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

80–973 PDF 2013

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 

MAY 15, 2013 

Serial No. 113–43 

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 

( 

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

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia, Chairman 

F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, JR., 

Wisconsin 

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio 

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama 

DARRELL E. ISSA, California 

J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia 

STEVE KING, Iowa 

TRENT FRANKS, Arizona 

LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas 

JIM JORDAN, Ohio 

TED POE, Texas 

JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah 

TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania 

TREY GOWDY, South Carolina 

MARK AMODEI, Nevada 

RAUL LABRADOR, Idaho 

BLAKE FARENTHOLD, Texas 

GEORGE HOLDING, North Carolina 

DOUG COLLINS, Georgia 

RON DeSANTIS, Florida 

[Vacant] 

JOHN CONYERS, JR., Michigan 

JERROLD NADLER, New York 

ROBERT C. ‘‘BOBBY’’ SCOTT, Virginia 

MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

STEVE COHEN, Tennessee 

HENRY C. ‘‘HANK’’ JOHNSON, JR., 

Georgia 

PEDRO R. PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico 

JUDY CHU, California 

TED DEUTCH, Florida 

LUIS V. GUTIERREZ, Illinois 

KAREN BASS, California 

CEDRIC RICHMOND, Louisiana 

SUZAN DelBENE, Washington 

JOE GARCIA, Florida 

HAKEEM JEFFRIES, New York 

SHELLEY HUSBAND, Chief of Staff & General Counsel 

PERRY APELBAUM, Minority Staff Director & Chief Counsel 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

MAY 15, 2013 

Page 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

The Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in Congress from the State 

of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary ................................. 1 

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

State of Michigan, and Ranking Member, Committee on the Judiciary ......... 3 

WITNESS 

The Honorable Eric J. Holder, Jr., Attorney General, United States Department of Justice 

Oral Testimony ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 8 

LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

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

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 33 

Material submitted by the Honorable Judy Chu, a Representative in Congress 

from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the Judiciary ........ 48 

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

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

on the Judiciary ................................................................................................... 99 

Material submitted by the Honorable Bob Goodlatte, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of Virginia, and Chairman, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 103 

Material submitted by the Honorable Sheila Jackson Lee, a Representative 

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

Judiciary 

Submission One ................................................................................................ 116 

Submission Two ................................................................................................ 118 

Submission Three ............................................................................................. 119 

Submission Four ............................................................................................... 188 

Material submitted by the Honorable Darrell E. Issa, a Representative in 

Congress from the State of California, and Member, Committee on the 

Judiciary ............................................................................................................... 121 

APPENDIX 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Eric J. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General, United States Department of Justice .................................. 216 

(1) 

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

WEDNESDAY, MAY 15, 2013 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to call, at 1:08 p.m., in room 2141, 

Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Bob Goodlatte 

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding. 

Present: Representatives Goodlatte, Sensenbrenner, Coble, 

Smith, Chabot, Bachus, Issa, Forbes, King, Franks, Gohmert, Jordan, Poe, Chaffetz, Marino, Gowdy, Amodei, Labrador, Farenthold, 

Holding, Collins, DeSantis, Conyers, Nadler, Scott, Watt, Lofgren, 

Jackson Lee, Cohen, Johnson, Chu, Deutch, Bass, Richmond, 

DelBene, Garcia, and Jeffries. 

Staff Present: (Majority) Shelley Husband, Chief of Staff & General Counsel; Branden Ritchie, Deputy Chief of Staff & Chief Counsel; Allison Halataei, Parliamentarian & General Counsel; Sarah 

Allen, Counsel; Caroline Lynch, Counsel; Kelsey Deterding, Clerk; 

(Minority) Perry Apelbaum, Staff Director & Chief Counsel; 

Danielle Brown, Parliamentarian; and Aaron Hiller, Counsel. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Committee will come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to declare recesses of the Committee at any time. 

We welcome everyone to today’s hearing on the oversight of the 

United States Department of Justice. 

Welcome, Attorney General Holder, to your sixth appearance before the House Judiciary Committee since your confirmation in 

2009. We are happy to have you here with us today. 

Last month, the City of Boston and the Nation as a whole was 

gripped with fear as the historic Boston Marathon, traditionally a 

day of celebration, was attacked by twin explosions that killed 3 

people and injured more than 250. Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and his 

older brother Tamerlan Tsarnaev set off the explosions, then shot 

and killed MIT police officer Sean Collier and seriously wounded 

Boston transit police officer Richard Donohue while attempting to 

elude capture. 

Tamerlan died after a fierce gun battle with police. Dzhokhar 

eventually surrendered after sustaining serious injuries himself. 

I would like to commend the FBI and all of the Federal, State, 

and local law enforcement agents who worked tirelessly to identify 

the bombers and apprehend Dzhokhar. The Patriots Day attack in 

Boston shows us that domestic terror threats are real, ongoing, and 
2 

can have deadly consequences. In 2010, FBI Director Mueller and 

other intelligence officials warned us that domestic and lone wolf 

extremists are now just as serious a threat to our safety as alQaeda. 

We have been fortunate that until April 15th of this year previous domestic terror plots have been foiled. The bombings in Boston remind us that the terror threat has not diminished, but that 

it is ever present and evolving. It is critical that Congress and this 

Committee in particular ensure that our ability to detect, deter, 

and prosecute these threats keeps pace with this evolution. 

To that end, I look forward to hearing from you today about ways 

that Congress can amend the Federal rules for criminal cases to 

make sure that we are able to prosecute terrorism cases while still 

allowing law enforcement to learn critical information to stop future attacks. I am also concerned about reports that in the years 

leading up to the Boston attack, several different Federal agencies 

or departments received intelligence about the bombers. 

These agencies did not connect the dots, and this is not the first 

time that this has happened in recent years. The question that the 

Administration and we in Congress need to address is whether 

there are any improvements that can be made going forward to facilitate interagency information sharing so that we can better 

thwart future domestic terrorists. 

I am also interested today to hear about how the Department intends to tighten its belt in a responsible way during this time of 

fiscal uncertainty. I was pleased to hear that the Department was 

ultimately able to prioritize its spending to avoid furloughing Federal agents and prison guards in response to the sequester, which 

reduced the Department’s more than $27 billion budget by approximately 5 percent. 

However, after learning of elaborate conferences with $12 cups of 

coffee, $10,000 pizza parties, and a vast array of duplicative grant 

programs and the purchase of a $170 million prison from the State 

of Illinois, I am confident there are many ways the Department can 

root out waste and duplication without harming critical missions. 

With our national debt at more than $16 trillion, the American 

people deserve no less. 

I am also deeply concerned about a pattern I see emerging at the 

Department under your leadership in which conclusions reached by 

career attorneys after thorough investigation are overruled by Administration appointees for political reasons. For instance, investigators from this Committee and the Oversight and Government 

Reform Committee have uncovered conclusive evidence that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, against the strong recommendations of career attorneys, struck a secret deal with the City of St. 

Paul in order to block the Supreme Court—— 

Mr. NADLER. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. That is not correct 

information. That is not what the Subcommittee found. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will have his opportunity to 

speak at a later time. 

This secret deal undermined the rule of law and robbed the 

American taxpayers of the opportunity to recover over $200 million 

in fraudulently obtained funds. 
3 

What is more, the New York Times recently reported that political appointees at the Department, over the vehement objections of 

career attorneys, decided to commit as much as $4.4 billion in taxpayer money to compensate thousands of farmers who had never 

claimed bias in court. A small group of female and Hispanic farmers, based on claims similar to those in Pigford, had made allegations that the Department of Agriculture had discriminated against 

them in administering its loan programs. 

However, according to the Times, career attorneys within the Department determined that there was no credible evidence of widespread discrimination and that the legal risks did not justify the 

costs and that it was legally questionable to sidestep Congress and 

compensate the farmers out of the judgment fund. 

Just last week, we learned that IRS employees have admittedly 

targeted conservative groups for additional and unwanted scrutiny 

just because they chose to exercise their First Amendment rights. 

This is outrageous, and Congress and the American people expect 

answers and accountability. 

Finally, just 2 days ago, it was revealed that the Justice Department obtained telephone records for more than 20 Associated Press 

reporters and editors over a 2-month period. These requests appear 

to be very broad and intersect important First Amendment protections. 

Any abridgment of the First Amendment right to the freedom of 

the press is very concerning, and Members of the Committee want 

to hear an explanation today. 

I look forward to hearing your answers on all of these important 

topics today, as well as on other issues of significance to the Justice 

Department and the country. 

And it is now my pleasure to recognize for his opening statement 

the Ranking Member of the Committee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Conyers. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Chairman Goodlatte. 

Today is Peace Officers Memorial Day, and I would like to begin 

by honoring those who gave the ultimate sacrifice in serving our 

Nation, the fallen officers who selflessly defend our streets and 

keep our communities safe. As flags across the country fly at half 

staff, our thoughts turn toward these brave law enforcement officers and officials, and I thank each and every officer for their dedicated public service. 

Members of the Committee, first, with respect to the Government’s subpoena of phone records at the Associated Press, I am 

troubled by the notion that our Government would pursue such a 

broad array of media phone records over such a long period of time. 

At the same time, I know also that the Attorney General himself 

has recused himself from the investigation, and we will hear more 

about that. 

Policy questions on this topic are fair, and I want you to know 

that I intend to reintroduce the Free Flow of Information, which 

passed the House floor with overwhelming support bipartisan in 

both the 110th and 111th Congress, and we hope to do so with the 

continued support of Members of this Committee on the other side 

of the aisle. 
4 

This Federal press shield bill would require the Government to 

show cause before they may compel disclosure of this sort of information from or about a news media organization. It is a common 

sense measure. It has comparable provisions in 49 other States and 

the District of Columbia. I would also note that the Free Flow of 

Information Act that protects the media against overbroad Government investigation, that has been commented publicly by many 

Members of the Congress, as well as the Administration. 

We have also learned that some employees at IRS appear to have 

improperly targeted Tea Party groups as they applied for tax exempt status. No one takes allegations of discriminatory enforcement of the law more seriously than myself, and I thank the Attorney General for opening an investigation to uncover any criminal 

activity. 

And then there is no issue more important than the continuing 

mission to ensure the safety and security of the American public. 

The Department and local law enforcement are to be commended 

for their coordinated response in identifying and apprehending the 

apparent perpetrators in the Boston bombings. 

I have no doubt, Mr. Attorney General, that your own investigation into this matter will carefully review and consider gaps in our 

counterterrorism efforts that need to be addressed. 

I also want to commend the Department of Justice and the FBI 

for their commitment to the most powerful counterterrorism tools 

in our arsenal, the Federal criminal process and the Federal court 

system. Since September 11, 2001, Federal courts have convicted 

nearly 500 individuals on terrorism-related charges. Military commissions have at best a troubled track record and have convicted 

only seven individuals and have never successfully prosecuted a 

U.S. citizen. 

Mr. Attorney General, your commitment to the rule of law in this 

matter is to be commended not just because it is the right thing 

to do, but also because it keeps us safer in the long run. 

And finally, I would like to recognize the dedication to the enforcement of civil rights and voting under the law. Under your 

leadership and under the leadership of the Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, the Department has obtained $660 million in lending settlements, including the three largest discrimination settlements in the Department’s history. Has obtained a $128 million 

award recovery in an employment discrimination case in history, 

secured $16 million as a part of a settlement to enforce the Americans with Disabilities Act at more than 10,000 banks and other financial retail offices across the country. 

And last year alone, the Civil Rights Division of the Department 

of Justice opened 43 new voting rights cases, more than twice the 

number than in any previous year, filed 13 additional objections to 

the discriminatory voting practices under Section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act. And of course, all this has been done with devastating 

reductions in the Department’s budget that I will put in the record 

and, of course, sequester, which further aggravates this problem. 

That means that the cuts will affect our first responders, will 

mean fewer cases brought to court, fewer police officers on the 

street, fewer resources dedicated to keeping our citizens safe. 
5 

And so, I look forward to you elaborating on those issues raised 

by the Chairman of the Committee and myself, and I suspect that 

you will need more than 5 minutes to do so. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I return my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his opening statement. 

Without objection, other Members’ opening statements will be 

made a part of the record. 

And without objection, the Chair will be authorized to declare recesses during votes on the House floor. 

We again thank our only witness, the Attorney General of the 

United States, for joining us today. And Attorney General Holder, 

if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in. 

[Witness sworn.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you. And let the record reflect that Attorney General Holder responded in the affirmative. 

Our only witness today is United States Attorney General Eric 

H. Holder Jr. On February 3, 2009, General Holder was sworn in 

as the 82nd Attorney General of the United States. General Holder 

has enjoyed a long career in both the public and private sectors. 

First joining the Department of Justice through the Attorney 

General’s Honors Program in 1976, he became one of the Department’s first attorneys to serve in the newly formed Public Integrity 

Section. He went on to serve as a judge of the Superior Court of 

the District of Columbia and the United States attorney for the 

District of Columbia. 

In 1997, General Holder was named by President Clinton to be 

the Deputy Attorney General. Prior to becoming Attorney General, 

he was a litigation partner at the Covington and Burling law firm 

in Washington, D.C. General Holder, a native of New York City, is 

a graduate of Columbia University and Columbia School of Law. 

General Holder, we appreciate your presence today and look forward to your testimony. Your entire written statement will be entered into the record, and we ask that you summarize your testimony in 5 minutes. 

The gentleman noted that may be difficult, but we will appreciate as close to that mark as you can keep. And the time is yours, 

General Holder. 

TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE ERIC J. HOLDER, JR., ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Attorney General HOLDER. I bet I can get it under 5 minutes. 

But anyway, good afternoon, Chairman Goodlatte, Ranking 

Member Conyers. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before all 

of you today to discuss the Justice Department’s recent achievements and to provide an overview of our top priorities. 

Particularly in recent years, the Department has taken critical 

steps to prevent and to combat violence, to confront national security threats, and to ensure the civil rights of everyone in this country, and to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society. 

Thanks to the extraordinary efforts of my colleagues, the nearly 

116,000 dedicated men and women who serve in the Justice Department offices around the world, I’m pleased to report that we 
6 

have established a remarkable record of progress in expanding our 

Nation’s founding promise of equal justice under law and ensuring 

the safety and the security of all of our citizens. 

Now the need to continue these efforts and to remain vigilant 

against a range of evolving threats was really brought into sharp 

focus last month in the most shocking of ways when a horrific terrorist attack in Boston left three innocent people dead and hundreds injured. 

In the days that followed, thanks to the valor of State and local 

police, the dedication of Federal law enforcement and intelligence 

officials, and the cooperation of members of the public, those suspected of carrying out this terrorist act were identified. One suspect died following a shootout with police, and the other has been 

brought into custody and charged in Federal court with using a 

weapon of mass destruction. Three others have been charged in 

connection with the investigation of this case, which is active and 

ongoing. 

As we continue working to achieve justice on behalf of our fellow 

citizens and brave law enforcement officers who were injured and 

killed in connection with these tragic events, and to hold accountable to the fullest extent of the law all who were responsible for 

this heinous attack, I want to assure you that my colleagues and 

I are also committed to strengthening our broader national security 

efforts. 

For the past 4 years, we have identified, investigated, and disrupted multiple potential plots involving foreign terrorist organizations as well as homegrown extremists. We’ve secured convictions 

as well as tough sentences against numerous individuals for terrorism-related offenses. We’ve utilized essential intelligence gathering and surveillance capability in a manner that is consistent 

with the rule of law and consistent with our most treasured values. 

Beyond this work, my colleagues and I are enhancing our focus 

on a variety of emerging threats and persistent challenges from 

drug trafficking and transnational organized crime to cyber threats 

and human trafficking. We’re moving to ensure robust enforcement 

of our antitrust laws, to combat tax fraud schemes, and to safeguard the environment. 

We’re building on the significant progress that’s been made in 

identifying and thwarting financial and healthcare-related fraud 

crimes. And for example, in fiscal year 2012, our fraud detection 

and enforcement efforts resulted in the record-breaking recovery 

and return of roughly $4.2 billion. 

Over the last 3 fiscal years alone, thanks to the President’s Financial Fraud Enforcement Task Force and its Federal, State, and 

local partners, we have filed nearly 10,000 financial fraud cases 

against nearly 14,500 defendants, including more than 2,000 mortgage fraud defendants. 

As these actions prove, our resolve to protect consumers and to 

seek justice against anyone who would seek to take advantage of 

their fellow citizens has never been stronger. And the same can be 

said of the Department’s vigorous commitment to the enforcement 

of key civil rights protections. 

Since 2009, this commitment has led our Civil Rights Division to 

file more criminal civil rights cases than ever before, including 
7 

record numbers of human trafficking cases. Under new tools and 

authorities, including the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. 

Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we have improved our ability to safeguard our civil rights and pursue justice for those who are victimized because of their gender, their sexual orientation, their gender 

identity, or their disability. 

We will continue to work to guarantee that in our workplaces 

and in our military bases, in our housing and lending markets, in 

our schools and our places of worship, in our immigrant communities, and also in our voting booths that the rights of all Americans are protected. 

But all of this is really only the beginning. As we look toward 

the future, my colleagues and I are also determined to work closely 

with Members of Congress to secure essential legislative changes, 

including common sense steps to prevent and to reduce gun violence and comprehensive legislation to fix our Nation’s broken immigration system. 

It is long past the time to allow the estimated 11 million individuals who are here in an undocumented status to step out of the 

shadows, to guarantee that all are playing by the same rules, and 

to require responsibility from everyone, both undocumented workers and those who would hire them. 

Like many of you, I am encouraged to see that these basic principles are reflected in the bipartisan reform proposal that is currently being considered by the Senate. The Department will do all 

that it can to help strengthen that proposal and to advance a constructive, responsible dialogue on this issue. 

I understand that this Committee and other Members are working on immigration reform proposals as well, and I look forward to 

working with you as those efforts move forward to enact comprehensive reforms. 

However, I must note that our capacity to continue building upon 

the Department’s recent progress is threatened by the long-term 

consequences of budget sequestration and joint committee reductions, which will worsen in fiscal year 2014 unless Congress adopts 

a balanced deficit reduction plan. Should Congress fail to do so, I 

fear that these reductions will undermine our ability to deliver justice for millions of Americans and to keep essential public safety 

professionals on the job. 

We simply cannot allow this to happen. This afternoon, I ask for 

your support in preventing these cuts and ensuring that the Department has the resources it needs to fulfill its critical missions. 

I thank you once again for the chance to discuss our current efforts with you today, and I would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. I see I didn’t make my 5 minutes. 

[The prepared statement of Attorney General Holder follows:] 
8 

ileput1utent of lfustire 

STATEMENT OF 

ERIC H. HOLDER, JR. 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ENTITLED 

"OVERSIGHT OF THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE" 

PRESENTED 

MAY 15,2013 
9 

Statement of 

Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

Committee on the Judiciary 

U.S. House of Representatives 

"Oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice" 

May 15,2013 

Good morning, Chairman Goodlatte; Ranking Member Conyers; and distinguished 

Members of the Committee. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before you today to discuss 

the Justice Department's recent achievements, to provide an overview of our top priorities, and 

to join with you in advancing our important ongoing work. 

Particularly in recent years, the Department has taken critical steps to prevent and combat 

violent crime, to confront national security threats, to ensure the civil rights of everyone in this 

country, and to safeguard the most vulnerable members of our society. Thanks to the 

extraordinary efforts of my colleab'1leS - the nearly 116,000 dedicated men and women who 

serve in Justice Department offices around the world - I'm pleased to report that we've 

established a remarkable record of progress in expanding our nation's founding promise of equal 

justice under law, and ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. 

The need to continue these efforts - and to remain vigilant against a range of evolving 

threats - was brought into sharp focus last month, in the most shocking of ways, when a 

cowardly terrorist attack in Boston left three innocent people dead and hundreds injured. In the 

days that followed- thanks to the valor of state and local police, the dedication offederallaw 

enforcement and intelligence oftlcials, and the cooperation of members of the public - those 

suspected of carrying out this terrorist act were identified. One suspect died following a shootout 

with police and the other has been brought into custody and charged in federal court with using a 

weapon of mass destruction. Three others have been charged in connection with the 

investigation of this case, which is active and ongoing. 

As we continue working to achieve justice on behalf of the ordinary citizens and brave 

law enforcement oftlcers who were injured or killed in connection with these tragic events - and 

to hold accountable, to the fullest extent of the law, all who were responsible for this heinous 

attack - I want to assure you that my colleagues and I are also committed to strengthening our 

broader national security efforts. Over the past four years, we've identified, investigated, and 

disrupted multiple potential plots involving foreign terrorist organizations as well as homegrown 

extremists. We've secured convictions - and tough sentences - against numerous individuals for 

terrorism-related offenses. We've utilized essential intelligence-gathering and surveillance 

capabilities in a manner that's consistent with the rule oflaw, and with our most treasured 

values. 
10 

Beyond this work, my colleagues and I are enhancing our focus on a variety of emerging 

threats and persistent challenges - from drug trafficking and transnational organized crime, to 

cyber-threats and human trafficking. We're moving to ensure robust enforcement of antitrust 

laws, to combat tax fraud schemes, and to safeguard the environment. We're building on the 

significant progress that's been made in identifying and thwarting financial and health carerelated fraud crimes. For example, in FY 2012, our fraud detection and enforcement etforts 

resulted in the record-breaking recovery and return of roughly $4.2 billion. 

Over the last three fiscal years alone - thanks to the President's Financial Fraud 

Enforcement Task Force and its federal, state, and local partners - we have filed nearly 10,000 

tinancial fraud cases against nearly 14,500 defendants, including more than 2,900 mortgage 

fraud defendants. As these actions prove, our resolve to protect consumers and seek justice 

against any who would take advantage of their fellow citizens has never been stronger. 

The same can be said of the Department's vigorous commitment to the enforcement of 

key civil rights protections. Since 2009, this commitment has led our Civil Rights Division to 

file more criminal civil rights cases than ever before - including record numbers of human 

trafficking cases. Using new tools and authorities, including the Matthew Shepard and James 

Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, we've improved our ability to safeguard our civil rights 

and pursue justice for those who are victimized because of their gender, sexual orientation, 

gender identity, or disability. We will continue working to guarantee that - in our workplaces 

and military bases; in our housing and lending markets; in our schools and places of worship; in 

our immigrant communities and our voting booths - the rights of all Americans are protected 

But all of this is only the beginning. As we look toward the future, my colleagues and I 

are also detennined to work closely with Members of Congress to secure essential legislative 

changes - including commonsense steps to prevent and reduce gun violence, and comprehensive 

legislation to fix our nation's broken immigration system. 

It's long past time to allow the estimated 11 million individuals who are here in an 

undocumented status to step out of the shadows, to guarantee that all are playing by the same 

rules, and to require responsibility from everyone - both undocumented workers and those who 

hire them. Like many of you, I am encouraged to see that these basic principles are reflected in 

the bipartisan reform proposal that is currently being considered by the Senate. The Department 

will do all it can to help strengthen that proposal, and to advance a constructive, responsible 

dialogue on this issue. I understand that this Committee and other Members are working on 

immigration reform proposals as well, and I look forward to working with you as those efforts 

move forward to enact comprehensive refonns. 

However, I must note that our capacity to continue building upon the Department's recent 

progress is threatened by the long-term consequences of budget sequestration and Joint 

Committee reductions, which will worsen in Fiscal Year 2014, unless Congress adopts a 

balanced deficit reduction plan. Should Congress fail to do so, I fear that these reductions will 

undennine our ability to deliver justice for millions of Americans, and to keep essential public 

safety professionals on the job. 

2 
11 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Your consideration was very good, and you were 

close. And we thank you for your opening statement. We will now 

proceed with questions under the 5-minute rule, and I will begin 

by recognizing myself for 5 minutes. 

You, in fact, addressed in your remarks my first question, which 

deals with the troubling information that was received by the FBI 
12 

and other agencies of the Government prior to the Boston Marathon bombing, but it does not appear that all of the information 

was received by all of the pertinent parties, particularly the FBI, 

which had conducted an investigation prior to Tamerlan Tsarnaev’s 

trip to Russia, but not after. 

And we would like to continue to work with you and know what 

the Department is doing to adopt procedures for handling hits in 

relevant databases and making sure that the information between 

agencies is improved. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, we certainly want to work with 

you in that regard. There is an ongoing Inspector General investigation, as you know, as to how information was or was not shared 

in the context that you have described. 

I think that, generally, FBI did a very good job in acquiring information to the extent that it could. I’m not at all certain that all 

of the responses—or all of the requests that were made to a foreign 

country by the FBI were replied to in an adequate manner, and I 

think that is at least one of the problems that we have. 

But this matter is ongoing by the IGs. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. In 2010—this relates to the aftermath of the arrest of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. In 2010, you indicated strong support 

for modifying the criminal rules to ensure that investigators could 

obtain critical intelligence from terrorism suspects. 

Specifically, you said in 2010, ‘‘We are now dealing with international terrorists, and I think that we have to think about perhaps modifying the rules that interrogators have in somehow coming up with something that is flexible and is more consistent with 

the threat that we now face.’’ 

Can you articulate how the Department would propose fixing the 

relevant rules, and would you be willing to work with Members of 

the Committee to ensure that our criminal rules are up to the task 

of handling terrorism questions, particularly this issue of how long 

the FBI or other law enforcement can question somebody about imminent threats? 

There is a Supreme Court case recognizing that, but it collides 

with another Supreme Court case saying you have to be presented 

within 48 hours. And obviously, that caused some consternation 

about the completion of the questioning by the FBI about future 

events, other conspirators, and the location of bombs and other 

equipment related to this terrorist attack. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think you’re right, Mr. Chairman. There is a tension between the public safety exception, as defined in the Quarles case and Rule 5 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure. There was a proposal that we floated out there that I 

talked about. What I would prefer to do would be to work with 

Members of Congress who are interested perhaps in looking at the 

world as we see it now. 

The Quarles case dealt with somebody who was asked, ‘‘Where 

is the gun?’’ The reality is, as we deal with terrorist suspects, there 

are much more broad questions that we need to ask, much more 

detailed information that we need to know. Who else was involved 

in this matter? Are there other explosive devices that we need to 

know about? Are there other threats that are going to happen not 

only today, but perhaps in the next 2 or 3 days? 
13 

And so, it seems to me that the need for an extensive Quarles 

public safety exception question period would be appropriate. I 

think that this would require interaction between the executive 

and legislative branches to come up with something that would 

pass constitutional muster. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It was recently reported by the Justice Department or reported that the Justice Department obtained 2 months 

of telephone records of more than 20 reporters and editors with the 

Associated Press, including both work and personal phone lines. 

There has been a lot of criticism raised about the scope of this investigation, including why the Department needed to subpoena 

records for 20 people over a lengthy 2-month period. Why was such 

a broad scope approved? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, there’s been a lot of the criticism. 

In fact, the head of the RNC called for my resignation in spite of 

the fact that I was not the person who was involved in that decision. But be that as it may, I was recused in that matter, as I described, in a press conference that I held yesterday. The decision 

to issue this subpoena was made by the people who are presently 

involved in the case. The matter is being supervised by the Deputy 

Attorney General. 

I am not familiar with the reasons why the case—why the subpoena was constructed in the way that it was because I’m simply 

not a part of the case. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. It is my understanding that one of the requirements before compelling process from a media outlet is to give the 

outlet notice. Do you know why that was not done? 

Attorney General HOLDER. There are exceptions to that rule. I do 

not know, however, with regard to this particular case why that 

was or was not done. I simply don’t have a factual basis to answer 

that question. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And it has also been reported that the Associated Press refrained from releasing this story for a week until the 

Department confirmed that doing so would not jeopardize national 

security interests. That indicates that the AP was amenable to 

working with you on this matter. 

If that is the case, why was it necessary to subpoena the telephone records? Did you seek the AP’s assistance in the first place? 

And if not, why not? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, Mr. Chairman, I don’t know 

what happened there with the interaction between the AP and the 

Justice Department. I was recused from the case. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I take it that you or others in the Justice Department will be forthcoming with those answers to those questions 

as you explore why this was handled what appears to be contrary 

to the law and standard procedure. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, there are exceptions to 

some of the rules that you pointed out, and I have faith in the people who actually were responsible for this case that they were 

aware of the rules and that they followed them. But I don’t have 

a factful basis to answer the questions that you have asked because 

I was recused. I don’t know what has happened in this matter. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Thank you very much. 
14 

My time has expired. And I now recognize the gentleman from 

Michigan, Mr. Conyers, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I note that some of our Members have been outspoken in opposition to the Free Flow of Information Act in the past and have commented publicly about their outrage over the Associated Press subpoenas. But now I am very delighted to learn that many have 

changed their attitude on this, and I am particularly glad to welcome the support of Chairman Darrell Issa as we move forward 

with this legislation. 

Mr. Attorney General, there has been criticism about Tom Perez 

as Assistant Attorney General, and that he may have mismanaged 

employees at the Civil Rights Division in the Department of Justice. Are you able to comment on Mr. Perez’s track record as manager of the division and allegations that he politicized enforcement 

of civil rights laws? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I think that Tom Perez has been 

an outstanding Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. I think he will be a great Secretary of Labor. 

There have been reports done that looked at the condition of the 

Civil Rights Division. The Inspector General has spent 2 years 

looking at the Voting Section. There have been—there’s a joint report by OPR, the Office of Professional Responsibility, as well as 

the Inspector General. I guess that was issued in 2008. And I think 

those findings are really important. 

They found that the enforcement of voting rights law during this 

Administration was not based on improper racial or political considerations. They found that the hiring practices were not politically motivated. They found that there was no basis to believe that 

the Voting Section politicizes its FOIA responses. 

Now there have been some indications that people in the Voting 

Section in particular have not gotten along with each other too 

well. There were a number of incidents, the majority of which were 

in the prior Administration, that I think are not really good examples of how DOJ employees are supposed to work with one another. 

But I think if you look at Tom Perez’s record—record numbers 

of cases brought against police departments that have acted inappropriately, record amounts of money recovered in discrimination 

suits, record numbers of voting rights cases filed—he has done 

what we expect of a person who would head the Civil Rights Division, which I think is the conscience of the Justice Department. 

He’s done an outstanding job and deserves to be confirmed as Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Now there has been a lot of discussion about banks being too big 

to prosecute. And I would like to—I think this is very critical because much of the sagging economy that we are climbing out of is 

a direct result of Wall Street intransigence and perhaps improper 

conduct and activity. 

Now can you distinguish between cases that we might bring 

against those on Wall Street who caused the financial crisis or 

were responsible in large part? Have we an economic system in 

which we have banks that are too big to prosecute? I mean, the Department of Justice has got to look at this very carefully. 
15 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me make something real clear 

right away. I made a statement in a Senate hearing that I think 

has been misconstrued. I said it was difficult at times to bring 

cases against large financial institutions because of the potential 

consequences that they would have on the financial system. 

But let me make it very clear that there is no bank, there is no 

institution, there is no individual who cannot be investigated and 

prosecuted by the United States Department of Justice. As I indicated in my opening statement, we have brought thousands of financially based cases over the course of the last 41⁄2 years. 

Now there are a number of factors that we have to take into consideration as we decide who we’re going to prosecute. Innocent people can be impacted by a prosecution brought of a financial institution or any corporation. 

But let me be very, very, very clear. Banks are not too big to jail. 

If we find a bank or a financial institution that has done something 

wrong, if we can prove it beyond a reasonable doubt, those cases 

will be brought. 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin, Mr. 

Sensenbrenner, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, Homeland Security, and Investigations, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for coming. 

I would like to try to pin down who authorized the subpoenas for 

the AP. And the Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific on 

subpoenas for media. Did Deputy Attorney General Cole do that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I have to assume he did. I only 

say assume because you have to understand that recusals are such 

that I don’t have any interaction with the people who are involved 

in the case. Under the regulations, the Attorney General has to authorize the subpoena. In my absence, the Deputy Attorney General 

would, in essence, act as the acting Attorney General. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Do you know if Deputy Attorney General 

Cole was also interviewed in the investigation that caused your 

recusal? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. I don’t know. I assume 

he was, but I don’t know. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Why were you interviewed? Were you a 

witness, or was this a part of your official duties as Attorney General? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I was interviewed as one of the 

people who had access to the information that was a subject of the 

investigation. I, along with other members of the National Security 

Division, recused myself. The head of the National Security Division was left. The present head of the National Security Division, 

we all recused ourselves. 

I recused myself because I thought it would be inappropriate and 

have a bad appearance to be a person who was a fact witness in 

the case to actually lead the investigation, given the fact, unlike 

Mr. Cole, that I have a greater interaction with members of the 

press than he does. 
16 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. How does that make you a fact witness? If 

you are getting the work product, the assistant U.S. attorneys and 

the FBI that are looking into a matter. You would be a policy person in deciding whether or not to proceed with subpoenas or, ultimately, signing off on an indictment. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I’m a fact witness in the fact 

that I am a possessor—I was a possessor, I am a possessor—of the 

information that was ultimately leaked, and the question then is 

who of those people who possessed that information, which was a 

relatively limited number of people within the Justice Department, 

who of those people, who of those possessors actually spoke in an 

inappropriate way to members of the Associated Press? 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Who else had access to that information? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, this is an ongoing investigation. 

I would not want to reveal what I know, and I don’t know if there 

are other people who’ve been developed as possible recipients or 

possessors of that information during the course of the investigation. I don’t know. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. I am trying to find out who authorized the 

subpoena. You can’t tell me if Deputy Attorney General Cole authorized the subpoena. Somebody had to authorize the subpoena 

because the Code of Federal Regulations is pretty specific that this 

is supposed to go as close to the top as possible. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, no, what I’m saying is that I 

can’t say as a matter of fact. But I have to assume, and I would 

say I would probably be 95, 99 percent certain, that the Deputy Attorney General, acting in my stead, was the one who authorized 

the subpoena. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Well, okay. The Code of Federal Regulations also is very specific that there should be negotiations prior to 

the issuance of the subpoena with the news media organization involved, and the AP has said there was no negotiations at all. 

Now there are two different parts of the regulation that may be 

in conflict with each other One is more generic than the other. But 

there were no negotiations whatsoever. And why weren’t there negotiations? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That I don’t know. There are exceptions to that rule that say that if the integrity of the investigation 

might be impacted, the negotiations don’t have to occur. I don’t 

know why that didn’t happen. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. But hasn’t somebody in the Justice Department said that the integrity of the investigation would not be impacted with negotiations either under Subsection C, which is generic, or Subsection D, which is more specific? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know. But let me say this, I’ve 

just been given a note that we have, in fact, confirmed that the 

Deputy was the one who authorized the subpoena. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Okay. Well, I think we are going to have 

to talk to him about this. But, Mr. Attorney General, I think that 

this Committee has been frustrated for at least the last 21⁄2 years, 

if not the last 41⁄2 years, that there doesn’t seem to be any acceptance of responsibility in the Justice Department for things that 

have gone wrong. 
17 

Now may I suggest that you and maybe Mr. Cole and a few other 

people go to the Truman Library and take a picture of this thing 

that he had on his desk that said ‘‘The buck stops here,’’ because 

we don’t know where the buck stops. And I think to do adequate 

oversight, we better find out and we better find out how this mess 

happened. 

I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from New York, the 

Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil 

Justice, Mr. Nadler, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. NADLER. I thank the Chairman. I thank the Chairman. 

And I want to talk about a dozen subjects, but I think I will stick 

to three in the time I have. 

I have no doubt, and we have already been hearing much hue 

and cry about the Department of Justice probe of AP records. But 

I think we should put this in context and remember that less than 

a year ago, this Committee’s Republican leadership demanded aggressive investigation of press leaks, accusing the Administration 

itself of orchestrating those leaks. 

Then Members of this Committee wanted reporters subpoenaed, 

put in front of grand juries, and potentially jailed for contempt. 

Now, of course, it is convenient to attack the Attorney General for 

being too aggressive, or the Justice Department for being too aggressive. 

But this inconsistency on the part of my Republican colleagues 

should not distract us from legitimate questions worthy of congressional oversight, including whether the Espionage Act has been inappropriately used in looking at leakers, whether there is a need 

for a greater press shield, which I believe there is, such as measures my colleagues have worked—some of my colleagues have 

worked to defeat in the past, and Congress’ broad grants of surveillance authority and immunity that some of my Republican colleagues supported and before today have been unwilling to reexamine. 

Those are questions we need to pursue, and I hope that today’s 

rhetoric translates into meaningful bipartisan support for looking 

into those questions. 

Now to switch topics, this was brought up already. But the Committee has engaged—this Committee has engaged in a relentless, 

unfounded, grossly unfair attack on the leadership and integrity of 

Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez. They have questioned his 

management of the Civil Rights Division and his efforts to get the 

City of St. Paul to withdraw its appeal in a case challenging the 

use of disparate impact theory to enforce civil rights law. 

I would like to give you, sir, an opportunity to address two questions. First, can you comment on Assistant Attorney General 

Perez’s track record briefly, because I have other, as manager of 

the Civil Rights Division? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think he’s been an outstanding head 

of the Civil Rights Division. I think you look at the giants of the 

Department in that regard, you think of John Doar. I think he 

served 50 years or so ago. 
18 

I think 50 years from now, people will look back on Tom Perez’s 

time as Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division and 

compare him to somebody like John Doar. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Second, my colleagues allege that Assistant Attorney General 

Perez brokered a ‘‘dubious bargain,’’ an inappropriate quid pro quo 

with the City of St. Paul, whereby he convinced the city to withdraw its appeal in Magner v. Gallagher, and the Department of 

Justice Civil Division agreed not to intervene in a False Claims Act 

case against the city. 

The minority’s conclusion after more than 18 months investigating it is that Assistant Attorney General Perez did nothing 

wrong and, in fact, appropriately carried out his duties as a steward of the Civil Rights Division. That, in fact, the facts showed that 

it was senior career officials in the Civil Division who overruled 

junior career officials in the Civil Division and ruled that—believed 

that that particular False Claims Act case was a very bad case, a 

weak case, and that the Department should not join it, although 

they did not prevent the complainant from continuing. 

And that it was—there was nothing inappropriate in making a 

decision not to take the Magner case to the Supreme Court because 

bad cases—hard facts—what is it? Bad facts make hard law, or the 

other way around. I forget. In your view, was there anything inappropriate done with regard to this matter? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t think so. I mean, I think the 

city reached out. Consideration was given to the action that was 

taken. Before Mr. Perez moved forward with what he did, he consulted with the ethics people, legal and ethics people and professional responsibility people within the Civil Rights Division to 

make sure that the course of action he was proposing was ethically 

sound. 

It seems to me that what was done was in the best interests of 

the people of the United States. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Let me ask with respect to Guantanamo. Congress has placed 

several restrictions on the Administration with regard to the transfer or potential trial of detainees still being held in Guantanamo. 

What steps, if any, can the President take on his own, assuming 

that Congress remains obdurate, to ensure that we either bring 

these individuals to justice through trial or find a way to release, 

transfer, or repatriate them? 

I just take it as axiomatic that it is wrong and unworthy of the 

United States to simply grab individuals whom we may believe to 

be terrorists, never try them, and never release them. It is wrong 

to hold people indefinitely for life without any charges and, in fact, 

especially since 66 of them have been declared by our own Government to pose no risk. 

So what can we do avoid—it is 86 of them. I am sorry. What can 

we do to avoid the situation where, without any claim of right at 

all, the United States indefinitely holds 166 people in jail with no 

due process, no trial, military or otherwise, and no release? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think the Congress has unwisely put in place impediments to what the President wants to do 

and what I have said I think is the wise thing to do, which is to 
19 

close Guantanamo. There are steps that the Administration can do 

and that we will do in an attempt to close that facility. 

There are a substantial number of people who can, for instance, 

be moved back to Yemen. The President put a hold on that, given 

the situation that we had in Yemen at the time. But I think that 

is something that we have to review. 

I think we have to revitalize our efforts at getting a representative to go to different countries in the way that Mr. Dan Fried, who 

was an employee of the State Department, I think did a very effective job finding alternative placements for people where their home 

countries will not accept them. 

I had the responsibility when I came into office of looking at the 

population at Guantanamo and making determinations as to who 

could be released, who needs to be tried, and then who needs to 

be held under the laws of war. The task force that I set up I think 

did a great job in that regard. 

There have been subsequent actions by Congress that I think 

have made it difficult, but not impossible, for us to move people out 

of Guantanamo, and I think the President has indicated that we 

will be taking renewed action in that regard. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. NADLER. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair would note that the Committee has 

requested the appearance of the Assistant Attorney General and 

head of the Civil Rights Division, Mr. Perez, to testify and answer 

the numerous questions that have been posed about his activities, 

and he has refused the Committee’s request. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from North Carolina, 

Mr. Coble, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank the Chairman. 

Attorney General, good to have you on the Hill today. 

I want to visit Benghazi for a moment. Some recent days ago, 

former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton appeared before a Senate 

hearing, and she was asked about her comment concerning 

misstatements or inconsistencies surrounding the Libyan tragedy. 

She responded, ‘‘What difference does it make?′′ 

I took umbrage with that response when I heard it. And I went 

to the House floor in early February to take further umbrage. I can 

assure Mrs. Clinton that it makes a whole lot of difference to the 

survivors of the four Americans who were killed that fateful day in 

Benghazi. 

Now having said that, Mr. Attorney General, can you give us an 

update on where the FBI’s investigation of Benghazi stands today? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I can’t be definitive other than to say 

that the investigation is ongoing, that we are at a point where we 

have taken steps that I would say are definitive, concrete, and we 

will be prepared shortly, I think, to reveal all that we have done. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you, sir. I just find Mrs. Clinton’s response 

to have been condescending and just laced with insincerity. I am 

very impartial, but that will be for another day. 

Last month, Mr. Attorney General, in the wake of the Boston 

bombing, you warned in a lengthy statement against acts of violence or retaliation against Muslims and other groups. Can you 

share with us a specific reason that supported your giving this 
20 

warning, A? And B, have there been actual instances of retaliation 

linked to Boston that the—with which the Department was aware? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That was more a preventive statement, I think, than anything. We have seen in the past where people who were perceived as Muslims—might not have been—and 

who were attacked as a result of incidents that might have happened. And the statement that I was making was simply for people 

not to let emotions, stereotypical action come into play and so that 

people who were Muslim, perceived to be Muslim, might somehow 

be physically harmed. 

Mr. COBLE. I thank you for that. 

This—I am shifting gears now. My visibility is blocked between 

you and the Attorney General. I like to see you. You like to see me 

when you are responding. Now I am having a senior moment. I forgot what I was going to ask you. It will come back to me in due 

time. 

Well, maybe it won’t. [Laughter.] 

I still have time. I still see the green light. So I am going to try 

to get through here. Senior moment recovered. 

The Simmons decision in North Carolina, which, if retroactively 

applied, could result in the release of convicted felons. Members of 

my staff have been in touch with members of your staff, and do you 

have a comment on this? If not, you and I can get together subsequently. Are you familiar with the case? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I am. The en banc decision in 

Simmons establishes that certain Federal convictions and enhanced penalties that depend on proof of a prior felony conviction 

we now know is only a misdemeanor, and that has caused some 

problems. 

So we have to decide who is now entitled to post conviction relief. 

We have to balance, I think, this notion of fundamental fairness 

against the need for finality and protection of the public from people who are really dangerous. And so, we want to look at the facts 

and try to determine what relief is warranted. 

And the ability to work perhaps with you and members of your 

staff in this regard I think would be something that would be appropriate, and this is essentially, I think, a law enforcement matter. But some guidance or the thoughts that you have in this regard would be appreciated. 

Mr. COBLE. Well, I think thus far the exchange between your 

staff and our staff has been favorable and effective, and I thank 

you for that. 

And Mr. Chairman, I hope you will note that the red light has 

not yet appeared, and I am yielding back. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER [presiding]. That is 26 seconds. 

The gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott? 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

On the Internal Revenue situation, I think we can all agree that 

the published reports which suggest that IRS agents were denying 

people their proper consideration based on politics, that is the allegation. I assume you haven’t completed your investigation. But I 

think there is bipartisan agreement that you shouldn’t be able to 

do that. 
21 

Now you have publicly said you are having a criminal investigation. There are obviously criminal laws against denial of civil 

rights, 1983. There is also a specific IRS code that says any officer 

or employee of the United States acting in connection with any revenue law of the United States, who with the intent to defeat the 

application of any provision of this title fails to perform any of the 

duties of his office or employment.’’ And then goes in to show that 

is—if you violate that, that is a 5-year felony. 

Are there any gaps in the criminal code that would make it difficult for you to pursue criminal sanctions if you find that IRS 

agents were denying benefits under the Internal Revenue Code 

based on politics? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That actually is a good question, and 

I’m not sure what the answer is. I think the provisions that you 

have noted are ones that we are looking at—the civil rights provisions, IRS provisions, potentially the Hatch Act. And I think we’re 

going to have to get into the investigation before I can answer that 

question more intelligently. 

But to the extent that there are enforcement gaps that we find, 

we will let this Committee know and, hopefully, work with this 

Committee to make sure that what happened and was outrageous, 

as I’ve said, and hope—if we have to bring criminal actions so that 

kind of action, that kind of activity does not happen again. 

Mr. SCOTT. I understand that certain officials in the IRS have 

apologized. Does an apology immunize you from criminal prosecution? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

Mr. SCOTT. Under the Fair Sentencing Act, we went from 100 to 

1 to 18 to 1 under the differential on crack and powder. Is the Department of Justice reviewing sentences that were done under the 

100 to 1 for possible commutation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I put together a working group to look 

at exactly who we have imprisoned in our Bureau of Prisons and 

to make sure that we are holding the appropriate people for appropriate lengths of time and to see whether or not there are some 

changes that need to be made. 

We have, for instance, over 133 people, I think, who are above 

the age of 80 in the Federal prison system. I think I have about 

35 who are over the age of 85. Now there may be good reasons why 

they should serve the rest of their lives in jail. On the other hand, 

it may be that there’s a basis for them to be released. 

So we are looking at this question overall as to what our prison 

population looks like, whether the commutation policy should be 

changed the IG had a very useful report about compassionate release and how we should use that. 

We can save money by releasing people a little before their time, 

but we would only do so if it would not endanger the public safety. 

So we’re looking at the question really in a broader way. 

Mr. SCOTT. Thank you. 

Now under the faith-based initiative, apparently although since 

1965, you could not discriminate based on race, color, creed, national origin, or sex, apparently there is a new idea about this, that 

some kind of exemptions are awarded that allows some faith-based 

organizations to discriminate based on religion with the Federal 
22 

money. How do you decide who can discriminate with Federal 

money based on religion? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think what we want to try to 

do is make sure that no inappropriate discrimination—no discrimination occurs. You and I have talked about this since before I was 

sworn in. 

Mr. SCOTT. Well, there is discrimination going on, and you award 

some kind of certificate or something that allows them to—let me 

get one more question in. 

The effects of sequester on the judicial branch. Public defenders, 

court bailiff, and other court personnel are being furloughed. What 

effect does that have on the administration of justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s actually a very good question. 

I met with the chiefs of all of the district courts around the United 

States about 2 weeks or so ago, and they asked me to perhaps be 

their voice. Judges don’t get a chance to speak in the way that I 

do. 

And I think that as we consider this whole problem—and it is 

a problem—of sequestration, that we take into account the impact 

that it has on our courts and our probation offices. If we want to 

have the court system that we need to have, if we want to process 

criminal cases, if we want to assess people for probation, incarceration, the courts have to have sufficient funds to do so, and they 

are in a very bad way with regard to the situation that exists now 

and certainly for the situation that exists in 2014. 

So as we’re thinking about sequester fixes, I would ask that everybody remember the court system and all of its constituents. 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the former Chairman of the Committee, the 

gentleman from Texas, Mr. Smith. 

Mr. SMITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Welcome, Mr. Attorney General. 

You have announced a criminal investigation into allegations 

that IRS employees have unfairly targeted conservative organizations, and I am sure you would agree that when the Federal Government targets individuals or organizations because of their political beliefs that that is a threat to our democracy and quite possibly a violation of an individual or an organization’s First Amendment rights. So far, we have allegations, I think, involving four cities—Cincinnati, Washington, D.C., two California cities, where IRS 

agents might have targeted conservative groups. 

And it so happens that a year ago, on behalf of the San Antonio 

Tea Party, I wrote the Commissioner of the IRS asking him to look 

into what appeared to be targeted actions by the IRS against the 

San Antonio Tea Party. 

My first question is this. Is your investigation going to go beyond 

Cincinnati, beyond Ohio? Is it going to be a national investigation 

that includes Washington, D.C., as well and includes any allegations wherever they might occur? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, it would. The facts will take us 

wherever they take us. It will not be only one city. We will go 

wherever the facts lead us. 

Mr. SMITH. You haven’t done anything to limit this to the U.S. 

attorney in Ohio, for example?. You are going to go nationwide? 
23 

Attorney General HOLDER. This is something that we will base 

at least—we’re at the beginning stages. But we’re basing it in 

Washington, and that way we can have a better impact nationwide. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Without saying whether any criminal laws 

have actually been broken, what are some possible criminal laws 

that could have been violated if, in fact, individuals or organizations were targeted for their conservative views? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think it was Congressman 

Scott who really put his finger on it. There are civil—potential 

rights—— 

Mr. SMITH. Right. But do you know of any criminal laws that 

might have been violated? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am talking about criminal cases, 

criminal violations in the civil rights statutes, IRS, that I think we 

find there. There is also the possibility of 1,000—false statements 

violations that might have been made, given at least what I know 

at this point. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. I think some of the criminal laws that might 

have been violated—18 United States Code 242 makes it a crime 

to deprive any person of rights, privileges, or immunities guaranteed by the Constitution. 18 United States Code 1346 makes it a 

crime for Government employees to deprive taxpayers of their honest services. So that is a couple of examples. 

What civil recourse might be obtained by individuals or organizations that were unfairly targeted for their conservative beliefs? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That I’m not sure. We probably have 

to get back to you with an answer on that. I just don’t know what 

civil recourse they might have. 

Mr. SMITH. I think it is possible that they might be able to recoup any expenses that they incurred trying to respond to the targeted approach by the IRS. Does that sound likely to you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It’s possible. I know that in other instances where somebody is tried in a criminal case and acquitted, 

they can get their costs back at times. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Another subject, Mr. Attorney General. 

Last week, you responded to a letter that I wrote you last year 

in regard to the Anti-Lobbying Act, as amended in 2002. And you 

said in your response to me, this is a quote, ‘‘The act prohibits the 

use of appropriated funds to influence an official of any government.’’ 

Does that apply to Health and Human Services grantees who 

might use those dollars to lobby State and local officials? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sorry. I didn’t hear the last part. 

Appropriate money to? 

Mr. SMITH. I don’t know if you understood the beginning of that. 

You responded to my letter last week in regard to the Anti-Lobbying Act, as amended in 2002, and you said that the act prohibits 

the use of appropriated funds to influence an official of any government. 

And my question to you is does your statement and evaluation 

of the Anti-Lobbying Act apply to Health and Human Services 

grantees who may have used those dollars to lobby State and local 

governments? 
24 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think you might be referring 

to what I have only read about in the newspapers involving what 

HHS is doing as far as implementation of the act, and I don’t know 

whether or not what funds are being used or whether that letter 

would apply to that effort. I just don’t know. 

Mr. SMITH. Okay. Would you get back to me then? If you don’t 

think your statement, which is pretty clear to me that it would 

apply, would you get back to me as to why you think it should not 

apply to Health and Human Services or other Government agencies 

that might be grantees and they would use that money to lobby 

local and State governments? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We’ll do that. And given the relationship that you and I have, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Former Chairman, 

we’ll try to get back to you in a more timely fashion than we did 

on that first one. 

Mr. SMITH. Than a year. That would be appreciated. 

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

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

The gentleman from North Carolina, Mr. Watt? 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Sorry. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Mr. Watt, you’re only supposed to do 

that at your confirmation hearing, you know? [Laughter.] 

That’s when you roll out the kids. 

Mr. WATT. I am just trying to get my line of questions. I have 

been in the back listening, and Nico says you have done a good job 

up to this point. 

Mr. Attorney General, I am going to just ask you a couple of 

questions related to intellectual property, which is the Subcommittee that I am Ranking Member on. The Administration has 

called on Congress to make illegal distribution by streaming a felony. Can you describe the current tools at the Department’s disposal to combat copyright infringement, and how would classifying 

streaming as a felony enhance the Department’s enforcement efforts in this area? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think what we’re looking for are just 

an expanded set of tools so that we can have a prosecution and enforcement effort that’s consistent with the nature of the harm. All 

we can do now is bring a misdemeanor charge, and sometimes 

these crimes involve thousands, potentially millions of dollars 

where a felony prosecution might be appropriate. 

We’re not saying that we should only have a felony capability, 

but we think that we should have a felony capability, in addition 

to the misdemeanor capability that we already have, that would 

take into account the nature of the crime that we’re looking at. 

Mr. WATT. According to World Customs Organization, the international sale of counterfeit goods is a multi-billion dollar industry. 

Many of the sales are increasingly made over the Internet, where 

criminals can hide their identities—— [Child talking.] [Laughter.] 

Where criminals can hide their identities and elude capture. 

What steps has the Department made to educate the public on 

the safety and security risk posed by these illicit sales? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That was by the illicit? 
25 

Mr. WATT. What steps has the Department made to educate the 

public on the safety and security risks posed by illicit sales of 

Internet theft property? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh, I see. That is a problem that we 

have tried to really focus on in terms of educational efforts. There 

are medicines that are stolen, intellectual property stolen that put 

the public health at risk. We have found some of our airplanes 

bolts that were inappropriately made. And what we have tried to 

do as part of our enforcement effort is to educate the public and 

to educate business about the dangers that flow from the theft of 

intellectual property. 

Mr. WATT. And are there increasing indications of links between 

this problem and terrorism? Have you found any of those links, and 

would you describe those for the Committee? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I think that’s actually a very 

good question, and I think it’s something that’s very worrisome. As 

we saw organized crime get into a variety of businesses in order 

to support their efforts, we are now seeing terrorist groups getting 

into the theft of intellectual property, again to generate money to 

support what they are trying to do for their terrorist means. 

And so, it means that we have to broaden our enforcement efforts, broaden the investigative efforts that we take to examine the 

precise reasons why people are engaging in this kind of intellectual 

property thievery and to consider, unfortunately, whether or not 

there is a terrorist connection to it. That is, I think, a relatively 

new phenomenon, but one that we have to be aware of. 

Mr. WATT. And are there steps that you would recommend that 

Congress consider to check the growth of this industry? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. There’s something that I think 

we should try to work with Members of this Committee and, more 

generally, Members of Congress about. I am particularly concerned 

about the theft of intellectual property to support terrorist activities, and it would seem to me that in those instances, enhanced 

penalties might be appropriate. And so, I think that is something 

that working with Congress we should consider. 

Mr. WATT. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And Nico thanks you also. I yield back—we yield back the balance of our time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE [presiding]. And a very effective line of questioning, particularly on the part of Nico. We are glad to have both 

of you here and—— 

Mr. WATT. Mr. Chairman, the press has asked what the relationship is. So just for everybody’s information, this is my grandson. 

[Laughter.] 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And a very proud grandpa as well there. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Chabot, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHABOT. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, let me start with a term ‘‘tone at the top.’’ 

This was a principle—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sorry. Tone at the top? 

Mr. CHABOT. Yes. This was a principle referred to in SarbanesOxley and incorporated by reference in Dodd-Frank. 
26 

Do you believe that the same rigorous standards of conduct in 

enforcement should be applied to public and private entities? In 

other words, in short, do you think that the Government should be 

held accountable to a separate set of standards, a weaker set of 

standards than corporations, or do you think the standards should 

be the same? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think the standards ought to be the 

same, although I’d probably say that when it comes to Government, 

given the public trust that is involved as opposed to private interests, that there are probably higher standards that ought to apply 

to all levels of those of us who serve in Government. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Let me follow up with that. The person at 

the top in a business, and I think it would probably apply to Government as well. Even if he or she didn’t necessarily know what 

the people under him or her was up to can be held accountable, actually personally accountable, under Sarbanes-Oxley, for example. 

Even if they didn’t necessarily know what the people under them 

were doing all the time. 

Now this Administration currently has at least three scandals 

swirling around it. One, misleading the American people on 

Benghazi. Number two, the IRS discriminating, targeting conservative groups for special treatment. And three, seizing the phone 

records of Associated Press reporters. Now I think you can debate 

whether that is actually a scandal yet. Many people are calling it 

that, but I think all three probably are. 

When the story broke last week about these conservative groups 

being targeted by the IRS for special treatment, one of the spins 

by this Administration was, well, this was out in Cincinnati. It was 

out there. It is not us here in Washington. We didn’t know anything about it. 

Well, I happen to represent Cincinnati in the United States Congress, and I have for 17 of the last 19 years. The 2008 election 

didn’t go so well for me. 

Now I know that you aren’t the Commissioner of the IRS, and 

you are not the Secretary of the Treasury, and I know that you 

know an awful lot of stuff. And I would like to ask you, I assume 

that you are aware that Cincinnati handles exempt organizations 

all across the country. It is not just in the local area. Is that—do 

you know that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not aware of that. We’re at the 

beginning of our investigation. I don’t know exactly how IRS is constructed at this point. But if that’s what you say, I take you at your 

word. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Now, and I know that you are not at the conclusion. You have got a lot to learn yet. But do you think that these 

were just some low-level IRS workers who decided to harass or examine with great scrutiny conservative groups, Tea Party organizations, patriot groups, 9/12 groups, groups who might have had ‘‘Tea 

Party’’ in their name, or groups who were concerned that the Government was too big and too intrusive. Kind of ironic, isn’t it? 

And on the other hand, they would allow groups that had, say, 

‘‘progressive’’ in their names to proceed, as was supposed to happen, in a reasonable amount of time. Do you think that these were 

just some low-level folks, or do you think it goes higher than that? 
27 

Attorney General HOLDER. I simply don’t know at this stage. We 

have not begun our—we’ve only begun our investigation, and I 

think it will take us time to determine exactly who was involved 

in these matters. 

One thing I would say is that this whole notion of these 501(c)(4) 

groups, I think that some inquiry into that area is appropriate, but 

it has to be done in a way that does not depend on the political 

persuasion of the group. 

Mr. CHABOT. Now let me ask you this. Who does the Cincinnati 

IRS office, for example, who do they answer to? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I assume that, ultimately, they answer to the folks here in Washington. 

Mr. CHABOT. Okay. Now Mr. Sensenbrenner referred a little 

while ago to the Truman’s ‘‘buck stops here’’ reference, and I will 

just conclude because I am almost out of time by saying that I believe there has been a pattern by this Administration in not taking 

responsibility for failures, avoiding blame, pointing the fingers in 

somebody else’s direction. Would you agree with that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

Mr. CHABOT. I thought you might say that. I think a lot of people 

do, including myself, and I think a lot of Members of this Committee. And we might be divided, obviously. 

But these are very significant things which have occurred here, 

and I would strongly encourage this Administration to get out 

front, get all the facts out, let the chips fall where they may. I 

think that is in the best interests of the Administration. I think it 

is in the best interests of the country. 

And I yield back my time. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would agree with that last part of 

your statement. It is one of the reasons why I ordered the investigation last Friday because it seemed to me that there was the 

need for a review, given the potential criminal investigations that 

exist that the Justice Department needed to be ahead of this matter. 

And I can assure you and the American people that we will take 

a dispassionate view of this. This will not be about parties. This 

will not be about ideological persuasions. Anybody who has broken 

the law will be held accountable. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Lofgren, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for your presence here 

today. 

I want to return to the issue of the freedom of the press. You 

know, Mr. Sensenbrenner quoted certain sections of the Code of 

Federal Regulations. But I would like to read the beginning of that 

section, which says, ‘‘Because freedom of the press can be no broader than the freedom of reporters to investigate and report the news, 

the prosecutorial power of the Government should not be used in 

such a way that it impairs a reporter’s responsibility to cover as 

broadly as possible controversial public issues. This policy statement is thus intended to provide protection for the news media 
28 

from forms of compulsory process, whether civil or criminal, which 

might impair the news gathering function.’’ 

Now I realize there are exceptions and that you have recused 

yourself. But it seems to me clear that the actions of the Department have, in fact, impaired the First Amendment. Reporters who 

might have previously believed that a confidential source would 

speak to them would no longer have that level of confidence because those confidential sources are now going to be chilled in their 

relationship with the press. 

Whether or not this impairment of the First Amendment was, in 

fact, justified by the criminal case before you is not something I am 

sure you are at liberty to discuss in a public forum. But I still don’t 

understand, number one, why and how you recused yourself. 

I am concerned. It says no subpoena may be issued to any member of the news media or for the telephone toll records of any member of the news media without the express authorization of the Attorney General. Did you delegate that express authorization in 

writing to Mr. Cole? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I don’t think the recusal—we’ve 

looked for this. I don’t think there is anything in writing with regard to my recusal, which is, again, not—— 

Ms. LOFGREN. No, but the question was what about the requirement in the code that you expressly approve—now you recused 

yourself, was that express authorization authority delegated to Mr. 

Cole? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Once I recused myself in that matter, 

he, in essence—not in essence, he does become the acting Attorney 

General with all the powers that the Attorney General has. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Okay. Could you explain again, or maybe you 

can’t. Let me ask a hypothetical because I realize you can’t talk 

about this case. But the regulations say that these records should 

not be obtained in a compulsory manner unless—and that there 

would be negotiation with the news media unless it would impair 

the negotiations. 

Now the New York Times has got an opinion piece today expressing the concern that how could this be the fact? I mean, the 

records, the telephone records would not disappear if the AP had 

been notified. I mean, they were in the possession of the phone 

companies, never at risk for disappearing. How could it ever be the 

case that the availability of this information would be impaired? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, this is both an ongoing matter 

and an ongoing matter about which I know nothing. So I’m not in 

a position really to answer that question. 

But here is what I do think. I do think that at the conclusion of 

this matter and when I can be back involved in it, that given the 

attention that it has generated, that some kind of after action analysis would be appropriate. 

And I will pledge to this Committee and to the American people 

that I will engage in such an analysis. But that would be after the 

case is done and when I can appropriately be involved in it once 

again. 

Ms. LOFGREN. Well, I think that is good, and I wonder if we 

might also, Mr. Chairman, have Mr. Cole come before the Committee since he is the one who knows this information. But I don’t 
29 

know how long this case will go on, and since you have recused 

yourself, certainly you would not be in a position to tell us that. 

But it seems to me the damage done to a free press is substantial 

and will continue until corrective action is taken, and I would hope 

that we might be able to further pursue this, Mr. Chairman, and 

get some clarification on future action, either through legislative efforts or through further revision of the Code of Federal Regulation 

by the Administration because I think this is a very serious matter 

that I think concerns all of us, no matter our party affiliation. 

And with that, I would yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The comments of the gentlewoman from California are very pertinent, and the Committee would definitely be 

interested in the appearance of the Deputy Attorney General to answer questions regarding this matter. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. 

Bachus, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. BACHUS. Attorney General Holder, is Deputy Cole willing 

and able to appear before this Committee and answer the questions 

that you cannot answer? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sure he’d be willing to. I’m not 

sure he’d be in a position to answer the questions because you’d be 

asking questions about an ongoing matter, and I think he’d be in 

a difficult position to fully respond to the questions that you might 

put to him. 

Mr. BACHUS. Will you urge him to make himself available, make 

that a priority? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will certainly convey to him the desire that has been expressed here today. But I really caution the 

Committee that asking the lead prosecutor about a matter that is 

ongoing puts him in a—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, let me ask you this. You have heard Ms. 

Lofgren, and there is a very high bar before a subpoena to members of the press because of retribution, the fear of retribution. As 

she said, you are supposed to explore, supposed to negotiate, and 

we are not aware of any negotiation. You say there are exceptions. 

You are supposed to try alternative sources. 

Let me ask you this, on what date did you recuse yourself? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure. I think it was just toward the beginning of the matter. I don’t know exactly when, but 

it was toward the beginning of the matter. 

Mr. BACHUS. Doesn’t—isn’t that sort of an unacceptable procedure that you wouldn’t formally? Because the statute actually says 

that the Attorney General shall approve the subpoena. So shouldn’t 

there have been some memorandum? 

There was no memorandum, no email when you recused yourself. 

I mean, was there any—was it in writing? Was it orally? Who did 

you recuse—did you alert the White House? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I certainly did not alert the White 

House. We don’t talk to the White House about—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Who do you recuse yourself to? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would have told the Deputy Attorney General, as I have done in other matters. In the Edwards case, 

for instance, I—— 
30 

Mr. BACHUS. No, I understand. But do you not do that formally 

or in writing? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No. 

Mr. BACHUS. Do you see any reason for a formal or there to be 

some memorandum so we know the time and date of your recusal? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, we have made a preliminary examination to see if there is anything in writing. But I 

know that I have recused myself in matters where I have not put 

something in writing. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, would you—do you think that it would be best 

practice to memorialize that recusal? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I guess it might be helpful. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, it would be in this case because you apparently don’t know when you recused yourself. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I don’t know precisely. I know 

that, as I said, it was toward the beginning of the investigation. 

Mr. BACHUS. So it was before the subpoenas? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I don’t know when the subpoena 

was issued. 

Mr. BACHUS. So it could have been after the subpoenas were 

issued? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I certainly recused myself before 

the subpoenas were issued. 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, did you have any knowledge—you had knowledge that there was going to be an investigation? Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I appointed two people to lead 

the investigation. 

Mr. BACHUS. Were you aware at that time that—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. I was criticized at that time for not 

appointing independent people, as has been pointed out. And I appointed two good U.S. attorneys—— 

Mr. BACHUS. At that time that you made that appointment, had 

there been any discussion of the press’s involvement? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Of the President’s involvement? 

Mr. BACHUS. The press’s involvement—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sorry. The President? 

Mr. BACHUS [continuing]. In the investigation of the leak. You 

were aware that it was an investigation of a leak to the press at 

the time you recused yourself? 

Attorney General HOLDER. A leak to the President? I don’t know. 

Mr. BACHUS. A leak to the press. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Mr. BACHUS. My southern is probably—— [Laughter.] 

Attorney General HOLDER. Oh, I’m sorry. 

Mr. BACHUS. Press. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m sorry. Yes, a leak to the press? 

Mr. BACHUS. You were aware of the involvement of the press in 

an investigation that was—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. That was the basis of the investigation, the leak to the press. 

Mr. BACHUS. So you knew at that time of the statute which authorized you, and you alone, to authorize subpoenas and take those 

actions? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure. 
31 

Mr. BACHUS. So you could have anticipated there would be a subpoena to the press? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, not necessarily. There are leak investigations that are done very frequently where interaction with 

the press does not occur. 

Mr. BACHUS. For what period of time after the investigation 

started were alternative measures that are called for by the codes 

or negotiations with the press, between the time of the investigation and discussion of subpoenaing press and the time that the subpoenas were issued, what period of time was that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I don’t know because, as I said—— 

Mr. BACHUS. No idea? 

Attorney General HOLDER [continuing]. I recused myself early on 

in the matter and also gave a great deal of independence to the 

U.S. attorneys who were involved in these matters. They did not 

have to report back to Washington every investigative step they 

were taking. 

Mr. BACHUS. At what point did you inform the White House, or 

do you have any knowledge as when the White House was informed by DOJ that they were investigating the press? 

Attorney General HOLDER. My guess would be that the White 

House found out about this by reading the newspapers. 

Mr. BACHUS. By what? Last Tuesday? 

Attorney General HOLDER. By reading the newspapers or watching television. We would not have had—— 

Mr. BACHUS. Well, how long before—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Mr. BACHUS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from 

Texas, Ms. Jackson Lee, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I think it is worthy to put on the record that 

that is not enough time to be able to engage on some very important issues, but I do want to take a moment of my time to be able 

to thank the General for one of the most passionate and driven efforts of the Department of Justice, and we are well aware of it in 

Texas, which is the effort of the Department of Justice to increase 

the number of human trafficking prosecutions. 

