[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                       DISCRIMINATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
                        THE MUSLIM, ARAB, AND SOUTH ASIAN 
                              AMERICAN COMMUNITIES
=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                 SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL  
                       RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             SECOND SESSION

                               ----------                              

                         TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 2022

                               ----------                              

                           Serial No. 117-57

                               ----------                              

         Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
         
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]        


               Available via: http://judiciary.house.gov              
             
                                __________

                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
48-303                     WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                 

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                    JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chair
                MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania, Vice-Chair

ZOE LOFGREN, California              JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Ranking Member
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            STEVE CHABOT, Ohio
STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,      DARRELL ISSA, California
    Georgia                          KEN BUCK, Colorado
THEODORE E. DEUTCH, Florida          MATT GAETZ, Florida
KAREN BASS, California               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana
HAKEEM S. JEFFRIES, New York         ANDY BIGGS, Arizona
DAVID N. CICILLINE, Rhode Island     TOM McCLINTOCK, California
ERIC SWALWELL, California            W. GREG STEUBE, Florida
TED LIEU, California                 TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin
JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky
PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington          CHIP ROY, Texas
VAL BUTLER DEMINGS, Florida          DAN BISHOP, North Carolina
J. LUIS CORREA, California           MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania       VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin
JOE NEGUSE, Colorado                 CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon
LUCY McBATH, Georgia                 BURGESS OWENS, Utah
GREG STANTON, Arizona
VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
MONDAIRE JONES, New York
DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
CORI BUSH, Missouri

          AMY RUTKIN, Majority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
              CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Minority Staff Director 
                                 ------                                

            SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS,
                          AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

                     STEVE COHEN, Tennessee, Chair
                DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina, Vice-Chair

JAMIE RASKIN, Maryland               MIKE JOHNSON, Louisiana, Ranking 
HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,          Member
    Georgia                          TOM McCLINTOCK, California
SYLVIA R. GARCIA, Texas              CHIP ROY, Texas
CORI BUSH, Missouri                  MICHELLE FISCHBACH, Minnesota
SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas            BURGESS OWENS, Utah

                       JAMES PARK, Chief Counsel
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                         Tuesday, March 1, 2022

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the State 
  of Tennessee...................................................     2
The Honorable Mike Johnson, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on 
  the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties from the 
  State of Louisiana.............................................     3
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Chair of the Committee on the 
  Judiciary from the State of New York...........................     4

                               WITNESSES
                               
                                Panel I

The Honorable Andre Carson, Member of Congress from the State of 
  Indiana
  Oral Testimony.................................................     7
  Prepared Testimony.............................................     9
The Honorable Judy Chu, Member of Congress from the State of 
  California
  Oral Testimony.................................................    12
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    14
The Honorable Pramila Jayapal, Member of Congress from the State 
  of Washington
  Oral Testimony.................................................    16
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    19
The Honorable Ilhan Omar, Member of Congress from the State of 
  Minnesota
  Oral Testimony.................................................    21

                                Panel II

Ms. Maya Berry, Executive Director, Arab American Institute
  Oral Testimony.................................................    23
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    25
Ms. Shoba Sivaprasad Wadhia, Associate Dean for Diversity, 
  Equity, and Inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty Scholar; and 
  Clinical Professor of Law; Penn State Law
  Oral Testimony.................................................    40
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    42
The Honorable Zulfat Suara, Council Member At Large, Metropolitan 
  Government of Nashville and Davidson County
  Oral Testimony.................................................    54
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    56
Ms. Asra Nomani, Vice President for Strategy and Investigations, 
  Parents Defending Education
  Oral Testimony.................................................    62
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    64
Mr. Hammad Alam, Staff Attorney and Program Manager, National 
  Security and Civil Rights, Asian Law Caucus, Asian Americans 
  Advancing Justice
  Oral Testimony.................................................    81
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    84
Mr. Devon Westhill, President and General Counsel, Center for 
  Equal Opportunity
  Oral Testimony.................................................   100
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   103
Ms. Amrith Kaur Aakre, Legal Director, The Sikh Coalition
  Oral Testimony.................................................   107
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   110
Ms. Annetta Seecharran, Executive Director, Chhaya Community 
  Development Corporation
  Oral Testimony.................................................   113
  Prepared Testimony.............................................   115

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

A study entitled, ``Fulfilling the Promise of Free Exercise For 
  All: Muslim Prisoner Accommodation in State Prisons,'' Muslim 
  Advocates, submitted by the Honorable Cori Bush, a Member of 
  the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
  Liberties from the State of Missouri, for the record...........   132

                                APPENDIX

Materials submitted by the Honorable Steve Cohen, Chair of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil 
  Liberties from the State of Tennessee, for the record
  A statement from Kiran Kaur Gill, Executive Director, the Sikh 
    American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF)...........   208
  A letter from organizations in opposition to the U.S. 
    Department of Homeland Security 2020 ``Targeted Violence and 
    Terrorism Prevention'' grant program.........................   214
  A statement from Robert S. McCaw, Director of Government 
    Affairs Department, Council on American-Islamic Relations 
    (CAIR).......................................................   221
  A statement from Shirin Sinnar, Professor of Law and John A. 
    Wilson Faculty Scholar, Stanford Law School..................   229
  A statement from Justice For Muslims Collective, South Asian 
    Americans Leading Together (SAALT), and Muslim Abolitionist 
    Futures Network..............................................   241
  A statement from the Muslim Community Network (MCN)............   243
  A report entitled, ``Islamophobia in the Mainstream,'' Council 
    on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR).........................   247
  A statement from Farah Brelvi and Asifa Quraishi-Landes, 
    Interim Co-Executive Directors, Muslim Advocates.............   310

 
                 DISCRIMINATION AND THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF
         THE MUSLIM, ARAB, AND SOUTH ASIAN AMERICAN COMMUNITIES

                              ----------                              


                         Tuesday, March 1, 2022

                     U.S. House of Representatives

            Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights,

                          and Civil Liberties

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:08 a.m., in 
room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Cohen 
[Chair of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Nadler, Cohen, Raskin, 
Ross, Johnson of Georgia, Garcia, Bush, Jackson Lee, Jordan, 
and Johnson of Louisiana.
    Staff present: Aaron Hiller, Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff 
Director; John Doty, Senior Advisor and Deputy Staff Director; 
David Greengrass, Senior Counsel; Moh Sharma, Director of 
Member Services and Outreach & Policy Advisor; Jordan Dashow, 
Professional Staff Member; Cierra Fontenot, Chief Clerk; Keenan 
Keller, Senior Counsel; Gabriel Barnett, Staff Assistant; 
Merrick Nelson, Digital Director; James Park, Chief Counsel for 
Constitution; Will Emmons, Professional Staff Member/
Legislative Aide for Constitution; Ella Yates, Minority Member 
Services Director; James Lesinski, Minority Counsel; Andrea 
Woodard, Minority Professional Staff Member; and Kiley 
Bidelman, Minority Clerk.
    Mr. Cohen. The Committee on the Judiciary, Subcommittee on 
the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, will come 
to order.
    Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a 
recess of the Subcommittee at any time.
    I welcome everyone to today's hearing on Discrimination and 
the Civil Rights of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
Communities.
    Before we continue, I would like to remind Members we have 
established an email address and distribution list dedicated to 
circulating exhibits or other written materials, motions, or 
other written matters that Members might want to offer as part 
of our hearing today. If you would like to submit those 
materials, please send them to the email address that we 
previously shared with you, and we will have them distributed.
    Finally, I would ask all Members and Witnesses, both those 
in person and those appearing remotely, to mute your 
microphones when you are not speaking. This will help prevent 
feedback, other technical issues, and possible embarrassments. 
You may unmute yourself anytime you seek recognition.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
    To my knowledge, today's hearing is the first congressional 
hearing exclusively focused on the pervasive discrimination 
facing the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American communities. 
It is the first time since 1986 the House Judiciary has had a 
hearing focused on any component of that community. We did have 
a hearing earlier this year on Asian hate and we felt it was 
very effective. We have had hearings on the ERA, on 
reparations, and other first-time hearings. So, the Committee 
has been very active in breaking new ground.
    The diversity of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
community reflects our history as a Nation of immigrants. It 
includes Americans who have come here from every part of the 
world. That includes Americans of many faiths besides Muslims--
Christians, they didn't start here, either; Hindus; Sikhs; 
Buddhists; and Jewish folk.
    The history of this community is also one that parallels 
the experience of many traditionally marginalized communities 
and is deeply rooted in our history. While they are promised 
individual liberty and guaranteed the opportunity for a better 
life, they are subjected, oftentimes, to discrimination and 
stigmatization, both at the hands of sometimes their own 
government and some number of their own fellow Americans. We 
have seen what African Americans experienced in this country 
through the Jim Crow years; it is still going on, but there was 
much discrimination sanctioned by the government, Jim Crow 
laws.
    The history of this community I also of resilience. Their 
stories are of those families and individuals who have 
struggled for freedom, safety, economic opportunity, or the 
right to worship--or all the above--according to the dictates 
of their own conscience.
    In that sense, the diverse elements of the Muslim, Arab, 
and South Asian American community share in common what 
Americans all share: The common, fundamental belief that, if 
you work hard, contribute to your community, respect the rights 
of others as you wish your own rights to be respected, and 
place your faith in our Constitution and democracy, you belong 
here.
    Too often, people are discriminated against because of acts 
of other people, and they prejudge people. That has happened 
with all minorities that have come to this country.
    Even though they live in accordance, the immigrants in this 
country, with the fundamental beliefs of our society, society 
often stigmatizes immigrants. Muslim, Arab, and South Asian 
American communities who are the subject of this hearing have 
been subjected to those prejudices and discriminations as 
well--that somehow, they are not American. Well, I am not sure 
who is American, except for Geronimo and other Native American 
Indians.
    We have seen the stigma reflected in individual acts of 
discrimination and hate. We have seen it continue in the 
workplace, discrimination against those who wear religious 
headgear or facial hair as a sign of their faith. We have also 
seen it reflected in the current rise of nativism and White 
supremacy, as individuals or places of worship associated with 
these communities are increasingly the targets of vandalism and 
violence. These acts of violence, hate, and discrimination are 
affront to our sheer values and governing principles, and they 
have no place in our society.
    In the previous Administration, we had a Muslim ban. The 
first Muslim ban was struck down by the courts as 
unconstitutional, and it played on prejudices in our community 
for the benefit of the politicians who proposed it. A second, 
refined Muslim ban was eventually approved by the Supreme 
Court, but after much harm was done.
    All this should be concerning to all Americans because 
those flawed policies are not only discriminatory, but they 
also do not make us safer. I hope that we reckon with and 
reflect on this history today and come together to ensure this 
discrimination and stigmatization of Muslim, Arab, and South 
Asian American communities come to an end.
    In Memphis, we have a Ramadan dinner, an annual dinner, 
where people of all faiths come together. All they do is get 
together and talk about commonality of interests, and peace and 
harmony, and good deeds and good things. They talk so long that 
you get really, really hungry, but it is a beautiful 
experience, as everybody comes together and shows that American 
values are not in any one particular race or religion, but all 
of us.
    So, I thank our Witnesses for appearing here today. I would 
particularly like to welcome our colleagues, Representatives 
Carson, Chu, Jayapal, and Omar, and look forward to their 
testimony and that of all the other Witnesses.
    I will have to be leaving a bit early because I have a 
hearing of the Helsinki Commission with concerns with Ukraine. 
At that time, Ms. Ross will take over. As the Subcommittee Vice 
Chair, she will take the gavel.
    Now, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member of the 
Subcommittee, the gentleman from Louisiana, my friend, Mr. 
Johnson, for his opening statement.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    I want to thank our Witnesses and our colleagues and 
friends for being here this morning. It is, obviously, a very 
busy day on the Hill. So, we all have a lot going on. So, I 
appreciate your time.
    This hearing is scheduled to discuss discrimination and the 
civil rights of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
communities, as was said. So, let's be clear at the outset, 
because I think all of us know and agree that discrimination 
based on race or religion is always wrong, and it is 
inconsistent with our founding ideals. That is one of the 
things that makes us American, I would argue.
    Our Nation's promise was boldly asserted in our Nation's 
birth certificate, the Declaration of Independence, that all 
men are created equal and that we are endowed by our Creator 
with certain inalienable rights--all of us. America is not 
perfect, of course, but it is an exceptional country. We are 
always growing; we are learning; we are striving to be that 
more perfect union, as the Constitution articulates.
    Our Federal civil rights laws recognize these facts, 
thankfully. It took a long time to get there, but they do, and 
they have for a long, long time. They make clear that disparate 
treatment of one individual when compared to another cannot be 
based on race, religion, or national origin, for example.
    However, some advocates today are pushing for really what 
amounts to a drastic departure from our traditional notions of 
racism and discrimination and equality, as it existed in 
American law for decades and generations. Instead of equality 
of treatment and equal opportunity, these advocates are pushing 
for what we now call ``equity.''
    Rather than nondiscrimination, equity requires explicit 
discrimination to achieve an equitable distribution of 
outcomes. That is not what has been the tradition here, and it 
is not what we are based on. Let me say that again: Rather than 
nondiscrimination, equity often requires explicit 
discrimination to achieve its ends.
    Perversely, these ideas have actually caused discrimination 
against some of the communities that are the subject of today's 
hearing. At colleges and universities like Harvard, Yale, the 
University of North Carolina, Asian applicants, for example, 
face significant hurdles unrelated to academic achievement or 
merit in the admissions process. Admissions decisions made in 
the name of equity have also been seen at prestigious high 
schools across the country and in other institutions.
    At Thomas Jefferson High School, for example, a magnet 
school in Northern Virginia that is considered one of the best 
public high schools in the country, admissions policies 
implemented with the goal of equity had the effect of reducing 
the number of Asian admittees from, roughly, 73 percent to 
approximately 54 percent. Just last week, a Federal court 
invalidated the new policy because it failed to treat 
applicants equally. That is what we are supposed to stand for 
here. Similar changes and similar legal challenges are playing 
out right now from New York to San Francisco.
    As we have this conversation today, I just think we need to 
remember that equal treatment and equal opportunity are the 
foundation of civil rights laws. The American dream is not a 
zero-sum proposition. We need to not hold anyone back, so that 
we ensure that everyone can get ahead. The idea is upward 
mobility. That is the American dream. We want to broaden the 
pathway out of poverty for more people. We want to give more 
opportunity. We all agree, I think, on the end goal. We just 
have very different ideas on how we are supposed to get there.
    So, I look forward to hearing from our Witnesses today. I 
also apologize because I have got multiple hearings going on at 
the same time. I yield back.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Johnson.
    I now recognize the Chair of the Full Committee, Mr. 
Nadler, for his opening statement.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. I want to begin by informing my 
friend, Mr. Johnson, that the best public high school in the 
country is Stuyvesant High School in my district in New York.
    Mr. Chair, the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
communities are an essential part of the American fabric. They 
are our neighbors, friends, and coworkers. Some of our 
congressional colleagues are Members of these communities, and 
I am pleased that we will hear testimony from several of them 
today.
    According to the Census Bureau, there are over 7 million 
Arab Americans and South Asian Americans in the United States, 
including over 750,000 in New York City. We know that the true 
size of this population is likely even larger because the 
Census underreports these groups. Indeed, as we consider our 
recent experience with the Census, we know that we must make 
changes to better track the Arab American community.
    Even without improved Census figures, we know from personal 
experience that, from small business owners to healthcare 
professionals, to public servants, the Muslim, Arab, and South 
Asian American communities are inextricably woven into the 
fabric of American society.
    It is also important to acknowledge that, while our hearing 
focuses on some of the common issues confronting these 
communities as a whole, there is as much diversity among these 
groups as there is in the rest of America, and they adhere to a 
range of faiths, including not only Islam, but also 
Christianity, seekers of Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Baha'i, 
and Judaism, among others.
    A large part of what binds them together, unfortunately, is 
the shared experience of discrimination targeted at them that 
stems from the same poisonous tree. Despite their many 
contributions and long histories in this country, these 
communities have often been stigmatized as perpetual 
foreigners, not only by individuals, but often by the policies 
of their own government.
    From the nativism confronting those who arrived in the 
early waves of migration to this country in the late 18th to 
early 19th century to those who were scapegoated for the 
effects of more recent political events, like the oil embargo 
of the 1970s, Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
communities have faced discrimination rooted in the idea that 
they are somehow less American than others, despite the fact 
that their stories are so similar to those of other American 
families who arrived here as immigrants.
    Looming especially large over these communities over the 
past two decades are the continuing impacts, both in terms of 
government policy and interpersonal prejudices, of the 
September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States. Like all 
Americans, Members of the Muslim, Arab, and South Asian 
communities recoiled in horror at what happened that day; they 
shared in the Nation's anger and sorrow.
    Many members of these communities were themselves victims 
of the attacks. Unlike other communities, many Muslim, Arab, 
and South Asian Americans endured an unjustified wave of 
interpersonal discrimination and violence at the hands of their 
fellow Americans--the societal hatred and cultural 
stigmatization that continues to impact them to this day, a 
generation later.
    Even more concerning, the legacy of 9/11 and national 
security, counterterrorism, and immigration policies continues 
to have a disproportionately discriminatory impact on these 
communities. As Americans, we should all be concerned when the 
government creates and implements national security and law 
enforcement policies based on broad-brush assumptions about 
whole communities of Americans based on their race, religion, 
ethnicity, or national origin, rather than on individualized 
suspicion. Such wholesale discriminatory assumptions are not 
only unconstitutional, but also un-American to the core, and 
they do nothing to make us safer.
    Finally, we cannot hold this hearing today without 
examining issues of discrimination as part of a broader context 
of persistent White supremacist violence and extremism in the 
United States, a trend that has taken on a recent and 
disturbing revival. The recent rise in hate crimes across the 
country has had a significant impact on the Muslim, Arab, and 
South Asian community, just as it has had on other minority 
communities. From the violence against mosques to the shooting 
at the Sikh Temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, to the 
vandalization of Hindu temples, hate crimes and hate incidents 
continue to significantly target these communities.
    For example, according to the Justice Department's 2020 
hate crime statistics, there were 87 anti-Arab offenses, 131 
anti-Muslim offenses, 94 anti-Sikh offenses, and 11 anti-Hindu 
offenses. We also know that all these statistics are 
significantly underreported and that they do not include hate 
incidents that fall short of the legal definition of hate 
crime.
    For example, children from these communities are often 
subject to bullying, a reflection of the interpersonal 
prejudices they face. The Sikh Coalition has reported that 67 
percent of Sikh kids who have a turban have been bullied.
    The conversation we are having today is long overdue. It 
appears that the most recent congressional hearing solely 
focused on issues impacting any part of the Muslim, Arab, or 
South Asian American communities was held in 1986 in the Crime 
Subcommittee. It is long past time to shine a light on the 
needs of these communities once again.
    I look forward to hearing from today's excellent panel of 
Witnesses who will provide insight on the current issues 
impacting these communities and how we can better ensure that 
they have the protection, justice, equality, and healing that 
they deserve.
    I thank Chair Cohen for holding this important hearing, and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Mr. Nadler.
    Mr. Jordan, do you have a statement?
    Mr. Jordan. No, Mr. Chair. I look forward to hearing from 
our Witnesses, from our colleagues.
    So, I will yield back. Thank you.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your attendance.
    We welcome our Witnesses and thank them for participating 
in today's hearing.
    I will now introduce each of the Witnesses, and after each 
introduction, we will recognize the Witness for his or her oral 
testimony.
    Each of your written statements will be introduced into the 
record in its entirety, and I ask you to summarize your 
testimony in five minutes.
    To help you stay within that time, for our Witnesses 
testifying in person, there is a timing light on your table. 
All of you know what the lights are about. For Witnesses 
testifying remotely, you have got to find it on your computer 
somewhere, in some kind of a Zoom view on your screen.
    Before proceeding with the testimony, I would like to 
remind all our Witnesses appearing on both panels that you have 
a legal obligation to provide truthful testimony and answers to 
this Subcommittee, and any false statement that you make today 
may subject you to prosecution under section 1001 of title 18 
of the United States Code.
    Today, we have two Witness panels. On the first panel, we 
are joined by four of our colleagues.
    Our first colleague is joining us remotely, Representative 
Andre Carson. Congressman Carson represents the 7th 
Congressional District of Indiana, which encompassed the city 
of Indianapolis, home of the hottest shrimp cocktail sauce in 
the world. He is serving his seventh term in Congress.
    You are recognized for five minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF HON. ANDRE CARSON

