:09] is exactly what [1:33:09] you expect it to be, [1:33:10] which is we're taking [1:33:12] bad guys off the streets, [1:33:13] we're letting people [1:33:14] feel comfortable [1:33:15] walking around, [1:33:16] and that's the same thing [1:33:17] we did in D.C. [1:33:17] and in Memphis. [1:33:19] We expect to spend [1:33:20] another $100 million [1:33:21] doing that [1:33:22] over the next fiscal year [1:33:23] because it's working, [1:33:24] because it's a good thing [1:33:25] to do in this country. [1:33:26] And so sending a lot [1:33:29] of law enforcement [1:33:30] into a crime-ridden area [1:33:32] works. [1:33:33] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:33:41] Mr. Attorney General, [1:33:43] I want to thank you [1:33:43] for verbally committing [1:33:45] to not moving forward [1:33:46] with the so-called [1:33:47] anti-weaponization fund. [1:33:49] I just want to make sure, [1:33:51] are you going to issue [1:33:52] a new memo in writing [1:33:53] rescinding that May 18th memo? [1:33:57] I'm not committing [1:33:58] to putting anything in writing. [1:33:59] I'm going to set it [1:34:00] over and over again. [1:34:01] I mean, I don't know [1:34:02] what the purpose [1:34:03] of putting something [1:34:04] in writing. [1:34:04] I'm telling you [1:34:05] what we're doing. [1:34:06] Meaning, like, [1:34:07] why do I need [1:34:08] to put something in writing [1:34:08] if I'm telling you [1:34:09] what we're doing? [1:34:10] Well, you started it, [1:34:12] you established it [1:34:13] in writing, [1:34:14] so it just makes sense [1:34:15] to rescind it in writing. [1:34:17] I think a lot of Americans, [1:34:19] both sides of the aisle [1:34:20] are concerned about it, [1:34:21] and it would restore [1:34:22] a lot of trust [1:34:23] about this issue. [1:34:26] Okay, I'm not committing [1:34:27] to doing anything [1:34:28] in writing, no. [1:34:28] You're not committing. [1:34:28] Thank you. [1:34:29] Okay. [1:34:29] I mean, I'll take it [1:34:30] under advisement. [1:34:30] I'm just concerned [1:34:32] because you're not [1:34:32] under oath, [1:34:33] and I want to trust you, [1:34:34] and I want to believe you. [1:34:35] We all do, [1:34:36] but putting it in writing [1:34:38] would settle that issue. [1:34:41] I have one minute left. [1:34:43] I still want to ask [1:34:45] in writing, [1:34:46] but every year, [1:34:50] the committee reports [1:34:51] and the joint [1:34:52] explanatory statement [1:34:54] accompanying the [1:34:55] Appropriations Act [1:34:56] direct the department [1:34:58] to provide [1:34:58] to the Appropriations Committee [1:34:59] various reports [1:35:01] on various subjects. [1:35:02] These reports assist [1:35:04] the committee's work [1:35:06] and help ensure [1:35:07] transparency [1:35:07] and accountability. [1:35:09] Numerous reports [1:35:10] from your department [1:35:11] have not yet been sent [1:35:12] to us [1:35:12] and are now overdue. [1:35:14] Are you aware [1:35:15] of this issue, [1:35:15] and will you please [1:35:16] work to deliver [1:35:17] these reports [1:35:18] to both the House [1:35:19] and Senate [1:35:19] Appropriations Committees? [1:35:21] I will. [1:35:23] Thank you. [1:35:24] I yield back. [1:35:26] The lady yields back. [1:35:27] Mr. Judge Carter. [1:35:31] Thank you very much, [1:35:32] Mr. Chairman. [1:35:34] This settlement [1:35:35] that you entered it [1:35:36] that was entered into [1:35:37] that started off [1:35:38] to be a lot [1:35:40] of conversation about. [1:35:42] Everybody who was involved [1:35:43] as a litigant [1:35:44] was they were [1:35:45] represented by [1:35:45] competent