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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

87–095 PDF 2003

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF JUSTICE

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

MAY 15, 2003

Serial No. 26

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., Wisconsin, Chairman 

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

CHRIS CANNON, Utah 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MARK GREEN, Wisconsin 

RIC KELLER, Florida 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

JEFF FLAKE, Arizona 

MIKE PENCE, Indiana 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

JOHN R. CARTER, Texas 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

MARTIN T. MEEHAN, Massachusetts 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California

PHILIP G. KIKO, Chief of Staff-General Counsel 

PERRY H. APELBAUM, Minority Chief Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio, Chairman

STEVE KING, Iowa 

WILLIAM L. JENKINS, Tennessee 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

JOHN N. HOSTETTLER, Indiana 

MELISSA A. HART, Pennsylvania 

TOM FEENEY, Florida 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

ROBERT C. SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California

CRYSTAL M. ROBERTS, Chief Counsel 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Counsel 

D. MICHAEL HURST, JR., Counsel 

DAVID LACHMANN, Minority Professional Staff Member 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 15, 2003

OPENING STATEMENT 

Page 

The Honorable Steve Chabot, a Representative in Congress From the State 

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

The Honorable Melvin L. Watt, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of North Carolina ................................................................................................. 2

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

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

WITNESSES 

The Honorable Ralph F. Boyd, Jr., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights 

Division, Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 4

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Civil Rights Division FY2004 Proposed Budget submitted by Chairman 

Chabot ................................................................................................................... 23

(1)

REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

THURSDAY, MAY 15, 2003

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC.

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 3:05 p.m., in Room 

2141, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Steve Chabot (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Mr. CHABOT. The Committee will come to order. This is the Subcommittee on the Constitution. And as I mentioned before, Mr. 

Boyd, the votes on the floor have concluded for the week and attendance at the Committee meetings has a tendency to be a bit 

lower once the final votes have ended for the week, so please don’t 

take that personally. 

This afternoon the Subcommittee on the Constitution convenes to 

review the progress of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice for the purpose of reauthorizing the Department. 

Since its inception in 1957, the Division has sought to protect the 

civil rights of all Americans by enforcing laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin. We are proud of the accomplishments of the Division in combating discrimination in areas as diverse as education, employment, housing, lending, public accommodations, and voting. Over 

the years, the Assistant Attorney General has played a crucial role 

in establishing Division policy and providing executive guidance 

and direction to further the important work of the Division. 

Beginning in 2001, the Division added 52 new positions, which 

has allowed it to expand its work related to enforcement of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons Act, the Voting Rights Act, and its trafficking in persons program. As a result, the Division has opened 194 percent 

more CRIPA investigations than were opened in 1999 and 2000; 

the Division has charged, convicted, or secured human trafficking 

sentences at a rate that is at a 300 percent increase over the Division’s related work in 1999 and 2000; the Division has twice as 

many pending human trafficking investigations than were pending 

in January of 2001; and it has more than doubled the number of 

formal settlement agreements reached under the ADA when compared to the last 2 years of the prior Administration. 

2

Finally, on November 5, 2002, the Department of Justice sent 

324 Federal observers and 108 Justice Department personnel to 26 

counties in 14 States to monitor the general election. In addition, 

the entire Washington, DC, office was on standby to address any 

issues that arose, and the U.S. Attorneys offices across the Nation 

were instructed to field calls throughout the day. The Department’s 

efforts to ensure that all Americans had access to the voting process during last fall’s general election was its largest effort in 10 

years. 

I should also highlight the Division’s ongoing work related to the 

terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, and incidents of discriminatory backlash. Since September 11, 2001, the Division has investigated nearly 500 incidents of discriminatory backlash and has 

helped coordinate efforts leading to approximately 90 prosecutions 

initiated by Federal, State, and local prosecutors. Of the 13 Federal 

prosecutions initiated to date, there have been convictions of 15 defendants in 12 of the 13 cases. Indeed, Hussein Ibish, Communications Director for the Arab American Anti-Discrimination Committee called the efforts of Federal, State, and local law enforcement officials since the attacks ‘‘excellent,’’ and characterized the 

investigations and prosecutions as ‘‘vigorous.’’ Similarly, a report 

released by Human Rights Watch in November 2002 concluded 

that ‘‘in many cases, Government officials responded quickly and 

vigorously to the backlash violence.’’

I know that all the Members of our Subcommittee will have various questions regarding specific cases and policies. In fact, we plan 

to discuss the Division’s extensive involvement in the patterns and 

practice investigation in my community in Cincinnati. 

It is important for the Division to continue to play an important 

role in safeguarding the civil rights of all Americans. I look forward 

to examining the Division’s work over the past year this afternoon. 

And I would turn now to Mr. Watt to see if he would like to make 

an opening statement. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I won’t take the full 5 

minutes, but I appreciate the Chairman convening the hearing. 

I am anxious to hear the testimony of Mr. Boyd. And I am always anxious to hear what this Administration says it is doing in 

the area of civil rights because the perception in my community is 

that it has taken some major steps away from some important 

principles. So whatever I can be—whatever I can hear, particularly 

from my friend Mr. Boyd, that will help me to feel better about 

that; I want to be the first to hear. So I hope that he will make 

me feel better and that we can do something to address this perception in the minority community of this Administration’s position 

on affirmative action and whatever is going on in Texas at this moment. I would especially like to hear something about how we got 

into another round of redistricting off the 10-year scheduled cycle. 

So if he could address those at some point, I would be delighted. 

But I will be happy to yield back in the interest of time because 

I am going to have to get out of here at 4 o’clock to get to the airport. So I am going to give him the opportunity to say what he has 

to say rather than listening to me. 

I yield back. 

3

Mr. CHABOT. Mr. King or Mr. Jenkins, either of you gentlemen 

like to make a statement? 

The Ranking Member, Mr. Nadler, is here. Jerry, would you like 

to make a statement? As Mr. Nadler is getting things ready up 

here, I will make the introduction and then we will turn to him if 

that is okay with you, Mr. Boyd. 

Our witness today will be Ralph Boyd, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. Mr. 

Boyd is responsible for the Department’s enforcement of the Nation’s civil rights laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of 

race, sex, handicap, religion, and national origin in areas that include housing, education, voting, employment, and public accommodation. 

Prior to his appointment in 2001, Mr. Boyd served as a partner 

at the Boston firm of Goodwin Procter. From 1991 to 1997, he 

served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in Boston, prosecuting firearms, homicides, trafficking, and gang violence cases. Mr. Boyd coordinated Operation Trigger Lock, a national gun crime prosecution program, and served as a member of the Department’s Urban 

Anti-Crime Initiative. 

Mr. Boyd is a recipient of the Attorney General’s Special 

Achievement Award. He graduated from Haverford College and 

earned his law degree at Harvard University. 

And we welcome you here this afternoon, Mr. Boyd. And before 

we get to you, I will turn to Mr. Nadler and see if he would like 

to make an opening statement. 

Mr. NADLER. I would indeed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I want to join you in welcoming today’s witness and to commend 

you for scheduling this important and timely oversight hearing. 

The protection of fundamental civil rights is one of the hallmarks 

of the American experiment. Without effective protection of our 

civil rights, many Americans would remain consigned to the margins of our society and unable to fulfill the promise of this great 

Nation. 

