[House Hearing, 112 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JUNE 1, 2011
__________
Serial No. 112-61
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
Available via the World Wide Web: http://judiciary.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
66-613 WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center, U.S. Government Printing Office. Phone 202�09512�091800, or 866�09512�091800 (toll-free). E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
LAMAR SMITH, Texas, Chairman
F. JAMES SENSENBRENNER, Jr., JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
Wisconsin HOWARD L. BERMAN, California
HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina JERROLD NADLER, New York
ELTON GALLEGLY, California ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
BOB GOODLATTE, Virginia Virginia
DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California MELVIN L. WATT, North Carolina
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio ZOE LOFGREN, California
DARRELL E. ISSA, California SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas
MIKE PENCE, Indiana MAXINE WATERS, California
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia STEVE COHEN, Tennessee
STEVE KING, Iowa HENRY C. ``HANK'' JOHNSON, Jr.,
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona Georgia
LOUIE GOHMERT, Texas PEDRO PIERLUISI, Puerto Rico
JIM JORDAN, Ohio MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
TED POE, Texas JUDY CHU, California
JASON CHAFFETZ, Utah TED DEUTCH, Florida
TIM GRIFFIN, Arkansas LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
TOM MARINO, Pennsylvania DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Florida
TREY GOWDY, South Carolina
DENNIS ROSS, Florida
SANDY ADAMS, Florida
BEN QUAYLE, Arizona
[Vacant]
Sean McLaughlin, Majority Chief of Staff and General Counsel
Perry Apelbaum, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution
TRENT FRANKS, Arizona, Chairman
MIKE PENCE, Indiana, Vice-Chairman
STEVE CHABOT, Ohio JERROLD NADLER, New York
J. RANDY FORBES, Virginia MIKE QUIGLEY, Illinois
STEVE KING, Iowa JOHN CONYERS, Jr., Michigan
JIM JORDAN, Ohio ROBERT C. ``BOBBY'' SCOTT,
Virginia
Paul B. Taylor, Chief Counsel
David Lachmann, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
JUNE 1, 2011
Page
OPENING STATEMENTS
The Honorable Trent Franks, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Arizona, and Chairman, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 1
The Honorable Jerrold Nadler, a Representative in Congress from
the State of New York, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on the
Constitution................................................... 3
The Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary....... 4
The Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a Representative in Congress
from the State of Michigan, Ranking Member, Committee on the
Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on the Constitution........ 10
WITNESS
The Honorable Thomas E. Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil
Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice
Oral Testimony................................................. 24
Prepared Statement............................................. 27
LETTERS, STATEMENTS, ETC., SUBMITTED FOR THE HEARING
Material submitted by the Honorable Lamar Smith, a Representative
in Congress from the State of Texas, and Chairman, Committee on
the Judiciary
Letter dated May 27, 2011, to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of
Justice...................................................... 6
Letter dated May 31, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H. Holder,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, from Lamar
Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.................. 8
Material submitted by the Honorable John Conyers, Jr., a
Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, Ranking
Member, Committee on the Judiciary, and Member, Subcommittee on
the Constitution
Letter dated May 12, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H. Holder,
Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, from Lamar
Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary.................. 11
Letter dated May 27, 2011, to the Honorable Lamar S. Smith,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, U.S. House of
Representatives, from Ronald Weich, Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legislative Affairs, U.S. Department of
Justice...................................................... 14
Letter dated February 11, 2011, to the Honorable Eric H.
Holder, Attorney General, U.S. Department of Justice, from
Lamar Smith, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary............ 16
Article from The New York Times, May 31, 2011, titled ``In
Shift, Justice Department is Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights
Backgrounds''................................................ 18
APPENDIX
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E.
Perez, Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S.
Department of Justice.......................................... 51
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the U.S. Department of
Justice........................................................ 69
Prepared Statement of Sean Bennett............................... 125
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
----------
WEDNESDAY, JUNE 1, 2011
House of Representatives,
Subcommittee on the Constitution,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 11:57 a.m., in
room 2141, Rayburn Office Building, the Honorable Trent Franks
(Chairman of the Subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Franks, Smith, King, Nadler,
Quigley, Conyers, and Scott.
Staff present: (Majority) Holt Lackey, Counsel; Harold
Damelin, Counsel; Sarah Vance, Clerk; (Minority) David
Lachmann, Subcommittee Staff Director; and Veronica Eligan,
Professional Staff Member.
Mr. Franks. The Subcommittee will come to order.
We just want to welcome everyone to the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, particularly Assistant Attorney General Thomas
Perez. I will apologize to you for the Committee starting late.
We had a meeting at the White House, and all of us were
expected to be there. So, we appreciate everybody coming.
We want to welcome everyone to this first Civil Rights
Division oversight hearing of the 112th Congress where we have
Assistant Attorney General Perez before us to represent the
Department of Justice.
This year marks the 150th anniversary of the Civil War. It
is a chance not just to reflect on the horror of
institutionalized slavery, but to take solace in the redeeming
recognition that this Nation fought its bloodiest war to end
it.
The Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has the
mission of continuing this American virtue of introspection,
self-correction, and commitment to civil rights.
In its limited time, an oversight hearing by its nature
necessarily focuses on what is being done wrong rather than
what is being done right. That should not detract from the core
proposition of equality with which we all agree, what I think
is a directive to treat everyone, of course, as children of
God.
The Constitution adjures the President to take care that
the laws be ``faithfully executed,'' and this signifies that
the chief executive must execute the laws in a manner that is
faithful to the intended meaning given to them by the people's
representatives. Instead, there is evidence the division is
engaging in a pattern and practice of straining the meaning of
Federal civil rights statutes to further policies far beyond
those ever contemplated by Congress.
For example, the Division sent formal letters to two
upstate New York schools questioning enforcement of their dress
codes against two male students, one who wore a pink wig and
makeup and the other who wore a wig and stiletto heels and said
he wanted to be able to dress like a woman. These are not top
priorities for the Nation's top law enforcement agencies
charged with defending our citizens from all enemies, foreign
and domestic. There is no obvious injury, and local authorities
are sufficient to address these issues or non-issues as the
case may be.
