Attorney General Testifies on President's 2025 Budget Request - Part 2 : CSPAN : April 17, 2024 12:59am-1:58am EDT : Free Borrow & Streaming : Internet Archive (2024)

but here there are, as you well know, there are privileges to be -- with respect to national security and other information that were addressed in those recordings and in the interviews, and the transcripts themselves had to be cleared through interagency process. you know that because we said that in the letter to the committee. mr. cline: in my 20 seconds i want to ask about something you answered congressman clyde. you said following the court's rulings that i.d.'s to vote can be an undue burden, do you know of an example or is there any case in which you would consider a photo i.d. to not be an undue burden? say if it's a free i.d. ag garland: you have a very good example there. that was the case in which the supreme court noted there was free i.d.'s. completely available to everyone without discrimination.

those circ*mstances the court upheld the law, yes. mr. cline: you -- ag garland: i follow the law and the supreme court. whether i agree or not it's the law. the rule of law requires us to follow it. that's not what i'm talking about. mr. cline: i yield back. chair rogers: the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair.

chair rogers: the chair recognizes the ranking member of the committee, miss delauro. ms. delauro: delighted you are here this morning. what i wanted to look at is the issue of crime, if you will, and trade. d.o.j. plays a critical role in deterring crime through robust investigations, prosecutions,

incarcerations, and the application of penalties. my concern about d.o.j. that there may be some serious blind spots. lack of resources in critical areas. particular, the u.s. international trade enforcement. example, 2022, u.s. imports were $3.27 trillion. conservative estimates based on available data from economic policy institute projected 5% to 10% of those imports were fraudulent. this means that there is annually 163 of the $327 billion in illegal trade which impacts u.s. workers, manufacturers, consumers, and our free trade partners. i understand d.o.j.'s infrastructure to combat trade crimes is lightly resourced. 2022 u.s. customs and border protection collected 19.4 million in penalties on $3.27 trillion in trade. that seems to me to be a drop in the bucket.

i understand that international trade prosecutions are also low to nonexistent. a couple questions. can you give us a sense of d.o.j. resources you are using to prosecute these bad actors associated with crimes that violate trade laws? how do you work with c.b.p. and hsi to increase the number of prosecutions? would you say based on d.h.s. enforcement data that combating international trade crime is a priority within d.o.j. why or why not? how familiar are you with d.o.j.'s efforts and resources dedicated to investigating and prosecuting international trade crimes? what's your assessment of the department's actions? including the number of prosecutions and penalties? thank you. atty. gen. garland: you put your finger on an important risk to our economy, which is fraudulent trade goods. that's why we have a trade fraud task force which enhances

collaboration between the justice department and the other agencies that you were discussing to investigate trade fraud. it helped initiate more than 70 investigations involving hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulently imported goods. one good example is just last month the ford motor company agreed to pay $365 million to settle customs civil penalty claims related to misclassified and undervalued items. i recognize the significance of this for our economy. i believe our justice department task force is working well with other departments on this matter. including the department of homeland security. ms. delauro: do you have enough personnel to take on this issue and resources in a moreau bust -- more robust way? as i said, $3.27 trillion, we collect $19.4 million. that seems to be some great disparity. i'm asking, what do you need

from us to be able to deal with this area on international trade? where we are getting killed. atty. gen. garland: justice department always likes more money. ms. delauro: i understand that. but i need an assessment. atty. gen. garland: i think the money we are asking for our civil divisions, consumer protection branch, which deals with this kind of fraud, our criminal divisions fraud section which deals with this on the criminal side, and the u.s. attorney's offices that deal with this in each of the 94 districts, and the f.b.i.'s corporate crime and fraud sections. given the budget priorities, i think we are asking for the appropriate amount. there is obviously always tradeoffs. but we are, i think, able to fund a robust program. the most difficult aspect of this is identifying the fraudulent goods as they come

in. that is a customs and homeland security issue. they, i'm sure, would say the same to you that they need more money for this purpose. ms. delauro: i'd like to pursue that. i'll say something very quickly. i am running out of time. as you know antitrust -- this is antitrust division received roughly a 4% increase in 2024. over the prior year. i want to ensure that we can continue to justify these critical investments, protect consumers from unfair and anti-competitive business practices. do i have your commitment that we can work together? i would like to work with you with my staff on answering questions that we have on what resources the antitrust division, and frankly, this could apply to all of d.o.j., that you will need for 2025. atty. gen. garland: yes, of course. we are very eager to speak with you about that. the total we have requested is $288 million.

