[House Hearing, 118 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                      OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 
                               CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

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

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE
               
                  SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND 
                            LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                                 OF THE

                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                     U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED EIGHTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                       TUESDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2023

                               __________

                           Serial No. 118-56

                               __________

         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                    
54-342                      WASHINGTON : 2024                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                
               
                       COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

                        JIM JORDAN, Ohio, Chair

DARRELL ISSA, California             JERROLD NADLER, New York, Ranking 
KEN BUCK, Colorado                       Member
MATT GAETZ, Florida                  ZOE LOFGREN, California
ANDY BIGGS, Arizona                  SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
TOM McCLINTOCK, California           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
TOM TIFFANY, Wisconsin               HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr., 
THOMAS MASSIE, Kentucky                  Georgia
CHIP ROY, Texas                      ADAM SCHIFF, California
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           ERIC SWALWELL, California
VICTORIA SPARTZ, Indiana             TED LIEU, California
SCOTT FITZGERALD, Wisconsin          PRAMILA JAYAPAL, Washington
CLIFF BENTZ, Oregon                  J. LUIS CORREA, California
BEN CLINE, Virginia                  MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania
KELLY ARMSTRONG, North Dakota        JOE NEGUSE, Colorado
LANCE GOODEN, Texas                  LUCY McBATH, Georgia
JEFF VAN DREW, New Jersey            MADELEINE DEAN, Pennsylvania
TROY NEHLS, Texas                    VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
BARRY MOORE, Alabama                 DEBORAH ROSS, North Carolina
KEVIN KILEY, California              CORI BUSH, Missouri
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             GLENN IVEY, Maryland
NATHANIEL MORAN, Texas               BECCA BALINT, Vermont
LAUREL LEE, Florida
WESLEY HUNT, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina
Vacant

                                 ------                                

        SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION AND LIMITED GOVERNMENT

                             VACANT, Chair

TOM McCLINTOCK, California           MARY GAY SCANLON, Pennsylvania, 
CHIP ROY, Texas                          Ranking Member
DAN BISHOP, North Carolina           STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
KEVIN KILEY, California              VERONICA ESCOBAR, Texas
HARRIET HAGEMAN, Wyoming             CORI BUSH, Missouri
WESLEY HUNT, Texas                   SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
RUSSELL FRY, South Carolina          BECCA BALINT, Vermont

               CHRISTOPHER HIXON, Majority Staff Director
          AMY RUTKIN, Minority Staff Director & Chief of Staff
                            
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              

                       Tuesday, December 5, 2023

                                                                   Page

                           OPENING STATEMENTS

The Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government from the State of Texas....     1
The Honorable Mary Gay Scanlon, Ranking Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Pennsylvania......................................     4
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, Ranking Member of the Committee on 
  the Judiciary from the State of New York.......................     5

                                WITNESS

Kristen Clarke, Assistant Attorney General, Department of Justice 
  Civil Rights Division
  Oral Testimony.................................................     8
  Prepared Testimony.............................................    10

          LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC. SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING

All materials submitted for the record by the Subcommittee on the 
  Constitution and Limited Government are listed below...........    43

An article entitled, ``Troopers who fatally shot a `Cop City' 
  activist near Atlanta won't be charged, prosecutor says,'' AP 
  News, Oct. 6, 2023, submitted the Honorable Andy Biggs, a 
  Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited 
  Government from the State of Arizona, for the record
An article entitled, ``The Crisis at the D.C. Jail Began Decades 
  Before Jan. 6 Defendants Started Raising Concerns,'' Time 
  Magazine, Jan. 8, 2022, submitted by the Honorable Mary Gay 
  Scanlon, Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on the Constitution 
  and Limited Government from the State of Pennsylvania, for the 
  record
A letter from multiple organizations to Attorney General Garland 
  and Secretary of Education Cardona regarding antisemitism, 
  submitted by the Honorable Chip Roy, a Member of the 
  Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government from 
  the State of Texas, for the record

