U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

66–613 PDF 2011

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

JUNE 1, 2011 

Serial No. 112–61 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

DENNIS ROSS, Florida 

SANDY ADAMS, Florida 

BEN QUAYLE, Arizona 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Chief Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

JUNE 1, 2011 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....................... 1 

The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ....... 3 

The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ..................................... 4 

The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress from the 

State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and 

Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution ..................................................... 10 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, U.S. Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 24 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 27 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary 

Letter dated May 27, 2011, to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, from Ronald 

Weich, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Justice ...................................................................................... 6 

Letter dated May 31, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, from Lamar Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................................ 8 

Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative 

in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee 

on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution 

Letter dated May 12, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, from Lamar Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................................ 11 

Letter dated May 27, 2011, to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of Representatives, from Ronald 

Weich, Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. 

Department of Justice ...................................................................................... 14 

Letter dated February 11, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H. Holder, Attorney 

General, U.S. Department of Justice, from Lamar Smith, Chairman, 

Committee on the Judiciary ............................................................................ 16 

Article from The New York Times, May 31, 2011, titled ‘‘In Shift, Justice 

Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds’’ ................ 18 

Page

IV 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice ...... 51 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the U.S. Department of Justice ....... 69 

Prepared Statement of Sean Bennett .................................................................... 125 

(1) 

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:57 a.m., in room 

2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Franks, Smith, King, Nadler, Quigley, 

Conyers, and Scott. 

Staff present: (Majority) Holt Lackey, Counsel; Harold Damelin, 

Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority) David Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; and Veronica Eligan, Professional Staff 

Member. 

Mr. FRANKS. The Subcommittee will come to order. 

We just want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, particularly Assistant Attorney General Thomas 

Perez. I will apologize to you for the Committee starting late. We 

had a meeting at the White House, and all of us were expected to 

be there. So, we appreciate everybody coming. 

We want to welcome everyone to this first Civil Rights Division 

oversight hearing of the 112th Congress where we have Assistant 

Attorney General Perez before us to represent the Department of 

Justice. 

This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. It is a 

chance not just to reflect on the horror of institutionalized slavery, 

but to take solace in the redeeming recognition that this Nation 

fought its bloodiest war to end it. 

The Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division has the mission 

of continuing this American virtue of introspection, self-correction, 

and commitment to civil rights. 

In its limited time, an oversight hearing by its nature necessarily 

focuses on what is being done wrong rather than what is being 

done right. That should not detract from the core proposition of 

equality with which we all agree, what I think is a directive to 

treat everyone, of course, as children of God. 

The Constitution adjures the President to take care that the laws 

be ‘‘faithfully executed,’’ and this signifies that the chief executive 

must execute the laws in a manner that is faithful to the intended 

meaning given to them by the people’s representatives. Instead, 

there is evidence the division is engaging in a pattern and practice 

2 

of straining the meaning of Federal civil rights statutes to further 

policies far beyond those ever contemplated by Congress. 

For example, the Division sent formal letters to two upstate New 

York schools questioning enforcement of their dress codes against 

two male students, one who wore a pink wig and makeup and the 

other who wore a wig and stiletto heels and said he wanted to be 

able to dress like a woman. These are not top priorities for the Nation’s top law enforcement agencies charged with defending our 

citizens from all enemies, foreign and domestic. There is no obvious 

injury, and local authorities are sufficient to address these issues 

or non-issues as the case may be. 

In these instances, one might have hoped that the Department 

would have instead pursued cases involving racial violence, violations of citizens’ rights to vote, or other egregious injuries. 

Law enforcement is all about prioritization. We cannot possibly 

address all illegal activity with our limited resources. We must 

therefore remedy the most serious and grievous offenses to our 

freedoms. Adolescent cross-dressing is not one of them. And cases 

like this give the appearance that a political agenda might be the 

first priority. The Department of Justice is an executive agency 

charged with enforcing the laws, not making social policy. 

Other cases suggest activism as well. For example, the Division 

forced Dayton, Ohio to lower the passing score on its police recruiting exam because the Department of Justice did not like the overall 

racial makeup of those who successfully passed the exam. The taxpayers of Dayton paid for this test to be developed at significant 

cost by an outside company with specific expertise. Instead of 

straining to show the test was flawed, the Department might have 

heeded explicit Federal law making it unlawful to ‘‘use different 

cutoff scores for or otherwise alter the results of employment-related test scores on the basis of race.’’ Even the local NAACP criticized the Division’s extreme actions as endangering public safety. 

Another example is the Division’s strained reading of Section 4(e) 

of the Voting Rights Act, to require bilingual ballots when the explicit bilingual ballot provisions of the VRA would not apply. The 

Division’s construction is inconsistent with the language and legislative history which shows 4(e) was simply concerned with exempting U.S. citizens educated in Spanish in Puerto Rico from then 

prevalent literacy tests for voters. 

The Department’s strained construction upon which it levied action recently forced the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County, Ohio to 

spend $100,000 on translation services that have no basis in Federal law. A variation in filing suits that are unwarranted is failing 

to file suits that are warranted. 

There was sworn testimony from former Voting Section attorneys, Christopher Coats and Christian Adams, corroborated by documents, indicating that Deputy Assistant Attorney General Julie 

Fernandez has made statements to the Voting Section staff she 

oversees, suggesting this Administration is not committed to enforcing voting laws in a race neutral manner. She has also told 

staff that there is no interest in enforcing voting list accuracy requirements in Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act, 

opening the door to even worse vote fraud than that which ACORN 

and others gave us in the last election, permitting the identities of 

3 

illegal or dead persons to potentially be used to cancel out the votes 

of lawful voters. And I am interested in what you have done to acknowledge and address these citizens and these statements. 

Rather than faithfully execute the laws, the Division is either not 

acting or forcing cash strapped jurisdictions to spend money in 

cases that many Americans would not think represent discrimination of the type it was created to fight. Not only is this not a way 

to justify budget increases, it actually jeopardizes the legislative 

process. The delicate compromises on which legislation depends 

will be impossible if neither side can trust that its understanding 

of the final product will be respected by the enforcing body after 

it is passed. 

