FULL HEARING: Harmeet Dhillon Faces Senate Judiciary Committee To Discuss Dismantling DEI

[0:00] We will call the committee meeting to order. I want to thank everybody for being here. [0:05] I'll give my opening remarks and then Senator Welsh, who's on his way, will give his remarks. [0:16] Thank you for being here for the hearing entitled Ending Illegal DEI Discrimination and Preferences Enforcing Our Civil Rights Laws. [0:23] This is the third hearing of this Judiciary Committee's subcommittee on the Constitution, [0:28] which I chair alongside Ranking Member Peter Welsh from the great state of Vermont. [0:32] I want to thank the witnesses who are here today from the Department of Justice for being accommodating [0:37] in the first hearing this Congress involving a Senate-confirmed member of the Department of Justice. [0:44] Ranking Member Welsh requested back in April we hold a hearing with Assistant Attorney General Dillon [0:51] just a couple weeks before or after she was confirmed. [0:55] Now that she's passed the 100-day mark, I'm so grateful that she's agreed to come testify about her historic successes [1:01] so far in the important work she's doing on today's topic. [1:06] Let me begin with a hard but necessary truth. [1:11] For at least the last decade, America's civil rights laws have been used not to prohibit discrimination, [1:18] but to institutionalize it. [1:20] The modern civil rights regime, both inside and outside of government, has been wielded like a weapon, [1:26] not to safeguard the equal rights of all citizens, but to engineer a radical new social order [1:33] built upon the deliberate dispossession of huge swaths of our country. [1:40] Rather than protecting the constitutional order of the founders, [1:43] it has become the vanguard of a revolution in the political, legal, social, and even moral underpinnings [1:48] of American society. [1:51] The revolution has gone by many names. [1:53] Affirmative action, anti-racism, social justice. [1:56] Today, it most commonly is referred to as diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI. [2:05] But whatever the name is, in every instance, it amounts to the same thing. [2:10] A new racial caste system sanctioned and enforced by the administrative state. [2:16] Americans never voted for any of this. [2:18] It slunk in through the back door, cloaked in bureaucratic doublespeak and soothing euphemisms. [2:25] But today, it has wrapped itself around all the great institutions of American life. [2:32] Our schools, our businesses, our government, and even our armed forces. [2:37] The bureaucracies of this new system are the diversity officers, the human rights commissioners, [2:43] the HR managers, and select members of the groups at the top of the victim hierarchy. [2:49] The victims are the rest of America. [2:52] The smart, working-class kid who can't get a scholarship because of his skin color. [2:57] The Christian business owner targeted and persecuted for his faith. [3:01] The patriotic young West Point cadets subjected to mandatory struggle sessions for their toxic masculinity. [3:09] DEI isn't just illegal, it's a fraudulent and cynical ideology, from top to bottom, built on layers of lies. [3:18] It's not about diversity. [3:20] It's about discrimination. [3:21] A sustained campaign of collective punishment wrapped in the rhetoric of social justice. [3:27] It's not about equity. [3:29] It's about retribution. [3:31] The advocates of DEI don't actually want to level the playing field. [3:35] They aren't interested in equality under the law. [3:38] Their entire mission is to elevate members of certain groups over members of other groups [3:43] and remake America in their own image. [3:47] And finally, it's not about inclusion. [3:50] It's about exclusion of the competent, the qualified, the meritorious, [3:55] and those people are members of the wrong race or sex. [3:59] Over the course of the past few decades, these poisonous and illegal doctrines have transformed our institutions. [4:06] In our universities, DEI has meant the abolishment of merit. [4:10] It is meant to open, it has meant the open, proud rejection of excellence and achievement in favor of racial quotas. [4:20] Even now, after the Supreme Court ruled that race-based admissions are illegal in students for fair admissions versus Harvard, [4:26] the universities continue to flout the law, rebranding their quotas, [4:32] cloak them in essay prompts and hiring practices and policies, [4:37] but keeping the racial spoils system intact. [4:41] At Harvard, at Princeton, at Stanford, the share of unrepresented minority groups [4:47] did not meaningfully change after the Supreme Court's ruling, [4:51] and in some cases increased despite huge disparities in test scores and academic preparation. [4:57] Just earlier today, DEI administrators at the University of Tennessee and Vanderbilt [5:01] were recorded gleefully discussing how they sidestepped DEI crackdowns [5:06] by simply rebranding these initiatives. [5:08] In the corporate world, DEI has had the same effect. [5:13] It has meant hiring and promotion not on the basis of competence, [5:17] but on the basis of race and sex. [5:19] A world where one's place in the new caste system determines who rises and who falls. [5:28] It has meant diversity fellowships that offer double pay which white men need not apply. [5:36] The effect of these policies has been even more extreme than many might guess. [5:42] In the year after the Black Lives Matter protests, Bloomberg reported, [5:47] the S&P 100 added more than 300,000 jobs. [5:51] Ninety-four percent went to people of color. [5:55] Ninety-four percent. [5:58] In many blue states, DEI is now entrenched at every level of government decision-making. [6:03] At the federal level, it has produced a vast universe of civil service preferences, [6:07] taxpayer-funded minority-only grants, and open racial discrimination in contracting. [6:13] Under the Biden administration, farmers in the Midwest were told they couldn't get debt relief. [6:19] Restaurants were deemed ineligible for small business grants. [6:22] And small business owners were barred from lucrative federal contracts, [6:26] all for the crime of being too male or too white. [6:31] Much of this took place in the wake of COVID, where years of rolling lockdowns decimated many small businesses [6:36] and drove countless others to the brink. [6:39] In the face of all that, the Biden administration redistributed billions of dollars from taxpayers [6:45] to members of what they deemed to be socially disadvantaged groups, [6:49] while leaving the rest of America out in the cold. [6:53] The rest of America, to be clear, refers to the majority of people in this country, [6:57] our fellow citizens, brothers, sisters, mothers and fathers, [7:01] business owners and shift workers, good people who live honestly, work hard, [7:05] pay their taxes, and expect only a basic standard of fairness from their government in return. [7:11] Americans didn't vote for this. [7:13] Instead, they voted for the 14th Amendment. [7:15] Let me be even more clear. [7:27] The only just and legitimate interpretation of our civil rights laws is what their text plainly demands. [7:33] Equal treatment under the law. [7:36] That means an end to racial preferences, an end to double standards, [7:40] an end to legal fictions like disparate impact, [7:43] which treats differences in group outcomes as evidence of group discrimination, [7:48] a totalitarian logic that demands a total leveling of society to achieve its ends. [7:56] Ensuring perfectly equal outcomes between groups across race, sex, and every other protected characteristic [8:02] would require a level of Marxist social engineering that would make Stalinist Russia look like a libertarian paradise, [8:09] and it would still fail. [8:11] Our civil rights laws and reconstruction amendments were created to end a racial caste system, not perpetuate it. [8:20] We must be used, sorry, based on the plain and unambiguous language and the meaning of the text, [8:30] to dismantle a system to restore equal treatment under the law. [8:34] That means prosecuting illegal racial preferences and quotas, wherever they exist, [8:40] in colleges, in boardrooms, in state bureaucracies, and in the offices of the federal government itself. [8:45] It means demanding that every entity receiving federal funds comply to the letter with the mandates of the law. [8:51] Under President Trump, the Department of Justice is finally doing just that. [8:55] Under the leadership of people like Harmeet Dillon, who's here today, [8:58] this Justice Department has moved boldly to reassert the principle [9:02] that civil rights belong to all American citizens, not just a select and favored few. [9:08] The entire Trump administration has embarked on a shock and awe offensive against the DEI infrastructure [9:13] in just the first six months. [9:16] They have launched a major civil rights investigation into the University of California system [9:21] for its race and sex-based hiring practices and quotas. [9:24] They opened active investigations into 45 universities, [9:27] including Ivy League schools like Harvard and Columbia, [9:30] for using illegal racial preferences in student fellowships, academic programs, and admission practices. [9:35] They ended the doctrine of disparate impact in federal enforcement of civil rights law. [9:41] They revoked decades-old executive orders that had embedded infermative action [9:45] into the DNA of the federal government [9:47] and terminated all DEI positions and offices across the federal bureaucracy. [9:53] They filed a major court challenge to discriminatory federal programs [9:56] that had excluded thousands of workers and small businesses [9:59] from hundreds of billions of dollars in government contracts. [10:03] They launched a civil rights investigation into the Harvard Law Review [10:06] for discriminating on the basis of race in article and editorial board selection [10:10] and threatened to strip the accreditation of Harvard and Columbia [10:13] if they failed to comply with federal civil rights law. [10:16] They began pursuing Title VII enforcement actions against law firms [10:20] that openly advertised diversity fellowships for which white men could not apply, [10:24] programs that are plainly illegal under federal law. [10:29] These actions are just the beginning, [10:31] but they represent, at long last, an attempt by the American government [10:34] to apply our civil rights laws as they were actually written. [10:38] For too long, we allowed the civil rights apparatus [10:41] to be weaponized against the very rights it was supposed to protect. [10:45] For too long, the people who ran our government looked the other way, [10:49] or worse, actively partnered with those [10:51] who were engaged in outright racial discrimination. [10:54] Those days are over. [10:57] Today's hearing is about reaffirming a simple but radical truth [11:00] that all Americans are entitled to equal protection of our laws [11:04] and that no Americans should be treated as second-class citizens in their own country. [11:10] As Chief Justice Roberts so eloquently put it, [11:12] the way to stop discrimination on the basis of race [11:15] is to stop discriminating on the basis of race. [11:19] The same goes for every protected class under our civil rights laws. [11:23] The Trump administration has done extraordinary work [11:26] in beginning the long, difficult task of restoring this principle [11:30] in the conduct of our government. [11:32] This subcommittee is going to do the necessary work [11:34] to ensure we do everything in our power to finish that job. [11:39] With that, I'd like to thank our witnesses for being here. [11:42] I look forward to your testimony [11:43] and turn it over to my friend Peter Welsh from the great state of Vermont. [11:46] Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. [11:48] I really appreciate you calling this hearing. [11:51] The questions before us are absolutely profound. [11:54] They're being tested and litigated, [11:56] and they're being contested politically. [11:59] The question before this Congress is whether we're going to save [12:04] the Civil Rights Division or we're going to destroy it. [12:08] And I want to step back just a moment. [12:11] The Civil Rights Division is a crown jewel [12:14] in the Department of Justice of the United States of America. [12:19] It was founded in 1957. [12:22] It was founded by a Republican president, Dwight D. Eisenhower. [12:26] It was when we were beginning to come out of the dark days [12:31] of legalized discrimination, the Jim Crow laws in the South, [12:35] lynchings, denial of voting rights, discrimination in housing. [12:40] The Congress began slowly to address this with laws. [12:46] The Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice [12:50] in a very turbulent time had the responsibility to enforce the laws, [12:56] the laws of the Congress that were passed by Congress, [13:00] not the prerogatives of the president. [13:05] And it did extraordinary work then as it is doing now. [13:10] They investigated assassinations of Martin Luther King, [13:13] Medgar Evers. [13:15] They brought landmark cases to desegregate school districts [13:19] in the South against bitter opposition to allow the decision [13:26] that separate and equal would not stand. [13:31] It also took the lead in making voting a reality [13:38] for folks who couldn't vote. [13:41] You know, Mr. Chairman, I began my career, [13:45] and I guess it's in politics because of the civil rights era. [13:49] I went to Chicago and was a community organizer, [13:51] and I was shocked as a young man to see that black folks [13:55] in the west side of Chicago, in Lawndale, who had two jobs, [13:59] who were struggling to pay their bills, [14:01] who were looking to make their schools better, [14:03] they couldn't buy a house and get a mortgage. [14:07] It was legal for the banks to deny them a mortgage. [14:11] It was legal for the Veterans Affairs Department [14:13] to deny folks who served as soldiers in World War II [14:18] to get a VA guarantee. [14:20] It was legal under the Illinois law to evict folks [14:24] who were paying on contract to buy a home. [14:27] But if they missed the payment after 10 years [14:30] because somebody got sick or you got laid off from your job, [14:33] legally, they could have their entire house taken back [14:36] and have no equity. [14:37] And it was Civil Rights Division folks [14:39] who were in there fighting for the rights of those Americans. [14:43] That battle continues, [14:45] and that's what we're going to be testifying about today. [14:49] But the most important thing that we have to remember [14:54] is that there was a congressional responsibility [14:57] to establish laws about what rights individuals had, [15:02] regardless of their race, their gender, [15:04] their sexual orientation. [15:05] And those were the laws that were enforced [15:08] by the Department of Justice [15:10] through the Civil Rights Division. [15:12] And I am so indebted to those lawyers [15:15] who made a decision, oftentimes, [15:18] to say no to a career on Wall Street or K Street [15:21] or Market Street in San Francisco [15:22] and to be here in the Justice