 
      OVERSIGHT OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

                              ----------                              


                       Tuesday, December 5, 2023

                        House of Representatives

        Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government

                       Committee on the Judiciary

                             Washington, DC

    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:06 a.m., in 
Room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Chip Roy [Chair 
of the Subcommittee] presiding.
    Members present: Representatives Roy, Jordan, McClintock, 
Bishop, Kiley, Hageman, Fry, Biggs, Scanlon, Nadler, Cohen, 
Escobar, Bush, and Balint.
    Mr. Roy. The Subcommittee will come to order. Without 
objection, the Chair is authorized to declare a recess at any 
time. We welcome everyone to today's hearing on the Department 
of Justice Civil Rights Division.
    With that, we will have the Pledge of Allegiance. Would the 
gentleman from Arizona lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance?
    All. I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States 
of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one 
Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for 
all.
    Mr. Roy. Without objection, our colleague, Mr. Biggs from 
Arizona, will be able to participate in the hearing today for 
the purpose of questioning the witness if a Member yields him 
time for that purpose.
    I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. I 
thank our witness for being here today. The Civil Rights 
Division is responsible for the enforcement of civil rights 
statutes enacted by Congress and related Constitutional 
guarantees. This is an issue that is near and dear to my heart. 
I, too, in a previous life, served in the Department of 
Justice, having served as Special Assistant United States 
Attorney in the Eastern District of Texas. My job there, as the 
witness and my colleagues know, was to equally enforce the law. 
My grandfather was the Chief of Police in Sweetwater, Texas. 
His job was to equally enforce the law. My grandmother was the 
first woman elected County Clerk in Nolan County, Texas, after 
my grandfather passed away from cancer. My dad was seven years 
old. Her job was to equally enforce the law.
    Justice is blind and we must follow the facts wherever they 
may take us. Like all components of the Justice Department, the 
Civil Rights Division is expected to do the same, equally 
enforce the law. Unfortunately, under the Biden Administration, 
this has not always been the case. The Civil Rights Division 
has fixed its sight, for example, on those charged with 
protecting us, police departments, often harassing these 
departments to the point that they cannot do their jobs.
    There have been a series of investigations, Indianapolis, 
Louisville, Phoenix, Mount Vernon, New York, Louisiana State 
Police, New York City Police Department, Special Victims 
Division; Maryland Department of State Police, Worcester 
Massachusetts Police Department, Memphis Police, Trenton, New 
Jersey; Lexington, Mississippi, 11 times over the last two 
years. We have seen a significant disparity, and a few examples 
of how the DOJ Civil Rights Division has targeted those who 
protect our communities.
    It is not to say there are not circumstances meriting 
review, but in the midst of rising crime, plummeting police 
recruiting, open borders, mountains of fentanyl, DOJ is 
prioritizing investigations of small to mid-size police 
departments. Under President Biden, DOJ has opened 11 pattern 
or practice investigations in the police departments throughout 
the country, compared to just one under the previous 
administration. This combined with fairly radical views that we 
will talk about with the witness earlier about defunding in the 
police in the past which raises concerns about the intent of 
such investigations, especially at a time when police are 
demoralized following the defund the police movement and crime 
wave that has followed.
    The Division's activities have also too often amounted to 
using the law to advantage of disadvantage certain States and 
individuals. For example, the Freedom of Access to Clinic 
Entrances or FACE Act, prohibits threats of force, obstruction, 
or property damage intended to interfere with reproductive 
healthcare services. This law protects abortion clinics, 
pregnancy resource centers, and houses of worship alike. 
However, the Division's prosecutions under the FACE Act show a 
significant bias for prosecuting FACE Act violations involving 
abortion clinics, particularly a situation involving Mark 
Houck, who was charged under the FACE Act for protecting his 
young son from a belligerent abortion activist.
    On May 2, 2022, a draft copy of the Supreme Court's 
decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health Organization was 
leaked to the press. This leak gave rise to widespread 
demonstrations and attacks on pro-life facilities. In fact, 
following the leak, more than 100 pro-life facilities were 
vandalized or damaged, including by arson. Two hundred and 18 
Catholic churches have been attacked since the Dobbs decision 
was leaked, according to CatholicVote. According to the Family 
Research Council, there were 57 pro-abortion acts of hostility 
against churches from January 2022-September 2022. In the first 
quarter of 2023 of fiscal 2023, there were 69 incidents of 
hostility toward churches. In the face of this increase, you 
would expect the Civil Rights Division to step up and protect 
the civil rights of these Americans, but there was not. In 
2022, the Department brought 26 prosecutions under the FACE 
Act. All of them involved alleged incidents at abortion 
clinics. In 2023, the Department has identified for the 
Committee one prosecution of four individuals in Florida who 
spray painted threats on pregnancy resource centers in the 
State. This marked the first time in American history that the 
FACE Act was used against pro-abortion protestors.
    This questionable use of resources is further illustrated 
by other activities of the Division. In 2021, the Department 
began a lawsuit against the State of Georgia alleging a new 
election law that was enacted for the purpose of denying or 
abridging the right of Black Georgians to vote on account of 
their race or color. The problem is that is just not true. In 
the court's decisions in that case to date have borne that out. 
Recently, the court refused to block several provisions of the 
law while the litigation continues. Notably, the court found 
that the Department has not shown that any of the provisions 
have a disparate impact on Black voters. Quite simply, the 
facts on the grounds do not match the allegations in the 
Department's lawsuit.
    While the Department is devoting resources to this 
politically motivated lawsuit is missing in action when 
Constitutional rights are violated. In September of this year, 
New Mexico Governor Michelle Lujan Grisham issued a public 
health order banning the otherwise lawful carrying of firearms 
in certain jurisdictions in the State. This order was plainly 
unconstitutional under the Second and Fourteenth Amendments and 
the Supreme Court's precedent. Despite this plain violation of 
American rights, the Civil Rights Division was nowhere to be 
found. An advocacy group, not the Department, had to bring a 
lawsuit to overturn the order. The Division failed to file an 
amicus brief or even a statement of interest to protect 
Americans' Second Amendment rights.
    More recently, the Civil Rights Department appears to be 
standing idly by while Jewish Americans have their civil rights 
violated by radical pro-Palestinian protestors. Since Hamas' 
cowardly October 7th attack in which it murdered innocent 
Israelis, raped women, and kidnapped babies, rampant 
antisemitism has reared its ugly head on American college 
campuses and throughout major American cities. Just this 
weekend, pro-Palestinian protestors in Philadelphia protested 
outside of Goldie, a Jewish-owned falafel restaurant at a 
location less than a mile away from Independence Hall where the 
Declaration of Independence was signed. The Division must 
return to the nonpartisan work of protecting the rights of all 
Americans.
    I would note that there is an ongoing list of antisemitic 
threats and violence throughout the West. Antisemites sprayed 
Montreal Jewish schools in bullets, attacked some AIPAC 
President's home in L.A. investigated as a hate crime. Burbank 
police searched for a suspect who spray painted swastikas on a 
synagogue, Burn in hell Jewish Center at University of Florida 
vandalized with antisemitic graffiti. Cornell cancels classes 
after student arrested for antisemitic threats of murder and 
rape. FBI investigating after synagogue desecrated with anti-
Israel, antisemitic graffiti. That is eight of literally pages 
of examples of antisemitic acts in the wake of October 7th and 
it is notable that there has been basically silence. So, it is 
true that the Division must return to the nonpartisan work of 
protecting rights of all Americans, not just those that it 
favors. I look forward to hearing this morning how that will 
happen.
    I will now recognize the Ranking Member, the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania, Ms. Scanlon, for her opening statement.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Assistant Attorney General Clarke, 
I want to welcome you to the Judiciary Committee and this very 
important oversight hearing to help the Committee and the 
American public understand the critical role that the Civil 
Rights Division of the Department of Justice plays in 
protecting the fundamental rights and freedoms of all 
Americans. This hearing is particularly important since your 
predecessor refused the Committee's request for an oversight 
hearing amidst the Trump's Administration's efforts to 
weaponize the Department of Justice in a way that was 
unprecedented in the history of this great Nation. Under that 
administration, we saw members of the Department of Justice 
leadership acting as the President's personal attorneys, 
repeating election disinformation, withdrawing support for 
voting rights and other civil rights enforcement, and reversing 
course of decades of work to ensure that law enforcement 
agencies protect the rights of all Americans. Of course, under 
that administration, we saw the normalization of hate speech, 
chaos, and political violence which is tearing apart so many of 
our communities today. That is why it is so important that we 
understand the critical role of the Department of Justice's 
Civil Rights Division in combating civil rights violations and 
securing our fundamental freedom and what Congress needs to do 
to support that mission at this time.
    It is worth remembering that Congress explicitly created 
the Civil Rights Division as part of the Civil Rights Act of 
1957 to protect the voting rights of Black Americans and other 
minorities. The very genesis of the Civil Rights Division was 
rooted in the Federal effort to protect voting rights and 
reflected the belief that in a democracy the right to vote is 
the foundation on which all other rights and freedoms 
ultimately rest. These core civil rights and freedoms include 
the right to cast a vote in a free and fair election regardless 
of race; the right to be free from discrimination in 
employment, housing, and education; and the right to be free 
from violence based on hate.
    I look forward to seeing how the Civil Rights Division has 
renewed its commitment to these principles under its current 
leadership. Under the Trump Administration, we saw the Civil 
Rights Division's abdicate its responsibility to enforce many 
voting rights and other civil rights protections, so I am 
heartened to see the renewed focus by the Division on vigorous 
civil rights enforcement. Understanding that the right to cast 
a vote in a free and fair election is the foundation of all 
other rights, I appreciate the Division's renewed focus on 
voting rights, taking action in over 40 voting rights matters 
since January 2021, ranging from voting related enforcement 
actions to filing statements of interest in numerous private 
enforcement actions including two in Pennsylvania. We continue 
to need vigorous enforcement of the Voting Rights Act as we 
have seen a tsunami of restrictive voting laws enacted by 
States over the past three years with the potential to impact 
the 2024 election. Of course, much of this legislative activity 
stems from the Supreme Court's erosion of the Voting Rights Act 
of 1965 through a series of decisions beginning with Shelby 
County v. Holder and continuing with Brnovich v. Democratic 
National Committee. These decisions have made it harder and 
more resource intensive for both the Civil Rights Division and 
other Voting Right Act plaintiffs to prevail in enforcement 
action. There is a solution, of course. That is that Congress 
must act. Congress must respond to these misguided decisions by 
reauthorizing the Voting Rights Act and updating the guard 
rails of our democratic republic to respond to 21st century 
threats. We must pass the John R. Lewis Voting Rights 
Advancement Act which would reinvigorate the Voting Rights Act 
and ensure full funding for the Civil Rights Division Civil 
Rights Division to deploy more resources to enforce voting 
rights protections.
    The Civil Rights Division also bears responsibility for 
enforcing Federal hate crime law at a time when over the past 
seven years we have seen an explosion of hate speech and 
political violence whether directed toward racial or ethnic 
minority, women and LGBTQ+ persons or members of religious 
across. Across the country, communities have been impacted by 
hate incidents as they have trended upwards. Statistics 
compiled by the FBI show that last year even with imperfect 
reporting, law enforcement agencies reported over 11,000 hate 
crime incidents. Over 59 percent of those victims were targeted 
because of their race or ethnicity, another 17.3 percent were 
targeted based on their religion, and another 17 percent were 
targeted because of their sexual orientation.
    Of course, in the charged environment surrounding Hamas' 
terrorist attack on October 7th and Israel's military response 
to the attack, we have seen increasing reports of antisemitism 
and Islamophobia, including incidents of potential hate crimes. 
Also, for decades, the Civil Rights Division has played an 
important role in helping law enforcement agencies to keep 
their communities safe and uphold the rule of law while 
protecting the civil rights of all citizens. One of the tools 
for doing this is to work with communities to address patterns 
and practices of violations in law enforcement, a tool that was 
abandoned by the Trump Department of Justice and I look forward 
to hearing what progress has been made in this area.
    Again, thank you, Assistant Attorney General Clarke for 
being with us and updating us on the work of the Division and 
what Congress needs to do to assist the Division in that work. 
Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I now recognize the Ranking Member of the Full 
Committee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement should he care 
to give one.
    Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would like to begin by 
thanking Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke for 
appearing before the Subcommittee today. Unfortunately, it has 
been several years since we have had the opportunity to 
question the head of the Department of the Civil Rights 
Division, Department of Justice Civil Rights Division, because 
General Clarke's immediate predecessor during the Trump 
Administration never appeared before us. In a sense, I don't 
blame the Department for evasion at the time because back then 
it had nothing good to report to us, as it practically 
abdicated its responsibility to vigorously enforce our Nation's 
critical civil rights laws.
    I am please, however, that under the Biden Administration, 
and under Assistant Attorney General Clarke's leadership, the 
Division is once again taking its role seriously. That means 
protecting Americans from a nationwide effort to undermine the 
right to vote, working with local communities to investigate 
and resolve patterns and practices of unconstitutional conduct 
in law enforcement agencies, addressing the disturbing rise in 
hate crimes across the country, and combating discrimination in 
all forms, whether it be in employment, housing, education, or 
elsewhere. On all these critical issues and many others that 
impact millions of Americans, the dedicated staff of the Civil 
Rights Division works tirelessly to ensure that all Americans, 
regardless of their race, religion, sex, national origin, 
disability, or sexual orientation, are treated equally under 
the law.
    Thank you for your efforts in leading this vital 
Department. At top of mind to me today is the recent rise in 
antisemitism and the general rise in hate crimes and other 
forms of illegal discrimination that has transpired over the 
past several years. According to the most recent data compiled 
by the FBI for the year 2022 and the testimony of Federal law 
enforcement officials, there has been a significant documented 
increase in antisemitic hate crimes and discrimination. 
According to FBI data, even before Hamas' brutal terrorist 
attack on October 7th, antisemitism was on the rise. In 2022, 
there were 2,042 reported incidents based on religion and more 
than half of these were driven by anti-Jewish bias.
    During recent testimony before the Senate, FBI Director 
Christopher Wray stated that,

        The threat of antisemitism is reaching in some way sort of 
        historic levels and that was, in part, because the Jewish 
        communities targeted by terrorists really across the spectrum 
        including foreign terrorist organizations and domestic violent 
        extremists.

    Director Wray went on to say that the FBI statistics would 
indicate that for a group that represents only about 2.4 
percent of the American public, Jewish Americans account for 
something like 60 percent of all religious faiths in hate 
crimes. It is not just the Jewish community that is 
experiencing a rise in hate. In the weeks since the October 7th 
attacks, there have been tragic incidents of Islamophobia and 
anti-Arab hate across the country, including the recent 
shooting of three Palestinian American students in Vermont and 
the murder of a six-year-old Muslim child in Illinois. 
Unfortunately, hate crimes rooted in race, ethnicity, or 
ancestry continue to remain the most common. According to that 
same FBI data, there were 65,057 reported race-motivated 
incidents in 2022 and the number of anti-Black incidents was 
more than three times higher than the next highest racial 
ethnic category. Additionally, FBI data also shows a disturbing 
trend of increasing instances of violence against the 
transgender and gender nonconforming community. As we all know, 
while statistics can help us quantify and understand the 
magnitude of the problem, they cannot fully convey the damage 
that bias-motivated crimes inflict on our communities.
    General Clarke, I cannot emphasize enough how vulnerable 
the Jewish community in America is feeling at this moment, 
especially now that the October 7th attack appears to have led 
to an explosive rise in antisemitism both at home and abroad. 
They know without a doubt that every other community I just 
mentioned shares in that same sense of vulnerability following 
similar hate-motivated crimes. If unaddressed, hate crimes send 
the message to every member of a community, if you are not a 
real person, and therefore are undeserving of the law's 
protection. Addressing that feeling of vulnerability is, of 
course, the point of hate crimes enforcement, to provide not 
only justice for the victims, but for the entire community. I 
am heartened to hear that under your leadership, the Civil 
Rights Division has brought over 100 hate crimes related cases 
and secured numerous convictions, including against the 
perpetrators of the attacks in Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and El 
Paso.
    That is why I also believe it is crucial for Congress to 
provide sufficient tools and resources to the Civil Rights 
Division so that it can effectively address this rise in hate, 
as well as to carry out its mission to remedy illegal 
discrimination in voting, employment, education, public 
accommodations, and government-funded programs and services. In 
that vein, if I may, General Clarke, I would offer a few words 
of advice to you and to those members of the public who may be 
following today's hearing. Don't be distracted by the 
Republican's side show fueled by their conspiracy-minded allies 
and their conservative media echo chamber, of which you have 
already heard a preview today.
    Under your leadership, the Civil Rights Division is 
properly focused on the enforcement of rights that are 
essential to the functioning of our diverse, democratic 
society. After all, if you can be attacked with impunity 
because of your religion, denied the right to vote because of 
your race, fired from your job because of your sex, or 
prohibited from receiving education because you are 
transgender, the fundamental rights and values enshrined in the 
Constitution are not worth the paper they are written on.
    I look forward to our distinguished witness's testimony and 
I yield back the balance of my time.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the Ranking Member for his statement. 
Without objection, all other opening statements will be 
included in the record. We will now introduce today's witness, 
Hon. Kristen Clarke. Ms. Clarke is the Assistant Attorney 
General for Civil Rights. She was sworn in May 25, 2021. We 
welcome our witness and thank her for appearing today.
    We will begin by swearing you in. Would you please rise and 
raise your right hand?
    Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the 
testimony that you are about to give is true and correct to the 
best of your knowledge, information, and belief so help you 
God?
    Ms. Clarke. I do.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witness 
has answered in the affirmative.
    Please know that your written testimony will be entered 
into the record in its entirety. Accordingly, we ask that you 
summarize your testimony.
    Ms. Clarke, you may begin.