We are the epicenter of human trafficking in Houston. You have 

come on more than one occasion. I want to cite my local officials 

and the Human Trafficking Task Force and to indicate to you, as 

the Ranking Member on the Border Security Committee and Homeland Security, my Chairman and myself will be embracing that 

topic. Hope that we will be able to join in with the efforts of the 

Department of Justice. 

Mr. General, I appreciate that, and I hope that this is an ongoing 

effort. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is. It is a priority for this Attorney 

General. It’s a priority for this Administration. Secretary Clinton 

was a big leader in this effort. I think Secretary Kerry will be as 

well. 

But it really involves not only the Federal Government, as you 

indicate. It really has to have a local and State connection, an 

international connection for us to be effective because this is an 

international crime. 
32 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Well, let me thank you very much. There is 

so much that we could thank you for and your years of service, and 

I think that should be noted when you come before a Committee 

that has a responsibility, as you do, for upholding the laws of this 

Nation. 

I am going to have a series of questions, and they are sort of yes/ 

no answers, and I appreciate your cooperation. Let me just start 

with the tragedy of the Boston Marathon. There is no doubt that 

we have all mourned, and I think we, as those who have the responsibility in this Committee, do well not to make this partisan, 

not to point the fingers. 

But can I ask you, can we look to, as you review the FBI and 

coordinating their investigation, which I understand is active, that 

we not reject the concept that it is important to connect the dots? 

And that as you review it that you will hold those responsible in 

terms of however you address it, whether it is let us do this better, 

but for the idea of connecting the dots. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I think that’s vitally important, 

and that’s why the Inspector General report—Inspectors General 

inquiry I think is so important. It has not only the Justice Department Inspector General, but IGs from the intelligence community 

as well. 

And so, I think we’re going to really have a good sense of who 

had what information when and whether or not it was properly distributed. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank you, and I would ask the Chairman 

of this Committee that we have a full hearing on that topic alone, 

only because as you well know, Mr. General, that that was put in 

the 9/11 report, and I thank you for acknowledging that. I think 

that is very important. 

I want to move quickly to the IRS report and say to you that the 

Inspector General gave a number of recommendations, and if I am 

reading it clearly, they did not mention criminal, but I want it to 

be on the record one of them was to finalize interim action, better 

document reasons. I think we have all made our bipartisan statements on it. 

My point is that I understand, as the President has directed Secretary of Treasury to act, that you have also taken this to a higher 

level of a criminal investigation. Can you put that on the record, 

please? 

And I have a series of questions. So I just want to make clear 

that you have not taken this lightly and that this is now a Federal 

criminal investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that is correct. As I said, as of 

Friday of last week, I ordered that an investigation, criminal investigation be begun. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Do you have any limits on that? You are letting it free flow and fall where it may? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I indicated in response to an earlier question, the facts will take us wherever they take us. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. In testimony before the Senate, you were 

asked a question about the shield law, the protection of the press. 

My recollection is that you said you support it. Is that the case 

now? 
33 

Attorney General HOLDER. It was when I testified during my 

confirmation. It continues to be something that I think that we 

should pass. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And let me ask unanimous consent to put into 

the record the letter of May 16, 2013, from Director—not Director— 

Attorney General Cole, Deputy Attorney General Cole to Mr. Pruitt. I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the letter will be made a part 

of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
34 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Which it explains the expansive range, which 

you are not involved in, of work that was done in order to get information before proceeding as they did. However, will we be able to 

believe that the Justice Department still holds the protection of the 

First Amendment in high esteem and to protect it? 

And I am coming with some other questions. I am just trying to 

get a yes or no. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, putting that case aside because 

it is ongoing, I was not aware of it. But the Justice Department has 

rules and regulations that have been followed, will be followed 

about our interaction with the press. 
35 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentlewoman has expired, and 

the Chair would advise all the Members of the Committee we have 

28 more Members awaiting the opportunity to ask questions. And 

the Attorney General will be generous with his time, but he does 

have an obligation later today. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his answers. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentlewoman. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from California, 

Mr. Issa, Chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I want to start by playing a short voice recording, if it comes 

out okay. Please play it. 

[Audio presentation.] 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you. 

Mr. Attorney General, that recording, as was earlier in my Committee, the Oversight Committee’s report, is Thomas Perez, an individual who is one of your deputies, arranging for something not 

to be disclosed as part of his quid pro quo in St. Paul. 

Do you think it is appropriate for someone to—at a Federal level 

to try to keep information out in order to disguise what is actually 

going on? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I’d necessarily agree 

with that characterization. I am not intimately familiar with all 

that happened in connection with the inquiry that was—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. Well, let us just go through a hypothetical that 

is a little easier. You have got a case that is going to gain the 

United States people $180 million. You have got another case you 

do not want to go to the U.S. Supreme Court. You trade those two 

cases because you do not want to have that happen, and then you 

tell somebody, you know, we would like to keep things quiet. Let 

us make sure we do not disclose it. Is that right or wrong? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are a whole variety of reasons why we as a government, the Justice Department, decide not 

to become involved in qui tam cases: the strength of the evidence, 

questions of law, position of the—— 

Mr. ISSA. Is it okay to trade a case you do not want going to the 

Supreme Court for a dollar damage case? That is the real question 

here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. One has to look at this in its totality 

and decide exactly if there—— 

Mr. ISSA. Okay, I will take that as a, yes, it is okay to do that 

trade in your mind. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That was not a yes. I was trying to 

answer the question. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you know, Mr. Attorney General, I need a yes or 

no before you go into the long dialogue. Otherwise, I am wasting 

my time. There was a quid pro quo. There was a trade of $180 million 

worth of revenue to the American people in return for dropping a 

case that your Justice Department did not want to go before the 

High Court. To coin the phrases used, ‘‘bad facts make bad decisions or bad law.’’ 
36 

Now, I understand you, or at least Mr. Perez, did not want 

things going to the Supreme Court. But let us go through where 

we are today. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the decision not to take over the 

false claims act case did not end the case. 

Mr. ISSA. Well, you may say that, but the plaintiff who saw himself abandoned did not see it that way. But let me go onto another 

line of questioning. 

Attorney General HOLDER [continuing]. Had the ability to try the 

case. I do not think it worked out well, as I understand it. But the 

case was not over simply because the United States had not become involved. We—— 

Mr. ISSA. Right, but the case going to the U.S. Supreme Court 

was over. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We do not become involved in qui tam 

80 percent of the time. 

Mr. ISSA. The case going to the U.S. Supreme Court was over as 

a result. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The decision was made not to pursue 

that case. 

Mr. ISSA. Okay. So the American people were denied the Highest 

Court considering a case. That is an undeniable fact. Let me go 

through some questions here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is incorrect. 

Mr. ISSA. I have been working with—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is a fact that is—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, we will let the people decide whether they were 

denied a Supreme Court decision. 

Attorney General HOLDER. You are characterizing it as undeniable, but it is not at all. And that is typically what you do. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Attorney General, Thomas Perez falsely stated to 

our Committee that he had apparently none, then 1, then 2, then 

34, then 35 emails that violated the Federal Records Act. Your office has only, I think yesterday or today, allowed us to see in camera the two and from on these emails. We have not seen the contents. 

But in seeing the two and from—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry, please. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from California will suspend. 

The gentlewoman will state her parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman. First of all, I would 

like to know, I have been on this Committee for more than I would 

like to count. Was there notice given of this recording to be played? 

I have not in the life of the time that I have been on this Committee heard a recording—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Was the minority noticed on this recording? 

Is this a hearing about Mr. Tom Perez, or is this a question 

about—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will suspend. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield to you. First, I 

would like to know has notice been given? Was the Attorney General’s office given notice about a recording—— 
37 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will suspend and the Chair 

will answer her question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There is no requirement under the Rules of the 

Committee that a Member cannot use evidence before the Committee as a part of the hearing. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, if I could clarify for the gentlelady. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy for the gentleman to do so. 

Mr. ISSA. That recording was produced by the Justice Department. It is a piece of evidence that came from the Attorney General. So I would hope that playing back his own evidence would not 

be unreasonable. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Let me, just if I can continue. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman may state a parliamentary inquiry and that is all because the gentleman from California has the 

time. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do understand it, and I appreciate it. So may 

I hear this again? Are you saying that evidence can be presented, 

but the question I asked was the Attorney General given notice 

that this recording would be played? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. There is no requirement under the Rules of the 

Committee that a witness before the Committee be given evidence 

of or notice of evidence that may be presented to the witness at the 

hearing. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Continuing my further inquiry, as I think I 

heard the gentleman from California make a point. But has this 

been authenticated as the actual true voice for the individual who 

is allegedly on it? Did the Committee authenticate it? 

Mr. ISSA. If the gentlelady would yield. If the gentlelady would 

yield. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I would be happy to yield. 

Mr. ISSA. Thomas Perez has owned up to this being his voice. 

[Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then the only thing, if I might continue 

my—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman has not stated a valid parliamentary inquiry. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. If I may continue it so that I may—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the gentlewoman will suspend, and the 

gentleman from California will be recognized for the remainder of 

his question. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, point of order. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that I have just 2 minutes 

to conclude. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s time will be restored to 2 minutes. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I make a point of order, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will state her point of order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. The point of order is that Mr. Perez has authenticated his voice. Is the General authenticating his voice by answering the question? How is he authenticating Mr. Perez’s voice? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman will suspend. That is not a 

parliamentary inquiry, nor is it an appropriate point of order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I am going to a point of order. 
38 

Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand regular order. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the Chairman for his courtesies. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman’s point of order is not well 

taken because there is no such rule that would require this Committee to treat this like we were in a trial. This is an opportunity 

for Members of the Committee on both sides of the aisle to ask 

questions of the witness. 

And the gentleman from California will continue his line of questioning. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, our investigators have seen 34 of the 35 

admitted emails that violate the Federal Records Act. They have 

only seen the to and from. They have not seen the deliberative contents, and they have not seen the remainder of the 1,200 emails. 

Mr. Cummings, my Ranking Member, joined in a letter requesting that we have the full contents pursuant to our subpoena of all 

1,200. Will you make them available to the Committee based on 

our bipartisan request? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I will certainly look at the request. It 

is not something that I have personally been involved in, but I will 

look at the request and try to be as responsive as we can. I am sure 

there must have been a good reason why only the to and from 

parts were provided. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, you did not want us to see the details. 

Mr. Attorney General, in knowing the to and from—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, no. That is what you typically do. 

Mr. ISSA. I knowing the to and from. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, I am not going to stop talking 

now. You characterized something as something that goes to the 

credibility of people at the Justice Department. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, would you inform the witness as to the 

rules of this Committee? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is inappropriate and it is too 

consistent with the way in which you conduct yourself as a Member 

of Congress. It is unacceptable, and it is shameful. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman has the time, and the gentleman 

may ask the questions that he deems appropriate. 

Mr. ISSA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In these email headers, one 

of them was to Melanie Barnes, Domestic Policy Counsel. In other 

words, it was to the White House. We have not seen the contents. 

Secondly, one of them was to Sara Pratt at HUD. Now, that is germane to our discovery of this quid pro. But more importantly, it is 

to an AOL account. So communications went on between two government officials, both of whom were circumventing the Federal 

Records Act. Additionally, in these emails we learned that Thomas 

Perez has yet another non-government account which he uses for 

government use. So in addition to his Verizon account, he has an 

RCN account. 

Would you agree to make all of this available to us since, first 

of all, it violates the Federal Records Act and your own rules. Second of all, it is pursuant to a legitimate use of Congress under 

which we would have it, and lastly, because you have asked for 

transparency. 
39 

And before you answer, if you would, please, in the AP case, you 

have appointed Ronald Machen the U.S. attorney. And I am sure 

he is a fine U.S. attorney. But can he be considered to be independent when, in fact, when this Congress held you in contempt, 

he was the individual who recused on your orders to prosecute the 

case. If he will obey your orders and not living up to a contempt 

of Congress, can we believe that he is, in fact, independent? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Mr. Chairman, I would ask for regular order. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We have regular order. The gentleman’s time 

has expired, but the Attorney General is allowed to answer the 

question. 

Mr. JOHNSON. It expired 45 seconds ago, Mr. Chairman. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first off, I did not order Mr. 

Machen not to do anything with regard—I will not characterize it— 

the contempt finding from this Congress. He made the determination about what he was going to do on his own. So I did not have 

anything to do with that. 

With regard to the email request, I think that if your request is 

for relevant emails that have something to do with the subject matter that you are looking at, that is certainly something that I think 

we should consider. 

With regard to the entirety of his email accounts, 1,200 or 1,300, 

I am not sure what the number was that you used. If they do not 

have anything to do with the matter at hand, I am not sure why 

they should be turned over. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, a point of inquiry. When Congress 

issues a subpoena, in your understanding, is it to be determined, 

or, for that matter, when the Justice Department issues a subpoena, is it a decision of the recipient as to what is germane, or 

is it a decision of the subpoenaing authority? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. That is a question beyond the scope of this hearing, but it is—— 

Mr. ISSA. Well, we have a few lawyers present. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We have many lawyers present, and certainly it 

is the opinion of the Chair that the subpoenaing party would determine the scope of their inquiry. If the respondent does not agree, 

then it would be appropriate for a court, and we hope that a court 

will soon decide the appropriateness of that subpoena because it is 

very disappointing that this has not been responded to, and that 

the Congress found it necessary to take the action that it took. 

The time of the gentleman has expired, and the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee, Mr. Cohen, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Firstly, General, I want to 

thank the work of the Civil Rights Division. I guess Mr. Perez was 

responsible for that for, first, working with the Liberty Bowl Stadium in Memphis and working out our accessible capacity seating 

arrangement, and also working on the juvenile court issue, where 

the Division saw to it that our juvenile court will be a model for 

the Nation and protect the rights of young people, which was so 

necessary. 

And I also want to thank you for working with Mr. Scott and I 

to see that the Tax Division filed suit against Mo’Money that took 

advantage of people with fraudulent tax preparations. I thank you 

for that. 
40 

I would like to question you about a few issues that bother me. 

One is the former Alabama governor, Don Siegelman, who was the 

government of Alabama and probably the last Democrat statewide 

official there in the past and maybe in the future for a long time. 

And he tried to get a lottery in his State, which I did in Tennessee, 

and I know how difficult it is. And in so doing, he found himself 

in court and convicted and in jail, and a case in which an unprecedented 113 former attorneys general, Republican and Democrat, 

representing 44 of the 55 States have said his prosecution was a 

grave injustice. Just a numerous amount of legal experts have said 

that it was a grave injustice, and that the prosecution should never 

have taken place because the U.S. attorney, a Bush appointee, was 

the wife of the campaign manager of his opponent in a gubernatorial election. And that while she recused herself, she stayed involved. 

I know there are procedural issues about a pardon or commutation, but the President could pardon him now. Each day he is in 

prison, in my opinion, is a grave injustice because all that man did 

in appointing that individual to a board that he was accused of 

doing, a man who had been on that State board twice before, and 

he appointed him, was politics. 

And I would like to ask you—I am sure you are aware of the 

case—if you can assure me that you will review his case, because, 

in my opinion and the opinion of 113 former attorneys general, an 

innocent man is in jail being deprived of liberty. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, he is not eligible. There are procedural issues. He is not eligible to apply for a pardon because he 

is currently serving a sentence. Commutation is not possible because I understand he has an active appeal. So those are the regulations under which we operate, and those are potentially and obviously problematic with regard to the relief that you are seeking. 

Mr. COHEN. So you do not believe the President could issue a 

pardon now? I mean, the procedures you have are limitations you 

have put on your Justice Department. The President has no limitations. 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that is true. The President’s pardon power is close to absolute, and so I think that is right. I am 

talking about Justice Department regulations. 

Mr. COHEN. And is the Justice Department, the head of your division that looks over these is a Mr. Ronald Rodgers, another Bush 

appointee? Is that not correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I believe he was appointed in the 

Bush Administration. 

Mr. COHEN. Right. And he has been brought up by the IG, and 

the IG has said he should be investigated because he gave false information on a pardon request. He misstated what was the facts, 

and I want to know if he is under investigation, and have you 

looked into the IG’s suggestions about Mr. Rodgers for misrepresenting information transmitted to the White House? 

Attorney General HOLDER. There was some difficulties in connection—I do not remember what the individual’s name was—about 

information that was, I guess, related to the White House from the 

pardon attorney’s office. But I think corrective measures have been 

in place so that that kind of mistake would not occur in the future. 
41 

Mr. COHEN. Well, I hope not, sir, and I would have great faith 

in you. 

My concern is that there is nothing more important than liberty, 

and taking your liberty is probably the most harshest thing the 

government can do a person. And we have taken the liberty of this 

gentleman, and I believe we need to look at that case. When 113 

former AGs and Republicans and Democrats say it was a grave injustice, I think it needs to be looked at and try to remedy. 

And I think there are other cases. Mr. Scott brought them up: 

the disparity in crack and cocaine. We change the law. All those 

people in there who serve longer time than they would have under 

the law now, the President could commute their sentences. 

And one of the greatest threats to liberty has been the government taking people’s liberty for things that people are in favor of. 

The Pew Research Group shows that 52 percent of Americans think 

marijuana should not be illegal, and yet there are people in jail, 

and your Justice Department has continued to put people in jail, 

for sale and use on occasion of marijuana. That is something the 

American public has finally caught up with. It was a cultural lag, 

and it has been an injustice for 40 years in this country to take 

people’s liberty for something that was similar to alcohol. 

You have continued what is allowing the Mexican cartels power, 

and the power to make money, ruin Mexico, and hurt our country, 

by having a prohibition in the late 20th and 21st century. We saw 

it did not work in this country in the 20’s. We remedied it. This 

is the time to remedy this prohibition, and I would hope you would 

do so. 

I know my time is almost gone. I would like to ask the Chair for 

just one brief moment. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s time has expired, and we still 

have more than 24 Members who have not asked questions of the 

Attorney General, so—— 

Mr. COHEN. I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the Chair would advise Members that if 

they have additional questions, we understand. I have additional 

questions, and I know most Members have additional questions. 

They can submit those to the Committee in writing, and we will 

submit all of them to the Attorney General so he can have the opportunity to respond to those as well. 

Mr. COHEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But the Chair now recognizes the gentleman 

from Virginia, Mr. Forbes, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FORBES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, we get the theatrics. We know we wait 650 days from the time IRS officials become aware of the abuses of the Internal Revenue Service until the 

Department opens an investigation. And then we say we cannot 

comment because we have got investigations going. Saying I cannot 

comment because of an ongoing investigation has kind of become 

the Fifth Amendment of politics for this Administration. 

But I want to ask you not about ongoing investigations, but what 

you know currently today as the chief law enforcement officer of 

the Federal Government. This is a picture. I do not expect you to 

be able to see it from where you are. It is Tyrone Woods. His father 

gave it to me yesterday. 
42 

As you know, he and three other Americans were brutally murdered in Benghazi, many people believe, because we had inadequate security or we had an inadequate response. Many people 

are concerned, of course, of the manipulation of facts that took 

place after that. Yet this Administration, to my knowledge, has 

continued to say that there was nothing the Secretary of State 

could reasonably or should reasonably have done to have prevented 

those murders, and certainly she has had no personal repercussions. 

This is an individual I think you can see better. This is Brian 

Terry. He was brutally murdered, and so were about 150 innocent 

Mexican citizens, because of Fast and Furious, which you have testified about here. And as far as I remember from your testimony, 

there was nothing you felt that you should reasonably have done 

to have prevented those murders. And you have suffered no personal repercussions from that. 

Just a few months ago, we had someone sit right where you are 

sitting, John Morton, the director of ICE, after we had the release 

of 2,000 illegal immigrant detainees, some of whom were being 

held for aggravated felonies. And we were basically told by the director that there was nothing that he should have reasonably done 

to stop that, and he had no personal repercussions. 

Now we have all of this stuff we are hearing from the Internal 

Revenue Service where we see these atrocious actions, some 

against individuals who were simply teaching about the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. And yet so far we have heard nothing 

from the Administration about what they should have done to reasonably have stopped these atrocities, and certainly no personal repercussions yet. 

So, General, my question to you today is, based on what you 

know today, not ongoing investigations that we may never conclude 

or we may never see or that we do see—we will not have you back 

here—just what you know today, in any of these situations, is there 

anything that you are aware of today that any of the heads of the 

those departments or agencies should reasonably have done to have 

stopped the situations that I have just outlined that took place? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I know that Benghazi is something that I am not as familiar with, but I am familiar with Fast 

and Furious. And I will tell you that with regard to that, once I 

became aware of it, I stopped the policy. 

Mr. FORBES. No, no, I am saying anything you should have done 

to have stopped them from taking place. It is too late afterwards. 

I am saying anything you should have done beforehand. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well hindsight is always 20/20. It is 

always accurate, and it is an easy thing to stand up or sit up where 

you are and do that. I have got to run an agency of 116,000 people, 

and we do it as best we can. When there are mistakes that are 

made, we hold people accountable. We change policies. That is 

what we do in the executive branch. 

To the extent that there is fault, I have acknowledged that as the 

head of the Agency, I am ultimately responsible for that which happened in my Agency. 

Mr. FORBES. And, General Holder, I appreciate the fact that we 

say I am responsible, but when irresponsible actions take place, no-
43 

body has any personal repercussions, On any of those situations, 

did any of those individuals have any personal repercussions from 

the actions that took place? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. There were people that we 

held—— 

Mr. FORBES. I am talking about the head of the Agency or the 

Department. You did not have any personal repercussions, did you? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I held people accountable. 

Mr. FORBES. You held people accountable. Let me say why I am 

saying that, because if, in fact, you cannot say anything that you 

should have reasonably done, the Secretary of State should have 

reasonably done, the Commissioner should have reasonably done, 

the Director should have reasonably done. If there is no personal 

repercussions, should Americans not realize that the only way we 

can stop these abuses from happening with the Internal Revenue 

Service from this massive amount of data they are going to get 

under the Affordable Health Care Act, is to make sure that data 

never gets to the Internal Revenue Service in the first place? Because if it does and the abuse occurs, nobody is going to be held 

accountable at the top, and also we are going to say afterwards 

there is nothing that we should have reasonably done to stop it? 

Mr. Chairman, with that, we actually have a piece of legislation 

we are putting in today to make sure the IRS is not involved in 

our health care decisions. And I hope we will get it passed out of 

this House, and hopefully the Senate, so we can make sure those 

abuses do not take place. 

And with that, I yield back, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his comments. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. 

Johnson, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, the issue of 

the AP investigation, or actually the investigation into the illegal 

disclosure of classified information. To conduct that investigation, 

the Justice Department has various tools, among which is the subpoena. And a subpoena can be issued without judicial oversight, 

and it was through a subpoena that the Justice Department obtained phone records from the carrier that related to certain personnel at the Associated Press. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, I assume that is correct. I am 

not—— 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, subpoena is what we know that the information was compiled from. Now, we can or the Justice Department 

has the lawful authority by way of subpoena power to obtain those 

records. Is that correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The Justice Department does have 

that subpoena power? 

Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And so it is legal for the Justice Department to obtain that information, but it certainly could cast a cool breeze over 

the First Amendment rights of freedom of the speech and freedom 

of the press. And that is why we have some special rules with respect to the issuance of subpoenas by law enforcement to obtain information from media sources. That is correct, is it not? 
44 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. Again, without getting into the 

AP case, for lack of a better term, because the case is really not 

about the AP. It is about the people who leaked. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Correct. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Be that as it may, there is a recognition within the Justice Department that in dealing with interacting 

with the press, you are dealing with a special entity, and there 

have to be special rules about how that interaction occurs. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And those rules are by way of regulations, but 

they are not by way of legislation, correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. And that being the case, it might be a good thing 

for Congress to visit that issue and to determine whether or not we 

want to turn those guidelines and regulations into law. 

And now, you made an important distinction. You said that the 

crime that is being investigated—well, you did not say this, but I 

will say this. It is not the publishing of the information, of the classified information, but it was actually the leaking of the classified 

information which is the basis of your investigation, correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is correct. 

Mr. JOHNSON. But now, we also have an old law that would allow 

for prosecution of anyone who published the classified information. 

Is that not correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. You got a long way to go to try to 

prosecute people, the press, for the publication of that material. 

Those prosecutions have not fared well in American history. 

Mr. JOHNSON. Well, I would argue that the Espionage Act of 

1917 would authorize the prosecution of anyone who disclosed classified information. And perhaps that is another area that we may 

need to take action on here in this Congress. 

Now, I will note that in this Congress, we have had a lot of bills, 

the most famous of which in my mind was the Helium legislation. 

And we wanted to ensure that we had enough helium to keep everything moving forward here in America, but we certainly need to 

protect the privacy of individuals, and we need to protect the ability of the press to engage in its First Amendment responsibilities 

to be free and to give us information about our government so as 

to keep the people informed. And I think it is a shame that we get 

caught up in so-called scandals and oversight of unimportant matters when we should be here addressing these real problems that 

things like the AP scandal illustrate us for us. 

I will yield the balance of my time to you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I would say this. With regard 

to potential prosecution of the press for the disclosure of material, 

that is not something that I have ever been involved, heard of, or 

would think would be a wise policy. In fact, my view is quite the 

opposite, that what I proposed during my confirmation, what the 

Obama Administration supported during 2009, and I think Senator 

Schumer is now introducing a bill that we are going to support as 

well, that there should be a shield law with regard to the press’ 

ability to gather information and to disseminate it. 

The focus should be on those people who break their oaths and 

put the American people at risk, not reporters who gather this information. That should not be the focus of these investigations. 
45 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, 

for 5 minutes. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Holder, I thank 

you for your testimony here today, and I have a number of curiosities remaining. 

One of them is this. Are you aware of any plans or any discussion of an effort to transfer one or more detainees from Bagram Air 

Force Base to the United States for trial? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Nothing immediately comes to my 

mind. I am not aware of that. 

Mr. KING. Then you have not been in discussions of such a thing? 

Are you aware of any cases in the past where that has happened? 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is what is giving me some 

pause. I am not sure if we have brought people back from Bagram 

or not. I just do not know. Maybe I can get a written response to 

that, but I am not sure about that. 

Mr. KING. And perhaps I am too precise, and I should probably 

say the Afghanistan theater instead. Would that change your response? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am thinking of cases that we have 

brought of people here in the United States who committed acts 

overseas, and I am just not sure, as I think about these people, 

where those acts actually occurred. I am not sure if it was Afghanistan. I just do not remember. 

Mr. KING. Do you understand the concept of my question, out of 

the theater and the global War on Terror? Out of the theater and 

the global War on Terror, and I use Bagram specifically, but with 

regard to Afghanistan or that theater of war, then you would assert 

that currently you are not in discussions about transferring a detainee to the United States for trial. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Not that I am aware of as we speak. 

I would have to look into that, and if I have a contrary answer to 

that, I will get you something in writing. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, General Holder. I would look back on past 

testimony here before the Committee, and you and I have had a 

couple of discussions about the Pigford issue. I think each time, it 

will be the third time in the course of a couple of years. And as 

that has unfolded before us, I would ask have you read the New 

York Times article dated April 25th? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I did. 

Mr. KING. And I would offer the opportunity to comment on your 

review of that article. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. I think that the article missed 

a few things. There are steps that we have in place to limit the 

amount of fraud that goes on there both in terms of getting sworn 

statements from claimants from doing audits. There are a variety 

of things that we have in place to ensure that the kind of fraud 

that was described in that article—I think the article made the 

fraud seem more widespread than it actually is. 

Mr. KING. What about the surplus funds that remain that have 

apparently been budgeted for the, I believe it is the Native American case, about $400 plus million? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. 
46 

Mr. KING. What would your recommendation be to claw that 

money back from there rather than to distribute it to locations that 

apparently do not have the ability to utilize that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, first of all, it is not going to the 

lawyers. There was some misapprehension about that. 

Mr. KING. No, I think we understood that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay. 

Mr. KING. There is a component of it, around $60 million and about $400 million that would be sitting there waiting to be distributed to organizations that were supportive of Native Americans. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right, and I think that is the way in 

which the settlement was crafted. And so to the extent that these 

kinds of organizations can be found, that is where the money 

should appropriately go. 

Mr. KING. Now, would it not bring to your attention, though, that 

if you cannot find a place to put the money, maybe there was not 

a level of discrimination to the level that was originally claimed if 

there are not enough claimants? 

And let me broaden this question a little bit consistent with this 

them, and that is that we saw with Pigford I and then Pigford II, a testimony before this very Committee several years ago from the 

head of the Black Farmer’s Organization that were 18,000 Black 

farmers. If one presumed that 100 percent of them were discriminated against and we ended up with some 96,000 claims, and we 

have at least 15,000 plus payouts at this point, and all of Pigford 

II to be determined yet that has over 66,000 claims within that 

universe, so totaling up around 96,000 altogether within Black 

Farmers, then we add to that Garcia and Kiefsiegel and Love. And 

we see this number grow to at least $4.4 billion, and I believe I 

quoted to you last time $4.93 billion. 

And are you aware of a single perpetrator of discrimination— 

they all would have had to have been under the payroll of the 

USDA. Have you investigated to identify a single perpetrator of 

discrimination against minorities or female farmers that always 

under the payroll of the USDA? Have you identified even one? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there was certainly a basis for 

the payments and the settlements. 

Mr. KING. That was the confession of the USDA. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am sorry? 

Mr. KING. It was a confession or a stipulation of the USDA back 

in about 1996 where it began. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Right. There was a determination 

made, admissions made, that, in fact, this kind of discrimination 

did occur. And it was on that basis that the settlements were actually reached. 

Mr. KING. But does that absolve the perpetrators of $4.4 or more 

billion worth of discrimination? Are they not still out there? Should 

they not be dealt with? Should there not be a means to try to identify the individuals that would allegedly commit that kind of discrimination? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired, but the 

Attorney General is welcome to answer. 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are talking about discrimination 

that occurred many, many years ago in some instances, and I am 
47 

not sure that our time, our limited resources, would be well spent 

trying to deal with identifying those people as much as trying to 

make sure that people are compensated and that these kinds of actions do not occur in the future. 

Mr. KING. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I thank the gentleman for his questions. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Chu, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. CHU. Mr. Attorney General, I would like to focus my questions on hate crimes and racial profiling. First of all, I ask unanimous consent to submit testimony from the Sikh Coalition and a 

letter led by Representative Joe Crowley with over 100 Members 

of Congress regarding tracking hate crimes against Sikh, Hindu, 

and Arab Americans for the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, they will be made a part of 

the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
48 

Co!nm,U"~ "" the ludiela<:l 

u.s 1l.,...,.."fRopl\)9/""''''"<'S 21la IUll>u," llouse om« S",ld;ng 

Was/I'IliILOn. DC 2115 15 

M~ lO,lOll 

0"" SIKHCO~~ 

lh<: s;~~ Coah,,, .. , II", la'll<:<I 50th An"''''''''' <11',1 nghl. OIpI""II1OO In ,he Unit..'Il S'aI,", •• """,, ,k .. 

~n", 10 h,ghl,SIU Ilk: "'-"il fi><!he U.S D ....,. ..... "," ol Ju<l"'" and FN.!r:Il Bun. ..... ofln, .. .\Iipl""" IFIIIIIO 

bogm Il;ltk>ng b"," crime, ;!pi"" S,IJIs an tb< !l'<l'r:olll'>'''l'1InI<n,', 'I3k ('nm< Inc,dem R"J>IKI (Fl>nn ,. 

~),' We ",,,,,"'<:!full) "-'/11<01'''''' Ihi.kllL", """ ,t< ,'IItJosU"" \>0 "''''''l'<>ra!Cd ,niO lb. ho .... "!: ....,.,.ro 

On ),flO) S, 2111), I! . PIa ... S,nJ,b-,an HI..,c",..,ld Si~h "n"'Jl~!w""d hc;oj '"J"".' ond , 

l'Un<wM;i IWIg ~fl" DoIng \'lclOll,l) bo:alen "it~ • Sh,d lUd.n a .""""Clod h"". en"", "" .. ,do. 5,U, 

G,udw>r.\ /Sil.h I "'."" ofWoos/"p) '" F".....,. Dhlbtn,~ ' Sadl) , lhll ".,.. ""I) lhe lalCSI '"' lin,,, or 

.lI:I<l. "" Sl~h ... .n"ncaM In I"" 1001 1\'0 ) ... """, aI"",,- hlO ddcri)' Sikh. ,, ~I\l n,unkn:d In Ell 11m,,,. 

C"';fon". ~ a SiJ..h cab ,lIw« " ... ","",uh,," "' S""I3II>i:"w. C3l,fumi.' .• Si~h ,,,.,,.,, "otkct ,,, .. 

"""","<d on N~" York c,,),', 3 S,kh ""b d",o' " • ..,."..11«1 ,n ~d". w"""IIj>\Of'I', • SIIJI bun"",. o,,"" ...... $hoI ""d IQ.I"f<'d In 1\)0 Or.llQ!<. Flondo'. and I'~ Wl$t<lftSlu Si~b. we", murtkml:md ",,,,,r.tl 

mor< "U"",d '" lhe (h~ Cn:~~ Ou,d"",. b<. • 8"0"l;1li ''''~ ~"""n , .. ,.1<1 "'""'SIWf'O In """ of lll.:: ',..,Ili, 

.11.lCQ CO'! 1IIIA",o"<"" ~ooc or"'O"'''""""" tho 1%.' bombing oflbc l6ch St""" &pllOi Cbu,.b · 

, $.of foaor.! 8 ...... 0( 1",,,,,,,;0_ H"", nme lhd;.lt.~ 1i."fI'I'1 Form I~, "''''~ '" 

Iu!!! """... !bj ""!t!wZi!''''lltwonll¥·fmngNts9W·ll'Wrn!:fS!ID01'K Til< Sil.~ ""~ OO Il1o 

_~ """"""' iho ><IdI_ 0( ""'*'""" for bate crtm<> .ptrul Hlnd" tad ~ AlIIon" ...... -;. .. A.o\I· 

Dcr .... """, lClpo..AOI. ~ Coo/i",1I' , '''8''''' FIJI t(}CNlm 0.,. "" If_ C-".., I~"'m Sil<lu •. 1"'''' .-

IIo,,;/><, ( D<c I(,:w Il ~ "wulobk '" ~"'" 0.11 ro:'<QIpb.uu •• bllC!b .. !l:CtlQlA' .. '!J:ibl!NP"1<W1!I·.n. .... 

pbkbi!!d",bnnl 

• 1 .. 01> It.»·rom. f'", .......... ..0;'" <Iw/.I<',,)' Il;I""JI"..u '" .>;lW u""'" ","",*, F......, Be:<: (.MI)' II. :til h ,.,",""'" 

m Iwplll!»11 Co;"no!:q ogmIZIII lAlSNWJ)y,;:1JfM!!jQ-DIIbccslnoC-tgD 1bor btml 

"id.~. /,_'i ... A II"."}' ~/ 'W,'"", 1~"'I'''t!r.' '~11ot 11811 ",q II, T""I"'''lI 6. ~Ih ",'~/QI>k <>I !lIlpihjC\\"c04 I'I" coaj/2!l1 1 .. ;jn .... ,juMpo.g[.'i9m .. &.IIm!3iu. .. ia=<l!c .\! l!I.N!l.~11 

'COllI) lodt. Tl!o"""' ...... ,.,....,.,1<01 ph;a. ' •• '''''~0I'1 Sil:h .. " dril ..... Scort_ tl«1.MI. 7. 1<11 I l 

"""' I~ '" hDriM"'" uctu !X>QI/I:IJQ""'" hi\P'l"1 ''lm=»'Un~ 

• John I.'",.ger. MTA .. "I'k>!''''' ...... ....... , .. ,h lO'I,"""'· _~cr.,....... ... A ""'. Men"",,' 00)'.""''' y"", 0,,)), Nou (1111\ '.:!IlI I ~ _h>JI~ "'lIwl..'OOI'lLl!·U\'¢N"'l!SuiO!tl!'::l!! '~"'"jt!I\osAVl'l(>IInf,1 , tl .... Ull<l t 

bukiu;!d!:rW.·f\uo=V!i!h. 

• 1.<, I ","I~l ........ ,./.\1 .. ,/,. 101M MIl \JU <"" tJm'". Sc'l" P"",·I .. ""i_ 10:1. 28 . .'Xl 1 I, ,,,,,,,r..~ IfI 

_'!JIb"" ...... ul"" s;QmIlo!:Q/mg;kiNk:i~"'nri=Mlllhm.brl:Ol{g.Sjl.hs.b;I[h ... 19o$H11 ptw 

L~d.o l.oqo. ,..." o.u"" ."41>",,",,, 1'/11",10-". b.1 ._ '100< ~g" wJ."'''''. 0.,'_ Be..:II """$_' 

(MIr I>. :'fIlli ",.".IaN" a ~ •. jo""""OQIm<CIIIlIljn'cJO!lI'\) K')i)!lIt:,'EWSf1O!l<>I<'1971 

• 1«1101 .... ·_MI£IiiW '·">Ir ""~I",I!"_\"'i .,\" ..... "',.. _, ........ W.lI\ml!lOQ """ (.0."1- 7. ::Ol~) . 

..... II1M.· '" blip III!\\WID"'lm'lonwp Ign/lifS!!llsiFyl<QrMlc.m!tl\cllli!l::)\'Q-ji(g<II.OHP):IIII,=!w. 

mnMup:t'pnenlG;tII::J!!Mn.tJl!I'HSlcilfC:i= II.I·.! '/C-c,ra,...,,"J..-d !WI)' Inm! 

SIKHCOAUTION 
49 

Giyen that the Sikh American population may be no more than half a million. Sikhs may be hundreds of 

times more hkel~ than their fellow Americans to e-xperience hate crimes. A suney of Sikh Americans 

published in 2006 by Harvard University revealed that 83 percent of respondents either personally 

experienced or lale\V someone who e=">--pcrienced a hate crime or incident on account of their religion." A 

grassroots survey of Sikhs in Ne\".. York City published by the Sikh Coalition in 2008 re-vealed that nine 

percent of respondents had experienced physical assaults on account of their religion.]II A similar survey 

of Sikhs in the San Francisco Bay Area published by the Sikh Coalition in 2010 reyealed that ten percent 

of respondents had experienced bias-based assaults or property damage on account of their religion. 11 

Despite the high volume of hate crimes against Sikh Americans, there is currently no mechanism in place 

for the ~cderal g?y.cmmcnt to doc~tp:ent hate crimcs against Sikhs il~ thc ~nited S~'ltes. Pursu~nt to ?le 

Hate Cnme StatIstICS Act of 1990. - the FBI collects data on hate cnmes m the U111ted States, mcludmg 

the bias motivations on the basis of \"hich such crimes arc committed, and uses Form 1-699 to do so. 

Although Form 1-699 allows users to document hate crimes against Protest.'Ults, Catholics, Je\,"s. 

Muslims, and Atheists/Agnostics, there is no mechanism for tracking hate crimes against Sikhs. To 

address this gap in federal hate crime statistics. the Sikh Coalition in January 2011 formally requested that 

the FBI begin tracking hate crimes against Sikhs on Fonn 1-699. Our request has since been endorsed b) 

135 members of the United States Senate l:; and House of Representatives,l--1- as well as the Communit) 

Relations Sen-icc and Ciyil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Jnstice. 15 

We believe that the practice of enumerating vulnerable religious groups on the Hate Crime Incident Report 

(Form 1-699) makes it more likely that hate crime 'victims in such gronps \yill report hate crimes to 1m·".. 

enforcement agencies. We also believe that enumerating vulnerable religious groups on Fornl \-699 

strengthens efforts by law enforcement agencies to identify, learn about, foster partnerships with, and 

accurately prosecute hate crimes on behalf of the affected communities. These hypotheses arc underscored 

by social research in the school bullying context, which suggests that enumerated anti-bullying policies are 

<) Junc Han, We .eire .eimerlcalls Too:..-J C'omparative Stllt{r of the Fffecfs of9. lion South ASiGll C:ommllfllfiCs, 

Discrnnination and NaLlonal SecurIty Initiative. Pluralism ProjecL, Harvard Uni\ersIty 2-3 (2006). availab/I! al 

http://plnralisl11.org/affihates/kaur sidhu/We Are Al11encans Too pdf 

10 Sikh Coalition, jlakillf!, Our VOices Ikard: A Civil Rif{hts Af!,cndafor Sew Fork Ci(v 's Sikhs 6 (2008). aVailablc 

al htLo'//wn \\. sikhcoalition.orQ/documentsiodfiRaisingOur VoicesReport.pdf 

II Sikh CoalitIOn, ."'lkh Coalilion Ra:v /Irea Civil Rights RepOrT 20/ 2 -1- (2010). availahle at 

http:!hvv·i\Y.sildlcoalition.org/documcntslpdf/Bav Area Civil Rights Agenda.pdf. 

12 Hate Cnme SlaLlstIcs Act. 2S U.s.C. * 53-1-

I 'Scmltor Dlannc FC1l1stc1l1. Feil1.Hein Urges Tracking oj HaTe ('rimes against Sikh, Hmdu, and /Irah ... lmericans 

(Feb 19,2013), ([vallah/I:' af http //w\\ w fe111s1ein.senale gO\,fpubhclindex cfmjpress-releases' JJD=f4edefd3-d762-

-1-933-b Ib4-5dfelcdc51bd. A bipartisan group of 19 Senators issued a similar letter in August 20 1 2. See Senator 

Dianne FeinsLem. Senators to JuSLlce Depanmem' Revise Hate Crime Lans to ProtecL Sikhs (Aug. 23. 2(12). 

avai/aMe Ql http://\\lv\Y feinsteln.senate gov/publichndex.cfl11/press-releases?TD-5R7527d-1--a-l-5R--1- 1 26-aR7ee9621-1-e 1 ecR9 

14 Congressman Joseph Cranley, Owr lOOMl!mbl!rs (!(Congress ['rge Sirongl!r ActIOn 10 jJroll!Ct Sikh. 

Hindu (Mar 21. 201]). avmlaMe at 

http://crowleY .house. gOyjprcss-rclease!crowlcv -ovcr -1 OO-membcrs-eongress-urge-stronger-action-protcct -sikhhindu-arab A bipartisan group of 94 members of lhe House of RepresentaLives issued a similar leller in April 20 12 

See COll/:,'TCSSl11an Joscph Crowley. ('ongressman Crowl(v reads Over 90 -"[embers of( 'ongress m C'rging FRJ to 

Col/rct Data oniiafe Crimes AS{(linst Sikh Comfllllnitr (Apr. 19,2012), available at http://crow1cY.house.goyjprcssreleaseJco1l2ressman -crow le\ -lead s-o veT -90-members-collgress-ur gm2 -lbI-CO Hec t -dala -ha t e -crimes 

15 U S Depanmem of JusLice, A /'isillo Oak Creek, The JusLice Blog (Dec. 12.2012). aVailable at 

hUp:! /blocS) usllce. gO\ Imain/arcll1 \ es/25C)] 
50 

more effectively enforccd than those which lack cnumcratcd catcgorics.1(l By analogy, wc belicvc that 

adding an Anti-Sikh category to Foml 1-699 will enh~ce partnerships bet\\een law enforcement agencies 

and Sikh communities nationwide and increase hate crime reporting by Sikhs. 

On September 19,2012_ Mr. Harpreet Singh Saini testified before the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on the 

Constitution_ Civil Rights, and Human Rights. Mr. Saini-whose mother was among those who lost their 

lives during the August 5, 2012 attack on the Gurdwara in Oak Creek_ Wisconsin-made the following appeal: 

I came here today to ask the govemment to gi\.e my mother the dignity of being a statistic 

TI1C FBI docs not track hate crimes against Sikhs. My mother and those shot that day will 

not c"Vcn count on a fcdcral fonn. \Nc cannot solvc a problem wc rcfusc to rccognizc. 17 

TI1C FBI's failure to track hatc crimes against Sikh Amcricans lUldcrmincs a flUldamcnt.'l1 purposc of hate 

crime dat.'l collection_ which is to strcn,STthcn diagnostic and deterrcncc efforts. Our modcst rcqucst for 

improvements to Fonn 1-699 v .. ,ill make Ia\\ enforcement agencies more effective at their jobs and 

increasc thc accuracy of hate crime reporting oyer time. Our request is also dcsigned to gi\'c hatc crimc 

victims the dignity of recognition 

We hope that the Committee on the Judiciar~y \""iIl formally endorse our request and ask the Attorney 

General of the United Sta.tes to do the same 

Respectfully submitted_ 

Rajdccp Singh 

Director ofLe" Policv_ TIle Sikh Coalition 

rajdccp(a-sikhcoalitio~org 1(202) 747-4944 

Ifl GLSEN. Thc 2011 Natlonal School Clim(lte Survey. ExccutJ\'c Summary 19 (2012), m:ai/ahle aT 

http:!hvw\Y.giscn.orgibinan'-data/GLSEN AIT ACHtvlENI S/filc/000/002121 06-1. pdf 

1~ See Hair Cnmri> and thr 1 hreal (!f Domesllc t;xlremlsm: Hrarmg Be/orr thr Senate SllbcOlmmilee on the 

Constllution, Civil RighlS. and lluman Righls (!f the Smate Commilfer on the Jlldicwl)' (201.2) (statement of 

Harpreel S111gh Sm1l1). availahle al http 1/\\\\\\ judician senale.gO\/pdr;9-19~ 12Sa11l1Tesl11110Jl)' pdr 
51 

Testimony of Harpreet Singh Saini 

before the 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

Snbcommittee on the Constitntion, Civil Rights and Hnman Rights 

Committee on the Jndiciary 

on 

"Hate Crimes and the Threat of Domestic Extremism" 

September 19,2012 

My name is Harpreet Singh Saini. I would like to thank Senator Durbin, Ranking Member 

Graham, and the entire subcommittee for giving me the opportunity to be here today. I am here 

because my mother was murdered in an act of hate 45 days ago. I am here on behalf of all the 

children who lost parents or grandparents during the massacre in Oak Creek, Wisconsin. 

A little over a month ago, I never imagined r d be here. I never imagined that anyone outside of 

Oak Creek would know my name. Or my mother's name. Paramjit Kaur Saini. Or my brother's 

name, Kamaljit Singh Saini. Kamal, my brother and best friend, is here with me today. 

As we all know, on Sunday, AUb'Ust 5, 2012, a white supremacist fueled by hatred walked into 

our local Gurdwara with a loaded gun. He killed my mother, Paramjit Kaur, while she was 

sitting for moming prayers. He shot and killed t1ve more men - all of them were fathers, all had 

turbans like me. 

And now people know all our names' Sita Singh. Ranjit Singh. Prakash Singh. Suvegh Singh. 

Satwant Singh Kaleka. 

This was not supposed to be our American story. This was not my mother's dream. 

My mother and father brought Kamal and me to America in 2004. I was only 10 years-old. Like 

many other immigrants, they wanted us to have a better life, a better education. More options. In 

the land of the free. In the land of diversity. 

It was a Tuesday, 2 days after our mother was killed, that my brother Kamal and I ate the 

leftovers of the last meal she had made for us. We ate her last rotis - which are a type of South 

Asian flatbread. She had made the rotis from scratch the night before she died. Along with the 

last bite of our food that Tuesday ... came the realization that this was the last meal, made 

by the hands of our mother, that we will ever eat in our lifetime. 
52 

My mother was a brilliant woman, a reasonable woman. Everyone knew she was smart, but she 

never had the chance to get a formal education. She couldn't. As a hard-working immigrant, she 

had to work long hours to feed her family, to get her sons educated, and help us achieve our 

American dreams. This was more important to her than anything else. 

Senators, my mother was our biggest fan, our biggest supporter She was always there for us, she 

always had a smile on her face. 

But now she's gone. Because ofa man who hated her because she wasn't his color? His religion? 

ljust had my first day of college. And my mother wasn't there to send me off She won't be 

there for my graduation. She won't be there on my wedding day. She won't be there to meet her 

grandchildren. 

I want to tell the gunman who took her from me You may have been full of hate, but my mother 

was full oflove. 

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

It was not the American dream of Prakash Singh, who had only been reunited with his family for 

a few precious weeks after 6 years apart. When he heard gunshots that morning, he told his TINO 

children to hide in the basement. He saved their lives. When it was over, his children found him 

lying in a pool of blood. They shook his body and cried "Papal Get upl" But he was gone. 

It was not the American dream of Suvegh Singh Khattra, a retired farmer who came here to be 

with his children and grandchildren. That morning, his family found him face down, a bullet in 

his head, his turban thrown to the side. 

It was not the American dream of Sat\'iant Singh Kaleka, president of the gurdwara who was 

killed while bravely fighting the gunman. 

It was not the American dream of Sita Singh and Ranjit Singh, two brothers who sang prayers for 

our community and were separated from their families for 16 years. Their wives and children 

came to this country for the first time for their funerals. 

It was not tbe American dream of Santokh Singh or Punjab Singh who were injured in the 

massacre. Punjab Singh's sons are by his side day and night, but he may never fully recover from 

his multiple gunshot wounds 

We ache for our loved ones. We have lost so much. But I want people to know that our heads are 

held high. 

My mother was a devout Sikh. Like all Sikhs, she was bound to live in Chardi Kala - a state of 

high spirits and optimism She was also taught as a Sikh to neither have fear of anyone nor strike 

fear in anyone. 
53 

So despite what happened, we will not live in a state of fear, nor will be make anyone fearful. 

Like my Mother, my brother and I are working every day to be in a state of high spirits and 

optimism. 

We also know that we are not alone. Tens of thousands of people sent us letters, attended vigils, 

and gave us their support - Oak Creek's Mayor and Police Chief, Wisconsin's Governor, the 

President and the First Lady. All their support also gave me the strength to come here today. 

Senators, T came here today to ask the government to give my mother the dignity of being a 

statistic. The FBI does not track hate crimes against Sikhs. My mother and those shot that day 

will not even count on a federal fonn. We cannot solve a problem we refuse to recognize. 

Senators, T also ask that the government pursue domestic terrorists with the same vigor as 

attackers from abroad. The man who killed my mother was on the watch lists of public interest 

groups. I believe the government could have tracked him long before he went on a shooting 

spree. 

Finally, Senators, I ask that you stand up for us. As lawmakers and leaders, you have the power 

to shape public opinion. Your words carry weight. When others scapegoat or demean people 

because of who they are, use your power to say that is wrong. 

So many have asked Sikhs to simply blame Muslims for attacks against our community or just 

say "We are not Muslim." But we won't blame anyone else. An attack on one of us is an attack 

on all of us. 

I also want to be a part of the solution. That's why I want to be a law enforcement oUicer like Lt. 

Brian Murphy, who saved so many lives on AUb'llst 5, 2012. I want to protect other people from 

what happened to my mother. I want to combat hate - not just against Sikhs but against all 

people. Senators, T know what happened at Oak Creek was not an isolated incident. T fear it may 

happen again if we don't stand up and do something. 

I don't want anyone to suffer what we have suffered I want to build a world where all people 

can live, work, and worship in America in peace. 

Because you see, despite everything, I still believe in the American dream. In my mother's 

memory, I ask that you stand up for it with me. Today. And in the days to come. 

Thank you for considering my testimony. 
54 

_ ..... '.,..,. __ .. 

I.",ol 0 AdJ"'''''''') D 1 

!hlddall No. 

!OfI'_ lll""-lIooo 

' ...... ,._, 

, .... ,.. '-

[1I1. r _II off.lIH-.ocI. nd I~c lIumbC'r ofvktlm. for u,,~ bl_. mollnlcd olfollK. 

orr."., N.mll,,, 1:<>010 oI "e(Jm. ~I M.nI<f ()7M",.V<ho:kTh<iI 

Off""d l CIJ [II] 

orr.- oQ CD ITTI 

{I"ht« f3 CD [II] 

OfTm« W CD [II] 

Orfl""' ·' CIJ ceo 

(l.ocadoll illfo ....... 

Cbftk 011" louoon for Off ..... III. 

01 0 A,rl6wIT .. ,,, T"'''', .... 

~2 0 a. MS"·'~Jl ""'* l<>oo 

W 0 B;o/N'ighLClot> 

1..'1 0 Ch"" h/S:I""Ii<l!l...rromplcl~~ 

0$ 0 c.."""",,,oIJOlTo<. Bu,I.I,,'! 

f", 0 eon.""<t,,," 5,,,, 

0'1 0 C""","cro« Stor, 

~ 0 D<~m,'JIII'I),>«."", S<onW 0 Oro!! Soot<.'l>r'J 00«/11""","1 

10 0 FICId,W.",do 

II 0 O"'·"'"""'''uPubli<~,~", 

11 0 Gro<Ol)'/Su""" .. d<L 

I) 0 11''''''II)/RooilIA ~IStf«. 

1.0 fjoWiMooclIt ... 

t.! 0 J.~I1'""", 

I~ 0 La/.;o/\I'''''''''II) 

17 0 L""""S",,< 

I~ 0 P .. "'lI u.iG ... 

19 0 kenl'l S"""P Focillt: 

10 0 R •• IJ." •• ,ilI., .... 11 0 R"""""...,. 

v O Scr\~S .. """ 

w .... 

Ulk~ 

(MAggm~A<.<.ruI' 

!l5 B<qI"l 

06Uo<"", ·".,n 

·18 /1 .... 

~$impj,: ........ I' 

IOI.L".OJ"" .. 

IIO",., ... Iiuo.'D .. ..,.,.,v ..... I"'" 

1~ 0 Spec, .. ,) SIo<t lTV. F",. <",.) 

!S 0 O' ... l\Jril.:no\ln 

)1 0 A~,':C......t<tn...,.jS\f1.o<1ill< 

:; ~ 0 A""' ....... " ~"'" 

)9 0 Aren~odi .. uIf" ... groundiICoI .......... 

-l<l 0 A!M S<!romc from Bonk 

, 0 1.010 o.:.Ior.I"" N."iUio.l 

41. 0 C .... pIC..., ~ 

"'"' 0 011)< .... foc,lio:-

S 0 Oo<"'WkorD"F"',sl>~Moool T ,,",, .. 1 

'i6 0 room F,..I" j 

~1 0 ()_ "~ Foe,ht)'C'oM<YR.xoTr3Oi 

'$ 0 lOll"",," S~. 

~~ 0 M,lilOr) 1"""11 ....... 

5/", 0 ParlJPIII)tt<".-.l 

j, 0 RCSl/II •• 

H 0 s.:_.(01~"".",() 

H 0 So:~.fkmo:mOlYiS«ondar) 

,~ 0 Sl>oI"".).t,I> • .,..11"""' .... 

.is 0 ShWl'"o.a: \f. 1I 

s(' D Tn"'l t.o.It 

51 0 C""",,,.,") C"""" 

Umore Illan C>nf-offUJ~IM'Cllrrftl., e~ler. l<H2..log code ror ",II _ddliioul orre". hvlQ& _ dlffeUOI 

m.lIon Illu OffUH f l . 

1.0< ..... 

,~ 

= = = 

= 
55 

Cb..,k ap 10 fly. bbl lllotintloal for orrCI\Ie . 

Ro" 

IJ O AnII.Wln« 

11 0 A .. ,·(lI",~",M ....... A"""I<" 

11 0 Aou.A'TICfI<III lodj .. ", AI...&._ N .. i,. 14 0 AoIi·A" ... 

" 0 lI."h·,'t ~f\Ik: Fl.x<: •• O<".,p 

~ 0 A .. ,..N .. "o II, ,,,,,, .. ,,, Oil"" p""r ... loIonda 

RfUgioo 

1 1 0 ADll·J""i~ , 

21 0 ~nti.(0lh0Ii, 

2:J 0 A", '~"""""" 

l,.I O II. .. i.I;.! ..... (M, .. IIm' 

1.I 0 A .. cll$"J<' 

16 0 "' .. I-M ~ fl<ht_ Goout'> 

11 0 AnII·A<Iw:, .. uIA»"""""" 

Elhalclty 

31 0 ..... ,·It"""",,, ... I ... ,oo 

J] 0 ..... I·N .. H,..,...., <If 1.00 ... 

Supai Onenlal;M 

JI 0 A",,~ (Mole, 

Z 0 AIIl'·LosOo .. , 

0 0 AnI,-tc.bian, Go), Diob ........ T,....,o...,("-ti\cd Gro\ot'! 

"-l 0 A."·1I .. <,_,...., ~~ 0 ",~IJ, ,,,-.,..,.j 

DlJabillty 

~I 0 Atlu-Pb)·..,<at Di""""l 

~l 0 """ ·M",,, •• /Mobil") 

G~ndu 

GI 0 A.Io-MoIo 

(,1 0 .... .~""'.I. 

Gender Ideality 

7! 0 "",,,. """l!-"""-~ 

71 0 Aoti-G<Ddcr N"".conro",,,,,' 

Ifmo.., thu ODe OrrCR.O nccurnd, .. lOT up 10 lIye bi .. molivallons rD. nch additioRl1 orre" .. hY\"I ' 

diffucnl bll' motlvatio" Ibaa Off ...... ' 1. 

Bw Ell.. fI,.. a,.. a .. 01 _j .J U .~ 

Offi:n.e.M! 

00 ...... '1 

orr", ... .. orr",.,. i5 wwwww 

[V1cUm 1.r __ 

CIotdt an a pplicable vlcrim 1)',.. [ornch orreo .. lilled a hove. 

"' ~ OOO~ "'- "'- orro_ 

\noj;' .... iIl· " 0 0 0 0 0 " " " " 

'"- 0 0 0 0 0 fi...,.,.,I ... u"" "",, 0 0 0 0 0 a...~", 0 0 0 0 0 

R"'~,,"8""lI\I"" 0 0 0 0 0 ''"." 0 0 0 0 0 u...,.,... 0 0 0 0 0 

" Indlcalc lh number of Indhidual. (pennns) .. ·ho wen: vkUml in Ih. l"ddeDI. 

T"' ....... I><'o(", .. ,... ITIJ fOial ",o .. b",or",,,,,,. I~ IInd O,... ITIJ 

T"",I" ... b<ra(,,,",,,.,IlMkfJ~ ITIJ 
56 

Jodle.le the Dumber of "'dl ~l d ... J, (perJOft'J who wen o(t'ud~n 1ft Iht llldded!. 

foul""",t.:.ofo(f.-..d<u. If""!;ro, ..... """"~1 [IJ 

T ..... n ... b<'~(~JJ,;md..'ttI_....:lo.<f r""",.,~ ......... OO [IJ 

TooaI " ... ,b<'''fufr<nd'''u"'''' l~ Ir ... ~ •• "'c,(I(r [IJ 

[Ram .... E'lbidtrofOlJntder .. O/feDISer GI'!MIp 

CII..,. OM n • .,. u d ooe elhftlcily . 

. ~ 

I o While 

1 0 BI .. k~ .... r"" .......... o< .. 

o "'m<nt .. 1l1li,.,,,, AI",k, NIIJ'< 

~ 0 ..... "" 

o ~ofMu lOp"'R..,.,. 

6 0 U"~,""," 

1 0 N .. ,," It ........ ,'" OtllcfP .. ,r", 101 .. """ 

[,lInklly 

f( 0 lit", .. ",.,. L."no 

N 0 N"'I1 ~".-W!uno 

M 0 DfwpofMultopje: EUI."" oG 

U 0 U"""" ... 

Tlu. "-'1"'" ,,,,,,ItIorj,..,,j ~ Title 28. Sool>on SJ4. U S Cook. ..... tho Hili< Cn"", S, ... ""'" ""I orlm, EY<fI'~ )'00 ...., "'" 

n:qw,od to~, )_ <:<q!<'OllM in "-<inS lhL< f""" 10 repon ""I< <nmoo """',n '0 I ... cnr""" .... " dIonot Ill< "L".'" ,,,II ..... , 

I"" Fill '" """,p'h"ll'""'~'. """'prcl''''''M. OI>IJ .,;<,~"" <Jol. ",pt<I,"~ Ill< ... >do""o ..... 1"' , 1<tIo< 01/1010 Of .... ",,,,,,y,o.,l ''''' 

N._ Plc_"'W"1 ,lttl ",..,., ~ •• Iy, ItJ. LIt, .;LIt dO) . nc. rhe tI ..... fd>e.,.._. 1IId"".' .,......,..."' 1 ... FIll. O"""lOI 

..... ,'" I"r""" ....... s,,"l">«> Dr ........ A~ .. ,"",. U .. f",," C,,,,,,, RcponolMMo.i< £..3, 1000 0 ........ floIl"" Itood. ClotI;sblultl. Wcot 

"'08"'" 2(>3(11" IOIcphono lO4-lil.'-I )Q. f ... ,,"ilo J64.til. • ..JAA Utok, r"" P"""",,,.-I.. Ro.l"".,,, M,. , ...... n~' _I'''~ 10 

.",,,ploiC- ,hi, rQfTtl .. I .... i, .......... . . 111" OMS '''''''''I ......... TIl< forul !>Leo _"1l"""~' 7 ., ........ '" """,,plein 

I"""",,,,,,, rOl prcp.1r'1IA "'" r""" """"or ",,10 .. 

f(lENERAL 

Th .. "1''''' .. "'P"'"'< f>'Om .... "' oot.:I;~ ... '" 'ho ""......,.;1 S""''"O<) RepOt1."g 5) ..... . _o..ion I" 1I\e ,nil", ",pon"'& "" ... 

""" Ih""""h) Rule OtT<II!I<dll> ("'" JIIS! ........ """I rOt' I ... m,d .. "", IIr!d O"tn .. ,>MID"" .. ~OI>d.I""'ofl'nl\l<n)' """' ... be 

1<"""'"'<1 Ott ..... (o,m .• 1\ ,epOt1 .. k It...- """",..,.. ~ >hordd be ,,,,,ltIIkd ",~or ~ he, ..... oms ...... " ,...,. pI_ 

PI .... "for '" Ibo jlU!ol;u1ioon '''',. C..-lN", 0>11",,_ Gw.kll>w, bod r",;.I"t ,1/,,"""1 fOt o.ldiIioML ,.r"""OlJoo. 

1QU;\RTElu.y IIA"t'E CRIME RIPORl 

"11I"'OIIdofo .... ,oI.lI<I .. "" ....... o<h ttfKI'!'" _~ ..... 1<1 ... "'"". ~,ogk: Qor.>tmb II.., Cn".. ~.""'" .~""",,,th.., ,lid" KIu.iIltilo (,m", 1"""lml Rcpon (c« .... bt. mortvll\Od """""'" ukrt"r,od rb,"~ II", ""'""' t.f "~'I Ir"" ~o CfI""" o<o"""d "',no, .... """""'. Iho ' F",,) should _" 0It1~ d>< Quonotl), fl..., C""", Rol'''''. 

Th<Or-\..-~ I"""e ....... R~ ...... Idbo _'o~.'" l"'" . \to"IC)- . 10>1"", v.".....,bc1 ofb .... """, ... e.Jll>.;od<n"b<I<u; 

tt'pott<d "'" !he •• I<:O<I"<II>II'I<T. and to"""""",) ,..,,<ION< """,,,,,,,>Is "'p<I01od 111. h .... I>xn _,,>Cd """"& ..... :1'0'''"6 

.,.....J "'" ICIh"cbcrn """,,1IOd 1»' bln, 

lilA n; CIUM§ lliClOf,NT R!!VORT 

TI>c 1,0<"""" RepOt1 ..... kI be ,<>«lie "'pon ' bt .. moLtv.l:<! ...-.k ..... 10 0<1,.... ",IOm'II.,.. ," ' p"" .ouolj' rq>OfIod inoJ<I1', 

1nr:1udo oddJu",,>I ,,,r,,,,, ... I,,,, "":<1'¥"'" ('OpOf If)"" r ... 1 " ",II odd <Ian,)' 10 "'" t<pon 
57 

,\dmln;" .. 'I .. f.cn, .. lon 

1.11101·10 'op<>"I a ""',. <run< ,,,,,><1.."111 

,ldJ"'''.'.'. fo"J>loIo' ""'" ,n.", ""'~,,~ """·,,,,,<lp,,,",,,cJ ,N",.' Thl",, 11 ""I< .. Ih< .. """'"'_ ..... oJy "" 

foil: ,""",,,, ... 11>< ",f""".,.,. 1""""'"" 'n ...... "(>On ) 

U .. ,.fIMkI •• " {K«I" ln<I I~, Inm.l ... "dj • .,n,,", R,I""(O.' P",,,do u.. <I;oIeofu.. ..... Of",," "",O<br\,""'" 

f"""",ofM.\IDOYYV\' 

1 ... 1d,,,, /<0'.","',., (Mrq"l......r lor l.m.1 . r AdJ. ,"n,.' Mr[lOru .) ",""",", on """tit.- '''I , ... ,&n, n"",bo<, "",QoaIII~ 

Y""""'" at to'" ""In"'" .""'"""""" .. '" bo up to 11 ,!\or"",:." in Ierogll>, .... ... '"""""''"' , .... Iod<- " , ....... gII z.. 0 

IIrru.q:b?h~"",," .. ~bI .. ," 

uu, ... COlt<: f.n,., "'" ~_~, "rr."",, cod<: fot "'"" "' .. ,,""01"",0<1 "IT....... Th<: nIT, ... _ "'111 or< """"~. 10 

h.oI< 'nnl< are; C I M\Uder. It:! R¥. Ql Robbe'y. '"' ~'-.l "SAlliI, (IS Bwal~ .. '16 Loro::n) ·Ihc:O. 01 /.1_ 

V,1Ii<1t '""0. 61 " '-' (iI) S,mpl. " .... ,~ In In';m,do;o;,o, and I I (>c,,,uc:,OJIV(brtt.!II'JV ...... ,,"" 

.... M"' ... ,.r \'k ,lm..- E ...... Ih<n ..... "'"of,"u ... fot'''''' ", .. """,,'ooc.lolTcn!t. "J1w: f,,1d "'~. for .plO ,llvI:<:.,j,g" 

"umbo, to too ,,,,,,,0< i'I....t>o, of """m' or< "" .... " '0 of I"",, ~. Bus ...... Fi......,,,II ... "\!IIon. G<>I<""""n~ 

!t<1.g-. Ort"">I<or', 011"", on.! \,!oLIOo.I n 

AoId,Ii ... 1 orr .... 1.0>< ...... " u,1<:r. "'O-C!;,.. kx~"", cod< for cach ad.!1,"""( Q/T<n>< "'" '-. dilT",",, ' kx"'''''' ilIanOff'''''' ' 1 

lila. ~1",l\ ''iM Inf., ... II • • 

• \oIdi" ••• 1 OIT .... 61 .. M",,, .. ,io.,, Enu:,"p", r",,: "'o-W!!l' bu, ""","I"'" .ode, k>r tach otlil"""",1 i>I"f<n'" ... ., 

""'. cblT"""" 100 .. """" woo lIoan Off,,,,,,,, *1 

\ ' I<HIU I nr ........... 

\"ktiM Ti P" C"""k 011 awI",..,I. 'I<urn ~ po • • J<nll[..,J ,,,,/1,,, ..... ,ncodoDi 

1'.",,,",.1 \'1<11",,, Who", <~," 'l"" II ,n.!" 01 .. , .. '1" ..... IOC.I "","I>.~ "''''''"01''''.(",,.-..) ,,"" ~e<t ',U",,',n 

u.: ,ncid<m. E .. or "'" ,,,ul """,be, "rondJ".su1l4 (P""""'h''''' ,,~~ ,'","mli", ,'" "",o;knl .... , ~ 1 ~ aod "for Enl'" 

tho IO!>l """',,,,, of "oI"'o</ .. I.,,,,,_J "."" ,,~~, K""', '" tho ...... ><1<1. ilIoo "'" .noJ<r Iho ~ on~, 
58 

Offender Information 

;'\lumber of Offenders: Enter the total number ofindi-.... iduals (persons) who were offenders in the incident. I[unknown. 

enter 00 in Ihe two~digit field. Enter the total number of individuals (persons) who \'\ere offenders in the incident that 

were 18 and oyer. If unknown. enter 00 in the two-digit field. Enter the tolal number of individuals (persons) who were 

offenders in the incident that were under the age of 18. If unknown, enter 00 in the t·wo-digit field. Incidents inyoh·ing 

multiple offenders must oot be coded as Unkno\vo OITender. Indicate an Unknown Offender when nothing is known about 

the offender including the offender's race. When the Race of Offender(s) has been identified. indicate at least one 

offender. 

