[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                   OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT 
                               OF JUSTICE

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               ----------                              

                       THURSDAY, OCTOBER 21, 2021

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 117-42

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]         


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov
               
                             __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-808                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                  

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

       PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief of Staff
               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director
                                 ------                                
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       Thursday, October 21, 2021

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     2
The Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Ohio...............................     4

                               WITNESSES

The Honorable Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General, United States 
  Department of Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................     9
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    11

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

An article entitled, ``The Patriot Act Wasn't Meant to Target 
  Parents,'' The Wall Street Journal, submitted by the Honorable 
  Steve Chabot, a Member of the Committee on the Judiciary from 
  the State of Ohio, for the record..............................    26
An article entitled, ``With overdose deaths soaring, DEA warns 
  about fentanyl-, meth-laced pills,'' The Washington Post, 
  submitted by the Honorable Ted Deutch, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Florida, for the 
  record.........................................................    50
An article entitled, ``Tiny wrists in cuffs: How police use force 
  against children,'' Associated Press, submitted by the 
  Honorable Karen Bass, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California, for the record.........    58
A letter to Merrick Garland from Hakeem Jeffries, October 20, 
  2021, submitted by the Honorable Hakeem Jeffries, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for 
  the record.....................................................    72
Materials submitted by the Honorable Ken Buck, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Colorado, for the 
  record
  An article entitled, ``Why Obama's former ethics czar is highly 
    critical of Hunter Biden's lucrative art sales,'' Vox........    82
  An article entitled, ``Art gallery repping Hunter Biden 
    received $500K federal COVID loan, records show,'' New York 
    Post.........................................................    91
Materials submitted by the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of California, for 
  the record
  A report entitled, ``Racial Disparities in Economic Espionage 
    Act Prosecutions: A Window into the New Red Scare,'' 
    Committee of 100.............................................   104
  An article entitled, ``Professor acquittal--Is China Initiative 
    out of control?'' University World News......................   160
  An open letter from faculty members at Stanford University, 
    September 8, 2021............................................   166
Materials submitted by the Honorable Cliff Bentz, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Oregon, for the 
  record
  A letter and enclosures from the Josephine County Board of 
    Commissioners, October 13, 2021..............................   180
  A document entitled, ``In the Matter of Declaring a Local State 
    of Emergency Within Jackson County Relating to Unlawful 
    Cannabis Activities and Other Matters Related Thereto,'' 
    Jackson County Board of Commissioners........................   196
  A video entitled, ``Jackson County Marijuana and Hemp 
    Flyovers''...................................................   201
Materials submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the 
  record
  A letter regarding ``Federal Assistance to Stop Threats and 
    Acts of Violence Against Public Schoolchildren, Public School 
    Board Members, and Other Public School District Officials and 
    Educators,'' National School Boards Association, September 
    29, 2021.....................................................   214
  A memorandum entitled, ``Partnership Among Federal, State, 
    Local, Tribal, and Territorial Law Enforcement to Address 
    Threats Against School Administrators, Board Members, 
    Teachers, and Staff,'' Office of the Attorney General........   220
An article entitled, ``Texas appears to be paying a secretive 
  Republican political operative $120,000 annually to work behind 
  the scenes on redistricting,'' The Texas Tribune, submitted by 
  the Honorable Veronica Escobar, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record..........   246
Correspondence regarding ``NSBA Letter to President Biden on 
  Threats School Boards Members and Public Schools,'' submitted 
  by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record..............   254
Materials submitted by the Honorable Cori Bush, a Member of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Missouri, for the 
  record
  A report entitled, ``Hidden in Plain Sight: Racism, White 
    Supremacy, and Far-Right Militancy in Law Enforcement,'' 
    Brennan Center for Justice...................................   286
  An article entitled, ``Mapping fatal police violence across 
    U.S. metropolitan areas: Overall rates and racial/ethnic 
    inequities, 2013-2017,'' PLOS ONE............................   312
Materials submitted by the Honorable Thomas Massie, a Member of 
  the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Kentucky, for 
  the record
  A letter to Merrick B. Garland from Chip Roy and Thomas Massie, 
    July 15, 2021................................................   330
  A letter to Merrick B. Garland from Chip Roy and Thomas Massie, 
    May 13, 2021.................................................   332
  Images that were displayed.....................................   334
Materials submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member 
  of the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for 
  the record
  A report entitled, ``In The Extreme: Women Serving Life Without 
    Parole and Death Sentences in the United States,'' The 
    Sentencing Project...........................................   352
  A report entitled, ``Subverting Justice: How the Former 
    President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 
    Election,'' Senate Committee on the Judiciary................   369
  H.R. 5226 the ``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops 
    Women's Access to Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 
    2021''.......................................................   370

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the 
  Committee on the Judiciary from the State of New York, for the 
  record
  A statement from Rabbi Moshe Margaretten, President, Tzedek 
    Association..................................................   374
  A statement from Jesselyn McCurdy, Executive Vice President of 
    Government Affairs, and Sakira Cook, Senior Director, Justice 
    Program, The Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.   429

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record...........   440
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Texas, for the record..........   457
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Steve Cohen, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Tennessee, for the record..........   461
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Ted Deutch, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Florida, for the record............   463
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Ted Lieu, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California, for the record.........   465
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Jamie Raskin, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Maryland, for the record...........   469
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Lou Correa, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of California, for the record.........   473
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Madeleine Dean, Vice-Chair of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Pennsylvania, for the record...   474
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Mondaire Jones, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record...........   477
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Deborah Ross, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of North Carolina, for the record.....   478
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Cori Bush, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Missouri, for the record...........   479
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Ohio, for the record...........   481
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Victoria Spartz, a Member of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of Indiana, for the record............   482
Questions for Attorney General Merrick B. Garland, submitted by 
  the Honorable Scott Fitzgerald, a Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of Wisconsin, for the record......   484
Responses from the Department of Justice, submitted by the 
  Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York, for the record...........   485

 
          OVERSIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                              ----------                              


                       Thursday, October 21, 2021

                        House of Representatives

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 10:12 a.m., in Room 
200, Capitol Visitor Center, Hon. Jerrold Nadler [Chair of the 
Committee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Lofgren, Jackson 
Lee, Cohen, Johnson of Georgia, Deutch, Bass, Jeffries, 
Cicilline, Swalwell, Lieu, Raskin, Jayapal, Demings, Correa, 
Scanlon, Garcia, Neguse, McBath, Stanton, Dean, Escobar, Jones, 
Ross, Bush, Jordan, Chabot, Gohmert, Issa, Buck, Gaetz, Johnson 
of Louisiana, Biggs, McClintock, Steube, Tiffany, Massie, Roy, 
Bishop, Fischbach, Spartz, Fitzgerald, Bentz, and Owens.
    Staff present: Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director and Chief 
Counsel; Aaron Hiller, Deputy Chief Counsel; Arya Hariharan, 
Deputy Chief Oversight Counsel; David Greengrass, Senior 
Counsel; John Doty, Senior Advisor; Moh Sharma, Director of 
Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jacqui Kappler, 
Oversight Counsel; Roma Venkateswaran, Professional Staff 
Member/Legislative Aide; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; John 
Williams, Parliamentarian and Senior Counsel; Gabriel Barnett, 
Staff Assistant; Atarah McCoy, Staff Assistant; Merrick Nelson, 
Digital Director; Kayla Hamedi, Deputy Communications Director; 
Chris Hixon, Minority Staff Director; Tyler Grimm, Minority 
Chief Counsel for Policy and Strategy; Stephen Castor, Minority 
General Counsel; Katy Rother, Minority Deputy General Counsel 
and Parliamentarian; Ella Yates, Minority Member Services 
Director; Andrea Loving, Minority Chief Counsel for 
Immigration; Jason Cervenak, Minority Chief Counsel for Crime; 
Betsy Ferguson, Minority Senior Counsel; Ken David, Minority 
Counsel; Caroline Nabity, Minority Counsel; James Lesinski, 
Minority Counsel; Kyle Smithwick, Minority Counsel; Sarah 
Trentman, Minority Senior Professional Staff Member; Andrea 
Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley 
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Chair Nadler. The House Committee on the Judiciary will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare recesses of the Committee at any time.
    We welcome everyone to this morning's hearing on Oversight 
of the Department of Justice.
    Before we begin, I would like to remind Members that we 
have established an email address and distribution list 
dedicated to circulating exhibits, motions, or other written 
materials that Members might want to offer as part of our 
hearing today. If you would like to submit materials, please 
send them to the email addresses that have been previously 
distributed to your offices and we will circulate the materials 
to Members and staff as quickly as we can.
    I would also remind all Members of the guidance in the 
Office of Attending Physician, which states that face coverings 
are required for all meetings in an enclosed space such as 
Committee hearings except when you are recognized to speak.
    I will recognize myself for an opening statement.
    Good morning, Mr. Attorney General, and thank you for 
appearing before our Committee today.
    When the Department of Justice performs as it should, it is 
a champion of the Bill of Rights, the protector of the rule of 
law, and the cornerstone of the institutions that make up our 
republic.
    As Attorney General, you have the responsibility to keep 
the Department functioning at this high level, preserving the 
Constitution for our children and our children's children. You 
have assumed this enormous responsibility at a crossroads in 
our nation's history.
    For four years, the democratic institutions that you have 
sworn to protect first as a judge, and now as Attorney General, 
were deeply undermined by the former President and his 
political enablers. During that time, the Trump Administration 
leveraged the department to protect the President and his 
friends and to punish his enemies, both real and imagined. When 
the former President lost the last election, he summoned the 
top law enforcement officers in the country and demanded that 
they use the full power of the Federal government to install 
him for another term. Trump's plan failed, at least in part, 
because at least some department officials refused to help him 
overturn the election.
    Even now, however, the ex-President and his allies continue 
to cast doubt on the last election and appear to be drafting a 
plan to overturn the next one. Next time, we may not be so 
lucky.
    Your task as Attorney General is unenviable, Judge Garland, 
because you must build back everything DOJ lost under the last 
Administration: Its self-confidence, its reputation in the eyes 
of the American people, and an institutional respect for our 
Constitution and the rule of law. It is not enough just to 
right the ship. As the chief law enforcement officer of our 
nation, it is also your responsibility to help the country 
understand and reckon with the violence and the lawlessness of 
the last Administration while maintaining the department's 
prosecutorial independence.
    On January 6th, insurgents stormed the Capitol building in 
what appears to be a preplanned, organized assault on our 
government, seeking to overturn the votes of their fellow 
Americans and believing in the lie told them by President Trump 
and his followers.
    I commend the department for doing the important work of 
bringing those responsible for the violence of January 6th to 
justice. I ask only that you continue to follow the facts and 
the law where they lead because although you have rightly 
brought hundreds of charges against those who physically 
trespassed in the Capitol, the evidence suggests that you will 
soon have some hard decisions to make about those who organized 
and incited the attack in the first place.
    We must acknowledge the simple truth that none of the 
individuals who attacked the Capitol that day appeared out of 
thin air. According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, 
Membership of White nationalist groups grew 55 percent during 
the Trump Presidency. Membership in hate groups overall remains 
historically high.
    The COVID-19 epidemic, as with many national crises, 
brought out both the best and the worst of our fellow 
Americans. While everyday heroes struggled to save lives and 
keep people safe, anti-Asian hate crimes and hate incidents 
skyrocketed. Innocent people lost their lives and communities 
were shattered.
    I know DOJ and its components are key to the Biden 
Administration's national strategy for countering violence 
extremism, and I am looking forward to hearing more about how 
DOJ is working to prevent violent extremists from gaining 
further foothold in our country. This growth in extremist 
ideology is echoed in an epidemic of violence and intimidation 
directed at our healthcare professionals, teachers, essential 
workers, school board Members, and election workers.
    To be clear, we are a country that prizes democratic 
involvement at every level of government, the right to be 
heard, to have a voice, is guaranteed by the Constitution. 
Nobody has a right to threaten his or her fellow citizens with 
violence.
    You were absolutely right to ask the FBI and Federal 
prosecutors to meet with local law enforcement agencies instead 
of dedicated lines of communication so that we can confront 
this spike in violence head on. There is a broader pattern 
here. In each of these cases, former President Trump's big lie, 
the rise in hate crimes against citizens of Asian descent, and 
the growing threats of violence against public servants, the 
same set of individuals who have leveraged the same sorts of 
misinformation, stoked the same sorts of grievances, and shown 
remarkably little interest in solving our problems. This 
country, and your tenure as Attorney General, cannot be defined 
only by the outrages of the last four years.
    We have much more to do to deliver on our nation's 
fundamental promise of liberty and justice for all.
    Black and brown Americans deserve to live in a country 
where they can trust that their local police departments will 
protect, not endanger their families.
    I applaud you for taking steps to limit the use of choke 
holds and no-knock warrants, and we must continue to work 
together to address the issues that allow for our criminal 
justice system to so disproportionately impact people of color.
    Across the country, State legislatures are restricting the 
right to vote in service of the most cynical political motive. 
Your Department has rightly stepped in to secure our next 
election and Congress owes you a voting rights restoration act 
that will give you the tools you need to consign these nakedly 
undemocratic efforts to the dust bin of history where they 
belong.
    Similarly, Texas law to ban abortion after six weeks, and 
punish abortion providers is designed to restrict its citizens' 
constitutionally-protected rights. It does so by offering to 
pay a bounty to those who would turn in their neighbors, 
coworkers, or even strangers if they suspect someone violated 
the law and helped the woman get an abortion after six weeks. 
This deliberately creates an atmosphere of fear and suspicion 
that stops women from seeking help. It is a dangerous law that 
is repugnant to the Constitution and I thank you for the 
Department's swift action to protect these essential rights.
    We cannot become a country where only some people in some 
States enjoy their constitutional rights. As Attorney General, 
you have the power to help our country navigate the 
generational trauma of oppression and move past the challenges 
of the last four years.
    Thank you again for appearing before us today. I look 
forward to your testimony.
    I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Judiciary 
Committee, the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for his opening 
statement.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The Chair just said the 
Trump DOJ was political and went after their opponents. Are you 
kidding me? Three weeks ago, the National School Board 
Association writes President Biden asking him to involve the 
FBI in local school board matters. Five days later, the 
Attorney General of the United States does just that, does 
exactly what a political organization asked to be done. Five 
days.
    Republicans on this Committee have sent the Attorney 
General 13 letters in the last six months. It takes weeks and 
months to get a response. Eight of the letters, we have got 
nothing. They just gave us the finger and said we are not going 
to get back to you. All of our letters were actually sent to 
the Attorney General.
    Here is a letter sent to someone else asking for a specific 
thing to be done and in five days the Attorney General does it. 
Here is what the October 4th memo said.

        I am directing the FBI to convene meetings with local leaders. 
        These meetings will open dedicated lines of communication for 
        threat reporting.

    Dedicated lines of communication for threat reporting. A 
snitch line on parents started five days after a left-wing 
political organization asked for it. If that is not political, 
I don't know what is.
    Where is the dedicated lines of communication with local 
leaders regarding our Southern border? Something that frankly 
is a Federal matter.
    Where is the dedicated lines of communication on violent 
crime in our cities? Violent crime that went up in every major 
urban area where Democrats have defunded the police. No, can't 
do that. Can't do that. The Biden Justice Department is going 
to go after parents who object to some racist, hate America 
curriculum.
    No, can't focus on the Southern border where 1.7 million 
illegal encounters have happened this year alone, a record 
number. MS-13 can just waltz right across the border, but the 
Department of Justice, they are going up to open up a snitch 
line on parents.
    Think about this. The same FBI that Mr. Garland is 
directing to open dedicated lines of communication for 
reporting on parents just a few years ago spied on four 
American citizens associated with President Trump's campaign. 
The Clinton campaign hired Perkins Coie, who hired Fusion GPS, 
who hired Christopher Steele, who put a bunch of garbage 
together, gave it to the FBI. They used that as the basis to 
open up an investigation into a Presidential campaign.
    Oh, and then was Mr. Sussman. Mr. Sussman, who worked at 
Perkins Coie, the firm hired by the Clinton campaign. He cut 
out all the middlemen. He just said I am just going to go 
directly to the FBI, and not just anyone at the FBI. Who did he 
go to? Jim Baker, the Chief Counsel at the FBI handed him a 
bunch of false information, told him false information, and of 
course, he has been indicted by the Special Counsel.
    A few weeks ago, the IG at the Department of Justice 
released a report that found that the FBI made over 200 errors, 
omissions, and lies in just 29 randomly selected FISA 
applications. Don't worry, the Attorney General of the United 
States just put them in charge of a dedicated line of 
communication to report on parents who attend school board 
meetings.
    Mr. Chair, Americans are afraid. For the first time during 
my years in public office, first time, I talk to the good folks 
I get the privilege of representing in the 4th District of 
Ohio, folks all around the country, they tell me for the first 
time they fear their government. Frankly, I think it is obvious 
why. Every single liberty we enjoy in the First Amendment has 
been assaulted over the last year. It is something to think 
about.
    Americans were told you couldn't go to church, couldn't go 
to work, couldn't go to school. Small business owners were told 
you are not an essential business, close your doors, causing 
many of them to go bankrupt. We were given curfews, stay at 
home orders. Last fall in Ohio, you had to be in your home at 
ten. In Pennsylvania, when you are in your home, you had to 
wear a mask. In Vermont, when you were in your home, you didn't 
have to wear to a mask because you weren't allowed to have 
friends and family over.
    Of course, there is always the double standard with these 
folks. Folks who make the rules, never seem to follow them. 
Now, the Biden Administration says get a vaccine or lose your 
job, even if you have had COVID and have natural immunity, get 
a vaccine or you will lose your job.
    Oh, I almost forgot, the Biden Administration also wants 
another dedicated line of communication for reporting. They 
want a second snitch line. They want banks to report on every 
single transaction over $600 for every single American to the 
IRS, the IRS, that agency with its stellar record of customer 
service. The IRS, the same IRS that targeted conservatives the 
last time Joe Biden was in the Executive Branch.
    Jefferson said once, tyranny is when the people fear the 
government. We are there. Sadly, we are there. I don't think 
the good people, I don't think the good people of this great 
country are going to cower and hide.
    I think your memo, Mr. Attorney General, was the last 
straw. I think it was the catalyst for a great awakening that 
is just getting started.
    Pilots at Southwest Airlines, the Chicago police union, 
parents at school board meetings, Americans are pushing back 
because Americans value freedom.
    A few weeks ago, Terry McAuliffe said this, ``I don't think 
parents should be telling schools what to teach.'' The 
government tells parents we are smarter than you. Americans 
aren't going to tolerate it.
    When the Attorney General of the United States sets up a 
snitch line on parents, Americans aren't going to tolerate it. 
I think they are going to stand up to this accelerated march to 
communism that we now see. Americans are going to fight the 
good fight. They are going to finish the course. They are going 
to keep the faith because Americans value freedom.
    Mr. Chair, we have a video we would like to play.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Chair. I object.
    Chair Nadler. For what purpose does Ms. Dean seek 
recognition?
    Ms. Dean. I object. I am reserving my right to object to 
the video. May I inquire as to whether the gentleman has 
followed the Judiciary Committee's AV protocol by providing 48 
hours' notice to the Committee's clerk that he was going to use 
a video?
    Mr. Jordan. We provided notice. Well, first, there is no 
48-hour rule. It is not in the Committee rules. Second, we did 
let the Committee staff and majority know that we had a video, 
and we gave the video to them this morning.
    Chair Nadler. Responding to the gentlelady's request, he 
did not. He did not supply the 48 hours' rule--48 hours' notice 
required by the rule.
    Ms. Dean. Then, I insist on my objection, having failed to 
follow the bipartisan protocol, I insist on my objection.
    Chair Nadler. An objection has been heard. The video will 
not be shown.
    Mr. Jordan. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. There has been no ruling made. There has been 
an objection.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, I would like to speak regarding--
    Chair Nadler. No. That is out of order. This is not 
debatable.
    Mr. Jordan. What is out of order? There is no rule that 
requires a 48-hour notice. That is what is out of order.
    Chair Nadler. There is such a rule.
    Mr. Jordan. There is not, not in our rules.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair, what are you afraid of?
    Chair Nadler. There is such a rule. You objected last year. 
You were told there was such a rule.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair, what are our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle afraid of? They are afraid of videos? Of 
parents?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman was recognized for his opening 
statement. Are you finished with your opening statement?
    Mr. Jordan. It is not a rule. It is not a rule. It is what 
you said--I think you used is a protocol.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlewoman objected--
    Mr. Jordan. Conduct of the Committee, rules do. That is not 
a rule. We had a video. We understood you had a video.
    Mr. Gaetz. I seek recognition for a parliamentary inquiry?
    Chair Nadler. The gentlewoman objected because you failed 
to follow the rule. Her objection is sustained.
    Mr. Gaetz. I seek recognition for a parliamentary inquiry?
    Mr. Jordan. I will yield back in just a second and 
particularly--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Jordan. No, I haven't yielded back yet. I said I will 
in a second. It is a video about parents at school board 
meetings, moms and dads speaking at school board meetings. You 
guys aren't going to let us play it?
    Chair Nadler. It will not be played. An objection has been 
heard that you failed to give the 48 hours required by the rule 
and therefore it will not be heard.
    Mr. Jordan. What rule?
    Mr. Roy. Chair, what rule? Parliamentary inquiry. What 
rule? Will you present the rule?
    Chair Nadler. The case of audio-visual materials under the 
leadership of my predecessor, Chair Goodlatte, a Republican, 
the Committee developed a written protocol for managing the use 
of audio-visual materials in our hearings. This protocol simply 
requires Members to provide 48 hours' notice they are going to 
use audio visual material.
    Until recently, this protocol was not controversial. It was 
a helpful tool we used to manage hearings and make sure videos 
were played properly.
    The gentlewoman has objected to the materials because the 
gentleman did not provide the agreed upon 48 hours' notice. 
Playing audio visual materials during a Committee hearing is 
the equivalent of introducing printed materials into the 
hearing record.
    In the normal course of business, we do not object to each 
other's requests, but Members have the right to object if they 
so choose and an objection has been heard.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Chair, did we ever vote on that?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is a clever, written 
statement, but a protocol is not a rule.
    Mr. Jordan. Mr. Chair, obviously, you are not going to let 
us play it. Obviously, you are going to censure us which is 
sort of the conduct of the left today it seems and Democrats 
today it seems. I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. A Point of Order. 
The gentleman will State his Point of Order.
    Mr. Biggs. I would ask you if you are going to insist that 
this is a rule, please cite the rule, show us the actual 
written rule. This is not a rule.
    Chair Nadler. It is not a point of rule as I said before. 
Playing audio visual materials during Committee hearings is the 
equivalent of introducing printed materials into the hearing 
record.
    Mr. Biggs. I ask that you rule on my Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. In the normal course of business, we do not 
object to each other's requests Members have the right to 
object if they so choose and an objection has been heard.
    Mr. Biggs. That is not a rule, sir. That is a statement, 
not a rule, sir. I would ask you to rule on my Point of Order.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman has not made a valid Point of 
Order.
    Mr. Biggs. I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
    Chair Nadler. There is nothing to appeal. There has been no 
ruling.
    Mr. Biggs. You ruled that my--
    Chair Nadler. There has been no ruling.
    Mr. Biggs. I am entitled to have--
    Chair Nadler. There is just been an objection and the 
objection has been heard.
    Now, we will introduce the Attorney General. I will now 
introduce today's Witness.
    Merrick Garland is sworn in as the 86th Attorney General of 
the United States on March 11, 2021. Immediately preceding his 
confirmation as Attorney General, Mr. Garland was a judge of 
the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia 
Circuit. He was appointed to that position in 1997, served as 
Chief Judge of the Circuit from 2013-2020, and served as Chair 
of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference of the 
United States from 2017-2020.
    In 2016, President Obama nominated him for the position of 
Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Before 
becoming a Federal judge, Attorney General Garland spent a 
substantial part of his professional life at the Department of 
Justice including as Special Assistant to the Attorney General, 
Assistant United States Attorney, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in the Criminal Division, and Principal Associate 
Deputy Attorney General.
    Earlier in his career, Attorney General Garland was in 
private practice and he also taught at Harvard Law School. He 
earned both his undergraduate and law degrees from Harvard 
University. Following law school, he clerked for Judge Henry 
Friendly, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second 
Circuit and for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan.
    We welcome the Attorney General and we thank him for 
participating today. If you please rise, I will begin by 
swearing you in. Raise your right hand.
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best 
of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you God?
    Let the record show that the Witness has answered in the 
affirmative. Thank you and please be seated.
    Please note that your written statement will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, I ask that you 
summarize your testimony in five minutes. To help you stay 
within that time limit, there is a timing light on your table.
    When the light switches from green to yellow, you have one 
minute to conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it 
signals your five minutes have expired.
    Attorney General Garland, you may begin.

