[Senate Hearing 110-433]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-433
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF GRACE C. BECKER TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MARCH 11, 2008
__________
Serial No. J-110-79
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
42-266 PDF WASHINGTON DC: 2008
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JON KYL, Arizona
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Stephanie A. Middleton, Republican Staff Director
Nicholas A. Rossi, Republican Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Uath...... 3
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 1
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont,
prepared statement............................................. 196
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania................................................... 2
STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE
Becker, Grace C., of New York, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice... 5
Questionnaire................................................ 6
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Responses of Grace C. Becker to questions submitted by Senators
Durbin, Feingold, Kennedy, Leahy, Schumer, Specter and
Whitehouse..................................................... 71
SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD
Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia,
prepared statement............................................. 199
NOMINATION OF GRACE C. BECKER, OF NEW YORK, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:42 p.m., in
room SD-106, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Edward M.
Kennedy, presiding.
Present: Senators Feingold, Schumer, Cardin, Whitehouse,
Specter, and Hatch. Also present: Grace C. Becker.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR
FROM THE STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. Good afternoon. The Committee will come to
order. Thank you for your patience here this afternoon.
Ms. Becker, good afternoon, and welcome to the Committee.
You've been nominated to head the Civil Rights Division. The
Division is one of the most importance agencies in the Federal
Government. It serves as the government's public and private
voice on civil rights. Its historic mission has been to protect
the civil rights of all Americans, especially those who are the
most vulnerable, and help our Nation live up to our ideals of
opportunity and justice for all.
Fifty years ago, the Division was created to provide more
rigorous protection of civil rights. Since then, Justice
Department lawyers have been in the forefront of civil rights
struggles. The Division was at the forefront of battles to
desegregate schools and open the doors of opportunity to all
children; it led the charge to protect voting rights and fair
housing, and to break down the glass ceilings that unfairly
limit opportunities in workplaces for women, minorities, and
persons with disabilities.
Today's civil rights challenges are difference from those
of the past. New forms of discrimination replace the ``Whites
Only'' signs of the past. We know that civil rights are still
the unfinished business of America and if we are not vigilant
we will lose ground, so there is a need for a strong Civil
Rights Division to continue the progress that we have been
making.
Unfortunately, in this administration the Division has
failed to live up to its historic role. The Division that
helped bring Jim Crow to his knees has now backed away from
fully enforcing civil rights. Press reports and congressional
oversight hearings on the Division have shown that in recent
years politics has often dictated outcomes and civil rights
enforcement suffered.
Equally disturbing, the Division's political leaders
supplied political tests to career professionals and let
partisan considerations affect personal decisions ranging from
hiring to case assignments and evaluation. Much of this conduct
is still under investigation by the Inspector General in the
Office of Professional Responsibility.
The next Attorney General for Civil Rights will need to
restore the Division's tarnished image and reassure the
American people that their civil rights are being fully and
fairly protected. The public must be confident that politics no
longer trumps law enforcement and that the Division has the
strong leadership needed to correct the recent problems. I look
forward to today's hearing and to your testimony on these
important issues.
Ms. Becker, as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for
Civil Rights, you previously served from 2006-2007 as the
Deputy Attorney General in the Division of an Associate Deputy
General Counsel for the Department of Defense. She is an
alumnae of this Committee and served as counsel to Senator
Hatch from 2003 to 2005, and we welcome Senator Hatch here this
afternoon. She has also been an Assistant General Counsel of
the U.S. Sentencing Commission and an attorney in the Criminal
Division of the Department of Justice.
We will hear from Senator Specter, and then we will welcome
any comments from our friend and colleague and Committee
member, Senator Hatch, before we hear from the witness.
STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join the
Chairman in welcoming you here, Ms. Grace Chung Becker. You
come to this nomination with outstanding academic and
professional background. I note you are a magna cum laude
graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, a very fine school.
I have a little knowledge as to what it takes to be magna cum
laude there. Magna also from Georgetown University Law Center.
You clerked for two very distinguished Federal judges. You had
extensive experience in the Department of Justice, and as
previously noted, working in the Civil Rights Division as
Deputy Assistant Attorney General and Acting Assistant Attorney
General.
As a member of a minority yourself, I think you have some
special insights into the issues and into the problems. There
is no doubt about the tremendous importance of the Civil Rights
Division. As that Division has moved from one form of
discrimination to another, it requires a great deal of
vigilance and is a very, very important department.
I would ask unanimous consent that a statement by Senator
John Warner be included in the record, and look forward to your
testimony.
Senator Kennedy. It will be so included, and a statement of
Senator Leahy.
[The prepared statements of Senator Warner and Senator
Leahy appear as submissions for the record.]
Senator Kennedy. Ms. Becker, are you sure you want Senator
Hatch to introduce you?
[Laughter.]
Ms. Becker. I proudly sit next to Senator Hatch.
Senator Kennedy. We welcome friend and colleague Senator
Hatch. We are delighted to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Grace, I have to say that you have two of the finest
advocates of civil rights in the history of this country who
are chairing and Ranking Member on this Committee today. I have
such tremendous respect for them.
But first of all, let me thank Senator Leahy, the Judiciary
Committee Chairman, for scheduling this hearing, as well as
you, Senator Kennedy, for taking time to chair the hearing, and
my dear friend as well, Senator Specter.
I am proud to introduce to the Committee Grace Chung
Becker, an outstanding nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
for Civil Rights. I will take just a few minutes to introduce
her, both professionally and personally.
Grace is currently the Acting Assistant Attorney General,
as has been said, for Civil Rights and has helped to lead the
Civil Rights Division since 2006, first as a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General. She received her B.A. from the University of
Pennsylvania and her B.S. from the Wharton School of Finance,
each of them magna cum laude. She received her J.D. from
Georgetown, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif,
which is the highest honor you can get in law school. By the
way, she also received that degree magna cum laude.
I think I see a pattern here. With the exception of 1 year
as an associate with the well-known law firm of Williams &
Connelly, Grace has spent her career in public service in all
three branches of government. She clerked for U.S. District
Judge Thomas Penfield Jackson and U.S. Circuit Judge James
Buckley, both here in the District of Columbia. Grace has
served in the Department of Justice as a trial attorney in the
Criminal Division, as Special Assistant U.S. Attorney, and as
Deputy Assistant Attorney General. Her executive branch tenure
also includes serving as Associate General Counsel at the
Department of Defense. Before returning to the Justice
Department, Grace served for 6 years as Assistant General
Counsel for the U.S. Sentencing Commission, as has been
mentioned.
It was during that period that she was detailed here to the
Senate Judiciary Committee, where she served as counsel when I
chaired the Committee during the 108th Congress. I believe that
15 current members of the Committee were here at that time and
will no doubt remember Grace's excellent work and dedication.
So, Mr. Chairman, Grace has served in all three branches of
the Federal Government and already has extensive experience
with the Department of Justice, including service in the very
position to which she has been nominated.
Turning from the professional to the personal, Grace was
born in New York City, the first person in her family to be
born in the United States. Her parents, both naturalized
American citizens, and Grace's three siblings are all
entrepreneurs in the New York/New Jersey area. I understand
that her extended family is here to support her today.
Grace's parents showed her the importance of hard work by
their consistent example, and she followed their advice that
education is critical to success. As a result, Grace is living
the American dream and reaping the fruit of character, hard
work, education, and integrity. She and her husband Brian have
been married since 1994 and they have two children, who are
also here today.
Grace is also then proud of her Korean heritage, and has
served on the Board of Korean-American Coalition, and on the
Fairfax County School Board's Human Rights Advisory Committee.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, let me add a more personal word. I
have personally been blessed, during my 31 years in this body,
to have had many able, smart, and dedicated staff. But I want
to say, with no disrespect intended for anyone else, that Grace
is one of the best. Her energy, intelligence, integrity, and
the quality of her character led me to really rely on her and
to trust her judgment when she worked on my staff. Her work
here in the Senate truly enhanced the quality of her service to
the American people.
Personally, I was sad to see her leave here, but confident
that she would bring the same qualities to the Department of
Justice. She certainly has not disappointed me. I know that the
Department of Justice in general, and the Civil Rights Division
in particular, have generated some controversy in the last 2
years. I hope that, as we move to approve new leadership there,
we can focus on the fine person before us.
I have no doubt that anyone who looks at her considerable
merit will see that all Americans are fortunate to have her in
this position. Her background, education, experience, and
character make this one of President Bush's best appointments.
So I hope that we can complete the confirmation process and
give her the unanimous vote of confidence that she deserves.
Mr. Chairman, this is a really fine person. I have never
seen an instance where she was not acting in the best interests
of our country and doing the best of her abilities, which are,
as you can easily see, very considerable. So I am very proud to
sit by you, Grace, and to recommend you to this Committee, and
especially to these two leaders who, as I have said before, are
two of the greatest leaders in the history of the Congress on
civil rights.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for granting me this time.
Senator Kennedy. Ms. Becker, would you be good enough to
stand and raise your right hand?
[Whereupon, the nominee was duly sworn.]
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much. Congratulations.
