    [Senate Hearing 118-32]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                             S. Hrg. 118-32

                     OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 MARCH 1, 2023

                                   __________

                               Serial No. J-118-5

                                   __________

             Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

                   [GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                            www.judiciary.senate.gov
                                www.govinfo.gov

                                   ______

                     U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

    52-249                    WASHINGTON : 2025

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                       RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois, Chair

    DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California         LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina,
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island             Ranking Member
    AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota             CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
    CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware       JOHN CORNYN, Texas
    RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut      MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              TED CRUZ, Texas
    CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey           JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri
    ALEX PADILLA, California             TOM COTTON, Arkansas
    JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana
    PETER WELCH, Vermont                 THOM TILLIS, North Carolina
                                         MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee

                 Joseph Zogby, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
          Katherine Nikas, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Durbin, Hon. Richard J...........................................     1
    Graham, Hon. Lindsey O...........................................     3

                                    WITNESS

    Garland, Hon. Merrick B..........................................     4
        Prepared statement...........................................    78
        Responses to written questions...............................    98

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................    77

                     OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice at 10 a.m., in Room
    216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, Chair
    of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Durbin [presiding], Whitehouse,
    Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal, Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Ossoff,
    Welch, Graham, Grassley, Cornyn, Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Cotton,
    Kennedy, Tillis, and Blackburn.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN,
               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS

        Chair Durbin. This meeting of the Senate Judiciary
    Committee will come to order.
        Today marks the Senate Judiciary Committee's first
    oversight hearing of the 118th Congress. Last Congress, we held
    more than a dozen oversight hearings and honored the
    Committee's historic constitutional responsibility to provide
    oversight to the agencies of our Government.
        It is this responsibility under Article I of the
    Constitution that serves as a check and balance on the
    executive branch, whether the President happens to be
    Republican or Democrat.
        Attorney General Garland, welcome. This is the third time
    you've appeared before this Committee. You have many pressing
    responsibilities. I should say, as Attorney General, you have
    many pressing responsibilities, and I appreciate your taking
    the time to be here today. There are so many subjects under
    your jurisdiction worthy of close examination, which I'll turn
    to a few in a moment. But we shouldn't take for granted that we
    now have a Department of Justice with a renewed dedication.
        When you were sworn into office 2 years ago, the Department
    was embroiled in scandal. You committed to restoring its
    independence, and I believe you've kept your word. I expect
    that we'll hear accusations today from some of my Republican
    colleagues to the contrary, such as weaponization of the
    Justice Department.
        The reality is you have recommitted the Department to
    serving the American people and not the personal interests of
    any one political figure. You've taken the appropriate steps to
    ensure that investigations are not overshadowed by politics.
        You have not interfered with the investigation of the
    President's son by the U.S. attorney for the District of
    Delaware, a holdover who was appointed by President Trump.
        You have not interfered with the special counsel
    investigation initiated by Attorney General Barr into the
    origin of the FBI investigation of the Trump campaign ties to
    Russia.
        And most recently, you've appointed two special counsels to
    investigate any potential mishandling of classified documents
    in the possession of former President Trump or President Biden.
        Unfortunately, too many of my colleagues have turned a
    blind eye to the actual weaponization of the Justice Department
    during previous administrations.
        Take one example. President Trump and his allies attempted
    to co-opt the Department into overturning the results of the
    2020 election, a relentless campaign that this Committee
    exhaustively documented in ``Subverting Justice,'' a 394-page
    report.
        But your actions in the last 2 years should reassure the
    American people that the Justice Department should not and does
    not operate as the servant of any President.
        The Justice Department has important constitutional
    responsibilities. It must protect the civil rights of the
    vulnerable. It must respond to threats to our Nation, both
    domestic and international. It must hold accountable those who
    violate the laws passed by Congress. We have discussed before,
    and I will certainly hear again today, some issues of critical
    importance to the American people.
        More than 6,800--6,800 Americans have died from gunfire in
    the first 2 months of this year. There have been at least 94
    mass shootings, more than one every single day this year, in
    America. I look forward to hearing how the Department is using
    new tools that Congress approved in the Bipartisan Safer
    Communities Act to quell this violence.
        In March 2021, FBI Director Wray testified under oath
    before this Committee that the threat of domestic terrorism is
    metastasizing throughout this country. I look forward to
    hearing your response to that extremist threat.
        We'll discuss the importance of full implementation of the
    bipartisan First Step Act, which is showing meaningful progress
    in responsibly reducing recidivism and making our criminal
    justice system fairer.
        And we'll discuss the importance of preserving America's
    civil rights and protecting them from attacks on their bodily
    autonomy, especially after the Supreme Court Dobbs decision.
        The sunset of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act this year provides an opportunity to implement
    much-needed reforms to keep America both safe and free, and the
    Department must continue to hold steadfast to the principles of
    equity and access, despite resistance from those who are
    threatened by an even playing field.
        As more citizens face greater impediments to exercising
    their constitutional right to vote, and then there's an
    increase in incidents of hate violence, the Department must
    defend America's bedrock values.
        At this point, I turn to my colleague, and the Ranking
    Member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Senator Graham.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY O. GRAHAM,
            A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA

        Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr.
    Attorney General. Appreciate you coming to the Committee. And
    thank you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing.
        So, here's sort of the other side of the story. When you
    ask Americans, ``Are we on the right track as a nation? '',
    about 70 percent of them say no. Now, why?
        I think there's a feeling in this country that we're losing
    control of our streets, that crime is increasing, and the world
    is a very dangerous place, and people don't feel safe anymore.
        You talk about the number of deaths from gun violence,
    certainly something we should be concerned about.
        But let me tell you something we all should be concerned
    about. Rebecca Kiessling, a mother who testified yesterday,
    lost two sons to fentanyl overdose. They were buying, I think,
    a Percocet pill, and it was laced with fentanyl, and they died
    from taking one pill. Both of them. She said, as I quote,
    ``This is a war. Act like it. Do something.''
        So, 106,000 people died from drug overdoses, 70,000 from
    fentanyl last year, and it's getting worse. The leading cause
    of death for Americans age 18 to 45 is death by fentanyl
    poisoning. What are we doing? What is that something? So, I
    hope we'll recommit ourselves, Mr. Chairman, at this hearing,
    to do something, to act like we're at war, because we are.
        Foreign terrorist organization designation for the
    Taliban--that's a good thing. Other groups--how about making
    drug cartels in Mexico and other places foreign terrorist
    organizations under U.S. law so we can go deeper and prosecute
    those who help these people poison America?
        So, the bottom line, we're adrift as a nation. We're not
    taking the crime problem as seriously as we should. The world
    is on fire.
        [Posters are displayed.]
        Senator Graham. We say that Putin's engaged in crimes
    against humanity. I agree with that statement. But we're not
    giving jets to the Ukrainians to defend themselves against the
    crime. So, we've got to up our game.
        And I hope, by this hearing, we will have a recommitment to
    convince the American people that we're going to keep you safe,
    that we're going to have policies to deal with the poisoning of
    America from fentanyl, that we're going to hold Mexico and
    other countries accountable, that most of this stuff comes from
    China, and enough is enough. We're going after those who are
    killing our kids from fentanyl.
        Gitmo. This administration let two detainees out of Gitmo.
    There's 30-something left. The recidivism rate is about 25, 34
    percent, depending on who you ask. Now is not the time, after
    Afghanistan, to be letting people who've been in jail for 20
    years, because they're so dangerous, out of jail.
        And I hope this administration will not empty Gitmo.
    Because the worst thing we could do right now is let people go
    who have been involved in terrorist activities, who are still a
    danger or enemy combatants under international law, because of
    the passage of time.
        So, Mr. Chairman, we all want to work with you on this
    side, but there is no strategy that I can discern about how to
    deal with the poisoning of Americans through fentanyl.
        Most Americans are worried about the rise in crime, and we
    need to reassure them we get it, that we're going to do better.
    That Schedule I designation for fentanyl expires at the end of
    the year. Mr. Chairman, I know you don't want that to happen.
    Senator Cotton's been ahead of this before any of us.
        So, if you put arsenic in a pill, knowing somebody's going
    to take it, why aren't you charged with--you would be charged
    with murder. If you lace a pill with fentanyl, which is
    probably more lethal than arsenic, why aren't you charged with
    murder?
        We're going to have to deter those who are killing young
    people in America.
        We're going to have to put countries on notice that you're
    with us or you're against us when it comes to this scourge of
    fentanyl.
        We're going to have to control our border.
        We're going to have to come up with a rational immigration
    policy.
        We're going to have to change our asylum laws, because
    everybody in the world believes if they get one foot in
    America, they never leave.
        On many fronts, law and order has broken down here at home,
    and the world is in chaos. China is watching what we do in
    Ukraine. And the question for all of us, are we doing enough to
    combat the threats that we're all living with? And I would say
    we're woefully inadequate in dealing with the threats that
    exist against America at home and abroad. And maybe this
    Committee, in a bipartisan fashion, can do something about it.
    Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
        Let me lay out the mechanics of today's hearing. After I
    swear in the Attorney General, he'll have 5 minutes to provide
    an opening statement. We have his written statement for the
    record.
        There will be a first round of questions, and each Senator
    will have 7 minutes. Please try to remain within your allotted
    time.
        Following the first round of questions, if there's an
    interest in a second round, Senators will have an additional 3
    minutes each.
        I now would ask the Attorney General to please stand and
    raise his right hand.
        [Witness is sworn in.]
        Chair Durbin. The record reflects that the Attorney General
    answered in the affirmative, and now you're invited to proceed
    with your opening statement.

     STATEMENT OF HON. MERRICK B. GARLAND, ATTORNEY GENERAL, U.S.
                 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC

        Attorney General Garland. Good morning, Chair Durbin,
    Ranking Member Graham, and distinguished Members--got it. Thank
    you. Appreciate it. Good morning, Chair Durbin, Ranking Member
    Graham, and distinguished Members of this Committee.
        Every day, the 115,000 employees of the Justice Department
    work tirelessly to fulfill our mission to uphold the rule of
    law, to keep our country safe, and to protect civil rights.
        Every day, our FBI, ATF, and DEA agents and our deputy U.S.
    marshals put their lives on the line to disrupt threats and
    respond to crises.
        Every day, Department employees counter complex threats to
    our national security. They fiercely protect the civil rights
    of our citizens; they pursue accountability for environmental
    harms; they prosecute crimes that victimize workers, consumers,
    and taxpayers; and they defend our country's democratic
    institutions.
        And every day, in everything they do, the employees of the
    Justice Department adhere to and uphold the rule of law that is
    the foundation of our system of government.
        Thank you for an opportunity to discuss our work.
        First, upholding the rule of law. When I began my tenure as
    Attorney General, I said it would be my mission to reaffirm the
    norms that have guided the Justice Department for nearly 50
    years. I did so because those norms matter now, more than ever,
    to our democracy.
        The health of our democracy requires that the Justice
    Department treat like cases alike and that we apply the law in
    a way that respects the Constitution. It requires that, as much
    as possible, we speak through our work and our filings in court
    so that we do not jeopardize the viability of our
    investigations and the civil liberties of our citizens. And the
    survival of our democracy requires that we stand firmly against
    attempts to undermine the rule of law, both at home and abroad.
        I am proud of the work that the Department has done on each
    of these fronts. We are strengthening the norms that protect
    the Department's independence and integrity. We are securing
    convictions for a wide range of criminal conduct related to the
    January 6th attack on the Capitol.
        We are disrupting, investigating, and prosecuting violence
    and threats of violence, targeting those who serve the public.
    And we are working closer than ever with our Ukrainian partners
    in defense of democracy, justice, and the rule of law. We will
    continue to do so for as long as it takes.
        Second, keeping our country safe. The Justice Department is
    using every resource at our disposal to keep our country safe.
    We are working to counter, disrupt, and prosecute threats posed
    by nation-states, terrorist groups, radicalized individuals,
    and cybercriminals.
        And, together with our partners across the country, we are
    continuing to combat the rise in violent crime that began in
    2020. All 94 of our U.S. Attorney's Offices are working
    alongside their State and local partners to pursue district-
    specific violent crime reduction strategies.
        The Department's grant-making components are providing
    financial assistance to local law enforcement agencies. At the
    same time, they are supporting community-led violence
    intervention efforts. And our law enforcement components are
    working with State, local, Tribal, and territorial counterparts
    to apprehend the most dangerous fugitives and seize illegal
    drugs and illegal guns. For example, last year, DEA and its
    partners seized enough fentanyl-laced pills and powder to kill
    every single American.
        We are also aggressively prosecuting the crimes that
    inflict economic harm on the American people. We are
    prioritizing the prosecution of schemes that impact older
    Americans and vulnerable populations, as well as schemes
    involving pandemic and procurement fraud.
        In our corporate criminal enforcement, we are prioritizing
    and securing individual accountability, and we are vigorously
    enforcing our antitrust laws. Our enforcement actions have
    already resulted in the blocking or abandonment of mergers that
    would have stifled competition and harmed consumers.
        Third, protecting civil rights. Protecting civil rights was
    a founding purpose of the Justice Department, and it remains an
    urgent priority. The Department's storied Civil Rights Division
    has been at the forefront of efforts to protect the right to
    vote, ensure constitutional policing, and enforce Federal
    statutes prohibiting discrimination in all of its forms.
        But now, protecting civil rights is also the responsibility
    of every Justice Department employee, every single day.
        We are working across components to combat hate crimes and
    improve hate crimes reporting.
        In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision to overturn Roe
    and Casey, the Department has pulled together to protect
    reproductive freedom under Federal law.
        And the Department recognizes that communities of color,
    indigenous communities, and low-income communities often bear
    the brunt of harm caused by environmental crime, pollution, and
    climate change, so we are prioritizing cases that will have the
    greatest impact on the communities most burdened by those
    harms.
        I am proud of the work of the Department's employees, the
    work they have done to uphold the rule of law, to keep our
    country safe, and to protect civil rights. The Department's
    career workforce has demonstrated extraordinary resilience
    after years of unprecedented challenges. They have conducted
    themselves with the utmost integrity, without regard to any
    partisan or other inappropriate influences. And they have done
    their work with a singular commitment to the public we all
    serve.
        The employees of the Justice Department are dedicated,
    skilled, and patriotic public servants. It is my honor to
    represent them here today. Thank you for the opportunity to
    testify. I look forward to your questions.
        [The prepared statement of Attorney General Garland appears
    as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Attorney General. You grew up in
    Lincolnwood, Illinois, if I'm not mistaken, at least part of
    your life?
        Attorney General Garland. That's true.
        Chair Durbin. That's not far from Highland Park, is it?
        Attorney General Garland. That's also true.
        Chair Durbin. And we know what happened last Fourth of July
    when the people of Highland Park gathered for a Fourth of July
    parade. A gunman went on the roof of a business downtown and
    fired off 83 rounds into the crowd in 60 seconds.
        Even the armed good guys, the policemen who were there
    trying to protect the public, had trouble locating that person
    and certainly, and sadly, could not have the time to respond to
    what he had done until it was finished.
        When he was finished, there was an 8-year-old, Cooper
    Roberts, who will be paralyzed for life. There was a young man,
    2-year-old Aiden McCarthy, who became an orphan because both of
    his parents were killed. Seven total lives were lost, 50 people
    were injured.
        It is hard for me to imagine that some disciple of
    originalism believes that our Second Amendment envisioned what
    happened in Highland Park. To think that there is a weapon out
    there, a military-style weapon, and the rounds and clips that
    are available to fire off multiple rounds into innocent crowds,
    just, to me, makes little or no sense when you read the basic
    language of the Second Amendment.
        And so Congress did something, and I want to credit Senator
    Cornyn for being a participant in this effort--a leader in this
    effort, with Senator Murphy of Connecticut, to try to pass a
    bill to make it better.
        The Bipartisan Safer Communities Act addressed issues of
    straw purchasing, which we have discussed before--the terrible
    death of Ella French, a Chicago policeman, because of the straw
    purchase made in the State of Indiana--and this situation, with
    the shootings of innocent individuals in Highland Park. I'd
    like to ask you, what have you seen, if anything, that's
    changed for the better since we passed our law?
        Attorney General Garland. I think it's a very important
    law, and I'm grateful to the Members who sponsored it and to
    the overall Congress that passed it. It's done several things
    for us.
        First of all, it has, as you said, established a stand-
    alone crime for straw purchasing and a stand-alone crime for
    trafficking in illegal weapons. We have already----
        Chair Durbin. Are these being prosecuted?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. In both cases, we have
    already brought trafficking cases. I think we've already had
    two gun trafficking cases and several straw purchasing cases as
    a consequence of this law.
        In addition, the law provided for enhanced background
    checks for people under 21, and we have largely completed the
    process of making those possible, so that juvenile records that
    disclose prohibited conduct and make somebody a prohibited
    possessor would now be identified. That's another thing we've
    done.
        The statute also provided funds under the Byrne program and
    additional programs for violence intervention, and for helping
    States deal with red flag laws so that people who have been
    subject to a court order barring them from obtaining a gun, we
    would be able to get those kind of systems provided. And we've
    already given out grants in both of those areas.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Graham basically challenged me, and I
    accept the challenge, to show as much concern about the gun
    deaths, show as much concern about fentanyl deaths in this
    country, and I want to do that.
        He noted, I believe--correct me if I'm wrong--that the
    number one cause of death of people 18 to 45 is drug overdose.
    I don't know if it's fentanyl, specifically, but drug overdose.
    And I know that reality. But the number one cause of death to
    children under the age of 18 is gun violence in America, too.
    We can do both. We must do both.
        So, let's address the fentanyl issue for a minute. We had a
    hearing in this Committee 2 or 3 weeks ago which talked about
    the social media platforms and what they are peddling to
    Americans, particularly to our children across America. There
    were mothers sitting near where you're sitting today who
    brought color photographs of their children who died as a
    result of their trafficking of information on social media.
        And there's little or no responsibility accepted by these
    platforms. Section 230 absolves them from civil liability when
    they broadcast things which harm children, whether it's
    bullying or harassment or something as basic as this choke
    challenge, which unfortunately claims the lives of children, as
    well.
        I think there was a general consensus on this Committee,
    which is saying something, that we need to do something about
    the social media platforms.
        And I coincidentally had a meeting just a day or two later
    with Anne Wigham from the Drug Enforcement Agency. She
    described for me the sale on the internet and social media
    platforms of phony drugs.
        Senator Graham made the reference to a person who thought
    they were buying Percocet and bought fentanyl and died as a
    result of it. I asked her how common this was. She said, ``Very
    common.''
        And they--the sellers even have valet services where they
    will physically deliver boxes of these phony drugs to people at
    their homes, on their porches. This is out of hand. Do you
    believe that we need to do more to regulate and control the use
    of social media platforms that are currently exploiting
    families and children across America?
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, I agree with both you
    and Senator Graham with respect to how horrible this situation
    is. I have personally met with the families of children and
    teenagers and young adults and even the elderly who have taken
    these pills, often thinking that they're taking Adderall or
    Oxycodone or Percocet, a prescription drug, but when, in fact,
    it is filled with fentanyl. And as the DEA administrator's
    testimony demonstrated, 6 out of 10 of those pills are a fatal
    dose.
        The cartels that are creating these pills and that are
    distributing them within the United States are the most horrid
    individuals you can imagine. And unfortunately, they are doing
    it on social media, advertising as if they are prescription
    pills. So, the DEA has a program of going out to the social
    media companies and urging them to advise DEA when they see
    this and advising----
        Chair Durbin. Ms. Wigham told me that when they approach
    the social media and ask for the algorithms so that they can
    get to the root cause of this death and destruction, these
    social media platforms plead Section 230 and refuse. What do we
    do?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I think we do have to do
    something to force them to provide information, to search their
    own platforms for sales of illegal drugs. This is a----
        Chair Durbin. I tell you, I mean, I don't want to put words
    in your mouth, but I think Section 230 has become a suicide
    pact. We have basically said to these companies, ``You are
    absolved from liability. Make money.'' And they're at it, in
    overtime, and deaths result from it, and we have a
    responsibility.
        I think the Committee really spoke to it. We may see it
    differently, but on a bipartisan basis. And I've spoken to
    Senator Graham, and I want to make sure that when we agree, it
    also is publicized. We both feel very strongly that this
    Committee needs to be a venue to take on this issue. I hope we
    have your support and the support of the President when we do
    that.
        Attorney General Garland. You certainly have our support
    with respect to finding a better way to get the social media
    companies, whether it's civil or criminal, to take these kind
    of things off their platforms, to search for them, to not use
    algorithms that recommend them. I totally agree with that,
    Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. Again, welcome, Attorney
    General. I'm going to do something maybe a bit different. I'm
    going to try to find consensus where we can--see how far we go.
        Do you agree that the Wagner organization associated with
    Russia should be a foreign terrorist organization under U.S.
    law?
        Attorney General Garland. I think they are an organization
    that's committing war crimes, an organization that's damaging
    the United States. I think they've already been designated as a
    transcon----
        Senator Graham. Yes----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. As a----
        Senator Graham [continuing]. Criminal--yes, some----
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, TCO. I'm trying to get the--
    --
        Senator Graham [continuing]. I want to go up a notch. Are
    you okay with that?
        Attorney General Garland. I understand this is a quest--the
    way in which determinations are made with respect to terrorist
    organizations come through the State Department. They have to
    make determinations of what the consequence is for countries
    that have them in them.
        Senator Graham. Do you object to me trying to make them a
    foreign terrorist organization----
        Attorney General Garland. I think--I don't object----
        Senator Graham. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I think, though,
    that I would defer in the end to the State Department----
        Senator Graham. I've got you----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. On this.
        Senator Graham. Yes. Well, I bet we'll all come together on
    that one.
        Fentanyl. Fentanyl deaths are more than gun and accident
    deaths, combined, in the United States. Did you know that?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, sir.
        Senator Graham. I mean, this is--how would you describe the
    fentanyl problem in America?
        Attorney General Garland. It's a horrible epidemic----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. But it's an epidemic
    that's been unleashed on purpose by the Sinaloa and the New
    Generation Jalisco cartels.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Let's just stop and absorb that for a
    moment. It's a horrible epidemic. It kills more people than car
    wrecks and gun violence, combined. The question is, what are we
    going to do about it? Under current law, fentanyl loses its
    Schedule I status by the end of the year. You oppose that, I
    assume?
        Attorney General Garland. I certainly do. All fentanyl-
    related----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Drugs should be
    permanently on the schedule.
        Senator Graham. Do you support mandatory minimums for
    people dealing in fentanyl?
        Attorney General Garland. I think we already have mandatory
    minimums for people dealing----
        Senator Graham. Do you think they should be increased?
        Attorney General Garland. I think we have more than enough
    ability now to attack this problem.
        Senator Graham. Well, would you agree with me, whatever we
    have is not working?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I----
        Senator Graham. Whatever we're doing is not working.
        Attorney General Garland. I agree with that because of the
    number of deaths----
        Senator Graham. Yes. So----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. That you pointed
    out, so the----
        Senator Graham. So, just keep an open mind that what we've
    got on the books is not working. If somebody gave a pill to
    another person with arsenic or ricin, could they be charged
    with murder? Because that will kill you.
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
        Senator Graham. Okay. If somebody gave a candy-shaped pill
    full of fentanyl, could they be charged with murder?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, they can be charged with
    drug trafficking leading to death. I don't think the statute
    says murder----
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. But it does say--
    specifically aims at that.
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. We have brought prosecutions----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I know, having
    discussed----
        Senator Graham. So----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. This with the U.S.
    attorney in Colorado and the U.S. attorney in the Southern
    District of New York.
        Senator Graham. So, Senator Cotton's got a proposal to
    dramatically increase the penalties associated with fentanyl.
    I'd like to work with you and the Chairman, if we could, to
    find a bipartisan solution to this problem, to create
    deterrence that doesn't exist.
        Mexican drug cartels. Should they be designated foreign
    terrorist organizations under U.S. law?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I think it's the same answer
    I gave before. They are already designated in any number of
    ways and sanctioned by the Treasury----
        Senator Graham. Would you oppose some of us trying to make
    them foreign terrorist organizations?
        Attorney General Garland. I wouldn't oppose it, but again,
    I want to point out there are diplomatic concerns. We need the
    assistance of Mexico in this, and designating----
        Senator Graham. Is Mexico helping us effectively with our
    fentanyl problem?
        Attorney General Garland. They are helping us, but they
    could do much more. There's no question about that.
        Senator Graham. Well, if this is helping, I would hate to
    see what not helping looks like.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I think----
        Senator Graham. So, the bottom line for me is they're not
    helping, and we need to up our game when it comes to fentanyl.
        Gitmo. Are you familiar with the Gitmo prison?
        Attorney General Garland. I haven't been there, if that's
    what you're asking. I'll----
        Senator Graham. No, I mean, but you know that we have
    foreign terrorists----
        Attorney General Garland. Yes----
        Senator Graham [continuing]. Housed there? Is that right?
        Attorney General Garland. I certainly do.
        Senator Graham. Do you agree with me that under the law of
    war, an enemy combatant, properly designated, can be held to
    the end of hostilities?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. That's the law both of the
    Circuit I was----
        Senator Graham. Right.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. On before, and the
    Supreme Court.
        Senator Graham. Right. So, do you agree with me that ISIS
    and Al Qaeda is still at war with us?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I do.
        Senator Graham. So, you agree that anybody associated with
    these organizations could be held indefinitely if they present
    a risk to the American people?
        Attorney General Garland. I think they could. I think that
    the determination of whether they present a risk and how they
    should be dealt with is a determination to be made by the
    Defense Department, and the----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Defense Department
    is making----
        Senator Graham. But legally----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Those
    determinations.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. They can be held as long as
    they're a risk, and that could be for the rest of their lives.
    Correct?
        Attorney General Garland. I think that's right. It
    obviously depends on the facts----
        Senator Graham. Right.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Of the
    determination.
        Senator Graham. I totally agree. Do you believe Russia is
    committing crimes against humanity?
        Attorney General Garland. I do.
        Senator Graham. Okay. That's a pretty bold statement.
    Should we create an international court to support charges of a
    crime of aggression? Do you support that idea?
        Attorney General Garland. So, the United States supports
    what is now being developed in The Hague, sponsored by
    Eurojust, looking into the possibility of creating that court.
        There are concerns that we have to take into account with
    respect to how it might deal with our own service members and
    other circumstances. We have to be sure that the appropriate
    guardrails are up, but we support any number of different ways
    in which war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the potential
    for crimes against aggression are investigated.
        Senator Graham. I'd like to work with you in that regard. I
    think that's something we could do.
        Attorney General Garland. I would be happy to.
        Senator Graham. When it comes to Federal prisons, are you
    aware that 1,200 prisoners are requesting to be sent from a
    male prison to a female prison?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not, no.
        Senator Graham. Okay. What is our policy when it comes to
    allowing a male prisoner to be transitioned into a female
    prison?
        Attorney General Garland. I think if you're generally
    asking the question of how trans people are dealt with in the
    Bureau of Prisons, my understanding is that these are--
    determinations about where they're placed or where people are
    placed, in general, have to do with individualized
    determinations regarding the security of that individual and
    the management of the prison. These are done on a case-by-case
    basis. That's my understanding.
        Senator Graham. Are you aware of any policy guidelines that
    they use to make that determination?
        Attorney General Garland. I think there is a policy
    guideline along the lines that I just said, that they are----
        Senator Graham. I would like for the Bureau of Prisons to
    send it to us. Are you concerned that if a biological male is
    sent to a female prison, that could be a risk to female
    prisoners?
        Attorney General Garland. I think every person in prison
    has to be dealt with with dignity and respect, that
    determinations of the safety questions you're talking about
    have to be made on an individualized basis and not
    categorically.
        Senator Graham. Finally, let's end where we started.
    Fentanyl. If this drug is killing more Americans than car
    wrecks and gun violence, combined, do you believe that the
    policies we have today in effect are working?
        Attorney General Garland. I've been involved in the problem
    of drug crime and drug trafficking for more than 40 years,
    including----
        Senator Graham. That's not my question. It's not how long
    you've been involved. Are they working?
        Attorney General Garland. They are not stopping fentanyl
    from killing Americans, if that's the question you're asking.
        Senator Graham. Would you say they're woefully inadequate
    to the task?
        Attorney General Garland. We are putting all the resources
    that Congress provides to us into doing this. The DEA is
    doing--we are starting at the precursor level, when precursors
    are sent from China to Mexico. We are then working on----
        Senator Graham. Well, but----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Attacking the labs.
        Senator Graham. My time is up. Mr. Attorney General,
    they're not working. And we're going to help you, if you'll
    work with us, to give you more tools. I hope you will meet us
    in the middle. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. Happy to have more tools,
    Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Before recognizing another colleague, I want
    to apologize, in my reference to the DEA administrator. Her
    name is Anne Milgram, and I mispronounced it, so I want, for
    the record, to clarify that.
        Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you,
    Attorney General, for being here. I appreciate it. Good to see
    you.
        Methane is probably the--one of the most dangerous
    greenhouse gases. We see plumes of it, miles long, floating
    across the United States. It takes multiple levels of
    enforcement--Federal, State, local, and private--to address
    these massive leaks. What can you tell me you are doing to
    assure that there is that coordinated multijurisdictional
    enforcement operation in place?
        Attorney General Garland. You are exactly right. And we now
    have the benefit of overhead commercial satellites which are
    able to actually see methane with respect to the infrared
    spectrum.
        So, we are in the process of establishing a working group,
    between our Environment and Natural Resources Division in the
    Justice Department, the EPA, the Interior Department, and
    affected U.S. Attorney's Offices across the country, to make
    use of the tools, the scientific tools we have, and also some
    of the funding that was provided in the Bipartisan
    Infrastructure Act.
        Senator Whitehouse. That is good news, and I hope that that
    effort will include advisory participation from State law
    enforcement, from local law enforcement, and from private
    litigant experts in this space.
        Attorney General Garland. All of our work in the law
    enforcement field involves partnering with State and local law
    enforcement. Always happy to have expertise provided, but our
    law enforcement working groups are confined to law enforcement,
    as a general matter.
        Senator Whitehouse. I just got a document from an insurance
    publication that says, I'm just reading here, ``At least 1,375
    climate change-related lawsuits have already been brought in
    the United States.'' These include suits filed by local
    municipalities and by States--Rhode Island is one of them--as
    well as shareholder suits.
        Given all of that Government litigation taking place in
    this space, I would ask you, is there anyone looking at Federal
    DOJ involvement in that area, in the Department of Justice? And
    if so, who is that person?
        Attorney General Garland. So, I really don't, as a general
    matter, want to describe our internal decision-making
    processes. On these, I can assure you that the Environmental
    and Natural Resources Division has taken a very close look at
    this question. But beyond that, I really can't say.
        Senator Whitehouse. Okay. Well, you may recall that the
    last time the Department of Justice took a really close look at
    this question, they got the standard of decision wrong. They
    applied a criminal standard of review to civil litigation. So,
    I hope that the seriousness of the look that's been taken, what
    I would like to call an honest look, is actually, in fact,
    taking place, because the record from before your time is not
    very convincing.
        Attorney General Garland. I agree with you, Senator, that
    the criminal standard, beyond a reasonable doubt, is not
    appropriate for fraud cases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. Correct.
        Senator Whitehouse. And----
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry, for civil fraud cases.
        Senator Whitehouse. Civil fraud cases. Correct. Criminal
    cases.
        Congress, right now, is on the wrong side of a bunch of OLC
    opinions that relate to Executive privilege. And there are some
    specific ones that relate to so-called ``absolute immunity''
    that are on the books at OLC that have been specifically
    rejected in quite forceful language by actual Article III
    judges, and yet those OLC opinions are still on the books.
    They're still available to other agencies who are making
    determinations about whether to block congressional oversight
    based on those OLC opinions.
        I would like to ask you--let me go back a step. OLC says
    that they don't ordinarily review opinions of their own even
    after they've been discredited by Article III judges, unless
    they've been asked. And you're one of the people who can ask
    them. So, I'm asking you, will you ask them to review the OLC
    opinions that are now publicly on the books, of the Department
    of Justice, that have been discredited by specific findings of
    Article III judges? They relate to absolute immunity.
        Attorney General Garland. So, my understanding of the
    longstanding process at OLC is not to reevaluate old opinions
    unless they are now relevant for a current controversy.
        Senator Whitehouse. That's the problem.
        Attorney General Garland. And I also believe that their
    process is that if a court of ultimate jurisdiction determines
    that they are wrong, then they will evaluate it. My
    understanding of the cases----
        Senator Whitehouse. So, Ketanji Brown Jackson was one of
    the authors of one of the opinions that said the OLC opinions
    were wrong. She's a pretty credible judge, I think. She's now
    sitting on the United States Supreme Court. And those OLC
    opinions hang out there for review by other executive agencies,
    even if there's no direct ask to the Department that would
    trigger that OLC review.
        Attorney General Garland. So----
        Senator Whitehouse. It's sort of like executive branch
    jurisprudence that sits on its own, independent from Article
    III jurisprudence. And somehow we've got to figure out how to
    connect those two things, because at the moment, you have OLC
    opinions that appear to be flat-out wrong, by the
    determinations made by those whose job it is to say what the
    law is, the Article III judges, and there's no effort to ask
    them, in that fairly unique circumstance, to go back and fix
    it.
        Attorney General Garland. So, again, I think all the
    circumstances you're talking about, about individual judges,
    sometimes a single judge on a court of appeals, sometimes a
    judge speaking in dicta, but no decision--if there were a
    decision of the United States Supreme Court that was
    inconsistent, or of a court of appeals, I believe OLC would
    reevaluate.
        Otherwise, there are lots of judges who criticize OLC
    opinions, and the Justice Department--as a former judge, that's
    perfectly appropriate for Article III judges to do, but we have
    to allocate our resources to cases which are active cases, and
    that's what OLC does.
