good morning.

subcommittee will come to order. today we welcome the new attorney general william barr before the subcommittee. as the attorney general during the george h.w. bush administration, he has testified before this committee in the past. but this is his first time in quite a while. welcome and congratulations to your new and old position, sir. we also welcome assistant attorney general for administration lee loftus because attorney general barr was not confirmed when the budget 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 regarding the budget. this year, we have held several hearings, including the fbi, the

atf, the civil rights division and the executive office for review. i appreciate the willingness of the department to come and testify before our 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 animus towards policies that protect individual health care, voting rights, access to education and much, much more. we have discussed a need for resources to address gun violence in this country while at the same time hearing atf say that the budget request would result in staffing reductions. we have talked to the head 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 more difficult to achieve. we have heard the fbi describe the threats to our nation faces but our budget request will not fully fund our efforts to address those threats. as we discuss the departments today, we're faced with a budget request that fails to address many of these concerns and raises new problems. and, of course, mr. attorney general, we could not hold this hearing without mentioning the elephant in the room and i'm not referring to my colleagues on the other side. two and a half weeks ago the mueller report was completed in extremely quick fashion. you turned it into a four-page letter that supposedly summarized the findings. last week "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 of investigators within the special counsel's office felt that within the special counsel's office, the summary under states the level of mal fee sans by the president and several of his campaign and white house advisers. the american people have been left with many unanswered questions. serious concerns about the process by which you formulated your letter and 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, there's one thing i would like to leave with you today. something you know. my role to remind you.

this congress voted unanimously to see that report. that the congress and the committees of 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, yes, to our democracy if that report is not fully seen. when it comes to redactions, we would hope that you could tell us when something is redacted if you feel it has to be, what area it covered, not just say a blackout. doesn't tell us where it came from and why it might have been redacted. we're not here today to be in a confrontational situation with you. we want to help you do your job, and you will need to help us do ours. but what cannot happen is that somebody higher than you tells you you don't have to answer our questions or you don't have to deal with us at all.

that's not who we are as a country. that's not who we are as a democracy. that's not who we are as an appropriations committee. so let me just say this. since 2017, our nation's 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. with that said, i would turn to my colleague and friend mr. adder holt. >> thank you for yielding, mr. chairman. i, too, would like to welcome attorney general barr and assistant attorney general loftus to testify regarding the fy 2020 budget request. your stewardship at the department of justice is important to all our committees and it proposes key investments and what we can all agree on are criminal justice priorities, such as strengthening national

security, reducing violent crime, enforcing our nation's immigration laws, combatting the opioid crisis and reducing recidivi recidivism. attorney general barr, we recognize that you have an incredible 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 make in the funding decisions. so thank you for being here this morning. we want 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 many of the issues that affect our local communities. i'm particularly interested in the justice department's efforts to help curb the deadly opioid epidemic. i hope to learn more about high tech law enforcement initiatives you're using to disrupt the sophisticated trans national

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 the security crisis that we now have on our southern border that we're 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. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. adder holt. >> we now turn to the chairman of the full committee, my colleague from new york, ms. slowey. >> i'd like to thank the chairman, ranking member adder holt for holding this hearing. attorney general 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's been reported that the report is 300 to 400 pages. i use the term reported because we have no idea how long it 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.

less than 48 hours. even for someone who has done this job before, i would argue it's more suspicious than impressive. your conclusion is something we've seen before. in fact, we've seen it in your own legal writing 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. it 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, to your fy budget 20 requests. the request provide an increase for immigration judges and a mo modest increase for federal law enforcement. hour however, it eliminate 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 reduce the rape kit backlog by ensuring evidence that could lead to meaningful convictions does 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 recidivi recidivism, which would be cut by $48.5 million. these are simply unacceptable reductions. i look forward to a productive discussion today. hope you can shed some light on how this budget request can adequately respond to the grave tasks the department of justice and its grant programs undertake daily. thank you again for appearing before us. i look forward to an open discussion, an honest discussion and address the many challenges before us today. thank you very much.

thank you. now, attorney general barr, you are recognized to give your opening statement. we ask you please to try too keep it to five minutes and your whole statement will be included in the record. >> thank you. thank you mr. chairman. madam chair and ranking member ader holt. i'm pleased to be here to present the fiscal year 2020 budget for the department of justice. i'm joined here today by the department's chief financial officer, assistant attorney general for administration, lee lofthus. we look forward to discussing how it will 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. in 2017, after two years of increases, violent crime and homicide rates went down nationwide. the fbi's 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, president trump has requested an additional $137 million for violent crime and trans-national 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 prosecutions. over the first two years of the trump administration, we've 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 opioid-related crimes by 28% from fiscal year 2017 to fiscal year 2018. prescriptions of the seven most frequently abused prescription opioids are down more than 23% since 2016 to the lowest level in at least a decade. over the same period, the dea has lowered the legal limits on production 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's a lot more work to be done. that is why the president's budget provides for 295 million to combat the opioid epidemic, including 18.2 million for the fbi's joint criminal opioid dark net enforcement initiative or j code, which is a team of agents that work to disrupt rupt and dismantle the sale of opioids on the dark net. the president requests 11.1 million for five new heroin enforcement groups deployed to field divisions identified heroin as the first or second greatest threat in their area. the president 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 ins e. intensity drug trafficking areas. this change will eliminate redundance i to place it under the agency that leads the drug enforcement efforts. we know that most illicit drugs came across the southern border. in a fight against a 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 re-entry 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 is conducted an unprecedented surge in hiring immigration judges.

the department has hired more immigration judges under president trump than in the previous seven years combined. we now employ the largest number of immigration judges in history with 46% more immigration judges than just three years ago. that is impacting immigration cases. after eight consecutive years of declining or stagnant productivity between fiscal year 2009 and fiscal year 2016, our immigration judges have increased case completions two years in a row. in fiscal year 2018, immigration judges completed the most cases in seven years. in order to continue this progress, the department requests 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 than warranted. with the crisis on our southwest border, the department requests 6 million for our southwest rural law enforcement 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 combatting terrorism and cyber crime nap. s that is why the president requests 70.5 million to enhance the fbi's cyber tool's capabilities as well as 16 million for our national vetting center. the president requests an additional 18 million for the fbi to address counter intelligence 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 barr, in your confirmation hearings, you said you believed it very important the result of the special counsel mueller's investigation be shared with congress and the public. we agree on that. fbi director wray, the nation's top counter intelligence investigator, told us last week he had not read the special counsel's report. my question is, with regard to your march 24th and 29th letters to the judiciary committees, special counsel mueller and anyone on his team have a role

in drafting them or reviewing them in advance? did you use any of the summary documents prepared by the special counsel 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 sent it out and he declined that. the letter on the 29th, i don't believe that that was reviewed by mr. mueller or that they participated in drafting that letter. but to go back to something you said in the opening statement about the availability of the report, as i've said, as you pointed out since my confirmation i do think it's important that the public have 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 a 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. now, in my letter of march 29th, i identified four areas that i feel should be redacted and i think most people would agree. the first is grand jury information, 6 e material. the second is information that the intelligence community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods. the third are information in the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions. you will recall that the special

counsel did spin off a number of cases that are still 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 prosecutor the ca cases or the fairness to the defendants. finally, we intend to redact information that implicates the privacy or reputational interest 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 color code the excisions from the report and we will provide explanatory notes describing the basis for each redaction. for example, if a redaction is made because of a court order in a pending prosecution, we'll 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. and so i think that from my standpoint, within a week i will be in a position to release the report to the public. and then i will engage with the chairman of both judiciary committees about that report, about any further requests that they have. >> let me just 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 under, that you say will happen? >> yes, sir. >> your march 24th letter indicated that some actions the

special counsel investigated as potentially raising obstruction of justice concerns had not been publicly reported. will these actions be identified in the report sent to congress? >> as things stand now, i don't think that they will be redacted so they will be identifiable. >> all right. thank you. >> mr. attorney general, as you know, there is a serious humanitarian crisis at the southern border. in fact the previous administration explicitly noted that transnational organized crime in mexico makes the u.s. border more vulnerable because it creates and maintains elicit corridors of border crossings that can be employed by oh secondary criminal 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 department of justice and how it is addressing the smuggling networks that are endangering so many of the lives being smuggled and trafficked across the southern border and particularly the children? >> yes, sir. the problem we face on our 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 request a total of 3.2 billion targeted at dealing with these transnational organizations and we're seeking an increase of $109 million this year. we're also seeking 29 million in programmatic enhancements including 18 million to strengthen the fbi's ability to monitor and target the transnational organizations and 10 million to strengthen dea's