I have been troubled by the numerous reports in recent
years that partisan politics has infected the personnel
decisions in the Civil Rights Division. Bradley Schlossman, a
former official in the Division, told the Committee that he
bragged about hiring Republicans. He also tried to transfer
three minority women out of the Appellate Section involuntarily
because he felt they were too liberal. Even though all of them
had served successfully for years, he said he wanted to replace
them with ``good Americans''.
A Deputy Chief of the Voting Section who had served with
distinction in the Department for 25 years was transferred
involuntarily to a dead-end training job after he and other
career attorneys recommended raising a Voting Rights Act
objection to a Georgia photo ID law that had been pushed
through by State Republicans. The law was later blocked by the
courts, which compared it to a poll tax.
I will withhold here. Would you like to introduce your
family?
STATEMENT OF GRACE CHUNG BECKER OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Becker. I welcome the opportunity.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Please.
Ms. Becker. Thank you very much, Senator Kennedy. I have
today behind me, and I guess slightly to your left, my husband,
Brian Becker and our two children, my daughter, Kira Becker,
who is 10 years old, and my son, Scott Becker, who is 7 years
old.
Senator Kennedy. Are they missing school today?
Ms. Becker. They went for half a day and they are both
missing a few teeth, though, of relative recent vintage.
[Laughter.]
On the other side of them is my mother, Judith Chung.
Senator Kennedy. Good.
Ms. Becker. Over here to your right is my father, Hai Joon
Chung.
Senator Kennedy. Fine.
Ms. Becker. My brother, David Chung, his son, my nephew,
Peter Chung. And then in the second row is my brother David's
wife, Erica Chung. Then my cousin, Karen Becker, is also in the
second row. Then on the back, going across on this side is my
niece, Sun A Yoon, and a dear family friend who has really been
like an uncle to me, Lak Moon Chung.
Senator Kennedy. Very good. You are all very welcome.
Should we get the coloring books out?
[Laughter.]
Smart young people here. Very good.
Is there any comment that you would like to make at the
start?
Ms. Becker. Just to thank the President and the Attorney
General for the nomination and support, and to thank my family
members for all of their personal and financial sacrifices so
that I could be here today, sir.
[The biographical information of Ms. Becker follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.039
Senator Kennedy. Fine. Thank you.
I was asking about the Civil Rights Division and the
challenge of partisan politics, and had mentioned that Bradley
Schlossman had bragged about hiring Republicans, and mentioned
about three minority women who had been transferred
involuntarily, then a Deputy Chief of the Voting Section, who
had served 25 years, transferred involuntarily to a dead-end
training job after raising the Georgia voting rights case.
The Boston Globe also reported that, beginning in 2003, an
increasing proportion of attorneys hired in three key sections
of the Division were members of the Republican National Lawyers
Association and other conservative groups, and that the number
of new hires with civil rights experience plunged. That was a
report in the Boston Globe. Many career section chiefs were
removed, other career professionals were transferred, denied
assignments, and found working in the Division so difficult
that they left.
So the improper injection of political concerns in a
personnel matter has devastated morale and undermined the
Division's mission and reputation. Federal law clearly
prohibits a political litmus test for career civil service
employees, and these matters currently are being investigated
by the Division's Inspector General and the Office of
Professional Responsibility. It is essential that the next head
of the Division show leadership in correcting this problem.
You were in the Division when some of these problems
occurred. You headed the Division since December of 2007, so
the public is entitled to learn what you knew about this and
whether you have done anything to correct the problems.
Ms. Becker. Thank you for the question, Senator Kennedy. As
you know, I was a career attorney for over a decade before I
ever came to the Civil Rights Division. Let me reassure you and
this Committee that I do not engage in politicized hiring, that
I have made it clear to my managers in the Civil Rights
Division that I will not tolerate politicized hiring. The
allegations--many of the allegations that you raise occurred
prior to the time that I arrived in the Civil Rights Division
in March of 2006. Mr. Schlossman was transitioning out of the
Division at the time that I was starting, so I do not overlap
with him for any substantial amount of time.
But I can assure you, as a person who's been a career
attorney, at the Department of Justice and all over the Federal
Government, that I know the value of career attorneys. I know
the value of ensuring, maintaining, and facilitating open and
robust pre-deliberative conversations, because I think that
makes for good litigation decisions at the end of the day.
Senator Kennedy. Well, let me ask, did you, in any of the
time that you were in there--you headed the Division since
December 1907--come across these types of activities?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I am aware of the general allegations
and that they are being investigated right now by the Office of
Professional Responsibility and the Office of Inspector
General, but I am not aware of any new allegations since the
time between December 1907 and today.
But you didn't participate in any questioning of any
potential hirees and ask them political questions?
Ms. Becker. Absolutely not, sir.
Senator Kennedy. In 2002, the Department changed its hiring
procedures to give political appointees the final say in the
process. It's my understanding that at least in some cases
political appointees in the Division still conduct the final
interviews of applicants for career attorney positions. Is that
correct?
Ms. Becker. Senator, we have a collaborative approach
within the Civil Rights Division, where the political and the
career managers work together to review resumes and interview
applicants.
Senator Kennedy. Well, are there instances where the final
interviews of applicants for career positions, those judgments
and decisions are being made by political appointees?
Ms. Becker. It's a collective process, Senator. The
decision to hire any attorney at the Civil Rights Division is
one that, you know, we take very seriously.
Senator Kennedy. Describe ``collective process'' in this. I
mean, evidently there are circumstances where the political
appointee is doing the interview for an attorney, for their
position. I assume from your answer that that is the case, that
does happen. Does it happen or doesn't it happen?
Ms. Becker. Everybody participates in the interview
process, career attorneys and political managers.
Senator Kennedy. Well, political managers--
Ms. Becker. Political appointed managers, I should say.
Senator Kennedy. All right. Well, in some cases it's
career--I'm just trying to get the answers. So I understand in
some places that career appointees do the interviews and in
other places political appointees do.
Ms. Becker. And sometimes they're done jointly, sir.
Senator Kennedy. OK.
Ms. Becker. It depends upon the schedule--
Senator Kennedy. All right. Some are done jointly. My
question is, with regard to the political appointees, then what
happens? They do the interview and they do what? After they
make a judgment, then they do what?
Ms. Becker. We have--we have discussions and we try to
reach consensus, Senator.
Senator Kennedy. And you're going to continue that process
if you are approved, or are you going to leave the hiring
questions up to career?
Ms. Becker. Senator, as someone who has been a career
employee, I can tell you what I look for in a potential
candidate.
Senator Kennedy. I'm not asking what you're looking for. I
want an answer to the question. Are you going to permit
political appointees to make judgments or are you going to have
career people do the hiring?
Ms. Becker. I believe this consensus collaborative approach
has been working well during the two years that I've been at
the Civil Rights Division, Senator. At this point I'm not
planning to make any changes.
Senator Kennedy. Well, the answer then is that you're going
to continue to permit political appointees to make judgments in
terms of the hiring of career officers. I'm just trying to get
the record straight here. It'll be a part of a process. You say
they'll talk to other people in making final judgments. But
you're not prepared to give the assurances, given the
background that we've had in the Department, that in terms of
the new hires, that those judgments in the Civil Rights
Division, their interviews are going to be done by career
personnel?
Ms. Becker. Those interviews currently are being done by
career personnel. They are a very large part of the process. I
take very strong--I weigh very heavily the recommendations of
the career attorneys in the Civil Rights Division. But as
deputies in the front office do manage these sections, Senator,
and do supervise the sections, so long as they are not taking
political affiliations into account, which is prohibited, and I
made that entirely clear to my staff, there--I believe that
there is an appropriate role for the managers to play, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Have political appointees ever interviewed
applicants without career attorneys being present?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I do not know. We usually have a
process. The section chiefs can choose whether or not they want
to interview with their--the other individuals in the section
or if they'd like to come over to main Justice and interview
with the--
Senator Kennedy. Well, what are you going to do if you get
approved? Will you insist that if they're going to follow this
up, where you're going to have political appointees doing the
interviews, that there are going to be at least career
attorneys present?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I leave it up to the section chiefs to
choose and to work with them. As long as everybody gets a
chance to interview, I always think of an inclusive process. So
if they'd like, they're always welcome to come to an interview
where a manager in the front office is interviewing them.
Senator Kennedy. Now, since you joined the Division have
you ever required section chiefs to obtain permission from your
office before hiring interns?
Ms. Becker. I believe they do notify the front office for
that. Yes, that's correct.
Senator Kennedy. What is the reason for that? For what
reason? Why do they have to do that?
Ms. Becker. It's a managerial function, as I understand it,
Senator, the process that was in place when I arrived there.
It's--it's--it's not--it's not a particularly vigorous one.
It's--it's one that we--we do as a--as a management duty, like
all of our other management duties, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Have you--since you joined the Division,
have you ever suggested a candidate be considered for a career
position, even though the candidate had not applied through the
regular application process?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I believe all of the resumes that we
receive, we send to the--to admin. if we get them out of the
normal process, or we tell the applicants to send it to admin.,
which is the through--the way it normally is handled. Some
people incorrectly mail--send things directly to us in the
front office.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I gather then from what you're
saying, is that there have not been candidates that have not
gone through the--that haven't been--that have four career
positions, I gather from what you're saying that there haven't
been any individuals that have joined the Division that have
not gone through the--the whole interview process. Is that
right?
Ms. Becker. To my knowledge, sir, yes.