    Mr. Carson. Thank you to my good friend, Chair Cohen. I 
would like to thank you and the Full Committee, and my buddy, 
the professor, Chair Nadler, for your hard work, as well as the 
Ranking Member, in all that you do to protect our Constitution, 
and especially for organizing today's hearing.
    Muslims across the country, quite frankly, have asked for 
this kind of hearing for a very long time. As the longest-
serving, currently, Muslim in Congress, it is a tremendous 
honor to testify today about the persistent discrimination face 
by Muslim Americans.
    I am particularly pleased to join my buddies, my friends, 
my congressional colleagues: Representative Judy Chu, 
Representative Jayapal, and my sister and friend, 
Representative Omar.
    As a young, Black teenager, a tall, Black teenager in 
Indianapolis, I was targeted, the victim of racial profiling, 
while I was standing outside of a mosque. I was arrested and 
put behind bars. There was an outcry from the community who saw 
the injustice that played out. Fortunately, the charges were 
dropped, and I was released and became a police officer years 
later. It was my Muslim community and friends that stood with 
us and fought for my release.
    I learned a very critical lesson that day, that being Black 
and being Muslim put someone like me under double scrutiny. 
Sometimes that discrimination and profiling can endanger an 
individual's safety.
    On January 6th, a man drove a truck to the Capitol Complex. 
The truck was loaded with an arsenal of explosives and weapons. 
The truck also contained a list which included my name and 
others because I am a Muslim Member of Congress. The man who 
wrote up that list has finally pled guilty and will serve time 
for his crimes when he is sentenced next month by a Federal 
judge.
    My experience mirrors so many other Muslim Americans who 
have been threatened, injured, quite frankly, killed, due to 
profiling and discrimination. This is a very real threat 
throughout our daily lives.
    I really hope today's hearing helps to raise more awareness 
of the very life-changing impacts of discrimination against 
Muslims. There is a notion that the Muslim American community 
is a new one in the United States, but the truth is that we 
have been long before the Declaration of Independence was 
signed. Enslaved Muslims were taken from their homes and 
families in Africa and brought to America as slaves. These 
Muslims brought their religion with them, and they practiced it 
here in the New World.
    America's Founders had high ideals about liberty and 
freedom, but they were conflicted, too. Many of the Founders 
owned slaves, as we know. If you look very closely at George 
Washington's plantation home in Mt. Vernon, you will see 
evidence of the Muslim slaves who worked for the nation's first 
President. If you look among the crosses, you will see 
crescents on a number of grave markers.
    Historic Muslim leaders like the great Malcolm X and the 
great Muhammad Ali are well-known, but far too many other 
trailblazers are less known. Never doubt that Muslims have been 
in an integral part of building this nation from the very 
beginning to the present. We are not new here. Our tapestry has 
only grown richer, thanks to the arrival of newer generations 
of Muslim immigrants who have come to build on our American 
dream. Some fled persecution and some came for educational and 
economic opportunities.
    Muslims have made substantial contributions in every aspect 
of American life, whether it is the field of medicine or 
business, law, sports, or entertainment. Unfortunately, the 
aftermath of 9/11 drastically changed many people's perception 
of us, and those achievements are not acknowledged as they 
should be.
    Regrettably, our own government contributed to the 
discrimination experience by Muslims with intensified profiling 
under the guise of national security. As a former law 
enforcement officer, someone who has worked in 
counterintelligence and homeland security in Indiana, I can 
tell you that most officers strive to carry out their oaths to 
serve and protect in a very responsible and respectful manner. 
September 11, 2001, opened a door to a whole new level of 
widespread profiling that grew out of fear of the other. 
Federal agencies like TSA and the FBI started a suspect list 
and no-fly list, many times just because of the way someone's 
name sounded or how it was spelled. Once someone's name was on 
those lists; it could be a nightmare to get them removed.
    Traveling while a Muslim is challenging. Worshiping while 
Muslim is a challenge, too. Law enforcement and intelligence 
personnel monitor mosques, conduct questionable surveillance of 
Muslim communities. Initiatives that I believe are intended to 
preserve our national security, like countering violent 
extremism, or CVE, instead, have been misused with 
disproportionate targeting of Muslims.
    I am honored that Speaker Pelosi appointed me to be the 
first Muslim to serve on the House Intel Committee. She did 
this, despite the very racist attacks that a Muslim could or 
should not be trusted with intelligence data.
    So, I thank you for the opportunity for highlighting this 
growing community and contributors to our society.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Mr. Carson follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Carson. Excellent 
testimony. I appreciate it.
    Our next Witness is Representative Judy Chu. Congressman 
Chu represents the 27th Congressional District of California, 
has served in Congress since--this says 2009. Did you come in 
2009? I thought you were here before I got here. That is okay.
    [Laughter.]
    Since 2011, she has served as Chair of the Congressional 
Asian Pacific American Caucus.
    Representative Chu, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Apparently, your microphone may not be on.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. JUDY CHU

    Ms. Chu. Okay. Well, thank you, Chair Nadler, Ranking 
Member Jordan, Subcommittee Chair Cohen, and other 
distinguished Members of the Committee, for the opportunity to 
join my esteemed colleagues in providing testimony on an 
incredibly important issue: Discrimination and civil rights of 
Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities in the United States.
    I especially want to thank my fellow Members on this panel 
for voicing their personal experiences and uplifting the voices 
of their communities to the Committee today.
    As Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American 
Caucus, or CAPAC, I have spent many years advocating for and 
defending the civil rights of the entirety of the Asian 
American and Pacific Islander, or AAPI, community, which 
includes many of the groups named in this hearing.
    As we begin today's hearing, we must understand that anti-
Asian hate and discrimination, which has been recently thrust 
into the spotlight, is not a new phenomenon. Whether it is the 
Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882, Japanese American incarceration 
during World War II, or the surveillance of Muslim, Arab, and 
South Asian communities after 9/11, our history has shown us 
what happens when Asian Americans are used as scapegoats in 
times of crisis.
    In our more recent history, in the wake of the attacks on 
our nation on 9/11, the Muslim, Middle Eastern, Arab, Sikh, and 
South Asian communities became subject to an increasing 
atmosphere of suspicion, xenophobia, and violence. In fact, 
just four days after
9/11, Balbir Singh Sodhi, a Sikh father, husband, and brother, 
was shot while planting flowers outside his Arizona gas 
station, becoming the first victim of a post-9/11 hate crime. 
Sadly, he would not be the last.
    Since then, the focus on terrorism from abroad also became 
a political justification for more prejudice at home. From the 
passage of the Patriot Act to lies about terrorists at the 
southern border, prejudice has been used to justify cruel 
immigration policies, Muslim travel bans, and more in the past 
few years alone. What is even worse is that this rhetoric has 
actually inspired new domestic terrorist threats and innocent 
lives have been lost as a result.
    This prejudice took a concrete form in the initial days of 
the Trump Administration, when Donald Trump announced his first 
Muslim ban. What followed were years of pain for families 
deliberately separated by this ban, forced to miss weddings, 
funerals, births, graduations, and more.
    While President Biden rescinded this ban on his first day 
in office, we must ensure that no President has the power to 
create a ban like this, based solely on religion and 
xenophobia, ever again. I am proud that the House passed my 
bill, along with Representatives Lofgren, Carson, Omar, and 
Beyer, the NO BAN Act, which repeals all iterations of the 
Muslim ban and ensures that no future President can 
unilaterally ban an entire group based on their religion.
    The Muslim ban wasn't just cruel for its personal impact on 
families, it was also dangerous in the way it promoted fear of 
Muslims, which we know leads to more violence. As we have seen 
with the increase in anti-Asian hate over the past two years, 
with more than 10,000 incidents since March of 2020, creating 
fear and fostering prejudice against one group can lead to the 
harassment, suffering, and even death of innocents.
    That is why I am so proud that the bipartisan Jabara-Heyer 
NO HATE Act, which I led with Representative Don Beyer and 
others, was included in the COVID-19 Hate Crimes Act, which was 
signed into law last May. This law provides local organizations 
and local law enforcement with the resources and training to 
improve hate crimes tracking and reporting, something we know 
is necessary in addressing the sharp rise in hate crimes 
against all minority communities.
    Nobody, whether you are Asian, South Asian, Arab, Muslim, 
Sikh, or any other community, should be targeted simply because 
of their ethnicity or religion. As Chair of CAPAC, I look 
forward to working with all my colleagues on this panel and so 
many of the groups represented today to continue the work of 
combating discrimination against all our communities.
    [The statement of Ms. Chu follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you, Representative Chu.
    I will now pause for a few minutes because we have 
technical difficulties--not related to your microphone or your 
testimony. I think your testimony was--I guess it was heard. 
Was it? You were a YouTube star, but not a Zoom participant.
    [Laughter.]
    So, we are trying to synchronize those two groups.
    We will take a brief recess.
    [Recess.]
    Mr. Cohen. Apparently, technical difficulties have been 
dispensed with.
    Our next Witness--and we will go in the order of 
seniority--is Representative Pramila Jayapal. Congressman 
Jayapal represents the 7th Congressional District of 
Washington. I believe it is the city of Seattle--coffee and a 
big tower, and boats and salmon.
    [Laughter.]
    She is currently serving in her third term. She is the 
Chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus and, also, Chairs 
the Immigration Task Force of the Congressional Asian Pacific 
American Caucus and has been a dynamic leader in this 
particular Congress especially.
    You are recognized for five minutes.

