Garland Testifies on Justice Department Budget

… Budget Control Act and post-sequestration. Now we’re faced with the impacts of significant cuts in FY 2024 that came as a result of the Fiscal Responsibility Act’s discretionary spending limits. Our bill faced a 3% cut compared to 2023. That’s roughly 2.5 billion less than we had in the prior year to fund our bill. Those effects are real and we’re hearing for good reason from all of our affected agencies about what this truly means for staffing and daily operations.

(00:33)
For the Department of Justice, those cuts met $1.2 billion less in fiscal 2023. And we don’t know what 2025 will bring, but we remain under the constraints of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and I’m concerned about those continued cuts to discretionary spending. Those cuts have very real consequences as we know. The FBI is a good example of those impacts. Despite a relatively modest cut of 32 million or 0.3% to salaries and expenses, the amount needed for the FBI to maintain its current services for 2024 is actually 484 million, and this directly affects the FBI’s ability to counter threats of terrorism and keep our country safe. The cuts will reduce FBI’s ability to counter threats of terrorism, combat, violent crime, drugs, gangs, and transnational organized crime. Increases are also requested to combat drug trafficking and prevent overdose deaths in our communities, and that’s a particular issue for my home state of New Hampshire.

(01:45)
As I noted last year, critical grant programs rely on the Crime Victims Fund, which continues to experience historically low deposits. I look forward to continuing to work together to ensure that the Crime Victims Fund remains solvent and welcome a discussion today about how the department is pursuing both short and long-term solutions to ensure the Crime Victims Fund remains a dependable source of funding for survivor resources. As we said earlier, I also look forward to working with the department as we look at the resources for the Antitrust Division to ensure that they can continue to do their work.

(02:22)
Now, before I close, I want to thank the over 116,000 career employees of the Department of Justice, including law enforcement personnel, intelligence analysts, and attorneys for their tireless work each day to keep Americans safe. Their work’s not easy, but it’s vital to our country and I’m grateful for their service.

(02:41)
Mr. Attorney General, I look forward to your testimony and our discussion today, and I will submit my full statement for the record. And now I’d like to recognize the Subcommittee Ranking member Senator Moran.

Chairman Shaheen, thank you very much. Thank you for convening this hearing and thank you for the cooperation that you’ve exhibited with me and the side of the dais. I enjoy working with you and I look forward to doing so in this new fiscal year.

(03:09)
The complaint yesterday in a hearing was, well, you did get your appropriation bills done, but they were six months late, so maybe we can get them done and get them done on time.

That would be great.

It would be a significant accomplishment, although something that ought to every city, every county, every school board in Kansas passes a budget in a timely fashion, deals with third issues, and I hope that our committee can do the same. And General, thank you for your presence here. Thanks for the new time and adjusting to the Senate’s schedule today.

(03:41)
What we faced last year I think was a 2.9% cut. We reduced the spending in the Commerce, Justice, Science arena by $2.5 billion and we’ll work to see if we get a good and fair allocation to hopefully make things slightly different and better in this fiscal year.

(04:02)
This hearing is timely and critically important. Kansans, in fact, all Americans are facing extraordinary threats to their security, both from threats here at home and abroad, and the Department of Justice is an integral component of addressing those challenges. First, President Biden’s challenges, failures at the southern border has led to a national security and humanitarian crisis with grave repercussions. We’ve lost our ability to manage and in some cases even know who’s crossing our borders. That includes agents of foreign powers, potential terrorists, and others who mean to undermine our institutions.

(04:38)
Additionally, it’s well established that most of the illicit fentanyl in this country was flooded across the southern border by Mexican cartels. I hope to hear how the department plans to disrupt and dismantle these cartels and their distribution networks.

(04:52)
Second, events in the Middle East, including Hamas’s vicious attack on October the 7th on Israel and Iran’s support for proxy forces and now their own actions have dramatically elevated the risk of terrorist attacks in the United States. We’ve faced serious threats of coordinated attacks. As was just seen, it happened in Russia.

(05:13)
Third, violent crime continues to plague communities across our country. Modest declines in the FBI unified crime reporting statistics mean little when compared to the experiences people across the country have encountered and been harmed or traumatized by that crime. The DOJ’s own reporting, the National Crime Victimization survey showed that total violent crime victimization rose in 2022.

(05:36)
Finally, cyber capabilities of our enemies are continuing to improve putting our system at greater risk. Foreign adversaries, including China, Russia and criminal gangs that operate under the support and protection are targeting municipal drinking water systems, business, small and large. In fact, Mr. Attorney General, our state’s judicial branch was subjected to a cyber attack that was certainly disabling for a significant number of months. And the agricultural interest in Kansas, our industry in Kansas has had these experiences as well.

(06:14)
Virtually, every aspect of modern life depends upon the networks and systems our adversaries are targeting and the threats cannot be understated. We live in a dangerous world. Attorney General, as you well know, I was with the FBI director in Kansas 10 days ago, two weeks ago. It was a cyber security conference. He expressed that, “It would be hard…” He would be hard-pressed to think of a time where so many threats to our public safety and national security were so elevated all at once. Those are challenges that your department faces every day. I wish them success and I wish to be helpful in making certain that we’re able to address and reduce those safety and national security issues. I hope this conversation that we have today will instill confidence in the American people that the Department of Justice is working to address threats like these and to make our world, our country, our community as a safer place. Chair Shaheen, again, thank you. And Attorney General Garland, thank you again for being with us. I look forward to hearing your testimony.

Thank you very much, Senator Moran. Mr. Attorney General, the floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair Shaheen, Ranking member Moran, and distinguished members of this subcommittee, for the opportunity to discuss the Justice Department’s funding request for fiscal year 2025. Since I last appeared before you, the public servants of the Justice Department have continued to advance our mission, to keep our country safe, to protect civil rights and to uphold the rule of law.

(07:49)
Our US attorney’s offices, law enforcement agents, and grant making experts have worked together with police and community partners across the country to help drive down violent crime. We have gone after the cartels, the traffic and deadly fentanyl. We have prosecuted fraud, recovered stolen funds, and challenged illegal monopolies. We have investigated and prosecuted hate crimes that terrorize entire communities. We have worked to defend the reproductive freedoms that are protected by federal law. We have worked to combat a disturbing spike in threats of violence against those who serve the public, including judges, police officers, senators, and even against our own employees. And in everything we do, we have worked to ensure the equal protection of law that is the foundation of our democracy.

(08:44)
I am proud of the work we have done and I am deeply proud of the way the Department’s public servants from our agents to our attorneys, to our administrative staff have gone about their work. They have conducted themselves in a way the American people should be proud of. But we recognize that we have much more to do. Our fiscal year 2025 budget request reflects the difficult budget environment that we are in and the extremely difficult choices that we had to make because of it. It also reflects the resources that we need now more than ever to continue our work.

(09:24)
When I became Attorney General three years ago, I knew that grappling with the violent crime that surged during the pandemic would be one of our greatest challenges. I am glad to be able to report that last year, we saw a significant decrease in overall violent crime compared to the previous year, including an over 13% decline in homicides. That is the largest one year drop in homicides in 50 years. And data indicates that this decline is continuing. As the Wall Street Journal recently reported just this week, in the first three months of this year, homicides dropped 20% across 133 cities as compared to the same period last year.

(10:12)
But I want to be very clear, there is no acceptable level of violent crime. Too many communities are still struggling. Too many people are still scared. And the hard-fought progress that we are seeing can easily slip away. We must remain focused and vigilant. To continue to help keep our country safe from a range of threats, we are seeking a total of 21 billion to support the FBI, ATF, DEA, US Marshal Service, and the US attorney’s offices as well as the Criminal Division and the National Security Division. We will use these resources to prosecute illegal gun traffickers and straw purchasers to invest in the advanced technological tools that help us fight gun violence and to hold accountable the cartel members and leaders and associates who are responsible for poisoning our communities with fentanyl.

(11:08)
We will use these resources to counter the threats that the governments of Iran Russia, China, and North Korea pose to our country. And we will use these resources to strengthen our work to counter both foreign and domestic terrorism. As the FBI Director has testified, we are facing an increasing threat of foreign terrorism since October 7th. That is why the department also urges the Senate to act to reauthorize section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act before it expires this Friday. As you know, section 02 is indispensable to our work to protect the American people from cyber, nation-state terrorist, and other threats.

(11:57)
In addition to our own prosecutorial investigative resources, we also recognize the importance of our partnerships to help keep our country safe. So we are in seeking investments in the Department’s three grant-making components, the Office of Justice Programs, the Office of Community-Oriented Policing Services, and the Office on Violence Against Women. They support community and law enforcement partners through more than 200 grant programs. Our budget requests more than $4.3 billion to support the public safety efforts of our state, local, tribal and territorial law enforcement and community partners, including $2.5 billion for the COPS program. And as part of our effort to administer safe and humane federal detention and prison systems, we are requesting $8.8 billion for the Bureau of Prisons. That includes resources to address urgent staffing and infrastructure needs. As I have noted many times before, when the Justice Department was founded in 1870, one of its principle purposes was the protection of civil rights. Protecting both the safety and the civil rights of everyone in our country remains our urgent obligation. Our budget seeks $201.3 million for the Civil Rights Division to continue its essential work, including to deter and prosecute hate crimes, to ensure constitutional policing, to enforce federal laws prohibiting discrimination in all forms, and to protect the right of all eligible citizens to vote and to have that vote counted.