Senator Kennedy. Since you joined the Division, have you
suggested a candidate be considered for a career position who
had been referred to you by a current or former political
appointee?
Ms. Becker. Not that I recall, no.
Senator Kennedy. So none of the--your testimony is that
there have been--there has been no one that has been suggested
to you by a--for a position in the Department from a political
appointee?
Ms. Becker. For a political position, Senator, or for a
career position?
Senator Kennedy. Recommended by a political appointee. Did
anybody, a political appointee, make a recommendation to you
for any--any--any employment?
Ms. Becker. Senator, as I sit here I can't think of anyone,
but, you know, I'd be happy to double check on that. But I
can't think of anybody that--that may have--
Senator Kennedy. OK.
I see Senator Cardin is here.
Bradley Schlossman, who is a former high-ranking official
in the Division, testified before this Committee that he
bragged about hiring Republicans for civil service jobs in the
Division. Did you ever hear anyone in the Division say anything
suggesting that political affiliation should be a factor in
personnel matters in the Division?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I know that these matters currently
are under investigation right now, and so I am obviously
limited in what I can say in that regard, sir. I know that this
is a topic that is of great interest to this Committee, and I
have faith that the Office of Professional Responsibility or
the Office of Inspector General will fully investigate the
matter.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I'm not asking so much about what
they said to each other. I'm just asking whether you had heard
that.
Ms. Becker. As I said, this matter is under investigation,
sir. I don't want to do anything that would jeopardize the
integrity of that investigation.
Senator Kennedy. I don't know whether there's a conflict
with saying what you know. I know that's being investigated,
but you're entitled to say what you know about this. I don't
know why you're blocked.
Ms. Becker. Senator, I'm not. I can tell you that I do not
engage in political hiring. I've made that entirely clear to my
staff, not just orally to the managers, but in writing as well.
I have issued a--reissued the memorandum in December of 2007
that was issued by my predecessor, making clear to everyone in
the Civil Rights Division that political affiliation would not
be an appropriate consideration for career hires.
Senator Kennedy. OK.
There have been reports that Mr. Schlossman sought to hire
attorneys who were members of the Republican National Lawyers
Association, a group to which you once belonged. Do you ever
have any reason to believe that any of the Division's political
appointees were using the Republican National Lawyers
Association as a source of hiring career attorneys?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I know that some of these issues that
you've talked about are under investigation. I can tell you
personally that I have never gotten any referrals from the
Republican National Lawyers Association while I've been at the
Civil Rights Division.
Senator Kennedy. OK. OK.
I'll recognize Senator Cardin, then I'll come on back.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Becker, it was a pleasure having an opportunity to meet
with you. I thanked you then, and I thank you now publicly for
your public service, and thank your family for their
understanding and sharing you with the service that you are
giving to your country.
I want to just underscore a point about the importance of
the position. The Civil Rights Division has been the premiere
agency to enforce our civil rights laws. As is true with many
of the fields within Department of Justice, I think it's
uniquely important on civil rights laws for Federal
enforcement. It's very difficult for the States to enforce the
laws. They don't have the tools that you have at the national
level, including the use of the FBI. You can--that Division
historically has made such a difference in the lives and
opportunities of all Americans. It's one of the great
accomplishments, I think, in the recent history of America.
I say that because I think Senator Kennedy's questions on
the independence of judgment here are going to be very
important in your role as the head of that Division, if
confirmed by the Senate. Let me just mention, perhaps--and I
would like to get your view as to the importance of this role
and being able to stand up to the politics within the
Department of Justice, standing up to partisan politics,
standing up to whatever you have to to carry out the
responsibilities that are entailed in heading that Division. So
maybe I'll pause for a moment and give you a chance, and then
I'm going to ask you specifically about one area.
Ms. Becker. Thank you, Senator Cardin. I do very much
appreciate the importance that the role of the Civil Rights
Division has played. Just recently over the last couple of
months, we have been celebrating the 50th anniversary of the
Civil Rights Division, as Senator Kennedy mentioned in his
opening statement.
It was a wonderful opportunity to look back upon the
formation of the Division and some of the history that
underlays what we do here in the Civil Rights Division. It's a
tremendous honor and a privilege to work day by day with the
men and women who are dedicated to enforcing Federal civil
rights laws in this area.
Senator, I can assure you that, as someone who's been a
former prosecutor, as someone who's been a career attorney for
over a decade, as someone who's worked in all three branches of
the Federal Government, I can appreciate the importance of
enforcing the law. I know I have a very healthy appreciation
for the three branches of government and the three roles that
they play, three very distinct roles that they play. I believe
that the role of the executive branch, the Justice Department,
and the Civil Rights Division is to engage in law enforcement
and to vigorously enforce all of the Federal civil rights laws.
Senator Cardin. I want to talk about one area specifically,
which is going to be voting rights, but it could be housing, it
could be hate crimes, it could be other areas where, quite
frankly, the impression in the community is that there has been
political interference with the traditional role of the
Department of Justice Civil Rights Division. I share that. I'll
tell you up front that I am concerned that we have not had the
objective enforcement of these laws as we have in previous
administrations.
But elections are pretty fundamental and we're going to
have a major national election coming in November. I think it's
critically important that the Department of Justice Civil
Rights Division be actively involved to hopefully prevent
fraudulent activities, to ensure that, to the maximum extent
possible, those who wish to participate in the elections are
able to participate in the elections and that votes are
properly counted.
So let me tell you the dilemma that I face as a United
States Senator. I am concerned that there will be political
pressure placed on the Department of Justice, the Civil Rights
Division, to use your resources as aggressively as possible to
make sure that no one who is not eligible to vote and
registered is found and make sure that person doesn't vote,
even though there is little evidence of any significant problem
of people voting who are not eligible and registered to vote.
I'm afraid that that's going to be the directive, exclusive
of activities that have taken place in the last several
elections that have clearly been aimed at minority communities
to prevent minority communities from participating in the
numbers that they otherwise would: literature that's
distributed giving the wrong election day in minority
communities; literature that's distributed, threatening people
with being arrested and put in jail if they have unpaid parking
tickets and attempt to vote; literature aimed at minority
communities, clearly part of election strategies to try to
diminish the importance of minority voting.
I would think that the Department of Justice, the Civil
Rights Division, could play a really important role to make it
clear that those types of election tactics will have no place
in America. I suspect that you will probably agree with me, but
I am concerned that there may well be political influence
that's attempted to be exercised to prevent you, as the
Division chief, from making an independent judgment that the
resources should be placed to make sure that vulnerable people
are not intimidated from voting.
I would just give you a chance as to whether you would
stand up to that pressure and whether you're prepared to make
an independent judgment on the set of facts which I believe the
communities have pretty well already come in with their
concerns. But I want to have assurances that, if you are
confirmed, that you would make this independent judgment and
stand up for the enforcement by the Civil Rights Division that
can have the most impact on enfranchising people to vote,
particularly minorities.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you for that question. I think
we agree that voting is a fundamental right. As the Supreme
Court has stated, it's so significant because it's preservative
of all the other rights that we have. I've only been overseeing
the Voting Section for three months, but in that very short
time period I have made clear to everyone in the Voting Section
that I want to vigorously enforce all the provisions, all the
statutes, all the voting statutes that are entrusted to the
Civil Rights Division to enforce, because that's what I believe
our job is to do, to open up the vote to as many people as we
can.
You talked about some instances that may adversely affect
minorities. That is something that we, of course, are very
concerned about in the Civil Rights Division, and if any of
those activities implicate one of the statutes that we enforce,
I can assure you that we will take appropriate action in that
regard.
You also talked about voter fraud. There has been a
traditional division of labor within the Department of Justice,
and that's reflected in Regulation 28 CFR 0.50, which sets
forth the responsibilities of the Assistant Attorney General
for the Civil Rights Division, and 0.55, which delineates the
responsibilities of the Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division.
The vast majority of election crimes are entrusted to the
Criminal Division to enforce. There is a small subset that
could potentially come to the Civil Rights Division, usually
when it involves some allegation of discrimination, which are
the types of allegations that we see throughout the Division.
So I can assure you that from the Civil Rights Division
perspective, that we will vigorously enforce all the laws that
we are entrusted to in full.
Senator Cardin. I would also hope you would be more
aggressive than that, in that if you don't have enough laws,
let us know about it. We asked the Department of Justice to
investigate the conduct of the 2006 election. They declined to
do it. They indicated they didn't believe they had adequate
laws to handle those circumstances. There has been legislation
pending in this Congress on which we've gotten zero help from
the administration in getting passed where we give additional
tools to go after targeting of minority communities to prevent
them from voting, which I would think is fundamental to the
mission of the Civil Rights Division.
I understand these are criminal offenses and you have a
Criminal Division, but to me these are fundamental civil rights
that should be of interest to the Civil Rights Division.
Senator Mathias came down to testify in favor of that, the
distinguished former Senator from Maryland, a Republican.
I think there is strong bipartisan support to make sure
that everyone can participate in this election. I hoped this
wouldn't be a partisan issue. I think, without the leadership
of the Department of Justice making it clear to candidates that
this is off the table, that you can't try to disenfranchise
people in order to win an election--that requires leadership.
