Acting Attorney General Blanche testifies on Justice Department budget before Senate

[0:00] conducted 308 000 prisoner movements and housed over 55 000 detainees and provided protection [0:07] for 18 federal protectees including supreme court justices and their residences the marshals also [0:14] manage over 10 billion dollars in seized assets and are obviously essential to federal judicial [0:21] security atf continues to be a leader in the federal effort to combat violent firearms crime [0:28] since january of last year atf has arrested more than 8 700 violent offenders and seized nearly 44 000 [0:35] firearms including 5 100 which were interdicted before reaching mexico which was their intended [0:43] destination atf agencies 2.7 million rounds of ammunition more than 28 000 illegal explosives and [0:52] conducted over 3 500 arson and explosives investigations they process hundreds of [1:00] thousands of traces every year 856 000 last year alone and and are continuing to do great work [1:07] to sustain these historic results the fiscal year 2027 budget includes 22.2 billion for doj's law [1:16] enforcement components and u.s attorney's offices this is a 16 percent increase over fiscal year 26 [1:23] and these investments will build on our tremendous progress and continue and will ensure our continued [1:29] momentum and violent crime reduction nationwide we are also strengthening immigration enforcement [1:35] efforts the executive office for immigration review has completed well over 1 million immigration cases [1:42] and reduced backlog by more than 447 000 cases since president trump took office last year this budget [1:50] provides for 899 million dollars for eeyore this is to continue rebuilding our workforce and modernizing our [1:57] case processing systems across the department nearly 4 billion supports 4 billion supports 4 billion [2:03] dollars supports immigration related enforcement activities finally the department launched the [2:08] national fraud enforcement division earlier this year to expand federal fraud enforcement and better [2:14] protect taxpayer funded programs the budget includes 30 million dollars to hire 100 attorneys and [2:21] enhanced data analytics capabilities to combat large-scale criminal fraud schemes doj is also modernizing the grants [2:29] process by consolidating cops ojp and ovw into the new bureau of justice grants providing a unified and [2:37] simplified approach to federal grant making while obviously continuing to preserve the mission important missions of each office [2:45] the department faces serious budgetary constraints fiscal year 2026 marked the second year of flat budgets for several components [2:55] basically equating to a decrease in funding because costs and expenses increase every year but the budget remained flat the bureau of prisons remains under resourced [3:08] funded at 8.1 billion dollars almost 300 million below fiscal year 2025 and risks insolvency without [3:17] additional support the president's request of 10.3 billion for the bureau of prisons is essential to restore staffing [3:24] and maintaining safe and secure federal facilities in closing the fiscal year 2027 budget reflects our [3:31] unwavering commitment to public safety strong law enforcement partnerships and responsible stewardship of taxpayer dollars [3:39] with your combined continued support the department of justice will remain strong effective and fully equipped to [3:47] protect the american people thank you again for the opportunity to appear in front of you and i look forward to [3:53] your questions attorney general thank you i recognize recognize now the chairwoman of the full committee [4:00] senator collins thank you mr chairman mr attorney general yesterday the justice department announced the [4:08] creation of a nearly 1.8 billion dollar anti-weaponization fund to compensate individuals who were purportedly [4:20] targeted by the biden administration in exchange for which president trump dropped his 10 billion dollar lawsuit [4:31] against the irs for the completely inappropriate league of the president and his organization's tax data [4:42] amounts for this new fund will come from the judgment fund a permanent law appropriation for playing paying [4:50] claims and settlements brought against the united states government amounts in the judgment fund have [4:58] traditionally been used for the payment of specific claims against the government or amounts owned for [5:07] the settlement of those claims but not for future claims that have yet to be bought so i have some questions for [5:17] you first has the doj ever used amounts in the judgment fund to pay claims that have yet to be brought [5:28] against the united states government based on the settlement of a completely unrelated case thank you senator so [5:38] the short answer is yes i mean we have done this in the past this was done during the obama administration [5:43] something almost identical in structure to what we announced yesterday in that case there were [5:50] allegations made by native americans that the department of agriculture had systematically [5:56] treated them unfairly and some had filed claims there was a pending lawsuit but many had not [6:03] the a fund very similar to the one that was established yesterday was set up [6:09] i mean it was funded by in today's dollars a little over a billion dollars um and and and a single claims [6:17] commissioner was appointed to review the claims and to distribute funds in that case um at the end [6:26] there was around 300 million left over and the obama administration had set it up so that that money from the judgment fund [6:34] was distributed to nonprofits and other ngos so so what we've done with this fund um and by the way it is [6:42] true that this is unusual that is true um but it is not unprecedented and it was done to address something [6:49] that had never happened again either so there is an unprecedented nature of what we did yesterday in [6:54] response to to years and years of weaponization just to correct a few things senator um it's not limited to [7:01] um to republicans it's not limited to i didn't say it was it's not limited it's not limited to to the [7:09] biden weaponization it's not limited to um in any way scope or form to january 6 or to um jack smith [7:18] there's no limitation on the on the claims um so and the other thing we've done just to finish up in [7:26] comparison to to what was done previously is we intend to appoint five commissioners um and also [7:33] at the end the money goes back to any leftover funds go back to the federal government not to [7:37] nonprofits so how would the commission that you've just referenced that oversees the fund determine [7:45] whether future claims from the fund are eligible to be paid out of it and how will they determine how [7:53] much will be paid for each claim what's the legal basis for those decisions so there's well there's [8:01] there's commissions that are established all the time where a commissioner is charged with [8:05] determining the correct amount if any to repay a claimant who's asking for funds so in this case [8:13] what we expect is the commissioners will will take in information it's entirely voluntary if if an [8:19] individual wants to apply and assert that they were a victim of weaponization and the commission can [8:25] do anything according to to what was set up yesterday from issuing an apology to the to the claimant [8:31] to awarding um to awarding compensation and the monetary comments compensation so it depends on on the [8:38] claim and there will be five commissioners who will review each each claim it won't be reviewed by me [8:43] it won't be reviewed by by others in the administration it'll be reviewed by the five commissioners [8:49] aren't those commissioners appointed by the president no they're appointed by four of them are appointed [8:56] by the attorney general and one of them is appointed by the attorney general in consultation with [9:00] leadership of this body will the information related to the claims be publicly reported so that's [9:09] a good question i mean look there's privacy laws that exist so i i don't want to sit here today and say [9:14] every scintilla of data collected will be released but of course i mean of course there's there's the [9:21] there's accountability that that the commission has a quarterly report that has to come to [9:26] the attorney general which will will certainly be public there's a process that that you all will get [9:32] information and there's a foyer process so i very much anticipate that the claims that are awarded [9:38] the basis in the amount will for sure be be made public along the way let me switch to a different [9:45] issue which chairman moran brought up along with chairman moran and other members of this committee [9:53] i was one of the lead sponsors of the violence against women act reauthorization of two of 2022 [10:03] these programs are critical to reducing violence against women ensuring that justice is served and [10:12] strengthening services to victims and survivors of domestic violence dating violence sexual assault and [10:20] stalking in maine the rural victims program is especially critical despite the importance and effectiveness of [10:31] these programs the department's budget request proposes reducing funding from by about 25 percent why [10:42] is the department proposing a reduction in funding to combat domestic violence and to [10:50] support survivors well first of all i completely agree with you that these are extraordinarily important [10:56] programs and the funds are are well used um to to support these programs we have asked for 539 [11:04] million dollars i believe in in money to support all these programs and and that i mean look there's a lot [11:10] of money that goes 190 million for grants to combat you know to stop the stop grants which is extraordinarily [11:17] important and so it is a priority um obviously there's we have to make choices and the president's [11:24] budget has to make choices on where to spend that money but it is extraordinarily important and and the [11:28] 539 million dollars that we've asked for will go to support all these programs i mean so yes there's [11:35] we are asking less for less money than than the budget had last year but it's not because we don't view [11:40] it as extraordinarily important well i would suggest that cutting the budget for these important [11:47] programs by 25 percent is a huge cut and i hope that's something the subcommittee will take a close [11:56] look at thank you mr chairman thank you senator collins senator van holland now thank you mr chairman [12:03] mr attorney general this is an outrageous unprecedented slush fund that you set up simple question will [12:10] eligible will individuals who assaulted capitol hill police officers be eligible for this fund [12:16] well as it makes plain anybody is just let me know if they're eligible for the fund as as [12:22] as was made plain yesterday anybody in this country is eligible to apply if they believe they [12:29] are victim weaponization mr attorney general let me ask you this are there going to be rules that say [12:33] that if you've assaulted a capitol hill police officer or committed a violent crime you will not be [12:39] eligible why not make that a rule i expect that the well because i'm not one of the commissioners [12:44] setting up the rules i expect there will be four of the five members aren't you mr attorney general [12:48] pardon me you're appointing four of the five members i am appointing you can certainly set [12:52] up the rules i would hope you would make a rule that anyone convicted of assaulting a police officer [12:56] of violent crime is simply not eligible they should not apply well let me let me ask you this because [13:02] you compared it to the keep siegel case but i think you know full well that in that case the [13:07] settlement agreement was approved by a federal judge including the payments to people who were [13:13] not originally parties to the lawsuit no federal judge has approved this fund have they mr attorney [13:19] general no no federal judge did approve so that's a big difference between this case and the case that [13:24] you compared it to no it's not what did a judge sign off on this case no a judge did sign off on the [13:31] other one yes but your question was whether it's a big difference it's not of course it is because [13:35] that allows for an independent person to look at it rather than the there was no independence there [13:41] was no independence there was a single commissioner that a judge signed off on it a judge had nothing [13:45] to do with deciding the money there was a judge who looked at it and signed off on it so to compare [13:50] that case to this one is incredibly deceptive let me ask you this about the epstein case because as we [13:59] speak many epstein survivors are in new york they're reading portions of the epstein files [14:06] about the abuse that they suffered otherwise they might have been here with us today at a house [14:11] hearing your predecessor refused to acknowledge the pain experienced by some of those victims when the [14:18] administration improperly released their names in identifying information so i want to know where [14:24] you stand i spoke to the representatives of some of the epstein survivors yesterday they are extremely [14:31] frustrated that you keep calling for people to come forward with more evidence but you have not met [14:37] with them to hear their stories so simple question if i connect you with these survivors will you meet [14:45] with them absolutely and what you just said is false i have met with them i've met with many many of the [14:51] lawyers for the survivors of victims as did attorney general bondi so whoever told you that [14:55] unfortunately gave you bad information okay i would encourage them i would encourage them to reach [15:00] out to the department of justice because like we do every single day we absolutely care for victims [15:06] and we absolutely want to hear from them and their lawyers well i'm i i've been told directly uh from [15:13] the representatives they've not had a chance at least this group to meet with you so i'm glad to hear [15:19] they represent they asked for a meeting can i can i can i ask you to commit that the [15:26] justice department will not recommend a pardon for anyone named in the epstein files can you repeat [15:33] that question i'm sorry i didn't hear what you said can you commit that the justice department you [15:39] the acting attorney general would not recommend a pardon for people named in the epstein files when [15:45] you say people named i have no there's tens of thousands hundreds of thousands of quote people [15:51] named how about jelaine maxwell can you commit that you yes i can commit to that of course [15:55] let me go back to this slush fund because there's also an individual who after being pardoned by the [16:06] president went on to molest two children and that person actually tried to buy the silence of these [16:14] children by saying that he would pay them some of the funds that he was hoping to get from your slush fund [16:22] can you commit to making the rule so that that person is not eligible for a payout under this fund [16:29] well you're obviously lying in your question because there's no way that this person committed [16:34] to that but this the slush fund as you call it which is not didn't i i'm sure but i can commit [16:39] mr attorney general don't ever do that again i am reporting what again he said he said on the [16:46] expectation that he hoped to get some of the funds from a payout he's he's been you said from the [16:52] slush fund senator and that didn't exist when he said that this is the fund that the president and [16:57] all of you have been telegraphing all along that you're going to use to help the president's friends [17:04] can you point to a telegraph what telegraph did i have a last question for you do you know [17:11] that it is a criminal offense to lie to congress i am very well aware of that i'm glad to hear that [17:19] thank you senator kennedy thank you mr chairman general how are you i'm great thank you senator [17:35] um in america unlike other countries where they let you die in a ditch in america if you're too poor to [17:48] be sick we'll pay for your doctor isn't that right it is and it and one of the programs we do that through [17:56] is medicaid correct okay and this this money for medicaid it didn't just fall from heaven it we thank [18:07] heaven for it but it came out of people's pockets didn't it every dime of it and some of that money [18:14] is stolen isn't it yes and the states not all of them but many of them allow it to be stolen don't they [18:23] yes let's take medicaid in california for example i don't mean to just pick on california [18:32] but because this happens in other states we saw it happened in happened in minnesota for example [18:39] but in california for every dollar that the the the california state government puts up for medicaid [18:49] for the obamacare portion of medicaid we put up the federal taxpayer puts up nine dollars don't they [18:57] and so is that right that's correct senator and so as a result california has allowed thousands and [19:05] thousands of of of these social assistance and so-called healthcare providers pop up in california [19:15] haven't they yes and some of those providers steal the money don't they yes we know that to be true [19:22] and the money never gets to the people they supposedly are trying to help correct that's [19:26] correct and the other way that california and others abuse the fact that they're putting up one [19:32] dollar and the american taxpayers putting up nine dollars did i mention it was nine dollars i think [19:37] some say it's even more but yeah nine work uh they expand the services don't they yes because some [19:43] states like california i don't want to paint with too broad a brush it's not everybody in california [19:49] state government but it's a lot of them they see this as free money don't they they're not paying for it [19:55] yes isn't it a fact that for example medicaid in california will pay a provider to provide tribal [20:06] prayers i looked all this up i mean i'll accept that i didn't know that but yes that that california [20:13] will actually pay a health care provider i didn't know this was a medical expertise to pay for exorcisms [20:20] is that right i'll accept that senator but that's that's they pay the california medicaid program will [20:28] pay for herbal medicines meal deliveries they'll pay for housing i don't know what housing has to [20:37] do with health care is that correct yes were you aware that that the medicaid program using federal [20:45] money taxpayer money will pay for uh an in-home chef yes okay if it's a family member yes yeah they'll [20:54] even pay for for gymnasium fees through medicaid in california um they'll pay for bicycles scooters gym [21:05] memberships did you know that uh yes several states do but california does for sure they'll even repay [21:12] your student loans were you aware of that i was not aware of the student loans yeah yeah they'll [21:19] repay somebody's student loans to encourage them to become a health care provider um i mean california [21:26] they're just setting all kind of records these folks are are they're wild people um california's got [21:36] 12 percent of the population in the last uh 10 years they're responsible for half of these new [21:43] so-called health providers to provide exorcisms and other things now what the hell are we doing about it [21:50] why has this gone on for so long it's a senator listen it's a great question and what you just [21:55] described are are programs that are allowed under the program you have a whole other issue in california [22:00] where a lot of these folks are just stealing the money not even not even running it through for [22:05] exorcism they're thieves aren't they they're thieves correct correct and and california just watches it [22:11] happen don't they not everybody in california the government though does though doesn't it well that's [22:18] the challenge in a lot of states is that we don't have a state government which we you all have entrusted [22:23] to run these programs and take care of the money that you all give them there's state structures that [22:28] that absolutely do not do any compliance and they don't do their job and because they don't have [22:32] no incentive to they're getting free money isn't that right yes i think so yes we got to change [22:39] this general we're trying i call this a slush fund you want to talk about slush fund this is this is a [22:47] tier one slush fund that's been going on for years and years and years billions and hundreds of billions [22:55] of dollars is stolen yes senator and that's why look this department stood up a whole new fraud division [23:04] and ausa's around the country prosecute fraud every day so it's not as if we weren't we weren't we [23:08] didn't have the work out there but it's so systematically taking money from the american [23:13] taxpayer that we very much believe that it needs its own stand-up structure and i think it's true for [23:19] the reasons that you just said if you need an exorcism you can go to california camp thank you senator [23:27] thank you chairman moran ranking member van holland thank you acting attorney general blanche for [23:31] appearing before us today i want to talk about some areas where i think we're making progress and we [23:36] can work together and then raise some real concerns i have um i do think um it's worth recognizing the [23:43] hard work of the men and women of the department and the progress you're making on combating fentanyl and [23:47] a violent crime i've long been involved in criminal justice reform uh talked with and worked with your [23:53] predecessor in this i was pleased to see the president's message during second chance month [23:58] where he said he wants to ensure those who take responsibility and seek to rebuild their lives have [24:03] a chance to succeed senator lee and i have a bill called the safer supervision act that's co-sponsored [24:09] by senators tillis and wicker kramer and langford it's got strong law enforcement and conservative [24:15] support and it fits squarely in that framework currently federal supervision is imposed in nearly [24:20] every case leading to badly overworked federal probation officers who then can't properly supervise [24:26] those who actually most need it there's more than 120 000 people on average per year being supervised and [24:32] this bill would help ensure courts are more thoughtful more analytic when deciding when to impose [24:38] supervision is this a piece of legislation you can support so what you just said i very much agree [24:45] with so i without looking at every word of the legislation what you i there's no disagreement from [24:51] me on a word you just uttered well thank you i'd like to work with you on that yes i look forward to [24:55] that um let me raise two questions um i've been gravely concerned about ip theft especially from china the [25:01] whole time i've served i was struck that the department's proposed budget cuts the funds for [25:06] ip enforcement why and is the department under your leadership committed to protecting american [25:12] innovation very committed and while you're calling it a cut senator i would say that that it's a major [25:19] focus of a lack of an increase well no no i don't mean lack of an increase i mean that it's we're we're [25:25] focused on it at the u.s attorney's office level so when we take money and spend it around the u.s [25:31] attorney's offices and so it's it's baked into that big number rest assured every u.s attorney's [25:36] office all 93 of them are focused on on the threats that we have from there and so we're trying [25:41] to spend our money more wisely chair collins raised a concern about the vic the violence against women [25:46] act funds let me raise a concern about the victims of child abuse act programs senator roy blunt and i [25:52] worked to reauthorize this program i've long been actively engaged with it i've seen how children's [25:56] advocacy centers in delaware make a critical difference bringing together law enforcement [26:01] medical mental health professionals to do child abuse investigations in a child-centered way to make [26:07] sure children are not re-victimized the number of victims served by these centers has increased four [26:12] fold over 25 years why are you proposing cutting this program so we're we have asked for 41 million [26:20] dollars for that program and i could i agree with you and i i want to work with you to make sure that [26:24] we're spending that 41 million where we should i agree with you it's extraordinarily important and [26:29] has had a lot of success over the past 15 20 years as it's been up and running um thank you let me return [26:35] to the line of questioning from the ranking member senator van holland that i strongly agree with um i'm just [26:41] looking at the settlement agreement in trump versus irs and i just want to make sure i heard you properly [26:47] when you responded previously um your announcement said that the fund will send you quarterly reports [26:55] will you commit to making these reports fully public so americans know who's getting taxpayer dollars [27:01] out of the settlement fund this says they'll be confidential this is section 4 part e of the [27:06] settlement agreement the reason why i want to be careful in my answer is because there's obviously [27:10] laws that exist around privacy that would may prevent some of the information that the that the [27:16] commission takes in from being fully public beyond that there will be full transparency and i commit [27:22] to you that beyond the the applicable laws that exist around privacy and privileges and whatnot but as [27:28] far as being transparent and having those quarterly reports released yes thank you you referenced a [27:35] previous case i think it was keep siegel versus vilsack under the previous administration um did that case [27:41] involve a president suing his own government and then settling that case before it could be [27:46] reviewed or approved by a judge so no and neither does the commission it did not and so when you [27:52] suggested that they're nearly identical they're not identical i think there's a critical difference [27:56] here president trump is the first president to sue his own government and then direct his chosen [28:03] acting attorney general to reach this kind of settlement will you commit that none of president trump's [28:10] family will receive a direct payout from this fund [28:13] yes but you what you just said is not true i mean i if i can correct that please the president did not [28:20] direct me to do anything and secondly when we said it was that the structure of the commission is similar [28:26] to to keep siegel you're that's true it wasn't the case the underlying case is not the same the structure [28:32] of the commission is the same as the keeps eagle has it ever happened that a sitting president sued his own [28:39] government for 10 billion dollars and then directed the settlement of the case and the establishment [28:45] of a payout fund not that i'm aware but there's a lot of things that president trump's the first of [28:49] no president had been indicted one two three four five six seven eight times either correct no president's [28:55] been indicted and will you commit that none of this money will go to president trump's campaign donors [29:01] i am not committing to anything beyond the settlement agreement itself when you say campaign donors [29:06] that they are not excluded from seeking compensation last question during police week i heard from a [29:11] number of law enforcement friends who found it appalling that there was the possibility that folks [29:16] like the peace the oath keepers um the proud boys who had assaulted capital police officers could receive [29:24] multi-million dollar payouts from this fund will you commit that no one who has been convicted of [29:30] assaulting a police officer will receive a payout from this fund so i i shared the concerns that [29:36] apparently members of law enforcement gave to you last week although none of this was announced last [29:40] week so that's surprising but they had heard rumors there would be a settlement fund okay um but anybody [29:46] can apply the commission will so the commissioners will will set rules i'm sure um that's not for me to [29:51] set that's for the commissioners and and and whether and whether an individual an oath keeper as you just [29:56] mentioned applies for compensation um is anybody in this country can apply well we'll be watching this [30:02] very closely uh as this goes forward i don't think the settlement fund should be set up this way or for [30:07] these purposes i appreciate your answers today thank you mr thank you thank you mr chairman mr attorney general [30:14] thank you for being here this morning and responding to our questions i want to uh follow on a couple that [30:19] have been asked with regards to um uh the department of justice's state and local law enforcement [30:25] programs um 1.2 billion dollars in in proposed cuts we're looking at it very carefully because [30:32] many of these grants and programs have significant impact on our state small population large area to [30:38] deal with the budget also calls for consolidation of the office of violence against women the community [30:47] oriented policing services and the ojp programs [30:52] um is the office of tribal justice one of the offices that are also intended to be consolidated [31:01] we're just consolidating the grant components so so ojp um cops and then ovita and by the way we're not [31:08] combining them we're just making them more efficient so they will still maintain their own um independence [31:14] and brand for lack of a better word but what we heard from the field is that there were incons inappropriate [31:21] inconsistencies and inefficiencies and having three separate kind of um bureaucracies running each of [31:27] those programs so that's what i don't disagree with wanting to reduce bureaucracies my interest is making sure [31:33] that the fidelity of these grants and the availability to very rural um and oftentimes just very high cost [31:41] because of what we're dealing with out there um that they do not get get overlooked because when you have [31:48] cuts to the level that you're proposing um one has to assume that okay you can talk about reducing the [31:56] bureaucracy and just um what the program itself might look like but again my interest is making sure that [32:03] uh this much needed assistance is still uh pushed down to the very very local levels senator um i assure you [32:12] that that the rural communities and i i appreciate that there's they have the most challenges applying for [32:17] grants because of just the way they're structured lack of capacity of course and and there's [32:21] obviously i forget the exact percentage but a large percentage of