[Senate Hearing 112-940]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-940
PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS
OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
----------
MARCH 29, 2011
----------
Serial No. J-112-11
----------
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
S. Hrg. 112-940
PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS
OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION,
CIVIL RIGHTS AND HUMAN RIGHTS
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 29, 2011
__________
Serial No. J-112-11
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
20-265 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing
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
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa, Ranking
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California Member
CHUCK SCHUMER, New York ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
DICK DURBIN, Illinois JON KYL, Arizona
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights
DICK DURBIN, Illinois, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina,
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island Ranking Member
AL FRANKEN, Minnesota JON KYL, Arizona
CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Joseph Zogby, Democratic Chief Counsel
Walt Kuhn, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
MARCH 29, 2011, 10:02 A.M.
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Blumenthal, Hon. Richard, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Connecticut.................................................... 10
Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois..... 1
Graham, Hon. Lindsey, a U.S. Senator from the State of South
Carolina....................................................... 3
Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 9
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 5
prepared statement........................................... 80
WITNESSES
Witness List..................................................... 39
Acosta, R. Alexander, Dean, College of Law, Florida International
University, Miami, Florida..................................... 29
prepared statement........................................... 74
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Maryland....................................................... 7
Khera, Farhana, President and Executive Director, Muslim
Advocates, San Francisco, California........................... 25
prepared statement........................................... 48
McCarrick, Cardinal Theodore E., Archbishop Emeritus of
Washington on behalf of the United States Conference of
Catholic Bishops, Washington, DC............................... 27
prepared statement........................................... 68
Perez, Hon. Thomas E., Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC........... 10
prepared statement........................................... 40
QUESTIONS
Questions submitted to Hon. Thomas E. Perez by Senator Grassley.. 82
Questions submitted to Hon. Thomas E. Perez by Senator Kyl....... 83
ANSWERS
Responses of Hon. Thomas E. Perez to questions submitted by
Senators Grassley and Kyl...................................... 86
MISCELLANEOUS SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Alliance for Justice, March 29, 2011, statement.................. 117
American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), Laura W. Murphy, Director,
Washington Legislative Office, and Michael W. Macleod-Ball,
Chief of Staff and First Amendment Counsel, statement.......... 94
American Humanist Association (AHA), David Niose, President,
statement...................................................... 118
American Jewish Committee (AJC), Richard T. Foltin, Esq.,
Director, National and Legislative Affairs, Office of
Government and International Affairs, statement................ 119
Amnesty International USA, Larry Cox, Executive Director,
statement...................................................... 124
Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Robert G. Sugarman, National Chair,
and Abraham H. Foxman, National Director, statement............ 128
Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago, Ahlam Jbara,
Associate Director, statement.................................. 182
Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), Corey P. Saylor,
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 130
Council on American-Islamic Relations, Chicago Chapter (CAIR-
Chicago), Chicago, Illinois, statement......................... 143
Ellison, Hon. Keith, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Minnesota, Fifth District, statement........................ 180
Friends Committee on National Legislation (FCNL), March 29, 2011,
statement...................................................... 197
General Board of Church and Society of The United Methodist
Church, Washington, DC, statement.............................. 199
Human Rights First (HRF), Paul Legendre, Director, Fighting
Discrimination Program, statement.............................. 201
Interfaith Alliance, Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, President,
statement...................................................... 217
Interfaith Worker Justice (IWJ), Thomas Shellabarger, Public
Policy Associate, statement.................................... 218
Intersections International, C. Eduardo Vargas, Director of
Advocacy & Public Policy, statement............................ 219
Islamic Society of North America, March 29, 2011, statement...... 222
Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, The, Wade
Henderson, President and Chief Executive Officer, statement.... 224
Mennonite Central Committee U.S. (MCC), Christina Warner,
Legislative Assistant for Domestic Affairs, Washington Office,
statement...................................................... 227
Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF), Michael L.
``Mikey'' Weinstein, Founder and President, statement.......... 228
Muslim Public Affairs Council, March 29, 2011, statement......... 282
National Immigration Forum, Washington, DC, statement............ 286
Past Congressional Hearings on Discrimination Against Religious
Groups, the United States Senate and the United States House of
Representatives, list.......................................... 105
Religious Bias Crimes (2000-2009): Muslim, Christian, and Jewish
Victims--Debunking the Myth of a Growing Trend in Muslim
Victimization, Clare M. Lopez, Roland Peer, and Christine Brim,
study.......................................................... 107
Rights Working Group (RWG), Margaret Huang, Executive Director,
statement...................................................... 287
Shoulder-to-Shoulder: Standing With American Muslims; Upholding
American Values, March 29, 2011, statement..................... 310
Sikh American Legal Defense and Education Fund (SALDEF),
Washington, DC, statement...................................... 300
Sikh Coalition, March 29, 2011, statement........................ 312
Sojourners, Jim Wallis, President and Chief Executive Officer,
statement...................................................... 318
South Asian Americans Leading Together (SAALT), Takoma Park,
Maryland, statement............................................ 292
Southern Poverty Law Center, J. Richard Cohen, President,
statement...................................................... 321
Unitarian Universalist Association (UUA), The, March 28, 2011,
statement...................................................... 340
University of Delaware, Dr. Muqtedar Khan, Associate Professor,
Fellow, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding,
statement...................................................... 189
PROTECTING THE CIVIL RIGHTS
OF AMERICAN MUSLIMS
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 29, 2011
United States Senate,
Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and
Human Rights,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Dick Durbin,
Chairman of the Subcommittee, presiding.
Present: Senators Leahy, Coons, Blumenthal, Graham, and
Kyl.
Also Present: Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DICK DURBIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS
Chairman Durbin. This hearing of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Human Rights will come to order.
Today is the first hearing of this new Subcommittee, formed
by the merging of the Constitution Subcommittee with the Human
Rights and the Law Subcommittee, which I chaired for the last 4
years.
I want to personally thank Chairman Pat Leahy for giving me
the chance to chair this new Subcommittee. I look forward to
working with Senator Lindsey Graham, my friend and colleague
and the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, and the other
Members of the Subcommittee who will join us. And after a few
remarks from me, after a few of my own personal remarks, I will
recognize Senator Leahy and Senator Graham.
I think it is appropriate to hold the first hearing of this
new Subcommittee on what is often called the Constitution's
``First Freedom''--the freedom of religion.
Many of our Nation's founders fled religious persecution,
and they placed great importance on religious freedom. George
Washington summed up the prevailing view when he said, and I
quote: ``In this land of equal liberty, it is our boast that a
man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the
law.''
Despite the Framers' best intentions, throughout our
history many religious minorities have faced intolerance.
The lynching of Leo Frank in 1915 is one infamous example,
and anti-Semitism continues to be significant in America.
Often, prejudice has been directed at the religions of
recent immigrants. In the last century, it was Catholics from
places like Ireland, Italy, and Lithuania--my mother's country
of origin--whose loyalties were questioned.
I brought to this hearing a family treasure. One hundred
years ago, in 1911, my grandmother landed in Baltimore,
Maryland, from Lithuania. She brought with her my mother, 2
years old; and my aunt and uncle; and they came down off the
boat in Baltimore and somehow found their way to my grandfather
in East St. Louis, Illinois. I have no idea how they made that
journey not speaking a word of English.
There is no physical evidence left of that journey but this
little book. Cardinal, it is a Catholic prayer book written in
Lithuanian, printed in 1863, which at the time of their
immigration was contraband. The czar had ordered that all
prayer books had to be written in Russian. My grandmother, whom
I never knew, knew that if she brought this prayer book to
America, she would have the freedom to use it. And I remembered
that, and it is one of the reasons why this is the first
hearing. This freedom of religion meant so much to my
grandmother, who was no constitutional scholar, but she knew
that America guaranteed that freedom, and that is what this
hearing is all about.
Today American Muslims from the Middle East and South Asia
are facing similar discrimination. Attorney General Eric Holder
put it well when he said that anti-Muslim bigotry is ``the
civil rights issue of our time.''
This backlash began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
In fear and anger, some Americans wrongly struck out at
innocent Muslims, Arabs, South Asians, and Sikhs.
Since 9/11, we have worked to combat terrorism. We continue
to solicit and receive the support of many Muslim Americans who
love this Nation and work with our Government to protect it. At
the same time, many law-abiding Muslim Americans face
discrimination and charges that they are not real Americans
simply because of their religion.
This debate will continue, but terrorism is not the subject
of today's hearing.
We should all agree that it is wrong to blame an entire
community for the wrongdoing of a few. Guilt by association is
not the American way. And American Muslims are entitled to the
same constitutional protections as every other American.
I had many differences with President George W. Bush, but
he showed real leadership after 9/11, when he made it clear
that our war was with the terrorists who perverted the
teachings of Islam, not with Muslims who were faithful to what
he called ``a faith based upon love, not hate.''
Congress also spoke with a clear voice. I cosponsored a
resolution with John Sununu, who was then the only Arab-
American in the Senate, who condemned anti-Muslim and anti-Arab
bigotry and said that American Muslims ``are vibrant, peaceful,
and law-abiding, and have greatly contributed to American
society.'' Our resolution passed both chambers of Congress
unanimously.
Today, President Obama continues to speak out as forcefully
as President Bush, even though President Obama is challenged by
a chorus of harsh voices:
A leading Member of Congress stated bluntly, ``There are
too many mosques in this country.''
A former Speaker of the House falsely claimed, ``America is
experiencing an Islamist cultural-political offensive designed
to undermine and destroy our civilization.''
And even a prominent religious leader said Islam is
``wicked'' and ``evil.''
Some have even questioned the premise of today's hearing--
that we should protect the civil rights of American Muslims.
Such inflammatory speech from prominent public figures
creates a fertile climate for discrimination. It is not
surprising that the Anti-Defamation League says we face ``an
intensified level of anti-Muslim bigotry.''
Last year, the Southern Poverty Law Center, which tracks
hate groups, designated five anti-Muslim hate groups for the
first time. And we have seen anti-Muslim hate crimes,
employment discrimination, bullying in schools, restrictions on
mosque construction, and Quran burnings.
Sadly, this is a nationwide phenomenon, including my home
State of Illinois. To take just one example, a man was recently
sentenced to 15 months in prison for blowing up the van of a
Palestinian-American family that was parked in front of the
family's home in Burbank, Illinois.
It is our Government's responsibility to prevent and punish
this kind of illegal discrimination. And it is incumbent on all
Americans who love this Nation and the values our Constitution
protects to make it clear that defending the civil rights of
our Muslim neighbors is as important as the rights of
Christians, Jews, and even non-believers.
Of course, the First Amendment protects not just the free
exercise of religion but also freedom of speech. But all of us,
especially those of us in public life, have a responsibility to
choose our words carefully. We must condemn anti-Muslim bigotry
and make it clear that we will not tolerate religious
discrimination in our communities.
We can protect our Nation and still protect the fundamental
freedoms of our Bill of Rights.
I would like to acknowledge Senator Leahy is here. I will
let him----
Chairman Leahy. No, go to Senator Graham.
Chairman Durbin. Okay. Senator Graham, if you will proceed,
and then I will be happy to let Senator Leahy, the Chairman,
make a statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LINDSEY GRAHAM,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Senator Graham. Well, thank you. To Senator Durbin, this is
a hearing that we need to have, quite frankly. These are
difficult issues. And, you know, what does it mean to practice
religion in America? Well, it means that I have to stand up for
your right to pursue your religion because if I do not stand up
for your right, you will not stand up for mine.
But part of freedom of religion and speech means that we
can disagree. People can say, ``The one thing I have learned
about freedom of speech, you can go to a funeral of an American
serviceman who has been killed in action and say awful things
in the name of freedom of speech.'' I am not so sure--I know I
do not agree with the decision, but we are going to have to
understand that religions are formed because people have
different views. And it is okay to argue. There are just lines
you cannot cross. And we are living in a rule-of-law society,
so I stand by Senator Durbin and anyone else who wants to send
a message. You can have your disagreements, but there are lines
we are not going to allow you to cross.
