    [Senate Hearing 119-133]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 119-133

                          CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                       NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
                             TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                              OF THE UNITED STATES

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                        ONE HUNDRED NINETEENTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                            JANUARY 15 and 16, 2025

                                   ----------

                               Serial No. J-119-1

                                   ----------

             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
    61-320 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2025

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                           COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                      CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
    LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina    RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois,
    JOHN CORNYN, Texas                       Ranking Member
    MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah                 SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
    TED CRUZ, Texas                      AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
    JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri                CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
    THOM TILLIS, North Carolina          RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
    JOHN KENNEDY, Louisiana              MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii
    MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee          CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
    ERIC SCHMITT, Missouri               ALEX PADILLA, California
    KATIE BOYD BRITT, Alabama            PETER WELCH, Vermont
    MIKE CRAPO, Idaho                    ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

                 Kolan Davis, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
             Joe Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------

                               OPENING STATEMENTS

                                                                       Page

    Grassley, Hon. Charles E.:
        January 15, 2025, opening statement..........................     1
        January 16, 2025, opening statement..........................    93
    Durbin, Hon. Richard J.:
        January 15, 2025, opening statement..........................     5
        January 16, 2025, opening statement..........................    95
    Schmitt, Hon. Eric...............................................     8

                              VISITING INTRODUCER

    Scott, Hon. Rick, U.S. Senator from Florida......................     7

                                    NOMINEE

    Bondi, Hon. Pamela Jo............................................     9
        Prepared statement...........................................   124
        Questionnaire................................................   126
        Responses to written questions...............................   160

                                   WITNESSES

    Aronberg, Hon. Dave..............................................    97
        Prepared statement...........................................   293

    Cox, Nicholas B..................................................   104
        Prepared statement...........................................   296

    Gainey, Hon. Emery...............................................   100
        Prepared statement...........................................   299

    Gilbert, Lisa....................................................    99
        Prepared statement...........................................   305
        Responses to written questions...............................   311
    McCord, Mary B...................................................   102
        Prepared statement...........................................   313

                                    APPENDIX

    Items submitted for the record...................................   323

                          CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                       NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
                             TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                              OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                          WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:32 a.m., in
    Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Graham, Cornyn,
    Lee, Cruz, Hawley, Tillis, Kennedy, Blackburn, Schmitt, Britt,
    Crapo, Durbin, Whitehouse, Klobuchar, Coons, Blumenthal,
    Hirono, Booker, Padilla, Welch, and Schiff.
        Also present: Senator Scott.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Good morning, everybody. I welcome all
    of you to this very important hearing to consider the
    nomination of former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi. She's
    serving as the 87th Attorney General of the United States after
    her approval. Congratulations to your nomination, Ms. Bondi,
    and thank you for your willingness to serve.
        I thank Senator Durbin for his leadership as Chairman of
    the Committee over the last 4 years. Although he and I have
    differences of policies, I think the public could say we worked
    well together on many issues over the years. As he steps into
    his role as Ranking Member, I will work closely with Senator
    Durbin to serve the American people. I also would like to
    welcome three brand new Members of the Committee and a person
    that's repeating his service here after a stint off. I welcome
    to the Committee Senator Britt, Senator Schmitt, Senator Crapo,
    and Senator Schiff. Welcome.
        [Applause.]
        Chairman Grassley. Before we get started, I'd like to set
    out a couple of ground rules. I want to handle this hearing
    using a similar structure to how Senator Durbin handled the
    nomination hearing of Attorney General Garland. I want everyone
    here to be able to watch the hearing without obstruction. If
    people stand up and block the view of those behind them or
    speak out of turn, it's not fair or considerate to others, so
    officers will immediately remove those individuals.
        Now, before I turn to my opening statement, let me explain
    how we're going to proceed today. I'll give my opening remarks,
    and then I'll invite Ranking Member Durbin to give his opening
    remarks. Then I'll call on Senator Scott and Schmitt to
    introduce this nominee, and following those introductions and
    Ms. Bondi's statement, we'll begin the first round of
    questioning. Each Senator will have an initial 7-minute round
    for questioning. After the first round, we'll do a second, 4-
    minute round of questioning. Members should do their very best
    to adhere to these time limits so that we can proceed
    efficiently with the hearing.
        We're here today considering Pam Bondi's nomination to
    serve as Attorney General of the United States. Ms. Bondi, for
    a second time, I thank you for your nomination, willingness to
    serve, but, more importantly, serve the important role of
    Senate's advise and consent process. You're nominated to one of
    the most important offices in our country. It took--let's see--
    a lot of work on your part just to get here today.
        The more than 14,000 pages of records, hundreds of hours of
    media files, and more than 3,400 responsive entries you
    disclosed to this Committee are a testament to your long career
    in public eye and your cooperation with this Committee. I'd
    like to also thank your family for being here today. I know
    that many of them have traveled some distance to celebrate with
    you.
        I'd like to explain and expect that Ms. Bondi be treated
    fairly. During Attorney General Garland's confirmation hearing,
    Republicans treated him with respect. We asked tough but fair
    questions, and we ultimately voted him out of Committee on a
    bipartisan basis. Although Attorney General Garland wasn't who
    we on this side of the aisle would've chosen to lead the
    Department of Justice, we recognized that President Biden won
    that election and that he was entitled to choose his Attorney
    General. We were ultimately disappointed with some of the
    things that General Garland and his Department did, but at the
    time of his nomination, we gave him the benefit of the doubt.
        As the recent terrorist attacks in New Orleans and around
    the world have shown, our national security must be a high
    priority. The American people deserve a secure Homeland and
    borders, safe streets, orderly markets, civil rights, and a
    protected environment, so delivering on these promises require
    the swift confirmation of an Attorney General. This Committee
    should give Ms. Bondi the same benefit of the doubt that this
    Committee gave to Attorney General Garland.
        President Trump has selected a nominee whose qualifications
    speak for themselves. Ms. Bondi made history in 2010 as the
    first woman to be elected Florida Attorney General. She held
    that role for 8 years and was comfortably reelected by the
    people of Florida to a second term. Eight years of service as
    Attorney General of the third-largest State in the Nation is
    excellent preparation for the role of U.S. Attorney General. As
    Florida Attorney General, Ms. Bondi was a member of the Florida
    Cabinet, chief legal officer of the State, and led a large
    agency that tangibly impacted people's lives, and by all
    accounts, Ms. Bondi handled her responsibilities well.
        As the Florida Attorney General, Ms. Bondi achieved
    numerous successes. She engaged in key initiatives to fight
    human trafficking, counter the opioid epidemic, and protect
    consumers, and protect the citizens of Florida from violence.
    She didn't shy away from hard work or complicated problems. She
    engaged in an aggressive campaign to eliminate pill mills, took
    a leading role in securing a $3-and-a-quarter billion
    settlement following the Deepwater Horizon oil spill, and
    eliminated the backlog of rape test kits that had accumulated
    in that State's laboratories.
        Ms. Bondi's experience isn't limited to her service as
    Florida Attorney General. She also served as a prosecutor in
    Hillsborough County for 18 years and prosecuted terrible
    crimes. She sought tough penalties and justice for victims of
    violent criminals, domestic abusers, and sexual predators. She
    prosecuted drug traffickers and, thus, protected her community.
    She was also active outside of her professional role, serving
    in the Junior League of Tampa, on the board of Special Olympics
    Florida, and is well known for her animal rescue efforts.
        Her experience and performance as Attorney General,
    prosecutor, and community leader speaks volumes about her
    character and her dedication to the rule of law. She's received
    multiple letters in support of her nomination, including from
    the Fraternal Order of Police, the Republican State Attorneys
    General, more than 100 former senior DOJ officials, and a
    bipartisan group of former State Attorneys General. In short,
    Ms. Bondi is highly qualified, and, of course, as we all know,
    a change is desperately needed.
        When confirmed, Ms. Bondi will take the helm at a very
    turbulent time for this country and for that Department. The
    Justice Department is infected with political decision-making
    while its leaders refuse to acknowledge that reality. Crossfire
    Hurricane was a textbook example of government weaponization.
        The FBI's investigation was built on the fake Steele
    dossier, which was funded by the Democratic National Committee
    and Clinton campaign, who worked with foreign operatives. My
    investigative work exposed that the FBI actually knew the
    dossier was false information and was likely a part of a
    Russian disinformation campaign.
        Even with the knowledge of such dossier defects and
    political infections, the Justice Department sought FISA
    warrant renewals and took other actions. After directing my
    oversight staff to investigate Justice Department's mishandling
    of the matter, the Justice Department retaliated in issuing a
    subpoena for my own staff's phone records--that's right--
    challenging my constitutional rights of doing my oversight
    duties.
        What's next? Then a few Democratic colleagues pressured the
    FBI Foreign Influence Task Force to supposedly brief me and
    Senator Johnson related to our Biden family investigation. On
    August the 20th, Senator Johnson and I had that infamous
    briefing from the FBI. Later, this FBI's briefing contents were
    leaked to the media, even though the FBI promised
    confidentiality. That leak falsely labeled our oversight work
    as--you guessed it--Russian disinformation.
        To this day, over 4 years later, the Intelligence Community
    and the FBI refuse to provide us the intelligence basis for
    that briefing. The title of this Wall Street Journal's article
    sums it up, quote, ``The FBI's Dubious Briefing: Did the Bureau
    Set Two U.S. GOP Senators Up at the Behest of Democrats? '',
    end of quote. So I know, as other people on this Committee and
    in and out of Congress know, what government weaponization is.
        And then we get to Special Counsel Jack Smith and his
    lawfare operation. It involved an unprecedented FBI raid on
    Trump's house, including agents that even searched the former
    First Lady's clothing drawers. Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden
    certainly did not receive the same treatment by Government
    regarding their records. Indeed, as my oversight exposed, the
    FBI amazingly agreed to destroy laptop and records associated
    with Clinton's staff. This ``Orwellian conduct should have no
    quarter.'' On top of it all, the FBI Special Agent Thibault,
    the anti-Trump agent that violated the Hatch Act for political
    activities on the job, started one of Jack Smith's cases.
        But Jack Smith wasn't the only Department official who
    tried to influence this past election. The Washington Post
    reported just last August about a previously undisclosed
    Mueller investigation into Trump that was closed for lack of
    evidence and it being, quote, unquote, ``a fishing
    expedition.'' That news reporting was based on sealed court
    records, Government records, and potentially classified
    information roughly 90 days before the last Presidential
    election. The Justice Department leaked that information to the
    press to impact the election against President Trump, and they
    did it while stiff-arming congressional requests for
    information that would prove embarrassing to the Biden-Harris
    administration.
        So let us not forget some of the more and other flagrant
    abuses of power that we've seen from the DOJ and the FBI over
    the last 4 years. And I don't have the time to spend on these
    that I spent on two or three others, but just to list them. The
    Department of Justice used the might of the Federal Government
    to prosecute individuals peacefully praying outside of an
    abortion clinic. The FBI suggested that traditional Catholics
    could be domestic terrorism threats, claiming that these
    individuals adhere to, quote, ``antisemitic, anti-immigration,
    anti-GBT, and white supremacy ideology,'' end of quote. The FBI
    opened dozens of investigations into parents who voiced their
    concerns at school board meetings regarding curriculum choices
    and COVID-19 mandates. The FBI applied undue pressure to social
    media platforms to censor so-called misinformation, downgrading
    or removing flagged social media posts, and removing users.
    These are only a few particularly egregious examples of rot
    infesting the Department of Justice.
        The impact to this political infection in our once-storied
    law enforcement institutions is catastrophic. By every metric,
    the Biden-Harris Justice Department conduct has failed to live
    up to our country's ideals. So, Ms. Bondi, should you be
    confirmed, the actions you take to change the Department's
    course must be for accountability so that the conduct I just
    described never happens again. The only way to accomplish this
    is through transparency for the Congress and the American
    people.
        Now to my friend, Ranking Member Durbin.

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

        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. I appreciate
    your commitment to the Judiciary Committee's long-standing
    bipartisan practices for vetting Presidential nominees. That
    was in doubt several weeks ago, but I spoke to Senator
    Grassley, and he assured me that he's still personally
    committed, as I am, to maintaining these practices which we've
    established over the years. Our process is rigorous, and it
    shows how seriously Members on both sides of the aisle take our
    constitutional responsibility of advise and consent.
        Ms. Bondi, thanks for coming to my office last week to
    discuss your nomination. The importance of the Attorney General
    to our justice system cannot be overstated. As our Nation's
    chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General oversees
    the Department of Justice, which is responsible for protecting
    the civil rights of Americans, economic freedom and
    opportunity, public safety, and, of course, national security.
    In short, the Attorney General has real impact on America's
    everyday life.
        It is critical that any nominee for this position be
    committed first and foremost to the Constitution and the
    American people, not any President or political agenda. But
    President Trump claims he has, quote, ``an absolute right to do
    what he wants with the Justice Department,'' and that's how he
    conducted his first term.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Durbin. He interfered with the criminal cases of
    his friends and allies and successfully pressured DOJ to
    investigate his rivals. He even tried to use the Justice
    Department to overturn the results of the 2020 Presidential
    election. The President-elect made it clear that he values one
    thing above all else, and he said it over and over again:
    loyalty.
        Speaking about Attorney General Sessions, Donald Trump
    said, quote, ``The only reason I gave him the job is because I
    felt loyalty. He was an original supporter.'' But when then-
    Attorney General Sessions did the right thing and recused
    himself from the Mueller investigation, Trump said he should
    never have nominated him. And he fired him. Trump then
    nominated Bill Barr to succeed Sessions. Barr successfully
    auditioned for the job in an unsolicited memo to DOJ that
    sharply criticized the Mueller investigation. Once confirmed,
    Barr misrepresented and blocked the release of the report,
    intervened in multiple criminal cases of Trump's political
    allies, and spread falsehoods about election fraud. But in
    December 2020, when Bill Barr finally announced there was no
    evidence of widespread voter fraud that would change the
    outcome of the election, Trump dismissed him--fired his second
    Attorney General.
        This time around, President-elect Trump has vowed not just
    to use the Justice Department to advance his political
    interests, but also to seek, quote, ``retribution'' against,
    quote, ``the enemy within.'' He has repeatedly threatened to
    arrest, prosecute, jail, and otherwise punish those he
    considers his enemies. This includes reporters, prosecutors,
    judges, poll workers, military officials, and even his own
    former political appointees. Even before taking office, Trump
    has forced out his own FBI Director that he appointed--Chris
    Wray--and he's trying to replace Wray with Kash Patel, whose
    main qualification to be FBI Director seems to be his loyalty
    to Donald Trump. Patel has even compiled an enemy's list of,
    quote, ``government gangsters'' to target--that even includes
    former Trump appointees, like Director Wray, Attorney General
    Barr, and Defense Secretary Esper.
        Trump's approach is a stark contrast with the bipartisan
    view borne out of the post-Nixon era, that the Justice
    Department should serve the interests of the American people,
    not any one President. For those who need a reminder, Richard
    Nixon ordered Department officials to fire Archibald Cox, the
    Special Prosecutor investigating Watergate. Two of those
    officials--Elliot Richardson and William Ruckelshaus--resigned
    rather than carry out Richard Nixon's orders.
        When this Committee considered the appointment of Loretta
    Lynch to be President Obama's Attorney General, a Republican
    Member of the Committee emphasized, and I quote, ``What we need
    from our next Attorney General more than anything else is
    independence.'' That same Member, who now still serves on the
    Committee, said, and I quote, ``The job is not to be the
    President's wingman. The job is to represent all Americans. The
    Attorney General must be willing to stand up to the President
    and say no when the office demands it.'' When Attorney General
    nominee Merrick Garland came before this Committee, another one
    of my Republican colleagues, still serving, told Garland, and I
    quote, ``My sole criterion for voting for your confirmation is
    your pledge to make sure that politics does not affect your job
    as Attorney General.'' So the view that the Justice Department
    must be insulated from political influence should--should not
    be weaponized against political rivals has historically been
    bipartisan, certainly on this Committee. At this crucial moment
    in history, that view, not Mr. Trump's view, must prevail.
        Ms. Bondi, you have many years of experience in law
    enforcement, including nearly a decade of service as Attorney
    General in one of the largest States of the Nation, but I need
    to know that you would tell the President no if you're asked to
    do something that is wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional. Ms.
    Bondi, you are one of four Trump personal lawyers that he has
    already selected for top positions in the Department of
    Justice. You joined Mr. Trump in working to overturn the 2020
    election, you repeatedly described investigations and
    prosecutions of Mr. Trump as witch hunts, and you have echoed
    his calls for investigating and prosecuting his political
    opponents. This flies in the face of evidence, like Mr. Trump's
    call to Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger. We've
    all heard that audio recording. These are the kinds of anti-
    democratic efforts that in the past you have defended, and it's
    critical that we understand whether you remain supportive of
    Mr. Trump's actions.
        I also have questions whether you'll focus on the needs of
    the American people rather than wealthy special interests. I'm
    concerned that you failed to identify your extensive lobbying
    for foreign governments and big corporations as potential
    conflicts of interest. There'll be questions in this hearing on
    that issue. That's why I've asked the Justice Department and
    the National Archives for information on your lobbying of the
    Trump White House and your foreign lobbying disclosures.
        I'm particularly concerned about your work on behalf of the
    government of Qatar, which reportedly paid you $115,000 a month
    to launder their image on human trafficking and issue a
    bipartisan concern on this Committee. We need an Attorney
    General who will enforce our antitrust laws to prevent price
    fixing and monopolies that lead to higher prices for American
    consumers, not favor corporate giants that you've lobbied for
    in the past, like Amazon and Uber. I also have questions about
    some of your actions as Florida Attorney General. I'm concerned
    that your office failed to investigate more than 2 dozen
    complaints about the for-profit Trump University after Mr.
    Trump donated to your reelection campaign and held a fundraiser
    for you at Mar-a-Lago. In addition, you have a long track
    record on the issue of civil rights, reproductive rights,
    voting rights, and LGBTQ rights that needs to be discussed.
        In contrast, Ms. Bondi, Merrick Garland didn't campaign for
    President Biden, never served as his personal attorney, never
    lobbied on behalf of foreign governments and corporate giants.
    After years of relentless criticism about Attorney General
    Garland from many of my Republican colleagues, I hope they're
    prepared to hold you to the same standard. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Senator Grassley. Thank you. Okay, it's now time for
    Senators to introduce the nominee. The first one will be
    Senator Scott at the table, as you see, and Senator Schmitt is
    a Member of this Committee, at his place on the dais. Senator
    Scott, please proceed.

             INTRODUCTION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE

           TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY HON. RICK SCOTT,

                A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

        Senator Scott. Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, and Committee
    Members, it is an absolute honor to sit before you today to
    introduce my good friend, Pam Bondi, for her nomination
    hearing. I'd also like to recognize some important people
    appearing in support of her today: her husband, John, as well
    as her mother, father-in-law, sister, brother, sister-in-law
    and nephews, friends and family members of John. Many more
    would surely be here if space allowed.
        I can tell you wholeheartedly that President Trump couldn't
    have a better leader than Pam Bondi for Attorney General. She
    is undoubtedly qualified, brilliant, and committed to defending
    and protecting the laws of this Nation and has a track record
    to prove it.
        It's no secret that the DOJ is facing a public trust crisis
    after Democrats spent years weaponizing the justice system and
    the entire Federal Government. It's become an agency that
    attacks the American people instead of defending and protecting
    them. That will change under Pam Bondi. Under her leadership,
    the DOJ will actually fairly enforce the laws, protect the
    rights of the American people, and keep our Nation safe, and
    crack down on violent crimes and dangerous drugs, and the
    American people will trust her to do so. I know that well
    because I worked alongside Pam Bondi for 8 years when I was
    Governor of Florida and she was Florida's elected Attorney
    General, working to improve the lives of Floridians to make
    Florida the best State in the Nation to live, work, and raise a
    family. Pam was an incredible partner, working to keep Florida
    safe and uphold the laws of our State, ensuring crime is
    aggressively pursued by law enforcement and prosecutors.
        President Trump has made clear that one of his top
    priorities is to reverse the rising rates of crime, and
    specifically violent crime, that have plagued our communities
    over the past 4 years. Pam Bondi is uniquely equipped to
    advance his priority as U.S. Attorney General because she has a
    proven track record of success in achieving dramatic reductions
    in crime and violent crime during her time as Florida's
    Attorney General.
        From 2010, the year before she took office, to 2018, the
    last year she was in office, together, Florida experienced a
    remarkable 26-percent drop in overall crime, including a 19.6-
    percent drop in violent crime, and a 27.4-percent drop in
    property crime. These aren't just numbers. These are tens of
    thousands of lives saved and communities improved and made
    safer, and families and businesses protected. As Florida's
    Attorney General, Pam Bondi also spearheaded other lifesaving
    initiatives, like tackling the opioid epidemic and fighting
    human trafficking. Her achievements are too many for me to list
    in this short introduction.
        As U.S. Attorney General, Pam Bondi will restore law and
    order to the Nation. She'll put Americans' interests first and
    make the Nation a better and safer place. I urge every single
    Member of this Committee to support my friend Pam Bondi, and I
    look forward to voting for her confirmation soon on the Senate
    floor and help her get to work for the American people. Thank
    you, Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Scott. You are
    welcome to stay.
        Senator Scott. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.

             INTRODUCTION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE

          TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY GENERAL, BY HON. ERIC SCHMITT,

               A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI

        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and Members of the Committee. It is an honor for me and
    a privilege to introduce Pam Bondi, President Trump's nominee
    to be the 87th Attorney General of the United States. I have
    known and worked closely with Pam for years, and I'm glad to
    call her a friend. When Pam was nominated by President Trump,
    my reaction was this is a home run. As many of us are, I was
    only to be outdone by Senator Graham, who described the
    nomination as a ``grand slam, touchdown, hole-in-one, ace hat
    trick, slam dunk, Olympic gold medal pick.'' And he's right.
        As the letter joined by more than a hundred former Justice
    Department officials put it, quote, ``It's all too rare for
    senior Justice Department officials, much less Attorneys
    General, to have such a wealth of experience in the day-to-day
    work of keeping our communities safe,'' end quote. Pam
    exemplifies and personifies the Department of Justice's mission
    to uphold the rule of law, to keep our communities safe, and to
    protect our rights and liberties as Americans.
        Pam has distinguished herself in her career in public
    service that has taken her from her small-town upbringing in
    Temple Terrace, Florida, to a hearing before this esteemed
    Committee. After attending the University of Florida and
    Stetson University College of Law, she started her career as a
    local prosecutor in Hillsborough County, Florida. As a local
    prosecutor for nearly two decades, Pam kept her community safe,
    prosecuting violent criminals, drug dealers, those who had
    threatened the local community, and those who stood in
    opposition to the rule of law. Pam's fellow Floridians then
    elected her to serve as Florida's Attorney General, where she
    was the first woman in State history elected to that office.
        As a former State Attorney General myself, I can vouch for
    the deep experience that Pam Bondi has developed from serving
    in that role. As the chief law enforcement official in her
    State, she worked with local prosecutors to fight crime, worked
    to protect our constitutional rights--or, the constitutional
    rights of Floridians, and stood up for the little guy by taking
    on abuses of power. As Florida's Attorney General, she worked
    tirelessly to combat the opioid crisis, fighting pill mills,
    and helping to combat the widespread misuse and trafficking of
    deadly drugs, including fentanyl, which have devastated
    families and communities all across our country. She stood up
    for Floridians in the wake of a 2008 financial crisis, leading
    to the National Mortgage Settlement Act, resulting in $56
    billion in compensation to victims. And after the Deep Water
    Horizon oil spill, Pam was there and stood up for Floridians by
    getting $2 billion from the companies responsible. On a more
    personal note, Pam has always taken it upon herself to help
    others. She's incredibly generous and someone I could always
    count on. She's truthful, she's tough, and she's a born leader.
    She has charted her own course with the rare combination of
    backbone and heart.
        The next Attorney General of the United States must restore
    trust by reversing the weaponization we've seen the last 4
    years and refocusing that Department to its core mission:
    administering justice. The next Attorney General must promote
    the rule of law, take on violent crime, keep our communities
    safe, and safeguard the God-given rights that each American has
    protected in our Constitution. I can think of no one--no one
    more up to that task than Pam Bondi, a career prosecutor and
    widely respected Attorney General, with the prudence,
    fortitude, and temperance for this incredibly important job.
    Mr. Chairman, it is truly an honor for me to introduce Pam
    Bondi to this Committee and to our country here today and speak
    on her behalf, and it's my hope that her nomination will be
    swiftly confirmed. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Schmitt. Now, Ms.
    Bondi, would you please come forward, and before you're seated,
    I'd like to administer oath. Would you please raise your right
    hand and answer this question?
        [Witness is sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. Please be seated, and move ahead with
    your opening statement.

    STATEMENT OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI, NOMINEE TO SERVE AS ATTORNEY
                      GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES

