i'm coming to our point from around the world. and that's why there should be a post-study work group but it does mean that we should be tough on those colleges that are not highly regarded. and the fact is over the last year, around 90,000 students were coming to colleges that didn't have proper regard at all. >> a multinational is applied -- order, order. >> a multinational is applying to build an incinerator the sides of a football fitch from the small market town in my constituency. there is no need for this imposition and it will be importing waste and it has been unanimously rejected. does the prime minister agree that concerns to the local people as to the negative impact this will have on their town should be afforded paramount

importance when this proposal is considered on appeal. >> i do agree with her that local considerations should be taken into account. that's one of the reasons why we made the changes to the ipc that we have. and i think it's very important local communities have their say. and she has put the case extremely straightly. >> when local mp's met with the north staffordshire committee like and why they were not on the list to have a local enterprise zone. will the prime minister understand the need and arrange for his colleagues at local governments to be with us and the treasury to make sure we get the investment when the new listers are announced in july? >> i completely understand the point the honorable lady makes but particularly in stoke, where the -- i wish the chatter chancellor will occasionally shut up and listen to the chancellor. [laughter]

>> am i -- am i -- i don't know -- i will try. >> order, order. .. >> we want to help. >> thank you, mr. speaker but in

the light of things this way, we were canceling six-point bounce of investment. will the prime minister ensure that his ministers in the treasury engage with the industry to explain how the field allowances might be adjusted and jobs are not lost? >> we will certainly look carefully at the point he makes. the point i would raise is when you look at the regime in norway, they actually have higher taxes on petrol and on duties that we do in the u.k. i think the key point i would make to my honorable friend is that when the companies in the north sea make investment decisions the oil price was around $65 a barrel. it's now around $115 a barrel and i think the break we're giving to the motorists by cutting petrol tax, including people in his constituency, many who rely on their cars, i think will be hugely welcomed. >> order.

>> we will be the british house of commons now as they move onto other legislative business. you've been watching prime minister's question time and life wednesdays at 7 a.m. eastern while parliament is in session. the top duo civil rights official, thomas perez, says he continues to see violence and discrimination against muslim arabs, and south asian people. also testifying, scholars and the former civil rights official in the george w. bush administration. senator dick durbin chairs this two-hour hearing.

>> this hearing of the subcommittee on the constitutions of rights and human rights will come to order. today is the first thing of this new subcommittee, formed by the merging of the constitution subcommittee with the human rights and the law subcommittee which i chaired for the last four years. i want to personally thank chairman pat leahy for giving me the chance to chair this new subcommittee. i look forward to working with senator lindsey graham, my friend and colleague, and the ranking member of the subcommittee, and other members of the subcommittee who will join us. after a few remarks, i will recognize senator leahy and senator graham. i think it's appropriate to hold the first hearing of this new subcommittee on what is often called the constitutions first freedom, the freedom of religion. many of our nation's founders fled religious persecution, and they place great importance on religious freedom. george washington summed up the prevailing view when he said, and i quote, in this land of equal liberty, it is our post

that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the law. despite the famous best intentions throughout our history, many religious minorities have faced in tolerance. the lynching of leo frank in 1950 is one infamous example, and anti-semitism continues to be significant in america. often, prejudice has been directed at religions of recent immigrants. in the last entry it was catholics from places like ireland, italy, in lithuania. my mother's country of origin, whose loyalties were questioned. i brought to this hearing a family treasure. 100 years ago in 1911, my grandmother landed in baltimore, maryland, from lithuania. she brought with her my mother, two years old, and my aunt and uncle. and they came down off the boat in baltimore, and somehow found

a way to my grandfather in east st. louis element. i have no idea how they made that journey not speaking a word of anguish. there is no physical evidence left of that journey, but this little book. part of it is a catholic prayer book written in lithuania, printed in 1863, which at the time of their immigration was contraband. bazaar had ordered all prayerbooks had to be written in russia. my grandmother who i never knew knew that if she brought his prayer book to america she would have the freedom to use it. and i remember that and it's one of the reasons why this is the first hearing, this freedom of religion, that is so much to my grandmother who was no constitutional scholar, but she knew that america guaranteed their freedom and that's what this hearing is all about. today, american muslims from the middle east and south asia are facing similar discrimination. attorney general eric holder put

it well when he said that anti-muslim bigotry is, quote, the civil rights issue of our time. this backlash begin after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. in fear and anger, some americans wrongly struck out at innocent muslims, arabs, south asians and seeks. since 9/11 we work to combat terrorism. we continue to solicit and receive the support of many muslim-americans who love this nation and work with our government to protect it. at the same time many law-abiding muslim-americans base dissemination and charges that they are not real americans simply because of their religion. this debate will continue, but terrorism is not the subject of today's hearing. we should all agree that it is wrong to blame an entire committee for the wrongdoing of a few. guilt by association is not the american way. and american muslims aren't hunted same constitutional protections as every other american. i had many differences with president george w. bush, but he showed real leadership after