I look forward to hearing your testimony on how the laws have 

been faithfully executed. 

And I would now recognize the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Today the Subcommittee continues its oversight of the Civil 

Rights Division of the Department of Justice. With the authority 

to enforce this Nation’s civil rights laws, the Division is the guardian of our fundamental values: freedom of religion, the right to be 

treated fairly, the right to cast a vote in a free and fair election, 

the right to a job, the right to a home, the right to an education, 

and, with the enactment of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the 

right to live one’s life free from the threat of violent hate crimes. 

As our Subcommittee had documented, the Division was deeply 

troubled during the Bush years. As with other parts of the Justice 

Department, career civil rights attorneys were routinely overruled 

on legal matters by political appointees. Hiring was illegally politicized, enforcement was, in some keys areas, grossly neglected, and 

morale was as bad as at any time since the Division’s establishment. The loss of dedicated career staff was alarming. 

President Obama signaled a new era by appointing as Assistant 

Attorney General Tom Perez, who will testify today. He is a career 

civil rights lawyer, and he has been working hard to rebuild a division that had lost many of its dedicated career attorneys that had 

become dangerously politicized. 

In addition to the historically challenging work of the Civil 

Rights Division, he has been rebuilding a decimated and demoralized office, and he has done so while dealing with such monumental tasks as the decennial redistricting. 

What is most distressing is that some of the same people who 

undermined and discredited the Civil Rights Division while they 

were there have now made a career of making false allegations 

against the Division from the outside. What is disturbing is that 

the allegations all seem to have the same subtext, that the Division 

is being used to favor minorities to the detriment of whites. What 

they really mean is that the Division is now making an honest effort to enforce in an even-handed manner our civil rights laws, 

laws which the complainers who were previously in the Division 

really do not like at all. It is Willie Horton campaign pure and simple. 

As soon as each new allegation is debunked, we hear two more 

false allegations. I would not be surprised if, even after an indeVerDate Aug 31 2005 10:14 Dec 01, 2011 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\060111\66613.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
4 

pendent investigation that has completely discredited the allegations surrounding the New Black Panther Party, allegations of 

voter intimidation without any voter ever having complained of 

being intimidated, I would not be surprised if people still hear that 

case revived today as it is revived all the time. It is disgraceful. 

We actually face some serious civil rights challenges, and I hope 

to hear from Mr. Perez on how the Division is working to meet 

those challenges. It would be nice to have a hearing in which we 

actually discuss civil rights policy and enforcement, but we will see 

if that is possible in the current environment. 

I am pleased to welcome Mr. Perez, and I look forward to his testimony and to the questions and answers from the Members of the 

Committee. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the Ranking Member. And I now recognize 

the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for his opening 

statement. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perez, thank you for being here. We look forward to your 

comments. 

Congressional oversight is necessary to improve the operation of 

the executive branch and its responsiveness to the American people. Unfortunately, since 2009, there have been troubling allegations about the conduct of the Civil Rights Division and its personnel. 

First, the Department dismissed most of the voter intimidation 

cases against the New Black Panther Party. Then it was alleged 

that a deputy assistant attorney general instructed Voting Section 

staff that the division will only bring cases for the benefit of racial 

minorities. This person is also alleged to have said that the voting 

list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the National Voter 

Registration Act will not be enforced. Then more recently, comments allegedly were made at a January Voting Section training 

section indicating that voting rights laws were not to be enforced 

in a race neutral manner during the current redistricting cycle. 

Most troubling about these allegations is that they constitute a 

clear pattern. If the Administration is choosing whom to protect 

based on skin color, the American people should know that there 

is not equal justice under the law. 

In January, I wrote Attorney General Holder advising him that 

I had initiated an inquiry into the Division’s enforcement of Federal voting rights laws. This inquiry is focused on whether the Division has adopted a practice of race-based enforcement of these 

laws. The Attorney General gave me his personal commitment to 

make available any information necessary for the Committee to 

perform its oversight function. Unfortunately, I have been disappointed that the Department’s actions have failed to live up to 

the Attorney General’s promised cooperation. 

Since January, I have made two separate reasonable, straightforward requests for information as part of this inquiry. While the 

Department has provided some documents of limited relevancy in 

response, it has withheld a number of other responsive and highly 

relevant documents based only on a vague assertion of a confidentiality interest. Yet confidentiality is not a recognized privilege. 

5 

Transparency is crucial for a government to function properly. The 

Department appears to have concocted a confidentiality interest to 

hide important information from the American people. 

After the close of business last Friday, and with this hearing 

looming, the Department offered to make some of the withheld documents available for Committee review. However, the Department 

placed unacceptable conditions on this offer. It is improper for the 

Department to dictate to this Committee how it should make use 

of information that is responsive to a legitimate oversight interest. 

I would ask that the Department’s May 27 letter and my response dated May 31 be made a part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

6 


66613A-1.eps
7 


66613A-2.eps
8 


66613B-1.eps
9 

Mr. SMITH. It is time for the Department’s game of hide and seek 

to end and for it to respond and cooperate. Its actions have not only 

been inconsistent, they have contradicted the Attorney General’s 

personal assurances to me. 

Congressional oversight is the constitutional duty of Congress. 

This Committee is conducting a legitimate oversight inquiry into 

the Department’s enforcement of Federal laws. As such, absent a 

claim of executive privilege, it has an unassailable right to receive 

the documents responsive to my request that the Department continues to withhold. 


66613B-2.eps
10 

Mr. Perez, I hope your appearance today will help the Committee 

move forward with its inquiry. I also hope that the Department 

will provide the requested documents to the Committee. And I 

thank you for appearing. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. And I thank the Chairman. 