lawyers. [1:35:47] Yes. [1:35:48] So this wasn't [1:35:49] just one lawyer [1:35:51] doing this thing. [1:35:52] This was over. [1:35:53] I got the thing [1:35:53] we're busted. [1:35:55] This is a whole bunch [1:35:55] of lawyers [1:35:56] doing this thing, right? [1:35:57] Yes, that's correct. [1:35:58] When you have [1:35:59] a lawsuit [1:36:00] for anything [1:36:01] and you decide [1:36:02] to settle it, [1:36:04] you want to make sure [1:36:05] nobody's coming back [1:36:06] on the facts [1:36:07] that that lawsuit [1:36:08] was based on [1:36:09] and trying to go [1:36:11] forward again. [1:36:12] That's why you have [1:36:13] to put something [1:36:14] like what the lady read [1:36:16] into the agreement [1:36:20] and say, [1:36:22] if they want to [1:36:23] break the law [1:36:24] past that set of facts [1:36:26] and do it again, [1:36:28] they're not covered [1:36:29] and protected by that. [1:36:31] That's correct. [1:36:31] They're only protected [1:36:32] if that's what [1:36:34] your lawsuit was about. [1:36:35] Correct. [1:36:35] And all the lawyers [1:36:36] signed off on it [1:36:37] and all the lawyers [1:36:38] agreed for all the [1:36:40] litigants that were [1:36:40] involved in that case. [1:36:42] 100%. [1:36:43] That's correct. [1:36:43] So nobody was forcing [1:36:45] anybody without a lawyer [1:36:47] to make a settlement. [1:36:49] They all had a lawyer. [1:36:50] They all probably [1:36:51] had good lawyers. [1:36:52] Cost a lot of money [1:36:53] and they settled [1:36:54] for the facts [1:36:55] that we have before us. [1:36:57] You're stating [1:36:58] that you're not [1:36:59] going to continue [1:36:59] the way to pay it. [1:37:05] Correct. [1:37:06] At this time [1:37:07] or at any time [1:37:07] for that matter. [1:37:08] Correct. [1:37:09] In your knowledge. [1:37:11] Correct. [1:37:13] I don't see [1:37:14] where the fault is. [1:37:15] I'll show you back. [1:37:17] Mr. DeLarlo. [1:37:18] Thanks, Mr. Chairman. [1:37:21] I just want to run [1:37:22] through some questionable [1:37:24] transactions. [1:37:27] Mr. Secretary. [1:37:30] The President received [1:37:30] a luxury jet [1:37:31] from the Qatari government [1:37:32] valued hundreds of millions [1:37:33] of dollars [1:37:34] in apparent violation [1:37:35] of the emoluments [1:37:36] clause of the Constitution. [1:37:38] Jared Kushner's [1:37:39] real estate and financial [1:37:40] deals with the Saudi [1:37:41] royal family race. [1:37:41] Serious questions [1:37:42] related to kickbacks [1:37:43] and bribery [1:37:44] that could be in violation [1:37:45] of federal bribery laws [1:37:46] and the Foreign Corrupt [1:37:47] Practices Act. [1:37:49] White House advisor [1:37:50] Peter Navarro, [1:37:50] a friend of Donald Trump Jr., [1:37:52] got the Pentagon [1:37:52] to loan more than [1:37:53] $600 million [1:37:54] to Vulcan Elements, [1:37:56] a small North Carolina [1:37:57] startup founded [1:37:58] just two years earlier. [1:37:59] And Donald Trump Jr.'s [1:38:01] venture capital firm [1:38:02] has a stake [1:38:03] in this company. [1:38:04] Estimates of the company's [1:38:05] valuation grew tenfold [1:38:06] after the deal [1:38:07] was announced. [1:38:07] AAFS Infrastructure [1:38:10] and Energy, [1:38:10] which is on the cusp [1:38:11] of securing a waiver, [1:38:13] a $1 billion contract [1:38:15] to build and operate [1:38:16] a pipeline [1:38:17] across the Balkans [1:38:18] has ties to former [1:38:20] National Security Advisor [1:38:21] Michael Flynn [1:38:22] and the lawyer [1:38:22] Jesse Bernal [1:38:23] that defended the president [1:38:25] and