[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 154 (Friday, November 18, 2005)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E2429-E2430]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    CIVIL RIGHTS AND THE RULE OF LAW

                                 ______
                                 

                        HON. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS

                              of maryland

                    in the house of representatives

                       Friday, November 18, 2005

  Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Speaker, when our new Attorney General, Alberto 
Gonzales, pledged earlier this year that enforcement of our civil 
rights laws would be one of his priorities, we all wished him well in 
fulfilling that commitment.
  When leaders here in Washington--Democrats and Republicans alike--
have expressed support for extension of the 1965 Voting Rights Act, our 
hopes for a better and more just society have been encouraged.
  When this Nation rose as one and bowed our heads in respect for the 
life of Ms. Rosa Parks, the ``Mother of Civil Rights in America,'' we 
also were re-dedicating ourselves to the ideals of equality, 
opportunity and civility that are the foundation of American society.
  I remind the House of these promising, non-partisan expressions of 
our Nation's shared values, Mr. Speaker, for a very important reason.
  Last Sunday, the Washington Post published a news article that 
outlined some deeply disturbing assertions about the operation of the 
Department of Justice's Civil Rights Division.
  The article entitled Civil Rights Focus Shift Roils Staff at Justice, 
written by Mr. Dan Eggen, reported that nearly 20 percent of the Civil 
Rights Division's non-political attorneys resigned or retired during 
fiscal year 2005.
  We also learned that significant disagreements exist between career 
civil rights attorneys within the Department and administration 
appointees about the priority that should be given to the enforcement 
of our civil rights laws.

[[Page E2430]]

  These policy disagreements--at the core of many resignations--have 
included the Department's decisions to approve redistricting plans in 
Mississippi and Texas, as well as the controversial decision to approve 
a new Georgia statute that would require voters to present government-
issued photo identification cards at the polls.
  In October, Judge Harold Murphy of the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of Georgia granted an injunction last month to 
lawyers for Common Cause of Georgia, the ACLU, the NAACP and other 
groups who have challenged the Georgia photo identification statute 
under the 1965 Voting Rights Act.
  Judge Murphy ruled that the petitioners have shown a substantial 
likelihood that they will ultimately prevail in establishing that it 
``unduly burdens the right to vote'' and ``constitutes a poll tax.'' 
Recently, a three-judge appellate panel, made up of one Democratic and 
two Republican appointees, confirmed this reasoning by upholding the 
lower court's injunction.
  Why, we must ask, does the policy leadership of our Department of 
Justice not agree?
  Consider, also, this revealing fact. The Department of Justice's own 
statistics confirm that prosecutions for the racial and gender 
discrimination crimes traditionally handled by the Civil Rights 
Division have declined by 40 percent over the past 5 years.
  The Department has vigorously disputed both the significance of the 
policy disagreements within its Civil Rights Division and the exodus of 
so many career attorneys.
  However, the facts indicate that Attorney General Gonzales faces some 
very real obstacles to his promise about renewed civil rights priority.
  Mr. Speaker, we know from history that the legitimacy of any 
government rests upon the fairness of its laws and willingness to 
vigorously uphold the rule of law.
  We cannot overlook patterns of systematic neglect within the agency 
entrusted to enforce our laws.
  These failures threaten our most fundamental legal guarantees.
  That is why we must not be hesitant to seek the answers to the hard 
questions, the questions that the people we represent are asking.
  Why have civil rights cases declined so precipitously in recent 
years?
  Why have career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division been 
reassigned to other duties?
  Why are so many career lawyers leaving the Department of Justice?
  What must Congress do to better support America's chief law 
enforcement officer in fulfilling his commitment to make enforcement of 
our civil rights laws a priority?
  Mr. Speaker, let the discord within the Department of Justice serve 
as a bellwether to all Americans who believe in the principles of civil 
rights.
  A renewed vigor and more certain direction are desperately needed in 
the enforcement of civil rights.
  We must remain vigilant. We must move forward with a sense of 
urgency.
  If America is to serve as the beacon of democracy for the rest of the 
world, it is the imperative that we enforce justice, equality and the 
rule of law within our own country.

                          ____________________