which is an increase of $55 million over the fy 2024. i will say i have always been concerned about this. i entered the justice department in 1979. and we barely have more attorneys in the antitrust division now than we had in 1979. i think this is the first year we have been able to bring the number up to the number of attorneys we had when i first entered the department. ms. delauro: we would like to work with you on how well we can track the resources that are necessary for you to be able to do your job. and as a final comment, very interested last night listening to the ftc commissioner. about the working together with doj because we have serious issues which affect consolidation which raises prices in this nation. and makes anti-competitiveness a reality. how between the d.o.j. and f.t.c. we can address these

issues in a very robust way to get at ending these monopolies, if you will, that only increase prices for the american people. thank you very much. i yield back. chair rogers: chairman aderholt. mr. aderholt: thank you. general garland, good to have you here. thanks for your time. i want to focus on something i don't think we have had any questions on so far and that is on the bureau of prisons. i understand according to the bureau of prison website there are less than 35,000 employees to ensure the security of all the federal prisons and services that include 156,000 federal inmates. what steps is the bureau of prison taking to address gaps in correctional officer and training and leader training?

and is there a reason that the bureau of prisons correction al leaders have not participated in the prison fellowship warden exchange which is offered without cost to the federal government? atty. gen. garland: i am sure i don't know about the latter question that you asked. i would be happy to have our staff look into it on the warden training and get in touch with you. the pandemic delayed the bureau of prison's ability to provide in-person training, but b.o.p. has since resumed many in-person trainings and is trying to clear the backlog in that respect. you are right with respect to the number of employees we have in the bureau of prisons. it's really not sufficient. it's not sufficient either for the necessary protection, the -- or for the educational programs that we have.

as i discussed earlier with another member of the panel, the problem here is recruitment retention, and promotion. the best, i think, the most important thing that the committee can do is to give us the money that we are asking for hiring and retention incentives. mr. aderholt: do you know of any law or regulation that prevents or limits the bureau of prisons from accepting donations or services or programs from a nonprofit as long as they don't accept federal funds? atty. gen. garland: i'm afraid i don't know about that. but i would be happy to have our staff look into that and get that cover your staff. -- get that to your staff. mr. aderholt: if you could look at it and see if there is examples where community or faith-based programs could be helpful. my understanding is as long as they don't receive federal funds, then there are programs out there to be of assistance. and i would appreciate you to look into that and let me know if that was something that might be possible. because i think it could be

helpful. back on october 7 of last year, we all know what happened. along with the attack on israel , there were 30 americans that were killed by hamas terrorists in israel. as part of a larger coordinated attack that left 1,200 israelis dead and over 200 abducted. it is my understanding that eight americans remain hostage in gaza. i understand three of whom are no longer alive. but you announced that the justice department was investigating the death and kidnappings of the americans during the attack. can you give us here on the subcommittee an update on the investigation into the death and kidnapping of those americans? is the justice department looking to pursue criminal charges against individuals responsible for those attacks? atty. gen. garland: the killing or kidnapping of americans abroad is a federal crime. so of course that is what we are investigating, as i said, for

potential criminal prosecution. we have been involved in discussions with israeli law enforcement and intelligence services to help us get evidence and information in this regard. i really can't say anything more about the progress of the investigation. but this is a matter of extreme concern for us. this was in addition to the killing of americans, this is the largest mass killing of jews since the holocaust. mr. aderholt: can you say that the department is pursuing criminal charges against these individuals? atty. gen. garland: we are investigating. we have a criminal investigation in connection with the deaths and kidnapping of americans in israel on october 7. mr. aderholt: can you speak more broadly to the department's work in investigating hamas threats to the u.s. including efforts by

hamas to raise money in the u.s.? atty. gen. garland: yes. just at a high level of generality because i don't want to talk about matters i can't talk about in an open session. but we do have investigations, financial investigations with respect to hamas which we have had for a number of years. october 7 as the f.b.i. director noted in his testimony, has raised our threat level considerably with respect to concerns of foreign terrorist organizations like hamas. that might foment problems in the united states. that includes not only hamas, but hezbollah, the iranian quds force, isis, isis-k. various sects, branches of al qaeda. we are concerned and are making