Donald Trump Jr. [1:38:26] against a lawsuit [1:38:27] that sought to hold them [1:38:28] responsible for January 6th. [1:38:30] This company would be [1:38:31] allowed to ship fossil gas [1:38:33] from the United States [1:38:34] to replace Russian fuels. [1:38:37] My question is, [1:38:39] and we know [1:38:39] that the administration [1:38:40] gutted the public [1:38:41] integrity section [1:38:42] for the last 50 years, [1:38:44] investigated, [1:38:45] prosecuted crime [1:38:46] related to government [1:38:47] integrity, [1:38:48] and they prosecuted [1:38:49] both Democrats [1:38:49] and Republicans. [1:38:50] Simple yes or no question. [1:38:52] What I've just mentioned, [1:38:53] do you believe [1:38:54] that what I've talked about [1:38:56] is enough here [1:38:57] for the next attorney general [1:38:59] to open a criminal investigation, [1:39:02] yes or no? [1:39:02] No, you just read [1:39:03] a bunch of random, [1:39:05] unsourced news articles [1:39:07] and reports. [1:39:08] No, that's not the basis [1:39:10] to open a criminal investigation. [1:39:12] I mean, you're looking around, [1:39:13] but it's not. [1:39:15] This is not the basis [1:39:16] on which to happen. [1:39:16] It is not. [1:39:17] Just reading something [1:39:19] that's just a hypothetical [1:39:20] off a news article, [1:39:21] it's not. [1:39:21] It's not a hypothetical. [1:39:22] It is real. [1:39:23] Did the president get [1:39:24] a Guattari? [1:39:26] What? [1:39:26] Did you read the press? [1:39:28] Are you knowledgeable about anything? [1:39:29] Not the same press you do. [1:39:30] Apparently not, my friend. [1:39:32] Promise me. [1:39:32] Apparently not. [1:39:33] Did the president receive [1:39:34] a luxury jet [1:39:35] from the Guattari government [1:39:36] valued at hundreds [1:39:38] of millions of dollars, [1:39:39] which is a violation [1:39:40] of the emeluments clause [1:39:42] of the Constitution? [1:39:42] It is not. [1:39:43] It is not. [1:39:46] Wow. [1:39:46] You do not belong [1:39:47] in this job, [1:39:49] Mr. Attorney, [1:39:50] acting attorney general. [1:39:51] You should always [1:39:52] and recuse yourself [1:39:54] from these issues [1:39:55] because you are [1:39:56] the president's lawyer. [1:39:58] You are not the lawyer [1:39:58] for the United... [1:39:59] I am not. [1:39:59] Thank you, Mr. Chair. [1:40:03] Mr. Clyde. [1:40:06] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:40:08] First, Mr. Acting Attorney General, [1:40:12] I'm sorry to hear [1:40:13] that the weaponization fund [1:40:14] is not moving forward. [1:40:16] You would have my full support. [1:40:19] When our government [1:40:19] is weaponized [1:40:20] so as to steal money [1:40:21] from innocent, law-abiding citizens, [1:40:23] whether by making the process [1:40:24] into the penalty [1:40:25] or forcing citizens [1:40:27] to spend their resources [1:40:28] on legal fees [1:40:29] for their defense [1:40:30] or by acting [1:40:31] or by actually seizing [1:40:32] their bank accounts [1:40:33] through civil asset forfeiture [1:40:35] when there is [1:40:35] no criminal prosecution, [1:40:37] it is only right and fair [1:40:38] to make these citizens whole. [1:40:41] And as a victim myself [1:40:42] for which every solitary member [1:40:44] on this committee [1:40:45] who is eight years [1:40:46] or more in Congress [1:40:47] voted for the bill [1:40:49] that has my name on it, [1:40:50] the federal law [1:40:50] that has my name on it [1:40:52] against the IRS, [1:40:55] people need to be made whole [1:40:56] when the government [1:40:58] has been weaponized [1:40:59] against