In these instances, one might have hoped that the
Department would have instead pursued cases involving racial
violence, violations of citizens' rights to vote, or other
egregious injuries.
Law enforcement is all about prioritization. We cannot
possibly address all illegal activity with our limited
resources. We must therefore remedy the most serious and
grievous offenses to our freedoms. Adolescent cross-dressing is
not one of them. And cases like this give the appearance that a
political agenda might be the first priority. The Department of
Justice is an executive agency charged with enforcing the laws,
not making social policy.
Other cases suggest activism as well. For example, the
Division forced Dayton, Ohio to lower the passing score on its
police recruiting exam because the Department of Justice did
not like the overall racial makeup of those who successfully
passed the exam. The taxpayers of Dayton paid for this test to
be developed at significant cost by an outside company with
specific expertise. Instead of straining to show the test was
flawed, the Department might have heeded explicit Federal law
making it unlawful to ``use different cutoff scores for or
otherwise alter the results of employment-related test scores
on the basis of race.'' Even the local NAACP criticized the
Division's extreme actions as endangering public safety.
Another example is the Division's strained reading of
Section 4(e) of the Voting Rights Act, to require bilingual
ballots when the explicit bilingual ballot provisions of the
VRA would not apply. The Division's construction is
inconsistent with the language and legislative history which
shows 4(e) was simply concerned with exempting U.S. citizens
educated in Spanish in Puerto Rico from then prevalent literacy
tests for voters.
The Department's strained construction upon which it levied
action recently forced the taxpayers of Cuyahoga County, Ohio
to spend $100,000 on translation services that have no basis in
Federal law. A variation in filing suits that are unwarranted
is failing to file suits that are warranted.
There was sworn testimony from former Voting Section
attorneys, Christopher Coats and Christian Adams, corroborated
by documents, indicating that Deputy Assistant Attorney General
Julie Fernandez has made statements to the Voting Section staff
she oversees, suggesting this Administration is not committed
to enforcing voting laws in a race neutral manner. She has also
told staff that there is no interest in enforcing voting list
accuracy requirements in Section 8 of the National Voter
Registration Act, opening the door to even worse vote fraud
than that which ACORN and others gave us in the last election,
permitting the identities of illegal or dead persons to
potentially be used to cancel out the votes of lawful voters.
And I am interested in what you have done to acknowledge and
address these citizens and these statements.
Rather than faithfully execute the laws, the Division is
either not acting or forcing cash strapped jurisdictions to
spend money in cases that many Americans would not think
represent discrimination of the type it was created to fight.
Not only is this not a way to justify budget increases, it
actually jeopardizes the legislative process. The delicate
compromises on which legislation depends will be impossible if
neither side can trust that its understanding of the final
product will be respected by the enforcing body after it is
passed.
I look forward to hearing your testimony on how the laws
have been faithfully executed.
And I would now recognize the Ranking Member of the
Subcommittee, Mr. Nadler, for his opening statement.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Today the Subcommittee continues its oversight of the Civil
Rights Division of the Department of Justice. With the
authority to enforce this Nation's civil rights laws, the
Division is the guardian of our fundamental values: freedom of
religion, the right to be treated fairly, the right to cast a
vote in a free and fair election, the right to a job, the right
to a home, the right to an education, and, with the enactment
of the Hate Crimes Prevention Act, the right to live one's life
free from the threat of violent hate crimes.
As our Subcommittee had documented, the Division was deeply
troubled during the Bush years. As with other parts of the
Justice Department, career civil rights attorneys were
routinely overruled on legal matters by political appointees.
Hiring was illegally politicized, enforcement was, in some keys
areas, grossly neglected, and morale was as bad as at any time
since the Division's establishment. The loss of dedicated
career staff was alarming.
President Obama signaled a new era by appointing as
Assistant Attorney General Tom Perez, who will testify today.
He is a career civil rights lawyer, and he has been working
hard to rebuild a division that had lost many of its dedicated
career attorneys that had become dangerously politicized.
In addition to the historically challenging work of the
Civil Rights Division, he has been rebuilding a decimated and
demoralized office, and he has done so while dealing with such
monumental tasks as the decennial redistricting.
What is most distressing is that some of the same people
who undermined and discredited the Civil Rights Division while
they were there have now made a career of making false
allegations against the Division from the outside. What is
disturbing is that the allegations all seem to have the same
subtext, that the Division is being used to favor minorities to
the detriment of whites. What they really mean is that the
Division is now making an honest effort to enforce in an even-
handed manner our civil rights laws, laws which the complainers
who were previously in the Division really do not like at all.
It is Willie Horton campaign pure and simple.
As soon as each new allegation is debunked, we hear two
more false allegations. I would not be surprised if, even after
an independent investigation that has completely discredited
the allegations surrounding the New Black Panther Party,
allegations of voter intimidation without any voter ever having
complained of being intimidated, I would not be surprised if
people still hear that case revived today as it is revived all
the time. It is disgraceful.
We actually face some serious civil rights challenges, and
I hope to hear from Mr. Perez on how the Division is working to
meet those challenges. It would be nice to have a hearing in
which we actually discuss civil rights policy and enforcement,
but we will see if that is possible in the current environment.
I am pleased to welcome Mr. Perez, and I look forward to
his testimony and to the questions and answers from the Members
of the Committee.
Thank you. I yield back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the Ranking Member. And I now recognize
the Chairman of the full Committee, Mr. Smith, for his opening
statement.
Mr. Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perez, thank you for being here. We look forward to
your comments.
Congressional oversight is necessary to improve the
operation of the executive branch and its responsiveness to the
American people. Unfortunately, since 2009, there have been
troubling allegations about the conduct of the Civil Rights
Division and its personnel.
