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

53–781 PDF 2010

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, 

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Serial No. 111–81 

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 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan, Chairman 

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

MAXINE WATERS, California 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois 

JUDY CHU, California 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

ADAM B. SCHIFF, California 

LINDA T. SA ́ NCHEZ, California 

DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida 

DANIEL MAFFEI, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

ELTON GALLEGLY, California 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

GREGG HARPER, Mississippi 

PERRY APELBAUM, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

SEAN MCLAUGHLIN, Minority Chief of Staff and General Counsel 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES

JERROLD NADLER, New York, Chairman 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

JUDY CHU, California 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

TOM ROONEY, Florida 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

DAVID LACHMANN, Chief of Staff 

PAUL B. TAYLOR, Minority Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

DECEMBER 3, 2009 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

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

of New York, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil 

Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................................................. 1 

The Honorable F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., a Representative in Congress 

from the State of Wisconsin, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................. 2 

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

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

Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties ............. 3 

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

of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......................... 5 

WITNESSES 

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

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

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 48 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 53 

Ms. Eileen Regen Larence, Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 81 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 83 

Ms. Grace Chung Becker, former Acting Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 101 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 104 

Mr. Joseph D. Rich, Director, Fair Housing Project, Lawyers’ Committee 

for Civil Rights Under Law, Washington, DC 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 131 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 133 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Texas, and Ranking Member, Committee on 

the Judiciary ......................................................................................................... 7 

Material submitted by the Honorable Trent Franks., a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Arizona, and Member, Subcommittee on the 

Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties .................................................. 145 

APPENDIX 

Material submitted for the Hearing Record .......................................................... 155 

(1) 

CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

THURSDAY, DECEMBER 3, 2009 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,

CIVIL RIGHTS, AND CIVIL LIBERTIES, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:09 a.m., in 

room 2141, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Jerrold 

Nadler (Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Nadler, Conyers, Watt, Scott, Johnson, 

Cohen, Chu, Sensenbrenner, Smith, Franks, King, Jordan, and 

Gohmert. 

Staff present: (Majority) David Lachman, Subcommittee Chief of 

Staff; Elliott Mincberg, Chief Oversight Counsel; and Crystal 

Jezierski, Minority Counsel. 

Mr. NADLER. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties will come to order. Today I 

will first recognize myself for a 5-minute opening statement. 

Today this 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 

without discrimination, and with the enactment of the Hate Crimes 

Prevention Act recently, the right to live one’s life free from the 

threat of violent hate crimes. 

As our Subcommittee has documented, the division has been 

deeply troubled over the past 8 years. Career civil rights attorneys 

were routinely overruled by political appointees, hiring was illegally politicized, enforcement was in some key 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. 

We now have a new Assistant Attorney General, Tom Perez, who 

will be our first witness. He is a career civil rights lawyer and he 

has a tremendous job ahead of him. 

In addition to the historically challenging work of the civil rights 

division he must rebuild a decimated and demoralized office and he 

must do so with such monumental tasks as the decennial redistricting on the horizon. We would have liked to have had him here 

2 

sooner but some of our colleagues in the other body apparently 

didn’t have the same sense of urgency in getting him on the job. 

I hope to hear from Mr. Perez how he plans to meet these challenges. 

We will also hear from the Government Accountability Office, 

which has produced two extensive reports on the civil rights division at the request of Chairman Conyers, Mr. Watt, and myself. I 

think the analysis and recommendations will help move the division forward as it meets the challenges of the next few years. 

I want to welcome all our witnesses, and I look forward to their 

testimony. 

I will now recognize the distinguished Ranking Member of the 

Subcommittee, Mr. Sensenbrenner, for 5 minutes for an opening 

statement. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

I guess we on this side of the aisle have a little different view 

of what happened in the last 8 years, and in the second panel Ms. 

Becker will be able to, I think, maybe educate the Chairman and 

my Democratic colleagues as Mr. Perez, I guess, is going to educate 

those of us on this side of the aisle. That being said, let me say 

that the legitimacy of our elected leaders depend upon the legitimacy of our election process, and the civil division of the—civil 

rights division of the Justice Department plays a role in safeguarding that process. 

During the last election one organization became notorious for 

threatening the integrity of our election through a massive campaign of improper election activity. That organization, called 

ACORN, is mired in criminal investigations in at least 12 states, 

which now include New York, Louisiana, Pennsylvania, Florida, 

and Nevada. 

While the national reach of ACORN’s corruption firmly established, it is time for this Committee to conduct an investigation of 

its own. Let me read a few sections of ACORN’s extensive rap 

sheet, which spans from coast to coast and has led the Census Bureau of the IRS, major foundations, and the Nation’s most prominent banks to cut ties with ACORN over the last several months, 

notwithstanding the fact that there have been appropriations writers cutting them off of Federal money. 

In Seattle local prosecutors indicted seven ACORN workers following a scheme the Washington secretary of state called ‘‘the 

worst case of voter registration fraud in the state’s history.’’ Of the 

2,000 names submitted by ACORN over 97 percent were fake. 

In Missouri, officials found that over 1,000 voter addresses submitted by ACORN didn’t exist. Eight ACORN employees pled guilty 

to Federal election fraud there. 

In Ohio, an employee of one ACORN affiliate was given crack cocaine in exchange for fraudulent registrations that included underage voters and dead people. 

In my own state of Wisconsin, the Special Investigations Union 

of the Milwaukee Police Department issued a report that concluded 

that eight people were sworn in as deputy registrars who were convicted felons under the supervision of the State Department of Corrections. ACORN was their sponsoring organization. 

3 

The 67-page Wisconsin report generally describes what it calls 

‘‘an illegal organized attempt to influence the outcome of the 2004 

election in the state of Wisconsin.’’ The report found that between 

4,600 and 5,300 more votes were counted in Milwaukee than the 

number of voters recorded as having cast ballots. Nice if you can 

do it, having more votes than voters. 

Mike Sandvick, the head of the unit, said that the problems his 

unit, said that the problems his unit found in 2004 are only the tip 

of the iceberg of what could happen today. Sure enough, during the 

2008 election ACORN’s executive director had to admit that, of the 

1.3 million new voters ACORN claimed to have registered, only a 

third of those, or 450,000, were legitimate, and that the organization was forced to fire 829 of the canvassers that it hired for jobrelated problems, including falsifying voter registration forms. 

Beyond voting fraud, the New York Times revealed that ACORN 

chose to treat the embezzlement of nearly $1 million as an internal 

matter and didn’t even notify its board or law enforcement. The 

Louisiana attorney general, who is conducting an investigation in 

the state where ACORN is headquartered, has since indicated the 

embezzlement may amount to as much as $5 million. 

It is tragic enough when voluntary donations are used illegally, 

but ACORN also receives millions of taxpayer dollars and it is eligible to receive millions more if the prohibition on its funding Congress recently enacted beyond its current sunset in mid-December. 

The Justice Department has funded a loan of a couple thousand 

dollars to ACORN or its affiliates, as most of its funding comes 

from housing programs administered by HUD. But even so, the 

Justice Department’s inspector general found just last month what 

limited funds the department distributed to ACORN or its affiliates 

were largely mismanaged in programs involving crime prevention 

and tax counseling—yes, I said crime prevention and tax counseling. 

Astonishingly, in the midst of all of this, the lawyer for President 

Obama’s election campaign wrote a letter to the Justice Department last October demanding that it investigate not ACORN, but 

the McCain campaign for daring to mention what the lawyer referred to as ‘‘manufactured allegations targeting the organization.’’ 

That lawyer, Robert Bauer, is now White House counsel. 

Mr. Bauer may be interested in reading an internal June 2008 

memorandum prepared by ACORN’s own lawyer that recently became public. The memo found systematic problems with ACORN 

and its associated entities, which it described as operating like a 

family business more than an accountable organization. The same 

memo also described the potentially improper use of charitable dollars for political purposes, illicit money transfers, and potential 

conflicts created by employees working for multiple affiliates. 

I would ask Mr. Perez to please relay ACORN’s rap sheet to Mr. 

Bauer just in case he hasn’t gotten the memo, and I yield back the 

balance of my time. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I will now recognize the distinguished Chairman of the full Committee for an opening statement. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

4 

I wanted to thank the Chairman emeritus for pointing out how 

important it is that we investigate ACORN, and would the gentleman—does the gentleman need any more time to—he looked like 

he had more to add to his dissertation. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, if the gentleman will yield, I appreciate your generosity, but more will come at a later date. 

Mr. CONYERS. Okay. 

Well, I take it, then, from you and Lord knows what Steve King 

is going to say, that this is the most important issue for the civil 

rights division and the voter rights section to consider. Is that fair, 

Mr. Sensenbrenner? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, I think that the 

whole Justice Department is sworn to uphold the law and it doesn’t 

matter which division is upholding the law and enforcing it against 

those who break it; it doesn’t make any difference as long as people 

who are suspected of breaking the law are brought to justice. 

Mr. CONYERS. So that is a long way of saying yes, I take it? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield further—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Yes, I will yield again. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER [continuing]. No, I didn’t say yes. I said 

what I said. 

Mr. CONYERS. Oh, you didn’t say yes? Okay. You didn’t say no 

and you didn’t say yes, but you said what you said. 

Well, that is not as helpful as I thought it would be. Now, could 

I ask my friend, Mr. Sensenbrenner, were you at the hearing on 

Tuesday at 1 o’clock that was sponsored by Republican members of 

this Committee that talked about ACORN? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will yield, I was not because I had a conflicting engagement. 

Mr. CONYERS. I see. 

Well look, you have lots of important considerations, and this one 

is so important that here we are discussing the responsibilities of 

the civil rights division containing voter rights enforcement for the 

first time in a new Administration and—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman yield to me? 

Mr. CONYERS. Of course. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Was the gentleman from Michigan at that 

hearing on Tuesday? 

Mr. CONYERS. No, sir, I wasn’t. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman further yield to me? 

Didn’t the gentleman, at a hearing of this Subcommittee in February, suggest that we have an investigation of ACORN? 

Mr. CONYERS. No. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. If the gentleman will further yield, I distinctly remember him saying that, and if the gentleman will further yield, if there was representation of why we should investigate 

ACORN why has not the Chairman called for that hearing? 

Mr. CONYERS. Couldn’t we just meet on this without taking up 

the time of all of our witnesses? I would be happy—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, I will be glad to yield back whatever 

time he had. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. I would just like to observe that whatever the merits of—or demerits, in my view—of a hearing on 

ACORN may have been previously, now that Congress has repeatVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
5 

edly passed the bill of attainder cutting off ACORN from all funds 

there is no further subject for an investigation. There may be law 

enforcement issues for various law enforcement agencies, but Congress has already taken action. 

Normally we would hold an investigation and then, depending on 

what one finds in that investigation, take action. We put the cart 

before the horse so I don’t think there is any need for the horse 

at this point. 

But we have already taken the action. I view it as an unconstitutional action; I think the courts will overturn it because it is a bill 

of attainder. 

But Congress has already done everything it could conceivably 

do. We don’t declare people or organizations—at least we 

shouldn’t—guilty of crimes except in rhetoric. It is now up to state 

investigations—to other investigating agencies to do whatever they 

may want about Mr. Sensenbrenner’s and others’ various accusations. 

I will yield back. 

I now yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from 

Texas. 

[Cross talk.] 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

In his confirmation hearing Attorney General Holder stated that 

‘‘law enforcement decisions and personnel actions must be untainted by partisanship. Under my stewardship the Department of 

Justice will serve justice, not the fleeting interests of any political 

party.’’ Yet, since taking over at the helm of the Justice Department there have been troubling decisions that can only be explained by just such partisanship, and nowhere have they been 

more apparent than in the civil rights division. 

One of the most troubling of these is the department’s decision 

in May to dismiss charges of voter intimidation arising out of the 

2008 presidential election. On Election Day 2008, two members of 

the New Black Panther Party brandished a baton in a threatening 

manner and made verbal threats to those who wanted to vote at 

a Philadelphia polling location. 

According to the department’s complaint, the individuals ‘‘made 

statements containing racial threats and racial insults at both 

Black and White individuals and made menacing and intimidating 

gestures, statements, and movements directed at individuals who 

were present to aid voters.’’ One individual carried credentials as 

a member of the local Democratic committee. 

In January, the civil rights division filed a complaint against the 

New Black Panther Party and three of its members for violating 

the Voting Rights Act, which prohibits any attempt to intimidate, 

threaten, or coerce any voter and those aiding voters. Neither the 

New Black Panther Party nor its members responded to the lawsuit. 

The department effectively won the case when the judge directed 

the civil rights division to file a final motion, but in May the department suddenly and inexplicably dismissed all but one of the 

charges. No facts had changed; no new evidence was uncovered. 

Would the Justice Department have dismissed these charges if 

the defendants had been members of the KKK, dressed in robes 

6 

and hoods, brandishing a nightstick and taunting voters outside a 

polling place, say, in Alabama? Very unlikely. 

When Members of Congress asked for an explanation as to why 

the department dismissed the case, we were met with silence. For 

5 months we have sought answers from the department, and still 

no response from the self-proclaimed ‘‘most transparent Administration in history.’’ 

Continued silence by the Justice Department is an implied admission of guilt that the case was dropped for purely political reasons. The department owes the American people the truth, not another round of empty excuses. 