               STATEMENT OF HON. PRAMILA JAYAPAL

    Ms. Jayapal. Thank you, Chairs Cohen and Nadler, Ranking 
Members Johnson and Jordan, and Members of the Subcommittee. 
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important 
hearing with my wonderful colleagues.
    I sit before you as the first and only South Asian American 
woman elected to the House of Representatives.
    September 11, 2001, forever changed what it means to be a 
Muslim, Arab, or South Asian American in America. On September 
11th, a friend on the East Coast woke me up at 5:00 in the 
morning, calling to ask if I had heard what had happened. I had 
just moved into a new home. I had to unpack my very tiny 
television, and I sat amidst boxes watching in horror as the 
first images of the Twin Towers played on repeat. I knew that 
life would never be the same again for people who look like us 
sitting at this table.
    In the days and weeks after, I received fearful calls from 
individuals in the Sikh, Muslim, and Arab American community 
who were being attacked for wearing turbans or hijabs. I heard 
from moms and dads who were afraid to send their kids to 
school--a fear that I shared for my own child. For the first 
time since I had come to America at the age of 16, I had to 
think about whether to wear my Indian clothes outside and I 
didn't want to let my child leave the house.
    When I left home, I literally could feel the tension in my 
body, like I was being constantly watched, and I worried that I 
would be attacked or that someone would yell hateful things at 
me, simply for being who I am.
    Others had it far, far worse. On September 13th, a man 
armed with a gun and a tank of gasoline went to a mosque in 
North Seattle, trying to attack people as they left evening 
prayers and setting a car on fire.
    A few days later, the first Sikh American, Balbir Singh 
Sodhi, was murdered in Mesa, Arizona, simply because his 
attacker thought that he looked like Osama bin Laden and should 
be held responsible for the attacks.
    Every single day, I received calls about Muslim women who 
had been harassed on the streets; women having their hijabs 
torn off; taxi drivers who were beaten for being Sikh American; 
Muslim families who withdrew their children from school because 
they were too afraid to get on the bus or go out in public.
    It didn't help when, days after the attacks, President 
George W. Bush proclaimed, ``Either you are with us or you are 
with the terrorists.'' For many Arab, Muslim, and South Asian 
communities, this stark language seemed directed at us, and the 
words cemented division and had an enormous psychological 
impact on our communities.
    This ``us versus them'' rhetoric sparked terrible policy 
decisions that continue to impact the civil rights and civil 
liberties of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities, as well 
as other communities. Cloaked in national security, the 
President and Congress advanced policies and laws intentionally 
designed to criminalize, surveil, police, and deny immigration 
benefits to these communities.
    Just 10 days after 9/11, Congress passed the Patriot Act, 
with little regard for the enormous problems that it created 
for civil liberties and privacy protections for all Americans, 
but, in particular, for those most likely to be targeted--many 
provisions which still remain and have been used against MASA 
communities.
    There are some beautiful things that come out of crisis as 
well. I ended up founding a nonprofit civil rights organization 
named One America to fight the backlash targeting Muslim, Sikh, 
and South Asian communities, and ended up organizing immigrants 
across the board for justice for the next decades.
    In the months and years that followed, we successfully 
defeated government efforts to deport about 5,000 Somalis from 
across the country; we fought back against special registration 
and detention of 1,200 Arab and Muslim men; we defended Muslim 
and Somali businesses from unjust attempts by the government to 
put them out of business. We held hearings to tell our stories, 
including a 2003 Senate hearing, held at the request of late 
Senator Ted Kennedy.
    I am proud that out of tremendous crisis came courage and 
resilience of our communities, but I am also aware of how much 
work there is still to do. I still have constituents who are 
trying to get their names off discriminatory lists created 
after 9/11 that have prevented them from getting benefits that 
they should have.
    Twenty years later, here in Congress, I was proud to 
introduce a resolution on the anniversary of 9/11, with my 
colleagues, Representatives Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Judy 
Chu. Our resolution, H.Res. 629, recognizes the climate of hate 
that Arab, Muslim, Middle Eastern, South Asian, and Sikh 
communities have experienced since September 11th and calls for 
action to address the lasting impacts of 9/11.
    I hope this hearing becomes one step of many to examine 
and, ultimately, dismantle 9/11 era policies that have 
perpetuated and exacerbated discrimination against these 
communities.
    I thank you, Mr. Chair, for holding this very important 
hearing.
    I yield back.
    [The statement of Ms. Jayapal follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for your testimony and your work on 
these issues over the years.
    Our last Witness on our first panel is Representative Ilhan 
Omar. She represents the 5th Congressional District of 
Minnesota, also known as the home of Prince.
    [Laughter.]
    It includes Minneapolis with the Twins and a big mall and 
surrounding suburbs.
    She was sworn into office in January 2019, making her the 
first African refugee to become a Member of Congress; the first 
woman of color to represent the State of Minnesota, and one of 
the first two Muslim American women elected to Congress.
    Representative Omar, you are recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. ILHAN OMAR

    Ms. Omar. Good morning, Chair, Ranking Member, and 
distinguished Members of this Committee. Thank you for holding 
this very important hearing.
    I am no stranger to discrimination, hate speech, or threats 
of violence against my family and myself, simply because of my 
identity. As a Black, visibly Muslim woman who came to this 
country as a refugee, I have dealt with racist, xenophobic, 
bigoted comments and threats all my life. Even being elected to 
offices hasn't stopped me from being ``othered.'' I have 
received vile remarks from the public, as well as Members of 
Congress.
    Sadly, I am just one of millions of Americans across this 
country who have experienced discrimination and attacks. In 
recent years, we have witnessed increased attacks on Asian 
Americans, immigrant communities, religious minority and 
spaces, and that is only a fraction of violence.
    It is demoralizing to watch acts of such blatant racism and 
xenophobia--all carried out with complete disregard for the 
humanity of others. Sadly, our government has a history of 
sanctioning such hatred and violence.
    In 1798, President John Adams signed into law a set of four 
bills collectively known as the Alien Sedition Act. These four 
bills increased the residency requirement for American 
citizenship from five years to 14 years, authorizing the 
President to imprison or deport foreign nationals considered 
dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States and 
restricting speech critical of the government. These laws were 
designed to restrict the activities of foreign-born Americans, 
silence minorities, and weaken freedom of speech and the press.
    By 1801, three of the Acts were repealed due to their 
unconstitutional nature or allowed to expire. However, the 
Alien Enemies Act remains in effect to this day, even though it 
is unconstitutional, as the other three. The Alien Enemies Act 
allows the United States President to determine how and if all 
foreign nationals should be apprehended, restrained, secured, 
and removed in the event of a war. There are a number of 
troubling and scary aspects of this law.
    First, ``war'' is not defined in this Act, allowing it to 
be loosely interpreted.
    Second, this Act completely bypasses the judicial process, 
ignoring due process and the right of appeal.
    Lastly, foreign national refers to anyone who is not a U.S. 
citizen, even if they might be a lawful resident in the United 
States--meaning, even if you have lived in the United States 
legally for 20 years, built a community, started a family, for 
whatever reason, not have gained citizenship, you would be 
subject to apprehension, detention, or deportation without due 
process.
    I introduced the Neighbors Not Enemies Act to repeat this 
unjust law. While many might say this 18th century law is 
outdated and has no impact on modern history, I would like to 
remind you that, less than 100 years ago, the United States 
invoked this Act during World War II to retain and, 
subsequently, deport Japanese, German, and Italian immigrants. 
Just last week, we marked the 80th anniversary of the Executive 
Order signed by President Franklin Roosevelt, which led to mass 
incarceration of nearly 120,000 people of Japanese ancestry.
    In the years since, the United States has recognized 
injustices done to the Japanese Americans, and subsequently, 
apologized for the cruel internment. Although we promised to 
never walk down that dark path again, we failed to keep that 
promise. During the 2016 election, President Trump used the 
Alien Enemies Act as a justification for the Muslim ban.
    Administration after Administration have continuously 
demonstrated the danger of unchecked executive power and the 
stain it has on our country decades and centuries later. 
Whether it is justifying putting hundreds of thousands of 
people in internment camps, attacking Muslim immigrants and 
refugees, or separating families at the border, the Alien 
Enemies Act dangerously permits the President extreme executive 
powers to unjustly target an entire group of foreign nationals.
    This outdated and sinful, bigoted law is an offense to our 
nation's values. We must learn from historic mistakes, based on 
fear of the other, and embrace a system of freedom and equality 
by passing the Neighbors Not Enemies Act.
    Thank you, Chair.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much.
    That completes and concludes our first panel. I thank our 
four colleagues for joining with us and giving us their 
testimony, and their work on these issues. We hope to be able 
to come up with some legislation. Thank you.
    Before we go to the second panel, Ms. Ross will take the 
Chair.
    I just want to express all the Members of the next panel 
are equally important and valuable, and all are very much 
appreciated.
    Particularly, I am going to miss the opportunity to 
introduce Ms. Zulfat Suara, because she is from Nashville, 
Tennessee, and that is a city I have spent many years in. It is 
in my State. It is the home of Vanderbilt University, where I 
want to college; Tennessee State Senate, where I was sentenced 
to for 24 years before I was allowed out and given a parole 
here in the Congress.
    [Laughter.]
    You are very welcome, and we look forward to your 
testimony.
    Ms. Ross, you are on.
    Ms. Ross. [Presiding.] We will give them a second to set up 
the panel.
    Okay. Welcome, everyone. Our first Witness on the second 
panel is Maya Berry. Ms. Berry is the Executive Director of the 
Arab American Institute, a nonprofit, nonpartisan national 
civil rights advocacy organization founded to nurture and 
encourage direct participation in political and civic life, to 
mobilize a strong, educated, and empowered Arab American 
community.
    She previously served as the Legislative Director for House 
Minority Whip David Bonior, where she managed the Congressman's 
legislative strategy and developed policies on international 
relations, human rights, immigration, civil rights and civil 
liberties, and trade. She also serves as the Co-Chair of the 
Hate Crime Task Force at their Leadership Conference for Civil 
and Human Rights.
    Ms. Berry, you are recognized for five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF MAYA BERRY

    Ms. Berry. Thank you so much. Good morning, Chair Cohen and 
Vice Chair Ross, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the 
Committee. You have convened an important hearing today because 
it is the first congressional hearing to examine the civil 
rights of communities most directly impacted by post-9/11 
national security policies and discrimination.
    For my community, it comes nearly 36 years after another 
historic hearing of the House Judiciary Committee in 1986 
entitled, ``Ethically Motivated Violence Against Arab 
Americans.'' The impetus for the hearing was the surge in 
violent hate crimes targeting Arab Americans, including the 
tragic 1985 murder of civil rights advocate, Alex Odeh.
    The climate was dangerous enough for FBI Director William 
Webster to warn that ``Arab individuals or those supporting of 
Arab points of view have come within the zone of danger.'' The 
importance of a hearing providing congressional oversight for a 
particular community is clear, but the hearing would also go on 
to serve as one of the key drivers of the passage of the Hate 
Crimes Statistics Act of 1990.
    Like 1986, we have the opportunity today to make this 
hearing a beginning, a first step, for much-needed reforms that 
will protect our Constitution, our civil rights, and our civil 
liberties--the very charge of this Subcommittee.
    This hearing brings together three individual communities, 
though some overlap, and we have some meaningful shared 
experiences, and a lot of solidarity--lest we not forget that 
the first victims of deadly hate crimes post-9/11 were members 
of the Sikh community. However, the single most unifying factor 
is that our government has securitized its relationship with 
all of us by viewing Arab Americans, American Muslims, and 
Asian Americans through a lens of national security. The 
relationship becomes one of mitigating external threats, 
instead of communities deserving of service and protection, as 
any other group of Americans. As a securitized community, our 
fellow Americans have come to view us differently, too--
sometimes have even targeted us for discrimination and bias-
motivated hate.
    Nearly three years ago, a man was sentenced to five years 
in prison, convicted of a hate crime for threatening the life 
of AAI President James Zogby and our staff. He is the third man 
to go to jail for threatening us since 9/11.
    Most do not accept that we got here because of animus 
towards any of these communities, but, rather, because we have 
to keep America safe in what is commonly referred to as ``the 
War on Terror.'' Our civil rights and civil liberties being 
violated in the name of national security, well, that is often 
used as a necessary price to pay for public safety.
    From the Patriot Act and its mass surveillance to the 
Discrimination Special Registry Program of NSEERS; to rampant 
profiling; to watchlists of Americans of undetermined size 
without a redress process; to shockingly ignorant and bigoted 
FBI training material; to the NYPD spying program; to harmful 
and ineffective countering violent extremism programs; to 
flying while Arab or Muslim getting added to the lexicon of 
driving while black; to denaturalization programs; or finally, 
to the Muslim ban, our country has put in place practices that 
have violated fundamental rights and shown a lack of respect 
for our Constitution.
    Let's pause for a moment and consider some historical 
context. In 1980, Congress established a commission to examine 
the causes and impact of the shameful incarceration of Japanese 
Americans during World War II. They found the infamous 
Executive Order 9066 was not born of military necessity, but, 
rather, that, ``The broad historical causes which shaped those 
decisions were: Race prejudice, war hysteria, and the failure 
of political leadership.''
    Eighty years after this astonishing violation of the rights 
of nearly 120,000 Americans of Japanese descent, it is useful 
for us to consider those three factors the report emphasized 
when examining the topic of our hearing today.
    In the case of Arab Americans, the prejudice is evident in 
the depiction of my community from entertainment to news, and 
the polling we conduct of American attitudes, regrettably, 
bears that out.
    Second, we can easily arrive at quote, ``war hysteria,'' 
unquote, through a war on terror that will not end until we 
defeat terrorism, and as such, can be held as permanent.
    Finally, we have seen the failure of leadership in at least 
two different ways.

        (1)  When our elected officials so fear by failing to speak out 
        against hate and bigot, and instead, traffic in it; and
        (2)  when our elected officials fail to provide the necessary 
        oversight to prevent government abuses.

    Over the course of the last 20 years, the Federal 
government's counterterrorism authorities have expanded 
significantly. My written testimony offers some specific 
recommendations. Now, 20 years since 9/11, is the right time to 
revisit, so that we can course correct and pass legislation 
that provides security for all of us, without compromising the 
rights of any of us.
    The protection of the fundamental rights of securitized 
communities like Arab Americans is certainly at stake, but so 
is our ability to protect the constitutional rights of all 
Americans and to maintain a free society.
    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today, 
and I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Berry follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Ms. Berry.
    Before we take our next Witness, we are going to have 
another brief technical recess. There is something going on 
with the Witness microphones, and we want everyone to hear you. 
So, just briefly. Thank you for your patience.
    [Recess.]
    Ms. Ross. Okay. See, that one was quick. You are charmed.
    [Laughter.]
    Our next Witness is Shoba Wadhia. She is the Associate Dean 
for diversity, equity, and inclusion; Samuel Weiss Faculty 
Scholar; and Clinical Professor of Law at Pennsylvania State 
University School of Law.
    Her research focuses on the role of prosecutorial 
discretion and in immigration law, and the intersections of 
race, national security, and immigration. She teaches courses 
in immigration and asylum and refugee law. Prior to joining 
Penn State, Professor Wadhia was Deputy Director for Legal 
Affairs at the National Immigration Forum in Washington, DC.
    She received her J.D. from Georgetown University Law 
Center, where she served as a senior notes and comments editor 
of the Georgetown Immigration Law Journal. She received her 
A.B. with honors from Indiana University.
    Professor Wadhia, you are recognized for five minutes.

