S. HRG. 112–940 

PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS 
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

20–265 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 112–940 

PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MARCH 29, 2011 

Serial No. J–112–11 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

CHUCK SCHUMER, New York 

DICK DURBIN, Illinois 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking Member 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

KOLAN DAVIS, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS

DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

AL FRANKEN, Minnesota 

CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware 

RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut 

LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina, 

Ranking Member 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

JOSEPH ZOGBY, Democratic Chief Counsel 

WALT KUHN, Republican Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MARCH 29, 2011, 10:02 A.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut ........ 10 

Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois .............................. 1 

Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina ......... 3 

Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona .................................... 9 

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 5 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 80 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 39 

Acosta, R. Alexander, Dean, College of Law, Florida International University, 

Miami, Florida ...................................................................................................... 29 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 74 

Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ............. 7 

Khera, Farhana, President and Executive Director, Muslim Advocates, San 

Francisco, California ............................................................................................ 25 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 48 

McCarrick, Cardinal Theodore E., Archbishop Emeritus of Washington on 

behalf of the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Washington, 

DC .......................................................................................................................... 27

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 68 

Perez, Hon. Thomas E., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................... 10 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Hon. Thomas E. Perez by Senator Grassley ................. 82 

Questions submitted to Hon. Thomas E. Perez by Senator Kyl .......................... 83 

ANSWERS 

Responses of Hon. Thomas E. Perez to questions submitted by Senators 

Grassley and Kyl .................................................................................................. 86 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Alliance for Justice, March 29, 2011, statement ................................................... 117 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director, Washington Legislative Office, and Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Chief of Staff and 

First Amendment Counsel, statement ............................................................... 94 

American Humanist Association (AHA), David Niose, President, statement ..... 118 

American Jewish Committee (AJC), Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director, National and Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International Affairs, statement .................................................................................................... 119 

Amnesty International USA, Larry Cox, Executive Director, statement ............ 124 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Robert G. Sugarman, National Chair, and 

Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, statement ......................................... 128 

Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, Ahlam Jbara, Associate 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 182 
Page

IV 

Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Corey P. Saylor, Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 130 

Council on American-Islamic Relations, Chicago Chapter (CAIR-Chicago), 

Chicago, Illinois, statement ................................................................................. 143 

Ellison, Hon. Keith, a Representative in Congress from the State of Minnesota, Fifth District, statement ......................................................................... 180 

Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), March 29, 2011, statement ...................................................................................................................... 197 

General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist Church, Washington, DC, statement .......................................................................................... 199 

Human Rights First (HRF), Paul Legendre, Director, Fighting Discrimination 

Program, statement ............................................................................................. 201 

Interfaith Alliance, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President, statement ................ 217 

Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ), Thomas Shellabarger, Public Policy Associate, statement .................................................................................................... 218 

Intersections International, C. Eduardo Vargas, Director of Advocacy & Public 

Policy, statement .................................................................................................. 219 

Islamic Society of North America, March 29, 2011, statement ........................... 222 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Wade Henderson, 

President and Chief Executive Officer, statement ............................................ 224 

Mennonite Central Committee U.S. (MCC), Christina Warner, Legislative 

Assistant for Domestic Affairs, Washington Office, statement ........................ 227 

Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), Michael L. ‘‘Mikey’’ 

Weinstein, Founder and President, statement .................................................. 228 

Muslim Public Affairs Council, March 29, 2011, statement ................................ 282 

National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, statement ................................ 286 

Past Congressional Hearings on Discrimination Against Religious Groups, 

the United States Senate and the United States House of Representatives, 

list .......................................................................................................................... 105 

Religious Bias Crimes (2000–2009): Muslim, Christian, and Jewish Victims— 

Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim Victimization, Clare 

M. Lopez, Roland Peer, and Christine Brim, study .......................................... 107 

Rights Working Group (RWG), Margaret Huang, Executive Director, statement ...................................................................................................................... 287 

Shoulder-to-Shoulder: Standing With American Muslims; Upholding American Values, March 29, 2011, statement ............................................................ 310 

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Washington, 

DC, statement ...................................................................................................... 300 

Sikh Coalition, March 29, 2011, statement ........................................................... 312 

Sojourners, Jim Wallis, President and Chief Executive Officer, statement ....... 318 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Takoma Park, Maryland, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 292 

Southern Poverty Law Center, J. Richard Cohen, President, statement ........... 321 

Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), The, March 28, 2011, statement .... 340 

University of Delaware, Dr. Muqtedar Khan, Associate Professor, Fellow, 

Institute for Social Policy and Understanding, statement ............................... 189 
(1) 

PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS 

TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS

AND HUMAN RIGHTS, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 

Room SD–226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Leahy, Coons, Blumenthal, Graham, and Kyl. 

Also Present: Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights will come to order. 

Today is the first hearing of this new Subcommittee, formed by 

the merging of the Constitution Subcommittee with the Human 

Rights and the Law Subcommittee, which I chaired for the last 4 

years. 

I want to personally thank Chairman Pat Leahy for giving me 

the chance to chair this new Subcommittee. I look forward to working with Senator Lindsey Graham, my friend and colleague and the 

Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and the other Members of 

the Subcommittee who will join us. And after a few remarks from 

me, after a few of my own personal remarks, I will recognize Senator Leahy and Senator Graham. 

I think it is appropriate to hold the first hearing of this new Subcommittee on what is often called the Constitution’s ‘‘First Freedom’’—the freedom of religion. 

Many of our Nation’s founders fled religious persecution, and 

they placed great importance on religious freedom. George Washington summed up the prevailing view when he said, and I quote: 

‘‘In this land of equal liberty, it is our boast that a man’s religious 

tenets will not forfeit the protection of the law.’’ 

Despite the Framers’ best intentions, throughout our history 

many religious minorities have faced intolerance. 

The lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 is one infamous example, and 

anti-Semitism continues to be significant in America. 

Often, prejudice has been directed at the religions of recent immigrants. In the last century, it was Catholics from places like Ire-
2 

land, Italy, and Lithuania—my mother’s country of origin—whose 

loyalties were questioned. 

I brought to this hearing a family treasure. One hundred years 

ago, in 1911, my grandmother landed in Baltimore, Maryland, from 

Lithuania. She brought with her my mother, 2 years old; and my 

aunt and uncle; and they came down off the boat in Baltimore and 

somehow found their way to my grandfather in East St. Louis, Illinois. I have no idea how they made that journey not speaking a 

word of English. 

There is no physical evidence left of that journey but this little 

book. Cardinal, it is a Catholic prayer book written in Lithuanian, 

printed in 1863, which at the time of their immigration was contraband. The czar had ordered that all prayer books had to be written 

in Russian. My grandmother, whom I never knew, knew that if she 

brought this prayer book to America, she would have the freedom 

to use it. And I remembered that, and it is one of the reasons why 

this is the first hearing. This freedom of religion meant so much 

to my grandmother, who was no constitutional scholar, but she 

knew that America guaranteed that freedom, and that is what this 

hearing is all about. 

Today American Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia 

are facing similar discrimination. Attorney General Eric Holder put 

it well when he said that anti-Muslim bigotry is ‘‘the civil rights 

issue of our time.’’ 

This backlash began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. 

In fear and anger, some Americans wrongly struck out at innocent Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and Sikhs. 

Since 9/11, we have worked to combat terrorism. We continue to 

solicit and receive the support of many Muslim Americans who love 

this Nation and work with our Government to protect it. At the 

same time, many law-abiding Muslim Americans face discrimination and charges that they are not real Americans simply because 

of their religion. 

This debate will continue, but terrorism is not the subject of today’s hearing. 

We should all agree that it is wrong to blame an entire community for the wrongdoing of a few. Guilt by association is not the 

American way. And American Muslims are entitled to the same 

constitutional protections as every other American. 

I had many differences with President George W. Bush, but he 

showed real leadership after 9/11, when he made it clear that our 

war was with the terrorists who perverted the teachings of Islam, 

not with Muslims who were faithful to what he called ‘‘a faith 

based upon love, not hate.’’ 

Congress also spoke with a clear voice. I cosponsored a resolution 

with John Sununu, who was then the only Arab-American in the 

Senate, who condemned anti-Muslim and anti-Arab bigotry and 

said that American Muslims ‘‘are vibrant, peaceful, and law-abiding, and have greatly contributed to American society.’’ Our resolution passed both chambers of Congress unanimously. 

Today, President Obama continues to speak out as forcefully as 

President Bush, even though President Obama is challenged by a 

chorus of harsh voices: 
3 

A leading Member of Congress stated bluntly, ‘‘There are too 

many mosques in this country.’’ 

A former Speaker of the House falsely claimed, ‘‘America is experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed to undermine and destroy our civilization.’’ 

And even a prominent religious leader said Islam is ‘‘wicked’’ and 

‘‘evil.’’ 

Some have even questioned the premise of today’s hearing—that 

we should protect the civil rights of American Muslims. 

Such inflammatory speech from prominent public figures creates 

a fertile climate for discrimination. It is not surprising that the 

Anti-Defamation League says we face ‘‘an intensified level of antiMuslim bigotry.’’ 

Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks hate 

groups, designated five anti-Muslim hate groups for the first time. 

And we have seen anti-Muslim hate crimes, employment discrimination, bullying in schools, restrictions on mosque construction, 

and Quran burnings. 

Sadly, this is a nationwide phenomenon, including my home 

State of Illinois. To take just one example, a man was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison for blowing up the van of a Palestinian-American family that was parked in front of the family’s 

home in Burbank, Illinois. 

It is our Government’s responsibility to prevent and punish this 

kind of illegal discrimination. And it is incumbent on all Americans 

who love this Nation and the values our Constitution protects to 

make it clear that defending the civil rights of our Muslim neighbors is as important as the rights of Christians, Jews, and even 

non-believers. 

Of course, the First Amendment protects not just the free exercise of religion but also freedom of speech. But all of us, especially 

those of us in public life, have a responsibility to choose our words 

carefully. We must condemn anti-Muslim bigotry and make it clear 

that we will not tolerate religious discrimination in our communities. 

We can protect our Nation and still protect the fundamental freedoms of our Bill of Rights. 

I would like to acknowledge Senator Leahy is here. I will let 

him—— 

Chairman LEAHY. No, go to Senator Graham. 

Chairman DURBIN. Okay. Senator Graham, if you will proceed, 

and then I will be happy to let Senator Leahy, the Chairman, make 

a statement. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, thank you. To Senator Durbin, this is a 

hearing that we need to have, quite frankly. These are difficult 

issues. And, you know, what does it mean to practice religion in 

America? Well, it means that I have to stand up for your right to 

pursue your religion because if I do not stand up for your right, you 

will not stand up for mine. 

But part of freedom of religion and speech means that we can 

disagree. People can say, ‘‘The one thing I have learned about free-
4 

dom of speech, you can go to a funeral of an American serviceman 

who has been killed in action and say awful things in the name of 

freedom of speech.’’ I am not so sure—I know I do not agree with 

the decision, but we are going to have to understand that religions 

are formed because people have different views. And it is okay to 

argue. There are just lines you cannot cross. And we are living in 

a rule-of-law society, so I stand by Senator Durbin and anyone else 

who wants to send a message. You can have your disagreements, 

but there are lines we are not going to allow you to cross. 

There are thousands of American Muslims serving in our military, and to anyone who will wear the uniform and protect America, God bless you. And that is the unique thing about America, 

that we are able to attract a wide group of people with different 

views who will fight for a common cause. And so I do understand 

where you are coming from. 

But there are some real issues to be dealt with. Can we do two 

things at once. Can we stand up for the rights of Muslim Americans? I think the answer is unequivocally, yes, we must, because 

if any one group suffers, all of us suffer. 

But we are going to have to come to grips with two things that 

are going on in the world. There are some things going on in the 

world and there are some things being said in this country that are 

disturbing. But there are efforts to recruit and radicalize young 

Muslims in America that have to be dealt with, and I can show you 

the statistics. What is going on in Europe, we are not immune from 

that. So the idea that we want to get ahead of an enemy who is 

trying to come to our shores and radicalize people in our country 

is a part of this war, and we are at war. 