         TESTIMONY OF ATTORNEY GENERAL MERRICK GARLAND

    Attorney General Garland. Good morning, Chair Nadler, 
Ranking Member Jordan, distinguished Members of this Committee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today.
    My address to all Justice Department employees on my first 
day in office I spoke about three co-equal priorities that 
should guide the Department's 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 adhere to 
the norms that have been part of its DNA since Edward Levi's 
tenure as the first post-Watergate Attorney General. Those 
norms of independence from improper influence of the principled 
exercise of discretion and of treating like cases alike define 
who we are as public servants.
    Over the past seven months that I have served as Attorney 
General, the Department has reaffirmed and where appropriate, 
updated and strengthened policies that are foundational for 
these norms. For example, we strengthened our policy governing 
communications between the Justice Department and the White 
House. That policy is designed to protect the department's 
criminal and civil law enforcement decisions and its legal 
judgments from partisan or other inappropriate influence.
    We also issued a policy to better protect the freedom and 
independence of the press by restricting the use of compulsory 
process to obtain information from or records of Members of the 
news media.
    The second 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 which are the essential hubs for international and 
domestic counter terrorism cooperation across all levels of 
government. For FY22, we are seeking more than $1.5 billion, a 
12 percent increase for counter terrorism work.
    We are also taking aggressive steps to counter cyber 
threats, whether from nation States, terrorists, or common 
criminals. In April, we launched both a comprehensive cyber 
review and a ransomware and digital extortion task force. In 
June, we seized a $2.3 million ransom payment made in Bitcoin 
to the group that targeted Colonial Pipeline.
    Keeping our country safe also requires reducing violent 
crime and gun violence. In May, we announced a comprehensive 
violent crime strategy which deploys all our relevant 
departmental components to those ends. We also launched five 
cross jurisdictional strike forces to disrupt illegal firearms 
trafficking in key corridors across the country. To support 
local police departments and help them build trust with the 
communities they serve, our FY22 budget requests over $1 
billion for grants.
    We are likewise committed to keeping our country safe from 
violent drug trafficking networks that are, among other things, 
fueling the overdose epidemic, opioids, including illegal 
fentanyl, causing at least 70,000 fatal overdose deaths in 
2020. We will continue to use all resources at our disposal to 
save lives.
    Finally, keeping our country safe requires protecting its 
democratic institutions, including the one we sit in today from 
violent attack. As the Committee is well aware, the Department 
is engaged in one of the most sweeping investigations in its 
history in connection with the January 6th attack on the 
Capitol.
    The Department's third core priority is protecting civil 
rights. This was a founding purpose when the Justice Department 
was established in 1870. Today, the Civil Rights Division's 
work remains vital to safeguarding voting rights, prosecuting 
hate crimes, ensuring constitutional policing, and stopping 
unlawful discrimination. This year, we doubled the size of the 
Civil Rights Division's Voting Section and our FY22 budget 
seeks the largest ever increase for the division, totaling more 
than 15 percent. We have appointed Department-wide coordinators 
for our hate crimes work and we have stepped up our support for 
the Community Relations Service and the Department-wide efforts 
to advance environmental justice and tackle climate change.
    We are also revitalizing and expanding our work to ensure 
equal access to justice. In the days ahead, we look forward to 
working with Congress to restore a stand-alone access to 
Justice Office within the Department, dedicated to addressing 
the most urgent legal needs of communities across America.
    In addition to these core priorities, another important 
area of departmental focus is ensuring antitrust enforcement, 
reinvigorating that enforcement, combating fraud, and 
protecting consumers. We are aggressively enforcing our 
antitrust laws by challenging anti-competitive mergers and 
exclusionary conduct and by prosecuting price fixing and 
allocation schemes that harm both consumers and workers.
    In FY22, we are seeking additional resources to 
reinvigorate antitrust enforcement across the board. We also 
stood up the COVID-19 Fraud Enforcement Task Force to bring to 
justice those who defrauded the government of Federal dollars 
meant for the most vulnerable among us.
    In sum, in seven months, the Justice Department has 
accomplished a lot of important work for the American people 
and there is much more to be done.
    Thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Attorney General Garland follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Chair Nadler. Thank you for your testimony. We will now 
proceed under the five-minute rule of questions, and I will 
recognize myself to begin for five minutes.
    Mr. Attorney General, in the 2013 decision, Shelby County 
v. Holder, the Supreme Court gutted section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act, rendering its preclearance provision inoperative. 
As a direct result of this decision, the right to vote has come 
under a renewed and steady assault and States have spent the 
past eight years enacting a slew of barriers to voting to 
target or impact communities of color and other historically 
disenfranchised groups.
    Before this Committee in August, the Assistant Attorney 
General Kristen Clarke testified that ``Section 5 of the Voting 
Rights Act was truly the heart of the Act and calls it the 
department's most important tool for safeguarding voting rights 
in our country.''
    Why is section 5 preclearance so crucial to combating 
discriminatory voting practices?
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Mr. Chair. The right 
to vote is a fundamental aspect of our democracy and in many 
ways it is the light from which all other rights occur. The 
Voting Rights Act was a gem of American legislation, President 
Ronald Reagan said, and other Presidents on both sides of the 
aisle have said.
    A key part of that provision was section 5 as you said. 
This was a preclearance provision which required specified 
States where there had been discriminatory practices that 
provisions for changes in patterns or practices of voting to be 
submitted to the Department for preclearance to determine 
whether they violated the Act.
    There was another alternative if a State did not like the 
result from the Justice Department, it could go to a court and 
get a resolution there. The great idea of preclearance was to 
allow advance review before these things went into effect, 
rather than require the Justice Department on a one-by-one 
basis after the fact. It is extremely difficult to attack 
unlawful prescriptions on voting practices.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Assistant Attorney General Clarke 
testified that section 2 is no substitute for the important, 
swift preemptive review that was provided by way of section 5 
preclearance process. The full impact of the Supreme Court's 
recent decision in Brnovich v. DNC on section 2 remains to be 
seen. However, in the absence of an operational section 5 
preclearance regime, what steps has the Justice Department 
taken to increase enforcement of voting rights under section 2?
    Attorney General Garland. Section 2 is our remaining tool. 
It is extraordinarily important, and it does give us some 
impact. To better effectuate that provision, we have doubled 
the size of the Voting Rights section because it will take more 
people to evaluate State laws on the one-by-one basis. We are 
going about doing that. We have brought one case, as you know, 
with respect to changes in Georgia. We are looking carefully at 
other States, and we are looking carefully at the 
redistricting, which is occurring as we speak now, as a result 
of the decennial census.We continue to do that and vigorously 
make sure that section 2 is appropriately enforced.
    Chair Nadler. If you should find that given States 
reapportionment, for example, is unconstitutional and you sued 
it could take six or eight years for those suits to be 
resolved, as we have seen, and that is one reason, another 
reason, for the necessity for section 5 preclearance.
    My time is short, so I have only one last question for you. 
The country and the Congress are still reeling from the events 
of January 6th and the Select Committee is diligently pursuing 
its investigation into the insurrection.
    This week, Chair Thompson and his colleagues voted to hold 
in contempt Steve Bannon who failed to comply with the Select 
Committee's subpoenas. The measure will be taken up by the 
House later today.
    Unfortunately, the actions of individuals like Mr. Bannon 
are not new to us. Many Committees, including this one, 
repeatedly face obstruction from the prior Administration in 
the former President's loyal allies. Congress, however, is not 
an enforcement body and looks to the department to handle 
criminal matters when appropriate.
    So, I ask you, Mr. Attorney General, regardless of 
politics, will the department follow the facts and the law and 
expeditiously consider the referrals put forth by the Select 
Committee if and when they are approved by the Full House?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the department recognizes 
the important oversight role that this Committee, the House of 
Representatives, and the Senate play with respect to the 
Executive Branch. I will say what spokesperson for the U.S. 
Attorney's Office and the District of Columbia said I think 
yesterday or the day before. The House of Representatives votes 
for referral of the contempt charge. The Department of Justice 
will do what it always does in such circumstances. It will 
apply the facts and the law and make a decision consistent with 
the principles of prosecution.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you very much.
    Mr. Jordan. Could you pull the mic a little closer, Mr. 
Attorney General?
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I'm sorry. Is that better, 
Mr. Chair?
    Chair Nadler. Yeah. Mr. Chabot?
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    Mr. Chair, I'd start by asking unanimous consent that an 
op-ed that appeared in last week's Wall Street Journal by the 
author of the PATRIOT Act, Mr. Sensenbrenner, former Chair of 
this Committee, entitled, ``The Patriot Act Wasn't Meant to 
Target Parents'' be entered into the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]    

                       MR. CHABOT FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    Mr. Attorney General, most of us had other jobs before we 
got here to Congress. For example, I practiced law for quite a 
few years. I was a county commissioner. I was a member of 
Cincinnati City Council. Before that, I was a school teacher in 
Cincinnati in the inner city.
    All the students in the school were African American, and I 
taught the seventh and eighth grade. It was my experience that 
the kids who did the best were the ones who had parental 
involvement in their education.
    Does that make sense to you?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. I think parental involvement 
is very important in education.
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you.
    Now, with that in mind, having parents involved in their 
children's education, I have to say I found it deeply 
disturbing that the National School Board Association convinced 
the Biden Administration to sic you and your Justice 
Department, the FBI, the full power of the Federal law 
enforcement in this country, on involved parents as if they 
were domestic terrorists.
    One of the tools in your arsenal of weapons, of course, is 
the PATRIOT Act that I just mentioned. Not many current Members 
of this Committee were here when we passed the PATRIOT Act, but 
I was.
    Mr. Chair, you were too, and I remember clearly that we 
were both concerned about potential abuse of this new law 
enforcement tool and that's why, for example, we insisted on 
sunset provisions on some aspects of the PATRIOT Act.
    I can tell you not in a million years did we dream that one 
day we'd see the Justice Department treat American parents as 
domestic terrorists. In a primer on domestic terrorism issued 
last November by none other than the FBI, Mr. Attorney General, 
the FBI explicitly stated that, quote, ``Under FBI policy and 
Federal law, no investigative activity related to domestic 
terrorism may be initiated based on First Amendment activity,'' 
unquote.
    Now, parents speaking up at school board meeting against 
the teaching of critical race theory or anything else that they 
want to talk about is, clearly, a First Amendment activity.
    Now, of course, school board meetings can sometimes be 
highly emotional affairs. Parents do care about their kids' 
education, how they're being taught, what they're being taught, 
and these parents have every right to be heard. Even a former 
Virginia governor, Terry McAuliffe, thinks otherwise.
    Now, no one has the right to be violent or threaten 
violence, and if anyone does that they can be dealt with by 
security or by local law enforcement. We don't need the vast 
power of the Federal government throwing its weight around.
    We don't need you, your Justice Department or the FBI 
trampling on the rights of American parents who just want the 
best possible education for their children.
    So, Mr. Attorney General, let me ask you this. According to 
the Sarasota Herald Tribune, one example of a so-called 
terrorist incident was a parent merely questioning whether 
school board Members had earned their high school diplomas.
    Now, that might have been rude. Does that seem like an act 
of domestic terrorism that you or your Justice Department ought 
to be investigating?
    Attorney General Garland. Absolutely not, and I want to be 
clear, the Justice Department supports and defends the First 
Amendment right of parents to complain as vociferously as they 
wish about the education of their children, about the 
curriculum taught in the schools.
    That is not what the memorandum is about at all, nor does 
it use the words ``domestic terrorism'' or ``PATRIOT Act.'' 
Like you, I can't imagine any circumstance in which the PATRIOT 
Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining 
about their children, nor can I imagine a circumstance where 
they would be labeled as domestic terrorism. It's--
    Mr. Chabot. Thank you. I'm nearly out of time. So, let me 
just conclude with this. We ought to be encouraging parents to 
be actively involved in the education of their children. After 
all, if our children are to be competitive with the children of 
Japan, South Korea, India and, yes, China for tomorrow's jobs, 
they better be getting a top-notch education in this country.
    Let's support and welcome parental involvement, not use the 
vast powers of Federal law enforcement to target parents as 
domestic terrorists.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Once again, I 
would remind all Members that guidance from the Office of 
Attending Physician states of face coverings are required for 
all meetings in an enclosed space such as Committee hearings 
except when you are recognized to speak, and that means you, 
Jim, and Marjorie and Matt and a lot of other people I can't 
recognize because of distance, et cetera.
    So, please, everyone observes that rule.
    I'll now recognize Ms. Lofgren for five minutes.
    Ms. Lofgren. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. 
Attorney General, for being here this morning.
    At your confirmation hearing you characterized what 
happened on January 6th, as, quote, ``A heinous attack that 
sought to disrupt a cornerstone of our democracy.''
    I agree with that. In your written testimony today, you 
point out that the intelligence community has identified 
domestic violent extremists as the primary threat to our nation 
and further note that your department is committed to keeping 
our country safe by protecting our democratic institutions.
    I would note that protecting our democratic institutions is 
not limited to the Department of Justice. The Congress also has 
that obligation to protect our democracy.
    To that end, we have a Select Committee that is reviewing 
the events leading up to January 6th and has a legislative 
mandate to devise legislative recommendations to prevent future 
acts of domestic extremist violence, to strengthen the 
resiliency of our nation's democratic institutions to propose 
laws that will keep us, our democratic system, safer.
    Now, with that background in mind, we are, as you are 
aware, seeking information to inform us to perform that role. 
Before you were AG you were a judge, and I note that the--in 
your judicial role in 2004 there was a case, Judicial Watch v. 
The Department of Justice, where the court ruled, quote, 
``Presidential communications privilege applies only to 
documents solicited and received by the President or his 
immediate White House advisors who have broad and significant 
responsibility for investigating and formulating the advice to 
be given to the President.''
    I think you're familiar with that case. Do you think that's 
still good law?
    Attorney General Garland. Yeah, I think the D.C. Circuit is 
a good source of law.
    Ms. Lofgren. In the Supreme Court case Nixon v. 
Administrator of GSA, 1974--the Judicial Watch case actually 
relied on that precedent--that case said that the 
communications to advise the President would be only on 
official government matters.
    Do you think that's still good law?
    Attorney General Garland. I think the Supreme Court's 
opinion is still good law until it's reversed, and I see no 
sign that it's going to be reversed.
    Ms. Lofgren. We were here in the Judiciary Committee 
pursuing testimony from Mr. McGahn and the court wrote in the 
2019 case, and this is a quote, ``To make the point as plain as 
possible, it is clear to this court for the reasons explained 
above that with respect to senior level aides, absolute 
immunity from compelled congressional process simply does not 
exist.''
    Do you think that's still good law?
    Attorney General Garland. I believe the McGahn case is 
still good law.
    Ms. Lofgren. Recently, the Department of Justice informed a 
Federal District Court that, quote, ``Conspiring to prevent the 
lawful certification of the 2020 election and the injured 
Members of Congress and inciting the riot at the Capitol, . . . 
would plainly fall outside the scope of employment of an 
officer or employee of the United States of America.''
    Since your department filed that, I assume you agree with 
that?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Ms. Lofgren. So, I just want to mention--I'm not going to 
ask you about what your department will do if the House of 
Representatives adopts a referral to your department, because I 
take you at your word that you will follow the precedent, you 
will follow the law in the ordinary course of events.
    I would just note that your defense of the rule of law for 
the Department of Justice and you're standing for the rule of 
law, also, means the rule of law for the Congress of the United 
States.
    Article One was the first article for a reason. We have a 
role to play in making sure that our democratic institutions 
are defended. I thank you for your service to our country and I 
look forward to your deliberations so that the Congress of the 
United States can play its rightful role in defending our 
institutions and adopting legislation that will strengthen our 
institutions and preserve and protect our democratic republic.
    With that, Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Gohmert?
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Judge 
Garland, for being here.
    You stated a moment ago you couldn't imagine a parent being 
labeled a domestic terrorist. Parents all over the country 
believe that's exactly what you labeled them by your memo, 
indicating you were going to get involved in board meetings--
school board meetings--because of the threat of domestic 
terrorism.
    So, if you can't imagine a parent being labeled a domestic 
terrorist, I would encourage you to redo your memo so it's not 
so perceived as being so threatening to people concerned about 
their kids' education.
    I want to take you to January 6. It's a very common topic 
here for people. Has any defendant involved in the January 6 
events been charged with insurrection?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't believe so.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, that is the word most used by Democrats 
here on Capitol Hill about January 6, but no one has been 
charged with it that we could find either.
    How many protesters on January 6 were charged with 
obstructing an official proceeding for four to six hours? Do 
you know?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the exact number. 
Obviously, there are 650 who were arrested, some for assaulting 
officers, some for obstructing proceedings, some for conspiring 
to obstruct proceedings.
    I can get you the numbers for each of the specific--
    Mr. Gohmert. Thank you. I'd be interested in getting that 
number. Regarding the man who broke the glass in the two doors 
there at the Speaker's lobby when the two Capitol Police had 
been standing there moved to the side to allow them access, 
were any of those people who broke glass and did damage to 
those doors working for the FBI or other Federal law 
enforcement entities?
    Attorney General Garland. This is an ongoing criminal 
investigation and I'm really not at liberty to discuss. There 
have been some filings of--in a nature of discovery, which has 
been provided to the defendants. Other than that, I can't 
discuss this now.
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, we have seen some of those filings that 
talk about persons one through 20 something. Were those 
persons, one, designated by number--were those people that were 
employed by the FBI or Federal entities, or were they 
confidential informants?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know those 
specifics. I do not believe that any of the people you're 
mentioning charged in the indictment were either one.
    Mr. Gohmert. Was a determination ever made as to who 
repeatedly struck Roseanne Boyland in the head with a rod 
before she died?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I think this was a matter 
that was investigated by the U.S. Attorney's Office and--
    Mr. Gohmert. Well, there's a witness on video saying that 
it was a D.C. Metro policeman. I didn't know if you've been 
able to confirm or deny that.
    Well, on June 22nd of 2016, Judge, most of the Democrat 
Members of Congress took over the House floor and for the first 
time in American history Members of Congress obstructed 
official proceedings, not for 4-6 hours but for virtually 26 
hours. Not just violating over a dozen House rules, but 
actually committing the felony that some of the January 6 
people are charged with.
    That was during the Obama Administration. Nobody has been 
charged and those kind of things where you let Democrat Members 
of Congress off for the very thing that you're viciously going 
after people that were protesting on January 6 gives people the 
indication that there is a two-tiered justice system here in 
America.
    You've been a circuit court judge--you know well that 
confinement--pre-trial confinement is not ever to be used as 
punishment.
    Yet, there are people--and understand, as a former tough 
law and order judge, I would sentence everyone regardless of 
their party who did violence or committed crimes on January 6th 
to appropriate sentences.
    For Heaven's sake, they are being abused in the D.C. jail. 
Have you done an inspection over there of the D.C. jail since 
your department has some jurisdiction?
    Attorney General Garland. So, my understanding is Judge 
Lamberth, who I respect very much, has--
    Mr. Gohmert. Yeah, he held the warden in contempt, but we 
haven't seen an improvement.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, he asked for a review and 
the Justice Department is conducting a review of the Marshals.
    Did an inspection the other day, which was reported in the 
news, and the Civil Rights Division is examining the 
circumstances. This is the District of Columbia jail. It's not 
the Bureau of Prisons, you understand.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    As I've explained to Members on many occasions, I view the 
wearing of face masks as a safety issue and, therefore, is an 
important matter of order and decorum. Because I am responsible 
for preserving order and decorum in this Committee, I am 
requiring Members of staff attending this hearing to wear face 
masks.
    I came to this decision after the Office of the Attending 
Physician released his guidance requiring masks in Committee 
hearings some time ago. I note that some Members are still not 
wearing masks.
    The requirement is that Members where their masks at all 
times when they are not speaking. I will take Members in 
compliance with this rule into consideration when they seek 
recognition.
    I see Mr. Roy, for example.
    I now recognize Ms. Jackson Lee.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    General, let me thank you for your enormous work that the 
department is doing. I have a series of questions. Help me out 
and in your answers so that I can secure responses.
    As you well know, the Senate Judiciary Committee did an 
outstanding report on how the former President and his allies 
pressured DOJ to overturn the 2020 election.
    In particular, they noted a series of dates in which they 
assess that the former President grossly abused the power of 
the presidency. He also, arguably, violated the criminal 
provisions of the Hatch Act, which prevents any person from 
commanding Federal government employees to engage in political 
activity.
    Would there be any reason that the DOJ would not further 
research or determine prospectively that the former President 
could be prosecuted under the Hatch Act?
    Attorney General Garland. Congresswoman, the Justice 
Department has a very long-standing policy of not commenting on 
potential investigations or actual or pending investigations. 
This is a foundational element of our rule of law and norms.
    It's to protect everyone no matter what their position--
former President, current President, Congresswoman, Senator, or 
ordinary citizen, and I'm going to have to rest on that I can't 
comment on--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I take that there's no 
prohibition. Thank you so very much.
    The Justice Department investigated Texas five secured 
juvenile facilities, finding sexual abuse. Can I quickly get an 
answer of working with the Justice Department encouraging 
standardized conditions for these facilities since the facts 
were gross in terms of the abuse of those children? I think 
you're investigating Georgia as well.
    Mr. General?
    Attorney General Garland. So, we are investigating Texas. 
That was announced, and I believe the government welcomed that 
investigation, and that's being done by a combination of the 
Civil Rights Division and all four U.S. Attorneys Offices in 
Texas.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, sir. With respect to 
compassionate release, which came about through the CARES Act, 
we found that in the BOP 39 percent of American Federal 
prisoners contracted COVID-19.
    According to a New York Times article, 2,700 persons have 
died. There is a potential of the compassionate release being 
eliminated and those out, but also, I found that it's not being 
utilized appropriately now.
    The attorney--Inspector General said that BOP was not 
prepared with the issue--was not prepared to deal with the 
issue of compassionate release on a granular level and, of 
course, the director himself said prisons are not made for 
social distancing.
    My question is, will you monitor what is going on with 
compassionate release either in terms of people returning and/
or the utilization--the fair utilization of compassionate 
release in the BOP under this issue of COVID?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Congresswoman, the answer is 
yes.
    Obviously, the pandemic was not something that the Bureau 
of Prisons was prepared for or, frankly, most American 
institutions were not prepared for. It created a lot of 
difficulties. It did lead to compassionate release, leaving 
people in home confinement.
    I don't know the specifics that you're mentioning, but we 
are, certainly, reviewing carefully how the Bureau is 
responding now to this dangerous circumstance of COVID-19.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, General.
    We found as it relates to the women in prison 6,600 are 
serving huge sentences of life with parole--life with parole, 
life without parole, virtual life, et cetera.
    Eighty-six percent of women in jail have experienced sexual 
violence. Seven-seven percent have experienced intimate partner 
violence. This has given a report as it relates to women of 
color. Can we have a more vigorous trauma/mental health 
protocol for women in prison--Federal?
    Attorney General Garland. So, Federal, yeah. So, I think an 
important part of the First Step Act requires us to be careful 
about those things and we have asked for additional funding for 
that purpose, and the Deputy Attorney General is monitoring the 
way in which the Bureau of Prisons spends that money and 
establishes those programs.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. Can I quickly ask with VAWA, 
which has not been passed by the House, would that passage help 
you do even a more effective job dealing with violence against 
women like domestic violence, which is Domestic Violence 
Awareness Month this month? Would it help you be more effective 
in prosecuting, moving forward.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. Yes, it would. We have 
strongly supported a reauthorization of the Violence Against 
Women Act.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I'm going to make just a few statements. 
Gun violence in children has accelerated in a 19-year high in 
2017. I would appreciate talking further about greater 
prosecution on gun trafficking and the proliferation of guns.
    Secondarily, hate crimes has surged as well, and we want to 
hear about the resources that are being used for hate crimes. 
Then as you well know that we have been the poster child in 
Texas for racial gerrymandering, and let me thank you for the 
work you've done under section 2.
    I just want to make sure that this is on the radar screen 
of the Justice Department dealing with that issue of 
redistricting.
    My question, finally, is the Texas abortion law. One of the 
worst components is the stalking of women.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time--the gentlelady's time 
has expired.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, I'm asking whether or not--
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Mr. Owens?
    Mr. Owens. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for coming before our 
Committee today.
    I like to take every opportunity that I have to share with 
our nation the making of a great community. I grew up in one in 
the Deep South 1960s. Though in the depths of Jim Crow 
segregation, it was a community that produced giant Americans 
like Clarence Thomas, Condoleezza Rice, Thomas Sowell, Walter 
Williams, and Colin Powell. This was not by accident, and it 
was also not rare. It was a community of faith, family, free 
market, and education.
    Education was the very core of our success. I was raised in 
a home with teachers. My dad was a college professor for 40 
years; my mom, a junior high school teacher. They were trusted 
to do what teachers have done throughout our history--to teach 
children how to read, write, add, subtract, and to think 
critically. Success in education was always based on parental 
involvement. It was both expected and welcomed.
    In my great State of Utah, these expectations of parents 
have not changed. We do not expect, nor will we tolerate, 
leftist teaching of our children behind our backs, the evil of 
CRT--how to hate our country and hate others based on skin 
color.
    Some of the most recent actions that the Department of 
Justice has taken against parents are concerning, and I would 
like to direct my questions around that topic. Some of the 
questions have been asked, and I do want to make it very clear 
to some of my constituents some of the concerns I have.
    We all agree that true threats and violence at school board 
meetings are inexcusable. Attorney General Garland, do you 
agree with the National School Board Association that parents 
who attend school board meetings and speak passionately against 
the inclusion of divisive programs like Critical Race Theory 
should be characterized as domestic terrorists?
    Attorney General Garland. I do not believe that parents who 
testify, speak, argue with, complain about school boards and 
schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind 
of criminals. Parents have been complaining about the education 
of their children and about school boards since there were such 
things as school boards and public education. This is totally 
protected by the First Amendment.
    I take your point that true threats of violence are not 
protected by the First Amendment. Those are the things we are 
worried about here.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Could I just say--
    Attorney General Garland. Those are the only things we are 
worried about here.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Thank you so much for that.
    Is there legal precedence for the Department of Justice to 
investigate peaceful protests or parental involvement at public 
school meetings?
    Attorney General Garland. Just to say again, we are not 
investigating peaceful protests or parent involvement in school 
board meetings. There is no precedent for doing that and we 
would never do that. We are only concerned about violence, 
threats of violence, against school administrators, teachers, 
staff, people like your mother, and teacher. That is what we 
are worried about.
    We are worried about that across the board. We are worried 
about threats against Members of Congress. We are worried about 
threats against police.
    Mr. Owens. Thank you very much. Thank you much for that.
    I am also a Member of the Education and Labor Committee. On 
October 7, Republican Members of this Committee sent you a 
letter, you and Secretary Cardona, expressing a concern about 
disparaging remarks that the Secretary had made against 
parents. In this letter, we requested that you brief the 
Education and Labor Committee before taking action on your 
threats to parents' lawful expression of legitimate concerns. 
Have you received that letter, and do you plan on testifying 
before the House Education and Labor Committee?
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry, I don't recollect the 
letter, but I will ask my staff to find out where it is.
    Mr. Owens. Okay. Let me just say this as I wrap this up. I 
do appreciate you being here, Attorney General. I watched a 
time, I was aware of a time when our race led our country in 
the percentage of men matriculating from college, Black men 
matriculating from college. I now have been aware of, in 2017, 
studies at the Department of Education that 75 percent of the 
Black boys in the State of California cannot pass standard 
reading and writing tests. That is a big shift. The difference 
is, in those days when I was growing up, parents were involved. 
There was a trust that we can send our kids to school, and they 
would be taught how to love our country, love each other, and 
love education. That has been changed drastically.
    I think I am going to implore parents out there: Get 
involved. Now is the time. Do not trust any other adults, 
particularly our educational system, for the future of your 
kids. Get involved. Fight for your rights, for your kids to be 
taught how to love our country, love education, and move 
forward.
    If we do that, we will get back to the old-school America, 
where we can really appreciate the fact of who we are and an 
education system that should be teaching us how to do that.
    I yield back my time.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Cohen?
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Welcome, General Garland. I feel it is a difficult position 
for me to question you because I have such respect for your 
acumen, your probity, and your rectitude, which is widely 
recognized, but there are questions I must ask.
    The Senate Judiciary Committee had a report recently about 
the attempts of President Trump to get Department of Justice 
employees involved in the Stop the Steal Campaign, trying to 
subvert the election. Are any of those people that were 
involved in that still at the Justice Department?
    Attorney General Garland. All the boldfaced names that I 
know about were political appointees, all whom are not at the 
Department. I don't know the answer otherwise, but I don't 
believe so, but--
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you would 
check into that. If they were and they participated in this in 
any way, that they should come to your attention and they 
should have certain sanctions, I believe.
    You have defended, and sought to continue to defend, 
President Trump in his defamation action brought by E. Jean 
Carroll. He called her a liar. He accused her of conspiring 
with the Democratic Party in her allegation of rape, and for 
what it was worth, he said she wasn't ``his type.'' His type 
is, apparently, fairly expansive. You are defending him.
    Do you think that the public sees that as a proper use of 
Department of Justice resources, when it has been shown that we 
are short on personnel in the Civil Rights Division and that we 
need that personnel, and yet, we are defending President 
Trump's defamation lawsuit by a woman who he has defamed?
    Attorney General Garland. Congressman, we are not defending 
the defamation made by the former President. As I have said 
publicly several times, sometimes being the Attorney General 
and sometimes being the judge, that means taking positions with 
respect to the law that are required by the law, but which you 
would not take as a private citizen.
    In this circumstance, the Justice Department's briefing is 
not about whether this was defamation, or it wasn't defamation. 
It is solely on the question, on the application of the Tort 
Claims Act. There is consistent precedent in the D.C. Circuit 
which holds that, even defamatory statements made during press 
conferences by public officials are within the scope of 
employment for that very narrow purpose and for that very 
narrow definition.
    Mr. Cohen. If I may, sir, and I appreciate that and I have 
read that, but this was an action he took as a private citizen. 
He is now again a private citizen. It was totally outside of 
anything to do with him being President. I hope you will look 
into it again because I think the public sees it as a mistake.
    The rule of law, you have made clear--and I know you 
believe this--it is one of the major tenets of the Department 
of Justice to uphold the rule of law. Michael Cohen has a 
felony on his record, spent time in prison for paying, at the 
direction of President Trump, hush money to Stormy Daniels and 
another woman. I believe that it is pretty well known that 
President Trump was ``Individual One,'' as described in the 
indictment. He couldn't be indicted because of a Department of 
Justice policy you don't indict a sitting President. He is no 
longer a sitting President.
    Do you believe that not looking into indicting Individual 
One equally, if not more, guilty than Michael Cohen, is not an 
abuse of equal protection under the law and an abrogation of 
the idea that the rule of law is a principle?
    Attorney General Garland. So, Congressman, a very important 
element of the rule of law is the norm of the Justice 
Department that we don't comment on whether we are 
investigating, what the status of investigations are, unless 
and until there is a public charge. That is important to 
protect everyone, whether it be a former President, an existing 
President, or public official, or a private individual.
    Mr. Cohen. I will accept that, but I hope that you will 
look at it because I believe that he is equally, if not more, 
guilty. It does seem that people get favored treatment if he is 
not prosecuted.
    Transparency is important as well. Amy Berman Jackson tried 
to release some records concerning Bill Barr's downplaying of 
Trump's obstruction in the Mueller investigation. This 
Committee was looking into the Emoluments Clause violations of 
the Trump Hotel and got an order to seize some records. Yet, 
the DOJ appealed.
    Do you believe that transparency, those two situations are 
ones where transparency was not permitted to the American 
public, as well as the whole Mueller Report, which hasn't been 
redacted?
    Attorney General Garland. With respect to Judge Jackson's 
ruling, I respect Judge Jackson. She was a former colleague. I 
respect her very much. We just have a difference of opinion 
with respect to the Freedom of Information Act's deliberative 
privilege exception. We believe that in that circumstance the 
memorandum which was given to Attorney General Barr is 
protected by that, so that all Attorneys General can receive 
honest advice from their subordinates. That matter is before 
the D.C. Circuit now. Everything I have just said is in our 
papers. So, I am not saying outside the record. It will be 
resolved by the D.C. Circuit.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Cohen. I yield back the balance of my time.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Johnson of Louisiana?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Mr. Attorney General, millions of Americans are deeply 
concerned today that, instead of addressing the most pressing 
issues facing our country, we are watching the Biden-Garland 
Justice Department be weaponized, that you are using your 
authorities now to advance far-left policies and attack 
Republican-led State actions and erode constitutional norms.
    The most recent case in point has been brought up this 
morning, your memorandum directing the FBI and other Department 
of Justice officials to get involved in political school board 
debates. It concerns us that it was issued just five days after 
the National School Board Association sent a letter to 
President Biden which referred to concerned parents as the 
equivalent of, quote, ``domestic terrorists and perpetrators of 
hate crimes.'' Unquote. Given the timing of all this, your memo 
appears to have been motivated by politics more than any 
pressing Federal law enforcement need. This is concerning to 
us, and it is worthy of investigation.
    It also concerns us that your actions may have been 
motivated by your family's financial stake in this issue. 
Published reports show that your son-in-law cofounded a company 
called Panorama Education. We now know that company publishes 
and sells Critical Race Theory and so-called anti-racism 
materials to schools across the country.
    It works with school districts nationwide to obtain and 
analyze data on students, often without parental consent. On 
its website, the company brags that it has surveyed more than 
13 million students in the United States, it has raised $76 
million from powerful investors, including people like Mark 
Zuckerberg, just since 2017.
    My first question is this: Are you familiar with title 5 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations which addresses the rules of 
impartiality for Executive Branch employees and officials?
    Attorney General Garland. I am very familiar with it. I 
want to be clear once again that there is nothing in this 
memorandum which has any effect on the kinds of curriculums 
that are taught or the ability of parents to complain about the 
kinds of--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I understand your position on the 
free speech of parents.
    Attorney General Garland. It is not a position; it is the 
words of the memorandum.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Wait. Wait just a minute. The 
question is, the thing that has concerned many of those parents 
that are showing up at these school board meetings, the very 
basis of their objection and their vigorous debate, as you 
mentioned earlier, is the curricula, the very curricula that 
your son-in-law is selling. So, to millions of Americans, I 
mean my constituents--I was home all weekend, and I got an 
earful about this. They are very concerned about that.
    Subpart E of that Federal regulation says, ``An employee of 
the Executive Branch is discouraged from engaging in conduct 
that's likely to affect the financial interest of someone close 
to them.'' Your son-in-law, your daughter clearly meets that 
definition.
    So, the question is, did you follow that regulation? Did 
you have the appropriate agency ethic official look into this? 
Did you seek guidance, as the Federal regulation requires?
    Attorney General Garland. This memorandum is aimed at 
violence and threats of violence.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I understand that, but did you--
    Attorney General Garland. There is no--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Excuse me. Did you seek ethics 
counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the 
financial interest of your family? Yes or no?
    Attorney General Garland. This memorandum does not relate 
to the financial interests of anyone. It is, again, it is not--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I take that as a no. I take that 
as a no.
    Attorney General Garland. The memorandum is against 
violence and threats of violence. I don't know--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Will you, Mr. Attorney General, 
will you commit to having the appropriate ethics designee 
review the case and make the results public?
    Attorney General Garland. This memorandum is aimed at 
violence and threats of violence.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I understand your talking point. 
You are not asking my question, Mr. Attorney General.
    Attorney General Garland. I am talking--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. With all due respect, will you 
submit to an ethics review of this matter? Yes or no?
    Attorney General Garland. There is no company in America 
or, hopefully, no law-abiding citizen of America who believes 
that threats of violence should not be prevented. There are no 
conflicts of interest that anyone could have--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. According to you, but, sir, with 
due respect, that is the purpose of the Federal regulation. We 
need objective third parties to review our activities. You 
don't get to make that decision yourself. It doesn't matter. 
You are the top, you are the chief law enforcement of this 
country. This raises questions in the minds of millions of 
Americans, and your impartiality is being called into question. 
Why would you not submit to a simple ethics review of that?
    Attorney General Garland. I am exquisitely aware of the 
ethics requirements.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You are not following them.
    Attorney General Garland. I have followed them and lived 
with them for the last 25 years--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Did you seek an ethics review of 
this or not?
    Attorney General Garland. I am going to say again, there 
are no conflicts of interest involved when the Justice 
Department asks the--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Okay, okay. According to you. I 
got that. I'm not trying to be disrespectful. You are not 
respecting our rules, our constitutional norms, and the Federal 
law that directly applies to your activities. This is a great 
concern.
    This is why people are losing faith in our institutions. 
They are losing faith in this Department of Justice. You and I 
both know, as constitutional attorneys, that if the people lose 
their faith in our system of justice, if they lose their faith 
in the idea that justice is blind, that there are not two 
standards, that there is one standard of the law and that 
everyone--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Would the Attorney General like to respond to the innuendo?
    Attorney General Garland. No. All I can say is I completely 
agree that the rule of law and respect for it is essential, and 
I will always do everything possible to uphold that and to 
avoid any kind of conflict of interest.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. You will not submit to an 
ethics--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I would just--
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Jordan. It wasn't innuendo. It was a question.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes. Thank you.
    Mr. Jordan. It was a question.
    Chair Nadler. The question is--the gentleman's time--
    Mr. Jordan. The editorial comments from the Chair about 
other people's questions is not appreciated by this side of the 
aisle.
    Chair Nadler. I asked the Attorney General--Mr. Johnson of 
Georgia?
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you for being here, General Garland.
    This summer the House passed H.R. 4, the John R. Lewis 
Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would strengthen sections 
2 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act. Also, this summer, the 
Department announced that it was suing the State of Georgia 
under section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I commend your 
Department for working to protect the rights of all Americans 
to vote.
    General Garland, section 2 of the Voting Rights Act 
prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on 
the basis of race, while section 5 of the Act mandates that 
changes to voting practices in certain covered jurisdictions be 
precleared by Federal authorities.
    With the Supreme Court having nullified section 5, in 
effect, the preclearance requirement, by ruling that the 
coverage formula was unconstitutional, does the Department view 
section 2 litigation alone as adequate to safeguard voting 
rights, or must Congress pass the John Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act and reinstate section 5 for voting rights to be 
adequately safeguarded?
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department supports 
that Act. Section 2 is what we have. Section 5 is what we need.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Knowing that the House has already 
passed H.R. 4, does the Justice Department support passage of 
the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act in the United 
States Senate?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    On September the 4th, 2021, DOJ announced an investigation 
into Georgia prison conditions. The New York Times reported 
that over 25 incarcerated persons died last year by confirmed 
or suspected homicide in Georgia prisons, and 18 homicides, as 
well as numerous stabbings and beatings have been reported this 
year. What is the timeline for this investigation? Will you 
commit to briefing the Committee and the Georgia delegation on 
the results of the inquiry?
    Attorney General Garland. We are doing that investigation. 
It is pursuant to a statute which authorizes the Civil Rights 
Division to bring those cases. I can't tell you what the 
timeline is. These things take a considerable amount of time. I 
am not sure what the legal requirements are with respect to 
briefings outside--this is now in court. So, I am not sure what 
additional material can be provided outside of what we provide 
in court. We will look into it for you.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Much of what is known about conditions in Georgia prisons 
is derived from social media posts, including video footage 
posted during a prison riot last year. How are social media and 
the use of smuggled smartphones by inmates aiding DOJ in its 
civil rights investigation of Georgia's prisons?
    Attorney General Garland. Sorry, I don't know the answer to 
that question, but I will see if I can ask at the Civil Rights 
Division how they are using that material.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. All right. Thank you.
    General Garland, the Sackler has used every trick in the 
book to escape accountability for their role in the opioid 
epidemic, including abusing the bankruptcy system to secure 
civil immunity from their victims. Now, Johnson & Johnson has 
scrambled its organizational charts to put tens of thousands of 
legal claims into bankruptcy to avoid further liability for its 
cancer-causing talcum powder.
    Do you believe culpable individuals and corporations should 
be allowed to use the shell game to shield themselves from 
liability?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about the 
second example that you gave. As to the first, the Justice 
Department's bankruptcy trustee has weighed in to appeal the 
decision to immunize from personal liability, and I think that 
matter is now pending in court.
    Mr. Johnson of Georgia. Thank you.
    Lastly, I will note that there has been a lot of discussion 
by my friends on the other side of the aisle about local school 
boards. I will point out the fact that there are reports that 
restrictions on the discussion of race and history in schools, 
these laws that are being put forward by Republican-led States, 
are causing administrators to tell teachers that, in addition 
to having an opposing view on slavery, now they are saying that 
you have got to include an opposing view on the Holocaust. If 
you have any books that are teaching about that, you have got 
to have an opposing view. This is the danger that we--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Jordan?
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    On March 25th, Joe Biden criticizes the Georgia election 
law. Three months later, the Department of Justice challenges 
it. September 1st, Joe Biden criticizes the new pro-life law in 
Texas. Eight days later, the Department of Justice challenges 
it. On September 29th, the political organization asked 
President Biden to involve the FBI in local school board 
issues. Five days later, the Department of Justice does just 
that.
    Mr. Attorney General, was it just a coincidence that your 
memo came five days after the National School Boards 
Association's letter went to the President?
    Attorney General Garland. So, we are concerned about 
violence and threats of violence across the board against 
school officials, against--
    Mr. Jordan. Is there any connection, Mr. Attorney General, 
with the school board letter, and then, five days later, your 
memo regarding school board issues?
    Attorney General Garland. Obviously, the letter, which was 
public and asked for assistance from the Justice Department, 
was brought to our attention, and it is a relevant factor in--
    Mr. Jordan. Who gave you the letter?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry?
    Mr. Jordan. How did you become aware of the letter? Who 
gave it to you?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I read about the letter in 
the news. That's how I read about--
    Mr. Jordan. Who at the White House told you to write the 
memo?
    Attorney General Garland. No one in the White House spoke 
to me about the memo at all. I am sure, at least I certainly 
would believe, that the White House communicated its concerns 
about the letter to the Justice Department. That is perfectly 
appropriate.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, that was my next question.
    Did you or anyone at the Justice Department discuss the 
memo with White House personnel or with anyone at the White 
House before the memo was sent?
    Attorney General Garland. I did not. I don't know whether 
anyone discussed the memo. I am sure that the communication 
from the National Association of School Boards was discussed 
between the White House and the Justice Department, and that's 
perfectly appropriate, just as--
    Mr. Jordan. Who are those individuals? Who at the White 
House talked with who at the Justice Department?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know. I don't know.
    Mr. Jordan. Did they talk to you? Did someone call you?
    Attorney General Garland. I think I have answered. No one 
from the White House spoke to me, but the White House is 
perfectly appropriately concerned about violence, just like 
they are concerned about violence in the streets. They make 
requests of the Justice Department in that respect, just like 
they are--
    Mr. Jordan. Did you or anyone at the Department of Justice 
communicate with the American Federation of Teachers, the 
National Education Association, the National School Boards 
Association prior to your memo?
    Attorney General Garland. I did not. I don't know as to--
    Mr. Jordan. You don't know if anyone else at the Justice 
Department did?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know.
    Mr. Jordan. Did you or anyone at the Justice Department 
communicate with those organizations--AFT, NEA, National School 
Boards Association--prior to the letter? Did you help the 
National School Boards Association put together the letter?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I have had no such 
conversations. I would be surprised if that happened, but I 
don't know.
    Mr. Jordan. Will FBI agents be attending local school board 
meetings?
    Attorney General Garland. No, FBI agents will not be 
attending local school board meetings, and there is nothing in 
this memo to suggest that. I want to, again, try to be clear. 
This memo is about violence and threats of violence. It is 
not--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, let me just point out, the same day you 
did the memo, the Justice Department sent out a press release, 
Monday, October 24--or excuse me--on Monday, October 4th, 2021. 
The press release says, ``Justice Department Addresses Violent 
Threats Against School Officials and Teachers.''
    Now, you said earlier to a question from one of my 
colleagues on the Republican side, that parents aren't domestic 
terrorists; we are not going to treat them that way. Let me 
just read from the third paragraph:

        According to the Attorney General's memorandum, the Justice 
        Department will launch a series of additional efforts in the 
        coming days designed to address the rising criminal conduct 
        directed towards school personnel. Those efforts are expected 
        to include the creation of a task force consisting of 
        representatives from the Department's Criminal Division, Civil 
        Rights Division, Executive Office of the U.S. Attorneys, the 
        FBI, the Community Relations Service, Office of Justice 
        Programs, and the National Security Division.

    Now, I find that interesting. You said there is no way you 
are going to be treating parents as domestic terrorists, but 
you have got the National Security Division in a press release 
regarding your memo that day.
    Attorney General Garland. My memo does not mention the 
National Security Division. It is addressed to--
    Mr. Jordan. I didn't say it did. I said the press release 
accompanying your memo that day from the Department of 
Justice--right here it is--talks about the National Security 
Division being part of this effort.
    Attorney General Garland. I want to be clear as I can be. 
This is not about what happens inside school board meetings. It 
is only about threats of violence, and violence aimed at school 
officials, school employees, and teachers.
    Mr. Jordan. The first sentence of your memo, the very first 
sentence, you said, ``In recent months, there's been a 
disturbing spike in harassment, intimidation, threats of 
violence.''
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Mr. Jordan. When did you first review the data showing this 
so-called disturbing uptick?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I read the letter, and we 
have been seeing over time threats--
    Mr. Jordan. Whoa, whoa, whoa. I didn't ask you--so, you 
read the letter. That is your source?
    Attorney General Garland. So, let me be clear. This is not 
a prosecution or an investigation--
    Mr. Jordan. Is there some study, some effort, some 
investigation someone did that said there's been a disturbing 
uptick? Or did you just take the words of the National School 
Boards Association?
    Attorney General Garland. When the National School Boards 
Association, which represents thousands of school boards and 
school board Members, says that there are these kind of 
threats, when we read in the newspapers reports of threats of 
violence, when that is in the context of threats of violence 
against all--
    Mr. Jordan. So, the source for this, for the very first 
line in your memo was the School Boards Association letter?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Deutch?
    Mr. Deutch. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, General Garland, for being here.
    What is so disturbing to me is the lack of concern about 
threats of violence. General Garland, let me give you some 
examples.
    In Brevard County, Florida, a school board member reported 
she was followed to her car, received messages from people 
saying, ``We are coming for you,'' and ``Beg for mercy.'' She 
was concerned when people were going behind her home and 
brandishing weapons.
    She is not alone, Attorney General. In Texas, a parent tore 
a teacher's mask from her face. In California, a parent 
verbally assaulted a principal and physically attacked a 
teacher who intervened, sending him to the hospital. In 
Arizona, a school official was told, ``You're going to get 
knifed.'' A fight broke out, a fist fight broke out after a 
school board meeting in Missouri.
    I appreciate, Attorney General Garland, your concern about 
threats to people who are doing their job, trying to help our 
kids get a good education. I am grateful to you for that.
    My question is, as our Governor in Florida claimed that 
your efforts are weaponizing the DOJ, I would like to know 
whether Governor DeSantis in the State of Florida has been 
cooperative in your efforts to protect our schools?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to the 
question that you are asking. We are trying to prevent violence 
and threats of violence. It is not only about schools; we have 
similar concerns with respect to election workers, with respect 
to hate crime, with respect to judges and police officers. This 
is a rising problem in the United States of threats of 
violence, and we are trying to prevent the violence from 
occurring.
    Mr. Deutch. Attorney General Garland, I appreciate it, and 
I am shocked and dismayed by the lack of concern by some of my 
colleagues on this Committee.
    Last year, Attorney General Garland, as you pointed out, 
over 93,000 people died of overdose in America. Young people 
15-24 saw a 48 percent increase. Earlier this year, I lost my 
nephew, Eli Weinstock, to an accidental overdose after he 
consumed a legal herbal supplement tainted with fentanyl.
    Last month, in response to the surge in overdoses caused by 
fentanyl and fake pills, the DEA issued its first Public Safety 
Alert in six years and has ramped up enforcement efforts, 
resulting in the seizure of over 11.3 million pills and 810 
arrests.
    In a Washington Post article entitled, ``With Overdose 
Deaths Soaring, DEA Warns About Fentanyl-, Meth-Laced Pills,'' 
from September 27th, and I ask unanimous consent to submit it 
for the record, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MR. DEUTCH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Deutch. In that article, it said that young people 
assume that a pill purchased online must be made in a reputable 
lab and must not be too dangerous. ``We are in the midst,'' 
according to DEA Administrator Milgram, ``We are in the midst 
of an overdose crisis, and the counterfeit pills are driving so 
much of it.'' Many of these counterfeit pills that alarm the 
DEA are being sold on social media sites, Snapchat, Tik Tok, 
Instagram, and YouTube. Milgram said that ``The drug dealer 
isn't just standing on a street corner anymore. It's sitting in 
a pocket on your phone.''
    Attorney General, what more should social media companies 
be doing to prevent young people from finding deadly drugs on 
their platform, and what more can you do about it?
    Attorney General Garland. With respect to the latter 
question, what we can do about it, the DEA has intensified 
focus on this problem of fentanyl crossing the border from 
Mexico, made from precursor which often come from the People's 
Republic of China. This is a very dangerous circumstance. Much 
of, I think, the article that you are referring to comes from a 
press conference that the DEA Administrator gave. A significant 
portion of these pills are a lethal overdose with one pill. 
This is an extraordinarily dangerous problem that we are 
putting our full attention to.
    Mr. Deutch. Attorney General Garland, I assure you that 
there is strong, notwithstanding much of what else you will 
hear today, strong bipartisan support in this Congress to 
combat the threats of fentanyl rising overdoses.
    Finally, yesterday the person who shot and killed 17 people 
at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School, injured 17 more, and 
traumatized my entire community, pleaded guilty in a Broward 
County courtroom. Many Parkland families strongly believe that 
gun companies must also be held responsible for the dangerous 
marketing of assault weapons.
    Unfortunately, the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms 
Act, known as PLCAA, has blocked countless victims and 
surviving family Members from their day in court. The law 
provides broad immunity against civil lawsuits unique to the 
gun industry.
    Unfortunately, the Department of Justice has a long history 
of intervening in civil cases filed by gun violence survivors 
to defend this law. The question is whether you believe, 
Attorney General Garland, that repealing PLCAA to hold 
gunmakers accountable for their products and the marketing of 
those products could improve gun safety in America.
    Attorney General Garland. So, the President has already 
stated his opposition to that statute, but our obligation in 
the Justice Department is to defend the constitutionality of 
statutes that we can reasonably argue are constitutional. That 
is the position that the Justice Department takes. Whether we 
like the statute or not, we defend the constitutionality of 
Congress' work.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Deutch. You support the passage of the John Lewis 
Voting Rights Act. I hope that you will support the repeal of 
PLCAA. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    At this time, we will take a very short five-minute break. 
We will return immediately after.
    The Committee stands in recess.
    [Recess.]
    Chair Nadler. Committee will come to order.
    Mr. Roy?
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, do you know where Broad Run High 
School is?
    Do you know where Broad Run High School is? It's in 
Ashburn, Virginia in Loudoun County, Virginia.
    Do you know why I care? Because I'm a graduate of Loudoun 
Valley High School. Despite my family having Texas reach back 
to the 1850s, I grew up in Loudoun. It was my home. Also, I 
care because on October 6th, a mere 15 days ago, inside Broad 
Run High School in Loudoun County, Virginia, a young girl was 
sexually assaulted.
    Attorney General Garland, are you aware that because 
Loudoun County prosecutors confirmed that the boy who assaulted 
this young girl in Broad Run High School is the same boy who 
wore a skirt and went into a girl's bathroom, sodomized, and 
raped a 14-year-old girl in a different Loudoun County high 
school on May 28? Are you aware of those facts?
    The boy was--are you aware of firmly--are you aware further 
that the boy was arrested and charged for the first assault in 
July but released from juvenile detention?
    Attorney General Garland. It sounds like a State case and 
I'm not familiar with it. I'm sorry.
    Mr. Roy. Do you agree with Loudoun parents who said it is 
not okay to allow a child that has been charged with a rape to 
go back into a school in that public school system?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know any of the 
facts of this case. The way you put it; it certainly sounds 
like I would agree with you. I don't know the facts of the 
case.
    Mr. Roy. Is the FBI or the Department of Justice 
investigating the Loudoun school board for violating civil 
rights or under authority of, say, the Violence Against Women 
Act?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't believe so. I don't know 
the answer to that question.
    Mr. Roy. I would ask why not because on June 22nd at a 
school board meeting in Loudoun County, Virginia, the 
superintendent, Scott Ziegler, declared in front of the father 
of the girl who had been raped that the predator transgender 
student or person simply does not exist and that, to his 
knowledge, we don't have any records of assaults occurring in 
our restrooms.
    When this statement bothered the father of the girl--I'm a 
father of a daughter, I believe you are, too sir--the girl who 
had been raped, sodomized in the bathroom of a high school by a 
dude wearing a skirt, that father reacted.
    Now, that father reacted by simply using a derogatory word. 
Would that statement have bothered you if your daughter had 
been raped if somebody said that it didn't occur?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know anything 
about the facts of this case. Derogatory words are not what my 
memorandum is about.
    Mr. Roy. Well, the victim's mother is heard on a cell phone 
video telling the crowd what happened. ``My child was raped at 
school,'' she said. Behind her, the victim's father seen being 
arrested, bloodied.
    This man is arrested. A 48-year-old plumber became the 
poster boy for the new domestic terrorism, the Biden 
Administration, the Administration in which you serve, has 
concocted to destroy anyone who gets in the way.
    As the Ranking Member said, the National School Boards 
Association wrote a letter to the President citing Smith's 
case. We all know this to be true.
    Attorney General, do you believe that a father attending a 
meeting exercising his First Amendment rights and, yes, getting 
angry about whatever lies are being told about his daughter 
being raped in the school he sent her to be educated in, that 
this is domestic terrorism? Yes or no.
    Attorney General Garland. No, I do not think that parents 
getting angry at school boards for whatever reason constitute 
domestic terrorism. It's not even a close question.
    Mr. Roy. To be clear, even if there's a threat of violence, 
do you believe that it is domestic terrorism that the FBI has 
the power to target American citizens in local disputes because 
a father gets mad?
    Now, I'm not saying Mr. Smith did that. In fact, he didn't. 
I can tell you how I sure as hell would have reacted. Mr. Smith 
should be given a medal for his calm to be able to hold back 
his anger.
    Are you aware that Loudoun County failed to report this 
sexual assault according to State law and are you investigating 
this?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I'm sorry. I don't know 
anything about this case.
    Mr. Roy. Are you aware that the Virginia General Assembly, 
run by Democrats, voted for--and Democrat Governor Ralph 
Northam signed a bill allowing schools to refrain from 
reporting instances of sexual battery, stalking, violation of a 
protective order, and violent threats occurring on school 
property?
    Is the FBI investigating how this may conflict with the 
Violence Against Women Act or conflict with your own domestic 
terrorism efforts?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything about the 
Virginia legislation.
    Mr. Roy. Do you agree with the following statement as a 
father or as a Cabinet member? Quote, ``You don't want parents 
coming into every different school jurisdiction saying that 
this is what should be taught here and that this is what should 
be taught here?''
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department has no 
role with respect to what curriculum is taught in the schools. 
This is a matter for local decision making and not for the 
Justice Department, and we are not in any way suggesting that 
we have any--
    Mr. Roy. I would note that that statement was by a 
Democratic gubernatorial candidate in the Commonwealth of 
Virginia.
    I would note that there are a number of other issues of 
concern of the Virginia Department of Education, what's being 
taught there, and the lack and the total failure of Loudoun 
County of reporting all these incidents that have occurred in 
Loudoun County public schools.
    I've got eight seconds left. Attorney General Garland, I 
sent a letter along with my colleague, Thomas Massie, regarding 
the incidents of January 6th, May 13th, and on July 15th, and 
have not gotten a response from the Department of Justice.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Roy. Do you commit to responding?
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Bass?
    Ms. Bass. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, in 2014, 12-year-old Tamir Rice 
was tragically and fatally shot by a Cleveland police officer.
    Since then, we have learned that despite multiple requests 
from prosecutors in the Civil Rights Division to investigate 
this shooting, the case stalled without approval from DOJ 
officials who had political concerns about high-visibility 
police misconduct cases.
    Ultimately, department officials essentially ran the clock 
out on the statute of limitations for Federal obstruction of 
justice charges. That following December, a whistleblower 
exposed this information to light and former AG Barr formally 
ended the department's inquiry into Tamir Rice's killing.
    This year, the family wrote a letter requesting that the 
department reopen the inquiry into Tamir's murder and to 
convene a grand jury. According to a department spokesperson, 
the letter has been received.
    I wanted to know if you could tell us today if the 
department has reviewed the letter and if you know when the 
department will respond to this request to reopen the inquiry.
    Attorney General Garland. So, when the department receives 
a letter like that it would go to the Civil Rights Division for 
examination, and in line with our general norm of not 
disclosing pending investigations--I don't know the answer to 
the question but even if I did I would not be able to give an 
explanation.
    Ms. Bass. Okay. Sadly, just yesterday, the AP released a 
report investigating how police use of force on children, and 
I'd like to ask the Chair--request unanimous consent to submit 
for the record this article, ``Tiny Wrists in Cuffs: How Police 
Use Force Against Children.''
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                        MS. BASS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Bass. Out of 3,000 cases analyzed where police use 
force--thank you--against children under 16, more than 50 
percent of them were African-American children. This is despite 
the fact that only 15 percent of the U.S. child population is 
African American.
    The American Psychological Association found that Black 
boys as young as 10 are more likely than their White 
counterparts to be perceived as guilty and face police 
violence.
    Use of force against children can include physical 
restraint, handcuffs, tasers, dogs, and even firearms. In one 
particularly distressing case cited in the AP report, law 
enforcement officers attempted to handcuff a six-year-old girl 
but were unable to because her hands were too small.
    These encounters can be traumatizing and impact children's 
perceptions of police, moving forward. I wanted to know, to the 
best of your knowledge are law enforcement officers trained on 
how to properly interact with children?
    There have been several reports of officers attempting to 
handcuff five-, six-, and seven-year-old children.
    Attorney General Garland. I'm afraid I don't know the 
answer because the Federal government almost never is involved 
in those kind of cases. However, we do have funding for use of 
force guidelines and that sort of thing, and we also have under 
our Office of Juvenile Justice funding for helping set up 
standards for such things. I don't know the specifics.
    Ms. Bass. Okay. Thank you very much.
    Last month, you announced a new policy prohibiting the 
department's Federal law enforcement components from using 
choke holds or carotid restraints. Thank you very much for 
that, considering we weren't able to pass the law in the 
Senate. Passed it twice here.
    I commend the department for taking these steps to reduce 
the potential for abuse of force by Federal law enforcement. 
That being said, we have seen other incidences such as in the 
tragic case of Elijah McClain where methods of restraints have 
been used with horrifying results.
    What is the department's policy regarding the use of 
sedatives or other chemical restraints by the department's 
Federal law enforcement components during an individual's 
arrest or detention?
    Just to remind you, the department in Colorado 
administered--required a paramedic to administer ketamine. It's 
my understanding that medication can only be prescribed by 
medical personnel, not by law enforcement. I want to know if 
there is any policy around prohibiting chemical restraints.
    Attorney General Garland. So, I'm not familiar with that 
specifically. The Deputy Attorney General is doing a review of 
all our use of force policies.
    That's where the carotid holds and the choke hold policies 
came out of, and I don't know about the question you're asking. 
I'd be happy to have staff get back to you.
    Ms. Bass. Great, and once again, I appreciate DOJ trying to 
step in where we weren't successful in the Senate in terms of 
the George Floyd Justice in Policing Act, and I wanted to know 
if you could expand on further action that the Department of 
Justice will be taking in lieu of us passing legislation.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I mean, there are a lot of 
things that we're doing. We have begun, again, to look at 
pattern and practice investigations of police departments for 
patterns of unconstitutional policing as provided by statute 
that Congress did pass and gave us the authority to do.
    We will, again, use consent decrees where they are 
appropriate. We have issued memoranda with quite specific 
standards about when they are appropriate and when not. They 
may include monitors, may not but, again, with new standards 
about when monitors are appropriate.
    So, I think that's one, certainly, very significant area. I 
think one of the other Members mentioned that we have had three 
of those proceedings and we also have in Texas a proceeding 
about the youth jails and the youth prisons. So, that follows 
up on your other question where we're doing those kinds of 
investigations.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Mr. Tiffany?
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being 
here today. Right over here in this corner.
    Attorney General Garland. Ah. Oh, thank you. Okay. Sorry.
    Mr. Tiffany. The equal protection clause was incorporated 
into the Fifth Amendment to prevent the Federal government from 
discriminating against Americans based on race. Do you agree 
that race is a suspect classification?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's what the Supreme 
Court has held for--since the late 1950s, early 1960s.
    Mr. Tiffany. Thank you very much for that. So, the so-
called American Rescue Plan earmarked billions of dollars in 
United States Department of Agriculture debt relief based 
solely on race. Why are you and your department defending the 
American Rescue Plan that discriminates based on race?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I believe you're referring to 
a District Court case in which that's at issue and so I can't 
really say any more than is in the pleadings in that case.
    If this has to do with whether there are additional 
indicia, in addition, to race that are used in making these 
grants and whether there is sufficient evidence of historical 
practices that will tie it to race.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, sir, it's very explicit in the bill that 
the Democrats wrote in this Congress and President Biden signed 
into law. They said, this is based on race. I mean, doesn't 
this meet the standard of that is pure discrimination--
    Attorney General Garland. The question--
    Mr. Tiffany. --that our country has tried to rid itself of?
    Attorney General Garland. I believe the question has to do 
with historical patterns of discrimination against Black 
farmers and I believe that the purpose of what's going on in 
the District Court now is examining the record to determine 
whether there is a sufficient record in that respect 
[inaudible] department believes there is.
    Mr. Tiffany. So, it sounds like you support the legislation 
then.
    Attorney General Garland. The question for us is the 
constitutionality of the legislation. That's the only question 
before us and the--as I said with respect to another statute, 
the Justice Department defends the constitutionality of 
statutes that can be reasonably construed as constitutional and 
we believe that statute can be, yes.
    Mr. Tiffany. The Chair confines me to five minutes, so I'd 
like to move on.
    Recently, you directed the FBI to coordinate with 14,000 
school districts after the National School Boards Association 
asked you to protect schools from the imminent threat of 
parents.
    Along with friends, neighbors, and constituents, I've 
attended multiple school board meetings throughout my district 
here over the last year. I have a child that's in public 
school, yet very concerned about some of the things that are 
going on.
    Yes, some of those school board meetings get heated. Are 
we, my friends, neighbors, constituents--are we domestic 
terrorists?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Tiffany. Are we criminals?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know the facts 
that you're talking about. The only way you're criminals is if 
you commit acts in violation of the statutes and that would 
mean threats of violence or actual violence. I'm sure you 
haven't done that, Congressman.
    Mr. Tiffany. Have States asked for help?
    Attorney General Garland. That's not--
    Mr. Tiffany. The School Boards Association did but have 
States asked for help?
    Attorney General Garland. So, we have State and local 
partners for all our matters. This is an assessment of whether 
there is a problem and there are Federal statutes involved and 
there are State statutes involved, and we are trying to prevent 
violence and threats of violence against public officials 
across a broad spectrum of kinds of public officials.
    Mr. Tiffany. As a former town board member, I can tell you 
that we know how to deal with this. We call our sheriff's 
department. We can handle it. It's really not a problem.
    William Castleberry, Vice President for Facebook, admitted 
that the company knowingly allows users to promote information 
on the platform instructing people on how to break U.S. 
immigration law. He said, ``We do allow people to share 
information about how to enter a country illegally or request 
information about how to be smuggled.'' Are there charges 
pending against Facebook?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, we can't, under the norms 
of the department, discuss whether there are pending 
investigations, actual investigations, the date of resolution.
    Mr. Tiffany. Well, let me help. I understand your answer 
that you're going to give there. Let me help you along.
    Title 8 U.S.C. 1324 makes it illegal for any person to 
knowingly encourage or induce an alien to come, to enter, or 
reside in the United States in violation of law or for 
individuals to aid or abet illegal entry.
    I would just say to you, you need to really take a look at 
Facebook and what they're doing to provide for greater illegal 
immigration that the Biden Administration continues to foster 
also.
    Let's get down to what's happening here in the United 
States of America. Under the Biden Administration, we have a 
two-tiered justice system. They do nothing about crime. There's 
more cash bail and nothing is being done about it.
    You talk about increased crime. It is skyrocketing across 
the country, including in our biggest city, Milwaukee, 
Wisconsin.
    Chair Nadler. Time of the gentlemen has expired.
    Mr. Tiffany. Yet, we have parents that are silenced. We 
have parents that are silenced.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Jeffries?
    Mr. Jeffries. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, General 
Garland, for your leadership, service to the country, and your 
presence here today.
    Earlier this year, the House passed on a bipartisan basis 
by a vote of 414 to 11 the Effective Assistance of Counsel in a 
Digital Error Act, which would limit the ability of the Bureau 
of Prisons to monitor private communications, email 
communications, between detainees in the BOP's custody and 
their attorneys.
    We concluded in a bipartisan way that this practice, which 
has occurred under Democratic Administrations and Republican 
Administrations, needs to be addressed.
    We are seeking technical assistance from the Department of 
Justice and the BOP. I sent a letter to you in that regard 
yesterday.
    I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chair, that it be entered into 
the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                      MR. JEFFRIES FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Mr. Jeffries. I look forward to your response and to 
working with the Department of Justice on this issue.
    Voter fraud, if proven, a serious crime that carries a 
five-year prison sentence. Is that right?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm not sure about the sentence. 
Yes, if proven, it's a serious crime.
    Mr. Jeffries. The Department of Justice is responsible for 
investigating and prosecuting voter fraud. Is that right?
    Attorney General Garland. With respect to Federal voting, 
yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Now, your predecessor, Bill Barr, publicly 
acknowledged that the Department of Justice had uncovered zero 
evidence of widespread fraud in the 2020 election. Is that 
still accurate?
    Attorney General Garland. It's my recollection that that is 
what he concluded, and I don't know of any evidence to the 
contrary.
    Mr. Jeffries. Right. There's no evidence that voter fraud 
impacted the outcome of the 2020 presidential election, True?
    Attorney General Garland. That's correct. That's correct.
    Mr. Jeffries. Is it fair to say that despite a global 
pandemic and record voter turnout, as prior Members of the 
Trump Administration have acknowledged the 2020 election was 
the most secure in American history?
    Attorney General Garland. That is the conclusion of the 
Justice Department and of the intelligence community and of the 
Department of Homeland Security. Yes.
    Mr. Jeffries. Despite the fact that there's no evidence of 
so-called fraud, this year at least 19 States have enacted 33 
laws making it harder for everyday Americans to vote.
    In the aftermath of the January 6th insurrection, instead 
of running toward democracy, there are people throughout this 
country, some, have run away from democracy and they've 
unleashed an epidemic of voter suppression across the land.
    So, let me just ask a few questions about some of the 
things that have occurred. How does banning churches and civic 
groups from giving food and water to voters, some of whom have 
been waiting in line for hours, prevent or address voter fraud?
    Attorney General Garland. So, Congressman, I don't want to 
talk too much about that because that is the subject of our 
lawsuit against the State of Georgia. You have identified a 
segment of that statute that we have challenges of being 
unlawful.
    Mr. Jeffries. Does restricting the times that someone can 
cast their vote to business hours when many Americans are at 
work relate in any way, rationally, to protecting the integrity 
of our elections?
    Attorney General Garland. Let me just talk generally about 
this. So, I believe that every eligible voter should be able to 
vote and that there should be no restrictions on voters that 
make it more difficult for them to vote unless they're 
absolutely necessary.
    The Justice Department is limited in its ability to bring 
cases. It must find discriminatory intent or effect. So, those 
are the kind of cases that are covered by section 2.
    As a general matter, my view is that everyone should have 
the ability to vote as readily and easily as possible.
    Mr. Jeffries. You testified earlier today that, in fact, 
one of the founding reasons for the Department of Justice is to 
defend civil rights in the nation. In that particular context, 
I believe it was in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War 
where the rights of African Americans were under assault.
    We have come a long way. We still have a long way to go. We 
still see race baits, assaults on civil rights, taking place 
today, and I would just urge the Department of Justice, as it 
has been doing under your leadership to continue to do all 
that's possible to defend and protect the integrity of the 
right to vote.
    Let me just also comment that there are some who continue 
to lie about the election. They're lying about COVID. They're 
lying about the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Attorney General, you're a man of great integrity, and 
under your leadership the Department of Justice is off to a 
good start. We appreciate the work that you're doing. Keep it 
up on behalf of the American people and the Constitution.
    I yield back.
    Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Congressman.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    There is a technical issue with the Zoom feed. So, we will 
recess for less than five minutes to resolve this issue.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney General, I 
am right here. I was going to do another subject in my 
questioning, Mr. Attorney General, but I have been so concerned 
about the interaction about the October 4 memo that I am going 
to follow up on that, if I might.
    The memo is a one-pager. You read it before it was issued, 
I assume.
    Attorney General Garland. I certainly did, and I worked on 
it.
    Mr. Bishop. Okay. Now, in that memo you issued a directive 
to the FBI. You directed the FBI to conduct meetings with 
leaders of all levels of government across the country, in 
every judicial district to strategize against an alleged trend 
of, quote, ``harassment, intimidation, and threats of 
violence.'' You didn't cite examples to distinguish legitimate 
First Amendment activity from criminal activity, nor certainly 
examples of a nationwide scope or severity of such acts to 
constitute a rise or spike in criminal activity, which you 
alleged in the memo, certainly not one that would warrant 
nationwide action by the FBI.
    Here you have acknowledged that you relied in part on your 
knowledge of the National School Boards Association letter, 
which by the way characterized this activity nationwide as 
domestic terrorism, and maybe some vague awareness of other 
news reports.
    You have offered the justification here also that this was 
not the initiation of an investigation, as if that; I don't 
submit it doesn't, excuse the preeminent law enforcement 
official in the country issuing a memo of that sort. Other than 
a brief nod to the concept of First Amendment right you 
included no guidance in your memo how the FBI should go about 
avoiding chilling, intimidating, legitimate First Amendment 
activity. You have even distanced yourself from the DOJ's press 
release on your memo today in its reference to the National 
Security Division.
    So, we come to this: You directed the FBI to act with 
speed. Meetings in 30 days is what you said. You directed the 
FBI to have these meetings nationwide, coordinated by United 
States attorneys. Three days later I and 30-some-odd Members of 
Congress asked for advanced notice of these meetings, 
indications of what content would be shared there.We asked for 
that response within 10 days given the time frame that you set 
forth in your memo. More than half of that time has passed; no 
response. Are these meetings occurring?
    Attorney General Garland. So, let me just be clear again 
here. This memo is expressly addressed against threats of 
violence and violence. The Federal statutes that are relevant--
    Mr. Bishop. I am sorry--
    Attorney General Garland. --prosecutors are well aware of 
where the First Amendment line is. This is addressed to 
prosecutors and Members of law enforcement. These are the kinds 
of statutes that we deal with every single day.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, I am not sure--
    Attorney General Garland. They know the line.
    Mr. Bishop. --you deal with it in this way, Mr. Attorney 
General. Are the meetings occurring? Do you know?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know whether they are 
ongoing, but I expect and hope that they are going, yes, 
because I did ask that they take place.
    Mr. Bishop. So, you do not have any report or you have not 
pursued at all to know what the progress is of your directive 
to do this within 30 days, have meetings in every judicial 
district across the country? You just don't know?
    Attorney General Garland. I doubt there have been meetings 
in every jurisdiction. I expect there have been in some 
jurisdictions. I hope so because that is the purpose of the 
memo, to have meetings to discuss whether there is a problem, 
to discuss strategies, to discuss whether local law enforcement 