Department [15:25] to advocate and represent the rights of citizens [15:29] as those were defined by the Congress of the United States. [15:33] It's a new day, and our witness here is going to testify. [15:38] I look forward to hearing what her testimony is. [15:41] But there's a profound difference in the Justice Department today [15:45] than there was the day before the election. [15:49] And that is the new policy directives that are being issued to DOJ attorneys [15:56] is the zealous and faithful pursuit of, quote, [16:00] the priorities of the president. [16:03] No, it's the priorities of the Constitution. [16:06] It's the priorities of the legislation passed by Congress. [16:13] It is not the priorities of any person, [16:17] even if that person is the president of the United States. [16:20] That is not what the job of the Justice Department is to do. [16:25] So today, Mr. Chairman, I so appreciate your statement. [16:30] You're engaging this issue. [16:32] But I'm going to have to say we're going to have some disagreement along the way. [16:36] Thank you. [16:36] I yield back. [16:37] That's all right. [16:38] That's America, right? [16:39] Yeah. [16:39] I'll introduce our witness. [16:42] Ms. Harmeet Dillon is the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights [16:46] at the U.S. Department of Justice. [16:48] She was nominated by President Donald Trump in December of 2024. [16:51] She was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on April 3rd, 2025, [16:55] and sworn in by Attorney General Pam Bondi on April 7th, 2025. [17:00] Prior to joining the division, Ms. Dillon founded both the Dillon Law Group, Inc., [17:03] a successful legal practice with offices in California, Florida, Virginia, and New Jersey, [17:09] and the Center for American Liberty, a nonprofit organization dedicated to pursuing civil rights legal claims, [17:15] civil liberties legal claims. [17:17] Her law practice focused on the First Amendment, free speech, civil rights, and campaign and election law issues. [17:23] Among her many notable cases, Ms. Dillon brought legal challenges against the University of California, Berkeley, [17:28] over a free speech policy, over its free speech policy against an Antifa organization for an assault on a conservative journalist, [17:35] against several states for their restrictive responses to COVID-19, [17:39] and against various large tech companies for a host of civil rights issues. [17:43] Assistant Attorney General Dillon was born in India and lived in London before moving to the Bronx, New York. [17:49] Her family ultimately settled in rural Smithfield, North Carolina. [17:52] After graduating high school at the age of 16, Ms. Dillon attended Dartmouth College, [17:58] where she became Editor-in-Chief of the Dartmouth Review. [18:01] After earning her Bachelor's degree in Classical Studies, [18:03] she attended the University of Virginia School of Law [18:05] and served on the editorial board of the Virginia Law Review. [18:09] She later clerked for the Honorable Paul Niemeyer of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. [18:15] Ms. Dillon, it's the tradition of this committee to swear in all witnesses who testify before it. [18:19] Would you please stand and raise your right hand? [18:21] Do you swear that the testimony you're about to give to this committee is the truth, [18:26] the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? [18:28] So help you God. [18:29] Thank you. [18:32] Thank you, Ms. Dillon. [18:34] Give your opening statement. [18:38] Good afternoon, Chairman Schmidt, Ranking Member Welch, [18:41] and other distinguished members of the subcommittee. [18:43] I am honored to testify on ending illegal racial discrimination and preferences [18:48] through vigorous enforcement of our federal civil rights laws. [18:52] I look forward to working with all of you [18:54] to ensure that we successfully dismantle all forms of invidious racial discrimination [18:59] from our society. [19:01] On January 21st, President Trump signed Executive Order 14173, [19:07] titled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. [19:11] The executive order stated that race and sex-based preferences [19:15] under the guise of so-called diversity, equity, and inclusion [19:18] violate the text and spirit of our long-standing federal civil rights laws. [19:24] DEI initiatives reflect a set of practices that unlawfully discriminate against, [19:28] classify, exclude from participation, or deny benefits to individuals [19:33] based on race, sex, or other prohibited characteristics. [19:38] The order announced that it is the policy of the United States [19:41] to protect the civil rights of all Americans against illegal DEI initiatives. [19:45] Enforcement of that policy is now delegated to me. [19:49] Just last week, I reached the milestone of my first 100 days in office. [19:54] And under the leadership of Attorney General Pam Bondi, [19:56] we have been busy implementing President Trump's bold agenda [19:59] for ending illegal DEI for all Americans. [20:03] I will highlight some of our work for you today. [20:05] Here are some of the ways we have taken steps to end DEI in education. [20:09] First, as a result of multifaceted investigations [20:13] into illegal DEI-based discrimination, harassment, and abuse [20:18] at major so-called elite universities and colleges, [20:22] the division is now in discussions with many educational institutions [20:25] to end all unlawful DEI programs throughout these schools, [20:30] including in their law, medical, nursing, and other specialty disciplines. [20:34] Second, we are actively investigating several prominent colleges [20:38] and universities regarding rampant anti-Semitism, [20:42] resulting in discussions aimed at ending anti-Semitic abuse [20:45] on college campuses nationwide. [20:48] Third, starting in April, we open investigations into 50 major universities, [20:52] 16 top law schools, and 7 medical schools [20:55] by sending letters requesting any changes to admissions processes [20:59] post-Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. [21:02] We are also investigating racially discriminatory admissions practices [21:06] at selective public high schools. [21:09] Fourth, we are engaged in several lawsuits and investigations [21:12] into Title IX discrimination against the rights and safety [21:16] of women and girls in classrooms, athletic fields, dormitories, [21:20] and other facilities. [21:22] As a result of our efforts, several institutions have reversed course already. [21:27] Fifth, we are investigating the University of California [21:30] for its race and sex-based discriminatory hiring practices [21:34] under UC's 2030 Capacity Plan. [21:38] The Civil Rights Division has also acted [21:40] in various employment-related matters. [21:43] First, we are investigating Minnesota's hiring and employment practices. [21:47] State policies appear to require agencies [21:49] to engage in illegal race and sex-based hiring [21:53] in violation of Title VII. [21:55] Second, we are investigating [21:57] the Hennepin County Attorney's Office policy [21:59] that requires race-based decision-making and plea agreements. [22:03] The investigation is ongoing, [22:05] though that office has refused to cooperate with our investigation. [22:09] Third, we are investigating Rhode Island [22:11] regarding its affirmative action plan [22:12] that sets race-based hiring goals across its government. [22:16] In light of Rhode Island's refusal to cooperate, [22:19] we are assessing our next steps under Title VII. [22:21] Fourth, we are investigating Chicago's racially discriminatory hiring practices [22:25] permeating its government. [22:28] This is just a small fraction of the extensive portfolio [22:31] of actions we have taken toward ending DEI [22:34] in my first hundred days in office. [22:37] Every day, my team assesses new opportunities [22:39] to combat invidious racial discrimination. [22:42] From diligently pursuing investigations [22:44] to drafting and filing federal civil rights lawsuits, [22:48] the Civil Rights Division strives to protect [22:49] the civil rights of all Americans [22:51] against illegal DEI initiatives. [22:54] In his famous dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson, [22:58] Justice John Marshall Harlan wrote [23:00] that the law regards man as man [23:03] and takes no account of his surrounding or of his color [23:06] when his civil rights are guaranteed [23:08] by the supreme law of the land are involved. [23:11] Nearly 130 years later, [23:14] Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson echoed this sentiment [23:16] in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, [23:20] writing that the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination [23:23] against any individual [23:24] because of such individuals' race, [23:27] color, religion, sex, or national origin. [23:31] While the division's jurisdiction is governed by statute, [23:34] we work closely with the chair of the EEOC [23:36] and heads of other executive branch agencies [23:39] to combat illegal DEI initiatives [23:42] and to uphold the civil rights of all Americans. [23:44] With these efforts underway, Senators, [23:47] the goal is clear. [23:49] Either DEI will end on its own [23:52] or we will kill it. [23:55] I look forward to exploring ways [23:57] to bolster the division's enforcement authority [23:59] so that we can completely root out discrimination [24:02] in all its forms. [24:03] Thank you. [24:04] Thank you, Ms. Dillon. [24:06] I want to get to my time for question, [24:08] get to three questions. [24:11] The first is about your priorities. [24:13] The second one is about rebranding of DEI [24:15] that we're starting to see [24:16] and then how you see it in the corporate sector as well. [24:19] So I want to give you an additional opportunity [24:21] to sort of amplify. [24:22] How are you with this mission [24:23] of ending racial discrimination? [24:27] What are sort of your priorities across the sectors [24:29] in making sure our civil rights laws are applied [24:32] to protect individual rights? [24:33] Well, thank you for the question, Senator. [24:35] It's a big job because, as you pointed out [24:37] in your opening remarks, [24:39] discrimination in the guise of DEI [24:41] has permeated every level of our society. [24:44] And so we are taking our guidance [24:47] from the priorities of this administration [24:49] and the obvious violations that are occurring [24:52] coupled with recent Supreme Court precedents [24:55] that make our obligations clear. [24:56] So with Students for Fair Admissions setting the way [24:59] and making clear that the types of discrimination [25:01] that our universities have engaged in for decades [25:03] is illegal, that is a key focus [25:06] because there are billions and billions of dollars. [25:09] Some universities that we're investigating [25:10] themselves receive over a billion dollars a year [25:14] in federal funding. [25:15] And so our responsibility toward the taxpayers [25:17] requires us to focus on those big ticket items, [25:20] but we are also looking at offenders up and down the spectrum. [25:25] In the employment field, similarly, you mentioned [25:29] that there's a lot of discrimination happening [25:31] in the big American corporations, [25:33] but we're also seeing it throughout state and local governments. [25:36] And again, we feel it is important for the economy [25:39] and for the civil rights enforcement priorities [25:42] to pursue those violations wherever we find them. [25:47] And then, of course, I have a large portfolio beyond the DEI issues, [25:51] and so we do our best with the various resources that we have. [25:54] You've got a busy job. [25:56] I want to, sort of the DEI now, [25:59] I think the public has been educated to a much larger degree [26:02] than it was, say, five years ago, [26:03] about what that really means beyond just sort of flowery language. [26:06] But there is an effort now with some of these DEI programs [26:09] to kind of use other vague terms [26:12] to cloak the very divisive and discriminatory policies, [26:15] whether it's community and belonging initiatives, [26:19] and they relocate their staff in other ways [26:21] that aren't called DEI officers anymore. [26:23] What are you doing, or how are you identifying this, [26:27] and then how would you approach addressing that as well? [26:30] Because it's the same thing. [26:31] Well, Senator, when I hear the words or the slogan DEI, [26:36] what I hear is discrimination, exclusion, and intolerance, [26:41] and that's what we're seeing [26:42] throughout all of these programs nationally. [26:44] Now, we are relying on the public and whistleblowers [26:47] throughout these organizations to let us know [26:50] when this type of fake rebranding is occurring, [26:53] and yet the same personnel and the same policies [26:56] are continuing to perpetuate illegal discrimination [26:59] on American citizens. [27:01] And we are taking action. [27:02] We are opening up investigations. [27:05] Sometimes simply opening an investigation [27:07] results in the individuals [27:09] who are blatantly flouting our federal civil rights laws [27:13] being terminated or reassigned or otherwise. [27:16] And so we are seeing these actions take place [27:18] throughout the United States. [27:19] And I'm pleased to say that in response to several [27:21] of the letters that I sent to open up federal civil rights [27:23] investigations, many schools are stepping forward [27:26] and voluntarily providing us with the data requested [27:28] and showing that, indeed, they are honoring [27:30] and following students for fair admissions [27:33] and other federal civil rights laws. [27:34] So as your division, your department, gets back to enforcing [27:39] the plain language of the statute, there are also violations [27:44] that exist in the corporate world, whether it's edicts [27:47] from CEOs or the boardrooms or HR lawyers that are seeking to, again, [27:53] to discriminate by another term. [27:55] What are you guys doing? [27:58] Are you relying on whistleblowers there? [28:01] What can you share with us about how you're taking? [28:03] I mean, this is predominant in big law. [28:06] I mean, they don't even try to hide it. [28:07] But what are you doing to identify that and pursue those as well? [28:11] Well, Senator, the primary jurisdiction [28:13] for private employment violations rests with the EEOC, [28:17] and I have almost daily conversations with the chair there. [28:20] Many of those investigations are confidential, [28:22] and unfortunately I cannot share details of those. [28:25] But what I will say is that in the instances [28:27] in which many of these top corporations [28:29] are also government contractors, for example, [28:31] in the defense industry or the tech industries, [28:34] the agencies that are hiring them or giving them grants [28:37] also have jurisdiction to open up investigations. [28:40] Those investigations are happening [28:42] throughout the United States federal government. [28:44] And when those investigations are concluded [28:45] without satisfactory resolution or termination [28:47] of the DEI policies in question, [28:49] these matters are often