them. [1:40:59] But what I'd like to talk [1:41:00] to you about [1:41:01] other than that [1:41:02] is in 1873, [1:41:04] Congress enacted [1:41:05] the Comstock Act, [1:41:06] 18 U.S.C. section 1461, [1:41:08] which prohibits [1:41:09] the mailing [1:41:10] of abortion-inducing materials [1:41:11] in the United States. [1:41:13] Although the statute [1:41:14] has been amended [1:41:14] numerous times, [1:41:15] including as recently [1:41:16] as 1994, [1:41:17] Congress has never repealed [1:41:18] these criminal prohibitions. [1:41:21] And as Justice Thomas [1:41:22] recently noted, [1:41:23] the Comstock Act [1:41:23] remains valid federal law [1:41:25] and is fully enforceable. [1:41:27] So my question to you is, [1:41:29] how will the Department [1:41:29] of Justice ensure [1:41:30] that this federal law [1:41:32] prohibiting the mailing [1:41:33] of abortion-inducing drugs [1:41:35] is properly enforced? [1:41:36] And I wish I had more time [1:41:37] to really go through this [1:41:38] because we in the state [1:41:39] of Georgia [1:41:40] have a heartbeat bill [1:41:43] and we prohibit [1:41:45] this type of drug, [1:41:47] all right, [1:41:47] inducing abortions. [1:41:48] And yet, [1:41:48] it can come across [1:41:49] from other states, [1:41:51] all right, [1:41:51] and kill innocent, [1:41:53] unborn children. [1:41:54] How will the Department [1:41:56] of Justice ensure [1:41:57] that this federal law [1:41:58] is enforced? [1:41:59] So that's an important law [1:42:01] and an important question. [1:42:03] And I will tell you [1:42:04] that there's a lot of effort [1:42:06] within the department [1:42:07] and it's not just [1:42:09] at the Department of Justice, [1:42:10] it's other agencies [1:42:11] in the federal government [1:42:13] into how the best way [1:42:14] is to make sure [1:42:15] that we're protecting [1:42:16] the rights of Georgians [1:42:18] and other individual states, [1:42:19] but also the rights [1:42:20] of every American. [1:42:22] And you're right, [1:42:23] I wish we had more time [1:42:24] to discuss that [1:42:25] because it's a complicated issue. [1:42:27] On the first question [1:42:29] that you asked, [1:42:30] I could not agree [1:42:31] with you more [1:42:32] that this Department [1:42:33] of Justice [1:42:34] was weaponized, [1:42:35] unfortunately, [1:42:36] against many, [1:42:37] many Americans [1:42:38] and we're trying [1:42:39] every day [1:42:40] to fix it [1:42:41] and we've made [1:42:43] a lot of progress [1:42:43] but we have a lot more to do. [1:42:45] Well, thank you [1:42:46] and by the way, [1:42:47] I had a apology [1:42:48] from Mr. Lewis, [1:42:49] the ranking member [1:42:50] of that subcommittee. [1:42:52] Y'all remember him? [1:42:53] All right. [1:42:53] He said, [1:42:54] I want to apologize [1:42:55] to you [1:42:55] for what a piece [1:42:57] of my government, [1:42:58] what the IRS did to you. [1:43:00] I wish you well. [1:43:01] I thank you [1:43:01] and I yield. [1:43:02] Mr. Ivey? [1:43:04] Thank you, [1:43:05] Mr. Chairman. [1:43:05] I wanted to ask you, [1:43:07] it's a follow-up actually [1:43:07] to a letter [1:43:08] that I think 57 [1:43:09] of my colleagues [1:43:11] and I sent. [1:43:12] This is about [1:43:12] the shootings [1:43:13] of Alex Prettium [1:43:14] is good [1:43:15] in Minneapolis. [1:43:16] The issue there [1:43:17] is the Attorney General [1:43:18] for the state [1:43:19] and I think [1:43:21] some local prosecutors [1:43:22] have said [1:43:22] they haven't been able [1:43:23] to get access [1:43:24] to the evidence [1:43:25] related to those shootings [1:43:26] so they