9/11, when he made it clear that our war was with the terrorists who pervert the teachings of islam, not with muslims who are faithful to what he called, quote, a faith based upon love, not hate. congress also spoke with a clear voice. i cosponsored a resolution with john sununu, who was then the only arab-american in the senate, that condemned anti-muslim and anti-arab bigotry and said that american muslims quote our vibrant, peaceful, and law-abiding, and have greatly contributed to american society. i resolution passed both chambers of congress unanimously. today, president obama continues to speak out as forcefully as president bush, even though president obama is often challenged by the course of harsh voices. a leading member of congress stated bluntly, quote, there are too many mosques in this country. a former speaker of the house falsely claims, quote, america is experiencing an islamist cultural political offensive

designed to undermine and destroy our civilization. and even a prominent religious leader said islam is, quote, wicked and evil. some have even question the premise of today's hearing, that we should protect the civil rights of american muslims. such inflammatory speech from prominent public figures creates a fertile climate for discrimination. it's not surprising the anti-defamation league says we face quote an intensified level of anti-muslim bigotry. last year, the southern poverty law center which tracks hate groups, designated by the anti-muslim hate groups for the first time. we've seen anti-muslim hate crimes, employment discrimination, bullying in schools, restrictions on mosque construction, and koran burnings. sadly, this is a nationwide phenomenon, including my home state of illinois. to take just one example, and man was recently sentenced to 15 months in prison for blowing up the van of a palestinian american family that was parked in front of the family's home.

it is our government's responsibility to prevent and punish this kind of illegal discrimination. and it is incumbent upon all americans who love this nation and the values our constitution protects to make it clear to defend the civil rights of our muslim neighbors, make it clear that defending the civil rights of her muslim neighbors are as important as the rights of christians, jews and even nonbelievers. of course, the first amendment protects not just the free exercise of religion, but also freedom of speech. that all of us, especially those of us in public life, have a responsibility choose our words carefully. we must condemn anti-muslim bigotry and make it clear that we won't tolerate religious discrimination in our communities. we can protect our nation and still protect the fundamental freedoms of our bill of rights. i would like to acknowledge senator leahy, i will let him -- senator graham come if you will proceed and i will let senator

leahy, the chairman, make a statement. >> thank you, senator durbin. this is hearing that we need to have, quite frankly. these are difficult issues. what does it mean to practice religion in america? if it means that i have to stand up for your right to pursue your religion, because if i don't stand up for your right you won't stand up for my. the part of freedom of religion and speech means we can disagree. people can say one thing i've learned about freedom of speech, you can go to the funeral of an american serviceman who's been killed in action and say awful things in the name of freedom of speech. i'm not so sure, i know don't agree with the decision but we're going to have to understand that religions are formed because people of different views. and it's okay to argue, there's lines you cannot cross. we are living in a rule of law society so i stand by senator durbin, and anyone else who wants to send a message, you can have your disagreements.

to anyone who will wear the uniform and protect america, god bless you. that's the unique thing about america, is we are able to track a wide group of people with different views will fight for a common cause. so i do understand where you're coming from. but there's some real issues to be dealt with. can we do two things at once, can we stand for the rights of muslim-americans? i think the answer is unequivocally yes, we must because of any one group suffers, all of us suffers. but we'll have to come to grips with two things going on in the world. there are things being said in this country that are disturbing. they are our efforts to recruit and radicalized young muslims in america that has to be dealt with it i can show you the statistics. was going on in your? we are not immune from the. so the idea we want to get ahead of an enemy who is trying to come to our shores and

radicalized people in the country is a part of this war and we are at war. what's going on in scotland -- england. we have doctors that attack an airport. why should we be immune from that glaxo to the american muslim community i will stand with you to practice your faith in the an integral part of this country but you have to help your country, partly uniquely compared to anyone else, understand what's going on and fight back. the front lines of this war are in our own backdoor. our own neighborhoods. so to the american muslim community i will stand with you as you practice your religion and your exercise your right under the constitution, but i'm asking you to get in this fight as a community. and let it be known to your young people that there are lines that you will not cross, and his radical message that is being spread by people who would kill every modern muslim, jew, gentile, agnostics alike that we are all in this together.