What is going on in Scotland and England when you have doctors that attack an airport, when you have young men raised in 

London blow themselves up in a subway? Why should we be immune from that? So to the American Muslim Community, I will 

stand with you to practice your faith and be an integral part of this 

country. But you are going to have to help your country, probably 

uniquely compared to anyone else, understand what is going on 

and fight back. The front lines of this war are at our own back 

door, in our own neighborhoods. So to the American Muslim community, I will stand with you as you practice your religion and you 

exercise your rights under the Constitution. But I am asking you 

to get in this fight as a community and let it be known to your 

young people that there are lines that you will not cross, and there 

are radical messages being spread by people who would kill every 

moderate Muslim, Jew, Gentile, and agnostic alike, that we are all 

in this together. 

I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan enough to know that the 

biggest victim of radical Islam are fellow Muslims who choose to 

just basically try to live their life apart from this radical agenda, 

and for that they meet sometimes a very bad fate. So we are all 

in this one together. We are all in America together. We must 

stand up for each other. And to Senator Durbin, I will try to do my 

part as a Republican to let my party and anyone listening know 

that I totally get it when it comes to freedom of religion and the 

ability to practice different faiths. But I would like everyone in the 

country to know, including Muslim Americans, that the agenda 
5 

being set by people who are trying to radicalize young Muslims 

here in America and throughout the world, it is just as bad for the 

Muslim-American community as it is for anyone else, because 

maybe the worst offender of all is someone who practices the faith 

but rejects their ideology. People in the Mideast who are trying to 

separate themselves from this radical minority movement within 

the Muslim faith need our help, and that is why we need to help 

those people in Libya who are trying to replace Qaddafi. We need 

to stand by these young people in Egypt who are trying to chart 

a different path. And you will never convince me that the young 

women who went into the square in Egypt want to replace Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood or al Qaeda. 

So we live in very complicated, interesting times, but it always 

helps to keep it simple. The simple thing for America is to understand that if we cannot accept differences among faith, then maybe 

yours is next. And the simple thing for every American to understand is that we are at war with an ideology that has no capital 

to conquer, no air force to shoot down, or no navy to sink. And we 

are going to have to work hard, and together, to win. To the Muslim-American community, get in this fight and protect your young 

people and your Nation from radicalization. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

Senator Leahy. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Chairman LEAHY. Thank you, Senator Durbin, and thank you for 

holding this hearing. I think it is extraordinarily important, and I 

am delighted this is the first hearing you and Senator Graham are 

going to have with your Subcommittee. 

We know that the FBI Director has testified before this Committee and others that, in the past few years, there has been a dramatic increase in the activities of domestic hate groups. Some of 

these activities have resulted in attacks targeting the American 

Muslim community. To make matters worse, some leaders, as Senator Durbin pointed out, have sought to sow fear and divisiveness 

against American Muslims. Fanning the flames of hate against 

those with different faith traditions runs contrary to our American 

values. Remember, our Nation was founded in large part on the importance of religious freedom. 

I welcome the renewed focus by some on our fundamental charter, the Constitution of the United States. But I would remind everybody the Constitution is not a menu with options to choose 

based on the political whims of the moment. Instead, it is a Constitution that sets forth freedoms and protections for all of us. 

The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights is one of the most defining principles of our national character. It preserves all our 

other rights. By guaranteeing a free press and the free exercise of 

religion, it ensures an informed electorate and the freedom to worship God as we choose—or not to worship as we choose. Our choice. 

It guarantees diversity. If you guarantee diversity and protect the 

idea of diversity, you guarantee democracy. 

Now, throughout the history of the world, religious minorities 

have been persecuted and maligned. There is a long list of religions 
6 

whose members have been systematically denied freedom and categorically stigmatized, even exterminated. We must never forget 

this when we consider religious freedom and religious minorities in 

this country. 

All Americans deserve civil rights protections and the freedoms 

provided in the Constitution. That does not end with the vital freedoms in the First Amendment. It continues to ensure due process 

and equal protection. It is bolstered by important civil rights laws 

that we have passed to guarantee there not be discrimination 

against religion. 

Members of the Committee worked with the late Senator Ted 

Kennedy and myself over the past several decades to ensure this 

fundamental freedom. We worked together to pass the Religious 

Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. It has long been a bipartisan issue in the 

Senate, but more important than being a bipartisan issue, religious 

freedom, it has been a consistent American value. And that is what 

really counts the most. American Muslims, like all Americans, 

must be protected by the rule of law that upholds these constitutional and statutory protections. 

We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to 

strengthen the civil rights of all Americans. We responded to law 

enforcement concerns about the difficulty of bringing criminal prosecutors against those who target their victims because of their religion or ethnicity, their race, their gender, and so on. 

Last year, in the run-up to the national elections, the rhetoric became even more heated and threatening. There were threats of 

Koran burnings, and some have even asserted that Muslim Americans are not entitled to the protection of the First Amendment. 

That comment should shock and offend anyone who claims to love 

and respect the Constitution. 

Others on the radical right have suggested that Islam, one of the 

oldest and widely practiced religions on earth, is somehow not a religion at all and so its followers should not have the protections of 

the First Amendment. That is nonsense, and I would hope that 

Americans will remember why our Founding Fathers established 

this great Nation when they hear this kind of divisive rhetoric. 

I am glad to see the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, 

Tom Perez, here; a former Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Rights, Alex Acosta; and a former Judiciary Committee counsel, 

Farhana Khera, here for the hearing. But I am also pleased that 

one of the leading voices of the Catholic Church in America is here 

to testify. Cardinal McCarrick’s testimony reminds us that we 

Catholics also had our loyalty to America questioned—not just in 

the earliest days of our Republic, but during the lifetimes of many 

of us. 

My friend Dick Durbin referred to the Irish and the Italians and 

the Lithuanians. I knew exactly what he was saying. My Irish ancestors faced this when they first came even to Vermont, now one 

of the most tolerant States in the country. My father as a teenager 

faced signs that said ‘‘No Irish need apply,’’ or usually more directly, ‘‘No Catholics need apply.’’ 

My Italian grandparents in a small town with an Italian community were seen as different. My mother and uncles and aunts, they 
7 

spoke a strange language where some who have heard some of the 

Vermont accents might think that is a strange language. But when 

they had Mass, the priest would have to come in the back door and 

the curtains had to be drawn, shades had to be drawn. Now, that 

would be inconceivable today. 

Members of the Senate of other faiths also know from their own 

experience that religious and ethnic bigotry can be easy to ignite 

and very difficult to extinguish. I agree with Cardinal McCarrick 

that ‘‘religious freedom is destroyed by attacks on people . . . because of their religion and by the terrible misuse of religion to incite hatred and even justify violence.’’ When divisive religious rhetoric is used for partisan advantage, it demeans the principles upon 

which this great Nation was founded. 

So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Patrick J. Leahy appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. I appreciate 

that comment. I know that the Chairman takes great pride in his 

Irish-Italian heritage, and I have told him he is where the Gaelic 

meets the garlic. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. We have a returning Member here. Senator 

Ben Cardin was a great Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee for many years and now has gone on to other things—I will 

not say better things, but other things. But he still continues as 

Co-Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission on Human Rights, and 

he has asked for an opportunity to give an opening statement and 

participate in this hearing. Senator Cardin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator CARDIN. Well, Chairman Durbin and Senator Graham, 

thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing. I appreciate that very much. 

The right to freely profess and practice a faith or not practice a 

faith is a fundamental right in our country. After more than 200 

years, our First Amendment, which states that Congress shall 

make no laws respecting an establishment of a religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, continues to be the envy of people 

around the world. Even before the First Amendment was ratified, 

the Constitution contained a very important provision in Article VI, 

Section 3, that requires all Federal and State officials to swear an 

oath or affirmation to support the Constitution that provides that 

no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. 

In my own State of Maryland, only Christians could have full 

participation in public life until the Maryland General Assembly 

acted in 1825 to pass the so-called Jew bill. I think my ancestors 

would have been proud to see me elected to the Maryland House 

of Delegates, the House of Representatives, and now the United 

States Senate. Among other reasons, my grandparents also came to 

this country in search of greater religious freedom and tolerance. 

Yet today, notwithstanding the protections in our Constitution and 

laws, I am very concerned that we are witnessing the demonization 
8 

of a particular religion. For the last decade, Muslim Americans 

have been the target of a growing wave of anti-Muslim bigotry. It 

is our obligation to talk about this growing problem and what steps 

the Government can take to reverse this trend and protect the civil 

rights of Muslims and all Americans. 

In the 111th Congress, we took an important step forward to protect civil rights, and that was the enactment of the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Prevention Act of 2009. This legislation gives the Justice Department new tools to combat hate crimes 

around the country and strengthens the ability of DOJ to pursue 

these hate crimes, including hate crimes based on religion. 

The Justice Department has indeed stepped up its enforcement 

to combat hate crimes and discrimination against Muslim Americans. I applaud these actions whether in the criminal law enforcement or aggressive enforcement of our Civil Rights Act, and I do 

note our first witness, Tom Perez, has been a real leader in that 

regard. 

In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of Europe and 

established the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe, 

now known as the OSCE. The United States Congress created the 

U.S. Helsinki Commission to monitor the U.S. participation and 

compliance with these commitments. I am the Senate Chair of the 

U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that capacity, I have raised religious 

and human rights issues in other countries, such as France when 

in the name of national security the parliament banned burqas or 

the wearing of other religious articles or when the Swiss restricted 

the building of mosques or minarets. These policies restricted not 

only the religious practices of Muslims but also Christians and 

Jews. 

I have also raised human rights issues in the United States 

when we are out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments. 

The United States, as a signatory of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, 

has accepted a body of international commitments related to the 

rights of ethnic and religious minorities. In the OSCE context, the 

United States has pledged to promote a climate of mutual respect, 

understanding, cooperation, and solidarity among all persons living 

in its territory without distinction to its ethnic or national origin 

on religion, and will encourage the solution of problems through 

dialogue. 

The United States has played a leadership role with the OSCE, 

including the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, to focus on various 

aspects of intolerance and discrimination, including against Muslims. The Helsinki Commission has been in the forefront of many 

related initiatives. During the 111th Congress, I chaired a Commission hearing in which we heard from special representatives from 

the OSCE, specifically to monitor and report on discrimination. 

Among those testifying was the OSCE Personal Representative on 

Combating Intolerance and Discrimination Against Muslims. 

The Senate is taking another important step in complying with 

our OSCE commitments by holding this hearing. We need to encourage the Muslim community in the United States and to engage 

with them, and I applaud the Chairman for holding this hearing. 

We cannot allow individuals or groups to pit Americans against 

another based on our religious beliefs. This only weakens our coun-
9 

try and its freedoms. Let us hold dear the protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual rights to freely practice 

their religion. Our country’s strength lies in its diversity and our 

ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences of opinion while 

being able to speak freely and not fear reprisals for holding a religious belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans. We 

need to stand up against intolerance and injustice. Let us come together as a Nation and move forward in a more constructive and 

hopeful manner. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Cardin, thank you. It is great to have 

you back on this panel. 

Senator Kyl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA 

Senator KYL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding a hearing where you could entice Cardinal McCarrick to come 

back and visit with us. We will appreciate hearing from him. 

If this hearing reaffirms the need for all Americans to respect 

each other’s faith, then I am sure we can all agree. But if it is part 

of a narrative that says it is improper to point out the obvious, that 

too many young Muslims are being radicalized to join jihad and everyone should stand against that, then count me out. The only way 

to stop terrorists is to recognize where they are coming from. Political correctness cannot stand in the way of identifying those who 

would do us harm. Nor can we ignore the First Amendment protections. 

I am a bit perplexed by the focus of today’s hearing. If we are 

concerned about the most egregious religious hate crimes, then I 

wonder why we are not talking about crimes against Jews and 

Christians. According to the last year for which statistics are available from the Department of Justice regarding hate crimes based 

on religious bias, 71.9 percent were victims because of an offender’s 

anti-Jewish bias—almost 72 percent—8.4 because of anti-Islamic 

bias, about 6.4 because of anti-Christian bias. So I wonder where 

our priorities are here. 

