said no. we are not going to provide you with assistance. shortly after state street was destroyed, and by the way pointing at film that i have seen the police cruiser that went flaming down state street was not included but about a week afterwards two monuments at the state capitol that i used to walk by were torn down. one was of hans christian hegg who was the norwegian immigrant who died at chickamauga who fighting for the end of slavery in the united states. they took a tow truck and tore it down. was lady forward. lady forward is there because of women's suffrage. wisconsin was the first state to

pass suffrage back in the early 1900's here in the united states of america. those were torn down. just yesterday, a woman -- a social worker woteaches at a local school just outside madison was charged with beating a state senator. a democrat state senator. her name is samantha hamer. hopefully she will be given justice, but i want to emphasize to my colleagues on the left that if you think you're insulated from antifa which is supposedly a myth, you should really think about that because they and other radicals will not spare violence on anyone. their anarchy is bent to destroy our country. if you want to contact formaler colleague state senator tim carpenter, a democrat, he will tell you he was beat to a pulp

on that night at midnight when they were tearing down those statues. it is not a myth. so mr. attorney general, i would ask mr. burnell trammell, i don't know if our attorney general -- attorney general call in wisconsin or the mayor of milwaukee are going to pursue what appears to perhaps be a political execution. are you familiar with that situation in milwaukee? >> the shooting of that gentleman? >> yes. >> i have read about it. >> if the attorney general and other law enforcement in wisconsin do not act, will the federal government study the situation and bring justice for mr. trammell and his family? >> yes, we certainly studied that situation. >> this is not a myth.

we're hearing it all over the country and we're hearing all the time about portland and seattle. this happened in madison, wisconsin also, where a mayor -- a far-leftist mayor proudly carries that banner, sat on a street -- not a street, a highway with protesters and shut down traffic and then state street, one of the most iconic streets in the state of wisconsin, in madison, was destroyed. and i'm not so sure that those businesses are going to get their businesses back. it is not a myth, folks, what's happening is real across our country and we need to stop the riots. these are not peaceful protests. these are riots that are happening and we need to call an end to it and i hope you, mr. attorney general, will work towards that goal. thank you.

>> the gentleman yields back. >> attorney general barr, i wanted to follow up on some questions from one of my colleagues. you testified earlier that you have at times voted by mail. is that correct? >> i remember, i think, once voting by mail. >> public records show you voted by mail in 2012 and -- >> i can't remember the details. i think on one occasion i had to go to a station and vote before the election -- i think in another one i voted -- >> it's my time, sir. i raise this because in may of this year, 800 public-health experts from across the nation sent a letter urging congress to prepare for a presidential election by mail to allow americans to vote from home and assure their health and safety. you're aware that health experts have emphasized that voting by mail is critical to protect public health in this election, is that correct? >> when was that? >> in may of this year. >> i would be interested in seeing that.

>> i have an extra copy for you. that public health advice is really important to citizens in the commonwealth of pennsylvania because we have a large population of seniors who are at higher risk for the coronavirus. they shouldn't have to choose between risking their lives and exercising their right to vote, but the problem we're facing is that the president has repeatedly sought to cast doubt on the security of mail-in ballots saying that the 2020 election could be rigged with quote millions of mail-in ballots printed by foreign countries and you, sir, have repeated this disinformation -- >> it's not disinformation. >> i don't have a question for you yet. here it comes. last month you echoed the president's conspiracy theory when you suggested in at least three interviews that quote foreign countries could manufacture counterfeit ballots to influence the presidential election, you said that in at least three interviews? >> yes. >> but in fact you have no evidence that foreign countries

can effectively sway our elections with counterfeit ballots some >> no, but i have common sense. >> ok. well, and that's what you responded when you were directly challenged on that. you said no, you didn't have direct evidence but it was obvious. according to state election officials your alleged concerns here are not obvious but in fact are outrageous. every state in the union has absentee ballots. 2/3 in the states allow for vote by mail for any reason. five states, colorado, oregon, washington, hawaii and utah vote entirely by mail and have done so for decades. even the u.s. military uses mail-in ballots, doesn't it? >> yes. >> isn't it true that after you suggested, without evidence, that foreign adversaries could sway our elections using counterfeit ballots election experts and officials from around the country said that what you suggested was virtually impossible, preposterous, would

never happen and would be readily detected due to the multiple levels of security used with mail-in ballots? >> there are not multiple levels of security, and i don't agree that it's -- >> reclaiming my time and again i'm happy to supply you with the statements that -- >> before donald trump voiced concerns about that, every major publication -- >> you're taking my time, sir, in fact there is no evidence that foreign countries can make counterfeit balthe ones and create a threat to our election security. are you aware that in may the president tweeted, and i quote, mail-in voting will lead to massive fraud and abuse, it will lead to the end of our great republican party. end quote. >> i wasn't aware of that. >> that suggests, sir, that the president is spreading disinformation about mail-in ballots because he is afraid that if more people will vote he and his party will lose.