our grants do go to rural [32:27] communities as they should and rural police departments as they should and and we are going to [32:32] continue to do that i mean there's the cops office is required to distribute half of it half of [32:36] the grants to rural communities but just and i don't want to take up all your time senator but that's one of the reasons why we built in [32:43] we're trying to make it more efficient because the field said um especially rural communities big cities [32:48] don't have issues applying for grants they have a bunch of people that can do it and so yes we are [32:53] very focused on that in in tribal justice space but also in the grant space well um know that we're [32:59] watching this one very carefully i i understand that in response to senator collins you acknowledged [33:04] 25 percent cut to the office on violence against women um i was very involved in that reauthorization [33:13] and within that we provide that ovw may not be subsumed by another grant making component within [33:20] doj so we want to make sure that again doj is going to maintain ovw's statutory responsibilities [33:30] um and how they move forward with their grant making and and not losing out on that subject we [33:36] will and we're aware of that yes ma'am let me let me ask about uh the not invisible act uh this was [33:42] legislation that i introduced some years ago it became law um may 5th is the day that we recognize as [33:50] missing and murdered indigenous persons awareness day we had a big round table that senator sullivan helped to [33:57] organize uh just a couple weeks ago i had a lot of the folks from from your department along with [34:02] alaska state and local as well as tribal one of the things that kept coming up was we uh the the commission [34:11] issued its final report i thought it was pretty substantive um they issued it november 1 of 2023 after [34:19] great testimony and consultation all across indian country but then it was removed the report was [34:27] removed um uh very early on in in the second trump administration and the related materials have [34:33] been removed from doj and the department of interior websites so people keep asking me where'd it go why [34:42] what is happening and uh i we tried to get further information to that um again up in anchorage a couple [34:49] weeks ago so the question to you is why was the report taken down when will it be restored [34:56] and more importantly what concrete steps is doj taking with um the department of others and others [35:04] to implement the recommendations we don't want the work of this really important commission to just [35:10] kind of sit and be ignored yes so i i don't have an answer as to why it was taken down but i will get [35:16] back to you promptly i will tell you appreciate that yeah and and in your big picture question we are on the [35:22] same page when it comes to um to tribal justice and the work that we have to do with our native american [35:29] community and making sure that we're giving them the resources the law enforcement i've visited um [35:34] two so far as as the deputy attorney general my staff has gone out to multiples to northern new york [35:41] the dakotas oklahoma and we'll continue to do that i think that at the end of the day it is a funding and [35:47] training issue that that is that is our responsibility and and i recognize that and it's a [35:53] priority well and we've seen positive signals um in the first trump administration that was when [35:58] operation lady justice was stood up i think that that is good we need to continue on that you've put [36:04] good people um tasked to this but this is where it's it gets confusing because when you have a public [36:10] facing website that helps people navigate through some of the reporting and the lack of data uh that's [36:18] where we could use a little help so if you can get back with me on that i would appreciate it i will [36:23] thank you mr chairman um thank you mr acting attorney general for being here um as you alluded to in [36:31] your opening statement there is an acute staffing shortage at the bureau prisons at fci berlin in new [36:37] hampshire staffing levels have dropped to 58 percent of authorized levels and that's at a time when [36:44] correctional officers are being asked to take on added duties where they have detainees being sent to [36:51] our federal prison and the retention incentives have dropped significantly so as you point out the bureau [36:59] received an additional three billion dollars in the reconciliation bill to address staffing issues [37:05] and you're asking for additional funding which i appreciate but how do you plan to use those [37:10] supplemental funds to address recruitment and detention of staff at facilities like fci berlin thank [37:17] you for that question it is a crisis and the crisis on staffing is is twofold one is we're not paying them [37:23] enough and they can walk across the street to county jails and make more money and two because we're not [37:28] paying them enough there's shortages so they're required to work overtime they're required to to actually i [37:33] understand the problem can you explain what you're going to do to address it we're doing both i mean [37:38] we're we're addressing the compensation and we've already um worked with with director marshall over [37:43] the past several months to give some retention money to to officers who are staying but we have to pay them [37:49] more and we have to make it worthwhile for them to stay and that the only way to do that is with money [37:54] the only way i can i can tell you that fci berlin has not seen that money yet and it's going to be [37:59] critical to get it out let me change to another topic because we have a new dea drug lab in londonderry [38:07] new hampshire i'm very pleased that we've got that new england regional drug lab i worked hard [38:13] to try and support the effort to get it there but i'm concerned now that dea doesn't have the personnel [38:19] that they need in order to fully operate it and when we raised this at hearings both in the house and [38:24] senate um with dea what they told us was that doj has routinely denied its request for greater [38:33] allocations of personnel meaning that they are going to have difficulties hiring the sufficient [38:38] personnel they need to fully operate this new lab so can you commit that you will ensure that the [38:45] personnel that are needed to operate the lab are able to be hired yes and our budget asks for that [38:51] funding and and i agree with you senator that it's crucial to have that and that there's shortages [38:57] you're right as let me weigh in on with senator collins and senator murkowski and their concerns about [39:06] the office of violence against women and the grants um i don't support the cut of 25 for that budget [39:14] but we have a greater issue because my staff has heard from organizations in new hampshire [39:21] working on domestic violence concerns that the department is continuing to hold fiscal year 25 [39:28] funding for the office and for some of these organizations they had their grants canceled [39:34] early in 2025. this disruption has caused those organizations to scale back [39:40] to start laying off staff which limits their ability to help survivors so when is the department [39:45] going to make available the fiscal year 25 and 26 grant funds that have already been approved by congress [39:54] so we the the nofos for two of the three agencies are all out and back um there's one nofo that's that's [40:02] that's pending from 25 that we expect to get out any day now and then we'll start working on on 26 and [40:09] so we're it's done on a rolling basis and um we and we're working um every day very hard to get that [40:16] money out as far as um grants that were canceled i believe 330 some were canceled just about five or six [40:26] percent of the overall grants awarded um for various reasons but grants that were more than that were [40:32] initially canceled and and the grant those are grants that had been approved by congress that had already [40:36] been sent out why is the department canceling funding that our organizations are depending on [40:42] in order to help survivors well it's not that they were approved by congress the money was and and so [40:47] for a very small portion of a very small portion of grants they simply they were canceled for various [40:52] reasons so well they were canceled because doge came in and made significant cuts and the department [40:58] the administration has made cuts i i guess i'm not going to argue with you about why that happened i think [41:04] it was wrong i'm going to acknowledge your commitment to ensure that those funds are going to go out [41:11] to the organizations that they're depending on them so that they can serve the people who need it [41:15] i commit to that thank you um last fall the u.s trustee for region one didn't name a new chapter 13 [41:24] standing trustee for new hampshire instead he assigned new hampshire's duties to main standing [41:30] trustee over the objections of the new hampshire bankruptcy bar the transition from new hampshire [41:36] standing trustee to the new main trustee who's supposed to be serving both states has not gone [41:43] well debtors who had completed their payments were not being discharged from bankruptcy creditors and [41:49] attorneys were not getting paid in fact a motion to remove the new hampshire and maine trustee was filed [41:55] and the new hampshire bankruptcy judge admonished the trustee but unfortunately didn't ultimately [42:02] remove him i am very concerned that we have granite staters who need to use the chapter 13 bankruptcy [42:10] and that they're being disadvantaged because of this decision for whatever reason we have no idea because [42:17] the u.s government doesn't pay those standing trustees there's no reason that's not a benefit in terms of [42:25] savings so i don't know if it was a shot at new hampshire or what the issue was but will you commit [42:31] to naming a new hampshire only chapter 13 standing trustee and look into this because it's a real [42:37] problem so we have that mr general the time is expired so if you can quickly wrap that up i would [42:42] appreciate it we we have that in many districts not just new hampshire and we're working very hard to [42:48] rectify it um for the reasons that you say the challenges it presents so you will look into that and try [42:54] we've been looking into it and we'll continue to do so senator yes thank you mr general appreciate [43:02] you being here today i wanted to start with an issue that i raised with you in your confirmation [43:06] hearing in the senate judiciary committee we talked about the executive office for immigration reform [43:12] some people call it e-o-i-r some people call it eeyore but ultimately it oversees our immigration courts [43:20] as you're aware there was a significant backlog that was left by the biden harris administration [43:25] unfortunately they created a culture of that of dragging their feet and not actually completing [43:29] these cases i know they also rolled back a number of reforms that were put in place during the first [43:36] trump administration to ensure that our immigration courts functioned in an efficient manner by contrast [43:42] obviously under the current trump administration the courts in fy25 have completed the highest number [43:48] of cases that we have seen in a single year in eeyore's history um finally achieved a reduction in the case [43:56] backlog and hopefully that's something that we can continue i saw in your budget that you increased this [44:02] by 12 percent i wanted to talk is that going to help you continue um on that on eliminating this backlog [44:09] improve efficiencies and operations of these immigration courts and then also on that how does the budget [44:15] request support efforts to actually modernize this process making sure that we're not only using the [44:20] current system but we're looking at how can we be more efficient in the future yes thank you senator the [44:25] first answer the in reverse order we have asked for 37 million dollars to to modernize the it programs [44:33] that the immigration courts use that in and of itself will create efficiencies that will help us [44:38] in in ways that that should have happened years and years ago and it didn't we're also asking for more [44:44] money because we need more judges and the big beautiful bill gave us a authority to hire a bunch of [44:49] immigration judges and we're hiring a ton um we have a graduation tomorrow the largest graduation of [44:54] immigration judges um in in many many years if not history and we're continuing to try to find good [45:01] judges that will work hard and and the the budget also you know a judge needs staff so a judge needs [45:07] clerks to help process the cases the you know we've we have almost 500 000 um cases were processed last [45:14] year that's extraordinary and we're we're getting into the backlog but when you're when you have [45:19] something like four million immigration cases four million immigration cases backed up even if you [45:26] you cut it down by a million a year you're still looking at three or four years to catch up but but we're [45:31] we're very focused on doing that we we tell our new judges they're going to be working harder than they've ever [45:36] worked in their lives and and we expect that and and so this budget is is really addressing that the [45:43] it problem and the staffing challenge that we have good thank you um i'm changing gears a little bit [45:50] obviously we are so proud to see the crackdown on crime across the country um lowest murder rate that [45:56] that we have we have seen um the significant just you know actually getting back to the mission of [46:02] getting the bad guys and putting criminals behind bars i talked to director patel about this last [46:07] week but there's great work being done by the fbi and doj and my home state um operation southern [46:15] star in montgomery has been significant that's where i live we appreciate that effort i know that [46:22] communities across the country appreciate the work that you're doing can you discuss how this request [46:27] increase in resources that you have in this budget is going to allow us to build on the current [46:33] successes and enhance cooperation with state and local partners across the country so that we can do [46:39] more of what we've seen in montgomery over the operation southern star yes so there is nothing more [46:45] important than our state and local partnerships when it comes to combating violent crime nearly every [46:50] violent criminal that's arrested by the feds the feds are assisted by a cop or a detective or a trooper [46:56] in that case and so when we talk about the work that the federal government and the fbi and dea and [47:01] marshals and atf and hsi have done over the past year we are really talking about the work that they [47:06] did partnering with the state and locals so our budget reflects that we want 2.9 billion for state [47:12] and local grants that's money that's going to go to to law enforcement to combat violent crime 12 billion [47:17] for our budget for violent crime and you said that but i i want to make sure i'm giving props to the [47:24] great men and women of law enforcement in our country it worked and we did see meaningful [47:29] reductions in violent crime which means everybody everybody's streets are safer than they were a [47:34] year and a half ago well as someone who is raising up to two