Of equal concern is the department’s apparent inaction with regard to the numerous examples of improper and possibly illegal 

conduct committed by employees of ACORN. On Tuesday Republican members of the Judiciary and Oversight and Government Reform Committees held a joint forum to examine the numerous allegations of wrongdoing allegedly committed by ACORN employees, 

especially involving voter fraud, which falls within the civil rights 

division’s portfolio. 

We heard whistleblower testimony from former ACORN employee Anita MonCrief and state law enforcement and elections officials who pleaded for Federal law enforcement to initiate a nationwide investigation into ACORN. As one of the witnesses, a 

former Justice Department attorney himself stated, ‘‘The government has initiated major investigations of businesses and government contractors on much less evidence of possible wrongdoing.’’ 

I would like to insert their statements into the record for this 

hearing, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

7 


A-1.eps
8 


A-2.eps
9 


A-3.eps
10 


A-4.eps
11 


A-5.eps
12 


A-6.eps
13 


A-7.eps
14 


B-1.eps
15 


B-2.eps
16 


B-3.eps
17 


B-4.eps
18 


B-5.eps
19 


C-1.eps
20 


C-2.eps
21 


C-3.eps
22 


C-4.eps
23 


C-5.eps
24 


C-6.eps
25 


C-7.eps
26 

ATTACHMENT 1 


C-8.eps
27 


C-9.eps
28 


C-10.eps
29 


C-11.eps
30 


C-12.eps
31 


C-13.eps
32 


C-14.eps
33 


C-15.eps
34 


C-16.eps
35 


C-17.eps
36 


C-18.eps
37 


C-19.eps
38 


C-20.eps
39 


C-21.eps
40 


C-22.eps
41 


C-23.eps
42 


C-24.eps
43 

ATTACHMENT 2 


C-25.eps
44 


D-1.eps
45 

Mr. SMITH. With regard to the GAO report that will be discussed 

during the second panel, it is important to remember that we are 

here today to conduct oversight on the current civil rights division. 

Playing the Bush blame game is not effective oversight of the 

Obama administration. We can certainly learn things from the 

past, but this hearing is about determining whether the Obama adVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00049 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA

D-2.eps
46 

ministration is going to effectively, fairly, and without prejudice, 

enforce civil rights laws in the future. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will yield back. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. NADLER. Gentleman from Michigan? 

Mr. CONYERS. I mentioned my good friend Steve King’s name 

during my presentation. I know you don’t usually let everyone 

make opening statements, but could we allow Steve King to make 

any response or observations he would like? 

Mr. NADLER. I will recognize the gentleman from Iowa briefly for 

a response. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I thank the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Conyers, 

for opening this discussion up. I think there is a point of clarification that needs to be made. When the inquiry was made of Mr. 

Conyers, did he show interest in or speak about the hearings on 

ACORN in February, I think Mr. Conyers’ answer was precisely 

correct. It was actually March 19 that he indicated that interest, 

and I would point out also that in that dialogue that took place in 

that hearing that day, when Mr. Conyers stated that he believed 

that it was worthy of our interest, the Chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, responded to the effect of, ‘‘When 

I see credible evidence.’’ And then the response that came back—— 

Mr. NADLER. Finish the sentence. When I see credible evidence 

what? 

Mr. KING. When I see credible evidence I will consider hearings. 

Mr. NADLER. Exactly. 

Mr. KING. I think it is important that that clarification also be 

made. 

And then the response from Mr. Conyers—and this is from memory, not from data in front of me, so it may not be precisely right— 

was, ‘‘I think we see evidence in front of us of our interest.’’ 

Heather Heidelbaugh had already testified, or prepared to, that 

she had achieved a partial injunction against ACORN in Pennsylvania, and I had pointed out the—I will say the openness in the 

election laws across the country. So I think it is very, very important that we have this discussion about hearings on ACORN, and 

it appears to me that ACORN has corrupted the election process 

in the United States so much that it threatens the very Constitution itself, and it very much is the business of this Committee, and 

it is the business of the Civil Rights Commission as well. 

And one of the things that I hope that we can resolve is, whether 

there is any determination or resolve on the part of Chairman Conyers and Chairman Nadler to look into this most outrageous corruption of our election process in the history of the United States 

of America, will we follow through with our constitutional duty? I 

don’t believe it pays to have any more private conversations about 

this; it is time for this Congress to move in more than one Committee, but especially the Judiciary Committee and specifically the 

Constitution Subcommittee. 

So that is my position and view on it, Mr. Conyers, and I appreciate you giving me that opportunity to say so at this time. I yield 

back. 

47 

Mr. CONYERS. And I appreciate hearing from you about this, 

Steve. 

Mr. NADLER. If the gentleman would yield, let me just respond 

to that. I will repeat essentially what I said a few minutes ago. 

Congress has done everything it could do against the private organization. We have defunded ACORN. I believe that that action is 

unconstitutional; the courts will determine that. But we have done 

that. 

There is no further thing that Congress could do. There is no 

function for congressional investigation leading toward possible action because we have already taken the action. 

All these allegations are allegations—are just that, allegations. I 

think it is a little stretching the point to say it is the worst conspiracy ever, but forgetting that, these are all allegations. Allegations ought to be investigated if there is anything to them by state, 

local, Federal law enforcement agencies at their discretion if they 

think there is anything to those allegations. It is up to them, not 

to us. 

Now I hope we can get back—— 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Will the gentleman kindly yield to me? 

Mr. KING. I would yield. It is my time. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Given the argument that the gentleman 

from New York has made, that means that we shouldn’t be investigating anything the Bush administration did during its 8 years 

in office because the voters took care of that, and that is a matter 

of history as well. 

Mr. KING. And reclaiming my time, the continuing resolution 

that shut off funding to ACORN expires December 18—that is this 

month, in just a couple of weeks. And so at that point any action 

Congress may have taken will have also been negated. 

And furthermore, the Congress has passed in the past rescissions 

bills, where we have shut off funding after it passed the President’s 

desk, and that is all that happened with the continuing resolution. 

And the bill of attainder, there is no case precedent that would be 

a precedent that is on point on this particular subject. And I would 

yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

And now maybe we can get back to the subject of the hearing, 

which is the civil rights division, not ACORN. In the interest of 

proceeding to our witnesses and mindful of our busy schedules, I 

ask that other Members submit their statements for the record. 

Without objection all Members will have 5 legislative days to 

submit opening statements for inclusion in the record. Without objection the Chair will be authorized to declare a recess of the hearing, which we will do only in case there are votes or something unforeseen. 

We will now turn to our first panel. As we ask questions of our 

witnesses, the Chair will recognize Members in the order of their 

seniority in the Subcommittee alternating between majority and 

minority provided that the Member is present when his or her turn 

arrives. Members who are not present when their turns begin will 

be recognized after the other Members have had the opportunity to 

ask their questions. 

48 

The Chair reserves the right to accommodate a Member who is 

unavoidably late or only able to be with us for a short time. 

Our first panel consists of one witness, Thomas Perez, who was 

nominated by President Obama to serve as the Assistant Attorney 

General for the Civil Rights Division and was sworn in on October 

8, 2009, a mere 2 months ago. Mr. Perez previously served as the 

secretary of Maryland’s Department of Labor, Licensing, and Regulation. 

From 2002 until 2006 he was a member of the Montgomery 

County Council. He was the first Latino ever elected to the council 

and served as council president in 2005. 

Earlier in his career he spent 12 years in Federal public service, 

most of them as a career attorney with the Civil Rights Division 

of the Justice Department. As a Federal prosecutor for the division 

he prosecuted and supervised the prosecution of some of the department’s most high profile civil rights cases, including a hate 

crimes case in Texas involving a group of White supremacists who 

went on a deadly racially-motivated crime spree. 

Mr. Perez later served as Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 

Civil Rights under Attorney General Janet Reno. He also served as 

special counsel to the late Senator Edward Kennedy and was Senator Kennedy’s principal advisor on civil rights, criminal justice, 

and constitutional issues. 

For the final 2 years of the Clinton administration Mr. Perez 

served as the director of the Office for Civil Rights at the United 

States Department of Health and Human Services. Mr. Perez was 

a law professor for 6 years at the University of Maryland School 

of Law and was a part-time professor at the George Washington 

School of Public Health. 

He received a Bachelor’s degree from Brown University, a Master’s of public policy from the John F. Kennedy School of Government, and a Juris Doctorate from Harvard Law School in 1987. 

I am pleased to welcome you, sir. Your written statement in its 

entirety will be made part of the record. I would ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

To help you stay within that time there is a timing light at your 

table. When 1 minute remains the light will switch from green to 

yellow, and then red when the 5 minutes are up. I will advise this 

witness, as I will others, that I am a little loose with the timing, 

but not too loose. 

Before we begin it is customary for the Committee to swear in 

its witnesses. If you would please stand and raise your right hand 

to take the oath? 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. NADLER. Let the record reflect that the witness answered in 

the affirmative. 

You may be seated. I thank you and you are recognized for 5 

minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your leadership on this and so many other issues, and I want to acknowledge 

49 

Chairman Conyers’ longstanding leadership on a wide range of 

issues. It is great to be back before your Committee today, Mr. 

Chairman. 

And Ranking Member Smith, thank you for your courtesy 

throughout. And I look forward to working with all of you on a 

wide range of issues. 

It really is a great privilege to be back home in the Department 

of Justice civil rights division, where I learned how to be a lawyer, 

and I look forward to an active and open dialogue with this Committee on a wide range of issues. My goals today are to respond to 

the GAO report and offer my perspective on the challenges and opportunities confronting the Civil Rights Division. 

I want to thank you again for your leadership in commissioning 

these two GAO reports, and let me state right at the outset, we accept them, we intend to implement their recommendations, and we 

have already begun to do so, plain and simple, and we will be moving forward in this regard. 

This is the first time I have had the privilege of appearing before 

this Committee so I wanted to take a moment simply to tell you 

a little bit about my past work in the Civil Rights Division. I have 

been on the job for less than 2 months, as you correctly point out, 

but I am no stranger to the department and to the division. 

My first job was a summer clerk under Attorney General Ed 

Meese in 1986. I entered the department in the honors program in 

1989 under Attorney General Thornberg, had the privilege of serving on the honors committee in 1992, 1993, and 1994, and I stayed 

in the department until 1999 when I was deputy assistant attorney 

general for civil rights and I moved over to the Department of 

Health and Human Services. And I am equally proud of my service 

under both Republican and Democratic administrations—my service as both a career and a non-career person in the Civil Rights Division. 

I know firsthand the commitment and dedication of the career 

staff and I have great respect for the work that they do. More than 

50 years after its creation the division’s mission and scope have 

grown exponentially and the division continues to serve as the conscience of the Nation within the Federal Government. 

Our mandate in the Civil Rights Division is clear: to enforce all— 

and I underscore all—of the civil rights laws under our jurisdiction 

fairly, independently, and in a nonpartisan fashion. Regrettably, as 

documented in the two GAO reports we will discuss today and an 

earlier report of the inspector general that was dated January 

2009, there have been times when the division has failed to fully 

live up to this mission. 

Upon becoming assistant attorney general my goal has been very 

straightforward: Find out what is working and continue it, and find 

out what is broken and fix it. That is my job plain and simple. The 

GAO report has been very instructive in this regard, as was the 

I.G. report. 

And when I entered the division I observed that there were a 

number of initiatives that had been put in place in the Bush administration that were very productive, and I intend to continue 

them—initiatives in human trafficking; initiatives to combat racial—religious discrimination; and initiatives to enforce the lanVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00053 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
50 

guage minority provisions of the Voting Rights Act. And I want to 

commend Congressman Sensenbrenner and so many others on this 

Committee for his leadership in the renewal—reauthorization of 

the Voting Rights Act. 

You played a very important role, and I wanted to acknowledge 

that here today. 

However, as I said, our obligation is to enforce the civil rights 

law—all of the laws—and to use all available, lawful tools in our 

arsenal. The GAO report and the data clearly document civil rights 

areas where enforcement waned or was virtually nonexistent. For 

instance, during the years covered in the report the division pursued very few pattern or practice cases in the employment context. 

Despite considerable evidence of abusive, discriminatory behavior 

by lenders and servicers that contributed to the foreclosure crisis, 

the division did not make any use in the Bush administration of 

critical tools in its law enforcement arsenal—the Equal Credit Opportunity Act, the Fair Housing Act—to hold lenders accountable. 

In the Clinton administration, the appellate section filed 643 

briefs in courts of appeal; in the Bush administration, 424. In the 

Clinton administration the disability rights section brought 228 

lawsuits, compared with 126 in the Bush administration. In the 

Clinton administration, the housing section brought 676 cases, 

compared with 324 in the Bush administration. 

From 2005 till 2007 a total of 16 USERRA cases—these are cases 

where we protect our servicemembers who serve our Nation overseas and come home and find that they don’t have their job back— 

16 cases were brought from 2005 to 2007. In the first 8 months of 

the Obama administration, 18 such cases have been filed. 

In the Clinton administration, the voting section filed 35 Section 

2 cases, compared with 15 filings in the Bush administration. In 

fiscal year 2006 the division prosecuted the lowest number of hate 

crimes cases in more than a decade—10—compared with 43 in 

1995, when I was a deputy chief in that section. Human trafficking 

is critically important and righteous, but it shouldn’t come at the 

expense of hate crimes prosecutions. 