The ideal of equality and freedom has too often been more an aspiration than a reality for too many of our neighbors. Indeed the 

history of the United States is reflected in an ongoing struggle to 

make good on the promises made in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights for everyone. In fact, I would say the 

history of the United States is largely a history of the expanding 

understanding of that phrase in the Declaration of Independence 

where it says that all men are created equal. When it was written, 

the understanding was that ‘‘men’’ meant men. Women didn’t have 

the vote, and no one expected them to. Certainly didn’t mean black 

people. Certainly didn’t mean Native Americans. Today, at least 

formally, we all acknowledge that it means black people, it means 

women, it means Native Americans, it means people of every color, 

creed, et cetera. We don’t live up to that all the time, but at least 

formally we say we mean it. 

It does not yet mean in the conceding of everyone gay, lesbian 

people, and transgendered people. One day our age will be looked 

upon as ancient and barbaric because we still haven’t recognized 

that. But one day we will recognize that. The day has not yet come. 

It is still possible for Members of Congress not even to pay lip servVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Jul 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\051503\87095.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87095
4

ice. It is possible for some Members of Congress not to sign statements that say they won’t discriminate in hiring based on sexual 

orientation. But that day will be regarded eventually as a barbaric 

day, too, because the continuing expansion of our understanding of 

the meaning of the Declaration of Independence will continue is inexorable. And to make sure it is inexorable is why we are having 

this hearing today. 

In advancing that cause, the Civil Rights Division has a crucial 

role to play in the enforcement of those rights under law. As such, 

the Division holds a sacred trust in the fulfillment of our Nation’s 

core values. However, exercise of that trust is the subject of today’s 

hearings. I look forward to the testimony and to the opportunity to 

engage in a dialogue with our witness. 

And, again, I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

And before we go on, I would ask for unanimous consent that all 

Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend 

their remarks and to include extraneous material. 

And now we will turn to you, Mr. Boyd, and thank you very 

much. 

STATEMENT OF HONORABLE RALPH F. BOYD, JR., ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the 

opportunity to be here. 

Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Nadler, and other distinguished 

Members of this Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss 

the important work of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice. I really do appreciate having the opportunity to tell you 

what the Division is doing, what it has accomplished, and of course 

to answer your questions about our work. 

Now, I know that there may be individual issues in cases about 

which the distinguished Members of this Committee will have 

questions or concerns that they may wish to raise. And I look forward to addressing those concerns because as I have said many 

times before, I believe that the unvarnished record of the Civil 

Rights Division demonstrates its vigorous and, in many instances, 

stepped-up and, of course, even-handed and principled enforcement 

of our Nation’s civil rights laws on this watch. And I hope the 

truth—maybe not necessarily me, but the truth of the Civil Rights 

Division’s work—will give you, Mr. Watt, comfort and other Members of this Committee, as well as America’s people, comfort about 

what we are doing and the vigor and commitment with which we 

are doing it. 

Let me say something, though, at the outset, and that is that 99 

percent of what we do, that is 99 percent of the hard work done 

by the lawyers in the Civil Rights Division, is never discussed, 

never heralded or criticized in the press, here or anywhere else, 

and that is simply because it is not controversial; yet that is very 

much the work—precisely the kind of work, the kind of vigilant 

civil rights enforcement that the American people and Members of 

this Committee expect of us. 

5

I have said many times before that I am not a person who believes that the law and the facts are infinitely malleable. I believe 

and I think our approach bears this out. But I do believe that the 

law and the facts are discernible, the truth is discernible, and there 

are usually right answers and wrong ones, good arguments and 

weak ones, and that it is our job to get the right answers and make 

the right arguments. 

We are lawyers for the United States, and that makes us different. As a consequence, our Nation’s courts and the American 

people have a right to expect more of us. And I think that the way 

we are conducting ourselves and the vigor with which we are doing 

it and the principal approaches that we are taking vindicate the 

trust that is placed in us. 

With that said, let me offer a brief summary of some of our work 

which reflects the extent to which the Civil Rights Division is doing 

as much as, or more in many instances, of the civil rights enforcement work of our Nation than ever before. 

And here are some of the examples of what I am talking about. 

Since the beginning of our watch, our attorneys have opened—and 

you referred to this, Mr. Chairman—investigations of 37 nursing 

homes, mental health facilities, and jails for violating the constitutional rights of their patients or inmates. That number is an almost 

200 percent increase over the prior 2 years. In fiscal 2002 alone, 

we pressed ahead with 173 cases from 33 different States. We have 

also charged, convicted, and secured sentences for 92 human traffickers in 21 cases for trafficking victims into the United States, a 

brutal crime marked by kidnapping, intimidation, assault, forced 

prostitution, and forced labor. That is a 300 percent increase over 

the prior 2-year period. 

And we have twice as many current pending investigations as I 

sit here today than we had pending in January 2001. And I might 

also add that just recently our Civil Rights Division criminal prosecutors successfully completed a 3-month Federal court trial in the 

District of Hawaii involving over 250 trafficking victims, most of 

them vulnerable women from Indochina, China, and Vietnam. 

We have also targeted employment discrimination by opening 65 

new investigations in 2002, 14 more than in 2001 and 48 more 

than in 2000. 

We are also targeting disability discrimination by more than doubling the number of formal settlement agreements reached under 

the Americans with Disabilities Act compared with 1999 and 2000. 

Since January of 2001, we have received more submissions under 

section 5 of the Voting Rights Act than ever before. And I am 

happy to report that we never missed a deadline. And we have 

been vigilant in preserving the rights of minority voters, as the 

Voting Rights Act was intended to do. We have launched significantly more objections to voting changes submitted to us under the 

Act than were lodged in 1999 and 2000. And we litigated or opened 

five vote dilution cases in the last year alone on behalf of Hispanic, 

African American, and Native American voters. 

And in the areas of housing, lending, and public accommodations, 

just in this past year alone we resolved the major redlining case 

in Chicago. That resolution resulted in a landmark settlement. 

6

We have brought a number of exclusionary zoning cases involving racial discrimination and disability discrimination. And we successfully tried a sexual harassment case in Jackson, MS, involving 

a landlord who took advantage of and assaulted mostly AfricanAmerican and poor women tenants. And we also settled, on very 

favorable terms, a case involving national origin discrimination 

against a major Midwest hotel for its handling of an Arab American businessmen’s convention in the immediate aftermath of September 11. 

These are just a few highlights of the work that we have done, 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. 

And let me say a few words about our work with respect to the 

enforcement of our Federal criminal civil rights laws, especially in 

the context of the war on terrorism. I know that in the wake of 

September 11 and given the conflict in Iraq, many thoughtful people in our country have been concerned about our fellow citizens as 

well as welcomed guests to America who may be Muslim, who may 

be Arab, Sikh, South Asian, or who may appear to be Middle Eastern. 

Since September 13, 2001, the Civil Rights Division has tracked 

and targeted what we have been calling backlash crimes, working 

with the 56 field FBI offices and the 94 U.S. Attorneys offices 

across America, and several hundred of the more than 18,000 State 

and local law enforcement authorities. And working with them, we 

have investigated nearly 500 incidents since September 11, ranging 

from the attempted fire bombing of a Seattle mosque to a conspiracy to blow up a Los Angeles area mosque, along with the district offices of one of your colleagues, a Palestinian-American Member of this body, to another conspiracy involving the stockpiling of 

weapons and explosives for the purpose of attacking a Florida Islamic community center, to an outright drive-by shooting and murder of an immigrant in the Mesa, AZ, area. 

