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

42–266 PDF 2008

S. HRG. 110–433 

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION 

OF GRACE C. BECKER TO BE ASSISTANT 

ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS 

DIVISION 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MARCH 11, 2008 

Serial No. J–110–79 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERB KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

JON KYL, Arizona 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

STEPHANIE A. MIDDLETON, Republican Staff Director 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Republican Chief Counsel 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page 

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Uath ............................ 3 

Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Massachusetts ... 1 

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

statement .............................................................................................................. 196 

Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania ................. 2 

STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE 

Becker, Grace C., of New York, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General 

for the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice ........................................ 5 

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 6 

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Grace C. Becker to questions submitted by Senators Durbin, 

Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Specter and Whitehouse ....................... 71 

SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD 

Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 199 

(1) 

NOMINATION OF GRACE C. BECKER, OF NEW 

YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in room 

SD–106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M. Kennedy, presiding. 

Present: Senators Feingold, Schumer, Cardin, Whitehouse, Specter, and Hatch. Also present: Grace C. Becker. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Senator KENNEDY. Good afternoon. The Committee will come to 

order. Thank you for your patience here this afternoon. 

Ms. Becker, good afternoon, and welcome to the Committee. 

You’ve been nominated to head the Civil Rights Division. The Division is one of the most importance agencies in the Federal Government. It serves as the government’s public and private voice on 

civil rights. Its historic mission has been to protect the civil rights 

of all Americans, especially those who are the most vulnerable, and 

help our Nation live up to our ideals of opportunity and justice for 

all. 

Fifty years ago, the Division was created to provide more rigorous protection of civil rights. Since then, Justice Department lawyers have been in the forefront of civil rights struggles. The Division was at the forefront of battles to desegregate schools and open 

the doors of opportunity to all children; it led the charge to protect 

voting rights and fair housing, and to break down the glass ceilings 

that unfairly limit opportunities in workplaces for women, minorities, and persons with disabilities. 

Today’s civil rights challenges are difference from those of the 

past. New forms of discrimination replace the ‘‘Whites Only’’ signs 

of the past. We know that civil rights are still the unfinished business of America and if we are not vigilant we will lose ground, so 

there is a need for a strong Civil Rights Division to continue the 

progress that we have been making. 

Unfortunately, in this administration the Division has failed to 

live up to its historic role. The Division that helped bring Jim Crow 

to his knees has now backed away from fully enforcing civil rights. 

2 

Press reports and congressional oversight hearings on the Division 

have shown that in recent years politics has often dictated outcomes and civil rights enforcement suffered. 

Equally disturbing, the Division’s political leaders supplied political tests to career professionals and let partisan considerations affect personal decisions ranging from hiring to case assignments and 

evaluation. Much of this conduct is still under investigation by the 

Inspector General in the Office of Professional Responsibility. 

The next Attorney General for Civil Rights will need to restore 

the Division’s tarnished image and reassure the American people 

that their civil rights are being fully and fairly protected. The public must be confident that politics no longer trumps law enforcement and that the Division has the strong leadership needed to 

correct the recent problems. I look forward to today’s hearing and 

to your testimony on these important issues. 

Ms. Becker, as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Rights, you previously served from 2006–2007 as the Deputy Attorney General in the Division of an Associate Deputy General Counsel for the Department of Defense. She is an alumnae of this Committee and served as counsel to Senator Hatch from 2003 to 2005, 

and we welcome Senator Hatch here this afternoon. She has also 

been an Assistant General Counsel of the U.S. Sentencing Commission and an attorney in the Criminal Division of the Department 

of Justice. 

We will hear from Senator Specter, and then we will welcome 

any comments from our friend and colleague and Committee member, Senator Hatch, before we hear from the witness. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Senator SPECTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the Chairman in welcoming you here, Ms. Grace Chung Becker. You come 

to this nomination with outstanding academic and professional 

background. I note you are a magna cum laude graduate of the 

University of Pennsylvania, a very fine school. I have a little 

knowledge as to what it takes to be magna cum laude there. 

Magna also from Georgetown University Law Center. You clerked 

for two very distinguished Federal judges. You had extensive experience in the Department of Justice, and as previously noted, working in the Civil Rights Division as Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney General. 

As a member of a minority yourself, I think you have some special insights into the issues and into the problems. There is no 

doubt about the tremendous importance of the Civil Rights Division. As that Division has moved from one form of discrimination 

to another, it requires a great deal of vigilance and is a very, very 

important department. 

I would ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator 

John Warner be included in the record, and look forward to your 

testimony. 

Senator KENNEDY. It will be so included, and a statement of Senator Leahy. 

[The prepared statements of Senator Warner and Senator Leahy 

appear as submissions for the record.] 

3 

Senator KENNEDY. Ms. Becker, are you sure you want Senator 

Hatch to introduce you? 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BECKER. I proudly sit next to Senator Hatch. 

Senator KENNEDY. We welcome friend and colleague Senator 

Hatch. We are delighted to hear from you. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF UTAH 

Senator HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Grace, I have to say that you have two of the finest advocates 

of civil rights in the history of this country who are chairing and 

Ranking Member on this Committee today. I have such tremendous 

respect for them. 

But first of all, let me thank Senator Leahy, the Judiciary Committee Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, as well as you, Senator Kennedy, for taking time to chair the hearing, and my dear 

friend as well, Senator Specter. 

I am proud to introduce to the Committee Grace Chung Becker, 

an outstanding nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for Civil 

Rights. I will take just a few minutes to introduce her, both professionally and personally. 

Grace is currently the Acting Assistant Attorney General, as has 

been said, for Civil Rights and has helped to lead the Civil Rights 

Division since 2006, first as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General. 

She received her B.A. from the University of Pennsylvania and her 

B.S. from the Wharton School of Finance, each of them magna cum 

laude. She received her J.D. from Georgetown, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif, which is the highest honor you can get 

in law school. By the way, she also received that degree magna 

cum laude. 

I think I see a pattern here. With the exception of 1 year as an 

associate with the well-known law firm of Williams & Connelly, 

Grace has spent her career in public service in all three branches 

of government. She clerked for U.S. District Judge Thomas Penfield 

Jackson and U.S. Circuit Judge James Buckley, both here in the 

District of Columbia. Grace has served in the Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the Criminal Division, as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, and as Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Her 

executive branch tenure also includes serving as Associate General 

Counsel at the Department of Defense. Before returning to the Justice Department, Grace served for 6 years as Assistant General 

Counsel for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as has been mentioned. 

It was during that period that she was detailed here to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she served as counsel when I 

chaired the Committee during the 108th Congress. I believe that 

15 current members of the Committee were here at that time and 

will no doubt remember Grace’s excellent work and dedication. 

So, Mr. Chairman, Grace has served in all three branches of the 

Federal Government and already has extensive experience with the 

Department of Justice, including service in the very position to 

which she has been nominated. 

4 

Turning from the professional to the personal, Grace was born in 

New York City, the first person in her family to be born in the 

United States. Her parents, both naturalized American citizens, 

and Grace’s three siblings are all entrepreneurs in the New York/ 

New Jersey area. I understand that her extended family is here to 

support her today. 

Grace’s parents showed her the importance of hard work by their 

consistent example, and she followed their advice that education is 

critical to success. As a result, Grace is living the American dream 

and reaping the fruit of character, hard work, education, and integrity. She and her husband Brian have been married since 1994 and 

they have two children, who are also here today. 

Grace is also then proud of her Korean heritage, and has served 

on the Board of Korean-American Coalition, and on the Fairfax 

County School Board’s Human Rights Advisory Committee. 

Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me add a more personal word. I have 

personally been blessed, during my 31 years in this body, to have 

had many able, smart, and dedicated staff. But I want to say, with 

no disrespect intended for anyone else, that Grace is one of the 

best. Her energy, intelligence, integrity, and the quality of her 

character led me to really rely on her and to trust her judgment 

when she worked on my staff. Her work here in the Senate truly 

enhanced the quality of her service to the American people. 

Personally, I was sad to see her leave here, but confident that 

she would bring the same qualities to the Department of Justice. 

She certainly has not disappointed me. I know that the Department of Justice in general, and the Civil Rights Division in particular, have generated some controversy in the last 2 years. I hope 

that, as we move to approve new leadership there, we can focus on 

the fine person before us. 

I have no doubt that anyone who looks at her considerable merit 

will see that all Americans are fortunate to have her in this position. Her background, education, experience, and character make 

this one of President Bush’s best appointments. So I hope that we 

can complete the confirmation process and give her the unanimous 

vote of confidence that she deserves. 

Mr. Chairman, this is a really fine person. I have never seen an 

instance where she was not acting in the best interests of our country and doing the best of her abilities, which are, as you can easily 

see, very considerable. So I am very proud to sit by you, Grace, and 

to recommend you to this Committee, and especially to these two 

leaders who, as I have said before, are two of the greatest leaders 

in the history of the Congress on civil rights. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me this time. 

Senator KENNEDY. Ms. Becker, would you be good enough to 

stand and raise your right hand? 

[Whereupon, the nominee was duly sworn.] 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. Congratulations. 

I have been troubled by the numerous reports in recent years 

that partisan politics has infected the personnel decisions in the 

Civil Rights Division. Bradley Schlossman, a former official in the 

Division, told the Committee that he bragged about hiring Republicans. He also tried to transfer three minority women out of the 

Appellate Section involuntarily because he felt they were too libVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:28 Jul 17, 2008 Jkt 042266 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\42266.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
5 

eral. Even though all of them had served successfully for years, he 

said he wanted to replace them with ‘‘good Americans’’. 

A Deputy Chief of the Voting Section who had served with distinction in the Department for 25 years was transferred involuntarily to a dead-end training job after he and other career attorneys 

recommended raising a Voting Rights Act objection to a Georgia 

photo ID law that had been pushed through by State Republicans. 