needs assistance or doesn't need assistance. That is the 
purpose of these meetings.
    Mr. Bishop. Doesn't that make it worse, Mr. Attorney 
General?
    Attorney General Garland. Doesn't that make--
    Mr. Bishop. You don't even know if these meetings that you 
directed urgently to occur are even occurring. What is left 
indeed of the memo except your use of Federal law enforcement 
moral authority to stigmatize a widespread movement of First 
Amendment activity, at least a significant portion of which is 
directed--is opposed to the ideology upon your son-in-law makes 
his living? That is the problem.
    It is no answer, I would submit, Mr. Attorney General. If 
you were on the bench, you would not accept an answer from 
counsel that simply repeated your opposition to threats of 
violence nationwide.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the memorandum 
specifically--
    Mr. Bishop. I haven't finished my--
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I am sorry.
    Mr. Bishop. --point or my question, sir.
    Attorney General Garland. I thought you did. I apologize.
    Mr. Bishop. In fact, you would ask of counsel an answer 
that responds to the point. Without having a raft or a 
significant volume of evidence you have directed the FBI to act 
nationwide concerning a matter on which there is widespread 
First Amendment activity. There is a movement among school 
parents. That seems to me to be--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time--
    Mr. Bishop. My time is expired.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Cicilline?
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being 
here. Before I begin, I just want to take a moment to 
acknowledge the stark contrast between the current Justice 
Department and the Justice Department in the prior 
Administration.
    During the Trump Administration we saw over and over and 
over again evidence of Mr. Trump's personal grudges dictating 
DOJ policy, particularly how the department was often 
weaponized to promote Mr. Trump's own corrupt interests and 
punish those who would speak against him.
    We hear public officials often speak about how we must 
ensure justice is blind, but it is almost laughable to promise 
that to the American people if our own Justice Department is 
manipulated as it was during the Trump presidency.
    So, I want to say thank you to you because we now have an 
Attorney General who will not let the department be reduced to 
a president's personal law firm or criminal defense team, but 
instead understands his solemn obligation to the American 
people and to the rule of law. Though I have disagreed with 
some of the decisions you have made, I have never had any doubt 
about your integrity or impartiality. So, I thank you for your 
service.
    My first question, Mr. Attorney General, is approximately--
actually in 2020 about 6,000 firearms were sold to prohibited 
purchasers because of the Charleston loophole where the 
background check doesn't come back within 72 hours. I have a 
piece of legislation, the Unlawful Gun Buyer Alert, that would 
require the NIC System to notify the local FBI office and the 
local law enforcement agency that someone who is prohibited 
from buying a gun because they are a convicted felon or some 
other disqualifying information has actually got a gun.
    That bill is pending in the House, but would it be possible 
for the Justice Department, for you to initiate the 
promulgation of a regulation that would require the NIC System 
to share information on prohibited purchasers so that we can in 
fact respond to people who illegal bought guns in the thousands 
each year?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know whether we are able 
to do that or not, but we will certainly look into it. We are 
certainly interested in closing all loopholes that would allow 
people who are prohibited from obtaining firearms, from 
obtaining them.
    Mr. Cicilline. Thank you. I will follow up with your staff.
    As you know, Mr. Attorney General, approximately a year ago 
the Judiciary Committee released a 450-page report detailing 
the lack of competition play in the digital marketplace. This 
report was a culmination of a 60-month bipartisan investigation 
and the report concluded that decades of flawed antitrust 
jurisprudence had made it nearly impossible for antitrust 
enforcers and private players to get courts to stop harmful 
mergers and anticompetitive conduct in the digital markets. 
Courts have become fixated on market definition litigation even 
where there is direct evidence that a firm possesses market 
power and is engaging in anticompetitive conduct.
    I know you cannot express support for specific pieces of 
legislation without a lengthy White House process, but my 
question is do you believe Congress should update the antitrust 
laws to give enforcement authorities additional tools and 
courts additional guidance on how to ensure free and fair 
competition in the digital economy?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, we are supportive of 
updating the antitrust laws. I can't speak specifically without 
looking at particular ones. I would say though that the 
antitrust laws do permit us to be quite aggressive with respect 
to some of the kinds of exclusionary policies/practices that 
you are talking about, mergers. We have been quite aggressive 
since we came to office. I have also asked for in the fiscal 
year 2022 budget for additional personnel for the division so 
that we can aggressively police this area.
    I mean one particular problem is there are huge--new number 
of merger filings, and for us to possibly review the 
competitive or anticompetitive nature of those filings we are 
going to need additional people and additional assistance.
    Mr. Cicilline. Yes, and we are fighting very hard to be 
sure that you have additional resources to get this work done.
    In March the Subcommittee on Antitrust heard testimony from 
Judge Diane Wood of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh 
Circuit. Judge Wood explained that the Supreme Court's 
antitrust jurisprudence over the past four decades has 
contributed to under-enforcement. She told the Subcommittee 
that legislative changes to the statutes may be appropriate, 
and I quote, ``so that anticompetitive practices do not go 
unredressed because antitrust standards are overly onerous or 
the available remedies are either too weak or otherwise 
ineffective.''
    Can you identify for us; and if you can't do it today, if 
you could give this some thought, are there challenges the 
department faces in enforcing the antitrust laws currently? Are 
there particular types of categories of anticompetitive 
practices that are going unaddressed because of these 
challenges? What additional tools or authorities does the 
department need to overcome these challenges and aggressively 
enforce antitrust law?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I am not in a position to 
specify those now, but our staff will get back to you. I would 
be happy to do that and have the--
    Mr. Cicilline. Great. Then, finally, Mr. Attorney General, 
I want to say, as Congressman Deutch said, I am grateful for 
all your work to make sure that school board meetings and 
teachers and school staff are kept safe and the notion that is 
not an appropriate responsibility for the Department of Justice 
is curious to me.
    Finally, Mr. Gohmert made some reference to the peaceful 
sit-in that we conducted with the legend John--the late John 
Lewis to protest inaction on gun violence legislation. To 
equate that to the deadly insurrection, a violent bloody 
insurrection that resulted in the death of five people in an 
effort to undermine our democracy I think was disgraceful. With 
that I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Buck?
    Mr. Buck. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, I would like to direct your attention 
to the easel behind me. The first painting is a Claude Monet.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I can't read any of 
the words.
    Mr. Buck. You don't need to.
    Attorney General Garland. Okay.
    Mr. Buck. You just need to look at this great painting 
right--
    Attorney General Garland. It is a very beautiful painting.
    Mr. Buck. It is beautiful. It is listed at Christie's for 
$700,000. Now, Claude Monet was the founder of the 
impressionist movement, something I didn't know until I 
researched it.
    The second painting is a Degas, another world-renowned 
artist, and this painting sold for $500,000.
    The third painting; you may recognize this name, is a 
Hunter Biden.
    [Laughter.]
    Attorney General Garland. I don't recognize the painting.
    Mr. Buck. The Hunter Biden painting sold for $500,000 also. 
Now, you may think that such an exclusive--that when Hunter 
Biden is in such exclusive company that he would have a 
background, artistic training for example. You would be wrong 
if you thought that. You might think that he had some sort of 
apprenticeship with a world-renowned artist, but you would be 
wrong again if you thought that. Or perhaps that he has been 
selling his works for years, and again unfortunately you would 
be wrong.
    It turns out that in 2019 Hunter Biden couldn't find a 
gallery to list his art. What happened in 2020 that changed all 
that, his dad became President of the United States. Now, a 
single piece of art from Hunter Biden sells for more than the 
average American home.
    This art arrangement is so suspicious that the Obama 
Administration ethics czar Walter Shaub tweeted on July 10 of 
this year, Hunter Biden should cancel this art sale because he 
knows the prices are based on his dad's job. Shame on POTUS if 
he doesn't ask Hunter to stop. By the way, Mr. Attorney 
General, this is the same Hunter Biden who is being 
investigated by your department and the IRS for tax fraud. 
Selling fakes or selling--or having a fake skill set is nothing 
new to Hunter Biden. When his dad was Vice-President, Hunter 
Biden received $50,000 a month from a Ukrainian oligarch to sit 
on a board of an energy company. What was Hunter Biden's 
background in energy? Nada. Nothing. Zilch.
    Soon after he received his dad--soon after he and his dad 
got off Air Force Two in China, Hunter Biden became a private 
equity guru and assisted with a Chinese private equity firm 
linked to the Chinese Central Bank. You might ask what his 
background was with Pacific Rim investments or the Chinese 
Central Bank. Nothing.
    With this dubious track record inquiring minds might 
question why any art gallery would want to sell Hunter Biden's 
art. Well, this particular art gallery had a COVID relief loan 
more than doubled by the Biden Administration. In a survey of 
more than 100 art galleries in New York's 10th Congressional 
District this particular art gallery received by far the 
largest SBA disaster loan. As an aside, Mr. Attorney General, 
the Member who represents the 10th Congressional District is 
none other than Chair Nadler.
    Mr. Attorney General, who buys Hunter Biden's art? Who 
benefits? What benefits do they receive from the Biden 
Administration? The American people want to know.
    I have sent a letter to the Department of Justice before 
your tenure asking them to appoint a special counsel to 
investigate Hunter Biden. I have today sent a letter to you, 
and I am asking you now will you appoint a special counsel to 
investigate Hunter Biden?
    Attorney General Garland. For the same reason that I am not 
able to respond to questions about investigations of the former 
President or of anyone else I am not able to discuss any 
investigations, pending or otherwise with respect to any 
citizen of the United States.
    Mr. Buck. Mr. Attorney General, I worked for the Department 
of Justice for 15 years. You are allowed to tell us whether you 
will appoint a special counsel. You may not tell us whether you 
are investigating or not investigating a particular matter, but 
you are allowed to tell us whether you will appoint a special 
counsel. That is my question.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, apparently, I just received 
the letter today from you and will be taking it under 
advisement, but I wasn't aware that you had sent me a letter.
    Mr. Buck. Okay. I appreciate it.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back, but I would like to first place 
into the record two articles, one from Vox, ``Why Obama's 
former ethics czar is highly critical of Hunter Biden's 
lucrative art sales,'' and the second from the New York Post, 
``Art gallery repping Hunter Biden received $500K federal COVID 
loan, records show.''
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MR. BUCK FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back?
    Mr. Buck. I yield back, yes.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Swalwell?
    Mr. Swalwell. General Garland, you may not get these four 
hours back, but you may get some art history credit for today.
    You had a job before becoming a judge, which I think is the 
best job in the world. You were a prosecutor. When you were a 
prosecutor for the department I imagine there were times where 
witnesses who you had lawfully subpoenaed did not show up to 
court. Do you recall that ever occurring?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, sir.
    Mr. Swalwell. When that would occur, you would ask the 
judge to enforce a bench warrant and have them brought in?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, but generally that did not 
get that far. Yes, that is true.
    Mr. Swalwell. That is one remedy you would have if someone 
does not show up?
    Attorney General Garland. It is.
    Mr. Swalwell. Today as we sit here in this room in dozens 
of courtrooms across America your prosecutors have that right 
if a witness under a lawful subpoena does not come in to ask 
for a warrant for that witness' arrest?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, again you are asking me 
about a particular case and what I can say is what the 
department has said about this on the record, which is if the 
House of Representatives vote to refer a criminal contempt 
matter to the department, we will review it and act according 
to the law and the facts as the principles of prosecution 
require.
    Mr. Swalwell. General Garland, then you would agree that a 
subpoena lawfully issued by an article II administrator is to 
be treated the same as a subpoena lawfully issued by article I?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, since we are really now 
talking about a very specific case, I don't want to get into 
the law.
    Mr. Swalwell. I don't want to go into specific cases. I 
just want to say if a Congress at any time in history issues an 
article I subpoena, do you agree that generally that should be 
treated the same as an article II subpoena?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, there is different case law 
about both, and we would be following the Supreme Court's case 
law on the subject in making our determinations.
    Mr. Swalwell. General Garland, in 1973 an office of legal 
counsel memo outlined the parameters for indicting a sitting 
President and said that you could not do that. Twenty-seven 
years later that memo was updated to reaffirm that principle. 
Twenty-one years later we have seen a former President test the 
bounds of presidential authority. I am wondering would you 
commit to revisiting that principle, whether or not a President 
while sitting should be indicted?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, like an office of legal 
counsel memorandum, particularly when they have been reviewed 
and reaffirmed by Attorneys General and Assistant Attorneys 
General, or different parties, it is extremely rare to reverse 
them. We have the same kind of respect for our precedents as 
the courts do. I think it is also--would not normally be under 
consideration unless there was an actual issue arising, and I 
am not aware of that issue arising now. So, I don't want to 
make a commitment on this question.
    Mr. Swalwell. I don't want to talk about any specific case, 
but just in general should a former President's suspected 
crimes once they are out of office be investigated by the 
Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't want to make any 
discussion about any particular former President or anything 
else. The memorandum that you are talking about is limited to 
acts while the person was in office. That is all I can say.
    Mr. Swalwell. Should that decision be made only after an 
investigation takes place rather than deciding beforehand a 
general principle of we are not going to investigate a former 
President at all? Would you agree that if there are facts, 
those should be looked at?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, you are pushing me very 
close to a line that I do not intend to cross. We always looked 
at the facts and we always look at the law in any matter before 
making a determination.
    Mr. Swalwell. General Garland, my colleague Mr. Deutch 
asked you about gun manufacturer liability and I wanted to 
follow up and ask does the recent Pennsylvania decision, which 
has been vacated and reargued, change your office's reasoning 
and thinking? Would you commit to reexamining DOJ's posture in 
such cases as the law changes in different States?
    Attorney General Garland. I am going to ask you to refresh 
my recollection as to the recent Pennsylvania decision about 
which you are speaking. I am sorry.
    Mr. Swalwell. Sure.
    Attorney General Garland. I have a lot of cases in my head, 
but that one doesn't came right up.
    Mr. Swalwell. Last year a Pennsylvania State appeals court 
held the Protecting Lawful Commerce in Arms Act 
unconstitutional. So, just asking in light of that would you 
commit to reexamining as new cases come in?
    Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department has taken 
the position in court that we are going to defend that statute 
as constitutional, and I don't see a ground for changing our 
mind. I expect that the considerations that the judges in the 
Pennsylvania State Court were brought to the attention of the 
solicitor general's office.
    Mr. Swalwell. Thank you. In the beginning you referenced 
the January 6 prosecutions and just on behalf of my law 
enforcement family and the law enforcement officers who work in 
this building I want to thank you for continuing to pursue 
those investigations and arrests.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Fitzgerald?
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Attorney General, thank you.
    Attorney General Garland. Appreciate your waving at me 
because--
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you for being here. Right. I think we 
all agree that no one should be above the law and recent 
reports had Former President Clinton in California; he fell 
ill, and was also reported that he had been there to raise 
money for the Clinton Foundation.
    In 2017, the Attorney General Jeff Sessions launched a 
probe to scrutinize whether donors to the Clinton Foundation 
had been given special treatment by Hillary Clinton when 
Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State. This investigation 
wound down in January of 2020.
    In September of 2020 press reports indicated that Special 
Counsel Durham's team was seeking information on the FBI's 
handling of the Clinton Foundation investigation.
    During your confirmation hearing, if you remember, you were 
asked if you would actually ensure that the special counsel, 
Special Counsel Durham, would have sufficient staff and other 
resources to complete that investigation.
    Now, obviously you have had more than six months on the 
job. Can you commit to allowing Special Counsel Durham's 
investigation to proceed and obviously free from any political 
influence?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, let me just say first about 
the money. We are now in a new fiscal year and, as everyone 
knows, Mr. Durham is continuing. So, I think you can readily 
assume that his budget has been approved. We don't normally 
make a statement about those things, but since he is still in 
action the provisions of the regulation which require approval 
of his budget for the next fiscal year are public. So, I think 
you can draw--you would know if he weren't continuing to do is 
work.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. I will take that as a confirmation that the 
investigation is continuing into the Clinton Foundation, and I 
think that is important that we ultimately get to the bottom 
of--
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I don't want to say what it 
is about. That is up to Mr. Durham. I am not determining what 
he is investigating.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. Very good. Very good. If I can move on, 
another thing that came up during your confirmation hearing: 
You said that the DOJ would be under your, quote, ``protection 
for the purpose of preventing any kind of partisan or improper 
motive in making any kind of investigation or prosecution.'' 
That is the end of your quote.
    I think there are many people that I interact with on a 
regular basis back in my congressional district that--it 
appears that when you have tackled and targeted specific areas 
since your tenure began, it has been about election integrity 
measures, pro-life initiatives, and what has been discussed 
many times here today, the silencing of parents that are very 
upset about what is going on with some of the school boards.
    So, it appears that you said one thing and made that 
commitment in your confirmation hearings, but at the same time 
it seems that DOJ is specifically targeting many issues that I 
think I have described as conservative issues. I am wondering 
if you could respond to that.
    Attorney General Garland. On the last point I hope you can 
assure your constituents that we are not trying--the Justice 
Department is not trying to chill their--whatever objections 
they want to make to school boards. Our only concern is 
violence and threats of violence. So, if you could make that 
clear to your constituents, perhaps that would help on that 
question.
    On the other question some of these are policy differences 
that are natural between one Administration and another, 
different views about what the law is. There will be people 
from the Democratic Party who disagree with my determinations, 
and you have already heard some of those. There will be people 
from the Republican Party who will disagree with my 
determinations about our filings in civil cases. That comes 
with the territory. That is what happens to the Attorney 
General.
    I am doing my best to ensure that we make decisions on the 
facts and the law. When I said I would protect our people from 
partisan influence with respect to investigations and 
prosecutions, I meant that, and I continue to do that 
regardless of which side of the aisle is criticizing me for it.
    Mr. Fitzgerald. An earlier Member said that he was very 
concerned about the previous Administration weaponizing DOJ, 
and I would say I share the same concerns and I would certainly 
hope that your department would maybe be much more sensitive 
many of these actions.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Lieu?
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you, Chair Nadler.
    Thank you, Attorney General Garland for your outstanding 
public service. My wife is a school board member. She has been 
targeted with deeply disturbing death threats. The lack of 
concern by my Republican colleagues for the safety of teachers, 
school officials, and school board Members is dangerous, 
disgusting, and utterly shameful. Thank you, Attorney General 
Garland, for seeking to protect Americans from violence and 
threats of violence.
    I would like to ask you some questions now about racial and 
ethnic profiling. In 2014 and 2015 Asian-Americans such as 
Sherry Chen and Professor XI and others were wrongfully 
arrested by Department of Justice, charged with alleged spying 
for China, and then months later all their charges were 
dropped, but not after their lives were ruined and they 
incurred massive legal bills.
    As we looked into these cases the only thing that was the 
same among all of them is that the defendants happened to look 
like me. They happened to be Asian-American. In response then 
Attorney General Loretta Lynch ordered implicit bias training 
for all her law enforcement agents and prosecutors at 
Department of Justice.
    My question to you is will you commit to implementing 
implicit bias training at the Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I thank you for your 
comments. As you know, I am greatly attuned to this problem. 
That is why the very first memorandum I issued when I came to 
the Justice Department was to investigate hate crimes on a 
nationwide basis, and particularly against the AAPI community. 
That is why we have made all the changes required by the NO 
HATE Act, most of them before the Act was even passed because 
we were already on that route. There is no excuse for this kind 
of discrimination, and it is the obligation of the Justice 
Department to protect people.
    Mr. Lieu. Thank you. So, let me bring attention to a study 
that came out that shows that this problem is wider than we 
feared. It was conducted by a visiting scholar to the South 
Texas College of Law and the Committee of 100, a nonprofit. 
They analyzed economic espionage cases brought by the 
department between 1996 and 2020 and the findings are deeply 
disturbing.
    This study showed that one in three Asians accused of 
espionage were falsely accused. It found that Asian defendants 
were punished twice as severely as non-Asian defendants. It 
showed that the Department of Justice issued press releases 
much more frequently under these cases if the defendant 
happened to have an Asian name versus a Western name.
    So, I am going to ask you again will you commit to 
implementing implicit bias training that then-Attorney General 
Loretta Lynch had directed at the Department of Justice?
    Attorney General Garland. So, my understanding is that that 
was required by the--I think--I can't remember the name, maybe 
the No FEAR Act. I can't remember the name. The bar on doing 
such training was rescinded by the President in an Executive 
Order on the very first day of the new Administration. So, of 
course we will go ahead with what was required by the statute, 
including implicit bias training, yes.
    Mr. Lieu. So, if you could look into that more, I would 
appreciate it. So, thank you.
    I would like to now talk about a case brought under the 
China Initiative that happened under your watch, the case of 
Professor Anming Hu, who was also wrongfully accused of spying 
for China. Evidence against him was so flimsy that a Federal 
judge dismissed the case under a Rule 29 motion.
    I am a former prosecutor. I know that those motions are 
rarely if ever granted. The judge found that even viewing all 
the evidence in a light most favorable to the prosecution no 
rational jury could conclude that the defendant violated the 
law.
    If we look at one of the darkest periods in our nation's 
history, over 100,000 Americans who happened to be of Japanese 
descent were interned because our government could not figure 
out the difference between the Imperial Army of Japan and 
Americans who happened to be of Japanese descent.
    I am asking the department not to repeat that similar type 
of mistake and I am asking you if you would look into the China 
Initiative to make sure it is not putting undue pressure on the 
department to wrongfully target people of Asian descent.
    Attorney General Garland. Internment of Japanese-Americans. 
A terrible stain on American people and on the American 
government, on American history. I can assure you that kind of 
racist behavior will not be repeated.
    There is a new Assistant Attorney General for the National 
Security Division who is pending confirmation. I am sure that 
when he is confirmed, which hopefully will be in the next few 
days; maybe in the next few weeks, he will review all the 
activities in the department, in his division and make a 
determination of which cases to pursue and which ones not. I 
can assure you that cases will not be pursued based on 
discrimination, but only on facts justifying them.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Mr. Lieu. Mr. Chair, may I ask unanimous consent to enter 
three documents into the record?
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Lieu. Okay. The first is a study I referenced called, 
``Racial Disparities in Economic Espionage Act Prosecutions: A 
Window Into a New Red Scare,'' dated September 21, 2021.
    The second is an article entitled, ``Professor Acquittal--
Is China Initiative out of control?'' dated September 25, 2021.
    The final document is a letter from 177 Stanford faculty 
Members outlining why the China Initiative is discriminatory 
and harms American competitiveness dated September 8, 2021. 
Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                        MR. LIEU FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Bentz?
    Mr. Bentz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here today. Let 
me begin by saying I was disappointed with your memo regarding 
school boards and parents, first because, like you, I am a 
parent of two wonderful kids. I attended too many school board 
meetings to count. I attended many more as an eight-year member 
of school boards, really long years I might add. I can assure 
that I welcomed parents' involvement, and I appreciated their 
attendance. I listened to their--I listened to them carefully. 
The fact that they took the time to be there after long days at 
work spoke volumes about how much they care for their kids.
    No one condones violence, threats of harm, or intimidation, 
but what has been repeatedly said today, is that your memo is 
far too aggressive, far too loose in its language, far too 
likely to chill the very parental participation we on school 
boards so--did so much to encourage. I would encourage a 
supplemental memo.
    Second, this goes to the assertion at the end of your memo 
that it is the department's steadfast commitment to protect all 
people in the United States from violence, threats of violence, 
other forms of intimidation, and harassment. This goes to the 
prioritization of the activities of your department. I would 
just suggest that we have a situation in Oregon that is going 
to be copied across the United States.
    It involves the illegal growing and production of marijuana 
and cannabis on an almost unbelievable industrial scale based 
in large, and probably irreplaceable part the miserable 
suffering of thousand, if not tens of thousands of people 
coming across the border illegally and then pressed into 
indentured servitude by cartels.
    This is not me making this up. This is coming from any 
number of law enforcement agencies in Oregon. We will not go 
into the challenges on the border, other than I wish we had a 
border. I simply want to say that the people that are coming 
across by the thousands are being put to work in situations 
that are immensely bad. The FBI, by the way I have spoken with, 
but your department needs to be doing something about it at all 
the levels you can.
    I am tempted to each time I go through one of the horrible 
things that are happening to these people refer back to the 
memo regarding the school board because it seems to me there 
has been a misprioritization. We are talking about thousands of 
people that are in these inhuman living conditions. The size of 
the problem is almost unbelievable.
    Based on estimates from law enforcement in Jackson, 
Klamath, and Josephine Counties in Oregon the amount being 
illegally raised and sold across the United States in just one 
of these counties exceeds 13.5 billion. In just one of my 
counties. I have 36 counties. Thirteen and a half billion 
dollars, Mr. Attorney General, on the backs of people, human 
beings brought over the border and probably forced into 
servitude to pay back the cartels for their immigration.
    I want to mention that the creation of this situation 
doesn't all just harm those folks brought across the border. It 
harms the community. We have had people come in and tell us 
about going shopping down at the local supermarket and seeing 
folks wearing big bulky coats and under those coats they can 
see AK-47s.
    They have had watermasters approached--the watermaster, the 
guy who is trying to take care of the water that is being 
stolen by these cartels, and they have come up to the 
watermaster and said, ``you know what, I am invisible.'' You 
can't see me. I can kill you and no one will ever know. That is 
a threat; that is intimidation. That is the kind of thing that 
is referred to your memo regarding parents. I would just 
suggest there is a misprioritization.
    Mr. Chair, I would like to offer for the record a letter 
from Josephine County commissioners to me, a letter from 
Josephine County commissioners to the Governor of the State of 
Oregon, the order just issued a week or so ago from Jackson 
County declaring an emergency because of this situation, and 
finally photos of the living--squalid living conditions and a 
video of the valley showing thousands of hoop houses, some of 
which we are absolutely sure may of which are illegal.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                        MR. BENTZ FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    A video entitled, ``Jackson County Marijuana and Hemp 
Flyovers,'' submitted by the Honorable Cliff Bentz, a Member of 
the Committee on the Judiciary from the State of Oregon is 
available at: https://youtu.be/5lh2Sif09Hk.
    Mr. Bentz. With that I will--
    Mr. Jordan. Will the gentleman yield?
    Mr. Bentz. I will yield.
    Mr. Jordan. I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.
    Mr. Attorney General, your memo you said that you--
directing the Federal Bureau of Investigations to convene 
meetings with Federal leader--Federal local leaders and State 
leaders within 30 days of the issuance of this memorandum in 
each Federal Judicial District, 94 Federal Judicial districts. 
They got until November 3 to have these meetings. How many 
meetings have taken place?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer. I am 
sure that there has been meeting, but I am sure that they have 
not occurred in all--
    Mr. Jordan. Any idea? Any idea how many meetings have taken 
place?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know how many meetings. I 
am sure that there are not--
    Mr. Jordan. There was so much urgency that five days after 
a political organization asked the President of the United 
States for FBI involvement--five days later you do a memo 
talking about a disturbing spike in harassment and violence. 
Then convening this open line of communication for reporting on 
parents and you say start meetings within 30 days, and you 
can't come--you come to the Justice Department, and you can't 
tell us what is going on?
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Raskin?
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, thank you for your service to the 
United States of America, which is a point of special pride for 
those of us who live in Maryland's Eighth Congressional 
District.
    Right-wing violence is now a lethal threat to American 
democracy. It came to the Capitol when QAnon followers, Three 
Percenters, Oath Keepers, Arian Nations, Militiamen stormed the 
Capitol of the United States in the worst assault on the 
Capitol since the War of 1812, injuring more than 140 police 
officers, breaking their noses, breaking their necks, breaking 
their vertebrae, taking their fingers, causing traumatic brain 
injury, causing post-traumatic stress syndrome.
    Now, with all the whitewashing by Donald Trump, who lied 
and said that his mob was hugging and kissing the officers, and 
