tv Attorney General Garland Testifies on Departments Budget - Part 2 CSPAN April 29, 2022 7:20pm-8:02pm EDT
>> she is next and she is out of the whole. [background sounds]. to this hearing will come back to order and will call on the senator who is next. >> thank you, mr. attorney general well, before i begin asking my question, i wanted to note that when senator lakey, was asking you about the votes know that that is something that we have to look at very carefully had to work hard to make sure that we had $5 million for the victims service organization it in alaska to help and there was a real panic and i am concerned by the center as emphasize that making this a priority but i want to make sure that were not in a situation
where we are looking again and realizing that we are not measuring up here, there is a gap and so if there is any kind of alternative funding line items to ensure the victims organizations are able to receive, i certainly hope that the department is looking at that and he also raised an issue with regards to some of the new grant programs that for reasons known or unknown, have not been reflected in the president's budget and you indicated that you were not sure what those might be in some of the ones we looked at, this meant programs on the new grant programs focus on expanding access to medical forensic examination so my hope is that this was just a matter of timing, but a deliberate
choice to overlook those very imported and certainly states like alaska so this is underscored that when senator leahy raises these issues, i am right there with him and so to the issue and as you know this was something that i have been working on for a long period of time it was very pleased that we were able to advance his think it is signed into law and contained within the reauthorization in the tribal title, the safety empowerment pilot and what we are really trying to do here is to be able to provide a level of justice in areas my say, were they simply have done and we want to get to these remote rural villages not necessarily those on the road systems, but we want to do is empower for supplement basically the work that the state is doing
with regards to public safety and we are not creating indian country were not taking jurisdiction away from the state, but as you know, the attorney general in consultation with the secretary of interior is directed to establish a process to designate this indian tribes that can participate in the audit so the question to you this morning is, what you anticipated terms of the department of justice plan to begin this process and how doti you see this moving forward. we also directly creation of alaska tribal public safety advisory committee not later than a year. i'm asking this morning if you can share how the presidents budget will support the alaska public safety empowerment pilot as well as the public safety
advisory committee. >> i am very grateful for everything that you did. with respect to getting this reauthorized, in the justice department haser been fully supportive of this all along and so we are in lockstep with this we support the pilot program we thank you so an importantnt ability of authority to investigate these matters and we cannot just leave them undone. i'm very eager to get the pilot going into get the villages decided and likewise with the commission. i don't see any reason why we won't be able to be on time under marks for this. >> will know that we would like to be working with you to understand the timelines are to help with the expectations of the folks back home and last question for, it relates to the
bureau of prisons, personally alaska does not have any federal facilities to house our federal inmate population within the state. we have seen considerable growth over the years the number of federal inmates has grown from just a few hundred, two over a thousand. what happens then as many of these individuals are said to serve their sentences have facilities outside of the state. sometimes two - 5000 miles away from the home and i have sent you a letter back in march of this year, asking that you consider a feasibility study. working with the bureau of prisons to conduct a new feasibility study that has been on for a period of time and it was apparently about two decades alone a lot of change in alaska
since then. i would ask that you look at this and we not heard a response back so if if you take a look at this and again try to work with us on a new feasibility study but also willing to work with the bureau prisons to obtain additional playhouses and a space in alaska and personally we have only 39 beds for the entire state of alaska and all of them are located there so if you could perhaps follow up with me on this to ask it would be greatly appreciate it. >> will be happy to have a team. teresa: or the two of us speak directly at be happy to. >> thank you. >> thank you, and as i was going through another committee hearing i just talk to them out of chair we have three of them at the same time today and seems like we can organize ourselves a little better and i was listening to your conversation with the senator and i did not hear thehe end results and i'm
