[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]