by his cult-like followers like Representative Clyde who said 
that this was more akin to a tourist visit, this permission for 
violence has given license to the darkest impulses in right-
wing politics and given rise to conspiracy theory-driven mob 
violence, not just at State capitals like we saw in Lansing, 
Michigan, which was a dress rehearsal for the January 6 attack, 
but also it is in schools and at school boards across the 
country.
    Here are some headlines from across the country that tell 
the story: ``School Boards Association Reaches Out to FBI for 
Help as Threats, Violence Hit Meetings,'' ``Loudon County Board 
Members Have Faced Death Threats,'' and ``Prince William 
Meetings Have Broken Down With People Screaming.'' There has 
been violence across the country.
    Here is another one: ``A California Teacher is Hospitalized 
After He is Allegedly Attacked by a Parent Over Face Masks on 
the First Day of School.''
    Here is one: ``An Angry Parent Allegedly Ripped Off a 
Teacher's Mask. It's Not the Only Physical Altercation Over 
Masks in Schools.''
    I am limited by time here, but there are cases like this 
all across the country.
    Now, I would like to ask you this question, Mr. Garland, 
because you have been vilified, you have been castigated by 
Members of this Committee for your responsiveness to the 
National School Boards Association, that as Members of school 
boards across the country who are reporting this dramatic 
uptick in violence against school board Members, education 
administrators, other parents who have the temerity to go to a 
school board meeting wearing a mask. Did you tell the School 
Boards Association to reach out to you? Did you coach them to 
reach out to the FBI?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Raskin. The letter signed by the NSBA President Viola 
Garcia and NSBA Executive Director and CEO Chip Slaven said, 
``America's public schools and its education leaders are under 
an immediate threat.'' Did you write those words or tell them 
to write those words?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Did you violate any rule of ethics or any 
rule of law by responding to this clamor across the country to 
try to restore some calm and some peace to the schools of 
America?
    Attorney General Garland. No, I didn't. I followed my duty 
as I saw it.
    Mr. Raskin. I notice that not a single Member of this 
Committee has cited a single sentence in your memo as violating 
anyone's rights. Not one. They have not cited a single sentence 
from your memo because your memo scrupulously follows the 
difference between conduct and speech. Would you care to re-
edify our colleagues about what the First Amendment protects 
and what it doesn't protect?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the Supreme Court is quite 
clear that the First Amendment protects spirited, vigorous, 
argumentative, and even vituperative speech. Perfectly 
acceptable for people to complain about what their school 
boards are doing or what their teachers are doing in the most 
aggressive terms. What they are not allowed to do is threaten 
people with death or serious bodily injury, the so-called true 
threats line of cases.
    Mr. Raskin. Okay. Do you think that it is going to be 
important for us to confront violence against public 
institutions, whether it is the United States Congress as we 
count electoral college votes, whether it is against State 
legislatures and governors who have been subject to 
assassination plots, or against school board Members who maybe 
don't even get paid? Why is it important, if you agree that it 
is, for us to defend public institutions, public leaders, and 
public process against violent intimidation, threats, and 
attacks?
    Attorney General Garland. I do think it is--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair? Mr. Chair? Point of 
order. Mr. Raskin's words need to be taken down. He referred to 
one of our colleagues as being cult-like and we don't allow 
personal attacks under the rules.
    Mr. Raskin. I am sorry. Who did I refer to as cult-like?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Andrew Clyde.
    Mr. Raskin. I said that Andrew Clyde was in a religious 
cult?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Yes. Cult-like. That is a 
derogatory characterization; it is not allowed under the rules.
    Mr. Raskin. Well, I will wait for direction from the Chair, 
but if he objects to the idea that--
    Chair Nadler. It is not a timely--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. We have regular order.
    Chair Nadler. I would urge everyone to avoid engaging in 
personalities. The time of the gentleman has expired.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Mr. Chair, can you rule on my 
Point of Order? It is Rule 17, Clause 4. Standing Rules of the 
House.
    Chair Nadler. It's not a timely Point of Order.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. How could it not be timely? It 
was still--the gentleman--
    Chair Nadler. You have to raise it at the time--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I did raise it at the time.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. Raskin. Look, in any event--look, I would be happy to 
resolve this right now.
    Chair Nadler. No, no, no, no.
    Mr. Raskin. If any offense was given, I would be happy--
    Chair Nadler. Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. Raskin. --very happy to withdraw the phrase cult-like 
as applied to Mr. Clyde of Georgia just so we can get on with 
our business. I am very happy to withdraw that. We can talk 
about it in another context. It is interesting that the people 
are interfering with my speech, but I am quite fine with it, 
Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. As I said, people should--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. I am just trying to follow the 
rules, Mr. Raskin. I am told that is important around here.
    Mr. Raskin. [inaudible] the ACLU--
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Raskin, you have said enough. We all have 
strong feelings; people should avoid engaging in personalities.
    Mr. McClintock?
    Mr. McClintock. Mr. Attorney General, I think the real 
concern of a lot of parents is they attend a school board 
meeting to exercise their First Amendment rights, a fight 
breaks out, and the next thing you know they are being tracked 
down by the FBI with a rap on the door, maybe a SWAT Team in 
the morning because they simply happened to be there.
    That is a serious form of intimidation. Whether it was 
intended or not, that's clearly the effect it is having, and I 
think you need to be sensitive of that.
    I want to talk about the news we received yesterday that we 
have seen the highest number of arrests of people illegally 
crossing our border in the history our country, 1.7 million 
arrests this year. It is a Federal crime to cross the border 
outside of a port of entry, is it not?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, it's a misdemeanor. That's 
true.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, your job is to prosecute Federal 
crimes. How many have you actually prosecuted of that 1.7 
million?
    Attorney General Garland. So, the Justice Department 
doesn't make those arrests. Those are made by Homeland--
    Mr. McClintock. No, no, but the Justice Department is 
responsible for prosecuting them. How many are you prosecuting?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know the answer to that, 
but they are being referred by the--
    Mr. McClintock. A lot or a little?
    Wait a second. You know exactly how many people you're 
prosecuting from the riot on January 6, but you can't even give 
me a ballpark guess of how many people you are prosecuting--
    Attorney General Garland. I can't--
    Mr. McClintock. --of the 1.7 million who have illegally 
crossed our border, committing a Federal crime in doing so?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't have that number on the 
top of my head, but I would be happy to have our staff get back 
to you.
    Mr. McClintock. Do you think that the failure to prosecute 
illegal border crossings might have something to do with the 
fact that our border is now being overwhelmed by illegal 
immigrants who tell reporters they wouldn't have considered 
making that trip under the Donald Trump Administration?
    Attorney General Garland. I think there are a substantial 
number of issues driving migration towards the United States 
from the pandemic--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, if you ask the migrants--
    Attorney General Garland. --[inaudible] and the earthquakes 
and--
    Mr. McClintock. If you ask the migrants, they will tell you 
specifically what is driving it: They can do it now. They can 
get in and not fear prosecution from you. Gallup tells us there 
are about 42 million people living just in Latin America and 
the Caribbean who intend to come to the United States if they 
can be based on their polling. A lot of people come each year 
on temporary visas, but then they fail to leave when those 
visas expire, again in violation of Federal law. Do you believe 
those who illegally overstay their visas should respect our 
laws and return to their home countries?
    Attorney General Garland. I think they should respect our 
laws. That is up to the Department of Homeland Security to make 
determinations about how we resolve these matters.
    Mr. McClintock. Yet, the Administration is proposing 
amnesty to most visa overstays who arrived before January of 
2021, including those whose visas have yet to expire. So, what 
you are telling us and what you are you doing are two very 
different things.
    Let me go on. It is unlawful for an employer to knowingly 
hire an illegal alien. How many prosecutions are you pursuing 
under this law?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know the number 
off the top of my head but I would be happy to have staff try 
to get back to you.
    Mr. McClintock. It shocks me. Given the fact that this is 
now an historic high on illegal border crossings, you are the 
Chief Law Enforcement Officer of our country, you come here 
before this Committee, you devote not a word in your spoken 
remarks to this issue, you devote out of a 10-page written 
statement one paragraph simply saying we need to expedite the 
immigration proceedings for asylum claims. I find that 
astonishing.
    Let me ask you this: Do you agree that an alien who has 
received proper notice of his or her immigration court hearing 
who fails to appear at that hearing absent exception 
circumstances and is ordered removed in absentia should be 
removed from this country?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not really familiar with 
exactly the circumstance you are talking about. There are rules 
about removal and there are rules that the Department of 
Homeland Security has established.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, when someone is ordered deported by a 
court--
    Attorney General Garland. --I am sorry.
    Mr. McClintock. If someone is ordered deported by a court, 
should they be removed?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. If they are ordered deported 
by a court, then we have an obligation to follow the court's 
order.
    Mr. McClintock. Yet, the President on his opening day in 
office instructed Immigration and Customs Enforcement not to 
conduct such deportations.
    Attorney General Garland. I am not familiar with the 
specific thing you are talking about. I am sorry.
    Mr. McClintock. What circumstances would justify an 
independent prosecutor?
    Attorney General Garland. So, we have had some history with 
independent prosecutors. Neither the Democrats nor the 
Republicans seem to like the result regardless of who is--
    Mr. McClintock. No, but let me--there have been multiple 
reports that Hunter Biden made enormous sums of money, and he 
has admitted that is because of his family ties. Now, that by 
itself might not be a crime, but there have also now been 
multiple reports that emails and other communications from 
Hunter Biden have indicated that his finances were intermingled 
with those of his father's, including a text to his daughter 
complaining that half of his earnings were going to his father.
    If that doesn't call for an independent investigation of 
the President, what would?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I am not going to comment 
about this investigation, but as everyone knows there is an 
investigation going on in Delaware by the U.S. Attorney who was 
appointed by the previous Administration. I can't comment on it 
any further than that.
    Mr. McClintock. That is being done under the Justice 
Department, not independently and the Justice Department 
answers to the President who is implicated in these emails.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentleman is expired.
    Ms. Jayapal?
    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, thank you very much for being 
here and for your commitment to protecting our democracy.
    I would like to generally discuss the prosecutions of the 
January 6 insurrectionists. The prosecutors handling these 
cases believe that jail time is the appropriate sentence for 
misdemeanor charges, however the first misdemeanor defendants 
to receive jail time were only sentenced last month, nine 
months after the worst assault on the United States Capitol 
since the War of 1812.
    I am trying to understand what the process is for these 
prosecutions and why there are delays. Does DOJ Headquarters 
have final approval on all plea agreements before they are 
offered to a defendant?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I don't want to discuss these 
investigations in that respect. I would say that the Justice 
Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office working together have 
guidelines for the kinds of pleas that can be accepted so that 
there are not--I don't want to use the word discrimination in 
the racial sense, but that there is no unequal treatment 
between people who did the same thing.
    Now, we can't have every individual prosecutor following a 
different set of plea arguments, so that is the extent to which 
that is being organized.
    The question you asked, which is why this would take so 
long, this is really not long at all. I have been in lots of 
criminal investigations that took way longer. We have arrested 
650 people already. Keep in mind that most of them were not 
investigated on the--arrested on the spot because the Capitol 
Police were overwhelmed.
    So, they were people who had be found. They had to be found 
by sometimes our--looking at our own video data; sometimes from 
citizen sleuths around the country identifying people. Then 
they have to be brought back to Washington, DC. Then discovery 
of terabytes of information has to be provided. Then all this 
was occurring while there was a pandemic and some of the grand 
juries were not fully operating and some of the courtrooms were 
not fully operating.
    So, I am extremely proud of the work that the prosecutors 
are doing in this case and the agents are doing in this case. 
They are working 24/7 on this.
    Ms. Jayapal. Okay. Thank you, General Garland. That is 
helpful.
    I do want to talk about disparity actually of prosecutions. 
Federal judges have criticized the department's approach to 
letting many defendants stay at home or travel for vacation. 
One judge said, quote, ``There have to be consequences for 
participating in an attempted violent overthrow of the 
government beyond sitting at home.'' Yet, the Wall Street 
Journal reports that you have told DOJ officials that jailing 
rioters who weren't hardcore extremists could further 
radicalize them.
    General Garland, do you believe that such statements are 
appropriate to make as the person overseeing these 
prosecutions?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know where that report 
comes from. My recollection of this is in a completely 
different context. That is, I worry that there will be 
radicalization in the Bureau of Prisons when people are--and 
this is radicalization that has occurred with prison gangs, 
with White supremacist groups in prisons, and with radical 
Middle Eastern groups in prisons. I was concerned that the 
Bureau of Prisons has procedures for ensuring that that 
radicalization doesn't spread across prison populations. I 
believe that is what I was referring to.
    Ms. Jayapal. General Garland, I don't know how you could 
further radicalize people who have attempted to overthrow the 
government.
    Let's just contrast the department's approach to the George 
Floyd protests. A participant at a George Floyd protest faced 
up to five years in felony charges for inciting a riot via 
social media. In contrast, three White supremacists at the 2017 
Charlottesville rally received prison sentences between two and 
three years for their violence, assault of protestors and 
conspiracy to riot. Despite a series of social media posts and 
videos on January 6 only one person was ever charged with a 
felony.
    I understand all the challenges that you are facing with 
what you have mentioned, and I do appreciate that, but I am 
concerned about the disparity of the way sentencing is 
occurring. Is it fair to say that the department does and 
should consider deterrence in the gravity of crimes when 
pursuing both sentencing and pretrial confinement or detention?
    Attorney General Garland. The answer to that is yes, but 
the ultimate determination on both sentencing and pretrial 
detention is up to the judge and not to the department. There 
are some judges that are criticizing the kind of charge we are 
bringing being not harsh enough, but there are other judges who 
are criticizing the same charges as being too harsh. As I 
mentioned before, this comes with the territory of being a 
prosecutor.
    Ms. Jayapal. I understand. General Garland, I just want to 
say that I think if we are to restore faith in the Department 
of Justice under your leadership and a new Administration, we 
have to make sure that the disparity of sentencing that we have 
continued to see under the last Administration and with this 
Administration has to be addressed. I hope that you will do 
that, and I thank you for your efforts.
    I yield back, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Issa?
    Mr. Issa. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    General Garland, it is good to see you and it is good to 
have you before this Committee. I appreciate your giving us so 
much time.
    As you know, your reach is global when it comes to overseas 
activities such as the bombing that occurred in Kabul. So, the 
killing of 26 August of 13 U.S. troops falls under your 
jurisdiction, correct? At least the FBI is charged with 
investigating.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the FBI can participate. It 
is likely also DOD. It is some combination, yes.
    Mr. Issa. Well, the areas of concern--media reports, both--
and public and private statements--indicate that the bomber was 
in fact an individual who had been released from the detention 
center there are Kabul. Can you confirm that?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, I don't know the 
answer to that. I don't know the answer to that.
    Mr. Issa. Can you respond, for the record, from the--I 
mean, obviously the FBI does know--it's leaked out enough that 
I think it needs to be made official.
    Attorney General Garland. To the extent that it would be 
permissible--it's not classified information--then of course 
we'll get back to you and I'll ask my staff to look into this.
    Mr. Issa. Well, the records of those incarcerated at the 
detention center were public and certainly somebody who has 
blown themselves to bits would enjoy very few residual privacy 
rights, I would assume.
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think it would be a 
question of privacy rights--
    [Laughter.]
    Mr. Issa. Okay, just wanted to make sure we had that. The 
important point, though, in my view, is that there are 4,999 or 
more other individuals who were released who were free to roam 
the streets of Kabul on the very days that were evacuating. I 
was in Qatar last week and it was reported to us in 
unclassified sessions that more than 20 percent of the 
individuals who boarded the aircraft in Doha for the United 
States--more than 20 percent who came in with no papers 
whatsoever. No Afghan papers, no U.S. papers, no other 
documentations--and that the documentation was produced based 
on oral testimony. They called it a paper passport.
    Based on the fact that of the 60,000-plus people that 
passed through Doha or Qatar, 20 percent of them or more did 
not have any paperwork, of the remaining ones, at least 40 
percent had only documentation that it was produced in 
Afghanistan. How do we know how many--we know some, 
undoubtably, but how many in fact made the way to the United 
States of the 5,000-plus people who were incarcerated for being 
ISIS terrorists and the like--how do we know who they are, 
where they are, and how many of them in the United States? What 
are you doing to discover further?
    Attorney General Garland. Congressman, you've identified a 
very serious problem. There was a massive airlift of refugees 
out of Afghanistan at the very last moment. That required 
vetting at--not only at Qatar, but also at Ramstein and the 
other bases where people were moved to, and then when they're 
moved to the United States.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Issa. I don't mean to interrupt you, but in the 
remaining time, if you could respond for the record about how 
many, you know who--how many you've apprehended, how many 
you're following? Because once we know that tens of thousands 
of people left Afghanistan who had no evidence of a nexus to 
the United States and were transported to the United States--
and knowing that there were 5,000 terrorists that had been 
recently released--we do have an obligation to figure out what 
the steps that are being taken to find them and to incarcerate 
them. I recognize that there are a number of people in Kosovo 
who were identified, so we would certainly include that.
    My last round of questioning really goes to the terrible 
attacks that occurred at Fort McCoy and other places. We have a 
significant number of Afghan/American-bound individuals who are 
currently committing crimes--and who have committed crimes. So, 
I'd like to know, one, to the best of your ability, how many 
cases you're following--not what the cases specifically are 
about. What authorities you've been given or need to be given 
to deal with these individuals, including revocation of their 
paroles, which of course is an executive prerogative, but one 
that we would like to know will the individuals who have 
committed crimes have their paroles pulled? If so, can they 
then be deported, or at least begin the deportation process?
    Attorney General Garland. All right, we'll try to get back 
to you on what we are able to tell you on the questions of the 
crimes that you're talking about.
    Mr. Issa. We're happy to accept it in an environment where 
it's not disclosed, but I really think that this Committee has 
an obligation to have a good feel for the nature of the 
individuals, the nature of the crimes and--and how we're going 
to deal with them. This is an awful lot of people who are 
requesting special entry to the United States and as we know, 
many of them did not do anything for the United States but 
simply were able to get on an aircraft in the rush at the end. 
Mr. Chair, thank you for your excess time indulgence, and I 
yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Ms. Demings?
    Ms. Demings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair. Attorney General 
Garland, it is great to see you again. We were together last 
week as the nation recognized 701 law enforcement officers who 
died in the line of duty whose names will be added--or were 
added to the wall. Here we are, just a few yards away from law 
enforcement officers who were beat down in this very sacred 
place. We've been asked to move on. Attorney General Garland, 
some of us just cannot--not yet.
    In your opening statement you said that the Department's 
core values are upholding the rule of law, keeping our country 
safe, and protecting civil rights. As I sit here today as a 
Member of the House of Representatives, I see my job--and also 
the job of every Member of the House on both sides of the 
aisle--Attorney General is, guess what, to uphold the rule of 
law, keep our country safe, and protect civil rights. As you 
know, I served as a law enforcement officer for almost three 
decades. It was an honor. At all levels of government, whether 
local, State or Federal, law enforcement officers take an oath 
to uphold the Constitution--defend the Constitution against all 
enemies foreign and domestic; enforce the laws of the land; and 
protect and serve their communities--or at least that's what 
the responsibility is about. It is about keeping the American 
people safe.
    Effective policing, though, requires resources and 
investment. We cannot sit here as policy makers and demand 
better policing, better training without providing the 
resources to achieve it. Attorney General Garland, I know you 
are very familiar with the COPS Grant Program. As you know, it 
provides resources and assistance to State and Local 
enforcement for things such as community policing. The Byrne 
JAG Grant provides several initiatives for State and Local 
jurisdiction including technical assistant training; personnel 
equipment; supplies for law enforcement; prevention and 
education; crime, victim, and Witness assistance; mental health 
and related law enforcement assistance programs. Attorney 
General Garland, if you would just take just a moment--I know 
you mentioned earlier that your commitment in terms of funding 
to this very important initiative. If you would just take a 
moment to talk about the effectiveness of the DOJ grant 
programs and talk a little bit about the future of those 
resources.
    Attorney General Garland. I thank you for that opportunity. 
This is part of our commitment both to keep the country safe, 
and therefore to help State and Local communities fight 
violence in their communities. Second, part of our obligation 
to uphold civil rights and so ensure that this be done with 
Constitutional policing. Also, with respect to our first 
priority--that is ensuring adherence to the rule of law.
    So, we have asked for in the 2022 budget more than $1 
billion in grants for State and local police organizations. 
That's $537 million for COPS hiring, and $513 million for Byrne 
JAG. Each of those are an increase for COPS--it's an increase 
of $300 million over the previous year. For Byrne JAG it's 
about $30 million increase over the previous year.
    There are other grant programs that we've asked for money 
as well. One of them is quite important--it's $100 million for 
a new community violence intervention initiative. I met with 
community violence intervention experts in the Chicago earlier 
in the summer. I was extremely impressed by the results that 
they've had in taking people who might otherwise end up with--
in crime and setting them on the straight path. That particular 
program was actually a well-controlled study done by the 
University of Chicago, and it showed that these things actually 
work quite well.
    Ms. Demings. Attorney General, if we could just switch 
gears for just a second--
    Attorney General Garland. Of course.
    Ms. Demings. I want to talk about election security and 
threats that have been going on against election worker--poll 
workers. I know that there was a task force established in June 
of last year as a result of the rise in threats, including 
death threats. How does the task force plan to coordinate with 
local and State enforcement, and prosecutors, to pursue cases 
against those who seek to intimidate election workers?
    Attorney General Garland. So, like all our anti-violence 
initiatives, from the violence initiatives we were just talking 
about, to Project Safe Neighborhoods, to the memorandum that 
we've been discussing earlier today--all our activity in this 
regard involves partnership with and meetings with State and 
local law enforcement. With respect to election workers, we 
have--as part of our normal sets of meetings with respect to 
State and local law enforcement--we are meeting with them to 
identify threats, to find out where Federal tools would be 
helpful; to find out where assistance to State and locals would 
be effective. There is an FBI tip line for threats to election 
workers, which are then funneled to the appropriate FBI office 
in the locality where the threats are occurring.
    This is similar to our work with respect to threats against 
Members of the Congress, with threats against judges, threats 
against prosecutors, threats against police officers--all these 
things are done with tight coordination with State and local 
law enforcement.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Ms. Demings. Attorney General, thank you so much. I yield 
back.
    Chair Nadler. I understand Mr. Roy has a UC request?
    Mr. Roy. I do, Mr. Chair. I ask unanimous consent to insert 
into the record the memorandum from the National School Boards 
Association to President Joe Biden, specifically noting in 
there that this is talking about domestic terrorism and 
footnote 13 directly references the incidents that occurred in 
Loudoun County, Virginia. I'd like unanimous consent to insert 
that into the record.
    Then second item to insert in the record is the memorandum 
issued by the Attorney General regarding what the Federal 
review of investigation is supposed to do with respect to 
targeting parents and school boards throughout the United 
States.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                         MR. ROY FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Mr. Biggs?
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Garland, Facebook has 
admitted in a letter to the Arizona Attorney General that it, 
quote, ``allows people to share information about how to enter 
a country illegally, or request information about how to be 
smuggled,'' close quote. The 8 U.S.C. 1324 criminalizes aiding 
and abetting entry into the U.S. by illegal aliens. Have you 
sent a letter or issued a memorandum similar to the October 4, 
2021 memorandum, directing department resources to be dedicated 
to investigating the apparent violation of law similar to the 
one--have you done that?
    Attorney General Garland. I haven't seen the letter or 
information that you're talking about. If it was sent to the 
Department, I will make sure that we look at it.
    Mr. Biggs. It has been reported that Mark Zuckerberg also 
spent over $400 million in a, quote, ``carefully orchestrated 
attempt,'' closed quote, to influence the 2020 election. Those 
efforts have been referred to as a, quote, ``private takeover 
of government election operations,'' closed quote. Have you 
sent a letter or issued a memorandum directing departmental 
resources be dedicated to investigating these claims?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know what was done in 
2020, in previous Administration of the Justice Department. I 
don't know--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Biggs. We're talking about the election of 2020. All of 
this has come out since then, and you've not--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know--
    Mr. Biggs. You're totally unaware of that?
    Attorney General Garland. I'm not aware of what you're 
talking about, I'm sorry.
    Mr. Biggs. So, you have not sent a memo? Or you're not 
investigating that either. Last Sunday, more than 300 churches 
in Virginia aired a video featuring Vice President Harris 
advocating the election of Terry McAuliffe as Governor of 
Virginia. This appears to violate section 501(c)(3) the IRS 
code, as well as other election laws--and seems to be an 
orchestrated effort by the Vice President and McAuliffe to 
violate the law. Have you sent a letter or issued a memorandum 
directing departmental resources be dedicated to investigating 
this apparent violation of law, similar to the letter you 
issued--or excuse me, the memorandum you issued on October 4 
targeting parents to who exercised their First Amendment rights 
at local school boards?
    Attorney General Garland. No.
    Mr. Biggs. On May 24, 2021, under oath before Congressional 
Committee, Dr. Anthony Fauci denied the National Institute of 
health provided any funding for gain of function research 
saying, quote, ``that categorically was not done,'' closed 
quote. Today, this very day, the NIH issued a statement 
contradicting that testimony which suggested Dr. Fauci may have 
committed perjury. This is a criminal offense, and I am left to 
wonder if you intend to look into that and send a communication 
such as a letter or a memo--similar to the October 4 memo that 
you issued regarding parents going to school board meetings--to 
investigate Dr. Fauci's potential perjury?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I'll refer to the long-
standing departmental norm that we don't comment about 
investigations pending or un-pending. The general point that 
you're making normally comes with--would come with a referral 
from the relevant committee. Other than that--
    Mr. Biggs. So, the actual point I'm making is, you chose as 
a response to a letter from the National School Board 
Association--and as you said earlier today, newspaper 
accounts--to issue a memorandum to organize task force and 
investigate and put a chill on parents participation before 
school boards. Now, you say, I didn't mean to provide a chill. 
That's exactly what any sentient being would have assumed would 
happen when you asked the Federal government to begin looking 
into this. Of course, parents are going to be nervous now. Of 
course, people will step back. That's the purpose of my 
questioning.
    So, when we get to these things like Zuckerberg, Facebook, 
Kamala Harris, we get to--and Dr. Fauci's purported perjury--
there's no indication--you didn't hold back. You issued a press 
release. Do you see the distinction? How about this one? Since 
January 20, 2021, Border Patrol has encountered more than 1.3 
million aliens at the southern border trying to illegally enter 
the country. You, yourself, have acknowledged today that this 
remains a crime. Have you sent a letter or issued a memorandum 
to U.S. attorneys directing prosecution of these cases?
    Attorney General Garland. No, and the reference of cases 
comes from the Department of Homeland Security, as I mentioned 
before.
    Mr. Biggs. Look, you managed to issue a memorandum about 
parents showing up at school boards. Why can't you issue a 
memorandum regarding the million-plus people who illegally 
enter the country and encouraging your U.S. attorneys to 
prosecute those cases? They are there constantly.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the Member--the time of the 
gentleman has expired. Mr. Correa?
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Correa. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Mr. Attorney 
General, welcome and thank you for your good work. I wanted to 
turn back to the issue of safety of elected officials--Federal 
and local. You mention a couple of words a few minutes ago--
true threats and serious bodily injury. I would say that's 
within the context of--as what's said already--which is the 
First Amendment. That all of us are public officials. We chose 
to run for office--to be in elected office. Yet, recently--not 
recently, but throughout the years, we have been confronted 
with people in our faces, serious bodily harm, us being 
threatened. A dozen years ago, that happened to me in 
California. Called my local attorney general--State Attorney 
General Bill Lockyer then. Bill told me, he said,