In addition to these troubling facts, a number of changes took 

place in the longstanding operating practices that have greatly 

hampered the division’s effectiveness. For instance, the career staff 

in most instances was frozen out of the hiring process by the noncareer staff. As a result, section chiefs were frequently notified the 

week before that a new person, whom they had never interviewed 

and never seen, was going to show up and serve in their office. 

When I served on the hiring committee, under both Republican 

and Democratic administrations, the hiring process was governed 

by the same principle: Search for the best qualified candidates, 

plain and simple. As the I.G. report has documented, hiring in the 

past years under the Bush administration was frequently governed 

by improper ideological considerations. 

Communications between sections and between career and noncareer staff, which has been a lynchpin to the effective operation 

of the division for decades, waned. For instance, the appellate section in the Bush administration was prohibited from having caserelated discussions with other sections. How can you get the casework done if you can’t communicate with the trial lawyer? 

51 

These sorts of issues and challenges were one of many reasons 

why, in 2003, if you took a snapshot of the lawyers who were in 

the division, and then you took a snapshot in 2007, 70 percent of 

the lawyers who were there in 2003 had departed the division by 

2007. From the moment the new Administration took office the division, with the Attorney General’s full backing, took decisive steps 

to emphasize core enforcement priorities in each of the four litigating sections that are the subject of the report and throughout 

the division as a whole. 

With respect, as I said earlier, to all of the recommendations of 

GAO, I concur with them all and I thank them for their diligent 

service. 

I also want to thank my predecessor, Loretta King, for her work 

in making sure that we moved forward in the interim during the 

9 months between January and my confirmation in October. She 

did a wonderful job. I think it is equally important to thank former 

Attorney General Mukasey, who began the process of 

depoliticization during his tenure as Attorney General. 

Our task ahead is a task of restoration and transformation. Our 

goal is not to create the Civil Rights Division capable of years back, 

but to create a division capable of responding to today’s and tomorrow’s challenges, both emerging and longstanding. It is a formidable task, but it is one that can and will be accomplished. 

We recognize that committed career attorneys and professional 

staff are the most critical single ingredient to fulfilling this mission, and one of our first priorities has been to revamp the hiring 

process to ensure that we select the best qualified candidates for 

the job. And if you look on our Web site today you will see the new 

hiring process—transparent, posted so anyone who wants to apply 

can see how the process works from soup to nuts. 

Working with the career staff, we are implementing a number of 

other important changes. We will continue to invest resources in 

areas such as religious discrimination, human trafficking, and Section 203 enforcement, which were well done in the prior Administration, but we can and will do much more in a wide range of 

areas, including lending discrimination, hate crimes, and voting 

rights. 

By better leveraging our current resources, making the most of 

additional resources that are in the President’s fiscal year 2010 

budget, and through more effective management we will enforce all 

of the laws in the division’s arsenal aggressively and comprehensively. We are actively engaged in the enforcement of the new hate 

crimes bill and I was proud to have testified recently on the Senate 

side on the Employment Nondiscrimination Act. 

And last week, just in the disability area alone, we filed briefs 

in three separate cases urging enforcement of the Supreme Court’s 

landmark decision in Olmstead, which stands for the proposition 

that unnecessary institutionalization of people with disabilities is 

a form of discrimination under the ADA, including a seminal case 

in New York State that I believe will enable us to really move the 

ball forward. Last month we obtained the largest monetary settlement ever by the department in a Fair Housing Act case, when the 

owners of numerous Los Angeles apartment buildings located in 

the Koreatown section of the city agreed to pay $2.7 million to setVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00055 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
52 

tle allegations that they discriminated against African Americans 

and Latinos and families with children. 

I know this will not be easy, but I am absolutely confident that 

we can get the job done and I look forward to implementing the 

recommendations set forth in the GAO report. I look forward to 

working with all of the Members of this Committee and I appreciate the time that you have given me this morning. And I am 

more than willing to answer any questions that you have. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:] 

53 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ


Perez-1.eps
54 


Perez-2.eps
55 


Perez-3.eps
56 


Perez-4.eps
57 


Perez-5.eps
58 


Perez-6.eps
59 


Perez-7.eps
60 


Perez-8.eps
61 


Perez-9.eps
62 


Perez-10.eps
63 

Mr. NADLER. I thank you. 

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

Mr. Perez, I was very concerned about the examples that the 

GAO found during 2001 to 2007 of civil rights cases, particularly 

in employment and voting, in which career civil rights attorneys 

wanted to pursue investigations but were forbidden from doing so, 

as we have discussed. For example, the GAO found that the career 

staff at the voting section wanted to pursue a claim that African 

American voters were illegally intimidated by state officials over 


Perez-11.eps
64 

the course of a voter fraud investigation, but that officials at the 

division front office where political appointees work refused to even 

allow ‘‘any further contact with state authorities on this matter.’’ 

In employment, the career attorney wanted to go forward with 

a supplemental investigation in a pattern and practice case, but all 

the file said was that the matter was closed with no further information as to why it was closed or anything else. 

As the top political appointee in the division, what would you do 

or instruct your staff to do in those types of cases where career attorneys want to pursue investigations? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your question, Mr. Chairman. In connection with the voting case that you mentioned, first of all, my 

first learning of that was when I read the GAO report, and we 

have taken further action once I learned of it in the GAO report. 

I can’t comment further regarding the specifics other than to say 

that, thank you for having the GAO report, which brought it to our 

attention. And similarly, the other matters that you mentioned. 

It is really important—I think part of the restoration part of the 

agenda of the Civil Rights Division involves communication, and 

we have implemented a number of systems, Mr. Chairman, which 

ensure that we have active communication with our attorneys. We 

have had to make a number of critical calls in various cases and 

I have met with career staff and I have gone around the room, 

‘‘What is your opinion? What is your opinion? What is your opinion?’’ because I want everyone’s opinion. I don’t care if everyone 

has the same opinion; I believe that decision making is best when 

you have the robust dialogue that existed when I worked for John 

Dunne and existed when I worked for Deval Patrick, and that is 

the dialogue that I think leads to good decision making. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. Well, I assume you would not tolerate 

a case being closed for political reasons. 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. 

Mr. NADLER. And can we get an assurance from you that you will 

look into the cases specified in the GAO report and report back to 

us as to what you find? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. And to what actions you end up taking? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

As I have stated at previous hearings, I have been very concerned—and you mentioned—the decrease in pattern and practice 

cases in the division under the last Administration. As you know, 

these pattern and practice cases are the cases that really have the 

most impact in employment, housing, and other areas because they 

are general cases. 

Can you explain what steps you are taking or will take to restore 

the bipartisan tradition of aggressively pursuing pattern and practice cases, including cases based on disparate impact? 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. Again, there are two types of discrimination. 

There are two ways to prove discrimination, as you have correctly 

pointed out—proving intentional discrimination or proving that 

there was a policy and practice that had a disproportionate adverse 

impact. And those cases, the facts demonstrate, were few and far 

between over the last 8 years. 

65 

And so in the lending context, for instance, which is a top priority of the Attorney General and a top priority of mine, we are 

using that too. And every circuit that has looked at the issue of 

whether disparate impact is a viable theory, whether it is housing, 

whether it is voting, whether it is employment, has said that disparate impact is indeed a viable theory. 

So both in the housing context, and the employment context, in 

the Section 2 voting context, where you can show effects and intentional discrimination, we will be using all of the tools in our arsenal as we move forward assuming the facts support moving forward under that theory. 

Mr. NADLER. And thank you. 

Now, a third subject: As you may know, our Subcommittee has 

had a series of oversight hearings on the division in the past, and 

I have become very concerned about how under the last Administration the bipartisan tradition of effective civil rights enforcement 

was severely damaged in a number of areas. You have indicated 

that your goal for the division—and you have stated several times 

this morning—is restoration and transformation. 

Can you explain more specifically what you intend to do to restore that bipartisan tradition? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well again, I came to the civil rights division when 

Ed Meese was the Attorney General. I entered as a career hire 

under Dick Thornberg. I have profound respect for John Dunne. I 

served on the hiring committee under Republican and Democratic 

administrations. 

And everything I have learned in my professional career was 

built upon the foundation of serving as a career attorney during 

this period of time. And that bipartisan tradition of decision making that is governed by a careful review of the facts and the application of the facts to the law, that is what we will ensure exists 

in 100 percent of the matters that we review in this division. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And my last question is, we are coming up on the census in the 

next couple years, and I am very concerned about the census and 

the need to avoid undercounting and the significant amount of redistricting that will result based on the data that the census collects. I know the Commerce Department has the responsibility for 

the census, but your division is responsible for reviewing districting 

plans, both to consider whether plans in Section 5 jurisdiction 

should be pre-cleared and to consider whether other redistricting 

plans have discriminatory effects under Section 2. 

Can you explain what you are planning to do or have done in 

these areas, particularly to get ready for the significant work you 

will have to do on redistricting in the next few years? 

Mr. PEREZ. We are meeting regularly with our colleagues in the 

Census Bureau. I actually have a call later today with the general 

counsel at the Department of Commerce, Mr. Kerry, to continue 

our discussion on a host of issues. 

We are ramping up staffing-wise and we are very grateful that 

the President’s budget includes a healthy increase for the Department of Justice. If the budget is adopted—and hopefully when the 

budget is adopted—there will be 102 new slots and I am quite confident that a substantial portion of those slots will be allocated not 

66 

only for attorneys but for analysts, because when the data comes 

in we need to have that core competency to review that data and 

make the requisite judgments about various plans that are under 

submission. 

And so we have a very robust agenda so that we are going to be 

prepared for not only the census but for the redistricting that follows it and to implement the Northwest Austin decision so if we 

get requests for bailout we are prepared for that. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

My time is expired. I now recognize the gentleman from Arizona. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Perez, for being here. Mr. Perez, I know we are 

all familiar with the mass shooting tragedy at Fort Hood. 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Major Hassan, the alleged shooter in that situation, 

has made statements in the past suggesting that crimes like this 

should be expected by the military due to the religious motivations 

of military personnel who would balk at being sent to fight in Islamic lands. He also said that military members or those who are 

not Islamic would be targets of such crimes. 

And so I guess my question to you: If a crime is motivated by 

animus toward a group who failed to belong to a certain religious 

group—are you with me?—if a crime is motivated by animus toward a group who failed to belong to a certain religious group, as 

in the case of Major Hassan’s stated rationale of crimes, then does 

that mean that Major Hassan—that his crime was actually a hate 

crime as well? 

Mr. PEREZ. The crimes that occurred in Fort Hood were unspeakable—— 

Mr. FRANKS. But were they hate crimes? Was it a hate crime? 

Mr. PEREZ. I have not been involved in the investigation of that. 

It is a criminal investigation and so I don’t have—— 

Mr. FRANKS. In the situation that I have given you, if—let me 

just put in hypothetical. If a crime is motivated by animus toward 

a group who failed to belong to a certain religious group, as in the 

case of Mr. Hassan’s crime, would that then be a hate crime? If 

someone perpetrated a violent crime based on someone not being 

a member of a particular religious group would that be a hate 

crime? 

Mr. PEREZ. We have prosecuted a number of cases—— 

Mr. FRANKS [continuing]. The question, Mr. Perez? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am attempting to, sir. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. 

Mr. PEREZ. We have prosecuted a number of cases in the civil 

rights division under 18 of the United States Code, Section 245, 

which prohibits force or threats of force against another person on 

account of a person’s race, color, national origin, religion. And so 

if there are racial—if there are religiously-motivated acts of violence and we can demonstrate that that person acted on account 

of that religious animus and on account of the person exercising 

what is called a federally-protected right, under Section 245, then 

those are the types of cases that are brought under Section 245. 

And there have been a number of cases relating to desecrations of 

67 

mosques, desecrations of synagogues, desecrations of other places of 

worship. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, I think that is a close as I am going to get, 

and I appreciate it, because I think under your answer that Mr. 

Hassan’s crimes would be hate crimes. But that is—we will let the 

other people decide. 

I don’t think I have time to ask a second question, but it is related to the Black Panthers case. My understanding from Ms. Loretta King, who was acting as a political appointee at the time, is 

the person most likely for being responsible for ordering the dismissal of this case. And because of this decision by the Department 

of Justice the department was taken to task by the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights for dismissing this case that would have been 

probably a slam-dunk case for the department. 

And in what is arguably the worst and most egregious and most 

high profile nationally-televised violation of Voting Rights Act in 

broad daylight, in which members of the New Black Panthers wield 

nightsticks at a voting poll entrance while shouting racial slurs— 

I mean, that is a pretty high profile case—the department dismissed the case and they failed to answer questions about this dismissal that have come from Members of this Committee, other 

Members of Congress, and now even the U.S. Commission on Civil 

Rights. 

And I understand that the department policy may prevent you 

from speaking to the media about pending investigations, but there 

is an exception for matters of the public interest. And further, your 

internal policy shouldn’t undo the duty that you have to answer to 

the oversight committees of the people’s Congress. And of course 

there are Federal statutes that require all Federal agencies to cooperate fully with the Civil Rights Commission. 

And my understanding is that Chris Coats and Christian Adams, 

two lawyers at the DOJ who had responsibility for this case, have 

received subpoenas from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. And 

I also understand that the two of them have been instructed not 

to comply with these subpoenas by the department, and that at 

least one of them has hired a lawyer to assist him in how to handle 

the conflicting mandates of complying with Federal law by telling 

the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights the truth versus complying 

with the demands of the political appointees by the Obama Department of Justice. 