        Senator Whitehouse. Well, I will continue to pursue this
    because I think it is wrong for OLC to insist on developing its
    own jurisprudence that is separate from and independent from
    what Article III judges decide.
        And if the only way you can change an OLC opinion, which is
    controlling on the entire executive branch, is to get the
    Supreme Court to overturn it, then you've created a really
    lasting obstacle to the proper separation of powers in our
    Constitution. So, to be continued. Attorney General, thank you
    for being here today.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
    Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. At last year's FBI oversight hearing,
    Wray committed to protecting whistleblowers that have
    approached my office about wrongdoing at the Department, and
    the FBI. Do you commit to me, this Committee, and the Senate as
    a whole that any retaliatory conduct against whistleblowers
    will be disciplined?
        Attorney General Garland. I do, Senator. And you know well,
    more than any other Member of this Committee, that I've been a
    staunch supporter of whistleblowers and of the False Claims
    Act, all during the entire period of my role as a judge, as
    well.
        Senator Grassley. I'm going to set up a hypothetical fact
    pattern for you and ask you to tell me how you would handle it.
        The Justice Department and the FBI received information
    from over a dozen sources. That's the first one.
        Second, those sources provide similar information about
    potential criminal conduct relating to a single individual.
        And third, that information was shared with the Department
    and FBI over a period of years.
        According to Department policy and procedures, what steps
    would the Department take to determine the truth and accuracy
    of the information provided by those sources?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sorry. These are
    whistleblower--so, they're internal sources? Is that what
    you're saying? I'm not sure.
        Senator Grassley. It doesn't matter where it comes from.
    Just the fact that I want to know. You got that information,
    how would you go about handling it?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, reports of wrongdoing
    are normally reported to whatever the appropriate Department
    component is. It might be a U.S. Attorney's Office in the
    district in which it allegedly took place. It might be directly
    to FBI components and to FBI task forces.
        In cases involving whistleblowers, of course, there are
    specific provisions for making complaints to the Inspector
    General's Office or the Office of Professional Responsibility
    or the Inspections Division of the FBI.
        Senator Grassley. Recent lawfully protected whistleblower
    disclosures to my office indicate that the Justice Department
    and the FBI had, at one time, over a dozen sources that
    provided potentially criminal information relating to Hunter
    Biden. The alleged volume and similarity of the information
    would demand that the Justice Department investigate the truth
    and accuracy of the information.
        Accordingly, what steps has the Justice Department taken to
    determine the truth and accuracy of the information provided?
    Congress and the American people, I think, have a right to
    know.
        Attorney General Garland. So, as the Committee well knows
    from my confirmation hearing, I promised to leave the matter of
    Hunter Biden in the hands of the U.S. attorney for the District
    of Delaware, who was appointed in the previous administration.
        So, any information like that should have gone--or should,
    or should have gone to that U.S. Attorney's Offices and the FBI
    squad that's working with him. I had pledged not to interfere
    with that investigation, and I have carried through on my
    pledge.
        Senator Grassley. In April 2022, you testified to Senator
    Hagerty that the Hunter Biden investigation was insulated from
    political interference because it was assigned to, as you just
    now told me, to the Delaware Attorney's Office.
        However, that could be misleading, because without special
    counsel authority, he could need permission of another U.S.
    attorney, in certain circumstances, to bring charges outside
    the District of Delaware. I'd like clarification from you with
    respect to these concerns.
        Attorney General Garland. The U.S. attorney in Delaware has
    been advised that he has full authority to make those kind of
    referrals that you're talking about or to bring cases in other
    jurisdictions if he feels it's necessary. And I will assure
    that if he does, he will be able to do that.
        Senator Grassley. Does the Delaware U.S. attorney lack
    independent charging authority over certain criminal
    allegations against the President's son outside of the District
    of Delaware?
        Attorney General Garland. He would have to bring--if it's
    in another district, he would have to bring the case in another
    district. But as I said, I have promised to ensure that he's
    able to carry out his investigation and that he be able to run
    it. And if he needs to bring it in another jurisdiction, he
    will have full authority to do that.
        Senator Grassley. If you provided the Delaware U.S.
    attorney with special counsel authority, isn't it true that he
    wouldn't need permission of another U.S. attorney to bring
    charges?
        Attorney General Garland. It's a kind of a complicated
    question. If it--under the regulations, that kind of act he
    would have to bring to me, to the Attorney General. Under the
    regulations, those kind of charging decisions would have to be
    brought. I would then have to, you know, authorize it and
    permit it to be brought in another jurisdiction. And that is
    exactly what I promised to do, here, already, that if he needs
    to bring a case in another jurisdiction, he will have my full
    authority to do that.
        Senator Grassley. Has the Delaware U.S. attorney sought
    permission of another U.S. Attorney's Office, such as in the
    District of Columbia or in California, to bring charges? If so,
    was it denied?
        Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know the answer to
    that, and I don't want to get into the internal elements of
    decision-making by the U.S. attorney, but he has been advised
    that he is not to be denied anything that he needs. And if that
    were to happen, it should ascend through the Department's
    ranks. And I have not heard anything from that office to
    suggest that they are not able to do everything that the U.S.
    attorney wants to do.
        Senator Grassley. Well, let me give you my view. If Weiss,
    the U.S. attorney there in Delaware, must seek permission from
    a Biden-appointed U.S. attorney to bring charges, then the
    Hunter Biden criminal investigation isn't insulated from
    political interference, as you publicly proclaimed.
        If the Justice Department received information that foreign
    persons had evidence of improper or unlawful financial payment
    paid to elected officials or other politically exposed persons,
    and those payments may have influenced policy decisions, would
    that pose a national security concern and demand full
    investigation? And when Wray was here, he seemed to answer that
    question in--that it was a national security concern. I want
    your opinion.
        Attorney General Garland. In the way that you're--if I
    follow the question exactly right, if it's an agent of a
    foreign government asking someone and paying someone to do
    things to support that foreign government in secret, yes, I
    definitely think that would be a national security problem.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. My last question is, do--
    whistleblowers have confidentially asserted that the DOJ's
    public integrity unit--I think I'm going to leave that question
    for another round. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Attorney General
    Garland, for being here. I know a major goal of yours was
    working to build morale in the Department, filling a number of
    the jobs. And I want to personally thank you for the work of
    the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota and our U.S. Attorney
    Andy Luger, who I know you know.
        And he actually, at his swearing-in, announced a major
    strategy to address violent crime that directed Federal law
    enforcement to prioritize cases, including carjackings--we've
    had a rash of those cases in Minnesota--and the trafficking of
    firearms.
        Under his leadership, every Federal prosecutor--as you are
    aware, in your leadership--in the office will now take on
    violent crime cases. Can you talk about how the Department's
    approach to focusing on violent crime is centered on
    partnerships with local agencies and what you're doing?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. I want to begin by saying
    that we well recognize that there is a terrible problem of
    violent crime. Very first--and the reason violent crime is
    important to the Federal Government is because it makes it
    impossible for people to go about their ordinary lives and
    carry out their civic responsibilities and their family
    responsibilities without fear.
        So, the Department is very seized with this problem, and
    one of the very first things I did after becoming Attorney
    General--this was, I think, in May, is to establish an anti-
    violent crime strategy, which involves the kind of partnerships
    that you're talking about and the kind of individual, district-
    by-district determination that U.S. Attorney Luger has made in
    his own district as to what is most necessary in that district
    to fight violent crime.
        Senator Klobuchar. Mm-hmm.
        Attorney General Garland. Our plan involves three sets of
    partnerships. One is among all Federal law enforcement, FBI,
    DEA, Marshals, ATF, and Homeland Security and other agencies,
    so that there is no turf fighting, that we all work together in
    joint task forces, that those partnerships at the second level
    be expanded to State and local law enforcement, police, and
    sheriffs.
        There are not enough Federal law enforcement in the world
    to deal with the problem of violent crime. This is largely a
    State and local issue and problem, and they are our force
    multipliers, and we are their resource and expertise
    multipliers. So, in every jurisdiction, the U.S. attorney is
    responsible for creating a task force of Federal and State.
        And then finally, there has to be relationships with the
    community. As a former violent crime prosecutor myself, I know
    we don't get witnesses to testify in violent crime cases unless
    the community trusts us. The community doesn't trust us if law
    enforcement doesn't engage with them, show that we're being
    honest and transparent about our work, and, through our funding
    mechanisms, provide grants for violence interruption and
    violence intervention.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. And that, in a nutshell, is the
    violent crime program.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you for the thorough answer. I'm
    going to just now do a bit of a rapid round follow-up on some
    of these.
        Attorney General Garland. Sure.
        Senator Klobuchar. You mentioned law enforcement. You noted
    in your testimony that the COPS Office has dedicated $224
    million to help law enforcement.
        Senator Murkowski and I have long championed the COPS
    Hiring Program through the COPS Reauthorization Act. I assume
    you continue to support that and continue to support the work
    that needs to be done to address police officer recruitment and
    retention issues.
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely. In the previous
    fiscal year, I think we had $100 million to distribute, which
    we did, for COPS hiring, for recruitment and retention.
        In the next fiscal year, we expect over $200 million for
    the same purpose. We know how difficult police departments
    are--how much difficulty they're having with respect to
    recruitment and retention, and we are trying to do everything
    we can, both in terms of grants and in terms of expertise, to
    help.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Very good. Minnesota--currently a
    backlog of around 3,800 DNA cases awaiting testing. Senator
    Cornyn and I are working together on the Debbie Smith Act. And
    would that help law enforcement have the tools they need?
    This--actually, these numbers just came out yesterday, so it's
    very timely.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. No, absolutely, I think that
    needs to be reupped, and we are very strongly supportive of
    providing more funds to State and locals for DNA rape kits and
    forensic analysis or the like.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. I want to leave 2 minutes for
    antitrust, so just one quick other follow-up. Senator Capito
    and I asked what steps the Department has taken to stop the
    trafficking of fentanyl on the dark web. I know some of my
    colleagues have asked about fentanyl. Any update you want to
    give on that? Or you could give it in writing afterwards.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I'll give you more detail
    in writing.
        As you know, we had a major takedown of two different dark
    web websites, which were trafficking in fentanyl, and we are
    continuing to investigate using our cyber tools to take those
    websites down and to arrest the operators.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Senator Grassley and I
    worked together on passing, as you know, the changes to the
    merger fees. It was kind of a lot of drama at the end of the
    year, and we're very pleased that that went through and it had,
    I think, 88 Senators supporting an amendment at the end of the
    year on the budget. And I assume you're going to use those
    resources in a good way, as they start coming in.
        But I really wanted to focus on some of the legal changes
    we'd like to see. Senator Lee and I were pleased the Venue bill
    passed that he led. And I know we also have a bill on the
    marketing side on Google. We're going to be having a hearing
    coming up on that topic. And I know the Department recently
    announced a new antitrust case against Google for its blocking
    of competition in digital advertising.
        But could you talk a little bit about, beyond that, what
    you think legal changes, law changes would be helpful as we're
    seeing a changing internet economy? And on the privacy kids'
    side, which Senator Durbin asked about, we haven't seen any
    changes to our laws.
        But also on the antitrust side, on the marketing, on the
    self-preferencing of their products, whether it's Amazon or
    Apple, we haven't seen changes.
        And Senator Blackburn and Senator Blumenthal have worked
    together on the App Store bill. Talk about what you'd like to
    see to give you the tools to better combat the issues that
    we're seeing.
        Attorney General Garland. So, first, gratitude for the
    merger fees increase. It gives us the opportunity to staff up
    and be able to have enough lawyers and economists to oppose
    private sector, which has way more than we do. And we still
    have fewer antitrust employees than we had in the 1970s, the
    last time I was in the Justice Department. With respect to
    the----
        Senator Klobuchar. Yet you have the biggest companies the
    world has ever seen, to try to deal with.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland. Exactly. On the legislation side,
    we have supported--I think it's called the Online Choice--
    American Innovation and Online Choice Act.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good.
        Attorney General Garland. Did I get it right? Yes.
        Senator Klobuchar. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you. And the Open Apps
    Act--I think that's close to the correct title. We've had
    testimony by Assistant Attorney General Kanter with respect to
    the Open Apps Act.
        We are always interested in working with Congress to
    modernize the antitrust laws to take account of the kind of
    network effects and two-sided platforms that we now have in our
    high-technology companies.
        Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you. And, of course, you
    join a number of Republicans, as well as the NFIB has made this
    a huge priority in terms of passing these bills. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Attorney General, of course, Senator
    Klobuchar has a recommendation for your reading pleasure on the
    subject of antitrust. Senator Cornyn.
        Attorney General Garland. As Senator Klobuchar would say,
    channeling Taylor Swift, I know that, ``all too well.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you for bringing up the Ticketmas-
    ter hearing that Senator Lee and I conducted. I'm sure we will
    have follow-up in writing, or maybe Senator Lee could ask a
    question about that. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. I can't match all of Senator
    Lee's quotes on this one, but I'm pretty familiar with Taylor
    Swift, so I'll do my best.
        Chair Durbin. Now you've got us started. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Attorney General Garland, you, of course,
    served in the judiciary for many years and before you became
    Attorney General--let me just ask, do you prefer to be called
    General Garland or Judge Garland?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, the Senators of this
    Committee can call me anything that they want.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, we will, with all appropriate
    respect.
        Attorney General Garland. I appreciate that part.
        Senator Cornyn. Are you familiar with the strategy of the
    transnational criminal organizations that are flooding migrants
    across the border, overwhelming Border Patrol and other law
    enforcement authorities so that then the drug traffickers can
    move illicit drugs across the border? Are you familiar with
    that, what----
        Attorney General Garland. I----
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. I would call a business model?
        Attorney General Garland. I am, and I set up--I
    specifically directed the establishment of a task force on
    anti-smuggling and anti-human trafficking, for just the reason
    you said. It involves our Civil Rights Division, our Criminal
    Division, and the U.S. Attorney's Offices all along the border,
    as well as our offices in the Northern Triangle countries and
    Mexico.
        Senator Cornyn. I think you and I had this conversation
    earlier, maybe at your confirmation hearing, but I think the
    Attorney General has the toughest job in Government, I believe,
    because you have to wear two hats.
        You are the chief law enforcement officer of the country,
    and you are also a political appointee and a member of
    President Biden's Cabinet. But I think you also told us at the
    hearing, your confirmation hearing, you repeatedly said that
    the executive branch cannot simply decide, based on policy
    disagreements, that it will not enforce the law. Is that still
    your position?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, it is, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. On September the 11th, 2001, we lost about
    3,000 Americans to a terrorist attack. We declared a war on
    terror. The Congress issued an authorization for the use of
    military force. If you took the size of an average 737, or a
    passenger jet, today holds between 145 and 185 passengers.
        If you were to rack up all of the deaths that we've seen as
    a result of drugs coming across the southwestern border as a
    result of this successful business model that the cartels have
    employed, you would be talking about the equivalent of a
    passenger jet per day crashing, killing everyone on board.
        I have been just astonished at the lack of sense of urgency
    to deal with this issue. It seems we've become so desensitized
    to it that that sense of urgency is simply gone. But I will
    tell you that it's directly related to the open border policies
    of the Biden administration, where people continue to come
    across the border, turn themselves in to a broken asylum system
    or simply get away from law enforcement, because they're
    overwhelming the Border Patrol's capacity.
        This is intentional, as you acknowledge. It's a business
    model of the cartels, and they are getting rich, and students
    like those parents who I met with last week in Johnson High
    School in Hays County, Texas, right outside of Austin, are
    losing their sons and daughters to fentanyl overdoses because
    of exactly this successful business model by the cartels.
        I want to ask you a little bit about the prosecution
    policies of the Garland Attorney General's Department of
    Justice. Sort of the bedrock standard for prosecuting crimes
    has historically been that the prosecutor should pursue the
    most serious, readily provable offense, and that that's been
    the bedrock of policy for--over decades. We know that Eric
    Holder, when he was Attorney General, changed that standard.
        And specifically what I want to ask you is about two
    different memos that you've issued to prosecutors with regard
    to mandatory minimum sentencing. And specifically, in the
    charging memo, one of the charging memos, you said, ``The
    proliferation of provisions carrying mandatory minimum
    sentences has often caused unwarranted disproportionality in
    sentencing and disproportionately severe sentences.''
        Now, just to be clear, mandatory minimum sentences are
    statutory. Correct? In other words, they're passed by Congress
    and signed into law by the President.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, that's right.
        Senator Cornyn. And here, you suggest that prosecutors
    should not enforce or charge defendants with a crime which
    carries a mandatory minimum under certain circumstances.
    Correct?
        Attorney General Garland. It's not--it's not exact--if I
    can just have a moment to explain. I'm very familiar----
        Senator Cornyn. No, well, if you'd just answer the
    question.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Cornyn. So, the memo says, specifically--I'll just
    read it to you. It said, ``For this reason, charges that
    subject a defendant to a mandatory minimum sentence should
    ordinarily be reserved for instances in which the remaining
    charges would not sufficiently reflect the seriousness of the
    defendant's criminal conduct, danger to the community, harm to
    victims, or other considerations outlined above.''
        So, basically, your charging memorandum says that
    prosecutors can exercise their discretion to charge less than
    the most serious offense because you don't like the mandatory
    minimum sentences that Congress has passed. Correct?
        Attorney General Garland. No, Senator. This is a question
    of allocating our resources and focusing them on violent crime.
    Later on in----
        Senator Cornyn. I thought you said--I thought you said that
    your job was to enforce the law without regard to policy
    differences.
        Attorney General Garland. It's not a question of policy
    differences. It's a question of the resources we have----
        Senator Cornyn. You don't have enough money? You don't have
    enough people?
        Attorney General Garland. We don't have enough people. We
    don't have enough money. We don't have enough jails. We don't
    have enough judges. But----
        Senator Cornyn. Well, you've arrogated to yourself the
    decision to make policy by saying that, in spite of the fact
    that there are mandatory minimum sentences for many of these
    drug crimes, which are now causing untold death and destruction
    across America, you're telling prosecutors, ``Don't charge
    those if they involve a mandatory minimum sentence.''
        Attorney General Garland. With respect, Senator, the
    memorandum makes clear that that general analysis doesn't apply
    in violent crime, doesn't apply in drug trafficking, doesn't
    apply in cases in which there's injury.
        Senator Cornyn. So, you're cherry picking which cases that
    you will charge with a mandatory minimum sentence----
        Attorney General Garland. I----
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. And not applying them
    uniformly and charging the most serious crime that can be
    proven at trial.
        Attorney General Garland. If we apply it to every single
    crime, we will not be able to focus our resources on violent
    crime and significant drug trafficking, on the cartels, on the
    people who are killing people with fentanyl. So, the purpose
    here is to focus the attention of our prosecutors and agents on
    the things that are damaging the American people in the largest
    possible respect. That's what the--this policy says.
        Senator Cornyn. At 108,000, roughly, Americans who died as
    a result of drug overdoses last year--71,000, roughly, of
    fentanyl overdoses, do you consider your current policies
    successful?
        Attorney General Garland. We--as I said in answer to
    another question, we have a huge epidemic of fentanyl problem
    created by intentional acts by the cartels. We are doing
    everything we can within our resources to fight that. We have
    our DEA working to prevent transfer of precursors into Mexico,
    to capture the labs, to extradite the cartel leaders, to arrest
    them in the United States.
        We are focusing on fentanyl with enormous urgency. I have
    personally twice traveled to Mexico to try to get greater
    cooperation from the Mexicans on exactly the problem you're
    talking about. I have separately talked twice in person with
    the Mexican attorney general for exactly the problem that
    you're talking about.
        We are focusing on this with enormous urgency. This is a
    priority of the Justice Department, but this is a whole-of-
    Government problem. The border is the responsibility of the
    Department of Homeland Security. We do what we can do with
    respect to the jurisdictions that we have.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Cornyn. Senator
    Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Let me begin by
    thanking you, Mr. Attorney General, and all of the very
    dedicated professionals, all of the employees of the Department
    of Justice, for the great work that they do, day in and day
    out, a lot of it underappreciated. I say that as an alumnus of
    the Department of Justice, a former United States attorney.
        But the work that you and your team have done to restore
    the confidence and trust of the American public in our
    Department of Justice, I think, is one of your enduring
    contributions.
        Let me begin with areas where I think we have a high level
    of bipartisan agreement. First of all, on the Wagner Group,
    Senator Graham and I are the principal sponsors, along with
    Senator Whitehouse, of a measure to declare the Wagner Group a
    foreign terrorist organization. You would agree that, assuming
    that the State Department goes along with us, that it is
    worthwhile doing?
        Attorney General Garland. Look, Mr. Prigozhin, who runs
    this thing, is, in my view, a war criminal. And maybe that's
    inappropriate for me to say, as a judge before getting all the
    evidence, but I think we have more than sufficient evidence at
    this point for me to feel that way.
        And I believe that that group, which is responsible for the
    attacks on Ukrainians in the Donbas, including by bringing in
    prisoners from Russian prison camps as cannon fodder--it's
    just--it's unfathomable, what they are doing, and everything we
    can do to stop them, we should do.
        Senator Blumenthal. Senators Whitehouse and Graham, and I,
    have been working on aiding Ukrainian prosecutors in bringing
    to justice those war criminals, not only Prigozhin, but others
    who tied the hands of women and children behind their backs,
    shot them, buried them in mass graves, which I have visited
    among my three trips to Ukraine. Can you commit the Department
    of Justice will support the Ukrainian prosecutor who is hard at
    work right now in trying to bring to justice those war
    criminals?
        Attorney General Garland. Not only will I commit, but I'll
    tell you, I have done that. I've met twice in person with the
    current prosecutor general, Prosecutor Kostin. I met in Ukraine
    with the previous prosecutor general. We have established a war
    crimes task force in the Justice Department to assist.
        Our forensic agents are on the ground now in Ukraine to
    assist, to teach, to assist in the development of the forensics
    necessary to do those. I have met with Eurojust and Europol to
    work on the--to help them develop the kind of infrastructure
    necessary to prosecute these cases.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. You have our wholehearted support
    in your efforts here.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Next week, Senator Hawley
    and I are going to have a hearing on Section 230 reform, the
    first of a number of hearings that I hope will lead to
    legislation. I hope it will be bipartisan legislation.
        The Solicitor General, in her argument on Gonzalez, I think
    made a number of important points on differentiating third-
    party content from platform design.
        In other words, Section 230 could cover content that users
    post, but when YouTube or others design their products in
    specific ways that cause harm or take steps to amplify or
    change content, that goes beyond the intent and the statutory
    language of Section 230, one example of the ways that I think
    we can achieve steps toward Section 230 reform.
        Another is the EARN IT Act, which Senator Graham and I have
    sponsored, and we will introduce it again this year. I
    recognize that these are general principles. I hope the
    Department of Justice will support this effort.
        I hope that you will, as well, support efforts to take
    action against monopolistic endeavors like Ticketmaster. I
    understand that you commented briefly on it. Can you confirm
    that Ticketmaster is under investigation now?
        Attorney General Garland. So, the Department doesn't
    confirm or deny the existence of these kinds of investigations
    until they reach an overt stage, as you know from your time as
    a U.S. attorney.
        But as I told Senator Klobuchar, we know, quote, ``all too
    well,'' closed quote, the importance of competition in this
    industry, as in all other industries. And so you can be
    confident that in all of our work we approach it with an
    understanding that highly concentrated industries are a problem
    for competition.
        Senator Blumenthal. In that concentrated situation, where
    power is concentrated and you have violation of consent decrees
    twice, wouldn't it be appropriate for the Department of Justice
    to investigate?
        Attorney General Garland. As I say, I really am happy to
    talk in a hypothetical, that in a case where someone violates
    the consent decree, of course, it would be appropriate to
    investigate. But I just don't want to talk about individual
    investigations and whether they're ongoing.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, the American public
    right now is hearing about investigations involving COVID, the
    sources of COVID in China, conclusions with low confidence,
    high degree of confidence.
        Can you, as an official in charge of intelligence and
    interpretations of intelligence, explain to the American people
    what it means for there to be low confidence or higher
    confidence when there are conclusions about, for example, the
    sources of COVID? Whether it came from natural sources in China
    or from a lab leak? What does that designation mean?
        Attorney General Garland. I would have to say, to my
    knowledge--I mean, these are labels that are applied by the
    intelligence community, so while I read the results, I'm not
    sure I can exactly define it.
        But I believe it is just as you would think, that if asked
    to make a decision and say yes or no, you say yes or no
    depending on the degree of confidence that you have that your
    yes-or-no answer is correct. So, low confidence means you think
    the answer is yes, but you don't have high--you know, you have