i've been to iraq and afghanistan enough to know that the biggest victim of radical islam our fellow muslims. who choose to just basically tried to live their life apart from this radical agenda, and for that they need sometimes -- they need a very sometimes bad effect -- they. we're all in america together we must stand up together and to senator durbin i will try to do my part as republican to let my party and anyone listening now that i totally get it when it comes to freedom of religion and ability to practice different face. but i would like everyone to know in america that the agenda being set of people are trying to radicalized young muslims here in america and throughout the world is just as bad for the muslim-american community as it is for anyone else. because maybe the worst offender of all is someone who practiced their faith and rejects their ideology.

people in the mideast who are trying to separate themselves from this radical minority within the muslim faith need our help. and that's why we need to help those people in libya who are trying to place gadhafi, we need to stand by these young people in egypt are trying to chart a different path. and you'll never convince me that the young woman who went in the square in egypt want to replace mubarak with the muslim brother of al qaeda. so we live in very complicated interesting times, but it always helps to keep it simple. the simple thing for america is to understand that if we can't accept differences among faith, then maybe yours is next. and a simple thing for every american to understand, that we are at war with an ideology that has no air force to shoot down our nose navy to sink. we're going to have to work hard and together to win, to the

muslim-american community get in this fight and protect your young people and your nation from radicalization. >> thank you, senator graham. senator leahy? >> thank you. thank you folding the sink i think it's external important and i'm glad this is the first hearing you and senator graham are going to have with the subcommittee. we know that the fbi directors testified before this committee and others the past few years. there's been a dramatic increase in activities about domesticate groups. some of these activities are the result of targeting the american muslim community. to make matters worse, some leaders as senator durbin pointed out have sought to sow fear and divisiveness against american muslims. claiming the claims of hate against those with different traditions runs contrary to our

american values. remember, our nation was founded in large part of the importance of religious freedom. i welcome the renewed focus by some in our fundamental charter, the constitution of the united states, but are right and by the constitution is not a menu with options to choose based on the political whims of the moment. instead, it's a constitution set forth freedoms and protections for all of us. the first amendment, the bill of rights when the most find the principles of our national character, preserves all our other rights. by guaranteeing a free press, and free exercise of religion, insurers informed electorate, the freedom to worship as we choose or not you, our choice. it guarantees diversity. your guarantee diversity to protect the idea of diversity, you're guaranteed to democracy. throughout the history of the world, religious minorities have

been persecuted and aligned. a long list of religions whose numbers have been systematically denied freedom and categorical categorically, even exterminated. we must never forget this when we consider religious freedom, religious minorities in this country. all americans deserve civil rights protections and freedoms provided in the constitution. it does not end with the first amendment. it continues to ensure due process and equal protection, civil rights laws that we have passed to guarantee not be discrimination against religion. members of the committee work with the late senator ted kennedy, myself over the past two decades to ensure this fundamental religion, fundamental freedom. we've worked together to pass religious freedom restoration act, religious land use action institutionalized persons act,

it's a long been a bipartisan issue in the senate. but more important, bipartisan issue of religious freedom. it's been a consistent american value and that's what really counts the most. american muslims like all americans must be protected by the rule of law that uphold the constitutional and statutory protections. we passed the matthew shepard hate crimes act to strengthen the civil rights law. we responded law enforcement concerns about the difficulty of bringing criminal prosecutions against those that targeted victims because of their religion, ethnicity, race, gender and so on. last year in the run up to the national elections, the rhetoric became even more heated and threatening. there were threats of koran burnings. some has even asserted that muslim-americans are not entitled to the protections of the first amendment. that comment should shock and

offend anyone who respects the constitution. others on the radical right have suggested islam, one of the oldest and wisest part act is religions on earth is somehow not a religion at all so its followers shouldn't have the protections of the first amendment. that is nonsense and i do hope that americans would remember what our founding fathers established this great nation when they hear this kind of divisive rhetoric. i see the assistant attorney, jennifer civil rights, perez hit. former assistant to attorney general for civil rights alex, and also farhana khera you for the become also pleased with the leading voices of the catholic church in america is here to testify, cardinal mccarrick testimony reminds us that we catholics also had our loyalty to america question.