So my question is, will you cooperate with the U.S. Civil Rights 

Commission subpoenas to the department employees regarding the 

dismissal of the lawsuit against the Black Panthers—New Black 

Panthers case for voter intimidation in Philadelphia by instructing 

your employees to comply with the commission’s subpoenas, and 

will you instruct your employees to tell the truth to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights? Will you do that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, thank you for your question, and a number of 

things I want to correct. Loretta King is a career attorney, has 

been a career attorney for roughly 30 years, has never been a political appointee in the civil rights division. 

Mr. FRANKS. I stand corrected. 

Mr. PEREZ. The case was not dismissed. The case was reviewed 

by two attorneys, including Loretta, who have a combined total of 

68 

60 years of experience, and they made the determination that, 

based on the law of the third circuit, that the case against the person who wielded the stick, that we should indeed seek the maximum penalty, and that maximum penalty was sought and obtained, and the case against the other defendant should be dismissed, and the case against the national party should also be dismissed. So that was the determination that was made and so I 

needed to correct the record because the case was not indeed dismissed and those two career attorneys, with 60 years of experience, 

made that decision. 

The requests from the Civil Rights Commission to which you 

refer were received shortly before Thanksgiving and the Civil Division, which handles all such requests, sent a letter to the Civil 

Rights Commission shortly after that receipt outlining the very extensive protocols that exist, and have been in existence for decades 

under DOJ policy, for handling requests of this nature. And we are 

awaiting word from the Civil Rights Commission because that letter, as I understand it, because the Civil Division is handling that 

request—that letter made a number of requests of the Civil Rights 

Commission and the ball is in their court to respond. 

So those protocols, which again, are nonpartisan protocols that 

have been in place pursuant to a 1951 Supreme Court decision and 

regulations that were promulgated there too, those protocols will 

govern and we look forward, under the leadership of the Civil Division, to getting the answers to some of the questions that Civil Division asked of the Civil Rights Commission as we move forward. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the distinguished gentleman from North 

Carolina for 5 minutes. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Attorney Perez. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. 

Mr. WATT. Great to see you here. I welcome the tenor and tone 

and content of your opening statement, and never like to miss the 

opportunity publicly—although Mr. Sensenbrenner generally disappears after he beats up ACORN—I never like to miss the opportunity publicly to join with you in praising him for his role in the 

extension of the Voting Rights Act. We differ on a number of 

issues, but I don’t think there was a more ardent fighter for the 

extension of the Voting Rights Act than Chairman Sensenbrenner—or Ranking Member Sensenbrenner, I guess it was at the 

time that that reauthorization was going on. 

You mentioned a couple of times—once in your opening statement and I think once in response to Chairman Nadler’s question— 

that one of the things you are planning to do is pursue lending discrimination cases, and I just wanted to delve a little bit into that 

further because I understand that Attorney General Holder has set 

up a kind of a task force or a division or something special to deal 

with the kind of meltdown financial crisis issues, as I understand 

it, that got us into the economic meltdown substantially. 

One part of that is a gross, obvious pattern of discrimination 

against minorities in the extension of credit because even well fiVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00072 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
69 

nancially qualified minorities ended up getting disproportionately 

subprime loans. And it seems to be that that part of it has a civil 

rights component to it. 

Can you talk to us a little bit about how the Civil Rights Division 

will work with this new task force and your perception of whether 

it may be possible to, as a sub-part of that larger task force responsibility, delve further into the massive financial services discrimination that was taking place with respect to loan decisions made 

about extending credit to minorities? 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you for your question. And I am part of the 

task force. The Attorney General set up this task force. 

It is an interagency task force so it doesn’t simply involve the Department of Justice. It involves HUD; it involves people at the Fed; 

it involves people at Treasury, et cetera. 

And I am a co-chair of the nondiscrimination working group in 

that task force, and you are indeed right. The foreclosure crisis has 

touched every community, but the data is overwhelmingly that it 

has disproportionately touched communities of color. I saw that as 

I spearheaded Governor O’Malley’s foreclosure prevention efforts in 

Maryland, where African Americans and Latinos were disproportionately victimized and subjected to discrimination, quite frankly. 

And that is why there is a civil rights dimension to this challenge. 

There are two jurisdictional hooks that the Civil Rights Division 

has: the Fair Housing Act and the Equal Credit Opportunity Act. 

In the Clinton administration, these provisions were used to hold 

accountable lenders who had engaged in the precise types of practices that you describe. Decatur Federal Savings & Loan in Georgia 

is one example; Chevy Chase Bank is another example. 

And we will and must use those tools again to ensure that both, 

in the origination side and in the modification side, there is not discrimination. And that is precisely what we will do in the Civil 

Rights Division. 

Mr. WATT. So you view that civil rights component—the discrimination component—as being part and parcel of this—the responsibilities of this task force that the Attorney General has set up? 

Mr. PEREZ. And the Attorney General views it that way as well. 

And it gets back to Chairman Nadler’s question about disparate 

impact, because many of these cases are made by using disparate 

impact theory, and that was how Decatur—well, Decatur was both 

an intent and a disparate impact theory, but that is a very important component in our arsenal as we move forward. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time is expired, and 

I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

And I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perez, thank you for your testimony. There are a number of 

subjects I would like to take up. 

One of them that caught my interest in your response to one of 

the other Members was that in the Philadelphia case of the New 

Black Panthers voter intimidation, which I believe was the most 

clear cut open and shut case of voter intimidation in the history of 

the United States of America, you stated that the case was not dismissed but it was reviewed and that the maximum penalty was obVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00073 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
70 

tained for one individual. What was the charge and what was the 

maximum penalty that was obtained, and was that a confession? 

What was the case of the disposition of that penalty? 

Mr. PEREZ. The maximum penalty available under the relevant 

provision of the Voting Rights Act, Section 11, is injunctive relief, 

and that was the penalty that was obtained in that particular case 

against that particular person. 

Mr. KING. In other words, don’t do this again. 

Mr. PEREZ. And the injunction is in place until 2012. Those are 

the statutory tools that we have. If Congress chooses to amend 

those statutory tools to provide additional penalties we will, of 

course, enforce the statutory tools that you provide us. 

Mr. KING. But to make this clear, for the clearest case of voter 

intimidation, a paramilitary—similar paramilitary uniformed individual standing in front of the polling place in Philadelphia with 

what has been described as a billy club and uttering racial epithets 

to people coming in to vote, the only penalty—the strongest penalty 

that you have available is injunctive relief. 

Mr. PEREZ. That is the statute—that is what the statute provides, sir, and that was the penalty that was sought and obtained 

against that individual—— 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Charges that might have applied that 

were outside the Voting Rights Act? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. Did you review if there were any other charges that 

might have applied outside of voter intimidation? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well again, I wasn’t here at the time. It is my understanding that a criminal review was conducted and the judgment 

was made to decline prosecution of that matter. The local authorities also showed up—— 

Mr. KING. Would you be willing to go back and take another look 

at that case, Mr. Perez? 

Mr. PEREZ. Pardon me? 

Mr. KING. Would you be willing to go back and take another look 

at that case? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, there are multiple reviews of—going on by the 

Office of Professional Responsibility and I look forward to the results of their review, and I welcome their review. 

Mr. KING. Okay. Then on the issue that has to do—I am going 

to first take you down through a couple of empiration questions if 

I can. You are familiar with the DREAM Act—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. The DREAM Act that provides for instate tuition discounts for students who are unlawfully present in 

the United States. And I am looking at a quote from you that says, 

‘‘We have a legal obligation to make the same commitment to hundreds of immigrant high school students who have made Maryland 

their home.’’ You don’t say illegal immigrant high school students; 

I presume that is what you mean. Did you say that? And if so, 

what would be the legal obligation to provide tuition discounts to 

those that are in the United States illegally and otherwise deportable? 

Mr. PEREZ. The DREAM Act and similar provisions have been 

enacted across this country by Republican and Democratic govVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:03 May 18, 2010 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6601 H:\WORK\CONST\120309\53781.000 HJUD1 PsN: DOUGA
71 

ernors—Texas, California, Utah, New York, and other places, and 

when I was serving in state government—or in local government, 

I think that is the context of that—I talked about how people who 

came here at the age of three or four through actions of their parents—— 

Mr. KING. You are referencing the state statute of this DREAM 

Act in Maryland. 

Mr. PEREZ. Correct. 

Mr. KING. Are you aware of the Federal statute that prohibits 

those tuition discounts from being offered to any student unless 

they are offered to every student who is also lawfully present in the 

United States, regardless of their state of residence? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am aware of the fact that this is an issue that has 

been under discussion in Congress for a number of years. I haven’t 

participated in that debate. 

Mr. KING. Were you aware of the Federal statute that I was referencing? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am aware of the fact that—the statute that I was 

referring to in Maryland was a statute that would mirror Texas, 

Utah, California, and other states that allowed in-state tuition for 

people who had been living in their state and who made a commitment to adjust their status as soon as they became eligible to do 

so. 

Mr. KING. With regard to the state statute in Maryland versus 

the Federal statute that prohibits a special discount for illegals unless that same discount, in-state tuition, is offered to every American citizen student whatsoever—were you aware that there is a 

conflict between the state statute and the Federal statute? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, the other states have—a number of other states 

have implemented this and it is my understanding that—— 

Mr. KING. Without regard to other states, I am speaking of 

Maryland. 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. It is my understanding that there are ways to 

devise that legislation at a state level, as Republican and Democratic governors have done—— 

Mr. KING. You really weren’t so sure that what you said here, 

‘‘We have a legal obligation to make the same commitment to hundreds of illegal immigrant high school students who have made 

Maryland their home’’—you really weren’t that confident, I don’t 

think, Mr. Perez, and I regret that my time has expired. I do appreciate your testimony. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. KING. I yield back to the Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. 

Scott. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And welcome, Mr. Perez. 

Just very briefly on the ACORN case, there is obviously a lot of 

fraud. People were being paid for registrations and they were submitting to their employer registrations that were fraudulent to 

make the money. My question is, how many people, on the evidence 

that you have available, actually voted as a result of this fraud? 

Mr. PEREZ. I can’t answer that question, sir. 

72 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there any evidence that anybody voted? 

Mr. PEREZ. I don’t know the answer to that, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Under the Voting Rights Act felony disenfranchisement is alive and well in many states. Is there anything that 

the Federal Government can do to address that where the felony 

disenfranchisement has the effect or was instituted with the intent 

to have an adverse effect on the minority community? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, the issue of felony disenfranchisement has been 

addressed by a number of states in recent years, and obviously I 

appreciate your leadership on this issue. I recall my time with Senator Kennedy and your leadership on this issue. And again, it continues to be an issue that is the subject of discussion as we move 

forward. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything the Federal Government can do 

constitutionally to restore the right felons and states where the felony disenfranchisement laws have had the effect or were implemented with the intent of diluting minority voting strength? 

Mr. PEREZ. If we receive an allegation of that nature we will certainly investigate it. 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there anything you can do in light of the constitutional provisions that the states get to decide who registers and felony disenfranchisement is legal? 

Mr. PEREZ. I would have to review specific factual circumstances. 

It is very difficult to talk in generalities about this. 

Mr. SCOTT. On housing, there are reports that there is still widespread discrimination in housing. Hopefully your answer to that 

issue will be too long for my little 5 minutes, so if you could provide 

information on your strategies to reduce discrimination in housing 

I would appreciate it. 

Mr. PEREZ. Happy to. 

Mr. SCOTT. And also, on widespread discrimination in employment, we have had reports that if your resume sent in reflects ethnic minority—the person is a minority—that alone will diminish 

the opportunities they may have. And if you could provide information on strategies of reducing employment discrimination I would 

appreciate that. 

A couple years ago the Bush administration Office of Legal Counsel issued a memo suggesting that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act actually overruled statutory antidiscrimination laws. Are 

you familiar with that Office of Legal Counsel memo? 

Mr. PEREZ. I have not reviewed it myself, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. You know what I am talking about? 

Mr. PEREZ. I am aware of the issue in general terms, yes. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, if you could take a look at that, because it was 

not the intent of anybody who was involved in the passage of the 

Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and there are a number of 

groups—religious groups—that have complained that it was inaccurate. 

Since 1965 to 2001 anybody running a federally-funded program 

could not discriminate based on race, religious, race, color, creed, 

national origin, or sex. The Bush administration changed that so 

that some can, in fact, discriminate based on religion, and inferentially, probably race. When is the Administration going to restore 

the law the way it was from 1965 to 2001? 

73 

Mr. PEREZ. I think this Administration—I know the Administration is committed to ensuring that we partner with faith-based organizations in ways that are consistent with both our laws and our 

values—— 

Mr. SCOTT. The law changed, and we want to know when they 

are going to change the law back. The President, during his campaign, said that he would have faith-based organizations with no 

discrimination, no prostelization. My question is, when are we 

going to get around to implementing that? 

Mr. PEREZ. Again, I think the department will continue to evaluate these legal questions that arise with these programs to ensure—— 

Mr. SCOTT. It is not a legal question; it is a policy question. 

Let me get one more question in. You mentioned trafficking— 

Section 1593(a) has a lower standard for prosecuting trafficking. It 

says, ‘‘Whoever knowingly benefits financially or by receiving anything of value from participating in a venture which was engaged 

in any act in violation of Section 1581(a), knowingly or recklessly 

disregard the fact that the venture was engaged in such violations 

shall be fined and imprisoned.’’ 