referred [28:51] to the Civil Rights Division for further enforcement. [28:53] So we are just getting started after our first 100 days, [28:56] but I can promise that throughout the tenure [28:58] of this administration, [28:59] there will be numerous investigations and lawsuits [29:03] against institutions that continue [29:06] to offend our federal civil rights laws. [29:07] That's good to hear. [29:08] One final question. [29:09] Is this committee, you know, jurisdiction and oversight, [29:11] do you think it would be helpful [29:14] if this committee were to subpoena [29:16] or otherwise bring forward entities [29:17] that might be in violation of this as well? [29:21] Unequivocally, yes, Senator. [29:22] Thank you. [29:23] Okay. [29:24] Well, it sounds like a plan. [29:25] Senator Walsh. [29:26] Thank you very much. [29:28] Ms. Dillon, who won the 2020 election for president? [29:34] Senator, I previously testified on this matter. [29:37] President Biden was declared the winner of that election, [29:40] and I honor that and respect that. [29:41] So, but you can't say he won? [29:45] I mean, he was the president for four years. [29:47] He clearly was the president. [29:50] Most of us know that. [29:54] I'm asking if he won. [29:56] I've answered your question, Senator. [29:59] But you haven't. [30:10] I want to ask you a question about Texas redistricting. [30:14] As you know, President Trump has recently encouraged, [30:17] I'll use that, Texas Republicans [30:19] to do mid-cycle redistricting [30:21] in order to gain more seats [30:23] in the House of Representatives. [30:26] I understand that after the president [30:29] made that decision or that announcement, [30:32] you personally sent a letter on July 7 [30:34] to Texas in your capacity [30:36] as assistant attorney general [30:37] arguing that four Democratic districts [30:40] violate federal law. [30:42] Is that the case? [30:45] It is the case that I sent a letter [30:47] under my authority [30:49] to administer the Voting Rights Act [30:51] and indicate that in light of our analysis [30:55] of four so-called coalition districts in Texas, [30:58] that those districts were inconsistent [31:01] with the Voting Rights Act. [31:02] And the date of July 7 [31:04] was just coincidental [31:06] that it occurred after the president [31:08] had called on the Texas legislature [31:10] to do mid-decade redistricting? [31:14] I don't remember what date, Senator. [31:15] I probably sent 300 letters [31:17] since I've been in this office. [31:18] And so what I can say [31:20] is that I send no letter [31:21] or make no request [31:22] without proper investigation. [31:24] Have you sent any other state legislature [31:27] a letter where you have indicated [31:30] that districts within their state [31:33] are in violation of federal law? [31:37] Not yet. [31:39] More redistricting to come? [31:42] I don't know. [31:42] I have to investigate the facts. [31:44] Before you sent the letter on July 7, [31:46] did you have any conversation [31:48] with any representatives of the White House? [31:52] Senator, as you're aware, [31:54] there are privileges that are involved [31:56] in all executive branch communications. [31:58] And without, I'm not able to testify [32:01] without breaching the Department of Justice's guidelines [32:04] in that regard. [32:05] So I'm unable to answer any questions [32:07] about conversations I may have had [32:09] with other executive branch officials. [32:10] I'm not asking you [32:12] what the content of the conversation was. [32:14] I'm asking whether there was any conversation [32:17] with anyone from the White House [32:20] before you sent that July 7 letter. [32:23] Senator, I have the same answer. [32:24] I think you're aware of the scope, [32:26] the broad scope of privileges [32:27] that apply to lawyers' conduct. [32:29] Well, here's what I'm aware of. [32:31] The president made a directive, [32:33] which is highly unusual, [32:35] telling a legislature, [32:37] the Texas legislature, [32:38] mid-decade to do redistricting [32:41] when we do that every 10 years. [32:43] And it just so happened [32:45] that the assistant attorney general [32:47] sent a letter to that legislature [32:50] after the president made his announcement [32:52] and said that your investigations suggest [32:56] four districts are in violation [32:58] of federal law. [33:00] Is there a question, Senator? [33:03] There's a point here [33:04] that it's hard to believe [33:06] that that wasn't coordinated. [33:08] Well, let me draw your attention [33:10] to a different fact [33:11] that refutes your argument, [33:14] namely the governor of the state [33:16] that I called home for 25 years [33:18] also called for redistricting [33:20] in the state of California. [33:22] And I haven't sent a letter to California. [33:24] So correlation is not causation, Senator. [33:26] Which four districts [33:27] did you say are in violation? [33:30] I did not come here [33:31] to testify about that, [33:33] but if you wish to have [33:33] a follow-up with me about it, [33:35] I'm happy to pull up my research. [33:38] I'm not... [33:39] Would I be surprised [33:40] that those were Democratic districts? [33:45] I don't know how to answer that, Senator. [33:47] I'm not here to testify about that. [33:49] I'm sure it's convenient [33:50] to try to distract [33:51] from the purpose of this hearing, [33:53] which is to talk about DEI, [33:54] but that is not what I'm prepared [33:56] to testify about here today, Senator. [33:57] You have put a freeze on activities [34:03] that the Justice Department [34:04] in your division had done before, [34:07] and you have walked out of settlements. [34:13] I'm going to talk about [34:13] Lowndes County in Alabama. [34:16] Senator, I think you're misinformed. [34:18] There was a temporary freeze [34:20] prior to my taking office. [34:22] There's no freeze on activities. [34:24] I filed numerous lawsuits, [34:26] opened dozens and dozens [34:27] of investigations, [34:28] entered into numerous settlements, [34:30] opened hate crime investigations [34:31] involving numerous religious backgrounds. [34:33] So I don't know [34:34] what you're talking about, Senator. [34:35] Well, I don't have that much time, [34:37] so we'll have to take this up [34:39] in the second round of questioning. [34:41] So I yield back. [34:42] My time is up. [34:43] Thank you. [34:43] Before we get to Senator Lee, [34:45] it's worth pointing out [34:46] that Texas's current congressional map [34:48] was drawn to comply [34:49] with the now overturned [34:50] Fifth Circuit holding. [34:52] If Texas doesn't redraw the line, [34:54] it's probable that their current map [34:55] will be found invalid [34:56] under the Peat Way decision. [34:57] Senator Lee. [35:00] Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [35:01] Thank you, Ms. Dillon, [35:02] for being here today. [35:03] We have, over the course of time [35:06] in our country, [35:06] seen that a lot of people [35:08] have worked really hard [35:10] for a long time [35:11] to try to divide our nation [35:12] along racial lines. [35:16] Now, history may not repeat itself, [35:17] but it often rhymes. [35:19] In nearly every era [35:21] of American history, [35:23] people who have done this, [35:25] perhaps sensing deep down [35:27] that this is wrong, [35:28] that it's just fundamentally wrong, [35:31] try to justify it. [35:32] And almost invariably, [35:34] they will couch it [35:35] in terms of this is better [35:36] for everyone, [35:37] in terms that make it sound charitable, [35:40] kind, [35:41] it's for everyone's good. [35:44] That was the case, [35:45] for example, [35:45] in Brown v. Board of Education. [35:47] The defendants in that case, [35:49] defending their own pattern [35:50] of de jure racial discrimination, [35:53] said it's okay [35:53] because our subjective motivation [35:56] for doing this is benevolent. [35:58] It's not malicious. [35:59] We think this is best [36:00] for the educational experience. [36:01] And yet it's wrong. [36:03] And yet it's also contrary [36:05] to the direct terms [36:06] of the Equal Protection Clause [36:08] of the 14th Amendment. [36:09] And since then, [36:10] it's been made doubly illegal. [36:11] It's been made in violation [36:13] of a number [36:13] of federal civil rights laws. [36:16] Now, one of many more recent [36:18] modern examples [36:19] of this attempt [36:20] to divide American citizens [36:22] on the basis of race [36:24] involves the use [36:25] of disparate impact policies. [36:28] Policies that, [36:29] in many circumstances, [36:31] effectively encourage [36:32] racial hiring quotas [36:34] and erode equal opportunity [36:36] of employment. [36:38] When you're doing that, [36:39] you're violating the law, [36:43] it would seem to me, [36:44] because you're treating people [36:46] differently on the basis of race. [36:48] And that is something [36:49] that Title VII [36:50] in the employment context prohibits. [36:53] It's why I introduced a bill [36:54] called the Restoring Equal Opportunity Act [36:57] to codify President Trump's [36:59] executive order [36:59] banning the use [37:01] of these disparate impact programs [37:05] that themselves [37:06] end up imposing [37:07] de facto racial hiring quotas. [37:13] So how, in your view, [37:15] has this concept [37:16] of disparate impact [37:17] and the use of disparate impact policies [37:19] undermined equal opportunity [37:21] in hiring? [37:23] Senator, what we've seen, [37:25] and I've been a civil rights lawyer [37:26] for over three decades now, [37:28] is that the well-meaning, [37:30] quota-based systems [37:31] that you described [37:33] have resulted [37:34] not in equal opportunity [37:37] for individuals, [37:38] but sort of a group form [37:39] of justice [37:40] that is more of a Marxist concept, [37:42] and it is, frankly, [37:43] inconsistent [37:44] with our enlightenment-inspired [37:48] constitutional values [37:49] that guarantee equal opportunity [37:51] for every individual. [37:53] And so, [37:53] I think that is really [37:54] the philosophical difference. [37:56] If you believe in equality [37:58] or equity-based outcomes [38:00] as opposed to individual rights [38:01] and opportunity, [38:03] that is where the distinction falls. [38:05] And our civil rights laws are clear. [38:08] And as recently as this year, [38:10] since I've been in office [38:11] in the Ames case, [38:12] the United States Supreme Court [38:13] has reiterated [38:14] that every individual [38:17] is entitled [38:18] to equal consideration [38:20] under the law [38:20] under Title VII [38:21] and not simply [38:23] have a higher burden of proof [38:24] because they happen [38:25] to be a majority plaintiff. [38:28] Right. [38:28] And people in that circumstance [38:29] can make determinations, [38:30] hiring determinations, [38:31] for example, [38:32] on the basis [38:33] of a whole range of criteria. [38:34] But there are some criteria [38:35] that are inappropriate [38:36] and race is perhaps [38:37] chief among them. [38:38] What are some examples [38:39] that you have seen [38:40] of employers [38:42] or of universities [38:43] misusing [38:44] race-neutral [38:45] civil rights laws [38:47] in order to justify discrimination? [38:49] Well, Senator, [38:52] you see so many examples [38:54] of racially exclusive scholarships. [38:57] You see hiring opportunities [39:00] or programs [39:01] in both faculty [39:02] as well as other staff [39:03] that require a, quote-unquote, [39:06] racially diverse pool [39:08] at every step [39:09] of the hiring process [39:10] that effectively [39:11] at multiple levels [39:13] excludes qualified individuals [39:15] from being able [39:17] to qualify and compete [39:19] and get to the end [39:19] of that process. [39:20] But you even see today, [39:22] after all of these [39:23] civil rights laws [39:25] and all these [39:25] Supreme Court precedents, [39:27] blatantly racist ads [39:30] from some of these institutions [39:31] of higher learning, [39:32] soliciting input [39:33] from so-called [39:35] disadvantaged minority groups. [39:38] And these are illegal. [39:40] You're also seeing [39:41] in response to students [39:42] for fair admissions [39:43] and other cases, [39:45] video requirements [39:48] in applications now [39:49] that bring back the racist [39:51] attach your photograph [39:53] to your job application [39:54] which allows racial discrimination. [39:57] So that's something [39:57] that we need to look at [39:58] eliminating as well, Senator. [40:00] And in the context [40:01] of law firms specifically, [40:02] law firms are one category [40:04] of employer, [40:05] one category of employer [40:06] that you would expect [40:06] to be especially aware [40:08] of developments in the law. [40:11] What have you seen [40:12] from among law firms [40:13] in terms of their willingness [40:14] to follow federal civil rights laws [40:16] as they've been interpreted [40:18] and clarified in recent years [40:19] by the Supreme Court? [40:20] Senator, I left the big law sphere [40:22] over two decades ago [40:24] because of, frankly, [40:25] odious and persistent [40:25] racial discrimination [40:26] that permeated those institutions. [40:28] And it's not better today [40:30] than it was back then. [40:31] But this is also perpetuated [40:33] by employers [40:34] and, you know, [40:35] big pension funds [40:36] that require racist gerrymandering, [40:39] if you will, [40:40] of the staff [40:40] that service them [40:41] at these law firms. [40:42] So we really have to change [40:43] these practices throughout. [40:45] And, you know, [40:45] the EEOC is tackling [40:47] discrimination at law firms. [40:49] I think it's going to be [40:50] a long haul, [40:50] but I think ultimately [40:51] with persistence [40:52] we'll be able to level [40:53] that playing field, Senator. [40:55] My time's expired, [40:55] but it sounds like [40:56] you don't disagree [40:57] with the assertion [40:58] that benevolent motives [41:00] don't negate [41:01] the violation of the law [41:02] at issue. [41:03] I would agree [41:04] and so would the justices [41:07] of the Supreme Court. [41:09] Senator Schiff. [41:10] Thank you, Chairman. [41:11] Ms. Dillon, [41:12] you recently announced [41:13] that DOJ was launching [41:14] an investigation [41:14] into the University [41:16] of California [41:17] over its UC 2030 capacity plan [41:19] which notes that future growth [41:21] of faculty and students [41:23] should result [41:24] in campus populations [41:26] that better reflect [41:27] and tap the talent [41:28] of underrepresented populations [41:30] who represent [41:31] the majority [41:31] of Californians. [41:33] In the SFFA [41:35] versus Harvard opinion, [41:37] the Supreme Court held [41:38] that nothing in this opinion [41:39] should be construed [41:39] as prohibiting universities [41:41] from considering [41:42] an applicant's discussion [41:43] of how race affected [41:44] his or her life, [41:46] be it through discrimination, [41:47] inspiration, [41:48] or otherwise, [41:49] allowing universities [41:50] to continue assessing [41:51] students' experience [41:52] with race [41:52] on an individualized basis. [41:56] In that opinion, [41:58] in his concurrence, [41:59] Justice Thomas