thank you. the speaker pro tempore: pursuant to clause 12-a of rule 1, the chair declares the house in recess until noon today.

krao*eut krao*eut one of the -- mr. cartwright: one of the most important things i look into is the justice assistance grants. i've been very proud to bring grants home in both of those areas to fund local police and also to fund efforts by our local district attorneys. these are the ones that deserve the credit for that huge drop in crime over the last year, aren't they? mr. garland: i quite agree with that, yes. mr. cartwright: don't let me put words in your mouth, but who else deserves the credit for this big drop in crime that america has experienced?

mr. garland: look, i'm -- we know and we've had experience over decades now with the right kind of strategies for reducing violent crime. these involve strategies from the federal point of view, require the cooperation that the chairman was speaking of all of our agencies. then creating joint task forces with state and local law enforcement who are enormous force multipliers for the department. our u.s. attorneys' offices who reach out to community, our grant programs to support community violence interrupters, who go out into communities and prevent the crime from happening in the first place, who are willing to meet with potentially violent people and talk them down. so the importance of our grants

to local communities to enhance good relationships between the police and the communities and because we don't get good policing and effective policing unless the community trusts the police, so it's a combination across the board of federal law enforcement, local law enforcement, community engagement. mr. cartwright: that's well said. i want to focus on hiring of attorneys to go into prosecution where, attorney general, what is the department of justice doing right now to prioritize creating efficiencies in its hiring and reducing the time to hire so that we have enough attorneys working for the department of justice and the prosecution generally? mr. garland: with respect to law enforcement reduction and time to hire, this is a significant issue with respect to retention, promotion, recruitment, law enforcement. sometimes both federal law

enforcement and state and local law enforcement take so long to hire the person, to go through the whole background and vetting process, the person already accepts another job before we finish that process. so our cops office has created a playbook for state and local law enforcement to increase and streamline that process. of course we are lacking internally to do the same thing. mr. cartwright: my time is expired, attorney general. i yield back, mr. chairman. mr. rogers: mr. garcia. mr. garcia: thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general garland, for being here today. i view these annual appropriations hearings as similar to an investor brief. we get to talk to you about what's going on in your organization, the money you're asking for, the past performance, the vision, the path forward. i don't think most americans know what the department of justice does. i don't think most americans know what the attorney general

does. so i wept on your website -- went on your website and just printed out the mission statement. the mission staeupt of the department of justice is to uphold the rule of law, to keep our country safe and to protect civil rights. pretty straightforward, pretty simple. you've been in office since 2021. you report directly to the president. and you know your mission. for your investors, the american taxpayers, how would you grade your performance over the last three years relative to that mission? mr. garland: i would grade the work -- mr. garcia: i'm talking about you, attorney general. with all due respect to you and your team, i have all the respect in the world for the agents in the field. they are doing god's work on a daily basis. so this line of questioning is specifically about you, as someone who is on the cabinet, reports directly to the president, and during a period of record high crime rates. before my colleagues across the aisle get offended, i am not talking about the agents in the field here. i think they're doing god's work, they're doing a + with the

resources they have. how would you grade yourself as attorney general of the united states? mr. garland: you asked about violent crime. i think what the attorney general does with respect to violent crime is set forth a strategy or fighting -- for is fighting violent crime and makes sure it's carried out throughout the department and the country. it's what i did almost immediately after i came into office. mr. garcia: we're short on time. i'm just asking for a grade. a through f. how are you doing? mr. garland: i'm going to give myself an a but with room for improvement. mr. garcia: ok. let me explain to you why i would give you an f. and we just heard why mr. cartwright from pennsylvania was citing the decline in crime nationwide. your mission is to uphold the rule of law. and crossing the border is a crime. it is illegal per pennel code -- penal code, crossing international border is a crime. we have 7 1/2 million people under your tenure who have come

across our border. when you say there's a decline in homicides by about 20%, a decline in homicide in 50 years or whatever the number is, does that include the 75,000 people who were killed by fentanyl or poisoned by fentanyl, by in many cases dealers who knew they were selling fentanyl and the victims did not, does that decline in homicides of 20% include the 75,000 fentanyl poisonings? mr. garland: i'm sure it does not include the fentanyl poeutsening -- poisonings. mr. garcia: those were american lives lost, though, right? why is that not considered a homicide? mr. garland: u.s. attorney's offices do pursue -- attorneys' offices do pursue fentanyl traffickers, including even the sale of small amounts where we can establish the trafficker is the one who caused the death. mr. garcia: do you charge them with homicide when that's the case? mr. garland: there's a narcotics

statute that includes sentencing enhancement for death. we don't prosecute homicides, those are state laws. mr. garcia: when we're putting the cape on and saying there's a 20% reduction in homicides, we are not counting the 75,000 americans that have been killed by this drug each year -- the second metric of keeping our country safe, we talk about the death to america chants in some of our cities. we heard raised testimony last year that we're in one of the most precarious positions our nation has been in the last several decades. we have 10,000 people entering our border a day illegally. 7,000% increase in chinese immigrants coming across our border illegally. 10,000 people a day coming across the borders. and that's about a 40% increase since your watch began in f.y.2021. 350 people on the known terror watch list, eight in 10 americans feel less secure than they did just three or four years ago per the pew research

center so your assessment of yourself, i think someone who is in your position, literally reports directly to the president, and atry beaut of a leader in that -- attribute of a leader in that position has to be self-aware. they have to have the courage to tell the boss that the boss is screwing up, especially when it's leading to loss of lives at the level that is unprecedented and i think you're giving yourself an a under these circumstances demonstrates a lack of self-awareness, frankly. i think kwhraoufbg earned an f -- you've earned an f. i think you need to talk to your boss and tell him that the policies are killing us. not the lack of money. i respect the $37 billion investment request here, if i was in charge i'd give you more. but it's the policies that are broken. so with that, i'm out of time, i'm happy to discuss more things, but i will wait for the second round to talk about the treatment of law and the application of law to certain demographics and i yield back. thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. rogers: mr. morelle. mr. morelle: i'd like to give the attorney general a chance to respond to what he just heard. mr. garland: i didn't hear a question in that at all. and i disagree with almost everything that you've said. but i want to be clear that the border responsibility, you're talking to the wrong department here. the department of homeland security is the department responsible for preventing things from coming across the border. the president and the secretary of homeland security have proposed a bipartisan bill to protect the border and reduce the number of people who come across and to increase the money spent to prevent fentanyl from coming across the border. so that would be my recommendation in that respect. mr. morelle: thank you. i'll just editorialize, this is the second hearing i've been at, both with the director of the f.b.i. and the attorney general,