    low confidence in it. Medium is medium. You might answer, ``We
    don't know at all,'' but that's not what--that's not what
    you're asking about.
        Senator Blumenthal. So, it's more than a hunch or a guess,
    but not quite----
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Something to take to the
    bank.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, there's a lot of
    criminal law, ranging from Terry stops to probable cause to
    convictions. I don't think there is any law in the intelligence
    community that defines those, specifically.
        Senator Blumenthal. You wouldn't sanction a search or an
    arrest based on low confidence?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, search and arrest require
    probable cause. That's all I can say about that.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. After Senator Lee asks, we're going to take a
    brief intermission. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Attorney General Garland. I want to
    echo briefly what Senator Klobuchar described. I hope you'll
    look at our letter and investigate thoroughly those issues.
        As you know, I've long respected you and I've long
    respected your Department. I have become concerned recently
    that, notwithstanding the great men and women who serve and
    have served for generations in the Department of Justice, there
    are some things that lead me to wonder whether some actions are
    being politicized within the Department.
        One example of this relates to 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1507.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Lee. Ever since the leak of the Dobbs opinion and
    then the issuance of the Dobbs opinion by the Supreme Court
    last summer, we've had protesters who have been showing up at
    the homes of Supreme Court Justices, carrying signs, picketing,
    shouting.
        It's very clear that they're trying to influence, in one
    way or another, those serving on the United States Supreme
    Court, trying to influence jurisprudence. And yet not one
    person, to my knowledge, has been prosecuted for such things
    under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1507.
        About 2 weeks ago, this Committee invited some officials
    from the Department of Justice to brief Committee staff on
    protests at the Justices' homes and ask about any arrests that
    have been made or might be made for people engaged in that
    behavior. The briefers came to the briefing and informed staff
    that they hadn't read Section 1507. I assume you've read it, of
    course.
        Just wondering why the Department would schedule such a
    briefing on a statute without having read it and, especially,
    why no actions have been brought under Section 1507 for these
    actions. I've got a lot to cover, so, can you answer that in
    one or----
        Attorney General Garland. I'll try to answer----
        Senator Lee [continuing]. Two sentences?
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. All these
    questions----
        Senator Lee. Well, no, just----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Together.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. Just tell me, am I right in
    concluding that you haven't brought any charges under 1507?
        Attorney General Garland. So, I don't know the answer to
    that.
        We have--the thing that mattered--and as soon as the Dobbs
    draft leaked, I ordered the marshals to do something that the
    United States Marshals had never in history done before, which
    was protect the Justices' homes, residence, and lives, 24/7. No
    Attorney General had ever ordered that before, and no Justice
    Department had ever done that before. We sent more----
        Senator Lee. Which is terrific. That's----
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. Fantastic.
        Attorney General Garland. So, I'm----
        Senator Lee. I'm talking about 1507.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Getting to the why.
    So, we sent more than 70 U.S. Marshals for this purpose. Those
    marshals' priority is protection of the lives of the Justices
    and their families. They are onsite, but their priority job is
    protection.
        That is why, when someone did come to assault Justice
    Kavanaugh, he had to go away from where they were, because
    there were two marshals in front of the house, and eventually
    he self-reported himself. The marshals have been advised, and
    they know--the marshals on the ground--they have full authority
    to arrest people under any Federal statute, including that
    Federal statute, but they have to make the determination on the
    ground whether they can do that in a manner that is safe and
    able to protect their main mission.
        Now, there are also State and local entities which have
    similar authorities and which I understand the Supreme Court
    Marshal has asked them to do this, as well. I don't know
    whether they have done any of those things.
        Senator Lee. Okay. Thank you. I'd love to follow up with
    you more on that later. It is concerning to me when you show up
    at the home of a public official, you're sending the message of
    implicit violence.
        You're sending the message, ``We know where you sleep. We
    know where you and your family are most vulnerable.'' And it's
    very concerning to me.
        I assume you're aware of the overly aggressive arrest and
    prosecution of Mark Houck, who is a pro-life activist and
    father of seven in Philadelphia, based on the fact that he had
    pushed a protester--a protester, or a Planned Parenthood
    escort, rather--as he was demonstrating outside of an area in
    the Philadelphia region.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Lee. He pushed this person, after this person got
    in the face of his 12-year-old son and was yelling vile,
    insulting, demeaning, implicitly threatening things,
    denigrating his father, denigrating his faith, and yelling
    vile, sexually suggestive things to his 12-year-old son. So, he
    shoved him.
        And then before they knew it, Mr. Houck was facing FACE Act
    prosecutions. A highly militarized group of DOJ law enforcement
    showed up to enforce a warrant. They showed up at about 7 a.m.
    on a Friday morning. And, as his--Houck's wife put it, ``A SWAT
    team of about 25 came to my house with about 15 vehicles and
    started pounding on the door and then had about 5 guns pointed
    at my husband, myself, and basically my kids.''
        This concerns me. You know, Mr. Houck ended up facing these
    charges, and, not surprisingly, the jury acquitted him of that.
    I'm just wondering how--it doesn't seem justifiable, to me, to
    have that overwhelming show of force for conduct like that.
        In the meantime, in 2022, and for the first couple of
    months of 2023, DOJ has announced charges against 34
    individuals for blocking access to or vandalizing abortion
    clinics.
        And there have been over 81 reported attacks on pregnancy
    centers, 130 attacks on Catholic churches since the leak of the
    Dobbs decision, and only 2 individuals have been charged. So,
    how do you explain this disparity by reference to anything
    other than politicization of what's happening there?
        Attorney General Garland. The FACE Act applies equally to
    efforts to damage, blockade clinics, whether a pregnan--
    resources--whether they're a pregnancy resource center or
    whether they are an abortion center. It applies equally in both
    cases, and we apply the law equally.
        I will say you are quite right. There are many more
    prosecutions with respect to the blocking of the abortion
    centers, but that is generally because they are--those actions
    are taken with photography at the time, during the daylight,
    and seeing the person who did it is quite easy. Those who are
    attacking the pregnancy resources centers, which is a horrid
    thing to do, are doing this at night, in the dark.
        We have put full resources on this. We have asked--put
    rewards out for this. The Justice Department and the FBI have
    made outreach to Catholic and other organizations to ask for
    their help in identifying the people who are doing this. We
    will prosecute every case against a pregnancy resource center
    that we can make. But these people who are doing this are
    clever and are doing it in secret. And I am convinced that the
    FBI is trying to find them with urgency.
        Senator Lee. Okay. I see my time's expired. Mr. Chairman,
    I'd like to submit for the record a copy of a letter sent by
    Representative Andy Biggs from Arizona regarding a case
    involving Philip Esformes, an individual who was granted
    clemency by the prior administration and who's now apparently
    being prosecuted. I hope to discuss this in a subsequent round.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection, it will be entered in the
    record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chair Durbin. We're going to recess for 5 minutes. The
    Committee stands in recess.
        [Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
        Chair Durbin. The Committee will resume. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Attorney General, as
    we've discussed on prior occasions, we know that hate crimes in
    many United States cities are at their highest level since the
    FBI began collecting data in the 1990s.
        Los Angeles alone has seen almost 700--well, saw almost 700
    hate crimes in the year 2022, its highest total ever. Hate
    crimes are also known to be widely underreported, so the real
    numbers are very likely to be much higher.
        Now, hate crimes based on antisemitism, in particular, are
    rising at alarming rates. According to the Center for the Study
    of Hate and Extremism at California State University, San
    Bernardino, Los Angeles faced 80 antisemitic hate crimes from
    January to October of last year, a nearly 10 percent increase
    over the previous year.
        And this past month, Federal prosecutors charged a 28-year-
    old man with hate crimes after he fired at two Jewish men as
    they walked home from their synagogue in Los Angeles.
        So, my question is this, do we have adequate resources
    being devoted to hate crime investigation and prosecution, and
    are there any solutions that you believe we should be
    considering to help us help you do this job?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm grateful for the question.
    And obviously, if anybody ever wants to give me more resources
    in any area of the Justice Department's responsibility, I'm
    happy to take them.
        We have been focused like a laser on hate crime since I
    first came into the Department. I think my memorandum to the
    Department to develop an anti-hate crime task force was one of
    the very first memorandums I issued. As we were making our
    developments in that respect, the anti-hate crime act was
    passed by the Congress, providing us with additional funding,
    which was very helpful.
        I've established a hate crimes coordinator in the
    Department, and each of our U.S. Attorney's Offices is on the
    case, looking into these matters. And the FBI has elevated hate
    crimes and civil rights violations into their highest band of
    threats. So, I would say we are examining this with the highest
    degree of urgency that's possible, and we are putting our
    resources of our Department into stopping these heinous acts.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. I appreciate that. In addition to
    resources, if there are specific policy changes or initiatives
    that you'd like for us to consider----
        Attorney General Garland. I'd be----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Please bring them forward.
        Attorney General Garland. My staff would be happy to work
    with yours if you have ideas in this regard. I think we're
    pretty--right now, I feel like we have the statutes and
    techniques required, but there's always room for improvement in
    everything, and we would be happy to work with you in that
    regard.
        Senator Padilla. A second area I wanted to raise is the
    issue of labor exploitation of children, and, in particular,
    migrant children. I'm hoping you caught a recent New York Times
    report of their investigation which put a spotlight on the vast
    use of migrant child labor across States and across industries.
    I was particularly alarmed to learn that some of these children
    are working full adult shifts in food processing facilities, in
    factories--after school.
        Children are being placed in occupationally dangerous
    situations where they're putting their lives at risk and given
    little break from grueling work. And many of these children
    were formerly under the care of the Department of Health and
    Human Services as unaccompanied minors but have not received
    adequate follow-up services once released to the care of a
    sponsor. And I ask consent to enter this article into the
    record.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Padilla. Now, the Biden administration on Monday
    did announce that it will direct agencies to crack down on the
    use of child labor. And as part of the new initiative, it's the
    Department of Labor who will investigate and enforce penalties
    on these unscrupulous employers and make criminal referrals as
    needed.
        Now, the Department of Labor is also going to lead an
    interagency task force to combat child labor exploitation. So,
    my question is, will the Department of Justice be coordinating
    with the Department of Labor on criminal referrals and possibly
    join this interagency task force?
        Attorney General Garland. We--of course. I read the same
    article that you're talking about. I was horrified by the
    reporting.
        Our Criminal Division and our Civil Rights Division are
    reaching out to the Labor Department and HHS to try to be of
    assistance as much as possible. There's only a limited number
    of criminal statutes that would apply.
        I would point out we do have a forced labor task force
    which has been very active, in general, and it includes
    problems with respect to children, obviously. And I met with
    them just yesterday, and they have assured me that they would
    be reaching out, as well.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. I look forward to following up on
    that. But I also can't help but acknowledge some of the
    dynamics that lead to these situations. Right?
        We know that, from the private sector, we've heard that
    there is a need to address the demand for workers. There's a
    workforce shortage in America today across a number of
    industries and sectors.
        There's a reported 11 million unfilled jobs, many of which
    have historically been filled by immigrants, you know,
    permanent, temporary. But we've seen migration numbers drop in
    recent years.
        So, with no migrants to fill these jobs, since 2018, the
    U.S. Department of Labor has seen a 69 percent increase in
    children being employed unlawfully by companies.
        So, it seems like employers, particularly unscrupulous
    employers--they're going to find their workers somewhere, and
    if they're not finding them through traditional, lawful means,
    children become the victims.
        Further disturbed by proposals I see from Republican
    legislators in States, including Iowa, Ohio, Arkansas, and
    others, where they're proposing to loosen child labor laws.
    That's not the solution here--proposing 14- and 15-year-olds
    work in meat coolers, industrial freezers, and other
    environments.
        This cannot be the answer to our Nation's labor problem.
    So, I absolutely look forward to following up with you on this
    crackdown of unlawful child labor in the United States. My time
    is up, but I'll have some further follow-up questions in the
    second round, I hope. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. Mr. Chair.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Padilla. We're on a roll
    call, just to alert the Members, and Senator Cruz is next.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, welcome. As
    you know, as I observed at your confirmation hearing, you had
    built a long record on the Federal court of appeals and a
    reputation of being relatively nonpartisan. And so I had hopes
    that your tenure as Attorney General would continue that
    record.
        I have to say, I'm deeply disappointed in what the last 2
    years have shown. In my judgment, the Department of Justice has
    been politicized to the greatest extent I've ever seen in this
    country. And it has done a discredit to the Department of
    Justice, to the FBI, and to the administration of law in this
    country.
        Let me start with a simple question. General Garland, is it
    a Federal crime to protest outside of a judge's home with the
    intent of influencing that judge as to a pending case?
        Attorney General Garland. The answer to that is yes, but I
    also want to, at least, respond to your characterization of the
    Department----
        Senator Cruz. Sure.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Which I vigorously
    disagree with. I believe the men and women of the Department
    pursue their work every single day in a nonpartisan and an
    appropriate way.
        Senator Cruz. General Garland, there are thousands of men
    and women who do that. And I'll tell you, I hear from
    prosecutors at the Department of Justice, I hear from agents at
    the FBI who are angry that it is treated as the enforcement arm
    for the DNC instead of upholding the law in a fair and
    evenhanded manner.
        So, you are right. There are thousands of men and women
    that are doing the job. But it is the political leadership that
    you're responsible for.
        So, you just said, yes, it's a crime to protest at the home
    of a judge--same goes for jurors, by the way--with the intent
    of influencing a case.
        But in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision, when
    rioters descended at the homes of six Supreme Court Justices,
    night after night after night, you did nothing.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Cruz. The Department did nothing. When extremist
    groups like Ruth Sent Us and Jane's Revenge openly organized
    campaigns of harassment at the homes of Justices, you sat on
    your hands.
        When these same groups posted online information about
    where the Justices worship or their home addresses or where
    their kids went to school, you again sat on your hands and did
    nothing. Your failure to act to protect the safety of the
    Justices and their families was an obvious product of political
    bias. You agree with Roe v. Wade. You disagree with the Dobbs
    decision. And the Department of Justice under this President
    was perfectly happy to refuse to enforce the law and allow
    threats of violence.
        And as you know, those threats finally materialized with
    Nicholas Roske, a 26-year-old man from California who traveled
    across the country, was arrested outside the home of Justice
    Kavanaugh, armed with a handgun, a knife, and burglary tools,
    and he said he came there to kill Justice Kavanaugh because he
    was enraged by the leaked opinion.
        Now, of course, you're prosecuting that individual for
    attempted murder. But did you bring even a single case to
    enforce this law or did the Department of Justice decide this
    law doesn't apply if it's harassing Justices for an opinion we
    don't like?
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Attorney General Garland. When the Dobbs draft was leaked,
    I did something no Attorney General in the history of the
    Department had ever done before. For the first time in history,
    I ordered United States Marshals, 24/7, to defend every
    residence of every Justice.
        Senator Cruz. Judge Garland--as a judge, you're familiar
    with asking counsel to----
        Attorney General Garland. I'm----
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Answer a question.
        Attorney General Garland. I am ans----
        Senator Cruz. Has the Department of Justice enforced this
    statute? Have you brought a single case against any of these
    protesters threatening the Justices under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1507?
    Have you brought even one?
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, you asked me whether I
    sat on my hands. And, quite the opposite, I sent----
        Senator Cruz. Okay. Let me----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Seventy United
    States Marshals----
        Senator Cruz. Let me try again.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. To defend--and let
    me----
        Senator Cruz. Has the Department of Justice brought even a
    single case under this statute? It's a yes-no question. It's
    not a give a speech on the other things you did.
        Attorney General Garland. The job of the United States
    Marshals is to defend the lives of the----
        Senator Cruz. So, the answer is no.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Is to defend the
    lives of the Justices, and that's their number one priority.
    They have full----
        Senator Cruz. Why are you unwilling to say no? The answer's
    no. You know it's no. I know it's no. Everyone in this in this
    hearing room knows it's no. You're not willing to answer a
    question. Have you brought a case under this statute? Yes or
    no?
        Attorney General Garland. As far as I know, we haven't, and
    what we have done is defended the lives of the Justices with--
    --
        Senator Cruz. So, how do you decide----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Over 70 U.S.
    Marshals.
        Senator Cruz. How do you decide which criminal statutes the
    DOJ enforces and which one it doesn't?
        Attorney General Garland. The United States Marshals know
    that they have full----
        Senator Cruz. Okay. I recognize you want to give a separate
    speech.
        Attorney General Garland. No, I don't want to give a----
        Senator Cruz. How do you decide which statutes you enforce
    and which ones you don't?
        Attorney General Garland. The marshals on scene make that
    determination, in light of the priority of defend----
        Senator Cruz. The marshals do not make a determination over
    whether to prosecute. You, the Attorney General, make a
    determination. And you spent 20 years as a judge, and you're
    perfectly content with Justices being afraid for their
    children's lives. And you did nothing to prosecute it. Let's
    shift----
        Attorney General Garland. That is a----
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. To another area.
        Attorney General Garland. Can I answer the question?
        Senator Cruz. No. You cannot.
        Attorney General Garland. The Attorney General----
        Senator Cruz. You have refused to answer the question.
        Attorney General Garland. I am answering your question. The
    Attorney General----
        Senator Cruz. How did you choose not----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Does not decide
    whether to arrest----
        Senator Cruz. How did you choose not to enforce this
    statute?
        Attorney General Garland. The marshals on scene----
        Senator Cruz. The marshals don't make that decision.
        Attorney General Garland. They do make the decision of
    whether to make an arrest.
        Senator Cruz. To prosecute someone? No, they don't.
        Attorney General Garland. If they make a--if they make a--
    --
        Senator Cruz. The marshals do not have prosecution
    authority.
        Attorney General Garland. If they make an arrest, then it
    goes to the----
        Senator Cruz. All right, let's----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Marshals.
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Change topics, because our time
    is limited.
        We've also seen, across the country, violent attacks at
    crisis pregnancy centers by similar left-wing terrorist groups,
    including one graffiti of a firebombed building said, ``Jane
    was here.''
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Cruz. There have been attacks all over the country,
    and yet the Department of Justice has not brought these violent
    criminals to justice.
        You contrast that--if you're a violent criminal and you
    attack a crisis pregnancy center, that is not a priority in the
    Biden Department of Justice.
        Contrast that to Mark Houck, who's a pro-life activist.
    He's a sidewalk counselor and he had an altercation with
    someone who allegedly interfered with his son's personal space
    and threatened his son, and he pushed him. Now, in an ordinary
    world, pushing someone would be maybe a simple misdemeanor
    assault, but not under the Biden Department of Justice.
        If you're a pro-life activist, what can you expect? Well,
    in this instance, according to Mr. Houck's wife, two dozen
    agents clad in body armor and ballistic helmets and shields and
    a battering ram showed up at his house, pointing rifles at his
    family.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Cruz. Why do you send two dozen agents in body
    armor to arrest a sidewalk counselor who happens to be pro-
    life, but you don't devote resources to prosecute people who
    are violently firebombing crisis pregnancy centers?
        Attorney General Garland. It is a priority of the
    Department to prosecute and investigate and find the people who
    are doing those firebombings. They are doing it at night and in
    secret. And we have found--we have found one group, which we
    did prosecute. We are----
        Senator Cruz. You found one. How many have there been? How
    many attacks have there been?
        Attorney General Garland. There have been a lot. And if you
    have any information specifically as to who those people are,
    we would be glad----
        Senator Cruz. Let me ask you something.
        Attorney General Garland. We would be glad to have that
    information.
        Senator Cruz. Did you personally authorize 20 agents going
    to Mr. Houck's house?
        Attorney General Garland. I----
        Senator Cruz. And he offered to turn himself in through
    counsel, but you didn't want that. The Department of Justice
    wanted to make a show of it. Did you personally authorize it?
    And do you want to apologize to Mrs. Houck and her seven
    children for being terrorized?
        Attorney General Garland. Decisions about how to do that
    are made at the level of the FBI agents on scene and in----
        Senator Cruz. Did you know about it?
        Attorney General Garland. I did not know about it until--
    the way you're describing it, and my understanding is the FBI
    disagrees with that----
        [Gavel is tapped twice.]
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Description.
        Senator Cruz. Was it a mistake?
        Chair Durbin. The Senator's time has expired. I'm going to
    allow the witness to respond to any of the questions that were
    asked.
        Senator Cruz. Was it a mistake?
        Chair Durbin. I'm going to chair the Committee, Senator.
    I'm sorry, you're not. I'm going to----
        Senator Cruz. You said you'd allow him to respond. I've
    repeated the question I asked, which is, was it a mistake to
    send----
        Chair Durbin. You----
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Twenty agents to arrest him at
    the----
        Chair Durbin. You had----
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Crack of dawn?
        Chair Durbin. You had your time and more than any----
        Senator Cruz. You just said you'd allow him to respond. You
    just said, ``I'm going to allow him to respond to the
    question,'' so I repeated the question. Was it a mistake?
        Chair Durbin. You ask the questions----
        Senator Cruz. That was the pending question.
        Chair Durbin [continuing]. You want to ask. I'll ask the
    questions I want to ask.
        Senator Cruz. That's the question I had already asked.
        Chair Durbin. Well----
        Senator Cruz. You just said you'd let him respond.
        Chair Durbin. I'm going to let him respond right now.
        Senator Cruz. Good.
        Chair Durbin. Please don't interrupt him. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. Decisions about how to do
    tactical arrests are made by the FBI agents in the field. The
    FBI has publicly stated that it disagrees with the description
    you gave of what happened in that example. I don't--I--that's
    the best I can answer.
        Chair Durbin. At this point, we're going to go to Senator
    Ossoff.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General,
    good morning.
        Last year, with Senator Grassley, I introduced and passed
    into law bipartisan legislation that requires the DOJ and the
    Bureau of Prisons to strengthen and upgrade security systems at
    BOP facilities across the country. This includes the closed
    circuit camera systems, public address systems, intercom
    systems.
        Through extensive investigation of failures at the BOP,
    we've identified the inadequacies of these security systems as
    posing a threat not just to inmates and staff, but to the
    broader community. This implicates public safety.
        And, indeed, we found that, at U.S. Penitentiary, Atlanta,
    failures of systems like this one allowed widespread criminal
    conduct within the facility, escapes from the facility, putting
    the entire southeast region at risk. And that's in the words of
    the BOP's own internal investigators.
        Our bill is now law, and the Department has a deadline
    upcoming next month to present a plan to Congress for upgrades
    to strengthen these security systems at Federal prisons. So, my
    first question for you, Attorney General, is whether the
    Department is on track to meet that deadline.
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, first I want to say
    we're grateful for the work you and your Committee did on this
    matter. And I know that you've met with the Director of the
    Bureau of Prisons, who is adopting the recommendations that
    you've made. I believe we are on track to satisfy the
    requirements of the statute, but I'd be very happy to be sure
    that she or our staff meet with your staff to ensure that your
    expectations are being met.
        Senator Ossoff. Well, thank you, Attorney General. And I've
    worked diligently to develop the kind of trusting relationship
    with the new Director. She has a task ahead of her to reform a
    bureaucracy that's been mismanaged with significant human costs
    as a result, long predating your tenure.
        And I want to suggest that it's a necessary condition of
    demonstrating that the Department's taking this seriously, that
    this deadline be met and that we move forward expeditiously to
    strengthen these security systems.
        Remaining on the subject of conditions in prisons, the
    Department announced in September of 2021 that it was
    conducting a civil investigation, a pattern-of-practice
    investigation into conditions of confinement in Georgia's State
    prisons.
        So, that was about 18 months ago. And the abysmal
    conditions in Georgia's State prisons, which, as in the case of
    Federal facilities, threaten public safety in the surrounding
    communities and are a major public safety hazard--those
    failures of management, in my view, in Georgia's State prison
    system, are appalling. They're life threatening and have, I
    believe, resulted in loss of life, and they undermine community
    safety.
        So, I want to ensure that the Department remains committed
    to seeing that investigation through and bringing results that
    can be made public and result in change.
        Attorney General Garland. So, the Civil Rights Division is
    charged with these pattern-of-practice investigations. They are
    very committed to ensuring that the conditions are changed that
    you're talking about. These pattern-of-practice investigations
    normally do end in a public report to the State agency involved
    and to the public at large. I don't know the specifics of how
    this investigation is going, but I can assure you the Civil
    Rights Division is fully behind this investigation.
        Senator Ossoff. But the investigation is ongoing? It's
    proceeding, and it's going to get a result. Yes?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you. An additional investigation I
    led last year concerned the Department's implementation of the