the fact, mr. barr, is that our foreign adversaries cannot actually influence our elections by submitting massive counterfeit ballots but the f.b.i. and our intelligence services have repeatedly warned that those adversaries are actively trying to sow mistrust and by repeating that disinformation you and the president are helping them, just switching gears you would agree -- >> i would like the opportunity to respond -- >> prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying strongly with a political party, wouldn't you? >> who makes contributions? >> you said in 2017 that prosecutors who make political contributions are identifying fairly strongly with political parties, correct? >> yes. >> and in fact you and your wife have donated over $730,000 to republican and conservative candidates including donations with 58,000 to republican senators and senate candidates in the four months preceding your confirmation?

>> are you surprised i'm a republican? >> is that correct that you made those -- >> over a long period of time. >> including just before -- >> that's a cumulative of a long period of time but basically i never hid the fact i'm a republican. i was talking about career prosecutors generally have generally historically avoided making contributions. was my view. >> 130,000 is not -- >> time of the gentle lady is expired -- >> i would seek unanimous consent to introduce the 800 -- the public health expert letters signed by 800 individuals, the attorney general repeated interviews in which he suggested that our elections could be undermined, the overwhelming reaction from election officials around the country and the articles concerning his campaign donations. >> without objection the articles will be entered into the record. mr. garcia. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

mr. barr, your department paul manafort, the president's former campaign manager early from prison in may out of concern for the coronavirus, in march 26 and april 3rd your department released guidelines, criteria biwhich senate priorities by which people will be released early, by your own department's manafort did not have that criteria, we have asked you to use your authority to protect vulnerable populations in prison and instead you released the president's former manager. downhill how many convicts have been released? >> i have that. >> quickly because the clock ticks. we have a slide that shows us

that 10,000 inmates have tested positive and over 1,000 staff have tested positive. do you know how many have died? >> about a hundred. almost a hundred, i think. >> that's right, about 99 inmates have died yet only 5% have been released under your guidelines. >> 7,000 and -- >> you said in may you were taking every measure we can to protect federal inmates. the numbers, however, tell a different story as do your actions. despite releasing manafort your lawyers continued to argue against a release of prisoners. in april vulnerable prisoners who suffer from serious at-risk health conditions like chronic asthma, heart disease, and kidney disease filed a lawsuit for early release in ohio. these prisoners were being quote overcrowded in like cattle because prisoners were not able to social distance, 550

prisoners sought release yet your own department processed only seven applications and denied them all, yet you had time to process manafort's application darns >> i didn't process manafort's application. >> your department did, sir, but apparently not these vulnerable americans living at great risk, in fact, in a series of early in april and may an ohio district court ordered that your department quote act with urgency, end of quote, move inmates out due to continued risk of harm to prisoners and to government staff. and sir, your department challenged that court order, did it not? >> i'm not familiar with that. >> well, you all did, you did not help move these inmates out as ordered, in fact you tried to block the district court's order, however, the supreme court on may 26 rejected your department's request, sir, nine

prisoners have died and it's been two months since the supreme court's order. do you even know today how many of those prisoners have been released or how many more have died? >> no, i don't. we had a hundred -- started out this with 170,000 prisoners so we have lost -- >> i need you to try to explain to me and america how is it that the former campaign manager of the president of the united states who did not meet the priority criteria got released even though your own department admitted he didn't meet the guidelines but all these other folks were not. if it was a deadly enough virus that you needed to protect the former campaign manager, why not all of these americans who also have vulnerable -- are vulnerable or have at-risk conditions, mr. barr? the contrast says it all and it is not just in ohio. in fact, in my own home state in

texas a federal prison counting women with mental health issues just concerned last week that of the 1,357 prisoners, over 500 tested positive for covid, one prisoners recounted "we're like a whole bunch of hamsters in a cage chasing our own tails" and yet none have been released. mr. barr, have you seen those statistics? yes or no. >> the -- i put out guidelines -- general guidelines to propel the release -- >> you did not release anyone -- >> i put out general guidelines. >> one of those prisoners is a mother who had to give birth on a ventilator in that facility because your department prioritizes releasing paul manafort instead of vulnerable americans. a few weeks after this prison she died along with two other

women housed in this facility from covid nin. you could be saving lives by releasing the prison population. you have shamelessly abandoned your oath of office to protect all americans because you have prioritized giving favors to the president's friend. it's not equal justice under the law, it's not the law that you and i learned in law school, it's two systems of justice. one for the president's friend and one for everybody else. i yield back. >> the director of the b.o.p. testified under oath that no one from the justice department was involved. >> the gentleman has not been given an opportunity to respond. this is a consistent problem. >> thank you, mr. chairman, good afternoon, mr. attorney general, i want to go through a couple of your prior statements. april 19 -- excuse me, april 18