              STATEMENT OF SHOBA SIVAPRASAD WADHIA

    Ms. Wadhia. Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for 
inviting me to testify at today's hearing.
    Discrimination in immigration law is deeply rooted in our 
history, as seen with the Chinese Exclusion Act and a national 
origin quota that effectively blocked immigration from Asia. 
Only in 1965, during the civil rights era, did President 
Johnson sign a bill amending the immigration statute to end 
national origin quotas.
    The 1965 Act altered the racial landscape of the United 
States and opened doors for families like mine. My parents were 
raised in India, and after their marriage, moved to the United 
States. My father worked at the Dayton, Ohio VA as a physician 
from the beginning of the AIDS crisis. My mother entered the 
United States as the spouse of a green card holder.
    While the 1965 Act yields a more facially neutral 
immigration statute, discrimination in Muslim, Arab, and South 
Asian communities endured. One sharp example is September 11th, 
2001. I was working as an immigration attorney in downtown DC. 
On my way home soon after, I saw spray painted on a wall, 
``Deport Arabs.''
    In the post-9/11 era, executive branch agencies used 
national security as a basis for creating new immigration 
policies that targeted Muslim, Arab, and South Asian 
communities.
    One significant 9/11 policy change was known as the 
National Security Entry-Exit Registration System, or NSEERS. It 
was rolled out in waves--first, in a speech by the former 
Attorney General, and later, in several publications in the 
Federal Register.
    The most controversial piece of NSEERS was a call-in policy 
that drew more than 80,000 men from Muslim-majority countries 
to local immigration offices for lengthy interrogations, 
fingerprints, and photographs. I recall vividly standing in 
front of the local migration Office during NSEERS and 
conducting know-your-rights sessions about the program inside 
of mosques.
    NSEERS failed as a national security program because it 
relied on a premise that singling out Muslim males residing in 
the United States would somehow improve national security. The 
residual effects of NSEERS were striking. Nearly 14,000 Notices 
to Appear, or charging documents, were issued to those who 
complied with the program, triggering removal proceedings for 
the same. Others subject to NSEERS were denied green cards 
years later. Only in December 2016 did DHS issue a final rule 
ending the regulatory framework of NSEERS.
    History repeats itself. Seven days after his inauguration, 
former President Trump signed an Executive Order which 
suspended for 90 days the entry of foreign nationals form seven 
countries with Muslim populations of over 90 percent. The 
Executive Order was based on section 212(f) of the immigration 
statute, which allows the President to suspend the entry of 
noncitizens if their entry is detrimental to the interests of 
the United States.
    Working with families impacted by the various bans brought 
me closer to human suffering. Note, it was individuals in a 
qualifying relationship like my own parents who were being 
turned away because of where they were born. That is why my co-
counsel and I argued in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court 
how the ban ushers our nation into a pre-1965 era. More than 
9,000 spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens were 
impacted, creating one of the greatest untold stories of family 
separation.
    More than 50 years after the 1965 Act and 20 years after 9/
11, immigration laws continue to target MASA communities, as 
well as broader communities of color, often because of policy 
choices made by the executive branch, but also due to 
congressional inaction.
    History will continue to repeat itself unless we do 
something different, and that requires a rejection of 
categorical exclusions based on national security, a 
recognition of an already robust statute, and an immigration 
policy that is guided by principles of family unity, racial 
equity, and compassion.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Wadhia follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for that testimony, 
Professor.
    Our next Witness is Zulfat Suara. Ms. Suara is a Council 
Member at large of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and 
Davidson County, Tennessee, a position she was first elected to 
in 2019. She is the first Muslim elected to the council, the 
first Muslim woman elected to office in Tennessee, and the 
first Nigerian immigrant woman elected to any office in the 
United States.
    In addition to serving on the Nashville and Davidson County 
council, she is Executive Director of grants and contracts at 
Maharry Medical College. Among many accolades, she was named 
the 2018 Muslim Policy Advocate of the Year by the Islamic 
Society of North America and received an award for outstanding 
service to human rights from the Tennessee Human Rights 
Commission.
    Council Member Suara, you are recognized for five minutes, 
and welcome.

                   STATEMENT OF ZULFAT SUARA

    Ms. Suara. Thank you.
    Good morning, Chair Cohen, Vice Chair Ross, Chair Nadler, 
Ranking Members, and other Members of the Committee. Thank you 
for the opportunity to address you this morning.
    My name is Zulfat Suara, as said, and I'm a Council Member 
at large in Nashville. Prior to my election, I served for six 
years as Chair of the American Muslim Advisory Council, AMAC, a 
statewide organization that works in partner with some the 
community to civic-ended means, community building, and media 
relations. AMAC was formed in 2012 following a community 
mobilization against the anti-Sharia bill and the opposition to 
the building of the Murfreesboro Mosque.
    Tennessee is home to large populations of Mexicans, 
Somalis, Arabs, Saudis, and many more. Despite this rich 
diversity, our State and in our country remain heavily 
polarized. There are increased attacks on Asian Americans and 
the demonization of Muslims continues to grow. This hatred is 
fueled by actions, or lack thereof, by Federal, State, and 
local elected officials to protect our rights. It is 
cultivating environments where my youngest daughter is called a 
terrorist by her classmates.
    I am, therefore, standing before you as a mother, advocate, 
and elected official, and mostly and above all, an American 
citizen, to share with you, based on my experiences and 
interactions, some of the issues facing the Muslim communities.
    On the Federal level, issues such as surveillance and 
profiling have negatively impacted our community. From New York 
to California, Federal agencies have violated the privacy of 
Muslims within their places of worship, an injustice that was, 
essentially, taken up to the U.S. Supreme Court. It also 
extends to private groups, exemplified by the case in Ohio when 
an anti-Muslim hate group individual reported on Muslims, 
surveilling in his own community. Furthermore, TSA backroom 
interrogations, no travel watchlists, and extra searches are 
just some of the ways this discrimination raises its ugly head 
while flying.
    From multiple directions, our community continues to have 
our liberties unprotected and infringed on. Certain 
marginalized groups such as ours is unjust and is reflective of 
the discrimination many minority groups face in this country.
    Unfortunately, our children are not immune to this 
discrimination. Our girls do not have the same access of rights 
in playing sports. In September 2020, a Muslim girl in 
Tennessee, Najah Aqeel, was disqualified from a volleyball game 
because of her hijab. The rule enforced reduced our religious 
head scarf to a mere device that could only be worn with 
special permission. Thankfully, due to her courage, all 
Tennessee athletes and all-American volleyball players can now 
compete like others while wearing religious headdress without 
prior permission. Najah's victory was for volleyball. There are 
still other sports in this country where Muslim girls are not 
able to participate without giving up their religious beliefs.
    Finally, no single policy impacted us more than the Muslim 
ban. It was discriminatory, tore families apart, and further 
``otherized'' American Muslims. We are grateful that President 
Biden lifted the ban, but there are still lasting implications 
that are yet to be resolved.
    When it comes to discrimination policy, things are worse at 
the State level. What started with Tennessee's anti-Sharia bill 
in 2011 has progressed to relentless attempts to pass other 
discriminatory bills to marginalize our communities. Attempts 
to ban lessons in Islamic schools, claims of Islamic 
indoctrination, the No-Go Zone bill, and more. While most of 
these bills failed, they continually send a message that our 
presence and our beliefs are not welcome.
    Finally, there is just a blatant double-standard in the 
response to acts of domestic terrorism. On Christmas Day 2020, 
a bomb was detonated in downtown Nashville. It was an event 
that shook our city. While I am grateful to the heroism of our 
local police officers; it was perplexing that they had been 
notified the year before about concerns that the perpetrator 
was building bombs. His residence was never investigated 
because he was not at home. No law enforcement ever came back 
to reinvestigate this lead. Had this man been a Muslim, his 
door would have been kicked down and his community attacked. It 
is this same double standard that on the national level framed 
the interrogants in this capital as legitimate political 
discourse.
    This is my home, my country. I am invested in it, and I 
have invested in its welfare. My heart breaks every time there 
is a discriminatory bill and action by those in authority. 
Muslims, Arabs, and South Asian Americans have contributed 
greatly to this country. We are not asking for preferential 
treatment. All we ask is to be treated with the same respect 
and dignity and afforded the same rights as all Americans. I 
fervently hope that the outcome of this hearing will do just 
that.
    Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Suara follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Council Member Suara, and 
thank you for your service to your community.
    Our next Witness is Asra Nomani. She is the Vice President 
for strategy and investigations for Parents Defending 
Education. She is a former Wall Street Journal correspondent 
and has written for The Washington Post, New York Times, Slate 
Magazine, and Time Magazine about Islam. She has spoken about 
women's rights in Islam on CNN, PBS, NPR, and the BBC. She has 
been an advocate for moderation in Islam. She previously was a 
professor in the practice of journalism at Georgetown 
University.
    Ms. Nomani, you are recognized for five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF ASRA NOMANI

    Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much. Thank you to all the 
distinguished lawmakers that are here today.
    Just across the Potomac River, on Sunday, I stood with a 
group of parents on a back deck, and we were celebrating our 
triumph against racism, against systemic racism. It wasn't 
against a White supremacist organization that we had won. We 
had defeated racism by the 12 school board members in Fairfax 
County Public Schools--all endorsed, alas, by the Democratic 
Party.
    My testimony is a warning cry about a new racism that is 
occurring in the United States today. It is targeting South 
Asians, Muslims, and Arabs, along with many other people. So, 
many people are now being impacted by divisive ideology that is 
in our schools also. It replaces the old hierarchy of human 
value with a new hierarchy of human value. Neither is 
acceptable. Federal authorities, State and local authorities, 
are subjecting us to surveillance, harassment, and criminal 
prosecution, when we, as parents, stand up to this new racism.
    Born in India and raised in West Virginia, I moved to 
Northern Virginia in 2008 because I thought that the State had 
now voted for President Obama and it was now progressive enough 
for a minority like myself. I moved there as a single mother 
with my son just five years old. In Virginia he grew up. In 
2017, my son learned that he had gained admission to Thomas 
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology. It was the 
realization of the American dream for us.
    Then, on June 7, 2020, we received an email from the White 
principal at the school, and she told us--the mostly Asian, 
mostly immigrant parents and students at the school--that we 
needed to check our privileges. She told us that we had to 
change admission to Thomas Jefferson High School because she 
wanted a different type of minority. Of course, we want all 
students to succeed. Of course. All of a sudden, our parents 
were on the wrong side of Brown.
    Let me share with you some of the names from our student 
directory. They are names of the types of people that this 
hearing is concerned about, last names like Singh, Patel, 
Abdul, Malik, and then, my name, Nomani. What are our 
privileges?
    Soverna Detta, a mother, came here with dollars in her 
pocket to study in Tennessee. Yu Yan Ju, she stood in Tiananmen 
Square for human rights, and then, when she read this email 
from the principal, just had traumatic flashbacks to that 
moment when she was a child and her teacher made her stand up 
and take off the red scarf that she had received as a symbol of 
her privilege in the Communist Party.
    School board members, activists, policymakers started 
calling us slurs like ``White-adjacent,'' ``resource 
hoarders,'' toxic, racist. I had never before in my decades of 
my life in the United States experienced so much aggression and 
hostility against us.
    In one text, a school board member said, ``We know that 
this policy is anti-Asian, LOL''--laughing outloud. We all know 
in this hearing that racism is not a laughing matter.
    Guess what? Our brave parents came together, and we created 
an organization called Coalition for TJ. We went to court with 
the lawyers of Pacific Legal Foundation, who fight for civil 
rights. Guess what? Just this Friday, Friday afternoon, we got 
an email. We won. We won in protecting our families from the 
racism that is now being perpetuated in our school system. This 
is a significant victory. This is huge. This is what is a 
national security issue today, as we compete against China.
    How did this happen? How did we go from this ideology of 
critical race theory that says that we must look at all society 
through the lens of race, and then become this, ``How To Be An 
Anti-Racist,'' in which this ideologue says that we can only--
we can only; can you imagine this? Correct past discrimination 
by present discrimination? What kind of a country is this? That 
is not the kind of country that my father came to: Critical 
race theory in education. That is why we have this at TJ. Then 
they are reaching for our little babies. Woke baby, anti-racist 
baby, what are these concepts? These are concepts for racism.
    Ms. Ross. Ms. Nomani, your time has expired.
    Ms. Nomani. Thank you. We, the families, we are parents, 
momma bears and papa bears, we do not want to be called 
domestic terrorists when we are protecting our baby cubs. We 
must all stand together for our country.
    Thank you so much. Thank you.
    [The statement of Ms. Nomani follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Yes, thank you for your testimony.
    The Witnesses will be reminded that they need to keep to 
five minutes because we have so many Witnesses and we want to 
get all of you in. So, thank you so much for that.
    We will now move to Hammad Alam, a staff attorney and 
program manager for national security and civil rights at Asian 
Americans Advancing Justice, Asian Law Caucus.
    Mr. Alam's work at the Asian Law Caucus focuses on 
protecting communities, and, in particular, Arab, Middle 
Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian communities, from government 
surveillance and policing in the name of national security and 
counterterrorism. His work also includes advocating for an end 
to surveillance and policing programs that disproportionately 
and unjustly target communities on the basis of their religion, 
ethnicity, and national origin.
    Mr. Alam has a law degree from the University of 
California, Los Angeles, School of Law, and a master's in 
theological studies from Harvard Divinity School.
    Mr. Alam, you are recognized for five minutes.