    Death in Custody Reporting Act. And one of the disturbing
    findings was that reporting under this statute, known as DCRA,
    had undercounted, by at least almost 1,000 deaths--the deaths
    in State and local custody.
        And in our engagements with the Department, it came to my
    attention--and I was dismayed--that the Department is not
    making DCRA data available to the public. I'm going to ask
    unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, that this report from the
    Leadership Conference and POGO, titled ``A Matter of Life and
    Death: The Importance of the Death in Custody Reporting Act,''
    be entered into the record.
        Senator Whitehouse [presiding]. Without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Ossoff. And I want to ask you, Attorney General,
    whether the Department will commit to making DCRA data
    available to the public.
        Attorney General Garland. So, first, on the first part of
    your question, we're obviously having trouble getting full
    reporting. This has to be voluntary on the part of the States.
    I believe the statute did give us some appropriations which we
    were able to use as incentives for more reporting. We're very
    charged with the importance of doing that.
        I have to say, I don't--I'm not familiar with the specifics
    of DCRA. If it provides for public reporting of the numbers we
    have, then we should be providing it. I don't know whether it
    does or not. I just am not familiar with it at that level.
        Senator Ossoff. You've got a lot on your plate, Attorney
    General. I recognize that. This is a serious concern for me and
    for the Senate. And I did not, after those investigations, come
    away with the impression that there was sufficient attention at
    a high level being committed to ensuring that this is being
    fixed. So, will you commit to getting up to speed and taking
    this matter personally into your portfolio?
        Attorney General Garland. I will. You now have high-level
    attention, if you didn't have it before.
        Senator Ossoff. Well, I think--good. I think we should have
    gotten that based upon the results of the investigation last
    year. I appreciate that commitment today. This needs to be
    fixed. Folks are dying in prisons and jails. The public needs
    to know who's dying, where they're dying. You, at the
    Department, need to know who's dying, where they're dying, in
    order for you, for example, to bring the kinds of civil rights
    enforcement that you're pursuing in Georgia.
        Let's talk about domestic violence for a moment. The Crime
    Victims Fund, as you know, is a critical resource for the
    funding of domestic violence shelters, child advocacy centers,
    and other nonprofits. And, you know, I'm hearing consistently
    from providers of victim services in Georgia that awards from
    this fund are still much lower than previous years, due to some
    issues with VOCA reauthorization.
        Will you work with my office and commit a member of your
    team to meet with my staff, to make sure that we're identifying
    every opportunity to increase the resources for victims and
    survivors of domestic violence in Georgia and across the
    country and that we are expediting the provision of those
    resources? Because lives are literally on the line in my State
    and nationwide.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I will. The VOCA fix was
    very helpful in allowing us to put deferred prosecution,
    delayed prosecution, nonprosecution agreements into the VOCA
    fix. We do, by the way, believe that we're on track to be
    fiscally responsible all the way through 2024.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you. And with my colleagues'
    indulgence, one final question for you. Senator Grassley and I
    have introduced legislation again, this Congress--it passed the
    Senate last Congress, we need to get it through the Senate and
    the House, this Congress--to strengthen Federal protections
    against the sexual abuse of children and to crack down on
    predators who use online services to target children for
    trafficking, for the production of child sex abuse material,
    and other heinous crimes. We need to make sure that the law
    keeps up with technology.
        And we're seeing, in Georgia and across the country,
    children are targeted routinely and exploited online. Will you
    commit that----
        Senator Whitehouse. If you could keep it brief, because
    Senator Hawley and others are waiting.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Whitehouse. Both you and the Attorney General.
        Senator Ossoff. Will you commit to ensuring that this
    remains a top priority for the Department of Justice?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I will.
        Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Attorney General.
        Senator Whitehouse. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General
    Garland, let me just ask you, does your Department have a
    problem with anti-Catholic bias?
        Attorney General Garland. Our Department is--protects all
    religions and all ideologies. It does not have any bias against
    any religion of any kind.
        Senator Hawley. Well, you could have surprised me, because
    given the resources that you are expending and the, apparently,
    intelligence assets that you are deploying against Catholics,
    it appears, and other people of faith, while simultaneously
    turning a blind eye while people are executed gang style on the
    streets of our cities, including in my home State, your answer,
    frankly, surprises me.
        Let's talk about the Mark Houck case, for example. You've
    been asked about this already today, and frankly, your answers
    really astound me. This is a case where a Catholic pro-life
    demonstrator, father, was accused of disorderly conduct in
    front of an abortion center. The local prosecutor, the
    Philadelphia District Attorney, who is a Democrat, a liberal,
    very progressive, declined to prosecute. There was a private
    suit that got dismissed.
        And then after all of that, your Justice Department sent
    between 20 and 30 armed agents in the early morning hours to
    the Houcks' private residence to arrest this guy, after he had
    offered to turn himself in voluntarily.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hawley. Here's the photo once again. You can see
    the long guns. You can see the ballistic shields. You can see
    that they're wearing bulletproof vests.
        Why did the Justice Department do this? Why did you send 20
    to 30 SWAT-style agents and a SWAT-style team to this guy's
    house when everybody else had declined to prosecute and he'd
    offered to turn himself in?
        Attorney General Garland. Determinations of how to make
    arrests under arrest warrants are made based--by the tactical
    operators in the district. They are not----
        Senator Hawley. But you've surely looked into it by this
    point. Right?
        Attorney General Garland. They----
        Senator Hawley. You know the answer, surely.
        Attorney General Garland. They----all I know is what the
    FBI has said, which is that they made the decisions on the
    ground as to what was safest and easiest. They----
        Senator Hawley. So, you're----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Do not agree with
    your description of what happened on the scene.
        Senator Hawley. You don't agree with my description? I'm
    pointing----
        Attorney General Garland. I didn't say----
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. Out what the photo is. There
    are agents here who have long guns and ballistic shields.
        Let's take a look at the hardened criminals that your
    Justice Department sent these armed agents to go terrorize on
    that morning.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Hawley. Here they are. Here they are at mass.
    Here's the seven children with Mr. Houck and his wife.
        In this early morning, they were all at home. Mrs. Houck
    has said repeatedly the children were screaming. They feared
    for their lives. You've got these agents demanding that he come
    out. They've got the guns, she said, pointing at the house and
    at them. He has offered to turn himself in. And this is who you
    go to terrorize.
        What's really interesting to me is this seems to directly
    contradict your own memorandum about the use of force at the
    Justice Department. You say officers may use only the force
    that is objectively reasonable to effectively control an
    incident. Are you telling me that in your opinion as Attorney
    General, it was objectively necessary to use 20 or 30 SWAT-
    style agents with long guns and ballistic shields for these
    people?
        Attorney General Garland. What I'm saying is that decisions
    about how to go about this were made on the ground by FBI
    agents.
        Senator Hawley. You're saying you don't know?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm saying what I just said, that
    those----
        Senator Hawley. Which is that you're abdicating
    responsibility?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not abdicating
    responsibility.
        Senator Hawley. Then give me the answer.
        Attorney General Garland. The----
        Senator Hawley. Do you think, in your opinion--you are the
    Attorney General of the United States. You are in charge of the
    Justice Department, and yes, sir, you are responsible.
        Attorney General Garland. The----
        Senator Hawley. So, give me an answer.
        Attorney General Garland. The FBI does not agree with your
    description.
        Senator Hawley. I'm not asking about the FBI. You are the
    Attorney General. Give me your answer. Do you think that it was
    objectively reasonable--and they followed your guidelines
    [holds up documents] in sending 20 to 30 armed agents to
    terrorize these people? Yes or no?
        Attorney General Garland. The facts I have, which are those
    presented by the FBI, are not consistent with your description.
        Senator Hawley. So, you think it was reasonable?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm saying the facts are not as
    you describe.
        Senator Hawley. What, that the children weren't there? That
    there wasn't----
        Attorney General Garland. No, the----
        Senator Hawley. That there weren't long guns there?
        Attorney General Garland. The facts----
        Senator Hawley. That there weren't agents? What wasn't--
    what do you dispute? What's the factual premise you dispute?
        Attorney General Garland. The FBI----
        Senator Hawley. Be specific.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Has said they don't
    agree with your description of----
        Senator Hawley. Be specific. They don't agree with what?
        Attorney General Garland. Of how many agents, of the agents
    who were there, and of what their roles were. They don't agree.
        Senator Hawley. Do you know the jury----
        Attorney General Garland. That's all I can say.
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. In this case acquitted Mr.
    Houck, as I'm sure you're aware. Do you know how long it took
    them?
        Attorney General Garland. I am aware, and we respect the
    decision of the jury.
        Senator Hawley. Do you know how long it took them?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know.
        Senator Hawley. One hour. One hour. Philadelphia District
    Attorney declines to prosecute. The private suit's dismissed.
    You use an unbelievable show of force with guns that, I just
    note, liberals usually decry. We're supposed to hate long guns
    and assault-style weapons. You're happy to deploy them against
    Catholics and innocent children? Happy to.
        And then you haul him into court, and a jury acquits him in
    1 hour. I just suggest to you that that is a disgraceful
    performance by your Justice Department and a disgraceful use of
    resources.
        I notice a pattern, though. The FBI field office in
    Richmond, on the 23rd of January of this year, issued a
    memorandum in which they advocated for, and I quote, ``the
    exploration of new avenues for tripwire and source development
    against traditionalist Catholics''--it's their language--
    ``including those who favor the Latin Mass.'' Attorney General,
    are you cultivating sources and spies in Latin Mass parishes
    and other Catholic parishes around the country?
        Attorney General Garland. The Justice Department does not
    do that. It does not do investigations based on religion. I saw
    the document you have.
        Senator Hawley. What'd you do about it?
        Attorney General Garland. It's appalling. It's appalling.
    I'm in complete agreement with you. I understand that the FBI
    has withdrawn it and is now looking into how this could ever
    have happened.
        Senator Hawley. How did it happen?
        Attorney General Garland. That's what they're looking into.
    But I'm totally in agreement with you. That document is
    appalling.
        Senator Hawley. I'll tell you how it happened. This
    memorandum, which is supposed to be intelligence, cites
    extensively the Southern Poverty Law Center, which goes on to
    identify all of these different Catholics as being part of hate
    groups.
        Is this how the FBI, under your direction and leadership,
    is this how they do their intelligence work? [Holds up
    documents.]
        They look at left-wing advocacy groups to target Catholics?
    Is this what's going on? I mean, clearly, it is. How is this
    happening?
        Attorney General Garland. The FBI is not targeting
    Catholics. And, as I've said, this is an inappropriate
    memorandum, and it doesn't reflect the methods that the FBI is
    supposed to be using--should not be relying on any single
    organization without doing its own work.
        Senator Hawley. Let me just ask you, as my time expires
    here, a very direct question. How many informants do you have
    in Catholic churches across America?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know, and I don't believe
    we have any informants aimed at Catholic churches. We have a
    rule against investigations based on First Amendment activity,
    and Catholic churches are obviously First Amendment activity.
        Senator Hawley. Well----
        Attorney General Garland. But I don't know a specific
    answer to your question.
        Senator Hawley. You don't know the specifics of anything,
    it seems. But apparently, on your watch, this Justice
    Department is targeting Catholics, targeting people of faith,
    specifically for their faith views. And, Mr. Attorney General,
    I'll just say to you, it's a disgrace.
        Chair Durbin [presiding]. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. Thank you,
    Attorney General Garland, for your leadership of the Department
    and for testifying here today. I appreciate all you're doing to
    restore to your order--excuse me, to restore to your office its
    critical role in our constitutional order.
        Violent crime is a concern many Members of both parties
    have raised today in this oversight hearing. I just want to
    share with you that my hometown of Wilmington, Delaware, which
    had had a longstanding challenge with violent crime, and, in
    particular, murders, saw significant decreases over the last
    few years. Murders were down 58 percent in the past year, to a
    15-year low. Shootings were down 30 percent. Robberies were
    down 20 percent.
        And in meeting with the mayor and chief of police recently,
    when I spoke with them, they credited Federal and local law
    enforcement partnerships, including, in particular, group
    violence intervention strategies, as being central to their
    successful efforts. Congress and the Biden administration have
    together given $200 million to fund these programs for the
    first time. Why do you think investments in things like violent
    intervention strategies have been so effective?
        Attorney General Garland. So, I appreciate your asking
    that. I was just in St. Louis and East St. Louis to look into
    the way in which these violence intervention strategies have
    been effective. They are part of our whole-of-Department
    approach to violent crime, which involves both law enforcement
    and support for State and local law enforcement and grants to
    State and local law enforcement, but also grants to communities
    to prevent the violence in the first place.
        There are many kinds of these community violence
    interruption programs and intervention programs. They generally
    rely on having credible messengers of people who the community
    trusts for any number, a variety of reasons, who go into the
    community, try to explain to the community that the police are
    on their side, that they need to be witnesses, be supportive,
    and to develop trust between law enforcement and the
    communities. That's the bottom line of all this.
        Senator Coons. That's certainly what we've seen in
    Wilmington. And frankly, our chief of police just went to St.
    Louis to be their new chief of police, and I wish him well.
        I co-lead the Law Enforcement Caucus with Senator Cornyn of
    Texas. One of the things we've recently been talking about is
    the NICS Denial Notification Act, which Senator Cornyn and I
    led last year, the President signed into law.
        It requires Federal law enforcement to notify State and
    local authorities when someone fails a background check, when
    they lie and try to buy a gun. It's been in place since
    September, and we've already seen 44,000 denial notifications
    go to local law enforcement. Can you just speak briefly to the
    value of this information for local law enforcement, to prevent
    dangerous individuals from being able to acquire weapons?
        Attorney General Garland. This particular example is really
    the nub, here. Somebody who is not lawfully allowed to get a
    gun, who goes to try to get one anyway--I'd say there is a
    higher probability that person wants to do something nefarious
    with that gun. And now, thanks to this legislation, the State
    and local police will know about that and will be able to
    investigate to determine what it was that person was about to
    do with an unlawful weapon.
        Senator Coons. It's something that the sheriffs and the
    local chiefs in Delaware have been very excited about, and I
    look forward to working with you to make sure that it's fully
    and promptly implemented.
        I am chairing the Intellectual Property Subcommittee of
    this Committee in this Congress, and as you know, I'm very
    concerned about the threat of foreign nations to our innovation
    and our intellectual property.
        I think it's important that our response to this is
    coordinated across the whole Government, so I was glad to learn
    about your collaboration with the Department of Commerce, in
    particular on the Disruptive Technology Strike Force. Could you
    just speak to your strategy, jointly with the Secretary of
    Commerce, for protecting American innovation in coordination
    with other agencies?
        Attorney General Garland. Right. Well, on that particular
    task force, it's very focused on new technologies, AI, for
    example, very advanced microchips which could be very
    dangerous, obviously, in the hands of an adversary, which are
    being exported and are evading export controls.
        So, we're working with the part of the Commerce Department
    which enforces export controls and, on our side, on our
    National Security Division, to identify these kinds of
    transfers and to prevent them from happening.
        You know, a very good example is what's happened on the
    battlefield in Ukraine. We're getting some of the quadrocopters
    and other kinds of drones, and even some of the missiles that
    are landing in Ukraine turn out to have parts that came from
    American manufacturers, and we have to find out how they were
    able to evade our export controls.
        Senator Coons. Well, thank you. I look forward to working
    with you on that and to strengthening our protections for
    copyright violation, patent, trademark, trade secret violation.
        I've led, with Senator Wicker, now, for some time, a
    bipartisan bill to address the counterproductive practice of
    debt-based driver's license suspensions.
        The county police department I had the opportunity to
    supervise commented on a number of occasions, in the decade I
    was in county government, that being essentially a collections
    agency for the courts was the least constructive use of their
    time, to have traffic stops really just based on an outstanding
    request for a warrant or a request for police action based on a
    failure to pay certain fines and fees.
        Last year, Delaware took steps to repeal these suspensions
    of driver's licenses and became a national leader on access to
    justice for the poor. And I appreciate this administration's
    work to restore the Office for Access to Justice, which
    previously, under President Obama, had issued a best practices
    letter on such fines and fees and how they impact those who
    simply cannot afford to pay low-level fines.
        Can you speak to your priorities for this office, the
    Office for Access to Justice, and the opportunity it has to
    help lead on fines and fees, whether by convening relevant
    stakeholders or reissuing a best practices letter?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I'll start with the fines
    and fees. I think the additional and maybe the most pernicious
    aspect of taking away someone's license is then they can't be
    employed. They can't go to their job, where they would make the
    money necessary to repay the fines and fees. So, I know that's
    an underlying basis of your concern and of the concern for
    these statutes.
        The Office for Access to Justice has been re-created. I've
    appointed a Director. One of the things that the Office does is
    serve as an organizing unit for the Legal Aid roundtable, which
    has been reinvigorated across the Government for assistance,
    for providing pro bono work and legal assistance for the poor,
    who are otherwise unable to really do the most basic legal
    tasks because they just can't afford it.
        It's also the center of the Justice Department's own pro
    bono efforts. Justice Department employees every day provide
    pro bono legal services to help veterans fill out the necessary
    forms, to help people with their wills, to help service members
    with respect to their debts, and various other things. And
    that's another organizing section of this Office.
        Senator Coons. Well, thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I
    look forward to working with you and with that Office. We were
    just one vote shy of getting this bill into law at the end of
    last year, and I look forward to partnering with you on finding
    ways to reduce these driver's license suspensions and debt and
    fee issues. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Coons. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Mr. Attorney General, I want to explore the
    dangerous crisis at our southern border and your role in
    causing that crisis. Asylum traditionally is reserved for
    people who face things like religious persecution, persecution
    for their political beliefs, or violence because of their race
    or ethnicity.
        In June of 2021, you changed the Department's asylum rules
    so they could apply to individuals with significant gang
    violence in their home country. Is that 2021 interpretation
    still in place?
        Attorney General Garland. It is. It reinstates a previous
    interpretation the Department had had, of the same asylum
    rules. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. Okay. Do you know the most recent murder
    rate in Honduras?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm sure it's enormously high.
        Senator Cotton. It's 36 per 100,000 people. What about
    Colombia?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know.
        Senator Cotton. Twenty-three per 100,000. Guatemala?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I don't know, but I
    believe it's quite high.
        Senator Cotton. Seventeen per 100,000. What about Mexico,
    right across our southern border?
        Attorney General Garland. I also think it's very high.
        Senator Cotton. Twenty-eight per 100,000. So, I have to
    say, since you rewrote the rules of asylum based on the
    perceived degree of violence in these countries, I'm a little
    surprised you didn't know those. But let's look a little bit
    closer to home. Do you know the murder rate in New Orleans last
    year?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't, but I want to be clear.
    This wasn't based on violence. This was based on threats
    specifically to individuals, on gangs, where the country was
    unable to protect the person. That's what it was about.
        Senator Cotton. So----
        Attorney General Garland. It wasn't about violence, in
    general.
        Senator Cotton. Well, okay. Well, you're partly responsible
    for protecting Americans, so let's say Honduras' government can
    protect its own people, except for 36 out of every 100,000, for
    murders. Guatemala, 17 out of every 100,000. The murder rate in
    New Orleans last year was 70 for every 100,000. What about St.
    Louis?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, it was very high, I think.
        Senator Cotton. Sixty-eight per 100,000. What about
    Baltimore?
        Attorney General Garland. Also very high.
        Senator Cotton. Fifty-eight per 100,000.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Cotton. Should American citizens in places like New
    Orleans and Baltimore and St. Louis begin to seek asylum in
    countries like Honduras and Guatemala, under your asylum
    principles?
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I'm saying that the
    principle here is protection of specific individuals who are
    being threatened by the gang and where the local country is
    unwilling or unable to protect them.
        Senator Cotton. So, is the United States Government and the
    city governments of St. Louis and Baltimore and New Orleans
    unwilling or unable to protect its----
        Attorney General Garland. I don't believe----
        Senator Cotton [continuing]. Own citizens?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't believe they're
    unwilling. They are doing everything that they can. We're
    supporting them in every way they can. The examples that you're
    talking about are ones where they are unwilling to protect from
    gangs.
        Senator Cotton. So, Mr. Attorney General, one of the
    reasons we have a crisis at our border, where we have illegal
    aliens running to our Border Patrol, not away from our Border
    Patrol, is this interpretation of asylum. That anyone,
    anywhere, who lives in a dangerous or poor country can come
    here and seek asylum as opposed to seeking it, as is
    traditionally the case, for things like persecution on
    religious belief or political practice.
        But let's move on, Mr. Attorney General. I want to go
    back----
        Attorney General Garland. Okay. That's not the standard. I
    want to be clear.
        Senator Cotton. I want to come back to a question that
    Senator Cornyn started. Your unprecedented memo in December of
    2020 to direct your prosecutors not to pursue the most serious,
    readily provable offense. I have gotten numerous, numerous
    contacts in my office from your prosecutors who are shocked
    that you have overturned this decades-long bipartisan standard.
    You said this was about allocating resources. What resources
    are you talking about?
        Attorney General Garland. No prosecutor----
        Senator Cotton. I----
        Attorney General Garland. No prosecutor was directed to not
    bring a case--again. In fact----
        Senator Cotton. Your memo specifically says if they feel
    that it's not warranted--or only if the other offenses are not
    sufficient, they should not pursue what has been the standard
    for decades.
        Attorney General Garland. I'm well----
        Senator Cotton. Generations of U.S. attorneys and their
    assistants----
        Attorney General Garland. I'm well aware of the standard
    because I helped write the standard originally when the first--
    --
        Senator Cotton. Because it was a Carter----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Principles of----
        Senator Cotton [continuing]. Administration standard.
        Attorney General Garland. That's right.
        Senator Cotton. Not specifically known for being tough on
    crime.
        Attorney General Garland. It--well, it was the first time
    the principles of prosecution were reduced to a book which
    explained what they were. It was included in it. Every
    assistant U.S. attorney is able to use their discretion to
    bring these kinds of cases. No one's being directed to not do
    anything.
        Senator Cotton. You specifically said that they should not
    pursue the most serious, readily provable offenses in cases
    where mandatory minimums are present because it's not
    warranted. You specifically said that.
        Attorney General Garland. But I said----
        Senator Cotton. That's the law. What does manda--what does
    mandatory mean?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm trying to say that----
        Senator Cotton. Does it mean that prosecutors get a choice
    not to pursue it----
        Attorney General Garland. The----
        Senator Cotton [continuing]. And rewrite the law in that
    way?
        Attorney General Garland. The memorandum said that cases of
    violent crime, which is specifically what you're asking me, are
    ones where, in fact, it's most likely that they should be
    bringing the highest and----
        Senator Cotton. Is it----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Mandatory minimums.
        Senator Cotton. Is it your assertion here that drug
    trafficking is not a violent crime?
        Attorney General Garland. No, and----
        Senator Cotton. It's built on an entire foundation and
    edifice of violence.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, and it includes an
    exception, in the same memorandum we're talking about, for
    significant drug trafficking as well as for violent crime.
    That's right.
        Senator Cotton. What--what--your specific answer, I wrote
    it down here, I was so surprised by it. You said to Senator
    Cornyn, ``This is about allocating resources.'' What resources
    are we allocating?
        If one of your assistant U.S. attorneys has some criminal
    lowlife who could be charged with 12 offenses, but they don't
    charge the 2 most serious, readily provable offenses because of
    your memorandum, they're still charged with 10 offenses. They
    have to go to grand jury, they have to go to trial, they have
    to have a presentencing report, they have to have a sentencing
    hearing.
        How is that conserving resources, that you don't charge
    them with the most serious, readily provable offenses that
    would lock these lowlifes up for the longest time possible?
        Attorney General Garland. The lowlifes that you're worried
    about and have expressed worry about, the drug--large drug
    traffickers, the violent criminals, they are to be charged to
    the max.
        Senator Cotton. I ask again, what resources were you
    talking about? You said to Senator Cornyn, specifically, it was
    about allocating resources. What resources?
        Attorney General Garland. Those include our investigators
    and how much we have to investigate in order to establish the
    requirements for mandatory minimums, the prosecutors who have
    to prove those cases, the judges who have to try those cases,
    and the jails that have to hold those cases, those individuals,
    for longer terms.
        Senator Cotton. Well, if jails are--I don't see how jails
    could be a problem. You only have 158,000 prisoners now. Ten
    years ago, it was 219,000. Do you need more prisons?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I think that----
        Senator Cotton. Senator Kennedy's an appropriator. I bet he
    could get you more prisons.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I think many of the
    Senators have complained that the jails are too filled, that
    they're overcrowded, that we're not able to provide the level
    of protection and security for guards and for prisoners that we
    would like.
        But that is not what this is about. Again, I want to be
