S. HRG. 112–947 

HATE CRIMES AND THE THREAT 

OF DOMESTIC EXTREMISM 

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 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–94 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 
HATE CRIMES AND THE THREAT OF DOMESTIC EXTREMISM 
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

20–972 PDF 2016

S. HRG. 112–947 

HATE CRIMES AND THE THREAT 

OF DOMESTIC EXTREMISM 

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 

SECOND SESSION 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 

Serial No. J–112–94 

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 

SEPTEMBER 19, 2012, 2:46 P.M. 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 86 

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

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

WITNESSES 

Witness List ............................................................................................................. 31 

Austin, Jr., Roy L., Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, 

U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC ................................................... 4 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 32 

Clancy, Michael A., Deputy Assistant Director, Counterterrorism Division, 

Federal Bureau of Investigation, Washington, DC ........................................... 9 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 49 

Jacobs, James B., Chief Justice Warren E. Burger Professor of Constitutional 

Law and the Courts, New York University School of Law, New York, 

New York .............................................................................................................. 22 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 65 

Johnson, Daryl, Founder and Owner, DT Analytics, LLC, Washington, DC ..... 16 

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

McAllister, Hon. Scott, Deputy Under Secretary, State and Local Program 

Office, Office of Intelligence and Analysis, U.S. Department of Homeland 

Security, Washington, DC ................................................................................... 7 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Saini, Harpreet Singh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin ...................................................... 19 

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 62 

QUESTIONS 

Questions submitted to Roy L. Austin, Jr., by Senator Coons ............................. 89 

Questions submitted to Daryl Johnson by Senator Coons ................................... 90 

ANSWERS 

[NOTE: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses 

from Roy L. Austin, Jr.] 

Responses of Daryl Johnson to questions submitted by Senator Coons ............. 91 

MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Ali, Wajahat, Esq., Lead Author of ‘‘Fear Inc., The Roots of the Islamophobia 

Network in America,’’ statement ........................................................................ 115 

American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC), Washington, DC, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 139 

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), September 19, 2012, statement ......... 119 

American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 126 

American Humanist Association, Roy Speckhardt, Executive Director, statement ...................................................................................................................... 132 
Page

IV 

American Jewish Committee (AJC), Richard T. Foltin, Esq., Director, 

National and Legislative Affairs, Office of Government and International 

Affairs, statement ................................................................................................ 136 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), New York, New York, statement ..................... 94 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), September 19, 2012, statement ....................... 146 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), September 19, 2012, appendix A .............. 161 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), September 19, 2012, appendix B .............. 164 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), September 19, 2012, appendix C .............. 165 

Anti-Defamation League (ADL), September 19, 2012, appendix D .............. 168 

Applied Research Center (ARC), September 2012, statement ............................. 169 

Arab American Institute (AAI), Washington, DC, statement .............................. 172 

Asian American Justice Center (AAJC), Mee Moua, President and Executive 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 179 

Asian and Pacific Islander American Health Forum (APIAHF), San Francisco, 

California, statement ........................................................................................... 176 

Asian Law Caucus (ALC), San Francisco, California, statement ........................ 185 

Asian Pacific American Legal Center (APALC), September 17, 2012, statement ...................................................................................................................... 187 

Chu, Hon. Judy, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 195 

City of Chicago City Council and Mayor, Chicago, Illinois, September 12, 

2012, council resolution ....................................................................................... 191 

City of Chicago Police Department, Chicago, Illinois, Tina Skahill, Chief 

of the Special Functions Division, statement .................................................... 194 

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

S. McCaw, statement ........................................................................................... 197 

Council on American Islamic Relations–Chicago Office (CAIR–Chicago), 

Chicago, Illinois, statement ................................................................................. 209 

Daya Inc., Lakshmy Parameswaran, Founder and Board Member, Houston 

Chronicle, ‘‘On 9/11 anniversary, let’s commit to oppose violence,’’ 

September 10, 2012, Op-Ed article ..................................................................... 212 

DC Trans Coalition (DCTC), Jason A. Terry, Anti-Violence Organizer, statement ...................................................................................................................... 214 

Defending Dissent Foundation, Susan Udry, Director, statement ...................... 218 

Equal Rights Center (ERC), Donald L. Kahl, Executive Director, statement .... 225 

Evangelical Lutheran Church in America (ELCA), September 19, 2012, statement ...................................................................................................................... 232 

Family Equality Council, Jennifer Chrisler, Executive Director, statement ...... 233 

Family of Prakash Singh Rathore, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement ................ 234 

Family of Punjab Singh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement ................................ 385 

Family of Ranjit Singh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement .................................. 237 

Family of Satwant Singh Kaleka, Amardeep Kaleka, son of Satwant Singh 

Kaleka, Founding Member of the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, statement ....... 239 

Family of Satwant Singh Kaleka, Kanwardeep Singh Kaleka, nephew of 

Satwant Singh Kaleka, statement ...................................................................... 309 

Family of Satwant Singh Kaleka, Pardeep Singh Kaleka, son of Satwant 

Singh Kaleka, statement ..................................................................................... 315 

Family of Sita Singh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement ..................................... 243 

Family of Suveg Singh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement .................................. 245 

Federation of Jain Associations in North America (JAINA), Dr. Sushil K. 

Jain, President, statement .................................................................................. 299 

Franciscan Action Network (FAN), Sister Marie Lucey OSF, Director of Advocacy, statement ..................................................................................................... 247 

Gays and Lesbians Opposing Violence (GLOV), Washington, DC, statement .... 249 

Groundswell, Valarie Kaur, Founding Director, statement ................................. 252 

Gurdwara Sahib Hidden Falls, Plymouth, Michigan, statement ........................ 259 

Hindu American Foundation (HAF), Suhag A. Shukla, Esq., Executive Director and Legal Counsel, and Samir Kalra, Esq., Director and Senior Fellow 

for Human Rights, statement ............................................................................. 260 

Hindu American Seva Charities (HASC), Anju Bhargava, Founder, statement 265 

Hmong National Development, Inc. (HND), Bao Vang, President and Chief 

Executive Officer, statement ............................................................................... 269 

Howard University School of Law Civil Rights Clinic, Washington, DC, statement ...................................................................................................................... 273 

Human Rights Campaign (HRC), Allison Herwitt, Legislative Director, statement ...................................................................................................................... 276 
Page

V 

Human Rights First, Paul LeGendre, Director, Fighting Discrimination 

Program, statement ............................................................................................. 279 

Indo-American Heritage Museum (IAHM), Shailja Khatri, President, statement ...................................................................................................................... 285 

Interfaith Alliance, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President, statement ................ 287 

Interfaith Center of New York, Rev. Chloe Breyer, Executive Director, statement ...................................................................................................................... 289 

International Center for Advocates Against Discrimination (ICAAD), Jaspreet 

and Hansdeep Singh, Co-Founders, statement ................................................. 291 

Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), Plainfield, Indiana, statement ......... 297 

Japanese American Citizens League (JACL), San Francisco, California, statement ...................................................................................................................... 303 

KARAMAH: Muslim Women Lawyers for Human Rights, Engy Abdelkader, 

Esq., Vice President, statement .......................................................................... 319 

LatinoJustice PRLDEF, New York, New York, statement .................................. 324 

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

President and Chief Executive Officer, The Hill, ‘‘Time to ensure full and 

effective enforcement on hate crimes laws,’’ September 19, 2012, Op-Ed 

article .................................................................................................................... 113

Michigan Roundtable for Diversity and Inclusion, Detroit, Michigan, ‘‘Michigan should watch and learn from Senate hearings on Sikh shootings,’’ 

Op-Ed article ........................................................................................................ 327 

Muslim Advocates, Farhana Y. Khera, President and Executive Director, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 329 

Muslim Public Affairs Council (MPAC), September 19, 2012, statement ........... 333 

National Action Network (NAN), Reverend Al Sharpton, President and 

Founder, Reverend Dr. W. Franklyn Richardson, Chairman, and Tamika 

Mallory, National Executive Director, statement .............................................. 341 

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), Tina Matsuoka, 

Executive Director, statement ............................................................................. 346 

National Asian Pacific American Women’s Forum (NAPAWF), September 17, 

2012, statement .................................................................................................... 349 

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP), Hilary 

O. Shelton, Director, Washington Bureau, and Senior Vice President for 

Advocacy and Policy, statement .......................................................................... 337 

National Association of Social Workers (NASW), Elizabeth J. Clark, Ph.D., 

A.C.S.W., M.P.H., Executive Director, statement ............................................. 353 

National Coalition for Asian Pacific Community Development (National 

CAPACD), September 19, 2012, statement ........................................................ 355 

National Disability Rights Network (NDRN), September 19, 2012, statement . 356 

National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Action Fund, Rea Carey, Executive 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 359 

National Network for Arab American Communities (NNAAC), Nadia Tonova, 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 364 

National Queer Asian Pacific Islander Alliance (NQAPIA), Ben de Guzman, 

Co-Director for Programs, statement ................................................................. 368 

NQAPIA, August 8, 2012, appendix ................................................................ 370 

North American South Asian Bar Association (NASABA), Emilie R. Ninan, 

Esq., President, statement .................................................................................. 372 

Oak Creek Police Department, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, John O. Edwards, 

Chief of Police, statement .................................................................................... 374 

Office of the County Executive, Milwaukee County, Wisconsin, Hon. Chris 

Abele, statement ................................................................................................... 376 

OneAmerica, Hardeep Singh Rekhi, Board Member, The Seattle Times, ‘‘All 

should call out hate after Wisconsin Sikh shooting,’’ August 14, 2012, 

Op-Ed article ........................................................................................................ 379 

OneAmerica, Rich Stolz, Executive Director, statement ...................................... 378 

Organization of Chinese Americans (OCA), Tom Hayashi, Executive Director, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 380 

Parents, Families, and Friends of Lesbians and Gays (PFLAG), Jody 

Huckaby, Executive Director, statement ............................................................ 382 

People For the American Way Foundation, the African American Ministers 

Leadership Council (AAMLC), and Young People For: Jen Herrick, Senior 

Policy Analyst, People For the American Way Foundation; Minister Leslie 

Watson Malachi, Director, African American Religious Affairs, People For 

the American Way Foundation; and Joy Lawson, Director, Young People 

For; statement ...................................................................................................... 111 
Page

VI 

People for the American Way, African American Ministers Leadership Council, and Young People For, statement ................................................................. 383 

Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism, Rabbi David Saperstein, Director, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 387 

Rights Working Group (RWG), Margaret Huang, Executive Director, statement ...................................................................................................................... 389 

Singh, Santokh, Oak Creek, Wisconsin, statement .............................................. 396 

Shoulder-to-Shoulder, Christina Warner, Campaign Director, statement .......... 399 

Shoulder-to-Shoulder, September 17, 2012, appendix ................................... 401 

Sidhu, Dawinder ‘‘Dave’’ S., Assistant Professor of Law, University of New 

Mexico School of Law, statement ........................................................................ 402 

Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF), Jasjit Singh, 

Executive Director, statement ............................................................................. 405 

Sikh Coalition, New York, New York, statement ................................................. 410 

South Asian American Policy and Research Institute (SAAPRI), Chicago, 

Illinois, statement ................................................................................................ 433 

South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Deepa Iyer, Executive 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 435 

South Asian Bar Association of New York (SABANY), Neha Dewan, President, statement .................................................................................................... 444 

South Asian Bar Association of Northern California (SABA–NC), statement ... 450 

South Asian Network (SAN), Manjusha P. Kulkarni, Esq., Executive Director, 

statement .............................................................................................................. 454 

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), Dr. Heidi L. Beirich, Director, Intelligence Project, statement ................................................................................... 458 

State of Michigan, Department of Civil Rights, Daniel H. Krichbaum, Ph.D., 

Director, statement .............................................................................................. 463 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Reverend Craig C. 

