>> the committee will come to order. we welcome everyone to

today's hearing on the oversight of the department of justice. the chair now recognize the gentleman from -- to lead us in the pledge of allegiance. >> i pledge allegianceu to the flag of the united states of america and to the republic for under god indivisible with liberty and justice for all. >> the chair is americanized for an opening statement. justice is no■z longer blind in america. today is driven by politics. example number one, president trump. opening investigation in 2021 but doesn't bring charges until after he announces he is running for president. alvin bragg said, quote, i cannot see a world in which i cohen as a prosecution witness,

but that's exactly what he did after president trump announced he was running for president. and the attorney general named jack smith, special counsel, three days after president trump announces he is running for president. four months earlier, before jack smith is named -- attorney general merrick garland approved a raid on his home, something we have never witnessed in this great country. this action broke every norm in our justice system. don't take my word for it. former assistant director in charge of the washington -- so this in his deposition to our committee. four standard processes were not followed. in that rain -- raid not the miami not from an assigned u.s. attorney's office as is customary. the fbi didn't seek consent before doing the raid and the

fbi refused to wait for president trumps attorneys to be present before the search was conducted. mr. bratton is on the special counsel team. g just weeks befo and indictment. what's most troubling is what woodward. he represents one of the defendants in the documents case. he was summoned by -- informed stanley woodward. if you were guy flips, if your guy changes, it could help your chances for the judgeship you are interested in. unbelievable. and of course, -- had to file this with the court. many people call this tampering with evidence.

jack smith mishandled the very documents that he charged mr. trump with mishandling. mber wh found. 0í president biting normally -- president biden knowingly kept and disclosed classified information and then he told us why president biden told us. joe biden had strong motivations for ignoring the procedures from classified information because he was writing a book, a book for which he got paid $8 million. spia but jack smith can mishandle documents no problem. joe biden can handle these documents, no problem. never forget, this is the same david weiss the special counsel in the hunter biden case. after he spent four and half b■o years investigating■ president

biden son and have this sweetheart deal he took to the court left out of court. he gets named special counsel. this is the same department of justice civil rights division has done nothing to address the -- this is the same department of justice who can't tell us who planted the pipe bombs on january 6, who leaked the draft opinion and who put cocaine in the in this is the same department of justice who told us in a memo from the attorney general himself that moms and dads should be investigated, sa department of -- who said pro- life catholics are extremists. the same depant of justice who censored americans and the same department of justice who retaliated against whistleblowers, to this committee and told us

about these wrongdoings. mr. burling, we are glad you are here today. we've got lots of questions. many americans believe there is now a double standard in our ice system. they believe that because there is. we are going to have lots of questions about that problem. with that, i yield e ranking member for his opening statement. thank you, mr. chairman. mr. chairman, i've been in congress since 1992. my colleagues and i, of course, have had our political disagreements in the past 30 years. but ultimately, in this committee, we have worked together. more often than not, then it -- to pass transformative pieces of legislation intended to help the american people. legislation to protect women from domestic violence and sexual harassment. legislation to prevent dissemination against the lgbtq+ community. legislation to fi racial discrimination and hate crimes. legislation to protect americans privacy. i'm proud of that regular success and i'm proud of how much work of substance we've accomplished in this hearing room under the leadership of chairman of both parties. which makes the current republican house that much more frustrating. i have been a member of this committee for more than 30

years and our work came to a dead stop when the republicans took over the house and chairman jordan took the gavel of this committee. don't just take my word for it, my republican colleagues have said it best. representative -- we have nothing. in my opinion, we have nothing to go out there and campaign on. it's embarrassing. representative royce said, quote, i want my republican colleagues to give me one thing, one, that i can go campaign on and say we did. one. anybody sitting in the complex want to come down to the floor in comics going to be one material, meaningful, significant things that the republican majority has done. close quote. i agree wholeheartedly. this committee, move our -- has become little more than a field office for the trump campaign. republicans of this committee has spent 20 million taxpayer dollars working to get trump re- elected. $20 million on an impeachment

inquiry based on statements from a witness who turned out to have ties to russian intelligence. $20 million attacking researchers who study this and companies were trying to stop this information. all in an effort to ensure that russia can do whatever ■4■git wants to interfere in the november election. $20 million attacking the work of the justice department and fbi are doing to keep americans safe. to be clear, this $20 million effort seems where clostoga ext they want more money -- on choosing conspiracy theories depending donald trump. he'sst a sampling of what they've had to say over the past few days. >> jim jordan, is not enough to put out a little tweak, where