not just in the early days of our public but during the lifetime of many of us. my friend dick durbin refer to the irish and the italians and the lithuanians. i know exactly what he was saying. by irish ancestors faces when he first came even to vermont, now where the most tolerant states in the country. my father as a teenager faced a sign that said no irish need apply, or more directly, no catholics need apply. my italian grandparents in a small town, and a time communities were seen as different. like my mother and my uncle spoke a strange language. when they had mass, the priest would have to come to the back door and the curtains had to be drawn. vitiates had to be drawn. now, that would be inconceivable today.

members of the senate of other states also opened their own experience, religious and ethnic bigotry can be easy to ignite, very difficult to a to extinguish. i agree with cardinal mccarrick, the religious freedom is destroyed by attacks on people because of their religion. and by the terrible misuse of religion to incite hatred, even justify violence. and divisive religious rhetoric issues for partisan advantage, enemies of principles by which this great nation was founded. so mr. chairman, i think you. >> thank you chairman leahy. i appreciate that comment. i know that chairman takes great pride in his irish italian heritage. and i've told him he is where the gaelic meets the garlic. [laughter] >> we have returning member here, senator ben cardin it was a great member of the senate committee for many years and now has gone on to other things that i won't say bad things but other

things. he still continues as co-chair of the u.s. helsinki commission on human rights and he's asked for opportunity for opening statement participate in history. senator cardin? >> well, chairman durbin and senator graham, thank you for allowing me to participate in this hearing it i appreciate that very much. the right to freely profess the practice of faith or not to practice a faith is a fundamental right in our country. after more than 200 years our first amendment which stands can states that congress should make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. it continues to be the envy of people around the world. even before the first amendment was ratified, the constitution contained a very important provision in article six, section three that requires all federal state officials to swear an oath or affirmation to support the constitution, provide that no religious still ever be required as a qualification to any office of

public trust under the united states. in my own state of maryland, the only christians could have full participation in public life until the maryland general assembly acted in 1825 to pass the so-called juvenile. i think my ancestors would've been proud to see me elected to the maryland house, the house of representatives and now the united states senate. among other reasons my grandparents also came to this country in search of greater religious freedom and dollars. yet today not within the protections of our constitution and law i am very concerned that we're witnessing a demonization of a particular religion. the last decade and muslim-americans have been the target of growing wave of anti-muslim a good trick. it is our obligation to talk about this growing problem and what steps the government can take to reverse this trend and protect the civil rights of muslims and all americans. in the 111th congress we took a step or two to protect civil rights and that was the enactment of the matthew shepard

and james byrd, jr. hate crimes prevention act of 2009. this legislation gives the justice department new tools to combat hate crimes around the country that strengthened the ability of doj to pursue these hate crimes including hate crimes based on religion. the justice department has indeed stepped up its enforcement to combat hate crimes and discrimination against muslim-americans. i applaud these actions was in the criminal law enforcement or aggressive enforcement of our civil rights act and i do note our first witness tom perez has been a real leader in network card. in 1975 the united states establish a conference in europe now known as the osdp. be nice if congress gave the u.s. helsinki commission to monitor the u.s. participation in compliance with these commitments. i in the center of u.s. helsinki commission any capacity, i have raise religious human rights issues in other countries such as france when in the in of dash of security that parliament

banned the wearing of other religious articles. or when the swoosh -- these policies respected not only the religious practice of muslim but also christians and jews. i've also raise human rights issues in the united states when we are out of compliance with her helsinki commitments. the united states as a censure the 1975 helsinki final act has accepted a body and it investment which relate to the rights of ethnic and religious minorities. in the context united states has pledged about a climate of mutual respect, understanding, cooperation and solidarity, while all persons living in the territory without distinction to its ethnic or national origin or religion in one good solution of problems through dialogue. the united states has played a leadership role with the osd to focus on there is aspects of intolerance and discrimination including against muslim. the helsinki commission has been

in the forefront of many related initiatives. during the 100 of cock picture to commission a which we heard from special representatives from the osce, specifically to monitor and report on discrimination. among those testifying was the osce personal representative on combating intolerance, discrimination against muslims. the senate is taking another important step in comply with our osce commitment by holding this hearing. we need to encourage the muslim community in the united states to engage with them. and i applaud the chairman for holding this hearing. we cannot allow individuals or groups to pit americans against another based on our religion, religious beliefs. this only weakens our country and its freedoms. let us hold dear the protections of the constitution that safeguard these rights to freely practice their religion. our country's strength lies in diversity and our ability to have strongly held beliefs and differences of opinion while the able to speak freely.

