Good morning. This hearing will come to order. Weve had three oversight this year in the Senate Judiciary committee. Including the committees first fbi oversight since 2019. The next month, the First Department of Homeland Security oversight hearing since january, 2018. Today, were holding the First Department of justice oversight hearing since october 18th, 2017. That was the only time during the four year Trump Administration this Committee Held an agency Wide Department of justice oversight hearing. Annual oversight hearings worth a norm under the obama administration. Im pleased to assure this tradition. I think attorney general garland for appearing today. We were confirmed by the senate in the march on a bipartisan basis and took the helm of the Justice Department at a precarious moment. An attorney general barr and his predecessors, the department often played the role of President Trumps personal law firm. Time again, trump appointees overrode the professional judgment of the departments nonpartisan career attorney, to advance the president s agenda. Their efforts took a dark and dangerous turn in the waning months of the trump term. When doj political appointees aided the President Trumps the light efforts to challenge the integrity of our election. First, attorney general barr cast aside decades old policies decide designed to prevent the department from impacting elections. He directed u. S. Attorneys and the fbi to investigate Election Fraud claims. And nonetheless, rudy giuliani, after these cleans had been similarly discredited and disproven by countless state Election Officials. And barr repeatedly publicly and basically claimed that real mail voting would be rampant to far fraud. A charge he himself rejected when the votes were actually counted. After he lost 2020 election, President Trump found another Justice Department highlighting Jeffrey Clark. A mid level political appointee who became the president s big lie lawyer. Clark pushed the department of justice leaders to overturn the election. And when they refused, he plotted with President Trump to replace them. Trump and clark brought the department to the brink and were thwarted only after the threat of mass resignations across the department of justice. I commend those department of justice attorneys. Many of whom were trump appointees, who had men who at that critical moment in history resisted President Trump and his plot to attack our democracy. The events this committee described in a recent subverting justice report were among the most brazen examples of President Trump and tempting to bend the department of justice to his will and his agenda. But they were the natural culmination of four years of attacks on the department of justice. Theres a Straight Line from these events to the violent insurrection in the Capital Building on january 6th. When trump and his allies could not prevail in court and lost case after case after case, claiming voter fraud, they took their big lie to the Justice Department. And when they didnt prevail there, they dispatched an angry mob to storm the capitol to stop us from counting the electoral votes. I commend the many agents and prosecutors who were working day in and day out to bring these violent insurrectionists to justice. I hope the department will be just as steadfast in pursuit of those who pursued the attack and those who would prevent the American People and their representatives from uncovering the truth. I am sorry that Republican Senate leader refuse to join the Bipartisan Commission that was propose to investigate the january 6th insurrection and attack. I look forward to hearing from the attorney general this morning about the work that is underway to combat the growing threat of Domestic Violence and extremism. The department cooperated with our committees investigation into the Jeffrey Clark scheme at a deserves credit for doing so. Over the course of several months, the department provided documents, authorize testimony and resolved executive preview privilege issues. Enabling us to uncover, on a bipartisan basis i might add, just how close we came to a full constitutional crisis. Attorney general garland, when you appear before us in february, you acknowledge an echo, Great Respect for belief and the oversight rule of the committee. And you committed your department to quote, the s responsible as responsive as we possibly can. To comply with information requests. I commend you for the steps youve taken, that i believe i speak for all my colleagues in think theres still room for improvement when it comes to department responses. The Department Must deliver on his mission to deliver a fair and impartial justice. Let me give you an example. In the closing days of the Trump Administration, the Departments Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo declaring in my estimation, that federal inmates released to home confinement under the bipartisan cares act must return to the federal bureau of prisons custody following the covid19 emergency. In fact, the cares act includes no such requirement. No suchthese non pilot inmates e already home and are overwhelming reintegrating into the community. On april 23rd, i sent you a letter, joined by senator booker, urging you to rescind this memo. Six months later, six months later, we still have not received a response. Another example. In november of 2020, the Trump Administration published a rule discouraging inmates from completing progress programs to reduce their chance of reoffending. This was a undertaken by combining a Prison Reform measure that was cosponsored by senator cornyn and senator whitehouse, with a senator and signed into law by the president. Senator grassley and i sent a letter on may 5th urging the department to reject the proposed rule and instead enact a rule consistent with the goal of the First Step Act to reduce recidivism. Its been five months. In fact, more than five months. We still havent received a response. The First Step Act allowed the bureau of prisons to create compassionate release under extraordinary and compelling circumstances. Such as the one once of a Century Global pandemic. Under the Trump Administration, listen to these numbers. The bureau of prisons denied all but 36, 36, a 31,000 compassionate release petitions filed during the pandemic. In the First Six Months of the Biden Administration, the bureau of prisons approved just nine compassionate release requests. This is extraordinary. When the infection rate in the bureau of prisons with six to seven times the National Infection rates and the death rate equally appalling, when compassionate release requests were received, 31,000 of them, only 36 were allowed. Meanwhile, the pandemic has been devastating in our bureau of prisons facilities. To invent 20 and 65 inmates have died, including six within the last few weeks. The deaths of 42yearold man came after the department of justice denied his compassionate release request. Republicans, democrats Work Together to pass the first step back, to make our Justice System fairer and our communities suture. These reforms are only as good as their implementation. Attorney general garland, as you can before this committee, the right to vote and the right to have the votes are very every american counted is under attack like no time in decades this year, state legislators have introduced more than 425 bills making it more different difficult for americans to vote. Particularly people of color. 19 states have enacted 33 of these. Lost some of these laws set new limits on voting by mail. Others cut hours for polling locations. All of them, all of them, are designed to achieve the same outcome. Make it more difficult to vote. At the same time, the big lie proponents are pushing new laws to get partisan state legislators the ability to overturn Election Results that they dont agree with. They are ousting local Election Officials who faithfully apply the law, and oversaw an election that trumps own department of Homeland Security called the most secure in american history. And their Efforts Coincide with an unprecedented increase in violent threats to state and local elections officials. Id like to add this point about these violent threats. It is rife across america. Those of us who are Airline Passengers no flight attendants are faced with thousands of confrontations, even violent confrontations, over wearing masks. I see a letter to you joined by other saying this has to be taken seriously. These assaults have been been in the name of socalled liberal liberty are unacceptable. In your october 4th middle, relative to School Board Officials and their own peril at this point, i think should be mentioned. I have heard statements from members of this committee which i think are really inconsistent with reality. Those who think the insurrectionists mob on january six was may merely a group of tourists visiting the capital ignored the pillaging, deaths and injuries, to hundreds of Law Enforcement officials. And those who argue School Board Meetings across america are not more dangerous are violent in the past are ignoring reality. I went in and typed in this Morning School board violence on one of the search engines. Page after page is coming up. In my state of illinois, is a small rural town in the western part of our state that i have represented for almost 40 years. It is a quite, solid community. And yet, they had their own instances of School Board Meetings were an individual had to be arrested because he threatened violence against the School Board Members over masks in schools, for example. That story is repeated over and over again. The state of minnesota, senator klobuchar knows the story well. The state of idaho. Were seeing violence at the School Board Meetings and an unprecedented number. I dont believe i think you made it clear that you dont believe we should infringe ons free speech. But free speech does not involve threats and violence, period. And we ought to join with localized forsman officials to protect the School Board Members who are being intimidated in this way. I want to close by mentioning an issue i said to you personally. Im honored to represent the city in which you grew up in and which i now visit with great frequency. And that is the city of chicago. The gun violence situation there is intolerable. Intolerable. And were not the only city in america, by any means, that is facing this. We need to have your assurance that there is a concerted, determined effort, to deal with gun violence at the federal level. Coordinating our efforts with state and local officials. With that in mind, i hope we can reach some agreement to do so very quickly. Let me handed off now to the Ranking Member, senator grassley. Thank you, chairman durbin. This committee has a constitutional obligation to ensure the department complies with the laws that we write an those laws according to our in the performance of our constitutional duty, we write letters seeking answers and records from the department and its component agencies to better understand what they are doing. Likewise, the entire executive branch, not just the o. J. , has an obligation to respond to congressional oversight requests. Today, i can see with confidence that under general garlands leadership, the department has failed across the board to comply with this committees republican oversight requests. And i appreciate very much chairman dormant pointing out a letter that he and i wrote five months, havent received an answer. If my name being on that water has any reason it hasnt been responded to, ill take my name off of that letter. In contrast, governor general garland, you provided democratic colleagues with thousands of pages of materials. Moreover, President Biden has politicized and inserted himself into the Department Policy making. Notably, directing the end of compulsory process for reporter records and criminal leak investigations. And most recently, inserted can selfwhen he said that the department should prosecute any one who defies compulsory process from the january 6th committee. At your confirmation hearing, i read to you what i told senator sessions at his confirmation hearing for being attorney general. This, quote, if senator feinstein who then was Ranking Member, if senator feinstein contacts you, do not use this excuse as so many use, that if you are not a chair of a committee you do not have to answer the questions. I want her questions answered just like you would answer my questions. And of quote. That i gave to senator sessions. So, you said to me at your hearing, quote, i will not use any excuse to not answer your questions, senator. And of course. You have failed to satisfy that statement. Example. Ive asked the department for records related to Hunter Bidens october 2018 firearm incident, where his gun ended up in a trash can near a school. Now, that is a firearm incident. Your atf used this federal freedom of information act to refuse producing those records when that law doesnt even apply to the congress. Ive also asked for information relating to chinese nationals linked to the communist chinese regime that are connected to the biden family. When individual, patrick holt, was not just linked to chinese regime, he was apparently connected to that countrys intelligence service. Hunter biden reportedly represented him for 1 Million Dollars. Now, even though, the Department Already made public in Court Filings that d possesses fisa information related to patrick hold, in response, you stated quote, unfortunately under the circumstances described in your letter, we are not in a position to confirm the existence of the information that is sought, if it exists in the departments possession. Well, let me emphasize, we are ready made it public in a court filing. So, youre telling me you cant even confirm its existence. Now, with respect to the criminal investigation of hunter biden, senator johnson and i wrote to you twice. This year, regarding the a person named nicholas mcqueen. Mr. Mcqueen was employed at until january 20th, 2021. When he was hired to be then acting assistant attorney general for the departments Criminal Division. Before he was hired, he worked with christopher clark, who hunter biden reportedly hired to work on his federal criminal case a month before President Bidens inauguration. Now, the department has not disputed any of these facts. However, you refuse to confirm whether mr. Mccoy had recused from the hunter biden case. That seems to be a Pretty Simple thing to say one way or the other. The sound of the president of the United States is under criminal investigation for financial matters. His senior attorney, under your command, his apparent conflicts with that matter. Your refusal to answer just regular questions cast a very public cloud over the entire investigation. A cloud, that you could easily do away with a few just were just a little bit transparent. When i placed holds on your nominees for the departments failure to comply with republican oversight requests, i said either you run the department of justice or the department of justice runs you. Right now, it looks like the department of justice is running you. Since your confirmation, in less than a year, the department has moved as far left as it can go. You politicized the department in ways it should not be. Case in point, the Infamous School board matter. You publicly issued this memo nearly five days after the National School Board Association wrote a letter to President Biden. Incredibly, they asked the department to use the Anti Terrorism patriot act against parents speaking their minds to local Ethics School officials. The School Board Association has sent apologize for that matter, but not before the department relied on their letter to mobilize federal Law Enforcement in state and local matters. Meanwhile, actual Violent Crime is on the rise in the country. Your memo treats parents speaking freely to be worthy of the departments heavily investigative and prosecutorial hand. Youve created a task force that includes the departments Criminal Division and National Security division to potentially weaponize against appearance. Your memo also creates a special training and guidance for local School Boards and School Administrators to recognize threats against them. According to your memo, these threats include an undefined category of quote unquote, other forms of intimidation and harassment. So, the last thing the Justice Department and fbi need is a very vague memo to an leash their power. Especially when theyve shown zero interest in holding their own accountable. When you dont hold your own accountable. Lets not forget about obama, biden, the administrations fisa abuse. Abuses that the department and the fbi for, years, denied. Even to be possible. And then you allowed a disgraced former fbi official off the hook. Paying him and hundreds of thousands of dollars in taxpayers money when the Inspector General determined that he lied to investigators seven times. Yes, seven times. Over the course of three different occasions. The or the fbi or departments total failure to protect thousands of kids from abuse by larry nassar, and then covered up. When we had a bipartisan hearing to learn about survivors, your Deputy Attorney general didnt even show up. So, getting back to the National School Board Association matter, these parents are try to protect their children. Theyre worried about divisive and harmful curricula based upon Critical Race Theory. Theyre speaking their minds about mask mandates. This is the very core of constitutionally protected speech. And free speech is deadly to the tyranny of government. And is the lifeblood of our constitutional republic. To see your policies are outside of the mainstream would be an understatement. Mothers and fathers have a vested interest in how schools educate their children. They are not, as the biden Justice Department apparently believes them to be, National Security threats. What is a National Security threat . Things like an s 13. What is a National Security threat is like our open southern borders. What is a National Security threat is the federal government failing to adequately vet individuals from afghanistan. I suggest that you quickly change your course, because youre losing credibility with the American People and with the senator in particular. Thank you. Thank thanks senator grassley. We now turn to the attorney general. First welcome the honorable honorable Merrick Garland to testify before the Senate Judiciary committee. The mechanics are such i have to swear in after i swear in attorney general garland he, will make his Opening Statement. Each senator will have seven minutes. I will try to hold folks close to that number so everybody can be accommodated. If there is a request, we may have a second round of questions of three minutes per senator. Attorney general garland, would you please stand to be sworn in . Do you swear and affirm the testimony that you will give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth . I do. Thank you, let the record reflect the attorney general answered in the affirmative. Please, proceed with your Opening Statement. Good morning chairman durbin, Ranking Member grassley, distinguished members of this committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My address to all Justice Department in place on my first day in office, i spoke about three coequal priorities that should guide the departments work. Upholding the rule of law. Keeping our country safe. And protecting civil rights. The first core priority, upholding the rule of law, is rooted in the recognition that to succeed and retain the trust of the American People, the Justice Department must at here to the norms that have been part of its dna since edward lee bs tenure as the first post watergate attorney general. Those norms of independence from improper influence and the principal exercise of discretion and treatinglike cases like, or what define who we are as public servants. Over the last seven months that i have served as attorney general, the department has reaffirmed a were appropriate, updated and strengthen its policies that are foundational for these norms. For example, we strengthen our policy governing communications between the Justice Department and the white house. That policy is designed to protect the departments criminal and civil Law Enforcement decisions and its legal judgments from partisan or other inappropriate influence. We also issued a new policy to better protect the freedom and independence of that press, by restricting the use of compulsory process to obtain information from or records of members of the news media. The second core priority is keeping our country safe from all threats, foreign and domestic, while also protecting our civil liberties. We are strengthening our 200 joint Terrorism Task forces, the central hub for domestic terrorism cooperation across all levels of government to nationwide. For fy 22, we are seeking more than one point billion billion dollars, an increase of more than a billion dollars for our counterterrorism work. Terrorists or common criminals. In april, we launched both a comprehensive review and a digital task force. And a group that targeted colonial pipeline. Keeping our country safe also requires reducing Violent Crime and gun violence. In may, we announced a comprehensive strategy which deploys all are Relevant Department components. We also launched five cross jurisdictional Strike Forces to disrupt illegal Drug Trafficking into key corridors. And to support local Police Departments and help them build trust with the communities they serve, our fy 22 budget request totals and say from violent Drug Trafficking networks fueling the opioid epidemic. Opiates, including fentanyl, cause nearly 70,000 fatal overdoses in 2020. We will continue to use all of our resources to save lives. Finally, keeping our country safe requires keeping Democratic Institutions safe from violent attack. As this committee is well aware, the department is currently engaged in one of the most sweeping investigations into the january 6th attack on the capitol. The departments third priority is protecting civil rights and this was a founding purpose when the department was established in 1870. Today, the Civil Rights Division remain central to protecting Voting Rights, prosecuting hate crimes in stopping unlawful discrimination. This year we doubled the size of the Civil Rights Division voting section and our fy budget seeks the largest ever increase for the division, totaling more than 15 . We did appointed Department Wide coordinators and stepped up our Community Relations service. We are also revitalizing and expanding work to ensure equal access to justice. Cessin addition to these core priorities, another important area of focus is reinvigorating antitrust enforcement, combatting fraud and protecting consumers. We are aggressively enforcing the antitrust laws by challenging anticompetitive mergers and exclusionary practices. We are seeking a substantial increase in funds for the division. We set up a covid 19 fraud Enforcement Tax force to bring to justice those who defraud the government meant for dollars meant for the most vulnerable among us. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, i look forward to your questions. Thank you. Hardly a day goes by in chicago where someone is not killed with a firearm. The cases are heartbreaking. Little boys and girls coming and standing on their porch is and going to school. And on august 7th, when Police Officer ella french and her partner were conducting a routine traffic stop in the city. Officer french, age 29, was murdered. And her partner was severely wounded. I never saw such an outpouring of emotions in the city. I went down to Rita High School in the south side, where there was the memorial service. There were hundreds, if not thousands, of women and men in uniform. And just ordinary citizens, standing, waiting for their turn to pay tribute to ella french, for what she had done for her city. Two days later, we found out from u. S. Attorneys office that the gun used to murder her was obtained from indiana, in a straw purchase. Thats when a person who can clear a background check buys a federally licensed gun and gives it to someone who cannot clear it. What are we going to do about this . What will be done at the federal level to show that we are taking this seriously . Ours isnt the only city facing this challenge. And weve got to act and act assume. Mister chairman, im as concerned as you are, and im sure all members of the committee are about the rise in Violent Crime across the country. I was in chicago, as you know, at almost the exact time that this officer was killed. I have gone to meet with the families of the atf agent killed on duty. And i have stood on the mall, as have many other officers, who were killed in the line of duty. The Justice Department is doing Everything Possible to address Violent Crime. In may of this year, we launched the Violent Crime initiative, which brings together Law Enforcement in the federal level, to coordinate with state, local, and territorial Law Enforcement, to fight this issue. Our federal agencies, atf, marshals, the eea, are all involved in the. Neighborhoods continue in all these ways, and we are looking at ways to grant money to Police Departments. With respect to the gun trafficking you are speaking about, as you know, chicago is one of the task for cities that weve announced for the purposes of tracing this contravening problem. And we are doing so and making arrests as well. I could not agree more that this is a serious, serious problem that needs attention of the entire countrys Law Enforcement. And the Justice Department is very much involved in the fight. Thank you. And after the meeting with those agencies, to talk about the strikeforce, and what they are doing, how they are cooperating with state and local Law Enforcement, i hope to do it maybe even this week, on a private basis. And see what more we can do. I think we all have a responsibility when it comes to this issue. Let me ask you about the home confinement issue. We all know that under the cares act, there was an allowance for that possibility. And we know that since march more than 33,000 inmates have been released on confinement. Less than 1 of those inmates have been returned for any rules violation to their facilities. Do you agree with recalling the thousands of individuals who successfully transitioned would be contrary to the purpose of confinement . Which is to allow the individual reasonable opportunity to prepare for reentry . Senator, i very much agree that the Home Confinement Program has proven successful and that it both relieves the pressure on the prisons with respect to covid19. It also gives them a chance to adjust to their communities. I am very strongly in favor of being able to continue this program. Well, im hoping that we can get a definitive reversal of the olc opinion that was dropped on the desk as President Trump left office. And make it very clear what will happen if and when the covid emergency is left id. Id like to move to another topic already by a dress by myself and senator grassley. If you dont believe me, type school board violence into your computer and look whats happening. Its happening. 30 year old men arrested and charged with battery, Disorderly Conduct after striking a School Board Member. California, a father yelling struck a teacher in the face who tended to intervene. Ohio, a School Board Member sent a threatening letter sent saying we are coming after you. And a board of education president for nearby district received similar threats. Pennsylvania saw a threat which required police at each school. Local Law Enforcement is investigating the incidents in that district and will maintain a presence for the future. In texas, apparent physically assaulted a teacher ripping off her mask, and it goes on. These are not people incensed or angry. These are people who are acting at their feelings in a violent manner, over and over again. The same people we see on airplanes and other places. Some of whom we saw on january 6th. So when you responded as quickly as you did to that school board request, did you have second thoughts as to the followup letter saying they did not agree with their original promise in the first letter . I think all of us have seen these reports of violence and threats of violence. Thats what the Justice Department is concerned about. Its not only in the context of violence against School Board Members, teachers, staff. Its a rising tide of threats of violence against judges, against prosecutors, against secretaries of state. Against Election Administrators, doctors, against protesters, against news reporters. Thats the reason that we responded as quickly as we did when we got a letter indicating that there were threats of violence and violence with respect to School Officials and school staff. Thats the reason thats what we are concerned about. Thats part of our core responsibility. The letter that was subsequently sent does not change the associations concerned about violence or threats of violence. It alter some of the language in the letter. Language in the letter that we did not rely on and is not contained in my own memorandum. The only thing the Justice Department is concerned about is violence and threats of violence. Senator grassley . Before i asked my question id like permission to introduce into the record a letter from a school board disagreeing with the National School board, the request for intervention from federal agencies and Law Enforcement and other concerns. Without objection. General garland, regarding your memo, of october 4th. You said that it was for a Law Enforcement audience despite it being on your public website as a press release. As a result of your memo, local School Officials and parents may not speak up in these meetings out of fear the federal government will do something to them. So thats a poisonous, Chilling Effect. Apparently that letter wasnt actually supported by organizations but was sent by two unauthorized staff. So last week, the organization disavowed it, sent you and the white house based your memo on this delegitimized letter, i assume you are going to revoke your extremely divisive memo that you said was instigated because of that letter. Thats a question. Senator, the memo, its referred to, its one page. It responds to the concerns about violence, threats of violence, thats all its about. What an all it asks is for federal Law Enforcement to consult with the with Law Enforcement locally to access the circumstances. It may or may not be necessary to provide federal assistance if necessary. Presumably, you wrote the memo because of the letter. The letter is disavowed now. So you are going to keep your memo going anyway, right . Is that what you are telling me . Senator, i kept the letter from one nsba that you are referring to. It apologize for language in the latter but it continues the concern about School Officials safety and out of school staff. The language was not in my memo. It never would have been. I did not adopt every concern in the letter. That has not changed. Who in the Justice Department was responsible for drafting your polarizing october 4th memo . I worked on the memo. The press release mentions that the National Security will get involved in school board investigation. Is the Justice Department National Security division really necessary for keeping school board safe if the patriot act is not being used . Why is the National Security division involved at all . This kind of looks like something that would come out of some communist country, expansive definition of National Security. The memo is only about violence and threats of violence. It makes clear in the first paragraph that spirited public debate is protected under the constitution. That includes the rights of parents criticizing School Boards. That is welcome. The Justice Department protects that kind of debate. The only thing we are concerned about is violence and threats of violence against school staff, school teachers, school staff. Just like we are concerned about those kinds of threats against senators, members of congress, Election Officials. In all of the circumstances, we are trying to prevent the violence that sometimes occurs after threats. Your memo stated that the Justice Department is opening dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting, assessment and response. What is the department doing with tips it receives on this dedicated line . And what are you doing with those parents who have been reported . The fbi gets complaints, concerns from people around the country for all different kinds of threats and violence. Thats what this is about. A place where people who feel that they have been threatened with violence can report that. These have been assessed and they are only pursued if consistent with the First Amendment. We have a true threat that violates federal statutes or that needs to be referred to state or local government, federal agents, local Law Enforcement agency for their assistance. On the other hand, are there criminal investigations being altered, for instance, where School Officials are trying to assess private data of parents with opposing views on Critical Race Theory . I dont know about that. But the Justice Department certainly does not believe that anybodys personal information should be accessed in that way. If there is a federal offense involved or a state or local offense involved, then of course it should be reported. The nonpartisan Justice Department Inspector General established that Andrew Mccabe lied under oath to investigators. He lied under oath to the Inspector General. He also leaked government information to the media. And then called the new York Field Office and blame them for the leaks that he caused. Under your leadership, instead of punishing him, the department reinstated his retirement, expunged his records as part of the settlement. He will reportedly receive 200,000 dollars in retirement back pay. And his attorney will reportedly receive 500,000 dollars in legal fees. So it seems to me that thats beyond incredible. So general garland, did you authorize the mccabe settlement . And if not, who did . The mccabe settlement was the recognition of career lawyers from based on their prospects of the case. They cases not involve issues of lying. It involved a claim that he was not given the amount of time necessary to respond to allegations them. And the litigators concluded that they need to settle the case because otherwise the likelihood of loss on the merits of that claim. The Inspector Generals report still stands. We have not questioned in any way the Inspector Generals findings. The reference with respect to false statements was made to the Justice Department in the Previous Administration and declined in the Previous Administration. The only issue here was an assessment of litigation merits. Short followup. Do you agree with the taxpayer that, since you didnt, somebody else authorized it, do you agree with the taxpayer picking up a multi Million Dollar bill for some of that lied under oath to government officials . I think the assessment made by the litigators was that the bill to the taxpayers would be higher if we didnt resolve the matter as it was resolved. Thank you mister chairman. Senator leahy. Thank you, senator. Good to see you, attorney general garland,. Im sure its been discussed with you what the Justice Department is doing, what can be done better. I will just say this. There are tumultuous use years over the past four, and the department is living up to the most fundamental principle in the american Justice Department. That nobody is above the law. Thats really what i learned about the Justice Department when i was in law school. And the experience i had with it for years as a prosecutor and as a litigator. Prosecuto so i was dismayed in what was happening in the past four years. And i thank you, attorney general, for bringing the department back from the brink. Theres still a lot to be done. But i think americans should take comfort from the rule of law again being in force. Its hard to state how urgently we must act to protect americans constitutional right to vote. And there is reason for alarm. Many states are rapidly moving to restrict access to the ballot for tens of thousands of americans from all walks of life. In the wake of the Shelby County and this years brnovich decision, too many tools to protect the right to the vote is greatly diminished. How does congressional inaction in response to the Supreme Court decisions limit the ability of the department to protect americans constitutional right to vote . Thank you for that senator. The right to vote is a central pillar of our democracy. A central pillar that allows all the rights that proceed from it. The Justice Department was established in part to protect the rights guaranteed under the 13th, 14th and 15th amendment to vote. The Voting Rights act gave us further authorities in that respect. We are doing, as you say, everything we can. We have doubled the size of the Voting Rights section. Weve brought a section two case. But there are limitations on our authority that the Supreme Court has imposed, one of which is the elimination of section five of the Voting Rights act, which provided an opportunity to do preclearance reviews, so that we did not have to review each matter on a one by one basis. And then the recent that has been that we Shelby County, and then as you pointed out, the brnovich case, a narrowing of the meaning of section two and our 30 under section two. Both of that could be fixed by this congress and if they were, it would give us considerably greater opportunity to ensure the sacred right to vote. Then the Supreme Court make it very clear that we could fix that if congress wanted to . Thats correct, in the opinions indicated, these matters were indicated as those that could be fixed by the congress. Its very important that all americans be protected in their right to vote. In the state of vermont we take that very seriously. We have the bipartisan fix of the Crime Victims Fund of the 2021 year. Its been signed into law. It requires funds collected to be deferred and non prosecution agreements be deposited into the victims fund, which had been projected to reach a tenyear low. Since this bill has become law, have any funds from deferred or non prosecution agreement been deposited into the Crime Victims Fund . And if not, why not . Senator, the voca fix were something that we sought and we opened it immediately after it was passed. Something north of 200 Million Dollars had already been deposited in the fine thanks to that act. We now project that the fund should be liquid all the way through the end of 2022. Thank you, and we can review it after that. Because i think you and i would both agree that we want to have longterm sustainability in this fund. Absolutely. So lets Work Together on that. Theres been some discussion here and elsewhere about the larry nassar investigation. And the chairman he is very impressive the gymnast who testified before us, it was heart wrenching listening to them. They talked about how they were seeking accountability. I could not help think how brave they were to testify. The Justice Department initially declined to bring charges against the disgraced fbi agents involved in the investigation. I was concerned, and i said at the time that ive seen many people prosecuted for lying to fbi agents. Here you had two fbi agents who were lying to fbi agents. One was fired, the other resigned. No prosecutions. Is the department now reviewing that decision not to prosecute . And do you have any update with regard to that review . Senator, i think heart wrenching is not even Strong Enough as a description of what happened to those gymnast and to the testimony they gave. I believe Deputy Attorney general monaco said that her hearing that we are reviewing this matter. New evidence has come to light. And that is cause for review of the matter is you are discussing. I hope you will, because as i said, ive seen so many prosecutions of somebody for lying to an fbi agent. And i understand that. When an fbi agent lies to an fbi agent, they should also face the same penalty that anybody else does. Thank you very much, mister chairman. Thank, you senator leahy. Mister chairman, can i put something in the record from 17 state attorney generals expressing their disagreement with the october 4th memorandum memorandum, and asked that that memorandum be withdrawn . Without objection. Senator graham. Mister chairman, are you aware of the aware of the caravan about 3000 people approaching the state of texas . I have right about. It its toward the state of texas. What would you tell these people . I would tell them not to come but the Justice Department has to do with prosecution. In the way in which the asylum and claims are adjudicated. So you would tell them to not come . It depends on why they are coming. If they are coming to make asylum claims, what would you tell them . The department of Homeland Security is the Agency Responsible for border control. I know, but you are attorney general of the United States. Do you think our asylum laws are being abused . Asylum laws are statutes passed by the congress. Do you think they are being abused . That question is one that has to be looked at on more than one basis. When is the last time you have been to the border . A week ago, maybe ten days ago. Did they tell you anything about asylum claims being made by people, that are mostly economic claims and asylum claims . They mentioned that to you . I dont recall exactly. You dont recall being told by the Border Patrol that they are overwhelmed . That they cant hold the line much anymore . That we have had 1. 7 Million People apprehended . And the big magnet, the pull factor, is the catch and release program around asylum, that didnt stick out to you . That was not a discussion that i had when i was who did you talk to . I was at the border at nogales they never mentioned to . The poll factors around illegal immigration . They mentioned its a simple question. A problem with overrun by Asylum Seekers . I know some Border Agents feel that way. Its not about reading the paper, you were there talking to them. I can tell you about the conversation that i might im just an that you cannot recall that. Lets talk about afghanistan. Afgh anthe undersecretary for defense policy said that while isisk poses more of a short term external threat, alqaeda could we gain ability to launch attacks outside of afghanistan within a year or two. Do you agree with that . I agree that alqaeda has always presented and continues to present a persistent threat to the United States homeland. Well, no, the question is, whats changed . You say always. Has any recent events change the likelihood of an attack . I dont know you dont know that we withdrew from afghanistan . I know we withdrew. I dont know whether the withdrawal will increase the risk or not. So you are the attorney general of the United States secretary wray said that this is an opportunity to have open eyes on the ground. And the reliability of the taliban that an attack of the United States is far more likely . The job of the fbi is to protect against those attacks. Does it make sense that that would be the dynamic of our withdrawal . Do you trust the taliban to police alqaeda and isis on our behalf . I do not trust they have openly told us that they will not work with us regarding containing the alqaeda isis threat, are you aware of that . I think theres been inconsistent statements no, they just literally said that. I think there have been inconsistent statements, by their statements are not anything we can rely on. Well, when they tell you to your face, we are not going to help you, do you think that they are kidding . Do you think they really will help us but they are just telling us . I think isisk, alqaeda, associated forces are and continue to be we are talking about the taliban. The taliban has told the United States they will not work with our Counterterrorism Forces when it works with what response should we have regarding the taliban when they say that . I think we have a number of different tools available like what . We have economic sanctions, they need money for humanitarian reasons. This is so the leverage over the taliban is whether or not we will give them money . Senator, the job of the Justice Department is protecting using the fbi in the National Security agency the National Security division is part of our counterterrorism operation, right . It is one has anyone from the National Security division briefed you about the increased likelihood of attack from afghanistan after our withdrawal . Every day i am briefed by the fbi know, my question is specific. Has anyone briefed you about the increased likelihood of an attack emanating from afghanistan by isis or alqaeda because of our withdrawal . We are worried about the risk of attack its one thing to be worried. Has anybody told you about the likelihood of an attack, it being greater because of our withdrawal . There are different views about the degrees of likelihood. That doesnt change our posture. Protective it doesnt change your posture to go from a possibility of being attacked to a six month to a year time window . We have asked for substantial, additional funds for our Counterterrorism Operations and is that in light of the withdrawal from afghanistan . There is a lot of changing circumstances in the world with respect to let me just points to secretary wray has told the world that isis and alqaeda in afghanistan present a threat to our homeland. The taliban has told us they are not going to help us when it comes to policing these groups. The department of defense has said we are six months to a year away from a possible attack by isis and alqaeda. And it just seems to me theres not a sense of urgency about this. There is a sense of urgency what have you done specifically . Aligned with this specifically, what have you done since our withdrawal in afghanistan to deal with this new threat . We have strengthened and increase the efforts of our joint Terrorism Task forces. I have met with liberally, what have you done . Just put it in writing. I would be happy to have it. Thank you, senator. Graham senator whitehouse. Mister chairman, thank you. Two topics. The first is executive privilege. Weve been through a blake period with regard to executive privilege. I think you would call at the anything goes period, in which any assertion of executive privilege, no matter how fanciful or preposterous, was essentially allowed to stand in very significant departure from the law that has been out there for years regarding executive privilege. And at the same time, the consensus of executive privilege was being expanded beyond recognition. The procedure for evaluating executive privilege determination was completely ignored. And this is a procedure that was established by president reagans white house. So we have a situation in which there is a substantial destruction in disarray around the area of executive privilege determination. And as you know, under the reagan memo, the department of justice had a role, kind