Alex Padilla U.S. Senator for California

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Today, U.S. Senator Alex Padilla (D-Calif.), chair of the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration, Citizenship, and Border Safety, questioned U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland during a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on oversight of the Department of Justice (DOJ).

During his questioning, Senator Padilla pressed Attorney General Garland on topics ranging from the backlog of cases stuck in immigration courts to the use of predictive policing strategies—this follows a letter Padilla and seven other members of Congress sent in April questioning the agency about its funding of predictive policing practices and laying out their concerns that it is ineffective as a public safety tool.

Padilla also questioned the Attorney General on how he plans to address anti-competitive labor practices and hold accountable public officials who used their office to undermine our democracy and overturn the 2020 election.

WATCH: View Video of Padilla’s Questioning

Key Excerpts:

• PADILLA: Right, one of the best, most smart approaches to tackling unlawful migration is to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of lawful migration. It’s not just investing in immigration courts, but access to counsel. And I just want to add that these are issues that my office hears about on a very regular basis. And so, I was heartened that you will be asking for additional resources to address those issues. This is certainly an area where money is needed to improve the processing of immigration cases, while ensuring due process.

• PADILLA: As most, I believe we should all agree, we need an open and competitive economy that also works for workers. We talk a lot about entrepreneurialism, capitalism, consumer protection, but we need an economy that also works for workers, and this demands the Department of Justice’s attention to combat artificially suppressed compensation, employer collusion, and increasing inequality. […]

Attorney General Garland, what is the Department of Justice doing to ensure that there’s competition in our labor markets? And is this yet another area where the Department needs additional resources to fulfill the mission laid out by President Biden?

GARLAND: The Justice Department’s Anti-Trust Division agrees—I don’t know if you can hear either—agrees that competition within labor markets is as much a part of the anti-trust laws as competition in product markets or consumer markets. We have a number of investigations involved in those areas that you’re talking about. We have a criminal case, all public. On the no-poaching issue, we brought cases and investigations regarding allocations of labor markets. So, I think I can fairly say we agree with you. This is an area of concern, and it’s an area of anti-trust division focus. The anti-trust division does need more money and more lawyers, and economists, and investigators. It was down substantially—one of the lowest headcounts in quite a number of years—and we very much need to build that back. And that’s why our FY 22 appropriations request asked for a substantial increase in money for the anti-trust division.

• PADILLA: Earlier this month, this committee released a report detailing former President Trump’s scheme to pressure the Department of Justice and overturn the will of the people who voted for now President Joe Biden, so that he could serve again as President. The report outlined behavior that follows a pattern and practice of intimidation, coercion, and outright bullying by the former President’s administration. […]

Are you willing to recommit yourself to pursuing every possible avenue and every possible lead for holding those accountable who have used public office to undermine and our democracy?

GARLAND: So, as a general matter, the answer, of course, is yes. I don’t want to talk about specific investigations except to point out what’s already been stated publicly on the record, which is a component of the Justice Department, although an independent one. […]

A full transcript of the exchange is available below:

DURBIN: Senator Padilla. 

PADILLA: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let me begin with a comment before I get to a few issues and a few questions, particularly in light of recent comments from some of my colleagues about immigration, migration, what is, and what isn’t happening.

And I want to start by recognizing Senator Coons’ remarks earlier, who asked you about what you’re doing to address the backlog in immigration courts.

Right, one of the best, most smart approaches to tackling unlawful migration is to improve the effectiveness and the efficiency of lawful migration. It’s not just investing in immigration courts, but access to counsel.

And I just want to add that these are issues that my office hears about on a very regular basis. And so, I was heartened that you will be asking for additional resources to address those issues. This is certainly an area where money is needed to improve the processing of immigration cases, while ensuring due process.