Roshaven, Witness Ministries Director, statement ........................................... 467 

Unitarian Universalist Association of Congregations, Boston, Massachusetts, advertisement ...................................................................................... 470 

UNITED SIKHS, New York, New York, statement ............................................. 471 

United States Department of Justice, M. Faith Burton for Judith C. 

Appelbaum, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, 

September 26, 2012, letter .................................................................................. 109 

USPAK Foundation, Ellicott City, Maryland, statement ..................................... 474 
(1) 

HATE CRIMES AND THE THREAT 

OF DOMESTIC EXTREMISM 

WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 19, 2012 

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 2:46 p.m., in 

Room SH–216, Hart Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin, 

Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Durbin and Blumenthal. 

Also present: Senator Kohl. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN, 

A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Chairman DURBIN. Good afternoon. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights will 

come to order. 

Today’s hearing is entitled ‘‘Hate Crimes and the Threat of Domestic Extremism.’’ At the outset, I will make an opening statement, and then we will recognize the Senators as they arrive, including Senator Graham, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee. Then we will turn to our witnesses. 

First, I want to note that there is a significant amount of interest 

in today’s hearing. For those who could not get a seat in the hearing room, we have an overflow room with live video feed. It is next 

door in the Dirksen Building, Room 226. 

Last month, in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, a white supremacist shot 

and killed six Sikh worshipers in the Oak Creek Gurdwara. 

Satwant Singh Kaleka was the founder of the gurdwara. His picture is on my far right you will see in the charts here. Mr. Kaleka 

fought off the gunmen with a butter knife, which gave others in the 

temple time to seek refuge. Mr. Kaleka leaves behind his wife, two 

sons, and three grandchildren. Mr. Kaleka’s son, Amardeep, and 

nephew, Kanwardeep, are with us today, and our deepest condolences go to them. 

Paramjit Kaur was a deeply religious woman. Her picture is next 

to Mr. Kaleka’s. On the day of the shooting, she was at the 

gurdwara for her daily morning prayers. Mrs. Kaur was devoted to 

her two sons, Kamaljit Singh Saini and Harpreet Singh Saini, 

working long hours so they could go to school. Kamaljit and 

Harpreet are here today. We will hear from Harpreet later in the 

hearing. You and your family are in our thoughts and prayers. 
2 

Prakash Singh Rathore had been a priest at the temple for 6 

years. His picture is the next one over. He immigrated to the 

United States in 2006 and was finally able to bring his wife and 

two children to the United States just 2 months ago, after 6 years 

of separation. 

Ranjit Singh immigrated to the United States in 1997. His picture is the next one over. Mr. Singh was a priest who played the 

tabla, an Indian drum, during religious ceremonies and mentored 

young people at the temple. He is survived by his wife and three 

children. 

Sita Singh, Ranjit Singh’s younger brother, immigrated to the 

United States in 1993. He was a priest at the temple, where he led 

morning prayers every day at 5 a.m. His picture is next to his 

brothers. Sita Singh is survived by his wife and four children. 

Suveg Singh Khattra, who was 82 years old, was a farmer from 

India who immigrated to the United States with his wife 8 years 

ago to join his son and daughter-in-law. Mr. Khattra’s picture is 

the next one over. He leaves behind a wife, five children, and seven 

grandchildren. 

The family of each of the six victims has submitted written testimony, and with unanimous consent, that testimony will be part of 

the record. 

[The testimony appears as submissions for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Oak Creek, Wisconsin, Police Department 

Lieutenant Brian Murphy responded to the gurdwara shooting and 

was shot himself nine times at close range. His picture is on my 

far left. When other officers arrived at the scene, Lieutenant Murphy urged them to help other shooting victims before they helped 

him. Thankfully, Lieutenant Murphy, a 21-year veteran of the Oak 

Creek police force, is expected to recover from his injuries. 

Sadly, the shooting in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, was not an isolated 

incident. More than 6,600 hate crimes were reported to the FBI in 

the calendar year 2010, the most recent year for statistics. And a 

2005 study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics believes that even 

those crimes that are reported are just a fraction of those that actually occur. 

In the week following the Oak Creek shooting, there were numerous attacks on mosques, including a mosque being burned to 

the ground in Joplin, Missouri; a shooting at a mosque in my home 

State, in Morton Grove, Illinois, while 500 worshipers were praying 

inside; and an unidentified perpetrator throwing an improvised explosive device at an Islamic school, again in Illinois, in Lombard, 

during a prayer service. According to the Justice Department, the 

increase in discrimination against mosques since 2010 ‘‘reflects a 

regrettable increase in anti-Muslim sentiment.’’ 

At the same time, African Americans continue to be targeted by 

a vast majority of racially motivated hate crimes; Jewish Americans continue to be victims of religiously motivated hate crimes; 

Latinos are the victims of most ethnically motivated hate crimes; 

and hundreds of LGBT Americans are the victims of violent hate 

crimes every single year. 

Three years ago, I was honored to stand next to President 

Obama’s side in the East Room of the White House when he signed 

into law the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr., Hate Crimes 
3 

Prevention Act. Today we will hear about the Justice Department’s 

efforts to use this authority to investigate and prosecute these 

crimes. 

But what are we doing to prevent hate crimes in the first instance? Are sufficient resources being devoted to combating the 

threat of violent domestic extremism and to protect those who are 

vulnerable? 

The numbers speak for themselves. According to a study by the 

New America Foundation and Syracuse University, 18 people have 

been murdered in 10 right-wing terrorist attacks since 9/11; 17 

have been killed in 4 attacks by violent Muslim extremists. And, 

since 9/11, 15 domestic extremists have acquired chemical or biological weapons that they intended to use in attacks. As one public 

FBI report warned, ‘‘right-wing terrorists pose a significant threat 

due to their propensity for violence.’’ 

Well, since 9/11, Congress has held dozens of hearings on the 

threat posed by al Qaeda and its affiliates. This is the first hearing 

in many years on the threat of violent domestic extremism. Of 

course, absolutely we have to continue our efforts to defeat al 

Qaeda, but we cannot ignore the threat of homegrown non-Islamic 

terrorism. 

In recent weeks, we have been reminded that many around the 

world do not appreciate America’s unique approach to hate speech 

and blasphemy. So let me be clear. Under our Constitution, we 

punish criminal acts, not free speech, no matter how offensive or 

hateful it might be. 

But our leaders, our leaders still have a responsibility to speak 

out against hate speech. That is what President Obama did in condemning the anti-Islamic movie that sparked the protests in the 

Muslim world. 

And that is what President George W. Bush did. It was 6 days 

after 9/11—11 years ago this week—that President Bush visited an 

Islamic Center in Washington, D.C., to make it clear that our fight 

was with al Qaeda, not American Muslims. President Bush said, 

‘‘The face of terror is not the true faith of Islam. That’s not what 

Islam is all about. Islam is peace.’’ 

Now, I had plenty of political differences with President Bush, 

and I have said that on many occasions. But I believe that his leadership as President helped to stop an anti-Muslim backlash after 

9/11 because he spoke out so clearly so quickly. 

I am sorry to say that many political leaders are failing to follow 

his example and the example of President Obama. One recent example, several Members of the House of Representatives have gone 

so far as to question the loyalty of American Muslims serving in 

the Obama administration. 

Now, this kind of rhetoric is inconsistent with our heritage as a 

diverse nation of immigrants. Most Americans realize our diversity 

is our strength. They do not question the religious background of 

their fellow citizens. When Lieutenant Murphy rushed into a hail 

of bullets at the Oak Creek Gurdwara, he was not questioning first 

the religion of the victims. He knew they needed help, and he responded. 
4 

In conclusion, I hope this hearing will redouble our efforts to 

combat the threat of domestic extremism and to take whatever 

steps are necessary to protect the vulnerable in America. 

Some would argue we should not be discussing our shortcomings 

in public while there are protesters around the world burning 

American flags. They claim that America might show weakness 

when it acknowledges its mistakes. I could not disagree more. 

America is strongest when we lead by example. We are a country 

that can look ourselves squarely in the mirror and admit that there 

is work still to be done to secure the promise of equal justice for 

all. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Dick Durbin appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Senators as they arrive will be recognized, but I want to turn to 

our first panel. Each witness is going to have 5 minutes for an 

opening statement, and their complete written statements will be 

included in the record. As is the custom of the Judiciary Committee, I ask that the witnesses stand to be sworn. 

Please raise your right hand. Do you affirm 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? 

Mr. MCALLISTER. I do. 

Mr. AUSTIN. I do. 

Mr. CLANCY. I do. 

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

witnesses have answered in the affirmative. 

The first witness is Roy Austin, Jr., Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General in the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department. 

Among other responsibilities, Mr. Austin supervises the Criminal 

Section, which enforces Federal hate crime law. Mr. Austin began 

his career as an honors trial attorney in the Criminal Section investigating and prosecuting hate crime cases. In addition to two 

stints in private practice, Mr. Austin previously worked in the U.S. 

Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, where, among other 

positions, he was senior assistant U.S. Attorney and coordinator of 

the D.C. Human Trafficking Task Force. He is an adjunct professor 

at George Washington University Law School, and he received his 

B.A. from Yale University and his J.D. from the University of Chicago. 

Mr. Austin, thanks for being here today, and please proceed with 

your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF ROY L. AUSTIN, JR., DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. AUSTIN. Thank you and good afternoon, Chairman Durbin 

and Members of the Subcommittee. I am honored to come before 

you to represent the Civil Rights Division of the Department of 

Justice and discuss one of the Department’s priorities: hate crimes 

prevention and enforcement. 

The topic of this hearing is deeply important to me on a professional and personal level. As a Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

I oversee the dedicated career professionals in the Division’s Criminal Section who are charged with prosecuting hate crimes across 
5 

this country. But before I rejoined the Department, I served as a 

line prosecutor in the same section, working on bias-motivated assaults, cross burnings and church arsons, and I saw how the devastation caused by a single act of hate can reverberate through families, through communities and places of worship, and through this 

entire Nation. 

I can also tell you that the Nation’s hate crime statutes, passed 

with bipartisan congressional support, are powerful tools for combating hate and violence, so that all of our citizens can live free 

from fear of being targeted because of their race, the color of their 

skin, the religion they practice, or who they love. 