Through coordinated and combined efforts among Federal, State, 

and local law enforcement authorities, approximately 100 prosecutions have been initiated, and these prosecutions have proceeded in 

tandem with sustained outreach efforts to vulnerable people, and 

especially to vulnerable and insular communities across America 

after September 11, and also during the run-up to the Iraq war. 

And just last February, while all of this was happening, our prosecutors, working with our other prosecutors from the United States 

Attorney’s Office in Mississippi, convicted Ernest Henry Avants, a 

former member of the Ku Klux Klan, for killing an elderly AfricanAmerican farm worker in 1966. Murder cases are often difficult to 

prosecute successfully when they are fresh, but a four-decade-old 

murder case presents difficulties and challenges of a whole other 

magnitude. But I am happy to say, I am gratified to say, that our 

people were more than up to it. 

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, we have been 

busy. Congress has been forthcoming with tools and resources, and 

I am pleased to be able to report that we have been putting them 

to good use. My hope is that this hearing today will help us do an 

even better job of that. 

With that said, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I welcome the 

Committee’s questions. 

7

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you Mr. Boyd. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Boyd follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF RALPH F. BOYD, JR. 

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Minority Member Nadler, and other members of the 

Committee: 

Thank you for inviting me to discuss the important work of the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice. I appreciate the opportunity to tell you what the 

Division has accomplished, answer your questions about our work, and listen to 

your concerns about what I am proud to say is our even-handed, principled, vigorous 

enforcement of the Nation’s civil rights laws. 

Many offices in many agencies of the federal government handle what might be 

called civil rights issues, but only one office has as its sole mission the enforcement 

of federal civil rights laws across a broad spectrum of human activity. We are the 

ones who prosecute federal bias-motivated crimes; who enforce the federal voting 

rights laws; who fight discrimination in education and employment and housing; 

who target state-run nursing homes and mental health facilities that mistreat their 

patients. 

It is a constant, vigilant effort; and it is my unique privilege to lead that effort, 

to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. I truly believe that the laws enforced by my Division reflect nothing less than America’s highest aspirations: America is a place that, more than anything else—and more than 

anywhere else—cherishes the individual’s right to find happiness, to find fulfillment, 

be that fulfillment physical or mental, material or spiritual. And the core underpinning of that highest priority, the central guarantee that each of us will, in fact, be 

free to pursue our dreams, is equal justice under law. That is laws that do not favor 

one race, one ethnicity, or one religion at the expense of another; laws that protect 

the vulnerable and the weak. 

We have those laws. It is my great privilege to enforce them. And those laws, enacted again and again by a democratically chosen Congress, reflect a people concerned not just with protecting their own individual liberties, their own chances to 

succeed, but who have taken up the cause of their fellow man, and so are willing 

to protect the liberty of those who are different from them.

Justice Charles Evans Hughes once said, ‘‘While democracy must have its organizations and controls, its vital breath is individual liberty.’’ He was right—anyone 

who doubts it should spend a few days in any of the litigating sections in my Division. What they would find is civil rights law enforcement conducted with professionalism and integrity. 

Those are my watchwords. I came to this job as a former prosecutor and experienced litigator and, as my staff is sick of hearing, what I do is call balls and 

strikes—decisions in my Division are made based on the law and facts relevant to 

a given situation, and without regard to politics. The Civil Rights Division carries 

out its enforcement mission in a way that is faithful to the law and the factual truth 

as we find it. I will not budge from that principle, ever. And because of that, I stand 

behind every decision this Division has made since I arrived nearly two years ago. 

I know there are individual issues, individual cases, about which the distinguished members of this Committee will have questions. I look forward to addressing them. But let me say something at the outset: 99 percent of what we do, 99 

percent of the hard work done by the lawyers in my Division, is never discussed—

never heralded or criticized, in the press, here, or anywhere else—simply because 

it is not controversial. Yet all of that work is precisely the kind of vigilant civil 

rights enforcement that the American people and this Committee expect of us. 

Let me briefly summarize just some of it, to give it a fraction of the credit due 

to the hard working attorneys in the Division. The lawyers in the Civil Rights Division are doing more—and more aggressive—civil rights law enforcement today than 

ever before.

• Since the beginning of this administration, our attorneys have opened investigations of 37 nursing homes, mental health facilities, and jails for violating 

the constitutional rights of their patients or inmates. That number is a 194 

percent increase over the previous two year period. In fiscal 2002 alone we 

pressed 173 cases in 33 states.

• We have charged, convicted, or secured sentences for 92 human traffickers in 

21 cases for trafficking victims into the United States—a brutal crime marked 

by kidnaping, intimidation, assault, forced prostitution and forced labor. That 

is a 300 percent increase over the prior two-year period, and we have twice 

8

as many currently pending investigations now than we had pending in January of 2001.

• We have also targeted employment discrimination, by opening 65 new investigations in 2002—14 more than in 2001 and 48 more than in 2000.

• We are also targeting disability discrimination by more than doubling the 

number of formal settlement agreements reached under the ADA, compared 

with the last two years of the prior administration.

• Since January of 2001, we’ve received more submissions under Section 5 of 

the Voting Rights Act (VRA) than ever before, and we’ve never missed a deadline. And we have been vigilant in preserving the minority voting rights the 

VRA was intended to protect: we have lodged significantly more objections to 

voting changes submitted to us under the Act than were lodged in 1999–2000. 

And we have litigated or opened five vote dilution cases in the last year 

alone—on behalf of Hispanic, Black and Native American voters.

These highlights are just a sampling. 

Finally, I would like to report on our efforts in an area that has been on the 

minds of many both in government and the general public over the last two years, 

and that is the treatment in this country, in the wake of September 11, 2001, and 

the war in Iraq, of Arab, Muslim, Sikh, South Asian, and other Americans who may 

appear to be of Middle Eastern origin. Since September 13, 2001, my Division has 

tracked and targeted what we have been calling ‘‘backlash’’ crimes. Working with 

the 56 FBI field offices, the 94 US Attorneys Offices, and state and local authorities, 

we have investigated nearly 500 incidents since September 11, ranging from the attempted firebombing of a mosque to outright murder. Through coordinated efforts 

among federal and state authorities, approximately 90 prosecutions have been initiated by federal, state and local prosecutors. 

These efforts have borne fruit. Of the 13 federal prosecutions initiated to date, we 

have achieved convictions of 15 defendants in 12 of those 13 cases.

• Most recently we secured pleas in a Florida case in which a defendant was 

stockpiling weapons and explosives to launch as assault on a local Islamic 

community center. That individual pleaded guilty to conspiracy, attempting 

to damage religious property, and possession of unregistered firearms. We 

hope to secure a substantial prison term.

• In another recent case, a member of the Jewish Defense League (JDL) was 

successfully prosecuted for his role in a conspiracy to bomb a mosque and the 

field office of one of your colleagues—Congressman Issa. Earl Leslie Krugel 

pled guilty on February 4, 2003, to charges of conspiring to violate civil 

rights, conspiring to harm a federal official, and bomb making activities. 

