The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE” mentioning the U.S. Dept. of Justice was published in the in the Senate section section on pages S1074-S1075 on March 10.
The Department is one of the oldest in the US, focused primarily on law enforcement and the federal prison system. Downsizing the Federal Government, a project aimed at lowering taxes and boosting federal efficiency, detailed wasteful expenses such as $16 muffins at conferences and board meetings.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, it has been a year since we in the Senate confirmed Merrick Garland to be Attorney General.
During his confirmation hearing, I outlined what a successful Department of Justice looks like and what I expected of him as our new Attorney General. I gave him the answers to the tests. By this rubric, he has failed. For instance, I urged him to build off the successes from the previous Justice Department to reduce crime, maintain the rule of law, and protect our civil liberties. But violent crime continues to rise, the rule of law is undermined, and our civil liberties are in danger.
Instead of condemning all violent crime, Attorney General Garland's Justice Department targets lawful gun owners and blames those gun owners for the rising murder rates, carjackings, and attacks against law enforcement.
But the explosion of crime in blue cities is actually tied to depolicing measures, hiring progressive prosecutors, and enacting disastrous bail reform policies. Lawful gun owners are not to blame for this rise in crime.
And in the midst of a crime spike, a number of Biden appointees and judicial nominees strongly backed by Attorney General Garland have supported radical ideas in the past, like defunding the police or at least reducing funding for police. And some have even advocated not prosecuting certain crimes. So how do you expect to effectively fight crime with the lineup that I just gave you?
Instead of tackling the opioid crisis, the Garland Justice Department wants to make it easier for fentanyl traffickers to spread their poison. Fentanyl analogs are responsible for most overdose deaths and are lethal in very tiny amounts, as we all know. But the Garland and Biden administration support eliminating mandatory minimums for these fentanyl analog dealers. Really?
In addition, Garland has wielded his power to undermine the rule of law and cave to political pressures. The Attorney General has summarily reversed a number of decisions issued by Attorneys General Sessions and Barr that helped enhance the integrity of our asylum system.
This Attorney General has also issued memos, interpretations, and filings to the Supreme Court that contrast with previous Department of Justice positions.
Let me give you an example. His Department of Justice reinterpreted the law to make sure that inmates released to home confinement under COVID relief stay there. His Solicitor General also switched positions on a cocaine sentencing case that was before the Supreme Court. Now, it happens that both of these policy outcomes align with my positions. I agree with those outcomes. But his way of getting there is political. Rule of law must be consistent and not political.
So Garland's flip-flopping also jeopardizes our Nation's security. Instead of protecting the American people from the Chinese Communist Party's espionage, he disbanded the previous administration's successful China Initiative. This program prioritized investigations of national security from China, which is still a very serious threat given that the FBI opens a new Chinese espionage case every 12 hours. So I don't know why this would be disbanded. This move is concerning and dangerous to our national security and reflective of partisan pressures trumping smart law enforcement.
Also, political decisions are getting in the way of the consistent application of the rule of law. For example, Attorney General Garland's Department of Justice is politically selective about which cases to pursue and which cases to dismiss. Despite the 100-night siege against the Portland courthouse in 2020 and 96 people being charged as violent rioters, almost half of those charged have been dismissed.
Compare this to the Department of Justice's own statement on the 1-
year anniversary of January 6:
The Department of Justice's resolve to hold accountable those who committed crimes on Jan. 6, 2021, has not, and will not, wane.
Now, we all know that those who break the law should be held accountable--no question about that. And as our Nation's top law enforcement officer, it is incumbent upon him to enforce the rule of law. He cannot pick and choose when the rule of law is politically convenient or easy.
Under Garland's leadership, the Department of Justice is also undermining valuable civil rights. This is something that he and I have had a lot of discussions on as he has appeared before our committee.
So undermining valuable civil rights, instead of prioritizing that, Attorney General Garland has killed the speech of American parents. He sent a memo to the FBI and the U.S. attorneys around the country to be on the lookout for upset parents at school boards. He did this after the National School Boards Association suggested that some people should be branded domestic terrorists. Imagine that charge--that you go to a school board meeting, you might be a domestic terrorist.
What is even worse, there seems to be some evidence that the Secretary of Education may have asked the National School Boards Association to write that awful letter, which the association later had to apologize for. Garland says his memo was just about violence and threats of violence; but sure enough, whistleblower reports show that the FBI's counterterrorism division was looking way beyond only violence and threats. Parents' ability to voice their concerns, especially now, is a precious right, and the Department of Justice's actions cannot kill such vital speech constitutionally protected by the First Amendment.
Also, instead of being responsive, the Attorney General has been evasive. Last year, I sent approximately 50 letters to the Department. That is one-third of all letters that they received from Members of the U.S. Senate.
The Attorney General wanted me to know that I sent one-third of all the letters he got from the other 99 Senators. So when the Attorney General told me that, I don't think he meant it as a compliment.
I received some letters in response. However, when I am told that they have responded to me, simple or lots of words on a piece of paper don't, in and of themselves, make a letter responsive.
Furthermore, the Department has failed to provide responsive records, with the exception of one or two small productions. By way of example, I received a 30-page production of records from the Department. It included improper FOIA redactions and failed to include the necessary spreadsheets. Accordingly, that production is a failed production because FOIA does not apply to documents going to the Congress of the United States, so you shouldn't have that redaction.
Also, I have repeatedly asked if Nicholas McQuaid is recused from the Hunter Biden criminal investigation, and that is an important thing because he seemed to work in the law firm that was representing Hunter Biden. And it ought to be a simple question to answer, but Attorney General Garland refuses to tell me whether McQuaid is recused from those cases.
At the Judiciary Committee's October 27, 2021, Justice Department oversight hearing, I said to Attorney General Garland:
When I placed holds on your nominees for the Department's failure to comply with Republican oversight requests, I said either you run the Department or the Department runs you. Right now, it looks like the Justice Department is running you.
That ends my quote of October 27 last year.
So that statement still holds true. Instead of protecting the American people, the Attorney General is sacrificing our Nation's top law enforcement agency to politics during a violent crime spike. Instead of being stewards of our Nation's laws, the Attorney General is leading the charge upending the rule of law. Instead of fighting for civil rights, he is chipping away at those civil rights.
Attorney General Garland, there is still time to change. You have 3 years left in this administration. I urge you to change course. I urge you to bring the Justice Department back to a place of leadership: leadership in reducing violent crime, leadership in maintaining the rule of law, and leadership in protecting our civil liberties.
I yield the floor.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Republican whip.
____________________