of 2019 you stated quote that the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's investigation. today under penalty of perjury do you testify that that statement was true at the time you made it? >> i thought it to be true at the time i made it. judge isn't it true? >> i'll get to that, mr. barr. >> does it have top -- >> reclaiming my time, you answered the question. i have another question. >> i need to answer that question. >> mr. attorney general, answered the question. >> you said under penalty of perjury, i'm going to answer the damn question. >> are you saying no? >> i think what i was referring to, and i would have to see the context of it was the supplying of documents. >> mr. attorney general, the statement was not limited to the supply of documents. you stated -- mr. attorney general, reclaiming my time -- >> i think that's what i was talking about. >> april 19 of 2019 that the white house fully cooperated with the special counsel's

investigation, you knew when you made that statement that the president had not agreed to be interviewed by the special counsel. >> i think i subsidiary quently said i was -- i think i subsequently said they've was referring to the production of documents -- >> a statement saying that mr. berman, former u.s. attorney for the southern district of new york stepped down, you are aware of that statement being released by the department, correct? >> yes. >> do you testify today that statement was true at the time the department issued it? >> he may not have known it but he was stepping down. >> he may not have known that he was stepping down? that's your testimony today? >> he was being removed. >> mr. faernl, the statement did not say that he was -- >> mr. attorney general, the statement did not say that he was being removed, it did not say he was being fired, it said that he was stepping down, your testimony today is that that was accurate when mr. berman testified under oath to this committee that it was not, i

want to talk -- >> he was removed and i wanted an opportunity to offer him another job and i offered to him the next day -- >> a rationalization. >> it's not a rationalization. >> mr. attorney general, earlier this year president trump stated that he had planned to make what he described as vice president's quote ukraine dealings an issue on the campaign trail. earlier this year, february 10 you stated that you had set up a quote intake process for the -- intake process end quote for submission of information relating to the ukraine to the justice department and that included quote -- these are your words, anything mr. giuliani might provide. do you recall making those comments? >> something along those lines. >> you concede there isn't anything standard creating a special process for information related to advancing -- >> i disagree and i also made it clear that that is a vetting process that's available to anybody -- >> is that right? which u.s. attorney have you

assigned to receive information from viement bid den's personal lawyers -- >> maybe if they vetted the dossier we wouldn't have to hold -- >> there is no u.s. attorney you appointed to do that because what you have done with respect to this process is unprecedented -- >> it was cautionary so we do not dilute the criminal investigative process with ukrainian information. >> my understanding sthauf directed -- >> you are -- >> is that you have -- >> you are going to give me an opportunity? >> the u.s. attorney for new york my understanding is that you have asked that u.s. attorney to be responsible for the intake process. is that right? >> no. >> is that right? >> the u.s. attorney in the eastern district was given oversight of all ukrainian related cases. any new cases involving ukraine. he faced a problem with ukraine which is unreliable information coming in. there is a lot of corruption there. it's a hall of mirrors.

and i wanted to make sure that before we got into criminal proceedings and this was to everyone's benefit particularly vice president biden that the information was scrubbed in conjunction with the intelligence community -- >> with the memo you issued which said any and all new matters relating to ukraine shall be issued to the district of new york for handling just as you described now, the u.s. attorney responsible if the eastern district of new york was recently changed, my understanding is a few weeks ago you announced that seth ducharm would be taking over to replace rich donahue. mr. ducharm -- >> in charge of vetting. >> prior to taking this position mr. ducharm worked at maine's district of justice. >> he was a counselor to me and then he was the principal assistant deputy to the attorney general. >> now the acting u.s. attorney the deputy u.s. attorney in that district -- >> they wanted to swap jobs.

>> you have appointed your prior counsel to oversee that very process, with that i yield back my time, mr. chairman. >> the gentleman yields back. >> mr. chairman, before we go to miss macbeth, can i enter a couple of documents -- ask for unanimous consent to enter four documents of the memos i referred to the guidelines for who gets released, a "washington post" article about paul manafort's release and testimony from the counsel of prison locals 33 for the record? >> without objection. the member is recognized. >> i want to start by thanking you, attorney general barr for joining us today and for work that the committed public servants in your department are doing to keep the country safe, you said in may you would be taking the president's position in urging the supreme court to overturn the affordable care act.