And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full Committee, 

Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to thank Chairman Smith for making some of his letters 

to the Attorney General available to us, and I would like to add 

them to the record, if I might, at this time: a letter to Eric Holder 

dated May 12, 2011; a letter to Chairman Smith from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich dated May 27, 2011; and an earlier 

letter that Chairman Smith sent to Eric Holder dated February 11, 

2011. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

11 


66613C-1.eps
12 


66613C-2.eps
13 


66613C-3.eps
14 


66613A-1.eps
15 


66613A-2.eps
16 


66613D-1.eps
17 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you so much. 

Now, it is so convenient that the New York Times just today has 

a great picture of Thomas Perez on page 13: ‘‘In Shift, Justice Department Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights Backgrounds.’’ That is 

the title. And it goes on to say that under the Obama Administration, as Jerry Nadler has pointed out, the Justice Department’s 

Civil Rights Division has reversed a pattern of systematically hiring conservative lawyers with little experience in civil rights, the 

practice that caused a scandal over politicization during the Bush 

Administration. 

I ask unanimous consent to put this in the record as well. 

Mr. FRANKS. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 


66613D-2.eps
18 


66613E-1.eps
19 


66613E-2.eps
20 


66613E-3.eps
21 


66613E-4.eps
22 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Now, I want to say this to Chairman Smith, with whom I have 

worked very closely over the last decade or more. This allegation 

that the Department of Justice is being racially unfair is a disturbing one. I happen to know Eric Holder, and I would appreciate 

us meeting on this to talk about an important situation. The Civil 

Rights Division has been literally dormant during the Bush Administration, and I do not mean to be partisan about this. And you 

have continually implied that there is some race consciousness 

going on in the way that they conduct their affairs. Now, if that 

is so, I would like to know about it more than a hearing in which 

we get 5 minutes to question a witness. This is a very serious matter. 

Now, you have been sent over 5,000 pages of material from the 

Department of Justice. 

You raised the question about the Black Panthers, and I have 

here the letter that found that the Black Panther case, which you 

wrote the Department of Justice, Chairman Smith, on July 9, 2009. 

It was referred to the Department’s Office of Professional Responsibility, which you got a conclusive response on May 17, 2011, in 

which the Office of Professional Responsibility found no evidence to 

support allegations that were raised in their investigation, that the 

decision makers either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were 

influenced by the race of the defendants or any considerations 

other than an assessment of the evidence and the applicable law. 

That is the Ethics Division of the Department of Justice that has 

made this claim. And so, we have not heard much about it. 

But now we have new claims, and these are very sensitive remarks to me. And I am trying to find out what the basis of them 

are. And it seems to me this Committee has that responsibility. 

Now, generally, Mr. Perez has been receiving commendations for 

his work in the last 2 years as the leader of the Civil Rights Division. But where is the preferential treatment to minorities being 

given anybody here? And I think these attacks, especially coming 

from Members of the Judiciary Committee, are absolutely outrageous. 

Mr. SMITH. Will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. CONYERS. I certainly will. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just let me finish. I would like to meet with you 

to discuss any evidence that you have of any substance that would 

give a foundation to these allegations, because I think they are 

subverting the whole idea of the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. And I would be pleased to yield to the Chair. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you for yielding. 

First of all, as far as the evidence goes, as I mentioned in my 

opening statement, as I think the gentleman is aware, there have 

been two or three individuals who have made statements independent of anything that any Member of Congress has said, that 

would raise very strong suspicions of decisions being made on the 

basis of race. 

But the reason we had requested the documents is to try to get 

to the bottom of the matter, and I hope the gentleman would join 

me in making sure these documents do get to us so that we can 

23 

get the facts. I, like you, feel that I have a good working relationship with the Attorney General, and because he has given me his 

personal assurances, I have been surprised that the documents 

that we have requested have not been forthcoming. But if we are 

going to get to the facts, if we are going to get to the point where 

we can find out whether these allegations are true or not, we are 

going to need those documents. 

And I hope, as I say, that the gentleman would join me in trying 

to secure these documents, and then we can come to a reasoned 

conclusion as to where there has been the form of discrimination 

to which I have alluded or not. And so, let us get those documents, 

and we can sit down and discuss what is in them, and whether 

they are helpful or not. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, you have not ever invited me before just 

now. 

Mr. SMITH. Consider this an invitation to help me get those documents. 

Mr. CONYERS. I consider it an invitation. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Now, I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to just 

ask my friend, the Chairman of the Committee, one last question. 

Who are the people that you have gotten this information from? 

Mr. SMITH. We will be happy to give you the quotes. They have 

been in numerous publication articles and in other news reports. 

We will be happy to get all those to you. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, let me ask you this. How many people are 

you talking about, one or two or three or 15? 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. We have several individuals who have made 

those comments. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Mr. SMITH. And we can share those individuals’ names with you 

privately. But, again, I am pleased if you are joining me in my request to get these relevant documents. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, absolutely. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the Ranking Member. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made part of the record. 

I would like to introduce our witness. 

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez is here today to testify 

before this Committee. Mr. Perez became the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Civil Rights Division on October 8, 2009. Prior to 

becoming the Assistant Attorney General, he served as the secretary of Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. 

Mr. Perez has spent his entire career in public service, serving 

as a career prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division and then as a 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Division. He then went 

on to serve as director of the Office for Civil Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services. 

In addition to his extensive Justice Department service, he has 

also served as special counsel to the late Senator Edward Kennedy. 

Mr. Perez is a graduate of the Harvard Law School and holds a 

bachelor’s degree from Brown University and a master’s in public 

24 

policy from the Kennedy School of Government. He resides in 

Maryland with his wife and three children. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez, we look forward to hearing 

your testimony today and welcome you again to today’s hearing. 

Mr. Perez’s written statement will be entered into the record in 

its entirety. And I ask you, sir, to summarize your testimony in 5 

minutes or less. To help you stay within that timeframe, there’s a 

timing light on your table. When the light switches from green to 

yellow, you will have 1 minute to conclude your testimony. When 

the light turns red, it signals that your 5 minutes have expired. 