the subpoenas? force the vote? >> that's what the american people want. what they are tired of is the gutless, feckless wining of the republican establishment. >> i think jim jordan and his weaponization committee, his little weaponization -- right now. >> jim jordan, we don't need another performative hearing. >> they talk about standing behind donald j trumwant to see one of these guys actually act and stop auditioning for a job in the trump administration. >> it's all talk. i'm sick and tired of strongly worded with letters and i'm sick and tired of them going on fox and taking hits and then linking to a page and raising money on the carcass of donald trump. >> they don't really have trump's back. they want maga to go away. >> we continue forcing these number structure do something. i will say it again like i did in my tweet. wouldn't it be great if a house judiciary gop actually does >> unfortunately, those are the sentiments that govern my republican colleagues here toda■

. this hearing is not an attempt to conduct real robust oversight, the department of justice, but rather, inattentive flogged by the ministrations attorney general and to create an outward spiel work ridiculous conspiracy theory -- see theories. that somehow they are executing -- for criminal vi that is why the day after he was convicted on 34 felony counts by a jury of his peers, german -- chairman jordan tried to drive please drag alvin bragg into this hearing room to discredit the lawful outcome. that's why they are making threats. they are trying to intimidate her after going -- interference prosecution.

extreme maga republicans we use every tool they have, persecute, harass, and impugn anyone who dares hold on donald trump accountable . that includes a special counsel appointed by the attorney general to investigate his role in the attacks of january 6th and his alleged theft of classified documents from the white house. in service of a convicted felon, they will have totally squandered their opportunity to do something meaningful for the american people. their failure on this front stands in stark contrast to attorney general garland's tenure at the department of justice, ich is done vital work in recent years to protect the interest of the american people. under your leadership, mr. attorney general, the apartment -- the department is protecting consumers by ensuring ticketmaster can't exploit its hold on the entertainment industry. it's fighting to reduce violent crime and its help achieving h assaults, and burglaries across the country. is combating the retinal epidemic. taking tens of millions of sentinel pills off the street every year and prosecuting traffic -- traffickers and

dealers. is defending reproductive freedom. fighting to keep abortion, healthcare, and medicationseric it's ensuring our election infrastructures safe and secure so that we have a fully functional, secure, and safe election this november, without foreign interference. and so, so much more. this doj is doing important work and we have the important job of making surethey do that work well. unfortunately, republicans on this committee, under the chairman's leadership, don't want to help the doj employees do their jobs. they want to stop them g any wo taking them out at the knees because that is what donald these republicans don't care what's in the interest of the american people. they just care about getting their favorite felon back in the white house. darrell garland, thank you for being here today, i apologize in advance for the wild conspiracies and lies that will be told about you today.

you and i don't agree on everything. but you are a man of great character and professional integrity. you take great comfortzn -- comfort in knowing that nothing that my republican colleagues here will change the thoughtfulness and decency that mark your leadership of the department. i urge you not to take this process too personally. the desperation has nothing to do with your record as attorney general. thank you for being here, and i yield back. >> we will now introduce today's witnesses for the honorable merrick garland is the attorney general of the united states. he was sworn in on march 11th, 2021. we welcome our witness and thank him for appearing today. we will begin by swearing you in. do you please rise and raise your right hand. do you swear, affirm under penalty of perjury that the test when you read to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge and information, so help me god. let the record show that the witness has answered in the affirmative. your -- we you done this several times before attorney general.

you can start with your opening statement and i want to make a point out here at the outset that anytime you need break, we are going to have to go to the floor, anytime you need a break, just get your team a hold of our team and we will be happy to do that. your recognize for your opening statement. >> thank you, chairman jordan. ranking member and distinguish members of this committee. since i last appeared before you, whether 115,000 employees have continued their work to fulfill our mission on behalf of the american people. to keep our country safe, to protect civil rights, and to uphold the rule of law. just 10 days ago, we secure the extradition of one of the lead assassins of the -- cartel, one of the most dangerous drug trafficking organizations the world. just last month, we secured a 27 year prison sentence for a man who attempted to kill nypd officers in a terrorist attack in time square in 2022.