of as an arbiter, to be the honest broker between whatever agency was objecting whatever Congressional Committee was pursuing that role. That roll completely fell apart and it needs to be rebuilt in some predictable fashion. The role of the courts has become highly problematic. Because delay is very often dispositive in some of these matters. And the courts are now a haven for delay with respect to executive privilege determinations. So i think we need to look at that as well. Senator kennedy and i had a hearing on this executive privilege problem in our courts subcommittee. The department of justice was not represented at that hearing. But i would like to ask you to detail somebody from the department of justice to talk to senator kennedy and me about this executive privilege problem and work with us on trying to figure out a solution. Making the role of the department of justice more clear and transparent and perhaps embodying it in rule or law, and trying to figure out how to accelerate it in the course, to get quicker decisions. Because otherwise as i said, delay is dispositive, and we lose not because we are wrong about because we are delayed. Has somebody been in point of conduct contact about that, please . Thank, you next. Ive been pursuing the investigation of january 6th. Its for the early days, starting with a letter on january 8th that asked about the resources deployed into this investigation and whether a task force is being set up. Then another letter from february 24th, with regard to domestic extremist violence groups potential role. Weve learned a little bit more now, and weve learned there was a lot of money slashing around in the background behind the january 6th rally and behind the raid, the riot in the capital. For instance, we know that the bradley foundation, which is a big funder, gave money to turning points usa and to Public Interest legal foundation. And it gets even more interesting because turning point usa has a twin called turning points action, a 5 03 5 01 sea combo, im support the socalled italy gate theory. And the Public Interest legal foundation, had a crisis, and its director try to overturn the election. The Judicial Crisis Network is the same thing from a corporate standpoint as something called the honest elections project, bringing a fence case in pennsylvania regarding Election Fraud. That Judicial Crisis Network was also working to make robocalls to get people to come to the bryant. I dont know what is going on behind all of that. But im hoping that the Due Diligence of the fbi is being deployed not just to the characters who trespassed in the capitol that day and engaged in violent acts. But that you are taking the look you would properly take involving Players Behind the scenes, funders of the enterprise and so forth in this matter. And there has been no decision to say, we are limiting this case just to say, we are not going to take a serious look at anybody who is behind that. Senator, im very limited as to what i can say i understand that. We have a criminal investigation going forward. Please tell me it is not constrained to people only in the capital. The investigation is being conducted by the prosecutor in the u. S. Attorneys office and the fbi field office. Weve not constrained them in any way. And the old doctrine of follow the money, a well established principles of prosecution, is alive and well . Its fair to say that all investigative techniques with which you are familiar, and some may be that you are not familiar with, because they post a your time, they are all being pursued in this matter. Thank you. Thank you, chairman. Thank you very much. Senator cornyn. Good morning, mr. Attorney general yang. On september 29th, the National School Board Association wrote a letter to the president , asking him to address the disruptions, confrontations that we have seen at local School Boards across the country. Parents expressing their concerns about not only the curriculum but also just generally the education of their children in public schools. Would you agree that parents have a fundamental right to be involved in their childrens education . Absolutely. Its the job of parents to be involved. And this is the role of the First Amendment, to protect their ability to be involved. Thats why my memo begins with saying that we respect the right to spirited debate about curriculum, about School Policies, about anything like that. So its not just a good idea. Its actually protected by the constitution of the United States. Would you agree . Absolutely. When an october the 4th, a few days, less than a week after the National School Board Association wrote this letter, the Justice Department issued the memo thats already been discussed. Why did this rise to the level of a federal concern as opposed to being addressed at the local and state level . This arises out of repeated reports of violence and threats of violence, not only with respect to School Boards and School Officials and teachers, but also with respect to secretaries of state and Election Administrators, judges, prosecutors, senators, members of congress. The Justice Department has two roles here. We assist our state and local Law Enforcement in always. And we enforce federal laws which prohibit threats of violence in telephone, by email. But you, as a longtime federal judge, with a distinguished legal career, you understand that not every crime, assuming it is a crime, is a federal crime, correct . Absolutely. And some of these things unless there is some nexus to interstate commerce or the federal government, they are largely within the purview of the state and local Law Enforcement authorities, correct . I think you put that correctly. We have with already with respect to the mail, the internet well, let me give you an example. If somebody says to the School Board Member, if you do that, im going to meet you outside and punch you in the nose, is that a federal offense . Thats not a federal offense. I agree. There is nothing in this memo suggesting that it is. Why would you cite the as being one of the appropriate entities to investigate and perhaps prosecute these off offenses . It does not mention the National Security division. It is mentioned by another memo released by the department. The National Security division is involved in discussions on how to go forward on many matters. They were involved in the threats against judges and prosecutors, involved in the hate crimes threat cases. Its a natural part of our internal analysis. Let me ask you, did you see the National School Board Association letter to President Biden before you issued your memorandum on october 4th . Yes, i did. That was part of the reason. Their expression at the beginning of that memorandum they raise some of the concerns that you voiced here today, correct . They raised some of them. They raised others that i dont agree with and were not included in my memo. Well, you are aware that on october the 22nd, the National School Board Association apologized for its letter. You are aware of, that are you, sir . I am, but and it went on to say that we regret and apologize for the letter. There was no justification for some of the language in the letter. They acknowledge the voices of parents must continue to be heard. And when it comes to decisions about their childrens health, education and safety. You did not apologize for your memorandum of october the 4th, even though the National School Board Association did. Why did you worsen that memorandum and apologize for the memorandum . The core responsibility of the Justice Department, as i said in my opening, is protecting americans from violence and threats of violence. But you just said that not every act of violence is a federal crime, correct . Right, and not every bit of street crime and the kind of violence weve been talking about earlier today is also a federal crime. But we assist state and locals to help them in their investigations of these kinds of matters. Every single day, in non federal matters, we are partners with our state and local partners. Mr. Attorney general, youve acknowledged that parents have a right, a constitutional right to be heard on the education of their children in public schools. Can you imagine the sort of intimidation them, the sort of bullying impact that a memorandum from the department of justice would have and how that would chill the willingness of parents to exercise their rights under threat of federal prosecution . Did you consider the chilling impact your memorandum would have on parents exercising their Constitutional Rights . The only thing this memorandum is about is violence and threats of violence. It opens with a statement but my question is, did you consider the Chilling Effect that this would have on Constitutional Rights of parents . To say that the department is against threats of violence did you consider the Chilling Effect it would have on parents Constitutional Rights . I think you can answer that. Yes or no . I wanted to assure people that we recognize the right to spirited debate you are very intelligent lawyer and judge. You can answer the question i did not did you consider the Chilling Effect that this would have on parents exercise of their Constitutional Rights to be involved in their childrens education. I dont believe its reasonable to read this memo as chilling. Its about threats of violence and it recognizes the constitutional right to make arguments about your childrens education. Them as there is an ongoing impact out floor votes let the record reflect that the attorney general refused to answer and let the record reflect that the center is allowed to go over his allotted time. Senator klobuchar. Can you confirm to this committee, as you did before the house Judiciary Committee, that the portions of the memo you were just discussing with senator cornyn, is to have meetings to discuss whether there is a problem . To discuss strategy . To discuss whether local Law Enforcement needs assistance or doesnt need assistance . Is that the purpose of it . Yes, thank you for making that point. I say that in the memo, the purpose of the memo is to have meetings with state, federal, local, tribal leaders. And to facilitate discussions of strategies for threats to address the question. And for violence regarding those threats. I want to go on to some other threats. Im a meeting that senator warren and i had the other day. It was bipartisan, before the rules committee. It was both republican and democratic Election Officials, the attorney general of arizona, a republican local official in philadelphia and they told stories that horrified senators on both sides of the aisle. The philadelphia election official, the commissioner, a local election official, had been sent letters basically saying that they were going to kill him and his three kids, naming the kids, as well as putting his house and his address out there. Katie hobbs, the attorney general of arizona, received a voice mail saying, i am a hunter and i think you should be hunted, you will never be safe in arizona again. Could you talk about whats going on with threats against election workers . And by the way, we had the republican secretary of state from kentucky talk about the fact that it has been difficult, they are losing in many jurisdictions across the country, they dont have enough election workers. Because people are afraid. And we dont have to discuss at length where these threats are coming from. I just want to have Election Officials, i want to have a functioning democracy. Can you provide an update on the Elections Threats Task force . And talk about the kind of threat you are seeing to Election Officials . Yes, senator. Very much like the circumstances with respect to the School Boards, with a National School Board Association modus a letter advising of threats of violence and violence, earlier this year we received communications from the National Association of secretaries of state, the National Association of Election Administrators, raising concerns about the threats of violence and violence in that area. Soon thereafter, i met virtually, unfortunately, because of the pandemic, with a large number of Election Administrators and secretaries of state, where they were counted the kinds of threats that you are talking about. And that led us to establish a task force, which again coordinated efforts between the federal Law Enforcement agencies, u. S. Attorneys offices and state and local Law Enforcement across the country. It is the case that many of those kinds of threats can be handled by state and local Law Enforcement and should be, where they are capable of doing that. The federal government has an Important Role to say with protecting our democracy and protecting our elections officials. So that is an ongoing task force, evaluating threats in that particular area. Thank you, thank you. To another area, the chair of the competition policy and antitrust subcommittee, ive urged the Justice Department to make antitrust enforcement a top priority. We recently have had nomination meetings for jonathan canter, that seems to be moving ahead. And i support the efforts by the division, i know they are preparing for 18 trials, the most in decades. Could you talk about the antitrust budgets . Senator grassley and i have passed a bill with the support of members of the committee, to add some Additional Resources to the antitrust division. Senator lee and i have held numerous and informative hearings about these issues related to antitrust. Can you talk about whats happening there . The Justice Department is very much committed, as i said. Its a key focus of our attention. And i trust enforcement because its essential for consumer wellbeing and the wellbeing of our citizens. We have aggressively moved in this area. Weve already stopped a merger of two of the Top International insurance brokers. As you say, we have continued we are in the middle of trials, criminal trials with respect to price fixing in market allocation. We have the ongoing matter involving exclusionary conduct in the google case. We are looking we have investigations and attention in many areas, from health care to agriculture to allocations within labor markets. Could i just ask you, about the criminal cases, could giving the anti trust agencys authority to seek substantial civil fines for sherman act violations help enforcers deter anticompetitive conduct . Im sorry . With civil fines . Would that be helpful . Yes, having the ability to seek civil fines as well would be helpful. Of course if we succeed in the criminal case, the followup on civil cases becomes quite easy. As i know for my antitrust practice. But we are down in the number of attorneys in the antitrust division, considerably. And we need an expansion. Thats why weve asked for a 9 increase, a total increase of 201 million in our fy 22 budget. When the number of murders has skyrocketed and the number of people we have evaluating those mergers has increased. We need help in that regard. Thank you. And i appreciate the bipartisan work done in this committee on that front. In july, the department announced that it had a new policy that were 60s of compulsory process to obtain information from members of the news media acting within the scope of news gathering activity. As part of that announcement, you asked the Deputy Attorney general to undertake a review process to further explain, develop and codify the policy. Can you provide an update on the steps the Deputy Attorney general has taken to ensure that the new policy is implemented . Yes. Issuing a memo is good. And it controls the Justice Department now. The next step, though, is to have a regulation which will give us some greater permanence. The next step after that would be legislation, which the Justice Department supports. What the Deputy Attorney general is doing now is trying to formulate the general outlines of my memorandum into a regulation, which can replace the current detailed regulations that we have. Thats what shes involved in right now. Excellent, thank you very much. Mr. Attorney general, we have promised you a fiveminute break at 11 30. We can either take it right now or i can have senator lee and coons ask. Up to you. Im happy to go ahead. Lets proceed, senator really. Thank you, mister chairman. Mr. Attorney general, i have been concerned in recent weeks by some steps taken by the administration, steps i feel represent a sicknick valiant amount of overreach. Seven weeks ago, you had President Biden giving a speech in which he promised to enlist the assistance of Corporate America with more than 99 employees in firing people who dont get vaccinated. Im vaccinated, i encourage everyone close to me to get vaccinated. But i dont think its the role of the federal government to do that. He is threatening to cripple employers by imposing absolutely punishing fines on them. And they are now doing the dirty work, even before this active overreach has been reduced to an order that could be litigated. Litigation that i believe would and the same way youngstown versus sawyer ended. And now, you know, about a month after that, we had your october 4th memorandum in which you direct the department of and the fbi to intervene in what, as far as i can tell, hes a state and local issue. That is, a series of issues involving how parents advocate for their children with their local School Boards. Their loci also believe that do, doing that through the department of justice, doing it the way you did it, directing the assistance, enlisting the help of all 94 u. S. Attorneys, therefore every Satellite Office of the Department Nationwide in a way i think this has a natural tendency to chill free speech in this area. I question seriously the role of the federal government in protecting people at local School Board Meetings from their neighbors. It is, after all, most of the time, state law, not federal, that is at play, when there is criminal activity. Federal crimes are a subset of crimes generally. So youve referenced several times today that your letter covered only violence and threats of violence. And yet the very opening line of your memo says, in recent months, theres been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence against School Administrators, School Board Members, teachers, staff. You referred to this over and over again. Its a pretty broad statement. I believe this has a tendency to chill free speech. Free speech that is exercise at the state and local level, typically by neighbors. My parents to local School Boards. In hindsight, would you agree that a natural consequence of your memo could be chilling free speech protected speech by parents . Protesting against local School Board Policy . Senator, the memo is aimed only at violence and the threats of violence. It states on its face face that vigorous debate is protected. Thats all this is about. What about harassment and intimidation . Are those federal crimes . They are federal crimes. Are you referring to, like, witnessed tampering, intimidation, under 18 usc 12th . 18 usc, 2265a makes it a crime to have someone be intimidated, to endure, to arrest, placing a person in fear of Bodily Injury through communications over the internet. I want to be clear, this is only within i take your point, this is only what is permitted by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court has been clear about that as well. In the virginia versus black case, when a case is not protected by the constitution. And thats when it is made with the intent to place the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Thats what we are concerned about here. One of the thing that concerns me is that we have 17 attorneys general, led by the attorney general of nevada and joined by a tour total of 17 attorney general, including sean reyes, the attorney general of the state of utah. Theyve weighed in and there is not just a barrage of accusations. There is no unusual flood of accusations of violence. Nothing unusual, nothing that they cant handle at the state and local level. Normally, things like this state and local officials, involving state and local entities, these are now federal. In response to a series of questions before the house Judiciary Committee, including some questions asked by congressman jim jordan from ohio, you are asked you are fed factual predicate for your october 4th memorandum and for your conclusions in this regard. You said that you are factual predicate was the october 22nd memorandum from the National School Board Association. The association has been mentioned. Its withdrawn that memorandum. Yet you said that that was the factual predicate. Given that thats the factual predicate and that it has rescinded its memo, saying that there was no justification for some of the language used in that memo, would you rescind your memo . To the best of my recollection, i said the impetus for the memorandum was that letter. And also reports of this kind of activity. What reports . Again, i said at the time, they were news reports that had been published. And i think that some of the other senators here have described some of those news reports. We have certainly seen subsequently more news reports and more statements by Board Members of threats to kill them. Congressman chip roy of texas said to you raised in that same hearing the issue of a 14 Year Old Girl in a School Bathroom being sexually assaulted in Loudoun County and you said that you are not aware of that. In the six days, since, did you become aware of the case . Yes, i have read about the case. If you are unfamiliar with the supposed instances of threats of violence sided in the letter, how did you determine that intervention was necessary, intervention esoteric from the fbi and doj . To meet with local Law Enforcement, thats what weve asked for. To me, assess the situation, she with their needs are, strategize and to open lines of communication. Im hopeful that many areas of local Law Enforcement will be well able to handle this on their own. This is what the Justice Department does every day. We consult with our local and state partners and see whether assistance is necessary. And of course, we continue to have our own federal responsibilities with respect to communications by the internet and on social media, on the telephone, through the mail. But im hopeful that we will not be needed in this area, that our state and local partners will be able to handle these threats. My time has expired. I just want to stay for the record, as i close, that my staff and i went through every new source raised by the National School Board Association. There is no explicit death wrapped. And i choose here to reiterate my concern that not every night every outburst or expression of concern by neighbors among neighbors at a local School Board Meeting warns the federal investigation. It certainly doesnt warrant the involvement of 94 u. S. Attorneys in a way that threatens, intimidates, and tens inevitably to chill First Amendment activity. Thank you. Mister chairman. Senator coons. Mister chairman just one more request for introduction of a letter, from one attorney general understanding the memorandum. This one from ohio. Without objection. Senator coons. Thank you mister chairman and attorney general garden. Oversight of the executive body is an important part of the duties here. I want to thank you for prioritizing your time here. While a time challenging, this process is key to fulfilling our responsibilities. We know we have substantial work to do to restore confidence to our institutions. And i think our engagement here today is a key part of that. So thank you for your diligent and thorough answers