The law was later blocked by the courts, which compared it to a 

poll tax. 

I will withhold here. Would you like to introduce your family? 

STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL 

RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Ms. BECKER. I welcome the opportunity. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. Please. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. I have 

today behind me, and I guess slightly to your left, my husband, 

Brian Becker and our two children, my daughter, Kira Becker, who 

is 10 years old, and my son, Scott Becker, who is 7 years old. 

Senator KENNEDY. Are they missing school today? 

Ms. BECKER. They went for half a day and they are both missing 

a few teeth, though, of relative recent vintage. 

[Laughter.] 

On the other side of them is my mother, Judith Chung. 

Senator KENNEDY. Good. 

Ms. BECKER. Over here to your right is my father, Hai Joon 

Chung. 

Senator KENNEDY. Fine. 

Ms. BECKER. My brother, David Chung, his son, my nephew, 

Peter Chung. And then in the second row is my brother David’s 

wife, Erica Chung. Then my cousin, Karen Becker, is also in the 

second row. Then on the back, going across on this side is my niece, 

Sun A Yoon, and a dear family friend who has really been like an 

uncle to me, Lak Moon Chung. 

Senator KENNEDY. Very good. You are all very welcome. Should 

we get the coloring books out? 

[Laughter.] 

Smart young people here. Very good. 

Is there any comment that you would like to make at the start? 

Ms. BECKER. Just to thank the President and the Attorney General for the nomination and support, and to thank my family members for all of their personal and financial sacrifices so that I could 

be here today, sir. 

[The biographical information of Ms. Becker follows.] 

6 


42266.001
7 


42266.002
8 


42266.003
9 


42266.004
10 


42266.005
11 


42266.006
12 


42266.007
13 


42266.008
14 


42266.009
15 


42266.010
16 


42266.011
17 


42266.012
18 


42266.013
19 


42266.014
20 


42266.015
21 


42266.016
22 


42266.017
23 


42266.018
24 


42266.019
25 


42266.020
26 


42266.021
27 


42266.022
28 


42266.023
29 


42266.024
30 


42266.025
31 


42266.026
32 


42266.027
33 


42266.028
34 


42266.029
35 


42266.030
36 


42266.031
37 


42266.032
38 


42266.033
39 


42266.034
40 


42266.035
41 


42266.036
42 


42266.037
43 


42266.038
44 


42266.039
45 

Senator KENNEDY. Fine. Thank you. 

I was asking about the Civil Rights Division and the challenge 

of partisan politics, and had mentioned that Bradley Schlossman 

had bragged about hiring Republicans, and mentioned about three 

minority women who had been transferred involuntarily, then a 

Deputy Chief of the Voting Section, who had served 25 years, 

transferred involuntarily to a dead-end training job after raising 

the Georgia voting rights case. 

The Boston Globe also reported that, beginning in 2003, an increasing proportion of attorneys hired in three key sections of the 

Division were members of the Republican National Lawyers Association and other conservative groups, and that the number of new 

hires with civil rights experience plunged. That was a report in the 

Boston Globe. Many career section chiefs were removed, other career professionals were transferred, denied assignments, and found 

working in the Division so difficult that they left. 

So the improper injection of political concerns in a personnel 

matter has devastated morale and undermined the Division’s mission and reputation. Federal law clearly prohibits a political litmus 

test for career civil service employees, and these matters currently 

are being investigated by the Division’s Inspector General and the 

Office of Professional Responsibility. It is essential that the next 

head of the Division show leadership in correcting this problem. 

You were in the Division when some of these problems occurred. 

You headed the Division since December of 2007, so the public is 

entitled to learn what you knew about this and whether you have 

done anything to correct the problems. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you for the question, Senator Kennedy. As 

you know, I was a career attorney for over a decade before I ever 

came to the Civil Rights Division. Let me reassure you and this 

Committee that I do not engage in politicized hiring, that I have 

made it clear to my managers in the Civil Rights Division that I 

will not tolerate politicized hiring. The allegations—many of the allegations that you raise occurred prior to the time that I arrived 

in the Civil Rights Division in March of 2006. Mr. Schlossman was 

transitioning out of the Division at the time that I was starting, 

so I do not overlap with him for any substantial amount of time. 

But I can assure you, as a person who’s been a career attorney, 

at the Department of Justice and all over the Federal Government, 

that I know the value of career attorneys. I know the value of ensuring, maintaining, and facilitating open and robust pre-deliberative conversations, because I think that makes for good litigation 

decisions at the end of the day. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, let me ask, did you, in any of the time 

that you were in there—you headed the Division since December 

1907—come across these types of activities? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I am aware of the general allegations and 

that they are being investigated right now by the Office of Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector General, but I am 

not aware of any new allegations since the time between December 

1907 and today. 

But you didn’t participate in any questioning of any potential 

hirees and ask them political questions? 

Ms. BECKER. Absolutely not, sir. 

46 

Senator KENNEDY. In 2002, the Department changed its hiring 

procedures to give political appointees the final say in the process. 

It’s my understanding that at least in some cases political appointees in the Division still conduct the final interviews of applicants for career attorney positions. Is that correct? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, we have a collaborative approach within 

the Civil Rights Division, where the political and the career managers work together to review resumes and interview applicants. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, are there instances where the final 

interviews of applicants for career positions, those judgments and 

decisions are being made by political appointees? 

Ms. BECKER. It’s a collective process, Senator. The decision to 

hire any attorney at the Civil Rights Division is one that, you 

know, we take very seriously. 

Senator KENNEDY. Describe ‘‘collective process’’ in this. I mean, 

evidently there are circumstances where the political appointee is 

doing the interview for an attorney, for their position. I assume 

from your answer that that is the case, that does happen. Does it 

happen or doesn’t it happen? 

Ms. BECKER. Everybody participates in the interview process, career attorneys and political managers. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, political managers— 

Ms. BECKER. Political appointed managers, I should say. 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. Well, in some cases it’s career—I’m 

just trying to get the answers. So I understand in some places that 

career appointees do the interviews and in other places political appointees do. 

Ms. BECKER. And sometimes they’re done jointly, sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. 

Ms. BECKER. It depends upon the schedule— 

Senator KENNEDY. All right. Some are done jointly. My question 

is, with regard to the political appointees, then what happens? 

They do the interview and they do what? After they make a judgment, then they do what? 

Ms. BECKER. We have—we have discussions and we try to reach 

consensus, Senator. 

Senator KENNEDY. And you’re going to continue that process if 

you are approved, or are you going to leave the hiring questions up 

to career? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, as someone who has been a career employee, I can tell you what I look for in a potential candidate. 

Senator KENNEDY. I’m not asking what you’re looking for. I want 

an answer to the question. Are you going to permit political appointees to make judgments or are you going to have career people 

do the hiring? 

Ms. BECKER. I believe this consensus collaborative approach has 

been working well during the two years that I’ve been at the Civil 

Rights Division, Senator. At this point I’m not planning to make 

any changes. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, the answer then is that you’re going to 

continue to permit political appointees to make judgments in terms 

of the hiring of career officers. I’m just trying to get the record 

straight here. It’ll be a part of a process. You say they’ll talk to 

other people in making final judgments. But you’re not prepared to 

47 

give the assurances, given the background that we’ve had in the 

Department, that in terms of the new hires, that those judgments 

in the Civil Rights Division, their interviews are going to be done 

by career personnel? 

Ms. BECKER. Those interviews currently are being done by career 

personnel. They are a very large part of the process. I take very 

strong—I weigh very heavily the recommendations of the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. But as deputies in the front 

office do manage these sections, Senator, and do supervise the sections, so long as they are not taking political affiliations into account, which is prohibited, and I made that entirely clear to my 

staff, there—I believe that there is an appropriate role for the managers to play, sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. Have political appointees ever interviewed applicants without career attorneys being present? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I do not know. We usually have a process. 

The section chiefs can choose whether or not they want to interview with their—the other individuals in the section or if they’d 

like to come over to main Justice and interview with the— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, what are you going to do if you get approved? Will you insist that if they’re going to follow this up, where 

you’re going to have political appointees doing the interviews, that 

there are going to be at least career attorneys present? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I leave it up to the section chiefs to choose 

and to work with them. As long as everybody gets a chance to 

interview, I always think of an inclusive process. So if they’d like, 

they’re always welcome to come to an interview where a manager 

in the front office is interviewing them. 

Senator KENNEDY. Now, since you joined the Division have you 

ever required section chiefs to obtain permission from your office 

before hiring interns? 

Ms. BECKER. I believe they do notify the front office for that. Yes, 

that’s correct. 

Senator KENNEDY. What is the reason for that? For what reason? 

Why do they have to do that? 

Ms. BECKER. It’s a managerial function, as I understand it, Senator, the process that was in place when I arrived there. It’s—it’s— 

it’s not—it’s not a particularly vigorous one. It’s—it’s one that we— 

we do as a—as a management duty, like all of our other management duties, sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. Have you—since you joined the Division, have 

you ever suggested a candidate be considered for a career position, 

even though the candidate had not applied through the regular application process? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I believe all of the resumes that we receive, we send to the—to admin. if we get them out of the normal 

process, or we tell the applicants to send it to admin., which is the 

through—the way it normally is handled. Some people incorrectly 

mail—send things directly to us in the front office. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I gather then from what you’re saying, 

is that there have not been candidates that have not gone through 

the—that haven’t been—that have four career positions, I gather 

from what you’re saying that there haven’t been any individuals 

48 

that have joined the Division that have not gone through the—the 

whole interview process. Is that right? 

Ms. BECKER. To my knowledge, sir, yes. 

Senator KENNEDY. Since you joined the Division, have you suggested a candidate be considered for a career position who had 

been referred to you by a current or former political appointee? 

Ms. BECKER. Not that I recall, no. 