praised [42:00] the University of California [42:01] for achieving diversity [42:03] through race-neutral policies, [42:05] including preferences [42:06] for low-income applicants [42:07] and first-generation students [42:09] and recruiting efforts [42:10] targeted at areas [42:11] with substantial populations [42:12] of people of color. [42:14] Are the race-neutral policies [42:16] like those used [42:18] by the University of California, [42:19] which Justice Thomas [42:20] explicitly praised [42:22] in that opinion, [42:23] now considered by you [42:24] to be illegal DEI? [42:26] Senator, first of all, [42:29] the investigation [42:29] that we've opened [42:30] is an investigation [42:31] and it's an investigation [42:32] into the hiring policies [42:34] of the University of California system, [42:37] not the admissions policies. [42:39] That said, [42:41] I have absolutely seen abuses [42:43] in the admissions policies [42:44] in using race [42:45] as a crude proxy [42:47] for discrimination. [42:48] That's not the question [42:49] I asked you. [42:50] Are the race-neutral policies [42:52] praised by Justice Thomas, [42:54] now considered by you [42:57] to be illegal DEI? [42:59] I think you're mixing [43:00] apples and oranges. [43:01] I can't really answer your question. [43:02] You can answer my question [43:03] and say, [43:05] yes, they are now illegal. [43:07] That is what Justice Thomas [43:09] praised in terms of [43:10] race-neutral policies, [43:12] which include preferences [43:13] for low-income applicants, [43:15] first-generation students, [43:17] things like that. [43:18] Are you now saying [43:19] that what Justice Thomas [43:20] praised is now illegal [43:22] in your view? [43:23] Senator, there's a difference [43:24] between what you see [43:25] on paper [43:25] and what you see [43:26] in reality. [43:27] I reject your premise [43:30] that how California [43:31] describes its admissions practices [43:34] is reality. [43:34] I'm asking you [43:34] about whether you subscribe [43:36] to the Supreme Court's opinion [43:37] or whether you disagree [43:39] with Justice Thomas' concurrence. [43:40] You can answer that question, [43:42] can't you? [43:42] In the abstract, [43:43] yes, in reality, [43:45] what you're describing [43:45] does not exist [43:46] in the UC system. [43:47] Okay, so Justice Thomas [43:48] got it wrong. [43:49] Is that what you're saying? [43:50] I'm not saying that. [43:51] Well, you are saying that [43:52] because he was praising [43:53] the policies [43:54] of the University of California, [43:55] you seem to be saying now [43:57] that any university [43:59] that gives a preference [44:00] to low-income applicants [44:01] is engaged in illegal DEI [44:03] or if they put a focus [44:08] on first-generation students, [44:09] that's somehow impermissible. [44:11] After all the years [44:13] of criticism [44:13] of cancel culture, [44:16] you seem to want [44:17] to cancel any institution [44:18] that has views [44:20] that you disagree with. [44:21] In answer to the questions [44:23] about law firms, [44:23] you want to cancel law firms [44:24] because they take on [44:25] unpopular clients to you, [44:27] to the administration. [44:29] That is, if a firm represents [44:31] someone with an adverse interest [44:32] to the administration, [44:33] which is their First Amendment [44:34] right to do, [44:35] and I would also say [44:36] their duty to do, [44:38] you would cancel them. [44:39] You would cancel universities [44:40] like Harvard [44:41] or the University of Virginia [44:43] that take positions [44:44] and exercise [44:45] their First Amendment rights [44:46] contrary to what you think [44:48] the administration wants to see. [44:50] You would cancel [44:51] the Associated Press [44:52] for not using [44:53] the ridiculous nomenclature [44:55] of the Gulf of America. [44:57] You're canceling now [44:58] the Wall Street Journal [44:59] because the Wall Street Journal [45:01] had the audacity [45:01] to publish an article [45:02] about Trump's connections [45:03] to Jeffrey Epstein. [45:06] So this is what's going on [45:08] in this administration. [45:10] You've devastated [45:11] the Civil Rights Division. [45:13] Hundreds of attorneys, [45:15] 368, [45:17] have departed [45:17] since January of this year. [45:19] There's been a mass exodus [45:20] from the Civil Rights Department. [45:22] It is just a shell [45:24] of what it used to be. [45:26] They're being canceled. [45:27] They're being canceled [45:28] by you, [45:29] by the department. [45:31] Anyone that stands up [45:32] to this president [45:32] is at risk of being canceled. [45:35] And I think [45:37] what you're doing [45:38] to use the sledgehammer [45:41] of federal funding [45:42] with universities [45:43] to try to coerce them [45:45] to accepting your [45:46] right-wing agenda [45:47] is disgraceful. [45:50] And using that cudgel [45:53] will have far-reaching implications, [45:57] attacking research [45:58] done by universities, [46:00] academic independence [46:01] done by universities. [46:03] It will establish [46:03] a dangerous precedent [46:05] that can be abused [46:06] by a president [46:07] of any party. [46:09] And we should recognize [46:11] that on a bipartisan basis, [46:12] even though it does not appear [46:14] that we do. [46:14] I yield back, [46:15] Mr. Chairman. [46:16] Thank you. [46:16] Senator Kennedy. [46:24] Thank you, [46:24] Mr. Chairman. [46:25] General, how are you? [46:26] I'm well, sir. [46:27] Thank you. [46:28] Good. [46:30] General, you're not, [46:33] you believe in diversity, [46:34] don't you? [46:36] I do, sir, yes. [46:37] Yeah. [46:40] And if I define equity [46:42] as a state of fairness [46:44] and impartiality, [46:47] you believe in equity, [46:49] don't you? [46:50] Well, equity is a proxy [46:52] for discrimination, [46:53] unfortunately, [46:53] in these policies. [46:54] No, but I'm not talking [46:55] about the proxy. [46:56] If I define it [46:57] as a state of fairness [46:59] and impartiality. [47:01] Those are very important [47:02] virtues, yes, sir. [47:03] Yeah, I agree with, [47:04] I think, [47:05] I certainly agree [47:06] with equity. [47:08] And I watched it [47:10] through your confirmation here. [47:12] You strike me [47:13] as an inclusive person [47:15] as opposed to exclusive. [47:18] You seem to like people. [47:19] I like to think so, sir. [47:20] So you believe [47:23] in diversity, equity, [47:25] inclusion, [47:25] as most normal people [47:28] understand those terms. [47:31] But that's not [47:32] what we're talking [47:32] about here, is it? [47:34] No, it isn't. [47:36] Diversity, equity, [47:38] and inclusion, [47:41] as many institutions [47:43] and people in America [47:45] like to use it, [47:48] are talking about quotas, [47:49] aren't they? [47:51] Yes, unfortunately, [47:52] quotas have become [47:53] the proxy for that [47:54] vaunted slogan. [47:56] So when someone says [47:58] diversity, equity, [47:58] inclusion, [47:59] we're talking about quotas. [48:00] Let's be honest. [48:02] Quotas and discrimination. [48:04] Do you think, [48:05] let's just take race. [48:07] You can discriminate [48:10] on any number of things, [48:13] but you shouldn't [48:14] discriminate on any of them, [48:16] not on the illegitimate [48:17] characteristic, [48:19] but let's just take race. [48:23] Do you think race [48:24] should be used [48:26] to harm a person? [48:28] It's illegal to use race [48:32] either to affirmatively [48:34] try to help [48:35] or discriminate against [48:36] individuals. [48:36] It's wrong to use race [48:38] to harm somebody. [48:39] Yes, sir. [48:40] It's wrong to harm somebody [48:41] because of their race. [48:42] It's illegal [48:44] and un-American. [48:45] Yeah. [48:45] It's okay to harm them [48:47] legally [48:47] and appropriately [48:49] because they're an a-hole, [48:50] but not because [48:51] of their race, right? [48:52] Yes, sir. [48:53] Now, it's also wrong [48:57] and illegal [48:58] to harm, [48:59] to help somebody [49:00] because of their race. [49:01] That is correct. [49:02] I mean, that's illegal, right? [49:04] Under our Supreme Court precedents [49:05] and our laws, [49:06] that is correct. [49:07] Okay. [49:08] But we still have institution, [49:10] even after the Supreme Court's opinion, [49:13] we still have institutions [49:14] in America, [49:15] some in government, [49:17] certainly some [49:18] in the private sector. [49:20] I'm thinking of [49:21] some of our universities [49:22] who insist [49:23] on implementing quotas. [49:25] And that's what you're going after, [49:27] as I understand it. [49:28] Am I right? [49:29] I'm aggressively seeking [49:30] to end those quotas. [49:31] They're illegal and un-American. [49:32] Okay. [49:35] And that's really [49:38] what we're talking about, [49:40] is quotas. [49:42] And the American people [49:43] don't support quotas. [49:45] They just don't. [49:49] I mean, [49:50] I think most Americans, [49:51] first of all, [49:52] most Americans [49:52] don't think about race [49:54] as much as people [49:55] in Washington, D.C. do. [49:58] The American people, [50:00] they understand [50:02] that souls [50:03] don't have a color. [50:06] They believe that [50:08] to a bear, [50:08] all of us taste the same, [50:10] like chicken. [50:14] So this obsession now [50:15] with diversity, [50:17] equity, [50:17] and inclusion, [50:18] it's not really, [50:19] I mean, [50:19] it's a pretty phrase, [50:22] but it's not diversity. [50:23] Who's against diversity? [50:25] That's like being [50:25] against golden retrievers. [50:28] Who's against equity? [50:29] Who's against inclusion? [50:30] So they pretty it up, [50:32] but they're really [50:33] talking about quotas [50:34] and it's illegal [50:36] and it's immoral [50:38] and it's un-American [50:41] and it exists. [50:46] And I'm watching it happen [50:47] in our universities. [50:50] You know, [50:50] I mean, [50:50] Harvard, [50:52] I wish it weren't the case. [50:54] Incredible university, [50:56] really bright people, [50:57] but it's clear [50:57] they believe in diversity [50:59] and equity [51:00] and inclusion [51:02] and the right [51:03] to hurt Jewish people. [51:06] What did we come to? [51:11] Any closing comments? [51:12] I said too much. [51:14] No, Senator, [51:15] I agree with you [51:15] and I will say [51:17] that the whole [51:18] of this government [51:19] is dedicated [51:19] towards providing [51:20] equal opportunity [51:21] for all Americans [51:22] and anti-Semitism [51:24] on our campuses [51:25] is a shocking problem, [51:26] but we've actually [51:27] made great progress [51:28] just in these first [51:29] hundred days [51:29] on that front. [51:30] So thank you [51:30] for your attention [51:31] to these issues. [51:33] General, [51:33] don't let the bastards [51:34] get you down, [51:35] okay? [51:36] Thank you. [51:38] Senator Hawley, [51:39] I'll yield to [51:42] Senator Blackburn. [51:45] Senator Blackburn. [51:46] All right, [51:47] Senator Hawley, [51:48] thank you [51:48] and thank you [51:50] so much [51:51] for being here [51:52] with us. [51:53] DOJ and your department [51:55] are doing [51:56] such important work [51:58] to root out [51:59] anti-Semitism, [52:01] to root out DEI [52:02] and I think [52:04] in that process [52:04] you are doing [52:07] an admirable job [52:09] educating people [52:11] on what has been [52:12] going on [52:13] in this country [52:14] and I appreciate [52:16] that [52:16] and the way [52:17] you've drawn attention [52:18] to what has happened [52:20] on our nation's [52:21] campuses [52:22] and trying to divide [52:23] people on racial [52:25] and ideological lines. [52:27] I appreciate [52:29] what you have [52:30] done there [52:32] and I know [52:33] President Trump [52:34] has said many times [52:36] bringing this country [52:37] together, [52:39] uniting this country [52:40] is something [52:41] that is very important [52:42] to him. [52:42] and in Tennessee [52:44] we've got some [52:45] great universities. [52:48] They do wonderful [52:49] research work. [52:51] They do great [52:52] workforce development [52:53] work and they're doing [52:55] all they can [52:56] to be certain [52:57] that we remain [52:58] competitive [52:59] on the global stage [53:01] and while I appreciate [53:03] the efforts [53:04] that they are making [53:05] to adhere [53:06] with not only [53:08] our state laws [53:09] but with the [53:11] president's [53:12] directives [53:13] and his executive [53:15] orders [53:16] and to root out [53:17] these DEI [53:18] initiatives, [53:19] they are still [53:21] having to deal [53:22] with a few [53:22] woke activists [53:24] that are within [53:25] their ranks [53:26] and just today, [53:29] yesterday [53:29] and again [53:31] this morning, [53:32] there were videos [53:33] released [53:34] from three [53:36] Tennessee [53:37] universities [53:38] and I have [53:40] talked with [53:42] two of those [53:43] university presidents [53:45] and we've discussed [53:47] the work [53:48] that they are doing [53:50] but within [53:51] their ranks, [53:52] some of these [53:53] professors that are [53:54] so given to DEI [53:55] will not let it go [53:56] and so they take [53:58] other programs [53:58] and they're telling [53:59] people, [54:00] well this is how [54:01] we're getting [54:02] to DEI, [54:03] this is how [54:04] we're covering [54:05] it up, [54:06] this is how [54:06] we're using [54:07] language [54:08] to form [54:09] workarounds [54:11] and I think [54:13] that one of the [54:14] things this has [54:15] shown me [54:16] looking at all [54:17] this video footage [54:18] the past couple [54:19] of days [54:20] is how deeply [54:21] rooted [54:22] the left [54:23] is [54:24] in this [54:26] DEI effort [54:27] and how [54:29] they are trying [54:30] to manipulate [54:31] today [54:32] and to keep [54:34] hold [54:35] of that DEI [54:37] effort [54:37] they will not [54:38] let it go [54:39] so [54:40] as you are [54:42] working with [54:43] these universities [54:44] that say they're [54:45] trying to comply [54:46] that are hiring [54:48] outside auditors [54:49] to come in [54:50] how do you work [54:51] with them [54:52] and help them [54:53] root out [54:53] these activists [54:54] and change [54:56] the way [54:57] they, [54:59] these activists [55:00] are trying [55:01] to influence [55:02] the students? [55:04] What can you do [55:05] there? [55:06] Well thank you [55:06] Senator. [55:07] The way we're [55:07] starting with the [55:08] first tier of [55:09] universities that we [55:10] have requested [55:11] data from is [55:12] requesting data [55:13] and so we are [55:13] beginning to receive [55:14] thousands and [55:15] thousands of pages [55:16] and we have data [55:17] crunchers in the [55:18] DOJ who are [55:18] helping us [55:19] analyze the data [55:20] but we're also [55:21] relying on [55:21] whistleblowers [55:22] like the ones [55:22] you just referenced [55:23] and the Vanderbilt [55:24] and the other [55:24] schools that are [55:25] engaging in this [55:26] behavior and [55:27] they're helping us [55:28] expose the defiance [55:30] of federal law [55:32] and you know [55:32] it's very interesting [55:33] I've heard a lot [55:34] of lofty phrases [55:34] here but we saw [55:36] this is not unusual [55:37] compared to what we [55:38] saw in the Brown v [55:39] Board of Education [55:40] era. [55:41] There were, [55:41] a decree came down [55:42] from the Supreme [55:43] Court that [55:44] separate but equal [55:44] was illegal [55:46] and yet throughout [55:47] the United States [55:48] particularly in the [55:49] South where I [55:50] grew up too [55:50] we saw government [55:52] officials openly [55:52] defying those [55:54] orders by [55:55] rebranding and [55:56] using different [55:57] methods and it [55:57] took decades to [55:58] root that out [55:59] I hope it won't [56:00] take decades to [56:00] root this out [56:01] but we see [56:01] similar defiance [56:02] like we saw [56:03] with the Dixiecrats [56:04] today in American [56:05] institutions [56:06] and I went to [56:07] University of [56:07] Virginia Law School [56:08] they have done [56:09] the same thing [56:10] that you're [56:10] describing as [56:11] rebranding [56:12] and simply saying [56:13] that we're going [56:13] to keep doing [56:14] things use a shell [56:14] game and confuse [56:16] the government [56:16] we are not [56:17] confused [56:17] we will get to [56:18] it and I think [56:19] the biggest hammer [56:20] that's going to [56:21] cause change [56:22] is the United [56:23] States policy [56:23] to simply stop [56:25] wasting American [56:26] taxpayer dollars [56:27] and sending them [56:28] to institutions [56:29] that openly [56:29] and blatantly [56:30] violate federal [56:31] law and we are [56:32] doing that [56:32] throughout the [56:33] government [56:33] I'm proud to be [56:34] part of that [56:34] effort and we [56:35] are very vigilant [56:36] and will not rest [56:37] until we have [56:37] completely eliminated [56:38] these discriminatory [56:39] policies in our [56:41] institutions of [56:41] higher learning [56:42] that receive [56:42] federal funding [56:43] Senator [56:43] one thing I [56:45] wanted to touch [56:45] on and I'm [56:46] running out of [56:46] time when you [56:48] went through your [56:48] confirmation I [56:49] talked to you [56:50] about election [56:51] integrity and I [56:52] know you're doing [56:53] some work on that [56:54] so Mr. Chairman [56:55] I would like just [56:56] if she can respond [56:58] briefly on the [56:59] election integrity [57:01] issue [57:01] Senator we at the [57:03] Civil Rights Division [57:04] enforce the Voting [57:05] Rights Act [57:06] the Help America [57:06] Vote Act [57:07] and National Voter [57:08] Registration Act [57:09] and on each of [57:10] these fronts we are [57:11] active we are [57:12] opening investigations [57:13] we are seeking [57:14] information from [57:15] states [57:15] numerous states [57:16] have received [57:17] requests regarding [57:17] their list [57:19] maintenance [57:19] requirements [57:20] and failures [57:21] thereof [57:21] their non-compliance [57:23] with the [57:24] motor voter law [57:24] National Voter [57:25] Registration Act [57:26] and of course [57:26] reference has already [57:27] been made in this [57:28] hearing to [57:28] discriminatory [57:30] coalition districts [57:31] that are out of [57:32] compliance with the [57:32] Voting Rights Act [57:33] and there'll be much [57:33] more to come as we [57:35] work our way through [57:36] inquiries, facts, [57:38] petitions from [57:38] governments and so [57:39] forth [57:39] thank you [57:40] thank you Mr. [57:41] Chairman [57:41] thank you Senator [57:42] Senator Hawley [57:43] thank you Mr. [57:45] Chairman [57:45] Ms. Dillon [57:46] good to see you [57:46] you're doing a great [57:48] job thanks for being [57:49] here [57:49] I want to ask you [57:50] about discrimination [57:51] of a somewhat [57:53] different kind [57:54] that's discrimination [57:55] on the basis of [57:56] religion [57:57] in the last [57:58] administration [57:59] I'm sure you [58:00] remember [58:00] the FBI [58:01] issued a [58:03] memorandum [58:04] in which it [58:05] attempted to [58:05] recruit informants [58:07] spies [58:07] into Catholic [58:09] parishes [58:09] and probably [58:10] frankly other [58:11] other Christian [58:12] churches [58:12] on the basis [58:14] of these [58:15] churches [58:16] theology [58:17] they designated [58:18] and they created [58:19] a list [58:19] an actual list [58:20] the United States [58:21] government created [58:22] a list [58:22] of Catholic [58:24] parishes [58:24] and groups [58:25] it did not like [58:26] branded them [58:27] as traditionalist [58:29] Catholics [58:29] I guess that's now [58:30] a slur [58:31] and tried to [58:32] recruit spies [58:34] into these [58:34] churches [58:35] which is [58:37] unbelievable to me [58:38] you were talking [58:39] about a violation [58:40] of one's [58:41] civil rights [58:42] to my knowledge [58:43] that memo [58:43] has never been [58:44] formally withdrawn [58:45] the Attorney General [58:46] of the United States [58:47] at the time [58:48] Eric Garland [58:49] sat where you're [58:49] sitting [58:50] first denied it [58:51] then attempted [58:52] to defend it [58:53] it is in fact [58:53] totally indefensible [58:55] my question to you [58:55] is what can be [58:56] done about [58:57] discrimination like [58:58] this by our own [58:59] governmental institutions [59:01] I think one of the [59:02] things people voted [59:03] for in electing [59:04] the current president [59:05] who I was proud [59:07] to support [59:07] is they voted [59:08] to put a stop [59:09] to that kind [59:10] of discrimination [59:12] to that kind [59:13] of abuse [59:14] of our own [59:15] citizens [59:15] by our own [59:16] government [59:16] and I just [59:17] submit to you [59:17] of all the abuses [59:18] of the Biden era [59:19] and there were a lot [59:20] there's nothing [59:22] lower [59:22] than trying to [59:25] recruit spies [59:26] into churches [59:27] to inform [59:28] on your countrymen [59:29] because what [59:30] you don't like [59:31] what's being preached [59:31] from the pulpit [59:32] I mean this is [59:33] insane stuff [59:34] and they were using [59:34] the FBI to do it [59:35] can something be done [59:37] about this [59:37] to hold accountable [59:38] the people within [59:39] the DOJ [59:40] and the FBI [59:41] who perpetrated [59:42] what I frankly [59:43] think are crimes [59:44] I mean what [59:45] can we do about this [59:46] well Senator [59:47] first I want to [59:47] assure you that [59:48] the policy [59:49] that you just [59:50] described would [59:51] appear to be [59:51] a dead letter [59:52] today we are [59:52] certainly not [59:53] doing anything [59:53] of that nature [59:54] in the civil rights [59:55] division or to [59:55] my knowledge [59:56] throughout the [59:56] United States [59:57] Department of Justice [59:57] to the contrary [59:59] I would say [1:00:00] and I've been [1:00:01] a civil liberties [1:00:01] lawyer in favor [1:00:02] of religious liberties [1:00:03] for over three [1:00:04] decades [1:00:04] this is the most [1:00:06] religion friendly [1:00:07] Department of Justice [1:00:08] in United States [1:00:09] history [1:00:10] in the civil rights [1:00:11] division so far [1:00:12] we have taken [1:00:12] action to side [1:00:13] with a catholic [1:00:15] coach [1:00:16] in the Rolovich case [1:00:17] who was fired [1:00:18] for refusing [1:00:18] to take the [1:00:19] COVID vaccine [1:00:20] we intervened [1:00:21] in a lawsuit [1:00:21] in Washington [1:00:22] state [1:00:22] also where [1:00:23] Rolovich is from [1:00:24] to challenge [1:00:26] that state's [1:00:27] discrimination [1:00:28] against catholic [1:00:29] clergy [1:00:29] enforcing [1:00:30] and trying [1:00:30] to pierce [1:00:31] their priest [1:00:32] penitent privilege [1:00:33] and that law [1:00:34] was just enjoined [1:00:35] this week [1:00:36] by a federal [1:00:37] judge [1:00:37] in Washington [1:00:38] state [1:00:38] we have opened [1:00:39] up numerous [1:00:39] in just less [1:00:40] than 100 days [1:00:41] religious land [1:00:42] use and [1:00:42] institutionalized [1:00:43] persons act [1:00:43] majority [1:00:44] for the [1:00:45] Christian community [1:00:47] but also [1:00:47] for Jewish [1:00:48] Muslim [1:00:49] Buddhist [1:00:49] and other [1:00:50] faiths as well [1:00:51] and we have [1:00:51] opened up [1:00:52] investigations [1:00:52] into anti-Semitism [1:00:54] throughout the [1:00:55] United States [1:00:55] and I've been told [1:00:56] by Jewish leaders [1:00:58] who sat in my [1:00:58] conference room [1:00:59] that they had [1:01:00] similar conversations [1:01:01] with my predecessor [1:01:01] because this problem [1:01:04] is not a new [1:01:04] problem unfortunately [1:01:05] it is a problem [1:01:06] that has been [1:01:06] going on for years [1:01:07] and while [1:01:08] my predecessor [1:01:09] kindly nodded [1:01:10] and listened [1:01:11] to their complaints [1:01:11] nothing happened [1:01:12] things are happening [1:01:13] in this administration [1:01:14] and our door [1:01:16] is open to people [1:01:16] of all faiths [1:01:17] to come and tell us [1:01:18] what is happening [1:01:19] zoning violations [1:01:20] discrimination [1:01:21] certainly if the [1:01:22] government is spying [1:01:23] on them [1:01:23] that would be [1:01:23] outrageous [1:01:24] and I would be [1:01:24] interested to know [1:01:25] names and dates [1:01:26] and we will begin [1:01:27] an investigation [1:01:27] into that sir [1:01:28] yeah thank you [1:01:29] that's exactly [1:01:30] what I think [1:01:30] we need to find out [1:01:31] I mean we need [1:01:32] names and dates [1:01:32] we need to know [1:01:33] who authored that memo [1:01:34] and those people [1:01:36] their names need [1:01:37] to be made public [1:01:38] and if they are [1:01:39] still employed [1:01:40] God forbid [1:01:40] at the FBI [1:01:41] or the Department of Justice [1:01:42] they need to be fired [1:01:43] I mean I just think [1:01:45] we need some accountability [1:01:46] don't you [1:01:46] I mean I think [1:01:47] if we [1:01:47] if look [1:01:48] if you look [1:01:48] at what's happened [1:01:49] in the last four years [1:01:50] you look at how [1:01:51] religious rights [1:01:51] were trampled upon [1:01:52] let's not forget [1:01:53] during COVID [1:01:53] who was shut down [1:01:55] do you remember [1:01:55] who was shut down [1:01:56] during COVID [1:01:56] the churches [1:01:57] the synagogues [1:01:58] who was open [1:01:59] oh well [1:02:00] the marijuana dispensaries [1:02:03] they were open [1:02:03] Democrat Party donors [1:02:06] you know [1:02:06] all the corporations [1:02:07] gave the Democrat Party [1:02:08] they were all open [1:02:09] but churches [1:02:10] closed [1:02:11] synagogues [1:02:11] closed [1:02:12] and then to have [1:02:13] our own FBI [1:02:14] recruiting informants [1:02:17] into our churches [1:02:18] it's outrageous [1:02:19] I think we need to know [1:02:20] who wrote these memos [1:02:22] who approved them [1:02:23] where were they distributed [1:02:25] and I think people [1:02:26] need to be fired for it [1:02:27] and then I think [1:02:28] if possible [1:02:28] they need to be [1:02:29] prosecuted for it [1:02:30] don't you think [1:02:31] I mean don't you think [1:02:32] it's time for some [1:02:32] accountability [1:02:33] I think we've got to [1:02:34] turn the page [1:02:35] and do better [1:02:35] sure [1:02:36] but we've got to [1:02:37] hold accountable [1:02:38] the people who did this [1:02:39] in the first instance [1:02:39] or they'll just do it again [1:02:40] don't just do it again [1:02:42] Senator I agree with you [1:02:43] I mean I was privileged [1:02:44] to win between my law firm [1:02:45] and my non-profit [1:02:46] three cases [1:02:47] at the United States [1:02:47] Supreme Court [1:02:48] during COVID [1:02:49] to protect the rights [1:02:50] of Christians [1:02:50] to be able to pray [1:02:51] in my state of California [1:02:52] and the governor [1:02:54] is still the governor [1:02:55] and there has been [1:02:56] no accountability [1:02:56] in that state [1:02:57] for the gross violations [1:02:59] of every person's [1:03:00] right of faith [1:03:01] and so I hope [1:03:02] that voters [1:03:03] ultimately hold [1:03:04] the elected leaders [1:03:06] accountable [1:03:06] but certainly people [1:03:08] who grossly violated [1:03:09] the first amendment [1:03:09] those are names [1:03:12] I'd like to know [1:03:13] and we will look [1:03:14] into that [1:03:14] as a result of [1:03:15] this is my last name [1:03:16] Mr. Chairman [1:03:16] and I thank you [1:03:17] for holding this hearing [1:03:18] I just think that [1:03:19] you're right about voters [1:03:20] and voters did vote for [1:03:21] they voted for a change [1:03:23] in November [1:03:23] they voted for accountability [1:03:24] and now we've got [1:03:25] to give it to them [1:03:26] and I just want to [1:03:27] I know you're not [1:03:28] in charge of the FBI [1:03:28] but I just want to [1:03:29] send a clear message [1:03:31] to everybody who is [1:03:32] there has got to be [1:03:34] some accountability [1:03:34] for what has happened [1:03:36] with our government [1:03:37] there has got to be [1:03:37] accountability [1:03:38] for how it was abused [1:03:40] and religious believers [1:03:42] were abused [1:03:43] in the last four years [1:03:44] over and over [1:03:46] and over [1:03:46] and we've talked about it [1:03:48] and we've held hearings [1:03:49] on it [1:03:50] and now it's time [1:03:50] to do something [1:03:52] about it [1:03:52] and the people [1:03:53] who perpetrated [1:03:55] these outrageous abuses [1:03:57] of our first amendment rights [1:03:58] they need to be [1:03:59] held accountable [1:03:59] they need to be [1:04:01] held accountable [1:04:01] and they need to be [1:04:02] held accountable [1:04:03] as soon as possible [1:04:04] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:04:05] thank you Ms. Stillen [1:04:06] for your testimony [1:04:07] we wish you all the best [1:04:09] in the work [1:04:09] and very important work [1:04:10] that you're doing [1:04:11] thanks for being here today [1:04:12] thank you Senator [1:04:12] we're going to swap out [1:04:14] the name plates [1:04:15] and then have Mr. Hamilton [1:04:18] and Mr. Stewart [1:04:19] sworn in [1:04:19] and they'll have their [1:04:20] opening statements [1:04:21] and open for questions [1:04:22] okay [1:05:57] thank you both for being here [1:05:58] I know you just sat down [1:06:00] but I'm going to have you [1:06:01] stand up [1:06:01] it's the tradition [1:06:02] of this committee [1:06:02] to swear in the witnesses [1:06:04] so if you'd stand [1:06:05] raise your right hand [1:06:06] do you swear [1:06:07] that the testimony [1:06:08] you're about to give [1:06:09] to this committee [1:06:09] is the truth [1:06:10] the whole truth [1:06:10] and nothing but the truth [1:06:11] so help you God [1:06:12] thank you [1:06:14] okay [1:06:17] we're going to introduce [1:06:17] I'll introduce Mr. Hamilton [1:06:18] and then Senator Welsh [1:06:20] is going to introduce [1:06:21] Mr. Stewart [1:06:22] Gene Hamilton [1:06:23] is the president [1:06:24] of America First [1:06:24] legal foundation [1:06:25] a non-profit [1:06:26] legal organization [1:06:27] he co-founded [1:06:27] with Stephen Miller [1:06:28] in 2021 [1:06:29] before serving [1:06:30] as the president [1:06:31] of AFL [1:06:32] he served