when asked if you will still take that position even if it means, and i quote, stripping millions of americans of their health care in the middle of a pandemic, you stated that the case would not be argued until october and that the president expects to fix and replace obama care with a better system. attorney general barr, let's be very, very clear. a public -- as public health officials and data have shown us this pandemic is simply not going away. just last week it was reported that one hospital was planning to send coronavirus patients home to die due to limited resources to treat them so we're still facing an extremely critical and extremely serious situation and even if you expect the president to figure out a new plan by october, the president has not yet put in place another system nor is

there any guarantee that he will do so by october as you quote expect, so when you say you expect the president to figure out a new plan, you are taking a risk with millions of americans' lives. you are risking the lives of millions. people who will not be covered for preexisting conditions if the supreme court agrees with your position. civil servants in your own department have disagreed with you on this matter. in fact, i am introducing a statement by one of the lead attorneys on the a.c.a. case, joel mcilvaine, who resigned in protest when your department refused to defend the law as it is required. in my district, the sixth district of georgia, congressional district, there are over 300,000 people that have preexisting conditions and

i, sir, am one of them, a two-time breast cancer survivor. our state is continuing to battle hard against a resurgence in covid-19 cases, so i'm asking you, sir, not to gamble with american lives. not to gamble with my life, and i would like you to confirm that if the president has no other plan in place by octobering, you will reverse course and drop your position that i quote you directly the entire a.c.a. must fall. >> i have two children who are cancer survivors so i feel very strongly about this issue. as a matter of policy. and i believe that the president has made clear that he will ensure that there are -- >> will you please answer my

question. will you stop playing politics with americans' health care in the middle of a pandemic -- >> i'm not playing politics. i'm a lawyer. i'm not in charge of health care policy. >> will you reverse your course and make sure that millions of americans like me that depend on health care and treatment to stay alive -- will you reverse your course to make sure that we have the ability to be able to live in this country freely with quality health care? >> people will have the health care protection and it will be accomplished either if i lose -- if the government -- if the government loses the case, if the supreme court strikes it down then i think -- >> i want to -- >> based on history there will be -- >> i would like to go, i would like to briefly mention my concerns relating to gun violence because that's how i -- >> relating to what? >> i want to briefly go on to another concern that i have. relating to gun violence.

the nation has seen a dramatic increase in firearms sales and numbers blocked by background checks, in march alone the background check system blocked 23,000 attempted sales, in other words, in one month there were 23,000 attempts to get a firearm by a person who was not allowed to possess one under our current law, and it is a federal crime for anyone to lie in an attempt to get a firearm which is what i suspect most people try to do. i would like to know from you how many of these march block sales were investigated. >> i sent out a directive that we should start prosecuting to the extent we can these lie-and-try cases. previously we hadn't really been pursuing them -- >> i take that as a no. >> i'm saying we are pursuing those cases. >> my time is up, i take that as a no, this fits a larger pattern

of your administration from health care to gun violence this administration is failing to keep my constituents and people all over the country healthy and safe, i demand better, americans demand better, i want you to provide the answers you were either unwilling to provide us or don't have answers to, to this committee because these are relevant questions and we need to have answers from you, i field back the balance of my time -- >> mr. chairman, i've got a question. >> for what purpose does the gentleman -- >> for months you have tried to get the attorney general to come. he's here. why don't you let him speak? why don't you let him answer the questions. >> the gentleman is -- >> if you want the attorney general to come, at least let him answer the questions and the accusations made against him. >> the gentleman's rudeness is not recognized -- >> rudeness? rudeness is on the other side. time after time you refused to let the attorney general of the united states answer the questions posed to him. >> mr. stanton is recognized. >> maybe the last few witnesses

will let the attorney general speak. >> mr. stanton is recognized. . >> thank you very much, chair, since the voting rights act those who sought to suppress the minority vote suggest they were out to advance some altruistic goal such as election security but history has proven that those allegations and those rationalizations were lies designed only to fend off legal challenges. it was a dirty little secret and those who aim to suppress the minority vote never dared to say it out loud but not donald trump. he didn't even try to keep it a secret. he just blurted it out. he said he will lose the 2020 election if more americans are able to vote. that's one reason why this president needed a fixer at the department of justice from

letting russia off the hook to rewarding roger stone, mr. barr, you have proven not only very willing but i have to admit very able. more than a year ago, this committee heard testimony about a resurgence of discriminatory voting practices, certain states making it more difficult to vote. these practices include unnecessarily strict photo i.d. requirements and the abuse of signature match requirements to reject absentee baloats. despite that your -- ballots. despite that your department has a lax -- during your tenure you filed just one case to do so but the d.o.j. has done nothing to block the suppression practices we heard about over a year ago to this committee and to your credit, mr. barr, you warned us, you told "the new york times" magazine earlier this spring that the d.o.j.'s role in protecting the right to vote would be limited this year and

that it would be up to the states to police themselves. isn't that right? yes or no. >> i don't recall saying that but if you say it's in the article. >> it's from "the new york times" article in just last month, in the same news story you said it would be up tow the voters to referee the election. is that right? yes or no. >> i don't remember the context of that, frankly. was i talking about foreign influence? >> no, sir, i'll submit it for the record, you will have a chance to submit additional testimony if you desire, you have to explain to me how a person whose right to vote is denied by a discriminatory process can referee an election. it troubles me you have not been consistent in your approach, as the attorney general you have stood down on discrimination and allowed states to make it harder to vote but you have used the d.o.j. as a sword when attempts have been made to make it easier to vote, voting right advocates in south carolina and alabama