can make [1:43:27] their own independent judgments [1:43:28] about whether [1:43:29] they should move forward [1:43:30] with cases or not. [1:43:32] The letter we sent [1:43:33] I don't think [1:43:33] has been answered [1:43:35] but are you going [1:43:37] to be committing [1:43:38] to sharing [1:43:39] that information [1:43:40] immediately [1:43:41] to these state [1:43:42] and local prosecutors? [1:43:43] No. [1:43:43] Why not? [1:43:43] No, that's not [1:43:44] what we do [1:43:44] in criminal investigations. [1:43:46] I disagree. [1:43:47] Well, I'm right. [1:43:48] You're wrong. [1:43:48] Well, let me say this. [1:43:50] Your predecessor, [1:43:51] Murad Rosenstein, [1:43:52] and I, [1:43:53] when he was [1:43:54] U.S. Attorney [1:43:54] in Maryland, [1:43:55] I was the state [1:43:55] prosecutor, [1:43:56] we shared evidence [1:43:57] in these kinds [1:43:58] of cases all the time [1:43:59] and then we made [1:44:00] a determination [1:44:00] about which would [1:44:01] go forward [1:44:02] but the refusal [1:44:03] to share evidence [1:44:04] is highly in you. [1:44:05] I didn't say [1:44:06] I refuse to share [1:44:06] evidence, sir. [1:44:07] You said do I [1:44:08] I mean immediately. [1:44:09] Right. [1:44:09] That's what I said no to. [1:44:11] We shared the evidence [1:44:12] immediately. [1:44:13] Yes, we did. [1:44:14] That's right. [1:44:15] Look, it's [1:44:15] onto the next thing. [1:44:16] You mentioned [1:44:17] that it's important [1:44:20] to make sure [1:44:20] that bad guys [1:44:21] don't just get arrested [1:44:22] but they pay back [1:44:23] their victims. [1:44:25] And that struck me [1:44:26] as ironic [1:44:26] given the number [1:44:27] of pardons [1:44:28] that this president [1:44:29] has issued [1:44:30] with respect to [1:44:32] I'll come back [1:44:34] to you later. [1:44:35] Devin Archer, [1:44:36] Sioux Nation, [1:44:37] $60 million, [1:44:38] $43 million [1:44:38] in restitution [1:44:39] was wiped away [1:44:41] by the pardon. [1:44:42] Carlos Watson, [1:44:43] $36.7 million [1:44:45] was wiped away [1:44:46] by the restitution. [1:44:47] The Chrisley's, [1:44:48] $21 million [1:44:49] was wiped away [1:44:49] by the restitution. [1:44:51] Mr. Schwartz, [1:44:52] I don't have, [1:44:52] I don't remember [1:44:53] what that number was [1:44:54] in his particular case [1:44:55] but over and over again [1:44:57] victims have been, [1:44:58] of fraud. [1:44:59] So if they personally [1:45:00] lost the money, [1:45:01] it was taken out [1:45:02] of their pockets, [1:45:04] issue a pardon, [1:45:05] they don't get paid, [1:45:06] they don't get made whole, [1:45:07] will you commit [1:45:08] to trying to find [1:45:09] a way to make [1:45:10] those people whole [1:45:11] who've been denied [1:45:12] this access [1:45:13] to the information [1:45:13] and the money? [1:45:13] As I said to you earlier, [1:45:15] sir, [1:45:15] the Constitution [1:45:16] of our United States [1:45:17] gives the president [1:45:18] the power to pardon. [1:45:19] That is not a decision [1:45:20] for me to make [1:45:21] or you to make. [1:45:22] It's a decision [1:45:23] for the president [1:45:23] of the United States [1:45:24] to make. [1:45:26] Could I have [1:45:26] just one more question, [1:45:28] Mr. Chairman? [1:45:29] Without a judgment. [1:45:30] With respect to [1:45:30] civil liability [1:45:31] for these people, [1:45:32] which they're not [1:45:33] pardoned for, [1:45:34] would you, [1:45:35] and the Department of Justice [1:45:36] can pursue civil remedies [1:45:37] in cases that involve [1:45:39] fraud? [1:45:39] Depends on the