0 jurisdiction? >> any understanding is the judge i -- >> he held the warden in contempt but we haven't seen improvement. >> he asked for a review and the justice department is conducting a review. the marshals did an inspection the other day that was reported in the news and the civil rights division is examining the circumstances. this is the district of columbia jail not the prison system. >> as i explained to members i view the wearing of facemasks as a safety issue and important matter of order and decorum because i'm responsible for preserving order and decorum in this committee i am requiring members of staff attending this hearing to wear facemasks. i came to this decision after the office of the attending physician released its guidance requiring masks in committee hearings some time ago. i note that some members are still not wearing masks. the requirement is that members wear masks at all times when not speaking. i will take members in compliance with this ruling to consideration when they seek recognition. i see mr. roy, for example. i now recognize ms. jackson lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. let me thank you for your enormous work that the department is doing. i have a series of questions. help me out in your answers so that i can secure a response. as you well know, the senate judiciary committee did an outstanding report on how the former president and his allies pressured d.o.j. to overturn the 2020 election. in particular, they noted a series of dates in which they assessed that the former president grossly abused the power of the presidency. he violated the criminally provisions of the hatch act that prevents any person from commanding federal government employees to engage in political activity. would there be any reason the d.o.j. would not further research or determine that the former president could be prosecuted under the hatch act? >> congresswoman, the justice department has a longstanding policy of not commenting on potential investigations or actual or pending investigations. it's a foundational element of our rule of law norms. it is to protect everyone no matter what their position, former president, current president, congresswoman, senator, or ordinary citizen. ly have to rest on that. i can't comment. >> i take there is no prohibition but thank you so much. the justice department investigated texas five secure juvenile facilities finding sexual abuse. can i get an answer working with the justice department encouraging standardized conditions for these facilities since the facts were gross in terms of the abuse of those children? i think you are investigating georgia as well. >> we are investigating texas and that was announced and i believe the governor welcomed that investigation and it's being done by a combination of the civil rights division and all four u.s. attorneys offices in texas. >> with respect to compassionate release which came about through the cares act we found 39% of american federal prisoners contracted covid-19, 200700 persons died. there is a potential of the compassionate release being eliminated in those out but i found it is not being utilized appropriately now. the attorney inspector general said that b.o.p. was not prepared with the issue -- to deal with the issue of compassionate release and prisons aren't made for social distancing. my question is will you monitor what is going on with compassionate release in terms of people returning or the utilization compassionate release from the bop under the issue of covid? >> yes, the answer is yes. obviously the pandemic was something the bureau of prisons or institutions were not prepared for. it created a lot of difficulties and led to compassionate release and leaving people in home confinement. we are certainly reviewing carefully how the bureau is responding now to this dangerous circumstance of covid-19. >> we found as it relates to the women in prison 6,600 are serving huge sentences of life with and without parole, etc. 86% have experienced sexual violence and intimate partner violence. can we have a more vigorous trauma, mental health protocol for women in prison? >> federal. i think an important part of the first step act requires us to be careful about those things and we've asked for additional funding for that purpose and deputy attorney general is monitoring the way in which the bureau of prisons spends that money and establishes those programs. >> thank you. can i quickly ask, something that hasn't been passed by the house, would that passage help you do a more effective job with domestic violence against women. would it help you be more effective in prosecuting? >> yes, we strongly support reauthorization of the violence against women act. >> gun violence in children has accelerated. i would appreciate talking further about greater prosecution on gun trafficking and the proliferation of guns. secondly hate crimes surged as well and want to hear about the resources used for hate crimes and then as you well know we have been the poster child in texas for racial gerrymandering. i want to make sure it's on the radar screen of the justice department dealing with that issue of redistricting. my question is the texas abortion law. one of the worst components of -- >> the lady's time has expired. mr. owens. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you, attorney general garland for coming today. i would like to take every opportunity i have to share with our nation the making of a great community. i grew up in one in the 1960s. though in the depths of jim crow segregation it produced giant americans like condoleezza rice, walter williams and colin powell. it was not by accident or rare. this community of faith, family, free market and education, education was the very core of our success. i was raised in a home with teachers. dad was a college professor 40 years, my mom is junior high school teacher and trusted what teachers have done throughout our history to teach children how to read, write, add, subtract and think critically. success in education was always based on parental involvement both expected and welcomed. my great state of utah these expectations of parents have not change. we don't expect nor tolerate leftist teaching of our children behind our backs how to hate our country and hate others based on skin color. some of the recent actions that the department of justice has taken against parents are concerning and i would like to direct my questions around that topic. similar questions have been asked i do want to make it very clear that some of my constituents some of the concerns i have. we can all agree