(13:42)
The right to vote is the cornerstone of our democracy. Protecting that right requires us to protect the citizens who we rely on to fairly administer our elections. Our democracy cannot function if the officials, workers and volunteers who administer our elections have to fear for their lives just for doing their jobs. The Justice Department is aggressively investigating and prosecuting those who threaten election workers with violence, and we will continue to do so.

(14:17)
As I said, I’m extremely proud of the work of the department’s employees, the work that they are doing to advance our mission. Their work brings them face to face with some of our country’s greatest challenges, and many of them risk their lives to protect the public. I am grateful to them and I am honored to be here to represent them. I respectfully ask for your support for the President’s FY 2025 budget request so that we can continue our work on behalf of the American people. Thank you.

Thank you, General Garland. The vice chair of the full committee has arrived, Senator Collins. Would you like to make any opening remarks before we start questions?

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I’ll wait and ask questions. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. We will call on members in order of arrival with the exception of Chair Murray and Vice Chair Collins and ask that people keep their questioning to five minutes except for the Chair and Vice Chair. And we will begin… We will alternate between sides of the dais and sides of the aisle.

(15:32)
So Mr. Attorney General, we are now, as I said in my opening statement, painfully aware of the impacts of the Fiscal Responsibility Act and what that means. I cited the example of FBI in terms of the percentage cut, but what that actually means in terms of dollars, what will happen at the department, particularly to the law enforcement components if it faces similar cuts in 2025?

I obviously quite agree with you. Overall, as a consequence of FY 2024 budget, we anticipate needing to reduce a total of 4,813 positions. That’s not specifically about law enforcement, but I will move to that in a moment. The 2025 budget that we’re requesting seeks to restore 1,409 positions. Specifically with respect to law enforcement between ’23 and ’24, we lost 200 agents in the positions in the FBI. Our request is an increase of 217 agents, which is as you can see, is only 17 more agents that we had in FY 2023. For the US Marshal’s Service, we lost 72 Deputy US Marshal’s positions. We are asking now for an increase of 51, which includes what we need for purposes of the increased requirements for security for the justices.

(17:09)
The US attorneys between FY 23 and FY 24, which of course bring our criminal prosecutions, we lost 188 positions for assistant US attorneys. We are asking for 50 over FY 24, which of course does not make up that number. I can go through the whole number of each of you’d like, but you can see that in most cases we are not going to be able to make up even for what we lost between ’23 and ’24, but we are doing our best to be faithful to the Congressional Statute and to the bipartisan agreement.

Well, I appreciate that. I think as we know, the challenges that there are very real impacts for these budget cuts, and they’ll have an effect on the public and on our ability to address all of the issues that the Justice Department is working on. Senator Moran and I both mentioned in our opening statements, as did you, the continuing fight against the opioid epidemic, substance misuse, the drug cartels. I continue to be very concerned about fentanyl use and poisoning. New Hampshire has lost too many people to fentanyl overdoses. Can you talk a little bit about DOJ’s efforts to interdict these drugs and efforts to find a way to prosecute those responsible?

Yes, Senator. I have said, and I deeply mean this, that fentanyl is the deadliest drug threat that this country has ever faced. I have met with families at the DEA whose children, whose teenagers, whose infants, whose grandparents have died mostly not even knowing that what they’re taking is fentanyl, thinking it’s another kind of prescription pill that they were able to get over the internet. We don’t even refer to this as overdoses anymore. We refer to this as drug poisoning because that’s what ii is. So we are facing this with the urgency it requires.

(19:22)
We are trying to dismantle the entire network. So the network begins in China. It begins with the precursor companies that sell precursor chemicals that are necessary to make fentanyl through Mexico. So we have charged a number of those companies. We have indicted a number of their officials. We have even been able to snare some of them. The officials when traveling outside of China, the Treasury Department has sanctioned those companies, so people cannot deal with them. Some of them are regular prescription drug companies, so sanctions are quite important.

(20:03)
Then we move to Mexico and the importation of these precursors. I’ve traveled to Mexico myself three times. The Deputy Attorney General I believe at least three times. Many other parts of our law enforcement apparatus have done the same to persuade them to cut off access to these precursors, to register them. And they have done some of what we’ve asked, not all, but that has been important. Then the chemicals are made into fentanyl in Mexico primarily in laboratories. We have, again, on my visits, we have urged the Mexican government and particularly the Mexican military, the Army and the Marines who are responsible have taken over this task to destroy those labs. And they have done some, but not as much as we would like. We have indicted the principal cartel leaders, including the sons of El Chapo, the so-called Chapitos of the Sinaloa Cartel, as well as leaders of the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. Those two are the principle drivers of fentanyl trafficking in the United States. On one of my travels, I urged the Mexican government and the Attorney General to approve the extradition. And in fact, they did approve the extradition of Ovidio Guzmán López who was the lead Chapito. Then, we-

Mr. Attorney General, I know you could probably go on-

Oh, I’m sorry.

… which is very helpful.

Oh, I’m sorry.

We would like to talk all day about what’s being done to address this. I’m out of time, but I also have one very brief follow up, and that is you mentioned going after the precursors in China.

Yes.

Are you seeing any difference at all since President Biden and Xi signed their agreement around dealing with those drugs back last fall? Has there been any change in the way China is reacting?

Yeah. We’ve seen some, but nothing like what we want or expect. The president says the words are nice, but we need to verify, and at this point we don’t have very much verification.

Thank you. Senator Moran.

Chairman Shaheen, thank you. Let me visit with you for a moment, Attorney General, about AI and our national security risks. Both Congress and the Department of Justice are grappling with the opportunities and threats that are presented by the rapid development of artificial intelligence. Two months ago, the department appointed its first chief AI officer. Yesterday, my colleagues and I, we were, in a letter, trying to bring the risk of AI to the attention of other colleagues of ours. We specifically are targeting the potential catastrophic risks associated with the use of AI and the development of biological, chemical, cyber, and nuclear weapons. I’m looking for assurance that the department has, is, and will pay sufficient attention to these extraordinary threats to our national security. I would welcome your thoughts about what’s happening in the new AI office as well as other DOJ components with national security responsibilities. What’s happening to consider and mitigate the national security risks and other catastrophic risks created by AI?

Yes, so AI has both promise and incredible peril for us. And as is often the case in the beginning, offense beats defense here. We are very concerned about the way AI can be used for everything from mimicking normal conversations in text and therefore advancing the ability to do phishing expeditions by getting passwords from people, by using their social media to appear as if they’re a friend, and likewise, just plain hacking and constantly and repetitive hacking in a way that clicking on the keyboard will seem very 20th century. So we are extremely concerned about that.

(24:33)
AI has some possibilities also for defense. Instead of having to defend constantly with human actors, someday we hope to be able to develop an AI defense to the cyber attacks that you’re talking about. This does require us to enhance our AI capabilities. That’s why I recruited the AI head that you’re talking about. He’s a PhD in computer science who teaches computer science at Princeton, got his PhD in Stanford. We are looking to hire as many people with those kinds of qualifications as are possible. And that’s why we’re asking for… The money that we’re asking for specifically with respect to cyber, we’re asking in this budget for $894.6 million, which is an 11.9% increase in our cyber crime combat, and a $432.9 million increase specifically with respect to cyber security, which is 15.6% increase.

Thank you for highlighting those. Let me turn to a different topic. Last week I was disturbed to see a NBC News report that an individual on the terrorist watch list had been detained by the border patrol on the southern border and then promptly released. The facts of this case are complex, they’re nuanced. But according to the report, when the detainee appeared before the immigration judge, DHS attorneys did not inform the judge of the potential terrorist ties despite having received that warning from the FBI. The judge ultimately ordered the detainee to be released.

(26:14)
I don’t expect you to be able to respond to the actions of the Department of Homeland Security, but again, I would look for assurances that through the FBI, the terrorist screening center, the immigration courts, are taking the necessary steps to ensure suspected terrorists are not simply released into the country. You talked about the increasing terrorist threat to our country. My last trip to the border, there were nationals, Chinese nationals who were apprehended in my presence. I see this as a significant threat and I just want really to highlight this issue to the FBI and to the Department of Justice, making sure that you’re doing your job.

Yes. The FBI’s job, and they take it extremely seriously, is when they learn information about somebody who has been able to pass through the border, to follow that person, to deter that person, to disrupt that person and to arrest that person where we can. In the example that you’re talking about, that person has since been detained. And we are constantly in discussions with the Department of Homeland security about how to improve the processes between Homeland security and the immigration courts and at the border with respect to terrorist screening.

Thank you, General.

Senator Heinrich.

Thank you, Chair. Attorney General, as you know, Vice Chair Collins and I worked very hard on a number of provisions in the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act with respect to both straw purchasing of firearms and then also gun trafficking and offenses. Can you give us an update about how the department is using those new offenses and what progress you’re making on that front?

Yes, I’d be happy to. So that Act is really the most important gun legislation in decades and has already had significant impact on our ability to prevent guns from falling in the hands of people who are prohibited by Congress from obtaining them because of their dangerousness. So as a consequence of the Act, which extended the background checks for people under 21, we have been able to run 245,000 enhanced background checks and we have denied 700 transactions, which otherwise would’ve gone through, 700 people who should not have guns because Congress has so declared.

(28:52)
And with respect to the straw purchasers’ provisions, we have charged more than 420 defendants now with illegal straw purchases under provisions of the FISCA and associated statutes we have on straw purchasing. So I’d say it’s early days, but it’s been very effective.

Yeah, we definitely want you to be able to use those authorities. What about the gun trafficking authority? Has that been helpful as well?

Yes. The gun trafficking allows us a separate crime and a separate penalty for trafficking guns where it’s known that the guns are going to be used in crime, and those have also led to successful prosecutions.