        Lou, never swing first. You will be criminally liable. I'll put 
        you in jail myself and you'll have tort issues as well.

    On January 7, the day after the insurrection, I was at 
Dulles Airport surrounded by--it was probably about 20 people 
in my face. I remembered Bill Lockyer's words--I didn't want to 
swing first. I had people in my face, surrounding me. My only 
thought was, you better make sure this guy, if he does swing, 
doesn't connect, otherwise I'm going down. So, sir, what are we 
left with today? The nice Corporal that responded to that 
incident accused me of starting the fight.
    Number two, I asked for an investigation, the nice people 
at the airport said, no laws were broken. Yet, we talk about 
true threats, serious bodily injury. At what point do we 
essentially--at what point would you draw the line in terms of 
us protecting ourselves? The sad thing about January 7 for me 
is, that's nothing new. That happens in my district for the 
last few years over, and over again. Police officers show up, 
First Amendment. We're left to essentially handle the 
situation--many times on our own.
    So, Mr. Attorney General, I'm trying to figure out some 
clear lines here. How do we as elected officials protect 
ourselves? Are we left to concealed weapons? What is it exactly 
that we need to do? I'll take the heat. I'm an elected 
official. Where does that First Amendment stop and that serious 
bodily injury concept come into play? Thank you.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the courts have been quite 
clear that threats that intend to commit an unlawful act of 
death or of threat of serious bodily injury are not protected 
by the First Amendment. Anger, getting up in your face, those 
things are protected unless there are some local provisions one 
way or the other.
    Mr. Correa. They are protected?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, sir--people can argue with 
you. People can say vile things to you. People can insult you. 
I'm sorry to say this, doesn't mean I like that idea. Doesn't 
mean that's where we should be in a civil society. The First 
Amendment protects vigorous argument.
    With respect to self-protection, I am going to have to 
leave that to the Capitol Police and other protective 
organizations to give that kind of advice to you. If you think 
you have a threat--if you've received a threat of violence, or 
threat of serious bodily injury, you should report it. Many 
other Members of Congress have done that. We just arrested 
somebody in Alaska for threatening the two Alaskan Senators. 
This happens--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Correa. Mr. Attorney General, I only have 54 seconds 
left and I guess what I'm looking for is some kind of a message 
from your office at the Federal level that there are certain 
things that are tolerated under the First Amendment and some 
that are not. Those that cross that line will be prosecuted. It 
also spills over to protection of poll workers at elections. 
I'm out of Orange Country, California. We've had private poll 
workers threatening voters. We've had letter focused 
threatening certain voters, keeping them from the polls. Yes, 
you can come back in retrospect and prosecute, but you've 
already affected the outcome of an election.
    So, I am hoping somehow to figure out a way to really send 
a clear message to these individuals that have violations of 
our democracy--messing with our elections--is not going to be 
tolerated so they know that going into the--into their actions. 
Thank you. With that, I yield.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back. Mr. Gaetz?
    Mr. Gaetz. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm very concerned about 
the influence of lobbyists in Washington, DC. There's no 
prohibition against the Department of Justice hiring lobbyists 
to be prosecutors, is there?
    Attorney General Garland. You mean former lobbyists--I hope 
you mean?
    Mr. Gaetz. Yes, that's correct.
    Attorney General Garland. No, there's no prohibition.
    Mr. Gaetz. Can you describe for us the specific vetting 
that the Department does when professional influence peddlers 
are hired and given prosecuting authorities?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, a hiring of Assistant U.S. 
Attorneys is a career hire made in the different U.S. Attorneys 
offices. There is a--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. I mean for the Washington. In Washington at DOJ, 
are there any special procedures that vet lobbying contracts or 
maybe who a lobbyist worked for before they're given 
prosecutorial authority?
    Attorney General Garland. So again, I'm not sure what kind 
of person you're speaking with. If you're talking about front-
line prosecutors, there is a background check. Everybody, I'm 
sure, here is familiar with the SF-86. It has to be filled out. 
It includes all the people that you worked for. The same is 
true is in main Justice.
    Mr. Gaetz. There's no special review for lobbyists as 
opposed to people who have been engineers? Or had any other 
career?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know. I don't believe 
there's a difference. Obviously, lobbying may raise conflicts--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Let's talk about political consultants. 
Political consultants are people who get paid to ensure that a 
candidate wins or loses an election, that a political movement 
is successful or unsuccessful. Is there any prohibition against 
hiring political consultants as prosecutors at the Department?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't think that we're 
allowed to even look at people's politics. The question--
    Mr. Gaetz. No, no, no, no, no--it's not their politics. 
It's the profession of being a political consultant. There's no 
special vetting for that, is there?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think that there's a 
specific prohibition. There is a requirement that once somebody 
becomes a prosecutor--just like when somebody becomes a judge--
that they get rid of whatever preconceptions they had before 
and that they go forward under their new responsibilities and 
are subject to the ethics rules of their new--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. We would hope that would be the case, Mr. 
Attorney General. I tend to think that if people are in the 
influence-peddling game, or they're prosecutors, it can be kind 
of dangerous to mix those--to be an influence peddler for hire 
one day, to be a prosecutor the next. Maybe to rotate back and 
forth among those careers. It sounds like there's no special 
vetting for lobbyists or political consultants. Let me ask the 
question about partisan Committee staff. We have partisan 
Committee staff that you see here. Their job is to ensure that 
one party or another preserves or captures the majority that 
legislative proposals are successful of not successful. No 
prohibition against the Department hiring partisan Committee 
staff as prosecutors, is there?
    Attorney General Garland. As I understand it, every 
Administration including the one preceding this one has hired 
people who have been Committee staff. I don't think there's a 
statutory limitation. If the House of Representatives and the 
Senate think that partisan or--I'm not--
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. That's how Preet Bharara got his job. He worked 
for Schumer and then he ended up in the Southern District. So, 
we have people who can be lobbyists and then prosecutors. We 
have people who can be political consultants and then 
prosecutors. We have people who can be partisan Committee staff 
and then prosecutors. The public integrity section has 
jurisdiction over election integrity, correct?
    Attorney General Garland. It has jurisdiction over election 
crimes, yes.
    Mr. Gaetz. So, is there any prohibition against people who 
have been lobbyists, partisan Committee staff, or political 
consultants actually going in and serving in the public 
integrity section? Or is that allowed?
    Attorney General Garland. I will just say again--the hiring 
in the public integrity sector is a career hire made under the 
civil service. It's not made--
    Mr. Gaetz. I know. I'm worried about their prior career, 
though. See, what I think is that if someone has been a 
political operative, to then put them in charge of election 
crimes, it's kind of like having the fox guard the henhouse, 
don't you think?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, if you think that, that 
would be a perfect example of something the House should pass a 
statute barring people from particular professions from working 
in the Justice Department.
    Mr. Gaetz. Would you support that legislation?
    Attorney General Garland. I'd have to look at what it is, 
and I'd have to look at whether it itself violates the First 
Amendment, but I don't think there have ever been any 
restrictions like that before.
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Mr. Gaetz. Well, I appreciate your open-mindedness and I 
hope that persists during your time at the Department. Would 
you provide the Committee a list of lobbyists--former lobbyists 
or just former political consultants who work in the public 
integrity section so that we might inform on the legislation 
that you've suggested we might consider?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I don't intend to create a 
list of career officials and what their previous jobs were. I 
think that's highly--
    Mr. Gaetz. So, if there are people--who literally were 
political operatives, who have prosecuting authority in the 
area that oversees elections, you won't give us the list?
    [Simultaneous speaking.]
    Attorney General Garland. I don't have any idea whether 
there is any such--
    Chair Nadler. Time of the gentleman has expired. Ms. 
Scanlon.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Attorney 
General Garland, for appearing here today in a timely manner 
and responding to our questions, as well as for your efforts to 
be responsive to the issues facing America today. Thank you.
    I want to address two primary areas in my limited time, 
attacks on elected officials and attacks on elections. As 
several of my colleagues have pointed out, the far right's lies 
about election integrity have led to intimidation and threats 
of violence and death being made against elected officials and 
their families.
    In Pennsylvania, we saw armed extremists come across State 
lines to try to disrupt the counting of votes in Philadelphia. 
An election commissioner had to put his children in hiding 
after death threats were made against him and his family.
    With the reopening of schools this fall, we've now similar 
criminal conduct being directed at teachers and school board 
Members with the encouragement of far-right extremists, 
including some elected officials.
    I take this personally because I was a school board for ten 
years, almost a decade, until 2015. During that time, I had 
thousands of hours of conversations with involved parents and 
constituents in grocery stores, on baseball fields, and in 
courtrooms and school board meetings.
    Sometimes the discussions were passionate, but everyone 
always respected the boundaries of protected speech. Those 
exchanges of opinions and information were always conducted 
with the goal of exchanging information, reaching solutions for 
the community.
    We never, ever experienced any threats to the personal 
safety of board Members, educators, or their families, and that 
has changed. The personal and physical attacks that have been 
directed against school leaders in recent months have crossed 
well over the line of protected free speech or parental 
involvement and have become criminal conduct, and that's what 
we're talking about here.
    As you noted, parents have a right be heard and to complain 
and to argue. Parents and outside agitators do not have the 
right to criminally harass or threaten or assault school 
leaders and their families. We've heard some of the incidents 
that have occurred elsewhere around the country.
    In my district, police had to be called to several meetings 
after agitators disrupted the meetings. Elsewhere in 
Pennsylvania, a candidate for office urged community members at 
a public rally to, and I quote,

        Forget going into school boards with freaking data. You go into 
        those school boards to remove them. I'm going in with 20 strong 
        men, and I'm going to give them an option. They can leave, or 
        they can be removed.