    clear. The memorandum was crystal clear that they are to charge
    the most serious, provable offense in cases involving violent
    crime and drug trafficking.
        Senator Cotton. Okay, let's turn to another example of you
    overriding Congress' will. Congress has repeatedly decided to
    impose stiffer penalties for crack cocaine than powder cocaine,
    done originally at the request of Members of the Congressional
    Black Caucus, voted for by Senators like Senator Durbin, the
    Chairman of this Committee. Ten years ago, they made changes to
    that. They specifically kept the ratio higher, and they didn't
    make it retroactive.
        Now, you have directed your prosecutors, when they are
    dealing with crack cocaine, to charge it as if it was powder
    cocaine, something that this Congress has repeatedly refused to
    do, which we refused to do as recently as December when Senator
    Booker tried it on the floor and I blocked it. How do you
    explain overriding Congress' decision on this distinction
    between crack and powder cocaine to suit your own policy
    preferences?
        Attorney General Garland. The longstanding rule is that the
    Department of Justice uses its discretion in which charges to
    bring, regardless of which ones are available, which ones are
    to bring--every bit of evidence we have is that there's no
    difference between powder and crack. Governor Hutchinson
    testified----
        Senator Cotton. Those are legislative----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. To that.
        Senator Cotton. Those are legislative--those are
    legislative decisions. Those are not prosecutorial decisions.
    If this Congress wants to do it, maybe it will one day. Maybe
    I'll be outvoted. But those are legislative decisions. Those
    are not prosecutorial decisions.
        You said at your confirmation hearing that you had to
    follow the law as it was written, that the executive branch
    could not rewrite the law. What you're doing is rewriting the
    law. It's not a single prosecutor out on the front lines making
    one decision. You're directing every Federal prosecutor to
    override the law that has been written by Congress.
        Attorney General Garland. Using our discretion as to which
    charges to bring in which circumstances, which ones are
    appropriate--that's what we're doing. That's the longstanding
    history----
        [Gavel is tapped three times.]
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Of prosecutorial
    discretion in the United States.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Attorney
    General, aloha.
        Attorney General Garland. Aloha.
        Senator Hirono. As I've sat listening to some of the
    questions, the phrase ``badgering the witness'' comes to mind.
    But I commend you for the calm way that you have comported
    yourself at this hearing.
        You have been accused of selective prosecution around the
    abortion issues. I want to note that since 1977, anti-choice
    extremists have been responsible for 11 murders, 26 attempted
    murders, 42 bombings, 194 arsons, and thousands of other
    criminal incidents by anti-choice extremists.
        And, of course, we should prosecute all violence and
    threats of violence by those on both sides of the abortion
    issue, but isn't it the case that our prosecutorial focus
    should be on the most violent acts, Mr. Attorney General?
        Attorney General Garland. I'll just say, look, we prosecute
    without respect to ideology, but we do focus on the most
    violent acts, the most dangerous actors, the cases that are
    most likely to lead to danger to Americans. But we don't care
    what the ideology of the person who is threatening that act or
    who is taking that act. We will prosecute, regardless.
        Senator Hirono. That is what I would expect of any Attorney
    General who observes the rule of law and who abides by it,
    regardless of whatever the religion, all of that. So, that is
    what I expect from the Attorney General.
        In the wake of the Supreme Court's, in my view, disastrous
    ruling in Dobbs--because that ruling has led to fear and chaos
    all across the country, and abortion is now a crime in over a
    dozen States, but it is not a Federal crime--what affirmative
    steps is the Department taking to ensure that States are not
    infringing women's constitutional right to travel across State
    lines for whatever purpose?
        Attorney General Garland. We do not see anything in the
    Dobbs case to suggest in any way that States can interfere with
    travel between States. In fact, at least one of the Justices
    made clear that that was not within the scope of Dobbs. And so
    we are looking closely.
        I'm not familiar with any State that has tried to
    criminalize interstate travel, but if there were, we would make
    the appropriate filings. We have supported the Veterans
    Department and the Department of Defense in their policy
    decisions to support people to travel out of State to receive
    the necessary reproductive care.
        Senator Hirono. Well, Mr. Attorney General, there are
    people who are trying to make it ever harder for persons who
    get pregnant in this country to be able to access abortion
    services and other reproductive services.
        In fact, we are awaiting a decision by a Federal judge in
    Texas whether or not he should impose a national injunction on
    the use of mifepristone, which is the drug that is most often
    used for early stage abortion. It's also a drug that is used to
    treat miscarriages in the early stages.
        So, you have a Federal judge that is about to impose this
    kind of an injunction. It would affect every State in the
    country, including all those States like Hawaii, which was
    among the first to decriminalize abortion. So, I would say that
    the efforts do not stop there, so whatever you can do to make
    sure that women in this country know that they can travel to
    other States to get whatever services that they seek.
        The Department awards billions of dollars in grants to
    State, local, and Tribal law enforcement each year. The
    Department also operates joint task forces and provides access
    to forensic and surveillance resources. This sort of
    collaboration can be good when put to good use fighting
    criminals who prey on our communities.
        But these resources could also be used against women
    seeking reproductive care. I have just sent a letter to the
    President expressing my concerns about the use of these Federal
    funds by local law enforcement to basically hunt down women who
    are seeking abortion. So, how is the Department working to
    ensure that States and local partners do not use Federal
    resources to enforce State laws restricting women's access to
    reproductive care?
        Attorney General Garland. On your first question, just to
    be clear, we have filed in support of the FDA in the lawsuit--
    mifepristone lawsuit that you're talking about, and we are
    hopeful that the result will not be the one that you're
    concerned--that you described.
        Senator Hirono. Well, there was judge shopping, to make
    sure that it's this particular Texas judge who would get this
    case.
        Attorney General Garland. We have--we have filed the
    appropriate briefs----
        Senator Hirono. Please respond.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. In that case.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. On the second question, I
    personally haven't looked into it. I don't know the answer to
    that. So, if we could have some people in the Department get
    back to your staff on that, I'd be happy to do that.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you very much. With a perspective
    that these kinds of Federal resources should not be used by
    States to go after women who are seeking reproductive services,
    I hope that is the perspective that you bring to the issue.
        I want to get to the issue of domestic terrorism and white
    supremacy. Last fall, our colleagues on the Homeland Security
    and Governmental Affairs Committee released a report on the
    Federal response to domestic terrorism.
        In it, they noted that--I quote, ``National security agents
    now identify domestic terrorism as the most persistent and
    lethal terrorist threat to the homeland,'' end quote. They also
    explained that, quote, ``This increase in domestic terror
    attacks have been predominantly perpetuated by white
    supremacists and anti-government extremist individuals and
    groups,'' end quote.
        This fits with a recent Department of Homeland Security
    assessment that the country, quote, ``remains in a heightened
    threat environment,'' end quote, and that some of the potential
    targets include, quote, ``faith-based institutions, the LGBTQ
    community, schools, and racial and religious minorities.''
        Do you agree that white supremacist terrorists pose a
    significant threat to our country and especially to racial and
    religious minorities and the LGBTQ+ community?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. As the FBI reported in that
    report you're talking about, racially motivated violent
    extremists as a group are the most dangerous of the domestic
    violent extremist groups, and within that, the white
    supremacists are the most dangerous and most lethal. Yes.
        Senator Hirono. So, what more can the Department do to
    combat this rise in these kinds of domestic terrorist
    activities?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, we've allocated a
    significant amount of resources for this purpose. Our--the
    National Security Division has stood up a domestic violent
    extremist unit to further track and try and interdict these
    actions. The FBI is treating this with enormous seriousness of
    purpose, and we are going to do everything we can to deter and
    prosecute.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I think my time is
    up. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Hirono. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    General, for being here. Good afternoon.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Senator Kennedy. I read this somewhere. I don't remember
    who said it, but--or wrote it, but I remember it. It was once
    observed that a parent who stops loving their children--if a
    parent stops loving their children, the children will not stop
    loving the parent. The children will stop loving themselves. I
    know we can agree that we should encourage parents to be
    involved in their kids' lives.
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. And I'm sure we can agree that we should
    encourage parents to make their kids do their homework.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, although there's sometimes
    some resistance to that.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. Right. And to make sure they get
    sleep at night so they can be ready for school.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Here's what I'm--I've always been confused
    about. Didn't you understand the chilling effect that it would
    have to parents when you issued your directive, when you
    directed your Criminal Divisions and your Counterterrorism
    Divisions to investigate parents who were angry at school
    boards and administrators during COVID?
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, if you'd just give me a
    moment to put the full context. I did not do that. I did not
    issue any memorandum directing the investigation of parents who
    were concerned about their children. Quite to the contrary.
        The memorandum that you're talking about says at the very
    beginning of the memorandum that vigorous public debate is
    protected by the First Amendment. And the kind of concerns that
    you're talking about, as expressed by parents, are, of course,
    completely protected.
        The memorandum was aimed at violence and threats of
    violence against a whole host of school personnel. It was not
    aimed at parents making complaints to their school board, and
    it came in the context of a whole series of other kinds of
    violent threats and violence against other public----
        Senator Kennedy. Well----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Officials.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, let's walk through this. Your
    directive to your Criminal Division and your Counterterrorism
    Division came in a response to a letter from the National
    School Boards Association. Did it not?
        Attorney General Garland. In part to the letter, and in
    part to news reports of----
        Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Violence and
    threats----
        Senator Kennedy. And----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Of violence.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. And the National School Board
    Association said these parents ought to be investigated under
    the Patriot Act as potential domestic terrorists.
        Attorney General Garland. And you'll notice, Senator, that
    I said nothing like that in my----
        Senator Kennedy. I understand, but----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Memorandum.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. That's what the letter said.
    Didn't it?
        Attorney General Garland. There was a reference to that in
    the letter----
        Senator Kennedy. All right.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Something I disagree
    with.
        Senator Kennedy. And your employees helped them write the
    letter. Didn't they?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know anything to suggest
    that that's true.
        Senator Kennedy. I think----
        Attorney General Garland. No. I don't----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. It is true.
        Attorney General Garland. Well----
        Senator Kennedy. And the White House helped them write that
    letter. Didn't they?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't--I don't know--I have no
    knowledge about that, but certainly I don't know anything about
    my employees----
        Senator Kennedy. And so----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Helping write that
    letter.
        Senator Kennedy. So, you get this letter from the National
    School Boards Association asking you to investigate parents,
    that your employees helped write and that the White House
    helped write, and you issue a directive to your Criminal
    Division and to your counterintelligence--or Counterterrorism
    Division to start investigating parents who are angry. What did
    you think was going to happen?
        Attorney General Garland. I say again, Senator, that I--
    nothing in my memorandum says to investigate parents who are
    angry. Quite the opposite. It says that the First Amendment
    protects that kind of vigorous debate. The only thing we wanted
    was for an assessment to be made out in the field about whether
    Federal assistance was needed to prevent violence and threats
    of violence.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, one of your field off--that's not
    the way your Department implemented your directive. One of your
    field offices actually opened an investigation. You set up a
    website and a hotline to report parents, and a----
        Attorney General Garland. I----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. State----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I don't think--we
    didn't set up a specific hotline about this----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. A----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. This was a
    reference----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. A State Democratic----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. To the FBI's
    hotline.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. Party official contacted you.
    They said that some Republicans were inciting violence by
    expressing public displeasure with school districts' vaccine
    mandates. And one of your field offices opened an
    investigation, which is a permanent part of their record.
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, I don't know anything
    about this specific thing that you're talking about. They used
    to say----
        Senator Kennedy. You really ought to----
        Attorney General Garland. They used to say, in high school,
    ``This is going to be on your permanent record.'' I don't
    believe there is any such thing with respect----
        Senator Kennedy. Oh, I----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. To this.
        Senator Kennedy. I think there is at the FBI, General,
    and----
        Attorney General Garland. Well----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. You and I both know there is.
    There was a lady in--a mom in Michigan. She has a special needs
    kid, and the kid was doing pretty well. And she got upset with
    her local school board over its closures and virtual learning
    policies, and she went to the meeting, and she made an
    intemperate comment. She accused them of being a bunch of
    Nazis. Why would the FBI open an investigation of her?
        Attorney General Garland. And I don't know anything about
    the specifics of the case, but accusing people of being Nazis,
    while I find bad, is certainly not criminal. It's totally
    protected----
        Senator Kennedy. No----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. By the First
    Amendment.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. I mean, I think----
        Attorney General Garland. And I've said that over and over
    again. This is not the first time we've----
        Senator Kennedy. But that's not----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Discussed this.
        Senator Kennedy. That's not what your Department did.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I--this is about the third
    time I'm being asked about the same memorandum, and each time
    I've said, and I hope that the Senators would go ahead and
    advise their constituents in the same way, that this is not
    what we do. We are not in any way trying to interfere with
    parents making complaints----
        Senator Kennedy. But----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. About the education
    of their children.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. But don't you understand,
    General--and I believe you, but don't you understand that this
    looks like you were just giving in to the teachers' unions and
    politicizing the disagreement, the honest disagreements? I
    mean, we only--as a result of some of our school board
    policies, we only experienced the largest learning loss for our
    kids in modern history. Don't you think parents had a right to
    be upset?
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely.
        Senator Kennedy. Instead of--what is a--I mean, you
    implemented--what's a threat tag?
        Attorney General Garland. I didn't implement the threat
    tag. What you're talking about there is a part of internal FBI
    operations.
        Senator Kennedy. Yes, you----
        Attorney General Garland. As far as I can----
        Senator Kennedy. You directed your folks, though, to open
    threat tags on these parents----
        Attorney General Garland. I didn't----
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. And investigate them.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I did not direct that. My
    understanding from testimony by the FBI is that when somebody
    makes a complaint and it involves--if somebody gives a tip that
    a school official is being threatened, then there's--in order
    to look at trends, they mark it as a tip involving a school
    official.
        They make--they have the same set of threat tags with
    respect to a complaint that suggests somebody is making a
    threat against a Supreme Court Justice. These aren't
    complaints. These are tips of violence or threats of violence.
        Senator Kennedy. A threat tag on a parent for being
    concerned at a school board meeting?
        Attorney General Garland. It's not on the parent. It's not
    on whoever--it's on to indicate that a threat was made against,
    or at least alleged that a threat was made against a school
    board member or a school official or a teacher or a school.
    Some of these turned out to be bomb threats.
        Senator Blumenthal [presiding]. Senator----
        Attorney General Garland. So----
        Senator Blumenthal. Senator Kennedy, we're going to have a
    second round of questioning. On behalf of----
        Senator Kennedy. I understand.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Chairman Durbin, who has
    gone to vote, I'm going to call on----
        Senator Kennedy. You're blaming it on Durbin. I understand.
    I apologize for going over.
        Senator Blumenthal. I take full responsibility.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, General.
        Senator Blumenthal. Senator.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Senator Kennedy, for the grace,
    and thank you very much for being here. I just want to confirm,
    because I've heard some misstatements. Fentanyl is permanently
    scheduled at Schedule II. Correct?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. The discussion is about
    fentanyl analogues.
        Senator Booker. So, let's go to fentanyl analogues.
    Fentanyl analogues are scheduled now at Schedule I. They are
    not expiring this year. Fentanyl analogues are Schedule II, the
    expiration date for which is at the end of 2024. Correct?
        Attorney General Garland. It might be the fiscal year. I'm
    not sure exactly, but----
        Senator Booker. But it's----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I believe----
        Senator Booker [continuing]. In the year--it's not 2023.
    It's at the end of the year 2024.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I----
        Senator Booker. Fiscal or not?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not exactly sure of the time.
    I know that there's a short time on this, and we believe it
    should be reupped.
        Senator Booker. Okay. I want to jump into the Executive
    order from President Biden on policing. It took really
    important steps to ensure that Federal law enforcement agencies
    are engaging in the best practices to make themselves and the
    public safer.
        Some of these policies the Department has adopted and is
    making great progress on, including limitations on chokeholds;
    guidelines for no-knock warrants, which is extraordinarily
    dangerous for police officers themselves; and a cleaner
    standard for the use of deadly force.
        Even the Trump EO, though, included the need for us to have
    a database that is, I guess, called an accountability database,
    to serve as a repository for officer misconduct records within
    the next 8 months, which is now this past January. Trump's
    Executive order, which was issued in June of 2020, also
    directed the Attorney General to create such a database to
    collect this information. What's the status now on that?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, there's a working group run
    by the Deputy Attorney General to stand this up. As you can
    imagine, there are difficulties with respect to getting
    reporting and also difficulties with respect to defining when a
    determination has been made. But we are seized with this, and
    we are working full speed ahead to get this done.
        Senator Booker. I'm grateful and hope we can continue to
    communicate on that. It's invaluable. And the EO directed you
    to encourage State and local agencies to contribute to the
    database. How's that going?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. We are--we have made
    outreach to all the major law enforcement organizations who do
    support this proposition. We are making outreach to State and
    local law enforcement. We are making progress. I can't really
    say more than that at this point, not because I don't want to
    say, but because I don't know.
        Senator Booker. Okay. The Biden administration, in
    cooperation with the Congress acting in a bipartisan manner,
    has put significant amounts of money into the COPS grant
    program.
        In fact, I think under the last Congress, it was one of the
    highest amounts of money given to programs that help local
    police departments. Really proud that President Biden did that.
    I'm just curious what processes are in place to ensure that the
    funds are being used for intended purposes? Does the Department
    audit those grants?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Whenever a Government agency
    gives out grants, there's always a risk. And so we have pretty
    tight--very tight auditing and review processes for these
    grants.
        Senator Booker. And do you have the resources you need to
    adequately audit the grants, in your estimation, or is that
    something that Congress might act to give you more resources
    to----
        Attorney General Garland. Well, I'm going to say again to
    you what I've said before. Whenever anybody wants to offer me
    more resources, I'm happy to have them. But I think we're
    capable of doing what the Congress wanted us to do, with the
    resources we have right now.
        Senator Booker. I appreciate that wise response.
        In December of 2021, you said the Department would exercise
    its discretion to ensure that people released on home
    confinement under the CARES Act would not unnecessarily return
    to prison.
        My experience--I've been visiting prisons since I was a law
    student, and I usually go in and ask wardens, who are often
    tough men and women who really are about the protection of
    their officers, the community at large.
        And I always ask, ``Are there people here that are a waste
    of taxpayer money? '' And they will often tell me stories about
    elderly folks, infirm folks, but here, now, we had a pandemic,
    as you know, and there was a release program with really high
    standards to meet for anyone being released. And I appreciated
    your comments on this matter in the past.
        I just want to ask, can you confirm that the Department
    will not revoke individuals released under the CARES Act for
    minor violations? We always know there are so-called status
    violations, where somebody might cross a county line or do
    something that is a technical violation, which is often minor.
    They're not a threat to public safety.
        Can you confirm, again, that the Department will not revoke
    individuals that are released under the CARES Act for these so-
    called status violations, once the public health emergency
    expires?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, just to give the full
    context, the CARES Act allowed us to put people in home
    confinement who we ordinarily would not have been able to do
    because of the length of time remaining on their sentence. A
    question was raised whether those people would have to go back
    after the expiration, which is now going to be in May, I
    believe.
        The Office of Legal Counsel, interpreting the statute,
    found that they would not have to go back, that all that was
    necessary was that the Attorney General put them into home
    confinement--when I say the Attorney General, I mean the
    Justice Department and the Bureau of Prisons--and that they
    could remain, subject to what the normal rules are on having to
    go back.
        So, if somebody commits the kind of violations that would
    normally require somebody to go back to prison from home
    confinement, those would apply, but no special rules to people
    who came under the CARES Act.
        And let me also say, in support of what you said, there has
    now been enough time to have statistical data on recidivism,
    and it's found that the people out on the CARES Act--the number
    of serious crimes committed is extremely tiny and not of
    concern.
        Senator Booker. All right. On July 16th--my last question,
    my penultimate question. On July 16th, 2022, you said that the
    Justice Department is examining marijuana policy and will be
    addressing the issue in the days ahead.
        And in October 2022, President Biden urged an expeditious
    review of the schedule of cannabis and directed individuals
    federally incarcerated for cannabis possession be expunged.
    What is the current state of the review of cannabis at the
    Justice Department, and when can we expect policy changes on
    this important issue?
        Attorney General Garland. I think everything that you said
    is correct. The President commuted sentences, and this is still
    working its way through the system to get the final
    certificates of commutation, but that is accomplished.
        The HHS is working on the question of scientific analysis
    of marijuana, and within the Department we are still working on
    a marijuana policy for the Department. I have to say that the
    crack-powder thing came first in my list of things that had to
    be done first, but that was accomplished, as you already know.
        And I think that it's fair to expect what I said at my
    confirmation hearing, with respect to marijuana policy, that it
    will be very close to what was done in the Cole Memorandum--
    Deputy Attorney General Cole in the Obama administration. We're
    not--we're not quite done with that yet.
        Senator Booker. Well, I'm very eager to hear more about
    that, and I'm hoping that you can get that reviewed. They're
    complicated policies, as more and more States----
        [Gavel is tapped twice.]
        Senator Booker [continuing]. Red and blue, are moving. It'd
    be good to hear that as quickly as possible.
        And I just would like you to respond, for the record, there
    are some scurrilous statements out there that you're
    dissatisfied with your chief of staff and would like him to be
    replaced by his eldest son. So, if you could respond on the
    record for me at some point about that.
        Attorney General Garland. The only--the only bad mark in
    his resume is that he worked for you once, so----
        Senator Booker. Yes.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. Thank you, sir.
        Chair Durbin [presiding]. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
    Attorney General, thank you for your time today.
        Listening to the questions and the answers and your
    responses, what is coming clear to me as I listen to this is
    that, basically, in your DOJ, the Biden DOJ, there are two
    tiers of justice.
        There are one for people with conservative values, for
    parents, for people of faith. And then there is another tier of
    justice that applies to the Washington liberal elites,
    political elites. And what I want to do is dig down a little
    bit on how you and the Department have applied this
    discretionary form of justice.
        It's something that concerns Tennesseans, and when I'm
    across the State--we have 95 counties. I visit each of them
    every year. And, Mr. Attorney General, that comes up quite a
    bit. Much of it has come up in relation to the Dobbs decision,
    and the attacks and the violence there has increased from
    groups on the far left. It has not increased from pro-life
    groups.
        And since the Dobbs leak, there have been 70 pro-life
    pregnancy centers that were targeted. Only two of these
    activists have been indicted. There are 25 individuals that
    have been indicted under the FACE Act in just 5 months. So, you
    see the disparity there.
        I appreciate you said that most of these attacks are
    carried out at night and that the protests take place during
    the day. So, you say it's easier to identify and go after
    people that are carrying out a peaceful protest during the day
    rather than a firebombing at night. Is that correct?
        Attorney General Garland. If I could just say I wish you
    would assure your constituents in all the counties that the
    Justice Department does not treat people in the way that----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Is described.
        Senator Blackburn. Well, then, let's----
        Attorney General Garland. We treat like cases alike. We do
    not have one view for----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. Then let's talk about a specific
    case in Tennessee, the Hope Clinic. Are you familiar with that?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm not familiar with it,
    specifically.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. The Hope Clinic for Women is a