There are thousands of American Muslims serving in our
military, and to anyone who will wear the uniform and protect
America, God bless you. And that is the unique thing about
America, that we are able to attract a wide group of people
with different views who will fight for a common cause. And so
I do understand where you are coming from.
But there are some real issues to be dealt with. Can we do
two things at once. Can we stand up for the rights of Muslim
Americans? I think the answer is unequivocally, yes, we must,
because if any one group suffers, all of us suffer.
But we are going to have to come to grips with two things
that are going on in the world. There are some things going on
in the world and there are some things being said in this
country that are disturbing. But there are efforts to recruit
and radicalize young Muslims in America that have to be dealt
with, and I can show you the statistics. What is going on in
Europe, we are not immune from that. So the idea that we want
to get ahead of an enemy who is trying to come to our shores
and radicalize people in our country is a part of this war, and
we are at war.
What is going on in Scotland and England when you have
doctors that attack an airport, when you have young men raised
in London blow themselves up in a subway? Why should we be
immune from that? So to the American Muslim Community, I will
stand with you to practice your faith and be an integral part
of this country. But you are going to have to help your
country, probably uniquely compared to anyone else, understand
what is going on and fight back. The front lines of this war
are at our own back door, in our own neighborhoods. So to the
American Muslim community, I will stand with you as you
practice your religion and you exercise your rights under the
Constitution. But I am asking you to get in this fight as a
community and let it be known to your young people that there
are lines that you will not cross, and there are radical
messages being spread by people who would kill every moderate
Muslim, Jew, Gentile, and agnostic alike, that we are all in
this together.
I have been to Iraq and Afghanistan enough to know that the
biggest victim of radical Islam are fellow Muslims who choose
to just basically try to live their life apart from this
radical agenda, and for that they meet sometimes a very bad
fate. So we are all in this one together. We are all in America
together. We must stand up for each other. And to Senator
Durbin, I will try to do my part as a Republican to let my
party and anyone listening know that I totally get it when it
comes to freedom of religion and the ability to practice
different faiths. But I would like everyone in the country to
know, including Muslim Americans, that the agenda being set by
people who are trying to radicalize young Muslims here in
America and throughout the world, it is just as bad for the
Muslim-American community as it is for anyone else, because
maybe the worst offender of all is someone who practices the
faith but rejects their ideology. People in the Mideast who are
trying to separate themselves from this radical minority
movement within the Muslim faith need our help, and that is why
we need to help those people in Libya who are trying to replace
Qaddafi. We need to stand by these young people in Egypt who
are trying to chart a different path. And you will never
convince me that the young women who went into the square in
Egypt want to replace Mubarak with the Muslim Brotherhood or al
Qaeda.
So we live in very complicated, interesting times, but it
always helps to keep it simple. The simple thing for America is
to understand that if we cannot accept differences among faith,
then maybe yours is next. And the simple thing for every
American to understand is that we are at war with an ideology
that has no capital to conquer, no air force to shoot down, or
no navy to sink. And we are going to have to work hard, and
together, to win. To the Muslim-American community, get in this
fight and protect your young people and your Nation from
radicalization.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Leahy.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Durbin, and thank you
for holding this hearing. I think it is extraordinarily
important, and I am delighted this is the first hearing you and
Senator Graham are going to have with your Subcommittee.
We know that the FBI Director has testified before this
Committee and others that, in the past few years, there has
been a dramatic increase in the activities of domestic hate
groups. Some of these activities have resulted in attacks
targeting the American Muslim community. To make matters worse,
some leaders, as Senator Durbin pointed out, have sought to sow
fear and divisiveness against American Muslims. Fanning the
flames of hate against those with different faith traditions
runs contrary to our American values. Remember, our Nation was
founded in large part on the importance of religious freedom.
I welcome the renewed focus by some on our fundamental
charter, the Constitution of the United States. But I would
remind everybody the Constitution is not a menu with options to
choose based on the political whims of the moment. Instead, it
is a Constitution that sets forth freedoms and protections for
all of us.
The First Amendment in our Bill of Rights is one of the
most defining principles of our national character. It
preserves all our other rights. By guaranteeing a free press
and the free exercise of religion, it ensures an informed
electorate and the freedom to worship God as we choose--or not
to worship as we choose. Our choice. It guarantees diversity.
If you guarantee diversity and protect the idea of diversity,
you guarantee democracy.
Now, throughout the history of the world, religious
minorities have been persecuted and maligned. There is a long
list of religions whose members have been systematically denied
freedom and categorically stigmatized, even exterminated. We
must never forget this when we consider religious freedom and
religious minorities in this country.
All Americans deserve civil rights protections and the
freedoms provided in the Constitution. That does not end with
the vital freedoms in the First Amendment. It continues to
ensure due process and equal protection. It is bolstered by
important civil rights laws that we have passed to guarantee
there not be discrimination against religion.
Members of the Committee worked with the late Senator Ted
Kennedy and myself over the past several decades to ensure this
fundamental freedom. We worked together to pass the Religious
Freedom Restoration Act and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act. It has long been a bipartisan
issue in the Senate, but more important than being a bipartisan
issue, religious freedom, it has been a consistent American
value. And that is what really counts the most. American
Muslims, like all Americans, must be protected by the rule of
law that upholds these constitutional and statutory
protections.
We passed the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act to
strengthen the civil rights of all Americans. We responded to
law enforcement concerns about the difficulty of bringing
criminal prosecutors against those who target their victims
because of their religion or ethnicity, their race, their
gender, and so on.
Last year, in the run-up to the national elections, the
rhetoric became even more heated and threatening. There were
threats of Koran burnings, and some have even asserted that
Muslim Americans are not entitled to the protection of the
First Amendment. That comment should shock and offend anyone
who claims to love and respect the Constitution.
Others on the radical right have suggested that Islam, one
of the oldest and widely practiced religions on earth, is
somehow not a religion at all and so its followers should not
have the protections of the First Amendment. That is nonsense,
and I would hope that Americans will remember why our Founding
Fathers established this great Nation when they hear this kind
of divisive rhetoric.
I am glad to see the Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights, Tom Perez, here; a former Assistant Attorney General
for Civil Rights, Alex Acosta; and a former Judiciary Committee
counsel, Farhana Khera, here for the hearing. But I am also
pleased that one of the leading voices of the Catholic Church
in America is here to testify. Cardinal McCarrick's testimony
reminds us that we Catholics also had our loyalty to America
questioned--not just in the earliest days of our Republic, but
during the lifetimes of many of us.
My friend Dick Durbin referred to the Irish and the
Italians and the Lithuanians. I knew exactly what he was
saying. My Irish ancestors faced this when they first came even
to Vermont, now one of the most tolerant States in the country.
My father as a teenager faced signs that said ``No Irish need
apply,'' or usually more directly, ``No Catholics need apply.''
My Italian grandparents in a small town with an Italian
community were seen as different. My mother and uncles and
aunts, they spoke a strange language where some who have heard
some of the Vermont accents might think that is a strange
language. But when they had Mass, the priest would have to come
in the back door and the curtains had to be drawn, shades had
to be drawn. Now, that would be inconceivable today.
Members of the Senate of other faiths also know from their
own experience that religious and ethnic bigotry can be easy to
ignite and very difficult to extinguish. I agree with Cardinal
McCarrick that ``religious freedom is destroyed by attacks on
people . . . because of their religion and by the terrible
misuse of religion to incite hatred and even justify
violence.'' When divisive religious rhetoric is used for
partisan advantage, it demeans the principles upon which this
great Nation was founded.
So, Mr. Chairman, I thank you.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Patrick J. Leahy
appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. I appreciate
that comment. I know that the Chairman takes great pride in his
Irish-Italian heritage, and I have told him he is where the
Gaelic meets the garlic.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. We have a returning Member here. Senator
Ben Cardin was a great Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee
for many years and now has gone on to other things--I will not
say better things, but other things. But he still continues as
Co-Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission on Human Rights, and
he has asked for an opportunity to give an opening statement
and participate in this hearing. Senator Cardin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Chairman Durbin and Senator Graham,
thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing. I
appreciate that very much.
The right to freely profess and practice a faith or not
practice a faith is a fundamental right in our country. After
more than 200 years, our First Amendment, which states that
Congress shall make no laws respecting an establishment of a
religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, continues to
be the envy of people around the world. Even before the First
Amendment was ratified, the Constitution contained a very
important provision in Article VI, Section 3, that requires all
Federal and State officials to swear an oath or affirmation to
support the Constitution that provides that no religious test
shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or
public trust under the United States.
In my own State of Maryland, only Christians could have
full participation in public life until the Maryland General
Assembly acted in 1825 to pass the so-called Jew bill. I think
my ancestors would have been proud to see me elected to the
Maryland House of Delegates, the House of Representatives, and
now the United States Senate. Among other reasons, my
grandparents also came to this country in search of greater
religious freedom and tolerance. Yet today, notwithstanding the
protections in our Constitution and laws, I am very concerned
that we are witnessing the demonization of a particular
religion. For the last decade, Muslim Americans have been the
target of a growing wave of anti-Muslim bigotry. It is our
obligation to talk about this growing problem and what steps
the Government can take to reverse this trend and protect the
civil rights of Muslims and all Americans.
In the 111th Congress, we took an important step forward to
protect civil rights, and that was the enactment of the Matthew
Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Prevention Act of 2009. This
legislation gives the Justice Department new tools to combat
hate crimes around the country and strengthens the ability of
DOJ to pursue these hate crimes, including hate crimes based on
religion.
The Justice Department has indeed stepped up its
enforcement to combat hate crimes and discrimination against
Muslim Americans. I applaud these actions whether in the
criminal law enforcement or aggressive enforcement of our Civil
Rights Act, and I do note our first witness, Tom Perez, has
been a real leader in that regard.
In 1975, the United States joined all the countries of
Europe and established the Conference on Security and
Cooperation in Europe, now known as the OSCE. The United States
Congress created the U.S. Helsinki Commission to monitor the
U.S. participation and compliance with these commitments. I am
the Senate Chair of the U.S. Helsinki Commission. In that
capacity, I have raised religious and human rights issues in
other countries, such as France when in the name of national
security the parliament banned burqas or the wearing of other
religious articles or when the Swiss restricted the building of
mosques or minarets. These policies restricted not only the
religious practices of Muslims but also Christians and Jews.
I have also raised human rights issues in the United States
when we are out of compliance with our Helsinki commitments.
The United States, as a signatory of the 1975 Helsinki Final
Act, has accepted a body of international commitments related
to the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. In the OSCE
context, the United States has pledged to promote a climate of
mutual respect, understanding, cooperation, and solidarity
among all persons living in its territory without distinction
to its ethnic or national origin on religion, and will
encourage the solution of problems through dialogue.
The United States has played a leadership role with the
OSCE, including the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly, to focus on
various aspects of intolerance and discrimination, including
against Muslims. The Helsinki Commission has been in the
forefront of many related initiatives. During the 111th
Congress, I chaired a Commission hearing in which we heard from
special representatives from the OSCE, specifically to monitor
and report on discrimination. Among those testifying was the
OSCE Personal Representative on Combating Intolerance and
Discrimination Against Muslims.
The Senate is taking another important step in complying
with our OSCE commitments by holding this hearing. We need to
encourage the Muslim community in the United States and to
engage with them, and I applaud the Chairman for holding this
hearing.
We cannot allow individuals or groups to pit Americans
against another based on our religious beliefs. This only
weakens our country and its freedoms. Let us hold dear the
protections in our Constitution that safeguard the individual
rights to freely practice their religion. Our country's
strength lies in its diversity and our ability to have strongly
held beliefs and differences of opinion while being able to
speak freely and not fear reprisals for holding a religious
belief that is not shared by the majority of Americans. We need
to stand up against intolerance and injustice. Let us come
together as a Nation and move forward in a more constructive
and hopeful manner.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Cardin, thank you. It is great to
have you back on this panel.