I want to turn to fentanyl, and obviously that’s something that’s on everyone’s mind on this panel. One of the things that I worked very hard on in the recent ’24 CJS bill is language to create a comprehensive fentanyl tracking system. Can you tell us what you intend to do? I know we got that legislation done a little late as Senator Moran reminded us, but we want you to be able to use those authorities and tell us about how you plan to put that together.

Well, so DEA will be using that to track the way in which fentanyl is prescribed and used, and that will be very important in our enforcement efforts.

Are you able to coordinate your efforts with DHS to help interdict fentanyl when it comes through land ports of entry before it gets to the US?

So the FBI and DEA do have overseas intelligence, which they’re able to provide to DHS. I will say this also comes from our intelligence community writ large and not simply the two agencies here. It is definitely the case that the more intelligence we can get and the more cooperation we can get from the Mexicans as to their information about fentanyl being moved to the border, the better DHS will be able to interdict it at the border.

How can Congress help you leverage better cooperation from both Mexico and China on this front?

Well, I’m not a diplomat, so on that phase, I’m not sure what Congress can do in this regard, but we are making every effort possible. The DEA administrator has spoken to her counterpart in China. The president, as you know, tried to re-up the cooperation that had been suspended with respect to drug trafficking. So at a law enforcement level, we are trying to enhance that. On the Mexico side, as I said, the president has directed members of the National Security Council staff to travel to Mexico. I’ve traveled, the Deputy Attorney General has traveled, to try and enhance cooperation and get improvement in it.

We very much appreciate those efforts. I want to ask you about something related to treatment for folks who know they have addiction to fentanyl and other opioids. Can you talk about what DOJ and DEA are doing to increase access to treatments like buprenorphine for patients in need? And this has been a particular challenge in New Mexico where people want to get treatment, but they can’t always get their prescription filled to get off of their fentanyl addiction. And I’m curious if you think it’s necessary to remove medications like buprenorphine from the suspicious order reporting systems because that seems to be the thing that is hanging up these prescriptions for people who are very much wanting to get treatment.

Well, to begin, this mostly comes from our grant programs, from the Office of Justice Programs. We have the so-called CARA Grants, which is the Comprehensive Addiction and Recovery Act. We’re asking in this budget for $443 million, which is a $23 million increase. Those grants include our Comprehensive, Opioid, Stimulant and Substance Abuse Program, so-called COSSUP Program, mental health and residential substance use treatment, the drug courts, the veteran treatments courts, prescription drug monitoring. We also have particularly youth-focused grants, so seeking $47 million there for opioid-affected youth.

(33:34)
I’m not exactly sure that I have the information with respect to Butte and how it’s being treated in that respect. So I’ll have to get back to you on whether-

Yeah, I look forward to following up with you on that because I think we need to send a clear message to the pharmacies that they should stock the medications necessary for treatment.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Senator Heinrich. Senator Collins.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

(34:05)
Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. I very much appreciated hearing the update on the effectiveness of the straw purchasing and gun trafficking provisions that Senator Heinrich and I authored, and so I won’t have to ask you about that issue.

(34:27)
I do want to turn to a very serious and confounding problem that the state of Maine is experiencing, particularly in our rural communities. Chinese nationals are establishing and operating illegal marijuana-growing operations. I first raised concerns about this problem in June of 2022. Thanks to the work of some enterprising Maine journalists, we now know that there are more than 200 such operations operating in houses across our state. And by the way, those houses are forever ruined by the operations, and that contributes to our housing shortage as well.

(35:24)
Last month I asked the FBI director about this matter during his open testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. While the director cited the FBI’s efforts to support task force and secure indictments, he was unable to answer a fundamental troubling question, and that is why China sending its citizens, sneaking them into the country to open illegal marijuana operations in rural Maine communities? Just recently, three Chinese nationals were apprehended as they crossed the border illegally in Northern Maine.

(36:09)
Now, we’ve had a tremendous effort by state, county and local law enforcement to identify and start shutting down these illegal operations, but there are very clear federal interests here, particularly with respect to national security. Two days ago, your Office of Legislative Affairs finally responded to four inquiries that I had sent to the department on this topic, but unfortunately, the response letter provided almost no substantive information on whether the department is making this a priority, working with state, local, and county law enforcement and exploring the national security implications. And I do recognize there’s a limit to what you can say in a letter of that sort, but General Garland, what are the criminal division, the National Security Division and the US Attorney’s office in Maine doing to address these illegal growing operations, and in particular, what are they doing to support the tremendous but under-resourced effort at the state, county and local level?

Senator, you’ve raised a serious problem. It’s not only a Maine problem, so DEA is reporting that there are transnational criminal organizations in some 20 states that are… It’s not so much grow houses, but illegal marijuana grows. I know specifically with respect to Maine that DEA and the FBI are working with the IRS and the Department of Homeland Security, as well as local law enforcement to investigate those illegal grows. I also know that the US Attorney in Maine has made this a priority for her office.

(38:21)
In most cases, I recommend talking to the Office of Legislative Affairs, but I know you are very well synced up with the US Attorney’s office there, and they obviously have more very specific Maine information, but I don’t think anybody could take this more seriously than our US Attorney there. And she is able to harness the resources of all of our agencies, not only our own, but also Department of Homeland Security and IRS.

Do you have a theory on why the Chinese are sending people illegally into our country to establish these grow operations? As you point out, it’s not just Maine. I believe Oklahoma, for example, has had a problem as well.

I don’t have a theory now. Normally I develop a theory by learning the facts from the different investigative entities that look into this. So at this point, I don’t have a theory. There are a lot of obvious theories, including a profit motive, and these transnational criminal organizations are operating, the reason we call them transnationals, they’re operating all over the world to make money where they can. But I can’t tell you what the specific motivation here is.

Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Collins. Chair Murray.

Well, thank you very much, Chair Shaheen and Ranking Member Moran for holding this hearing today. Thank you, Attorney General Garland, for joining us.

(39:56)
We all want to make that folks back home have a fair, functioning justice system and safe communities, which is why we have to make sure DOJ is getting the funding that it needs. Effective law enforcement is crucial to protect people from cyber attacks, drug trafficking, gun violence, and so much more. And it’s critical in holding big corporations accountable for cutting corners and engaging in unfair practices that hurt our consumers. And DOJ’s work is vital to fighting bigotry and discrimination and protecting people’s civil rights, including the right to vote. So we cannot shortchange America’s rights or their safety. That’s why this hearing is so important.

(40:39)
Attorney General Garland, I am really encouraged by the investments your department has made in Eastern Washington, like marshaling new resources and investing in personnel to help combat the crisis of missing or murdered indigenous people, especially women and girls. DOJ recently launched an MMIP regional outreach program, which allowed our US Attorneys for Eastern Washington to add an assistant US Attorney to their office who is dedicated to prosecuting those types of cases in the Northwest. How would the resources that your department is now requesting for FY25 build on those efforts?

Yes. This problem of missing or murdered indigenous persons is really brought home to me. I visited the Alaska native villages with Senator Murkowski and I recently visited the Crow Reservation in Montana, but this is a problem all across Indian country, and we take it very seriously. And in our budget request, we’ve asked for $713.2 million for this program for public safety in Indian country, to include money that we need for FBI, for US Attorneys, and for money for the local law enforcement.

Thank you. I appreciate that request. We look forward to working with you on that.

(42:06)
The Crime Victims Fund through VOCA accounts for nearly 70% of all the funding for services that help victims and survivors of crime. In Washington state and in tribal and rural communities those programs rely solely on VOCA funding, but we know that deposits into the funds have declined recently, have not kept pace with the need, which has led to cut to service providers in Washington state, meaning less help for victims and survivors, especially in our underserved communities and rural areas and on tribal lands. Can you talk a little bit about the importance of those programs and the Crime Victims Fund as part of the department’s effort to promote public safety and support victims of crime?

Absolutely. This is an issue that is particularly dear to my heart, since in the aftermath of Oklahoma City, I spent a lot of time trying to improve the way in which the Justice Department, both itself deals with victims of horrendous crime, but also helping state and local law enforcement and communities that deal with these problems.

(43:12)
So our money for OVW grants this year, we’re asking for $800 million for the Office of Violence Against Women. The total amount we’re asking from the Crime Victims Fund is $1.5 billion total, which is an increase of $147 billion over enacted FY24.

(43:38)
The Victim’s money goes to a significant number of different places, goes to the grants to combat violence against women, the so-called stop grants, the Sexual Assault Services grants, legal assistance programs for victims, transitional housing, the access to sexual assault nurse exams, culturally-specific services. I can talk more about the fund if you want, but that’s-

I think that it’s just important for all of us to understand the really critical importance of those funds as we work to put our budget together, so thank you.

(44:11)
I wanted to ask you about the Federal Bureau of Prisons facility at SeaTac. We had recent reporting from the Seattle Times that found that detainees were routinely unable to access basic medical care and treatment for acute and painful conditions. And according to their reporting, eight of 19 healthcare positions at the SeaTac facility are now vacant. That, no doubt, contributes to those issues. What is the department doing to improve access to care for individuals in their custody, and what steps is the department taking to recruit additional healthcare staff?

So the director, Director Peters has stated from the very beginning that BOP considers itself a healthcare organization, given how many people need healthcare who are imprisoned. The SeaTac Federal Detention Center has strengthened its recruiting efforts and has contracted for several more medical professionals recently. In the last six months, it has tripled the size of its opioid treatment program and provided more routine and chronic care. I think that the director has gotten the message with respect to the deficiencies there.