That removes the requirement that you have to prove force or coercion in terms of a pimp forcing or coercing a prostitute from engaging in the activity. It just says if he benefits financially that is 

all you have to prove. Can you get back with me and let me know 

how the Administration is using 1593(a) instead of the more problematic statute—a lot of people it is hard to get the testimony because people are intimidated. If you could get back to us and let 

us know how you are using 1593(a) rather than the other statutes 

I would appreciate—— 

Mr. PEREZ. I am happy to get back to you. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the gentleman. 

I now recognize the gentlelady from California for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, Mr. Chair. 

Mr. Perez, you said that the GAO report indicated that during 

the last 7 years of the last Administration that was examined by 

that report, hate crime prosecutions dropped. I was particularly 

shocked by this. I was the chair of California State Assembly’s select committee on hate crimes and I know that hate crimes increased in California by 300 percent in the year following 9/11, particularly against Arabs and Muslims and those thought to be Arab 

or Muslim. 

Can you explain what happened and also how, under your leadership, enforcement of hate crime laws will be different from that 

of your predecessors? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. Again, by way of reference, in 1994 there were 

35 hate crime prosecutions; in 1995 there were 43; in 1996 there 

were 38. By comparison, in 2005 there were 12, 2010 there were— 

2006 there were 10, 2007 there were 12, 2008 there were 21, 2009 

there were 24, trending in the right direction but still a ways to 

go. And again, it gets to my point that trafficking is a very important priority and will continue to be a priority but we can’t do these 

cases at the expense of other cases. 

74 

We certainly have seen and the data demonstrates increases in 

hate crime activity across the country, and we know that the FBI 

data understates the extent of the problem because a number of jurisdictions don’t report. So we have the new statute that I started 

working on in 1996 when I was working with Senator Kennedy 

that is going to give us additional tools to address some of the jurisdictional hurdles that have prevented us from bringing some of 

these cases in recent years, and I think that will really allow us 

to put our best foot forward. 

The Attorney General is very personally committed to moving 

forward on these and we have, I think, a very—again, with the resources that will hopefully flow from the budget that we hope will 

be passed in the near future, that will provide us with opportunities to expand our hate crimes enforcement. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. That is very good news. 

On another topic, the Voting Rights Act, of course we know it is 

critical to ensuring the democratic participation of all citizens, especially racial and language minorities. But the GAO report found 

that when compared with the Clinton administration there was a 

significant drop in the enforcement, and it found a sharp decline 

of that enforcement from more than four cases a year under Mr. 

Clinton to fewer than two cases a year under Mr. Bush. 

The Voting Rights Act is particularly important to my district, 

with its large number of Latino and Asian Americans who are primarily proficient in other languages. What emphasis will you place 

on Section 203 issues, which does have to do with language minority persons, and how will you ensure that protecting the democratic 

rights of communities with large percentages of non-English speaking people is still a priority for the Civil Rights Division? 

Mr. PEREZ. The Section 203 work that was done by the Bush administration was very important and very effective, and we will 

continue that. However, you cannot do Section 203 work at the expense of Section 2. In the Clinton administration the voting section 

filed 35 section 2 cases; in the Bush administration 15 were filed. 

Section 2 is a lynchpin of the Voting Rights Act and our voting 

rights protection in the country, and I think we can do both. I don’t 

think it is an either/or question. If we leverage our resources properly we have the additional resources coming that I mentioned, and 

the partnerships that we can put in place with the U.S. attorneys’ 

offices, I think all of these—and frankly, working smarter and 

working more efficiently, I am confident that we can accomplish everything that we need to accomplish to ensure that we enforce the 

laws—all of the laws. 

Ms. CHU. Okay. Thank you. 

And finally, the January report by the department’s inspector 

general cited internal e-mail and personnel files and it confirmed 

that in the last Administration that political appointees sought to 

hire conservatives and block liberals to career positions, contrary 

to civil service laws. I understand that the Attorney General is 

committed to making the Civil Rights Division one of the strongest 

in the department, and to that end you are expecting to hire 60 to 

100 additional employees. 

What will you do to ensure that these new staffers have a range 

of diverse backgrounds and experiences? And what departments 

75 

within the Civil Rights Division will you focus these additional 

staff resources? And how does this reflect your priorities? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sure. Three of the priority areas that I have discussed a number of times have been our fair lending work, our voting rights work, and our hate crimes work, and so I expect that a 

substantial portion of the new resources will be focused in those 

areas. We haven’t made the final staffing allotments yet, but budgets should reflect your priorities and so those areas will receive 

substantial attention as we move forward. 

Ms. CHU. And the diversity of the—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Oh, yes. And again, our Web site has our new, written hiring policy. I apologize for not addressing that. And I am confident our—the new policy, which is much more transparent and 

available to anyone who is interested in applying, specifically sets 

forth that we are looking for the best qualified people, and I believe 

that we can—for instance, in the 203 context I have been—I have 

spent a lot of time in California in my short tenure in this job and 

there are many people out there—I keep encouraging them to 

apply—a lot of 203 experts and advocates, and I am confident that 

in the end of the day we will recruit both the best qualified candidates and candidates that reflect those diverse backgrounds. That 

is certainly the best way to restore and to carry out our mission. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I will now recognize the gentleman from Georgia for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Perez, the stats that you just gave to us about the number 

of cases that the Civil Rights Division has handled insofar as hate 

crimes—are those statistics right there, are they based on data 

that was acquired during the Bush administration? 

Mr. PEREZ. This is data—for instance, the criminal prosecutions 

that I just described, I have data going back to 1993. When I was 

a career attorney in the section we kept data every year, and so 

that is why I can tell you that in fiscal year 1994 there were 35 

hate crimes cases brought. Of those 35 cases, 16 were cross-burning cases and the remainder were other sorts of cases. So this data 

has been collected throughout a number of years. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Now, your record-keeping—the GAO report talks 

about the record-keeping and it being a real problem for this division under the Bush administration. What specific steps have you 

taken to improve your information systems and does that deficiency have any connection to the recent data that you rattled off 

to us over this current decade? 

Mr. PEREZ. The data on the number of cases, I am confident, are 

accurate data, but that does not obviate the need for us to implement the recommendations that were set forth in the GAO report. 

I actually am having a meeting next week with a technology working group that we are putting together so that we can ensure that 

we are in the 21st century technologically, that we have systems 

in place that can capture almost any question that you might pose 

to use regarding the casework that we do. 

76 

So we have plenty of room for improvement, and that was documented in the GAO report, and we remain committed to implementing those steps. 

Mr. JOHNSON. In a particular division where the deficiencies are 

greater than the others—— 

Mr. PEREZ. I am sorry, I was unable to hear you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Is record-keeping at any of the divisions—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. Of civil rights—are there any particular departments that seem to stand out as far as these statistics are concerned? 

Mr. PEREZ. Well, the statistics in terms of—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, let me ask the question—— 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. Cases going up and down, or just the 

data collection capacity? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Let me ask a question. The Civil Rights Division, 

the voter rights division—the division that deals with voting 

rights—have those been particularly problematic during the course 

of the last 10 years? 

Mr. PEREZ. The data speaks for itself. I mean, there were certainly a lesser number of Section 2 cases that were brought. There 

was enhanced enforcement in Section 203; there were a number of 

cases brought there. And there were other areas where there 

wasn’t as much done. The data certainly bears that out. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Are there any officials in your department—high 

level officials—who were appointed under the Bush administration 

and their positions turned into career positions so that they could 

stay? 

Mr. PEREZ. I think you are referring to the phenomenon of burrowing in—non-career people who became career people. I would 

want to confirm that and get back to you. I am unaware of any 

non-career people who burrowed in, but I haven’t examined it carefully enough to feel 100 percent confident in that answer as it relates to the Civil Rights Division, and I will be happy to get back 

to you. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And a problem with burrowing in is the fact that 

new policies could be changed somehow. Will you get back to me 

on—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Absolutely. 

Mr. JOHNSON [continuing]. On that issue? 

Mr. PEREZ. I will certainly. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I now recognize the gentleman from Texas for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Thank you for being here, Mr. Perez. 

Mr. PEREZ. Good morning, sir. 

Mr. GOHMERT. I appreciate that very much. 

Hypothetical: If in November 2010 you receive evidence that two 

members of the KKK in Mobile, Alabama appear, from the evidence you receive, to have been intimidating potential voters what 

would be the reaction of your office? 

77 

Mr. PEREZ. We will receive the allegation, we will conduct an investigation, we will apply the facts to the law and reach a conclusion. 

Mr. GOHMERT. If you have people who are long-term employees 

of the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office who 

indicate that this is clearly abuse and you can take action against 

the individuals and on getting a judgment you would be able to 

pursue discovery and find out whether it was a widespread plot or 

just locally, wouldn’t you go ahead and pursue that? 

Mr. PEREZ. We will include all of the people involved in the decision making process—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Then why would you not do that with the Black 

Panthers when you got the video of what occurred in Philadelphia 

instead of ordering the dismissal of what was clearly going to be 

a judgment and could have allowed for discovery to be forthcoming 

and sought out whether or not there was a widespread conspiracy 

or whether this intimidation was limited to Philadelphia? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, two career attorneys with over 60 years of experience reviewed the decisions that were made on January 7, 2009 by 

the previous Administration, reached a conclusion that the charges 

against one of the defendants were warranted, sought and obtained 

the maximum penalty, and concluded that based on the facts and 

the application of the facts to the law that the charges were not 

sustainable against the remaining defendant. And—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Were you aware that they did not even file an answer? How is that not sustainable? They didn’t file an answer. 

They were going to get a judgment. And what were the names of 

those two career officers who could not figure out that the judgment that the judge had asked for and to be prepared and submitted that it certainly appeared he would sign, there was no response—what are the names of those two individual brilliant legal 

jurists who said they couldn’t get a judgment? 

Mr. PEREZ. The law of the third circuit requires that before a default—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay. But what were the names of the two career 

individuals—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Loretta King and Steve—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. My question is—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Loretta King and Steve Rosenbaum, sir—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I guess, okay, thank you. Loretta King and who 

else? 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. And they came up and made themselves 

available—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Loretta King and who else? 

Mr. PEREZ. Steve Rosenbaum, who was the Acting Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Had those two been handling the case? 

Mr. PEREZ. They were the two people in the front office—the two 

career people—who were overseeing that case. 

Mr. GOHMERT. They were overseeing but they were not handling 

that case, were they? 

Mr. PEREZ. They were reviewing the case, and they reviewed the 

entire record and made the judgment regarding the application of 

the fact to the law. 

78 

Mr. GOHMERT. Is it your opinion, with your distinguished career 

and your great education and experience, that when you have a 

judgment that the judge has asked for and the respondents have 

not responded that you could not get a judgment in that case? Is 

that your opinion? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, it is my view that we have to follow the laws of 

the circuit, and in the third circuit the law is that if you are going 

to seek a default judgment you need to be able to represent to the 

court—there is a rule, Rule 11, that requires you to be able to represent to the court that the charges you are putting forth are 

charges that are supported by the facts and the evidence, and—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Did you review the video of those guys out in 

front of that polling place? 

Mr. PEREZ. Whenever a case is brought to anyone’s attention—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. My question is, did you review the video of the 

individuals out in front of that polling place? 

Mr. PEREZ. It is important, Congressman, to review the totality 

of the circumstances and not make—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. And I am asking you to get to the totality you reviewed, if anything, did you review the video of those guys out in 

front of the polling place, and one of them with a billy club? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I am not the person who reviewed the case because it was—I was not working—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So your answer to my question is no, you did not 

review that video. Is that correct? 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I have incredible confidence in the judgment of 

the two career people who made the judgment—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. So the answer to my question is no, you never 

saw the video. Isn’t that right? 

Mr. PEREZ. I have actually seen the video, sir—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Okay, there we go. Thank you. 

Mr. PEREZ [continuing]. But I—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. That was the question. That helps me 

know whether you reviewed the totality of the circumstances yourself. 

Mr. PEREZ. No, I haven’t reviewed the totality of the circumstances myself, and I look forward to the report of the Office 

of Professional Responsibility, which was asked for by this Committee and—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. And Mr. Perez, as smart as you are you know how 

important around the world that it is to avoid voter fraud and 

voter intimidation, and so in Iraq they dip their finger, under 

threat of death, in purple permanent ink knowing that they would 

be subjected to death. And here we can’t even get the Justice—I 

don’t care which Administration—— 

Mr. NADLER. Time is expired, but I will let the witness answer 

the question. 

Mr. GOHMERT. But you understand—— 

Mr. NADLER. The gentleman’s time is expired. The witness may 

answer the question. 

Mr. KING [continuing]. Unanimous consent the gentleman be recognized for an additional minute. 

Mr. PEREZ. I am not sure what the question is, sir. 

79 

Mr. NADLER. We cannot do that. We have 6 minutes left on the 

vote on the floor. 

The witness may answer the question. 

Mr. PEREZ. I wasn’t sure that there was a question—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. The question started with, were you aware? Or, 

you are aware of how important—— 

Mr. PEREZ. Sir, I certainly share your desire and interest in ensuring that elections are carried out in a manner that is free of intimidation, and I also share your desire to ensure that investigations are fully and fairly carried out. I look forward to the results 

of the OPR investigation. We have cooperated fully; we will continue to do so and await their results. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Please do so with the KKK or anybody else that 

you find there is evidence of voter intimidation. 