ability to operate its judicial wire intercept program in central america. and another 1.7 million for dea's sensitive intelligence unit, which is targeting these groups and their elicit trafficking in narcotics. i personally believe that an important part of securing the southern border is to have a barrier system on the border. i think that will help not only in narcotics interdiction but also in suppressing human trafficking and it's an important part of our enforcement. >> let me switch gears just a minute. one of the most sacred rights, as you know, as americans is the right not to be spied on by the government. a fisa order may only be issued based on a finding by the foreign surveillance court that probable cause exists to believe

that the target of surveillance is an agent of a foreign power. one of our colleagues representative nunes has referred eight persons to the fbi for investigation concerning alleged misconduct during the russia investigation including the leak of highly classified material and alleged conspiracies to lie to congress and the fisa court in order to spy on then candidate trump and other persons. i would hope the department of justice will be giving these referrals appropriate and prompt consideration. my question is, now that president trump has been exonerated of russia collusion, is the justice department investigating how it came to be that your agency used a salacious and unverified dossier as a predicate for a fisa order on a u.s. citizen. >> the office of the inspector

general has a pending investigation of the fisa process in the russia investigation. i expect that will be complete in probably may or june, i am told. so hopefully we'll 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 counter intelligence investigation that was conducted during the summer of 2016. >> are you investigating who leaked the existence of the fisa order against carter page? >> who what? >> are you investigating who leaked the existence of a fisa order against carter page? >> i haven't seen the referrals yet from congressman nunes, but obviously if there's a predicate for an investigation, it will be

conducted. >> thank you. >> 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 receiving the report and releasing 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, outlined, prepared, edited and released your 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 had been interacting with the deputy attorney general and lawyers supporting the deputy attorney general in his supervision of the special counsel. and in that context, there had been discussions. so there was some inkling as to some of the thinking of the special counsel. furthermore, on march 5th, i believe, the deputy and i met

with special counsel mueller and his team and had a preliminary discussion about the report. so we had an inkling as to what was coming our direction. and 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 -- and 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. 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. i'm not going to say anything more about it until the report is out and even has a chance to look at it. >> i think there is 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 cat goiregoriecategories. that is what's going to govern the redactions. in fact, the spaenld his staecid 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're 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 were 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's factually accurate? >> as i 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 report is out. and i'm glad to talk about it after then and i'm already scheduled to testify about that. >> i appreciate that. in closing, i just 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. 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? >> mm-hm. >> no. the first pass at this is going to produce a report that makes these redactions based on these four categories. and that's something that i am 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 the discussion. thank you again for appearing.

>> thank you. >> ms. robey. >> 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's efforts as it relates to sex and human trafficking. in the fiscal year 2018, the justice department initiated a total of 230 human trafficking prosecutions, charging 386 defendants and convicting a record 526 defendants. the department continues its successful anti-trafficking coordination team initiative working with partners in the department of homeland security and the department of labor. in 2018, these teams saw significant prosecution results including increases of 10%, 75% and 106% in cases filed,

defendants charged and defendants convicted. i wear another hat sitting on the judiciary committee. and through that committee's efforts in the last congress, we passed several pieces of legislation working with the department 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 human beings. this is modern day slavery. it's important for me as a member of this committee and i suspect every member of this committee. i think i can say that we all want to see 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 wray was here recently. i directed some questions

specific to this issue as well and would like for you to address for the benefit of all of us as we put pen to paper in our appropriations bills. we know the successes but where are the deficiencies and how can we on this 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. we have brought in an exceptional prosecutor as an associate deputy attorney general in the deputy's office with a portfolio of coordinating the department's 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. 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 could axccelerate our efforts.

>> each of those pieces of legislation would have made law enforcement's job much easier, i guess. i do appreciate too all of the work that you do with local law enforcement to make sure that they have the tools and resources 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 oftentimes do actual predators that use the internet to identify and lure victims through chat rooms, instant messaging and social networking sites. if you couldcould, with the sho amount of time that i have left, what does this doj budget

request bill do to safeguard our children from these predators, specifically on the internet? >> we're requesting 81 million for ojp's missing and exploiting children program. we have 30 million for neck mick. we have $30 million for the icac task forces, which are now in operating in states -- we have 81 of them operating throughout the country. and then the activities of the child exploitation of the obscenity unit in the department of justice. those are sort of the three pillars of our effort. all together it's approximately $90 million. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. cartwright. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

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 whose face to face pastime is attacking health care. 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 breadth, its scope, its recklessness and its 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 care, 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 1st. did you get her letter? >> yes. >> okay. then you 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 preexisting conditions but also other important provisions of that law such as the medicaid expansion, dependent coverage for young adults to age 26, coverage for preventive services and the regulatory pathway for fda approval of biosimilar drugs, unquote. 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 to the physical and financial well-being of millions of americans and also because doj's refusal appears to be driven by political considerations rather than health care policy discussions or sound legal arguments. attorney general barr, you're not a health care policy expert, but your department is taking the lead on attempting a massive overhaul of our american health care system. so i want to make sure we agree on a few of the top line facts. let's go through a couple of quick yes or no questions at the outset. number one, have you conducted or viewed an analysis to evaluate the effects of doj's litigation position to overturn the aca, the effects on consumer costs and coverage? have you done that analysis or have you reviewed one? >> well, when we're faced with a legal question, we try to base

our answer on the law. >> on the law. 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 consumers, the people using the health care, the people for whom these premiums are paid. but let's start the process -- >> you mean in the event that the law is struck down? >> if you're successful in this lawsuit that you're supporting and 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 preexisting conditions but would like action on a broad health plan. so he is proposing a substitute for obamacare. >> the one that's going to come after the next election, you

mean? >> the one that will come down if and when -- >> should the law be struck down, millions of people who get their coverage through the aca marketplace would lose their coverage and tens of millions more would see their premiums skyrocket. in addition, if you're 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 their coverage. am i correct in that, sir? >> do you think it's likely we are going to prevail? >> if you prevail -- well, you're devoting scarce resources of your department toward that effort, are you not, attorney general? >> we're in litigation. we have to take a position. >> the answer is yes. >> we take position in litigation. >> 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 it's such an outrageous position, you have nothing to worry about. let the courts do their job. >> well, my time is out. we'll come back to this. i yield back, mr. chairman. >> thank you, mr. chairman. 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 tick up. that means more robberies, more murders and more assaults. i'm encouraged to see that the fbi's preliminary crime statistics released in late february show this alarming trend is being reversed. can you tell me what is the department doing that is working and does your new budget add resources for fighting violent 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 resurgence of

violent crime. our base amount in the budget is 4.3 billion and we're seeking $138 million enhancement to that. 120 would go to reducing violent crime in communities and 18 would be to step up our efforts against these transnational criminal organizations. the flagship 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 is a strategy to focus on high crime areas that brings together the local community, the law enforcement including federal and state and also the various social programs and social agencies that run and fund programs that are meant to prevent crimes from occurring.