        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee. I've had
    the opportunity to meet with almost all of you, and I greatly
    appreciate that. I'm grateful to President Trump and to this
    Committee for your consideration to be the 87th Attorney
    General of the United States.
        I would not be here without my family, and if you can bear
    with me for just a moment, a lot of them have made a very long
    trip, and I wrote them all down so I don't forget anyone. My
    beautiful mother, who I wouldn't be here--a retired
    kindergarten teacher--would not be here without my mom. As of a
    week ago, it was 12 years since we lost my dad to leukemia. It
    feels like 12 days. My amazing husband, John, and his two
    incredible girls, Collins and Finley. Collins is a senior at
    University of Florida, and I think all of you on this Committee
    will be very happy to know Finley is in cybersecurity. There's
    a third who is traveling abroad. I wish she could be here. My
    amazing father-in-law, David, my sister, Beth. My brother-in-
    law is home with my niece. My nephews, if you could just raise
    your hand--Evan, Jake, and soon to be niece, Savannah. My
    brother, Brad, a brilliant lawyer, my sister-in-law, Tandy, and
    my nephews, Justin, who just got a 4.0 at UVA, Rex, a great
    college tennis player, Brad, a great tennis player, and my
    niece--my beautiful niece, Rhea, and the little guy is in
    school because he's 10. My friends Leslie, Kathy, Dina,
    Tiffany, Kim, Paula, and so many of my former co-workers. And,
    Ranking Member Durbin, if you want to get dirt on me, these
    women have known me since I was a child----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Seriously, most of them. So thank
    you for indulging me in that. They've all made a very long trip
    to be here, and thank you for holding my hearing, as well, and
    not postponing it. I appreciate that. Thank you, all.
        From the moment I interned at the State Attorney's office
    in Tampa, Florida, all I wanted to do was be a prosecutor. The
    Supreme Court certified me, and I had four jury trials while
    still in law school--lost most of them, but had four jury
    trials and never wanted to do anything else. I continued my
    career there, trying everything from DUIs, domestic violence
    cases, capital murder cases, the whole gamut. I became a lead
    trial attorney in courtroom, every day trying career criminals.
    Was deputy chief of a division, and then ultimately was felony
    bureau chief, and eventually left to become Florida's 37th
    Attorney General for the State of Florida. Nothing has impacted
    my career more than my experience as a State prosecutor because
    I got to know and still keep in touch with many victims and
    their families from when I was a prosecutor.
        Upon becoming Attorney General in 2011, I proudly served
    for two terms. I was term limited. I would probably still be
    there right now had I not been kicked out of office by term
    limits. I loved being Attorney General. I did my best to keep
    Florida safe, to continue to stand up for victims of crime, and
    to fight the opioid crisis and the drug crisis that was not
    only facing Florida, but this entire country.
        Out of the top 100--this is one of the things I'm the most
    proud of--oxycodone dispensers in the entire country, I believe
    it was 98 of them--90 or 98 of them, lived in Florida. We
    fought for tough legislation. Kids were dropping dead every
    day. We fought for tough legislation, and after that
    legislation, none of those opioid dealers/doctors practiced in
    Florida. We fought to eliminate human trafficking by raising
    awareness and prevention, and talking to parents and talking to
    children. We also provided critical resources, including safe
    houses that my State was lacking.
        On the civil side, we worked to protect consumers. We
    tackled everything, including off-label prescription marketing,
    which affects, as you know, many, many people who can't afford
    prescriptions, as well. We partnered with States attorneys
    general from both parties and Federal agencies across
    administrations. We went after price gougers during hurricanes.
        If confirmed as the next Attorney General of the United
    States, my overriding objective will be to return the
    Department of Justice to its core mission of keeping Americans
    safe and vigorously prosecuting criminals, and that includes
    getting back to basics: gangs, drugs, terrorists, cartels, our
    border, and our foreign adversaries. That is what the American
    people expect, and that is what they deserve from the
    Department of Justice. If confirmed, I will do everything in my
    power, and it will be my great responsibility to make America
    safe again.
        Making America safe again also requires reducing
    recidivism. We have to fix the Bureau of Prisons, and I am
    looking on both sides of the aisle. The Bureau has suffered
    from years of mismanagement, lack of funding, and low morale. I
    was proud to support President Trump's First Step Act. I think
    more can be implemented and more can be done on that front.
    President Trump's leadership on criminal justice reform has
    demonstrated what is possible when a President is unafraid to
    do things that have been deemed to be too difficult. We have to
    reach across the aisle and get solutions for all of these
    problems. Like the President, I believe we are on the cusp of a
    new golden age where the Department of Justice can and will do
    better, if I am confirmed.
        Last and most importantly, if confirmed, I will fight every
    day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of
    Justice and each of its components. The partisanship, the
    weaponization will be gone. America will have one tier of
    justice for all. In all this work, I'll collaborate closely
    with this Committee. I will work with all of you as I have
    committed to do when I met with almost all of you, and I will
    partner not only with the Federal agencies, but with the State
    and local officials throughout our great country.
        I look forward to answering your questions today and
    working together for this country and our Constitution. Thank
    you, Senators.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Bondi appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. I will ask, first, questions, then
    Senator Durbin, and then I'll call on the Democrat people the
    way that Senator Durbin would say so on their arrival or here
    by seniority in the same way on the House side, and I'll make
    sure that I don't abuse the 7 minutes.
        I want you to have your attention on this binder that I put
    up here. It's a key factor of each Senator's role in oversight.
    It contains 144 oversight letters that I sent to the Biden-
    Harris Justice Department and its component agencies, with many
    of those letters in there to the FBI. Adding letters to the
    Inspector General, that would be about 165 letters, so I've
    sent more letters since you've been in my office before
    Christmas. Should you be confirmed, 144 letters will be your
    responsibility. The responses I have received so far fall in
    two categories. First, they weren't answered at all. Second, I
    received a response, but it didn't fully respond. Said another
    way, the Justice Department merely sent me words on a piece of
    paper. So, should you be confirmed, you'll have an obligation
    to respond even to the Minority and consider a letter from
    them, even if my signature's not on it, as they want
    information. Will you commit to responding to my oversight
    requests, as well as the requests of other Members of the
    Committee?
        Ms. Bondi. Chairman, either I or my top staff will
    personally review the letters and do everything we can to
    respond to you.
        Chairman Grassley. Your tenure as Florida Attorney General
    was impressive. You fought against pill mills, human
    trafficking, you eliminated a backlog of rape test kits in
    State labs, you fought against organized retail theft, and you
    were known to stand for law and order. With such achievements,
    it's easy to see why the people of Florida reelected you in
    2014 and why President-elect Trump nominated you to serve as
    the Nation's chief law enforcement officer. So this gives you a
    chance to tell us on this Committee and the people of this
    country what you're proud of as your record as Attorney General
    of Florida.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. I was truly
    honored to serve the people of the State of Florida for 8
    years, but it was a team effort. I had great people around me,
    many of whom are in this room today, and we did a lot. We did a
    lot to fight crime, and I've been reminiscing a lot since I was
    asked to take this nomination.
        Opioids, as I talked about, were a top priority right when
    I took office. When I was running for office, I went through
    the entire State of Florida. Parents were walking up to me,
    handing me pictures of their children who were deceased from
    opioid abuse. After I was elected, I took those pictures and I
    framed them in my office as a goal of stopping that fight,
    which I talked about in my opening statement. And if U.S.
    Attorney General, I'll bring those pictures back out, and they
    will be there to inspire me on the further drug abuse we're
    facing throughout this country.
        We also learned that something else was happening. Pregnant
    women were having babies as a result of being opioid dependent.
    We called it neonatal abstinence syndrome. We fought to educate
    mothers. We fought that issue, as well. Fentanyl was wreaking
    havoc in our country, but it was just getting started. I
    actually fought my own party a bit on scheduling fentanyl
    because at that time, people thought it was something you
    merely got in the hospital on a patch after surgery--apples and
    oranges--and, boy, do we all know that now, the difference.
    Fentanyl is raging throughout our country, and I will do
    everything I can to fight that with the agencies that fall
    under the Department of Justice.
        Human trafficking became a top priority for me as Attorney
    General. I had the opportunity on a bipartisan trip to go to
    Mexico, and the one thing I found out there, they were doing
    better than we were. They had safe houses. I saw things I never
    dreamed I would see, and all of these things in my past have
    formed the person I am right now sitting here before you. I
    came back to Florida. We started a Human Trafficking Council,
    and we partnered with others, and we expanded and added safe
    houses in the State of Florida. I don't know how many are in
    this country right now, but I would like to partner with both
    sides, if confirmed, to continue those efforts.
        Chairman Grassley. I'd like to interrupt you----
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir.
        Chairman Grassley [continuing]. And go to another question,
    and I'll have another round so you can finish on that point.
    I'd like to ask you about something that's central to fighting
    Government waste and fraud, the False Claims Act. I want you to
    know that Attorney General Garland calls me once a year. He
    called me yesterday to tell me the success of the False Claims
    Act. Since 1986 when I got it passed and President Reagan
    signed it, it's brought in $78 billion as of yesterday, his
    report, $2-and-nine-tenths billion for the year of 2024. Most
    of that's because of patriotic whistleblowers who found the
    fraud and brought the cases forward at their own risk. The
    Supreme Court has long upheld the law's constitutionality, but
    I want to know your view. Is the False Claims Act
    constitutional?
        Before you answer that, one time in the 1990s, one of the
    Attorney Generals said it wasn't constitutional, and when that
    same person by the name of Barr was back 5 years ago to be
    Attorney General, he said it was constitutional. So if
    confirmed, will you commit--well, answer that first question.
    Do you think it's constitutional? Would you defend the
    constitutionality of it----
        Ms. Bondi. I would defend the constitutionality, of course,
    of the False Claims Act, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Last question. If confirmed, would
    you commit to continuing DOJ's defense of the constitutionality
    of it, and will you assure the entire staff and funding levels
    to properly support and prosecute False Claim cases?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, the False Claims Act is so important,
    and especially by what you said with whistleblowers, as well,
    and the protection and the money it brings back our country.
    Yes, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you for your answers. Senator
    Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Ms. Bondi, if
    you're successful in your nomination, this Democrat would like
    to give you three words of advice: ``Answer Grassley's
    letters.''
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. You'll never hear the end of it if you
    don't.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. At issue, I believe, in this nomination
    hearing is not your competence, nor your experience. At issue
    is your ability to say no. More than any other Cabinet
    official, the Attorney General has to be prepared to put the
    Constitution first and even tell the President of the United
    States you're wrong. The political danger and personal costs of
    such a decision are well documented. You have only to ask
    former Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Bill Barr, whom
    Donald Trump sacked for lack of loyalty. And so I have three
    basic questions I'd like to ask you.
        Most Americans believe that central to the peaceful
    transition of power in a democracy is the acceptance of the
    results of an election. To my knowledge, Donald Trump has never
    acknowledged the legal results of the 2020 election. Are you
    prepared to say today, under oath, without reservation, that
    Donald Trump lost the Presidential contest to Joe Biden in
    2020?
        Ms. Bondi. Ranking Member Durbin, President Biden is the
    President of the United States. He was duly sworn in, and he is
    the President of the United States. There was a peaceful
    transition of power. President Trump left office and was
    overwhelmingly elected in 2024.
        Senator Durbin. Do you have any doubts that Joe Biden had
    the majority of electoral votes necessary to be elected for
    President in 2020?
        Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, all I can tell you as a
    prosecutor is from my firsthand experience, and I accept the
    results. I accept, of course, that Joe Biden is President of
    the United States. But what I can tell you is what I saw
    firsthand when I went to Pennsylvania as an advocate for the
    campaign. I was an advocate for the campaign, and I was on the
    ground in Pennsylvania, and I saw many things there, but do I
    accept the results? Of course I do. Do I agree with what
    happened? I saw so much. You know, not--no one from either side
    of the aisle should want there to be any issues with election
    integrity in our country. We should all want our elections to
    be free and fair and the rules and the laws to be followed.
        Senator Durbin. I think that question deserved a ``yes'' or
    ``no,'' and I think the length of your answer is an indication
    that you weren't prepared to answer ``yes.'' Have you heard the
    recording of President Trump on January 2, 2021, when he urged
    the Secretary of State of Georgia to, quote, ``Find 11,780
    votes'' and declare him the winner of that State?
        Ms. Bondi. No. I've heard about it through clips, but, no,
    Senator, I've not heard it.
        Senator Durbin. What was your reaction to President Trump
    making that call?
        Ms. Bondi. I have--I would have to listen to the tape,
    Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Well, the quote that I give you is exact.
    He said to the Georgia Secretary of State, ``Find 11,780
    votes.''
        Ms. Bondi. Do you have the entire context of that call?
        Senator Durbin. It is----
        Ms. Bondi. I feel like it was much longer than that----
        Senator Durbin. It is----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And may have been taken out of
    context.
        Senator Durbin. It was an hour long----
        Ms. Bondi. Right.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. And you can certainly listen
    to it. I hope you will. Every American should. As a former
    prosecutor, are you not concerned that the President of the
    United States called a State election official and asked him to
    find enough votes to change the results of the election?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not listened to the hour-long
    conversation, but it's my understanding that is not what he
    asked him to do.
        Senator Durbin. You need to listen to it. I'll ask a third
    question. Do you believe that the January 6 rioters who've been
    convicted of violent assaults on police officers should be
    pardoned?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, if confirmed as Attorney General of the
    United States, the pardons, of course, fall under the
    President. But if asked to look at those cases, I will look at
    each case and advise on a case-by-case basis, just as I did my
    entire career as a prosecutor.
        Senator Durbin. You also advise the President on pardons as
    part of your responsibility as Attorney General. And so I'm
    asking you, do you believe that those who've been convicted of
    the January 6 riot, violent assaults on our police officers
    should be pardoned? That's a simple question.
        Ms. Bondi. So, Senator, I have not seen any of those files,
    of course. If confirmed, and if asked to advise the President,
    I will look at each and every file. But let me be very clear in
    speaking to you, I condemn any violence on a law enforcement
    officer in this country.
        Senator Durbin. Let me ask you about your work as a
    lobbyist for Ballard Partners. You did not list your current
    position as a partner at the lobbying firm, nor the work you've
    done for your Ballard Partner clients, such as lobbying for the
    country of Qatar for $115,000 a month, and for corporate giants
    Amazon and Uber when you were asked about conflicts of
    interest. Why do you believe your work as a lobbyist does not
    constitute potential conflicts of interest?
        Ms. Bondi. Well, Senator, first, that was the amount my
    firm received. I believe multiple people represented the
    country of Qatar within my firm. My role--and I am very proud
    of the work that I did, it was a short time, and I wish it had
    been longer for Qatar--was anti-human trafficking efforts
    leading into the World Cup, which is something I'd like to talk
    about later, too. I was registered as FARA along with many
    members of my firm. That was the sole portion of my
    representation for Qatar. Now, if there are any conflicts with
    anyone I represented in private practice, I would consult with
    the career ethics officials within the Department and make the
    appropriate decision. I would also like to point out to you, I
    don't believe that I would be the first Attorney General who
    has represented and advocated for businesses in their past.
        Senator Durbin. Of course not. The question is whether you
    will recuse yourself from any case involving your Ballard
    clients. One of those clients was the GEO Group. Was it not?
        Ms. Bondi. GEO, yes.
        Senator Durbin. A private prison company you lobbied for.
    It manages correctional institutions and detention facilities.
    The GEO Group has faced criticism for safety violations,
    inadequate healthcare, and poor management. U.S. Immigration
    and Customs Enforcement is GEO's largest source of revenue.
    Under the Trump administration, GEO stands to earn hundreds of
    millions of dollars by detaining immigrants if there is this
    mass deportation. Would you sense any conflict of interest if
    you're asked to judge the performance of this Government
    contractor?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will consult with the career ethics
    officials within the Department of Justice and make the
    appropriate decision.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. Congratulations.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Graham. You forgot to say that John's family was
    from South Carolina.
        Ms. Bondi. The Upstate, I'm sorry.
        Senator Graham. Yes, I'll give you a pass on that, and from
    Anderson, by the way. So, listen, President Trump asked a bunch
    of us who would you pick for Attorney General. How many of you
    got asked that? On our side? Probably didn't ask Dick, but he
    asked me. I said, Pam Bondi. That's, like, an easy decision. I
    couldn't think of anybody more qualified that he knew, that he
    trusted. And it's okay to have a--you were his lawyer. Right?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir. I represented him when they tried to
    impeach him the first time as part of White House Counsel
    Office of Special Counsel.
        Senator Graham. Being Trump's lawyer prepares you for many
    things. So, yes, you have a long-standing relationship with the
    President, and he trusts you. That's a good thing. That's
    probably why President Kennedy picked his brother, Bobby
    Kennedy. I guess you can say no to your older brother, I'm sure
    he would, but this idea there's something bad is ridiculous.
    Who do you pick? You pick people you know. You pick people you
    trust, people who are qualified. I'm glad he picked you. He
    knows you, he trusts you, and you're highly qualified. So the
    idea that there's something wrong with that is just absolutely
    ridiculous.
        So let's talk about the job you're about to have here. Do
    you support making certain drug cartels in Mexico foreign
    terrorist organizations?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I personally went to Mexico. I
    personally dealt with these cartels when I was a State
    prosecutor, and they are a grave and violent threat----
        Senator Graham. Would you consider----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To our country.
        Senator Graham [continuing]. Would you consider advising
    the President?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Good. Good. Now, when it comes to Crossfire
    Hurricane, are those days over if you're Attorney General?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Laken Riley, are you familiar with
    that case?
        Ms. Bondi. Sadly, I am, Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Do you know why the man who killed her was
    released from custody? He was paroled due to detention
    capacity----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Graham [continuing]. At the Central Processing
    Center in El Paso, Texas. Now, that's not your call. It'll be
    DOJ. But do you agree with me that the statute regarding parole
    doesn't allow parole to be based on we don't have detention
    beds? There's nothing in that statute would authorize parole
    based on lack of capacity. Are you familiar with that statute?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, sir, and that's frightening.
        Senator Graham. Yes, well, it is frightening. Are you going
    to fix it?
        Ms. Bondi. I am going to do everything in my power to fix
    it----
        Senator Graham. Well, are you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If confirmed as Attorney General.
        Senator Graham. Are you going to advise President Trump we
    need more beds? Tom Homan's the guy that's going to do this.
    But would you, as Attorney General, say we need more bed space
    so Laken Riley never happens again?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, my job, if confirmed as Attorney
    General, will be to keep America safe----
        Senator Graham. Do you think we need----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that include----
        Senator Graham [continuing]. More detention space?
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that includes having enough
    space for violent criminals, for people that should not be in
    this country----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Who have committed violent crimes--
    --
        Senator Graham. To the public----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And Laken Riley is one of many.
        Senator Graham. Yes, but 41,000 beds in this country to
    detain people, we got, like, millions of people here illegally.
    We let this dude go because we didn't have any place to put
    him. I hope those days are over. And if, Tom, you're listening
    out there, I hope you'll create enough detention space to make
    sure we don't find this dilemma ever again. Do you think we're
    at war, and if so, who with?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, we're at war on so many fronts. Of
    course----
        Senator Graham. Are we at war with ISIS?
        Ms. Bondi. Of course we're at war with ISIS.
        Senator Graham. They're at war with us. Do you agree with
    that?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Do you think since our withdrawal from
    Afghanistan, threats to our Homeland have gone up from ISIS?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. March 7, 2024, General Kurilla: ``I
    assess ISIS-K retains the capability and will to attack the
    U.S. and Western interests abroad in as little as 6 months with
    little or no warning.'' That's March 2024. General McKenzie:
    ``ISIS-K has a strong desire to attack the United States after
    it began to grow in Afghanistan following the U.S. exit in
    August 2021.'' He also stated, ``The threat from ISIS-K is
    growing.'' Major General Quantock: ``The U.S. remains target
    number one for ISIS-K.'' Do you agree with that?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't have my security clearance, but
    from everything I've read and heard, ISIS is one of the
    greatest threats.
        Senator Graham. Okay. Well, when you get your security
    clearance, you're going to find out these people are coming
    after us and they want to kill us. So I would like to have a
    strategy to deal with the ISIS threat that's beyond just the
    law enforcement model. Does that make sense to you, that we
    should use every tool in the toolbox?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, that includes wrapping in our State and
    local officials, too, and better cooperation throughout our
    country and our world.
        Senator Graham. I totally agree. Do you support
    reauthorizing FISA in 2025?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I believe 702 is up in 2026.
        Senator Graham. Okay, I'm sorry, '26.
        Ms. Bondi. I believe it's 2026.
        Senator Graham. Okay.
        Ms. Bondi. I believe it's 2026, and we will closely be
    looking at that. FISA is a very important tool.
        Senator Graham. Do you agree that the--702 provides
    important intel-gathering capability to protect our Nation?
        Ms. Bondi. Extremely important.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So, Pam, you're about to step into a
    job that's one of the most important jobs in any democracy.
    Let's go back to pardons. If I'm a lawyer for somebody in jail,
    would you promise to listen to the application and read it
    before you made a decision?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Graham. Okay. No matter who you are. Good. That's
    the way it works. People want to bargain with you up here--will
    you do this, will you do that? All I ask you to do is call it
    as you see it. Hire good, competent people, and give the
    President the best legal advice you can. Run the Department of
    Justice in a manner that other people would want to join it one
    day. Growing up, I had a fondness for the FBI. I watched the
    show, I think, it was every Sunday. Wanted to be an FBI agent.
    Right now, the FBI needs an image overhaul.
        So you have a real task ahead of you in two areas: to
    restore trust to many Americans who have lost trust in the
    Department of Justice, and to make sure that this country is
    safe from drug cartels that are killing 3,000 Americans every 2
    weeks for money, to go after these people and to protect our
    Homeland that's under siege. I think you're the perfect pick at
    one of the most dangerous times in American history, and I look
    forward to supporting you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
    Bondi.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and thank you for meeting
    with me. I greatly appreciate that.
        Senator Whitehouse. It was a pleasure. Ms. Bondi, you were
    a courtroom prosecutor for a great many years. As a courtroom
    prosecutor, did you ever have an enemies list?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you went on to be Florida's
    Attorney General. As Florida's Attorney General, did you ever
    have an enemies list?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. As Florida's Attorney General, you were
    responsible for hiring into the Florida Department of Attorney
    General. Correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, the Attorney General's office in
    Florida is the third largest in the State, approximately 1,400
    employees and approximately 400 lawyers. Only California and
    Texas are bigger offices, so yes.
        Senator Whitehouse. And you were responsible for hiring
    into that office while you were Attorney General?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. Would you have hired someone into the
    Florida Attorney General's office who you knew had an enemies
    list?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, to cut to the chase, you're clearly
    talking about Kash Patel. I don't believe he has an enemies
    list. He made a quote on TV which I have not heard. I saw your
    sign or Senator Durbin's sign about Kash, but I know that Kash
    Patel has had 60 jury trials as a public defender, as a
    prosecutor. He has great experience in the Intel Department,
    Department of Defense. I have known Kash, and I believe that
    Kash is the right person at this time for this job. You'll have
    the ability to question Mr. Patel----
        Senator Whitehouse. And I'm questioning you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. When you do.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Right now about whether
    you will enforce an enemy's list that he announced publicly on
    television.
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, I'm sorry. There will never be an
    enemies list within the Department of Justice.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. The FBI's--what is the FBI's
    role in national security and counterterrorism, and how
    important is that role?
        Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, I believe now more than ever,
    counterterrorism is so important and vital in our country. We
    are facing such incredible threats, here and abroad. If--I'm
    sure many of you saw FBI--former FBI Director Wray's interview
    on ``60 Minutes.'' He talked about the threats that--frankly,
    again, I don't have my security clearance----
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, but given that----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But the threats facing us, Senator,
    from China--from China right now that are so great----
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Given that----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. With the sleeper cells within our
    country.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Given that importance, is
    it responsible to call for shutting down the FBI's
    counterterrorism and national security work, and will you, as
    Attorney General, impede or shut down the FBI's
    counterterrorism and national security work?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator----
        Senator Whitehouse. Two questions.
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I believe that national security is
    vital right now for our country on so many fronts. I could
    continue to discuss many others.
        Senator Whitehouse. And the FBI's role in that.
        Ms. Bondi. And the FBI plays a vital role in
    counterterrorism throughout our world.
        Senator Whitehouse. Which you will or will not shut down?
        Ms. Bondi. I will look at each agency. I have no intention
    of shutting anything down right now, Senator. I am not in that
    office yet, and if confirmed, I will look at each individual
    agency and how it should be managed, but counterterrorism right
    now in our world is vital.
        Senator Whitehouse. You have said that Department of
    Justice prosecutors will be prosecuted in the Trump
    administration. What Department of Justice prosecutors will be
    prosecuted and why?
        Ms. Bondi. I said that on TV. I said prosecutors will be
    prosecuted, to finish the quote, if bad. Investigators will be
    investigated. You know, we all take an oath, Senator, to uphold
    the law. None of us are above the law. Let me give you a really
    good example of a bad lawyer within the Justice Department--a
    guy named Clinesmith, who altered a FISA warrant, one of the
    most important things we can do in this country. So will
    everyone be held to an equal--equal, fair system of justice if
    I am the next Attorney General? Absolutely, and no one is above
    the law.
        Senator Whitehouse. Under what circumstances will you
    prosecute journalists for what they write?
        Ms. Bondi. I believe in the freedom of speech. Only if
    anyone commits a crime--it's pretty basic, Senator, with
    anything, with any victim, and this goes back to my entire
    career for 18 years as a prosecutor and then 8 years as
    Florida's Attorney General. You find the facts of the case, you
    apply the law in good faith, and you treat everyone fairly.
        Senator Whitehouse. And it would not be appropriate for a
    prosecutor to start with a name and look for a crime. It's a
    prosecutor's job to start with a crime and look for a name.
    Correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think that is the whole problem with
    the weaponization that we have seen the last 4 years and what's
    been happening to Donald Trump. They targeted Donald Trump.
    They went after him--actually starting back in 2016. They
    targeted his campaign. They have launched countless
    investigations against him. That will not be the case if I am
    Attorney General. I will not politicize that office. I will not
    target people simply because of their political affiliation.
    Justice will be administered evenhandedly throughout this
    country. Senator, we've got to bring this country back
    together. We've got to move forward, or we're going to lose our
    country.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes, I think the concern is that
    weaponization of the Justice Department may well occur under
    your tenure, and we want to make sure that that's not the case,
    that you remain independent, that you remain able to and
    willing to tell the President no when that's necessary to
    protect the Constitution and the integrity of the Department,
    so that's why I'm asking these questions.
        We talked in the meeting about the contacts policy that has
    prevailed, really since Senator Hatch sat in that chair and
    demanded of the Clinton Justice Department--through all the
    administrations since then, with the exception of a brief
    period under Attorney General Gonzales, which he corrected and
    which did not end well for him--there has been a contacts
    policy that limits contacts between the White House and the
    Department of Justice to a very few senior officials on each
    side. In your role as Attorney General, if you are confirmed,
    will you maintain, defend, and enforce that long-standing
    contacts policy?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes. I will meet with White House
    Counsel and I will meet with the appropriate officials, and
    follow the contacts policy.
        Senator Whitehouse. My time has expired. Thank you, Ms.
    Bondi.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cornyn.
        Senator Cornyn. Ms. Bondi, your testimony is music to my
    ears.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Cornyn. One of the things that I have been most
    concerned about over the last--certainly the last 4 years and
    extending back during President Trump's administration is
    weaponization and politicalization of the Department of
    Justice, which, together with the FBI, is one of the most
    important institutions in this country. If people don't trust
    that their elected officials will faithfully enforce the law or
    administer equal justice under the law, they've lost faith in
    America. And that--that disturbs me greatly, and I know it does
    you, too, based on what you said. So I'm delighted to hear you
    say what you have said, but I want to talk about some specific
    topics. Time is short. First, the Border.
        I believe President Biden and Vice President Harris had
    presided over one of the biggest humanitarian and public safety
    disasters in American history. Senator Cruz and I represent a
    State with 1,200 miles of common border with America. But as
    you pointed out with fentanyl, what happens at the Border
    doesn't stay at the Border. Fentanyl poisoning is the most
    common cause of death of young people between the age of 18 and
    45. We know where it comes from. The precursors come from
    China. They go to the cartels. They mix them up, make them look
    like innocuous pills, and young people take them and die. It's
    just that simple and that tragic.
        So there's just so much that we could talk about with
    regard to the Border, but, you know, I know people voted for
    President Trump in large part because of his promise to restore
    security at the Border. Will you do everything within your
    power as Attorney General to enforce the laws on the book,
    including the President's Executive orders, which I anticipate
    he will be signing on January the 20th, when he is sworn in,
    and help do everything you can and the Department of Justice
    can is to restore security to our Southern Border?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, absolutely.
        Senator Cornyn. One example is, of course, if you come here
    from anywhere in the country and you show up at the Border,
    under the Biden and Harris administration policies, you'll
    simply be released into the interior of the country, either to
    await a trial date, which may never occur due to the enormous
    backlog, or you will simply be paroled. And I know ``parole''
    has a special connotation in the criminal law, but in this
    context, as you know, it's designed to be administered on a
    case-by-case basis. Yet President Biden and Vice President
    Harris had granted parole, that is, released people into the
    United States, on a categorical basis, or anybody who shows up,
    or because they don't have the detention facilities to keep
    them. So do you believe Laken Riley would be alive today if
    President Biden and Vice President Harris had enforced the law
    and secured the Border?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, he should not have been in our country,
    and then Laken Riley would have been alive, and I don't think
    it's just Laken Riley. There are so many victims throughout our
    country. Not only that, we're all familiar with the violent
    gangs who are coming into our country, walking into our country
    freely through the open border, the cartels, the gangs.
    Venezuelans let people out of their prisons--it's been
    reported. I don't have the security clearance yet to see what's
    happening, but I know--we all know, there are criminals
    throughout our country, and it is my commitment to you, on both
    sides of the aisle, that I will do everything in my power with
    the agencies that fall under me, if I am confirmed, to make
    America safe again. We have to do that, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. Well, many of us, of course, see classified
    information on the Intelligence Committee or just generally in
    our duties as a Senator, and so you're not going to feel any
    better about the blinking lights, the danger that Director Wray
    has talked about.
        In my closing moments here, I want to revisit an issue that
    is of particular importance. Sixty percent of the President's
    Daily Brief, which is the intelligence brief that the Director
    of National Intelligence and the CIA Director deliver to the
    President, comes from Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence
    Surveillance Act. I've called this the most important law that
    most people have never heard of. I know you have, and you're
    familiar with it, but I want to ask you a few questions about
    that.
        It's been called the crown jewel of U.S. intelligence, and,
    of course, it cannot be used--legally used to spy on American
    citizens, and if it is, it ought to be prosecuted to the
    fullest extent of the law. I know you would agree with that.
    But there've been some, as you know, and as you pointed out to
    Senator Graham, we have a temporary extension of the existing
    authorization for the use of the Intelligence Community to
    target foreign threats to our national security that expires in
    2026. And I'd like you just to confirm here on the record that
    you will enforce that law and you can support the law as it is
    written.
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I haven't read the entire 702 in front
    of you, but I will commit to reading that and doing everything
    I can to keep America safe again.
        Senator Cornyn. Of course you will. So Director Ratcliffe,
    who's going to be--I'm going to go to his hearing for CIA
    Director--of course, he was confirmed as Director of National
    Intelligence. He was--some have argued that in order to query
    or look at lawfully collected FISA 702 product, that you need
    to get a warrant requirement in order to show probable cause
    that a crime, including espionage, perhaps has been committed.
    But Director Ratcliffe has written that a warrant requirement
    may not achieve its intended objectives and could hinder
    national security efforts. Do you share Director Ratcliffe's
    concerns?
        Ms. Bondi. I would read his memo, and I will speak to you
    after I read his memo, Senator.
        Senator Cornyn. We need to have a--I hope you and I can
    continue this conversation after this because I think there's a
    lot of misinformation with regard to how Section 702 works. I
    happen to be one of the Members of the Senate Intelligence
    Committee, we read that product on a regular basis, and it is
    not used to spy on American people. I think what's
    fundamentally missing is a lack of trust in the Intelligence
    Community, including the FBI, which I'm hoping you and Mr.
    Patel can restore. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. We had
    a good meeting this week. Thank you for that, and I appreciated
    your priorities on human trafficking that you mentioned today,
    that work, as well as fentanyl and some of your other
    prosecution experience. We have some similar backgrounds in
    doing that. And I want to talk about--first of all, the U.S.
    Attorney's Office in Minnesota, one of the premier offices in
    the country. This office has been instrumental in combating
    violent crime, dismantling street gangs, taking fentanyl off
    our streets, enforcing civil rights laws after George Floyd's
    murder, ensuring victims of fraud get justice. Do you agree
    that it should be a priority to support U.S. attorneys,
    frontline prosecutors, and case agents who work hard every
    single day on our streets?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think that is one of the most
    important things in our country right now, and there are so
    many good men and women within the Justice Department
    throughout our country, as well as all the law enforcement
    agencies. Yes, they work very hard, and they will be supported.
        Senator Klobuchar. I'm concerned about some of the
    proposals that could put cuts in the COPS Program, Byrne JAG
    Programs--I know you're familiar with those. Senator Murkowski
    and I lead the COPS Reauthorization bill. Will you commit to
    continue to support those programs?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will read everything about those
    programs because that is a top priority of mine, and I would
    love to meet with you on that--and Senator Murkowski to support
    law enforcement and those programs.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Independence from political
    interference is vital to the legitimacy and success of the
    Department of Justice. I was honestly troubled by some of the
    answers to Senator Durbin's questions. We will continue that
    discussion, I'm sure, on the Committee about the election, but
    I want to focus on the investigation, charging decisions. As a
    prosecutor, I'm sure you had this experience. I would get calls
    from people, hey, that's just a kid, give him a break, and I
    remember one answer I gave was, he's 40 years old, he's not a
    kid. But that kind of interference is attempted all the time,
    and one of my concerns here--whether it's a call from a friend,
    a corporate lobbyist, a White House--it has been very clear
    that the Attorneys General of both parties have established
    clear policies to ensure the White House doesn't tamper with
    criminal investigation and prosecutions. At Attorney General
    Mike Mukasey's hearing, he made clear that any attempt by the
    White House, and these are the words, ``to interfere with the
    case is not to be countenanced. Any call to a line assistant or
    to a United States attorney from a political person relating to
    a case is to be cut and curtailed.'' Do you agree with this
    statement?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes, I believe that the Justice
    Department must be independent and must act independently. The
    number one job is to enforce the law fairly and evenhandedly,
    and that's what will be done if I am confirmed as the Attorney
    General.
        Senator Klobuchar. So you will provide an assurance to
    every Member of this Committee that the Justice Department will
    only follow the facts and the law, and the White House will
    play no role in cases investigated or brought?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, it will be my job, if confirmed as
    Attorney General, to make those decisions. Politics will not
    play a part. I've demonstrated that my entire career as a
    prosecutor, as Attorney General, and I will continue to do
    that, if you confirm me as the 87th Attorney General of the
    United States of America.
        Senator Klobuchar. In an earlier question, some of my
    colleagues talked about China and the risks, yet you have a
    nominee from this incoming administration, Kash Patel, the pick
    to head the FBI--I have serious concerns about him--has
    referred to the FBI's Intel Division, which is responsible for
    protecting us from foreign adversaries like China, as, quote,
    ``The biggest problem the FBI has had,'' and he said that he
    wants to, quote, ``Break that component out of the FBI.'' Do
    you agree?
        Ms. Bondi. I have not seen those comments from Mr. Patel. I
    would review them, but we have to do everything we can to
    protect our country. Again, Mr. Patel would fall under me and
    the Department of Justice, and I will ensure that all laws are
    followed--and so will he.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. There are many decisions made by
    the FBI Director, having seen a number of them do their work,
    that can be made. While I agree you would be the boss of Kash
    Patel, I'm not sure that you would be able to intervene with
    every decision or position that he had or know what he's doing.
    So let's continue.
        Do you agree it is the duty of the Justice Department to
    defend the laws Congress passes, and will you commit to do,
    even when the President may disagree with an Act, campaigned
    against its passage, or called for its repeal? President
    Reagan's AG, William French Smith, said the Department policy
    was, ``The Department has the duty to defend an act of Congress
    whenever a reasonable argument can be made in its support.'' So
    I am specifically referring to the 2022 law that I long led
    that we passed to empower Medicare to negotiate drug prices,
    major savings for seniors. Will you commit to defend the law
    against the lawsuits from Big Pharma?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was involved in Big Pharma cases when
    I was Attorney General of the State of Florida, and I will
    commit to protect the laws of the United States of America.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. That would also--same
    question with the Supreme Court is going to be hearing a
    challenge to the Affordable Care Act's coverage of preventative
    services, and despite the fact that you twice joined suits to
    have the entire Affordable Care Act invalidated, will you
    commit to defending this law?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, I believe this is very different. It's a
    very isolated--it's different. It's not the entire Affordable
    Care Act. But I will--it's pending litigation, of course,
    within the Department.
        Senator Klobuchar. Since the 1990s, the Freedom of Access
    to Clinic Entrances Act has protected patients, providers, and
    facilities that provide reproductive health services. Will you
    commit to continuing to enforce the FACE Act to address
    violence and threats against those providing reproductive
    healthcare services?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, the FACE Act not only protects abortion
    clinics, but it also protects pregnancy centers and people
    going for counseling. The law should be applied evenhandedly.
    Yes, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. So you'll uphold the enforcement of that
    law?
        Ms. Bondi. I'll uphold the enforcement of the law, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And I will ask my antitrust
    questions in the next round. We had a good discussion about
    that, and I do appreciate the nominee that has been put in
    place for the Antitrust Division, and there's incredibly
    important work that has to be done in that Division. So, thank
    you----
        Ms. Bondi. Gail Slater is remarkable. Thank you.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. I thank all my colleagues for abiding by
    the 7-minute rule. Before I call on Senator Lee, I want
    everybody to plan on our first break would be about 11:50, and
    that would be 30 minutes for lunch. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Ms.
    Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Lee [continuing]. For being here today. I do share
    the assessment that Gail Slater is great. Had a great meeting
    with her yesterday, and just thrilled that you're here and that
    you're willing to serve. I'd like to talk to you, as a longtime
    lawyer and one who has handled a variety of criminal matters,
    about the Fourth Amendment. What can you tell us about the
    Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement and why it's so
    important?
        Ms. Bondi. Well, the warrant requirement is so important,
    which I've dealt with that since I was in my twenties as a
    State prosecutor--a warrant is so important because it protects
    citizens' rights, and that's why it's so important.
        Senator Lee. And it does that specifically because under
    the Fourth Amendment, you're required to go to a judge, and
    you're required to show a judge evidence, evidence providing
    probable cause. And based on that probable cause, you can
    describe with particularity the things or persons to be
    searched or seized. And on that basis, the judge may issue or
    not issue the warrant, but without it, you can't get it. Now,
    this is time consuming, no doubt. Right?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, I've done many of them. Yes, it's very time
    consuming, Senator.
        Senator Lee. And there's probably not a law enforcement
    officer anywhere in the world who wouldn't acknowledge that
    that they could save time if they didn't have to go about it,
    and yet we require it. Why is that so important that we do it?
        Ms. Bondi. Well, it's so important for the reasons you just
    laid out. When I said I've done many of them, I've approved
    them and not approved them as a State prosecutor because law
    enforcement--there are checks and balances. And law enforcement
    must bring these warrants to prosecutors to see if there is
    sufficient evidence. Then after that's done, they have to take
    them to a judge to have a judge sign them. So there have to be
    sufficient checks and balances throughout our system.
        Senator Lee. So even after you, as Attorney General, as the
    chief law enforcement officer and prosecutorial authority in
    the State of Florida, approved it within your office, you still
    had to go to the judge. And if it was late at night, early in
    the morning, didn't matter when, you had to find a judge.
        Ms. Bondi. All hours of the night. That was more when I was
    a State prosecutor. As Attorney General, the Office of the
    Statewide Prosecutor Nick Cox, would have done that many, many
    times at all hours throughout the night and woken up many, many
    judges throughout the State of Florida.
        Senator Lee. Is there an exception to the warrant
    requirement that exists any time it would be inconvenient for
    prosecutors or anytime national security might be involved?
        Ms. Bondi. I'm not certain about national security, but
    absolutely no for a State prosecutor.
        Senator Lee. Right.
        Ms. Bondi. No.
        Senator Lee. There's no----
        Ms. Bondi. No exception. No.
        Senator Lee. There's no catch-all exception that just says
    this is important or it would inconvenient for the prosecutor,
    and with good reason.
        Ms. Bondi. Right.
        Senator Lee. We've learned through sad experience over many
    hundreds of years, not only in our own country, but also in
    that of our mother country, what happens when you don't have
    this in the loop.
        So you've been asked today a little bit about Section 702
    of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, also known as
    FISA. There are those who have repeatedly assured Members of
    this Committee, including myself, that don't worry. Content of
    phone calls or electronic communications involving American
    citizens sometimes resulting in the, quote, unquote,
    ``incidental collection'' of American citizens' private
    conversations, don't worry, their Fourth Amendment rights are
    just fine. And yet when they incidentally collect the
    communications of American citizens, either because they're
    perhaps unwittingly talking to somebody who might be an agent
    of a foreign power and themselves under 702 surveillance, they
    get onto this big database. And at times there are those in the
    Government, including the Federal Bureau of Investigation, who
    have gotten into that database and done so, of course, without
    a warrant because there currently is no warrant requirement.
    This has the effect of what we call a de facto back door
    warrant list search.
        Would you agree with me that that is potentially concerning
    any time an American citizen's private conversations are
    intercepted, stored, whether as an incidental collection or
    otherwise, they ought not be searched without some kind of
    probable cause showing. I assume you'd agree with me there.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Lee. Yes, and it's important. Sometimes people will
    defend that by saying national security is involved, as if
    that's the beginning and the end of the inquiry. That has never
    been the case, and I hope and pray it never will be the case
    because that's not what the Fourth Amendment says, not what it
    does, not what it ever can be. So it's my sincere hope that the
    next time FISA 702 comes up for reauthorization, Congress
    finally do what it has been avoiding for a long time, which is
    to ensure that this doesn't happen.
        We've heard again and again from people who, if you're
    confirmed to this position, will soon be your predecessors,
    prior occupants of the position to which you've been nominated
    and to which Mr. Patel has been nominated, don't worry, we have
    good people. Don't worry, we have good systems in place. Don't
    worry, it's as good as a warrant requirement, the internal
    approval procedure that we have within our system. And yet
    we've found out time and time again that this has happened, by
    some accounts, hundreds of thousands of times these things have
    been accessed where searches for an American citizen's private
    communications that have been intercepted and stored through
    incidental collection have been searched without those
    safeguards being met, including instances where people just
    wanted to check on, to cite one example, whether his father was
    cheating on his mother, or in other instances, doing background
    checks on someone looking to lease an apartment that he owned
    and was looking to rent out. This is unacceptable and we've got
    to fix it.
        Speaking of unacceptable, we have seen over the last few
    years the weaponization of government, specifically within the
    Department of Justice, against law-abiding Americans--law-
    abiding Americans whose offense was something along the lines
    of, you know, them exercising their constitutional rights,
    ranging from Catholics attempting to practice their faith, to
    parents showing up to school board meetings, to people showing
    up to engage in peaceful protesting outside of abortion
    clinics. As Attorney General, how will you prevent the
    weaponization of the Department of Justice against Americans?
        Ms. Bondi. And, Senator, you just gave the classic example
    of what's been happening regarding the weaponization. Going
    after parents at a school board meeting has got to stop. For
    practicing your religion, sending informants into Catholic
    churches must stop. We have----
        Senator Lee. What about branding parents as domestic
    terrorists or trying to incarcerate one's political opponent as
    a sitting President of the United States?
        Ms. Bondi. Will stop. Must stop, Senator.
        Senator Lee. Exactly the sort of answer I was hoping and
    expecting to receive from you, and I look forward to doing
    everything I can to help get you confirmed. I've been pleased
    with your answers thus far. I've enjoyed knowing you,
    considering you a friend for many years, and look forward to
    the great things you will do as Attorney General of the United
    States. You have my emphatic support and my vote.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Attorney
    General Bondi, and to your family and supporters.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Coons. Thank you for your service, and I look
    forward to our conversation today. I have a simple three-factor
    test when considering the executive branch nominees before us:
    Do you have the qualifications and experience to do the job,
    policy views to do the job in the best interest of the American
    people, and the character and integrity to conduct your job,
    and yours, in particular, with the independence that the role
    requires? You demonstrably have the relevant experience. I
    understand we will not see eye to eye on some or even many
    policies, but we had a constructive conversation last week
    about our shared interests in fighting the opioid epidemic,
    countering human trafficking, criminal justice reform, and
    supporting law enforcement. But I need to know that you share a
    core value: ensuring the Department of Justice remains free
    from partisan or political influence, in particular, by the
    White House. So I look forward to our discussion about that
    today.
        As Attorney General, if confirmed, who would be your
    client?
        Ms. Bondi. My oath would be to support and defend the
    Constitution of the United States of America. The people of
    America would be my client, and it is also my job to advise the
    President. My client are the people of America.
        Senator Coons. A simple question of constitutional
    interpretation, is President-elect Trump eligible to run for
    another term as President in 2028?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator, not unless they change the
    Constitution.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. One of the concerns I've raised
    with you is safeguarding the Department of Justice's
    independence in the face of some promises on the campaign trail
    by then-candidate Trump that he would use the Department to
    target his political adversaries--or that he might interfere
    with prosecution. What would you do if your career DOJ
    prosecutors came to you with a case to prosecute grounded in
    the facts and law, but the White House directs you to drop the
    case?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, if I thought that would happen, I would
    not be sitting here today. That will not happen. Will not
    happen. Every case will be prosecuted based on the facts and
    the law that is applied in good faith. Period. Politics have
    got to be taken out of this system.
        Senator Coons. I agree with you.
        Ms. Bondi. This Department has been weaponized for years
    and years and years----
        Senator Coons. Let me, if I might----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And it has to stop.
        Senator Coons. Thank you. Let me, if I might, Madam
    Attorney General, refer you back to Senator Durbin's opening
    comments about previous Attorneys General--our former
    colleague, Jeff Sessions, Bill Barr. I don't think it's
    credible to say that it may never happen that the President-
    elect would direct an unethical or illegal act. I think both of
    those Attorneys General found themselves crosswise with the
    then-President by doing things he didn't welcome or approve of.
    Just answer the question for me, if you would. I know you may
    not expect it, I know you wouldn't have accepted this
    nomination if you thought it possible, but let's imagine that
    once again, President-elect Trump issues a directive or order
    to you or to the FBI Director that is outside the boundaries of
    ethics or law. What will you do?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will never speak on a hypothetical,
    especially one saying that the President would do something
    illegal. What I can tell you is my duty, if confirmed as the
    Attorney General, will be to the Constitution and the United
    States of America, and the most important oath--part of that
    oath that I will take are the last four words, ``So help me
    God.''
        Senator Coons. Given the importance of that oath, I hope
    you can understand the importance of repeated questions from
    some of us about the importance of having independence in the
    Department of Justice. It has a long tradition of independent
    special prosecutors, especially to handle high-profile or often
    political cases. If you got credible evidence of a criminal
    violation by a White House official, including even the
    President, would you bring in a special prosecutor?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, that's a hypothetical. I can tell you
    what I do know is special prosecutors have been abused in the
    past on both sides. We have seen that for many, many years.
    They have cost the taxpayers countless dollars--countless, and
    I will look at each situation on a case-by-case basis, and
    consult the appropriate career ethics officials within the
    Department to make that decision.
        Senator Coons. Attorney General, do you think special
    counsels need to be confirmed by the Senate?
        Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law, and I will consult with
    the appropriate ethics officials regarding the law. Right now,
    they do not need to be Senate confirmed, of course.
        Senator Coons. But you did sign an Eleventh Circuit brief
    arguing that they should be.
        Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law, Senator. That's why I
    said that.
        Senator Coons. Understood, but I was just getting to the
    clarity about the difference----
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. Between a position you've
    advocated and what the current law is. Thank you for that.
    Look, bluntly, to me, refusing to answer a hypothetical when
    there is clear and concrete previous history raises some
    concerns for me. I think Chris Wray has done an outstanding job
    as FBI Director at avoiding political pressure. And although he
    was chosen by President Trump, he's being driven out so that he
    can be replaced--my perception, I've not yet met with Mr.
    Patel--by a loyalist who has publicly said he will do what the
    President asks him. Given that Attorney General Barr was asked
    to go find evidence of election interference and improprieties,
    went and looked for the evidence and said I can't find any, and
    was then dismissed, I'm just going to ask you one last time,
    can you clarify for me that in following ethics and the law,
    you'd be willing to resign if ordered to do something improper?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I wouldn't work at a law firm, I
    wouldn't be a prosecutor, I wouldn't be Attorney General, if
    anyone asked me to do something improper and I felt I had to
    carry that out. Of course I would not do that. That's one of
    the main things you learn when you're a young prosecutor is to
    do the right thing, and I believe that has continued with me
    throughout my very long career.
        Senator Coons. As we discussed, protecting American
    invention and innovation, American intellectual property, is a
    real concern of mine and of several others on this Committee. I
    look forward to talking with you about that pressing concern.
    But the most important question I had for you today is whether
    you will be willing and able to stand up to politicization and
    interference in the Department of Justice, and I look forward