Senator KENNEDY. So none of the—your testimony is that there 

have been—there has been no one that has been suggested to you 

by a—for a position in the Department from a political appointee? 

Ms. BECKER. For a political position, Senator, or for a career position? 

Senator KENNEDY. Recommended by a political appointee. Did 

anybody, a political appointee, make a recommendation to you for 

any—any—any employment? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, as I sit here I can’t think of anyone, but, 

you know, I’d be happy to double check on that. But I can’t think 

of anybody that—that may have— 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. 

I see Senator Cardin is here. 

Bradley Schlossman, who is a former high-ranking official in the 

Division, testified before this Committee that he bragged about hiring Republicans for civil service jobs in the Division. Did you ever 

hear anyone in the Division say anything suggesting that political 

affiliation should be a factor in personnel matters in the Division? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I know that these matters currently are 

under investigation right now, and so I am obviously limited in 

what I can say in that regard, sir. I know that this is a topic that 

is of great interest to this Committee, and I have faith that the Office of Professional Responsibility or the Office of Inspector General 

will fully investigate the matter. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I’m not asking so much about what they 

said to each other. I’m just asking whether you had heard that. 

Ms. BECKER. As I said, this matter is under investigation, sir. I 

don’t want to do anything that would jeopardize the integrity of 

that investigation. 

Senator KENNEDY. I don’t know whether there’s a conflict with 

saying what you know. I know that’s being investigated, but you’re 

entitled to say what you know about this. I don’t know why you’re 

blocked. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I’m not. I can tell you that I do not engage 

in political hiring. I’ve made that entirely clear to my staff, not just 

orally to the managers, but in writing as well. I have issued a— 

reissued the memorandum in December of 2007 that was issued by 

my predecessor, making clear to everyone in the Civil Rights Division that political affiliation would not be an appropriate consideration for career hires. 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. 

There have been reports that Mr. Schlossman sought to hire attorneys who were members of the Republican National Lawyers 

Association, a group to which you once belonged. Do you ever have 

any reason to believe that any of the Division’s political appointees 

were using the Republican National Lawyers Association as a 

source of hiring career attorneys? 

49 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I know that some of these issues that 

you’ve talked about are under investigation. I can tell you personally that I have never gotten any referrals from the Republican National Lawyers Association while I’ve been at the Civil Rights Division. 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. OK. 

I’ll recognize Senator Cardin, then I’ll come on back. Thank you. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Becker, it was a pleasure having an opportunity to meet 

with you. I thanked you then, and I thank you now publicly for 

your public service, and thank your family for their understanding 

and sharing you with the service that you are giving to your country. 

I want to just underscore a point about the importance of the position. The Civil Rights Division has been the premiere agency to 

enforce our civil rights laws. As is true with many of the fields 

within Department of Justice, I think it’s uniquely important on 

civil rights laws for Federal enforcement. It’s very difficult for the 

States to enforce the laws. They don’t have the tools that you have 

at the national level, including the use of the FBI. You can—that 

Division historically has made such a difference in the lives and opportunities of all Americans. It’s one of the great accomplishments, 

I think, in the recent history of America. 

I say that because I think Senator Kennedy’s questions on the 

independence of judgment here are going to be very important in 

your role as the head of that Division, if confirmed by the Senate. 

Let me just mention, perhaps—and I would like to get your view 

as to the importance of this role and being able to stand up to the 

politics within the Department of Justice, standing up to partisan 

politics, standing up to whatever you have to to carry out the responsibilities that are entailed in heading that Division. So maybe 

I’ll pause for a moment and give you a chance, and then I’m going 

to ask you specifically about one area. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I do very much appreciate the importance that the role of the Civil Rights Division has 

played. Just recently over the last couple of months, we have been 

celebrating the 50th anniversary of the Civil Rights Division, as 

Senator Kennedy mentioned in his opening statement. 

It was a wonderful opportunity to look back upon the formation 

of the Division and some of the history that underlays what we do 

here in the Civil Rights Division. It’s a tremendous honor and a 

privilege to work day by day with the men and women who are 

dedicated to enforcing Federal civil rights laws in this area. 

Senator, I can assure you that, as someone who’s been a former 

prosecutor, as someone who’s been a career attorney for over a decade, as someone who’s worked in all three branches of the Federal 

Government, I can appreciate the importance of enforcing the law. 

I know I have a very healthy appreciation for the three branches 

of government and the three roles that they play, three very distinct roles that they play. I believe that the role of the executive 

branch, the Justice Department, and the Civil Rights Division is to 

engage in law enforcement and to vigorously enforce all of the Federal civil rights laws. 

50 

Senator CARDIN. I want to talk about one area specifically, which 

is going to be voting rights, but it could be housing, it could be hate 

crimes, it could be other areas where, quite frankly, the impression 

in the community is that there has been political interference with 

the traditional role of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. I share that. I’ll tell you up front that I am concerned that 

we have not had the objective enforcement of these laws as we 

have in previous administrations. 

But elections are pretty fundamental and we’re going to have a 

major national election coming in November. I think it’s critically 

important that the Department of Justice Civil Rights Division be 

actively involved to hopefully prevent fraudulent activities, to ensure that, to the maximum extent possible, those who wish to participate in the elections are able to participate in the elections and 

that votes are properly counted. 

So let me tell you the dilemma that I face as a United States 

Senator. I am concerned that there will be political pressure placed 

on the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights Division, to use your 

resources as aggressively as possible to make sure that no one who 

is not eligible to vote and registered is found and make sure that 

person doesn’t vote, even though there is little evidence of any significant problem of people voting who are not eligible and registered to vote. 

I’m afraid that that’s going to be the directive, exclusive of activities that have taken place in the last several elections that have 

clearly been aimed at minority communities to prevent minority 

communities from participating in the numbers that they otherwise 

would: literature that’s distributed giving the wrong election day in 

minority communities; literature that’s distributed, threatening 

people with being arrested and put in jail if they have unpaid parking tickets and attempt to vote; literature aimed at minority communities, clearly part of election strategies to try to diminish the 

importance of minority voting. 

I would think that the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights 

Division, could play a really important role to make it clear that 

those types of election tactics will have no place in America. I suspect that you will probably agree with me, but I am concerned that 

there may well be political influence that’s attempted to be exercised to prevent you, as the Division chief, from making an independent judgment that the resources should be placed to make 

sure that vulnerable people are not intimidated from voting. 

I would just give you a chance as to whether you would stand 

up to that pressure and whether you’re prepared to make an independent judgment on the set of facts which I believe the communities have pretty well already come in with their concerns. But I 

want to have assurances that, if you are confirmed, that you would 

make this independent judgment and stand up for the enforcement 

by the Civil Rights Division that can have the most impact on 

enfranchising people to vote, particularly minorities. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you for that question. I think we 

agree that voting is a fundamental right. As the Supreme Court 

has stated, it’s so significant because it’s preservative of all the 

other rights that we have. I’ve only been overseeing the Voting Section for three months, but in that very short time period I have 

51 

made clear to everyone in the Voting Section that I want to vigorously enforce all the provisions, all the statutes, all the voting statutes that are entrusted to the Civil Rights Division to enforce, because that’s what I believe our job is to do, to open up the vote to 

as many people as we can. 

You talked about some instances that may adversely affect minorities. That is something that we, of course, are very concerned 

about in the Civil Rights Division, and if any of those activities implicate one of the statutes that we enforce, I can assure you that 

we will take appropriate action in that regard. 

You also talked about voter fraud. There has been a traditional 

division of labor within the Department of Justice, and that’s reflected in Regulation 28 CFR 0.50, which sets forth the responsibilities of the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division, and 0.55, which delineates the responsibilities of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division. 

The vast majority of election crimes are entrusted to the Criminal Division to enforce. There is a small subset that could potentially come to the Civil Rights Division, usually when it involves 

some allegation of discrimination, which are the types of allegations that we see throughout the Division. So I can assure you that 

from the Civil Rights Division perspective, that we will vigorously 

enforce all the laws that we are entrusted to in full. 

Senator CARDIN. I would also hope you would be more aggressive 

than that, in that if you don’t have enough laws, let us know about 

it. We asked the Department of Justice to investigate the conduct 

of the 2006 election. They declined to do it. They indicated they 

didn’t believe they had adequate laws to handle those circumstances. There has been legislation pending in this Congress on 

which we’ve gotten zero help from the administration in getting 

passed where we give additional tools to go after targeting of minority communities to prevent them from voting, which I would 

think is fundamental to the mission of the Civil Rights Division. 

I understand these are criminal offenses and you have a Criminal Division, but to me these are fundamental civil rights that 

should be of interest to the Civil Rights Division. Senator Mathias 

came down to testify in favor of that, the distinguished former Senator from Maryland, a Republican. 

I think there is strong bipartisan support to make sure that everyone can participate in this election. I hoped this wouldn’t be a 

partisan issue. I think, without the leadership of the Department 

of Justice making it clear to candidates that this is off the table, 

that you can’t try to disenfranchise people in order to win an election—that requires leadership. 

I think the Division of Civil Rights is the appropriate agency 

within the Department of Justice to exercise that leadership to 

make sure we have adequate tools in order to enforce the law. If 

you don’t, ask for more tools and make this a top priority, knowing 

full well what has happened in so many States, including my own, 

in recent elections. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I appreciate that offer. If there are additional tools that we would need, I welcome the opportunity to approach you for any additional tools. 

52 

I will tell you, I do know we have discussed your voting bill. I 

know that this is something you feel very strongly about, and there 

are certainly provisions in that bill, as the Department has indicated in its newsletter, that it does support—the criminal provisions, I know, are helpful, some of the—provisions that are in there 

if people are saying that you should vote on Tuesday instead of 

Wednesday, things of that—false information. 