So, before I recognize Mr. Perez, it is the tradition of this Subcommittee that a witness be sworn. So, if you would please stand. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

I now recognize Mr. Perez for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, 

ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION 

Mr. PEREZ. Good afternoon, Chairman Franks, Ranking Member 

Nadler, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and the distinguished Members of this Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today about the critical work of the 

Civil Rights Division. 

I have great respect for the institution of the Civil Rights Division and the Department. I first entered the Department as a summer clerk in 1986, was hired as a career prosecutor in 1988, started in ’89, and held just about every position a lawyer could hold 

as a career person. And now I have the privilege here of serving 

as the AAG. 

When I had the honor to appear before you just months after 

being sworn in as AAG, I spoke about our efforts to restore and 

transform the Division. I promised to ensure aggressive, evenhanded, and independent enforcement of all of the laws within our 

jurisdiction. And in the year and a half since, we have invested a 

great deal of energy in these efforts, and I am happy to report we 

have had great success. 

The work produced in recent weeks alone illustrates the wide 

range of efforts of the Division and is typical of our work. You have 

my full testimony, but I want to give you a snapshot of what has 

been happening in recent weeks. 

Last week, a jury in New York found three men guilty of charges 

relating to a scheme to compel undocumented Latin American 

women to come to the U.S. with promises of jobs as waitresses in 

bars, and then they forced them to engage in commercial sex acts. 

Human trafficking of this nature robs individuals of their freedom 

and dignity. And in 2009, we filed a record number of human trafficking cases, only to break that record in 2010. 

We recently won the first conviction at trial of a defendant 

charged under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate 

Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, a law that has provided us with 

critical new tools to prosecute hate crimes. 

We also announced last week multimillion dollar settlements 

with Bank of America, Countrywide, and Saxon Mortgage Services 

to resolve allegations that they wrongfully foreclosed upon active 

25 

duty members of the Armed Forces without first obtaining court orders in violation of the Service Members Civil Relief Act. 

By way of illustration, during our investigation, we encountered 

a case involving a servicemember who was severely injured by an 

IED while serving in Iraq, breaking his back and causing traumatic brain injury. The servicer foreclosed on him, despite receiving notice on multiple occasions that he was serving in Iraq. He returned to the U.S. in a wheelchair with the prognosis that he 

would never walk again. Courageously, he spent 2 years in recovery, re-learning how to walk and eventually run. However, he still 

suffers from the effects of traumatic brain injury. 

We cannot allow the members of our military who have made 

great personal sacrifices on our behalf to attempt to transition to 

civilian life, only to find their credit ruined and their homes in danger of foreclosure. Combined, these two settlements will provide more than $22 million in monetary relief for at least 178 victims. The men and 

women who protect and defend our nation deserve to know that we 

have their backs at home. And these settlements are part of a 

broader effort in the Division to protect the rights of members of 

our Armed Forces. These efforts have included ramped up efforts 

to protect servicemembers’ civilian employment rights, as well as 

an unprecedented effort to enforce UOCAVA and the MOVE Act 

and protect the voting rights of servicemembers. 

We have ramped up our fair lending enforcement, and we recently announced a settlement with Citizen’s Bank in Michigan to 

resolve allegations that the bank discriminated against AfricanAmericans by failing to serve the credit needs of African-American 

neighborhoods in and around Detroit. It was a classic case of redlining that deprives neighborhoods of the investment needed to 

thrive. We cannot claim to offer true equal opportunity if we are 

depriving entire neighborhoods of access to credit. 

Just yesterday, we announced a settlement agreement under the 

Americans With Disabilities Act with Wells Fargo to ensure equal 

access to credit and other banking services for people with disabilities. This $16 million settlement is the largest monetary agreement ever reached under Title III of the ADA. 

Just last week, we charged a Wisconsin man with a violation of 

the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The affidavit in 

support of the criminal complaint alleges that while loading his 

handgun, the defendant discharged a bullet through the door of his 

hotel room into a room across the hall. He was subsequently arrested, and the evidence uncovered so far indicates that he traveled 

to Wisconsin with his gun in an attempt to kill doctors to stop 

them from performing reproductive health services. This was just 

last week. 

We traveled recently to Newark, New Jersey to launch a civil 

pattern or practice investigation into the Newark police department and to work with them to identify challenges and come up 

with a blueprint for sustainable reform. 

We continue to work with the New Orleans police department to 

develop a comprehensive blueprint for reform that will reduce 

crime, ensure respect for the Constitution, and restore much needed public confidence in the New Orleans police department. 

26 

Today, in Pennsylvania, sentencing is scheduled for two former 

police officers from Shenandoah, Pennsylvania who were convicted 

of charges relating to the cover up of a hate fueled beating death 

of a Latino man that occurred in that town. Following the beating, 

the police covered up the incident in an effort to protect the assailants, who were also convicted of hate crimes in a prior trial. 

Every day in the Civil Rights Division presents me and my staff 

and our outstanding team of dedicated career attorneys and professionals with a new opportunity to protect and defend the rights of 

individuals who might not be able to assert those rights on their 

own. We are very proud to carry the torch of the great civil rights 

pioneers who fought for our laws that would ensure equal opportunity and equal access to justice. And we honor their legacy by enforcing those laws aggressively, independently, and even-handedly. 

I look forward for the opportunity to talk further about our work, 

and I look forward to answering your questions. 

It is an honor to be here, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and 

Ranking Members. 