First, the Department dismissed most of the voter
intimidation cases against the New Black Panther Party. Then it
was alleged that a deputy assistant attorney general instructed
Voting Section staff that the division will only bring cases
for the benefit of racial minorities. This person is also
alleged to have said that the voting list maintenance
requirements of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration
Act will not be enforced. Then more recently, comments
allegedly were made at a January Voting Section training
section indicating that voting rights laws were not to be
enforced in a race neutral manner during the current
redistricting cycle.
Most troubling about these allegations is that they
constitute a clear pattern. If the Administration is choosing
whom to protect based on skin color, the American people should
know that there is not equal justice under the law.
In January, I wrote Attorney General Holder advising him
that I had initiated an inquiry into the Division's enforcement
of Federal voting rights laws. This inquiry is focused on
whether the Division has adopted a practice of race-based
enforcement of these laws. The Attorney General gave me his
personal commitment to make available any information necessary
for the Committee to perform its oversight function.
Unfortunately, I have been disappointed that the Department's
actions have failed to live up to the Attorney General's
promised cooperation.
Since January, I have made two separate reasonable,
straightforward requests for information as part of this
inquiry. While the Department has provided some documents of
limited relevancy in response, it has withheld a number of
other responsive and highly relevant documents based only on a
vague assertion of a confidentiality interest. Yet
confidentiality is not a recognized privilege. Transparency is
crucial for a government to function properly. The Department
appears to have concocted a confidentiality interest to hide
important information from the American people.
After the close of business last Friday, and with this
hearing looming, the Department offered to make some of the
withheld documents available for Committee review. However, the
Department placed unacceptable conditions on this offer. It is
improper for the Department to dictate to this Committee how it
should make use of information that is responsive to a
legitimate oversight interest.
I would ask that the Department's May 27 letter and my
response dated May 31 be made a part of the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
Mr. Smith. It is time for the Department's game of hide and
seek to end and for it to respond and cooperate. Its actions
have not only been inconsistent, they have contradicted the
Attorney General's personal assurances to me.
Congressional oversight is the constitutional duty of
Congress. This Committee is conducting a legitimate oversight
inquiry into the Department's enforcement of Federal laws. As
such, absent a claim of executive privilege, it has an
unassailable right to receive the documents responsive to my
request that the Department continues to withhold.
Mr. Perez, I hope your appearance today will help the
Committee move forward with its inquiry. I also hope that the
Department will provide the requested documents to the
Committee. And I thank you for appearing.
And, Mr. Chairman, I will yield back.
Mr. Franks. And I thank the Chairman.
And I now recognize the Ranking Member of the full
Committee, Mr. Conyers, for his opening statement.
Mr. Conyers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank Chairman Smith for making some of his
letters to the Attorney General available to us, and I would
like to add them to the record, if I might, at this time: a
letter to Eric Holder dated May 12, 2011; a letter to Chairman
Smith from Assistant Attorney General Ronald Weich dated May
27, 2011; and an earlier letter that Chairman Smith sent to
Eric Holder dated February 11, 2011.
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
__________
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you so much.
Now, it is so convenient that the New York Times just today
has a great picture of Thomas Perez on page 13: ``In Shift,
Justice Department Hiring Lawyers With Civil Rights
Backgrounds.'' That is the title. And it goes on to say that
under the Obama Administration, as Jerry Nadler has pointed
out, the Justice Department's Civil Rights Division has
reversed a pattern of systematically hiring conservative
lawyers with little experience in civil rights, the practice
that caused a scandal over politicization during the Bush
Administration.
I ask unanimous consent to put this in the record as well.
Mr. Franks. Without objection.
[The information referred to follows:]
__________
Mr. Conyers. Thank you.
Now, I want to say this to Chairman Smith, with whom I have
worked very closely over the last decade or more. This
allegation that the Department of Justice is being racially
unfair is a disturbing one. I happen to know Eric Holder, and I
would appreciate us meeting on this to talk about an important
situation. The Civil Rights Division has been literally dormant
during the Bush Administration, and I do not mean to be
partisan about this. And you have continually implied that
there is some race consciousness going on in the way that they
conduct their affairs. Now, if that is so, I would like to know
about it more than a hearing in which we get 5 minutes to
question a witness. This is a very serious matter.
Now, you have been sent over 5,000 pages of material from
the Department of Justice.
You raised the question about the Black Panthers, and I
have here the letter that found that the Black Panther case,
which you wrote the Department of Justice, Chairman Smith, on
July 9, 2009. It was referred to the Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility, which you got a conclusive
response on May 17, 2011, in which the Office of Professional
Responsibility found no evidence to support allegations that
were raised in their investigation, that the decision makers
either in bringing or dismissing the claims, were influenced by
the race of the defendants or any considerations other than an
assessment of the evidence and the applicable law. That is the
Ethics Division of the Department of Justice that has made this
claim. And so, we have not heard much about it.
But now we have new claims, and these are very sensitive
remarks to me. And I am trying to find out what the basis of
them are. And it seems to me this Committee has that
responsibility.
Now, generally, Mr. Perez has been receiving commendations
for his work in the last 2 years as the leader of the Civil
Rights Division. But where is the preferential treatment to
minorities being given anybody here? And I think these attacks,
especially coming from Members of the Judiciary Committee, are
absolutely outrageous.
Mr. Smith. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. Conyers. I certainly will.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Mr. Conyers. Just let me finish. I would like to meet with
you to discuss any evidence that you have of any substance that
would give a foundation to these allegations, because I think
they are subverting the whole idea of the Civil Rights Division
in the Department of Justice. And I would be pleased to yield
to the Chair.
Mr. Smith. Thank you for yielding.
First of all, as far as the evidence goes, as I mentioned
in my opening statement, as I think the gentleman is aware,
there have been two or three individuals who have made
statements independent of anything that any Member of Congress
has said, that would raise very strong suspicions of decisions
being made on the basis of race.
But the reason we had requested the documents is to try to
get to the bottom of the matter, and I hope the gentleman would
join me in making sure these documents do get to us so that we
can get the facts. I, like you, feel that I have a good working
relationship with the Attorney General, and because he has
given me his personal assurances, I have been surprised that
the documents that we have requested have not been forthcoming.