as [1:06:33] the deputy White House [1:06:34] counsel [1:06:34] in the Trump administration [1:06:35] from January [1:06:36] until June of 2025 [1:06:39] before serving [1:06:41] as deputy White House [1:06:42] counsel [1:06:42] Gene was executive director [1:06:44] executive vice president [1:06:45] and general counsel [1:06:46] of America First Legal [1:06:47] before co-founding AFL [1:06:48] in 2021 [1:06:49] Gene served as [1:06:51] counselor [1:06:52] to the attorney general [1:06:53] of the United States [1:06:53] Department of Justice [1:06:54] from 2017 to 2021 [1:06:57] senior counselor [1:06:58] to the secretary [1:06:59] of Homeland Security [1:07:00] general counsel [1:07:00] to Senator Jeff Sessions [1:07:02] on the Senate [1:07:02] committee of the judiciary [1:07:04] assistant chief counsel [1:07:06] at the U.S. [1:07:06] Immigration and Customs [1:07:07] Enforcement [1:07:08] and attorney advisor [1:07:09] in the secretary honors [1:07:11] program for the attorneys [1:07:12] at the U.S. [1:07:13] Department of Homeland Security [1:07:14] which included work [1:07:15] in the office [1:07:16] of general counsel's [1:07:17] operation [1:07:18] and enforcement law division [1:07:19] the intelligence law division [1:07:21] U.S. Customs [1:07:22] and Border Protection [1:07:22] and Transportation [1:07:23] Security Administration [1:07:24] a lot of experience [1:07:26] I see [1:07:26] Gene graduated [1:07:28] from Washington [1:07:28] and Lee School of Law [1:07:30] magna cum laude [1:07:31] order of the coif [1:07:32] and has a bachelor [1:07:34] of arts [1:07:35] in international affairs [1:07:36] from the University [1:07:36] of Georgia [1:07:38] we'll have you [1:07:41] you want to introduce [1:07:42] and then we'll have you [1:07:43] give your opening statement [1:07:44] thanks [1:07:44] okay thank you [1:07:45] welcome [1:07:46] Senator Robert Stewart [1:07:48] was born in Selma [1:07:49] Alabama [1:07:50] where public service [1:07:51] and social justice [1:07:53] were instilled [1:07:53] at a very young age [1:07:56] he's a democratic member [1:07:57] of the Alabama [1:07:58] State Senate [1:07:59] representing [1:07:59] District 23 [1:08:00] elected in November [1:08:02] 2022 [1:08:02] you became [1:08:03] the youngest [1:08:04] senator [1:08:05] in the Alabama [1:08:06] legislature [1:08:07] congratulations [1:08:07] and I understand [1:08:09] professionally [1:08:10] you serve [1:08:10] as chief [1:08:11] financial officer [1:08:12] of Foot Soldiers Park [1:08:13] and non-profit [1:08:14] dedicated to economic [1:08:16] development [1:08:16] youth empowerment [1:08:17] and social justice [1:08:19] based in Selma [1:08:20] Alabama [1:08:20] and a descendant [1:08:22] of the historic [1:08:23] G's Bend community [1:08:24] Stewart's family [1:08:25] legacy includes [1:08:27] his late maternal [1:08:27] grandmother [1:08:28] who served as a nurse [1:08:30] during the pivotal [1:08:31] events of Bloody Sunday [1:08:33] welcome [1:08:33] Senator Stewart [1:08:34] thank you [1:08:37] Senator Welsh [1:08:37] and we'll have both [1:08:38] of you [1:08:38] Mr. Hamilton [1:08:39] first and then [1:08:40] Senator Stewart [1:08:41] give your opening [1:08:42] statements [1:08:42] thank you [1:08:45] Chairman Schmidt [1:08:46] ranking member [1:08:48] Welch [1:08:48] and distinguished [1:08:49] members of the [1:08:50] subcommittee [1:08:50] on the constitution [1:08:51] thank you for [1:08:52] allowing me to [1:08:53] testify today [1:08:54] about this [1:08:55] critical issue [1:08:56] as president [1:08:58] of America [1:08:58] first legal [1:08:59] advancing [1:09:01] meritocracy [1:09:02] upholding [1:09:04] the rule [1:09:04] of law [1:09:05] and protecting [1:09:06] the civil rights [1:09:07] of all [1:09:08] Americans [1:09:09] is an important [1:09:12] priority [1:09:13] for our [1:09:14] organization [1:09:15] and I appreciate [1:09:16] the opportunity [1:09:17] to talk about [1:09:19] our ongoing [1:09:19] efforts [1:09:20] to fight [1:09:21] discrimination [1:09:22] in the United [1:09:23] States of America [1:09:24] there is nothing [1:09:26] righteous [1:09:27] or even morally [1:09:29] defensible [1:09:30] about intentionally [1:09:32] discriminating [1:09:33] against American [1:09:33] citizens [1:09:34] especially based [1:09:36] on their race [1:09:37] or their sex [1:09:38] what matters [1:09:40] is whether [1:09:40] a person [1:09:41] is the best [1:09:43] candidate [1:09:43] for the job [1:09:44] based on [1:09:46] merit [1:09:47] yet corporations [1:09:49] universities [1:09:50] K-12 schools [1:09:51] and other [1:09:52] institutions [1:09:52] that should [1:09:53] know better [1:09:53] have embraced [1:09:55] intentional [1:09:56] discrimination [1:09:57] as though it [1:09:58] were unquestionably [1:09:59] their duty [1:10:00] to do so [1:10:01] this was particularly [1:10:03] true over the [1:10:04] last four years [1:10:04] under the [1:10:06] Biden administration [1:10:07] let me be clear [1:10:09] it is never [1:10:11] acceptable [1:10:12] it is never [1:10:13] okay [1:10:14] for someone [1:10:15] to hire [1:10:17] fire [1:10:17] promote [1:10:18] or take [1:10:19] any employment [1:10:20] action [1:10:20] against [1:10:21] an American [1:10:22] citizen [1:10:22] based on [1:10:24] something like [1:10:25] their skin [1:10:25] color [1:10:26] or sex [1:10:26] balancing [1:10:28] a workforce [1:10:29] for example [1:10:30] through race [1:10:31] or sex [1:10:32] based preferences [1:10:33] is never [1:10:34] okay [1:10:34] every reserve [1:10:37] slot for one [1:10:38] group [1:10:38] necessarily [1:10:38] excludes [1:10:39] others [1:10:40] attempting [1:10:41] to address [1:10:42] purported [1:10:43] disparities [1:10:43] through the [1:10:44] use of [1:10:44] such blunt [1:10:45] instruments [1:10:45] ignores [1:10:47] intervening [1:10:48] political [1:10:48] social [1:10:49] and economic [1:10:50] forces [1:10:50] like [1:10:51] mass [1:10:51] immigration [1:10:52] and the erosion [1:10:53] of the nuclear [1:10:54] family [1:10:54] and undermines [1:10:56] the human [1:10:56] dignity [1:10:57] of every [1:10:58] person [1:10:58] subjected [1:10:59] to such [1:10:59] policies [1:11:00] holding down [1:11:02] one American [1:11:03] under the [1:11:04] purported premise [1:11:05] of lifting up [1:11:08] another [1:11:08] is an abhorrent [1:11:09] aggrandizement [1:11:10] of bureaucratic [1:11:11] power [1:11:12] that threatens [1:11:12] individual liberty [1:11:14] and freedom [1:11:15] at levels [1:11:16] that would only [1:11:16] be admired [1:11:17] by committed [1:11:18] socialists [1:11:18] no great nation [1:11:20] can sustain [1:11:20] the harm [1:11:21] inflicted by [1:11:22] such divisive [1:11:22] policies [1:11:23] they undermine [1:11:24] and weaken [1:11:25] our great [1:11:25] institutions [1:11:26] dilute [1:11:27] our shared [1:11:28] American [1:11:28] identity [1:11:29] turn [1:11:30] Americans [1:11:31] against [1:11:31] one another [1:11:32] and jeopardize [1:11:34] the strength [1:11:35] of the greatest [1:11:35] country on [1:11:36] earth [1:11:36] we are united [1:11:37] by fairness [1:11:38] individual [1:11:39] achievement [1:11:39] and equal [1:11:40] opportunity [1:11:41] principles that [1:11:42] have made us [1:11:42] a beacon [1:11:43] of hope [1:11:43] and freedom [1:11:44] and prosperity [1:11:45] but when [1:11:46] government [1:11:47] bureaucrats [1:11:47] are empowered [1:11:48] to pick [1:11:49] winners and losers [1:11:51] based on [1:11:51] immutable [1:11:51] characteristics [1:11:52] or when they [1:11:53] encourage [1:11:54] or conspire [1:11:55] with [1:11:55] or acquiesce [1:11:56] to private [1:11:57] actors doing [1:11:58] the same [1:11:58] fractures [1:12:00] form in the [1:12:00] foundation [1:12:01] of our [1:12:01] great nation [1:12:02] those fractures [1:12:04] which we see [1:12:04] already [1:12:05] will continue [1:12:06] to grow [1:12:07] and ultimately [1:12:07] destroy our [1:12:08] constitutional republic [1:12:09] if left [1:12:10] unaddressed [1:12:11] combating [1:12:13] illegal DEI [1:12:14] is vital [1:12:15] to maintaining [1:12:15] equal opportunity [1:12:16] for every [1:12:17] American [1:12:17] in preserving [1:12:18] our republic [1:12:19] through our [1:12:20] lawsuits [1:12:20] and federal [1:12:21] complaints [1:12:21] AFL has [1:12:23] delivered concrete [1:12:24] victories that [1:12:24] demonstrate the [1:12:25] power of [1:12:26] resolute action [1:12:27] although congress [1:12:29] has long [1:12:29] outlawed [1:12:30] discrimination [1:12:30] via statutes [1:12:31] like title [1:12:32] 6, title [1:12:32] 7, title [1:12:33] 9, 42 [1:12:34] U.S.C. [1:12:34] section 1981 [1:12:35] and also [1:12:36] through using [1:12:37] the actual [1:12:37] equal protection [1:12:38] clause of [1:12:39] the constitution [1:12:39] many entities [1:12:42] persist in [1:12:43] advancing DEI [1:12:44] in blatant [1:12:45] disregards for [1:12:46] the statute's [1:12:46] plain text [1:12:47] and clear intent [1:12:48] congress might [1:12:49] explore further [1:12:50] steps to refine [1:12:51] or bolster [1:12:51] these safeguards [1:12:52] like the [1:12:53] dismantled [1:12:54] DEI act [1:12:55] but the [1:12:56] primary emphasis [1:12:57] should be on [1:12:57] ensuring individuals [1:12:58] and entities [1:12:58] face consequences [1:12:59] for discriminating [1:13:01] against American [1:13:02] citizens [1:13:02] via robust [1:13:04] oversight [1:13:05] agency [1:13:05] prosecution [1:13:06] and backing [1:13:07] for private [1:13:08] initiatives [1:13:09] like America [1:13:10] First Legal [1:13:10] I welcome [1:13:11] your questions [1:13:11] thank you very [1:13:13] much [1:13:14] Mr. Stewart [1:13:15] Chairman [1:13:20] Smith [1:13:20] Ranking [1:13:21] Member Welch [1:13:22] distinguished [1:13:23] members of [1:13:24] the subcommittee [1:13:25] thank you for [1:13:27] the opportunity [1:13:27] to testify [1:13:28] before you [1:13:29] today [1:13:29] it is an [1:13:31] honor [1:13:32] and solemn [1:13:32] responsibility [1:13:33] to address [1:13:35] this esteemed [1:13:35] body [1:13:36] during a time [1:13:37] of great [1:13:38] consequence [1:13:39] for our nation [1:13:40] and its ongoing [1:13:41] commitment [1:13:42] to equity [1:13:43] justice [1:13:44] and democracy [1:13:46] my name is [1:13:47] Robert Stewart [1:13:48] and I am a [1:13:49] proud native [1:13:50] and current [1:13:51] resident [1:13:52] of the historic [1:13:53] Selma [1:13:53] Alabama [1:13:54] and I serve [1:13:55] as the state [1:13:56] senator [1:13:56] for Alabama's [1:13:58] 23rd [1:13:59] Senate District [1:14:00] home to the [1:14:01] storied counties [1:14:02] of Lowndes [1:14:04] Dallas [1:14:05] Wilcox [1:14:06] Perry [1:14:07] Monroe [1:14:08] Butler [1:14:09] Clark [1:14:10] and Kaneka [1:14:11] in the heart [1:14:12] of the Alabama [1:14:13] Black Belt [1:14:14] this testimony [1:14:16] is rooted [1:14:16] in the lived [1:14:17] experiences [1:14:18] of the people [1:14:20] I represent [1:14:21] descendants [1:14:22] of enslaved [1:14:23] Americans [1:14:25] veterans [1:14:26] of the civil [1:14:27] rights struggle [1:14:28] and rural [1:14:29] families [1:14:30] who have not [1:14:31] yet realized [1:14:32] the full promise [1:14:33] of the democracy [1:14:34] they helped [1:14:35] forge [1:14:35] I begin [1:14:38] by invoking [1:14:38] the words [1:14:39] and legacy [1:14:40] of President [1:14:41] Lyndon B. Johnson [1:14:42] who declared [1:14:44] a war on poverty [1:14:46] during the height [1:14:47] of the civil rights [1:14:48] movement [1:14:49] tragically [1:14:51] I come before you [1:14:52] to declare [1:14:53] that we have [1:14:54] shifted [1:14:55] from a war [1:14:56] on poverty [1:14:57] to a war [1:14:59] on the poor [1:15:00] in the Alabama [1:15:03] Black Belt [1:15:03] including [1:15:05] Lowndes County [1:15:06] where citizens [1:15:08] risk their lives [1:15:09] to build [1:15:09] a multiracial [1:15:10] democracy [1:15:11] our communities [1:15:13] are still fighting [1:15:14] for the basic [1:15:15] rights [1:15:16] that define [1:15:17] human dignity [1:15:18] and American [1:15:19] citizenship [1:15:20] these rights [1:15:22] include [1:15:23] clean water [1:15:24] functioning sewage [1:15:26] equitable education [1:15:28] livable wages [1:15:29] and the protection [1:15:31] of civil liberties [1:15:32] let us remember [1:15:35] it was the people [1:15:36] of Lowndes County [1:15:37] Black farmers [1:15:39] teachers [1:15:40] and veterans [1:15:41] who advanced [1:15:42] the cause [1:15:43] of American democracy [1:15:44] by demanding [1:15:46] not only [1:15:47] the right to vote [1:15:48] but also [1:15:49] protections [1:15:50] against [1:15:51] land theft [1:15:52] wage theft [1:15:54] state-sanctioned [1:15:56] violence [1:15:56] and the right [1:15:58] to self-determination [1:15:59] they understood [1:16:02] that the ballot box [1:16:03] alone [1:16:04] could not [1:16:05] uproot [1:16:06] inequality [1:16:06] without accompanying [1:16:08] justice [1:16:09] and housing [1:16:10] health [1:16:11] labor [1:16:12] and infrastructure [1:16:13] today the same [1:16:15] region suffers [1:16:16] from conditions [1:16:17] that will shock [1:16:18] the conscience [1:16:19] in 2017 [1:16:20] a report [1:16:21] by the United Nations [1:16:22] revealed the presence [1:16:24] of hookworm [1:16:25] a disease long [1:16:26] considered eradicated [1:16:28] in the developed world [1:16:29] due to failing [1:16:31] wastewater infrastructure [1:16:33] in Lowndes County [1:16:34] families were exposed [1:16:36] to raw sewage [1:16:37] because septic tanks [1:16:38] had collapsed [1:16:39] and outdated policies [1:16:41] left them [1:16:41] without solutions [1:16:43] thanks to the [1:16:44] dedicated work [1:16:45] of Congresswoman Sewell [1:16:46] President Joe Biden [1:16:48] Governor Kay Ivey [1:16:50] Alabama Department of Environmental Management [1:16:52] the Alabama Department of Public Health [1:16:54] and with the bipartisan efforts [1:16:57] led by President Trump [1:16:58] during his first term [1:17:00] investments were finally made [1:17:02] in wastewater infrastructure [1:17:04] across rural America [1:17:06] yes [1:17:07] we are grateful [1:17:08] for President Trump's efforts [1:17:10] during his first term [1:17:11] that led [1:17:12] to the transformative progress [1:17:14] I commend [1:17:16] Ms. Sherry Bradley [1:17:17] and the Black Belt [1:17:18] Unincorporated Wastewater Program [1:17:20] whose tireless efforts [1:17:22] have connected [1:17:23] hundreds of families [1:17:25] across the Black Belt [1:17:26] to working sewage [1:17:28] in record time [1:17:29] but this momentum [1:17:32] will stall [1:17:32] without restored [1:17:34] federal support [1:17:35] here's a quote [1:17:37] from Lowndes County [1:17:37] resident [1:17:38] Ms. Perman Hardy [1:17:39] of Collarine, Alabama [1:17:41] who lauded the program [1:17:42] my children grew up [1:17:44] using straight pipe [1:17:46] my grandchildren grew up [1:17:48] using straight pipe [1:17:49] but my great-grands [1:17:51] are now growing up [1:17:52] with a working septic system [1:17:55] finally [1:17:55] we gather here [1:17:58] to discuss civil rights [1:17:59] and illegal discrimination [1:18:00] but let us not overlook [1:18:02] the structural discrimination [1:18:04] of neglect [1:18:06] DEI initiatives [1:18:08] are not preference [1:18:09] or perks [1:18:10] they are attempts [1:18:11] to rectify generations [1:18:13] of exclusion [1:18:14] and ensure equal [1:18:16] access to opportunity [1:18:18] to eliminate these efforts [1:18:20] under the guise [1:18:21] of enforcing civil rights [1:18:23] is to misinterpret history [1:18:25] and undermine justice [1:18:27] thank you [1:18:29] and I welcome questions [1:18:30] thank you Mr. Stewart [1:18:32] and thank you for being here [1:18:33] Mr. Hamilton [1:18:34] let me ask you [1:18:35] sort of following up [1:18:37] on some of the questions [1:18:38] that I asked Ms. Dillon [1:18:39] after her testimony [1:18:41] that a lot of these [1:18:42] discriminatory efforts [1:18:44] these divisive efforts [1:18:45] couched as DEI [1:18:46] a lot of the [1:18:47] there's a lot more awareness [1:18:49] now of what that really is [1:18:50] five years ago [1:18:51] maybe not so much [1:18:52] the flowery language [1:18:53] sort of cloaked [1:18:54] the discriminatory aim [1:18:57] where do you see [1:18:59] this headed now [1:19:01] there's still work [1:19:02] to do there [1:19:03] and she's doing the work [1:19:04] and I think [1:19:05] you'll probably see [1:19:06] more [1:19:07] other causes of action [1:19:09] from individuals [1:19:11] even probably pop up [1:19:13] but you know [1:19:16] whether it's [1:19:16] social emotional learning [1:19:18] or community [1:19:18] whatever the term might be [1:19:20] what are you seeing [1:19:21] out there [1:19:21] that is sort of [1:19:23] DEI by another name [1:19:25] that is a really good question [1:19:27] because we've seen [1:19:28] in some cases [1:19:29] corporations [1:19:30] universities [1:19:30] other institutions [1:19:32] take on [1:19:33] and actually abandon [1:19:34] some of these [1:19:35] exclusionary programs [1:19:36] and policies [1:19:37] but in many other cases [1:19:39] they seem to be [1:19:40] just deleting the language [1:19:41] or changing the language [1:19:43] and morphing to things [1:19:44] trying to fly under the radar [1:19:46] long enough [1:19:46] to think that they're going to [1:19:48] evade [1:19:49] federal enforcement [1:19:50] or they're going to evade [1:19:51] private liability [1:19:52] and so [1:19:53] what do I think [1:19:54] is going to happen [1:19:55] where do I see things going [1:19:56] I think I see [1:19:57] with this department of justice [1:19:59] with organizations like mine [1:20:01] and others [1:20:02] a renewed awareness [1:20:04] and commitment [1:20:05] through education [1:20:06] through litigation [1:20:07] through everything in between [1:20:09] to make Americans aware [1:20:11] and to make corporate leaders [1:20:13] make the C-suite [1:20:14] and the university administrators [1:20:16] aware [1:20:16] that discriminating against [1:20:18] American citizens [1:20:19] whether you can call it [1:20:21] any name you want [1:20:22] call it any kind of program [1:20:23] but any program [1:20:25] that discriminates against [1:20:26] an American citizen [1:20:27] or reserves something [1:20:29] for another citizen [1:20:30] and provides a benefit [1:20:31] whether that's in terms [1:20:32] of an employment [1:20:33] whether that's in terms [1:20:34] of education access [1:20:35] whether that's in terms [1:20:37] of anything of the sort [1:20:38] that that is discriminatory [1:20:40] and there is liability [1:20:42] there is actual liability [1:20:44] that will attach to it [1:20:45] we're proud at America First Legal [1:20:47] to represent many individuals [1:20:49] who have had successful resolutions [1:20:52] of their claims [1:20:53] of this type of discrimination [1:20:54] whether in the private context [1:20:57] whether in the public context [1:20:59] everywhere in between [1:21:00] but what it's going to take [1:21:02] is more attention [1:21:03] more spotlighting [1:21:04] just like you're doing [1:21:05] with this particular hearing [1:21:07] to make the American people aware [1:21:10] and to educate everyone [1:21:11] of what Congress did [1:21:12] when it passed the plain statute [1:21:15] Title VII [1:21:15] Title VI [1:21:16] again Title IX [1:21:17] if you just return [1:21:18] to the plain text [1:21:19] and we're all textualists [1:21:20] these days [1:21:21] if you return to the plain text [1:21:23] of those statutes [1:21:24] there is no discrimination [1:21:25] that's permitted [1:21:26] against an American citizen [1:21:27] on those bases [1:21:28] I want to talk [1:21:29] with the time [1:21:30] in two minutes [1:21:30] I will have to touch [1:21:31] on sort of two topics [1:21:32] that are somewhat related [1:21:33] and I think for a lot of people [1:21:35] like normal people out there [1:21:38] that don't live in this [1:21:40] like radical racialization [1:21:41] of America [1:21:42] that many of the elites [1:21:44] and those on the left [1:21:45] have pushed [1:21:46] they don't understand [1:21:47] where this comes from [1:21:48] corporations are supposed to [1:21:49] you know [1:21:50] they hire people [1:21:50] they make money [1:21:51] but this sort of insidious [1:21:53] corporate equality index [1:21:54] that many of them chase [1:21:56] that sort of puts out there [1:21:57] is this carrot [1:21:58] you're going to get [1:21:59] a great rating [1:21:59] and we're going to talk [1:22:00] about how great you are [1:22:01] and it's funded by [1:22:02] partially by Soros [1:22:04] and all these groups [1:22:05] that are chasing this clout [1:22:06] inherent in that then [1:22:08] are these exclusive [1:22:10] discriminatory policies [1:22:11] to get a higher equity rating [1:22:14] it seems to me [1:22:15] that probably what needs to happen [1:22:17] is there need to be [1:22:18] a couple of massive lawsuits [1:22:20] and a couple of massive judgments [1:22:22] against companies [1:22:23] I mean I'm not going to [1:22:24] you know [1:22:24] single out any particular target [1:22:26] seems to be sort of an example [1:22:28] but there's a lot of them out there [1:22:30] do you think that [1:22:31] as a litigation strategy [1:22:33] might be something [1:22:33] that should be pursued [1:22:34] yes [1:22:36] this is the short answer [1:22:37] the longer answer [1:22:38] is that I think [1:22:40] that that will bear out [1:22:41] over the next year [1:22:42] to two years [1:22:42] there will be massive liabilities [1:22:44] imposed on corporations [1:22:45] that they were not expecting [1:22:47] and that will change [1:22:48] the world forever [1:22:49] yep [1:22:49] and then [1:22:50] we've talked a lot [1:22:52] about university [1:22:52] criteria and quotas [1:22:55] one of the things again [1:22:56] that I think [1:22:57] people don't understand [1:22:59] and I certainly saw it [1:23:00] in my time as attorney general [1:23:01] in Missouri [1:23:01] school districts [1:23:03] you wouldn't expect [1:23:03] Springfield school district [1:23:05] not you know [1:23:05] in St. Louis [1:23:06] Kansas City [1:23:06] Springfield Missouri [1:23:07] had some of the most [1:23:09] radical materials [1:23:10] in front of [1:23:11] not only in front of kids [1:23:12] but part of the trainings [1:23:13] mostly you know [1:23:14] CRT is not a class [1:23:15] well the fact is [1:23:16] if you teach [1:23:17] and train [1:23:17] every administrator [1:23:18] and teacher [1:23:19] to view the race [1:23:20] and separate the room [1:23:21] by oppressor and oppressed [1:23:22] then that's it [1:23:23] that becomes a part [1:23:25] of the entire curriculum [1:23:26] where do you see [1:23:28] that coming from [1:23:29] what influences [1:23:30] how does it get [1:23:31] from the think tanks [1:23:33] in Washington DC [1:23:33] to Springfield Missouri [1:23:35] what is the apparatus [1:23:36] you've identified [1:23:36] how does that happen [1:23:37] well what happens [1:23:40] based on the records [1:23:40] that we've already [1:23:41] identified [1:23:42] is there's a whole [1:23:42] entire consulting industry [1:23:43] that's driven [1:23:44] and there's an ecosphere [1:23:45] that's built up [1:23:46] supported by this [1:23:47] consulting industry [1:23:48] with NGOs [1:23:48] a lot of money [1:23:49] driving these things [1:23:50] to pay for these things [1:23:51] and they teach [1:23:52] and they just spread [1:23:53] this knowledge [1:23:53] across the entire country [1:23:56] and as a for example [1:23:57] we uncovered [1:23:58] one of the first things [1:23:59] that our organization [1:24:00] did maybe in 2021-22 [1:24:01] is we uncovered records [1:24:03] from a school district [1:24:04] in Pennsylvania [1:24:04] that showed definitively [1:24:06] that CRT was being [1:24:07] actually used [1:24:08] in a school district [1:24:09] they were in fact [1:24:10] teaching CRT [1:24:12] and they had a little [1:24:13] diagram [1:24:13] and it funneled [1:24:14] everything [1:24:14] and it was [1:24:15] at the time [1:24:16] when everyone was saying [1:24:17] oh no [1:24:17] this is just a fib [1:24:19] of the right [1:24:19] this is something [1:24:20] that doesn't actually exist [1:24:21] but there's an entire [1:24:22] monetary driver [1:24:24] that is creating this [1:24:26] that is spreading this [1:24:27] that had been spreading [1:24:28] this across the country [1:24:29] and I think that over time [1:24:31] whether we look at [1:24:32] antitrust enforcement [1:24:33] whether we look at [1:24:33] other private civil liability [1:24:35] there's a lot of other [1:24:36] things here [1:24:36] that are going to weaken [1:24:38] the ability of them [1:24:39] to perpetuate [1:24:39] the spread of this type [1:24:41] of information [1:24:42] it's the head of the snake [1:24:43] I mean the oppression matrix [1:24:44] you know grade school kids [1:24:45] being forced to engage [1:24:46] in privilege walks [1:24:47] it's totally insane [1:24:48] Senator Welch [1:24:49] thank you Mr. Chairman [1:24:51] Mr. Stewart welcome [1:24:52] my understanding is that [1:24:54] there was a settlement [1:24:56] that was the result [1:24:58] of efforts by [1:24:59] the civil rights division [1:25:00] in the attorney general's office [1:25:03] to address [1:25:04] a septic problem [1:25:06] in your county [1:25:08] and that was a result [1:25:11] of there being [1:25:13] incredibly poor soil [1:25:15] and years of [1:25:17] as you were describing [1:25:18] folks having straight [1:25:19] pipe sewage [1:25:20] and they were then [1:25:21] prosecuted and fined [1:25:23] and they were starting [1:25:24] to be held in criminal [1:25:25] contempt even though [1:25:26] there was no capacity [1:25:27] for them to address [1:25:28] the issue [1:25:29] and that the new [1:25:31] assistant attorney general [1:25:33] who just testified [1:25:34] got out of that settlement [1:25:37] basically renounced it [1:25:39] and the reason was [1:25:41] that it was the product [1:25:42] of illegal DEI [1:25:44] would you care to comment [1:25:45] on what that situation was [1:25:46] and how the justice department [1:25:48] was helpful to you [1:25:49] the civil rights division [1:25:50] and also Mr. Chairman [1:25:51] I just want to acknowledge [1:25:52] there are many folks [1:25:53] who used to be [1:25:54] with the civil rights division [1:25:55] who are here today [1:25:56] I want to express to you [1:25:57] my incredible gratitude [1:25:59] for the commitment you made [1:26:01] and I think it's outrageous [1:26:02] that the ranks [1:26:03] including you [1:26:05] have been decimated [1:26:06] in the department [1:26:07] Mr. Stewart [1:26:08] well I just want to add [1:26:10] that it's not radical [1:26:11] for all American citizens [1:26:14] to have access to working [1:26:16] sewage, clean air, clean land [1:26:20] and the EPA was founded [1:26:23] by President Richard Nixon [1:26:26] so this is a nonpartisan effort [1:26:30] and so the federal investment [1:26:34] granted by the EPA [1:26:36] was transformative [1:26:37] to Lowndes County [1:26:39] and not just Lowndes County [1:26:40] but many counties [1:26:42] throughout the Black Belt [1:26:43] as well as Appalachia [1:26:44] for them to address [1:26:46] the failing septic systems [1:26:49] just want to just highlight [1:26:51] the Black Belt [1:26:54] Unincorporated Wastewater Program [1:26:56] they really helped citizens [1:27:01] exude self-determination [1:27:03] there were lots of health challenges [1:27:06] with the raw sewage [1:27:08] and that affected the work [1:27:10] it had implications [1:27:11] on the workforce as well [1:27:13] and so we were finally able [1:27:16] the federal government [1:27:17] was finally able [1:27:18] to provide a remedy [1:27:20] for these rural Americans [1:27:23] who were long forgot about [1:27:24] also the citizens [1:27:28] have some skin in the game [1:27:29] because they pay $20 [1:27:31] to maintain the septic systems [1:27:33] once they receive those upgrades [1:27:37] and so there have been [1:27:39] nearly 100 homes [1:27:41] and we've made record progress [1:27:43] So that Civil Rights Department [1:27:46] agreement was dismissed [1:27:48] when the new Assistant Attorney General [1:27:53] became into authority, correct? [1:27:56] Precisely [1:27:57] And there was $24 million [1:27:58] that had been part of the infrastructure bill [1:28:01] that was taken away [1:28:02] is that correct? [1:28:03] That is correct [1:28:04] That was a presidential action [1:28:06] Is that your view? [1:28:10] Was this something that was done [1:28:14] for improper DEI [1:28:16] that is to provide a remedy [1:28:17] to the folks that you represent? [1:28:19] Yes [1:28:20] And I just want to reiterate [1:28:23] that all citizens have this right [1:28:25] and I think that it's unfair [1:28:29] that the constituents [1:28:30] are continued to be left behind [1:28:32] when they were making this progress [1:28:34] under several presidential administrations [1:28:37] In 2018, we had unprecedented investment [1:28:42] under the Form Act in 2018 [1:28:44] under President Trump [1:28:45] We saw investment [1:28:48] in failing wastewater systems [1:28:51] across rural America [1:28:52] and so we need to continue [1:28:54] those strides [1:28:56] to ensure that no Americans [1:28:57] are left behind [1:28:58] Thank you [1:28:58] Thank you very much [1:28:59] Mr. Hamilton [1:29:00] We had some significant difficulty [1:29:03] getting documents [1:29:04] from the Department of Justice [1:29:05] about the change in policies [1:29:08] with respect to the Civil Rights Division [1:29:10] We now have those [1:29:12] but not through the cooperation [1:29:13] of the Department [1:29:14] You, as the head of America First Legal [1:29:18] I think you sued the federal government [1:29:20] for failing to provide documents [1:29:22] you requested, correct? [1:29:25] Many times [1:29:25] And in fact, is it fair to say [1:29:29] that you agree with us [1:29:31] that the federal government [1:29:33] should be transparent [1:29:34] and turn over information [1:29:35] that's relevant to the public? [1:29:39] I mean, depending on the context [1:29:41] certainly there's a difference [1:29:43] between what Congress passed [1:29:44] in FOIA [1:29:45] in terms of the public's access [1:29:47] to the government's information [1:29:48] and then interbranch accommodations [1:29:50] between Article 1 and Article 2 [1:29:52] depending on the information [1:29:53] that's at issue [1:29:54] And what was at issue here [1:29:56] was the change in policies [1:29:58] that affected the various divisions [1:29:59] within the Civil Rights Division [1:30:01] and how there was an explicit change of policy [1:30:04] And by the way [1:30:05] one of the points that Ms. Dillon made [1:30:09] is that what the Civil Rights Division [1:30:12] should be zealous and faithful [1:30:15] in pursuit of the priorities of the President [1:30:17] What I heard in your testimony [1:30:19] is that the law is what it is [1:30:22] that should be pursued zealously [1:30:25] not the preference of any individual president [1:30:27] Is that correct? [1:30:31] The President is the head of Article 2 [1:30:33] and under Article 2, Section 1 [1:30:35] all executive power is vested in the President [1:30:38] Everyone has to set priorities [1:30:40] Everyone has to [1:30:41] limited time in the day [1:30:43] in terms of what things to try to get at [1:30:45] The Department of Justice Civil Rights Division [1:30:47] I mean, look, believe me [1:30:49] I am very sympathetic [1:30:51] very sympathetic [1:30:52] to rural communities [1:30:54] getting missed and overlooked [1:30:56] That speaks deeply to my heart [1:30:59] The Civil Rights Division [1:31:01] of the Department of Justice [1:31:02] doesn't need to be involved [1:31:04] with septic tanks [1:31:06] That is not [1:31:07] a civil rights issue [1:31:10] There is no use of the civil rights laws [1:31:13] The notion that septic tanks [1:31:15] and sewer lines are somehow racist [1:31:17] is crazy [1:31:18] I mean, that's absolutely ludicrous [1:31:20] But there are solutions [1:31:22] that Congress can employ [1:31:23] Let me just suggest [1:31:25] that if the denial of access [1:31:27] to remedies [1:31:28] is based on race [1:31:30] that is a civil rights issue [1:31:32] I'm finished with my time [1:31:34] Thank you [1:31:35] Thank you [1:31:36] Senator Lee [1:31:36] Mr. Hamilton [1:31:38] You've recently spoken [1:31:39] about DEI practices [1:31:40] in health care [1:31:41] How has the Biden administration [1:31:45] engaged in preferencing [1:31:49] in this area [1:31:51] according to some [1:31:53] preferencing organ donations [1:31:55] and de-preferencing others [1:31:59] on the basis of race [1:32:00] Yeah, absolutely [1:32:02] It was kind of nuts [1:32:04] when you sit down [1:32:06] and you think about it [1:32:07] The Biden administration promulgated [1:32:09] Biden HHS promulgated a rule [1:32:12] I think it was finalized [1:32:13] in December of last year [1:32:15] The rule then, of course [1:32:17] this new system [1:32:18] this new pricing incentive system [1:32:20] that they created [1:32:20] took effect just a couple of weeks ago [1:32:23] And what the system does [1:32:26] is it creates incentive payments [1:32:27] for medical systems [1:32:29] to achieve equitable outcomes [1:32:32] which means [1:32:33] translation [1:32:33] if you read through all the bureaucrates [1:32:35] if you read through all the [1:32:37] the really complicated [1:32:39] and technical language [1:32:40] what you will see [1:32:41] is something that they have been [1:32:42] trying to push for a long time [1:32:44] which is equity in things [1:32:46] even like organ transplants [1:32:48] and kidney transplants [1:32:50] that we're going to instead [1:32:51] we're going to instead of pursuing [1:32:53] what's in the best interest [1:32:54] of a patient [1:32:55] at a moment in time [1:32:56] and trying to help everybody [1:32:58] that we're somehow going to now [1:33:00] prioritize things based on equity [1:33:02] when it comes to things like [1:33:04] organ transplants [1:33:05] it's crazy [1:33:06] Right [1:33:07] and the term equity is [1:33:08] Senator Kennedy was alluding to earlier [1:33:10] can be perceived differently [1:33:12] by different people [1:33:13] if one were to use the term fairness [1:33:16] instead I don't think most people [1:33:17] would disagree with the notion [1:33:19] that scarce resources [1:33:22] need to be dealt with in a fair manner [1:33:26] but our laws make certain kinds of decisions [1:33:29] unlawful [1:33:30] including when they are based on race [1:33:33] on that note [1:33:34] can you provide some examples [1:33:36] of how big business [1:33:38] may have used DEI practices [1:33:42] in order to terminate workers [1:33:44] on the basis of criteria [1:33:47] that would otherwise have been prohibited [1:33:49] under Title VII [1:33:50] of the Civil Rights Act [1:33:51] our employment laws for example [1:33:53] typically prohibit an employer [1:33:55] from discriminating against an employee [1:33:57] on the basis of his or her sex [1:33:59] race [1:34:00] or age [1:34:01] age in many circumstances [1:34:03] a little bit different [1:34:04] with each category [1:34:06] have you seen that happening [1:34:08] or are you aware of DEI being used [1:34:10] as a pretext [1:34:11] as a cudgel [1:34:12] a mechanism [1:34:13] by which to engage in otherwise [1:34:15] prohibited employment practices [1:34:17] sometimes the trifecta [1:34:19] of race [1:34:20] sex and age [1:34:21] Absolutely [1:34:22] Senator Lee [1:34:23] there are so many instances [1:34:25] and so many clients [1:34:26] who have come to us [1:34:27] active lawsuits [1:34:28] that we represent clients in [1:34:30] that I won't get into the merits of [1:34:32] here before this body [1:34:33] where we have evidence [1:34:35] of corporations blatantly [1:34:37] blatantly [1:34:38] whether they just tell the person [1:34:40] you're not of the right type [1:34:42] you don't have the right skin color [1:34:44] whether it was for promotion [1:34:46] or whether it was for [1:34:47] actually getting into the door of a business [1:34:50] having people tell people that [1:34:52] you don't fit the profile that we're looking for [1:34:55] or instead creating a pipeline [1:34:57] a recruiting pipeline [1:34:59] that's only accessible to people of certain backgrounds [1:35:02] when you only make something accessible to people of certain backgrounds [1:35:07] you're excluding everyone else [1:35:09] I mean it's just [1:35:10] it's the most common sense thing in the world [1:35:11] but yet corporate America for the longest time [1:35:13] the C-Suites [1:35:14] got bewitched [1:35:15] bewildered [1:35:16] by the HR recruiting kind of class [1:35:20] who came in [1:35:21] all these consultants [1:35:22] and convinced them [1:35:23] that somehow equity [1:35:24] and somehow [1:35:25] all of these special preferences [1:35:27] was actually good for their bottom line [1:35:29] and it wasn't [1:35:30] it's nonsense [1:35:32] and beyond just not being good for the bottom line [1:35:35] it's blatantly illegal [1:35:36] as you pointed out [1:35:37] Does Title 7 contain a carve-out [1:35:39] for the word equity [1:35:41] or however somebody wants to define equity? [1:35:43] It does not [1:35:44] Does Title 7 contain a carve-out [1:35:46] for someone having benevolent objectives in mind [1:35:49] at the time they engage in discrimination in employment on the basis of race? [1:35:54] Absolutely not [1:35:55] So it doesn't matter what the subjective motivations [1:35:58] or the asserted virtue of the decision maker is [1:36:02] when it comes to an employment decision [1:36:04] subject to Title 7 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 [1:36:08] does it? [1:36:09] You're correct [1:36:10] maybe more so than it made a difference for the defendants in [1:36:14] Brown versus Board of Education [1:36:16] when the litigants [1:36:19] when the lawyers said with a straight face [1:36:21] before the highest court of the land [1:36:23] just across the street from us [1:36:25] Yes, we are engaging [1:36:27] in not just de facto but de jure discrimination [1:36:29] Yes, we're doing it on the basis of race [1:36:31] Yes, we are segregating people on the basis of their skin color [1:36:35] but it's okay [1:36:37] because our intentions are benevolent [1:36:40] and not malicious [1:36:42] Is there any distinction you can draw between [1:36:44] that kind of justification [1:36:46] which was soundly, wisely [1:36:48] rejected in Brown versus Board of Education [1:36:50] which was a constitutional, not a statutory theory [1:36:52] Is there any difference between that [1:36:55] type of attempted justification [1:36:57] and what we see here [1:36:59] other than the fact that one is statutory [1:37:01] the other is constitutional? [1:37:03] I don't see any, sir [1:37:05] I don't see any at all [1:37:06] Benevolent intentions [1:37:07] or even malicious intentions [1:37:08] led to the abhorrent doctrine of separate but equal [1:37:11] that the Supreme Court rightly overturned [1:37:13] in Brown versus Board [1:37:15] Any time you have fissures forming in a society [1:37:18] like the United States [1:37:20] where you have people from all over the world [1:37:22] who have come here to live here together [1:37:24] any time that you have things [1:37:26] where people are trying to create these fractures [1:37:30] in the American populace [1:37:32] and even if it's benevolent intentions or not [1:37:35] we have to treat all American citizens the same [1:37:38] regardless because that's what Congress said [1:37:41] and that's what the Constitution guarantees [1:37:44] As Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan [1:37:47] noted in his classic dissent in Plessy versus Ferguson [1:37:51] speaking against the outrage [1:37:53] that was and is the separate but equal doctrine [1:37:56] the Constitution requires that we not make decisions [1:38:02] on the basis of someone's race [1:38:04] Thank you [1:38:05] Thank you, Senator [1:38:06] Senator Hirono [1:38:09] Thank you, Mr. Chairman [1:38:13] Diversity is America's greatest strength [1:38:15] and as my Republican colleagues continue to demonize [1:38:18] and otherize anyone who does not look like them [1:38:22] hate crimes continue to rise [1:38:25] Data shows that hate incidents are at their highest point since 2020 [1:38:31] when the Senate passed my COVID-19 hate crimes bill [1:38:36] The Constitution mandates equal protection of the laws for everyone [1:38:42] Full stop [1:38:44] It does not bar diversity, equity, and inclusion [1:38:48] Programming relating to diversity is not illegal just because Donald Trump says so [1:38:56] That is why I have introduced a pro-diversity resolution [1:39:00] joined by all of my Democratic Judiciary Committee colleagues [1:39:04] Reaffirming our commitment to the fundamental values of diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility [1:39:14] I am proud to be from a state that is home to the nation's largest share of multiracial Americans [1:39:22] In Hawaii, we don't fear diversity [1:39:25] We embrace it [1:39:27] It is what brings us together [1:39:30] That is why I find it so confounding that my Republican colleagues are so fearful of diversity [1:39:37] My Republican colleagues are intent on teaching young people that people different from them [1:39:44] are to be feared, mistrusted, and treated with suspicion [1:39:49] How does that bring us together? [1:39:52] I've heard Republicans say that diversity undermines national unity [1:39:58] I'd like to remind us all that almost everyone at this table is descended from immigrants [1:40:09] The continental U.S. was created by Europeans who migrated to this place and founded a nation pretending that there were not millions of people who already lived here before Columbus [1:40:28] So-called discovered America [1:40:33] This country was built by the work of slaves [1:40:36] Dragged here against their will [1:40:38] From a continent they would never see again [1:40:42] So we have always struggled with racism and exclusion in our country [1:40:51] And yet we have worked to keep the country united by encouraging and yes, sometimes forcing inclusion [1:41:01] And before President Trump for six decades [1:41:06] Presidents of both major political parties supported diversity initiatives to strengthen the workforce [1:41:13] Expand opportunity and ensure everyone has a fair shot at achieving the American dream [1:41:20] In President Reagan's farewell address [1:41:24] He spoke of America as [1:41:26] And I quote [1:41:27] Shining city upon a hill [1:41:29] End quote [1:41:30] And said it was a city [1:41:32] Once again quoting President Reagan [1:41:34] Teeming with people of all kinds [1:41:38] Living in harmony and peace [1:41:41] And if there has to be city walls [1:41:44] The walls had doors [1:41:47] And the doors were open to anyone [1:41:50] With the will and the heart to get here [1:41:53] Diversity does not undermine American unity [1:41:57] It's what creates it [1:41:59] Diversity is our strength [1:42:01] Unity is our superpower [1:42:04] I do have one yes or no question for Mr. Hamilton [1:42:08] I know you're involved in DEI cases [1:42:12] But has any court opined that DEI is unconstitutional? [1:42:17] Yes or no? [1:42:19] Yes [1:42:22] Which court? [1:42:23] United States Supreme Court [1:42:25] I disagree with you [1:42:26] Because you're talking about the Harvard case [1:42:28] You can go read it yourself [1:42:31] And if you are using that case for the proposition that the United States Supreme Court deemed diversity a goal [1:42:37] As being unconstitutional you are very wrong [1:42:41] I don't think the Supreme Court said anything about diversity [1:42:44] In the entire [1:42:45] Yeah so [1:42:46] Okay so you [1:42:47] You do admit that [1:42:48] Diversity [1:42:49] The goal [1:42:50] You see [1:42:51] I'm asking the question sir [1:42:52] The goal of diversity is not unconstitutional [1:42:54] We're not talking about diversity [1:42:55] We're talking about discrimination [1:42:56] The goal of diversity is not unconstitutional [1:42:58] The Supreme Court has condemned its discrimination against American citizens [1:43:01] That's it [1:43:02] Colleges and universities cannot discriminate against American citizens on the basis of their race [1:43:06] You know I'm not here to give you a forum to [1:43:08] That is flagrantly unconstitutional [1:43:09] Basically you your anti-diversity rhetoric okay [1:43:13] You are in court right now and I would say that no court including the Supreme Court [1:43:20] Has not said that seeking diversity is unconstitutional [1:43:24] It is not [1:43:25] Okay well I'm out of time [1:43:29] You can see that we are very divergent group of people here [1:43:37] Intellectually diverse [1:43:38] And you know on the basis of the suspicion supposedly for people who are DEI [1:43:43] That would mean that you suspect me of something [1:43:46] I cannot be trusted [1:43:47] I hope that that is not your view [1:43:48] I don't know if you're [1:43:49] Hopefully you're not talking about me because that's a ridiculous accusation [1:43:52] Thank you [1:43:53] Yeah [1:43:54] I wish everybody else would say the same thing [1:43:55] About those people in our country [1:43:56] Okay [1:43:57] Your time has expired Senator [1:43:59] Thanks [1:44:00] Thanks so much [1:44:01] Okay I want to thank the nominees [1:44:02] Or I want to thank the witnesses for their testimony here today [1:44:05] Written questions may be submitted for the record until July [1:44:09] Until July 30th at 5pm the hearing is adjourned [1:44:12] Thank you