sure all of our joint terrorism task forces are on the lookout for these matters since october 7. there was a heightened concern before october 7, but obviously october 7 has only redoubled our concern here. mr. aderholt: i yield back. chair rogers: mr. ruppersberger. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. attorney general garland, first thing i want to say i think you're doing a good job. i wouldn't say it's always an a , as you said, but you are close. i like your experience in the justice as a jurist. you excelled there. and now as running the f.b.i. i feel secure at this point that you are the best person for that job. with that, i'm going to get into china and cybersecurity. in the chinese communist party , there is an army of hackers that persistently attack the united states. they stay dormant and keep access to our networks and

critical infrastructure. the chinese communist party uses these hackers to steal economic information and intellectual property. we also know that the chinese party has been working to steal and smuggle banned u.s. tech from our shores into mainland china. they are our biggest threat and adversary. this past march, the unsealed indictment of the a.p.t. 31 group, which you are familiar with, revealed a 14-year cyber campaign for intimate dissenters to steal u.s. trade, and intellectual property to damage critical networks and spy on u.s. politicians. that's 14 years. now, a recent intelligence advisory stated that these hackers known as volt typhoon have been dormant for five years waiting just in case we are in a larger conflict with china.

chain is a real threat. can you enlighten us as to the best tools we have to fight chinese hackers? what other resources do you need, and did our fy 2024 budget put the department in too deep of a security hole? atty. gen. garland: first of all , i completely agree with your characterization of the chinese threat. the people's republic of china, the communist party, the government of china represents a long-term persistent across-the-board threat to america. in particular, in the area of cybersecurity you are talking about. the two major actions you are talking about just from this year, the january volt typhoon disruption. this was a botnet implanting malware into our infrastructure.

various significant parts of our delivery of public services. which, if activated could have been very dangerous for us. the march a.p.t. indictments involve the hacking of computers and emails. those are just two examples of a considerable amount of cyber hacking. we have asked for more than $1.3 billion to combat cybercrime and for cybersecurity. the f.b.i., the national security division asked for $894.6 million, which is an increase of 19% over f.y. 2024. -- 11 .9% over fy 24. as you know, fy 2 -- the fy 24 budget has required us to reduce

positions substantially, and we are in a position of trying to get us back to where we were before that. but this is an area where we are doubling down and are very much concerned. mr. ruppersberger: thank you. now i want to get to the key bridge. a quick question. i know the f.b.i. has been on -site at the bridge. there are a lot of questions that need to be answered about what happened, like did the captain and crew of the dali know there were power issues before the ship ever left. a criminal investigation is usually opened when authorities have reason to believe may have caused an accident to rise to the level of criminality. we need to make sure we hold people accountable. attorney general, is there anything you can share about the investigation? atty. gen. garland: as you know, kurtzman, the justice -- as you

know, congressman, the justice department doesn't normally comment on whether its investigations exist or no. plenty of people saw f.b.i. agents onboard the ship. so the f.b.i. has confirmed that its agents were on the ship. i can't say anything more. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back. chair rogers: mr. ellzey. mr. ellzey: thank you, mr. chairman. general garland, welcome back. i appreciate the work the d.o.j. does going after legitimate criminals and protecting american citizens from foreign adversaries, especially the cops program, which is very important in my rural district as we discussed a year ago. today i would like to talk about the foreign agents registration act. i bring up fera in context of shenanigans going on in texas. there is a proposed high speed rail project connecting dallas to houston. about a decade ago, a private company called texas central starting pushing a proposed high-speed rail project between houston and dallas and they have been engaged at the federal, state, and local level in lobbying in that effort. i am vehemently opposed to this

project that would cut up highly arable land in my district and rid people of their well-earned land. and their private property. there is a long list of controversies surrounding texas central from funding and finance, imminent domain, lack of transparency dismissing , every officer and board member, now they appear to be merely a company on paper with no board of directors. as an aside, texas central has zero experience building any transportation company. there are few entities connected to texas central and another company called new magellan ventures that is pushing the project. since the beginning of the project, sovereign wealth funds of the japanese government are financially backing that high-speed rail proposal. a very concerning resent action was amtrak's partnering with texas central in applying for a n fy 24 corridor grant and and a $5,000 grant was approved. april 9 a news article published in a letter dated april 5 addressed to you signed by steve roberts from a law firm.