                    STATEMENT OF HAMMAD ALAM

    Mr. Alam. Thank you. Good morning, Chair Cohen, Ranking 
Member Johnson, Members of the Subcommittee. Thank you for 
convening this important hearing and inviting me to testify 
today.
    For decades, the Federal government has unjustly and 
disproportionately subjected AMEMSA--Arab, Middle Eastern, 
Muslim, and South Asian--communities to persistent profiling, 
surveillance, and criminalization. These policies have created 
a climate of fear and distrust among the communities, and they 
have inflicted perhaps irreparable damage--compelling these 
communities to chill their free expression, the languages they 
speak, the practices of their religious faiths, and so much 
more.
    Today, I share some examples of the destructive impacts of 
Federal government policy on AMEMSA communities to demonstrate 
how so-called counterterrorism policies and practices have 
unjustly marked community members as, quote, ``extremists, 
terrorists, and national security threats,'' unquote, based on 
nothing more than their religion, ethnicity, race, or national 
origin.
    I start with experiences from my own community of southern 
California, where I grew up. There, Muslim community members 
unknowingly welcomed an FBI informant posing as a new convert 
to Islam. The informant canvassed half a dozen mosques across 
southern California under the direction of FBI agents, but the 
agents instructed him that the goal was to gather as much 
information on Muslims, and only Muslims.
    As part of the operation, the informant befriended several 
community members, at times making explosive references to 
violence, in an effort to elicit a similar response he did not 
receive. Rather, in an ironic turn of events, community leaders 
reported the informant to the FBI. Their complaints went 
unanswered, however, because the individual was an informant 
the FBI themselves had planted into the community.
    Several years later, community members learned about the 
FBI's activities in their sacred places of worship. The impact 
was severe. Congregants became fearful of attending prayer or 
mosque events. Many were afraid to make new friends or welcome 
newcomers. Some even questioned their existing friends and 
wondered if they, too, were informants. As Imam Yassir Fazaga, 
an Imam of one of the mosques targeted by the informant, has 
said, ``Not only did the spying break the trust between the 
community and the FBI, but broke the trust within the 
community.''
    The impacts of the FBI surveillance in southern California 
can still be felt today. I am, however, proud to say that our 
community did not stay silent. We sued the FBI, and the case 
FBI v. Fazaga is now before the Supreme Court. The case is an 
example of the U.S. Government's disregard for the civil rights 
of Muslim communities.
    It is worth noting that no terrorism-related convictions, 
let alone arrests, resulted from the FBI's operations in 
southern California. The facts seen in that case, however, are 
part of a broader pattern and history of government 
surveillance targeting AMEMSA communities for decades.
    Around the same time the FBI informant was operating in 
southern California, the FBI was also gathering information on 
Bay Area Muslims under the ostensibly friendly guise of, 
``mosque outreach.'' Muslim communities granted the FBI access 
to their communities, believing the FBI when they said they 
were merely protecting communities at risk of hate crimes.
    Instead of receiving protection, these communities fell 
victim to FBI monitoring. Their sermons, conversations in 
prayer halls, and other persons under protected speech were all 
recorded by the FBI, which marked the records they compiled as 
``positive intelligence.''
    Our communities should not be burdened with the stain of 
guilt by association. Being Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, or 
South Asian, among other markers, cannot be the primary 
indicator of potential criminality. This is unacceptable and 
unlawful.
    Policymakers must understand that our communities have been 
treated as suspects simply for being who they are. While 
interpersonal acts of violence and increase in bias-based 
prejudice, xenophobia, and Islamophobia are important to 
consider, what is so often missed in these conversations is how 
the Federal government itself has contributed to and 
exacerbated the very biases that lead to the harms these 
communities face.
    So, if we are, indeed, serious about civil rights, civil 
liberties, and our Constitution, we must examine more deeply 
the bias, suspicion, and distrust of AMEMSA communities that 
underlie the so-called national security and counterterrorism 
infrastructure, both here and abroad. A necessary part of that 
is also examining our government's role in contributing to the 
culture that justifies it.
    For the communities subjected to such systematic and 
persistent surveillance and policing, the harms are long-
lasting and perhaps irreversible. I know this because I have 
been, and remain, a part of the same communities that have been 
and are still vulnerable to the Federal government's 
surveillance operations, merely on the basis of our religious 
identities.
    I prayed at the very mosques that were at the center of the 
FBI's surveillance in southern California. My family, my 
friends, my classmates, all of us have prayed at Imam Fazaga's 
mosque. We broke bread there. We worshiped there and celebrated 
moments of joy and grief there. After learning that our trust 
and sacred spaces were violated, our communities, and perhaps 
our nation, may never truly be the same.
    Thank you for giving me the opportunity to be here and to 
share these stories with you today. Thank you.
    [The statement of Mr. Alam follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony, Mr. Alam.
    Our next Witness is Devon Westhill. He is the President and 
General Counsel of the Center for Equal Opportunity. 
Immediately prior to his current role, Mr. Westhill served as 
the top civil rights official at the United States Department 
of Agriculture in the Administration of President Donald J. 
Trump.
    He has also worked at the United States Department of 
Labor, at the Federalist Society, and as a criminal trial 
lawyer in private practice.
    Mr. Westhill earned his B.A. in philosophy from the 
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill--go, Heels--and his 
J.D. from the University of Florida.
    Mr. Westhill, you're recognized for five minutes.

                  STATEMENT OF DEVON WESTHILL

    Mr. Westhill. Thank you very much.
    Chair Nadler, Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and 
distinguished Members of the Subcommittee, it's an honor to be 
here. I thank you for the opportunity to provide my testimony.
    I'll begin by commenting on the vicious physical attacks on 
Asian Americans that have been reported in the media in the 
last couple of years. I then turn to affirmative discrimination 
against Asian Americans by educational institutions.
    I close by appealing to those who desire to address these 
issues not to do so in a way that focuses on ``equity of 
outcome'' at the expense of the principle of equality under 
law.
    Christina Yuna Lee. Ms. Lee was an Asian-American creative 
content producer living and working in New York City. In the 
early morning hours of February 13th, just two weeks ago, the 
35-year-old was stalked and stabbed to death in her apartment 
building.
    Michelle Alyssa Go. Ms. Go was an Asian-American 
professional services manager and advocate for those 
experiencing homelessness. On the morning of January 15th of 
this year, the 40-year-old was murdered when she was shoved 
from a subway platform into an oncoming train.
    Yao Pan Ma. Last year, Mr. Ma, an Asian immigrant chef 
experiencing financial hardship during the throes of the COVID-
19 pandemic, was brutally beaten, his face and head stomped. 
Mr. Ma later died of the bleeding this attack caused in his 
brain.
    I could go on. These attacks did not discriminate against 
Asians of any particular ethnicity or hailing from any 
particular geographic region of the world.
    It is no surprise to learn then, as a recent Pew Research 
Center poll revealed, that 32 percent of Asian-American adults 
fear being threatened or attacked, a proportion of respondents 
that surpassed any similar concern of other racial or ethnic 
groups.
    Because as a result of their ethnicity Asian Americans may 
be at a heightened risk to become victims of violent crime, 
lawmakers and others must establish and maintain a hard line 
against all crime.
    A failure to prioritize and fund effective policing and to 
State publicly and often that crime will be punished swiftly 
and severely will only lead to more tragedies like the ones 
I've stated.
    The organization that I head, the Center for Equal 
Opportunity, has participated as amicus curiae in numerous 
Supreme Court cases regarding disparate treatment on the basis 
of race or ethnicity, including now in the case of Students for 
Fair Admission v. Harvard, consolidated with a case challenging 
a similar racial preferences scheme at the University of North 
Carolina.
    In reviewing the evidence in these cases, one is struck by 
how clearly and shamelessly both schools discriminate in their 
admissions based on the race or ethnicity of the applicant, 
particularly against highly-qualified Asian Americans.
    The evidence presented in the Harvard case indicates how 
extraordinarily well-qualified Asian-American applicants are 
routinely downgraded via character and fitness ratings assigned 
by admissions officials.
    This process makes a mockery of merit-based admissions and 
is a naked pretense for simple racial balancing that 
intentionally decreases Asian-American representation and that 
of other applicants on the basis of their skin color and 
ethnicity that is reminiscent of 20th century efforts by the 
same institution to limit enrollment of Jewish students.
    Notwithstanding this insidious discrimination against Asian 
Americans, the present Administration has not only failed to 
address it, but it has also actively worked to preserve it.
    One of the first actions this Administration took in 
February 2021 was to dismiss a Justice Department lawsuit 
launched against Yale University during the Trump 
Administration for illegally discriminating against 
undergraduate applicants based on their race and national 
origin.
    When later given the opportunity by the Supreme Court to 
State its position on the Harvard litigation, the 
Administration once again betrayed the Asian-American community 
by opposing the Supreme Court reviewing the case. Luckily, the 
court disregarded this suggestion and will render its judgment.
    The discrimination in college admissions is only the tip of 
the iceberg. Even grade schools, such as nearby Thomas 
Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, which we have 
heard about today, are implementing efforts plainly targeted at 
reducing enrollment of disfavored races and ethnicities, 
specifically Asian Americans.
    Just last week, the judge in the case challenging this 
racial balancing wrote a stinging rebuke, calling the practice 
patently unconstitutional. I'm relieved that the courts and 
other institutions appear to be serious about addressing what 
has become all too common discrimination in American society.
    Congress can steel these efforts by demanding respect for 
its civil rights decrees stating plainly that racial 
discrimination is illegal. We have to carefully and 
thoughtfully work to eliminate racial discrimination in a 
country that in so many ways over its history have sanctioned 
it, not just for preferred races but for every single 
individual.
    This is good and serious work, and I'm both professionally 
and personally committed to it. I've, clearly, focused my 
remarks on Asian-American discrimination because it's near and 
dear to my heart.
    My mother-in-law came to this country in the 1960s as a 
Vietnamese refugee. My wife is part Vietnamese. My daughter, my 
son, my brother-in-law, my family, is multiracial, like so many 
other families in this beautiful country.
    I want to remove any impediments any of them may, for 
immutable characteristics such as ethnicity, face to equal 
opportunity. I want that for every other man, woman, and child 
in this country.
    We will never achieve that, however, by focusing on what is 
euphemistically referred to as equity. That concept requires 
explicit and overt discrimination and a disregard for the 
enlightenment and, therefore, American fundamental principle of 
equality under law.
    The insistence that we must produce equal outcomes among 
groups defined by skin color, national origin, or gender 
perverts the American understanding of justice based on 
individual rights.
    Thank you very much. I look forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Mr. Westhill follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much, Mr. Westhill.
    I hope the Witnesses understand that because we have so 
many we just have to keep to the time. I'm going to keep the 
Members to the time, too.
    Okay. Next, we have Amrith Kaur Aakre, and please tell me 
if I've mispronounced your name. She's the Legal Director of 
the Sikh Coalition, a role that she's held since 2017.
    In this role, she focuses on high-impact litigation and 
oversees all legal work while managing initiatives to protect 
the civil rights of all Americans in areas such as workplace 
discrimination, hate crimes, school bullying, racial and 
religious profiling, and general religious rights policy 
issues.
    Under her leadership, the Sikh Coalition's legal team has 
successfully litigated religious accommodation and bias-based 
school bullying cases, advocated on behalf of hate crime 
victims, and provided rapid response legal services.
    They've also submitted public comment to numerous Federal 
agencies regarding fair interpretations of their policies, as 
well as testimony before the EEOC regarding emerging employment 
discrimination issues, including those arising from the COVID-
19 pandemic.
    Prior to joining the Sikh Coalition, she served as Cook 
County Assistant State's Attorney in Chicago for 11 years. She 
received her J.D. from the University of Illinois at Chicago 
John Marshall School of Law and her B.A. from George Washington 
University.
    Ms. Aakre, you are recognized for five minutes.

                 STATEMENT OF AMRITH KAUR AAKRE

    Ms. Aakre. Chairs Nadler and Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, 
Vice Chair Ross, and distinguished Members of this 
Subcommittee, thank you for welcoming me here today to testify.
    My name is Amrith Kaur Aakre, and I am a dedicated public 
servant and former prosecutor, and today I join you in my 
capacity as the legal director for the Sikh Coalition.
    When 9/11 happened, however, I was a college student, 
serving as the President of the George Washington University's 
Sikh Students Association. I'll never forget the fear, anger, 
and disbelief that I felt while watching the Pentagon burn from 
my rooftop.
    As soon as I realized the hijackers' pictures depicted them 
with brown skin, turbans, and beards, just like my father and 
so many other relatives, I felt something else, too--an 
immediate recognition that the Sikh American community would be 
targeted with backlash.
    As a minority religious group, Sikhs understand the 
intersection of violence, trauma, and discrimination. Its 
impact is great and paralyzing, and I knew that we didn't have 
a voice to combat it.
    From September to October of 2001, the Sikh Coalition 
tracked more than 300 incidents of bias and bigotry impacting 
Sikhs across the nation. In fact, as you've heard today, the 
first person killed in a post 9/11 hate crime was a turbaned 
Sikh man shot to death in Arizona on September 15th, and while 
we can never stop focusing on the urgent threat of hate crimes, 
they are only part of the story.
    Since 9/11, our country has seen discrimination continue to 
permeate every aspect of our society. Workplace discrimination 
harms Sikhs in a range of public and private sector jobs, 
including transportation, entertainment, healthcare, the 
military, and law enforcement, by allowing for the biased 
interpretation and application of government policies and laws.
    We have seen Sikhs willing to put their lives on the line 
in defense of their cities and country, only to be told that 
uniform and grooming policies prohibit their articles of faith.
    We have seen Sikhs ordered to cut their hair for work-
related drug testing, even when alternative means are readily 
available, and we have seen Sikh first responders in the fight 
against COVID-19 pressured to shave their religiously-mandated 
beards instead of being given appropriate safe personal 
protective equipment that doesn't interfere with their faith.
    Regardless of the details, time and again these policies 
are interpreted in a way which disproportionately impacts 
minority communities, and our system allows it to keep 
happening. We also receive Sikh travelers' reports of 
inappropriate demands to remove articles of faith, 
discriminatory comments by TSA agents, and other profil-ing in 
our airports.
    This is a humiliating hindrance for Sikhs and other 
religious and racial minorities, members of the transgender 
community and others, and additional discriminatory practices 
like no-fly lists and the lingering effects of the previous 
Administration's Muslim ban continue to perpetuate profiling 
against too many people.
    Sadly, even our children are not exempt. Per a 2014 Sikh 
Coalition study, six students who maintained turbans, other 
head coverings or unshorn hair are bullied at a rate twice the 
national average.
    Students have been called slurs like terrorists by their 
peers and teachers alike, and many are subject to physical 
violence. Worse, families are often left without recourse when 
administrators refuse to respond.
    School discrimination can take other forms as well, 
including keeping Sikh students from participating in sports or 
going on field trips because of their articles of faith.
    Now, I want to be clear. Anti-Sikh bias and discrimination 
existed well before 9/11. The events of that day, the way our 
politics and culture changed in response, and the manner in 
which our government policies and regulations continue to be 
interpreted have all institutionalized that discrimination, and 
Congress must take action.
    First, you can fight workplace discrimination by equalizing 
the title VII legal standard that currently allows employers to 
discriminate against workers who require religious 
accommodations if the request pose more than a de minimis cost.
    Second, you can pass the End Racial and Religious Profiling 
Act and the NO BAN Act, both of which will reduce profiling 
against Sikhs and other marginalized groups.
    Third, you can amend title 6 to ensure that the Department 
of Education prevents religious-based bullying. Additionally, 
we must continue to bring new perspectives to the halls of 
power, including elected office, agency appointments, and the 
judiciary, which all lack Sikh voices, to affect the creation, 
implementation, and fair interpretation of our laws.
    Finally, we must continue to confidently assert the value 
of diversity and inclusion in our society, despite controversy 
and backlash.
    I thank you for the opportunity to testify today and I look 
forward to your questions.
    [The statement of Ms. Aakre follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much.
    Our final Witness is Annetta Seecharran. She is the 
Executive Director of the Chhaya Community Development 
Corporation, a housing and economic justice organization 
serving Indo-Caribbean and South Asian New Yorkers.
    Previously, she was the director for policy and advocacy at 
United Neighborhood Houses advocating on behalf of 500,000 low-
income New Yorkers served by New York City's settlement houses.
    From 2001-2009, she served as the Executive Director of 
South Asian Youth Action, a pioneering organization dedicated 
to ensuring success of low income South Asian and Indo-
Caribbean youth in New York City.
    A Guyanese--please correct me if my pronunciation is not 
right--immigrant, she holds an M.A. in international political 
economy and development from Fordham University, a B.A. in 
political science from Manhattanville College, and executive 
management certificates from Harvard and Columbia Business 
Schools.
    You are recognized now for five minutes.
    Please unmute.