    pregnancy resource center in Nashville. And currently you have
    gone out of your way to prosecute 11 individuals in Tennessee
    under the FACE Act. And, are you aware that this clinic was the
    subject of an attempted firebombing with a Molotov cocktail?
        Attorney General Garland. So, we are very concerned about
    these kind of firebombings, and I agree with you, they're
    happening----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Around the United
    States. The FBI has put its resources into this. We are
    investigating it in every way. We've offered rewards for anyone
    who has information.
        Senator Blackburn. Then let's talk about how these groups
    get classified. When we talked about the way parents of
    children were treated and because they were concerned over what
    was being taught in schools--Senator Kennedy just went through
    that with you--you applied domestic terrorism as a term in
    couching that activity.
        Now, under Federal law which you have cited, this is how
    you term domestic terrorism, and I'm quoting, ``activities that
    involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of
    the criminal laws of the United States or of any State.'' So,
    under that definition, would you agree that firebombing a
    crisis pregnancy center constitutes an act of domestic
    terrorism?
        Attorney General Garland. I would say yes, but I want to,
    again, disagree with your earlier characterizations. There was
    no memorandum about parents complaining to their school boards,
    and there was----
        Senator Blackburn. Well, I'm talking about bombing--
    firebombing pregnancy centers now.
        Attorney General Garland. I understand. And there was no
    reference in that memo to using----
        Senator Blackburn. So, you would agree that----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Domestic terrorism.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Bombing--firebombing a----
        Attorney General Garland. Where it's a--yes. Firebombing
    where----
        Senator Blackburn. That that would be domestic terrorism?
        Attorney General Garland. It's at least domestic violent
    extremism.
        Senator Blackburn. Okay. So, then, let's talk about the
    far-left group Jane's Revenge, because they claimed
    responsibility for that. They went so far as to spray paint
    their name on the wall. So, do you intend to prosecute them?
        Attorney General Garland. We intend, if we find them, to do
    that. There is a----
        Senator Blackburn. Oh, so you can't find them?
        Attorney General Garland. If you have information about
    those groups, we would----
        Senator Blackburn. Well, that is----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Be happy to----
        Senator Blackburn. That is your job----
        Attorney General Garland. That's right, and we----
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. To go after----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Are putting heavy
    resources into this. We have found a group----
        Senator Blackburn. So, you would say----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. That--that's----
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. They're a domestic
    terrorist organization?
        Attorney General Garland. I would say it depends on----
        Senator Blackburn. Jane's Revenge.
        Attorney General Garland. It depends on----
        Senator Blackburn. Who took----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. The people----
        Senator Blackburn. Who took credit for this, spray painted
    their name on the wall.
        Attorney General Garland. We have----
        Senator Blackburn. Let me----
        Attorney General Garland. We have----
        Senator Blackburn. Let me ask you a couple of questions
    before my time runs out. We've talked a little bit today about
    the targeting at the Justices' homes. Have you released any
    type of memorandum that explicitly condemns the acts of
    intimidation outside of the Supreme Court Justices' homes?
        Attorney General Garland. I have directly instructed the
    Marshals Service to send over 70 United States Marshals to
    prevent acts of violence and threats of violence outside
    those----
        Senator Blackburn. Have you done a memo?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't need to do a memo----
        Senator Blackburn. Okay.
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Because I spoke
    directly to the marshals about this topic.
        Senator Blackburn. All right. Have you watched any of the
    footage of the protesters outside the Justices' homes?
        Attorney General Garland. Unless I caught it on the news, I
    haven't specifically watched it.
        Senator Blackburn. Are you investigating any of those
    individuals? You said, you know, you investigate protesters
    because they do their activity in the light of day, and most of
    the firebombings and things take place at night. But I would
    think the FBI knows how to investigate crimes that take place
    at night.
        Attorney General Garland. As I explained, we've--our
    principal responsibility here is to protect the lives of the
    Justices. We've put United States----
        Senator Blackburn. But you haven't watched any of that
    footage.
        Attorney General Garland. United States Marshals are on
    scene, watching what happens on scene.
        Senator Blackburn. Do you think that that any of those
    individuals that were protesting at the Justices' homes were
    there for any reason other than to try to intimidate the
    Justices?
        Attorney General Garland. The marshals' job is to protect
    the lives of the Justices, and they will arrest people who they
    think are threatening the lives of the Justices. That's their
    job.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I have
    to say, people in Tennessee talk a lot about their frustration.
    They want to trust the DOJ. They want to be able to trust their
    Government. They are very concerned about what appears to be,
    by actions, two tiers of justice, and this is something that
    they do not see as equal treatment under the law. Thank you,
    Mr. Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr.
    Attorney General, I appreciate the work you've been doing on
    election infrastructure and security.
        We have our town meeting in Vermont next week. We're pretty
    proud of that. You raise your hand and decide publicly how
    you're going to vote, or you can do it privately.
        And I just wanted to ask you about the Department of
    Justice. You have taken important steps to protect election
    workers and the right to vote, and that includes by
    establishing the Election Threats Task Force. Let me ask you,
    what steps did the Department take in the 2022 election to
    defend our democracy in the election workforce, and are there
    any lessons learned that can help us going forward?
        Attorney General Garland. So, we have, as you note,
    established an Election Threats Task Force aimed at
    investigating threats against State and local election workers.
    The FBI has been tracking those kind of threats that come in on
    their tipline and making those investigations. There have been
    a number of prosecutions and convictions regarding those
    threats. I'm not sure if that fully answers the question, but
    that's what we're doing.
        Senator Welch. That's good. You know, there's--from here,
    from time to time, there's threats to local election officials
    that might happen in one State and then it might be another.
    What things can you do to be helpful in responding to specific
    threats against election workers?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, obviously, the first
    line of defense are State and local law enforcement. What we
    bring to this is a particular--both resources and legal tools
    that can be used to track the use of the internet to make those
    threats, emails to make those threats, text messages, telephone
    calls to make those threats.
        And that's a lot of what we do, is to help the State and
    locals identify the source of those threats and then to go out
    and knock on doors and investigate, you know, whether violence
    was actually contemplated.
        Senator Welch. And you have the resources that you believe
    you need in order to make certain that our elections are safe
    and sound?
        Attorney General Garland. I think we have the resources
    that we need to investigate these threats to the people who are
    really the foundation of our democracy--volunteers, who are,
    you know, running our elections. That's the way we do things in
    the United States.
        And, of course, State and local elected officials are also
    being threatened, but so, also, are the volunteers who are
    election judges, you know, put the ballots in the boxes, etc.
        Senator Welch. All right. Thank you. The other area I
    wanted to talk to you about was, broadly speaking, antitrust,
    but specifically how it's impacting our healthcare system.
        My view is that one of the big challenges we have with
    affordable and accessible healthcare is the cost. And there's a
    number of factors that are driving up the cost, and I think
    that includes some anticompetitive activities.
        For examples, you know, hospital consolidation is a big
    issue. When you go to the hospital and you get one of those
    bills, you just can't believe it. If you get out healthy, when
    you get the bill you're going to be sick.
        And consolidation of physician practice groups--Big Tech
    and private equity--private equity companies bought up all of
    these human resource companies when we had the need for these
    visiting nurses and just exploded the rates, and it pulverized
    the budgets of our small hospitals in rural America.
        And just last month, The Wall Street Journal reported that
    CVS would purchase primary care provider Oak Street Health,
    broadening CVS's market domination as a parent entity and a
    pharmacy benefit manager.
        Now, I know you can't speak specifically about any
    particular case, but there's a consolidation trend and market
    power trend that I think is escalating these prices, to the
    detriment of the taxpayer, to employers who are working hard to
    provide employer-sponsored healthcare, and obviously to
    individuals.
        In the past year, the DOJ has taken steps to update its
    antitrust guidance and has heard from patients and providers
    and advocates about how to bolster antitrust enforcement.
        I want to just give you an opportunity to tell us your view
    on this and the role you see--the Antitrust Division of the
    Department of Justice, making certain that we have competitive
    pricing or trying to get some semblance of competitive pricing.
        Attorney General Garland. I appreciate the question. We
    have tried, since I've been Attorney General, to reinvigorate
    the Antitrust Division to more urgently evaluate mergers and to
    bring cases against exclusionary behavior by dominant firms.
        Thanks to the Hart-Scott-Rodino merger filings fees
    legislation that was passed, we now have more money that we can
    use to build up again the resources of the Department.
        As I mentioned earlier, I was stunned to learn when I came
    to the Department that there were fewer lawyers and economists
    in the Antitrust Division than there were when I first entered
    the Justice Department in 1979. And you can imagine this----
        Senator Welch. That's amazing.
        Attorney General Garland. It's amazing, and particularly
    when you think of how big the companies are now.
        Senator Welch. Yes.
        Attorney General Garland. So, we're doing two things in the
    merger field, of course.
        On the very large mergers, which are subject to Hart-Scott-
    Rodino, we are doing a very careful scrub and making
    determinations of whether we should challenge it.
        But I think what you're talking about is also quite
    important, which are smaller markets, but are still what
    economists call relevant markets, where the price is affected,
    regardless of whether it's a nationwide roll-up, if it's a
    roll-up of healthcare providers in one entity and really the
    only place that people who need healthcare locally can provide
    it. So, we have brought and will continue to examine those
    kinds of cases, as well.
        You are--you know, the bottom-line theory about antitrust
    is if there are multiple players in the market, they will
    compete with each other and we will get the best pricing,
    marginal cost being the price where it meets the supply curve.
    But that's not the case where you have dominant firms where
    there's only a few places to go. And in those situations, price
    will almost always be above the competitive price.
        Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you very much, Mr. Attorney
    General, and thank you for your service on the bench before.
    And, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you, Senator.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Welch. You're the first to
    do that. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. I was actually going to thank Senator Welch
    for that. I think, Mr. Chair, we probably ought to have 4-
    minute rounds so we have a reasonable chance of them getting
    done in 7 minutes.
        General Garland, I guess I'm your ticket to lunch. I've
    just got a----
        Attorney General Garland. Oh, good.
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. Couple of questions to ask
    you. In your opening statement--I'm sorry I had to come in and
    out. I wanted to spend most of my time in the hearing.
        You have 115,000 people working in the DOJ, and I think
    most of them are great people--purpose, service driven, and I
    thank them for their work. But we're not all angels. We
    probably have some that need to be held accountable.
        And you made a comment about returning to some of the norms
    that maybe have drifted, over time, or our focus on them. Can
    you briefly describe to me a couple of those where you see
    positive trending?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. I think the most important
    is the principle that we treat like cases alike, that we don't
    have one rule for Democrats or Republicans; rich, poor;
    powerful, powerless; based on ethnicity.
        Another important norm is that we decide our criminal
    investigations and affirmative civil law enforcement
    investigations without any interference from the White House
    or, frankly, from the Congress, that these decisions are made
    on the merits without any policy or political interference.
        Senator Tillis. I think one thing that would be helpful for
    you--I'm a data-driven person. I think one of the things that
    would be helpful for you is to try, to the extent that you can,
    to measure, you know, some of those, so that you come back
    equipped with data to maybe refute some of the misconceptions
    about your priorities.
        I want to talk briefly about my favorite subject when I get
    on law enforcement [holds up cell phone]. Have you seen the
    3.12 march? All right, this is a sub-page.
        Attorney General Garland. March 12th?
        Senator Tillis. I'll shoot you a link. This is----
        Attorney General Garland. Okay.
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. A sub-page that's been out
    there for a while. It's actually a sub-page from ActBlue, which
    is the largest aggregation engine for many of my colleagues on
    the other side of the aisle for hard-dollar contributions to
    their campaigns, which I don't begrudge. We have an equivalent
    platform.
        What's notable about this is, this is still on the website.
    They're trying to raise $1.312 million. They've already
    received contributions. They keep it on the website.
        And let me just tell you what the run's about. They say,
    ``Why 3.12 miles? Because 3.12 equals ACAB, and ACAB equals All
    Cops Are Bastards.'' This is out there.
        I wish--I know that the vast majority of my Democratic
    colleagues do not embrace that. Some of them may.
        But I think it's time to remove this website and to remove
    this crap that they're trying to talk about law enforcement.
        In 2020 and 2021, I introduced a bill called Protect and
    Serve, and it was specifically focused on increasing penalties
    for law enforcement officers who were assaulted or murdered.
        Not getting into any sort of policy recommendations, but it
    seems to me at a time when we're having dramatic reductions in
    people willing to go into the academies, where we're seeing
    mayors get elected out of office because of community safety
    and maybe a little bit too much soft on law enforcement, and
    when we demonize law enforcement, we are really hurting
    ourselves.
        I know the FBI is doing relatively well with recruiting,
    but we're not doing well in local and State agencies. So, can
    you see, with respect to the implementation--we've talked about
    increasing penalties in other places. Can you talk to me about
    the merits or concerns you would have if we're successful with
    getting Protect and Serve passed this Congress?
        Attorney General Garland. Every day I meet with law
    enforce--our own law enforcement agencies.
        Multiple times a year, I meet with the national leaders of
    State and local law enforcement, police chiefs, sheriffs.
        And multiple times during the year, I travel all around the
    country to our U.S. Attorney's Offices, where I meet with the
    State and local law enforcement agencies. They are the ones who
    are on the front lines every day.
        Senator Tillis. And they're getting killed.
        Attorney General Garland. And, I should have added, I've
    been to many memorials. I've been to all the memorials that
    happen every year. I've sat--I've stood and sat at the bedside
    of Federal law enforcement agents who've been shot. I've been
    to a memorial for a Federal law enforcement agent who was
    killed. I'm well aware of the risks that they run to protect
    us. We are extremely supportive of law enforcement.
        Senator Tillis. Yes, but what I'd like you to----
        Attorney General Garland. Well----
        Senator Tillis. I'm sorry to interrupt you.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. No, no.
        Senator Tillis. It's not my style. But what I'd like to do
    is really get some feedback. We are going to file the bill
    again. We do have interest from the Democratic side. I'm always
    interested in policy that makes it easier to implement.
        So, we would like to get a commitment to take a look at
    this and give us advice on things that could improve it or
    potential unintended consequences.
        Attorney General Garland. Abs----
        Senator Tillis. I don't see any, but I would like to get
    that commitment.
        Attorney General Garland. Absolutely. We will be happy to
    do that. I do want to say I agree with your problems about
    recruitment and retention. That's why we gave out $100 million
    under the COPS grant, just for that purpose. And we're going to
    do another $200 million this coming year.
        Senator Tillis. Now I want to talk a little bit about--I'm
    going to submit some questions for the record on various topics
    and look forward to your response.
        But in my remaining time, I want to talk about the
    implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, or what
    I think your Department--and I like the term--calls BSCA. I had
    a discussion with ATF earlier this week, and, you know, it has
    been described as a once-in-a-generation bill.
        That bill went from the initial meeting that I attended to
    the time that we were voting on the Senate floor in 30 days.
    That required a lot of hands-on involvement by the Senate
    Members on both sides of the aisle that brought that about.
        What's very important to me, unless we want another
    generation to pass before we're able to make reasonable
    progress, is the implementation of this bill. I'm curious. I'm
    not going to get into specifics because I think I'd rather do
    it justice by just submitting them--questions for the record.
        I want to know about States that have applied for and been
    provided the Extreme Risk Protection Orders. It was very clear
    that we wanted minimal standards for due process. We don't want
    to reward States--and incidentally, there are red States and
    blue States--that I don't think have adequate due process
    protections for the person who may be denied their Second
    Amendment rights.
        So, we want to go through the grant streams, the approvals
    that have occurred at that time, and whether or not it
    satisfies the letter or the spirit, and the congressional
    record that I'm very familiar with. It was last June that we
    got it done.
        I also want to compliment NICS with their implementation of
    the enhanced background checks. We need to make sure that
    they're following, again, the letter and the spirit of the law
    with respect to the length of time and having a ``proceed''
    presumption if we don't have meaningful information in the
    first 3 days, and then the final ``proceed'' order in the next
    10 days.
        Trudy and the folks out at NICS have done a great job, and
    we've found some really good outcomes from that, that we need
    to share better with the public.
        The last thing I want to leave you--I'm over time. I can't
    believe it, Mr. Chair. The last thing I want to leave you with
    is, I would like to get a breakdown of the 17 cases under the
    straw purchasing and trafficking language in the bill.
        And I'm particularly interested--I heard at least one
    alluded to gang organization that it was brought up on. We need
    to see that that bill, I think, is going to age well. That's
    why I supported it, why I'd be willing to pursue other ones, as
    long as I can go back to the people that I worked with to vote
    for the bill and say that the spirit and the contours of that
    legislation has been implemented faithfully. Thank you.
        Attorney General Garland. I'll be happy----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. To do that. I'll
    have our staff talk directly with yours, to be sure we're
    answering exactly the questions you're asking.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Chair Durbin. Thanks, Senator Tillis. We're going to take a
    10-minute recess, and if there is to be a second round--and
    that depends on the presence of Members when we return, and
    they will be recognized in the order that they appear here.
        I note that Senator Cornyn has got an early bird rule. But
    let's take a 10-minute recess and come back.
        [Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
        Chair Durbin. The Committee will come to order. As I
    mentioned at the outset, there's a second round of 3 minutes,
    which will be strictly enforced. You will hear the gavel at 3
    minutes.
        I'm going to wait and save my questions to the very last.
    And so I begin this round of questions--the second round of
    questioning. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman, and thank you
    again, Attorney General. I'm going to go to a topic that was
    addressed earlier by Senator Blumenthal and Senator Graham, and
    that is the question of the freezing, seizing, and forfeiture
    of Russian oligarch and kleptocrat assets.
        One of the problems that we are running into is that, for
    the highly valuable assets that can be seized from the Russian
    oligarchs, like massive yachts or Faberge eggs, or other works
    of very expensive art, the value is well above $500,000.
        And right now, we have an administrative forfeiture
    procedure that applies for assets that are valued only up to
    $500,000. Above that, you have to go through a different
    procedure.
        The nutshell way that I think about this is that the
    simpler administrative forfeiture procedure allows the
    Government to proceed in rem against the asset, and people have
    to show up if they have a claim to the asset. It's a little bit
    like what the Department of Justice did with botnets.
        They had a proceeding in rem against the botnet, and anyone
    who laid claim to that botnet and asserted a right not to have
    it taken down--they were welcome to show up in court and
    present themselves. They probably would have gone off in
    handcuffs, but they certainly had that right.
        With respect to the assets above $500,000 that are
    associated with the Russian oligarchs who are associated with
    the really criminal war that Putin has launched into Ukraine,
    we would like to see the law changed.
        Senator Graham supports this. Senator Blumenthal and I
    support this. We have legislation to support this.
        And I just wanted to take my moment here with you to make
    sure that you and I, the Marshals Service, your forfeiture
    offices, are all properly aligned so that we can move quickly
    to get this changed.
        At the moment, having to identify the owner of an asset--
    which is often hidden in Russian-nesting-doll layers of faraway
    bank accounts, shell corporations, Cyprus holding companies--
    really puts a major crimp in our ability to proceed fairly.
        And I don't think there's any national interest or public
    interest in having Russian oligarchs who've supported this war
    treated better than American citizens, simply because their
    assets are more valuable.
        So, would you please tell your team to greenlight working
    with us to get this bill passed quickly out of this Committee
    and into legislation on the floor?
        Attorney General Garland. As you can imagine, I'm
    wholeheartedly in favor of the team working with you on this.
    As you know, we recently, thanks to the work of the Congress,
    were able--I was able to certify for transfer to Ukraine the
    money that was seized from one oligarch, Malofeyev, and most
    recently, our Task Force KleptoCapture succeeded in forfeiting
    $75 million from Viktor Vekselberg.
        They have done an enormous amount of work to find nesting
    within nesting within nesting of shell corporations. It would
    be easier if that weren't required. So, we'd be happy to work
    with your team on this. Yes, of course.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Thank you,
    Chairman.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Senator
    Grassley.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you,
    General Garland, for being here.
        My first question is a follow-up to a line of questioning
    you had with Senator Cotton. You told this Committee that,
    quote, ``the executive branch cannot simply decide, based on
    policy disagreements, that it will not enforce a law at all,''
    end of quote.
        Then you released a December 16th, 2022, memo instructing
    prosecutors to disregard the law that established sentencing
    differences between cocaine and cocaine base. Your decision not
    to enforce the law ended congressional discussions at that
    particular point for a compromise.
        If DOJ claims that it will ignore the law by declining to
    prosecute a law that grew out of a bipartisan compromise forged
    in this Committee, it's hard to see how Members can trust the
    Department about following any further bipartisan deals.
        So, I'm going to ask you, would you withdraw your memo so
    that a meaningful legislative discussion can resume? And if you
    don't have agreement with me, why wouldn't you do that?
        Attorney General Garland. Senator, I want to be clear.
    We're not, in any case, saying that we won't enforce the law.
    In all the examples that we're talking about here, people are
    being prosecuted for violation of the Controlled Substances
    Act. It's only a question of what sentence we will seek, and
    this has been a matter of prosecutorial discretion.
        We do not in any way limit the judge. We have to honestly
    tell the judge what the drug was and what the amount was, but
    this goes to the question of what we will charge and seek. But
    we are charging these people with violations of the Controlled
    Substances Act.
        Senator Grassley. On another point, the Department of
    Justice charged Nicolas Maduro with narcoterrorism and drug
    trafficking offenses, and the Office of Foreign Assets Control
    sanctioned him.
        Since then, the Biden administration has released $3
    billion in foreign Venezuelan assets and authorized Chevron to
    drill. Does the Department of Justice still consider Nicolas
    Maduro a fugitive of U.S. justice? And, if so, do you commit to
    diligently pursue his arrest?
        Attorney General Garland. To be honest, Senator, I really
    don't have any information. I know who Maduro is, obviously,
    and I know that he was charged. I don't know what his current
    status is. I'll be happy to look into that for you, though,
    Senator.
        Senator Grassley. Will you answer in writing?
        Attorney General Garland. Of course. Of course.
        Senator Grassley. Okay. This will have to be my last
    question. I have strong concerns about competition problems in
    different areas of the economy. Example, I've conducted
    oversight and drafted legislation to address abuses in
    pharmaceutical, agriculture, and high-tech industries. Can you
    tell us what the antitrust priorities are for the----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Grassley [continuing]. Justice Department under
    your leadership? And are your resources following that
    priority?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. So, our priority are both to
    prevent increased concentration in industries that are already
    concentrated. Agriculture is a very good example.
    Pharmaceutical is another very good example--therefore to
    closely look at the mergers and think--and to investigate them.
        And our other priority, and closely related, is
    exclusionary conduct by dominant firms. And we are doing quite
    a bit of that kind of work, as referenced by some of the cases,
    you know, we've filed. They're also--we're also looking at
    criminal violations of the price-fixing statute, and others.
        With respect to resources, this is an area where we can
    always use more resources. We are faced on the opposite side
    with companies with virtually unlimited resources.
        I express gratitude for the Senate and the House for the
    Hart-Scott-Rodino fees bill, Merger Fees bill, which has given
    us more money to even up the playing field a little bit.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, again,
    Mr. Attorney General. I want to thank you for the supportive
    comments you've made about the Open App Markets Act.
        As you know, I'm hoping that the Department of Justice will
    support us, because right now we have a duopoly in the mobile
    apps stores--Apple, Google--and this measure would stop those
    two companies from exacting rents and boxing out competitors.
    I'm hoping that the Department of Justice will support this
    measure.
        Attorney General Garland. Well, as I said, Senator,
    Assistant Attorney General Kanter has already testified in
    support of the bill, so we hope to be able to get the
    administration on board, as well. But he has already, and that
    represents my views, as well.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. I want to talk about the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act----
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Specifically Section 702.
    Not exactly the topic of major inquiry here, but enormously
    important.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. And without going into any classified
    information, that provision, I believe, was instrumental in
    preventing major catastrophic aggression against our Nation and
    also helping our allies, like the Ukrainians, with intelligence
    that was extremely critical to pushing back the Russians and
    knowing what they needed to know on the battlefield. Could you
    comment on the importance of reauthorizing Section 702?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes. Senator, this is a statute
    that I wasn't--we didn't have, the last time I was at the
    Justice Department, so I really didn't know what to expect when
    I came in this time.
        I will tell you that every morning I have an all-threats
    briefing with the FBI, with an intelligence community briefer