Senator Kyl.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA
Senator Kyl. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
holding a hearing where you could entice Cardinal McCarrick to
come back and visit with us. We will appreciate hearing from
him.
If this hearing reaffirms the need for all Americans to
respect each other's faith, then I am sure we can all agree.
But if it is part of a narrative that says it is improper to
point out the obvious, that too many young Muslims are being
radicalized to join jihad and everyone should stand against
that, then count me out. The only way to stop terrorists is to
recognize where they are coming from. Political correctness
cannot stand in the way of identifying those who would do us
harm. Nor can we ignore the First Amendment protections.
I am a bit perplexed by the focus of today's hearing. If we
are concerned about the most egregious religious hate crimes,
then I wonder why we are not talking about crimes against Jews
and Christians. According to the last year for which statistics
are available from the Department of Justice regarding hate
crimes based on religious bias, 71.9 percent were victims
because of an offender's anti-Jewish bias--almost 72 percent--
8.4 because of anti-Islamic bias, about 6.4 because of anti-
Christian bias. So I wonder where our priorities are here.
And how about the persecution in some Muslim countries
today? How about the persecution of some in Muslim communities
who are former Muslims who have converted to another faith or
no faith at all?
The point here is all bigotry is to be condemned, but we
are only credible if we are principled in our condemnation.
Selective indignation is not helpful.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Kyl.
I would like to ask consent to enter into the record the
two-page list of hearings that have been held in both the House
and the Senate relating to discrimination against specific
religious groups, including Jews and Christians, and note that
this is the first hearing relating to any discrimination
against those of the Muslim religion. I think it is obvious
that we condemn prejudice and bigotry against all religious
groups.
Senator Blumenthal, do you have a statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD BLUMENTHAL,
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT
Senator Blumenthal. I would just like to thank you, Senator
Durbin, and also Senator Graham, for conducting this hearing,
which I think is by no means, as I understand it, intended to
exhaust the subject, going to the point that Senator Kyl very
appropriately makes. But I think that it really is designed to
raise awareness and show our own commitment to fighting
bigotry, hatred, prejudice, intolerance wherever it may exist.
The United States right now is involved in a war against
terror. In this very building, two floors below us, there is an
ongoing hearing that springs from the war against terror before
the Armed Services Committee. In that hearing, there is
discussion about the service and sacrifice made by men and
women wearing the uniform in places around the globe that we
can barely pronounce. They are there to defend those values of
freedom and democracy that really we celebrate today by having
this hearing and recognizing the threats to our own freedom and
democracy when we fail to defend it here at home.
As intolerable as injustice and intolerance are in this
country, as dangerous as intolerance and injustice, is
indifference, when we are indifferent to hatred and bigotry
against anyone based on religion or the content of what people
say. And I believe that we are here today so that we can help
protect those values at home that are threatened by terrorists
abroad and can make sure that every individual is protected in
his or her exercise of religion and speech.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Blumenthal.
At this point I would like to turn to our first witness.
Thomas Perez is the Assistant Attorney General for the Civil
Rights Division in the Justice Department. And if you will
please standing first and raise your right hand. Do you affirm
that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee
will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
so help you God?
Mr. Perez. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Let the record reflect that the witness
has answered in the affirmative.
Mr. Perez, thank you for being here. Please proceed with
your opening statement, and we will have some follow-up
questions.
STATEMENT OF HON. THOMAS E. PEREZ, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, WASHINGTON,
DC
Mr. Perez. Thank you, Chairman Durbin, Ranking Member
Graham, and Members of the Subcommittee. My name is Tom Perez.
It is an honor to be back in front of this Committee. I know my
former boss, Senator Kennedy, is here in spirit today, and it
is a real honor to be here to talk about this critical issue
with, among others, my home-State Senator, Senator Cardin.
Within hours of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, Muslim
Americans, Arab Americans, Sikh Americans, and South Asian
Americans nationwide were confronted with a powerful backlash.
There was a surge of violence targeting these groups, including
threats, assaults, arson, and murder. Two days after the
attacks, an individual attempted to set fire to cars in the
parking lot of a mosque in Seattle and shouted at worshipers
fleeing the mosque. On the same day, an individual set fire to
a Pakistani-American restaurant in Utah. The first person
killed in post-9/11 violence, Balbir Singh Sodhi, was a Sikh,
shot while pumping gas at his service station in Arizona 4 days
after 9/11. In the 3\1/2\ months following the attacks, more
than 300 Federal criminal investigations were initiated.
There was also an increase in other instances of
discrimination. On the afternoon of 9/11, a hotel in Iowa
canceled the reservation that an Arab-American group had made
to host a convention.
The Federal Government, under President Bush's leadership,
responded forcefully. The Civil Rights Division's Criminal
Section created a task force to address hate crimes. Then the
civil litigating sections ramped up their work to combat other
forms of discrimination.
Our predecessors built a solid foundation. Over the last 2
years, we have worked to build upon that foundation and expand
our efforts to engage with the communities to ensure that we
are fulfilling our responsibility to protect their civil
rights.
One of my predecessors, who is here today, Alex Acosta, was
the leader in the administration's response to the 9/11
backlash incidents. Among other things, Dean Acosta established
a new position of Special Counsel for Religious Discrimination,
and he selected Eric Treene, who remains with me and who is one
of my most trusted members of my staff on these issues, along
with Mazen Basrawi. We have continued to host regular
interagency meetings with representatives of the Arab-American,
Muslim, Sikh, and South Asian civic organizations so that we
can learn more and do the best job possible.
We have also made it a priority to expand our outreach. In
my travels across the country, I have met with leaders from the
various communities, not just in Dearborn and L.A. or Chicago,
but also I have met the Somali community in the Twin Cities,
Muslim leaders in New Haven, Roanoke, Murfreesboro, Tennessee,
and elsewhere. These meetings allow us not only to learn about
civil rights violations where they are occurring, but also to
build bridges to the community, to build trust and
understanding.
Regrettably, while nearly a decade has passed since 9/11,
we continue to see a steady stream of violence and
discrimination targeting Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian
communities. In each city and town where I have met with
leaders, I have been struck by the sense of fear that pervades
their life, fear of violence, bigotry, hate, discrimination.
This headwind of intolerance manifests itself in many different
ways.
Last month, we secured a guilty plea from the 50th
defendant charged in a Federal criminal case of post-9/11
backlash violence. Last year, three men were sentenced for
vandalizing and fire-bombing a mosque in Columbia, Tennessee.
In my outreach, I consistently hear complaints that
children face harassment in schools, that they are called
``terrorists'' and told to go home, even though this is their
home. America is indeed where they were born.
We have a regrettably robust docket of cases in the school
systems involving harassment of Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South
Asian students. In fact, these sorts of harassment cases are
the largest category of religious discrimination cases that our
Education Section handles.
We continue to follow the leadership in Republican and
Democratic administrations, the bipartisan leadership to combat
religious intolerance in the workplace. We have a number of
cases involving individuals facing discrimination at work, with
the EEOC reporting a 150-percent increase in complaints of
discrimination against Muslims since 9/11. Many cases involve
blatant, intentional discrimination such as an EEOC case filed
during the Bush administration on behalf of two Iranian Muslim
employees of a car dealership who were repeatedly harassed by
management, called unspeakable words: ``terrorist,'' ``camel
jockey,'' and other epithets. Similar cases have been brought
during the Obama administration.
We also continue the bipartisan tradition of pursuing
religious accommodation cases. We recently filed a case on
behalf of a Muslim teacher in Illinois who was forbidden to
take an unpaid leave for a pilgrimage to Mecca, a requirement
of her faith. This case is very similar to the one filed by the
EEOC in the Bush administration against a Tennessee hospital
that refused to grant a Muslim medical technician a 3-week
leave of absence for the pilgrimage.
No person should have to choose between their faith and
their work, and Republican and Democratic administrations alike
have fought hard to vindicate this principle.
We continue to work hard to enforce RLUIPA. We celebrated
the 10-year anniversary of the 24 matters opened by the Civil
Rights Division since 9/11 that involve mosques; 14 have been
opened in the last 10 months.
Last year, we filed a brief in a State court case involving
a proposed mosque--the construction of a community center that
included a mosque, and there were neighbors who challenged that
and argued that Islam is not a religion and, therefore, the
county was wrong to treat the mosque in the same way it would
treat a church.
Our brief argued one and really only one thing: Islam is a
religion. And we had to file that brief, and the court agreed
and dismissed the case.
These issues are and will continue to be nonpartisan.
I applaud again, as I mentioned earlier, the efforts of my
friend Alex Acosta on religious freedom. Our efforts are
indeed, as you have all noted, a reflection of our values as a
society. As a Nation, we believe strongly and unequivocally in
religious freedom, and this belief is embodied in the laws that
we enforce.
The headwinds of intolerance that so many of the
communities we are here to discuss today are facing, as you
have all pointed out, are not different from the bigotry
confronted by groups throughout our Nation's history. The good
news is that with each wave of intolerance, our Nation has
indeed responded, passing new civil rights laws, striking down
old laws that sanction discrimination, and eventually
recognizing the value of diverse communities and embracing
those previously shunned.
Today we are simply using the longstanding tools in our
arsenal to address an emerging challenge that threatens the
freedom of individuals who want nothing more than for their
families to be accepted in their communities, to live their
lives, practice their faith, and realize the American dream.
We will continue to use every available tool in our law
enforcement arsenal to transform this headwind of intolerance
into a tailwind of inclusion and opportunity.
Thank you for the opportunity to participate, and I look
forward to answering any questions you may have, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Thomas E. Perez appears as
a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Mr. Perez.
Yesterday, the Chairman of the House Homeland Security
Committee criticized this hearing, and he said, ``It reinforces
the false premise that Muslims are having their civil rights
violated.''
Your testimony, of course, reflects the reality of
discrimination facing Muslim Americans today. I would like to
look at the Justice Department's own statistics. Muslims
comprise less than 1 percent of the American population, but 14
percent of the Department of Justice's cases of discrimination
against religious institutions involve Muslims.
Mr. Perez, according to your testimony, over 50 percent of
the Department of Justice's mosque cases have been open since
May 2010. You testified you believe that reflected an increase
in anti-Muslim sentiment. Can you elaborate?
Mr. Perez. I have had the privilege in this job of
traveling to probably half the U.S. Attorney's Offices across
the country, and as part of our visits to make sure that we are
aggressively enforcing civil rights laws and listening, we are,
Mr. Chairman, listening and learning, as I did in Chicago, from
various stakeholders in the Muslim, Sikh, Arab, and South Asian
communities. And it really tears my heart out to listen to the
stories.
I will never forget my trip to Tennessee where an imam
talked about how his son does not want to go to school because
he is so scared that every day they were telling him, ``Go
home, you terrorist,'' and this is his home. And we see that
across the country, not simply in my own anecdotes but in our
work across a wide array of areas--employment, the criminal
context, the religious zoning context, and the education
context.
Chairman Durbin. So let us speak to employment
discrimination for a moment. According to data from the Equal
Employment Opportunity Commission, Muslims account for
approximately 25 percent of religious discrimination cases,
although, as I mentioned earlier, comprise less than 1 percent
of the American population. Mary Jo O'Neill of the EEOC said,
and I quote, ``There is a level of hatred and animosity that is
shocking. I have been doing this for 31 years, and I have never
seen such antipathy toward Muslim workers.''
Another example: The EEOC filed suit against a meat-packing
company, Swift, alleging discrimination against 160 Somali
Muslim employees. Among other things, the suit said that,
``Managers, supervisors, and other employees regularly throw
blood, meat, and bones at the Somali and Muslim employees.''
So I would ask you: In the area of employment
discrimination, this notion that was expounded by someone in
the other body of lack of evidence of discrimination against
Muslims, have you found in employment discrimination similar
cases?
Mr. Perez. We have, and, again, these cases did not start
simply in 2009. These cases--and, again, I want to applaud the
Bush administration for aggressively pursuing these cases in
the post-9/11 universe. A 150-percent increase post-9/11 is a
rather eye-popping figure.