Using an informant within the JDL, the FBI monitored several discussions 

among Krugel and others in which they discussed destroying mosques and 

other Arab-American institutions. Sentencing has not yet occurred, but 

Krugel faces a mandatory minimum of 10 years in prison on weapons-related 

charges.

These prosecution efforts have proceeded in tandem with sustained outreach efforts to communities affected by these crimes. There is much anxiety in our ArabAmerican communities about these backlash incidents and the overall war on terrorism, and we consider it a priority to reach out to these citizens, allay fears, and 

dispel the chronic rumors and misinformation surrounding our anti-terrorism efforts. I have personally spoken out—over 30 times—in closed door sessions, in 

mosques, in town hall meetings across America against violence and threats aimed 

at vulnerable people and affected communities. My senior staff has added to this 

total, as have numerous other representatives from the Department. Overall we 

have covered more than 250 public gatherings over the last two years to discuss 

publicly the concerns of Americans of Middle Eastern origin. 

The Civil Rights Division also coordinates these activities with other Department 

of Justice components including the Community Relations Service (CRS). It is worth 

noting that CRS initiated an extensive national outreach program, meeting over 250 

times with national and local Arab-American, Muslim-American, Sikh-American, 

and South-Asian American leaders throughout the country; and deployed conflict 

resolution specialists to more than fifty communities to alleviate racial tensions and 

address acts of violence against such groups. The Division is proud to fight such 

backlash crimes alongside other professionals within the Department, such as CRS. 

9

CONCLUSION

Chairman Chabot, Ranking Minority Member Nadler, I’ve been litigating cases for 

the better part of two decades, both as a prosecutor and as a private lawyer. I can 

tell you that the quality and quantity of civil rights enforcement work coming from 

the Civil Rights Division, during the almost two years I have been there, is exceptional by any reasonable measure, and lately, with these efforts has come vindication. 

Last November, because of the leadership of Attorney General Ashcroft and the 

efforts of our Voting Rights Section and U.S. Attorney’s Offices across the country, 

we had the most trouble-free nationwide election in recent memory. 

In February, we convicted Ernest Henry Avants, a former KKK member, in federal court in Mississippi, for killing an elderly African-American farm worker in 

1966. Avants, with two others, lured Ben Chester White into a forest, shot him multiple times, and threw his body off a bridge. All because the man was black. Unfortunately for Avants, that forest was federal land, and federal prosecutors in my Division finally were able to bring justice where it long had been denied. 

Also in February, in Hawaii, after a three month trial, we won a jury verdict in 

the largest human trafficking prosecution ever attempted, on behalf of 250 victims 

from China and Vietnam who were enslaved in a garment factory on American 

Samoa. 

In March, we won a federal injunction barring a Massachusetts public school from 

suppressing religious speech by its students. 

On March 31, the United States Supreme Court validated, in all respects, the Division’s handling of the Mississippi congressional redistricting submission. 

In April, working with the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston, we won a hard fought 

case to require stadium-style movie theaters to comply with the wheelchair accessibility requirements of the ADA. 

But even with these victories, we can always do more, and I am committed to 

doing more. I am reminded almost every day that ordinary citizens look to this Division for help—for vindication—be it for a racially-motivated murder 40 years ago, 

or for equal voting rights today. 

I hope that today’s hearing will help our effort. Thank you for permitting me the 

opportunity to appear before you, and I look forward to answering your questions.

Mr. CHABOT. The Members will now have 5 minutes to ask questions, and I recognize myself for that purpose. And I thank you for 

being here this afternoon. 

I would like to start by raising a couple of issues related to the 

Justice Department’s patterns and practices investigation, as I 

mentioned before, and the ensuing agreement in Cincinnati. As you 

know, many in Cincinnati have become disillusioned by the agreement and the mandates being required of the police. Much of this 

comes from what we are witnessing on the streets every day. This 

year, Cincinnati is on a pace to have over 80 murders, more 

killings than at any time in our city’s history. This follows 64 homicides in 2002, and that was a 15-year high, surpassing the 63 people killed the year before in 2001, and that was the year that the 

riots unfortunately occurred in our community. All of this has occurred during a period in which the city’s population has declined. 

These murders are becoming increasing brazen. Earlier this 

month, a shootout took place on Fountain Square, the symbolic 

heart of the city. It occurred on a Friday night when the square 

was crowded and a neighboring restaurant was bustling with activity, and one man was killed in the shooting. Fortunately, no one 

else was injured although many innocent bystanders were forced to 

run for cover to avoid flying bullets. 

The violence has also reached into almost every neighborhood in 

our city. In mid-April, two individuals started shooting at each 

other from opposite sides of Harrison Avenue. And that is in one 

of the city’s busiest arteries. This occurred in the residential neighborhood where I happened to have lived and raised my family. I 

10

lived there for over 40 years myself. This is unheard of, this type 

of thing. 

Despite the best efforts of our local police, we have witnessed a 

breakdown in law and order during the past 2 years. Not coincidently there is growing sentiment that the agreement with the 

Justice Department may be contributing to this dangerous situation. Yet despite these dangerous trends and the concerns in the 

community, it appears that DOJ is seeking to put additional restrictions and mandates on the police. 

Over the past 2 months, I have had several discussions with Cincinnati police leaders who are very concerned over these mandates. 

One specific concern the police have relates to some of the changes 

in the canine policy, which they feel will put the police and the 

dogs at unnecessary risk. 

But of greater concern has been the DOJ’s proposed implementation of the ‘‘hard hands’’ reporting policy, which I am told is being 

interpreted so broadly as to require a use-of-force investigation for 

every instance of physical contact between officers and citizens, including incidents as minor as grabbing the arm of an disorderly 

suspect. My understanding is that it can take as long as 2 hours 

to compile the necessary information and complete the paperwork 

to meet these requirements, and it requires the involvement of a 

supervisor. That is 2 hours that those officers are removed from 

their jobs protecting the streets of Cincinnati to instead fill out paperwork. 

At a time when the murder rate in Cincinnati is at a recordbreaking high, it is imperative that the police are allowed to do 

their jobs and not be unnecessarily burdened. The people rely on 

our police force to have a presence in our city and to ensure the 

citizens’ safety. 

And I have a couple of questions related to this. First, could you 

explain the dramatic rise of the murder rate in Cincinnati over the 

past 2 years, and do you think that the Department of Justice’s implementation of a patterns and practices investigation could have 

contributed to that increase? 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you for the question, Mr. Chairman, and thank 

you for giving me an opportunity to talk about Cincinnati because 

I think it is a case that America has looked to. 

As the Chair knows, law enforcement folks have a tough job. And 

our police officers, especially those who are assigned to the urban 

centers of America, have an especially tough job to do. We ask a 

lot of them. The challenges are great. And by and large, the overall 

preponderance of officers do an excellent job of effectively policing 

our cities in other areas of America, and very often they do it quite 

heroically and often far from the public limelight. So I want to recognize that. I think it is important for us to understand that. 