that true threats and violence of school board meetings are inexcusable. attorney general do you agree with the national school board association that parents who afend school board meetings and speak passionately against inclusion of programs like critical race theory should be characterized as domestic terrorists? >> i do not believe that parents who testify, argue, complain about school boards and schools should be classified as domestic terrorists or any kind of criminals. parents have been complaining about the education of their children and about school boards since there were such things as school boards and public education. this is totally protected by the first amendment. i take your point that true threats of violence are not protected by the first amendment. those are the things we're worried about here. those are the only things we're worried about here. >> thank you for that. is the illegal presence for the department of justice to investigate peaceful protests or parental involvement at public school meetings? >> we are not investigating peaceful protests or parent involvement in school board meetings. there is no precedent for doing that and we would never do that. we are only concerned about violence, threats of violence against school administrators, teachers, staff, people like your mother a teacher. that's what we're worried about. we are worried about that across the board. we're worried about threats against members of congress and threats against police. >> thank you very much for that. i'm a member of the education committee. on october 7th republican members of this committee sent you a letter you and secretary cordona expressing concern about disparaging remarks that the secretary made against parents. in the letter we request you educate the committee before before your threats to parents lawful expressions of legitimate concerns. have you received that letter and do you plan an testifying before the housed indication committee. >> let me say this. i appreciate you being here, attorney general. i was aware of the time when our race led our country -- black men re-- [inaudible] and aware in 2017 studies that department of education that 75% of the black boys in the state of california cannot pass standard reading and writing test. in those days parents were involved and there was a trust that was we would send our kids to school and taught to love our country, love each other and love education. i will implore parents throughout to get involved. do not trust any other adults particularly our educational system for the future of your kids. get involved. fight for your rights tore your kids to love our country, love education. we get back to old school america and appreciate the fact of who we are and an educational system teaching us to do that. >> trace: mr. cowen. >> thank you, welcome general garland. it's a difficult position for me to question you. i have such respect for your -- there are questions i must ask. the senate judiciary committee had a report recently about the attempts of president trump to get department of justice employees involved in the stop the steal campaign to subvert the election. are any of those people involved in that still at the justice department? >> you know, all the bold face names i know about, political appointees, they are not at the department. i don't believe so. >> i would appreciate if you check into that if they participated in this in any way they should come to your attention and have certain sanctions. you have defended or sought to continue to defend president trump in his defamation action. he called the woman a liar and accused her of conspiring with the democratic party in her allegation of rape and for what it was worth he said she wasn't his type. his type is apparently fairly expansive. you are defending him. do you think that the public sees that as a proper use of department of justice resources when it has been shown we're short on personnel in the civil rights division and that we need to personnel and yet we're defending president trump's lawsuit by a woman he defamed >> we're not defending the defamation made by the former president. as i said publicly several times, sometimes being the attorney general and sometimes being the judge means taking positions with respect to the law that are required by the law but which you would not take as a private citizen. in this circumstance, the justice department's briefing is not about whether this was defamation or wasn't defamation. it was solely on the question on the application of the tort claims act. there is consistent precedent in the d.c. circuit which holds that even defamatory statements made during press conferences by public officials are within the scope of employment for that very narrow purpose and for that very narrow definition. >> if i may, sir, i appreciate that and read that. this was an action he took as a private citizen. now again a private citizen and was totally outside of anything to do with him being president. i hope you will look into it again. the public sees it as a mistake. the rule of law you made clear is one of the major tenets of the department of justice to uphold the rule of law. michael cowen spent time in prison for paying at the direction of president trump hush money to stormy daniels and another woman. i believe it's well-known that president trump was individual one as described in the indictment. he couldn't be indicted because of the department of justice policy you don't indict a sitting president. he is no longer a a sitting president. do you believe looking into individual one is not an abuse of rule of law and that it's principle. >> the norm of the justice department we don't comment on whether we're investigating what the status of investigations are until -- unless and until there is a public charge. that's important to protect everyone whether it be a former president, an existing president, or public official or private individual. >> i will except that. i hope you will look at it. i believe that he is equally if not more guilty and seems like people get favored treatment. transparency is important as well. amy burrman jackson tried to release records concerning bill barr's down playing of the trump's obstruction of the mueller investigation. this committee was looking into the emoluments clause violation of the trump hotel and see reports. the d.o.j. appealed. do you believe the transparency those 2w0 situations are ones where transparency was not per misted as well as the mueller report that hasn't been redacted. >> with respect to judge jackson's ruling i respect her very