I think the Division of Civil Rights is the appropriate
agency within the Department of Justice to exercise that
leadership to make sure we have adequate tools in order to
enforce the law. If you don't, ask for more tools and make this
a top priority, knowing full well what has happened in so many
States, including my own, in recent elections.
Ms. Becker. Senator, I appreciate that offer. If there are
additional tools that we would need, I welcome the opportunity
to approach you for any additional tools.
I will tell you, I do know we have discussed your voting
bill. I know that this is something you feel very strongly
about, and there are certainly provisions in that bill, as the
Department has indicated in its newsletter, that it does
support--the criminal provisions, I know, are helpful, some of
the--provisions that are in there if people are saying that you
should vote on Tuesday instead of Wednesday, things of that--
false information.
But there--as you know, as I delineated in the letter, some
concerns with regard to campaign rhetoric and whether or not
the Justice Department should publicly issue corrective action
to correct the campaign rhetoric of candidates, and that's an
issue that I'd like the opportunity to continue to work with
Congress on, if I have the opportunity to do so, and to be as
cooperative as I can with respect to various provisions of that
legislation.
Senator Cardin. Well, I welcome those discussions. Quite
frankly, I welcome leadership in the Civil Rights Division that
will stand up for the traditional role of that agency.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Senator.
You know, Ms. Becker, one of the first actions you took as
the Acting head of the Division was to file a brief urging the
Supreme Court to uphold a strict Indiana photo ID requirement
for voting, which had the potential to disenfranchise large
numbers of minority voters. A broad coalition of civil rights
advocates expressed deep concern about the Indiana law
undermining voting rights. The law is also widely viewed as
benefiting Republicans, raising the appearance that the
Division's support of the law is politically motivated.
Given the potential harm to minority voters, the fact that
Indiana was well represented by competent counsel and the
appearance that the Division was acting for political reasons,
why did you think it necessary to file a brief supporting the
Indiana photo ID law?
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you for that question. As you
know, this is a case that's currently pending before the
Supreme Court. The Solicitor General filed a brief on behalf of
the United States of America, and I joined that brief on behalf
of the Civil Rights Division. I can share with you the Civil
Rights Division perspective, but with the caveat that there are
other government interests as well. We enforce the Help America
Vote Act in the Civil Rights Division.
In that statute it requires that individuals who register
by mail, who go to vote in person for the first time, have to
show some form of identification. Not necessarily photo
identification, but some form of identification. There's a
concern that the Supreme Court's ruling here may undermine our
ability to vigorously enforce the Help America Vote Act. There
are also seven Members of Congress who filed amici briefs on
that very issue, sir. But if I may just add that I think that
voter ID laws generally--
Senator Kennedy. Were they all Republicans--
Ms. Becker. No, sir.
Senator Kennedy.--the members that signed?
Ms. Becker. No, sir. I do--if I may, sir, I do think it's
important for us in the Civil Rights Division to look at voter
ID laws, and in fact any law that has the potential of being
used as a pretext to suppress minority votes very carefully.
Senator, I believe that we need to take these instances on a
case-by-case basis. Whether it is this law or any other law, if
it has a retrogressive effect or a discriminatory purpose, that
is something that we will take appropriate action on in the
Civil Rights Division, as we have in other voting cases in the
Supreme Court.
For example, in Riley v. Kennedy, we filed an amicus brief
on behalf of African-American voters, defending the Section 5
objection that we had interposed. Again, that was a brief filed
by the Solicitor General's Office, but one that my name appears
on as well.
My name also appears on another Supreme Court amicus brief
that the Solicitor General filed involving Cracker Barrel,
where we argued on the side of the employee, that a Section
1981 claim, which is a private civil rights claim involving
contracts, includes retaliation. So if you look at the broad
swath of cases that we've brought in the Civil Rights Division,
I think that you will see that we try to take these cases on a
case-by-case basis and vigorously enforce the laws in the Civil
Rights Division.
Senator Kennedy. Well, what was it about the Indiana photo
ID case that was the most troublesome to you? This isn't an old
issue. We have the Georgia ID case. The court decision that
found that, in effect, it overrode--political personnel
overrode the career individuals in the Justice Department, felt
that it was more of a poll tax.
What was it about the Indiana photo ID that so distressed
you?
Ms. Becker. Senator, if I may, just--I've only been
overseeing the Voting Section for 3 months. I was not there at
the time when some of the Georgia ID decisions that you are
concerned about were made. I--I can tell you that--I can talk
about the process part of it, what my philosophy is in
management in terms of including career--
Senator Kennedy. It's a pretty major--pretty major civil
rights case--
Ms. Becker. Yes, sir. And I'm--
Senator Kennedy.--the Georgia ID case. Add in the Texas
case, the two most notorious cases certainly in the civil
rights area in the recent times.
Ms. Becker. Senator, those are both cases that I was not
supervising the Voting Section at the time. I am generally
familiar with those cases. I can tell you--
Senator Kennedy. Well, I'm just trying to figure out what
it was about the Indiana photo ID case that you felt so
strongly about in terms of, you thought it was necessary to
file the brief in the Indiana photo after the history of the
Georgia case, which was political interference with government
officials overriding government judgments, and then eventually
being struck down. What--so that's a pretty red flag. And then
you felt, evidently, that the Indiana brief, that you ought to
be signing onto that. I'm just wondering what it was in this
Indiana photo ID case that--that troubled you so much in terms
of--of its--it's--that you thought that you ought to get
involved in it.
Ms. Becker. Senator, as you know, this is pending before
the Supreme Court right now and, pursuant to Departmental
policy, I can't get into the substance of pending litigation.
But what I can--
Senator Kennedy. You can talk about the case. You can talk
about the case. I mean, there's no reason--you filed a brief on
the case. There's no reason you can't talk about the case.
Ms. Becker. Exactly, Senator. And I think the brief speaks
for itself and the--
Senator Kennedy. Well, I'm not asking the brief, I'm asking
you. You're the one. I'm not proving the brief. I'm asking you.
You're the one that filed it.
Ms. Becker. Senator, it's--it's pending litigation. I'm not
at liberty to discuss the substance of that.
Senator Kennedy. I'm not asking the substance.
Ms. Becker. But I'd be happy--
Senator Kennedy. Just describe what you talked about in the
brief, why you filed--what you felt was so necessary in terms
of filing the brief on the photo ID law. That's a big deal. In
terms of voting rights, it's a big deal.
Ms. Becker. Senator, I can appreciate that you're
interested in this case, as am I. I am very interested in--
Senator Kennedy. Well, I authored the poll tax back in
1965. I care very deeply about the poll tax. I offered it. And
I also was the principal sponsor to make it a constitutional
prohibition on it. So I followed these things for some period
of time, and this is the--the action of the Justice Department
in the Georgia case is one of the most egregious actions that
have been taken in recent times. We have a similar case that
you felt it was necessary in Indiana, a photo ID case. And I'm
just asking you, why--why you felt it was necessary. And you
said you can't comment on it, although you filed a brief on it.
Ms. Becker. Senator, if I have the opportunity to, I'd be
happy to discuss this case after the Supreme Court renders its
decision. But at this point, Senator, the Solicitor General is
representing the United States in the--
Senator Kennedy. I asked you if you could talk about your
brief, Counselor. You could talk about your brief. That's not--
that's not--you can talk about your brief. You filed a brief.
You can talk about that.
Ms. Becker. Senator, my understanding is that Departmental
policy does not permit me to get into the substance, sir.
Senator Kennedy. Well, let me--let me move on. Let me move
on.
One of the--this is a general concern that--that I have.
You've been a political appointee in the Division for the past
2 years, and during that period many of the events under
investigation by the IG or OPR played out and the investigation
has been ongoing. For this entire time you've had the power to
correct the kinds of personnel abuses that are being
investigated.
You and the Department have been reluctant to share
information during this period. So before you're confirmed as
head of the Division, we have to be certain that you haven't
been involved in any of the practices under investigation and
that you have, in fact, taken steps to correct them. Why
shouldn't we have that as a--as a rule?
Ms. Becker. Senator, with respect, sir, this is a matter
that is currently an investigation. As I submitted to you in
writing prior to the hearing, sir, I've been cooperating fully
with the investigation. I provided documents pursuant to a
document request. They have not contacted me. They have not
requested to interview me. I have not had substantial overlap
with Mr. Schlossman and I'm not a percipient witness to events
that occurred prior to my joining the Civil Rights Division.
Senator Kennedy. Do you think it would be worthwhile for us
to talk to them and find that out for ourselves?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I believe the timing of my employment
in the Civil Rights Division speaks for itself, as does my
commitment, and service, and experience that I bring to the
table here today.
Senator Kennedy. OK.
Senator Cardin?
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just have a couple brief points, and then I know Senator
Whitehouse is here and I won't take too much time.
Let me talk a little bit about the housing problem, which
is something we have not really focused much on from the point
of view of the Department of Justice and the Civil Rights
Division. We are concerned that part of the housing problem is
predatory lending, where those who were qualified to be in
regular mortgages and non-adjustable mortgages were steered
into subprime mortgages and adjustable rate mortgages, and that
those communities that were primarily steered into this type of
practice were minority communities. There is concern in
Baltimore City. They've actually filed a lawsuit in this
regard. I would like to know your view as to the level of
interest that you would have as the Division chief of the Civil
Rights Division on predatory lending practices that were
involved in the current housing crisis.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you for that question. I think
owning your own home epitomizes the American dream for so many
individuals here in this country, and if there's something that
we could do in the Civil Rights Division to ensure that people
have an equal opportunity to achieve that dream without
encountering illegal housing discrimination, Senator, I support
the vigorous enforcement of those laws.