Having said that, one of the great things we asked them to do 

is to do an effective job of policing, in making America and Americans and visitors to America safe, but doing it within the rules. The 

Attorney General said on many occasions when it comes to effectively policing and making America safe, we are to think outside 

the box and do everything we can to make that a reality, but we 

can never think outside the law or the Constitution and that is 

true for all of America’s law enforcement officers. 

11

Let me say this specifically about what you described as an elevation in the violent crime situation in Cincinnati over the course 

of the last couple of years. 

Mr. CHABOT. I hate to interrupt you, but I ask unanimous consent for an additional 3 minutes. But my principal question—— Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, I don’t want to object, but I am wondering if we could do the first round and then go back because 

some of us have to leave. And if the people who are early on—I am 

not objecting. 

Mr. CHABOT. I will try to keep it within 3 minutes, but let me 

ask you if you could restrain it. Do you think there could be a relationship between the agreement and the increase in the crime rate 

and homicides specifically? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t think there is, Mr. Chairman. Or let me say 

this: There shouldn’t be. 

And let me also say this about the agreement, because you were 

concerned that the Department of Justice had been insisting on 

things that were much broader than what was agreed to in the 

memorandum of agreement between the Justice Department and 

the city. Let me say this very clearly. What we have called upon 

the city to do is what is clearly and I think inarguably required for 

it to do under the explicit terms of the MOA. We enter into those 

MOAs based on substantial findings that we make, and we did that 

in this case. 

Now, there are some concerns at the implementation stage that 

some of the things that the city agreed to that we talked about in 

great detail in negotiations are more burdensome than they 

thought. And what we have said in every one of these instances is 

we don’t think these are unduly burdensome requirements. Some 

of them, including the ‘‘hard hands’’ reporting policy that you 

talked about, are done in other cities and we haven’t received complaints about it. 

But the agreement provides for a process for seeking modification. If you want a modification, you have to ask. And if they ask, 

we will consider it in a timely and prompt and fair way. And in 

fact, on that issue of ‘‘hard hands’’ reporting, my deputies met yesterday with the city, along with the monitor, Saul Green, and that 

issue was easily resolved. So we think the agreement—everything 

in the agreement—is clear. 

What we have insisted the city to do is to live up to its word as 

set forth in the agreement. And where there are instances of disagreement or where the city thinks there needs to be a modification, there is a process for doing that, and we will be fair in our 

consideration of that process. 

But as I sit here today, I am happy to report that my understanding is that all of the outstanding issues are resolved on use 

of force, on reporting, canine policy, and the rest. As I sit here, my 

understanding is that there is no disagreement between any of the 

parties with respect to what the agreement requires. 

Mr. CHABOT. I think I have 1 minute left, and let me make sure 

I specifically hear you. Relative to the ‘‘hard hands’’ policy, you met 

with them and you were willing to discuss some alternatives to 

that. And I think one of the problems was this, to go right to the 

agreement: the term ‘‘hard hands’’ means using physical pressure 

12

to force a person against an object or the ground, or the use of 

physical strength or skill that causes pain or leaves a mark. And 

my understanding is they were being told that virtually any contact with the hands would require additional reporting. And their 

big concern is when you are filling out paperwork, you are not out 

on the street protecting the public. And I think what we want to 

be sensitive to and concerned about is that we have the police on 

the streets as much as possible, keeping the public safe, not just 

filling out paperwork. 

Mr. BOYD. Mr. Chairman, I can take 30 seconds. Certainly, we 

understand that. However, there were issues with respect to the 

use of force in Cincinnati. That provision didn’t make its way into 

the agreement because it was boilerplate. It was there because it 

was carefully calibrated to respond to specific aspects of the investigation, a very careful and thorough investigation we did there. 

I am happy to say, one of the things we asked the city during 

the negotiations: Do you want to have a sliding scale with respect 

to the extent of investigation depending on the modicum of force 

that was used? In other words, you don’t necessarily have to use 

the 2-hour process for an officer pushing somebody. You don’t have 

to do the same level of investigation you would do with the use of 

deadly force. And that was rejected during the negotiation. The city 

said no. We are fine with the 2-hour process that we use and we 

will use it across the board. 

Now, in the implementation stage—and I should tell you that the 

city responded to their requirements to provide revised policies that 

reflected the policies set forth in the MOA—the city was supposed 

to have done that by last July. And as of April of this year, they 

still hadn’t done it. So part of it is all of these things can be taken 

care of at the table with cooperation and communication, but what 

you can’t do is agree to something that is specifically an agreement—it is very clearly set forth in the agreement—not do it, and 

complain about it without raising a request for a modification. 

When that was done here, because the city thought that this was 

too burdensome, we entertained the modification. We met at today’s meeting, and I understand that there is full agreement between the parties with respect to what the MOA requires and what 

the city will do forthwith. 

Mr. CHABOT. Not to cut you off, but my time has expired, and 

it is my understanding that the minority side would like to recognize Mr. Watt. So he is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. I thank the Ranking Member for deferring to me in 

the interest of my being able to catch a flight. 

Mr. Boyd, are you familiar with the voting rights section 203 

complaint filed by Texas State Representative Raymond? 

Mr. BOYD. Yes. I believe it was filed and then withdrawn. 

Mr. WATT. The question is, did you or any person in the Civil 

Rights Division or any other person in the Department of Justice 

speak directly with Congressman DeLay or any member of his staff 

about this complaint? 

Mr. BOYD. As far as I know, Representative Watt, absolutely not. 

Mr. WATT. What is your Department’s policy about section 203 

complaints with Members of Congress? 

13

Mr. BOYD. When we receive a complaint and we are investigating 

a particular complaint, we try very hard not to have discussions 

with anyone except folks who have material information to provide 

with respect to the complaint. 

Mr. WATT. It is possible that a Member of Congress could have 

material information? 

Mr. BOYD. And we would want to hear from them. 

Mr. WATT. Do you know if Mr. DeLay had any material information for anybody in the Department on this complaint? 

Mr. BOYD. I do not know that he did, but I certainly know that 

my Division, as far as I know, didn’t have any contact with him 

whatsoever, directly or indirectly. 

Mr. WATT. There was some notion that your Department would 

have the capacity to turn this complaint around in 2 or 3 days. I 

understand that the staffing level in the voting rights section has 

been reduced; is that correct or is that incorrect? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t know that it has been. I know that certainly 

at some point in the near term, Congressman, it would make sense 

to start to think about reallocating some of those resources because, as you know, there isn’t as big a demand for human capital 

in the voting section. 

Mr. WATT. I understand. I am trying to find out if you have reduced it already, and how you would have, in light of that, been 

able to respond so quickly to the complaint. 

Mr. BOYD. To my knowledge, we have not reduced our resources. 

The voting section staffing has not been reduced. And there is no 

resource issue that I know of that would have affected our capacity 

to investigate promptly and make a decision promptly on a 203 

complaint. 

Mr. WATT. What is the Civil Rights Division’s role, if any, in 

what is going on in Texas? 

Mr. BOYD. To my knowledge, at this point we have no role. If 

there were a redistricting plan submitted, Texas is certainly a covered jurisdiction, at that point we would do a section 5 

preclearance review. But certainly with nothing having been submitted to us, as far as I know, we have no role. As far as I know, 

there isn’t any complaint that is pending before us that would give 

us jurisdiction in any other way under the Voting Rights Act. 