And how about the persecution in some Muslim countries today? 

How about the persecution of some in Muslim communities who 

are former Muslims who have converted to another faith or no faith 

at all? 

The point here is all bigotry is to be condemned, but we are only 

credible if we are principled in our condemnation. Selective indignation is not helpful. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Kyl. 

I would like to ask consent to enter into the record the two-page 

list of hearings that have been held in both the House and the Senate relating to discrimination against specific religious groups, including Jews and Christians, and note that this is the first hearing 

relating to any discrimination against those of the Muslim religion. 

I think it is obvious that we condemn prejudice and bigotry against 

all religious groups. 

Senator Blumenthal, do you have a statement? 
10 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I would just like to thank you, Senator 

Durbin, and also Senator Graham, for conducting this hearing, 

which I think is by no means, as I understand it, intended to exhaust the subject, going to the point that Senator Kyl very appropriately makes. But I think that it really is designed to raise 

awareness and show our own commitment to fighting bigotry, hatred, prejudice, intolerance wherever it may exist. 

The United States right now is involved in a war against terror. 

In this very building, two floors below us, there is an ongoing hearing that springs from the war against terror before the Armed 

Services Committee. In that hearing, there is discussion about the 

service and sacrifice made by men and women wearing the uniform 

in places around the globe that we can barely pronounce. They are 

there to defend those values of freedom and democracy that really 

we celebrate today by having this hearing and recognizing the 

threats to our own freedom and democracy when we fail to defend 

it here at home. 

As intolerable as injustice and intolerance are in this country, as 

dangerous as intolerance and injustice, is indifference, when we are 

indifferent to hatred and bigotry against anyone based on religion 

or the content of what people say. And I believe that we are here 

today so that we can help protect those values at home that are 

threatened by terrorists abroad and can make sure that every individual is protected in his or her exercise of religion and speech. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal. 

At this point I would like to turn to our first witness. Thomas 

Perez is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division in the Justice Department. And if you will please standing 

first and raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the testimony 

you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the 

whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Mr. PEREZ. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Let the record reflect that the witness has 

answered in the affirmative. 

Mr. Perez, thank you for being here. Please proceed with your 

opening statement, and we will have some follow-up questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT 

OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member 

Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom 

Perez. It is an honor to be back in front of this Committee. I know 

my former boss, Senator Kennedy, is here in spirit today, and it is 

a real honor to be here to talk about this critical issue with, among 

others, my home-State Senator, Senator Cardin. 

Within hours of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Muslim Americans, 

Arab Americans, Sikh Americans, and South Asian Americans nationwide were confronted with a powerful backlash. There was a 

surge of violence targeting these groups, including threats, assaults, arson, and murder. Two days after the attacks, an indi-
11 

vidual attempted to set fire to cars in the parking lot of a mosque 

in Seattle and shouted at worshipers fleeing the mosque. On the 

same day, an individual set fire to a Pakistani-American restaurant in Utah. The first person killed in post-9/11 violence, 

Balbir Singh Sodhi, was a Sikh, shot while pumping gas at his 

service station in Arizona 4 days after 9/11. In the 31⁄2 months following the attacks, more than 300 Federal criminal investigations 

were initiated. 

There was also an increase in other instances of discrimination. 

On the afternoon of 9/11, a hotel in Iowa canceled the reservation 

that an Arab-American group had made to host a convention. 

The Federal Government, under President Bush’s leadership, responded forcefully. The Civil Rights Division’s Criminal Section 

created a task force to address hate crimes. Then the civil litigating 

sections ramped up their work to combat other forms of discrimination. 

Our predecessors built a solid foundation. Over the last 2 years, 

we have worked to build upon that foundation and expand our efforts to engage with the communities to ensure that we are fulfilling our responsibility to protect their civil rights. 

One of my predecessors, who is here today, Alex Acosta, was the 

leader in the administration’s response to the 9/11 backlash incidents. Among other things, Dean Acosta established a new position 

of Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination, and he selected 

Eric Treene, who remains with me and who is one of my most 

trusted members of my staff on these issues, along with Mazen 

Basrawi. We have continued to host regular interagency meetings 

with representatives of the Arab-American, Muslim, Sikh, and 

South Asian civic organizations so that we can learn more and do 

the best job possible. 

We have also made it a priority to expand our outreach. In my 

travels across the country, I have met with leaders from the various communities, not just in Dearborn and L.A. or Chicago, but 

also I have met the Somali community in the Twin Cities, Muslim 

leaders in New Haven, Roanoke, Murfreesboro, Tennessee, and 

elsewhere. These meetings allow us not only to learn about civil 

rights violations where they are occurring, but also to build bridges 

to the community, to build trust and understanding. 

Regrettably, while nearly a decade has passed since 9/11, we continue to see a steady stream of violence and discrimination targeting Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian communities. In each 

city and town where I have met with leaders, I have been struck 

by the sense of fear that pervades their life, fear of violence, bigotry, hate, discrimination. This headwind of intolerance manifests 

itself in many different ways. 

Last month, we secured a guilty plea from the 50th defendant 

charged in a Federal criminal case of post-9/11 backlash violence. 

Last year, three men were sentenced for vandalizing and fire-bombing a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee. 

In my outreach, I consistently hear complaints that children face 

harassment in schools, that they are called ‘‘terrorists’’ and told to 

go home, even though this is their home. America is indeed where 

they were born. 
12 

We have a regrettably robust docket of cases in the school systems involving harassment of Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian 

students. In fact, these sorts of harassment cases are the largest 

category of religious discrimination cases that our Education Section handles. 

We continue to follow the leadership in Republican and Democratic administrations, the bipartisan leadership to combat religious intolerance in the workplace. We have a number of cases involving individuals facing discrimination at work, with the EEOC 

reporting a 150-percent increase in complaints of discrimination 

against Muslims since 9/11. Many cases involve blatant, intentional 

discrimination such as an EEOC case filed during the Bush administration on behalf of two Iranian Muslim employees of a car dealership who were repeatedly harassed by management, called unspeakable words: ‘‘terrorist,’’ ‘‘camel jockey,’’ and other epithets. 

Similar cases have been brought during the Obama administration. 

We also continue the bipartisan tradition of pursuing religious 

accommodation cases. We recently filed a case on behalf of a Muslim teacher in Illinois who was forbidden to take an unpaid leave 

for a pilgrimage to Mecca, a requirement of her faith. This case is 

very similar to the one filed by the EEOC in the Bush administration against a Tennessee hospital that refused to grant a Muslim 

medical technician a 3-week leave of absence for the pilgrimage. 

No person should have to choose between their faith and their 

work, and Republican and Democratic administrations alike have 

fought hard to vindicate this principle. 

We continue to work hard to enforce RLUIPA. We celebrated the 

10-year anniversary of the 24 matters opened by the Civil Rights 

Division since 9/11 that involve mosques; 14 have been opened in 

the last 10 months. 

Last year, we filed a brief in a State court case involving a proposed mosque—the construction of a community center that included a mosque, and there were neighbors who challenged that 

and argued that Islam is not a religion and, therefore, the county 

was wrong to treat the mosque in the same way it would treat a 

church. 

Our brief argued one and really only one thing: Islam is a religion. And we had to file that brief, and the court agreed and dismissed the case. 

These issues are and will continue to be nonpartisan. 

I applaud again, as I mentioned earlier, the efforts of my friend 

Alex Acosta on religious freedom. Our efforts are indeed, as you 

have all noted, a reflection of our values as a society. As a Nation, 

we believe strongly and unequivocally in religious freedom, and 

this belief is embodied in the laws that we enforce. 

The headwinds of intolerance that so many of the communities 

we are here to discuss today are facing, as you have all pointed out, 

are not different from the bigotry confronted by groups throughout 

our Nation’s history. The good news is that with each wave of intolerance, our Nation has indeed responded, passing new civil rights 

laws, striking down old laws that sanction discrimination, and 

eventually recognizing the value of diverse communities and embracing those previously shunned. 
13 

Today we are simply using the longstanding tools in our arsenal 

to address an emerging challenge that threatens the freedom of individuals who want nothing more than for their families to be accepted in their communities, to live their lives, practice their faith, 

and realize the American dream. 

We will continue to use every available tool in our law enforcement arsenal to transform this headwind of intolerance into a tailwind of inclusion and opportunity. 

Thank you for the opportunity to participate, and I look forward 

to answering any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas E. Perez appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Perez. 

Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee criticized this hearing, and he said, ‘‘It reinforces the false 

premise that Muslims are having their civil rights violated.’’ 

Your testimony, of course, reflects the reality of discrimination 

facing Muslim Americans today. I would like to look at the Justice 

Department’s own statistics. Muslims comprise less than 1 percent 

of the American population, but 14 percent of the Department of 

Justice’s cases of discrimination against religious institutions involve Muslims. 

Mr. Perez, according to your testimony, over 50 percent of the 

Department of Justice’s mosque cases have been open since May 

2010. You testified you believe that reflected an increase in antiMuslim sentiment. Can you elaborate? 

Mr. PEREZ. I have had the privilege in this job of traveling to 

probably half the U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country, and as 

part of our visits to make sure that we are aggressively enforcing 

civil rights laws and listening, we are, Mr. Chairman, listening and 

learning, as I did in Chicago, from various stakeholders in the 

Muslim, Sikh, Arab, and South Asian communities. And it really 

tears my heart out to listen to the stories. 

I will never forget my trip to Tennessee where an imam talked 

about how his son does not want to go to school because he is so 

scared that every day they were telling him, ‘‘Go home, you terrorist,’’ and this is his home. And we see that across the country, 

not simply in my own anecdotes but in our work across a wide 

array of areas—employment, the criminal context, the religious 

zoning context, and the education context. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let us speak to employment discrimination 

for a moment. According to data from the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Muslims account for approximately 25 percent of religious discrimination cases, although, as I mentioned earlier, comprise less than 1 percent of the American population. Mary 

Jo O’Neill of the EEOC said, and I quote, ‘‘There is a level of hatred and animosity that is shocking. I have been doing this for 31 

years, and I have never seen such antipathy toward Muslim workers.’’ 

Another example: The EEOC filed suit against a meat-packing 

company, Swift, alleging discrimination against 160 Somali Muslim 

employees. Among other things, the suit said that, ‘‘Managers, supervisors, and other employees regularly throw blood, meat, and 

bones at the Somali and Muslim employees.’’ 
14 

So I would ask you: In the area of employment discrimination, 

this notion that was expounded by someone in the other body of 

lack of evidence of discrimination against Muslims, have you found 

in employment discrimination similar cases? 

Mr. PEREZ. We have, and, again, these cases did not start simply 

in 2009. These cases—and, again, I want to applaud the Bush administration for aggressively pursuing these cases in the post-9/11 

universe. A 150-percent increase post-9/11 is a rather eye-popping 

figure. 

Chairman DURBIN. Can I ask you, I would like to—I want to give 

everybody a chance, and there are quite a few Members here today, 

which I am honored that that is the case. But in her testimony, 

Farhana Khera, who is going to follow in the next panel, recommends that the Civil Rights Division create a centralized hotline 

to receive, refer, and track all civil rights complaints, not just those 

related to Muslim Americans. She argues that the current decentralized system is confusing for victims who want to contact the 

Civil Rights Division. She also notes that the lack of a centralized 

hotline makes it difficult to track and collect data on civil rights 

complaints, like a breakdown of complaints by race, national origin, 

and religion. 

So, for example, we do not know how many American Jews, 

Christians, or Muslims have filed complaints with the Civil Rights 

Division and how many have led to prosecution. 

What is your reaction to this suggestion? Does the Division currently have a mechanism for tracking complaints by race, national 

origin, and religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. We have had this discussion, and I appreciated 

the suggestion when it was brought to our attention a number of 

months ago. We now actually have an 800 number for addressing 

these issues. But the 800 number is not the only portal, and we 

wanted to make sure that people could file complaints in whatever 

mechanism was most comfortable. If you are working or living in 

Phoenix, for instance, you may have a relationship with your local 

U.S. Attorney’s Office, and we did not want to preclude that. 