I've had the honor and privilege of supervising the Housing
and Civil Enforcement Section for the last two years, and I am
familiar with the work that we've--we've done there. We have
been very concerned about the subprime mortgage issue that has
been of great concern to everyone in this country, I know, and
to the Congress. We have an inter-agency working group that
includes the bank regulatory agencies, the Federal Trade
Commission, Housing and Urban Development, and the Department
of Justice.
We enforce two statutes in the Housing and Civil
Enforcement Section, the Equal Credit Opportunity Act and the
mortgage provisions of the Fair Housing Act, which enables us
to bring some fair lending cases and we've been able to obtain
over $25 million of monetary relief on behalf of African-
American and Hispanic victims in this area.
The--the deceptive terms, deceptive ads, the predatory
practices that you were talking about fall primarily within the
jurisdiction, I think, of the FTC and some of the other--
perhaps, and the State AGs, I think, have brought some cases
under State law in this regard. A lot of the work that we do in
the fair housing--fair lending area, I should say, is
complementary to that.
We bring--in two areas. One, is pricing discrimination,
where individuals of minorities may be treated to one interest
rate, a higher interest rate than whites, and the other is in
red-lining, where we--where prime lenders refuse to do business
in minority neighborhoods, making those minority neighborhoods
more susceptible to the subprime market.
Senator Cardin. And here's where you're going to have a
problem in dealing with this issue, because the lending
institutions will tell you that one of the reasons they went
into the minority community is to show that they were
interested in making credit available within the minority
community, sort of the reverse of red-lining.
But on the other hand, if the evidence shows that in
minority communities they were steered into subprime loans
where they should have been in traditional mortgages, that's a
form of discrimination against minority communities that needs
to be attended to. Once again, I think there are agencies that
can handle some of this.
The Civil Rights Division is in a unique position. I would
hope this would be something that you would try to help assist
them so that we get it right. We don't want the results of what
we do to try to fix the housing crisis causing minority
communities to be red-lined from mortgage opportunities. But on
the other hand, if there were injustices done, the community is
entitled to relief.
Ms. Becker. Senator, I agree. We have this inter-agency
approach. We're working proactively with the other agencies in
coordination with them in order to help all the victims that
have been suffering under the subprime mortgage crisis.
Senator Cardin. Let me just ask one more question. That is,
if you are confirmed, whether you will look to bring more
pattern or practice cases in regards to employment
discrimination. It's my understanding there's been a 30 percent
decline in these types of cases in this administration compared
to prior administrations. The pattern or practice cases have
been major--areas to make major advancements that affect a
significant number of individuals. Would you commit to
reviewing this situation and determining why there's been a
decline and look for opportunities in which civil rights can be
advanced through the pattern or practice cases?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I share with you the significance and
the importance of pattern and practice cases based upon my
supervision of other civil sections in the Civil Rights
Division over the last 2 years. I've only been overseeing the
Employment Section for about 3 months now, but I can tell you
that I've looked at this issue.
My understanding is that, on average, the section over a
decade, I guess, across both administrations, has been about
two pattern and practice cases a year. I do know that they
opened 14 pattern and practice investigations last year and
that the section is now trying to prioritize those pattern and
practice cases. So I share--I appreciate your concern that
pattern and practice cases are important and that you want us
to bring more. I want us to vigorously enforce all of the laws
that we have, including the pattern and practice laws.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Kennedy. Just to pick up on this point, you've only
been in 3 months. But as the Senator pointed out, we have seen
the increase--the numbers have decreased 50 percent--has
declined 50 percent under the Bush administration compared to
the Clinton administration on Title 7. EEOC says the total
number of discrimination has increased by 10 percent in 2007.
So that's a significant increase. Your response to Senator
Cardin, you've only been in 3 months. The question is, are you
going to do something about it?
Ms. Becker. Senator, it--
Senator Kennedy. And what--what--what are you going to do
about it, and how worried are you, if the Senator would just
let me--please.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you. My understanding is that
EEO referrals in recent years have gone down. I can--but I--as
I understand it. But I can tell you what I told Senator Cardin,
which is that we have 14 investigations that were opened in
2007, that the section currently is prioritizing those
investigations of pattern and practice cases. So, Senator, even
in the short time that I've been in the Employment Section, I
believe that I have taken action. I hope I have the opportunity
to continue to do so.
Senator Kennedy. Well, just if I can have the attention of
the Senator from Maryland, as well, the Division has filed as
many cases alleging discrimination against whites as against
African-Americans and Latinos combined. It's brought only six
cases alleging discrimination against African or Latinos, yet
it's filed five cases of discrimination on the basis of whites.
Clearly, where there's problems we want prosecution, but we
also want the Department to reflect where the problems are the
greatest.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you for that question. As I
said, I am committed to enforcing all the laws in the Civil
Rights Division. I know that the Employment Section recently
brought a pattern and practice lawsuit against the largest fire
department in--fire department in the entire country, in the
fire department of New York. This is a case that was brought on
behalf of African-Americans, Senator, and it's a relatively
recent case and I hope to have the opportunity to bring more
employment cases, if I'm confirmed by the Senate.
Senator Kennedy. Senator Whitehouse?
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Becker, welcome to the hearing. I'm delighted to see
you here with your family. I applaud particularly how well your
son and daughter are being patient through all of this. I
particularly applaud your son's choice of reading material. I'm
a big fan of Calvin and Hobbs. Mine is 14 and we still read it
together, reading ``Spaceman Spiff''. That's pretty good.
Ms. Becker. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse. I hope you understand why we're asking
these questions. We don't start here with a clean slate, nor do
you. We start looking at a Department of Justice that is a
place that many of us feel is very special. I was a United
States Attorney. It's not the biggest deal in the world, but it
was very important to me, and it meant the world to me to go
into that Department of Justice and feel the traditional, the
integrity, the independence, the feel that this was an
institution that stood for something in American life, and the
idea that that Department, instead of standing tall, should be
put into the political traces, put in political harness by a
political party to do its political legwork, is disgraceful,
irrespective of what political party is trying to do that.
So we come at this with a lot of feeling when we see what
happened to the U.S. Attorneys, when we see what happened at
OLC, when we see what happened at the Civil Rights Division,
when we see what happened to the honors program, when we see
what happened to non-partisan hiring. This is a very, very
serious matter, and so, you know, I hope you'll forgive the
intensity that we're pursuing this with.
But I hope you also understand that we're doing this
because many of us fear for this Department. We want to see it
put right again. We care very, very deeply about that. We see
some of the Civil Rights Division issues in that context. I
look--for instance, I've sponsored a bill that would make it
illegal to engage in vote caging. Do you know what vote caging
is?
Ms. Becker. Yes, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. OK. So I don't need to go into the
details of that.
Clearly, you will concede that if there is a significant
campaign to target--for instance, minority votes in a vote
caging operation--it creates, at a minimum, the risk that more
than a handful of voters might be discouraged. Correct?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I believe that whether it's vote
caging or any other conduct that has the potential of
suppressing minority voters, it's something that the Civil
Rights Division is very concerned about, particularly if it can
implicate one of the Federal laws that we enforce.
Senator Whitehouse. Would you be concerned enough for the
Department to support the vote caging legislation?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I have not had an opportunity to look
at the details of that legislation and I don't believe the
Department has spoken on that. I do believe, Senator, that
there are some criminal provisions in there and, as I mentioned
earlier, I want to--I want to tread carefully here because we
do have a division of labor in the Department of Justice where
the vast majority of election crimes are prosecuted by the
Criminal Division. So there may be other equities at stake here
by other components of the Department of Justice. But--
Senator Whitehouse. Understood. But could you get me an
answer on that? The bill is pending now. I've put it in, and
I'd love to know where you stand.
Ms. Becker. Well, Senator, if I'm confirmed, I would
welcome the opportunity to work with you on this bill, or any
other bill, sir.
Senator Whitehouse. And I--just to followup on what Senator
Kennedy was saying, it really does seem that where the
underlying strategy will discourage voting in minority
communities--for instance, with voter ID programs which have
that effect--the Department steps right up, steps right up and
does its best, even when there are really no significant cases
of any voter fraud, and the idea that half a dozen or handful
of votes is going to swing the election one way or the other is
a theoretical possibility.
But, my gosh, that happens rarely in America, and yet,
there seems to be a very considerable focus on that. And when
the drift is the other direction, when, for instance, there is,
you know, e-mails from a prospective U.S. Attorney about a vote
caging scheme, silence. There doesn't seem to be the same
interest. So what I need to hear from you is some assurance
that this is not going to be the closing days, you know, the
last political stand of the political occupancy of the
Department of Justice, but that you'll help us to put this
right and that you will enforce the laws, irrespective of
whether they help Republicans or Democrats.
Ms. Becker. Senator, having been a career attorney,
starting my career at the Criminal Division of the Department
of Justice, I share with you the concern that you have and the
pride that you had in representing the Department of Justice.