case, [1:45:40] right. [1:45:40] Depends on the case. [1:45:41] Well, [1:45:41] if they've been convicted [1:45:42] for criminal liability already, [1:45:45] certainly they can be [1:45:45] convicted or pursued civil. [1:45:46] I mean, [1:45:46] it depends on what the crime [1:45:47] they were convicted of. [1:45:48] Well, [1:45:49] I just read them off to you. [1:45:50] They were fraud convictions. [1:45:51] You didn't read off [1:45:52] the crimes. [1:45:53] No, [1:45:53] I mean, [1:45:54] it just depends. [1:45:54] I appreciate what you're saying [1:45:55] and you're right [1:45:56] that a pardon [1:45:57] doesn't cover civil liability. [1:45:58] Well, [1:45:58] you pursue civil liability [1:46:00] in these cases [1:46:00] where these people have been lost. [1:46:00] I'm not going to commit [1:46:01] to civil liability [1:46:03] right here, [1:46:03] no. [1:46:05] Time of this gentleman [1:46:06] has expired. [1:46:09] Mr. Strong. [1:46:10] Thank you, [1:46:10] Mr. Chairman. [1:46:11] Attorney General Blanche, [1:46:13] the National Children's Advocacy [1:46:15] Center located [1:46:16] in my district [1:46:16] was the original model [1:46:18] for the CAC approach [1:46:19] nationwide [1:46:20] and continues [1:46:21] to play a leading role [1:46:22] in training [1:46:22] and best practices. [1:46:24] How does the DOJ [1:46:25] view the role [1:46:26] of the National Center [1:46:27] in strengthening [1:46:28] Child Advocacy Center's [1:46:30] capacity across the country? [1:46:32] Yeah, [1:46:32] look, [1:46:32] it's extraordinarily important. [1:46:35] That's a, [1:46:37] you know, [1:46:37] the work that they're doing [1:46:39] and they've done for, [1:46:40] I mean, [1:46:40] at least many years now [1:46:42] is key to the partnership [1:46:45] and the future success [1:46:46] of making sure [1:46:47] that they're on the right path. [1:46:49] So, [1:46:49] look, [1:46:49] the DOJ plays [1:46:50] a small role in that. [1:46:52] It doesn't play [1:46:52] as important a role [1:46:53] maybe as others, [1:46:54] but that type of education [1:46:56] and work is important. [1:46:59] I understand [1:47:00] that the Victims [1:47:00] of Child Abuse Act [1:47:02] funded programs [1:47:03] include the training [1:47:04] and technical assistance [1:47:05] for child abuse [1:47:07] professionals grants [1:47:08] are coming up [1:47:09] for competition this year. [1:47:10] How does the DOJ, [1:47:12] you know, [1:47:12] thinking about [1:47:13] ensuring continuity [1:47:14] so that the training pipelines [1:47:16] and services [1:47:16] are not disruptive? [1:47:18] That goes through your department. [1:47:19] That's what our grant folks [1:47:20] do very well [1:47:21] and they'll continue to do so [1:47:23] and I definitely will [1:47:24] happy to have my folks [1:47:25] work with you [1:47:25] to make sure [1:47:26] that there's continuity there. [1:47:27] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [1:47:28] I yield back. [1:47:31] Ms. Dean? [1:47:32] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, [1:47:33] and thank you [1:47:33] for the second round. [1:47:35] I did want to explain [1:47:36] what I held up here. [1:47:37] Okay. [1:47:38] For the viewing public, [1:47:39] what you do [1:47:40] as a member of Congress [1:47:41] is you go in, [1:47:42] you release your phone, [1:47:44] you release anything [1:47:44] that would have electronics [1:47:47] and you go in [1:47:49] and you attempt [1:47:49] to capture [1:47:51] some redacted material. [1:47:53] So I took a look [1:47:54] at this email [1:47:55] from Jack Goldberger, [1:47:57] Wednesday, October 14th, 