it just the first three months of this year, they charge seven members of a hacking group backed by the chinese government . we disrupted a botnet controlled by ssian intelligence services and we seized over $108 million and 500,000 that would otherwise have enabled the government of iran to further support hamasy2 and oth terrorist groups. we have continued our work to drive down violent crime. work that we know is paying off. last year's historic decline in homicides, the largest one year decline in 50 years, is continuing. the first quarr of this we have already seen an 18% drop in murders. we know we have much more to do. we have also remained steadfast in our commitment to the ice department's founding

purpose, to protect civil rights. we have aggressively investigated and prosecuted hate crimes that victimize individuals and terrorize entire communities, and we have brought justice to the es. like the defendant in florida who attacked two black women because of the color of their skin. the defendant in michigan who defa set fire to the community islamic center. and the defendant in tennessee who committed a series of artisans targeting catholic, methodist, and baptist churches. we have worked to protect the reproductive freedoms that aren't protected by federal law, and idahosured that the women in the state will have access to the emergency care guaranteed to them under federal law. we have continued to protect the right to vote and to have that vote count. successfully challenged a redistricting plan in galvn county, texas, the district

court recognized that the plan violated section 2 of the voting rights act by depriving voters of an equal opportunity to participate in the political process and elect a candidate of their choice. we have continued to prosecute fraud and we have challenged illegal monopolies that drive up prices for consumers. ?this year, we tried to break u -- for the monopoly of a live concert. we sued apple for monopolizing smart phone records. we have also continue to fulfill our responsibility that underlies all of our work to uphold the rule of law. that is why we have worked to combat a worrying spike of threats of violence against those who serve the public. those threats have included targeting of members of congress, poli , jurors, elti workers, and the justice department's own employees. let me be clear. if anyone

threatens puhold them accountable. and we will continue to protect our democratic institutions like this one and to bring to justice all of those criminally responsible for the january th as attorney general, i will continue to forcefully defend the independence of the justice department from improper influence or interference of any kind and i will continue to of our criminal investigations. nothing will deter me from fulfilling my obligation to uphold the rule of law. fulfilling that obligation includes ensuring that the justice department respects congress' important role in our democracy. that's why we've gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure that the

request for information. that is why i have provided the committee with special counsel her -- hur's report. and why we have gone beyond precedent to provide the committee with a transcript of the special interview with the president. but we have made clear that we will not provide audio recordings from which the transcripts that you already have were created. releasing the audio would -- in future investigations, and it could influence witnesses' answer that they thought the audio other law enforcement interviews will be broadcast to congress and the public. ain me this committee and the oversight committee are seeking contempt as a means of ob for no legitimate purpose. sensitive law enforcement information that could harm the integrity of future investigations.

this effort is only the most recent in a long line of attacks on the justice department's work. it comes alongside threats to to fund particular department investigations. most recently, the special counsel's prosecution of the former president. it comes alongside false claims that a jury verdict and a state trial by a local district attorney was somehow controlled by the justice department. that conspiracy theory is an attack on the judicial process itself. it comes as individual career agents and prosecutors have been singled out just for doing their jobs. it comes as baseless and extremely dangerous falsehoods are being spread about the fbi's law enforcement operations. and it comes at a time when we are seeing a heinous threats of violence being directed at the

justice department's career civil servants. these repeated attacks on the justice department are unprecedented and they are unfounded. these attacks have not, and they will not influence our decision-making. i view content as a serious matter, but i will not jeopardize the ability of our s and agents to do their jobs effectively in future investigations. i will not be intimidated. in the justice department will not be intimidated. we will continue to do our jobs free from influence and we will not back down from defending democracy. i look forward -- >> i have a few items. >> they have to have it right now?