And Senator, I hope that even in the short time that I've been
able to be in the managerial ranks of the Civil Rights
Division, that I've been able to convey that same pride and
leadership and camaraderie that has always been such an
instrumental part of the Department of Justice.
And I believe that what makes the Department of Justice so
special, what makes people have confidence in the Justice
Department, which makes judges expect more from DOJ attorneys,
is the fact that we need to fairly and even-handedly and
vigorously enforce all of the laws in the Voting Section, in
all the sections of the Civil Rights Division, so that everyone
has full faith and belief that we're doing everything we can
from every possible front. We take each--each case, each matter
on a case-by-case basis, but we will vigorously and carefully
investigate the facts and law in each case and take appropriate
action wherever necessary.
Senator Whitehouse. And, of course, you understand that
it's not enough just to say that, it's important to lead the
Department in such a way that the results and the statistics
actually bear that out?
Ms. Becker. Absolutely, Senator. I--I--I believe that in--
in the 2-years that I've been there overseeing the sections
that I've overseen, and Voting has not been one of those
sections, that I have tried to encourage the managers within
those sections to do exactly that, and that I will continue to
do so if have--I have the opportunity to lead the Division.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My time has
expired.
Senator Kennedy. OK.
Senator Schumer?
Senator Schumer. Thank you. First, Mr. Chairman, let me
thank you for holding this hearing. I think it's really
important. This is an area I know you've been concerned about
for close to--well, certainly more than 40 years, and I care a
lot about it, too.
I first, as a New Yorker, want to welcome you here, Ms.
Becker. I'm always pleased to see a graduate of Stuyvesant High
School in public service. My daughter went to Stuyvesant. My
parents wanted me to go, but I wanted to play basketball at
Madison so I told them the only answers--
Senator Kennedy. You wanted to do what?
Senator Schumer. Play basketball. Mr. Chairman, our team's
motto was, ``We may be small, but we're slow.''
[Laughter.]
Ms. Becker. I'll tell you, do you know what our school
motto was?
Senator Schumer. And we were better than Stuyvesant.
Ms. Becker. What we used to say at Stuyvesant is, ``Kick
'em in the guts, kick 'em in the knees, we get higher SATs,''
was what our athletic motto was after we lost.
Senator Schumer. Well, I told my parents the only questions
on the test I'd get right were the ones I didn't know the
answer to, because anyone I knew the answer, I'd mark the wrong
answer. I'd flunk and stay at Madison, which is what happened.
Anyway, I'm sure your family's proud here. I know the whole
Korean community in New York, or many of them, are very proud
of your accomplishments and it's a great community in New York.
Of course, we believe in immigration and we believe in ladders
up for people who come from all over the world, and so I'm
proud that you're here.
But that doesn't sort of dampen my worry about this
Department, my worry about what's happened in this Department.
I think it's been plagued by not only mismanagement, but
improper politization. I think it's improving, but the
Committee needs to examine your qualifications closely because
this administration has not been a friend, in my judgment, of
civil rights. For instance, what happened with the Georgia
case. All the things we heard about, it just makes you really
worry about the Department.
So I'm going to ask you some tough questions, and I hope
you don't mind that. It has nothing to do with you or the
accomplishments that you've had. So I want to go back to the
Crawford case, which Senator Kennedy, I know, asked some
questions about. But I want to take it in a slightly--I want to
pursue it further.
You know what the law is, the new photo ID. In the amicus
brief you submitted with the Solicitor General, Paul Clement,
you urged the Supreme Court to uphold Indiana's restrictive
law, in part because it's justified by the need to prevent in-
person voter fraud. And let's be clear here: this will not deal
with all voter fraud and ID, but just in-person voter fraud,
where someone shows up and says they're not who they are.
What I'd like to do is try to get, as much as I can, yes or
no answers here. First, did anyone at the White House or
outside the Justice Department ask you or urge you to take the
position you did in the Indiana voter ID case?
Ms. Becker. No.
Senator Schumer. OK.
Did anyone inside the Justice Department put any pressure
on you to take a certain position in that case?
Ms. Becker. No.
Senator Schumer. Did you consult any career staff members
in the Civil Rights Division before you took the position?
Ms. Becker. Of course. We do in every case, sir.
Senator Schumer. And did they recommend that you take that
position unanimously, or--
Ms. Becker. I can't talk about predeliberative
recommendations, Senator. But I can tell you that, as someone
who's been a former career attorney, I believe that career
attorneys have very important perspectives to add to the
process and I certainly have encouraged and welcomed a
predeliberative process in all of the cases.
Senator Schumer. Let me ask you this. Since most election
crimes are handled by the Criminal Division--you noted that
earlier--is there any reason why Alice Fisher didn't sign onto
this brief with you or instead of you?
Ms. Becker. I don't know her.
Senator Schumer. Well, you must have--wait, that's not good
enough. It's usually handled by the Criminal Division. Alice
Fisher didn't sign. Did you ever talk to Alice Fisher even once
about this case?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I can't get into predeliberative
discussions. I can only tell you that the brief speaks for
itself, sir.
Senator Schumer. Wait. Can you explain to me why you can't
get into predeliberative discussions? This is an important
question. The head of the Criminal Division, which usually has
jurisdiction, doesn't sign on. You do instead. Now, what is the
reason that you can't answer a simple yes or no question about,
did you discuss this with Alice Fisher? That doesn't reveal any
confidences or whatever.
Ms. Becker. Senator, I can tell you that the names that are
reflected on the cover of the brief submitted by the United
States are--are--speak for themselves, sir.
Senator Schumer. Did you ever talk to Alice Fisher about
this, yes or no?
Ms. Becker. Senator, my understanding is it's part of the
predeliberative process and I'm not at liberty to discuss that.
But I can tell you--
Senator Schumer. And why? What is the reason you're not at
liberty to discuss it?
Ms. Becker. Well, Senator, in order to encourage robust
predeliberative discussions, it's important--it's a
longstanding departmental policy, Senator, to protect those
discussions, and that's part of the discussion.
Senator Schumer. But that's about the substance of what was
discussed. I'm just asking you, yes or no, did you discuss it
with Ms. Fisher?
Ms. Becker. Senator, my understanding is--is that--it's
covering generally those discussions. All the interested
parties were--were--were included in the discussion.
Senator Schumer. Let me ask you--let me pursue another line
here. In the brief, you state that Indiana determined that it
faced ``a serious problem of actual and potential election
fraud'', right? Are you aware of any election in the past 7
years where the outcome was affected by in-person voter fraud,
the kind you're trying to eliminate, supposedly, with these
voter IDs? Any case? Any election?
Ms. Becker. Senator, this--I'm not--this is a case that is,
as I indicated to Senator Kennedy, is one that's pending before
the Supreme Court. This is a--that's some of the issues that
are pending, that were discussed as part of the case. Senator,
once the Supreme Court renders its decision, I'm happy to
engage in substantive discussion.
Senator Schumer. Ms. Becker, I didn't ask you a question
about the case. I asked you a question about your jurisdiction.
If you can't answer this question, I'm going to have serious
doubts whether you can move forward. I asked you--you can't
just duck everything here and expect to get this nomination.
Are you aware of any election in the past 7 years where the
outcome was affected by in-person voter fraud? I haven't
mentioned any case.
Ms. Becker. Senator, as I understand it, criminal voter
fraud issues are primarily handled by the Criminal Division. I
can tell you with--generally--as I understand it, this is a
general question. My jurisdiction in the Civil Rights Division
is to enforce the voting rights laws that are entrusted to the
Voting Section to enforce. Most of the criminal voting fraud
issues that you're talking about would be a matter for a
different component of the Justice Department.
Senator Schumer. So you can't cite to me. You signed this
brief. Ms. Fisher didn't. And you can't cite to me a single
election where the outcome was affected by in-person voter
fraud, when that's the only kind of voter fraud that a voter ID
at the polling place would deal with, correct?
Ms. Becker. Well, Senator, I was talking about the general
division of labor with respect to that. I was not talking
specifically about the Crawford case. As I understood your
question, sir, it was a general question and I was giving you a
general response.
Senator Schumer. Can I ask you this: isn't it true that a
voter ID law won't stop absentee ballot fraud?
Ms. Becker. Senator, there--Senator, generally speaking,
you know, whether these are voter fraud laws that are handled
at the State level, there are States--
Senator Schumer. No, no.
Ms. Becker.--look at them. We would look at them, from the
Civil Rights Division perspective, as to whether or not they
have a retrogressive effect or discriminatory purpose.
Senator Schumer. I am asking you a simple question.
Mr. Chairman, can I have a couple more minutes to pursue
this?
Senator Kennedy. Yes. Sure.
Senator Schumer. Thank you. I appreciate it.
I'm just asking you a simple question. We have a law that
you're defending. It says you have to show a voter ID. The
reason for that is to prevent voter fraud. You haven't been
able to cite to me a single case--in-person voter fraud--where
in-person voter fraud affected the election. Now I'm asking you
again, this is a question based on your practical experience,
two years as Deputy Director.
Isn't it true that a voter ID law won't stop any absentee
ballot fraud for the very reason that the person isn't showing
up? Isn't that--that's just an easy yes-or-no question.