they've been personally attacked. i want to underscore, there was a bipartisan deal on the table. as i understand it, the former president persuaded people not to participate in that because didn't want a political win and cared about the politics over the safety of the united states' people and the american people. so i'm getting tired of these hearings, of listening to these attacks when they can be addressed. having said that, mr. attorney general, thank you for the time with us today and thank you for your long service to the country. i want to thank your staff and you for providing detailed feedback on a bill which i have re-introduced, preventing deepfakes ofent mat images act -- of intimate images act. this is to prohibit the disclosure of nonconsensual deepfake pornography. a growing problem in the united states. 96% of all deepfakes involve pornography on the internet and as i work to pass this legislation into law, which i hope that i can continue to have lines of communication open to you and to the department and i

want to thank you for that. if i can, sir, there's obviously been a lot of public reporting on special counsel robert hur's report back in february this year. i'm no asking to you comment on the substance of the report, which has been talked about publicly, but as a member of the president's cabinet, someone who has regular contact with the president, would you like to comment on president biden's fitness generally? mr. garland: look, i'm -- i start by thank you for recognizing that i can't comment and won't comment about the special counsel's report at all. but if you're asking me about my own observations as a member of the national security council and a member of the president's cabinet, i have complete confidence in the president. i have watched him expertly guide meetings of staff and cabinet members on issues of foreign affairs and military strategy and policy in the incredibly complex world in which we now face.

and in which he's been decisive in instructions to the staff, decisive in making the decisions necessary to protect the country. like wise, with respect to domestic policy discussions, these are intricate, complicated questions that he's guided all of us through in order to reach results that are helpful and important and beneficial to the american people. i could not have more confidence in the president. mr. morelle: thank you, sir. i have a number of questions which i may submit in writing but one thing i did want to get some additional comment, you mentioned in your testimony, in addition to my role as an appropriator i'm proud to serve as the ranking democrat on the committee on house administration, which has jurisdiction over federal election reforms. in july of 2021, the department of justice launched a task force to address the rise in threats against election workers and election officials. in addition to threats of violence and intimidation, our country's election workers face

new and unique pressures driven by the rapid spread of misinformation by extremists. with less than eight months before the general election, can you provide an update on the activities of the task force and the department's plans to ensure the election workers are protected from threats? mr. garland: yes, thank you. as i said in my opening remarks, i think the threats to election workers, particularly the volunteer election workers, but obviously also sex of state and -- secretaries of state and appointed administrators, this is a real threat to our democracy, to have the people who running our elections afraid to continue their work. and so we have -- i have personally spoken to all of our united states attorneys by video and issued in person during our conferences, the f.b.i. has agent depends voted to this issue and we have this task force that you're talking about. we have prosecuted more than --

around 20 cases now, many of which have yielded significant sentences and we have investigated many, many more and disrupted other kinds of threats. so we are completely seized with the importance of deterring and disrupting threats against our election workers. mr. morelle: thank you, sir. mr. chair, i yield back. mr. rogers: the gentleman. >> last week when the house was considering legislation to reform and re-authorize the foreign intelligence surveillance act, did you or anyone in your office make phone calls to members of congress urging them to oppose the biggs amendment to require the government to obtain a warrant prior to spying on american

citizens through fisa section 702, a yes or no will suffice? mr. garland: the hatch act in the constitution permit members of the president's administration to speak with members who are interested in questions about the effect of legislation just like you are asking me today about -- clyde clyde if we asked, that's one thing. mr. clyde: if you we don't ask and you reach out, that's a different thing. mr. garland: it doesn't violate any law of any kind. i discussed the vital united states' interests in extending 702 with members -- mr. clyde: how many members did you call? mr. garland: i'm not going to get into my conversations -- mr. clyde: i'm not asking about the conversations, i'm asking how many members did you call? mr. garland: i'm not going to get into that question. there's nothing unlawful. mr. clyde: on march 3, 2024, at a pwap kheuft tufrpb -- baptist church in selma, alabama, you made comments regarding our country's elections and elections laws passed by states. you claimed democracy wasn't

under attack by discriminatory, burdensome and unnecessary restrictions on access to the ballot. attorney general, do you believe requiring an i.d. to vote in a federal election is discriminatory? yes or no? mr. garland: i spoke at the -- mr. clyde: just yes or no. mr. garland: an iconic church for which the march for voting rights began. mr. clyde: just a yes or no would be fine. mr. garland: the answer is the supreme court's decision says that undue burdens on voting rights caused by voter i.d.'s can be unconstitutional, but that -- mr. clyde: what? voter i.d. can be unconstitutional? mr. garland: it can be depending on the burdens and the skreupbltory way in which -- discriminatory way in which they are taken. mr. clyde: ok, so do you think it's important to positively identify every voter, to ensure that they are a legal voter? i think as you called it, a legitimate voter. mr. garland: no. you have to be a united states citizen, you have to meet the qualifications for that to be a voter. it's important that only those

people vote. mr. clyde: how do you prove that? if you don't require i.d.? you require i.d. to get on an airplane. you're not going to get on an airplane. [talking simultaneously] mr. garland: i have voted every year my entire life and i've never been asked to show an identification. mr. clyde: i've always been asked to show identification. wow. do you believe that illegal aliens residing in the united states should be allowed to vote in federal elections? yes or no? mr. garland: no. mr. clyde: all right, great, we agree on something. other than u.s. citizens, are there any other legitimate voters? mr. garland: you have to be a u.s. citizen to vote. mr. clyde: you must be a u.s. citizen. ok, great. i ask unanimous consent to add this to the record, mr. chairman. thank you, sir. this is a poster found in the city -- outside of city of matamoros. it was posted around the migrant