much. we just have a difference of opinion with respect to the freedom of informations act privilege exception and we believe that in that circumstance, the memorandum that was given to attorney general barr is protected by that so that all attorneys general can receive honest advice from their subordinates. that matter is before the d.c. circuit now. everything i've just said is in our papers. it will be resolved by the d.c. circuit. >> mr. attorney general, millions of americans are deeply concerned today that instead of addressing the most pressing issues facing our country, we're watching the biden/garland justice department be weaponized. you are using your authorities now to advance far left policies and attack republican-led state actions andy road constitutional norms. the most recent case has been brought up this morning. your memorandum directing the f.b.i. and other department of justice officials to get involved in local school board debates. it concerns us it was issued five days after the national school board association sent a letter to president biden that said parents were the equivalent of domestic terrorists. giving the timing of all this your memo appears to have been motivated by politics than federal law enforcement need. it is concerning and worthy of investigation. it also concerns us that your actions may have been motivated by your family's financial stake in this issue. published reports show your son-in-law co-founded a company called panorama education and it publishes and sells critical race theory and sant i racism materials to schools across the country and works with school districts forobtain and analyze data on students often without parental consent. on its website the company brags it surveyed more than 13 million students in the u.s. raised $76 million from powerful investors including people like mark zuckerberg just since 2017. my first question is this. are you familiar with title v of the code of federal regulations which addresses the rules of impartiality for executive branch employees and officials? >> i am very familiar with it and i want to be clear once again that there is nothing in this memorandum which has any effect on the kinds of curriculums that are taught or the ability of parents to complain about the kinds -- >> i understand your position. wait just a minute. the question is, the thing that is concerning many of those parents showing up at school board meetings. the basis of their objection and vigorous debate as you mentioned earlier is the curricula that your son-in-law is selling. so to millions of americans, my constituents i was home all weekend and got a earful about this are very concerned about that. sub part e. fed regulation says it's discouraged in engaging in conduct. your son-in-law, your daughter meets that definition. and so the question is, did you follow that regulation? did you have the appropriate agency ethic official look into this and seek guidance as the federal regulation requires? >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence. >> excuse me, did you seek ethics counsel before you issued a letter that directly relates to the financial interest of your family yes or no. >> this memorandum does not relate to the financial interests of anyone. >> i take that as a no. >> memorandums against violence and threats of violence. >> mr. attorney general will you commit to having the appropriate ethics designee review the case and make the results public? >> this memorandum is aimed at violence and threats of violence. >> you aren't answering my question. with all due respect will you submit to an ethics review of this matter? >> there is no company in america or hopefully no law abiding citizen in america who believes that threats of violence should not be prevented. there are no conflicts of interest that anyone could have. >> according to you. with due respect that's the purpose of the federal regulation. we need objective third parties to review our activities. you don't get to make that decision yourself. it does than matter. you are the chief law enforcement of this country. it raises questions in the minds of millions of americans and your impartiality is being called to question. >> i am very aware of the ethics requirements. >> you aren't followed them. >> i have followed them and lived with them for the last 25 years. >> did you seek an ethics review of this or not? >> i will say good there are no conflicts of interest involved when the justice department. >> according to you. you are not respecting our rules, our constitutional norms and the federal law that directly applies to your activities. this is a great concern. this is why people are losing faith in our institutions and losing faith in the department of justice and you and i both know as constitutional attorneys that if the people lose their faith in our system of justice, if they lose their faith in the idea that justice is blind. there is one standard. >> i completely agree the rule of law and respect for it is essential and always do everything possible to uphold that and avoid any kind of conflict of interest. >> you will not submit to an ethics review. >> time of the gentleman has expired. >> it was a question. it was a question. >> editorial comments from the chair about other people's questions is not appreciated. >> mr. johnson of georgia. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you for being here general garland. this summer the house passed hr4, the john lewis voting rights advancement act to strengthen sections 2 and 5 of the voting rights act and this summer it was suing the state of georgia under section 2 of the voting rights act and commend your department for working to protect the rights of all americans to vote. section 2 of the voting rights act prohibits voting practices or procedures that discriminate on the basis of race while section 5 of the act main dates that changes to voting practices in certain covered jurisdictions be pre-cleared by federal authorities. with the supreme court having nullified section 5 in effect the pre-clearance requirement by ruling the coverage formula was unconstitutional, does the department view section 2 litigation alone as adequate to safeguard voting rights, or must congress pass the john lewis voting rights advancement act and reinstate section 5 in order for voting rights to be adequately safeguarded zbloo. the justice department supports that act. section 2 is what we have. section 5 is what we need. >> knowing the house has passed hr4 does the justice department support passage of the john lewis voting rights advancement act in the united