              STATEMENT OF THE HON. KRISTEN CLARKE

    Ms. Clarke. Good morning, Chair Roy, Ranking Member 
Scanlon, Ranking Member Nadler and distinguished Members of 
this Subcommittee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear 
before you today.
    Protecting civil rights is essential to the Department of 
Justice. In fact, the Department was created in 1870, in part, 
to confront the Ku Klux Klan and others who used terror and 
violence to prevent Black people from exercising their civil 
and constitutional rights.
    Nearly one hundred years later, Congress gave new energy to 
this work by enacting legislation that established the Civil 
Rights Division and empowered it to protect the civil rights of 
every person in America.
    Our work remains vital as we continue, sadly, to see acts 
of bigotry, violence, and discrimination in many aspects of 
life. The Division combats these harms by enforcing the 
Constitution and the protections enshrined in law by Congress. 
We work to ensure that every eligible American has voice in our 
democracy by confronting voting discrimination and work to 
advance equal opportunity in employment, housing, education, 
and more. We safeguard the rights of people with disabilities, 
and we defend the civil rights of those who defend our Nation 
in the armed forces, both past and present. We work to 
vindicate the rights of sexual assault survivors and people who 
experience sexual harassment on campuses, in workplaces, 
housing, jails, and prisons.
    We work to ensure that law enforcement personnel carry out 
their jobs lawfully and without bias. This work includes 
prosecutions of officers who abuse their power, including 
officers tied to the tragic deaths of George Floyd in 
Minneapolis, Breonna Taylor in Louisville, and Tyre Nichols in 
Memphis.
    Work that has particular urgency today is our response to 
bias-motivated violence. FBI data show that reported hate 
crimes are at their highest level in more than a decade. Black 
people remain the group most frequently targeted by hate crimes 
and, crimes motivated by antisemitism, Islamophobia, and bias 
against the victim's sexual orientation or gender identity have 
also climbed in number.
    In the weeks following the devastating October 7th attacks 
in Israel and ensuing violence in the Middle East, we have seen 
an alarming increase in acts of hate in our neighborhoods, on 
our campuses, and in our streets. We know that too many 
communities are living in fear. We have all seen the horrors 
that result from hate: The Charleston Nine, the El Paso 23, 
Tree of Life 11, Buffalo 10, Club Q Five, and Jacksonville 3. 
Each of these tragedies offers a bleak testament to the death, 
pain and trauma that can flow from hatred and bigotry.
    So, the Division's top priority is to investigate and 
prosecute unlawful acts of hate. Since January 2021, the 
Division has charged more than 105 defendants in more than 95 
cases for committing hate crimes. During that same period, we 
have obtained more than 90 convictions. For example, the 
Division secured a guilty verdict against the man who killed 11 
people and critically wounded seven others at the Tree of Life 
Synagogue in Pittsburgh. The Division also secured a conviction 
of the man who killed 23 and wounded 22 more at a Walmart in El 
Paso, Texas, victims targeted because of their Hispanic 
identity. We secured convictions of the three men responsible 
for the racially motivated killing of Ahmaud Arbery in Georgia.
    Hate crimes are message crimes. The perpetrators not only 
target their direct victims, but also seek to instill fear in 
the victims' community. Our prosecutions send a louder and more 
powerful message: That hate crimes will not be tolerated in our 
democracy, that perpetrators will be punished and held 
accountable, and that the communities targeted will be 
safeguarded by the Federal Government.
    As I close, I want to recognize the hundreds of dedicated 
public servants in the Civil Rights Division who carry out this 
critical work. Their commitment inspires me each day and I am 
honored to represent them here today.
    Thank you and I look forward to your questions.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Clarke follows:]
    [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]	
    
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Clarke. We will now proceed under 
the five-minute rule with questions. The Chair will recognize 
myself for five minutes.
    Ms. Clarke, in a June 2020 op-ed you wrote,

        I advocate for defunding policing operations that have made 
        African Americans more vulnerable to police violence and 
        contributed to mass incarceration while investing more programs 
        in police and policies that address critical community needs.