Race and Etlmicity of Offender or Offender Group 

Race: Check one race forthe offender. If there was marc than one oITendcr. provide the race ofthe group as a whole. If 

the lUffilbcr of offenders is entered as Unknown OlTender. then the offender's race must also be indicated as Unknown. 

Ethnicity: Check one ethnicity for Ihe offender. lfthere was more than one offender, provide the ethnicity ofthc group 

as a whole. If the number of offenders is entered as Unknown Offender, then the offender's ethnicit)" must also be 

indicated as Unknown. 
59 

Qrongress of fIJe )Jfnit£i'l J!jtates 

1'I1I1I1Il)ingtan, :m(!J: 20515 

The Honorable Eric Holder 

Anomey General 

U.S. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 20S30-0001 

Dear Attorney General Holder: 

April 19, 2012 

As you know, many Sikh-Americans have been subjected, unfortunately, to bigoted hate crimes. 

In the last year alone, two Sikh-American men in Sacramento were murdered, a Sikh Gurdwara 

in Michigan was defaced and a Sikh-American man was beaten in New York. These kinds of 

bate-motivated attacks have no place in the United States. To address this growing concern, we 

urge the Department of Justice and Fedcral Bureau of Investigation to begin recording and 

tracking bate crimes suffered by Sikh-Americans as part of its Hate Crime Incident Report 

Form (1-699). 

According to its accompanying guide, Form 1-699 is designed to "assist the FBI in compiling 

timely, comprehensive, and accurate data regarding the incidence nnd prevalence of bate erime 

throughout the [n]ation." The Report Form not only serves as the plimary mechardsm by which 

the fcderal government collects and documents hate crimes conunitted in the United Stales, it 

also helps form the basis for decision-making on the deployment oflaw enforcement resources. 

Yct, our understanding is that the FBl maybe relying on older forms which count bate crimes 

against Sikhs as anti-Islamic (Muslim) hate crimes. We believe that not including Sikhs within 

hate-crime data-<:ollection may diminish the safely of the 500,OOO-strong Sikh-American 

community and weaken the qnality of essential hate crimes data overall. 

Numerous reports have documented how those practicing the Sikh religion are often targeted for 

hate violence because of their religiously-mandated torban, -- i.e. because of their Sikh identity, 

regardless of whether the attacker understands the victim to be Sikh or not. Sadly, victimization 

begins at a young age - Sikh youth are among the most bullied in the nation, with approximately 3 

ont of 4 Sikh boys severely bullied in school. Given that this discrete community is so acutely 

susceptible to hate violence in the United States, we believc it is critically important for authorities 

to devise means of tracking crimes committed against Sikhs. We also believe, as do many leaders 

in the Sikh community, that doing so would [l"ther encourage affected community members to 

report hate crimes to law enforcement officials and strengthen relationships betwccn commlfnities, 

the FBI and the Department of Justice. 

We understand that the Department of Justice has carried out a variety of outreach efforts in 

coalition with members of the SOO,OOO-strong Sikh-American community. We applaud these very 

important efforts arid strnngly urge you to take the next step by making this admihistrative 

alteration. We W1derstand there may be a few options for how to pnt this change into practice and 

would appreciate an opportunity to mect with you to discuss this matter further. 
60 

Sincerely, 

K~~ __ KarenBnss 

Member of Congress 

~ Member of Congress 

.rtJ. 

Earl Blumenauer 

Member of Congress 

~A-a Michael E. Capuano 

~; C. 0.----. DenniSA.cor~ Member of Congress 

E Uuv 

Chu 

ember of Congress 

Hansen 

~~ Clarke 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

a (ie Andre Carson 

Member of Congress 

~i~~- Member of Congress 
61 

MJ£~ Member of Congress 

ck, ~ J !n-J/' ~f!!.DWann'!!f Member of Congress 

is ~g~ Member of Congress 

Donna F. Edwards 

~lL Member of Congress 

~-Member of Congress 

~l ameyFmnk -~.f- ~--~~~~ (}/~~t· 

Member of Congress Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 
62 

Michael M. Honda 

Member of Congress 

~~ J~ssc L. Jackson, Jr. 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

~,~~~ Ben Ray Lujan 

Member of Congress 

Steve Israel 

Member of Congress 

4&~- Member 

Sheila Jac 

ongress 

e ~~~ 

:z~~ Ron Kind 

Member of Congress 

C4Jc.tI« ,II. a 111...L... Edward J. Marke!:r~~ ~( 

Member of Congress 
63 

~~ Member of Congress 

~ aracer.: Napolitano .5. ~~ r .. ft.~ Member of Congress 

~~ Member of Congress 

~~ Frank Pallone, Jr. 

Member of Congress 

Member of Congress 

Jo ~w~ W. Olver --

M mber of Congress 

Bill 

&a~~ Pascrell, Jr. tJ Member of Congress 
64 

~~ Sleven R. Rothm"" 

Member of Congress 

Bo b ush 

Member of Congress 

, Scott 

Member of Congress 

~ Brad Sherman 

~~rfi -J16ifu 

Member of Congress 

Member 

~ of Congress 

CA.OJiJt, C. A. Dutch Ruppersberger 

Member of Congress 

£{J~ Loretta Sanchez ~ .......... 

~ Member of Congress 
65 

Member of Congress 

J!n.q~~ Member of Congress 

!~~lL Frederica S. Wilson 

Member of Congress 

~J. Member 

~oy of Congress lara ~ 

~ David E. Price 

Member of Congress 

m!~~ Mike Thompso 

Member of Congress 

~fCongrcss 

a:tL~~ 

Peter 

J~~ Welch 

Member of Congress 

~OIS~ Member of Congress 

Pedro R Pierlui.i 

Member of Congress 

cc: Robert Mueller, Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation 
66 

'W.lI..fiHtNGTON, DC 2C~1n 

August 23, 2012 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

Attorney General of the United States 

U,s. Department of Justice 

950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 

Washington, DC 2()530-0001 

Dear Mr. Attorney General: 

We write to respectfully request that you revise the Hate Crime Incident 

Report form (l-699) to allow for the collection and tracking of hate crimes 

committed against Sikh-Americans. 

As you are well aware, on August 5'", Wade Michael Page killed six and 

wounded four other members ufthe Sikh Temple of Wisconsin in Oak Creek, 

Wisconsin. from all indications, Page targeted members oftne Sikh Temple 

because of lbeir religion. 

This tragic shooting is the latest hate crime committed against Sikhs in the 

United States. Over the past two years, two Sikhs in California were murdered, a 

Sikh temple in Michiga~ was desecrated, a Sikh transit worker in New York City 

was assaulted, and a Sikh taxi driver in California was severely beaten. According 

to a recent survey of 1,370 Sikhs living in the California Bay Area, 10% reported 

being the victim of a hate crime. Sixty-eight percent of those crimes were in the 

form of physical attacks. 

Because many Sikhs wear turbans and do not cut their facial hair, they are 

often viewed as fureign and are easy to target tor harRssment and crime. Thus, 

Sikhs are particularly susceptible to violence committed because of their Sikh 

identity, even if the perpetrator docs not understand lbat the victim is a Sikh. 

Although the limited data available suggests that" disproportionately high 

rate of violence and other crimes are committed against Sikhs, it is difficuJt to 

understand the true scope of the problem because the Department of Justice does 

not specifically track hate crimes against Sikhs. The Hate Crime Statistics Act 

requires the Department to maintain data on crimes committed on the basis of 

religion. Pursuant to this law, the Department publishes the Hate Crime Incident 

Report for law enforcement agencies to complete when they investigate a 

I 
67 

suspected hate crime. That fann allows a-law enforcement officer to denote that a 

crime was motivated hy a bias against Jew';, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, or 

atheists, among others. The fonn does not allow an officer to denote that a crime 

was mutivated by a bias against Sikhs. 

It is important 10 collect data on hate crimes commiTted against Sikhs 

because this data can identify trends and help federal, state, and local law 

enforcement agencies properly allocate resources. Until we have a morc 

comprehensive understanding of the number and type of hate crimes committed 

against Sikhs, our law enforcement agencies will not be able to allocate the 

appropriate level of personnel and other resources to prevent and respond to these 

crimes. Moreover, the collection oflhi. information will likely encourage 

members of the Sikh community to report hate crimes to law enforcement officials. 

We urge you to take prompt action to ensure that hate crimes against Sikhs 

are recorded and tracked. Thank you for your attention to this important issue. 

Sincere]y, 

UM"""",""I-..", ~ .... "","". .. "" 1'_",,",-- 7~y A,-~' 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

CwCharles E. Schumer 

United States Senator 

United Stales Senator 

~f:!:n;~:~ United States Senator 
68 

Barbara Boxer 

United States Senator 

Sherrod Brown 

United States Senator 

"'~~ ... , t: ~(/iU1~ Kirsten E. Gillibral1d 

United Stales Senalor 

United States Senator 

Maria Cantwell 

United States Senator 

United States Senator 

Scott P. Brown 

United Stales Senator 
69 

Ms. CHU. Thank you. Last week, an elderly Sikh man, dedicated 

to his faith and his community, was doing what he did every day, 

volunteering at his Gurdwara when a man viciously attacked him. 

At 82 years old, Piara Singh was beaten with an iron bar, puncturing one of his lungs, fracturing his face, and breaking several 

ribs. 

This is only the latest of a string of attacks on American Sikhs 

in recent years. In the last 2 years alone, two elderly Sikhs were 

murdered in Elk Grove, California, a Sikh cab driver was assaulted 

in Sacramento, California, a Sikh transit worker was assaulted in 

New York City, a Sikh cab driver was assaulted in Seattle, Washington, a Sikh business owner was shot and injured in Port Orange, Florida, and six Sikhs in Oak Creek, Wisconsin were murdered, of course, in one of the worst attacks in an American place 
70 

of worship since the 1963 bombing of the 16th Street Baptist 

Church. 

The FBI tracks hate crimes on Form 1–699. As you can see, 

there is no current way to document hate crimes against Sikhs on 

this form, even though Sikh-Americans continue to experience hate 

crimes at rates that are disproportionate to their population. 

According to Sikh Coalition surveys in New York City and the 

San Francisco Bay area, approximately 10 percent of Sikhs believe 

they have been subject to hate crimes. Arab-Americans and HinduAmericans also face hate crimes, but they, too, are excluded from 

tracking. If someone were to look at FBI data today, it would be 

as though Sikhs, Arab-Americans, and Hindus did not exist. 

We have asked for revisions to Form 1–699, and there are 135 

Members of the U.S. Congress that have signed on to this, as well 

as the Civil Rights Division and Community Relations Service of 

the U.S. Department of Justice in supporting revisions to Form 1– 

699. Can you tell us what the status of this is so that hate crimes 

against these population can finally be tracked? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We agree with what you are saying. 

The Department recommended what is called the Advisory Policy 

Board last year that the UCR be amended to include anti-Sikh, 

anti-Hindu, anti-Arab, anti-Middle Eastern categories in the ethnicity or race section. That board is supposed to meet again in 

June, next month, where it will consider those potential changes 

before they make them to the FBI director. But it would be my 

strong recommendation that the form be modified so that it captures Sikh, anti-Muslim, anti-Middle Eastern violence. 

Ms. CHU. I truly appreciate that. And I would also like to ask 

about racial profiling. Immediately after the Boston bombing, fears 

of racial profiling and investigation by the broader community surfaced. The first person of interest following the bombing was a 

Saudi Arabian student who was tackled by a fellow bystander because to them he looked suspicious. He was questioned in the hospital after suffering severe burns from the bombing and had his 

apartment searched. But it turns out he was a victim of the bombing, not the perpetrator. We have also seen other instances of racial profiling by law enforcement at our Nation’s airports, at the 

border, at NYPD, and other local and State law enforcement. 

DoJ’s existing guidelines on racial profiling were issued in 2003. 

It outlines provisions to ban racial profiling, but includes broad exceptions. It also does not apply to profiling based on religion or national origin. And it has allowed profiling against Arab-Americans, 

American Muslims, American Sikhs, and immigrants. And it also 

does not apply to State and local law enforcement, and also lacks 

a meaningful enforcement mechanism. 

This guidance on racial profiling from the Department of Justice 

has not been updated in a decade. I know that you are reviewing 

this guidance, but what is the status of your review, and when will 

you issue a new guidance to prohibit profiling based on religion and 

national origin, and address my other concerns? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Racial or ethnic profiling is not good 

law enforcement. It is simply not good law enforcement. In fact, if 

you look at Al-Qaeda, what they try to do is find people who they 
71 

identify as having clean skins to try to get past our intelligence and 

security apparatus. 

The matter, as you said, the policy is under review. I had a meeting as recently as, I think, the week before last, so I think we are 

at the end stages of that review process. And I would expect that 

we will have what the product of that process is in a relatively 

short period of time. 

But this is something that is actively under review that I have 

been personally involved in. 

Ms. CHU. Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentlewoman. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Arizona, the 

Chairman of the Subcommittee on Constitution and Civil Justice, 

Mr. Franks, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. General, we are 

glad to have you here today. I am going to kind of shift gears here 

a little bit and be a little bit philosophical, and kind of reflect on 

the notion as to why we are really all here today and why we are 

really all here in this place. 

I think, as I noticed earlier, that Mel Watts’ little grandchild was 

symbolic in the sense of what we all hope to try to protect in the 

future. I have a little boy at home, 4 years old, and I think it is 

very important that we keep a statesman’s eye on the future and 

recognize with all the politics that are inevitable with the challenges that we face, we need to kind of keep an eye on why we are 

all here. You know, this notion of America that all of us are created 

equal, that all of us are God’s children, and should be protected is 

a pretty important thing. And I know as the Nation’s chief law enforcement officer in a sense that occurs to you as well. 

And it just seems to contrast pretty significantly with what we 

heard here in the last few months about a guy named Kermit 

Gosnell, who ran an abortion clinic and aborted late-term babies. 

And if they survived, he would proceed to cut their spines with 

scissors. And somehow I do not know when we are going to ask 

ourselves if that is who we really are. 

I suppose the unique thing about it is that it is not all that 

unique. While we might sanitize the clinics and other places, about 

18,000 babies a year 20 weeks or older are aborted in this country, 

and that is the Guttmacher Institute’s quotes. And there are about 

44,000 abortion survivors living in the country today, so this is not 

as unique as it might be. And though we might sanitize the clinics 

in the future, I do not know how we can sanitize the horror and 

inhumanity that is forced upon these little babies. 

Now I guess my first question would be along the lines, where 

is our President on this subject, but unfortunately I already know 

that answer. He voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act 

when he was in his home State several times. And so I already 

know where he is. 

So the question today is, as a law enforcement officer, you know, 

we passed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act on the Federal 

level, and it says in part the words ‘‘person, human being, child, 

and individual shall include every infant member of the homo sapiens who is born alive at any stage of development.’’ Now, I am almost to my question, Mr. Attorney General. 
72 

But I would just remind you that there was a lady named Ashley 

Baldwin that worked for Kermit Gosnell, and she described one of 

these little babies that was breathing. She described him as around 

2 feet long, who because of the process, had no eyes or mouth, but 

was making this little screeching noise. She said it sounded like a 

little alien. 

Sometimes I just wonder if we really could back up as a society 

and ask ourselves what it is going to take change our minds on 

some of these kinds of tragedies. 

So my question to you, and it is a sincere question, and I hope 

you take it so. In 2002, Congress enacted the Born Alive Infant 

Protection Act, and it provides that all Federal protections, including from your office, sir, for persons apply to every infant born 

alive. 

So will you enforce the Born Alive Infant Protection Act as Attorney General, and will you consider carefully what is happening in 

clinics across the country like happened at the clinic that Kermit 

Gosnell ran? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, like you, I share many of the 

concerns that you talked about. I am a father. I have three kids. 

And I am interestingly married to a woman who is an obstetrician, 

a gynecologist, very accomplished in her field. I have responsibilities as Attorney General to enforce all the laws that Congress—— 

Mr. FRANKS. Have you ever enforced this law even one time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. 

Mr. FRANKS. Will you get back to us on that? Have you ever enforced the Born Alive Infant Protection Act even one time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We can examine that and see whether 

the U.S. attorneys since the law passed—you said in 2002? 

Mr. FRANKS. Yes. 

Attorney General HOLDER. How many prosecutions there have 

been under that law. 

Mr. FRANKS. Well, there has been 18,000 opportunities a year 

since then approximately, so I am just wondering if you have even 

enforced it once. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know whether there was enforcement during the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration since the passage of the law in 2002. I just do not know 

what the statistics are. 

Mr. FRANKS. Okay. Well, you know, I guess I hear the mantra 

so often that, you know, that somehow this is choice. But to stand 

by in silence while the most helpless of all children are tortuously 

and agonizingly dismembered day after day after day, year after 

year, Mr. Attorney General, is quite honestly a heartless disgrace 

that really cannot be described by the vocabulary of man. And I 

hope you consider that carefully, sir. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman for his line of 

questioning and comments, and now recognizes the gentleman from 

Florida, Mr. Deutch, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. DEUTCH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. General Holder, in today’s hearing some of my colleagues have brought up to you the 

news that the IRS engaged in allegedly improper targeting of certain groups based on their political persuasions. The revelation obviously is disturbing because any display of political bias by the 
73 

IRS is outrageous. And as the FBI carries out the Department of 

Justice’s request for an inquiry into possible criminal activity at 

the IRS, it is absolutely imperative that those responsible are held 

accountable. 

However, my hope, Mr. Attorney General, is that this inquiry 

into potential criminal activity will generate another policy debate 

that this scandal beckons us to have here in Congress. The debate 

that we need to have is whether there are too many groups of all 

political persuasions, across the political spectrum, that receive improper tax exempt status from the IRS by claiming that they are 

social welfare groups. 

Since the Supreme Court Citizens United decision, the number 

of groups applying for this tax exempt status to the IRS has more 

than doubled. In 2010, the number of (c)(4)s registered with the 

IRS jumped to over 139,000, up from just 2,000 the year before. 

That is because these so-called social welfare organizations do not 

have to disclose their donors. They can still maintain their 

501(c)(4) status even if they write huge checks and even if they 

write them to super PACs. 

In 2012, when a record $1.28 billion was spent by super PACs 

and outside groups to influence the election, and a quarter of that 

money cannot be traced to any source, the evidence shows that 

many of the (c)(4)s are being established for the sole purpose of 

funneling anonymous cash to super PACs. 

Now the IRS should not automatically accept all applications for 

tax exempt status when groups are increasingly being established 

for explicit political purposes. So as part of the investigation, part 

of the discussion, we need to know whether the tax exempt status 

of any (c)(4), whatever its politics, was either denied or revoked, 

not because of politics, but because they are ripping of taxpayers 

by gaining this tax exempt status. 

Of course, the American people should be outraged that IRS employees would scrutinize specific groups based on political affiliations, but I am sure that my colleagues would all agree that the 

American people, the hardworking taxpayers of this Nation, should 

also be outraged that they are likely subsidizing tax breaks for the 

makers of the malicious super PAC ads that poisoned our airwaves 

during the 2012 election season. The American people were disgusted by these ads, but to think that these ads may have been 

subsidized by the American taxpayers, that, too, I would suggest is 

a scandal. 

Now, 50 years ago, General Holder, 50 years after the Supreme 

Court’s seminal decision in Gideon, recognizing the provision of 

counsel for indigent defendants in criminal cases is a requirement 

of the Sixth Amendment. Our Nation’s indigent defense system is 

in crisis. The crisis has been well documented by the ABA, National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, legal scholars, and 

other organizations. In fact, you have spoken extensively on the indigent defense crisis facing the Nation. 

The current statutory authority under 42 U.S. Code 14141 in 

which the Department of Justice can seek remedies for a pattern 

or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or Federal 

statutory rights of children in the juvenile justice system can pro-
74 

vide an important tool to encourage systemic reforms that protect 

the right to counsel for indigent adults as well. 

As you are aware, in December of last year, DoJ reached the 

landmark settlement agreement with the juvenile justice court of 

Memphis in Shelby Count, Tennessee that will lead to major reforms in the juvenile system court system there. 

The agreement was reached with the county and will implement 

many of the ABA’s 10 principles of a public defense and delivery 

system to ensure that a system is in place that will protect the constitutional right to counsel for children in the juvenile justice system. 

On April 26th, 2012, the Department issued a report of findings 

describing the numerous failures to protect the constitutional 

rights of juveniles. The juvenile court of Memphis in Shelby County 

responded to the report by beginning to voluntarily institute reforms to the system, and indicating they would promptly correct 

the violations identified in the Department of Justice report, which 

resulted in this comprehensive settlement agreement. And I want 

to commend you and your staff at DoJ for all of their hard work 

in this case to ensure that the constitutional right to counsel for 

juveniles is protected. 

Now, this landmark settlement agreement was made possible by 

your Department exercising its authority under 42 U.S. Code Section 14141. The Department has been conducting similar investigations and has found numerous violations in the juvenile justice system elsewhere. 

But I would like to ask you, since I along with Ranking Member 

of the Crime Subcommittee, Bobby Scott, have introduced H.R. 

1967, the Right to Counsel and Taxpayer Protection Act, which will 

permit the DoJ to seek similar remedies for patterns of practice of 

conduct that violate the constitutional right to counsel for adults in 

the criminal justice system, whether you think the effectiveness of 

the section for juveniles would also be helpful to take the kind of 

action that was taken there this time to help adults? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think your focus on this issue 

is right. I mean, your time is limited, but focusing on this whole 

question of indigent representation of juveniles, adults, especially 

50 years after Gideon, I think is precisely what we should be about. 

It is something that I have tried to focus on as Attorney General. 

We have started it in the Justice Department an Access to Justice 

Office. I think the legislation that you are talking about is something we would like to work with you on because I think the need 

is there. 

With regard to the first part of your question, the whole question 

of these 501(c)(4)s, as I said, we are going to be very aggressive, 

appropriately aggressive, and we will let the facts take us where 

they may with regard to the potential problems that existed at the 

IRS. 

But I think that should not distract us as a Nation from asking 

that broader question that you raised, and that is about 501(c)(4)s, 

and this is irrespective of what your ideological bent is, whether 

you are left, right, progressive, conservative, Republican, Democrat. 

The use of the Tax Code in the way that it potentially seems to 

have been used in these 501(c)(4)s is something that I think we 
75 

need to ask ourselves about. And I would hope that what we are 

going to do in our criminal investigation will not have a chilling effect or chilling impact on asking that question about 501(c)(4)s. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. 

Gohmert, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Hello, Attorney General. Down here on the end, 

thank you. 

I remember we have talked about this before, but I want to bring 

it up again. The Holy Land Foundation trial that occurred in Dallas, convictions obtained in 2008, there were boxes and boxes of 

documents that were provided to the people that were convicted of 

supporting terrorism. And I would like to ask again for Congress 

to be allowed to have copies of the same things the people supporting terrorism got before they were convicted. 

Will you provide those documents without us having to go 

through a formal subpoena process? The big ones they got. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. Again, I have this note here because I asked this question. We did, in fact, promise you access to 

those documents that were made public in the case. But now, what 

my people tell me is that we never heard from your staff to make 

those arrangements. We will promise to make them available to 

you. What I would just ask is to have your staff contact mine, and 

we will—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, then we will work that out, all right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We can make that happen. 

Mr. GOHMERT. And also you had mentioned that the FBI did a 

good job in following up the lead from the Russians about 

Tamerlan Tsarnaev. Do you know what questions FBI agents 

asked of Tamerlan to determine that he was not a threat? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know the specific questions. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Do you know if they would have asked who his 

favorite Islamic writer was? Are they allowed to ask those questions? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I know—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Whether you know or you do not know, were they 

allowed to ask who his favorite imam was? Were they allowed to 

ask about the mosque he was attending at Cambridge or had been 

in Boston, from what I understand? Were they allowed to ask those 

questions? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I know a good deal about what was 

asked of him in connection with the interaction that occurred, but 

that is potentially part of this ongoing case. And that is why I am 

a little hesitant to—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, it is also in trying to determine how the FBI 

blew the opportunity to save people’s lives by accepting the Russian 

information and following up on it, because what we have dealt 

with, and it should not have been classified, but the information 

being purged from FBI documents has been classified. And I have 

reviewed that information, and I am aware of what has been 

purged in the efforts to avoid offending anyone who is Islamic. I am 

not concerned about offending anybody that wants to blow us up, 

but I am concerned about religious freedom, which is another topic 

with the IRS. 
76 

But were you aware of the Cambridge mosque where Tamerlan 

was attending back at the time that the Russians gave us that information? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Not at that time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. Well, let me tell you. He was attending 

a mosque in Cambridge, and obviously as you are not sure about 

that, you would probably not have had anybody provide you the organization papers for the Islamic Society of Boston that was also 

the founder of the mosque in Cambridge, a guy named Alamoudi 

that I am sure you know is doing 23 years for being involved in 

terrorism, also working with the Clinton Administration back before he was arrested and then convicted and sent to prison for 23 

years. But he started that mosque. 

What kind of follow-up was done on the mosque at Cambridge 

and the mosque at Boston where you had a convicted terrorist that 

was involved in the organizing? Do you know what they did about 

it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. All I can say at this point is I think 

that what the FBI did in connection with the information that they 

received was thorough. There are questions of the Inspector General—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thorough is an opinion. I am asking if you 

knew specifically about the mosque at Cambridge, who founded it, 

that a terrorist founded it, the one that he attended. And it sounds 

like from your answer you feel satisfied it was thorough, but you 

do not really know what they looked at. So let me move on 

then—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. My answer to the question is that the 

FBI, as I said, I think was thorough. But there were problems that 

were not of the FBI’s making with regard to their—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Look, the FBI got a head’s up from Russia that 

you have a radicalized terrorist on your hands. They should not 

have had to give anything else whatsoever. That should have been 

enough. But because of political correctness, it was not a thorough 

enough examination of Tamerlan to determine this kid had been 

radicalized. And that is the concern I have. 

On the one hand, we go after Christian groups, like Billy Graham’s group. We go after Franklin Graham’s group. But then we 

are hands off when it comes to possibly offending someone who has 

been radicalized as a terrorist. And I appreciate Ms. Chu’s comment, there were people concerned about possible profiling. But I 

would submit, Attorney General, there were a lot more people in 

America concerned about being blown up by terrorists. 

And I regret very much my time has expired. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me just say this. You have 

made statements as matters of fact, and, you know—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. You point out one thing that I said that was not 

true. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. The Attorney General may—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I would ask a point of personal 

privilege. He said I said something as fact that he does not believe 

was. I would like to know specifically what it was so that I can—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 
77 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Texas should suspend because the Attorney General has the opportunity to answer the 

question. Once he has completed the question, if the gentleman has 

a point of personal privilege, he can exercise it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But at this point, the Attorney General gets to 

answer. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The only observation I was going to 

make is that you state as a matter of fact what the FBI did and 

did not do. And unless somebody has done something inappropriate, you do not have access to the FBI files. You do not know 

what the FBI did. You do not know what the FBI’s interaction was 

with the Russians. You do not know what questions were put to 

the Russians, whether those questions were responded to. You simply do not know that. 

And you have characterized the FBI as being not thorough or 

taking exception to my characterization of them as being thorough. 

I know what the FBI did. You cannot know what I know. That is 

all. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And that is simply the reason—I did not assert what they did or did not do. I asserted what the—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. I cannot have him—— 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Regular order. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. Challenge my character and my integrity without having a chance to respond to that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will suspend. If the gentleman 

believes that he has a point of personal privilege, he can state it. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal privilege. He said that I do not know that of which I spoke as being 

true, and the Attorney General is wrong on the things that I asserted as fact. And he has to understand the reason I ask questions, specifically about what the individual Tamerlan was asked 

was so I would find out, and the Attorney General then sits there 

and acts like he knows that I did not—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would still assert regular order 

as I did the first time. 

Mr. GOHMERT. So, Mr. Chairman, the point of personal privilege 

is—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will suspend. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, I would still point out regular 

order. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Texas will suspend. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s characterization of the Attorney General’s answer is not an appropriate exercise of the gentleman’s right of personal privilege. 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman may exercise that privilege. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, point of personal privilege. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman may complete his statement, 

and then we will move on. 
78 

Mr. GOHMERT. All right, thank you. The Attorney General made 

statements that what I said was not true when actually the reverse 

is what happened. I asked the Attorney General—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chair—— 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. What was asked—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, regular order. 

Mr. GOHMERT. This is my point of personal privilege, and then 

the gentleman can respond. 

Mr. RICHMOND. No, it is not a point of personal privilege. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Yes, it is. So when you attack somebody’s integrity and say that they made statements that were not true, then 

of course that raises a point of personal privilege. But the Attorney 

General failed to answer my questions about what was asked—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will suspend. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Regular order, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. And cast aspersions on my asparagus. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman is entitled to state a point of 

personal privilege, which he has now done, and we will move on. 

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. But he does not have under a point of personal 

privilege the opportunity to characterize the answer of the witness. 

So the time of the gentleman—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. All I was saying for the record was 

that the congressman could not know, unless, as I said, something 

inappropriate has happened with regard to the—— 

Mr. GOHMERT. Or unless the Attorney General answered my 

questions—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will suspend. 

Mr. GOHMERT [continuing]. As I asked, and then we would have 

had the answers. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will suspend. 

Attorney General HOLDER. There could not be a basis for the assertions he is making, not the questions, but the assertions that he 

made unless he was provided information, and I would say inappropriately, from members of the FBI or people who were involved 

in the very things that he questioned me about. And I do not think 

that that happened. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Both the gentleman from Texas and the Attorney General have had their opportunity to clarify their positions. 

And we will now turn to the gentlewoman from California, Ms. 

Bass, who is recognized for 5 minutes. 

Ms. BASS. Let me just begin by thanking the Attorney General 

for your patience because it seems to me every couple of months 

we go through this exercise with you. And I appreciate your patience. 

I have three questions. One, I want to join others in expressing 

concern and frankly condemning what I understand is the targeting of conservative groups by the IRS. Frankly, it brought back 

memories from several years ago when I remember liberal groups 

being targeted. And it was before my time in Congress, but I certainly remember when African-American churches were targeted 

by the IRS, and it frankly sent a chill through the community. 
79 

I wanted to know if during that time if an investigation was 

done, and, if so, what was the result, and what were the consequences? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know what happened with 

regard to those matters. 

Ms. BASS. Well, I think it would be interesting to find out if investigations had been done, because the way I am hearing this 

characterized, it was as though this is the first time the IRS has 

done something like this. And I certainly remember very well this 

happening to liberal groups. 

My second question is, if Congress had passed the Free Flow of 

Information Act in 2007, how would the situation have been handled with the Associated Press? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not familiar with the Free Flow 

of Information Act. All I can say is that I know that with regard 

to the shield law that we proposed, that there were greater protections that would have been in place for members of the press, 

though some have noted there was a national security exception. 

But I think that in the view of the Administration, that a shield 

law should still be something that we work on together and that 

we can craft a national security exception that would give the press 

adequate protection, while at the same time keeping safe the 

American people. 

Ms. BASS. What happened to the shield law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Excuse me? 

Ms. BASS. What happened to it? You said it was—the shield law? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It was proposed, and then was never 

passed. I do not think it was ever seriously considered, but it was 

pushed. I certainly talked about it during my confirmation hearings 

and I think during my first hearings as Attorney General. The 

President was behind it. But it was never passed. 

Ms. BASS. So had that been passed, it would have alleviated the 

situation that we just experienced with the Associated Press? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, I am recused from that case, 

but I think it would certainly have had the potential to have an 

impact on all national security stories. 

Ms. BASS. Okay. Switching subjects completely and talking about 

trafficking, an area that I am very interested in working on child 

welfare issues is the trafficking, in particular, sex trafficking of minors who are in the child welfare system. And I wanted to know 

if anything is being done at the Federal level to ensure that youth 

that are designated as victims in juvenile courts are treated as victims as opposed to criminals. 

And I wanted to know if, given existing Federal law included in 

the Trafficking Victim’s Protection Act, how can we work with local 

jurisdictions to ensure that youth do not have criminal records due 

to their victimization. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is actually very important, and I think that what we need to do is come up with mechanisms by which we identify best practices. Also in spite of sequestration, we come up with ways in which we provide local and State 

jurisdictions with the necessary funds perhaps to reform their systems, because the reality is that too many young people, who are 
80 

victimized in the way that you have described, can be characterized 

as criminals, as prostitutes, when, in fact, they are simply victims. 

Now, you would hope that prosecutors would exercise appropriate discretion and charge only the appropriate people, but that 

is not always the case, and that is why the identification of best 

practices and raising the sensitivity of people who exercise that discretion is so important. And I think that the Federal Government 

should take the lead in that, given that human trafficking generally is something that we have identified as a priority, and sex 

trafficking of minors specifically as a priority. 

Ms. BASS. And maybe I can work with your office in the future, 

because I frankly think that no juvenile should ever be arrested for 

prostitution. I do not know how you can prostitute if you are under 

the age of consent. I mean, to me, that would be rape, and maybe 

there is a way that we can change it so a child is never charged 

with that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would look forward to that. There 

are clearly going to be services that need to be made available to 

such a juvenile, but that does not mean that that juvenile should 

have to get them being part of the juvenile justice system with all 

the stigma that is, therefore, attached to that treatment. 

Ms. BASS. Right, absolutely. And then finally, what is the Office 

of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention doing to prevent 

now foster youth from entering the criminal justice system? So I 

am not referring to trafficking. I am referring to what is known as 

crossover youth. 

Attorney General HOLDER. You said? 

Ms. BASS. Crossover youth, meaning crossing from the dependency to the delinquency system. So the question is, what is the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention doing to prevent this. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, we are identifying best 

practices. We make grants. We hold conferences. It is one of the 

things that, sequestration, when we talk about cutting back money 

and cutting back on conferences, I understand that. But one of the 

things that OJJDP does so well, the Office of Justice Programs 

does so well, through conferences is bring together people to talk 

about these kinds of issues, identify best practices, and then come 

up with determinations of what practices we are going to fund. 

So that is what OJJDP is doing in that regard. It is always trying to find, again, best practices, identifying negative practices that 

are occurring, and then trying to support those things that are occurring and that are in the best interest of our children. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman’s time has expired. 

Ms. BASS. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If she has additional questions, please submit 

them for the record. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Jordan, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JORDAN. Thank the Chairman. Mr. Holder, you announced 

last Friday a criminal investigation into the IRS. 

I really only have one question. Will you assure Congress and the 

American people that your investigation will not impede or slow 
81 

the investigation Congress is doing into the Internal Revenue Service? And here is why I am concerned. 

We have heard you today say—we lost track. We are actually 

keeping track of it and we started having a little tally how many 

times you said ongoing investigation. But the point that comes to 

mind for me is Solyndra. And I would argue that investigation has 

netted nothing, no new information to Congress, and has only impeded and slowed down our investigation into that company that 

went bankruptcy and lost taxpayer money. 

Next week, Chairman Issa has announced Lois Lerner and three 

other witnesses will be in front of the Oversight Committee next 

Wednesday on the IRS issue. I know for a fact Lois Lerner lied to 

me, she lied to our personal staff, she lied to Committee staff, she 

lied in correspondence to Mr. Issa and myself that we had sent her 

written correspondence. 

And here is what concerns me, is because there is now a criminal 

investigation. Next week when Lois Lerner, who lied to Congress 

and, therefore, the American people, comes in front of our Committee for us to get information about what took place at the IRS, 

is she just going to throw up her hands and say, you know what, 

the Attorney General and the Department of Justice is doing a 

criminal investigation, I cannot really comment now. And that is 

a, I think, concern that Members of Congress have, and certainly 

the American people. 

So again, will you do everything you can and what assurances 

can you give the United States Congress that that, in fact, is not 

going to take place? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think the responsibility I have 

is to investigate violations of the law. And I think what we will try 

to do is to work with Congress so that we do not get in your way, 

you do not get in our way. 

Mr. JORDAN. But the point is it has already happened. It has 

happened with other issues. This is the big one. This is people’s 

First Amendment rights being violated. We want to know what are 

you going to do different this time. 

And let us just be frank, Mr. Holder. You do not have all that 

much credibility. There are lots of folks on this panel—I am not 

one of them, but there are lots of folks here who have called your 

resignation. You have been held in contempt and a host of other 

things. 

So this is why this question, I think, is of paramount importance. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, to be frank then, your characterization of Ms. Lerner as lying before Congress by itself—I mean, 

forget about the investigation—— 

Mr. JORDAN. We will be happy to show that. We are going to 

show it next week, but we want her to be able to respond to us and 

not say, oh, I cannot comment because Mr. Attorney General has 

got a criminal investigation going. We will show that next Wednesday. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I understand that. But your characterization of her testimony in and of itself and the way you have 

characterized could—forget about our investigation—could put her 

in the very situation that you say you do not want to have happen. 

So it might—— 
82 

Mr. JORDAN. That is already out there. She has done responded. 

We have it in writing. There is no news there. It is a fact. I want 

her on the witness stand and be able to answer our questions, and 

what I do not want her to do is say, oh, I cannot because a criminal 

investigation is going on at the Department of Justice. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Based on what you said—forget about 

the investigation—on the basis of what you said, she could say I 

cannot answer this question because you think that I have already 

lied, and I might be charged with a false—— 

Mr. JORDAN. You know this. There is a much stronger likelihood 

based on what you are doing than what I just said here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, my—— 

Mr. JORDAN. And you know that is the case. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Our responsibility is to investigate 

violations of criminal law. We will do that. We will try to work with 

Congress in a way that we do not impede that which you want to 

do. In the same way I would hope that Congress will work with us 

so that you do not impede our criminal investigation, and ultimately hold people accountable. 

There is certainly a role for Congress to play in exposing what 

has happened, but I think we have the ultimate responsibility in 

holding people accountable, and that is something that is uniquely 

the ability of the executive branch to do, not the legislative branch. 

Mr. JORDAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, 

Mr. Richmond, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for coming. 

Answer these two quick questions for me, and then I will go into 

what I really wanted to talk about. But based on the dialogue and 

the back and forth earlier, here is my question. Is there any lawful 

way that anyone in Congress could know what was asked and not 

asked by the FBI in their investigation before the Boston bombing 

of those terrorists? 

Attorney General HOLDER. There is no appropriate way, I think, 

that any Member of Congress could know that. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Earlier also a statement was made that people 

or the government, some of us are so worried about offending 

Islamists, but they are not worried about offending any person that 

would bomb America. Certainly not all Islamists bomb America, 

right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, it is a small minority of people of 

that faith who engage in these activities. And we are not politically 

correct in the way in which we conduct our investigations. We go 

after individuals. We do not go after religions. 

Mr. RICHMOND. The other thing, and I am looking at, I guess, a 

July 12 letter from then Chairman of the Committee, Lamar 

Smith, because I was not on the Committee. But the points that 

strike me the most about the investigation into the leaks which you 

have recused yourself, which is ‘‘to conduct our foreign policy and 

keep Americans safe, some operations and sources of intelligence 

must be kept strictly secret. Concern about these leaks know no 

party line. When national security secrets leak and become public 

knowledge, our people and our national interests are jeopardized. 
83 

And when our enemies know our secrets, American lives are 

threatened.’’ It goes on to say, ‘‘These leaks are probably the most 

damaging in America’s history.’’ 

Was that not a call for the Department of Justice to do any and 

all things to ascertain where these leaks are coming from in our 

national security interests? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I was criticized at that time for not 

appointing a special prosecutor. I said that I had faith in the Justice Department and in the two U.S. attorneys who I appointed to 

conduct those investigations. And that decision was criticized as 

not being aggressive enough. It strikes me as interesting now a 

year or so later—whatever the time period is—that in some ways 

we are being criticized for being too aggressive. 

Now again, I do not know what happened in the case and what 

happened with regard to, you know, the subpoena. But there was 

certainly a clarion call from many that the Attorney General needed to do more than he actually did. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And there was also criticism that your subpoena 

was too broad. And earlier today, you were challenged and criticized for the fact that you said that you would answer to the appropriate things in a subpoena. And the question was asserted, well, 

do you answer everything that a subpoena says, or do you answer 

to things that relevant to the subpoena. Would that not be the 

same irony that, you know, you cannot have it both ways? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think Mr. Goodlatte, Chairman Goodlatte, had it right that, yeah, you can subpoena anything, 

but that people have the right once they receive a subpoena—obviously the acknowledgment of it—to challenge that which they are 

called to produce pursuant to the subpoena. 

Mr. RICHMOND. And let me just take a second to thank the Civil 

Rights Division of your office because earlier this year, and why we 

certainly still need the Civil Rights Division, our chief ranking African-American on the Louisiana Supreme Court, who by far had 

the tenure, and ours is strictly a seniority process to get to chief 

judge, was challenged by other judges, and brought into court to 

challenge whether she could become chief justice. And it was with 

the help of the Civil Rights Division and other lawyers in Louisiana that the Federal judge ruled that she, in fact, did have the 

tenure. And as long as we still examples of that and we have a Justice Department that is willing to step up, even though it may not 

be popular to some. But part of faith in the justice system is that 

laws will be applied equally. Everybody will play by the same 

rules. 

And I would like to close with, as ugly and nasty as Fast and 

Furious was, and the uproar that followed it, which I agree with, 

every day in my community and communities across the country, 

Federal agents and others will use drug dealers as pawns to get 

the bigger drug dealer. And as that crack or that heroine or those 

other drugs go back into our community and create more crack babies, and put more young kids in harm’s way, I have not heard the 

same uproar. And I would just like to put that out there so while 

we are having an uproar about people putting things back into the 

community to get the bigger fish, please do not forget the thou-
84 

*The questions referred to were submitted to the Attorney General by the Committee as part 

of its Questions for the Record. 

sands and thousands of lives and murders every year associated 

with the drug trade. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

And the Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Poe, for 

5 minutes. 

Mr. POE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Attorney 

General, for being here. 

Yesterday I sent you a three-page letter with seven questions on 

it. I know you have not had time to go over those, so I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, to introduce that letter with the 

seven questions for the Attorney General into the record to be answered at some appropriate time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the letter will be made a part 

of the record, and the questions will be submitted to the Attorney 

General.* 

Mr. POE. Let me approach this kind of historically the way I see 

things occurring, and then I have two questions at the end of this 

dialogue. 

Over the last several years, government action has become suspect to many of us. In Fast and Furious, government action, then 

we have not resolved that yet. We are in court, and we still have 

not gotten a resolution on the issue that whether the subpoena 

should be or should not be upheld. People died in Fast and Furious. 

Then there is Benghazi, and there are some bungling going on, and 

what happened, who is responsible. Four Americans died. 

But government action or inaction is suspect. Recently in Health 

and Human Services Department, there are accusations of improper use by people in office of their position to obtain funds to 

support the new health care law. I do not know if that is true or 

not. But government action. 

And then the two that we are recently aware of, the AP reporters, 100 journalists, their phone records being seized. It looks like 

bruising the First Amendment at least to me. And by the way, our 

staff filed, Mr. Attorney General, in 2007 the shield law. I filed 

that bill as well. President Obama supported in 2007, and I hope 

we can get that shield law passed through both houses this time. 

But the most recent is with the IRS and what has taken place not 

only with the IRS, but other government agencies. 

And let me give you a personal case, a real person. It is a constituent of mine. Catherine Engelbrecht and her husband, they run 

a business in Houston. Catherine Engelbrecht decided just as a 

regular citizen to get involved in voter fraud and started a group 

called True to Vote, and another group, King Street Patriots. And 

here is what she said in a recent interview: ‘‘We applied for nonprofit status in 2010. Since that time, the IRS has run us through 

a gauntlet of analysts and hundreds and hundreds of questions 

over and over again. They’ve requested to see each and every tweet 

I have ever tweeted, or every Facebook post I have ever posted. 

They’ve asked to know every place I’ve ever spoken since our inception, and to whom and everywhere I intend to speak in the future.’’ 
85 

That is part of her comments. We have learned that the IRS has 

even asked this group and other groups for their donor lists. 

The Federal Government’s snooping of Engelbrecht’s two organizations included six visits from the FBI—set aside the IRS—six visits from the FBI, unannounced visits by OSHA, and even the ATF 

showed up several times to investigate this organization. And the 

Engelbrechts, both Catherine and her husband, have been personally audited. And keep in mind, Mr. Attorney General, Catherine 

and her husband have owned this family business for over 20 

years, and never seen an auditor until all of this occurred. And yet 

here we are today since 2010, they still do not have that tax exempt status. 

I have requested over the years FBI, OSHA, and ATF FOIA requests to see if they are under criminal investigation. These organizations say, no, they are not, but why are they continuing to be 

treated like criminals? 

The IRS response, as we now know, they have apologized. I guess 

they want this to go away by their apology. But meanwhile, back 

on the ranch, today USA Today reported that only one Tea Party 

group has been given tax exempt status, but numerous progressive 

groups have been given tax exempt status in the last 2 or 3 years. 

Not much of a coincidence as far as I am concerned. 

So based on my experience, you know, being in the courthouse 

as a prosecutor, you as a prosecutor and judge, it just seems like 

government credibility, because these are government actions. 

These are not private actions. These are government actions. 

Do you not think it would be best that since now the FBI, ATF, 

which is under the Justice Department, are involved in some of 

these accusations of harassment, unequal protection under the law, 

targeting specific groups because of discrimination. I mean, those 

are the accusations. That we should set the Department aside and 

say, look, we are going to get a special prosecutor in here to investigate all of these organizations, all of these departments, to see if 

they are targeting specific conservative groups, for lack of a better 

phrase, for their actions, and to see if there are some violations 

under the Hatch Act, numerous law violations. 

I am just asking you, do you think maybe that would help restore some credibility in your Department if you set that aside and 

said we are going to get a special prosecutor to clear this whole air 

and find out exactly what is going on in the government? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I would not agree with your 

characterization that there is a lack of credibility in either the Justice Department or any of its components. 

Mr. POE. Well, I am giving you my opinion that the Justice Department lacks credibility and some of these departments because 

of the action by the Federal authority. So that is my opinion. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay, well, that is fine. I will mark 

you as a fan not of government. 

Bill Clinton once said that, you know, the era of big government 

was over. I would say that the need for government endures. Government—— 

Mr. POE. Just answer my question because I am out of time. I 

am sorry, Mr. Attorney General. Just answer my question. Do you 

think we need a special prosecutor to prosecute these accusations? 
86 

Attorney General HOLDER. And I said, I think the need for good 

government endures. You know, people talk about how government 

and government agencies do all these negative things, and then 

when it comes to Sandy, Katrina, wildfires, tornadoes, terrorism, 

the thing in West Texas, then people want government there. 

And my point is that the notion that government has or that the 

Justice Department has credibility problems, I think is belied by 

the notion that people, I think, more generally have of government, 

and the good that government does, and the need for, as I said, for 

good government. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of gentleman has expired. 

Mr. POE. I will submit that question in writing then for an answer. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman will submit the question in writing, and we will submit it to the Attorney General. 

And the Chair now recognizes the gentlewoman from Washington, Ms. DelBene, for 5 minutes. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Mr. Attorney General, for being here and for all of your time. 

A few weeks ago, there were news reports about documents obtained by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU, that revealed internal memos that said the FBI believed it could obtain 

the contents of Americans’ emails without a warrant if the emails 

were sent to or received by a third party service, like Hotmail or 

Yahoo!, Outlook.com, Gmail. Do you believe the government has a 

right to obtain emails without a warrant? And, well, first, I will 

ask you that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. The authorities that we have, I guess, 

in some ways, you know, defined by ECPA, and there have been 

people who have testified on behalf of the Justice Department, is 

how we update the abilities that we have so that we have the ability to conduct investigations in as quick a fashion as we can, given 

the new technologies that we face. And how would we apply rules 

that exist with regard to obtaining information without court orders in this new era? And so I think that is the question that we 

wrestle with. 

Ms. DELBENE. Today this piece of paper, if I had a letter here, 

would require a warrant for someone to have access, but if it were 

a digital email, it may not require that same warrant. And so, we 

are looking at whether there should be an equal playing field and 

whether we need to update our law. You were talking about the 

Electronic Communications Privacy Act. That was written in 1986, 

and much before much of the technology that many folks use today 

was in place. And so do you believe it is important that we update 

that law to reflect the way people work today and the way communication work today, so that we have those civil liberties protected 

in the digital world? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Absolutely. I think we have become 

more and more an information society, and we still have and 

should have expectations of privacy however it is that we communicate. At the same time, I want to make sure that law enforcement, in the way that it did 40, 50 years ago, has the ability to 

acquire information. And how we strike that balance I think is 

really important, and is really one of the most important conversa-
87 

tions I think that we can have in the 21st century, and one that 

I think that this Administration would like to engage with Congress so that we come up with a set of rules that probably not perfect, but will meet somewhere in the middle so that we can maintain privacy while at the same time maintaining that ability that 

law enforcement has to have. 

Ms. DELBENE. There is a piece of legislation that I have co-sponsored, along with Congressman Poe and Congresswoman Lofgren to 

update the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, and to have a 

warrant standard for online communications, and for geo location 

information that people have on their cell phones, you know. We 

look to have support from the Department of Justice and yourself 

on those reforms as we look to update the Electronics Communications Privacy Act, and have something that is more current. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I know that Senator Leahy has introduced a bill very similar to that, and it is something that I think 

that the Department will support. Our only concern is with regard 

to, as I said making sure that in certain very limited circumstances, that we have the ability, perhaps in civil cases or in 

other matters, to acquire information. But the more general notion 

of having a warrant to obtain the content of communication from 

a service provider is something that we support. 

Ms. DELBENE. And a warrant standard would be the same. I 

know the current warrant standard for communications, there are 

exceptions in emergencies and other cases. So we are looking to 

have a similar warrant standard in the online world. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And that is what I was talking about 

when I talk about these limited circumstances where we would 

want to make sure that we maintain the abilities. But the more 

general proposition that you are talking about is one that we support. 

Ms. DELBENE. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I yield 

back the remainder of my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair very much appreciates the gentlewoman’s brevity, and now recognizes the gentleman from Utah, 

Mr. Chaffetz, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. I appreciate 

you being here. 

I want to go back and talk about, if we could, about the investigation of General Petraeus, which I understand the FBI started 

in the sort of May/June time frame. When did you first learn about 

the investigation into General Petraeus, who was then the CIA director? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. I am not sure. Some months, I 

think, or a couple of months after it began. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. The news reports say that that happened sometime in the summer. Would that be a fair, accurate representation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I think that is probably right. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you know when General Petraeus was notified 

or had any sense that he was under investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I would have to go back and look. I 

do not know when he was actually made aware of it. I think as a 

result of an FBI interview I think, but I am not sure exactly when 

that happened. 
88 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Do you have any idea when he would have become aware of it other than that—I see that somebody is trying to 

hand you something. Do you have a sense as to when he became 

aware of it? 

Attorney General HOLDER. This just says we will look into it and 

get back to you. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You need notes for that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. I just do not know 

when exactly all these events happened. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You know, one of the questions and the criticisms 

here of your actions on this is that you knew about this in the summer, and yet when did you notify the director of the National Intelligence, Mr. Clapper? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not remember when that happened. I knew about it for a while before he was notified. I do not 

know exactly what the time frame was. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And when was the President of the United States 

notified? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It was much later. Again, I am not 

exactly certain, but as I remember, like late fall, and perhaps even 

maybe early winter. Again, do not hold me to these exact—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. And I appreciate that, and I am asking you dates. 

But the concern is that you for months based on that timeline, and 

I recognize it is loose here. But for months you knew about it, but 

you did not notify the President of the United States. Why is that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Because it was an ongoing criminal 

investigation. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. You do not think that there was any national intelligence lap over? I mean, was there any national intelligence 

ramification? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Not on the basis of what we were investigating. If we had thought or if I had thought that what we 

were looking at potentially would have been compromising of General Petraeus or would have led to a national security problem or 

breach, then I—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But according to the Congressional Research 

Service, let me read it from their report in April. ‘‘While the extramarital affair itself is not classified as an intelligence activity, the 

investigation by the FBI originated with the possible hacking of Director Petraeus’ email account, an act that had the potential of 

compromising national intelligence.’’ 

As I have said before, he was not the head of the, you know, Fish 

and Wildlife. This is the director of Central Intelligence. Why 

would you not share that with the President of the United States? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as we talked about it among us 

at the FBI and at the Justice Department, we did not think that 

we had a national security problem or a potential national security 

problem. 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But why were you investigating him? Why would 

FBI investigate him? It is not just an extramarital affair, right? 

That does not raise to the level of FBI involvement. There certainly 

had to be some suspicion that there was some national intelligence 

implication. 
89 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, the investigation began, as I remember, because of complaints that one party made against another about the use of computers and threats. That is how the investigation—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But when it involves the director of the Central 

Intelligence Agency. Senator Feinstein, who is the chair of Intelligence said, ‘‘This is something that could have an effect on national security. I think we should have been told.’’ Why not notify 

under the law the proper authorities here in the United States 

Congress, specifically the head of the intelligence committees? And 

why not notify the President of the United States? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, again, as I said, there is a 

strong tradition and concern within the Justice Department not to 

reveal—and the FBI—not to reveal ongoing criminal investigations. 

But I think we were sensitive to the possibility of a national security concern, but did not think that one existed. And if we look 

back at that—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. But why not share that with the President of the 

United States? Do you not trust him with that information? I 

would think that is the one person who should absolutely know 

about what is going on. And if it was a potential that our director 

of the CIA had been compromised, that you were investigating 

something, why not share that with President Obama? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Because, as I said, we do not share 

ongoing criminal investigations. And if you look back, the conclusions that we reached, in fact, were correct that we did not have 

a national—— 

Mr. CHAFFETZ. Is this is an ongoing investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is an ongoing investigation. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair thanks the gentleman for the line of questioning, and now 

recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. Garcia, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GARCIA. Over here, Mr. Attorney General. Mr. Attorney General, thank you for being here and thank you for your time today. 

And thank you for your long and distinguished career. 

My first question, and I know you have answered some of this, 

but maybe in a less hostile environment, it will give you an opportunity to dazzle you with your brilliance and your personal knowledge. 

I, unlike the majority here, know Mr. Tom Perez and have 

known him for many years as a dedicated personal servant. A few 

weeks ago we ascended ourselves and began a confirmation hearing 

for Mr. Perez here, a duty and a responsibility that was beyond the 

purview of my office, but nonetheless we participated in that. 

But I would like to hear from you as someone who has worked 

with Mr. Perez closely in his capacity in your office, if you could 

tell us about him and your view on him as Labor Secretary. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I think he is uniquely qualified 

for this job given his experience in Maryland in a similar position, 

given the way he has distinguished himself over a long and storied 

public service career, certainly with regard to the way in which he 

has conducted himself as Assistant Attorney General, showing himself to be concerned about and responsive to working class people. 
90 

He is a person who I think has the ability to see both sides of 

an issue. He is not an ideologue as I think he has been portrayed. 

He is both a good lawyer, I think, a loyal public servant, who I 

think will distinguish himself if he is given the opportunity to become our next Secretary of Labor. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. General. I wanted to ask two more 

questions. One is on immigration, and thank you for addressing 

comprehensive immigration reform in your comments. 

I notice as someone who has been around immigration and 

worked with the Immigration Service that the rules that we have 

created have sort of bound us in certain circumstances, and to 

some degree has limited the discretion of our immigration judges, 

which are overworked, but sometimes do not have the legal ability 

or the ability to resolve many cases which seem to be simple. 

If we could get your opinion on returning some of that discretion 

to the immigration judges. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I agree with you. I served for 

5 years as a judge here in Washington, D.C., and we put a great 

deal of effort into finding good people to serve on our Article 3 

courts and our immigration courts. And I think that they should 

have requisite amounts of discretion so that they can decide what 

justice is in a particular case, what is justice for the person who 

is in front of them. 

Obviously it is constrained by rules, regulations, and by laws. 

But within that range, I think judges should have discretion, perhaps a greater degree of discretion. Immigration judges should 

have a greater degree of discretion than they presently have. 

We do a good job of selecting who these people are, and we 

should trust, therefore, in their abilities and their ability to use 

their discretion appropriately. 

Mr. GARCIA. Let us stay on that real quick and then I will close 

with this and return the balance of my time. 

I wanted to ask you about the cuts that sequestration has had 

on immigration, the impact that it has had. I think it is a reduction 

about $15 million in funding for immigration review. Could you tell 

me a little bit about what impact that has had on already overburdened case loads, and has that led to prolonged detention, which, 

of course, adds a further burden to taxpayers? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, we just have numbers here. 

There are serious problems with regard to this whole question of 

sequestration. The immigration docket has gone up every year. The 

resources that we need to deal with that have to be dealt with, and 

sequestration runs in the opposite direction where we are actually 

taking resources away from a growing problem. 

If you look at the immigration bill, there is contained within it 

a provision for an enhanced number, a greater number of immigration judges. The President’s budget for 2014 asks for more immigration judges to handle the problems of the growing docket. 

Sequestration is something that is more than simply people getting on an airplane and getting to their destination, you know, in 

time. Sequestration has a negative impact on a whole variety of 

areas that are my responsibility: in the immigration courts, with 

regard to ATF, FBI, DEA agents having the ability to be on the 

streets and doing the things that the American people expect. 
91 

We have had problems in 2013. This Department has far fewer 

people than it did in 2011 when we put into place a freeze. This 

is going to have an impact. You will see, I bet, 2 and a half, 3 years 

from now lower numbers out of the Justice Department, and some 

attorney general perhaps will be criticized for that. And it will be 

a function not of a lack of desire and dedication on the part of the 

people of this Justice Department, but simply because there are 

fewer of them. 

Mr. GARCIA. Thank you, Mr. General. I yield back the balance of 

my time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. Marino, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. MARINO. Thank you, Chairman. General, it is good to see you 

again. 

Attorney General HOLDER. You, too. 

Mr. MARINO. Let us focus for a moment on the Boston terrorist 

defendant while he was in the hospital, if you would, please. Why 

were charges filed at that particular time instead of waiting for, 

just running the time more so on the public exception of Miranda? 

I understand it was about 16 hours and then charges were filed. 

Certainly the magistrate does not have the right to go and do that 

in and of themselves. 

So charges had to be filed. He was in the hospital, so as a result, 

the magistrate was brought there, but also a public defender was 

brought there. But why at that time? Why did you make that decision or who made the decision to file charges at that time? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me just not talk about that 

case, again, ongoing, but charges, I mean, there are rules that we 

have. The Supreme Court has said that with regard to detention, 

you have got, in essence, 48 hours to bring charges. And what we 

did there was to do things that are, I think, consistent with the 

rules, while at the same time, without getting into too much, while 

at the same time using the public safety exception in the best way 

that we could. 

Mr. MARINO. I do not want you to get into anything that would 

jeopardize this prosecution. But there was time. You could still 

have used the public exception rule to allow the FBI to interrogate 

this individual before Mirandizing. Do you agree with that? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. The Justice Department and 

the FBI agent never Mirandized—— 

Mr. MARINO. No, no, that is not my question. I know they did 

not Mirandize him because they did not have to because of the exception. But it seemed to me that there was a rush to file the 

charges that would then force the magistrate to inform the defendant of his rights. Why did you not let that time run longer so the 

FBI could question him? 

Attorney General HOLDER. The charges were filed at about from 

the time of capture—I guess capture—about 46 hours after that. So 

that is—— 

Mr. MARINO. But that is a benchmark, correct? The 46 hours is 

a benchmark. I mean, I have read a case where it has been days 

where the exception has continued. 

All right. Was that discussed with Director Mueller? Did he 

know prior to that that charges were going to be filed? 
92 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. We worked with the FBI both 

in Washington and in Boston. Everybody was aware, and the State 

and local folks as well. Everybody was aware of how we were going 

to proceed. 

Mr. MARINO. Why were State charges not filed? Then you would 

have more time to question that individual before you had to file 

Federal charges? As a former prosecutor both at the State and Federal level, I mean, we use these tools to our advantage. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, after the bombing, the decision 

was made, and I think correctly so. The Joint Terrorism Task Force 

got together and made a decision that this was going to be a Federal matter, a Federal investigation, and that Federal rules applied. 

Mr. MARINO. All right. Let us switch gears here to your recusal 

in this other situation. I got into a little argument with the Justice 

Department on cases where I not only recused myself, but I wanted 

my entire office recused. Now, you are in a little different predicament here. 

But I always followed it up with written documentation, a letter 

saying why I am recusing myself, why I am recusing my office, 

making sure there is a paper trail from here to yesterday filed in 

my office and with the Justice Department. Are you saying that 

there is no paper trail here when you recused yourself and for what 

reasons? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not think there is. As I said, that 

is something that we were looking for, and nothing has been found. 

And I am not sure. Somebody else raised that point. As I have 

thought about it actually during the course of this hearing, that 

that actually might be a better policy to have in place for recusals. 

Mr. MARINO. I would think so to have those documents in place. 

You also have the authority to appoint a special prosecutor, whether it is another sitting U.S. attorney or someone outside of Justice 

completely. So you have the deputy who gave the approval, but yet 

is heading the investigation. Do you not think there is a conflict 

of interest there and someone else should be appointed to handle 

this matter? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I understand. That 

somebody other than the deputy should be handling this? 

Mr. MARINO. Yes, as far as the investigation is concerned. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I see what you mean. Okay. Well, I 

made the determination and was criticized at the time for making 

the determination that the prosecutors at the U.S. attorneys in 

Maryland and the District of Columbia could handle these cases in 

a fair and appropriate way. 

Mr. MARINO. I will be the last guy to criticize you about a U.S. 

attorney handling a case no matter where he or she is. Being one, 

I know the caliber of people that work at Justice. So be that as it 

may, I see my time has expired. Thank you. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and recognizes the gentleman from New York, Mr. Jeffries, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Mr. Chairman, thank you, and, Mr. Attorney General, thank you for your testimony here today, and thank you for 

your great service to this country. 
93 

Let me just first note for the record my concern as it relates to 

the AP matter that, one, the subpoenas that were issued appear to 

be overly broad in scope, and hopefully that is something that the 

investigation that takes place will examine with close scrutiny. And 

second, that I think as many of my colleagues have expressed, I am 

also troubled by the fact that the negotiation or consultation with 

the AP did not occur in advance of the decision to issue the subpoena, and hopefully, again, that will be covered. 

You mentioned earlier today in your testimony that racial and 

ethnical profiling is not good law enforcement. I appreciate that observation. As you know, in New York City we are grappling with 

a very aggressive stop and frisk program being administered by the 

NYPD where many of us are concerned that African-Americans and 

Latinos are being racially profiled in the context of these stop and 

frisk encounters. 

As you may know, more than 3 million stop, question, and frisk 

encounters have occurred in the City of New York over the last decade. And approximately 90 percent of those individuals, more than 

3 million stop, question, and frisk encounters are Black and Latino 

citizens of the City of New York. Are you familiar with that fact? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And I think you are also familiar with the fact 

that according to the NYPD’s own statistics, approximately 90 percent of the individuals who possibly had their Fourth Amendment 

rights violated because they were stopped, questioned, and frisked 

without reasonable suspicion or any basis to conclude that they 

presented a danger to anyone else, approximately 90 percent of 

these individuals did nothing wrong. According to the NYPD’s statistics, no gun, no drugs, no weapon, no contraband, no basis for 

the arrest or the encounter whatsoever. Are you familiar with that 

statistic as well? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I have read that. I do not know about 

the accuracy, but I have certainly read that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. Well, that is the NYPD’s own statistics. 

Now, you participated in a meeting graciously—I was not involved 

at the time—last year on June 7 with Members of the Congressional Black Caucus who were from New York City, as well as 

elected officials from many of the communities that were impacted. 

And we are thankful that you granted that meeting. 

At that meeting, there was a request that was made that the 

Justice Department look into what we believe is systematic racial 

profiling in violations of the Fourth Amendment that has taken 

place in New York City as a result of the aggressive stop and frisk 

program. Almost a year has passed since that meeting took place. 

Have you come to a conclusion as to whether it is appropriate for 

the Justice Department to look into the matter? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have not reached any final determinations, but this is something that is under review at the Justice 

Department. I hope that we will be able to move this along. I know 

there is a civil suit from which a lot of information is coming out. 

But it is something, as I think I said then, that we were prepared 

to look at, and something that, in fact, we are examining. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And as we approach the 1-year anniversary 

of that meeting, I would hope that we can come to an expedited 
94 

conclusion. But I appreciate the deliberateness and the care with 

which, and the sensitivity taken toward this matter. 

I want to turn briefly to the IRS issue. Now, in 2004, George 

Bush was the President, is that right? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. And he was in the midst of a very competitive reelection, correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, I guess. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And in 2004, it was revealed that the IRS 

went after the NAACP for alleged political activity in violation of 

its status as a not-for-profit organization. Are you familiar with 

that fact? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, I remember that. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. And it was subsequently uncovered that 

they had done nothing wrong, but what was also determined as a 

result of a FOIA request by the NAACP was that seven Members 

of the United States Congress on the other side of the aisle had 

written letters to the IRS requesting that the IRS investigate the 

NAACP. Are you aware of that fact? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not remember that, no. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Now, was a criminal investigation ever launched 

in connection with the alleged political interference that took place 

leading to an unsubstantiated investigation of the NAACP? I know 

you were not at Justice at the time. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not believe so, but I am not sure. 

Mr. JEFFRIES. Okay. But I am thankful that you have taken the 

step to launch an investigation into similar allegations of alleged 

political interference, albeit not by Members of Congress, and we 

look forward to the results of that inquiry. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Okay, thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina, the 

Chairman of the Immigration and Border Security Subcommittee, 

Mr. Gowdy, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. GOWDY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Good afternoon. 

Mr. GOWDY. Do you think it is reasonable to evaluate how effectively prosecutors and law enforcement are using current firearm 

statutes as we debate whether or not we need additional firearm 

statutes? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Sure, that ought to be a factor, but 

I think we are using the laws effectively. 

Mr. GOWDY. Well, I would have to take your word for it for this 

reason. I wrote you 6 months ago and asked for statistics specifically on two Code sections, 922(d) and 922(g), which deal, as you 

know, specifically with the possession or transfer of firearms by 

those who have been adjudicated mentally defective or committed 

to mental institutions. I wrote that letter in December. Thinking 

that being a low-level House Member was not enough to garner 

any attention, I then got a senator to co-sign the exact same letter 

with me, and we have not heard back yet. 
95 

So you agree that it is relevant how effectively those Code sections are being prosecuted as we evaluate whether or not we need 

additional tools. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Excuse me. I think we should take 

into account what we are doing in terms of weapons prosecutions. 

One-seventh of all the cases that we bring in the Federal system 

are gun cases. 

Mr. GOWDY. What percentage of current background check failures are prosecuted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. A much smaller number. There were 

83,000 background check failures in Fiscal Year 2012. There were 

85,000 cases brought. A much smaller number of those failures 

were actually brought. The purpose of the background check system, though, is to prevent people from acquiring guns. 1.5 million 

have been stopped since the beginning of this system, as opposed 

to the prosecution. And that is why—— 

Mr. GOWDY. I understand that, Mr. Attorney General. I also understand a little something about a lack of jury appeal. I know certain cases do not have tremendous jury appeal. But when you are 

advocating for increased background checks, and it can be argued 

that you are not a good steward of the current background check 

laws that you have, I just frankly think it undercuts the argument. 

