[Congressional Record Volume 143, Number 155 (Friday, November 7, 1997)]
[Senate]
[Pages S11952-S11954]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




              DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE--CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, lately, a discussion has been undertaken 
about the question of civil rights. Some think civil rights means 
preferences, quotas, and set-asides; others say it principally means 
equality in the law. That has been a major bone of contention as we 
have considered the nomination of Bill Lann Lee, an able attorney, for 
the position of chief of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. 
Department of Justice.
  We have had a lot of discussions about this question in recent years, 
and it is an important issue as this Senate considers that nomination. 
But there are other matters that come before the Civil Rights Division 
of the Department of Justice. It is a great division; it has played a 
tremendous role in the changing of race relations in America and has 
helped break down legal and de facto desegregation throughout this 
country. It has a great staff of 250 lawyers.
  But I think it is also a matter of significance and importance that 
the chief of the Civil Rights Division maintain clear and firm control 
and supervision over that Department. In recent years, as the situation 
in our Nation has changed, legal barriers to equality have been broken 
down, and actions by that Department have raised questions about the 
validity of their actions and whether or not the positions they are

[[Page S11953]]

taking on a number of cases are worthwhile.
  I have heard complaints about that. As a U.S. attorney for 12 years, 
I saw this division operate. Sometimes the actions taken by the 
Department were valid, however in many cases their actions can fairly 
be characterized as questionable. As the attorney general for the State 
of Alabama, I have seen a number of instances that trouble me about the 
role and the legal position of the Department of Justice. Just this 
week, there was a major decision by the U.S. Eleventh Circuit Court of 
Appeals. That opinion rendered an important decision. One newspaper 
article, described this opinion as a ``stinging rebuke" to the U.S. 
Department of Justice. The Federal court ordered the Department of 
Justice to pay $63,000 in attorney's fees to a Dallas County commission 
in Alabama over an election dispute that dragged on for 4 years. Let me 
read you some of the comments from that article. I think it points out 
the need to make sure that the person we have as chief of the Civil 
Rights Division is balanced and fair and treats everyone with the 
justice that the Department contends that they do.
  Calling this case ``very troubling,'' the appeals court blasted the 
Department of Justice for its continued refusal to pay legal fees and 
for its insistence that the white leadership on the Dallas County 
commission helped a candidate win an election contest. This is what the 
court said:

       A properly conducted investigation would have quickly 
     revealed there was no basis for the claim of purposeful 
     discrimination against black voters.

  The opinion also pointed out that the actual placement of Dallas 
County voters within districts was made by the predominantly black 
board of registrars. An attorney, John Kelly, who litigated the case 
for the county commission, said, ``This is the toughest Federal court 
decision I have ever read.''
  Indeed, I would have to agree with that. It is remarkable. The 
decision means that the Federal Government will have to pay to the 
county commission, out of taxpayers' money, your money and my money, 
$62,872.49 into their fund, to pay for the attorneys, which the court 
found were having to defend a case that was unjustified.
  The opinion was written by a U.S. district judge from California who 
was sitting by designation on the eleventh circuit panel. Although the 
repayment of the attorneys fees is partial compensation to those 
aggrieved by the Department's actions, as this judge stated, 
``Unfortunately, we cannot restore the reputation of the persons 
wrongfully branded by the Justice Department as the public officials 
who deliberately deprived their fellow citizens of their voting rights. 
We also lack the power to remedy the damage done to race relations in 
Dallas County by the unfounded accusations of purposeful discrimination 
made by the Department of Justice.''