But there—as you know, as I delineated in the letter, some concerns with regard to campaign rhetoric and whether or not the Justice Department should publicly issue corrective action to correct 

the campaign rhetoric of candidates, and that’s an issue that I’d 

like the opportunity to continue to work with Congress on, if I have 

the opportunity to do so, and to be as cooperative as I can with respect to various provisions of that legislation. 

Senator CARDIN. Well, I welcome those discussions. Quite frankly, I welcome leadership in the Civil Rights Division that will stand 

up for the traditional role of that agency. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you, Senator. 

You know, Ms. Becker, one of the first actions you took as the 

Acting head of the Division was to file a brief urging the Supreme 

Court to uphold a strict Indiana photo ID requirement for voting, 

which had the potential to disenfranchise large numbers of minority voters. A broad coalition of civil rights advocates expressed deep 

concern about the Indiana law undermining voting rights. The law 

is also widely viewed as benefiting Republicans, raising the appearance that the Division’s support of the law is politically motivated. 

Given the potential harm to minority voters, the fact that Indiana was well represented by competent counsel and the appearance 

that the Division was acting for political reasons, why did you 

think it necessary to file a brief supporting the Indiana photo ID 

law? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you for that question. As you know, 

this is a case that’s currently pending before the Supreme Court. 

The Solicitor General filed a brief on behalf of the United States 

of America, and I joined that brief on behalf of the Civil Rights Division. I can share with you the Civil Rights Division perspective, 

but with the caveat that there are other government interests as 

well. We enforce the Help America Vote Act in the Civil Rights Division. 

In that statute it requires that individuals who register by mail, 

who go to vote in person for the first time, have to show some form 

of identification. Not necessarily photo identification, but some 

form of identification. There’s a concern that the Supreme Court’s 

ruling here may undermine our ability to vigorously enforce the 

Help America Vote Act. There are also seven Members of Congress 

who filed amici briefs on that very issue, sir. But if I may just add 

that I think that voter ID laws generally— 

Senator KENNEDY. Were they all Republicans— 

Ms. BECKER. No, sir. 

Senator KENNEDY.—the members that signed? 

Ms. BECKER. No, sir. I do—if I may, sir, I do think it’s important 

for us in the Civil Rights Division to look at voter ID laws, and in 

fact any law that has the potential of being used as a pretext to 

53 

suppress minority votes very carefully. Senator, I believe that we 

need to take these instances on a case-by-case basis. Whether it is 

this law or any other law, if it has a retrogressive effect or a discriminatory purpose, that is something that we will take appropriate action on in the Civil Rights Division, as we have in other 

voting cases in the Supreme Court. 

For example, in Riley v. Kennedy, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of African-American voters, defending the Section 5 objection 

that we had interposed. Again, that was a brief filed by the Solicitor General’s Office, but one that my name appears on as well. 

My name also appears on another Supreme Court amicus brief 

that the Solicitor General filed involving Cracker Barrel, where we 

argued on the side of the employee, that a Section 1981 claim, 

which is a private civil rights claim involving contracts, includes 

retaliation. So if you look at the broad swath of cases that we’ve 

brought in the Civil Rights Division, I think that you will see that 

we try to take these cases on a case-by-case basis and vigorously 

enforce the laws in the Civil Rights Division. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, what was it about the Indiana photo ID 

case that was the most troublesome to you? This isn’t an old issue. 

We have the Georgia ID case. The court decision that found that, 

in effect, it overrode—political personnel overrode the career individuals in the Justice Department, felt that it was more of a poll 

tax. 

What was it about the Indiana photo ID that so distressed you? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, if I may, just—I’ve only been overseeing 

the Voting Section for 3 months. I was not there at the time when 

some of the Georgia ID decisions that you are concerned about 

were made. I—I can tell you that—I can talk about the process 

part of it, what my philosophy is in management in terms of including career— 

Senator KENNEDY. It’s a pretty major—pretty major civil rights 

case— 

Ms. BECKER. Yes, sir. And I’m— 

Senator KENNEDY.—the Georgia ID case. Add in the Texas case, 

the two most notorious cases certainly in the civil rights area in 

the recent times. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, those are both cases that I was not supervising the Voting Section at the time. I am generally familiar with 

those cases. I can tell you— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I’m just trying to figure out what it was 

about the Indiana photo ID case that you felt so strongly about in 

terms of, you thought it was necessary to file the brief in the Indiana photo after the history of the Georgia case, which was political 

interference with government officials overriding government judgments, and then eventually being struck down. What—so that’s a 

pretty red flag. And then you felt, evidently, that the Indiana brief, 

that you ought to be signing onto that. I’m just wondering what it 

was in this Indiana photo ID case that—that troubled you so much 

in terms of—of its—it’s—that you thought that you ought to get involved in it. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, as you know, this is pending before the Supreme Court right now and, pursuant to Departmental policy, I 

can’t get into the substance of pending litigation. But what I can— 

54 

Senator KENNEDY. You can talk about the case. You can talk 

about the case. I mean, there’s no reason—you filed a brief on the 

case. There’s no reason you can’t talk about the case. 

Ms. BECKER. Exactly, Senator. And I think the brief speaks for 

itself and the— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I’m not asking the brief, I’m asking you. 

You’re the one. I’m not proving the brief. I’m asking you. You’re the 

one that filed it. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, it’s—it’s pending litigation. I’m not at liberty to discuss the substance of that. 

Senator KENNEDY. I’m not asking the substance. 

Ms. BECKER. But I’d be happy— 

Senator KENNEDY. Just describe what you talked about in the 

brief, why you filed—what you felt was so necessary in terms of filing the brief on the photo ID law. That’s a big deal. In terms of 

voting rights, it’s a big deal. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I can appreciate that you’re interested in 

this case, as am I. I am very interested in— 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, I authored the poll tax back in 1965. I 

care very deeply about the poll tax. I offered it. And I also was the 

principal sponsor to make it a constitutional prohibition on it. So 

I followed these things for some period of time, and this is the— 

the action of the Justice Department in the Georgia case is one of 

the most egregious actions that have been taken in recent times. 

We have a similar case that you felt it was necessary in Indiana, 

a photo ID case. And I’m just asking you, why—why you felt it was 

necessary. And you said you can’t comment on it, although you 

filed a brief on it. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, if I have the opportunity to, I’d be happy 

to discuss this case after the Supreme Court renders its decision. 

But at this point, Senator, the Solicitor General is representing the 

United States in the— 

Senator KENNEDY. I asked you if you could talk about your brief, 

Counselor. You could talk about your brief. That’s not—that’s not— 

you can talk about your brief. You filed a brief. You can talk about 

that. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, my understanding is that Departmental 

policy does not permit me to get into the substance, sir. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, let me—let me move on. Let me move 

on. 

One of the—this is a general concern that—that I have. You’ve 

been a political appointee in the Division for the past 2 years, and 

during that period many of the events under investigation by the 

IG or OPR played out and the investigation has been ongoing. For 

this entire time you’ve had the power to correct the kinds of personnel abuses that are being investigated. 

You and the Department have been reluctant to share information during this period. So before you’re confirmed as head of the 

Division, we have to be certain that you haven’t been involved in 

any of the practices under investigation and that you have, in fact, 

taken steps to correct them. Why shouldn’t we have that as a—as 

a rule? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, with respect, sir, this is a matter that is 

currently an investigation. As I submitted to you in writing prior 

55 

to the hearing, sir, I’ve been cooperating fully with the investigation. I provided documents pursuant to a document request. They 

have not contacted me. They have not requested to interview me. 

I have not had substantial overlap with Mr. Schlossman and I’m 

not a percipient witness to events that occurred prior to my joining 

the Civil Rights Division. 

Senator KENNEDY. Do you think it would be worthwhile for us 

to talk to them and find that out for ourselves? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I believe the timing of my employment in 

the Civil Rights Division speaks for itself, as does my commitment, 

and service, and experience that I bring to the table here today. 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. 

Senator Cardin? 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I just have a couple brief points, and then I know Senator 

Whitehouse is here and I won’t take too much time. 

Let me talk a little bit about the housing problem, which is 

something we have not really focused much on from the point of 

view of the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights Division. 

We are concerned that part of the housing problem is predatory 

lending, where those who were qualified to be in regular mortgages 

and non-adjustable mortgages were steered into subprime mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages, and that those communities 

that were primarily steered into this type of practice were minority 

communities. There is concern in Baltimore City. They’ve actually 

filed a lawsuit in this regard. I would like to know your view as 

to the level of interest that you would have as the Division chief 

of the Civil Rights Division on predatory lending practices that 

were involved in the current housing crisis. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you for that question. I think owning your own home epitomizes the American dream for so many individuals here in this country, and if there’s something that we 

could do in the Civil Rights Division to ensure that people have an 

equal opportunity to achieve that dream without encountering illegal housing discrimination, Senator, I support the vigorous enforcement of those laws. 

I’ve had the honor and privilege of supervising the Housing and 

Civil Enforcement Section for the last two years, and I am familiar 

with the work that we’ve—we’ve done there. We have been very 

concerned about the subprime mortgage issue that has been of 

great concern to everyone in this country, I know, and to the Congress. We have an inter-agency working group that includes the 

bank regulatory agencies, the Federal Trade Commission, Housing 

and Urban Development, and the Department of Justice. 

We enforce two statutes in the Housing and Civil Enforcement 

Section, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the mortgage provisions of the Fair Housing Act, which enables us to bring some fair 

lending cases and we’ve been able to obtain over $25 million of 

monetary relief on behalf of African-American and Hispanic victims 

in this area. 

The—the deceptive terms, deceptive ads, the predatory practices 

that you were talking about fall primarily within the jurisdiction, 

I think, of the FTC and some of the other—perhaps, and the State 

AGs, I think, have brought some cases under State law in this reVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:28 Jul 17, 2008 Jkt 042266 PO 00000 Frm 00059 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\42266.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
56 

gard. A lot of the work that we do in the fair housing—fair lending 

area, I should say, is complementary to that. 