2009. [1:48:01] The subject is Trump. [1:48:03] It is to Jeffrey Epstein [1:48:04] and the language here [1:48:06] that is not redacted reads, [1:48:08] spoke to Alan Garton, [1:48:09] Trump's attorney. [1:48:10] Garton arranged [1:48:11] a 20-minute phone conference [1:48:12] with Trump and Brad [1:48:14] in lieu of a depo deposition. [1:48:16] Following was discussed. [1:48:18] The blacked-out box [1:48:19] is what was discussed, [1:48:21] a regurgitation of that. [1:48:22] I'll read to you [1:48:23] what I was able [1:48:24] to see underneath. [1:48:26] As I say, [1:48:27] it's shorthanded, [1:48:28] it's clipped [1:48:28] as a regurgitation [1:48:30] of what took place. [1:48:31] J.E. never expelled [1:48:32] from Mar-a-Lago. [1:48:33] No, he was not a member, [1:48:35] may have been a guest, [1:48:36] never asked to leave. [1:48:37] Mark Epstein said, [1:48:38] Trump on J.E. plane. [1:48:40] Is that true? [1:48:41] Answer, [1:48:42] I've been on a lot of planes, [1:48:44] may have been on his plane, [1:48:45] no young girls on plane. [1:48:46] What do you know [1:48:48] about allegations against J.E.? [1:48:50] Only what I read in the paper. [1:48:52] Trump ever at J.E. House? [1:48:54] I may have been there [1:48:55] with my wife. [1:48:56] Any young girls there? [1:48:57] No, may have been [1:48:58] some children of guest, [1:49:00] but that's it. [1:49:01] Trump specifically asked [1:49:02] Garton to advise us [1:49:04] of the interview. [1:49:06] Brad had also talked [1:49:07] to manager of Mar-a-Lago, [1:49:10] Bert Lemke. [1:49:11] Lemke confirmed, [1:49:12] J.E. never asked [1:49:14] to leave Mar-a-Lago. [1:49:15] I say that to say [1:49:17] what a silly exercise [1:49:18] that members of Congress [1:49:19] have to go through [1:49:20] to find out [1:49:21] what actual conversations [1:49:22] were taking place [1:49:23] with the president [1:49:25] in lieu of a deposition. [1:49:27] This has nothing to do [1:49:28] with redacting victims' names. [1:49:31] My only point, [1:49:32] I don't have a question for you. [1:49:33] My only point [1:49:34] is you are gravely conflicted. [1:49:37] It is so obvious [1:49:37] you are gravely conflicted. [1:49:39] These survivors [1:49:40] deserve prosecutions. [1:49:42] They deserved them years ago, [1:49:44] and now it's in your lap, [1:49:45] as Pam Bondi told us. [1:49:47] They need an independent prosecutor. [1:49:49] I hope you will do that. [1:49:51] So if I, [1:49:53] may I briefly respond? [1:49:55] The law, [1:49:56] the Epstein Transparency Act [1:49:59] requires us to redact victims. [1:50:01] We also have other laws [1:50:03] that apply that require us [1:50:04] to apply other redactions. [1:50:05] That's not my law. [1:50:06] That's your law. [1:50:08] And what was just read, [1:50:09] the reason why that was redacted, [1:50:10] the reason why that was redacted [1:50:12] is because that's [1:50:13] a privileged communication [1:50:16] between counsels. [1:50:17] So the fact that it was red [1:50:18] is fine, [1:50:19] but that wasn't redacted [1:50:21] because there were victims' names. [1:50:22] That was redacted [1:50:23] for another purpose, [1:50:24] which we're legally [1:50:25] obligated to do. [1:50:26] That concludes today's hearing. [1:50:33] I want to thank our witness, [1:50:35] Acting Attorney General Blanche, [1:50:37] for being here [1:50:38] and giving us his opinion [1:50:40] over a great stretch. [1:50:43] Without objection, [1:50:44] members may have seven days [1:50:46] to submit additional questions [1:50:48] for the record. [1:50:51] The committee stands adjourned. [1:50:53] Thank you.