to the questions today. Let me just start with a question about some characterizations that are being made here and in other settings about the trajectory of the Biden Administration in terms of responding to Violent Crimes. Some are asserting that the department of justice is focused on defunding the police or hamstringing or undermining Law Enforcement. As an appropriator, my impression, instead, is that the president requested an additional 388 million for the cops hiring program, an increase of 200 million over the previous year. The c. J. S post just posted included 800 funds for Community Justice programs. The Biden Administration ensure that 350 billion previously available grants under the cares act could be used to hire more Law Enforcement personnel at the state and local level, even beyond preplanned and weak levels. Could he speak to how briefly these different programs designed to prevent crime and support state and local partners, and having investments could work to assist, support and protect Law Enforcement and conducting their obligations and duties in an appropriate way . Yes, senator. I would just add one more pile of requests there, which was for over 500 million to the jagged grants, which also go to state and local Law Enforcement. So yes, we are very concerned about Violent Crime. This is an area which is primarily again, primarily the responsibility of state and local Law Enforcement. But nonetheless, it has bipartisan support. It has since the 1990s, for federal government involvement. As a consequence, we have historically since then, accelerated and now lashed up with state and local partners and joint organizations, in every city and every community in the United States, to help our local Law Enforcement protect their communities against violence. We also have federal, obviously the laws which help us in this regard. And these include money that weve requested for dea, for atf, for the fbi, for the marshal service. All increases to allow us to support the circumstances. And as weve discussed before, my hometown is one where i was responsible for local Law Enforcement when i was elected county official. We appreciate these additional investments and the partnership. I think its an important part of our work to combat Violent Crime. I want to turn to immigration. Youve been asked by colleagues about it. Some seem to think that anything we do to help migrants will necessarily make the borderless a cure or more chaotic. I disagree. Its possible for us to decrease multi year court backlogs, improve the humanitarian aspect of handling migrants and build a system that is orderly, consistent, more humane and fair. I would love to understand how we in congress can help you through legislation, as well as the funding, to reduce Immigration Court backlogs, improve access to counsel, improve the process and also contribute to securing our southern border. Do you have thoughts you care to share briefly or would you be willing to share those with us in writing . Ill be happy to have the department get back to you in writing. But i will say that we have requested additional funds so that we can put an additional 600 personnel, including 800 100 Immigration Judges so that we can undergo the acceleration you are talking about. Weve made a number of changes with respect to the way cases are handled. But we do need more money in that respect. Ive made that plea already to the appropriations committee. But i would be happy to get back to you with more detail. And just superficially, is it your understanding that when applicants have asylum to Legal Counsel, the odds that they will return for their final disposition i certainly think that they it seems quite logical that the earths odds of them returning to the proceeding would go up. But i dont know any of the statistics about that. Understood. Intellectual property is a longstanding concern of mine. In 2019, doj issued an antitrust statement, with the Trademark Office, recognizing that patent and Trademark Office all legal remedy should be available. And that policy in shorts competition and incentivizes participation and standard setting activities, plays a vital role in bringing the best innovation to america. Thats also critical for competition with china and other countries. Im hearing that doj has imminent plans to ban that position in reverse it and replace it that one does not replace all remedies. Given that there are nominees in processes likely now for both a. G. And for antitrust and now for patent and Trademark Office, would you commit to waiting until there are Senate Confirmed leaders in these divisions before a change in policy . I would love to have Senate Confirmed leadership in the antitrust division and anything you can do to make that go swift or, its greatly appreciated. I dont have to say, this is a bit outside the area of my own expertise. But i assume any such thing would have to come through me before it has come. Nothing like that has come to my office. Yet i welcome the opportunity to stay in communication. My last question relates to the office for access to justice, which has, in the past, under Previous Administration, been a leader in debtors prisons and the criminalization of poverty. Tomorrow this committee will hold a vote on the act, a bipartisan bill im leading with senator wicker. It will make progress in ways in which a decades old practice, stripping people of their drivers licenses for unpaid Court Related fees and finds, which advances decriminalization of poverty, will be averted. Could you say at the moment about the plans for the office of access to justice and the continued process of the progress around criminal Justice Reform . Yes, equal justice before the law is inscribed above the Supreme Court. Its a core principle of democracy. But you cant have equal access if you dont have access. Ive been concerned about getting access so that lawyers as a lawyer in private practice ive been concerned about access to attorneys. So that people who need help with their individual circumstances can have assistance. The president issued an executive order on this. We have and there is a report, im not positive whether its public. But i believe it is, with respect to reinvigorating the roundtable, whose job it is to address this question, of which im a cochair, ive asked for a review within the department. Weve determined that we should stand up once again, within the department, the access to justice office. We have enough money to do that in the short term. Our fy 22 budget request does ask for a significant appropriation so we can stand up a staff and get that office going. Great, thank you mister attorney general. Thank you, mister general chairman. Thank, you senator coons. The committee is going to stand in recess for five minutes. When we weres earn, senator cotton is up if hes here. If not, senator kennedy. [noise] the committee will resume. Senator cotton is recognized. Judge garland, on may 11th, tony fauci said that his agency does not and never has funded research gain a function research at the Wuhan Institute of overall virology. Are you investigating tony fauci . There is a rule in the Justice Department not to discuss potential investigations, pending investigations thats fine. Do you believe tony fauci was truthful when he said his agency had never funded gain of function research . My scope is lets turn to your outrageous directive, seeking the feds on School Boards across america. When you craft or the memo did you consult with Senior Leadership at the fbi . I discussed with the fbi. Did anyone express any doubts or hesitation with the decision to issue that memo . No one express that to me, no. No one . No. . A lot of fbi officials have contacted my office, judge. Im sorry . To say that they oppose this decision. I doubt any of them spoke to me about it. I didnt speak to anyone. All right, judge. He repeatedly this morning about that directive. For instance, the National Security division, Chuck Grassley asked you why you would seek the division on parents. It wasnt another off his memorandum, judge, it was a press release. Right here in front of me, for immediate release, you are going to have a task force that creates a National Task force. What is the National Security division have to do with School Boards . Nothing in this memorandum or any memorandum is about parents expressing disagreements with their School Boards. The memorandum makes clear that parents are entitled and protected by the First Amendment and debate. The Justice Department is not interested in that question at all. Okay, so even in that case, what is the National Security division these are the people supposed to be chasing jihadist and chinese spy. What is the National Security division have to do a School Boards and parents . Its not, again, about parents at School Boards. Its about threats of violence. Okay, youve said that phrase repeatedly. Let me turn to that. Violence and threats of violence. Weve heard a dozen times this morning. As senator lee pointed out, the first line of your october 4th memorandum reverse to harassment and intimidation. Why do you continue to dissemble on this committee, and talk about threats and threats of violence and intimidation . I said in my testimony, senator, that involves other kinds of criminal conduct. I explained to senator lee that statutory definitions of those terms on the constitutional definitions of those terms involve threats of violence. Lets look at what statutes you cited. Section 2 23. That statute covers the use of not just telephones but Telecommunications Devices to annoy, to annoy someone. So are you going to stick the feds on someone if a parent posts something that annoys someone . No. The provision i was talking about was 2261a i didnt mention section 2261a, i was mentioning you also spoke about meetings in coordination i will submit to the record, would i have in my hand in here, a letter to all sheriffs and School Board Associations, in which he talks about several investigations and prosecutions. That meeting is about federal investigations and prosecution. Did you directly u. S. Attorneys to issue the letter . I did not. I did not see the letter its got three pages. Three pages. All about the crimes that apparent can be charged with, including once you cited. My memo did a justice make this my memorandum speak specifically about convening meetings weve all read the memorandum weve also heard about the and you around them. Sending out a letter about federal prosecutor investigations in detail in federal statutes. Judge, you talked a lot about intimidation and harassment. Have you issued a memorandum like your october 4th memorandum about black lives matters riots over the summer . You are talking about the summer of 2020 . There were a lot of crimes committed. They were under the Previous Administration. It is no doubt that even you keep saying senators. Have you started an investigation into the harassment of senator Kyrsten Sinema because she wont go along with the democrats agenda . That is a sitting senator being harassed in the bathroom. I dont know whether she was referred to the Justice Department or not. You signed as a basis for that directive. The National School boards associations letter. That directive being prepared before september 29th . Before the School Board Association letter was issued . I dont believe. So certainly i didnt have any idea. I think that answer the question. I already. Answered no, you keep citing the School Board Letter and news reports. One of the news report cited that letter which is presumably from loud and county, virginia. That is not what i was talking about. Well, you keep citing news reports and thats apart most prominent news report that anyone and a merica has seen. That refers to scott smith, whose 15 year old daughter was raped. She was raped in a bathroom by a boy worry girls clothes. And allowed in County School board covered it up, because it would have interfered with their trans gendered policy during pride month. And that man, scott smith, because he went to the school board and try to defend his daughters rights, lets condemned internationally. Do you apologized to scott smith and his 15yearold daughter, judge . Senator, anything one whose child was relieved that the most horrific crime i can imagine, and it certainly entitled, as done by the First Amendment. To protest with the scoreboard. He was cited by the school board, which we now know that letter and reports no, senator, thats wrong. Judge, this is shameful. Your testimony, your directive, your performances shameful. Thank god you are not in the Supreme Court. You should resign in disgrace, judge. Senator garland, do you want to complete your answer. I wasnt sure there was a question there. But let me be clear, the news reports im talking about were not the news reports in that letter. They were other news reports of that everybody here has heard about. Subsequent reports that everybody has heard about. There is nothing in this memorandum and i wish if senators were concerned about this they would quote my words this. Memorandum is not about parents and being able to object in their School Boards. They are protected by the First Amendment. As long as there are no threats of violence they are completely protected. So, parents can object to their School Boards about curriculums, about the treatment of their children, about School Policies. All of that is 100 percent correct protected by the First Amendment. And there is nothing in this memorandum contrary to that. We are only trying to prevent violence against School Districts. Senator hirono . Think you mister chairman. Id like to insert into the record the Washington Post article by salvador right so. That is entitled the false gop clean that the Justice Department is spying on parents and School Board Meetings. Id like to insert this article into the record. No objection. Its good to see you mister attorney general. I will quote from the first sentence of your memo. In recent months, theres been a disturbing spikes in harassment, intimidation and threat of violence against School Administrators, Board Members, teachers and staff who participated in the vital work of running our nations public schools. This is a fact. We have all seen the News Coverage of people actually threatening to her School Board Members for going about their jobs. That is a fact. When i listen to my republican colleagues going on about the intent of this memo, im again reminded of the authentic position to believe what we should not believe what we see with our own eyes. Its like characterizing the january 6th insurrection as just a bunch of tourists visiting the capital. Give me a break. We now see a Supreme Court being recognized to support the position of the most conservative causes. We see a rush to the Supreme Court on cases involving abortion rights, gun rights lgbtq rights, Voting Rights, union rights. Thank you mister attorney general for making the protection of our civil rights one of the departments core priorities. I want to turn to the need to come back hate crimes. Its been about five months since President Biden signed the covid19 hate crimes act into law. I sent a letter to you last month requesting an update on the departments implementation of the act and efforts reduce hate crime and he incidents. Yeah a another thing that we have all seen with our own eyes, the rise in hate crimes during the spirit of the pandemic. Mr. Attorney general, would you briefly describe the actions that you in the department have taken thus far to implement the covid19 hate crimes act . Thank you, senator. Given the core of the act, i had issued a memorandum within the department to assess how we were dealing with hate crimes and to better organize the manner in which we were doing that. And then we are grateful that Congress Passed the covid19 hate crimes act. Since then, i issued a subsequent memorandum based on what the associate ernie general had provided. In terms of the departments progress under that act. I believe we have now implemented everything that was required of us in the act. That of course it doesnt mean we solved in america. But we have done the things that the statute has asked us to do. We have appointed a coordinator for all hate crimes matters. Ive appointed an exploiter in the Civil Rights Divisions of the criminal sections to expedite our investigations. Weve established a task force of federal Law Enforcement and u. S. Attorneys offices. Meeting with state and local Law Enforcement to coordinate, to explain, develop strategies, with respect to hate crimes. Weve had trainings for state and local territorial and tribal Law Enforcement, to help them recognize the sort of circumstances. Weve asked established a language coordinator, facilitator, so that our memorandum in these regards can be translated. Weve asked for additional funds and appropriations, so that we may give more money to state and locals, tribal and territorial to assist in these matters. I appreciate the efforts you have taken. I think that the this will result in actual information about the incidents. The extent of hate crimes and incidents in our country, so that we can better prevent the and have been prosecuted as appropriate. Youve been asked before, i think, in the house hearing about the China Initiative. If we end the China Initiative will we no longer go after economic espionage or ip threats by china . Two issues here that we always that we have to keep uppermost in our mind. One is that the peoples republic of china is a serious threat to our intellectual Property Works backed with respect to incursions and ransomware. And we need to protect the country against this. And we are bringing cases in that regard. The other thing that has to be remembered is that we never investigate or prosecute based on ethnic identity or what country the person is from or what family. Thank you. Im sorry, were you done . Yes. The reason i asked about the China Initiative, is the administration which instituted this socalled initiative there seems to be racial profiling which ruin the lives of a number of i want to give you an example. The Justice Department dragged a doctor at the university of tennessee through an investigation, causing him to lose his job. At the end, doj lack any evidence of espionage and instead charged dr. Wu for apparently failing to disclose his connection with a Chinese University on a grant application. When doj sought a new trial, for an acquittal finding no harm to nassau and no harm by dr. Wu, and chinese universities. So i would say that from your answer, regardless of whether we have the intention you have no intention of not paying attention to espionage another effort by china. So i would say whether we should get rid of this initiative. Thank you, mister chairman. Senator kennedy. Good morning. General, im looking at this letter. From october of this year. Where you wrote, montana attorney general and all the sheriffs in your jurisdiction, suggesting ways that parents can be prosecuted. The School Board Member from appearing in School Board Meetings, in accordance with your directive. One of the suggestions made by your u. S. Attorneys, parents can be prosecuted for repeated telephone calls. Not threatening anyone, just on the theory that repeated telephone calls could be harassment. Really . Senator, i havent seen that memorandum. Ive tried to answer is clearly as i can hear. This is one of your u. S. Attorneys. Again, i havent seen isnt that special . Scene to vote in the let me tell you what i am talking about. With respect to the School Boards association letter, you are just a vessel, arent you . Im not sure what you mean by that but i sign this memorandum, worked on this memorandum. Let me tell you what i mean. We know that the National School Board Association was upset because parents were coming to School Board Meetings to object to the teaching of Critical Race Theory. We know that in the drafting of the letter, the National School Board Association collaborated with the white house. They worked on it together. And we know that the National School Board Association and the white house, wednesday were the white house promptly called you. And said to sikh the fbi on parents and School Boards. And thats what i mean. The white house is the profit here. You are just the vessel. Is that correct . I did not speak with anyone from the white house. This memorandum reflects my views, needing to protect Public Officials from violence and threats of violence, while at the same time protecting parents ability to object to ive heard your testimony. Were you worried that you would be fired if you didnt issue the memorandum . Senator, im not i decided on this memorandum on my own. Ive said from the beginning, ive taken this job to protect the department of justice, to make independent determinations with respect to prosecutions and determinations investigations and i will do that. I dont have much time. When you got from the white house, what prompted you are memorandum, to give the fbi its duties and making sure our parents are not dangerous domestic terrorists, you didnt investigate the issues in the memorandum, the incident cited in the letter, did you . I took a statement by the National Association, which represents thousands of School Board Members. When they said they were facing violence and threats of violence. When i saw in the news media reports but you didnt investigate the incidents in the letter. Did you . This is the first step. This is an assessment step that comes before investigations. Right. Before you issued your memo you didnt investigate the incidents. Memo is intended to begin assessments. Is is intended and in fact, most of the instances in the letter did not involve threats of violence. Did they . I think thats correct. Most of them did not. They would not be covered by either federal or state law. I agree with. That they would be protected by the First Amendment. But threats of violence are not covered by can we agree that we have thousands, tens of thousands maybe hundreds of thousands, of kids growing up today who are more likely to commit a crime and go to jail then i dont know about the comparative statistics. I know theyre too many people who are committing crimes. And one of the reasons for that its lack of parental involvement, isnt it . I think parental involvement is essential. I think it is key both bringing up good kids so why do you want to issue a memorandum listing incidents that you didnt investigate . Anybody who has any fair minded knowledge of the world knows is going to have a Chilling Effect on parental involvement with respect to what their kids are learning in school . I just want to be clear again, senator. My memorandum did not list any those incidents. Come on, general. We know this had a Chilling Effect. You dont think their parents out there in the real world that said, oh, my gosh. Maybe we should go to School Board Meetings. Theyll be fbi agents there . This week this is law law. And i try to make as clear as i could, and no and subsequently made clear your actions made it clear, general. Let me ask you one last question. When men follow a United States senator, who happens to be a female, into a womens room two harassed her about her beliefs, why is that just part of the process as President Biden says . But when a parent goes to a School Board Meeting to protest that her child is being taught that babies can be White Supremacists is subject to fbi prosecution . The description you just gave is not subject to fbi investigation. There is nothing in this memorandum that suggests this. We protect United