sought to prevent americans from choosing between voting and risking their health by making it easier to safer to complete an absentee ballot during the pandemic but your d.o.j. intervened to try to block that accommodation. mr. barr, did you discuss either of those cases with the president, yes or no? >> no. >> the american people -- >> i don't even -- what two cases are you talking about? >> cases in which -- >> tell me the name of the cases. >> i don't have the name of the cases. >> where were they? >> carolina and alabama. you will have a chance to comment after your testimony today, the american people have good reason to believe that you will continue to use your authority to carry out the president's wishes to suppress the vote and there are fears that you and the president are laying the foundation to interfere with the upcoming election specifically with vote by mail as my colleagues have previously noted because both of you have advanced false

conspiracy theories about mail-in voting and i hope we can put some of those fears to rest here today, mr. barr, can you commit to the american people that you will not interfere with the decisions of state and local authorities to use vote by mail and absentee ballots in the 2020 elections? that's a yes or no question. >> i think the federal government has very limited ability to get involved in this but i'm not going to give up whatever ability we have to ensure the integrity of the election. my observation simply that it would inject some uncertainty into the election process and it opens up the potential of fraud and i think the integrity of our elections is very important. >> the president has suggested that only votes counted on election day should be what matters meaning that if a voter casts a legal ballot on or before election day but if that is not counted on election day it shouldn't count at all, if in

this upcoming election the president asks you to intervene and try to stop states from counting legal ballots after election day will you do the right thing and refuse? yes or no. >> i will follow the law. >> you won't say no, sir? >> i will follow the law. >> it's very disappointing -- >> if a state has a law that says it has to be cast on election day, that's the law. >> will you commit to making sure the department of justice does not get involved in a contested election? yes or no. >> i will follow the law. >> it's so disappointing that we can't get a clear answer on that, mr. chairman, i would like to unanimous consent to submit an article from the guardian, second "the new york times" magazine, william barr's state of emergency, finally from "the washington post" trump's assault on the election integrity forces the question what would happen if he refused to accept. >> that material will be --

>> mr. chairman, for the record -- a member of the judiciary committee following the law -- >> without objection. >> following the law should be something a member of the judiciary committee knows is pretty darn clear. >> the gentleman is suspend -- without objection the material will be entered into the record, miss dean is recognized. >> mr. chairman, could we take a five-minute break? could we take a five-minute break, mr. chairman? >> no. >> that's a common courtesy of every witness. >> i waited an hour for you this morning. i haven't had lunch. i would like to take a five-minute break. >> mr. attorney general, we are almost finished. we are going to be finished in a few minutes. we can certainly take a break but -- >> a real class act, mr. chairman. a class act. >> after this if you still -- >> he wants a break now and you just showed rudeness, let's let the attorney general have a break. >> the committee will stand in recess now.

>> thank you, mr. chairman. >> bill: what a day this has been. i'm bill hemmer live in new york. we have been watching this combative, often frustrating hearing from the hill, nonetheless they have barrelled through issue after issue for the a.g. bill barr testifying for the first time in more than a year given the delays due to covid back in march barr has delivered a full-throated defense to the administration's use of federal agents in cities like portland and his own leadership at the justice department, a five-minute break. let's see how much we can get through now. we're standing by with reaction. rob ray first. i think you know bill barr the best. what's your impression of what we have been watching for hours today? >> wease had to show enormous patience, bill, and i think his best comment of the day was "i thought this was a hearing where the witnesses supposed to be heard." so you have seen an awful lot of -- in the context of a

presidential election cycle posturing -- probably candidly on both sides but particularly on the democrats' side statements being made with very little questioning going on and no opportunity for the attorney general really to meaningfully respond so i don't know how helpful the information exchange has been. it has been so in part, obviously he's answerable to the american people and that comes through a hearing before the hill but it's very difficult to kind of weed through all that begin the politics that's going on. >> bill: this is the hearing i thought i was the one to be heard. that was the quo. to karl rove while we can, your impressions, karl. >> -- that was the quote. to karl rove. >> they stamp their feet, wag their finger, lash out at the attorney general and not give him a chance to answer their questions and if he did get an answer in to their questions they immediately ignored him, stomped off and went on, this is embarrassing, why chairman

nadler, i give the democrats credit, they prepared this, they knew their attack lines, they said i'm taking back my time, they knew how to control the dialogue but they come off looking like jerks. >> bill: geraldo, stand by. joe biden speaking in delaware. let's stop by there. >> taxpayer dollars invested by the administration in purchasing things to rebuild roads. fill those cracks in the sidewalks. instill braud band. close the digital divide. create safe places to live and work where you can drink clean water. breathe clean air. and shop in the nearby grocery store with a fresh stock of healthy food. we can't rebuild our economy and meet this climate crisis unless we create opportunities for people to build their own communities.