teenagers and wants these streets to be [47:39] safer particularly the ones um you know where where all these families are trying to to build um their [47:45] lives we say thank you um last question i know that the budget um also uh is going to stand up the [47:53] national fraud enforcement division i know that there's been a lot of misnomers about that out [47:57] there it is important we make sure that taxpayer dollars are used judiciously and the people who [48:02] do not do that are held accountable can you talk about some of the work that the division has been [48:08] doing and how the funding will allow doj to continue protecting americans and their hard-earned tax [48:13] dollars yes so we asked for 30 million dollars because we need lawyers to to help build this new [48:18] division up and what we've done already and you've seen it in the news um in minnesota and other [48:23] locations really everywhere minnesota's been a focus but but in every state the national fraud division [48:29] has an a usa assigned to to that division now and their their goal is very simple to find criminals who [48:36] are stealing from the government that's it and so that that comes in the area of health care but it comes [48:41] in in a lot of different places and i expect that everybody in in this body will be very satisfied [48:47] with the work when i come back um next time because it's doing great work americans are sick of people [48:52] not being held accountable so we hope that we we see some people um actually prosecuted for for these [48:58] crimes thank you so much thank you um senator merkley thank you madam chair and senator murray do you [49:07] do you want to jump in first okay uh thank you acting attorney general so the the budget has a 500 [49:13] million dollar cut to the cops grants those grants are certainly important to our local law enforcement [49:19] for staff for equipment for investigations um is there any particular reason that you think the police [49:25] departments need less money now than they did before and and would you be supportive if if we advocate [49:32] for more funding rather than less so local law enforcement needs all the money we can get i agree with [49:38] that very much and whether we would i would be supportive of of of more money that you all come [49:42] together for local law enforcement yeah yes i will i mean look thank you thank you i appreciate that [49:47] uh there is a bill called the stop institutional child abuse act uh that senators on both sides of [49:53] the aisle supported including senators tuberville and cornyn and this is about the troubled teen industry [49:59] where there are are basically all kinds of um fairly unregulated without oversight companies that say hey [50:08] you send your teen to us and and we'll get them on the right path uh this institutional care often [50:16] results in institutional abuse and what we did when we passed and funded that bill because we have both [50:22] authorized it and then we we funded it was to have the national academies of science study because there's [50:28] 50 000 kids that are in these institutional settings each year they're often taken away in the middle of [50:34] middle of the night under arrangements with the the parents the parents think they're sending their [50:37] kids to get help but often they're sending their kids into abuse will you take a look at this issue [50:44] and just kind of track the national academies as they proceed to study this and if there are ways that we [50:51] can reduce abuse um help help us find that path yes of course thank thank you uh to follow up uh you noted that [51:00] it would be up to the five commissioners that you appoint to determine whether there are any [51:05] guidelines will you encourage the folks that you select to ensure that folks who were convicted of [51:13] violent acts against police officers do not get compensation from this fund well they i expect they [51:19] will they don't have the option of establishing guidelines the commissioners will establish guidelines [51:24] and so will you encourage them to have a guideline that says those who have been convicted of violent [51:29] acts against police officers are not eligible i will definitely encourage the commissioners to [51:36] take everything into account when determining who should get compensation but why not this specific [51:40] issue of violent acts convicted of violent acts against police officers do you feel they should get [51:45] compensation after being convicted of violent acts my feelings don't don't matter senator in my mind [51:50] my mind is not limiting to um to say this yes i will commit to this or that what i will commit to [51:56] is making sure that the commissioners are are effectively doing their jobs and that includes [52:01] setting guidelines like you're describing okay i i i i'm disappointed that you feel it's acceptable that [52:09] those who are convicted i definitely did not say that definitely did not say that i didn't say i found it [52:15] acceptable senator will you agree to encourage those commissioners to set a guideline that compensation [52:22] will not go to individuals who are convicted of assaulting police officers i expect i just a yes [52:29] would answer my question or no yes will not answer that question i mean you're asking whether i will [52:33] encourage i don't think that's a fair word i don't think it's the attorney general's job to encourage [52:37] commissioners to do or not do anything okay well we'll move on but i will say that you have complete [52:42] power over who you appoint so you have huge influence you are going to be evaluating the uh inclinations and [52:49] and attitudes of those who will serve and certainly this looks extraordinary you described it as as [52:55] as parallel to a fund set up to compensate native americans who were discriminated against in the [53:01] agricultural world it's not parallel at all uh president obama did not sue his own department of [53:08] justice he did not have a judge saying that uh williams had let's see this how did she put it [53:17] kathleen williams the judge handling the lawsuit dismissed the case and inner finally admonished [53:21] the government agency notably the justice department for not being transparent about the [53:27] settlement deal williams previously assigned a group of attorneys to determine whether there [53:33] was a conflict of case since as sitting president trump was suing entities quote entities whose [53:37] decisions are subject to his direction this type of conflict of interest did not at all involved [53:45] in the fund set up to compensate those who are discriminated against uh in the agricultural [53:49] realm i want to go on to the epstein investigation is it closed or open when you say the epstein [53:55] investigation what are you referring to senator well the fbi said in in uh last year in july that it had [54:01] closed the epstein investigation so i'm just using their words is it open or closed i don't believe the [54:06] fbi said that the the that that's well and if you're referring your head of the department of justice is [54:12] the epstein investigation open or closed but i i i guess i don't understand what epstein investigation [54:16] means the investigation well let me put it Jeffrey Epstein himself yes he's dead any investigation [54:21] into potential other bad guys will always be open if we have evidence that supports in any way shape [54:28] or form that we can make a case okay so uh trump said in november this was after the fbi and it was [54:34] the fbi words when they said the investigation was closed but what trump wrote in november of last year [54:41] i'll be asking the attorney general pam bondi and the department of justice together with our great [54:47] patriots fbi to investigate jeffrey epstein's involvement and relationships with and he gave [54:52] a specific list bill clinton larry summers reid hoffman people at jp morgan and many other people to [54:59] determine what was going on is there a list particularly targeted at democrats as opposed to being if you will [55:10] blind uh blind to party affiliation investigations that are being pursued under your direction the [55:17] the any investigation no matter republican democrat man woman old young any investigation will be open [55:24] if the department of justice and the fbi have evidence that a crime has been committed and that [55:27] doesn't i mean you're talking about you commit to pursue regardless of political affiliation excuse me [55:33] senator you commit to pursuing investigations free of prejudice about party affiliation of course [55:39] yes well you say of course but this enemy has repeatedly this president has repeatedly spoken of [55:45] an enemy's list that he wants to go after and i must say it's one of the symbols of the breakdown [55:51] of a democratic republic when a president uses his department of justice which you now had to go after [55:57] his perceived political enemies i hope you won't be party to that thank you i mean i couldn't agree with [56:02] you more and that's why what happened when during the bide administration was so disgusting that is [56:06] disgusting that is completely inappropriate and wrong there is no comparison to the absolute [56:13] fair-minded pursuit of justice under the previous administration and this administration's pursuit [56:18] of an enemy's list thank you senator murray i believe senator fisher was next yeah uh senator fisher [56:28] so glad of you to join us thank you trying to ingratiate myself with the ranking member of the [56:35] no you just you didn't see me at the kiddie table it's it's fine so mr attorney general welcome uh senator murkowski [56:43] brought up to you about the consolidation of the grant programs and also that the budget request is 1.2 [56:52] billion dollars a cut to the state and local grants all right thank you for clarifying that uh this [57:01] consolidation what it what it um is intent is but i'm still concerned about the impact of funding [57:09] reductions and what that would have on our state and local law enforcement agencies so i hope that you [57:16] will be very cognizant of that as you look at the rural and really the under-resourced uh agencies that [57:26] are i will senator thank you in 2024 i passed legislation the recruit and retain act and that was signed into [57:34] law and this authorized law enforcement agencies to use those cops grants for recruitment and and retention [57:43] activities it required a study the study came out not surprisingly it identified a relationship between [57:53] local law enforcement staffing levels and crime rates more staff leads to lower crime and and the study also [58:03] found that from 2019 through 2024 officer resignations and retirements have increased and that's obviously [58:14] then a decrease in officer staffing so mr attorney general how do you anticipate that doj's [58:23] proposal to consolidate its grant making components reducing that funding for that account how's that [58:31] going to impact recruitment and retention by those local agencies and how do you plan to address that [58:40] so we will spend tons and tons of grant money on that issue and not only giving money to state and [58:46] locals to get them new bodies but also overtime and equipment which all goes to keeping people on the job [58:53] more meaningfully and and beyond the grant program itself we are working we are making law enforcement [59:00] a very good thing to be part of now and that was one of the reasons that there was a steep decline in a [59:05] lot of retirements over the during the time 2019 to 2024 because there was this inappropriate stigma that [59:11] law enforcement or cops were bad that's not the case anymore and so we're working every day we have our [59:16] homeland security task forces set up which is a partnership with state and local law enforcement and [59:20] sheriffs they're getting money they're getting overtime pay we're we're thanking them we're giving them [59:25] cars we're giving them vehicles and so that's what we're going to continue to do have you reached out to [59:31] local local agencies to see if their recruitment has improved because i can attest to [59:39] disappointment by many by many police departments opd omaha for example has seen did see their [59:47] numbers really decrease have you reached out uh and have any numbers on what it is now regularly [59:53] including last week during police week i met with a lot it's still a problem we have not fixed it yet [59:58] i mean look at what happened over the past year with law enforcement officers getting doxxed and getting [1:00:02] having rocks thrown at them having local leaders say to good hard-working cops you can't help so this [1:00:08] isn't something that we've won yet but it's a priority to win that fight and and and i'll keep on [1:00:14] talking to state and local sheriffs and cops and detectives and letting them know that we appreciate [1:00:18] them and not only with our mouth but with our pocketbooks as well we do thank you last year the fbi [1:00:25] and homeland security investigations announced a new homeland security task force based out of [1:00:31] kansas city missouri and that included a location in omaha yes and focus is obviously combating [1:00:39] trafficking of human trafficking of humans and drugs and weapons money laundering alien smuggling homicide [1:00:46] extortion on and on we did see members of this task force they arrested a ms13 gang leader in grand [1:00:57] island nebraska in the middle eastern part of the state the 27 budget request cites the elimination [1:01:07] of the organized crime drug enforcement task force's component and instead requests appropriations [1:01:15] be made directly to agencies like dea and fbi can you share how this proposed reorganization [1:01:25] is still going to ensure strong interagency coordination so that we can see a continued focus on [1:01:33] transnational crime threats and specifically with those local law enforcement agencies it's very [1:01:42] important i agree so look we dissolved the the ocdef executive office that is true but the money that we're [1:01:49] asking for the money that we're going to spend is exactly like we've been spending for a long time [1:01:53] except for more efficiently so the hstf model is is built off of the ocdef model but with a lot of [1:02:00] improvement like there was a lot of overlap in ocdef money that we are now just that we're now being [1:02:06] more efficient with so so the there is no doubt as a matter of fact the opposite is true that we're [1:02:11] spending that same ocdef type money we're spending more of it and we're getting more of it out to the [1:02:17] field through the homeland security task force and so that that's what we're that's the goal so is that a [1:02:23] line item uh within your agency or does it need to be a line item and on a on appropriations so it's [1:02:32] a to make sure that it's covered so it's a line item through the appropriations i believe although [1:02:38] i'll double check that and and get back to you if i'm wrong i will yes okay thank you senator fisher [1:02:43] thank you uh now i would like to recognize the vice chair of the full committee senator murray thank you [1:02:47] mr chairman acting attorney general right now families are paying four or five even six or seven [1:02:54] dollars for gas inflation is at its highest level in years because of the president's policies but [1:03:01] instead of helping americans get by president trump is literally using their tax dollars to set up a slush [1:03:10] fund