    to further clarification from you about the specifics of that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Senator Cruz would be next,
    but he's not here, so I call on Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi,
    welcome. Congratulations. Can we agree that legitimacy is
    important to America's criminal justice system?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that legitimacy is important
    to the Department of Justice, which, in part, administers our
    criminal justice system?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. And if Americans come to believe that our
    criminal justice system or our Department of Justice is acting
    illegitimately, that makes Americans less likely to accept the
    results of that system. Does it not?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. And that makes Americans less likely to
    follow the substantive laws that we pass that are administered
    by the Department of Justice. Isn't that true?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. And if that happens, we have chaos. Don't
    we?
        Ms. Bondi. Chaos.
        Senator Kennedy. And the social contract is breached. Isn't
    it?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a person by the name of
    Michael Avenatti?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Kennedy. Several years ago he was a media star here
    in Washington.
        Ms. Bondi. An attorney. Correct?
        Senator Kennedy. Yes. He was a media star, and many members
    of our media loved him because he persistently bashed Donald
    Trump, and he was on TV every day. He was on CNN more than Wolf
    Blitzer. Do you know where Mr. Avenatti is today?
        Ms. Bondi. I believe he's sitting in prison, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. He's in jail because he was a crook, and
    the Department of Justice helped put him there. Didn't it?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you remember a gentleman by the name of
    Sam Bankman-Fried?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Boy genius, so smart and so powerful that
    he thought he could command the tides----
        Ms. Bondi. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Kennedy [continuing]. So smart and so powerful and
    so rich that he would go to meetings with serious people, like
    Bill Clinton, like Tony Blair, looking like a slob, looking
    like a fourth runner-up to a John Belushi lookalike contest,
    and he thought it was cute. Where's Mr. Bankman-Fried today?
        Ms. Bondi. I believe he is in prison. And I believe that's
    from the Netflix series I saw, as well.
        Senator Kennedy. Mm-hmm, because he's a crook, and who
    helped put him there?
        Ms. Bondi. The Department of Justice, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree that there's some really,
    really good men and women at the Department of Justice?
        Ms. Bondi. Many, many great men and women in the Justice
    Department, as well, Senator, as all the law enforcement
    agencies that fall within the Department of Justice. They're
    out there risking their lives, especially the law enforcement
    officers, every single day.
        Senator Kennedy. Can we agree, though, that there have been
    and may be today some bad people at the Department of Justice?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. We don't know for sure because for the
    last 4 years, the curtains there have been tightly drawn, but I
    think some, a minority of people there have delegitimized
    America's criminal justice system. The most destabilizing act
    that I saw in the past 4 years, maybe in the history of the
    Department, is when Attorney General Garland decided on the
    basis of dubious facts and untested legal theories to
    criminally prosecute a former President of the United States.
    And not only that--this is, this is the special part--he
    decided to do it after the former President of the United
    States had announced that he was going to run against Attorney
    General Garland's boss. Didn't he?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, are you referring to going after a
    political opponent?
        Senator Kennedy. I think so. Now, this is one person's
    opinion. That kind of stupid takes a plan, and I say that
    because, number one, this is America. That had never happened
    before in America. That's the sort of thing that happens in a
    country whose Powerball Jackpot is 287 chickens and a goat. It
    doesn't happen here, and I call it stupid because it broke the
    seal. It broke the seal. It normalized it. There are a lot of
    ambitious prosecutors in America, Democrat and Republican, and
    I'll bet you right now there's some prosecutor in a particular
    State thinking about, well, maybe I ought to file criminal
    charges against President Biden's inner circle for conspiring
    to conceal his mental decline. And that's the road we're headed
    down, and you've got to fix it, counselor. You've got to fix
    it.
        And here's, in my judgment, what I would ask you to do:
    Find out who the bad guys are and the bad women and get rid of
    them, find out who the good people are and lift them up, but do
    it on the basis of facts and evidence and fairness, because the
    temptation of some people is going to be they're going to tell
    you, look, two wrongs don't make a right, but they do make it
    even. Don't resist--resist that temptation. Help us restore
    legitimacy to the Department of Justice.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
    Bondi, and to your family.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you for visiting with me in my
    office, and I have to say I'm sympathetic, always, to a former
    Attorney General, particularly having been one myself, but I
    am, I have to say also, really troubled, deeply disturbed by
    some of your responses and nonresponses to the questions that
    you've been asked today. You say the right things, that you're
    going to be the people's lawyer--that's what you have to say to
    be here--but I believe being the people's lawyer means you have
    to be able to say no to the President of the United States. You
    have to speak truth to power. You have to be able to say that
    Donald Trump lost the 2020 election. You dodged that question
    when you were asked directly by Senator Durbin. You have to be
    able to say that January 6 insurrectionists who committed
    violence shouldn't be pardoned. You have to be able to say that
    a nominee for the FBI Director who says he has an enemy list--
    and that's just the beginning of what he has said in terms of
    politicizing, deeply weaponizing the FBI against political
    opponents--that he shouldn't be the FBI Director.
        You know, we have some history here with your
    predecessors--Barr, Sessions, and others--who perhaps
    sincerely, when they sat where you are now, said that they
    would say no, but they were working with a President that
    expected them to be his Roy Cohn, his personal attorney. Do you
    really think that you can avoid the disgrace that they
    encountered or the repercussions from the White House if you
    say no to the President? And so my question to you is, can you
    say no to the President of the United States when he asks you
    to do something unethical or illegal?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, first I need to clarify something that
    you said, that I have to sit up here and say these things. No,
    I don't. I sit up here and speak the truth. I'm not going to
    sit up here and say anything that I need to say to get
    confirmed by this body. I don't have to say anything. I will
    answer the questions to the best of my ability and honestly.
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me ask you, an individual who says
    that he is going to, quote, ``come after,'' unquote, people he
    alleges ``helped Joe Biden rigged the Presidential elections,''
    that he has a list of people who are part of this deep state
    who should be prosecuted, that he's going to close down the FBI
    building on his first day in office, is that a person who
    appropriately should be the FBI Director?
        Ms. Bondi. They----
        Senator Blumenthal. Aren't those comments inappropriate?
    Shouldn't you disavow them and ask him to recant them?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I am not familiar with all those
    comments. I have not discussed those comments with Mr. Patel.
    What I do know----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, I'm asking you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is, Mr. Patel was----
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. For your view----
        Ms. Bondi. Excuse me, what I do know is Mr. Patel was a
    career prosecutor, he was a career public defender defending
    people, and he also has great experience within the
    Intelligence Community. What I can sit here and tell you is Mr.
    Patel, if he works running the FBI, if he is confirmed and if I
    am confirmed, he will follow the law if I am the Attorney
    General of the United States of America, and I don't believe he
    would do anything otherwise.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me just submit that the
    response that I would've hoped to hear from you is that those
    comments are inappropriate and that you will ask him to disavow
    or recant them when he comes before this Committee because they
    are indeed chilling to fair enforcement and the rule of law.
        Let me ask you on another topic. When we met, I welcomed
    your support to the goals of the Kids Online Safety Act, and
    Senator Blackburn and I have spent a lot of time, devoted a lot
    of effort to the passage of the Kids Online Safety Act, which
    happened by an overwhelming vote of 91-to-3, 72 Co-Sponsors,
    including Vice President-elect Vance. I appreciated our
    discussion and your support for Protecting Kids Online when we
    met last week. I'm hopeful that this area is one where we can
    work together. Can we count on your support in working together
    to protect kids online?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, absolutely, and thank you for that
    legislation, and Senator Blackburn. I believe in this world
    right now, we have to find the things we have in common, and
    that is certainly one of them, Senator, protecting our children
    from online predators. You've done so much on that front, and I
    thank you. I tried--I attempted to do that, as well, when I was
    Attorney General, but I am committed to working with you on
    anything we can do to protect our children throughout this
    country.
        When I was Attorney General, we started something called
    From Instant Message to Instant Nightmare and educating parents
    about online predators. And that also, Senator, is one of the
    core functions of the FBI, the Cyber Unit. They sit there--
    these agents sit there all day long and investigate child
    predators. We tell parents constantly----
        Senator Blumenthal. Ms. Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You think you're talking to another
    child----
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I apologize----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And you're not.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I'm going to interrupt
    you.
        Ms. Bondi. Sure.
        Senator Blumenthal. I welcome your positive response. I
    have----
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, go ahead.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. One more question that I'm
    going to try to fit into this round.
        Ms. Bondi. Sure.
        Senator Blumenthal. TikTok will be banned unless it is sold
    because it has become a tool for the Chinese to collect
    information and do surveillance and endanger our national
    security. Can you commit that you will enforce that law
    promptly and effectively? And I ask this question because
    President Trump's pick for your Solicitor General in the
    Department of Justice went to the United States Supreme Court
    arguing that the ban should be delayed. Will you commit to
    enforce that law on your first day when you are--if you are
    confirmed?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, as I discussed with you during our
    meeting, that is pending litigation within the Department of
    Justice.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, it's pending litigation, but will
    you enforce that law?
        Ms. Bondi. I can't discuss pending litigation, but I will--
    I will talk to all the career prosecutors----
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, again----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Who are handling the case.
    Absolutely, Senator, talk----
        [Gavel is tapped.]
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Discuss with them.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Ms. Bondi, thank you for being here. I
    think I told you when we met--thank you for the time we met--I
    was born in Florida, have a lot of friends and family, and
    follow Florida politics pretty closely, and you've had a very
    impressive career there, though I do also have to admit, I'm a
    Gator hater. So----
        Ms. Bondi. Oh.
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. For the Florida alum, I'm
    University of Tennessee.
        But anyway, actually, in some of these hearings, I created
    a bingo card to see what some of my colleagues on the other
    side of the aisle were going to hit. I want to go back to a few
    of them really quickly. One was about you being a lobbyist,
    paid for and on the payroll of Qatar. Would you mind going back
    and repeating what you said in case people did not hear the
    involvement of your law firm and precisely what you were doing
    for the Government of Qatar?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I was very proud of that work. It
    was anti-human trafficking in advance of the World Cup, and
    human trafficking has been something that's been very important
    to me my entire career, especially when I was Attorney General
    for the State of Florida.
        Senator Tillis. You also made it clear that you had a
    number of practitioners within the firm working on it. So this
    narrative that you were getting $115,000 a month from Qatar is
    correct or not?
        Ms. Bondi. Not correct.
        Senator Tillis. Okay. Thank you. I want to talk a little
    bit about--well, first off, I want to go back. You should be
    happy that so many comments have been directed toward Kash
    Patel, whose confirmation I am supporting--in fact, I'm meeting
    with him today--because that means they're out of stuff for
    you. So if it comes up again, you will once again know that
    you've got a great reputation and a great resume, and they are
    just trying to find things to put your integrity into question.
    You have answered the question repeatedly that you're--that you
    will be loyal to the Constitution, and you will live up to the
    oath to the Constitution, and to protecting the American
    people. And I think Mr. Patel, when he comes here, he'll be
    able to get rid of the myth in the same way that you did as a
    lobbyist for Qatar, he'll be able to get rid of that list of
    the enemies, that he'll be able to deal with the enemy's list,
    and the marketing department for your opposition is going to
    have to come up with new material because that stuff is getting
    old.
        Section 702. You heard Senator Lee talk about some concerns
    that he has with 702. I believe it's one of the most important
    things that you can do early into your confirmation. You will
    be confirmed and hopefully with some Democrat support. That
    there have been dramatic reforms to 702. I've sat through an
    extensive presentation to try and make sure that the abuses
    never occur again and that you have a throat to choke if
    somebody abuses the protocol that's in place. I believe that we
    need to codify a lot of that. As a matter of fact, when I went
    through it, I felt like there were so many blinding flashes of
    the obvious. How could this not have already been a part of the
    approval matrix?
        So can you, after you're confirmed, commit that you or a
    designate will come back and provide for this Committee an
    update on all of the protocols that have changed and
    recommended legislation for codifying so that when we do go to
    reauthorization, we'll have what we need to make sure that that
    program stays in place?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I or a designee will review all of 702
    before it terms, of course, in 2026, and come back and report
    to you, on both sides of the aisle.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. You have a great perspective
    with your time in the State and working with the Department of
    Justice. Give me an idea of things that we need to do better in
    terms of, and I'm talking primarily in the law enforcement
    role. I think many people don't understand the joint task
    forces, the law enforcement efforts that are going every single
    day in every one of our States. What an incredible job they do.
    So can you give me some sense of things that you would look at
    to say maybe we could do it better from your perspective of
    having been a prosecutor in Florida?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes. Thank you, Senator. Yes, having been a
    career prosecutor, I think I have a unique perspective because
    I was a State prosecutor, of course, prior to becoming Attorney
    General. So I worked on a daily basis with local law
    enforcement and State and Federal--not daily with Federal, but
    I worked consistently with State, local, and Federal. Then when
    I was Attorney General, I worked with all three, as well. I
    feel like we have to have better coordination among all our
    agencies, especially given all the terrorism issues that we've
    discussed earlier in this hearing. We have to wrap in and
    communicate better with our local and State law enforcement
    officers throughout this country. There are so many great men
    and women in law enforcement. We have to--I don't know exactly
    how yet, but we have to figure out a better way to work
    together with the Federal authorities.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, and I'm going to do a second
    round, as well, but I think I also checked the Bingo card for
    election denier. There were some people, you know, that seemed
    to suggest that you were denying the election. I think that you
    said that President Biden is our President?
        Ms. Bondi. President Biden is the President of the United
    States of America, and President Trump will be the 47th
    President.
        Senator Tillis. But I think you made a point that, or at
    least I inferred from a comment that you made, a very important
    point. Folks, there are election improprieties in every
    election. The question is a matter of scale and whether or not
    you can prove it. We've seen it in North Carolina and seen it
    in other places. It's one of the reasons why I support voter ID
    because we want to make elections easy to vote and hard to
    cheat, but the fact of the matter is people are cheating. So if
    anybody on this dais suggests that there aren't irregularities
    in every election, then they need to spend more time at home
    and really studying the facts. I don't think, though, that
    you've said that Biden is an illegitimate President. In fact, I
    think you said just the opposite. He is the President of the
    United States, and President Trump will be the next President.
    Right?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Tillis. Okay. Last thing before the second round,
    January 6th. A lot of people are going to say you're going to
    have a rubber stamp for letting people have pardons or
    recommending a pardon for people who did violence to law
    enforcement. I'm not going to ask you a hypothetical because I
    want you to be consistent in not answering them. But I have to
    believe, as a Member--I was the last Member out of the Senate
    on January 6th. I walked past a lot of law enforcement
    officers--excuse me--who were injured. I find it hard to
    believe that the President of the United States or you would
    look at facts that were used to convict the violent people on
    January 6th and say it was just an intemperate moment. I don't
    even expect you to respond to that, but I think it's an absurd
    and unfair hypothetical here, and you probably haven't heard
    the last of it. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Hirono, after
    her and Cruz's testimony, then we'll take a lunch break, and
    that break will be for 30 minutes. And I can't control when my
    Senators come back, but I expect you to be back after 30
    minutes, and I'll be here.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. And then I may leave the meeting to open
    the Senate, so whoever's on our side is acting Chairman during
    that period of time. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As part of my
    responsibility to ensure the fitness of all nominees, I ask the
    following two initial questions. First, since you became a
    legal adult, have you ever made unwanted requests for sexual
    favors or committed any verbal or physical harassment or
    assault of a sexual nature?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Have you ever faced discipline or entered
    into a settlement relating to this kind of conduct?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi, I am focused on two things in my
    evaluation of President-elect Trump's nominees. The first is
    whether the nominee is qualified and experienced enough to do
    the job. The second is the fitness to serve, which includes
    putting loyalty to the Constitution over loyalty to the
    President. Unfortunately, in my view, many of President-elect
    Trump's nominees are lacking in at least one of these two
    requirements. Ms. Bondi, your experience as a prosecutor is the
    kind of thing we would expect to see in a nominee for Attorney
    General, but I do have questions and concerns about potential
    conflicts of interest, about whether you will keep DOJ's law
    enforcement responsibilities independent of the President's
    political whims, and about whether you will let facts and
    evidence guide your decisions. So let's start with the
    importance of facts, which you say is important.
        Ms. Bondi, we want an Attorney General who bases decisions
    on facts, so I want to ask you a factual question. Who won the
    2020 Presidential election?
        Ms. Bondi. Joe Biden is the President of the United States.
        Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi, you know that there is a
    difference between acknowledging it. You know, I can say that
    Donald Trump won the 2024 election. I may not like it, but I
    can say it. You cannot say who won the 2020 Presidential
    election. It's disturbing that you can't give voice to that
    fact.
        Moving on to DOJ's independence from politics, Ms. Bondi,
    if you are confirmed as Attorney General, you will take an oath
    to the Constitution and not to any individual, including the
    President. To start, I'd like to know whether you agree with
    some of the statements President-elect Trump made during the
    election, during the campaign.
        First, are the felons convicted of breaking into the
    Capitol on January 6 hostages or ``patriots''--quoting Trump--
    as President-elect Trump has said repeatedly? Do you agree with
    his characterization of the felons that I referred to?
        Ms. Bondi. I am not familiar with that statement, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. I just familiarized you with that
    statement. Do you agree with that statement?
        Ms. Bondi. I'm not familiar with it, Senator.
        Senator Hirono. No answer. He has also said, ``Illegal
    immigration is poisoning the blood of our Nation.'' He said
    that in December 2023. Do you agree with that statement?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I am not familiar with that statement,
    but what I can tell you is I went to the Border a few months
    ago. I went to Yuma, Arizona, and what I saw at that border was
    horrific, Senator. It was horrific----
        Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I went to a rape crisis center.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. That is not my question.
        Ms. Bondi. If I can finish, I went to a rape crisis
    center----
        Senator Hirono. Let me----
        Ms. Bondi. Well, I'm not familiar with the statement----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Get to the next----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But I went to a rape crisis
    center----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. Let me get to----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I met with Border Patrol agents.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. The next question I have.
        Ms. Bondi. I'm sure you've been to the Border----
        Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As well----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. I want to get to my next
    question.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. So you can answer that.
        Senator Hirono. So, I believe that you responded to a
    question from Senator Whitehouse, and let me get your response
    again. You said that the White House--if I'm putting words in
    your mouth, correct me--oh, you said that the White House will
    play no role in investigative or charging decisions in the DOJ.
    Is that correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I said is that it is the
    Department of Justice's decision to determine what cases----
        Senator Hirono. What----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Will be prosecuted.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. What role will the White House
    have in investigative or prosecutorial decisions of the DOJ?
        Ms. Bondi. It is the Department of Justice's decision,
    Senator.
        Senator Hirono. So that sounds to me that you're saying
    that the White House will not have any kind of role. Meanwhile,
    though, you have an incoming President who said, I have the
    absolute right to do what I want to do with the Justice
    Department, and, in fact, President-elect Trump considers the
    DOJ to be his law firm. I'll ask you this. If President-elect
    Trump asks, suggests, or hints that you, as Attorney General,
    should investigate one of his perceived political enemies,
    would you do so?
        [Video and audio malfunctions occur.]
        Ms. Bondi. Senator Hirono, I wish you had met with me. Had
    you met with me, we could have discussed many things. You
    could've gotten to know me.
        Senator Hirono. I'm listening to you now. Could you respond
    to the question?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes. You were the only one who refused to meet
    with me, Senator, but what we would've discussed is that it is
    the job of the Attorney General----
        Senator Hirono. I'm very happy----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To follow the law.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. To listen to your responses
    under oath, Ms. Bondi. So I think it's really important to us
    that the Attorney General be independent of the White House,
    and you have a President-elect who considers the AG's office
    his law firm. I would like to know whether, if the President
    suggests, hints, asks that you, as Attorney General, should
    investigate one of his perceived enemies, what would you do?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I certainly have not heard the
    President say that, but what I will tell you is two-thirds of
    Americans have lost faith in the Department of Justice, and
    it's statements like that, I believe----
        Senator Hirono. Ms. Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That make people continue to lose
    faith. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, it will be my
    job----
        Senator Hirono. Getting to my next question----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To not only keep America safe----
        Senator Hirono. You're not responding----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But restore--but restore integrity
    to that Department----
        Senator Hirono. Why don't we move on----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that's what I plan on doing----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. To something that you said.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Every single day as Attorney
    General.
        [Video and audio malfunctions occur.]
        Senator Hirono. On August 25, 2025, on Fox News, you said,
    ``When Republicans take back the White House, the Department of
    Justice, the prosecutors will be prosecuted, the bad ones. The
    investigators will be investigated.'' Ms. Bondi, is Jack Smith
    one of those bad prosecutors that you will prosecute as AG?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, you hesitated a bit when I said, the
    bad ones. Every decision will be made----
        Senator Hirono. Sometimes badness is in the eye of the
    beholder. I'm just asking whether you would consider Jack
    Smith----
        Ms. Bondi. Senator----
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. To be one of the people. How
    about Liz Cheney?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator----
        Senator Hirono. How about Merrick Garland?
        Ms. Bondi. I am not going to answer hypotheticals. No one
    has been prejudged nor will anyone be prejudged----
        Senator Hirono. I am asking whether these are the kind of
    people----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I am confirmed.
        Senator Hirono [continuing]. These are, in fact, the people
    that you would prosecute. I'm not getting an answer.
        Chairman Grassley. Your time is up. Would you like to----
        Senator Hirono. My time is----
        Chairman Grassley. Would you like to respond?
        Senator Hirono. Mr. Chairman, she is clearly not going to
    answer that question, so let me get on to----
        Chairman Grassley. Would you like to----
        Senator Hirono. I do have questions for the second round.
        Chairman Grassley. You'll get--you'll have a second round.
    Would you like to speak before I call on Senator Cruz?
        Ms. Bondi. No, sir. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bondi,
    welcome.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you for your long career in public
    service, and thank you for your willingness to take on this
    incredibly important office.
        You know, I have to say, I don't know there is a more
    important position in this new administration than the position
    to which you have been nominated, Attorney General of the
    United States. I thought the exchange just a moment ago with
    Senator Hirono was illustrative. She asked you how you would
    respond if the President asked you to target his political
    enemies. It's rather striking because it's not a hypothetical.
    It has happened over the last 4 years, and I think perhaps the
    most tragic legacy of the Biden-Harris administration has been
    the politicization and the weaponization of the United States
    Department of Justice. And we don't need to ask hypothetically
    because Joe Biden publicly mused and allowed The New York Times
    to report it, calling on Merrick Garland, why will he not
    prosecute Trump more quickly. And Merrick Garland, sadly, he
    sat in that chair and promised to be apolitical, and he broke
    that promise almost the instant he walked into the Department
    of Justice.
        If you look on the west pediment of the Supreme Court of
    the United States, just above the entrance, there's a simple
    yet profound forward phrase, ``Equal Justice Under Law.'' We
    have seen over the last 4 years a Department of Justice that
    systematically targeted the political opponents of Joe Biden
    and Kamala Harris and that systematically protected his friends
    and allies, and it is tragic to see the loss of confidence in
    the American people in the Department of Justice and in the
    FBI. I would note, I don't think there's an institution in
    America who has lost more respect from the American people than
    the FBI has in the last 4 years. That is a grotesque violation
    of the obligation of the Department of Justice and the FBI.
        So I want to start with just a very simple question. If you
    are confirmed as Attorney General, will you pledge to fairly
    and faithfully uphold the law, regardless of party?
        Ms. Bondi. So help me God.
        Senator Cruz. Amen. Look, and I want to be clear for folks
    at home. I don't want a Republican Department of Justice. I
    don't want a Democrat Department of Justice. I want a
    Department of Justice that follows the damn law, and I think
    the American people do, too. That shouldn't be too much to
    expect.
        Now, I'm grateful to President Trump for nominating you. I
    think on any objective level, you're clearly qualified for this
    position. You have been a prosecutor for decades. You have been
    the elected Attorney General of the State of Florida, the third
    largest State in America, for 8 years. Let me ask you, in terms
    of your practice, how many criminal cases over the course of
    your career have you personally handled?
        Ms. Bondi. Handled? Thousands.
        Senator Cruz. How many of those were before a jury?
        Ms. Bondi. Hundreds. I don't want to overstate, but
    hundreds. I was in a courtroom for many years. I tried four
    when I was an intern, jury trials. I think you had to try at
    least 20 in misdemeanor before you went to felony, then you
    were in court every day, and I was also lead trial attorney for
    many years, trying many cases, so.
        Senator Cruz. And how many of those cases would've been
    before a judge?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, hundreds and hundreds, as well, but hundreds
    before a jury, I would assume.
        Senator Cruz. And as Attorney General of Florida, how many
    lawyers did you supervise roughly?
        Ms. Bondi. Approximately 400, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. Now, I also want to clarify something. During
    the course of this hearing, several Democrat Senators have
    referred to you as President Trump's, quote, ``personal
    lawyer.'' Now, I don't believe that is an accurate
    characterization. As I understand it, you represented President
    Trump as a White House special advisor during his first
    impeachment trial. Is that correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Within Office of White House Counsel, yes,
    Senator.
        Senator Cruz. And is working within the White House
    Counsel's office different than representing Donald J. Trump
    individually as his personal lawyer?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Cruz. How's it different?
        Ms. Bondi. You're working for the Government. You're
    working for the Office of White House Counsel. You're not
    representing him in his personal capacity.
        Senator Cruz. And so you have not represented him in his
    business affairs, in his personal life, or in any of the
    criminal trials he has faced?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. And, you know, when it comes to
    weaponization, it's worth noting that in more than 2 centuries
    of our Nation's history, no President had previously been
    indicted, no President had previously been prosecuted until the
    Biden-Harris White House came along. And in the last 4 years,
    we've seen Donald Trump indicted and prosecuted not once, not
    twice, not 3 times, but 4 separate times.
        Ms. Bondi. And two assassination attempts, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. I have to say, Javert from ``Les Mis'' would
    be chagrined at the efforts of Democrats to do anything
    possible to take him down. And I believe the real target in
    this was not President Trump, but it was the American people,
    that these prosecutions were brought because partisan
    prosecutors were terrified that the American people would do
    exactly what they did in November 2024 and vote to reelect
    Donald J. Trump.
        Ms. Bondi. By 77.3 percent million Americans--77.3 million
    Americans.
        Senator Cruz. Will you commit every day as Attorney General
    to follow the law, to follow the Constitution, to uphold the
    rule of law without favor and without regard to the partisan
    position of any criminal defendant?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. That's what we should all expect from an
    Attorney General. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. We'll now recess for 30-minute lunch
    break. That means we'll be back at 12:25, and when we resume,
    Senator Booker will be recognized to ask his questions.
        [Whereupon the hearing was recessed and reconvened.]
        Chairman Grassley. Since Senators that would've been called
    on before the Senator from Vermont, I'm going to ask him to
    start the questioning so we don't waste any time.
        Senator Welch. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for this
    hearing. Ms. Bondi, thank you so much for the visit to my
    office.
        A couple of things. First of all, congratulations on the
    nomination, and number two, a couple of Vermont things that we
    talked about. We're going to have a new U.S. attorney in the
    State of Vermont, and in the last Trump administration, the
    Justice Department and the Trump administration worked closely
    with Senator Leahy, Democrat, and with Governor Scott,
    Republican, and came up with a consensus choice. And I seek
    your assistance in helping make sure that we are successful in
    getting a very competent U.S. attorney in Vermont and,
    hopefully, with the cooperation of Governor Scott, a
    Republican, as I mentioned, and Senator Sanders, and me.
        Ms. Bondi. And, Senator, as I discussed with you in our
    meeting, I look forward to working with you and cooperating
    with you and learning about many of the issues you have in
    Vermont.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. And then on that, by the way, one
    of the issues we talked about, we are one of two States that
    does not have a residential reentry program. That is outrageous
    in my mind. I know you worked on the First Step Act, but our
    Federal judges, our Federal prosecutors, our Federal public
    defender are all in support of a residential reentry program.
    Our State and Hawaii are the only two States without it and our
    justice system and officials believe that we need it, and I
    seek your energetic assistance in helping us get that
    residential reentry program.
        Ms. Bondi. Can I address that, Senator?
        Senator Welch. Yes, I'd like you to. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes. Senator,hen I was a prosecutor, and those
    are so vitally important. One thing that I just learned is the
    Bureau of Prisons--98 percent of people in the Bureau of
    Prisons will be released. They're not----
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Serving life sentences, so we must
    do everything we can when people are in prison to help
    rehabilitate them for when they get out, and that's why reentry
    is so----
        Senator Welch. That's really----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Vital.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. Helpful.
        Ms. Bondi. But we tell people----
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Get out of prison and become a
    productive member of society, go get a job, yet people don't
    know how to go find a driver's license.
        Senator Welch. Well, I appreciate your help on that.
        Ms. Bondi. They don't know how to get to work.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much----
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. And I have confidence that you
    will do that, given your history on the First Step Act and
    other things that you did. The next--I do have some concerns,
    not so much about you, but what President Trump has said about
    a desire on his part to go after what he considers to be
    political adversaries. You know, he's--his own words----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Welch [continuing]. For instance, says that if he's
    elected, he'd seek to appoint a special prosecutor to go after
    Joe Biden. I assume you've had no discussion with President-
    elect Trump about that?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely not.
        Senator Welch. And he----
        Ms. Bondi. Nor against Senator Schiff. I'm looking at your
    next one.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Welch. Well, my colleague, Senator Schiff, who I
    think did an incredibly good job, President Biden had different
    points--or pardon me--President Trump had different views about
    that where he said on a number of occasions that he should be
    prosecuted--everybody on the January 6 Committee should be
    prosecuted for their lies and treason. No discussion about
    that?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Welch. And Liz Cheney, also, he said that she
    should be prosecuted for lies and treason, as well.
        Ms. Bondi. We have had no discussions about Liz Cheney.
        Senator Welch. All right. And you've satisfied me that this
    is not an agenda you have. President Trump has satisfied me
    that when he says things that are pretty provocative, he's
    often serious. And, as Senator Cruz wants, I want, and that is
    to have a Justice Department that is not going after people on
    the basis of them being political opponents. And my
    understanding, in listening to your answers to the questions
    along this line, is that you have no intention--no intention of
    pursuing people on the basis of them being a political
    opponent.
        Ms. Bondi. No one will be prosecuted, investigated because
    they are a political opponent. That's what we've seen for the
    last 4 years in this administration.
        Senator Welch. Well, I----
        Ms. Bondi. People will be prosecuted based on the facts and
    the law and fairly, Senator.
        Senator Welch. That's good.
        Ms. Bondi. You have my word.
        Senator Welch. I disagree about the characterization of the
    past 4 years, but we don't have to discuss that, with your
    assurance that the next 4 years, there'll be no effort on the
    part of the Justice Department to pursue political adversaries.
    Right?
        Ms. Bondi. Every case will be done on a case-by-case basis.
    No one should be prosecuted----
        Senator Welch. All right. Just----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For political purposes.
        Senator Welch. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Welch. Thank you. I just have a couple of other
    things. One is the False Claims Act. Senator Grassley, thank
    you for that False Claims Act. In Vermont, there are incredible
    challenges for folks trying to get healthcare. It's really
    expensive, and there was a shocking report in The Wall Street
    Journal about a major insurer that is ripping off taxpayers by
    overbilling, over-prescribing on Medicare Advantage--billions
    of dollars. And the report indicated that insurers are adding
    diagnoses, basically, to make money, not to help the patient,
    that insurers sent nurses to find diagnoses that doctors didn't
    find, that insurers got paid to cover patients who were already
    getting their coverage through the VA, and it adds up to
    billions of dollars. And Vermonters are struggling under the
    weight of incredibly expensive healthcare.
        The False Claims Act Senator Grassley authored is an area
    where the Attorney General can protect consumers against rip-
    offs. I'm not asking you to comment on this particular Wall
    Street report, but I want your assurance that in addition to
    fighting crime--and we're all for you doing that--you're going
    to be there protecting consumers and taxpayers from rip-offs.
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator. When I was Attorney
    General, we went after a pharmaceutical company. It was
    Medicaid fraud. I can't remember the settlement value. It may
    even be ongoing, but it was a large, large number, and that--
    you know, people don't understand that's--that's hurting the
    taxpayers of Florida, of Vermont.
        Senator Welch. So use that False Claims Act that we can
    thank Senator Grassley for. It's cold out there in Vermont. We
    need vigorous enforcement to protect taxpayers in Vermonters
    from rip-off charges. Thank you. I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I can--it's good
    to see you, and I meant every word of that, those introductory
    remarks.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt. I have the greatest deal of respect for
    you, personally and professionally. This is a great pick by
    President Trump. You're going to do a great job.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt. I do want to say, though, that it appears
    as though Trump derangement syndrome is alive and well. The
    focus of these questions today are disturbing. I don't think my
    Democrat colleagues learned very much from the November 5th
    election. The American people rejected all this, their
    obsession, but President Trump didn't bode well for them
    electorally, and I think if they stay on this path they'll be
    in a permanent minority----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. But that's----
        Ms. Bondi. Three-hundred and twelve electoral votes,
    Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. A landslide. But that's up to them to
    decide. I do want to comment a little bit, I guess, on this
    newfound religion on independence from the Attorney General. I
    will remind my colleagues that the last three Democratic
    Attorneys General for the United States of America were perhaps
    the most biased--politically biased AGs we've had in modern
    political history in the United States, and there are some
    receipts. Eric Holder described himself as Obama's heat shield
    and wingman. This Committee moved forward, and one of my
    colleagues referenced that the Attorney General shouldn't be
    the wingman of the President. Eric Holder's bragged about it.
    He bragged about it. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton on the
    tarmac in a private meeting while she was investigating Hillary
    Clinton. And Merrick Garland probably gets, however many gold
    stars you want to give, for the most politicized, weaponized
    Department of Justice we have ever seen. And I think it's worth
    exploring that, and then I want to get your comment on it.
        To just sort of take a step back, I think part of
    leadership is understanding the moment that you're in and the
    landscape. We've never seen anything like this, and there is a
    story to be told. The arc of this story begins when Joe Biden
    gave a speech demonizing half the country----
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Schmitt [continuing]. Calling them threats to the
    republic, threats to democracy, these MAGA Republicans, and I'm
    going to do everything I can to make sure President Trump ever
    gets back into the White House. Miraculously, these zombie
    cases are resurrected, and let's talk about a couple of those.
        You've got, of course, Jack Smith, the overzealous and
    disgraced special prosecutor, who time and time again has been
    slapped down by courts for overcharging and taking an overtly
    political position. He, by the way, in his postmortem this week
    even acknowledged that it was unusual for him to be tasked with
    going after the political opponent of the President of the
    United States. It didn't stop him, though. The Supreme Court
    did, thankfully. But you had Jack Smith take on these
    unprecedented actions.
        You had a raid at Mar-a-Lago, staged photos at Mar-a-Lago
    for boxes of documents, which, by the way, boxes of documents
    were in Joe Biden's garage from his Senate days, and by the
    way, somebody who didn't register like you did under FARA,
    Hunter Biden was staying in. We don't know if he's compromised
    or not because that investigation was dropped, and give me a
    break that justice was meted out fairly for Hunter Biden. It
    wasn't. The Department of Justice went out of its way in
    documents to try to get him absolved of all potential crimes in
    the plea deal. It was only when the judge asked questions that
    unwound that and they got back to the gun charge. But then
    President Biden did the dirty work himself. It was always going
    to be Plan B.
        You had Jonathan Su, Biden's Deputy White House Counsel,
    coordinated with the DOJ and Jay Bratt on those classified
    document cases. Matthew Colangelo--who's that? The number three
    guy at DOJ goes to where? Alvin Bragg's office. Alvin Bragg
    then resurrects a zombie case in lawfare at a local level. Why
    would the number three person go do that? Maybe there was
    coordination. Maybe there was coordination, by the way, with
    the number two assistant DA in Atlanta, in the Fani Willis
    case, who was meeting with the White House. Why would the White
    House care about a case in Atlanta? Well, the truth is, is
    everybody knows, it was on full display, this was the worst
    case of lawfare we've ever seen. If this was happening in
    another country, our State Department will be warning us about
    it. It's banana republic stuff.
        And one of the reasons why I'm so glad that you have been
    put up and nominated for this position is that I think you have
    the ability to level set. So when the Democrats ask you
    questions about your independence, it is beyond ironic that
    we're sitting here today because of the lack of independence
    from Merrick Garland--and Eric Holder bragging about being
    Obama's wingman. So I just want to ask you--you've been asked
    this a bunch of times--you're going to make decisions as you
    always have, right, on the law, and let investigations go where
    they're going to go, but they're not politically motivated.
    Correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, based on the law and the facts
    that apply.
        Senator Schmitt. And in my limited time, I do want to give
    you an opportunity to talk about some of your experience
    working with law enforcement as Florida's Attorney General.
    This is something that, you know, as you and I talked about
    over the years, you were known for this, the collaboration you
    had. And I think getting the Department of Justice back to its
    core function of taking on violent crime, protecting the
    constitutional rights of Americans, but taking on violent crime
    is really important. And how you went about doing it, you've
    gotten bipartisan praise for that over the years. You've got
    the support of all these law enforcement agencies. That's
    something that you're going to continue and take forward into
    this office. Is that right?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. Thank you so much, and I feel that
    my experience with that goes back to when I was a State
    prosecutor with State and local--our sheriffs, our police
    departments, our police chiefs, and then as Attorney General on
    a statewide basis. And now, if I'm confirmed, all of our
    Federal law enforcement agencies, I would be very proud to
    supervise those.
        Senator Schmitt. I'll just close with this, Mr. Chairman.
    We heard one of my Democrat colleagues ask you the question
    that you're not going to pursue a case because of a name, but
    because of the crime. I would argue that the current Department
    of Justice adopted Lenin's claim, which was, ``Show me the man
    and I'll show you the crime,'' and they did everything they
    could to throw President Trump in jail for the rest of his life
    because they didn't want to lose at the ballot box. That is not
    what this country is about. That is not what this republic is
    about. But they did it, and it's up to you now to restore the
    integrity of that agency--of the Department of Justice, and I
    have full confidence that you will.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I begin, I
    just want to remind us all for the record that the 34
    convictions--not indictments--convictions of former President--
    incoming President Trump were by a jury of his peers. Thank
    you, Ms. Bondi, for being here today, and, I, too, would like
    to welcome your family and friends who are here.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Padilla. I appreciated the opportunity to meet
    yesterday to learn about your priorities and discuss a number
    of issues that are important to me. But I got to tell you, as I
    reflected on our conversation yesterday, and as I've observed
    at the hearing today, I continue to have significant
    reservations on your ability to function as a truly independent
    Attorney General for your friend--that's how you keep referring
    to him, your friend President-elect Trump. So I hope you can
    address some of these concerns through your responses to my
    questions here.
        Now, the first issue area is something that we didn't get a
    chance to touch on yesterday, so I actually want to follow up
    on some of Senator Durbin's questions from earlier about the
    2020 election. And to be specific, on the day after the 2020
    Presidential general election, you traveled to Philadelphia to
    appear alongside President Trump's then-attorney Rudy Giuliani,
    and together, you falsely asserted that President Trump had,
    quote, ``won Pennsylvania'' in that election. Now, I want to be
    clear at that moment, there were still at least a million
    ballots left to be counted in Pennsylvania. Of course,
    President Biden went on to win the State by more than 80,000
    votes. But in the following days, even after the results were
    clear, you continued to double down on the Big Lie, promoting
    falsehoods about election fraud and cheating without offering
    any actual evidence. And I remember it clearly because I served
    as California's Secretary of State at the time, and I invited
    anybody associated with the Trump campaign who was making these
    claims to come forward with evidence of irregularities in the
    election or massive voter fraud. Four years later I still have
    seen none.
        So I ask you today, do you have any evidence of election
    fraud or irregularities in the 2020 election?
        Ms. Bondi. So, first, Senator----
        Senator Padilla. Yes or no? It's a yes or no question.
        Ms. Bondi. First, Senator----
        Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. First, Senator--first, Senator, I'm so sorry
    about the fires, to you and Senator Schiff, and what you're
    going through in your States. I have to say that----
        Senator Padilla. I appreciate that----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I think all of our----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. But my clock is ticking----
        Ms. Bondi. I'll answer your question.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. And I want to hear your
    answer.
        Ms. Bondi. All our hearts go out to everyone in California
    for what you're facing right now. I'm glad you asked the
    question about Pennsylvania. I was hoping someone----
        Senator Padilla. It's a yes or no question.
        Ms. Bondi. I was hoping someone would----
        Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was hoping you'd ask the question.
    Yes, I traveled----
        Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. I traveled to Pennsylvania----
        Senator Padilla. Do you have evidence? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. I traveled, Senator, to Pennsylvania----
        Senator Padilla. Okay. You're not answering my question. If
    you have no evidence to offer, let me ask you this. Will you
    now retract your previous statements that Trump won
    Pennsylvania in the 2020 election? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, Senator, I traveled to Pennsylvania, and let
    me tell you what I saw firsthand.
        Senator Padilla. Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. I didn't talk about California because I was not
    in California. I talked about----
        Senator Padilla. Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I talked about----
        Senator Padilla. Last time I'm going to ask.
        Ms. Bondi. I talked about Pennsylvania because I was there.
        Senator Padilla. Mr. Chair, I'm going to move on because
    she's clearly----
        Ms. Bondi. We got a court order----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Not answering my questions.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To observe----
        Senator Padilla. And I want to know, colleagues--for
    everybody, for everybody--Members of the Committee and
    everybody watching, that the attorney you stood beside, Mr.
    Giuliani, was making very similar statements, and he has since
    been disbarred from multiple jurisdictions for making these
    false claims about the 2020 election in court. And like Mr.
    Giuliani, as you've noted today, you've taken an oath to uphold
    the Constitution just as an attorney, and now you're asking us
    to consider you to serve as the chief law enforcement officer
    in our country. So it's imperative, Ms. Bondi, that you
    subscribe to facts and evidence and not politically convenient
    conspiracy theories. Your job will be----
        Ms. Bondi. Yes----
        Senator Padilla. I'm speaking. Your job will be to protect
    voters and election workers, not to undermine and dox them. Now
    I know that earlier you agreed that Joe Biden is, in fact,
    President but many of the President-elect's inner circle
    continue to spread the Big Lie about the 2020 election. Let me
    move on to a different topic.
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, you were speaking----
        Senator Padilla. I know that's one that you're not
    obviously not comfortable with.
        Ms. Bondi. May I speak? You cut me off when I was speaking.
        Senator Padilla. When I ask you the next question, you can
    speak, and I hope you answer it, Ms. Bondi.
        Ms. Bondi. Well, I'd like----
        Senator Padilla. Now, when we met yesterday----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To answer the previous one,
    Senator.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. When we met yesterday----
        Ms. Bondi. You pointed your finger at me and said you were
    speaking.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. You did not seem to be
    familiar with the----
        Ms. Bondi. Let me answer my question. I'm not going to be
    bullied by you, Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Citizenship Clause of the
    Fourteenth Amendment of the United States of America, which was
    deeply disappointing, and----
        Ms. Bondi. I guess you didn't want to hear----
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Apparently you weren't
    familiar with it today after----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. My answer about Pennsylvania.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. I gave an opportunity to
    study overnight. So can you tell me and this Committee what the
    Citizenship Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment says?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm here to answer your questions. I'm
    not here to do your homework and study for you. If I am
    confirmed as Attorney General----
        Senator Padilla. Oh no, you're the one asking for a
    confirmation----
        Ms. Bondi. Hey, you cut me off. Can I please finish?
        Senator Padilla. What does the Fourteenth Amendment say?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator? Senator, the Fourteenth Amendment, we
    all know, addresses birthright citizenship. I have been a State
    prosecutor. I have been a State AG. I look forward to, even
    given your remarks today, working with you and the people of
    California, if I am confirmed as the 87th Attorney General of
    the United States of America. I didn't take your homework
    assignment. I'm sorry.
        Senator Padilla. Okay.
        Ms. Bondi. I was preparing for today.
        Senator Padilla. So on the Fourteenth Amendment--now you've
    testified repeatedly to this Committee that you will uphold the
    laws of this country and defend the Constitution of the United
    States. Do you believe birthright citizenship is the law of the
    land, and will you defend it regardless of a child born in the
    United States--regardless of their parents' immigration status?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will study birthright citizenship. I
    would love to meet with you regarding birthright citizenship.
        Senator Padilla. Ma'am, you're asking us consider you----
        Ms. Bondi. Can I answer the question?
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. As the Attorney General of
    the United States, and you still need to study the Fourteenth
    Amendment of the Constitution? That is not helping me have more
    confidence in your ability to do this job. One other
    immigration-related question, and I'll steer clear of the
    Constitution and the law.
        Ms. Bondi. I have one regarding that I'd like to talk
    about.
        Senator Padilla. Senator Hirono asked you earlier, but I
    don't think you answered her question. Can you please tell us,
    do you agree with the statement that immigrants are, quote,
    ``poisoning the blood of our country? '' Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. I did not say that.
        Senator Padilla. I did not say that you said that. I'm
    asking if you agree with it. Yes nor no?
        Ms. Bondi. I did not say that.
        Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, my great grandparents are immigrants.
        Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. They came here from Sicily through Ellis
    Island----
        Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. When they were teenagers.
        Senator Padilla. Do you agree with it? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, let me answer the question.
        Senator Padilla. Yes or no? It's real simple.
        Ms. Bondi. My great grandparents came here, immigrated to
    this country from Sicily--recently went and found each of their
    birth certificates. We are a Nation made up of immigrants. Do I
    believe immigrants are poisoning our country? No, Senator
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I can't
    wait for the second round.
        Ms. Bondi. Same, Senator. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Do you need any more time?
        Ms. Bondi. No sir. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. There have been suggestions about--
    unfair statements about the 2020 election. I thought I'd remind
    people that Senator Schumer and former Senator Casey raised
    questions about the Pennsylvania Senate race just a few months
    ago. In 2018, numerous Senate Democrats, some of them on this
    Committee, claimed that the Georgia Governor's election was
    stolen. In 2016, Hillary Clinton and a host of Democrats
    claimed the election was stolen or illegitimate and blamed
    Russia for the loss. And every one of my Democrat colleagues
    voted last month to confirm Judge Anthony Brindisi. He engaged
    in lengthy litigation regarding his loss of the 2020
    congressional election and did not concede until 3 months after
    the election. I think we all agree that our elections can be
    more secure and better run, but I find these lines of attack
    against the nominee very partisan. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you so
    much for being here today and really glad to see your family. I
    had the opportunity to help them find where to come back in.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Britt. They are all so excited and rightfully so,
    and so proud of who you are and the work that you've done. And
    speaking of, I think it is absolutely, completely ridiculous
    that anyone on the other side of the aisle would ever say that
    you were anything but immensely qualified for this job.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. From your time as a career prosecutor to
    then a two-time Attorney General of the third largest State,
    with regards to all of the people that operated underneath you,
    with what you were able to achieve, it is truly remarkable. The
    United States of America could only be so fortunate if you were
    confirmed and to have someone of your caliber, of your
    intellect, and of your experience running a department that,
    unfortunately, has been run into the ground. So I think that
    that is full-on gaslighting, which, by the way, I had to get my
    children to explain to me what that was.
        Not only that, but to act like you would be the one that
    would weaponize the Department of Justice. What I have heard
    you say, time and time and time again, is that you will follow
    the law. And this is coming from a side of the aisle that has
    allowed the Biden administration--by saying nothing, they've
    allowed them to go after parents who are at school board
    meetings, who want nothing more than their children to be
    taught and not indoctrinated. They have allowed them to go
    after people who are trying to practice their faith, and they
    have set idly by while the weaponization of the Department of
    Justice has undermined the credibility and credence that
    Americans believe that they should have and equal justice under
    the law.
        So I know that you will, as you have said here, you will
    follow the law and you will return this Department to where it
    should be in the eyes of Americans, so thank you. And I wish
    the gaslighting on the other side of the aisle would stop
    because, from my perspective, I'm over it. And I believe that's
    exactly what the American people have said, too.
        And speaking of my distinguished colleague who I have a
    great deal of respect from on the other side of the aisle, just
    said--tried to make you answer a question about immigrants and,
    quote, ``poisoning the blood of America,'' when actually the
    previous question by our colleague from Hawaii was illegal
    immigration. We are a Nation of immigrants, but we are also a
    Nation of laws. And the lawlessness under the Biden-Harris
    administration has made every single State in this Nation a
    border State.
        I am so thrilled about what you've done when it comes to
    opioid use and human trafficking. I look forward to you