Thank you for your time, and thank you for your courtesy. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:] 

27 


66613AA-1.eps
28 


66613AA-2.eps
29 


66613AA-3.eps
30 


66613AA-4.eps
31 


66613AA-5.eps
32 


66613AA-6.eps
33 


66613AA-7.eps
34 


66613AA-8.eps
35 


66613AA-9.eps
36 


66613AA-10.eps
37 


66613AA-11.eps
38 


66613AA-12.eps
39 


66613AA-13.eps
40 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Perez. We thank you for your 

testimony. And I will now begin the questioning by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

Mr. Perez, in a 2009 opinion, Northwest Austin, the Supreme 

Court questioned, but did not decide, whether Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act is still constitutional. After that opinion was handed 

down, many of the commentators suggested that increased use of 

the bailout process, through which a covered jurisdiction may seek 


66613AA-14.eps
41 

exemption from Section 5 coverage, may be the only way to save 

Section 5 from being declared unconstitutional. 

Is the Division encouraging covered jurisdictions to seek bailouts 

from Section 5 in an effort to bolster its constitutionality or to have 

it survive constitutional scrutiny? 

Mr. PEREZ. The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely. Following that decision, we, among other things, prepared guidance on 

what the Northwest Austin decision means. We have been working 

with jurisdictions across the country on bailout issues. And this 

year, in this Fiscal Year alone, we have five bailout actions that 

have been filed in this Fiscal Year alone, which is more than any 

previous Fiscal Year in the history of the Civil Rights Division. So, 

we take our bailout responsibilities very seriously. We read the 

opinion carefully, and we will continue to comply with it. And if jurisdictions are able to satisfy that, we will, of course, accede to it. 

And that is why we have launched this, I believe, very impressive 

and successful campaign. 

Mr. FRANKS. Mr. Perez, sworn testimony and handwritten meetings notes obtained by the Committee clearly indicate that your 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Julie Fernandes, has told the 

Voting Section staff under this Administration that Federal voting 

laws are not to be enforced in a race neutral manner, and that this 

Administration has no interest in enforcing the voting list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration 

Act. 

Specifically, those statements by Ms. Fernandes are as follows: 

‘‘Equality for racial and ethnic minorities is what we are all about.’’ 

The next one: ‘‘Our goal is to ensure equal access for voters of color 

or minority language.’’ The next one: ‘‘There is no interest in enforcing the list maintenance requirements of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration Act.’’ 

As Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division, what 

have you done, Mr. Perez, to address these, what are somewhat 

troublesome statements by Ms. Fernandes? 

Mr. PEREZ. I certainly take these allegations seriously. I spoke 

with Ms. Fernandes, I spoke with others, and we conducted a careful review. And Ms. Fernandes has categorically denied making 

statements to that nature. We answered a letter from Chairman 

Smith. 

And I would note also that the OPR report that you have a copy 

of looked at those issues and concluded that the allegations pertaining to Ms. Fernandes were without merit. And so, I would certainly direct the attention to the finding in the report that Ms. 

Fernandes’ comments provided no evidence of an underlying ideological agenda of the Division. And so, I would also direct the Committee’s attention to the OPR report in this particular case. 

As I have said and as Ms. Fernandes has reiterated, we make 

our decisions based on an application of the facts to the law. We 

do so in an even-handed manner. And, frankly, our actions bear 

that out. We have enforced under the Voting Rights Act cases involving victims who are African-American, defendants who are 

white. We have enforced cases under our watch involving the opposite. We do not racially bean-count who the defendants are in our 

Section 2 work. 

42 

And in addition, we have other cases across the Division, whether it is our employment work, where we have cases where we have 

vindicated the rights of African-American victims, and cases where 

we have vindicated the right of white victims. And we have cases 

in the education docket where we have vindicated the rights of victims of all races and ethnicities. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. The OPR report that you mentioned 

only dealt with that issue on kind of a peripheral basis. It was 

more focused on the Black Panther case. But I guess you are assuring us that Ms. Fernandes’ ostensible, remarks do not constitute 

the Division’s current operating policy with regard to enforcement 

of our Voting Rights Act. 

And I want to ask you a quick question before my time is gone 

here. 

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. 

Mr. FRANKS. In 2009, Congress enacted the MOVE Act, which requires States to mail absentee ballots to military and overseas voters at least 45 days before an election. Its intent was to end the 

historical disenfranchisement of deployed military servicemembers. 

Our men and women in uniform safeguard all of our rights, of 

course, and protecting their right to vote is the least we can do. 

Unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the Civil Rights Division was 

slow to identify jurisdictions that had not complied with the law. 

As a result, many jurisdictions across the country denied military 

voters their legal right to a timely absentee ballot. 

How will the Civil Rights Division improve the MOVE Act enforcement in the 2012 election so that no military voters are 

disenfranchised? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your question, sir. With all due respect, I disagree with your characterization of our work there. I am 

very proud of the work that we did. It was an unprecedented effort. 

There have been, for instance, roughly 40 lawsuits that have 

been filed in the 25-year history of UOCAVA as amended by the 

MOVE Act. Five of those lawsuits, one-eighth of those lawsuits, 

were filed in the 2010 cycle alone. We filed cases against 14 jurisdictions where they were either lawsuits, court orders, out of court 

settlements, letter agreements. And through those actions, we were 

able to ensure that over 60,000 overseas and military voters, who 

might otherwise have not had an opportunity to vote in a timely 

fashion, were in fact able to do so. It was an unprecedented expenditure of time and effort, and it was a very successful one. 

Having said that, we were in front of Chairman Lungren and we 

talked about how we can learn and do even more. And we look forward to working with this Committee and others to talk about the 

lessons learned from that election and the lessons moving forward 

to ensure that everybody who is a military or overseas voter can 

have access to the ballots. 

I appreciate your question. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, Mr. Perez. I appreciate your answers. 

And I will now recognize our Ranking Member for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez, there have been lot of States 

recently that have been enacting so-called voter ID laws. Do you 

think that these voter ID laws in general raise serious questions 

43 

regarding the denial of access to particular groups and warrant 

great scrutiny from the Civil Rights Division? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, there have been, as you correctly point out, 

Congressman Nadler, a number of States that have enacted these 

laws. In States that are covered by Section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act, they will be required to submit those laws to the Department 

of Justice for pre-clearance, or, in the alternative, to file a complaint in the District Court of D.C. 