they have had a tremendous record. there have been studies showing how it has suppressed crime where it's been deployed. we are seeking a $100 million to increase -- go from 20 million to 100 million to extend the project safe neighborhoods program. we also are seeking 10.7 million to expand atf's nyban program which has proven to be a tremendous tool in the fight against violent crime. this helps us to identify firearms used in crime and trace it back to particular individuals. so those are some of the main initiatives we have underway to grapple with violent crime. so far it looks as if they're

successful. >> i definitely agree our local police chiefs and sheriffs really support the project safe neighborhoods. it's a great program with a high return on investment for helping reduce gun and violent crime in our communities. also important to the state of mississippi is addressing human trafficking. i know the state legislature has been working really hard on it. i know my colleague ms. robey has asked you some questions. i know the doj undertook a u.s./mexico bilateral human trafficking enforcement initiative to combat transborder trafficking. if you speak on this initiative, how effective has it been? >> i'm going to have to get back to you on that. i really would have to talk to people to see whether it's having an impact at this point. >> with my limited time i'll

jump over to address some of the issues with the crisis we have at our southern border. i know we have an immigration case backlog. there are over 820,000 immigration cases pending nationwide with the past 12 consecutive years seeing an increase in cases. this year's budget request includes an additional 72 million to hire 100 new immigration judges. you testified that daniel reforms are necessary to manage the backlog of cases. what reforms does the department of justice need to manage the backlog and what can congress do to help you better manage the backlog? >> on inauguration day there were 306 immigration judges. today we have 424. one of the problems we had was the long lead time of hiring these judges, which we've now cut from two years to six months so it only takes six months to on board a judge. currently there are 534 slots

authorized and we're asking for 100 more slots. so we'll be going up to 634 if that's approved. the backlog, however, we're not making progress right now against the backlog. our productivity is increasing so that for example in the first quarter of this year, 19,000 cases were completed. however, during that same time, 26,000 new cases emerged. so we actually lost ground in the first quarter. as we bring on more judges, we're hoping that we're actually going to start working down that backlog. until we can get some control of the inflow, we're not going to be able to work down that backlog. and the inflow is a function of a number of factors. the problems with the asylum laws and applying the asylum

laws is one of the chief factors, the fact that they can be gamed. and when people are then released, the catch and release situation, so when people are released into the country and never show up again, that prospect is what's drawing people up from central america and also the fact that so many children are now included in that population. so we need to have reform as the president has said repeatedly. we need to have reform of the immigration laws and we need to do all we can to discourage people from making the journey up to the united states by mechanisms such as a border barrier system. >> thank you, mr. attorney

general and thank you assistant attorney general for being here today and for your service to our country. i don't have a question about the substance or redactions of the report but i do want to know was the president or anyone at the white house alerted in advance of your letter's release? >> the march 24th letter, i don't believe so. but as i said, once the report is out, i'll be testifying and i'll be glad to discuss all aspects of the process and also explain the decisions i've made. >> did you or anyone on your team consult with anyone in the white house in the crafting of that letter? >> are you talking about the march 24th letter? >> yes. >> the answer to that is no. but as i say, i'm not going to discuss this further until after the report is out. >> okay. so they did not have to approve

for you to release the letter, the white house? >> no. >> thank you. i do want to ask my second question. if you can answer yes or no just in the interest of time, does the doj under the trump administration consider enforcement of the voting rights act a priority? chief roberts himself has stated that voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that. >> yes, we do. we consider voting rights a priority. >> has the doj, the civil rights division brought any cases under the trump administration to enforce section two of the vra? >> no. but i would point out that during the first four years of the obama administration, one case was brought. so -- >> according to your website, the department of justice under

obama, both president bushes and president clinton had brought at least over 30 cases in enforcement of section 2 of the voting rights act. secretary ross credits the department of justice's need to enforce section 2 of the voting rights act for the reason why a citizenship question is needed on the seine sucensus. the 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 argument's on april 23rd so i'm not going to discuss it. >> okay. i wanted to also ask about zero tolerance policy. do you agree with your predecessors zero tolerance policy memorandum issued last year april 2018?

>> well, 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 caused family separation was the referral of cases to the department that involved families with children. the president has put out an executive order, i believe, saying that we -- dhs is not going to follow that policy. and as far as i know, we are not getting referrals of that type, but the general proposition that the department will prosecute cases that are 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? >> i haven't heard that. >> you haven't heard that? >> no. >> 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, could you repeat that? >> are you aware of any research that shows separation of families and children are detrimental to their health? >> i mean, i haven't reviewed that research but as i said, the president has already put out an order stopping the separation of families. >> 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 -- i personally sitting here am not familiar with those discussions.

>> would you support continuation of separation of families? >> i support the president's policy, which is we're not going to separate families. >> so you support that we will not separate families anymore? >> yes. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. graves? >> thank you for being with us. i'll just remind the committee we've heard a lot about the mueller report today. 22 months of investigation, 2800 subpoenas, 25 million dollar from taxpayers, 500 witness interviews, 19 lawyers, 40 fbi agents and who knows how many warrants. and the conclusions were simple, no collusion, no obstruction. i remember when the first letter was released and there were a lot of complaints then, attorney general, that you weren't releasing the summary soon enough. then today i hear it was too hasty, too quick. now your team's had time to

review. you've indicated maybe within the next week we'll get the report released. for the committee, is there anything new you've seen since the review of the entirety of the report that would change your conclusions? >> no, congressman. as i've explained, my march 24th letter was meant to state the bottom line conclusions of the report, not summarize the report. i tried to use as much of the special counsel's own language as i could. but they were just stating the bottom line conclusions and there's nothing to suggest to me that those -- >> no collusion, no obstruction. it's over. it's done. >> well, the letter speaks for itself. >> i thought it did too. members of congress have said they intend to ignore the public redactions and hileak the full

report. would that give you pause if that were to occur? >> someone's going to leak the full report? >> that's what we -- >> that would be unfortunate because there is grand jury information in there that under the law has to be redacted. >> we've heard members of this committee today say the american people deserve to see the full report a report. the chairman of the judiciary just this weekend said that -- this is chairman nadler, certainly some of it would not leak publicly, that 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 they release, redacted or not? >> not if it violates the law.

we believe 6 e does apply to members 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. that's why the current rule says the report should be kept confidential, because there was a lot of reaction against the publication of ken starr's report and many of the people who are right now calling for release of this report were basically castigating ken starr and others for releasing the starr report. i have already said that i think the situation here requires me to exercise any discretimy disct as much information out as i can. and i think these categories, i think most fair minded people would agree are things that have to be redacted. >> right. right. and i guess just thinking about

the chairman of the judiciary, if he 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 the law or in violation of the law? >> i don't 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 where he would get it. if he got it directly from the counsel, that would be unfortunate. i doubt that would happen. >> quick question about subpoena. my understanding is they're issued a subpoena to you to release the full report. would that put you in violation of federal law? >> in the current situation, i don't think i have the latitude to release 6 e material. as to the other categories, as i said, i'm willing to discuss those with the judiciary committees. i want to try to accommodate and

satisfy their interests but at the same time uphold the law. and right now and there's been a recent case decided in the district of columbia within the last week on this, the 6 e material is not releasable. >> thank you for the fashion in which you've handled this. i think you've been up right. you've been an example of integrity and i know that you are going to abide by the law. my hope is that all members of congress would follow in like kind. thank you, attorney general, for your good work. >> mr. crist? >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general bar for being with us today. on the question of obstruction of justice, you stated in your march 24th 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. >> right, i understand that.

>> that's a statement made by the special counsel. >> right. >> i reported as one of his bottom line conclusions so i'm not in a position to discuss that further until the report is all out. and then what is meant by exonerate is really a question that i can't answer what he meant by that. >> 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? >> that's right. >> okay. >> 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 24th letter, that it does not adequately or accurately necessarily portray the report's

findings. do you know what they're 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 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 of the report and in fact at the time i put out my march 24th letter, there was nothing from the special counsel that wasn't marked as potentially containing 6e material and i had no material that had been sanitized of 6 e

material. so i felt that i should state the bottom line conclusions and i tried to use special counsel mueller's own language in doing that. >> i'm curious, did you feel that there was an obligation upon you or your office to prepare this for 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 is 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 redactions to make the whole thing available. >> let me ask -- >> unfortunately, you know, that's a matter of weeks. i don't think that the public would have tolerated and congress would not have tolerated at least knowing the bottom line. and as you know from your own experience, from a prosecutor's 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 24th 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 24th letter. i mean they did the report after all. >> no, i don't think about it.

>> why not? >> because it was my letter. >> you said that the special counsel and his team were not shown or did not review the march 24th letter, right? you offered to let them review it? >> yes. >> did you offer to anyone else to let other people review it besides the special counsel? >> not that i recall. you mean outside the department? >> anywhere. yes, outside the department. let's start there. >> well, the answer i'm pretty sure is no, but -- >> you're not sure? >> i am sure. >> okay. all right. i think i'll yield. i only have 15 seconds. thank you, general.

