WHAT YOU WILL SEE HERE THIS MORNING IS A SERIES OF OPENING STATEMENTS FROM THE LEADERS OF THE COMMITTEE AND FROM THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HIMSELF AND THEN THE QUESTIONING. THIS IS A SMALLER COMMITTEE, ONLY 11 MEMBERS, AND THEY WILL EACH GET FIVE MINUTES TO QUESTION HIM IN THE FIRST ROUND AND THERE WILL MOST LIKELY BE A SECOND ROUND OF QUESTIONING BEFORE HE IS OFF THE HOT SEAT. >> LET ME ASK YOU ANOTHER QUESTION AS WE WATCH THE SCRUM OF JOURNALISTS AND PHOTOGRAPHERS TRYING TO GET SHOTS OF WILLIAM BARR. THE PRESIDENT TWEETED SOMETHING CURIOUS ABOUT HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH JERRY NADLER AS WE SEEN GETTING READY TO MAKE OPENING STATEMENTS, WHAT IS THE RELATIONSHIP THAT HE HAS WITH JERRY NADLER? >> Reporter: THEY ARE BOTH FROM NEW YORK CITY AND WE CAN DELVE A BIT MORE INTO THAT RELATIONSHIP IF YOU WANT TO HEAR THE BEGINNING OF THE CHAIRMAN GAMBLING THIS HEARING AND TO ORDER. >> WE WILL LISTEN TO THAT AND THEN COME BACK AS A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SCRATCHING THEIR HEADS ABOUT WHY THE PRESIDENT BROUGHT UP A DECADES-OLD REAL ESTATE DEAL WITH THE CONGRESS MEN. >> WE ALSO WELCOME ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL LEE LOBSTERS BECAUSE ATTORNEY GENERAL BARB IS NOT CONFIRMED WHEN THE BUDGET PROPOSAL WAS LARGELY FORMULATED, HE HAS ASKED THAT THE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL BE ALLOWED TO JOIN HIM AT THE TABLE TO ANSWER SOME OF THE NUTS AND BOLTS QUESTIONS THAT WE WILL ASK YOU REGARDING THE BUDGET. THIS YEAR, WE HAVE HELD SEVERAL HEARINGS FOR COMPONENTS OF THE DEPARTMENT INCLUDING THE FBI, THE ATF, THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, AND THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW. I APPRECIATE THE WILLINGNESS OF THE DEPARTMENT TO COME AND TESTIFY BEFORE THE SUBCOMMITTEE EVEN THOUGH WE MAY HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS ON DIFFERENT ISSUES. LET ME TAKE A MOMENT TO DESCRIBE SOME CONCERNS PROMPTED BY THOSE HEARINGS. WE HAVE HEARD WHAT APPEARS TO BE A LACK OF COMMITMENT TO THE DEPARTMENT'S TRADITIONAL MISSION TO DEFEND CIVIL RIGHTS. DISABILITY RIGHTS, AND PREVENT DISCRIMINATION. WE HAVE DISCUSSED WHAT APPEARS TO BE A CLEAR ABDOMEN IT'S ABOUT HEALTHCARE AND VOTING RIGHTS AND ACCESS TO EDUCATION AND MUCH, MUCH MORE. WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES TO ADDRESS GUN VIOLENCE IN THIS COUNTRY WHILE AT THE SAME TIME HEARING ATF ESSAY THAT THE BUDGET REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN STAFFING REDUCTIONS. WE HAVE TALKED TO THAT OF THE EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR IMMIGRATION REVIEW ABOUT THE NEED TO PROTECT DUE PROCESS AND FAIRNESS IN OUR IMMIGRATION COURTS AND THE MANY POLICY CHANGES THAT MAKE SUCH GOALS DIFFICULT TO ACHIEVE. WE HAVE HEARD THE FBI DESCRIBED THE THREATS TO OUR NATION FACES, BUT ALSO THAT THE BUDGET REQUEST WILL NOT FULLY FUND THEIR EFFORTS TO ADDRESS THOSE THREATS. AS WE DISCUSSED THE DEPARTMENT TODAY, WE ARE FACED WITH A BUDGET REQUEST THAT FAILS TO ADDRESS MANY OF THESE CONCERNS. AND IT RAISES NEW PROBLEMS. AND OF COURSE, MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE CANNOT HOLD THIS HEARING WITHOUT MENTIONING THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, AND I'M NOW REFERRING TO MY COLLEAGUES ON THE OTHER SIDE. TWO AND HALF WEEKS AGO, THE MUELLER REPORT WAS COMPLETED IN EXTREMELY QUICK FASHION. YOU TURNED THE 300+ PAGE REPORT INTO A FOUR-PAGE LETTER THAT SUPPOSEDLY SUMMARIZED THE FINDINGS. LASTLY, THE NEW YORK TIMES REPORTED THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE HAD ALREADY CREATED SUMMARY DOCUMENTS THAT WERE IGNORED IN YOUR LETTER AND THAT SOME INVESTIGATORS WITHIN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE FELT THAT WITHIN THE SPECIAL COUNSEL OFFICE, THE SUMMARY UNDERSTATES THE LEVEL OF MALFEASANCE BY THE PRESIDENT AND SEVERAL OF HIS CAMPAIGN AND WHITE HOUSE ADVISORS. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROCESS BY WHICH YOU FORMULATED YOUR LETTER AND AN UNCERTAINTY ABOUT WHEN WE CAN EXPECT TO SEE THE FULL REPORT. I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE TO SEE THE FULL REPORT AND TO BE TRUSTED TO MAKE OUR OWN DETERMINATIONS ON THE MERITS BASED ON WHAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL HAS PRESENTED. MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, IF THERE IS ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE WITH YOU TODAY, SOMETHING YOU ALREADY KNOW, BUT JUST MY ROLE TO REMIND YOU, IT IS THAT THIS CONGRESS VOTED UNANIMOUSLY TO SEE THE REPORT, THAT THE CONGRESS AND THE COMMITTEE'S OF THE JURISDICTION WANT TO SEE THE REPORT. AND THAT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT TO SEE THE REPORT. I THINK IT WOULD STRIKE A SERIOUS BLOW TO OUR SYSTEM AND TO OUR DEMOCRACY IF THAT REPORT IS NOT FULLY SEEN. WHEN IT COMES TO REDACTION'S, WE WOULD HOPE THAT YOU COULD TELL US WHEN SOMETHING WAS REDACTED, IF YOU FEEL IT HAS TO BE, WHAT AREA IT COVERED, NOT JUST A BLACKOUT THAT DOESN'T TELL US WHERE IT CAME FROM AND WHY IT MAY HAVE BEEN REDACTED. WE ARE NOT HERE TODAY TO BE IN A CONFRONTATIONAL SITUATION WITH YOU. WE WANT TO HELP YOU DO YOUR JOB, AND YOU NEED TO HELP US TWO HOURS. BUT WE CANNOT, THAT CANNOT HAPPEN, THAT SOMETHING HIGHER THAN YOU TELLS YOU THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER OUR QUESTIONS OR YOU DON'T HAVE TO DEAL WITH US AT ALL. THAT IS NOT WHO WE ARE AS A COUNTRY, THAT'S NOT WHO WE ARE AS A DEMOCRACY, AND THAT IS NOT WHO WE ARE AS AN APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. SO LET ME JUST SAY THIS, SINCE 2017, THE NATIONAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT HAS TOO OFTEN FAILED TO MEET THE NEEDS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I HOPE THAT WITH YOUR ASCENSION TO ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE CAN WORK TOGETHER TO CHANGE THAT. AND WITH THAT SAID, I WILL TURN TO MY COLLEAGUE AND FRIEND MR. ATER HOLT. >> THANK YOU FOR YIELDING, AND I TOO WOULD LIKE TO WELCOME ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR AND ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE COMMERCE JUSTICE SITE SUBCOMMITTEE TO TESTIFY REGARDING THE FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST. YOUR STEWARDSHIP BY THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS IMPORTED ALL OF OUR COMMUNITIES AND YOUR BUDGET OPPOSES KEY INVESTMENTS AND WHAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON OUR CRITICAL CRIMINAL JUSTICE PRIORITIES SUCH AS STRENGTHENING NATIONAL SECURITY, REDUCING VIOLENT CRIMES AND ENFORCING THE NATION IMMIGRATION LAWS, COMBATING THE OPIOID CRISIS AND REDUCING RECIDIVISM. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, WE RECOGNIZE THAT YOU HAVE ANY CREDIBLE DEMANDING JOB, YOUR PRESENCE HERE THIS MORNING REVEALS HOW SERIOUSLY YOU TAKE THE DEPARTMENT'S FY 2020 BUDGET REQUEST AS WELL AS THE ROLE OF CONGRESS AND THIS COMMITTEE IN MAKING THE FUNDING DECISIONS. SO THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE THIS MORNING. WE WANTED TO WORK WITH YOU AS THE CHAIRMAN SAID TO ENSURE THAT THE PROGRAMS YOU ADMINISTER TO HELP KEEP THIS COUNTRY SAFE ARE AS EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. I HOPE YOUR TESTIMONY TODAY WILL ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT AFFECT LOCAL COMMUNITIES. I AM PARTICULARLY INTERESTED IN THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ISSUES TO HELP CURB THE DEADLY OPIOID EPIDEMIC. I HOPE TO LEARN MORE ABOUT HIGH TECH LAW ENFORCEMENT INITIATIVES YOU ARE USING TO DISRUPT THE SOPHISTICATED TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS AT THE HEART OF THIS SCOURGE AND HOW WE CAN BEST SUPPORT THESE EFFORTS. I'M ALSO INTERESTED IN HEARING ABOUT YOUR PERSPECTIVE ON THE HUMANITARIAN AND SECURITY CRISIS THAT WE NOW HAVE ON OUR SOUTHERN BORDER THAT WE ARE HEARING SO MUCH ABOUT AND HOW IT AFFECTS THE WORKLOAD AT YOUR DEPARTMENT. >> I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH CHAIRMAN SERRANO ON THESE AND MANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THE APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS AS WE MOVE FORWARD FOR THE FY 20 APPROPRIATIONS PROCESS. WITH THAT, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR TESTIMONY THIS MORNING AND I YIELD BACK. >> THANK YOU. >> WE NOW TURN TO THE CHAIRMAN OF THE FULL COMMITTEE, MY COLLEAGUE FROM NEW YORK, >> I WOULD LIKE TO THANK CHAIRMAN SERRANO, RANKING MEMBER ATER HOLT FOR HOLDING THIS HEARING IN ATTORNEY GENERAL WILLIAM BARR WELCOME AND THANK YOU FOR APPEARING THIS MORNING. >> BEFORE GETTING INTO YOUR BUDGET REQUEST, I WANT TO ADDRESS A SERIOUS OVERSIGHT MATTER, YOUR UNACCEPTABLE HANDLING OF SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT MUELLER'S REPORT. IT HAS BEEN REPORTED THAT THE REPORT IS 300 TO 400 PAGES AND I USE THE TERM REPORTED BECAUSE ACTUALLY IS. ALL WE HAVE IS YOUR FOUR-PAGE SUMMARY WHICH SEEMS TO CHERRY PICK FROM THE REPORT TO DRAW THE MOST FAVORABLE CONCLUSION POSSIBLE FOR THE PRESIDENT. AND IN MANY WAYS, YOUR LETTER RAISES MORE QUESTIONS THAN IT ANSWERS. I MUST SAY, IT IS EXTRAORDINARY TO EVALUATE HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF EVIDENCE, LEGAL DOCUMENTS AND FINDING BASED ON A 22 MONTH LONG INQUIRY AND MAKE DEFINITIVE LEGAL CONCLUSIONS IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS. EVEN FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS DONE THIS JOB BEFORE, I WOULD ARGUE IT IS MORE SUSPICIOUS THAN IMPRESSIVE. YOUR CONCLUSION IS SOMETHING WE HAVE SEEN BEFORE. IN FACT, WE HAVE SEEN IT IN YOUR OWN LEGAL WRITING AND IN JUNE 2018, YOU WROTE A MEMO AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN AND A FORMER ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE LAYING OUT THE PRESIDENT'S CASE AGAINST OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. YOUR AUDITION CLEARLY WENT WELL. I LOOK FORWARD TO REVIEWING THE MUELLER REPORT MYSELF, I KNOW MY CONSTITUENTS DO AS WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT PORTIONS OF IT MUST BE REDACTED AS A MATTER OF LAW, BUT MY HOPE IS THAT YOU WILL STOP THERE AND BRING TRANSPARENCY TO THIS PROCESS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESERVE THE FACTS. NOW, YOU HAVE FIVE FY 2020 BUDGET REQUESTS, IT PROVIDES A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE FOR IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND A MODEST INCREASE FOR MOST FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. HOWEVER, IT EITHER ELIMINATES OR SIGNIFICANTLY CUTS RESPECTED GRANT PROGRAMS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE THAT REALLY MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN OUR CONSTITUENTS DAILY LIVES. >> FOR EXAMPLE, YOUR REQUEST SIGNIFICANTLY DECREASES ESSENTIAL PROGRAMS INCLUDING THE COPS PROGRAM WHICH ADVANCES COMMUNITY POLICING ON A STATE AND LOCAL LEVEL WOULD BE CUT BY $205 MILLION. THE DNA INITIATIVE PROGRAM WHICH PROVIDES GRANTS TO INCREASE THE RAPE KIT BACKLOG THAT CAN LEAD TO MEANINGFUL CONVICTIONS THAT NOT SIT ON FORGOTTEN SHELVES AND THAT WOULD BE CUT BY $25 MILLION. AND THE JUVENILE JUSTICE PROGRAM WHICH HELPS PREVENT YOUTH CRIME, VIOLENCE, AND REDUCE RECIDIVISM WHICH WOULD BE CUT BY $48.5 MILLION. THESE ARE SIMPLY UNACCEPTABLE REDUCTIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO A PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION TODAY, I HOPE YOU CAN SHED SOME LIGHT ON HOW THIS BUDGET REQUEST CAN ADEQUATELY RESPOND TO THE GRAVE TASK THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND ITS GRANT PROGRAMS UNDERTAKE DAILY. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING BEFORE US, I LOOK FORWARD TO AN OPEN DISCUSSION AND AN HONEST DISCUSSION AND ADDRESS THE MANY CHALLENGES BEFORE US TODAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> >> THANK YOU, NO ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, YOU ARE RECOGNIZED TO GIVE YOUR OPENING STATEMENT. WE ASK YOU PLEASE TRY TO KEEP IT TO FIVE MINUTES AND YOUR ENTIRE STATEMENT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, MADAM CHAIR AND RANKING MEMBER ATER HOLT. I AM PLEASED TO BE HERE TODAY TO PRESENT TO YOU THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET FOR THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, AND I AM JOINED BY THE CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY FOR ADMINISTRATION LEE LOFTIS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEE HOW PROVISIONS WILL HELP PROTECT THE SAFETY AND RIGHTS OF OUR CONSTITUENTS AND YOUR CONSTITUENTS. FOR TWO FISCAL YEARS IN A ROW, THE DEPARTMENT HAS BROKEN RECORDS FOR PROSECUTING VIOLENT CRIME. THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASED PROSECUTION OF FIREARM OFFENSES AND IN FISCAL YEAR 2018, PROSECUTED MORE FIREARM DEFENDANTS THAN EVER BEFORE. AS PROSECUTIONS HAVE GONE UP, CRIME HAS GONE DOWN, AND IN 2017, AFTER 2 YEARS OF INCREASES, VIOLENT CRIME AND HOMICIDE RATES WENT DOWN NATIONWIDE. THE FBI PRELIMINARY DATA FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2018 SHOW A 4.3% DECLINE IN VIOLENT CRIME OVERALL, AND A 6.7% DECLINE IN MURDERS, AND A 12% DECLINE IN ROBBERY AND BURGLARY COMPARED TO THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OF 2017. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THIS MOMENTUM, PRESENT JOB HAS REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL 137 MILLION DOLLARS FOR VIOLENT CRIME AND TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME PROSECUTIONS AS WELL AS AN ADDITIONAL 100 MILLION FOR THE PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOOD GRANTS TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO REQUESTS $5.8 MILLION TO ENHANCE VIOLENT CRIME AND FIREARMS PROSECUTION. >> OVER THE FIRST 2 YEARS OF THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION, WE HAVE ALSO GAINED GROUND AGAINST THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC WHICH IS BY FAR THE DEADLIEST DRUG CRISIS THAT THIS COUNTRY HAS EVER FACED. THE DEPARTMENT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF DEFENDANTS CHARGED WITH FEDERAL INCREASE FROM 2017 TO FISCAL YEAR 2018. PRESCRIPTIONS OF THE SEVEN MOST FREQUENTLY ABUSED PRESCRIPTION OPIOIDS ARE DOWN OR THAN 23% SINCE 2016 TO THE LOWEST LEVEL IN AT LEAST A DECADE. AND OVER THE SAME PERIOD, THE DEA HAS LOWERED THE LEGAL LIMITS ON REDUCTION OF THE ACTIVE INGREDIENTS IN THESE OPIOIDS BY 47%. MORE IMPORTANTLY, DRUG OVERDOSE DEATHS MAY HAVE FINALLY STOPPED RISING. ACCORDING TO PRELIMINARY DATA FROM THE CDC, OVERDOSE DEATHS DECREASED SLIGHTLY FROM SEPTEMBER 2017 TO AUGUST 2018. BUT THERE IS A LOT MORE WORK TO BE DONE. AND THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT IS BUDGET PROVIDES FOR $295 MILLION TO COMBAT THE OPIOID EPIDEMIC INCLUDING $18.2 MILLION FOR THE FBI JOINT CRIMINAL DARKNET ENFORCEMENT OR J CODE WHICH IS A TEAM OF AGENTS THAT WORK TO DISRUPT AND DISMANTLE THE SALE OF SYNTHETIC OPIOIDS ON THE DARKNET. THE PRESIDENT REQUEST $11.1 MILLION FOR FIVE NEW HEROIN ENFORCEMENT GROUPS THAT WILL DO THE LLOYD BE DEPLOYED TO DA FIELD DIVISIONS THAT HAVE IDENTIFIED HEROIN AS THE FIRST OR SECOND GREATEST THREAT IN THE AREA, THE PRESENT ALSO INCLUDES 2 MILLION IN OPERATIONAL FUNDS FOR THE NATIONAL OPIOID INITIATIVE OF OUR PROGRAM. THE PRESIDENT'S BUDGET ALSO PROPOSES TO PERMANENTLY TRANSFER $254 MILLION FROM THE WHITE HOUSE OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY TO THE DEA FOR THE HIGH INTENSITY DRUG TRAFFICKING AREAS PROGRAMS. THIS WILL ELIMINATE REDUNDANCIES BY PLACING THIS PROGRAM UNDER THE AGENCY THAT LEADS OUR DRUG ENFORCEMENT EFFORTS. WE KNOW THAT MOST OF THE ILLICIT DRUGS IN THIS COUNTRY CAME ACROSS OUR SOUTHERN BORDER. IN THE FIGHT AGAINST AN UNPRECEDENTED DRUG CRISIS, BORDER SECURITY IS IMPERATIVE. IN FISCAL YEAR 2018, THE DEPARTMENT CHARGED MORE DEFENDANTS WITH ILLEGAL ENTRY INTO THIS COUNTRY THAN IN ANY YEAR BEFORE. AT THE SAME TIME, THE DEPARTMENT INCREASED THE NUMBER OF FELONY ILLEGAL REENTRY PROSECUTIONS BY MORE THAN 38%. OUR IMMIGRATION COURTS WHICH ARE UNDER THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAVE ALSO BECOME MORE PRODUCTIVE UNDER THE ADMINISTRATION. SINCE THE BEGINNING OF 2017, THE DEPARTMENT HAS CONDUCTED AN UNPRECEDENTED SURGE IN HIRING IMMIGRATION JUDGES. THE DEPARTMENT IS HIRED MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES UNDER PRESIDENT TRUMP THAN IN THE PREVIOUS 7 YEARS COMBINED. WE NOW EMPLOY THE LARGEST NUMBER OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES IN HISTORY WITH 46% MORE IMMIGRATION JUDGES THAN JUST 3 YEARS AGO. THAT IS HAVING AN IMPACT ON IMMIGRATION CASES. AFTER EIGHT CONSECUTIVE YEARS OF DECLINING OR STAGNANT PRODUCTIVITY BETWEEN FISCAL YEAR 2009 IN FISCAL YEAR 2016, OUR IMMIGRATION JUDGES HAVE INCREASED CASE COMPLETIONS 2 YEARS IN A ROW. IN FISCAL YEAR 2018, IMMIGRATION JUDGES COMPLETED THE MOST CASES IN 7 YEARS. IN ORDER TO CONTINUE THIS PROGRESS, THE DEPARTMENT REQUEST $71 MILLION FOR 100 NEW IMMIGRATION JUDGES AND ADDITIONAL SUPPORT STAFF IN FISCAL YEAR 2020. THIS WOULD BRING THE NUMBER OF AUTHORIZED IMMIGRATION JUDGES TO 634 WHICH WOULD MORE THAN DOUBLE THE NUMBER OF IMMIGRATION JUDGES ON BOARD IN FISCAL YEAR 2016. GIVEN THE FACT THAT THESE JUDGES FACE A RECORD-BREAKING 860,000 CASE BACKLOG, THIS INVESTMENT IS MORE THAN WARRANTED. AND WITH THE CRISIS ON OUR SOUTHWEST BORDER, THE DEPARTMENT REQUESTS $6 MILLION FOR THE SOUTHWEST BORDER RURAL LAW ENFORCEMENT IN VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION INITIATIVE WHICH WILL HELP LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES SERVING RURAL AREAS ALONG AND NEAR THE BORDER TO FIGHT RURAL CRIME. THE DEPARTMENT ALSO PLAYS A CRITICAL ROLE IN PROTECTING OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND COMBATING TERRORISM AND CYBERCRIME, THAT IS WHY THE PRESIDENT REQUESTS AN ADDITIONAL $70.5 MILLION TO ENHANCE THE FBI CYBER INFORMATION SHARING ABILITIES AND CYBER TOOLS CAPABILITIES AS WELL AS $16 MILLION FOR THE NATIONAL VETTING CENTER. THE PRESIDENT REQUESTED AN ADDITIONAL $18 MILLION FOR THE FBI TO ADDRESS COUNTERINTELLIGENCE THREATS, PARTICULARLY CYBER ATTACKS AND THREATS FROM HOSTILE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SERVICES. MR. CHAIRMAN, THERE ARE MANY OTHER ISSUES FACING LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT WE COULD TALK ABOUT TODAY, BUT THE BOTTOM LINE IS, THE MORE THAN 112,000 MEN AND WOMEN AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ARE DOING IMPORTANT WORK, AND WE ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT. THANK YOU. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR, IN YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING, YOU SAID YOU BELIEVE IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S INVESTIGATION BE SHARED WITH CONGRESS AND THE PUBLIC. WE AGREE ON THAT. AND FBI DIRECTOR RAY, THE TOP COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATOR TOLD US LAST WEEK HE HAD NOT READ THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT. MY QUESTION IS, WITH REGARD TO YOUR MARCH 24 AND 29th LETTERS TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES, DID SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER OR ANYONE ON HIS TEAM HAVE A ROLE IN DRAFTING THEM OR REVIEWING THEM IN ADVANCE? DID YOU USE SUMMARY DOCUMENTS ú IN DRAFTING THESE DOCUMENTS? >> 24th AND 29th, THE LETTER OF THE 24th, MR. MUELLER'S TEAM DID NOT PLAY A ROLE IN DRAFTING THAT DOCUMENT, ALTHOUGH WE OFFERED HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT BEFORE WE SEND IT OUT, AND HE DECLINED THAT. THE LETTER ON THE 29th, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT WAS REVIEWED BY MR. MUELLER OR THAT THEY PARTICIPATED IN DRAFTING THE LETTER. BUT TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING YOU SAID IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT ABOUT THE AVAILABILITY ABOUT THE REPORT, SINCE MY CONFIRMATION, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE PUBLIC HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN THE RESULTS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S WORK. AND I SAID THEN THAT I WOULD WORK DILIGENTLY TO MAKE AS MUCH INFORMATION PUBLIC AS I COULD AND AVAILABLE TO CONGRESS AS I COULD. YOU WILL RECOGNIZE THAT I'M OPERATING UNDER REGULATION THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION AND DOES NOT PROVIDE FOR THE PUBLICATION OF THE REPORT, BUT I AM RELYING ON MY OWN DISCRETION TO MAKE AS MUCH PUBLIC AS I CAN. IN MY LETTER OF MARCH 29, IDENTIFIED FOUR AREAS THAT I FEEL SHOULD BE REDACTED, AND FEEL THE FIRST IS GRAND JURY INFORMATION 6E MATERIAL AND THE SECOND IS INFORMATION THAT THE ICE, THE INTELLIGENCE IMMEDIATELY BELIEVES WOULD REVEAL INTELLIGENCE SOURCES AND METHODS, AND THE THIRD IS INFORMATION IN THE REPORT THAT COULD INTERFERE WITH ONGOING PROSECUTIONS. YOU WILL RECALL THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL DID SPIN OFF A NUMBER OF CASES THAT ARE BEING PURSUED, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT NONE OF THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT WOULD IMPINGE UPON EITHER THE ABILITY OF THE PROSECUTORS TO PROSECUTE THE CASES OR THE FAIRNESS TO THE DEFENDANTS. AND FINALLY, WE INTEND TO REDACT INFORMATION THAT IMPLICATES THE PRIVACY OR REPUTATIONAL INTERESTS OF PERIPHERAL PLAYERS WHERE THERE IS A DECISION NOT TO CHARGE THEM. RIGHT NOW, THE SPECIAL COUNSEL IS WORKING WITH US ON IDENTIFYING INFORMATION IN THE REPORTS THAT FALL UNDER THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES. WE WILL COLORCODE THE EXCISION'S FROM THE REPORT, AND WE WILL PROVIDE EXPLANATORY NOTES DESCRIBING THE BASIS FOR EACH REDACTION. FOR EXAMPLE, IF THE REDUCTION IS MADE BECAUSE OF A COURT ORDER AND PENDING PROSECUTION, WE WILL STATE THAT, AND WE WILL DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE VARIOUS CATEGORIES. THIS PROCESS IS GOING ALONG VERY WELL, AND MY ORIGINAL TIMETABLE OF BEING ABLE TO RELEASE THIS BY MID APRIL STANDS. I THINK THAT FROM MY STANDPOINT, BY WITHIN A WEEK, I WILL BE IN A POSITION TO RELEASE THE REPORT TO THE PUBLIC AND I WILL ENGAGE WITH THE CHAIRMAN OF BOTH JUDICIARY COMMITTEES ABOUT THAT REPORT, ABOUT ANY FURTHER REQUESTS THAT THEY HAVE. >> LET ME GET ONE THING CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. MY CONCERN DURING MY OPENING STATEMENT, THAT WHEN YOU REDACT SOMETHING, WE SHOULD KNOW WHAT AREA IT FALLS ON IT, YOU SAY THAT WILL HAPPEN? >> YES, SIR. >> YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER INDICATED THAT SOME ACTIONS THAT WERE INVESTIGATED POTENTIALLY RAISED OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE CONCERNS HAD NOT BEEN PUBLICLY REPORTED. WILL THESE ACTIONS BE IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT SAID ú >> AS THINGS STAND NOW, I DON'T THINK THAT THEY WILL BE REDACTED. SO THEY WILL BE IDENTIFIABLE. >> MR. JAMES ATTERHOLT STOMACH AS YOU KNOW, THERE IS A HUMANITARIAN CRISIS AT THE BORDER. THEY SUPPOSEDLY NOTED THAT TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME IN ECONOMICS THE U.S. BORDER MORE VULNERABLE BECAUSE IT CREATES AND MAINTAINS ILLICIT CORRIDORS OF BORDER CROSSINGS THAT CAN BE EMPLOYED BY OTHER SECONDARY CRIMINAL OR TERRORIST ACTORS OR ORGANIZATIONS. OF COURSE, YOUR FY 2020 BUDGET PROPOSES AN ADDITIONAL $18 MILLION IN RESOURCES. TO HELP ADVANCE THE FIGHT AGAINST TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZED CRIME. CAN YOU TALK A BIT ABOUT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE AND HOW IT IS ADDRESSING THE SMUGGLING NETWORKS THAT ARE ENDANGERING SO MANY OF THE LIVES THAT ARE BEING SMUGGLED AND TRAFFICKED ACROSS THE SOUTHERN BORDER, PARTICULARLY THE CHILDREN? >> THE PROBLEM WE FACE ON THE SOUTHERN BORDER IS REALLY UNPRECEDENTED. NOT JUST THE VOLUME AND THE MAKEUP OF THE PEOPLE COMING ACROSS FROM AN IMMIGRATION POLICY STANDPOINT, BUT BY THE STRENGTH OF THE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS IN MEXICO, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS CHANGED A LOT IN THE 30 YEARS PRIOR WHEN I WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS BEEN THE STRENGTHENING OF THESE CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS IN MEXICO, THESE CARTELS THAT ARE NOT ONLY INVOLVED IN MULTIPLE KINDS OF DRUGS AND THE TRANSPORTATION OF THOSE DRUGS AND DISTRIBUTION IN THE UNITED STATES, BUT ALSO INTO HUMAN TRAFFICKING. SO ATTACKING THOSE TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS IS A HIGH PRIORITY. THE FY 2020 BUDGET REQUESTS A TOTAL OF $3.2 BILLION THAT IS TARGETED AT DEALING WITH THESE TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS, AND WE ARE SEEKING AN INCREASE OF 109 MILLION DOLLARS THIS YEAR. WE ARE ALSO SEEING $29 MILLION IN PROGRAMMATIC ENHANCEMENTS INCLUDING $18 MILLION TO STRENGTHEN THE FBI'S ABILITY TO MONITOR AND TARGET THE TRANSNATIONAL ORGANIZATION AND 10 MILLION TO STRENGTHEN THE DEA ABILITY TO OPERATE THE WIRE INTERCEPT PROGRAM IN CENTRAL AMERICA. AND ANOTHER $1.7 MILLION FOR DEA SENSITIVE INTELLIGENCE UNIT WHICH IS TARGETING THESE GROUPS AND THE TRAFFICKING NARCOTICS. I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT AN IMPORTANT PART OF SECURING THE BORDER IS TO HAVE A BARRIER SYSTEM ON THE BORDER. I THINK THAT THAT WILL NOT ONLY HELP IN NARCOTICS INTERDICTION BUT ALSO IN SUPPRESSING HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND IT IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR ENFORCEMENT. >> ONE OF THE MOST SACRED RIGHTS AS YOU KNOW, AMERICANS HAVE THE RIGHT CANNOT BE SPIED ON BY THE GOVERNMENT. THE ORDER MAY ONLY BE ISSUED BASED ON A FINDING BY THE FOREIGN INTELLIGENCE SURVEILLANCE COURT, THE PROBABLE CAUSE EXISTS, TO BELIEVE THAT THE TARGET OF SURVEILLANCE IS THE TARGET OF A FOREIGN POWER, ONE OF THE COLLEAGUES, THE METHOD OF, REPRESENTATIVE NUNEZ, INCLUDING THE LEAK OF HIGHLY CLASSIFIED MATERIAL AND ALLEGED CONSPIRACIES TO LIE TO CONGRESS CANDIDATE TRUMP AND OTHER PERSONS, I WOULD NOW THAT PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN EXONERATED OF COLLUSION, PETTIS CAME TO COME TO BE THAT -- >> THE OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL HAS A PENDING INVESTIGATION OF THE FISA PROCESS IN THE RUSSIAN INVESTIGATION. I EXPECT THAT WILL BE COMPLETE AND PROBABLY IN MAY OR JUNE, I AM TOLD. SO, HOPEFULLY WE WILL HAVE SOME ANSWERS FROM INSPECTOR GENERAL HOROWITZ ON THE ISSUE OF THE FISA WARRANTS, MORE GENERALLY, I AM REVIEWING THE CONDUCT OF THE INVESTIGATION AND TRYING TO GET MY ARMS AROUND ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE COUNTERINTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION THAT WAS CONDUCTED DURING THE SUMMER OF 2016 >> ARE YOU INVESTIGATING THE EXISTENCE OF THE FISA ORDER AGAINST CARTER PAGE? ARE YOU INVESTIGATING WHO LEAKED THE EXISTENCE OF THE FISA COURT AGAINST CARTER PAGE? >> I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT, IF THERE'S PREDICATE FOR INVESTIGATION, IT WILL BE CONDUCTED. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, REPORTS SUGGEST THAT SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER'S REPORT IS ANYWHERE BETWEEN 300 AND 400 PAGES LONG. I'D BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING, HOW MANY DISCUSSIONS DID YOU HAVE WITH THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND OTHER STAFF BETWEEN ECEIVING REPORTS AND RELEAS THE MEMO, WAS THERE DISCUSSION OR DEBATE ABOUT THE EVIDENCE AND CONCLUSIONS? HOW MANY STAFFERS ASSISTED YOU IN DIGESTING SO MANY PAGES OF COMPLEX INFORMATION IN SUCH A SHORT PERIOD OF TIME. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT I'M GETTING AT, THAT I FIND QUITE EXTRAORDINARY. YOU RECEIVED A VERY SERIOUS, DETAILED REPORT, HUNDREDS OF PAGES OF HIGH-LEVEL INFORMATION, WEIGHED THE FACTORS AND CONCLUSIONS AT LENGTH, OUTLINE PREPARED, ADMITTED AND RELEASED HER MEMO IN LESS THAN 48 HOURS. TO ME, TO DO THIS, IT SEEMS YOUR MIND MUST HAVE BEEN ALREADY MADE UP. HOW DID YOU DO IT? >> THE THINKING OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, WAS NOT A MYSTERY TO THE PEOPLE AT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, PRIOR TO HIS SUBMISSION OF THE REPORT. HE HAD BEEN INTERACTING, HE AND HIS PEOPLE HAVE BEEN INTERACTING WITH THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND LAWYERS SUPPORTING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN HIS SUPERVISION OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. IN THAT CONTEXT THERE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSION. SO THERE WAS SOME INKLING AS TO SOME OF THE THINKING OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. FURTHERMORE, ON MARCH 5, I BELIEVE, THE DEPUTY AND I MET WITH SPECIAL COUNSEL MUELLER AND HIS TEAM AND HAD A PRELIMINARY DISCUSSION ABOUT THE REPORT. WE HAD AN INKLING AS TO WHAT WAS COMING OUR DIRECTION. SO EVEN MORE THINKING WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT WAS DONE ABOUT THAT, OVER THAT TIME, THAT WAS A MATTER OF WEEKS. AND THEN, WHEN THE REPORT CAME, IT CAME APPROXIMATELY MIDDAY ON FRIDAY, THE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL AND I AND OUR STAFFS WORKED CLOSELY FOR THE BALANCE OF THAT DAY, SATURDAY AND SUNDAY. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU. DID THE WHITE HOUSE SEE THE REPORT BEFORE YOU RELEASED YOUR SUMMARIZING LETTER? HAS THE WHITE HOUSE SEEN IT SINCE THEN, HAVE THEY BEEN BRIEFED ON THE CONTENTS BEYOND WHAT WAS IN YOUR SUMMARIZING LETTER TO THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE? >> I'VE SAID WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY ABOUT THE REPORT TODAY. I'VE ISSUED THREE LETTERS ABOUT IT. AND I WAS WILLING TO DISCUSS THE HISTORIC INFORMATION OF HOW THE REPORT CAME TO ME AND MY DECISION ON SUNDAY. BUT, I'VE ALREADY LAID OUT THE PROCESS THAT IS GOING FORWARD TO RELEASE THESE REPORTS, HOPEFULLY WITHIN A WEEK. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SAY ANYTHING MORE ABOUT IT UNTIL THE REPORT IS OUT AND EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. >> I THINK THERE ARE SOME RELEVANT QUESTIONS THAT I DO HOPE YOU COULD ANSWER TODAY, SIR. ON THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOUR MEMO STATED QUOTE WHILE THIS REPORT DOES NOT CONCLUDE THAT THE PRESIDENT COMMITTED A CRIME, IT ALSO DOES NOT EXONERATE HIM YET PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS PUBLICLY STATED THAT THIS REPORT IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION. CAN YOU TELL US WHO IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE? AND WILL THE RELEASED REPORT INCLUDE DETAILS ON THE OBSTRUCTION ISSUE, AND WHY AS YOU NOTED THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EXONERATED OR WILL THAT INFORMATION BE REDACTED? >> I'VE ALREADY EXPLAINED THE INFORMATION THAT'S GOING TO BE REDACTED FROM THE REPORT, THE FOUR CATEGORIES, THAT IS WHAT IS GOING TO GOVERN THE REDUCTIONS, IN FACT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND HIS STAFF ARE HELPING US SELECT THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT THAT FALLS INTO THOSE FOUR CATEGORIES. BUT AGAIN, THE REPORT, I'LL BE IN A POSITION AS I SAID, WITHIN A WEEK TO RELEASE THE REPORT. PEOPLE CAN THEN READ THE REPORT. I'VE ALREADY PROMISED THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES THAT I WOULD APPEAR AS SOON AS THEY ARE ABLE TO SCHEDULE A HEARING AFTER THE REPORT IS RELEASED. SO I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT ANY FURTHER UNTIL AFTER THE REPORT IS OUT.>> COULD YOU JUST EXPLAIN FOR US, I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU ARE GOING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE, BUT IN THAT SHORT PERIOD OF TIME IT IS VERY PUZZLING TO ME THAT THE 400 PAGES COULD HAVE BEEN REVIEWED AND THE PRESIDENT STATES THAT THIS REPORT IS A COMPLETE AND TOTAL EXONERATION, WHO IS FACTUALLY ACCURATE? >> AS THEY SAY IT'S HARD TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITHOUT THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT, ISN'T IT, THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING THAT WE WAIT UNTIL THE REPRT IS OUT. I'M GLAD TO TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT IT AFTER THAT ANNA MARLEY SCHEDULED TO TESTIFY AFTER THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. IN CLOSING, I HOPE THAT WE AS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS ARE GOING TO HAVE THE COMPLETE REPORT, AND HAVE DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU AS TO THE ACCURACY OF SOME OF THE STATEMENTS. THANK YOU FOR APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY, AND WE IN CLOSING, WILL WE HAVE THE COMPLETE REPORT OR ARE YOU GOING TO BE SELECTIVE AS TO WHAT YOU GIVE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS? >> YOU MEAN THE UNREDACTED REPORT?