Mr. PEREZ. Yes, sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Without objection the gentleman from Virginia is recognized 

for—briefly to ask a question which the witness will give an answer to later. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

If you could get back to me on the answer, under Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle and the Michigan affirmative action cases the court has made it clear that voluntary desegregation programs and affirmative action programs are legal but 

only if they are done correctly. My question to you is if you could 

provide us the guidance you are providing to local school systems 

and universities and others about how to fashion desegregation 

programs and affirmative action programs so that they can pass 

constitutional muster? And if you could get back to me on that I 

would appreciate it. 

Mr. PEREZ. I look forward to discussing that issue with you. 

Mr. NADLER. So I thank the witness. I thank the Members. So 

that we don’t miss the votes on the floor—there are now four votes 

on the floor; there is 4 minutes and 45 seconds left on the first 

vote. So we will recess the hearing until the conclusion of those 

votes. 

I ask the Members and the witnesses to be back as soon as the 

votes conclude, as rapidly as possible thereafter. 

Mr. Perez, you are excused with our thanks. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you. 

Mr. NADLER. And the hearing is recessed until the conclusion of 

the votes on the floor. 

Mr. PEREZ. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[Recess.] 

Mr. NADLER. The Subcommittee will come back to order again. 

I thank everyone for waiting while we were voting. 

We will now proceed with our second panel, and I would ask the 

witnesses to take their places. In the interest of time I will introduce you once you have taken your seats, which you have. 

Eileen Regan Larence currently serves as director of the homeland security and justice issues at the U.S. Government Accountability Office. In this capacity she manages congressional requests 

to assess various law enforcement and Department of Justice 

issues as well as the state of terrorism-related information sharing 

80 

since 9/11. Ms. Larence has a Master’s in public administration degree and extensive experience at GAO. 

Grace Chung Becker served as the Acting Assistant Attorney 

General for the Civil Rights Division at the United States Department of Justice from 2007 until the beginning of 2009. She previously served as an associate deputy general counsel at the Department of Defense. 

She also has worked as a Federal prosecutor in the Criminal Division of the Justice Department, the Assistant General Counsel of 

the United States Sentencing Commission, counsel to the Senate 

Judiciary Committee, and an associate at the law firm of Williams 

and Connolly. Earlier in her career Ms. Becker clerked for Judge 

James L. Buckley of the United States Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia circuit and Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson on 

the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. 

She graduated magna cum laude from the Wharton School of Finance through the University of Pennsylvania and obtained her 

law degree magna cum laude from the Georgetown University Law 

Center, where she was a member of the Order of the Coif and was 

an associate editor on the Georgetown Law Journal. 

Joseph Rich is the director of the Fair Housing Project at the 

Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law. He has served in 

this position since 2005. 

Before joining the Lawyers’ Committee Mr. Rich spent his entire 

legal career in the Department of Justice’s civil rights division, 

where he litigated and supervised hundreds of civil rights cases. 

From 1999 to 2005 he has served as chief of the voting section. 

Prior to his tenure in the voting section, Mr. Rich spent 12 years 

as deputy chief in the Housing and Civil Enforcement Section of 

the Civil Rights Division. Additionally, he served as deputy chief 

and trial attorney in the Civil Rights Division’s Educational Opportunities Section, where he litigated and supervised approximately 

100 school desegregation and other equal education cases. 

Mr. Rich received his J.D. degree cum laude from the University 

of Michigan Law School and his B.A. in history from Yale University. 

I am pleased to welcome all of you. Your written statements will 

be made part of the record in its entire—in their entirety. I would 

ask each of your to summarize your testimony in 5 minutes or less. 

To help you stay within that time there is a lighting—a timing 

light at your table. When 1 minute remains, the light will switch 

from green to yellow, and then red when the 5 minutes are up. 

Before we begin it is customary for the Committee to swear in 

its witnesses. If you would please stand and raise your rights 

hands to take the oath? 

[Witnesses sworn.] 

Mr. NADLER. Let the record reflect that the witnesses answered 

in the affirmative. 

You may be seated. 

I will now recognize in order, first, Ms. Larence for 5 minutes. 

81 

TESTIMONY OF EILEEN REGEN LARENCE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE ISSUES, U.S. GOVERNMENT 

ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. LARENCE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Subcommittee. I appreciate the opportunity to summarize the results of our review of the activities of the voting, employment, 

housing, and special litigation sections at the Justice civil rights division from 2001 through 2007. We hope this information will serve 

as a useful baseline for the new Administration’s future plans. 

In general, the sections have obtained leads about possible civil 

rights violations from agency referrals, the Congress, advocacy 

groups, the public, media coverage, and other means. Sections pursue matters or cases based on their legal merit. They close matters 

without pursuing the case, for example, because of a lack of merit 

or evidence or because the issue can be resolved without litigation. 

Sections have both statutory mandates and discretion for deciding what matters and cases to pursue. They respond to division or 

section priorities, and some sections give priority to matters and 

cases that address the pattern or practice of discrimination because 

resolving these can have the greatest impact. 

The voting section is responsible enforcing statutes that protect 

the rights of racial and language minorities, disabled and illiterate 

persons, and overseas and military voters in addition to laws that 

address voter registration, voting systems, and other issues. Most 

of the section’s 442 matters and 56 plaintiff cases involved language minorities, especially Spanish speakers under Section 203 of 

the Voting Rights Act, which requires bilingual voting materials. 

One section chief noted this was a shift in priorities for this section, given progress in addressing racial discrimination in at-large 

voting systems and emerging tensions over immigration, although 

the current section chief said concerns with at-large systems still 

exist. The section pursued about a third of its matters and a fourth 

of its cases under Section 2 with half of these matters and three 

of these cases on behalf of African Americans and one case on behalf of Whites. 

The section also pursued cases involving the purge of ineligible 

voters from registration lists, a division priority, and spent half of 

its time on its mandate to pre-clear almost 120,000 proposals from 

jurisdictions to change voting procedures. The section objected to 

42 changes primarily involving redistricting. 

The employment section focused most of its 3,200 matters on 

issues of employment discrimination against individuals and because of referrals from other agencies, although the number of referrals declined of the 7 years. The section filed 60 cases as plaintiff, including 11 pattern or practice cases, mostly involving sex and 

racial discrimination, including the section’s first two pattern or 

practice cases brought on behalf of Whites. 

Current section staff would not speculate on why the section focused its efforts in particular areas. We could not determine the 

subject and protected class of more than 80 percent of the matters 

for this section because the division did not require all sections to 

record these data or the reasons matters are not pursued in their 

case management system. 

82 

The housing section is responsible for enforcing statutes prohibiting discrimination in housing, credit transactions, and public accommodations as well as religious discrimination and land use. The 

section had discretion, except for certain referrals from HUD, 

which the section had to file in court. 

Most of its 947 matters and 277 cases were pursued under the 

Fair Housing Act and involved a pattern or practice of discrimination. They addressed discrimination based on race and disabilities, 

in part because of section priorities, and land use, zoning, and rental issues. 

The section’s workload decreased during the 7 years. According 

to the section, this was in large measure due to HUD referrals decreasing. 

As to discrimination in lending, matters addressed age and marital status discrimination and cases addressed race and national origin issues. 

The special litigation section focused most of its efforts on addressing conditions of those confined in institutions, such as correctional or mental health facilities, with priority on juvenile correctional facilities. The section also enforced statutes prohibiting law 

enforcement misconduct, although the time spent on these issues 

decreased over the 7 years. At the direction of division management, the section placed lower priority on enforcing religious freedoms of institutionalized persons, including prisoners. 

In closing, Mr. Chairman, I wanted to reemphasize that because 

the division did not require sections to record key data in its case 

management system the division could not fully account for its actions to the department, the Congress, or the public. We recommended that the department require sections to record data on 

the subject and the protected class in its case management system 

as well as consider how to record data on the reasons for closing 

matters as it explores its future case management system needs. 

The department agreed and is already taking actions division-wide. 

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my statement, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Larence follows:] 

83 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF EILEEN REGEN LARENCE


ERL-1.eps
84 


ERL-2.eps
85 


ERL-3.eps
86 


ERL-4.eps
87 


ERL-5.eps
88 


ERL-6.eps
89 


ERL-7.eps
90 


ERL-8.eps
91 


ERL-9.eps
92 


ERL-10.eps
93 


ERL-11.eps
94 


ERL-12.eps
95 


ERL-13.eps
96 


ERL-14.eps
97 


ERL-15.eps
98 


ERL-16.eps
99 


ERL-17.eps
100 


ERL-18.eps
101 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

I now recognize Ms. Becker for 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER, FORMER ACTING ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON, DC 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. 

And good morning, or good afternoon, to Chairman Franks and 

the other Members of the Committee. 


ERL-19.eps
102 

It is an honor and a privilege to appear before you today to talk 

about the work of the Civil Rights Division in the prior Administration. The 700 men and women that I supervised in the division set 

new records, spearheaded enforcement of over a half dozen new 

civil rights statutes while continuing to vigorously pursue traditional voting right—civil rights matters. 

For example, the voting section filed substantially more cases in 

the 8 years of the Bush administration than in the 8 years of the 

Clinton administration. In calendar year 2006 alone the men and 

women in the section filed 18 lawsuits. That is more than twice the 

annual average over the preceding 30 years. 

They filed more cases under the language minority provisions of 

the Voting Rights Act than the Clinton, Bush I, Reagan, Carter, 

and all other previous Administrations combined, including the 

first case ever on behalf of Korean, Filipino, and Vietnamese voters. They set new records in the number of cases filed on the voter 

assistance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, including the first 

case ever on behalf of Haitian voters. 

They set record high numbers in sending Federal monitors and 

observers to the polls in 2004. They filed 15 lawsuits under Section 

2 of the Voting Rights Act, including 27 on behalf of African Americans, and worked with the appellate section and the solicitor general’s office to successfully defend the Voting Rights Act—the reauthorized Voting Rights Act—from constitutional challenge. 

The men and women in the criminal section also set new records. 

In fiscal year 2008 they filed the highest annual number of cases 

in the history of the division, and in 2006 they had a 98 percent 

conviction rate, the highest ever in the division’s history. They increased human trafficking prosecutions by 600 percent and charged 

200 defendants in 135 hate crime cases. 

Similarly, the men and women in the employment litigation section filed more lawsuits in 2008 than in any previous year of the 

division’s history. They also broke the record then for the highest 

number of lawsuits filed in a single year under the Uniformed 

Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act, and I am 

heartened to hear that the new Administration has already broken 

that record. 

The men and women of the special litigation section more than 

tripled the number of settlements of police departments in the last 

Administration. In the first 6 years of that Administration they increased by over 250 percent the number of juvenile justice investigations that they opened. And in calendar year 2007, they opened 

17 new investigations, as compared to the annual average of 10 in 

the preceding 13 years. 

The men and women of the disability rights section helped over 

3 million individuals with disabilities through its Project Civic Access agreements in all 50 states. They brought accessible seating 

to the largest football college stadium in the country, the University of Michigan, and worked with the International Spy Museum 

to create state-of-the-art technology to help visitors who are hard 

of hearing or who have low vision or are blind. 

The men and women in the housing and civil enforcement section 

set new records in the number of undercover fair housing tests in 

fiscal year 2007, pursuant to an attorney general initiative called 

103 

Operation Home Sweet Home. They then broke that record again 

in 2008. 

And they increased by 36 percent the number of sexual harassment cases filed under the Fair Housing Act in the last Administration. And as the GAO report indicates, they spent 90 percent of 

their time working on pattern and practice cases. 

The men and women in the appellate section were also very productive and successful. In fiscal year 2007, their 95 percent success 

rate was the highest since they started keeping statistics over 30 

years ago. 

And lastly, the men and women in the employment, education, 

appellate, special litigation, and housing and civil enforcement sections worked to protect perhaps one of the most traditional civil 

rights that we have, one dating back to the colonists who first came 

to this country to avoid religious persecution. The work of these individuals helped fight religious discrimination against Jews, Muslims, Sikhs, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, Native American religious assemblies, and others. And during that time period the division won virtually every religious discrimination case in which it 

was involved and sharply increased the enforcement of religious 

liberties throughout the country. 

As a career attorney who worked for over a decade in all three 

branches of the Federal Government before being selected for a 

leadership position at the Civil Rights Division, I appreciate the 

hard work and dedication of these fine men and women, and I am 

confident that they will continue to carry on the proud tradition of 

the Civil Rights Division. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Becker follows:] 

104 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER


GCB-1.eps
105 


GCB-2.eps
106 


GCB-3.eps
107 


GCB-4.eps
108 


GCB-5.eps
109 


GCB-6.eps
110 


GCB-7.eps
111 


GCB-8.eps
112 


GCB-9.eps
113 


GCB-10.eps
114 


GCB-11.eps
115 


GCB-12.eps
116 


GCB-13.eps
117 


GCB-14.eps
118 


GCB-15.eps
119 


GCB-16.eps
120 


GCB-17.eps
121 


GCB-18.eps
122 


GCB-19.eps
123 


GCB-20.eps
124 


GCB-21.eps
125 


GCB-22.eps
126 


GCB-23.eps
127 


GCB-24.eps
128 


GCB-25.eps
129 


GCB-26.eps
130 


GCB-27.eps
131 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

And I now yield Mr. Rich 5 minutes. 