>> thank you, mr. attorney general. i'd love to talk to you about your 2020 budget but what is far more critical at present and has much more far reaching consequences to the credibility of our government is the prompt and full disclosure of the mueller report. the current nondisclosure of that report has only worsened a pervasive distrust of government generally and mr. mueller's investigation and your department's response to it specifically. this started early on in the investigation with excessive secrecy about what exactly we were taking a look at. here is the supplemental memo from the deputy acting attorney general and 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 24th 3 1/2 page summary of the report you stated

you are quote mindful of the public interest in this matter and you intend to release, quote, as much of the report as you can consistent with applicable law, regulations and department policies. you know, of course, that on march 14th the house resolved unanimously all members of this committee and house voting that the full report be 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 ki consistent with the law. >> okay. let's get into that then. what specific laws, regulations and department policies as you've cited in your letter do you claim require or justify you to withhold portions of the report? you've already talked about 6 e. what else? >> as i said there are four categories of information that are being recontacted.

>> i understand that, sir. >> you said what else. the other one is we've asked the intelligence community to identify any information that could reveal intelligence sources and methods. >> but what authority do you have to state that you have discretion to withhold -- i get the grand jury side. that's 6 e. by the way, you know as well as i do that 6 e also encompasses an intelligence committee exception. so i assume you're going to say that falls under that category, that there can be some release or withholding of intelligence specific information under your 6 e category. what about the other two categories? what justifies you in claiming the discretion to withhold that information? >> well, are you talking about the intelligence? >> no. i'm talking about the other two categories. i'm talking about ongoing prosecutions but i'm particularly focused on privacy

and reputational interests because it seems to me that's an exception that you can drive a truck through. you're the one that says you have the discretion to do that and i'm asking you where does your discretion lie. >> regulation -- 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 department's longstanding policies and the department's longstanding policy and practice is that if we're 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 comey did in the case of hillary clinton. >> okay. so the regulation back to longstanding policy is what justifies that exception, right? in your view? >> the regulation that says any

release has to be consistent with that. >> good. let's go to 6 e for a second. before i get to 6 e, are you maintaining or will you maintain any right to withhold any information in that report based on a so-called claim of executive privilege? >> am i 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? >> any claim of executive privilege would have to be aser asserted by the president. as i said in my letter which sort of speaks for itself, he has said that he's leaving the decisions up to me. >> okay. are you going to claim executive privilege to keep any of that report back? >> as i said there's no plan on it. i have no plan to do that. >> okay. do you believe that executive privilege applies to any broader range of communications and

specific direct communications from the president? >> i would have to review the latest opinions from llc 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. >> okay. you're aware that there are exceptions under 6 e under which you can in fact disclose grand jury material. some of those are within your discretion but many of those are subject to a ruling of a court, correct? >> what are they? >> there's 6 e. there's five exceptions in 6 e that allow you to go to court to ask the court for permission to release those. it's up to the court to decide whether to release those. 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 or should release materials? >> the chairman of the judiciary committee is free to go to court if he feels one of those exceptions is applicable. >> the right is yours to ask for these exceptions? >> why do you say that? >> because you are the exercising authority under 6 e. >> i think 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 so i'm asking what is your intention? >> my intention is not to ask for it at this stage. i mean, if the chairman has a good explanation of why 6 e does not apply and his need for the information, i'm willing to listen to that. as i said, 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 come back. >> i'll discuss these issues in greater detail after that greater detail after that occurs. >> miss lawrence. >> thank you, mr. chair. attorney general, according to recent reporting the trump administration is pursuing far fewer civil rights cases, including hate crimes, police bias, and disability rights cases than the obama or bush administrations. the doj's civil rights department has started 60% fewer cases against potential violations during the first two years of the trump administration. then during the president obama administration and 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 would have to see those figures and thou they'how they' down. the areas i'm familiar with such as hate crimes it's to the true. we have an enviable record of prosecuting hate crimes, the same or higher rate than previous administrations as far as i'm aware. i would have to see what else you're talking about. >> are you familiar with the data of what the percentage, have they increased under the trump administration? >> i think -- >> there are indications there is? >> have they increased? >> yes. >> whether hate crimes versus the prosecution of hate crimes has? >> hate crimes, have they increased under this administration? >> i haven't seen any data, you know, going from 2017 -- >> is it a priority, you haven't looked at the data, you're not aware of it?

>> as i said in my confirmation hearings, i'm very concerned about hate crimes and intend to vigorously pursue them. the data that i have seen have shown an increase going back to 2013, so i do -- i agree they have been increasing but i have seen no data to say it's different under the trump administration. >> attorney general, i want you to -- we use the word stay woke sometimes in community activism where you are in tune 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 that 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, because i really need to ask this question. i watched with -- in deliberate

accide intent of your answers 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 -- >> i didn't say -- >> let me finish my question because that's what i heard. maybe you need to clarify it. 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 would have and i want you to respond to that. . that's what i heard, sir. >> well, if you did listen to my confirmation -- >> i did, sir. >> i distinguished between three different roles the attorney general plays. one is in enforcement. another is in a policy role. the third is in providing legal advice. what i said then is that the attorney general has the responsibility to provide straight from the shoulder legal advice as to what attorney general thinks is the right view of the law. >> so 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's your legal opinion? >> you didn't let me finish, which is that the first obligation is to provide your best view of the law.

if the president or your executive branch agencies that you're representing are 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 would take if the attorney general was a judge. that's the position i stated at my confirmation hearing. >> so -- >> also -- >> so we can be clear on what you're saying f you disagree with the president, if your legal experience and your expertise doesn't agree and your president says something different, you're obligated to agree and enforce what the president says? is that what you're telling me as the attorney general of the united states of america? >> it's --

>> is that your statement, sir? >> it's the same as when we represent and are defending a law of congress. sometimes we don't think the law is an original matter actually -- >> sir, we pass laws. the president of the united states does not pass laws. >> right. but i'm saying that -- but i feel that if there's a reasonable and defensible argument that could be made to defend a statute, we frequently do that. >> sir, i'm very concerned at this point. i am over my time and i will come back at my second one but i am very concerned with your statement. thank you. >> attorney general, in your testimony you said violent crime has declined since 2016, but as we learn from the fbi homegrown violent 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 particular 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 had the $138 million and 135 new positions for our violent crime efforts and the fbi we're add 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 or how many dollars will be assigned to it. it is an issue that concerns all

americans, i believe, and we need to deal with it in a proper way. >> yes, mr. chairman, but, you know, the people who are on the watch for this kind of thing, whether they be fbi agents or u.s. attorneys pursuing potential cases are the same people that would be looking at other forms of terrorism, potentially. it's hard to allocate exactly the dollars by that category. you know, obviously it is a serious issue and it's one that the fbi devotes a lot of effort to. >> as long as we know that the department, the agency is looking at it, is dealing with it, is taking it seriously, we can then work together on it. that's the easier part. >> mr. chairman, if i can add a bit more. we do have in the fbi budget this year, the $16 million for the fbi's participation in the

national vetting center with other federal entities and that helps the fbi look closely at individuals who may be coming to the united states, so we have that vetting money in the fbi. we also have $4 million in the office of justice programs on grants that go towards looking at extremism and domestic terrorism. >> good. a few weeks ago, the atf director told us that the department's fiscal year 2020 budget request would result in atf budget to let go more than 300 staff. as we seek to address rising gun violence in this nation, how can the department justify a proposal that would result in fewer resources dedicated to that goal? >> let me just say first that i'm a huge fan of atf. i think they're an outstanding

agency and i would love -- any money spent on the atf is well worth it. one of the common themes i hear from u.s. attorneys is how valuable the atf agents are and their technology is just outstanding in helping to deal with gun violence and slents crime. now i am told that the statement made by mr. brandon was actually based on faulty information and we don't think that it would lead to -- we are asking for more money for atf and we don't think it would result in fewer agents, but, you know, maybe lee could help me with that. >> sure. i think very highly of the atf chief. i've known him for years and we have worked together very closely. this year's budget will increase atf by 3.9%. actually just about 4%. it does have increases for atf. if you holook back over the las