Chairman Durbin. Can I ask you, I would like to--I want to
give everybody a chance, and there are quite a few Members here
today, which I am honored that that is the case. But in her
testimony, Farhana Khera, who is going to follow in the next
panel, recommends that the Civil Rights Division create a
centralized hotline to receive, refer, and track all civil
rights complaints, not just those related to Muslim Americans.
She argues that the current decentralized system is confusing
for victims who want to contact the Civil Rights Division. She
also notes that the lack of a centralized hotline makes it
difficult to track and collect data on civil rights complaints,
like a breakdown of complaints by race, national origin, and
religion.
So, for example, we do not know how many American Jews,
Christians, or Muslims have filed complaints with the Civil
Rights Division and how many have led to prosecution.
What is your reaction to this suggestion? Does the Division
currently have a mechanism for tracking complaints by race,
national origin, and religion?
Mr. Perez. Yes. We have had this discussion, and I
appreciated the suggestion when it was brought to our attention
a number of months ago. We now actually have an 800 number for
addressing these issues. But the 800 number is not the only
portal, and we wanted to make sure that people could file
complaints in whatever mechanism was most comfortable. If you
are working or living in Phoenix, for instance, you may have a
relationship with your local U.S. Attorney's Office, and we did
not want to preclude that.
And so the collaboration and coordination that we have done
with U.S. Attorney's Offices to make sure we are speaking with
one voice is a critically important part of our efforts to make
sure that we are tracking these.
As it relates to your question about data collection, as
you know, under the Hate Crime Statistics Act reporting is
voluntary, and there are many communities where there is no
reporting at all. And so while those statistics under the Hate
Crime Statistics Act are useful, I think everyone agrees that
they understate the amount of violence that we are seeing
across the country because of the voluntary nature of the
reporting. That is the law, and as a result of that, those are
the weaknesses in that data.
Chairman Durbin. I hate to pre-empt Ms. Khera's testimony
by bringing up another point she is going to raise, but since
you are here, I am looking for a reaction. She noted that under
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits
discrimination by federally funded entities, it covers
discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, but not
religious discrimination. So discriminating against a person of
the Jewish faith, Muslim, Sikh, a student perhaps, because of
their religion is not prohibited under Title VI. I would note
that our former colleague, Senator Specter, who once chaired
this Committee, introduced legislation in the last Congress to
expand Title VI to cover religious discrimination.
What is your opinion of this loophole in the law? And does
it make it more difficult to protect children from
discrimination in school?
Mr. Perez. Well, we have a number of tools to attack
religious discrimination. We have RLUIPA in the zoning context.
We have Title II of the Civil Rights Act, which is the public
accommodations provisions which have a religious reference.
Title IV is the education context, so we do have tools there.
Title VII is obviously employment. The Equal Credit Opportunity
Act gives us that opportunity there, as well as the Fair
Housing Act. And, in addition, until Title VI, although Title
VI does not have the word ``religion'' in it, discrimination
against Jews, Arab Muslims, Sikhs, and other members of
religious groups can violate the statute if it is based on
their actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic
characteristics rather than their religious practices. And that
would be a very fact-specific determination.
Chairman Durbin. Why wouldn't we want to clarify that? I do
not understand why we are stopping short of making it clear
that religious discrimination is included. Do you see a policy
reason why we should not?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, in certain circumstances, Title VI
can apply in these situations, and I am happy to have further
conversation with you to explain how it can apply in these
situations.
Chairman Durbin. Thanks.
Senator Graham.
Senator Graham. Thank you, Mr. Perez, for your service to
the country.
Mr. Perez. Good morning, sir.
Senator Graham. I guess my opinion about such matters is
that one case is too many.
Mr. Perez. I agree.
Senator Graham. Anytime you have an example in America
where somebody is being abused because of their faith, I think
all of us should join in and push back, as the Bush
administration did, as you are doing. So that is my baseline
here. I do not know what the numbers are, but, you know, one
for me is too many.
To those who have freedom of speech, it is a gift given to
you by a lot of people risking their own lives. So when you say
things here at home and you do things here at home that create
tension based on religious differences, particularly when it is
the Muslim community involved, you are putting our soldiers at
risk. We have soldiers all over the world of a variety of
religions fighting in the name of America, trying to help
moderate Muslims defeat radical Islam. And my view is that
there are plenty of moderate Muslims out there who need our
help and we should be helping because, you know, it is better
to fight this war over there than it is here. But at the end of
the day, we are all in this together.
So let us talk about the school case in Berkeley, Illinois.
It is fascinating. You gave some examples of conduct that I
think almost every American would find offensive, and I am
sorry that the child is having a bad experience at school, and
we should all speak out against that, because there are plenty
of Muslims wearing our uniform and we need to understand that,
again, we are all in this together. But the Obama
administration I think made a curious decision.
As I understand the fact pattern in Berkeley, Illinois, you
had a math teacher--was it Ms. Khan? Is that her name?
Mr. Perez. Yes, sir.
Senator Graham. Okay. Who basically wanted to go for a 3-
week pilgrimage to participate in the Hajj. Is that correct?
Mr. Perez. Yes, Senator.
Senator Graham. And she was the only math lab instructor in
that school district, and it was during the school year, and
the school district said, ``We do not want you to take 3 weeks
off because we need you to finish out the school year.''
As I understand civil rights law, it requires the employer
to reasonably accommodate the worker's religious beliefs or
practices as long as they do not impose more than a minimum
burden on the employer's operation. Common accommodations
include permitting employees to wear religious headgear or
arrange a voluntary shift swap with co-workers on the Sabbath.
Quite frankly, Mr. Perez, I think, as former Attorney
General Mukasey said, that this is a stretch of the concept.
Can she go on the Hajj during the summer? Is there any
requirement that she go during the 3 weeks that she chose in
the middle of the school year?
Mr. Perez. Senator, the law says that an employer has an
obligation to reasonably accommodate----
Senator Graham. But my question is: Could the lady in
question have met her religious obligations by going in the
summer when school was out of session?
Mr. Perez. No, sir.
Senator Graham. She could not have?
Mr. Perez. No.
Senator Graham. Why?
Mr. Perez. Well, I cannot get into the specific facts of
the case other than----
Senator Graham. I am no authority on the Hajj, but, I mean,
is it just these 3 weeks in this one year that this lady could
go?
Mr. Perez. The Hajj, as I understand it, sir, is based on a
lunar calendar, and the Hajj in this particular year was during
this 3-week period. This case----
Senator Graham. No, that is not my question. Put yourself
in the school district's position. If you were a Christian and
said, ``I want to go to Rome for 3 weeks,'' or ``I want to go
to Jerusalem for 3 weeks in the middle of the school year,'' I
would say no. You know, I am a Christian. I do not believe
there is anything in my faith that says that I get 3 weeks off
to observe Easter in any particular year.
My point is that it is my understanding that she could have
met her religious obligations without creating this burden of
being the only math lab instructor in the school district, and
I think that is going too far, quite frankly. And the fact that
you took this case up is going to do more damage than good.
That is just my 2 cents' worth about it.
But my question is simple. Is this the only 3 weeks in her
life where she could do this?
Mr. Perez. Well, Senator, I cannot get into the specific
facts of this particular case, but what I can tell you is----
Senator Graham. Would you get back with me about the answer
to my question? I know you may not be an expert on when you
take a pilgrimage. But my point is I do not think so. I think
she could have accommodated her religious beliefs without
leaving the school district in the lurch. And it is nothing
about her religion. I would say that about any religion. And I
just think you are doing more harm than good on that front.
Now, the cases you have described, I stand with you. You
fight back. You push back. You bring these cases to court where
people are being, you know, mistreated and abused. But my 2
cents' worth, this is the wrong case to have taken up.
Mr. Perez. Well, Senator, I just want to point out, because
I know you want to make sure the record is complete, this is
strikingly similar to a case brought by the Bush administration
in 2007 where an individual requested a 3-week leave of absence
for a pilgrimage to Mecca, and that, again, the employer----
Senator Graham. Well, they were wrong, too.
Mr. Perez. Well, again----
Senator Graham. You know, is it okay to----
Mr. Perez [continuing]. I will----
Senator Graham [continuing]. Disagree with the Bush
administration?
Mr. Perez. Well, I want to make sure----
Senator Graham. I hope so because a lot of people have been
doing it lately.
[Laughter.]
Senator Graham. So they were wrong, too. I am just saying
this is a good case study of what is too far. I totally agree
with you that the other cases you have described all of us
should stand up against, someone having material thrown at them
and, you know, a kid feeling like he cannot go to school, you
know, taunting us. That is not American. But I just think the
Obama administration has made a mistake here. If the Bush
administration believed this was right, I do not.
One final question. I am running out of time here. Is
radicalization of American Muslims on the rise?
Mr. Perez. Sir, I am a civil rights expert so it is hard
for me to say that the----
Senator Graham. Fair enough. I just want to make a record,
and here is what Secretary Napolitano said: ``We have seen an
increased number of arrests here in the U.S. of individuals
suspected of plotting terrorist attacks or supporting terror
groups abroad, such as al Qaeda. Home-based terrorism is here,
and like violent extremism abroad, it will be part of the
threat picture that we must now confront.''
She was absolutely right. So I want to do two things. I
want to stand by you to make sure that the American Muslim
community has the right to practice their religion free of
bigotry and hate, because the First Amendment to me, Mr.
Chairman, means one thing that is not subject to compromise. It
means someone can practice a religion I do not agree with. And
if we ever give in to the fact that that is not true, then who
is to say your religion is not next? So I am with you there.
But I do understand the concerns that a lot of Americans have
that what is going on in Europe is now coming to our shores. So
I wish the Obama administration would be more forceful in their
approach to fighting homegrown terrorism because I think that
is a weakness. Not reading a terrorist suspect their Miranda
rights when they have just been caught trying to blow up a van
in Times Square is not productive. It is not helpful. So I wish
the administration would look at the practice of insisting that
Miranda rights be read to someone who just tried to attack
America here at the homeland because we need to know what is
coming next--not abuse anyone, not torture them, but not say
you have a lawyer right after you tried to blow up a van or an
airplane.
So I think the Obama administration, quite frankly, needs
to change some of its policies when it comes to fighting
terrorism here at home, and I will stand with you as you try to
push back against legitimate cases of discrimination. But there
are two sides to this story, Senator Kyl said, and I want to
talk about both, not just one.
Thank you very much.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Senator Graham.
Senator Leahy.
Chairman Leahy. I do not have any questions. I would just
note that the Obama administration has come out with new
directives on the use of Miranda warnings which would make very
clear if you have got somebody who looks like they have a bomb
in Times Square, you can question them about the bomb and not
have to stop because of a need for a Miranda warning. I only
mention that because sometimes we hear this tossed around by
commentators who are misstating what is the rule with the
administration.
I would be interested in seeing your response to Senator
Graham's question on the Hajj issue. I know that case is
pending. I have read a great deal about it. We are talking
about U.S. v. Berkeley, Illinois, I assume.
Mr. Perez. That is correct, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Leahy. I would be interested in seeing your
response, and I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Perez. I will certainly provide you the response, and I
am very proud of the work we are doing in that case.
[The information appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thanks, Senator Leahy.
Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
Mr. Perez. Good morning, Senator.
Senator Kyl. Good morning, sir. One of the cases that has
been brought to our attention is the case of Luqman Abdullah.
It created kind of a firestorm of criticism about FBI tactics.
It has been one of the examples to accuse law enforcement
agencies of overstepping their bounds and unlawfully targeting
the Muslim-American community.
I understand your office investigated the Abdullah case and
determined that no criminal investigation was warranted. Is
that correct?
Mr. Perez. We determined that no criminal prosecution was
warranted.
Senator Kyl. No prosecution was warranted.
Mr. Perez. Yes, that is correct, Senator.
Senator Kyl. And I assume that your office has reviewed
similar allegations of misconduct. Could you just generally
characterize for the Committee here today your overall
impression of our law enforcement agencies' procedures and
tactics in these situations?