assuming that he probably asked if we needed a special secure to look into the hunter biden affair. do you think we need to and i withinin have one follow-up question to ask. do we need a special prosecutor to look into that. >> as you h know, the investigation is being run and supervised by the united states attorney delbert who is an appointee of the previous administration, and continues on as the united states attorney. the question ofo whether they have a special counsel is one that's internal decision-making in the department so i don't want to make one way or another but i'm quite comfortable with the united states attorney for the district to continue in the role that is playing. >> follow-up question then woulr
be, of course special prosecutor counsel more was assigned and that whole spiel .ca issue which now has been defunct and if you had to been in that capacity then, do you think a special counsel was needed there as well. >> is hard for myself back into that circumstances and of course there would be a different for me to be in a position within a different president so i'm not sure that i can answer that. >> was obvious that would be a question that many would wonder about in terms of what that standard is and whether consistency is seems like it would be the same from one administration to the next grade i got a question, there is probably more pertinent in the sense that what is happening on our southern borders, is
confusing in a sense that the administration said we don't have enough resources and we've done things from the beginning, that i was down there with 17 other senators, roughly a year ago and you give your description it of the immensity, and gone from record low illegal crossings and i am one to believe that we need to secure the border and roller sleeps up and fix all of the issues associated with it. .. up and fix all the issues associated with it. we had risen from i think 40,000 to 70, 000, this last month it was 212,000. i think 60 some thousand got away. it has exploded beyond anybody's imagination. i think, south induced. and then there are conflicting are we resource of the border,
addressing illegal crossings? it seems to be delegated to lower levels of authority, isn't that confusing and in light of the issue in terms of where it's at, do we need to do something differently? does your office need to be outspoken about trying to fix it? >> i want to be careful explaining our role because we do need more resources, most of the resources you are referring to our department of my security resources so i'll leave that to secretary to express what they need. we've asked for $1.35 billion for our immigration courts. 1 billion is to reduce the backlog. our job is to run the immigration courts after we get referrals from dhs so we have on board of everyone we can as
immigration judges, we ask in fiscal 22 for 120 more. as a consequence, it was not funded so we are asking for 200 new teams, 1200 staff for that purpose. we've asked for money for virtual initiative to run these court proceedings more efficiently and effectively alsor a virtual court initiative, so that we can run these court proceedings more efficiently and more effectively and from whatever area. if we get the additional immigration, judges we will move them to the border. we are already going to be moving into the border as it is. >> and can you >> it's an additional 1200 staf- >> in addition to how much
before? >> 834 i days, staff including clerks and etc. so 200 moreon would be 834 minus would be 634. >> with the arithmetic i put out earlier, the problem has quadrupled so it would beg the question, are we putting enough resources or is it lipservice because we know it's become a issue? i would advise that may not be adequate given the magnitude of the current problem, still protected go up by 50% more. >> that's a fair question, we didn't get what we asked for the last time so we are trying to be realistic what we can ask for but resources are not the only thing we are doing. last, time so we're trying to be realistic about what we can ask for. resources are not the only thing we're doing. we've also adopted and new
asylum officer rule, with dhs, so that asylum decisions are made by the asylum officers, not by the eye jays. so, i jays our immigration judges, they won't have to do that. if there are denials, it will be a streamlined process, which should reduce the amount of time from current, for years, to six months. we also have dedicated dockets, in order to better distribute the work among our ij's. it's a combination of, things we want more resources and we're trying to streamline the process. >> i don't think -- >> thank you, senator rahm. i know that senator moran and i have a second round of questions that we would like to do. it's not clear that anyone else is interested. i don't know if, senator braun, if you have an also ran. mine are relatively brief, so i will go ahead.