this is about jobs. it's also about dignity. it's about pride. i'm confident we can do this. the third plank of my bill back better investment is in care givers who take care of our loved ones and our kids. woo truly want to reward the work in this country, to ease the financial burdens of care that families are carrying. we have to elevate the compassion, benefits and dignity of care giver workers and early childhood educators, families are squeezed emotionally and financially, trying to raise their kids and care for their parents. their loved ones. live with a disability. my guess is that some of you have been through that. a parent who is ill and can't take care of themselves, have to make the choice going to work or staying at home and take care of

them the cost is so incredible, a young child under the age of five trying to figure how you pay for it, i was a single parent for five years with a lot of help and i had a good salary, i was making $42,000 a year without my family, i couldn't v done it, they -- i couldn't have done it, they need help but often they can't afford it and the professional care givers out there, home health workers, child care workers were often women, women of color and immigrants are too often underpaid, under seen and under valued. these are things we can do right now to ease the burden. my plan would clear the waiting list that exists now of 800,000 people who are eligible for home and community care for a loved one through medicaid who signed up but are waiting.

800,000. my plan would make sure every three- and four-year-old child gets access to free high-quality preschool like students have at this center, what i do in title one schools and low and middle income families won't spend more than 7% of their income on child care for children under the age of five, the most hard-pressed working families won't have to spend a dime because it will be free. my plan would pay and support our care givers who overwhelmingly as i said are women of color, this plan to help workers especially those without college degrees gain new skills and good paying industries like health care and provide the pathway to advance their careers -- for example a home health care worker under this plan will have access to train will if you need to become an e.m.t. or nurse or physician's assistant, we don't

just put millions of americans to work in new care and early childhood education jobs, we'll also free up millions more to rejoin the paid work force. studies indicate at least two million additional jobs will be created, more economic growth for our nation, and economy as a whole will grow. we can do this. today i'm laying out a fourth part of my bill back better plan -- my build back better plan, advancing racial equity across the american economy, not just part of the other pillar of build back better but this is in its own right, to start we create a new small business opportunity fund. it dramatically expands on the successful obama-biden initiative that generated more than five billion and five dollars in private equity for every one dollar in public

investment in a small business particularly in hard-pressed areas, we're going to take $30 billion of our made in america investment i announced earlier this year and put it into this fund, it will allow the expanded federal support for the most effective state, local and nonprofit programs to provide venture capital and financing for minority business owners and communities in need, we'll also allow us to support community development banks -- >> bill: while that continues in wilmington, delaware the questions are from congresswoman dean now so back to the bill barr hearing we go. we believe three more lawmakers and we'll go back to this, if joe biden takes questions, if, we'll go back there, stand by. >> you didn't need to wait very long. >> the use of pepper bombs to americans in lafayette square you said there were no chemical irritants, pepper spray is not a chemical irritant, it's not a chemical, quote.

>> everything is chemical. i was referring to dichotomy in these kinds of things between chemical compounds and naturally occurring substances. >> mr. attorney general, reclaiming my time there are rules by which we operate here. i would ask you to respect them. take a look at the screen. i place on this screen for reference as you are aware how your department described pepper balls as used in lafayette square. the pepper ball system's accuracy and accompanying blunt trauma impact made it an ideal chemical defensing system so while you in a quote said it's not chemical you today confirm it is chemical and you are aware of your department's policy, are you not? >> what policy? >> the one i just provided to you. >> what does it say? what's the policy? >> i showed it to you. finally, whether or not you authorized it at this time -- perhaps you weren't listening.

>> i didn't see the policy. what was the policy in there? >> you weren't listening. fine. whether or not you authorized the use of pepper balls, what -- >> the -- >> i did not ask you a question yet, sir. i ask you to please refrain from interrupting me. we watched horrifying videos played across the news and social media showing that these chemical irritants were used to protesters so yes or no and this is a yes or no, sir, have you begun an vchgz of the use of excessive force in lafayette square? >> i think the i.g. is looking at everything related to the antirioting -- >> the answer yes, you are -- >> the i.g. is investigating it. >> i will hope he does -- tragically what happened in lafayette square is no longer an isolated incident, use of chemical irritants has been used in more than 90 cities. my colleague shows you the video of the navy vet being pepper sprayed and beaten and bones