We bring—in two areas. One, is pricing discrimination, where individuals of minorities may be treated to one interest rate, a higher 

interest rate than whites, and the other is in red-lining, where 

we—where prime lenders refuse to do business in minority neighborhoods, making those minority neighborhoods more susceptible to 

the subprime market. 

Senator CARDIN. And here’s where you’re going to have a problem in dealing with this issue, because the lending institutions will 

tell you that one of the reasons they went into the minority community is to show that they were interested in making credit available within the minority community, sort of the reverse of red-lining. 

But on the other hand, if the evidence shows that in minority 

communities they were steered into subprime loans where they 

should have been in traditional mortgages, that’s a form of discrimination against minority communities that needs to be attended to. Once again, I think there are agencies that can handle 

some of this. 

The Civil Rights Division is in a unique position. I would hope 

this would be something that you would try to help assist them so 

that we get it right. We don’t want the results of what we do to 

try to fix the housing crisis causing minority communities to be 

red-lined from mortgage opportunities. But on the other hand, if 

there were injustices done, the community is entitled to relief. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I agree. We have this inter-agency approach. We’re working proactively with the other agencies in coordination with them in order to help all the victims that have 

been suffering under the subprime mortgage crisis. 

Senator CARDIN. Let me just ask one more question. That is, if 

you are confirmed, whether you will look to bring more pattern or 

practice cases in regards to employment discrimination. It’s my understanding there’s been a 30 percent decline in these types of 

cases in this administration compared to prior administrations. The 

pattern or practice cases have been major—areas to make major 

advancements that affect a significant number of individuals. 

Would you commit to reviewing this situation and determining why 

there’s been a decline and look for opportunities in which civil 

rights can be advanced through the pattern or practice cases? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I share with you the significance and the 

importance of pattern and practice cases based upon my supervision of other civil sections in the Civil Rights Division over the 

last 2 years. I’ve only been overseeing the Employment Section for 

about 3 months now, but I can tell you that I’ve looked at this 

issue. 

My understanding is that, on average, the section over a decade, 

I guess, across both administrations, has been about two pattern 

and practice cases a year. I do know that they opened 14 pattern 

and practice investigations last year and that the section is now 

trying to prioritize those pattern and practice cases. So I share— 

I appreciate your concern that pattern and practice cases are important and that you want us to bring more. I want us to vigorVerDate Aug 31 2005 09:28 Jul 17, 2008 Jkt 042266 PO 00000 Frm 00060 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\GPO\HEARINGS\42266.TXT SJUD1 PsN: CMORC
57 

ously enforce all of the laws that we have, including the pattern 

and practice laws. 

Senator CARDIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator KENNEDY. Just to pick up on this point, you’ve only been 

in 3 months. But as the Senator pointed out, we have seen the increase—the numbers have decreased 50 percent—has declined 50 

percent under the Bush administration compared to the Clinton administration on Title 7. EEOC says the total number of discrimination has increased by 10 percent in 2007. So that’s a significant increase. Your response to Senator Cardin, you’ve only been in 3 

months. The question is, are you going to do something about it? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, it— 

Senator KENNEDY. And what—what—what are you going to do 

about it, and how worried are you, if the Senator would just let 

me—please. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you. My understanding is that EEO 

referrals in recent years have gone down. I can—but I—as I understand it. But I can tell you what I told Senator Cardin, which is 

that we have 14 investigations that were opened in 2007, that the 

section currently is prioritizing those investigations of pattern and 

practice cases. So, Senator, even in the short time that I’ve been 

in the Employment Section, I believe that I have taken action. I 

hope I have the opportunity to continue to do so. 

Senator KENNEDY. Well, just if I can have the attention of the 

Senator from Maryland, as well, the Division has filed as many 

cases alleging discrimination against whites as against AfricanAmericans and Latinos combined. It’s brought only six cases alleging discrimination against African or Latinos, yet it’s filed five 

cases of discrimination on the basis of whites. Clearly, where 

there’s problems we want prosecution, but we also want the Department to reflect where the problems are the greatest. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you for that question. As I said, I 

am committed to enforcing all the laws in the Civil Rights Division. 

I know that the Employment Section recently brought a pattern 

and practice lawsuit against the largest fire department in—fire 

department in the entire country, in the fire department of New 

York. This is a case that was brought on behalf of African-Americans, Senator, and it’s a relatively recent case and I hope to have 

the opportunity to bring more employment cases, if I’m confirmed 

by the Senate. 

Senator KENNEDY. Senator Whitehouse? 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. Becker, welcome to the hearing. I’m delighted to see you 

here with your family. I applaud particularly how well your son 

and daughter are being patient through all of this. I particularly 

applaud your son’s choice of reading material. I’m a big fan of Calvin and Hobbs. Mine is 14 and we still read it together, reading 

‘‘Spaceman Spiff’’. That’s pretty good. 

Ms. BECKER. Thank you. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. I hope you understand why we’re asking 

these questions. We don’t start here with a clean slate, nor do you. 

We start looking at a Department of Justice that is a place that 

many of us feel is very special. I was a United States Attorney. It’s 

not the biggest deal in the world, but it was very important to me, 

58 

and it meant the world to me to go into that Department of Justice 

and feel the traditional, the integrity, the independence, the feel 

that this was an institution that stood for something in American 

life, and the idea that that Department, instead of standing tall, 

should be put into the political traces, put in political harness by 

a political party to do its political legwork, is disgraceful, irrespective of what political party is trying to do that. 

So we come at this with a lot of feeling when we see what happened to the U.S. Attorneys, when we see what happened at OLC, 

when we see what happened at the Civil Rights Division, when we 

see what happened to the honors program, when we see what happened to non-partisan hiring. This is a very, very serious matter, 

and so, you know, I hope you’ll forgive the intensity that we’re pursuing this with. 

But I hope you also understand that we’re doing this because 

many of us fear for this Department. We want to see it put right 

again. We care very, very deeply about that. We see some of the 

Civil Rights Division issues in that context. I look—for instance, 

I’ve sponsored a bill that would make it illegal to engage in vote 

caging. Do you know what vote caging is? 

Ms. BECKER. Yes, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. So I don’t need to go into the details 

of that. 

Clearly, you will concede that if there is a significant campaign 

to target—for instance, minority votes in a vote caging operation— 

it creates, at a minimum, the risk that more than a handful of voters might be discouraged. Correct? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I believe that whether it’s vote caging or 

any other conduct that has the potential of suppressing minority 

voters, it’s something that the Civil Rights Division is very concerned about, particularly if it can implicate one of the Federal 

laws that we enforce. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Would you be concerned enough for the 

Department to support the vote caging legislation? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to look at 

the details of that legislation and I don’t believe the Department 

has spoken on that. I do believe, Senator, that there are some 

criminal provisions in there and, as I mentioned earlier, I want 

to—I want to tread carefully here because we do have a division 

of labor in the Department of Justice where the vast majority of 

election crimes are prosecuted by the Criminal Division. So there 

may be other equities at stake here by other components of the Department of Justice. But— 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Understood. But could you get me an answer on that? The bill is pending now. I’ve put it in, and I’d love 

to know where you stand. 

Ms. BECKER. Well, Senator, if I’m confirmed, I would welcome 

the opportunity to work with you on this bill, or any other bill, sir. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And I—just to followup on what Senator 

Kennedy was saying, it really does seem that where the underlying 

strategy will discourage voting in minority communities—for instance, with voter ID programs which have that effect—the Department steps right up, steps right up and does its best, even when 

there are really no significant cases of any voter fraud, and the 

59 

idea that half a dozen or handful of votes is going to swing the election one way or the other is a theoretical possibility. 

But, my gosh, that happens rarely in America, and yet, there 

seems to be a very considerable focus on that. And when the drift 

is the other direction, when, for instance, there is, you know, emails from a prospective U.S. Attorney about a vote caging scheme, 

silence. There doesn’t seem to be the same interest. So what I need 

to hear from you is some assurance that this is not going to be the 

closing days, you know, the last political stand of the political occupancy of the Department of Justice, but that you’ll help us to put 

this right and that you will enforce the laws, irrespective of whether they help Republicans or Democrats. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, having been a career attorney, starting my 

career at the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice, I 

share with you the concern that you have and the pride that you 

had in representing the Department of Justice. And Senator, I hope 

that even in the short time that I’ve been able to be in the managerial ranks of the Civil Rights Division, that I’ve been able to convey 

that same pride and leadership and camaraderie that has always 

been such an instrumental part of the Department of Justice. 

And I believe that what makes the Department of Justice so special, what makes people have confidence in the Justice Department, which makes judges expect more from DOJ attorneys, is the 

fact that we need to fairly and even-handedly and vigorously enforce all of the laws in the Voting Section, in all the sections of the 

Civil Rights Division, so that everyone has full faith and belief that 

we’re doing everything we can from every possible front. We take 

each—each case, each matter on a case-by-case basis, but we will 

vigorously and carefully investigate the facts and law in each case 

and take appropriate action wherever necessary. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. And, of course, you understand that it’s 

not enough just to say that, it’s important to lead the Department 

in such a way that the results and the statistics actually bear that 

out? 

Ms. BECKER. Absolutely, Senator. I—I—I believe that in—in the 

2-years that I’ve been there overseeing the sections that I’ve overseen, and Voting has not been one of those sections, that I have 

tried to encourage the managers within those sections to do exactly 

that, and that I will continue to do so if have—I have the opportunity to lead the Division. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has 

expired. 

Senator KENNEDY. OK. 

Senator Schumer? 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. First, Mr. Chairman, let me 

thank you for holding this hearing. I think it’s really important. 