I thank Senator Leahy, Senator Durbin, and all 63 Senators who 

supported our most recent hate crime statute, the Matthew 

Shepard and James Byrd Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, 

which gave us for the first time a Federal law that criminalizes violence motivated by sexual orientation, gender identity, gender, and 

disability. State and local prosecutors continue to prosecute the 

vast majority of hate crimes with the Federal Government serving 

as a backstop. But the Civil Rights Division and U.S. Attorney’s Offices have taken the lead in cases where such Federal involvement 

was in the public interest and necessary to secure substantial justice or where the State has requested that the Federal Government 

assume jurisdiction. 

While we as a Nation have made significant progress addressing 

hate crimes, recent events, like the absolutely horrific mass shooting at the Sikh gurdwara in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, reminded us 

all too vividly that our work is not done. This incident has highlighted the question whether to re-examine the categories of religious groups that are listed on the FBI’s hate crimes data collection 

form, a form that is used to capture the perpetrator’s motivation 

and not the victim’s background. 

In the next few weeks, the Civil Rights Division and the Community Relations Service will bring together a broad spectrum of religious organizations, including groups representing Sikh Americans, 

to elicit their views on what information should be collected. Separately, the FBI’s panel of outside subject matter experts will hear 

from stakeholders. 

Today I am proud to share with you the Division’s recent accomplishments in preventing, punishing, and deterring violent acts of 

bigotry and hate. We have aggressively responded to incidents 

where people use the hatred and fear spread by terrorists as an excuse to engage in their own acts of violence. All told, since 9/11, in 

cases targeting Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, Sikh, and South 

Asian individuals, the Department has brought 43 prosecutions 

against 55 defendants in cases with 47 convictions to date. Members of these groups are as much a part of the diverse fabric of 

America as anyone else. 

We are prosecuting cases where people are targeted and attacked 

because of their sexual orientation. Just last month, a defendant in 

Detroit, Michigan, pled guilty in Federal court for assaulting a man 

at a convenience store because he thought the man was gay. 

We are prosecuting violent acts of intolerance motivated by race, 

from the case of a young Native American with a developmental 

disability in New Mexico who was branded with a swastika by a 
6 

hot wire hanger, to the cross burnings that still persist as painful 

symbols of bigotry and hate. 

We secured the conviction of defendants in Arkansas who chased 

a group of Latino men from a gas station with anti-Latino slurs, 

ramming their truck into the victim’s car until it ran off the road, 

flipped over, and burst into flames. These victims did nothing to 

deserve the violence they faced. 

We are also tackling the problem of hate crimes using the Internet. A New Jersey man who went by the name ‘‘Devilfish’’ pled 

guilty in Federal court to charges related to sending threats to employees of five Latino civil rights organizations. 

Under the leadership of Attorney General Eric Holder and Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, in Fiscal Year 2011 the 

Division convicted 42 defendants on hate crimes charges, the largest number in more than a decade. And as of this month, the Division has charged 13 cases against 37 defendants under the 

Shepard-Byrd Act. Because this Act enhances the Division’s ability 

to assist our law enforcement partners, starting in the five States 

without hate crime statutes, the Division has trained thousands of 

State and local authorities and community members on how to 

identify, investigate, and prosecute hate crimes in communities 

across this country. 

Our work in the Department of Justice is about the families that 

worship at a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, who received a 

bomb threat from a man in Texas last September because they are 

Muslim. 

Our work is about a gay man who was kidnapped and assaulted 

in Kentucky because he is gay. 

Our work is about a black man in Mississippi who was killed by 

being run over by a truck because he is black. 

Our work is about men and women in California who saw their 

church and their synagogue seriously damaged because they are 

Christian and because they are Jewish. 

Our work is about making communities divided by hatred and ignorance whole. 

It is sad that violent acts of hate continue to occur in 2012, but 

we will continue to vigorously enforce the law so that all individuals enjoy the civil rights guaranteed by our Constitution. 

Thank you, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Roy L. Austin, Jr., appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Austin. 

Our next witness is Scott McAllister. He is the Deputy Under 

Secretary for Intelligence and Analysis, State and Local Program 

Office of the Department of Homeland Security. In that role, he 

manages DHS and interagency support to the national network of 

fusion centers. Previously, Mr. McAllister held a number of senior 

positions at the Florida Department of Law Enforcement, including 

assistant special agent in charge of the Fort Myers Regional Operations Center, assistant special agent in charge of domestic security and operational intelligence at the Headquarters Division, and 

deputy homeland security adviser. He has more than 36 years of 

State and local law enforcement experience. He is a graduate of the 

Executive Leaders Program at the Naval Postgraduate School, has 
7 

a master’s of science degree in management from Rosemont College. 

Mr. McAllister, please proceed. 

STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCALLISTER, DEPUTY UNDER 

SECRETARY, STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAM OFFICE, OFFICE 

OF INTELLIGENCE AND ANALYSIS, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you, Chairman Durbin. 

First of all, I would like to express condolences to the victims and 

their families of the folks that you mentioned earlier, as well as 

those others throughout the country that have suffered through 

acts of violent extremism. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today on behalf of the Department of Homeland Security’s efforts to keep our Nation safe 

from evolving threats. As Secretary Napolitano has said many 

times, homeland security begins with hometown security. 

As part of our commitment to strengthening hometown security, 

we have worked with our Federal partners, specifically the FBI, to 

get the information, tools, and resources out of Washington, DC, 

and into the hands of the State and local officials across our country. Over recent years within the Department, we have worked aggressively to implement a distributed homeland security and 

counterterrorism architecture that enables us to improve support to 

secure our Nation’s home towns. This architecture, comprised of 

several mutually reinforcing elements, to including improving production and dissemination of classified and unclassified information, while maturing State and local grassroots intelligence and analytical capabilities through the national network of State and local 

owned fusion centers; implementing the nationwide Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative to establish standard processes to identify, report, analyze, and share suspicious activity reporting; and 

engaging the public through the nationwide expansion of ‘‘If You 

See Something, Say Something’’ campaign; also building our partnership to counter violent extremism. 

Successfully integrating all these elements while protecting individuals’ privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties requires close coordination and cooperation between the Federal Government and 

our State and local partners. 

DHS’ Office of Intelligence and Analysis has a unique analytical 

mission, enabling us to support and connect with front-line personnel to better protect their communities. We blend intelligence 

from DHS components, the intelligence community, State and local 

partners, and other stakeholders to produce homeland security-centric products. We then share those products through the national 

network of fusion centers. These products include actionable intelligence and analysis to ensure homeland security partners have the 

information they need to identify and disrupt threats. 

DHS also partners with the FBI to prepare joint intelligence bulletins pertaining to emerging threats that are targeted to our State 

and local partners and designed to increase their awareness. DHS 

has transformed the way in which we train front-line personnel 

through the national Suspicious Activity Reporting Initiative. This 

initiative, in partnership with the Department of Justice, is a com-
8 

prehensive effort to train State and local law enforcement and 

homeland security partners in recognizing behaviors and indicators 

potentially linked to terrorism and terrorism-related crime, standardize how those observations are documented and analyzed, and 

ensure sharing of those reports with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism 

Task Forces for further investigation. 

Because an engaged and vigilant public is vital to protecting our 

communities, we have also continued to expand the ‘‘If You See 

Something, Say Something’’ public awareness campaign designed 

to raise public awareness of terrorism indicators and emphasize the 

importance of reporting suspicious activity to the proper law enforcement authorities. 

In the same vein, we believe that local authorities and community members are best able to identify individuals or groups residing within their communities who exhibit suspicious behaviors and 

to intervene before they commit an act of violence. Incorporating 

this belief into our everyday practice, the Department’s efforts to 

counter violent extremism are threefold: 

First, we are working to better understand violent extremism 

through conducting extensive analysis and research on the behaviors and indicators of violent extremism and sharing those with our 

State and local partners. 

Second, we are strengthening partnerships within the State, 

local, and international partners, including the sharing of best 

practices and delivery of training courses. 

And, third, we are expanding support for community policing efforts in coordination with our Federal partners, to include the FBI 

and Department of Justice. 

In conclusion, we are confident that America is stronger and 

more prepared as a result of efforts to strengthen the homeland security enterprise, although threats from terrorists persist and continue to evolve. Recognizing this evolving landscape where threats 

may not emanate from any one individual, group, or place, we realize that it is essential for us to partner and engage with our State 

and local partners as well as the public, acknowledging that they 

may be best positioned to identify those threats. Proceeding with 

this shared responsibility, the Department is honored to be a partner in this effort to secure our great Nation. 

Thank you for the opportunity to outline DHS’ efforts to prepare 

for and prevent terrorist attacks on the homeland, and I look forward to your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Scott McAllister appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. McAllister. 

Our next witness on this panel is Michael Clancy, Deputy Assistant Director for the Counterterrorism Division in the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Clancy has held numerous senior positions in the FBI, including special assistant to the National Security Branch Executive Assistant Director, section chief of the Domestic Terrorism Operations Section, assistant special agent in 

charge of the Richmond field office, and assistant section chief of 

the Strategic Information and Operations Center. He began his career with the FBI as a special agent in 1991. He served for a period 

of time as a trial lawyer. He has now rejoined the FBI. 
9 

The floor is yours. 

STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CLANCY, DEPUTY ASSISTANT 

DIRECTOR, COUNTERTERRORISM DIVISION, FEDERAL 

BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. CLANCY. Good afternoon, Chairman Durbin and Members of 

this Committee. It is my honor to come before you to represent the 

Counterterrorism Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation 

to discuss one of the highest priorities of the Bureau: the threat 

posed by domestic extremists. The turnout today is testament to 

the importance of this issue. 

On September 10, 2012, the FBI disseminated its National Terrorism Assessment on Domestic Terrorism. In the formulation of 

this assessment, the overall threat ranking considers intent, capability, and posture in its determination of the threat domestic extremist movements pose in the United States. The FBI assesses 

that economic and political events—foremost among them the coming Presidential election—are likely to provoke domestic extremists 

into a more active state, although this is unlikely to drive an increase in large-scale violence. Smaller, localized acts of violence 

committed by domestic extremists, however, cannot be dismissed. 

The FBI further assesses that domestic extremist movements pose 

a medium-to-low terrorism threat. Specific political and economic 

events scheduled in 2012 create the potential for greater volatility 

within domestic extremism than existed in the previous year. 

In recent months, the FBI has seen numerous examples of domestic terrorism and violence committed by lone offenders or small 

cells. For example, this year the FBI proactively dismantled an anarchist extremist cell comprised of five men who planned to blow 

up a bridge in Cleveland, Ohio. Four members of the cell have 

pleaded guilty, and the fifth member is going to trial. In November 

2011, four members of a militia in Georgia were arrested for planning to acquire silencers and explosives to use against various U.S. 

Government targets in Atlanta, Georgia. To date, two of the subjects have been sentenced to 60 months’ incarceration and 3 years 

of supervised release for conspiracy to possess an unregistered destructive device. 