And so the collaboration and coordination that we have done 

with U.S. Attorney’s Offices to make sure we are speaking with one 

voice is a critically important part of our efforts to make sure that 

we are tracking these. 

As it relates to your question about data collection, as you know, 

under the Hate Crime Statistics Act reporting is voluntary, and 

there are many communities where there is no reporting at all. 

And so while those statistics under the Hate Crime Statistics Act 

are useful, I think everyone agrees that they understate the 

amount of violence that we are seeing across the country because 

of the voluntary nature of the reporting. That is the law, and as 

a result of that, those are the weaknesses in that data. 

Chairman DURBIN. I hate to pre-empt Ms. Khera’s testimony by 

bringing up another point she is going to raise, but since you are 

here, I am looking for a reaction. She noted that under Title VI of 

the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination by federally funded entities, it covers discrimination on the basis of race 

or national origin, but not religious discrimination. So discriminating against a person of the Jewish faith, Muslim, Sikh, a stu-
15 

dent perhaps, because of their religion is not prohibited under Title 

VI. I would note that our former colleague, Senator Specter, who 

once chaired this Committee, introduced legislation in the last Congress to expand Title VI to cover religious discrimination. 

What is your opinion of this loophole in the law? And does it 

make it more difficult to protect children from discrimination in 

school? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, we have a number of tools to attack religious 

discrimination. We have RLUIPA in the zoning context. We have 

Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which is the public accommodations 

provisions which have a religious reference. Title IV is the education context, so we do have tools there. Title VII is obviously employment. The Equal Credit Opportunity Act gives us that opportunity there, as well as the Fair Housing Act. And, in addition, 

until Title VI, although Title VI does not have the word ‘‘religion’’ 

in it, discrimination against Jews, Arab Muslims, Sikhs, and other 

members of religious groups can violate the statute if it is based 

on their actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics rather than their religious practices. And that would be a very 

fact-specific determination. 

Chairman DURBIN. Why wouldn’t we want to clarify that? I do 

not understand why we are stopping short of making it clear that 

religious discrimination is included. Do you see a policy reason why 

we should not? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, in certain circumstances, Title VI can 

apply in these situations, and I am happy to have further conversation with you to explain how it can apply in these situations. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks. 

Senator Graham. 

Senator GRAHAM. Thank you, Mr. Perez, for your service to the 

country. 

Mr. PEREZ. Good morning, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. I guess my opinion about such matters is that 

one case is too many. 

Mr. PEREZ. I agree. 

Senator GRAHAM. Anytime you have an example in America 

where somebody is being abused because of their faith, I think all 

of us should join in and push back, as the Bush administration did, 

as you are doing. So that is my baseline here. I do not know what 

the numbers are, but, you know, one for me is too many. 

To those who have freedom of speech, it is a gift given to you by 

a lot of people risking their own lives. So when you say things here 

at home and you do things here at home that create tension based 

on religious differences, particularly when it is the Muslim community involved, you are putting our soldiers at risk. We have soldiers 

all over the world of a variety of religions fighting in the name of 

America, trying to help moderate Muslims defeat radical Islam. 

And my view is that there are plenty of moderate Muslims out 

there who need our help and we should be helping because, you 

know, it is better to fight this war over there than it is here. But 

at the end of the day, we are all in this together. 

So let us talk about the school case in Berkeley, Illinois. It is fascinating. You gave some examples of conduct that I think almost 

every American would find offensive, and I am sorry that the child 
16 

is having a bad experience at school, and we should all speak out 

against that, because there are plenty of Muslims wearing our uniform and we need to understand that, again, we are all in this together. But the Obama administration I think made a curious decision. 

As I understand the fact pattern in Berkeley, Illinois, you had a 

math teacher—was it Ms. Khan? Is that her name? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. Okay. Who basically wanted to go for a 3-week 

pilgrimage to participate in the Hajj. Is that correct? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, Senator. 

Senator GRAHAM. And she was the only math lab instructor in 

that school district, and it was during the school year, and the 

school district said, ‘‘We do not want you to take 3 weeks off because we need you to finish out the school year.’’ 

As I understand civil rights law, it requires the employer to reasonably accommodate the worker’s religious beliefs or practices as 

long as they do not impose more than a minimum burden on the 

employer’s operation. Common accommodations include permitting 

employees to wear religious headgear or arrange a voluntary shift 

swap with co-workers on the Sabbath. 

Quite frankly, Mr. Perez, I think, as former Attorney General 

Mukasey said, that this is a stretch of the concept. Can she go on 

the Hajj during the summer? Is there any requirement that she go 

during the 3 weeks that she chose in the middle of the school year? 

Mr. PEREZ. Senator, the law says that an employer has an obligation to reasonably accommodate—— 

Senator GRAHAM. But my question is: Could the lady in question 

have met her religious obligations by going in the summer when 

school was out of session? 

Mr. PEREZ. No, sir. 

Senator GRAHAM. She could not have? 

Mr. PEREZ. No. 

Senator GRAHAM. Why? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, I cannot get into the specific facts of the case 

other than—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I am no authority on the Hajj, but, I mean, is 

it just these 3 weeks in this one year that this lady could go? 

Mr. PEREZ. The Hajj, as I understand it, sir, is based on a lunar 

calendar, and the Hajj in this particular year was during this 3- 

week period. This case—— 

Senator GRAHAM. No, that is not my question. Put yourself in the 

school district’s position. If you were a Christian and said, ‘‘I want 

to go to Rome for 3 weeks,’’ or ‘‘I want to go to Jerusalem for 3 

weeks in the middle of the school year,’’ I would say no. You know, 

I am a Christian. I do not believe there is anything in my faith 

that says that I get 3 weeks off to observe Easter in any particular 

year. 

My point is that it is my understanding that she could have met 

her religious obligations without creating this burden of being the 

only math lab instructor in the school district, and I think that is 

going too far, quite frankly. And the fact that you took this case 

up is going to do more damage than good. That is just my 2 cents’ 

worth about it. 
17 

But my question is simple. Is this the only 3 weeks in her life 

where she could do this? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, Senator, I cannot get into the specific facts of 

this particular case, but what I can tell you is—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Would you get back with me about the answer 

to my question? I know you may not be an expert on when you 

take a pilgrimage. But my point is I do not think so. I think she 

could have accommodated her religious beliefs without leaving the 

school district in the lurch. And it is nothing about her religion. I 

would say that about any religion. And I just think you are doing 

more harm than good on that front. 

Now, the cases you have described, I stand with you. You fight 

back. You push back. You bring these cases to court where people 

are being, you know, mistreated and abused. But my 2 cents’ 

worth, this is the wrong case to have taken up. 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, Senator, I just want to point out, because I 

know you want to make sure the record is complete, this is strikingly similar to a case brought by the Bush administration in 2007 

where an individual requested a 3-week leave of absence for a pilgrimage to Mecca, and that, again, the employer—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Well, they were wrong, too. 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again—— 

Senator GRAHAM. You know, is it okay to—— 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. I will—— 

Senator GRAHAM [continuing]. Disagree with the Bush administration? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, I want to make sure—— 

Senator GRAHAM. I hope so because a lot of people have been 

doing it lately. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator GRAHAM. So they were wrong, too. I am just saying this 

is a good case study of what is too far. I totally agree with you that 

the other cases you have described all of us should stand up 

against, someone having material thrown at them and, you know, 

a kid feeling like he cannot go to school, you know, taunting us. 

That is not American. But I just think the Obama administration 

has made a mistake here. If the Bush administration believed this 

was right, I do not. 

One final question. I am running out of time here. Is 

radicalization of American Muslims on the rise? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I am a civil rights expert so it is hard for me to 

say that the—— 

Senator GRAHAM. Fair enough. I just want to make a record, and 

here is what Secretary Napolitano said: ‘‘We have seen an increased number of arrests here in the U.S. of individuals suspected 

of plotting terrorist attacks or supporting terror groups abroad, 

such as al Qaeda. Home-based terrorism is here, and like violent 

extremism abroad, it will be part of the threat picture that we 

must now confront.’’ 

She was absolutely right. So I want to do two things. I want to 

stand by you to make sure that the American Muslim community 

has the right to practice their religion free of bigotry and hate, because the First Amendment to me, Mr. Chairman, means one thing 

that is not subject to compromise. It means someone can practice 
18 

a religion I do not agree with. And if we ever give in to the fact 

that that is not true, then who is to say your religion is not next? 

So I am with you there. But I do understand the concerns that a 

lot of Americans have that what is going on in Europe is now coming to our shores. So I wish the Obama administration would be 

more forceful in their approach to fighting homegrown terrorism 

because I think that is a weakness. Not reading a terrorist suspect 

their Miranda rights when they have just been caught trying to 

blow up a van in Times Square is not productive. It is not helpful. 

So I wish the administration would look at the practice of insisting 

that Miranda rights be read to someone who just tried to attack 

America here at the homeland because we need to know what is 

coming next—not abuse anyone, not torture them, but not say you 

have a lawyer right after you tried to blow up a van or an airplane. 

So I think the Obama administration, quite frankly, needs to 

change some of its policies when it comes to fighting terrorism here 

at home, and I will stand with you as you try to push back against 

legitimate cases of discrimination. But there are two sides to this 

story, Senator Kyl said, and I want to talk about both, not just one. 

Thank you very much. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Graham. 

Senator Leahy. 

Chairman LEAHY. I do not have any questions. I would just note 

that the Obama administration has come out with new directives 

on the use of Miranda warnings which would make very clear if 

you have got somebody who looks like they have a bomb in Times 

Square, you can question them about the bomb and not have to 

stop because of a need for a Miranda warning. I only mention that 

because sometimes we hear this tossed around by commentators 

who are misstating what is the rule with the administration. 

I would be interested in seeing your response to Senator Graham’s question on the Hajj issue. I know that case is pending. I 

have read a great deal about it. We are talking about U.S. v. Berkeley, Illinois, I assume. 

Mr. PEREZ. That is correct, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman LEAHY. I would be interested in seeing your response, 

and I have no questions, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PEREZ. I will certainly provide you the response, and I am 

very proud of the work we are doing in that case. 

[The information appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Leahy. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

Mr. PEREZ. Good morning, Senator. 

Senator KYL. Good morning, sir. One of the cases that has been 

brought to our attention is the case of Luqman Abdullah. It created 

kind of a firestorm of criticism about FBI tactics. It has been one 

of the examples to accuse law enforcement agencies of overstepping 

their bounds and unlawfully targeting the Muslim-American community. 

I understand your office investigated the Abdullah case and determined that no criminal investigation was warranted. Is that correct? 
19 

Mr. PEREZ. We determined that no criminal prosecution was warranted. 

Senator KYL. No prosecution was warranted. 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, that is correct, Senator. 

Senator KYL. And I assume that your office has reviewed similar 

allegations of misconduct. Could you just generally characterize for 

the Committee here today your overall impression of our law enforcement agencies’ procedures and tactics in these situations? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, our review in that particular case and 

our review generally is to ensure that in the course of carrying out 

their duties, there was not any violation of Federal law. In this 

particular case, it would be the law that says that anyone who is 

acting under color of law who willfully deprives someone of a right 

guaranteed by the Constitution—and in this case, it would be the 

right to be free from the intentional use of excessive force—that 

was what we were examining. And so our review focused—and it 

focuses generally, whether it is a Federal law enforcement agent or 

a State or local law enforcement agent, our review focuses on 

whether there is evidence of an intentional deprivation of a constitutional right. In that particular case, after a thorough review, 

we concluded that the case did not present—that the constitutional 

rights of the individual that you referenced were not violated. 

Senator KYL. And now more than a decade after 9/11, do you 

have a general assessment, especially at the Federal level, of law 

enforcement procedures and tactics, as I said? 

Mr. PEREZ. Procedures and tactics in what context? 

Senator KYL. As they relate to situations like this case. 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, we review a number of matters not simply involving Federal law enforcement. 

Senator KYL. What I am trying to get at—there is no—I am just 

trying to get a general perception of how we are doing. Are we 

doing better? Are we doing worse? 