    instituting that at the Department of Justice. Your credentials
    speak for themselves. When opioid and fentanyl overdoses are
    the leading cause of death between the ages of 18 and 45 in
    this Nation, we need someone who takes it serious. You not only
    take that serious, you have a track record of proving to the
    American people--you've done it for the people of Florida, and
    I look forward to what that means to the families that I have
    met. You talked about the families you've met across Florida
    that showed you pictures of their loved ones that they lost--
    their brother, their sister, their cousin, their friend, their
    mother. And I know that there will be more lives that are saved
    as a result of your service when you are confirmed. So on that
    I say thank you.
        And when it comes to illegal immigration, which we need to
    put a stop to, I want to ask you a question that you and I had
    an opportunity to discuss a little bit. You share my desire, I
    know, to not only get away from the weaponization and wokeness
    that we are seeing in the Department right now, but really
    prioritizing safety and security. And I want to say thank you
    for that commitment and your commitment to blind justice. When
    we are looking at illegal immigration, the Executive Office of
    Immigration Review within DOJ--there have been a number of
    things that we have talked about with that.
        And I know, as you are aware--some people call it EOIR,
    some people call it EOR--but it houses our Nation's immigration
    courts. Over the course of the Biden administration, the
    immigration court backlog has grown from 1.4 million at the end
    of 2021 to 3.5 million at the end of 2024. Over that same
    period, the Biden administration pursued policies both at DOJ
    and DHS to foster a culture within EOR of failure to adjudicate
    cases. As an example, between FY25 and FY24, immigration judges
    failed to adjudicate over 340,000 asylum claims. That is
    compared to just under 13,000 non-adjudicated asylum claims in
    the previous 6 fiscal years combined. Between cases dismissed,
    terminations, administrative closures, and failures to
    adjudicate, EOR during the Biden administration has allowed
    around one million illegal aliens to remain in the United
    States on an indefinite basis.
        Now, I've heard Laken Riley brought up multiple times
    today. Having talked to her parents, no parent should have to
    go through the heartbreak and tragedy that they have. And we
    are working diligently to rectify that and ensure that we are
    keeping Americans safe and secure. But a House Judiciary
    Committee report on this issue appropriately called it, quote,
    ``quiet amnesty,'' what we're talking here with EOR. Will you
    commit to me that, if confirmed, you will make it a priority to
    reform the way that EOR operates and put in place measures to
    ensure that immigration judges actually adjudicate these claims
    and cases?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. Thank you for meeting with me in
    advance. And I learned so much from you about this topic, and I
    look forward to learning more and working with you to do
    everything we can to make sure that functions properly----
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I am confirmed, Senator.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Well, you are going to be
    confirmed because America needs you. As a part of this effort,
    I hope that you will consider a number of things, including
    reinstating the performance metrics for immigration judges,
    similar to that that were in place during the first Trump
    administration, and a reevaluation of the Biden
    administration's decisions and policies that have encouraged
    the use of administrative closures. And I assume I have your
    commitment to examine those issues thoroughly.
        Ms. Bondi. We'll closely examine those, Senator. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for the
    time. Ms. Bondi, thank you for being here today.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator
        Senator Booker. And thank you for being willing to meet
    with me in my office. I really value that time that we had
    together. If there's anything that's been demonstrated in this
    hearing thus far is there is a serious crisis of faith in our
    judicial system in America. And we are at a time where, as
    Judge Learned Hand reminded us in his writings and speeches, is
    that the power of the Constitution is only strong as long as it
    is believed in and have faith by the American people. And that
    faith is shaken by so much of the political tumult, and as we
    have a new administration coming in and a lot of the
    protestations about retribution or going after political
    opponents, I know you could expend your empathy enough to
    understand why there are many that really worry about your
    independence. But I've heard you over and over again in this
    hearing, as much as I've tried to focus on it as I've gone back
    and forth between the Senate Foreign Relations and another
    Floridian, Marco Rubio. But I am hearing from you that you
    understand that the Attorney General's guiding star is the U.S.
    Constitution and her client is the American people, that there
    can be no argument about that.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Booker. Yes. And more than that, though, I hope
    that you, should you be confirmed, understand that there is an
    urgency in not just demonstrating through your actions that
    independence, but beginning to heal this country's lack of
    faith and shaken faith in that independence in the U.S.
    Constitution. History may not long remember what any of us
    individually do here, but for the sake of our democracy, what
    you do to restore and repair the American faith, whether they
    be Democrats, Independents, or Republicans, is vital.
        I want to switch here to say publicly that when Donald
    Trump appointed Craig Carpenito as the U.S. attorney in New
    Jersey, it was over the objections of myself and then-Senator
    Menendez. I was wrong in my anticipation that he would not do
    good things in our State. He partnered with local leaders like
    those in Newark, New Jersey, to dramatically drive down crime.
    He was good for the safety of the city in which I live and the
    one that I led. Part of his strategy was to focus his resources
    on the most violent criminals. But that also meant that he used
    something that you know of called prosecutorial discretion. His
    strategies aligned with that of local leaders and was able to
    create historic drops in our murder rate.
        You know through your experience, and you're intimately
    familiar, that enforcement decisions prosecutors must make
    every day, which charge to bring, which plea deal to offer, or
    what sentencing recommendation it makes, it's very important
    that local prosecutors understand that given this enormous
    discretion our legal system gives them, that they are best
    determined to make decisions about public safety. I'm very
    concerned that many people are starting to call for a time in
    our country where the Department of Justice should prosecute
    State and local prosecutors who exercise that prosecutorial
    discretion. As Attorney General, will you commit to respecting
    the autonomy of State and local prosecutors?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, we have to work together with State and
    local prosecutors. That's what I did my entire career, and if
    confirmed as Attorney General, I will continue to do that. They
    serve a vital function in our justice system.
        Senator Booker. And you understand, like in my State, that
    sometimes they will decide not to go after certain low-level
    offenses in order to use their scarce resources to focus on the
    strategy of pursuing more dangerous people.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I completely understand that.
        Senator Booker. Those decisions shouldn't be politicized if
    they're part of a larger public safety strategy.
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator. When I was a State prosecutor, we
    used to sit down with the U.S. attorneys and talk about cases
    and work together, and that's what I'm discussing about--
    bringing back the cooperation between State and local
    governments.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, Ms. Bondi, and I just want to
    continue. One of the most stunning hypocrisies I've found since
    I've been down here in Washington is every politician gives lip
    service to driving down gun violence. But the very Federal
    authority--the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearm--that is
    primarily focused on enforcing America's gun laws and keeping
    people safe is hamstrung by Federal leaders. The ATF's core
    responsibility is assisting in local law enforcement. When I
    was mayor, I detailed local law enforcement to the ATF. But I'm
    stunned at how they have been stripped of resources, of their
    budget, and all of their capabilities to go after illegal
    gunrunning. When I was mayor of the city of Newark, we couldn't
    find one gun crime that was done with a legally purchased gun.
    But when I turned to the ATF, the ATF leader at that time told
    me in private we don't have the resources, support, or legal
    ability to go after these crimes.
        I am concerned about our ability to fight gun crime in
    America that threatens our law enforcement officers, as well as
    people in communities, from red counties to blue cities. Will
    you commit to doing everything you can to making sure the ATF
    has its resources and the legal power to pursue illegal
    gunrunners in our country?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will do everything in my power to
    prevent illegal gunrunners in our country. When I left being a
    State prosecutor to run for Attorney General, I almost didn't
    run because I was working on a wire case involving illegal
    gunrunners.
        Senator Booker. The DOJ issued, in 2022, a use of force
    policy for its Federal law enforcement officers. It was
    approved by the heads of the DEA, FBI, U.S. Marshals, and ATF,
    and many of them said it is actually a use of force policy that
    actually protects law enforcement officers, as well as protects
    others from having their rights violated. It was also endorsed
    by the Fraternal Order of Police and NAPO, the National
    Association of Police Organizations. This policy is considered
    best practices in law enforcement. Will you commit to
    continuing this policy?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not read the policy. I will
    review the policy, and I will report back directly to you, if I
    am confirmed as Attorney General, and consult with law
    enforcement, absolutely.
        Senator Booker. And I would appreciate if you looked at the
    policy, and I'll submit questions for the record hoping that
    you can elucidate maybe more of your thoughts on this.
        Ms. Bondi. Certainly.
        Senator Booker. And then I will also say, as my last
    question, because I see my time has run out, and I look forward
    to a second round. The DOJ issued a policy regarding
    chokeholds, which limited the use of no-knock warrants and
    chokeholds. It's worth noting that Florida has outlawed no-
    knock entries altogether since 1994. Would you commit to
    continuing the 2021 DOJ policy on these issues?
        Ms. Bondi. I'm familiar with the policy. I have not read
    it. I am committed to reading it and studying it and reporting
    back to you on that policy, once again.
        Senator Booker. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hawley.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Ms.
    Bondi, welcome. Congratulations on your nomination. I'm so glad
    that you've been nominated, as we discussed when we had the
    chance to meet.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Hawley. It was a pleasure to work with you as a
    State Attorney General for a number of years, and I'm delighted
    to see you here today before the Committee. I look forward to
    your confirmation. You will be confirmed.
        I, too, have taken note of the number of times you have
    been asked about weaponization of the Department of Justice as
    if it was a theoretical possibility that might happen in the
    future. One of my colleagues on the other side said,
    ``weaponization may well occur under your tenure.'' We all know
    that weaponization has occurred like we've never seen before in
    American history under this administration, and I want to get
    even more specific. In the last 4 years, this administration
    has carried out an unprecedented attack and campaign against
    people of faith. If you look at the numbers, we've never seen
    anything like it before in American history. It has been one of
    the most disgraceful chapters in the history of the Justice
    Department and in the history of the FBI. And I hope that you
    will reverse this and do right by every American citizen,
    including, especially, people of faith. Let me give you some
    specifics.
        After the Dobbs case was decided by the Supreme Court, over
    100 pregnancy care centers and over 300 churches in this
    country were attacked, vandalized, fire bombed. Do you happen
    to know off the top of your head how many prosecutions Merrick
    Garland's Justice Department brought in those cases?
        It's a----
        Ms. Bondi. I do not, Senator.
        Senator Hawley [continuing]. It's a stunning number. It's
    two. Hundreds of churches, hundreds of pregnancy care centers,
    and I might just add, these pregnancy care centers, the attacks
    on them, which were violent, which were gruesome, were egged on
    and encouraged by rhetoric from Members of Congress, including
    Members of this body who have said that pregnancy care centers
    aren't real medicine, that they're not real doctors. They have
    legitimized these attacks. And the same thing was true of
    churches. And this Justice Department couldn't lift a finger to
    defend these Americans, but at the same time, they use
    legislation, a law known as the FACE Act, to prosecute at least
    53 different pro-life demonstrators, including people like Mark
    Houck from Pennsylvania, to whom this Justice Department sent a
    SWAT team to his door in the early morning hours. He has, I
    think, seven children. In the early morning hours, an FBI SWAT
    team shows up at his door to take him into custody and
    prosecute him. By the way he was acquitted. This kind of
    outrageous, disparate treatment has to end.
        So here's my question to you. Will you protect churches and
    pregnancy care centers when they are targeted for violence,
    when they are targeted for intimidation, when their members or
    parishioners are threatened with violence or other acts of
    illegal behavior?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Will you stop the disparate treatment of
    Americans on the basis of religious faith?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Will you stop the deliberate persecution of
    pro-life Americans for nothing more than their pro-life
    beliefs?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Will you ensure that nothing like the Mark
    Houck case happens again, that Americans do not have SWAT teams
    arriving on their front doors with armed weapons to terrorize
    their children and their spouses, only in the end, of course,
    to have the case lost because there was nothing to it? Will you
    put an end to that kind of deliberate intimidation of good
    American citizens on the basis of their religious beliefs?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. I'm glad to hear you say that because we
    need it. We need it, Ms. Bondi. We need a new chapter at the
    Justice Department, and we need it quickly, and I'm glad you're
    committed to it.
        Now, I also have heard you've been asked about your comment
    that you thought that in some cases we need to investigate the
    investigators, the ones who were bad. You know, I have to say
    I'm glad to hear you stand by that. We need to do that. You
    need to do that. And I'll give you another example. I'm sure
    you've read about this memo, which I now hold in my hands, this
    memo that was developed by the FBI field office in Richmond,
    Virginia, 23rd of January 2023, targeting Catholic parishes for
    spying, for recruitment of infiltrators. I mean, the memo goes
    on and on and on about the FBI's plans to put assets into
    Catholic parishes, into choirs. This is an unbelievable,
    unbelievable assault on Americans' First Amendment rights, and
    we only know of it because of a brave whistleblower who came
    forward and released it to us.
        And I will tell you, I have never been misled and lied to
    like I was by the current Attorney General and the now-former
    FBI Director when they sat right where you're sitting now and
    told this Committee, oh, we don't know anything about it. Oh,
    only one field office was involved. It was the single work of a
    single field office and a very few individuals. As it turns
    out, that's not true. Multiple field offices were involved.
    Multiple individuals were involved. Under your leadership, will
    you put a stop to the use of FBI or Department of Justice
    resources to try and recruit informants and spies into
    Christian churches or any church or house of worship in this
    country on the basis of nothing more than faith?
        Ms. Bondi. Of course, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. Let me just say this. To our knowledge, no
    one who was involved in the writing and performance--execution
    of this memo has been discipline or fired. Will you conduct an
    investigation like you talked about, Ms. Bondi, that will get
    to the bottom of abuses like this? And to be clear, this is an
    outrageous abuse. It is an outrageous abuse, one of the worst
    abuses of Department of Justice and FBI authority in our
    history. Will you conduct an investigation to find out who
    signed off on this, who approved it, who advocated for it
    within the Department of Justice? Will you open the books on
    these abuses so that the American people can have confidence in
    their DOJ?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, and I think what you're talking about
    is the ultimate weaponization, what we've been discussing all
    day. If I am confirmed as Attorney General, one of the first
    things I will--there'll be many--but I will personally read
    that memo, and if Mr. Patel is confirmed, discuss it with him
    right away.
        Senator Hawley. Fantastic. And will you work with this
    Committee and our relevant Subcommittees? I'm going to chair a
    Subcommittee called the Crime and Terrorism Committee. We're
    going to do our own investigation into what happened here at
    the FBI and the DOJ. Will you work with us as you discover the
    nature of these abuses, and as you put a stop to them, will you
    work with us to make sure the American people get all the facts
    and this never happens again?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, yes. I look forward to working with you
    and the Democrats. I would think this is something that we can
    all agree on, on both sides, that this should not be happening
    in the United States of America and work together on it.
        Senator Hawley. That's fantastic. Let me ask you one other
    question here in my just few seconds that are remaining. This
    memo--this memo targeting Catholic parishes repeatedly refers
    to, as an expert source, a group called the Southern Poverty
    Law Center. Now, the Southern Poverty Law Center has a long
    history as an anti-religious group that has repeatedly gone
    after conservative and religious organizations, called them
    hate groups, called them sometimes terrorist groups. They're
    cited in this memo. They once, infamously, the SPLC called the
    Family Research Council a terrorist hate group, and an armed
    gunman came into their lobby and opened fire. Will you put a
    stop to the use of the SPLC as an official source for any
    Department of Justice memorandum or finding?
        Ms. Bondi. That will be one of the first things we will
    look at, as well, Senator, and report back to you and the
    Committee.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Congratulations. Thank
    you, Mr. Chairman.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, as you
    know, the Supreme Court in Trump v. United States held the
    President has absolute immunity to commit crimes in certain
    core areas of the President's responsibility. One of those core
    areas is the Justice Department. So in a breathtakingly
    dangerous and irresponsible decision, Justice Roberts and the
    majority held the President could commit crimes using the
    Department of Justice and be immune from prosecution. Justice
    Sotomayor correctly said, ``This new immunity lies about like a
    loaded weapon.'' So the fear and the concern we have is that
    the incoming President will use that loaded weapon, that
    immunity to commit crimes through the Department of Justice.
    And for that reason, it is all the more important that we have
    an Attorney General who has the independence, the strength, the
    intestinal fortitude to say no to the President when it is
    necessary.
        So my first set of questions has to do whether you have the
    independence to say no when you must say no. And you can say
    this is hypothetical, but it is not hypothetical. So let me
    start with one very specific nonhypothetical. The President has
    said Jack Smith should go to jail. Will you investigate Jack
    Smith?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I haven't seen the file. I haven't seen
    the investigation. I haven't looked at anything. It would be
    irresponsible of me to make a commitment regarding anything
    without--you're a--you're a long-practicing attorney--without
    looking at a file.
        Senator Schiff. So you would need a factual----
        Ms. Bondi. Period.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You would need predicate to
    open an investigation of Jack Smith. Is that right?
        Ms. Bondi. Not a summary by you sitting here, yes, sir.
        Senator Schiff. And not a summary by the President either.
    Right?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Schiff. So a summary by the President or his desire
    to investigate Jack Smith would not be enough for you to open
    an investigation of Jack Smith. Is that right?
        Ms. Bondi. I will look at the facts and evidence in any
    case. You know--you know----
        Senator Schiff. And--and--and sitting here is----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Seventy-two percent----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
        Ms. Bondi. Excuse me.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here today----
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, 72 percent----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Of Americans----
        Senator Schiff. Please, I only have 7 minutes----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Have lost faith----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sitting here----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In the Department of Justice.
        Senator Schiff. Sitting here today----
        Ms. Bondi. It's because of statements like this----
        Senator Schiff. Sitting here today, are you aware of any
    factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith--sitting here
    today? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will look at the facts and the
    circumstances of----
        Senator Schiff. You can't answer that question?
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Anything brought to me.
        Senator Schiff. You're not a part of the Department yet.
    There's no worry about divulging----
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm sitting here----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Law enforcement----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As a nominee.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Sensitive information. So just
    tell us----
        Ms. Bondi. I'm sitting here----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Are you aware----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As a nominee.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Just tell us, are you aware of
    a factual predicate to investigate Jack Smith? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I'm hearing on the news----
        Senator Schiff. Are you aware----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is horrible.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Of a----
        Ms. Bondi. Do I know----
        Senator Schiff. You seem----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If he committed a crime?
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You seem reluctant----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I have not looked at----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You seem reluctant to answer a
    simple question. Let me ask you a different simple question.
    The President also wants to jail Liz Cheney. Sitting here
    today, are you aware of any factual basis to investigate Liz
    Cheney? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, that's a hypothetical, and I'm not
    going to----
        Senator Schiff. No--no----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Answer that.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. It's not hypothetical. I'm
    asking you sitting here today whether you are aware of a
    factual predicate to investigate Liz Cheney----
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, no one----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Based on what you know.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Has asked me to investigate Liz
    Cheney. That is a----
        Senator Schiff. The President----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Hypothetical.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Has called for it publicly.
    You are aware of that. Aren't you?
        Ms. Bondi. No one has asked me to investigate----
        Senator Schiff. But the----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Liz----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. President has called----
        Ms. Bondi. You're all so worried about----
        Senator Schiff. The President----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Liz Cheney, Senator.
        Senator Schiff. The President has called----
        Ms. Bondi. You know what we----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. For this----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Should be worried about?
        Senator Schiff. Ms. Bondi, please----
        Ms. Bondi. The crime rate----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Answer my questions.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In California right now----
        Senator Schiff. You are aware----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Is----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You are aware----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Through the roof.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Ms. Bondi, my----
        Ms. Bondi. Your robberies are----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Ms. Bondi----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Eighty-seven percent----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Higher than the national average.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question is this----
        Ms. Bondi. That's what I want----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. My question is this----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To be focused on, Senator----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Do you have----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. If I'm confirmed----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. The power to say no----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As Attorney General.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. To the President, and what
    you're suggesting today by your nonanswer is you don't have the
    independence to say no to the President. So let me ask you a
    different question--it also requires you, if you're going to be
    a good Attorney General, to be able to tell hard truths to the
    President. So my questions now are, can you tell hard truth to
    the President? So let me start with an easy truth that you
    could speak to the President. Can you tell us--can you tell him
    that Donald Trump lost the 2020 election? Can you say that? Do
    you have the independence to say that? Do you have the
    gravitas, the stature, the intestinal fortitude to say, Donald
    Trump, you lost the 2020 election? Can you tell us that here
    today?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, what I can tell you is I will never
    play politics. You're trying to engage me in a gotcha. I won't
    do it. I----
        Senator Schiff. No, I'm just asking you a simple question--
    --
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I--I--I won't play politics----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. If you can speak truth----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. With any ongoing----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. To power.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Investigation----
        Senator Schiff. So let me ask you another----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Like you did----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Leaking your colleague----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me ask you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Devin Nunes'----
        Senator Schiff. If----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Memo.
        Senator Schiff. If----if you can't answer the question, let
    me ask you a different--what should be a simple truth, not a
    hard one. Was there massive fraud affecting the result of the
    2020 election? Yes or no?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm glad you asked that question. If
    you'll let me answer what I saw in Pennsylvania----
        Senator Schiff. No, I asked a simple question about massive
    fraud----
        Ms. Bondi. I--I can only tell you----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Massive----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. What I saw in----
        Senator Schiff. No--no----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Pennsylvania.
        Senator Schiff. I know you want to answer a different
    question. But my question is, can you tell us whether there was
    massive fraud affecting the results of the 2020 election? Yes
    or no--was there----
        Ms. Bondi. I can tell you----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Or was there not?
        Ms. Bondi. What I saw when I went----
        Senator Schiff. That's not----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As an advocate----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. That's not my question.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To the campaign.
        Senator Schiff. So--so you can't answer that question. You
    can't speak that even easy truth to us, let alone to the
    President. So let me ask you a different question. It will also
    be important that you give good advice to the President. Are
    you prepared to advise the President not to pardon people who
    beat police officers?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, as I said, the pardons are at the
    direction of the President. We will look and we will advise. I
    will look at every case on a case----
        Senator Schiff. Okay. So you look at----
        Ms. Bondi. Let me finish--on a case-by-case----
        Senator Schiff. Okay.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Basis.
        Senator Schiff. Okay, good. Let me----
        Ms. Bondi. And I----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Abhor----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Let me----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Violence to police officers.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Follow up with that. So will
    it be your advice to the President, Mr. President, I know you
    said you want to issue hundreds of pardons on day one. Will it
    be your advice to the President, no, Mr. President, I need to
    go over them on a case-by-case basis. Do not issue blanket
    pardons. Will that be your advice to the President?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not looked at any of those
    files. If confirmed, I will look at the files----
        Senator Schiff. And will you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For the pardons----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Be able to do----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. As well as the----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Will you be----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Ongoing investigation.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Able to review hundreds of
    cases on day one?
        Ms. Bondi. I will look at every file I am----
        Senator Schiff. Of course----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Asked to look at.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You won't. So will you advise
    the----
        Ms. Bondi. Can I please----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. President----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Can I answer----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Will you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. The question?
        Senator Schiff. Well, my question is----
        Ms. Bondi. I would have plenty of staff. You said, of
    course you won't?
        Senator Schiff. You--you'll be able to review----
        Ms. Bondi. Listen, I'm not----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Hundreds of cases----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Going to mislead----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. On the first day?
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. This body, nor you.
        Senator Schiff. All right. Let me ask you another question.
    You don't want to answer that. Let me ask----
        Ms. Bondi. You were censured----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You another question.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. By Congress----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. You will also----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Senator, for comments----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. It will also----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Just like this----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. It will also----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That are so reckless.
        Senator Schiff. It will also--it will also be important for
    you to be able to preserve the records, the evidence of the
    Department. Are you ready to commit that none of the evidence
    in the January 6 investigation will be destroyed under your
    watch?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I will follow the law. I will consult
    with ethical officials in the Department.
        Senator Schiff. Do you see any ethical basis to destroy
    evidence in the January 6 investigation? Then why can't you
    answer the question? Why can't you say I commit to this
    Committee we will never destroy the evidence in the January 6
    investigation. Why can't you give this Committee and the
    American people that assurance?
        Ms. Bondi. Are you frightened because evidence was
    destroyed against President Trump that was false? Is that why--
    --
        Senator Schiff. Why do you----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You're frightened now?
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty----
        Ms. Bondi. I can't believe this is even an issue.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty
    answering that question?
        Ms. Bondi. I can't believe----
        Senator Schiff. Why do you have----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. You're asking----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Difficulty----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Such a question.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. Why do you have difficulty
    promising to preserve evidence at the Department of Justice?
    Why is that a difficult question?
        Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law.
        Senator Schiff. It shouldn't be a difficult question.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I
    know that you are pleased that we are moving to the end of
    round one----
        Ms. Bondi. Round one.
        Senator Blackburn [continuing]. And we appreciate your
    being here. And I appreciate that you told my California
    colleagues you were willing to work with them even in light of
    the manner in which they have approached you.
        Now, one thing I think we need to have everybody understand
    that is watching this hearing today and everyone sitting in
    here, what we have witnessed over the last 4 years with a
    weaponized DOJ--my colleagues have talked about this, and the
    American people know this. They know what was carried out
    against President Trump in his administration, and in November,
    they voted to see an end to two tiers of justice, two tiers of
    treatment, two tiers of access because they have absolutely had
    it with the lies, with the accusations, and with the attacks
    that have come against so many people who were just seeking to
    live their lives, and then all of a sudden found the FBI, or
    another Federal agency, or the DOJ knocking at their door. You
    know, Ms. Bondi, it would make you believe that my colleagues
    have learned nothing--nothing--from the elections in November.
    They don't see this as a movie script that someone may have
    liked to write. What they see is this is real life, and they
    want a restoration to equal justice, equal access, equal
    treatment, abiding by the rule of law.
        Many of us have talked today about making America safe
    again, and in Tennessee, I hear a good bit about this. And as
    we've discussed your nomination, one of the things I've
    mentioned to people is your career as a prosecutor, and you
    have touched on that some today, and you are bringing that
    insight of being a prosecutor to bear. And I do appreciate
    that. Now, one thing that I think is noteworthy, and I, in
    preparation for the hearing, I looked some of these numbers up.
    During President Trump's first term, violent crime in this
    country actually fell.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Blackburn. It fell by 17 percent, and in the first
    2 years of the Biden administration, it soared by 43 percent.
    This is crime that is taking place in all of our communities.
    We've seen a rise. Whether it's California or Tennessee, we
    have seen a rise. So I want you to talk to Tennesseans, to
    Californians, to all Americans about what you're going to do to
    get this crime rate down in this country.
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, thank you for that question, and
    despite the questions from Senator Schiff, I look forward to
    working with you and the State of California to do everything
    we can to fight violent crime in California. And you know, as
    well as I, that crime is only going to go through the roof now
    after these forest fires. You're going to have looting. You're
    going to have price gouging. You're going to have so many
    things that I have dealt with in the State of Florida, and I am
    committed to working with California just as much as I'm
    committed to working with you, Senator Kennedy, and the tragedy
    that just took place in Louisiana--given all the human beings
    that were murdered in your State. And we have the Super Bowl
    coming up in less than 3 weeks now, I believe. Senator, I've
    been a little busy, but we've got to ensure, if I'm confirmed,
    that everyone in this country is safe. And I will work with
    you, I will work with you, Senator, I will work with all of you
    in this country for everything that Senator Blackburn said.
        We have got to reduce violent crime, and we have got to
    restore integrity to our law enforcement officers. Donald
    Trump--we keep saying he won this election by 77.3 million
    votes and 312 electoral votes. Look at the map of California,
    Senator Schiff. It's bright red, the popular vote, for a
    reason. People want law and order. They want to be safe so they
    can go to--so they can take their children to school, so they
    can go to church, Senator Hawley. People want safe streets. Of
    course we care about our economy and what's happening in this
    world, but if we're not safe, none of that works.
        We have got to come together. We have got to work together
    to make America safe again, and that, in turn, will make
    America great again. And I don't know where that phrase has
    become a bad word because I think that's a great one--making
    America great again.
        Senator Blackburn. Let me move on with you to something
    else that's about law and order, and that is Section 1507
    because making certain that our Justices are protected is
    important. And we also, with our judges, Section 1507 makes
    illegal any protest outside of a judge's residence if the
    intent is to influence the judge's decision-making. And we have
    heard about the protests outside of Justices' homes where they
    were shouting loud and clear things like--and I'm quoting some
    of that--``If you take away our choices, we will riot,'' end
    quote. Another one, ``No privacy for us, no peace for you,''
    end quote. In other words, if the Justices did not vote to
    uphold Roe and Casey, the protestors would continue to harass
    them. Despite this clear violation of the law, Merrick Garland
    did not bring a single charge--not one single charge under
    Section 1507. Will you commit to faithfully enforcing Section
    1507 as Attorney General?
        Ms. Bondi. I will faithfully enforce that law and all laws
    that I am asked to review. And, Senator, I watched that on TV,
    and it horrified me, the protestors outside their houses. You
    can't do that for a reason, because our Justices have to remain
    safe and unbiased and protected from threats--as do we all, but
    they do enjoy a special protection, and, yes, that should be
    enforced.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Mr.
    Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. We'll now have our second round that I
    announced earlier. We'll each have 4 minutes.
        When we were talking in my office, I brought up the
    importance of your listening to whistleblowers and about 30 or
    35 investigations I've got underway of the executive branch,
    and not just because of a Democrat President--some of them are
    probably carryovers from Republican Presidents. It's very
    important that the executive branch understand the cooperation
    that you must have with us to carry out our responsibilities to
    see that the President faithfully executes the laws. And I
    think that too often, whistleblowers, being patriotic people
    they are, want Government to do what Government's just supposed
    to do, and find something wrong. They want to report it, and
    they want to report it within the agency. They don't come to
    Congress unless they don't get any help in the executive
    branch.
        It seems to me that it's very important that you respect
    whistleblowers. But I've seen them treated like a skunk at a
    picnic by the agency they're in. I've seen them ruin themselves
    professionally. One time, an FBI agent came to me, was escorted
    out of headquarters with his gun and badge taken away from him
    just because the laboratory there was not using science to make
    sure that crime was actually committed. So now we have a new
    $40 million science lab so that people are protected and get
    their constitutional rights.
        So will you protect whistleblowers from retaliation and
    promote a culture--and I think that last thing, promote a
    culture, is more important--that values the important
    contribution of whistleblowers?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, and, Senator, I think, so people fully
    understand the importance of whistleblowers, they have to be
    able to tell the truth and come forward without fear of
    retaliation----
        Chairman Grassley. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And that's the purpose of the
    whistleblower statute.
        Chairman Grassley. And when there's retaliation, the
    taxpayers' money's paying for that retaliation in most cases.
    The Biden Justice Department issued guidance telling
    prosecutors to stop charging mandatory minimums and ignore laws
    setting penalties on drug type. It also allowed folks to pay
    civil and criminal fines to politicize nongovernment
    organizations instead of the Government Treasury. I put
    together a list of their guidance. I find it very concerning
    and unfair to the taxpaying public, and I'd like to have you
    review those policies very soon after you're confirmed.
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. In regard to antitrust, enforcing
    antitrust laws is extremely important to ensure that markets
    are fair and that consumers are protected. I've been active in
    making sure that the Justice Department and the FTC carefully
    scrutinize mergers and that they look out for anticompetitive
    behavior and predatory practices. I keep a close eye on these
    issues as they impact my State of Iowa, and particularly
    agriculture, healthcare, and technology industries. And I'm
    interested in your commitment to make antitrust enforcement a
    priority.
        Ms. Bondi. Antitrust enforcement was a priority when I was
    a State AG, and it will be a priority, if I am confirmed as
    Attorney General, and, again, I am so proud to have Gail Slater
    handling that. She is----
        Chairman Grassley. Do you agree that----
        Ms. Bondi. She is loved by both sides of the aisle.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. Well, my time's up. Go ahead,
    Senator.
        Senator Durbin. Go ahead.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay. The Civil Rights Division in your
    Department, if you're head of it, is supposed to enforce laws
    against race and sex discrimination. But under the Biden
    administration, the Justice Department has arguably promoted
    discrimination and turned a blind eye to racist hiring
    practices. Do you agree that race and sex discrimination by
    employers is illegal, even if the discrimination is called
    diversity or equity?
        Ms. Bondi. No one should be discriminated against.
        Chairman Grassley. Go ahead. I'm done.
        Senator Durbin. You owe me 44 seconds.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. Ms. Bondi, I'd like to say something, and I
    hope you agree with it. Violence is never acceptable when it
    comes to political expression. Period.
        Ms. Bondi. I think I said that initially. Yes, I do agree.
        Senator Durbin. I----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Of course I agree.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. I abhor that sort of thing
    happening when it comes to conservative Supreme Court Justices,
    and I abhor it when it comes to Nancy Pelosi's husband being
    attacked in his home----
        Ms. Bondi. That was horrible.
        Senator Durbin [continuing]. Which we should all say
    unequivocally, both are unacceptable. I think you would agree.
    Correct?
        Ms. Bondi. Horrible.
        Senator Durbin. All right. I guess, as I reflect on what
    you've said today, a couple things surprised me. I did not
    expect you to be as outspoken as you are about Kash Patel. He's
    been characterized as a professional career defense attorney
    and a career prosecutor. That's a pretty amazing achievement in
    his life. But he also has said and done some things which are
    impossible to understand and justify. For example, are you
    familiar with something called the QAnon conspiracy?
        Ms. Bondi. I have--I have heard of it. But I act--I do not
    know what it is. But I have heard of it many times, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. So let me tell you what I've learned about
    it. The core belief is that a cabal of satanic, cannibalistic
    child molesters are embedded within our Government and are
    conspiring against President-elect Trump. They asked Mr. Patel
    about it and he said, quote, ``I agree with a lot that the
    movement says,'' end of quote. Does that sound like a good
    preparation to run the FBI?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't know anything about--I,
    actually, I had heard of QAnon, but I've never heard that
    definition attached to it--at all. You're going to have to ask
    Mr. Patel about those statements.
        Senator Durbin. We will, and I'll tell you, until we get
    answers to those questions, I don't know many people on this
    side of the table who would give him an unequivocal
    endorsement. This, and his enemies list--what he calls his
    ``government gangsters''--this is what you expect of Stasi.
    This is what you expect of secret police. It is not what you
    expect of justice in America as you've even described it at the
    table today. So I would say this unequivocal support of Mr.
    Patel should at least have some reservation until he explains
    some of these outrageous positions he has taken.
        Ms. Bondi. I look forward to hearing his testimony about
    QAnon in front of this Committee.
        Senator Durbin. You will.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Durbin. Let me say another word about January 6 and
    what happened. We lived through it, many of us. We'll never
    forget it. To think that the United States of America's Capitol
    Building was desecrated by an insurrectionist mob that came in
    and did horrible things, particularly to our police force that
    keeps you safe as you sit there and keeps us safe every single
    day. Over a hundred of them were attacked by these
    demonstrators. One, Kenneth Bonawitz, a member of the so-called
    Proud Boys, another alt-right group, assaulted at least six
    officers, placed one in a chokehold, and lifted him up in the
    neck. Bonawitz injured one officer so severely, he had to
    retire. Kyle Fitzsimons, convicted for five separate assaults
    against law enforcement, including one that caused a career-
    ending and life-altering injury to the U.S. Capitol Police
    Sergeant Aquilino Gonell. Can you understand why when Donald
    Trump says, the day I am inaugurated as President, I will issue
    a blanket pardon to these, quote, ``political prisoners,'' we
    view this with an outrage on our side? These men and women risk
    their lives for us every day, and they almost died. Some of
    them did die in the course of this attack. Why aren't we
    treating them as such, and why do you have to reserve judgment?
    Vice President Vance didn't. When he was asked this week, he
    said the pardons should not be extended to those who were
    guilty of violence against policemen.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes--and, Senator, I do not agree with violence
    against anyone, but especially police officers. And every time
    I've been walking through these halls meeting with all of you,
    I--the men and women of the Capitol Police Department are
    incredible. They do a great job. They deserve to be safe, and I
    do not agree with violence against any police officer.
        Senator Durbin. I would hope----
        Ms. Bondi. I never have, Senator.
        Senator Durbin. You weren't able to answer my question
    affirmatively earlier, but I would hope that if this moves
    forward in a positive way on your nomination, you will speak up
    at some point on behalf of these police officers who are
    keeping you safe today and your family safe. I yield.
        Chairman Grassley. Before Senator Graham, I want to enter
    into the record, without objection from the Members of this
    Committee, letters from law enforcement groups who support Ms.
    Bondi's nomination. These groups include the Fraternal Order of
    Police, the National Sheriff's Association, the National
    Association of Police Organizations. They praise her, quote,
    ``support for law enforcement, crime prevention, and public
    safety,'' end of quote.
        Without objection, so ordered.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Graham.
        Senator Graham. Thank you. Well, I've been gone for a
    while, so they're asking you about Kash Patel. It must be going
    pretty well.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bondi. You didn't miss anything, Senator.
        Senator Graham. That's just an observation. So, anyway,
    thanks to my colleagues on the Democratic side. It's been a
    good hearing--and, a couple things. Pardons. If somebody
    applies for a pardon, you'll give the President legal advice as
    to whether or not he should grant it. Is that the way the
    system works?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Graham. Okay. So rather than prejudging what you
    would do, you would look at the application and give him your
    best advice, and you don't like people who beat up cops.
        Ms. Bondi. Correct. I hope no one does.
        Senator Graham. Yes. Okay, fair enough. So let's just get
    back to the process.
        Ms. Bondi. I'm not going to speak for the President----
        Senator Graham. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. But the President does not like
    people that abuse police officers, either.
        Senator Graham. Yes, well, the hope is that through this
    pardon process, you'll make a rational decision based on the
    applicant rather than deciding the outcome in a Senate hearing.
    That's all I'm asking. That's what I would want. If I, you
    know, I represented somebody, I'd want, at least, to be heard.
    Now, Section 230, are you familiar with it?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Graham. One thing that unites this Committee is
    protecting children and society at large from social media
    abuse.
        Ms. Bondi. Mm-hmm.
        Senator Graham. We passed online privacy legislation.
    Senator Durbin's been great to work with. Everybody--
    Klobuchar--we're all trying to find out how to empower people
    who may be victims of social media. What do you--to empower a
    parent whose child's been bullied, when you call the social
    media platform and they blow you off, you go to court and they
    kick you out of court because of Section 230. Sexual
    exploitation of children on the internet, we've heard stories
    that make us--just break our hearts. We're united in trying to
    give people a say. If they take your content down, you're
    appealing to the people who made the decision to take your
    content down. So what I want to do, along with Senator Hawley,
    everybody, is repeal Section 230 or replace it with a system
    that empowers consumers who may have been hurt. Do you agree
    with that?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I would love to look at that with you.
    I'm not familiar with what you want to do on the issue. I've
    talked to Senator Klobuchar. I think Senator Durbin and I may
    have even discussed it. But I'm committed to looking at that
    with you. There are so many issues online that--that's one of
    the things--we have to find things that can bring us together
    now, and this has to be one of them----
        Senator Graham. Well, just----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Protecting our children.
        Senator Graham. Here's what FBI Director said, Wray,
    whether you agree with him or not, I agree with this: ``I see
    blinking lights everywhere I turn regarding the national
    security threats.'' Does that make sense to you?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I was looking at that, the date of
    that. That was a year ago. Yes, Senator. I also heard about--I
    haven't seen it yet--his ``60 Minutes'' interview that was very
    troubling to me----
        Senator Graham. Yes. so----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. For our country.
        Senator Graham. Right.
        [Poster is displayed.]
        Senator Graham. We know we found eight guys from Tajikistan
    that were released--caught again because they were tied to
    ISIS. So the point I'm trying to make is January 20th--we own
    this. I just urge you, to the extent you can, to urge the
    President to secure that border. We need money. The idea of
    moving money around from Defense is not going to cut it. We
    need a lot of money for bed space to finish the wall, do
    technology, hire ICE agents to accelerate deportation of people
    who are criminals and gang members. We don't have time to
    waste. I hope you'll make that an urgency because the threat is
    real. Are you worried about an attack on our Homeland being
    generated from ISIS or their affiliates, and what should we do
    about it?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I don't have a security clearance yet,
    but only from the public reporting that I've seen, I'm
    terrified.
        Senator Graham. [Responds with a thumbs-up gesture.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Whitehouse.
        Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Chairman. I'm going to try
    to fit in two questions in my 4 minutes. Lindsey, stick around
    because I'm going to say something nice about you.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Whitehouse. First, yes to 230. We've got to really
    work on that. There's a lot of support for fixing 230--in fact,
    outright repealing 230 in this Committee. First question.
    Presumably your commitment to fairly enforcing the law based on
    facts and evidence would also apply to environmental cases.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Whitehouse. I'm concerned because, you know, under
    Trump, criminal prosecutions for pollution dropped sharply in
    his first term, and you will be running an Environment Natural
    Resources Division that has things like, for instance, a
    Methane Task Force that big polluters who spent big money to
    get President Trump reelected don't like. And they're going to
    be coming to you to say, hey, we don't want a whole lot of
    enforcement on this. Methane leaks, carbon dioxide leaks, it's
    a pollutant polluting our water, polluting our air--will you be
    strong when that happens?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I--if you haven't learned yet, I'm
    pretty strong, and I'm pretty independent. And I will--I think
    you and I spoke about this in your office----
        Senator Whitehouse. We did.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. A bit----
        Senator Whitehouse. We did.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I don't know a lot about that
    issue, but I am committed to meeting with the E&RD Division and
    talking to you about it. I wish I knew more about the issue you
    faced, but I don't. But I'm committed to absolutely looking at
    it and doing what I can to help you----
        Senator Whitehouse. Great.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. In your State.
        Senator Whitehouse. I don't want environmental prosecutions
    to be an ignored stepchild subset. It's law just like any other
    law. The second question that I'd like to get to goes back to
    Chairman Grassley's opening comments that it's going to be
    really important for the Department of Justice under your
    leadership to answer questions from Senators, both Republican
    and Democrat, and to give us real answers. Sometimes the best
    oversight comes from the other party, and, indeed, sometimes
    the best oversight comes from one Senator who sticks to one
    issue and persists at it without necessarily support from the
    rest of the Committee. And that oversight has been really
    consequential in the past and it's really important. So
    Chairman Grassley has been very good about trying to enforce
    that rule, and I want to tell you just a quick story about
    something that went the wrong way, I believe.
        Crossfire Hurricane was mentioned by Senator Graham. There
    was a Committee investigation into Crossfire Hurricane. During
    that Crossfire Hurricane investigation, boxloads of material
    was provided by the Department and the Bureau to Senate
    Republicans. They got files. They got investigative reports.
    They got internal memos. They got stuff that would not be FOIA-
    able. They really were able to do a deep dive because they got
    everything they asked for, even stuff that the FBI would
    ordinarily not produce. That was happening on that side of the
    aisle. For me, I had questions about Justice Kavanaugh's
    supplemental background investigation. And I asked for things
    like, what is the Department of Justice policy for how tip
    lines work? That's a FOIA-able question. I didn't get a single
    piece of paper. I asked for things like, what are the ground
    rules for investigations of supplemental background
    investigations? I didn't get a single piece of paper. Senator
    Graham called the Deputy Attorney General up into his office to
    say, will you guys please knock it off and give this guy some
    information?
        So, you know, I have lived the example of if you're a
    Republican on this Committee in a Republican administration,
    you get everything you ask for and more, and if you're a
    Democrat, you get zero. That was not a great moment for me and
    not a great moment for the Department. And so I will take the
    Chairman at his word that he wants the Department to be
    responsive to requests from all of us, and I would ask you,
    will you be responsive to all of us, irrespective of our party
    affiliation, if we are asking legitimate questions that you
    have the power to answer?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I think I've said that from the
    beginning. Yes, especially on Freedom of Information Act. I
    will follow the laws that apply to the Freedom of Information
    Act. I believe in that. I actually dealt with the public
    records when I was a State prosecutor. It's been so long ago,
    I'd forgotten about that.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi. So I handled all the public records.
        Senator Whitehouse. Yes. One just sort of point of order
    here, the Freedom of Information Act process is one thing.
    Anybody can get information----
        Ms. Bondi. Right.
        Senator Whitehouse [continuing]. Under the Freedom of
    Information act process. As Senators, we should be able to do
    better than that. When we're doing worse than that, that's a
    sign that somebody's hiding something. When we're doing better
    than that, that's a good thing for congressional oversight.
    Thank you, Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Senator Tillis.
        Ms. Bondi. Can we take a minute off Senator Schiff since--
    I'm joking--since he took an extra minute?
        Chairman Grassley. Yes, you can.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bondi. I'm joking.
        Chairman Grassley. You wanted to say something to Senator
    Schiff?
        Ms. Bondi. No, sir. I ask if we could take a minute off
    Senator Schiff's since Senator Whitehouse----
        Senator Whitehouse. I went over by a minute.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Took an extra minute. I was
    teasing.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Tillis.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, I
    wanted to come back, and I'm glad I did because I got another
    mark on my Bingo card. QAnon came up.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. It's a little-known fact, but the so-
    called--I think I heard someone say that that's an
    organization--a cabal that has cannibalistic tendencies. I
    don't know if you all know this. It's a well-documented fact
    that the so-called QAnon shaman is a vegetarian who actually
    had to be transferred to another prison to satisfy his dietary
    needs after being sentenced to 41 months in prison. So I don't
    know if all the QAnon people are cannibals, that's a little bit
    absurd. I just wanted to add a little levity here and let you
    all know I'm one mark away from hitting Bingo.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Tillis. But, you know, it's important to talk about
    this, folks, because this is the part I don't like about the
    big Committee. I love Intellectual Property Subcommittee
    because we don't get into this theater. But it's just absurd to
    think that--and it was mentioned in reference to a comment that
    Kash Patel made, who I spoke with earlier today. You know, it's
    just absurd to kind of throw that stuff out there. Does anybody
    honestly believe someone with a distinguished career like Kash
    Patel thinks that a cannibalistic cabal controlling the
    internals of Government really exists? Let me give you an
    example why I resist that notion.
        I resist the notion that most of the Members here, who all
    raised tens of millions of dollars through ActBlue, that has a
    subpage that--only until Senator Butler finally told them to
    take it down after I spent a year ranting about it. On their
    ActBlue--a subpage on ActBlue had the ``All Cops are Bastards''
    subpage and fundraising drive. I came to this Committee for a
    year and tried to encourage my Members to say this is absurd.
    So would it be fair for me to say that President Biden is
    embracing an organization that thinks all cops are bastards,
    and you should have a fundraising run for 13.12 miles, and
    protest outside of police departments, and put pressure on
    them?
        Saying that President Trump or you or anybody else are
    somehow--or Kash Patel have an allegiance, it's so absurd. To
    think in a big hearing like this, we actually just talked
    about--that we--that we actually think someone of the stature
    and the experience that would come before this Committee would
    actually think a bunch of people-eating cabals controlling the
    innards of Government was real. That's just being--I get the
    theatrics. I get the marketing department, thought it'd be
    really cool if it was said, but, guys, that's not us at our
    best. And I just thought it was kind of funny that he's a
    vegetarian, too.
        But I want to go back to--this is a narrative that people
