Attorney general, have you ever been asked to approve request or action to be taken by the special counsel . Mr. Chairman, i see that your five minutes and up and so im i am here voluntarily. We have agreed to fiveminute rounds. Live on capitol hill. I thought he was joking. Well, we are in a short break right now, a twominute pause, according to the democratic chairman, but just to bring you up to date, weve had additional headlines in the last hour of testimony, the acting attorney general Matthew Whitaker has confirmed to lawmakers under oath hes had no discussions about possible pardons for anyone in the orbit of the Trump Campaign and hes confirmed that no point has he ever withheld or withdrawn funds for special counsel robert mueller, the reason that matters in 2017 media appearance as a private citizen, whitaker talked about cutting off the money as one way to shut down the mueller investigation. One key point for takeaway, he went on the record saying hes had no communications with the white house about this investigation. Here is that exchange. I do not intend today to talk about my private conversations with the president of the United States. But to answer your question, i have not talked to the president of the United States about the special counsel investigation. I have not talked about the special counsel investigation with senior white house officials. A series of questions from democrats in the last 90 minutes about why mr. Whitaker did not recuse himself from over let sight of the special counsel russia investigation, going to media appearance statements as a private citizen that were highly critical of the special counsel case. Here is this exchange with congressman johnson. With d. O. J. Officials who advised you that you should not touch that investigation, isnt that correct . Congressman yes or no . I consulted with career ethics officials, consulted with my senior staff and the office of Legal Counsel, it was my decision to make, i decided not to recuse. There is also another line of questioning from democrats, who were trying, i think, to put mr. Whitaker in a corner trying to draw him out on his own characterization of the Mueller Probe and how that may be consistent with or of the president as it is inquiry of the witch hunt, here is that exchange. Are you overseeing the witch hunt . Congressman, i mentioned previously, the special counsel investigation is an Ongoing Investigation and i think it would be inappropriate for me to you wouldnt oversee a witch hunt, you would stop a witch hunt, wouldnt you . Congressman, it would be inappropriate to talk about an Ongoing Investigation. Mr. Whitaker has been reluctant, as weve seen, to talk about specifics about the special counsel investigating, citing the fact it is an ongoing probe. We did get other details from him about two other investigations involving the Justice Department, one by u. S. Attorney and the second by mr. Horowitz. Carter page in october of 2016 and what had been widely described and reported at fox news unusual contact between senior f. B. I. And Department Officials over the trump dossier, Research Funded by the dnc and the clinton campaign. My takeaway, you have seen frustration, dana, on both sides, republicans and democrats, trying to get questions answered and mr. Whitaker doing a very narrow path in terms of what hes willing to put on the record today. Thank you so much. Shes been at the hearing. Lets go back to the hearing. Congressman lou is asking questions now. Cant be indicted; correct . Same answer to previous question. Does that exist in the constitution . Of course it does not, you know that and i know that. Of course not, Paul Manafort was indicted. Nothing that says the president s children cant be indicted; correct . Congressman, you can give me the whole list no, ill give you three more. Okay. No sentence in the United States constitution that says the president s children cannot be indicted. No sentence in the u. S. Constitution that says Vice President cant be indicted; correct . That is correct. There is no sentence in the u. S. Constitution this, is my last one, no sentence that u. S. Constitution that says sitting president of the United States cannot be indicted; correct . Congressman, because that is the opinion of the office of i dont care what policy is, i am asking about the constitution. Practice of mr. Whitaker, yesorno question. I am asking fact, after this hearing, you can spin the constitution how you want, as you sit here today, answer factual yesorno question. I will make it easier for you, no sentence in the constitution says the sitting president of the United States cannot be indicted, correct . Congressman yes or no . I would i have it right here. Is that i have a copy myself. Sentence in the constitution . It is not; correct . Im not trying to trick you, it is not a hard question. It is a founding document of the federal government. Is that in the constitution . Congressman, you and i both know the way the llc opinion is written im asking about the founding just asking about the constitution. Sitting president of the United States cant be indicted. Mr. Chair, i will submit the u. S. Constitution for the record and say no, that sentence is not in there. Now well move on. Earlier today you had testified that you did not communicate to donald trump or senior white house advisors about the special counsels investigation. I will ask you a related question. Did you communicate to donald trump or any white house advisors about investigations from the Southern District of new york concerning the trump organization, the trump committee, Michael Cohen, investigations that relate to trump entities or potentially the president . Congressman, i mentioned, i said other investigations in my Opening Statement, i dont have anything further to add to my answer. You mean you communicated to the president . No, i didnt. Not what i said in my Opening Statement. Refer you back to my Opening Statement. I was clear about that. Did you community to the president about approximate investigation from Southern District of north related to trump entities . I was explicit in my Opening Statement as to not only about my communications regarding special