    Since that time, in the Summer of 2020, there have been 
significant drops in recruiting police nationwide, significant 
evidence of morale dropping for our police officers in 
communities across the country. A simple statement. Do you 
stand behind that statement in the op-ed that you wrote in the 
Summer of 2020 advocating, ``for defunding policing 
operations''? Microphone, ma'am.
    Ms. Clarke. The Justice Department fully supports funding 
and supporting our law enforcement--
    Mr. Roy. My question was different than that. You penned it 
and you are the head of the Civil Rights Division, and you 
penned the op-ed in the Summer of 2020 in the middle, in the 
midst of significant unrest around the country, where our law 
enforcement community was dealing with significant attacks on 
them. You wrote, ``I advocate for defunding policing 
operations.'' Do you stand by that statement?
    Ms. Clarke. I have not advocated for defunding law 
enforcement. At the Justice Department, we allocate millions of 
dollars by way of our Office of Justice programs, COPS Office, 
Office of Violence Against Women support law enforcement.
    Mr. Roy. Ma'am, kindly answer the question. The question is 
simple. You wrote that statement. Do you stand behind that 
statement or do you now repudiate that statement?
    Ms. Clarke. I have not advocated for defunding law 
enforcement, Chair, and I appreciate the difficult jobs that 
our law enforcement officers do each day to keep us safe and 
believe it is important that they have the resources to carry 
out their jobs.
    Mr. Roy. Well, importantly, Black Americans make up 36 
percent of violent crime victims, but only 14 percent of the 
population. Do you think defunding the police, as you wrote in 
an op-ed in June 2020, it is in writing, do you think defunding 
the police makes African Americans, the Black community, more 
vulnerable to violence?
    Ms. Clarke. I support ensuring that law enforcement have 
the resources and support needed to carry out their job. Public 
safety is a top priority for all of us.
    Mr. Roy. I would note that the city of Austin and the 
Travis County DA's Office sent you a joint letter just, I think 
yesterday, maybe the day before, announcing that 17 of the 21 
Austin Police Department officers indicted for alleged 
excessive force violations between May 29th-31st, in that 
Summer of unrest, were cleared, that 17 law enforcement 
officers who were indicted by the local DA and then they were 
suddenly cleared, but then they sent a letter the same day 
requesting that the DOJ Civil Rights Division investigate the 
Austin Police Department despite the fact the Austin Police 
Department had been a model, the Department of Justice, how to 
engage in the use of force.
    My question for you is will you investigate the District 
Attorney for having indicted 17 police officers and then 
suddenly walking away for a political face-saving, rather than 
investigating the police department?
    Ms. Clarke. I am not aware of that correspondence. I am 
happy to look into this matter further, Chair.
    Mr. Roy. I look forward to working with your office to do 
that. It is extraordinarily concerning.
    In your written testimony, you mention the DOJ has 
prosecuted FACE Act violations involving both abortion 
providers and pregnancy resource centers. Can you tell us how 
many FACE Act cases have been filed since it was enacted in 
1994?
    Ms. Clarke. So, the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances 
Act is an important law. We apply it even handedly. I don't 
have statistics on the number of cases since the law's passage.
    Mr. Roy. Would it surprise you that the data I have says 
that it has been 130 times since 1994? Because then my question 
is how many FACE Act cases have been filed in defense of 
abortion providers or in defense of pro-abortion activists 
versus how many FACE Act cases have been filed in defense of 
pro-life Americans or churches that have been attacked? I 
wonder if you know the data on those?
    Ms. Clarke. I believe in outreach and have been 
aggressively conducting outreach to all groups so that the 
public understands that the FACE Act applies to both pro-choice 
and pro-life groups and I will flag for you, Chair, that we 
recently had January indictments against two Florida residents 
for spray painting threats on pregnancy resource centers.
    Mr. Roy. I certainly appreciate that you all did that, but 
the numbers I have are out of 130 uses of the FACE Act since 
1994, 126 were for pro-abortion activists, four in defense of 
abortion providers, and four have been for pro-life Americans 
and/or churches. I think that was one of them in January. I 
will let you respond to that and then I am out of my time.
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I can't speak about what happened in 
prior administrations. What I can assure you is that the 
Division is committed to full and even-handed enforcement of 
this important Federal law.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Clarke.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you for coming before this Committee, and 
thank you for your work and dedication to seeing that the 
Constitution is properly protected and that people are given 
the rights that are extended therefrom.
    Can you tell me some of the things that you have done, and 
the Justice Department has done, to improve cities' capacities 
to fight crime, which is a serious issue in this country today, 
and particularly, in my city, Memphis, Tennessee?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes. Thank you for the question, Congressman.
    Public safety is an important priority for the Justice 
Department and for our Attorney General. My colleagues in the 
Criminal Division, a sister component, recently launched an 
initiative in your city of Memphis to deal with violent crime. 
While I can't speak to that initiative, what I can assure you 
is that this Justice Department is committed to partnering and 
working with jurisdictions and officials to ensure public 
safety.
    Mr. Cohen. That's a national program that started in 
Houston, and it's going to go to other cities as well?
    Ms. Clarke. I believe that's correct.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you. I appreciate Memphis, being a red 
State, and you coming and helping us with this great problem.
    Civil rights enforcement and the Voting Rights Act and the 
Americans with Disabilities are three of my major issues. What 
exactly is the Department of Justice doing to enforce the 
Voting Rights Act? I know we've seen some actions in Alabama 
and Louisiana, and maybe in another one of the Southern States. 
What have they done there? On disability rights as well?
    Ms. Clarke. So, Congressman, I started off my career at the 
Justice Department as a voting rights lawyer. What I can assure 
you is that the Civil Rights Division remains steadfast in 
ensuring that we're using the Voting Rights Act, the National 
Voter Registration Act, the Help America Vote Act, the 
Uniformed and Overseas Citizens Absentee Voting Act to ensure 
that every eligible American has voice in our democracy.
    We are filing lawsuits. We are filing statements of 
interest in third-party lawsuits to help guide the courts on 
the appropriate interpretation and application of the law. 
We're issuing guidance documents and more.
    We are without one of our most powerful tools, given the 
suspension of the Section 5 preclearance provision, following 
the Shelby County, Alabama v. Holder ruling.
    Mr. Cohen. On disabilities?
    Ms. Clarke. Enforcement of the ADA is a hallmark of our 
work in the Civil Rights Division. Every day we're working to 
ensure that people with disabilities have access to jobs and 
housing. We're also very mindful of the barriers that people 
face when it comes to web access. So, again, through 
litigation, guidance, technical assistance, and providing 
service to the public by way of ada.gov and more, we are 
fighting to stand up for people with disabilities across our 
country.
    Mr. Cohen. That's so important to give everybody an 
opportunity to have a full life and not to have some accident 
of nature or disease be an impediment to that. The Justice 
Department's acts are great.
    Section 5 is limited by the Supreme Court. Section 2 is 
alive, and it's been used and used well, even though sometimes 
it's late and it takes time.
    Now, there's an argument in the Eighth Circuit where they 
ruled that only the government can bring a case under Section 2 
of the Voting Rights Act. Have most of the cases that have been 
brought under Section 2 been brought by individuals or by the 
government? If it does come out that this is upheld by the 
Supreme Court, or ruled that it's a proper interpretation of 
the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution, what will that do 
to the voting rights enforcement in your Division?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes. Well, the Justice Department takes 
seriously its obligation to enforce Section 2. No doubt, 
private parties and nonpartisan organizations have played a 
central role. Supreme Court precedent, legislative history, and 
decades of work in the courts have long made clear that private 
groups enjoy a private right of action under Section 2 of the 
Voting Rights Act.
    We weighed in in this case in the Eighth Circuit and we'll 
continue to watch very closely what's playing out here.
    Mr. Cohen. Most of the cases brought under Section 2, have 
they been brought by the government; have they been brought by 
private litigants?
    Ms. Clarke. The raw numbers probably show that the sum 
total of work by private groups has been larger.
    Mr. Cohen. Private attorney generals?
    Ms. Clarke. That's right and nonpartisan organizations. 
They absolutely have played a critical role, working alongside 
the government, to ensure that every eligible American has a 
voice in our democracy.
    Mr. Cohen. Thank you very much.
    While I know your shoes are more difficult to walk in than 
John Lewis', you are walking in John Lewis' shoes. I hope at 
all times you will remember that and continue to enforce voting 
rights.
    I yield back the balance of time.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congressman.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Mr. Cohen.
    I'll now recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. 
McClintock.
    Mr. McClintock. I thank you.
    Ms. Clarke, as I'm sure you've surmised, the concern of 
many of us here involves the unequal application of the laws, 
based on the political or ethnic identity of those involved. 
The Chair cited many examples involving everything from acts of 
violence against pro-life clinics to antisemitic hate crimes, 
for example.
    The law is only respected if it is applied evenly. So, what 
can you tell us to address these concerns?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congressman.
    I believe wholeheartedly that the Division, the entire 
Department, is committed to evenhanded enforcement of the law. 
We follow the facts, and we apply the law.
    When it comes to hate crimes, antisemitic violence, and 
standing up to antisemitic hate crimes, it's a top priority for 
us.
    Mr. McClintock. What you say and what you do seem to be 
very different things. For example, how many prosecutions has 
your Division initiated against violence and vandalism by anti-
abortion groups such as Jane's Revenge against anti-abortion 
clinics as opposed to the other way around.
    The Chair cited 126 prosecutions against pro-life groups 
and only four against pro-abortion groups under the FACE Act. 
Are these numbers correct, and if they are, how do you explain 
them?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I can't speak to prior administrations. 
What I can tell you is that in this year alone we've had 
indictments in January and March--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, how many prosecutions during your 
tenure have been initiated against pro-life groups and how many 
against pro-abortion groups?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I provided two examples from just this 
year--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, I'm looking at the entire totality of 
what you're doing. I'm not cherry-picking numbers. What are the 
actual numbers in totality?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, those are two sets of indictments, 
Congressman.
    Mr. McClintock. OK. You're not going to answer the 
question.
    Ms. Clarke. We're working every--
    Mr. McClintock. Let me go on. How many prosecutions has 
your Division initiated against hate crimes directed against 
the Jewish community as opposed to those directed, say, at the 
Muslim community? Christopher Wray testified at a Senate 
hearing that religion-based hate crimes against Jewish 
Americans comprise 60 percent of all such crimes, despite their 
only being 2.4 percent of the American population. So, I guess 
my question would be, have 60 percent of your religious-based 
hate crime prosecutions been in attacks against Jewish 
Americans?
    Ms. Clarke. Our Tree of Life prosecutions from this year 
is--
    Mr. McClintock. That's one case. I'm looking at the 
totality. I'm not interested in your cherry-picking one case 
that you've pursued. I want to know what is the total amount? 
Have 60 percent of your prosecutions been directed against 
religious-based hate crimes directed at Jewish Americans?
    Ms. Clarke. I can provide count--
    Mr. McClintock. Yes or no?
    Ms. Clarke. I can provide countless examples of our--
    Mr. McClintock. I'm not looking for examples. I want the 
total number.
    Ms. Clarke. I would be happy to--
    Mr. McClintock. Have 60 percent of your prosecutions been 
against hate crimes directed at Jewish Americans? Yes or no?
    Ms. Clarke. I don't have the precise number, but countless 
examples. I can provide the the list.
    Mr. McClintock. The precise number will tell us whether you 
are being candid in, in the relationship between what you say 
and what you do.
    Another concern is the Civil Rights Division's perceived 
resistance to Supreme Court decisions forbidding universities 
from discriminating against applicants based on their race. In 
the Students for Fair Admissions case, you called this, quote,

        A dog whistle that could invite a lot of chaos and 
        unnecessarily create hysteria among colleges and universities 
        who may fear that the government may come down on them for 
        their efforts to maintain diversity on their campuses.

    Well, once the Supreme Court spoke clearly on this issue, 
your Division released an advisory to universities telling them 
how to violate the law by, quote, ``linking students' 
applications to their race.'' Is the administration bound to 
obey the law or is it not?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, Congressman, and we--
    Mr. McClintock. Then, how do you explain that memo?
    Ms. Clarke. We, we follow and abide by the rulings of the 
U.S. Supreme Court and we--
    Mr. McClintock. You don't. Your memo speaks to that. Can 
you at least see how much such a memo could be viewed as open 
defiance to the authority of the Supreme Court and the rule of 
law?
    Ms. Clarke. We comply with the mandate of the Supreme 
Court, Congressman.
    Mr. McClintock. Well, but you're not.
    Finally, how do you see the separation of jurisdictions 
between local law enforcement agencies and Federal law 
enforcement? What cases do you believe the Federal Government 
should defer to local law enforcement agencies?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, we collaborate and work closely with 
local and State law enforcement. The tragic killing of Ahmaud 
Arbery is one example. The State of Georgia did not have a hate 
crimes law on the books at the time that Mr. Arbery was 
tragically killed. Our Federal hate crime prosecution here was 
important.
    Every day we work to collaborate and coordinate with the--
    Mr. McClintock. Well, how often do you defer to local law 
enforcement in their legitimate--
    Ms. Clarke. Often. Often, Congressman.
    We have limited resources and rely on local and State 
governments to do their part enforcing the law.
    Mr. McClintock. All right. Thank you.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from California.
    I recognize the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Escobar.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Assistant Attorney General Clarke, thank you so much for 
being here today, your testimony, and your service to our 
country.
    I want to especially recognize the Civil Rights Division 
for the incredible work you all did prosecuting the self-
proclaimed white nationalist who drove to my community in 
August 2019 to massacre Latinos and anyone who looked like an 
immigrant, per his confession. It was a very challenging trial 
for the community to relive the trauma and that horrific event, 
but I'm very grateful to the Department for the work that you 
all did to ensure that my community received justice and all 
the victims and families received justice. So, I want to thank 
you for that.
    I have raised the issue before with your Department about 
my State, the State of Texas, and Governor Greg Abbott, and the 
way that he is engaging, specifically, in border communities 
like my own. Operation Lone Star has been a project of Governor 
Abbott's that has, essentially, created some chaos in border 
communities like my own--high-speed chases by DPS that result 
in fatalities and significant property damage.
    There are other violations as well--racial profiling, due 
process violations, unlawful detention of migrants without 
charges being filed, and I could go on and on with the impact 
that Operation Lone Star has had in Texas.
    Ms. Clarke, will you commit to a review of whether Federal 
funding sources are being used to support Operation Lone Star 
and whether such support violates the Civil Rights Act?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    We continue to monitor Operation Lone Star, and, yes, we 
can commit to doing that.
    Ms. Escobar. Wonderful. Thank you.
    There is a growing group of legislators, policymakers, not 
just in Texas, but outside of Texas, sounding the alarms. So, I 
really appreciate that.
    If advocates, members of the public, or migrants themselves 
perceive a Federal civil rights violation inflicted by a Texas 
public official under Operation Lone Star, or otherwise, to 
whom at the Department of Justice should they report this to?
    Ms. Clarke. We encourage the public to bring forward 
complaints about law enforcement misconduct to the FBI. The 
Civil Rights Division works closely with the FBI to investigate 
allegations of misconduct.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you so much.
    I also want to sound the alarm about a new bill that was 
passed by the Texas State Legislature, SB 4. SB 4 is, 
essentially, Texas' effort to usurp Federal immigration law 
with the creation of a new State-level immigration law. I 
believe, and many civil rights advocates believe, this will 
increase the racial profiling that is happening in Texas, and 
that it is unconstitutional. Are you aware of SB 4 in Texas?
    Ms. Clarke. Very generally, and I'm happy to take a closer 
look, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Escobar. Thank you.
    I think it's going to be really important. I'm not sure if 
the governor has signed it yet. We have urged the governor not 
to sign it. It is pretty brazenly and blatantly 
unconstitutional. If he does sign it, if there is such--maybe 
not referring to this law, in particular--but if there were 
such a law that usurped Federal immigration law, what could we 
expect from the Department?
    Ms. Clarke. When we identify violations of the law, we 
prosecute. Just by way of example, Congresswoman, earlier this 
year, we indicted a member of the Border Patrol for engaging in 
misconduct. So, we take seriously these allegations, and where 
the law authorizes, we will prosecute.
    Ms. Escobar. In terms of a State, though, if a State 
legislature and a governor pass and sign a law that is 
blatantly unconstitutional, what would the Department do?
    Ms. Clarke. If appropriate, we could file a suit 
challenging the Constitutionality of the law. Here, we would 
have to look more closely and carefully.
    Ms. Escobar. OK. I'd welcome that review and that scrutiny. 
Thank you so much.
    Mr. Chair, I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Texas.
    I now recognize the gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. 
Bishop.
    Mr. Bishop. Ms. Clarke, in the Biden versus--excuse me--the 
Missouri v. Biden case in the District Court, the court 
explained, quote,