>> YES PEE DEE THE FIRST PASS AT THIS IS GOING TO PRODUCE A REPORT THAT MAKES THESE REDUCTIONS ON THESE FOUR CATEGORIES, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT I'M HOPING WILL BE AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AS I SAID, I'M GLAD TO TALK TO CHAIRMAN NADLER AND CHAIRMAN GRAHAM, AS TO WHETHER THEY FEEL THEY NEED MORE INFORMATION AND SEE IF THERE'S A WAY WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT. >> I DO HOPE YOU CAN ACCOMMODATE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WHO FEEL IT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THE COMPLETE REPORT. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING THIS DISCUSSION. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR APPEARING. >> THANK YOU PEE DEE>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR APPEARING BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE TODAY TO DISCUSS THE PRESIDENT'S FY 20 BUDGET REQUEST. I WOULD LIKE TO FOCUS ON THE DEPARTMENT EFFORT AS IT RELATES TO SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING. IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2018 THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE DEPARTMENT INITIATED A TOTAL OF 230 HUMAN TRAFFICKING PROSECUTIONS CHARGING 386 DEFENDANTS AND CONVICTING A RECORD 526 DEFENDANTS. THE DEPARTMENT CONTINUED ITS SUCCESSFUL ANTITRAFFICKING COORDINATION TEAM INITIATIVE, WORKING WITH PARTNERS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY AND THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. IN 2018 THESE, SAW SIGNIFICANT PROSECUTION RESULTS INCLUDING INCREASES OF 10%, 75% AND 106% IN CASES FILED, DEFENDANTS CONVICTED. I WEAR ANOTHER HAT SITTING ON THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AND THROUGH THE COMMITTEE'S EFFORTS IN THE LAST CONGRESS, WE PASSED SEVERAL PIECES OF LEGISLATION ú SPECIFICALLY TO CLOSE LOOPHOLES WITHIN THE CRIMINAL CODE AND MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE DEPARTMENT TO GO AFTER THESE FOLKS THAT ARE EXPLOITING CHILDREN AND TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS. THIS IS MODERN <font color="#0000FF">AY SLAVERY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR </font> ME AS A MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE AND I SUSPECT EVERY MEMBER OF THIS COMMITTEE, I THINK I CAN SAY THAT, WE ALL WENT TO SEE THE SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING ERADICATED IN THIS COUNTRY AND WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOUR DEPARTMENT HAS THE TOOLS THAT YOU NEED TO DO SO. DIRECTOR RAY WAS HERE RECENTLY I'VE DIRECTED SOME QUESTIOS SPECIFIC TO THIS ISSUE AS WELL, WOULD LIKE FOR YOU TO ADDRESS FOR THE BENEFIT OF ALL OF US AS WE PUT INTO PAPER IN OUR APPROPRIATIONS BILLS, WE KNOW THE SUCCESSES BUT WHERE ARE THE DEFICIENCIES AND HOW CAN WE ON THE SUBCOMMITTEE BE HELPFUL IN MAKING SURE YOU HAVE EVERY TOOL THAT YOU NEED. >> THANK YOU. HUMAN TRAFFICKING IS ONE OF OUR HIGHEST PRIORITIES NOW, IN THE DEPARTMENT, AND WE HAVE BROUGHT IN AN EXCEPTIONAL PROSECUTOR AS AN ASSOCIATE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL WITH A PORTFOLIO COORDINATING THE DEPARTMENTS EFFORTS DIRECTED AT HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND ARE SETTING UP TASK FORCES AROUND THE COUNTRY THAT SHE WORKS WITH. I MET WITH THIS TEAM, WITHIN THE LAST MONTH, RECEIVED A FULL BRIEFING ON THEIR CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND I'VE ASKED THEM TO COME BACK TO ME WITH A PLAN OF ACTION THAT COULD TAKE IT TO THE NEXT LEVEL. AND, THAT COULD INCLUDE SHIFTING SOME RESOURCES WITHIN THE DEPARTMENT AS WELL AS SEEKING SOME ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROVISIONS THAT WOULD HELP OUR PROSECUTORS. SO, REST ASSURED THAT I AM VERY FOCUSED ON THIS AND WILL BE BACK TO THE COMMITTEE AND THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE WITH PROPOSALS AS TO HOW WE CAN ACCELERATE OUR EFFORTS. >> I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THAT AND I OF COURSE WAS EXTREMELY DISAPPOINTED THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET A PACKAGE OF HILLS THROUGH THE, ONLY TO SEE THEM FAIL IN THE UNITED STATES SENATE, EACH PIECE OF WAS LACED WITH A LAW ENFORCEMENT JOB MUCH EASIER I GUESS, AND I DO APPRECIATE TO, ALL OF THE WORK THAT YOU DO WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE TOOLS AND RESOURCES THAT THEY NEED IN ORDER TO COMBAT SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING AND CHILD EXPLOITATION. MOST CHILDREN NOW HAVE ACCESS TO THE INTERNET, AND THE INTERNET TECHNOLOGY AFFORDS CHILDREN ACCESS TO VAST AMOUNTS OF VALUABLE INFORMATION AND ENDLESS SOURCES OF ENTERTAINMENT. HOWEVER IT ALSO EXPOSES CHILDREN TO CERTAIN DANGERS. MOST WORRISOME, CHILDREN MAY ENCOUNTER AND OFTEN TIMES TWO, ACTUAL PREDATORS THAT USE THE INTERNET TO IDENTIFY, LURE VICTIMS THROUGH CHAT ROOMS, INSTANT MESSAGING AND SOCIAL NETWORKING SITES. IF YOU COULD, WITH THE SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME THAT I HAVE LEFT AND I CAN REVISIT THIS IF THERE'S A SECOND ROUND, WHAT DOES THIS DOJ BUDGET REQUEST BILL DO TO SAFEGUARD OUR CHILDREN FROM THESE PREDATORS SPECIFICALLY ON THE INTERNET? >> WHERE REQUESTING 81 MILLION FOUR OH JP OJP MISSING AND EXPLOITED CHILDREN PROGRAM, WE HAVE 30 MILLION FROM, WE HAVE $30 MILLION FOR THE ICAC TASK FORCES, WHICH ARE NOW OPERATING IN STORAGE, STATES, 81 OPERATING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, AND THEN, THE ACTIVITIES OF THE CHILD EXPLOITATION UNIT IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, THOSE ARE THE THREE PILLARS OF OUR EFFORT, AND ALTOGETHER IT'S APPROXIMATELY $90 MILLION. >> THANK YOU. I YIELD BACK. THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. >> MR. CARTWRIGHT. >> THANK YOU MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR APPEARING BEFORE US TODAY. I HAVE UNDERSTOOD FOR QUITE SOME TIME NOW THAT THERE ARE THOSE IN THIS COUNTRY'S FAVORITE PASTIME IS ATTACKING HEALTHCARE. YOUR DECISION, AS OUR NEW ATTORNEY GENERAL TO THROW THE WEIGHT OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BEHIND AN EFFORT TO GET THE FEDERAL COURTS ENTIRELY TO INVALIDATE THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL IS BREATHTAKING. IT'S UNBELIEVABLE, IT STANDS OUT, YOUR DECISION DOES, FOR ITS BREATH, IT'S SCOPE, IT'S RECKLESSNESS, AND IT'S LACK OF LEGAL JUSTIFICATION TO INVALIDATE THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. IF YOUR EFFORTS ARE SUCCESSFUL, MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WOULD LOSE THEIR HEALTH HEALTHCARE, TENS OF MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WOULD SEE THE PREMIUMS FOR THEIR COVERAGE SKYROCKET. ONE OF OUR REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, SENATOR COLLINS, PUT IT BEST WHEN SHE WROTE TO YOU LAST WEEK HER LETTER WAS DATED APRIL 1, DID YOU GET HER LETTER? >> YES. >> THEN HE SAW THAT SHE WROTE, YOUR DECISION TO PURSUE THIS COURSE OF ACTION IN THE FEDERAL COURTS PUTS AT RISK NOT ONLY CRITICAL CONSUMER PROTECTIONS SUCH AS THOSE PROTECTING INDIVIDUALS SUFFERING FROM PRE- EXISTING CONDITIONS, BUT ALSO OTHER IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF ú EXPANSION, DEPENDENT COVERAGE FOR YOUNG ADULTS TO AGE 26, COVERAGE FOR PREVENTATIVE SERVICES AND THE REGULATORY PATHWAY FOR FDA APPROVAL OF BIO SIMILAR DRUGS,". THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S REFUSAL TO DEFEND OUR LAW, THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS DISTRESSING BECAUSE OF THE HARM THAT IT POSES, THE PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL WELL-BEING OF GOING TO THE AMERICANS, ALSO BECAUSE DOJ'S REFUSAL APPEARS TO BE DRIVEN BY POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS, RATHER THAN HEALTHCARE POLICY DISCUSSIONS OR SOUND LEGAL ARGUMENTS. ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR, YOU'RE NOT A HEALTHCARE POLICY EXPERT BUT YOUR DEPARTMENT IS TAKING THE LEAD ON ATTEMPTING A MASSIVE OVERHAUL OF OUR AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM, SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE AGREE A FEW ON A FEW OF THE TOP LINE FACT, LET'S GO THROUGH A COUPLE OF YES NO QUESTIONS AT THE OUTSET, NUMBER 1, HAVE YOU CONDUCTED OR VIEWED AND ANALYSIS TO EVALUATE THE EFFECTS OF DOJ'S LITIGATION POSITION TO OVERTURN THE ACA, THE EFFECTS ON CONSUMER COST AND COVERAGE, HAVE YOU DONE THAT ANALYSIS OR HAVE YOU REVIEWED ONE? >> WHEN WE ARE FACED WITH A LEGAL QUESTION, WE TRY TO BASE OUR ANSWER ON THE LOT. >> ON THE LOT. SO THE ANSWER IS NO. HERE'S THE THING, I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT YOU WOULD TAKE THAT KIND OF A DRAMATIC, DRASTIC ACTION WITHOUT EVEN TRYING TO EVALUATE THE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE AMERICAN CONSUMER. THE PEOPLE USING THE HEALTHCARE. THE PEOPLE FOR WHOM THESE PREMIUMS ARE PAID, LET'S START THE PROCESS -- >>>> IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL IN THIS LAWSUIT YOU ARE SUPPORTING, IN THE ENTIRE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT IS STRUCK DOWN, MILLIONS OF AMERICANS WHO CURRENTLY RECEIVE HEALTH INSURANCE COVERAGE UNDER THE LAW ARE AT RISK OF LOSING THAT COVERAGE, AM I CORRECT IN THAT? >> I THINK THE PRESIDENT HAS MADE CLEAR THAT HE FAVORS NOT ONLY PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS BUT WOULD LIKE ACTION ON A BROAD HEALTH PLAN, SO HE IS PROPOSING A SUBSTITUTE FOR OBAMACARE. >> THE ONE THAT IS GOING TO COME AFTER THE ELECTION? >> LET ME BE THE ONE TO INFORM YOU, SHOULD THE LOT BE STRUCK DOWN, THE MILLIONS OF PEOPLE WHO GET THEIR COVERAGE TO THE ACA MARKETPLACE WOULD LOSE THEIR COVERAGE AND TENS OF MILLIONS MORE WOULD SEE THEIR PREMIUMS SKYROCKET. IN ADDITION, IF YOU ARE SUCCESSFUL , 12 MILLION PEOPLE NATIONALLY AND 750,000 PEOPLE IN MY HOME STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA WHO HAVE COVERAGE UNDER THE MEDICAID EXPANSION, WOULD ALSO LIKELY LOSE THAT COVERAGE, AM I CORRECT IN THAT, SIR? >> DO YOU THINK IT'S LIKELY WE ARE GOING TO PREVAIL? >> IF YOU PREVAIL, YOUR DEVOTING SCARCE RESOURCES TOWARD THAT EFFORT, ARE YOU NOT, ATTORNEY GENERAL? >> WE ARE IN LITIGATION. >> THE ANSWER IS YES. >> IF YOU SUCCEED THAT MANY PEOPLE WILL LOSE THEIR COVERAGE NATIONALLY FROM MEDICAID AND 750,000 FROM PENNSYLVANIA ALONE, RIGHT? >> I'M JUST SAYING THAT IF YOU THINK OF SUCH AN OUTRAGEOUS POSITION YOU HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. LET THE COURTS DO THEIR JOB. >> IF YOU WELL, MY TIME IS OUT, WE'LL COME BACK TO THIS. I YIELD BACK, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, AND MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TODAY. FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS AT THE END OF THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, VIOLENT CRIME IN AMERICA STARTED TO TAKE UP, THAT MEANS MORE ROBBERIES, MORE MURDERS AND MORE ASSAULT. I'M ENCOURAGED TO SEE THE FBI'S PRELIMINARY CRIME STATISTICS THAT WERE RELEASED IN LATE FEBRUARY SHOWED THIS ALARMING TREND AS BEING REVERSED. CAN YOU TELL ME, WHAT IS THE DEPARTMENT DOING THAT IS WORKING AND DOES YOUR NEW BUDGET AND RESOURCES FOR FIGHTING CRIME? >> THANK YOU, SIR. THE VIOLENT CRIME AS I SAID IN MY STATEMENT IS ONE OF OUR PRIORITIES, AND MAKING SURE WE DON'T SEE A RESURGENT, RESURGENCE OF VIOLENT CRIME. OUR BASE BUDGET IS 4.3 BILLION AND WE ARE SEEKING $138 MILLION ENHANCEMENT TO THAT. 120 WOULD GO TOWARD REDUCING VIOLENT CRIME IN COMMUNITIES, AND 18 WOULD BE TO STEP UP OUR EFFORTS AGAINST THESE TRANSNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS. THE FLAGSHIP, ONE OF THE FLAGSHIPS OF OUR FIGHT AGAINST VIOLENT CRIME IS OUR PROJECT SAFE NEIGHBORHOODS. THIS IS REALLY A CONCEPT THAT'S BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE UNDER VARIOUS GUISES, BUT FUNDAMENTALLY, WHAT IT IS, IT'S A STRATEGY TO FOCUS ON HIGH CRIME AREAS THAT BRINGS TOGETHER THE LOCAL COMMUNITY, THE LAW ENFORCEMENT, INCLUDING FEDERAL AND STATE. ALSO THE VARIOUS SOCIAL PROGRAMS AND SOCIAL AGENCIES THAT RUN AND FUND PROGRAMS THAT ARE MEANT TO PREVENT CRIMES FROM OCCURRING. AND, >> WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO WILLIAM BARR TESTIFY AT THE HOUSE SUBCOMMITTEE, THIS WAS A HEARING THAT WAS ARTIE SCHEDULED TO TALK ABOUT THE BUDGET, BUT AS YOU CAN IMAGINE THIS THE FIRST TIME THAT WILLIAM BARR IS SPEAKING PUBLICLY SINCE HE HAS BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE MUELLER REPORT. JOINING US NOW IS FORMER ASSISTANT UNITED STATES ATTORNEY FOR YOU NEW YORK'S EASTERN DISTRICT, YOU HAVE BEEN LISTENING ALL ALONG. WE'VE GOTTEN A FEW HIGHLIGHTS HERE, BUT WHAT IS STANDING OUT TO YOU ABOUT WHAT HE HAD TO SAY SO FAR? >> THE FACT THAT HE'S REFUSING TO TESTIFY OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE WHITE HOUSE RELATING TO THE REPORT, THAT'S CONCERNING. GLAD TO HEAR THAT HE'S GOING TO IDENTIFY THE REASONS FOR THE VARIOUS REDUCTIONS IN THE FOUR CATEGORIES HE'S TALKING ABOUT, THERE'S A LOT OF ROOM TO MANEUVER IN THAT TERRITORY. >> LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. HE HAD PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED THE FOUR CATEGORIES THAT YOU KNOW WOULD CAUSE SOMETHING TO BE REDACTED, >> GRAND JURY, NATIONAL SECURITY, LAW ENFORCEMENT AND PRIVACY. THE MOST WIGGLE ROOM IS IN THE GRAND JURY AREA. BECAUSE WHAT IS SECRET MATTERS OCCUR BEFORE THE GRAND JURY, HOW THAT'S DEFINED, IF YOU DEFINE IT BROADLY, THE REPORT IS GOING TO POTENTIALLY LOOK LIKE SWISS CHEESE, IF YOU DO FIND IT VERILY, WE WILL SEE A LOT MORE INFORMATION. SO, THAT'S, IT WILL BE IMPORTANT FOR US NOT JUST TO SEE THE BASIS FOR EACH REDACTION BUT TO UNDERSTAND THE CRITERIA THAT HE USED, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPARENCY, TRANSPARENCY. THAT IS WHAT WE NEED HERE.