you are discussing with senator capito the horrific issue of police being targeted. and also suicides. as i'm sure you are aware, there is no comprehensive national data collection regarding police suicides. so, if i 2020 we directed the bureau of justice statistics to maintain a data set and report on police suicides for federal, local and state law enforcement. unfortunately, b.j. as has not moved forward on collecting this data. we have provided stronger, directives as well as $3 million for that data collection effort in the f. i-2021 bill. , but still nothing. so, were you aware of the delays with this project, and what can we do to try to collect this data? because, as you know, it's really critical to figuring out how we respond. we need to have information so
we can think about what we can do to address what is becoming more and more of a challenge nationwide. >> i am aware. i know that bjs is submitting a report in the next couple of months. how many months is it? in about eight weeks, i'll have an update for you on this, on where they are on this. >> good, well, i look forward to getting that. sadly, we've had some high-profile suicides in new hampshire. i also look forward to working with the department on what we can do to address the challenge of suicide within our law enforcement agencies. so, thank you. i'm pleased to hear that we should expect something soon. unfortunately, i missed a couple of the discussions around what's happening with fentanyl. because i had to step out. but i know that, on thursday,
he administration released their national drug control strategy. like so many states, new hampshire is one that has had way too many overdose deaths because of fentanyl. i wondered if you could give us a little insight into how resources are being shifted within the department, to respond to that strategy. and how that might impact small states like new hampshire, which are struggling with this challenge. >> so, we have been involved in the development of the strategy and, in the simple form, there's two sides of this. that is the enforcement against drug trafficking organizations and there are the health challenges for those who are addicted, trying to get them off of the addiction and take care of them. so, on the drug trafficking side, we are asking for 9.8 billion dollars across doj to counter drug trafficking. the principal agency for us, of
course, is the dea, for 3.1 billion. which is 102 million dollar increase. for counter drugs. fentanyl is at the very top of the list of the concerns. when i was at the border, i saw the same problems that everybody else is reporting. these are very tiny pills, and as the dea administrator makes clear, one pill can kill. the odds, it's like playing russian roulette. because some of these pills are overdose pills. so, that is an extraordinary part of what we're doing. we've asked for money from marshals and from the u.s. attorneys and for the fbi. the fbi is particularly targeting fentanyl and opioid trafficking on the dark web. as we announced in the last two weeks, we took down the largest dark web drug marketplace to prevent the way in which some people are getting it, which is online.
at this point. so, out there are noble of different things here. criminal division has money in the budget for the regional opium strike forces. and then, there are c.o.p.s. grants under the c.o.p.s. program, for anti heroin an anti mask task forces. so, that's on the enforcement side. on the overdose, addiction side, we've asked for 400 and $18 million for the comprehensive addiction recovery, kara, act grants. we've had $490 million for the co-sap grants, and another $75 million for mental health and substance abuse grants. money for drug courts, 95 million. for veteran treatment courts and for our consumer protection branch, which tries to stop those who are over subscribing and improperly over dispensing opioids. so, it is a two pillar issue
for us. i can't think of anything more important or anything more tragic than what fentanyl is doing to the american people. >> well, thank you. i certainly agree with that. and hope that, as the strategy is rolled out, that considerable thought will be given to rural parts of the country and small states like new hampshire. which may appear positively on lots of scales, with respect to income level and resources, but in fact have been very hard hit and really need help. thank you very much, senator moran. >> chairwoman, thank you. general, thank you for your president today. just a couple more questions. perhaps a follow-up to my colleagues questions. but, first of all, i'd like to start out with title 42 in your conversation with senator braun. i think your answer to him was more perspectively wet might
transpire and the need for additional resources in the future. i would like to highlight or focus on this year, your budget requests that's in front of us now. i know there is some uncertainty with a federal judge in new orleans, and a decision. but it seems to me, my view, this is a pretty reckless decision. but because the estimates are about 14,000 migrants could begin crossing the border per day, after title 42 ends on may the 23rd. that has to have enormous resource consequences for the federal government. i think homeland security is already talking about additional, running out of money needing additional dollars. ice and border patrol, it's estimated, could be out of funds by july of this year. what about the impact on doj components? marshals, immigration courts, u.s. attorneys offices. if you prepared any estimates,