Counsel Office and other investigations and Southern District of new york is included in other investigations. Thank you. Move to another subject. Talk about national emergency, under the latest f. B. I. Data, it is correct, isnt it, Violent Crime across the United States has gone down . Yeah, we celebrate Violent Crime has gone down. Property crime gone down, isnt that right . Congressman, as i sit here right now, i believe generally all crime is down over the last two years. Since i was elected. You would agree with donald trump, last year he tweeted border crossings are at a 45year low . We saw precipitous decline in border crossings after the president was electd and zorn into office. We havent retained those gains and seen dramatic surge in family units. Thank you. Time for gentleman expired. Mr. Raskin. Mr. Whitaker, you had a fascinating career, owned day care center, a concrete supply business, trailer sales, gop activist, u. S. Attorney who unsuccessfully prosecuted iowa first openly gay state legislator on charges dismissed by the injury in about an hour, senate candidate. There have been scandals. Here is one. Trumps acting attorney general involved in firm that scammed veterans out of life savings. Veteran says, i spent money on a dream, i lost everything. The newspapers say you struck gold when you arrived in washington, the president calls the swamp. Here is one. It tells the story. Conservative nonprofit with obscure roots in undisclosed funders paid Matthew Whitaker 1. 2 mill yob dollars, according to washington post, three years after you arrived in washington, whitaker received 1. 2 million as leader of charity that reported having no other employees, that is a pretty good deal. What was the name of the charity that you ran, mr. Whitaker . Congressman, you have mentioned a lot in your very simple question, what was the name of the charity . You have challenged my character, i have ability to i control this time, mr. Whitaker. If you want time of your own, this is my time. Mr. Whitaker, you dont run this committee. You dont run the congress of the United States and the judiciary gentlemen will suspend. The gentleman is correct, the witness will answer the questions and it is up to the gentleman to decide what questions. Will continue and resume. What was the title of the not for profit that you ran . Whoo time period, sir . What was the last title . It changed name three different times, right . What was the final name . While i was employed as the executive director, it was called foundation for accountability and civic trust. Did you name it . I did. Highly noble goals. Trust, accountability [cross talk] i control the floor, mr. Whitaker, you dont understand. The gentleman controls the time and if he wishes, as many members have done on occasion, they make a statement and ask a question, but if he wishes to proceed to another question tis his time. Congressman gentleman answer would be complete on the record the question he asked. Mr. Whitaker, tell us where the money came from that you were paid . The 1. 2 million you were paid before you went to gentleman asking my question. What was your question . The gentleman will suspend. State your point. Go down this many more times, again, if you want to do a confirmation hearing this, is not out of the scope of the hearing. This is not confirmation hearing. Mr. Chairman the gentlemans point of order is not well taken. The gentleman from maryland has discretion to ask the questions. The gentleman will proceed. The gentleman appealed ruling of the chair. The gentlelady moved to table. All in favor of the motion to table the appeal of the ruling of the chair vote aye. Opposed nay. The ayes have it. The ruling, the motion is tabled. The gentleman the gentleman can we suspend . No. It may solve point of order, mr. Chairman. Is Ranking Member going to continue to interrupt when he doesnt like the flow of question . Probably bank upon order when it needs to be made. Actually a point of order. Everyone will please suspend. We will the gentleman made a point of order. It was ruled out of order. Right now the gentleman has the time. If the Ranking Member wants to make a point, ill recognize him after the gentleman has completed. The gentleman will resume. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Its been reported publicly that there was one donor. And as we understand it, i think youre testifying today, you were the sole employee of the group. So one dont or, one employee. Do you know who the donor was to the group that funded your salary for 1. 3 million . Yes, i do. Who was the donor . The donor was another nonprofit 501c3 called the donors trust. That was the passthrough vehicle. Who reached into their pocket and wrote the check to go through that and pay your salary . Congressman, you know because you looked at this issue, the donors trust is much bigger than the foundation for accountability and civic trust and raises millions, if not hundreds of millions of dollars every year. I actually have no idea who the donor to donor trust funded. Then i have a theory that i want to float with you. It goes to something strange happening in the department of justice recently. Casino billionaire and magnet Sheldon Adelson hates online gambling, for obvious reasons, competition for him. He wants people in casinos, not online. He spent millions lobbying to override 2000 opinion by office of Legal Counsel d. O. J. Saying wire act prohibits sports gamble ogline, not gambling in the states, florida, pennsylvania, new jersey, lots of states have built important businesses for themselves online. Congress wouldnt change the law according to demand of mr. Edelson. He decided to get the department of justice to change the interpretation of the law and he threw million intoes a campaign to remake the d. O. J. And get the office of Legal Counsel to perform a complete reversal and say that the wire act bands kind of lotterys states run online, even though language prohibits only sports betting. When donald trump won and mr. Sessions became age and you, reevaluation of the legal question and the office of Legal Counsel found invisible points of law that escaped the department of justice back in 2011 and reversed the