Mr. NADLER. And the States that are not covered by Section 5, 

would you review them under Section 2? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, and that was the second part of my answer. We 

have authority under Section 2 to address issues that would include the voter ID context if in fact there’s a determination that 

they constitute some form of discrimination in the voting context. 

And so, those are the two—— 

Mr. NADLER. Have you reviewed any of them and made determinations yet? 

Mr. PEREZ. We are reviewing. We are certainly aware of all of 

the laws that have been passed, whether it is a covered jurisdiction 

or a non-covered jurisdiction. And each law is different, and so we 

apply the facts to the law, and we will do that in those circumstances to make an appropriate judgment. 

Mr. NADLER. Has the Department pre-cleared photo ID and citizenship requirements in Section 5 jurisdictions yet? 

Mr. PEREZ. There are examples of voter ID requirements that 

have been pre-cleared, and I would have to get you the full answer 

of exactly which states. I do not recall off the top of my head. I believe Georgia might be one, and I believe in the prior Administration, there may have been one in Arizona. But I am not sure if that 

was citizenship or voter ID. But I can get you a full list. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Given the fact that most of these laws 

require that you get a photo ID or a non-photo ID from the Division of Motor Vehicles or something like that, and that getting 

those in many states requires in turn that you get as a foundation 

document a passport or a birth certificate, which costs money to get 

in many states, do you think that that might be a violation of the 

poll tax? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, we are looking at all of the facts and circumstances of all the laws passed, and each State has a different 

set of circumstances. And so, it is difficult to give a categorical answer without looking at the specifics of each particular law. 

Mr. NADLER. And you are looking at all these laws now? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, we are. 

Mr. NADLER. And recently, one of the States—I think it was Florida—passed a law that not only included voter ID, but essentially 

made it impossible to conduct voter registration drives by making 

very onerous restrictions and liability on anybody who conducts a 

voter registration drive, so much so that the League of Women Voters said they would no longer do voter registration in that State. 

Are you going to be looking at that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, there are a number of counties in Florida that 

are covered under Section 5, so if it constitutes a change to voting, 

then there would be, again, the pre-clearance requirements that I 

discussed. 

44 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. We passed the National Voter Rights Act 

back in 1993, which requires social service agencies to provide 

voter registration opportunities. That has largely been unenforced. 

Will the Civil Rights Division be concentrating on making sure that 

that law is enforced? 

Mr. PEREZ. We have an aggressive program of enforcement of the 

NVRA. We have reached a settlement recently. It was the first 

NVRA Section 7 lawsuit in 7 years. It was in Rhode Island. We 

have a number of cases that we are taking a look at under Section 

7, Section 8. And I agree with you that the Motor Voter law is a 

critical component of the broad effort to ensure access to the ballot. 

And so, we will continue to aggressively and independently enforce 

the NVRA. 

Mr. NADLER. Because from where I sit, all of these constitute a 

very deliberate attempt to disenfranchise minority voters, young 

voters, older voters who are likely statistically, to a great extent, 

not to have a voter ID, not to have driver’s licenses and so forth. 

And I would hope that the effects of the malevolently intended laws 

will be properly examined. 

The last question I have, when this Administration launched its 

version of the faith-based initiative, Administration officials explained that the issue of hiring discrimination on the basis of religion and taxpayer funded social service contracts and grants, which 

was a central aspect of President Bush’s faith-based initiative, 

would be reviewed by the Department. In December of 2009, you 

testified before the Subcommittee that, ‘‘I think the Department 

will continue to evaluate these legal questions that arise with these 

programs.’’ 

Is the Civil Rights Division involved with this review, and what 

can you tell us about this review as of now? 

Mr. PEREZ. The review remains ongoing. And, again, we are committed to ensuring that we can partner with faith-based organizations in a way that is both consistent with our laws and with our 

values, and that we continue to address these legal questions that 

you have raised. 

We are not leading that effort in the Department. Other components are involved in that. 

Mr. NADLER. Who? 

Mr. PEREZ. I do not recall who is leading that effort right now, 

but it is not the Civil Rights Division. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield back. 

Mr. FRANKS. I thank the Ranking Member. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. PEREZ. Good afternoon, sir. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Perez, thank you. I appreciate you being here to 

testify. And just a couple of things. I would like to start out with 

some clarification. 

I know that we have perhaps a better perspective in the rear 

view mirror, so I am looking back on that date in 2009. And I am 

thinking of an exchange that took place between yourself and Mr. 

Gohmert. And that question that he asked was, did you review or 

45 

did you watch the video of the New Black Panthers. Do you recall 

that question? 

Mr. PEREZ. I do not recall the question, but I know the answer 

to the question. And the answer is yes. 

Mr. KING. Okay, thank you. And I would just point out for the 

Committee that Mr. Gohmert, although he is not able to be here 

today, asked that question five times before he got that straight answer. And I appreciate the clarity that comes today. I do not think 

we had it then. 

And I would see if we could clarify something else again. On that 

day, you testified that the maximum penalty was obtained against 

the, let me say, perpetrator, singular, of the voter intimidation of 

the New Black Panthers. Do you believe that today, that the maximum penalty was obtained? 

Mr. PEREZ. The maximum penalty in that case was injunctive relief, and that is the maximum penalty under Section 11 of the Voting Rights Act. If Congress wants to expand the penalties, we 

would be happy to have that discussion. So, that was the maximum 

penalty. And as I recall—— 

Mr. KING. Would I be naive if I were led to believe that injunctive relief was a clear and concise definition under the law, that everybody else here understands the scope of injunctive relief, or 

could you describe the full scope of injunctive relief that was available as a means to bring against the defendant? 

Mr. PEREZ. The scope of injunctive relief depends on the scope of 

the violation. And once the national party and the leader of the national party were dismissed from the case, then the scope of the relief had to, by force of law, be appropriately and narrowly tailored 

to fit the violation. 