This summer, we have witnessed multiple, high-profile lone-offender shootings. The FBI investigated each of these incidents in 

partnership with Federal, State, local, and tribal law enforcement 

agencies as potential acts of domestic terrorism. Three of these 

shootings—at a movie theater in Aurora, Colorado; at a Sikh temple in Wisconsin; and at the Family Research Council headquarters 

in Washington, DC—resulted in the combined deaths of 18 individuals and the wounding of over 50. 

Significant political events and scheduled international and economic meetings, combined with ongoing economic concerns, create 

the potential for greater volatility within domestic extremism in 

2012 than existed in the previous year. While all domestic extremist movements pose a threat, the potential outcomes are especially 

relevant in the current environment: 

We have election-related events which heighten the opportunity 

for anarchist extremism in 2012; 
10 

The 2012 election process may revitalize recruitment efforts for 

the white supremacist extremist movement; 

Militia extremists are expected to continue targeting law enforcement and government officials in response to any recently enacted 

legislation that is perceived as infringing on their constitutional 

rights; 

White-collar crime by those in the extremist ‘‘sovereign citizen’’ 

antigovernment movement who exploit the housing crisis could continue if the housing sector of the economy remains weak throughout the year; 

Environmental extremists may engage in criminal activity—including the destruction of property—if they perceive that legislative 

efforts to protect and preserve the environment are ineffective or 

unsuccessful. 

Over the next year, domestic extremists are likely to maintain 

the intent and capability to pose a persistent threat involving 

smaller-scale bombings, assaults, firearms and explosives violations, arson, white-collar crime, threats, and other violations of 

Federal law. 

The FBI will continue to enhance its crucial partnerships with 

Federal, State, local, tribal, and foreign law enforcement agencies, 

other members of the U.S. intelligence community, and the private 

sector to combat the unrelenting threat of domestic terrorism. 

In every domestic terrorism investigation—and indeed, in every 

investigation—we in the Bureau strive to balance the need to keep 

the American public safe with the need to protect constitutional 

rights, including the First Amendment rights to free speech and 

freedom of assembly. Intelligence and technology are key tools we 

use to stay ahead of those who would do us harm. Yet as we evolve 

and update our investigative techniques and our use of technology 

to keep pace with today’s complex threat environment, we must always act within the confines of the rule of law and the safeguards 

guaranteed by the Constitution. It is not enough to stop the terrorists; we must always do so while maintaining civil rights and civil 

liberties. Following the rule of law and upholding civil rights and 

civil liberties—these are not our burdens. These are what make all 

of us safer and stronger. In the end, we in the FBI will be judged 

not only by our ability to keep Americans safe from terrorism, but 

also by whether we safeguard the civil rights and civil liberties for 

which we are fighting and maintain the trust of the American people. 

Thank you for the opportunity to address the Subcommittee on 

the FBI’s efforts to counter domestic terrorism. 

[The prepared statement of Michael A. Clancy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Clancy. 

Last night, as I was preparing for this hearing, I started to dig 

through my desk drawer to find a little book that I keep of information I pick up as I travel around, and I finally found it. It was 

a book that I was carrying with me 3 months after 9/11. And I had 

just landed at O’Hare Airport, and I got in the cab line, and the 

first cab to come up as a driver had a man wearing a turban. And 

I got inside and sat down and looked at his name. It was Richard 

Basra. He was from a suburb of Chicago. This was 3 months after 
11 

9/11. I said, ‘‘How is it going for you?’’ He said, ‘‘Okay.’’ I said, ‘‘Are 

people giving you any grief, any problems because of the way you 

are dressed?’’ ‘‘Oh, sure,’’ he said, ‘‘some people are. Some people 

are mean, but not many. Most people are just fine.’’ And I said, 

‘‘Well, I am glad it is going well for you.’’ 

He said, ‘‘Let me show you something.’’ He reached over and he 

pulled down the visor on the passenger side, and there was a picture of a young American soldier. He said, ‘‘This is my son, Michael. He is in the Special Forces in the United States Army. He 

was in Kosovo, and now I am not sure where he is.’’ But this was 

right after 9/11. ‘‘I think he may be in Afghanistan.’’ He said, ‘‘His 

brother is coming out of high school and is going to enlist in the 

Marine Corps.’’ 

I have told that story a dozen times, I am sure, because it struck 

me as a definitive story about who we are as Americans, and the 

prejudice of some people ignores the reality of the fact that patriotic, peace-loving Americans come in every color, every religion, 

every background. 

Mr. Austin, one of the things that puzzles me is this: A few 

months after that, Amardeep Singh, who is here today on behalf 

of the Sikh Coalition, came to see me, and he said, you know, right 

after 9/11, there was a Sikh American who was killed in Arizona. 

It was obviously a hate crime. It was in all of the stress and anger 

that came out of 9/11. He said, ‘‘Would you put in a resolution’’— 

and we have had resolutions saying do not discriminate against 

Muslims and so forth. ‘‘Would you put one in on behalf of those of 

the Sikh religion?’’ And I did, and it passed overwhelmingly in a 

bipartisan way. 

So it was clear that at least for the last 10 or 11 years, there 

has been ample evidence of prejudice against Sikh Americans, even 

violence against Sikh Americans. 

Now, the Department of Justice collects information on hate 

crimes. There is a Hate Crime Incident Report, and it lists many 

religions, and even those with no religion. But it does not list the 

Sikh religion. I know for 2 years Sikh Americans have been asking 

that there be a special category on the Hate Crime Report so that 

we can keep track. 

A little later on this afternoon, Harpreet Singh is going to testify 

here. He lost his mother at Oak Creek, and he is going to say, ‘‘I 

came here today to ask the Government to give my mother the dignity of being a statistic.’’ 

Why don’t we have a special place here for identifying hate 

crimes against Sikh Americans? 

Mr. AUSTIN. Senator, the Department of Justice has met regularly with Sikh Americans and other faiths, and we have heard this 

concern, and we are going to take action with respect to this concern. Today, DAG Jim Cole has announced that the Civil Rights 

Division and the Community Relations Service are going to bring 

together a broad array of religious groups to address exactly what 

kinds of statistics should be kept, and we plan to invite and have 

spoken to the Sikh community as well. And the FBI has a process 

that is gone through before determining how the form is changed. 

And the Department of Justice will play an active role with respect 
12 

to that process to ensure that the form properly reflects those who 

are perpetrators, those who are victimized by hate crimes. 

Chairman DURBIN. Things move pretty slowly at the Federal 

level, and the request has been there for more than 2 years. Can 

you give me some kind of indication of when the decision might be 

made? 

Mr. AUSTIN. There will be a meeting in October, mid-October, in 

which what the Department of Justice finds will be presented to an 

FBI committee. At that point, the decision of the Department of 

Justice will be known. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. I think in light of the terrible incident in Oak Creek, Wisconsin, that this would be a good thing 

for us to do as expeditiously as possible. 

You mentioned your background when it came to church bombings. It was not that long ago, just a few years back, when we had 

the incidents of largely African American houses of worship and 

churches that were being fire-bombed in various parts of the country, some parts of the South. 

As a result of that, we formed an interagency task force and tried 

to break through some of the usual paths of investigation and enforcement and expedite that effort. Can you tell me if you believe 

that that is appropriate here under the circumstances with the acts 

of violence that we have seen at the Sikh temples as well as 

mosques? 

Mr. AUSTIN. Senator, I believe that under this Department of 

Justice, there has been an incredible amount of cooperation across 

agencies on all types and levels of crime. The fact that DHS and 

the FBI and a line attorney largely from the Department are sitting here together right now is a testament to that level of cooperation. I think that this administration is dealing with these crimes 

as aggressively as possible and working with every tool that we 

have in our arsenal to do so. 

I do not know whether a new formal committee is necessary because I believe that the work is being done right now by those of 

us who are working on these issues. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, that type of task force under President 

Clinton had dramatic positive results, so I would commend it to 

you as a model that you would at least consider, if not explore, to 

see if we could address this pattern of discrimination against Muslims, Arabs, Sikhs, and South Asian Americans. 

I would like to ask you, Mr. Clancy, the individual who was engaged in the terrible incident at Oak Creek, Wisconsin, was a man 

whose name was Wade Michael Page. He killed Harpreet Singh 

Saini’s mother and five other individuals, and he was a well-known 

white supremacist. He was being tracked by the Southern Poverty 

Law Center and the Anti-Defamation League. He is dead, so I assume there is not an ongoing criminal investigation. I hope you will 

be able to answer this question. Was there a breakdown in intelligence here that we knew this man to be dangerous and that he 

was not ferreted out, tracked, or called in and investigated before 

this incident? Was he being tracked by our intelligence community? 

Were there any warnings issued to the Sikh community about potential threats? And was there any assistance provided to the community to protect them under the circumstances? 
13 

Mr. CLANCY. Senator, I will tread lightly here as it is an ongoing 

investigation, but I can tell you this: We did know of this individual. Certainly as the Southern Poverty Law Center pointed out, 

they knew of this individual as well. We did not have a case open 

on him. He was not what we would characterize as a predicated 

subject. His activities had not risen to the level that we would be 

able to, under our Attorney General guidelines, open an investigation on him. 

But like many thousands of people, he was an attendee at what 

could be described as white supremacist conferences throughout 

the country and was heavily involved in the white supremacist 

music scene. So we were aware of him as a peripheral figure, but 

he never emerged as more than that. We never had any information on him pertaining to violent acts against anybody. He was certainly covered in tattoos which indicated his affiliation with different white supremacist groups. He dressed like that. None of 

those things are, of course, against the law. He engaged in a lot 

of hate speech, again, not against the law. 

So while we were aware of him, we did not have an open investigation on him, nor did we ever have any information that he 

posed a threat to any group, particularly Sikhs. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. McAllister, the Department of Homeland 

Security provided us with background on your work with the Jewish community. Unfortunately, there are many incidents of antiSemitism which rise to crimes of violence, many incidents of property destruction in the name of anti-Semitism. With your extensive 

work with the Jewish community, you have tried to provide some 

information sharing to keep them safe and to warn them when 

something might be a danger. 

DHS also participates with the Jewish community in the Secure 

Community Network, which share information on crisis situations 

and try to increase security awareness. You administer the nonprofit security grant program, providing money and assistance to 

nonprofit organizations to improve security of potentially vulnerable infrastructure, like houses of worship, schools, and community 

centers. This year, Jewish organizations received almost $10 million in funding, and I commend the Department of Homeland Security for working very closely with the Jewish community under 

these circumstances. 

Is this a model that we should be using to protect other vulnerable religious communities like Muslims and Sikhs? 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Thank you, Senator, for that question, and we 

appreciate you pointing the good work that the Department is 

doing in that arena. 

The Secretary has what is known as a Homeland Security Advisory Council, and there is also a subcommittee to that that consists 

of faith-based organizations that cover a broad breadth of a variety 

of different faith-based communities and organizations. We meet 

with them regularly. They provided recommendations in order to 

better improve our ability to outreach and collaborate with the various faith organizations and communities throughout the United 

States. 