three years we've given a 7.8% increase to atf. we are trying to support atf. i know the atf chief is very concerned about his agency, his budget is susceptible to absorbing inflationary increases and if the pay raise isn't funded or if his rents or contract goss up. he's very concerned about that and worried it would translate into a loss of staff. i can tell you we have looked at this year's budget, though, and at the 4% increase we're asking for, we don't think that translates into loss of hundreds of staff and our commitment is that we want to work closely with atf and make sure they have what they need as the attorney general says, any resources atf receives, i think will be put to very good use. we're committed to working closely with the atf folks to make sure they make it through the year. a 4% increase on this budget we think is a strong request for

atf, strong request for their system, the $11 million for that, $4 million for their spartan case management system, so we are trying to stand behind atf in this budget. >> well, i would hope that you can get this issue resolved in terms of letting us know what really is going on, because as we put together the bill that will happen pretty soon, you know, i need to be able to go to this young woman on my right and tell her i need more money for certain agencies and we can't do this if they're saying they're going to lose 300 folks and you say they're not or it's not -- we need that picture cleared up. >> absolutely. >> we'll help you. >> thank you. >> thank you, mr. chairman. of course the department of justice has submitted an almost $30 billion taxpayer dollars to use, and i want to remind my colleagues that is what this purpose -- the purpose of the

attorney general being here today is to talk about that $30 billion that's of taxpayer dollars to be used and unfortunately i see so many of the questions this morning have gone toward a grassy noll conspiracy theory regarding the mueller report. i hope we can focus on the questions of having the attorney general giving of hus time to be here to answer these questions regarding the budget. as you know, general barr, the dna forensic science can speed the prosecution of the guilty, protect the innocent from wrongful prosecution and exonerate the wrongfully convicted. as in prior years the doj is pre posing to use the fund available you under the debbie smith program for dna analysis and capacity enhancement, quote, along with other state and local forensic activities.

so long as sexual assault backlogs persist i believe this funding should be focused on dna analysis and capacity enhancement. what are some of the, quote, other local, state and federal forensic activities that are funded under this authority? >> the national institute of justice inside ojp, funds a program that strengthens the medical examiner and coroner systems within our country in a variety of ways supporting forensics pathologists and there's an alarming shortage of pathologists across the country. opioid crisis has created an additional strain due to overdose deaths. one of the focuses of our grant money today is on medical examiners and coroners. we also provide grants directly to forensic laboratories to encourage their research and the focus of the grant is to make sure that they have all the

tools they need to have effective forensic testing and that has a real impact on the dna backlogs across the country. if we can help them with their technology we can really reduce the backlog. that's one of our key things we are focused on. we have $105 million in this budget for dna related programs and we have $47.5 million to work on the backlog of the national sexual assault kit initiative and we want to make sure that that money is funded in the budget. it's very important to help the states and localities with the sexual assault examinations and the kit and make sure that is taken care of. we believe we have a good, solid budget in this area and continue to work on both the dna and the sexual assault kit areas. >> let me switch over just a minute to opioids. that epidemic continues to

ravage communities in my state of alabama and you recognize fentanyl is 50 times more potent than heroin and overdose dretea are on the rise with fentanyl. the president has called this a national health crisis. it's impacting families and the future of this country. what would you say are some of the most significant actions that the department of justice has taken to curb the deadly opioid epidemic that's plaguing the country currently? >> fentanyl or the whole opioid? >> you know both. either you want to address. fentanyl there's recently been a development. most of the fentanyl and fentanyl analogs come from china and the chinese have agreed to schedule all fentanyl or fentanyl analogs which would make enforcement much easier in china and we would like to see a

comparable action here taken in the united states to allow us to schedule fentanyl, keep fentanyl on the schedule and all analogs of fentanyl. that's a very important step. whether the chinese action -- they actually deliver on it from an enforcement standpoint remains to be seen, but it's something we've been asking them to do and we're very pleased they've done it. generally speaking in the opioid arena, as you know, one of the main problems and essentially the sort of groundwork for this epidemic was set by the abuse of prescription drugs and the diversion of illicit drugs, and our -- a lot of our efforts are devoted toward going after health care providers and companies and others that contributed to this by over prescription or permitting diversion. that's a lot of civil and criminal action around the country that is going after these bad actors and their task forces around the country

focused on that aspect of it. the first effort is to contract the pool of people who are addicted by elicit drugs. we have a strategy of going after the transnational criminal organizations in primarily mexico that are responsible for most of these drugs coming into the united states, and also, the local distribution networks and we have the fbi, the dea, and a substantial portion of our u.s. attorneys office is focussed on dealing with these local distribution networks. so that's basically the strategy. >> thank you. i yield back. >> mr. chairman, mr. chairman, i think it was congressman chris was asking me about the letters and whether anyone was involved in the letters other than people

at justice. i checked with my staff, and was told that just before the letters were out, after they were finalized and just before they went out, we did advise the white house counsel's office that the letters were being sent but they were not allowed or even asked to make any changes to the letters. but we did -- we notified them before we issued them. >> mr. chris i'm sure would have asked you, did they get to see the letter, however? >> i think mate have been read to them. they did not get to see the letter. >> thank you. >> mr. attorney general, i want to get to some other items in the budget today because under current law, background checks must be done within three days of the transaction is allowed to proceed regardless of whether a person is lawfully permitted to buy a gun. my judgment, it is vitally important that background checks

are done thoroughly. as we know the results of incomplete information can be fatal. for example, we know that the shooter who perpetrated the charleston shooting had passed a background check, despite information that should have disqualified him. the house passed enhanced background checks act substantially increases the amount of time allowed for a background check to ensure that we close these loopholes. i'm concerned that until this bill moves through the senate, and on to the president's desk, that three days is not often enough time to evaluate a background check with questionable information. in your judgment, fewer prohibited individuals be able to purchase firearms if this time period was extended?

>> the data that i have heard is that there are about 6,000 of these delayed responses where these default sales occur after the expiration of the three days. when you go back and look at those 6,000, approximately 2,000 of those, about a third, are people that would have flunked the background check and their atf goes out and gets the weapon. retrieves the weapon. i think it's fairly rare that -- i think the aurora shooter may have been someone who got that default, that default sale, you know, it was sold to them after the three-day period. it does occasionally happen. >> wait a minute. occasionally? didn't you mention -- >> they're not all shooters.

it does happen that somebody does -- >> do you support extending the time period? i've had an interaction with so many people in law enforcement and in many cases three days is just not enough. do you support extending the time period? >> no. i think that puts a burden on a lot of people. >> well maybe buying a gun that shouldn't have a gun, is that what you're saying? when you're saying it puts a burden on a lot of people i would rather put a burden on those doing the investigation than -- >> i would put the emphasis on getting accurate records put into the system and make sure that we're getting all the records into the system. i think a far bigger problem is the problem of mental health. that is another elephant in the room. that's where all these school shootings are arising from. we have to figure out a way of upgrading the system so it actually helps us to detect

people with mental illness that should not have guns. i think we should be investing in nix, the accuracy of the records, the obligations of states to put those records into the system and make that a stronger -- a stronger system one that we can rely on. that's where i would put the effort. >> i'm not sure what you mean by a stronger system. in other words, if one of your colleagues was doing a study and looking at a background check and said i need three more days, do you feel that person should have three more days two more days, six more days? isn't it more important to get a good, thorough background check than limiting the office to three days? >> what i was saying the better job of getting the records into the system, we won't have that level of a three-day default

sale. sometimes federal agencies are not putting the appropriate records in, as we saw with the air force situation, sometimes state agencies are not putting the records in, so there are gaps in the records. >> let me go on to the next question. >> that's a far more important thing to address. >> let me go on the next question. i hope we can continue this conversation another time. you have referred to the violence against women act as a bad idea not in the legitimate interests of the federal government. these are investments that fund services for victims of domestic abuse and sexual assault many of my constituents including those trapped in cycles of domestic violent and looking for way out rely on. under a leadership in the previous congress, the authorization of the violence against women act was allowed to expire despite bipartisan support. thankfully last week, the reauthorization passed the

house, again with bipartisan support. during your confirmation hearing you changed your position and supported the programs, pledging to familiarize yourself with the office's work and its program. i was delighted to hear that. so i would be interested in knowing whether you support the reauthorization and do you 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's in it, but 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 that was in the context of when it original came up, you know, two and a half decades ago or 30 years ago, somewhere in that range, and what i said was that in that point it was a