    are going to force, and I'm going to trust you to do what you
    do as a prosecutor. Like you said earlier, you're going to
    examine the facts of a case. You're going to give the President
    your best advice. If you--I cannot believe if there is
    compelling evidence that you as a prosecutor know that this
    person breached the Capitol and injured a police officer, that
    the President would even ask you to consider it, and I
    certainly can't imagine you recommending that they move
    forward. It's a hypothetical. I don't want you to respond to
    it, but your track record as a prosecutor would suggest
    otherwise.
        Last question. You mentioned that when you were dealing
    with some of the opioid challenge--I think it was opiates,
    OxyContin, I believe you mentioned--that you went up against
    your own party or you got some pushback from your own party.
    Would you explain how you have looked at your party and done
    the courageous thing of speaking truth to them?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, I remember when that started. Several of my
    former colleagues are behind me. They're probably smiling. But
    I remember when that started, I said, oh, I'll never get
    elected to a second term because, yes, I fought for what I
    believed in based on meeting these victims' families and seeing
    the need, and I fought--I fought the industry.
        Whew, that was----
        Senator Tillis. And you were in an elected position.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. That was a big industry and the
    doctors----
        Senator Tillis [continuing]. You were in an elected
    position with a lot of people, with a target on you, and you
    stood firm. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. More than once, Senator. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Coons.
        Senator Coons. Thank you, Chairman Grassley. Attorney
    General Bondi, in our previous conversation, we talked about
    criminal justice reform and, in particular, your contribution
    to the enactment of the First Step Act in the previous Trump
    administration. And I just want to talk with you about a couple
    of bipartisan initiatives in this area.
        Senators Cornyn, Lee, Durbin, Tillis, Booker, and I have
    introduced a bipartisan bill called the Safer Supervision Act.
    It focuses on the fact that Federal probation officers have a
    massive caseload, often more than a hundred folks they are
    supposed to be closely supervising. And this bill would work on
    focusing supervised release resources on those who really need
    it and creating positive incentives for those who are willing
    and able to be rehabilitated and leave prison much less likely
    to reoffend. What's your experience about the need to support
    people when they get out of prison and to provide them with
    positive incentives rather than just leaving them to their own
    free will and the very high likelihood they may reoffend and
    thus violate public safety concerns?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, and, Senator Coons, that's why--reentry we
    call it, halfway houses, it's what you need, Senator Welch--are
    so important. Because people--people, many people deserve to go
    to prison. But many people are going to get out of prison----
        Senator Coons. Almost all.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And we don't want a revolving door.
    We want to do everything we can to make productive members of
    society. And when someone goes to prison, I mean, I saw this
    every day. You saw this as a revolving door. People get out.
    And--first of all, I'll back up. We need drug programs. I could
    go on. We need drug programs--more drug programs in our
    prisons. We have to. Mental health, we would be here for
    another 2 days. We have to get more mental health in our prison
    system, counseling to help people. I think our local jails
    actually do a better job of it, at least in Florida. But we've
    got to work on that because when people get out, we expect them
    to do well. Many people don't even know how to go get a
    driver's license, yet we're telling you, go get a job, have a
    place to live.
        Senator Coons. So, if I could----
        Ms. Bondi. So we have to do everything we can to help.
        Senator Coons [continuing]. If I could move to the driver's
    license question.
        Ms. Bondi. Sure.
        Senator Coons. I've also led a bipartisan bill with Senator
    Wicker, Senator Grassley is also a Co-Sponsor. It's called the
    Driving for Opportunity Act, and it recognizes that in many
    States, there is a practice of suspending driver's licenses
    where someone is too poor to pay their court-related or public-
    safety-related fines and fees but where the driver's license
    isn't suspended because they're dangerously driving. It's just
    because they haven't paid their fines and fees. And then
    without a driver's license, they lose their job or they're not
    able to get a job. Would you be willing to work with this
    bipartisan group of us on these two bills, Driving for
    Opportunity and the Safer Supervision Act?
        Ms. Bondi. I would love to read both of them, and I was
    unaware of that happening with driver's license.
        Senator Coons. Last two questions. Clemency. As we
    discussed, often near the end of an administration, there's a
    rush to consider pardons. Would you be willing to work at a
    more institutionalized clemency process where there aren't just
    lots of commutations near the end of a term, but where there's
    a regular process where the DOJ and the clemency process is
    looked at to see whether there are reforms that should be made
    and recommendations that could be made to the President
    throughout his term?
        Ms. Bondi. I would love to look at that process. I can tell
    you that the pardons, the commutations that Joe Biden just made
    were abhorrent to me--absolutely abhorrent, taking people off
    death row. I looked at the facts of many of those cases, and
    they were so troubling to me. I would--I don't know what
    process you intend to implement, but I would love to study that
    with you.
        Senator Coons. Well, we talked positively about your
    experience and mine with drug courts, veterans courts, mental
    health courts. There are some things we will continue to
    disagree about and other things I hope we can work on together.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Lee.
        Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Bondi, as you're
    aware, criminal justice reform has been an important part of my
    role on this Committee. I worked for the better part of a
    decade with Senator Durbin, Chairman Grassley, Senator
    Whitehouse, Senator Cornyn, Senator Booker, and a bunch of
    others to eventually pass the First Step Act, which President
    Trump signed into law in December 2018. The First Step Act, as
    the name implies, was intended to be the first of multiple
    steps. Much remains to be done, including with the
    implementation of the First Step Act. The credits available
    under the First Step Act are still being implemented and need
    more. I assume you'd be willing, if confirmed, to help us
    continue to implement the First Step Act.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes. Yes, Senator. And also, I just learned,
    it's my understanding--I don't know for a fact--but it's my
    understanding that a lot of those beds for halfway houses, for
    reentry have not been filled under the First Step Act. So if
    that's true, I want to look at that right away and figure out
    why.
        Senator Lee. Right, and I think other reforms, like the
    Safer Supervision Act, of which I'm a Co-Sponsor, can also be
    helpful on that front. It's always important to make sure that
    we're running--although ours is not the largest criminal law
    enforcement institution in the country, meaning the States
    themselves have far more criminal cases, far more prisoners
    under their jurisdiction, collectively, than the United States
    Government does, and nonetheless, it is a significant presence.
    And States often look to the Federal Government, sometimes for
    good, other times for ill, on leadership as to where they
    should take their own criminal justice system. And so it's
    important that we get this right, and especially given that
    we've been wrong at times in the past.
        I also think it's important to address the topic of
    overcriminalization. A few years ago, a few of us on this
    Committee decided that we wanted to find out how many Federal
    crimes are on the books. We reached out to the Congressional
    Research Service, the CRS, whose job it is to answer such
    questions like this when Members have these questions. The
    answer that came back was stunning. The answer that came back
    was to the effect that the answer is unknown and unknowable--
    but at least 300,000. A lot of the reason for this is that
    there are a lot of instances in which Federal regulations
    impose criminal penalties, impose criminal penalties, often
    without Congress independently enacting anything, just using
    some sort of delegated lawmaking authority from Congress, which
    ought not be okay. Incorporating elements of a criminal offense
    into a criminal regulation, which, you know, we add to the Code
    of Federal Regulations, at a clip of around 100,000 pages a
    year, give or take, depending on which parts of the Federal
    Register that you add to the CFR at the end of each year, seems
    highly problematic to me for multiple reasons.
        Reason number one, of course, are that Article I, Sec. 1
    and 7, make clear that you cannot make a Federal law or change
    a Federal law without Congress, without both Houses of Congress
    passing the same text, submitting it to the President. Reason
    number two, oftentimes when this happens, you end up with an
    either absent or hugely ambiguous mens rea--meaning the
    standard of intent with which one must have acted in order to
    commit the criminal offense in question is often absent or at
    least so murky that nobody can tell what it means. Both of
    these things, of course, lead to huge problems for defendants
    and for the liberty interests of the American people. So I'd
    ask that you, if confirmed, help work with us on these things
    and share any thoughts you might have on them.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and I wasn't aware of the mens rea
    issue. Yes.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you very much, Mr.
    Chairman, and thank you for mentioning antitrust. I am really
    proud of the work you and I have done together, as well as
    Senator Lee and I. And I know we discussed with you, Ms. Bondi,
    the work on allowing State AGs a bill that Senator Lee led, and
    I was the Democratic lead, on letting State AGs keep the
    antitrust cases involving tech in their States. And Senator
    Grassley and I successfully passed our bill to finally update
    the merger fees, which have allowed larger mergers have to pay
    in more, smaller mergers less, and that has led, along with
    other reasons, to beef up the Antitrust Division of Antitrust
    during the last few years. And I want to make sure that you are
    committed to continuing a strong Antitrust Division with
    adequate personnel.
        Ms. Bondi. And, if I am confirmed, I intend on bringing in
    Gail Slater. She is amazing and I think bipartisan support for
    her, and did a lot of antitrust. Well, I had someone who knew
    antitrust much better than I when I was State Attorney General,
    and it's very important--very important.
        Senator Klobuchar. How about the resources for the
    Division? It has been, under this administration--the current
    outgoing one, they have added lawyers and others to it, and I--
    what my question was, is if you'll continue that.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, I was actually looking at the structure of
    that unit, and if I am confirmed--I've been a little busy--I
    plan on working with Gail Slater----
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And all the lawyers in that unit.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. And then, just--you and I
    discussed some of the important cases--the Google case, Live
    Nation-Ticketmaster, the Apple case--I don't know if we talked
    about that one--but RealPage, and will you commit to continue
    these cases and to pursue remedies that will fully protect
    consumers from anticompetitive conduct? I'm not asking what the
    result will be. I can imagine you couldn't answer that. But I'm
    just asking that, under--if you are confirmed, that you will
    continue the work on these cases.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. I haven't looked at those on a
    case-by-case basis, but I am committed to that type of case and
    protecting consumers----
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I will look at that, and have
    that unit look at that right away.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. At its founding in 1870, the
    Justice Department's priority was to enforce civil rights.
    That's what was founded, the reason guaranteed by the
    Thirteenth, Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments during
    Reconstruction. Today, civil rights enforcement is led by the
    Civil Rights Division. Do you believe it is a critical mission
    of the Justice Department to vigorously enforce our Nation's
    civil rights laws?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. Voting rights. Will you
    commit to properly enforcing Federal laws that protect the
    right to vote that are critical to ensuring free and fair
    elections, like the Voting Rights Act?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. The--we're back to the FBI
    nominee--again, I express my deep concern, Kash Patel. He has
    vowed to retaliate against the President-elect's enemies,
    quote, ``not just in the government, but in the media,'' end
    quote. As we know, the President-elect has already sued a
    pollster in Iowa, whose predictions turned out to be wrong,
    which happens with pollsters all over the place, as we all
    know, but a free press is essential to our democracy. Reporters
    must be able to do their job without fear of being investigated
    or prosecuted. Will you commit that the Justice Department,
    under your leadership, if confirmed, will respect the
    importance of a free press?
        Ms. Bondi. Absolutely.
        Senator Klobuchar. And if the President or the--depends on
    who the FBI Director is, I have some strong views on that--
    tries to push to go after the media, how would you respond to
    that?
        Ms. Bondi. I have not--clearly, he's made some statements,
    but I haven't talked to Mr. Patel about those statements. But
    going after the media just because they're the media is wrong,
    of course.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Kennedy.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, I admire
    your spunk.
        Ms. Bondi. Coming from you, Senator, that is a huge
    compliment.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. Well, you know, I learned the hard way up
    here--you may know it already--but up here, if you turn the
    other cheek, you just get it in the neck. You're friends with
    President Trump, are you?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and I spoke to him this morning.
        Senator Kennedy. You're not enemies?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator. I don't think I'd be sitting here
    if I was an enemy. He'd be crazy to have me sitting here if I
    was an enemy.
        Senator Kennedy. So you're friends.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. I find otherworldly this suggestion by
    some of my colleagues that that somehow disqualifies you. Have
    you ever--have you ever seen a President of the United States
    appoint his enemies to his Cabinet?
        Ms. Bondi. Exactly, Senator. I think many Presidents,
    including President Obama, were friends with his Attorney
    General throughout the years.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. I want to also ask you about one of
    the suggestions of my colleagues. I wrote it down. He said he
    was concerned that, quote, ``You would start with a name to
    prosecute and then look for a crime,'' unquote. It made me
    immediately think of District Attorney Bragg in New York, who
    actually in 2019, ran a campaign, in large part, suggesting
    that if you elect me, I'll prosecute Donald Trump.
        Ms. Bondi. I believe there were others, as well, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Right. How long were you a prosecutor?
        Ms. Bondi. Eighteen years.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Is there anything in your background
    to suggest that my colleagues' suggestion that you would start
    with a name and then look for a crime? Is there anything in
    your background that would give him basis to say that?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Okay. Have you ever done that?
        Ms. Bondi. No, Senator, and I think I have a lot of former
    colleagues sitting behind me who would back me up on that, as
    well.
        Senator Kennedy. Do you plan to do that as Attorney
    General?
        Ms. Bondi. Of course not, Senator. I hope no Attorney
    General, going forward, would ever do that.
        Senator Kennedy. Well, I thank you for your time today. One
    need not be clairvoyant to see that you're going to be
    confirmed, and you talked a lot about bringing us together
    today. I'll make this suggestion. Senator Durbin talked about
    it. You can bring us together if you would just answer
    Grassley's letters.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Kennedy. That will be a really good start because
    you'll never hear the end of it--nor should you. The man is--
    he's like a dog on a bone.
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Senator Kennedy.
        [Voice heard off microphone.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Welch.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much. Thank you, Ms. Bondi.
    Three things. One, I do have some concern that whoever is the
    Attorney General, you or anyone, is going to be, presumably,
    will be under a significant amount of pressure at some point
    from the President. Attorney General Barr was. Attorney General
    Sessions was. And you've made it very clear your client is the
    Constitution. I think that's very reassuring to us, but the
    President does have now a Supreme Court-provided immunity. And
    I just want to express to you my concern, and it really does
    align with what Senator Schiff said. You have what I regard as
    a very bad decision by the Supreme Court. The President should
    not be above the law. Never has been. And my concern, on the
    basis of statements that President-elect Trump has made, is
    that he does identify people as political enemies--including
    Senator Schiff--and there may come a day where there is
    pressure on you. And I'm just going to express my hope that
    that, the independence that you've had throughout your career
    when it comes to the Constitution or pressure from a higher
    official, that you're going to choose the Constitution. So you
    don't even have to answer that, but it's a concern I share, I
    think, not just with colleagues here, but with many Americans.
        My colleagues have made the case about weaponization in
    this administration, we can have a debate about that. But
    there's been a universal statement here that we want the rule
    of law to be the basis of going forward, so thank you for
    allowing me to say that.
        Second, I'm really interested in your focus on how do we
    cut down on recidivism. I was a public defender, that's how I
    got started as a prosecutor in Vermont. Prosecutors and
    defenders were good friends. We each had a job to do. But my
    experience with my clients--and I'm excepting folks who they're
    really dangerous, you've got to lock them up, you've got to
    throw away the key. But the vast majority of people had a
    substance abuse problem, oftentimes had very limited education,
    oftentimes faced these incredible dilemmas that Senator Coons
    was talking about where they get fines and they get their
    license suspended, so the job they had, now they lose. So can
    you just elaborate a bit on what you want to do to inject some
    energy into dealing with cutting down on recidivism?
        Ms. Bondi. Well, first--we can address it at the Bureau of
    Prisons level, of course, what we talked about, those are for
    the people who will be locked up in prison, serving sentences
    to make sure they get the resources that they need, upon
    release--98 percent of the people in the Bureau of Prisons will
    be released. I believe it's a mess right now--a mess. And when
    you look at an organizational chart of the office, assuming I
    may get confirmed, I was looking at all the slots, and my eyes
    went down to the bottom to Bureau of Prisons because of my
    career experience as a prosecutor and caring about what happens
    there for the very reasons you said--we need more drug courts,
    and you were talking about drug addicts, as well.
        Senator Welch. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Bondi. It's more than that, and we both know that it's
    also people who are dual diagnosed----
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Meaning you have a drug addiction
    but also mental health issues, and that's--Senator, that's
    something----
        Senator Welch. Well, I'd like to----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. I can't wrap my head----
        Senator Welch [continuing]. I would like to----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Around yet.
        Senator Welch [continuing]. I'd like to work with you on
    that. And then the third thing is that I mentioned this
    earlier. The consumer issues, the False Claims Act efforts that
    you can bring, the challenge to rip-offs in the civil sphere
    where companies are doing things that are just crushing our
    consumers and charging rip-offs--and overcharging. That is
    very, very important, and I hope that there will be as much
    emphasis on protecting consumers as there will be on protecting
    public safety, which obviously is a high priority for you and
    for the Department.
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Welch. Okay. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Welch. I yield back.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you. Mr. Chairman. I think you're
    doing incredible today. I'm not surprised. Mom, how are you
    doing? Good?
        Ms. Bondi. I told her not to react, no matter what.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Schmitt. That's probably harder for her than it is
    for you. Well, listen, I--we've talked about this over the
    years. So for me, I didn't know--I didn't know any lawyers
    growing up. I'm trying to think when I actually met a lawyer in
    my life. I grew up in a really blue collar neighborhood, but I
    was attracted to the law because I felt like it gave guardrails
    for people to pursue their dreams. Right? That you would be on
    equal footing. And I think that your fights for the little
    guy--I referenced this in the opening statements--are
    admirable. And you know, you got some questions earlier about
    are you willing to stand up against corporate interests, or are
    you willing to fight back. I mean, I think you've demonstrated
    that. Right?
        Ms. Bondi. I think we did it together when we were
    Attorneys General, as well.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. Your client is the people, and it's
    your job to fight for them, because in these jobs--especially
    even a local prosecutor, I think is even--is an even more
    appropriate scenario. There's only one local--there's only one
    prosecutor in that county. So it's interesting when we have
    these discussions about some of these prosecutors across the
    country, and Senator Hawley and I know there's been a couple in
    Missouri and they're all around, when they decide not to charge
    violent criminals, there's nobody else who can do that. There's
    nobody else that can do that. One of the things that, when I
    was Attorney General, we were able to do when President Trump
    was in office--sadly, the Biden administration dropped this
    effort--was we had Assistant AGs deputized as assistant U.S.
    attorneys to help fight violent crime to add capacity. And,
    when, you know, there was a surge to take on some of the most
    violent criminals on the streets, we were there to help.
        Those are the kind of partnerships I'm guessing that you'll
    look toward, right, to get back to the core mission of taking
    on violent crime and fighting for the little guy. So I wanted
    to give you a little bit of an opportunity to talk about that.
    And also, sort of, what's your vision--you're answering a lot
    of questions. What's your vision for the Department? I mean,
    what do--how do you see your role? How do you want to go do
    that? I think you're incredibly qualified to do it, but just in
    your own words, what are the things that you're going to focus
    on?
        Ms. Bondi. You know, Senator, it's a--it's truly
    overwhelming when you look at the volume of that Department,
    the Department of Justice. It is the largest law firm in the
    world and manages the largest law enforcement agencies, and
    that's why, first and foremost, what I did when I was Attorney
    General, you surround yourself with great people, and that
    includes Gail Slater, that includes my chief of staff, if I am
    confirmed, my Deputy, and so on and so on, and work from there,
    but look at each and every department. And I don't know if one
    department is more important than the other, but I will work
    very hard every day.
        And as Senator Welch had said, it's not only fighting
    crime. I think that's just first and foremost on Americans'
    minds right now, but that's why there is an entire huge Civil
    Division that falls under the Department of Justice to protect
    consumers, to do the antitrust cases, to do all the Medicare
    cases, to do all of the other cases, so it's multifaceted. But
    first and foremost, of course, to keep America safe and restore
    integrity to that Department. I don't think I can stress enough
    that 72 percent of Americans have lost faith in the Department
    of Justice.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes, and I think that the belief that the
    American people need to have, again, is that people are going
    to be treated the same. As you said earlier, there's only one
    tier. There's not two tiers of justice, and I think that's--
    when you really dig down to some of the comments you've heard
    and questions, at least on this side, that's the big concern. I
    don't want it tilted in anybody's direction. You just want it
    to be fair, and you want, certainly, the top law enforcement
    official in the country to view it that way. I think you do,
    and I think your history, your qualifications, your demeanor,
    your character warrant a bipartisan vote. I hope you get it. I
    really do. You deserve it.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blumenthal.
        Senator Blumenthal. Thanks, Mr. Chairman. Again, thank you,
    Ms. Bondi, for answering our questions.
        I want to come back to TikTok, and we ran out of time when
    I was asking you before about the importance of the law that
    was passed overwhelmingly bipartisan majority here in the
    United States Congress. As you know, last year a Chinese
    hacking group--it was called Salt Typhoon--broke into several
    American phone companies, reportedly used that access to spy on
    the White House, the FBI, other sensitive Government targets.
    The threat of Chinese communist espionage goes beyond just
    watching. It also involved potentially shutting down our grids,
    other critical infrastructure parts. I assume you agree with me
    that Chinese cyberwarfare, espionage, malign influence is an
    existential threat to America.
        Ms. Bondi. It is an existential threat, Senator, and also,
    I have not seen it yet, but from what I've heard about former
    FBI Director Wray's comments on ``60 Minutes'' regarding China
    sleeper cells within our own country, infiltrating our water
    systems, our natural gas lines, telecommunications--a very,
    very real threat to our country.
        Senator Blumenthal. I'm glad that we agree, and as you
    know, and as the Department of Justice has noted, it's not
    classified, so we can talk about it openly--the ByteDance is
    beholden to the demands of the Chinese government. It is
    controlled by the Chinese Government, and it, in turn, controls
    TikTok. Do you agree that ByteDance's control, ownership,
    exploitation of TikTok is a threat to American national
    security?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, this is pending litigation within the
    Department of Justice----
        Senator Blumenthal. Let me put it a different way.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I can't talk about that at all.
        Senator Blumenthal. It's not pending litigation within the
    Department of Justice. It's in the courts.
        Ms. Bondi. In the courts.
        Senator Blumenthal. And the Department of Justice is
    currently defending----
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. The constitutionality of
    American law.
        Ms. Bondi. Pending.
        Senator Blumenthal. Will you continue to defend the law
    passed by the Congress defending America's national security?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I--I cannot--it would be irresponsible
    for me to talk about anything, and it is pending litigation.
        Senator Blumenthal. Well, you know----
        Ms. Bondi. We can talk semantics all day long.
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I was an Attorney General,
    and very often----
        Ms. Bondi. I'm not trying to hedge on anything, Senator.
        Senator Blumenthal. Oh, I'm--I'm----
        Ms. Bondi. I just can't comment----
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. I'm having a problem----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. On any----
        Senator Blumenthal [continuing]. With the idea that you
    won't tell me that the Department of Justice will continue to
    defend against constitutional attacks, the law of the United
    States. When I was Attorney General of the State of
    Connecticut, I would say I have an obligation to defend the law
    of Connecticut against any attacks. You have an obligation, or
    you did, as Attorney General of Florida, to go to court when
    those laws were attacked. You have an obligation as United
    States Attorney General to do what this Attorney General is
    doing. Whether you agree with it or not, and, frankly, whatever
    the President thinks about that law, you have an obligation to
    defend it. This is an easy question for you. Will you defend
    laws of the United States of America against constitutional
    attacks? I'm asking you in general.
        Ms. Bondi. In general, yes.
        Senator Blumenthal. And with respect to the law that would
    require divestiture of TikTok, which is a law passed by this
    body and supported by, I think, a majority of Members on both
    sides of the aisle, why can't you tell us that you will defend
    it?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm not hedging. This is all pending
    litigation, and I just can't talk about pending litigation, if
    confirmed as Attorney General.
        Senator Blumenthal. I have to tell you, with all due
    respect, that answer is unacceptable to me. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I go to Senator Britt, I'd like
    to enter a letter into the record from former Department of
    Justice employees in support Ms. Bondi's nomination. This
    bipartisan group of attorneys includes several former AGs,
    Assistant Attorneys General, U.S. attorneys to share, quote,
    ``strong and enthusiastic support,'' unquote, for Ms. Bondi and
    attest to her, quote, ``integrity--her integrity and devotion
    to the rule of law,'' end of quote.
        Without objection, I would enter these into the record.
    Hearing none, so ordered.
        [The information appears as submissions for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Britt.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Several of my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle have insinuated that
    your friendship with Donald Trump is a problem. My colleagues
    on my side of the aisle have leaned into this kind of exposing
    the hypocrisy, given what we have seen before from previous
    administrations, and I would just like to read something to you
    from 1961. ``Washington, January 13. The Senate Judiciary
    Committee approved without objection today President-elect John
    F. Kennedy's selection of his brother Robert as Attorney
    General. The vote came after a two-hour hearing''--would you
    like a two-hour hearing, by the way?
        Ms. Bondi. Can we redo this?
        Senator Britt. Yes, that's right. ``The vote came after a
    two-hour hearing devoted in large part to praise of Mr.
    Kennedy. Forecasts that there would be severely critical
    questioning, especially from'' Republicans, ``proved incorrect.
    All fourteen committee members present voted to approve the
    nomination when it is formally made.'' The New York Times. As
    it said, blood is thicker than water--meaning family bonds are
    stronger than any other relationship. I just think that that
    needs to be before the American people once again, and I
    appreciate you continuing to reiterate that you will serve the
    people of this great country and that you will follow the law.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Britt. I'd like to move to something that has
    become another theme of this hearing, and that is Senator
    Grassley's letters. So I myself sent a letter to our current
    Attorney General and, unfortunately, received the very same
    treatment. So in front of this Committee, Merrick Garland--
    Attorney General Garland had made a testimony that we found
    evidence to possibly contradict what he had said. On March
    23rd, I came in front--he came in front of the Appropriations
    Committee where I was a Member, and I presented him with
    evidence that the DOJ had actively discouraged the enforcement
    of 18 United States Code Sec. 1507, at the homes of Supreme
    Court Justices in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision,
    evidence that appeared that he had clearly either misled or
    misinformed this Committee, evidence that showed that the
    Department was putting politics above duty.
        Section 1507, as you well know, makes it illegal to picket
    or parade near a judge's residence in the intent--with the
    intent of influencing them in the discharge of their duty. It
    was openly and flagrantly violated on numerous occasions in the
    summer of 2022, yet never enforced by U.S. Marshals stationed
    at the home of the Justices, in large part because of the
    evidence that we showed that they had been actively discouraged
    from making arrests. When we asked Attorney General Garland why
    no one had been prosecuted, he said because no one had been
    arrested, really going back to the fact that the U.S. Marshals
    in these slides were actively discouraged from making them.
        On May 3rd, 2023, I led a group of Senators, many on this
    Committee, sending a letter to the Attorney General asking him
    for response to 19 questions by the end of May, and to this
    day, I have yet to receive any actual response to any of my
    questions. To Senator Grassley's second point, if you do get a
    response, which mine came almost a year late, it was just words
    on paper. And so what I'd like to know from you is two things.
    One, if confirmed, will you do everything in your power to have
    yourself or one of your top officials respond in a timely
    manner to those of us on this Committee? And second, since I am
    almost out of time, will you commit to working to help me get
    answers about why this happened in the Department of Justice so
    that we can ensure that it never happens again?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator, and it sounds like we're going to
    have to open an entire unit to handle Senator Grassley's
    letters to respond to them.
        Senator Britt. That's what we all like to hear.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Booker.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, and I'm grateful to Senator
    Britt for bringing that up. It's probably one of the most
    bipartisan commitments. If we're going to fulfill our duties of
    the Constitution to give oversight, it's really important that
    we get timely responses, and I'm grateful for that.
        I want to jump back right in where were talking last is
    just about the crack and powder cocaine disparities that we
    discussed in my office. It's something that this Committee in a
    bipartisan way have done a lot on. We discussed about the 18-
    to-1 sentencing disparity, which came down from a 100-to-1.
    I've been working in good faith with people like Senator
    Grassley on trying to just get justice with that, move it as
    much toward 1-to-1 as possible. We know that actually in
    Florida, your home State, as well as 43 other States----
        Ms. Bondi. 1-to-1.
        Senator Booker [continuing]. It's 1-to-1. Thank you for
    making my question quicker. Will you commit to continuing the
    DOJ 2002 policy of just enforcing it as if it was 1-to-1?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, and I will look at that policy, if I am
    confirmed as Attorney General. I had no idea it was 18-to-1.
    That--I will look at that policy, if confirmed, and report back
    to you right away. It sounds like, if I'm confirmed, I have a
    lot of reporting backs to do right away.
        Senator Booker. Thank you, but I----
        Ms. Bondi. But I will, Senator, right away.
        Senator Booker. Am I overly stating the fact that reading
    from your expression that you seem to think that 18-to-1,
    especially given what's going on in Florida, seems
    unreasonable?
        Ms. Bondi. I was unaware that that was happening and why
    you would want it to be 1-to-1.
        Senator Booker. Great. I know your sincere and heartfelt
    beliefs on abortion in general, and I respect that and our
    differences on it. But when it comes to medication and
    abortion, over two decades ago, the Food and Drug
    Administration approved the medication abortion pill,
    mifepristone, as safe and effective. Decades of research
    continue to confirm the drug's safety. However, access to
    mifepristone was threatened by several lawsuits that second
    guess the FDA's expert judgment about the drug. The Department
    of Justice has vigorously defended the FDA's judgment about the
    safetyness and effectiveness, and I guess a lot of people are
    concerned about reversing a policy that could deeply affect
    people's access to mifepristone. I'm wondering if you would
    commit to continuing the U.S. Department of Justice's efforts
    to defend the FDA's judgment in lawsuits against mifepristone.
        Ms. Bondi. And I was not aware of that, Senator, until we
    spoke, and I think I told you I will look at that policy. I was
    not aware of the policy. I will look at that policy. I am
    personally pro-life, I have always been pro-life, but I will
    look at that policy. I will not let my personal beliefs affect
    how I carry out the law.
        Senator Booker. I wish I had more than 90 seconds to talk
    to about an issue that you've been so willing to talk to me
    about it, but the First Step Act implementation is, in my
    opinion, in a dire state. We had a bipartisan bill with 87
    Senators voting for it--88 if Lindsey Graham was not off
    fighting the world's fight. I would like to make sure that you
    work with us to have implementation done. One of the reasons
    why it's so poorly implemented is because of the disastrous
    realities in the Bureau of Prisons. We've had bipartisan
    hearings here about the egregious stuff. The hearing was so
    disturbing that one of my colleagues on the other side came
    over and said, whatever I can do, let's work together. It is
    understaffed, and, therefore, a lot of the people that are
    supposed to be implementing the programs that would help for
    people to earn time credit to get out, the education programs
    that are proven to reduce recidivism, can't be done because the
    Bureau of Prisons is a disaster in terms of staffing and
    funding. People leave their Federal correctional officers jobs
    to go to State because they can make significantly more money.
    Is this a cause that----
        Ms. Bondi. The morale is horrible.
        Senator Booker. Yes. Morale is horrible. Is--do you feel a
    sense of urgency like I do to focus on the Bureau of Prisons to
    deal with the staffing issues and help with the full
    implementation of the First Step Act?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator. And yes, I spoke about that, I
    think, when you were in another Committee hearing. But yes, I
    will, of course.
        Senator Booker. Thank you for the latitude, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Before I call on Senator Cruz, a
    question for both the nominee and you, Senator Booker. You were
    talking about this 1-to-1 equation. If your implication to her
    was that it could be done through her actions, then it seems
    we've been wasting our time trying to find a compromise between
    you and me on that subject for legislation.
        Senator Booker. I didn't prepare for this hearing, sir. I
    didn't know I'd be asked questions.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Booker. I look forward to working with you. I do
    believe that it should be done judicially, as well as with
    prosecutorial discretion.
        Chairman Grassley. Okay.
        Senator Booker. It should be done legislatively along
    with--as well as prosecutorial discretion. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Bondi, I
    congratulate you on an excellent job at this hearing, and I
    want to go back to the topic you and I discussed before, which
    is the politicization of the Department of Justice. I want to
    focus on a different aspect of it. We talked about the
    Department of Justice under Joe Biden and Kamala Harris being
    used to target the President's political enemies. We talked
    about it being used to protect the political friends and allies
    of the White House. But there's another aspect of
    politicization and lawlessness and that is refusing to follow
    the law, utterly defying Federal statutory law, and I think
    there's no area where this has been more egregious than as it
    concerns our immigration laws.
        We have had 4 years of a wide-open Southern Border. My
    State, Texas, has borne a disproportionate burden as a
    consequence of that as 12 million illegal aliens have flooded
    into this country, and what the Biden administration has done,
    no other President in the history of America has done. The
    Biden administration has simply ignored the law, and when
    illegal aliens are apprehended, they release them. Federal law
    says they shall be detained, says they shall be deported, and,
    frankly, our constitutional system is not meant--meant to deal
    with a President who defies the law. Article II says the
    President shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.
    This administration utterly defied the law.
        I have said, somewhat tongue in cheek, Joe Biden did
    something I previously thought was impossible. He made me miss
    Barack Obama because Barack Obama, for all my disagreements
    with him, when it came to illegal immigration, he, by and
    large, followed the law. Barack Obama deported millions of
    people. The left got mad at him and called him the deporter-in-
    chief. No administration has ever done what this administration
    has done, which has said we are going to facilitate the
    invasion of this country, we're going to release 12 million
    people, and we are going to see Americans murdered, women
    raped, children abused and murdered. We're going to see drugs
    flood into this country--fentanyl flood into this country.
        And so I want to ask you several things on this. First of
    all, in your experience, what are the consequences of open
    borders, and who pays the price when illegal immigrants and, in
    particular, violent criminal illegal immigrants are released
    into this country?
        Ms. Bondi. American citizens, Senator, and I think they're
    paying--I know they're paying the price, every single day.
    We're seeing it. We're watching it. We've talked about Laken
    Riley, of course, multiple times, but there are multiple
    victims of violent crime in all of our States. And as we say
    now, every State is a border State. I was at the Border, not in
    your State, but in Yuma, Arizona, several months ago, and I
    firsthand--I saw the Border Patrol agents and Customs showed us
    IDs and drivers' licenses, Venezuela, from all of these
    countries, IDs just thrown on the ground and people were
    allowed to walk freely into our country.
        Senator, I never knew the definition of a disposable child.
    I never heard that term in my entire career until I was there--
    a disposable child that the agents kept recognizing, a little
    boy----
        Senator Cruz. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Coming over and over--you're
    familiar with it, I'm sure, same little boy over and over----
        Senator Cruz. And let me ask----
        Ms. Bondi. And he had been trafficked.
        Senator Cruz. Let me ask because my time has expired, and
    the issue you're raising is so incredibly important. One
    statistic that every American should know is the number
    300,000. There are over 300,000 children that this
    administration has lost--little girls and little boys who came
    here unaccompanied were in this administration's custody. They
    handed them over to adults, many of them not blood relatives,
    and they don't know where they are. I've never seen a single
    Democrat on this Committee ask one question about the 300,000
    children. I want to ask you a commitment. Will you as Attorney
    General investigate and make every effort to find those
    children? And if they are subject to abuse, get them out of
    those abusive situations that the Federal Government has put
    them into?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Padilla.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll just
    follow up to Senator Cruz's final comment with suggesting that
    we include targeting those children who are victims of
    unscrupulous employers, as well, and happy to follow up with
    the articles and reports to--as you prepare for this position.
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I'm sorry. Employers?
        Senator Padilla. Yes.
        Ms. Bondi. Okay. I didn't understand that.
        Senator Padilla. Yes, many employers across the country who
    are employing and exploiting----
        Ms. Bondi. Got it.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. Dangerous conditions for----
        Ms. Bondi. Yes.
        Senator Padilla [continuing]. These children that we're
    talking about. Ms. Bondi, we have even less time in this round
    than the first round.
        Ms. Bondi. Oh darn.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Padilla. And I don't have some yes or no questions,
    but a couple of important issues I do want to make sure to
    cover for the record.
        When you were a Florida Attorney General, you defended
    restrictive abortion laws, including mandatory waiting periods
    and parental consent requirements. If confirmed as Attorney
    General, would you advocate for similar restrictions at the
    Federal level?
        Ms. Bondi. I will follow the law of the United States of
    America.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Well, I'm asking this question
    because there's a difference between Federal law and Florida
    law. There's a difference between the law and your personal
    views, so how do you----
        Ms. Bondi. And according to Dobbs, those are left to the
    States.
        Senator Padilla. How would you ensure that your personal
    views don't influence your decisions as Attorney General in
    cases involving reproductive health?
        Ms. Bondi. Oh, my personal--no, my personal feelings would
    not influence, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. My next question is on the topic of
    gun violence, which continues to be a challenge and a problem
    in many parts of the country. As you know, the Department of
    Justice plays a key role in enforcing Federal gun laws and
    working to prevent gun violence. In the wake of the Parkland
    shooting in 2018, you expressed support for certain gun control
    measures in Florida, including raising the minimum age for
    firearm purchases and implementing red flag laws, which I agree
    with, I support, and they're proven to make a difference and to
    save lives. How would you use the position of Attorney General
    to advance these commonsense gun safety policies on a national
    level?
        Ms. Bondi. First, Senator, let me say I am pro-Second
    Amendment. I have always been pro-Second Amendment. I will
    follow the laws of my State of Florida and our country, of
    course, regarding any gun laws. I did--I worked that shooting,
    meaning I was there when 17 family members were notified, I was
    there, that their children were murdered. Also, Pulse
    Nightclub. I also went to Nevada to help with the MGM shooting.
    The Attorney General at the time asked me to come out there. I
    believe over 60 people were murdered there. I am an advocate
    for the Second Amendment, but I will enforce the laws of the
    land.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. Well I appreciate that. I would
    certainly hope so, but any specific ideas that you have on
    advancing the commonsense gun safety proposals that you support
    as you were Attorney General? I gave you two examples--raising
    the minimum age for firearm purchases or implementing red flag
    laws. There's, I think, a growing national consensus on
    universal background checks.
        Ms. Bondi. I would be glad to meet with you and review any
    legislation that you have, Senator.
        Senator Padilla. Okay. All right. I'll have a few seconds
    left, but thank you for your testimony. I know we asked some
    tough questions in this hearing. That's what the confirmation
    hearing process is supposed to be about. I know how to count
    and I know how to read tea leaves. It seems to me you're very,
    very, very, very likely to be confirmed, and I certainly look
    forward to working with you and your office on the issues that
    I've raised today and more. And I certainly look forward to
    seeing you demonstrate the independence and respect for the
    rule of law that you have suggested to the Committee today.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and my prayers are with you
    in California, again, on the horrific fires and what you're
    doing----
        Senator Padilla. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. To combat them.
        Senator Padilla. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Blackburn.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I know
    you're so pleased that we're about to the end of the day, and
    we thank you so much for your time, and your dedication, and
    your desire to serve. And there are several things that we work
    together on here in this Committee, and we will need your help.
    Online privacy, we have never addressed. Senator Blumenthal and
    I have worked on that. The Kids Online Safety Act, which we are
    looking forward to finishing here, this--under President
    Trump's leadership so that we can protect children in the
    virtual space. And another portion of the work that I put a
    good bit of time into is combating human trafficking, and I
    know you have such a background in that, and we are so
    appreciative that you bring that background to the AG's
    position because this is an issue that has languished.
        Now, Senator Cruz mentioned the 300,000 children that are
    not accounted for. Nearly 2 years ago, I wrote the HHS
    Secretary. It was at about 100--it was at 75,000 at that point,
    and the number has increased. And there are steps that could be
    taken that this administration, the Biden administration, has
    tossed to the side. We have legislation to address those, but,
    General Bondi, this is something that you can begin to do on
    day one. This administration has stopped doing fingerprints,
    they have stopped doing DNA testing, and because of that, we
    know that about 40 percent of the kids that come to that border
    are being trafficked, and there is a way to put an end to this.
    So we have--we think creating a database--a human trafficking
    database at DOJ is a good step forward. We do have legislation
    on that. Another thing that we're working on is having Child
    Protective Services actually record the interviews with
    children and adults to help to protect these children. But I
    would really like to get your commitment on the record for your
    help and a statement about the work that you have done in human
    trafficking and your commitment to ending that in our country.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator, and I have not yet reviewed
    your legislation, but I would love to review that legislation.
    Yes, I learned about the fingerprinting and the DNA when I was
    at the Border a few months ago, and I really couldn't believe
    that. And while I was there, I went to a rape crisis center,
    and what I saw and learned at that border, there is nothing
    humane happening at that border----
        Senator Blackburn. No.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And so many women and children are
    being trafficked coming into this country. And when I was
    Attorney General for the State of Florida, I went to Mexico and
    I went to a safe house, and I met victims of human
    trafficking--women and children. I held babies who had been
    trafficked----
        Senator Blackburn. Mm-hmm.
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And what gets young drug-addicted--
    because they addict all these women to drugs when they're
    trafficked, young drug-addicted mother to break free from her
    captor? They were sending her to New York, and when they were
    going to do that, what did they do? They were going to kill her
    baby, and that's what got her to break away and get to a safe
    house. So I am committed to fighting human trafficking
    alongside you, and I have not yet read your legislation.
        Senator Blackburn. I appreciate that. We appreciate so much
    your commitment to that. There is nothing compassionate about
    what is going on at that Southern Border, and we will need your
    attention to fix those issues. Thank you.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you.
        Senator Blackburn. Thank you Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hawley [presiding]. On behalf of the Chair, Senator
    Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chair. It's been suggested,
    Ms. Bondi, by a number of my colleagues that the concern
    Democrats have is that you are friends with the President.
    That's not our concern. It's not our concern that you're loyal
    to the former President. The President has a right to choose
    people who he believes will be loyal to him. Our concern comes
    when that loyalty to the President conflicts with your duty,
    conflicts with the Constitution, conflicts with your oath, and
    our questions have been designed to try to ascertain what
    you'll do when that inevitable conflict arises. And you may say
    that you believe that conflict will never come, but every day,
    week, month, and year of the first Trump administration
    demonstrated that conflict will come. Jeff Sessions may not
    have believed it would come to him. It came to him. Bill Barr
    may not have believed it would come to him. It came to him. It
    came to everyone. It will come to you, and what you do in that
    moment will define your attorney generalship, your public
    service, everything you've done up to that moment will be
    judged by what you do in that moment.
        I would encourage you to talk to Secretary Mattis, someone
    who had broad respect and has broad respect of Americans on
    both sides of the aisle, who felt it incumbent on him to leave
    his post because he could not in good conscience continue to do
    as he was asked. I would encourage you to talk to Chris Wray,
    who perhaps, as well as anyone walked that difficult line,
    avoiding unnecessary and gratuitous fights with the former
    President, but at the same time, defending his work force,
    defending the democracy, and our institutions. I would talk to
    those who have been where you're about to be because you will
    surely be faced with that difficult challenge, if you are
    confirmed.
        Let me turn to some California-particular concerns. I'm
    grateful for your acknowledgement of the trauma we've been
    through with the fires. That is not over. We will need your
    help in going after those who are committing arson, or who are
    looting, or the inevitable fraudsters who will take advantage
    of the situation to try to defraud taxpayers----
        Ms. Bondi. Price gouging.
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. As well as price gouging.
    Indeed, on the subject of price gouging, and we talked quite a
    bit about the 2020 election. The 2024 election was about the
    high cost of living. I hope you will demonstrate a willingness
    to go after anyone who's engaged in price gouging. I think the
    oil companies are engaged in price gouging. The price of the
    pump in California is through the roof. Are you willing to take
    on even powerful interests like the oil industry if you
    determine that they're gouging consumers?
        Ms. Bondi. I handled the BP oil spill, Senator, when I was
    Attorney General for the State of Florida. Right now as an
    immediate concern, I would be concerned about helping you in
    California with all the criminal acts that I'm sure are
    happening throughout your State with the looting, which is--and
    this is just from me watching it on the news. You've been there
    on the ground, but crime is rampant in California, and it's
    only going to get worse based on these fires and what happened.
    And price gouging is when people come in and they try to raise
    the price of goods--water, water--essential commodities--when
    people have lost their homes, and not everyone lives in a big
    home. Most people don't, and people have lost everything that
    they have had----
        Senator Schiff. But I'm----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And I am committed to working with
    everyone in California constantly to help the people in the
    aftermath of these fires----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. We----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. And do----
        Senator Schiff [continuing]. We will----
        Ms. Bondi [continuing]. Everything that I can.
        Senator Schiff. We will need your help on that. We will
    need your help on attacking the scourge of fentanyl. We can't
    solve this problem as a local government or State government or
    Federal Government alone. We need to work together on that. And
    let me ask one last question if I may, Mr. Chairman, important
    to a great many Californians and people around the country, and
    that is, will you respect their marriage? Will you respect
    marriage equality? Will you defend marriage equality?
        Ms. Bondi. I will respect the law, absolutely.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you Senator. I'm sitting here in the
    Chairman seat, General Bondi. It's really--it's a great feeling
    of power, so----
        [Laughter.]
        Ms. Bondi. Do you have documents you want me to review?
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Hawley. Maybe some things I'd like you to sign. Let
    me just ask you here, and I think I may be your last
    interlocutor for the day, so congratulations. You've just done
    fantastic. Thank you for answering all of our questions. Let me
    just ask you about another of the abuses that this past
    administration perpetrated and that is still in place, and I'm
    referring to the October 2021 memo from Attorney General
    Garland targeting parents at school board meetings. Do you
    remember this?
        Ms. Bondi. Yes, Senator.
        Senator Hawley. What happened was, as I'm sure you recall,
    we now know the Biden administration, the White House, the
    Secretary of Education solicited a letter from the National
    School Board Association. They ginned it up. It was fake from
    beginning to end. They ginned it up, calling on--calling for
    law enforcement scrutiny against parents, tax-paying parents
    who were going to school board meetings inquiring what their
    children were being taught, inquiring about face masks,
    Critical Race Theory. And Attorney General Garland--you talk
    about bowing to political pressure--when the White House
    demanded he activate the FBI against these parents, amazingly,
    unbelievably, he did it, and he issued this memorandum in
    October 2021. All of this time later, that memorandum has still
    never been formally rescinded. Even after the National School
    Board Association withdrew their letter, admitted they had been
    wrong to call parents potential domestic terrorists who were
    merely raising questions about what their children were being
    taught, Garland never apologized for it. He never did anything
    about it. It is still in effect.
        Here's my question for you. As Attorney General, if and
    when you are confirmed, will you finally rescind that
    memorandum and do right on behalf of all of these parents who
    have been wrongly unjustly targeted by the FBI and DOJ?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I have not yet read the memo. If I am
    confirmed, I will read the memo and I will do the right thing,
    just like I told Senators on both sides of the aisle regarding
    their issues.
        Senator Hawley. Good. I look forward to you doing that, and
    I would hope this is something you could do on the first day
    after you're confirmed to send a message to parents and law-
    abiding citizens everywhere. This shouldn't be a partisan
    issue. I bet the parents who went to these meetings, they're
    Republicans, they're Democrats, they have no partisanship, but
    they want to know that their First Amendment rights will be
    protected. And you rescinding that memo formally after,
    frankly, the current Attorney General lied to us about it for
    years, would send a tremendous message.
        Let me just ask you about the one other thing, and this is
    something near and dear to me. We talked about this when you
    came to my office. The Department of Justice administers a fund
    called the Radiation Exposure Compensation fund. This is a fund
    that helps pay for the healthcare bills of Americans who have
    been exposed to nuclear radiation by the Government, through no
    fault of their own, in the West and other parts of the country.
    The Department of Justice has administered that program for
    years. Senator Orrin Hatch actually wrote the initial bill. It
    has been in existence since 1990. It's been supported by
    Senators from both parties. It's extremely important to my
    State because in the State of Missouri, we have a lot of
    nuclear radiation that has occurred that's still in our
    groundwater, still in our soil, not cleaned up yet.
        My question for you is, since you'll be in charge of
    administering it, will you administer that program fairly and
    equitably? Will you defend it? Will you make sure that
    radiation victims who are under the statute entitled to
    compensation from their Government get what they deserve?
        Ms. Bondi. Senator, I was speaking about that with someone
    yesterday because I did not know--again, there's going to be a
    lot, if I am confirmed, that I don't know. That's why it's so
    important to keep an open dialogue with every Senator from
    every State. And yes, I am committed to looking at that, and I
    did not realize you had that horrific problem in your State.
        Senator Hawley. Thank you very much. Thank you for
    answering our questions, and with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield
    back my time.
        Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Before I close down this
    meeting, I would enter into the record from a bipartisan group
    of attorneys who have served as Attorneys General in their
    respective States. This includes New York, Delaware, New
    Jersey, Illinois, and Hawaii. They write that Ms. Bondi has
    worked, quote, ``across both State and party lines to solve
    problems,'' and a further quote that she is, quote, unquote,
    ``a highly qualified nominee.''
        Without objection, that will be put in the record.
        [The information appears as a submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. You've done extremely well. I thank you
    for your testimony today, and I thank your family. Whatever
    pressures they felt, we apologize for it, but thank you for
    being so patient through all this process. You should be very
    proud. Ms. Bondi, you performed well, I think admirably as
    another adjective, and showed this entire country that you're
    eminently qualified to serve as Attorney General. If confirmed,
    you'll be a chief protector of the rule of law and I have every
    confidence that you're going to do a superb job.
        Now, for information for the future, written questions can
    be submitted for the record until tomorrow at 5 p.m. Ms. Bondi,
    when you receive these questions, please answer and return them
    to the Committee as soon as possible because under our rules,
    that has something to do with when we can schedule action for
    your confirmation. You're excused at this point.
        This Committee is adjourned. We will reconvene tomorrow
    right here--is it right here in this room? Right here at 10:15
    a.m., to hear from a panel of outside witnesses in regard to
    Ms. Bondi's nomination.
        The Committee is adjourned.
        Ms. Bondi. Thank you, Senator.
        [Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1
    follows Day 2.]