okay, well, go ahead. >> mr. chair, there's an allegation suggesting thats som january 6. this is ludicrous and you know it's ludicrous because -- >> is there a unanimous request -- >>■á■g■? i have a unanimous req >> the former leader of the fbi's field office. clearly is refuting fbi's -- >> without objection, the gentleman from -- >> i'm asking to enter into the record, the boston field office, which explains the conspiracies about the fbi, causing capital insurrection. >> without objection. >> and finally, i ask unanimous consent to insert a -- director raise testimony for this committee, quote, i will say

this notion that somehow the violence of the capital on nu6 was part of some operation or destroyed by fbi sources and agents is ludicrous and it's a disservice to our brave, hard-working -- >> without objection. the gentleman on the floors organized for five minutes. >> attoa dangerous conspiracy theory to allege that the department of justice is communicating with these state and local prosecutions against trump. you can clear it all up for us right now. will the department of justice provide to the committee all documents, all correspondence between the department and alvin bragg's office and letecia james' office. >> the offices you are referring to our independence -- >> i get that. the question is whether your pride -- provide all your correspondent. i don't need a history lesson. >> well, i'm going to say

again. we do not control those offices. >> the question is whether you communicate with them, whether you control them. do you communicate with them >> you make a request, you offered to our office of legislation. >> but here's the thing, you come in here and you lost this attack, that it's a conspiracy theory, that there's coordinated law fair against trump, and then only say fine, t just give us the documents, give us the correspondence, and then if it's a conspiracy theory, that will be evident, busay, well, we will take your request, and then we will sort of work it through e doj accommodation process, then you are actually advancing the very dangerous conspiracy theory that you're concerned about. you were a judge. one. the highest court in our country. when you are a judge, i'm just curious. did you ever make political donations to partisan candidates? >> no. >> no. because that would create the potential appearance of impropriety. >> i didn't because there's a u tax on the judicial process.

shouldn't someone be owed like a jury of their peers in judge that's nonbiased rather than getting a judge from your political opponents donor file? >> i'm well aware that you are not asking a hypothetical. you are asking me to comment on a verdict or in another jurisdiction, which has to be respected. i won't comment on it. that case is still ongoing. mr. attorney general. i had asked you about the record we were getting there. i was talking about the dge. so let me ask you this question about your time as a job. -- judge. was there ever a time when you had a family member who was personally profiting off of the notoriety of a case that was before your cohort. >> i will say again. it's very clear that you are

asking me to comment a case in another jurisdiction. >> hold on, mr. attorney general. of any case? have a family >> i am saying again. you are asking me to comment on a case currently -- >> it seems you're connecting the dots, mr. attorney general. i'm just asking you as a general visible but you are aware that the daughter was profiting off their lips as you are aware that creates the appearance of impropriety. you know there's a very reason is a federal rule against judges giving donations because it is the very attack on the judicial process that we are concerned about. >> i'm sorry, i don't agree with anything you just said but i'm not going to comment on -- >> so you won't comment on it, >> that is false. i did not dispatch matthew colangelo. >> without having confirmed, goes and gets the senior role at the doj and then after, i believe gooped a replaces d'angelo, he makes this --and then pops up in alvin bragg's

office to go get trump and then you say that's just a career choice that was made and that has nothing to do with the law fair coordinator. it's false. i did not dispatch mr. colangelos anywhere. >> you know how he ended up there? >> i assume he spoke, he applied for a job there and got the job. >> but you know what -- >> i had nothing to do with it. >> but you may not have had anything to do with it but we have this contemporaneous evidence in mr. pomerantz' book. he said we put together the legal eagles to get trump. we've got all these folks toge we assembled them for that purpose. so we on the judiciary committee think about attacks on thju concern is that the facts and the law are not being foowed. a target is acquired here8s;k w

trump and then you assemble the legal talent from the doj, mr. >> i don't really -- >> and meanwhile, the judge is making money on it. the judges families making money on it for stuff that you yourself wouldn't do. no one is going to buy this. no one is going to believe is going to create my life to the i care deeply about the law and i think that the law fair we've seen against president trump will do great damage well beyond our time. i see my time is expiring. reco talk. >> do you want to respond to anything from mr. gaetz's tirade? >> i don't know mr. pomerantz, i don't know what's in his book, these are decisions made in another office independent of the justice department. >> thank you mr. attorney general. last week, a journey of his peers convicted former president trump on 34 felony counts. the case was brought in front

of the manhattan d.a. . it's a state case, not a federal case. i shouldn't have to ask you this, mr. attorney general, but since the majority seems to be confused, can you please explain the difference between a state case in a federal case? >> yes. the manhattan district attorney has jurisdiction over cases involving new york state law, completely independent of the justice department, which has jurisdiction over cases involving federal law. we do not control the manhattan district attorney. the man i had it -- the manhattan district attorney does not report to us. they make their own decisions about cases that he wants to bring under his state law. >> thank you. my republican colleagues seem to believe that the department of justice is secretly coordinating the now successful prosecution in new york. is there any truth to this