States senators against threats of violence. You did a good job with senator sinema. In the last month weve indicted somebody who made threats of violence against both alaska u. S. Senators. Recently we just issued indicted somebody else hubei threats can i ask you one more could you wrap up, senator kennedy . Yes, maam. I will. Im just going to ask one last one. Well lead you to conclude when you issued your memorandum seeking the fbi on parents, that Law Enforcement at the state and local level couldnt handle it . To be clear, senator. We did not seek the fbi on appearance. Thats not what this memorandum is about. Nor did we conclude that local Law Enforcement is unable to deal with the problem. The purpose of this memorandum is for our federal Law Enforcement to engage with state and local tech and determine whether they need assistance. And you dont think this had any Chilling Effect, whatsoever, on parents out there . The mayor memorandum expressly says in the beginning that it is aimed at violence and threats of violence and expressly said that robust public debate about School Policies are right, right. Well, i like you general, a lot. But i think on this issue youve turned into what you said you wouldnt be. Irans recognize senator booker. Please proceed. I want to start with an area of bipartisan concord that seems to be what we are getting towards. Todays the 35th anniversary of the anti drug abuse act, which establish vastly different sentences for crack and powder cocaine. We are seeing a wonderful convergence in congress, most recently in the house of representatives, where you have this ride wide bipartisan vote. We are 149 republicans voted with the Democratic Caucus to address this disparity. The effect of that law was 100 to one, the work of again, bipartisan senators here, led by senator durbin. Negotiated their fair sentencing act which was a change of that disparity from 101 to 18 to one. Senator durbin, ive introduced something called the equal act, which is already been passed by the house. We got republicans and democrats on board. Tillis, leahy, paul, graham, as well as my colleague senator ossoff on my side of the aisle. The president , biden, publicly supported the bill and again, i just think they should be an area of obvious accord. But i really want to know your opinion. Do you agree it is time to end the sentencing disparity between crack and powdered cooked came . Especially given the disparate impact on people of color. And if you believe that, why do believe . That yes, i do believe that. The Justice Department is supporting the bill towards equal treatment of crack and powdered cocaine. The Sentencing Commission has over the last decade, done more than that. Produce a series of reports which undercut the supposed scientific basis for the distinction between the two. And has made clear there is no basis for distinguishing between the two. So, once that on the other hand, not only are there no grounds for it, it really does have a disparate impact on communities of color. Also clearly recognized by the Sentencing Commission statistics. To have that kind of circumstance, theres no justification for this and we should and. This i appreciate that. One last clarification. Theres a lot of unanimous support for this on both sides of the aisle, a lot of the support there some people that worry about it somehow affecting crime or crime rates. Could you discuss your opinion of that perspective . I think powdered code cain is dangerous with respect to crime rates as crack cocaine. Both of which have now been unfortunately overtaken by fentanyl and the opioids. Both of those are bad problems for the respective crime. But equalizing penalties for crack and powder should have no difference with respect to our ability to fight Violent Crime. Here, thank you, sir. For the record. Can i revisit what the senator brought up at the top and this is the letter that he and i sent to regarding people that are currently in home confinement during the last days of the Trump Administration. The Justice Department of Legal Counsel and january 15th, 2021, it issued a memo that everyone on the kids at home confinement must be by the end of the emergency if they do not otherwise qualify for home confinement. Now, these are folks who were pro pretty extremely scrutinize beforehand. Theyve been return to their communities. Theyve been really engaging with the family, with children. There are folks who are not showing any criminal activity or problems. Senator durbin and i were urging the Justice Department to rescind this trump era memo, which coincorrectly concludes that people whove been released to home confinement and who have abided by conditions of their release must be turned away from those families. And go back to the custody. I would love to know where you stand on this issue. To be, its an issue of justice, an issue of restorative justice. Its an issue of compassion. And understanding the collateral consequences of ripping people back and putting them in prisons unnecessarily. Not to mention the cost of having them there. Clearly i have my opinion, but id like to hear. You agree its a terrible policy to return these people to prison after they have shown that they are able to live in home confinement without violations. And as a consequence, we are reviewing the olc memorandum that you spoke about. We are also reviewing other authorities that congress may have given us, to permit us to keep people on home confinement. As you know, we are also the president is reviewing the extent of his clemency authority in that respect. How long should be expect that review before you make a recommendation . I cant say exactly. Are we talking six months, or less than six months . Im not exactly sure how long that will take. It may require rule making, so that may take more time. But we can be sure that it will be accomplished before the end of the cares act provision, which extends until the end of the pandemic. So, we are not in that circumstance where anybody will be returned before we have completed that review and implemented any changes we need to make. Okay, in regards to compassionate release in general, will the department of justice consider who reside in districts like the 11th circuit, were courts have interpreted compassionate release statue still only encompass medical release and age. Obviously there still a pandemic and we know that putting people into environments greatly increases their chances. And concerned about restrictions on compassionate release in places like the 11th circuit. This is something i havent thought about, senator. I guess the bureau of prisons, which is the agency that besides those questions has to have a uniform policy across the country. I hadnt thought of the possibility of making distinctions based on which circuit. Because your quite quite correct, the different circuits have the different views about the scope of compassionate release. Ill take that back for consideration. I have some concerns about the application which i will ask in writing to you with a. I want to be respectful of my colleague, my friend, the senator from the great state of oklahoma. Ouch. Im sorry, forgive me, omaha. Omaha is not a state, brother. Im sorry, worry from, sir . We used to beat stanford in football and we will return. [laughs] chairwoman . Thank you. Sorry, corey. Its not as fun as i thought it would be there. Attorney general. I know youre tired of talking about the memo. But im happy to answer any questions. I think most of us and most of the American People are just fabric flabbergasted if your answer is, you have no regrets about this. Memo is that what youre telling . As you think this was wise . Senator, the obligation of the Justice Department is to protect the American People against violence, including threats of violence. That particularly includes Public Officials. I think that is still concerned for the department. This memo doesnt do anything more than ask our Law Enforcement, state and local Law Enforcement, to determine whether they need assistance in this regard. And whether there are any federal, jurisdictional issues involved. General you and i both know that its political hatchery brought that topic to your desk, not reality. I am strongly against all violence against everyone in public life and all threats of violence. Youve not at any point here given us any data that shows why this would in and week the federal pereira tee at this time. The chairman not here right now, but chairman durbin has repeatedly talked about how this morning he cooled it and is pretty convinced there must be lots of threats. Can you help us understand why so many states are disconnecting their organizations from the National Association of School Boards . Youre aware that the National Association of School Boards has recanted the memo, correct . Theyve rejected their own letter to you. Are you aware of . That are you aware i read their le. Their letter doesnt recant their concerns about safety. It recants some of their language. And there were all for safety i did not adopt the language the recanted. I never adopted and would adopt. Why did the ohio School Board Association sever their association with the National School Board Association . Why didnt missouri School Board Association severed their relationship with the National School Board Association . Whatever the Pennsylvania School board because this was political hack worry. The kind of stuff you told us when you were seeking confirmation that you would be against. And you had the audacity to bring in your Opening Statement today, by telling as one of your big three priorities was to make sure communications between the white house and the Justice Department were not politicize. The last three administrations in a row have politicized the department of justice. A three including you. Now you told us one of your priorities in running the doj was to reject the climate of politicization we saw in the trump doj and the obama doj. You told us that was one of your priorities. You wrote a memo here that team from political staffers have been rejected by their organizations, coordinating with the right house, to try to exaggerate a threat so that they can be sure parents feel intimidated. Youve told us, i will use exact language senator kennedy use, you were a vessel. But one of two things is true here. Either you were just a vessel of political staffers at the white house, or you yourself are in favor of politicizing the doj. You told one of my colleagues a minute ago that youve not read the memo from the u. S. Attorney from montana. Ill read it to you if you want. Ill bring it to you and you can read it. This is one of your direct reports. Its an insane letter. The u. S. Attorney for montana takes as predicate for why hes doing what hes doing your memo, and on october 14th, he sends a list of all the counterterrorism statutes that should be considered to be used against parents who are upset about things that might be happening at their School Boards. Maybe theres lots of specific evidence of violence being threatened again School Board Members in montana, but he, his memo or his response your memo includes a letter where he says that Anonymous Telecommunications Harassment repeated telephone calls, or repeated harassing communications should be things that are potentially brought up as the basis for federal charges against appearance. Do you agree with this letter about october 14th . This is aimed at violence and threats of violence. I dont care whether they come from the left or from the right or from up or from doubt. I dont care if they are in favor of the curriculum are against a particular kind of curriculum. We can imagine all these kinds of arguments against School Boards can fly to the left or right. It doesnt matter. Arguments against School Boards are protected by the First Amendment. Threats are not protected by the First Amendment. We received a letter from the National Association of School Boards. No reason to believe you didnt receive an anonymous letter. The white house political staff covert it with this organization, which is why the organization has rejected it. You know these facts now to be true, and yet you still will disavow your mantle. Why . You to receive some objective neutral letter, because all these people were being threatened. You are response responding to a Political Campaign to politicize the department of justice,. How big is the threat to american appearance pose right now . You need a big organization. You have 100,000 plus in place. You have a lot of violence to go after. Our parents at School Boards one of the top three concerns you face right now . This this memorandum is not periods at School Boards. It has to do with threats against public, school teachers, Public Officials. It is not political and the gets all of those threats. I want to know what the data. Is i dont need data in order to assess in response to a political staffers campaign out of the white house. The purpose of this man room is to get our Law Enforcement to assess the extent of the problem. And if there is no problem, state and local Law Enforcement are capable handling the problem, and theres no need for our involvement. This memo is nazi to begin prosecuting anybody. It says to make assessments. Thats what we do in the Justice Department. It has nothing to do with. Politics will report back to this committee with what you find about these threats . Because what you just said, i completely agree with. We are against violence against Public Officials. You and i agree. We are against threats of violence against Public Officials. You and i agree. We are for local Police Powers investigating local crimes. And there are definitely your calls and idiots that make threats against lock people in public life. I dont memorize it, you shouldnt minimize it. Youre not minimizing. It but we both believe an in your heart of hearts and pretty sure you believe that local Law Enforcement is more than able to handle someone idiot or 12 idiots at School Board Meetings. But you made a federal issue and i dont have any idea why. And at no point today have you offered us a shred of data. So, my question is, will you project pledge report back to the committee with the results of your investigation about how big threat the american parent classes to School Boards in the country . I will be happy to get a report back to you, but this is not about the american period. I know, its about the political politicization of the doj. You decided to submit it because you know better. Im sorry, i dont agree with that, sir. Im sorry. Thank you senatm omaha. Welcome to our committee mister attorney general. Let me just and by thanking you and your team for the sense of integrity and transparency that you brought to the department of justice at a time when the rule of law is the greatest Law Enforcement agency in history of the world was greatly threatened. By a lack of commitment. I think its very important important what youve done. Even though we may have a difference of opinion, amy disagree. But nobody can doubt your commitment to the rule of law. I want to ask you about a matter, i know youre familiar with it. Last month, the Committee Held a hearing on the fbis mishandling of the nassar investigation, larry nassar. The most heinous kind of abuse against lot young athletes. For brief women share their stories with us. They showed up to tell those stories in spite of the very greek obstacles. The Inspector General concluded that two fbi agents made false statements during their investigation into nassar. And to the ig himself, Inspector General, during the investigation, an fbi agent lied when he referred those cases to the department of justice. But id like to ask is that the department of justice now in fact show up by providing an explanation of whatever its decision is with respect to the prosecution of those agents . The Deputy Attorney general announced that there will be a new review. And that new information has come to light. While we wait for that review to be completed, while i seeking from you is commitment that you will explain that decision when its made. I recognize that the former prosecutor, explanations typically are not explain. But the justice manual itself says that in criminal civil rights cleans cases quote, it is often the practice to send case closing notification letters cases close with indictments for prosecution, because cases quote, often spark intense Public Interest. Even when theyre not prosecuted. And that such letters are quote, particularly encouraged in cases of Police Misconduct and other cases involving Law Enforcement officers. And quote. In this case, we have exactly that situation. Im asking that you will provide explanations for your decision. This is a heart problem for us. Part of the manual your talking about violations of civil rights act. What were talking about here is false statements. Was to see if the result of this review is prosecution, it will become public. The question of how much, weather and how much we can see, if all we do is declined, im going to have to take that back for consideration. But i take your point and i will go about it very carefully as well. I understand youre not ruling it out, but im going to continue to prep for and i think that jim deserves it and so does the american public. I hope that you will make a decision to provide a full and complete explanation, because i think the credibility of this decision will largely depend on it. Let me just say, in my view, we need to do more than focus on the fbi agents and that the Inspector General referred for prosecution, because this failure was institutional. Institutional failure. Institutional to the fbi, two usa jim nests and the entire olympics. It was an institutional breakdown. And to date, theres been no accountability for anyone in power. To that and, i am announcing that aid the subcommittee that i chair, the subcommittee on consumer protection, were going to continue to work with senator moran and i. The work began years ago with the investigation and olympics reform legislation. Will engage in further oversight of the United States olympic and paralympic committee. The National Governing body and safe sport, twin sure theyre proportioned commitment to safety is not an empty promise. The gymnasts have asked us, they deserve it, and were going to fulfill that obligation. But in my view, the department of justice has to do more as well, given the fbis gross mishandling of the nassar investigation. I believe a new review of all the information related to nassar and the u. S. Obesity is warranted here. Because their other examples of potential misconduct that deserve a fresh look. A fresh for instance, senator moran and i refer to former ceo of the u. S. Will be seat to the department of justice for potentially perjuring him self before our subcommittee in 2018. We dont know what department it was at referral. Weve heard virtually nothing. In addition, the former u. S. Attorney for the Southern District of indiana, whose office was involved in the nassar investigation is now representing one of the disgraced fbi agents. Representing one of the fbi agents referred for prosecution. I dont know whether thats a violation of ethical rules or some other kinds of department of justice policies. But it raises significant questions and the department should have an interest in them. So, i hope that we can expect more from you by way of explanation. And i hope that we can count on you for a new review of the information related to the nassar investigation, usa gymnastics and the usopc and whether there are cases were the prosecution will hold them accountable. Institutional failure that you speak of i thought the testimony by the gymnast was heart wrenching. And they were courageous. The fbi director has adopted all the recommendations of the Inspector General and is putting them into effect. In addition, we have adopted new regulations, new authorities in their department. To be clear, the fbi is investigating a case of assault on each ill and determines that it no longer has jurisdiction, it immediately informs the relevant state or local prosecutors and Law Enforcement. This is what didnt happen in the nassar circumstance. And ensure that that is down, so that the state and local will be able to continue. Likewise, with respect to transference from one fbi office to another. Another failure under that case. That those be monitor to ensure that those transfers occur. We take this extremely seriously. I dont know what happened is just awful. You have the commitment of the Justice Department and of the fbi director, and the fbi, to make these kinds of institutional changes to ensure this doesnt happen again. I appreciate those points, but as you well know, because of your own impressive record as a prosecutor, theres nothing like accountability. Individuals being held accountable. To send a message, particularly a deterrent message. Thank you, madam chairman. Thank you senator blumenthal. I have listed from the republican side, this is the order, correct me if im wrong. We have two Democratic Senators whove not asked at this point. Senator tillis . Senator tillis, i dont know if your mic is on. Better . Better. May regret. Mr. Attorney general, thank you for being here. In response to the memo, i know youve repeatedly said this is not about parents. 