camps and it is a poster from hias, the immigrant aid society, and this particular poster says, the resource center is a six-unit complex that is the home of hias. at the very bottom it says, reminder to vote for president biden when you're in the united states. we need another year of your mandate to stay open. that's what this poster says. reminds illegal immigrants to vote for president biden. so, is the department of justice concerned about illegal aliens voting in federal elections? mr. garland: the department of justice is concerned about any illegallalities with respect to voting. i've never seen that poster, never heard of that poster. that's the first time i've ever had anybody even mention that poster. mr. clyde: well, now you have. so if any noncitizens vote in federal elections, are you going to prosecute them at the federal level? mr. garland: anybody violates the voting laws, federal voting laws, we will investigate and prosecute as appropriate.

mr. clyde: that's good to hear. i appreciate that. with the additional money you asked for the civil rights division, i hope that you prosecute illegal voting. now, last year you promised to provide the prosecution crime statistics for the city of washington, d.c., for the last five years. there was a question that i asked you. i have not yet received them. so i'm asking you again today, do you commit to provide these statistics, prosecution of crime statistics for the city of washington, d.c., will you provide these in the next 30 days? mr. garland: i'll ask my staff to get in touch with yours. i don't know what the problem is with respect to providing those. it doesn't seem like there should be a problem. mr. clyde: thank you. my time sex pired and i yield -- is expired and i yield back. mr. rogers: the committee will l

be in order. >> what are you doing? it's so important. what are you doing -- free julian assange. >> free julian assange. mr. rogers: the chair reminds our guests that disruptive demonstrations from the audience are a violation of house rules. any additional disruptions will require law enforcement to remove protesters from the room and restore order. >> thank you, mr. chairman. and ranking member cartwright. i thank you, attorney general garland, for appearing here today and thank you for your patience as you deal with this committee. i'm a co-chair of the bipartisan second as it chance task -- second chance task force.

mr. trone: we're considered about staffing shortages a at the b.o.p. the b.o.p. is funded at 93% but are only staffed at 86%. what's happening is education, wrap-around services for mental health, etc., which could improve our outcomes, job training, get left behind. so we're all in agreement on that. we like to figure out how to implement the bipartisan first step act successfully. and to do that we've got to have the staffing. could you talk a minute about what this does to lead to lousy outcomes where we can't cut our prison budget because we don't give folks a second chance to win, succeed? mr. garland: i think -- thanks for the question. i think the act was extremely important. by focusing on education of inmates, it helps reduce recidivism after they leave,

reduce recidivism after re-entry, we drive down the violent crime rate. the bureau of prisons makes every effort to ensure that the staffing shortages you're referring to don't impact the first step act programming, as well as assistant treatment programming. but to be frank, if you're asking what we need most in order to protect the ability to have full staffing in prisons, we need the money for hiring and retention. being a correctional officer or being a first step administrator, these are dangerous jobs in facilities that are not -- that have not been kept up over decades and where there are adjoining facilities, sometimes state and local facilities that pay more money, so i'd say if you're

asking me for the one thing that would give us a better chance here for the first step act, second chance, it would be to give us the money that we're can requesting which -- which we're requesting which is $205.4 million for hiring more. mr. trone: so the dollars we give you, the proper amount of money will result in saving millions, tens of millions more down the line by cutting recidivism. mr. garland: we do think the money we have can provide more incentives for people to stay on the job, means the chances of reducing recidivism will increase. mr. trone: that sounds like a smart investment to me. second quick question. 75% of b.o.p. inmates do not have a photo i.d. when they leave prison and can't secure housing, apply for jobs, open a bank account, federal benefit programs, etc. the bureau's addressing this by providing i.d.'s to u.s. citizens now. we have a bipartisan bill, the b.o.p. release card act, that

supports this effort at the b.o.p. by ensuring new i.d.'s fulfill all the requirements and directs b.o.p. to work with the states to have a one-on-one exchange so we can work right with the states to move these folks into getting their new i.d. card and then successfully able to exchange that for state i.d. cards. we would appreciate your help in moving this bill forward, that makes sense to you? mr. garland: we would be happy to give technical assistance. our staffs may have already consulted on this. of course we'd be happy to give technical assistance to b. ofrpt p. -- b. ofrpt p. -- b.o.p. for the i.d. release program. mr. trone: slept, thank you. the d.e.a. has extended current telemedicine flexibilities for prescribing controlled medications through december 31, 2024. but there's not a revised

proposed rule. many patients are at risk of losing access to prescriptions needed for mental health and substance use disorder. last year my colleagues and i expressed concerns about the proposed d.e.a. rule that would have limited patient access to a drug and encourage evidence-based aid approach to make permanent -- approach to make permanent audio visual telehealth technology for prescribing. this is crucial to reach these patient populations, including unhoused, rural, tribal. so as a follow-up to that letter, we introduced the treats act which allows medication for opioid use disorder to be prescribed via telemedicine. what's d.o.j.'s position on the continued use of telehealth flexibilities to ensure access to these medically necessary substance use disorder

treatments and how is this supported in your budget request? mr. garland: as you noted, the current telemedicine flexibilities are extended until december 31 of this year. d.e.a. has issued a proposed rule which would allow authorized providers to prescribe medicines for opioid use disorder via telemedicine. they're working to promulgate a final year -- i'm sorry, a final rule by the fall of this year. ... mr. trone: thank you very much. restrictive housing, otherwise known as solitary confinement. outdated and used way too far, too often. we believe the b.o.p. has been dragging its feet to reform this area of restrictive housing. in the past 10 years studies have been done, what you we have