                STATEMENT OF ANNETTA SEECHARRAN

    Ms. Seecharran. My apologies.
    Chair Cohen, Ranking Member Johnson, and Members of the 
Subcommittee, my name is Annetta Seecharran. I am an immigrant 
from Guyana and the Executive Director of Chhaya Community 
Development Corporation.
    Thank you for the opportunity to speak before you today. My 
testimony is based on my work with South Asian communities in 
New York City over the past two decades, through two formidable 
crises.
    When 9/11 happened, I was the Executive Director of South 
Asian Youth Action--SAYA--and over the course of the pandemic, 
I have been serving as the Executive Director of Chhaya 
Community Development Corporation, a Queens-based nonprofit 
serving South Asian and Indo-Caribbean New Yorkers.
    Over the past 20 years, I have Witnessed how our 
communities confront a myriad of challenges layered on top of 
crisis after crisis. Looking back at the 9/11 attacks and its 
aftermath brings up many emotions for me.
    One of my cousin's lost her husband in the South Tower. 
Yet, at a time of heart-wrenching grief, my family was also 
targets of verbal abuse and attacks. Days following the 
collapse of the towers, my family went to St. Vincent's 
Hospital with the hope of finding my cousin's husband. There, 
people shouted at us, ``This is your fault.'' Later, at a 9/11 
memorial service, my mother was told, ``Get out of this 
country.''
    Our experiences reflect the double grieving that many South 
Asians, Muslims, Arabs, and Sikhs endured in the hours, days, 
and months after 9/11. We grieved for the terrible losses on 
that day, and we grieved because we knew that a backlash was on 
its way, targeting and scapegoating our communities.
    This backlash manifested in different ways, from 
interpersonal violence to State policies that led to arrests, 
detentions, and deportations. Young Hindus, Muslims, and Sikhs 
who visited science community centers shared how they were 
being followed by law enforcement, how they were afraid to take 
the subway or fly, or how they were being bullied at school.
    People became worried about doing the most routine 
activities--going to places of worship, eating at South Asian 
restaurants, going to Muslim schools, and visiting public 
parks.
    The cumulative impact of two decades of interpersonal and 
State violence is profound and, as a result, young people made 
different educational and vocational choices because of their 
outsider status. Many experiences heightened isolation, 
depression, and anxiety, which are still sources of trauma 
today, two decades later.
    There is a through line between the post-9/11 environment 
and today. Government agencies did not invest the necessary 
resources in our communities to ensure our well-being despite 
the tremendous need in the wake of 9/11.
    Instead, government resources were allocated towards 
profiling and surveillance. This is true even as South Asians 
are one of the fastest growing immigrant groups in the country.
    There are 5.4 million South Asians living in the United 
States with ancestry from Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal, 
Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Maldives, and the diaspora including 
Trinidad and Tobago, my country, Guyana, Fiji, Tanzania, and 
Kenya.
    There is immense socio-economic and educational diversity 
within the South Asian community. For example, in New York 
City, Nepali immigrants have the highest rate of uninsurance.
    Bangladeshis and Pakistani immigrants have some of the 
highest rates of poverty at 32 and 29 percent, respectively. In 
the pandemic, an already challenging such became much worse.
    In the wake of national crises, we must move through 
several phases--recovery, redress, reinvestment, and 
reconciliation. When it comes to 9/11, however, we seem to have 
barely scratched the surface even though it's been 20 years.
    Congress can take steps, including investing in the well-
being of communities affected by the 9/11 backlash, by making 
long-term investments towards social services, recreation, 
education, as well as neighborhood programs and cultural 
community spaces.
    Additionally, implementing equitable immigration policies, 
such as a pathway for citizenship for undocumented immigrants, 
temporary protective status for Nepalis, and providing supports 
to Afghan refugees.
    Our community groups have been responding with care and 
solidarity for two decades. We call for more hearings like this 
around the country to fully understand the depth of the impact 
on our communities.
    Further recommendations are in my written testimony. Thank 
you very much.
    [The statement of Ms. Seecharran follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
    