But if we are going to get to the facts, if we are going to get
to the point where we can find out whether these allegations
are true or not, we are going to need those documents.
And I hope, as I say, that the gentleman would join me in
trying to secure these documents, and then we can come to a
reasoned conclusion as to where there has been the form of
discrimination to which I have alluded or not. And so, let us
get those documents, and we can sit down and discuss what is in
them, and whether they are helpful or not.
Mr. Conyers. Well, you have not ever invited me before just
now.
Mr. Smith. Consider this an invitation to help me get those
documents.
Mr. Conyers. I consider it an invitation.
Mr. Smith. Okay.
Mr. Conyers. Okay.
Now, I want to conclude, Mr. Chairman. And I would like to
just ask my friend, the Chairman of the Committee, one last
question. Who are the people that you have gotten this
information from?
Mr. Smith. We will be happy to give you the quotes. They
have been in numerous publication articles and in other news
reports. We will be happy to get all those to you.
Mr. Conyers. Well, let me ask you this. How many people are
you talking about, one or two or three or 15?
Mr. Smith. Okay. We have several individuals who have made
those comments.
Mr. Conyers. Okay.
Mr. Smith. And we can share those individuals' names with
you privately. But, again, I am pleased if you are joining me
in my request to get these relevant documents.
Mr. Conyers. Oh, absolutely. And I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Franks. I thank the Ranking Member.
Without objection, other Members' opening statements will
be made part of the record.
I would like to introduce our witness.
Assistant Attorney General Thomas Perez is here today to
testify before this Committee. Mr. Perez became the Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division on October 8,
2009. Prior to becoming the Assistant Attorney General, he
served as the secretary of Maryland's Department of Labor,
Licensing, and Regulation.
Mr. Perez has spent his entire career in public service,
serving as a career prosecutor in the Civil Rights Division and
then as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Division.
He then went on to serve as director of the Office for Civil
Rights at the Department of Health and Human Services.
In addition to his extensive Justice Department service, he
has also served as special counsel to the late Senator Edward
Kennedy.
Mr. Perez is a graduate of the Harvard Law School and holds
a bachelor's degree from Brown University and a master's in
public policy from the Kennedy School of Government. He resides
in Maryland with his wife and three children.
Assistant Attorney General Perez, we look forward to
hearing your testimony today and welcome you again to today's
hearing.
Mr. Perez's written statement will be entered into the
record in its entirety. And I ask you, sir, to summarize your
testimony in 5 minutes or less. To help you stay within that
timeframe, there's a timing light on your table. When the light
switches from green to yellow, you will have 1 minute to
conclude your testimony. When the light turns red, it signals
that your 5 minutes have expired.
So, before I recognize Mr. Perez, it is the tradition of
this Subcommittee that a witness be sworn. So, if you would
please stand.
[Witness sworn.]
Mr. Franks. Thank you, sir.
I now recognize Mr. Perez for 5 minutes.
TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
Mr. Perez. Good afternoon, Chairman Franks, Ranking Member
Nadler, Chairman Smith, Ranking Member Conyers, and the
distinguished Members of this Committee. Thank you for the
opportunity to testify before you today about the critical work
of the Civil Rights Division.
I have great respect for the institution of the Civil
Rights Division and the Department. I first entered the
Department as a summer clerk in 1986, was hired as a career
prosecutor in 1988, started in '89, and held just about every
position a lawyer could hold as a career person. And now I have
the privilege here of serving as the AAG.
When I had the honor to appear before you just months after
being sworn in as AAG, I spoke about our efforts to restore and
transform the Division. I promised to ensure aggressive, even-
handed, and independent enforcement of all of the laws within
our jurisdiction. And in the year and a half since, we have
invested a great deal of energy in these efforts, and I am
happy to report we have had great success.
The work produced in recent weeks alone illustrates the
wide range of efforts of the Division and is typical of our
work. You have my full testimony, but I want to give you a
snapshot of what has been happening in recent weeks.
Last week, a jury in New York found three men guilty of
charges relating to a scheme to compel undocumented Latin
American women to come to the U.S. with promises of jobs as
waitresses in bars, and then they forced them to engage in
commercial sex acts. Human trafficking of this nature robs
individuals of their freedom and dignity. And in 2009, we filed
a record number of human trafficking cases, only to break that
record in 2010.
We recently won the first conviction at trial of a
defendant charged under the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.
Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009, a law that has provided us
with critical new tools to prosecute hate crimes.
We also announced last week multimillion dollar settlements
with Bank of America, Countrywide, and Saxon Mortgage Services
to resolve allegations that they wrongfully foreclosed upon
active duty members of the Armed Forces without first obtaining
court orders in violation of the Service Members Civil Relief
Act.
By way of illustration, during our investigation, we
encountered a case involving a servicemember who was severely
injured by an IED while serving in Iraq, breaking his back and
causing traumatic brain injury. The servicer foreclosed on him,
despite receiving notice on multiple occasions that he was
serving in Iraq. He returned to the U.S. in a wheelchair with
the prognosis that he would never walk again. Courageously, he
spent 2 years in recovery, re-learning how to walk and
eventually run. However, he still suffers from the effects of
traumatic brain injury.
We cannot allow the members of our military who have made
great personal sacrifices on our behalf to attempt to
transition to civilian life, only to find their credit ruined
and their homes in danger of foreclosure.
Combined, these two settlements will provide more than $22
million in monetary relief for at least 178 victims. The men
and women who protect and defend our nation deserve to know
that we have their backs at home. And these settlements are
part of a broader effort in the Division to protect the rights
of members of our Armed Forces. These efforts have included
ramped up efforts to protect servicemembers' civilian
employment rights, as well as an unprecedented effort to
enforce UOCAVA and the MOVE Act and protect the voting rights
of servicemembers.
We have ramped up our fair lending enforcement, and we
recently announced a settlement with Citizen's Bank in Michigan
to resolve allegations that the bank discriminated against
African-Americans by failing to serve the credit needs of
African-American neighborhoods in and around Detroit. It was a
classic case of redlining that deprives neighborhoods of the
investment needed to thrive. We cannot claim to offer true
equal opportunity if we are depriving entire neighborhoods of
access to credit.