But reasonable minds can differ on that, I suppose. 

I do not think reasonable minds can differ on 922(d) and 922(g), 

which deal with people—these are not my words, it is in the statute—been adjudged mentally defective or committed to a mental 

institution. If you want to search for a theme throughout lots of our 

mass killings, I think we will find that theme. 

I want to read to you a quote that has been attributed to you. 

If the quote is inaccurate, I want to give you a chance to tell me 

it is inaccurate. I am not going to read the whole thing. ‘‘Creating 

a pathway to earned citizenship for the 11 million unauthorized 

immigrants in this country is essential. This is a matter of civil 

and human rights.’’ Is that an accurate quote? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, I think that is a speech I gave 

at the Anti-Defamation League. 

Mr. GOWDY. All right. You would agree with me that persons 

who cannot pass background checks should not have the civil right, 

as you call it, of citizenship. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I used that phrase, I did not 

use it in the strictly legal sense. 

Mr. GOWDY. But, Mr. Attorney General, with all due respect, 

that is the problem with using the phrase. I mean, you are a highly 

trained lawyer, and you know what the phrase ‘‘civil right’’ means. 

And when you say that you have a civil right to citizenship when 

you have broken the laws to come to the country, that comment 

has consequences. And surely you have to know that. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, with all due respect, it was my 

speech, and they were the words that I chose. And I did not mean 

to convey, and I did not think that it would be taken that way. 

Some have said that, many have not, that that meant that there 

was a legal right or anything like that. It was in the context of that 

phrase where I said civil and, I think, human right. I think that 

is the word that I used there. 
96 

Mr. GOWDY. Right. But you can understand how it is problematic 

for those of us, frankly, who are working on immigration reform 

and do not come from districts where it is a really popular political 

idea to have the Attorney General say you have a civil and human 

right to citizenship, even though you are in the country in violation 

of our laws. That is a non sequiter. And it is hard for some of us 

to explain that. So I do not know what you meant, I just know 

what you said. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah, and what I meant was that you 

have 11 million undocumented people here who are, we must 

admit, contributing to this country in substantial ways, but oftentimes are exploited because they are in that undocumented status. 

And we have to deal with the—— 

Mr. GOWDY. But, Mr. Attorney General, my point is all 11 million are not valedictorians, which is why every bill has a background check provision. And all 11 million do not want citizenship. 

So to call it a human and civil right, speaking for a broad group 

of 11 million, with all due respect, it is just not helpful to those 

of us who are trying to be part of the conversation. 

Attorney General HOLDER. And I did not mean to say by that all 

11 million either want to be citizens, you are right, or will ultimately as the bills have been crafted, and I think appropriately so, 

will pass the necessary background checks. I am talking about the 

universe of people who we have generally accepted as 11 million. 

And from that 11 million, and I suspect it is going to be a large 

portion of that 11 million, will pass background checks, will desire 

to become citizens, and then will be entitled to the human rights 

that all Americans have after they go through that period that allows them to acquire citizenship, along that pathway. 

Mr. GOWDY. I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and now recognizes the gentleman from Idaho, Mr. Labrador, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Good afternoon, Mr. Attorney General. One of 

your favorite phrases during this hearing and in many other hearings where I have heard you is ‘‘ongoing criminal investigations.’’ 

I also have heard you several times talk about best practices and 

proprieties. 

When you decided to recuse yourself, did you look at best practices? I think you admitted already that it would have been probably a better practice for you to put in writing. But there is already 

a statute, 28 U.S.C. Section 591, that requires to put in writing 

your reasons for recusal in certain circumstances. Frankly, I have 

read it a couple of times. I do not know if it applied to your situation right now. But do you not think it would have been the best 

practice for you to just put it in writing, especially when you are 

talking about an issue of such significance? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, as I said, and as I have thought 

about it even during the course of this last couple of hours, that 

I think that I am going to go back and actually think about whether or not there is some kind of policy that I should put in place, 

examine how often recusals have happened in writing as opposed 

to orally. And I think that the better practice, as I said, frankly, 

I think we probably ought to put them in place. 
97 

Mr. LABRADOR. And I think you should look at whether 28 U.S.C. 

591—again, I do not if that applies to you, but you should really 

look at whether that applies to you or not or whether there is any 

other law that would have required you to. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, there are two things on my to 

do list here. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Okay. The second thing I want to talk about is, 

we already discussed the targeting by the IRS, admitting that they 

targeted conservative groups. Will you state today under oath that 

the Department of Justice under your watch has not targeted conservative groups for prosecution for political reasons or to gain political advantage? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Not to my knowledge. I have no 

knowledge that has ever occurred. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Do you know if the IRS leaked tax information 

related to Mitt Romney during the Republicans presidential primary or general campaign? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I do not know. 

Mr. LABRADOR. And if you do not know, will you attempt to find 

out in your investigation? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not sure I have a predicate for 

that. I will be honest with you, I do not just remember that. 

Mr. LABRADOR. There were several claims during the campaign 

that there was personal information from Mitt Romney’s tax 

records that were being leaked to the press, and I just want to 

know if the IRS was the one leaking that information. 

We also know that some of Mitt Romney’s top donors were targeted by the IRS and the Labor Department, including a gentleman from Idaho. So if you could look at that as well, why it was 

that specifically people who were giving who were some of Romney’s top campaign donors, that were actually, immediately after 

they became public about how much money they had donated, that 

all of a sudden the IRS and the Labor Department was looking at 

them. 

And I have an important question. We have heard about numerous groups that were targeted that were conservative groups. Can 

you tell me whether Obama For America, Organizing for America, 

Occupy Wall Street, or any other progressive group has been targeted in the last 3 to 4 years by the IRS? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We are at the beginning of the investigation, so I do not know what, if any groups, were targeted. All 

I know is what I have read about in the press. I am not in a position to say—we are at the beginning stages of this investigation— 

which groups might have been inappropriately looked at. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Can you find out if it was only conservative, because I think this is important. I think it is rather strange that it 

is only one group, a political group, but not the other kind of political group. Can you find out for our Committee whether that—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I mean, the investigation would 

be designed to find out which groups were looked at, make sure 

that if they were looked at, it was done on an appropriate basis, 

and if it was inappropriate, then to hold people accountable. And 

that will be done regardless of whether or not they are conservative 

or liberal, Republican leaning, or Democratic leaning. 
98 

Mr. LABRADOR. And if you find out that they were only conservative, can you find out why it was that only conservative groups 

were targeted? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yeah. 

Mr. LABRADOR. Now, I am going to read to you a quote that you 

stated about your contempt of Congress from last year. In February 

of this year you said, ‘‘I have to tell you that for me to really be 

affected by what happened,’’ meaning the contempt of Congress, ‘‘I 

have to have respect for the people who voted in that way. And I 

didn’t, so it didn’t have that huge an impact on me.’’ Do you not 

think that quote shows contempt for the Republican Members of 

Congress that are here that voted for this? And there were actually 

some Democratic Members who also voted for contempt? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I have to say that the process 

that we went through, or that you all went through, in making that 

contempt determination seemed inconsistent with both prior practice, and also consistent with not taking into account the good faith 

attempts that we were making to try to share the information that 

was sought. And I also thought that it was telling that when the 

NRA decided to score that vote, what was the NRA? What was the 

involvement of the NRA in that vote at all? 

It seemed to me then that this was something that was not about 

me, not about—well, it was about me, but it was about things beyond just the exchange of documents. It was an attempt by certain 

people to get at this Attorney General. And that is why I said that 

with regard to that process, I simply did not and do not have respect for it. 

Mr. LABRADOR. But you said you did not have respect for the people who voted. And I think that same contempt may have led also 

to people in this Administration thinking that they could go after 

conservatives and conservative groups. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not the cause of people in the 

IRS doing things that might have been illegal. I will not take 

that—— 

Mr. LABRADOR. No, no, I am not accusing you of that. I am just 

saying that maybe that same statement emboldened people to 

think that they could also go after other conservative groups. 

Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman, and yields to 

the gentleman from Michigan for a unanimous consent request. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to insert 

into our record the statement of the Lawyers Committee for Civil 

Rights Under Law. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the document will be made a 

part of the record. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
99 

STATEMENT OF 

THE LAWYERS' COMMITTEE 

FOR CIVIL RIGHTS UNDER LAW 

SUBMITTED TO: 

THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

On 

"Oversight of the Unite d Sta tes 

Department of Justice" 

May 14, 2013 
100 

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law (Lawyers' Committee) strongly supports 

and encourages the Administration's efforts to protect the voting rights of all Americans, 

especially in connection with the defense of the constitutionality of Section 5 ofthe Voting 

Rights Act and its enforcement oflhat provision. We would like to thank the House Committee 

on the Judiciary for holding this hearing on the "Oversight ofthe United States Department of 

Justice." 

Background 

The Lawyers' Committee was founded in 1963 following a meeting at which President John F. 

Kennedy charged the private bar with the mission of providing legal services to address racial 

discrimination. We continue to work with private law firms as well as public interest 

organizations to advance racial equality in our country by increasing educational opportunities, 

fair employment and business opportunities, community development, fair housing, 

environmental health and criminal justice, and meaningful participation in the electoral process. 

Indeed, since our inception, voting rights has been at the center of our work. For example, in 

recent years, the Lawyers' Committee played a key role in the 2006 reauthorization of Section 5 

(by organizing the National Commission on the Voting Rights Act, which conducted hearings 

and submitted a lengthy report to Congress), and has intervened in several lawsuits to defend the 

constitutionality of Section 5 and to enforce Section 5. The Lawyers' Committee also has been 

active in filing suits to enforce the National Voter Registration Act, including Arizona v. [TCA 

now pending in the Supreme Court. 

In addition, as part our voting and election administration work, we lead the Electioll Protection 

coalition. Election Protection works throughout the election cycle to expand access to our 

democracy for all eligible Americans, educates and empowers voters through various tools, 

including the J-866-0URVOTE, 1-88R-VE-Y-VOTA and SS8-API-VOTE hotlines, collects data 

about the real problems with our election system, and puts a comprehensive support structure in 

place on Election Day. During the 2012 Election cycle, the J-866-0URVOTE hotline received 

over 170,000 calls from voters seeking information and assistance. As a supplement to this 

statement, we have included excerpts of our Election Protection Report that highlights the 

program [or the 2012 election cycle. 

The Voting Rights Act and the Importance of Section 5 

Section 5 often is referred to as the heart of the Voting Rights Act. It has played, and continues 

to play, an indispensable role in promoting and protecting political participation of racial 

minorities. Tn 2006, Congress gave its powerful endorsement to Section 5 when it voted 

overwhelmingly to reauthorize the statute for an additional 25 years. Section 5 requires certain 

jurisdictions that have a history and recent record of voting discrimination to obtain preclearance 

from the Attorney Gencral or the United States District Court for the District of Columbia prior 

to implementing a new voting practice or procedure. 

Following Congress' reauthorization of Section 5 in 2006, several lawsuits were filed claiming 

that the legislation was beyond Congress' 14th and 15th Amendment enforcement authority. This 
101 

issue is now before the Supreme Court in the case of Shelby County v. Holder, where a largely 

white suburb of Birmingham, Alabama is challenging the constitutionality of Congress' 2006 

reauthorization. The relief sought by the county's "facial" challenge is the complete termination 

of Section 5. A ruling is expected in late June of this year. The Lawyers' Committee represents 

Bobby Lee Harris, a resident of Shelby County and fonner elected oftlcial there, who intervened 

in the c·ase to defend the constitutionality of Section 5. 

During the current Administration, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) has achieved 

extraordinary success in enforcing Section 5. This has included its defense against four separate 

lawsuits brought by the states of Florida, South Carolina, and Texas to obtain preclearance for 

major changes to their election laws adopted in 2011. In the Florida case, the state legislature 

reduced the opportunities for early voting, which would have impacted African American voters 

disproportionately. The South Carolina case involved a 2011 photo lD requirement for in-person 

voting, which as enacted had a strong potential for discriminatory eHect and application. One 

case brought by Texas involved redistricting plans for Congress and the state legislature which 

discriminated against minority voters. In a separate case, Texas sought preclearance for the most 

stringent photo ID requirement in the country. DOJ recognized the central importance ofthese 

cases to voting rights, and committed the substantia! staff resources required to ensure that, in 

each instance, all of the relevant facts were uncovered and presented altrial in a clear, accurate, 

and effective manner. As a result, the Civil Rigbts Division won three ofthe four \"ases, and in 

the fourth case, brought by South Carolina, the State obtained preclearance for an interpretation 

of its voter ID law that negated much of the law's discriminatory potential. 

South Carolina's 2011 voter ID law contained a provision allowing voters to cast ballots after 

signing an affidavit at the polling place that a "reasonable impediment" prevented them from 

obtaining a qualifying photo ID. This provision, as originally passed and interpreted by the 

State, was both unclear and quite narrow. As the lawsuit developed, however, the State 

reworked its interpretation of this provision to be both clear and substantially broader, effectively 

permitting all registered voters to vote. The federal court specilically conditioned preclearance 

of the law upon this revised "extremely broad interpretation" afthe provision, saying that if 

South Carolina wanted to interpret the law more strictly in the tliture, it would have to obtain 

preclearance under Section 5 to do so, Therefore, the reinterpreted version ofthc South Carolina 

voter lD law that the district court precleared is a far cry from the proposed application ofthat 

law to which DO] originally issued a Section 5 objection. The federal court specifically pointed 

out the salutary effect of Section 5 and the preclearance process in reaching this outcome. 

While achieving this commendable record in enforcing Section 5 to block discriminatory voting 

changes, the Civil Rights Division has continued to devote substantial resources 10 allow 

jurisdictions covered by Section 5 with a clean record in voting for the past ten years to "bail 

out" of Section 5 coverage. The Civil Rights Division has been consistently responsive to 

bailout requests, and a substantial number of qualified jurisdictions have bailed out over the past 

four years, while no jurisdiction has been denied bailout. 
102 

Mr. CONYERS. Thank you. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And the Chair would ask unanimous consent 

that a letter sent to Attorney General Holder on November 13, 

2012, pertinent to the investigation of the matter involving former 

CIA Director David Petraeus, signed by former Chairman Lamar 

Smith, and containing 15 questions, which to our knowledge and 

to the knowledge of former Chairman Smith, have never been an-
103 

swered. And we would ask the Attorney General to, again, answer 

them. But we will put those as a part of the record and resubmit 

them to you, General Holder. They were pertinent to this hearing, 

and I think the answers to those questions would be of interest to 

the Members of the Committee. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
104 

The Honorable Eric II. Holder, Jr. 

November 13, 2012 

Page 2 

Intelligence James Clapper wa" notified at 5:00 p,m. on Election Day, November 6, 2012.4 

President Obama was reportedly not notified until Thursday, November 8, 

Accordingly, I write to seek clarification of the timeline of the investigation, 

PleAse respond to the following questions and requests hy November 26, 2012: 

1. On what ci'lte did the investigation begin? 

2. On what date did the investigation first implicate classified intelligence information" 

3. On what date did the FBI first become aware of contact between Mrs. Broadwell and 

General Petraeus? 

4. When were you first notified of the investigation? \Vhcn were you first notified of 

General Petraeus's involvement in the invt:.stigation? 

5. Did you or anyone within tbe Justice Department notify the President or anyone 

within the White House oIthe investigation? If so, on what date? 

6. To the extent that there was a gap between L.~e date that you were first notiiied and 

V/hite House officials were t1l'st notified, why was there such a delay? 

7. Did you discuss the investigation or whether to disclose the investigation 'Nith FBI 

Ducctor Mueller? If so, picase provide the daw and describe the nature ofthose 

discussions. 

8. Please provide the names of all individuals outside the Department 0f Justice and the 

FBI with whom Department of Justice personnel discussed the investigation before 

Director CJapper was HaHned-, and the dates ofiliosc discussions. 

9, Please provide all legal analysis conducted within the Department regarding '",hether 

you were obligated by the National Security ActS or oillcr ]av.,.' to report the 

investigation to any person outside of the Department and the FBI. 

10. \Vhcn did the Department tlrst engage in an analysis of potential ob1igations to 

disclose the investigation to persons outside of the DOJ or FBI? 

to Woman Led F.B.I. to Pet:.-aeus, NY Times ~-ov. 10,2012), 
105 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentlewoman from Texas has a unanimous 

consent request? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I do, Mr. Chairman. I was happy to wait until 

the end of the session. Are you—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. If you would like to do it now, we can. Otherwise, we will go to Mr. Farenthold. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I will let Mr. Farenthold—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Very well. The Chair recognizes the gentleman 

from Texas, Mr. Farenthold, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am batting cleanup here, and I would like to express my appreciation for Mr. Hold-
106 

er for sticking with us so long. I have got a big stack of questions, 

so if you would keep your answers as short as possible, I would appreciate it. 

And I think we have covered a lot about the IRS and your investigation. I think Judge Poe did a really, really good job. I am appalled by what happened. I was appalled when the Nixon Administration did it, and I am appalled when it is happening under this 

Administration. I am a little concerned, you said you had marked 

Mr. Poe down as not a fan of government. I hope he has his taxes 

in order. 

On the DoJ website, you all say the Department has demonstrated its historic commitment to transparency, and upon taking office, President Obama directed the Department of Justice 

with a clear presumption in the face of doubt, openness prevails. 

And on March 19th, you called for greater government transparency in the new era of open government. Yet we had the result 

of contempt of Congress. You, I think, called Chairman Issa shameless. I would like to offer you the opportunity to just give us the 

stuff we are asking for and be consistent with that transparency. 

Would you please just do it and make it easier for all of us? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We have been in good faith negotiations. We went through mediation that the House Republicans, as 

I remember, did not want to do. We have tried to find ways in 

which we could share the requested information—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. We need the information, and we want to protect it. But I do have a lot of questions, so I am going to go on. 

Let us move onto the Justice Department’s action with respect to 

the Associated Press. Do you think the massive intrusion of freedom of the press could cause an intimidating and chilling effect on 

whistleblowers and confidential sources? And what do you think of 

today’s New York Times editorial that says these tactics will not 

scare us or the AP, but they could reveal sources and frighten confidential contacts vital to the coverage of government. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Again, I will answer the question, but 

separate and apart from the ongoing investigation. The Justice Department does not want its actions chill sources, have a negative 

impact on the news gathering abilities of newspapers, television, 

stations—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. You would admit it offends you as an American that we are targeting the media in such a broad fashion. 

Would that be a fair statement? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, I am not going to, again, comment on an investigation that I am—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. In a hypothetical situation, we are going 

to go after and subpoena hundreds of phone records for journalists. 

I mean, just does that offend you as an American? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It would depend on the facts. You 

would have to know what the facts were and why the actions were 

taken—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. So you stated earlier that you recused yourself 

from this because you were questioned about this investigation. So 

as part of that investigation, are you aware if any of your telephones were tapped or telephone records were subpoenaed? I mean, 

you were subject to that investigation as well. 
107 

Attorney General HOLDER. There were, yes. Some of my telephone records were examined. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. Okay. And other Administrations as well. I 

guess my question is, it seems to me the media ought to be the last 

resort. Did they subpoena them, or did you voluntarily turn them 

over, the phone records? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am not even sure I remember. I 

think I probably voluntarily turned them over? I voluntarily turned 

them over. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. There is a difference obviously then 

between subpoena. 

All right. And let us go to Benghazi for a second. Gregory Hicks, 

the former Chief of Mission in Libya, testified before the Government Oversight and Reform Committee that as a result of the appearance of Susan Rice on various talk shows, that the President 

of Libya was offended and delayed the FBI’s access to the consulate 

in Benghazi by 17 days. Do you think this would have a negative 

effect on the FBI’s investigation and ability to get to the bottom of 

what happened in Benghazi? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I am satisfied with the progress that 

we have made in the investigation regardless of what happened 

previously. We have made very, very, very—— 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. But not having access to an unsecured crime 

scene for 17 days, that is bound to have had a negative impact? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It has not had a negative impact on 

this investigation. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. There was a story today that Media 

Matters issued a defense of the Justice Department’s use of these 

subpoenas for telephone—are you all regularly still consulting with 

Media Matters for spinning your PR stories? We talked about that 

in an Oversight and Government Reform hearing last year. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about. 

Mr. FARENTHOLD. All right. And then, finally, I see I am out of 

time. I don’t want to break the rules. So thank you very much. 

Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Oh, yes? 

Mr. ISSA. If I could just place, because of what the Attorney General said, in the record House Republicans did not object to mediation. The Attorney General’s, the Government’s position was that 

the judge did not have—and still position is did not have the ability 

to adjudicate this dispute at all, and we said it was premature to 

talk about settlement as to the actual document request until she 

made a determination that she would and could decide. 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. ISSA. And that remains the House—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Could we have regular order? We are short of time 

now. With all due respect to the distinguished Chairman. 

Mr. ISSA. I just think that a case under—that affects the House 

and its ability to do its business needed to be properly defined. 

I thank the Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. I think that is now part of the record, and both 

gentlemen’s points are well taken. 
108 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, let me just say this. There was 

information that I just shared, but I perhaps should not have. This 

was apparently something that the judge shared. Well, all right. 

Let me just stop there. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair now recognizes the gentleman from 

North Carolina, Mr. Holding, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. HOLDING. General Holder, it is good to see you. During my 

tenure in the United States attorney’s office, I served with four Attorney Generals, including yourself, and during the 2 years that 

our service overlapped, I always felt you were very supportive to 

our mission in North Carolina and to the law enforcement community. 

I was somewhat surprised, taking you back about 21⁄2 hours ago, 

you mentioned that you spoke to the chief district judges here in 

Washington, and you gave a speech. And in your comments, you 

criticized the length of Federal prison sentences that were being 

handed out in some instances. And although I don’t have a text of 

the speech, maybe you could provide that text. 

I did see that in April, you made similar remarks to the National 

Action Network. Specifically, you stated that too many people will 

go to too many prisons for far too long for no good law enforcement 

reason and that sentences too often bear no relation to the conduct 

at issue, breed disrespect for the system, and are ultimately counterproductive. 

Now, candidly, I would expect to hear those remarks more from 

maybe the chief Federal public defender rather than the chief Federal law enforcement officer. And for the thousands of cases that 

went through the Eastern District of North Carolina when I was 

there, I can think of none that got a prison sentence that was too 

long. 

So if you could elaborate just a bit on which criminals are you 

referring to that are getting too long of a prison sentence in the 

Federal system? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I view my responsibility as larger than simply being the chief prosecutor. It seems to me that an 

Attorney General—and not just me, the office of the Attorney General has a responsibility to the system. 

And the observations or the comments that I made in that National Action Network speech, I don’t—with regard to the judges, 

I don’t have a text. That was extemporaneous. Are what I feel, that 

if you look at particularly people who got sentenced to long prison 

sentences in drug cases that are more a function of the weight that 

was involved in a drug case, as opposed to that person’s role in the 

drug scheme. 

I think Judge Gleason is his name, in New York, has made the 

same observation, and I think that, you know, these mandatory 

minimum sentences that we—that we see, particularly in drugs, 

particularly when it comes to drugs, I think are unnecessarily long 

and don’t actually go to the purposes of sentencing, that is deterrence and rehabilitation. 

Mr. HOLDING. But General Holder, you know as well as I do that 

by the time a defendant ends up in Federal court, they usually 

have been through the State process numerous times. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, that’s not always the case. 
109 

Mr. HOLDING. It’s predominantly the case that they will have 

been through the State system numerous times. And I think particularly in light of prosecuting felons in possession of a firearm. 

In the Eastern District of North Carolina in 2002, we prosecuted 

approximately 50 of those cases. We ramped them up to about 300 

a year and consistently did 300 a year, average prison sentences 

of approximately 10 years. 

These are cases which you can do in large numbers and have significant impact not only with prison sentences, but with deterrent 

value as well. And I am concerned that the Department of Justice 

under this Administration has slacked off on making that a priority, of prosecuting felons in possession of firearms. 

And I am concerned that the numbers are falling, and I know 

that this Committee has asked to get specific numbers of 922, 924 

cases, and I don’t understand why it is taking so long to get them. 

Because unless you have changed the software in the last 20 

months since I was a sitting U.S. attorney, you can have those statistics in a matter of minutes by culling them through the line system. 

So are the numbers falling, and will you please produce the numbers to the Committee as soon as you can? 

Attorney General HOLDER. We’ll provide you with those numbers, 

but there has not been a policy decision to deemphasize those 

cases. I actually think that when it comes to the use of mandatory 

minimums that felon in possession cases, that’s actually a place 

where mandatory minimums are appropriate. 

Mr. HOLDING. Are the priorities—prosecution priorities of the Department of Justice under review right now? 

Attorney General HOLDER. With regard to the gun cases? 

Mr. HOLDING. All the priorities of prosecutions in the Department of Justice, are the U.S. attorneys putting those under review 

right now through the AGAC? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I have a working group working 

with the AGAC to look at our prosecution priorities, yes. 

Mr. HOLDING. And will you keep the Committee apprised of what 

you determine that the priorities ought to be at the Department of 

Justice for prosecution? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’d be more than glad to have a dialogue with the Committee in that regard. 

Mr. HOLDING. Thank you. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Chair thanks the gentleman and recognizes 

the gentleman from Georgia, Mr. Collins, for 5 minutes. 

Mr. COLLINS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I appreciate you being here, Mr. Attorney General. It is the first 

time you and I have had a chance to talk. I have listened here. One 

of the advantages of being on the bottom row here, you get to hear 

everybody else ask questions and also hear your answers. 

And I think your answers today to me have been enlightening in 

some ways and very discouraging in others. And I think some of 

it is you have said on several times, and I will go back to some of 

your statements today. 

You made a quote when you were quoting I believe then-President Clinton, talking about the era of big government is over and 
110 

a good government will endure. I think the problem that I have 

here is that I agree with you. Good government should be a limited 

form of government. 

And I think what we have seen over the past week or so has 

really shook the foundations again of discussing this issue of limited government. When we understand this, and especially in your 

agency right now, as we look at this, you have said on a couple of 

occasions. I marked it down. You may have said it more, if you did. 

So you started about the role of the executive. 

That is the role of the executive. That is what we are supposed 

to be doing. Is that a fair statement that you said that on several 

times today? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Yes, I said that, but I think I was 

saying that in reference to who in the Government ought to be deciding matters—— 

Mr. COLLINS. I understand. It is the role of the executive. Correct? But there is a role for Congress. Correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLLINS. And that is why you are here today. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLLINS. Because this Committee has oversight over your 

department. Correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I didn’t show up here because I really 

wanted to. 

Mr. COLLINS. Well, that has been—— [Laughter.] 

And that has been painfully obvious in some of the ways you 

have answered some of the questions. So, I mean, as we come by 

here, the problem is, though, is that is the checks and balances. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Absolutely. 

Mr. COLLINS. Sure it is. That you come here, you answer questions, and we are the constitutional oversight, to have oversight, 

budgetary control and oversight of what goes on and ask these 

questions. And these are not asking questions from up here—at 

least from my perspective, as I have made comment before. The 

people of north Georgia in the Ninth District in which I am from, 

many times they just want the truth. 

And they are frustrated right now that they don’t get the truth, 

and they keep hearing other issues that come up on threatening to 

them and the very sanctity of what they believe, whether it be the 

IRS or the issues with the reporters or a litany of issues we have 

talked about today. 

The question that I have is this being the Committee in which 

is oversight that you need—that you come to, and this will be 

maybe the first but probably not the only time we will talk in this 

capacity, is it concerns me the lack of preparation or at least perceived lack of preparation which you come here today. 

And Ms. Lofgren from across the aisle made a statement about 

did you put it in writing? And we have had this discussion about 

your recusal, and your answer to that was that ‘‘I don’t think I put 

it in writing. I am not sure.’’ 

Did you not think those questions were going to be asked of you 

today? That when you recused yourself from this, when you were 

actually—did you just honestly think those would not be asked 

today? 
111 

Attorney General HOLDER. I didn’t think about whether or not 

you were going to ask me that question at—one way or the other, 

but I wanted to—— 

Mr. COLLINS. You are kidding me? You come to this Committee 

today with these issues like they are right now—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Would you let me finish, Congressman? What I said—what I was going to say was that I asked my 

own people whether or not—— 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Attorney General? Mr. Attorney General, I reclaim my time for just a second. 

Attorney General HOLDER [continuing]. There was a written—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, can you state your ruling again 

on who controls the time? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time is controlled by the gentleman from 

Georgia. 

Attorney General HOLDER. He can have extra time. Let me just 

answer the question. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Attorney General, you don’t control the time 

here. 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m willing to give—okay. That’s fine. 

Mr. COLLINS. My question is this. As I come back to this, did you 

not honestly—— 

Mr. CONYERS. Mr. Chairman, could the witness have a 

chance—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The witness will have a full opportunity to respond, but the gentleman from Georgia has the opportunity first to 

ask his question. 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, just to make a point. The Attorney General stayed here extra time to make sure that everyone 

had a chance to ask their question. Considering the fact that he is 

still here past his time, why can’t he answer the question that is 

posed to him? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. He will get an opportunity to answer the question just as soon as Mr. Collins finishes posing his question, and 

we will give him extra time after Mr. Collins’ time has expired, just 

as we have done for the Attorney General on several occasions. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, may I just a moment? I would 

appreciate it. I know that some of us have deep bass-like voices, 

might sound that we are not being friendly and happy. But I would 

appreciate a little civility in the questioning of the Attorney General as we proceed to the conclusion. 

I yield back. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from Georgia may proceed. 

Mr. COLLINS. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And I will pose it. I just have just a simple question. It was 

amazing to me that the question was did you not think that you 

would be asked about maybe the timeline on when you might have 

recused yourself because you also said at one point you recused 

yourself before subpoenas. Or there was some question even in 

your own dialogue about when you actually did this. 

So I am just asking a simple question, as the others on the other 

side, they got to ask their questions. I am now asking mine. Did 
112 

you not think that someone on this panel would have asked you 

those questions? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I did not know whether anybody 

would ask me that question. But irrespective of that, I thought that 

was an important factor, an important fact, and it was one of the 

reasons why I asked my staff to find out, irrespective of what was 

going to happen up here today, whether or not there was in writing 

a recusal. 

I asked that question myself, thinking that it was an important 

question. I did not know. I don’t know what you all are going to 

ask me. So that’s why I was saying I didn’t know whether or not 

you were going to ask the question. 

But I thought it was an important one and one that I put to my 

staff. 

Mr. COLLINS. In light of the impartation of my time, I do have 

one question on that regard. Have you recused yourself—in using 

your recusal, have you put that in writing before? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure about that. In Mr. Holding’s case, the Edwards case, I recused myself in that matter. I’ve 

recused myself in other cases because my law firm, my former law 

firm was involved in those cases. 

I’m not sure that those are in writing, but I do think, as has been 

raised—I don’t remember what congressman—that putting these 

things in writing would—I think might be the better practice. 

Mr. COLLINS. Mr. Attorney General, I appreciate your answers to 

the question. And this is an issue that needs to be dealt with. It 

is just amazing, again, as you have stated, there is a role of the 

executive. And there is a role of—— 

Mr. RICHMOND. Mr. Chairman, point of order. Is that light red 

right there? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman’s time was interrupted considerably by a debate over whether or not he was entitled to ask his 

question. So he can complete this question, and the Attorney General can answer it. 

Mr. COLLINS. And I did not interrupt the gentleman from Louisiana in his questions. So I would just appreciate the opportunity 

to close, and the opportunity to close is I appreciate your answers. 

We are going to ask more of these questions, and these are the 

roles that we both, in your role and our role, play. 

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Well, that’s fine. And look, I respect 

the oversight role that Congress plays. This isn’t always a pleasant 

experience. It’s one that I recognize that you go through as an executive branch officer. 

The one thing I’ve tried to do is always be respectful of the people who’ve asked me questions. I don’t, frankly, think I’ve always 

been treated with a great deal of respect, and it’s not even a personal thing. If you don’t like me, that’s one thing. But I am the Attorney General of the United States, and this is the first time you 

and I have met. So I’m certainly not referring to you or any of the 

questions you’ve just asked. 

But I think that is something that is emblematic of the problem 

that we have in Washington nowadays. There’s almost a toxic partisan atmosphere here where basic role—levels of civility simply 
113 

don’t exist. We can have really serious partisan fights, disagreements about a whole variety of things, but I think people should 

have the ability, especially in this context, to treat one another 

with respect. 

I’ve tried to do that. Maybe I’ve not always been successful, but 

I certainly know that I have not been treated in that way all the 

time. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. The 

Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida, Mr. DeSantis, for 5 

minutes. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Attorney General, I am going to talk about credibility and 

accountability because I think this is kind of something that is underneath all of these issues we have been dealing with. And as I 

understand your testimony today with this AP case, something that 

bothers me is that by your own admission, this is one of the most 

serious leak cases in the past 40 years. 

Your comments yesterday, you said it put the American people 

at risk. And yet, as you testified today, you don’t know when you 

recused yourself. You have no record of you recusing yourself, and 

you didn’t tell the White House that you recused yourself. 

And that bothers me because that explanation, one, I think is insufficient and, two, it insulates you and it insulates the President 

from any accountability about what happened. So is this really the 

best you can do in terms of explaining what you did for one of the 

most serious cases that you have ever seen in your professional 

life? 

Attorney General HOLDER. As I said, with regard to the question 

of how recusals are memorialized, I think a written response would 

make a great deal of sense. But the notion that I would share with 

the White House information about an ongoing criminal investigation is simply not something that I, as Attorney General, unless 

there is some kind of national security—serious, serious national—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. Which there was. By your own admission, it put 

the American people at risk. Correct? 

Attorney General HOLDER. But we are talking about a limited 

group of people who had access to this information, some of whom 

were in the White House. And so, the notion that I would share 

that information with the White House, I didn’t share this information with people in the Justice Department. I mean, it was—— 

Mr. DESANTIS. But the people in the Justice Department, with 

all due respect, are not responsible for protecting the American 

people. The President is. So we just have a disagreement on that. 

Now in terms of—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, the Justice Department, we are 

responsible for protecting the American people. 

Mr. DESANTIS. The buck stops with the President in terms of a 

serious risk to the American people. I understand they have duties 

to enforce the law. They are important duties. But ultimately, the 

President is who we rely on. 

Now in terms of with this Internal Revenue Service issue. Do you 

agree—I mean, you are the head lawyer in the entire country and 

your office, you are, due respect for your office. Do you acknowledge 
114 

that the IRS is a part of the Treasury Department, and it is accountable to the President and that it is not an independent agency? 

Attorney General HOLDER. Technically, I don’t know. I’ve heard 

that it’s an independent agency. There is some kind of reporting responsibility within Treasury. Exactly how that is defined, I don’t 

know. 

Mr. DESANTIS. You have been in law for 40 years. You’re one of 

the most accomplished in terms of the positions you have had, and 

you don’t know whether the IRS is a part of Treasury, whether the 

IRS Commissioner is responsible to the President, or whether it is 

considered an independent agency? You really don’t know the difference between those? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I didn’t say that. I said the IRS, as 

I understand it, is a part of the Treasury Department. The IRS 

Commissioner is independent, but is appointed by the President to 

a fixed term. 

Mr. DESANTIS. And can be removed at the will of the President, 

correct, per Federal statutes? 

Attorney General HOLDER. All executive branch employees can 

be removed by the President. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. So then it is not an independent agency, 

right? Is it—can we just understand what it is? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I’m not sure where you’re going with 

this question. If you’re trying to put what the IRS did into the 

White House, that’s not going to work. 

Mr. DESANTIS. No, is it an independent agency? Yes or no. 

Attorney General HOLDER. It is an independent agency that operates within the executive branch. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Well, that is completely begging the question. See, 

the President and his press secretary have said—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. No, that’s an accurate answer. 

Mr. DESANTIS [continuing]. That it is an independent agency, 

that it is outside the purview of the executive branch. And my 

point is, yes, maybe the President is not micromanaging every decision, but that IRS Commissioner is accountable to the President, 

and the President can remove that individual. 

If the agency was truly independent, then the President would 

not have that authority to remove that individual. And so, I think 

we need to be clear when we are making statements, and you 

haven’t made that statement before today. But the White House 

press secretary and the President did, and I just don’t think it was 

accurate. 

One more thing, with these Benghazi—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. Was there a question? Do you have 

a question? Okay. I’m sorry. Go ahead. 

Mr. DESANTIS. With Benghazi terrorists, I know nobody has really been brought to justice for this. I know the FBI was over there 

investigating. At this point in time, is this your purview to bring 

those people to justice, or is it a military issue? Who is in charge 

of exacting justice for the terrorists who killed four Americans? 

Attorney General HOLDER. It’s my responsibility. It’s ultimately, 

I think, my responsibility. And I mean, it’s now, what, 5—7 minutes after 5 p.m. on whatever today’s date is. And as of this date, 
115 

this time, I am confident and proud of the work that we have done 

in determining who was responsible for the killings in Benghazi. 

Mr. DESANTIS. But there has not been any action taken to bring 

them to justice? 

Attorney General HOLDER. None that I can talk about right now. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Okay. Very well. 

Thank you, Mr. Attorney General. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Attorney General HOLDER. Let me just say that in response, add 

to that last response, that because I’m not able to talk about it now 

does not mean that definitive, concrete action has not been taken. 

That should not be read that way. 

We have been aggressive. We have been—we have moved as 

quickly as we can, and we are in a good position with regard to 

that investigation. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Could I just—5 seconds to follow up, Mr. Chairman? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The time of the gentleman has expired. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That is okay. That is okay. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The Attorney General is going to give you 5 seconds. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Can you say whether the concrete action—— 

Attorney General HOLDER. He has to call me ‘‘Mr. Chairman,’’ 

though. 

Mr. DESANTIS. Can you say whether the concrete action is law 

enforcement based or in terms of military based being a kinetic response? 

Attorney General HOLDER. I can say that within the purview of 

the things that we do in the Justice Department, definitive action 

has been taken. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Now the time of the gentleman has expired, and 

the Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas for her unanimous consent request. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Mr. Chairman, thank you for your courtesies. 

I am glad we are ending on a smiling note. 

I have three documents. My first document is AA—this is the 

title of it. AAG Perez Restores Integrity to the Voting Section. OIG 

Confirms Nonpartisan. Merit-Based Hiring Has Returned under 

AAG Tom Perez. 

I would ask unanimous consent to put that in the record. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:] 
116 

OIG Confirms Non-Partisan Merit-Based fliring Hos Returned Under AAG Tom Perez 

Allegation: The DIG investigated the hiring practices a/the Voting Section since 2009 q/tcr allegations li'gre made 

that the department had engaged in improper hiring practices akin to the illegal and improper hiring practices that 

the OIG and OPRjil!md took placefi'om 2003-2006. 

OIG FINDING: "'Our review ofthollsands ofinlemal CRT documents, indudlng e-mails, hand-written 

notes. and interviews of CRT staff who participated in the selection of the Voting Section's experienced 

attorneys Q1JtnQJ_JeV~tTi!!lqU~~rJitt!rLfl.nm\,l:id pofi1icH! Of ide()iogi~-"~Ufl~!l, ttl inf1llence thcb:J:lirlflS 

9~9l§ion~:' (OIG Report at 214 - (!mphasis added) 

OIG rejects allegations ofbi.s or partisan prefer.ntial trealment in response to FOIA request. 

Af the request of Congressman Frank Wolf the OIG investtgared whethf!r ;'the political of ideological 

requester may have the timing and natUf'r! of the Civil Rights Division's responses to 

records if'om the public. (OIG Report m 223) 

OIG FI1'iDINC: "Our review did not find any substanti.?li{,-n_ ofideological favoritism or political 

interference in such responses." (DIG Report at 249 - emphasis added) 

DIG Confirms No Improper R.ci.1 or Polilical Con,iderations io Voting Rights Enforceme"t 

Allegation: The DIG investigated allegatiolls that the V;'Jting Section afthe Civil Rights Division made enj'orcement 

decisions bosed on impnp(!r parlisan Of racial considerations. 

OIG FINDING: "tTJhc decisions that Division or Section leadership made In controversial cases did not 

substantiate claims of political or racial bias .... We also found that allegations ofpoHticized decisionmaking in Section 5 decisions were not substantiated." (OIG Report at 114) 

Allegation: The OIG investigated allegations that the Division el~fiJrced the lv'VRA in a partisan manner. 

OIG FINDiNG: "Although we found that CUlTent Division leadership has a clear priority stmcturc fot' 

NVRA enforcemem, we found insufficient evidence to conclude that they enforced the NvRA 10 a 

discriminatory manner. \Ve found no direct evidence, such as e-mai1s, indicating 01' implying a racial or 

partisan motive for such prioritization .... It wao;;; within the discretion of senior management to prioritize 

enfwcemcnt efforts, particularly based ml what appeared to be genuinely held perceptions about the need to 

redress previous enforcement imbalances." (OIG Repurt at 10» 

Ole Confirms Civil Rights Division Has Taken Action to Fo,ler a MGre Collegial Workplace 

~H"ega",c,n: The DIG investigated incidents 

The 

ole FINDING: "liln direct response to complaints about harassment in the Voting Section Division 

leadership began the process for developing a mandatory Division-wide antl-hara.''isment training program". 

,additional steps taken by Division leadership under the current administration to prevent inappropriate or 

harassing conduct, include[ e ] providing annual EEO and anti-harassment traiuillg to all employees and 

manager~; issuing EEO, prohibited per::;ollnel praetice and anti-harassment policies that are available to all 

employees on the CRT intranct and that set i'brth the various procedures for reporting misconduct." (OIG 

Report aI13]) 
117 

Mr. ISSA. I would reserve. We haven’t seen these documents. Can 

the gentlelady make the documents available? 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I certainly will. 

The second document is Loving All Our Neighbors, Even Our 

Muslim Ones. The title is, ‘‘Don’t be so lazy to assume that the 

words of a group represents the entire group. They hardly ever do. 

Perhaps a better idea is to meet them, learn about them, and treat 

them as your neighbor.’’ This is in USA Today, and the date is 

April 23, 2013. 

I ask unanimous consent to place in the record. 
118 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And I am asking to place in the record a 

statement on Medicare prosecutions as relates to minority hospitals 

and separating out monies that are not tainted by the investigation 

to allow those hospitals to treat indigent minority patients. 

I ask unanimous consent. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, that will be made a part of 

the record. 
119 

[The information referred to follows:] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. I thank the gentleman for his courtesies, and 

I am smiling. Thank you very much. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. The gentleman from California had reserved the 

right to object to the first request. So we are awaiting the gentleman’s question and whether he is exercising his right to object. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, this is not public information, nor is it annotated. 

I would—I have no problem with the other two. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, the gentleman exercises his right to object 

to your—— 
120 

*See page 116. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Can I have an inquiry further for the individual? What is he indicating that it is not public information? The 

OIG report, as I understand it, is a public document. 

Mr. ISSA. Yes, and certainly if you want to put actual portions 

of the OIG report in, that is fine. The record of accomplishments, 

which is the second page here, as the gentlelady would understand, 

if the gentlelady wants to put in things about how great Thomas 

Perez is, we are perfectly willing to say yes. And if the gentleman 

doesn’t mind, my putting in the entire report on his quid pro quo, 

his false statements made to Congress, and the other companion 

information which is the fruit of Committee work. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Is that a unanimous consent request? 

Mr. ISSA. It is. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Then—— 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the gentlewoman’s unanimous consent request will be granted.* 

And without objection, the gentleman from California’s unanimous consent request will be—— 

[The information referred to follows:] 
121 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform 

Darrefllssa (CII-49), Chl/irll/all 

"f/fl'ick Mcllellry (I\'C- IO) 

Senate COIrn mittee on the Judiciary 

CIII/tles E. Grl/ssley (114), RI/llkillg Member 

House Committee on the Judiciary 

Hob GOOtlltltfe (1'14 -6), Clll/irll/flll 

nOJ·S QUJtJ I'RUlJUO WITII ST. PAU l": 

HOW ASSISTAlIoT ATfORt'liEY GENERAL TlIOMAS PEREZ l\ IAN IPUI"ATEO 

JUSTICE ANID IGNORE)) T ilE RULt: OF LAW 

loint StafT Repon 

United States Congress 

113th Congress 

April 15. 20 13 
122 

Table of Contents 

TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................................................ i 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ 1 

FINDINGS ......................................................................................... 3 

TABLE OF NAMES ...................................................................................................................... 5 

1NTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 7 

HOW THE QUiD PRO QUO DEVELOPED ................................................................................ 9 

The Fair Housing Act and Disparate Impact ............................................................................ 9 

Magner 1'. Gallagher .......................................................................... 11 

United States ex rei. Newell v. CHy of Saint 1'au/ .................................................................. 12 

Executing the QUid Pro Quo .................................................................................................. 14 

THE QUID PRO QUO EXPLAINED ............................................................ 17 

The Agreement Was a Quid Pro Quo Exchange ................................................................... 18 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Facilitated the Initial Stages ofthe QUid Pro Quo .......... 21 

The Initial Stages of the Quid Pro Quo Confused and Frustrated Career Attorneys ............. 23 

HUD's Purported Reasons for Its Changed Recommendation in Newell Are Unpersuasive 

and a Pretext for HlJD's Desired Withdrawal of Magl1er ..................................................... 26 

The "Consensus" that Emerged for Declining Intervention in Newell Directly Resulted 

from Assistant Attorney General Perez's Stewardship of the Quid Pro Quo ........................ 31 

As Discussions Stalled, Assistant Attorney General Perez Took the Lead and Personally 

Brokered the Agreement ........................................................................................................ 34 

The Department of Justice Sacrificed a Strong Case Alleging a "Particularly Egregious 

Example" of Fraud to Execute the Quid1'ro Quo with the City ofSt Paul .................. 37 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Offered to Provide the City of St. Paul with Assistance in 

Dismissing Newell's Complaint ............................................................................................. 40 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Attempted to Cover Up the Presence of Magner as a 

Factor in the Intervention Decision on Newell .. .............................................. 42 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Made Statements to the Committees that Were Largely 

Contradicted by Other Testimony and Documentary Evidence ............................................. 45 

The Ethics and Professional Responsibility Opinions Obtained by Assistant Attorney 

General Perez Were Not Sufficient to Cover His Actions .................................... 49 

The Department of Justice Likely Violated the Spirit and Intent of the False Claims Act by 

Internally Calling the Quid Pro Quo a "Settlement" .............................................................. 50 

The Quid Pro Quo Exposed Management Failures Within the Department of Justice ......... 53 
123 

The Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and 

the City of St. Paul Obstructed the Committees' Investigation ............................... 55 

CONSEQUENCES OF THE QUiD PRO QUO .......................................................................... 57 

The Sacrifice of Fredrick Newell ........................................................................................... 57 

The Chilling Effect on Whistleblowers ....................................................... 59 

The Missed Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of St. Paul ......................................... 60 

Taxpayers Paid for the QUid Pro Quo .................................................................................... 61 

Disparate Impact Theory Remains on Legally Unsound Ground .......................................... 62 

The Rule of Law ..................................................................................................................... 63 

CONCLUSION .................................................................................... 64 

APPENDIX I: DOCUMENTS ..................................................................................................... 65 

ii 
124 

Executive Summary 

In early February 2012, Assistant Attorney General Thomas E. Perez made a secret deal 

behind closed doors with St. Paul, Minnesota, Mayor Christopher Coleman and St. Paul's 

outside counsel, David Lillehaug. Perez agreed to commit the Department of Justice to declining 

intervention in a False Claims Act qui lam complaint filed by whistleblower Fredrick Newell 

against the City of St. Paul, as well as a second qui lam complaint pending against the City, in 

exchange for the City's commitment to withdraw its appeal in Magl1er v. Gallagher from the 

Supreme Court, an appeal involving the validity of disparate impact claims under the Fair 

Housing Act. Perez sought, facilitated, and consummated this deal because he feared that the 

Court would find disparate impact unsupported by the text of the Fair Housing Act. Calling 

disparate impact theory the "lynchpin" of civil rights enforcement, Perez simply could not allow 

the Court to rule. Perez sought leverage to stop the City from pressing its appeal His search led 

him to David Lillehaug and then to Newell's lawsuit against the City. 

Fredrick Newell, a minister and small-business owner in St. Paul, had spent almost a 

decade working to improve economic opportunities for low-income residents in his community. 

In 2009, Newell tiled a whistleblower lawsuit alleging that the City of St. Paul had received tens 

of millions of dollars of community development funds, including stimulus funding, by 

improperly certifying its compliance with federal law. By November 2011, Newell had spent 

over two years discussing his case with career attorneys in the Department of Rousing and Urban 

Development, the U.S. Attorney's Otlice in Jv[innesota, and the Civil Fraud Section within the 

Justice Department's Civil Division. These three entities, which had each invested a substantial 

amount of time and resources into Newell's case, regarded this as a strong case potentially worth 

as much as $200 million for taxpayers and recommended that the federal government join the 

suit. These career attorneys even went so far as to prepare a fonnal memorandum 

recommending intervention, calling St Paul's actions a "particularly egregious example offalse 

certifications." 

All this work was for naught Tn late November 2011, Lillehaug made Perez aware of 

Newell's pending case against the City and the possibility that the Justice Department may 

intervene. A trade was proposed: non-intervention in Newell's case for the withdrawal of 

Magner. Perez contacted HlJD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky and asked her to reconsider 

HUD's support for intervention in Newell's case. Perez also spoke to then-Civil Division 

Assistant Attorney General Tony West and B. Todd Jones, the U. S. Attorney for the District of 

Minnesota, alerting them to his new interest in Newell's case. The withdrawal of HUD' s support 

for Newell's case led to an erosion of support in the Civil Division, a process that was actively 

managed by Perez. 

In January 2012, Perez began leading negotiations with Lillehaug, offering him a 

"roadmap" to a global settlement. Once negotiations appeared to break down, Perez boarded a 

plane and flew to Minnesota to meet face-to-face with Mayor Coleman. At that early February 

meeting, Perez pleaded for the fate of disparate impact and reiterated the Justice Department's 

willingness to strike a deal. His lobbying paid off when Lillehaug accepted the deal on Mayor 
125 

Coleman's behalf. The next week, the Civil Division declined to intervene in Newell's case and 

the City withdrew its Magner appeal. The quid pro quo had been accomplished. 

Still, Perez and several of his colleab'lles at the Justice Department are unwilling to 

acknowledge that the quid pro quo occurred despite clear and convincing evidence to the 

contrary. The Administration maintains that although career attorneys in the Department of 

Justice recommended intervention in Newell's case - and, in fact, characterized the False Claims 

Act infractions reported by Newell as "particularly egregious" - the case was nonetheless quite 

weak and never should have been a serious candidate for intervention. The Administration 

maintains that the United States gave up nothing to secure the withdrawal of Magner. Left 

unexplained by the Administration is why the City of St. Paul would ever agree to withdraw a 

Supreme Court appeal it believed it would win if the City knew the Department would not 

intervene in Newell's case. Dozens of documents referring to the "deal," "settlement," and 

"exchange" between the City ofSt Paul and DOJ show that the Administration's narrative is not 

believable. 

There is much more to the story of how Assistant Attorney General Perez manipulated 

the rule of law and pushed the limits of justice to make this deal happen. In his fervor to protect 

disparate impact, Perez attempted to cover up the true reasons behind the Justice Department's 

decision to decline Fredrick Newell's case by asking career attorneys to obfuscate the presence 

of Magner as a factor in the declination decision and by refraining from a written agreement. In 

his zeal to get the City to agree, Perez otl'ered to provide HUD' s assistance to the City in moving 

to dismiss Newell's whistleblower complaint. The facts surrounding this quid pro quo show that 

Perez may have exceeded the scope of the ethics and professional responsibility opinions he 

received from the Department and thereby violated his duties of loyalty and confidentiality to the 

United States. Perez also misled senior Justice Department onicials about the quid pro qllo 

when he misinformed then-Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli about the reasons for 

Magner's withdrawal. 

The quid pro quo between the Department of Justice and the City of St Paul, Minnesota, 

is largely the result of the machinations of one man: Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez. 

Yet the consequences of his actions will negatively affect not only Fredrick Newell and the lowincome residents of St. Paul who he championed. The effects of thi s quid pro quo will be felt by 

future whistleblowers who act courageously, and often at great personal risk, to fight fraud and 

identify waste on behalf of federal taxpayers. The effects of withdrawing Magner will be felt by 

the minority tenants in St. Paul who, due to the case's challenge to the City's housing code, 

continue to live with rampant rodent infestations and inadequate plumbing. The effects of 

sacriticing Newell's case will cost American taxpayers the opportunity to recover up to $200 

million and allow St. Paul's misdeeds to go unpunished. Far more troubling, however, is the 

fundamental damage that this quid pro qllo has done to the rule of law in the United States and to 

the reputation of the Department of Justice as a fair and impartial arbiter of justice. 

2 
126 

Findings 

The Department of Justice entered into a quid pro qllo arrangement with the City of St. 

Paul, Minnesota, in which the Department agreed to decline intervention in United States 

ex ref. Newell v. City (if St. 1'0111 and {Inited States ex reI. li//is v. City (if St. 1'aul et 01. in 

exchange for the City withdrawing Magner v. Gallagher from the Supreme Court. 

The quid pro qllo was a direct result of Assistant Attorney General Perez's successful 

efforts to pressure the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the U.S. 

Attorney's Office in Minnesota, and the Civil Division within the Department of Justice 

to reconsider their support for Newell in the context of the proposal to withdraw Magner. 

The initial development of the quid pro quo by senior political appointees, and the 

subsequent 180 degree change of position, confused and frustrated the career Department 

of Justice attorneys responsible for enforcing the False Claims Act, who described the 

situation as "weirdness," "ridiculous," and a case of "cover your head ping pong." 

The reasons given by the Department of Housing and Urban Development for 

recommending declination in Newell are unsupported by documentary evidence and 

instead appear to be pretextual post-hoc rationalizations for a purely political decision 

The "consensus" of the federal government to switch its recommendation and decline 

intervention in Newell was the direct result of Assistant Attorney General Perez 

manipulating the process and advising and overseeing the communications between the 

City of St. Paul, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Civil 

Division within the Department of Justice. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez was personally and directly involved in negotiating the 

mechanics of the quidpro quo with David Lillehaug and he personally agreed to the quid 

pro quo on behalf of the United States during a closed-door meeting with the Mayor in 

St. Paul. 

Despite the Department of Justice's contention that the intervention recommendation in 

Newell was a "close call" and "marginal," contemporaneous documents show the 

Department believed that Newell alleged a "particularly egregious example offalse 

certifications" and therefore the United States sacrificed strong allegations offalse claims 

worth as much as $200 million to the Treasury. 

Assistant Attorney General Perez offered to arrange for the Department of Housing and 

Urban Development to provide material to the City of St. Paul to assist the City in its 

motion to dismiss the Newell whistleblower complaint. This offer was inappropriate and 

potentially violated Perez's duty ofloyalty to his client, the United States 

Assistant Attorney General Perez attempted to cover up the quid pro qllo when he 

personally instructed career attorneys to omit a discussion of Magner in the declination 

memos that outlined the reasons for the Department's decision to decline intervention in 

Newell and lillis, and focus instead only "on the merits." 
127 

Assistant Attorney General Perez attempted to cover up the quid pro quo when he 

insisted that the final deal with the City settling two cases worth potentially millions of 

dollars to the Treasury not be reduced to writing, instead insisting that your "word was 

your bond." 

Assistant Attorney General Perez likely violated both the spirit and letter of the Federal 

Records Act and the regulations promulgated thereunder when he communicated with the 

City's lawyers about the quid pro quo on his personal email account 

Assistant Attorney General Perez made multiple statements to the Committees that 

contradicted testimony from other witnesses and documentary evidence. Perez's 

inconsistent testimony on a range of subjects calls into question the reliability of his 

testimony and raises questions about his truthfulness during his transcribed interview. 

The ethics and professional responsibility opinions obtained by Assistant Attorney 

General Thomas Perez and his statr were narrowly focused on his personal and financial 

interests in a deal and his authority to speak on behalf of the Civil Division, and thus do 

not address the quid pro quo itself or Perez's particular actions in etIectuating the quid 

pro quo. 

The Department of Justice violated the spirit and intent of the False Claims Act by 

privately acknowledging the qUid pro quo was a settlement while not affording Fredrick 

Newell the opportunity to be heard, as the statute requires, on the fairness and adequacy 

of this settlement 

The quid pro q1TO exposed serious management failures within the Department of Justice, 

with senior leadership - including Attorney General Holder and then-Associate Attorney 

General Perrelli - unaware that Assistant Attorney General Perez had entered into an 

agreement with the City of St Paul 

The Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the 

City of St Paul failed to fully cooperate with the Committees' investigation, refusing for 

months to speak on the record about the quid pro quo and obstructing the Committees' 

inquiry. 

In declining to intervene in Fredrick Newell's whistleblower complaint as part of the quid 

pro quo with the City of St. Paul, the Department of Justice gave up the opportunity to 

recover as much as $200 million. 

4 
128 

Table of Names 

Department of Justice 

Thomas Perrelli 

Associate Attorney General 

Elizabeth Taylor 

Principal Deputy Associate AI/orne y General 

Donald B. Verrilli 

Solicitor General 

Sri Srini vasan 

Principal Deputy Solici/or General 

Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division 

Thomas Perez 

Assistant Auorney General 

Vicki Schultz 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Eric Halperin 

Special Counsel 

Mark Kappelhoff 

Section Chief; Criminal Section 

John Buchko 

1 "ial Attorney and Designated £thics Officer 

Department of Justice, Civil Division 

Tony West 

Assistant Attorney General 

Brian Martinez 

ChiefofStaffto Tony West 

Michael Hertz 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Commercial Litigation Branch 

Joyce Branda 

Director, Civil Fraud Section 

Michael Granston 

Dep1lty Director, Civil Fraud Section 

[Line Attorney I] 

Assistant Director, Civil Fraud Section 

[Line Attorney 2] 

Senior Trial Counsel, Civil Fraud Section 
129 

U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota 

B. Todd Jones 

u.s. Attomeyfor the District o{Minnesota 

Greg Brooker 

Assistant u.s. Attorney, Chief of Civil Division 

[Line Attorney 3] 

Assistant u.s. Attorney 

[Line Attorney 4] 

Assistant U,s' Attorney 

Department of Housing and Urban Development 

Shaun Donovan 

Secretmy 

Helen Kanovsky 

General Counsel 

Sara Pratt 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fliforcement Programs, Office 'if Fair Housing and 

FqualOpportunity 

Michelle Aronowitz 

Deputy General COllnsel, ~liforcement and Fair HOl/sing 

Dane Narode 

Associate General Counsel, Pr0K"am Fnji)rcement 

Melissa Silverman 

Assistant General Counsel, Program ~nforcement, Administrative 

Proceedings Division 

Maurice McGough 

Regional Director, Region ~: ()ffice o{ Fair Housing and Fqual Opportunity 

City of St. Paul 

Christopher Coleman 

Mayor 

Sara Grewing 

City Attorney 

David Lil1ehaug 

Attortley, Fredrickson & Byron P.A. 

John Lundquist 

Attorney, Fredrickson & Byron P.A. 

Thomas Fraser 

Attortley, Fredrickson & Byron P.A. 

6 
130 

"fT/h..' mi., ufll IUl''J'''f(1I111t! 1J"'IJ<.)rl"'~1II vf JII~Ii~'o:, ",/Je,her ) .m ure ill IiiI' e "'il f)i1'i$IIHI <II/he. 

Cir" /(j!:hl~' Db'isioll, ,,/u do 11I,·Ii!.'t!, '.1 Iv Ju 1I'/H.1f IS /111111' /);!s11l1lt:rl!,1'/J' (if//IIJ tllIIl.'d SWlfS, .. 

- Thomas Perez. Assistant Al.1omey General for the Civil Rights OiVls1001 

"17/t1 m(JIlU,I <II Ilmlll (Ire 1101 I"SI l/ie eillic~ vi {Ihe [),'IKlfllllell/ ,if ,h,Mict/le'\:fIIgllIg I//e 

Fr>/$(! Clmlll,f AN WwSIIII IQ wellr..: M", di¥lflfall' IIII{XlCI "'}fllial/o/'Ii, or III., IrcOlll/e/li (.'f IIIy."'1f 

(I)' II IIhW/, .. h/O .... ¢f. or i/II.' 1I1j111<'lIce vf tlie SlIp,...",e COlin ,loiJk.'t, , , , 1m., ~'<I)' IIKII H(/D {liN/ 

,1",litl! III.'II'e!lS~ III,' WjllrllH!f II/eJr ,;1>1'11 <lg~,,"(1 i$ (J/1JJilllJltg (llId Iilm 'Spill/iug IIl11ifdly. .. 

- Fredrick Newell, small..lJusinCS!i o .... ner Bnd minister, SI. Paul. Minnesota' 

Introduction 

When Assistanl A!lome)' Gfneral Thomas Perc1- traveled to SI. I'nul, Minnesota, in carly 

February 2012 IQ mee1 wilh St, Paul Mayor Chri§lopher CQleman and mher City officials in the 

'-Inyor's City I'bll offices, he had onto go~l in mind He wanted Ihe City to withdral'<' a potential 

landmark case scheduled for atgumerot before the Unit~>d States SUpren'll': COurt onl)' day' later. 

Theagrffment struck beLwet!l1 Assistant Attorney General Perez and Mayor Coleman al that 

closed-door meeting resulted nm only in the "ithdrawal of tile appeal. but also the fatal 

weakening ora whistleb!ower lawsuin potefLlially worth $200 miHion 10 the fcderaltreasul}' The 

JtOl)' of this !fwd pro (II'" i~ a story ol'leverage and political opportuni~m The efl'ects of the 

qllid pro qlu) are cven more unfonunntc, The qllid pro Ifl/u nm only reneets poorly on Ihe senior 

leadership oflhe Dcpanmcm of Justk.e, bul it wil! have real and lasting consequences fOf public 

IlOUCy and federal taxpayers, 

In the early 2000s, the City of'St Paul began aggressively enforcing the. health and safCl} 

pmvi~i ns ofit~ huusing code, to rgCli ng renlal properties, With increased inspections and 

stricter certifications, the City ciled v:)ri()us infractions ranging from broken handrails Bnd 10m 

scr~'('ns to a toilet in a kilchen and 11115 in a bathlub,J Till' owners ofthc$C properties!iUcd the 

City, arguing thntthc aggressive code' enforcement adversely impacted their mostly minority 

lenanlS The lawsuil worked ils way ~hrough the federal court S~Slem for ears, eventually 

arriving allhe SupremeCoort, In November 2011 , lhe Supreme Coon a!.lf~ed \1,1 hl:llr th., case, 

known RsMugller ", Gllllflglwr, to decide whether the Fair Housing Act allows for claims of 

disparate '"'pac! 

Meanwhile, Fredrick Ne\\'el1, asmall-business owner and minister in Sl "au\. hDd been 

wo.-killl! for years to i'llprove low-income jobs proJ!fams in his community, ARer pursuing 

' T",,,,,,,ibc<lI,,I."'I." of Till" .... Ed"~"1 Pc"",. U S Ocp'l or I .... hco, III W •• h" 0 C. :>I 2iN1(Mm 22, 2(111) 

' T"" ... "btd I""'",." ",rFO\ldnclo N"".U "0 Wath., 0 C 01 16 (M; .. , 211, 20Ll) 

, Iih' Fredl"'~ ,..1010, SI JI,-",II""~I/""I, Dlf>,.,.., II,.., .. F,pl" ""'" ( 'II)' H~"'(,II/"'~ ," . '" ,/ ~,''~ ''' ''''l&lk",. p"""", PIt.<S, Oct. 15, 10112 , """'" Dt""_ ,<;,. 1'",,/ J,,~,1cr 1I" ~'i'tll lJ hlft~'" IIl¥h (,,,,,,,_ SlOr T,ib," ... (Fob 1\1. 11)12) 

7 
131 

various administrative avenues through the Department of Housing and Urban Development, 

Newell filed a federal whistleblower lawsuit against the City of St. Paul in May 2009. His suit, 

known as a qui tam action and brought under the False Claims Act, 4 was encouraged by HUD 

employees and supported by career otlicials in the Justice Department. If successful, Newell's 

lawsuit could have returned over $200 million of taxpayer funds to the federal Treasury. 

Although career officials viewed Mr. Newell's lawsuit as a "particularly egregious example" of 

false claims, Mr. Newell, as it turned out, would never receive a fair shot. 

Documents and testimony given to the Committees show that after the Supreme Court 

agreed to hear Magner in November 2011, Assistant Attorney General Perez sought to find a 

way to prevent the Court from hearing the case and eviscerating disparate impact theory, which 

Perez had used to secure multimillion dollar settlements. His outreach put him in contact with a 

Minnesota lawyer named David Lillehaug, a former U.S. Attorney and outside counsel to the 

City of St Paul. In discussions between Perez and Lillehaug, a proposal was raised to link the 

Magner and Newell cases, in which the City would withdraw Magner if the Department did not 

join Newell's suit With Newell as leverage, Perez went to work to get Magner withdrawn. He 

asked HUD's General Counsel to reconsider HUD's support for Newell and raised the prospect 

of a deal with senior DOJ otlicials. Slowly, support for intervening in Newell eroded among the 

political DOJ leadership while career DOJ attorneys wondered among themselves what caused 

the sudden change of course. 

Perez facilitated the slow bureaucratic march toward a quid pro quo with the City In 

early January 2012, as progress on an agreement stalled, Perez began personally leading 

negotiations with Lillehaug. Once negotiations broke down in late January, and with Magner 

oral arguments looming, Perez made one last attempt to strike a deal. He Hew to St Paul on 

Friday, February 3, 2012, to lobby the Mayor directly. His persuasion proved successful; the 

City accepted the deal on the spot. Six days later, DOJ formally declined to join Newell's case. 

The following day, Friday, February 10,20\ 2, the City upheld its end of the bargain by 

withdrawing its Magfler appeal. Perez's coup was complete. 

This joint staff report is the product of a year-long investigation conducted by the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, the House Committee on the Judiciary, and 

the Senate Committee on the Judiciary. The Committees reviewed over 1,500 pages of 

documents produced by the Department of Justice, the Department of Housing and Urban 

Development, and the City ofSt Paul.' The Committees conducted transcribed interviews with 

Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez, Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West, 

former Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli, United States Attorney B. Todd Jones, 

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky, HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt, and 

Fredrick Newell. The Committees also interviewed David Lillehaug and St. Paul City Attorney 

Sara Grewing; Joyce Branda, a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in DOJ's Civil Division; 

Mark Kappelhoff, former Criminal Section Chief in DOJ's Civil Rights Division; Kevin 

Simpson, HUD's Principal Deputy General Counsel; and Bryan Green, HUD's Principal Deputy 

1 Under the False Claims Act, an individual may bring a qll; tam action on behalf of the United Stales. 31 U.S.c. 

1730. 

5 The City of Saini Paul, ho\\ever, continues 10 n,ithhold tn,ent)' documents and one audio recording from the 

Committees 
132 

Assistant Secretary for Fair Housing. Despite repeated requests, DOJ refused to allow the 

Committees to speak to the Assistant United States Attorney who handled the Newel1 case and 

HUD refused to allow the Committees to speak to Associate General Counsel Dane Narode and 

Regional Director Maurice McGough. 