plain reasoning interpretation which talk about sports betting. Now, were you involved in that decision . Congressman, the general sessions was recused at the time that decision came out. Were you recused, too . I was recused, i was not involved in the decision. Did you talk to sheldon about it or his lobbyists . I did not. Did you talk to charles coop sner no, but i know charles. Cuask the chairman for time. I cant give you my time. Llc came out the gentleman controls the time. The conclusion of his statement, at the conclusion of his five minutes, i will afford the witness some time, but the gentleman controls the time. Thank you, mr. Chairman. January and february of 2018, the chairman and vice chairman of wild rose casino and resort, casino in iowa, each donated 2600 to your senate campaign, which was over four years before, when you lost that campaign. How did these casino operators come to donate to your campaign several years after you lost . Did you talk to them . Time of gentleman expired, answer the question. To answer specifically, no, i did not. The other point i would like to make, congressman, the first llc opinion that preceded the one we just issued in november, was done and the state of illinois provided a white paper regarding the position on the wire act and so it is consistent and your inference that process was corrupted or corrupt is absolutely wrong and the premise of your question, i rejected. Thank you for being with us. Our country is reeling from the horrors of family separation that occurred at the border. I was first member of congress to talk to hundreds of women and men who had been ripped apart from their children. I went into a federal detention, federal prison to talk to those women, many of them had not even been able to say goodbye to their children. They sat in the room next door as they heard their children yelling for them. They were not able to go and speak to their children. And for weeks they didnt know where their children were. I most of these women, most of the men, were seeking asylum and your department, instead of allowing them their legal right to seek asylum, your department instead imposed a zero humanity policy to prosecute them in mass proceedings, resulting in u. S. Government tearing thousands of children from their moms and dads and this is still happening and the truth is we may not know how many children were separated from their parents. Mr. Whitaker, you were attorney general, former attorney general Jeff Sessions chief of staff at the time, is that correct . Of the zero tolerance policy being implemented . His chief of staff at the time . One point of time. Family separation policy, let me tell you that you were. There was no family separation policy. There was no tolerance policy. This has been given for pinocchio multiple times. Senator americaley released outlining policies to separate children from their families. Were you aware of this memo at the time . No. So as chief of staff, you were not aware of what your boss was doing . Was the memo, im sorry, youre talking about the leaked memo our the memo general sessions memo senior officials at the department of justice, you were chief of staff, i think you would know and be senior official, you would know about the memo. The memo stated that a policy of criminally prosecuting parents would require close coordination between d. H. S. And the department of health and human services, cast with housing children, separated from their moms and dads and yet a report released by the Government Accountability office last october said d. H. S. And h. H. S. Were unaware your former boss zero tolerance prosecution policy memo was coming. Is it correct the department of justice provided no advance notice to those departments . Congresswoman, the departments policy just yes or no . Did you provide advanced notice . We conducted a press conference in san diego with the head of the immigration Customs Enforcement when we announced the zero tolerance policy. All the zero tolerance policy does says we will take all referrals from d. H. S. I will stop you there, it is my time. According to the gao report, the gao, the Government AccountabilityOffice Report on family separation, d. H. S. And h. H. S. Officials told us the agencies did not take specific planning steps because they did not have advanced notice of the april 2018 memo. It went on to say ccp, ice and oor officials stated they became affair of the april 2018 memo when it was announced publicly. So before or after the zero actually, let me go back, are you saying cbp, ice and lied to the gao and they were given advance notice . Im not going to suggest anybody was not telling the truth, im say whenning we publicly announced the zero tolerance policy, it was pursuant to a public event in san diego. Prior to the public event, mr. Whitaker, prior to the public event, these ice cbp and oor officials told the gao they had not gotten notice, im not talking about once it was public, was there advanced notice . Let me go on, before or after the zero tolerance policy was put into place and i call it zero humanity policy, did the u. S. Attorneys track when they were prosecuting a parent or legal guardian separated from their child . Only one answer to this. It has gone through the courts. You know, did we track it . Did you track when you were prosecuting a parent or legal guardian who had been separated from a child . I dont believe we were tracking that. You were not tracking it, that is the correct answer. And when parents are prosecuted and sentenced, they are in d. O. J. Custody; correct . Correct, they are custody trance ferred to u. S. Marshall. Parents were in your custody, your attorneys are prosecuting them and your department was not tracking parents who were separated from their children. Do you know what kind of damage has been done to children and families across this country . Children who will never see their parents again. Do you understand the magnitude of that . I understand that the policy of zero tolerance has the Justice Department started tracking parents and legal guardians who were separated from their children at the border . The time is expired, the witness may answer the question. Congresswoman, i