                              CONTINUATION OF THE
                          CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE
                       NOMINATION OF HON. PAMELA JO BONDI
                             TO BE ATTORNEY GENERAL
                              OF THE UNITED STATES

                                  ----------

                           THURSDAY, JANUARY 16, 2025

                                  United States Senate,
                                    Committee on the Judiciary,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:22 a.m., in
    Room 216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Charles E.
    Grassley, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
        Present: Senators Grassley [presiding], Cruz, Hawley,
    Tillis, Schmitt, Britt, Durbin, Klobuchar, Hirono, Booker,
    Welch, and Schiff.

             OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. GRASSLEY,
                 A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA

        Chairman Grassley. Good morning everybody. Welcome back for
    a second day of hearing on Ms. Bondi's nomination for Attorney
    General.
        As I said yesterday, I want everyone to be able to watch
    the hearing without obstruction. If people stand up and block
    the views of others behind them or if they speak out of turn,
    it's not fair or considerate to others, so officers will remove
    individuals as they have previously. We didn't have any of
    these problems yesterday. I don't anticipate it today, but I
    just think we ought to make everything pretty clear.
        Before we begin with opening statements from the panel, I
    want to go through a couple of bookkeeping items and explain
    how we're going to proceed today. I will give an opening
    statement and introduce the Majority witnesses, and I'll give
    the opportunity to Senator Durbin to provide an opening
    statement and introduce his witnesses, then we will turn to our
    witnesses for their opening statements. Following their
    statements, we will begin with the first round of questions in
    which each Senator will have 5 minutes.
        Yesterday we met from 9:30 until 3 p.m. so that every
    Senator, both Democrat and Republican, could question Ms.
    Bondi. We heard from Senators Scott and Schmitt, who gave their
    strong endorsement of Ms. Bondi. Their introductions described
    her extensive experience, outstanding qualifications, and
    character.
        Yesterday's testimony showed that Ms. Bondi is certainly
    experienced and capable to serve as our Nation's chief law
    enforcement officer at this very critical time. She is very
    well qualified for the position, serving 18 years as
    prosecutor, 8 years as Attorney General for the State of
    Florida--Florida, the most third-most populous State in our
    Nation.
        She will enact desperately needed changes at a Department
    that has been politicized and weaponized for partisan ends.
    With almost 30 years of experience behind her, she will restore
    both morale and law and order to the Department--badly needed--
    in need of strong leadership.
        Her commitment to the rule of law emerged as a central
    theme of our discussions yesterday, and as I made clear in my
    opening statement yesterday, that is what I believe the
    Department and this country desperately needs.
        Today, the purpose is to hear from an outside panel of
    witnesses, and we're grateful that all of you are here this
    morning to express your views on this nominee. I will go ahead
    and introduce the three Majority witnesses before I turn over
    to Ranking Member Durbin.
        First is Dave Aronberg. Until just a few days ago, Mr.
    Aronberg was the elected Democrat State attorney for Florida's
    Fifteenth Judicial District. He served in that role for three
    terms since he was elected in 2012. Mr. Aronberg also
    previously served in the Florida State Senate and as a White
    House fellow in both Clinton and Bush administrations at the
    Treasury Department.
        He has known Ms. Bondi since 2010, when he ran to be the
    Attorney General of Florida, a position Ms. Bondi obviously
    won. Notwithstanding their political differences, Ms. Bondi
    appointed Mr. Aronberg to be her drug czar to combat the opioid
    epidemic, and through that work he came to know Ms. Bondi very
    well.
        Second, we have Mr. Nicholas Cox, who is Florida's longest-
    serving statewide prosecutor. He has served in that role since
    2011. In his capacity as statewide prosecutor, Mr. Cox focuses
    on cases involving human trafficking, drug abuse, fraud,
    organized crime, gang violence, cybercrimes, and crimes against
    seniors.
        Mr. Cox also previously served as a member of the faculty
    of Stetson University College of Law, where he taught trial
    advocacy, consumer law, counseling and negotiations, and
    criminal procedure. Mr. Cox has extensive experience observing
    Ms. Bondi's work as a lawyer and administrator. Ms. Bondi began
    her career as an intern in his office. While serving as
    Attorney General, she appointed him to his current office.
        Third and last, we have Sheriff Emery Gainey, a career law
    enforcement officer with more than 40 years' experience.
    Sheriff Gainey has served as a sheriff of two counties in
    Florida. When Ms. Bondi served as Attorney General, he served
    as her director of law enforcement and director of victim
    services.
        Through his work as law enforcement officer in Florida,
    Sheriff Gainey is very familiar with Ms. Bondi's work with
    State, local, and Federal law enforcement, as well as her work
    to address drug abuse, fight human trafficking, and victims of
    crime.
        Thanks all of you for serving. Senator Durbin.