allegation, and what is your t manhattan district attorney, independently, on his own volition, d what he believed was a violation of state law. >> mr. attorney general, two weeks ago, this committee took the dictionary step of holding you -- extraordinary step of holding you in contempt. i want to make things clear. since 2022, since the chairman took over, 92,000 pages of document have been produced in may 25 employs available for interviews. we've run the numbers. this is more than double the number of documents and exponentially more witnesses -- produce to this committee in four years. with respect to the actual audio recording sought by the majority, the department of justice has produced full and complete transcripts of the conversations memorialized by these recordings.

is that correct? >> it is. >> there's been an allegation that they may have been altered in some wa is there any truth to that? >> there is no true to that. the senior career official in the department and the declaration he filed under oath stated that he had compared the audio to the transcript and that it is anaccurate transcript. it's accurate with the exceptions of repetitions of words like letter i and and. with the fbi agents in the room, who agreed that they created the transcript and who agreed that it was an accurate transcript. >> thank you. one more question. mr. attorney general, through the 118th congress, republicans made bogus allegations, claiming that the justice department has been weapon nice. most recently, there is an

allegation that the fbi was authorized to, quote, kill the former president. what impact does this kind of rhetoric have on the career prosecutors and law enforcement agents at the department of justice? >> this is dangerous. it ranges -- raises the threats against career agents. the allegation is false. the fbi has explained, the document that's being discussed is our standard use of force protocol, which is a limitation of the use of force which is routinely part of the package for search warrants and was th search of president biden's home, as well. >> so when former president trump alleges that this was an assassination attempt against him, he's not telling the truth, either knowingly or as is often the >> i'm just saying that the allegation is not true. this is our standard use of

force policy, which limits the use of force thatagentscan use. it is used as routine manner in searches. that was a court authorized search and it accompanied that package as it routinely does. >> thank you. in other words, when former president trump makes an allegation, he is either deliberately, or is often the case, not knowing, either deliberately lying, or as often the case, not knowing what he's i yield back. >> thank you. mr. attorney general, there is no -- the fact for the first time in american history, we do have a presidential administration is working to put its opponent in jail. that is a fact. and that, and opponent is a former president of the united states. as i understand the facts, jack smith was a principal player in.

he was a well established record prosecutorial abuse. then you appointed him to prosecute the former president of the united states who happens to be running against your boss. now this is entirely your work, including approving an unprecedented surge in the former presidents home. and though you just maintain that the local prosecutors are independent, it's the fact that the manhattan case, the third ranking official in your department left it to join the local prosecutors office to spea prosecution. it let a prosecutor strategized for hours that the white house counsel will advance the filing in that case. and you just refused mr. gaetz's request to reveal -- so what are we to make of all this? >> i have to disagree with the de. we are happy to take into

account the request, if you make them to us. that's the normal process. we will respond to -- >> which characterization you question. >> i disagree with your characterization that that this person was sent by my office. >> it is rather odd that the third ranking official in your office believes it to go to a localprosecutors office to prosecute this case. >> the justice department had nothing to do with that person going. he was the principal deputy to the thd ranking. >> will -- it's important that your department be above reproach and clearly, it's not. special counsel hur concluded that although there was evidence that president biden had willfully rudely retained disclose classified materials when he was a private citizen, his words, criminal charges were not warranted because among other things, president biden is, quote, sympathetic, well-meaning, elderly man with poor memory. do you agree with

>> i' say again, i'm not going to comment. i didn't comment on mr. durham's special counsemr. hur's. he testified for five hours before this committee. >> this is a department of justice matter. you are the attorney general there's no prosecution involved at this point. >> of course it matters. explain the rationale for his decision in that case and he explained that there's differences between that case and the case involving the former president. >> well, i do want to thank you for your testimony expressing concern for terrorist attacks. we've had 5 million illegal immigrants deliberately released with very limited vetting. while the border patrol's been -- 2 million -- now last year,