On the heels of some of these tragic events that have occurred, 

we have also gone and contacted those folks in order to discuss a 
14 

variety of different topics. One is to provide them the information 

we had at the time of whatever the tragic event was at that moment, also work in dialogue in order to determine what we can do 

in order to spread the accurate information, in order to dispel any 

disinformation that could cause angst within the communities, as 

well as work on actual condemnation of acts of violent extremism. 

So it is an open dialogue. It is actively being pursued. It is part 

of our countering violent extremism initiative. And we are also 

working with not only our faith-based communities but also examining those lessons learned and those indicators from these tragic 

events and communicating those out through the form of training 

to our State, local, and private sector folks. We provide our faithbased organizations information from our protective security advisers when it comes to what they can do in order to be cognizant of 

suspicious behaviors or packages and the like around their facilities, as well as the ability to report those things, in addition some 

protective measures in order to strengthen their ability to thwart 

such an event. 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Clancy, according to Daryl Johnson, who 

will testify on the next panel, the FBI published a public annual 

report entitled ‘‘Terrorism in the United States from 1980 to 2005.’’ 

Mr. Johnson believes that report was a valuable resource for law 

enforcement. Why did the FBI stop the issuance of this report? Do 

you agree with Mr. Johnson that the FBI should consider resuming 

it? 

Mr. CLANCY. I think so. The reports are valuable for our law enforcement partners out there and for the public as well to see what 

we are looking at, what the trends are. 

The bottom line is, when it comes to looking at groups, the FBI 

used to have a tactical approach to cases, but now we are more 

strategic focused and looking over the horizon and trying to predict 

behaviors and threats. And I think those types of reports are certainly valuable in that regard. 

Chairman DURBIN. In your testimony, you referenced the FBI’s 

National Terrorism Assessment on Domestic Terrorism, which you 

published last week. Is this an unclassified document? And if so, 

would it be available? 

Mr. CLANCY. It is unclassified, but it is ‘‘Official Use Only,’’ so 

it is limited distribution. 

Chairman DURBIN. I hope we can get in your distribution chain. 

I would like to see it. 

Mr. CLANCY. I would be happy to provide that to you, Senator. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you very much. 

Mr. McAllister, Daryl Johnson, as I mentioned earlier, who will 

also testify a little later, claims that the DHS has actually 

downsized the team of analysts working full-time on non-Islamic 

domestic terrorism. Mr. Johnson used to head up that team. He 

says the DHS has reduced the number of analysts from five to one. 

My staff requested information about this in advance of the hearing. We were told it was classified. However, a DHS official is 

quoted in The Washington Post story saying, ‘‘The number of analysts on a daily basis has decreased somewhat.’’ 

So how many DHS analysts focus on non-Islamic domestic terrorism? 
15 

Mr. MCALLISTER. Well, Senator, some of that information as far 

as the specific numbers of individuals would be considered sensitive. But the Department is fully equipped in order to look at violent extremist acts, whether it is stemming from international or 

domestic in nature. We provided an organizational chart earlier to 

staff before this hearing that kind of articulates how the breakdown is structurally within the Office of Intelligence and Analysis. 

But, again, it goes toward our ability in the Department’s daily activity when it comes to countering violent extremism, where we 

work to strive toward providing the tools and information necessary for those indicators and behaviors of violent extremism, regardless of whether it is domestic or international, to not only our 

personnel but also our State and local partners and the community. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. I want to thank this panel. My 

colleagues may be sending in some written questions, which I hope 

you will respond to on a timely basis so the record can be complete. 

But your testimony today is much appreciated, and we will follow 

through with you on some of the questions that were asked. So I 

thank you and you are excused at this point. 

I will also, with unanimous consent, enter a statement in the 

record from our Chairman, Senator Leahy, who cannot be with us 

this afternoon but has a strong interest in the human rights and 

civil rights issues, and it will be entered into the record. 

[The prepared statement of Chairman Patrick J. Leahy appears 

as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Let me ask that the second panel be brought 

to the table. 

If I could ask the witnesses to please stand for the customary 

oath. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that 

the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole 

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

Mr. SAINI. I do. 

Mr. JOHNSON. I do. 

Professor JACOBS. I do. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you. Let the record indicate that the 

witnesses have all answered in the affirmative. 

Senator Kohl is on his way, and I am going to hold off on the 

introduction of Mr. Saini until he arrives. I will do by way of general introduction our other two witnesses. 

James Jacobs is the Warren Burger Professor of Law at the New 

York University School of Law, where he has been a faculty member since 1982. He specializes in criminal law, criminal procedure, 

and a broad range of criminal justice issues, including hate crime. 

In 1998, Oxford University Press published his book, ‘‘Hate Crimes: 

Criminal Law and Identity Politics.’’ Professor Jacobs is a 2012–13 

Guggenheim Fellow. He received his B.A. from Johns Hopkins University and law degree from the University of Chicago. 

I want to thank Senator Graham and his staff for working cooperatively with us on this hearing and note that Senator Graham 

asked that we invite Professor Jacobs as a witness, and we are 

honored that you would join us today. Thank you very much. 

I am going to introduce the other witnesses in the hopes that 

Senator Kohl can be in the room in just a moment. 
16 

Daryl Johnson, whom I mentioned in an earlier part of the Committee hearing, is an expert on domestic terrorism and is the chief 

executive officer of DT Analytics, a private consulting company. He 

also serves as a part-time instructor on domestic terrorism at the 

ATF National Academy. Previously, Mr. Johnson was the senior domestic terrorism analyst at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Intelligence and Analysis where he led a team of 

analysts responsible for analyzing domestic extremist activity. 

Prior to his service at DHS, Mr. Johnson was the lead expert on 

violent antigovernment groups at the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, 

Firearms, and Explosives. He began his Federal career as a 

counterterrorism analyst for the U.S. Army. 

I am going to hold off, as I mentioned, until Senator Kohl arrives 

to introduce you formally, Mr. Saini. Thank you for being here. 

Let me start then with Mr. Johnson, if you would like to testify, 

and then Mr. Jacobs and Mr. Saini. 

STATEMENT OF DARYL JOHNSON, FOUNDER 

AND OWNER, DT ANALYTICS, LLC, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. JOHNSON. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of 

the Committee. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to appear 

before you to discuss the significant issue of domestic terrorism, 

and in particular the threat from violent extremists. 

The rising threat of domestic terrorism within the United States 

should not diminish our focus on deterring threats from al Qaeda 

and its affiliates; rather, our Nation’s intelligence and law enforcement resources need to be flexible and resilient in their ability to 

combat terrorism from all sources of violent extremism, including 

domestic non-Islamic extremists. 

The threat from domestic terrorism motivated by extremist 

ideologies is often dismissed and overlooked in the national media 

and within the U.S. Government. Yet we are currently seeing an 

upsurge in domestic non-Islamic extremist activity specifically from 

violent right-wing extremists. While violent left-wing attacks were 

more prevalent in the 1970s, today the bulk of violent domestic activity emanates from right-wing extremists. Recent acts of domestic 

terrorism have instilled fear within the U.S. populations as extremists attempt to force their social and political agendas through violence. 

Since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Muslim extremists within the 

United States, either aligned with al Qaeda’s ideology or other perverse interpretation of violent jihad, have carried out five attacks 

on U.S. soil. These attacks resulted in 17 deaths, 13 of which were 

from a single violent act at Fort Hood. There have also been numerous arrests related to alleged Muslim extremist terrorists plotting in the U.S. since 9/11. 

In contrast, there has also been a multitude of domestic non-Islamic extremist attacks, many of which have resulted in deaths 

and injuries over the past 4 years. In particular, domestic rightwing extremists trumped all other forms of ideologically motivated 

violence in the U.S. for number of deaths during this time period. 

Some may argue that right-wing extremist attacks in the U.S. 

are more prevalent than homegrown Muslim extremists because 

they represent multiple movements, such as white supremacists, 
17 

militia extremists, sovereign citizens, and antiabortion extremists. 

This is simply not true. I would argue that homegrown Muslim extremists in the U.S. have an equally if not more diverse set of extremist causes and radical Islamic movements to choose from, including al Qaeda and its affiliates, Al-Shabaab, Hezbollah, Hamas, 

just to name a few. 

Since the 2008 Presidential election, domestic non-Islamic extremists have attacked 27 law enforcement officers, killing 16. Over 

a dozen mosques have been attacked with firebombs, likely attributed to individuals embracing Islamophobic beliefs. In May 2009, 

an abortion doctor was murdered while attending church. Two 

other assassination plots against abortion providers were thwarted 

during 2011, and six women’s health care clinics were attacked 

with explosive and incendiary devices within the past 2 years. 

Since 2010, there have been multiple plots to kill ethnic minorities, police, and other government officials by militia extremists 

and white supremacists in our country. In January 2010, we had 

a tax resister deliberately crash his small plane, filled with a 50- 

gallon drum of gasoline, into an IRS processing center in Austin, 

Texas, injuring 13 people and killing a government employee. 

The following year, three incendiary bombs were mailed to government officials in Annapolis, Maryland, and Washington, DC. 

Also, in January 2011, a backpack bomb was placed along a Martin 

Luther King parade route in Spokane, Washington, meant to kill 

and injure participants in a civil rights march. 

In August 2012 alone, a white supremacist killed six worshipers 

at a Sikh temple in Oak Creek, Wisconsin; sovereign citizens have 

shot four sheriff deputies, killing two, in St. John’s Parish, Louisiana; and four active-duty U.S. army soldiers who had formed an 

antigovernment militia group and were hoarding weapons and ammunition in an alleged plot to overthrow the Government, were 

charged in the deaths of two associates who they worried might tip 

law enforcement to their clandestine activities. 

There was also what appears to have been an incident of leftwing domestic terrorism. A single-issue extremist reportedly shot a 

guard at the Family Research Council office here in Washington, 

DC. Unfortunately, these are only the latest manifestations of domestic non-Islamic extremist violence in the homeland. 

It is also important to note that eight members of the Hutaree, 

an extremist militia in Michigan, that were acquitted this year of 

plotting to kill police officers and planting bombs at their funerals, 

had an arsenal of weapons at their disposal that was larger than 

all 230-plus Muslim plotters and attackers charged in the U.S. 

since 9/11 combined. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, the Federal Government must do more to combat domestic terrorism within the 

U.S. Our failure to act now will assuredly embolden the enemy and 

bring more attacks. 

At the Federal level, there is a shortage of analysts assigned to 

monitor and assess domestic extremist activity in the U.S. Currently, the FBI is the only Federal agency that has devoted multiple full-time resources to research and analyze domestic terrorist 

tactics, tradecraft, and emerging trends. Today the DHS has few 

resources conducting strategic analysis on domestic terrorist 
18 

threats. More resources are needed. Other Federal agencies should 

also consider devoting analysts full-time to this subject rather than 

part-time or on an ad hoc basis. 

While great strides have been made with respect to information 

sharing since the 9/11 terrorist attacks, jurisdictional infighting remains among departments and agencies as well as communication 

gaps between levels of government—local, State, and Federal. State 

and local fusion centers have filled this important role in the information-sharing gap, but more can be done. 