appreciate your passion for this issue and i know that have you been very involved on the front lines. This is about more than passion, this is the childrens future, mr. Whitaker. Please answer. Go ahead. Please. The witness may answer. Congresswoman, the responsibility for the arrests and the detention and together with the custody of the children was handled by d. H. S. And h. H. S. Before those people were transferred to d. O. J. Custody through the u. S. Marshalls. Thank you. The time of the gentlelady is expired. Thank you so much mr. Chairman. Mr. Whitaker, i spent 27 years in Law Enforcement, i served chief of police, took an oath just like you did and i took that oath very, very seriously to uphold the constitution and to protect this country from all enemies, foreign and domestic, i hope you took the oath that you took very, very seriously. Today as i sit through and my colleague is right, this has been painful because i believe that you have worked to make our criminal Justice System to make a mockery out of it and it is painful for me for tou do that and anybody up to and including the president of the United States. But let me ask you this and its really been painful for someone who has been given so much responsibility, representing the men and women who have dedicated their lives to Public Service, that really means a lot to me. I hope it means a lot to you. It does. Mr. Lu asked you if you communicated with President Trump in the seventh district of new york. You referred him back to your statement, what was written for you. But all you said is that you didnt make in your statement you didnt make promises or commitments to President Trump. I want to know whether you talked to President Trump at all about the seventh district of new york case involving Michael Cohen . Congresswoman, as ive mentioned several times today, i am not going to discuss my private conversations with the president of the United States. Yes or no, did you no matter the question. Yes or no, did you discuss with President Trump, anything about Michael Cohen . Congresswoman, as i expressed several times today, i am not did you ever have any conversations with the president about firing or reassigning any personnel, u. S. Attorneys or others, who work with the Southern District of new york . With the president or anybody . Anybody at all . Did you ever have any conversations with anybody about reassigning or firing any personnel, including u. S. Attorneys with the Southern District of new york . Congresswoman, i sit on top of the department of justice, as you mention did have you conversations about anybody who works with the district of virginia, firing or reassigning. Not just the president , anybody at all . Congresswoman, i am not going to talk lets talk about the great 115,000 men and women who work for the department of justice, i agree, it is your word, extremely talented Public Servants dedicated to upholding our great constitution and the laws of the United States. Im sure you are familiar with this because you keep up at rally last fall, the president said, look what is being exposed at the department of justice and the f. B. I. You have real bad ones, you see what happened at the f. B. I. , they are all gone. They are all gone there is a lingering stench and were going to get rid of that, too. Do you agree with the president s characterization with the department of justice and the f. B. I. , as the attorney general, please tell me why you would agree or not agree with that statement . Congresswoman, since ive become acting attorney general, i have reestablished a positive relationship between the department of justice and the white house. Before you became established that positive relationship, what was your opinion of the 115,000 men and women who dedicate their life to Public Service . Before you had your current position, what was your opinion of them . I have actually a very high estimation of the men and women at the department of justice. They are the most exceptional, hardworking people that i have ever so you disagree with the president s characterization because they dont deserve it, mr. Whitaker and you are here, you supervise, you manage them, you dont agree with the president s characterization of them, is that correct . Listen, before congresswoman, in all due respect, i feel very strongly that as acting attorney general of the United States, that i have to set the tone for the entire department of justice and what is so important if i worked for you mr. Whitaker and you thought i was highly principled anditalentsed and that was your answer when i was asked how do you view the people who work for you, that is your answer, that is pretty pitful. Let me ask you this, you only mentioned drugs coming through the southern border. The problem at the southern border characterized by you and the president. Could you please paint a picture of drugs going through ports of entry . Im told overwhelming number of percentage of drugs flowing into our country come through the ports of entry. Do you agree or disagree with that statement . If so, yes or no, why not . Time expired, witness may answer the question. Congresswoman, we actually both agree the ports of entry at southern border are most trafficked with drugs and illegality. Overwhelming drugs come through port of entry, agree or disagree with that . I believe tremendous amount of drugs come through our ports of entry on southern border, yes. Gentlelady thank you, mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, sir. Wanted to ask you about your enforcement priorities. One of my jobs here in congress is to department of Homeland Security and within that job, one of my most important critical jobs is to make sure our citizens are safe, to protect our nation against terrorist threats. In may of twenty17, joint f. B. I. , d. H. S. Bulletin warned of growing threat of violence posed by white supremacist, neonazi and other White Nationalist groups. Extensive studies of terrorist plots between 2008 and 2016 found plots and attacks by White Nationalists outnumbered threats by islamic extremists two to one. Aggressively recruited on College Campuses and violent incidents have tripled since 2017. More