to enrich his own friends on monday your department settled the president's lawsuit by setting up a [1:03:17] fund with 1.8 billion dollars and you and the president will pick the handful of people who [1:03:25] decide how that money gets doled out so let's be clear what we're talking about is nothing short of [1:03:31] the sitting president of the united states looting from the treasury for his own gain do you seriously [1:03:38] think this arrangement is appropriate the president telling the federal government to settle a case and [1:03:44] let him pay billions to the people that he chooses what you just described wouldn't be appropriate and [1:03:50] that's absolutely not what happened and that's not what's happening now so you just set up a series of [1:03:54] facts most of which were not true no they say is it no it's not i mean the president has set up a slush [1:04:00] fund however you want to say that it got set up and he literally will get to choose through his hand [1:04:07] picked appointees who gets paid that fund that is absurd the president did not set up this fund it's not [1:04:14] a slush fund it's it's been done many times we have lots of funds i heard your response earlier to [1:04:20] senator van holland this is not comparable to the case that you cited a judge was not involved this is [1:04:26] the president versus himself setting up a fund and the judge wasn't involved in the distribution in the [1:04:32] keeps eagle case at all it just wasn't there was a single commissioner that was that was set up not not [1:04:38] five and so when i judge signed off on that case yes it was at a much later point litigation that's [1:04:44] my point that is all of our point and it just i just have to tell you this is corruption that has never [1:04:50] been more blatant or more right sped what is happening is you write the check trump and his corneys [1:04:56] cash it american taxpayers who are already being whacked with high prices are going to foot the bill [1:05:02] that's what we are seeing today and that is what many of us are really really angry about so let me [1:05:09] move to another topic um the this department of justice is sending the message that if you're wealthy [1:05:16] if you're powerful if you are well connected you won't be held accountable even if you abuse children [1:05:23] you know us after congress passed the epstein files transparency act and dog finally began to release [1:05:29] the files your department exposed survivors names their sensitive personal information and even nude [1:05:39] photos while redacting names of alleged perpetrators of those crimes the message that sends is this [1:05:45] department of justice worked harder to protect the privacy of potential child abusers than the survivors [1:05:53] your predecessor refused to apologize to those victims but i want to give you the same opportunity [1:06:00] to apologize for the way the department handled the release of these documents will you apologize to [1:06:08] the survivors when the president passed the epstein transparency act that was the only time the when [1:06:14] the president signed the epstein the transparency act that was when we were legally allowed to release the [1:06:19] files prior to the files prior to the passage of the act which you all passed i agree that is not [1:06:24] the question i'm asking it was a question you asked five or six questions i'm answering them in order [1:06:29] no the question i want you to answer is will you apologize to the victims whose names sensitive [1:06:36] personal information and eve even nude photos were not redacted by your department will you of course [1:06:43] that was we never want to release a single victim's name can i answer the question please i'm asking [1:06:50] if you'll apologize so i and i just said yes but i wanted to i would like an explanation to be given [1:06:54] to that what what this act did is it required us to review over six million pieces of paper in a very [1:07:02] short period of time and so 0.001 percent we made mistakes and we owned up to them and the second that [1:07:08] a victim or their lawyer told us that we made a mistake we pulled that document down and we put [1:07:13] lawyers 24 7 and being responsive to victims and their lawyers to make sure that we fixed every [1:07:19] single problem and so yes i hear your anger i'm not angry i'm not angry i'm just making sure it's [1:07:24] understood really angry we matter there are nude photos released i just want to hear you say i apologize [1:07:31] to those victims so as i just said of course any time we release a victim's name that shouldn't be [1:07:37] released we have failed as a department of justice and so we we have to do everything that we can to [1:07:42] not fail well i still i haven't heard the words i apologize i'm trying to give you an explanation of [1:07:46] what happened i don't think you're really interested in that because you keep on cutting me off i have [1:07:49] a few more questions here and i want to know and i know that senator van holland raised this but but i [1:07:54] want to ask will you personally commit to meeting with the survivors i have heard from them personally [1:08:00] the doj refused to meet them and i'm asking about you i'm asking about the justice department [1:08:06] reaching out to them to be heard not waiting for them to navigate a legal system that has [1:08:12] obviously repeatedly failed them so far can i answer yeah will you reach out to them so as we have said [1:08:19] repeatedly of course any lawyer now if a victim has a lawyer i'm not allowed to reach out to the victim [1:08:24] directly you know that but any lawyer can reach out the department of justice they have and i've met with [1:08:29] many victims and their lawyers as has the fbi as has the sdmy we will always always meet with victims [1:08:37] counsel any victim or the lawyer can come forward to the fbi with these women and i've met with them [1:08:42] and i know senator van holland has and some so many other they are personally so feeling abused again and [1:08:49] again again by what happened to them originally and now what but what's happening by them i am saying to [1:08:55] you as a human being who don't make them navigate a system that is impossible to navigate that's [1:09:01] already abused them reach out and ask to me wait you're asking me to call you want me to personally [1:09:06] call the victims i can help you reach them oh that would be great yes because we have said from day [1:09:11] one of course there have been members that have done that and we immediately reach out to the victims [1:09:16] or their lawyers when the lawyers want and they say they want to do it we will follow up on that thank [1:09:21] you very much let me ask a few questions uh and uh then we'll get to senator reed and senator uh peters [1:09:29] and then we'll have a conclusion of the hearing i want to oh yes and senator and senator gillibrand [1:09:36] excuse me for my lack of peripheral vision the uh we'll make certain senator gillibrand that you are [1:09:41] called on uh general uh worried about staffing and operational strains at the bureau of prisons uh this [1:09:51] committee this subcommittee and our full committee has tried to help in the last several years and [1:09:57] there was money in the reconciliation bill five billion dollars to support recruitment and retention [1:10:02] efforts to address the bop's uh maintenance uh backlog uh in correctional facilities in kansas and we have [1:10:12] certainly a major federal and lots of state uh correctional facilities but officers wardens stakeholders [1:10:18] continue to hear concerns about staffing shortages aging infrastructure deferred maintenance officer [1:10:24] retention long-term strain placed on both personnel and inmates um what what can you tell me [1:10:30] about this budget uh request and can you help me understand the circumstances you see at the bureau of [1:10:37] prisons in this regard so thank you senator we were given a broken agency when we took over not enough [1:10:43] money um morale was very low and and many of the prisons needed serious repairs and so the president's [1:10:51] budget this year tries to rectify a lot of that as did the big beautiful bill um the the vacancy rate is [1:10:57] still 20 for corrections officers i talked about this earlier that has to do with retention has to do with [1:11:03] how much we're paying them and creating an environment at the bop that they want to work at and so that's [1:11:08] something we have to work on um we have some of the investments we want to make 450 million dollars to [1:11:15] attack the vacancy rate and and start paying some of our correction officers more um and then and then [1:11:21] also a lot of money to make repairs and so these are just safety repairs but also structural repairs at [1:11:28] prisons so that again it makes sure inmates are protected and are safe and and that we're safe from them [1:11:35] and also creates an environment that's safe for the staff and the corrections officers that are working [1:11:40] there and so it's a it's a big number but it's extraordinarily important as recently as yesterday [1:11:46] general i continued to hear from state and local law enforcement agencies about their desire and [1:11:53] therefore the demand for training uh drones and counter uas systems we have kansas city is a fifa site [1:12:01] uh but though that that demand is significant and um can you tell me how the department is working with [1:12:08] the fbi to address this issue uh and and i think fifa is a significant component of it but with the [1:12:15] prevalence of uavs i think it's just a broadly uh an issue that needs to be broadly addressed yes [1:12:22] so we're training the fbi is training a ton of state and locals every day and and we're on the clock [1:12:28] because of fifa but we're also doing it beyond fifa because the uas is the drones are a big problem in [1:12:35] every single state in this country and so we're we have atf also that a certain portion of atf also [1:12:41] helps with the training as well at the fbi facility and we're going to continue to to do that meaning [1:12:47] we're going to continue to offer and provide training to state and locals we're also asking for [1:12:51] money in our budget to help um shore that up a little bit so that so that we can continue to not only offer [1:12:57] training but but have a defense to the u.s um i would suggest that the fbi training center is over [1:13:05] capacity needs more uh officers and capabilities and if the department of justice is interested in [1:13:11] pursuing that i'd be interested in trying to be helpful i'm interested in working with you senator [1:13:15] thank you uh grant administration i think things are getting better but the department of justice [1:13:21] particularly in its grants to local law enforcement it's been a really slow process uh this year in [1:13:27] getting the money out the door congress shut down um the list is long for reasons that could be the [1:13:34] case uh but i i want to give you the opportunity to tell me that you are now positioned to see that [1:13:42] local law enforcement in particular but grants in general and those grants exceed just local law [1:13:48] enforcement it's other community grants mentoring grants uh i want to make sure that you believe you're [1:13:53] now positioned in terms of uh staffing and and administrative abilities to to make that process [1:14:00] work better we are we are working on that and and you're right it's it's been slow we now have all the [1:14:06] 25s out except for maybe one we're starting on 26 now one program or one grant one grant one grant one [1:14:13] grant one one i could be off a couple of grants but we're mostly finished with that process you're right it [1:14:18] didn't we you know we didn't get the number from you guys till january late january so we had a late [1:14:22] start um and we're going to turn to 26 now and and get as much done as we can as you know they're [1:14:28] distributed on a rolling basis so it's not as if there's no money and then a ton of money so we're [1:14:33] trying to to get the the wheels turning as quickly as we can um to get money out thank you senator reed [1:14:40] thank you mr chairman uh mr blanche how many taxpayers returns were leaked and by the irs contractor in the [1:14:48] 2020 breach how many taxpayers excuse me how many taxpayers returns were leaked by the irs contractor [1:14:55] in the 2020 breach i don't know the exact amount but a lot uh 405 427. one of them was donald trump [1:15:06] correct one of them was donald trump correct it was donald trump and his family or others correct [1:15:12] right and uh donald trump was president at the time correct so it was his irs department that allowed [1:15:19] this breach of privacy correct it was a criminal who worked in the irs yes well he was hired under [1:15:28] trump's this is one of the trump well there was a criminal breach that led to this yes very good [1:15:34] uh how many of these 400 000 people have received monetary reimbursement for the breach i don't think [1:15:41] any have including the president no they haven't but you've authorized the president do you read the [1:15:47] president should have uh reimbursement correct no we settled the case no there's no reimbursement to [1:15:53] president trump well that's interesting so president trump you're going to assure us president trump and [1:16:01] his family will get no proceeds from this correct he will not he will not get his family will not get [1:16:08] correct and who will direct the disposition of these uh who gets the money from the from the victims [1:16:16] fund well there'll be a commission of five individuals that will be set up and they will [1:16:21] take in requests and claims and decide whether to do anything from issue who will name the commissioners [1:16:27] i will the attorney general whoever the attorney general is the attorney general okay uh sorry just [1:16:32] to correct and one of them will be done in consultation with leadership of this body consultation well that's [1:16:38] good but um when he first announced this uh suit on january 30th he said i think what we'll do is [1:16:47] something for charity where i'll give the money to charity i'm talking about the american cancer [1:16:52] society i would say established and respected charities uh will you fulfill the president's wish [1:16:59] that it goes to respected charities i'm aware that he put that in or said that but that's not ultimately [1:17:04] what the settlement calls for well the settlement was negotiated between his lawyers and the department [1:17:11] of justice correct correct so his lawyers did not urge that they adopt the president's [1:17:17] vision of giving it to a respectable charity i am confident his lawyers urged the president's [1:17:22] desires um obviously there's not a a charity uh the order that you signed yesterday states that the [1:17:33] government pay their settlement if the secretary of treasury has certified the payment is that correct [1:17:39] correct uh is it a coincidence that the general counsel department treasury resigned yesterday [1:17:45] i don't know if it's a coincidence have you looked or checked have i checked yeah i have not as to [1:17:53] why he resigned it just seems to be very coincidental that the high-ranking member of the department of [1:17:59] treasury senate confirmed would resign the day that the treasury department was required to required [1:18:05] essentially to certify these payments well i believe the irs signed the settlement agreement as well [1:18:12] um