Just yesterday, we announced a settlement agreement under
the Americans With Disabilities Act with Wells Fargo to ensure
equal access to credit and other banking services for people
with disabilities. This $16 million settlement is the largest
monetary agreement ever reached under Title III of the ADA.
Just last week, we charged a Wisconsin man with a violation
of the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. The affidavit
in support of the criminal complaint alleges that while loading
his handgun, the defendant discharged a bullet through the door
of his hotel room into a room across the hall. He was
subsequently arrested, and the evidence uncovered so far
indicates that he traveled to Wisconsin with his gun in an
attempt to kill doctors to stop them from performing
reproductive health services. This was just last week.
We traveled recently to Newark, New Jersey to launch a
civil pattern or practice investigation into the Newark police
department and to work with them to identify challenges and
come up with a blueprint for sustainable reform.
We continue to work with the New Orleans police department
to develop a comprehensive blueprint for reform that will
reduce crime, ensure respect for the Constitution, and restore
much needed public confidence in the New Orleans police
department.
Today, in Pennsylvania, sentencing is scheduled for two
former police officers from Shenandoah, Pennsylvania who were
convicted of charges relating to the cover up of a hate fueled
beating death of a Latino man that occurred in that town.
Following the beating, the police covered up the incident in an
effort to protect the assailants, who were also convicted of
hate crimes in a prior trial.
Every day in the Civil Rights Division presents me and my
staff and our outstanding team of dedicated career attorneys
and professionals with a new opportunity to protect and defend
the rights of individuals who might not be able to assert those
rights on their own. We are very proud to carry the torch of
the great civil rights pioneers who fought for our laws that
would ensure equal opportunity and equal access to justice. And
we honor their legacy by enforcing those laws aggressively,
independently, and even-handedly.
I look forward for the opportunity to talk further about
our work, and I look forward to answering your questions.
It is an honor to be here, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, and
Ranking Members.
Thank you for your time, and thank you for your courtesy.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perez follows:]
__________
Mr. Franks. Well, thank you, Mr. Perez. We thank you for
your testimony. And I will now begin the questioning by
recognizing myself for 5 minutes.
Mr. Perez, in a 2009 opinion, Northwest Austin, the Supreme
Court questioned, but did not decide, whether Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act is still constitutional. After that opinion
was handed down, many of the commentators suggested that
increased use of the bailout process, through which a covered
jurisdiction may seek exemption from Section 5 coverage, may be
the only way to save Section 5 from being declared
unconstitutional.
Is the Division encouraging covered jurisdictions to seek
bailouts from Section 5 in an effort to bolster its
constitutionality or to have it survive constitutional
scrutiny?
Mr. Perez. The short answer, Mr. Chairman, is absolutely.
Following that decision, we, among other things, prepared
guidance on what the Northwest Austin decision means. We have
been working with jurisdictions across the country on bailout
issues. And this year, in this Fiscal Year alone, we have five
bailout actions that have been filed in this Fiscal Year alone,
which is more than any previous Fiscal Year in the history of
the Civil Rights Division. So, we take our bailout
responsibilities very seriously. We read the opinion carefully,
and we will continue to comply with it. And if jurisdictions
are able to satisfy that, we will, of course, accede to it. And
that is why we have launched this, I believe, very impressive
and successful campaign.
Mr. Franks. Mr. Perez, sworn testimony and handwritten
meetings notes obtained by the Committee clearly indicate that
your Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Julie Fernandes, has
told the Voting Section staff under this Administration that
Federal voting laws are not to be enforced in a race neutral
manner, and that this Administration has no interest in
enforcing the voting list maintenance requirements of Section 8
of the National Voter Registration Act.
Specifically, those statements by Ms. Fernandes are as
follows: ``Equality for racial and ethnic minorities is what we
are all about.'' The next one: ``Our goal is to ensure equal
access for voters of color or minority language.'' The next
one: ``There is no interest in enforcing the list maintenance
requirements of Section 8 of the National Voter Registration
Act.''
As Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division,
what have you done, Mr. Perez, to address these, what are
somewhat troublesome statements by Ms. Fernandes?
Mr. Perez. I certainly take these allegations seriously. I
spoke with Ms. Fernandes, I spoke with others, and we conducted
a careful review. And Ms. Fernandes has categorically denied
making statements to that nature. We answered a letter from
Chairman Smith.
And I would note also that the OPR report that you have a
copy of looked at those issues and concluded that the
allegations pertaining to Ms. Fernandes were without merit. And
so, I would certainly direct the attention to the finding in
the report that Ms. Fernandes' comments provided no evidence of
an underlying ideological agenda of the Division. And so, I
would also direct the Committee's attention to the OPR report
in this particular case.
As I have said and as Ms. Fernandes has reiterated, we make
our decisions based on an application of the facts to the law.
We do so in an even-handed manner. And, frankly, our actions
bear that out. We have enforced under the Voting Rights Act
cases involving victims who are African-American, defendants
who are white. We have enforced cases under our watch involving
the opposite. We do not racially bean-count who the defendants
are in our Section 2 work.
And in addition, we have other cases across the Division,
whether it is our employment work, where we have cases where we
have vindicated the rights of African-American victims, and
cases where we have vindicated the right of white victims. And
we have cases in the education docket where we have vindicated
the rights of victims of all races and ethnicities.
Mr. Franks. Thank you. The OPR report that you mentioned
only dealt with that issue on kind of a peripheral basis. It
was more focused on the Black Panther case. But I guess you are
assuring us that Ms. Fernandes' ostensible, remarks do not
constitute the Division's current operating policy with regard
to enforcement of our Voting Rights Act.
And I want to ask you a quick question before my time is
gone here.
Mr. Perez. Sure.
Mr. Franks. In 2009, Congress enacted the MOVE Act, which
requires States to mail absentee ballots to military and
overseas voters at least 45 days before an election. Its intent
was to end the historical disenfranchisement of deployed
military servicemembers. Our men and women in uniform safeguard
all of our rights, of course, and protecting their right to
vote is the least we can do.