TESTIMONY OF JOSEPH D. RICH, DIRECTOR, FAIR HOUSING 

PROJECT, LAWYERS’ COMMITTEE FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER 

LAW, WASHINGTON, DC 

Mr. RICH. I was invited today to offer comments on the Civil 

Rights Division’s record primarily in the period of 2001 to 2007 because that was the period that the GAO addressed in their report 

that is being released today. On prior occasions I have testified, 

spoken, and written about the Civil Rights Division during this 

same period. Most pertinent to this hearing is testimony I presented in March of 2007 to this Committee and a report I helped 

prepare entitled ‘‘The Erosion of Rights: Declining Civil Rights.’’ 

My testimony and the report focused on the unprecedented 

politicization of the division during the Bush administration and 

the enforcement record of three sections: the criminal, employment, 

and voting sections from January 2001—January 20, 2001— 

through the beginning of 2007. And it is worth noting that that period is a little different than the GAO report that covered fiscal 

year 2001, which was partly in the Clinton administration. 

Initially, I want to emphasize that the most serious concern in 

my 2007 testimony and in the ‘‘Erosion of Rights’’ report was the 

unprecedented politicization that permeated the division in this period and the impact this politicization had on the morale of the career staff. Politicization of the hiring process in the department has 

already been carefully documented in four inspector general reports, including one which discussed only the Civil Rights Division. 

The impact of this politicization was especially severe. 

In a September 1 New York Times article it was reported that 

a transition report before the Obama administration found that 

there were close to—there was close to a 70 percent attrition rate 

in division staff during this period from 2003 to 2007, an especially 

shocking statistic which reflects the devastating impact on career 

staff from the politicization. 

While the GAO report does not directly address issues concerning 

the impact of the politicization there is data in the report that confirms this alarming statistic. It reports high attrition rates in the 

employment section from 23 percent in 2003, to 35 percent in 2004, 

to 22 percent in 2005. Voting section similarly was 31 percent attrition rate in 2005, 27 percent in 2006, 21 percent in 2007, and similar statistics for the special litigation section. 

Turning to analysis of enforcement records, I have limited my— 

primarily limited my written testimony to looking at employment 

and voting, which were the two sections that we looked at most 

carefully during the writing the report, and it shows two major 

shortcomings: first, the reduction in systemic enforcement actions 

in both section, pattern or practice employment cases, and vote dilution cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. I would add 

a third area, which Mr. Perez alluded to, was the reduction in fair 

lending cases, something that has been documented in another report that I participated in last year with the Lawyers’ Committee 

called the Future of Fair Housing. 

132 

In this report there was only nine pattern or—in the period that 

we looked at there were only nine pattern or practice employment 

cases filed and only one alleged discrimination against African 

Americans. By contrast, in the first 2 years alone, Clinton’s administration filed 13 pattern or practice employment cases, eight of 

which had race discrimination. 

Similarly, Section 2 vote dilution cases, which have been the 

highest priority of the Administrations going back to 1982 when 

Section 2 was amended, came to a virtual standstill during the 

Bush administration. We found that in the first 6 years there were 

only five vote dilution cases, only one of which could be credited to 

the Bush administration, which was brought on behalf of African 

Americans. And since this report there were only two other cases 

filed for the remaining period of the Administration. 

The damage to the Civil Rights Division from 8 years of 

politicization has been extremely serious. The GAO report, while 

neutral in its presentation, contains data that confirms my earlier 

testimony and ‘‘The Erosion of Rights.’’ I know I speak on behalf 

of almost all former employees who left in this period in our fervent hope that this and other reports will be vigorously addressed 

by the Obama administration. 

The signs are very favorable to hear Mr. Perez talk about enforcing all the laws, which was, I think, the biggest shortcoming in the 

enforcement record of the Bush administration, is encouraging, as 

well as the major change in the hiring process. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Rich follows:] 

133 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOSEPH D. RICH


Rich-1A.eps Rich-1B.eps
134 


Rich-2.eps
135 


Rich-3.eps
136 


Rich-4.eps
137 


Rich-5.eps
138 


Rich-6.eps
139 


Rich-7.eps
140 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you very much. 

I will yield myself 5 minutes to begin the questioning. 

Ms. Larence, your report explains that you were not able to look 

comprehensively at the reasons various civil rights cases were 


Rich-8.eps
141 

closed in 2001 to 2007 because of insufficient record-keeping. You 

did look at the underlying files in a number of the closed cases, and 

I am very concerned about what you found. 

In employment and voting, you found a number of cases where 

career civil rights attorneys wanted to pursue investigations but 

were forbidden from doing so by the political appointees on top, as 

we have discussed earlier in this hearing. Do you have any additional information on these cases or copies of the files? 

Ms. LARENCE. We had three files in the voting section that indicated that the division did not agree to move the cases or matters 

forward. We don’t have—— 

Mr. NADLER. Were there any reasons given for that? 

Ms. LARENCE. In two of the cases no; in one of the cases, the division raised concerns about the resources—the relative resources 

that would be used in that case versus the outcome. We do have 

data that would allow us to track those cases or those matters back 

to the original files, but we do not have information on the parties 

involved in those cases. 

Mr. NADLER. Were you allowed to keep copies of the files you 

looked at? 

Ms. LARENCE. No. We looked at files on site. 

Mr. NADLER. But you were not allowed to copy copies—to make 

copies? 

Ms. LARENCE. No. We just tracked information from the files. 

Mr. NADLER. Is that the normal procedure? 

Ms. LARENCE. Pardon? 

Mr. NADLER. When you examine a government department, 

when you have examined the Department of Justice prior to 2001, 

is it the normal procedure that you can’t copy documents, you can 

only inspect them? 

Ms. LARENCE. In some cases the department asks us to not keep 

files because of the sensitivities of the people under investigation. 

And so in some matters we do agree to honor their concerns about 

that and use those file on site—— 

Mr. NADLER. Were there sensitivities of those natures present in 

these cases? 

Ms. LARENCE. In some cases I think the parties under investigation may not have been aware that they were under investigation, 

so that was sensitive information and we agreed to honor that concern by the department. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. Rich, you were a career attorney, head of the voting section 

until 2005. Do you have any information about these cases or the 

other voting cases at page 142 of the GAO report? 

Mr. RICH. I am looking at it right now. 

Mr. NADLER. Can you talk a little louder, please? 

Mr. RICH. The first matter was on—was a complaint on behalf 

of Native Americans and involved a possible violation of Section 2 

of the Voting Rights Act based on the county’s use of an at-large 

collection system. This is the very type of vote dilution case which 

had been tremendously reduced that I discussed—— 

Mr. NADLER. And this was a case that was closed? 

Mr. RICH. This was a case that the recommendation from the 

staff was just to investigate it, not to—we weren’t—— 

142 

Mr. NADLER. This is a vote dilution case based on a county atlarge representation system—— 

Mr. RICH. Yes, and—— 

Mr. NADLER. The recommendation from the staff was to investigate and the decision was—— 

Mr. RICH. It was denied, and to me it was a—one of the examples of a political decision making in the department at that time. 

Mr. NADLER. And what were the politics? 

Mr. RICH. Pardon me? 

Mr. NADLER. What do you think the politics were? 

Mr. RICH. The politics had to do with the fact that the reason 

given to us for not pursuing this was that they thought the results 

of the election were because there was a vast majority of Republicans in that jurisdiction and that because of that there was no 

basis for us suspecting that there was a discrimination against Native Americans. 

Mr. NADLER. I don’t understand that. Because a lot of Republicans are in a jurisdiction, therefore you can’t—nobody can discriminate against Native Americans? 

Mr. RICH. Well, in a Section 2 vote dilution case one of the key 

elements is to show that there is polarized voting, that the minorities are polarized from the White, and we suspected that was very 

much the case when we recommended this. The decision was that 

no, just because there are so many Republicans in the district that 

we are not going to investigate it, and I thought that that reflected 

a political motive for it. 

I would add, too, that the—subsequently the ACLU did bring a 

case against this very jurisdiction and brought it successfully. 

Mr. NADLER. So the courts found that not only should it have 

been investigated, but had it been investigated it would have been 

a successful investigation. 

Ms. Becker, you were at the division beginning in 2006. Do you 

have any information on the cases that the GAO found that career 

attorneys were stopped from pursuing? On the voting case I mentioned, in particular, can you tell us anything about why even further contact with state officials was forbidden? 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Chairman Nadler. 

I was not given the opportunity that Mr. Rich was to analyze the 

GAO report prior to coming here today. I was given a copy of it 

after I submitted my testimony. 

I was not at the division when that particular case arose. I can 

tell you, based upon my experience working in the Civil Rights Division for almost 3 years in the Bush administration, that disagreements are rare, and certainly while they—— 

Mr. NADLER. Excuse me. Disagreements between the career officials and the political officials—— 

Ms. BECKER. The non-career and the career officials in a management setting is very rare. And so I would not—— 

Mr. NADLER. Your testimony that it is very rare, is from the time 

you were there after 2000-and-when? 

Ms. BECKER. Well, I can only speak based upon my personal experience—— 

Mr. NADLER. Which was starting in—— 

143 

Ms. BECKER [continuing]. But I also can tell you, based upon my 

personal experience, responding to subpoena requests by this Committee while we were there looking at certain time periods at voting records that even at that time period we found very, very small 

numbers—I mean, you can count them on one had—the number of 

disagreements even within the voting section. 

Mr. NADLER. Well, that is exactly the opposite of what the GAO 

found and what Mr. Rich testifies to. 

Ms. BECKER. I think they were talking anecdotally about a specific case; I don’t know if they were saying that it was pervasive, 

sir. 

Mr. NADLER. Okay. My time is expired. 

The gentleman from Arizona is recognized. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am going to, if I could, direct this to Ms. Becker first, and then 

ask the others to respond as there is time. We have—lay a little 

foundation here, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Anita MonCrief, former ACORN employee, has given testimony under oath, and I would like to summarize parts of that testimony and ask for your reaction. Ms. MonCrief’s testimony reflects 

the following facts: In November 2007 Project Vote was contacted 

by the Obama presidential campaign. Project Vote received an 

Obama donor list from the Obama campaign. Project Vote solicited 

Obama donors to pay for the voter registration and to ‘‘get out the 

vote.’’ 

Project Vote received donor lists from other Democrat and labor 

unions sources. Project Vote developed a plan to approach maxedout presidential donors and allegedly use the funds for voter registration drives. 

ACORN employees were paid through Project Vote for partisan 

campaign activities telling voters to not vote for certain candidates. 

There were inadequate divisions between the staff of ACORN and 

Project Vote, and persons working for one entity actually performed 

work for either or both organizations. 

ACORN chose which states in the Project Vote would conduct 

voter registration drives based on political considerations. Registration drives by Project Vote were conducted in battleground states 

that could change the outcome of the election. 

So I would like to ask—this is her testimony, the things that I 

just delineated. This is Anita MonCrief. 

So I would like to ask each of the witnesses whether they think 

that these statements raise any issues regarding violations of the 

Federal Elections Campaign Act of 1971, as amended, which prohibits corporate contributions to campaigns of Federal candidates 

or corporate expenditures to support or oppose a Federal candidate 

and to also prohibit expenditures by nonprofit or corporations such 

as ACORN and Project Vote, which are made in coordination with, 

at the request, behest, or suggestion, or the material involvement 

of a Federal campaign such as the presidential campaign of Mr. 

Obama. 

I know that is a mouthful, but can—Ms. Becker, if you would respond first, and I will ask the others to respond after that. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Chairman Franks. Those do sound like 

very serious allegations, but the campaign finance laws are laws 

144 

that are not enforced by the Civil Rights Division, and so my experience in the Civil Rights Division it sounds like it is a campaign 

finance issue and may be outside of our jurisdiction. 

Mr. FRANKS. That was pretty short and sweet. 

Mr. Rich? 

Mr. RICH. Pretty much my answer, too. I would say—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Mike, please, again. 

Mr. RICH. In my experience the—we work closely with criminal 

election branch during election, and when you get allegations of 

fraud or campaign misspending of this nature they are referred to 

the criminal division’s election crimes branch, and they are the 

ones with the expertise on these laws and they are the ones to ask 

this question to. I don’t feel I have the expertise in these laws to 

comment on whether they have been violated. 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you. 

Ms. Larence? 

Ms. LARENCE. Well, I can’t speak to the legality of these particular instances. We have initiated, at the request of a number of 

Members of the Senate and House, a review of Federal agencies’ 

grants to ACORN and the way in which Federal agencies are providing internal controls, and tracking the use of, those grants. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you. 

And thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to go ahead and ask 

unanimous consent to place into the record the testimony on the 

New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense and Malik Zulu—if 

you—and the declaration of Bartle Bull, without objection. 

Mr. NADLER. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

145 


E-1.eps
146 


E-2.eps
147 

Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. NADLER. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Larence and Mr. Rich, Ms. Becker said that the disagreements between career and political were not pervasive but occasional. Was that your experience and what you found? 

Ms. LARENCE. We were able to look at a small set of files for 

matters across the four sections, and within—so, for example, we 

only looked at maybe about 50 files per each of the sections, and 


E-3.eps
148 

within those—for example, in the voting section we were—those 

files only contained three instances in which the information we 

had indicated that there may have been a disagreement with the 

division. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. 