Mr. PEREZ. We are working very closely with all of our Federal, 

State, and local law enforcement colleagues to ensure that we do 

the best possible job of enforcing the laws and ensuring protections 

of the Constitution. Those are not mutually exclusive. And I spend 

a lot of time, Senator, in New Orleans right now making sure that 

we are building a blueprint for sustainable reform so that we can 

reduce crime, we can ensure respect for the Constitution, and we 

can enjoy public confidence in law enforcement. Those are the real 

benchmarks for our work. And whether it is the Federal or the 

State or local law enforcement, those are the real benchmarks of, 

I think, success in our policing. And we certainly work with our colleagues in Federal law enforcement to—I have personally participated in trainings at the Border Patrol academies on police integrity issues and civil rights issues, and our colleagues in Federal 

law enforcement across the board actively welcome our participation in that because we recognize that, again, we must succeed in 

reducing crime and respecting the Constitution. 

Senator KYL. Sure. I appreciate that. Last Friday, I attended a 

dinner of American Muslims who complained to me about being intimidated and even threatened by other Muslims because these 

folks believed in separation of mosque and state, and people who 

threatened and intimidated them—well, intimidated them because 
20 

of those particular beliefs. I am sure that your office would be just 

as willing to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute those 

kinds of cases as in a situation where it is a non-Muslim doing the 

intimidating or threatening. Would that be accurate? 

Mr. PEREZ. That is correct, sir. If we have credible allegations of 

a potential violation of Federal civil rights laws, we will investigate. In, I believe, the first prosecution under our new hate 

crimes law, we are, again, aggressively applying that new law that 

Senators Leahy and Durbin referenced before, and we will follow 

the facts and make an appropriate judgment of the application of 

the facts to the law. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. One young woman specifically asked 

me why, after she had reported this—and I will not indicate which 

city it was in, but after reporting it to the police in the city, she 

said she got no satisfaction at all. And I did not have much of an 

answer. What I am going to do is get back to her and tell her of 

our conversation and see whether maybe communicating with the 

U.S. Attorney in Arizona, for example—that is one of the ways you 

suggested this could be done, that there could be some relief in 

cases like the ones she brought to my attention. 

Mr. PEREZ. I am happy to answer any questions that you might 

have or that your constituent might have. 

Senator KYL. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. 

Chairman DURBIN. Senator Blumenthal. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, 

Mr. Perez, for your very dedicated and distinguished work and the 

work of the Department of Justice in this area. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I want to go back to the question that 

Senator Durbin was pursuing. Should the laws be strengthened, 

Federal laws be enhanced in this area to provide more effective 

tools for Federal enforcement? And if so, in what areas? 

Mr. PEREZ. I feel like we have an ample number of tools right 

now, and we are using them in a very robust fashion. The biggest 

challenge is always to make sure you have the budget to carry out 

the laws, and I really appreciated the leadership of the President 

and the Senate and the House in enabling us to get additional resources in the fiscal year 2010 budget, because with those additional resources, that was the largest infusion of resources in our 

Division’s history. We were able to expand the work in this and 

other critical areas so that we could, again, do the work in the 

RLUIPA context because we do see this headwind of intolerance 

rearing its ugly head in the zoning context. We had a case in suburban Chicago, for instance. 

The education setting, that is one of the two or three most frequently heard comments I get when I do outreach, is about bullying in schools. If you are in a learning environment where you 

cannot learn for whatever reason—and in this particular case, because you are Muslim or Arab or Sikh or South Asian, and you are 

being told to go home, and this is your home—that is an emerging 

growth area for us that we must address. 

So for me, I guess my biggest wish list is to make sure that we 

continue to have the resources to enforce these laws. 
21 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Your challenge is primarily in the area of 

enforcement, not so much the substantive authority that you would 

see the Congress improving. 

Mr. PEREZ. We feel at the moment like we have a large number 

of tools to do the work we need to do. We are always willing to listen and work with you on—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Well, let me ask you, then: Wouldn’t it 

make sense to engage or involve the States and local governments 

more actively in this effort? 

Mr. PEREZ. That is an excellent question, and we have a very active program of engagement. For instance, our Community Relations Service has provided training to over 750 law enforcement 

agencies across the country on precisely these issues of Muslim, 

Sikh, Arab, South Asian engagement. After the passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Act, we used that new hate 

crimes law as an opportunity to engage State and local enforcement. And so we have trained literally thousands of officers across 

the country. 

Law enforcement and civil rights enforcement is a joint venture 

between Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and I completely agree—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I know that many States like Connecticut have laws that specifically prohibit crimes based on—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct, and I had the privilege of spending a day in 

your—— 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. In New Haven. 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. In New Haven, a week or two ago, and 

we had a wonderful conference with the U.S. Attorney, Mr. Fein, 

and we had a lot of State and local officials there, where we sent 

a very strong message to the residents of Connecticut that civil 

rights is indeed this joint venture among Federal, State, and local 

partners. And so your point is very well taken. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And I am wondering if you have some 

guidance that we can take back to our States, to our enforcers at 

the State and local level as to how they can be more active partners in this effort. 

Mr. PEREZ. Communication is key, and we have set up a number 

of critical coalitions. I was in Detroit recently, for instance, with 

the U.S. Attorney, and she has a very wide-ranging coalition of 

community people, Federal, local, State authorities who come together on a monthly basis to discuss issues. And sometimes those 

meetings can be tense, but they have built trust through that coalition, and when you have that trust established, then when an incident occurs that tests that trust, you at least have that reservoir 

that you can build from. If you wait until the train wreck to come 

together for the first time, you are seldom going to be able to forge 

the necessary consensus. 

So that coalition building that we have spent a lot of time doing 

has really borne fruit for us and I think for the communities as 

well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Is there a written protocol or procedure 

that you follow in determining whether the enforcement of a hate 

crime prosecution—and it is a criminal matter that obviously is a 

violation of State law, it could be prosecuted by State authorities. 
22 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Or by Federal law, and that issue frequently arises as to State, Federal, choices of jurisdiction or venue. 

But in the civil rights area, do you have one that applies in the 

hate crimes or bigotry and bias—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. I spent the better part of a decade as a career 

prosecutor, a Federal prosecutor doing hate crimes cases, and the 

short answer is yes, we do have protocols in the U.S. Attorney 

manual. The most important protocol, though, that we have followed and we will continue to follow is what is in the best interest 

of the case. And I have personally been involved in a number of 

hate crimes cases where we have worked them up, and then it was 

in the best interest of the case for the State to take it. 

The murder of the Sikh American in the aftermath of 9/11, that 

was a State prosecution. The Federal Government did not prosecute that case. It was in the best interest of the case for the State 

of Arizona to take on that prosecution. 

I did a hate crime case in Lubbock, Texas, involving South Bay 

Nazi Youth, neo-Nazi white supremacists who started a race war 

targeted at African Americans in this case. In that particular case, 

the DA came to us and said, ‘‘I really want you to take the case.’’ 

He had just been elected. He was just building his staff. And we 

deputized one of his people as a special AUSA, and that enabled 

us to secure the conviction of the three defendants in that case. 

So there are U.S. Attorney guidelines, but I think the most important guideline will always be what is in the best interest of the 

case. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Thank you very much. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal. 

Mr. Perez, I have two questions I would like to ask. One is brief. 

The staff research memo on the issue raised by Senator Graham 

relative to the teacher asking for 3 weeks for a visit to Mecca for 

the Hajj, I do not know why Illinois keeps popping up in all these 

cases, but it turns out that there are other cases that have been 

considered. In one, United States v. the Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University in 1995, it was about the employer’s failure 

to accommodate an employee who requested leave to attend an 8- 

day religious festival, the Worldwide Church of God’s Feast of Tabernacles, and I see that there have been other cases involving that 

particular Christian religion and this 8-day leave, 14-day leave that 

has been requested. 

I also find cases here involving discrimination against those who 

have asked to be spared being scheduled on the Sabbath. 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. 

Chairman DURBIN. So there are cases involving Jews, Christians, 

and in this case Muslims. Am I not correct—and I hope my staff 

is correct; I believe they are—that these cases are very fact specific 

with regard to evaluating the impact on the employee’s religion and 

the hardship on the employer, so it really is a fact case to be determined as to whether—— 

Mr. PEREZ. That is absolutely—— 

Chairman DURBIN [continuing]. A 3-week absence or an 8-day 

absence causes a hardship in either or both directions? 
23 

Mr. PEREZ. That is absolutely correct, and it is important to note 

that it is the employer that has the burden of demonstrating—of 

providing the reasonable accommodation or demonstrating the 

undue hardship. And there are a long line of cases dating back literally decades. Some were brought by the United States, either the 

EEOC or DOJ. Some were private cases. They relate to Christian 

denominations, Seventh-day Adventists, cases involving accommodation 1 day a week of people who are working the Sabbath. So if 

you work in that particular facility and you do not observe the Sabbath, you are going to work more Saturdays and more Fridays than 

that person. And, again, that was upheld in the jurisprudence. 

I am very proud of the work we are doing in this case, and, 

again, it is part of a long line of cases brought by Republican and 

Democratic administrations alike. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let me move into one area we have not 

touched on that I think is timely and controversial and perhaps is 

still being debated within the administration. A number of States 

around the country are considering laws prohibiting the use of Islamic religious law, also known as Sharia. For example, Oklahoma 

adopted a ballot initiative prohibiting courts from using international law or Sharia. 

We are all familiar with the way Sharia is interpreted in Iran 

and Saudi Arabia. Hardly a day goes by that there is not a report 

in the press of some abuse of this Sharia law by Western standards. But for American Muslims Sharia includes rules dealing with 

personal matters, like prayer, fasting, marriage, and inheritance. 

So there is a fear among some Muslim Americans that a strict ban 

on Sharia would, in fact, inhibit their freedom of religion. 

An American Muslim in Oklahoma challenged the anti-Sharia 

ballot initiative on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the law 

would prevent courts from carrying out his will, which was drafted 

in accordance with Islamic law. A Federal court agreed and has enjoined the Oklahoma ballot initiative. 

Is the Civil Rights Division, which you represent, monitoring 

anti-Sharia laws like the one in Oklahoma to determine if, in fact, 

they do violate the civil rights of American Muslims? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am certainly aware of the Oklahoma matter, and 

I am aware of this conversation in other States. I certainly heard 

of this in my visit to Tennessee, for instance, where this issue was 

discussed and raised by one of the litigants in the local litigation 

where we filed our brief. And so we will continue to review these 

laws to see if there is a potential Federal civil rights violation, and, 

again, I am aware of Oklahoma and other settings. 

Chairman DURBIN. So at this point there is no case pending or 

any opinion on your part as to—— 

Mr. PEREZ. We did not intervene, we have not filed a brief in the 

Oklahoma matter or any other matter where this issue may be 

raised. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. 

Senator Kyl, do you have any other questions? 

Senator KYL. No. 

Chairman DURBIN. Okay, good. Mr. Perez, thank you for your 

time. We sure appreciate it. 
24 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your courtesy. 

Chairman DURBIN. I would like to invite the second panel to 

come up, if they would, please, and I am going to read their bios 

as they approach the table to save a few moments here, first 

thanking all of them for being here. 

Our first witness who will testify is Farhana Khera, the president and executive director of Muslim Advocates. Prior to joining 

Muslim Advocates in 2005, Ms. Khera was counsel to the Senate 

Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution, worked for 6 years 

with our colleague and friend, Senator Russ Feingold, when he 

chaired this very same Subcommittee. Prior to the Senate, Ms. 

Khera was an associate with the law firm of Hogan & Hartson and 

Ross, Dixon & Masback. Ms. Khera received her B.A. from Wellesley and her J.D. from Cornell Law School, and we are glad to have 

her back before the Committee. And before I administer to all 

three, I will just go through the biographies. 

Our next witness is a dear friend and someone I respect so much, 

Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop Emeritus of Washington. Cardinal McCarrick is currently serving as a distinguished 

visiting scholar in the Kluge Center at the Library of Congress. He 

served as Archbishop of the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Washington from 2001 to 2006. On February 21, 2001, 7 weeks after his 

installation as Archbishop, McCarrick was elevated to the College 

of Cardinals by Pope John Paul II. That may be a record. I do not 

know. I have to check in the Vatican Library. 