substantive law relating to the federalizing certain acts of violence against women and that was eventually struck down as not having a sufficient clause basis. i think that's what my concern with the violence against women's act was many, many years ago. it was a different kind of act. i fully support what we're doing right now on violence against women. >> thank you very much and i'm delighted that you support the current actions and i'm glad to know that there was good bipartisan support for the bill. thank you, sir. >> attorney general barr, 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 combatting a number of different areas of crime and i wanted you to address if you would the overall

redu reduckion of state and local law enforcement grant programs by the amount of $583 million? >> right. i think part of that, a big chunk of that, is the reduction in the cops grant program, which was in the $300 million and we're putting it down to $99 million. the $99 million does cover the hiring part of the cops grant program. that translates into continued hiring of state and local law enforcement officers. the rationale for not funding the rest of cops is that that is really, we feel, addressed in the funding that goes to the federal opioid task forces and other task forces that the states can participate on and get in and get paid by the federal government, but they are part of a federal/state

cooperative task force. it's reorienting the spending toward those joint task forces versus funding purely state task forces. i don't know if you have something to add about the other grant money. >> on the other grant money the apparent reductions in the 2020 requests, one reason the grant dollars look smaller is that the office of violence against women is proposed to be moved into a mandatory funding account where we think it can ensure there's available money for violence against women programs to $493 million we had for violence against women programs. there's also an adjustment to the crime victims money, the obligation limit goes down by about a billion dollars. over the last two years that's an area that received $8 billion and $10 billion over the last three years. overall we still have is over $4.3 billion in grant programs

proposed in this budget. the attorney general talked about the impact on cops, but $4.3 billion is what we're looking for your help on in supporting this year's budget. >> thank you. the area that i represent is home to a large number of lee tiries. i'm increasingly concerned about the elderly being taken advantage of by scammers and con men, especially given the rise of technology and social media. i'm sure you're aware of this problem that the question is, what are you doing about it and again, as always, what deficiencies may exist that you need more resources to help? >> right. you know, in the area of fraud, it's such a vast area of law enforcement that i have always felt is important to focus on the sleeping giants and when i was attorney general last time it was health care fraud. that was a sleeping giant. this time i'm trying to focus on

elder fraud which is suddenly awoken into a major area of criminality. it rises because of a nation of events including the baby boomers, larger elder population, and the internet, new technologies, and some of the increased loneliness that many elder people unfortunately experience later in life. this is mushroomed, as i think anyone, you know, whose phone rings over the weekend with the scammers know, is more and more of these scams are coming along, we have a major effort in this area. we have an elder -- we have one person in the department in the deputy's office focused on elder care enforcement and the task forces that are 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 wholly within the united states but increasingly they are actually operated by national criminal organizations. a lot of them come out of india. there are signs that organized crime, not -- other kinds of global organized crime are getting into these areas they are so lucrative and the losses are substantial and people, you know, 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've had two annual sweeps with tremendous results, but i have set up a strike force to go after the large organized criminal organizations that we think are behind this. >> thank you. and thank you again for being here and mr. chairman i yield

back. >> all right. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, i would like to finish up our discussion of the health care law. our 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 health care law, a new health care plan, for at least the next two years, and apparently that view has been prevailed upon the white house and the president has accepted it. my question, we've 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 progress on health care for the next two

years, if the supreme court of the united states were to grant credence to your position and sweep away the health care law either in part or in entirety, would 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 sue plant the patient protection and affordable care act. >> you're asking me to speculate whether or not we're going to -- the administration's position is going to prevail in court. beyond that, whether if it does prevail in court, when that is, and also, whether or not there will be a legislative response if, in fact, we -- >> that's absolutely true. i'm asking you to speculate on those and 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 preexisting conditions and all the people that -- whose health care will lapse because of that ruling? >> well, from my experience, the supreme court would likely deal with that in their opinion and provide some kind of period to wind it down. >> do you want them to do it on their own motion with no prompting from the justice department, is that it? >> i didn't say that. i would say -- whatever the administration's position is at that point we'll carry out from a legal standpoint. >> well, i'm dismayed to hear that you're willing to drive our health care system off the cliff with no plan for replacing it. >> i think the -- your premise that the justice department makes health care policy is simply wrong. we take legal positions in cases. >> let me -- i'm going to follow that up.

numerous reports have indicated that you, the chief lawyer for the federal government and secretary azar, who is the lead on health care policy for our federal government, strongly argued against supporting the complete repeal of the patient protection and affordable care act, however reports indicate you and secretary azar were overruled by acting chief of staff mick mulvaney and the president himself. now at any point did you convey either to mr. mulvaney or the president any concerns about either the effects of this lawsuit prevailing if it does or concerns about the dubious legal arguments this lawsuit and did secretary azar communicate concerns about the effects on our american health care system? >> i'm not going to get into, you know, the internal deliberations of the administration on this point. i had ample opportunity to present my views and i believe that the final decision reached

is a legally defensible and reasonable legal position. it is a position that prevailed in the district court and it is a position taken by the four dissenting justices in the nfib case which is that once you do away with the mandate, the rest of the statute cannot stand. >> are you citing executive privilege by declining to tell me about the discussions between you and mr. azar, mr. mulvaney? >> call it what you wish. i'm not discussing it. >> you're refusing to discuss it. all right. well, it's a decision that makes more extreme and, in fact, even contradicts the decision to go forward with this position, contradicts the doj's june 2018 position on the case which was so controversial then, that three of the four career attorneys representing the government refused to sign on to the briefs and actually removed themselves from the case. the american people deserve to

understand if you and secretary azar support the lawsuit based on sound rationale or it was politics talking? i'm requesting you submit this assertion of executive privilege in writing to this committee if that is what you're doing. don't ask us to call it what it is. i'm asking you, if you're exercising executive privilege, we need to know it and we need to know it in writing. i yield back, mr. chairman. is. >> thank you, mr. chairman. attorney general barr, in your testimony you mentioned cyber security and being the fbi is the lead federal agency for investigating cyber attacks by criminal, overseas adversaries and terrorists the threat is serious and growing. cyber intrusion is more commonplace, more dangerous, and more sophisticated. targets include critical infrastructure, trade secrets, cutting-edge r and d, identity theft and as well as on-line

predators et tet rare. while my colleagues on the left are chasing shiny objects i believe the american people want us to address the physical and financial threats that exist in the real world. can you elaborate on the growing threat and provide some scenarios we should be concerned with, equal ocall out these for overseas adversaries and what is the fbi doing to transform itself and protect americans? >> you're correct that the cyber threat is a serious and growing threat, obviously. and it's a threat to our -- it's a threat to our intellectual capital, our trade secrets, and therefore our economic health. it's a threat to our national security. it exposes some of our fundamental infrastructure to disruption. we all know and have heard about the attempt to penetrate into

election infrastructure and results of that could be devastating. the fbi is receiving in this budget 72 -- $70 million to upgrade and enhance their cyber tools and capabilities to deal with these threats. 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 we think poses a very serious threat to the united states in terms of economic espionage as well as classical espionage. and a lot of that does use cyber tools and threats to the -- involved cyber threats to the united states and we're very

focussed on that as well as not just the industrial espionage but also the use of nontraditional collectors that the chinese are able to marshall within the united states by coopting chinese nationals who may be working in universities or laboratories and so forth. it's a broad gauge threat and probably our highest priority at this point in terms of dealing with counter espionage. >> if i can add one thing, we have over $750 million overall in our budget, the attorney general mentions the $72 million increase, the $70 million is the fbi, the smaller piece is worth mentioning only $2 million, but it's really going it have a lot of bang for its buck. money that allows us to protect our own networks from intrusions and malware. it's important the agencies protect their own networks.