Mr. Perez. Well, again, our review in that particular case
and our review generally is to ensure that in the course of
carrying out their duties, there was not any violation of
Federal law. In this particular case, it would be the law that
says that anyone who is acting under color of law who willfully
deprives someone of a right guaranteed by the Constitution--and
in this case, it would be the right to be free from the
intentional use of excessive force--that was what we were
examining. And so our review focused--and it focuses generally,
whether it is a Federal law enforcement agent or a State or
local law enforcement agent, our review focuses on whether
there is evidence of an intentional deprivation of a
constitutional right. In that particular case, after a thorough
review, we concluded that the case did not present--that the
constitutional rights of the individual that you referenced
were not violated.
Senator Kyl. And now more than a decade after 9/11, do you
have a general assessment, especially at the Federal level, of
law enforcement procedures and tactics, as I said?
Mr. Perez. Procedures and tactics in what context?
Senator Kyl. As they relate to situations like this case.
Mr. Perez. Well, we review a number of matters not simply
involving Federal law enforcement.
Senator Kyl. What I am trying to get at--there is no--I am
just trying to get a general perception of how we are doing.
Are we doing better? Are we doing worse?
Mr. Perez. We are working very closely with all of our
Federal, State, and local law enforcement colleagues to ensure
that we do the best possible job of enforcing the laws and
ensuring protections of the Constitution. Those are not
mutually exclusive. And I spend a lot of time, Senator, in New
Orleans right now making sure that we are building a blueprint
for sustainable reform so that we can reduce crime, we can
ensure respect for the Constitution, and we can enjoy public
confidence in law enforcement. Those are the real benchmarks
for our work. And whether it is the Federal or the State or
local law enforcement, those are the real benchmarks of, I
think, success in our policing. And we certainly work with our
colleagues in Federal law enforcement to--I have personally
participated in trainings at the Border Patrol academies on
police integrity issues and civil rights issues, and our
colleagues in Federal law enforcement across the board actively
welcome our participation in that because we recognize that,
again, we must succeed in reducing crime and respecting the
Constitution.
Senator Kyl. Sure. I appreciate that. Last Friday, I
attended a dinner of American Muslims who complained to me
about being intimidated and even threatened by other Muslims
because these folks believed in separation of mosque and state,
and people who threatened and intimidated them--well,
intimidated them because of those particular beliefs. I am sure
that your office would be just as willing to investigate and,
where appropriate, prosecute those kinds of cases as in a
situation where it is a non-Muslim doing the intimidating or
threatening. Would that be accurate?
Mr. Perez. That is correct, sir. If we have credible
allegations of a potential violation of Federal civil rights
laws, we will investigate. In, I believe, the first prosecution
under our new hate crimes law, we are, again, aggressively
applying that new law that Senators Leahy and Durbin referenced
before, and we will follow the facts and make an appropriate
judgment of the application of the facts to the law.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. One young woman specifically asked
me why, after she had reported this--and I will not indicate
which city it was in, but after reporting it to the police in
the city, she said she got no satisfaction at all. And I did
not have much of an answer. What I am going to do is get back
to her and tell her of our conversation and see whether maybe
communicating with the U.S. Attorney in Arizona, for example--
that is one of the ways you suggested this could be done, that
there could be some relief in cases like the ones she brought
to my attention.
Mr. Perez. I am happy to answer any questions that you
might have or that your constituent might have.
Senator Kyl. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Chairman Durbin. Senator Blumenthal.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you,
Mr. Perez, for your very dedicated and distinguished work and
the work of the Department of Justice in this area.
Mr. Perez. Thank you.
Senator Blumenthal. I want to go back to the question that
Senator Durbin was pursuing. Should the laws be strengthened,
Federal laws be enhanced in this area to provide more effective
tools for Federal enforcement? And if so, in what areas?
Mr. Perez. I feel like we have an ample number of tools
right now, and we are using them in a very robust fashion. The
biggest challenge is always to make sure you have the budget to
carry out the laws, and I really appreciated the leadership of
the President and the Senate and the House in enabling us to
get additional resources in the fiscal year 2010 budget,
because with those additional resources, that was the largest
infusion of resources in our Division's history. We were able
to expand the work in this and other critical areas so that we
could, again, do the work in the RLUIPA context because we do
see this headwind of intolerance rearing its ugly head in the
zoning context. We had a case in suburban Chicago, for
instance.
The education setting, that is one of the two or three most
frequently heard comments I get when I do outreach, is about
bullying in schools. If you are in a learning environment where
you cannot learn for whatever reason--and in this particular
case, because you are Muslim or Arab or Sikh or South Asian,
and you are being told to go home, and this is your home--that
is an emerging growth area for us that we must address.
So for me, I guess my biggest wish list is to make sure
that we continue to have the resources to enforce these laws.
Senator Blumenthal. Your challenge is primarily in the area
of enforcement, not so much the substantive authority that you
would see the Congress improving.
Mr. Perez. We feel at the moment like we have a large
number of tools to do the work we need to do. We are always
willing to listen and work with you on----
Senator Blumenthal. Well, let me ask you, then: Wouldn't it
make sense to engage or involve the States and local
governments more actively in this effort?
Mr. Perez. That is an excellent question, and we have a
very active program of engagement. For instance, our Community
Relations Service has provided training to over 750 law
enforcement agencies across the country on precisely these
issues of Muslim, Sikh, Arab, South Asian engagement. After the
passage of the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Act, we used
that new hate crimes law as an opportunity to engage State and
local enforcement. And so we have trained literally thousands
of officers across the country.
Law enforcement and civil rights enforcement is a joint
venture between Federal, State, and local law enforcement, and
I completely agree----
Senator Blumenthal. And I know that many States like
Connecticut have laws that specifically prohibit crimes based
on----
Mr. Perez. Correct, and I had the privilege of spending a
day in your----
Senator Blumenthal. In New Haven.
Mr. Perez [continuing]. In New Haven, a week or two ago,
and we had a wonderful conference with the U.S. Attorney, Mr.
Fein, and we had a lot of State and local officials there,
where we sent a very strong message to the residents of
Connecticut that civil rights is indeed this joint venture
among Federal, State, and local partners. And so your point is
very well taken.
Senator Blumenthal. And I am wondering if you have some
guidance that we can take back to our States, to our enforcers
at the State and local level as to how they can be more active
partners in this effort.
Mr. Perez. Communication is key, and we have set up a
number of critical coalitions. I was in Detroit recently, for
instance, with the U.S. Attorney, and she has a very wide-
ranging coalition of community people, Federal, local, State
authorities who come together on a monthly basis to discuss
issues. And sometimes those meetings can be tense, but they
have built trust through that coalition, and when you have that
trust established, then when an incident occurs that tests that
trust, you at least have that reservoir that you can build
from. If you wait until the train wreck to come together for
the first time, you are seldom going to be able to forge the
necessary consensus.
So that coalition building that we have spent a lot of time
doing has really borne fruit for us and I think for the
communities as well.
Senator Blumenthal. Is there a written protocol or
procedure that you follow in determining whether the
enforcement of a hate crime prosecution--and it is a criminal
matter that obviously is a violation of State law, it could be
prosecuted by State authorities.
Mr. Perez. Correct.
Senator Blumenthal. Or by Federal law, and that issue
frequently arises as to State, Federal, choices of jurisdiction
or venue. But in the civil rights area, do you have one that
applies in the hate crimes or bigotry and bias----
Mr. Perez. Yes. I spent the better part of a decade as a
career prosecutor, a Federal prosecutor doing hate crimes
cases, and the short answer is yes, we do have protocols in the
U.S. Attorney manual. The most important protocol, though, that
we have followed and we will continue to follow is what is in
the best interest of the case. And I have personally been
involved in a number of hate crimes cases where we have worked
them up, and then it was in the best interest of the case for
the State to take it.
The murder of the Sikh American in the aftermath of 9/11,
that was a State prosecution. The Federal Government did not
prosecute that case. It was in the best interest of the case
for the State of Arizona to take on that prosecution.
I did a hate crime case in Lubbock, Texas, involving South
Bay Nazi Youth, neo-Nazi white supremacists who started a race
war targeted at African Americans in this case. In that
particular case, the DA came to us and said, ``I really want
you to take the case.'' He had just been elected. He was just
building his staff. And we deputized one of his people as a
special AUSA, and that enabled us to secure the conviction of
the three defendants in that case.
So there are U.S. Attorney guidelines, but I think the most
important guideline will always be what is in the best interest
of the case.
Senator Blumenthal. Thank you very much.
Chairman Durbin. Thanks, Senator Blumenthal.
Mr. Perez, I have two questions I would like to ask. One is
brief. The staff research memo on the issue raised by Senator
Graham relative to the teacher asking for 3 weeks for a visit
to Mecca for the Hajj, I do not know why Illinois keeps popping
up in all these cases, but it turns out that there are other
cases that have been considered. In one, United States v. the
Board of Trustees of Southern Illinois University in 1995, it
was about the employer's failure to accommodate an employee who
requested leave to attend an 8-day religious festival, the
Worldwide Church of God's Feast of Tabernacles, and I see that
there have been other cases involving that particular Christian
religion and this 8-day leave, 14-day leave that has been
requested.
I also find cases here involving discrimination against
those who have asked to be spared being scheduled on the
Sabbath.
Mr. Perez. Correct.
Chairman Durbin. So there are cases involving Jews,
Christians, and in this case Muslims. Am I not correct--and I
hope my staff is correct; I believe they are--that these cases
are very fact specific with regard to evaluating the impact on
the employee's religion and the hardship on the employer, so it
really is a fact case to be determined as to whether----
Mr. Perez. That is absolutely----
Chairman Durbin [continuing]. A 3-week absence or an 8-day
absence causes a hardship in either or both directions?
Mr. Perez. That is absolutely correct, and it is important
to note that it is the employer that has the burden of
demonstrating--of providing the reasonable accommodation or
demonstrating the undue hardship. And there are a long line of
cases dating back literally decades. Some were brought by the
United States, either the EEOC or DOJ. Some were private cases.
They relate to Christian denominations, Seventh-day Adventists,
cases involving accommodation 1 day a week of people who are
working the Sabbath. So if you work in that particular facility
and you do not observe the Sabbath, you are going to work more
Saturdays and more Fridays than that person. And, again, that
was upheld in the jurisprudence.
I am very proud of the work we are doing in this case, and,
again, it is part of a long line of cases brought by Republican
and Democratic administrations alike.
Chairman Durbin. So let me move into one area we have not
touched on that I think is timely and controversial and perhaps
is still being debated within the administration. A number of
States around the country are considering laws prohibiting the
use of Islamic religious law, also known as Sharia. For
example, Oklahoma adopted a ballot initiative prohibiting
courts from using international law or Sharia.
We are all familiar with the way Sharia is interpreted in
Iran and Saudi Arabia. Hardly a day goes by that there is not a
report in the press of some abuse of this Sharia law by Western
standards. But for American Muslims Sharia includes rules
dealing with personal matters, like prayer, fasting, marriage,
and inheritance. So there is a fear among some Muslim Americans
that a strict ban on Sharia would, in fact, inhibit their
freedom of religion.
An American Muslim in Oklahoma challenged the anti-Sharia
ballot initiative on First Amendment grounds, arguing that the
law would prevent courts from carrying out his will, which was
drafted in accordance with Islamic law. A Federal court agreed
and has enjoined the Oklahoma ballot initiative.
Is the Civil Rights Division, which you represent,
monitoring anti-Sharia laws like the one in Oklahoma to
determine if, in fact, they do violate the civil rights of
American Muslims?
Mr. Perez. I am certainly aware of the Oklahoma matter, and
I am aware of this conversation in other States. I certainly
heard of this in my visit to Tennessee, for instance, where
this issue was discussed and raised by one of the litigants in
the local litigation where we filed our brief. And so we will
continue to review these laws to see if there is a potential
Federal civil rights violation, and, again, I am aware of
Oklahoma and other settings.