As Archbishop of Washington, McCarrick served as chancellor of 

the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC, president 

of the Board of Trustees of the Basilica of the National Shrine of 

the Immaculate Conception. From 1986 until 2001, he served as 

the fourth Archbishop of Newark. In 1981, Pope John Paul II appointed him to be the first bishop—I am going to mispronounce 

this—Metuchen? 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. Metuchen, but that is all right. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Metuchen, a newly established diocese in 

New Jersey. Cardinal McCarrick earned a bachelor’s degree and a 

master’s degree from St. Joseph’s Seminary in Yonkers, New York. 

After he was ordained into the priesthood, he went on to earn a 

second master’s degree in social science and a doctoral degree in sociology from the Catholic University of America. It is indeed an 

honor to have you with us today, and I am going to feel a little bit 

nervous administering an oath to a Cardinal. 

Our next witness is R. Alexander Acosta, the dean of the College 

of Law at Florida International University. Did I pronounce that 

right? 

Mr. ACOSTA. You did. 

Chairman DURBIN. Good. Previously, Mr. Acosta was U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida where, among other highprofile cases, he handled the prosecutions of Jack Abramoff for 

fraud, Jose Padilla for terrorism, and Charles Taylor, Jr., for torture. Prior to that, Mr. Acosta served as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division where he led the Justice Department’s efforts to combat the post-9/11 backlash against Arab and 
25 

Muslim Americans. Earlier, Mr. Acosta served on the National 

Labor Relations Board and worked at the law firm of Kirkland & 

Ellis. He received his B.A. from Harvard College and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He was a law clerk for Justice 

Samuel Alito, then a Third Circuit Court judge. 

I would like to ask all three witnesses, if you do not mind, please 

stand, and I will follow the ordinary Committee procedure and administer the oath. Raise your right hand. Do you affirm that the 

testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the 

truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

Ms. KHERA. I do. 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. I do. 

Mr. ACOSTA. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all 

three witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

Ms. Khera, please proceed with your opening statement. 

STATEMENT OF FARHANA KHERA, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MUSLIM ADVOCATES, SAN FRANCISCO, 

CALIFORNIA 

Ms. KHERA. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Subcommittee. On behalf of Muslim Advocates, thank you for the opportunity to testify on the civil rights of American Muslims today. 

And, Mr. Chairman and Senator Graham, I want to especially 

thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing and bringing 

much needed attention to rising anti-Muslim bigotry. 

You know, we have been hearing from Americans from all faith 

backgrounds and all walks of life who recognize that it has really 

become a growing menace to the safety and, frankly, the social fabric of our Nation, so it is especially heartening to see bipartisan 

support on this issue. 

I was born and raised in Painted Post, a small town in rural upstate New York. At the start of every school day, like school children across America, I stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance. 

The last line of the pledge says that ‘‘we are one Nation, under 

God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.’’ There is no qualifier. It is just simply that we are one Nation with liberty and justice for all. 

As this Subcommittee knows well, our Nation has a unique, longcherished commitment to freedom, particularly religious freedom. 

In fact, Muslims have been a part of America for centuries, since 

the first slave ships arrived at its shores. Today American Muslims 

reflect every race and ethnicity that comprise our Nation’s rich heritage. That is why recent rhetoric demonizing Islam and Muslims— 

brutal attacks, harassment, and discrimination, and in some cases 

even threatening to kill Americans, including children, based on 

their faith—is so vile. It is not who we are as Americans, and it 

has no place in the schoolhouse, in the workplace, or in our communities. 

Nearly 10 years after 9/11, hate crimes motivated by anti-Muslim 

bias targeting Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans remain higher than levels before 9/11. Some are deadly. 

Late last summer, a New York taxi driver was stabbed and almost died after a passenger asked him whether he was a Muslim. 
26 

Just earlier this year, two elderly Sikh men were gunned down 

while taking an afternoon stroll through their neighborhood in 

northern California, killing one and critically injuring the other. 

Employment discrimination complaints are at an all-time high, 

with Muslim bias-based complaints comprising 25 percent—25 percent of complaints received by the EEOC from 2008 to 2009—while 

Muslims comprise only 1 to 2 percent of the entire population. 

Opposition to mosque construction is also on the rise and getting 

uglier. And Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian parents are more 

concerned than ever about their children. In one especially egregious case, a Muslim high school student in Staten Island was subjected to a harrowing ordeal in which he was frequently labeled a 

‘‘terrorist,’’ punched in the groin, and spat on by fellow teenagers. 

Sometimes his mother would catch him rocking back and forth saying, ‘‘Why me? What did I ever do to them?’’ One day he was beaten so severely that his mother took him to a doctor. There was 

blood in his urine, and he suffered from headaches and memory 

loss. His assailants were later arrested and charged with a hate 

crime. 

This is just one vile example of how anti-Muslim bigotry is playing out ferociously across America today. Parents worry: Will my 

child be next? And they worry about the future. Will America be 

hospitable to minority faiths? Will its better angels prevail? Or will 

the values of freedom and respect become a relic of the past? 

Anti-Muslim bigotry has been simmering and growing since the 

tragic events of September 11th—a terrorist attack that was an attack on all Americans, Muslims included. But in the last several 

months, anti-Muslim rhetoric has reached a disturbing new level. 

Prominent religious, military, and even political leaders have 

joined the fray, feeding fear and hysteria, with some going so far 

as to say Islam is a cult, not a religion. 

Now, one just might want to dismiss such statements as silly and 

absurd if not for the fact that the vitriol has real life-and-death 

consequences for Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian Americans 

and their families. The message is clear: You are not welcome. 

Words that were graffitied last year on a sign for a mosque in 

Murfreesboro, Tennessee. 

But what gives me hope, Mr. Chairman, is knowing that more 

and more Americans from all walks of life are coming together to 

reject fear and divisiveness because they recognize that it is not 

American. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell poignantly 

said, ‘‘Is there something wrong with being a Muslim in this country? The answer is no, that is not America.’’ 

I commend the stepped-up enforcement of the Nation’s civil 

rights laws under the Attorney General’s leadership, but challenges 

remain and more must be done. I refer the Subcommittee to my 

written testimony for specific recommendations of steps Congress 

and the administration should take and ask that my full written 

testimony be entered for the record. I would be happy to discuss 

those recommendations later in the hearing. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Farhana Khera appears as a submission for the record.] 
27 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much, and I can tell as a 

former staffer you knew you had 5 minutes. 

[Laughter.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Cardinal McCarrick, please proceed. Your 

written testimony will be made part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF CARDINAL THEODORE E. MCCARRICK, 

ARCHBISHOP EMERITUS OF WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF 

THE UNITED STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, 

WASHINGTON, DC 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. Thank you, sir. Senator Durbin, Senator 

Kyl, allow me to thank you for the invitation and opportunity to 

be with you to offer testimony today. As Archbishop Emeritus of 

Washington, I am here today representing the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops. I will summarize my remarks and 

ask—and you graciously accepted—that my full testimony be entered into the record. 

My written testimony places the treatment of American Muslims 

in the broader context of religious liberty from the perspective of 

our rich American tradition and of our Catholic tradition and experience. As a community that has been the target of religious discrimination, even as was mentioned earlier, we understand the 

need today to bring attention to protecting the civil rights of our 

Muslim brothers and sisters. We see religious freedom as an essential foundation for our life together in our Nation and across the 

globe. Over time we have made much progress together, but we 

fear this shared foundation is being weakened and undermined by 

religious prejudice, unwise policies, and polarizing words and tactics which divide us. Most appallingly, religious freedom is destroyed by attacks on people in some countries because of their religion and by the terrible misuse of religion to incite hatred and even 

justify violence. 

Sadly, this fundamental betrayal of religious belief, attacking 

those of differing religious perspectives in the name of religion, can 

sometimes be used to promote suspicion and fear of all people associated with a particular religious tradition. This kind of generalized 

religious prejudice is wrong and unjust and a clear violation of religious freedom. A justified concern for security and the appropriate 

pursuit of those who pervert religion to attack others cannot be allowed to turn into a new form of religious discrimination and intolerance. This is why we stand with our Muslim brothers and sisters 

in defense of their dignity and rights, just as we welcome and expect their reciprocity and solidarity with us when the rights of 

Christians and other religious groups are violated around the 

world. 

In our pluralistic society, religious values and commitments are 

assets for the common good, not sources of division or conflict. 

Today we note with particular sadness that Muslim Americans, 

with whom we have had a positive ongoing dialogue for over two 

decades, have had their loyalty and beliefs questioned publicly in 

sweeping and uninformed ways. This compels us to reach out in 

solidarity in support of their dignity and rights as Americans and 

believers. 
28 

We worry about the rhetoric and actions that target our Muslim 

neighbors and friends. Like our own historical experience, their 

very loyalty as Americans and their traditions and values are being 

threatened. 

We remain firmly committed to the defense of religious liberty 

for all—not just for Catholics—because our commitment is to the 

dignity of each and every human person. 

At the same time, we recognize that not every charge of wrongdoing against people or groups within a religious community 

amounts to religious discrimination, bias, or bigotry. Religious beliefs are no excuse for threatening others with or carrying out acts 

of violence. At this particular moment in our Nation’s history, we 

face a real threat to our national security from one kind of terrorism that has its origins in a particular form of extremist ideology which holds itself out, falsely, as authentic Islam. 

The legitimate concern for the public order, however, must be 

pursued with effective skill and respect for religious liberty. In particular, we need to avoid generalizing about any religion, especially 

about Islam, based solely on the extreme views and conduct of a 

small group of radical extremists. Those unfounded generalizations 

and efforts to fan the flames of fear are wrong and unjustified, but 

are especially inappropriate and hurtful when expressed by leaders 

in public life. These attacks are a grave injustice against the vast 

majority of Muslims in the United States who are loyal and productive members of our American society. 

For the Catholic bishops, religious freedom and its absence have 

many expressions, our own history as an immigrant people and a 

religious minority has its own stories of suspicion, discrimination, 

and intolerance. And, unfortunately, these are not merely a thing 

of the past. When the very right of conscience is sometimes attacked, the ability to exercise religious beliefs is subverted. There 

are well-known contemporary examples where the state would 

force religious groups and individuals to choose between following 

their religious beliefs and practices and following the dictates of 

law. Where is the respect for religious freedom, we ask, in compelling a religious entity to perform an act which contradicts its basic 

moral principles? Who ultimately suffers by undermining the rights 

of conscience for religious groups and individuals? It is not merely 

the integrity of the principle of religious freedom, but also the people whom we serve and employ. 

As pastors within a universal church, we Catholic bishops hear 

the cries and share the pain of believers around the world who suffer persecution, violence, and discrimination simply because of 

their religious identity. In the last year alone, we have seen dramatic examples of the persecution of Catholic and other Christian 

communities around the globe. An example that strikes us is this 

March, Shabhaz Bhatti, the Pakistani Minister of Minority Affairs, 

was assassinated at the hands of Muslim extremists. Mr. Bhatti 

was a Roman Catholic who had advocated for tolerance and religious freedom for all religious minorities in Pakistan. For this courageous witness, he was brutally murdered. 

We appreciate the many sincere expressions of sympathy and 

condemnation that have come from our religious partners, our dialogue partners in the Muslim community, especially the Islamic So-
29 

ciety of North America, the Islamic Circle of North America. They 

have stood with us as trusted allies in speaking out against violence and in defense of religious freedom. Solidarity among people 

of every religion in the face of attacks on people of any one religion 

is respect for religious freedom in action. 

Concluding, as a religious community, our Catholic faith commits 

us to defend and promote the right to religious freedom for all as 

a moral priority and a human responsibility. This common commitment to religious freedom is at the heart of American life. It is also 

an example to a world where too many doubt that people of different religions can live together in peace and mutual respect. 