Okay, and I’m going to be following that very closely, so I expect to be updated on that as we go. And finally, let me just ask you about help for at-risk youth. I continue to hear from communities all over my state about the need to do more to help at-risk youth avoid delinquency and provide better opportunities for them.

(45:45)
It is really important that the department’s juvenile justice program serve the youth that end up in this system and allow those kids to realize their full potential. This is an effort that we all know requires coordination across nonprofits and state and local leaders in the federal government. So can you tell me how your budget request would support justice-involved youth?

Yeah, so specifically on that question, we’re seeking a $407 million for juvenile justice initiatives, which is an 8.5% increase. This includes $3 million for a new collaborative reform for juvenile justice initiative for localities that are facing particularly serious juvenile issues.

General Garland, excuse me for interrupting. Can you just pull the mic a little closer so that people can hear better?

I’m sorry. That better?

Thank you.

I’m sorry. The total budget we’re requesting is $690.8 million to protect children in a variety of programs, Office of Justice program’s grants, the Office of Justice program’s Stop School Violence Grants, and the other matters that I’ve already mentioned.

Okay. This is a critical program, and we continue to be looking at that. So thank you. Thank you, Madam chair. I appreciate it.

Thank you so much, Chair Murray for joining us. And Senator Kennedy.

Thank you, Madam Chair. General, nice to see you again. Thank you for being here. Your current budget, by my calculations, is $48.3 billion. Is that right?

The budget request is for $37.8 billion, the FY25 budget, and that would constitute a 3.5% increase over [inaudible 00:47:39].

But with mandatory spending, your budget’s 48.3; is that right?

I don’t have the number for including mandatory, but I’ll certainly be able to get back to you for that.

Well, let’s take out mandatory. Your discretionary budget right now is 37.8 billion?

FY25 request is for 37.8.

That’s not what I’m asking.

I’m sorry?

What’s your current budget?

Well, it’s 3.5% less than that. So I can take out my calculator and do the math, but I don’t have it in front of me.

All right, well let me put it another way. You’re asking for an extra $467 million; is that right?

Increase amount of money that we’re asking for, it’s approximately right, yes.

Okay. To your knowledge, in the past, let’s say 40 years, has the Department of Justice ever come before Congress and said, “We don’t need any more. We’re going to make it with what we’ve got, in light of the fiscal circumstances in the country?”

I normally wouldn’t want to speculate, but in this case I can’t imagine that the Department of Justice facing increasing threats every year, violent crime, threats to national security, drug trafficking threats, would-

Is that a no?

I don’t know the answer, but I think it would be surprising if the department ever asked for less money.

Okay.

I think that would be not responsible.

You talked a little bit in your testimony, General, about guns and you’ve been very outspoken about the need for more gun control. With respect, and if you don’t mind me asking, do you own a gun?

I don’t.

Okay. Have you ever fired a gun?

Many times.

Okay. Do you have 24-hour security?

I do.

Okay. Let me ask you about fentanyl, because that’s a huge problem and I know you’re worried about it, as are we. And we’ve of course got a problem with the precursor chemicals coming into Mexico, to the Mexican cartels who manufacture the fentanyl and send it into the United States. Isn’t a big part of the problem that if you took the Mexican drug cartels and turned them upside down and shook them, that President Lopez Obrador would fall out of their pockets?

Well, I’ll leave the metaphor aside. The department has said that we do not have an investigation of the president of Mexico.

Do you think the president of Mexico is our friend?

We need cooperation from Mexico. Mexico has been somewhat cooperative with respect to our fight against the cartels. Not as helpful as I wish they were, but without their cooperation, we can’t be successful in destroying the cartels.

Why wouldn’t the president go to President Lopez Obrador and say, “No offense, but the fentanyl problem is killing Americans. The illegal immigration problem is hurting Americans. If you don’t cooperate with us,” and he clearly hasn’t been, and he’s not afraid of us, “we’re going to implement tariffs on Mexico until you do.”

I think there are many ways to encourage cooperation from another country.

But that would do it, wouldn’t it?

I don’t know whether that would do it or whether-

You don’t think that would get his attention?

I am not a diplomat. I’m not a foreign affairs strategist. I know we need their support and cooperation.

Yeah.

I don’t know whether that would be positive or negative.

So we just ask politely.

Well, we do more than that, but considerably more than that. I don’t know the answer to your high-level-

Okay. Let me ask you one last question in my 14 seconds. I’ve been dying to ask you this question.

How long have you been dying to ask me this question?

Long time. Long time. Mr. Hunter Biden did not pay taxes on $1 million in 2014 and 2015, and he deducted payments from his income tax for personal expenses when he did file, for hookers, for Lamborghini, for strip clubs, for sex clubs, for porn website memberships. Why did the Department of Justice let the statute of limitations run-

As you well know, Senator-

… so you can’t prosecute?

As you well know, Senator, that investigation is being conducted by Mr. Weiss who was appointed by President Trump to be the US Attorney in Delaware. Much of the investigation you’re talking about occurred during the previous administration under Mr. Weiss. Mr. Weiss has continued his investigations. It’s now a special counsel. He will issue a report which will explain those-

So you’re saying it’s Trump’s fault?

Which will explain… No, I don’t know whether there’s a fault or not. Mr. Weiss will explain this in his report.

But we can’t… Mr. Hunter Biden walks free on not paying taxes on a million bucks from 2014 and ’15 because the Department of Justice let it happen, right?

Again, I’m not going to comment on decisions made in a pending investigation. In the end, Mr. Weiss will issue a report. I will provide the report to Congress. You’ll be able to question Mr. Weiss as to his reasoning, and he will be able to defend his reasoning.

Would you come with Mr. Weiss when he does that?

I’m not going to know the intricacies of Mr. Weiss’s investigation. There would be no point. It’s Mr. Weiss who’s responsible for this investigation.

But you were head of the Department of Justice?

Yes, and I’ve appointed him as special counsel so that he can independently investigate this matter.

Okay.

Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. Senator Manchin.

Thank you, Madam Chairman, and thank you Judge for being here. I appreciate your service in so many capacities. Very much so.

(54:16)
Let me go in a couple things. This week the senate’s going to take up a two-year extension of FISA, section 702. Some groups have raised concern that house-passed FISA reauthorized would expand the scope, the scope of who could be targeted under Section 702, by changing the definition of electronic communication service providers. I, for one, do not have those concerns, because we have basically expanded upon how we communicate different ways, and we should be looking at everything to protect our countries. Do you have concerns or has that been brought to your attention?

Yeah, so I know this particular issue, let me first state, as I know you know. 702 is essential to our ability to protect the country in many ways, but particularly since the Hamas terrorism attacks on October 7th, from foreign terrorism in the United States. The change that you’re particularly talking about, is a technical change, it’s a consequence of internet technology changing in the 15 years since FISA 702 was passed, it’s narrowly tailored. It is actually a response to the suggestion from the FISA court to seek this kind of legislative fix. It does not in any way change who can be a target of Section 702.

It’s just the way we gather… What different mechanisms we gather information from, I guess, right?

Yeah. But the target can only be a foreign person, located overseas, where there’s a reasonable expectation of getting foreign-

So it’s not of a concern that you have basically from legal.

I don’t have any concern with this technical case.

Good. I don’t either. I just want to make sure you help me.

I appreciate that.

Confirm that. But I’m going to go through a few things that people ask me most.

Of course.

A concern of the border is the greatest threat that we face right now. It’s been more detrimental to our security, I believe, than anything in modern history that I have seen. First of all, we haven’t taken action on Mexico. Seems like we haven’t used what tools we have. They’re a member of the USMCA, the new NAFTA, if you will. And they haven’t been a good partner, let’s put it that way. And there’s been more people, my state is number one killer, is opioids, illicit drugs coming into… We were targeted and it just devastated our state.

(56:34)
Is there anything that can be done in them being violation of USMCA, which we would have the ability to threaten their participation, or as a member of USMCA? That would to me to be the greatest concern they should have for their economics in their country. And I would think they would respond. Nothing else seems to have worked, and we haven’t had the response, basically shutting down Fentanyl, we haven’t been able to shut down the precursors from China, and that has killed more people in America since the Civil War, is opiates and illicit drugs coming into our country than all the wars combined. It’s unbelievable.

So there is no worse threat this country has faced with respect to drugs than fentanyl, as I said somewhat earlier.

I mean, do we have the powers to use USMCA?

So yeah, this is an interesting tactic I have not thought about. This is something I might ask my staff to talk about this. Ambassador Tai’s-

Could we work with you on this? It would be very helpful if we could. There has to be something to shock them into realization that they have to be, they’re a good neighbor, be part of the USMCA. Or basically us declare them not to be of good neighbor or deserve the standing they get, because there’s an awful lot of illicit stuff comes through that border. And also, a lot of dumping comes into the border that harms our economy. I’d love to expand that with you.

(57:58)
And my final question is concerning the border, sir, I get more questions on that. Does the president have the abilities in executive order to basically declare an emergency there and shut it down? And I know that there’s a ruling from Hawaii, which is the US versus Hawaii Supreme Court ruled that he has the broad authority, the president, to suspend the mission of migrants. I’m having a hard time, I’ve been encouraging them every way I possibly can to use the rules and tools that you have and your executive powers, to shut this illegal until we get a handle on it. Because we’re not going to come to an agreement politically here unless we’re forced to do it.

So I would say the best solution to this problem is the bipartisan proposal with respect to the border, that had been worked out, both as a combination of changes, and who can be removed and who can come into the country, as well as the money necessary for Department of Homeland Security to put in X-ray machines that would be able to stop it.