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for your testimony and thank 
all the panelists for joining us today. We will now proceed 
with questions from the Committee under the five-minute rule 
and I will begin by recognizing myself for five minutes.
    Again, this has been very powerful testimony from all our 
panelists and from our Members of Congress who led off this 
morning's proceedings.
    For too long Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
communities in the United States have been the targets of 
unfair and unwarranted suspicion, scapegoating, and 
stigmatization.
    In the aftermath of the attacks on our country on 9/11, 
these groups faced intense interpersonal discrimination and 
violence as well as discriminatory government policies that 
were implemented at the Federal and State levels.
    These policies have subjected Muslim and Arab communities 
to intense government surveillance and investigation under the 
guise of counterterrorism and national security.
    For instance, following a policy change in 2002 requiring 
all aliens to register their change of address within 10 days 
of moving, a Palestinian legal immigrant was pulled over in my 
home State of North Carolina for driving four miles over the 
speed limit. He was detained for two months and eventually 
charged with a misdemeanor for failing to report his change of 
address.
    Between 2000 and 2009, hate crimes against Muslims in the 
United States increased by 500 percent and rates of attacks 
against these groups remain troublingly high to this day.
    Unfortunately, in my home State of North Carolina, we are 
familiar with violent attacks against Muslims. In 2015, three 
young Muslim university students were brutally murdered by 
their neighbor when they were sitting down to have dinner.
    While the perpetrator ultimately pled guilty to first 
degree murder, he was never charged with a hate crime.
    In recent years, there have been numerous reports across 
the State of verbal and physical assaults on Muslim women who 
wore head coverings.
    The Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American populations in 
my district continue to grow and these groups are an essential 
part of the diverse and rich culture of the Research Triangle 
area of North Carolina.
    It's critical that we continue to examine the experiences 
of these communities in the United States and do everything we 
can to prevent unwarranted acts of discrimination and hatred 
against them.
    My first question is for our councilwoman from Tennessee. 
How has government surveillance of Muslim communities, 
including mosques and Muslim organizations, undermined the 
relationship between community members and law enforcement?
    Ms. Suara. Thank you. That's a very good question, because 
part of the work that AMAC was doing was actually trying to 
work within the law enforcement and the Muslim community, and 
we actually have meetings with new recruits to talk about how 
to deal with the Muslim community as a way to make sure that 
there's cooperation on all sides.
    Every time there's a surveillance, every time that there's 
a profiling, then it sets our community back because it feels 
as if here we are again, and no matter what we do it's never 
enough.
    So, these types of surveillance is something that we--it's 
counterproductive to the work that we all want to do. If the 
intent is security, if the intent is making everybody safe, 
then it's important for law enforcement to work with the 
community rather than spying on them and going behind their 
back.
    So, in my community what I've seen is that people don't 
want to cooperate, people don't want to speak up, people don't 
want to come to the mosque, because they feel like their 
privacy is being violated.
    So, it is very detrimental to the work that my 
organization, AMAC, was trying to do, and it's still very 
detrimental to the citizens in my community.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much for that response.
    Maya Berry--and I know we only have a minute left, because 
I'm adhering to the time, too, but how have the United States 
immigration policies fed into this discrimination and this 
systemic abuse of people who are here illegally and just our 
citizens and neighbors?
    Ms. Berry. I think one of the most deeply impactful way 
that it's been negative is that it views our communities as 
this existential other, continuously foreign or otherized, in a 
way that's just not consistent with both the history of our 
country, given we're all immigrants to this wonderful nation, 
and it's important that we understand it as not also keeping us 
safe.
    Like, part of--what you'll hear from many of our--the 
Witnesses today is that these policies put us in some ways more 
at risk rather than protect us.
    Ms. Ross. Thank you very much. I am now going to turn the 
gavel over to Congresswoman Jackson Lee to preside because I 
have to be somewhere else, and then we'll hear from our Ranking 
Member.
    Thank you all for your testimony and for your time today. I 
now recognize the Ranking Member for five minutes so he can 
talk while Ms. Jackson Lee comes up.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Nomani, in recent years, equality has been replaced 
with equity as the central focus of the modern civil rights 
movement, and we have seen the--how this has played out in a 
number of contexts. You've testified today, it's been very 
compelling, about how this has had a real effect in the public 
education context.
    Your testimony was really amazing. I mean, so, the local 
school officials actually went to your minority community, and 
simply because you expressed your views as concerned parents 
about the curriculum they said--and these are your quotes, ``we 
need a different kind of minority.'' They said, ``you must 
check your privileges at the door,'' whatever in the world that 
means, and that you're ``white adjacent.'' I mean, how 
offensive is that?
    Yet, you took a stand. All of you got together. You took a 
stand, and you rounded up the parents group. You started the 
Coalition for TJ, the Thomas Jefferson High School in Northern 
Virginia, and you just won in court, as you said, against this 
really insidious racism of critical race theory-centered 
policies that are a scourge on the nation right now.
    So, here's the question. How can other parent groups 
organize and stand together like you all have? Because I think 
this is very inspiring and instructional for other people.
    Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much, Representative Johnson, and 
thank you to all the representatives on the House Judiciary 
Committee that have actually had the backs of parents. We are 
ordinary moms and dads, and we did not choose to have fights 
with our school boards or with principals, in fact, we have 
decided that there are positions of value that matter to us and 
what we want to encourage every parent is to have courage, have 
moral courage.
    Everybody who wants to shut us down needs to understand 
that nobody comes between parent and their baby. Nobody comes 
between a parent and the child's education. So, what we want to 
do as Parents Defending Education, we invite people to register 
their parent groups, come to us, and get tips on how to speak 
to the school board, how to file a Freedom of Information Act 
request.
    What I want to encourage your Democratic lawmakers also to 
do is to take the letter that the Republican leaders, the 
Committee sent just yesterday, asking serious questions about 
the new oversight surveillance and monitoring that is happening 
of parents.
    Every single thing that was said here today is now being 
done to parents. That is unconstitutional and illegal. I really 
hope that your Democratic lawmakers will also team up with you 
to understand that parents are our friends. They are not the 
enemy.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Absolutely, and showing moral 
courage inspires courage in others and that is what is so 
important. It is a big part of what it means to be an American 
to stand against this kind of stuff. The Republicans in our 
Committee stood together and we are very concerned about the 
weaponization of the Department of Justice. No one lower than 
the Attorney General himself, the source of your t-shirt, they 
labeled concerned parents as domestic terrorists for expressing 
their views about what is happening in their curriculum. So, we 
are on top of that. We are seeking some oversight. We will make 
sure that we don't weaponize the Federal government against 
concerned parents at least at the next election cycle.
    Mr. Westhill, I have got to move on to you. I don't have a 
lot of time, but I wanted to ask you, you began to explain how 
the new advancement of equity as the benchmark is inconsistent 
with our civil rights laws and constitutional protections. You 
used the word or the phrase affirmative discrimination. Could 
you unpack that just a little bit more in a minute and a half 
here?
    Mr. Westhill. Sure. Thank you very much for the question, 
Ranking Member Johnson.
    Affirmative discrimination is essentially plain old 
discrimination like we have known in this country for many, 
many years. It just happens to be the case that it is being 
used in an official format at educational institutions, in 
contracting, in businesses, and it is the sort of thing that is 
the overt racial discrimination of the past that we were hoping 
we would get past in this country at some point, come back on 
steroids. That is what I mean.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Well, that is right. There are 
elements in our politics and in the culture right now, the 
radical left, they are recasting racism and discrimination and 
equality for the zeal of equal outcomes, this Quixotic quest is 
not going to happen. Equity is dangerous. It is a poison to our 
system. It impedes actual progress in improving race relations 
and opportunity in the United States. I think parents, 
citizens, people are beginning to recognize this, and they need 
more avenues to express their outrage.
    We have election cycles. There is one component of that. I 
am really grateful for the work that both of you are doing at 
organizations that you lead and others like it because this is 
the way we effect change in America. So, thanks for being here, 
thanks for your time, all our Witnesses for your time today. I 
yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. [Presiding.] Thank you to the Ranking 
Member. Your time has expired. It is my pleasure now to yield 
to the Chair of the Full Committee, Chair Nadler, for five 
minutes.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you, Madam Chair. Ms. Seecharran, how 
is the legacy of the 9/11 attack continue to impact South Asian 
communities in New York?
    Ms. Seecharran. Thank you, Representative Nadler, for that 
question and I want to thank you for your leadership. What I 
have Witnessed over the pandemic is that the already weak and 
disenfranchised circumstances in which our community members 
found themselves, that it is directly tied to the lack of 
investment in our communities after 9/11, made them that much 
more vulnerable to the pandemic.
    Members of our community such as in southeast Queens that 
experienced the highest infection rates, yet it was impossible 
to get appropriate health and attention during the pandemic.
    In their rebuilding and recovery process, they have our 
small businesses. While our small businesses are trying to 
rebuild, they still struggle with discrimination and cultural 
isolation, language barriers, et cetera.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Ms. Aakre, your testimony noted 
that Sikhs continue to face difficulty in accessing workplaces 
in a range of sectors and industries. What kind of barriers do 
religious minorities face in workplaces when title VII fails to 
protect their civil rights and civil liberties?
    Ms. Aakre. Thank you, Congressman. As you know, under title 
VII of the Civil Rights Act, employers are prohibited from 
discriminating against employees on the basis of religion. The 
biggest issue is that the threshold under title VII for 
employers to deny the provision of a religious accommodation is 
extremely low. All they have to do is show that there is a de 
minimis cost, often interpreted as any cost associated with 
providing the request and then they can successfully overcome 
that title VII standard.
    It is really the lowest legal standard for any civil rights 
provision and leaves religious minorities out on an island of 
isolation, segregation, and failure to hire. I believe that 
that is one of the largest issues that comes to the core when 
we are talking about workplace discrimination against Sikhs and 
other religious minorities.
    Chair Nadler. What standard would you suggest?
    Ms. Aakre. Well, under the ADA, for example, there is a 
higher threshold which is the undue hardship standard. It is 
much more difficult for employers to overcome that burden. The 
balancing test is much more in favor of employees that are 
seeking an accommodation.
    I believe that that is the standard that would be more 
appropriate for religious accommodations as well.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. Professor Wadhia, I want to ask 
you to elaborate on some of your testimony, Ms. Suara says Ms. 
Berry about the same thing, your testimony describes how in the 
years following 9/11 the Federal Government developed several 
new immigration policies in the name of national security.
    Can you describe how these policies impacted Muslim, Arab, 
and South Asian communities?
    Ms. Wadhia. Thank you for the question and really, the 
history predates 9/11, but in the 9/11 context, I have spoken 
in my oral testimony about the special registration program and 
the immigration consequences included, for example, someone 
receiving a charging document and being placed in deportation 
proceedings; an individual because of an overstay being 
deported; an individual because of a failure to register 
because maybe they did not even know about the special 
registration program, being denied an immigration benefit or a 
green card years later while sitting in an immigration office 
during an adjustment interview.
    We had other 9/11 policies that were in the name of the 
national security, but in fact, immigration changes. So, some 
of those consequences included, for example, the detention of 
1,200 men who were broadly labeled as September 11 detainees 
coming largely from MASA communities.
    We also saw an absconder initiative where individuals who 
had orders of removal were identified, targeted, and punished 
by the Federal government.
    So, these are some of the examples, if you connect the 
dots, in which national security is used as a proxy for 
immigration policy and then led to serious immigration 
consequences.
    What we didn't see is a great gain in finding the next 
terrorist. So, that the fallout and collaborative damage was in 
the immigration space.
    Chair Nadler. Thank you. My time has expired. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman's time has expired. Let me 
call on Mr. Jordan for his five minutes, the Ranking Member of 
the Full Committee.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. He is not here for now, so we can 
go forward if the Chair has other Members of her party.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. So, continuing with our membership, thank 
you so very much, Mr. Johnson.
    Now, I am pleased to call the gentleman from Maryland, Mr. 
Raskin, for five minutes.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you so much, Madam Chair. A couple of my 
colleagues have referred to discrimination and something that 
has taken place in the past. For those of us who lived through 
January the 6th, we saw old fashioned White nationalism and 
racism alive and well at our front door. There were members of 
extremist groups, including the Aryan Nations, and Klansman, 
and the militia groups that came to smash our windows, beat the 
daylights out of our police officers, knock down our doors, and 
interrupt the counting of electoral college votes for the first 
time in American history. I am just surprised to hear people 
referring to racism as something that took place in the past 
when we are seeing the evidence of it all around us today, 
including most recently at the gathering of Nick Fuentes with 
the radical right, a known anti-Semite, and he was visited by 
none other than a couple of our colleagues, Marjorie Taylor 
Greene being one of them, and they were there just a few days 
ago.
    Let me start with Ms. Suara. Can you tell me how government 
surveillance of Muslim communities including mosques and Muslim 
groups has undermined relationships between community members 
and law enforcement, and is that still taking place?
    Ms. Suara. Thank you. Yes, surveillance of the Muslim 
communities is counterproductive, and it is very dangerous. 
Basically, when the line of surveillance in our community, it 
makes our community members feel as the other, un-American as 
they were called. The government does not trust us because this 
is not something that is happening everywhere. It is happening 
in our own community.
    So, every time that happens, it makes the job of someone 
like myself very difficult. Because when I am talking to 
people, I try to tell members of my community we are Americans. 
We pay taxes. We deserve the same rights and we deserve 
compensation from our government. We deserve the respect and 
the privacy like everyone else, but every time the surveillance 
happens or profiling of a community, it sets the clock back. It 
leads to lack of trust in the government and that is 
counterproductive to what we want to do as government.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you. I have a question for Dean Wadhia. 
Can you explain what the civil liberties and human consequences 
of President Trump's Muslim ban that he began his 
Administration with?
    Ms. Wadhia. Thank you for the question. There were 
significant human consequences and policy harms that are the 
various versions of the Muslim ban. I will share a few. One 
included sort of vast, invisible family separation, a policy 
that continues to this day. So, people in qualifying family 
relationships, a U.S. citizen married to a Yemeni and they are 
unable be together and were otherwise excluded; a Syrian 
student courted by a university for a Ph.D. program could be 
denied and not be enrolled in the program because of the ban; 
an Iranian mother, who was seeking to visit the United States 
to see the birth her first grandchild, unable to travel to the 
United States because of the ban.
    So, those were some of the harms that were direct. There 
are also lasting harms, right? There are procedural impediments 
that still make it impossible for individuals who were 
separated or affected to be reunited even after the ban has 
been repealed because of costs, because of bureaucracies, and 
so on. Finally--
    Mr. Raskin. If I can interrupt one second. Are you finding 
the discriminatory immigration policies and law enforcement 
policies are the things that are of major concern to the 
communities that we are talking about today or are people more 
upset about what is called critical race theory and I am not 
even quite sure what they mean by that. Are people most 
concerned about policies like the Muslim ban and discriminatory 
policies and law enforcement or are they more concerned about 
the thing called critical race theory?
    Ms. Wadhia. I am very concerned about the people and that 
includes those who have been harmed and continue to be harmed 
by policies that the government has a choice to change. It 
whittles down to choices.
    Mr. Raskin. Thank you, and I yield back, Madam Chair.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. It is my 
pleasure to yield to the Ranking Member of the Full Committee, 
Mr. Jordan, for five minutes.
    Mr. Jordan. Thank you, Madam Chair. Professor Wadhia, are 
you a proponent of critical race theory?
    Ms. Wadhia. I teach with the statute of my centerpiece, so 
I start with the immigration statutes. I do think it is 
important to also talk about the history of how the statute has 
evolved, so my students are able to connect the dots between 
the history of the immigration statutes which have been 
compared second in complication to the U.S. tax code.
    Mr. Jordan. Let me ask it this way, Professor, I am sorry. 
Do you support critical race theory being taught in our K-12 
schools or in higher education?
    Ms. Wadhia. It is a term that has had many meanings. I do 
support teaching history and I do support--
    Mr. Jordan. Well, we all support that.
    Ms. Wadhia. So, that is how I would answer the question, 
Congressman.
    Mr. Jordan. Well, you believe discrimination based on race 
is wrong, right?
    Ms. Wadhia. I do.
    Mr. Jordan. Okay, I just wanted to keep opponents of 
critical race theory, Ibram X. Kendi said this, ``the defining 
question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or 
inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is 
okay.''
    Do you agree with that statement?
    Ms. Wadhia. I believe that if we have and I will speak as 
an immigration expert, if we have immigration policies that 
explicitly target people based on their country of birth or 
their religion, I think that is a problematic policy.
    Mr. Jordan. No, that is not what I asked you. I asked you 
if equity is achieved through discrimination, is that 
discrimination okay because the key proponent of critical race 
theory says it is. I just want to know if you think it is. If 
equity is achieved through discrimination, is that 
discrimination, okay?
    Ms. Wadhia. I consider the question of equity only and in a 
different way because I answer these questions through the lens 
of immigration. So, if you want me to answer about where I 
stand on immigration, I would say that if we had immigration 
policy--
    Mr. Jordan. Let me do this then. Mr. Westhill, do you think 
Asian Americans who have been denied entrance into certain 
institutions, do you think they are okay with equity being 
achieved--so called equity being achieved at some of these 
schools of higher learning through discrimination? Do you think 
they are okay with that?
    Mr. Westhill. Thank you, Congressman Jordan. No, I don't.
    Mr. Jordan. No, because it is real to them, isn't it?
    Mr. Westhill. Yes, it is. I will add that I don't know when 
racial or ethnic discrimination in any form became 
controversial, but my testimony here should clearly not be 
controversial, but it is.
    Mr. Jordan. I know. For the life of me, I don't know why it 
is, is either--let me just quickly go to Ms. Nomani. Thank you 
for being here.
    So, I noticed your shirt. It says I am a mom, not a 
domestic terrorist. This is an issue that this Committee has--
or at least the Republicans have. Once we learned about the 
memorandum from the Attorney General, memorandum targeting, you 
got it right there. Well, you got the letter right there from 
the school board association, but I am just curious, do you 
think as someone who has been active in defending the rights of 
parents, moms, and dads, in our schools, are you nervous about 
this now becomes a whistleblower who came forward and gave us 
the email send from the FBI to agents around the country 
talking about this threat tag label being placed on parents. 
Are you nervous that designation, that label, that tag may be 
now associated with your name?
    Ms. Nomani. I know that we are now under surveillance as 
parents. We are seeing it in local authorities, State 
authorities, and Federal authorities. If everybody here is in 
agreement that they do not want surveillance and undue 
persecution of any human being, that should include parents.
    I applaud you all for just being there for the mama bears 
and papa bears because you know what, we are in the trenches 
and we are fighting and it was a mom, a mom in Fairfax County, 
Virginia who revealed to us that Attorney General Merrick 
Garland's son-in-law is benefiting from the big tech company 
contracts of school boards. So, what I want to encourage parent 
to do is be a Nancy Drew, Hardy Boy, whichever way it is in 
your school district, file those Freedom of Information Act 
requests and that is how we got the emails that traced exactly 
this school board letter to the White House.
    Mr. Jordan. Madam Chair, let me just reiterate the numerous 
times that Republicans have asked to have the Attorney General 
back, remember his testimony that day said in no way were they 
treating parents as domestic terrorists when in fact the day 
before he made that statement that email went out to FBI agents 
around the country that said put this designation on moms and 
dads.
    So, once again, we need the Attorney General back here to 
answer some critical questions and, frankly, what we really 
need is for him to rescind the memorandum and stop this process 
he has put in place that is targeting moms and dads. With that, 
I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentleman yields back. I ask Members 
who wish to question to turn on their cameras so that we might 
be able to call on you appropriately because you are very much 
a part of this hearing.
    With that in mind, it is my privilege to yield to the Vice 
Chair of--oh, I think I am in my other Committee--but be able 
to yield to the gentlelady from Missouri for her five minutes, 
Congresswoman Bush. I have given you two Vice Chairs, but I am 
delighted to share the Vice Chair of the Crime Subcommittee. 
So, you are recognized for five minutes.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you, Chair, St. Louis and I thank you for 
this important hearing. The surveillance and criminalization of 
Muslims is older than this nation's founding. Many seem to 
forget that enslaved Black people were forcibly brought to this 
country starting in 1519 from across the African continent, 
including regions that were predominantly Muslim which meant 
that thousands of people who came to this country through the 
slave trade over 400 years ago were Muslims.
    Enslaved Black Muslims practiced their faith in secret out 
of fear of retaliation. They resisted slavery. They fought for 
our liberation, and many recorded their experiences in Arabic 
or other languages to avoid suspicion.
    The history of Black Muslims in this country is American 
history and I sit here as a Congresswoman and lawmaker to say 
our history will not be erased. Our history, including the 
history of mass surveillance of Muslims, and that extends much 
further than September 11th, to the targeting of Black 
nationalists in the 1920s and then the Nation of Islam by the 
FBI's COINTELPRO, surveillance, intimidation, and targeting 
based primarily on the perception that Black Muslim Americans 
in pursuit of Black liberation somehow pose a threat to society 
because of their religious and racial identity.
    Today Black people make up 20 percent of our country's 
Muslim population and are facing surveillance and 
criminalization. In documentation that was recovered from the 
New York Police Department's mapping and surveillance of 
Muslims, American Black Muslims were included in the list of 
ancestries of interest.
    Ms. Suara, can you talk about the impact of post-9/11 
policies on Black Muslims?
    Ms. Suara. Thank you so much for that question. Black 
Muslims are facing attack two ways, [inaudible] Black and they 
face all the discrimination that comes from being Black in 
America, but also being Muslim.
    We have policies at the State level that marginalize Black 
Americans and Muslim Americans, a couple of legislation in my 
State ban--talks about indoctrination in schools, talks about 
no-go zones that are non-existent. There is a report about 
driving while Black in my State that talks about how people 
that Black or Brown are targeted and profiled and stopped in 
different ways more than any other member of the community. 
Because of all that and when I talk about discrimination 
policy, I always look at it from what is being taught to our 
children that are born here, that are citizens here, that see 
all this being thrown against them that says the government is 
telling them that they do belong or they do not have the same 
rights.
    So, a lot of policies, as a Black American, as a Muslim 
American, tells me that I do not belong, tells me that I do not 
belong in this space with my other colleagues and that is very 
discriminatory. So, a lot of them, there is a lot in my 
statement about examples of some of those policies that we have 
had at the national and at the State level.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you for making that very clear for 
everyone. Thank you so much.
    Professor Alam, can you talk about the ways in which 
surveillance against Muslim communities is used to target other 
communities and protesters, more generally?
    Mr. Alam. Ms. Bush, I am not certain if you meant Professor 
Wadhia or myself?
    Ms. Bush. Yes, to you.
    Mr. Alam. Thank you, Representative Bush. There are several 
connections to be made across surveillance of other 
communities. What we have seen is ones you mentioned, starting 
with surveillance of Black Muslim groups in the 20th century, 
the Moorish Science Temple, Nation of Islam, which was seen as 
foreign and suspect, and much of it has continued to this day.
    The same methods of policing and surveillance and using 
race, ethnicity, and national origin as a proxy, as the primary 
indicator for suspicion continues today. I detailed some of 
that in my testimony. I detailed some of that in my written 
statement, but it is also happening, for instance, with Chinese 
Nationals in this country. Chinese students, for instance, are 
being marked with suspicion, and that is something that we have 
worked on, and we have worked persistently to actually 
dismantle that entire system by which the Federal government 
essentially uses its policing and surveillance powers to mark 
communities on the basis of their race or national origin and 
seeing them as suspect simply on those bases. That is happening 
across communities. That is happening with Asian American 
communities, Muslim American communities, and has been 
happening, of course, with Black communities in America for a 
very long time.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. Just really briefly, according to a 
2019 study released by Muslim advocates, Muslims make up nine 
percent of those incarcerated in State prisons, but they only 
make up one percent of the U.S. population.
    Chair, I ask for unanimous consent to introduce the Muslim 
Advocates study mentioned above into the record. Thank you and 
I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Without objection, so ordered. The 
gentlelady's time has expired. Thank you very much for your 
questioning.
    [The information follows:]