    I mean, that's not ordinary speech. I mean, it's the type 
of conduct that has led school boards and school officials to 
request help from law enforcement.
    It's shocking, but perhaps not surprising that some of our 
colleagues have tried to frame these criminal acts as free 
speech by involved parents. It appears to be part of a pattern 
by far-right politicians of fanning the flames of chaos and 
turning a blind eye to domestic extremism and violence.
    The conduct that terrorizes educators now across the 
country is no more like that of ordinary parents showing up at 
school board meetings than the conduct of the violent mob that 
showed up at the Capitol on January 6 was that of ordinary 
tourists. I think there's a profound distinction here, and one 
that warrants the attention of law enforcement.
    Would you agree that allowing threats of violence and 
intimidation against elected officials to go unreported or 
unpunished could not only lead to greater violence against 
elected officials, but also contribute to an atmosphere that's 
harmful to free speech and the free exchange of ideas?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, I do agree.
    Ms. Scanlon. Moving on to election, attacks on elections, 
from almost two years, the former President and his supporters 
have attacked and spread lies about election security in the 
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Almost a year after President 
Biden's victory, attacks on Pennsylvania elections occur today.
    Last month, Republican Members of the PA legislature 
launched another attack on Pennsylvania voters. They sent a 
subpoena to the Pennsylvania Department of State demanding that 
the State turn over the 2020 voting records of every voter in 
the State, along with their driver's licenses and their Social 
Security numbers so that information could be turned over to an 
unidentified private contractor.
    Pennsylvania voters of every party and independents were 
outraged about this invasion of privacy and the possibility 
that sensitive personal information was being put at risk.
    Can you address how this kind of sweeping intrusion into 
election and personal data under the guise of an election audit 
might violate Federal election laws?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, I can't--let me just say on 
the previous point that you made, I gave you a quick answer. A 
full answer is we have an election threats task force, and 
we've had that for quite some time.
    I've met with the National Association of Election 
Administrators and the National Association of Secretaries of 
State for every State. That's what prompted us to establish 
this task force.
    Now, on the second question, I don't want to discuss any 
particular circumstances, certainly not that one. There are 
provisions of the Voting Rights Act that require State election 
officials to keep control, custody of voting records and voting 
equipment and materials relating to the last election, I think 
for 18 months.
    Similarly, there are provisions of the same statute which 
prohibit intimidation of, or acts leading to the intimidating 
of, voters, both of which are sort of a core of the Federal 
government's concern with respect to post-election audits.
    Ms. Dean. I think the gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Scanlon. I yield back.
    Ms. Dean. The gentlelady yields back. The Chair now 
recognizes Mr. Steube from Florida for five minutes.
    Mr. Steube. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, in your Senate confirmation 
hearing you referred to the January 6 protests as the, and I 
quote, ``Most dangerous threat to democracy in your law 
enforcement and judicial career.'' In that same hearing, you 
even compared January 6 to the Oklahoma City bombing case you 
worked on where 168 people were killed.
    In June 15, a speech announcing a new enhanced domestic 
terrorism policy, you cited January 6 as a motivation for that 
new policy. You went on to describe January 6, and I quote, 
``As an assault on a mainstay of our democratic system.'' You 
have said that prosecuting extremist attacks on our democratic 
institution remain central to the mission of the Department of 
Justice.
    So, suffice it to say, it's clear that you feel very 
strongly about using the full force of your position to 
prosecute those involved in the January 6 protest. What is not 
clear, however, is if you will use the same force against 
violent left-wing domestic terrorists.
    Just last week, on October 14, a group of extremist 
environmental and indigenous protesters forced their way into 
the Department of Interior. They fought with and injured 
security and police officers, sending some of those officers to 
the hospital.
    The extremists violently pushed their way into a restricted 
government building in an attempt to thwart the work of the 
Department of Interior. Police arrested at least 55 protesters 
on site, but others got away.
    Mr. Garland, do you believe that these environmental 
extremists who forced their way into the Department of Interior 
are also domestic terrorists?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I'm not going to be able to 
reference that specific incident, since this is the first I 
know about it. I will say that the Department does not care--
    Mr. Steube. This is the first that you know about an 
incident where protesters forced themself into a Federal 
government building right here in DC, like you didn't hear 
about this at all.
    Attorney General Garland. This particular example, it 
doesn't mean the Justice Department doesn't know about it, but 
I personally haven't heard about it before what you're saying 
right now. I want to be clear, we don't care whether the 
violence comes from the left or from the right, or from the 
middle or from up or from down.
    We will prosecute violations of the law according to the 
statutes and facts that we have. This is a nonpartisan 
determination of how to do that.
    Mr. Steube. All right, I'll make it a little clearer for 
you. We're all, most of us are lawyers here, so we use evidence 
in court. So, you got two pictures here. One picture is from 
January 6 of individuals forcing themselves into the Capitol. 
This other picture is extremists forcing themselves into the 
Interior Department.
    So, looking at these pictures, and I know you say you're 
not aware of this, which blows my mind that you're not aware of 
violent extremists forcing their way into a department right 
here in Washington, DC, into a Federal building. Just with 
these evidence, with these two pictures that you see here of 
people forcing themselves into a Federal building, would you 
call both of these acts domestic terrorism?
    Attorney General Garland. Look, I'm not going to comment 
about particular matters. This is a matter that--
    Mr. Steube. I'm not asking you to comment on a particular--
    Attorney General Garland. Well, you are--
    Mr. Steube. I'm asking you to comment on these two photos. 
You have two pictures of individuals forcing themselves into a 
government building right here in Washington, DC. In one, you 
very, as I laid out, very [inaudible] called them domestic 
terrorists, but you're refusing to call groups like this who 
commit the same atrocities here in Washington, DC, domestic 
terrorists.
    Attorney General Garland. One I know the facts of, the 
other I don't know the facts of.
    Mr. Steube. Well, I'm showing you pictures. Here's facts, 
right here. If you want, we'll act like we're in a court room. 
Exhibit A, Exhibit B. On January 6, Department of Interior.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, as you know--
    Mr. Steube. Based on these pictures of people forcing 
themselves into the--
    Attorney General Garland. One picture is not going to be 
able--I'm not going to be able to resolve a legal determination 
based on one picture. In the January 6 case, we have terabytes 
of video which disclose exactly what happened then.
    Mr. Steube. Speaker Pelosi, mind you, still hasn't released 
to the American public to view all the video that has been 
captured here in Washington and in the Capitol complex.
    That's the problem that everyday Americans are facing right 
now, is they see these types of comments that you've made about 
January 6, yet you're completely--and you're not answering my 
question now, and you're saying, well, that's an ongoing 
investigation and I don't know about it.
    Clearly, based on the pictures, clearly what has occurred, 
factually what's been widely reported in all sorts of different 
American outlets, that these individuals forced themselves into 
a building here in the Department of Interior.
    You're refusing, right here today before the American 
people to say yes, that's the same type of activity that I'm 
going to bring the full force of the Department of Justice to 
come against, regardless of the ideology, which you have said 
in the past.
    You're refusing to do that today, and that's the problem 
with the challenges that this Administration, your Department, 
is facing is everyday Americans who are seeing this on TV.
    Now, you have the opportunity to set the record straight 
and say both of those actions regardless of ideology are 
against Federal law and will be prosecuted with the full faith 
and credit of the Department of Justice, and you're refusing to 
do that.
    That's the challenge that everyday Americans are having 
right now. It's because they're seeing what you guys are doing 
to the people on January 6, to the point where even a judge is 
saying--
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Steube. There's--the speaker before me had 30 extra 
seconds. I ask the same deference that you gave to the previous 
speaker.
    That you have even judges who recently even held the 
Department of Corrections in contempt related to the way that 
the January 6 suspects have been treated. You're refusing to 
even comment on the very acts that have just occurred here. 
That's what is horribly wrong--
    Ms. Dean. Time has expired.
    Mr. Steube. Is happening in our country that the American 
people--
    Ms. Dean. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Mr. Steube. Are seeing your refusal to answer those 
questions.
    Ms. Dean. Mr. Attorney General, Members, votes have been 
called on the House floor, so the Committee will stand in 
recess until immediately after the conclusion of those votes.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Neguse. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Good afternoon, Attorney General. Thank you for being here 
and thank you for your leadership at the Department of Justice.
    I also want to thank my colleague Representative Bass. I 
know she engaged in a line of questioning earlier about the 
tragic death of Elijah McClain in my home State of Colorado. I 
was heartened to hear that the Department is engaged in a 
review of its use of force policies.
    We have introduced a bill to ban the use of ketamine in 
custodial settings. That bill has earned the support of Chair 
Nadler and Subcommittee Chair Sheila Jackson Lee, which I am 
both grateful and certainly welcome the opportunity to work 
with your department on that particular legislation in honor of 
Elijah's memory.
    On March 22nd of this year, as you know, my community of 
Boulder, Colorado, experienced a horrific tragedy as a gunman 
killed 10 people at our local grocery store using an AR-15--
style pistol, which fired rifled rounds with a modified arm 
brace. The AR pistol brace attachment used by the gunman 
allowed the shooter to fire an easily concealable pistol with 
rifle-like accuracy and fire power.
    In the immediate aftermath of this tragedy, as you know, I 
sent a letter to the President and to the Department of 
Justice, along with 100 of my colleagues, requesting the 
Administration use its authority to regulate concealable 
assault-style firearms that fire rifle rounds.
    As I mentioned to you when we last met at the White House 
in April, I was very pleased with the Administration's 
announcement that DOJ would be issuing a proposed rule within 
60 days to tighten regulations on pistol-stabilizing braces, as 
I requested in my letter. So, I want to thank the Department, 
and wonder if you might be able to opine as to the status of 
the rule of where you are in the rulemaking process.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I believe that we are still 
in the rulemaking process. I can't remember whether the comment 
period has closed or not. That is part of the Administrative 
Procedure Act, as you know, we have to go through our 
rulemaking procedure, and that is what is going on here to 
prevent the pistols from being used as short-barreled rifles, 
which are prohibited.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, again, I appreciate the Department taking 
that proposed rule seriously. We certainly look forward to the 
results of that rulemaking process, as do my constituents in 
Boulder who are still very much grieving the loss of so many in 
our community.
    Two other subjects I wanted to address in my limited time: 
First around grand jury material.
    Now, I know Attorney General Garland, I think you would 
agree with me, so, current law allows for grand jury material, 
known as Rule 6(e) material, to be released publicly after 30 
years. That is current law. Is that right?
    Mr. Neguse. Actually, I am embarrassed to say this, but I 
don't think that is correct. We have made a recommendation to 
the Federal Rules Committee that it be released. I think 30 
years is the time. The Rules Committee has not yet decided 
whether that will be the case.
    That is, 30 years was the number that we recommended.
    Mr. Neguse. So, we think. That is the subject I was sort of 
wanting to dig in on.
    My understanding is that current law provides for 30 years. 
The Trump Administration, in 2020 a senior Trump Administration 
official, or lawyer rather, at DOJ proposed the time period be 
extended to 50 years. My understanding is the Department of 
Justice has continued that request and made that request for 
the time period to be extended to 50 years.
    As you can imagine, there are a lot of concerns, many of 
which I hold and many of my colleagues hold around judicial 
secrecy, and the extension of the time period to 50 years would 
seem a bit much. Were that to be adopted, many of the materials 
released post-Watergate would still be secret today. So, I 
would certainly--
    Attorney General Garland. We have sent another letter post 
the letter that you are speaking about to the Rules Committee. 
There is no reason why we can't share it. It is not a private 
letter or anything. It went back I believe in a shorter period 
than the Holder letter originally was.
    So, I will ask my staff to get that for you.
    Mr. Neguse. Well, that is terrific to hear. So, thank you, 
Attorney General, thank you to the Department for making that 
change. I think that is going to allay many of the concerns 
that folks had, certainly mine. So, I appreciate the Department 
of Justice doing that.
    Finally, last question. National substance abuse prevention 
is this month. I know my colleague from Florida, Representative 
Deutch, asked you a couple of questions with respect to the 
opioid epidemic that is pervasive across our country, including 
in my State in Colorado where on average two Coloradans are 
dying a day from opioid overdoses.
    The Department has worked with us on a bill that we 
introduced, the Preventing Youth Substance Abuse Act. I want to 
thank DOJ for their partnership in that regard. Just wanted to 
give you an opportunity before the hearing concludes here this 
afternoon to add anything else further you'd like to add with 
respect to your answer to Representative Deutch about the 
Department's work to address this epidemic.
    I think there is bipartisan interest in the Congress in 
partnering with your department to ensure that those solutions 
are applied broadly across the country, including my State of 
Colorado.
    Attorney General Garland. Well, this is a terrible 
epidemic. I, you know, went to the U.S. Attorneys offices all 
across California, also in Tucson, to find out what is 
happening with respect to the importation of this fentanyl. It 
is, I would say, our most number one concern now because these 
pills are, something like four out of ten pills here, it is 
like playing Russian roulette, if you take one of those you 
die.
    The kids who are taking those have no idea that is what is 
happening. Sometimes they think they are something else that 
they are buying other than those. These are, you know, they use 
precursors coming from the People's Republic of China coming 
into Mexico. Then they are pressed into pill form in Mexico and 
then transmitted across the border.
    Our CBP is doing an extremely good job of checking the 
trucks and checking the cars for this material. It is an 
overwhelming problem run by the cartels. The DEA is working 
extremely hard on this matter.
    When I was in Mexico City, I raised it with respect to the 
high level security talks that we recently had with their 
security minister, secretaries. I raised precisely this issue.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Ms. Spartz.
    Ms. Spartz. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, as someone who was born in the Soviet 
Union, I am disturbed, very disturbed by the use of the 
Department of Justice as a political tool in its power as a 
police State to suppress local public discourse. The FBI has 
started to resemble old KGB with secret words like 
surveillance, surveillance, wiretapping, and intimidation of 
citizens, overt related examples.
    It is interesting that during the Soviet era the United 
States criticized use of the domestic terrorism concept in the 
U.S.S.R. as a tool to suppress free speech and political 
dissent. In your recent statement opposing the Texas anti-
abortion law you said, ``it is the foremost responsibility of 
the Department of Justice to defend the Constitution.''
    Do you plan to defend the Second Amendment rights which are 
explicitly protected by our Constitution as vigorously as you 
do abortion rights? Just yes or no.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    Ms. Spartz. Do you believe recent Inspector General FISA 
report citing widespread and material noncompliance by the FBI 
with proper due process for surveillance of U.S. citizens is a 
violation of the Fourth Amendment?
    Attorney General Garland. I think it is a violation of the 
FISA Act by itself, without even having to get to the 
Constitution. We take this extraordinarily seriously. That is 
why we have an Inspector General. That is why our National 
Security Division reviews what the FBI does with respect to 
FISA.
    I know that the FBI director takes this very seriously as 
well. They have made major fixes to their practices so this 
won't occur again. This is constantly being audited and 
reviewed by our National Security Division.
    I take this very seriously. I agree we have to be extremely 
careful about surveillance of American citizens, only as 
appropriate under the statute.
    Ms. Spartz. Potentially, of course, the Fifth Amendment 
could be violated if you have--
    Attorney General Garland. Of course.
    Ms. Spartz. --material and widespread, as the report says, 
sir.
    In your June 15th remarks on domestic terrorism you said 
that nearly every day you get a briefing from the FBI director 
and his team. How often do you discuss FISA relations in your 
briefings?
    Attorney General Garland. Sorry, I didn't hear the last.
    Ms. Spartz. How often do you discuss the FISA violations 
when you get your nearly daily briefings with the FBI?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, there is a quarterly review 
that the intelligence community and the National Security 
Division submits to the Intelligence Committees with respect to 
FISA reviews. I always review those.
    I meet with the National Security Division relatively 
routinely to discuss how that's going. So, it is not every 
morning, but this review of violations of FISA and our efforts 
to make sure that it doesn't happen again is pretty frequent.
    Ms. Spartz. It seems like we still get material and 
widespread. Every report we have material, not non-material--
and widespread violations.
    Talking about another topic. I went to the border three 
times and recently visited the air base in Qatar, and Camp 
Atterbury in India, and housing of Afghanistan evacuees. Based 
on what I have seen, I have some questions and significant 
national security concerns.
    Former Border Patrol Chief Rodney Scott recently said that, 
``the open border poses a real terror threat.'' Do you agree 
with the Border Patrol Chief or Secretary Mayorkas who recently 
said that, ``the border is no less secure than before''?
    Attorney General Garland. If you are asking about terrorism 
traveling across the border, I am concerned about that across 
all our borders. This has been a continuing concern.
    Ms. Spartz. Do you agree with the Border Patrol Chief that 
what is happening right now makes us less secure and have a 
real increased terror threat?
    Attorney General Garland. I believe that the combination of 
the intelligence community and the FBI are working very hard to 
make sure that people crossing the border do not constitute a 
terrorist threat. We have to always be worried about the 
possibility, and we are ever vigilant on that subject.
    Ms. Spartz. Can you assure the American people that you 
will be able to protect our country from a terrorist attack 
that may result from this lawlessness at the border or the 
Afghanistan debacle?
    Attorney General Garland. I can assure the American people 
that the FBI is working every day to the best they possibly can 
to protect the American people from terrorism from whatever 
direction it comes, whether it comes from Afghanistan or any 
other direction.
    Ms. Spartz. Do you have any specific actions or plans that 
you are doing in light of what is happening right now on the 
border? Do you have a specific strategy that you are working 
directly with the critical--
    Attorney General Garland. The FBI--
    Ms. Spartz. --current situation.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry, I didn't mean to talk 
over.
    Ms. Spartz. Yes. Considering current situation of the 
border do you take any specific actions at the border?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, with respect to the first 
part of your question about Afghanistan, the FBI is 
participating along with Homeland Security in vetting the 
refugees who have landed in various locations, Qatar, Kosovo, 
Ramstein Air Base, and then in bases in the United States. So, 
they are doing everything they can to vet for those purposes.
    With respect to crossing of the border, this is a 
combination of the intelligence community, outside of our 
intelligence community, getting information about who might be 
trying to cross the border.
    Ms. Spartz. So, you can assure the American people; the 
answer is yes?
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. McBath.
    Ms. Spartz. Yield back.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you so much, Mr. Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, there are many others in this 
room outside of myself that want to thank you so much for such 
a long career of public service.
    As you may know, I lost my son Jordan almost nine years ago 
now. He was simply sitting in the car with three of his friends 
playing loud music when a stranger complained about the volume 
of the music, called them gang--called the boys gangbangers and 
thugs, and he took my son's life.
    I am very pleased that President has committed to 
preventing gun violence and that he has tasked you with the 
role of being supportive in gun violence prevention in America.
    Extremist protection orders, also known as red flag orders, 
allow courts to temporarily remove firearms from those who pose 
imminent danger to themselves or risk of harming others. On 
April 7th, 2021, an announcement of initial actions to curb 
violence, the Biden White House encouraged Congress to pass a 
National Red Flag Law.
    How would the National Red Flag law work with other Federal 
protections to prevent gun violence?
    Attorney General Garland. We are in favor of a National Red 
Flag Law. What we are doing now is making model red flag laws 
for the States. These models provide that guns can be taken 
away from a person in distress, normally from a mental crisis 
of some kind when requested by someone close to them, or if 
there is already a court violation of some kind. It provides 
due process protections for those people to ensure they haven't 
been inappropriately taken.
    The risk here is that people in distress can commit violent 
acts when they have easy access to a firearm. The risk is that 
this violent act ends in a death.
    So, I think the red flag laws are very important in that 
respect.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you. As do I.
    Attorney General Garland, we lost 49 people, including many 
young people, at the mass shooting at Pulse Night Club in 
Orlando, Florida. The shooter was previously the subject of a 
10-month FBI investigation. During this investigation the FBI 
interviewed the shooters wife, who later said that he strangled 
her, he raped her, beat her, and even while she was pregnant he 
threatened to kill her.
    Fifty-three percent of mass shootings involve a shooter 
killing an intimate partner or family member, among other 
victims. Even among those mass shooters who do not kill an 
intimate partner, as in the Pulse shooting, there is often a 
history of domestic violence.
    Since the Pulse shooting has the Department updated its 
domestic investigations and operations guide or U.S. Attorneys' 
manual to ensure that it is examining whether a person has a 
history of domestic violence?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know the exact answer 
into the past. I know that right now the Deputy Attorney 
General is doing a review with respect to the way in which the 
department treats victims, including victims in the 
circumstance that you talked about, and creates warning systems 
for those sorts of things.
    So, I don't, I can't give you any fuller information than 
that. I can ask my staff to get back to you.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you very much. If you would do so, we 
would appreciate it.
    Attorney General Garland. Of course.
    Ms. McBath. Also, can you assure me that you will take 
action to make sure that we are not missing any opportunities 
to save American lives?
    Attorney General Garland. That is our, this is our number 
one goal.
    Ms. McBath. Thank you.
    On May 7th--I am going to switch gears a little bit--May 7, 
2021, you signed a proposed ATF Rule to ensure the proper 
marking, record keeping, and traceability of all firearms 
manufactured, imported, acquired, and disposed by Federal 
firearms licensees by clarifying the definition of firearm and 
gunsmith among all other small changes. How will this new 
definition help reduce the sale of ghost guns and increase 
background checks prior to their purchases?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, ghost guns, which are 
ready, sometimes ready-build shoot they are called, are kits 
that you can buy in pieces and put them together, right now 
there is some, some lack of clarity or dispute about whether 
serial numbers have to be on them, and then whether you need a 
license--I am sorry, whether a check has to be made in order to 
determine whether the person is appropriately a purchaser.
    This rule will require that serial numbers be put on the 
pieces and that a fully licensed firearms dealer has to do the 
background check. This does two things:

    (1)  It will enable us to trace these guns, and
    (2)  it will make sure that people who are prohibited because they 
are a felon or whatever other reason shouldn't and won't be able to get 
the gun.