Let me put it in a different way. The president has had no problem whatsoever declaring an executive order, basically to relieve or remove student debt. And that’s been challenged, and it’s been upheld that he can’t do it in court, but he does it anyway. I’m fine. Whatever he thinks he has the right to do. I don’t know how this is any different to stop illegal, and thinking they’re going to take us to court, and it might be overturned, but at least it sends the message that we are serious about the border.

I know, as has been reported, that the White House is considering a number of options with respect to immigration. I don’t want to get into our deliberations with the president, and I don’t want to make a determination about legality before we have in front of us for a particular proposal.

Well, I know my time is up. I would love to go further into our USMCA with Mexico. I think there’s something we have to do to shock them into realization, “You’re either going to be a good partner, or you’re not going to be a partner at all.”

Well, I’ll ask my staff to talk to yours and also to bring in Ambassador Tai’s staff because she seems like-

Please.

… this is within her bailiwick.

Appreciate it very much, sir. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Manchin. Senator Murkowski.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Attorney General, welcome. Good to see you again. Thank you for the trip last summer where you had an opportunity to get a little summary on the ground of some of the law enforcement public safety issues that we face, primarily in rural Alaska. I appreciated that Chair Murray had highlighted murdered, missing indigenous persons. The work that your teams are doing, working with us in Alaska is very, very important. Also appreciate the keen focus here in this committee and the subcommittee on fentanyl. I wish that I could say we’re far enough away that we have escaped, but our smallest of the small rural villages are being targeted because you can sell this poison there for 10 times more in a village like Quinhagak or Togiak than you can in even Anchorage. So we all need to keep leaning in on that.

(01:01:17)
Back to the issue of tribal justice. When you were there, we had good conversations. I think that that was very important. We’ve seen some measurable progress on cross-deputization agreements between the state of Alaska and tribes relating to law enforcement. We’ve got the Not Invisible Commission report recommendations that are giving us a little bit of a template here, but I am a little concerned in terms of the follow-on from your visits insofar as what more we can do to address the public safety issues.

(01:02:02)
We’ve asked for some updates. We haven’t gotten a lot, and I don’t want to be in a situation where these villages, whether it’s Galena or Huslia or really any place, feel that you came, you saw, and then there hasn’t been the follow-on. We’ve got a lot of work, I think we know, that we need to do to implement VAWA 2022 and the Alaska Public Safety Pilot. So I would ask that you and your team can provide us with recommendations for improving the funding opportunities for our Alaska native communities in the short term here. If we can do this within the next 30 days, that would be great if you have legislative proposals. But we want to want to keep the momentum going. I know that you committed to me, your teams are working on that. But if there are legislative proposals, again, we want to try to put some of these in the pipeline,

We’re very happy to do that. I will say that it was a real eye-opening experience for me, as you told me it would be, to be on the ground there and to see the difficulty of transportation between one village and another and the difficulty law enforcement has of reaching a village, and the really inexcusable fact that there really isn’t sufficient law enforcement in any of the villages.

(01:03:34)
I can give you just one update. I would say as a result of my visit, budget request includes a plus $14 million from FY24 for special tribal criminal jurisdiction, and I would say it’s a consequence of what I saw in Alaska.

Well, let’s commit to working through some of these specifics going forward. One of the other things that I have heard, is as our tribes are looking for federal financial assistance, not only in the public safety space but in others, they have been directed to entities for technical assistance, but it’s technical assistance that is from the Lower 48. Perhaps maybe not culturally responsive or geographically relevant to many of the issues that we experience there.

(01:04:35)
So I appreciate what the department is doing to try to help bolster the capacity of tribes and tribal organizations as they’re looking to gain access to some of these grant opportunities. But it’s something that I’d like your folks to look at, because this again is a big challenge. If you’re talking to somebody who has no idea that we don’t have, for instance, reservations in Alaska and the construct of the governance just makes it that much more challenging. So I raise that to you.

(01:05:12)
I want to comment very quickly on what Chair Murray had raised about the Crime Victims Fund. You outlined the benefits of it, but I will tell you I am very, very concerned that we are going to be in a situation where, if additional fines, fees, penalties from other sources aren’t redirected to address the shortfalls, so many of these organizations that just are working so hard, they’re burning out, they can’t deal with this year-to-year challenge, because they simply don’t have the resources. And it’s not only in the Crime Victims Fund, it’s the impact that we are seeing with our Child Advocacy Centers. Many of our CACs have been using additional funding for their base operational costs in addition to VOCA cuts. So you’ve got VOCA funds that are being cut. You’ve got the CACs that are hanging out there. It is really a tenuous situation. I know you know that, but we really need to have identified some kind of an offset for this 7.3 billion that’s proposed to replenish the Crime-

There is a proposal. If I have time to respond now, I will. I totally agree with you. This trying to depend on the amount of money we’re able to get in any particular year, is always going to be uncertain. The administration’s proposal in the budget, I don’t think there’s legislative text yet, would take effect in 2026, provide $7.3 billion in mandatory appropriations over five years, to replenish and stabilize the fund. I think that’s better than the way we’re doing it now, year to year. And so our staff would be happy to speak with the staff of the subcommittee and your own staff as well on this proposal.

Thank you. Thank you Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Murkowski. I understand, General Garland, that you’re okay to keep going.

Sure.

We don’t need a break, so let me ask Senator Peters to go next.

Well, thank you Madam Chair. Attorney General Garland, thank you for continuing to plow through, and certainly it’s good to see you here today with us.

(01:07:25)
Following the October 7 attacks and the conflict between Israel and Hamas, and as that continues, we’re seeing significant increase in antisemitism, anti-Muslim and anti-Arab hate. And I certainly worry a great deal, as I know you do, about the increase in hate against these communities all across the United States, including schools, we’re seeing it on college campuses. I’ve heard from Muslim and Jewish constituents who are worried for the safety for their families and their houses of worship.

(01:07:59)
According to recent

… reports the rates of anti-Semitism and anti-Muslim hate have hit historic highs in our country. And Attorney General Garland, I know you have said repeatedly that the Justice Department has absolutely no tolerance for violence or unlawful threats of violence fueled by anti-Semitism or Islamophobia, and that no person and no community in this country should have to live in fear of hate-related violence. So my question for you is, given this profoundly concerning trend, can you speak to how the department utilizes your existing resources, whether via Civil Rights Division or elsewhere, to support these communities that are being impacted? And in what ways does the department need additional support to respond given the large increase of this type of violence around the country?

Yes. I couldn’t have said it better than you did, with respect to the level of our concern. Since the Hamas attacks on October 7th, spiking hate crimes, both against with respect to Islamophobia and with respect to anti-Semitism, have just gone through the roof. We have brought quite a number of prosecutions even during that time, since October 7th. And we treat this in the most serious way. We have to disrupt and deter such acts, and the only way in the end to do that is to get heavy sentences.

(01:09:25)
With respect to our work in this, this is a combination of the work from our Civil Rights Division side and from where it becomes domestic violent extremism, to our national security side. We’ve asked for $201.3 million, which is a 10.8% increase for the Civil Rights Division, 14 attorneys, much of that to cover hate crime investigations which are spiking. The FBI civil rights section has asked for $114.5 million, which is an increase in 30% for that purpose.

(01:10:08)
In the US Attorney’s offices, we’ve asked for $55.8 million, an increase of 12.2%, for the civil rights coordinators to work on these kind of matters. An important but little known part of the department is our Community Relations Service, which tries to mediate conflicts so that they don’t get to the stage that we’re talking about here. And for them, we’re asking for $29.1 million, which is a 21.2% increase. That’s on the civil rights side. We have another whole set of requests on the national security side, where this moves from hate crimes to what we would regard as domestic terrorism.

All right, well good. And it’s important to keep that focus and I appreciate your focus on that in your request. In 2018, I led the successful bipartisan effort to authorize a new grant program, that is titled the Emergency and Transitional Pet Shelter and Housing Assistance Grant Program. This program was set up as a pass-through which funds initially going to the USDA, but the grants are administered by the Department of Justice, and it provides emergency and transition shelter options for domestic violence survivors with companion animals. And this is actually very critical, given that studies have shown that victims of abuse are less likely to leave a very abusive situation if they have a beloved pet. Abusers often target that pet. And in fact, a number of studies have shown that, on average, a person who is being abused, a survivor, will delay leaving a relationship for up to two years. Two years, being in that, because clearly they care about this pet who’s going to be the target of further abuse.

(01:11:56)
So this vital program helps the federal government ensure that more domestic violence shelters can accommodate victims with pets, or they arrange a third party to make sure that the victim knows that that pet will be secure. And in the years since its launch, we have seen demand far outstretch the available funding. And in fiscal year ’24, I secured authorized funding of $3 million for the program.

(01:12:19)
So my question for you, Attorney General Garland, do you agree that it’s essential that we continue funding a grant program authorized by my PAWS Act and help empower victims of domestic violence with the tools they need to escape the violent situations that they’re in?

We have to protect the victims of domestic violence. And thanks to the PAWS Act, over the last three years, our Office of Victims of Crime has made 31 awards totaling $8.8 million for the nonprofit entities that support domestic violence survivors and their pets as they navigate into transitional housing.

Great. Well, I appreciate your support of the program and your statement on the necessity of doing this to help our survivors. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Senator Peters. Senator Moran.