Mr. Rich? 

Mr. RICH. I think in my experience in the voting section up until 

2005 there were a significant number of disagreements. In the 

‘‘Erosion of Rights’’ report there is details about decision making, 

for instance, on the Mississippi redistricting plan, on the Texas redistricting plan, and on the Georgia voter ID plan, all of which 

were highly controversial and major disagreements between the career attorneys, including myself, and political appointees. 

I think worse, though, is what happened in the division that had 

never happened before. There was a complete breakdown in communication in the period I was there; I was not there when Ms. 

Becker was there. 

But when I was there, there was a complete breakdown, almost 

a conscious effort to separate the career management people from 

political appointees, something that made absolutely no sense in a 

law enforcement agency. And I have laid that out also in the testimony I gave 2 years ago and in the ‘‘Erosion of Rights’’ report. But 

that lack of communication led to a situation in which we did not 

know what priorities were except when they arose and it became 

very apparent to us that political considerations were being injected into the decision making, something that never had happened before. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Ms. Becker, I had asked the previous panel about the Office of 

Legal Counsel memo that concluded that the Religious Freedom 

Restoration Act overrode statutory nondiscrimination provisions. 

Are you familiar with that memo? 

Ms. BECKER. I am sorry, I haven’t seen that memo, sir. 

Mr. SCOTT. Okay. Well, are you familiar—employment discrimination is a significant portion of the Civil Rights Division’s work. 

Is that—— 

Ms. BECKER. That is correct. 

Mr. SCOTT. Under the faith-based initiative, the faith-based 

group sponsors a federally-funded program and hires people with 

Federal money. Are they able to discriminate in employment with 

the Federal money? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, I think that would be a question that 

is better directed to the current Justice Department. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, under the Bush administration could they discriminate in employment? 

Ms. BECKER. You cannot discriminate on the basis of religion in 

an employment in Title 7 context, sir—in an employment context. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if it is a faith-based organization with Federal 

money, can the sponsoring organization decide to hire people based 

solely on religion? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, I need to know a little bit more about 

the facts and the law under which they are presumably acting to 

see whether or not it is a legal basis. I—— 

149 

Mr. SCOTT. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Wait a minute. Under 

the faith-based—the whole faith-based initiative is the ability to 

discriminate in employment, and you don’t know whether they can 

discriminate in—you give a vague answer under whether or not a 

sponsor of a federally-funded program calling itself faith-based can 

discriminate and have a policy of not hiring people of certain religions? You don’t know? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, you are referring to a memo that I 

have not had an opportunity to look at. I apologize, but I don’t—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I went off the memo. The memo went further than 

the initiative. The initiative just lets you discriminate. What the 

memo did—it says—lets you discriminate notwithstanding statutory prohibitions. 

Mr. Rich, were you there when—do you have anything to do with 

employment discrimination? 

Mr. RICH. I did not. That is an employment matter and I did not 

have any knowledge about the memo or how it would apply to 

the—normally—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, under the faith-based initiative the sponsoring 

organization can discriminate, just decide as a matter of policy, 

‘‘We are not going to hire you because of your religion.’’ That is the 

faith-based initiative. That is the sum and substance of what you 

get with the faith-based initiative. Everything else under the faithbased initiative is present law. 

The one thing you get under the executive order under faithbased initiative is the termination of the 1965 executive order that 

prohibited discrimination in any Federal contract. And what the— 

it is either a 2001 or 2002 Bush executive order said, well, if you 

are faith-based you can discriminate. You are already not covered 

by Title 7; you are not covered by Title 6; and you are not covered 

by the executive order, so you are free to discriminate. And your 

testimony today is you weren’t aware of that? 

Ms. BECKER. No. My testimony today was that I am not aware 

that the faith-based initiative violated any of the civil rights laws 

that we were enforcing when I was there. 

Mr. SCOTT. My question to you was, can the sponsoring organization discriminate based on religion under the faith-based initiative—— 

Ms. BECKER. And I don’t know. What I am saying is that the 

faith-based initiative—I am not aware that the faith-based initiative violated the civil rights laws that I—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I didn’t ask you whether they violated the civil rights 

laws. I asked you whether or not a sponsor of a federally-funded 

program calling itself faith-based has the right, under the—during 

the Bush administration, to deny employment opportunities based 

on religion? 

Ms. BECKER. And Congressman, I am telling you I don’t have 

enough information to answer that question. I don’t know what federally-funded program you are referring to; I don’t know who the 

sponsor is that you are referring to. 

It is hard for me to answer a hypothetical without the factual details. I apologize but I just don’t have enough information to talk 

about this particular hypothetical that you are mentioning. 

150 

Mr. SCOTT. It is not hypothetical. The fact is, under the Bush administration they allowed it. And you are saying as the Acting Assistant Attorney Feneral for Civil Rights you weren’t aware of 

that? 

Ms. BECKER. No. I am saying that as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division I have no reason to believe that the faith-based initiatives violated any of the civil rights 

laws that the division—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I didn’t say it violated civil rights laws. I asked you 

a simple question: Can the sponsor of a—— 

Mr. Chairman, you know, I would like a straight answer to this 

question, if I could. 

Under the Bush administration was it the law—not violating 

anything, but I mean did you have the policy to allow discrimination based on religion with federally-funded projects—federallyfunded, in hiring with Federal money, if the sponsoring organization was a faith-based organization? 

Ms. BECKER. The policy when I was at the Civil Rights Division 

was to vigorously enforce the Federal civil rights laws under our 

jurisdiction. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me rephrase—if the gentleman will yield—— 

Mr. SCOTT. I will yield. 

Mr. NADLER. Let me rephrase the question. The policy was to 

vigorously enforce the civil rights laws. Was it the view of the department that vigorously enforcing the civil rights law did not include or did include—which one?—cracking down on discrimination 

by faith-based groups in hiring based on religion? Was that viewed 

as a violation of civil rights law—— 

Mr. SCOTT. With Federal money. 

Mr. NADLER. With Federal money—was that viewed as a civil 

rights violation or was that viewed as permitted under the policy? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, maybe I am misunderstanding the 

question here that the two of you are saying. 

Mr. SCOTT. If the sponsoring organization said, ‘‘We don’t hire 

Jews,’’ would that be legal under the—with Federal money—would 

that be legal under the Civil Rights Division during the Bush administration? 

Ms. BECKER. Again, I would want to see what law they are purporting to act under that gives them the authority to do that and 

whether or not—— 

Mr. SCOTT. Is there a prohibition? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, I am not aware that the faith-based 

initiatives violated the civil rights laws. I am not. I don’t know how 

much more clearly I can say that. I apologize. 

Mr. SCOTT. So if it was legal that, ‘‘We don’t hire Jews,’’ was 

legal under civil rights laws you wouldn’t have a problem with 

that? 

Ms. BECKER. Well, Congressman, if there is a requirement for a 

change in the laws certainly, you know, we—— 

Mr. NADLER. I think you have answered the question. I would 

hope you could get a response in writing to us on the very specific 

question, was it the view of the department that a faith-based organization with Federal dollars could require that the hiring be only 

from the—for example, the same religious group? 

151 

Could a Presbyterian church say, ‘‘We don’t want to hire Catholics with Federal—for this federally-funded program’’? Yes or no? 

That should be an easy question to answer. What was your view? 

Was that a violation of civil rights laws or was it not? And I hope 

you will give us that answer in writing since you obviously won’t 

give it to us now. 

The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The gentleman from Iowa? 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I thank the witnesses for your testimony. I am not quite adjusted 

to the testimony I received from Mr. Perez in the previous panel, 

and recall his words when he said that the case of the Philadelphia 

voter intimidation, which I characterized as being the most open 

and shut case of voter intimidation in the history of the United 

States, they had the—a single perpetrator had received the maximum—that ‘‘the maximum penalty was obtained.’’ 

That maximum penalty was injunction. That simply says, ‘‘Don’t 

do this again.’’ And I am going to suspect that perhaps, Ms. Becker, 

you have some knowledge of this case and I would ask you if that 

would be the maximum penalty allowed under the statue. 

Ms. BECKER. Under Section 11(b) of the Voting Rights Act the relief that the Justice Department can seek is declaratory relief—a 

declaration that there has been a violation of law—as well as an 

injunction. In terms of maximums, what you are talking about here 

is the scope of the injunction, and certainly the question would be 

whether or not the injunction—what it is that the Justice Department sought to enjoin and whether or not that scope of the injunction could have been wider or larger, or to incorporate other forms 

of threat, intimidation, and coercion. 

Mr. KING. When the witness testified that the maximum penalty 

was obtained, if that—and I am understanding that that injunction 

was specifically for that particular area of Philadelphia, not even 

the entire city of Philadelphia, let alone the state of Pennsylvania 

or the United States of America, and that it was limited to a weapon. Is that your understanding as well, Ms. Becker? 

Ms. BECKER. That is my understanding, sir. 

Mr. KING. Then it would be a more clear understanding of the 

maximum penalty that could be obtained under the injunction 

would be a nationwide injunction prohibiting not just the 

brandishment of a weapon at a polling place, but also the intimidation components that also are a part of the statute. Wouldn’t that 

be true? 

Ms. BECKER. That certainly would be something that—a question 

to be asked to the Justice Department, sir. 

Mr. KING. And so I will speak as to my interpretation of the response that I have gotten here. I think Mr. Perez was a very difficult witness to get an answer from, and when he was asked repeatedly, ‘‘Have you reviewed the film of the Philadelphia voter intimidation case?’’ over and over again—I have to go back to the 

film to tell you how many times. I am going to say six or eight 

times Mr. Gohmert asked him that specific question and finally at 

the end of that series of repetition of the question he finally said, 

yes, he had seen the film. 

152 

The man could not give a declarative answer to a simple question 

like that but he could, in a declarative fashion, tell this Committee 

that one perpetrator in the voter intimidation case of Philadelphia 

received the maximum penalty. And yet I think we have established here he didn’t receive that maximum penalty. 

So I am going to make this position, Mr. Chairman: I do not believe Mr. Perez was truthful with this panel. And I believe the 

question comes up as to whether we want to look into the penalty 

for being dishonest with this Committee. 

And I would point out that there have been large issues made 

by this Judiciary Committee on significantly smaller issues and 

that there have been people that have gone to jail for what I am 

implying may well have happened before this Committee. And I 

want to go back and review the record precisely. 

Mr. NADLER. I think the gentleman is approaching or may have 

exceeded the bounds of the rules in implying that a witness should 

go to jail. You may want to rephrase that. 

Mr. KING. Mr. Chairman, I have suggested. If you review the 

record I don’t believe I have crossed the line. I referred to it as an 

implication, and the implications of being untruthful to this Committee is something we should be able to speak up openly in this 

panel. 

And this entire panel, Democrats and Republicans, should be 

outraged by any corruption of law, any corruption of the electoral 

process, any kind of a criminal enterprise that might be involved 

in undermining the integrity of our voting rights or our votes themselves. 

And so I would then pose another question, and that would be, 

Ms. Becker, if you have an organization that is registering voters 

and they openly go about registering voters that happen to be Caucasian, and exclusively or with a pattern of Caucasians, would that 

be a violation of the Voting Rights Act? And would it be a violation 

of the Civil Rights Act, to your knowledge? 

Ms. BECKER. Congressman, based upon that alone I would need 

additional facts to determine whether or not there would be an appropriate violation of law. 

Mr. KING. And I would go further and ask this question: If there 

is a statute that specifically sets aside benefits from the taxpayer 

for women and minorities could you tell me the distinction between 

that definition of women and minorities and the language that 

would read, ‘‘anybody but White men’’? 

Ms. BECKER. Again, Congressman, I would need to look at the 

specifics of the set-asides that you are talking about. 

Mr. KING. Then I will just conclude this by my own observation, 

and that is, I ask these questions because ACORN is known to 

have gone out into shopping malls and publicly registered voters 

and gone to only minority voters repetitively. I believe that that is 

a pattern that we should look into from a civil rights perspective, 

and I say that in this panel for that purpose, to bring a focus on 

those kind of issues. And I believe when this legislature—when 

this Congress—defines anything in legislation as set aside for 

women and minorities it says the same as this: ‘‘anybody but White 

men.’’ 

153 

I thank you all for your testimony, and I yield back the balance 

of my time. 

Mr. NADLER. Gentleman’s time has expired. 

Since some question has arisen I will place in the record the 

order actually entered into in the New Black Panther case which 

will reveal what, in fact, was actually ordered. It will be in the 

record of the Committee. 

No further questions. I want to thank the witnesses. I want to 

thank the witnesses for your cooperation and for your attendance 

and for your answers. 

Without objection all Members have 5 legislative days to submit 

to the Chair additional written questions for the witnesses which 

we will forward and ask the witnesses to respond as promptly as 

they can so that their answers may be made part of the record. 

Without objection all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit any additional materials for inclusion in the record. 

And with that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 1:13 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.] 

(155) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

156 


F-1.eps
157 


F-2.eps
158 


F-3.eps
159 


F-4.eps
160 

f 


F-5.eps
161 


G-1.eps
162 


G-2.eps
163 


G-3.eps
164 


G-4.eps
165 


G-5.eps
166 


G-6.eps
167 


G-7.eps
168 


G-8.eps
169 


G-9.eps
170 


G-10.eps
171 

Æ 


G-11.eps