Mr. WATT. A little over year ago, I guess it was in May of last 

year in testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee when you 

were talking about racial profiling, you told the Committee that the 

Attorney General, quote, ‘‘The Attorney General has been very 

clear in saying not only is it wrong but it is unconstitutional, and 

he has tasked Deputy Attorney General Thompson with the responsibility of reviewing and studying the issue in the context of Federal law enforcement with an eye toward us providing some useful 

guidance about the ultimate elimination of racial profiling.’’

I am just wondering where that guidance is a year later so we 

can get on with this. 

Mr. BOYD. Let me answer the question this way. We have been 

diligently and steadfastly—when I say ‘‘we,’’ I mean my office and 

the Deputy Attorney General’s office—doing precisely what I said 

I would do. And certainly it is my hope and aspiration and, I even 

14

daresay, my expectation that we will be heard from in the near 

term with respect to both the report and guidance. 

Mr. WATT. In May 2004, I won’t have to ask this question again. 

Mr. BOYD. If you have to ask that question in May 2004, I will 

feel very badly about it and be enormously disappointed. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Iowa is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank you for holding this important and timely hearing. 

Mr. Boyd, I appreciate your testimony and your responses to our 

collective inquiries. I would just start right off about how you have 

gone through a list of some of the things that you have been doing 

with regard to civil rights. And I would say in this fashion, have 

you investigated or taken any action against anyone in America 

who was a target by a—by a minority? In other words, when it 

works the other way? Is any of that going on? 

Mr. BOYD. I can’t think of a specific case in which we have done 

that, but I would imagine in the several hundred cases that we 

have done, there may well be one of those cases. 

Mr. NADLER. Would the gentleman yield? There was a conviction 

in Federal court yesterday in New York City on such a case. 

Mr. BOYD. The answer would be yes. It would be the Nelson case. 

There was a second verdict returned in the U.S. District Court in 

the Eastern District of New York finding Mr. Nelson, an African 

American young man, guilty of a section 245 violation, guilty of violating the civil rights of a young Jewish student who was killed 

during a disturbance, now about 3 or 4 years ago. 

Mr. NADLER. Twelve years ago. 

Mr. KING. I thank the gentleman from New York for that information. And it is somewhat of an old case, but I think it does illustrate that they are extremely rare. And I think often we don’t focus 

on the balance of this, which is why I asked the question. 

And with the discussion on profiling and racial profiling with regard to police work, would you define the difference between good 

police work and racial profiling and what types of profiling are permissible under the guidelines that you are operating under? 

Mr. BOYD. I don’t want to get ahead of myself, but let me say 

this. I would offer this kind of broad outline. It seems to me that 

in the context of routine law enforcement, things like traffic stops, 

motor vehicle contacts between police and citizens, that the use of 

race would be inappropriate, with some exceptions. One of the 

clearest exceptions would be a situation where there is a suspectspecific description that may include race among other descriptive 

elements. In the context of ongoing investigations of criminal or 

terrorist enterprises where there is very good, trustworthy, reliable 

information that the enterprise—that the criminal enterprise or 

the terrorist enterprise—is of a particular ethnic or racially religious character; that is, its membership, its known membership, 

the use of race may be appropriate in that instance. But in the 

overwhelming number of circumstances where there is routine law 

enforcement, the use of race absent some specific, trustworthy information about a suspect would be generally inappropriate. In 

other words, it would be inappropriate to use race as a proxy for 

enhanced criminality. 

15

It is a different situation when there is specific information of a 

racial or ethnic character that is part of a description. But generally, to stereotype, to use race as a proxy to assume that someone 

may be more or less likely to commit a crime, would be inappropriate. 

Mr. KING. And that analysis would apply as well to our security, 

particularly the airline security? 

Mr. BOYD. In the national security context—and I want to be 

careful because I don’t want to jump ahead of ourselves—we will 

be speaking with some clarity about this, as I said, in the relatively 

near term. Where national security is involved, the Constitution, it 

seems to me, would be the limit with respect to what is appropriate 

for law enforcement to do. 

Mr. KING. In the broad outline in the statement, profiling is 

wrong and unconstitutional; that was brought out in a remark here 

by one of my colleagues, I will just point out a little vignette that 

sticks in my mind. And that is, as I watch a young Arab male walk 

through the security of the airport while a 75-year-old lady is taking her shoes off and she is going through the searching process, 

and I wonder how many times that multiplies itself over and over 

again, while we slow down and spend billions of dollars trying to 

reach some kind of a utopian version of—I will say—nonracist, nonbiased perfection. Would you comment on that, please? 

Mr. BOYD. I will say that this Congressman—I have heard that 

sentiment myself, given that I fly often several times a week. I 

have probably been through as many airports as anyone and taken 

off my shoes and belt as often as anyone. Let me say that I think 

the TSA, I think our Transportation Security folks are doing a very 

good and effective job under very difficult circumstances. I think 

the parameters that they are using to figure out, to make some 

thoughtful assessments, some fair and thoughtful assessments 

about what passengers should get additional scrutiny and under 

what circumstances is working well, and I would be reticent to 

really complain about it. 

Mr. KING. I am out of time. Mr. Chairman will we have a second 

round? 

Mr. CHABOT. We are not planning on it. The gentleman is granted an additional minute if he wants to make another point. 

Mr. KING. I have far too many to make. 

Mr. CHABOT. Gentleman from New York, Mr. Nadler, is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I have a number of questions—are we 

going to have a second round? Well, let me ask you first, in terms 

of the voting rights coverage of the Department, last year the State 

courts in Mississippi adopted a reapportionment case submitted for 

section 5 preclearance, and the Department had 60 days. 

You mentioned that you always meet your deadlines. The Department waited 58 days and then asked questions, this after the 

Ranking Member of this Committee and I had both sent a letter 

asking the Department to do this quickly because time was fleeting. The Department wasted or spent 58 days, asked questions, 

and tolled the clock. It then became impossible to meet the deadline and the Federal district court took the reapportionment plan 

that had been decreed by the State court and threw it out the winVerDate 0ct 09 2002 15:24 Jul 14, 2003 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 G:\WORK\CONST\051503\87095.000 HJUD1 PsN: 87095
16

dow, since it hadn’t been precleared in time, and adopted its own 

plan, which had a much smaller percentage of minorities in the district at issue, and it was a great disadvantage to the Democrats— which some people suspect may have been the motivation of your 

Department in the first place. 

My questions are twofold, and please answer quickly because I 

have more questions. 

Did you ever issue a decision saying that the plan adopted by the 

State court was okay or not, or was that mooted by the fact that 

you wasted enough time so the Federal court took it out of your 

hands? 

And second, why—what evidence can you give that this was not 

politically motivated in order to kill a more Democratically oriented 

redistricting than the Federal court was likely and in fact did subsequently? Why shouldn’t we be suspicious of the Department’s motivation? Did you ever approve or disapprove the State plan? 

Mr. BOYD. We did not. As the Congressman I think knows, that 

plan was struck down as unconstitutional. That case was argued 

before the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court upheld——

Mr. NADLER. It was not struck down as unconstitutional. It was 

said that it hadn’t been precleared in time and therefore the Federal court had the right to come in with its own. The Supreme 

Court did not rule on the constitutionality of the lower court. 