Chairwoman, thank you again. General, let me raise three things in pretty, I hope, short order. We’ve talked I think since the beginning of my time at CJS and your arrival as Attorney General, about my desire to focus law enforcement grants. There’s lots of opportunities for local law enforcement to compete for grants to support local law enforcement, but we’ve highlighted numerous times to you and to your predecessor about the challenges that small law enforcement agencies in small communities have. They don’t have a grant writer. It takes a police officer off the street or a sheriff’s officer off the roadway to apply for grants, and we have encouraged the department to create a separate grant program specifically for small communities. I just would like to ask you if you… I doubt that you have it with you, but would you see if there’s any statistics that indicate how we’re faring, in getting small law enforcement agencies across the country, additional resources as compared to others or compared to the past?

Yeah, I’ll be happy to go back and ask how those statistics compare. A problem you pointed out has been pointed out to me by local sheriffs, by local police departments in small rural areas. It is a problem because they don’t have grant writers, they may not even know about the availability. So we have our Office of Justice programs, and our COPS office have gone to great lengths to try to simplify the applications, to reach out to rural law enforcement about the possibility of getting grants, and helping and assisting in the applications. But I don’t know the statistics and I will get back to you.

We’d like to see if it’s working. I had suggested, and I don’t know whether the suggestion… and this predates you at the department… but that there be created a separate grant application and program for those small agencies.

(01:15:11)
Let me also highlight anti-Semitism and hate crimes, and you have focused your attention upon this issue and I appreciate that. But according to data tabulated by the Anti-Defamation League, there were 5,204 incidents between October 7th and the end of 2023. That’s a number that is greater than the entire total of those instances in 2022. I commend you for your recognition of this issue and efforts. And is there things that you would point to, specific proposals in the department’s budget request, that would be evidence of attention to anti-Semitism and hate crimes?

Well, you’re absolutely right about that. I spoke at the Anti-Defamation League conference earlier this year and recited the statistics that the FBI has, which are very much consistent with the statistics that ADL itself is reporting. The parts of our budget that are relevant here, and are most important, are the increases for the Civil Rights Division, which has particular jurisdiction over hate crime prosecutions, the FBI’s civil rights section, which supports those prosecutions, and our national security division and US Attorney’s offices that bring these cases. US Attorney’s offices bring the hate crime cases, but then also bring, along with the National Security Division, where hate crimes progress even further across the board into domestic terrorism.

Finally, General, I would mention an occurrence in Kansas, the United States Penitentiary in Leavenworth went into lockdown and then modified its operations, beginning March 1st, now more than a month ago. There are security situations in the BOP facility I know that can require certain actions to protect the safety of inmates as well as the staff, but these status changes are inherently disruptive. And of course we need to remember that inmates are entitled to civil rights and that the BOP staff are entitled to a functioning environment. My understanding is this issue, or this circumstance, is close to being resolved, if it hasn’t already been today, but I wanted to make sure it was a priority for you and the department.

Yes, I’m not specifically familiar with the situation at Leavenworth, but I will ask my staff to get back to yours today.

Thank you. I just really wanted to bring it to your attention. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Moran. Senator Reed.

Welcome, General. Last summer, the Senate Banking Committee passed the Safer Banking Act. It’s a bipartisan legislation designed to help state-approved marijuana businesses access banking services. Section 10 of the original legislation would’ve compromised law enforcement and national security, by requiring banks to notify customers when the government requested termination of an account. In essence, the original language meant that serious criminals could be tipped off that they are under investigation. That includes fentanyl distributors, gun runners, mob bosses, etc. Fortunately, through a bipartisan committee process, we worked to address major flaws in Section 10 and curb its negative effects. Do you agree that such a policy would handcuff law enforcement in the intelligence community if the bank had to disclose that their accounts has been terminated by law enforcement?

I have to say I’m not familiar with the provisions of… I know what the act is and the proposal… I’m not familiar with the requirements in general. As a theoretical matter, without commenting on that, obviously, if we are investigating someone and that person is advised of our investigation, that makes our investigation all the more difficult and may compromise it. But I can’t answer specifically with respect to that statute.

Let me prepare a letter, send it to your office so that you and your staff can review it and then respond. I know when you come up here, it’s sort of a range of issues from all the way across the board, so I completely understand that. A quick other question, and again this might not… I think you would be familiar with this, the reauthorization of FISA. There was a great debate in the House about a warrant requirement. Would you support a warrant requirement for US persons in 702?

So 702 is absolutely essential to our ability to protect the country from everything from nation states to foreign terrorist-inspired attacks in the United States. I don’t support a warrant requirement. We are talking about information that has already been lawfully collected pursuant to a court order, because the target is a foreign individual operating abroad where foreign intelligence information is likely. And courts have never required us to search lawfully collected holdings with a warrant. So I don’t think it’s constitutionally required. I am concerned about errors in the query system that occurred. When I first came in, these were reported to me. And I directed the deputy attorney general and the FBI director to put quite a number of fixes in to prevent that problem. And the consequence has been a really large decrease in the number of queries that are made, in excess of 90%, and a compliance rate in the area of 98%.

(01:21:18)
The problem with a warrant is that a warrant requires probable cause of something and we don’t have probable cause at the stage of the query. A query is intended to find out what’s in our holdings, so we can determine whether we have probable cause. If you impose a warrant requirement with the probable cause requirement, it effectively makes queries impossible to go forward. So it would just eliminate our ability to use 702, to find out what information we have with respect to foreign terrorism, with respect to cyber attacks, with respect to foreign intelligence collection via our adversaries.

Attorney General, as you understand because it lapses, are you comfortable with the House version of the legislation?

Not knowing exactly what the House version is, I’m comfortable with the provisions that provide for the fixes that we have administratively put into place and that do not require though a warrant requirement.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.

Thank you, Senator Reed. Senator Fischer.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. It is good that you’re here and I appreciate that you’re here. Thank you. I noticed that President Biden’s budget request for the Justice Department states that its goal is to uphold the rule of law. I appreciate this goal, but I don’t see a budget that truly supports this vision. I see cuts to resources for local law enforcement, who are struggling right now. I see the elimination of a program that helps put criminal illegal aliens in jail, and I’m seeing cuts like these in favor of more spending to fulfill President Biden’s political goals.

(01:23:21)
Smart and responsible budget cuts are important, but if you really want to uphold the law, cuts to law enforcement programs aren’t the right place to start. For example, your funding request for the Community Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative is $110 million more than the funding you are seeking for the Regional Information Sharing Systems program known as RISS. RISS is a proven communications program that helps state and local law enforcement combat criminal activity. As nice as community intervention programs are, they’ll never replace the men and women in uniform who hold the thin blue line every single day. The president’s request actually tries to cut funding for the RISS program by several million dollars. Did the department assess a reduced need for RISS funding for FY25? Because that’s not what I’m hearing from Nebraska’s sheriffs.

I have to say that funding for state and local police is a high priority for the Justice Department. We’re asking for more than $4.3 billion in funding for state and local police, and $16.5 billion in a mandatory program over five years. We’re asking for an increase in our COPS hiring program of 893.5%, $2.5 billion total, $2.3 billion increase. That money goes for state and local police hiring. We’re asking for $524.5 million for Byrne JAG grants. $323 million, a $7.5 million increase, for our Office of Violence against Women grants, which focus on local law enforcement and prosecutors. We’ve asked for $133 million for our Public Safety Officers Benefits program.

I know… Excuse me, I have limited time, but I know there are a number of programs out there. But specifically to the RISS program, which is a program that really offers secure information sharing and communications capabilities, investigative support services, and that all enhances our officer safety. And so what I’m hearing, is the priority for that program, which we’re looking at a $4 million decrease and the president’s requesting 40 million, you compare that to the Community Based Violence Intervention Prevention Initiative, that has increased a top line to 250 million over five years. So why we’re looking at in the FY24 budget, $0 for that program, we’re now looking at 150 million increase in that program. So I’m just curious, if you reach out to local law enforcement, which I know you do, but do you hear a priority being for the RISS program as well?

I’m sorry. I may be even embarrassed to say that I’m not sufficiently familiar with the RISS program. I have spoken constantly, we meet quarterly with state and local law enforcement, and I’ve gone to more than 40 US Attorney’s offices to meet with state and local. This issue hasn’t been raised for me, but I’ll ask my staff to get back to you. Many of the things you’re talking about sound like things that are also covered by the other grant programs, but…

We also face issues because of the chaos that we see at our southern border. There’s a program that you have there, it’s one of the few programs that helps states with that. It’s the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, which the president has proposed to cut funding to that entirely. Entirely. Reason being that it’s a duplicative program. My time is out, but I’d like to submit a couple more questions to you if you could respond to it. And specifically that program, because we are seeing across this country, cities, states seeing increased needs for these assistance programs because of the chaos that we see at our border. And to find one that, again, is working for my state and to see that being cut, I’d like to explore the answers that you provide for that.

I’ll be happy to answer the question, Senator.

Thank you, sir, very much.

Thank you, Senator Fischer-

Madam Chair, if I could, I realized I confused my answer to the Senator’s question about the House bill for 702-

Please clarify.

… because there have been quite a number of House bills. The one that passed the House is the one that we do very strongly support. It’s the one that passed last week, and I do urge the Senate to pass that bill.

Well, thank you for that clarification. Senator Coons.

Thank you, Chair Shaheen. Thank you so much, Attorney General Garland. Senator Fisher and I may find some things to work on out of her questioning. We are the co-sponsors of the Recruit and Retain Bill that has already passed the Senate and would strengthen the COPS program’s ability to help state and local law enforcement with recruitment and retention. As the co-chair of the law enforcement Caucus on the Judiciary committee with Senator Cornyn and someone who spent a decade in local government responsible for the second-largest police department in our state, I’ve focused in my 14 years here on partnerships like RISS, like information sharing and ways to support local law enforcement.