  The three-judge panel suggested to the Justice Department that it be 
``more sensitive'' in the future ``to the impact on racial harmony that 
can result from the filing of a claim of purposeful discrimination.'' 
The court said it found the Justice Department's actions, ``without a 
proper investigation of the truth, unconscionable.''
  ``Hopefully,'' the court goes on to say, ``we will not again be faced 
with reviewing a case as carelessly investigated as this one.''
  Now, Mr. President, I think that the Department of Justice has an 
important role in this country to ensure equal rights, to make sure 
everyone has the right to vote, to make sure that there is equal 
justice under the law. But they also have a responsibility to be fair, 
to carry on their cases effectively, to be nonpartisan, to be 
objective, and to be careful in the cases they bring. This case went on 
for 4 years, when in fact, it could have been disposed of in short 
order with an effective investigation.
  So, whoever is chosen to head the Civil Rights Division of the 
Department of Justice will have an important task. I asked Mr. Lee when 
I interviewed him, if he would take control of this Department? Would 
he make sure that the attorneys in that Department are obeying the law 
and are actually doing justice and not injustice? Would he make sure 
that they would not engage in civil wrongs when focusing on civil 
rights?'' Yes, this article will tell you that the Department of 
Justice can do civil wrongs and, in fact, they have done so. As 
attorney general of the State of Alabama I had occasion to witness 
this, as the following story illustrates.
  There was a question about whether or not the voting rights section 
of the Department of Justice had the power and the duty and the 
obligation to preclear--that is, approve--a law change in Alabama in 
which the judges on a panel went from five members to seven members who 
would be elected at large. They said that they did have a right to 
object to that, that that law could not take effect until they had 
approved it--read it, studied and approved it. We did not believe that 
was so. There was legal authority present, including a decision made by 
the U.S. Supreme Court, that clearly indicated to me as attorney 
general of Alabama that they had no authority to preclear that 
decision. So I said we were going to proceed with it, and they 
maintained their objection.
  Now, there is an interesting thing about this that you may not know. 
If you object to a ruling of the Department of Justice, Civil Rights 
Division, in Washington, DC, and you live in Alabama, you can't file a 
lawsuit in Federal court in Alabama to get a conclusion of the matter. 
Under the law, you have to file the lawsuit in Washington, DC, in 
Federal court, which is a very expensive process. I submit, Mr. 
President, they didn't think we would do it. They didn't think we cared 
enough about that principle to do so. But we told them they were wrong 
and they were going to lose this opinion, and we would file the suit. 
They called our bluff and refused to preclear or agree that they did 
not have control over this position.
  So we filed a suit, and the case proceeded for a short time. The U.S. 
Department of Justice then confessed--admitted--that they had no basis 
for their case, and conceded our point.
  I say to you, Mr. President, that you can say that was a mistake and 
some might say so. In my opinion, it was a heavyhanded application of 
the law.
  Those were good attorneys. They knew they didn't have to have a good 
legal basis for the position they took, and they tried to bluff the 
State of Alabama and force the State of Alabama to capitulate anyway.
  So this is the kind of thing that is important. All of us care about 
justice in America. Also, we care about the law being enforced, and we 
believe that civil rights attorneys can also make errors; civil rights 
attorneys can actually do civil wrongs. We believe that they have to 
obey the law, also.
  So I would just say that this points out another reason, as we debate 
who should be the head of the Civil Rights Division of the Department 
of Justice, that we select a person who is balanced, who is fair, who 
is objective, and who will follow the law, including the Constitution 
of the United States, the laws passed by this Congress, and the case 
authority of the courts of the United States.
  Mr. President, that concludes my remarks. I yield the floor.
  Mr. AKAKA addressed the Chair.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Hawaii.


                         Privilege of the Floor

  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Mr. Jaffer 
Mohiuddin, a legislative fellow in my office, be granted the privilege 
of the floor for the remainder of the day.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Hawaii is recognized.
  Mr. AKAKA. I thank the Chair.
  (The remarks of Mr. Akaka pertaining to the introduction of S. 1418 
are located in today's Record under ``Statements on Introduced Bills 
and Joint Resolutions.'')
  Mr. AKAKA. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  Mr. SESSIONS. I ask unanimous consent to proceed not to exceed 3 
minutes as in morning business.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.

[[Page S11954]]



                          ____________________