15 years ago i was pta parents president of my daughters high school. Participated in a lot of School Board Meetings. As you know, Public Access the basis for your memo was substantially the letter you all received. Is that correct . An important part. Yes, senator. Do you think there was an empirical ive seen some of the widely reported situations and some School Board Meetings. But is there really any imports basis . A seen a lot of School Board Meetings. I participated in them. Is there any empirical basis . Did the doj do any real work outside public reporting to say there is a disturbing trend that requires what we consider to be Regional Intervention on the half of the doj . As i explained, what we looked at was the letters from a organization that represents thousands of School Board Members and School Boards. And public reports of threats of violence. Since then, i have further read and quite ex threats of violence have been reported. Mr. Attorney general, i want to try to keep in time. I do, i know you said is not about the parents. But when the doj releases a memo and i think even more importantly the press statement. I think that it does have a Chilling Effect on parents being willing to go and express their concerns with the direction of the school board is going. All of a sudden, you think that your words and the list of crimes that the department has, and at least a state of montana, is gonna have a Chilling Effect on people who have a legitimate concern. But now they may think that they come crosswise with the fbi. So, i do believe that it will have a Chilling Effect on people whose rights they have to go in, express their concerns, like in loud in county. Ridiculous overreach. I think it will have that effect. Because the full force of the fbi is now something a parent has to think about before they go before a School Board Meeting to express their concerns and they get frustrated. Like i said, theyve been rockets for decades and they will be rockets for decades to come. So, i really do believe that you should seriously consider rescinding, revising, a statement out there that concerns me for the parents that i want to show up at School Board Meetings and have the School Boards held accountable. The other thing we should talk about are the numerous examples of School Board Members getting caught saying audacious things. Its one thing weve seen over the past year. Think about some of the provocative things theyve said. They thought they were behind closed doors but they were on the internet. They sickly ridiculing parents and pretending like they have all control over their childrens education and their future. Weve got to get more periods engage and i think that the effect of the doj action had the exact exact opposite of. That with my colleagues have covered my concern and i agree with those express on my side of the aisle. In response to senator graham on immigration, you said you did go visit a border. Is sounds like you are down there mainly from the perspective of the rule of the doj. Ice understand homeless cutie is primarily responsible. I would encourage you to go back there and maybe we could share with you our itinerary to talk about why i do believe it should be a great concern to the doj. Weve got almost one and a half million asylum cases on the docket now. And it takes years to complete them. And about 80 of them are adjudicated as not having a valid claim. So, thats that data lead to discuss the asylum system misspeak abuse . I mean, thats a data from the doj. Senator, i dont know for sure about the purpose of the asylum adjudication. Its to adjudicate asylum. I understand that. It allows them to make a case. This is a statutory im not an attorney. Youre an accomplished judge. Im looking at this just from a practical standpoint. What the data says, almost 2 Million People across the border illegally. Since january. It it is 80 likely theyll not have a valid asylum claim. How any reasonable person couldnt look at that and Say Something is being abused here. Its a gateway to get into this country, drift into the shadows and virtually never leave the country. But heres one that im most concerned with and why i think a briefing with the same people that we met with at the border. Many of the people are on the committee were there when i was. Hundreds of people a day getting across the borders. I got a ways are not ones that want to be processed through asylum, they want to evade detection. They want to drift. How on earth can we assume that there is anything but a malign purpose for them trying to evade detection . Otherwise you just get into the system, youre gonna be here for years. Well abused asylum system. Theyre skirting it to the tune of a couple hundred e night. And this has been going on for months. Now we have thousands of people who came into this country when the cartels setup. Theyll send about 50 people to overtake gauge the Border Patrol so they can spend another hundred into our society. Their drug trucks flickers, human traffickers, gun smugglers, gang members and their coming in by the thousands every month. That is a doj problem. That is a crime in our communities problem. And it is actually making the hispanic communities the majority of which are coming over hispanic, those communities less safe. I would really encourage you to go back to the border and look at it from a perspective of your role as attorney general and the hundreds and thousands of illegals who are coming across our borders every day. Many of them drifting in and evading detection and making our communities less safe. I do have a number. Ive got intellectual property. A number of implementation issues that meant to submit for the record. But mr. Garland, we have a problem at the border. And the doj has to engage and recognize part of that problem theyre going to have to fix. Weve got to stop stop 13 Million Dollars a day that the cartels are getting through human trafficking. As a documented number. Weve got to stop the central null and that is poisoning americans because we have an outofcontrol border situation. This is a Law Enforcement issue. I understand its an immigration issue. But we have to get you, i think right up, the same way we were last. Time and encourage you to go back down there again. Talk to people on the ground and understand why this is going to make your job more difficult. And its already making america much alesci. Thank you, mister chair. Thanks, mister chair. Ill begin with particularly recent comments for from some of my colleagues about immigration, migration, what isnt happening. I want to start by recognizing senators remark earlier. In immigration. What are the best, most smart approaches to tackling unlawful migration is to improve the effectiveness, the efficiency of lawful migration. Its not just investing in Immigration Courts but access to counsel. Thee are issues my office hears about on a very regular basis. So i was heartened that youll be asking for Additional Resources to address those issues. This is certainly an area where money is needed to improve the processing of immigration cases while insuring due process. To my questions. First, a response that i and several of my colleagues have been waiting on since april 15th, when i and seven other members of congress sent you a letter concerning the departments funding and oversight of predictive policing tools. Which are deployed by Law Enforcement throughout the country. As we highlighted in that letter, and im happy to provide an additional copy to you, were concerned the department of justice may be devoting precious taxpayer resources to ineffective tools and encouraging local Law Enforcement to office devote resources to unproven strategies. Worst still, those tools may be perpetuaing a vicious cycle of discriminatory policing against historically marginalized groups. Because we have not yet received a response, we do not know, for example, what if any conditions there are by the department of justice on the agencies and departments who deploy predictive policing tools with the aid of federal funds. I find its unacceptable. So attorney general garland, its been over six months since our letter was sent to the department of justice. And we have yet to receive an official response. Can you explain the delay and when we can expect a response . I cant explain the delay. I dont know what the reason is, but i will immediately take this back and be sure that the office of legislative affairs responds to your letter. Okay. Well get you another copy of the letter before we leave here today. Next issue. As most, i believe we should all agree, we need an open and competitive economy that also works for workers. We talked a lot about entrepreneurs and capitalism, consumer protection, but we need an economy that also works for workers. And this demands the departments attention to combat artificially suppressed compensation, employer collusion, and increasing inequality. For example, noncompete clauses or no poach agreements limit the ability of many workers throughout our economy to switch to better paying opportunities or start their own businesses. Antitrust protection for labor organizing does not yet explicitly extend to gig economy workers who are classified as independent contractors by their employers. A corporate consolidation can limit the pool of companies in the labor market competing to attract and retain workers. Attorney general garland, what is the department of justice doing to insure that theres competition in our labor markets and is this yet another area where the Department Needs Additional Resources to fulfill the mission laid out by President Biden . Thank you for the question. The Justice Departments antitrust division agrees. I dont know if you hear either, agrees competition in labor markets is as much a part of the antitrust laws as our consumer markets. We have a number of investigations involved in those areas that youre talking about. We have a criminal case, all public. On the nopoaching issue, we have brought cases and investigations regarding allocations of labor markets. So i think i can fairly say we agree with you. This is an area of concern, and its an area of antitrust division focus. The antitrust division does need more money. And more lawyers and economists and investigators. It was down substantially, one of the lowest head counts in quite a number of years. And we very much need to fill that back. And thats why our fy 22 appropriations request asks for a substantial increase in money for the antitrust division. Wonderful. Supporting those requests for Additional Resources. And finally, in the time remaining, yet another topic. Earlier this month, this committee released a report detailing former President Trumps scheme to pressure the department of justice and overturn the will of the people who voted for now President Joe Biden so he could serve again as president. The report outlines behavior that follows a pattern and practice of intimidation, coercion, and outright bullying by the former president s administration. If we dont hold these bad actors accountable, we face the possibility of eroding public trust in our institutions. Americans are looking for accountability. And theyre looking to you, attorney general, as the leader of your agency to administer justice. My question is this, are you willing to recommit yourself to pursuing every possible avenue and every possible lead for holding those accountable who have used Public Office to undermine and demean our democracy . As a general matter, the answer of course is yes. I dont want to talk about specific investigations except to point out whats already been stated publicly on the record, which is a component of the Justice Department, although an independent one, Inspector General is examining the matters that about which youre speaking. I have full confidence he will advise me and the department of what he finds and we will then take appropriate action. Thank you. And just in closing i would have hoped that would include a review and consideration of allegations documented in a recent Rolling Stone article where participation in the leadup to january 6th was not limited to just white house officials but actual members of congress. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Chair. Thank you. Were going to recognize senator blackburn and then take a fiveminute break, return, and we have senator ossoff, senator hawley, senator cruz. And i just say to the two or three members who have said they might be interested in a threeminute round, please be here. You have to be physically present because this has been a long day for all of us who stayed here most of the time, particularly for the attorney general. So senator blackburn and then a fiveminute break. Thank you, mr. Chairman. And general garland, thank you for being with us today. I have to tell you that it is with much disappointment that i have watched the doj be so politicized. And the way things have been carried out when you look at the memo to parents, you heard a lot about that today, and its because were hearing a lot about that. And i just have to ask you, knowing that you really helped bring to justice those that caused the Oklahoma City bombings, would you really, honestly put parents in the same category as a Terry Nichols or a Timothy Mcveigh . My god, absolutely not. Then why why would you ever release a memo . I mean, did you write that memo . Did staff write that memo . What would have led you to do this . It is so over the top. Theres nothing in the memo that in any way draws any comparison to anything like that. This memo is about violence and threats of violence. Sir, i have to tell you that that may be your opinion, and you know, many times perception is reality. And reading that memo myself, tennesseans reading that memo, what they found in that memo, what they heard you say was if you show up and you question these School Boards, you will be deemed a domestic terrorist. You could be investigated by the fbi. I mean, the fbi has a lot of other things that they should be focusing on. And the fbi should be there looking at issues like china. Now, the fbi has been very concerned about china, so give me a little update. Whats the status of the China Initiative at the doj . So senator, we are we regard peoples republic of china an extraordinarily serious and aggressive threat to our intellectual property, to our universities okay, youre stonewalling me on that. We all know theyre an aggressive threat. We continue to investigate okay. The prc efforts to do you see them as an adversary . I see them as adversarial with respect to our ransomware, with respect to hacking our with respect to counterintelligence well, we know that over the last several months, the last nine months, several espionage prosecutions of researchers have been dropped. Our charges have been dismissed, including those of a professor at ut knoxville, and of course, the huawei case is there. So this is in spite of the fact that director wray recently testified that the fbi opens a new chinese espionage investigation every 12 hours. So are there apparent failures of the initiative . Is it a lack of leadership . Or is it a compromised position with the administration . Is it incompetence . Every case is evaluated on its own with respect to the law and the facts. We continue to open cases involving the peoples republic of china daily, as the director said. We will not in any way let up our concerns about okay. All right, i want to move on. Im glad to know youre not going to go soft on china because this administration is going soft on china. On your directive, going back to the School Board Association and the directive you sent out. The nsba has apologized. Are you planning to apologize to parents of this country . Moms and dads. There is nothing in this memorandum that any parent should be concerned about. Theres a lot that parents should be concerned about. Let me ask you about the durham investigation, because 44 senators join mead in a letter that we sent to you in august. And we still have not received a written response from you on the status of the durham investigation. So will you provide for me a written status report of the durham investigation . The particular aim i think of the letter as i said at the house committee, mr. Durham is continuing we asked for a status update, and we also asked that a report be made public, available to the public on the completion of his work. Will that be made public . On both of those questions, the budget has been approved as i already announced and with respect to the report, i would like as much as possible to be made public. I have to be concerned about privacy act concerns and classifications, but other than that, the commitment is to provide a public report, yes. Can you guarantee this committee that special counsel durham has free reign to proceed whenever his investigation takes him without any political or otherwise undue influence or interference . There will be no political or otherwise undue interference. Okay, Susan Hennessey, Susan Hennessey was recently hired to work in your National Security division. This is a troubling hire because of her political bias. She has made several comments that show she is incapable of working impartially on sensitive matters within the National Security division. Particularly on the durham investigation. For example, december 1st, 2020, ms. Hennessey stated and i am quoting, durham has made abundantly clear that in a year and a half, he hasnt come up with anything. I guess this kind of partisan silliness has become characteristic of barrs legacy, but unclear to me why durham would want to go along with it. End quote. So how can the American People be certain that she is going to be fair and impartial when she is on the record making those statements . So has she retracted that statement . Do you intend to ask her to retract that statement . I have to confess, i dont think i have ever met ms. Hennessey, and she has never you might want to look at her. Shes there in your National Security division. And she is very much opposed to this. I want to thank you for your time. I am going to send a couple questions to you for more complete answers, but i associate myself with the comments by my colleagues that the border issues have turned every town into a border town, and every state into a border state. The amount of drugs, the amount of trafficking that is flowing in here, talking to local Law Enforcement, the way theyre looking at the cartels. Mr. Attorney general, there is a lot that needs to be done to secure this country, and the parents of the kiddos in our schools, they are not the problem. There are other problems that need your attention. Thank you, senator blackburn. The committee will stand in recess for five minutes. Meeting will resume. Senator hawley. Mr. Chairman, did you call on me . Im happy to go. I didnt see senator osaff. Thank you, senator hawley. Thank you, mr. Chairman. Attorney general, nice to see you. Thank you for joining us. Last week, the Senate Passed legislation that i introduced alongside chair durbin and Ranking Member grassley, the prison camera reform act. To reduce violence and civil rights abuses in bop facilities by overhauling the Security Camera system that ig horowitz has found is outdated, in reliable as well as the means of recording and preserving the footage from the systems. Do you agree these reforms are necessary and should this bill become law will you commit to prioritizing the implementation of the requirements it imposes upon the bop . Yes, and yes. Thank you, attorney general. Like to discuss with you staffing issues at the bureau of prisons. Earlier this year, the gao, which as you know is a nonpartisan independent watchdog, concluded b. O. P. Lacks a reliable method for assessing the scope of staffing issues or the impact on incarcerated populations and staff of staffing issues at b. O. P. Facilities. Do you agree the inability to reliably measur this problem impedes b. O. P. s ability to find gaps, shortage of personnel to help implement the First Step Act and antirecidivism programs as well as makes it more difficult for congress to respond, and will you commit to working with my office to help identify where theres gaps in planning or budgeting or Personnel Management or the authorities that b. O. P. Has . Yes, senator. I met with comptroller general about this, about the various of his reports and this one in particular. And i agree this is a serious problem at the bureau of prisons. The Deputy Attorney general has been working on this problem for quite some time now. As she has repeat meetings with the bureau of prisons to go over this issue with respect to staffing and assessments. And i would be happy to have somebody on our staff meet with your staff. Thank you, attorney general. The Inspector General has determined that b. O. P. Lacks a clear and consistent policy for the use of solitary confinement in b. O. P. Musilts. Has b. O. P. To your knowledge issued such a policy . I dont know the answer to that. Will you work with my office to determine whether they have and what may need to be done to make sure they do . Of course. A question about commercial data and its use in doj investigations. In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a decision that government agents must issue a warrant and show the device over a sevenday period. This data is widely available for many u. S. Persons on commercial markets through data brokers and other technology companies. To your knowledge, do any federal agencies currently purchase data or any doj components currently purchase data or contract for services that provide device location data from commercial vendors . Is this data used in investigations or prosecutions . I dont believe that we purchase location data. But ill be happy to look into that and get back to you on that as well. I would be grateful because i think there are serious Fourth Amendment concerns there. I would like to discuss the fisa process with you. In its report last month, the office of the Inspector General noted the doj and fbi had work to do the implement the recommendations to strengthen the process for fisa applications. While this has unfortunately become a partisan issue, its fundamentally an issue of privacy, due process, and the integrity of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court and the applications it receives. The igs report notes that the fbi had not significantly changed the process by which a supervisor such as the assistant attorney general for National Security Division Reviews and documents the factual assertions made in fisa applications. And i discussed this issue with matt olson when he was before the committee for his confirmation. What steps is the doj taking to make substantive changes to the fisa process and comport with the recommendations . I completely agree that this should not be a partisan issue. Fisa on the one hand is extraordinarily important tool for our ability to protect the country against foreign enemies. And on the other hand, its a tool that has to be dealt with with the most extreme care because we have to protect american citizens from unwarranted surveillance. Nontraditional surveillance. I take the Inspector Generals report extraordinarily seriously. I think the one youre referring to talks about events in 2019. Regardless, we take this very seriously, and the fbi director does as well. The National Security division of the department reviews what the fbi is doing with respect to fisas routinely. The office analyzes them to be sure they are following the correct rules. And we intend to continue that kind of intensive review to insure that internal regulations and the requirements are maintained. Thank you. Thank you, attorney general, and i believe there is within the last couple of months some additional recommendations or concerns expressed by the ig about the implementation of changes pursuant to its prior conclusion. This must be the woods i think this is the woods file. Thats correct. I quite agree that this has to be done better. As i think he said, its a work in progress. And there is certainly a considerable more room for improvement, and were focused on making those improvements. Please note theres bipartisan concern about seeing those improvements. A final question about press freedom. You prohibited the department from using subpoenas, court orders or warrants to obtain information on the Confidential Sources of reporters. And this new policy, as you defined it, offers broad protections for members of the news media but does not qualify or define with specificity who qualified as members of the media. Is there a specific interpretation of that phrase thats been issued in internal Department Guidance . The answer to that is no. We have discussed this with representatives of the news media continuously, and part of our review for purposes of turning this memorandum into a regulation, were continuing to discuss this. As you can imagine, its very difficult to make that kind of definition. But very important to get it right. I complete agree. And i think my staff will likely ask yours for a briefing on the progress of your deliberations and perhaps well weigh in. Thank you for your service, attorney general, and for your responses. Thanks, senator. Senator hawley. Thanks very much. Attorney general garland, on october 4th, you issued an unprecedented memo that involved the department of justice and fbi and local School Districts, local School Boards. Nothing like it in our countrys history. It was based, you testified, on this letter from the National School Board Association that we now know the white house was involved in writing. They retracted the letter, they apologized for the letter. They say they regret the letter, but you wont retract the memo and said earlier you have no regrets, and you defended