your fbi director told this committee that he believes this constitutes a massive security threat. again, his words. do you agree with that assessment? >> i'm never going to be disagreeing with the fbi director, but my recollection, he said that there is a national security threat from known terrorist organizations crossing the border and the fbi will do everything it can to follow those people if they manage to make it across the border and to assure that -- >> we can go into that in great detail, but my greatest fear is that we can face a terrorist attack from the elements millions who've entered the country illegally over the last theory -- three years. is this justify? >> i'm worried about the possibility of a terrorist attack after october 7. the threat level has gone up enormously. every morning, we worry about this question. of course, this is ■/1> you now have millions and millions who have been allowed into this country or who have

invaded the , they been overwhelmed admitting these millions in. and i worry about the stage is set for something very bad happening in the very near future because of your administration policies. just reported that the president intends to use section 212 f to turn back illegal entrance once they reach 2500 a day. that's not closing the barn door. that's keeping it propped open indefinitely. but it is a lower number that your administration has tolerated so far. at the last three years, 3 1/2 years, the president has maintained that he has no such authority. what has changed other than five months before the election? >> i'm going to have to refer you to the department of homeland security, which is responsible for the border issues. to protect the border is to

pass the bipartisan legislation that was -- >> but you are responsible. the bipartisan legislation would have forbidden the future presidents from using that very authority -- >> gentlemen's time. >> 4000 today. >> the gentlemen's time has expired. with call votes on the floor. i think we're trying to do a couple more questions and then will bring for proximately 50 minutes, mr. attorney general. >> thank you for your garland. e he i'm a little perplexed. i'd like to ask if you questions. they raise the fact that this the first time that there's been a the present ne after, allegedly gone after his opponent. has there ever been another time in history were a es the insurrection -- other than january 6? >> the answer is no, but i do not intend to comment. the former president any more than i would comment on mr.

hur's report. i'm just not going to matter that -- before the court. >> thank you. it was said to my quota that one of the reasons that, there's no indictment of president biden on records, classified records, was because he was considered a sympathetic character. in the trump case, did anyone consider hey -- him a synthetic character? >> again, i'm bawling back on my respect for the court process. the fact that cases are -- >> i've got -- >> i just can't comment. >> mr. jordan, in his opening comments, commented on the execution of the search warrant, said it's different in all these different ways. omni classified documents were found pursuant to that se many this been an attempt to get this classified document and they been refused? >> so i don't know that, i

don't have in my head the number, that's all the public record, including the number of times that efforts were made to obtain through legal process of documents. >> this whole hearing is about weaponization of the justice department and the suggestion in the prosecution of donald trump and the state court in new york. ■ías far as weaponization in th department goes, did the justice department indict senator menendez? >> it's a matter of public record, yes. >> and he's a democr, isn't he? >> i'm assuming the answer is yes. >> and justice department indicted him. >> matter >> so hunter biden, who is the son of the president, is under trial in delaware and so you have a weapon eyes justice

department in terms of hiding and protecting democrats, menendez, -- and hunter biden. >> the justice department follows the facts and the law. were prosecuting live cases live and we make decisions in different ways. we don't allow the political party, the ethnicity or the religion the rays or the wealthé" or the influence of someone we are investmake a dif charging decisions. >> i noticed mr. gaetz took you that's unfortunate, because he is a living testament to the fact and direct evidence that you have not weapon eyes the justice department. he was investigated for sex trafficking won't many expected -- you chose not to

him. >> i'm sorry. i'm not sure what is in the public record and what is not. so i will not comment on that. >> violent crime in certain areas is decreasing and i thank you for that. unfortunately, memphis is not one of the areas that has degrees, but we are working on it. it was the second city to join the violent crime initiative, and i thank you for getting your department involved in trying to reduce the murders and violent crime in our city. my city. resources have been helpful, based on her conversations with the u.s. attorney and the district attorney and i want to thank you for that. can you share some of the tackling violent crime? >> yes. as i said in my opening, and i want to be clear, these are ■no the justice department's successes, they are the country's successes. success in fighting violent ime relies on the partnership in state and local law enforcement which face the

violent crime most directly. we fight in support of them and our ability to bring technological tools and statutes to the fight, that they may not have available. >> i yielba time, i'm almost done. i just want to say that the chairman of the committee wants to reduce funding to the justice department in particular in certain areas. that would be defunding the justice department and defining the opportunity to go after reducing violent crime, and i am shocked. i yield back the . the present tense to use section 212 f of the immigration and nationality actin the coal entries when they reach 2500 per day. with nearly 1 million per year.