>> we definitely appreciate the fbi's work on this. i mean when our universities are, you know, coming up with cutting-edge research and development and technologies just to see them stolen by our adversaries they didn't invest any money in it or work hard to create it and they take it from us, we're wasting taxpayer dollars. when i first came to congress, i was on the armed services committee and many of the generals and admirals said one of their -- they have several threats that they're concerned with that keep them up at night, never just one, but one of them that was recurring was our cyber threats, knocking out our power grids, crippling us, our financial markets and that would just create massive amounts of chaos and so these are extremely important. this is why i think the american people are interested in, you know, having this conversation, making sure the fbi is using their resources in the protection and security of

america. to know now that technological gap between some of us and our overseas adversaries where it was 25, 30, 40 years just eight years ago, is now we're neck in and neck. that's a true threat to our economy as well as our national security. thank you and thank your team at fbi for taking care and keeping america safe. thank you. >> miss meng. >> thank you. attorney general i want to thank you for clarifying the answers to my questions. i just want to confirm, in relation to communication with the white house or any of its team, you are answering that for both the march 24th and the march 29th letters, correct? >> yeah. yes. >> thank you. you brought up a really important topic in my district and i'm sure in 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 and basically targeting and allowing the united states to prosecute those calls that you mentioned that were actually 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 don't know if you have any further ideas on how we can approach this and just in general in the future, i would love to work with your office on this. >> yes. i would like to do that, congresswoman. that's exactly why i set up the strike force to be able -- i

think we need to get ourselves to a higher level of sophistication in pursuing these crimes because although they might appear to the victim sort of, you know, not very sophisticated, they are, in fact, very sophisticated and we have to get back to the people behind the scam. we have to use all our tools, our treaty tools, our cooperative agreements with the enforcement authorities and other countries to get the information we need. >> you can helps us in our budget, we have $611,000 in the civil division budget and the consumer protection branch. they do a lot of elder fraud work and 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 -- >> one other thing i could say is that i've 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 and i think that's being done and i will be proposing them. i would like to provide them to you once we're done. >> thank you. just wanted to ask about sanctuary jurisdictions. as you know 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. in other words, judge ramos ordered the administration to award fiscal year 2017 funds without condition became the fourth federal judge to rule against the administration on this issue. the department of justice's 2018/2022 plan states you still

plan to end sanctuary jurisdictions. what is plant? how do you intend to continue with these conditions for the fiscal year '19 grants? >> well, you're right, that we have lost in a number of district courts but that's why we have appellate courts. we are appealing those decisions. >> you still intend to continue to -- >> yes. >> okay. i yield back. >> thank you, mr. chairman. general, just trying to close things out, oftentimes when an individual or folks are in denial closure helps. a lot of unanswered questions, we've heard some today. i want to read a few quotes and let's go through a series of questions. now presidential candidate eric swalwell said, in our investigation we saw strong evidence of collusion and he declared trump an agent, quote, working on behalf of the russians.

the judiciary chairman nadler claimed it's clear that the campaign colluded. and there's a lot of evidence of that. and then senator blue men thal, a member of the judiciary committee assured us last year, quote, the evidence is pretty clear there was collusion between the trump campaign and the russians. assuming they're speaking from a position of truth, and not attempting to mislead anyone, do they have access to any evidence that the investigator did not have access to? >> not to my knowledge, but i don't know what access they had. i would be in a better position to address that once the report is out. >> to your knowledge, are they withholding any evidence from the investigators? >> not to my knowledge. >> if they did knowingly withhold evidence is that akin to obstruction or something similar? >> i don't want to speculate about that. >> you also stated earlier that as you were preparing the i

think the march 24th letter you offered the mueller team the opportunity to assist in that yet they declined is that correct? >> not to assist. >> review what was your term? >> review it. >> and yet, reports indicate that there are few disgruntled investigators a part of the team since then who without names under a shroud of secrecy themselves, are upset with your findings, but your findings basically just restated the report, that is correct? >> that's what i tried to do. they weren't my findings. i was just trying to state the principle conclusions. >> the letter basically restated what was found in the report as it was given to you. >> as i say, the bottom line conclusions. >> in essence they're upset with their own findings. >> i don't know whether they're upset. >> have you heard from any of the disgruntled mueller investigators? >> i think the article says

something like associates, source to associates of -- >> certain person too if i might add. >> that worked on the mueller report. >> i'm not sure who it refers to. >> were the investigators or anyone assisting the mueller team, were they under -- did they have security clearances? >> i would think so, yes. many of them did, i'm sure. >> it's possible some of this information is being leaked or potentially going to be leaked is in violation of security clearances as well? >> well only if it were classified information. i haven't seen any classified information leaked from -- that i would attribute to the special counsel's office. >> so this i think as you stated it, it's multi-person removed from the source, it seems, as reported which i would hope this committee and no member of congress would take as fact. shifting to security real quick, you've done great job today answering our questions and we did meet with director wray last

week and he's doing a fantastic job as well. cyber security is something that i have a passion for and have been very aggressive in advocating for policy that allows for active cyber defense, allowing the ability to defend your network outside of your network and not wait until in a passive posture until you've been impacted. your department has broad purview over a lot of this and i would like the opportunity to work with you and your team or whom you might designate to see how we might better advance policy in the cyber fraud and abuse act hasn't been updated in decades and deserves good review and an aggressive stance and again i would like to work with you or your team or whoever we might designate. thanks for your testimony today taking time to join us and for your good work. >> mr. crist.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. mr. barr during the heat of the 2018 midterm election, president trump pledged to protect coverage for americans with preexisting conditions. are you aware of that or were you aware of that? >> yes. >> are you aware that prior to the affordable care act, up to 130 million americans had some type of preexisting condition that insurance companies could use to deny coverage, delay treatment or limit access? >> i didn't know that number, but sounds reasonable. >> yes, sir. are you aware that the affordable care act made discrimination against preexisting conditions against the law? >> yes. >> do you agree that the texas affordable care act ruling, if affirmed by the supreme court, would eliminate the law in its

entirety, which would necessarily include eliminating protections for preexisting conditions? >> yes. and the president's made clear that he supports protection of preexisting conditions. >> but pursuing this case would remove them? >> is that a reason to take a legal position? >> i don't know -- >> i hear members of the committee basically saying, you know, you've taken this legal position that can have bad consequences. bad policy consequences. >> yes. >> but as you know, as an attorney general, you take positions based on the law and you litigate them in court and the court makes the decision. >> that is true. >> so if this was such a hokey position to take, what are you worried about? >> what am i worried about? >> yeah. >> you're acting like -- >> you say that administration's position is hokey and then you say the sky is falling. >> i didn't say that.

those are your words, sir. >> if it's not hokey, not hokey, then -- >> what am i worried about? i'm worried about billions -- >> i'm a lawyer. i'm not in charge of health care. >> i'll try not to interrupt you. i expect the same. what i'm worried about are the people i work for, the american people, and the people you work for, sir, and it's our duty around here to look out for their best interests as public servants. >> we're very worried about them and the president's made clear that he wants a strong health care legislation and he wants to protect preexisting conditions in the event that the court accepts the legal arguments we've presented. >> you're pursuing a case that would take it away from them. the irony of that is rich. >> well as i say, you know, we -- >> i yield my time. thank you. >> mr. case.

>> thank you. when you offered mr. mueller the opportunity to review or edit, i'm not exactly sure what your characterization was of your three and a half page summary of his report, and he declined, did he give you a reason why he declined? >> i didn't talk to him directly. >> were you provided with a reason why the mueller team did not want -- >> i don't -- >> to participate? >> i don't recall whether i was -- whether a reason was given. >> so somebody offered to them that they could review your summary, make comments -- >> it wasn't a summary. i it was a statement of the principle conclusions. it wasn't a summary of the report. >> your three and a half page letter, did you take it that there was no reason given back for their declining to do so? >> did i what? >> did you take it there was no

reason for them to do so? in other words, did they not tell you in any way, shape, or form why they declined to participate in reviewing your three and a half page letter? >> i don't recall whether that was related to me. my sense was that he understood that this was the function of the attorney general. i'm the person to whom the report is given. >> okay. >> you know, i'm listening to you on the mueller report and here's my problem. you say in your march 24th letter you are mindful of the public interest on this matter and that you will release as much of the report as you can consistent with applicable law, regulations and department policies. you follow up with a letter of a few days later outlining four categories in which you are evaluating actions. one of those categories is grand jury related to federal rule of

criminal procedure 6 e and the other three are intelligence, ongoing prosecutions and privacy, reputational interests. what is the authority for that? you track it back to department policies. which did not have the force of law. >> they do when embodied in regulation. >> the reg glaze -- >> triggers back to department policies. >> right. >> which are -- >> regulation states in a disclosure has to be in accord with those policies. >> do you consider you have -- >> a regulatory mandate. >> do you have the discretion as to how you apply those policies? >> i have discretion. >> we're sitting here from my perspective, with virtually unlimited discretion for you to redact from that document. maybe if i trusted my government more, i would be comfortable with that. but since i don't, i'm not comfortable with that. i'm looking for some way in

which your judgment, which is going to be the arbiter as i understand it, of what the public sees, the arbiter, it's you, ultimately, can be overseen? i've suggested to you that under 6 e there are procedures under which you can go to court to ask the court to give you guidance, direction or an order. i'm not sure whether you will do that or not. >> well -- the court is limited to the grounds stated in 6 e. >> this is correct. but you do have quite a bit of discretion to go to court under 6 e if you review it. that's one category. the other category, obviously, is that there would be some function for congress to exercise in its oversight responsibility under the constitution, but i am not clear as i sit here today whether you envision a role for congress in that oversight?