broken, whether or not you thought this was appropriate at the time, have you now called for law enforcement to stop using these chemical irritants on protesters? yes or no. >> pepper spray? >> yes. >> no. i think it's a very important nonlethal option. >> for protesters. >> no. for rioters. >> that was my question. for protesters. >> no. for rioters. >> sir, america was founded on the principles of free speech -- >> when people resist law enforcement they're not peaceful. >> i'm surprised at your lack of respect for a member of congress. >> the time of the gentle lady has expired. >> mr. barr, good afternoon, i'm glad that you mentioned latin america a little bit earlier, many of my constituents in florida fled to america from countries that you steadily force to stifle speech and they used armed forces to suppress dissenting voices, they cherish our country as other americans

have done for generations because of the incredible freedom and rights that being an american citizen gives to all of us. it's extremely personal to me because you probably know that my roots are in ecuador but i live by the american constitution, and it's true that those who aren't fortunate enough to always have these rights and freedoms sometimes cherish them even more than those who have always had them. when they see photos from portland, they done see the american ideal or the america that they know, they see and are reminded what they left behind, you would agree with me? on that? are you listening, mr. barr? >> i wasn't sure the subject -- who is the subject of that last sentence? >> you know, when you -- >> who honor -- >> look at these videos for one second. we have seen violence in venezuela at the hands of maduro firing teargas at protesters.

and using brutal tactics to crush demonstrations. that's what we see from dictators on both the left and the right. but it's hard to distinguish these photos from those events and from the videos that we have seen by u.s. federal police in portland teargassing and breaking the bones of a peacefully protesting u.s. army veteran. very similar. so mr. barr, how do you restore the confidence of my constituents in the valiance of this country when every night on television they're seeing these images of violence used against the peaceful protesters? we all denounce violence. how do you restore the trust in our democracy? >> i think nathe forces being deployed against rioters or, in situations where protesters are

not following police directions -- >> most of the protests have been peaceful, mr. barr. you know that. you know that. you're just using language for political purposes. >> no, i don't know what it means -- >> let me just go now to one of the most important topics facing our nation right now. health care. you know in my district we have close to a hundred thousand people that get their health insurance through the a.c. a., 19,000 living with serious preexisting conditions and yet you're working to strip their health care at the worst possible moment when the coronavirus is culg thousands of people in my state -- >> they will not be stripped of their health care. >> in monroe county, counties that i represent, do you know how many people have died from covid-19? >> no, i don't. >> a thousand, 400 and 10 people. you were at the white house on march 23rd when president trump said governor desantis was doing an incredible job. do you agree that governor

desantis is doing an incredible job? >> i have no reason not to believe that. >> well, florida now has more cases than in china -- >> did cuomo do an incredible job in new york? >> i'm not proud to say this, in florida we have more cases than most countries combined around the world so no, he is not doing an incredible job. you pushed states to open too soon. you threatened states with lawsuits darns >> i didn't ask states to open. >> you threatened with losses for those states -- >> for church. >> stay at home orders. >> things like church. >> we have the facts, i'm going by the facts and now the country, the united states of america has more than 4.3 million covid cases alone. you -- you, mr. barr, and president trump working together are letting my constituents down and it's something that you are going to have to live with. what am i supposed to say to my constituents when they ask me if the government has done

everything in its power to protect their loved ones from dying, you tell me, mr. barr, what am i supposed to tell them? >> i would tell them that managing this kind of thing requires a lot of difficult choices and weighing different consequences -- >> i'm not going to lie to my state. >> the system of government -- >> donald trump and the attorney general working together -- >> the governors -- >> following health guidelines they are letting americans die needlessly because of political reasons. that is what i will tell them. thank you, and one last question if i can. >> in our system -- >> under oath. under oath. do you commit to not releasing any report by mr. durham before the november election? >> no. >> you don't commit to that? >> no. i believe very careful -- >> justice department policy -- >> justice department policy darns >> in any political investigations before the november election?

>> we're not going to interfere. in fact, i have made it clear i'm not going to tolerate -- >> under oath you're saying you do not commit to not releasing a report by durham? >> any report will be in my judgment not one that is covered by the policy that would disrupt the election. i have already made it clear that neither candidate -- >> your own taept of justice policy, mr. barr. >> why do you don't you tell me what that policy is -- do you want me to repeat it for you? >> i know what the policy is. >> time for the jentdle lady, mr. chairman -- >> i yield back to the chairman. >> mr. chairman. point of order. >> gentle lady -- >> point of order. >> what purpose is the gentleman -- >> is it permissible for a member of this committee to accuse the sitting attorney general of the united states of murder? those words need to be struck from this record. this is outrageous. to say whatever they want -- >> with what about rules of decorum. >> mr. chairman, i have a