Chairman Durbin. So at this point there is no case pending
or any opinion on your part as to----
Mr. Perez. We did not intervene, we have not filed a brief
in the Oklahoma matter or any other matter where this issue may
be raised.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you.
Senator Kyl, do you have any other questions?
Senator Kyl. No.
Chairman Durbin. Okay, good. Mr. Perez, thank you for your
time. We sure appreciate it.
Mr. Perez. Thank you for your time. Thank you for your
courtesy.
Chairman Durbin. I would like to invite the second panel to
come up, if they would, please, and I am going to read their
bios as they approach the table to save a few moments here,
first thanking all of them for being here.
Our first witness who will testify is Farhana Khera, the
president and executive director of Muslim Advocates. Prior to
joining Muslim Advocates in 2005, Ms. Khera was counsel to the
Senate Judiciary's Subcommittee on the Constitution, worked for
6 years with our colleague and friend, Senator Russ Feingold,
when he chaired this very same Subcommittee. Prior to the
Senate, Ms. Khera was an associate with the law firm of Hogan &
Hartson and Ross, Dixon & Masback. Ms. Khera received her B.A.
from Wellesley and her J.D. from Cornell Law School, and we are
glad to have her back before the Committee. And before I
administer to all three, I will just go through the
biographies.
Our next witness is a dear friend and someone I respect so
much, Cardinal Theodore McCarrick, the Archbishop Emeritus of
Washington. Cardinal McCarrick is currently serving as a
distinguished visiting scholar in the Kluge Center at the
Library of Congress. He served as Archbishop of the Roman
Catholic Archdiocese of Washington from 2001 to 2006. On
February 21, 2001, 7 weeks after his installation as
Archbishop, McCarrick was elevated to the College of Cardinals
by Pope John Paul II. That may be a record. I do not know. I
have to check in the Vatican Library.
As Archbishop of Washington, McCarrick served as chancellor
of the Catholic University of America in Washington, DC,
president of the Board of Trustees of the Basilica of the
National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception. From 1986 until
2001, he served as the fourth Archbishop of Newark. In 1981,
Pope John Paul II appointed him to be the first bishop--I am
going to mispronounce this--Metuchen?
Cardinal McCarrick. Metuchen, but that is all right.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Metuchen, a newly established diocese in
New Jersey. Cardinal McCarrick earned a bachelor's degree and a
master's degree from St. Joseph's Seminary in Yonkers, New
York. After he was ordained into the priesthood, he went on to
earn a second master's degree in social science and a doctoral
degree in sociology from the Catholic University of America. It
is indeed an honor to have you with us today, and I am going to
feel a little bit nervous administering an oath to a Cardinal.
Our next witness is R. Alexander Acosta, the dean of the
College of Law at Florida International University. Did I
pronounce that right?
Mr. Acosta. You did.
Chairman Durbin. Good. Previously, Mr. Acosta was U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District of Florida where, among
other high-profile cases, he handled the prosecutions of Jack
Abramoff for fraud, Jose Padilla for terrorism, and Charles
Taylor, Jr., for torture. Prior to that, Mr. Acosta served as
Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division where
he led the Justice Department's efforts to combat the post-9/11
backlash against Arab and Muslim Americans. Earlier, Mr. Acosta
served on the National Labor Relations Board and worked at the
law firm of Kirkland & Ellis. He received his B.A. from Harvard
College and his law degree from Harvard Law School. He was a
law clerk for Justice Samuel Alito, then a Third Circuit Court
judge.
I would like to ask all three witnesses, if you do not
mind, please stand, and I will follow the ordinary Committee
procedure and administer the oath. Raise your right hand. Do
you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth, so help you God?
Ms. Khera. I do.
Cardinal McCarrick. I do.
Mr. Acosta. I do.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all
three witnesses have answered in the affirmative.
Ms. Khera, please proceed with your opening statement.
STATEMENT OF FARHANA KHERA, PRESIDENT AND EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
MUSLIM ADVOCATES, SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
Ms. Khera. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
Subcommittee. On behalf of Muslim Advocates, thank you for the
opportunity to testify on the civil rights of American Muslims
today. And, Mr. Chairman and Senator Graham, I want to
especially thank you for your leadership in holding this
hearing and bringing much needed attention to rising anti-
Muslim bigotry.
You know, we have been hearing from Americans from all
faith backgrounds and all walks of life who recognize that it
has really become a growing menace to the safety and, frankly,
the social fabric of our Nation, so it is especially heartening
to see bipartisan support on this issue.
I was born and raised in Painted Post, a small town in
rural upstate New York. At the start of every school day, like
school children across America, I stood and recited the Pledge
of Allegiance. The last line of the pledge says that ``we are
one Nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice
for all.'' There is no qualifier. It is just simply that we are
one Nation with liberty and justice for all.
As this Subcommittee knows well, our Nation has a unique,
long-cherished commitment to freedom, particularly religious
freedom. In fact, Muslims have been a part of America for
centuries, since the first slave ships arrived at its shores.
Today American Muslims reflect every race and ethnicity that
comprise our Nation's rich heritage. That is why recent
rhetoric demonizing Islam and Muslims--brutal attacks,
harassment, and discrimination, and in some cases even
threatening to kill Americans, including children, based on
their faith--is so vile. It is not who we are as Americans, and
it has no place in the schoolhouse, in the workplace, or in our
communities.
Nearly 10 years after 9/11, hate crimes motivated by anti-
Muslim bias targeting Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian
Americans remain higher than levels before 9/11. Some are
deadly.
Late last summer, a New York taxi driver was stabbed and
almost died after a passenger asked him whether he was a
Muslim.
Just earlier this year, two elderly Sikh men were gunned
down while taking an afternoon stroll through their
neighborhood in northern California, killing one and critically
injuring the other.
Employment discrimination complaints are at an all-time
high, with Muslim bias-based complaints comprising 25 percent--
25 percent of complaints received by the EEOC from 2008 to
2009--while Muslims comprise only 1 to 2 percent of the entire
population.
Opposition to mosque construction is also on the rise and
getting uglier. And Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South Asian parents
are more concerned than ever about their children. In one
especially egregious case, a Muslim high school student in
Staten Island was subjected to a harrowing ordeal in which he
was frequently labeled a ``terrorist,'' punched in the groin,
and spat on by fellow teenagers. Sometimes his mother would
catch him rocking back and forth saying, ``Why me? What did I
ever do to them?'' One day he was beaten so severely that his
mother took him to a doctor. There was blood in his urine, and
he suffered from headaches and memory loss. His assailants were
later arrested and charged with a hate crime.
This is just one vile example of how anti-Muslim bigotry is
playing out ferociously across America today. Parents worry:
Will my child be next? And they worry about the future. Will
America be hospitable to minority faiths? Will its better
angels prevail? Or will the values of freedom and respect
become a relic of the past?
Anti-Muslim bigotry has been simmering and growing since
the tragic events of September 11th--a terrorist attack that
was an attack on all Americans, Muslims included. But in the
last several months, anti-Muslim rhetoric has reached a
disturbing new level. Prominent religious, military, and even
political leaders have joined the fray, feeding fear and
hysteria, with some going so far as to say Islam is a cult, not
a religion.
Now, one just might want to dismiss such statements as
silly and absurd if not for the fact that the vitriol has real
life-and-death consequences for Muslim, Arab, Sikh, and South
Asian Americans and their families. The message is clear: You
are not welcome. Words that were graffitied last year on a sign
for a mosque in Murfreesboro, Tennessee.
But what gives me hope, Mr. Chairman, is knowing that more
and more Americans from all walks of life are coming together
to reject fear and divisiveness because they recognize that it
is not American. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell
poignantly said, ``Is there something wrong with being a Muslim
in this country? The answer is no, that is not America.''
I commend the stepped-up enforcement of the Nation's civil
rights laws under the Attorney General's leadership, but
challenges remain and more must be done. I refer the
Subcommittee to my written testimony for specific
recommendations of steps Congress and the administration should
take and ask that my full written testimony be entered for the
record. I would be happy to discuss those recommendations later
in the hearing.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Farhana Khera appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much, and I can tell as a
former staffer you knew you had 5 minutes.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Durbin. Cardinal McCarrick, please proceed. Your
written testimony will be made part of the record.
STATEMENT OF CARDINAL THEODORE E. MCCARRICK,
ARCHBISHOP EMERITUS OF WASHINGTON ON BEHALF OF THE UNITED
STATES CONFERENCE OF CATHOLIC BISHOPS, WASHINGTON, DC
Cardinal McCarrick. Thank you, sir. Senator Durbin, Senator
Kyl, allow me to thank you for the invitation and opportunity
to be with you to offer testimony today. As Archbishop Emeritus
of Washington, I am here today representing the United States
Conference of Catholic Bishops. I will summarize my remarks and
ask--and you graciously accepted--that my full testimony be
entered into the record.
My written testimony places the treatment of American
Muslims in the broader context of religious liberty from the
perspective of our rich American tradition and of our Catholic
tradition and experience. As a community that has been the
target of religious discrimination, even as was mentioned
earlier, we understand the need today to bring attention to
protecting the civil rights of our Muslim brothers and sisters.
We see religious freedom as an essential foundation for our
life together in our Nation and across the globe. Over time we
have made much progress together, but we fear this shared
foundation is being weakened and undermined by religious
prejudice, unwise policies, and polarizing words and tactics
which divide us. Most appallingly, religious freedom is
destroyed by attacks on people in some countries because of
their religion and by the terrible misuse of religion to incite
hatred and even justify violence.
Sadly, this fundamental betrayal of religious belief,
attacking those of differing religious perspectives in the name
of religion, can sometimes be used to promote suspicion and
fear of all people associated with a particular religious
tradition. This kind of generalized religious prejudice is
wrong and unjust and a clear violation of religious freedom. A
justified concern for security and the appropriate pursuit of
those who pervert religion to attack others cannot be allowed
to turn into a new form of religious discrimination and
intolerance. This is why we stand with our Muslim brothers and
sisters in defense of their dignity and rights, just as we
welcome and expect their reciprocity and solidarity with us
when the rights of Christians and other religious groups are
violated around the world.
In our pluralistic society, religious values and
commitments are assets for the common good, not sources of
division or conflict. Today we note with particular sadness
that Muslim Americans, with whom we have had a positive ongoing
dialogue for over two decades, have had their loyalty and
beliefs questioned publicly in sweeping and uninformed ways.
This compels us to reach out in solidarity in support of their
dignity and rights as Americans and believers.
We worry about the rhetoric and actions that target our
Muslim neighbors and friends. Like our own historical
experience, their very loyalty as Americans and their
traditions and values are being threatened.
We remain firmly committed to the defense of religious
liberty for all--not just for Catholics--because our commitment
is to the dignity of each and every human person.
At the same time, we recognize that not every charge of
wrongdoing against people or groups within a religious
community amounts to religious discrimination, bias, or
bigotry. Religious beliefs are no excuse for threatening others
with or carrying out acts of violence. At this particular
moment in our Nation's history, we face a real threat to our
national security from one kind of terrorism that has its
origins in a particular form of extremist ideology which holds
itself out, falsely, as authentic Islam.
The legitimate concern for the public order, however, must
be pursued with effective skill and respect for religious
liberty. In particular, we need to avoid generalizing about any
religion, especially about Islam, based solely on the extreme
views and conduct of a small group of radical extremists. Those
unfounded generalizations and efforts to fan the flames of fear
are wrong and unjustified, but are especially inappropriate and
hurtful when expressed by leaders in public life. These attacks
are a grave injustice against the vast majority of Muslims in
the United States who are loyal and productive members of our
American society.
For the Catholic bishops, religious freedom and its absence
have many expressions, our own history as an immigrant people
and a religious minority has its own stories of suspicion,
discrimination, and intolerance. And, unfortunately, these are
not merely a thing of the past. When the very right of
conscience is sometimes attacked, the ability to exercise
religious beliefs is subverted. There are well-known
contemporary examples where the state would force religious
groups and individuals to choose between following their
religious beliefs and practices and following the dictates of
law. Where is the respect for religious freedom, we ask, in
compelling a religious entity to perform an act which
contradicts its basic moral principles? Who ultimately suffers
by undermining the rights of conscience for religious groups
and individuals? It is not merely the integrity of the
principle of religious freedom, but also the people whom we
serve and employ.