>> i think i sort of addressed that. i identified the four categories and the team that includes the special counsel office lawyers are implementing that. >> can you -- >> so they are the ones redacting what is 6 e. >> is there -- >> they're the ones that conducted the investigation and know what is 6 e and not 6 e. that's why i'm dependent on the special counsel to identify 6 e and the intelligence community will identify the intelligence stuff. >> do you -- >> and the lawyers who were prosecuting the cases and the special counsel's office can identify whether there's going to be a conflict between releasing any information and a court order or an ongoing prosecution. the special counsel's office knows who the peripheral players

are they said shouldn't be charged. those are the categories. >> does congress have a role in overseeing your decision on what is and isn't taken out of the mueller report? is there any circumstances under which any member of congress would have full access to all of the mueller report, period, maybe under conditions, but is there any circumstance you can envision, sir, where congress with whatever protective procedures may be in place, would have access to the full report to review it? >> yes. i did say here that once that report is ready for release, i would not only give it to the chairman of the judiciary committees, but i would talk to them and engage with them about what additional information they feel they require and whether there's a way of accommodating that. as you i'm sure -- >> they have to give you a reason? what if they just want to see

the report to satisfy themselves of your exercise of discretion? >> it depends. take, you know, classified information. i can envision -- >> we have an that. >> well, if you let me finish, i was saying i can envision a situation where under appropriate safeguards, that information would be shared. i also think there may be, under appropriate safeguards, a way of people verifying that these categories were not abused and that the information is bona fide, privacy related information and so forth. i'm willing to work with the judiciary committees on that. but i'll have to say until someone shows me a provision in of 6e that permits its release, congress doesn't get 6e unless there's a provision that permits it. >> there's plenty of discretion in 6e for you to make that judgment. >> where would you find that? >> you disjudicial proceedings

judicial proceedings. i'm sorry, i'm out of time. there are a number of interpretations you can make of 6e that would give you some good discretion to come up to congress under limited circumstances, possibly, to be able to satisfy somebody in congress who gets to see the entire report and who gets to oversee you. >> miss lawrence. >> thank you. i want to publicly thank you, attorney general, for your support of violence against women act. it is jong due, along overdue, forward to your support of that law. also, i look forward to your release of the report next week. i want to follow up to the previous question and let you know under the hate crime statistics act of 1990, the fbi is required to collect and report hate crimes from state

and local and federal office. in 2017, the most recent data available, the fbi reported a 17% increase in hate crimes on race, religion, and sexual orientation. i do encourage you to look at those numbers. >> can i say something? >> yes. >> you know, i'm very concerned about hate crimes, and one of the priorities we have is to make sure that those numbers are not understating the level of hate crime. as you probably know, local jurisdictions are very spotty in the extent to which they report hate crimes. there's some major u.s. cities, major cities that say there's zero hate crimes. so as you may know, the fbi is engaged in a major initiative to try to make sure that these jurisdictions are accurately reporting and are converting

their crime reporting system into a new system that actually will have a field in the system for hate crimes. so we're hopeful -- one of the things we have to do is get a better handle on the actual level of this, where it is and so forth. that depends on reporting, and we're trying to improve that. >> and taking those who commit it to trial. >> yes. >> i thank you. that's a lot better answer than before. i was previously a mayor before coming to congress. cops grants is an amazing support we have in our cities across the country. unfortunately, there is cities who are being told that they're no longer eligible. this is creating -- we know after the economic downfall, a number of cities reduced the number of police officers.

although they're not back at the amount they were before, they were able to increase that deficit with cops. can you tell me what was the thinking and what is happening with the grant? you're going to hear more about this because this is a critical funding to cities. >> right. so as i understand it, the c.o.p.s. grant was to continue the 99 million. the other money related to the funding of state and local task forces, and i think the thinking behind not asking for that money was that we would rather that support joint federal, local, and state task forces, where the money does benefit the state and locals. when they participate in the joint federal state task forces, they're paid. but the idea was let's put our

effort on these joint task forces rather than putting the dollars -- >> i ask that you look at that because that's critical, and those joint task forces, human trafficking and drugs has been extremely beneficial in cities. the other question i want to ask is about the decision of the president's budget to transfer community relation services to the civil rights department. that activity, the proposal requests minimum funding and staff to be dedicated to the functions of community relations. attorney general, you know so many of the issues that we have had in riots and civil unrest. we have deliberately infused money into the community relations. in doing this, in consolidating, there are going to be reductions in staffing of the civil rights

community relations initiative. how do you ensure that the civil rights act is fully enforced with these cuts to the budget? >> right. this, i think, is the second year in a row this is being proposed. my understanding of the rationale is that currently the crs has, i think, maybe 50 positions, and they're spread in small offices around the country, sometimes just one or two people in whole areas of the country. and i think the idea is that given what they are actually involved in, it would be more efficient to have them co-housed with the civil rights division and have a reservoir of people essentially, i think 15 slots, of people who could be deployed when there is a situation that needs their services rather than maintaining this whole nationwide structure with very

small offices. that's the rationale for it. >> i really need you to do a deep dive in that. this proposed move undermines the express terms of title ten of the civil rights act by inserting the civil -- i mean, the community relations into a division that you're not supposed to have in a division that litigates and investigates. so to me, i see this combining is a direct attack on title ten. it's also in -- it is not in compliance with combining those two together. so this is an area that i will be looking at very closely, and the funding of doing that is not something i would support. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. attorney general, before i close, i'm just going to make a very personal statement. like so many people in this

house, i grew up politically in the '60s. that's where i developed a lot of my feelings about things in our great country. and we were a group of people trying to make the country even better than it was, knowing that it was great at all times. it's still great. but whenever things got rough with segregated housing or education issues or civil rights issues, voting rights issues, we knew there was always a justice department we could turn to. we always knew that justice department would defend the law and therefore defend the people. and somehow come through for us. it's very troublesome to see a justice department against the law of the land when there are many people, many people who if

not liking the whole law, certainly like the pre-existing conditions provision, the ability to keep their child on their plan until that person is 26, and so i hope that if you take something from here today, since we took a lot from you in information, is to maybe look around and realize or pay more attention to the fact that we lean on you to come through for this country. and when we see you taking sides against the law of the land or taking sides that we may not think is in the best interest of the american people, it troubles us. nevertheless, we want to thank you for your testimony today, for your patience with the time, and i think i want to thank my committee members on both sides. it was a great hearing, great attendance, and i'm sure your picture is somewhere in the

files today. thank you so much, mr. attorney general. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, madam chair. >> meeting is adjourned.

>> if you missed any of the attorney general's testimony before the house appropriations subcommittee, we'll be showing it again tonight at 8:00 eastern. that will be over on c-span. and the attorney general will be back on capitol hill tomorrow on the senate side to testify on the president's budget request for the justice department. he's also likely to get more questions about the mueller report. our live coverage gets under way tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. eastern here on c-span3. also live today, secretary of state mike pompeo will be talking about his agency's budget priorities. he's also expected to get questions about iran and north korea. we'll have live coverage at 2:30 eastern time here on c-span3. a reminder, you can watch our coverage online at c-span.org or listen live with the free c-span radio app.