Now to my questions: First, a response that I, and several of my colleagues, have been waiting on since April 15th, when I and seven other members of Congress sent you a letter, concerning the department’s funding and oversight of predictive policing tools—which are deployed by law enforcement throughout the country. As we highlighted in that letter, and I’m happy to provide an additional copy to you, we’re concerned that the Department of Justice may be devoting precious taxpayer resources to ineffective tools and encouraging local law enforcement to also devote resources to unproven strategies.

Worse still, those tools may be perpetuating a vicious cycle of discriminatory policing against historically marginalized groups. Because we have not yet received a response, we do not know for example, what, if any conditions there are by the Department of Justice, on the agencies and departments who have deploy predictive policing tools with the aid of federal funds. I find this unacceptable. So, Attorney General Garland, it’s been over six months since our letter was sent to the Department of Justice and we have yet to receive an official response. Can you explain the delay and when we can expect a response?

GARLAND: I can’t explain the delay. I don’t know what the reason is, but I will immediately take this back and be sure that the Office of Legislative Affairs responds to your letter.

PADILLA: Okay, we’ll get you another copy of that letter before we leave here today.

Next issue: As most, I believe we should all agree, we need an open and competitive economy that also works for workers. We talk a lot about entrepreneurialism, capitalism, consumer protection, but we need an economy that also works for workers, and this demands the Department of Justice’s attention to combat artificially suppressed compensation, employer collusion, and increasing inequality.

You know, for example, non-compete clauses, or no-poach agreements, limit the ability of many workers throughout our economy to switch to better paying opportunities or start their own businesses in a number of sectors. Anti-trust protection for labor organizing does not yet explicitly extend to gig economy workers, who are classified as independent contractors, by their employers. And corporate consolidation can limit the pool of companies in a labor market competing to attract and retain workers.

Attorney General Garland, what is the Department of Justice doing to ensure that there’s competition in our labor markets? And is this yet another area where the Department needs additional resources to fulfill the mission laid out by President Biden?

GARLAND: Thank you for the question.

The Justice Department’s Anti-Trust Division agrees—I don’t know if you can hear either—agrees that competition within labor markets is as much a part of the anti-trust laws as competition in product markets or consumer markets. We have a number of investigations involved in those areas that you’re talking about. We have a criminal case, all public. On the no-poaching issue, we brought cases and investigations regarding allocations of labor markets. So, I think I can fairly say we agree with you. This is an area of concern, and it’s an area of anti-trust division focus. The anti-trust division does need more money and more lawyers, and economists, and investigators. It was down substantially—one of the lowest headcounts in quite a number of years—and we very much need to build that back. And that’s why our FY 22 appropriations request asked for a substantial increase in money for the anti-trust division.

PADILLA: Wonderful. Well, I look forward to supporting those requests for additional resources. And finally, in the time remaining, yet another topic. Earlier this month, this committee released a report detailing former President Trump’s scheme to pressure the Department of Justice and overturn the will of the people who voted for now President Joe Biden, so that he could serve again as President. The report outlined behavior that follows a pattern and practice of intimidation, coercion, and outright bullying by the former President’s administration. If we don’t hold these bad actors accountable, we face the possibility of eroding public trust in our institutions. Americans are looking for accountability. And they’re looking to you, Attorney General, as the leader of your agency, to administer justice. My question is this: Are you willing to recommit yourself to pursuing every possible avenue and every possible lead for holding those accountable who have used public office to undermine and our democracy?

GARLAND: So, as a general matter, the answer, of course, is yes. I don’t want to talk about specific investigations except to point out what’s already been stated publicly on the record, which is a component of the Justice Department, although an independent one. The Inspector General is examining the matters that you’re… about which you’re speaking and I have full confidence that he will advise me in the Department of what he finds, and then we will then take appropriate action.

PADILLA: Thank you. And just in closing, I would hope that that would include review and consideration of allegations documented in a recent Rolling Stone article, where participation in the lead up to January 6 and on January 6, was not limited to just White House officials, but actual Members of Congress as well. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

###