than 100 People Killed or injured since 2014 and more than 60 in 2017 alone by the alt right groups. Sir, very basic question, do you believe while nationalism, white supremacist, extremists or rightwing groups in this country pose a threat . Yes, i do. Is it grow something based on that report issued by the f. B. I. , i have no reason to disagree with it. Do you believe that the administration is placing enough of emphasis, enough resources allocated, dedicated to stopping these kinds of homegrown terrorist attacks . I believe that we are dedicating resources to the appropriate threats, that is done obviously below my role, at the line and Management Level at f. B. I. And our other agencies, which including our partners at d. H. S. , as you mentioned, and i as i sit here today adequately addressing the threats we face, we are always reallocating how the threats evolve. Adequately addressing the threat and you mentioned earlier in Opening Statement, 30 convictions, hate crime convictions. Yet in 2017, increase of 17 hate crimes reported, which usually underreported in this country, more than 7000 hate crimes in 2017 and you have 30 convictions. Do you think your allocating adequate resources toward prosecuting hate crimes . I do. If you look at some highprofile cases weve done, like the synagogue shooting in pittsburgh or in charlottesville that we discussed or even the case where we sent a prosecutor to my home state of iowa to prosecute a state hate crime if you look at the numbers 7000 reported, 20 increase in 2017, 30 convictions. Adequate . Congressman, we work with our state partners and local police to determine where is the best place and most effective place to prosecute a crime. So to suggest that somehow those victims of the crimes dont receive the proper justice, i think would be i think im looking at it from relative, were looking at foreign terrorism and yet are we ignoring domestic terrorism . We are not ignoring that. Are we allocating equal or more resources to domestic versus foreign . Yes or no . Cocaineman, we allocate resources based upon the threats and where the federal government should deploy resources. It is very dynamic, daily evaluation where the threats are and i believe we are adequately resourcing threats including the ones you describe. Do you think domestic terrorism from white supremacist groups is on the rise . Do you think we should allocate Additional Resources to combating these kind of terrorist attacks in this country . Congressman, i believe i answered this question, i want to be clear. I agree with the f. B. I. Im sorry, i didnt hear your answer. Well, i believe with the f. B. I. Statement that those crimes are on the rise. I also believe we adequately deployed resources on daily basis dynamically as required by the threats. I have s on Intelligence Briefings i anticipate on almost daily basis and i know the f. B. I. Ask other Law Enforcement are adequately resourcing threats in addition to other threats we face. It is target rich environment when it comes to law enforce sxment making sure sir, im running out of time. We will continue to look at this at Homeland Security. I believe that were missing the ball here in 2017, d. H. S. Terminated Grant Funding to look at issues of domestic terrorism. We have to keep addressing this issue, lives, safety of our citizens is at stake. Mr. Chairman, i yield. Mr. Scanlon. Good afternoon, mr. Whitaker. Good afternoon. In response from my pennsylvania colleague, you mentioned department of justice has been attempting to withhold federal dollars from socalled sanctuary cities, is that right . I talked about the grant. One of those cities is philadelphia, right . I believe so, yes. I happen to represent philadelphia. Isnt it true that judge mike bailson of Eastern District of pennsylvania ruled department of justice attempt to withhold this money was illegal and unconstitutional . Congresswoman was that the ruling of the federal court . Is that correct i will not discuss ongoing litigation. Isnt it correct it was ruled department of justice action were illegal and unconstituti unconstitutional . It is a matter of Public Opinion. I dont disagree you may be confused here. This may appear to be a contact sport, but it is not a gridiron and im not letting you run out the time. The federal court ruled that was illegal and unconstitutional . Congresswoman i will take that as yes. Isnt it also true, mr. Whitaker, mr. Whitaker, im asking a question. Isnt it also true the court found the department of justice had not produced any credible evidence that undocumented immigrants commit crime at higher rate than any other group . This is subject of ongoing litigation. Isnt it true federal court found that in a Public Opinion . Congresswoman, i am not going to comment i will take that as yes, as well. Move on to other questions and just to be clear, im asking oversight questions about enforcement priorities during your tenure, okay. At the department of justice, i want to make sure we are clear when that tenure began. I have a date of september 22, 2017 you became chief of staff, is that correct . That is incorrect. When is your first working day chief of staff for attorney general sessions . Department of justice october 24, 2017. Okay, and then you became acting attorney general as of november 7, 2018 . The president tweeted that i was going to be the next acting attorney general on november 7 of 2018, the order i received from the president has date of november 8 of 2018. Do you have a copy of the order . I do have a copy. Can you provide to the committee . Id be happy to. I dont have it with me. That would be wonderful. Turning to other enforcement priorities. December 22, 2017, the department of justice sent a formal request to the Census Bureau asking for addition to the census of question asking about citizenship status. Did attorney general sessions direct the Department Lawyers to draft that request . Congresswoman, the department is currently defending the Census Bureau in litigation on this issue across the country. Ask or refusing to answer the question . I continuing is inappropriate for me to comment about the subject of ongoing litigation sglchlts mr. Chairman, reflect mr. Whitaker