Unfortunately, in the 2010 election, the Civil Rights
Division was slow to identify jurisdictions that had not
complied with the law. As a result, many jurisdictions across
the country denied military voters their legal right to a
timely absentee ballot.
How will the Civil Rights Division improve the MOVE Act
enforcement in the 2012 election so that no military voters are
disenfranchised?
Mr. Perez. Thank you for your question, sir. With all due
respect, I disagree with your characterization of our work
there. I am very proud of the work that we did. It was an
unprecedented effort.
There have been, for instance, roughly 40 lawsuits that
have been filed in the 25-year history of UOCAVA as amended by
the MOVE Act. Five of those lawsuits, one-eighth of those
lawsuits, were filed in the 2010 cycle alone. We filed cases
against 14 jurisdictions where they were either lawsuits, court
orders, out of court settlements, letter agreements. And
through those actions, we were able to ensure that over 60,000
overseas and military voters, who might otherwise have not had
an opportunity to vote in a timely fashion, were in fact able
to do so. It was an unprecedented expenditure of time and
effort, and it was a very successful one.
Having said that, we were in front of Chairman Lungren and
we talked about how we can learn and do even more. And we look
forward to working with this Committee and others to talk about
the lessons learned from that election and the lessons moving
forward to ensure that everybody who is a military or overseas
voter can have access to the ballots.
I appreciate your question.
Mr. Franks. Thank you, Mr. Perez. I appreciate your
answers.
And I will now recognize our Ranking Member for 5 minutes.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Assistant Attorney General Perez, there have been lot of
States recently that have been enacting so-called voter ID
laws. Do you think that these voter ID laws in general raise
serious questions regarding the denial of access to particular
groups and warrant great scrutiny from the Civil Rights
Division?
Mr. Perez. Well, there have been, as you correctly point
out, Congressman Nadler, a number of States that have enacted
these laws. In States that are covered by Section 5 of the
Voting Rights Act, they will be required to submit those laws
to the Department of Justice for pre-clearance, or, in the
alternative, to file a complaint in the District Court of D.C.
Mr. Nadler. And the States that are not covered by Section
5, would you review them under Section 2?
Mr. Perez. Yes, and that was the second part of my answer.
We have authority under Section 2 to address issues that would
include the voter ID context if in fact there's a determination
that they constitute some form of discrimination in the voting
context. And so, those are the two----
Mr. Nadler. Have you reviewed any of them and made
determinations yet?
Mr. Perez. We are reviewing. We are certainly aware of all
of the laws that have been passed, whether it is a covered
jurisdiction or a non-covered jurisdiction. And each law is
different, and so we apply the facts to the law, and we will do
that in those circumstances to make an appropriate judgment.
Mr. Nadler. Has the Department pre-cleared photo ID and
citizenship requirements in Section 5 jurisdictions yet?
Mr. Perez. There are examples of voter ID requirements that
have been pre-cleared, and I would have to get you the full
answer of exactly which states. I do not recall off the top of
my head. I believe Georgia might be one, and I believe in the
prior Administration, there may have been one in Arizona. But I
am not sure if that was citizenship or voter ID. But I can get
you a full list.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. Given the fact that most of these
laws require that you get a photo ID or a non-photo ID from the
Division of Motor Vehicles or something like that, and that
getting those in many states requires in turn that you get as a
foundation document a passport or a birth certificate, which
costs money to get in many states, do you think that that might
be a violation of the poll tax?
Mr. Perez. Well, we are looking at all of the facts and
circumstances of all the laws passed, and each State has a
different set of circumstances. And so, it is difficult to give
a categorical answer without looking at the specifics of each
particular law.
Mr. Nadler. And you are looking at all these laws now?
Mr. Perez. Yes, we are.
Mr. Nadler. And recently, one of the States--I think it was
Florida--passed a law that not only included voter ID, but
essentially made it impossible to conduct voter registration
drives by making very onerous restrictions and liability on
anybody who conducts a voter registration drive, so much so
that the League of Women Voters said they would no longer do
voter registration in that State. Are you going to be looking
at that?
Mr. Perez. Well, there are a number of counties in Florida
that are covered under Section 5, so if it constitutes a change
to voting, then there would be, again, the pre-clearance
requirements that I discussed.
Mr. Nadler. Okay. We passed the National Voter Rights Act
back in 1993, which requires social service agencies to provide
voter registration opportunities. That has largely been
unenforced. Will the Civil Rights Division be concentrating on
making sure that that law is enforced?
Mr. Perez. We have an aggressive program of enforcement of
the NVRA. We have reached a settlement recently. It was the
first NVRA Section 7 lawsuit in 7 years. It was in Rhode
Island. We have a number of cases that we are taking a look at
under Section 7, Section 8. And I agree with you that the Motor
Voter law is a critical component of the broad effort to ensure
access to the ballot. And so, we will continue to aggressively
and independently enforce the NVRA.
Mr. Nadler. Because from where I sit, all of these
constitute a very deliberate attempt to disenfranchise minority
voters, young voters, older voters who are likely
statistically, to a great extent, not to have a voter ID, not
to have driver's licenses and so forth. And I would hope that
the effects of the malevolently intended laws will be properly
examined.
The last question I have, when this Administration launched
its version of the faith-based initiative, Administration
officials explained that the issue of hiring discrimination on
the basis of religion and taxpayer funded social service
contracts and grants, which was a central aspect of President
Bush's faith-based initiative, would be reviewed by the
Department. In December of 2009, you testified before the
Subcommittee that, ``I think the Department will continue to
evaluate these legal questions that arise with these
programs.''
Is the Civil Rights Division involved with this review, and
what can you tell us about this review as of now?
Mr. Perez. The review remains ongoing. And, again, we are
committed to ensuring that we can partner with faith-based
organizations in a way that is both consistent with our laws
and with our values, and that we continue to address these
legal questions that you have raised.
We are not leading that effort in the Department. Other
components are involved in that.