How the Quid Pro Quo Developed 

The Fair Housing Act and Disparate Impact 

The Fair Housing Act, found in Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, prohibits 

discrimination in the sale or rental of housing units." As passed by Congress, the Act made it 

unlawful to "refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, or to refuse to negotiate 

for the sale or rental of, or otherwise make unavailable or deny, a dwelling to any person because 

of race, color, religion, sex, familial status, or national origin.,,7 The Act charged the Secretary 

of Housing and Urban Development with administering the provisions of the law' 

Unlike other federal laws concerning employment discrimination and age discrimination, 

the plain text of the Fair Housing Act only includes lan6'1lage prohibiting disparate treatmentnot disparate effects. By contrast, in the employment context, Title VII of the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964 prohibits an employer from "fail[ing] or refus[ing] to hire or ... discharg[ing] any 

individual" on the basis of a protected status, as well as prohibiting action that would "otherwise 

adversely atTect [a person's] status as an employee."" Although the Fair Housing Act has 

language prohibiting the disparate treatment of individuals in the housing context, it does not 

include any similar language prohibiting the disparate effects of housing practices.!O Because the 

plain language of the Fair Housing Act lacks this disparate etTects language, it is clear that 

Congress never intended the disparate impact standard to be cognizable under the Fair Housing 

Act. 

Nonetheless, despite the clear statutory language, some courts and policymakers have 

read the disparate impact standard into the Fair Housing Act. The roots of disparate impact 

under the Fair Housing Act can be traced back to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 

which prohibited employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national 

origin." Tn a case called Griggs 1'. Duke Power Co., the Supreme Court interpreted the broad 

statutory text of Title VII to prohibit "not only overt discrimination but also practices that are fair 

in form, but discriminatory in operation,,12 Congress subsequently codified this disparate impact 

standard in the context of employment discrimination, creating a separate prohibition in Title VII 

6 42 U.S.c. ~ 3604. 

, Td § 3604(a). 

s 1d. § 3608. 

9 42 U.S.c. ~ 2000e-2(a). 

10 42 U.S.c. § 3604. 

11 Pub. L. 88-352 til. VII,78 Stal. 241. 253 (1964). 

"Gliggs Y. Duke Power Co., 401 U.S. 424, 431 (1971). 

9 
133 

for "a particular employment practice that causes a disparate impact on the basis of race, color, 

religion, sex, or national origin,,13 

As the courts gained familiarity with the disparate impact standard for employment 

discrimination, they simultaneously began to interpret the text of the Fair Housing Act "to draw 

an inference of actual intent to discriminate from evidence of disproportionate impact.,,14 

Federal agencies likewise began interpreting the Fair Housing Act beyond the strictures of its 

plain language. In November 20 II, HUD issued a proposed rule codifying the disparate impact 

standard for discrimination claims arising under the Fair Housing Act. 15 The rule proposed to 

prohibit discriminatory effects under the Fair Housing Act, "where a facially neutral housing 

practice actually or predictably results in a discriminatory effect on a group of persons." 16 HUD 

finalized the rule in February 2013. '7 The new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau has also 

adopted the disparate impact standard for enforcing lending discrimination. jg 

This broad and controversial interpretation of the Fair Housing Act has been roundly 

criticized. The American Bankers Association, the Consumer Bankers Association, the Financial 

Services Roundtable, and the Housing Policy Council argue that the Act does not permit 

disparate impact claims because the law's plain text prohibits only intentional discrimination19 

Likewise, attorneys from Ballard Spahr note that the Supreme Court's precedents "with regard to 

disparate impact claims make it clear that such claims cannot be brought under the Fair Housing 

Act ,,20 Attorneys with BuckleySandler LLP criticize the analogous treatment between Fair 

Housing Act claims and Title VII claims - due to the express differences in the statutory 

language - and concluded that disparate impact "claims were neither provided for in the [Fair 

Housing Act] nor anticipated by the lawmakers who enacted the Act,,21 

The Supreme Court has never directly considered whether the Fair Housing Act supports 

the disparate impact standard. Although the Court has heard two cases involving disparate 

impact claims under the Fair Housing Act, both cases were decided on other grounds and the 

issue was never settled by the Court. 22 By the fall 01'2011, as a case involving this precise issue 

was making its way through the federal court system, the Court was poised to resolve the 

dispute. 

13 42 U.S.C. ~ 2000e-2(k)(l)(A)(i). 

1-'1 Peter E. Mahoney, The Fnd(\·J (?!Di.\parale !mpacI: T)ocirinal RecollslruClion, Fair Housing and rending !.mr, 

and the Antidiscrimination Principle, 47 Emory L.J. 409, 426 (1998), 

15 See Implementation of tile Fair Housing Act's Discriminatory Effects Stmldard, 76 Fed. Reg. 70,921 (Nov. 16, 

2011) 

16 Jd at 70,924. 

l' Implementation of the Fair Housing Aef s DiscriminatOlY Effects Stmldard, 78 Fed. Reg. 11 ,460 (Feb. 15, 2013) 

"Consumer financhl1 Prot. Bureau, CfPB Bulletin 2012-04 (Apr. 18,2012). 

19 S'ee Brief of Amici Cllliae AmeJican Bankers Associatioll, Consumer Bankers Association, Financial Services 

Roundtable, and Housing Policv Council Suggesting Reversal, Magner et al. v. Gallaghcr et ai., No. 10-1032 (filed 

Dec. 29, 2011). 

20 Ballard Spahr LLP, {)ismissal (~f Fair Housing rase Perpefuales Uncertainly on TJi.~parate Jmpacl Claims, Feb. 

15,2012 

:21 Kirk D. Jensen & Jeffre) P. Naimon, lhe Fair llousing lief, LJispal'ate impact Claims, and M1gner v. Gallagher: 

An Opporluni(v 10 Relurn 10 Ihe Primacy (?flhe Slalulory Texl, 129 Bank. LJ. 99 (Fcb. 2012) 

22 See City of Cuyahoga falls, Ohio,. Buckeye Cmty. Hope Found., S3S U.S. lS8, 199-200 (2003): Town of 

Huntington, N.Y. v. Huntington Branch, N.A.A.C.P" ~88 u.s 15, 18 (1988). 

10 
134 

M{lgner v. Gallagher 

On November 7,2011, the United States Supreme Court granted a petition for a writ of 

certiorari filed by the City of St Paul, Minnesota, in the case Magner 1'. Gallagher. In agreeing 

to hear the case, the Court decided to answer a fairly straightforward question: "Are disparate 

impact claims cognizable under the Fair Housing Act?,,23 

Magner arose from the City's enhanced enforcement of its housing codes from 2002 to 

2005, particularly with respect to rental properties. The City directed inspectors to enforce the 

"code to the max," conducting unannounced sweeps for code violations and asking residents to 

report so-called "problem properties." 24 These enhanced enforcement measures documented 

violations in many properties occupied by low-income residents, including violations for rodent 

infestations, inoperable smoke detectors, inadequate sanitation, and inadequate heat25 The 

owners of these low-income properties, which housed a disproportionate percentage of African 

Americans, faced increased maintenance costs, higher fees, and condemnations as a result 26 

In 2004 and 2005, several of the affected property owners sued the City in federal district 

court, allegin~ that the City's aggressive enforcement of the housing code violated the Fair 

Housing Act 7 The City asked the court to throw out the cases before trial, arguing in part that 

its code enforcement did not have a disparate impact on minorities and therefore did not violate 

the Act28 The court agreed and granted summary judgment in the City's favor in 200829 

Appealing to the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals, the property owners renewed their argument 

that the City violated the Fair Housing Act "because [its] aggressive enforcement of the housing 

code had a disparate impact on racial minorities ,,30 The Eighth Circuit agreed In its 2010 

opinion reversing the lower court, the Eighth Circuit stated: 

Viewed in the light most favorable to [the property owners], the evidence 

shows that the City's Housing Code enforcement temporarily, if not 

permanently, burdened [the property owners'] rental businesses, which 

indirectly burdened their tenants. Given the existing shortfall of 

affordable housing in the City, it is reasonable to infer that the overall 

amount of affordable housing decreased as a result And taking into 

account the demographic evidence in the record, it is reasonable to infer 

racial minorities, particularly African-Americans, were disproportionately 

affected by these events3 ! 

23 Petition for Writ ofCertionl1i, Magllerv. Gallagher, No 10-1032 (U.S. filed Feb. 14,2(11). 

" Gallagherv. Magner, 619 F.3d 823, 829 (8th Cir. 2010) 

23 ld. at 830 2(, lei. 

,. Steinhauser et al. v. City ofS1. Paul et aI., 595 F. Supp. 2d 987 (D. Mum 2008). 

GalL1gher v. Magner. 619 F.3d 823 (8th Cir. lOlO). 

31 Td. at 8J5 

II 
135 

With an adverse decision at the appellate level, the City faced a decision whether to 

litigate the disparate impact claim before the district court or to appeal the decision to the United 

States Supreme Court. On February 14, 2011, the City filed a petition for a writ of certiorari, 

asking the Court to take the case32 On November 7,2011, the Court granted the petition to 

finally settle whether the Fair Housing Act supports claims of disparate impact. 

United States ~" reI. Newell 1'. City of Saint Paul 

Fredrick Newell's history with Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act 

dates back to 1997. 33 Section 3 requires recipients of HUD financial assistance to provide job 

training, employment, and contracting opportunities "to the greatest extent feasible" to low- and 

very-low-income residents, as distinct from minority residents34 In 2000, Newell began to 

pursue Section 3 opportunities in St. Paul, but quickly found that although the City had programs 

for minority business and women business enterprises, the City did not have a program to 

comply with Section 3 in particular. Newell even offered to start a Section 3 program in St. 

Paul, but the City refused·l5 

After a lawsuit Newell filed was dismissed because Section 3 does not allow for a private 

right of action, Newell initiated an administrative complaint with HUD36 This administrative 

complaint led to a formal tinding by HUD that St. Paul was not in compliance with Section 3,37 

and eventually to a Voluntail Compliance Agreement that required St. Paul to improve its future 

compliance with Section 33 The Voluntary Compliance Agreement, however, did not release 

the City from any liability under the False Claims Act. 39 According to Newell's attorney, the 

Justice Department reviewed the language of the Voluntary Compliance Agreement to ensure it 

did not disturb any False Claims Act liability40 

In May 2009, Fredrick Newell filed a whistleblower complaint under the qui lam 

provisions of the False Claims Act, alleging that the City of St. Paul had falsely certified that it 

was in compliance with Section 3 of the HUD Act from 2003 to 2009 41 In particular, Newell 

alleged that the City had falsely certified on applications for HUD funds that it had complied 

with Section 3's requirements when in fact the City knew it had not compJied42 He alleged that 

based on these knowingly false certifications, the City had improperly received more than $62 

"Petition for Writ ofCertiormi, M1gnerv. Gallagher, No. 10-1032 (U.S. filed Feb. 14, 20ll). 

33 Transcribed Inlen!lew of Fredrick NewelliTI Wash .. D.C. at 9-10 (Mar. 28, 2(13). 

" 12 US.c. § 1701u 

33 Transcribed Illtervie\" of Fredricl\. Newell in W<lsh .. D.C. <It 27-28 (Mar. 28. 2013). 

3(, TranSClibed JIlterview of Fredrick Newell ill WasIl .. D.C. at 9-10 (Mar. 28, 2(13). 

1'"7 ,See Letter from Barbam Knox, Dcp' t of Housing and Urban Development, to Chris Coleman., City of St. Paul 

(Aug. 25, 2(09). 

38 Voluntary Compliance Agreement Section J of the Housing and Community Development Act between U.S 

Dep't of Housing and Urban Dcvclopment and the City of Saint Paul, MN (Feb. 2010). 39 1d. 

40 Transcribed Tntervlcw of Fredrick Nc\vclllll Wash., D.C. at JJ (Mar. 2&. 20IJ). 

11 Complaint. United States ex 1'e1. Ne"ell Y. City of Saint Paul. No. 009-cv-1l77 (D. Milll. May 19.2(09) 

" Td 

12 
136 

million in federal HUD funds 41 As a whistleblower, Newell brought the case - United States ex 

reI. NewellI'. City o/Sf. Paul - on behalf of the United States 

Like all other alleged violations of the False Claims Act, Newell's complaint was 

evaluated by career attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section within DOl's Civil Division as well as 

career Assistant United States Attorneys in Minnesota. These attorneys spent over two years 

conducting an exhaustive investigation of Newell's allegations. As a part of this investigation, 

the attorneys interviewed Newell and his attorney several times, gathered information from 

HUD, and spoke with the City about its actions. At the conclusion of this investigation, both the 

Civil Fraud Section and the U.S. Attorneys' Office in Minnesota strongly supported the case. 

That these career DOJ officials enthusiastically supported Newell's lawsuit was obvious 

to Newell and to HUD. His initial relator"" interview with federal officials in the summer of 

2009 included an unusually large number ofHUD and DOJ attendees. 45 During his transcribed 

interview, Newell told the Committees that "[t]here was a real interest. . and the DOJ felt it 

was a good case."46 His attorney stated: "T believe around September-October of2011, my 

information was that Justice was working on finalizing its intervention decision. And I don't 

mean what the decision was. I mean finalizing intervention, because they were going to 

intervene in the case."47 

This understanding was confirmed by Hl)D General Counsel Helen Kanovsky, who told 

the Committees that career attorneys in DOl's Civil Fraud Section and US Attorney's otfice in 

Minnesota felt so strongly about intervening in Newell's case that they requested a special 

meeting with her to convince her to lend HUD's support 48 

On October 4, 20 II, a line attorney in the Civil Fraud Section wrote to HUD General 

Counsel Dane Narode about the Newell case: "Our office is recommending intervention. Does 

HUD concur?,,49 Three days later, Narode replied, "HUD concurs with DOl's 

recommendation."'o The AUSA in Minnesota handling Newell forwarded HUD's concurrence 

to his supervisor with the comment, "[I]ooks like everyone is on board."" On October 26,2011, 

the AUSA transmitted a memorandum to the two Civil Fraud Section line attorneys with the 

official recommendation from the U.S. Attorney's Office.'2 The memorandum recommended 

intervention. It stated: 

n Amended Complaint, United States ex rei. Newell v. City of Saint Paul, No. O'09-ev-ll77 (D. Minn. Mm. 12. 

2012). The Ci\·il Fraud Section of the Justice Department valued the fTIlLId at $&6 million. 5,'ee inf1'a note 336. 

-1-'1 A "relator" is the private party who initiates a qui Jam lawsuit under the False Claims Act 011 behalf of the United 

Slates. 

45 TranscTibed Interview of Fredrick Newell Tn Wash .. D.C. at 192-93 (Mar. 28, 2013). 

-1(,Id. at 48. 

"ld. at 55. 

48 TranscTibed Interview of Helen Kanovsky. U.S. Dep"1 of HOllsing & Urban DeYelopment, In Wash., D.C. at 25-JO 

(Apr. 5, 2013) 

19 Email from Line Attorney 1 to HUD Line Employee (Oct. 4, 20ll, 5'OS p.m.). IDO] 671 

50 Email fromHUDLineEmployeetoLineAltomeyl(Oct.7.20ll.11 :27 a.m.). [DOJ 68] 

51 Emailfrom Line Attorney 3 to Greg Brooker (Oct. 7, 20ll, 1l'28 a.m.). IDO] 691 

.. Email from Line Altomey] to Line Attomcy 2 & Line Altomey I (Oct. 26, 2011. 3:39 p.m.) [DOJ 71] 

13 
137 

The City was repeatedly put on notice of its obligations to comply with 

Section 3. At best, its failure to take any steps towards compliance, while 

continually telling federal courts, mID and others that it was in 

compliance with Section 3, represents a reckless disregard for the truth 

Its certifications of Section J compliance to obtain HUD funds during the 

relevant time period were knowingly false." 

The memo also referenced the mID administrative proceeding initiated by Fredrick Newell, 

noting that in the proceeding "mID determined that the City was out of compliance with Section 

3. It did not appear to be a particularly close call. The City initially contested that finding, 

but dropped its challenge in order to retain its eligibility to compete for and secure discretionary 

HUD funding."'" 

The Civil Fraud Section also prepared an official memorandum recommending 

intervention in Newell's case. This memo, dated November 22,2011, found that "[tJhe City was 

required to comply with the statute Our investigation confirms that the City failed to do SO,,55 

The memorandum stated: 

To qualify for HlJD grant funds, the City was required to certify each year 

that it was in compliance with Section J The City then made claims for 

payment, drawing down its federal grant funds Distribution of funds by 

mID to the City was based on the City's certifications Each time the 

City asked HUD for money, it impliedly certified its compliance with 

Section 3. At best, the City's failure to take any steps towards compliance 

while continually telling federal courts, mID and others that it was in 

compliance with Section 3 represents a reckless disregard for the truth. 

We believe its certifications of Section 3 compliance to obtain HUD 

funds were actually more than reckless and that the City had actual 

knowledge that they were false. 56 

Thus, as of November 22,2011, HUD, the Civil Fraud Section, and the U.S. Attorney's Office in 

Minnesota all strongly supported intervention in Fredrick Newell's case, believing it was worthy 

offederal assistance. There was no documentation that it was a marginal case or a close call. 

Executing the Quid Pro Quo 

Shortly after the Supreme Court granted certiorari in Magner on November 7, 2011, 

Assistant Attorney General Perez became aware of the appeal. 57 On November 17, he emailed 

53 u.s. Attomey. Disttict of Minnesota, Intervention Memo U.S'. ex rei. ?v'el1'ell v. ('i~y ojS'f. Puul, AIinneso/a (Oct. 

25,2011). [DOJ72-79] 

"'id (emphasis added) 

55 U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Division, Memorandum for Tony West, Assistant Attomey General, Civil Division. 

ex rei. Newell v. Citv afSt. Paul, Minnesota (Nov. 22, 2011). [DOl 80-91] 

at 5 (emplJ.1sis added) 

Assistant AttOlllCY General Perez testified that he did not become aware of the A f(jJ!,ner case until after the Comt 

3h1feed 10 hear the appeal: hmvever, HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt told the Committees th,1t she and 

Perez likely had discussions about the case before the Comt granted eeltioran. 

14 
138 

Thomas Fraser, a partner at the Minneapolis law firm Fredrickson & Bryon, P.A. and an old 

colleague. Fraser put Perez in touch with his law partner David Lillehaug, who was defending 

the City of St. Paul in the Newell False Claims Act litigation. 

On the morning of November 23,2011, Perez had a telephone conversation with 

Lillehaug and Fraser. During this conversation, Perez explained the importance of disparate 

impact theory, calling it the "Iynchpin" of civil rights enforcement,58 and his concerns about the 

Magner appeal. Their accounts of the conversation differed as to when and who first raised the 

prospect that the City would withdraw Magner if the Department declined to intervene in 

Newell. Lillehaug told the Committees that he told Perez that he should know that the City was 

potentially adverse to the United States in a separate False Claims Act case. 59 Lillehaug further 

told the Committees that at a subsequent meeting, approximately one week later on November 

29, Perez told Lillehaug that he had looked into Newell and he had a "potential solution. "GO 

According to Perez, however, during the initial telephone call on November 23, Lillehaug 

actually linked the two cases and in fact suggested that if the United States would decline to 

intervene in Newell, the City would withdraw the Magner case61 Both parties agreed that Perez 

indicated he would look into the Newell case, and they would meet approximately one week later 

on November 29 

Following his conversation with Lillehaug and Fraser, Perez immediately reached out to 

ffiJD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt, HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky, and thenAssistant Attorney General Tony West. During a telephone conversation with Kanovsky, Perez 

told her that he had discussions with the City about Magner and asked her to reconsider HUD' s 

support for the Newell case 62 On November 29,2011 - only seven weeks after he signaled 

ffiJD's support for intervention and less than one week after Perez's initial telephone call with 

Lillehaug - HUD Associate General Counsel Dane Narode informed career Civil Fraud Section 

attorneys that ffiJD had reconsidered its position in Newell. 63 On December I, Narode 

memorialized the change in an email to the line attorney."4 

On December 13, 2011, several City officials - including Mayor Coleman and City 

Attorney Sara Grewing, as well as Lillehaug - traveled to Washington, D.C., for meetings with 

HUD and DOl's Civil Division. In the morning, the City officials met with Sara Pratt, 

discussing ideas for expanding the City's Section 3 compliance programs. In the afternoon, the 

City met with officials from the Civil Fraud Section to discuss Newell and Ellis - which was a 

second False Claims Act qui tam case filed against the City - as well as Magner. 

At the conclusion of the December 13,2011, meeting, the Civil Division asked ffiJD to 

better explain the reasons for its changed recommendation. Eventually, late on December 20, 

" Interview with David Lillehaug in Wasil.. D.C. (Oct. 16,2012) s9 1d. 

('0 lei. 

,,' Transcribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. at 47-48 (l'vIar. 22, 2013) 

62 Transcribed Interview v.'lth Helen K..111ovsk.\', U.s. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development" in Wash D.C. at 40-

41 (Apr. 5, 20D). 

63 EIII.1il [rom Dane Narode 10 Line Allorney 1 (Nov. 29. 2011. 8:06 p.m.).IHUD 1301 

6' Email from HUD Line Employee to Line Attomey I (Dec L 20 I L 1Il:08 a.m.). [DOJ 1611156] 

15 
139 

HUD sent its formal explanation to the Civil Fraud Section."5 The memorandum referenced 

HUD's voluntary compliance agreement with the City, describing it as "a comprehensive 

document that broadly addresses St Paul's Section 3 compliance, including the compliance 

problems at issue in the False Claims Act case.,,66 This explanation did not satisfy the career 

attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section. 

Throughout this period, Perez continued conversations with Lillehaug and the City. In 

mid-December, Perez had a telephone conversation with B. Todd Jones, the US. Attorney for 

the District of Minnesota, and began to speak regularly with Assistant US. Attorney Greg 

Brooker in Jones's office. In early January 2012, Perez had a meeting with Tony West and 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz. According to the DOJ officials with whom 

the Committees spoke, the Civil Division reached a "consensus" around this same period that the 

Di vision would decline intervention in Neweff. 

In early January, Perez personally led the negotiations with Lillehaug about DOJ 

declining intervention in Newell in exchange for the City withdrawing Magner. According to 

Lillehaug, Perez presented a proposal on January 9,2012, which Lillehaug described as a 

"roadmap" designed to get the City "to yes.,,67 In this proposal, DOJ would decline to intervene 

in Fllis, the City would then withdraw Magner, and DOJ would subsequently decline to 

intervene in Neweff. In mid-January, Lillehaug made a "counterproposal,,68 in which instead of 

merely declining to intervene in the qui tam cases, DOJ would intervene and settle Newell and 

}}Iis in exchange for the City withdrawing Magner 

By late January, it appeared as if no deal would be reached between the federal 

government and the City of St Paul With the oral ar,,'ument date in Magner quickly 

approaching, Perez flew to St. Paul to personally meet the Mayor and try once more for an 

agreement. At a meeting in City Hall on February 3, 2012, Perez lobbied the Mayor on the 

importance of disparate impact and told him DOJ could not go so far as intervening and settling 

the cases out from under the relator, but was still willing to decline Newell in exchange for the 

City withdrawing Mafi11er. The City officials caucused privately for a short time and eventually 

returned to accept the deal. The next week, DOJ fonnally declined to intervene in Newell and 

the City fonnally withdrew its appeal in Magner. After DOJ declined to intervene, Newell's 

case was fatally weakened, as the declination allowed the City to move for dismissal on grounds 

that would have been unavailable if the Department had intervened in the case. 

63 See Em<1il [romHUD Line Employee to Joyce Branda (Dec. 20. 201L 621 p.m.). IDOJ 408/3691 

C<, Memomndum for Joyce R Bnmda (Dec. 20, 2011). [DOJ 409-10/370-71] 

(-" Assistant: Attorney General Perez and Acting Associate Attorney General West testified that DOJ never made an 

offer to Lillelwug. Other testimony and documentary e\'idence, however, supports Lilleh.1ug's clWIacteriLation. 

(;8 Tn his transcribed Intclvicw. West initially characterized this offer as a "countclvroposa!" from the City, stating 

"ITlhere \vas this counterproposal from the City, \\-hieh ne rejected, of intervention and dismissal.-' Transcribed 

TntcIyicw of Dcrck Anthony Wcst. u.s. Dcp't of Justicc, in Wash., D.C. at 90 (Mar 18,2013) 

16 
140 

The Quid Pro Quo Explained 

The story of the I/Itill/l/'O 1I1//.J - how one man manipulated the levers ofgovemmem \0 

pre"ent the Supreme Court from hearing nn imponam appeal - is it~elf incredible. The 

Administration's version of events is even more unbelie~8ble, The poSt hoc explanations defy 

common sense and are contradicted by bOlh the tenll( and substance uf numerous imernal 

documents produced to lhe CommiUN:s 

The Admillistmtioo maintains that allhough career 8uOf11eys in the Depanmem of Juslice 

recommended intervention in 11'1.'11'0:11 _ and, in fact. charatteOzed the infractions as " p4rtieularly 

egregious" - the case was noncthele$:i quile weak ~nd !H.'ver should have been I seriOiIS 

Cllndidate for intervention. AcceplinH Ihis as Imc. I'erez's imervClltion was merely fortuitous 10 

ensuring Ihal the career anomeys wilh expcnise on the !'alse Claims ACI had one moreshOl to 

reevaluate the case. Because the decision was matle to decline Ncwcll and - as Tuny West told 

lhe Commiuee - that decision was communieatcd to the C,ly, the Admillistrntion mainlains thaI 

lhe Uniled State; i\avc up nothing 10 l;;,'CUfe the withdrawal of Mul,."u.', But Ihe Administration 

offers no e:ro:planation as to why the Cil), would ever agree 10 withdraw a SuprC'1l1e Court appeal it 

believed it would win, if "',cudy it knew the Department int~nded to decline intervention in 

NI", ~1f Dozens of documcms rerer to) lhe "deal," "settlement:' and "e:ro:ch an !!c~ between the 

Cilyand DOJ These documell1s caSI doubl on the Administration's narrative, as well, 

17 
141 

After almost fourteen months of investigating, the Committees found that the Department 

of Justice agreed to a quid pro qllo with the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, in which the Department 

agreed to decline intervention in Neweff and fiffis in exchange for the City withdrawing its 

appeal in Magner. This yuid pro quo was facilitated, overseen, and consummated by Assistant 

Attorney General Thomas Perez, who made it known to the City that his "top priority" was to 

have Magner withdrawn from the Supreme Court. To get the deal done, Perez exceeded the 

scope and autbority of his office, manipulated the protocols designed to preserve the integrity of 

intervention decisions, worked behind the scenes - and at times behind the backs of his 

colleagues at tbe Department with whom decision-maldng authority rested - and took it upon 

himself to strike an agreement with the City. These are the findings oftbe Committees' 

investigation: 

The Agreement Was a Quid Pro Quo Exchange 

The Department of Justice and the Department of Housing and Urban Development have 

repeatedly insisted that the agreement with the City was not a "quid pro qllo." In transcribed 

interviews, Assistant Attorney General Perez, Acting Associate Attorney General West, and U. S. 

Attorney Jones all contested the characterization that the agreement was a qUid pro qllo or an 

exchange between the parties 69 In particular, Perez told the Committees: "I would disagree with 

the term 'quid pro quo,' because when I think of a quid pro quo, I think of, like in a sports 

context, you trade person A for person B and it's a - it's a binary exchange.,,7o In fact, that is 

precisely what transpired. 

Although these officials disputed the existence of an exchange, they did not dispute tbe 

fact that discussions with the City concerned a proposal that the City withdraw Magner if the 

Department declined Neweff. Perez testified "[SI. Paul's outside counsel David] Lillehaug 

raised the prospect that the city would withdraw its petition in the Magner case if the Department 

would decline to intervene in Ncweff.d] Perez subsequently testified: "What I recall Mr. 

Lillehaug indicating in this initial telephone call was that if the Department would decline to 

intervene in the NeH'eff matter, that the city would then witbdraw the petition" in lvfagner72 This 

testimony shows the exchange between the City and the Department was conditional. 

Contemporaneous documents confirm that an exchange took place. An email from a 

Civil Fraud Section line attorney to then-Civil Fraud Director Joyce Branda expressly 

characterized the agreement as an "exchange" while explaining the state of negotiations. The 

attorney wrote: "We are working toward declining both matters [Neweff and Effis]. It appears 

that AAG for Civil Rights (Tom Perez) is working with the city on a deal to withdraw its petition 

before the SUfreme Court in the Gaffagher case in exchange for the government's declination in 

both cases.',7 

69 Sce Transcribed lntervien, of Thomt1s EdwardPereL U.S. Dep'l of Justice, in Wash., D.C. [It 170-71 (Mm. 22-

201:1); Transcribed InteIVie\" of Derek Anthony West, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 117 (Mar. 18,2013); 

Transcribed Interview of Bvron Todd Jones, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at UO-41 (Mar. 8, 2013). 

'0 Transcribed Interview of Thomas Ed",ard PereL, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. al 170 (.Mar. 21. 2013). 

71 TranSClibcd Jntclvicw of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 10 (Mar. 22, 2011). 

~~ Tran~cribed l~lterview of Thom3s Ed\\-ard PereL, U.S. Dep't o! Justice, in Wasl~., D.C. at 47-48 (M1r. 22, 2013). 

- EmaIl from LlIle Attomey I to Joyce Bmnda (Jan. 9, 2012, I :oJ p.m.) (emphaSIS added). [DOJ 686/641] 

18 
142 

In addition, a draft version of the Newell declination memo prepared by career attorneys 

in the Civil Fraud Section in early 2012 clearly stated that the Department entered into an 

exchange with the City 

The City tells us that Mr. Perez reached out to them and asked them to 

withdrawal [sic] the Gallagher petition The City responded that they 

would be willing to do so, only if the United States declined to intervene 

in this case, and in u.s. ex reI. ii//is v. Ihe Cify of SI. Pall I el af. The Civil 

Rights Division believes that the [Fair Housing Act] policy interests at 

issue here are significant enough to justify such a dea1.,,74 

The final version signed by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 

obfuscated the true nature of the exchange. The memo signed by West stated: "The City has 

indicated that it will dismiss the Gallagher petition, and declination here will facilitate the City's 

doing SO.,,75 

Former Associate Attorney General Thomas Perrelli told the Committees that he 

understood from speaking with Perez that the proposal included an exchange. Perrelli testified' 

[Perez] indicated to me that this case [Magner] was before the Supreme 

Court He indicated the desire for the United States to not file a brief in 

the case, and expressed the view that this was not a good vehicle to decide 

the issue of disparate impact, and indicated that the city had proposed to 

him the possibility of dismissing - and I don't remember whether it was 

one or more qui lam cases - in exchange for them not pursuing their 

appeal to the Supreme Court76 

In addition, a chart of significant matters within the Civil Division prepared for the Deputy 

Attorney General James Cole in March 2012 characterized the agreement with the City as 

follows: "Government declined to intervene in Newell, and has agreed to decline to intervene in 

Ellis, in exchange for defendant[']s withdrawal of cer!. petition in Gallagher case (a civil rights 

action).,,77 

Based on Perez's admission that negotiations centered on the City of St. Paul's 

withdrawal of Magner if the Department declined intervention in Newell and DO]' sown 

characterization of an exchange, it is apparent that the agreement reached between Perez and the 

City involved the exchange of Newell and iillis for Magner. In this exchange, the City gave up 

its rights to litigate Magner before the Supreme Court - an appeal it publicly stated it believed it 

"1 U.S. Dep'j of Justice, Civil DivisioIL Memorrmdlffil [or Tony West Assistant Altome~' General, Civil Di\ision, 

US'. ex rei. ,\bvell v. ('i(v (~fSI. Paul, .lfinneso/u (Jan. 10, 2(12) (draft declination memorandum). [DOll 089-

99/979-89] 

'3 U.S. Dep'j of Justice, Civil DivisioIL Memorandlffil for Ton), West Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 

L'.S ex reI. Newellv. r'ilvofSI. Paul, Minnes()/o (Feb. 9, 2(12). [DOJ IJ 1 8-2911 162-73] 

-, Transcribed Interview of ThOlms JohnPerrelh in Wash .. D.C. at 16 (Nov. 19,2012) (emphasis added). 

"' Significant Affillnative Civil and CJimill3l Matters (Mar. 8, 2012) (emphasis added). [DOJ 1410-1211248-50] 

19 
143 

would win7J ~ and DOl gave up its ri,ght to intervene and prosecute the alleged fraud against 

HUD in N .. welf ~ a case Ihal career attorneys strongl y supponed. In return. Ihe City re<:eived 

cenainty that DOJ would not litigate N., .... ,lI and DOJ receil'ed assurance thallhe Supreme Coun 

would not consider MlIglII:r. Therefore. under the common usage of the tern!. the agreemelll 

between DOl and the City clearly amounted to a quid 1'1"0 quo exchange. 

Finding: The Depanmenl of JusUCO! entered into B !fll/d I"Q TJIW arrangement with the City of 

St Paul. f\ti'lnesot3. in '" b' eh Ihe Depanment agreed 10 decline intervention in (j/llled 

SI<ltI.'S ".~ rd N<'w,'1f ~ /I)' of SI. Pall/ and U"iMI States <'x rei. f;JIi.\ I'. CII)' (If St. 

PIIIII et III. in exchange Of the Cily \\oithd11lwing A/u/tller ". G<,fluKh.:r from the 

Supreme CQUn. 

U NDERSTllND1N6 "'REI'S 5£CRET DEAL .. _ ..... --..."1,....._ .. __ ......... _ .. """' ....... - .. - _ .. _ .--_._-_ ....... , ....... __ .. <:» ......... - ...... ""',_ ..... _ .... __ ..... _ ......... __ .. _ .. _- .. .., ..... __ .... _ ....... _ ..... _-" ...... - WHO'S INVOLVEO 

'Q, ~ M. 'Q, 

' .. _c..o ~-~ .. __ .. _- --_ ... ._--- ""--- _ ...... - .._---... '" -"'-"-" --_ .. - -- "--"'-'-

_ ......... _'-..... . _ ...... _-.. - the By ";' Magn .. "wi.. ar Case, ~ the OOJ', suspec1-

e nforcement 

policy w" no 

longer.t rislc. 1J-~ 

~ "'l' t L -_ .... 

... _.- _,-- .... - --. _ .. _#f.. ---,. ~- __ u. .. " .• _ c-.~ 

~,.... 'Q,~ Th. N_. II CaM 

which could have 

--~ - e na bled t .. paye~ 

I to ...,coller o v.r $200 million. 

--~-

.,. Pless Role _ _ City ofs""" Poul s..:~ O\Snu .. U .. ,oo SU>IC. S""",n., Co,," C~se Magi." ,. Golbop, {Fcb 

10. :1012) 

20 
144 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Facilitated the Initial Stages of the Quid Pro Quo 

In the early stages of developing the quia pro qllO, Assistant Attorney General Perez told 

the City's outside counsel, David Lillehaug, that withdrawing Magner was his "top priority,,79 

But arriving at that point was no certainty. Already, three separate entities within the federal 

government had recommended intervention in Newell. For a deal to be made and for Magner to 

be withdrawn, Perez would have to aggressively court key otlicials in DOJ and HUD. 

On November 13, 20 II, Perez had an email exchange with HUD Deputy Assistant 

Secretary Sara Pratt about efforts by housing advocates to facilitate a settlement to prevent the 

Court from hearing the appeal. 80 After the Court granted certiorari in Magner, Perez contacted 

Minnesota lawyer Thomas Fraser to start a "conversation" with the Mayor and City Attorney 

about his "concerns about Magner and to see whether the City might reconsider its position."" 

When Fraser connected Perez with Lillehaug and Perez became aware of the Newell case 

pending against the City," Perez had found his leverage.'.l 

Perez and Lil1ehaug spoke on the telephone on the afternoon of November 23,2011 R4 

Perez and Lillehaug gave differing accounts of this initial conversation. Perez testified that 

Lillehaug linked the Magner case with the Newell case, and offered that the City would withdraw 

the Magner appeal ifDOJ declined to intervene in Newell85 Lillehaug, however, told the 

Committees that he merely mentioned the Newell case because the City may be adverse to the 

United States, and Perez promised that he would look into the case. 86 Lillehaug told the 

Committees that it was Perez who first raised the possibility of a j oint resolution of Magner and 

Newell in a November 29 meeting with Lillehaug and St. Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing. 87 

Again, Perez's version of events strains credulity. It is dimcult to believe that Lillehaug, during 

this initial telephone call, would immediately be in a position to make an offer of this nature on 

behalf of the City without discussing it first with his client 

Immediately after speaking with Lillehaug at 2:00 p.m, Perez went to work, somewhat 

frenetically. At 2:29 p.m. that day, Perez emailed HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Pratt, asking 

to speak with her as soon as possible."' At 2:30 p.m., Perez emailed HUD General Counsel 

Helen Kanovsky, asking to speak about a "rather urgent matter."go At 2:33 p.m., Perez emailed 

Tony West, head of DOJ's Civil Division and thus ultimately responsible for False Claims Act 

cases like Newell Perez wrote: "I was wondering if I could talk to you today if possible about a 

79 Interview of David Lillehaug in Wasil, D.C. (Oct 16,2012). 

x" Email from Sara K. Pratt to Thonms E. Perez (Nov. 13,2011. 2'59 p.m). IDO] 93J 

81 Transcribed Inlen!lew of Thomas Ed",ard PeTe/" U.s. Dep't or Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 9 (Mar. 22, 2013). 

so Email from Thomas Fraser to Thomas E. Perez (Nov. 22.201 I. 7:07 p.m). [DOJ 95-96] 

~3 Gi\'en that PereL called Fraser. who Imd no im'olvemenl \\'llh the ~\dagller appe<ll instead of directly conlllcting the 

st. Paul City AttomeY"'s Office_ it is likely that Perez contacted Fmser in search of leyerage to use to get the }\{Ilgner 

case withdrawn - and not to start a "conversation-' with the City 

i:H lntervie\,' ofDm,id Lillelwug in Wash.. D.C. (Oct. 16,2012)': Trrlllscribed Intervie\" of Thomas Ed\\'ard Perez, 

U.S. Dep't ofJustice, in Wash .. D.C. at 127-28 (Mar. 22, 20IJ). 

x' Transcribed Interview of Thomas E. Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wasil, D.C. at 10 (l'vIar. 22, 2013) 

86 Interview of David Lillehaug in Wasil. D.C. (Oct 16,2(12). 8' [d 

88 Email from Thon",s E. PereL to Sam K. Pratt (Nov. 23. 20ll. 2:29 p.m.). IDO] 1031 

89 Email from Thomas E. Perczto Helen Kanovsk-y (Nov. 23,2011,2:30 p.m.). [DOJ 165-66] 

21 
145 

separate matter of some urgency.,,90 All three officials - Pratt, Kanovsky, and West - would be 

vital for making the withdrawal of Magner a reality. 

The next week, on November 28, Perez had a meeting with several of his senior advisers 

in the Civil Rights Division. During this meeting, Perez and his advisers discussed a search for 

leverage in Magner and the fact that St. Paul Mayor Coleman's political mentor is former Vice 

President Waiter Mondale, a champion of the Fair Housing Act91 Civil Rights Division 

Appellate Section Chief Greg Friel's notes from the meeting retlect a discussion of the Newell 

q1li lam case. Friel's notes stated that "HUD is will[ing] to leverage [the] case to help resolve 

[the] other case," presumabl y referring to Magner."2 The last lines of the notes state the Civil 

Rights Division's "ideal resolution" would be the dismissal of Magner and the other case "goes 

away."o, 

Perez testified that he did not recall ever asking HUD to reconsider its initial intervention 

recommendation in Newe1l94 However, HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky's testimony to 

the Committees directly contradicted Perez's testimony. Kanovsky testified that after HUD 

recommended intervention in Newell, Perez called her to ask her to reconsider. Kanovsky stated: 

Q Did [Perez] ask you to go back to your original position, to reconsider? 

A He did. He did 

Q He did? What did he say? 

A He said, well, if you don't feel strongly about it, how would you feel about 

withdrawing your approval and indicating that you didn't endorse the 

position? And I said, I would do that'"' 

HUD Principal Deputy General Counsel Kevin Simpson veritied this account in an earlier nontranscribed briefing with the Committees9 (, Once HUD tlipped, support for Newell eroded 

within the U.S. Attorney's Office and the Civil Division. In transcribed interviews, both Acting 

Associate Attorney General Tony West and U.S. Attorney B. Todd Jones cited HUD's change of 

heart as a strong factor in their decision to ultimately decline intervention in Newe1l97 

Although it is in dispute as to who first raised the idea of exchanging Newell for Magner, 

it is clear that the proposal got off the ground within the bureaucracies of HUD and DOJ as a 

90. Email fwm Thomas E. Perez to Tony West (Nov. 23. 2011. 2:33 p.m.). [DOl 1O~1 

91 HandvHitten noles of com ers<ltlon bel \\een TholTlt1s PereL Jocelyn Samuels, ViChl SchultL and Eric Halperin 

(Nov. 28. 2(11). rDOJ 11 1-13/ I 06-081 

92 1d. 

93 1d. 

9-1 Transclibed Interview of Thomas Ed\yard Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. at 131 (Mar. 22,2013). 

',l~ Transcribed IntcIvic,,, of Hc1cn Kanovsky, U.S. Dcp"1 of Housing & Urban Development, in WasIL D.C. at '+0-41 

(Apr. 5, lOB) 

96 BJicfing \"lth Kevin Simpson and Blyan Greene in Wash., D.C. (Jan. 10,2015). 

9' Transcribed Interview of Derek Anthony West. U.S. Dep't of Justice. in W"sh. D.C. "t lOll (M1r. IS. lOl3); 

Transcribcd JntcIyicw of Bywn Todd Joncs, u.s. Dcp·t of Justicc, in Wash .. D.C. at 59 (Mar. 8, 2015). 

22 
146 

result of the machinati ons of Assislant Attorney General Perez, It was Perez y.·ho bC(;o1me awareof the esiSlence orthe N~ cll compl~jn t against the Cit)' and it was Perct who asked ~el~n 

Kanm'sky to reconsider HUD's niti~1 recommendation for intervention.9/! Perez also initiated 

conversations with Tony West about the Civil Di vision's imerem in Nt!"..'1f II was Perez who 

spoke 10 HUD's General Couns,"" Hel en Kanoy, ky about c~1Iing Tony West - withouttellil\!! 

West that he was doing so - Theev(.ntua! Iwecment bl.'lw ...... n the City and DOJ in Fl-bl\'iry 

2012 was only possible due to the early politicking done by Perez in late November 2011 

.t'l!t:ItiBl: The qUid pro qUo WlS ~ I direct 1t __ -. A,sistllli AltOfIlC'y Gellera! Perez 5 

luc=ssflll l'ITons to preJ iure the Depanmcnl of' Housing And Urban Development. 

Ihe U S Al\omOY ':~OfJli:~ til MinnCfOlA. and the Ciyil I)",b u;m Mlhlll the 

Departml!lll of Justice _IQ] recooJider their suppM (Of Nt".,,1/ in the conte.'(1 Ilf the 

B I t(l .... ilt\dTtw "I' 

TII.- Initial Smgf!).· "/Ih., Qlli" Pro Qw, C(mfilud (mil FrU,I'rrlllc/1 Cureer AI/ornl')'!' 

As Assi~talll AUQI'Iley General Perez facilitated the early stages oftheqllid pro q/lV, the 

high.lcyci communications he iniliated abou t the TlIther foutine intL'fvention decision in N"II,t!1I 

led to confusion and fru SlrariOn among career Civil Fraud SC<:tion aHomeys 11 UD's une~pected 

and un .... ~pluined chal1!1t' in ils interV\'nliOIl recomml'l1datitlfl in late NOI'ember ,ud IIle ripple 

efTec!!i it cauS'l'd in the Civil Fraud Section and U,S Altomey's Office in Minnesota created an 

almosphere: ofuncenai my and disord ~r. From late NOI'cmbcr 2011 10 early January lOll, Ihe 

C3fl'er auornt:)'5 in the Justice Deparunent - iucluding those with ..-sperlis.: and responsibility for 

enforcin!,; the False Claim$ Act - were working al cross-purposes with some of the Depanment's 

~enior political appoiml't's 

In IMe No\,emher 2011. ~IUD As.~;ate General Counsel Dane Narode. informed the 

Civil Fl1I.lld Section that HUI) had ch;!.nged its rI'Commendalion Career o!1icials in DOl's Ciyil 

Fmud SCClion and Ihe U,S, Attorney's Office expressed surprise about the oudden shirt within 

HUD One attorney called it wei dneS5,~!OO and Greg Brooh..-. th ... dvil division chkfin the 

U,S, Attorney's Office in MinncS()\p, wrote "HUD is so mess~-d Up,,,IQI A Ci~i! Fraud li'le 

attorney reponed to then-Civil Fraud SCClion Director Joyce Branda Ihat Narodc crypticaJly lold 

her "if DOJ wants funhl'f infonnation about whal is dri ving HUD's decislon. SOIlll'(\lle hiJ!h le~cI 

within DOJ might nee<! to call {BUD General Coonsel] Helen Kanovuy,',11ll She also lold 

Branda thaI Greg Friel, the Appellate Section chiefin the Civil Rights Di l'ision, had knc\'er 

heard oflheNvwvll Cllse, so he cannot imagine how the Qallusher case can be afTecting the 

N"'t'~1/ case "IOJ Branda passed thi5 ununa;oty alo,,!! to Deputy AssiS1ant Attorney General 

.. Hc, ... "8""~ Pc,.,-,', "'sllI''''''Y """",..riel> ,, 'IO;:~"""' IQI ~ .,",c,,'Cd brllo;: CO",,,,,,,,,,,,,, Pc"" ,t •• "rocd ,1 .. ,!It'd,d 

"", """" I asI.,ngilUD 10 """'1'1\;<10 II, (11\..-. e,.",,, .x..""",,: t",,",el. ~k" ""no,,~} lokilt.oU,,,,,,,,U,,<'$ ,1.,1 

)IUD ~) ch,,,ow:<! Ils ".,..I"'" "Oe, bolllg ., ~ed 10 <Io~ b) Pcr .... 

'" ,""' I~It5C'I;kd h""" owof[kr~~ AIIII-..'I1- w .... U S Dep', or J~ '" Wash , O.C 01 I~I> 'SI) , IMK-l\9 ("la, 18, 2tlt1) . 

"., E"""l f'o,," L",,, AI'on",} ) 'It G'''l1 B,,,,,I;cr(Ooc 2, 211 11 , 1l'(!Z p,"',) 1001 11111{,,11 

' .. En./"I f",", Gt"S 0""",",'10 L"", Alto""'-' J INc,,, ;\11, 11.111. III ~M o,m.) rDOJ IllJl lt51 

II" E"""l fro,,, L",. Allon",)' I to lor'" Ih,,,,d., \Ooc 2, 2< 111 , 11 .5'10 "',1 100J IW/t(; 11 

"" JJ. 

2J 
147 

Michael Hertz in an email, where she stated: "1 am not sure [h]ow [G]allagher impacts 

[N]ewell,,104 

HUD's change of heart, however, was no surprise to Assistant Attorney General Perez 

On November 30, then-Assistant Attorney General Tony West emailed Perez about Newell. He 

stated: "HUD formally recommended intervention. Let's discuss.,,105 Perez responded only 

minutes later. He wrote "I am conti dent that position has changed You will be hearing from 

Helen [Kanovsky] today."lOO 

What Perez did not tell West was that he was simultaneously communicating with 

Kanovsky - a fact that West did not know at the time107 Later on November 30, after West and 

Kanovsky spoke, Perez emailed Kanovsky and asked: "How did things do with Tony?,,1(JR 

Kanovsky responded the next day. She wrote: "1 hope ok. He was aware of our communication 

to his staff earlier and asked for it in writing. We sent [Line Attorney 1] the requested email this 

morning,,,109 

As the month of December wore on, confusion mounted. At the conclusion ofthe 

December 13 meeting with City officials, DOJ's Hertz asked HUD's Dane Narode to provide a 

fuller explanation ofHUD's changed recommendation in Newell." 0 When HUD had not offered 

an explanation by December 20, Civil Fraud reiterated Hertz's request111 A Civil Fraud line 

attorney explained the situation to then-Civil Fraud Section Director Branda in an e-mail: He 

stated' 

[T]he USAO is inquiring about the status of our position. It is not 

withdrawing its recommendation to intervene, HUD does not seem 

inclined to give us its position in writing short of the email it sent. 

Mike Hertz told Dane at the conclusion of the meeting on December 13 

that [HUD's given basis] was not a reason to decline a qui lam and asked 

Dane to follow-up with a formal position. In the meantime, Mike Hertz 

sent the authority memo back to our office. We are in a difficult position 

because we have an intervention deadline of January 13 and the USAO 

does not know what, if anything, it is being asked to do at this point."2 

Branda told the Committees that when Hertz returned the initial intervention memo, she took that 

to mean that he had decided against intervention.'Ll However, an email between two line 

attorneys in December 2011 indicates that Hentz returned the memo to allow the attorneys to 

",4 Emailfrom Joyce Branda to Michael Hertz (Dec. 5,2011,7:05 a.m.). [DOJ 186/175] 

leo Enmil [rom Tom Wesllo ThOllU1S E. Perez (Nov. 30. 2011. 3.07 p.m.). IDOJ 124/119J 

lOG Email from Thomas E. Perez to Tony West (Nov. 30, 2011,3: 1-1- p.m.). rnOJ 124/1191 

"e Transcribed Interview of Derek Anthony West, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 149-50. 188-89 (Mar. 18. 

2(13) 

108 Email from Thomas E. Perez to Helen R. KallOvsky (Nov. ]0, 201 L 7:20 p.m). [DOJ 165] 

1<" Email from Helen R. Kanovsh to Thomas E. Perez (Dec. I, 20 II, 10:50 a.m.). [DOJ 165] 

llO See Email [romLineAliomey.llo HUD Line Employee (Dec. 20, 2011, 4'38 p.m.). IDOJ 387/3491 

111 It!. 

ll: Email [rom Line Allomev 110 Joyce Bronc!'1 (Dec. 20, 2011, 4"44 p.m.) IDOJ 388/3501 

113 Briefing with Joyce Bral~da in W~sh., D.C (Dec. 5, 2012) 

24 
148 

incorporate HlJD's "new analysis and explanation for its changed position.,,"4 A 

contemporaneous email from Branda supports this understanding. Branda wrote: "I guess the 

other issue we need to flesh out better (hopefully with HUD) is the extent to which they had a 

reasonable beliefthat their compliance with other requirements for minorities and women 

satisfied Section 3, which I think troubled Mike The memo may need to address that more 

fully. ,,115 

As the career attorneys at DOJ attempted to get further infonnation on RUD's position, 

their frustration mounted. One career attorney wrote: "This is ridiculous. I have no control over 

any of this. Why are higher level people making phone caiIS?,,116 Another career attorney 

wrote: "It feels a little like 'cover your head' ping pong. Do we need to suggest that the big 

people sit in a room and then tell us what to do? I kinda think Perez, West, Helen, and someone 

from the Solicitor's office need to mai(e a decision.,,117 

Kanovsky told the Committees that she was aware of this frustration among the career 

attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section. Kanovsky testified that the career attorneys were "upset 

that there was another part of the Justice Department that wanted to go a different direction, 

which was going to get in the way of them doing what they want to dO"118 

On December 23,2011, a line attorney in the Civil Fraud Section wrote to another line 

attorney about HUD's change of heart and the silence from the U.S. Attorney's Office about its 

position. She wrote: "It seems as though everyone is waiting for someone else to blink,,119 The 

same day, the line attorney emailed Joyce Branda. The email stated: 

I thought our marching orders were to draft a declination memo and to 

concur with the USAO-Minn. USAO-Minn. called me today (Greg 

Brooker, [Line Attorney 3], [Line Attorney 4]). Tony West, Todd Jones, 

and Tom Perez have apparently had conversations about this. Everything 

I have is third hand. Tom Perez called Greg Brooker directly yesterday. 

We discussed this plan today and the USA blessed the idea of [Line 

Attorney 2] and [Line Attorney 3] reaching out to defendant. The clear 

implication is that this is what should happen, but certainly I have not 

heard this directly from Tony West or Perez. 120 

In another email to Branda minutes later, the same line attorney elaborated on her frustration 

with the process. The email stated 

By the way, when the district called me this morning to discuss the case, I 

did not tell them I knew that their USA was planning to decline (as we 

114 EmailfromLine Attorney I to Line Attorney 2 (Dec. 17,2011,3:10 p.m.). [DOJ 381/346] 

lI5 Enwilfrom Joyce Branda 10 Line Allomey 1 (Dec. 20, 4'54 p.m). IDOl 3YO/352 I 

::~; Ellla~1 from L~ne Attomey 1 to L~lle Att0111ey 2 (Dec. 20, 5:00 p.m.). [DOJ 397/359] 

Emml from Lllle Attorney 2 to Lllle Attorney I (Dec. 20, 20 11,5:02 p.m.). [DOJ 400/362] 

118 Trnnscribed lnlen:ien of Helen K..111ovsky, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban De\·elopmenl, in Wash., D.C. at 137 

(Apr. 5, 20]]) 

lI9 Email [rom Line Allomev 110 Line Allomev 2 (Dec. 23, 20ll. Y'35 a.m.). IDOl 5411,011 

1':0 Email from Line Atto1llc~' 1 to Joyce Branch & Line AttOlllCY 2 (Dec. 23, 2011, 3:-1.7 p.m.) [DOJ 552/512] 

25 
149 

discuss~-d I would nOi tell th,!m) It wns ~ d'ffk "lt r0 I1 ti l1 to ht 

1"!II ~~ t, m, pillying I1l1mh "d them d t arly fefling mf out to . t t liD 1 

hlld b H'!! lold nhollt tht ron,'el'Slu;on wilh Ih, i, USA, Eventu~lI y they 

gm around 10 telling me, hut clearly they were hoping nO! to be the lirst 

office to iKly "we will deelinc." 1 did tell them tllat 1 felt confident that we 

would concur with their dedirnation and thai our offices would 110t be split 

on this question (of COUT'Se I know thnt wms our position). Thi ~ rfa ll y 

,«m. U lrf mfly (lff Nnd illffficifllt. Why are hirc-ups [.sit1 having 

numerous one em one cOIlver.,ation5 instead (If U5 all having a conference 

caJi wilh Tony West, Perez, and Ihe USA.\.O we can get perfectly dear on 

h~t we are w do. III 

Documents produc d to the Commiu !e~ show thai this confusion cOlllinu('(i th roughout 

December 201 t, In an early January 2012 meeting between ASSistant Allomey General Perez. 

then-Assistam AIIOTney General Weg!, and Deputy Assistant AnOfncy General Michael Hcnz, 

West and Hertz Bgre<!d 10 allow Perez: to lead negotia tions with the City about /r.-krg""r and the 

tW(I False Claims Aet mallcu.

1u At this point, Ihe caree! trial altomeys in the Cil'iI Fraud 

Section bC\:llme merely a rubbeTSlamp for Perez's eventual agreement, 

Tbi ;lIi\iq] development tlte. 'p,iJ 1'1"11 q,1iI toy 1e.IIinr pnlitie.-tl 5ppniniteS, alld 'fit 

subsequent 180 Gt8J"O!t f'ta ngt of postUOII. eoot"used and fru!lIated tm, career 

!)qn.rtml:lll or )U H:~ att(tneY,~ r~blt' for enrorCil\g the Fulse Cla ~ I\ct. wbl) 

described the situaliOll a weirdlle:\S," "'ridiruloo.\.·· and I (lIse of · ctlVer yooT head ." "",,," 

IIUI)',; P," lwrrell e/ ·'!11 \1I!r II,' O'lIl11l:e" e~oll I! /U llllif!n ill Newell Are II/ rS' III,~ i>'e III'" 

II Pre/ex' !lIr HUI)".. I)""'i,,," Wi/h"r"",'"I 'if l'lob gllfr 

The Department of "lousing and Urban Development initi~lIy notifi ed Ihe Civil Fraud 

Seerion that it had changed its N<, ... ,,1t recommendation in late November 201 1, HUD did not 

fuUy e.xplain its rea50n~ until mid· De>cember 201 I - and only then after DO! attorneys asked 

HUD to do so. A careful e.x3minatioll ofHUD's purported rea.\.Ons for its changed 

recommendation reveals thatlho5C reason, are unsupported by the evidence and SU);gCSIS a 

prete:>:t for a politically motivated decisi(ln tn preve.ntlllc Supreme Court fTtlm hearing MI~",er 

On November 2Q, 2011 - only -SCVt'lt wet:ks after he signall-d HUD's support tOr 

intervention and only six days after Perez's first discussion wilh Lillehaug - HUD i\ssocillle 

General Counsel Dane Narode infonned eareerCivll Fraud Seaion attorneys that HUD had 

re-considered its intervention rccoml11oCndation in New,",' 11.\ On December I, Narodc 

memorialized the change in an email. He staled 

~ E,,,,,,I rro'" L" " AlIO""' ' I 10 (0)'<:0 Bmuda & L,."", AII~n"') 1 (0«.1 \ 11111 , ~ II P II! \."",ha lOddc<I~ 

[DOJ 55")15 19j 

:: ..... ." r",,,,,,,nl>o."<I h •• " ",,, c[ "",,.k AroIhtm) W<$I US, O"r" or J,,,ht:1', '0 W~ t~ , 0 C Of 7~.JCt (M."U Jg. WIll. 

," Em",1 rro,,,~ .. N:u!l(le In L".., AI.o"",,' I (No,' 2~, lOJ I, M OG p."nIHuO 11UI 
150 

This is to confirm our telephone conversation of Tuesday night in which T 

infonned you that Hl)D has reconsidered its support for intervention by 

the government in the St. Paul qui tam matter. HUD has detennined that 

intervention is not necessary because St Paul's programmatic noncompliance has been corrected through a Voluntary Compliance 

Agreement with HUD. 124 

After DOJ asked for further explanation, a BUD attorney sent BUD's formal explanation in a 

memorandum to the Civil Fraud Section on December 20. 12' The memorandum referenced 

HUD's Voluntary Compliance Agreement with the City, describing it as "a comprehensive 

document that broadly addresses St. Paul's Section 3 compliance, including the compliance 

problems at issue in the False Claims Act case." 12(, The memo stated: 

Given the City's success in ensuring that its low- and very low-income 

residents are receiving economic opportunities generated by federal 

housing and community development funding, as required by Section 3, 

and the financial and other investments that the City has made and is 

continuing to make from its own resources to accomplish this, HUD 

considers it imprudent to expend the limited resources of the federal 

government on this matter. 127 

This explanation initially did not satisfy the career attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section 

One line attorney, in an email to her colleague, wrote: "Well that was a fast change of heart."128 

Joyce Branda, the then-Director of the Civil Fraud Section, was even more direct: "It doesn't 

address the question I have. Do they agree their belief was reasonable about section 3 

compliance? Nothing about the merits.,,129 When Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hertz 

forwarded the memo to then-Assistant Attorney General Tony West, he stated that the memo 

"[s]till principally focuses on the prospective relief." 130 

Unconvinced by HUD's explanation, the Civil Fraud Section asked Narode to address 

whether HUD believed that St. Paul had complied with Section 3 through its women- and 

minority-owned business enterprises (WBEs and MBEs)Ul This request sparked a mild panic 

within HUD. Melissa Silverman, a HUD Assistant General Counsel, wrote to Dane Narode 

about the City's Vendor Outreach Program (VOP) for WBEs and MBEs, explaining that there 

were significant problems with the City's VOP and "just because St. Paul had a VOP doesn't 

mean it met the goals of the VOP or Section 3,,132 Silvennan also emailed HUD Deputy 

Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt to inform her about press reports and an independent audit that 

1C4 Email from HUD Line Employee to Line Attollley I (Dec. L 2011, 10:08 a.m). rDOJ 16111561 

12; See Email fromHUD Line Employee to Joyce Branda (Dec. 20, 2011, 6:21 p.m.). [DOJ 408/369] 

126 Memorandum [or Jovce R. Branda (Dec. 20. 20ll). IDOJ 409-1lI/370-711 !d. . 

:~: LineAttornev I to Joyce Branda (Dec. 21, 2011, 7:13 a.m). [DOJ 418/379] 

~ Em",1 [rom Jovce Branda 10 Lllle Allome, 1 & Lllle Allome, 2 (Dec. 21. 2011. 7:51 a.m.). IDOJ 42013811 

130 Email from Michael HeItz to Tony West (Dec. 21, 20 II, 10:57 a.m). [DOJ 440/40 I] 

131 Euwil from Melissa Silvenl1..1ll to Michelle AroumvilL (Dec. 21. 20lL 3:58 p.m.). IHUD 2321 

132 Email from Melissa Silvennan to Dane Narode (Dec. 22, 2011, 12:01 p.m.). [HUD 222] 

27 
151 

found problems with the City's WEE and MBE enforcementU.l Pratt responded: "Yes, I'm 

treading carefully here." 134 

As mID struggled to respond to the Civil Fraud Section, Sara Pratt reached out directly 

to the City to seek its assistance. On the same day that the Civil Fraud Section made its request, 

Pratt spoke with St. Paul's outside counsel, John Lundquist, a law partner of David Lillehaug. 135 

Lundquist responded by sending three separate emails to Pratt with infonnation about the City's 

programs.136 These emails included infonnation about the City's YOP and the independent 

audit, as well as a position paper that the City prepared for the Civil Division. 137 When Pratt 

forwarded this infonnation to Silvennan, Silverman noted her concerns about the infonnation in 

an email to Narode. She stated: 

Sara's attachment is the City's 'position paper' setting forth reasons why 

the City thinks the Govt should decline to intervene. Among other things, 

the City references the Hall audit's review of its YOP, but says nothing 

other than: 'overall, the results were largely positive.' This is just not 

true. The Hall audit reports the small percentages of contracting dollars 

directed toward MBEs and WBEs and describes a lack of 

responsibility, enforcement, etcU" 

With this information calling into doubt the City's WBE and MBE programs, mID had 

ditliculty crafting an adequate response. Pratt and other attorneys traded draft language before 

mID Deputy General Counsel Michelle Aronowitz suggested, "if we respond at all, why 

wouldn't we just reiterate that mID does not want to proceed with the false claims for the 

reasons stated in our letter, the city is in compliance with mID's section 3 YCA, and it is 

possible that compliance with MBE, etc, requirements could result in compliance with Section '" ,,139 ,). 

This is the path HUD took. On December 22, Melissa Silvennan wrote to the Civil Fraud 

Section line attorney. She stated: 

HUD's Otlice of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity has detennined that 

the City of St. Paul is not only in compliance with the YCA, but is also in 

compliance with its Section 3 obligations at this time. As described in our 

December 20,2001 [sic] memo, HUD does not wish to proceed with the 

False Claims Act case. It is possible that notification to MBEs, WEEs, 

and SBEs could result in compliance with Section 3 requirements, in 

133 Enmil [rom Melissa Silvernmilio Sam K. Prall (Dec. 22. 2011. 216 p.m.). [HUD 2251 

134 Email from Sara K. Pratt to Melissa Si!vellnan (Dec. 22, 2011,2:24 p.m.). fHUD 2251 

'" See Email from John Lundquist to Sara K. Pratt (Dec. 22, 2011, 1:-l5 p.m.). [SPA IH] 

136 Ellmilfrom John Lllndqllisl10 Sara K. Prall (Dec. 22. 2011. 2:37 p.m): ISPA 1451 EII],1ilfromJolmLlllldqllisl10 

Sam K. Pratt (Dec. 22, 2011, 3: 16 p.m.): [SPA 146] Email fmm John Lundqllistto Sam K. Pmtt (Dec. 23, 2011, 

205 p.m.). [SPA 150-51] 137 1d. 

138 Email from Melissa Silverman to Dane Narodc (Dec. 22, 2011, 2:57 p.m.) (emphasis added). [HU 0211] 

139 Email from Michelle Aronm"itz to Melissa Silvenl1<ln., Sara Prall, & Dane Narode (Dec. 22, 2011, 4-57 p.m.) 

[HUD 240-41] 

28 
152 

which case the existence or non-existence of Section 3 notification 

procedures would essentially be the basis for technical assistance, not a 

finding of a violation. !40 

ffiJD's rationale was so unconvincing that the Civil Fraud Section line attorney had to confirm 

with Narode that Silverman's email was in response to the Civil Fraud Section's question about 

St. Paul's compliance with Section 3 via its WBE and MBE programs.!4! 

ffiJD's rationale supporting its declination recommendation is flawed in at least two 

respects. First, HUD's Voluntary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with the City was never 

intended to remedy the City's past violations of Section 3. At the time the YCA was 

consummated, HUD Regional Director Maurice McGough publicly stated: "The purpose of the 

VCA isn't to address past noncompliance, but to be a blueprint to ensure future compliance.,,!42 

Further, the plain language of the agreement acknowledges its non-application to the 

False Claims Act The agreement states: "[t]his Voluntary Compliance Agreement does not 

release the City from any claims, damages, penalties, issues, assessments, disputes, or demands 

arising under the False Claims Act ,,!43 By its own terms, therefore, the YCA cannot address 

the City's "Section 3 compliance, including the compliance problems at issue in the False Claims 

Act case" as asserted by HUD .!44 

The preservation of False Claims Act liability in the lant,'uage of the YCA matches what 

ffiJD told whistleblower Fredrick Newell at the time. Newell testified to the Committees that 

"when we met with [ffiJD Regional Director] Maury McGough in the first interview regarding 

the [administrative] complaint process, Maury had stated that the process would allow me to be 

part ofthe negotiation and that our companies would be made whole.,,!45 Instead, when ffiJD 

settled the administrative complaint without remedying Newell, McGough told him that he 

would be made whole through the False Claims Act process

146 Fredrick Newell's attomey 

stated: "[T]oward the end of2009, after Fredrick's input was solicited and then it became clear 

that he wasn't going to be at the table, then they said, 'Don't worry, we'll take care of you later.' 

... I was told, 'do not worry, Fredrick will be taken care of through the False Claims Act.",!47 

Second, HUD never asserted whether it believed that St. Paul had actually complied with 

Section 3 through its WBE and MBE programs. The most HUD ever asserted was that "it is 

possible" that the City's WBE and MBE initiatives in its Vendor Outreach Program satisfied the 

strictures of Section 3148 Privately, however, ffiJD officials acknowledged that the City's WBE 

HU EnmilfromMelissa Silvernmilio Line Allomey 1 (Dec. 22, 2011, 6(H p.m.). [DO] 5411501J 

'" Email from Line Attomev 1 to Dane Narode (Dec. 23, 2011, 9:43 a.m). [DOJ 542/5021 

1-'12 AlUla Pratt, Faith Leade;s Want St. Paul to Payjor Its S'iflS, Millllcsota SIX'kcsman-Rccorcicr, Feb. 17,2010. 

1'13 Voluntary Compliance Agreement: Section 3 of the Housing and C..ollUllUnily Development Act between U.S 

Dep't of Housing and Urban DeYelopment and the City of Saint Paul, fvfN (Feb. 2010). 

," Memorandum for Jovce R. Branda (Dec. 20,2011). [DOJ 409-10/370-71] 

H5 Trnnscribed Inlen:ie~" of Fredrick Ne\\ell in Wash., D.C. at 38 (Mar. 28,2(13). 