Many law enforcement officers and analysts who looked at domestic terrorism issues during the 1990s have retired or have 

moved on to other assignments, which leaves a massive void in 

knowledge and experience. A whole generation of State and local 

officers has not been trained and has no clue what to look for. 

Some civil rights and civil liberties organizations, particularly 

within the U.S. Government, fail to recognize the role extremist 

ideologies play in motivating extremists to carry out acts of violence. As a result, they have severely curtailed monitoring efforts 

within our Nation’s law enforcement agencies. Monitoring a person’s behavior becomes all the more clear when coupled with an 

understanding of extremist beliefs. As a result, there needs to be 

a balanced approach to intelligence analysis and threat assessment 

comprising both extremist ideology and suspicious behavior. 

At DHS, the most prevalent hurdle to timely dissemination of domestic terrorism-related information is the Group of Six (G6) Review Process. The G6 Review Process as it currently stands negatively impacts I&A analysis because some of the changes in products seem to be made using standards that are in direct conflict 

with the intelligence community analytic standards. G6 Review can 

adversely affect an analyst’s objectivity and political neutrality. 

The apparent purpose and intent of the G6 Review Process is to 

screen products for objectionable words, phrases, or topics that are 

politically sensitive or perceived as offensive to certain groups of 

people. 

It is important that the U.S. Government take the lead in developing new strategies and tools for law enforcement and the courts 

to better deal with problems associated with domestic extremism. 

To conclude, Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for allowing me 

to testify about this most important issue facing our Nation. For 

many years, we have focused on the threat from al Qaeda and 

homegrown Muslim extremists. It is now time to also strengthen 

our resolve to combat violent domestic non-Islamic extremism in all 

of its forms. 

For the record, I have offered some of my insights concerning the 

domestic terrorist threat, our current limitations, and best practices in my written testimony. I hope that some of these points will 

resonate with Committee Members and inspire you to explore new 

ways to mitigate this threat and prevent future acts of violence, 

and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have. 

[The prepared statement of Daryl Johnson appears as a submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks, Mr. Johnson. 

Our next witness is Harpreet Singh Saini, the son of Paramjit 

Kaur Saini, who was tragically shot and killed in Oak Creek, Wis-
19 

consin, on August 5, 2012. I am pleased to recognize Senator Herbert Kohl, the senior Senator from the State of Wisconsin, a longtime Member of the Judiciary Committee, to introduce him formally. Senator Kohl. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you for holding this important hearing, 

Chairman Durbin. While I am not a Member of the Subcommittee, 

I thank you for allowing me to speak here today. 

I would like to introduce Harpreet Singh Saini. Harpreet lives in 

Oak Creek, Wisconsin, and is a freshman at Milwaukee Area Technical College majoring in law enforcement. Harpreet lost his mother in the tragic shooting at the Sikh temple in Wisconsin last 

month. Five other members of the Sikh community lost their lives 

on that tragic day, and several others were critically wounded, including a law enforcement officer who responded to the scene. 

I know I speak for the Committee when I tell you, Harpreet, how 

sorry we are for the loss of your mother and friends. Though we 

can never know the pain that you have endured, be assured that 

we are outraged and deeply saddened by the violent assault on 

your peaceful community. 

Harpreet’s mother, Paramjit Kaur, was a dedicated wife, mother, 

friend, and neighbor, profoundly committed to her faith. Her sons, 

Harpreet and Kamaljit, who is also with us today, plan to pursue 

careers in law enforcement. I am sure your mother would be very 

proud. I also want to acknowledge Milwaukee County Executive 

Chris Abele, who is in the audience today, and ask that his testimony be submitted for the record. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Chris Abele appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator KOHL. August 5th was a tragic day not only for Sikh 

Americans but for all Americans, as is any day extremist hate 

groups target people of faith with harassment and violence. Unfortunately, although the Justice Department tracks crimes against 

other religious groups, it does not track crimes against Sikhs, so I 

am urging the Justice Department to start doing so. Not only 

would it allow law enforcement to better understand the scope of 

the problem, it will also encourage Sikhs to report when they are 

victims. These are steps that we must take to ensure that we never 

again endure a tragedy like the one in Oak Creek. 

We thank you for being here today to share your story with us, 

and I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Kohl. 

Mr. Saini, please proceed. Excuse me. You need to turn on the 

microphone right in front of you there. Okay. 

STATEMENT OF HARPREET SINGH SAINI, 

OAK CREEK, WISCONSIN 

Mr. SAINI. My name is Harpreet Singh Saini. I would like to 

thank Senator Durbin, Ranking Member Graham, and the entire 

Subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I am 

here because my mother was murdered in an act of hate 45 days 

ago. I am here on behalf of all the children who lost parents or 

grandparents during the massacre in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. 

A little over a month ago, I never imagined I would be here. I 

never imagined that anyone outside of Oak Creek would know my 
20 

name, or my mother’s name, Paramjit Kaur; or my brother’s name, 

Kamaljit Singh Saini. Kamal is here with me today. 

As we all know, on Sunday, August 5, 2012, a white supremacist 

fueled by hatred walked into our local gurdwara with a loaded gun. 

He killed my mother while she prayed. He shot and killed five 

more—men. All of them were fathers, and all of them had a turban 

like me. And now people know all our names: Sita Singh. Ranjit 

Singh. Prakash Singh. Suveg Singh. Satwant Singh Kaleka. 

This was not supposed to be our American story. This was not 

my mother’s dream. 

My parents brought Kamal and me to America in 2004. I was 

only 10 years old. Like many other immigrants, they wanted us to 

have a better life, a better education. In the land of the free. In the 

land of diversity. 

It was a Tuesday, 2 days after our mother was killed, that my 

brother Kamal and I ate the leftovers of the last meal she had 

made for us. We ate her last rotis—which are a type of South Asian 

flatbread. She had made the rotis from scratch the night before she 

died. Along with the last bite of our food that Tuesday came the 

realization that this was the last meal made by my mother’s hand 

that we will ever eat in our lifetime. 

My mother was a brilliant woman. Everyone knew she was 

smart, but she never had the chance to get a formal education. She 

could not. As a hard-working immigrant, she had to work long 

hours to feed her family, to get her sons educated, to help us 

achieve our American dream. This was more important to her than 

anything else. 

Senators, my mother was our biggest fan, our biggest supporter. 

She was always there for us. She always had a smile on her face. 

But now she is gone. Because of a man who hated her because 

she was not his color? His religion? 

I just had my first day of college. And my mother was not there 

to send me off. She will not be there on my graduation or my wedding day. She will not be able to meet her grandchildren. 

I want to tell the gunman who took her from me: You may have 

been full of hate, but my mother was full of love. 

She was an American. And this was not our American dream. 

It was not the American dream of Prakash Singh, whose children 

found him lying in a pool of blood that morning. They shook his 

body and cried, ‘‘Papa! Get up!’’ But he was gone. 

It was not the American dream of Suveg Singh Khattra, a retired 

farmer who came here to be with his family. His family found him 

face down, a bullet in his head, his turban thrown to the side. 

It was not the American dream of Satwant Singh Kaleka, president of the gurdwara, who was killed while bravely fighting the 

gunman. 

It was not the American dream of Sita Singh and Ranjit Singh, 

two brothers who sang prayers for our community. After 16 years 

apart, their family came to America for the first time for their funerals. 

And it was not the American dream of Santokh Singh or Punjab 

Singh who were injured in the massacre. Punjab Singh’s sons are 

always by his side, but he may never fully recover from his multiple gunshot wounds. 
21 

We ache for our loved ones. We have lost so much. But I want 

people to know that our heads are held high. 

My mother was a devout Sikh. Like all Sikhs, she was bound to 

live in Chardi Kala, a state of high spirits and optimism. Like her, 

my brother and I work every day to be in a state of high spirits 

and optimism. 

We also know that we are not alone. Many people have sent us 

letters, attended vigils, and gave us their support: Oak Creek’s 

mayor and police chief, Wisconsin’s Governor, the President and 

the First Lady. It is their support that gives me the strength to 

come here today. 

Senators, I came here today to ask the Government to give my 

mother the dignity of being a statistic. The FBI does not track hate 

crimes against Sikhs. My mother and those shot that day will not 

even count on a Federal form. We cannot solve a problem we refuse 

to recognize. 

Senators, I also ask that the Government pursue domestic terrorists with the same vigor as attackers from abroad. The man who 

killed my mother was on the watchlists of public interest groups. 

I believe the Government could have tracked him long before he 

killed my mother. 

Finally, Senators, I ask that you stand up for us. As lawmakers 

and leaders, you have the power to shape public opinions. Your 

words carry weight. When others scapegoat or demean people because of who they are, use your power to say that is wrong. 

So many people have asked Sikhs to simply blame Muslims for 

attacks against our community or just say, ‘‘We are not Muslim.’’ 

But we will not blame anyone else. An attack on one of us is an 

attack on all of us. 

I also want to be a part of the solution. That is why I want to 

be a law enforcement officer like Lieutenant Brian Murphy, who 

saved so many lives that day. I want to protect other people from 

what happened to my mother. I want to combat hate—not just 

against Sikhs but against all people. Senators, I know what happened at Oak Creek was not an isolated incident. I fear it may happen again if we do not stand up and do something. 

I do not want anyone to suffer what we have suffered. I want to 

build a world where all people can live, work, and worship in 

America in peace, because you see, despite everything, I still believe in the American dream. In my mother’s memory, I ask that 

you stand up for that dream it with me, today and in the days to 

come. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. 

[The prepared statement of Harpreet Singh Saini appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Mr. Saini, that testimony was touching. 

Mr. SAINI. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. It was such a tribute to your mother, to your 

family, to your religion, and to your community, and really to the 

values of this Nation. So many things that you said need to be 

heard, not just in this hearing room but across this country. And 

I hope that the spirit that you bring will teach all of us to be more 

tolerant and to fight forms of discrimination wherever we can, 
22 

whenever we can. Thank you for your courage and your testimony 

today. 

Professor Jacobs from New York University, you are invited to 

testify. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES B. JACOBS, CHIEF JUSTICE WARREN E. 

BURGER PROFESSOR OF CONSTITUTIONAL LAW AND THE 

COURTS, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW, NEW 

YORK, NEW YORK 

Professor JACOBS. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for inviting 

me and giving me the opportunity to share my views with the Subcommittee. 

I, too, was touched and very moved by Mr. Saini’s presentation. 

I have been a critic of hate crime laws for the last 20 years and 

think the whole movement to recriminalize violent and other crime 

with hate crime laws was a wrong turn that will turn out to be 

more divisive than consensus-building. 

I hasten to add that I deplore discrimination and bias and, of 

course, violent crime motivated by bias. However, all violent crime, 

no matter what the bias or motivation, is deplorable and, therefore, 

deservedly punished. I do not think it is desirable or useful to create a hierarchy of crimes and victims according to the racial, religious, gender, and sexual orientation identity of the perpetrator 

and victim. Ultimately, it is not desirable for this society to redefine crime in terms of which identity groups are doing the most offending and which are most offended against. Unlike other anti-discrimination laws, hate crime laws can be and are used to punish 

members of minority groups. 