Mr. Nadler. Who?
Mr. Perez. I do not recall who is leading that effort right
now, but it is not the Civil Rights Division.
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I see my time has expired. I yield
back.
Mr. Franks. I thank the Ranking Member.
And I now recognize the gentleman from Iowa, Mr. King, for
5 minutes.
Mr. King. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perez. Good afternoon, sir.
Mr. King. Mr. Perez, thank you. I appreciate you being here
to testify. And just a couple of things. I would like to start
out with some clarification.
I know that we have perhaps a better perspective in the
rear view mirror, so I am looking back on that date in 2009.
And I am thinking of an exchange that took place between
yourself and Mr. Gohmert. And that question that he asked was,
did you review or did you watch the video of the New Black
Panthers. Do you recall that question?
Mr. Perez. I do not recall the question, but I know the
answer to the question. And the answer is yes.
Mr. King. Okay, thank you. And I would just point out for
the Committee that Mr. Gohmert, although he is not able to be
here today, asked that question five times before he got that
straight answer. And I appreciate the clarity that comes today.
I do not think we had it then.
And I would see if we could clarify something else again.
On that day, you testified that the maximum penalty was
obtained against the, let me say, perpetrator, singular, of the
voter intimidation of the New Black Panthers. Do you believe
that today, that the maximum penalty was obtained?
Mr. Perez. The maximum penalty in that case was injunctive
relief, and that is the maximum penalty under Section 11 of the
Voting Rights Act. If Congress wants to expand the penalties,
we would be happy to have that discussion. So, that was the
maximum penalty. And as I recall----
Mr. King. Would I be naive if I were led to believe that
injunctive relief was a clear and concise definition under the
law, that everybody else here understands the scope of
injunctive relief, or could you describe the full scope of
injunctive relief that was available as a means to bring
against the defendant?
Mr. Perez. The scope of injunctive relief depends on the
scope of the violation. And once the national party and the
leader of the national party were dismissed from the case, then
the scope of the relief had to, by force of law, be
appropriately and narrowly tailored to fit the violation.
Mr. King. Could it have been more narrowly tailored than it
actually was then?
Mr. Perez. I would have to review that to figure out the
narrow tailoring. What I would note is that, again, looking at
the OPR report, the OPR looked at this precise question,
Congressman, and concluded that the relief sought was indeed
appropriate given the application of the facts and law in that
particular case. So, OPR looked----
Mr. King. And so, the definition then of injunctive relief
might be narrow or it might be broad. But are you testifying
before this Committee that the injunctive relief could not have
been more broad? Could it not have gone beyond Philadelphia,
for example, into other jurisdictions, perhaps nationwide?
Could it have not extended beyond the 2012 election? This
injunction is just about ready to expire. After the next
election, it is over. So, is it not possible that the
injunctive relief could have been greater than that that was
achieved?
Mr. Perez. Again, as I understand the law, sir, an
injunction must be narrowly tailored to the violation. And the
key in this particular case was that once the national party
and the leader of the national party were dismissed, then the
injunctive relief had to be appropriately and narrowly
tailored----
Mr. King. Let me submit that I believe that could have been
a nationwide injunction, and that it could have gone on in
perpetuity, and no one should be passed the statute of, let me
say, the injunction limitations by a single election being
ahead of them.
What about the decision to drop the case against the other
alleged defendants that were allegedly involved in that
Philadelphia case?
Mr. Nadler. Would the gentleman yield for clarification for
a second?
Mr. King. In a moment. I will yield when my time runs out.
It is very close right now. Thank you.
But the decision to drop the cases against the other
individuals, you testified, was made not by political, but by
career employees. And I think the names were Loretta King and
Mr. Rosenbaum. Does that still remain the case, or would you
wish to clarify that before the Committee?
Mr. Perez. The decision was made by Loretta King and Steve
Rosenbaum, two people who are career attorneys in the Division
with combined experience of roughly 60 years or so.
Mr. King. And it was not overruled or reviewed with input
from political appointees, Perelli and Hirsch?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, as I have described before the
commission, any time you make a decision--I have a regular
Thursday meeting with the Associate Attorney General and other
people on the leadership chain. When you are making a decision,
I am about to do something, an issue in case A. We are about
to----
Mr. King. But the question was, it was not overruled by or
influenced unduly by political appointees?
Mr. Perez. No. And, again, the OPR report concluded, and
they did not say that there was scant evidence or insufficient
evidence of political interference. They said there was no
evidence of political interference.
Mr. King. Mr. Perez, would you get back to this Committee
in response to the question, was it possible under the law to
broaden this injunctive relief to jurisdictions beyond
Philadelphia and extend it beyond the 2012 election? I think
the specificity with that is going to tell us is whether we got
the straightest of answers the last time in December of 2009.
And I am frustrated that the Department has so many allegations
against it that it has focused on issues that have to do with
this loading on the side of minorities when equal justice under
the law, as you're charged and you testified to that here
today, that narratives that come out and the evidence that
there is is replete across the country. And so, I am concerned
that Lady Justice is and truly blindfolded, and that you
address these issues without regard to skin color or ethnicity,
national origin.
And so, at this point, I do thank you for your testimony,
and I hope you can identify for this Committee some time when
you bring a case against someone in a very clear way. And I
know you have discussed it, but I would like to have some
details about the case that you brought that is part of the
package that you brought, which is the race role if you please.
And now, I know the gentleman from New York has asked if I
would yield, and I would be happy to do so?
Mr. Nadler. Thank you. I just want to clarify a matter. I
am told that the injunction has not in fact expired and will
not expire. The jurisdiction of the court to supervise
enforcement of the injunction will expire, but the injunction
does not expire.
Mr. King. Well, I thank the gentleman for his input and
yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Franks. Thank you.
And I now recognize the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Scott,
for 5 minutes.
Mr. Scott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perez, about 70 years ago this month, President
Roosevelt signed an executive order, 8802, which prohibited
discrimination in any defense contracts. In '65, President
Johnson signed an executive order expanding that. So, there has
been no discrimination in Federal contracts at all until
recently.