not made progress. what steps can be taken to make this more effective. guest: the new b.o.p. director is very much committed to what you are talking about. b.o.p. recently published a proposed rule on discipline designed to reduce the use of restrictive housing for disciplinary segregation. traoeugs to hire more psychologies and escalation training which would reduced need for the restrictive housing. mr. trone: i yield back. chair rogers: if you would please move the microphone closer to you. we are having a little trouble -- guest: i can't move the microw -- attorney general garland: thank you, sproeupblg. for being here. >> i listened to interest with your opening statement. i have to say i'm concerned that your actions are speaking louder

than your words. especially when you say there is one -- not one set of laws for democrats and another for republicans. my constituents are watching your actions speaking louder than words. there is a crisis in your department being created by the dual treatment of american citizens depending on their viewpoints on their political positions or their political offices. whether -- as your department is currently prosecuting a former president for handling classified documents, your office, i assume you personally, declined to take action against president biden for his willful mishandling of classified documents. i appreciate you making the report of special counsel hur public as was done historically

with every other special counsel. did you review the report prior to its release? atty. gen. garland: before i released it? yes. i read it before. mr. cline: did you approve of the -- obviously you approved of the recommendations because you have it within your power to prosecute. atty. gen. garland: i'm not going to comment or editorialize on the special counsel's report. i promised i would release it. i did release t the report speaks for itself. the special counsel sat for something like five hours' worth of testimony on the subject. any question about results he reached could have been asked. mr. cline: you won't say whether you concur with the conclusions. atty. gen. garland: will i say as i did 2e9 of the release would not editorialize or comment on the report. that's inappropriate for a attorney general. mr. cline: you wouldn't agree that biden wouldn't come across o-to-a jury with a poor meny. atty. gen. garland: i said then

and with respect to the report it's improper for the attorney general to editorialize. i take that separately from the question you are asking. if you are asking me about my own observations about the president -- mr. cline: you testified to that fact. have you ever seen evidence of impairment in your meetings with the president? atty. gen. garland: aim sorry. i testified and -- i'm sorry. i testified and i'll repeat again. mr. cline: that's different from my question. atty. gen. garland: i have seen the president effectively guide the members of the department, of his cabinet, and his military through -- mr. cline: you won't see you have ever seen any impairment? atty. gen. garland: the president has no impairment. mr. cline: you have never seen any. atty. gen. garland: i don't know how many ways i can say this i have complete confidence in the president and i reject your characterization. mr. cline: let's talk about the audio recordings special counsel hur's interviews with president biden's ghost writer. you are in possession of those?

atty. gen. garland: justice department. mr. cline: has the white house been permitted access to those reportings? atty. gen. garland: i don't know what mr. hur provided. i expect the answer is yes. mr. cline: they have access. maybe you are aware. how many times did judiciary committee has asked for those documents, shows recordings? atty. gen. garland: i know that the judiciary committee has asked. we have sent a letter explaining our position with respect to the recordings. mr. cline: three times. atty. gen. garland: we have provided transstkreupts of the -- transcripts of the reportings. mr. hur has testified about his observations during his interviews. these are interviews of the witness. it is long-standing practice of the justice department to keep these kinds of documents confidential in order to not chill future investigations. mr. cline: confidential. you provided copies to the white house. atty. gen. garland: this is the witness. the witness' own -- mr. cline: you normally provide witnesses in investigations access to their interviews? atty. gen. garland: sometimes we

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

those circumstances the court upheld the law, yes. mr. cline: you -- atty. gen. garland: i follow the law and the supreme court. whether i agree or not it's the law. the rule of law requires us to follow t that's not what i'm talking about. mr. cline: i yield back. chair rogers: the committee will stand in recess subject to the call of the chair. [captioning made possible by th, inc., in cooperation with the united states house of representatives any use of the closed-captioned coverage of the house proceedings for political or commercial purposes is expressly prohibited by the u.s. house of representatives.]

>> this house appropriations subcommittee hearing taking what we believe will be a brief break. subcommittee members hearing testimony today from attorney general merrick garland, on the justice department's budget request for the coming fiscal year. while we wait for them to return, we'll show you a portion of today's "washington journal." host: they report dozens of potential jurors have been ruled out of donald trump raes unprecedented criminal trial in new york on impartiality grounds. falsifying business records for payment to stormy daniels ahead

of the 2016 election which he won. 60 of 96 potential jurors were quick to say they could not be impartial after the proceedings began on monday. jury selection continues today. could take up to two weeks. the dismissals on day one were an indication how challenging it could be to find a group of 12 impartial jurors for such a unique case. it concerns a high profile sex sapbl that involves a former president who is running once again for the white house. that's several reporting on that front yesterday. it was after those proceedings on the first day that the former president went before cameras and gave his thoughts and impresses. here he is from yesterday >> very much we had some amazing things happen today. as you know my son graduated from high school. looks like the judge will not let me go to the graduation of my son who has worked very, very hard. he's a great student. i was looking forward for years to have graduation with his

mother and father there. it looks like the judge isn't going to allow me to escape this scam. it's a scam trial. if you read all of the legal pundits, the legal scholars today, there is not one that i see that theud sa*eud this is a case that should be brought for trial. it's a scam. it's a political witch-hunt. it continues. it continues and would not be given a fair trial. it's a very, very sad thing. in addition, as you know, next thursday we are before the united states supreme court on a very big hearing on immunity. and this is something that we have been waiting for a long time. and the judge of course is not going to allow us, a very conflicted judge. he's not going to allow us to go to that. he won't allow me to leave here for half day g. to d.c., and go before the united states supreme court because he thinks he's superior, i guess, to the supreme court. we have a real problem with this judge. we'll problem with a lot of

things having to do with this trial. including the d.a. because you go right outside people are being mugged and killed all day long and he's sitting here all day with 10 or 12 prosecutors over nothing. over nothing. over what people say -- over what people say shouldn't be a trial. so i just want to thank you very much. i can't go to my son's graduation. i can't go to the united states supreme court that i'm not in georgia or florida or north carolina campaigning like i should be. it's perfect for the radical left democrats. that's exactly what they want. this is about election interference. that's all it's about. thank you very much. host: so comments from the former yesterday. president yesterday at that first day of jury selection for his hush money trial. you can call for republicans, 202-748-8001. 202-748-8000, for democrats.