This is an area I know you’ve been concerned about for close to— 

well, certainly more than 40 years, and I care a lot about it, too. 

I first, as a New Yorker, want to welcome you here, Ms. Becker. 

I’m always pleased to see a graduate of Stuyvesant High School in 

public service. My daughter went to Stuyvesant. My parents wanted me to go, but I wanted to play basketball at Madison so I told 

them the only answers— 

Senator KENNEDY. You wanted to do what? 

60 

Senator SCHUMER. Play basketball. Mr. Chairman, our team’s 

motto was, ‘‘We may be small, but we’re slow.’’ 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. BECKER. I’ll tell you, do you know what our school motto 

was? 

Senator SCHUMER. And we were better than Stuyvesant. 

Ms. BECKER. What we used to say at Stuyvesant is, ‘‘Kick ’em 

in the guts, kick ’em in the knees, we get higher SATs,’’ was what 

our athletic motto was after we lost. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, I told my parents the only questions on 

the test I’d get right were the ones I didn’t know the answer to, 

because anyone I knew the answer, I’d mark the wrong answer. I’d 

flunk and stay at Madison, which is what happened. 

Anyway, I’m sure your family’s proud here. I know the whole Korean community in New York, or many of them, are very proud of 

your accomplishments and it’s a great community in New York. Of 

course, we believe in immigration and we believe in ladders up for 

people who come from all over the world, and so I’m proud that 

you’re here. 

But that doesn’t sort of dampen my worry about this Department, my worry about what’s happened in this Department. I think 

it’s been plagued by not only mismanagement, but improper 

politization. I think it’s improving, but the Committee needs to examine your qualifications closely because this administration has 

not been a friend, in my judgment, of civil rights. For instance, 

what happened with the Georgia case. All the things we heard 

about, it just makes you really worry about the Department. 

So I’m going to ask you some tough questions, and I hope you 

don’t mind that. It has nothing to do with you or the accomplishments that you’ve had. So I want to go back to the Crawford case, 

which Senator Kennedy, I know, asked some questions about. But 

I want to take it in a slightly—I want to pursue it further. 

You know what the law is, the new photo ID. In the amicus brief 

you submitted with the Solicitor General, Paul Clement, you urged 

the Supreme Court to uphold Indiana’s restrictive law, in part because it’s justified by the need to prevent in-person voter fraud. 

And let’s be clear here: this will not deal with all voter fraud and 

ID, but just in-person voter fraud, where someone shows up and 

says they’re not who they are. 

What I’d like to do is try to get, as much as I can, yes or no answers here. First, did anyone at the White House or outside the 

Justice Department ask you or urge you to take the position you 

did in the Indiana voter ID case? 

Ms. BECKER. No. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. 

Did anyone inside the Justice Department put any pressure on 

you to take a certain position in that case? 

Ms. BECKER. No. 

Senator SCHUMER. Did you consult any career staff members in 

the Civil Rights Division before you took the position? 

Ms. BECKER. Of course. We do in every case, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. And did they recommend that you take that 

position unanimously, or— 

61 

Ms. BECKER. I can’t talk about predeliberative recommendations, 

Senator. But I can tell you that, as someone who’s been a former 

career attorney, I believe that career attorneys have very important 

perspectives to add to the process and I certainly have encouraged 

and welcomed a predeliberative process in all of the cases. 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me ask you this. Since most election 

crimes are handled by the Criminal Division—you noted that earlier—is there any reason why Alice Fisher didn’t sign onto this 

brief with you or instead of you? 

Ms. BECKER. I don’t know her. 

Senator SCHUMER. Well, you must have—wait, that’s not good 

enough. It’s usually handled by the Criminal Division. Alice Fisher 

didn’t sign. Did you ever talk to Alice Fisher even once about this 

case? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I can’t get into predeliberative discussions. 

I can only tell you that the brief speaks for itself, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Wait. Can you explain to me why you can’t 

get into predeliberative discussions? This is an important question. 

The head of the Criminal Division, which usually has jurisdiction, 

doesn’t sign on. You do instead. Now, what is the reason that you 

can’t answer a simple yes or no question about, did you discuss this 

with Alice Fisher? That doesn’t reveal any confidences or whatever. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I can tell you that the names that are reflected on the cover of the brief submitted by the United States 

are—are—speak for themselves, sir. 

Senator SCHUMER. Did you ever talk to Alice Fisher about this, 

yes or no? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, my understanding is it’s part of the 

predeliberative process and I’m not at liberty to discuss that. But 

I can tell you— 

Senator SCHUMER. And why? What is the reason you’re not at 

liberty to discuss it? 

Ms. BECKER. Well, Senator, in order to encourage robust 

predeliberative discussions, it’s important—it’s a longstanding departmental policy, Senator, to protect those discussions, and that’s 

part of the discussion. 

Senator SCHUMER. But that’s about the substance of what was 

discussed. I’m just asking you, yes or no, did you discuss it with 

Ms. Fisher? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, my understanding is—is that—it’s covering generally those discussions. All the interested parties were— 

were—were included in the discussion. 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me ask you—let me pursue another line 

here. In the brief, you state that Indiana determined that it faced 

‘‘a serious problem of actual and potential election fraud’’, right? 

Are you aware of any election in the past 7 years where the outcome was affected by in-person voter fraud, the kind you’re trying 

to eliminate, supposedly, with these voter IDs? Any case? Any election? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, this—I’m not—this is a case that is, as I 

indicated to Senator Kennedy, is one that’s pending before the Supreme Court. This is a—that’s some of the issues that are pending, 

that were discussed as part of the case. Senator, once the Supreme 

62 

Court renders its decision, I’m happy to engage in substantive discussion. 

Senator SCHUMER. Ms. Becker, I didn’t ask you a question about 

the case. I asked you a question about your jurisdiction. If you can’t 

answer this question, I’m going to have serious doubts whether you 

can move forward. I asked you—you can’t just duck everything 

here and expect to get this nomination. Are you aware of any election in the past 7 years where the outcome was affected by in-person voter fraud? I haven’t mentioned any case. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, as I understand it, criminal voter fraud 

issues are primarily handled by the Criminal Division. I can tell 

you with—generally—as I understand it, this is a general question. 

My jurisdiction in the Civil Rights Division is to enforce the voting 

rights laws that are entrusted to the Voting Section to enforce. 

Most of the criminal voting fraud issues that you’re talking about 

would be a matter for a different component of the Justice Department. 

Senator SCHUMER. So you can’t cite to me. You signed this brief. 

Ms. Fisher didn’t. And you can’t cite to me a single election where 

the outcome was affected by in-person voter fraud, when that’s the 

only kind of voter fraud that a voter ID at the polling place would 

deal with, correct? 

Ms. BECKER. Well, Senator, I was talking about the general division of labor with respect to that. I was not talking specifically 

about the Crawford case. As I understood your question, sir, it was 

a general question and I was giving you a general response. 

Senator SCHUMER. Can I ask you this: isn’t it true that a voter 

ID law won’t stop absentee ballot fraud? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, there—Senator, generally speaking, you 

know, whether these are voter fraud laws that are handled at the 

State level, there are States— 

Senator SCHUMER. No, no. 

Ms. BECKER.—look at them. We would look at them, from the 

Civil Rights Division perspective, as to whether or not they have 

a retrogressive effect or discriminatory purpose. 

Senator SCHUMER. I am asking you a simple question. 

Mr. Chairman, can I have a couple more minutes to pursue this? 

Senator KENNEDY. Yes. Sure. 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. I appreciate it. 

I’m just asking you a simple question. We have a law that you’re 

defending. It says you have to show a voter ID. The reason for that 

is to prevent voter fraud. You haven’t been able to cite to me a single case—in-person voter fraud—where in-person voter fraud affected the election. Now I’m asking you again, this is a question 

based on your practical experience, two years as Deputy Director. 

Isn’t it true that a voter ID law won’t stop any absentee ballot 

fraud for the very reason that the person isn’t showing up? Isn’t 

that—that’s just an easy yes-or-no question. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, voter—voter—photo ID laws address inperson issues. I think that’s what you’re getting at, generally. I will 

tell you, voter fraud—the reason why I’m giving you an answer is 

because it’s a different component of the Justice Department that 

handles those types of cases. I’m not trying to evade your question, 

63 

sir. This—there’s a division of responsibility within the Justice Department-— 

Senator SCHUMER. But you— 

Ms. BECKER.—and the voter fraud cases, or election crime cases 

generally, are handled at the—at the Criminal Division. 

Senator SCHUMER. You signed the brief. Alice Fisher didn’t. 

Ms. BECKER. Yes. And I can tell you what the Civil Rights’ interest was. 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me just finish. Let me just finish. In the 

brief, the only cases that were cited, as I understand it, were absentee voter fraud. Yet, the brief goes to voter ID at the polling 

place, which can only deal with in-person voter fraud. And so I’m 

asking you a simple question, and that is—I can’t—I know you 

won’t answer about the case, although I don’t think that’s fair. Isn’t 

it true that a voter ID law will not stop absentee ballot fraud? 

You—you give me one single instance where voter ID stops absentee ballot fraud. Give me an example. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, voter IDs—ID laws are targeted toward— 

I think I said, generally speaking, as I understand them, targeted 

toward in-person issues. 

Senator SCHUMER. Right. 

Ms. BECKER. And—but— 

Senator SCHUMER. Wait. So let me stop you there. 

Ms. BECKER. But I cannot discuss the substance of this case, 

Senator. 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. 

Ms. BECKER. And I’m very—I’m very cautious here because I 

don’t want to do anything that would adversely affect pending litigation in the Supreme Court. 

Senator SCHUMER. OK. 

I would just like the record to show that the only cases cited in 

this—in the—in the brief of the Justice Department were not voter 

ID, they were absentee ballot fraud. I’d just like the record to show 

that. And yet, we’re doing something here about this. 