yourself repeatedly saying youre focused on violence. Now, of course, we have seen the memo from your own Justice Department advising state and local and other prosecutors about all of the different federal causes of action that they can bring against parents that are not about violence. Theyre about harassment and intimidation. Im looking here at this memo. It identifies no fewer than 13 possible federal Crimes Involving harassment and intimidation, including making annoying phone calls. You think a parent who makes a phone call to a School Board Member that she has elected, that School Board Member deems annoying, they should be prosecuted . No, i dont, and the Supreme Court has made quite clear the word intimidation is one that directs a threat to a person with the intense of placing the victim in fear of bodily harm or death. Prosecutors who investigate these cases know the Supreme Court. Prosecutors do, but parents dont, general garland. Do you think a parent who looks at the 13 different federal crimes that your Justice Department has identified, they might be subject to and prosecuted for, like making annoying phone calls, do you think theyre going to feel that theyre welcome to speak up at a School Board Meeting . How about this one . They could be prosecuted for using the internet, i guess that would be facebook, in a way that might cause Emotional Distress to a victim. Is that a crime of violence . Senator, i havent seen the memo that youre talking about and even from the description, it doesnt sound like it was addressed to parents. No, it wasnt addressed to parents. It was addressed to prosecutors. Why havent you seen the memo . I dont know why i havent. I do not get every memo that every u. S. Attorney sends out. But if youre wait a minute, i just want to be sure i understand this. This is a memorandum that collects 13 different federal crimes parents could be charged with. It has United States department of justice on the top of it. And youre telling me you havent seen it . Who is the memo from, senator . The United States department of justice, United States attorney for the district of montana. I have not seen a memo from the district of montana. Not a high enough priority for you . Thats not the question. It is the question. Answer my question. Is the not a high enough priority for you when youre threatening parents with 13 different federal crimes . These arent crimes of violence. You testified today youre focused on violence. Thats not what your u. S. Attorneys december they work for you, thats not what theyre saying. You havent seen it because its not a high enough priority orwhat . No one has sent me that memo. What do you mean, no one has sent you the memo . You run the department of justice, do you not . There are 115,000 employees of the department of justice. Indeed, and you are in charge of every one of them. This was a sufficiently important case that you issued a memo. You, over your signature, issued a memo insulting the fbi and the department of justice in local School Boards, local School Districts. Your u. S. Attorneys are now threatening prosecution with 13 different crimes, but its not a high enough priority for you. It got lost in the mix . Once again, i have never seen that memo. Thats what concerns me, general garland. Well, it wasnt sent to me. I hope you will assure your constituents what we are concerned about here is violence and threats of violence. That only leads me to conclude all i can conclude from this is either that youre not in control of your own department or that more likely what i think to be the case is that you knew full well that this is exactly the kind of thing that would happen. When you issued your memo, when you involved the department of justice and all of its resources, and the fbi and all of its resources, and local School Boards and local School Districts, you knew that federal prosecutors would start collecting crimes that they could use against parents. You knew they would advise state and local officials that these are all of the ways parents might be prosecuted. You knew that that was the likely outcome. And thats exactly whats happened. And were talking about parents like scott smith who is behind me over my shoulder. This is a father from louden county, virginia. Here he is at a School Board Meeting. He was forcibly restrained, assaulted, arrested. Why . Because he went to an elected School Board Meeting. Hes a voter, by the way. He went to an elected School Board Meeting to raise the fact his daughter was assaulted, sexually assaulted in a girls restroom by a boy. This is what happened to him. You testified last week before the house you didnt know anything about that case. I find that extraordinary because the letter you put so much weight on, the letter thats now been restracted, it cites this case directly. Theres a news article cited in the letter. Its discussed in the letter. You testified you just couldnt remember it. Do you think people like parents who show up to complain about their children being assaulted ought to be treated like this man . Parents who show up to complain about School Boards are protected by the First Amendment. Do you think they ought to be prosecuted in a different way that your u. S. Attorneys are identifying . If what theyre doing is complaining about what the school board is doing, policies, curriculum, anything else they want to, as long as theyre not committing threats of violence, they should not be prosecuted and they cant be. Let me ask you about this. Several of my democrat colleagues have today just in this hearing have compared parents who show up at School Board Meetings like mr. Smith here, have compared them to criminal rioters. Do you think thats right . A parent who shows up at a School Board Meeting who has a complaint, and maybe she doesnt use exactly the right grammar, you think theyre akin to criminal rioters . I do not, and i dont remember any senator here making that comparison. Just like the folks who came here on january 6th and the riot at the capitol. I dont think they were referring to the picture youre showing here. I certainly would hope not. Theyre referring to parents who go to School Board Meetings. Mr. Smith is a parent who went to a School Board Meeting. General garland, you have weaponized the fbi and the department of justice. You u. S. Attorneys are now collecting and cataloging all of the ways they can prosecute parents like mr. Smith because they want to be involved in their childrens education, and they want to have a say in their elected officials. Its wrong. It is unprecedented to my knowledge in the history of this country, and i call on you to resign. Thanks, mr. Chairman. Senator cruz. Thank you, mr. Chairman. For eight years under barack obama, the department of justice was politicized and weaponized. When you came before this committee and your confirmation hearing, you promised things would be different. I asked you specifically, quote, will you commit to this committee that under your leadership, the department of justice will not target the political opponents of this administration . It was your answer, quote, absolutely. Its totally inappropriate for the department to target any individual because of their politics or their position in a campaign. That was your promise just a few month ago. Im sorry to say you have broken that promise. There is a difference between law and politics. And general garland, you know the difference between law and politics. Law is based on fact. It is impartial. It is not used as a tool of political retribution. This memo was not law. This memo was politics. On wednesday, september 29th, the National School Board Association wrote a letter to the president asking the president to use the department of justice to target parents that were upset at Critical Race Theory, that were upset at mask mandates in schools, to target them as domestic terrorists. On the face of the letter, the letter was in repeated consultation with the white house, explicit political consultation with the white house. That was on wednesday, september 29th. Five days later, on monday, so right after the weekend, boom. You pop out a memo. Giving them exactly what they want. Now, by the way, i understand that. In politics, that happens all the time. An important special interest wants something, sir, yes, sir, were going to listen to them. Let me ask you something, general garland. In the letter which you told the house of representatives was the basis for this abusive memo targeting parents, how many incidents are cited in that memo . I have to look back through the memo. You dont know. How many of them are violence . The general how many of them were violence, do you know . I dont know. Theres a reason you dont know. Because you didnt care, and nobody in your office cared to find out. I did a quick count just sitting here during this hearing. I counted 20 incidents cited. Of the 20, 15 on their face are nonviolent. They involve things like insults. They involve a nazi salute. Thats one of the examples. My god, a parent did a nazi salute at a school board because he thought the policies were oppressive. General garland is doing a nazi salute, is that protected by the First Amendment . Yes, it is. 15 of the 20 on the face of it are not violent, theyre not threats of violence. Theyre parents who are unhappy. Yes, miraculously, when you write a memo, the opening line of your memo, in recent months, there has been a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence. You know what, you didnt look and nobody on your staff looked. Did you even look up the 20 instances . As i have testified, the decision to make to send the memo did you look up the 20 instances . I did not. Did anyone on your staff look them up . I dont know the answer. General, theres a reason. Look, you started your career as a law clerk for justice brennan. You had many law clerks during the years, during your time as a judge. I was a clerk to chief justice rehnquist. I tell you what, if i drafted an opinion for the chief justice and walked in and it said, theres a disturbing pattern of violence, well, ted, how do you know that . I got someone who claims it. You would fire a law clerk who did that. Youre the attorney general of the United States. This was not a tweet you sent. This is a memo to the federal bureau of investigations saying go investigate parents as domestic terrorists. That is not what the memo says at all. Is it what the letter says . Thats not what is it what the letter says . I dont care what the letter says. You dont care. You said it was the basis of your memo. You testified under oath before the house of representatives the letter was the basis of your memo. Now you dont care about the letter . The letter and public reports of violence and threats of violence, my memo says nothing about domestic terrorism. Nothing about parents committing any such thing. My memo is an attempt to get an assessment of whether there is a problem out there that the federal government needs to the letter on its face says the acactions of the parents could be equivalent to domestic terrorism, directed at parents. This was the basis of your memo. My memo the department of justice, when youre directing the fbi to engage in Law Enforcement, youre not behaving as a political operative because a political ally of the president says, hey, go attack these parents because we dont like what theyre saying. Department of justice, you did no independent research on what was happening, did you . The memo has nothing to do with did you do independent research . The memo has nothing youre not answering that question. You have testified you know nothing about the violent Sexual Assault that happened in louden county, even though its one of the basises in this letter. I read about it since then. Ia told the house last week you knew nothing about it. I did not know about it at the time. This week, the court concluded a 14yearold girl rag a skirt in the girls restroom. The School District covered it up, released the boy, sent him to another school. Where he violently raped another girl. The father who mr. Hawley just showed you was the father of the first girl. He was understandably do you understand why a parent would be upset when your daughter is raped at school, the school board covers it up, and then lies to you and claims there had been no assaults. We have no instances of assaults in our bathroom, and that was a flat out lie as the court concluded this week. You understand why the parents would be upset . Absolutely. Any expressions of upset are protected by the First Amendment. Except you just called him a domestic terrorist. I never called him that. This letter called him a domestic terrorist. An official direction from the attorney general on this letter. I tell you what, the nsca is so embarrassed of the letter, they apologized for it and retracted it, but you dont have the same willingness to apologize and retract what you did. Let me ask you something else. A big part of the letter is theyre upset about parents not wanting Critical Race Theory taught. Your soninlaw makes a very substantial sum of money from a Company Involved in the teaching of Critical Race Theory. Did you seek and receive a decision from an ethics adviser at the department of justice before you carried out an action that would have a predictable financial benefit to your soninlaw . This memorandum is aimed at violence and threats i just asked a question. Did you seek an ethics opinion . Did you seek an ethics opinion . Judge, you know how to ask questions and answer them. Did you seek an ethics opinion . You asked whether i sought an ethics opinion that would have a predictable effect on something. This has no protectable effect. If Critical Race Theory is taught in more schools, does your soninlaw make more money . If Critical Race Theory is taught in schools, does your soninlaw make more money . This memorandum has nothing to do with Critical Race Theory. Would you answer . Im answering the best i can. Yes or no, did you seek an ethics opinion . Did you seek an ethics opinion . This memorandum general, are you refused to do so if you sought an ethics opinion . Im telling you youre saying no. Answer it directly. You know how to answer a question directly. Did you seek an ethics opinion . Im telling you if i thought there was any reason to believe there was a conflict of interest, i would do that. Why do you refuse to answer the question . Why wont you just say no . Youre not going to answer the question. Ask the question again. Did you seek an ethics opinion . Im saying again, i would seek an ethbes so no is the answer, correct . Senator, your time is up. Let the record reflect the attorney general refuses to answer whether he sought an ethics opinion and apparently ethics are not a terribly high priority in the biden Justice Department. I dont think tlts a fair reflect of what i said. Then answer the question. Senator, you have gone beyond any other senators time. You ought to be at least respectful of other senators at this point. Mr. Chairman, do you know whether he sought an ethics opinion . We have a request for threeminute rounds, and i have one from senator hirono, senator lee, and senator booker. Im sorry, and first, of course, Ranking Member grassley. Were going to stick to three minutes. Its been four hours since the attorney general has been in the chair with a couple breaks. And i think we should try to wrap up if we can. Request to put something in the record. A wall street journal editorial titled about the domestic terrorist parents. The article notes that the october 4th doj memo should be formally rescinded. Without objection. General, after a great deal of pressure from victims in congress, i know youre taking another look at the departments disgusting decision not to prosecute employees for lying to government officials in the nassar investigation. Do you anticipate that the department will similarly expunge the records of these employees just like mccabe or continue to give them get out of jail free cards as you have done so far . As i said, senator, we are reviewing the decisions with respect to the alleged false statements. That review is done by the Criminal Division. Beginning in the summer of 2020, American Cities began to see appalling and unprecedented spike in Violent Crime, murders, and Gang Violence, Gang Violence as liberal politicians operated under the rallying cry of defund the police. This movement translated into over 1,200 deaths in 2020 alone. In the summer of 2020, then attorney general barr instituted legend. By any measure, this surge in federal agents was a resounding success. By december of 2020, over 6,000 arrests have made been mad 600 firearms have been taken off the streets and people arrested for homicides. Given the clear success of operation legend, why is the department seemingly directing its efforts towards School Board Meetings, but not towards real threats and real acts of violence that happen every day in American Cities. Does operation legend still exist. My understanding that operation legend was directed at violence over the summer of 2020. We have addressed another surge of federal prosecutorle and Law Enforcement efforts. This last summer we have stepped up the amount of money were giving to state and locals and we have increased our joint task forces together. I visited a federal and state Law Enforcement in new york and in chicago and in los angeles and in san francisco. All aimed at Violent Crime in those areas. And weve asked for considerable additional money, about 1 billion in grants, to fund the state and local police in fy22. So i think thats i hope that answers your question. Okay. Only four packers, jbs, tysons, cargill and National Beef hold a tremendous amount of market power. Weve yet to learn anything from this investigation. Could you provide an update and can you commit to expediting this investigation so there are Cattle Producers know whether there are any antitrust violations . I cant discuss the specific investigations. We have longstanding policies against that. But i can tell you that the antitrust division is aggressively concerned with competition in the market that you described. We are also in frequent consultation with the Agriculture Department with regard to the stockyards packers and stockyards act. We have to be very much concerned about exclusionary behavior. Thank you. Senator hirono. Senator, i think your mic is not turned on. One thing i have to say is, we listened to i dont know, going on hour three is that the republicans, once they focus on something, they just stick with it. It is amazing to me that theres all this mischaracterizing of the attorney generals memo as well as a letter from the acting u. S. Attorney of montana and his letter is also totally mischaracterized as to what the focus of the attorney generals letter is. I would like to submit for the record the acting attorney u. S. Attorney of montanas letter. Without objection. As i said, its pretty its kind of amazing but not unusual that my republican colleagues will continue to focus on something that the attorney general has to continue to testify for the last three hours, whatever it is, that his letter is being mischaracterized. And they will focus on that until the nth degree. What is a real problem is the fact that we have 530 Voter Suppression bills that have been introduced in 47 states, the vast majority by republican legislatures and peoples votes are literally being stolen through these Voter Suppression actions and do we hear word one about the fact that this is happening all the country that the stealing of votes is happening . Does a single republican even care about that . No. So lets let that sink in. That they talk about all of these memos that totally mischaracterizing and yet what is actually happening in Voter Suppression, not a peep. So i want to ask you, mr. Attorney general, Shelby County gutted the Voting Rights act and then followed by wherein the majority opinion suddenly comes up with all these guideposts that is Justice Department now has to prove in order to protect our right to vote. Can you just tell us what the impact of the Supreme Courts Shelby County decisions have been on the Justice Departments ability to protect our right to vote and is there something we can do . Are there tools that we can provide through congressional action that will enable you to protect our right to vote . Yes, senator. Right to vote is fundamental pillar of american democracy. The Voting Rights acts is one of the greatest statutes that was ever passed. It enabled the Justice Department to protect peoples right to vote and prevented against discrimination based on race, ethnicity with respect to patterns or practices, with respect to voting. In Shelby County, the Supreme Court took out the most important tool we have, which was section five, which allowed preclearance by the Justice Department or alternatively allowed the state to go to a federal court to get clearance. And that left us with the circumstance of having to examine each case one by one with the burden on the Justice Department. So one thing that the congress could do is put section five back in place as the Supreme Court indicated could be done with the appropriate legislative record. Second, burnvich interpreted it in a way that the Justice Department disagrees with. Im not saying anything we didnt say in our Supreme Court argument. They narrowed it in a way that we think was not consistent with congressional intent and which makes our ability to challenge discriminatory changes in voting more difficult. Congress could, again, fix that by bringing back section two to what congress originally intended and making that clear in the statutory language. Both of those changes would be enormously important from the point of the Justice Departments success in protecting the right to vote. Thank you, senator. Im sorry. Thank you, senator. Mr. Chairman its clear that we will have to do those things that the attorney general recommends the peoples right to vote without a single republican going in that direction. Thats how pathetic its all in. Thank you, senator. Senator lee. Thank you mr. Chairman. I find it deeply concerning that you still havent cited a single example of a true threat of violence. If im understanding this correctly, and ive been here for most of this hearing. Ive had to step out to vote a couple of times. But i think you seem to admit you didnt do any independent Research Outside of receiving the september 29th National School Board Association letter. One of the things i find perplexing and quite troubling, this came in it was sent on september 29th. I believe that was a wednesday. The following monday, just days later, just barely over a weekend, you responded with your memo. Now, i submit as a member of the Judiciary Committee with oversight over your committee, i request information all the time. It takes time. I understand that. Sometimes it takes months to get a response back. Im grateful when i get a response back, especially when its a response that contains meaningful information. I understand people are busy and theyve got a lot of stuff to comply with. If one association can send one letter without any independent research on your part and within days barely over a weekend get not just a response, but an action memo signed by the attorney general of the United States, i think thats weird. I think that makes me really uncomfortable. Especially when the National School Board Association, as i understand it, had publicly stated that theyve been coordinating with officials at the white house on this for weeks. It doesnt feel right. It doesnt seem right to me. Now, last week two of our counterparts on our house counterpart Judiciary Committee asked you about the people entering the United States illegally. 