hasnt answered the question and ask it be addressed in the upcoming deposition. Lets see. Do you know if the president directed department of justice lawyers to make that request . Congresswoman, this is the subject of ongoing litigation. You will not answer that question either . Thank you. Was acting assistant attorney general john warren involved in the drafting of that request to ask the census question . Congresswoman, as previously stated, this is subject of ongoing litigation. Let the record reflect again you are refusing to answer the question. Okay, we can agree one function of the department is justice enforce Voting Rights act; correct . Correct. And isnt it also true the most recent Voting Rights act enforcement action filed january 10 2017 . As ive mentioned previously, the department is it correct the most recent Voting Rights enforcement act action was in 2017s, january 10 . Congresswoman, ill give you yesorno question. First term of the obama administration, they filed one reclaiming my time. No running out the clock. Chairman, if we can enter into the record the department of justice website, which reflects when the last Voting Rights act case was filed, january 10, 2017 . With that objection, the fact that is noted on the website will be entered in the record. Thank you. Isnt it true under the trump administration, the department of justice reversed its position on at least three important Voting Rights cases . May i answer the question, my time is expired . Yes or no. Gentle ladys time expired, answer the question. The department of justice changed position only in one voting case, the husted case, the Supreme Court agreed with the new reading of the statute. Thank you, mr. Chairman. I have about four documents i ask to be entered into the record. First is titled crime and murder in 2018 and preliminary analysis. The second one reads border communities have lower crime rate. The third reads, amid crisis rhetoric, local leaders defend border from misconception, report from the rio grand in texas and progressive times, Mission Texas sheriff, crime drug 10 of the last year. Without objection, entered into record. Gentlelady recognized for five minutes. Acting attorney general, what in your mind leads you to conclude that the border region is crime ridden when these documents i just entered in the record clearly show del rio, brownsville, el paso, all the areas on the border region and el paso is listed in the top 29 cities, where crime has gone down, you quoted in your written testimony, if all of these stats show differently, why are you so insistent this is a crimeridden area . Please short answer, i only have five minutes. I dont roll saying today the border region is crime ridden. I will answer as fulsome as i can. Illegal immigration through southern border is dramatically and negatively impacting the crime rate in our cities. It would be lower if we didnt have illegal immigration, i toint point to the example of mollie tibbet. Most Illegal Immigrants coming through dont reside at the border region, they transit through and make their way to other parts of our country. I know many come to houston, we have good jobs and were an open city. But, i heard you say earlier and maybe the word crime ridden wasnt the exact word you used, but eluding to the fact the border areas had a lot of crime. And i just simply dont agree with you. But let me move on to another topic following up, questions about the family separation policy or the zero tolerance policy. You said earlier in answer to question about some background, that you were by general session slide full year side by side and you were aware of everything in the Justice Department separation policy, is that true . I served as chief of staff for 13 months and im familiar with zero tolerance policy, yes. You said you were with him side by side, so can you tell us if you were in the room when it happened when the actual zero tolerance policy was hatched . I participated in discussions about the zero tolerance policy internally. I will not talk about internal deliberations, the decision was to issue a zero tolerance policy. But who is the brain child of the policy . Who hatched it . Where did it come from . Never had it before to the level its being executed again . It was general sessions to implement and he signed and gave it to the u. S. Attorneys. Let me ask this question. How many children are still separate friday families as we sit here today . That is a number that only d. H. S. And h. H. S. Would know. As i sit here, the department of justice isnt involved in handling children that are encountered at the border, family unit or unaccompanied minors. You have no idea how many children, not seen documents across your desk from d. H. S. Or orr, or anybody else . Again, those are different departments within the no, i know that, sir, but i know that you are the acting attorney general and you get a lot of reports, a lot of documents, a lot of data. You have not seen anything to give any idea how many children have been torn away from the arms of their mothers . No, i would have to refer tou d. H. S. And d. H. S. Do you know how many have been reuniteed with their families . Again, congresswoman, those are not statistics im involved in. Those cases you dont have to be the one to write the figure sticks counting the children, i just want to know if you have seen anything cross your desk or your member of staff, so americans who are trying to find this inhumane, have idea when the children will be reunited with families. You cannot tell us that today . No, i would have to refer you to h. H. S. And d. H. S. , which would be responsible for the parts of the process because once we receive individuals for prosecution under zero tolerance policy, we only deal with the adults. One last question, running out of time. The state of union, the president said he was going to make and im paraphrasing, priority to make sure that people with preexisting conditions were protected. Does that mean youre going to drop the aca litigation you are involved in . As you know, congresswoman, the Affordable Care act litigation is ongoing. I know that, the question is are you willing to settle it or able to drop