Mr. KING. Could it have been more narrowly tailored than it actually was then? 

Mr. PEREZ. I would have to review that to figure out the narrow 

tailoring. What I would note is that, again, looking at the OPR report, the OPR looked at this precise question, Congressman, and 

concluded that the relief sought was indeed appropriate given the 

application of the facts and law in that particular case. So, OPR 

looked—— 

Mr. KING. And so, the definition then of injunctive relief might 

be narrow or it might be broad. But are you testifying before this 

Committee that the injunctive relief could not have been more 

broad? Could it not have gone beyond Philadelphia, for example, 

into other jurisdictions, perhaps nationwide? Could it have not extended beyond the 2012 election? This injunction is just about 

ready to expire. After the next election, it is over. So, is it not possible that the injunctive relief could have been greater than that 

that was achieved? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, as I understand the law, sir, an injunction 

must be narrowly tailored to the violation. And the key in this particular case was that once the national party and the leader of the 

national party were dismissed, then the injunctive relief had to be 

appropriately and narrowly tailored—— 

Mr. KING. Let me submit that I believe that could have been a 

nationwide injunction, and that it could have gone on in perpetuity, 

46 

and no one should be passed the statute of, let me say, the injunction limitations by a single election being ahead of them. 

What about the decision to drop the case against the other alleged defendants that were allegedly involved in that Philadelphia 

case? 

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield for clarification for a 

second? 

Mr. KING. In a moment. I will yield when my time runs out. It 

is very close right now. Thank you. 

But the decision to drop the cases against the other individuals, 

you testified, was made not by political, but by career employees. 

And I think the names were Loretta King and Mr. Rosenbaum. 

Does that still remain the case, or would you wish to clarify that 

before the Committee? 

Mr. PEREZ. The decision was made by Loretta King and Steve 

Rosenbaum, two people who are career attorneys in the Division 

with combined experience of roughly 60 years or so. 

Mr. KING. And it was not overruled or reviewed with input from 

political appointees, Perelli and Hirsch? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, as I have described before the commission, any time you make a decision—I have a regular Thursday 

meeting with the Associate Attorney General and other people on 

the leadership chain. When you are making a decision, I am about 

to do something, an issue in case A. We are about to—— 

Mr. KING. But the question was, it was not overruled by or influenced unduly by political appointees? 

Mr. PEREZ. No. And, again, the OPR report concluded, and they 

did not say that there was scant evidence or insufficient evidence 

of political interference. They said there was no evidence of political interference. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Perez, would you get back to this Committee in 

response to the question, was it possible under the law to broaden 

this injunctive relief to jurisdictions beyond Philadelphia and extend it beyond the 2012 election? I think the specificity with that 

is going to tell us is whether we got the straightest of answers the 

last time in December of 2009. And I am frustrated that the Department has so many allegations against it that it has focused on 

issues that have to do with this loading on the side of minorities 

when equal justice under the law, as you’re charged and you testified to that here today, that narratives that come out and the evidence that there is is replete across the country. And so, I am concerned that Lady Justice is and truly blindfolded, and that you address these issues without regard to skin color or ethnicity, national origin. 

And so, at this point, I do thank you for your testimony, and I 

hope you can identify for this Committee some time when you 

bring a case against someone in a very clear way. And I know you 

have discussed it, but I would like to have some details about the 

case that you brought that is part of the package that you brought, 

which is the race role if you please. 

And now, I know the gentleman from New York has asked if I 

would yield, and I would be happy to do so? 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I just want to clarify a matter. I am 

told that the injunction has not in fact expired and will not expire. 

47 

The jurisdiction of the court to supervise enforcement of the injunction will expire, but the injunction does not expire. 

Mr. KING. Well, I thank the gentleman for his input and yield 

back the balance of my time. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perez, about 70 years ago this month, President Roosevelt 

signed an executive order, 8802, which prohibited discrimination in 

any defense contracts. In ’65, President Johnson signed an executive order expanding that. So, there has been no discrimination in 

Federal contracts at all until recently. 

Under your administration, is it possible for administrators of 

Federal programs to discriminate based on religion; that is, to tell 

somebody they are not qualified for a job paid for with Federal 

money solely because of their religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, I think we have had this conversation a 

number of times. 

Mr. SCOTT. Yeah. Well, the answer yes or no? 

Mr. PEREZ. And, again, if there are legal questions that arise 

with the administration of a program, we will look at the specific 

individual facts of a particular case to determine whether there is 

in fact discrimination. And if we find that there is in fact discrimination, we will indeed take appropriate action. 

Mr. SCOTT. Does that mean if a program sponsor said we do not 

hire people of your religion, you would take action? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, again, I need to know the totality of the circumstances, which is why it is difficult—— 

Mr. SCOTT. If it is a faith-based organization running a federallyfunded program and they have an articulated policy of discriminating solely on religion, is that legal under your administration? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, we are committed, as I have said, to ensuring that we enforce these laws that you are describing consistent with the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Does the law allow the discrimination or not? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, sir, I need more facts. And that is why—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Faith-based organization—— 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. When Congressman Nadler asked 

about—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Are you telling me—— 

Mr. PEREZ. When Congressman Nadler asked about the voter ID 

laws, they are very fact intensive. These particular issues are similarly fact intensive. We are very concerned about the issues that 

you brought up. I have had, as you know, multiple conversations 

with you about these issues. And, again, I am more than willing 

to continue to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. And you have not acknowledged publicly that it is 

legal under your administration for a program to discriminate solely on religion. And you just will not acknowledge it. I mean, are 

you too embarrassed about the policy—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir—— 

48 

Mr. SCOTT [continuing]. To say, yes, under your administration, 

there are certain sponsors that can discriminate solely based on religion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, what I have said, Congressman, is that I want 

to look at the totality of the circumstances. If there is—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I said is it possible. 