As other countries wrestle with how to treat religious minorities, 

let them look to our Nation where we work to ensure that our Muslim sisters and brothers are treated with dignity and that their religious identity and beliefs must be treated with respect. Let them 

here see a people blessed with hard-won religious freedom living 

out our commitment to the rights of all by demonstrating full respect for the identity, integrity, and freedom of all religions. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick 

appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you so much, Cardinal. And when I 

make a closing statement here, I am going to include statements 

from a wide variety of religious faiths that join in your sentiment 

in expressing solidarity with Muslim Americans. 

At this point, Mr. Acosta, please proceed with your testimony. 

Your written statement will be made part of the record. 

STATEMENT OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, DEAN, COLLEGE OF 

LAW, FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, MIAMI, FLORIDA 

Mr. ACOSTA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin, Senator Kyl, good morning. I want to take a minute to thank you for 

holding this important hearing, and I also want to take a minute 

to thank Assistant Attorney General Perez for his words and his 

Division’s current efforts. General Perez graciously made an important point, that the protection of religious liberties is a bipartisan 

issue. Muslim Americans should take comfort in knowing that the 

effort to protect their religious liberties has been ongoing since 9/ 

11, has transcended the partisan divide, and I hope continues to 

transcend the partisan divide. 

The title of today’s hearing references American Muslims, and I 

thought it appropriate to begin by discussing two such individuals. 

The first is a student at the law school where I am now dean. 

He is one of our student leaders and, in fact, he is a candidate for 

student body president. I asked him to send me an email about 

himself. I was going to summarize it, but I am going to quote it 

in full because I thought it made a powerful point. He writes: ‘‘I 

am a Muslim, born and raised in the United States. I suppose by 

most people’s standards my childhood was pretty normal. I went to 

school, tried to get out of doing homework, and spent entirely too 

much time watching TV. The truth is I was pretty lazy. But that 

changed when I went to high school. I attended Estero High 

School, in Estero, Florida, where I was introduced to the Army’s 

Junior Reserves Officer Training Corp. I loved the JROTC pro-
30 

gram. It taught me what it meant to be a leader and why it was 

important to take responsibility for my actions. I excelled in the 

program. In fact, I was the first cadet in my class to be made a 

cadet officer, and I ultimately reached the program’s highest rank, 

cadet lieutenant colonel. But it is not my successes in JROTC that 

I remember most about high school. Rather, what I remember most 

about high school,’’ he wrote, ‘‘is the confusion, the fear that overcame me on September 11th, when our teacher turned on the classroom television just in time for me to watch the second plane crash 

into the second tower of the World Trade Center. I knew that my 

country had been attacked, so I did what I knew was right. Five 

months later I enlisted in the military.’’ 

‘‘I enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard on February 7, 

2002, and I transferred to regular active duty on July 27, 2003. In 

late 2007, I left active duty so that I could go to law school.’’ 

Well, this student’s name is Mohamed T. Al-Darsani, and last 

summer, he was selected as one of only 25 first-year law students 

in the Nation to intern for the Army’s Judge Advocate General 

Corps. His goal is to become a JAG officer. 

The second individual that I want to talk about is a young 

woman by the name of Nashala Hearn. Ms. Hearn testified to this 

Committee in June 2004. At the time, she was 11. 

Nashala’s story begins in Oklahoma at the start of the 2003 

school year. At the time she told sixth grade teacher that she was 

Muslim, and that she wore a head scarf as part of her religion. The 

teacher did not object at the time, and Nashala happily attended 

school for the next month. That changed on September 11, 2003, 

when her teacher asked her to remove her head scarf. The school 

permitted students to wear baseball caps and kippahs, but wanted 

her to remove her head scarf because it ‘‘frightened’’ other sixth 

grade students. Nashala declined and was sent to the principal’s office. The principal insisted that she remove her head scarf, and 

when she declined to do so, she was suspended. I authorized the 

Justice Department to intervene in the case, and eventually, after 

court action, Nashala was permitted to return to school wearing 

her head scarf. 

I speak about these two individuals because I think that it highlights some important principles, some critical principles that make 

our Nation great. 

The first principle is that foremost we are all Americans. Mr. AlDarsani is an American. Listen to his words: ‘‘I knew that my 

country had been attacked, so I did what was right. Five months 

later, I enlisted in the military.’’ 

The second principle is religious freedom. Nashala’s situation 

was an opportunity for a public school to teach this principle of 

freedom. School officials could have taken the opportunity to talk 

about America’s early settlers and their search for freedom to express their faith. School officials could have taken this opportunity 

to teach basic civics, a topic that is sometimes lacking in our system of education. They could have taken this opportunity to say 

that fear is wrong, that respect and tolerance for another’s faith is 

right, and that these are founding principles of our Nation. Instead, 

these public school officials fed the fear, signaling to Nashala’s fellow sixth graders that they should be afraid of the head scarf, and 
31 

that the head scarf, and by extension her faith, should be suppressed. 

Nashala’s case, unfortunately, offers an insight into our nature. 

Our Nation is strong because we respond to attack with resolve. 

History has shown, however, the need for leadership that tempers 

resolve with wisdom. President George W. Bush understood this, 

when on September 17th he visited the Islamic Center of Washington to remind a then resolute Nation that ‘‘[t]hose who feel like 

they can intimidate our fellow citizens to take out their anger . . . 

should be ashamed of that kind of behavior.’’ President Obama has 

understood this and has spoken out as well. 

Ten years later, as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I feel 

obligated to conclude by stating the obvious: As a Nation, we have 

not forgotten the events of 10 years ago. Emotions remain charged, 

and the desire to blame remains high. This is a good time, this is 

a critical time to temper our resolve with wisdom and to recall and 

to remain true to our American ideals and freedoms. We need to 

ensure that all people in this land are free to practice their faiths 

without fear of retaliation or reprisal. 

I thank you for the hearing and for your time and look forward 

to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of R. Alexander Acosta appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I have been in the Senate for a long time. I 

cannot recall a panel that has been so impressive. I thank you, all 

three of you, for your testimony. It was heartfelt and is going to 

make an excellent record of what we are trying to talk about today. 

I want to address an issue raised by Cardinal McCarrick and put 

it in terms of the topic that is before us. The Cardinal said—I am 

going to quote you here—‘‘Where is the respect for religious freedom in compelling a religious entity to act in ways which contradict 

its most basic moral principles?’’ 

And now let us move this principle or thought to the question of 

Sharia law. You heard the question I asked earlier of Mr. Perez 

about where the line should be drawn. We certainly know the excesses of Sharia law. They are publicized every day. The killing of 

this man in Pakistan who made controversy by saying he was opposed to the blasphemy laws, he gave his life for speaking out for 

tolerance. The same thing, the suggested stoning of women for certain transgressions in Muslim countries. Those for many people are 

the images of Sharia law. 

I would like to ask you, Ms. Khera, put what the Cardinal said 

in the context of Sharia law and what we know to be excesses in 

some contexts, but to be part of Muslim religious practice in a very 

peaceful way in another context. 

Ms. KHERA. Right. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that question. 

I think, as you pointed out and Mr. Perez pointed out earlier as 

well, for everyday American Muslims what Sharia really means is 

those guidelines that guide our everyday life, so whether it is prayer, fasting, issues of marriage, in the way that religious law guides 

those everyday activities for Christians and Jews and other faith 

communities in the United States. 

The kinds of, should I say, excesses of Sharia that you have outlined, I cannot imagine the circumstances under which they would 
32 

be tolerated here in America in our legal system. You know, as a 

legal matter, the Supremacy Clause ensures that the Constitution 

is the law of the land, no religious law, no foreign law, and that 

is absolutely important and something that, you know, I am personally very thankful is there. 

So I think this question of Sharia and these efforts to introduce 

bills to ban Sharia are just woefully misguided, and they are chasing a threat that does not exist. But the implications, if they are 

actually allowed to be enacted, you know, taking, for example, the 

Oklahoma one, could have very significant consequences in terms 

of the religious practice of American Muslims here at home, and 

that is why it does concern us. 

Chairman DURBIN. I will ask you to go a step further because the 

case we talked about here, the American Muslim who raised the 

case in Oklahoma was objecting saying that it was Sharia law that 

had guided him in the execution of his will, how he would leave 

his property after death. Can you give me other illustrations? I 

mean, as I said, the stereotype of Sharia law is extreme, and we 

would not countenance it for any religion in this country. 

Ms. KHERA. Right. 

Chairman DURBIN. Can you give me other illustrations of Sharia 

law in the life of an American Muslim that you believe should be 

understood by most? 

Ms. KHERA. So the one example you gave is a very good one in 

terms of the way some people may decide to write a will. It may 

also entail decisions to get married and those who get married 

under religious law in terms of how they go about their life, things 

like the prayer, how they pray, when they pray, fasting, which is 

also a cornerstone of the faith. Those are just some examples. 

Chairman DURBIN. As well I believe donations—— 

Ms. KHERA. Yes, charity, charitable giving is an obligation for 

American Muslim as it is for many people of faith in this country. 

Chairman DURBIN. And the Hajj? 

Ms. KHERA. And the Hajj, yes, thank you—which was a topic earlier in the hearing. Thank you. The pilgrimage is something that 

is required for American Muslims as well. 

Chairman DURBIN. I realized after 9/11 I did not even know the 

pillars of Islam, and I was trying to recall some of them as you testified. 

Mr. Acosta, would you address that in your role as former Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, this question of Sharia law? 

Mr. ACOSTA. Certainly, I will try to do so, although I will confess 

to not being familiar with the details of Sharia law. I guess I have 

two thoughts. 

First, I would have concerns about equal protection issues. While 

a legislature or a State can certainly determine to what laws a 

State court will look, there are concerns when a particular type of 

law or a particular religion is singled out as against others, in 

much the same way that you cannot ban a head scarf but allow 

other head coverings. 

Second, I would also note that as a general rule courts do not 

apply foreign laws or religious laws. The context where that might 

come up is in the conflict of law situation when the contract or the 

will or the document of adhesion references another jurisdiction, 
33 

and in that case it is the individuals that are signatories that are 

asking the court to look beyond the local jurisdiction and apply 

that other law. So this is a fairly unusual circumstance where that 

would come up. 

Chairman DURBIN. I do not want to misstate your position, but 

I think initially you said neutrality. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Neutrality, absolutely. 

Chairman DURBIN. So that you would put whatever that religious belief is in the context of American law. 

Mr. ACOSTA. Absolutely. 

Chairman DURBIN. That is the way I see it, too. I do not understand the other point of view, and I wanted to see if maybe you 

could point to some difference that I do not see. But I think we are 

in agreement on that. 

Cardinal McCarrick, I need to ask you about a delicate and controversial issue. You played a role in the great controversy which 

rocked our country for weeks related to the Part 51, the proposed 

Islamic center in lower Manhattan. I understand that you were involved in an interfaith effort to stand in solidarity with American 

Muslims who were experiencing religious discrimination. Can you 

tell me how you got involved in this and describe that effort to the 

Committee? 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. Well, actually, I was involved only tangentially because it was a New York difficulty, a New York question, 

and we learned years ago do not get involved in other people’s 

property because you have got enough troubles on your own. But 

it became such a national issue that people became very confused 

about it, and the Archbishop in New York, Archbishop Dolan, 

spoke to it, as did others. 

I think it was because I have been very much involved with the 

Muslim leadership here in this part of the country, especially with 

the Islamic Society of North America and its leadership, actually 

because we have been trying to work together to look for peace in 

the Holy Land. And so we have a very close relationship with the 

leadership of the Muslim groups and with the leadership of many 

of the Jewish groups in our area—all of us looking for the two-state 

solution, and we have become friends over that over the years. And 

it was that friendship which wanted us to speak out a little more 

carefully. 

A very difficult issue, an issue where you could understand reasons behind both positions, but I think we felt that you could not 

say this was an un-American thing, you could not say this was 

something that would destroy the unity of our religious friendship 

and our religious working together. 

That was basically that we wanted to try to keep it above the 

level of saying this is something that you have to do, you have to 

attack, you have to speak against. You could see that people of 

good will could look at both sides, but you had to make sure that 

they were looking at it at a level where they understood that whatever you decided you could not be condemned for because there 

were good arguments on both sides. 

That often is what is the position that is always best first to 

take. We run into a world where everything is black and white. 
34 

Well, there are a lot of grays in our world, and it is important that 

we recognize that. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Cardinal. 