                        MS. BUSH FOR THE RECORD

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

    Ms. Jackson Lee. Let me determine whether Mr. McClintock is 
ready, Mr. Roy. Mr. Fischbach. Mr. Owens. I just wanted to make 
sure we thanked them for being part of the Committee and did 
not want to--I now give them an opportunity for their five 
minutes. So, it is my privilege now to five minutes to the 
gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Garcia.
    Ms. Garcia. I apologize. Had to rush to the floor to make 
some remarks and I rushed back because I did want to have my 
opportunity to ask a few questions.
    I want to thank, Madam Chair, the Chair, Mr. Cohen and 
everyone involved in putting this together because this, of 
course, is a very important topic and one that has been in the 
forefront and a lot of attention and use.
    Also want to thank all the Witnesses and also our Members 
of Congress who are here in the panel before you who shared 
your very, very personal stories.
    Hate crimes, racial profiling, and harassment have become 
widespread in our innately diverse nation because of hateful, 
racist, and divisive rhetoric stemming from our own political 
and governmental institutions. Racial profiling is patently 
unconstitutional, but because of vague or over-broad statutes 
law enforcement authorities and other government agencies have 
a de facto [inaudible] check to persecute people of color under 
the color of law.
    I sympathize deeply with our Muslim, Arab, and South Asian 
communities. I know that for me in my district, that is 
overwhelmingly Latino, we have and continue to experience 
systematic and interpersonal violence because of how we vote 
and who we are.
    For those of you who have mentioned people wrongfully 
getting on no-fly lists, for the record let me say I was on the 
no-fly list probably for two or three years and it took me 
probably another two or three years to get off that list 
because somehow there was a Sylvia Rodriguez Garcia somewhere 
that was suspect or had a same or similar name to mine and mine 
got picked up. So, I have experienced this.
    So, I want to start there with Mr. Amrith Kaur Aakre. Do 
you have specific recommendations on how TSA can avoid 
infringing on traveler's civil rights and civil liberties while 
simultaneously protecting our nation, which of course is our 
mission?
    Is he still on? Did I mispronounce the name. I am so sorry. 
It's for Amrith Kaur Aakre.
    Ms. Aakre. Oh, thank you, Congresswoman. Thank you for that 
question. TSA profiling for Sikh Americans and other minority 
groups has always been a problem. Bias against travelers is 
probably in every stage of the traveling process and it starts 
with the fact that the TSA agents do not receive adequate 
training on TSA policies or cultural competencies, which is 
evident from the moment many stigmatized groups arrive at the 
airport and have to go through behavioral detection before 
reaching security. It continues as these passengers pass 
through security, proceed past the security screening area, and 
in many cases even as those individuals are boarding flights.
    TSA needs better technology. They need clearer and more 
transparent screening standards, they need increased oversight, 
and they need mechanisms in place to ensure that civil rights 
compliance takes place. Right now, there's a lot of ambiguous 
discretion that contribute to profiling, even where the 
technology says an individual is not a threat. The overly broad 
discretion that's provided to TSA agents to screen travelers 
without clear or articulable thresholds and standards of review 
that are required by a lot of other law enforcement agencies--
travelers are often going to feel profiled without any real 
basis for why they were selected.
    Ms. Garcia. Right. Do you have concerns about bias and the 
algorithms bias in the coding in some of the technology that 
further perpetuates discrimination?
    Mr. Aakre. Yes, Congresswoman, that's right. In 2012, we 
created a tool called FlyRights that allows for people to file 
complaints against TSA in a more accessible way. Once that tool 
was launched, we realized that there were a number of people 
that were sort of being screened and provided with additional 
sort of levels of heightened security and screening in matters 
that were related both to the way the technology is used and in 
matters of discretion that TSA agents had in implementing and 
applying the technology.
    Now, the reality is the technology that exists is only as 
good as the people that are manning it and monitoring it. In 
this case, while the algorithms might also include levels of 
bias; and I'm sure they do, what we've also recognized is that 
inadequate training on the parts of the TSA agents when they're 
implementing that technology. Those algorithms will always lead 
to secondary screening for minority communities, especially by 
minorities like Sikhs, who have really visible articles of 
faith.
    Ms. Garcia. Right, because like in my case the name that I 
was--got a hit with my name was frankly really very different. 
It wasn't even Garcia. The first name wasn't even Sylvia. So, 
whoever coded it or whatever algorithm they used it was really 
about every third or fourth letter that was the same. So, it 
took me forever to get off it. Fortunately, I did. So, this 
really concerns me in terms of our technology and the 
algorithms and some of the stuff that we have seen even in 
banking and other services. So, thank you so much.
    Thank you to all the Witnesses.
    Thank you, Madam Chair. I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The gentlelady's time has expired. Thank 
you so very much.
    Let me thank all of the Members who are here, and I do want 
to acknowledge Mr. Johnson and other Members who are here, and 
thank Mr. Cohen and the Committee for this hearing, which I am 
part of.
    Let me now address my questions, and I yield myself five 
minutes, the time that may be called on to finish my 
questioning, because I do want to open with--that we are a few 
days away from crossing the Edmund Pettus Bridge, which 
reflected the shedding of blood for the right to vote by 
African Americans and other diverse Americans that ultimately 
joined Dr. King after Bloody Sunday, where our dear friend, 
late colleague John Lewis shed blood, as others did on that 
bridge. I am always moved by the emotion of that moment of the 
shedding of blood for freedom.
    So, let me say that I don't hold Ms. Nomani or to Mr. 
Westhill any form of discrimination, nor do I think the Members 
of my Democratic colleagues, the Members of the Democratic 
Party as well. We do believe as John has taught us and Dr. King 
in the beloved community but let me try to set the record 
straight so that this continued miscalculation and 
politicalization and campaign rhetoric that has really hurt 
more than helped can be set.
    Now, there are many definitions to what we have been 
discussing, but let me put into the record I think a reasoned 
definition of which if someone has a rebuttal they can--when I 
say rebuttal, if they have another definition, the record is 
open for you to submit it.
    Critical race theory is a cross-disciplinary intellectual 
and social movement of civil rights scholars and activists who 
seek to examine the intersection of race and law in the United 
States and to challenge mainstream American liberal approaches 
to racial justice. For example, the CRT conceptual framework is 
one way to study how and why U.S. courts give more lenient 
punishments to drug dealers from some races than to drug 
dealers of other races.
    The word ``critical'' in its name is an academic term that 
refers to critical thinking, critical theory, and scholarly 
criticism rather than criticizing or blaming people. It first 
arose in the 1970s. The other critical schools of thought such 
as critical legal studies, which examined how legal rules 
protect the status quo.
    It has nothing to do with teaching anyone in elementary 
school, middle school, or any place else. It is a scholarly 
effort to address the question of the intersection of law and 
race. Any books that have been done that have used it is 
because the author is unclear, imprecise, and without knowledge 
about that. Parents certainly have the right to engage with 
their school districts on what they believe is effective for 
their students, however, I will not accept the abuse of that 
term to come before us in this hearing that is talking about 
the absolute discrimination against people who cannot speak for 
themselves.
    So, let me just show why this African American young person 
had to have his hair cut off so that he could effectively 
participate in sports. My friends decided to vote against 
something called the CROWN Act, which means that whatever style 
hair you have is protected under the Constitution.
    Maybe you're not familiar with the story of Emmett Till. 
This is what his mother had to confront: This bloody and 
mutilated head of a 14-year-old who went to Mississippi, an 
African American who suffered the indignities of violence.
    So, I think this hearing that talks about discrimination 
and the civil rights of Muslim, Arab, and South Asian American 
communities is focused on how discrimination laws have 
undermined over the period of their time here in the United 
States in ways that we can try and fix. We are problem solvers. 
We are grateful that the courts have responded to perceive 
discrimination, but in any event what I would clearly say--and 
you need to put down your camera, please.
    You need to put down your camera. You need to put down your 
camera.
    I understand that, but I need the Witness to [inaudible].
    Ms. Nomani. Why do I have to put down my camera?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Because I am already on video, so I don't 
need to be on yours.
    Ms. Nomani. I mean, this is free speech.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I have asked respectfully, and you choose 
not to be respectful, and so I will allow you to continue. 
Thank you so very much.
    In any event, I believe that this hearing deals with the 
impact of discrimination on the groups who have suffered 
discrimination in such a large way. So, I would like to make 
sure that we are focused on that.
    I am disappointed that CRT has been politicized to attack 
people who simply want to ensure that our children have an 
opportunity to be engaged in diversity.
    I know that this--words that I am saying now in the most 
calm way will be mutilated by the right wing media. That is all 
they do. They do not Act in truth, and they do not try to 
provoke truth; they try to provoke people.
    We have been so busy trying to step away from that we saw 
what happened on January 6. As Congressman Raskin said, ``they 
came, they beat, they attacked, they called names, and they 
made a mockery of democracy.'' They attack the citadel of 
democracy. That is not what we are doing here in this hearing.
    So, may I ask, Ms. Berry, the Trump Muslim ban, various 
other discriminatory aspects that impact the Asian American 
community--I want to simply ask you the question: What kind of 
violence has been generated against Asian Americans and Arab 
Americans in particular? The Muslim ban that you have seen that 
has come out of the utilization of the Trump Muslim ban, the 
attack on how some Muslims may be attired, students in school, 
how has that atmosphere generated from your perspective violent 
acts against Muslim Americans?
    Ms. Berry?
    Ms. Berry. Thank you, Congresswoman, for the question. In 
the immediate aftermath of 9/11 we saw a significant surge in 
hate crimes in our country. One of the key things that we do at 
the Arab American Institute is try to increase hate crime data 
collection and reporting. We believe that data drives policy 
and it's incredibly important that we have the accurate data on 
that.
    After the last year, we have FBI hate crime data for is 
2020, and it is literally the second year, the second highest 
year post-9/11. So, from the 2016 presidential election to 
today we have seen a marked increase in anti-hate against 
pretty much all communities. We really do believe--and while 
there's not--I'm not here to make a direct correlation between 
speech and hate, but when it emanates from our lawmakers, when 
it emanates from the Presidential pulpit, it has a very real 
impact on communities and how they're targeted.
    If I may, Congresswoman, I would love to take this 
opportunity because of what we're talking about here today--one 
of the most important things--Congresswoman Garcia pointed out 
that she was able to--
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Excuse me. Just a moment. Just a 
moment.
    Madam Chair, since we have gone so far, would you permit me 
an additional time period to ask a--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. The Ranking Member always has an 
additional time period.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you. Thank you. I yield 
back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then the Chair will close. Thank you so 
very much.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you.
    Ms. Berry. Thank you. Congresswoman Garcia was able to 
remove her name from a no-fly list because the no-fly list 
actually has a better redress process than the watch list. I 
think that's a pretty extraordinary thing. The watch list, we 
don't even know the size of it, so you don't know you're on it. 
There are estimations it could be well over a million people. 
That's a problem. We need to have a better due process 
practices in place.
    Then the final point I want to make, because I do think 
it's--this is a historical hearing. This is important that 
we're examining 20 years later the rights of Arab Americans and 
American Muslims and South Asians. One of the most important 
things we can do as we reflect on that is to actually address 
the issue of profiling in a very meaningful way.
    In 2003, then Attorney General Ashcroft issued profiling 
guidance that said we will not profile--
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Ms. Berry, if you can summarize?
    Ms. Berry. We will not profile in 2003. Regrettably those 
loopholes were so big that we issued new guidance in 2014 
saying we will not profile. We continue to have a loophole that 
exists for national security, border security, and local law 
enforcement. Until we find a remedy for that, regrettably the 
policies that we're talking about here today that impact our 
communities directly, but I would argue all Americans, they 
will find their way to all Americans.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Berry. We need to do better.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you. I would appreciate it if you 
would submit in writing why is a detailed demographic data 
about the Arab American community important and what work has 
your organization been doing to increase such data collection 
efforts. If you could submit that in writing, I would 
appreciate it.
    Ms. Berry. Happy to do so. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. I would be interested just in this follow 
up to the Sikh community. I know the tragedy that has occurred 
in the Sikh family and religion in Minnesota, but can you 
describe some of the Sikh Coalition's findings regarding 
bullying of Sikh youth and whether or not that also generates 
into violence against the Sikh community?
    Ms. Aakre. Thank you, Congresswoman, for your question. 
According to multiple surveys that the Sikh Coalition has 
taken, Sikh American students experience high rates of bullying 
and harassment in our nation's public schools, and we continue 
receiving and documenting nationwide reports of school 
bullying.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Aakre. Sikh boys who wear turbans are called terrorists 
and girls are teased for having long hair and many of these 
children are subjected to violence. Our research shows that the 
majority of Sikh children, just over 50 percent of which have 
endured school bullying. Over two-thirds, or 67 percent, 
reported that they were bullied in school and turbaned Sikh 
children experience bullying at more than double the national 
rate.
    We know that it occurs not just on school grounds but also 
on buses and increasingly on social media such as Facebook, 
Twitter, and anonymous mobile phone apps. Despite the growing 
recognition of bullying as a national problem, lawmakers and 
school officials are not collecting comprehensive bullying data 
and their enforcement of these anti-bullying policies that 
exist are completely inconsistent.
    We also know that title IV is being used to enforce 
religious bullying by the Department of Justice. However, 
religious discrimination is not explicitly investigated by the 
Department of Education because it's not a protected category 
under title VI. So, that's an area where bullied kids are left 
without full access to recourse when they've suffered.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much. Appreciate those 
questions. We will have other questions submitted into the 
record.
    It is my pleasure to yield some time to the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Thank you, Madam Chair.
    As is often our custom when we have Witnesses--take their 
time and come to appear before us and we see them champing at 
the bit, we know there may be something they would like to add 
to the testimony or what has been said. So, I would yield to 
Ms. Nomani for that.
    Ms. Nomani. Thank you so much, Representative Johnson.
    I just think that it is unconscionable, but completely 
predictable what we have just Witnessed today, because while 
there has been serious conversation about the need to address 
issues of discrimination surveillance and other issues of 
privacy and constitutionality, not one person from the 
Democratic side has taken seriously the very real 
discrimination that is happening now in the name of critical 
race theory. Instead, I was ridiculed.
    Then when I dared to try to take a video of this, I was 
intimidated just like parents face in school boards and school 
districts all across the country. Do you know what, a Federal 
judge has validated what we have said to our school board for 
two years.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. Right.
    Ms. Nomani. We have been ignored. The one thing that I 
think every Democratic lawmaker should recognize as a word of 
advice is that the parents spoke up in Virginia and they 
elected Governor Glenn Youngkin. The parents spoke up in San 
Francisco and they recalled three school board members. Who was 
one of those school board members? She was this woman who dared 
to use the N-word about Asians, calling us the house N-word. 
She has now lost her job.
    There's a very real discrimination with the privilege 
matrix, the oppression matrix, that is targeting Brown and 
Black parents and children. Then also we must care about all 
children.
    This is a very real book, ``Not My Idea,'' and it's 
certainly not my idea. It says Whiteness is a bad deal, and 
then a contract with the devil. No child in America should ever 
feel shame. No child should ever feel discrimination. It is 
unconscionable that we do not recognize that we cannot replace 
one hierarchy of human value with another hierarchy of human 
value. We must protect the integrity of humanity.
    Mr. Johnson of Louisiana. That is so well said. I will just 
close with this and I will yield back, but we used to all agree 
on Dr. King's admonition that we be judged by the content of 
our character, not the color of our skin. This has now gone 
full circle the other way. People are being discriminated 
against because of what they look like. I thought that was what 
we were all against, but CRT is doing this. It is insidious. 
They are putting it in the curriculum.
    However well-intended some people may think that it was at 
its origin, Madam Chair, it has turned into a weapon that is 
being used against children. That is detestable, and we will 
stand against it at every turn. I yield back.
    Ms. Nomani. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you to the Ranking Member. This 
Committee is well-poised to respond to discrimination against 
any child in whatever form it takes. This Committee is noted as 
the truth sayer for the Constitution, and so I think it is 
important that we make sure that our facts are accurate and not 
distorted. We embrace all people who come to stand against 
discrimination.
    Mr. Johnson, we have worked together on some issues. I take 
no back seat to that, nor do I have any reason to take any 
suggestion that my Democratic colleagues do not stand against 
discrimination in any form.
    So, I again refer as I close this hearing to the beloved 
community. I cited what critical race theory is. It has 
obviously had many different changes. It has been reinterpreted 
in the wrong way. I hope that the more we get to understand 
each other, even starting in early education, that we are a 
better nation, we are unified, and that we become the beloved 
community. Seeing us juxtaposed against each other in high 
tension, misinterpreting comments as maligning or 
misrepresenting is unfortunate.
    Again, this hearing has been productive. We will find ways 
to respond to the pain that has been expressed here and we will 
find ways to do it under the umbrella of Dr. King's admonition 
of our character and who we are, but certainly of that of my 
friend and the late--and colleague, the late colleague John 
Lewis. That is the beloved community. I remain as that.
    Let us hope that the recounting of this hearing takes 
everyone's facts in a way that would be appropriate, does not 
distort them, misuse them, try to edit them, which is what 
typically happens, but to let our words come out as we have 
said with the continuity of our words.
    If that is the case, including, Mr. Johnson, you and your 
Members and all the Witnesses, we may find a way to come 
together.
    So, in the name of the beloved community, thanking all of 
you for coming today. I want to thank all our Witnesses for 
appearing today. Each one's testimony has been recorded into 
this hearing.
    Without objection, all Members will have five legislative 
days to submit additional written questions for the Witness or 
additional materials for the record.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:54 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

                               APPENDIX

=======================================================================

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]