1. 3 million have entered the United States illegally this year. Thats a lot of people. Of those 1. 3 million, im quite confident based on my own past experience as a federal prosecutor, im quite confident that some noninsignificant portion of those will have previously been deported. As you know, that is a felony federal offense. Illegal reentry after previous deportation. Since they asked you about that, have you had a chance to identify how many prosecutions have been brought for illegal reentry this year, and i would be curious about that. I would also be curious as to whether theres anything memo . On that question, the 1. 3 million are arrests i think made by cbp. They are referred. They are cbp makes the decision about whether with those people into removal proceedings or to refer them to the Justice Department for prosecution. We have this year charged thousands of cases, thousands of cases, criminal cases, with respect to violations of the immigration laws, with respect to crossing of borders. I dont have the exact number. But the number is in the thousands. My time is expired. I express the concern, because when the department becomes focused on things that are not part of its business, harassing, intimidating parents of america, sometimes lose focus on the things that only the federal government can do. Like controlling our border from the dangerous effects of illegal immigration. Thank you. Senator cruz and cotton are speaking threeminute rounds, is that correct . Senator booker as well. Senator booker. In recent months, theres been a disturbing spike in harassment and intimidation and threats of violence against School Administrators, teachers and staff who participate in the vital work of running our nations public schools. Is that true . Yes, sir. I mean, it is true. It is true. I have a list of very disturbing instances. In texas, a parent physically assaulted a teacher. In pennsylvania, a person posted threats on social media which required police to station outside of a School District. Law enforcement investigating the person. I can keep going. Ohio, a School Board Member was threatening a letter with we are coming for you. Domestic terrorism in the United States has been more from overseas radical terrorists since 9 11 or more from home grown terrorists, most of them being rightwing extremists . Which has been greater since 9 11 . I want to be careful about that. The threats that we face with respect to terrorism and none of those descriptions have to do with terrorism. But the threats that we face in the United States come both from Foreign Terrorists a church in south carolina, a synagogue in pennsylvania, a school, parkland, a school newtown. Has there been threats and violence in schools in the United States of america coming from what types of groups . They come from domestic groups. Has there been a long, pages long list of what my staff could grab, threats and violence against School Officials in the United States of america in the last year . I havent seen the list. But it accords with my let me show you the letter that ive heard so much about that i pulled it to read it. You say literally threats excuse me, spirited debate about policy matters is protected under the constitution. Im quoting one of my colleagues today. Does that sound like harassing and intimidating moms and dads . Do you affirm at the top of your letter that spirited debate is allowed . Spirited debate about policy matters is protected under the constitution, that protection does not extend to threats and to violence that we have been watching on our tv screens. Intimidating people, threatening to hurt them, taking physical action. You know what, you did not call for the doj and the fbi to monitor School Board Meetings, did you . No, i did not. You did not call for anyone to evoke the patriot act, did you . No, i did not. Sir, what you call is for the doj to convene meetings to discuss strategies for addressing those threats. Thats correct. Is that intimidating moms and dads going to School Board Meetings . I cant see how that could be interpreted i know something about Law Enforcement intimidation. It stems from going up as a black man in america. I know what it feels like to be pulled over, to be accused of stealing things, to ever time i drive over the George Washington bridge as a teenager, to know i had to put extra time because i was being pulled over by Law Enforcement. If someone was to read the actual letter, you are literally saying as the leader of the highest Law Enforcement in the land, that you protect spirited debate, that you think given the climate of School Violence in america, i met with victims from parkland. Mr. President , im sorry, i have watched republican after republican go over time. I know youre gently banging that gavel. But i watched all today. My colleagues violate what you said the beginning was a strict time limit. And i would ask you to afford me two more minutes. Is there an objection . No objection. Have you met with parkland survivors . I met with survivors of the white house yes or no . You met with survivors of School Violence. I met with the parkland families. Yes. Do you have a responsibility in a climate of threats and violence taking place at schools, do you have a responsibility to convene strategy meetings to try to make sure we do not have eruptions of violence in the country . Is that a responsibility of the federal government . Our job is to protect did you specifically say anything in this letter that can be seen as harassing moms and dads and parents or did you explicitly say that the constitution protects spirited debate . I specifically said the constitution protects spirited debate and i dont believe theres anything in this letter that could be read to intimidate mothers and fathers. And im not talking about the outrage machines that fuel our politics on both sides. Im talking about the actual letter here, sir, that you wrote. Youre a goodhearted person. Is there anything in this letter that could specifically lead a goodhearted parent who is against mask mandates, who somehow believes that the teaching of Racial Discrimination is repugnant to them, is there anything in this letter that would prevent them from going and speaking to it and yelling and being upset and letting their elected officials know what they believe. Is there anything in the print of this letter that could be seen to leading to that type of intimidation. All of those things are protected by the constitution. Will you say that one more time . All of those things are protected by the constitution. I hope that you will do your Law Enforcement work. Theres too much violence in this country. Theres been too many domestic terrorist attacks. I dont want the next hearing to be about some incident. I hope you continue to convene your strategy session, to protect parents and children and School Officials from any kind of of the heinous violence that we have seen way too much of in this country and that we all bear a responsibility for stopping. Thank you, mr. Chairman, for the allowance of the extra time. Thank you, senator. Senator cruz. We talked about the difference between law and politics. We heard some impassioned political speeches but also a question that was asked, is there anything in this memo to tell a parent that theyre being targeted for harassment and intimidation. I would note that the letter from the School Boards cited 20 instances, 15 of which were nonviolent. The letter from the school board described them as domestic terrorism. Within days, the department of justice snapped to the command to the special interest and issued a memo directed to the department and the fbi. This is where law matters. The opening sentence describes a disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. Now, you spent a long time as a judge. When you have three things listed, am i correct that anyone interpreting that, reading it would conclude that harassment and intimidation are Something Different than threats of violence given that you listed each of the three out separately. Is that consistent with the cannons of construction . The memorandum is addressed to i asked you a question. Not who it was addressed to. Senator, at least let him respond. Not when he answers if he wants youre taking my time now. This is not coming out of my time. When i ask a given you more time than any other senator. Listen, all im asking a allow him to respond. Mr. Chairman, when i ask a question, he can answer the question. But hes proceeding to ask a total nonsector. I asked please let him respond. Ill ask the question again. The opening line of the memo specified harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. Is it correct under the ordinary cannons of construction that a legal reader would understand that harassment and intimidation mean Something Different from threats of violence . Is that correct . The reader would know virginia versus black, the Supreme Courts definition of intimidation and a legal reader would know the definition of harassment. And would a parent . Its not addressed to parents parents read it. Youre the attorney general of the United States. You said you cant think of anything harassing. You directed the fbi to go after parents all right. Lets move on to a different topic. Weve sadly seen that youre willing to use the enforcement power of the department of justice to target those who have political views different than you, even if its a mom in a pta meeting. Are you willing to enforce the law fairly against people who are political allies of the president . At a Senate Hearing in may dr. Fauci said the nih has not ever and does not now fund gain of function at the Wuhan Institute of virology. On october 20th, the nih Principal Deputy director in writing directly contradicted it. Those two statements cannot be true. As you know, section 1001 of title 18 makes it a federal crime to knowingly make false statements to congress. Is the department of justice investigating dr. Fauci for lying to congress . Im going to say, again, the memorandum that i issued is not partisan in any way. It has nothing to do with what i agree with or i dont agree with. I dont care whether the threats of violence come from the left or the right. Could you answer the question i asked . We dont comment on criminal investigations or other investigations amazingly, when its the political enemies of the administration, you comment loudly in a memo. Let me ask one other question President Biden recently said in a National Town hall that Police Officers who declined to get vaccinated should be fired. Do you agree with President Biden on that . I think all Police Officers look, i stood on the stage at the at the mall where the 700 and some Police Officers died this year let me try again. Do you agree with the president. Its a yes or no. Youve asked questions as a judge. You know how to get a yes or no. Do you agree with the president . Yes or no . A large of percentage of the law officers who died this year died from covid19. Do you agree with President Biden that Police Officers declined to get vaccinated should be fired . If they have been vaccinated, they wouldnt have died is that a yes. You do agree with the president . In chicago, a third of the Police Officers did not file their vaccination status. Do you think chicago should fire a third of its Police Officers when murder rates and crime rates are skyrocketing . This is a determination that the city of chicago will have to make. Do you agree with the president . The president said yes. Do you agree with him . Do you agree with joe biden saying fire Police Officers despite skyrocketing crime rates. Thats a question that is a one of state law and will have to be decided by the state. You have no senator, your time is expired. You used two minutes no, i certainly did not. Senator blumenthal. Thank you, again, for being here, mr. Attorney general. Im going to shift topics to an issue that i youre familiar with, the 9 11 families and the secrets privilege. And i want to just say that i was encouraged and pleased when President Biden issued an executive order requiring the department of justice to complete a review of documents sought by the 9 11 survivors. As you well know, theyre in court now taking advantage of the overwhelmingly approved measure that gives our federal courts jurisdiction over their claims for the harm they suffered when their loved ones were killed during the 9 11 attacks. And i was glad to see that the fbi has released one document on the 20th anniversary of the 9 11 deaths. I still am focused on the states secret privilege, the invocation of it in past years, before this administration, the overuse of it. In fact, the trump Justice Department failed to provide any meaningful justification for withholding these documents from the 9 11 families and i think we see now that there was no justification. So i know the departments review was ongoing and that you will continue to disclose, i hope, as much information as possible, as swiftly as possible. Just to address the departments use of the privilege more broadly. The memo requires the department of justice to provide periodic reports to congress identifying the cases where the privilege is invoked. And explaining the basis for invoking it. I sent a letter earlier this month to you about this reporting requirement because this committee has received only two reports in 2011 and 2015 and in the six years since, the department of justice has failed to provide such reports. Just to come to the point, i am respectfully asking for a commitment that you will provide these periodic reports to congress and review the departments policies with respect to its invoking the state secrets privilege so as to comply with the 2009 memo. I may have gone too quickly over the various actions of the department. But im referring to the 2009 memo which requires those periodic reports. So in the eight seconds that i have left the answer to both questions is yes. We are currently reviewing that memo. If anything, we will strengthen it and we do intend to make periodic reports and it is not a periodic report to have not made a response since 2015, i assure you. We intend to do that, yes. Thank you very much. Senator cotton . Judge, i want to return to our exchange this morning. As i reflected on it, you made a shocking admission. You issued this memo direct on monday october 24th. You acknowledged there was no initiative to draft this memo or create these task forces before wednesday, september 29th when the National School Board Association issued that letter. Is that correct . I dont know. All i know is that the first time i started working on this was after receiving the letter. Thats all i from your standpoint, there is you are not aware of any effort in the department of justice before that letter was sent on september 29th. Its fair to say as youre suggesting that this letter and what the other Public Notices of violence against School Board Members and teachers, are what form the basis this memo is dated october 4th. Did you sign it on october 4th . I did. Four intervening days, two of which were weekend days. That is a record for the federal government. When we Chuck Grassley pointed out you have not responded to letters for his that have been outstanding for months. How it is the department of justice was able to move so rapidly on a single letter from a special Interest Group that has now repudiated that letter and apologized to its members for sending the letter. How do your department move so fast on this matter . An organization that represents thousands of School Board Members they purport to represent thousands because state School Boards across the country have been reputuating them and trying to withdraw their membership. Thats why the National School Board Association with drew its own letter. Who brought this to your attention . You asked me a question, may i answer the question. Why speed . The answer is, when we get reports of violence and threats of violence, we need to act swiftly. I would have hated it to have gotten this letter and then acts of violence occurred in the interim. Only act here is the circumstances we cant wait until somebody dies. Okay. You keep citing media reports. There were 24 incidences in that letter. They were not media reports i was referring to. You said earlier it was news reports. What other reports that you saw about potential violence at School Boards were you basing this memo on . I dont recall them specifically. But i have now, again, seen since that time that people are repeating what they have said before. Thats all after the fact. It doesnt go toward your frame of mind. Who brought this to you . Who brought this memo to you and asked you to sign it . Nobody brought the memo to me. Someone had to bring it to your attention. Were about to sick the feds on parents. No one said someone thats not the this memorandum went through the normal processes within the department and i worked on it myself someone was a proponent. I bet you didnt write the first draft of this . I did work on this memorandum and it represents my views and it represents my reading of the materials did it come from guptas office . Im not going to discuss the internal workings of the Justice Department here. This memorandum reflects my view and i stand behind it and i continue to stand are you aware of the are you aware of conversations between members of your department of justice and the white house leading up to that letter im sure there were there were no conversations with me. Im sure there were conversations. Its perfectly appropriate when the white house receives a letter calling for Law Enforcement response across the country. Not with respect to a certain case. Are you aware of conversations between your department of justice officials and white house officials and the members of the School Board Association all cooperating together which is why you were able to move in four days, judge, four days. Two of which were the weekend. As i said, im sure there were conversations with the white house. I have no idea whether there were conversations with the School Board Association. Well, i bet were going to find out we were. Theres nothing wrong with there being such conversations. Let me be clear again. This is not a request to investigate any particular person or prosecute any particular person. In the same way you, you ask me to worry about violence in the streets, its appropriate for the white house to urge me to worry about violence in the streets. Same way its perfectly appropriate for the white house or any other organization to urge me to worry about election threats. Theres nothing that i knew about this organization to suggest that it is in any way partisan. Now that theyve repudiated their letter, why wont you say they made a mistake . They repudiated language in the letter which i did not adopt and dont agree with. But their concerns are about safety in the schools. And about violence and this is a core concern of the Justice Department. Thats why. Thank you. Senator blackburn has asked for three minutes and i conclude with my own three minutes after that. Thank you, mr. Chairman, attorney general you just told me that you dont think you ever met susan. Did you hire susan . I have signoff authority for everybody in the Justice Department. Thats the best i can answer with respect to that. The question you were worried about, senator, and i understand had to do with durham. She has nothing to do with the durham investigation. Were you unaware of her comments before you hired her . Again you dont know . I hire 115,000 people in the Justice Department. Im fully aware of that. Its amazing that those 115,000 people cant investigate things like crime on the border, crime on the streets and, you know, the im going to return to this memo of october 4th. It cites harassment, intimidation and threats of violence. What i would like to know, who chose that language, harassment, intimidation and threats of violence . Youve said this reflected your views. But its become apparent that you did not write this memo yourself. So i i would like to know who came up with that language . Was that yours or was that submitted language . I dont know whether let me put it this way, this was language that Law Enforcement officers are very well understand. It is contained in the federal in the house Judiciary Committee last week, you said you were concerned only about true threats. Are you going to revise your memorandum to make it clear that you this applies only to true threats of violence instead of classifying parents in this country with domestic terrorists such as Timothy Mcveigh and terry nickels. You said to me earlier ill look forward to the other submissions in writing. Thank you. Thank you, senator. Mr. Attorney general, thank you for your patience. You have been sitting in that chair a couple breaks for 4 1 2 hours. Many of these colleagues of mine have had ample opportunity to ask questions and then come back and ask some more. Sometimes the same questions. I would just like to make this observation. I understand completely why you issued that memo. I wish my colleagues would reflect for a single moment as to why that memo is important not just for School Board Members, but to send a message across america that theres a line were going to draw when it comes to political expression. When you say words, when you wave your arms, thats all protected. But when you threaten someone with violence or engage in acts of violence, that is never going to be protected and shouldnt be. It isnt that long ago that Gabby Giffords was gunned down. The republican congressman from louisiana was gunned down on a baseball practice field by someone from my state who i believe was identified with the left in politics. It doesnt make any difference. It was an outrage that that good man suffered as much as he has because of it. Now we have the story in great britain, david ames who goes to a town meeting and is stabbed to death in his constituency in england. Cant we even if we disagree on issues to a great degree, agree with the premise that anyone who engages in violence or threats of violence has stepped over the line whether they come from the right or the left. I think thats what you were trying to say in your memo about the School Boards. And like you, i have never heard the School Board Association identified as great strong special Interest Group, i havent seen that in the years ive been in congress. There are many great, strong special Interest Groups. I would just say to you, thank you for doing that. It was the right thing to do. It has been mischaracterized and distorted not only today but since then. But i think we can prove by our actions that we are not trying to stifle free speech. But only saying to people, were going to draw a line. I was i found it fascinating that at least one of the people who was criticizing you today in talking about the situation on january 6th was actually cheering the demonstrators on january 6th and theres ample evidence of that. I would think weve got to draw a line that excepts in this Civilized Society that were going to be respectful of one another, even if we disagree politically. Would you like to have a closing comment . I appreciate your remarks. Thank you. Thank you very much. The committee stands adjourned. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome the 40th Vice President of the United States, mike pence. Mr