Senator Kyl. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

First of all, Dean Acosta, as a former Assistant Attorney General, 

let me just ask you a couple questions about Sharia. It seems to 

me it is one thing to say that Sharia should not be banned, but it 

is quite another to say that it should or could supplant U.S. civil 

or criminal law. Would that be a correct way to look at it? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I do not see why any foreign law or any religious 

law could or should supplant U.S. law. 

Senator KYL. And if, therefore, it is merely a guide by which people should live their lives from a religious point of view, as has 

been described here, it could not and it should not allow things like 

underage marriage or polygamy or things of that sort. Would that 

be correct? 

Mr. ACOSTA. I think the Supremacy Clause makes clear that the 

U.S. law is the law of the land, absolutely. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. 

And, Cardinal McCarrick, let me ask you: The U.S. Constitution 

and the teachings of your church allow all Americans to practice 

any faith of their choosing or no faith. Is that correct? 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. That is, absolutely. 

Senator KYL. And it would also allow people to convert to a different faith, would it not? 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. Yes. We are not happy about that, but—— 

[Laughter.] 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. That is certainly a part of our position and 

has been always. 

Senator KYL. I think that is correct. 

For those who would condemn others in hateful language for 

doing that, that would not be—while that speech would be permitted, it would not be speech that—well, that speech would be 

permitted, but would you condemn—I guess I will ask it this way: 

Would you condemn people who use hateful or inciteful speech 

against those who have converted to another faith? 

Cardinal MCCARRICK. Well, I think generally you should love 

your neighbor even if you do not love the actions that your neighbor posits. You have to have respect for your neighbor. You might 

tell your neighbor, ‘‘We think you are wrong, we are sorry that you 

are doing this,’’ but to attack them as being anything less than 

your neighbor would certainly not be a Christian point of view. 

Senator KYL. Right. Ms. Khera, let me ask you a similar question. You belong to an organization which has been very clear 

about its positions on the website, for example. I wonder if you 

have made any public pronouncement or statement condemning 

those religious leaders who have employed violent or hateful rhetoric or promoted hateful views of other religious groups. Have you 

done that or has your website done that? 

Ms. KHERA. Well, let me, maybe by way of background, just clarify—— 
35 

Senator KYL. As a former staffer, you know that my time is very 

limited so do not have a lot of background. I have three quick questions here. Have you done that? 

Ms. KHERA. Well, let me just clarify, Senator Kyl. My organization’s work is focused on protecting and upholding our constitutional values here at home. 

Senator KYL. So you have not condemned the hateful speech of 

those who have criticized others in the way that I mentioned then? 

Ms. KHERA. I guess I would have to know more specifically which 

particular case you are talking about. 

Senator KYL. Well, let me just ask you this. Would you today 

criticize threats of death or physical harm directed at writers or 

commentators who have criticized Islamic extremism? You would 

condemn that today, would you not? 

Ms. KHERA. I think we have in our country very cherished fidelity to the First Amendment, and that includes freedom of 

speech—— 

Senator KYL. I am not questioning whether people have the right 

to speak. The question is whether you would agree that that speech 

is helpful or hurtful, whether you would condemn it or be neutral 

about it. 

Ms. KHERA. Those who would threaten to kill somebody because 

of their political views, religious views, that is inappropriate. 

Senator KYL. And I am specifically talking about the website— 

I guess I should identify your site here, which I will in just a moment. 

Ms. KHERA. It is MuslimAdvocates.org. 

Senator KYL. Yes. MuslimAdvocates.org. Is that correct? 

Ms. KHERA. Yes. 

Senator KYL. Thank you. Let me just refer you to several cases 

here last year and then ask you about something on your website. 

Just last year, U.S. intelligence agents and our justice system 

uncovered and prosecuted a number of attempted terrorist attacks 

that were planned by radical Muslim extremists. A compilation 

produced by the Investigative Project on Terrorism based on recent 

Justice Department reports lists just the following incidents: 

On November 27th, Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested 

and charged with attempting to explode a car bomb in Portland, 

Oregon. 

October 27th, Farooque Ahmed was arrested for attempting to 

assist others whom he believed to be members of al Qaeda in planning multiple bombings in the metro area here in Washington. 

October 19th, Hosam Smadi was sentenced to 24 years in prison 

for attempting to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, Texas. 

October 18th, a Federal court in Manhattan found that James 

Cromitie and four others were guilty of attempting to detonate explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx. 

On August 2nd, Russell Defreitas and Abdul Kadir were convicted of a conspiracy to attack John F. Kennedy Airport by exploding fuel tanks under the airport. 

On June 21st, Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to attempting to 

detonate a car bomb in Times Square. He was sentenced to life in 

prison. 
36 

On March 18th, David Headley pleaded guilty to charges that he 

participated in planning the November 2008 attacks in Mumbai, 

India, which killed 164 people. 

Every one of these incidents could have resulted in the deaths of 

hundreds of people. In fact, the Headley plot, of course, did, including six Americans. 

All of these terrorists were obviously indifferent to whom they 

killed, including women and children, and I think we owe a debt 

of gratitude to the enforcement agents who identified and stopped 

the plots before they could be carried out. 

In view of this history, I was curious about your website, the socalled Community Alert Section, which is apparently directed to 

American Muslims, and it notes, and I quote, ‘‘The FBI is contacting American Muslims to elicit information and advice about 

addressing violent extremism. Muslim Advocates strongly urges individuals not to speak to law enforcement officials without the 

presence of a lawyer.’’ And I was stunned that you would issue that 

kind of instruction to people who would read your site since, obviously, cooperation from Muslim Americans is one of the best ways 

that law enforcement can uncover terrorist plots like the ones that 

I described. And it seems to me that it is the civic obligation of all 

Americans to assist in preventing these heinous crimes, especially 

given the participation of Muslims in all the attempted attacks 

that I mentioned. I would think that Muslim Americans would feel 

a special obligation to help intelligence agencies root this out. 

Do you think it is wrong to investigate and prosecute the individuals that I mentioned? And do you stand by the Muslim Advocates 

Community Alert instructing Muslim Americans not to cooperate 

with the FBI and other law enforcement investigating potential 

acts of terrorism, or at least not without having a lawyer present? 

Ms. KHERA. Senator Kyl, I fully understand the threat that we 

are facing. You know, on September 11th, I was working right here 

in the Capitol, and I ran from the Capitol with my colleagues as 

we thought planes were approaching. So I fully understand the 

threat. Those who engage in criminal acts must be stopped and 

brought to justice. And every American has a civic duty to report 

criminal activity to law enforcement. 

You know, and I might add that Attorney General Holder has actually said that the cooperation of the American Muslim community has been essential to detecting and thwarting terrorist plots. 

At the same time, every American has the right to seek legal advice, and that is a right that is guaranteed to every American. And 

I know you are a lawyer. We are both lawyers. And I think we both 

know that our legal system is quite complex, and so encouraging 

community members to seek legal advice as they interact with law 

enforcement is something that every American has a right to do. 

Senator KYL. So you stand by that statement on your website? 

Ms. KHERA. I stand by all the statements on my website. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

I recall a few weeks after 9/11, just remembering when I raced 

from the Capitol as you did that day, I flew into O’Hare, and as 

I went out to get a taxicab, there was a man wearing a turban in 

the cab. And I got in the cab and sat in the back seat, and as we 

started to pull away, I said to him, ‘‘How have things been for you 
37 

since 9/11?’’ Well, he said, ‘‘I am sick, and I wear this turban every 

day. Some people give me the finger. Some curse at me. Some will 

not get in my cab. But most people are just fine.’’ He said, ‘‘I wish 

they would get in my cab. I would like to show them something.’’ 

And he reached over and he pulled down the passenger side visor, 

and there was a picture of a young man in an American U.S. Army 

military uniform. And he said, ‘‘This is my son. He is somewhere 

now overseas in the Middle East, and he cannot even tell me. But 

he is fighting for our country. And my other son is going to enlist 

in the Marine Corps.’’ 

And I thought to myself, the people who were cursing him, if 

they only knew that this man was putting his two most prized possessions in service to the United States, risking their lives to keep 

this Nation free. 

I cannot quarrel with anyone who argues that we have a threat 

of terrorism and have to deal with it honestly. What I hope this 

hearing has suggested is that among the millions of Muslim Americans, the overwhelming majority are patriotic, law-abiding people 

who simply want to live their lives as we all do in this great and 

free country. We all have to work to keep it safe, Muslim Americans and those who are not. But the purpose of this hearing was 

to make it clear that there are some basic and fundamental principles that should guide us in our relationships with one another. 

And your testimony today, I want to say for all three of you, has 

been extraordinary. 

I would like to close, as I mentioned I would, thanking you again 

but also noting that some of the groups that have submitted statements in support of this hearing, the Subcommittee received written statements from over 40 different organizations: the ACLU, the 

Alliance for Justice, the American Jewish Committee, Human 

Rights First, Interfaith Alliance, Islamic Society of North America, 

Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Military Religious Freedom Foundation, Muslim Public Affairs Council, Sikh 

Coalition, South Asian American Leaders Together, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the United Methodist Church. And without 

objection, I will put the statements in the record. 

[The statements appear as submissions for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. I wanted to note in particular a statement we 

received from an interfaith coalition called Shoulder to Shoulder: 

Standing with American Muslims, Upholding American Values. 

Among others, this coalition includes the American Baptist Churches USA, Disciples of Christ, the Episcopal Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Islamic Society of North America, the Religious 

Action Center of Reform Judaism, and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association. Here is part of what they said in their statement: ‘‘We remain profoundly distressed and saddened by the incidents of violence committed against Muslims in communities across 

America, by the desecration of Islamic houses of worship, and by 

the destruction of sacred texts. We stand by the principle that to 

attack any religion in the United States is to do violence to the religious freedom of all Americans. We encourage all citizens of this 

country to honor freedoms guaranteed by our Constitution that enable the free exercise of religion across our great land.’’ 
38 

That is an appropriate note to close. If there are no further comments from our panel or colleagues, I am going to thank the witnesses again and tell you that the hearing record is going to be 

open for 2 weeks, and additional materials and questions may be 

sent your way, which I hope you will reply to in a prompt manner. 

Thank you again for being part of this hearing. 

[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(39) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
40 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF FARHANA KHERA
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 
63 
64 
65 
66 
67 
68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CARDINAL THEODORE E. MCCARRICK
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY
81 
82 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ BY SENATOR GRASSLEY
83 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ BY SENATOR KYL
84 
85 
86 

RESPONSES OF HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATORS GRASSLEY AND KYL
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 
136 
137 
138 
139 
140 
141 
142 
143 
144 
145 
146 
147 
148 
149 
150 
151 
152 
153 
154 
155 
156 
157 
158 
159 
160 
161 
162 
163 
164 
165 
166 
167 
168 
169 
170 
171 
172 
173 
174 
175 
176 
177 
178 
179 
180 
181 
182 
183 
184 
185 
186 
187 
188 
189 
190 
191 
192 
193 
194 
195 
196 
197 
198 
199 
200 
201 
202 
203 
204 
205 
206 
207 
208 
209 
210 
211 
212 
213 
214 
215 
216 
217 
218 
219 
220 
221 
222 
223 
224 
225 
226 
227 
228 
229 
230 
231 
232 
233 
234 
235 
236 
237 
238 
239 
240 
241 
242 
243 
244 
245 
246 
247 
248 
249 
250 
251 
252 
253 
254 
255 
256 
257 
258 
259 
260 
261 
262 
263 
264 
265 
266 
267 
268 
269 
270 
271 
272 
273 
274 
275 
276 
277 
278 
279 
280 
281 
282 
283 
284 
285 
286 
287 
288 
289 
290 
291 
292 
293 
294 
295 
296 
297 
298 
299 
300 
301 
302 
303 
304 
305 
306 
307 
308 
309 
310 
311 
312 
313 
314 
315 
316 
317 
318 
319 
320 
321 
322 
323 
324 
325 
326 
327 
328 
329 
330 
331 
332 
333 
334 
335 
336 
337 
338 
339 
340 

Æ