        If the allegations made by the plaintiffs are true, the present 
        case arguably involves the most massive attack on free speech 
        in United States history.

    The court went on to find that the plaintiffs were 
reasonably likely to succeed on the merits at trial, entered a 
preliminary injunction. The Fifth Circuit has affirmed. The 
Supreme Court has taken jurisdiction of the case. Of course, 
that's all civil litigation.
    Is any criminal investigation or prosecution of the persons 
responsible for that activity in the FBI, CISA, and at the 
White House, and their co-conspirators, underway in the Civil 
Rights Division?
    Ms. Clarke. Congressman, I'm not familiar with this 
litigation, but happy to bring your question back.
    Mr. Bishop. Thank you.
    So, let me just make sure I understand that. You are not 
aware of the Missouri v. Biden litigation that is currently 
being taken up by the U.S. Supreme Court, is that correct?
    Ms. Clarke. Unfortunately, I'm not, Congressman.
    Mr. Bishop. Oh, assuming that you're not aware of that, 
what reason would there be that the Civil Rights Division of 
the Justice Department's leader is unaware of what a United 
States District Court has described as ``the most massive 
attack on free speech in United States history''?
    Ms. Clarke. If you could share more of the facts, that 
could be helpful, Congressman.
    Mr. Bishop. Otherwise, you just don't know, is that 
correct?
    Ms. Clarke. That's correct. Unfortunately, this does not 
appear to be a case that I'm familiar with.
    Mr. Bishop. Well, good enough.
    I'm going to yield the balance of my time to the Chair.
    Mr. Roy. Does the gentleman want to--
    Chair Jordan. No, no, go ahead.
    Mr. Roy. OK. So, I find that to be astounding. I do want to 
followup on a lot of questions of the gentleman from California 
with respect to the FACE Act implementation because, Ms. 
Clarke, you dismissed saying, ``Well, I can't--''
    Ms. Scanlon. Who's time are we doing now?
    Chair Jordan. Go ahead.
    Mr. Bishop. It's my time. I'll let the gentleman--
    Ms. Scanlon. OK. That's what I was asking for, where we 
were--
    Mr. Bishop. I may ask to send it to the gentleman from Ohio 
after you, but--
    Mr. Roy. I just wanted to point out that there have been at 
least 35 cases of the FACE Act being applied to pro-life groups 
and/or churches or pro-life people that are anti-abortion in 
your tenure, not even counting 2021. That's the data from 2022-
2023. Versus the four that we can point to, the one that you 
point to in January.
    So, the point of the gentleman from California, I would 
just ask--you have in possession of your hands, you had a FOIA 
request that was responded to from a left-leaning group, the 
Center for Investigative Reporting. We've been asking for a 
copy of that FOIA about the prosecution levels and the numbers 
from your office for a long time, for almost a year. We've not 
been responded to. So, will you commit to sharing that FOIA 
request and all the data of FACE Act prosecutions, 
specifically, under your watch and generally?
    Ms. Clarke. I can absolutely bring this back to the 
Division's FOIA officials and ensure that you receive a timely 
response.
    Please know that the Division is committed to evenhanded 
enforcement of the FACE Act--
    Mr. Roy. Even under your watch, it's at least 35 to one or 
two. That is not evenhanded. That's far from evenhanded.
    Importantly, Mark Houck, who was targeted, had a raid of 
his home, prosecuted under this, was acquitted by a jury. Have 
you apologized to him on behalf of the Department of Justice 
for that grave violation of his civil rights, having his family 
to watch him being raided at his home? He's acquitted by a 
Federal jury. Have you apologized to him?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, we follow the facts and apply the law. 
That is our job, and we welcome opportunities to engage with 
other pro-life groups that may be experiencing threats or acts 
of violence.
    Mr. Roy. So, the answer to that is no?
    Mr. Bishop. Reclaiming my time, I yield to the gentleman 
from Ohio and the Chair.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I'm, like I think every Member at least on this side, 
though I would think every Member, anyone watching, is just 
astounded that you are not familiar--the Assistant Attorney 
General for the Division of Civil Rights at the Justice 
Department is not familiar with a huge case, Missouri v. Biden, 
where in that case I think it was six different Federal 
agencies were found to be guilty of violating the First 
Amendment liberties of Americans. It's HHS, NIAID, FBI, DOJ, 
DHS, even the White House itself.
    You are not familiar with that is truly--frankly, I don't 
know what to--I think that's why the gentleman had time to 
yield back, because he didn't know what--I don't know what we 
say. That is un--it's in front of the Supreme Court, and the 
head of the Civil Rights Division doesn't know--that is scary.
    If that doesn't, in and of itself, show that this Justice 
Department is political and doing things for political reasons, 
I do not know what does.
    I yield back and I appreciate the gentleman's question.
    Mr. Bishop. I yield my time.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from North Carolina and the 
gentleman from Ohio.
    The gentlelady from Vermont is now recognized.
    Ms. Balint. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Assistant Attorney General Clarke, thanks so much for being 
here.
    I wanted to start by just personally thanking the Justice 
Department for its work regarding the massacre at the Tree of 
Life Synagogue in Pittsburgh on October 27, 2018. As you know, 
this heinous act of anti-Semitism took the lives of 11 Jewish 
Americans. I just want to thank the DOJ for all the work there.
    It's clear that anti-Semitism and Islamophobia is 
tragically on the rise both around the globe and here in our 
own country. My home State of Vermont is not immune. In 
Burlington, over Thanksgiving, three young Palestinian 
Americans were shot as they simply walked down the street. 
Hisham, Kinnan, and Tahseen spoke a mix of Arabic and English 
and two wore traditional keffiyehs.
    Although the investigation will determine whether this 
horrible crime will meet the legal definition of a hate crime, 
we know--and I say, ``we''--all Vermonters know that this was a 
hateful act.
    Now, this act of violence is part of a disturbing and 
frightening trend, and all of us need to remember that we have 
a part to play in standing with and speaking out against 
violence against our Muslim neighbors.
    Recently, Attorney General Garland stated that the FBI and 
ATF are investigating the incident, including whether the 
attack constituted a hate crime.
    Now, I know that you cannot discuss specifics of the work, 
but I'm wondering if you can please let us know the Civil 
Rights Division work as it relates to the investigation of hate 
crimes. I think Vermonters would love to know.
    Ms. Clarke. Right. The Justice Department, in particular, 
the FBI and ATF, are currently working with local and State law 
enforcement and looking into this very, very tragic matter.
    We have been incredibly vigilant since the October 7th 
tragedy that has unfolded in Israel and in the Middle East. 
Anti-Semitic violence, Islamophobic violence, and the targeting 
of communities perceived to be--
    Ms. Balint. Right.
    Ms. Clarke. --Jewish or Muslim has no place in our society.
    We will take seriously investigations of threats of 
violence, acts of violence, and prosecute where appropriate.
    Ms. Balint. So, have you seen an increase in actual or 
potential antisemitic or Islamophobic incidents since October 
7th?
    Ms. Clarke. We have engaged with many organizations, Jewish 
organizations, Muslim organizations--all whom are reporting 
that they themselves are seeing an uptick.
    We rely on the FBI data which comes out annually. 
Everything that we are hearing from groups makes clear that 
this is a moment that requires vigilance on the part of the 
Federal Government. So, that's what we're doing.
    Ms. Balint. A followup: What steps, specifically, is the 
Civil Rights Division doing to keep Jewish Americans, Arab 
Americans, and Muslim Americans, safe in their communities? I 
know that there is just growing anxiety and fear about basic 
safety and security. I'm wondering if you could just give us a 
few more details about what the Department can do and is doing?
    Ms. Clarke. We're using the law, the tools that Congress 
gave us--laws like the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Hate 
Crimes Prevention Act to hold perpetrators accountable.
    We realize we can't prosecute our way out of the crisis. 
So, we've also worked to institute programs like United Against 
Hate, where every single U.S. Attorney's office across the 
country, all 94, have instituted programs, bringing together 
local, State, Federal law enforcement, community groups, and 
faith leaders to ensure that folks know how to investigate and 
report hate incidents and hate crimes.
    We're also engaged with training of prosecutors and 
training of law enforcement. Then, there's the grantmaking that 
happens as well.
    This is an all-hands-on-deck moment at the Justice 
Department to confront the hate crisis that we're up against, 
and we stand for and behind all communities that are targeted 
by hate.
    Ms. Balint. I really appreciate that.
    My last question, I know I don't have a lot of time. What 
measures are being taken--this is on another topic--what 
measures are being taken to address discriminatory practices in 
the provision of gender-affirming care?
    Ms. Clarke. We, here, too, are being very vigilant. We've 
seen a number of States that have adopted bans and restrictions 
on gender-affirming care. We are very wary of the fact that 
Justice Gorsuch himself noted in the Bostock ruling that 
discrimination against transgender people is discrimination 
based on sex. So, we've brought lawsuits and issued statements 
of interest challenging some of the State laws that we have 
seen restricting access to care for transgender youth.
    Ms. Balint. I appreciate that. Thank you so much.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Ms. Balint. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Vermont.
    I now recognize the Judiciary Committee Chair, Mr. Jordan.
    Chair Jordan. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Ms. Clarke, are you sure that you don't know anything about 
Missouri v. Biden? You don't know anything about that case?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you for the opportunity to clarify. This 
is a case being handled by our Civil Division. I assure you, 
Chair, that the Justice Department--
    Chair Jordan. Have you read the opinion?
    Ms. Clarke. The Justice Department is compliant--
    Chair Jordan. I didn't ask that. Did you read the opinion, 
either from the Western District of Louisiana or the Fifth 
Circuit opinion?
    Ms. Clarke. I gleamed the ruling. It is not a Civil Rights 
Division case, Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Well, which is it, because first of all when 
Mr. Bishop asked, you said you didn't know one darn thing about 
it, and now you are saying you gleamed, or you glanced or--
    Ms. Clarke. I appreciate the opportunity to clarify. The 
Civil Division is handling this case. The Department is 
compliant with the court's--
    Chair Jordan. Well, First Amendment rights are pretty 
fundamental rights. That is something you don't think the Civil 
Rights Division should be involved in. This is censorship.
    Ms. Clarke. Absolutely, absolutely, Chair. The First 
Amendment is a bedrock principle of our democracy.
    Chair Jordan. You are not? Let me go a little different 
route then. Do politics drive the decisions at the Justice 
Department today?
    Ms. Clarke. Politics have no place in the work of the Civil 
Rights Division of the Justice Department.
    Chair Jordan. Three months ago, the New Mexico Governor 
announced a 30-day ban on citizens' right to carry a concealed 
firearm in Albuquerque and the county that Albuquerque sits in. 
What did the Justice Department do when the Governor did that 
unconstitutional order? What did the DOJ do in response to that 
unconstitutional action from the Governor of New Mexico?
    Ms. Clarke. I am generally aware of the matter that you are 
referring to. Gun control is not a core issue that we handle at 
the Civil Rights Division.
    Chair Jordan. The Second Amendment a fundamental right like 
the First Amendment, it is pretty important, isn't it?
    Ms. Clarke. These are very important issues to the 
Department.
    Chair Jordan. Well, tell me what the Justice Department did 
when this happened, when the Governor imposed this 
unconstitutional ban?
    Ms. Clarke. I am happy to bring your question back to my 
colleagues--
    Chair Jordan. So, you don't know that one either.
    Ms. Clarke. --the Criminal Division and the Civil Division.
    Chair Jordan. You don't know about Missouri v. Biden, and 
you don't know what the DOJ did in response to the Governor of 
New Mexico's action.
    Well, here is what the county sheriff said. He held a press 
conference saying that this thing was ``unconstitutional, 
unenforceable, and incapable of stopping and curbing gun 
violence.'' The New Mexico Attorney General, who is a Democrat, 
said this thing, ``will not have any impact on public safety 
and does not pass constitutional muster.'' So, when the 
Democrat Attorney General of New Mexico said it doesn't fit the 
constitution, but you guys at DOJ don't do a darn thing. Is 
that what you are telling me?
    Ms. Clarke. Politics have no place in the work of the 
Justice Department, Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Are you aware of anything the Justice 
Department did to that unconstitutional order from the Governor 
of New Mexico?
    Ms. Clarke. Not in the Civil Rights Division, Chair. I can 
certainly bring your question--
    Chair Jordan. OK. You are an important person in the 
Justice Department. Did the Justice Department do anything?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, we enforce the laws that Congress gave us, 
Chair.
    Chair Jordan. No, in this case, did the Justice Department 
do anything?
    Ms. Clarke. I will bring that question back to my 
colleagues.
    Chair Jordan. I will give you the answer. They didn't. They 
didn't file an amicus. They didn't put any statement of 
interest. They didn't do a darn thing, which gets back to the 