    with our National Security Division.
        An enormously large percentage of the threats information
    that we're receiving comes from 702 collection. All the
    examples that you're talking about--Ukraine, threats by foreign
    terrorist organizations, threats coming in from adversaries,
    from China, from North Korea, from Iran, from Russia.
        A lot of what we do in the area of cyber, and particularly
    in ransomware investigations of finding out who is behind the
    ransomware investigation and sometimes of obtaining the keys,
    comes from information that is, at least, part fed by Section
    702.
        We would be intentionally blinding ourselves to
    extraordinary danger, in my view. And this is not a view that I
    jumped on--you know, I've always held. This is something I've
    learned as I've been at the Department.
        Senator Blumenthal. And blinding----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. Our allies, as well. Thank
    you.
        Attorney General Garland. Oh, yes, and our allies, as well.
    Yes.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. General Garland, I'm sure you will agree
    with me that the independence of the Federal judiciary is one
    of the crown jewels of our form of Government. And
    historically, Federal judges have had a hard time defending
    themselves against attacks of various kinds.
        And I just want to raise with you my concerns that we're
    seeing not only attacks like those from former staffers of this
    Committee who happen to now be on the outside, in special
    interest groups, saying that now when reporters cover the story
    of cases being decided by a judge, they ought to cite the
    partisan affiliation of that judge, and saying that's it's
    important to say, for example, it's not just Chief Justice
    Roberts--or say that he's a Republican, not a conservative-
    leaning Justice.
        This is happening in the press. It's happening on social
    media. As you've already discussed with some of my colleagues,
    this has led to political protests at the Justices' homes and
    even a threatened assassination of a member of the Supreme
    Court of the United States.
        But unfortunately, it's not just limited to the outside
    partisan rabble rousers. It includes speeches made by United
    States Senators on the floor of the Senate. Mr. Chairman, I'd
    ask unanimous consent that a copy of this speech, dated
    February 16th, be made a part of the record.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Cornyn. This is a speech by a United States Senator
    trying to discredit a judge--happens to be in Texas, Matthew
    Kacsmaryk, that Senator Cruz and I recommended and who was
    appointed and now serves with lifetime tenure as a Federal
    judge--calling him a lifelong right-wing activist, a partisan
    ideologue, an anti-abortion zealot.
        And he goes further to say that, regardless of how Judge
    Kaczmarek may decide this particular case, that it will
    inevitably be affirmed by the activist Fifth Circuit Court of
    Appeals, and then surely rubber-stamped by the United States
    Supreme Court.
        I find this sort of rhetoric, particularly by a United
    States Senator, to be appalling, and I wonder if you will join
    me in condemning that sort of attack on the independence of the
    Federal judiciary.
        Attorney General Garland. When I first got on the
    judiciary, I and several of my colleagues pounded our heads
    against the wall, trying to get the reporters to stop--and this
    is more than 25 years ago--to stop reporting the name of the
    President who appointed us and the--or the party.
        Unfortunately, this is a battle that has not been won and,
    I don't think, obviously, given the authority of the First
    Amendment and its importance, is one that we're not going to be
    able to win. I come from a kinder and gentler era and a kinder
    and gentler Court, even in terms of the way the members of the
    Court treat themselves. I----
        Senator Cornyn. But, General Garland, you are the----
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know what else to say.
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Chief law enforcement officer
    of the United States.
        Attorney General Garland. Yes.
        Senator Cornyn. Will you condemn it?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, I am against divisive
    rhetoric of all kinds, but I do not have authority in this
    matter. As you know, the Speech and Debate Clause----
        Senator Cornyn. You have--you have moral----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Cornyn [continuing]. Authority.
        Attorney General Garland. My moral authority is against
    divisiveness from all sides and all quarters, and for all
    arguments to be made on the merits. That----
        Chair Durbin. Senator----
        Attorney General Garland. That is my moral authority.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. That's the concern that I've got, is that you
    don't seem to condemn the divisiveness if it's on the left.
        I want to go back briefly to the text of Section 1507.
    Section 1507 is pretty darn clear. I personally don't see how
    anyone could protest outside the home of a Supreme Court
    Justice, especially while engaging in issue advocacy related to
    a case that they've taken or are currently hearing, that
    doesn't violate 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1507.
        So, the fact that you've put U.S. Marshals Service in
    charge of protecting their homes--great. The fact that not a
    single arrest has been made, not a single set of charges have
    been made, is very disconcerting. As is the fact that even if
    the marshals don't choose to make an arrest there, which is
    stunning to me that they haven't--but even if they hadn't,
    there's video footage. You can identify folks. You've proven
    your ability to do that.
        And the fact that you're not bringing that is deeply
    disturbing to me, as it was when, on the day of the Dobbs
    decision, the Department of Justice took what I believe was a
    pretty unprecedented step of issuing a scathing statement, not
    just saying ``we disagree'' or ``we're disappointed with the
    outcome,'' but making arguments that I believe called into
    question the legitimacy of the Court.
        I have never seen the Department of Justice do that.
        It is cause for additional concern when I see people like
    Philip Esformes, having received clemency, is now having to
    face the prospect of being prosecuted again after having
    received clemency by a prior President.
        Add all this up with the fact that, by the end of this
    year, we're going to see the expiration of Section 702 of the
    Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The Department's already
    asking and chomping at the bit to be asking us to simply
    reauthorize that, notwithstanding the fact that there are all
    kinds of examples of how this has been politicized, how Section
    702 has been misused.
        The current standard for a warrantless backdoor search of
    the content of communications of Americans, American persons,
    is ``reasonably likely to return evidence of a crime.'' But the
    ODNI's recently declassified semiannual report, released on
    December 21st of 2022, reports all kinds of noncompliant
    searches.
        These are just the ones we know about, just the ones that
    the ODNI report was able to identify, involving U.S. persons,
    including the searches of prospective FBI employees, members of
    a political party, individuals recommended to participate in
    the FBI Citizens Academy, journalists, and even a Congressman.
        The politicization of the Department is a problem, and----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Lee [continuing]. You can tell your Department not
    a chance in hell we're going to be reauthorizing that thing
    without some major, major reforms. Your Department is not
    trusted because it has been politicized. I know you are a good
    person. You have the ability to rein it in. I ask that you do
    so promptly.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Garland, the
    Department of Justice should enforce the law regardless of
    politics. I do not believe that has been what is happening, the
    last 2 years.
        Among other things, I believe you very much want to indict
    Donald J. Trump. Toward that end, the Department of Justice has
    leaked that DOJ is investigating and intends to indict Hunter
    Biden. The purpose of those leaks, I believe, was to set the
    predicate for an indictment of Trump, to say, ``Look how
    evenhanded we are. We're indicting a Biden. We're indicting a
    Trump.''
        Those leaks are not law or enforcing the law. They are
    politics. Did you know about the leaks about the Hunter Biden
    investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. I don't know about the leak that
    you're talking about, and I'm not--leaks are in violation of
    our regulations and our requirements, so the answer is----
        Senator Cruz. But the leaks are consistently on one side of
    the aisle, advancing one political agenda. As you know, the FBI
    raided Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago home, and subsequent to that
    raid, there have been multiple leaks about what was discovered
    there, including a photograph of documents that were discovered
    there. Did you know about the leaks from that----
        Attorney General Garland. The photo----
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Raid?
        Attorney General Garland. The photograph was a filing in
    court in response to a motion filed by Mr. Trump. It was not a
    leak.
        Senator Cruz. So, you're testifying there haven't been
    leaks about the Trump raid and investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. I'm responding to the point about
    the photo----
        Senator Cruz. Do you know about the leaks that have
    occurred concerning the----
        Attorney General Garland. I've read the leaks.
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Trump investigation?
        Attorney General Garland. They are inappropriate. We also
    don't know where they come from. Witnesses on the----
        Senator Cruz. But what's interesting is, when the shoe was
    on the other foot, I believe your intention, and I believe it's
    a political intention to indict President Trump, became
    infinitely harder when classified documents were discovered
    repeatedly at President Biden's multiple residences.
        According to the public record, those were first discovered
    on November 2d, 6 days before the prior election. Department of
    Justice was notified on November 4th, and yet, miraculously,
    there was no leak about the classified documents at President
    Biden's home.
        When it politically benefited the effort to go after and
    charge Donald Trump, DOJ leaked. When it potentially harmed the
    Democrat President, DOJ did not leak. Does that strike you as,
    at all, a double standard?
        Attorney General Garland. Leaks under all circumstances are
    inappropriate, and they were not directed by anyone in the
    Justice Department.
        Senator Cruz. Well, let me say, in particular on Hunter
    Biden, I very much hope that an investigation of Hunter Biden
    is focused not just on his own personal substance----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Abuse issues but on connections
    to his father and potential corruption. That is the matter of
    public concern and why people are concerned.
        And it was striking that the leak that came out from DOJ
    suggested this is just going after some poor--poor person
    struggling with drugs, instead of looking at the very real
    evidence of corruption. Will you commit that the investigation
    will actually examine the public corruption aspect and not
    simply scapegoat Hunter Biden as an individual?
        Attorney General Garland. I can't comment about the
    investigation other than to say that all the matters involving
    Mr. Hunter Biden are the purview of the U.S. attorney in
    Delaware. He's not restricted in his investigation in any way.
        Senator Cruz. Well, you don't----
        Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Comment here, but then you leak
    at the----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Cruz [continuing]. Same time.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Attorney General
    Garland, you said in our last exchange that it's your practice
    to defer to FBI agents in the field when it comes to
    investigations, apprehensions of subjects. I was interested,
    given your answer, to read in this morning's Washington Post
    that the FBI is saying that you overruled them when it came to
    raiding ex-President Trump's personal residence.
        Washington Post reports this morning, ``Showdown before the
    raid,'' that senior FBI officials who would be in charge of
    leading the search resisted doing so as too combative and then
    proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search his
    property.
        These field agents wanted to shutter the criminal
    investigation altogether in early June, The Post reports, but
    they were overruled by main DOJ. So, I guess in light of your
    earlier testimony just this morning, my question is, how often
    do you overrule FBI field agents for political purposes?
        Attorney General Garland. I've skimmed that article. That's
    not--that's not an accurate reflection of what the article
    says, and I'm not able to comment on the investigation. My
    comment earlier was about tactics on the ground in particular--
    --
        Senator Hawley. Wait----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Cases.
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait,
    wait. You said it's not--and I'm reading to you from the
    article, quote, ``Senior FBI officials who would be in charge
    of leading the search resisted the plan as too combative and
    proposed instead to seek Trump's permission to search his
    property, according to four people who spoke on condition of
    anonymity to describe a sensitive investigation,'' end quote.
        Attorney General Garland. Again, I have to say I'm not able
    to describe the investigation. I will say, as a general matter
    and at a high level of generality, that in my experience, long
    experience as a prosecutor, there is often a robust discussion,
    and in the end--and it's encouraged among investigators and
    prosecutors----
        Senator Hawley. Attorney General, my time is very----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. And a decision is
    made.
        Senator Hawley. My--yes, and you made the decision.
        Attorney General Garland. That's not----
        Senator Hawley. Right? You said you did.
        Attorney General Garland. No, I'm sorry. What I said was I
    approved the decision.
        Senator Hawley. So, you didn't make the decision----
        Attorney General Garland. I approved----
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. To raid----
        Attorney General Garland. I approved the decision to seek a
    search warrant after probable cause was found----
        Senator Hawley. Overruling the FBI agents who did not want
    to do so. Did you talk about this with the White House
    beforehand?
        Attorney General Garland. The memorandum does not--that
    Washington Post article does not say what you're saying. I'm
    sorry. And I'm not able to describe this in any further detail.
        Senator Hawley. Well, I think given that, Mr. Chairman,
    I'll just ask that this entire article be entered into the
    record.
        Chair Durbin. Without objection.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Senator Hawley. And we can read for ourselves. I invite
    people to go and look. It says exactly that FBI field agents
    did not want to conduct the raid, and they were overruled by
    DOJ.
        So, it doesn't seem to me, Attorney General, that the FBI
    has a lot of confidence in you, because what they're doing,
    clearly, is trying to distance themselves from your decisions.
    They're out there leaking left, right, and center, and saying,
    ``It wasn't us. We didn't want to do it. He made us do it.''
    What's that say about their confidence in your leadership?
        Attorney General Garland. Well, the previous Senator said
    that they're leaking all in favor of the left. Now you're
    saying they're leaking all in favor of the right.
        Senator Hawley. I'm asking----
        Attorney General Garland. I don't----
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. You my question.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. Answer my question, based on
    this evidence. Don't dissemble, Attorney General.
        Chair Durbin. Time has expired.
        Senator Hawley. Answer my question.
        Chair Durbin. Time has expired. Senator Cotton.
        Senator Cotton. Mr. Attorney General, I want to return to
    the illegal protest outside of Supreme Court Justices' homes
    last summer. It's plainly unlawful to protest outside of a
    judge's home to influence the outcome of a pending case.
        You testified earlier that as far as you know, no charges
    have been brought against those protesters, but you never
    really explained why. Why have no charges been brought against
    those protesters?
        Attorney General Garland. The decision about making arrests
    is left to the marshals on scene. Their principal----
        Senator Cotton. Marshals are--marshals are law enforcement
    officials. They're not prosecutors. I did not say arrests. I
    said charges.
        Attorney General Garland. There can't be----
        Senator Cotton. These people were not criminal masterminds.
        Attorney General Garland. There has to be----
        Senator Cotton. They posted videos of themselves on their
    social media accounts. They advertised the protests in advance.
    It is possible to arrest someone for an offense after the
    offense has occurred. Is it not?
        Attorney General Garland. It is, and we're----
        Senator Cotton. Why did you not send anyone to arrest those
    protesters in the days after the protests?
        Attorney General Garland. We're allocating our resources
    toward protecting the lives of the Justices and their families.
    Decisions have to be made on the ground as to what is the best
    way to protect those lives.
        Senator Cotton. Mr. Attorney General, do you not think that
    it would perhaps provide a deterrent effect if you arrested
    some of these criminal protesters and charged them and threw
    them in Federal prison?
        Attorney General Garland. We are trying to protect the
    lives of the Justices. That is our principal priority.
        Senator Cotton. Again, I'm not----
        Attorney General Garland. And----
        Senator Cotton. I'm not saying----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. I'm leaving it to
    the Marshals Service to make determinations on the ground. They
    have to make determinations about what they see on the ground.
        Senator Cotton. Look, consider the efforts your Department
    has put into tracking down everyone who was even on the Capitol
    grounds on January 6th, 2021. You've dedicated a million of man
    hours to study videotape, to do forensic analysis of computers
    and devices, to go knock and conduct interviews.
        You can't allocate just a few agents to look at people's
    social media account, to say, ``They were present outside of a
    Justice's home. We're going to go arrest them and charge them''
    ? It's a black-letter violation of the law.
        Attorney General Garland. Our priority is violence and
    threats of violence and protection of the lives of the
    Justices, and that's what we're doing.
        Senator Cotton. Again, these are not criminal masterminds.
    They posted pictures and videos of themselves protesting. You
    could probably go arrest one today from a cold start. Why can't
    you do that?
        Attorney General Garland. Saying again, our purpose is to
    protect the lives and safety of the Justices. That's how we're
    allocating resources.
        Senator Cotton. You sent the FBI, as several Senators
    pointed out, to do a early morning raid on Mark Houck's home,
    in front of his children, for the grave crime of singing hymns
    and saying prayers outside of an abortion clinic, charges of
    which he was acquitted by a jury of his peers within an hour.
    You can't send the FBI to track down anybody who was protesting
    outside the home of a Supreme Court Justice?
        Attorney General Garland. And I want to be clear. Our
    purpose here is to protect the lives and safety of the
    Justices.
        Senator Cotton. I think the answer is----
        Attorney General Garland. That's why we're doing that.
        Senator Cotton. The answer is that you are sympathetic to
    the protesters, that you didn't like the decision the Justices
    were about to issue. I think we all know what you would do if a
    bunch of conservative protesters were outside the home of a
    Democratic-appointed Justice----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Cotton [continuing]. To the Supreme Court.
        Attorney General Garland. No one has ever been----
        Senator Cotton. You're sympathetic----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Arrested under----
        Senator Cotton. You're----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. That statute----
        Senator Cotton. It's a simple black-letter----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Under those
    circumstances.
        Senator Cotton [continuing]. Legal violation. You will not
    send a single agent to conduct a single arrest and charge them
    on something that they have zero defense for. It's because
    you're sympathetic to left-wing protesters.
        Chair Durbin. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Mr.
    Attorney General, I want to go back to what we discussed
    earlier, with the two tiers of justice. And the answers you've
    given us, you're very subjective in how you approach decisions.
    You don't seem to be rules based in how you make these
    decisions.
        As a matter of fact, you come across as being very
    political in the decisions that you make, and politicizing your
    work is something that really offends most Tennesseans.
        But I want to ask you about this two tiers of justice,
    particularly in the way you've responded to congressional
    oversight investigations.
        The House Judiciary Committee recently requested that you
    turn over documents relating to the special counsel
    investigation of President Biden's mishandling of classified
    documents, but your DOJ so far has stonewalled the House
    request, claiming you can't turn over documents on an open
    matter.
        Now, let's compare that with your decision, obviously very
    subjective, to fully cooperate with document requests from the
    House January 6th Committee. Your FBI had no problem at all
    turning over documents and information to that Committee, even
    though they related to an open investigation.
        Do you see this comparison here? Do you appreciate this?
    This is a prime example of two tiers of justice, your two-tier
    system, who you're going to cooperate with and who you are not.
        So, why have you cooperated with the document requests that
    were made from Democratic-led Committees, but you have refused
    Chairman Jordan, and you have refused the House Judiciary
    Committee when they are requesting documents that pertain to
    President Biden's mishandling of classified documents?
        Attorney General Garland. So, we greatly respect the
    oversight responsibilities of the Committees of the Congress,
    and at the same time, we have to protect our ongoing
    investigations. I do not believe we turned over information to
    the January 6th Committee about ongoing----
        Senator Blackburn. Mr. Attorney General----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. Investigation----
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Your responses--you give
    one set of responses for Republicans, another for Democrats.
    You have one tier of justice for people that are conservatives
    and another for those that are on the left.
        You told me earlier that you didn't know who Jane's Revenge
    is. They are all over Twitter. I'm going to do you a favor. I
    am going to send you a letter with a whole lot----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. Of Twitter and different
    feeds to help you in that investigation for the Hope Clinic.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blackburn. Senator Graham
    has told me he's on the way, so I'm going to take my 3 minutes
    now. Run the clock, please.
        First, there was a reference made earlier to the drug war,
    the war-on-drugs legislation of about 25 or 30 years ago. As a
    Member of the House, I voted for it. It was an overreaction to
    crack cocaine, a nominally new narcotic that scared us to
    death. It was cheap, it was addictive, it was lethal and
    heavily damaging. And we did what most people do in reaction to
    such phenomena. We raised the penalty to an unimaginable
    height. The sentencing penalty went from 1-to-1 to 100-to-1.
        The net result is exactly the opposite of what we had hoped
    for. The price of the drug on the street went down, the usage
    went up, and we filled Federal prisons, primarily with African-
    American prisoners. It backfired on us.
        I don't want to make that same mistake, again, when it
    comes to fentanyl. It's a deadly, dangerous situation. And I
    hope that just the initial reaction of getting tough in
    sentencing and mandatory minimums is not a sum and substance of
    all that we do.
        The second point I'd like to make is, it is interesting to
    try to step back and follow what you face today, in terms of
    the resources of the Government protecting elected officials.
    When it comes to Supreme Court Justices, we hear from the other
    side, ``You just didn't do enough. You've got to do more.'' And
    I can understand that sentiment.
        But when it comes to school board members, the fact that
    you would send out a memo suggesting that they may be in danger
    at a school board meeting has been translated into some
    invidious diminution of the freedom of speech in this country.
        I think you have to make a decision on a daily basis, as
    Attorney General, where you're going to apply the resources of
    the Government. I hope that you share, and I believe you do,
    the bottom line that violence is unacceptable from either side,
    politically, at any circumstance. And I think if we use that
    standard and use it objectively, that it's going to be an
    effective standard for the future.
        The last point I'll make to you here should be said again.
    It was said at the outset. You have authorized special counsel
    to investigate the classified materials both at President
    Biden's home as well as former President Trump's home, special
    counsels that have some independence by their designation.
    Could you explain why you did that?
        Attorney General Garland. Yes, to the extent I've already
    publicly explained why we appointed special counsel in those
    two cases. With respect to President Trump, he had announced
    that he was a candidate for President, and President Biden had
    indicated that he would be a candidate.
        I thought that's an extraordinary circumstance and well
    fitting within the regulations to provide a level of
    independence and accountability that fit within the purpose of
    the special counsel regulations.
        Chair Durbin. Thank you. I think I've just used my 3
    minutes, so I'm going to try to set an example. Senator Graham,
    take it away.
        Senator Graham. Number one, you deserve a Purple Heart for
    being here all day.
        Attorney General Garland. Thank you.
        Senator Graham. So, really, I've enjoyed working with you
    and your team regarding Ukraine oligarch seizures, and I want
    to compliment you. You all have done a really good job of going
    after oligarchs, and hopefully we can seize some of their
    assets and send it to the Ukrainian people.
        And I want to help work with you as much as we can, create
    some international tribunal to let Putin and his cronies know,
    ``You're going to pay a price here. There's no forgiving and
    forgetting in this war. You picked a fight. You picked the
    wrong fight.'' And they need to pay a price. Do you agree with
    that?
        Attorney General Garland. I do.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Now, some areas of disagreement.
    There are four States--Arkansas, Mississippi, South Dakota, and
    Utah--and more are coming, that have enacted legislation that
    regulates certain medical and surgical interventions on minor
    children, 21, 18, whatever the State is, regarding transgender
    surgeries and puberty-blocking medical procedures.
        Your office wrote a letter, March 31st, 2022, to States,
    suggesting that if a State passed a law saying, you know,
    banning medical procedures to transition minor children, that
    they may be running afoul--the State may be running afoul of
    the Equal Protection or Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
    Amendment. Is that your position?
        Attorney General Garland. So, the Department believes that
    all people in the United States are entitled to be treated with
    dignity and respect, that the situation that you're talking
    about has to be evaluated by doctors, by families----
        Senator Graham. Well, I mean, I----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. By the individuals,
    and they have to make those determinations.
        Senator Graham. But States have passed laws. Okay? We have
    50 States here. They have passed laws, and more are coming,
    prohibiting this procedure because the State in question
    believes that allowing transition medical procedures on a minor
    is a life-altering event and it shouldn't be done until you're
    older so you can really better appreciate what you're doing.
        States have taken that view, and I think more of them will
    take that view. Is it the position of the Department of Justice
    that such laws are unconstitutional?
        Attorney General Garland. The position is that categorical
    across-the-board prohibitions on certain kinds of surgeries and
    not others have to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, and
    the Civil Rights Division will do that with respect to each of
    the laws that they are talking about when the time comes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So, the bottom line is, the four laws
    in question--have you looked at the laws in Arkansas,
    Mississippi, South Dakota, and Utah?
        Attorney General Garland. I haven't. I don't know whether--
    --
        Senator Graham. Well, do me a favor----
        Attorney General Garland [continuing]. The Civil Rights
    Division has.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. And just look at them and get
    back to me and answer my question. Are they constitutional in
    the eyes of Department of Justice? Thank you.
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Senator Graham. I did it in 3 minutes.
        Chair Durbin. Three seconds.
        I appreciate the Attorney General appearing before the
    Committee, and the record of the hearing will remain open for a
    week.
        Questions for the record may be submitted by Senators
    before 5 p.m. on Wednesday, March 8th. Attorney General
    Garland, please provide these answers on a timely basis.
        With that, the hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 2:09 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                                A P P E N D I X

    Submitted by Senator Padilla:

     The New York Times, article......................................   283

    Submitted by Senator Cornyn:

     Wyden, Hon. Ron, floor speech....................................   300

    Submitted by Senator Lee:

     Biggs, Hon. Andy, letter.........................................   311

    Submitted by Senator Hawley:

     The Washington Post, article.....................................   315

    Submitted by Senator Ossoff:

     Leadership Conference Education Fund and Project On Government
      Oversight, report

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-118shrg52249/pdf/CHRG-
        118shrg
        52249-add1.pdf

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                   [all]