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

        Senator Durbin. Thanks, Chairman Grassley. I want to take a
    moment to reflect on yesterday's session with Ms. Bondi. There
    seemed to be a meeting of minds on criminal justice reform and
    the pressing need to protect our children online. Those are
    good things. There are still some outstanding issues from
    yesterday's hearing that I'm struggling with. Let's start with
    a very important issue: Who won the election in 2020? Why are
    we still asking that question? For goodness sakes, we moved on
    to a new election. You would think that'd be over. The reason
    why that's still a relevant question is it gets to the heart of
    our democracy: the peaceful transition from one President to a
    new President by the will of the people without resistance and
    without denial. Does the phrase, ``hanging chad'' have any
    significance to our witnesses? It does to me and to every
    American.
        In the year 2000, Bush v. Gore, there was a contest that
    went on into December and numerous court contests associated
    with it as to who actually won that election. There came a
    moment when Al Gore stood up and said, that's it, it's over,
    I've gone to court, I can keep going to court, but I don't
    think that's in the best interest of this country, I concede,
    George W. Bush won. You didn't hear Democrats at that saying,
    never say that in public, never concede that in public. We did.
    George W. Bush won the election because Al Gore decided to step
    out at a point when Bush was ahead. Period. End of story. That
    is what a democracy is all about: one person concedes, the
    other person wins, we move to the next President and,
    ultimately, the next election. But that's not the case in the
    year 2020.
        We still have a candidate, in this case President Trump,
    who's in denial as to what happened in 2020, and as
    consequence, some characterize it a Big Lie, whatever you want
    to characterize it. It really is an important question because
    it gets to the fundamentals of anyone seeking a position in the
    Cabinet of this President or serving our Nation. Do they
    acknowledge the peaceful transition of power in 2020 from
    Donald Trump to Joe Biden? The answer is yes. The reason is we
    had the certification of the electoral vote--Senator Klobuchar
    remembers that well--and we went through the process we're
    supposed to go through in our Constitution. End of story.
        But yet, when I asked that simple question of Ms. Bondi
    yesterday, she was unable to say just expressly, yes, Joe Biden
    received more votes than Donald Trump and was elected President
    in 2020. Why is that such a hard question? I don't understand.
    Why couldn't she state it plainly that that's what happened?
    When a nominee for Attorney General is afraid to state a simple
    fact, then what does it say about the future of our democracy
    and the credibility of our system of justice?
        She not only refused to acknowledge President Trump's
    defeat in 2020, she also said, quote, ``There was a peaceful
    transition of power.'' Let me repeat that: ``a peaceful
    transition of power.'' Seeing the videotapes, what happened
    here on January 6, can you imagine if the news came on and
    said, did you hear what happened in London today? A mob stormed
    the Houses of Parliament, crashed through the door of the House
    of Commons, took control of the British Parliament, and we hope
    that the police can take control back in a matter of hours so
    they can continue their business. What would we say to that? In
    London, in England, they went through what? A mob storming the
    Houses of Parliament, knocking down the door? Incredible.
    Whatever happened to that country? We thought they were leaders
    in the world. Now, reflect for a moment on January 6, 2021, and
    what we went through--all of us went through individually,
    being spirited out of the Capitol Building taken to a safe
    place because of a mob. That was not a peaceful transition of
    power.
        And I want to just say, Sheriff Gainey, thank you for
    joining us today. You may have noticed--we all noticed,
    rather--we're not supposed to notice, we should--the men and
    women in uniform who protect us in this Chamber and throughout
    these buildings day in and day out. God bless them. But what
    they went through on January 6 is an outrage: attacks on them,
    several lost their lives as a consequence of what they went
    through, many were forced into retirement, and hundreds of
    people were arrested for trespassing and much more serious
    crimes. Donald Trump characterizes them as political prisoners.
    The people who attacked our policemen are characterized as
    political prisoners, and he promises that he's going to give a
    pardon to all of them on the day that he's sworn into office. I
    asked a basic question of Ms. Bondi as the chief law
    enforcement officer, which she would be as Attorney General,
    what do you think about the pardons? She wouldn't comment.
    Well, she made it clear she stood behind the police, but you
    can make it clear by saying to Donald Trump, this is a bad
    idea. Anyone who is guilty of violence--certainly guilty of
    violence should not be pardoned on the day that you're sworn in
    as President. So I was at least disappointed by her answer.
        And then this Kash Patel issue. Kash Patel, I'm going to
    meet him next week for the first time. I've read an awful lot
    about him. There's an awful lot to read. He has a lot to say,
    and he's said it and he's published it in book form. One of the
    things he said is that he has an enemies list. Secret police
    agencies throughout history have an enemy list. The American
    FBI does not and should not. I think there's serious questions
    about this man, his judgment, and his political values that he
    would bring to office. Yesterday, Ms. Bondi embraced him as a
    person who's right for the job. I certainly don't feel that
    way. He's going to have to convince me. So there are questions
    raised.
        Having said that, I want to concede two things. First, if I
    were setting out to hire an attorney, she certainly has the
    strongest resume and should be hired. Number two, the testimony
    today, particularly from people in the opposite political party
    in Florida, is a testimony to the fact that she's been
    bipartisan and very effective as Attorney General. I will
    concede that point.
        When she talks about the things she achieved, I'm
    impressed. I should be, but the question is when Donald Trump
    knocks on her door as Attorney General, and he will--if you
    question that, ask Jeff Sessions or ask Bill Barr--he will
    knock on her door and ask her to do something that's going to
    be a challenge ethically or morally. It's just his nature. He
    views that office as an office he personally controls. He
    doesn't. The American people and the Constitution control that
    office, and we have to resolve whether or not Ms. Bondi is the
    person to be the next Attorney General.
        Our first Minority witness is Lisa Gilbert, co-president of
    Public Citizen, a nonprofit organization with more than 500,000
    members. The organization has an extensive record of
    investigating conflicts of interest in public corruption, and
    Ms. Gilbert will speak to the dangers of confirming someone
    with corporate interests as Attorney General.
        The second witness, Mary McCord, executive director of the
    Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. She's a
    visiting professor at the prestigious Georgetown Law Center.
    Prior to these roles, Ms. McCord served for nearly 20 years as
    assistant U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia, also
    served as Assistant Attorney General for National Security from
    2016 to 2017, and Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General
    from 2014 to 2016. Mr. Chairman, at this point, I'll turn it
    back to you.
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. You know, we have this
    tradition of swearing people in regardless of how honest you
    are and everything like that, so please arise. Would you raise
    your right hand?
        [Witnesses are sworn in.]
        Chairman Grassley. I have seen all of you say ``yes'' to
    that. Thank you very much.
        And now you may proceed with your statements, and we'll
    start with Mr. Aronberg and just go across the table that way.
    So please start out.

     STATEMENT OF HON. DAVE ARONBERG, FORMER STATE ATTORNEY, PALM
     BEACH COUNTY, AND FOUNDER, DAVE ARONBERG LAW, P.A., WEST PALM
                             BEACH, FLORIDA

        Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member
    Durbin, Senators. In 2010, after serving 8 years as a State
    senator in Florida, I ran for Florida attorney general. I faced
    a fellow State senator in the Democratic primary and one of
    three Republican candidates in a potential general election.
    Pam Bondi was one of those three candidates. This was her first
    run for political office, and she was the only candidate in the
    race on either side whom I did not know. At our first
    candidate's forum, she came up to me with a big smile and told
    me her younger brother, who may be here today, Brad, worked
    with me at my old law firm as a summer associate and had very
    complimentary things to say. That was vintage Pam Bondi. My
    potential future opponent immediately disarmed me by ignoring
    partisanship to reach out to me as a human being.
        Pam won her primary and I lost mine. I then endorsed my
    Democratic primary who faced her in the general election, and
    then Pam won that election, too. Despite the fact that I was on
    the other side of the aisle and did not support her campaign,
    Pam called me to offer the position as her drug czar to combat
    the opioid epidemic that was ravaging Florida and to shut down
    the State's ubiquitous pill mills that fed the Nation's
    addiction. She offered me this position because she knew from
    the campaign that fighting the opioid epidemic had been my
    career priority and an important part of my campaign platform.
    It did not matter that I had a ``D'' after my name. She
    believed I was the best person for the job, regardless of party
    affiliation.
        I accepted the position and received a little pushback from
    my side of the aisle, but nothing compared to what Pam Bondi
    received. At a party event, one county Republican chairman was
    so angry that he wagged a finger in front of her face to
    condemn her decision. He didn't argue that I was unqualified,
    just that she was resurrecting a Democrat's political career
    who had just lost badly in a statewide election. On that, he
    may have had a point. I served as drug czar, though, for 2
    years and then got elected as a Democratic State attorney for
    the next 3 terms, 12 years until last week, but you don't wag a
    finger in Pam Bondi's face and get away with it. Pam's kind and
    genuine, and loves people, but she's also tough as nails. Pam
    met this guy's fire with fire, putting her own finger in the
    party leader's face to defend her new employee, and she didn't
    care that I was a Democrat or that she didn't know me that well
    at the time, or that one day this could help me run for office,
    which it did. She didn't do it because she one day hoped I
    would have her back at a Senate confirmation hearing. It was
    just the person she was and still is.
        When AG Bondi and I began our anti-pill mill initiative,
    seven people a day were dying from prescription opioid
    overdoses, and there were more pain clinics in Florida than
    McDonald's in Florida. A year later, she convinced a reluctant
    Republican Legislature to pass crucial, long-overdue reforms,
    including a prescription drug monitoring program that
    dramatically reduced doctor shopping. AG Bondi used her bully
    pulpit and her bipartisan relationships to get it done. Today,
    Florida's pill mills are no more. The steady stream of cars
    from Appalachia that constituted the ``OxyContin Express'' are
    a distant memory, and countless lives have been saved because
    of our State's days as the drug dealer for the rest of the
    country is an ignominious part of our past.
        Pam Bondi and I have always had our political differences,
    although that has never come between our friendship. I
    supported the Presidential campaigns of Barack Obama, Hillary
    Clinton, Joe Biden, and Kamala Harris. I've been outspoken on
    cable TV and streaming channels on a host of legal issues,
    including with Professor McCord, including the dangers of
    targeting one's political enemies. I was critical of the Durham
    investigation, which led to questionable criminal cases and
    embarrassing acquittals. A prosecutor's job is to file the
    evidence and the law--without fear or favor. Pam Bondi is a 20-
    year prosecutor who understands this. Even if she does
    something as Attorney General of the United States that I
    disagree with, I believe she'll always remain tethered to the
    law.
        And there are some important issues where she and I are in
    complete agreement, such as the need to stop the flow of deadly
    fentanyl that has become by far the largest killer within the
    ongoing opioid epidemic. We agree on tough punishments for
    those who engage in the modern-day slavery known as human
    trafficking, and for laws that allow victims to have their low-
    level crimes expunged, and to utilize the T visa program when
    needed. We agree on the need for treatment courts, which are
    proven to be a better alternative to incarceration with a lower
    recidivism rate for many nonviolent drug offenders. And we
    agree there should be a stronger response to the growing number
    of antisemitic incidents in our country, and especially on
    college campuses.
        Senators, I'm grateful for the time to speak with you today
    and look forward to answering any questions you may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Aronberg appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you very much. Ms. Gilbert.

                STATEMENT OF LISA GILBERT, CO-PRESIDENT,
                     PUBLIC CITIZEN, WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. Gilbert. Chair Grassley, Ranking Member Durbin, thank
    you for the opportunity to testify. I'm Lisa Gilbert, co-
    president of Public Citizen. Public Citizen is a 54-year-old
    nonprofit organization with 500,000 members and supporters
    across the country. We champion the public interest in the
    halls of power, working to ensure that our Government and our
    economy work for the people, not for wealthy special interests
    and corporations.
        On behalf of our members, we stand in opposition to the
    nomination of Pam Bondi for the role of Attorney General. The
    mission of the Department of Justice is to work on behalf of
    the American people, keep our country safe, protect civil
    rights, uphold the rule of law. Unfortunately, Pam Bondi has
    numerous troubling potential conflicts of interest from her
    time as a lobbyist, which calls into question her ability to
    hold corporate wrongdoers accountable. I'll focus my testimony
    on our concerns about this problem.
        Public Citizen recently examined the Federal lobbying
    disclosures and Foreign Agents Registration Act reports filed
    by Bondi and Ballard Partners, her lobbying firm. Our review
    showed that her client list is full of controversial clients,
    some of which stand to benefit directly from having their
    former lobbyist in charge of the DOJ. Over the last 5 years,
    she represented 30 clients from large corporations and
    contractors to a foreign government. In addition, during her
    earlier time as Florida Attorney General, a recent New York
    Times review found several pieces of evidence that seemed to
    demonstrate her general tendency to assist corporate allies,
    and corporate lobbyists' strong belief that Bondi was
    exceptionally accessible to lobbyists and amenable to the
    agendas of their corporate clients. Bondi had a large number of
    domestic clients, but today, I'll highlight just two: GEO
    Group, the Nation's largest private prisons company, and
    Amazon, an e-commerce giant.
        Bondi was registered to lobby the first Trump White House
    in 2019 for GEO Group. Both DOJ and DHS Inspectors General had
    been critical of prison management of GEO Group, and they stand
    to profit substantially if the Trump administration's new
    immigration detention and deportation policies result in
    filling empty or underutilized beds in their facilities. As a
    real precedent for this concern, Public Citizen did research
    back in 2019, which showed GEO Group's contract dollars rose by
    over 40 percent in the first 2 years of the Trump term.
        Now to Amazon. They're, of course, a very well-known tech
    company. Bondi was registered to lobby for them in 2020. In
    recent years, they've been investigated by the DOJ over injury
    rates and workplace safety at their warehouses, been referred
    to the DOJ by a bipartisan group of lawmakers for potential
    criminal obstruction, and had their Robo Tax unit federally
    investigated over safety concerns. In addition, DOJ and the FTC
    recently reached a settlement with Amazon regarding children's
    privacy violations via Alexa, and, of course, Amazon also
    receives multi-billion dollar contracts from multiple Federal
    agencies, ranging from DOD to NASA.
        Beyond these examples of potential domestic entanglements,
    Bondi was registered as a foreign agent lobbying on behalf of
    foreign governments and officials. To highlight just two, Bondi
    worked for both the Embassy of Qatar and a Kuwaiti investment
    firm. For Qatar, the goal was the improvement of their often-
    criticized human rights record before the 2022 World Cup. For
    the Kuwaiti investment firm, the work was an attempt to free a
    Russian money manager arrested in Kuwait on terms of
    embezzlement from her and her staff to the tune of tens of
    millions of government funds.
        So to conclude, we believe a person with this deep record
    of controversial business and foreign government lobbying
    should not be considered for Attorney General. A well-
    functioning DOJ needs to be tough on corporate crime and work
    to improve the lives of our communities. This level of
    corporate entanglement just speaks to exactly the wrong
    incentives.
        During the first Trump term, corporate enforcement
    plummeted at the DOJ, and we really fear a repeat of this
    pattern. Public Citizen, to that end, recently created a
    tracker of ongoing Federal investigations that are at risk of
    being dropped or weakened or modified. The tracker includes 237
    investigations which has cases against 192 distinct companies.
    Shockingly, nearly one-third of those companies have known ties
    to the incoming Trump administration, and as highlighted
    throughout my testimony, Pam Bondi is no exception. To be
    clear, we do not think that this level of corporate alignment
    can be addressed simply by recusals. Bondi's broad
    representation of and lobby registration for corporate
    interests is much more than a list of potential conflicts. It
    instead represents an overall sense of prioritization. It's a
    net of potential conflicts that there really isn't a realistic
    escape from. If her nomination as Attorney General proceeds, we
    are really concerned that she will take actions that reflect
    the needs of these types of entities.
        So with that, I want to thank you for giving me the
    opportunity to present the views of Public Citizen and welcome
    any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. Gilbert appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you. Sheriff Gainey, you may
    proceed.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. EMERY GAINEY, FORMER

                 ALACHUA COUNTY SHERIFF, ALACHUA COUNTY

                 SHERIFF'S OFFICE, GAINESVILLE, FLORIDA

        Mr. Gainey. Good morning, Chairman Grassley, Ranking Member
    Durbin, and the Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
    Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on behalf
    of the United States Attorney General nominee, Pamela J. Bondi.
    My name is Emery Gainey. I am a 40-year career law enforcement
    officer who has served at all levels of law enforcement, to
    include the sheriff of two Florida counties. It has been my
    distinct pleasure and honor of knowing and working with Ms.
    Bondi since 2010. As a member of her senior executive staff, I
    served as the director of law enforcement, victim services, and
    criminal justice programs when she assumed the Office of
    Attorney General in 2011, and I continued to serve in those
    capacities through her 8-year tenure as Attorney General. To
    this day, we maintain a very close professional, personal, and
    family relationship.
        I want to speak this morning on Ms. Bondi's commitment to
    the just and proper enforcement of the law, demonstrated
    through her well-earned relationships with local, State, and
    Federal law enforcement partners throughout the United States.
    During her service as a prosecutor in Florida's Thirteenth
    Judicial Circuit, Ms. Bondi had well-established, deep-rooted
    relationships with local, State, and Federal law enforcement
    agencies. Upon becoming Attorney General, she immediately began
    the process of meeting all law enforcement leaders throughout
    the State of Florida to establish partnerships to ensure that
    our citizens and visitors to our State received the most
    effective law enforcement and victim services available.
        One critical issue that she immediately took on was the
    emerging proliferation of deadly designer drugs, specifically
    those referred to as bath salts, that our State had been facing
    prior to her being elected as Attorney General. Ms. Bondi
    called together our stakeholders, to include prosecutors, law
    enforcement, our Office of Drug Control, our State lab
    directors, and many others, to not only seek to understand this
    new trend in our State, but to seek immediate solutions to stop
    the spread of these deadly substances that had taken the lives
    of our citizens. From these stakeholder meetings, she developed
    a strategy and a call to action to immediately outlaw these
    dangerous bath salt substances.
        Utilizing Florida's rulemaking statutes and bipartisan
    support from Florida's Legislature, she was able to permanently
    ban the sale of these deadly drugs, despite the continuous
    efforts by those who altered their formulas in order to
    circumvent Florida law in an attempt to keep multiple versions
    of these harmful substances on some of the shelves of some of
    our retailers. These actions, in conjunction with our public
    and private partners, began to effectively address a growing
    trend in illegal substance abuse in our State.
        Ms. Bondi's commitment to the rule of law was also evident
    in her taking the lead role, investigating and prosecuting
    crimes involving gang activities, organized retail theft, human
    trafficking, and a host of other criminal activities. She
    demonstrated her deep commitment to keep and restore the lives
    of victims of human trafficking through her leadership on
    Florida's statewide Council on Human Trafficking by investing
    in and supporting safe houses for victims. She also partnered
    with multiple private businesses to help combat human
    trafficking in both the sex and labor industries by
    establishing a zero tolerance toolkit to train their staff in
    identifying and reporting suspected cases of human trafficking.
        I want to now focus on her compassionate side of her tenure
    where she was and remains a staunch supporter of crime victims
    and crime victim rights. One of her roles as Florida's Attorney
    General was the delivery of crime victim services. The Florida
    Attorney General's offices were the recipient of and
    administered the third-largest annual award of Federal crime
    victim compensation funds, in addition to State of Florida
    crime victim funds. Ms. Bondi dedicated a team of experienced
    victim advocates and crime compensation professionals to work
    with our local governmental and non-governmental agencies to
    ensure crime victims receive all the benefits allowable under
    the State and Federal laws.
        Her personal compassion was constantly on full display when
    meeting with crime victims and their families. I stood behind
    her--beside her at crime scenes when she visited victims in
    hospital rooms, at family relocation centers, at conferences
    for victims of crimes, and many times one-on-one in her
    offices. She demonstrated her commitment to fairness and
    justice by not only rigorously seeking to hold perpetrators of
    crime responsible for their acts of violence, but she also
    demonstrated the same level of passion, care, and empathy for
    those innocent citizens who found themselves, through no fault
    of their own, a victim of some of the most horrific crimes
    committed by individuals against fellow human beings.
        Mr. Chairman, the United States of America and the American
    people will be well served by confirming Pamela Jay Bondi as
    our next United States Attorney General. Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Gainey appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Sheriff. Ms. McCord.

            STATEMENT OF MARY B. MCCORD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,

               INSTITUTE FOR CONSTITUTIONAL ADVOCACY AND

             PROTECTION, GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY LAW CENTER,

                             WASHINGTON, DC

        Ms. McCord. Distinguished Members of the Committee, thank
    you for inviting me to testify about the importance of the
    independence of the Attorney General and the Department of
    Justice when making investigative and prosecutorial decisions.
        Before my current position at Georgetown Law, I served for
    nearly 20 years as a Federal prosecutor under Republican and
    Democratic administrations, and 3 years at Main Justice, first
    as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General and later the
    Acting Assistant Attorney General for National Security. I
    stayed through the transition into the Trump administration
    before leaving in May 2017. I do not know Pam Bondi. I am here
    today to speak because of my long career at the Department, my
    reverence for the Department, and its mission and its
    independence.
        The lawyers and law enforcement officials at the Department
    of Justice are critical to preventing the weaponization of the
    Department and preserving impartial adherence to the rule of
    law. For the Attorney General, this means taking seriously
    their oath of office, which is to the Constitution, not the
    President. It means recusal if their impartiality regarding any
    particular investigation or case could reasonably be
    questioned, and it means reaffirming long-standing policies,
    limiting context between the Department and the White House on
    specific investigations and cases.
        The oath to the Constitution means that if there is
    inconsistency between what the President may ask the Attorney
    General to do and what the Constitution requires, the Attorney
    General must choose the latter. Although she is a member of the
    President's Cabinet and, therefore, expected to implement the
    President's policy priorities, her duties are limited by the
    Constitution. That means, among many other things, not
    targeting people or associations for investigation or
    prosecution based on protected speech or association, not
    executing searches without a warrant, not denying the equal
    protection of the law to all people within the United States.
    It also means that any prior role as part of the President's
    legal defense team is over, once the oath of office is taken.
    The Attorney General is not the President's personal attorney.
    She is the attorney for the United States.
        When President Ronald Reagan nominated William French
    Smith, his former personal attorney, to be the Attorney
    General, Smith was asked during his confirmation hearing how he
    proposed to ensure that his former relationship would not
    compromise his independence. Smith responded, ``I would have to
    be very conscious of situations where it could appear that,
    because of that relationship, a problem might be created.''
    Smith recognized that legitimate concerns might require his
    recusal in certain cases to avoid the appearance of
    impropriety. As relevant to Ms. Bondi, her work defending
    President Trump during the first impeachment proceedings and
    public statements she has made about potential prosecutions of
    those involved in cases against President Trump could create,
    at the very least, the appearance of a lack of independence if
    she were to open investigations into people involved in those
    matters.
        Similarly, any involvement in a civil case against the DOJ
    about which President Trump's attorneys have given notice and
    which seeks more than $100 million for alleged rights
    violations rising out of the Mar-a-Lago search, could
    reasonably raise concerns about Ms. Bondi's impartiality that
    could only be addressed through recusal. In 1978, 4 years after
    President Nixon's resignation after Watergate, Attorney General
    Griffin Bell established the first of what has become known as
    the Department's White House context policy. It has been
    reaffirmed by Attorneys General under both Republican and
    Democratic Presidents ever since.
        The DOJ policy recognizes the tension between protecting
    the Department's independence in making decisions about
    criminal and civil law enforcement, while also preserving the
    President's ability to perform his constitutional obligations
    to take care that the law be faithfully executed. The policy
    thus bars the Department from advising the White House about
    pending or contemplated enforcement actions, subject to limited
    exceptions, while permitting communications about the
    advancement of the administration's policies.
        Just as in Bell's time, in order to insulate those who
    initiate and supervise law enforcement investigations, such as
    line prosecutors and their supervisors, communications with the
    White House about specific cases must involve only the Attorney
    General or Deputy Attorney General at the Department and the
    Counsel or Deputy Counsel of the President or Vice President at
    the White House. A parallel White House policy memorialized by
    counsels to the President over multiple administrations and
    directed to all White House staff contain similar restrictions
    on context with all Departments and Agencies. The incoming
    Attorney General would be well advised to continue to adhere to
    the White House context policy and to urge the White House
    Counsel to do the same.
        In closing, public respect for the Department of Justice
    begins with public respect for the Attorney General. That
    respect comes from the impartial adherence to the rule of law,
    free from improper political influence. The Senate should
    ensure that the next Attorney General is committed to taking
    the steps to earn that respect.
        [The prepared statement of Ms. McCord appears as a
    submission for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. Thank you, Ms. McCord, and now Mr. Cox.

     STATEMENT OF NICHOLAS B. COX, STATEWIDE PROSECUTOR, OFFICE OF
      STATEWIDE PROSECUTION, OFFICE OF ATTORNEY GENERAL, STATE OF
                     FLORIDA, TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA

        Mr. Cox. Thank you. I just want to say thank you very much
    for allowing me to be here today. For a man from a small town
    in Florida whose father was a trucker and mom was a mail
    carrier, this is--being before the United States Senate, this
    is a true blue honor, so thank you for allowing me to be here.
        I know Pam Bondi. I've known her for about 35 years, and
    I've known her as a prosecutor. I've been her colleague, I've
    been her supervisor, she's been my supervisor, and I know her
    as the statewide prosecutor of Florida. And I hope to share
    with you a little bit today about what I know about Ms. Bondi
    professionally and what I know about her as a prosecutor. And
    what I do know about her is as to how she will handle the job
    of United States Attorney General, if you all so decide.
        When it comes to criminal prosecution, Pam Bondi is
    unquestionably an ace. She did everything from batteries, DUIs,
    first-degree capital murder cases--she has experienced almost
    everything within the American justice system. From going to
    the scenes of these tragedies, to the courtrooms, to the
    witness rooms, holding hands with the victims of these crimes,
    Pam really has done it all. She appreciates the rules that make
    our criminal justice system the best in the world, and I
    wholeheartedly believe she will apply them and she will follow
    them.
        Ms. Bondi is a tenacious but a very thoughtful prosecutor.
    Crimes of violence upset her the most. She and I tried dozens
    of cases together before juries, including first-degree
    murders. Her level of preparation was simply outstanding. Her
    ability to connect with and speak to them on an understandable
    level was excellent. Juries loved her, defense counsel
    respected her, and courts listened to her. It was clear that
    Ms. Bondi was there because she believed what she was doing,
    she believed in the case she was presenting, and she really did
    have that undefinable something that made everybody in the
    courtroom--juries, judges, maybe even defense lawyers
    sometimes--want her to succeed. She was excellent and still is.
        Ms. Bondi is tough. She quickly earned the title of career
    criminal prosecutor at a very young age due to her very clear
    feelings about repeat offenders and also her outstanding
    abilities in the courtroom. Her task was clear: prosecute the
    habitual offenders, seeking out the highest sentence possible,
    and she did just that. She wouldn't budge in plea bargaining
    with these repeat offenders that had proven time and time again
    they weren't going to comply with our laws. And she always held
    them responsible for their offenses. Due to her tough-on-crime
    approach, she found herself in court trying cases before judges
    and juries routinely, and she loved to be in the courtroom. She
    loves being in trial.
        You know, the impact that prosecutors have on lives of
    people was never lost on Ms. Bondi. I sometimes find myself
    telling our prosecutors at the Office of Statewide Prosecution,
    please remember what we're doing here. Our jobs are great, we
    are so fortunate to have these jobs, but the amount of power
    that we wield and how this power will impact people is
    remarkable. Just the issuance of a simple subpoena can ruin a
    life, and that's an everyday thing for us. Pam Bondi
    understands that. She realizes it. As you've heard, she's done
    it for 18 years in the courtroom and also the 8 more as the
    Attorney General.
        When she became the Attorney General, she didn't forget her
    experiences as a prosecutor. One of the things that she brought
    for me, as Florida's statewide prosecutor--which I'm very
    fortunate now to have continue under our current Attorney
    General in Florida, Ashley Moody--one of the things she did is
    she really shielded me from the politics. She understood how
    politics can impact what we do every day in a courtroom, and I
    will forever be grateful to both of them for shielding me from
    those politics. With all due respect, prosecutors, we don't
    usually want to be politicians. We just want to go in and do
    what we're supposed to do. And Pam Bondi made the job not only
    capable for me to complete, and, I feel, complete well, but she
    made it fun. She made it something I really enjoy doing, and I
    will be forever grateful to her and General Moody for allowing
    us to do that.
        You know, I said a lot more in my statement and I'll let my
    statement stand. I know it's in the record and you all will
    hear it, and I've got about 12 seconds left. But I do want to
    say that on the question of independence, I've experienced
    times with Pam Bondi where I've said to her--it's a different
    role than what you all are talking about--but where I've said
    to Pam Bondi, General, no, we can't do that. She might disagree
    with me, she may let me know she disagrees with me, but in the
    end she'd look at me and say, do what you've got to do. And
    that happened several times--a lot. She understands that, and I
    think she will be an excellent Attorney General.
        Chairman, if I might say to my colleagues at the Department
    of Justice, the prosecutors, as Mr. Aronberg said publicly,
    they have nothing to fear from Pam Bondi as a prosecutor. And
    to the contrary, I truly believe they will love working for
    her. Pam Bondi understands the rule of law, she understands the
    impact on lives, she understands what we do, and I believe
    wholeheartedly that all of them will love working for Pam Bondi
    like I have. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cox appears as a submission
    for the record.]
        Chairman Grassley. I thank all of you for being very
    careful about not going over the 5 minutes. Thank you all very
    much for that.
        I'm going to start with you, Mr. Aronberg, and my staff
    gives me information that maybe you don't mind telling people
    that you vote for Democrats and that you voted against
    President Trump. If you--I'm just saying that you probably
    don't mind us saying that or you wouldn't have told us. You
    clearly have political differences with Ms. Bondi, and I'm sure
    you disagree with her on many issues. So what would you say to
    critics of Ms. Bondi who believe that she is, quote, unquote,
    ``too partisan'' to serve as our Nation's Attorney General?
        Mr. Aronberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Those critics should
    talk to her political opponents in the past, like me, like Dan
    Gelber, who was the Democrat who beat me, who ran against her
    in the general election. They're friends. It's rare these days
    that you see people who battle it out in a general election
    remain friends after all these years. She had relationships
    across the aisle within the Florida Legislature. I know because
    I was in the Florida Legislature before I ran for Attorney
    General, and I saw it up close. I think some of the criticism
    comes in that she is loyal to President Trump, and she is, she
    is. But I never believed that if asked to do something illegal,
    that she would knowingly do that. She would never step across
    the line. In my mind, I can't imagine her doing that.
        I echo what Nick Cox said, is that she's always been
    tethered to the law. She understands as a 20-year prosecutor
    that prosecutors have to follow the evidence and the law. And
    because of her background as someone who is not a super
    partisan--she had never run for office before running for
    Attorney General, she doesn't come from the world of politics,
    she comes from the world of prosecutors and the criminal
    justice system--that I do believe that she will act in a way
    that is always tethered to the law and will not cross that line
    to making purely political decisions.
        Chairman Grassley. You worked with her on drug issues very
    much. Seeing how Ms. Bondi handled the opioid crisis in
    Florida, how do you think she will handle the crisis on a
    national level?
        Mr. Aronberg. I think she's going to get tough on fentanyl
    across the Border. I don't know the specifics on how she plans
    to tighten up on it, but I know she's going to make it a
    priority because when we had an opioid epidemic in Florida and
    we were the drug supplier for the rest of the country, she went
    to a reluctant Republican-dominated Legislature and told them
    we needed to pass this Prescription Drug Monitoring Program,
    something that had been stalled for a decade in Tallahassee,
    and she got it done. I had run on that platform. If I had been
    elected attorney general as a Democrat, I don't think I
    could've persuaded that Legislature to do it, but she had the
    credibility. It took Nixon to go to China. It took her to
    convince a recalcitrant Republican Legislature to pass these
    needed reforms. So I don't know specifically what she will do,
    but I know that she will not shy away from standing up to
    people in her own party who will disagree with her on it.
        Chairman Grassley. Mr. Cox, you've worked with Ms. Bondi
    for three decades, and you're also the longest-serving
    statewide prosecutor. Some have suggested that Ms. Bondi's
    lobbying and political career will influence her decision-
    making. In your decades of working with her, have you ever
    known her to make a decision that was illegal or unethical?
        Mr. Cox. Absolutely not. Ms. Bondi, as Mr. Aronberg
    referred to, and quite honestly, Ms. McCord could tell you, as
    well, you know, being a prosecutor is about focusing on the law
    and focusing on the evidence and focusing on, really, what's
    right. That's what our job is, to do justice. I know that she's
    embraced that. She's practiced that. I have never seen anything
    untoward in any of the cases I ever worked with Ms. Bondi.
        Chairman Grassley. And, Sheriff Gainey, you served as Ms.
    Bondi's director of law enforcement and victim services. You
    spoke in your opening statement about Ms. Bondi's work with
    State and Federal and local law enforcement. What would you say
    is Ms. Bondi's biggest achievement as far as Attorney General,
    from the perspective of you as a law enforcement officer?
        Mr. Gainey. Senator, her willingness to partner with law
    enforcement. It's not uncommon for her to call together
    sheriffs and police chiefs, State law enforcement and Federal
    to seek from those leaders and directors what the issues are.
    Florida's a large State, those issues are vast and they change
    from one State to the other. She sits down with those partners,
    discusses those issues, and then fiercely do everything in her
    power to assure that the men and women in our State and our
    Federal offices in our State have the resources and the tools
    to do their job. It was not uncommon we had--during legislative
    sessions, Sheriff's Association met in her office, the Florida
    Prosecutors' Association met in her office. She provided space
    so we can be there to consult with her and her team and her
    staff on a regular basis as we addressed issues before our
    Legislature every single year.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Durbin.
        Senator Durbin. Sheriff Gainey, let me follow up with you
    on a subject. You're aware of what happened here January 6 in
    the Capitol Complex and the law enforcement personnel who were
    attacked by the mob, the demonstrators, and a number of them--
    hundreds of them have been prosecuted and some are serving
    sentences for violent felonies against our police. Was there
    anything like that in your background dealing with Ms. Bondi
    where she's been called on to make a decision on standing up
    for law enforcement in similar circumstances?
        Mr. Gainey. Senator, every single day, quite frankly. She
    had worked with--we, unfortunately experienced law enforcement
    officers killed in the State of Florida. She was there not only
    to work with those law enforcement agencies and those families,
    with respect to prosecutors, whether it was our statewide or
    our local prosecutors or our Federal prosecutors, she was a
    fierce supporter to make sure that the laws of the State of
    Florida was enforced, that men and women of law enforcement
    were supported, and their families knew that she supported them
    on a regular basis.
        Senator Durbin. Mr. Cox, you talked about several
    instances, experiences you had with Ms. Bondi when she was
    under political pressure. Could you tell us a little bit more
    about one of those?
        Mr. Cox. Well, candidly, there was some pressure at the
    beginning when Mr. Aronberg mentioned about the--oh, I
    apologize.
        Senator Durbin. You want to pull that microphone close to
    you.
        Mr. Cox. That is the first time anyone's asked me to pull a
    microphone closer.
        Senator Durbin. I may change my mind. Go ahead.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Cox. You wouldn't be the first, many judges have.
    Ranking Member Durbin, yes. Right from the beginning when Mr.
    Aronberg mentioned about the problems we had with the opioid
    epidemic and the pill mills, she was actually--I will say
    this--was getting some pushback from our Governor, Senator Rick
    Scott, and it was about the PDMP. And I was there when she sat
    down with Senator Scott--I believe Sheriff Gainey was there
    with us, as well--and we had a couple sheriffs, and we were
    speaking with Ms. Bondi about it. She called the Governor--now
    Senator, I apologize--right then and put him on the phone with
    us, and had us discuss with him the need for the PDMP, the
    Prescription Drug Monitoring database, and--which ended up
    making a massive change. And to the Senator's credit, he sat
    down and listened to us, asked us questions, and in the end,
    she convinced him we needed it. And as I recall, it was within
    the next week or two that he came up here and he announced his
    support for our PDMP. You know, she didn't have an agreement
    with a person who she loves. I mean, she very much got along
    very well with then-Governor Scott, and she confronted him
    about it and changed his mind.
        Senator Durbin. Now here's a track record.
        Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
        Senator Durbin. This newly elected President--as former
    President, fired two Attorneys General under circumstances
    where they disagreed with him. Senator Sessions in one instance
    and Bill Barr on another, and they were both fired. So it's
    pretty clear that he is not adverse to taking a different
    position than his Attorney General and having a pretty short
    temper when it comes to dealing with it. That's the reality of
    what we see on the record--not once but twice. Can you
    understand our concern about whether she would react positively
    if he put that pressure on her?
        Mr. Cox. I can understand your concern, yes, sir. But the
    Pam Bondi I know as a prosecutor, where her heart is as a
    prosecutor, and having my experience with her myself telling
    her no when she was the Attorney General, I believe she will
    stand up to it. I truly believe that. She understands what our
    duty is. She understands, I think, the boundaries of the ethics
    that she mentioned several times yesterday. She understands all
    of that, and she's a true prosecutor. Yes, sir, I believe she
    will do it.
        Senator Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Gilbert, on this question of
    conflicts of interest and recusal--Ms. McCord, I invite you to
    answer this, as well, in the short time left--you seem to
    suggest that she can't recuse herself out of her current
    situation, her background as a lobbyist and attorney
    representing private interests, that she might be able to find
    some response to it but can't overcome what you called
    systemic--or whatever characterization you used. Haven't we had
    Attorneys General in the past with backgrounds in the private
    sector facing similar circumstances?
        Ms. Gilbert. We have had lobbyists become Attorney General
    in the past, but nowhere near the scope and scale of Ms. Bondi
    with 30 clients of her own in just the last 5 years, and coming
    from a firm that represents such a broad swath of corporate
    America. It would be very hard for her to remove herself from
    every situation that touches on these corporate interests. One
    easy example, I mentioned, GEO Group. There's not a pending
    enforcement action or investigation into them. There is one
    into their top rival, the other biggest private prison company,
    CoreCivic. She would not be expected to recuse herself from
    that. However, ramifications from it could impact GEO Group.
    And so it's just one small example of how interconnected
    corporate America is and how hard it will be for her to remove
    herself from all these situations.
        Senator Durbin. I think my time is up. Are you next up?
        Senator Tillis [presiding]. I'll be acting on behalf of the
    Chair, and I am next in the order.
        Mr. Aronberg, you ran in a primary, got defeated by a
    Democrat, endorsed that Democrat in the general election
    against Pam Bondi, and Pam Bondi hired you?
        Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you.
        Mr. Aronberg. Correct, Senator.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you. And so, and actually, I can tell
    that you've still got a liberal leaning because in the same
    sentence that you complimented Pam Bondi, you took a shot at a
    Republican-led Legislature by calling them recalcitrant. So, I
    mean, folks, you need to pay attention to that. This is
    somebody who's been a foe, who probably spoke against her in a
    public setting, and she had the temperament and the good
    judgment to look past your political views and hire you into
    her organization. I think that says a lot about people. In
    fact, I've made friends with the guy that ran against me, and
    nobody on the Democrat side seems to like him anymore.
        So, Ms. Gilbert, this lobbying thing, and I don't mean
    this--in the time allowed, can you talk about specific things
    that she lobbied for versus the firm that was retained? I don't
    know if Qatar hit the Bingo card today. It may have for you,
    but then when Ms. Bondi explained that this was $115,000 a
    month for a firm that was handling human trafficking cases, is
    that bad?
        Ms. Gilbert. [Voice heard off microphone.]
        Senator Tillis. So I'm assuming not, so let's go to the
    next one. What specifically did she or the firm do for these--
    yesterday, she focused it with Senator Booker on the abysmal
    state of the Bureau of Prisons. So she's clearly going to drill
    down on that. What, in your due diligence, what specific acts
    did she--not her firm--did she engage in that makes you feel
    like her sincerity toward Senator Booker yesterday was not
    genuine?
        Ms. Gilbert. I can't speak to her specific sincerity or
    motivations, but I can look at----
        Senator Tillis. Speak specifically to what she lobbied for
    that you expressed as a concern for the Bureau of--or for the
    private prisons, specifically what she lobbied for.
        Ms. Gilbert. Absolutely. So from what we know about her
    engagements with GEO Group, as mentioned in my testimony,
    they've been condemned for not having a lot of----
        Senator Tillis. I get it. Private pri--there are problems
    with them, but I guess I'm trying to get to what specific
    issues do you think she carries into this office that would
    undermine her credibility in trying to do a better job with the
    Bureau of Prisons? I'm just trying to get to the facts. I'm not
    an attorney, I don't even play one here, but I'm just trying to
    figure out what specific acts did she do. Other than the--
    around here, it'll be on the Bingo card for Kash Patel because
    we know where that's headed. But what specifically for any of
    the high tech, any of them, what specifically did she advocate
    for, other than the by reference concern that we may have?
    That's all I want to know from your organization. What
    specifically have you found about Pam Bondi in a filing, in an
    argument, in a letter that she specifically said that you
    believe would undermine her credibility?
        Ms. Gilbert. Yes, and I think from our perspective, it is
    about the appearance of impropriety. It's actually not about--
    --
        Senator Tillis. Okay. Actually not just appearance, so you
    don't have a specific example.
        Ms. Gilbert. It's about the engagement with this entity
    and----
        Senator Tillis. Yes, okay.
        Ms. Gilbert [continuing]. And the fact that----
        Senator Tillis. So I get it, I get it. But in the same way
    that we know the facts about Qatar now because we ask about it,
    it'll be interesting to see what specific role that she played.
    Thank you. I appreciate you being here.
        Ms. McCord, you worked in the Obama administration. Were
    you a career or political?
        Ms. McCord. The entirety of my time at the Department of
    Justice, I was in a career position.
        Senator Tillis. You were a career position? Okay. Thank
    you. And, Mr. Gainey, it sounds like--in the same--I did the
    same thing or I have done the same thing that I think Pam Bondi
    has done, just call somebody out of the blue and say we got to
    take it a different direction. Isn't it also, I mean, she got a
    lot of blowback from the Republican Legislature for some of the
    work that she was doing, to point that Mr. Aronberg made. Is
    that true?
        Mr. Gainey. That is true, Senator. In fact, it's the call
    that Mr. Cox referenced. It was on a Saturday morning, to be
    more specific.
        Senator Tillis. So I bet if we went back at a time, like I
    sometimes get attacked, I bet if we went back at the times,
    we'd probably find several examples where people were taking
    shots at her from her side of the aisle for doing something
    that's proven to be very important. So she strikes me as
    somebody that can--that was her power, that was her influence
    back in her time as prosecutor, and she stood up to them and
    did the right thing, and didn't really care whether or not she
    got reelected. Is that correct?
        Mr. Gainey. That is correct.
        Senator Tillis. Thank you all. On behalf of the Chair,
    Senator Klobuchar.
        Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Thank you, also,
    Senator Durbin, and thank you to the witnesses before us today.
        I'm going to start with you, Ms. McCord. Welcome back to
    the Committee. If we could just go through these answers
    because I think it's really important to put this outside of
    personal friendships, all these things, whether or not the
    Attorney General is a Democrat, Republican, who's in charge.
    And you testified that the Attorney General is not the
    President's personal attorney. In fact, the person is the
    attorney for the United States, the AG is. And you referenced
    Attorney General William French Smith's comments at his
    nomination hearing. Can you talk about the importance of
    maintaining this distinction that the AG is the attorney for
    the U.S. and not for the President?
        Ms. McCord. So it's important not only to have the
    confidence of the career prosecutors and law enforcement
    officials within the Department, but also to the country
    because the loyalty does need to be to the United States and to
    the Constitution. And there may be times, and I think Senator
    Durbin pointed out times in the previous Trump administration
    where the Attorney General did not show sufficient loyalty to
    Donald Trump, and those Attorneys lost their positions.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Thank you. And in your written
    testimony, you described the Justice Department's White House
    contacts policy that was established following the Watergate
    scandal. It's been reaffirmed by AGs under both Republican and
    Democratic Presidents ever since. The policy states that, ``All
    communications about particular cases from the White House or
    Congress must be referred to the AG or other high-level
    officials in the Justice Department in order to preserve the
    integrity and independence of DOJ investigations from political
    interference.'' Yesterday, I asked Ms. Bondi if she agreed with
    former Attorney General Mukasey, Republican Attorney General,
    that any attempt--his words--any attempt by the White House--
    his words--to interfere with a case is not to be countenanced
    and any call to a line assistant or to a United States Attorney
    from a political person relating to a case is to be cut and
    curtailed. She affirmed that she agreed with that statement.
    You also testified to a parallel White House policy, Ms.
    McCord. Can you speak to the importance of both the Justice
    Department and the White House maintaining and abiding by
    strict contacts policies?
        Ms. McCord. Well, historically, like I said, post-
    Watergate, these policies have been instituted under Republican
    and Democratic administrations. In fact, Don McGahn, the White
    House Counsel in the first Trump administration, reissued that
    White House contacts policy in January of the first term
    because he recognized the importance that it not just be a DOJ
    policy, but that all within the White House staff know not to
    pressure the Department--or other Departments and Agencies when
    it comes to specific matters.
        Senator Klobuchar. And how can Congress exercise its
    oversight authorities to ensure that the policies on both sides
    are being followed?
        Ms. McCord. I think starting with the questions you asked
    yesterday, Senator Klobuchar, is a good start, and if it should
    come--if there should come any time where it seems like these
    policies are not being complied with or if there is a refusal
    to adopt or continue those policies, those are something that
    Congress should be very concerned about.
        Senator Klobuchar. Okay. Ms. Gilbert, you've been before us
    many times on the subject of antitrust, and as you know and I
    know and many Democrats and Republicans on this Committee know,
    monopolies will go very far to preserve their power. Tech-
    funded groups, for instance, spent hundreds of millions of
    dollars against Senator Grassley and my bill, which was, of
    course, not just supported by consumer groups, but also by
    groups as conservative as the NFIB, the Small Business
    Association, because of the unfairness of monopoly tech
    companies putting their own products at the top of their search
    engines and the unfair competition that results when they have
    that kind of power. You know there are cases out there right
    now that are really important on monopolies, Google, Apple,
    Live Nation-Ticketmaster, RealPage that are being litigated to
    their fullest. Why is it important that the new AG continue
    these cases to protect consumers, enhance competition, and--
    just a general question about the rules of the road--and how
    important this is as Senator Grassley and I reintroduce our
    bill.
        Ms. Gilbert. Absolutely. Thank you for that question and
    for your and Senator Grassley's great work in this space. We
    are hopeful that the new Department of Justice will continue
    the cases that have been begun over the last 4 years. We've
    been really excited to see the strong forward momentum for
    dealing with corporate concentration, taking on monopolies head
    on. It's so important for consumers. Public Citizen is a
    consumer organization, and as we think about regular people and
    engaging with the markets, you know, if they are squeezed out,
    if they can't sell their products, if there isn't fair
    competition, if small businesses can't get ahead, these are all
    problems for regular Americans. And so just really hopeful that
    the DOJ will continue what they've started that these cases
    roll on. And then I also want to put a plug in for your
    fantastic bill, yours and Senator Grassley's. We hope as the
    DOJ continues, so can the work here in the Senate on this
    important policy to stop self-preferencing, as you mentioned.
        Senator Klobuchar. All right. Well, thank you, and I wanted
    to thank also others on the panel for their important work when
    it comes to pill mills and what it was and is going on with
    these horrible, horrible situations where people are getting
    hooked while people are profiting off of it. Thank you.
        Senator Tillis. On behalf of the Chair, Senator Schmitt.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We've heard a lot
    about the newfound concern that my Democrat colleagues have
    about independence in the AG's office. And given over the last
    4 years, it is ironic. Ms. McCord, I do want to ask you, you're
    talking about the importance of independence. Is it concerning
    to you that Eric Holder, while he was Attorney General,
    described himself as Obama's heat shield and his wingman? Is
    that concerning to you?
        Ms. McCord. That's probably not the best description of the
    job of the Attorney General, but I think the record probably
    speaks for itself and speaks differently.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. Loretta Lynch met with Bill Clinton
    just days before the FBI interviewed Hillary Clinton on the
    investigation as it relates to emails. Does that meeting with
    the spouse and former President of the subject of the
    investigation, is that concerning to you as it relates to the
    appearance of independence?
        Ms. McCord. My understanding of that is a chance encounter
    at an airport on the tarmac, and that does not actually give me
    concern.
        Senator Schmitt. Okay. I don't think that's what happened,
    but that's an interesting characterization of that. But, I
    think--and I'm going to switch to you now, Mr. Cox, because
    these are sort of related. I think the frustration a lot of
    Americans feel and why the decline in trust and faith in the
    Department of Justice is they saw exactly what happened over
    the last 4 years, which was a very obvious attempt to try to
    jail a political opponent, and I'm not going to ask you to
    comment on that.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you.
        Senator Schmitt. Yes. I'm not going to ask you to comment
    on that, but I think that's why you see a lot of the questions
    that are asked by my Republican colleagues on this Committee.
    It is just this lawfare. We don't want to see it continue, but
    what we've seen over the last 4 years is a total disgrace. And
    I think for the hardworking men and women in the Department of
    Justice who aren't engaged in this, you know, it's affected the
    Department's reputation and why I'm such a big believer in Pam
    Bondi and what she can do, and try to restore credibility to an
    Agency that has been weaponized and politicized, and get it
    back to its core function, which is objectively administering
    justice and taking on violent crime.
        And I just want to ask you, in your experience with Pam
    Bondi, this has been what she's done. She's a career
    prosecutor. Right? I mean, you can see her embracing this role
    of working with, whether it's the U.S. attorneys or other law
    enforcement around the country, of taking on violent crime
    because we need leadership there. We've got a lot of, you know,
    crime has gone up, and I'm from a State that has, you know, St.
    Louis and Kansas City, and we had partnerships when I was
    Attorney General with the U.S. Attorney's Office to take on
    violent crime. And when Joe Biden came into office, those were
    severed for political reasons. Which is wrong. It's not a
    partisan issue. Do you see that as a role that she will play as
    Attorney General?
        Mr. Cox. Absolutely, but what you just described about the
    relations with law enforcement is what not only she practiced,
    she encouraged all of us around her to do. And I could not
    agree more with you about your assessment of Ms. Bondi on that.
    Look, we're prosecutors. I mean, in her heart, Pam's a
    prosecutor, and, you know, our job is to go in and fight crime.
    But, you know, we don't take lightly, those of us that are
    career prosecutors, that our job is to do justice. I mean,
    that's what the courts have said, and at her heart, 100
    percent, that's Pam Bondi. It really is. So yes, and she--Pam
    loves law enforcement. I mean, let's not kid each other. We all
    love law enforcement, and everybody and everything they stand
    for. And so, yes, sir, I believe she would do that with law
    enforcement and prosecutors. She did it in Florida.
        Senator Schmitt. And we'll talk offline about your role.
    It's an interesting role because in Missouri the local
    prosecutors are the ones--we don't have--there's no office of
    statewide prosecutors, so I'm not going to ask you about that.
    I just find that's interesting.
        Mr. Cox. Not common.
        Senator Schmitt. It's not a common thing, but in your
    experience in serving with Pam Bondi, did you find her
    committed to enforcing the law equally and impartially?
        Mr. Cox. Oh, yes, sir, I did. I mean, that's what we're
    supposed to do. And she embraced it, yes, sir, she did.
        Senator Schmitt. Thank you.
        Mr. Cox. She is complete prosecutor, she is a total
    prosecutor, and that's why when I speak to her independence,
    it's because she believes in it, and it's in her heart. I mean,
    you know, seeing her recently, I mean, I know that's where she
    is. I really truly meant it when I said to my colleagues at the
    U.S. Department of Justice, if confirmed, you're going to love
    working with Pam Bondi.
        Senator Schmitt. I couldn't agree with you more, which is
    why I was thrilled to be able to give that introduction
    yesterday of Pam. I think she's going to be an outstanding
    Attorney General, and I think, like I said yesterday, I think
    she deserves a bipartisan vote, not only in this Committee, but
    on the Senate floor. Thank you for being here today.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you, sir.
        Chairman Grassley [presiding]. Senator Welch, you're next.
        Senator Welch. Thank you very much, and I thank all the
    witnesses. I read your statements, and watched, and I want to
    thank the Florida folks for being here on behalf of somebody
    that you know well and worked with a long time. She clearly is
    a competent person and has quite a resume, so you reaffirmed
    that.
        A couple of questions that I have are less about her and
    her qualifications and more about this question that looms out
    there, where there's a mutual concern here about not using the
    justice system for political reasons. And there's a point of
    view with my Republican colleagues it's been used that way in
    the prosecutions against Donald Trump. I don't agree with that,
    but I hear them on that. And there's a concern on my part, and
    I think a lot of our--others, that Donald Trump has made very
    explicit statements that he intends to pursue political
    adversaries and he's named them, including my colleague, Mr.
    Schiff, Liz Cheney.
        And, he's a--he is now a President who enjoys the benefit
    of the--he will be a President who enjoys the benefit of the
    immunity decision by the Supreme Court. I strongly disagree
    with that decision. I don't think anybody is above the law.
    That's the whole basis upon which our country was founded. But
    I take him seriously when he says he wants a prosecutor to go
    after his political adversaries. And the tradition in the
    Justice Department, since Watergate, has been to really create
    a near firewall between the administration--the Executive and
    the Justice Department because of its special role. And all of
    you are law enforcement so you just know how awesome that power
    is that you have, and you have to have restraint, as well as
    aggression.
        So how does an Attorney General handle a President who has
    already put an immense amount of pressure on Bill Barr, one of
    his Attorney General, who did it on Mr. Sessions. And shouldn't
    we take seriously the President's threat--President Trump's
    threat that he's going to go after his political adversaries?
    And how do we deal with that? And how do we assess that in
    terms of this decision? I'll ask you, Ms. McCord, to start.
        Ms. McCord. Thank you, Senator. You know, as we know that
    in the first Trump administration, Attorney General Sessions
    made the decision to recuse himself from the Russia
    investigation because of his work with Donald Trump during the
    campaign and because of meetings he had had with the Russian
    ambassador during the campaign. He recognized that appearance
    of impropriety and the need for independence. He also appointed
    a special counsel to take over that investigation. Those are
    the kind of steps that are required when--when there could be
    pressure, and there was pressure put on Attorney General
    Sessions. Indeed, I think forever after that recusal decision,
    he fell out of favor with the President and, ultimately, was
    fired. But those are the things that an independent Attorney
    General needs to take seriously and needs to do to demonstrate
    that commitment to independence from political influence.
        Senator Welch. You know, what's difficult here is that none
    of us know whoever is in that job and is confronted by a very
    determined President Trump to do something that, from the
    prosecution point of view, may not be appropriate--a political
    prosecution of an adversary for payback--there's no way to know
    how any of us, as committed as we are, would be able to
    withstand that pressure. But I'll just--I'll talk to you, sir.
    Yes, you worked with Pam Bondi and have a high opinion of her.
    I'll give you the opportunity to say how she would be able to
    withstand what I think is inevitably going to be an enormous
    amount of pressure by the President at a certain point when he
    decides, directed toward whoever serves as his Attorney
    General.
        Mr. Cox. Let me start out by saying I've been fortunate
    enough not to be in that situation because I've had Attorneys
    General that I work for, like Pam Bondi and Ashley Moody.
    However, a prosecutor's job is a solemn thing. The impact we
    have on lives is--you mentioned the power, and you're
    absolutely right. It's got to be respected, it's got to be
    appreciated, it's got to be embraced. And sometimes that
    means--I've been in positions before where I've thought, if I
    do or say this, I could lose my job. But you've got to be
    willing to do that. I don't know how else to say it. It's
    tough. It's very tough. My job, fortunately, is really not a
    political job because of my AGs.
        Senator Welch. Right.
        Mr. Cox. But you do have to be in the position sometimes
    when right is right to have to stand up and buck up.
        Senator Welch. All right. Well, thank you very much. I
    yield back.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Cruz.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you to each of
    the witnesses who are here today. Mr. Cox, let me start with
    you.
        Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. You worked with Attorney General Bondi for
    over 35 years.
        Mr. Cox. Yes, sir.
        Senator Cruz. Can you speak to her leadership style and
    then, how she managed the Attorney General's office?
        Mr. Cox. Fair--of course very kind, but firm. She was very
    decisive. That's what I liked about her. But in her decision,
    Ms. Bondi always listened. There were times she and I
    disagreed, several times, many times where we would disagree,
    and she would hear me out. Sometimes I'd change her mind,
    believe it or not. It wasn't often, but it happened. But
    sometimes, you know, she would listen to me and go the way she
    felt. That was her job. She was the Attorney General. But she
    is very firm. She's very decisive.
        And I will tell you, the number of times I walked with
    her--she appreciates my role and our role as prosecutors. The
    number of times I would walk away from her, and she wouldn't
    agree with my decision maybe on a particular case, and she
    would tell me, do what you got to do. I mentioned it earlier in
    my statement. That's the Pam Bondi that I worked with. That's
    why I'm so confident in her that she can fill this role.
        Senator Cruz. So I think the single most important
    responsibility that General Bondi will have at the Department
    of Justice is restoring integrity to the Department. I think
    over the last 4 years, we have seen a pattern of politicization
    and weaponization of the Department of Justice that has done
    massive damage to that institution, a storied institution that
    is incredibly important for the rule of law. Speak to your
    assessment of General Bondi's integrity and her ability to
    restore integrity to DOJ.
        Mr. Cox. Might I just answer that first off by saying she's
    a prosecutor, and that's what we're supposed to do. I've spoken
    to it several times, and I won't repeat myself, Senator. At her
    heart, she believes in the system. She believes in what we do.
    I don't think it gets--with all due respect to everybody in
    this room and that may be listening, I don't know how much more
    serious it gets on impacting lives than being a prosecutor and
    being a judge who has to handle these cases. And she's always
    respected that. You know, I mentioned in my statement, she's
    never forgotten, she's never lost her humanity, and she hasn't.
    You know, she, might I say--I don't know if this is answering
    your question--Pam Bondi likes people, and she wants people to
    like her, and I don't know that that's so bad for an Attorney
    General, either. Bbut she appreciates the impact of this job. I
    hope I've answered your question, Senator.
        Senator Cruz. All right. Mr. Aronberg, let's turn to you.
    So you and I have known each other 30 years. We were classmates
    in law school. It's good to see you. Welcome to the Swamp. You
    live in Palm Beach, which is a lot nicer weather than it is up
    here, and you spent 3 terms as the elected State attorney in
    Palm Beach County. You're a Democrat, you ran as a Democrat,
    were elected as a Democrat, and you also, in this last
    election, voted for Kamala Harris. Is that right?
        Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
        Senator Cruz. You've also worked closely with General
    Bondi.
        Mr. Aronberg. Correct.
        Senator Cruz. In your judgment, describe--same question I
    asked Mr. Cox, how would you describe her leadership style, and
    how would you describe her integrity?
        Mr. Aronberg. Well, Senator Cruz, in full disclosure, we
    didn't--we weren't just classmates. You and I, we lived in the
    same dorm----
        Senator Cruz. Yep.
        Mr. Aronberg [continuing]. First year before either of us
    had any gray hair.
        Senator Cruz. And burn those pictures.
        Mr. Aronberg. Fair enough. Mr. Cox is right. She has a very
    hands-on style. Everyone in the office knows her. She was not
    isolated from the rest of us. She walked the hallways. She was
    friends with everyone. She brought her dog to work sometimes,
    even though it probably violated code. And it was a big dog, a
    St. Bernard. And she's a very likable person.
        Senator Cruz. It didn't have a barrel of whiskey under its
    neck. Did it?
        Mr. Aronberg. Only in Bugs Bunny cartoons. She's a very
    likable person, and I think you'll find that from everyone who
    knows her in Tallahassee and throughout Florida. It's hard not
    to like her. You can disagree with her politically--and she and
    I have our political differences--but as far as a boss, she
    never tried to big time anyone. She's a person like everyone
    else. She is--she expects the best from people, but she has a
    real human touch about her.
        Senator Cruz. Now, you also worked with her very closely,
    in particular, in going after pill mills. Can you describe what
    you and she were able to accomplish together on that?
        Mr. Aronberg. We were able to shut down the pill mills.
    Florida was the pill supplier for the rest of the country.
    Ninety-eight of the top hundred doctors who dispense pills were
    in Florida. It was a national embarrassment. The ``OxyContin
    Express'' was from Appalachia down to Florida. People would
    come down, buy their drugs, use, abuse, and then go home and
    sell them for a profit. We ended that. She appointed me to be
    the lead person, but we could not have done it without her. She
    was the person who got the Legislature to change the laws. We
    couldn't have done any of that without that. She was the one
    who convinced them to pass the Prescription Drug Monitoring
    Program. That was indispensable. So it was her leadership that
    really led to a dramatic decrease in the number of deaths from
    opioid overdoses.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you.
        Mr. Aronberg. Thank you.
        Senator Cruz. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
        Chairman Grassley. Senator Hirono.
        Senator Hirono. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you all for
    testifying today.
        Professor McCord, I'd like to ask you about January 6
    attack on the U.S. Capitol. Can you succinctly define
    ``domestic terrorism'' ?
        Ms. McCord. Domestic terrorism under the United States Code
    is a crime--it is an act of violence that is a crime under
    Federal or State law that is done with the attempt to influence
    the policy of government through intimidation or coercion.
        Senator Hirono. Based on that definition, were some of the
    acts committed on January 6 acts of domestic terrorism?
        Ms. McCord. Certainly the acts of violence that violate the
    Criminal Code do seem to have appeared for many of the people
    based on their own statements. Many of the defendants in cases
    that are being prosecuted, they seem to have been done to
    influence the policy of the Government--and specifically to not
    certify the Electoral College ballots on January 6.
        Senator Hirono. Yesterday, Ms. Bondi refused to disavow
    President Trump calling the insurrectionists hostages and
    patriots. What effect would President Trump's pardoning of
    these criminals have on our country?
        Ms. McCord. It would have an----
        Senator Hirono. What's the message if that were to happen?
        Ms. McCord. Senator, I believe it would have an enormous
    impact on the criminal legal system, and I would say also on
    our judiciary. In fact, I published a piece about that this
    morning in the Atlantic. We have our Federal judges here,
    across--appointed by Republicans, Democrats, and President
    Trump himself, who uniformly have condemned the crimes of those
    who have been convicted due to their attack on the U.S.
    Capitol, that anything close to a blanket pardon, which is what
    has been suggested but not promised by Donald Trump, without
    individual consideration of cases, would severely undermine
    these Federal judges and undermine the criminal legal system.
        Senator Hirono. We know--and this has come up with one of
    my colleagues. We know from the disastrous Supreme Court
    immunity decision that President Trump pretty much has a free
    pass to do what he wants. An unfettered President is even more
    dangerous if the Department of Justice is not independent. So
    based on your extensive experience of the DOJ, are there
    warning signs that we should watch for to signal that the DOJ
    has lost its independence?
        Ms. McCord. Senator, I think as we've seen sometimes in the
    past, that when there are concerns among the career prosecutors
    and law enforcement officials at the Department who have
    responsibility over investigations and cases, when they have
    felt pressured, many of them have actually resigned. We saw
    that during the first Trump administration with respect to some
    of the prosecutions involving Michael Flynn and Roger Stone.
        Senator Hirono. So I take it that people resigning is one
    indication that all is not well, that independence is maybe not
    what's in practice. I'm just wondering, if we were to ask the
    Attorney General, if the President ordered you or suggested or
    hinted that you go after his perceived political enemies, would
    the Attorney General be able to cite attorney-client privilege
    and not respond to us?
        Ms. McCord. I don't want to give a legal opinion on that,
    Senator. I do think that that is the type of pressure that we
    are looking to an Attorney General to stand up to, from the
    White House, and I certainly want to take Ms. Bondi at her word
    when she, under oath, yesterday said she would exercise
    independence.
        Senator Hirono. Well, the thing is, what's deeply
    concerning about Ms. Bondi is that she's very loyal to
    President-elect Trump, and he demands a hundred percent loyalty
    of all of his people. So yesterday, Ms. Bondi could not say
    that President Biden had won the election in 2020. That is a
    basic fact. And I think that the--it was her loyalty to
    President-elect Trump that basically made it hard for her--
    impossible for her to say that President Biden had won the
    election. So that is concerning.
        Based on what we heard yesterday, I'm very concerned that,
    if confirmed, Attorney General Bondi will say yes if and when
    President Trump asked her to do something illegal. And the
    thing is that not much of what President-elect Trump will do is
    going to be deemed illegal because of the Supreme Court's
    disastrous immunity decision. So I'm really struggling with how
    are we to know that all is not well in terms of the
    independence of the DOJ? One thing would be if they adopt a
    policy--or the President adopts a policy that he will not order
    the DOJ around, even if this incoming President has said the
    Justice Department is basically his law firm. So if you all--if
    you have any further suggestions, aside from people actually
    resigning to indicate that the kind of independence we are
    looking for is not being followed, I would welcome that. Thank
    you, Mr. Chair.
        Senator Britt [presiding]. And, Senator, Hirono, your time
    is up. Thank you.
        Senator Hirono. This is fine.
        Senator Britt. Thank you. Let's see. Mr. Cox, I'd like to
    start with you. I heard your comments with regards to both Pam
    Bondi, who we are here for today, and you heaped praise on
    Attorney General Moody, who you work for, as well. I'd like to
    say a public congratulations to her being named Senate designee
    and be the next Senator from Florida. Oh look, I get to deliver
    the news to you. So DeSantis just came out----
        Mr. Cox. Wow.
        Senator Britt [continuing]. And said she will be joining
    us. I am thrilled. I mean, as a mom of school-age kids, to have
    another woman sitting right here next to me fighting for the
    people that we serve with what I understand is her brilliant
    intellect, her ability, and her passion for the people of
    Florida, which I know she will bring to the United States
    Senate. I cannot wait to call her a colleague. So on behalf of
    me--and all of us, welcome to Attorney General Moody, new
    Senate designee. We look forward to her taking the ranks.
        Mr. Cox. Might I respond or comment just briefly?
        Senator Britt. Sure. Absolutely.
        Mr. Cox. Senators, you're going to love Ashley Moody. She
    is a wonderful person to work with. She's brilliant, I--that is
    wow----
        Senator Britt. Wow. Right?
        Mr. Cox. Thank you for telling me.
        Senator Britt. Oh, I'm so excited, I got to tell you.
        Mr. Cox. The best thing about it is, I can say I learned
    that in the United States Senate.
        Senator Britt. In the United States Senate, that's right,
    and hopefully she will be up here just in the next few days
    after we confirm Senator Rubio, who's going to do an
    exceptional job as Secretary of State. So congratulations to
    Ashley and cannot wait to serve with her.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you.
        Senator Britt. So now let's talk about another amazing
    woman, Pam Bondi. I have heard you over and over again when you
    respond to questions talking about her, I think you said she is
    fair, kind, and firm. You have talked about the fact that she
    is transparent and impartial. I would like for you one more
    time to say to the American people, based on your previous work
    with Pam Bondi, can you explain how she'll continue to operate,
    you believe, in that manner, in a fair and transparent manner
    as she takes the helm of the Justice Department?
        Mr. Cox. Because she believes in everything you just
    questioned me about, and she practiced it in Florida. You know,
    whether you agreed with her or not, Pam Bondi, like I said, is
    a person who really likes people. I think we should welcome
    that into Government. I think that sometimes we lose sight of--
    prosecutors--I'm going to speak to myself--we can lose sight of
    the fact, as the Ranking Member mentioned, the immense power
    that we have and we get caught up in it. Pam Bondi doesn't get
    caught up in those kinds of trappings.
        Senator Britt. I love it.
        Mr. Cox. Yes. She loves people, and she at her heart,
    again, is a prosecutor. As Mr. Aronberg had mentioned, nobody
    has anything to fear from Pam Bondi. She is going to be a
    breath of fresh air, if you all send her there.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely, and I think we need to restore
    those very things, fairness and transparency, to the
    Department, and I look forward to her taking the helm. She's
    going to do that for the American people, and it's an exciting
    new day, so thank you so very much.
        Mr. Cox. Thank you for the news.
        Senator Britt. Absolutely. We are thrilled. So, Mr.
    Aronberg, I learned obviously that we need to talk with you
    offline about getting those stories on Cruz. Right? But--and
    also that she has a St. Bernard. I have a Newfoundland, so who
    knew that we both had love for the large dogs.
        And, Sheriff Gainey, I know that you've had an opportunity
    to work with Pam Bondi, as well. I want to talk to you
    specifically, both of you, about the opioid epidemic--about
    what we've seen with drug trafficking. I mentioned it
    yesterday. We heard Pam lean into this, as well, but there is
    nowhere in my State that I travel where someone does not tell
    me a story about losing a loved one to opioid abuse, addiction,
    overdose. And so tell me from your experience how she works
    with State and local law enforcement officers, State and local
    leaders. I'm a big believer that local leaders know best, and
    you have people that come to DC that somehow get here and
    believe that we become experts on every issue, and the truth is
    you have to talk to the boots on the ground to learn what to
    do, how to do it, and to affect real change. And so can you
    both speak to her relationships with State and local law
    enforcement and work force, and how you believe she'll carry
    that to the Department of Justice, please?
        Mr. Aronberg. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Britt,
    and thank you for the news about Attorney General Moody. I hope
    Nick Cox still has a job when he goes home.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Aronberg. When I was her Attorney General Bondi's drug
    czar, we were visited by Gil Kerlikowske, who was President
    Obama's drug czar nationally, and it was a very productive
    meeting. I still have the pictures from that meeting. Not once
    was there ever a discussion that, well, he's from the Feds, we
    shouldn't trust him, he's a Democrat, we shouldn't trust him.
    None of that. We were just trying to get the job done. And so
    she's seen it from both perspectives, as a State official
    working with the Feds and now to be a national--to be a Federal
    official working with the locals.
        One--the person who can best talk about how she has a great
    relationship with local law enforcement is Emery Gainey because
    he was the liaison. She had a special liaison within her office
    to make sure that she had a seamless relationship working with
    local officials. I saw it, but Mr. Gainey is the best to talk
    about it.
        Senator Britt. Yes, and, Sheriff Gainey, if you don't mind
    leaning into that, I am out of time but would love to hear your
    response.
        Mr. Gainey. Thank you, Senator. Unequivocally, that's one
    of the four leaning rules of Pam Bondi: work with our law
    enforcement leaders, learn and understand the issues that each
    of those face. I mentioned earlier, we are a large State, as
    you well know, so there are diverse issues that the law
    enforcement, when in our State, that others have to deal. Pam
    listens to those. She encourages those. She asked for advice
    and wanted know what's happening in the community. Just the
    whole pill mill and the bath salt issue was brought to her by a
    Panhandle sheriff, quite frankly. What we've learned in law
    enforcement, we often see these things first. We start seeing
    these trends, and then we try to get them to our legislative
    leaders and our Cabinet leaders to say, this is happening in
    our State. Sometimes they listen to us. Other times they don't.
        Pam listened. She listened right away. She immediately
    sought out to understand what was causing that issue and then
    sought legislation to get it done against some of our
    Republican legislators at the time who didn't want it, but
    she--her tenacity prevailed. She got it done. Our State is a
    safer State because of Pam Bondi.
        Senator Britt. Wonderful. Thank you so much. Senator
    Schiff.
        Senator Schiff. Thank you. Thank you to all the witnesses
    for being here today. Greatly appreciate your testimony.
        Ms. McCord, you testified--thank you for all your good work
    over the years. You testified before the Committee last
    September on the repercussions of Trump v. United States, the
    case on Presidential immunity. You wrote, I think in your
    written testimony, ``There is nothing stopping a President from
    directing the investigation of his political enemies,
    journalists, or activists, even where there is no basis for
    doing so.'' As you will recall from the hearing yesterday, I
    asked Ms. Bondi a number of questions about what her intentions
    were, how she would respond if the President asked her to
    investigate someone, whether she thought there was a factual
    predicate for a case, for example, an investigation against
    Jack Smith or Liz Cheney. For the most part, she refused to
    answer any specific question. It didn't give me a lot of
    confidence in her willingness to push back against those kind
    of improper orders from the President.
        What should the Attorney General do if a President is now,
    by virtue of this dangerous Supreme Court decision, immune from
    prosecution from violating the law and using the Department of
    Justice to do it? It doesn't mean the Attorney General should
    go along with it. What should the Attorney General do if the
    President says, I want you to investigate such and such
    political opponent?
        Ms. McCord. Well, first of all, I would say the immunity
    decision, right now, as far as we know, applies only to the
    President. And so there's no immunity for Attorney General
    Bondi if she were to engage in illegal activity or
    unconstitutional activity in carrying out a directive of Donald
    Trump. But I think before we even get to that, it would be
    important for her to make clear that she is not going to direct
    her Department attorneys or the FBI to initiate unfounded
    investigations. The Department of Justice, throughout all of my
    tenure there, always, we followed the facts and the law, and
    did not target any person for investigation based on political
    reasons. So it's really--that's why the independence is so much
    more important even now in the wake of that decision because
    she is the first person to have a position of standing up to
    the President.
        Senator Schiff. I also asked Ms. Bondi whether she would
    commit to preserving the evidence that was gathered as a part
    of the January 6 investigation by the Department. She refused
    to commit to even preserving the evidence. Are there laws in
    place or is it merely Department policy not to destroy
    evidence? Should we have any confidence that that evidence will
    be preserved?
        Ms. McCord. Well, there certainly are Federal Records Act
    obligations that require that records be maintained, and so I
    think that she would be well advised to consult with
    attorneys--career attorneys who specialize in that in the
    Department of Justice and be guided by their counsel. And it's
    certainly important in this case--in these cases, as in every
    case prosecuted by the Department of Justice or investigated,
    to maintain records.
        Senator Schiff. And if I could ask both you, and Ms.
    Gilbert, a recusal question. So, Ms. McCord, maybe let me ask
    you about where you think the circumstance would be appropriate
    for her to recuse herself, vis-a-vis her prior representation
    of the President, and, Ms. Gilbert, in terms of her corporate
    clients as a lobbyist, when would it be appropriate for her to
    recuse herself from working on or influencing Department
    decisions, vis-a-vis her former lobbyist clients?
        Ms. McCord. Senator Schiff, I think with respect to her
    previous, you know, personal representation of Donald Trump,
    she needs to be very concerned, as William French Smith was
    when he took on this job for President Reagan, having been
    Reagan's personal attorney, that anything that would appear to
    be improper, that would show impartiality, she should recuse
    from. So, for example, investigations into anyone who was
    involved in the first impeachment proceedings or prosecution
    because she defended Donald Trump in those proceedings. Even
    any investigations or prosecutions into those involved with the
    cases against Donald Trump because she has made public
    statements about prosecutors and investigators needing to be
    targeted potentially. She's used the term ``the bad ones.'' I'm
    not sure what that means in legal parlance.
        So I think these are the types of matters, including also
    civil matters. There is--Donald Trump has, through his
    attorneys, filed notice of a civil action against the
    Department of Justice based on the search of Mar-a-Lago.
    Clearly, it would be improper for her to take any part in
    that--in responding to that case.
        Senator Britt. Thank you, and I just would like to note
    that, obviously, yesterday, she clarified that she'd never
    represented President Trump in a personal matter but actually
    worked there directly with the White House. Also, it's
    interesting because we have seen this body confirm members who
    have lobbied for, you know, the Chinese Communist Party and
    confirmed them to positions at ODNI, and it didn't seem that my
    colleagues on the other side of the aisle had an issue with
    that. And it's also interesting that we continue to hear
    General Sessions being brought up at these hearings over and
    over again. I do want to remind people, obviously he is from
    the great State of Alabama, but not one Member of the
    Democratic Party in this actual hearing voted for him through
    his confirmation process. So I just want to make sure that we
    set the record straight on that, as well. But thank you to all
    of our witness.
        Senator Schiff. Mrs. Britt, I know I'm out of time.
        Senator Britt. Yes.
        Senator Schiff. Would it be possible for the other witness
    to answer? She didn't have an opportunity because the clock ran
    out?
        Senator Britt. You know, I think we are out of time, but I
    appreciate that, thank you. And thank you to our witnesses for
    testifying today. I know that some of you traveled long and
    hard to be here, and we are grateful that you did that.
        The record will stay open until 5 p.m. tonight, and so if
    you would like to add something to that, you are more than
    welcome to, and all written questions are due at that time, as
    well.
        The hearing is adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12:02 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record for Day 1 and
    Day 2 follows.]
    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                A P P E N D I X

    The following submissions are available at:

      https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-119shrg61320/pdf/CHRG-
        119shrg
        61320-add1.pdf

    Submitted by Chairman Grassley:

     Aguinaga, J. Benjamin, et al., former Department of Justice
        officials, January 6, 2025, letter............................     2

     Anderson, John C., et al., former United States Attorneys,
        January 13, 2025, letter......................................     9

     Concerned Women for America Legislative Action Committee, January
        13, 2025, letter..............................................    16

     Fraternal Order of Police, January 2, 2025, letter to U.S.
        President-elect Donald J. Trump...............................    18

     Independent Women, January 15, 2025, letter......................    19

     International Association of Chiefs of Police, January 14, 2025,
        letter........................................................    20

     Major County Sheriffs of America, January 10, 2025, letter.......    21

     McDaniel, Hon. Dustin, et al., former State attorneys general,
        January 7, 2025, letter.......................................    22

     National Association of Police Organizations, January 9, 2025,
        letter........................................................    29

     National Fusion Center Association, January 13, 2025, letter.....    30

     National Narcotic Officers' Associations Coalition, January 10,
        2025, letter..................................................    31

     National Sheriffs' Association, January 13, 2025, letter.........    32

     NSSF, trade association for firearm, ammunition, hunting, and
        shooting sports, January 16, 2025, letter.....................    34

     Wilson, Hon. Alan, et al., Republican State attorneys general,
        December 3, 2024, letter......................................    35

    Submitted by Ranking Member Durbin:

     Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, statement..    39

     Equality California, January 13, 2025, letter....................    44

     Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, statement..    46

     Legal Defense Fund, January 15, 2025, letter.....................    51

     National Council of Jewish Women, January 13, 2025, letter.......    54

     National Fair Housing Alliance, January 15, 2025, letter.........    56

     National Women's Law Center, January 13, 2025, letter............    58

     People For the American Way, January 14, 2025, letter............    62

     Reproductive Freedom for All, January 9, 2025, letter............    66

     Society for the Rule of Law, January 13, 2025, letter............    70

                                     [all]