    I have been in both Chicago and New York and been quite 
stunned to learn the high percentage of guns at murder scenes 
is that a high percentage, much higher than I would have 
expected, were ghost guns. I had not realized how significant 
the problem is. The police on the street are reporting that 
those guns are becoming more and more of a problem.
    So, I am hopeful that this regulation will give us some 
chance to beat that back.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Fischbach.
    Ms. Fischbach. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Attorney General Garland, in a press release announcing the 
investigation--and I will just preface, I am from Minnesota, so 
you can guess where some of the questions are going--but in a 
press release announcing the investigation, you said that the 
DOJ's investigation into the Minneapolis Police Department will 
examine the use of excessive force by the police, including 
during most protests.
    Will you also be investigating the origins of the deadly 
and destructive riots that ravaged large parts of Minneapolis?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I think these are two 
separate kinds of investigations. The one of the Police 
Department is one under the statute that authorizes us to do 
pattern or practice of unconstitutional policing. It is done by 
the Civil Rights Division. I was welcomed, I understand, by the 
chief and by the mayor. That is a one, a separate one.
    The investigations of the riots, which are undertaken by 
the U.S. Attorney's Office, as well as by the State's 
Attorney--I think it is called State's Attorney, maybe it is 
the county, State's Attorney of Minneapolis, I guess--and those 
are two separate sets of investigations.
    Ms. Fischbach. So, you will not be, so your department DOJ 
will not be investigating that?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the U.S. Attorney's Office, 
to the extent there were Federal crimes, has been investigating 
those crimes. I don't know, I have no idea where the--
    Ms. Fischbach. DOJ will not be investigating?
    Attorney General Garland. Department of Justice, I don't 
believe so, no.
    Ms. Fischbach. Okay. During the riots following the George 
Floyd, the death of George Floyd, dozens of people were 
injured, countless small businesses, churches were damaged, a 
police station was burnt down, a post office was burnt down, 
looted and damaged all over, and thousands of people had to 
flee Minneapolis to avoid the violence. Is the Department of 
Justice investigating these riots as an act of domestic 
terrorism at all?
    Attorney General Garland. So, now, if I am understanding 
correctly, we are talking about 2020.
    Ms. Fischbach. After the death of George Floyd.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes. That investigation, I think, 
that was ordered by the previous Attorney General. I don't know 
whether there, whether that is concluding. I don't know whether 
there are any ongoing investigations anymore from that 
investigation except for the charges that were made at the 
time. Those cases are being followed, obviously.
    Ms. Fischbach. Well, Attorney General Garland, maybe you 
could get back me, in particular, or the Committee on the 
status of those and what is happening with that.
    Attorney General Garland. Be happy to have my staff get 
back to you with it.
    Ms. Fischbach. Appreciate that.
    I wanted to focus a little bit on the Third Police Precinct 
that was burnt down and still has not been rebuilt. Police 
officers don't even know if they are going to have a job in a 
few weeks given the resolution that is in front of the, in 
front of the body they have a resolution. You are probably not 
familiar with it. They don't even know if they are going to 
have a job because they may be defunding the police in 
Minneapolis.
    The city is down over 200 officers since pre-COVID. If you 
talk to police officers, they are demoralized, they are 
struggling. They don't feel supported at all. They are having a 
very hard time.
    You are the one initiating investigation of the Minneapolis 
Police Department. Considering all the scrutiny that they are 
under, how do you propose Minneapolis can keep up police 
officer morale now that they are under investigation and 
criticism, all the criticism they are taking as well?
    Attorney General Garland. Let me say first, on the defund 
the police issue the Department does not support defunding the 
police, nor does the President. So, we have asked for more than 
a billion dollars, a major increase in funds for local police 
departments.
    Ms. Fischbach. Sir, I didn't imply you did. I just wanted 
you to know, understand the context of the question because it 
is in front of the Minneapolis residents right now.
    Attorney General Garland. I do.
    With respect to the pattern or practice investigation, 
where were a large number of serious incidents that were well-
reflected in the press, and I think there was general agreement 
that there were problems.
    This does not mean that every police officer. Quite the 
contrary. This means that, and I believe it is, and from 
talking to many police officers, that they believe it is 
important that there be accountability, and that officers who 
break the law are held accountable so that the community 
retains its trust in the good police officers who do not break 
the law. Those are the very large majority.
    They need that trust to have the cooperation of the 
community. That is the only way they can be safe, and that is 
the only way the community can be safe.
    So, I think police officers should look at these 
investigations in a positive way. We are trying to present them 
in a positive way.
    Ms. Fischbach. Attorney General, I think that the problem 
is that they are being--it is piling on. It is continuing to 
pile on, in particular, in Minneapolis with these police 
officers who are there. They have, many of them have grown up 
there. They are doing their job.
    Chair Nadler. The time of the gentlelady has expired.
    Ms. Fischbach. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. Mr. Stanton.
    Mr. Stanton. Attorney General, I want to discuss with you 
missing and murdered indigenous women and girls. It is a 
national shame that when native women are murdered or when they 
disappear the cases do not receive the resources or the 
investigations they deserve, and their loved ones are left 
without answers.
    President Biden made significant and specific commitments 
to tribal communities to support MMIWG investigations. I am not 
convinced that those commitments have been kept, particularly 
by the Department of Justice.
    Mr. Attorney General, I read your very brief statement on 
May 5th, marking Missing and Murdered Indigenous Persons 
Awareness Day. I am not aware of you speaking publicly about 
this issue since you were confirmed to lead the Department. It 
does not appear that you have used your platform to help make 
this a top priority, nor has DOJ really moved the needle on 
this issue since your confirmation.
    As Attorney General you serve on the Operation Lady Justice 
Task Force. That was a task force created under the last 
Attorney General, not you.
    Do you agree that our tribal communities deserve more from 
the nation's top law enforcement official?
    Attorney General Garland. I think this is a terrible 
tragedy, this circumstance, almost inexplicable tragedy. If I 
haven't spoken on it yet, I soon will be because under the 
President's Executive Order I will be Co-Chairing a commission, 
along with the Secretary of the Interior.
    I have been to the U.S. Attorney's offices in Oklahoma 
which has significant tribal responsibilities. We have spoken 
about those matters. You shouldn't mistake lack of public 
statements to be a lack of concern or passion about this issue.
    Mr. Stanton. There are 574 Federally recognized tribes in 
the United States. Of those, 326 have reservations, and more 
than one million Native Americans live on or near reservations. 
That is not counting the many who live in urban areas. Yet, 
there are fewer than 200 special agents and victim specialists 
in the FBI's Indian Country Program.
    Do you believe the FBI's Indian Country Program is 
sufficiently staffed?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I think the FBI could 
always use additional resources. I have to look into that 
specific question, which I haven't evaluated whether there is 
sufficient staff.
    Mr. Stanton. In light of the facts, I just laid out, will 
you commit today to adding staff to the Indian Country Program?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I am very interested. Our 
normal approach on this is cooperation with tribal offices and 
cooperation with the sovereign tribes so that we are in sync on 
this rather than the Federal government invading tribal 
prerogatives. I do think that we need to look at this more 
closely. This is one of the things I will be speaking with the 
Interior Secretary about.
    Mr. Stanton. As you know, there is great frustration by 
many of our tribal leaders that when they ask for additional 
Federal support to investigate these cases they feel like they 
don't receive that support
    Our Nation knows the tragic story of Gabby Petito because 
of the tremendous media coverage and law enforcement 
involvement her case garnered. All of us grieve for Gabby's 
family and friends. While at the same time, I wish that every 
missing person's case earned the same level of media attention.
    The FBI committed significant resources to that case, which 
I appreciate. Mr. Attorney General, when a native woman goes 
missing, or any woman of color for that matter, they don't get 
the same level of attention from the Department of Justice and 
FBI.
    What would you say to the families to explain why?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think there is any excuse 
for not giving equal treatment to native and indigenous missing 
persons. I don't believe there is any effort to not do that.
    I know that both the FBI and the Marshals Service are 
involved in this, along with their partners, their tribal 
partners. I am not sure what else I can say about that.
    Mr. Stanton. Just two weeks ago Chair of the Blackfeet 
Nation in Montana sent you a letter about the case of Ashley 
Loring Heavyrunner, a 20-year-old woman who went missing under 
suspicious circumstances three years ago. Her family and the 
tribal community are incredibly frustrated at the Federal 
government's response to the case. In his letter to you he 
asked why the Federal government continues to make Ashley's 
family ``suffer and feel like Ashley's life doesn't matter.''
    That breaks my heart, sir, because I can see why so many 
Native American families feel like their missing or murdered 
loved ones do not matter to the Federal government. We have a 
unique trust responsibility to our tribal nations. Rarely, if 
ever, has our Federal government delivered.
    This is an opportunity to finally deliver. It offers you 
the opportunity to deliver. So, let's not fail our native 
communities again. What I hope and expect from President Biden 
and yourself, Mr. Attorney General, is more than lip service or 
empty statements on this issue,--
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's--
    Mr. Stanton. --more than sharing task force recommendations 
that will be left to sit on the shelf. I look forward to your 
words in the near future.
    Thank you, Mr. Attorney General.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman yields back.
    Mr. Massie.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Mr. Attorney General, you announced that the DOJ would use 
its authority and resources, along with the FBI, to police 
speech at school board meetings. In your opinion, what 
limitations does the 10th Amendment bring to your effort to 
police those school board meetings and speech therein?
    Attorney General Garland. Let me be clear, we have no 
intention of policing school board meetings, nor does any 
memorandum from me suggest that we would do that.
    The memorandum that you are referring to is about threats 
of violence and violence, and that is all it is about. We 
greatly respect the First Amendment right of parents to appear 
before school boards and challenge and argue against positions 
that the school boards are doing. This memorandum has 
absolutely nothing to do with that.
    Mr. Massie. So, you believe the sheriffs and the local 
police should police these school board meetings and 
investigate the threats of violence?
    Attorney General Garland. Yes, sir. Obviously, the first 
step is for State and local authorities to do that. This 
memorandum is about cooperating with State and local 
authorities.
    Now, there are some Federal statutes that cover threats, 
and intimidation, and harassment. We have the obligation to 
enforce those. Those do not, those do not apply at school board 
meetings.
    Mr. Massie. Thank you. I was hoping that you would 
articulate the 10th Amendment or some argument that comes from 
that because I am concerned that the announcement was an effort 
to basically freeze the speech or to suppress the speech of 
school board Members.
    I need to move on. I want to ask you about something.
    There is a concern that there were agents of the 
government, or assets of the government present on January 5-
6th during the protests. I have got some pictures that I want 
to show you, if the staff could bring those to you.
    [Video plays.]
    Attorney General Garland. I'm afraid I can't see that at 
all.
    [Video plays.]
    Chair Nadler. Is that an approved video?
    Mr. Massie. All right. You have those images there, and 
they are captioned. They were from January 5-6th.
    As far as we can determine, the individual who was saying 
he will probably go to jail, he will probably be arrested, but 
he wants every--that they need to go into the Capitol the next 
day.
    We see him the next day directing people to the Capitol.
    As far as we can find, this individual has not been charged 
with anything. You said this is one of the most sweeping 
investigations in history.
    Have you seen that video or those frames from that video?
    Attorney General Garland. So, as I said at the outset, one 
of the norms of the Justice Department is to not comment on 
impending investigations, and particularly not to comment about 
the particular scenes or particular individuals. This--
    Mr. Massie. I was hoping today to give you an opportunity 
to put to rest the concerns that people have that there were 
Federal agents or assets of the Federal government present on 
January 5th-January 6th.
    Can you tell us without talking about particular incidents 
or particular videos, how many agents or assets of the Federal 
government were present on January 6th, whether they agitated 
to go into the Capitol, and if any of them did?
    Attorney General Garland. So, I am not going to violate 
this norm of the rule of law. I am not going to comment on an 
investigation that is ongoing.
    Mr. Massie. Let me ask you about the vaccine mandate at the 
DOJ. Is it true that people, employees of the DOJ can apply for 
religious exemptions?
    Attorney General Garland. The mandate, as I understand it, 
is a mandate which allows exceptions provided by law.
    Mr. Massie. So,--
    Attorney General Garland. Religious Freedom Restoration Act 
is a provision of law.
    Mr. Massie. So, the religious exemption has a basis in the 
Constitution. So, that is required to be constitutional.
    Can you tell me if anybody has been granted a religious 
exemption?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't know.
    Mr. Massie. So, I believe that it is fraud, in fact fraud 
to tell people that you are going to preserve their 
constitutional religious accommodations by telling them they 
can apply for an exemption and then not allowing any of those 
exemptions. I am sad to see that you can't tell us that anybody 
has been granted an exemption.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    Ms. Dean.
    Ms. Dean. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Welcome, Attorney General Garland. Thank you for your 
service to our country. I would like to get to three important 
areas.
    First, Let me follow up on some of the questions we have 
had around guns, in particular ghost guns. They are often 
obtained without a background check. Most ghost guns are 
untraceable. These weapons are incredibly attractive to 
criminals, increasingly common, and should concern us all.
    This March, Pennsylvania investigators uncovered a 
trafficking ring suspected of frequenting gun shows to sell 
ghost guns, spreading them in my district and across our 
commonwealth. Access to ghost guns impacts regular Americans 
like Heather Sue Campbell and Matthew Bowersox of Snyder 
County, Pennsylvania, who were shot and killed last year by 
Heather's ex-husband, the subject of a protection order. He 
took her life with a ghost gun, a homemade P80 polymer nine-
millimeter pistol.
    Could you continue to talk about how the proliferation of 
ghost guns hinders the ability of law enforcement? What is 
DOJ's strategy to protect us from ghost guns? This is in 
follow-up to my colleague, Representative McBath.
    Attorney General Garland. Yes.
    So, we are finding more and more ghost guns at violent 
crime scenes. I don't remember the statistics exactly, but I 
believe in both New York and in Chicago I was told that at 
least 20 percent of the crime scenes, particularly the violent 
crime and murder scenes, were finding that they were done by 
ghost guns.
    Ghost guns have two problems, one of which is they are 
untraceable because they don't have serial numbers.
    Second, they are not subject, or at least can say there has 
been some dispute about whether they are subject to requiring 
background checks.
    That is the reason that we initiated a rulemaking to 
require that the parts of the gun, which are sold as kits in 
parts, are stamped with serial numbers by the manufacturer; and 
that when they are sold they must have serial numbers on them 
as a kit, and they must run the background checks that you are 
talking about.
    Ms. Dean. I thank you for that rulemaking. I hope that we 
here in the legislature will do more to protect us and our 
safety from this proliferation.
    On the issue of opioids, as you pointed out, last year was 
particularly deadly. The total number of people who died of 
overdose was 93,331 people. You know that our State, 
Pennsylvania, is particularly, upset with DOJ's sweetheart deal 
that was made last year with the Sacklers.
    What can I say, what can you say to victims of addiction, 
to the families who have lost people by the flooding of the 
market by the Sackler family, and letting them really, 
literally the rich and powerful, get away with it?
    Attorney General Garland. I don't think I am able to talk 
about that. Basically, it is in litigation.
    The only thing I would point out is the Justice Department 
opposed the release of liability, personal liability of the 
family in that matter on behalf, being brought by our 
bankruptcy trustee, and is on appeal right now, I believe.
    Ms. Dean. Well, I thank you for that. I hope that justice 
will be done for these families.
    Finally, on a third matter, asylum. Asylum is a human 
right. I am horrified by the inhumanity we have seen and the 
ongoing use of a Trump era title 42 authority to expel 
migrants, all which is done with no due process. Unstable 
governments, political prosecutions, violence, we know what 
people have suffered and what they are fleeing.
    You are now at the helm of DOJ. Will you continue the use 
of title 42 authority even after CDC has repeatedly stated 
there was no evidence that the use of title 42 would slow the 
spread of COVID?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, the use of the authority 
comes from the CDC itself. They are the ones who issue the 
orders with respect to title 42. This is a challenge also in 
the courts.
    We believe that the CDC has a basis because of a concern 
about spread of COVID, which is what the grounds are. How long 
that will last is a determination CDC will make with respect to 
the pandemic and what the threats are with respect to the 
pandemic.
    This doesn't have anything to do with, you know, my view or 
the Government's view about the importance of asylum. It goes 
only to the CDC's authority under title 42 to issue this kind 
of order.
    Ms. Dean. It is my understanding, and maybe we could all 
look at it more closely, but CDC says there is no evidence that 
the use of title 42 will slow the spread of and the worry about 
the spread of COVID from those seeking asylum. I hope we can 
look into that and stop the use of title 42.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Just a quick note. Earlier a colleague asked that Mr. 
Raskin take down his words when referring to another colleague 
as being a member of a cult. I think if folks would just admit 
that President Biden won the 2020 election and would stop 
pushing the Big Lie, they wouldn't have to worry about being 
accused of being in a cult.
    Attorney General Garland, I represent Congressional 
District 16 in El Paso, Texas. We are coming into this hearing 
fresh off the heels of a gravely unjust redistricting session 
in the Texas State Legislature where Republicans engaged in 
deliberate, shameless, extreme partisan gerrymandering.
    Texas gained two new House seats fueled by the growth in 
our Latino population. Instead of drawing maps reflecting that 
growth, Republicans chose not to add Latino majority districts. 
According to a lawsuit filed by the Mexican-American Legal 
Defense Fund, drew maps that diluted the voting rights of 
Latinos.
    This process was opaque and nontransparent, perhaps because 
Texas Republicans hired a political operative known to have 
Republican Members of Congress sign nondisclosure agreements.
    I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record an article 
from the Texas Tribune entitled, ``Texas appears to be paying a 
secretive Republican political operative $120,000 annually to 
work behind the scenes on redistricting.''
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MS. ESCOBAR FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, so much.
    My own district was impacted in a process I have described 
as being akin to looting. Unfortunately, Texas isn't the only 
State where this is happening.
    Mr. Garland, what steps is the Justice Department taking to 
ensure that redistricting plans do not violate the Voting 
Rights Act and discriminate against racial, ethnic, and 
language minority voters?
    Attorney General Garland. So, we announced before any of 
the redistricting plans began, because we knew the decennial 
census would be leading to redistricting plans, that the Voting 
Section of the Civil Rights Division will be reviewing all 
these plans. That is why we doubled the size of the Voting 
Section, because the burden of this work is large, and there is 
a lot of it because of the census.
    So, the Justice Department Civil Rights Division will be 
examining these plans and will act accordingly as the facts and 
the law provide.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Garland.
    In addition to the extreme partisan gerrymandering that is 
going on, States like mine have passed voter suppression 
legislation, all of it rooted in Donald Trump's Big Lie about 
the 2020 election. In light of these numerous State laws that 
passed that restrict access to the ballot box, how at risk are 
minority voters from being disenfranchised in elections over 
the coming years? What will the Department do to confront those 
risks?
    Attorney General Garland. So, Justice Department has 
authority under the Voting Rights Act to prevent changes in 
practices and procedures with respect to voting that are 
discriminatory in the ways that you described.
    The Supreme Court in the Shelby County case eliminated one 
tool we had, which was the section 5 preclearance provision. 
So, what we have now is section 2, which allows us to make 
these determinations on a case-by-case basis with respect to 
discriminatory intent and discriminatory effect.
    The Voting Rights section is reviewing the changes that are 
made, as they are being made and after they are being made. We 
have filed one lawsuit already in that respect. The 
investigations are continuing. I can't talk about any 
particular State, though.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    In my very limited time, women in Texas are under attack. 
Our freedom to reproductive rights and our rights to an 
abortion are under attack. This has been furthered by the 
Supreme Court in their recent--the consequences of their shadow 
docket.
    In your opinion, what are some of the practical 
consequences of the court's decision denying stay in the case, 
the Texas case via the process informally known as the shadow 
docket?
    You have got about 20 seconds. I am so sorry.
    Attorney General Garland. All right. Well, most of what I 
am about to say is reflected in the briefs that we just filed 
with the Supreme Court the other day asking them to take this 
case. What we are particularly concerned about is the inability 
of anybody to challenge what is a clear violation of the 
Supreme Court's precedent with respect to the right to abortion 
because of the way that the law is structured.
    We can't have a system in which constitutional rights evade 
judicial review, whether it is about abortion or any other 
right.
    I think I will leave it with my, our briefs which were just 
filed, and which explicate what I just said in greater detail, 
and I am sure with greater style.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Jones.
    Mr. Jones. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I wish that rather than trying to redefine the words 
``domestic terrorism'' my Republican colleagues would simply 
instruct their supporters to stop engaging in it.
    Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your testimony today. 
As an alumnus of the Office of Legal Policy at main Justice, I 
know about the hard work that you, your leadership team, and 
your line attorneys have been engaging in. As an American 
citizen I am deeply appreciative of that.
    You won't be surprised, given the work that I have been 
doing this year, that I want to speak with you about protecting 
the fundamental right of Americans to vote, which is clearly 
under assault. You underscored in your remarks to the Civil 
Rights Division in June that the right to vote is the 
cornerstone of our democracy. You have said much the same 
today.
    I don't need to tell you that States have launched the most 
severe assault on the right to vote in this country since Jim 
Crow. It is an onslaught that has hit voters of color, seniors, 
young people, and voters with disabilities the hardest. 
President Biden, for his part, has warned that we are facing 
``the greatest test of our democracy since the Civil War.''
    As you said in your remarks to the Civil Rights Division, 
so far this year at least 14 States have passed new laws that 
make it harder to vote. Well, according to the Brennan Center 
for Justice, that total has since risen to 19 States.
    Mr. Attorney General, let me start with a simple question 
to you. Which of those 19 States has the Justice Department 
sued for unlawful or unconstitutional voter suppression?
    Attorney General Garland. This is on the public record. We 
sued Georgia.
    Mr. Jones. Only one out of 19.
    In your June address you emphasized that a meaningful right 
to vote requires meaningful enforcement. Yet, even as we face 
an historic level of voter suppression, and even as we confront 
grave threats to the integrity of vote counts, the Justice 
Department has not challenged the vast majority of these laws 
in court.
    Would you say that bringing one case against State voter 
suppression is meaningful enforcement?
    Attorney General Garland. I think we have to prevent 
discriminatory violations of the Voting Rights Act wherever 
they occur and in as many States as they occur. These 
investigations under section 2 are very record- and labor-
intensive. Voting rights, the voting section of the Civil 
Rights Division is extremely devoted to making those kind of 
analyses. We have to do each case one by one because of the 
elimination of section 5.
    That is what the Civil Rights Division under our new 
Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke is doing. I have 
great confidence in her and in the division.
    Mr. Jones. I have great confidence in Kristen Clarke and 
yourself as well.
    You mentioned that section 5 has been hampered. Of course, 
it has been hampered in that Shelby v. Holder decision in 2013.
    You also mentioned earlier today that you are supportive of 
a John Lewis Voting Rights Act. I appreciate that. It is part 
of the democracy-saving legislation that the Senate must pass.
    Are you familiar with the Freedom to Vote Act, the revised 
version of the For the People Act that--
    Attorney General Garland. I know what it is. I know some 
provisions. To be honest, I don't know every provision.
    Mr. Jones. Okay. All right. Well, I would submit that we 
need to pass that in the Senate as well, given the democracy-
saving provisions that are contained therein.
    It is long past time for the Senate to pass both of these 
pieces of legislation. As we learned yesterday, unfortunately, 
the filibuster, a Senate Rule that entrenched Jim Crow for 
decades, is the last obstacle in the way.
    I am convinced, as you have said and written before and 
reiterated in your testimony today, that the Justice Department 
needs new tools to fully protect our democracy. As we learned 
yesterday, a rule crucial to entrenching Jim Crow, is the last 
obstacle.
    If presented with a choice between reforming the filibuster 
and protecting the right to vote, or protecting the filibuster 
and allowing voter suppression to continue, which would you 
choose, Mr. Attorney General?
    Attorney General Garland. I think the right to vote is 
absolutely essential and is, as I have said repeatedly, and as 
you quoted, ``a cornerstone of democracy.''
    The question of the House rules is a question for the 
House. I am very mindful of separation of powers, that this is 
a judgment for the Members of the House to determine and not 
the Executive Branch.
    Mr. Jones. Of course, the filibuster is a Senate rule.
    Attorney General Garland. I am sorry. I am sorry. The 
Senate.
    Mr. Jones. It is fine. I understood.
    Attorney General Garland. My bad.
    Mr. Jones. Mr. Attorney General, as an alumnus of the 
Justice Department and as an American I am grateful for your 
work. If we do not reform the filibuster and act now to protect 
the right to vote, the same White nationalists who incite 
violent insurrections at the Capitol and lie about the efficacy 
of masks and vaccines are going to disenfranchise their way 
back into power.
    Please take that message back to the President of the 
United States when you have a conversation with him, hopefully, 
about the filibuster and what he can do to help us here, and to 
protect American democracy which is in grave peril.
    Chair Nadler. The gentleman's time has expired.
    I recognize Mr. Roy for the purpose of a UC request.
    Mr. Roy. I appreciate that, Mr. Chair.
    I have a document from an organization Parents Defending 
Education in which they had sought a FOIA request from the 
National School Board Association. We have got the email 
exchanges from that I would like to insert into the record in 
which the interim director discusses, on an email on September 
29th, the talks over the last several weeks with White House 
staff, quote ``explaining the coordination with the White 
House.'' unquote.
    I would like to insert that into the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                         MR. ROY FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Ms. Ross.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. Ms. Ross is recognized.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General Garland, 
thank you so much for being with us today.
    I also want to thank you for mentioning the work of the 
Department of Justice with respect to the Colonial Pipeline in 
your opening remarks. I want to begin with a few questions 
about cybersecurity.
    As you know, ransomware attacks are a significant concern 
throughout the country, but particularly in my district in 
North Carolina. In May, the Colonial Pipeline attack left 
nearly three-quarters of Raleigh, North Carolina gas stations 
simply without fuel.
    As you also know, the Colonial Pipeline paid a ransom 
demanded by the hackers to unlock their systems and resume 
operations.
    While the DOJ's recently launched Ransomeware and Digital 
Extortion Task Force was eventually able to recoup some of the 
money paid by Colonial Pipeline, victims are often left to 
negotiate with attackers to recover the systems without any 
Federal help.
    So, I would like you to share why DOJ chose to be more 
aggressive in the Colonial Pipeline situation? What are the 
factors that would lead DOJ to get involved directly in a 
ransomware case?
    Attorney General Garland. Well, I don't want to go too far 
out on a limb on this, but I think DOJ would like to be 
involved in every ransomware case if we had the resources. The 
problem is generally not all victims of ransomware tell us. Not 
all victims tell us before they make ransom payments.
    If victims would tell us before, we would have a good 
opportunity, possibly, to be able to recover. We would have 
some opportunity to be able to help between the FBI and the 
computer section of the Justice Department and the computer 
section at the Department of Homeland Security. We are willing 
and able to deal with victims of ransomware, including doing 
negotiations if necessary.
    So, I think this is really more of a question of getting 
cooperation from the victims who, and I mean no respect to--
disrespect to the victims, but they are not always going to 
tell us in advance. I think it would be very helpful if we were 
told in advance.
    Ms. Ross. Would it also be helpful if you had reporting on 
what victims had paid in ransomware in a larger registry?
    I have introduced legislation. There is companion Senate 
legislation on this.
    Attorney General Garland. The more information we can find 
out about who is demanding the ransoms, what victims are 
paying, how they are paying, what kind of wallets they are 
paying into, what kind of cyber crypto-wallets they are being 
asked to pay them into, all those things help us understand the 
ecosystem. So, the more information we have, the better.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you for those responses.
    I am going to switch to the ERA and women's rights. Today 
marks the 50th anniversary of the Equal Rights Amendment and 
its passage in the House of Representatives.
    Since the bill passed the House in 1971, 38 States have 
ratified the ERA, meeting the constitutional requirement 
necessary to certify and publish the ERA as the 28th Amendment 
to the Constitution. Under the Trump Administration the DOJ's 
Office of Legal Counsel issued an opinion blocking the 
Archivist of the United States from certifying the amendment, 
even if Congress extends the deadline.
    As you know, women continue to face obstacles to their 
equality in pay, in childcare, in the criminal justice system. 
Scholars at the ERA Project at Columbia Law School have 
released a new analysis arguing that the memo should be 
withdrawn because it rests on erroneous interpretation, 
interpretations of legal precedent and directly contradicts 
previous IOLC opinions.
    Attorney General Garland, it is common practice for the DOJ 
to review prior legal opinions and withdraw those that are not 
legally sound. Will you commit today to closely examine the OLC 
memo? If you agree with these legal scholars that it is flawed, 
rescind this memo so that general--gender equality can be 
enshrined in the Constitution?
    Attorney General Garland. I will certainly, I think the 
first step is to find out what OLC is doing in this respect. 
Sometimes they review previous opinions, and often they do not 
out of respect for their own precedents.
    I don't know what the status is with respect to this one. I 
certainly understand the argument. I will see if I can find out 
what OLC is doing in this respect.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
    I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Ms. Bush.
    Ms. Bush. St. Louis and I thank you, Attorney General 
Garland, for being here with us today and for sitting through 
all of this.
    Since your confirmation in March of 2021, at least 128 
Black people have been killed by law enforcement officers in 
the U.S. That is one Black person killed by law enforcement 
every two days. That is an undercount. Police killings in 
America have been undercounted by more than half over the past 
four decades.
    Attorney General Garland, as the people's attorney, do you 
think that law enforcement officials are above the law?
    Attorney General Garland. No one is above the law.
    Ms. Bush. I completely agree. Let's see how well that is 
going.
    Are you aware that Black and Brown people are 
disproportionately stopped, searched, and arrested by police, 
often for a minor infraction?
    Attorney General Garland. I've certainly read that. I am 
not surprised, however.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Are you aware that according to the FBI, White nationalists 
have infiltrated rank and file police departments?
    Attorney General Garland. I am not sure I now the specific 
reference that you said about the FBI. I know that there are 
problems in some police departments with respect to domestic 
violent extremists being in the ranks. I know that many police 
departments are trying to make sure that this is not the case. 
I am not sure I know the reference that you are talking about.
    Ms. Bush. Okay. I would like to seek unanimous consent to 
enter this report into the record from the Brennan Center 2020 
report detailing White supremacy in police forces.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                        MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Are you aware that from statistics we do have, we know that 
Black people are killed by police at three times the rate of 
White people?
    Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't, I don't know the 
actual statistic. I wouldn't be surprised if that were the 
case. I am happy to accept your representation.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    Again, I will ask unanimous consent to introduce a Harvard 
School of Public Health report on fatal police encounters into 
the record.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                        MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Bush. Thank you.
    In light of these realities, do you believe that systemic 
racism exists in law enforcement agencies?
    Attorney General Garland. Oh, I think racism exists in a 
number of areas of our society. The purpose, for example, of 
these pattern or practice investigations that we do is to make 
sure that there is not a pattern or practice of 
unconstitutional policing. That is the job of the Civil Rights 
Division to look at these matters, to take into account 
complaints in this area and to investigate them.
    Ms. Bush. The Department requested $1 billion in Federal 
funding for law enforcement agencies in fiscal year 2022, an 
increase from last year. We are rewarding police departments 
rather than holding them accountable for racist practices.
    The Department has a powerful tool at its disposal. Title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act mandates that recipients for Federal 
funds do not discriminate. It makes clear that if they do, they 
are ineligible for Federal funding. I am happy to see that the 
Department is undergoing a 90-day review of title VI.
    Given the structural racism in law enforcement agencies 
that you have acknowledged, will you commit to withholding 
funds to law enforcement agencies that discriminate in 
violation of title VI?
    Attorney General Garland. So, as you correctly point out, 
our Associate Attorney General and our Deputy Attorney General 
are doing a review of title VI and how it should be applied to 
grants.
    I want to be clear, we are funding local police 
departments, but we are also making grants for the purpose of 
supporting constitutional policing, better community policing, 
better programs to ensure that there isn't discrimination. I 
think that there are many, many, many good-hearted and 
nondiscriminatory police officers. We have to support them and 
root out the ones who violate the law. That is our job.
    Ms. Bush. Absolutely. For me, if you know that your 
colleague is not doing something right, if you know your 
colleague is racist or has racist practices and you don't speak 
up, that means that you are not a good one, you are not a good 
police officer as well. I don't believe in good and bad, I 
believe that there are officers and there are people who are 
below the standard.
    I ask because St. Louis leads the Nation in police killings 
per capita. It is the region where Michael Brown, Jr. was 
killed in plain sight. There was zero accountability for his 
murder. It is where our movement in defense of Black lives 
began. Racialized violence is a policy choice. We can choose to 
subsidize it, or we can choose to stop it. So, for St. Louis 
the choice is clear: We must stop it, we must save lives. The 
title VI review puts us on a path toward accountability. We 
need only to enforce it.
    Thank you. I yield back.
    Chair Nadler. The gentlelady yields back.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. The Chair recognizes Mr. Massie for the 
purpose of a unanimous consent request.
    Mr. Massie. Mr. Chair, I ask unanimous consent to submit to 
the record two letters drafted, and written, and sent by Chip 
Roy and I to Attorney General Merrick Garland for which we have 
not received a response: One dated July 15th, and one dated May 
13th.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    Mr. Massie. I have another unanimous consent request to 
submit for the record the frames from the video that were 
displayed in my testimony.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                       MR. MASSIE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Chair Nadler. Ms. Jackson Lee has a UC request as well.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chair, thank you very much.
    I ask unanimous consent to put into the record a document 
produced by the Sentencing Project, ``In the Extreme: Women 
Serve Life Without Parole and Death Sentences in the United 
States.'' I ask unanimous consent.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit into the record, from the 
Senate Judiciary Committee, report ``Subverting Justice.'' I 
ask unanimous consent.
    Also, to place into the record legislation I introduced, 
``Preventing Vigilante Stalking that Stops Women's Access to 
Healthcare and Abortion Rights Act of 2021,'' regarding the 
stalking done by the abortion bill of Texas. I ask unanimous 
consent.
    Chair Nadler. Without objection.
    [The information follows:]

                    MS. JACKSON LEE FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    A report entitled, ``Subverting Justice: How the Former 
President and His Allies Pressured DOJ to Overturn the 2020 
Election,'' Senate Committee on the Judiciary is available at:
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg48808/pdf/CHRG-
117hhrg48808-add1.pdf
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chair Nadler. This concludes today's hearing. We thank the 
Attorney General for participating.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witness or 
additional materials for the record.
    Without objection, the hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 3:46 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                               APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                  QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]