some of that, since the president is changing priorities and direction for department of justice . Time of the gentlelady expired. The witness may answer the question. We have executive and if the president sets a policy, issues policy, we will follow that policy. Thank you. Mr. Attorney general, thank you for being here. I want to thank my creag from south dakota for support of criminal justice reform, looking forward to working with him. North dakota. North dakota, my apology. I look forward to working with you on criminal justice reform. Another policy matter with cannabis. Recreational use was legalized in 2014, half of the states legalized use of marijuana. Researchers at university of colorado, i represent, working hard to understand the Health Effects for using marijuana for parkinson and Health Effects. I understand this is before you were with the department of justice, the dea took step toward improving Scientific Research on marijuana, considered request in federal register for application for federally approved Research Grade marijuana, several institutions submitted application yet to receive a response, what is the status of those applications, if you might know and do you know if the department of justice and dea intend to support legitimate Cannabis Research to help protect our citizen . For three months ive been acting attorney general, this is issue ive been aware of and ive tried to get the expansion and application out. We have run into a very complicated matter regarding a treaty that were trying to work around. We have International Treaty obligations that may not allow the way marijuana has to be handled from research familiarity to researchers and grow facility to researchers. It is something im very aware of and something im trying to push. I have six days left in this chair at the most, i dont know if i will successfully get to it. I understand the concern and know were trying to make it work. I appreciate that and applaud that. Within six days if you could followup with the Department Staff and follow up in writing it would be helpful for us as folks reach out. We will try to get an answer for the current status. My recollection where i last found it no, that is sufficient. Thank you, mr. Attorney general. You mentioned earlier, that the public essentially learned attorney general sessions fired on november 7, 2018 by tweet. And you were appointed via that same tweet. When did you first learn that mr. Sessions was fired or would be fired . I learned on november 7, if that is your question. Yeah. Okay. You learned by virtue of the same tweet that we all learn . Ed i would suggest, the only point i would put on that congressman, sorry to interrupt, mr. Sessions resigned, sent in resignation letter. Understand. Did you have conversations with folks at the white house prior to november 7, 2018 about attorney general sessions resigning or being fired, however you characterize that . As is longstanding practice of the department of justice and executive branch generally, the president entitled to confidential communication, im not confirming nor denying existence of conversation, i will not talk about private conversations with the president of the United States. We will followup on that front or ask the chairman to take that up in deposition to the extent one is noticed. Question around, you mentioned earlier, in some of the testimony around the reasonabling behind your appointment that one reason you believed in your view you were appointed was to the position of acting attorney general, your experience as former u. S. Attorney; correct . Correct. I spent five and a half years as United States attorney for Southern District of iowa. You mentioned one reason you believe you were appointed acting attorney general, you have been at the department of justice for the last year or so working as chief of staff to attorney general sessionings, side by side, i think you mentioned. Yeah, i knew active matters, we werent recused from, the policies we implementd and in progress, i knew the people and individuals inside the department of justice and inner agencies. I understand. My time here. I appreciate that. The question i have is im sure you are aware that Deputy Attorney general Rod Rosenstein is a former u. S. Attorney, that he also has been at the department of justice, that he knows the people, he knows the matters and under vacancy act, he was next in line in succession to be appointed attorney general in the occasion in which that office was vacant occasioned by mr. Sessions termination or resignation or what have you. Im trying to understand, were you surprised that you were appointed rather than Deputy Attorney general rosenstein, ordinary rules of succession werent followed . Its been honor of lifetime to serve as acting attorney general and i have six days left and im going to take full advantage of that, including enjoy thanksgiving hearing. There are two statutes that apply to the vacancy created by general sessions. Letter of resignation, one was the succession statute by the department of justice and the other is vacancy reform act passed by congress. So my appointment as outlined in the 20page olc opinion is legitimate and has im not with respect to attorney general, i was not referencing legitimacy, i was saying under vacancy act, the Deputy Attorney general is First Assistant to the attorney general, therefore would be the appropriate designee to fill that role. I yield back my time. Gentleman yields it back. Mr. Chairman . Im sorry. I want to address that issue really quickly so were all on the same page. The First Assistant together with any other Senate Confirmed individual, together with anyone served 90 days or less, 365 days at senior position is eligible to be and there is no ranking or hierarchy of the three positions, obviously im in the third bucket, chief of staff, want to be clear on that. Mrs. Mcbath. Thank you. Mr. Whitaker, North Carolina and georgia dealing with Voter Suppression, i witnessed Voter Suppression firsthand in georgia, even as i was running my own election. Is it fair to say that the department was not remotely interested in securing the elections in North Carolina rather it intent was abusing