(01:29:33)
As you said in your opening testimony, the investments, the initiatives that you’ve taken, the Department of Justice and the brave men and women who serve us every day through DOJ, are having an impact. In my hometown of Wilmington, murder is at a 20-year low. The broad perception of crime is not improving at the rate we would hope, but the reality in my hometown, we had a crisis of shootings and murders that lasted for a decade. We are now seeing a persistent, sustained significant drop in violent crime, and I thank you for your leadership on that.

(01:30:05)
The American Rescue Plan was the single largest investment in law enforcement and public safety by the federal government in our history, and I’m pleased your request builds on that success. I wanted to reference four different things briefly in my questioning: The victims of Child Abuse Act and the critical work you’re doing to help fund and implement that; boosting hiring through the COPS program, as I referenced; protecting those charged with upholding the law, our judges at the both federal and local level; and enforcing IP rights. I also think it’s key that we continue funding the implementation of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, a critical gun safety measure that passed by a broad bipartisan margin here in the Senate.

(01:30:46)
I worked hard, with Senator Blunt, to reauthorize the Victims of Child Abuse Act programs and I appreciate the department’s effort to increase by 7% of the funding for this. It is a critical… children’s advocacy centers are a critical resource to ensure that law enforcement, mental health professionals, medical professionals come together to work on child abuse investigations in a child-centered way that is effective. And I’m proud of the work Representative Krista Griffith and her team at the Children’s Advocacy Center of Delaware have done, I used the CDS to strengthen that. The need is great. There are a significant number of unserved children. Can you explain why the Children’s Advocacy Center program is important and what role it plays in helping solve crimes?

I have to say I’m not intimately familiar with the Center. Obviously, we need children’s advocates. When children are victims, they can’t advocate for themselves. They need…

Mr. Attorney General, I interrupt. I would be happy to familiarize you with the investigatory tool that it is. It’s a unique model. Its name is somewhat misleading, but I’ve seen it work on the ground in our community. I appreciate your commitment to law enforcement hiring and funding new positions. How are you working to ensure that small departments can fully access the COPS program? The agency I was responsible for was the second largest in our state, but frankly, COPS programs have made a real impact in smaller agencies.

The director of that program is very sensitive to the concerns of the small agencies, both in urban areas and in rural areas, understanding that they don’t have the luxury of having administrative officers who can fill out the forms and do the appropriate collection of data, nor even necessarily interrelate with respect to the internet programs. So they have developed reach out programs. They’ve simplified the applications. And we’ve tried to make known, in our quarterly meetings with all the law enforcement agencies, organizations, the availability of these reach out services.

We had a judiciary committee hearing on this last week and Director Clements, I urged him to try and strike the right balance between ensuring appropriate oversight and auditing and performance standards, but minimizing needless and duplicative paperwork.

(01:33:25)
The Supreme Court Police Parity Act, something that I helped get into law, I think, signals the seriousness with which I take the security of our federal judges. Also, frankly, the vast majority of judicial officers are at the state and local level, and Senator Cornyn and I have introduced a bill to create a state judicial threat intelligence and resource center housed at the State Justice Institute. Is the department tracking an uptick in violent threats against federal judges and what do you think Congress and the department can do to help secure the safety of our judiciary at the state and federal level?

Yes. Yes, we are, and that’s reflected in prosecutions that we’re bringing. Used to be extraordinarily unusual to bring, to have those kinds of cases, and now we’re fielding more and more quite serious threats, finding those people and prosecuting them. I say the principle, all the way that can be of assistance is the appropriations for the Marshals Service, which has in particular an item for increasing, $28.1 million for judicial security, the Marshals Services, the ones who provide judicial security for all the well more than 2000 federal judges across the country.

Thank you. And frankly, while not as urgent as police hiring, reducing violent crime, protecting our judges, I continue to be gravely concerned about intellectual property theft by China. You have a small but effective program that helps with the training and implementation of IP theft programs. I recommend to you sustaining it, if not growing it. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Senator Coons. Senator Capito.

Thank you, Madam Chair and thank you Mr. Attorney General for being here today. I just wanted to put something on your radar screen that struck me when I listened to Senator Moran’s question about Leavenworth. We wrote a letter to you, a bipartisan letter, Senator Manchin and I. We have quite a few employees at the Hazelton prison that has over 3000 inmates. A whistleblower came forward with pretty graphic details of mismanagement, abuse and worse. And it’s a chronic problem there because I think lack of workforce and lack of ability to staff up properly. I don’t know if you have any reaction to what’s going on at Hazelton specifically or do I need to follow up with you?

We’ll follow up, but this has come to our attention, obviously, not only from your letter. And I believe actions were taken over the last couple of weeks, but we’ll get more information to you. I think you’re right on the problem of recruitment. It’s a difficult… It’s not only Hazelton where it’s difficult for them to recruit correctional officers. It’s a very dangerous job in facilities that there has not been a capital investment over the last decades that’s required. And sometimes state and local facilities, not too far away, are offering more money in terms of salary, so we have asked for money for retention and hiring more than the normal salary that we would otherwise be able to pay. That’s what the director thinks is going to be necessary to recruit the number of officers necessary to provide safety in our prisons.

Right. I think safety is the issue. Obviously, it has been at that facility. I know you’ve answered a lot of questions on fentanyl, but this is a huge issue for West Virginia. We have the most really drug related deaths per capita than any other state, and most of it’s tied to fentanyl. Do you think that the 2.7 billion is an adequate budget for the DEA and how could our resources be better prioritized to reduce and one day eliminate the amount of deaths we experience from fentanyl? Obviously, to stop the flow of fentanyl would be number one, but how would you respond to that?

We would always like more money, but we’re obviously trying to live within the caps that we’re agreed to. I think the budget that we’ve asked for is a 6% increase over the enacted for ’24, includes addition of 40 agents, which will be very helpful. This also includes money for diversion control, which was part of the problem in quite a number of states with respect to opioids. And then there’s the money that we have available in grants with respect to for, of course, state and local opioid addiction treatment and protection, so that’s the more than 490 million in counter drug-related OJP grants, including the CARA grants and the COSSUP grants.

We took a trip to Mexico and met with the president of Mexico. Senator Moran was on that trip just briefly. No, he was on the trip the whole time, it was a brief trip. Anyway, we sat in and listened to the president of Mexico, basically tell us that you have a demand problem in the United States, and you’ve heard him say this publicly. And that because we were imploring him to stop the flow of the chemicals that are coming in from China and then having the development and production in Mexico and then flowing into the United States. What is the current state of that needed disruption between the Mexican border and the United States in terms of getting the Mexican government to cooperate with our government law enforcements to be able to shut these things down?

Senator, I’ve sat through that same discussion three times by the president of Mexico, so I’m familiar with your frustration. I would say cooperation is improving, but much, much more is required. They have increased the number of precursor chemicals on the list, that have to be registered to come in. They have, at our request, extradited a number of the people who we’ve indicted, the heads of the Sinaloa Cartel, the Chapitos, the sons of El Chapo. They have destroyed labs. And I will say, in connection, for example, with their arrest of Ovidio, the son of El Chapo, a number of their Mexican marines lost their lives. They are facing an organization which, in many ways, has more heavy weaponry than some small countries. So it’s dangerous for them, but it is not sufficient, and that’s why I keep going. That’s why my deputy attorney general keeps going, and that’s why our law enforcement agencies at all the operational level keep going to try to get more cooperation.

Thank you. Thank you for coming.

Thank you. Senator Capito. Senator Britt.

Excellent. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Mr. General, thank you for being here today, really appreciate it. During last year’s hearing, I asked you about training materials that were used to prepare the US Marshals assigned to protective details at the homes of our Supreme Court justices in the aftermath of the leaked Dobbs decision. Those training materials made it clear that far from having the full authority to arrest people under any federal statute, as been previously testified, the marshals on the ground at the homes of the justices were actively discouraged from making arrests under 18 USC 15, Section 1507. As we discussed last year, Section 1507 makes it a crime to picket or parade near residents occupied by a judge with the intent of influencing any judge, juror, witness or court officer and the discharge of his duty, as I know that you are fully aware.

(01:41:17)
In the aftermath of that hearing, I and several of my colleagues sent a letter to you on May 3rd, 2023. That letter recounted the contents of some of the training materials discussed during the hearing and also discussed new materials that we had received afterwards. Those new materials consisted of several different versions of post orders that were provided to US Marshals assigned to protect the homes of the justices, and further confirmed that they had been actively dissuaded from making arrest under Section 1507. The letter asked for a response to 19 different questions and/or a document request by May 24th, 2023. To date, almost a year after it was transmitted to DOJ, I

I have yet to receive any response to that letter. My staff repeatedly reached out to DOJ to inquire about the status of the response, including via email on May 26th, June 13th and July 11th. And by phone on numerous other occasions. Staff for this subcommittee actually got involved and also reached out to DOJ’s appropriation liaison office in August to inquire about the status of the response to my letter. Neither my staff nor the staff of the subcommittee, to my knowledge, have received any type of update regarding the timeline provided for a response or an answer to any of the questions that were in that document. So my question to you is, there is a reason that I didn’t get a response to that letter and will you commit to me to getting one before the end of the week?

I’ll speak to my staff about the responses to your letter, but as you no doubt know, the director of the Marshall Service testified extensively February of this year on the precise questions that you’re asking. He was subject to further questioning and he explained, he confirmed that what I testified to before this committee was correct and accurate and true. He testified that I had directed him that his first priority is to protect the lives and safety of the justices and their children and that they have full authority to make arrests under any other statute, including section 1507. But that they-

Mr. General…

… ensure that they do not do so in a way that would risk the lives, with respect to someone standing post who sees [inaudible 01:43:45].