it states that mr. roberts was hired by texans against high speed rail and wrote it on the half of texas against high speed rail. mr. chairman, i have that letter and i ask unanimous consent that this article and letter be introduced into the record. i will read part of the letter to you that captures the concerns i have. texas central appears to have acted and may still act as an agent of the japanese government with regard to numerous political activities intended to influence both lawmakers and the public within the united states with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic policies of the united states. yet neither new magellan ventures nor any of the texas central entities have ever registered with department of justice of the foreign agents registration act of 1978. -- 1938. with that laid out for you, i have two questions. do you agree it would be concerning a private company or principals of a private company over the course of a decade failed to register as foreign

agents if the facts are clear they were legally required to? atty. gen. garland: you put me in that exact box the answer has to be yes. i don't know anything about this matter at all. obviously, if someone is required to registered under f.e.r.a., we would be concerned. mr. elsie: i'm not surprised you haven't heard of this. but it is important in our district. i'm going to the big man on campus to ask those questions. final question, i will wrap it up. if a private company whose principals fail to register as forge agents when the facts are clear they were required to do so, enters into a partnership with the federal government, would that concern you as the chief law enforcement officer of the united states? and would that cause you to question whether the federal government is properly using taxpayer dollars? atty. gen. garland: this is less of a clean hypothetical than the previous one. i have to know a lot more about the facts before i could make a determination. mr. elsie: if those were the facts hypothetically -- atty. gen. garland: well, that

description -- even if those facts -- it's more vague than makes clear. f.e.r.a. is a complicated statute. we would always be concerned about an effort by a foreign government to try to influence the government to the united states. if i could put it at that level of generality, that's true. mr. ellzey: i understand that. you obviously have to be somewhat obtuse about that. atty. gen. garland: circ*mspect. mr. ellzey: ok. in texas, there is a so-called private company that has no board of directors, that is now gotten imminent domain from the -- has now gotten imminent domain from the state of texas to take private citizens' land and gotten a grant from amtrak to take people's land and build a project that currently doesn't exist. on behalf of a foreign government. and they haven't registered as federal agents. thank you for your time. i yield back.

chair rogers: mrs. meng. mrs. meng: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cartwright. thank you, attorney general garland. i wanted to ask about a bill of mine that was signed into law in 2021, the covid-19 hate crimes act, which directs the attorney general to provide guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies to bolster reporting of hate crimes. i was glad to see the president's budget request for fiscal year 2025 requests $10 million for community-based approaches to prevent and address hate crimes. a grant program that i authored in fiscal year 2022. i want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership in responding to violent crime and specifically hate crimes in the u.s. in the last several years. it means a great deal to asian americans and so many historically underserved communities to have a president and an attorney general who cares deeply about these issues.

i wanted to ask a question i also asked f.b.i. director christopher wray in last week's hearing. i'm concerned by the trend of a decrease in the number of local law enforcement agencies providing the f.b.i. with incident data. this is the fifth year in a row that the number of local agencies providing data to the f.b.i. has declined. i know that the decline may partially be due to the transition that agencies are making to the nibors system, but what additional resources does the d.o.j. need to support local and state law enforcement agencies using nibrs. i would like to hear more from you about other ways the d.o.j. is actively working to support local law enforcement agencies and reporting hate crimes. atty. gen. garland: thank you for the question. i do think as the f.b.i. director suggested much of the

problem was the transition problem from one form of statistical compilation to another. of course, all of our information has to come from state and local communities. and so, what we have to do is reach out to them constantly to ensure that they are providing the numbers. the f.b.i. and our office of justice programs, bureau of justice assistance have identified the places that have been compliant than they should be and reached out to encourage that level of compliance. i think the money we have in the budget is sufficient for those kind of reach out programs. but we won't be satisfied until all the crimes are reported. ms. meng: a follow-up. as you said state and local law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in the nationwide response to hate crimes. i also want to make sure to ask about how the d.o.j. works with community-based organizations

which also have a crucial part in building up community resilience and preventing future hate crimes. can you talk about how the d.o.j. is coordinating both with law enforcement and local organizations to respond to hate crimes? atty. gen. garland: each of our u.s. attorneys offices has a civil rights and hate crimes coordinator. and each of the u.s. attorneys has been instructed to reach out to the communities to have discussions well in advance of any crisis occurring. our strategy here is to develop trust within communities before something bad happens, so that if something bad happens, the community trusts law enforcement. these are joint meetings of the u.s. attorneys offices and our various law enforcement components. as you know well we have a united against hate campaign