Now, just two more questions on this. Isn’t it true that voter ID 

won’t stop unscrupulous officials from tampering with election results? Voter ID has nothing to do with that, right? 

Ms. BECKER. I’m sorry. Can you repeat the question? 

Senator SCHUMER. Yes. Voter ID law won’t—isn’t it true that a 

voter ID law won’t stop unscrupulous officials from tampering with 

election results? One has nothing to do with the other. 

Ms. BECKER. Generally—Senator, again, what we’re looking for 

in the Civil Rights Division are not the voter fraud issues. You’re 

asking a lot of substantive questions on a voter fraud issue. What 

we’re looking for in the Civil Rights Division is whether or not a 

particular law will have a retrogressive effect or discriminatory 

purpose. Those are the statutes that we enforce. 

Senator SCHUMER. Let me—let me change. You’re not— 

Ms. BECKER. You’re asking me policy questions about this. 

Senator SCHUMER. I’m asking you— 

Ms. BECKER. I’m not going— 

Senator SCHUMER. These are not policy questions. These are factual questions that someone who’s in the Department should know. 

There are certain laws aimed at certain types of fraud and other 

64 

types of laws aimed at other type of fraud, and your—your brief 

cites one type of fraud to justify another type of law. 

But let me ask you this. I’m going to move to something else 

here. In 2002, the Justice Department launched a new ballot access 

and voting integrity initiative, correct? 

Ms. BECKER. Yes. 

Senator SCHUMER. Since that initiative started, how many inperson voter fraud cases has DOJ investigated and prosecuted? 

Ms. BECKER. Again, Senator, it’s another component of the Justice Department that handles those cases. 

Senator SCHUMER. You know, wait a second. You signed this 

brief and you don’t know? You’re head of Civil Rights Division and 

you don’t know the answer to that? 

Ms. BECKER. I can certainly get those statistics for you, Senator. 

Senator SCHUMER. You can get me those in writing. In fact, I’m 

not going to—I’m going to ask the nomination not move forward 

until I get those answers in writing. And I’d also like to know how 

many in Indiana. How many nationally and how many in Indiana, 

because your brief, of course, applies to Indiana. 

And I just want to ask you this: did you consult any experts at 

the Justice Department or elsewhere about the prevalence of fraud 

in Indiana before deciding to file the brief? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, again, I cannot get into the deliberative 

process that we have. 

Senator SCHUMER. All right. I just want to say this. The nonpartisan Brennan Center did an analysis of 95 voter fraud cases 

brought by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2005 and 

concluded that not one of them was a case of in-person fraud that 

could have been stopped by a photo ID. 

I’d like you to just take a look—I’m not asking you now. That 

wouldn’t be right—at this Brennan Center report and get me—see 

if you disagree with that or if they’re—it’s fallacious in any way. 

And I would just say—and I’m going to just ask these rhetorical 

questions and conclude, and I really thank you, Mr. Chairman, for 

your indulgence of me here. I care about this a lot. 

It doesn’t seem logical that you should know the magnitude of 

this supposed problem before signing your name to—name to a 

brief endorsing a flawed solution—at least in my judgment, a 

flawed solution. If you can’t cite how many cases, you have no idea, 

and yet you signed a brief that says we have to have a major law 

change, that says something to me. 

Wouldn’t it—and just, you can answer both of these. Wouldn’t it 

call into question whether you should be leader of this Department 

if—a Department tasked with ensuring voter access, when you publicly support an Indiana law which seems to attack a phantom 

problem on the one hand, because we don’t have many cases—I 

don’t think any in Indiana—of in-person voter fraud, and at the 

same time would disenfranchise voters? How do you answer that? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, with respect, sir, we were not—what we 

try to do in every brief that we file in the court is to interpret the 

law. We—we do not try to change the law, we try and interpret the 

law. It’s up to Congress, certainly, in its role to make the laws or 

to change the laws as they see fit. So what the Justice Department 

tried to do in this case, was just to interpret the law. 

65 

And Senator, if you look at—we take each instance on a case-bycase basis and if you look at the cross-section of cases that we have 

filed, you will see that in the Supreme Court we’ve also filed an 

amicus brief in Riley v. Kennedy, where the Solicitor General, on 

behalf of the Civil Rights Division, defends a Section 5 objection 

that we made on behalf of African-American voters. We filed other 

amicus briefs on other non-voting issues in the civil rights context. 

For example, in Cracker Barrel, the CBOCs case where we filed an 

amicus brief in support of individuals who were bringing private 

civil rights lawsuits. 

So we take each case on a case-by-case basis, Senator, and if I 

am confirmed, I can assure you that we will continue to do so. I 

can appreciate that we disagree on this one particular case, but 

Senator, I would like the opportunity to be able to take this on a 

case-by-case basis. I share your concern with respect to voter ID 

laws, because I think we do need to look at them very carefully. 

I can tell you that what the Solicitor General, the Civil Rights 

Division, and the United States is trying to do in this case, was try 

to interpret the law. Senator, after the Supreme Court has rendered its decision, I hope to have the opportunity to—to discuss the 

substance of that in more detail. 

Senator SCHUMER. I respect what you have to say. I have a different view. I have a view that this administration—and we saw 

this under Alberto Gonzales’s stewardship—uses the pretext of 

voter fraud, even though they can’t prove it, to make it harder for 

poorer people to vote. You all know the quote. I don’t know if it was 

mentioned earlier here before. One Republican official in Texas 

said, ‘‘If we had a voter ID law it would reduce Democratic turnout 

by 3 percent.’’ And who would that affect? Poor people, minorities, 

immigrants. 

Voting is a sacred right. It’s equal. The poorest person with the 

least power has the same vote as the richest person with the most 

power. When you tamper with it for political purposes, I think it’s 

nothing short of despicable. And I believe that the Civil Rights Division—not the rank and file, but the political appointees—has 

done that in the past and I think we have to make very sure that 

you won’t do it. That’s why I think we need more complete answers 

than just saying ‘‘I can’t answer this, I can’t answer that’’. 

But again, I greatly respect you and where you come from and 

what you’ve achieved. This is not a substantive or personal disagreement, but it’s one that some of us feel very, very deeply here. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank— 

Senator SCHUMER. The last word. 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, thank you. You know, as—coming from a 

family of immigrants and naturalized American citizens, I certainly 

have emphasized to my family members and to other naturalized 

citizens that I’ve spoken to down the street at the Federal courthouse the importance of the right to vote, because I think all of us 

really believe that voting is—is—is so important because it protects 

all the other rights that we have. And so, Senator, I do share your 

concern on that issue. You know, I am at a disadvantage because 

that is pending litigation, so I’m not able to talk about it. I wish 

I could be more responsive to your questions, but I do hope that 

I would have the opportunity to at a later date. 

66 

Senator SCHUMER. Thank you. 

Senator KENNEDY. Thank you very much. 

Senator Feingold? 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms. 

Becker. 

I want to followup on Senator Kennedy’s questions about hiring 

practices. As I understand it, and as the Boston Globe reported, 

there was a major change in the Division’s hiring practices in 2002, 

giving political appointees a greater role in hiring decisions with 

little input from career staff. You’ve described a collaborative process involving both career employees and political appointees. Is this 

the same process that was implemented in 2002 or is it a change 

from what was done between 2002 when you arrived at the Division? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I joined the Division in 2006. I’m not quite 

sure what the 2002 process was that you’re referring to. I can tell 

you how I—how we’ve been doing it in the Civil Rights Division 

since I’ve been there over the last 2 years, and it’s a team approach, Senator. There—there—there are multiple attorneys that 

are involved at different levels, you know, trial attorney, deputy 

chief, chief, Deputy Assistant Attorney General, all—all involved in 

the process. 

It’s a collaborative approach. There are certainly more career attorneys that are involved in the process than political—political-appointed managers, but it’s—it’s one where I’ve always believed 

that—that all the managers and the chain of command have an appropriate role, so long as they do not take political affiliation into 

account for career hires. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, and other than instructing your staff 

that political considerations should not play a role in hiring, you 

don’t plan to make any changes in that process, is that right? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator—Senator, not—not at this time. But, you 

know, if I am—if I become aware that there is a problem, if there’s 

an issue, certainly I will be open to reconsidering it as—as things 

arise. But this process has worked very successfully over the last 

2 years during my management there, and I believe it’s—it’s a 

process that everyone on the team has been happy with. And from 

a manager’s standpoint, I—I do not see any need to change it at 

this time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. As Senator Kennedy touched on 

earlier, sections of the Civil Rights Division that are charged with 

enforcing anti-discrimination statutes have brought fewer cases on 

behalf of minorities and women, and more cases on behalf of whites 

and men under this administration. Do you agree that the top priority of the Civil Rights Division should be protecting the rights of 

minorities, women, and other groups that have been an historic 

target of discrimination? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I believe the Civil Rights Division has 

been, and will continue if I’m confirmed, hopefully, to—to bring 

cases on behalf of all Americans. Senator, I can tell you, from my 

experiencing in overseeing the Criminal Section, for example, 

that—that we bring many cases against many, many vulnerable 

victims. On the human trafficking front, for example, we’ve been 

able to help many women, women of color, over 1,000 women from 

67 

over 80 countries, including U.S. citizen victims who have been 

horribly, horribly victimized through human trafficking. So, certainly, Senator, I—I believe it’s important for us to vigorously enforce all of our statutes and—and go where the need is greatest. 