As pastors within a universal church, we Catholic bishops
hear the cries and share the pain of believers around the world
who suffer persecution, violence, and discrimination simply
because of their religious identity. In the last year alone, we
have seen dramatic examples of the persecution of Catholic and
other Christian communities around the globe. An example that
strikes us is this March, Shabhaz Bhatti, the Pakistani
Minister of Minority Affairs, was assassinated at the hands of
Muslim extremists. Mr. Bhatti was a Roman Catholic who had
advocated for tolerance and religious freedom for all religious
minorities in Pakistan. For this courageous witness, he was
brutally murdered.
We appreciate the many sincere expressions of sympathy and
condemnation that have come from our religious partners, our
dialogue partners in the Muslim community, especially the
Islamic Society of North America, the Islamic Circle of North
America. They have stood with us as trusted allies in speaking
out against violence and in defense of religious freedom.
Solidarity among people of every religion in the face of
attacks on people of any one religion is respect for religious
freedom in action.
Concluding, as a religious community, our Catholic faith
commits us to defend and promote the right to religious freedom
for all as a moral priority and a human responsibility. This
common commitment to religious freedom is at the heart of
American life. It is also an example to a world where too many
doubt that people of different religions can live together in
peace and mutual respect.
As other countries wrestle with how to treat religious
minorities, let them look to our Nation where we work to ensure
that our Muslim sisters and brothers are treated with dignity
and that their religious identity and beliefs must be treated
with respect. Let them here see a people blessed with hard-won
religious freedom living out our commitment to the rights of
all by demonstrating full respect for the identity, integrity,
and freedom of all religions.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick
appears as a submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. Thank you so much, Cardinal. And when I
make a closing statement here, I am going to include statements
from a wide variety of religious faiths that join in your
sentiment in expressing solidarity with Muslim Americans.
At this point, Mr. Acosta, please proceed with your
testimony. Your written statement will be made part of the
record.
STATEMENT OF R. ALEXANDER ACOSTA, DEAN, COLLEGE OF LAW, FLORIDA
INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY, MIAMI, FLORIDA
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Durbin,
Senator Kyl, good morning. I want to take a minute to thank you
for holding this important hearing, and I also want to take a
minute to thank Assistant Attorney General Perez for his words
and his Division's current efforts. General Perez graciously
made an important point, that the protection of religious
liberties is a bipartisan issue. Muslim Americans should take
comfort in knowing that the effort to protect their religious
liberties has been ongoing since 9/11, has transcended the
partisan divide, and I hope continues to transcend the partisan
divide.
The title of today's hearing references American Muslims,
and I thought it appropriate to begin by discussing two such
individuals.
The first is a student at the law school where I am now
dean. He is one of our student leaders and, in fact, he is a
candidate for student body president. I asked him to send me an
email about himself. I was going to summarize it, but I am
going to quote it in full because I thought it made a powerful
point. He writes: ``I am a Muslim, born and raised in the
United States. I suppose by most people's standards my
childhood was pretty normal. I went to school, tried to get out
of doing homework, and spent entirely too much time watching
TV. The truth is I was pretty lazy. But that changed when I
went to high school. I attended Estero High School, in Estero,
Florida, where I was introduced to the Army's Junior Reserves
Officer Training Corp. I loved the JROTC program. It taught me
what it meant to be a leader and why it was important to take
responsibility for my actions. I excelled in the program. In
fact, I was the first cadet in my class to be made a cadet
officer, and I ultimately reached the program's highest rank,
cadet lieutenant colonel. But it is not my successes in JROTC
that I remember most about high school. Rather, what I remember
most about high school,'' he wrote, ``is the confusion, the
fear that overcame me on September 11th, when our teacher
turned on the classroom television just in time for me to watch
the second plane crash into the second tower of the World Trade
Center. I knew that my country had been attacked, so I did what
I knew was right. Five months later I enlisted in the
military.''
``I enlisted in the Florida Army National Guard on February
7, 2002, and I transferred to regular active duty on July 27,
2003. In late 2007, I left active duty so that I could go to
law school.''
Well, this student's name is Mohamed T. Al-Darsani, and
last summer, he was selected as one of only 25 first-year law
students in the Nation to intern for the Army's Judge Advocate
General Corps. His goal is to become a JAG officer.
The second individual that I want to talk about is a young
woman by the name of Nashala Hearn. Ms. Hearn testified to this
Committee in June 2004. At the time, she was 11.
Nashala's story begins in Oklahoma at the start of the 2003
school year. At the time she told sixth grade teacher that she
was Muslim, and that she wore a head scarf as part of her
religion. The teacher did not object at the time, and Nashala
happily attended school for the next month. That changed on
September 11, 2003, when her teacher asked her to remove her
head scarf. The school permitted students to wear baseball caps
and kippahs, but wanted her to remove her head scarf because it
``frightened'' other sixth grade students. Nashala declined and
was sent to the principal's office. The principal insisted that
she remove her head scarf, and when she declined to do so, she
was suspended. I authorized the Justice Department to intervene
in the case, and eventually, after court action, Nashala was
permitted to return to school wearing her head scarf.
I speak about these two individuals because I think that it
highlights some important principles, some critical principles
that make our Nation great.
The first principle is that foremost we are all Americans.
Mr. Al-Darsani is an American. Listen to his words: ``I knew
that my country had been attacked, so I did what was right.
Five months later, I enlisted in the military.''
The second principle is religious freedom. Nashala's
situation was an opportunity for a public school to teach this
principle of freedom. School officials could have taken the
opportunity to talk about America's early settlers and their
search for freedom to express their faith. School officials
could have taken this opportunity to teach basic civics, a
topic that is sometimes lacking in our system of education.
They could have taken this opportunity to say that fear is
wrong, that respect and tolerance for another's faith is right,
and that these are founding principles of our Nation. Instead,
these public school officials fed the fear, signaling to
Nashala's fellow sixth graders that they should be afraid of
the head scarf, and that the head scarf, and by extension her
faith, should be suppressed.
Nashala's case, unfortunately, offers an insight into our
nature. Our Nation is strong because we respond to attack with
resolve. History has shown, however, the need for leadership
that tempers resolve with wisdom. President George W. Bush
understood this, when on September 17th he visited the Islamic
Center of Washington to remind a then resolute Nation that
``[t]hose who feel like they can intimidate our fellow citizens
to take out their anger . . . should be ashamed of that kind of
behavior.'' President Obama has understood this and has spoken
out as well.
Ten years later, as we approach the anniversary of 9/11, I
feel obligated to conclude by stating the obvious: As a Nation,
we have not forgotten the events of 10 years ago. Emotions
remain charged, and the desire to blame remains high. This is a
good time, this is a critical time to temper our resolve with
wisdom and to recall and to remain true to our American ideals
and freedoms. We need to ensure that all people in this land
are free to practice their faiths without fear of retaliation
or reprisal.
I thank you for the hearing and for your time and look
forward to your questions.
[The prepared statement of R. Alexander Acosta appears as a
submission for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. I have been in the Senate for a long time.
I cannot recall a panel that has been so impressive. I thank
you, all three of you, for your testimony. It was heartfelt and
is going to make an excellent record of what we are trying to
talk about today.
I want to address an issue raised by Cardinal McCarrick and
put it in terms of the topic that is before us. The Cardinal
said--I am going to quote you here--``Where is the respect for
religious freedom in compelling a religious entity to act in
ways which contradict its most basic moral principles?''
And now let us move this principle or thought to the
question of Sharia law. You heard the question I asked earlier
of Mr. Perez about where the line should be drawn. We certainly
know the excesses of Sharia law. They are publicized every day.
The killing of this man in Pakistan who made controversy by
saying he was opposed to the blasphemy laws, he gave his life
for speaking out for tolerance. The same thing, the suggested
stoning of women for certain transgressions in Muslim
countries. Those for many people are the images of Sharia law.
I would like to ask you, Ms. Khera, put what the Cardinal
said in the context of Sharia law and what we know to be
excesses in some contexts, but to be part of Muslim religious
practice in a very peaceful way in another context.
Ms. Khera. Right. Mr. Chairman, thank you for that
question. I think, as you pointed out and Mr. Perez pointed out
earlier as well, for everyday American Muslims what Sharia
really means is those guidelines that guide our everyday life,
so whether it is prayer, fasting, issues of marriage, in the
way that religious law guides those everyday activities for
Christians and Jews and other faith communities in the United
States.
The kinds of, should I say, excesses of Sharia that you
have outlined, I cannot imagine the circumstances under which
they would be tolerated here in America in our legal system.
You know, as a legal matter, the Supremacy Clause ensures that
the Constitution is the law of the land, no religious law, no
foreign law, and that is absolutely important and something
that, you know, I am personally very thankful is there.
So I think this question of Sharia and these efforts to
introduce bills to ban Sharia are just woefully misguided, and
they are chasing a threat that does not exist. But the
implications, if they are actually allowed to be enacted, you
know, taking, for example, the Oklahoma one, could have very
significant consequences in terms of the religious practice of
American Muslims here at home, and that is why it does concern
us.
Chairman Durbin. I will ask you to go a step further
because the case we talked about here, the American Muslim who
raised the case in Oklahoma was objecting saying that it was
Sharia law that had guided him in the execution of his will,
how he would leave his property after death. Can you give me
other illustrations? I mean, as I said, the stereotype of
Sharia law is extreme, and we would not countenance it for any
religion in this country.
Ms. Khera. Right.
Chairman Durbin. Can you give me other illustrations of
Sharia law in the life of an American Muslim that you believe
should be understood by most?
Ms. Khera. So the one example you gave is a very good one
in terms of the way some people may decide to write a will. It
may also entail decisions to get married and those who get
married under religious law in terms of how they go about their
life, things like the prayer, how they pray, when they pray,
fasting, which is also a cornerstone of the faith. Those are
just some examples.
Chairman Durbin. As well I believe donations----
Ms. Khera. Yes, charity, charitable giving is an obligation
for American Muslim as it is for many people of faith in this
country.
Chairman Durbin. And the Hajj?
Ms. Khera. And the Hajj, yes, thank you--which was a topic
earlier in the hearing. Thank you. The pilgrimage is something
that is required for American Muslims as well.
Chairman Durbin. I realized after 9/11 I did not even know
the pillars of Islam, and I was trying to recall some of them
as you testified.
Mr. Acosta, would you address that in your role as former
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights, this question of
Sharia law?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, I will try to do so, although I will
confess to not being familiar with the details of Sharia law. I
guess I have two thoughts.
First, I would have concerns about equal protection issues.
While a legislature or a State can certainly determine to what
laws a State court will look, there are concerns when a
particular type of law or a particular religion is singled out
as against others, in much the same way that you cannot ban a
head scarf but allow other head coverings.
Second, I would also note that as a general rule courts do
not apply foreign laws or religious laws. The context where
that might come up is in the conflict of law situation when the
contract or the will or the document of adhesion references
another jurisdiction, and in that case it is the individuals
that are signatories that are asking the court to look beyond
the local jurisdiction and apply that other law. So this is a
fairly unusual circumstance where that would come up.
Chairman Durbin. I do not want to misstate your position,
but I think initially you said neutrality.
Mr. Acosta. Neutrality, absolutely.
Chairman Durbin. So that you would put whatever that
religious belief is in the context of American law.
Mr. Acosta. Absolutely.
Chairman Durbin. That is the way I see it, too. I do not
understand the other point of view, and I wanted to see if
maybe you could point to some difference that I do not see. But
I think we are in agreement on that.