that the u.s. attorneys offices are implementing and have been for the past couple years to reach out to communities in just the way that you said. so that federal law enforcement, state and local law enforcement, and communities can cooperate and work together. i have attended one of those meetings in denver. and i attended a couple of other meetings of committee outreach in other places including in st. , louis. ms. meng: thank you so much, and i'll quickly ask about another question about the aftermath of the china initiative. as we all know, in february of 2022 the end of the china initiative was announced. previously an unacceptably high number of these cases ended in dropped charges, dismissals, and acquittals because prosecutors could not prove allegations. chinese american researchers and scholars who made valuable contributions in so many fields

in this country for decades reported feeling targeted by a , racial profiling campaign. i want to be clear as a member of the subcommittee, i am fully supportive of the d.o.j.'s real and necessary work to combat espionage by adversarial governments. but just want to make sure how does the d.o.j. ensure that agents working on these investigations number one, avoid wasteful investigations, and two, legitimate academic -- wasteful investigations into legitimate academic research. and second, how is the d.o.j. also educating the institutions themselves and the public about the real national security threats and how they can best defend themselves and our country from these threats? atty. gen. garland: as you pointed out, we now have a consolidated section in the national security division to address the threats posed by the people's republic of china,

russia, north korea, and iran. focusing our attention on all myriads ways in which these adversaries attempt to either attack us from a cyber point of view, prevent efforts to harass dissidents in the united states. steal our personal identifying information and our technology. to take that latter part of your question first, that's the way in which we are doing that. each u.s. attorneys office has a national security coordinator. and the f.b.i. has joint terrorism task forces in each of its 54 districts. as to the more general question, we have a robust review process. all national security cases have

to touch base with the national security division. which can review to ensure the principles of federal prosecution, which determine which kinds of prosecutions should be brought. which kinds shouldn't. our done. i want to emphasize that we do not prosecute based on the ethnicity of any person. we are only looking to prosecute people who are working for our adversaries in an effort to injure the united states. that is not in any way a part of the ethnicity of people in the united states. ms. meng: thank you. i yield back. chair rogers: thank you. that concludes the first round of questions. i know the general needs to be through here by 12:00 noon. so we have a few minutes to go. is there a desire of members for

a second round? two down here. alright. general, if that's agreeable with you. atty. gen. garland: happy to be here. chair rogers: we will get you out of here by noon. atty. gen. garland: excellent thank you. , chair rogers: mr. garcia, do you desire time? three minutes. mr. garcia: attorney general, i wanted to follow up on the assertions made by my colleagues from pennsylvania and new york that i was engaging in personal attack. i take great pride and frankly great caution in making sure i don't engage in personal attack in these hearings. i want you to know my assessment of you, as appalled and shocked as i was giving yourself an a was not a personal attack. , it was professional. as my chemistry teacher who gave me an f in the midterm in the naval academy, this is to help you get better. so i do that in the interest of accountable and objective assessments not personal attacks. i know someone of your caliber was not personally offended by

that. and i am happy to have conversations offline. i want to follow up on mr. cline's conversation around the hur report. first of all in your written , testimony on page 3 you say , there is not one set of laws for powerful and another for powerless. one for rich, another poor. one for democrats or republicans. different rules depending upon one's race or ethnicity or religion. you would say that that's probably true for age, right? anyone over the age of 18 regardless, unless there is a cognitive impairment, should be treated the same. there is one set of laws regardless of age? atty. gen. garland: without addressing the hidden premise behind your question, i'm just going to say there is one tier or standard of justice. we prosecute under the federal principles of prosecution. and we do not distinguish based on politics.

based on ethnicity. based on the ideology. based on race. or any non-meritorious factor. mr. garcia: or seniors who are protected class in a workplace. anyone over the age of certain. i think it's 55 or 65. your verbal testimony say you have no doubt that there is no cognitive impairment of the president. you said the hur report speaks for itself. and i have complete confidence in the president of the united states. so my question is, and i sit on the intel committee, so i have seen the classified documents. i am aware of the nature of at least some of these documents. they are of the highest level of national security intelligence. they are extremely relevant even today. those documents that were found in the garage of president biden. so if it's not a cognitive impairment problem if he's