Ms. Becker. Senator, voter--voter--photo ID laws address
in-person issues. I think that's what you're getting at,
generally. I will tell you, voter fraud--the reason why I'm
giving you an answer is because it's a different component of
the Justice Department that handles those types of cases. I'm
not trying to evade your question, sir. This--there's a
division of responsibility within the Justice Department---
Senator Schumer. But you--
Ms. Becker.--and the voter fraud cases, or election crime
cases generally, are handled at the--at the Criminal Division.
Senator Schumer. You signed the brief. Alice Fisher didn't.
Ms. Becker. Yes. And I can tell you what the Civil Rights'
interest was.
Senator Schumer. Let me just finish. Let me just finish. In
the brief, the only cases that were cited, as I understand it,
were absentee voter fraud. Yet, the brief goes to voter ID at
the polling place, which can only deal with in-person voter
fraud. And so I'm asking you a simple question, and that is--I
can't--I know you won't answer about the case, although I don't
think that's fair. Isn't it true that a voter ID law will not
stop absentee ballot fraud? You--you give me one single
instance where voter ID stops absentee ballot fraud. Give me an
example.
Ms. Becker. Senator, voter IDs--ID laws are targeted
toward--I think I said, generally speaking, as I understand
them, targeted toward in-person issues.
Senator Schumer. Right.
Ms. Becker. And--but--
Senator Schumer. Wait. So let me stop you there.
Ms. Becker. But I cannot discuss the substance of this
case, Senator.
Senator Schumer. Yes.
Ms. Becker. And I'm very--I'm very cautious here because I
don't want to do anything that would adversely affect pending
litigation in the Supreme Court.
Senator Schumer. OK.
I would just like the record to show that the only cases
cited in this--in the--in the brief of the Justice Department
were not voter ID, they were absentee ballot fraud. I'd just
like the record to show that. And yet, we're doing something
here about this.
Now, just two more questions on this. Isn't it true that
voter ID won't stop unscrupulous officials from tampering with
election results? Voter ID has nothing to do with that, right?
Ms. Becker. I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question?
Senator Schumer. Yes. Voter ID law won't--isn't it true
that a voter ID law won't stop unscrupulous officials from
tampering with election results? One has nothing to do with the
other.
Ms. Becker. Generally--Senator, again, what we're looking
for in the Civil Rights Division are not the voter fraud
issues. You're asking a lot of substantive questions on a voter
fraud issue. What we're looking for in the Civil Rights
Division is whether or not a particular law will have a
retrogressive effect or discriminatory purpose. Those are the
statutes that we enforce.
Senator Schumer. Let me--let me change. You're not--
Ms. Becker. You're asking me policy questions about this.
Senator Schumer. I'm asking you--
Ms. Becker. I'm not going--
Senator Schumer. These are not policy questions. These are
factual questions that someone who's in the Department should
know. There are certain laws aimed at certain types of fraud
and other types of laws aimed at other type of fraud, and
your--your brief cites one type of fraud to justify another
type of law.
But let me ask you this. I'm going to move to something
else here. In 2002, the Justice Department launched a new
ballot access and voting integrity initiative, correct?
Ms. Becker. Yes.
Senator Schumer. Since that initiative started, how many
in-person voter fraud cases has DOJ investigated and
prosecuted?
Ms. Becker. Again, Senator, it's another component of the
Justice Department that handles those cases.
Senator Schumer. You know, wait a second. You signed this
brief and you don't know? You're head of Civil Rights Division
and you don't know the answer to that?
Ms. Becker. I can certainly get those statistics for you,
Senator.
Senator Schumer. You can get me those in writing. In fact,
I'm not going to--I'm going to ask the nomination not move
forward until I get those answers in writing. And I'd also like
to know how many in Indiana. How many nationally and how many
in Indiana, because your brief, of course, applies to Indiana.
And I just want to ask you this: did you consult any
experts at the Justice Department or elsewhere about the
prevalence of fraud in Indiana before deciding to file the
brief?
Ms. Becker. Senator, again, I cannot get into the
deliberative process that we have.
Senator Schumer. All right. I just want to say this. The
nonpartisan Brennan Center did an analysis of 95 voter fraud
cases brought by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2005
and concluded that not one of them was a case of in-person
fraud that could have been stopped by a photo ID.
I'd like you to just take a look--I'm not asking you now.
That wouldn't be right--at this Brennan Center report and get
me--see if you disagree with that or if they're--it's
fallacious in any way. And I would just say--and I'm going to
just ask these rhetorical questions and conclude, and I really
thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence of me here. I care
about this a lot.
It doesn't seem logical that you should know the magnitude
of this supposed problem before signing your name to--name to a
brief endorsing a flawed solution--at least in my judgment, a
flawed solution. If you can't cite how many cases, you have no
idea, and yet you signed a brief that says we have to have a
major law change, that says something to me.
Wouldn't it--and just, you can answer both of these.
Wouldn't it call into question whether you should be leader of
this Department if--a Department tasked with ensuring voter
access, when you publicly support an Indiana law which seems to
attack a phantom problem on the one hand, because we don't have
many cases--I don't think any in Indiana--of in-person voter
fraud, and at the same time would disenfranchise voters? How do
you answer that?
Ms. Becker. Senator, with respect, sir, we were not--what
we try to do in every brief that we file in the court is to
interpret the law. We--we do not try to change the law, we try
and interpret the law. It's up to Congress, certainly, in its
role to make the laws or to change the laws as they see fit. So
what the Justice Department tried to do in this case, was just
to interpret the law.
And Senator, if you look at--we take each instance on a
case-by-case basis and if you look at the cross-section of
cases that we have filed, you will see that in the Supreme
Court we've also filed an amicus brief in Riley v. Kennedy,
where the Solicitor General, on behalf of the Civil Rights
Division, defends a Section 5 objection that we made on behalf
of African-American voters. We filed other amicus briefs on
other non-voting issues in the civil rights context. For
example, in Cracker Barrel, the CBOCs case where we filed an
amicus brief in support of individuals who were bringing
private civil rights lawsuits.
So we take each case on a case-by-case basis, Senator, and
if I am confirmed, I can assure you that we will continue to do
so. I can appreciate that we disagree on this one particular
case, but Senator, I would like the opportunity to be able to
take this on a case-by-case basis. I share your concern with
respect to voter ID laws, because I think we do need to look at
them very carefully.
I can tell you that what the Solicitor General, the Civil
Rights Division, and the United States is trying to do in this
case, was try to interpret the law. Senator, after the Supreme
Court has rendered its decision, I hope to have the opportunity
to--to discuss the substance of that in more detail.
Senator Schumer. I respect what you have to say. I have a
different view. I have a view that this administration--and we
saw this under Alberto Gonzales's stewardship--uses the pretext
of voter fraud, even though they can't prove it, to make it
harder for poorer people to vote. You all know the quote. I
don't know if it was mentioned earlier here before. One
Republican official in Texas said, ``If we had a voter ID law
it would reduce Democratic turnout by 3 percent.'' And who
would that affect? Poor people, minorities, immigrants.
Voting is a sacred right. It's equal. The poorest person
with the least power has the same vote as the richest person
with the most power. When you tamper with it for political
purposes, I think it's nothing short of despicable. And I
believe that the Civil Rights Division--not the rank and file,
but the political appointees--has done that in the past and I
think we have to make very sure that you won't do it. That's
why I think we need more complete answers than just saying ``I
can't answer this, I can't answer that''.
But again, I greatly respect you and where you come from
and what you've achieved. This is not a substantive or personal
disagreement, but it's one that some of us feel very, very
deeply here.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank--
Senator Schumer. The last word.
Ms. Becker. Senator, thank you. You know, as--coming from a
family of immigrants and naturalized American citizens, I
certainly have emphasized to my family members and to other
naturalized citizens that I've spoken to down the street at the
Federal courthouse the importance of the right to vote, because
I think all of us really believe that voting is--is--is so
important because it protects all the other rights that we
have. And so, Senator, I do share your concern on that issue.
You know, I am at a disadvantage because that is pending
litigation, so I'm not able to talk about it. I wish I could be
more responsive to your questions, but I do hope that I would
have the opportunity to at a later date.
Senator Schumer. Thank you.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you very much.
Senator Feingold?
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Ms.
Becker.
I want to followup on Senator Kennedy's questions about
hiring practices. As I understand it, and as the Boston Globe
reported, there was a major change in the Division's hiring
practices in 2002, giving political appointees a greater role
in hiring decisions with little input from career staff. You've
described a collaborative process involving both career
employees and political appointees. Is this the same process
that was implemented in 2002 or is it a change from what was
done between 2002 when you arrived at the Division?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I joined the Division in 2006. I'm not
quite sure what the 2002 process was that you're referring to.
I can tell you how I--how we've been doing it in the Civil
Rights Division since I've been there over the last 2 years,
and it's a team approach, Senator. There--there--there are
multiple attorneys that are involved at different levels, you
know, trial attorney, deputy chief, chief, Deputy Assistant
Attorney General, all--all involved in the process.
It's a collaborative approach. There are certainly more
career attorneys that are involved in the process than
political--political-appointed managers, but it's--it's one
where I've always believed that--that all the managers and the
chain of command have an appropriate role, so long as they do
not take political affiliation into account for career hires.
Senator Feingold. Well, and other than instructing your
staff that political considerations should not play a role in
hiring, you don't plan to make any changes in that process, is
that right?