1 ~Ci !d. aU 9-41 

H7 ld. al 43-44 

," Email from Melissa Sih'Cfman to Line Attomey 1 (Dec. 22, 21111,6:111 p.m.) (emphasis added). [DOJ 541 150 I] 

29 
153 

and MBE initiatives were deficient. Newell explained the City's Vendor Outreach Program to 

the Committees during his transcribed interview. Newell testified: 

St. Paul created had [sic] a program called - that resulted in its tinal 

naming of the Vendor Outreach Program. That was solely and particularly 

set up to address minorities and minority contractors. That program is 

what St. Paul would often throw up when I would say to them that they're 

not doing Section 3. They would say, We're complying based on our 

Vendor Outreach Program The truth of the matter is they wasn't even 

complying with the Vendor Outreach Program. But 1 explained to them 

that they could not meet the Section 3 goals based on the Vendor Outreach 

Program because the Vendor Outreach was a race based program, and 

Section 3 was an income based program. i<" 

Tellingly, Sara Pratt - a senior HUD official in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal 

Opportunity, with responsibility for enforcing Section 3 - could not tell the Committee whether 

the City ofSt. Paul's WBE and MBE programs satisfied the requirements of Section 3.150 

Seen in this context, HUD's changed recommendation appears motivated more by 

ideology than by merits. Early in the process, Assistant Attorney General Perez told his statIthat 

"HUD is willing to leverage the case.,,!5! Perez testified that HUD recognized the "importance" 

of the disparate impact doctrine and that HUD's Pratt and Kanovsky "rather clearly expressed 

their belief' that it would be in the interests ofHUD to use Newell to withdraw Magner.!l2 In 

addition, shortly after the Court agreed to hear the Magner appeal, HUD promulgated a proposed 

ret\ulation codifying the Department's use of disparate impact.!53 HUD did not want Magner 

decided before it could tinalize its regulation, as its General Counsel Kanovsky admitted to the 

Committees. She stated: "[T]o have the Supreme Court grant cert on a legal theory which had 

been developed by the courts but hadn't yet been part of the regulations of the United States 

under the Administrative Procedure Act was very problematic to us. We ... were in the process 

of meeting our responsibilities to promulgate the rule, and the timing of this was of grave ,,1."-1- concern 

After carefully examining HUD's reasons for recommending declination in Newell, it is 

apparent that neither basis - the Voluntary Compliance Agreement or the Vendor Outreach 

Program for women business enterprises and minority business enterprises - justifies the 

declination. There is simply no documentation to refute the assertion that the only changed 

circumstance from October 7, 2011 - when HUD recommended intervention - to November 29, 

HY Tmnscribed lulen'Ien of Fredrick Ne\vell in Wasl~, D.C at 24-25 (Mar. 28, 2013). 

150 TranSClibed lntervie,,, of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dep't of Honsing & Urban Development, in WasIL D.C. at 58-59 (Apr. 

3,2013). 

lSI Halld\-\'rillen noles of conversation belneen ThOlTh1S PereL, Jocelyn Samuels, Vicki Schultz. and Eric H[llperill 

(Nov. 2R, 2(11). [DOJ 11 1-13/ 106-0R] 

1'2 Transcribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 130-31 (Mar. 22,2013). 

lS3 See Implement.ation of the Fair Housing Act's DiscriminatoI}' Effects Standard. 76 Fed. Reg. 7l1.921 (Nov. 16. 

2(11) 

lSI Tmnscribed lnlen!ien, of Helen Kanovsky, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash D.C. ..11 35 

(Apr. 5, 20D) 

30 
154 

2011 ~ "hen HUD ,hanged ItS recom mendmlon - WIS the Supreme Coun 's dcci,iOlltO hear the 

Ma!;n!!r appeal and the sub~equl'nt association be'lween MUlfllt!r and N.·,,',':II 

fiIHtiBI: ~ IUwns &lven b) ~ DqJanmeru of Uousina and Urban ~clopment rOl' 

rccommendinjS declil\311 I in ""eM'ell are unSllpjlQrIed by d"",umornlllry evidence Bru,! 

inJlead appear IU ~ P 'ettxlua! post.huo.: nulonalizali0n5 ror a rumv I1QIlri\:lll 

&ci51on 

Th~ (.{m lc (I· thul EIIU:tJ:i':llfor J)«li"iIIK Imen'<!lII;'JII;1I N ..... dl l);r!!clly RC!>III(eufm l/l 

A,.'!;,'/",If AtIOr/Ie)' (~ MI Perr.. ',' tl!ll~ml,h;1' (}fth~ Quit! PM Q'''' 

Acting Associate Anomey Gf'neml Welltleslified Ihallhe rt'Commendation of tile Civil 

Division for in!l! .... ·ention in Ne .... ·/I stlrned in January 2011 aOer a consc su(' be!!an 10l'merge 

fUf dedinatiun. As WeSI Slaled, "by ,!ariy, mid-january. Ihere was a consensus Ihal had 

coale.ced in lhe Civil Division ,ha' we were going 10 decline tile N.'II'i'/1 case:,m Assisl81l1 

AUorney General Pere;: similarly lestlfied ,ha, II consensus began 10 emerge shonly before 

ChriSlmu Ihal 11 was in Ihe inlerl.'Sl Qflhe United St8 es ~ to decline inlervenlion in Ne"'el/,"'''' 

This consemus, however. only resulhxl fmm 'he careful stewardship of Perez in sh~pinl:l tile 

dcal 

After laying the gr undwor~ for the I{lIId 11''' if"/), Assistant Attorney GeneruJ Perez 

rem~ined closely involved in o\' e~C+ng the development and c.~ccution Oflhc deal Perez 

ojX'nly adviJed ~enior officials al BUD how 10 communicate wilh Ihe Civil Division career 

atton1t,'YS and what sleps had 10 be IM:en 10 chan!!c the C,vil Division'g inlpre.~sioll of Nt! ... ~11 

lie also counseled St. Paul's outside (;ounsel. Da"id Lille-hau/!.- how to approach Civil Division 

officials Bboul the cases TIlroogholl1 'he entire process. dOCU111C111S and lesti1110ny suggeslll1at 

Perez. remained kcenly ay,'are of all Ille moving pans and WhAI glep~ needed toO(:cur In arrive Dt 

a CQfIS<'n sus for declining N"I"t'" 

AS discussion$ 011 a possoble !!recment progressed in early December 2011. Perez. bl-g<w 

10 counsel senior BUD oflicials abOll1 how to eITl'Clive1y shin the opinion oflhe Civil Division. 

00 December 8. Perez. adliscd BUD Deputy Assistao, Secn:tary Sara Pran about which Civil 

Fraud personnel were handling lhe N,,,,,.,II case and who to applOOch 10 an email 10 l'rut!. PefCl' 

~1~led 

The triill any assigned 10 Ihe maner is [Line AttOflley 21 He reporl~ 10 

ILine AHnmey 1). who can be reached al 202-[redac,ed]. [Line AHOIl1ey 

I] in lum repons 10 Jnyce Branda. I am told. who can be reached at 202-

r,,:dactcd1 My ins,inct would be 10 SIan with Li n~ Anorncy Ij, and see 

how il goes 'do nO! know any of these folks TIlx again for agreeing 10 

conducliln indepMdL'1lt reView ofthi~ matter Il7 

~" T"""""loo<IlnIc''''''" of(krcl; '~I ,,) '1'.'''-'1. U~· Ckp" Qr )".,"'''' ,8 W~h" DC., ~l-lll (M;u til. IOIJ), ''''T"",scribc<! ",.."" .'" <>fn.;,"lII$ Ed"ord POIN_ U 5 ~p" <If I .... "' •. ill W~,b . D.C 04 7- 1\1! 1I>I.r 21, llJtJj. 

'.- Em",1 r""" n.;,,, .. \ E, ~"" ,<> S"", K_ Pr.lll ,0.... < ~(J II . 9'17 " "'J IDOJ 171 ~1 

JI 
155 

Perez offered this information while acknowledging that he was not acquainted with these career 

attorneys and while he was aware that ffiJD had already been talking to the Civil Fraud Section. 

When asked by the Committees, Pratt testified that she did not recall receiving this emai1. lS8 

The same day, Perez alerted ffiJD General Counsel Kanovsky about "a step that needs to 

occur in your otlice that has not occurred and has therefore prevented progress from 

occurring.,,159 Perez testitied that he was referring to "the communication to the Civil Division 

by HUD that they believe that the Newell matter is not a candidate for intervention. ,,160 Perez 

also told the Committees that at the time, although he was aware that ffiJD' s recommendation 

had changed, he was unsure if HUD had already conveyed its new recommendation to the Ci viI 

Division. 16l His email to Kanovsky, therefore, seems to have been calculated to ensure that the 

Civil Division knew ofHUD's new recommendation so that the quid pro quo could continue to 

progress. When interviewed by the Committees, Kanovsky could not recall this emai1. l62 

Perez likewise facilitated discussions between the City and HUD. In early December 

2011, he asked HUD's Sara Pratt to meet the City's lawyer, David Lillehaug, in advance ofa 

December 13 meeting between the Civil Division and City otlicials in Washington, D.c. '63 

Lillehaug, along with St Paul City Attorney Sara Grewing, subsequently spoke with Pratt on the 

morning of December 9, discussing ideas for how the City's Section 3 compliance program 

could be enhanced. 164 Pratt and Lillehaug agreed to meet on December 13 before the City's 

meeting with the Civil Division. 16s Lillehau.!! called Perez afterward and told him that the 

conversation with Pratt had been "helpfu1."l 6 Pratt similarly reported to Perez that she had a 

"very excellent call" with Lillehaug and Grewing. 167 The effect of these discussions between the 

City and ffiJD was not lost on DOJ officials, as evidenced by notes of one phone cal1. Notes 

from the call stated "ffiJD is now abandoning ship - may be lobbied by St Pau1.,,168 

In advance of the City's meetings on December 13, Perez took an active role in moving 

the different otlices. Perez also appears to have been coaching the City on how to approach its 

discussions with the Department of Justice. Perez advised Lillehaug "that he should be prepared 

to make a presentation to the Civil Division about why they think the case, the Newell case, 

158 TranSClibcd Tntclvic,,, of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 74 (Apr. J, 

2013) 

159 Em.1il from Thonms E. PereL 10 Helen R. Kanoysky (Dec. 8, 201 L 9:03 p.m.) IDO) 275-761 

:;~ Transcribed TntclvIC'" of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dcp't of Justicc, 111 Wash., D.C. at 139-40 (Mar. 22,2(13). 

ld. at 140 

162 Transclibed lutclvic,,, of Hc1cll Kanovsh.'}', U.S. Ocp't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 54-

55 (Apr. 5, 20B). 

](,3 Inlervie\v of David LillehaLLg (Oct. 16,2(12); Transcribed Tnten!ien of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dep't of Housing & 

Urban Developlllent, in Wash., D.C. at 65 (Apr. 3, 2013): Email from Thomas E. Perez to Sara K. Pratt (Dec. 8, 

2011,1042 p.m). lDOl27YJ 

j(y+ Interview of David Lillehaug in Wash., D.C. (Oct. 16,2012). Pratt testified that this call "vas behveen her and 

Lillehaug. Transcribed Interview of Sara Pratt, U. S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 65 

(Apr. 3, 20B) 

](,) See Email from Sara K. Pratt to David Lillehaug (Dec. 9, 2011, lOA7 a.m.) ("Thank you for a helpful discussion 

tlris monring. I lookfomard to meeting you on Tuesday at 9:00 am"). [SPA 158] ]66 1d. 

1G7 Email from Sam K. Pratt to Thomas E. Perez (Dec. 9, 2011, I :04 p.m.). [DOl 283] 

]68 Hand\-Hitten notes of conversation betneen Joyce Branda, Line Attonley 2, and Greg Brooker (Dec. 28, 2011) 

[DOJ 618/576] 

32 
156 

should be declined." 169 Perez also asked Pratt to include him in her meeting with the City. Tn an 

email to Pratt, he wrote: "Maybe after you meet with them, you can patch me in telephonically 

and we can talk to them. We need to talk them off the ledge. ,,[ 70 

After the meetings, Lillehaug emailed Pratt thanking her for the "productive" meeting 

with the City. 171 Lillehaug told Pratt "[u]nfortunately, our meeting in the afternoon did not go as 

well. The possibility of an expanded VCA did not seem to be given much weight by the 

representatives of the DOJ's Civil Division, who described their job as 'bringing in money to the 

U.S. Treasury.",172 Pratt later emailed Perez: "We should talk; the Tuesday afternoon meeting 

did NOT go well at all." 173 Perez responded "[ am well aware of that. We will figure it OUt."l7. 

Perez continued to closely oversee the progress of the quid pro quo as December 

progressed. On December 19, Lillehaug and Perez spoke on the telephone. Lillehaug expressed 

dismay to Perez about the meeting with the Civil Division.175 Perez told Lillehaug that his "top 

priority" was to ensure that Magner was withdrawn. '7G Perez told Lillehaug that HUD was 

working the matter "as we speak."'77 Meanwhile, Perez kept the pressure on HUD to ensure that 

it was satisfying the requests and answering the questions of the Civil Division. In particular, he 

kept tabs on the progress of a detailed declination memo that Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Michael Hertz had requested from HUD after the December 13th meeting. Perez wrote to HUD 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Pratt on December 20 to ask if the memo had been sent. l78 Pratt 

responded "Am trying to find out. I sent to [IDJD Line Employee] but didn't hear back from 

him. [General Counsel] Helen [Kanovsky] has them both and she could send them too but I 

can't."179 

In the early weeks of discussions on the q1lid pro quo, there was no S'1larantee that an 

agreement would be reached. By the time Perez became aware of Newell, three separate entities 

in the federal government - IDJD, the U.S. Attorney's Otllce in Minnesota, and the Civil Fraud 

Section - had each recommended that the government intervene in the case. The 

recommendations of each of these three entities would have to be changed to reach a deal with 

the City. In early-to-mid-December, Perez painstakingly advised HUD and the City and oversaw 

their communications with the Civil Division to ensure that these recommendations were 

changed. Only then did a "consensus" emerge for declining intervention in Newell. 

1m Tmnscribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez. U.S. Dep't of Justice. in Wasil.. D.C. at 196 (Mar. 22. 2013). 

1'U Enmilfrom Thonms E. Perez 10 Sam K. Pr"1I (Dec. 12, 20ll, 203 p.m.). [DO] 312-13J 

PI Email from David Lillehaug to Sam K. PIatt (Dec. I~, 2011, 12Ao p.m.). [DOJ 371/3301 

Eumil [rom Sam K. Prall 10 Thorn"s E. Perez (Dec. 16, 20ll, 6'13 a.m.).IDO] 3691 

P" Email from Thomas E. Perez to Sara K. Pratt (Dec. 16,2011, 8:04 a.m.). [D0J369] 

", Intervicw of David Lillchaug in Wash., D.C. (Oct. 16,2012) 1'6 1d. 

1'"77 

Email [rom Thonms E. Perez 10 Sara K. Prall (Dec. 20, 2011, 4'56 p.m.). IDO] 4031 

PO Email from Sam K. Pratt to Thomas E Perez (Dec. 20, 2011, 5:34 p.m.). [DOJ 403] 

33 
157 

.tl!!iti!&: Tile "~onkl1sus or the rejitral governmenT 10 Swilch ils rtcOmmcndatiOll and decline 

inlen-cnlion In II'l!Welf "lias the dil\!i:l rtmIll or Nosiruml ""Ofnt")' General per(2 

ma.nllJUlaling tile. pro..'<'l\S IIIld advising; and ov~!lCei !J the commliRlcationh betwco:n 

the. ('ity of SI Paul. Ihe.j,Dq7artm,enl of "oo~ng and UrNn Development, IIrlIi lhe 

Civil DivisiOO1 \\;thin Ihr !lIePmmcnl of Justice 

"h ' Dis"uui'III,\' Sfill/e,'. AnislIIllf Allonn")' (iellerlll l'ae: To,,1; 'he '-<-'<llll"," Pe/"'lwnllll)' 

IJr/lkue,' fill.' Agret'mellf 

Fr<lm Ihe day thaI Assislanl Allomcy General Thomas ~r"l bel::ame aware thaI lhe 

Supreme Coun gral11ed ceniOlllri in MClglI~r. time was w>Jrkingag~jnsl him The COUll was 

poised 10 bear oral argllmcms in the appeal on Febnmry 29, 20 12, and Ihedeadline for the 

Depanmcnl of Ju5lice to file ils amicus brief was ()c(:ember 29. 2011 By early Janllary 2012. 

wilh only lI'~ks remaining unlil Ofll arguml~IlS. Perez pt.'fSQOlllJy assumed Ihe lead and 

negOliulcd directly wilh the City's oulside counsel, David Lillehnug, When discussions broke 

down in lale January 2012, Peru lraveled to SI. "aul 10 seal lhe deal in person wilh 51, Paul 

tI.'layor Coleman 

Once I'crez had secured a consensus in SUppall of dc<:iining r'k","·'/ in exchange for Ihe 

City's withdrawal of "'{'lflll!r. he begl1n 10 directly n~IlO1ill.le wilh Lilichaull un th .. mechanics of 

the eventual agreemcill. Acting Associale A1t<ll1lcy Gcnernl \VC51 testified Ihallh!! decision 10 

allow I'erez to begin leadinJl;discussions wilh Ihe City resulted from a tnl'Cling between WCSI. 

ere~ ~nd Depuly ,\ssistanl Allomey Gtn~ral Michael Hertz 00 January 9. 2012.1l1li Huwever, 

documents show Ihat Perez may have taken il upon himself to lead negotiations e-,'en before Ihal 

meeling. An cmail fmm II. line anom<:y in Civil Fraud to then..civil FflIud Seclion Dire<:lor Joyce 

Br~nda on January 6 stale~ : "[Une Al.Iomey 2] and I jusl spoke wilh USAO·Mino IMsiS1am 

US. Al1omey) Greg Brooker received II call yesterday from Tom Pt.,el_ It sounds like T<lm 

Perez agre..>d \0 lake Ihe lead on Ihe lI'cgolialions wilh Ihe City of 51. Paul, in lenns ufllegolialing 

II withdraw ~IC) by Ihe CilY orlhe cCli1 peliliol1 "~' NOles of Ihis line anomey's t;lll " 'ilh 

AssiStanl U S AlIomcy Broo~cr show Perc~ asked Brooker "where are we on Ihe><:. cases~ and 

"\\'ho has lead negOlialing,"" and that Pt'ft'2. said thaI "he needs 10 slart doing this:"l1 

According 10 Ullehaug. he and Perez had a lelephone conv ~riQn on January 9- 1h" 

~ame day Perez received Ihe uppmval oflhtn-AssiSl8nt AIIOflIey General Wesllo Ilegolia!e on 

behalf oflhe Civil Dl1'1si0l1 - in which Perez oITered B precise "roadmap" (0 use in execuling Ih" 

I/rml 1I"''1"Q. nlJ Lil1ehaug told Ih~ COinminees lha( Perez proposed Ihal Ule Department would 

firs! decline to inlervene in Uh.~, Ihel10 the City would withdraw Magner, and finally the 

Deparlrt1enl would deCline to intervene in N~II'~II ,.~ Lillehau.!l further lold Ihe Comntil1e<!S Ihal 

Perez promised "HUD would be helpful" with Ihe Newell case in Ihe event Ne,,",'ell continued his 

suil after Ihe DepRnment declined i11lervcntioll. ,., This aCC01.In l is confim1oo by a voicemnillefl 

''' T'''"",nbod I" "",~", of[)O,e1 AI~I"1l) W.,.., U.S Dcp" of IU$lI«, "' W,,'lt. D,C ,II 79-\12 (~ t ... I~ , 20 1/) 

'" En .. ,1 r"n" ... ,'" N,onl<') I 10 1<» ',", B,,".sa (I"" ('. 111 12, II ~l ... u. ). 100) 651>/6 111 

II' tb,Id'''Ule" Nol<> lin" 6, lU12) IDOl (,.J 7·S (m-091 

,OJ In,c,,,.,, or O.wld L,Ud""'lI on W .. h..,. 0 C. (0:1. I~ . !OI2;, ... M. 

'''Ii/. 

J4 
158 

for Assistant U.S. Attorney Brooker by Perez on January 12, in which Perez stated: "We should 

have an answer on whether our proposal is a go tomorrow or Monday and just wanted to let you 

know that.,,!86 During his transcribed interview, the Committees asked Perez about his use of the 

phrase "our proposal" on the voicemail during his transcribed interview. Perez testified: 

Q The voicemail says, "And we should have an answer on whether our 

proposal is a go." What are you referring to when you say "our 

proposal"? 

A Again, up until about the middle of January, the proposal of the United 

States - the proposal of Me Lillehaug was the proposal that was under 

consideration 

Q Okay. 

A And so the Civil Division had completed its review, as T have described, 

and had determined that it, the Newell case, was a weak candidate for 

intervention. And that is what we are referring to 

Q Okay. I ask because you described it a number of times today as Me 

Lillehaug's proposal, the one he offered the first time you guys spoke on 

the phone. This is the first time that it's been described, to my knowledge, 

as "our proposal" And I am wondering if this was a proposal by you on 

behalf of the Department to Me Lillehaug? Or are you describing there 

the proposal that Lillehaug made to you? 

A Well, again, I don't know what you're looking at in reference. But what I 

meant to communicate in that period of time in January was that the 

United States was prepared to accept Mr. Lillehaug's proposal. 

On January 13, the Civil Fraud Section became aware that Lillehaug had presented a 

counteroffer to the U.S. Attorney's Office. A DOJ line attorney described the phone 

conversation in an email to a colleague. He stated: 

Lillehaug says they have been thinking about it, and the City feels pretty 

strongly that it can win the Gallagher case in the Supreme Court, and will 

win back at the trial court when it is remanded. The City is concerned that 

getting us to decline does not really get them what they want - they would 

still have to deal with the case. The City wants us to consider an 

arrangement where we agree to a settlement where it will extend the VCA 

for another year, value that as an alternative remedy, and it would add a 

small amount of cash for relator's attorney fees, and a small relator's 

share. They say this has to be a very modest amount of money. In 

exchange we would have to intervene and move to dismiss.!'7 

186 Voicemail [rom Thomas PereL 10 Greg Brooker (l"Il. 12. l012. 5:58 p.m.) (emph<1sis added) IDOl 71916701 

18' Email from Line Attolllev 2 to Line Att01l1ey I (Jan. 13.2012.4:00 p.m.). [DOJ 721/671] 

35 
159 

TIlI' n-Civil Fraud Section Director Br anda's reaction to tile de\lC'lopment was " qul\e negat.l\·e. " 

In an email Llll' same day. sill' stated' This is so nOI what WllS discussed with [T]om [P]erez as 

whatlhe plan W8S - basically we wer,e 10 decline [E]Ui, IirS! and use Ihal as IhC' good raith 

gO\lernment geslure 10 !!etth~'fI' to di!.miss the petitioo ~r" 

By Jnnuary 18. the prospects for an agreement were beginning 10 look bleak. In updating 

Branda orr the statcof negotiatiorrs, a Ci\lil Fraud Hne ttorn~y aplained thJt the deal was falling 

apan He staled ~ 

]The Assistant U.S Anomey] ,ays he unders\(xxllhat West, Pcn~~, and 

Hertz had had a meeting and Ihat the resuhing gil forward wa.> Ihe plan 10 

decline Ellis. resoh,c Gall~gI!er, ~nd then dt'Cline Newell [TJhe City 

can~-d and said Ihey are no longer willing!Q accept Ihe dedine [of ihe) IWO 

Iflli /(!J/I ~ and dismis, Gallagher deal Thallhey will n01 wilhdrnwal [.r/c] 

Gallagher on that basi,. that they are only willing to do the new deal they 

propose ..• If we are unwilling 10 accept this deal. they said Lhey will 

nOi dismiss Gnllagher."" 

In th" ~nsuin!! wt't.'k. DOJ deliberated abolu how 10 fl,'spond to Ihe counteTproposal from 

Lillcl!aus_ By late Janua ry, the Dcpa:rtment had decided to reject the City's counterproposal. On 

or around Janus')' )0, the Assistant U 5 Attorney in MirllleSOl8 conveyed 10 LiUehaug thai the 

Depal1mem had declined the counterp roposal. ,..0 The 8uomey·s " conciusiOIl [was] that we are 

no longer on a SI.'1tlemem track. and Vie should move forward with our decision making' 

process ,,' ~r 

The nb:.l day. January 31 , C~~1; cmailed inehau~ proposing a meeting with Ihe Mayor 

and CilY Anorney in 51. Pmrl for Febnmy ~ Perez was joined 8tthis nlct.1ing by Eric 

Halperin, a special counsel in Ihe Civil Rights Division No oflicials from the Civil Di vision or 

Ihe U,S Anorney'S O!liee wen.' presl:nt. At the meeting. Perez initiated a "healthy, robuSt 

ch8nge" bout disparate impact anti theUlI),'lIcr appeal I') p,.re1; raised the initial proposal to 

decline intervention in New ... fi and Ell;" in e~changc for the withdrawnl of Maglll'r and said Ihe 

Department could agree to that ~change I'" The City officials thl~l left the room 10 caucus 

privately, and Lillchaug returned to accepllhe proposal on behalf of the Mayor r9' 

finW: ASSl5lanl Anomey GeneriU Perez wu perSonally d di~ ly involved in negotiating 

the me<;hanics of lhe q/l: "J ~" pre'" qllu with David lil1 chaug lind he jler.lOllllUy agreed 10 

the quid lJ~(j qrlfl on beluJ. oflM: lJlliti:d Sratesduring 8 cllHCd-d.,or meecin~ ""jUt rbe 

Ma~or in t Paul. 

L .. E" .. I r ... mJoo:.>"" Bnrndn '" L, .. AU"""", I and t,,,,,- A("'r~ 1 (Jon IJ.l')l1,:S:J5 p.m.). 100J 7J,/(i$5j 

"., ElUili t r,o '" LrllO Alto"",) 2 to JO\t<' BI1",w, (I "J~ 18. 2/)12, ~ (j('II "o.) IDOJ 7SU7\l21 '"" 1:,,,, .. 1 r""o LII'" Allon.,y 2 'Q LII., Allo, rO-,:! lit J",."" Eh~<dI (Jllll ;IU. 211t1, 5 t~ p flI.) IDOIII<IJIiI181 

''' u 10: E".,it r,o", n",,, ... E' Po,o, k> O."'~ Llllohr.1lJ.l iJ"" J I, 2U 12, 12 0'1 p ,n,). 100J 591 

'"Jl TclI"""bcd IOke"',,," ofTI",,, ... E'd"u.d Pcr",_ \l.S. D<p' l "r J"",,,,,,,- In Wa,b., O.C III 4g-Y,(M.r U. !ULJ). '"'/,1. 

''' 1.1. 

J6 
160 

The Department of Justice Sacrificed a Strong Case Alleging a "Particularly Egregious 

Example" of Fraud to Execute the Quid Pro Quo with the City of St. Paul 

In several settings, officials from the Department of Justice have told the Committees that 

the decision whether to intervene in Newell was a close decision and therefore the United States 

never gave up anything of substance in exchange for the City withdrawing Magner. Assistant 

Attorney General Perez testified: "[MJy understanding is that the original recommendation was 

to proceed with intervention, but it was a marginal case."l96 Acting Associate Attorney General 

West told the Committees "I can tell you that this case was a close call. It was a close call 

throughout.,,]97 U.S. Attorney Jones likewise testified: "[TJhey were both marginal cases. We 

could have gone either way on Newel!.,,'9' In addition, now-Deputy Assistant Attorney General 

Joyce Branda briefed the Committees that after the December 13 meeting with the City, Deputy 

Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz whispered to her, "this case sucks," which she 

interpreted to mean that it was unlikely the Department would intervene. 199 Branda also told the 

Committees that she personally felt the case was a "close call ,,200 

However, testimony and contemporaneous documents indicate that the career Civil Fraud 

Section and U.S Attorney's Office in Minnesota officials thought the Newell suit was indeed a 

strong case for intervention. HUD General Counsel Kanovsky told the Committees that these 

officials had a strong desire to intervene in the case and that they personally met with her in fall 

2011 to lobby her to lend HUD's support for the intervention decision. 20l Attorneys from the 

U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota even flew to Washington, D.C. at taxpayer expense 

specifIcally for the meeting202 At this meeting, Kanovsky did not recall any career attorney 

mentioning that the case was a "close call" or "marginal.,,203 

On October 4, 2011, a line attorney in the Civil Fraud Section wrote to HUD's Associate 

General Counsel Dane Narode about the Newell case: "Our office is recommending intervention. 

Does HUD concur?,,204 Three days later, Narode replied: "HUD concurs with DOl's 

recommendation.,,205 The AU SA handling Newell in Minnesota forwarded HUD's concurrence 

to his supervisor with a comment. He wrote: "Looks like everyone is on board.,,20" 

The memo prepared by the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota recommending 

intervention used strong language to explain its support for intervention, explaining that the City 

19G Tmnscribed Tnten!ien of Thomas Edward PeTe/., U.S. Dep'l or Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 185-86 (Mar. 22,2(13). 

197 Tmnscribed Interview of Derek Anthony West. U.S. Dep't of Justice. in Wasil.. D.C. at 53 (Mar. 18.2013). 

19::; Tmnscribed Tulen'ien of Byron Todd Jones, U.S. Dep'l of Justice, in W<lsh .. D.C. <It 80 (Mar. 8, 2013) 

19r

) Briefing with Joyce Branda ill Wash., D.C. (Dec. 5, 2012) 

:y,c)Id. 

::ul Tmnscribed Tnlen:ien of Helen KmlOvsky, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 25-

30 (Apr. 5, 20]]) 

",2 Id. 

203 Id. a( 109-11. 

204 Email from Line Attollley 1 to HUD Linc Employec (Oct. 4, 20 I L 5:05 p.m.). [DOJ 67] 

205 Em.,ilfromHUD Line Employee (0 Line Attomey I (Oct. 7, 20ll, ll·27 a.m.). IDO] 681 

206 Email fromLineAttolllcyJtoGregBrooker(Oct.7.2011.ll :28 a.m.) [DOJ 69] 

37 
161 

made "knowingly false" statements and had a "reckless disregard for the truth.,,207 This memo 

also emphasized that administrative proceedings performed by mID found the City's 

noncompliance with Section 3 "not. to be a particularly close call,,208 Similarly, the initial 

intervention memo prepared by career attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section described St Paul's 

conduct as a "particularly egregious example of false certifications." The memo stated 

To qualify for HUD grant tunds, the City was required to certify each year 

that it was in compliance with Section 3. Each time the City asked 

mID for money, it impliedly certified its compliance with Section 3. At 

best, the City's failure to take any steps towards compliance while 

continually telling federal courts, mID and others that it was in 

compliance with Section 3 represents a reckless disregard for the truth. 

We believe its certifications of Section 3 compliance to obtain HUD funds 

were actually more than reckless and that the City had actual knowledge 

that they were fal se209 

Neither the U.S. Attorney's Office memo nor the memo prepared by the Civil Fraud Section 

described the recommendation to intervene as a "close call" or "marginal,,2IO 

Other documents show that as late as mid-December 20 11, career officials in DOJ still 

supported intervention in Newell. On December 20, 2011, then-Civil Fraud Section Director 

Branda wrote to Deputy Assistant Attorney General Hertz: "The USAO wants to intervene 

notwithstanding HUD. I feel we have a case but I also think mID needs to address the question 

St. Paul is so fixated on, i.e. was their belief they satisfied Section 3 by doing enough with 

minorities and women reasonable?,,211 On December 21, a line attorney in the Civil Fraud 

Section wrote to Branda about mID's memo to decline intervention. The line attorney stated: 

"Are we supposed to incorporate this into our memo and send up our joint recommendation with 

the [U.S. Attorney's Office] that we intervene?,,212 

Fredrick Newell and his attorney testified that no individual from DO] or HUD ever told 

them that his case was a "close call" or "marginal" or otherwise indicated it was weak 213 In fact, 

Newell told the Committees that "[t]here was a real interest ... and the DO] felt it was a good 

case."21" Newell's attorney stated: 

207 U.S. Atlamey, District of Minnesota, Tnten.entioll Memo: U.s. ex rei. ,,,"c1-vell v. City afSt. Paul, i'vfinnesota (OcL 

25.2011). [DOJ72-79] lUi:! ld. 

2m U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Diyision, Memorandum for Tony West. Assistant Attomey General. Civil Division, 

ex rei. Newell v. Citv afSt. Paul, Minnesota (Nov. 22, 2011). [DOJ 80-91] 

U.S. Attorney, District of Minnesota, Tntef\.ention Memo' U.s. ex rei. lVe).1;e/! v. C'it.y of St. Palll, AJinnesota (Oct. 

25, 2(11); [DOl 72-79] U.S. Dep't of Justice, Civil Division, Memorandum for Tony West, Assistant Attomey 

General, Civil Division, Us. ex rei. Newel! v. City ofSt. Paul, Minnesota (Nov. 22, 201l). [DOJ 80-91] 

211 Em.1ilfrom Joyce Brnnda 10 Michael Herlz (Dec. 20, 20ll, S'05 p.m.). IDOl 404!365 I 

212 Email from Line Attolllev 1 to Joyce Branda (Dec. 21, 20 II, 7:36 a.m.). [DOJ 4191180] 

:213 Trnnscribed Tnlen!ien, of Fredrick Ne\\ell in Wash., D.C. al 55-56 (Mar. 28, 2013). 

214ft!. at..t.8. 

38 
162 

And to build on that, there were a number of indications that Justice was 

going to intervene in the case, up to and including them saying, we're 

going to intervene in the case. But it started with the relator interview 

And I would say that just the attendance at the interview and the amount 

of travel expense you're looking at, at the interview, knowing that Justice 

had already spoken to HUD about the substance of the action and then 

having that many people from Washington at the meeting [in Minnesota], 

sent a clear signal to me that this was a case ofpriority 2); 

Newell's attorney also told the Committees that when the City initially met with DOJ and HUD 

in 2011, the attorneys from DO] and HUD were unconvinced by the City's defenses 216 

According to Newell, even then-HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims acknowledged the strength of 

the case, telling Newell in 2009 that the False Claims Act would be the new model for Section 3 

enforcement and directing Newell to "keep up the good work."217 

That the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota and DOJ's Civil Fraud Section perceived 

Newell's case to be strong is also corroborated by HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky's 

testimony to the Committees. Kanovsky testified that because she believed HUD's 

programmatic goals regarding future compliance had been met by the VCA, she was not inclined 

to recommend intervening in Newell when it was tirst presented to her in the summer or early 

fall of2011. 218 However, the US. Attorney's Office in Minnesota and DOl's Civil Fraud 

Division requested a meeting with her in order to persuade her to support intervention 

Kanovsky testified: 

Then attorneys from the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota and from 

Civil Frauds asked if they could meet with me to dissuade me of that and 

to get the Department to accede to their request to intervene, so there was 

that meeting. Assistant U.S. Attorneys flew in from Minnesota, people 

from Civil Frauds came over. They did a presentation on the matter and 

why they thought this was important from Justice's equities to intervene. 

And after that presentation, and because this seemed like a matter that was 

so important to both Main Justice and the U.S. Attorney's Office, we then 

acceded to their request that we agree to the intervention 219 

When questioned more closely about her basis for understanding Civil Fraud Division's position, 

Kanovsky testified: 

A Came from the fact that they and the US. Attorney's Otlice in Minnesota 

asked for a meeting, came to HUD, spent an amount of time briefing me 

and trying to convince me that it was in HUD's best interests to agree to 

21' !d. at 53-54 

'" Id. at 122-26. 

:217 Id. at 133-36. 

218 TranSClibcd Tntcrvic,,, of Hclcn Kanovsl.. ..y, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 25, 

30 (Apr. 5,2(13). 

210 f t!. at 25. 

39 
163 

intervc11lion So ( co'lcluded thnt the fact thnt they had come over to 

make that 8rgumentt(, convince me to 8:0 the direction lIlat I had already 

indicll.t~ was !I01 my inclina~n certainly stron!;ly suggested to me that 

was when: they wanted to go. 

This meeting IlIldermilltlS the ti e Oepanment"s post hoc claim made during the Commiul'ef 

investigation that the Ci vil Frauds Division and the U 5. Anomey's Office in MinneSO!~ saw the 

case as weak from the beginning 

.E!HliB&: DeSlil"tc the D~rtlTlI!I1t "r Justice $.OOI\tetlb(N\ that Il)e m«ervenbQn reoommendation 

In f,'tlf,dJ was a -close CI~I- and "musinal:' contetnPQf3neQI.IS documl'l11' ~ow the 

Department believed that NI!WII/J a1lc~ ~ "particularly tgregiuus uample of false 

a:rtiflcations~ .tnd !~~ lIle UnIted Swes uenliced S!I"OnIl aJ e~d9fls of false 

clalnt5 wurth lIOIenl.ollly ~200 million to the TmuulY_ 

A~ ,iIfl"'f A ffU",!)' Ge"erlll /)ere; (Wer(,f/ lo Pro,.ide Ihe Ci,y oj Sf. Plml "'i,ll ~,· fU/let' ,'" 

lJi)"ll.i .... ;" g (I·eo, .... ,,·.· Cmuplllinf 

5t I' aul"~ outside coumd. David Ullchaug. told the Committees that durin!! a discussion 

with Assistant Attorney General Thot11u Pert'l Ull January 9. 2012. Perez told Lillehau~ that 

" HUD would IN: helpful"' ifllle Nell"dl case proceeded after DOJ declined intervemion "1>, 

Lillchau,t.l funhtr wid the Comminees that on February of - the day !tfll'r I'eru. rcached the 

a!lrC"\'nt~nl ..... illlthe City - PefCl': told Lillehaug that HUD Deputy Assi~ an t Secretary Sara Pr.ut 

had begun aS5embiing inf()l"mation fn)rl'llocal HUD oOiciais to assist the Cit)" in a motion to 

dismiss the NeH·cll complaint on original source grOl.onds m This assistance dinppeared, 

Lil1ehaug Stated. after Civil Di vi~ion anomeys !Old I'cre ~ thaI DOJ should not assist a False 

Claims Act defendant In dismissinl\ R whistlcblower suit. W 

In his transcribed interview with Ihe Comminees. Perez testifi ed that he did not recall 

ever su~tlSting to Lillehaug Ihat HUO would provide mato.'rial II) suppon orthe City' ti motion 10 

dismiss the Nell·ell complaint on origitnal 501Jrce srounds ~ However. contdlllpornneous emails 

support Lillehaus's \'ersion orevents Bnd suggestlllal Lillehnug in fact IN:lie\'ed this additional 

""support" was included as pan of the aweement, On February 7. l.ilkhaug had a conversation 

with the Assistant U S: Attorney handling Newell in Minnesota ~ Lftter tllal , arne day, ~ lin~ 

anorney in lIle Civil Fraud Section enlsiled then-Civil Fnll,d Section Directo!" Joyce Branda. 

~p!ainin!l Lltat LHiehaug had laId the Assistant U S Anonley that he believed the deal included 

an agreement that ""HUD williroyidc, material tn llle City in suppon of th";f motion to dismi~s 

on ori!,!:inal source !jl"ounds ,.a ' The Civil Froud Section anorneys disagt"lX-d strongly with this 

promise, and they co'l\'eyed their COIlCCOlto tI,~n-Ass.istant Attorney Gct,eral TOllY West m 

=''' .• 191·92 rn lidO""'''' or D,...id LotJ~I"OIi '" W/lSh., D.C (0c1 16, 20 (2). 

"" /.I. ru J.l. 

:0, Tr~ .cnt",d ~." ,.,, ufnOl"w &I".m ., 11 S. Dol' t or l,,.,,,,. on W.,J,. 0 C nt (\1) -611"':" l!, 101 t.l) 

-'" hLIC" " " "rOa, 011 L,U.I""l1'" W ... ~ D.C. (0<1. t6. lOt2). 

"'" EnouJ rn'm t~I'" Allon",) 210 lO)'co 0 .. ' .... (feb 7. 2111 2. 1 17 P '" ,. 100J tt .' l/Ul1<)j 

,.,.. Emrut r«l'" 1o,,,,, E1no,od;! 10 To"" w .... '*. Bnon "t1n""'I.(Fcb 8.20 t1. 9.Jj ".In.l IDOl tt~t lUml 
164 

West asked his chief of!;!aff, Brian Manillez, to schedule a call with Perez for the momillg of 

FebrulU)' 8 llIl 

West told the Comminees tllat providi~g material to the City outside of the normal 

discovery proccss<:~ would have bet"ll "inappropriate" and "there was no\ a question in ~ mind 

Ihal we were nOI going 10 allow disco\'ery 10 occur OUlside the nonnal '((",lIy channds .,~. West 

did n01 recall speaking \0 Perez aboul the email from Litieha'lg,nO When a,ked how the mailer 

was resolved, he replied "[ mJy recol1,~ion is this somehow gol r~ved" and "[ w]hen I say 1 

don't recall. I don', eve11 know if! know how it was ~Ived I JUSt know Ihal lhal wasn't going 

10 happen, and it didn't happen.":zJ' 

HUD's Sara Pran testified tlul she was unaware.)f any ofler for HUD 10 provide 

infQlmation to theCily in suppa" ofi ls mOlion 10 dismiss: however, she did Slal e that " 10 Ihe 

extentlhat ex;!;!in!! docnments 01" ktlO"ledge available atl lUD would havesuppaned the City's 

mOlion, thai doesn 't concern me " m Although Prn l1 did nOI recall any ofTer for HUD 10 

asSiSlthc City in diWlissing Ihe Nt!".~", complaint. on February 8 - the same day West attempted 

to speak wilh Pl'rtZ ~bOUllhe ofTl:\" . I' l.'I"e~ emailed Pratt asking for hl'1"IO call him v .' Li!lehaul> 

likewise told thc Commiuces Ihat Perez lold him OTI FebrunT)' 8 that HUD would nOl be 

providing assistance (() Ihe City lH 

Although !' crez tcstified tllal he did n01 recall ever off~rin!! li UD's 3Ssist~nce to the City, 

contcmpoTllllcous documents and Lillehaug's statements to the Committees strongly .so~t that 

iluch an \lITer was made. This uffer was inappropria te. as ftck no"'ledgoo by At1in~ Associ~to:o 

Attorney General Tony West. HO"CI/er. on a brooder level, this ofTer of assistance potenti ally 

violated Pell: z' ~ duty of loyalty to his diem, the United Statl'S, in tllal Newell 's lawsuit was 

brought Ort behalf of the United Stat!.':! and any ~ssistance by Peret odlUD with the City's 

dismissal of the CflS<: would havt llar1noo the int.-re sts Of lhc United StalC$. Because Ihe original 

.Jource defense WQt,ld have bet.'n unavailable iflhe United Stalcs had imer.·cned in Newell's 

case, m Perez's offer to the City went beyond si nlpl y declining intervention 1\1 aflimlRlively 

aiding the City in ils defense orlhe Cfl~ 

.fi!utiU.: ASSISlanl Atl\lmet enet1~ r :Pertz offered 1(1 1DTlIl1.!!" for lhe Depanmillll Of Housing 

and Urban Developmtnt pn!~ide material 10 tile City of SI Paul '0 Utiisl lhe City 

in ils motiOrt 10 d.iSll1 't " the N~"'~II \\-hisll~lo\Ver ~vmplainl Thi. off.:r II'IIS 

Inappropriate lJ\d poterIOI Iy violated pert-z'S dul)' of 10yal1) fO Ills dlent, the Uniloo 

S .... 

.3 Em.it rro,,, To ' 11''00.1 "'JoyoeB'~ d:o.t . B,"'" M.""",,, (rcb lOI2, '1",g •. ,, , (001 Il~ IfllJ~OI 

"" 1",,,,,,,,,1>«11,,'''',,011 oflk",l AnthoR) W05l. 1J S. Ikp't or Jtt>\",o. on W ... ho OX 81 IGS.(;7 (Mao: IS. !OUI 1), IJ 

"" 1.1. 

"'Tm,,,,,,,l:oe<IlulO"''''''' ors..", P""I, U S Do:p', <lftto'"""!1 & UtbI" Ik'''''''''''o:'~ , ", WM-.iL, D C, lit Ji.~-8J (Apt 

' . 201.1) 

"" .<;..., E,,,,,~ flom Tt.,,, ... · E, """" .10 Sam ~ PIO" (Feb , .!'1 12, 12.l:l p.nt,). 1001 t 1711111561 

".. II ... " ·' .... • ""II Dan d Lilld""11 '" w~.!t. , 0 C (Ocl, 1(', 1\) 11) 

"".~ I I tJ s.C, ~ 173\!1"){ ~ 

41 
165 

Assistant Attorney General Perez Attempted to Cover Up the Presence of Magner as a Factor 

in the InterJ'ention Decision on Newell 

On the morning ofJanuary 10, 2012, Assistant Attorney General Perez left a voicemail 

for Greg Brooker, the Civil Division Section Chief in the US Attorney's Office in Minnesota. 

In that voicemail, Perez said 

Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you at - excuse me, calling you at 9 

0' clock on Tuesday. I got your message. The main thing I wanted to ask 

you, I spoke to some folks in the Civil Division yesterday and wanted to 

make sure that the declination memo that you sent to the Civil 

Division - and I am sure it probably already does this - but it doesn't 

make any mention of the Magner case. It is just a memo on the merits 

of the two cases that are under review in the qui tam context. So that was 

the main thing I wanted to talk to you about. I think, to use your words, 

we are just about ready to rock and roiL T did talk to David Lillehaug last 

night. So if you can give me a call, I just want to confinn that you got this 

message and that you were able to get your stuff over to the Civil 

Division 202 [redacted] is my number T hope you are feeling better 

Take care 236 

A career line attorney's notes from a subsequent phone conversation between Brooker and 

attorneys in the Civil Fraud Section and the US. Attorney's Office confirm Perez's request. The 

notes describe a Tuesday morning "message from Perez" in which he told Brooker "when you 

are working on memos - make sure you don't talk about Sup. Ct. case.,,137 Brooker told those on 

the call that Perez's request was a "concern" and a "red nag," and that he left a voicemail for 

Perez indicating that Magfler would be an explicit factor in any declination memo. m 

During his transcribed interview, the Committees asked Perez about this voicemaiL 

Perez maintained that the voicemail was merely an "inartful" attempt to encourage Brooker to 

expedite the preparation of a concurrence memo by the U.S. Attorney's Office. Perez testified: 

So I was - I was confused - "confused" is the wrong term - I was 

impatient on the 9th of January when I learned that the US. Attorney's 

Office still hadn't sent in their concurrence, because I had a clear 

impression from my conversation with Todd Jones that they would do 

that. So I called up and I was trying to put it together in my head, what 

would be the source of the delay, and the one and only thing I could really 

think of at the time was that perhaps they hadn't - they didn't write in or 

they hadn't prepared the lanh'llage on the Magner issue, and so I 

admittedly inarttully told them, I left a voicemail and what I meant in that 

voicemail to say was time is moving. And so what I really meant to 

:236 Trnnscribed lnlen:ien of Thomas Ed\vardPereL U.S. Dep'l of Justice, in Wash. D.C. .11 120-21 (Mar. 22, 2013) 

(emphasis added) 

23: Hand'Hilien Noles orLine Allome\" 2 (Jan. 11, 2(12). IDOJ 713/6661 238 It!. . 

42 
166 

communicate in that voice message, and T should have - and what T meant 

to communicate was it is time to bring this to closure, and if the only issue 

that is standing in the way is how you talk about Magner, then don't talk 

about it239 

When pressed, however, Perez stated that he never asked Brooker about the reason for the delay 

and that he only assumed through "the process of elimination" that the presence of Magner as a 

factor in the decision was delaying the preparation of the mem0240 He also testitied that he 

believed the memos had not been transmitted to the Civil Division at the time he left the 

voicemail 241 

When presented with a transcription of the voicemail and asked why he used the past 

tense verb "sent" ifhe believed the memos had not be transmitted to the Civil Division, Perez 

stated that he disagreed with the transcription of the voicemail. 242 After the Committees played 

an audio recording of the voicemail for Perez, he suggested that he was unable to ascertain what 

he had said. He stated: "Having listened to that, T don't think that - Twould have to listen to it a 

number of additional times.,,243 However, later in the voicemail Perez again used the past tense, 

saying he wanted to contirm with Brooker "that you were able to get your stuff over to the Civil 

Division"m Perez did acknowledge that his voicemail for Brooker did not mention anything 

about a delay245 

The words that Perez spoke in his voicemail speak for themselves Perez said: "I 

wanted to make sure that the declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division. . doesn't 

make any mention of the Magner case. It isjust a memo on the merits of the two cases that are 

under review in the qui tam context. So that was the main thing I wanted to talk to you about" 

No other witness interviewed by the Committees has indicated that there was any delay in the 

preparation ofa concurrence memo from the US. Attorney's Otlice. Indeed, the US. Attorney's 

Otnce did not even prepare a concurrence memo for the Newell case - instead, it communicated 

its concurrence in an email from Greg Brooker to then-Civil Fraud Section Director Joyce 

Branda on February 8, 201224<> 

Moreover, in a contemporaneous email to Brooker - sent less than an hour after the 

voicemail - Perez wrote to him: "I left you a detailed voicemail. Call me if you can after you 

have a chance to review [the 1 voice mail."247 This email does not mention any concern about a 

delay in transmitting concurrence memos. Instead, the email suggests that Perez intended to 

leave instructions for Brooker, which matches the tone and content of the voicemail to omit a 

23

r

) TranSClibed Tntervie,,, of Thomas E. Perez, u.s. Dep·t of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. at 111-12 (Mar. 22, 2013) 

"" ld. at 113-17. 

"11 ld. a( 117 

2"!d. at 119 

'" ld. at 12l 

"11 ld. a( 121 (emphasis added) 

w!d. at 12~ 

"16 Em.1ilfrom Greg Brooker (0 Joyce Branda (Feb. 8,2012. 4'01 p.m.). IDOJ 1198/10771 

W Email from Thomas E. Perez to Greg Brooker (Jan. 10,2012,9:52 a.m.). [DOJ 707-;)&] 

43 
167 

discussion of Magner fro:n the declination memos. Later the same,1~~' at 1:45 p.m., Perez again 

emalled Brooker, asking '[w]ere you able to listen to my message? 

Finally, additional contemporaneous documents support a common sense interpretation 

of Perez' intent. For instance, Perez testified that after he left the January 10 voicemail, Brooker 

called him back the next day and said he [Brooker] would not accede to his request. And, 

according to Perez, he told Brooker that in that case he should "follow the normal process. ,,249 

Yet, one month later on February 6, 2012, following Perez' meeting in St. Paul where he 

finalized the agreement, Line Attorney 1 wrote to Branda updating her on the apparent 

agreement. The email included eight "additional facts" regarding the deal'"'o Points five and six 

were: 

5. Perez wants declination approval by Wednesday, but there is no apparent basis for that 

deadline 

6. USA-MN considers it non-negotiable that its office will include a discussion of the 

Supreme Court case and the policy issues in its declination mem0251 

If Perez's version of events were accurate, and the issue was resolved on January 11, 2012, when 

Brooker returned Perez's phone call, then it is difficult to understand why the US Attorney's 

otlice would still feel the need to emphatically state its position that a discussion of Magner must 

be included in the final declination memo approximately one month later on February 6, 2012. 

The only reasonable interpretation of the words spoken by Assistant Attorney General 

Perez in his January 10 voicemail is that he desired the Neweff and liflis memos to omit a 

discussion of Magner. Acting Associate Attorney General West told the Committees that it 

would have been "inappropriate" to omit a discussion of Magner in the Newell and liflis 

memos 252 US. Attorney B. Todd Jones also told the Committees that it would have been 

inappropriate to omit a discussion of Magner. 253 Thus, even other senior DO] political 

appointees felt that Perez was going too far in his cover-up attempt. In addition, the fact that the 

quid pm quo was not reduced to writing allowed Perez to cover up the true factors behind DOrs 

intervention decision. When asked by career Civil Fraud attorneys about whether the deal was in 

writing, Perez responded: "No, just oral discussions; word was your bond.,,254 Thus, with 

nothing in writing, only the fortitude of Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg Brooker in resisting the 

voicemail request prevented Perez from inappropriately masking the factors in the Department's 

decision to decline intervention in New'ell and Fllis. 

2" Email from Thomas E. Perez to Greg Brooker (Jan. 10,2012,1:45 p.m.). [DOJ 717-131 

'" Transcribed Interview of Thomas E. Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 220 (March 22,2013) 

23U Euwil from Line Attornev 110 Joyce Brand.1 (Feb. 6. 2012. 2:58 p.m). IDOJ 1027-28/9481 251 hI 

2'2 Transcribed Interview of Derek Anthony West, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 133 (Mar. 18,2013) 

("For me, yes, it \\'ould have been inappropriate, v.'hieh is v.'hy 1 included it along with all of the other things 1 

thought were relevant.") 

:253 Trnnscribed lnten!len of Byron Todd Jones, U.S. Dep'l of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. at 177-73 (Mar. 8, 2013). 

2'" Handwritten notes (Fcb. 7, 2(12). [DOJ 1059-60/975-76] 

44 
168 

.tl!1U!&: ~starll AnOl'lley ~iIl f>uu auemploo 10 cover Up Ibe "fIIJ pm qUI! when he 

pe~lI)' inSIltlcted CIIIl:tr attorneys 10 omil 8 discussion of AkJf(llf:f in liit 

~!nllu on memos Il,at Ilud illed the ~aoons IQr Ihe [)epanmelll', dl'l;i on 1\1 ~Iim:, 

inleNencioo in Newell and kilt., and ft'ICUS inSieaci only;'oo the mL'li1i! ' 

!!IHl!Dl: AUlstant Altoml1'_ ~C:llel'll PI!I\!l. altcm~~, tu covn up the quill pm qlffJ when he 

irmS/ed Ihal!he nn ~ Wi,h the City$UJin~ ' ¥to.CllseS ~~h p0tentillly millions 

of dollars 10 lhe Ttearuty 01 be reduced w wrUlng. II\stead ,nslslmg Ihal your "word 

W~ yOW" bond ., 

,h"S;SIUIIf Allum/')' G"IU'rI11 Perc. /IImle SI(I/I'",,,,,I,' /" lilt'. ","'''itli'l!.~ 1/1111 W .. re 1.llrgdJ' 

C,lntrlll/ielell by Other Tesli","'tJ' " " II /)« .. lIIellll")' Ed/Je" ct! 

Sl"I'eraJ limes during his 1I1Ins,:ribed interview with Ihe Committees. AssiSlam Attorney 

Gcneral TllOmRs Perez gave tC5limon'y tbal was cOnil1ldiCled by OIher testimony and 

documentary l"I~dence obtained by the CommIttees. Theseoommdic!ions in I'erez's le.timony 

~.3.11 inlo question lhe veracily of his a!em~nts and hi~ credibility in gen~I1IJ , During his 

interview, Perez Staled IhRI he understood that he was rc<.]uired 10 a"swer the qlles!ion~ posed 

m'thful1y and stated h~ had no reasOll 10 )HQvide untnuhful anSI'el> ~ 

Section ]001 of title 18 of the Unit ed St81es makes it 8 crime to "knQ1vinsly and willfully 

. makeU any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" to a 

congres5ional proceeding ~ Any inclividu~1 who knowin~r and willfully makes fruse 

statements could be subjecllo five years ofimpriseJnmenl ;!) This section appli es to "any 

investigation or review, conducted pursuant tU the authority of any C{)mmillt."e, subcommillt.'e, 

commission at office orlhe COllgl'ess. colI~istent with the applicable rules of the Houseor 

Senatc .. ~. 

Firs\, erclt~stitled repeatcdly - boih in response 10 questions and during his prepared 

testimony delivered at the beginninj; ,lfth" Int crview - that it was SI. I'aui's outside counsel. 

David Lillehftug. during a Nuv<-'I11ber 23, 201 t, phMe conversation. wbo tirst propo!'ed the idea 

or B joint rcsolurioo of /I1'"/g'lI'r and Newell in which the ClIy would withdmw IheMlIgII<." appeal 

if DOJ declined to intervene ill "'I."'I ~· Lillehaug. ho,",cvcr, lold the CMlmittees that il wa$ in 

fael Perez who firs! railied the possibility of a joint 1"\"5Ululioo uf },.li4lftlt., and N.,,,,,'II in a 

November 29 meeting with Lillchsug and City Attorney G ............ ing, lillehaug also S{ak'(l thaI It 

was Perez whu tirsl propo5Cd Ihe pm,ise " roadmap" in early January 2012 litat guided how the 

Depan rnerJl would decline The False CIRims Act cases and the Cily would withdrnw },'!aglwr "'" 

This Statement is verified b~ a voicentail from Perez to AssiSlant U,S Auorney Greg I1 rooker 00 

"" T"""",,"_ """,,.ow orn"""" Ed"arn ~.~ ... U S tXp'l "r 10>$1,.", ,n Wrsb.. 0 C aI ( .. 1 (M .. , H . ZOU) 

: L! U S,C ~ too11oU 

HIt U ~l ~ JI~ltl ~2) 

"" lh,,,,,,,I>c<lt "'.,~ .. ,,, <>fn",,,",,, Ed"md I'e.ol 11 S 0.1' t or )''''1'''''. on w.,)" 0 C RI HI, H..w (Mm. 12, 

lUll). 

"" h...,,,·, • .,,,,fD>n'id L, tl ol."' ~ '" Woosl, O.C" ,Ocl. 16, 211 11) 0"0l /iJ. 
169 

January 12, 2012, in which he stated "we should have an answer on whether our proposal is a 

go tomorrow or Monday and just wanted to let you know that.,,262 

Second, Perez testitied that he did not recall ever asking HUD General Counsel Helen 

Kanovsky to reconsider HUD's recommendation for intervention in Newe11263 Perez testified: 

Q So just to be clear, you never atlirmatively asked [HUD Deputy Assistant 

Secretary 1 Pratt or Ms Kanovsky to reconsider HUD's position in Newell, 

is that correct? 

A Again, my recollection of my conversations with Helen Kanovsky and 

Sara Pratt was that they concluded, their sense of the Newell case was that 

it was a weak case and that disparate impact enforcement was a very 

important priority ofHUD, and that they had spent a lot of time preparing 

a regulation. They were very concerned, as I was, that the Supreme Court 

had granted cert without the benefit of the Reagan HlJl)'s interpretation 

And so for both of them it was based on my conversations with them, they 

were both very - they rather clearly expressed their belief that it would be 

in the interests of the Department of Housing and Urban Development to 

determine whether they could - whether the proposal ofMr Lillehaug 

could go forward 

Q I just want to be clear. You never asked them to reconsider that, is that 

right? 

A Again, I don't recall asking them. I don't recall that I needed to ask them 

because they both understood and indicated their sense that it was a 

marginal or weak case to begin with, and the importance of disparate 

impact264 

Helen Kanovsky, however, testified that Perez did in fact ask her to reconsider HUD's 

recommendation. She stated: "He said, well, if you don't feel strongly about it, how would you 

feel about withdrawing your approval and indicating that you didn't endorse the position? And I 

said, I would do thal.,,265 Kanovsky acknowledged that Perez' request was the only new factor in 

HUD's decision-making process between the time it initially recommended intervention in 

N('1vel1 and the time it recommended to not intervene266 

Third, Perez's testimony that his voicemail request that Assistant U.S. Attorney Greg 

Brooker omit a discussion of MaJ.,'ner as a factor in the Newell declination memo was merely an 

"inartfur' attempt to expedite the memo contradicts the plain language of his request and deties a 

2<02 Voicemail from Thomas Perez to Greg Brooker (Jan. 12,2012,5:58 p.m.) (emphasis added). [DOJ 719/670] 

20; Transcribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 131 (Mar. 22, 2013). 

:261 1d. 

265 TranSClibcd Tntcrvic,,, of Hclcll Kanovsl.. .. y. U.S. Ocp 't of HOllsing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at.:l-I 

(Apr. 5, lOB) 

2GG It!. atc.l8. 

46 
170 

commonsensical interpretation. When presented with a transcription and an audio recording of 

the voicemail, Perez testified that he could not be certain what he had said in the voicemail. 

Contemporaneous documents show, however, that Brooker, the recipient of the voicemail, 

understood the voicemail to be a "message from Perez" that "when you are working on memos -

make sure you don't talk about Sup. Ct. case,,267 

Fourth, Perez testitied before the Committees that he had no recollection of otTering to 

provide HUD assistance to the City in support ofthe City'S motion to dismiss the Newell 

complaint268 However, contrary to Perez's testimony, the City's outside counsel, David 

Lillehaug, told the Committees that Perez told him as early as January 9, 2012, that "HUD would 

be helpful" if the Newell case proceeded after DOJ declined intervention269 Lillehaug also 

explained to the Committees that Perez told him on February 4,2012, that HUD had begun 

assembling infonnation to assist the City in a motion to dismiss the Newell complaint on original 

source grounds270 Evidence produced to the Committees - including a DOJ email from early 

February 2012 noting Lillehaug's recitation of the agreement included an understanding that 

"HUD will provide material to the City in support of their motion to dismiss on original source 

grounds,,271 - support Lillehaug's account. 

Fifth, Perez told the Committee that he only became aware of the Magner appeal once the 

Supreme Court granted certiorari;272 however, HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Sara Pratt 

testified that she and Perez likely had discussions about the Magner case well before the Court 

granted certiorari273 Pratt testitied' 

Q Do you recall speaking to Mr. Perez during that time period? 

A The time frame? 

Q Between February 2011 and November 201]? 

A I'm sure we did have a conversation. 

Q About the Magner case? 

A Yes. Yes. Nothing surprising, nothing shocking about that. 

Q Okay 

A Along with many, many other people. 274 

Handwritten Notes of Line Attomey 2 (Jan. 11,2012). ruOJ 713/6661 

'OR Transcribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash. D.C. at GO-GI (Mar. 22, 2013). 

,,, Inlerview of David Lillehaug in Wash., D.C. (Ocl. 16.2(12) T70 1d. 

'·1 EmailfromLine Attorney 2 to Joyce Branda (Feb. 7, 2012, 7:17 p.m). [DOJ 1141/1020] 

:2'::: Trnnscribed lnlen:ien of Thomas EdwardPereL U.S. Dep'l of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. .11 39-40 (Mar. 22. 2013). 

2'"73 TranSClibcd lntcrvic,,, of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dcp't of Ronsing & Urban Development, in WasIL D.C. at:15 (Apr. J, 

2(13) 

1'74 It!. 

47 
171 

Si~th, during his !raJ1scribed il1teNiew, Perez was asked whether he had us<-'d a personal 

email to communicate about mauers !'('Iating 10 the quid pro qllo with th .. City of St Paul. 271 

Perez Rnswcr .. d: " I don '! recall ",hether I did or didn't" nnd later c1ariik>d, "I dOll'! h~ye any 

recollection of haYing communicated via perSOllal email on - on thi$ malt~r ~17. However, a 

document produced to the Con"niltec:~ by the City ofSt, Paul indicates that Perez emailed David 

Lillehaug from his personal email aCUllJf1t on December 10,20] I, to attempt to arrange a 

meeting wilh Ihe City Ihe followin~ week, m This revelation that Perez used his pe!"SOrlal email 

addrus!o communicRle wilh Lillehallg abO\lI the quid prolf'/(J raises the troubling like]ihood 

Ihat his actions violated the sp;ril and the leiter oft]l e Federal Records Act 

Seventh, Perellestined thai he understood Ne"'ell to be ~"marginaJ elise" and a "wea~ " 

c~se, :'II however, th" ini tial memoranda prepared in fall 201] by lhe Civil Fraud Seccion and the 

U,S. ~l1~%S Oll1c~ ,never d~rib(:d Ihc rec~mendation to i~lcrvene 8S a "~I05e call" or 

"marginal. - In addlt'on, wh,slleblower Frednck Ncwell and h,s allomcy Icsl1fied lhat no 

individual from DOJ or HUD ever lold them that Ihe caS\' was a "close eall ~ Qr"marginal" or 

otherwise indicated it W8S Wl'lll~ ,nIO 

The contradictions and discrepancies in I'crez's Stalements in his transcribed interview 

cast eonsid ... rable doubt on h;$ truthfulnl:5s and CIIndor 10 Ihe Commiliees, lIis leslimQl1Y 

departed significanlly from IhRI Oflh(\ CilY OUlside counsel, Da\id Lillehallg. on 5e\lcrnl l:cy 

clements abollllhe development and ':seculion of the qllid ,m) 'ftiO Se<.:ause dowmentary 

evid~'11ce t:'(ists 10 SIIPpon Lillellaug'!: teslimony, the Comminet's can only c.onclude Ihal ['erel.. 

was less than candid during his trnnsc:ribed intefView 

fIlIfiU' A!SIsutnl Attorney GenetBl " ern made mlliliple SUllements la' I~ e C""OI1lmilTees Ihal 

conttadi'::ltd ltstJmony rrr, .ollie! W;lnessts and dOCumenlary evidence ~'s 

inCOllSl5leni (C$Il nIOTl)' ~~~n;nt!e ~~bJf'\.;f;~~\.Q qunuOll the n.>l;abilily of blS 

tcstiptOOY: I\ d lJII¥S que~' , ab!ll:tt., is ji,.IItt~ duri ~jlj~_ItI'!mI:i~ed IOJC11!!e\\ 

!i!HliaI: Aui~lIult AIUlfIIe)' ('renl:l~ Perel- li~el)' viulatoo bUlh the spirit and letter of ilte 

Fedetnl RCC\1td~ Aa ~ !he regL1lalioos promulgated Ihetalnder when he 

commumcated l\'ilh hej~ s lawyers about Ihe ql/lil pNl quo on his per3OOl11 email ~, 

"" Tr. .... c,ibo<! I"'en,.'" "fn." "". Ed"'a.d P.,CI US, 0.,,,<1 or J''''I<O, '" W.,b., D,C, ,. 11M" 22 , 101.11 ". (d, 

.l1' E"lIIlI r,o'" Thl" ... Pe'~1. K\ Oa"d L,lId:OIug (o..>n IO, 2Q II ) ISI'A 15<)1 

'-'Tr.\J«ribed h\"'."' '" ~fTh>n ... Ed .. "rd "'",l., II SOl',,', of JI.O!J IC<, .n W!Uk, D C", tll5-II(>, lS1 (1)1., 22, 

W ll) 

..-9U S \I IO~"'Y D .. ",Cl "fM;,.""",la, h~ .. " · .. ~~,,, Mo,,", I.(S "",,:1 p.." " v, l7~"4,~ I"ml, \I""h!''O)j~ (01', 

25, l" l t). 1001 12-791 U S D<'p', or J ... 1o<'l' , c;-.I D,,-,sion. Mo".,,,,d,,,,, rg, TOil) Wo ... A"''>Iart A'Lo',",,' 

Gi'",,'al C"11 D,,'''''' ~ liS ~"'I ,\'"" .. 11, ('iO'()jSr 1',>~I .. W'm .. ''-'''' (No> 21, 21l(1) 100J 110-911 

"" T",,,.cnbed Into"",,,, "ffr<dn<~ 1"<''''<11 ," Wa,k D.C, '" 5~'<'(, (M3r 2~ l0J31 
172 

The Ethics and Professional Respon,sibility Opinions Obtained by Assistant Attorney General 

Perez Were Not Sufficient to Cover His Actions 

In late November 20 II, Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez obtained an ethics 

opinion from the designated ethics official within the Civil Rights Division and his staff obtained 

separate professional responsibility guidance from another otlicial. 2S1 Perez told the Committees 

that he orally recited the situation to the ethics otlicer. 282 And when asked, he testitied that he 

"believe[ d]" he explained that the United States was not a party to the Magner appeal. 2H3 The 

ethics otlicial - who was also a trial attorney reporting to Perez in the normal course of his duties 

- found no ethical prohibition. The attorney wrote 

You asked me whether there was an ethics concern with your involvement 

in settling a Fair Lending Act challenge in St. Paul that would include an 

agreement by the government not to intervene in a False Claims Act claim 

involving St. Paul. You indicated that you have no personal or financial 

interest in either matter. Having reviewed the standards of ethical conduct 

and related sources, there is no ethics rule implicated by the situation and 

therefore no prohibition against your proposed course of action. Please let 

me know if you have any questions 2 '4 

By its tenns, the ethics opinion that Perez received advised him that there were no 

personal or tinancial cont1icts prohibiting his involvement in the q1lid pro quo. It did not address 

the propriety of the agreement itself or any cont1icts broader than Perez's personal or fmancial 

interests. As a general matter, ethics otlicers within the Justice Department answer questions of 

government ethics, such as cont1icts of interest. These otlicials do not handle questions of 

professional ethics at issue here, such as duties to clients and global resolution of unrelated cases. 