Yes, sir. Well, Mr. General, my question is really about the letter. I mean, I just… Yes, sir.

I try and answer you. There was a testimony in person by the-

Right. Well, then that would’ve been… Sir, if I may. Then that would’ve been an easy thing. You’re now recounting all of the things that you could have been in a letter. I’m actually a member of the United States Senate. I may sit on an opposite side of the aisle. I may be from a state that doesn’t maybe come to your radar. There may be some other reason, but I actually deserve an answer. So I would respect that you respect that. And even if that answer’s not something I like, over a year with no response after we’re trying to get one, and you could have very easily sent a letter that pointed to those things right there. It’s disrespectful and I really don’t appreciate it.

I have the greatest respect.

So in the future though too, and as a former staffer myself, I would assume that somebody sitting behind you knows that you didn’t respond to me. I just want to say I deserve your respect and I would hope that you would give it to me in the future. So even if it’s what you just said right here, I’d like a letter by the end of the week.

I greatly respect you, Senator. I greatly respect the Senate.

Well, thank you.

I guess I’d assume that all-

Then we will get it. Then you can put that in a letter.

Well, be sure that the transcript-

Yes, sir.

… of the testimony gets to you in a letter. Yes.

Thank you. I appreciate it. Given that I actually have a similar concern as Senator Coons, just about our federal judiciary. And when I look at what is happening across the country, I just want a commitment from you that DOJ and Marshall Services will enforce all applicable laws, all of them, including obviously 1507 to protect federal judges. And that, as he said, that we’re doing everything that we can. And if there’s anything that we need to be doing more of, that we can communicate on that and certainly look forward to partnering on making sure that we’re doing it.

As a longtime federal judge who cares very much about the safety and security of my former colleagues, I have done way more than any attorney general in history has done in this respect. And I can promise you that I will continue to do so.

Excellent. And looks like I am out of time. Thank you.

Thank you, Senator Britt. Senator Van Hollen.

Thank you, Madam Chairman. Mr. Attorney General, great to see you today. I do want to start by thanking the president and the Biden Administration for all their help and rapid help in response to the bridge collapse in Baltimore. There are many pieces we need to pull together, but the FBI was… They were among the first on the scene to try to rule out foul play, terrorism and they’ve been continuing to be present. So thank you and the Justice Department. The State of Maryland has now been enrolled in what’s called the Emergency Repair Program. It’s a program at the DOT and we’re really glad to be part of it.

(01:46:37)
Senator Cardin and I have introduced legislation to ensure that the president’s pledge that we as a federal government will come together and make sure that the costs of the bridge replacement are met. But we also are writing into that legislation a clear directive that any funds recouped as a result of lawsuits or the liability will be returned to the federal taxpayer. That reinforces a provision already in law. I just want to ask you and the department for your commitment to work with us to make sure that if there has been malfeasance, negligence that the federal taxpayers will recoup expenses that they’re putting out for bridge replacement.

We’ll, of course, use every tool we have with respect to recovering from any wrongdoers, if we find the kind of wrongdoing that allows us to make those recoveries.

As I understand it, whether the suits are brought by the federal government or by state’s attorney generals, the federal government has the first priority claim on any monies that come in as a result of that. Let me also thank you and the president for the regulations guidelines that you put forward in response to the Safer Communities Act, specifically work to close the gun show loophole. So I chair the Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees the FCC. One of the issues that they try to track and prevent are robocalls, which I think every American has been the victim of robocalls. And I want to congratulate the department, DOJ.

(01:48:23)
I think in 2021, there was a major recovery of about $10 million from one of these operators who was violating the various federal laws. But in testimony by the chair of the FCC, Chair Rosenworcel, she has asked for authority for the FCC to directly bring these cases. Because as you can imagine, there are lots of robocall cases. Understandably, not all of them rise to the level where DOJ would use its assets to prosecute, but the FCC doesn’t have the authority to prosecute. They can impose a penalty, but they can’t enforce it. So my question to you is, does the DOJ have any opposition to Congress empowering the FCC to bring these cases directly in court and enforce them?

I haven’t thought about that specifically, so I have to get back to you. As a general matter, it’s proven to be an element of good government to have all of the litigation in the hands of the Justice Department overseen by the Attorney General, with respect to all of civil and criminal enforcement. And make sure that the United States is always taking the same position in different cases. These cases involve not just a specific question under a statute, but many other civil procedure kinds of questions. So I’d say, as a general matter, the department favors the litigation remain in the hands of the department. I have not heard of any problems from the FCC with respect to us not moving vigorously or aggressively enough on those cases. But I will get back to you.

Mr. Attorney General, I’m happy to share with you the testimony of the chair. And again, she wasn’t being accusatory with respect to DOJ. But I think it’s a fact that given all the cases that you’re facing, you don’t have the time and the resources to commit to many of the robocall cases. My understanding is the FTC has some authority to bring cases directly.

Some, yeah.

So I hope you would agree that we can provide the FCC some limited authority to bring cases that are pending to correct… I mean there are lots of penalties that are not collected. So it’s not a hit on DOJ, but it’s a question of making sure that we enforce federal law.

I’ll look into those circumstances and I’ll ask my staff to talk to yours.

Thanks. So one other question. I know the FISA legislation has come up. I heard your response to that. Many of us believe that at the FISA court there should be even more of an opportunity for the people’s advocate to weigh in in these cases. There is a process, as you well know, to file amici briefs. But there’s legislation that Senator Durbin, I think Senator Wyden, had proposed where one element of that would be to require the court to appoint amici in certain narrow cases involving American’s First amendment rights. Cases involving the investigation of religious figures, members of the media, cases involving new technologies or new surveillance programs. Would you object to ensuring that an amici is appointed in those kind of circumstances?

I take it, this is separate from the 702 legislation that you’re talking about. This would be a separate legislation?

No, this relates to all the FISA legislation, including the Section 702. This goes beyond 702. I’m not talking about-

This isn’t part of the reauthorization?

Yes.

This is not part of that.

This is part of the reauthorization of-

702.

I think that’s where they’re proposing to include.

I see. So we strongly support the bill that passed out of the House as it is. We need this finished by the end of the week or our authorization expires. So anything that would get in the way of that happening, I’m reluctant to tell you, but I have to, that I couldn’t support. I think the judges know well when they need amicus and they have the ability to appoint amicus. From my own experience, during the time I was in the same courthouse with the FISA judges, they’re very pleased with the amicus that they have and they know well when difficult cases arise how to appoint one and to appoint one. There’s nothing to prevent them from doing that now.

I appreciate that. Madam Chair, I’ll just end by saying, in a typical adversarial proceeding, there’s a representative there for the adversary. Here, the question is just whether to make sure that the people who may be on the receiving end of the investigation have their rights protected. But we can continue that conversation. I will say, there’s quite a bit of concern about this provision that came up today, that was added in the House passed bill that was not part of the Warner-Rubio bill. But I’m sure that’ll be a subject of conversation in the coming days.

I’m sure it will. Thank you-

Thank you.

… Senator Van Hollen. Mr. Attorney General, I understand you have a hard out at 11:30. I would like to just raise two brief points before we close the hearing. In March of ’23, you testified in front of the committee and we discussed anomalous health incidents. I relayed the situation of someone I had met on a congressional delegation visit to the country of Georgia. She was the wife of a career employee with the Department of Justice, and her life and career had been upended because she had been affected by an anomalous health incident. And she had not been able to get satisfaction from the Department of Justice for that. You talked about taking a look at that and coming up with a rule that could be implemented. Can you tell me when that draft rule is expected to go into effect?

I can tell you, I signed the rule. I believe it’s with the federal register now, and as soon as they publish, we’ll be able to reach out and start processing these claims. And I’m grateful for you bringing that to my attention.

Well, thank you and I’m delighted to hear that that is progressing. And hopefully we can ensure that people who have been affected get some satisfaction and some help for what’s happened to them. The other issue is one that you raised earlier in the questions from Senator Moran and Senator Capito about recruitment and retention of our federal corrections officers. FCI Berlin, which is a prison in Northern New Hampshire, has had similar Recruitment issues. It’s a very rural part of our state, far away from lots of urban areas. And while lots of people really like that, it makes it hard to recruit further. A number of officers have been called down to facilities in New York.

(01:55:56)
Which have even more extreme challenges with hiring, and have been asked to go serve there for a period of time, which creates more concern and pressure in Berlin. We are also considered in the Boston metropolitan area, which means that the issue you raised about people being able to get more pay in other areas is exacerbated. Because even though New Hampshire has a lot of rural areas, to put us in with the Boston metropolitan area creates a real problem. And that’s what the Office of Personnel has done. So can I just ask that you work with us and with the Bureau of Prisons as we take a look at this issue, because it creates real challenges for what is already a problematic situation?

Yeah, absolutely. We would be happy to do that. And as I mentioned, we have a request for some $205.4 million for hiring and retention incentives. We’re just going to have to improve the pay scale for correctional officers if we’re going to solve this problem in the end.

Absolutely. It’s complicated because of that designation of what area you’re included in and what that means for pay.

Yes.

Well, thank you. Thank you very much. You’ve been very generous with your time this morning. If there are no further questions, senators may submit additional questions for the official hearing record and we hope that the Justice Department will respond to those questions within a reasonable period of time. We usually ask 30 days, but we understand that may not always be possible, but hopefully within a reasonable period of time.

Thank you. We will.

Thank you very much. At this point, I will close the hearing.