202-748-8002 for independents. more from mike johnson for funding for ukraine and other matters. here's what to expect. johnson's whole leadership -- told shraoerdship colleagues on monday night he plans to pass three separate bills this week to unlock aid to ukraine, israel, and taiwan. a fourth bill which would include a mix of other policies favored by the g.o.p., they are the repo act, which would allow the u.s. to sell creased russian assets. the house passed tiktok ban bill, a land lease act for military aid, and loans for economic and humanitarian assistance to ukraine. punch bowl adding that mr. johnson, speaker johnson, hopes to bring these bills to the floor under a single rule, johnson will probably need democratic support to get the report out of the rules committee. on the floor the democrats seem likely to give johnson the help needs. yesterday at the white house where the white house security spokesman, john kirby, talked about this effort by the house

to pass the funding. including for israel. here's some of his comments from yesterday. >> the president spoke yesterday to congressional leaders. did he receive any commitment from house speaker mike johnson to bring the bipartisan national security supplemental bill to the house floor this week? >> i'll let the speaker speak to whatever his plans might be. certainly we heard from leader mcconnell. leader jeffries, importance of passing this supplemental and getting it on its way. as i said in my opening statement, the fastest way -- you've got two good friends here. israel and ukraine. that very different fights to be sure. but active fights for their sovereignty and safety and security. time is not on anyone's side here. in either case. so they need to move quickly on this. the best way to get that aid in to the hands of the i.d.f. and the hands of the ukrainian

soldiers is to pass that bipartisan bill that the senate passed. >> i understand that's your preference, the bipartisan bill the senate passed. is the white house opposed to an approach that takes the issues separately -- >> we are opposed to a stand alone bill that would just work on israel. as we have seen proposed. we would oppose a stand alone bill. host: those are the comments from john kirby on this effort for ukraine funding and israel funding. expect to play out -- those play out on the house floor this week. you can comment on that or the former president's trial in new york. as jury proceedings take place. hear from alan in brooklyn, new york. democrats line. good morning. caller: good morning. i would argue that even though the supreme court ruled that 143 can't keep the president -- ex-president off the ballot under the insurrection clause, we should still be able to have him kept off the ballot based on his current conduct in violation

of his oath of office. an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution until not only is keeping to the language of statutes, but also respecting legal facts that are created by court rulings. anti-president has consistently -- and the president has consistently violated that part of the obligation by openly doubting the outcome of 60 court cases to determine the election of 2020 was valid. and determining that hundreds of people who stormed the capitol were rioters and criminals and not hostages. and violating that aspect of his obligations as president, he has, in the concept of lawyer language, been in anticipatory breach of his obligation to take a further oath. he really can't take the tph-bgs oath if he's already promised to do things that -- host: how do you think the hush money falls into comparison on the other charges facing the president? caller: i think it's much more serious than most people would

be believed. on the surface it's just about personal moral impropriety. and what it really is about is his admission on emails and other communications that because of the billy bush tape with that awful quotation that came into the air, it looked like he was toast at that point and had no chance of winning the presidency -- >> tkwhraoeuted you are hear this morning -- delighted you are hear this morning. what i wanted to look at is the issue of crime, if you will, and trade. d.o.j. play as critical role in deterring crime through robust investigations, prosecutions, incarcerations, and the application of penaltieses. ms. delauro: my concern about d.o.j. that there may be some

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

d.o.j. resources you are using to prosecute these bad actors associated with crimes that violate trade laws? how do you work with c.b.p. and h.s.i. on -- to increase the number of prosecutions? would you say based on d.h.s. enforcement data that combating international trade crime is a priority within d.o.j. why or why not? how familiar are you with d.o.j.'s efforts and resources dedicated to investigating and prosecuting international trade crimes? what's your assessment of the department's actions? including the number of prosecutions and penalties? thank you. atty. gen. garland: you put your finger on an important risk to our economy, which is fraudulent trade goods. that's why we have a trade fraud task force which enhances collaboration between the justice department and the other agencies that you were discussing to investigate trade fraud. it helped initiate more than 70

investigations involving hundreds of millions of dollars of fraudulently imported goods. one good example is just last month the ford motor company agreed to pay $365 million to settle customs civil penalty claims related to classified and undervalued items. i recognize the significance of this for our economy. i believe our justice department task force is working well with other departments on this matter. including the department of homeland security. ms. delauro: do you have enough personnel to take on this issue and resources in a moreau bust way? i said $3.27 trillion we collect $19.4 million. that seems to be some great disparity. i'm asking, what do you need from us to be able to deal with this area on international trade? where we are getting killed. atty. gen. garland: justice

department always likes more money. ms. delauro: i understand that. atty. gen. garland: i think the money we are asking for our civil divisions, consumer protection branch, which deals with this kind of fraud, criminal divisions fraud section which deals with this on the criminal side, and the u.s. attorney's offices that deal with this each of the 94 districts, and the f.b.i.'s corporate crime and fraud sections. given the budget priorities, i think we are asking for the appropriate amount. there is always tradeoffs. but we are i think able to fund a robust program. the most pweuf aspect of this is identify -- difficult aspect of this is identifying them as they come in. that is a customs and homeland security issue. they, i'm sure, would say the same to you that they need more money for this purpose. ms. delauro: i'd like to pursue that.

i'll say something very quickly. running out of time. the -- as you know antitrust -- antitrust division roughly a 4% increase in 2024. over the prior year. i want to ensure that we can continue to justify these critical investments, protect consumers from unfair and anti-competitive business practices. do i have your commitment that we can work together, i would like to work with you with my staff on answering questions that we have on what resources the antitrust division, and frankly this could apply to all of d.o.j., that you will need for 2025. atty. gen. garland: yes, of course. we are very eager to speak with you about that. the total we have requested is $288 million. which is an increase of $55 million over the f.y.2024. i will say i have always been