Senator FEINGOLD. You know, I think we all agree that discrimination in all forms is intolerable, but the fact is, the resources of 

the Civil Rights Division are finite and every enforcement action 

represents a choice of how to allocate those resources. So my question is not whether or not a lot of cases have been brought with 

regard to the things you just mentioned, but shouldn’t the Civil 

Rights Division prioritize the rights of those who suffer the most 

discrimination? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, it shouldn’t have—I believe—we have, for 

example, in the post-9/11 era where there was a great concern 

about whether individuals who are Arab, Muslim, Sikh, or South 

Asian were being victimized through back—9/11 backlash. There’s 

a—even before I came to the Civil Rights Division there was a 

9/11 backlash initiative, and since then we’ve opened over 800 investigations to ensure that what happened to Asian-Americans in 

the World War II era was not repeated in the post-9/11 era, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I’m certainly hearing that these areas 

are being addressed. But what I’m getting at, and I’ll let it be for 

now, is the mix. What are the priorities? Your answers were not 

clear on what the priorities are. 

I’m very concerned about the pattern of the Civil Rights Division 

coming into court and asking to set aside settlement agreements 

designed to benefit minorities and women that were reached under 

the previous administration. 

In these cases, the Civil Rights Division has become a de facto 

advocate for the very party that was accused of violating civil 

rights laws. Do you believe that attempting to set aside agreements 

intended to enforce compliance with civil rights law is an appropriate use of the Civil Rights Division’s resources? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I believe that any change in the Department’s position should be exceptional. I am not aware, in the—in 

the two years that I’ve been overseeing the various sections within 

the Division, anywhere from 300 to 700 employees, that we’ve had 

such a change in policy. But I do think that that’s an exceptional 

situation. If—if it, in fact, occurred, it was before my time. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I’d be interested in following that issue 

and how often it is done, and whether it’s the right thing to do. 

You presented testimony before the United Nations Committee 

on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, or CERD, which has 

recently issued its concluding observations on the United States’ 

implementation of the International Convention on the Elimination 

of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The CERD report noted a 

high level of concern, as you basically just alluded to, regarding the 

increase in racial profiling against Arabs, Muslims, and South 

Asians in the wake of the 9/11 attack. 

Expressing its concerns, the report references the Civil Rights 

Division’s adoption of the revised publication entitled, ‘‘Guidance 

Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement Agencies’’. 

As head of the Civil Rights Division, will you commit to reviewing 

68 

the policies in that manual to ensure that the administration is 

taking every possible step to end racial profiling? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I know this is an interest that—that—that 

you’ve had for some time with respect to racial profiling, and I’ve 

appreciated your leadership on this. I agree with the President that 

racial profiling is wrong. 

I first learned about the Civil Rights Division’s guidelines on racial profiling while I was working here on this very Committee. 

And Senator, to be clear, even though it is labeled ‘‘guidance’’, it 

is binding on all Federal law enforcement officers here in the 

United States. There is extensive training that is going on in the 

Federal law enforcement arena. For example, at FLETC, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center, not only do they receive 

training in racial profiling, they get the guidelines. They’re tested 

on the guidelines. So it is something that we continue to take seriously in the Civil Rights Division. 

Senator FEINGOLD. So you’ll commit to reviewing policies in that 

manual to ensure that the administration is taking every possible 

step to end racial profiling, right? 

Ms. BECKER. I’d be happy to work with you on racial profiling 

issues with respect to the guidance, if you have any concerns with 

respect to that. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Why won’t you just commit to reviewing the 

policies in that manual? 

Ms. BECKER. I have reviewed them, Senator. I’m familiar with 

them. But I’m not quite sure what you—I’ve reviewed them while 

I’ve been at the Civil Rights Division, Senator. But I think— 

Senator FEINGOLD. I’m asking you again, as the head of the Civil 

Rights Division, if you are confirmed, will you do that? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I will review it, and if there is appropriate 

action for me to take, I will take it. 

Senator FEINGOLD. All right. 

The CERD report also encouraged the United States to adopt 

Federal legislation such as the End Racial Profiling Act which I’ve 

introduced in several Congresses, including this one. And you obviously are aware, by working there. Are you familiar with that— 

with that bill? 

Ms. BECKER. Yes, I am, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. And what is your view on the bill? Will you 

commit to working on it with the Congress? 

Ms. BECKER. I’m not sure I could—I do not—I do not believe the 

Department has taken a position on it with respect to that bill, 

Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Do you have a view on the bill? You’re familiar with it. 

Ms. BECKER. I’m generally familiar with it, Senator. But as you 

know, the Department speaks with one voice, so I’d go back to the 

Department and I’d see whether or not the Department has taken 

a position on it, and as a representative of the Department that 

would be my position, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. During his confirmation hearings, when 

asked about the mission of the Voting Rights section, Attorney 

General Mukasey stated, ‘‘I believe that the Civil Rights Division 

69 

must follow its traditional of focusing on the most prevalent and 

significant voting problems.’’ 

Ms. Becker, in your view, which is the most prevalent and serious threat to American elections today, voter fraud or voter suppression? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, our focus in the Civil Rights Division has 

been—in the Federal laws that we have, which primarily target 

voter suppression. To the extent that there is voter fraud, there are 

other components of the Justice Department that are focused primarily with respect to that issue, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Let me switch to one other thing. The recent 

CERD articulated a concern about, as I indicated, the disparate impact of felon disenfranchisement laws on racial, ethnic, and national minorities, in particular, African-Americans. As I take it 

you’re aware, more than 5.4 million Americans are disenfranchised 

by these laws which have an explicitly racist history and a markedly disproportionate impact. In some States, one in four AfricanAmerican adults are disenfranchised because of the Jim Crow— 

these Jim Crow provisions. I will soon be introducing legislation to 

restore the right to vote to people on probation parole who have 

served their sentences. 

Ms. Becker, I would hope that, as the head of the section of the 

Department of Justice, that that should be at the forefront of protecting citizens from racial discrimination, protecting voting rights. 

You would agree that these felon disenfranchisement laws have no 

place in America today. Will you work with me to get the administration’s support for legislation to adopt this unjust practice? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I’d be happy to work with you on this, or 

any other, legislation. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Will you support it? 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, I—I haven’t seen the bill. I can tell you 

that, generally, felon disenfranchisement laws, as I understand 

them, have been determined on a State-by-State basis. To the extent that they would come before the Civil Rights Division, I think 

it may be in a pre-clearance process, maybe one where it may be 

something that we’d have an opportunity to review some of these 

laws. 

I can tell you generally that any practice that—that could potentially implicate one of these statutes that we enforce in the Civil 

Rights Division is something that is of concern to us, particularly 

when it’s involving suppressing the minority vote. So, Senator, I— 

I would be happy to work with you on this bill. I’m—I’m not familiar with the—the contours of the bill. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I want to go back to the voting rights issue 

again one more time. Again, as we talked about with regard to the 

priorities of the Division in general, the resources of the Division 

are finite and the sitting Attorney General stated, ‘‘those resources 

should be focused on the most prevalent and significant problems.’’ 

In my view, all available nonpartisan evidence clearly shows 

while there are very few cases of voter fraud, our elections continue 

to be undermined by organized efforts to disenfranchise voters. Do 

you disagree with that assessment? 

70 

Ms. BECKER. Senator, generally the voter fraud provisions are 

handled by a different component of the Justice Department, so I’m 

not in a position to opine on them, sir. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Well, I take it this just proves it. In the Senate, if you wait long enough, you become the Chairman. Is that 

what’s happening here? 

I thank the witness very much and the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] 

71 


42266.040
72 


42266.041
73 


42266.042
74 


42266.043
75 


42266.044
76 


42266.045
77 


42266.046
78 


42266.047
79 


42266.048
80 


42266.049
81 


42266.050
82 


42266.051
83 


42266.052
84 


42266.053
85 


42266.054
86 


42266.055
87 


42266.056
88 


42266.057
89 


42266.058
90 


42266.059
91 


42266.060
92 


42266.061
93 


42266.062
94 


42266.063
95 


42266.064
96 


42266.065
97 


42266.066
98 


42266.067
99 


42266.068
100 


42266.069
101 


42266.070
102 


42266.071
103 


42266.072
104 


42266.073
105 


42266.074
106 


42266.075
107 


42266.076
108 


42266.077
109 


42266.078
110 


42266.079
111 


42266.080
112 


42266.081
113 


42266.082
114 


42266.083
115 


42266.084
116 


42266.085
117 


42266.086
118 


42266.087
119 


42266.088
120 


42266.089
121 


42266.090
122 


42266.091
123 


42266.092
124 


42266.093
125 


42266.094
126 


42266.095
127 


42266.096
128 


42266.097
129 


42266.098
130 


42266.099
131 


42266.100
132 


42266.101
133 


42266.102
134 


42266.103
135 


42266.104
136 


42266.105
137 


42266.106
138 


42266.107
139 


42266.108
140 


42266.109
141 


42266.110
142 


42266.111
143 


42266.112
144 


42266.113
145 


42266.114
146 


42266.115
147 


42266.116
148 


42266.117
149 


42266.118
150 


42266.119
151 


42266.120
152 


42266.121
153 


42266.122
154 


42266.123
155 


42266.124
156 


42266.125
157 


42266.126
158 


42266.127
159 


42266.128
160 


42266.129
161 


42266.130
162 


42266.131
163 


42266.132
164 


42266.133
165 


42266.134
166 


42266.135
167 


42266.136
168 


42266.137
169 


42266.138
170 


42266.139
171 


42266.140
172 


42266.145
173 


42266.146
174 


42266.147
175 


42266.148
176 


42266.149
177 


42266.150
178 


42266.151
179 


42266.152
180 


42266.153
181 


42266.154
182 


42266.155
183 


42266.156
184 


42266.157
185 


42266.158
186 


42266.159
187 


42266.160
188 


42266.161
189 


42266.162
190 


42266.163
191 


42266.164
192 


42266.165
193 


42266.166
194 


42266.167
195 


42266.168
196 


42266.141
197 


42266.142
198 


42266.143
199 

Æ 


42266.144