Mr. BOYD. If I can be clear, Congressman, the three-judge Federal court in Mississippi declared the plan that was sent to us for 

section 5 preclearance unconstitutional under article 1, section 4, 

of the Constitution. And it made its ruling nunc pro tunc, which 

means it was constitutional—excuse me, it was unconstitutional 

when conceived, unconstitutional when entered by the chancery 

court. 

Mr. NADLER. Correct me if I am wrong, my recollection is it was 

thrown out because it hadn’t received timely preclearance. 

Mr. BOYD. That is not correct. 

Mr. NADLER. What were the constitutional grounds——

Mr. BOYD. That it violated article 1, section 4, which says the 

legislatures of the several States are responsible for redistricting in 

the first instance, and not anyone else. 

Mr. NADLER. And therefore the Federal courts can redistrict but 

the State courts can’t? 

Mr. BOYD. The Federal courts can when there is a defect in 

something that the legislature does. So it is a power that the Constitution in article 1——

Mr. NADLER. So State courts anywhere can no longer redistrict. 

Mr. BOYD. No. No. The State courts can pass on the propriety of 

what the legislature does. 

Mr. NADLER. If the legislature fails to act, the State courts cannot draw their own plan anymore? 

Mr. BOYD. All I can tell you is what the three-judge panel said 

in that case. 

Mr. NADLER. All right. Let me change the subject. 

Today’s New York Times has an editorial saying in part, for a 

year and a half, the United States has held hundreds of people captured during the war in Afghanistan as prisoners at Guantanamo 

Bay, without access to family, lawyers, or any semblance of due 

17

process. That does not alter the fact that the detentions insult 

some of our most cherished ideals and harm our national interests. 

The Department of Defense has held 600 prisoners, some as 

young as 13. They have been declared unlawful combatants in 

order to deny them the protection of the Geneva Convention. They 

have been incarcerated at a naval base in Cuba to put them beyond 

the reach of the law. A Federal court of appeals, I think it was, 

said that the American courts have no jurisdiction because this is, 

after all, in Cuba. 

So the Administration seems to have put these people in a place 

where the Federal courts have no jurisdiction, they have no access 

to lawyers, they have no rights whatsoever, no habeas corpus. Presumably they can take them out and shoot them, and no court 

could say otherwise because the American courts have no jurisdiction. 

When is the Administration—what do you say about this clear 

denial of our traditions of civil liberties, and when is the Administration going to either fish or cut bait, charge these people with a 

crime or release them? 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. But I think in 

fairness, I gave myself 3 minutes, so I am going to give the gentleman an additional 3 minutes. 

Mr. BOYD. My answer is that they are combatants. And the history of the rules of war, international law, domestic law, is that foreign combatants are not entitled—— Mr. NADLER. History is they should be declared prisoners of war 

or given due process. Never heard of this ‘‘combatants’’ until this 

Administration. 

Mr. BOYD. They are combatants. They can be detained during 

the pendency of the conflict. They do not have access to the courts 

of the country detaining them. There is not, as far as I know, any 

civilization or society in our history——

Mr. NADLER. Excuse me. What you are saying applies to prisoners of war. The Administration is saying they are not prisoners 

of war. 

Mr. BOYD. Unlawful combatants don’t get treated better than 

prisoners of war. 

Mr. NADLER. Doesn’t international law require an individual 

hearing? 

Mr. BOYD. I am not an expert on international law, but I can tell 

you this: they are being kept completely consistent, as I understand 

it, with the mandates and requirements——

Mr. NADLER. How do we know that the Administration is telling 

the truth when it says that, since no one else can inspect them, 

since the courts can’t hear evidence of that? 

Mr. BOYD. As far as I know, and again I am probably not the 

best person to direct these questions to, but as I understand it, 

there have been a number of inspections of the conditions of the 

confinement of the unlawful combatants. 

Mr. NADLER. By whom? 

Mr. BOYD. By a number of nongovernmental organizations. 

Mr. NADLER. By the International Red Cross. 

Mr. BOYD. I am not the person to ask, Congressman. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me change the subject. 

18

Mr. CHABOT. Will the gentleman yield for just one moment? A bipartisan group of Members of Congress went down to Camp X-Ray, 

including myself and a number of Democrats, and we are not experts in this as well, but we did look at the conditions. There were 

some concerns about that, and none of us had any great concern. 

Mr. NADLER. Reclaiming my time. What bothers me about this 

is this whole doctrine of unlawful combatants is a brand new doctrine and we have never heard of it until this Administration. And 

as far as I can tell under this law, they can take them out and 

shoot them, and no court would have jurisdiction to object. 

Mr. BOYD. That would violate clear international law. 

Mr. NADLER. As does everything else about this. I have an additional question. 

Mr. BOYD. There are principles regarding unlawful combatants. 

And all of these people being detained, as I understand it, fits. 

Mr. NADLER. I have to ask you the other question. With respect 

to the Administration in this country is holding people in detention 

without trial, denying access to attorneys, inventing the doctrine of 

unlawful combatants, the Administration has made a claim—forget 

the people in Afghanistan. But with respect to one person picked 

up in the United States, an American citizen, the Administration 

claim which it has advanced in a court of law is that the President, 

on his own say-so—realistically on the say-so of some bureaucrat 

below him, because obviously he doesn’t investigate the case—but 

the President on his own say-so can declare any American citizen 

an unlawful combatant; that the courts have no jurisdiction to 

question the President’s determination; that an unlawful combatant has no right to habeas corpus, no rights whatsoever, and presumably he can be held in jail forever incommunicado based on 

that. 

Seems to me that that is a claim that no one in an Englishspeaking jurisdiction has made since before Magna Carta and rebelled against George III, not the current President, but against 

George III for claims much less deleterious to the civil rights than 

that. 

Mr. CHABOT. Gentleman’s time has expired but the gentleman 

has an opportunity to answer. 

Mr. BOYD. The Padilla case and the Hamdi case, the Padilla case 

in the Southern District of New York, the Hamdi case in the 

Fourth Circuit, have both been resolved by those courts. And the 

Fourth Circuit has said, upon a designation of someone as a combatant, supported by certain modicum of evidence, which the court 

reviewed in camera, is sufficient for the detention you referred to. 

In the Padilla case, the court did an in-camera review of the evidence supporting the certification of Mr. Padilla as an unlawful 

combatant and found it sufficient for his detention and also gave 

Mr. Padilla counsel to assist him in challenging the bona fides of 

that certification. 

So that is what actually happened. I heard what you said, Congressman, but that is what happened. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman is given 1 additional minute. 

Mr. NADLER. I will be very brief. 

Pursuing that point, the court in New York in the Padilla case— I am not concerned with the Hamdi, since he wasn’t captured in 

19

the United States—in the Padilla case, the court said that someone 

could be declared an unlawful combatant on some evidence which 

is much less than probable cause. 

Is it the Administration’s view that the writ of habeas corpus 

and that our liberties can be thrown away forever on some evidence? In other words, a jilted girlfriend tells the FBI agent that 

you are an unlawful combatant, and in camera that is some evidence, and you have no right to an attorney and you could be held 

in jail forever because of that? 