but yes but i i don't i can't speak to why he resigned senator well um this all seems uh to be [1:18:25] an obvious uh abuse of power by the department of justice by the president he negotiated essentially [1:18:33] himself you're his appointee the irs are his appointees he's the plaintiff and the american people i don't [1:18:41] think a surprise that suddenly all this money is going to his friends or people that he in his orbit [1:18:50] will you ensure that none of this money goes to anyone convicted on the january 6th attack on the [1:18:55] congress well the commissioners will determine who is eligible to receive the money and who who are [1:19:02] the commissioners they're not named yet who will name them i will or the attorney general will it's not [1:19:08] me so uh with the suggestion of the president united states excuse me with the suggestion of the american [1:19:14] of the president united states your boss i do not make suggestions i will no no commission he won't [1:19:18] make suggestions to you i i i have no idea if he will or not i really don't i have no idea if he will [1:19:25] or not uh i i would be shocked if he didn't tell you exactly who to put on and i'd be more shocked if [1:19:33] you did not put them on this is a travesty of the law in the united states and the constitution [1:19:43] you had an opportunity to go down and talk to jocelyn maxwell and then a few days later she was [1:19:51] transferred from a high security prison to a um very comfortable i mean that's a very comfortable [1:19:59] it's just not true she was not in a high security prison she was transferred from a low security prison [1:20:03] to a low security prison i mean you're looking at me like that's that's verifiable well uh i don't [1:20:10] think at the other prison she had her own room she had access to a private shower she could have pet [1:20:18] therapy and i don't know if any of that is true i'm not disagreeing with you all right it is true and [1:20:23] you should know it mr i should know that you should know whether an inmate has access to her own shower no [1:20:28] no uh this is a person of extra special interest to the president of the united states he's known [1:20:35] her why did he send you down to talk to her he didn't send me i went but what do you mean do you [1:20:42] think president trump called and asked me to go interview a witness in federal prison honestly yes [1:20:47] i do frankly because you know why didn't because the deal was in he needed somebody he could rely [1:20:52] he needed somebody he could rely upon to talk to her and say what would she say if she was asked [1:20:57] about jeffrey epstein and you were the perfect choice and you went down there and suddenly shazam [1:21:03] she's out of what is a more confining situation every word a not a much more relaxed federal prison [1:21:12] every word that i asked her is recorded and available to you to review if there's criticisms [1:21:18] of the question that i asked her go ahead and make them but he did the president did not have [1:21:23] anything to do with my choice to go interview ms maxwell if i wouldn't have went and a career would [1:21:28] have went you would have said why didn't you go yourself just like you expect me to know whether [1:21:31] she has access to her own shower you should go everyone in the united states who reads the [1:21:36] newspapers know that i guess you don't you know read things like that you know this this whole hearing [1:21:43] i think is exposing something which is to me very frightening uh you're a very gifted lawyer but from my [1:21:50] perspective you have very little faith to the constitution and the people of america and you're [1:21:57] the president's consigliore your perspective is completely wrong senator respectfully i think [1:22:02] the facts will prove me right thank you thank you uh mr chairman mr blanche um last may my staff [1:22:13] at homeland security government affairs committee released a report documenting that the inspectors [1:22:19] general that president trump fired had together collectively had uncovered billions of dollars [1:22:25] in fraud waste uh and abuse we oversee uh uh igs and believe that they're incredibly important to hold [1:22:34] government uh accountable which needs to be done so that american people have trust and confidence in [1:22:41] the work that we do here in fact it was uh quite uh i thought striking uh the study showed that for every dollar [1:22:48] that we spend on ids that's been estimated the return on that investment is roughly 18 times what we put into the ids [1:23:00] but despite the the administration's purported focus on fraud uh your department fy 27 request would [1:23:08] actually cut these ids their budget by nearly a third these are folks that have an 18 to 1 return on investment [1:23:17] prior to being in in public service i spent 20 plus years in the investment business if i told investors [1:23:24] this is an investment i'd like you to make and you're going to have an 18 to 1 return they would [1:23:29] jump out of their chair in excitement and say absolutely can i put how much money can i put in [1:23:34] to get an 18 to 1 return so while the request and this happens while you're requesting an increase [1:23:41] for your overall agency through the reconciliation so you're going to be gaining additional funding [1:23:46] which i would argue requires oversight as you get additional funding that happens every government [1:23:52] agency not just yours and have a massive cut of ids with an 18 to 1 roi why was that decision made [1:23:59] and and how do you intend to have robust oversight of the department when you're cutting the folks who [1:24:03] are responsible for that and have a brilliant track record of doing that with every administration [1:24:09] democratic or republican before you so i agree the ids are extraordinarily important [1:24:14] um the budget that was proposed um it was developed consulting with the ids and so this is a budget [1:24:21] that that that omb and doj worked with the ids office to come up with and this was um an agreed [1:24:28] upon budget from them so while not just because you're not you're not giving more money and you're even [1:24:34] taking away money doesn't doesn't mean the conclusion you reach is accurate which is that it's going to [1:24:38] result in less work or less return on our investment um i just don't think that's true well that makes no [1:24:44] sense of course uh if you have one third fewer folks working uh granted maybe they're they're [1:24:51] probably more productive but it's really clear with an 18 to 1 return investing as your budget is [1:24:58] growing you're going to have that kind of uh return and and it makes no sense to do that why why [1:25:06] there's no financial sense to do it so is there another reason you just don't want ids on the job [1:25:10] i as i just said the ids themselves work with um omb and doj to develop this budget in a way that made [1:25:17] them feel that they could get their job done so it wasn't like uh we've got a budget for you [1:25:22] can either take this or you're going to get a lot less i wasn't part of the conversation but i assure [1:25:26] you i can't imagine ids are going to say okay we want fewer of us even though we have an 18 to 1 return [1:25:31] and we're the say we're the we're the guardian to make sure that people can trust what happens [1:25:36] in federal government and it makes no sense to me to have that cut um and i think it speaks volumes [1:25:42] of what this administration is really focused on and it's not about reducing waste fraud and abuse [1:25:49] you don't do that by decimating the ig corps we certainly saw him fire a number of ids earlier [1:25:55] and have serious concerns mr blanche the president also signed an executive order on march 31 directing [1:26:01] the department of justice the department of homeland security and the postal service to take a series [1:26:06] of actions related to federal elections including the creation of a federal citizenship list and new [1:26:12] rules on mail ballot distribution that order is rightly being challenged in federal court as these [1:26:19] are state functions but recent reporting indicated that the implementation of that order is being [1:26:24] coordinated through the white house meetings involving senior department of justice leadership [1:26:28] including assistant attorney general harmad dylan so my question for you sir is what is the [1:26:35] department's role in implementing the march 31st executive order well it's i want to be careful because [1:26:41] it is under litigation but it's as you just described it's working with um other other agencies within [1:26:46] the administration to to implement um the goals which i think are appropriate goals to make sure that we [1:26:52] have free and fair elections um to make sure that those are implemented whether it's doj that needs to [1:26:57] implement them or some other federal agency well you have other agencies the same same reporting identified the [1:27:03] the official leading the department of homeland security's work as you said you're all working [1:27:07] together on this who now serves as the dhs deputy assistant secretary for election integrity [1:27:14] her name is heather honey who is in that position miss honey's prior claims were central to the effect to [1:27:22] challenge the 2020 election results claims as you have as you know have been widely disproven it's not true none of [1:27:30] this stuff she's a key player there so my question for you sir is the department taking policy direction [1:27:36] either formally or informally you say they are from your previous answer but from an official whose [1:27:41] prior work was built on disproven claims about a prior federal election our policy direction comes from [1:27:49] president trump and his leadership team so i i i know the person you're speaking about she's she's part of dhs [1:27:55] and and certainly in meetings that we have about election integrity but as far as whether myself [1:28:00] or harmeet dylan take policy directions we take them from the president so uh interesting a person who [1:28:09] uh is was part of these widely disproven false allegations and a president who of course subscribes [1:28:15] to that as well so that's what you're telling me that's what's driving this effort by the federal government [1:28:20] to basically uh take powers that the constitution reserves for our states thank you mr chairman [1:28:33] thank you mr chairman welcome general blanche general blanche um last week i took this topic [1:28:39] up with director patel i'd like to revisit it with you that has to do with the work that's taking place [1:28:44] in various jurisdictions across the country to make them more safe and i want to commend the department [1:28:49] for the work on memphis safe the task force there has resulted in a 43 decrease in violent crime [1:28:56] since the operation commenced i think it's a shining example of what happens when you have state and [1:29:01] local governments cooperating with the federal government uh and and the dramatic improvements [1:29:06] that we've seen in in violent crime uh in enhancing safety uh are really very much appreciated i just [1:29:13] wanted to ask you to take a few minutes and walk us through the whole of government approach that [1:29:17] you've taken and and and how that's been executed and and from that what lessons we might learn that [1:29:22] could be applied to other jurisdictions thank you senator yes um in your state the memphis task force [1:29:28] is one of the shining stars of law enforcement over the past year also dc as well and the way that it [1:29:35] works is that we no longer care about stats within an agency the fbi dea marshals hsi state and local [1:29:42] it's just one government it's a one government approach so what happens in memphis and what should [1:29:46] happen in every city in this country is every day law enforcement gets together in a room and they [1:29:51] decide who they're going to go out and get that day the whether it's a someone wanted for murder [1:29:57] rape any other burglary whether it's just somebody who has a warrant out for their arrest and then [1:30:02] they focus on doing it and they do it if they need a prosecutor to write a warrant they go to get the [1:30:06] prosecutor to write a warrant if they need a state da to help because it's a state charge they get the [1:30:10] state da's office and what you saw you just described the reduction in crime but you have streets in [1:30:16] in memphis now that that were unwalkable six months ago and that now that there was a few new [1:30:21] restaurants opening i heard um last week and and that's complete success i wish we could do what [1:30:27] we were able to do in memphis in in every city in this country can we stay on that for just a moment [1:30:31] because yes i understand that there are other jurisdictions in the united states that are refusing [1:30:35] to cooperate is there anything that we could do any tool that we could provide to to help you with [1:30:40] this with these non-compliant jurisdictions look i think one thing we can do is just keep on doing [1:30:45] showing the american people how what what it looks like when you do it right and hopefully these local [1:30:50] politicians that are doing it wrong will be shamed into doing it right we also are in many cases [1:30:56] suing filing lawsuits against these some of these cities where they're actually violating the [1:31:00] constitution and violating federal law in the way that they're um that they're treating federal law [1:31:04] enforcement and the work that law enforcement federal law enforcement is doing but all i can do as the [1:31:09] acting attorney general is is is offer everybody um that we will work as hard as we can with our law [1:31:16] enforcement to work with the state and locals to to combat crime um and that's what president trump [1:31:21] ordered me to do and that's what i will continue to do well thank you for that i'd just like to [1:31:25] show my colleagues i get a daily report on the results what's happening in memphis from from your [1:31:30] team and many others and it's quite impressive the accountability makes a real difference i'd like [1:31:34] to turn to another issue though one that's deeply concerning i think it is concerning to me it should be [1:31:39] concerning to every american and that's bringing to light what happened to the previous administration the [1:31:44] biden department's department of justice uh when they weaponized the extraordinary the extraordinary [1:31:51] powers of your department with arctic frost um if you think about it they used this arctic frost to [1:31:59] persecute the president and also go after his closest allies including me and in you know i was shocked [1:32:06] to find out last year that under president biden the doj had secretly obtained my phone records from [1:32:13] verizon and even though verizon was obligated to let me know that they chose not to and when i brought [1:32:20] the problem to verizon's attention all they've done is tried to stonewall me and we brought it before [1:32:26] the fcc in the form of a complaint again verizon simply continues to stonewall and if i think about [1:32:33] what verizon what the the biden doj did they specifically chose to ignore the fact that nothing [1:32:41] can or should provide stop a phone provider from notifying a member of congress when their [1:32:45] constitutional rights are being violated as mine were violated it turns out that verizon's chief [1:32:50] legal officer vandana