The subjectivity involved in labeling offenses as ‘‘hate crimes’’ or 

‘‘bias crimes’’ generates unnecessary and divisive controversy. The 

early efforts by hate crime proponents to resist including gendermotivated violence as a hate crime was regarded by women as insensitive at best and blatantly discriminatory at worse. The subsequent effort by many to resist including anti-gay motivation as a 

bias crime trigger was similarly perceived as discriminatory, offensive, and intolerant. Today, we have heard, understandably, that 

the failure to explicitly recognize anti-Sikh bias as a hate crime 

category causes hurt and resentment. Hate crime laws themselves 

discriminate. 

Determining what is a bias crime is fraught with difficulty, thus 

frustrating the aims of the Federal Hate Crime Statistics Act. 

Many friends of that Act now criticize it for failing to recognize the 

actual bias in the minds and hearts of criminals. Some offenders 

are not caught and, therefore, of course, we do not know their motivations in choice of victim, even if they had a clear motivation. It 

is usually difficult to determine an apprehended offender’s motivations. Most offenders, especially of extreme violence, are very confused and disturbed. Is it useful or valuable to highlight their biases? Even if police and prosecutors believe that they can determine an offender’s motivation, it is often very difficult to prove. 

One need only recall the recent New Jersey controversy: whether 

Dharun Ravi’s effort to photograph his roommate Tyler Clementi’s 

homosexual encounter should have been charged as a bias crime. 

While all Americans could agree in condemning this invasion of a 
23 

roommate’s privacy, there was great division and controversy over 

whether Ravi’s punishment should be doubled or tripled because 

the roommate was gay. The whole fight was so unnecessary since 

invasion of privacy is punishable in New Jersey by a maximum 

punishment of 5 years in prison, surely more than adequate to satisfy the goals of the criminal law. Inadequately severe criminal 

sentences is not a problem for our society. 

In the 1980s, when the term ‘‘hate crime’’ was first invented, its 

proponents said they meant for the laws to be used to punish murderous plots by members of neo-Nazi and similar hard-core hate 

groups bent on terrorizing and destroying whole groups and communities. The reality is that bias crime prosecutions are far more 

likely to be directed against the Archie Bunkers of the world rather 

than the white supremacist Tom Metzgers of the world. Indeed, 

most hate crime prosecutions involve young defendants, frequently 

mixed-up teenagers, who commit low-level offenses such as criminal mischief and simple assault, typically escalating from spontaneous altercations at a party, in a parking lot, or at a school event. 

Many cases that initially are called hate crimes, upon closer inspection, involve serious mental illness rather than ideological commitment or an organized campaign. It is worth pondering that the 

Federal hate crime statute, passed in 2009 to bring Federal law enforcement resources to bear on hard-core murderous hate crime 

groups, is this week being used to prosecute a breakaway Amish 

cleric in Ohio for religiously degrading (by hair and beard cutting) 

Amish men who did not adhere to his leadership. 

As crime control policy, bias crime laws are unnecessary. We 

have the longest criminal sentence maxima in the free world. For 

murder, we have life imprisonment without parole or capital punishment. Ironically, some States, in the name of creating a more 

tolerant society, have made bias motivation an aggravating factor 

that makes a murderer eligible for capital punishment. Another 

irony is counting on greater use of prison to punish bias crimes in 

the name of tolerance. The prisons are the number one incubator 

of hate groups like the Aryan Brotherhood. 

Hate crime laws are counterproductive. They politicize crime and 

spawn charges of hypocrisy and double standards. Those who are 

prosecuted call themselves victims of political correctness and martyrs to the First Amendment. 

The hate crime laws conflict with their proponents’ usual criticism of overuse of criminal law and especially overincarceration. 

Sending more people to prison for longer periods of time is not likely to contribute to a more tolerant society. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Prof. James B. Jacobs appears as a 

submission for the record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Professor Jacobs. 

Mr. Saini, I asked a question of the first panel based on your request that there be a category added to this report form so that 

Sikh Americans would have some collection of statistics and numbers, and I think the response was positive, and I promise you that 

I will follow up with them to make sure that it is considered on 

a timely basis. 
24 

Let me ask you what impact this terrible massacre has had at 

your gurdwara and on your Sikh community in Oak Creek. 

Mr. SAINI. Just the people have been wonderful, and everybody 

has come together now as one, and just to be—just for that to happen, this was not a loss. This was a gain. 

Chairman DURBIN. You mentioned the President, the First Lady, 

the Governor, and other leaders who have expressed their sympathy for this terrible event. Have you noted any other efforts by 

people of other religions and other backgrounds who had not been 

part of your Sikh community before and are now more closely associated? 

Mr. SAINI. Yes, like there are a lot of people that come to us now, 

even Muslims, Christians, Hindus. Everybody has come to our 

gurdwara and, you know, just been there for us. 

Chairman DURBIN. What about around the country? Have you 

heard any similar stories from other members of the Sikh community? 

Mr. SAINI. Yes, same thing. People have come around the whole 

country, States, Washington, DC, they have come from New York, 

people have come from India, all over the world. They came just 

to be with us. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, I am sorry that you had to lose so much 

for this outpouring of support to occur, but I hope in your mother’s 

memory that it will be a positive thing for you and your family and 

for your community in years to come. So thank you again for your 

great testimony. 

Mr. SAINI. Thank you. 

Chairman DURBIN. It had such an impact. 

Professor Jacobs, now we are going to move to this constitutional 

debate or legal debate, however it might be. The Supreme Court 

considered your point of view and, surprisingly, it was Justice 

Rehnquist who wrote the majority opinion which basically rejected 

your point of view. And he said that we should draw a line between 

expression, statements, speech, and, as he said, ‘‘a physical assault 

is not by any stretch of the imagination expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment.’’ That seems declarative and final 

in its nature. Do you disagree with that conclusion? 

Professor JACOBS. Definitely not. 

Chairman DURBIN. So distinguish this—I do not want to put 

words in your mouth. So your argument is not that those who 

would kill in the name of hate are expressing themselves under 

some constitutional protection. 

Professor JACOBS. Of course not. 

Chairman DURBIN. You need to turn on your microphone there. 

I am sorry. 

Professor JACOBS. Yes. Of course not. I am not saying anything 

constitutional at all. My point here is that murder is already punished as severely as it can be punished. It cannot be punished any 

more than it is. 

Chairman DURBIN. So let me take this the next step. You have 

sat right next to the testimony of this brave young man who has 

come to tell you the impact that this heinous act had on his family 

and on his life. And you have questioned before whether there is 

any special emotional or psychological impact in a hate crime. Do 
25 

you still hold that position that a hate crime victim is no sadder, 

no worse off than some other victim of a crime? 

Professor JACOBS. I do, and I have seen many, many crime victims of different kinds of crimes, whether they are felony murders 

or killings in a park or killings of children, and none of it is pleasant, Senator, as you know, and the pain is excruciating. And is 

there any need for us to compare one person’s pain in a heinous 

murder with another person’s pain and put one on a higher pedestal than another person’s? Is that going to help us as a society? 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, it turns out that when we wrote our 

terrorism laws, we thought it did. The Federal terrorism statute 

provides enhanced penalties for certain crimes if they appear to be 

intended ‘‘to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or to influence the policy of a government by intimidation and coercion.’’ So 

we have gone beyond the physical act and said what was the motivation behind it, and we have drawn the line when it comes to terrorism. 

So do you oppose enhanced penalties for terrorism? 

Professor JACOBS. No, I do not. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, how do you make the distinction? 

Professor JACOBS. Well, I think the terrorist acts, when you have 

a crime and it threatens a large number of people, then it should 

be punished to the maximum. And I think those statutes are meant 

to give Federal jurisdiction over the crime, and we need Federal jurisdiction over those crimes. 

Chairman DURBIN. I hate to quarrel with a law professor, but it 

seems to me that what we are talking about is intent here in both 

instances, and where the intent is terrorist inspired, we have said 

there will be a higher penalty. Now when it comes to a hate crime, 

you say when the intent is inspired by hate of a person because of 

a religion or race, gender, sexual orientation, an enhanced penalty, 

the two run in parallel—— 

Professor JACOBS. Well, I would not go down that road. I think 

all violent crime, all homicidal crime is filled with hate of one kind 

or another, and also a lot of it is filled with just plain confused and 

deranged thinking. Most of the people that we arrest for such 

crimes—I mean, the crimes look clearer in the abstract, but when 

you arrest them, like the apparent perpetrator in Aurora, they are 

very confused and disturbed individuals. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, I would just say that I would question 

whether or not you are consistent in allowing for enhanced penalties for terrorism but not for hate crimes. But that seems to be 

my note, and you disagree. 

Mr. Johnson, you heard the testimony when I asked about Wade 

Michael Page who had been called out by at least two organizations 

as a dangerous individual. Apparently, that was not enough to warrant an investigation. There was nothing—I think the testimony 

from the FBI is there was nothing they could point to which would 

single him out for special investigation or attention. 

So was this an intelligence failure in Wisconsin? Do you think 

there could have been things done to prevent this attack that were 

not done? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I think the FBI in their testimony kind of 

laid out where the problem lies with terrorist prevention. They are 
26 

really good at investigating after the fact, after an incident has 

happened. But we have this delicate balance between people’s constitutional right to assemble and express their speech, however 

vile, but we also have to be a little forward-leaning in looking at 

those ideologies that have long histories of spawning violence. And 

I am not talking about a Government doing covert operations on 

people that have extremist beliefs, but I think it is prudent that 

we have an overt posture, overt monitoring of belief systems that 

are basically causing people to act out violently. 

Was this an intelligence failure? I do not think it is. But one 

thing that I believe that the Department of Homeland Security and 

the FBI could have done was—where was the warning that these 

mosques were being burned, where was the warning that Sikhs 

and Muslims have been victims of shooting attacks? I think there 

could have been a threat assessment prepared on that very subject. 

It could have been sent out to the faith-based communities affected. 

And I believe that that might have provided a first line of defense 

by identifying the problem, but also providing some counter measures to encourage people to be increasingly vigilant toward the 

threat. And that may have played, you know, a possible role in 

maybe preventing some type of attack. 

Chairman DURBIN. Well, I would readily agree with your premise 

that simply because people have tattoos or listen to certain music 

or even gather in certain places and say certain things is not evidence of criminal intent. And I think that was the point made by 

the FBI. But I think what you also said is worthy of note, and that 

is, when you hear this over and over, it raises the level of threat 

assessment. Whether it is anti-Semitism against a Jewish synagogue or burning of Christian churches in the South or attacks on 

Muslim mosques or Sikh temples, each of these, I think, warrants 

special effort. 

The last question I will ask you, you noted that there seems to 

be a reduction in force of people at the Department of Homeland 

Security who are working on these issues, and the response from 

Mr. McAllister was not altogether clear on that subject. Would you 

like to say a word more on that? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, you have already outlined in your testimony 

that when I was the team leader at the Department of Homeland 

Security, we had five analysts directly under my supervision, but 

we also had additional analysts that supplemented us. So we had 

as many as eight analysts looking at this issue. Today there is one, 

and that is a fact. 