, competent and you are confident in that why is he not , being charged for -- in his testimony, or special counsel report, hur said he willfully detained and disclosed sensitive classified information. what is the explanation for not charging president biden for mishandling of classified information? atty. gen. garland: i'll address both questions again. i have complete confidence in the president. in every possible respect. on the question of why there was no charges, mr. hur described in detail in his report his explanation for why he decided not to bring them. he was subject to some five hours of testimony on that subject. mr. garcia: you disagree with the foundational premise, the -- premise of his assertions, which was the rationale was he was cognitively incapable of understanding what he was doing. he was too old to face charges. you disagreed with that premise, is that right? atty. gen. garland: let me say two things. first, not at all what mr. hur said.

i urge everyone to read again what he said. he did not say anything like that. second, mr. hur described his explanation for why not to bring a case, bring this case. he distinguished other cases involving classified information where charges were brought. i just refer you to that. mr. garcia: i'll go reread it. we'll submit questions for the record. i believe my time is up. thank you. chair rogers: mr. cartwright. >> in 2023, the c.d.c. reported over a recent 12-month period more than 112,000 americans died a result of drug overdoses or poisonings. we have touched on that subject earlier in this hearing. d.e.a. was one of the few agencies that saw a funding increase in fiscal year 2024. and the work that the administrator is doing, especially with the u.s. attorneys to go after the cartels, and the entire network, is critically important to stemming the flow of illicit fentanyl into our communities. enforcement is only part of the

solution. we also have to have recovery and rehabilitation tools for those with substance abuse disorders as well. you talk a little bit about the comprehensive addiction and recovery act grants. especially the drug courts and the veterans treatment centers. atty. gen. garland: yes. you are quite right that the -- our ability to eliminate drug trafficking and to protect the country includes our concerns about the people who are the victims of drug trafficking. and the need, of course, to reduce the demand for these poisons in our country. we have asked for more than $490 million in counter drug related office of justice related program grants. these include the comprehensive addiction recovery act grants for which we are requesting $443 million. which is a $23 million addition

over the enacted. those include the comprehensive opioid stimulant and substance abuse program. the mental health and drug abuse treatment. the drug courts, we are asking for $94 million. veterans treatment courts which we are asking for $33 million. as well as for prescription drug monitoring to ensure that this doesn't get out of hand again. mr. cartwright: thank you. can you give me a sense whether you are seeing increases in applications for these important programs you just touched on? atty. gen. garland: i would say that there is always more applications than we have money to give out. that's definitely the case. mr. cartwright: in what other ways does your department's fiscal year 2025 budget request seek to address this terrible problem? atty. gen. garland: again, on the overdose and addiction side,

those are the principal issues. on the trafficking side, which is unfortunately what causes many of these problems for which we are asking $10.7 billion for all of our law enforcement , agents and u.s. attorneys to respond to this respond. that's a 5.1% increase over enacted f.y. 2024. mr. cartwright: thank you, attorney general garland. and thank you for being here today. i yield back, mr. chairman. chair rogers: mr. clyde. mr. clyde thank you, mr. : chairman. my colleague, congressman chip roy, has twice requested copy of freedom of access to clinic entrances prosecution data. he first asked for it in october of 2022 and two months ago on february 16. he has yet to receive this data. and my question is when will this data be provided by the department of justice? atty. gen. garland: i don't know specifically about the request. but like the other request you asked about, i'm very happy to look into this.

mr. clyde: provide the data. atty. gen. garland: of course. if we have the data. mr. clyde: thank you. i appreciate that. in the f.b.i.'s request, f.y. 2025 request -- excuse me, in the department of justice's budget, you are requesting $436.6 million for protecting civil rights. that's an increase from what i see here. under the civil rights heading in the f.b.i.'s request it says color of law violations our actions taken by any person using authority given to them by a government agency to willfully deprive someone of a right. since you have been attorney general, has anyone in the government or otherwise, been prosecuted for a color of law violation for denying people their second amendment rights? that's a civil right. atty. gen. garland: i understand that. i don't know the answer to that. i have not heard that there has been that kind of prosecution. mr. clyde: since the scotus decision overturning the new

york law, which was the new york rifle and pistol association versus bruin, which denied new yorkers their constitutional rights, i would think there would be a case there. so i would ask the department of justice to look into that because the second amendment is a civil right. when people are denied that civil right, then i think under the civil rights division the department of justice should engage. now also, in last year's congressional hearing i asked , about your department's most recent congressional authorization. has your department been re-authorized or is the most recent authorization the one that expired in f.y. 2009? atty. gen. garland: i would say you taught me something about authorizations and appropriations at the last hearing that i did not know. my understanding is that was the last authorization. the one you are talking about. of course, the justice department would always like to have an authorization. my understanding is the yearly appropriations count as