Cardinal McCarrick, I need to ask you about a delicate and
controversial issue. You played a role in the great controversy
which rocked our country for weeks related to the Part 51, the
proposed Islamic center in lower Manhattan. I understand that
you were involved in an interfaith effort to stand in
solidarity with American Muslims who were experiencing
religious discrimination. Can you tell me how you got involved
in this and describe that effort to the Committee?
Cardinal McCarrick. Well, actually, I was involved only
tangentially because it was a New York difficulty, a New York
question, and we learned years ago do not get involved in other
people's property because you have got enough troubles on your
own. But it became such a national issue that people became
very confused about it, and the Archbishop in New York,
Archbishop Dolan, spoke to it, as did others.
I think it was because I have been very much involved with
the Muslim leadership here in this part of the country,
especially with the Islamic Society of North America and its
leadership, actually because we have been trying to work
together to look for peace in the Holy Land. And so we have a
very close relationship with the leadership of the Muslim
groups and with the leadership of many of the Jewish groups in
our area--all of us looking for the two-state solution, and we
have become friends over that over the years. And it was that
friendship which wanted us to speak out a little more
carefully.
A very difficult issue, an issue where you could understand
reasons behind both positions, but I think we felt that you
could not say this was an un-American thing, you could not say
this was something that would destroy the unity of our
religious friendship and our religious working together.
That was basically that we wanted to try to keep it above
the level of saying this is something that you have to do, you
have to attack, you have to speak against. You could see that
people of good will could look at both sides, but you had to
make sure that they were looking at it at a level where they
understood that whatever you decided you could not be condemned
for because there were good arguments on both sides.
That often is what is the position that is always best
first to take. We run into a world where everything is black
and white. Well, there are a lot of grays in our world, and it
is important that we recognize that.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you, Cardinal.
Senator Kyl.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
First of all, Dean Acosta, as a former Assistant Attorney
General, let me just ask you a couple questions about Sharia.
It seems to me it is one thing to say that Sharia should not be
banned, but it is quite another to say that it should or could
supplant U.S. civil or criminal law. Would that be a correct
way to look at it?
Mr. Acosta. I do not see why any foreign law or any
religious law could or should supplant U.S. law.
Senator Kyl. And if, therefore, it is merely a guide by
which people should live their lives from a religious point of
view, as has been described here, it could not and it should
not allow things like underage marriage or polygamy or things
of that sort. Would that be correct?
Mr. Acosta. I think the Supremacy Clause makes clear that
the U.S. law is the law of the land, absolutely.
Senator Kyl. Thank you.
And, Cardinal McCarrick, let me ask you: The U.S.
Constitution and the teachings of your church allow all
Americans to practice any faith of their choosing or no faith.
Is that correct?
Cardinal McCarrick. That is, absolutely.
Senator Kyl. And it would also allow people to convert to a
different faith, would it not?
Cardinal McCarrick. Yes. We are not happy about that, but--
--
[Laughter.]
Cardinal McCarrick. That is certainly a part of our
position and has been always.
Senator Kyl. I think that is correct.
For those who would condemn others in hateful language for
doing that, that would not be--while that speech would be
permitted, it would not be speech that--well, that speech would
be permitted, but would you condemn--I guess I will ask it this
way: Would you condemn people who use hateful or inciteful
speech against those who have converted to another faith?
Cardinal McCarrick. Well, I think generally you should love
your neighbor even if you do not love the actions that your
neighbor posits. You have to have respect for your neighbor.
You might tell your neighbor, ``We think you are wrong, we are
sorry that you are doing this,'' but to attack them as being
anything less than your neighbor would certainly not be a
Christian point of view.
Senator Kyl. Right. Ms. Khera, let me ask you a similar
question. You belong to an organization which has been very
clear about its positions on the website, for example. I wonder
if you have made any public pronouncement or statement
condemning those religious leaders who have employed violent or
hateful rhetoric or promoted hateful views of other religious
groups. Have you done that or has your website done that?
Ms. Khera. Well, let me, maybe by way of background, just
clarify----
Senator Kyl. As a former staffer, you know that my time is
very limited so do not have a lot of background. I have three
quick questions here. Have you done that?
Ms. Khera. Well, let me just clarify, Senator Kyl. My
organization's work is focused on protecting and upholding our
constitutional values here at home.
Senator Kyl. So you have not condemned the hateful speech
of those who have criticized others in the way that I mentioned
then?
Ms. Khera. I guess I would have to know more specifically
which particular case you are talking about.
Senator Kyl. Well, let me just ask you this. Would you
today criticize threats of death or physical harm directed at
writers or commentators who have criticized Islamic extremism?
You would condemn that today, would you not?
Ms. Khera. I think we have in our country very cherished
fidelity to the First Amendment, and that includes freedom of
speech----
Senator Kyl. I am not questioning whether people have the
right to speak. The question is whether you would agree that
that speech is helpful or hurtful, whether you would condemn it
or be neutral about it.
Ms. Khera. Those who would threaten to kill somebody
because of their political views, religious views, that is
inappropriate.
Senator Kyl. And I am specifically talking about the
website--I guess I should identify your site here, which I will
in just a moment.
Ms. Khera. It is MuslimAdvocates.org.
Senator Kyl. Yes. MuslimAdvocates.org. Is that correct?
Ms. Khera. Yes.
Senator Kyl. Thank you. Let me just refer you to several
cases here last year and then ask you about something on your
website.
Just last year, U.S. intelligence agents and our justice
system uncovered and prosecuted a number of attempted terrorist
attacks that were planned by radical Muslim extremists. A
compilation produced by the Investigative Project on Terrorism
based on recent Justice Department reports lists just the
following incidents:
On November 27th, Mohamed Osman Mohamud was arrested and
charged with attempting to explode a car bomb in Portland,
Oregon.
October 27th, Farooque Ahmed was arrested for attempting to
assist others whom he believed to be members of al Qaeda in
planning multiple bombings in the metro area here in
Washington.
October 19th, Hosam Smadi was sentenced to 24 years in
prison for attempting to blow up a skyscraper in Dallas, Texas.
October 18th, a Federal court in Manhattan found that James
Cromitie and four others were guilty of attempting to detonate
explosives near a synagogue in the Bronx.
On August 2nd, Russell Defreitas and Abdul Kadir were
convicted of a conspiracy to attack John F. Kennedy Airport by
exploding fuel tanks under the airport.
On June 21st, Faisal Shahzad pleaded guilty to attempting
to detonate a car bomb in Times Square. He was sentenced to
life in prison.
On March 18th, David Headley pleaded guilty to charges that
he participated in planning the November 2008 attacks in
Mumbai, India, which killed 164 people.
Every one of these incidents could have resulted in the
deaths of hundreds of people. In fact, the Headley plot, of
course, did, including six Americans.
All of these terrorists were obviously indifferent to whom
they killed, including women and children, and I think we owe a
debt of gratitude to the enforcement agents who identified and
stopped the plots before they could be carried out.
In view of this history, I was curious about your website,
the so-called Community Alert Section, which is apparently
directed to American Muslims, and it notes, and I quote, ``The
FBI is contacting American Muslims to elicit information and
advice about addressing violent extremism. Muslim Advocates
strongly urges individuals not to speak to law enforcement
officials without the presence of a lawyer.'' And I was stunned
that you would issue that kind of instruction to people who
would read your site since, obviously, cooperation from Muslim
Americans is one of the best ways that law enforcement can
uncover terrorist plots like the ones that I described. And it
seems to me that it is the civic obligation of all Americans to
assist in preventing these heinous crimes, especially given the
participation of Muslims in all the attempted attacks that I
mentioned. I would think that Muslim Americans would feel a
special obligation to help intelligence agencies root this out.
Do you think it is wrong to investigate and prosecute the
individuals that I mentioned? And do you stand by the Muslim
Advocates Community Alert instructing Muslim Americans not to
cooperate with the FBI and other law enforcement investigating
potential acts of terrorism, or at least not without having a
lawyer present?
Ms. Khera. Senator Kyl, I fully understand the threat that
we are facing. You know, on September 11th, I was working right
here in the Capitol, and I ran from the Capitol with my
colleagues as we thought planes were approaching. So I fully
understand the threat. Those who engage in criminal acts must
be stopped and brought to justice. And every American has a
civic duty to report criminal activity to law enforcement.
You know, and I might add that Attorney General Holder has
actually said that the cooperation of the American Muslim
community has been essential to detecting and thwarting
terrorist plots.
At the same time, every American has the right to seek
legal advice, and that is a right that is guaranteed to every
American. And I know you are a lawyer. We are both lawyers. And
I think we both know that our legal system is quite complex,
and so encouraging community members to seek legal advice as
they interact with law enforcement is something that every
American has a right to do.
Senator Kyl. So you stand by that statement on your
website?
Ms. Khera. I stand by all the statements on my website.
Chairman Durbin. Thank you very much.
I recall a few weeks after 9/11, just remembering when I
raced from the Capitol as you did that day, I flew into O'Hare,
and as I went out to get a taxicab, there was a man wearing a
turban in the cab. And I got in the cab and sat in the back
seat, and as we started to pull away, I said to him, ``How have
things been for you since 9/11?'' Well, he said, ``I am sick,
and I wear this turban every day. Some people give me the
finger. Some curse at me. Some will not get in my cab. But most
people are just fine.'' He said, ``I wish they would get in my
cab. I would like to show them something.'' And he reached over
and he pulled down the passenger side visor, and there was a
picture of a young man in an American U.S. Army military
uniform. And he said, ``This is my son. He is somewhere now
overseas in the Middle East, and he cannot even tell me. But he
is fighting for our country. And my other son is going to
enlist in the Marine Corps.''
And I thought to myself, the people who were cursing him,
if they only knew that this man was putting his two most prized
possessions in service to the United States, risking their
lives to keep this Nation free.
I cannot quarrel with anyone who argues that we have a
threat of terrorism and have to deal with it honestly. What I
hope this hearing has suggested is that among the millions of
Muslim Americans, the overwhelming majority are patriotic, law-
abiding people who simply want to live their lives as we all do
in this great and free country. We all have to work to keep it
safe, Muslim Americans and those who are not. But the purpose
of this hearing was to make it clear that there are some basic
and fundamental principles that should guide us in our
relationships with one another. And your testimony today, I
want to say for all three of you, has been extraordinary.
I would like to close, as I mentioned I would, thanking you
again but also noting that some of the groups that have
submitted statements in support of this hearing, the
Subcommittee received written statements from over 40 different
organizations: the ACLU, the Alliance for Justice, the American
Jewish Committee, Human Rights First, Interfaith Alliance,
Islamic Society of North America, Leadership Conference on
Civil and Human Rights, Military Religious Freedom Foundation,
Muslim Public Affairs Council, Sikh Coalition, South Asian
American Leaders Together, Southern Poverty Law Center, and the
United Methodist Church. And without objection, I will put the
statements in the record.
[The statements appear as submissions for the record.]
Chairman Durbin. I wanted to note in particular a statement
we received from an interfaith coalition called Shoulder to
Shoulder: Standing with American Muslims, Upholding American
Values. Among others, this coalition includes the American
Baptist Churches USA, Disciples of Christ, the Episcopal
Church, Evangelical Lutheran Church, the Islamic Society of
North America, the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism,
and the Reconstructionist Rabbinical Association. Here is part
of what they said in their statement: ``We remain profoundly
distressed and saddened by the incidents of violence committed
against Muslims in communities across America, by the
desecration of Islamic houses of worship, and by the
destruction of sacred texts. We stand by the principle that to
attack any religion in the United States is to do violence to
the religious freedom of all Americans. We encourage all
citizens of this country to honor freedoms guaranteed by our
Constitution that enable the free exercise of religion across
our great land.''
That is an appropriate note to close. If there are no
further comments from our panel or colleagues, I am going to
thank the witnesses again and tell you that the hearing record
is going to be open for 2 weeks, and additional materials and
questions may be sent your way, which I hope you will reply to
in a prompt manner.
Thank you again for being part of this hearing.
[Whereupon, at 11:57 a.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows.]
A P P E N D I X
Additional Material Submitted for the Record
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]