Mr. BOYD. Congressman, I am not the person responsible for articulating the Administration’s or the United States’ position with 

respect to that issue. But let me just say this. One of the great, 

great things about America is that at the end of the day the courts 

decide, and that is what happened in the Padilla case and that is 

what happened in the Hamdi case, and both courts found the certification, in both of those cases, the unlawful combatant certification, and the supporting evidence was sufficient to allow the detentions to go forward. 

Mr. NADLER. The standard was some evidence instead of probable cause. 

Mr. BOYD. The court decided, not the Administration, on its own. 

The executive branch—what we do gets reviewed by an independent judiciary. That is one of the brilliant features of our constitutional democracy. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. The gentleman 

from Michigan, Mr. Conyers, you are recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Before I begin, could 

we review the determination of the Chair that we are going to end 

after my discussion? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes, it is. 

Mr. CONYERS. I said can we review it. 

Mr. CHABOT. Can we review? I know a number of Members, including myself, have flights after this Committee hearing. We will 

certainly give the gentleman leeway if you need additional time. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, here is the problem. Everybody is flying out, 

but this hearing was scheduled from 3 o’clock to 5 o’clock and it 

is a few minutes after 4. I can’t presume that the Chair was going 

to leave——

Mr. CHABOT. What request is the gentleman making? If you have 

questions, we will give you leeway. 

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment, sir. What I am leading up to is 

that every Member of the panel has asked if there would be a second round. And the hearing is supposed to go from 3 o’clock to 5 

o’clock, as you have indicated. And it is about 5 minutes after 4. 

Do you get it? 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman wants to have a second round, we 

can go ahead and consider it. 

Mr. CONYERS. That is what I want you to consider because everybody here has already asked. 

Mr. CHABOT. If the gentleman would like to have a second round, 

and other Members, I have no problem with that. Ask your questions. 

20

Mr. CONYERS. Just a moment. I wanted to get the agreement before we started, sir. And you have agreed to it, so I want to thank 

you very much. 

Mr. CHABOT. Any Members that would like to ask an additional 

5 minutes for a second round, we will give them that option. The 

gentleman’s 5 minutes starts now. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thanks Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your courtesy. 

Now I want to welcome our leader in the Civil Rights Division. 

I am glad you are here. This is one of the most important parts 

of the Department of Justice, and the staff tells me that we have 

no problems with the authorization request in terms of resources 

in connection with positions and amounts of money; is that correct? 

Do we agree with the authorization, the positions, and the authorization amounts? 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

I think we have said that—I think we have said that we think 

there should be an increase in the budget to provide for more enforcement, but there is a disagreement with the Administration on 

that obviously. 

[4:05 p.m.] 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. Well, I just wanted to get it on the record, 

because that is what this is, is an authorization, oversight authorization hearing. So I didn’t want to express my happiness if the 

Ranking Member, who has been following this with great concern, 

wants to make that point, I appreciate it. 

Now, the two pieces of business—well, let us start with page 5 

of your testimony—actually, starts at page 4. And, finally, I would 

like to report on the treatment in this country of Americans who 

may appear to be of Middle East origin. My Division has tracked 

and targeted what we have been calling backlash crimes. Could we 

discuss that term, ‘‘backlash crimes,’’ for just a moment? 

Mr. BOYD. Sure. 

Mr. CONYERS. How do you come about that term? 

Mr. BOYD. We came about that term, Congressman, as a way of 

characterizing essentially threats of violence or acts of violence 

against people who are Arab or Muslim or Middle Eastern, or who 

appear to be, appear to be perpetrators of those crimes to be Middle Eastern or Arab or Muslim. And we refer to it as a backlash 

because it is what occurred in the aftermath of the events of September 11th and, happily on a much smaller scale, during the runup to the conflict in Iraq. 

So it is a way of characterizing the acts of those people who are 

kind of what I usually call the opportunistic haters or bigots who 

think that the events of September 11th or the conflict in Iraq is 

an excuse to act on their bigotry. So that is where the term ‘‘backlash’’ comes from. It is a response to something else that happened, 

a quite unlawful and inappropriate and immoral one, but a perceived response to something that happened. 

Mr. CONYERS. I appreciate that very much. And I detect your 

concern about this matter. 

Would you, like your predecessors, all of whom I have known, 

and the one Attorney General, would you consider coming to the 

part of my district that, as you know, has more people of Middle 

East descent than anyplace else in the United States, where we 

21

could discuss this matter and that you could make it clear that this 

is how you feel about it, and that we could make sure you are also 

aware of the dimension of the problem? Is that a possibility? 

Mr. BOYD. Congressman, I would delight in the opportunity to 

come back to your district. You may recall that I was there in November of 2001 during Ramadan. I actually did a town meeting at 

the Dearborn Public Library, I think in the immediate aftermath 

of the announcement of the 5,000 interviews. So I had the real 

pleasure and opportunity to do some learning and some sharing 

with a whole lot of members of the community to which you refer. 

And in fact, I think at that meeting, I think it ran almost 4 hours, 

I promised to come back at some point. So I would be happy to 

come back. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from New York has a unanimous consent request 

to make, and then we will go into a second round and recognize the 

gentleman for 5 more minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days to submit additional 

questions in writing to the witness for written response. 

Mr. CHABOT. Without objection. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. We will go into a second round. I have discussed it with the other Members who at this point have no other 

questions. And so we will recognize the gentleman from Michigan 

for 5 minutes in the second round. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. BOYD. So, yes is the answer. Absolutely. 

Mr. CONYERS. I am delighted. You make me happier than I 

thought I would be at this hearing. And I see some of your staff 

out there, and we would be happy to have them join with you, and 

you know my staff up here. 

Mr. BOYD. Quite well, Congressman. Quite well. 

Mr. CONYERS. And I look forward to, after this hearing, or as 

soon as we can next week, that we reach a date. I would like to 

accompany you out there and be with you. I think it would be very 

important for people to understand the kind of an Assistant Attorney General of Civil Rights that goes out and meets with the people and shares what is happening here. This is, even with all our 

cameras—and I don’t even see one here—is an inside-the-Beltway 

proposition. But when you get out there, it is very reassuring to 

people who are some concerned and would like to have this personto-person contact with you. And I am so proud of the fact that you 

have been out there already. 

Mr. BOYD. Thank you, Congressman. 

I don’t want to speechify on your time, but the outreach piece of 

our backlash initiative efforts has been as significant as our law 

enforcement piece. The law enforcement piece has been, you know, 

the over 500 hate crimes that we investigated. But that doesn’t 

even begin to include the number of employment discrimination, 

housing discrimination, public accommodation discrimination cases 

that we have handled in that area. 

But it has also been a concerted part of our effort to get out into 

vulnerable communities, not just in your community but in Seattle 

22

and Houston and elsewhere, where there are frightened people. It 

is our job to get out there and make them less frightened. 

Mr. CONYERS. Well, I want to thank you again. 

And, Mr. Chairman, I want to applaud you for giving us this 

time to make these kinds of explorations. And I thank you very 

much. 

Mr. CHABOT. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

Mr. Boyd, we just want to thank you very much for coming and 

giving your testimony and answering our questions this afternoon. 

And if there is no further business to come before this Committee, we are adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(23)

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION FY2004 PROPOSED BUDGET

SUBMITTED BY CHAIRMAN CHABOT


Fund1.eps
24

Æ


Fund2.eps