as a department prepared-ing estimates as to what the increasing expenditures maybe this year, unaccounted for in your budget request? >> i don't know that we have those numbers now, but i think our staff can work with yours. there is no question that there will be an increase in the u.s. attorney resources needed along the southern border. we've hired, with respect to the ij's, as i was telling senator braun, we've hired all the way up under the current appropriation. without, more we won't be able to increase the numbers. we are doing everything we can to streamline the system and to move people, the ij's, to the borders to assist their. we are always happy for more money, and i'll be happy to have our staff speak with the subcommittee staff about that. >> well, general, the crux of my conversation with you earlier in today's hearing generally revolved around violent crime. in my view is that the
consequence of what the administration is determined to do with section 42 can't be compensated for by removing resources going to fight violent crime. the border in violent crime are clearly related, significantly related. but you, -- i remember visiting the border, and what's stuck out to me was, when we are housing the juveniles on the border, 40% of the border patrol agents where than in the housing business, not in the border patrol business. i think there's an analogy there of something the department of justice must avoid. which is to take resources away from something that is a crisis already, to address the crisis that is going to occur with the removal of 42. does that make sense? >> yes, and i assure you we don't want to remove the money that we need to fight violent crime, to put it anywhere else. >> at the department either
volunteered or been tasked with providing doj personnel to support dhs during this crisis? >> i don't know what the -- >> u.s. marshals? >> well, yes. to be clear, we don't do border patrolling, not of our law enforcement is able to do -- is train for, that or anything else. the bureau of prisons is going to make buses available for the transfers that the border patrol needs assistance for. marshall service is going to be providing additional deputy u.s. marshals to assist cbp at the border. i don't want to overstate how much that is, because our ability to make those contributions is not large. >> thank you. senator shaheen visited with you about drugs, in particularly in rural and
smaller states. you and i had a conversation, probably as you are being confirmed, about rural law enforcement departments. and i asked you and you agreed, and i think you've pursued, making certain that royal agencies, small agencies in particular have a fair shot at getting the federal resources. anything that you can do to update or anything that you would request of me to make that more, less owner some and more likely? >> i think we have been doing that. we've made it easier for small agencies, particularly the rural ones are talking about, to make the applications for the grants. i will tell you that, on my recent trip to the u.s. attorneys offices to talk to law enforcement, john joint law enforcement task forces in colorado and lose louisiana in particular, i met with rural sheriffs.
i wanted to make sure that these task forces were not only focused on the, cities but we're focused on helping the rural sheriffs as well. and in both of those circumstances, at least, we got considerable affirmation that that is working well. this is the world on fourth, manatee provide the boots on the ground we know the people in the community. and the federal law enforcement, dea, fbi, atf, marshals are able to provide the technology and the skills sets necessary to find people across the border, from one jurisdiction into another. and to bring them back. so, this is anecdotal, but my anecdotal work suggests very good cooperation in these joint task force. >> thank you, my time is more than expired. i just would mention one other thing, perhaps there could be a follow-up by you or your staff. i am surprised that the doj's
only requesting, your budget request, is only an additional 68 point $6 million to investigate and prosecute cybercrime. including 52 million at the fbi and 50 million at the u.s. attorney's office. the magnitude of the problem is, i can't imagine can be addressed with that, a minimal or modest amount. >> maybe my numbers like a little different than yours. mine show up as more than 1.2 billion dollars, to address cybersecurity and cyber crime across the country. the increases are 15 million for 50 more u.s. attorneys to bring these cases. for another $88 million for an additional 75 fbi personnel and to bring these cases. and then, for our own cybersecurity, for the justice department and all the law enforcement agencies, 115
million. so, i'm not sure why the numbers are -- >> i may have misspoken or, certainly, at minimum was confusing. those are the increases, not the total amount. over and acted levels. >> we did get more money in the recent supplemental, because of ukraine. i can promise you, we expect to ask for more money. part of the money we're going to ask for is cyber defense, because we're quite worried, obviously, about that. other money, and there will be -- i'm trying to decide whether to call it kleptocapture or just our sanctions force, but it is our sanctions capture force. we will be asking for more money. but you did give us more money on the supplemental on this, as well. >> general, thank you. and thank you for joining us. i did agree with senator shaheen, to help work with her to see that we get the u.s.