authorizations. but of course, it would always be better for any entity to be -- have formal authorization. mr. clyde: we are not an authorizing committee. we are an appropriating committee. it's the judiciary committee that is the authorizing committee for department of justice. so d.o.j. remains unauthorized. you are running an unauthorized agency by the department -- excuse me. by the judiciary committee. are you going to seek a new congressional authorization? from the judiciary committee? atty. gen. garland: i haven't had those kind of discussions. i would be happy to take that back and think about it. again, given the appropriations, i have been advised that that's not required. but i would be happy to think about it some more. mr. clyde: thank you. i yield back. >> mr. attorney general, i have written your office in the past about the importance of prioritizing federal prosecutions of firearms cases. i'm pleased to see success of the guns involved violence

elimination initiative operated by the u.s. attorneys in the western district office of new york. i'd like to just ask if i can follow up with staff after the meeting to ensure we have sufficient resources to continue the western new york initiative? atty. gen. garland: yes. i can talk about a few things in that regard. you are correct. that our work in the western district of new york is ongoing. and has been successful. and then we have the money that we need for that purpose. mr. morelle: i'll just ask one other question. last week i was very pleased to see the department finalize a new rule to update the definition of engaged in business as a firearms dealer. as you know, unlicensed dealers who do not conduct background checks are the largest source of firearms that are illegally brought into our communities. if you could just talk about the budgetary impact on that requirement by firearms dealers

and the ability for the department to make sure that that new rule is carried out. atty. gen. garland: this is the implementation of the bipartisan safer communities act. and we have asked for money in the a.t.f. budget for that purpose. the money we asked for should be sufficient for that role into the other work that atf does. >> i will yield back. >> the gentleman and i have similar questions today. by the way, let's work on that reauthorization. i will send over a proposal. i may have a few changes to propose. atty. gen. garland: that's a good idea for us not to be thinking about that. >> given atf claims it can barely keep up with the workload inspecting the current number of licensed dealers, what is the point of this new rule? is it to encourage firearms sellers to become licensed or

discourage them from engaging in a constitutionally protected activity of trading firearms? atty. gen. garland: the purpose is to implement the definitional change brought by the bipartisan safer communities act. which changed the definition of being engaged in the business from engaged for the purpose of maintaining a likelihood to being engaged in the business for the predominant purpose of earning profit. with that change, it required regulations expanding what that means. the purpose is to prevent guns from being sold to prohibited persons without a background check. to be sure that a prohibited person doesn't get a gun. that include somebody who served time is a violent felon, for example. >> the royal institute a series of rebuttable presumptions to clarify when the licensing attaches to gun sales, but these presumptions appear nowhere in the statute.

to the degree they have any legal foundation, they are said to interpret the old, not the current language on who is a dealer. the rule itself estimates tens of thousands of firearms sellers will be required to become licensed under its terms, which would necessitate a significant increase in atf oversight. it atf coordinate with the fbi or seek input on the capacity of the background check system to absorb the workload this would create? it seems it would have a cascading effect on a variety of departments and their workload. atty. gen. garland: i believe the apartments regulation discusses workload impact. i don't know the answer to the specific question you are asking. i will have somebody get back to you on that. >> i would express concern that this seems to be an end run around the authority of congress to set laws rather than the apartment.

especially when it comes to the constitutionally protected rights of american citizens to keep and bear arms. i think your actions are headed in the wrong direction. atty. gen. garland: be clear this is not about the second amendment in any respect. it is about him lamenting congress's -- implementing congress's statute and prohibitions on selling guns to people who congress has said should not have them. mr. cline: when you keep and bear arms, you have to purchase and sale. that is part of keeping and bearing arms. so i would urge you to keep that in mind. >> thank you mr. chairman. last year we helped pass the bipartisan law enforcement de-escalation training act, which provides $124 million in grant funding over four years on de-escalation training for police officers. this will save lives and improve police community relations.