point I think Mr. McClintock was making earlier. It shows I 
think how political you are, because when Texas passed a pro-
life bill on September 1, 2021, eight days later the Department 
of Justice announces an investigation into that bill.
    Now, this is what amazes me. That is a bill that actually 
passed the State House, passed the State Senate, and was signed 
by the Governor. You guys are in there contesting that eight 
days later. You have something in New Mexico, which is an 
obvious direct assault on the Second Amendment, and it is an 
order from the Governor. It didn't go through the legislature. 
The Governor does it. The Department of Justice does nothing.
    Ms. Clarke. The Civil Rights Division is deeply committed 
to enforcing the laws that this body gave us and committed to 
standing up for the rights, the civil rights of all Americans, 
Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Well, you can say it. Based on some of your 
other answers, not knowing the first thing about Missouri v. 
Biden, not knowing what, if anything, was done, because nothing 
was actually done, relative to the Governor's unconstitutional 
order regarding New Mexico citizens', residents', and 
Americans' right, Second Amendment rights, this is why we are 
so darned concerned.
    I appreciate the Chair having this hearing. With that, I 
have got 38 seconds. I would be happy to yield to the gentleman 
from Arizona.
    Mr. Biggs. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    I just want to ask this because--I am over here. Sorry. You 
answered a previous question saying that if a Governor did 
something--they were talking about Texas. The representative 
did not like the Texas law regarding immigration. You said that 
you guys, the Civil Rights Division, we could file a lawsuit. 
Well, a lawsuit was filed in the case that the Chair was 
talking about. You guys did not participate in that.
    Do you disregard Second Amendment rights? Is that not 
important? If a Governor violates those laws, those rights 
directly, is that not important enough for the Civil Rights 
Division to get involved in?
    Ms. Clarke. So, I understand that the New Mexico order was 
enjoined within two days of entry. I did want to make clear 
that gun control is not an area that the Civil Rights Division, 
under any administration, has historically worked much around. 
It is an important, the Second Amendment, of course, is an 
important part of our Constitution, Congressman.
    Mr. Biggs. So, well, just a quick followup. So, you are 
telling us that Civil Rights Division will not protect Second 
Amendment rights.
    Ms. Clarke. We enforce the laws that Congress gave us. 
Weighing in on Second Amendment and gun control issues across 
any administration has never been a core aspect of the 
Division's work.
    Mr. Roy. All right. The gentleman's time has expired. I 
will recognize Ms. Bush.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. St. Louis and I are here today to 
continue our efforts to hold our government to its highest 
ideals, including equal justice under law. Assistant Attorney 
General Clarke, thank you for being here.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you for your career in public service in 
support of civil rights for all people. I was excited to see 
your nomination and your confirmation to this role. I do 
believe that you are doing your best to advance the cause of 
justice inside the government. As an activist from the Ferguson 
frontline to Congress, I just want to say thank you for your 
work.
    As I have said before many times, including to Attorney 
General Garland when he was here in September, I think that the 
Department can do more to advance civil rights and the rule of 
law. These problems, of course, are systemwide, and they 
predate your time at Justice.
    So, I want to ask Assistant Attorney General Clarke, the 
Civil Rights Division handles cases that involve law 
enforcement misconduct and the violation of Federal rights, 
correct?
    Ms. Clarke. That is correct.
    Ms. Bush. OK. I strongly believe the actions of Georgia law 
enforcement regarding the killing of a protestor named 
Tortuguita and the suppression of opposition to the Atlanta 
Public Safety Training Center, or as also known Cop City, are 
obvious examples of law enforcement misconduct resulting in the 
violation of Federal rights. I urge the Civil Rights Division 
to open an investigation. What is happening in Atlanta can 
happen anywhere in the country. We need the DOJ to do your part 
in preventing that from happening.
    Another issue I want to followup on is the Department's 
enforcement of Title VI and the antidiscrimination provisions 
of the Safe Streets Act. This vital law makes clear that the 
Department has an obligation to ensure the recipients of 
funding do not engage in discrimination like what we have seen 
in my district, which includes Ferguson, Missouri, and as 
detailed by the DOJ's 2015 pattern and practice investigation 
following the police killing of Michael Brown.
    I was glad to see the commitments that Associate Attorney 
General Gupta announced in June 2022 that strengthened the 
enforcement of the Title VI provisions. We had that 
conversation. I have yet to see any meaningful progress by the 
Department in implementing any of them. So, do you have any 
updates for the Committee about the Department's implementation 
of these commitments?
    Ms. Clarke. If I could flag one area, Congresswoman, it 
would be environmental justice, where we have made historic 
accomplishments in using Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to 
stand up for communities that are beleaguered by environmental 
injustice problems. Houston, Texas and Lowndes County, Alabama 
are two examples of places where we have for the very first 
time used Title VI to address issues that disproportionately 
impact Black and Latino communities when it comes to 
environmental justice.
    Ms. Bush. All right. Thank you for that.
    One final issue I want to raise with you is conditions at 
local prisons and jails. I have been demanding answers about 
the horrific conditions at the St. Louis City Justice Center in 
my district, where yet another incarcerated person died this 
weekend. I know your team has investigated conditions at jails 
in South Carolina and elsewhere. I would just love to speak 
with you more about this issue. We must not forget the humanity 
of people who are incarcerated.
    In my closing, let me just say this. We know we can't 
prosecute our way to justice. The Civil Rights Division is the 
crown jewel of the Department and for good reason.
    I know that there are people in the Division who want to 
use the law to stop discrimination instead of enabling it, to 
stop police brutality and the suppression of legitimate protest 
and dissent instead of enabling it, to stop the relentless and 
inhumane attack on our LGBTQ communities instead of enabling 
it. That is the work of the Civil Rights Division. It is what 
you have done. I know it is what you will continue to do, 
despite the efforts of the right-wing extremists to strip away 
our civil rights and make discrimination the actual law of the 
land. We won't let those efforts succeed.
    Assistant Attorney General Clarke, thank you for being 
here, and thank you for the work that you do in support of 
equality and justice for all. I am your ally in this work. I 
will look forward to partnering with you as we continue in our 
shared priorities.
    In my final few seconds that I have left, plus the last one 
went over a little bit, so I think I have a little bit more 
time, if there is anything else that you would like to speak to 
or clear up that has been said.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congresswoman. People do not abandon 
their civil and constitutional rights at the jailhouse door. I 
am glad that you brought up jail conditions. Our enforcement of 
the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act is an 
important priority for us. You noted our recent investigation 
opened in South Carolina. We are also investigating prison 
conditions in Georgia, Texas, where we are looking at juvenile 
detention facilities, Parchman in Mississippi, New Jersey, and 
more, such an important area of enforcement for this Justice 
Department Civil Rights Division.
    Ms. Bush. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. Thank you, Ms. Bush. Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. Mr. Chair, I would like to yield to you such time 
as you may--
    Mr. Roy. I appreciate that. I just have one quick question, 
and then I will yield to the gentleman from Arizona.
    With respect to the question you just talked about in terms 
of jails and how people are treated in incarceration, have you 
all done any investigation into how those that were charged 
with the crimes related to January 6th have been treated in the 
jails in Washington, DC?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, Chair. There is one matter that was 
referred to us by a judge on the D.C. District Court. We did 
respond to the judge's--
    Mr. Roy. Have you all conducted an investigation into the 
treatment of those facilities? If so, can you produce that 
information report to us?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, we have investigations open across the 
country. We don't presently have one open in the District of 
Columbia.
    Mr. Roy. I yield back to Mr. Fry.
    Mr. Fry. I yield to the gentleman from Arizona, Mr. Biggs.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I want to just, before we continue 
our conversation we were having about New Mexico, I want to 
just provide context regarding the FACE Act and the prosecution 
disparity, which looks like it is almost 16 to 1. Pro-life 
people are prosecuted 16 times to 1. It is important to put 
into context that since the Dobbs case was leaked there has 
been over 100 attacks on pro-life centers, birthing centers, 
and churches. So, that makes the numbers even more disparate 
and creates a perception of bias here.
    I want to go back to some of the things you said. You said 
in your opening that ``we protect the civil rights of every 
American.'' Your job is enforce the Constitution, evenhanded 
enforcement in applying the law. Those are things that you 
said.
    Then again in the Texas question that you were given, 
because the representative on the other side was upset because 
the legislature and the Governor enacted a law that she felt 
was unconstitutional, blatantly unconstitutional with regard to 
immigration law, and she said what can you do. You said, ``We 
could file suit.'' That is a quote, ``We could file suit.''
    So, the reason that I bring that up is because when I asked 
you and when the Chair was asking you about did you file an 
amicus, did you file a statement of interest with, vis-a-vis 
the Governor of New Mexico's abridgement of the Second 
Amendment rights of New Mexicans by saying in Bernalillo County 
that you cannot carry a handgun outside of your home, you said, 
well, ``We enforce the laws that Congress passes and enacts.''
    So, I wanted to ask you then after I heard that and we ran 
out of time was, if the Texas laws dealing with immigration and 
border security issues and you said we could file a lawsuit, 
has Congress enacted a law that would allow you to even 
investigate border security issues?
    Ms. Clarke. No, Congressman. Congress has not given the 
Civil Rights Division clear authority or direction to file 
civil suits regarding the possession of firearms, ATF.
    Mr. Biggs. No, no, you told us that you could file a 
lawsuit vis-a-vis a State trying to enforce its border because 
they are being overrun.
    Are you telling me that there is some, you find some 
statutory authority for that?
    Ms. Clarke. Only if there is a violation of a Federal law 
that Congress has put on the books that the Division is tasked 
with enforcing. That would be a very critical qualifier.
    Mr. Biggs. So, in this particular instance then, what you 
are telling me is when the Second Amendment is directly being 
violated in such a way that, you are right, there was an 
injunction almost immediately put in place because why a 
private action was brought, and you all never weighed into it. 
DOJ never, not just your division, but nobody from DOJ ever 
weighed into it. You are saying that you couldn't go forward 
with that. I find that absolutely astonishing quite frankly.
    I am going to now submit before I run out of time, I am 
sorry to take up all this time, for the record a document, an 
article, ``Troopers who fatally shot a Cop City activist near 
Atlanta won't be charged prosecutor says,'' wherein it 
discloses that the individual shot at the police four times 
before fire was returned.
    Mr. Roy. Without objection.
    Mr. Biggs. Thank you. I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentleman from Arizona. I would now 
yield to the gentlelady from Pennsylvania.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you, Mr. Acting Chair.
    Madam Assistant Attorney General, you received some 
questions about conditions in the D.C. jail, which we have 
heard increasingly from many of our colleagues on the right 
since January 6th. Isn't it true that the D.C. jail had 
deplorable conditions for decades before January 2021?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, I can't speak to formal findings. What I 
can say is with more resources we could certainly do more. We 
want jails and prisons that comply with the Constitution and 
that comply with the mandate of the Civil Rights of 
Institutionalized Persons Act.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. I would just ask unanimous consent 
to enter a Time Magazine article from January 2022 entitled, 
``The Crisis At the D.C. Jail Began Decades Before January 6th 
Defendants Started Raising Concerns.''
    Mr. Roy. Without objection.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. Yes, I had reason to work with the 
Washington Lawyers Committee on Civil Rights on those issues 
when it was primarily a minority population in that jail, and 
the concerns had been raised for quite some time.
    In the wake of the 2020 election, we have seen a surge in 
lawsuits and other actions to challenge election results 
without evidence of fraud or misconduct. They seem to have been 
fueled by the lies of the former President and other election 
deniers. These election challenges are not without cost. They 
undermine confidence in our elections without grounds. They 
have cost taxpayers millions of dollars in overtime, legal 
fees, et cetera.