subpoena powers and yielding mandate to protect election in thinly veiled effort to suppress minority election in population . The department of justice is committed to upholding the Voting Rights of all americans. I understand that. But what i need you to clarify for me, what actions were taken for all of the Voting Rights to be upheld . Because you stated earlier, your statement earlier, you were side by side with a. G. Sessions advising him all aspects of the department, yet you dont know, but at this point you are saying you do not suspect there was any Voter Suppression . So what im asking is that do you not know of any Voter Suppression . Or do you not know whether or not the laws are being enforced . I dont believe i said i am not aware there might have been Voter Suppression. Did i that something you heard me say . Im just asking you, might it be the case you were not aware of any Voter Suppression . Well, the department of justice, i sit atop a massive organization, as you can imagine and cases regarding Voter Suppression, voter fraud and enforcement of Voting Rights act is done by u. S. Attorneys and f. B. I. Ark gents in the district doing the cases. It would be unusual that i would have specific knowledge about any of the evidence in those cases. So obviously we do our cases, free of political interference and if there is evidence of, as you suggest, Voter Suppression and can predicate investigation that is something well seriously look at. So did the department assess need for election monitors in the 2019 election . I think i mentioned in my Opening Statement that we sent out 35 Civil Rights Division teams to i believe 19 states, if i remember right. I might be wrong and i refer you back to my statement. We did send out election monitors from the Civil Rights Division. Okay. I was in georgia and i can tell you, i saw the problems. I didnt see the election monitors. Did you send any that you are aware of . As i sit here today, i do not know if georgia received what im describing, the Civil Rights Division would have determined where those assets could be deployed. I know in the 2004 election, when i was u. S. Attorney, the Civil Rights Division sent three or four lawyers to my office to monitor election in des moines. I wouldnt be surprised they did send election monitors to georgia. I can tell you, i really think we needed them and im very disappointed in the numbers that we received, we needed far more help than we got. But also on february 1, the committee sent you a letter asking again for information on the department Voting Rights enforcement. These questions were asked by members during the 115th congress, but never answered. Will you commit to providing this information for this committee . We try to respond to all the letters we receive from congress. Obviously february 1 was i believe only a week or so ago, ive lost track of what day it is. Yeah, we will look at that letter and respond consistent with the way we respond to requests from congress. These are important issues and i share your concern about some of these places where there is alleged Voter Suppression and i know we are going to enforce voter voting right acts robustly and we will again, if there is evidence, we should get that to our f. B. I. And people that enforce laws to properly predicate investigation. Thank you for that. If we dont get answers, i promise you, we will keep asking. Another question that i have is lets see here. What steps did the department take to Election Security efforts during the 2018 election . Specific efforts . Are you talking about the actual voting devices . Yes. Or the responsibility for the security of the voting devices, machines actually the responsibility of the department of Homeland Security. Uhhuh. Can you tell the committee what those responsibilities were, the steps actually taken . Because i can tell you, there were many, many instances in georgia, we saw over and over again, where people were not allowed to vote. Time of the gentlelady is expired. The witness may answer the question. If there is specific evidence crimes were committed we would be interested at the department of justice. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Stanton. Thank you for appearing before us here today. Your time as acting attorney general is near an end, after that you may or may not be working for department of justice or another position within the trump administration, there are of course several congressional investigations this involve yourself and i want you here today to pledge that you will answer any Inspector General questions and cooperate fully with the investigations even after you depart from your current position . Are you talking about the d. O. J. Inspector general . Yes, considering requests for information and investigations that involve you, since you will be leaving this position soon, i want you to commit in front of the committee you will answer the ig question and cooperate fully with the investigations. Im happy to commit to that, i will cooperate with Inspector General, Michael Horowitz is a fine d. O. J. Career employee, utmost respect for him. Thank you. The impact of the Government Shutdown on the functioning of the department of justice, the Law Enforcement function, fair to say the shutdown was devastating on the ability of the department to do the shut down really was a difficult time at the department of justice because you know, ac their performance of their duties. So they showed up every day like dedicated Public Servants and did their job knowing you here in congress would pay them. I appreciate that. Every person up here would agree the work of the rank and file members of the department of justice, the fbi, other Law Enforcement is outstanding. Seems appropriate the department issued a memorandum during the time of the shut down, travel was not allowed. Is that accurate . I dont have that memo in front of me. That is consistent of our understanding. On january 13, 2019 in the middle of the Government Shutdown, did you travel to give a speech to the Heritage Foundation . Congressman, this is an important question, but i want to be very clear. I have 24 7 security detail that drives me everywhere. So the term