The Justice Department's ethics website specifically states: "Questions concerning professional 

responsibility issues such as the McDade amendment and contacts with represented parties 

should be directed to the Department's Professional Responsibility Advisory Otlice. "m Thus, 

the ethics opinion Perez received did not address the propriety of the agreement itself or any 

cont1icts broader than Perez's personal or financial interests. 

Moreover, two additional points cast doubt on the adequacy of the opinion. First, based 

on Perez's testimony that he "believe[d]" he infonned the ethics advisor the United States was 

not party in Magner, it is not clear Perez equipped him with a full set offacts. Understanding 

that the United States was not a party to MaJ.,Tfler - and in fact that it had no direct stake in the 

outcome - was of course a significant fact. Second, it is curious that Perez did not seek the 

ethics opinion until well after he had set in motion the entire chain events. More specitically, 

Perez spoke with Lillehaug for the first time on November 23,2011. Nine minutes after that 

telephone call, Perez emailed HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary Pratt, asking to speak with her as 

281 TranSClibed Tntelvie,,, of Thomas Ed'ward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, ill Wash., D.C. at 191, 202-()3 (Mar. 22. 

2013) 

28: ld. at 194-95. 283 ftl 

281 Em,1il from Civil Rights Division Ethics Officer to Tholl1,1s E. Perez (Nov 28. lOll. 3:53 p.m.). IDO) l14!1091 

285 U.S. Dcp't of Justicc, Departmental Ethics Office, httpj/ww,\'.justicc.go\'~lmd/cthics/. 

49 
173 

soon as po:Ssible 28t; One mimu,'lalcr. al 2.30 pm , I'erez emailed HUD Ge!lcral Cou!lscl elCTI 

Kanovsky, asking to speak about a n~ther UI"Bent mauer n~; At 2:33 p m" Perez c.nalled Tony 

West. head of DOS's Civil Division and Ihus ultimat~l y responsible for False Claims ACI cast'S 

like N,'1,· .. fI e~l. wrote: I " 'BS wcmdcri!lg if I could talk 10 you today if possible aboul 8 

separate mailer orsome urgency ,.!II All oflhese actiOils SCI In Hlo110n (he quid pro quo Yel. he 

did nOI recelVl.' his "eth;cs op;n;(lI1" u:I\I;1 five days lal<'1' on November 28 

Assistanl Altomcy Gene<al p("l:l. received no written professional resll'onsibilityopinion 

abOUI his in\'olvcmenl in Iheqmd pm '1"1> Pe~.l; lold the Commiuees Iha! he inquired orally, 

lhrough an inlermediary, and "the allsower thaI we rc.::eived on the professional responsibility 

front was \hal bt-cause the Uniled Sla1es is a unilary aClOr. thai we could indeed proc<'Cd so 10llg 

as Ihe nther eamranenl did nOI objoeel and would continue 10 be Ihe decisiollmaking booy lin 

Iltose malle,., tht fall \\ilhin their juri$diction h~~ This !9-'idance. as described to lhe 

CommlUC1lS by Perez., focused narro\OJly on his authonl)' to speak on behalf of lhe Civil Di>h ion 

when negolifuing Wilh Ihe CilY nfSt Paul It did nOl affinnatively authorize Perez to enter inro 

Ihe '1,,1d PfQ '1"U_ 

BecllusebOlh Ihe ethics opinicm and Ihe professional rcsponsihilily opinion were limited 

III AssiSlanl Anll<l1ey Gcueral Peret'j: Iheorelical involvement In ne,,01j~ting the '11IId pl'O 'l'ln -

and do nOl affimlatively appT{)\'e lhe ~greL't11ent or his panieular 3etions in reaching the 

agreem~n1 - the opinions do nOI SlImeI'; 10 cover Ihe entirety ofllis aClions In the (I/lid pro (1/10 

Neither Ihe cthics opinion nor the professional responSibility opiuion SIlnclioned Perez's actions 

in offering tlte CilY assistance in dismissing lhe whistleblower complaint HgainsT his dient. the 

United States. Nor wouJd the elhics opinion have absolved him ofresponsibilily for Itis alle<np' 

10 cover up lhe faclthal Maf.!lI<!r was ullderlying reason for the N"",cll declination decision. 

The (!Ihtes and profeSSolOl\&l responsibility QplmOllS Obtai .. i:d bt " S:;lSlant AII<)mey 

nd ThomllS Peru d hi$ IIT Wl'T1S IUIITUI" ly focused on his perwn41 111111 

fi lllllleillJ inTerests in a d~f; d his aLrthoril)i 10 spelk on behaJf afllle Civa Divisinn. 

and Ihoo do nOl ~ddresi Ihe quit/I'm 'IINI itself' (Y PtnU:'k p.8.nietdal el tm~ ill 

elTe.:tuatinl( /(1 /ro II/II. 

The Ik",<rtllle,,1 ,if J ustice /j kd J' lIinfmell lhe Snin/ llml lnte,,, 'iflhe 1-"11/.\-1'; CIi,illlli Ac/ h)' 

',,'erm,lI)' Ci,I/i"K Ih e Quill PM QlIlI II "Serflell/lm/" 

The Fals~ CIHims Act e.~jsl ' UJ help ttl~ Uniled Slales recov<"rla);pay~rdolI8'" misspt'nt 

or misalloca!ed on Ihe basis of fraud ,;onllniued agllinslthe govenmtCllt Since il was amended 

in 1986. lhe False Claims Act has hel ped rN:over over SolO billion of a.~payerdollars lhal would 

olherwise btl lost to fraud alld abuse coffederal programs 2W TIle Act includes a whislleblower 

provi~ion allowing private cilizens to bring an action on behalf oflhe United Slales.l9! Thi5 

.3Ib E,,""J rro'" TOOII'" E. PO'U oos"", "'. Pn'" lJ'fcV (11 1. 2 N p "L)_IOO! I(lli .. En ... ! f ... ",n .. ,,,,,.£. P."" l<> flown "'a"", ', ~) (Nnv 23, 20 11 1 JI) p "'.) tDOJ 10.54'1 

",. En.,,1 fro", Tt .. " ... E Pe,e, l<> Tun) "' ~ (Nu,· 23. 11111,111 p.n, j. IDOJ 1( j 

"" Tm,,..,nbed 1"1., .. ;,,,, QfTh,,,, ... Edwn,d p.,re ... U S Dop 't Qf ),,,100,,", '" Wa,h .. 0 C 'lUI-"2 (1.1;11 n . ~1 

;0.' n,,' fi,N" na'",-, ,1#. ' ''f hu".,,,,w,, lJIf.OQl.I(r.u"'..go:;c:sIIaII>-';1:LlIILI'·"'" IIfIS1 \',,,1Cd "p,;1 12 20 1l) 

"".-;"~3 1US C 171V 

50 
174 

provision is powerful, and according to the Department's own press release, since 1986, 8,500 

qui tam whistleblower suits have been filed since 1986 totaling $24.2 billion in recoveries292 

Where the government intervenes in the private action and settles the complaint, or where the 

government pursues an alternate remedy, the whistleblower is atIorded the opportunity to contest 

the fairness and adequacy of the settlement or alternate remedy293 

As a result, the False Claims Act, and the qui tam whistleblower provisions have become 

an important part of the Civil Division's enforcement efforts and a key component of Senate 

confirmation hearings for senior otlicials at the Department In fact, Attorney General Holder, 

Deputy Attorney General Cole, then-Associate Attorney General Perrelli, and Assistant Attorney 

General West were all asked specific questions about the False Claims Act and all answered that 

they supported the law and would work with whistleblowers to ensure that their cases were 

afforded due consideration and assistance from the Department2 '!4 

Unfortunately, despite these successes, and contrary to the assertions about support for the False 

Claims Act, the qUi tam whistleblower provisions, and whistleblowers, Fredrick Newell, was 

treated differently and given no opportunity to contest the fairness and adequacy of the 

settlement or alternate remedy- despite DOJ privately labeling the resolution a "settlement" 

Several contemporaneous documents suggest that DOJ viewed the quid pro quo with St. 

Paul as a settlement. In fact, in the initial ethics opinion that Perez received, the Division ethics 

otlicer evaluated Perez's "involvement in settling a Fair Lending Act challenge in St Paul that 

would include an agreement by the government not to intervene in a False Claims Act claim 

involving St. Paul.,,29' Handwritten notes of a subsequent meeting between then-Civil Frauds 

Section Director Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz, and a Civil 

Fraud line attorney likewise renect that "Ci vii Rights wants a settlement; St Paul brought up 

another case," in reference to the Newell qui lam296 Even then-Assistant Attorney General Tony 

West's own handwritten notes ofa Civil Division senior staff meeting in early January 2012 call 

the quid pro quo a settlement. West's notes state: "City: we've learned that as settlement City 

means they'll just withdraw the petition.,,2'!7 Other notes from January 2012 similarly state: 

CO2 Press Release, Office of Public Affairs, U. S. Department of Justice, Justice Department Recovers Nearly $5 

Billion in False Claims Act Cases in Fiscal Year 2012 (Dec. 4, 2012). available at 

http://,,,,w,,;.justicc.gov/opa/prl2012IDcccmbcrlI2-ag-1459.html. 

2" ld. ~ 3730(e). 

294 ,)'ee xeneral(~', .Vomina/iofl (dRric H Holder, Jr., Vominee io he AJlorney (Jeneral (?/Ihe Uni/cd .",'Iales, 111th 

Congo 276-277 (2009) (Responses to Written Questions of Senator Chuck Grassley): Nommation of James ~\licheal 

Cole, Nominee to be Depu/)J Attorney Gel1el'al, U.s. Depl11'tnlent of Justice, Il1th Congo 148-150 (2010) 

(Responses to Written Questions of Senator Chuck Grassley): Confirmation llearings on the Nominations of 

Thomas Perrelli Vominee 10 be Associale AllOrney ("Jenera! (~(Ihe Uniled S'laies and IT!ena J..Tagen Vominee 10 he 

Solicitor General of the United States, lllth Cong. 129 (2009) (Responses to Written Questions of Senator Chuck 

Grassley to Thomas Perrelli, to be Associate Allonley General for the U. S. Department of J LLstice): and 

Confirmation Hearillgs on Federal Appointments, 111th Congo 784-785 (2009) (Responses to Written Questions by 

Senator Chuck Grassley). 

:295 Euwil from Civil Rights Division Ethics Officer to Th01l1 .. 1s E. PereL (NO\,. 28,2011,3:53 p.m.) (emphasis 

added). [DOJ I W109] 

296 Hand'Hilien Noles orLine Allome\ 2 (Dec. 7. 20ll). IDO) 23012171 

"7 Handwritten Notes of Tony West (Jan. :1, 2(12). [DOJ 627/585] 

51 
175 

"Newell - mtg wi Joyce; decline the second case first; do not say there is a qUid pro quo 

settlement; settlement is not contingent on declination.,,298 

When Perez testitied before the Committees, he stated that his discussions with the City's 

outside counsel, David Lillehaug, about the quid pro quo were "settlement negotiations." Perez 

testitied: 

Q Mr. Perez, I just have a couple of follow up questions for you just to 

clarify some of the discussion you had witb my colleague in the previous 

round. In the time period that we have been discussing, November 2011 

to February 2012, is it fair to say that you were the primary representative 

of the Department in the settlement negotiations with the Magl1er and 

Newell cases with the city? 

A Here is how 1 look at it. 1 had initial conversations with Mr. Lillehaug, 

after T had spoken to Mr. Fraser and then Mr. Fraser put me in touch with 

Mr. Lillehaug. We had those conversations and then took the appropriate 

measures that I discussed this morning. During a substantial part of this 

period, Mr. Lillehaug, as T understand it, was also in contact with the US 

Attorney's Otlice in Minnesota, so those conversations were occurring 

And he obviously met directly with the Civil Division in connection with 

the discussion of the qui tams when the mayor came in, and I was not part 

ofthat. So there were a number of different conversations that were 

ongoing. I was involved in some of them, the US. Attorney's Otlice was 

involved in others, and the Civil Division was involved in yet others 

Q Were there settlement negotiations going on with the city in January and 

February of20127 

A We had - there were discussions underway in January and February of 

2012 relating to Mr. Lillehaug's proposal. 

Q So the answer to my question is yes then? 

A Well, again, there were a number of different - Mr. Lillehaug was talking 

to the US. Attorney's Otlice, I was discussing - I was having discussions 

with him. So the reason I wanted to be complete in your other question 

was about whether it was just me, and I wanted to make sure that the 

record was complete in connection with the various people with whom 

Mr. Lillehaug I think was communicating299 

298 Handmillen Noles (Jan. lOl2). IDOl 653/6081 

290 TranSClibcd Tntcfvic,,, of Thomas Edward Perez, u.s. Dcp't of Justice, ill Wash., D.C. at 105-07(Mar. 22, 2013) 

52 
176 

Only after the Deparllllem'S oounsd interje<:ted did P.!Tez begin to comest the dl8rRCterization of 

the lSCIJssion~ as "settlement negotia.rions .. ,II" 

Although the Dt:l1IInmellt of Justice decided 10 deeline imer"emion in Newell 's csse ill 

~challJj:c for the City's wilhdr..l\~al o1fthe Akt".,,,'r Supreme COUrt appeal. Newell Wb never 

afforded the opportullity to conk'St the fpimess or ad ... quaey of this resolution SimuitBllcously. 

however. int~mal Department documents reneet that high-Iel'el otTicials wilh the Department 

saw the 'I"id I'rQ 'I,m as the ouIgro'~1h of senlcmcnl diSCUSsJOfl$ wilh Ihe City As sudl. Newell 

should have been involved ill these discussions and ~llowed the (lpponullily 10 opine on the 

resolution in a faime!;s hearins:- BCCl[use he was not the Depanment of Justice likely violated 

the spirit and intent of the False Claims Act 

FindiD&;: The Diparlment of JUSllC~,rnrated thl< spirit itnd Tnlent 01' the f'il,he CIBlm$ ACI b y 

privately acknowled/llng e "",t/ pm 1I11t) WlIS 11 settlement while not affonlm8 

~rcdrick Newell the oprc:i. nil)' Itl be heard, as the SlaIU!e ~uires-. on the fail1\e&' 

and ~I.I8Cl' OJflhi, ~~~eIll 

The QuillPr,) QtW ExpoSf!11 Mom.gemenl F"ilu"" Within Ih", Ikpltrtmenl o/.fllSlil'1! 

The process by which the IXi,anment of J~l tice am\'w III this 1J",t/ IIIlJ ifill) with the Cit)' 

ofSl Paul is not at aU alemplate for Depanme1l1al management, The Committees· invcstigation 

has exposed how Assista1l1 AuomfjY GC1leraJ Thol1las Perez was able to manipulate the 

bUl1:aucrdhC mazes of DOJ and HUD to ensure that /I·lngl/,Jr was withdrawn from Ihe Supreme 

Cool1. The rnallageOlent failures, however. run far deeper According to infonnation given to 

the COIlllnillct's, senior leadership in ~he D~"a!1ment - up to and including Allorney General 

llolder - was unaware orlhe e:.:tem to which Perez had gone 10 realize his gool 

In November 2011, aller the Supreme COlI n granted the City's appeal in MlI811<.'r. 

Assistant Anontey General Perez initiall:d a process thllt uitimnlely resulted in ~n agn:cment with 

the City 10 ",ithdlllw Ihe appeal In this process, l'erez h>d HUD to ~'Considcr its wppon fOJ" 

NL''''~If. cau in!! HUD to chang.:' its ~·commcndation and subJ;e{)uently eroding support fordle 

east" in DOl's Civil Division. Once a consensus had bC<'n reached to di!Cline M, .... d/. Perez 

po:riiOnally bt'gBIl kadin!! n<:~ti ationl; with the City on the lflll,} prCllfll(J Hi$ efforts paid ofTin 

February 2012, as Ihe City agree<! 10 withdraw A'klgtli!r illl'XchanSe for Ihe Dtpanment"s 

declination in N,'well and Dfis. 

Senior leadership "idlin the [lepanmenl of Justi ce, however. was unaware of the full 

extent of Pt'rcz's aClions. Former As:>Ociate Attorney General Thomas l'errelli. Perez's 

Sllpc1Visor ~t Ihe lime of the IJm.! pro lI"tJ, told the Committees that htl was no1 aware that the 

Depanment of Justice entered into an agreement with the City until he was interviewed ~ 

DL'flanment oflk ials in prc-paration ro,. dealing ,~ith cOllgressional .scrutiny of thiS ma\tt'T I 

While Perrelli stated h" was awareof Perez's di~us~ ns with the City. he was under tlte 

impression that an agreement had ne"cr been reached JlI1 Perrelli tcstified thaI when he bi!Callle 

0/10 (J ~I tt~J.11J 

.... T","",ribe<i 1I ,, k'" Dfn",,,,,.. John 1',,,,,,111 II, Wash .• D.C Ql ty (N\!, N. W121 . 

.... /J. "' 'fl 
177 

aware that Magner had been withdrawn from the Supreme Court, Perez told him that it was the 

"civil rights community" that had encouraged the City to withdraw the case. Perrelli testified 

A I do remember a conversation with Tom Perez - and I can't remember 

whether it was a conversation or voicemail, what it was - where he -

where I expressed surprise that the case had been dismissed. And he 

indicated that the civil rights community had encouraged the city to 

dismiss. 

Q So that's all he told you, ci vii rights community had encouraged the city to 

dismiss? 

A That's what he told me. 

Q He didn't tell you anything about the arrangement, Newell, the two qui 

tam cases? 

A That was the substance of the conversation 

Q And you were surprised because you had thought that this would be so 

difficult to get done? 

A I was surprised because I wasn't aware that the case was going to be 

dismissed. Obviously, I knew, you know, as Tom had indicated, that was 

something he was interested in. But I hadn't talked to him about it in a 

long time and was unaware that that would happen 

Q And at that time, did it occur to you that an agreement may have been 

reached been [sic 1 the department and the city? 

A I was not aware that one was reached at that time and 

Q Did the thought cross your mind? 

A It didn't, frankly, or at least I don't remember it crossing my mind. 'O' 

Perrelli also testified that after a congressional inquiry from House judiciary Committee 

Chairman Lamar Smith, Perrelli briefed Attorney General Holder on the quid pro quo and he 

"indicated to him that there had been these discussions in the Department that the City had put 

on the table this idea of the qui lam cases, but that that hadn't happened.,,304 Instead, Perrelli 

passed on to Attorney General Holder the incomplete information from Perez that 

303 1d. at 96-97 

304 f t!. at 104 

54 
178 

en~ourngemem from the civil rig/us community led to Ihe Cily'~ wilhdrawal oflhe appeal ,'" 

l'em'Ui ackno"'ll'CI ged that due 10 I'erez'$ omission, he "didn't give [AUom"y General Holder[ a 

complete.wl of facts" about the II"ill prf' qllo.JV6 

The qllrd Jlff! ~n~r serious managemcm fai lures within the Depanmenl of 

JUOolice, with senior I«clership - indudln,g AUQl'll",' Ge ~ lillidel'" qnd IhenAssoc:ialtl Altomey G81Jid Perrelli - unaware Ihal Assi9WlI Attorney General Peru 

!lad enlt1ed inlo an agreeq'tl!lll vltlh me City of St. Paulo 

11.1.' /)el'" r/mefll II/ J ux/ice, II", " qWr/men f o/Um .... ing ",,11 Urblll' nli'I'e/(}l lmcII/, II11III/1e Cil)' 

0/ St. /'i.,,1 Ob)"IrIIClellll,e Clm.mifll!<l!S' 1"'e.~ f;J;III;1!I 1 

The House COO1miuee on Ov,nig/ll and Go~emmenl Reform and the House Comminee 

on the Judiciary First began investigating the cin:umSlanees ~urTUundin!! the withdrawal cl" 

A/lIgller in February 20 12 The Department. of u~ti«: did nO! acknowledge the e~is ence of the 

qilM pro qr'" until a non-tlllllscribcl ';tafrbrieFi ng in AugUSt 2012 The Cily ofSI. I'aul. 

likewise. did nUl acknowled!:]" Ihe e:'<istence orthe qllid pro qllo 10 the Commiul't'~ until October 

2012 This obstruction by DOl Bnd Ihe City - as welt as similar obstruction by HUD - has 

unnecessarily delayed the COlllmil1ees' n~esliga li ll 

For si)l months. DOl refused 10 allow the Commiuces to speak on the rceod aboul the 

11'/111 Jim I/IIU with Department officials. The Department reluclRl11ly snowed the Committees to 

speak UI As~i~tanl Attorney General Peret. U.S Allorney Jones. and Acting ,\sSllI:iale Anomey 

Gen('ral Wesl In March 20U only after Ille Commillee on Oversight and Govemmen\ R"ronn 

began 10 pr('pare deposition subpocnlllS DOl also refused 10 aUO\\-' Ihe Committees 10 transcribe 

8n interview in December 2012 wilh Deputy Assistam Anomey G~ncrnl Joyce Branda During 

Ihe lranscribcl interviews. DOl also ill1empted 10 frustrale Ihe Commil1ee's fBcl-linding etr,),,_ 

A De\)lUlmCnl anorney directed PercI: nOl to anSWl'l" questions posed to him about whclhCl' he has 

conlMHmicaled with an y officials 8t D or the panies to 1i!\l"ll.~hifl II/MI. Holly t·. MI. Holly 

(;arikll.1 fili:~I1.~ I;' Ac/it;m, a pending Suprt:mc Coun appeal wilh preciliCly the sanle legal 

qUl'Slion asMugllt·r.

lQ7 

Similarly, HUD refu:;cd for O\l"r foul months to allow the COmmhl~C5 to speak on the 

record aboul thc I/lud pro '1"0 with HUD officials. ~I UD eventually agreed 10 allow Ihe 

Commiuees to speak with ~nef81 Counsel Helen Kanovsky and Depuly Assistanl Secrelary 

Salll 1'1lIt1; however. the Depanmen( .;ominuc! to refuse the Comminccs' r~"(lu~st§ to spt:3k with 

'~soci e General Counsel Dane Narllde and Regional Dir« tor Maoriee McGou!:]h. Evt'!l 

dunng the int~rvie""s of Kanovsky and Pra!t. Hu n objected 10 Ihe pre .ence of Senalor 

Gf:asslcy'5 stafl"and their right 10 ask questions or tile witnesses HUD anomcys also dira:tt:<l 

Kanovsky lind I'rnt1 to nm ttnswer queslions alx>ut Ihe MI. Holly Supreme Coun appeal ."'" 

~~ M..t t52 

..... lit. n( 15 ~ 

... TrA"'"'''''''' I~,, ,c" ufTI",,, ... Ed" ... d l'e'N II S. Del' I or ),,,;,,,,,,,." \\<.,\,_ 0 C '" j~ 1 ... 1) (M" ,. 21 2(11) 

..... r"'....,rlbo<lll1lcni<" uf llcl.n K",,,,,,~}" u.s Ocp', ~f ll ""' '' \gll: Uot>.>n O"w p""J~, '" Wash., 0 C DI I>-

82 (Ap' ~ 11113) T",,,,,,"bcd 10M"" ,." on .. ," Pill" . u .S. Dq> t or ll ""'''~ &. Uth.n Ik",kop,,,,nl. '" W .. II .• D.C at ~'i-'IU (Apr 1. 2()1l). 
179 

The City of St Paul's cooperation with the investigation has been no better. After the 

Oversight Committee first wrote to Mayor Coleman in February 2012, City Attorney Grewing 

telephoned Committee staff and indicated that the City would fully respond to the inquiry. When 

the City eventually sent its response, it declined to answer any questions about the withdrawal of 

Magner. It was not until May 2012 that the City substantially complied with the investigation. 

Even today, however, the City continues to withhold twenty documents and one audio recording 

from the Committees. The City also denied the Committees the opportunity to review these 

documents in camera. 

A key ditliculty throughout this investigation has been DOl's insistence that former 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Michael Hertz motivated the Department's ultimate decision 

to decline intervention in Newell. Both Acting Associate Attorney General West and Assistant 

Attorney General Perez testified that Hertz expressed concern about the Newell case and 

suggested that Hertz's negative opinion about the case carried considerable weight 309 Branda 

also told the Committees that Hertz expressed to her privately that the Newell case "sucks," 

which she understood to mean that it was unlikely the Department would intervene 310 The 

Department positioned Hertz as the central figure in its narrative, which Perez alluded to in his 

testimony. Perez testified' 

Well, as I said before, in the end, the United States made a decision in this matter, 

and the decisions in the q1li tam matters were made at the highest levels of the 

Civil Division, Mike Hertz and - who is, again, the Department's preeminent 

expert on qui tam matters, personally participated in the meeting and weighed all 

of the factors, including the weakness of the evidence, in his judgment, resource 

issues, and policy considerations, and the Magner matter, and they made the 

decision that it was in the interests of justice to agree to the proposal that - the 

original proposal that Mr. Lillehaug had put forth. 

Sadly, Michael Hertz passed away in May 2012, so the Committees have been unable to 

ask him about DOl's assertions about his statements and opinions. Documents produced by the 

Department, however, call into question the Department's narrative about Hertz's opinions. In 

particular, an email from Principal Deputy Attorney General Elizabeth Taylor to then-Associate 

Attorney General Thomas Perrelli in January 2012 suggests that Hertz had some concern about 

declining Newell as a part of the quidpro quo. Taylor stated: "Mike Hertz brought up the St 

Paul 'disparate impact' case in which the SG just filed an amicus in the Supreme Court. He's 

concerned about the recommendation that we decline to intervene in two qUi tam cases against 

St PauL,,311 

In addition, notes from a meeting in early January 2012 reflect that Hertz expressed the 

opinion that the quid pro quo "looks like buying off St Paul" and "should be whether there are 

",' Transcribed Interview of Derek Anthony West, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 54-56, 77-78 (Mar. 18, 

2(13); Transcribed lntervie\\' of Thomas Edv.'ard Perez, U.s. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 89-90 (Mar. 22-

20]]) 

310 Briefing with Joyce Branda in Wash., D.C. (Dec. 5, 2012) 

3lI Email from Elizabeth Taylor to Thomas Pelldli (Jan. 5, 2012, ]4:'1] p.1Il.) [DOJ 6] 1/588] 

56 
180 

legit rca!iOn~ 10 decline as to past lll~aice ,,"% It remains unclear how Henz tml)' viewed Ihe 

merits ofth .. N ..... ell case or the propriety oflhe !JIm} pro qllo in general . 

.fintiu: Th~ DepnnnUl!l! or 1I1 st !. the Depnnmcnt orH('IIuinS and Uth1lll DHejO{lment, and 

the eil), of 5t Paul f8 .hh~idlk 10 fully cooperate wltll the CQIllmiuecs' invCSU!!lItlOfl. 

r~usin;l! for mOlllhs 10 ~ k on the r~tnd about lhe 'f,,1<1 ('tV II/IV lIlId ubSlrnCiing the 

t;OIllnUllees' mqtlllV. 

Consequences ofthe Quid Pro Quo 

The "/IIiI pro 'I"f) L'Xchange b<:tween the Deparlmem of Justice-and City of St Paul, 

Minnesota, is no mere abstraction and nO! simply II thooretical proposition. This '1I/11J IIro '1,m 

has dirt'<:t and discernible real-wurld ,~n'ects . The manner in which the Depanment uf Justice -

and in particular Assistant Attorney General Thomas Pete"l - sought to encoumge a pri vate 

litigant to forego its Supreme Coon appeal and the lel·erage used to achieve that goal have 

lasting cO!lse{Juences rOf v.hislleblowen. Ia)(J>lI)·ers. and the. rule oflaw. 

Tire SIICl'ijiu 1'./ Fredrkk NI!I.~II 

Fre<lrick Newt"!1 has spenl over a decade orhis life workinS to improve jobs and 

contracting.programs for low-incomu residents in 51. Paul. A pan-o ..... ner of three small 

con6lluction companies. Nt'Well beca.me exposed to the value ofSoction 3 programs in creating 

economic opponuniti<.'$ for low.inco(ne individuals. Sl Pnul 's noncompliance ""Ih Section J 

limited the available contracting oPlX">I1unities and prt:\'ented him from hiring and trai ning new 

wotkers J" As 8 minister as ..... ell, Newell was acutely aware of tile bfOllder effcct of Section 3 

noncompliance on the community To help solve this problem, Ne ..... ell founded a nonprofit 

organiution '·10 be a watchdog group that would be able to ensure that Section ] was taking 

place'· in his community_ 'I' 

Since.2005. Newell has fOl.lght in the coun s and through HUD to i1l1!1rove Section J 

programs in the City of St. Paul. As u result of his advocacy. HUD found six separate areas of 

noncompliance with Section J in 51. Paul and fUrlnel· found that the City had " no working 

knowledVe of Section 3 and was generally unaware- of tile Cit)"s progmmmalic obligations 

thereto" " Newell ·s advoc~cy resulLed in a Volumal)' Compliance Agreement bct"cel1 HUD 

and the City to ensor~ improved compliance with Section J in the ruture Ncwell lITessed for the 

agreel11ent to include some restitution for the community·s opponunities lost by the City'S 

noncompliance. HUD finalized thc agreement without Newell's sUJ!.l!estions. however. 8nd 

HUD nfficia!s told Newel! tnat his go3.ls would be met througll the False-Claims Act. 

" ; tl3''''''nllO'' No'o! (Io,e " , 1>" tl) IDOJ (,l'I/}R71 

'" Ne".H 'esuliod 11." 51 P,."t ,,~ ,""'''' to",~ and ,,, .. 01"' 100 pn:>blen ..... ~ IOn 'IOIOS> " ,noS! or III.., ''''', ... '<1 

~D,I.eI .1 "",lid"',!!,,, "UI> ,b".""",,, boca".., 'Il<") could" t ge1 so" • .',,,,,"'" I",. tl"''' " T .. ,we,"""1 I"",,,·,.,, "f 

F"'dnd. N.,,,.11 '" Wash .. D.C '" 1M (Mu. lS 2013 ) 

'''Tn",.cr;bc<! I"",,,·j .... "" ll.'<1l1c~ N<:" ·cll . U S. Ik-p., "r Jus,."... '" Wash D.C . ' W (M"" lH. 21JIlf 

", iii . • , !I 
181 

Tn pursuing his False Claims Act cases, Newell indicated that he intended to put the 

recovered money back into the community. "From the beginning," Newell testified, "when I 

first started this - and, like I said, as I trace it back to 2000 - it's all been with the efforts of 

trying to build the Section 3 community,,3!6 He stated: 

[TJhe bottom line is those opportunities belong to those communities. 

And what's been happening is you've got companies coming out of the 

suburbs come in, do the [construction 1 work, hire nobody from the city, 

and go and take the funds back to the suburbs. And so we wanted this 

program to work that these communities could be rebuilt.'!7 

Every indication Newell received from HUD and DOJ about his False Claims Act lawsuit was 

positi ve - that is, until the day that the Department declined to intervene in his case With DOJ 

declining to intervene, Newell's complaint stood little chance of success. 

The Justice Department - including all three DOJ officials interviewed by the 

Committees - has maintained that its non-intervention did not affect Newell's case because 

Newell was still able to pursue the claim on his own3 !8 However, the Department's decision had 

a direct practical effect on Newell's case by allowing the City to move for dismissal of the case 

on grounds that would have otherwise been unavailable ifthe Department had intervened. 

Newell's attorney testified: 

The jurisdictional defense raised in the district court by the City of St Paul 

is not available against the United States. Ultimately, at the trial court 

level, St Paul prevailed on the theory that the court lacked subject matter 

jurisdiction over the claims because the relator was not an original source, 

and the court also relied on prior public disclosures. The point being: 

a defendant can't raise those defenses on an intervening case because the 

United States - there's always the subject matter of jurisdiction when the 

United States intervenes and is the plaintiff before the court . .l19 

The Department of Justice's quidpro quo sacrificed Fredrick Newell to ensure that an 

abstract legal doctrine would remain unchallenged. It cut loose a real-world whistleblower and 

an advocate for low-income residents to protect a legally questionable tactic. When asked 

whether he believed justice was done in this case, Newell answered "no" and explained: "The 

problems that existed, they still exist Our aims weren't just to walk in and blow a whistle on 

someone or collect money; it was for the greater good of our community. And I have yet to see 

that happen ,,320 Yet, despite the double crossing by the Justice Department, Newell remains 

optimistic that greater good may still be achieved. He testified: "And like I said earlier, when I 

316 lei. at 81. 

31- at83. 

Transcribed Interview of Thomas Edward Perez, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wasl" D.C. at llO (Mar. 22, 

2(13); Transcribed lntervie\\' of Derek Anthony West, u.s. Dep't of Justice, in Wash., D.C. at 98-99 (M1r. 18, 

20U); Transcribed Intc[vic\Y of Byron Todd Jones, U.S. Dcp't of Justice. in Wash., D.C. at 54 (Mar. R, 20 (3). 

319 Tmnscribed lnlervie" of Fredrick Ne"ell in Wash., D.C. al IOl-D2 (Mar. 28, 20l3). 

3':0 It!. at 134 

58 
182 

said Section 3 is that important, to me, and I'm going to speak from the minister's perspective, 

God just moved us into a bigger ballpark,,321 

The CJlilling Effect on Whistlehlowers 

Above and beyond Fredrick Newell, the quid pro quo will likely have a severe chilling 

etfect on whistleblowers in general. The Civil Fraud Section within DO]' s Civil Division is 

entirely dedicated to litigating and recovering financial trauds perpetrated against the federal 

government322 Acting Associate Attorney General Tony West - who had previously led the 

Civil Division - told the Committees that the Division takes fraud "very seriously" and that he 

made "fighting traud one of [the Division's] top priorities."m In particular, he praised the 

whistleblower qui tam provision of the False Claims Act, calling them "a very important tool" 

that "really allow us to be aggressive in rooting out ... fraud against the government.,,32. 

The current qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act were authored by Senator 

Grassley in 1986 and have been a valuable incentive for private citizens to expose waste and 

wrongdoing. Since 1986, whistleblowers have used the qui tam provisions to return over $35 

billion of taxpayer dollars to the federal treasury325 Without the assistance of private citizens in 

uncovering waste, fraud, and abuse, the Justice Department's enforcement of the False Claims 

Act would not be as robust. 

The quid pro quo between Assistant Attorney General Perez and the City of St Paul 

threatens the vitality of the False Claims Act's qui tam provisions. In this deal, the Department 

gave up the opportunity to litigate a multimillion dollar traud against the government in Newell 

in order to protect the disparate impact legal theory in Magner. In doing so, political appointees 

overruled trial-level career attorneys who initially stated that the allegations in Newell amounted 

to a "particularly egregious example of false certifications." These career attorneys were never 

given the opportunity to prove Newell's allegations and hold the City of St. Paul accountable for 

its transgressions. 

More alanningly, the Department abandoned the whistleblower, Fredrick Newell, after 

telling him for years that it supported his case. The manner in which the Department treated 

Newell presents a disconcerting precedent for whistleblower relations. Newell stated: 

As noted by Congress, the protection of the whistle blower is key to 

encouraging individuals to report fraud and abuse. The way that HUD and 

Justice have used me to further their own agenda is appalling - and that's 

putting it mildly. This type of treatment presents a persuasive argument 

at 86. 

U.S. Dep"1 of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Fraud Sectioll, http://ww.".v.justice.gm:/civill 

commcrcial/fraud/c-fraud.html. 

323 Trnnscribed lnten:ien of Derek Anthony West, U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. al18 (Mar. 22. 2013). 

3'" !d. at 19. 

325 Press Release, Senator Charles Grassley. Grassley La"" Recovers Another $3.3 Billion of Ta.,-payer Mone~· 

OtheTwisc Lostto Fraud (Dec. 4, 2012) 

59 
183 

for anyone who is looking for a reason to not get involved in reporting 

fraud claim or even discrimination326 

Rather than protecting and empowering the whistleblower, the Department used him and his case 

as a bargaining chip to resolve unrelated matters. This type of treatment and horse trading will 

likely discourage other potential whistleblowers from staking their time, money, and reputations 

on the line to tight fraud. This conduct should not be practice of the Department and it should 

not have been the treatment of Fredrick Newell. 

The Missed Opportunities for Low-Income Residents of St. Paul 

The saddest irony of this quid pro quo is that the Department of Justice and the 

Department of Housing and Urban Development, by maneuvering to protect a legally 

questionable legal doctrine, directly hanned the real-life low-income residents of St. Paul who 

they were supposed to protect. By declining intervention in Newell, the Department of Justice 

has contributed to a continuation of Section 3 problems in St Paul 

Congress passed Section 3 of the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968 "to 

ensure that the employment and other economic opportunities generated by Federal financial 

assistance for housing and community development programs shall, to the greatest extent 

feasible, be directed toward low- and very low-income persons.,,327 Section 3 requires recipients 

ofHUD tinancial assistance to provide job training, employment, and contracting opportunities 

to these low- and very-low-income residents 328 However, HUD by its own admission has failed 

to vigorousl y enforce Section 3. Even Sara Pratt told the Committees that HUD does "not do a 

lot of enforcement work under Section J, much, much less than we do in all our other civil rights 

matters. ,,329 

In the wake of the settlement in United States ex reI. Anti-Discrimination Celller v. 

Westchester County,330 a landmark 2009 case in which DOJ and HUD used the False Claims Act 

to enforce fair housing laws, the Administration signaled a new reinvigorated approach to fair 

housing enforcement. At the time, then-HUD Deputy Secretary Ron Sims proclaimed: "Until 

now, we tended to lay donn ant. This is historic, because we are going to hold people's feet to 

the fire,,·B1 Deputy Secretary Sims even told Newell in 2009 that "the False Claims Act lawsuit 

was the new model for ensuring compliance" with federal housing laws. '12 

With the Administration's actions in the quid pro quo, HUD has all but given up on using 

the False Claims Act as a tool to promote fair housing and economic opportunity. Fredrick 

Newell testitied 

120 Transcribed Interview of Frcdrick Newell in Waslr, D.C at IG (Mar. 28,2013). 

32) 12 U.S.C ~ 170lu(b). 

3:8 12 U.S.C. § 1701u. 

," Transcribed Interview of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dep't of Housing & UIbanDevclopment, in Wash" D,C at 22 (Apr. 3, 

2(13) 

330 United States ex reI. Anti-Discrimination Center v. Westchester County, No. 06-Civ.-2860 (S.D.N.Y. 20(9) 

331 Peter Applebome, integration Faces a lVC).1-' Test in the Suburbs, N. Y. Times, Aug. 22, 2009. 

332 TranSClibcd Tntclvic,,, of Frcdlick Newell in Wash., D.C. at 114--35 (MaT 2&, 20 I J); see also it.!. at 170-71. 

60 
184 

The Section 3 regulations and the Section 3 community have languished 

under a period of noncompliance and lack of enforcement of the Section 3 

statute and regulations for over 45 years. The Section 3 program received 

its impetus from incidents such as the Watts riot of 1968 and the Rodney 

King riots of 1992. The Section 3 community has long sought a catalyst 

to revive this program, the Section 3 program. The Section 3 False Claims 

Act lawsuit was heralded even by HUD itself to be such a catalyst [ot] 

Section 3 compliance - a nonviolent catalyst. A valuable tool was tal,en 

away with the quid pro qIlO.333 

Newell still sees problems with Section 3 compliance in St. Paul, explaining that: "there's a 

whole list and host of problems that are there. Some of it is not knowing how the program 

works. Some of it isjust simply no interest, from my belief, no interest in really complying,,334 

If given a fair opportunity with the assistance of the federal government, he could have 

made a difference Newell told the Committees that he intended to use his lawsuit as a vehicle to 

improve economic opportunities in the St. Paul community by putting any False Claims Act 

recovery back into the community33) Now, unfortunately, the yuid pro YllO is just a missed 

opportunity for the federal government to provide real assistance to the low- and very-I owincome residents of St. Paul. 

TlL\:payers Paid for the Quid Pro Quo 

The quid pro qllo was not cheap for federal taxpayers. The Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, the US Attorney's Otlice in Minnesota, and the Civil Fraud Section 

within the Justice Department each spent over two years investigating and preparing the Neweff 

case. By November 2011, all three entities were unifonnly recommending that the government 

join the case. According to the memorandum prepared at the time by the Civil Fraud Section, 

Newell had exposed a fraud totaling over $86 million336 Because the False Claims Act allows 

for recovery up to three times the amount of the fraud, the United States was poised to 

potentially recover over $200 million. 337 

The deal reached by Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez prevented the United 

States from ever having a chance to recover that money - and odds were high that the case would 

be successful. The memorandum prepared by the Civil Fraud Section in November 20 II called 

St. Paul's actions "a particularly egregious example offalse certifications" and found that the 

City knowingly made these false certifications."" Newell told the Committees his impression 

333 Tmnscribed lulen'ien of Fredrick Ne\\ell in Wasl~, D.C. at 17-18 (Mar. 28, 2013). 

334 1d. at 22. 

m ld. at 78-79 

336 U. S. Dep'l of J llslice, Ci\ il Di\·i5io11. Memornndu11l [or Tony West. Assislmlt Attonley GenernL Civil Division., 

exrel. "Newellv. Olvo[SI. Paul, Minnes()/o (Nov. 22, 2(11). [D0J80-9l] 

In his amended complaint, Nc,Ycll valued the fraud at $62 million, meaning the goycrruncnt could have 

recovered over $180 million. See First Amended Complaint, United Stales ex reI. Newell v. City o[St. Paul, 

Minnesota, No. 09-SC-I177 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 12, 21l12) 

338 U. S. Dep't of Justice, Ci\ il Di\·ision. Memorandum for Tony West. Assistant Attonley GeneraL Civil Division., 

L'.s ex reI. "Newell v. Olv o[SI. Paul, Afinnes()/o (Nov. 22, 2(11) [DOJ 81l-9l] 

61 
185 

tMt it .... 'a5 a Strong COSt mat~hoo the languAge used by the Novemher lOll memorandum ,,~ 

Newell's sltom'"}' cal led the~5e a "dead-bang winner:')"" and indicated to the Commillees that 

fedC'fa! omc al~ C)lprl'Sscd their SUPIX)I'I for the casc to him.J'! 

Some of the olla~ improperly re<:<ived by the City appear 10 be HUD fundS financed by 

the Obama AdminiSl!1uion's stimulus in 2009, According to the Civil Fraud SectiQn 

memorandum, the Cily initially COl1l~sled HUD's administralil'c finding Ihat it ..... as out of 

compliance with SectiOfJ 3. "but dropped its challcllge ill order to renew ill; eligibilit), to compet~ 

for and secure discretiouury stimulus IIUD fllnding "l'~ Newell and his ~nomey confinned this 

understanding. telling th~ COl1lmillee. that the Cil)' disputed ~I 's fmdin;g and HUD put a 

deadline on the City to rl'SOlve thedi!:pute Of risk losing stimulus funding . 1 

The amoont or IIII' fraud allegoed in N"H'ell did not appear to be a conc~m for HUO In a 

brieling wilh COfJlminct'. st8ff, I IUD Principal Depuly General Coonsel Kevin Simpson slaloo' 

"The monies dOll't supplement HUD's colTers, so Lthe moneyl wasl1'l much of a factor l" He 

elaborated Ihat "HUD did have an institutional ;nt<:rest nn recovering the fund~). but il was 

Q"ILWeigited by other factors,"\<' In tlte 5ame bril.'fmg. Elliot M'ucberg. IIUO's (ftneral Depuly 

Assistant Sccretilry for Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations. added that 5200 million 

"wa,n't all that much money anyv.ay .. J.,. BUD Deputy A5S;MJllt Secrela ry Sallll'ran testified 

~hal Ihe ',mOl!nt oftlte a~i.f.!ed f~ud ~'ias 11~ a faclOf in her decision wh~'\ h .. r 10 ,,"-conlin end 

Inierventfon In the case.' While !h11, funding may not he "much nfa factar" for federal 

bureaucrals, il is no insignificant amOUnitO American la ~payers 

llI!lIi!!<' I, d.,Ii,'" ,. i"~'''I' F",!ri" N,,,II', .hi.,,,,~~~,,,.,,,, "'" ,ro', 

.",iil I,", IIIW with the City of 51 Paul. the Deplll1menl ot' Ju5lice J!Illle up 1mIollllmlnj ~ \0 recoYer u JnliCb as ,200 million 

AS>lstam Attamey General ]'(,rez's machinations to stop the Supreme Coun from hearing 

},/UI{IIU revefl1~d the Coon from tin,ally adjudicating wh~'\heT the plain language of the Fair 

Housing Act suppons a claim of disparate impact. Although COUrtS Ind federal agencies have 

asserted that it does, COIlsiderable doubts remain about the legaljl~ of disparale ;n.pact claims, 

Pere:z'! If",d pm 'I"" prevented Ihe CllIln from fin ally bringing clarity and guidance to this 

important area offedera! law 

" " T""...::nbed I"",,,,,,,,," af FR!dnok No,,"O'lI ,n \>,' .... , , D.C ., 5Q-61 (MAr ~~ !nll) 

.., III" Er.~"luo" ), ~ lI'hiSlk_BliJ'O'''' 1Ji_ .. " W,,,jhm""'ON j>''''j''':;'I1I~",o'''' . BIoo",.",,/!- MI" . 11. ·ll)jj. 

' " Tnm",ribed hl',,,no" c( ""!nc~ Nowell '" W., h .. 0 C ,f Sl·SS (Mal 2B. WIl), 

J"' U.s lXp't ef )ush"", Ci,il O, .... t(lP. MOfrIJl1Uolum ferTol1) W..t, Ass,,_ AUenL') eo""ral e"ilO;",lOlI, 

• \$ U"'/ \,..-.,tllv rl) ·~rSI. 1'",,1, \h' ", "'J k' (Nco' 11. 2(111) 100) \1()·91! 

· " T"'".cribed l"'O" I~'" of FrMnck )IIe,, <,1I ,,' \\'o<t., 0 C ,~ 1-4(0 IM~, 2M, !!llJ) 

}4, Bnd;,,! ",u, "'" '" S""pKI" a'OII BI)'.II (J,,,,,, .. '" Wn,IL, 0 C. (JOIL ](I. 2011) 

''' 111, 

'" ", Tr."...,.;""" h~o",k'" ors"m Pm" , U S Pep I of Hous"'8/1; Urb." [)O,dol'''., .... '" W",k., D.C' '" In lAp' 

3 , lI!lJ), 

6Z 
186 

Perez testified to the Committees that he encouraged the City to withdraw its Magner 

appeal - and later agreed to exchange Neweff and E11is for Magner - because he believed that 

"Magner was an undesirable factual context in which to consider disparate impact,,348 He also 

stated that he was concerned that HOD had not yet tinalized a rule codifying its use of disparate 

and believed the Court would benefit from HUD' s final regulation. 349 Perez testified 

[T]he particular facts of Magner I thought did not present a good vehicle 

for addressing the viability of disparate impact If the court is going to 

take on the question of the viability of disparate impact it was my hope 

that they would do so in connection with a typical set of facts. This was 

not a typical set of facts. And it was further in my view that if the court 

was going to take a case of thi s nature that they should have the benefit of 

HUD's thinking, and the reg was very much in the works and 1 don't 

believe the court was aware of that And so those two factors were 

sources of concern for me. 350 

HUD General Counsel Helen Kanovsky also testified to the Committees that she feared an 

"adverse decision" from the Supreme Court that could upset HUD's rulemaking351 

The quid pro quo did little to bring certainty or clarity to disparate impact claims arising 

under the Fair Housing Act In June 2012, the Township of Mount Holly, New Jersey, filed a 

petition for certiorari asking the Supreme Court to hear its appeal on precisely the same legal 

issue as Magner: whether claims of disparate impact are cognizable under the Fair Housing 

Act352 The Court has yet to decide whether to take the appeal, but has asked the Solicitor 

General for his thoughts on whether to hear the case. Within this context, there are concerns in 

some quarters that discussions are underway to prevent the Court trom hearing this case as 

well. 353 When the Committees inquired about the MI. Hoffy case during the transcribed 

interviews, Assistant Attorney General Perez, HUD General Counsel Kanovsky, and HUD 

Deputy Assistant Secretary Pratt were all ordered not to answer by Administration lawyers. 354 

The Rule of Law 

Most fundamentally, the actions of the Department of Justice in facilitating and executing 

the qUid pro quo with the City of St Paul represent a tremendous disregard for the rule of law. 

The Department of Justice was created "[t]o enforce the law and defend the interests of the 

3-18 Tmnscribed Tnten!ien of Thomas Ed,vard PeTe/., U.S. Dep'L of Justice, in Wash, D.C. at 9 (Mar. 22, 2013). 

'" Id. at ~3. 

331) ld. at 42. 

351 TranSClibed Tntervie,,, of Helen Kanovsky, U.S. Dep't of Ronsing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 36 

(Apr. 5, 2013) 

33: Pel it ion for a Writ ofC.erliorari, TO\"llShip of MOlml Holly el a1. \t. Mt. Holly Gmdens Citizens in Action. Inc., 

No. 11-1507 (U.S. filed June II, 2(12). 

,'1 See Alan S. Kaplinsh-y, Will Mt. Hall .. Take A Dive Just Like St. Paul, CFPB Monitor (Jan. 10,2013). 

331 Trnnscribed Tnlen:ie\\ of Thomas Ed\vard PereL U.S. Dep't of Justice, in Wash .. D.C. at 141-43 (Mar. 22, 2013): 

Transcribed Tntervie,,, of Helen Kanovsky, U.S. Dep'1 of Housing & Urban Development. in Wash., D.C. at 80-82 

(Apr. 5, 2013); Transcribed Intervie\\ of Sara Pratt, U.S. Dep't of Housing & Urban Development, in Wash., D.C. at 

85-90 (Apr. 1, 201l) 

63 
187 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And may I make—excuse me, Mr. Chairman. 

The gentleman was generous enough to say—and I thank the gentleman for his courtesies, he is generous enough to say that he had 

a report. We have a report, and we would ask unanimous consent 

for that report to be submitted as well. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, the report that the gentlewoman from Texas refers to will be made a part of the record. 
188 

[The information referred to follows:] 

April 14, 2013 

To: Democratic Members of the Committees on Oversight and Government Reform and 

Judiciary 

Fr: Democratic Staff 

Re: Results of Investigatiou of Justice Department Role in St. Paul's Decision to 

Withdraw Appeal to Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher 

This memo sets forth the preliminary results of an investigation conducted by the House 

Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the House Committee on the Judiciary 

into the role of the lJepartment of Justice in urging the City of St. Paul, Minnesota, to withdraw 

its appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court in Magner v. Gallagher. As part of this extensive 

investigation, Committee staff reviewed more than 3,500 pages of documents and conducted six 

lranscrib~d inlel'vj~w~ with ofticials frum the D~partlll~nt of hlstice (DOJ) and the Depmiment 

of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). 

This investigation was initiated when former Judiciary Committee Chairman Lmnar 

Smith, Oversight Committee Chairman Darrellissa, Representative Patrick McHenry, and 

Senator Charlcs Grassley accused Tom Perez, the Assistant Attorney Gcnet'allnr the Ci viI R ight~ 

Division, ofbrokering a "dubious bargain" and a "quid pro quo arrangement" with st. Paul "in 

which the Deparhnent agreed, over the objections of career attorneys, not to join an unrelated 

fraud lllwsuit against the City in exchange for the City's dropping its Mawwr appcal." 

This memo sets forth several key findings based on the doclUnents produced to the 

Committees and the transcrihed interviews conducted by Commilt~e stufF to dule: 

First, rather lhan idcntifying any unethical or improper ,lctions by th~ D~pul'tmtlnt, the 

overwhelming evidence obtained during this investigation indicates that Mr. Perez and 

other Department officials acted professionally to advance the interests of civil rights and 

effcctively combat the scourge of discrimination in housing. 

Second, the evidence demonstrates that the Department's decisions not to intervene in 

ul1relal<:x1 False Claims Act cases were based on the recOimnendations of scnior cm'Cel' 

officials who are regarded as the nation's preeminent experts in their field. 

Inslead olidcntifying inupp1'Optillte conduct by Mr. Pere~., it upptlurs that the ac·cusationti 

against him are part of a broader political campaign to undermine the legal safeguards against 

discrimination that Mr. Perez was protecting. 

TIle remainder of this memo provides additional background and details regarding these 

findings. 
189 

TABLE 01" CONTENTS 

BACKGROUND 

METHODOLOGY 

FINDINGS 

1. NO EVIDENCE OF UNETHICAL OR IMPROPER ACTIONS 

A. Efforts by Perez to Urge St. Paul to Withdraw Magner Served the National 

Interest in Combating Discrimination in Housing 

B. Perez Received Approval from Ethics Oi'flcial, Professional Responsibility 

Official, and Head of the Civil Division 

II. DECISION NOT TO INTERVENE IN rlALSE CLAIMS ACT CASE$ BASED ON 

REC0\1MENDATIONS OF CAREER EXPERTS 

A. Decision Not to Intervene in NI?\1Jell Based on Recommendation of Preeminent 

Career Experts with Decades of Experience 

B. .t.His Case Was Never Serious Candidate for Intervention 

C. D<:>partment Openly and Properly Considered (he Impact () r Magner on Decision 

K ot to Intervene in Newell 

D. BUD Rocommend<:>d Against Int<:>rv<:>ntion in Newell 

E. U.S. Att0111ey ReC01111l1enu<:>d Against Intervention in },'ewell 

F. Justice Decided Not to Intervene Even if SI. Paul Pursued Magner 

CONCLUSIOI\ 

2 
190 

BACKGROCND 

The Fair Housing Act was passed in 1968 as Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act to prohibit 

uis<:rimination by landlords and other honsing provid<:1's based on mee, religion, sex, national 

origin, familial status, or disability.! The Act has long been interpreted to ban practices that have 

an unjustified "discriminatory effect" or "disparate impact," regardless of whether there is 

cvidcnce of specilk intent to discriminate, and clcvcn fcdcral courts 0 r appeals have upheld tllis 

disparate impact standard.2 

On November 16, 2011, HUD issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to codify uniform 

standards for "discriminatory effect" claims under the Act, and that rule was finalized in 

February 2013.' Republican Members of Congress opposed codifying this standard and ol'lhed 

an amendment by Rep. Scott Garrett (R -NJ), in the Transportation, Honsing and Urban 

Development, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act for the 2013 Fiscal Year, to prohibit 

HUD linn using funds to finalizc or enforcc the disparate ilnpa<:t rule. AltllOugh this prohibition 

passed the House, it was not taken up by the Senate.4 

Berore HUD finalized its rule, landlords oflow-ineome hOllsing ullil~liled a lawsuit, 

Magner v. Gallagher, alleging that St. Paul was enforcing its housing safety codes too 

aggre",ivoly in >ldur(llj~ing "rodent infestation, missing dead bolt locks, inoperable smoke 

detectors, poor sanitation, and inadequate heal.,,5 The landlords made the novel argnment that 

st. Paul was violating the Fair Honsing Act because its enforcement efforts had a racially 

disparate impact on their tomnls. Sl. Pn,d <:haIJeuged the application of the disparate impact 

standard in this context, argning that the Act should not be used to permit landlords to avoid 

bringing low-income housing nnits into compHance with uniform safety codes. 6 On November 

! Department ofJustice, The Fair Housing Act (accessed Apr. 13,2013) (online at 

www.justice.gov/ertJabout(hcC/holl~il1g_ coverag~.php). 

'Department of HOlJi,ing and Urban Development, Implementation of the Fair HOllsing 

Ad '8 Disaimin(1tory Effects Standard, 7811ed. Reg. 11460 11482 (Feb, 15,2013) (fInal rul~) 

(online at www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkgIFR-2013-02-15/pdf/2013-03375.pdf). 

'1d. 

4 H.AtvIDT.1363, I 12th Cong. (2012); U.S. House of Representatives, Debate on 

Amendment Numbered A04R, to H.R. 5972 (Jun. 27, 2012); U.S. HOllse of Representatives, Roll 

Call Votc on Agreeing to .R. 5972 (Jun. 29, 2012); Leg,islative Rcsearch Service, Bill Summary 

& Staius: HR. 5972 (112",). 

; City ofS!. Paul, Minnesota, City o/Sajnt Paul Seeks to Dismiss Uniied Siaies Supreme 

COllrt Case Magner vs. Gallagher (Feb. 10, 2012) (online at 

www.stpau1.goviindex.aspx?NID=4874&ART=9308&ADMIN=I). 

G Petitioners' Reply Brief on Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of 

Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (June 28, 2011) Magner v. Gallagher (1\0. 10-1032) (online at 

http://sblog.s3.amazonaws.comiwp-conient/liploalisI2011l07iPetitiollcrs-Reply-I 0-1 032-

Magner.pdf). 
191 

7,2011, the Sllprcmc Court grantcd Sl. Paul's petition (0 hear (he case.' The lirst ljue,tion 

presented in the case was whether disparate impact claims are cognizable under the Fair Housing 

Act, thus placing at risk this key civil rights enforcement tool. 

On December 29,2011, the United States filed an amicus brief in Magner urging the 

Supreme Court to uphold the disparate impact standard based on the text and history of the Fair 

Housing Act, as wcll as consistent interpretatiOl1$ of the Act by appellflte comts that allowed the 

use of disparate impact claims to enforce non-discrimination and equal opportunity 

requirements. R 

As this memo explains in more detail below, in November 2011, the Department 

proposed that st. Paul withdraw the Magner case to avoid an adverse TIlling hy the Supreme 

Court that could have invalidated the disparate impact standard and impaired its ability to combat 

discrimination in housing. In response, St. Paul proposed that the Department refrain from 

intervening in two wJwJated False Clilims Act cases in which St. Paul \vas a defendant. 

Under the False Claims Act, private citizens referred to as "relators" may file lawsuits 

alleging fraud against thc govemmenl and may recover a percentage of awards iffraud is proven. 

These m'e also Imown as "qui lmn" cases. The Department of Justice may intervene in False 

Claims Act cases on the sidc ofrclators to hecome the prillHlry litigant. Ifthe Department 

declines to intervene, relators may continue to litigate and, if successful, recoyer damages for 

themselves m1d the govermnent.9 

One of the False Claims Act cases at issue was US. ex. Re!. Newell v. City of St. Paul, in 

which the relator argned that St. Paul falsely certified that it was in compliance with Section 3 of 

the Hnu~illg ancl Urb'l11 Development Act of 1968. 10 Under Section 3, HUD requires Puhlie 

Housing Authorities to use their best efforts to give low-income individuals training and 

employment opportlmities and to award contracts to businesses that provide economic 

opportunities for low-ineomc individuals. 11 

; Docket, Magner v. Gallagher (No. 10-1032) (online at 

www.supremecoUli.gov/Search.nspx?FileN mne=/dockctfilc&lj 0-1 032 ,hIm). 

8 Brieffor The United States as Amicus Curiae in Support of Neither Party (Dec. 2011) 

Magner v. Gallagher U.S. (No. 10-1032) (online at http://sblog.s3.mnazonaws.com/wp-

<;onl.ellUu.pJoad~/2012101lJ 0-1 032-SG-amiclls-bricfpdf). 

9 Department ofJustice, The False Claims Act: A Primer (undated) (online at 

www.justice.gov/civilfrlocs_fonns/C-FRAUDS FCA Primer,pdf). 

10 First Amended Complaint (Mar. 12,2012), u.s. ex. ReI. Ne,vell v. City of St. Paul, D. 

Minn. (0:09-cv-01177). 

II Department of Housing and Urbm1 Development, Programs Administered by FHEO 

(Sept. 25, 2007) (online at 

http://portaLhud. go v/hud portal/II U D'I src-/program _0 ffi ees/rai r_hnusi n g_ eq uaJ _ ('pp/pw gdescJtit 

le8). 

4 
192 

The other Fube Clai\1l~ Act case at i~sue was US. ('-x rel. Ellis v. City of St. Paul, in 

which the relators argued that Minneapolis, St Paul, and the Metropolitan COlllcil for the Twin 

Cities )'1etro Region falsely certified that they were complying with the Fair Housing Act's 

requirement to affirmatively furthcr fair housing. n 

On February 9,2012, the Department officially declined to intervene in the Newell case, 

while the relator continued to pursue his case ~nd is now appealing a District Comi decision 

dismissing the cnse.ll On Februury 10, 2012, St. Paul withdrew the Magner case from 

consideration by the Supreme Conrt. 14 On June 18,2012, the Department declined to intervene 

in the Ellis case, and the relators continued to pursue their case. 15 

METHODOLOGY 

Pursuant to multiple requests from the Committees, the Department of Justice produced 

more than I ,40() pages of documents, HUD produced more than 2,20() pages 0 r documents, and 

st. Paul produced approximately 150 pages of documents. 

Commitlee statf conducted extensive transcribed interviews with six govenuncnt 

officials: Thomas Perez, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division; Derek 

Anthony West, Acting Associate Attorney General and fonner Assistant Attorney General for 

the Civil Division; B. Todd Jones, fonner U.S. Attorney for the District of Milmesota; Thomas 

Perrelli, former Associate Attorney General; Helen Kanovsky, HUD General Counsel; and Sara 

Prall, HUD Depllty A~~iRtant Secretary (br Enfurcemen[ und Programs. 

Committee staff also received briefings from Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney 

Gcncral for the Commcrcial Litigation Branch at DOJ and formcr Director oflhc Fraud Scction 

at DOl; Bryan Greene, Principal Deputy in the Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity at 

HUO; and Kevin Simpson, Principal Deputy in the Office of General Counsel at HUD. 

COUlmittee shell' also ~poke with attorneys representing St. Paul (md interviewed Fredrick 

Newell, the relator who filed a False Claims Act lawsuit against St. Paul. 

:2 Order (Dec. 12,2012) u.s. e..'( reI. Ellis v. City ofSt. Paul, D. Minn. (No. II-CV-0416). 

;3 The Govemmtmt's Notice of Election to Decline Intervention (Feb. 9,2012), Newell v. 

City ({{Saint Paul, Minnesota, D. Minn. (No. O:09-cv-OII77-DWF-TNL); Notice of Appeal to 

the United States Court of Appeals for the Eight Circuit (Dec. 4, 2(12), Us. ex. ReI. Newell v. 

City ~{St. Paul. D. MinH. (O:09-cv-0l177). 

14 City of Saint Paul, Minnesota, City o.{,Saint Paul Seeks to Dismiss United States 

Supreme Court Case Magner vs. Gallagher (Feb. 10,2012) (online at 

www.stpaul.goviindex.aspx?NID=4874&ART=9308&ADMIN=I) 

15 United Sta[e~' Notice of Elecliol1 to Dedine h,tervenlion (Jun. 18,2012) u.s. ex rei. 

Ellis v. City of St. Paul, D. Minn. (No. ll-CV-0416). 
193 

l?lNDfNGS 

I. :-.10 EVIDENCE OF UNETHICAL OR IMPROPER ACTIONS 

Rather than identifying any unethical or improper actions by the Department, the 

overwhelming evidence obtained during this investigation indicates that Mr. Perez and other 

Department onkial~ aded professionally to advancc the intere8ts of d vii rights and effectively 

combat the scourge of discrimination in housing, 

A. Efforts by Perez to Urge St. Paul to Withdraw Magner Served the :'>rational 

Interest in Combating Discrimination in Housing 

The evidence obtained by the COlmnittee indicates that, by encouraging st. Paul to 

withdraw the Magner case, Mr. Perez was properly performing his role as head of the Civil 

Rights Division, effectively reprcsenting the position ofthe United States government, and 

advancing the national interest in combating discrimination in housing, 

Multiple witnesses interviewed by thc Committee expressed ClHlcern that the highly 

unusual fact pattern of Magner involving landlords who were invoking the disparate impact 

standard to avoid complying with building safety codes rather (h<\n telliints utilizing it to ensurc 

equal housing opportunities, did not provide a strong factual eontext to highlight the importance 

of the disparate impact theory. Specifically, witnesses expressed concern that the Court could 

invalidate the disparate impact standard, which has been used for dccadcs to enlO1"Ce the Fair 

Housing Act's prohibition against housing discrimination. As the Department stated in a letter to 

Congress on February 12, 2013: 

[T]he Department believes that carrying out the Fair Housing Act's (FHA) purpose of 

remedying discrimination, including through disparate-impact enforcement, is an 

important law enlot<;ement !lnd policy objcctive, 16 

During his transcribe,l in!ervitlw with Committcc staff, Mr, Pen;:!. explained these vital 

interests: 

[W]e are a guardian ofwhlll Altorney G~nent! IIolder called thc crown jowe1~, which are 

the civil rights laws that were passed, The Fair Housing Act Vias passed a few short days 

after Dr. King's assassination in 1968, And the United States has very strong equities, 

and so does HUD, in ensuring thc cffective i\11d ful1 enforcement ofthc faif Housing Act. 

." [T]hese civil rights matters are very important, I think, to our national interest. 17 

16 Letter from Jndith C. Appelbawn, Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General, 

Department of Justice, to Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Rep. Bob Goodlatte and Rep, Darrell E, lssa 

(Feb, 11,2013), 

l'Illousc Committec 011 Over~ight and Government Reform, Interview ofl1'01'1as 

Edward Perez (l'dar. 22, 2013). 

6 
194 

Mr. Perez cxplaincd that urging Sl. Paul to withdraw MClgner WOl(ld avoid a negati ye 

Supreme Court decision that could have impaired the ability to enforce laws to combat housing 

discrimination. He stated: 

I was concerned because I thought that Magner was an undesirable factual context in 

which to consider disparate impact. And because bad facts make bad law, this could 

have resulted in a decision that lU1deTIllined our ability and the City of St. Paul's ability to 

protect victims of housing and lending discrimination. 18 

Mr. Perez also highlighted the importance of the disparate impact standard in obtaining 

relief for hundreds of thousands of victims in previous Fair Housing Act cases: 

[W]e had just settled a case involving Countrywide Financial, which was the largest 

residential fail' lending settlement in the history of the Fail' Housing Act, assisting 

hundreds ofthousal1ds of victims of fimding discrimination, including hllndrcds who 

reside in the Twin Cities area. And so I was making the point that disparate impact 

theory in the vast majority of cases assists the Department in these efforts. 19 

Similarly, Assistant Attorney General Tony West, who led the Department's Civil 

Division, explained during hi~ transcribed interview that a n~gutive Sliprel1le Court tL~1ing would 

have impaired the ability ofJaw enforcement officials to effectively enforce civil rights 

protections against housing discrimination. He stated: 

[T]here was a risk of bad law if the Supreme Court had considered this question, that it 

could undermine the disparate impact work in a very significant way. And, therefore, 

impuir effective civil rights enforcement. And so it was a very important interest ofthc 

United States to try to minimize that possibility.2o 

In addition, Associatc Atlomcy General Tom Perrelli ~l,~ted dllring hi~ InU1~crih"d 

interview that it was common Department practice to encourage parties not to pursue Supreme 

Court cascs with poor fact patterns that could adversely impad national inlere~ls: 

I think the idea of incentivizing parties not to pursue a Supreme Court matter because it's 

a poor vehicle is not an unusi\al thing. You know, partics, you know, work to scttlc cascs 

or resolve cases all the time. 

These interests were uIso extremely impOliunt to nUD, which hud seriolls concerns about 

the Supreme Court issuing a ruling in the Magner case before HUD issued its final disparate 

l~ Td. 

19 !d. 

20 House Committee on Oversight and Government RefOTIll, lntervie~" of Derek Anthony 

West (Ivlar. 18,2013). 

~I llousc Committcc on Ovcrsight and GOVCl'lllllcnt RcfoTIn, lntervicw ofTIlOlllas John 

Perrelli (Nov. 19,2012). 