    We have also seen a rise in attacks and threats against our 
election officials. This is particularly so in Pennsylvania, 
the Keystone State, where I live and represent and which is a 
perennial battleground State. So, the counties that I represent 
have been subjected to dozens of groundless election challenges 
in recent years, including following our recent municipal 
election.
    So, what can the Department of Justice do to help the 
States and localities address these attacks on our election 
systems? What guidance can be provided with respect to audits, 
et cetera?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, there has been an elections threats 
taskforce that has been launched that includes representation 
from across the Department, including our Criminal Division. 
Threats and violence, acts of violence have no place in our 
political discourse. That taskforce is open to hear from people 
who want to bring forth meritorious complaints.
    Ms. Scanlon. Thank you. We had some conversation today 
about how the Department of Justice is helping our cities fight 
crime and provide lawful policing. I am very grateful for the 
COPS grants that many of my jurisdictions have recently 
received. Can you talk about some of the things that your 
department is doing to help our communities implement 21st 
century policing practices in a way that keeps everyone safe?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, thank you for the question. We work on a 
range of issues. We work cooperatively, for example, with law 
enforcement to make sure that they can provide language access 
to communities that are limited English proficient.
    We take seriously our obligation to address misconduct when 
it arises. The Chair noted a number of our pattern and practice 
investigations that have been opened in cities such as Memphis, 
Louisville, the Louisiana State Police, Phoenix, and more. 
These represent an infinitesimal number of the 18,000-plus law 
enforcement agencies across our country, but are important 
investigations because we want public safety and we want 
policing that is bias-free and that comports with the standards 
of the Constitution.
    I engage with organizations such as the International 
Association of Chiefs of Police and believe that training and 
grant-making are also important ways in which the Department is 
working to support law enforcement.
    Ms. Scanlon. I know that is true from my conversations with 
many of our smaller police departments that are seeking funding 
and resources to help them gain accreditations so that their 
officers are well-trained and able to handle whatever is thrown 
at them.
    There have just been a couple things here I want to correct 
for the record. There has been some mischaracterization of 
statistics. One of them was suggesting that there has been a 
disproportionate number of these patterns and practice 
investigations started and under your leadership. Of course, 
that is in contrast to the fact that the prior administration 
had eliminated the use of pattern and practice consent decrees. 
So, I wanted to mention that.
    Also, there has been an attempt to contrast the number of 
FACE Act prosecutions that have occurred since the FACE Act was 
passed in 1994. Of course, it is really important to note that 
it was passed in response to murders and physical attacks on 
abortion care providers. That was the genesis of that act. So, 
it is not surprising that there have been more prosecutions 
that have taken place with respect to people physically 
attacking and murdering abortion care providers.
    I commend the fact that you are evenhandedly applying that 
when anyone, for whatever reason, provides, takes action 
against someone who is providing reproductive healthcare. Thank 
you.
    I yield back.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Pennsylvania. I 
recognize the gentleman from California, Mr. Kiley.
    Mr. Kiley. I yield to the Chair.
    Mr. Roy. Mr. Kiley, the Chair--
    Mr. Kiley. Oh, to the Chair of the Judiciary Committee.
    Mr. Roy. Yes, thanks, Mr. Kiley.
    Chair Jordan. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
    Ms. Clarke, who is Eva Edl?
    Ms. Clarke. Chair, that is not a name that I am familiar 
with.
    Chair Jordan. Well, I will try to familiarize you with her. 
She is an 87-year-old pro-life advocate who survived a 
Communist concentration camp in Yugoslavia after World War II 
that you guys have charged under the FACE Act for praying and 
singing in front of an abortion clinic. Is that the best use of 
the Justice Department's time and energy?
    Ms. Clarke. As noted, the FACE Act has been, is a law that 
this body passed in response to efforts to obstruct access to 
reproductive health clinics, threats of violence, acts of 
violence. We follow the facts and apply the law without fear or 
favor, Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Really? I think we have heard a lot of that 
today about how if you are pro-life you get the full treatment. 
Just ask Eva Edl, 87-year-old concentration camp survivor. If 
you are on the other side, after the Dobbs decision, oh, it is 
a different issue in spite of what you have said that you apply 
it equally across the board.
    How about your decision to file a lawsuit against SpaceX? 
Can you talk to me about that?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, Chair.
    Chair Jordan. Let me ask it this way first. Did Elon Musk's 
purchase of Twitter have anything to do with the Justice 
Department's decision to file that lawsuit against SpaceX?
    Ms. Clarke. The investigation into SpaceX was opened during 
the last administration. We filed an administrative action 
under the Immigration and Nationality Act, an important law 
passed by this body with bipartisan support and signed into law 
by President Reagan.
    Chair Jordan. So, what are you alleging that SpaceX did 
wrong?
    Ms. Clarke. In this case, we allege that the company is not 
compliant with the antidiscrimination provisions of the 
Immigration and Nationality Act. This is a law that has been--
    Chair Jordan. Who are they discriminating against?
    Ms. Clarke. Here they are discriminating against people who 
have received refugee and asylum status by our Federal courts. 
Under the INA--
    Chair Jordan. So, refugees, they are discriminating against 
refugees and asylum seekers. Is that right?
    Ms. Clarke. No, Chair, against people who have received 
refugee status and asylum status by our Federal courts and who 
enjoy equal standing under Federal law to U.S. citizens and 
naturalized citizens. The law requires equal treatment of these 
individuals--
    Chair Jordan. You are saying that SpaceX did not hire, is 
that appropriate, did not hire enough refugees or people who 
have been granted asylum?
    Ms. Clarke. They--
    Chair Jordan. Is that what you are asserting in the 
lawsuit?
    Ms. Clarke. That they discourage those people from applying 
for any job, whether it is for a custodial position, an office 
clerk, someone who works in a kitchen facility, all the way up 
through every position.
    Chair Jordan. So, you are suing I just want to cut to the 
chase. You are suing SpaceX because they hired too many 
Americans, too many citizens and not enough people who are 
refugees or people who have been granted asylum.
    Ms. Clarke. This investigation--
    Chair Jordan. You waited to sue--this investigation started 
three years ago. I know the facts. It started three years ago. 
Yet, you bring the lawsuit after Mr. Musk purchases Twitter, 
now X. Is that right?
    Ms. Clarke. We apply the laws that this body gave us 
without fear or favor.
    Chair Jordan. Mr. Musk, his assertion is that they are 
dealing with national security type information at SpaceX and 
that is why--he has even posted this before you brought the 
lawsuit. He said this, ``that is why they focus on hiring 
people who have a green card or are American citizens.'' You 
guys say this is something, we need to go after SpaceX because 
they are not hiring enough Americans. We need to charge Eva 
Edl, 87-year-old concentration camp survivor. That is what the 
Justice Department and the Biden Administration needs to do.
    By the way, we don't know anything about Missouri v. Biden. 
We didn't weigh in on the issue where a governor of a State 
told the citizens there, American citizens, you cannot exercise 
your Second Amendment rights, contrary to the law, contrary to 
what the Supreme Court has said.
    You are trying to tell us today that the Civil Rights 
Division of the Justice Department is not political. Frankly, I 
find it almost laughable that you are making that argument, 
because anyone with common sense and any objectivity can see 
you guys are definitely political.
    With that, I yield back. I thank the gentleman who has left 
for yielding time.
    Mr. Roy. Well, I thank the Judiciary Committee Chair.
    I would like to ask unanimous consent to insert into the 
record a letter from a Mr. Paul Teller, the Executive Director 
of Advancing American Freedom, to Attorney General Garland and 
Secretary Cardona, that is noting the significant spike in 
antisemitic vandalism, harassment, and violence across the 
United States and asking the Department of Justice and the 
Department of Education, who have expansive jurisdiction, 
particularly the Civil Rights Division, over these matters to 
ensure that they are following up on that. It is signed by 
numerous groups across the country.
    Without objection, it will be entered into the record.
    I now recognize the gentlelady from Wyoming, Ms. Hageman.
    Ms. Hageman. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Assistant Attorney General Clarke, on October 12th, the DOJ 
and CFPB issued a joint statement on fair lending and credit 
opportunities for noncitizen borrowers under the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act. I sent you a letter on this joint statement on 
November 6th but have yet to receive a response.
    As you know, the Civil Rights Division enforces the Equal 
Credit Opportunity Act. You are quoted in the press release 
issued for this guidance, which warns banks not to use 
immigration status, including whether an individual is lawfully 
present in the country, to determine the ability to take out a 
loan. Yet, the joint statement admits the Equal Credit 
Opportunity Act does not expressly prohibit consideration of 
immigration status.
    This appears to be an attempt to dissuade our financial 
institutions from considering all legally permitted factors to 
ascertain a creditor's rights regarding payment, which could 
cause very severe damage to our financial institutions. It 
seems to me that your division and the CFPB are attempting to 
go beyond the intent of Congress and are using implied threats 
to further this administration's failed immigration policies, 
which are only making the situation at the southern border even 
worse.
    Ms. Clarke, what authority do you have to instruct 
financial institutions on this matter, especially considering 
your statement explicitly admits that ECOA does not prohibit 
the consideration of immigration status?
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you, Congresswoman. As noted in the 
letter that we issued with the Consumer Financial Protection 
Bureau, the law contemplates that a person's immigration 
status, often in conjunction with other factors, could be 
relevant to determining repayment prospects.
    Ms. Hageman. Well, if considering immigration status is 
permitted by the law, what was the purpose of issuing this 
joint statement?
    Ms. Clarke. To clarify simply what the law that Congress 
gave us requires.
    Ms. Hageman. Oh, I see.
    Ms. Clarke. It is an area where people have sought clarity, 
Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Is it this administration's position that 
financial institutions are required to loan money to illegal 
aliens?
    Ms. Clarke. No.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. When can I expect a response to my letter?
    Ms. Clarke. I will consult with our Office of Legislative 
Affairs to ensure that you receive a response, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. Including all the questions that I have asked.
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, we will work with our Office of 
Legislative Affairs to respond.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you been contacted by any financial 
institutions about this statement?
    Ms. Clarke. No, no, Congresswoman.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you taken any steps to ensure that these 
financial institutions are aware of what the law actually says?
    Ms. Clarke. Yes, this is a document intended to provide 
clarity. There are institutions who have sought clarity and 
want to ensure that they are following the law and not running 
afoul of the law in this area.
    Ms. Hageman. Have you taken any action against any 
financial institutions for turning down illegal aliens for 
loans?
    Ms. Clarke. No.
    Ms. Hageman. All right. What additional action pertaining 
to this joint statement have you and the Civil Rights Division 
taken?
    Ms. Clarke. Well, our partners at CFPB, for example, 
recently took action against an institution that engaged in--
    Ms. Hageman. In what way? For what purpose?
    Ms. Clarke. --discrimination based on national origin in 
violation of the law.
    Ms. Hageman. Is that a pending case right now?
    Ms. Clarke. It is a recent settlement, a recent resolution 
secured by CFPB. At the Civil Rights Division, we are committed 
to ensuring that banks and lenders are not engaged in redlining 
or engaged in any conduct that--
    Ms. Hageman. You are also not trying to force them to loan 
to illegal aliens when they can take that factor into 
consideration to determine who may be entitled to a loan. Is 
that correct?
    Ms. Clarke. We want a healthy economy with banks that 
comply with the letter of the law.
    Ms. Hageman. You are not going to violate the law to do 
that, are you?
    Ms. Clarke. No.
    Ms. Hageman. OK. Thank you.
    With that, I yield my remaining time to the Chair.
    Mr. Roy. I thank the gentlelady from Wyoming.
    Ms. Clarke, when you were a private citizen, not in the 
position you are in, in April 2020 there was a protest in front 
of the Texas State Capitol building. I have got a video I am 
looking at right now. It is right under my old office where I 
worked for Governor Rick Perry, sitting in the front of the 
Texas Capitol building.
    There were people, Americans, gathered, Texans, chanting 
fire Fauci. You tweeted,