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

if you will, that only increase prices for the american people. thank you very much. i yield back. chair rogers: chairman adder hole-l holt. mr. aderholt: thank you. general garland, good to have you here. thanks for your time i want to focus on something -- time. i want to focus on something -- bureau of prisons. i understand according to the bureau of prison website there are less than 35,000 employees to ensure the security of all the federal prisons and services that include 156,000 federal inmates. what steps is the bureau of prison taking to address gaps in correctional officer and training and leader training? and is there a reason that the bureau of prisons correction leaders have not participated in

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

retention, and promotion. the best, i think, the most important thing that the committee can do is to give us the money that we are asking for hiring and retention incentives. mr. aderholt: do you know of any law or regulation that prevents or limits the bureau of prisons from accepting donations or services or programs from a nonprofit as long as they don't accept federal funds? atty. gen. garland: i'm afraid i don't know about that. i would be happy to have our staff look into that and get back to you. mr. aderholt: if you could look at it and see if there is examples where community or faith-based programs could be helpful. my understanding is as long as they don't receive federal funds, then there are programs out there to be of assistance. and i would appreciate you to look into that and let me know if that was something that might be possible. i think it's a real -- it is a real -- could be helpful. back on october 7 of last year, we know what happened. along with the attack on israel there were 30 americans that

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

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

i don't want to talk about matters i can't talk about in an open session. but we do have investigations, financial investigation was respect to hamas which we have had for a number of years. october 7 as the f.b.i. director noted in his testimony has raised our threat level considerably with respect to concerns of foreign terrorist organizations like hamas. that might foment problems in the united states. that includes not only hamas, but hezbollah, the iranian cuds force, isis, isis-k. various secretaries of -- sects, branches of al kaoeua. we are concerned and our -- are making sure all of our joint terrorism task forces are on the lookout for these matters since october 7. there was a heightened concern

before october 7, but obviously october 7 has redoubled our concern here. mr. aderholt: i yield back. chair rogers: mr. ruppersberger. mr. ruppersberger: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member. attorney general garland, first i thing i want to say i think you're doing a good job. i wouldn't say it's always an a because we have to -- i like your experience in the justice as a jurist. you excelled there. and now as running the f.b.i. i feel secure at this point that you are the best person for that job. with that i'm going to get into china and cybersecurity. in the chinese communist party an army of hackers that persistently attack the united states. they stay dormant and keep access to our networks and critical infrastructure. the chinese communist party uses these hackers to steal economic information and intellectual property.

we also know that the chinese party has been working to steal and smuggle ban u.s. tech from our shores into mainland china. they are our biggest threat and adversary. this past march, the unsealed indictment of the a.p.t. 31 group which you are familiar with revealed a 14-year cyber campaign for intimate dissenters, steal u.s. trade, and intellectual property to damage critical networks and sty spy on u.s. politicians. that's 14 years. now, a recent intelligence advisory stated that these hackers known as oakland high noon have been dormant for five years waiting just in case we are in a larger conflict with china. chain is a real threat. can you enlighten us as to the best tools we have to fight chinese hackers? what other resources do you

need, and did our f.y.2024 budget put the department in too deep of a security hole? atty. gen. garland: first of all i completely agree with your characterization of the chinese threat. the people's republic of china, the communist party, the government of china represents a long-term purrcies tent -- purrciesant congressional recort congressional record threat to america in particular to the cybersecurity you are talking about. two major actions you are talking about just from this year, the january of old typhoon disruption. this was a botnet implanting malwear into our -- mall -- malware into our infrastructure. delivery of public services. which if activated could have been very dangerous for us.

the march a.p.t. indictments involve the hacking of computers and emails. those are just two examples of considerable amount of cyber hacking. we have asked for more than $1.3 billion to combat cyber crime and for cybersecurity. the f.b.i., the national security division asked for $894.6 million, which an increase of 1 1*s 9% over f.y. 2024. as you know f.y. 2024 budget has required us to reduce positions substantially, and we are in a position of trying to get us back to where we were before that. this is an area where we are

doubling down and are very much concerned. mr. ruppersberger: thank you. i want to get to the key bridge. a quick question. i know the f.b.i. has been on site at the bridge. there are a lot of questions that need to be answered about what happened, like did the captain and crew or of the dali know there were power issues before the ship ever left. a criminal investigation is is usually opened when authorities have reason to believe may have caused an accident to rise to the level of criminality. we need to make sure we hold people accountable. attorney general. , is there anything more you can share? atty. gen. garland: as you know, congressman, this department doesn't normally comment on whether its investigations exist or no. plenty of people saw f.b.i. agents onboard the ship. so the f.b.i. has confirmed that its agents were on the ship. i can't say anything more. mr. ruppersberger: i yield back.

chair rogers: mr. ellzey. mr. ellzey: thank you, mr. chairman. general tkpwar lapd, welcome back. i appreciate the work d.o.j. does going after legitimate criminals and protecting american citizens from foreign adversaries, especially the cops program, which is very important in my rural district as we discuss add year ago. today -- discussed a year ago. today i would like to talk about the foreign agents rest traeugs act. i bring it up in context of shenanigans going on in texas. there is a proposed high speed rail project connecting dallas to houston. about a decade ago private company called texas central starting push ago proposed high-speed rail project between houston and dallas and they have been engaged at the federal, state, and local level in lob -- lobbying for that. i am against this project and rid people of their well earned land. there is a long list of controversies surrounding texas

central from tpupbgd and finance, imminent domain, dismissing every officer and board member, now they appear to be merely a company on paper with no board of directors. as an aside texas central has no experience building any transportation company. there are few entities connected to and another company is pushing the project. since the beginning of the project sovereign wealth funds of the japanese government are financially backing that high-speed rail proposal. a very concerning resent action was amtrak's partnering with texas central in applying for a f.y. cord done grant for a grant. one was approved. april 9 a news article published in a letter dated april 5 addressed to you signed by steve roberts from a law firm. states that mr. roberts was hired by texans against high speed rail and wrote it on behalf of the texas against high speed rail. mr. chairman, i have that letter

i ask unanimous consent that this article and letter be introduced into the record. chair rogers: without objection. mr. ellzey: i'll read part of the letter to you that captures the concerns i have. texas central appears to have acted and may still act as an agent of the japanese government with regard to numerous political activities intended to influence both lawmakers and public within the united states with reference to formulating, adopting, or changing the domestic policies of the united states. yet neither new magellan ventures or texas central entities have ever registered with department of justice of the foreign registration act of 1978. with that laid out i have questions. do you agree it would be concerning a private company or principals of a private company failed to register as foreign agents if the facts are clear they were legally required to? atty. gen. garland: you put me in that exact box the answer has to be yes. i don't know anything about this