although this program is new, could you talk briefly about its implementation and more broadly, how doj's budget prioritizes mental health and crisis stabilization? >> i don't have the specifics with respect to that program. as a general matter, our office of justice programs provides de-escalation money for training. it is an important way to protect the lives of officers and first responders, as well as the calling for help. you are right in the implication of her questions that many of these calls involve people who are mentally ill. and that the sensitivity of respondents to that possibility is an important element of the need for de-escalation. >> thank you for your efforts. 70 to 100 million americans have

criminal records that appear on a routine background checks, often preventing them from getting jobs. over the last seven years, my company hired 1400 returning citizens, which is good for business and cuts down recidivism. state passed a clean slate automatic clearing records, these type of efforts are costly and have been a barrier to widespread adoption. what resources does doj need to support these clean slate laws? >> i don't think i'm going to be able to talk specifically about the clean slate laws. in the area of criminal justice reform, in the implementation of the second chance act, which involves reentry programs. we're asking for $125 million for those programs. in addition, there is a new program called the accelerating

justice system reform grants. this is a their hundred million dollar request for fy 25. and $15 billion over 10 years. , sure whether clean slate would -- i am not sure whether clean slate would fall within those but i will ask staff to get back to you. mr. trone: last quick question. the bill ranking member delauro on the antitrust division, should this committee take another look at the language that eliminates access to the merger filing fees and lots even to that $233 million -- locks you into that $233 million? atty. gen. garland: i will leave it to members of congress to resolve this question. the justice department is in favor of the antitrust division getting the full access to the fees.

but in the end, congress makes those determinations. mr. trone: seems like a good idea, thank you. chair rogers: that concludes today's hearing. >> i have just one quick -- chair rogers: gentleman is recognized. >> we are seven years into the three with respect to baltimore. we have reached compliance. you don't have to give that unless you have it right away, but give me an update on what is left and how we are doing. if you could have somebody from your staff get back to my office i would appreciate it. atty. gen. garland: i can giphy a little idea now. happy to get more detail back to you. we do think the baltimore police department has made substantial progress toward satisfying the provisions of the consent decree. in january this year, we filed a joint motion to declare the city and baltimore police department in full and effective compliance

on three points, safe transportation of people in custody, officer assistance and support and ensuring health and well-being of employees. the court granted that motion. now bpd has to sustain a record of success and in areas for one year and those provisions will be terminated. the department continues to work with the police department on compliance with other parts of the consent decree. in particular, these include the use of force, lethal use of force, stop and seizure, and arrest but this is good progress. >> thank you, sir, you don't have to get back to me. chair rogers: that concludes today's hearing. atty. gen. garland: thank you. chair rogers: i want to thank our witness, attorney general garland, for being generous with his time. and being open and frank in his testimony. without objection, members may have seven days to submit additional questions for the

record. the committee stands adjourned. [gavels] [captioning performed by the national captioning institute, which is responsible for its caption content and accuracy. visit ncicap.org]

>> wednesday on c-span, the houses back for general speeches at 10 a.m. eastern followed by

legislative business at noon. members are taking up legislation in response to iran's air strikes israel this weekend. on c-span2, the senate returns at 11 a.m. eastern to resume a bill that re-authorizes a section of the foreign surveillance intelligent act that allows warrantless surveillance of people outside the u.s. at 1 p.m., the impeachment trial for homeland security secretary alejandra mayorkas resumes with senators being sworn in as jurors. on c-span3, defense secretary lloyd austen and joint chiefs of staff chair general charles eq brown testify on the president's 2025 budget request for the pentagon. that gets underway at 10 a.m. eastern. watch our live coverage on the c-span now video app, or online at c-span.org. pres. biden: >> watch c-span's coverage of

the annual white house correspondents dinner. live, saturday, april 20 seven, with saturday night life weekend update cohost c as the featuredolin jost entertainer. then at 8:00 p.m. eastern on c-span, sights and sounds from inside the ballroom before the festivities begin. watch the white house correspondents dinner, live saturday, april 27, on the c-span networks. >> still ahead on c-span, a look at today's supreme court oral argument in a case challenging the criminal statute used to charge the january 6 defendant with obstructing a congressional proceeding. it has the potential to impact hundreds of january 6 cases,

tv

TOPIC FREQUENCY

U.s. 20, F.b.i. 12, United States 10, Us 9, China 8, Mr. Clyde 7, Mr. Aderholt 6, New York 6, Mr. Garcia 5, Mr. Cline 4, Mr. Ellzey 4, Mr. Cartwright 4, Hamas 3, Israel 3, Baltimore 3, Biden 3, Ms. Delauro 3, Mr. Elsie 2, Amtrak 2, Mr. Trone 2

Notes

This material may be protected by copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code).

info Stream Only