attorney process back under a fashion in which we get some confirmations concluded. >> that would be great, thank. you >> thank you senator moran, on both counts. senator graham? >> thank you. good morning. on the russia front, we had lunch and i really appreciate you and your team are doing. there's a lot on your plate. you know, you wanted money in the supplemental. is there any additional authority you need from congress to be more aggressive in terms of going after the olive darts and kleptocracy? do you need any legal changes? >> thank you for asking about that. we have been very carefully examining that question and i expect that there will be requests for legislative changes. these could go particularly in the way that we do the forfeitures, to make it easier for us to do the forfeitures. i think i mentioned earlier, also, the possibility of taking money out of the forfeiture
fund that we collect this way and send it to ukraine. the answer is yes. and we are hard at work on it, and expect very soon, within days probably, that the administration will be able to present some request. >> well, good. attorney general, i think we will be a receptive audience to give you more money if that's what it takes to go after the people who profited from destroying the russian economy. along that line, there are articles in the paper that family members that have been used by putin to wander money. and talk of a girlfriend in sweden. do you know anything about an effort to bring sanctions against her? >> first answer is no and the second answer is, i guess, if i didn't know i wouldn't be able to comment. the treasury department issue. >> i would just encourage you to put everything on the table. when it comes to afghanistan, if you've been briefed recently about the possibility of
terrorism emanating from afghanistan into the united states? has that threat level gone upward down, or do you know? >> the details of that, i would have to defer to a classified briefing. >> okay, that's all right. >> i think it's fair to say that we are constantly concerned about the risk that isis-k will try to mount something in the united states. likewise, continuing with respect to al-qaeda. the fbi is putting all its enormous amount of resources into preventing that, as is the intelligence community outside of the united states. >> okay, well, let's stand touch on that. back to the border. this idea of taking title 42 out of the toolbox, in terms of a way to deal with illegal immigrant crossings. do you believe, if title 42 is repealed, there would be a surge at the border?
>> i think it's important for me to explain our role in this. the justice department only role is when the cdc makes its assessment, as it did, and ask us to appeal, for us to determine whether that would be lawful. the department concluded that the cdc is -- >> but you are in charge. i'm sorry, go ahead, finish your thought. >> and so, that was so. answer the other part of your question, i think all intelligence address that there will be a large increase in the border, yes. migrants, yeah. >> when it comes to drugs coming into the united states from the southern border, in the last year has that problem gotten better or worse? >> i don't know what the numbers are. i mean, it's obviously the case that the transportation of fentanyl, particularly, has
increased. fentanyl is much more compact, much smaller, goes a longer way. the smugglers, particularly in the trucks, have developed ways to hide it even from our x-rays. so, that problem of fentanyl crossing the border has definitely increased in a way that makes all of us very worried. >> okay. so, when it comes to your role in all of this, if title 42 is repealed and we get a surge, there is an increase in fentanyl coming across the border and of the leading cause of death for americans from 18 to 45, they tell me, it's fentanyl overdose. do you think this budget and the game plan for the biden administration will be effective against this increase? >> i think that the budget that we've asked for for drug trafficking and drug interdiction, which is 9.8
billion dollars, is a huge amount. an enormous allocation of america's resources, in this respect. but, again, our job is different than the department of homeland security. i can't speak to their resources. >> i got you. i'll try to wrap up here. drug interdictions are dramatically less than they were in fy 2021, we had 913,000. that's how much drugs were interdicted, now we're 340,000. it seems to be that interdiction is going down. so, my basic question is, do you consider the border in a state of crisis? >> i think, as you rightly pointed out, there's going to be a lot of intelligence suggest that there will be a lot more people migrating on the border. >> the reason i mentioned that, as i believe it is, i believe the amount of drugs coming across our unprecedented.
the amount of people coming across the border illegally is unprecedented. seems to, be every train line is getting wears. to be honest with you, mister attorney general, i think we need to go all in, all hands on deck, of controlling our border. do you believe that what we have in place, to this budget and the system as a whole, that we can expect to turn this around? >> i think that the money, with respect to the justice department, which is the only thing i can speak to, if you give us the increased resources that we are asking for we can do our job. >> okay. so, six months from now we'll see. thank you. >> thank you, senator graham. there are no further questions this afternoon, senators can submit additional questions for the official hearing record. we request the departments responses within 30 days of receiving those. and the subcommittee stands and
[inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] [inaudible conversations] ♪♪ >> c-span is your unfiltered view of government funded by these television companies and more including comcast. ♪♪ >> you think it's just a community center? it's way more than that. >> comcast partnering with 1000 unity centers to create wi-fi enabled so students from low income families can get the tools they need to be ready for anything. ♪♪ comcast support c-span as a public service along with these other television providers