00:00Senator Capito, thank you. We do not intend to have a second round of questions, but in
00:06our usual fashion, I'm going to call on Senator Van Hollen for his concluding questions and
00:11wrap up, and then I'll do the same.
00:14Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So, Attorney General Bondi, I have some budget-related questions
00:19to follow up on here. First, with respect to the proposal with the ATF. I heard your
00:26testimony here. I heard it in the House, so I really don't want to get into a disagree—I
00:32am not questioning you about the policy at this point in time. I think you hear there's
00:36bipartisan disagreement here. But I do want to understand your view with respect to the
00:45appropriations law, because current appropriations law does require congressional authorization
00:53to make this change, to make this merger. And so, my question to you, as the Chief Law
00:58Enforcement Officer of the United States, is will you comply with the budget authorization
01:04law?
01:05We will comply with the budget law. And, you know, Senator, I'm glad you brought
01:12this merger up, because if I was still a state prosecutor and hearing this, I would be concerned,
01:18too, about what's happening to ATF. ATF will keep its brand. DEA will keep its brand. But
01:26what they're doing, they're going under one umbrella, one umbrella, doing away with the
01:32bureaucracy at the top. These agents are going—they want to be out hunting down criminals. That's
01:39what they want to do. They work—so much of this work is the same work, going back and forth.
01:45And now they will be working collaboratively together to keep America safe. And they are—we're
01:52going to put hundreds of agents back—thousands—back on the streets. And that's where they
01:57want to be. And I would have had the initial concerns that you have about that. But give
02:03us a chance. Let it work. Let the DEA and ATF work together. Get those agents out of there.
02:09Do away with the bureaucracy. And hopefully we will make America safer as a result of it.
02:15Well, I will say that this wasn't just my reaction to the proposal. I was actually hearing
02:21from ATF agents as well. So, again, I—we will obviously review that question on a bipartisan—in
02:28a bipartisan way on the committee. But I just wanted your assurance, and I appreciate it, that you'll
02:33comply with the appropriations law, which would require congressional action in order to go
02:38forward with—we don't need congressional action for this move, however.
02:43Well, I thought I just got clarification. It's going to be important to both the chairman
02:48and myself to understand your position as attorney general on whether or not you can proceed
02:53with this merger without congressional action. We are keeping ATF. We are keeping DEA. We are putting
03:01them under the same umbrella within the Department of Justice.
03:06So, I—again, I—this—I'm not arguing with you here. I want to understand your position.
03:12I think it will be important to members on both sides of the committee. The appropriations
03:18law, currently, would require that Congress approve of this merger. And so, my question to
03:26you, as attorney general, is do you agree with that or disagree with that?
03:31We will complete this reorganization, and I'm committed—I will look at that under the law.
03:38We will not violate the law, Senator. And we will work with Congress regarding that.
03:43I appreciate that. So, the second point I wanted to raise had to do with the prosecution of hate crimes,
03:53and I share your vigor in wanting to go after and prosecute hate crimes. I would just point out
04:00that the budget that you submitted zeros out funding for three of the DOJ hate crimes programs.
04:09The Hate Crimes Training Program, Shepard Bird Hate Crimes, the Javara Higher No Hate Act,
04:18and the community approaches to advancing justice. So, I hope you'll work with the committee
04:24if we seek to restore funding for those programs.
04:27Yes, Senator. I just pulled up the details of those three. Let me see. I'd be happy to discuss those with you further.
04:36Good. And finally, I want to go back—
04:40All three of those.
04:41Thank you. I want to go back to the issues of grant determinations, because I think there continues to be some confusion
04:49between grants that had already been obligated that were withheld. And to my knowledge, there are about 400 of those
04:59still pending. It'd be helpful to get from your team if you have a different number. And then there's the—what we call notices for information,
05:09which relates to notices for future grant awards in this current fiscal year.
05:16Yes, there is a difference.
05:17And so, I understood your earlier testimony to say, with respect to the notices, you do plan—you, the department, plan to issue those very shortly. Is that right?
05:30Yeah. And, Senator—yes, you are correct on that. We notified the affected grantees and members of Congress regarding the terminations and how to appeal.
05:45That was the $811 million of grants that were initially terminated in 2025. We're also talking about upcoming ones as well.
05:55Right. So, I just—I want to leave this hearing with some clarity on this issue. So, when it comes to the notices of funding opportunities,
06:07because the clock is ticking on this fiscal year, do you and the Department of Justice intend to quickly notify people of those opportunities going forward?
06:17Yes, Senator Van Hollen, as I said earlier. And it will be done on a rolling basis.
06:21But, yes, within the coming weeks, we are absolutely doing that. Yes.
06:24And so, finally—
06:25But on a rolling basis.
06:26On the other category, which are the grants that had been previously obligated, I do have concerns, Madam Attorney General,
06:38with the idea that the way we're going to get them to stop being withheld is members of Congress calling.
06:48I appreciate the invitation, and I will look to see if we've been hearing from people.
06:53But this category of grants relates to people who already went through the process and already had those grants obligated,
07:01and they're currently being held. So, my question to you is, can you tell us how many are still being held today?
07:12And I don't like the idea that in order for somebody to get their withheld grant, unheld, that they have to call a member of Congress.
07:27That should be—so, how many are left? Do you know? How many of these grants are—
07:32I don't know exactly, Senator, but I know many of them are the subject of ongoing litigation,
07:38so I wouldn't be able to speak of that in detail in this forum, anyway.
07:42Well, maybe as a—just a follow-up, because it would be helpful to try to narrow the scope of this.
07:47The—again, my understanding—and this was the subject of the letter I referenced earlier from a number of senators.
07:53And I have not read that letter, but I will be happy to read that letter.
07:56Yeah, if you and your team could get back to us right away on that, because these are grants that, as the chairman knows,
08:01have been previously obligated, some many years ago, but frozen.
08:07And so the question is, how can we get them unfrozen?
08:12And I don't—members of Congress will call, but not everybody, you know, can just call up their member of Congress
08:20or thinks of calling their member of Congress.
08:22We need a process that's fair to everybody. I hope you'd agree.
08:25And actually citizens have called as well.
08:27Well, exactly. And so—exactly. So—but again, this—this is an ongoing issue.
08:33And I know colleagues on both sides of the aisle are—are hearing from it, folks.
08:39So, Mr. Chairman, unless something else comes up, that's—that's it. And I look forward to continuing the conversation.
08:46It's not my intention to ask any topics or questions that cause you to come back again, but if I do—