        These people should be publicly identified and named, barred 
        from treatment at any public hospital if and when they fall 
        ill, and denied coverage under their insurance.

That is a tweet.
    Now, earlier I asked you to repudiate the statement about 
defunding police. You neither repudiated it nor I think stood 
by it. I think you obfuscated around it.
    My question to you, as the head of the Civil Rights 
Division, so civil rights, civil liberties in the United, 
Americans, you said,

        These people should be publicly identified and named, barred 
        from treatment at any public hospital if and when they fall 
        ill, and denied coverage under their insurance for chanting 
        fire Fauci.

Does the gentlelady stand by that statement?
    Ms. Clarke. I believe that every American should have 
access to healthcare in our country. I don't know the context 
for that statement. I imagine it was issued during the heat of 
the pandemic. Chair, I sit before you with a commitment to 
ensuring that all Americans are treated fairly and equally 
under the law.
    Mr. Roy. So, I will take that as a no to standing by that 
statement and similarly to the statement earlier in the 
hearing.
    With that, that concludes today's hearing. We thank you, 
Ms. Clarke, for appearing before the Committee. Without 
objection, all members will have five legislative days to 
submit additional written questions for the witness or 
additional materials for the record. Without objection, this 
hearing is adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:37 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

    All materials submitted for the record by Members of the 
Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government can
be found at: https://docs.house.gov/Committee/Calendar/ByEvent 
.aspx?EventID=116626.

                                 [all]