Chairman DURBIN. The last point I will make, and if you do not 

mind repeating, when you said that the militia that was investigated in Michigan had a larger arsenal of weapons than all of the 

terrorists who had been arrested since 9/11 in the United States. 

Was that your testimony? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It is a daunting statistic, and I got this information off of Steve Emerson’s Investigative Project website where 

he has all the court records of every single Muslim extremist that 

has been publicly arrested in the country since 9/11. That is where 

my sourcing came from. 

Chairman DURBIN. All right. Senator Kohl, would you like to ask 

questions? 
27 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Harpreet, many people in the general community did not understand who Sikhs were until the tragedy occurred. How did the Sikh 

community fit into Milwaukee/Oak Creek before the tragedy? And 

how would you describe the outpouring and the response that occurred? 

Mr. SAINI. Well, I think people have been wonderful. Sikhs are 

a different religion, a different race, I mean, people just—they do 

not come up to you and ask you who you are. People just do not 

come up and ask who Sikhs are. Like, I would love to answer, you 

know, if, let us say, a person comes up to me and asks me who am 

I, ‘‘What is that on your head?’’ I would love to tell them what it 

is. And people do not do that, and they should start doing that, you 

know, to get the fact that that is a turban. 

Senator KOHL. Okay. How have you all been moving forward 

since the tragedy with respect to your place of worship and your 

ability to come and worship without fear? 

Mr. SAINI. How am I what? 

Senator KOHL. The level of fear that occurred when the tragedy 

happened, has that abated? Are you—— 

Mr. SAINI. I mean, the fear is still around, but we are getting 

over it as much as we can now. And just trying to get over it with 

people that you love, that is the best thing. 

Senator KOHL. Is the level of attendance for services equal to 

what it was before the tragedy, or are some people still worried 

about attending? 

Mr. SAINI. No. It has actually gone up, like a lot more people 

have showed up this time, like after the incident, too. And the attendance has been enormous now. It has gone up. 

Senator KOHL. That is terrific. Thank you very much, Harpreet. 

Mr. SAINI. Thank you. 

Senator KOHL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thank you, Senator Kohl, and thanks to this 

entire panel for its testimony. There is—oh, I am sorry. Senator 

Blumenthal, I yield to you. 

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

I want to join in thanking this panel and the prior panel, whose 

testimony I had been following, and I apologize for not having been 

here earlier. I had another Committee hearing. But I would like to, 

first of all, followup, Mr. Saini, my condolences for your loss, and 

even in a place as geographically distant as Connecticut, there has 

been an outpouring of feeling and sympathy for the victims and 

their families. And I have attended two of the ceremonies and services marking this horrendous incident in Oak Creek. And I would 

say that I join Senator Kohl in the expression of satisfaction that 

there is a strengthening of your community and of attendance and 

of involvement, which apparently is the case, is it not? 

Mr. SAINI. Yes, it is. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. If I may turn to Mr. Johnson, you have 

had a long career in intelligence and enforcement efforts, and you 

referred earlier to the possibility that there might have been preventive action possible. Do you think that is a realistic assessment? 

If intelligence were better, do you think that prevention is really 

a realistic and practical likelihood? 
28 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, by basically raising awareness and increasing vigilance and putting in counter measures, you are, in fact, you 

know, putting up barriers of defense that could serve as a prevention. I mean, is it an interdiction? Is it going to stop the incident 

from happening? Probably not. But if you are more vigilant and if 

you have your awareness up, then perhaps you could take counter 

measures to prevent the amount of loss. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And is the issue one of resources? You 

mentioned the number of analysts diminishing from eight to one. 

Is that the principal barrier, or is it a matter of sharing information? What would you analyze as the issue? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, in my written testimony that I submitted to 

the Committee, I outlined a number of limitations, one of which is 

resources. We are also lacking in strategic analysis. That is where 

we look at emerging national trends and patterns of criminal activity. We also—there were some other things that I mentioned in my 

written testimony that you could refer to, but it is a multilayered 

approach. Information sharing has gotten better, but we could still 

make improvements in that effort as well. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. So, really, it is a multifaceted challenge. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Right, and I also had mentioned training as an 

issue. We have a whole new group of analysts and officers that are 

coming up through the ranks who need to be trained on these types 

of subjects and what the different extremists’ tactics and tradecraft 

and activity levels are. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Professor Jacobs, I know that you have 

raised in your written and also in your oral testimony reservations 

and qualms about the hate crime both definition and proof issues. 

Why are those issues any different than the normal criminal intent 

or mens rea elements of proof that have to be presented in a criminal trial? 

Professor JACOBS. Well, if we just want to talk on the proof question, different than the one about defining, you know, which biases 

and so forth, on the question of proof I think it is harder to get into 

a person’s motivations than simply whether it was intended or not 

intended as a fairly thin mental state. But when you start to get 

into what is their bias—and when you look at these various crimes 

that have been prosecuted, the one in New Jersey is a very good 

example. A very good example. You know, what was his motivation? He himself may not have known what his motivation was. He 

maybe had a lot of motivations. Maybe he did not have any clear 

motivation. What he did do was infringe upon the privacy of his 

roommate. That was clear and could easily be proved. But the prosecution was not able to prove that it was an antigay bias, and that 

is often the case in these prosecutions. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. And that may be true in a variety of 

criminal cases where the prosecution has the continuing burden of 

proof and has to present evidence to show beyond a reasonable 

doubt that a motivation existed. I do not understand why that burden does not place a sufficiently high threshold for the proof of a 

hate crime. 

Professor JACOBS. Well, I also do not think it is necessary because we have criminal laws against assaults and against murder 

and against rape and kidnapping. And then in order to express 
29 

even more outrage, we have gone through the criminal code and 

kind of recriminalized these crimes, which already carry huge punishments, more than we have the resources to actually implement. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Which is true of other crimes as well. 

They may be prosecutable under different laws. They may be—— 

Professor JACOBS. They are all prosecutable under different laws, 

Senator. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. Correct. So why not permit prosecution of 

hate crimes when they are, in fact, motivated by bigotry and bias 

and that kind of intent as an expression of community outrage, 

which our criminal law particularly does. 

Professor JACOBS. Well, I mean, that is the route that we are 

going down, and I think if it is successful, we will see. And if it 

helps to lead toward a more tolerant society, that would be good. 

But it might also be very divisive and juries might begin to see 

criminal prosecutions as actually kind of political trials which—and 

the crime is about making a statement about the perpetrator’s 

group as opposed to the victim’s group, and we will start to see the 

crime problem as one that is divided along all of the fractures of 

American society. I would not welcome seeing the crime problem in 

that way, and I think it is unnecessary to do that. 

Senator BLUMENTHAL. I think the reservation that you have expressed has been articulated, at least in my experience, in State 

legislatures when these issues arose, and those reservations or objections have been overcome, I think because people do feel that the 

expression of the community’s intolerance for violence resulting 

from bigotry and bias and hatred is very much a proper and appropriate measure to take and hopefully also will have a deterrent effect, which is another proper purpose of the criminal laws. If it deters these kinds of crimes, perhaps it would serve a legitimate purpose of the criminal law as well. 

So I understand and you have articulated well your concerns 

about it, but I think that the growing awareness of the severity 

and the frequency of these crimes will properly result, hopefully, in 

greater enforcement, tougher enforcement, more stringent penalties. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman DURBIN. Thanks a lot, Senator Blumenthal and Senator Kohl. 

I might note that over 400 people are in attendance at this hearing, in the overflow room and in this main room, showing the level 

of interest in this important topic, many from the Sikh community 

from all across the United States, and we thank you very much 

and join all of us in expressing our sentiments of sorrow over the 

losses that have taken place in your community. 

We are not alone in our feelings about this. We have had an 

enormous amount of interest from many groups, 80 written statements for today’s hearing, from Congresswoman Judy Chu, the 

Chair of the Congressional Asian Pacific American Caucus, the 

American Civil Liberties Union, the Anti-Defamation League, the 

Chicago City Council, the Chicago Police Department, the Council 

on American Islamic Relations, Groundswell, the Hindu American 

Foundation, Human Rights Campaign, Human Rights First, Interfaith Alliance, the Islamic Society of North America, the Japanese 
30 

American Citizens League, Latino Justice, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, Muslim Advocates, the 

NAACP, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the Oak Creek, 

Wisconsin, Police Department, People for the American Way, Africa 

American Ministers Leadership Council, the Sikh American Legal 

Defense and Education Fund, the Sikh Coalition, South Asian 

Americans Leading Together, and the Southern Poverty Law Center, as well as the United Sikhs. Without objection, I would like to 

place these statements into the record. Hearing no objection, that 

will be the case. 

[The information referred to appears as submissions for the 

record.] 

Chairman DURBIN. The hearing record will be open for a week 

to accept additional statements, and if there are written questions 

of the witnesses, I hope that you will respond in a timely fashion 

so we can have a complete record. 

If there are no further comments from our panel or colleagues, 

I thank the witnesses for attending and my colleagues for participating, and this hearing stands adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:23 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Additional material submitted for the record follows.] 
(31) 

A P P E N D I X 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD
32 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ROY L. AUSTIN, JR. 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 
49 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MICHAEL A. CLANCY
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT MCALLISTER
55 
56 
57 
58 
59 
60 
61 
62 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HARPREET SINGH SAINI
63 
64 
65 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES B. JACOBS
66 
67 
68 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF DARYL JOHNSON
69 
70 
71 
72 
73 
74 
75 
76 
77 
78 
79 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PATRICK J. LEAHY
85 
86 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN DICK DURBIN
87 
88 
89 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO ROY L. AUSTIN, JR., BY SENATOR COONS

[Note: At the time of printing, the Committee had not received responses from Roy L. Austin, Jr.] 
90 

QUESTIONS SUBMITTED TO DARYL JOHNSON BY SENATOR COONS
91 

RESPONSES OF DARYL JOHNSON TO QUESTIONS SUBMITTED

BY SENATOR COONS
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 
341 
342 
343 
344 
345 
346 
347 
348 
349 
350 
351 
352 
353 
354 
355 
356 
357 
358 
359 
360 
361 
362 
363 
364 
365 
366 
367 
368 
369 
370 
371 
372 
373 
374 
375 
376 
377 
378 
379 
380 
381 
382 
383 
384 
385 
386 
387 
388 
389 
390 
391 
392 
393 
394 
395 
396 
397 
398 
399 
400 
401 
402 
403 
404 
405 
406 
407 
408 
409 
410 
411 
412 
413 
414 
415 
416 
417 
418 
419 
420 
421 
422 
423 
424 
425 
426 
427 
428 
429 
430 
431 
432 
433 
434 
435 
436 
437 
438 
439 
440 
441 
442 
443 
444 
445 
446 
447 
448 
449 
450 
451 
452 
453 
454 
455 
456 
457 
458 
459 
460 
461 
462 
463 
464 
465 
466 
467 
468 
469 
470 
471 
472 
473 
474 
475 
476 
477 
478 

Æ