vinkatesh used to work for henry waxman one of the most partisan players up here [1:33:01] and she is the general counsel you know i'm seriously concerned at least that miss vinkatesh and verizon may [1:33:09] have collaborated with their friends at the biden doj they never told me or my colleagues about it [1:33:14] because they might have been worried that the truth would come out they might have been worried that [1:33:19] that would endanger their plans to make a 20 billion dollar acquisition of frontier communications [1:33:25] it's contemptible it's damning but i think there may be may have been a real reason there i want justice [1:33:31] to be done here and i really would appreciate your help getting to the bottom of it so here's my question [1:33:37] can i get your commitment that the doj will work with me and my colleagues senator grassley and [1:33:41] senator johnson in bringing full accountability to this abuse of power absolutely and obviously [1:33:48] senator one way we do that is by the work we're doing to to make sure you you all get your oversight [1:33:54] responsibilities um as much as you deserve to get the materials that we're reviewing and collecting [1:34:00] but then also in proactively the work that we're doing to make sure that what happened never [1:34:04] happened again i mean make i mean understand that there are times when when we subpoena phone [1:34:08] records we do not want the bad guys to know that that that we we did it because we're still [1:34:12] investigating but the idea that that could be done to a united states senator and that it would be okay [1:34:17] for a prosecutor to just do it not even a scintilla of evidence anybody did anything wrong and then not [1:34:23] provide notice to is is in some ways the worst form of um of abuse by the department of justice in fact [1:34:30] there's a constitutional ban and i think a first-year law student should know that you know [1:34:33] when at and t was requested uh to to provide the same records they saw the constitutional problem [1:34:39] they stopped verizon was willingly handing over my records and those of other my colleagues and i just [1:34:44] asked myself what was the purpose what was the motivation for them to violate my constitutional rights [1:34:49] was it because they wanted to make friends with the fcc maybe miss van katesh to get an appointment [1:34:53] sometime later i don't know was it because of this frontier acquisition that they had in mind [1:34:58] i don't know but we need to get to the bottom of it thank you thank you mr chairman you're welcome [1:35:02] senator gillibrand thank you mr attorney general acting attorney general for being here thank you [1:35:07] i've listened to your testimony today and i have a concern about your focus [1:35:12] um new york city uh was the site of the last major terrorist attack against the united states [1:35:18] at 9 11. we benefit greatly from what you've mentioned this whole of government approach [1:35:24] uh where we integrate cia nsa dod fbi doj all integrated seamlessly nypd to keep our city safe [1:35:37] it's one of the biggest cities in the country it's one of the most dynamic cities in the country and our [1:35:42] public safety is paramount but i've looked at your record and i am deeply concerned that you are not [1:35:48] using this whole of government approach because i see you slashing programs left and right that we know [1:35:53] work for all certain things all sorts of things from drugs to gun trafficking to community policing [1:35:59] to cops program slashing so many programs that i know work so i want to take you through them and [1:36:05] hear from you why your focus isn't where new york city and the state and the country need you to be [1:36:12] which is our public safety so first of all do you think that china iran russia want to do us harm and [1:36:19] would undermine our elections yes why did you delete the whole department then that is supposed to [1:36:26] protect against the undermining of our elections we so we we spend a ton of time a ton of money a ton [1:36:33] of man hours a ton of resources on that very issue yeah but you cancelled the fbi's foreign influence [1:36:39] task force that's a task force that's not that's literally just a group it was no no no no no no no no [1:36:45] i was here in 2016. i know what happened and after that we did a whole of government approach [1:36:51] we put experts in at cissa we put experts in at the fbi and we put experts in at the department of [1:36:57] defense together whole of government approach they went state by state by state to make sure [1:37:02] that our electoral infrastructure was sound however your department and this administration has [1:37:10] aggressively fired all the people that were put in charge of this so they were the people at the [1:37:15] fbi in charge of it so why have you dismissed those operations where that failed there were [1:37:20] no state and local involved it was all just a bunch of federal people mostly out of washington dc [1:37:26] okay and the fbi agents were all washing dc the way they were agents not around the country where we [1:37:31] needed them so the way that we're addressing it by closing down that task force is by having hstf set [1:37:36] up in everything including in new york city um every single agents every single state now has a hstf [1:37:42] and that is one of their main focuses and it does work with state and local i want a complete report [1:37:46] on this because i don't have confidence that you are doing what needs to be done because if all the [1:37:52] 300 400 expert people that were in our previous administrations multiple administrations democrat [1:37:58] and republican administrations if none of them are good and you're starting over from scratch that [1:38:03] doesn't sound like the recipe for success none of them are good that's not what i said well they've all [1:38:08] been dismissed and they've all been fired in all three areas that's not true they have not all [1:38:12] been fired the people from dod we fired the people from cissa we fired the people at the fbi they were [1:38:17] all just they were not all dismissed many of them are still here ask for a briefing look into it and give [1:38:23] a report to this committee because i'm telling you if you agree that our adversaries do not have our [1:38:29] goodness in in mind they don't have our elections in mind yes i need laser like focus on solving you're [1:38:36] getting laser like focus all right i'd like a report on that second issue gun trafficking we have been [1:38:42] working so hard as a federal government to stop the flow of illicit guns into our communities where [1:38:48] someone can sell guns out of the backs of their trucks from some criminal gun dealer who's trying [1:38:56] to get these guns into the hands of criminals and we're supposed to get data every year so we can show [1:39:01] that our gun trafficking laws are working these new enhanced laws where police officers can now go cross [1:39:06] state lines to do their investigation why are you not giving me the data about gun traffic i need [1:39:11] to know if it's working i need to know if these uh cases are being prosecuted and i can't even get [1:39:15] data out of your department well the cases are being prosecuting we did um will you give me the data [1:39:21] so i can i don't know what data you're talking about number of number of number of weapons that have [1:39:25] been seized the number of cases that are being prosecuted we keep track of how many weapons have been [1:39:31] seized it that are that are trafficked and i'm waiting from your department over a year to get [1:39:36] that data to the extent there's data that we're required to send it to okay i got like five points [1:39:42] i only get five minutes next point community violence intervention grants you are slashing these [1:39:47] community violence intervention grants they work we know they work one of them was it to new york [1:39:51] for what 4.2 million slashed it prevents youth violence these are programs that are working did you [1:39:58] analyze whether this program was working before you slashed the funding yes there's still a ton of [1:40:03] funding for those programs not the ones in new york you just deleted them delete delete delete it's [1:40:08] it's shocking it wasn't delete delete delete that okay well 4.2 was was deleted for the local initiative [1:40:14] support corporation that funds it's not a deletion it's just that we're not seeking funding for it [1:40:19] through this exact no no i'm seeking funding for i've asked for the money and we've gotten grants for [1:40:23] this and you've just suspended this grant program i'm happy to work with you to make sure we're [1:40:27] spending the grant money in the right way i don't have any more time but there's a community oriented [1:40:31] policing grant cuts as well the cops funds this is something our police officers and our community [1:40:37] policing development micro grants they benefit from it de-escalation training grants programs that work [1:40:42] our police officers need it and then drugs we have an anti-heroine and anti-metha methamphetamine [1:40:50] task force and we need to be funded and it's not being funded so i just it is being funded [1:40:57] absolutely there there is a different amount of funding but it is being funded no no you've [1:41:01] eliminated funding for both the anti-heroine and anti-metha methamphetamine task force i'm sorry [1:41:08] um which is the task force that stops the trafficking of heroin fentanyl and the very long word i can't [1:41:14] pronounce okay i mean senator there's there's nothing more important to president trump and to this [1:41:20] department of justice than combating the illegal floral narcotics so to the extent that there is a [1:41:25] particular um funding revenue stream that is not being funded the same way i commit to you that [1:41:32] it is of the highest priority to combat drug last is the public safety officer benefit program [1:41:36] you say we just had police week you say you stand with law enforcement when you do not support this [1:41:42] program and when these funds are not getting back to the loved ones who have lost their police [1:41:45] officer loved one it is not right i need you to focus on this i need you to get this right we're committed [1:41:51] thank you senator thank you uh thank you uh acting attorney general thank you for being here thank [1:42:09] you um i want to talk about the ats national trade training center tracing center which you know is [1:42:14] located in in martinsburg west virginia i think this is a stunning statistic for people to realize that [1:42:20] fiscal year 2024 alone the national tracing center processed more than 600 000 requests i mean that [1:42:29] is an immense amount of work it also helped to uh identify the deranged individual who attempted to [1:42:37] um assassinate president trump in pennsylvania so uh obviously uh it's great work out there but i i am [1:42:45] concerned that we have to present present prevent the release of firearm trace data to anyone other than [1:42:52] law enforcement for investigative purposes can you elaborate on the important of the nt the importance of the [1:42:57] ntc but also how it functions within the atf and can you describe how your budget requests will [1:43:03] sustain these critical services yes of course senator and i agree with you it is an extraordinarily valuable [1:43:10] law enforcement tool and and but it can be abused and so what the atf has to make sure we're doing is [1:43:16] we're using those tracing the tracing data and by the way it's not just for federal cases it's for state and [1:43:21] local cases it's for local crimes and so it's a true testament of the of the power of the federal [1:43:26] government to help the states um we have to make sure that that data is shared only where it needs [1:43:30] to be shared and and only to to further law enforcement investigations um our director sakata is is laser [1:43:36] focused on that he's he's we have the the benefit of having somebody who's been an atf agent for two [1:43:41] decades um and so we'll continue to make sure that not only we're spending the money to to make sure that [1:43:47] we're successful but also making sure that we have have guardrails around it so that so that it doesn't get [1:43:53] abused either by atf or by anybody state and local wise thank you thank you very much i want to talk [1:43:59] about the hyada task force collaboration i know doj is a valuable member of the hyada task force and [1:44:05] honestly we had the uh the ondcp director sarah carter came to west virginia a few weeks ago we had a [1:44:12] round table u.s attorneys were there local partners local law enforcement uh very interesting uh conversation [1:44:19] i personally want to see the high intensity drug trafficking in the hyada program stay within the [1:44:26] white house i know this may not be a decision uh that you're actively involved in or because there's [1:44:33] always through several administrations a a desire to move it over to doj do you have any perspectives [1:44:39] on that and um what does this budget have to say about look i know that president trump is going to give [1:44:44] a ton of money i think over 11.4 billion dollars um to combat the the drug crisis and that includes a [1:44:52] lot of money to hyda um the way that the way that it's running through the ondcp now as opposed to [1:44:59] directly doj doesn't make a difference to how to the effectiveness that we can have to run in these [1:45:04] programs it hasn't made a difference over the past year it will not make a difference in the coming [1:45:07] years to the contrary it remember another big part of the drug fight is is dhs right hsi and so [1:45:14] one benefit of having um having it go through kind of a one higher place is that we make sure we're [1:45:20] spending the money um across the federal government in the ways that it's smart so i have had zero [1:45:25] issues with it that set up and i don't think um administrator cole has had any issues with it or any [1:45:30] of other law enforcement hey i mean personally i think the issue is so large and you heard senator [1:45:34] jillibrand talking about it in new york uh our state has a particular issue uh and uh i am so pleased with [1:45:41] the president's uh southern border initiatives uh fentanyl seizures are weighed are down uh meaning [1:45:48] less fentanyl into the country but it's just such a devastating and and terrifying um drug that's [1:45:55] killing too many people um i did want to make i noticed in your opening statement you made a comment [1:45:59] about the bureau of prisons i just had a conversation with my fellow west virginian billy marshall who's [1:46:04] head of the bop i am in full support of the 10 billion dollar request that you've made he's made great [1:46:10] strides there and getting good leadership and uh they're safer we have several uh federal prisons [1:46:16] in in and around west virginia and not not only are the uh staff safer but the the inmates are safer [1:46:22] as well and uh i would encourage you to keep uh pounding that drum we will thank you senator let me [1:46:29] ask you a question in the last few minutes that i have there's a few seconds all right geez um there's [1:46:36] always a headline about uh assistant attorney general leaves doj and it sounds you know like [1:46:43] it's a political statement rather than or a lack of confidence statement or doesn't like the way the [1:46:48] direction that the the department is going and i know you see this