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

fauria is a complicated statute. we would always be concerned about an effort by a foreign government to try to influence the government to the united states. if i could put it at that level of generality, that's true. mr. ellzey: i understand that. and you obviously have to be somewhat obtuse about that. atty. gen. garland: circumspect. mr. ellzey: ok. in texas there is a so-called private company that has no board of directors, that is now -- gotten imminent domain from the state of texas to take private citizens' land and gotten a grant from amtrak to take people's land and build a project that's currently doesn't exist. on behalf of a foreign government. they haven't registered as federal agents. thank you for your time. i yield back. chair rogers: ms. meng. ms. meng: thank you, mr. chairman. ranking member cartwright. thank you attorney general garland.

i wanted to ask about a bill of mine that was signed into law in 2021, the code of hate crimes act, which directs the attorney general to provide guidance to state and local law enforcement agencies to bolster reporting of hate crimes. i was glad to see the president's budget request for fiscal year 2025 requests $10 million for community-based approaches to prevent and address hate crimes. a grant program that i authored in fiscal year 2022. i want to take this opportunity to thank you for your leadership in responding to violent crime and specifically hate crimes in the u.s. in the last several years. it means a great deal to asian americans and so many historically underserved communities to have a president and an attorney general who cares deeply about these issues. i wanted to ask a question i also asked f.b.i. director christopher wra*eu in last week's hearing. i'm concerned by the trend of a

decrease in the number of local law enforcement agencies providing the f.b.i. with incident data. this is the fifth year in a row that the number of local agencies providing data to the f.b.i. has declined. i know that the decline may partially be due to the transition that agencies are making to the system, but what additional resources does the knowledge knowledge need to support local and state law enforcement agencies using tphaoeubers -- nibers. i would like to hear more from you about other ways the d.o.j. is actively working to support local law enforcement agencies and reporting hate crimes. atty. gen. garland: thank you for the question. i would think as the anybody tpeub director suggested that -- f.b.i. director suggested much of the problem was the transition problem from one form of statistical compilation to another. of tkoers all of -- of course

all of our information has to come from state and local communities. and so what we have to do is reach out to them constantly to ensure that they are providing the numbers. the f.b.i. and our office of justice programs, bureau of justice assistance. sort of identify the places that have been less client than they should be -- client than they should -- come pliant than they should be and reaching that level. i think the money we have in the budget is sufficient for those kind of reach out programs. we won't be satisfied all the times are reported. ms. meng: a follow-up. as you said state and local law enforcement agencies play a crucial role in the nationwide response to hate crimes. i also want to make sure to ask about how the d.o.j. works with community-based organizations which also have a crucial part in building up community resilience and spraoepbting future -- preventing future hate

crimes. can you talk about how the d.o.j. is coordinating both with law enforcement and local organizations to respond to hate crimes. atty. gen. garland: each of our u.s. attorneys offices has a civil rights and hate crimes coordinator. and each of the u.s. attorneys has been instructed to reach out to the communities to have discussions well in advance of any crisis occurring. our strategy here is develop trust within communities before something bad happens so that if something bad happens the community trusts law enforcement. these are joint meetings of the u.s. attorneys offices and various law enforcement components. as i know you know well we have a united against hate campaign that the u.s. attorneys offices are implementing and have been for the past couple years to reach out to communities in just the way -- in just the way that you said. so that federal law enforcement,

state and local law enforcement, and communities can cooperate and work together. i have attended one of those meetings in denver. and i attend add couple of other meetings -- attended a couple of other meetings, including in st. louis. ms. meng: i'll quickly ask about another question about the aftermath of the china initiative. as we all know on february -r, 2022 the end of the china initiative was announced. previously an unacceptably high number of these cases ended in dropped charges, dismissals, and acquittals because prosecutors could not prove allegations. chinese american researchers and scholars who made valuable contributions in so many fields in this country for decades reported feeling targeted by a racial profiling campaign. i want to be clear as a member

of this committee i'm economy supportive of the d.o.j.'s real and necessary work to combat espionage by adversarial governments. but just want to make sure how does the d.o.j. ensure that agents working on these investigations number one, avoid wasteful investigations, and two, legitimate academic research. second, how is the d.o.j. also educating the institutions themselves and the public about the real national security threats and how they can best defend themselves and our country from these threats. atty. gen. garland:s as you pointed out we now have a consolidated section in the national security division to address the threats posed by the people's republic of china, russia, north korea, and iran.