>> WHAT YOU MAKE OF THE FACT THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID HE EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO RELEASE THE REPORT WITHIN A WEEK, WITH THESE NOTES THAT WOULD DESCRIBE THE BASIS FOR EACH REDACTION? >> IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY ARE WORKING APART, IT'S A 400 PAGE REPORT, I THINK IT'S REASSURING TO KNOW THAT MR. MUELLER IS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS. TO KNOW THAT, TO UNDERSTAND HIS ROLE AS AN INDEPENDENT PROSECUTOR, RIGHT, THE WHOLE POINT OF HIM BEING PUT IN HIS ROLE WAS BECAUSE HE WAS GOING TO BE INDEPENDENT, SET ASIDE, THEORETICALLY, FROM THE POLITICAL PROCESS. MR. BARR AND MR. ROSENSTEIN ARE CLINICAL APPOINTEES, AND SO, KNOWING THAT HE WILL BE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS OF MAKING APPROPRIATE REDACTION DECISIONS, IS REASSURING BUT AGAIN, WE ARE IN THIS TERRITORY WHERE WE WANT TO EFFECTIVELY TRUST BUT VERIFY, BUT I THINK GIVEN THEIR REPORTING THAT SOME OF THE MUELLER TEAM MEMBERS ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE MARCH 24 LETTER, I THINK WE NEED TO PLACE A VERY STRONG EMPHASIS ON VERIFY. YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE TRUST BUT VERIFY TAKE AWAY. >> HE SORT OF PUNTED A LITTLE BIT WHEN HE WAS ASKED DIRECTLY WHETHER OR NOT CONGRESS WOULD RECEIVE THE UNREDACTED MUELLER REPORT. IT SOUNDED LIKE HE HAD NO INTENTION OF RELEASING AN UNREDACTED REPORT TO CONGRESS. THE MAC THAT'S A TERRIFIC QUESTION BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY TALKING ABOUT TWO AUDIENCES HERE, ONE IS THE PUBLIC, RIGHT, AND OBVIOUSLY THE PUBLIC SHOULDN'T GET THE NATIONAL SECURITY INFORMATION, GOOD REASONS WHY, IF THERE ARE SENSITIVE LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS, GOOD REASONS FOR THOSE TYPES OF REDACTION BUT ON CAPITOL HILL, FOR CONGRESS, PARTICULARLY FOR THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEES, THERE'S A SPECIFIC EXCEPTION TO GRAND JURY SECRECY, COUNTERINTELLIGENCE MATTERS THAT THEY CAN BE DISCLOSED TO FEDERAL OFFICIALS, THE GANG OF EIGHT, THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE MEMBERS ARE OBVIOUSLY GOING TO HAVE REQUIRED CLEARANCES TO RECEIVE THAT INFORMATION. EVEN AT THE EXTENT THAT THERE ARE ONGOING LAW ENFORCEMENT INVESTIGATIONS THAT WOULD RELATE TO NATIONAL SECURITY. THEY SHOULD BE DISCLOSED TO CONGRESS AND THE PERIPHERAL PRIVACY STUFF, I'M SURE THEY DON'T CARE THAT MUCH ABOUT, BUT THE UNREDACTED OR MOSTLY UNREDACTED CLOSED-DOOR REPORT, THE CLOSED-DOOR BRIEFING THAT WOULD GO TO THE INTELLIGENCE COMPONENT OF CONGRESS, I WOULD EXPECT THAT WOULD BE VERY FULL. >> THE CONGRESSWOMAN, ESSENTIALLY ASKED A QUESTION THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE WHICH IS, THE INVESTIGATION, THAT TO TWO YEARS TO COMPLETE WAS ULTIMATELY GIVEN A SUMMARY REPORT THAT WAS FOUR PAGES LONG WITHIN 48 HOURS OF RECEIVING THE FULL REPORT. SO SHE ASKED HOW DID YOU DO IT, HE HAD AN INTERESTING RESPONSE HE SAID THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE IS NOT AT ALL FOREIGN TO THE DEALINGS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL, I'M PARAPHRASING THERE, BUT THEY SAY IT'S NOT A MYSTERY TO THE LEADERSHIP OF THE DOJ. WHAT DID HE MEAN BY THAT? >> IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THEY GOT A PREVIEW. THEY MENTIONED A MARCH 5 MEETING, THREE WEEKS IN ADVANCE, YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WHOEVER IS SUPERVISING MUELLER, HAS A ROLE, IN SUPERVISING ROSENSTEIN AND BARR, WHEN HE CAME INTO OFFICE, THEY HAVE A ROLE IN OVERSEEING THE INVESTIGATION, AND I GUESS IT'S SOMEWHAT REASSURING THAT THERE WAS A PROFESSIONAL AND OPEN LINE OF COMMUNICATION BEAR. IT IS HARD, KNOWING HOW COMPLICATED AN INVESTIGATION, NOT EVEN ONE THAT'S NOT AS INVOLVED AS THIS ONE, ORDINARY CORRUPTION INVESTIGATION POTENTIALLY IS, KNOWING HOW MUCH MORE COMPLICATED THIS ONE WAS BECAUSE IT HAD A SIGNIFICANT COUNTERINTELLIGENCE COMPONENT, THE IDEA THAT YOU COULD SUMMARIZE SUCH AN IMPORTANT SET OF FINDINGS AND SO QUICKLY, IT IS CONCERNING BUT IT LEADS US BACK TO TRANSPARENCY. AND, OUR NEED TO VERIFY, TO MAKE SURE THAT, DOES THAT LETTER, THE MARCH 24 LETTER, DOES IT ACTUALLY, DOES IT CORRECTLY REFLECT MR. MUELLER'S, ALL OF HIS WORK. AND I THINK WE NEED TO, AT THIS POINT, I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY, MR. BARR GOT IT WRONG, I'M NOT PREPARED TO SAY THAT YET, BUT I SURE WOULD LIKE TO BE REASSURED. > I WANT TO BRING UP TWO POINTS, INITIALLY TALKED ABOUT HOW WILLIAM BARR WOULD NOT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE WHITE HOUSE HAD ACCESS TO THE MUELLER REPORT. THE WHITE HOUSE SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE MUELLER REPORT BUT HE REFUSED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION DIRECTLY. ALSO WE'VE BEEN CALLING THIS FOUR-PAGE DOCUMENT A SUMMARY, ú WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE A SUMMARY, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE A BOTTOM LINE, RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHAT WE ARE CALLING IT, HE'S NOT CALLING IT THAT. >> SO, STICK AROUND, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP TALKING ABOUT THIS BECAUSE IT THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS ALSO UNDERWAY, THAT PANEL IS DISCUSSING EIGHT CRIMES IN THE US AND THE RISE OF WHITE NATIONALIST. >> WITNESSES INCLUDE REPRESENTATIVES FROM TECH COMPANIES AND ADVOCACY GROUPS, YOU CAN STREAM THAT HEARING IF YOU ARE INTERESTED. FOR NOW WE WILL RETURN TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AT THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. >> FOR THE REASON WHY A CITIZEN SHIP QUESTION IS NEEDED ON THE CENSUS. DOJ HAS BEEN ENFORCING THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT FOR OVER 50 YEARS WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A CITIZENSHIP QUESTION, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ON THAT? >> MY THOUGHTS ARE THAT IT'S BEING LITIGATED RIGHT NOW AND I THINK ORAL ARGUMENTS ON APRIL 23, I'M NOT GOING TO DISCUSS IT. >> I WANTED TO ALSO ASK ABOUT ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY. DO YOU AGREE WITH YOUR PREDECESSORS, ZERO-TOLERANCE POLICY MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM ISSUED LAST APRIL 2018? >> THERE'S A LOT OF MISUNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE ZERO TOLERANCE POLICY, THE ZERO- TOLERANCE POLICY IS THAT THE DEPARTMENT WOULD PROSECUTE CASES THAT ARE REFERRED TO THE DEPARTMENT AND THE THING THAT CAUSE FAMILY SEPARATION WAS THE REFERRAL OF CASES TO THE DEPARTMENT THAT INVOLVE FAMILIES WITH CHILDREN. THE PRESIDENT HAS PUT OUT AN EXECUTIVE ORDER, I BELIEVE, SAYING THAT WE ARE, DHS IS NOT GOING TO FOLLOW THAT POLICY. AND AS FAR AS I KNOW WE ARE NOT GIVING REFERRALS OF THAT TYPE, BUT THE GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT THE DEPARTMENT WILL PROSECUTE CASES THAT WERE REFERRED TO IT, STANDS. >> ACCORDING TO AN ARTICLE IN THE NEW YORK TIMES YESTERDAY, PRESIDENT TRUMP HAS BEEN PUSHING TO RESTART THIS PRACTICE OF SEPARATING PARENTS FROM THEIR CHILDREN. THE TERM BINARY CHOICE POLICY HAS CERTAINLY BEEN GETTING TRACTION. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU SUPPORT? >> Reporter: I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT. >> YOU HAVEN'T HEARD THAT? >> WE CAN SUBMIT ARTICLES TO YOUR OFFICE. ARE YOU AWARE OF RESEARCH SHOWING THAT SEPARATION FROM INITIAL STAGES TO ONGOING AND LONG-TERM IS DEVASTATING AND DETRIMENTAL TO CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND DEVELOPMENT? >> I'M SORRY, CAN YOU REPEAT THAT? >> ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY RESEARCH THAT SHOWS SEPARATION OF FAMILIES AND CHILDREN ARE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH? >> I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THAT RESEARCH BUT AS I SAID, THE PRESIDENT HAS ALREADY PUT OUT AN ORDER STOPPING THE SEPARATION OF FAMILIES. >> Reporter: SO WOULD YOU ENFORCE AND PUT FORTH POLICIES OF NEW DISCUSSIONS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP WANTING TO RESTART THIS SEPARATION PRACTICE? >> ALL I CAN SAY, PERSONALLY SITTING HERE, I AM NOT FAMILIAR WITH THOSE DISCUSSIONS. >> WHICH YOU SUPPORT CONTINUATION OF SEPARATION OF FAMILIES? >> I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT'S POLICY WHICH IS WE ARE NOT GOING TO SEPARATE FAMILIES. >> Reporter: C SUPPORT THAT WE WILL NOT SEPARATE FAMILIES ANYMORE.>> I GET BACK. >> Reporter: THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US, I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND THE COMMITTEE WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT, 22 MONTHS OF INVESTIGATION, 28, 500 WITNESS INTERVIEWS, 19 LAWYERS, 40 FBI AGENTS AND HOW WHO KNOWS HOW MANY WARRANTS, AND THE CONCLUSION WERE SIMPLE, NO COLLUSION, NO OBSTRUCTION, I REMEMBER WHEN THE FIRST LETTER WAS RELEASED AND THERE WERE A LOT OF COMPLAINTS THEN THAT YOU WEREN'T RELEASING THE SUMMARY SOON ENOUGH, NOW HERE TODAY I HEAR IT WAS TOO HASTY, TOO QUICK. SO NOW YOU HAD TIME TO REVIEW, YOUR TEAM HAS HAD TIME TO REVIEW, YOU INDICATED IN THE NEXT WEEK, WE WILL GET THE REPORT RELEASED, SO FOR THE COMMITTEE, IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU SEEN SINCE THE REVIEW OF THE ENTIRE REPORT THAT WOULD CHANGE YOUR CONCLUSIONS? >> Reporter:>> NO CONGRESSMAN, AS I EXPLAINED IN MY MARCH 24 LETTER, THAT WAS MEANT TO STATE THE BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT, NOT SUMMARIZE THE REPORT AND I TRIED TO USE AS MUCH OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OWN LANGUAGE AS I COULD, THEY WERE JUST STATING THE BOTTOM- LINE CONCLUSIONS, AND THERE IS NOTHING THAT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT >> THERE'S NO CONCLUDE NO, NO COLLUSION, NO CONSTRUCT OBSTRUCTION, IT'S DONE. >> THE LETTER SPEAKS FOR ITSELF. I THOUGHT IT DO, TOO. MEMBERS OF CONGRESS SAID THEY WILL IGNORE THE PUBLIC REACTIONS, AND LEAK THE FULL REPORT. WOULD THAT GIVE YOU PAUSE IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR? >> SOMEONE'S GOING TO LEAK THE FULL REPORT? >> THAT'S WHAT CONGRESS HAS BEEN SAYING. >> THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE BECAUSE THERE'S GRAND JURY INFORMATION IN THERE THAT UNDER THE LAW, HAS TO BE REDACTED. >> WEAVER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE TODAY SAY THAT AMERICAN PEOPLE NEED TO SEE THE FULL REPORT, EVEN MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE HAVE INDICATED THIS, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY SAID EVEN THIS WEEKEND, THIS IS CHAIRMAN NADLER, CERTAINLY SOME OF IT WOULD NOT LEAK PUBLICLY, HE HAS DISCRETION, AND THE COMMITTEE HAS A VERY GOOD RECORD OF PROTECTING INFORMATION, WHICH IT DECIDES TO PROTECT. SO GENERAL BARR, UNDER FEDERAL LAW DOES A MEMBER OF CONGRESS HAVE THE POWER TO ARBITRARILY DECIDE WHAT PORTIONS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S REPORT THEY MIGHT RELEASE? REDACTED OR NOT? >> MARTIN VIOLATES THE LAW. AND WE BELIEVE THAT 6D DOES APPLY TO RIVERS OF CONGRESS. IT'S INTERESTING BECAUSE THIS WHOLE MECHANISM FOR THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AS I SAID WAS ESTABLISHED DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION IN THE WAKE OF KEN STARR'S REPORT, AND THAT'S WHY THE CURRENT RULE SAYS THAT THE REPORT SHOULD BE KEPT CONFIDENTIAL. BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT OF REACTION AGAINST THE PUBLICATION OF KEN STARR'S REPORT. MANY OF THE PEOPLE WHO ARE RIGHT NOW CALLING FOR THE RELEASE OF THIS REPORT WERE BASICALLY CASTIGATING KEN STARR AND OTHERS FOR RELEASING THE STARR REPORT. I HAVE ALREADY SAID THAT THE SITUATION HERE REQUIRES ME TO EXERCISE MY DISCRETION TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION OUT AS I CAN, I THINK THESE CATEGORIES, I THINK MOST FAIR-MINDED PEOPLE WOULD AGREE THESE ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE REDACTED. >> RIGHT. I GUESS JUST THINKING ABOUT THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY, IF YOU WERE TO RELEASE OR ANY MEMBER OF CONGRESS WERE TO RELEASE THE FULL REPORT OR REDACTED PORTIONS OF THE REPORT, ARE THEY IN COMPLIANCE WITH LAW OR IN VIOLATION OF LAW. >> I WANT TO SPECULATE ABOUT ALL THE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD BE INVOLVED, I DON'T INTEND, AT THIS STAGE TO SEND THE FULL, UNREDACTED REPORT TO THE COMMITTEE, SO I'M NOT SURE HE NOT SURE WHERE HE WOULD GET IT. DIRECTLY FROM THE COUNCIL, THAT WOULD BE UNFORTUNATE, I DOUBT THAT WOULD HAPPEN. >> A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT SUBPOENA, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY HAVE ISSUED A SUBPOENA FOR YOU TO RELEASE THE FULL REPORT, WITH THAT PUT YOU IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL LAW? >> THE CURRENT SITUATION, I DON'T THINK I HAVE THE LATITUDE TO RELEASE 6D ROOT MATERIAL. AS TO THE OTHER CATEGORIES, I'M WILLING TO DISCUSS THOSE WITH THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEES. I WANT TO TRY AND ACCOMMODATE THEIR INTEREST, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UPHOLD THE LAW AND RIGHT NOW, THERE'S BEEN A RECENT CASE DECIDED IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, I THINK WITHIN THE LAST WEEK ON THIS, THE 6A MATERIAL IS NOT RELEASALE. >> THANK YOU FOR YOUR PASSION IN WHICH YOU HANDLE THIS, I THINK YOU BEEN UPRIGHT, YOU BEEN AN EXAMPLE OF INTEGRITY, AND I KNOW THAT YOU ARE GOING TO ABIDE BY THE LAW AND MY HOPE IS THAT ALL MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WOULD FOLLOW LIKE A KIND, THANK YOU, ATTORNEY GENERAL, FOR YOUR GOOD WORK. >> MR. CRIST. >> VICKI MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR FOR BEING WITH US TODAY. ON THE QUESTION OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE, YOU STATED IN YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER THAT THE MUELLER REPORT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT . CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT IS MEANT BY DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> I THINK THAT'S THE LANGUAGE FROM THE REPORT PEE DEE RIGHT I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> THAT'S A STATEMENT MADE BY THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AS ONE OF HIS BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSIONS I'M NOT IN POSITION TO DISCUSS THAT FURTHER, WHAT IS MEANT BY EXONERATE, I CAN'T ANSWER, WHAT HE MEANT BY THAT. >> BUT AS YOU SIT HERE TODAY, YOU CAN'T OPINE, AFTER HAVING READ THE REPORT YOURSELF, WHY IT REACHES THAT CONCLUSION THAT IT DOES NOT EXONERATE THE PRESIDENT? >> REPORTS HAVE EMERGED RECENTLY, GENERAL, THAT MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM ARE FRUSTRATED AT SOME LEVEL, WITH THE LIMITED INFORMATION INCLUDED IN YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER , THAT IT DOES NOT ADEQUATELY OR ACCURATELY NECESSARILY, PORTRAY THE REPORT'S FINDINGS, DO YOU KNOW WHAT THEY ARE REFERENCING WITH THAT? >> NO I DON'T. >> I THINK, I SUSPECT THAT THEY PROBABLY WANTED MORE PUT OUT, BUT, IN MY VIEW, I WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PUTTING OUT SUMMARIES OR TRYING TO SUMMARIZE, BECAUSE I THINK ANY SUMMARY, REGARDLESS OF WHO PREPARES IT, NOT ONLY RUNS THE RISK OF YOU KNOW, BEING UNDERINCLUSIVE OR OVERINCLUSIVE, BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, WOULD TRIGGER A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS THAT REALLY SHOULD AWAIT EVERYTHING COMING OUT AT ONCE, SO I WAS NOT INTERESTED IN A SUMMARY. IN FACT, AT THE TIME, I PUT OUT MY MARCH 24 LETTER, THERE WAS NOTHING FROM THE SPECIAL COUNSEL THAT WASN'T MARKED AS POTENTIALLY CONTAINING 6A MATERIAL, I HAD NO MATERIAL THAT HAD BEEN SANITIZED OF 6A MATERIAL. I FELT I SHOULD STATE THE BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSIONS AND I TRIED TO USE SPECIAL COUNSEL MORRIS OWN LANGUAGE IN DOING THAT. THE MAX SERIOUS, DID YOU FEEL THERE WAS AN OBLIGATION UPON YOU, YOUR OFFICE, TO PREPARE THIS LETTER, OVERVIEW, IF YOU WILL, RATHER THAN SUMMARY, RATHER THAN HAVING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S TEAM DO IT THEMSELVES , WHY DID THAT HAPPEN I GUESS, IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT. >> IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL WAS PROVIDING THE REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND I WAS MAKING THE DECISION AS TO WHETHER TO MAKE IT PUBLIC OR ANY PART OF IT PUBLIC. AND IN MY JUDGMENT, IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE TO KNOW THE BOTTOM-LINE CONCLUSIONS OF THE REPORT, WHILE WE WORKED ON NECESSARY REDUCTIONS TO MAKE THE WHOLE THING AVAILABLE. >> LET ME ASK -- >> UNFORTUNATELY, THAT'S A MATTER OF WEEKS AND I DON'T THINK THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE TOLERATED, CONGRESS WOULD NOT HAVE TOLERATED AT LEAST NOT KNOWING THE BOTTOM LINE. AND, AS YOU KNOW FROM YOUR OWN EXPENSE, FROM A PROSECUTOR STANDPOINT, THE BOTTOM-LINE IS BINARY, WHICH IS CHARGES OR NO CHARGES. >> INDEED. DID YOU CONTEMPLATE HAVING THE SPECIAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE HELP YOU WITH THE PREPARATION OF YOUR MARCH 24 LETTER, OR DID YOU? >> WE OFFERED TO HAVE BOB REVIEW IT BEFORE PUTTING IT OUT, AND HE DECLINED. >> I DIDN'T ASK ABOUT REVIEWING, I ASKED IF YOU THOUGHT ABOUT HAVING THEM HELP PREPARE THE MARCH 24 LETTER. >> NO, I DIDN'T THINK ABOUT IT. >> WHY NOT? >> BECAUSE IT WAS MY LETTER. >> YOU SAID THAT THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND HIS TEAM WERE NOT SHOWN, DID NOT REVIEW THE MARCH 24 LETTER, RIGHT? YOU OFFERED TO LET THEM REVIEW IT? DID YOU OFFER IT TO ANYONE ELSE, TO LET OTHER PEOPLE REVIEW IT BESIDE THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. >> NOT THAT I RECALL, OUTSIDE THE DEPARTMENT? >> ANYWHERE. >> YES OUTSIDE THE DEPARTED, LET'S START THERE. THE MAXWELL, THE ANSWER IS PRETTY SERIOUS NO. >> BUT YOU'RE NOT SURE? >> I AM SURE. >> OKAY. I THINK I'LL YIELD, I ONLY HAVE 15 SECONDS, THANK YOU, GENERAL. >> THANK YOU MR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, I LOVE TO TALK TO YOU ABOUT YOUR 20/20 BUDGET, BUT WHAT IS FAR MORE CRITICAL, AND HAS MUCH FAR-REACHING CONSEQUENCES, IS THE PROMPT AND FULL DISCLOSURE OF THE REPORT. THE CURRENT NONDISCLOSURE OF THE REPORT HAS ONLY WORSENED A PERVASIVE DISTRUST OF GENERAL GOVERNMENT GENERALLY AND MR. MOORE'S INVESTIGATION IN YOUR COVER DEPARTMENT'S RESPONSE TO IT SPECIFICALLY. THE STARTED EARLY ON IN THE INVESTIGATION WITH EXCESSIVE SECRECY ABOUT EXACTLY WHAT EXACTLY WE WERE TAKING A LOOK AT AS THE SUPPLEMENTAL MEMO FROM THE DEPUTY ACTING ATTORNEY GENERAL, THIS IS WHAT DRIVES THE PUBLIC CRAZY, WHEN THEY SEE SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO TRY TO AVOID WHEN WE GET INTO THIS. IN YOUR MARCH 24, 3.5 PAGE SUMMARY OF THE REPORT YOU SAID YOU ARE MINDFUL OF THE PUBLIC INTEREST IN THIS MATTER AND YOU TEND TO RELEASE AS MUCH OF THE REPORT AS YOU CAN CONSISTENT WITH ACCO POOL POOL LAWS AND DEPARTMENT POLICIES. YOU KNOW THAT ON MARCH 14 THE HOUSE RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY, 420- 0, ALL MEMBERS OF THIS COMMITTEE AND HOUSE VOTING THAT THE FULL REPORT RELEASED PUBLICLY, EXCEPT WHERE PROHIBITED BY LAW AND BE RELEASED TO CONGRESS UNCONDITIONALLY. DO YOU APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF A FULL DISCLOSURE OF THIS REPORT, BOTH PERSONALLY AND ON BEHALF OF YOUR DEPARTMENT? >> I APPRECIATE THE IMPORTANCE OF RELEASING AS MUCH OF THE INFORMATION IN THE REPORT AS I CAN, CONSISTENT WITH THE LAW. >> OKAY, LET'S GET INTO THAT THEN, WHAT SPECIFIC LAWS, REGULATIONS AND DEPARTMENT POLICIES AS YOU CITED IN YOUR LETTER, DO YOU CLAIM REQUIRE OR JUSTIFY YOU TO WITHHOLD PORTIONS OF THE REPORT? YOU ALREADY TALKED ABOUT SIX A, WHAT ELSE? >> AS I SAID THERE ARE FOUR CATEGORIES OF INFORMATION THAT ARE BEING REDACTED. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT, SIR.>> YOU ASKED WHAT ELSE. THE WE ASKED THE INTELLIGENCE COMMITTEE TO IDENTIFY ANY SOURCES AND METHODS >> WHAT AUTHORITY DO YOU HAVE TO STATE THAT YOU HAVE DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD, I GET THE GRAND JURY SITE, THAT'S 6A, 60 ENCOMPASSES EXCEPTION, I'M ASSUMING ARE GOING TO SAY THAT FALLS UNDER THAT CATEGORY, THERE'S SHOULD BE SOME WITHHOLDING OF INFORMATION UNDER THE 6E CATEGORY, WHAT ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CATEGORIES, WHAT JUSTIFIES YOU AND CLAIMING THE DISCRETION TO WITHHOLD THAT INFORMATION? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE INTELLIGENCE? >> NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE OTHER TWO CATEGORIES, TALKING ABOUT ONGOING PROSECUTIONS, BUT I'M PARTICULARLY FOCUSED ON PRIVACY AND REPUTATIONAL INTEREST. IT SEEMS THAT THAT'S AN EXCEPTION THAT YOU CAN JUST DRIVE A TRUCK THROUGH. YOU ARE THE ONE THAT SAYS YOU HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DO THAT AND I'M ASKING YOU WHERE DOES YOUR DISCRETION LIE?>> BECAUSE THE REGULATION THAT SETS UP THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND ALSO PROVIDES FOR HIS REPORT TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND ALSO WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CAN RELEASE , SPECIFIES THAT IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE DEPARTMENTS LONG-STANDING POLICIES. AND THE DEPARTMENT DEPARTMENTS LONG- STANDING POLICY AND PRACTICE THAT IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO CHARGE SOMEONE, WE DON'T GO OUT AND DISCUSS THE BAD OR DEROGATORY INFORMATION ABOUT THEM, THAT'S WHAT GOT EVERYONE OUTRAGED AT WHAT FBI DIRECTOR COMBING DID IN THE CASE OF HILLARY CLINTON. >> OKAY, SO THE REGULATION BACKS A LONG-STANDING POLICY IS WHAT IS THAT POLICY, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THE REGULATIONS IS THAT ANY RELEASE HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT. >> LET'S GO TO 6E FOR A SECOND HERE, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, ARE YOU MAINTAINING OR WILL YOU MAINTAIN ANY RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY OF THE INFORMATION IN THAT REPORT BASED ON A SO-CALLED CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >> IN MY WHAT? >> ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM THAT YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO WITHHOLD ANY OF THAT REPORT BASED ON A SO-CALLED CLAIM OF EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE? >> THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE ASSERTED BY THE PRESIDENT. >> AS I SAID IN MY LETTER WHICH SPEAKS FOR ITSELF, HE HAS SAID THAT HE'S LEAVING THE DECISIONS UP TO ME. >> ARE YOU GOING TO CLAIM EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE TO KEEP ANY OF THAT REPORT BACK? >> AS I SAID THERE'S NO PLAN. I HAVE NO PLAN TO DO THAT. >> OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE APPLIES TO ANY BROADER RANGE OF COMMUNICATIONS AND SPECIFIC DIRECT CONDITIONS FROM THE PRESIDENT? >> I WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE LATEST OPINIONS FROM OLC ABOUT THE PRECISE SCOPE OF IT BUT IT'S NOT RELEVANT TO ME RIGHT NOW. >> AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, DOES IT APPLY TO ANY COMMUNICATIONS BY THE PRESIDENT, BEFORE HE WAS PRESIDENT? >> AS I SAY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE LEARNING IS IN THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ON THAT. >> YOU ARE AWARE THAT THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS UNDER 6E IN WHICH YOU CAN EXPOSE GRAND JURY INFORMATION, SOME OF THOSE ARE WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION BUT MANY OF THOSE ARE SUBJECT TO A RULING OF A COURT, CORRECT? >> WHAT ARE THEY? >> 6E, THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT ALLOW YOU TO GO TO COURT TO ASK THE PERMISSION TO RELEASE THIS, IT'S UP TO THE COURT TO RELEASE, ARE YOU INTENDING TO GO TO COURT, TO ASK FOR GUIDANCE AND/OR DIRECTION AND/OR AN ORDER, WHERE YOU ARE UNCERTAIN WHETHER YOU CAN RELEASE MATERIALS? >> THE CHAIRMAN OF THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IS FREE TO GO TO COURT IF HE FEELS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS IS APPLICABLE. >> THE RIGHT IS YOURS TO ASK. >> WHY DO YOU SAY THE RIGHT IS MINE? YOU MET BECAUSE YOU ARE THE EXERCISING AUTHORITY UNDER 6E >> IF THE CHAIRMAN BELIEVES HE'S ENTITLED TO RECEIVE IT, HE CAN MOVE THE COURT FOR IT. >> I'LL COME BACK TO THIS, IT'S YOUR RIGHT TO ASK, I'M ASKING WHAT IS YOUR INTENTION? >> MY INTENTION IS NOT TO ASK FOR IT. IF THE CHAIRMAN HAS A GOOD EXPLANATION OF WHY IT DOES NOT APPLY AND HIS NEED FOR THE INFORMATION, I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO THAT. >> AS I SAY, MY FIRST AGENDA ITEM HERE IS TO GET THE PUBLIC REPORT OUT, WHAT CAN BE GOTTEN OUT PUBLICLY. THAT'S GOING TO BE WITHIN A WEEK. >> MY TIME IS UP. >> I'LL DISCUSS THESE ISSUES IN GREATER DETAIL AFTER THAT OCCURS. THE MAXIMUS LAWRENCE? >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. ATTORNEY GENERAL, ACCORDING TO RECENT REPORTING, THE TROP ADMINISTRATION IS PURSUING FAR FEWER CIVIL RIGHTS CASES, INCLUDING EIGHT CRIMES, POLICE BIAS, AND DISABILITY RIGHTS CASES THAN THE OBAMA OR BUSH ADMINISTRATIONS. THE DOJ CIVIL RIGHTS DEPARTMENT HAS STARTED 60% FEWER CASES AGAINST POTENTIAL VIOLATIONS DURING THE FIRST TWO YEARS OF THE TROP ADMINISTRATION. THEN, DURING THE PRESIDENT OBAMA ADMINISTRATION, 50% FEWER THAN UNDER THE GEORGE BUSH ADMINISTRATION. CAN YOU PLEASE PROVIDE ME WHY THAT IS HAPPENING, AND WHAT ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO TO ADDRESS THAT? >> I HAVE TO SEE THOSE FIGURES, AND HOW THEY ARE BROKEN DOWN. I HAVEN'T SEEN THOSE FIGURES BEFORE. THE AREAS THAT I'M FAMILIAR WITH, SUCH AS HATE CRIME SIMPLY IS NOT TRUE. WE HAVE AN ENVIABLE RECORD OF PROSECUTING HATE CRIMES AT THE SAME OR HIGHER RATE THAN PREVIOUS ADMINISTRATIONS, AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, I HAVE TO SEE WHAT ELSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THE DATA OF WHAT THE PERCENTAGE, HAVE THEY INCREASED UNDER THE TROP ADMINISTRATION? THERE INDICATIONS THAT THEY HAVE. >> THAT THE INCREASE? >> YES. >> HATE CRIMES, HAVE INCREASED UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION? >> I HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DATA -- >> IS IT A PRIORITY, YOU HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE DATA, YOU'RE NOT AWARE >> AS I SAID IN MY CONFIRMATION HEARINGS, I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT EIGHT CRIMES AND I'M INTENDING TO VIGOROUSLY PURSUE THEM. THE DATA I HAVE SEEN SHOWED AN INCREASE GOING BACK TO 2013, SO I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THEY HAVE BEEN INCREASING BUT I HAVE SEEN NO DATA TO SEE IT'S DIFFERENT UNDER THE TROP ADMINISTRATION. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, WE USE THE WORD STAY WOKE SOMETIME IN COMMUNITY ACTIVISM WHERE YOU ARE INTIMATE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE GROUND, I APPRECIATE YOUR TENURE OR YOUR LENGTH OF TIME THAT YOU'VE BEEN ATTORNEY GENERAL BUT I CAN TELL YOU, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT, AND I EXPECT FOR YOU TO BE INFORMED AND AWARE OF WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THIS AREA. I WANTED TO FOLLOW-UP ON A QUESTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE CARTWRIGHT ASKED, I REALLY NEED TO ASK THIS QUESTION, I WATCHED WITH DELIBERATE INTENT OF YOUR ANSWERS WHEN, WHO DO YOU REPORT TO, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OR TO THE PEOPLE OF AMERICA, YOU, DURING YOUR CONFIRMATION, WITHOUT DURESS SAID YOU REPORT TO THE PEOPLE BUT YOU JUST SAID, WHEN IT CAME TO THE ACA RULING THAT YOU GAVE, THAT THE PRESIDENT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT HE OPPOSED IT, AND SO, LET IT WORK OUT IN LEGISLATION. I WANT YOU TO BE VERY, LET ME FINISH MY QUESTION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, MAYBE YOU NEED TO CLARIFY. I WANT YOU TO EXPLAIN TO ME DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOUR ROLE, WHEN YOU ISSUE A STATEMENT ABOLISHING AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THAT YOU, AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND AND SUPPORT THAT DECISION, NOT BASED ON THE POLICY OF A PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. IT WAS CLEARLY LAID OUT, THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE, AND I WANT YOU TO RESPOND TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I HEARD, SIR. >> WELL, IF YOU DID LISTEN TO MY CONFIRMATION. >> I DID, SIR. >> I DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THREE DIFFERENT ROLES THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PLAYS, ONE IS ENFORCEMENT, THE OTHER IS IN A POLICY ROLE, AND THE THIRD IS IN PROVIDING LEGAL ADVICE. AND WHAT I SAID THEN IS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO PROVIDE STRAIGHT FROM THE SHOULDER LEGAL ADVICE AS TO WHAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL THINKS IS THE RIGHT VIEW OF THE LAW. >> IN THIS CASE OF ACA, YOU FELT IT WAS THE RIGHT DECISION UNDER THE LAW, TO ISSUE THAT YOU SUPPORT ABOLISHING THE AFFORDABLE CARE ACT, THAT IS A LEGAL TEA YOU DIDN'T LET ME FINISH, WHICH IS THE FIRST OBLIGATION IS TO PROVIDE YOUR BEST VIEW OF THE LAW. IF THE PRESIDENT, OR YOUR EXECUTIVE BRANCH AGENCIES THAT YOU ARE REPRESENTING, AND OUR STAKEHOLDERS IN THE ISSUE, DISAGREE WITH THAT ADVICE, AND WANT TO PURSUE A DIFFERENT POSITION, THEN THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LITIGATING ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED STATES SHOULD TAKE THAT POSITION, IF IT'S REASONABLE AND A DEFENSIBLE LEGAL POSITION. EVEN IF IT'S NOT THE POSITION THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TAKE IF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL WAS A JUDGE. THAT'S THE POSITION I STATED AT MY CONFIRMATION HEARING. >> SO WE CAN BE CLEAR, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING IS THAT IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE PRESIDENT, IF YOUR LEGAL EXPERIENCE AND YOUR EXPERTISE DOESN'T AGREE, AND YOUR PRESIDENT SAYS SOMETHING DIFFERENT, YOU ARE OBLIGATED TO AGREE AND ENFORCE WHAT THE PRESIDENT SAYS, IS THAT WHAT YOU ARE TELLING ME, AS THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA? >> IT'S THE SAME AS WHEN WE REPRESENT AND ARE DEFENDING THE LAW OF CONGRESS, SOMETIMES WE DON'T THINK THE LAW IS AN ORIGINAL MATTER ACTUALLY THE MAXTOR, WE PASS LAWS, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT PASSED LAWS. >> I FEEL THERE'S A REASONABLE AND DEFENSIBLE ARGUMEN THAT CAN BE MADE TO DEFEND A STATUE, WE DO. THE MAXTOR I'M CONCERNED AT THIS POINT, I WILL COME BACK AT THIS POINT. THANK YOU. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL, YOU SAID IN YOUR TESTIMONY SAID VIOLENT CRIME HAS DECLINED SINCE 2016, THAT AS WE LEARN FROM, HOME GROWN EXTREMISM HAS GROWN OVER THE SAME TIME. WHAT PRIORITY AND RESOURCES HAVE YOU INCLUDED IN THE 2020 BUDGET TO COUNTER SUCH VIOLENT EXTREMISM? >> I DON'T THINK WE BREAK OUT, MAYBE YOU CAN HELP ME, I DON'T THINK WE BREAK OUT THE BUDGET TARGETING THAT PARTICUAR CATEGORY OF OFFENSE. >> WE DO NOT HAVE A SEPARATE CATEGORY FOR VIOLENT EXTREMISM, BUT WE DO PURSUE ALL MATTERS OF VIOLENT CRIME TOGETHER, AND WE HAVE HUNDRED $38 MILLION AND HUNDRED 35 NEW POSITIONS FOR OUR VIBRANT VIOLENT CRIME EFFORTS IN THE FBI WE ARE ADDING 47 NEW FBI AGENTS TO THE FBI FOR A VARIETY OF NEW INITIATIVES, AND AMONG THEM, IS THE FBI'S WORK ON VIOLENT EXTREMISM. >> OKAY, IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THIS COMMITTEE TO KNOW AT A CERTAIN POINT, HOW MANY FOLKS WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THIS, HOW MANY DID DOLLARS WILL BE ASSIGNED TO THIS, BECAUSE IT IS AN ISSUE THAT CONCERNS ALL AMERICANS, I BELIEVE, AND WE NEED TO DEAL WITH IT, IN A PROPER WAY. >> YES MR. CHAIRMAN, YES BUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THE WATCH FOR THIS KIND OF THING, WHETHER THEY BE FBI AGENTS, OR U.S. ATTORNEYS, PURSUING POTENTIAL CASES >> ALL RIGHT, YOU'VE BEEN LISTENING THERE TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, WILLIAM BARR, IS TESTIFYING FOR THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE, AND WE EXPECTED TO GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS AROUND THE MUELLER REPORT AND THE SUMMARY, THE FOUR PAGES THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL PROVIDED FOR YOU AFTER IS A SPECIAL COUNSEL DELIVER THAT REPORT TO HIM, BUT THERE'VE ALSO BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AROUND THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT, AFFORDABLE CARE ACT AND THE TROP ADMINISTRATION'S ATTACK OF THAT LAW. SO LET'S BRING BACK TUBAL, HE IS HERE WITH US SO, FROM THE LAST MOMENT WE SPOKE TO THIS MOMENT HERE, SOME OF THESE LEGISLATORS ARE GETTING TOUGHER WITH THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, AND IN SOME INSTANCES, THEY ASKED POINTED QUESTIONS, HE DIDN'T NECESSARILY DODGE THEM BUT HE GAVE SHORT, POINTED RESPONSES TO THEM ALTHOUGH THEY WERE QUITE INTERESTING, CHARLIE CRIST OF FLORIDA, SPECIFICALLY HAD INTERESTING QUESTIONS FOR HIM AND WE DIDN'T REALLY GET A RESPONSE FROM THE AG, WHAT DID YOU MAKE OF THAT RESPONSE? >> I THINK HE'S VERY WELL- PREPARED AND VERY EXPERIENCED LAWYER. SO HE KNOWS HOW TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> AND THE QUESTION THAT CHARLIE CRIST ASKED, SOMETHING LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE ASKED, THE PRESIDENT AND HIS SUPPORTERS HAVE BEEN SAYING WILLIAM BARR SUMMARY SAYS NO OBSTRUCTION NO COLLUSION, BUT CHARLIE CRIST POINTED SPECIFICALLY TO ONE PASSAGE WITHIN THAT REPORT THAT BARB PUT TOGETHER THAT SAID, THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT PRESIDENT IS NOT CULPABLE. >> THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST THE DEEPEST SORT OF QUESTIONS WE HAVE ABOUT THE LETTER, TYPICALLY PROSECUTORS DO EXACTLY WHAT MR. BARGER SAID, WHICH IS MAKE A BINARY DECISION, DO YOU HAVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT TO CHARGE A CRIME OR NOT? AND MR. MUELLER SPECIFICALLY HERE DID NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ACCORDING TO MR. BARR, LAID OUT FACTORS ON EITHER SIDE RELATED TO WAS THE QUESTION THAT MR. MUELLER LEFT OPEN, DID HE SPECIFICALLY REFERRED THE QUESTION TO MR. BARR? MR. BARR TOOK IT UPON HIMSELF TO REACH THE FINAL CONCLUSION. WAS MR. MUELLER INTENDING FOR THAT QUESTION TO GO TO THE HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR OVERSIGHT FUNCTION? THEY HAVE JURISDICTION OVER POTENTIAL IMPEACHMENT INQUIRIES. IMPEACHMENT, OF COURSE, HAS RULES AND GUARDRAILS. IT IS NOT AS STRICTLY LEGAL ANALYSIS LIKE A DECISION WHETHER TO INDICT OR NOT MR. MUELLER MAY HAVE CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE A CRIMINAL DECISION WITH THE INTENTION OF HAVING CONGRESS CAN REVIEW THIS AND ANALYZE IT. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE TRANSPARENCY THAT I THINK WE ALL WANT. WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT MR. BARR JUMPED IN AS A POLITICAL ACTOR AND TOOK OVER THAT ANALYSIS. TRYING PERHAPS AS A POLITICAL MATTER TO PREEMPT THE ANALYSIS THE HOUSE MIGHT DO. WE JUST DON'T KNOW. WE NEED TO FIND OUT. >> THAT'S WHAT YOU KEEP SAYING TRASPARENCY IS KEY. THE WHOLE IDEA OF HAVING AN INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION IS INDEPENDENT OF POLITICAL INFLUENCE. IT WAS INTERESTING THAT WE ONLY HAVE A HANDFUL OF WORDS THAT CAME DIRECTLY FROM THE MUELLER REPORT. ONE OF THEM SAYS IS NOT EXONERATED WHEN IT COMES TO OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. HE WAS ASKED DIRECTLY WHAT DID MUELLER MEAN BY THAT? HE SAID I DON'T KNOW. TO ME THE FOLLOW-UP QUESTION WAS, THEN WHY DID YOU PICK THOSE SENTENCES? WHICH WAS NOT ASKED TO DIRECTLY. WHY DID YOU THINK OF THOSE SENTENCES REFLECTED THE BOTTOM LINE OF THE REPORT? WE DON'T KNOW. >> THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION. IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES HE WAS PREVIOUSLY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IN SUCH A HIGHLY REGARDED AND SKILLED LAWYER, WOULDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO COME TO A COMMON UNDERSTANDING WITH MR. MUELLER. WHICH IS A STEEP TRADITIONALIST AND HIGHLY SKILLED ATTORNEY OVER WHAT THE WORD EXONERATION MEANS. WE ALL KNOW WHAT THE WORD MEANS. AND MEANS YOU ARE CLEARED OF A CRIME. THAT IS A TOUGH ANSWER. ANOTHER ONE OF THE TAKEAWAYS THAT I HAVE FROM THIS IS SOME TENSION OVER MR. BARR'S CONGRESSIONAL CONFIRMATION TESTIMONY. WHERE HE COMMITTED TO US. HE DID IT EARLIER TODAY. TO GET MAXIMUM TRANSPARENCY. TO RELEASE AS MUCH AS HE POSSIBLY COULD. ALSO IN RESPONSE TO A QUESTION HE JUST SAID HE WAS NOT GOING TO EXERCISE HIS DISCRETION. TO SEEK A COURT ORDER TO LIFT SOME OF THE SECRECY ON THE GRAND JURY MATERIAL. I THINK THERE IS SOME TENSION BETWEEN THOSE TWO POSITIONS THAT THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS STATED. >> I'M GOING BACK TO CHARLIE CRYSTAL FLORIDA. WHO ASKED ANOTHER INTERESTING QUESTION HE WAS ASKED DIRECTLY ABOUT SOME MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TEAM WHO WERE NOT HAPPY WITH HIS MEMO AND FELT IT MISCHARACTERIZED THEIR FINDINGS. BARR REPLIED SOMETHING ALONG TO THE FACT THAT THEY PROBABLY WANTED MORE PUT OUT. MEANING THE MEMBERS OF THE SPECIAL COUNSEL. HE WASN'T INTERESTED IN THE TRUE SUMMARY OF THE FINDINGS. ANY OF THE SUMMARIES WAS GOING TO BE INCONCLUSIVE. CHRIS SAID OKAY, WHY NOT JUST RELEASE THAT INFORMATION? HE SAID THAT IS MY LETTER. HE IS CALLING IT THE LETTER. >> HE WAS ASKED WHY DIDN'T YOU, DID YOU ASK FOR INPUT FROM MUELLER WHEN YOU WERE PUTTING THIS LETTER TOGETHER? HE SAID NO WE DID NOT THEN THEY ASKED WHY? THAT'S ONE OF THE EXAMPLES OF THE SHORT DIRECT ANSWERS.>> HE INDICATES THE SPECIAL COUNSEL AND ROBERT MUELLER GAVE HIM SOME OF THESE NOTES AHEAD OF TIME. HE CHOSE NOT TO RELEASE THE INFORMATION. CHARLIE CRIST SAID WERE YOU WORKING WITH THE SPECIAL COUNSEL TO ENSURE THE SUMMARY WAS GOING TO BE CLEAR? HE SAID NO BECAUSE IT WAS MY LETTER. IT IS HAZY. >> THERE WAS A QUESTION ASKED ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD DISCUSSIONS OUTSIDE OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT THIS LETTER. HE SAID NO, BUT THEY NEVER ASKED ABOUT INSIDE THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT. WHAT ABOUT ROD ROSENSTEIN? WHY AM I SUDDENLY NOT REMEMBERING HOW TO PRONOUNCE HIS NAME. WHETHER HE WAS ACTUALLY INVOLVED IN THIS BOTTOM LINE FOUR-PAGE LETTER. >> WE ARE AT A DISADVANTAGE. WE HAVE THESE REPORTS THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS OF THE MUELLER TEAM WHO EXPRESSED DISPLEASURE. RIGHT? MR. BARR SEEM TO BE SAYING THAT DISPLEASURE WAS ABOUT THE VOLUME OF MY RELEASE. AT THE END OF MARCH. I DO NOT WANT TO DO IT IN A SERIAL FASHION. I WANT TO DO IT MY WAY. THAT WAS THE ANSWER THAT HE SEEMED TO BE GIVING. THE REPORTING ITSELF, AS YOU MENTIONED, WAS MORE ABOUT MINIMIZING. MIIMIZING WHAT THE FINDINGS WERE. OF COURSE THIS IS SECONDHAND ANONYMOUS SOURCE REPORTING. THAT WE ARE RELYING UPON. WE NEED TO TAKE AT THIS MOMENT. WE NEED TO TAKE IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. WE REALLY DO. AGAIN, THE SOLUTION TO ALL OF THIS IS TO COMPARE THE ACTUAL FINDINGS IN THE REPORT. TO WHAT MR. BARR CHARACTERIZE THOSE FINDINGS AS BEING. AND SEEING IF THERE IS MISMATCH AND MINIMIZING. IF IT LOOKS LIKE A POLITICAL FARM WAS PLACED ON THE SCALE. AGAIN, I AM NOT PREPARED AT THIS POINT TO SAY OR BELIEVE THAT THERE WAS MONKEY BUSINESS HERE. THAT THERE WAS A PROBLEM. THE CONCERN IS THAT WE NEED THE TRANSPARENCY TO MAKE THE -- >> WILLIAM BARR HAS A IMPECCABLE REPUTATION. HE DID NOT NEED THIS JOB. HE IS A ACCOMPLISHED MAN. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT IS NOT IN THE BUSINESS OF INDICTING OR DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE INDICTING A SITTING PRESIDENT. THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT DIRECTIVE IS TO LET CONGRESS EAL WITH THAT. ALSO WE KNOW ABOUT WILLIAM BARR'S MEMO. WE KNOW THAT HIS MEMO WAS CRITICAL OF THE MUELLER REPORT. WITH THAT KNOWLEDGE YOU CAN'T HELP BUT LISTEN TO WHAT HE IS SAYING WITH A CRITICAL EAR. BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT HE HAD A STANCE ON IT BEFOREHAND. >> HELP ME AS A NON-LAWYER TO UNDERSTAND THIS. IF THE REPORT AND THE SUMMARY SAYS THE PRESIDENT IS NOT EXONERATED OF OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE IN YOU DO BELIEVE THE SITTING PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED FOR A CRIME WHY NOT JUST MAKE THAT CLEAR TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE AND SAY IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER BECAUSE THE PRESIDENT CANNOT BE INDICTED. IS IT BECAUSE HE'S AWARE THERE ARE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS THAT MIGHT WANT TO USE THAT AS AN IMPEACHMENT POINT? >> THE WHOLE QUESTION ABOUT THE INDICTED ABILITY OF AN SITTING PRESIDENT, IN LARGE MEASURE, TURNS UPON THE FUNCTION OF CONGRESS AND THEIR SUPERVISORY ROLE. TO REMOVE A PRESIDENT THAT HAS COMMITTED TREASON, BRIBERY OR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS. THOSE ARE THE GUARDRAILS IN THE RULES. IT IS NOT A STRICTLY LEGAL PROCEEDING ANYMORE. IT IS ALSO POLITICAL. A PROSECUTOR HAS THIS EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH LEGAL BAR TO GET ABOVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. CONGRESS DOESN'T HAVE TO HIT THAT THRESHOLD. THEY NEED TO HAVE, THEY'RE GOING TO HOPE IF YOU HAVE SERIOUS MISCONDUCT YOU WOULD HAVE SERIOUS EVIDENCE. WE WILL COME BACK TO THIS WHY DID MR. MUELLER NOT REACH A CONCLUSION ABOUT OBSTRUCTION? WAS HE ASKING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO MAKE THAT FINAL DETERMINATION? INSTEAD WAS HE INTENDING FOR THE QUESTION TO BE CONSIDERED BY CONGRESS IN THEIR OVERSIGHT AND SUPERVISOR ROLE OF THE PRESIDENCY? >> YOU ARE A LAWYER. THERE IS OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. IN OTHER WORDS COULD WHATEVER IT IS THAT IS IN THIS REPORT NOBODY KNOWS BE SOMETHING SIMPLY ALONG THE LINES OF THE PRESIDENT ASKING THE FORMER DIRECTOR OF THE FBI TO SEE HIS WAY TO LETTING A GOOD GUY, MIKE FLYNN IS A GOOD GUY. I LIKE HIM. THIS IS HOW WE WORK IN NEW YORK. OR IS IT LOOK I'M ACTIVELY PURSUING, I AM ORDERING YOU TO NOT PURSUE THIS INDIVIDUAL OR OTHER INDIVIDUALS. THE TWO ARE VERY DIFFERENT. EVEN THOUGH WE POINTED TO MARTHA STEWART AND NOT KNOWING SHE OBSTRUCTED JUSTICE AND GOING TO JAIL FOR A. WOULD THAT BE IMPEACHMENT? >> YOU ARE ASKING ALL THE QUESTIONS THE PROSECUTORS AND FBI AGENTS, WHEN THEY'RE MAKING CASE DECISIONS HAVE TO WRESTLE WITH. WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM AND DECIDING WHO DO YOU BRING CHARGES AGAINST? YOU NEED TO HAVE PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT ABOUT CORRUPT INTENT. A CLEAR NEXUS BETWEEN THE ACTION IF IT IS OBSTRUCTION, AND THE UNDERLYING INVESTIGATION. THERE ARE THESE SERIOUS HURDLES. AS A PROSECUTOR PROOF BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT, YOU ARGUE ABOUT IN LAW SCHOOL. IN MY EXPERIENCE YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO ASK A JURY IN A COURTROOM OF 12 PEOPLE TO UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDE THEY CAN CONVICT TO SOMEONE AND GO HOME AND SLEEP WELL AT NIGHT ABOUT IT. THAT IS THE PRACTICAL EFFECT OF THAT THRESHOLD. YOU MAY HAVE GOOD EVIDENCE, OR EVIDENCE IT IS CONCERNING. AS A PROSECUTOR YOU MAY DECIDE IT IS NOT QUITE ENOUGH. PARTICULARLY IN CORRUPTION CASES. ALSO WHERE THE UNDERLYING CRIME IS HERE. REMEMBER THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT INTERFERENCE WITH OUR ELECTIONS, AND WAS THERE A CONSPIRACY TO JOIN THAT EFFORT? IF YOU HAVE CONCLUSIVELY DECIDED THAT IT DID NOT OCCUR IT BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT TO PROVE THE INTENT. WHAT WAS THE REASON AND WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION, IF IT IS PURELY ABOUT THE CRIME OF OBSTRUCTION. IT CAN STILL BE A CRIME. WITHOUT THAT UNDERLYING PROOF AS WELL IT BECOMES THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. I CAN TELL YOU AS A FORMER PUBLIC CORRECTION CORRUPTION PROSECUTOR YOU WANT TO HAVE TERRIFICALLY GOOD EVIDENCE WHEN YOU BRING A CASE LIKE THIS, PARTICULARLY AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICIAL OF THE STATURE OF ANY ONE OF A HIGH PUBLIC STATURE. >> THAT IS ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE BEEN HEARING. HOW CAN YOU OBSTRUCT A CRIME IF THERE'S NO CRIME THAT OCCURRED? IF MUELLER HAS DETERMINED THERE IS NO CRIME AND NO COLLUSION, OR COORDINATION OR WHATEVER THE OFFICIAL CRIME IS HOW COULD HE HAVE OBSTRUCTED IT? THE OTHER THING, PEOPLE TALK ABOUT IMPEACHMENT. WHETHER OR NOT THE PRESIDENT IS GUILTY OF A CRIME. BEING FOUND GUILTY OF A CRIME HAS TO DO WITH EVIDENCE BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT. IMPEACHMENT IS ABOUT TAKING THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE AWAY FROM THEM. THEY VOTED HIM INTO OFFICE. YOU BETTER HAVE A REALLY GOOD REASON TO PURSUE IMPEACHMENT. IT'S NOT THE SAME AS COMMITTING A CRIME WHETHER YOU THINK HE IS GUILTY OR NOT. >> THAT'S RIGHT. IT IS A POLITICAL PROCESS THAT HAS THESE ROLLS AROUND IT. IT IS A DIFFERENT ANALYSIS THAN A PROSECUTOR MAKES ABOUT BRINGING AN INDICTMENT. WE ARE THE UNDERLYING CRIME ISN'T THERE. THE DEBT EVIDENCE IS MORE DIFFICULT TO MAKE ON AN OBSTRUCTION CASE. YOU CAN STILL BRING AN OBSTRUCTION CASE, IT IS STILL BAD IF YOU ARE LYING TO THE FBI AND THE INVESTIGATION. YOU ARE MISDIRECTING RESOURCES AND POTENTIALLY DEFLECTING BLAME TO SOMEBODY WHO IS INNOCENT YOU ARE POTENTIALLY MISLEADING. THAT IS A SERIOUS PROBLEM FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE. PLUS FOR THE COURTS AND LAW ENFORCEMENT. YOU CAN COMMIT THE CRIME WITHOUT COMMITTING THE UNDERLYING CRIME. PARTICULARLY WHERE THE STAKES ARE SO HIGH, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THAT UNDERLYING REASON WHAT WOULD BE MOTIVATING YOU TO MISLEAD THE INVESTIGATORS? IT MAKES IT THAT MUCH MORE DIFFICULT. >> THAT'S THE QUESTION WE HAVE ALL BEEN ASKING. WHY ARE YOU LYING? NOT THE PRESIDENT, BUT WE HAVE BEEN ASKING THAT QUESTION OVER AND OVER AGAIN. AS WE SEE PEOPLE BEING INDICTED. >> WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? WE ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO THE HEARING. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL IS STILL BEING QUESTIONED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. LET'S GO AHEAD AND LISTEN. >> LET ME GO ON TO THE NEXT QUESTION. I HOPE WE CAN CONTINUE THIS CONVERSATION AT ANOTHER TIME. YOU HAVE REFERRED TO THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT AS A BAD IDEA. AND NOT IN A LEGITIMATE INTEREST OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THESE ARE INVESTMENT THAT FUND SERVICES FOR VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC ABUSE AND SEXUAL ASSAULT. THAT MANY OF MY CONSTITUENTS, INCLUDING THOSE TRAPPED IN CYCLES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE, AND LOOKING FOR A WAY OUT RELY ON. UNDER A PUBLIC LEADERSHIP IN THE PREVIOUS CONGRESS, MAYBE I WILL WAIT A MINUTE. THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT WAS ALLOWED TO EXPIRE DESPITE BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. THANKFULLY LAST WEEK THE REAUTHORIZATION PAST THE HOUSE. AGAIN WITH BIPARTISAN SUPPORT. DURING YOUR CONFIRMATION HEARING YOU CHANGE YOUR POSITION AND SUPPORTED THE PROGRAMS, PLEDGING TO FAMILIARIZE YOURSELF WITH THE OFFICE ITS WORK IN ITS PROGRAM. I WAS DELIGHTED TO HEAR THAT. I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN KNOWING WHETHER YOU SUPPORT THE REAUTHORIZATION, AND DO SUPPORT THE HOUSE PASSED REAUTHORIZATION BILL? >> I DO SUPPORT THE REAUTHORIZATION OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN ACT. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE HOUSE BILL AND WHAT IS IN IT. I DO SUPPORT THE REAUTHORIZATION OF THAT PROVISION. LET ME SAY THAT TO THE EXTENT, I SAID SOMETHING AGAINST VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN STATUTE. I BELIEVE THAT WAS IN THE CONTEXT OF WHEN IT ORIGINALLY CAME UP. 2 1/2 DECADES AGO OR 30 YEARS AGO. SOMEWHERE IN THAT RANGE. WHAT I SAID WAS, AT THAT POINT IT WAS A SUBSTANTIVE LAW RELATED TO THE FEDERALIZE PENALTY OF ACTS AGAINST WOMEN. I THINK THAT IS WHAT MY CONCERN WITH MY -- THE VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN. I FULLY SUPPORT IT RIGHT NOW. AND THE VIOLENCE AGAINSTWOMEN. >> HIM DECIDED GLAD TO KNOW THAT THERE WAS GOOD BIPARTISAN SUPPORT FOR THE BILL. THANK YOU SIR. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR I MENTIONED EARLIER IN MY QUESTIONS ABOUT SEX AND HUMAN TRAFFICKING, ABOUT THE COORDINATION BETWEEN STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. AND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS IN COMBATING A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT AREAS OF CRIME. AND I WANTED YOU TO ADDRESS, IF YOU WOULD, THE OVERALL REDUCTION OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES GRANT PROGRAM. THE AMOUNT OF 533 MILLION. >> PART OF THAT, A BIG CHUNK IS THE REDUCTION IN TILL THE COPS GRANT PROGRAM. WHICH WAS IN THE 300 MILLIONS. WE ARE PUTTING IT DOWN TO 99 MILLION. THE 99 MILLION DOES COVER THE HIRING PART OF THE COPS GRANT PROGRAM. THAT TRANSLATES INTO THE CONTINUING HIRING OF STATE AND LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THE RATIONALE FOR NOT FUNDING THE REST OF COPS IS THAT IT IS ADDRESSED IN THE FUNDING THAT GOES TO THE FEDERAL OPIOID TASK FORCE AND OTHER TASK FORCES THAT THE STATES CAN PARTICIPATE ON, AND GET IN ON AND GET PAID BY THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE PART OF A FEDERAL STATE COOPERATIVE TASK FORCE. IT IS REORIENTING THE SPENDING TOWARDS THOSE JOINT TASK FORCES VERSUS FUNDING PURELY STATE TASK FORCES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING OUT ABOUT THE OTHER GRANT MONEY? >> THE APPARENT REDUCTIONS IN THE 2020 REQUEST, ONE REASON THE GRANT DOLLARS LOOK SMALLER IS AT THE OFFICE OF VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN IS PROPOSED TO BE MOVED INTO MANDATORY FUNDING ACCOUNT. WHERE WE THINK IT CAN INSURE THERE IS AVAILABLE MONEY FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS, TO $493 MILLION WE HAVE FOR VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN PROGRAMS. THERE IS ALSO AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE CRIME VICTIMS MONEY. THE OBLIGATION LIMIT THEIR GOES DOWN BY ABOUT $1 BILLION. OVER THE LAST TWO YEARS THAT IS AN AREA THAT HAS RECEIVED 1 BILLION AND HAS RECEIVED 10 BILLION OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS. OVERALL WE STILL HAVE OVER $4.3 BILLION IN GRANT PROGRAMS PROPOSED IN THIS BUDGET. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TALKED ABOUT THE IMPACT ON COPS. $4.3 BILLION IS WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR YOUR HELP ON AND SUPPORTING THIS YEAR'S BUDGET. >> THANK YOU. THE AREA THAT I REPRESENT IS HOME TO A LARGE NUMBER OF RETIREES. I AM INCREASINGLY CONCERNED WITH THE ELDERLY BEING TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF BY SCAMMERS AND CONMEN. ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE RISE OF TECHNOLOGY IN SOCIAL MEDIA. I AM SURE YOU ARE AWARE OF THIS PROBLEM. AGAIN, AS ALWAYS WHAT DEFICIENCIES MAY EXIST. YOU NEED MORE RESOURCES TO HELP. >> IN AREA OF FRAUD IT IS A VAST AREA OF LAW ENFORCEMENT THAT I HAVE ALWAYS FELT IS IMPORTANT TO FOCUS ON THE SLEEPING GIANTS. WHEN I WAS ATTORNEY GENERAL LAST TIME IT WAS HEALTHCARE. THAT WAS IN FACT THE SLEEPING GIANT. THIS TIME I'M TRYING TO FOCUS ON ELDER FRAUD. WHICH IS SUDDENLY WALKING INTO A MAJOR AREA. OF CRIMINALITY. THE RISE IS BECAUSE OF A CONCAVE NATION OF EVENTS. INCLUDING THE BABY BOOMERS OF THE LARGER ELDER POPULATION. AND THE INTERNET AND THE NEW TECHNOLOGIES, AND SOME OF THE INCREASED LONELINESS THAT MANY ELDER PEOPLE UNFORTUNATELY EXPERIENCE LATER IN LIFE. THIS IS MUSHROOMED. AS I THINK ANYONE WHOSE PHONE RINGS OVER THE WEEKEND WITH THE SCAMMERS KNOWS MORE AND MORE OF THESE SCAMS ARE COMING ALONG. WE HAVE A MAJOR EFFORT IN THIS AREA AND WE HAVE ONE PERSON IN THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DEPUTIES OFFICE FOCUSED ON ELDER CARE ENFORCEMENT. AND THE TASK FORCE BEING SET UP TO DEAL WITH THAT. IN MARCH WE HAD A BIG NATIONAL SWEEP. WHERE WE INDICTED 200 DEFENDANTS INVOLVED IN THESE VARIOUS SCAMS. A LOT OF THESE SCAMS ARE PERPETRATED WITHIN THE UNITED STATES. INCREASINGLY THEY ARE ACTUALLY OPERATED BY INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS. A LOT OF THEM COME OUT OF INDIA. THERE ARE SIGNS THAT ORGANIZED CRIME, NOT LOWER COAST I KNOW STRUCK BUT OTHER CRIMES ARE GETTING INTO THESE AREAS. THE LOSSES ARE SUBSTANTIAL. THIS IS A POPULATION THAT DOESN'T HAVE A RUNWAY TO RECOVER WHEN THEY LOSE THEIR LIFE SAVINGS. WE ARE RATCHETING UP THE EFFORT. WE HAVE HAD TWO ANNUAL SWEEPS. WITH TREMENDOUS RESULTS. I HAVE SAID I HAVE A STRIKE FORCE TO GO AFTER THE LARGE ORGANIZED CRIMINAL ORGANIZATIONS WE THINK ARE BEHIND THIS. >> THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> ATTORNEY GENERAL BAR I WOULD LIKE TO FINISH UP OUR DISCUSSION OF THE HEALTHCARE LAW. OF REPUBLICAN COLLEAGUES IN THE SENATE, IN PARTICULAR SENATOR McCONNELL, HAVE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF INTRODUCING, LET ALONE PASSING A NEW HEALTHCARE LAW. A NEW HEALTHCARE PLAN FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT TWO YEARS. APPARENTLY THAT VIEW HAS BEEN PREVAILED UPON THE WHITE HOUSE AND THE PRESIDENT HAS ACCEPTED IT. MY QUESTION IS WE HAVE ALREADY DISCUSSED THE DEVASTATING EFFECTS. IF THIS LAWSUIT WINS, AND REPEALS THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. GIVEN THE POSITION OF THE SENATE REPUBLICANS AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF OPPOSING IT AND ANY PROGRESS ON HEALTH CARE FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS, IF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES WERE TO GRANT CRETINS TO YOUR POSITION AND SWEEP AWAY THE HEALTHCARE LAW, EITHER IN PART OR IN ENTIRETY, WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE SUPPORT A STAY OF THE EFFECT OF THAT RULING UNTIL CONGRESS, THE PRESIDENT, THIS NATION CAN FORMULATE A PLAN PROPERLY TO SUPPLANT THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT? >> YOU'RE ASKING ME TO SPECULATE WHETHER OR NOT THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION IS GOING TO PREVAIL IN COURT. AND BEYOND THAT, WHETHER IT DOES PREVAIL IN COURT WHEN THAT IS AND ALSO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WILL BE LEGISLATIVE RESPONSE IF IN FACT WE DO PREVAIL. >> THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. IF QUESTIONS ARE PROPER IN THIS ROOM ATTORNEY GENERAL. IF YOU WIN THE CASE WILL YOU AGREE THAT WE OUGHT TO STAY THE EFFECT OF THAT UNTIL A NEW PLAN CAN GO IN PLACE? RATHER THAN STRAND ALL THE PEOPLE WITH PRE-EXISTING CONDITIONS AND ALL THE PEOPLE WHOSE HEALTHCARE WILL LAPSE BECAUSE OF THAT RULING? >> FROM MY EXPERIENCE THE SUPREME COURT WOULD LIKELY DEAL WITH THAT IN THEIR OPINION AND PROVIDE SOME KIND OF PERIOD TO WIND IT DOWN. >> YOU WANT TO DO A SUA SPONTE ON THEIR OWN MOTION FROM NO PROMPTING FROM THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, IS THAT IT? >> I DID NOT SAY THAT. WHATEVER THE ADMINISTRATION'S POSITION IS AT THAT POINT WILL CARRY OUT. AND FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT. >> I'M DISMAYED THAT YOU ARE WILLING TO DRIVE OUR HEALTHCARE SYSTEM OFF THE CLIFF WITH NO THING TO REPLACE IT WITH. >> WE TAKE LEGAL POSITIONS IN CASES. >> AM GOING TO FOLLOW THAT UP. NUMEROUS REPORTS HAVE INDICATED THAT YOU THE CHIEF LAWYER FOR THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND SECRETARY AZOR WHO IS THE LEAD ON HEALTHCARE POLICY FOR A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT STRONGLY ARGUED AGAINST SUPPORTING THE COMPLETE REPEAL OF THE PATIENT PROTECTION AND AFFORDABLE CARE ACT. REPORTS INDICATE YOU AND SECRETARY AZOR WERE OVERRULED BY ACTING CHIEF OF STAFF MICK MULVANEY AND THE PRESIDENT HIMSELF. AT ANY POINT DID YOU CONVEY TO MR. MULVANEY OR THE PRESIDENT ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECTS OF THIS LAWSUIT PREVAILING, IF IT DOES, OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE DUBIOUS LEGAL ARGUMENTS IN THIS LAWSUIT. DID SECRETARY AZOR COMMUNICATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE EFFECTS ON HER AMERICAN HEALTHCARE SYSTEM? >> I'M NOT GOING TO GET INTO THE INTERNAL DELIBERATIONS OF THE ADMINISTRATION AT THIS POINT. I HAD AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT MY VIEWS. I BELIEVE THE FINAL DECISION REACHED IS A LEGALLY POSITION. IT'S A POSITION THAT PREVAILED IN THE DISTRICT COURT. IT IS POSITION TAKEN BY THE FOUR JUSTICES IN THE NFIB CASE. WHICH IS ONCE YOU DO AWAY WITH THE MANDATE, THE REST OF THE STATUTE CANNOT STAND. >> ARE YOU CITING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE BUT DECLINING TO TELL ME ABOUT THE DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN YOU, MR. AZOR AND MR. MULVANEY. >> CALL IT WHAT YOU WISH. I'M NOT REFUSING TO DISCUSS IT. >> IT IS A DECISION THAT MAKES CONTRADICTIONS. IT CONTRADICTS THE DOJ'S 2018 POSITION. IT WAS CONTROVERSIAL THEN, THAT THREE OF THE FOUR CAREER ATTORNEYS REPRESENTING THE GOVERNMENT REFUSED TO SIGN ONTO THE BRIEFS AND REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM THE CASE. THE AMERICAN PEOPLE DESIRE TO UNDERSTAND SECRETARY AZOR SUPPORT THIS LAWSUIT BASED ON SOUND RATIONALE, OR IF IT WAS JUST A BALD POLITICS TALKING. REQUESTING THAT YOU SUBMIT THIS ASSERTION TO THE COMMITTEE IF THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE DOING. DON'T ASK US TO CALL IT WHAT IT IS. I'M ASKING YOU, IF YOU ARE EXACTED EXERCISING EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE WE NEED TO KNOW IT AND WE NEED TO KNOW IN WRITING. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. AND ATTORNEY GENERAL BARR. YOU MENTIONED CYBER SECURITY IN YOUR TESTIMONY. BEING THAT THE FBI IS THE LEAD FEDERAL AGENCY FOR INVESTIGATING CYBER ATTACKS BY CRIMINALS, OVERSEAS ADVERSARIES AND TERRORISTS, THE THREAT IS SERIOUS AND GROWING. CYBER INTRUSION IS MORE DANGEROUS AND MORE SOPHISTICATED. TARGETS INCLUDE CRITICAL INFRASTRUCTURE TRADE SECRETS AND CUTTING-EDGE R&D. IDENTITY THEFT AS WELL AS ONLINE PREDATORS ETC. MY COLLEAGUES ON THE LEFT ARE CHASING SHODDY OBJECTS I BELIEVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT US TO ADDRESS THE REAL PHYSICAL AND FINANCIAL THREATS THAT EXIST IN THE REAL WORLD. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE GROWING THREAT AND MAYBE PROVIDE SOME SCENARIOS THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED WITH? CALL OUT SOME OF THESE FOREIGN OVERSEAS ADVERSARIES. WHAT IS THE FBI DOING TO TRANSFORM ITSELF AND PROTECT úA >> YOU ARE CORRECT. THE CYBER THREAT IS A SERIOUS AND GROWING THREAT OBVIOUSLY. IT IS A THREAT TO OUR INTELLECTUAL CAPITAL. ENTER TRADE SECRETS. THEREFORE OUR ECONOMIC HEALTH. IT IS A THREAT TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. IT EXPOSES SOME OF OUR FUNDAMENTAL INFRASTRUCTURE TO DISRUPTION. WE HAVE HEARD ABOUT THE ATTEMPT TO PENETRATE INTO ELECTION INFRASTRUCTURE. THE FBI IS RECEIVING 72 -- $70 MILLION. TO UPGRADE AND ENHANCE THEIR CYBER TOOLS AND CAPABILITIES. A TOTAL OF $72 MILLION IS IN THE BUDGET. IN TERMS OF EMERGING THREATS, AS YOU KNOW WE HAVE A CHINA INITIATIVE IN THE DEPARTMENT BECAUSE CHINA POSES A SERIOUS THREAT TO THE UNITED STATES. IN TERMS OF ECONOMIC ESPIONAGE. AS WELL AS CLASSICAL ESPIONAGE. A LOT OF THAT DOES USE CYBER TOOLS AND THREATS. IT INVOLVES CYBER THREATS TO THE UNITED STATES. WE ARE FOCUSED ON THAT. AS WELL AS NOT JUST THE INDUSTRIAL ESPIONAGE, BUT ALSO THE USE OF NONTRADITIONAL COLLECTORS. THAT THE CHINESE ARE ABLE TO MARSHAL WITHIN THE UNITED STATES BY CO-OPTING CHINESE NATIONALS WHO MAY BE WORKING IN UNIVERSITIES OR LABORATORIES. IT IS A BROAD GAUGE THREAT. PROBABLY OUR HIGHEST PRIORITY AT THIS POINT. N TERMS OF DEALING WITH COUNTERESPIONAGE. >> WE HAVE OVER $750 MILLION OVERALL IN OUR BUDGET. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL MENTIONED A $72 MILLION INCREASE. THE 70 MILLION IS THE FBI. THE SMALLER PIECES ONLY $2 MILLION. IT WILL HAVE A LOT OF BANG FOR ITS BUCK. IT'S MONEY PUT INTO THE JUSTICE SECURITY OPERATION CENTER. THAT ALLOWS US TO PROTECT HER OWN NETWORKS FROM INTRUSIONS. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE AGENCIES PROTECT THEIR OWN NETWORKS. >> WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE FBI'S WORK ON THIS. ARE UNIVERSITIES ARE COMING UP WITH CUTTING-EDGE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGIES TO SEE THEM STOLEN BY OUR ADVERSARIES. THEY DID NOT WORK HARD TO CREATE IT AND THEY TAKE IT FROM US. WE ARE WASTING TAXPAYER DOLLARS. WHEN I FIRST CAME TO CONGRESS I WAS ON THE ARMED SERVICE COMMITTEE. MANY OF THE GENERALS AND ADMIRALS, SAID THEY HAVE SEVERAL THREATS THAT THEY ARE CONCERNED WITH. ONE THAT WAS REOCCURRING WAS OUR CYBER THREATS. KNOCKING OUT OUR POWER GRIDS AND CRIPPLING US AND OUR FINANCIAL MARKETS. THAT WOULD CREATE MASSIVE AMOUNTS OF CHAOS. THIS IS WHY I THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN HAVING THIS CONVERSATION. MAKING SURE THAT THE FBI IS USING THEIR RESOURCES AND THE PROTECTION AND THE SECURITY OF AMERICA. INTO KNOW NOW THAT TECHNOLOGICAL GAP BETWEEN SOME OF US AND OUR OVERSEAS ADVERSARIES. WHERE WAS 25 OR 30 OR 40 YEARS IS NOW WE ARE NECK AND NECK. THAT IS A TRUTH THREAT TO OUR ECONOMY AS WELL AS OUR NATIONAL SECURITY. ATTORNEY GENERAL THANK YOU. THINK YOUR TEAM AT THE FBI FOR KEEPING AMERICA SAFE. >> THANK YOU. ATTORNEY GENERAL I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THE ANSWERS TO MY QUESTIONS. I WANT TO CONFIRM IN RELATION TO COMMUNICATION WITH THE WHITE HOUSE OR ANY OF ITS TEAM. YOU ARE ANSWERING THAT FOR BOTH MARCH 24 AND MARCH 29 LETTERS, CORRECT? >> YES. >> YOU BROUGHT UP AN IMPORTANT TOPIC IN MY DISTRICT AND MANY OF MY COLLEAGUES DISTRICTS ABOUT ELDER FRAUD. LAST YEAR I HAD A PIECE OF LEGISLATION SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT TRUMP. SUPPORTED BY CONGRESSMAN BARTON AND LANCE AT THE TIME. BASICALLY TARGETING AND ALLOWING THE UNITED STATES TO PROSECUTE THOSE CALLS THAT YOU MENTIONED THAT WERE COMING FROM OUTSIDE OF THE UNITED STATES. WE WERE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE THE LEGISLATION SIGNED. HOWEVER, OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, IN OUR CASE THE NYPD IS HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME IN TERMS OF ACTUALLY CATCHING AND FIGURING OUT WHO THESE PERPETRATORS ARE. I DO NOT KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER IDEAS ON HOW WE CAN APPROACH THIS, AND IN GENERAL IN THE FUTURE. I WOULD LOVE TO WORK WITH YOUR OFFICE IN THIS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO DO THAT CONGRESSWOMAN. THAT IS EXACTLY WHY I SET UP THE STRIKEFORCE. I THINK WE NEED TO GET OURSELVES TO A HIGHER LEVEL OF SOPHISTICATION IN PURSUING THESE CRIMES. WHILE THEY MIGHT APPEAR TO THE VICTIM TO BE SORT OF NOT VERY SOPHISTICATED THEY ARE IN FACT VERY SOPHISTICATED. WE HAVE TO GET BACK TO THE PEOPLE BEHIND THE SCAM. WE HAVE TO USE OUR OUR TOOLS AND OUR TREATY TOOLS AND OUR COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS WITH THE ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITIES IN OTHER COUNTRIES TO GET THE INFORMATION THAT WE NEED. >> YOU CAN HELP US AND OUR BUDGET ON THIS. WE HAVE $611,000 IN THE CIVIL DIVISION'S BUDGET AND THE CONSUMER PROTECTION BRANDS. THEY DO A LOT OF ELDER FRAUD WORK. WE SURE COULD USE THAT MONEY IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET TO HELP THE CIVIL DIVISION CONTINUE ITS WORK IN THE ELDER FRAUD AREA. >> THANK YOU. MY SECOND QUESTION >> I HAVE ASKED TO PUT TOGETHER A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL LEGISLATIVE PROPOSALS THAT WOULD GIVE US MORE TOOLS IN THIS AREA. AS WELL AS MORE EFFECTIVE PENALTIES. I THINK THAT IS BEING DONE. I WILL BE PROPOSING THEM. I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE THEM TO YOU ONCE WE ARE DONE. >> THANK YOU. I WANTED TO ASK ABOUT SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS. LAST NOVEMBER JUDGE RAMOS OF THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK SAID THE TRUMP ADMINISTRATION CANNOT COMPEL STATES AND CITIES TO COOPERATE WITH FEDERAL IMMIGRATION AUTHORITIES AS A CONDITION FOR RECEIVING LAW ENFORCEMENT FUNDS. SUCH AS BERT AND JACK. ANOTHER WORD JUDGE RAMOS ORDERED THE ADMINISTRATION TOWARD FISCAL YEAR 2017 FUNDS WITHOUT CONDITION AND BECAME THE FOURTH FEDERAL JUDGE TO RULE AGAINST THE ADMINISTRATION ON THIS ISSUE. THE DEPARTMENT JUSTICE 2018- 2022 STRATEGIC PLAN STATES THAT YOU INTEND TO AND SANCTUARY JURISDICTIONS. WHAT IS THE PLAN? HOW DO YOU INTEND TO CONTINUE WITH THESE CONDITIONS? FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 19 GRAMS? >> WE HAVE BEEN LISTENING TO THE HEARING THERE IN THE HOUSE APPROPRIATIONS COMMITTEE. WILLIAM BARR IS TESTIFYING BEFORE CONGRESS. THEY BEEN ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THE MUELLER REPORT. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPECTS TO RELEASE THE REPORT WITHIN A WEEK. ANOTHER MEETING HAPPENED IN WASHINGTON. LAWMAKERS AND JUDICIARY COMMITTEE ARE DISCUSSING HATE CRIMES IN THE UNITED STATES IN REFERENCE TO WHITE NATIONALISM. >> IN THE LAST 10 YEARS, ABOUT 23% OF THE EXTREMISTS MURDERS DOMESTICALLY HAVE BEEN PERPETRATED BY PEOPLE WHO ADHERE TO A RADICAL INTERPRETATION OF ISLAM. THE REASON I UNDERSTAND WE ARE HAVING THIS PARTICULAR PANEL, THIS PARTICULAR HEARING, IS THAT WE ARE SEEING IN THE LAST THREE YEARS IS A RESURGENCE. <font color="#FF00FF"><u>OST OF THE CRIMES ARE FROM </u></font> RIGHT-WING EXTREMISTS. >> THAT IS TRUE. TO HAVE ANY RECORD OF PEOPLE OF THE MUSLIM FAITH GOING AND DOING TERRORIST ACTS AND KILLING JUICE? >> YES, AND SOME YEARS BEFORE. >> WIN? >> I BELIEVE THERE WAS A GROUP A FEW YEARS AGO, A GENTLEMAN A FEW YEARS AGO WHO KILLED PEOPLE WHO HE THOUGHT WERE JEWISH. >> WAS THAT IN KANSAS CITY? >> NO, IT WASN'T A HOUSE. THE RECENT JCC ONES WERE A VERY TROUBLED JEWISH ISRAELI BOMB THREATS. >> THERE AREN'T THAT MANY CASES. YOU CAN'T REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS OR WHERE WAS. >> THERE ARE NOT MANY CASES IN THE U.S. RECENTLY. >> THAT'S ENOUGH. WE ARE RUNNING OUT OF TIME. IT PRESIDENT TRUMP WOULD'VE CAME OUT AFTER CHARLOTTESVILLE DO THINK THAT WOULD'VE HELPED IN THE ATMOSPHERE OF WHITE PEOPLE STANDING UP AND SAYING WHITE NATIONALISM IS SOMETHING BAD? >> ABSOLUTELY. THE BULLY PLATFORM HAS TO BE USED TO TEMPT THIS DOWN AND TO CALL OUT WHERE WE ARE SEEING EXTREMIST. >> MY TIME IS LIMITED. LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION MR. POTTS, TWITTER HAS AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A PERSON TO REPORT A TWEET. IF WE THINK IT IS ABUSIVE OR HARMFUL OR HATEFUL ETC. DOES FACEBOOK HAVE THAT ABILITY? DO THEY MAKE IT EASY FOR PEOPLE TO DO? >> THE WITNESS MAY ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE TIME HAS EXPIRED. >> WE HAVE A SIMILAR ABILITY. IT IS FAIRLY EASY TO DO, TO REPORT THOSE. WE ALSO USE OUR TOOLS. >> HE WILL BACK THE REMAINDER OF MY TIME. >> THE GENTLEMAN FROM TEXAS, MR. GOMER? >> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE WITNESSES BEING HERE. I THINK WE ALL AGREE. NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO SUFFER LIKE ANY OF YOU HAVE, YOUR CHILDREN, FAMILY MEMBERS, NOBODY SHOULD. IT IS OUTRAGEOUS. IN THIS EFFORT OF TRYING TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER, AND GO BACK TO THE WORDS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN. AT LEAST IT IS ATTRIBUTED. IF