Mr. PEREZ. It is certainly possible that such discrimination would 

be there. But I do not like to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, not there. I said legal. 

Mr. PEREZ. I do not want to issue categorical statements, sir, because absent of specifics of a given factual circumstance, it is, I 

think, ill advised to render broad opinions, just as—— 

Mr. SCOTT. It is not a broad opinion. I just asked you simply 

whether it is possible under your administration for any sponsor of 

a federally-funded program to have an articulated policy discriminating against people solely based on religion or not. Is it possible? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, again, I will reiterate what I have said today and 

a few other times. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the answer is yes, it is possible, faith-based organizations have the right—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, it is, sir, it is possible. But, again, I need to understand the—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Did you say it was possible? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, could I hear the rest of your question, sir? 

Mr. SCOTT. Is it possible for a faith-based organization to tell a 

job applicant that we do not hire people of your religion, even 

though you would be paid with Federal money? 

Mr. PEREZ. Oh, okay. I thought you asked the opposite question. 

Is it possible that such activity would constitute discrimination, 

and I said, yes, it is possible. We would have to look at the totality 

of the circumstances. 

Mr. SCOTT. And the other question is, of course it is discrimination. Is it legal? 

Mr. PEREZ. Unlawful discrimination. 

Mr. SCOTT. Can it be legal? Can it be legal? 

Mr. PEREZ. It is possible that the circumstances you described 

would constitute unlawful discrimination, which is why I would 

want to look at the totality of the circumstances. 

Mr. SCOTT. It is possible that it could be unlawful, and it is possible that it could be lawful. 

Mr. PEREZ. And it all depends on the factual circumstances of the 

matter. And so, that is why I would want to—— 

Mr. SCOTT. So, getting back to my original question that you do 

not want to answer, because I assume you are just too embarrassed 

to have a declaratory sentence that it is possible under your administration to run a federally-funded program and have an articulated policy of discriminating solely based on religion in employment. Is it possible? 

Mr. PEREZ. As a general matter, Congressman—I will see if I can 

attempt to address your question again—it is unlawful for any employer to have a policy specifically discriminating against employees of a particular religion, such as Catholics or Jews—if you put 

a sign up, no Catholics need apply. However, qualifying religious 

organizations may give employment preferences to co-religionists. 

49 

And so, the question of whether and under what circumstances a 

particular religious organization may prefer co-religionists in employment with respect to positions funded by the U.S. is indeed 

complicated, fact driven, and context dependent. And that is why 

it is impossible for me to give you a categorical one size fits all answer. 

Mr. SCOTT. I did not ask for one size fits all. I asked you to acknowledge that under your administration it is possible to run a 

program and have an articulated policy of employment discrimination solely based on religion. And all you have given is a bunch of 

mumbo jumbo avoiding the question. The answer is yes. Yes, you 

can under certain circumstances tell a job applicant, no, you cannot 

have a job because we do not hire people of your religion. And that 

is the answer, and you refuse to give it, I assume, because you are 

too embarrassed to acknowledge the fact. 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I have done my best to answer your question. I 

apologize that it is not good enough for you. 

Mr. FRANKS. With that, I want to thank the witness for his testimony. And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative 

days to submit to the Chair additional written questions for Mr. 

Perez, including you, Mr. Scott, which we will forward and ask Mr. 

Perez to respond promptly so that his answers may be made part 

of the record. 

And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days 

within which to submit any additional materials for inclusion in 

the record. 

And with that, again, I thank the Members, and I thank Mr. 

Perez and the observers. 

And this hearing is now adjourned. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your courtesy. 

[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(51) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice 


66613F-1.eps
52 


66613F-2.eps
53 


66613F-3.eps
54 


66613F-4.eps
55 


66613F-5.eps
56 


66613F-6.eps
57 


66613F-7.eps
58 


66613F-8.eps
59 


66613F-9.eps
60 


66613F-10.eps
61 


66613F-11.eps
62 


66613F-12.eps
63 


66613F-13.eps
64 


66613F-14.eps
65 


66613F-15.eps
66 


66613F-16.eps
67 


66613F-17.eps
68 


66613F-18.eps
69 

Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the U.S. Department of Justice 


66613G-1.eps
70 


66613G-2.eps
71 


66613G-3.eps
72 


66613G-4.eps
73 


66613G-5.eps
74 


66613G-6.eps
75 


66613G-7.eps
76 


66613G-8.eps
77 


66613G-9.eps
78 


66613G-10.eps
79 


66613G-11.eps
80 


66613G-12.eps
81 


66613G-13.eps
82 


66613G-14.eps
83 


66613G-15.eps
84 


66613G-16.eps
85 


66613G-17.eps
86 


66613G-18.eps
87 


66613G-19.eps
88 


66613G-20.eps
89 


66613G-21.eps
90 


66613G-22.eps
91 


66613G-23.eps
92 


66613G-24.eps
93 


66613G-25.eps
94 


66613G-26.eps
95 


66613G-27.eps
96 


66613G-28.eps
97 


66613G-29.eps
98 


66613G-30.eps
99 


66613G-31.eps
100 


66613G-32.eps
101 


66613G-33.eps
102 


66613G-34.eps
103 


66613G-35.eps
104 


66613G-36.eps
105 


66613G-37.eps
106 


66613G-38.eps
107 


66613G-39.eps
108 


66613G-40.eps
109 


66613G-41.eps
110 


66613G-42.eps
111 


66613G-43.eps
112 


66613G-44.eps
113 


66613G-45.eps
114 


66613G-46.eps
115 


66613G-47.eps
116 


66613G-48.eps
117 


66613G-49.eps
118 


66613G-50.eps
119 


66613G-51.eps
120 


66613G-52.eps
121 


66613G-53.eps
122 


66613G-54.eps
123 


66613G-55.eps
124 

f 


66613G-56.eps
125 

Prepared Statement of Sean Bennett 

Æ 


66613H.eps