clarification, mr. chairman. >> mr. chairman. >> the video played by the previous member, was that a video of things that happened in the united states or in venezuela? i want a clarification. what was the video? >> the gentleman is not stating. point of order. the gentle lady is recognized. >> mr. barr, the administration against the constitutional text, historical president and d.o.j.'s own memo is trying to exclude undocumented persons from the census, an action that harms american communities, here is an example. many american children are living with an undocumented parentor relative. this change in the census means that those children, american children, would receive less money for programs like the national school lunch program, head start and/or the state children's health insurance program. a simple yes or no, please, mr. barr. are you comfortable with the

decision that would punish american children and immigrant communities in this way? >> i don't make the policy. i provide legal advice on legal issues. as both to this issue and the issue of the a.c.a., the question presented to the department is the law -- >> my time, sir, mr. barr, a simple yes or no, does the constitution say that only citizens should be counted in the census? >> no. >> correct. it does not. in fact, the framers of the 14th amendment explicitly confronted this question and it provides that persons in each state be counted -- >> they wouldn't have confronted it because there were no illegal aliens -- >> i'm alarmed by your department's refuse willal to comply are with rulings. the supreme court in an opinion authored by chief justice roberts ruled that the attempt

to rescind daca was arbitrary and capricious and required the administration to process new daca applications, despite the supreme court's ruling zero daca applications have been processed. that's not the only supreme court decision your department has ignored. in 2017 your department issued a statement that transgender workers were not protected by laws. the supreme court knocked that down too. >> we said the 1964 act did not extend to -- >> reclaiming my time, in the daca and transgender decisions your department has yet to comply. ? will the department implement the supreme court's daca and transgender rulings? >> i guess, i think we are. >> the daca ruling? >> yes. >> you are now processing daca applications? >> i think what we're trying to do now is restore the administrative process and i think d.h.s. has put out a rule

-- >> bill: i can't remember a hearing like this. it's almost going to wrap in washington but while it's happening joe biden is doing something rare. he's taking questions from reporters. back to wilmington, delaware for that. >> the president has given us a false choice. he said that we have to get back to work and also deal with covid. you can't get this country going again unless you get covid under control and so he has been really late in the game getting around himself wearing a mask, for example. we waited for he -- as you have heard it a hundred times, columbia study showing back to just one week earlier it would be i think it was 37,1 on31 more people alive, two weeks earlier 57,000, there is no clear message, there is a federal responsibility to lay out really

clear guidelines like opening up our schools, what's happening now is there is a national we need the c.d.c., they had very strict guidelines they were going to do at first, they've waurlted those do-- they've watered those down in an hour and a half brief, what's happening now is even in the states where it's about freedom, freedom versus -- physical safety of your neighbor and communication of the virus, even in those states they're now locking down and they're locking down counties which have high returns on testing and the president says his answer is we'll stop testing so we're not going to know, we won't know who has the virus, i think it's really important -- and here it takes me into what the next stage of this is, as i know, i know you have covered this a lot

i called a long time ago, meaning several months that we should be putting together right now and we should be providing about $25 billion to do it to make sure that we have a detailed plan once a vaccine is in fact found, god willing sooner than later to be able to be distributed to all america and anything beyond that, and it's really a difficult logistical thing to do. where is the planning to do that? we said the same thing about testing and tracing. we still don't have enough tests. we still don't have the capacity. we really, really, i pray the president in fact takes advantage of the prospect of getting a vaccine near just before or just after the first of the year so we're able to distribute it and do it in a way that deals with every part of america, but there has been no planning that i can see.

>> to be clear, have you been tested yet? >> no. i have not. thank you. all right. greg anderson. delaware state news. >> you have had these meetings in delaware the last three weeks. i'm curious. why delaware to be here making these announcements? >> i'm home. this is my home. this is making this announcement in terms of whether i did this announcement in seattle, washington or in -- you know, new mexico wouldn't matter. it gets the same coverage no matter where it is and was a lot easier to be able to communicate with staff, work with staff that's in philadelphia and the like to get this all lined up

and -- and what i found is operating out of home all this stuff about hiding in the basement -- well, over 340 million people have watched what we've done like this on television. that's as big as the american population. so i'm learning that it doesn't -- the way people are viewing the news and absorbing the news these days is totally different than it was before, so i find it really doesn't make a whole lot of difference where you do it from as long as we can do it safely, and i secondly -- the reason you wanted to do this is because of anderson -- i can think of no more -- if i were in washington at the time i would come here for dealing with this issue because of my buddy hicks and what has been done and what he was all about -- it's just a delaware thing as you preble know. >> thank you. >> thank you.

>> okay, mike. >> you say that you believe that the president is intentionally provoking some of the violent actions we are seeing in portland. >> let me turn you down so i can hear you a little bit. >> i didn't mean that. >> you said that you believe that the president is intentionally provoking the violence we've seen. the president in his tweets and campaign and television ads is warning that if you are president, we would see similar scenes throughout the country. i wonder how you would respond to that. what specifically would you be doing to strike the balance to the right to peacefully assemble. >> i would be using local police as we did w