Ms. Becker. Senator--Senator, not--not at this time. But,
you know, if I am--if I become aware that there is a problem,
if there's an issue, certainly I will be open to reconsidering
it as--as things arise. But this process has worked very
successfully over the last 2 years during my management there,
and I believe it's--it's a process that everyone on the team
has been happy with. And from a manager's standpoint, I--I do
not see any need to change it at this time.
Senator Feingold. All right. As Senator Kennedy touched on
earlier, sections of the Civil Rights Division that are charged
with enforcing anti-discrimination statutes have brought fewer
cases on behalf of minorities and women, and more cases on
behalf of whites and men under this administration. Do you
agree that the top priority of the Civil Rights Division should
be protecting the rights of minorities, women, and other groups
that have been an historic target of discrimination?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I believe the Civil Rights Division
has been, and will continue if I'm confirmed, hopefully, to--to
bring cases on behalf of all Americans. Senator, I can tell
you, from my experiencing in overseeing the Criminal Section,
for example, that--that we bring many cases against many, many
vulnerable victims. On the human trafficking front, for
example, we've been able to help many women, women of color,
over 1,000 women from over 80 countries, including U.S. citizen
victims who have been horribly, horribly victimized through
human trafficking. So, certainly, Senator, I--I believe it's
important for us to vigorously enforce all of our statutes
and--and go where the need is greatest.
Senator Feingold. You know, I think we all agree that
discrimination in all forms is intolerable, but the fact is,
the resources of the Civil Rights Division are finite and every
enforcement action represents a choice of how to allocate those
resources. So my question is not whether or not a lot of cases
have been brought with regard to the things you just mentioned,
but shouldn't the Civil Rights Division prioritize the rights
of those who suffer the most discrimination?
Ms. Becker. Senator, it shouldn't have--I believe--we have,
for example, in the post-9/11 era where there was a great
concern about whether individuals who are Arab, Muslim, Sikh,
or South Asian were being victimized through back--9/11
backlash. There's a--even before I came to the Civil Rights
Division there was a
9/11 backlash initiative, and since then we've opened over 800
investigations to ensure that what happened to Asian-Americans
in the World War II era was not repeated in the post-9/11 era,
Senator.
Senator Feingold. Well, I'm certainly hearing that these
areas are being addressed. But what I'm getting at, and I'll
let it be for now, is the mix. What are the priorities? Your
answers were not clear on what the priorities are.
I'm very concerned about the pattern of the Civil Rights
Division coming into court and asking to set aside settlement
agreements designed to benefit minorities and women that were
reached under the previous administration.
In these cases, the Civil Rights Division has become a de
facto advocate for the very party that was accused of violating
civil rights laws. Do you believe that attempting to set aside
agreements intended to enforce compliance with civil rights law
is an appropriate use of the Civil Rights Division's resources?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I believe that any change in the
Department's position should be exceptional. I am not aware, in
the--in the two years that I've been overseeing the various
sections within the Division, anywhere from 300 to 700
employees, that we've had such a change in policy. But I do
think that that's an exceptional situation. If--if it, in fact,
occurred, it was before my time.
Senator Feingold. Well, I'd be interested in following that
issue and how often it is done, and whether it's the right
thing to do.
You presented testimony before the United Nations Committee
on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, or CERD, which has
recently issued its concluding observations on the United
States' implementation of the International Convention on the
Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination. The CERD
report noted a high level of concern, as you basically just
alluded to, regarding the increase in racial profiling against
Arabs, Muslims, and South Asians in the wake of the 9/11
attack.
Expressing its concerns, the report references the Civil
Rights Division's adoption of the revised publication entitled,
``Guidance Regarding the Use of Race by Federal Law Enforcement
Agencies''. As head of the Civil Rights Division, will you
commit to reviewing the policies in that manual to ensure that
the administration is taking every possible step to end racial
profiling?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I know this is an interest that--
that--that you've had for some time with respect to racial
profiling, and I've appreciated your leadership on this. I
agree with the President that racial profiling is wrong.
I first learned about the Civil Rights Division's
guidelines on racial profiling while I was working here on this
very Committee. And Senator, to be clear, even though it is
labeled ``guidance'', it is binding on all Federal law
enforcement officers here in the United States. There is
extensive training that is going on in the Federal law
enforcement arena. For example, at FLETC, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center, not only do they receive training
in racial profiling, they get the guidelines. They're tested on
the guidelines. So it is something that we continue to take
seriously in the Civil Rights Division.
Senator Feingold. So you'll commit to reviewing policies in
that manual to ensure that the administration is taking every
possible step to end racial profiling, right?
Ms. Becker. I'd be happy to work with you on racial
profiling issues with respect to the guidance, if you have any
concerns with respect to that.
Senator Feingold. Why won't you just commit to reviewing
the policies in that manual?
Ms. Becker. I have reviewed them, Senator. I'm familiar
with them. But I'm not quite sure what you--I've reviewed them
while I've been at the Civil Rights Division, Senator. But I
think--
Senator Feingold. I'm asking you again, as the head of the
Civil Rights Division, if you are confirmed, will you do that?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I will review it, and if there is
appropriate action for me to take, I will take it.
Senator Feingold. All right.
The CERD report also encouraged the United States to adopt
Federal legislation such as the End Racial Profiling Act which
I've introduced in several Congresses, including this one. And
you obviously are aware, by working there. Are you familiar
with that--with that bill?
Ms. Becker. Yes, I am, sir.
Senator Feingold. And what is your view on the bill? Will
you commit to working on it with the Congress?
Ms. Becker. I'm not sure I could--I do not--I do not
believe the Department has taken a position on it with respect
to that bill, Senator.
Senator Feingold. Do you have a view on the bill? You're
familiar with it.
Ms. Becker. I'm generally familiar with it, Senator. But as
you know, the Department speaks with one voice, so I'd go back
to the Department and I'd see whether or not the Department has
taken a position on it, and as a representative of the
Department that would be my position, sir.
Senator Feingold. During his confirmation hearings, when
asked about the mission of the Voting Rights section, Attorney
General Mukasey stated, ``I believe that the Civil Rights
Division must follow its traditional of focusing on the most
prevalent and significant voting problems.''
Ms. Becker, in your view, which is the most prevalent and
serious threat to American elections today, voter fraud or
voter suppression?
Ms. Becker. Senator, our focus in the Civil Rights Division
has been--in the Federal laws that we have, which primarily
target voter suppression. To the extent that there is voter
fraud, there are other components of the Justice Department
that are focused primarily with respect to that issue, sir.
Senator Feingold. Let me switch to one other thing. The
recent CERD articulated a concern about, as I indicated, the
disparate impact of felon disenfranchisement laws on racial,
ethnic, and national minorities, in particular, African-
Americans. As I take it you're aware, more than 5.4 million
Americans are disenfranchised by these laws which have an
explicitly racist history and a markedly disproportionate
impact. In some States, one in four African-American adults are
disenfranchised because of the Jim Crow--these Jim Crow
provisions. I will soon be introducing legislation to restore
the right to vote to people on probation parole who have served
their sentences.
Ms. Becker, I would hope that, as the head of the section
of the Department of Justice, that that should be at the
forefront of protecting citizens from racial discrimination,
protecting voting rights. You would agree that these felon
disenfranchisement laws have no place in America today. Will
you work with me to get the administration's support for
legislation to adopt this unjust practice?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I'd be happy to work with you on this,
or any other, legislation.
Senator Feingold. Will you support it?
Ms. Becker. Senator, I--I haven't seen the bill. I can tell
you that, generally, felon disenfranchisement laws, as I
understand them, have been determined on a State-by-State
basis. To the extent that they would come before the Civil
Rights Division, I think it may be in a pre-clearance process,
maybe one where it may be something that we'd have an
opportunity to review some of these laws.
I can tell you generally that any practice that--that could
potentially implicate one of these statutes that we enforce in
the Civil Rights Division is something that is of concern to
us, particularly when it's involving suppressing the minority
vote. So, Senator, I--I would be happy to work with you on this
bill. I'm--I'm not familiar with the--the contours of the bill.
Senator Feingold. I want to go back to the voting rights
issue again one more time. Again, as we talked about with
regard to the priorities of the Division in general, the
resources of the Division are finite and the sitting Attorney
General stated, ``those resources should be focused on the most
prevalent and significant problems.''
In my view, all available nonpartisan evidence clearly
shows while there are very few cases of voter fraud, our
elections continue to be undermined by organized efforts to
disenfranchise voters. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Ms. Becker. Senator, generally the voter fraud provisions
are handled by a different component of the Justice Department,
so I'm not in a position to opine on them, sir.
Senator Feingold. Well, I take it this just proves it. In
the Senate, if you wait long enough, you become the Chairman.
Is that what's happening here?
I thank the witness very much and the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 4:15 p.m. the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.124
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.125
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.126
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.127
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.128
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.129
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.130
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.131
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.132
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.133
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.134
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.135
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.136
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.137
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.138
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.139
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.140
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.145
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.146
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.147
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.148
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.149
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.150
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.151
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.152
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.153
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.154
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.155
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.156
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.157
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.158
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.159
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.160
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.161
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.162
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.163
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.164
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.165
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.166
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.167
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.168
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.141
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.142
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.143
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T2266.144