the the public reports isn't this [1:46:55] the way it's always been at doj people moving in and out and you yourself were at doj at one point [1:47:02] before you went into private practice i didn't know if you want to talk about [1:47:05] at the upper echelons of your leadership team uh where you see this going and is it a political [1:47:11] statement or is it uh the cost of doing business look evan flow of workforce i think we have a great [1:47:18] team and and not only a doj but president trump's entire administration that necessarily means that [1:47:24] sometimes people come in and sometimes people leave i was a federal prosecutor until i had not no money [1:47:29] left and i had to go to the private sector and i think there's there's pressures on on family and and [1:47:34] there's so it's it's not a political statement i think the president has assembled a phenomenal [1:47:39] cabinet and the cabinet has then assembled leadership that i think is every day working [1:47:44] hard to to fulfill the president's agenda and when it comes to doj to make america safe again [1:47:49] and so um my team my team that that works at doj um some of them will will save for four years and [1:47:56] some of them will probably leave in the next month or two and that's that's natural and and all we can [1:48:00] do is thank them for their public service and and to keep on hiring great people thank you for your [1:48:06] service thank you thank you senator capito we're going to conclude this uh hearing in just a moment [1:48:11] senator van holland and i have the practice of like wrapping up our thoughts with questions or statements [1:48:17] and then we'll conclude i'm in a particular hurry to get to the defense appropriations subcommittee to [1:48:23] ask questions there so i if i quit explaining what we're going to do i'll get there sooner and i now [1:48:29] recognize senator van holland uh thank you thank you mr chairman um mr blanche in response to senator [1:48:36] coon saying that capitol hill police officers were worried that people who assaulted them on january 6 [1:48:44] might benefit from a slush fund you said that couldn't be true because it hadn't been set up [1:48:52] i didn't say it couldn't be true from senator i didn't say it couldn't be true it was surprising it [1:48:56] was true okay so it is very possible that people have been anticipating getting payments from the [1:49:04] administration people who were part of the attack on the capitol on on january 6 right you're asking [1:49:11] me to speculate on the possibility of something have you not heard of anybody anticipating getting [1:49:16] payments from that no i haven't i don't know what that all right but i won't speculate i i want to put [1:49:23] it in the record um submit for the record a january 2026 washington post story a long story entitled for [1:49:32] many january 6 rioters a pardon from trump wasn't enough and it it goes on to quote the president [1:49:37] of the united states when asked about this these payments said a lot of people in government now talk [1:49:43] about it because a lot of people in government really like that group of people unquote referring [1:49:49] to the january 6 writers are you not aware of that statement from the president i i have never [1:49:53] read the washington post well i i can tell you that there are a lot of people i accept that you read [1:49:58] a long time who've been anticipating payments you're not aware of that you're telling me there's a lot [1:50:05] of people that were anticipating payments yes no well i'm not aware okay well mr attorney general you [1:50:11] are in a bubble because the reality because i don't read the washington post no no no obviously you [1:50:17] should be in touch with some of these these folks because um i asked you specifically about an [1:50:24] individual who had molested kids and been convicted about his anticipation of getting a payment and you [1:50:33] said that couldn't be true in fact that was a lie i want to read you i didn't say that you i'm i got the [1:50:37] transcript right good you said it was obvious i'm obviously lying the question because there's no way the [1:50:43] person committed to that because the slush fund did not exist that's what you said i'm going to read [1:50:48] from you mr attorney general an affidavit from the hernando county florida sheriff's office and i want [1:50:56] you to listen carefully to what this police officer said about this criminal criminal named andrew [1:51:04] pardoned by the president now being charged for child molestation he says andrew also told that since he [1:51:12] was pardoned for storming the capitol on january 6 2021 and he was being awarded 10 million dollars [1:51:20] as a result of being a january sixer andrew did tell that he would be putting him in his will [1:51:27] referring to one of the victims of his molestation he would be putting him in his will to take any money [1:51:33] he had left over this tactic was believed to be used to keep from exposing what andrew had done to him [1:51:40] signed under penalty of perjury by someone in the sheriff's office and you're telling me you don't [1:51:46] know about all these people who have been signaled by the president united states and others that they're [1:51:51] going to get payments i think that that's what you just read is disgusting i'm very horrible that that [1:51:56] happened but what that's not what i said i mean you can you can say you're telling me and then make [1:52:01] up something that i'm not saying or you can let me speak mr attorney general yes reading from the [1:52:05] statement here i got a transcript of what we our exchange earlier and you essentially said well [1:52:10] i'm you're obviously lying in your question because there's no way this person committed to that [1:52:13] because the slush fund of which you called it did not exist just as you suggest right and and i and [1:52:19] it's true that even the affidavit that you just read said that he would be awarded this this criminal [1:52:25] suggested be awarded 10 million dollars now you're playing absolute word games i am not playing a word [1:52:30] game of course you are because people also words matter words matter so if you're going to quote me [1:52:34] quote me accurately uh mr chairman i'd like to put in the record january 6 rider pardoned by trump was [1:52:40] sentenced to life in prison for child abuse pardoned capitol hill rider tried to bribe child sex victim [1:52:45] with promise of january 6 payout and i will close with this mr attorney general you can't tell us today [1:52:52] that this individual would not be eligible for a payout from this fund i find that obscene and i'm going to [1:53:00] ask you one last time you keep comparing this case to the keep eagle case in that case as you've admitted [1:53:07] a judge ultimately signed off i'm asking you before you proceed with this fund will you have a federal [1:53:13] judge sign off on it i didn't compare the cases what i said is the commission that we set up yesterday [1:53:19] is nearly identical to the commission that was set up during keeps eagle so please you repeatedly put [1:53:24] words in my mouth and then and then you say oh i'm playing words my words matter mr general they do [1:53:29] matter you said there were i i got look the transcript will speak first it will but you but [1:53:34] you compared in your own release in the department of justice on release you compared it to this case [1:53:39] and in this case a judge signed my final question will you agree as they did in that case that before [1:53:45] you proceed with this fund a federal judge will sign off and approve it you agree to that federal judge [1:53:50] so there's no mechanism actually there is a federal judge presiding over this list that was the case [1:53:56] was dismissed by the judge last night yeah because you moved to create this fund i didn't move i did [1:54:01] not move the settlement result mr attorney general come on so let me let me so you're not going to [1:54:07] you're not going to submit this proposal to any federal judge or independent there is no judge any [1:54:13] independent authority that an independent what does that mean an independent authority it means not [1:54:17] somebody who's getting to pick five of the members who is the president's former personal attorney [1:54:22] that would be somebody who would be independent i'm the acting attorney general okay the fact that [1:54:26] i used to be president trump's lawyer is just a fact but i'm the acting attorney general so don't [1:54:31] say the president's former personal lawyer will do something the acting attorney general will do [1:54:35] something mr attorney general you are acting today like the president's personal attorney and that's [1:54:40] the whole problem you've got his whole you have a whole banner of his face hanging over the [1:54:46] department of justice and you and everybody else walks under it and you are acting like you're his [1:54:51] current personal attorney mr chairman i have no further questions uh attorney general let me let me [1:54:59] ask this question in this regard to the fund is there in your mind the nature or description of the [1:55:06] individuals that you hope to find to serve on that uh board that makes the decisions that we're talking [1:55:15] about yeah we want we want people who will will have the ability to evaluate i mean with a couple of [1:55:20] the questions from the senator and from others today evaluate whether somebody who's applying for [1:55:26] um for compensation is entitled to it and if they are entitled to it um what amount and and how to go [1:55:32] about doing that so we expect they'll be experienced people it'll be public people can be critical if they [1:55:37] so choose and so we haven't come up with names yet and and we will you know i think we have 30 days to do [1:55:42] so and and when we when we have the names we'll we'll announce them and what's the standard by which [1:55:47] a determination is made that compensation should be had so in the broadest sense is weaponization and [1:55:53] it's not limited to republicans it's not limited to democrats it's not limited to january 6 um defendants [1:55:59] it's it's it's limited um only by the term weaponization and so i expect that the commissioners [1:56:04] and and what i expect they will do because they'll have to is set up guidelines and set up um procedures for [1:56:10] individuals to apply for that the weaponization then gets defined could be i assume you can't [1:56:16] expand the word uh weaponization but you you can narrow where it seems to be most applicable where [1:56:23] the weapons weaponization if it occurred is the most egregious make is there some kind of standard [1:56:30] which you would evaluate a case-by-case basis i think there has to be standards and i think it is [1:56:35] a case-by-case basis i think that it it will depend on but but by when you say there's a standard and [1:56:40] then say it's case-by-case that's that's the issue right is that the case the case-by-case analysis is [1:56:45] what's going to have to be done and and i expect that it that it will be done i mean i think it's telling [1:56:51] that um everybody on the left and everybody in the the liberal side of the media immediately says it's a [1:56:57] slush fund for president trump's friends if anything else that's a outright admission that they know [1:57:04] that the people that really had this department of justice weaponized against them were president [1:57:08] trump and his friends but that is not what the commission says that is not what the what what [1:57:14] the ag order that i signed yesterday says it does not limit it to president trump or president trump's [1:57:19] friends to the contrary president trump isn't taking a dime and so so the the fact that there's a view [1:57:25] that this slush fund which it's not is going to be only given to republicans or friends of the [1:57:31] president is is as for is one not true but two it's very telling that that's the reaction from [1:57:38] democrats because it proves the point that that president trump has been saying for a very long [1:57:42] time which happens to be true which was was for the first time in our nation's history you had an [1:57:48] administration seek to destroy the previous administration not just president trump anybody [1:57:53] that came in contact with him i've said it before but you're talking about his gardeners being put in [1:57:58] the grand jury his secret service detail being put multiple times in the grand jury that's what the [1:58:03] last administration did to try to destroy president trump and and he has said publicly and and i very [1:58:10] much agree with him that he doesn't want this to ever happen again to anybody and so how do you go [1:58:15] about making sure it doesn't happen again to anybody well you change the culture which is what we're [1:58:19] doing you also set up a mechanism where people that did have it weaponized have this department of [1:58:24] justice and this federal government weaponized against them can apply does it mean they're going [1:58:28] to get money no it doesn't mean they're going to get money it just invites them to apply and they they [1:58:34] make a case of some kind to meet some some standard right yes and you know there's a flaw in the legal [1:58:39] system because this legal system was not set up to compensate for what the democrats and what biden [1:58:45] and what garland did for four years it doesn't know how to cope with the fact that um hundreds and [1:58:52] hundreds of administration officials had their phones taken from them members of the senate had [1:58:57] their um had had had had their phone records subpoenaed and weren't told about it the system [1:59:02] isn't it's set up for that in answers to questions previously put before you this morning did you you [1:59:10] took i assume because what the settlement agreement says you eliminated certain individuals from being [1:59:18] qualified to receive benefits from this fund what's the list of that those individuals well the [1:59:24] plaintiffs in the underlying lawsuit have agreed to accept an apology so that's president trump and [1:59:29] and his son um sons i believe and and otherwise there is no limitation so um whether you're hunter biden [1:59:37] or whether you're another um individual who believed they were a victim of of weaponization [1:59:42] they can all apply for um to this fund and again it doesn't mean the commissioners will agree [1:59:48] it doesn't mean that they're getting 10 million dollars or whatever was just read a few minutes [1:59:52] ago it just means that you can apply and the decision by the commission is by a majority yes three [1:59:59] of five correct and um finally this issue while it's of interest to all of us as united states senators [2:00:07] this committee has no jurisdiction over this issue in a sense because this is mandatory spending have you [2:00:13] had conversations with senator durbin or senator grassley or the judiciary committee i have not [2:00:20] had conversations over the past you know 24 hours about this no i have not uh general anything you'd like [2:00:27] to add to what you've said today or take away from whatever you said today no just thank you and the [2:00:33] committee for their time today um there are no further questions uh senators may submit additional [2:00:39] questions for the subcommittee's official hearing record we request that the attorney general respond to those [2:00:44] questions within 30 days the uh subcommittee stands at recess to the call of the chair