YOU LOOK FOR THE BAD AND PEOPLE EXPECTING TO FIND IT YOU MOST SURELY WILL. IF YOU LOOK FOR THE GOOD IN PEOPLE YOU WILL ONLY FIND SOMETHING. I WANT TO ASK MR. KLEIN, WHAT ARE YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT PRESIDENT TRUMP'S REMARKS REGARDING THE CHARLOTTESVILLE DEMONSTRATION? WHERE HE IS QUOTED AS SAYING YOU ALSO HAD SOME VERY FINE PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES. >> AM GLAD YOU ASKED THAT. THE MEDIA HAS COMPLETELY DISTORTED THE TRUTH OF THAT EPISODE. WHAT HE MEANT AND HE SAID SO WHEN HE SAID IS THAT THERE ARE FINE PEOPLE WHO WANT TO GET RID OF ROBERT E LEE STATUE AND THERE ARE FIVE PEOPLE WHO ARE NOT HATERS WHO BELIEVE FOR HISTORICAL REASONS THEY WANT TO KEEP THAT STATUE. HE MADE THAT CLEAR. IN THE SAME BREATH PRESIDENT TRUMP SAID QUOTE, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE NEO-NAZIS AND THE WHITE NATIONALIST WHEN I SAY FINE PEOPLE. THEY SHOULD BE CONDEMNED TOTALLY. IF THE MEDIA HAS NEVER MADE THAT CLEAR THAT IN THAT STATEMENT HE CONDEMN NEO-NAZIS AND WHITE NATIONALIST. HE DID NOT MEAN THEY WERE FINE PEOPLE. QUITE THE CONTRARY. HE IS DISGUSTED BY THOSE PEOPLE. >> THANK YOU. THE DAY WHEN MARTIN LUTHER KING JR.'S DREAM IS A REALITY. WHERE WE JUDGE PEOPLE BY THE CONTENT OF THEIR CHARACTER AND NOT THE COLOR OF THEIR SKIN. I AM AMAZED HOW MANY TIMES WHEN THERE IS AN OBJECTION TO SOMETHING SOMEONE SAYS THAT IF THE PERSON MAKING THE OBJECTIONABLE COMMENT HAPPENS TO BE BLACK OR JEWISH, THEN YOU ARE A RACIST. OR YOU ARE ANTI-SEMI. I HAVE BEEN AMAZED MR. KLEIN. THE DEFAMATION LEAGUE HAS CALLED YOU, AS I UNDERSTAND, A JEWISH PERSON TO BE ANTI- JEWISH. IT IS INTERESTING. LET ME TELL YOU WHAT MR. POTTS, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE YOUR NOBLE SERVICE TO OUR COUNTRY. FACEBOOK OWNS INSTAGRAM, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DO -- DOES INSTAGRAM HAVE THE SAME STANDARDS AS FACEBOOK? >> FOR THE MOST PART, THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENCES. >> I AM TOLD I CAN HAVE THIS SCREENSHOT OF THE BACK. REPORT AS VIOLENCE OR THREAT OF VIOLENCE. TALKS ABOUT PHOTOS AND EXTREME GRAPHIC PAGES. THERE'S A SECOND SCREENSHOT IF I COULD SEE THAT. HERE YOU HAVE SOMEONE THAT IS CALLING AND WOULD CRUSH THE UNITED STATES UNDER OUR FEET. THAT WAS REPORTED. WITHIN ONE MINUTE THE REPORT CAME BACK FROM INSTAGRAM THAT THERE IS NO PROBLEM HERE. BASICALLY'S BASICALLY JUST MOVE ON. IF YOU ARE GOING TO ENFORCE THE STANDARDS WHY ARE THEY SO QUICKLY ENFORCED? ERRONEOUSLY ENFORCED AGAINST PEOPLE LIKE MY FRIENDS DIAMOND AND SILK. I ASKED THEM RECENTLY WHEN I SAW THEM ARE YOU STILL HAVING TROUBLE WITH FACEBOOK? THEY SAID NOW ANYTIME WE SAY SOMETHING NICE ABOUT DONALD TRUMP WE SPENT FOREVER JUST TRYING TO PROVE THAT WE ARE NOT A RUSSIAN ROBOT. THEY SENT US THROUGH ALL KINDS OF THINGS JUST TO KEEP USING THE SERVICE. HERE YOU HAVE PEOPLE THAT AS A RESULT OF THEIR MISUNDERSTANDING AND THEIR OWN RELIGION, THEY WANT TO CRUSH THE UNITED STATES. THEY THINK OF US AS THE BIG SATAN AND ISRAEL IS THE LITTLE SATAN. I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AND WHY SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO DESTROY THE UNITED STATES AND KILL EVERYONE IN THIS ROOM GETS A PASS WHEN OTHERS DON'T? I WOULD WELCOME ANY EXPLANATION YOU CAN FIND FOR THAT. >> I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT EXAMPLE. >> I KNOW THAT IT JUST HAPPENED. >> I BE HAPPY TO GET THAT BACK TO MY TEAM. ANY CALLS OF VIOLENCE THAT TARGET PEOPLE OFF OF THEIR ETHNICITY OR NATIONALITY, WE WOULD REMOVE IT. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT CASE. IT DOES GO AGAINST OUR PRINCIPLES AND OUR STAND. >> THE TIME IS EXPIRED. >> GENTLEMAN FROM GEORGIA, MR. JOHNSON? >> MISS WALDEN MANY WHITE NATIONALIST HAVE USED MISS INFORMATION PROPAGANDA TO RADICALIZE SOCIAL MEDIA USERS. HOW IS YOU TWO WORKING TO STOP THE SPREAD OF FAR RIGHT CONSPIRACIES INTENT ON SKEWING USERS PERCEPTIONS OF FACT AND FICTION? >> THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. MOST RECENTLY WE HAVE MADE UPDATES TO A RECOMMENDATION ALGORITHM. THE CONTENT THAT IS ON THE BORDERLINE IS NOT PUSHED OUT THROUGH OUR RECOMMENDATION SYSTEM. CONTENT THAT VIOLATES OUR GUIDELINES, WHICH PROHIBIT ANYTHING THAT PROMOTES AND VIOLENCE AGAINST INDIVIDUALS OR GROUPS, OR PROMOTES HATRED AGAINST INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS BASED ON THEIR CHARACTERISTICS. INCLUDING RACE AND GENDER AND RELIGION. ALL OF THAT CONTENT IS VIOLATIVE OF OUR COMMUNITY GUIDELINES. CONTENT ON THE BORDER IS CONTENT WE NO LONGER INCOMPLETE INCLUDE IN OUR ALGORITHM. WE DO OUR BEST TO ENSURE THAT CONTENT THAT IS ON THE BORDER ISN'T FULLY DISTRIBUTED ACROSS THE PLATFORM. >> THANK YOU. MR. POTTS WHILE FACEBOOK HAS WORKED TO STOP THE SPREAD OF THE NEW ZEALAND VIDEO ON ITS PLATFORM, THREE DAYS LATER THE VIDEO WAS STILL SPREADING FREELY , ON FACEBOOK'S ENCRYPTED MESSAGING SERVICE. WHAT'S APP DOES NOT HAVE A WAY OF TRACKING OR PREVENTING THE SPREAD OF VIDEOS LIKE THE NEW ZEALAND VIDEO. WHAT IS FACEBOOK DOING TO FIX THIS ISSUE AND PREVENT WHAT'S APP TO BEING USED TO SPREAD HATE SPEECH? >> THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN. ON FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM WE TOOK IMMEDIATE ACTION TOWARDS THAT VIDEO. ONCE WE WERE MADE AWARE WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THE VIDEO WITH IN 10 MINUTES. WE WERE ABLE TO LEVERAGE OUR ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BY PRODUCING A DIGITAL FINGERPRINT AS MISS WALDEN EXPLAINED EARLIER. TO PREVENT AN ADDITIONAL 1.5 MILLION UPLOADS. WE WERE ABLE TO FIND 300,000 ADDITIONAL UPLOADS OF THAT VIDEO WITHIN THE FIRST 24 HOURS. ONE OF THE ISSUES IN THIS CASE IS THAT THERE ARE VERY MANY VARIANCES OF THIS VIDEO. TO YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE POLICIES THAT GO TOWARDS CONTENT? THEY ARE COMMITTED TO WORKING WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT. THEY DO OFTEN. >> THANK YOU MR. POTTS. BOTS ARE USED TO MANIPULATE AND AMPLIFY SPEECH ON SOCIAL MEDIA PLATFORMS INCLUDING CONSPIRACY THEORIES AND HATE BASED INFORMATION. HOW IS FACEBOOK WORKING TO MITIGATE THE POWER OF THE BOTS THAT AMPLIFY MISINFORMATION CAMPAIGNS AND PROMOTE THEM TO TRENDING ON ITS PLATFORM? >> THANK YOU CONGRESSMAN. FACEBOOK WE TALK ABOUT BOTS WE TALK ABOUT INAUTHENTIC úBEHAVIO WE PASSED OUR BEHAVIOR POLICY. TO GET TO THE ROOT OF THE CAUSE. WHICH ARE NETWORKS OF FAKE ACCOUNTS OF AUTHENTIC PEOPLE WORKING IN CONCERT TO HIDE WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY ARE DOING AND WHAT THEIR INTENTIONS ARE. OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YEAR WE HAVE TAKEN DOWN MULTIPLE NETWORKS. WELL INTO THE DOUBLE DIGITS. RANGING GLOBALLY. THROUGHOUT THE WORLD, SOME WITH FISCAL MOTIVES AND SOMEWHAT OTHER MOTIVES. IT WILL BE A PRIORITY GOING FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. MY DEEPEST CONDOLENCES TO YOU ON THE LOSS OF YOUR THREE CHILDREN. DOES ISLAM TEACH MUSLIMS TO HATE JEWISH PEOPLE? >> ABSOLUTELY NOT. I AM PRACTICING MUSLIM. IT PROHIBITS HATING ANYONE OF ANY FAITH OR NATIONALITY. ACTUALLY IN THE CARRON IT SAYS THAT KILLING ANY HUMAN BEING IS LIKE KILLING HUMANITY. AND REVIVING US ALL IS SURVIVING HUMANITY. I HAVE TO TELL YOU THAT IN THE MIDDLE EAST, WHERE I COME FROM, MUSLIM CHRISTIANS AND PEACEFULLY TOGETHER FOR CENTURIES AND CENTURIES. ONLY INTERRUPTED BY POLITICS AT TIMES OR INVASIONS AND DIVISION. WHAT YOU HEAR IN THE MEDIA IS SOMETIMES RADICAL MUSLIMS. WE IN AMERICA AND OUR MOSQUES ARE GROWING AND EVOLVING. O WHERE WE HAVE A PROCE CHOOSING, AND ELECTING OUR BOARD MEMBERS IN THE MOSQUES. WE HAVE POLICY TO KEEP RADICALISM OUTSIDE OF OUR MOSQUES IN OUR COUNTRY TOO. >> THANK YOU. I WILL NOTE THE TENDER WAY AND WHICH BOTH MISS PATTERSON AND MISS HERSCHEL BOTH SHARED YOUR PAIN ABOUT THE LOSS OF YOUR THREE CHILDREN. MY HEART GOES OUT TO OUR NATION FOR THE PAIN THAT IT HAS COLLECTIVELY DUE TO RAMPANT VIOLENCE BASED ON HATE. >> MAY I ADD ONE LINE ONLY. AFTER THE TRAGEDY THE FUNERAL WAS ABOUT 6000 PEOPLE OF BLACK, WHITE, JEWISH, CHRISTIAN, EVEN THE ATHEIST COMMUNITY DENOUNCE THE CRIME. IT WAS A SCENE THAT WAS AMERICAN ACTUALLY. >> THANK YOU. FOR YOUR NEXT WITNESS AND YOUR NEXT MEMBER WE HAVE RECEIVED A NUMBER OF STATEMENTS THAT WILL BE INCLUDING IN THE HEARING RECORD. I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO READ ALL THE NAMES OF THE ORGANIZATIONS BECAUSE THEY ARE NUMEROUS. THEY INCLUDE THE LEADERSHIP CONFERENCE FOR HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS, THE SIMON WIESENTHAL CENTER. THAT ALL THE STATEMENTS WE HAVE RECEIVED BE INCLUDED IN THE RECORD. TO ENTER INTO THE RECORD THE LETTER TO THE COMMITTEE FROM THE NAACP REQUESTING THAT WE CONDUCT THIS HEARING IN THE FIRST PLACE. AGAIN WITHOUT OBJECTION. GENTLEMAN FROM COLORADO. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN. I WILL DIRECT THESE QUESTIONS TO YOU IF I MAY. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU HAVE SEEN THIS. IT'S A MEMORANDUM THAT THE MAJORITY OF DEMOCRATS PREPARE FOR THE COMMITTEE MEMBERS, AND IN THIS MEMORANDUM THEY GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS WITNESS NAMES AND ORGANIZATIONS THAT THEY REPRESENT. THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE AND THE LEGAL JUSTICE SOCIETY, THE LAWYERS COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW. THEN WE GET TO YOU. OH MY GOODNESS, CANDACE OWENS, DIRECTORS OF COMMUNICATIONS AT THE CONSERVATIVE, NOBODY ELSE IS PRESCRIBED DESCRIBED AS PROGRESSIVE OR LIBERAL. YOU ARE DESCRIBED AS A -- AND A CONSERVATIVE COMMENTATOR. AND POLITICAL ACTIVIST KNOWN FOR HER CRITICISM OF BLACK LIVES MATTER IN THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. I THINK YOU HAVE CAUSED MY FRIENDS ON THE LEFT TO GO TO THEIR SAFE SPACES. I WOULD LOVE TO EXPLORE WITH YOU A LITTLE BIT OF THE REASON FOR THAT. TO CONSIDER YOURSELFA CONSERVATIVE? >> I AM A CONSERVATIVE. >> ARE YOU PRO-LIFE? >> I AM. IT MAKES THEM VERY UPSET. DEMOCRATS HATE ME. >> DO YOU OWN A GUN? >> NO SIR. >> NEXT TIME YOU COME TO COLORADO WE WILL TAKE YOU SHOOTING. ARE YOU A CHRISTIAN? >> YES I AM. >> ARE YOU PROUD OF YOUR FAMILY? >> NO VERY PROUD OF MY FAMILY. >> DO YOU HATE AMERICANS WITH BLACK SKIN COLOR? >> ACTUALLY NOT. I WILLING TO FALL ON A SWORD 1000 TIMES FOR THEM TO WAKE UP TO REALIZE WE ARE BEING LIED TO BY THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. >> DO YOU HATE HISPANICS? >> I DO NOT. >> DO YOU HATE ASIANS? >> I DO NOT. >> DO HATE LESBIANS OR ? >> NOPE. I HAVE ALL OF THAT IN MY FAMILY. >> I'M BAFFLED BECAUSE IN THE CHAIRMAN'S OPENING STATEMENT HE SAID YOU OPENLY ASSOCIATE WITH PURVEYORS OF HATE. >> PURVEYORS OF HATE BY HIS DEFINITION IS ANYONE THAT SUPPORTS THE PRESIDENT. I SUPPORT THE PRESIDENT BECAUSE HE HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB HELPING THE BLACK COMMUNITY. >> TELL ME ABOUT HOW THE PRESIDENT HAS HELPED THE BLACK COMMUNITY? >> HE HAS LOWERED THE BLACK UNEMPLOYMENT RATE. HE IS GETTING US OFF OF OUR FEET. THE LAST NUMBER I CHECKED WAS 3.5 MILLION PEOPLE ARE OFF OF FOOD STAMPS. SOMETHING THAT THE BLACK CAUCUS THEY WANT A SYSTEM WHERE BLACKS ARE DEPENDENT ON THE GOVERNMENT. THEY ARE PEOPLE THAT PUT IN PLACE THE POLICIES THAT BROKE DOWN THE BLACK FAMILY. THE BIGGEST PROBLEM THAT IS FACING OUR COMMUNITY IS FATHER ABSENCE. IN EVERY ROOM WITH THE PRESIDENT HE TALKS ABOUT REAL ISSUES. HE DOES NOT DO A SOUTHERN DRAW ACCENT AND SPEAK TO US LIKE WE ARE SLAVES. HE ASKS US IMPORTANT QUESTIONS. HE SAID BLACK AMERICA WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO LOSE? YOU WERE ALREADY LOSING UNDER DEMOCRATIC LEADERSHIP. I HAVE NO TOLERANCE FOR HATE WHATSOEVER. >> DO BELIEVE COLLEGE CAMPUSES SHOULD BE OPEN DISCUSSIONS ON COLLEGE CAMPUSES FOR VARIOUS ISSUES? >> I DO. I DO A CAMPUS TOUR. I'M FLYING UP TO CONNECTICUT TO CONTINUE THAT. THREE CHAPTERS HAD TO CLEAR THEY'RE GOING TO TRY TO SHUT IT DOWN. WE FACE THIS VIOLENCE EVERY DAY. NO ONE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT IT. >> YOU WENT ON TO EXPLAIN IT BEFORE I GOT A CHANCE TO. HAVE YOU EVER BEEN DISINVITED FROM A SPEECH OPPORTUNITY AT COLLEGE CAMPUSES BECAUSE OF YOUR CONSERVATIVE VIEWS? >> ALL THE TIME. >> IS THAT A FORM OF HATRED? >> OF COURSE IT IS. WE ARE NOT TALKING ENOUGH ABOUT CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISTS BEING ATTACKED LIKE MYSELF. WE HAVE A STUDENT WHOSE DORM WAS SET ON FIRE. ALL WE PREACHES FOR CAPITALISM AND FREE MARKETS AS A MEANS TO LIFT THE MOST PEOPLE OUT OF POVERTY. THAT IS MY BELIEF. BLACK PEOPLE TO NOT HAVE TO BE DEMOCRATS. WE ARE NOT OWNED BY THE LEFT. >> AS A CONSERVATIVE YOU HAVE ATTENDED MANY CONSERVATIVE EVENTS, AND VISITED WITH MANY CONSERVATIVES. I AM NOT DENYING FOR A MOMENT THAT THERE ARE WHITE SUPREMACIST AND WE SHOULD CONDEMN WHITE SUPREMACIST. úTHE . THERE ARE HATEFUL GROUPS ALL ACROSS THE POLITICAL SPECTRUM. IN YOUR INTERACTIONS WITH CONSERVATIVES HAVE YOU SEEN HATEFUL SPEECH BIGOTRY, RACISM ALONG THE CONSERVATIVES THAT YOU HAVE ASSOCIATED WITH? >> I SPEAKING FOR THE CONSERVATIVES PROBABLY THREE TIMES A WEEK. I SAY EVERYTHING PRO-BLACK. THEY ARE SO SUPPORTIVE AND THEY APPLAUD. ALL THEY WANT IS FOR BLACK AMERICANS TO REALIZE THEY ARE AMERICANS FIRST AND FOREMOST. CONSERVATIVES ARE PATRIOTS. THERE IS NO SKIN COLOR AND PATRIOTISM. >> THANK GOD WE HAVE YOU. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. >> FROM CALIFORNIA, MISS BASS. >> THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. I WANT TO THANK THE WITNESSES THAT ARE HERE TODAY. I OFFER YOU MY CONDOLENCES ALONG WITH EVERYONE ELSE. SADLY I KNOW YOUR PAIN. I WANTED TO KNOW IF AFTER THE TRAGEDY IF YOU HAVE RECEIVED ANY THREATS OR HARASSMENT OR EXPERIENCES OF PEOPLE HARASSING YOU FOR SPEAKING OUT AS A MUSLIM? >> I PERSONALLY DID NOT. I DID READ AN EMAIL LAST NIGHT THAT WARNED ME OF COMING HERE AND TESTIFYING. AFTER THE TRAGEDY THERE WAS A TWEET THAT SAID THREE DOWN, 1.6 BILLION TO GO. THERE WAS ANOTHER TWEET THAT SAID -- SHOULD BE GIVEN THE MEDAL OF HONOR AND RELEASED. FROM CUSTODY. >> THANK YOU. I AM VERY SORRY TO HEAR THAT. MR. PATTERSON YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU HAD SOME SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS FOR US IN TERMS OF REGARDING WHITE SUPREMACY. I WANTED TO KNOW IF YOU COULD GIVE US A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS? WE WOULD LIKE A NATIONAL COMMISSION TO BE FORMED TO STUDY ALL FORMS OF WHITE SUPREMACY. WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE A JOINT TASK FORCE TO STUDY WHITE NATIONALISM AND TO OUTLINE AND ORGANIZE COUNTERINSURGENCY STRATEGY. WE DON'T LIKE THE NOTION OF THE LONE WOLF NARRATIVE. WE THINK THERE IS AN ORGANIZED WHITE NATIONALIST GROUP AROUND THE WORLD. THAT IS BEING CONNECTED. WE NEED TO DEVELOP A CLEARINGHOUSE FOR DATA COLLECTION REPORTING AND ANALYSIS ON WHITE NATIONALISM. WE NEED TO FORTIFY THE 15th AMENDMENT. SO THERE IS MORE VOTING ON THE PART OF DISENFRANCHISED GROUPS. WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE HUMANE IMMIGRATION POLICY. ONE THING WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT IS THAT RIGHT NOW THERE ARE LATINO CHILDREN IN CAGES. WE THINK THIS IS A DEFINITE MANIFESTATION OF WHITE SUPREMACY. >> THANK YOU. ONE OF THE FIRST STEPS IN ADDRESSING WHITE SUPREMACY THOUGH IS ACKNOWLEDGING THE SERIOUSNESS, AND THE FACT THAT IT EXISTS AT ALL. BEFORE OUR LAST ELECTION WE HAD FOUR ACTS OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM. THE WEEK OR TWO BEFORE. THEY WERE NOT CALLED THAT. FROM THE MAN THAT HAD THE BOMBS THAT UNFORTUNATELY DID NOT -- FORTUNATELY DID NOT GO OFF. ONE MAN TRIED TO ENTER A CHURCH AND HE COULD NOT. HE KILLED TWO RANDOM BLACK FOLKS. THE HORRIBLE MASSACRE AT THE SYNAGOGUE. AND THE SHOOTING SEVERAL DAYS LATER AT A YOGA STUDIO WHERE SOMEONE WAS LOOKING FOR SPECIFICALLY WOMEN OF COLOR. IN THAT WE HAVE THE FBI THAT IS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT BLACK IDENTITY EXTREMIST. I JUST WONDERED, MISS CLARK, IF YOU COULD TELL ME OF HOW MANY ACTS OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM WERE CARRIED OUT BY AFRICAN AMERICANS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS? >> IT IS OUR VIEW THAT THIS BLACK IDENTITY EXTREMIST DESIGNATION IS FALSE. THIS WAS SOMETHING CREATED BY THE FBI'S DOMESTIC TERRORISM