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

prosecution which determine which kinds of prosecutions should be brought. which kinds shouldn't. i want to emphasize that we do not prosecute based on the ethnicity of any person. we are only looking to prosecute people who are working for our adversaries in an effort to injure the united states. that is not in any way a part of the ethnicity of people in the united states. ms. meng: thank you. i yield back. chair rogers: thank you. that concludes the first round of questions. i know the general needs to be through here by 12 noon. so we have a few minutes to go. is there a desire members for a second round? two down here. all right. general, if that's agreeable

with you. atty. gen. garland: happy to be here. chair rogers: get you out of here by noon. atty. gen. garland: thank you. chair rogers: mr. garcia, do you desire time? three minutes. mr. garcia: attorney general, waeupbts to foul up on the assertions made by my colleagues from pennsylvania and new york that i was engaging in personal attack. i take great pride and caution in making sure i don't engage in personal attack in these hearings. i want you to know my assessment of you as appalled and shocked as i was giving yourself an 56789 was not paerpbl attack. it was professional. as my chemistry teacher who gave me an f in the midterm in the naval academy, this is to help you get bert. i do that in the interest of accountable and objective assessments not personal attacks. i know someone of your caliber was not personally offended by that. i'm happy to have conversations off line. i want to follow up on mr. cline's conversation around the

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

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

disclosed sensitive classified information. what is the explanation for not charging president biden for mishandling of classified information? atty. gen. garland: i'll address both questions again. i have complete confidence in the president. in every possible respect. on the question of why there was no charges, mr. hur described in detail in his report his explanation for why he decided not to bring them. he was subject to some five hours of testimony on that subject. mr. garcia: you disagree with the foundational premise, the rationale was he was cognitively incapable of understanding what he was doing. he was too old to face charges. you disagreed with that premise, satellite atty. gen. garland: two things. first, that not at all what mr. hur said. i urge everyone to read again what he said. he did not say anything like that. second, mr. hur described his explanation for why not to bring a case, bring this case.

he distinguished other cases involving classified information where charges were brought. i just refer you to that. mr. garcia: i'll go reread t we'll submit questions for the record. my time is up. thank you. chair rogers: thank you. >> attorney general, in 2023, the c.d.c. reported over a recent 12-month period more than 112,000 americans died a result of drug overdoses or poisonings. we have touched on that subject earlier in this hearing. mr. cartwright: d.e.a. was one of the few agencies that saw a pfund funding increase in fiscal year 2024. and the work that the administrator is doing, especially with the u.s. attorneys to go after the cartels, and the entire network, is critically important to stemming the flow of illicit fentanyl into our communities. enforcement is only part of the solution. we also have to have recovery and rehabilitation tools for those with substance abuse

disorders as well. you talk a little bit about the comprehensive addiction and recovery act grants. especially the drug courts and the veterans treatment septemberers. atty. gen. garland: yes. you are quite right that the -- our ability to eliminate drug trafficking and to protect the country includes our concerns about the people who are the victims of drug trafficking. and the need, offers course, to reduce the command for these poisons in our country. we have asked for more than $490 million in counter drug related off of adjusted program grants. these include the comprehensive addiction recovery act grants for which we are requesting $443 million. which is a $23 million addition over enacted. those include the comprehensive opioid stimulant and substance

abuse program. the mental health and drug abuse treatment. the drug courts, we are asking for $94 million. veterans treatment courts which we are asking for $33 million. as well as for prescription drug monitoring to ensure that this doesn't get out of hand again. mr. cartwright: thank you. can you give me a sense whether you are seeing increases in applications for these important programs you just touched on? atty. gen. garland: i would say that there is always more applications than we have money to give out. that's definitely the case. mr. cartwright: what other ways does your department's fiscal year 2025 budget request seek to address this terrible problem? atty. gen. garland: again i am e overdose and side that's are the main issues. we are asking for $10.7 billion

for all of our law enforcement agents and u.s. attorneys to respond to this respond. that's a 5.1% increase over enacted f.y. 2024. mr. cartwright: thank you, attorney general garland. thank you for being here. i yield back, mr. chairman. chair rogers: mr. clyde. mr. clyde: you thank you, mr. chairman. my colleague, congressman chip roy, has twice requested copy of freedom of access to prosecution data. he first asked for it in october of 2022 and two months ago on february 16. he has yet to receive this data. and my question is when will this data be provided by the department of justice? atty. gen. garland: i don't know specifically about the request. like the other request you asked about i'm very happy to look into this. mr. clyde: provide the data. atty. gen. garland: of course. mr. clyde: i appreciate that. in the f.b.i.'s request,

f.y. 2025 request -- excuse me, in the department of justice's budget you are requesting $436.6 million for protecting civil rights. that's an increase from what i see here. under the civil rights heading in the f.b.i.'s request it says violations actions by any person using authority given to them by a government agency to willfully deprive someone of a right. since you have been attorney general has anyone in the government or otherwise -pb prosecuted for a color of law violation for denying people their second amendment rights? that's a civil right. atty. gen. garland: i understand that. i don't know the answer to that. i have not heard that there has been that kind of prosecution. mr. clyde: since the scotus decision overturning the new york law, which was the new york rife and pistol association versus bruin, which denied new yorkers their constitutional rights, i would think there would be a case there.

i would ask the department of justice to look into that because the second amendment is safely right. when people are denied that civil right, then i think under the civil rights division the department of justice should engage. also, in last year's congressional hearing i asked about your department's most recent congressional authorization. has your department been re-authorized or is the most recent authorization the one that expired in f.y. 2009? atty. gen. garland: i would say you taught me something about authorizations and appropriations at the last hearing. thatdy not know -- that i did not know. my understanding is that was the last authorization. the one you are talking about. of course the justice department would always like to have an authorization. i understanding -- my understanding is the yearly appropriations count as authorizations. but of course it would always be better for any entity to be -- have formal authorization.

mr. clyde: we are not an authorizing committee. it's the judiciary committee that is the authorizing committee. atty. gen. garland: i understand that. mr. clyde: for the department of justice. d.o.j. remains unauthorized. you are running an unauthorized agency by the department -- excuse me. by the judiciary committee. are you going to seek a new congressional authorization? from the judiciary committee? atty. gen. garland: i haven't had those kind of discussions. i would be happy to take that back and think about it. given the appropriations i have been advised that that's not required. but be happy to think about it some more. mr. clyde: thank you. i yield back. chair rogers:: thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. attorney general, i have written your office in the past about the importance of prioritizing federal prosecutions of firearms cases. i'm pleased to see success of the guns involved violence elimination initiative operated in the u.s. attorneys in the western district office of new york. i'd like to just ask if i can

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