Under your administration, is it possible for
administrators of Federal programs to discriminate based on
religion; that is, to tell somebody they are not qualified for
a job paid for with Federal money solely because of their
religion?
Mr. Perez. Again, sir, I think we have had this
conversation a number of times.
Mr. Scott. Yeah. Well, the answer yes or no?
Mr. Perez. And, again, if there are legal questions that
arise with the administration of a program, we will look at the
specific individual facts of a particular case to determine
whether there is in fact discrimination. And if we find that
there is in fact discrimination, we will indeed take
appropriate action.
Mr. Scott. Does that mean if a program sponsor said we do
not hire people of your religion, you would take action?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, I need to know the totality of the
circumstances, which is why it is difficult----
Mr. Scott. If it is a faith-based organization running a
federally-funded program and they have an articulated policy of
discriminating solely on religion, is that legal under your
administration?
Mr. Perez. Again, sir, we are committed, as I have said, to
ensuring that we enforce these laws that you are describing
consistent with the----
Mr. Scott. Does the law allow the discrimination or not?
Mr. Perez. Again, sir, I need more facts. And that is why--
--
Mr. Scott. Faith-based organization----
Mr. Perez [continuing]. When Congressman Nadler asked
about----
Mr. Scott. Are you telling me----
Mr. Perez. When Congressman Nadler asked about the voter ID
laws, they are very fact intensive. These particular issues are
similarly fact intensive. We are very concerned about the
issues that you brought up. I have had, as you know, multiple
conversations with you about these issues. And, again, I am
more than willing to continue to----
Mr. Scott. And you have not acknowledged publicly that it
is legal under your administration for a program to
discriminate solely on religion. And you just will not
acknowledge it. I mean, are you too embarrassed about the
policy----
Mr. Perez. Sir----
Mr. Scott [continuing]. To say, yes, under your
administration, there are certain sponsors that can
discriminate solely based on religion?
Mr. Perez. Sir, what I have said, Congressman, is that I
want to look at the totality of the circumstances. If there
is----
Mr. Scott. I said is it possible.
Mr. Perez. It is certainly possible that such
discrimination would be there. But I do not like to----
Mr. Scott. Well, not there. I said legal.
Mr. Perez. I do not want to issue categorical statements,
sir, because absent of specifics of a given factual
circumstance, it is, I think, ill advised to render broad
opinions, just as----
Mr. Scott. It is not a broad opinion. I just asked you
simply whether it is possible under your administration for any
sponsor of a federally-funded program to have an articulated
policy discriminating against people solely based on religion
or not. Is it possible?
Mr. Perez. Sir, again, I will reiterate what I have said
today and a few other times.
Mr. Scott. If the answer is yes, it is possible, faith-
based organizations have the right----
Mr. Perez. Yes, it is, sir, it is possible. But, again, I
need to understand the----
Mr. Scott. Did you say it was possible?
Mr. Perez. Sir, could I hear the rest of your question,
sir?
Mr. Scott. Is it possible for a faith-based organization to
tell a job applicant that we do not hire people of your
religion, even though you would be paid with Federal money?
Mr. Perez. Oh, okay. I thought you asked the opposite
question. Is it possible that such activity would constitute
discrimination, and I said, yes, it is possible. We would have
to look at the totality of the circumstances.
Mr. Scott. And the other question is, of course it is
discrimination. Is it legal?
Mr. Perez. Unlawful discrimination.
Mr. Scott. Can it be legal? Can it be legal?
Mr. Perez. It is possible that the circumstances you
described would constitute unlawful discrimination, which is
why I would want to look at the totality of the circumstances.
Mr. Scott. It is possible that it could be unlawful, and it
is possible that it could be lawful.
Mr. Perez. And it all depends on the factual circumstances
of the matter. And so, that is why I would want to----
Mr. Scott. So, getting back to my original question that
you do not want to answer, because I assume you are just too
embarrassed to have a declaratory sentence that it is possible
under your administration to run a federally-funded program and
have an articulated policy of discriminating solely based on
religion in employment. Is it possible?
Mr. Perez. As a general matter, Congressman--I will see if
I can attempt to address your question again--it is unlawful
for any employer to have a policy specifically discriminating
against employees of a particular religion, such as Catholics
or Jews--if you put a sign up, no Catholics need apply.
However, qualifying religious organizations may give employment
preferences to co-religionists. And so, the question of whether
and under what circumstances a particular religious
organization may prefer co-religionists in employment with
respect to positions funded by the U.S. is indeed complicated,
fact driven, and context dependent. And that is why it is
impossible for me to give you a categorical one size fits all
answer.
Mr. Scott. I did not ask for one size fits all. I asked you
to acknowledge that under your administration it is possible to
run a program and have an articulated policy of employment
discrimination solely based on religion. And all you have given
is a bunch of mumbo jumbo avoiding the question. The answer is
yes. Yes, you can under certain circumstances tell a job
applicant, no, you cannot have a job because we do not hire
people of your religion. And that is the answer, and you refuse
to give it, I assume, because you are too embarrassed to
acknowledge the fact.
Mr. Perez. Sir, I have done my best to answer your
question. I apologize that it is not good enough for you.
Mr. Franks. With that, I want to thank the witness for his
testimony. And without objection, all Members will have 5
legislative days to submit to the Chair additional written
questions for Mr. Perez, including you, Mr. Scott, which we
will forward and ask Mr. Perez to respond promptly so that his
answers may be made part of the record.
And without objection, all Members will have 5 legislative
days within which to submit any additional materials for
inclusion in the record.
And with that, again, I thank the Members, and I thank Mr.
Perez and the observers.
And this hearing is now adjourned.
Mr. Perez. Thank you for your courtesy.
[Whereupon, at 12:53 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Material Submitted for the Hearing Record
Post-Hearing Questions submitted to the Honorable Thomas E. Perez,
Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of
Justice
__________
Response to Post-Hearing Questions from the U.S. Department of Justice
Prepared Statement of Sean Bennett