7 
195 

impact mle. Hclen KanoVHky, HUD'N Oenerul Co~~m;el, expluined during her tnrnscribed 

interview: 

With respect te Magner, we had very, VCly strong equities in not wanting that case to be 

heard by the Supreme Court at the time and in the posture that it was at because it was 

directly undermining our mlemaking, and we had huge equities in our discriminatory 

e1Tects fLIlemaking process22 

l11t;lre was no di~p~~te muong the witnesses interviewed by the Committees that it was 

appropriate for Mr. Perez, as head of the Department's Civil Rights Division, to handle the 

Magner matter and contact St. Paul to urge the City to withdraw the case. During the course of 

this investigation, no witlles~ interviewed by (he Committees identitloo any improper or 

unethical action by Mr. Perez. 

n. Perez Received A[>proval from Rthics Official, Profcssiomll Responsibility 

Official, and Head of Civil Division 

When St, Puul proposed linking its withdrawal ofthe Magner case to its request for the 

Department not to intervene in two unrelated False Claims Act cases, :'vlr. Perez sought and 

received <lpp\'(,,,,,l from u DOJ ethics official, H DOJ professional responsibility official, and the 

head of the Civil Division before proceeding. These officials agreed that because the United 

States is a "unitary aeter" seeking the best overall results for the nation, it was proper for Me 

Pcrez to negotiate both the Magner case and (he False C1uim~ Ad (;UI;es on beh,,11' ofthe United 

States, 

During his tnmscribed interview, Mr. Perez explained that he first eontaGted David 

Lillehaug, an attorney representing st. Paul, to urge the City to withdraw the lvfagner case in 

November 2011. During this conversation, Mr. Lillehaug responded to Mr. Perez's request by 

propo~ing th,lIthe Department felbin /Tom intervening in the Newell case, which had been filed 

against SI. Pau1.23 Mr. Perez described this conversation during his transcribed interview: 

I outlined my concerns about the Magner case and my feeling that the mayor, given his 

longstanding commitment to expanding opportunity for underserved communities, 

benefits from disparate impact. And he then raiBod (he prospect oI'linking the two cases, 

at which point I told him I can't speak for the Civil Division on this qui tam matters, and 

that's not my area of expertise, and it's not my area of responsibility, and so I'd have to 

get back to you 011 whether this proposal that you've presented is something that we OW1 

discuss fhrther. 24 

22 House Committee 011 Oversight and Government Rcrnrm, TlIlcrvicw oCHden Renee 

Kanovsky (Apr. 5, 2013). 

23 At the time, SI. Paul did not know about the Fllis Cllse, which was in 0 more 

preliminary stage. In later discussions, the proposal was that ihe Department decline to intervene 

in both the Ne',wI! and Ellis cases. 

24 I-Iollse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Thomas 

Edward Perez (, ... Iar. 22, 2013). 
196 

Since the Newell case was being brought under the False Claims Act, it fell under the 

authority ofthe Department's Civil Division headed by Mr. \Vest instead ofthe Civil Rights 

Division headed by Mr. Pcrez. During his transcribcd intervicw, Mr. Perez explained lhut he 

consulted with the Civil Rights Division's Ethics Official and separately with the Division's 

Professional Responsibility Official. In' response to his inquiries, he was informed that his 

discussions with St. Puul about the Magner case and the liaise Claims Act cases werc 

appropriate. Mr. Perez explained: 

To address this concern my staff and I sought ethical and professional responsibility 

advice. I was infonned that there would be no concern so long as I had pennission from 

thc Civil Division to engage in these conversations. T wu~ abo informed that because the 

United States is a unitary actor and entitled to act in its overall best interest, there was no 

prohibition on linking matters as Mr. Lillehaug had suggested. 25 

Documents obtained by the Committees confinn Mr. Perez's account. Specifically, on 

November 28, 2011, the Civil Rights Division's Ethics Officer sent an email to Mr. Perez 

stating: 

You asked me whethttl' there was an ethics concern with your involvement in settling a 

Fair Lending Act challenge in St. Paul that would include an agreement by the 

government not to intervene in a False Claims Act claim involving St. Paul. You 

indicated that yOlJ have no per.~onal or finuncbl interest in either mattttl'. Having 

reviewed the standards of ethical conduct and related sources, there is no ethics rule 

implicated by this situation and therefore no prohibition against your proposed course of 

action?" 

Mr. Perez also reported that a Department professional responsibility official also 

£\pproved his 'lClions. He staled: 

[T]he answer th,lt we received on the professional responsibility front was that becausc 

the United States is a unitary actor, that we could indeed proceed so long as the other 

component did not object and as long as and with the understanding that they would 

continue to be thc dcci~iolll1lakillg hody on those maLlers tlllit lull withil1 their 

jurisdiction.27 

In addition to obtaining approval fi'om the ethics and professional responsibility onicers 

to engage in these discussions, Mr. Perez also obtained the approval of Mr. West, who led the 

Civil Division. Mr. Perez stated: 

25 Id. 

26 Email from ["Civil Rights Division Ethics Officer"] to Thomas E. Perez (Nov. 28, 

2012) (HJC/HOOR STP 114). 

27 House Committoe Oil Oversight and Government RetiJl1n~ Inlervie"v ofThoma~ 

Edward Perez (:\dar. 22, 3013). 
197 

He [Mr. West] indicated that he had no objection with proceeding, lmderstanding, of 

course, that the Civil Division was going to conduct the review of the Newell and later 

the Ellis matters, fmd they were going to make that decision and pursuant to their practice 

they would make that decision looking at a host of factors, including the strength of the 

case, the resource issnes and potentially the Magner case.28 

Mr. West confirmed this account during his transcribed interview: 

I felt comfortable with him [Mr. Perez] speaking for the department when he ,vas talking 

to the City ofSt. Paul because I knew that ultimately, any intervention decision rested 

with the Civil Division.19 

Mr. West also explained that he and Mr. Perez met in January 2011 and agreed that Mr. 

Perez would discuss the Magner and Newell cases with SI. Paul with the understanding that the 

Civil Division "had a process that we had to complete in the Civil Division, and that that 

decision rested vdth us as to whether there would be an intervention or a declination. ,,)0 

II. DECISION NOT TO INTERVENE IN FALSE CLAIMS ACT CASES BASED ON 

RECOMMENDATIONS 01" CAREER EXPERTS 

The evidence obtained by the Committees during this investigation demonstrates that the 

Department's decisions 110t to intervene in the two unrelated False Claims Act cases ""ere bustld 

on the recommendations of senior career officials regarded as the nation's preeminent experts in 

their field. 

A. DecisiOli Not to Intervene in Newell Based on Recommendation of 

Preeminent Career Experts with Decades of Experience 

The decision not to intervene in the Newell case was made by Tony West, Assist,mt 

Attorney General Ihr the Civil Division, hased on (hI! rl!comnlt;lndatiol) ofthl!ll Deputy Assistant 

Attorney General Michael Hertz. Mr. Hertz, who passed away in May 2012, had been a career 

employee of the Department for more than 30 years and was widel~ regarded as the 

Department's preeminent career expert on False Clailns Act cases: 1 

During his transcribed interview, Mr. West elaborated on Mr. Hertz's qualifications and 

I!xperien<;e: 

2i rd. 

29 House Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn, Interview of Derek Anthony 

West (Mar. 18, 2013). 

3U Id. 

JI Long Time Civil Division Leader Dies o/Cancer, Main Justice (May 7,2012) (onlinl! 

at www.mainjustice.comI20 12/05/07 Ilongtime-ci vil-division -leader-dies-o f-cancer/). 

10 
198 

Mike Hertz was the undisputed cxpert on qt)i lam and False Claims Act in the 

Department of Justice. And that was his reputation. It was his reputation amongst my 

predecessors in the Civil Division, and certainly I knew that to be tme based on my work 

withhim.32 

According to several witnesses interviewed by Committee staff, Mr. Hertz had concerns 

abol~t the Newell case from the outset, deRpile the filct that some junior attorneys initially 

supported intervention. Joyce Branda, who served under Mr. Hertz as Director of the Fraud 

Section, informed Committee staff thai when she submitted a draft memo to !liir. Hertz initially 

supporting intervention in Noyember 2011, Mr. Hertz returned the memo, which she understood 

from their 28-years of working together to mean that he disagreed with intervening?3 Ms. 

Branda explain~d th,lt, even as she submittcd this draf\ mcommendatioll, she viewed thc decision 

regarding whether to intervene as "a close call from day one" and communicated that 

understanding to Mr. Hertz.34 

:'vir. West, the head oUhe Civil Diyision, also confirmed during his transcribed interview 

that Mr. Hertz had concerns with intervening even before learning of the potential link to the 

Magner case. lIe explained: 

I went to ask Mike Hertz about the Newell C<IS'='. What is this .".'ewell case? Mike 

reminded me in that conversation that he had previously brought the lI'ewell case to my 

attention saying, remember this is that close-call case that I told you I had some doubts 

about ,mrl, you know, some concerns about. He said, T baven't ~ent yo" anything on it 

because I, you know, want the career attorneys to do more work on it. 35 

Mr. llCltz's opposition to intervening in the Newell ca>c intensified aflcr llllleding he 

and Ms. Branda had with the Mayor ofSt. Paul and other City officials on December 13, 2011. 

Ms. Branda infOlmed Committee staff that the Mayor was "articulate and persuasiye" during the 

m~etillg.36 Sh~ also explained that, after the meeting (onduded, Mr. Heitz pulled her aside and 

told her "this case sucks.,,37 

32 House Committee on Oversight and Goyernment Refonn, Interview of Derek Anthony 

West (Mar. IS, 2(13). 

JJ Briefing by Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Commercial 

r ,itigation Branch, Depmtment of Ju~tice, to the House Committees on Oversight and 

Goycrnment Reform and the J udidary, Majority and Minority Staffs (Dec. 5,2012). 

341d. 

:l,1 House Committee on Over~ight and Goycrnment Rcfonn, Interview of Derek Anthony 

West C'vlar. 18, 2013). 

16 Briel1ng by Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, to the House Committees on Oversight and 

Goycrruncnt Reform and tho J u<iicitlry, Majority and Minority Staffs (Dec. 5,2012), 

]7 ld. 

II 
199 

.'vis. Branda explained to Committee staff that the Dccemher meeting wa~ also a "turning 

point" for her and that after the meeting, she agreed with Mr. Hertz that the Department should 

not intervene in the case based on the litigation concerns. 38 !vIs. Branda told Committee staff that 

she never felt uny prl;ll;~l~re io ~hallge her dooisilJll. 39 

This account was also confirmed by Mr. West, who stated during his transcribed 

interview: 

.'vIikc Hertz, who 1 have described prcviotlsly a~ the undisputed expert in the D"purtment 

on qui tam and False Claims Act, he, the more he learned about the case, and the deeper 

he got into the case, the more doubtful he became about its worthiness as an intervention 

candidate, and came away from the impression that it was weak and that we should not 

litigate this case. That was very significant because when Mike spoke, you know, his 

opinion carried an enormous amOlmt of weight withiu the Depaliment, and within the 

Civil Fnluds SootiOll, appropriutely SO.40 

During his transcribed interview, fonner Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli ulso 

confinned that Mr. Hertz had serious concerns ahoutthe 111erit~ of intervening ill Newelllmd 

Ellis. He explained: 

'\1ike did give me his impression of the first case, in my parlance. He very clearly said I 

think we're going to decline. In the second case, he said I think we're going to decline, 

but it's going to take more time.41 

On February 9,2012, Mr. West, the head of the Civil Division, signed an official 

"declination 1n"11I0" fonnalizing the Department's dedsion not to intervene in the Newell case. 

Since ::\"Ir. Hertz had become ill by that time, Ms. Branda submitted the memo in his stead.42 The 

declination menlO explained the Department's investigation oflhe Newell case and described in 

detail the factual, legal, and IJoliey reasoning on which the declination deci~ion W,\~ ha~ed.43 

38 lei. 

39 lei. 

40 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview 0 r Derek Anthony 

West ('\·far. 18,2013). 

41 House Committee on Oversight and Gover111llent Reform, Interview of Thomas John 

Perrelli (Nov. 19,2012). 

42 Memorandum from Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 

Depluhnent of Justice, for File, u.s. ex rei. Newell v. City of Sf. Paul, Minneso/a (Feb. 9, 2(12) 

(HJCIHOGR 1307-17! A1151-61). Ms. Branda, who has more than 30 years of experience 

working as a career attorney on False Claims Act cases for the Department, has now replaced 

'\1r. Hertz as the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Commercial Litigation Branch. 

43 See. e.g" M elnor3ndtlln ["0111 Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Division, 

Depul'hnent of Justice, for Pile, U.S. ex rei. Newell v. City o/S!. Paul, Minneso/a (Feb. 9,2(12) 

(HJCIHOGR 1307-17 !A1151-61). 

12 
200 

Based on the evidence obtained by the Committees, the recommendation to decline 

intervention was the only recommendation sent to Mr. West, and it was made by senior career 

ol'ltcials who concluded thut dtldining to inttlrvtlne served the best interests oflhe United Statcs. 

Although some attorneys within the Department and the U.S. Attorney's Office had advocated in 

favor of intervention, the ultimate decision reached by Mr. Hertz and :\·Is. Branda, who were 

CXpClts in thc Falsc Claims Act, was that the Depart111~nt $ho,Lid not jnt~rven~. As Mr. West 

explained in his transcribed interview: 

The way the process would work is after, you know, the line attorneys, working with 

Joyce Branda and Mike Hertz, come to a view as to \vhether or not we ought to intervene, 

II memo would be prepared, and it would bc forwardcd to mc. ,\11d usually there is a 

cover sheet that indicates whether or not I approve or disapprove of the recommendation 

decision that is contained in the memo.44 

According to Mr. West, "by early, mid-January, there was a consensus that had coalesced 

in the Civil Division that we were going to decline the Newell case.,,45 He added: 

I wanted to make sure that we employed our normal, regular process in assessing whether 

or not intervention was appropriate in this case, and th,It'S whut we did." 

B. Ellis Case Was Never Serious Candidate for Intenention 

Career officials at the Justice Department, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Minnesota, and 

HUD agreed that the Ellis case was not a serious candidate for intervention. Ivll'. West, the head 

of the Civil Division, Mated during hi~ tl'anscribed interview: 

[TJhe only conversations I had about the merits of the Ellis case tended to be 

cOllvcmations that talkcd about how weak thc case was. And ,w T don't recull anyone 

calling the Ellis case a close call, for instance. I recall only Mike, and to the extent I was 

aware of the Ellis case, pcople talking ahout it as if it were II very weak "'lSe, a weak 

candidate for intervention.~7 

Mr. W~st alw ~tated: 

My consistent recollection of the conversations I had with Ellis -- about Ellis with 

memhers of (110 Civil DiviHion were a1\ along the lines that Ellis was not an appropriate 

candidate for intervention.48 

44 Hou:;~ Commi1.tee (1) Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Derck Anthony 

West (Mar. 18, 2013). 

45 Id. 

46 Id. 

47 !d. 

'S !d. 

13 
201 

Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, confirmed this account 

during his transcribed interview: 

We weren't going to go with Ellis. And I don't -- my recollection is that we weren't--

we weren't considering Ellis and an intervention in Ellis at any point, as I recall. That 

was going to be a declination. 49 

C. Department Openly and Properly Considered Impact of Magner on Decision 

Not to Intervene in Newell 

The cvidence obtuined hy the Committees indicates that the Department openly and 

properly considered the Department's request to St. Paul to withdraw the Magner case as one of 

many factors it evaluated when deciding not to intervene in the Newell case. 

The memo officially declining to intervene in the Newell case, which was submitted hy 

Ms. Branda and signed by Mr. West on February 9, 2012, set forth "a number offactual and 

legal urguments that support a decision not to intcrvene," including Sl. Puul's withth'awal of the 

Magner case. It stated: 

[T]he City is dismissing a Supreme Court appeal in the Gallagher v. Magner case, a 

result the Civil Rights Division is anxious to achieve. Declination here would facilitate 

that reRull which, we are advised, is in the interests of the United States.so 

In addition, in a section entitled "Other Considerations," the memo explained: 

The Supreme Court has not decided whether the FHA [Fair Housing Act J allows for 

recovery based on a disparate-impact theory. We lillderstand that the Civil Rights 

Division is concerned that there is a risk of had law if the COLIn rule~ oil the que~tion of 

whether the City's health and safety efforts her justil)' a departure from the mandates of 

the FHA. The City has indicated that it wi1l dismiss the Gallagher peti(ion, (Lnd 

dedinatiun here will facilitate the City's doing so. Under the circumstances, we believe 

this is another factor weighing in favor of declinationS I 

During his transcribed interview with Committee staff, Mr. West explained that the False 

Claims Act provides the Department with broad discretion to consider multiple factors when 

deciding whether to intcrvcnc: 

49 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Byron Todd 

Jones (:'vlar. H, 2(13). 

50 Memorandum from Joyce R. Branda, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, 

Department ofJustice, Requestfor Authority to intervene lie: U.S. ex reI. NeH'eil V. City of St. 

Paul, 1vIinnesota Case No. 09-SC-001l77 (D. Minn.) (Feb. 9,2012) (HJCIHOGR 1310-171 

A1154-61). 

51 [d. 

14 
202 

Kot only are we given broad discretion under the False Claims Act to consider a wide 

variety of factors in making our intervention decision; it's appropriate because we have a 

responsibility to act in thc best interests or(be United f;(ates <I~ u whole, And this -- it 

was appropriate to note that a declination decision here for all of the reasons that we 

previously stated in our memo, another factor that weighs in favor of declination is that it 

llilyunces an interest of the United States, an important civil rights cquity5~ 

Mr, West explained that his understanding was based on advicc fl'om Mr. Hertz, the 

career expert on False Claims Act cases: 

!>.1ikc Hertz had advised me, notiu~t in this context, but just generally about the wide 

discretion we have under the False Claims Act to reach intervention decisions. And so, 

you knmv, it was always the presumption that this was an appropriate consideration under 

that discretion. j.l 

Similarly, Ms. Branda, then the Director of the Fraud Division, confmned that it was 

appropriate to ~onsider the Magner case and thc civil rights equities whcn weighing the equitie~ 

of intervening in the Newell case, 54 

Associate Attorney General Tom Perrelli also agreed during his transcribed interview that 

it was appropriate to consider the Magner case as one factor in this context: 

I think it is appropriate to consider policy interests, so I don't think there's anything 

inappropriate about considering any policy interest of the United States. 55 

He also stated that it was not unusual to resolve multiple unrelated issues jointly: 

[T]here ilTe all IDWlller of situations where the United Statcs -- or where parties or tho 

United States v>'ill resolve things on multiple fronts at the same time, YOLl know, 

recognizing that some claiJns maybe connected, some claims may be unconllectcd. So I 

don't think that's atypical. 56 

5" HOL~se Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview n r Derek Anthony 

West (~\1ar, 18, 2013). 

53 I d. 

,\4 Briefing by Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney G"nt,ral for th" COll1ll1"rcial 

Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, to the House Committees on Oversight and 

Government Reform and the Judiciary, Majority and Minori(y Stan" (D"c. 5, 20l2). 

55 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Inierview of Thomas John 

Perrelli (Nov. 19,2012). 

56 I d. 

15 
203 

Several documcnts obtaincd by the Cm1l111ittet~ indudt handwrittcn notcs by third parties 

indicating that, during intemal meetings with staff charged with drafting the declination memo, 

Mr. Hertz supported transparency regarding consideration of the Magner case in order to fully 

cxplain (he Depmtment'~ decision and avoid any misconceptions ahout the optic~ of linking the 

cases. For example, one note from a regular meeting with the Associate Attomey General's 

office on January 4, 2012, stated: "Mike - Odd, looks like buying off S1. Paul, should be 

whether thcrc arc legit rcasons to dec1in(;) a~ to pu~t practice." Subscquent notes indicate thut 1111 

parties, including Mr. Hertz and in particular the U.S. Attomev's Office, agreed on the need for 

"a very comprehensive memo that discusses the Supreme Ct. ~ase.,,57 

Associate Attcmey General Tom Perrelli stated during his transcribed interview that he 

undet8tood that Mr.llertz's evaluation ofthc False Claims Act case was "on the merits.,,58 He 

stated: 

J am confident that what he was articulating to me wa.~ his view about the case and 

whether --notwithstanding any other factors related to Magner, whether the United States 

was going to intervene. 59 

According to Mr. West, the head of the Civil Rights Division, by mid-January 2011, there 

was a broad consensus that the Depl\r~l1ellt should decline intervcning in thc ,Vewell case: 

[SlY early, mid-January, there was a consensus that had coalesced in the Civil Division 

that we were going to decline the Newell case .... My 1.l11derstanding is that cel1ain1y that 

was Mike Hertz' view, it was Joyce Branda's view, and that represented the view of the 

branch, U.S. Attomey's Office. Also, I think around that time period would be included 

in that erJl1Sen~ll~, it wal/my view too. It was the view ofthc clienll\gen~y. HUD. And 

this was a view that we had all arrived to having taken into consideration the numerous 

factors, including the Magner case, as really as reflected in our memo. I think the 

memo -- the declination memo lhat T ~iglled relilly (\O(;)S encapsulate what our \~OW wa~, 

what that consensus was in the early to mid-January time ftame. 60 

D. HUD Recommended Against Intervention in Newell 

During her transcribed interview, I-lei en Kan()v~ky, HUD G(;)neral Coumei, stated that it 

was not in HU1)'s interest to intervene in the Newell case because HUD had already entered into 

a Vohmtary Compliance Agreement (VCA) with S1. Paul, and the City was complying with that 

agrcemcnt. She stated: 

57 HandwTitten Notes of ["Line Attomey"l, Department of Justice (undated) (H1C/HOGR 

STP 000(51). 

58 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Thomas John 

Perrelli (Nov. 19,2012). 

59 Id. 

iO House Committee on Oversight and (Jovefflllleni Rdbnn, Interview of Derek Anthony 

West (J\.Iar. 18,2013). 

16 
204 

[TJhey, "they" meaning Civil Frauds and the U.S. Attorney's Office, understood that I 

had reservations about proceeding, in large part because HUD had no equities in this 

i~sue any longer. Allor our progml11matic gOllls had already been met. We had a yeA. 

We were monitoring compliance with the VCA. There was compliance with the VCA. 

So in terms of the interest that the Department had with respect to ensuring compliance 

with Scction 3, those goals had been met,"l 

Sara Pratt, HUD's career Dcputy Assistant Secretary ror Enforcemen( ard Programs, 

confinned this account in her transcribed interview: 

I had confirmed with my staff that their view was that the City ofSt. Paul was not only In 

compliance with the voluntary compliance agreement and had been since it had been 

entered into, but they were also very much operating in good faith to try to address issues 

beyond the ones In th", voluntary compliance agree!llent.62 

As a result, Ms. Pratt also concluded that there would be no programmatic benefit for 

HUD if the Department intervencd in the Newell Cllse: 

HUD's programmatic concerns had bcen rully resolved with (he VeA and other activities 

by the City of SI. Paul and that our engagement in further False Claims Act activities 

would be a drain on our resources financially and staff-wise.60 

Ms. Kanovsky also expressed concerns about the difficulties in proving the case at issue, 

stating: 

Because Section 3 cases are very hard to prove, because the standard is best efforts, and 

since you can't look at the end result, lOU have to look at the effort. That becomes very 

difficult and very resource intensive." 

Ms. Kanovsky also stated that she did not think that the gove111ment would recover funds 

as a result of the government's intervention in the case: 

Q: RL~t does HUD have all interest in reco'iering funds that were allegedly 

improperly allocated based on a false certification to HUD? 

61 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Helen Renee 

Kanovsl,y (Apr. 5,2(13). 

62 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Sara Pratt (Apr. 

3,2(13). 

6J Id. 

M I-louse Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Helen Rence 

Kanovsky (Apr. 5,2(13). 

17 
205 

A: As u bypotheti"ulmatter, sure. Did we ~ctually think that there was the capability 

to do that in this case? NO. 65 

Although Ms. Kanovsky initially opposed intervening in (be ~iJj;e, $be ,tuted thut 8he was 

approached by attorneys from the Civil Fraud Division and the U.S. Attorney's Office in 

September or October 2011 requesting that she change her position. Ms. Kanoysky stated that 

she reluctantly agreed to this request not based on the merits, but because they wanted HUD's 

support to make their case. She ultimately returned to her original position opposing 

intervention, however, after being informed that they these attorneys did not represent the 

Department's consensus position. She stated: 

[W]hen ii turned out that we weren't really acoommodating hlstice, we were just 

accommodating certain lawyers in Civil Frauds, we sent the memo that said on the merits 

of the Section 3 claim, which is the basis for the False Claims Act claim, we do not think 

that the government should go forward. &G 

Ms. Kanovsky stated that she explained her changes in position during a conversation 

with Mr. Perez: 

I told him that it had been my original inclination that this was not a strong case, and that 

HUD's equities had already been met, and that we were not inclined to recommend that 

the United States intervene, but that this had been -- it appeared to me something that 

Civil FratLd~ and (he lT$. Attom",y in Minnesota f",lt very strongly about and were 

committed to proceeding with, and therefore we had acceded to their request.67 

She explained further: 

I said, \vell, if Justice is not of one mind here, then I certainly have no problem going 

back to my original position, which is this was not an appropriQte case for the United 

States to intervene in.68 

]I.·ir. Perez confinned Ms. Kanoysky's account during his transcribed interview with 

Committee staff: 

[M]y principal recollection of my conversations with Helen Kanoysky was that she said 

that in her jndgment the Newell ease was a weak case and that given the pendency of the 

regulation and the importance of disparate inipact for H lJD and [()r United Rt',le~ 

65 1d. 

66 1d. 

"' Jd. 

68 1d. 

18 
206 

generally that in her judgment it would be in the interest ofjustiee to see if we could 

pursue through Mr. Lillehaug's proposa1.69 

Several documents obtained during the investigation include email exchanges among 

junior line attomeys expressing frustration with Ms. Kanovskey's decision to retum to her 

original position opposing intervention. For example, in one email exchange.aline attomey in 

the u.s. Attorney's Offiee reacted to learning ofHUD's decision to return to its original position 

by writing the he would "work to figure out what['sJ going on with this.,,70 In another email, that 

same attorney referred to HUD's rctuming to its original position as "weirdncss.,,71 

Ms. Kanovsky explained that although she could understand their fmstration, she 

believed I-IUD's substantive position was justified. She stated: 

They thought that they had the go-ahead to proceed. They asked for the go-ahead to 

proceed, and we had said we weren't inclined. They had come over and thought they had 

convinced me to do it, they had gotten a go-ahead and now we were reversing the 

decision and saying, no, we want to go back to our original position and, no, we do not 

think this is an appropriate manner in which to intervene.72 

She explained further: 

If the decision had been totally mine in October, and there weren't any dealings with the 

Depalimcnt of Justice that 1 needed to WOITY about in terms of a relationship with the 

Departraent of Justice, we never -- we never would have recommended an intervening, 

and if ii were my decision whether to intervene or not, I never would have intervened.13 

During his transcribed interview, Mr. West, the head of the Civil Division, explained the 

imp0rlance of HUD's position on this matter: 

[TJhere were a whole variety of factors that went into our decision to decline the Newell 

case. MaRner was one of them. 11 was one of many. And as fm as I was concerned, it 

wasn't even the most important one. The most important one was the decision of the 

59 House Committee on Overgight and Government Reform, Intervievi of'J'homas 

Edward Perez (Mm. 22, 3013). 

70 R-lll'lil hOIll ["I ,ine Attorney 3"J to Asgishmt U.S. Attomey Gregory G. Brooker, 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Minnesota, Depmtmeni of Justice (Nov. 30, 2011) 

(HJc/HOGR STP 000119). 

" E-muil ti'om ["Line Attorney 3"J to Asgistunt U.S. Attorney Gregory G. Brooker, 

Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Dish'iet of Minnesota, Depaliment of Justice (Dec. 2, 2011) 

(HJClHOGR STP 000172). 

72 House Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn, Interview of Helen Renee 

Kan()v~ky (Apr, 5, 2013). 

73 I d. 

19 
207 

di~!lt agency not to stand behind tbiR ca~e in the litigation risk unalysis that we cngaged 

m. 

E. U.S. Attornev Recommended Against Tntervention mNewell 

The evidence obtained by the Committees indicates that Todd Jones, the U.S. Attorney in 

Minnesota, recommcrded against inttn"vening in the Newell case after being informed that 

intervention would not serve HUD's interests. 

During his transcribed interview with Committee staff, Mr. Jones stated that he concurred 

with all of the recommendations in the final declination memo that was signed by Mr. West on 

February 9, 2012. As hc explaincd, hc agreed witb "all of the ralion<lk, including the Magner v. 

Gallagher factor that was in the Civil- the Civil Fraud Division memo.,,7S 

Mr . .lone;; explained that he reeommcnded against intervention hecaUAe it would have 

been difficult to prove the case without HUD's concurrence: 

Well, first and i(lfe111(lst was the tiu:t that our client agency, lIUD, was not in coneUl1'ence 

about proceeding with the intervention decision anymore. That was first and foremost, 

because we can't do it without their help.76 

Mr. Jones also explained that he was not concerned with HUD returning to its original 

position opposing intervention: 

[Ilt didn't cause me any concern, because I've been doing this a long time, and the 

dyml111i cs and fuctors that go into litigation decisiotullaking, litigation ri~k, ranginglTom 

witnesses' changing positions to the state of the law changing, to statling or individualthere is all kinds of dynamics. So, no, the fact that at a certain point in time, here is what 

our decision is and, later on down (h" roml, that decision is dumged becausc therc arc 

factors that have changed that add or enhance to the litigation risk, it is not unusual in my 

experiencc, and it is not something T am ll1l<:omfortabk dealing with.77 

Greg Brooker, the career Chief of the Civil Division \vithin the U.S. Attorney's Office, 

also conuurred with the ultimate decision not to intervene, llccording LO Mr. Jon~s.78 This 

aeclllmt was confirmed by Mr. Perez, who stated during his tl'anscribed interview: 

'4 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Derek Anthony 

West (lvlar. 18,2013). 

)5 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Byron Todd 

Jones C'vlar. 8,2013). 

76 ld. 

71 rd. 

78 ld. 

20 
208 

1 had discussions with Greg Brooker, who was our point ofeontaet in the U.S. Attorney's 

Office in Minnesota .... And it was my impression from conversations I had with him 

that he concurred with the conclusions of Mike Hertz and the other senior people in the 

Civil Division who had determined that this was a weak candidate for intervention?? 

On January 10,2012, Mr. Perez returned a telephone call from Mr. Brooker about the 

status of the declination memo, which had not yet been completed, and left the following 

voieemai1message: 

Hey, Greg. This is Tom Perez calling you at -- excuse me, calling you at 9 o'clock on 

Tuesday. I got your message. 

The main thing I wanted to ask you, I spoke to some folks in the Civil Division yesterday 

and wanted to make sure that the declination memo that you sent to the Civil Division--

lmd I am sure it probably already does tlris -- but it doesn't make any mention of the 

Afagner case. It is just a memo on the merits of the two cases that are under review in the 

qui tam context. 

So that was the main thing I wanted to talk to you about. I think, to use your words, we 

arc just abOl(t ready to rock and roll. J did talk to David Li11ehaug lastnighl. So if you 

can give me a call, I just want to COnfi!ID that you got this message and that you were 

able to get your stuff over to the Civil Division8o 

When asked about this voicemail.Mr. Perez explained that he was concerned that delay 

in completing the memo could cause st. Paul to raise additional demands. He stated: 

I was impatient in part because on the 9th of January, I had had another conversation with 

:'\,Ir. Lillehaug [the attorney representing St. Paul] that I outlined earlier and I was 

growing inerca.~ingly concerned that he was running out ofpaticnce and might in racl 

raise additional terms and conditions which turned out to be accurate. S! 

:\1r. Perez also stated: 

I was t.rying to put it together in my head, what would be tile source oftbc dclay, and the 

one and only thing I could really think of at the time was that perhaps they hadn't -- they 

didn't write in or they hadn't prepared the language on ilie Magner issue, and so I 

mimitkdly inartfuJ1y told them, r Jen a voicemuil and \'v'hat I lll~ant in iliat voicemail to 

say was time is moving .... [IJfthe onlr: issue that is standing in the way is how you talk 

about Magner, then don't talk about it. 2 

79 House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Interview of Thomas 

Edward T'erez (Mar, 22, 3013), 

80 Id. 

Sl [d. 

S2 Id. 

21 
209 

According to Mr. Perez, Mr. Brooker returned his call the next day and infonned him that 

the protocols governing declination memos required a discussion of the Magner case as one 

factor that was considercd: 

Mr. Brooker promptly corrected me and indicated that the Magner issue would be part of 

the disl1.1ssion. I said finc, follow thc standard pro(ocok Rut my aim and my goal in 

that message and in the ensuing conversations was to get him to communicate that, so 

thut we could bring the matter to closure.83 

A document obtained by the Committees includes handwritten notes from a line attorney 

in thc U.S. Altomey'8 Olliee confirming this account. Thc notcs indicate that \ifr. Brooker 

received the voieemail from Mr. Perez, describing it as a "Concern for Greg" and a "Red flag.,,84 

The notes then confmn that Mr. Brooker resolved this question within one day: "Greg left 

message saying thc Sup. ct. info. will be in the memo."ss 

\ifr. Perez stated that although he did not see the final declination memo, he understood 

that it "did have a discussion ofthc Magner case as a fac(or."S6 

During his tnmscribed interview, Mr. Jones, the U.S. A((orney, confirmed that the 

declination memo did include an appropriate discussion oftlle Magner case.S

) He stated that no 

attorneys in his office reported feeling pressure to concur in its recommendation, and he 

characterizcd the recommendation a8 "based on the litigation risk and the facts in front of US.,,88 

He stated: 

[Wlhat's reflected in that memo [(he N("vell declination memol is what's impOl'tant to us. 

And that's all the relevant factors articulated in a memo for Tony West's consideration as 

to whether or not the United States should intervene in the Nelvell case. And that 

included the Magner decisioll.E9 

F. Justice Decided Not w Intervene Even if St. P!lul Pursued ltlagnel' 

SJ Td. 

84 Hand,vritten Notes of ["Line Attorney"l, Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Milmesota, Department of Justice (J an.II, 2012) (HJC/HOGR STP 000713 I Formerly 

H,TC/HOGR A 000666). 

85 Id. 

So House Committee on Oversight and Government: Rdlll'lU. Interview of Thomas 

Edward Perez (Mar. 22, 3013). 

87 House Committee on Oversight ill1d Government Reform, Interview of Byron Todd 

Jones a,,[ar. 8,2013). 

,.~ Id. 

89 Id. 

22 
210 

The evidence obtained by the Committee demonstrates that the Department decided not 

to intervene in the Newell case even if St. Paul planned to go forward 'with the kfagner case in 

thc Supreme Court. 

During his transcribed interview with Committee staff, Mr. West, the head of the Civil 

Division, explained that consensus had bccn reached in January 2012 that the Department would 

not intervene in the Newell case. He explained that at that time, however, St. Paul made a new 

demund for the Department to intervene in order to settle the ;Vewell ca~e, which would mean the 

relator could not pursue his own case against st. Paul. According to )'1r. West, that course of 

action "was a non-starter" for the Department.9o 

Because the Department refused to agree to this new demand, l'dr. West stated that he 

believed St. Paul would not withdraw the Magner case. He stated: 

Our decision in the Civil Division is that we were not going to go forward and litigate the 

Newell case. That meant we were either going to decline it, and if the city was willing to 

withdraw its MafJner pclition because we declined it, thaI is great. But it looked like, at 

one point, that the City was no longer willing to do that. We still weren't going to litigate 

the case. 91 

During his interview with Committee staff, Mr. Perez confirmed this account: 

).1r. Lillehaug ehanged the terms of the proposal. He wanted the United States to 

intervene and settle the case from underneath the relator. And we communicated clearly, 

based llpOl1 thc judgmcut and direction rrom the Civil Division, that thut was 

unacceptable a~d that the United States could not agree to those terms.92 

).1s. Bnmda. then head OftilO Civil Fraud Section, also confirmed th'll lhe Civil Divisioll 

decided not to litigate the Newell case, regardless of the impact on the Magner ease. 93 Ms. 

Branda stated thflt tile decision by her and her officc not to intervene waR made "on the merits" 

based primarily on St. Paul's arguments at the December 13, 2012 meeting. 94 Ms. Branda 

90 IIouse Committce 011 Oversight and (JoVCnlmcnt Reform, Tnterview of Derek Anthony 

West (Mar. 19, 2013). 

;JI Id. 

n House Commillee 011 Over~ight and Government Reform, 1ntcrvic\" of Thomas 

Edward Perez (IvIar. 22,3013). 

93 Briefing by Joyce Branda, Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Commercial 

Litigation Branch, Department of Justice, to the House Committees 011 Oversight and 

Government Reform and the Judiciary, M'ljority and Minority Stalls (Dec. 5,2012). 

94 Id. 

23 
211 

rejected thc argumcnt that she would have recommended intervention "but for" thc Magner 

factor. 95 

Once the Civil Division decided not to intcrvene in the Newell ca~e, Mr. Perez accepted 

and communicated that decision to st. Paul, lmderstanding that the impact of that decision was 

that St. Paul would go forward with the Magner case. During his transcribed interview, he 

statcd: "for a period of time in J anLLary it appeared that thcre would be no agrc0111enl."% Htl also 

stated: 

I remember saying to someone, shortly after this, words to the effect of, well, we gave it 

our best efforts and we will move on and get ready for oral argument?' 

In a final attempt to convince St. Paul to withdraw the Magner case, Mr. Perez met with 

the Mayor on Febmary 3, 2012. Mr. Perez described this meeting during his transcribed 

interview: 

I was aware, however, that civil rights organizations ,vere continuing their efforts and 

that Vice President Momble WliS his mentor and was apparcntly reaching out to ihe 

mayor. And I know when I met with the mayor on February 3rd, he indicated that he had 

had at least one, and T bdieve more conversations with the Viee President, who W,,$ 

really one of his idols. 98 

At the l'ebmary 3 mccting, Sl. Paul conlimlecl that it would, in filet, witlldraw thc 

Magner case, and Mr. Perez reiterated the Department's decision not to intervene in either the 

Newell or Ellis eases. 99 Mr. Perez explained: 

During mat meeting me city reconsidered its position and we reached an agreement that 

had as its central terms the original proposal made by 1',,1r. Lillehaug. The Civil Division, 

haviog completed its revitlw pfllcess, thereafter authorized declination in thc False Ch,ilTI$ 

Act cases and the city dismissed its Magner appea1. 100 

95 !d. 

96 House Committee 011 Oversight and Govcmmcnt Refor1ll, Illl<!rview of Thomas 

Edward Perez (~\1ar. 22, 3013). 

97 Id. 

9,j Id. 

99 !d. Almough some documents produced to me Conmlittees iuclude inquiries by 

Depm1ment attorneys about whether in theRe di~w$~i()(l~ Mr. Perez promised to providc H UD 

documents to SUppOlt St. Paul's litigation, Mr. Perez said in his tJ.·mlseribed interview iliat he did 

not make tlIat offer, and other witnesses confirmed iliat no documents were ultimately provided. 

House Committee on Oversight and Government Refonn, Interview of Thomas Edward Perez 

(Mar. 22, 3013). 

100 Housc Committec 011 OvcrsightlUld Government Reform, Interview of Thomas 

Edward Perez (Mar. 22, 3013). 

24 
212 

St. Paul formally withdrew the Magner case on February 10, 2012, and issued the 

following public statement: 

The City of Saint Paul, national civil rights organizations, and legal scholars believe that, 

if Saint Paul prevails in the U.S. Supreme Court, such a result could completely eliminate 

"di~parale impact" civil rights eniorcement, including under the Fair Housing Act and tllC 

Equal Credit Opportunity Act. This would undercut important and necessary civil rights 

cases lhroughout th<:l nution. The risk of such an unfortunate outcome is the primary 

reason the city has asked the Supreme Court to dismiss the petition. 101 

During his transcribed interview with Commit!<:le s\uit; Tom Pen'elli, th<:l iunuer 

Associate Attorney General, stated: 

[I]fyou weren't going to intcrvcnc in eithcr or the cases, okay, based on the"" ba8ed on 

the merits of those cases, fuen "- I know you guys talk about quid pro quo. You know, 

there is no quid because you weren't going to intervene anyways, or maybe no quo. 11l2 

CONCLUSION 

Far from supporting allegations that Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez brokered an 

unethical or improper quid pro quo arrangement with the City of St. Paul, the overwhelming 

cvidcnce obtained during thi~ inve~tig<1ii()n indica\<:ls (h,lt Mr. P<:lre~ and other D<:lpartment 

officials acted professionally to advance the interests of civil rights and effectively combat the 

scourge of housing discrimination. 

Rather than identifying any inappropriate conduct by Ivlr. Perez or other Department 

officials, it appears that the accusations against Mr. Perez are part of a broader political 

campaign to unde1111ine I.h<:l legal safeguards against discrimination thm Mr. Perez was 

protecting. 

For example, in their letter to fue Department on Septenlber 24, 2012, former Chainnan 

Smith, Chainnan Issa, Representative McHenry, and Senator Grassley attacked the disparate 

impact standard as a "qucstionahle legal theory" despite Ih<:l fad thai it has h~en used by law 

enforcement for decades to combat discrimination, and despite the fact that it has been upheld by 

eleven federal courts of appeals. 103 They wrote: 

101 City of st. Paul, Minnesota, City of Saint Paul Seeh to Di.",dss United States 

Supreme COUr! Case Magner vo'. Gai!agh~r (Feb. 10,2012) (online at 

www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=4874&ART=9308&ADlvIIN=1). 

102 Honse Committee on Oversight and Government Reionn, Interview of Thomas John 

Perrelli (Nov. 19,2012). 

10J Lcttcr from Reps, Lamar Rmilh, Rep. Darrell Tssu, Rep. PII\1'ick Md'Ienry, !Ind Senator 

Charles E. Grassley to Hon. Attorney General Eric H. Holder, Jr. (Sept. 24, 2012). 

25 
213 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. And the report that the gentleman from California? 

Mr. GOODLATTE. We have already covered that one. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. All right. That the gentleman has indicated 

an expanded report because he is putting in another report, Mr. 

Chairman? 
214 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Well, we are not putting in reports that don’t 

exist. We are putting in reports that already exist. [Laughter.] 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. No, this one exists. This one does exist. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. And we have covered it. 

Ms. JACKSON LEE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Attorney General Holder, we thank you for the 

amount of time. As was noted by the gentleman from Louisiana, 

you spent more time than was requested. 

As you know, there is a lot of questions that Members have, and 

a lot of Members are not satisfied with all the answers. A number 

of questions are being submitted to you in writing. There are questions existing from previous correspondence that we would ask that 

you answer, and nothing would do more to show the respect that 

you referred to for this Committee than for you to answer those 

questions. 

And as Attorney General of the United States, I think it would 

reflect well on the respect that the Attorney General of the United 

States is entitled to, to see those questions entered, answered as 

a part of the separation of powers, operation of checks and balances 

that exist in the oversight responsibility of this Committee. 

I thank you again. 

Attorney General HOLDER. That’s a fair point, Mr. Chairman. 

That’s a fair point. 

Mr. GOODLATTE. Without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative days to submit additional written questions for the witness 

or additional materials for the record, if we don’t have enough already. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 5:15 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 
(215) 

A P P E N D I X 

MATERIAL SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING RECORD
216 

*The Committee had not received a response to these questions at the time this hearing 

record was finalized and submitted for printing on November 22, 2013. 

Questions for the Record submitted to the Honorable Eric J. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General, United States Department of Justice* 
217 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, ,k 

May31,2013 

Page 2 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATIVE SPE',JCER BACHUS: 

1. Attorney General Holder, it is my understanding that DO] is pursuing cases against 

package delivery companies regarding the shipment of prescription drugs -- including 

Schedule II painkillers. Has the DO} supplied these shippers with a list of offending 

pharmacies that would allow the package delivery companies to identify the bad actors? 

2. The DO.! action regarding these package delivery companies concerns me, because it 

appears the DO] is sl;bjeeting these companies to new regulations. What specific 

statutory authority is DOJ using in this instance? If these are indeed new requirements, 

does DOJ intend to put out a notice and comment period for rulemaking so all affected 

stakeholders can have input in the process? 

2 
218 

The Honorable Eric K Holder, Jr. 

May31,2013 

Page 3 

L As you know, the government settled the Kcepseag/e case regarding Native American 

farmers to the tune 0[$760 million in 2010. According to the New York Times, .Instice 

Department lawyers argued that that $760 million "far outstripped the potential cost of a 

defeat in court." Agriculture officials said that not enough Native American fanners 

would file claims to justify a $760 million settlement. 

Are you aware of internal DOJ disagreements regarding that settlement? If so, 

please describe those disagreements. 

2. According to the New York Times, the concerns of the career ollicials at DO] about the 

size ofthc $7()O million Keepseag/e settlemenl were not unfounded, as only 3,600 

claimants won compensation at a cost of $300 million. That leaves $4()O million, roughly 

$400 million ot'which must be given to "nonprotit groups that aid Native American 

Farmers" under the settlement (the remaining $60.8 million will go to the plaintiffs' 

lawyers). However, the Intertribal Agricultural Council, which is perhaps the largest 

eligible organization to receive this $400 million, has an aJillual budget of just $1 million. 

Please explain the status of the remaining $400 million-or-so in money thai has 

been settled for the KeepsetlgJe easc, 'What does tile government plan on doing 

wilh this money'! Given that it was not anticipated that such a sum of money 

would be "emaining after tile payment of individual claims, does the DOJ have 

any intention or going back to the Court to reqnest a change in the terms of the 

Keepseagle settlement? 

3. In the 2008 Farm Bill (P.L. 110-246), Congress included a provision permitting claimants 

who had submitted a late-tiling request under Pigford J and had not received a final 

dctennination on the merits of their claims to bring a civil action in federal court to obtain 

such a determination. The legislation made available a maximum of $1 00 million for 

payment of successful claims. Subsequently, 23 separate complaints were filed, 

representing approximately 40,000 individual claims, which were consolidated as Pigford 

II. Despite the $100 million maximum prescribed by Congress, on Fcbmary 1 R, 20! 0, 

you, along witll USDA Secretary Tom Vilsaek, annOlU1ced a $1.25 billion settlement 

agreement for Pigfi)rd fl. 

Please describe the process by which you amI USDA Secretary Vilsack 

negotiated the Sl.25 billion settlement for Pigford II. Were there any concerns 

from career lawyers, agency offidals, or other employees of the DOJ or the 

USUA about tile magnitude of this settlement agreement? If there were 

concerns, please explain who raised those concerns ami what those concerns 

were, specifically. 

3 
219 

The Honorable Eric R Holder, Jr. 

May Jl, 2013 

Page 4 

4. As you know, claims for Pigford II had to be filed by May 11,2012. Those claims had to 

reference previously late-filed Pigford I claims that should have been submitted before 

June 19, 2008. Those claims bad to reference discrimination that occurred before 

December 31, 1996. 

Are there any cases going forwlu'd, or any efforts being made by the DO,I, or, 10 

your knowledge, the lJSDA, to expand the class of individuals or extend the 

statute of limitations for cases involving alleged discrimination by the USDA, in 

other words to have a "Pigford Ill" or a second round of any of the other USDA 

discrimination cases? 

5. Right now the Judgment Fund it is a permanent, infinite appropriation by Congress. The 

government can negotiate settlements and pay [Jut taxpayer dollars and Congress can be 

left entirely out of the loop. David Aut1lauser, the Treasury's general counsel from 2001 

to 2003, said that the Judgment Fund, if used inappropriately, can be a "license to raid the 

till." 

Would you suggest any statutory reforms to the .Judgment Fund'! Do you haye 

any concerns that the Judgment Fund could be used as a way to funnel money to 

preferred special interest groups, especially if political appointees override the 

legal judgment of career government officials? 

6. According to the Congressional Research Service, the Judgment Fund can only pay for 

"actual or threatened litigation." In other words, "the Judgment Fund is limited to 

litigative awards, meaning awards that were or could have been made in court Litigative 

awards are distinguished from administrative awards ... [f]or settlement awards to be 

considered litigative, the settlement must be negotiated by the Department of .Justice (or 

any person authorized by the Attorney General) and based on a claim that could have 

resulted in a monetary judgment in court." As the New York Times puts it, some 

government officials argued that "it was legally questionable (0 sidestep Congress and 

compensate the Hispanic and female farmers out of a special Treasury Department 

account, known as the Judgment Fund. The fhnd is restricted to payments of courtapproved judgments and seHlements, as well as to out-of~court settlements in cases where 

the govcnunent faces imminent litigation that it could lose. Some offleials argued that 

tapping the fund for the farmers set a bad precede.nt, since most had arguably never 

contemplated suing and might not have won if they had." Court after court dismissed the 

phlintiiTs' claims in Garcia and Love and on January 19,2010, the Supreme Court 

declined to hear their appeal, effectively ending ability of the cases to become class 

action lawsuits. At that point, according to court r~cords, the DO'! argued that the cases 

for the 91 named plaintiffs should be sent back to the local jurisdictions to be handled 

individually. The DOJ had also argued in court that some of the eases had no merit and 

the DOJ had no intention to settle those cases. 

4 
220 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 5 

\Vith the Garcia and Love cases being denied class action status, what reason did 

the government have to agree to pay claims for tens of thousands of individuals? 

Did the DOJ conclude that the federal government faced a potential liability 

large enough to justify a $1.33 billion resolution to tbe Garcia and Love cases'? If 

so, please provide the analysis that justifies that conclusion, 

Did the USDA urge the DO.J to change its initial position following the Supreme 

Court's denial of the plaintiffs' appeal (that the cases should be decided 

individually by the lower courts)? Did the USDA urge the DOJ to resolve these 

cases in the manner in which they were ultimately resolved? If the answer is 

"no" to the previous two questions, please explain why the DOJ reversed its 

initial position ahout sending the Garcia and Love cases to the lower courts 

following the Supreme Court's denial of appeal. If the USDA did urge the DO.} 

to change its po~ition, please explain who, specifically, made those requests, and 

what the USDA's arguments for resolving the case in this manner were. 

What criteria does the DOJ use to determiue whether or not to usc the Judgment 

Fund to make payments? Please explain what basis was used to justify using the 

.Judgment Fund for payments under the Garcia and Love cases, considering the 

action was an administrative decision, not a litigative settlement, and there did 

not appear to be a plausible tbl'cat of significant litigation threat to the federal 

government after the Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' appeal for class 

status, Has the Judgment Fund evel' been used to pay administrative claims in 

bulk and in a norl-adversarial process such as the government has now set up for 

Garcia and Love claimants? If so, please provide the relevant circumstances. 

7. The New York Times cites "senior officials," presumably from the DOl, saying that 

resolving the various discrimination lawsuits "averled potentially higher costs from an 

onslaught of new plaintiffs or losses in COUll." 

Please provide the DOJ's analysis on the possible outcomes of pursuing each of 

the USDA discrimination cases in court. In addition, please explain how tile DOJ 

typically weighs the legal risks of losing class action and other cases filed against 

the government with the cost of negotiating settlements for these cases. 

8. In the matter of the Garcia case, the New York Times has reported that, as the deadline 

for filing claims approached and the government was facing far fewer claimants than 

expected, the USDA instmcted processors to call about 16,000 people to remind them 

that time was mnning out. Some government officials worried that the government was 

virtually rccmiting claims against itself. 

Are there any restrictions on federal government employees that prevent them 

from inviting claims against the government in a class action lawsuit'? 

5 
221 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 6 

1. What is your interpretation of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and 

the 1999 t; .S. Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v. Leas it pertains to the choice of 

institutional care facilities for persons with cognitive and developmental disabilities? 

Specifically, does your Depaliment recognize thai quali±lcd persons, by law, are given 

the choice of institutional or home and community based care'? (42 CFR 441.302(d). 

2. Do you believe that the Olmstead decision requires a movement from institutional care 

facilities for persons with cognitive and developmental disabilities? 

3. Why is there a Department Policy to: 

a. Allow the Civil Rights Division to investigate and sue states' institutional care 

facilities that are homes to persons living with the most severe fonns of 

developmental disabilities when no resident, resident's legal representative, staff 

member, or federal or state inspector has requested such actions be taken or has 

joined with the Department in alleging civil rights violations? 

b. Pennit its Civil Rights Division attorneys to "partner" with organizations that 

work assiduously to undermine and eliminate the option oflicensed institutional 

care facilities for persons with profound and severe cognitive-developmental 

disabilities? 

6 
222 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 20U 

Page 7 

QUESTIONS fOR THE RECORD FROM ~fcrE)'l$J; .. l'II~TIY&nl2Pm;: 

1. 26 USC §7217 states that, "It shall be unlawful for any applicable person to request, 

directly or indirectly, any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service to conduct 

or tenninate all audit or other investigation of any particular taxpayer with respect to the 

tax liability of such taxpayer" and this section covers "the President, the Vice President, 

any employee of the executive office of the President, and any employee oflhe executive 

office of the Vice President". Should evidence come to light that a covered individual 

directly or indirectly encouraged this behavior; will you direct your agency to prosecute 

such individuals for violating this section ofthe US Code? 

2. 26 USC §7217 also states that: "Any officer or employee of the Internal Revenue Service 

receiving any request prohibited by subsection (al shall report the receipt of such request 

to the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration." Based on the facts that have 

been made public so far, numerous IRS employees clearly kncw of this targeted 

entorcement and based on what we know now, did not report this conduct as required 

under this section. Do you believe the IRS employees who knew of this conduct (some 

knew as fur back us June 2011) should be prosecuted under 26 USC §7217? Will you 

call for the Depaltmcnt of Justice to open an investigation as to IRS employees who 

violated 26 USC §7217? If not, why not? 

3. 5 USC §7323, commonly known as the Hatch Act, states that a covered federal employee 

may not "use his ot1icial authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or 

affecting the result of an election." Do you think that specifically targeting conservative 

groups for increased scrutiny by the IRS prior to the 2012 election violates this statute? 

If not, why not? Do you believe, as J do, that the intent of this targeting and harassment 

was to disrupt the work that these organizations were doing to promote their political 

beliefs prior to the election? 

4. As you know, the U.S. Office of Special Counsel has jurisdiction to investigate and 

prosecute alleged violations ofthe Hatch Act. Would you suppOJ1 a special investigation 

by the U.S. Office of Special Counsel inlo possible violations of the Hatch Act by 

employees of the lRS or other Administration officials 'Nha encouraged such behavior0 

5. The U.S. Supreme Court Case Heckler v. Chaney, 40 US. 821 (1985), addressed the 

question of to what extent an administrative ageucy's decision to exercise its discretion to 

not take certain enforcement actions is subject to judicial review under the Administrative 

Procedures Act. While the Court held that an agency's detennination not to enforce a 

7 
223 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 8 

law was generally unreviewable, the Court also slated that this un-reviewability was 

rebuttable in the situation where an agency "consciously and expressly" adopts a policy 

that is so extreme that it represents an abdication of its statutory responsibilities. Do you 

believe that a situation where the IRS decided, in a systematic and widespread fashion, to 

selectively enforce our nation's tax laws against groups who had certain political beliefs 

would qualify as an example where an agency is "consciously and expressly" adopting a 

policy that is directly opposite of their constitutional duty to equally enforce the laws and 

Constitution of the United States? lfnot, why not? Would your analysis change if facts 

were to come to light that this enhanced IRS targeting was also directed towards religions 

groups that may have had different political views then the Administration? 

6. As you know, the U.S. Supreme Court has held that selective prosecution exists where 

the enfurcement or prosecution of a Criminal Lawl is "directed so exclusively against a 

particular class of persons ... with a mind so unequal and oppressive" that the 

administration of the criminal law amounts to a practical denial of Equal Protection2 of 

the law (United Slates v. Armstrong, 517 U.S. 456 (1996), quoting YICK I'm V. HOPKINS, 

113 U.S. 356 (1886)). It~ as the IRS has indicated they were guilty of doing in their 

recent apology, it is proved that the IRS specifically targeted conservative groups for 

additional scrutiny in the application of the laws of the United States, do you believe that 

the agency (and all those in the Administration who were involved) would be guilty of 

violating the equal protection rights ofthc individual Americans who make up the 

membership of the targeted groups? If no!, why not? 

7. Given the seriousness of these crimes, the threat to our democratic process which arises 

from the alleged conduct, and the potential for high level members of the Administration 

heing involved in the initial conduct and the ensuring cover-up; will you call for a special 

prosecutor to be appointed to investigate these allegations? If not, why not? 

g 
224 

The Honorable Eric H. lIolder. Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 9 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD FROM RErRESEl"Tl\.TIVE JASON CHAFFETZ: 

1. Does the Department of Justice believe that probable cause is the COlTeet standard for law 

enforcement to access geolocalion infonnation? 

a. If no, what is the appropriate standard? 

b. If yes, does the Department advise FBI agents and U.S. Attorneys to always 

obtain a warrant based on probable cause when seeking geolocation information? 

2. Does the Department of Justice believe that there should be a lower/different standard for 

law enforcement to access geolocation infonnation from smartphones and other mobile 

devices than (hc standard for attaching tracking devices to cars tmder Jones? 

a. If yes, why? 

h. If no, why not? 

J. Does the Department ofJustice believe there should be different standards for historical 

geolocation data and prospective, real time data? 

a. If no, again, what is the appropriate standard? 

b. If yes, why? Is it really less privacy invasive to look at someone's past 

movements as opposed to their current movements? 

4. There has been a lot of concern about the investigative technique called "ceJl tower 

dumps"-thafs when law enforcement gets from a phone company a list of all the phone 

numbers that connected to a particular cell tower in a particuluT place around a particular 

lime-because it reveals the location of so muny innocent people who are inelcvant to 

lhe crime being investigated" 

a. What rules does the DOl have in place to protect privacy when it comes to cell 

lower dumps? 

b. What legal process is used, what limits are there on how you use all of that 

information and how long you keep it. and what procedures, if any. are in place to 

notify all ofthose people that the govemment has collected these records? 

9 
225 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

)Vlay 31. 2013 

Page 10 

I. What is the Administration's response to the "Defending Childhood" report issued by 

your National Task Force on Children Exposed to Violence just before the shootings in 

Nev.'!own regarding the lasting effects that exposure to violence has on children? 

2. What is the efIect of the sequester on criminal and civil trial proceedings? 

3. According to the Washington Post, two thirds of those sentenced to death have their 

convictions overturned. Why should we have contidence that those who are put to death 

by drones arc not actually innocent? 

4. What are the rules for considering evidence for determining who is put on the kill list? Is 

hearsay considered? Is illegally obtained evidence considered? 

5. If someone is on the kill list, can they be put to death by methods other than by drone? 

6. What opportlmity is there for someone put on the kill list to be heard in order to present 

evidence that he or she should not be on the list? 

7. The Sixth Circuit ruled that the Fair Sentencing Act must be applied retroactively. What 

is the Administration's position Oll applications for retroactive resentencing and is it 

consistent with the Sixth Circuit's interpretation oftIle law and the legislation? 

8, The 2007 OJP policy allows faith-based recipients oftaxpayer dollars to be granted 

certificates of exemption from fcdcrallaws prohibiting religious discrimination in 

employment. What the basis and process used to award these exemptions? 

10 
226 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, 1L 

May31,2013 

Page II 

I2l!.JOfiTIQl:!S FO~_ THE RECORD FROM REPRESENTATlVE MELVI!'I_hWATT: 

As the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, I'm concerned 

with safeguarding creative and intellectual property and the Americans who work in various 

creative industries, including film and TV production. I want 10 commend you and the 

Department tor the work done in the Megaupload investigation. 

Not only does the indictment of Megaupload's iounder and several of his employees on 

charges of criminal copyright infringement and racketeering represent important enforcement of 

our laws to protect U.S. intellectual properly and jobs, but it has had meaningful results. 

lv!egaupload was one of tile most popular sites on the Internet. It hosted popular creative content 

produced by U.S. workers providing millions of doUars in advertising and subscriptions to the 

operator of the site while the creators received no benefit. 

We now have evidence that the closure of Megaupload has had a real positive impact. A 

research study released by Carnegie Mellon University found that the closure of Megaupload last 

year led to more legitimate digital sales and rentals hy a factor of 6-1 0%. The study concludes 

that customers shifted from cyberlocker-based piracy to purchasing or renting through legitimate 

digital channels, proyjding compensation to U.S. workers and companies. Although the 

Mcgaupload indictment is significant, similar sites continue to operate with impunity. Given the 

effectiveness this enforcement action represented for consumers and creators, and the real world 

impact of tbe action, is the Department pursuing other similar investigations/cases related to 

similar sophisticated criminal enterprises? What challenges does the Department tacc in seeking 

to prosecute such egregious cases of American IP theft? What additional tools would assist the 

Department in curtailing these illegitimate foreign operators? 

11 
227 

The Honorable Eric II. Holder. Jr. 

May 31, 20Ll 

Page 12 

Marijuana 

R~sP~£tiLlgth(,' _Stlit(Os_al1-,U§§llWgJ)yJ Guidance 

General Holder, yon and I have had several conversations over thc years about federal 

policy towards marijuana. In pmiicular, I've expressed my disappointment in (he federal 

government's continued targeting ,md prosecution ofindividuals and businesses who are acting 

in compliance with their state laws legalizing medical marijuana. 

Since you last testified before our Committee, two major events have happened: (1) a Pew 

Research poll found that a majority of Americans t:wor legalizing marijuana and (2) the voters of 

Colorado and Washington voted to legalize marijuana for personal use. Since then, both states 

have asked for gnidance from the Justice Department abont whether it intends to respect their 

laws but they're still awaiting answers. I understand that yon've been looking into this issue and 

have said you will report something soon. 

I. With all of the other priorities of the Justice Department, not to mention the sigl)ificmlt 

cuts it took due to sequestration, why docs it make sense for the federal government to 

use its resources to larget marijuana? 

2. Is it a good use of resources for the federal government to deprive someone of their 

liberly because of marijuana use? 

3. Docs marijuana pose as great or any greater risk to pnblic safety than alcohol? 

4. Can you teI! me when you expect to issue guidance on whether the Justice Department 

will respect Colorado and Washington's laws? 

5. Wouldn't it be a waste of federal resources to prosecute those who m'e acting in full 

comp.lhmce with the laws oftheir states? And shouldn't we encourage the states to be the 

laboratories of democracy? 

6. Would you support a national blue ribbon commission that looks at these issues and our 

federal marijuana policy more broadly? 

~Qntl.i£LVY.itl"L;;J;ite Laws, ParticularIy~anl(ing 1,-1!'!Y.~ 

One of the major issues that Colorado and Washington arc conti'onting is that businesses that 

intend to sell marijuana in full compliance with their state laws are unable to open bank accounts 

because of risks that the banks will be subject to scrutiny by the federal government for money 

laundering violations. 

1. Would the DOJ he willing to issue a policy stmement declaring that for the purposes of 

determining whether money laundering has occurred, state-legal marijuana activity shall 

not be considered "lmlawful activity" or "specified unlawful activity"? The federal 

government would retain the ability to charge ,H! individual for the predicate offense of 

dmg trafficking, if that is deemed necessary, Hut it would ensure that individuals who are 

12 
228 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, k 

May 31, 2013 

Page 13 

not trying to conceal their activities -- or the activities of their customers -- are not 

prosecuted under statutes intended to prevent snch concealment. Otherwise, arcn't you 

actually fostering a greater risk of money laundering by tarcing these bnsinesses to 

engage in all cash transactions and taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the 

regulated financial system? 

Pardons and Commutations 

As we have discussed, I am very concerned about the leadership of the Pardon Office and the 

slow pace of pardons and commutations we have seen from the Obama Administration. It is not 

only individual applications that call out for pardons and commutations, but there arc entire 

classes of people sHting in prison serving sentences that no longer comport with public policy or 

public opinion. 

I. Do you think it would be a good idea to create a special unit within the Pardon Oflicc to 

rcview currcnt prison sentences and recommend equitable group commutations? 

2. Would you consider recommending commutations for people who were sentenced under 

the old crack cocaine laws and are serving a longer sentence than they would ifthey were 

sentenced today under the Fair Sentencing Act? Shouldn't their sentences be considered 

void for public policy reasons because they run counter to the policy that Congress has 

now determined is appropriate? 

3. W(luld you SUPP(lrt granting commutations to other classes of drug offenders who are 

imprisoned under laws that the public no longer supports? For example, a majority of 

Americans now support legalization of marijuana but many people continue to serve 

sentences for crimes related to marijuana that make no sense under loday's standards. 

Wouldn't it be appropriate to gran! equitable commutations to people who are serving 

time for crimes that the public no longer supports'! 

Transporting Pharmaceuticals 

Mr. Holder, according to recent press reports, the Justice Department has been investigating 

common can·jers for their role in transporting pharmaceuticals that may not have been prescribed 

legally. 

1. Given that the Controlled Substances Act gives these companies a safe harbor, can you 

tell me the legal theory under which you are operating? 

2. How can these companies be expected to know whether the contents of the packages 

were validly prescribed? What sort of investigation or due diligence do you expect of 

them? 

13 
229 

The Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 14 

QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD PROM REPRESENTATIVE HENRY C. "HANK" JOHNSON:. 

I. What is the standard for issuing a subpoena under 28 CPR 50.1 O? Does it involve 

judicial oversight? 

2. When is a warrant required for investigations of electronic communications? What is the 

standard for obtaining a warrant under the Fourth Amendment, and how does this diner 

from obtaining a subpoena? 

3. Would the Espionage Act of 1917 authorize the prosecution of a joumalist, or anyone 

else ,vho leaked or disseminated national security information? 

As a member of both the Judiciary and House Armed Services Committees, I also have serious 

concerns with Republicans' opposition to closing the Guantanamo detention facility. 

1. Of the 166 detainees housed in the Guantanamo detention facility, how many are cleared 

for release? 

2. Does "cleared for release" mean that these detainees are being held unlawfully or pose no 

threat to the public? Or does it mean risk certain detainees posed could be managed by 

means other than detention? 

3. Does Section 1027 ofthe NDAA strictly prohibit usillg any funds to transfer detainees to 

the United States 

4. And doesn't Section 1028 of tile NOAA also prohibit transferring detainees to foreign 

countries unless these countries ean prevent the detainees from committing any terrorist 

activity? 

j. What prevents a country like Yemen from meeting this standard? 

6. So by enacting these sections ofthe KDAA. Congress has effectively stripped the 

Executive's power to close the detention facility at Guantanamo? 

We must Bnd a way to resolve the status of detainees who are not charged but are too dangerous 

to release or whom other countries will not accept. 

1. If established, wouldn't these courts assist in the effurt to close the detention facility at 

Guantanamo? 

2. What barriers exist to establishing these courts? 

This hearing also raises many important questions concerning Congress' role in ensuring the 

Justice Department upholds its mission to promote and establish justice. In March, this body 

failed to come together to prevent sequestration. The Republican leadership failure is already 

being felt nationwide, and its impact on my home state of Georgia continues to be a grave 

concern to me. It arbitrarily took billions out our economy, cost jobs, valuable programs, and 

stunting our economic recovery. As a result of sequestration, Congress reduced the Justice 

Department's funding by $1.655 billion. 

1. How has this affected the mission of the Justice Department to promote and establish 

justice? 

14 
230 

fhe Honorable Eric H. Holder, Jr. 

May 31, 2013 

Page 15 

2. How has this meat-cleaver approach threatened long-term programs critical to law 

enfurcement? 

.3. Wouldn't eliminating justice programs negatively affect local communities? 

4. This Committee has mt yet answered the call from the families ofthe Newtown victims 

by acting to prevent gun violence. Won't cuts to ATF funding impede criminal 

investigations and firearms tracing? 

15 
231 

Æ