we need to stand up against intolerance and injustice. let's come together as a nation and move forward in more constructive and hopeful manner. >> thank you. it's great to have you back on his bed. senator kyl? >> thank you, mr. chairman, and thank you for holding a hearing where you can entice carter my character come back. if this hearing reaffirms the need for all americans to respect each other's faith, and i'm sure we can all agree. but if it is part of a narrative that says it's improper to point out the obvious, that too many young muslims are being radicalized to join a jihad and if one should stand against that, then count me out. the only way to stop terrorist is recognize where they are coming from. political correctness cannot stand in way of identifying those who would do us harm. nor can we ignore the first amendment protections. i'm a bit perplexed by the focus of today's hearing.

if we're concerned about the most egregious religious hate crimes, and i wonder why we're not talking about crimes against jews and christians. according to the last year for which statistics are a viable from the department of justice regarding hate crimes based on religious bias, 71.9% were victims because of an offender's anti-jewish and bias. almost 72% at 8.4 because of anti-islam and bias. about 6.4 because of anti-christian bias. so i wonder what our priorities are to. and how about their persecution in some muslim countries today? how about the persecution of some muslim communities who were former muslim to convert to another faith or no faith at all? the point here is all bigotry is to be condemned, but we're only credible if we are principled and condemnation, selective indignation is not helpful. thank you, mr. chairman.

>> thank you, senator kyl. i would like to ask consent to enter into the record the two-page list of hearings that have been held in both the house and the senate relating to discrimination against specific religious groups, including jews and christians, and know that this is the first hearing relating to the any discrimination against those of muslim religion. i think it is obvious that we condone prejudice and bigotry against all religious groups. senator blumenthal? >> i would just like to thank you, senator durbin, and also trained for, for conducting this hearing which i think is by no means design as i understand, and tended to the subject going to the point that senator kyl very appropriate made. but i think that it really is designed to raise awareness and

show our own commitment to fighting bigotry, hatred, prejudice, intolerance, whatever it may exist. the united states right now is involved in the war against terror. in this very building two floors below us there is an ongoing hearing that springs from the war against terror before the armed services committee. in that hearing, there is discussion about the service and sacrifice made by men and women wearing the uniform in places around the globe that we can barely pronounce. they are there to defend those values of freedom and democracy that really we celebrate today by having this hearing, and recognizing the threats to our own freedom and democracy when we fail to defend it here at home. as intolerable, as in justice,

at as intolerance are in this country, as dangerous as intolerant as injustice is indifferent when we are in different to hatred and bigotry against anyone based on religion or the content of what people say. and i believe that we are here today so that we can help protect those values at home that are threatened by terrorists abroad. and can make sure that every individual is protected in his or her exercise of religion and speech. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator blumenthal. at this point i'd like to turn to our first witness, thomas perez is the assistant attorney general for the civil rights division in the justice department. if you will please stand first and raise your right hand. do you of from the testimony

you're about to give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god? let the record reflect the witness has answered in the affirmative. mr. perez, thank you for being here. please proceed with your opening statement. [inaudible] >> members of the subcommittee, my name is tom perez. it's an honor to be back in front of this committee. i know my former boss senator kennedy is here in spirit today. it's a real honor to be here to talk about this critical issue. among others my home state senator, senator cardin. within hours of the 9/11 terrorist attacks muslim-americans, were confronted with a powerful backlash. it was a surge of violence targeting these groups including threats, assault, arson and murder. today's after the attacks an individual attempting to set fire to cars in the parking lot of a mosque in seattle.

and shot at worshipers fling the mosque. on the same day an individual set fire to a pakistani american restaurant in utah. the first person killed in post 9/11 violence was shot while pumping gas at his gas station in arizona for days after 9/11. in the three and half months on the attacks more than 300 federal criminal investigations were initiated. there was also an increase in other instances of discrimination. on the afternoon of 9/11 a hotel in iowa canceled the reservation at a native american group had made to host the convention. the federal government under president bush's leadership responded forcefully. the civil rights division criminal in section create a task force to address hate crime. the civil litigating section ramped up their work to combat other forms of discrimination. our predecessors built a solid foundation. over the last two years we've worked to build upon that foundation and expand our efforts to engage with communities to ensure that we

are fulfilling our responsibility to protect their civil rights. one of my predecessors who is here today was the leader in the administration's response to the 9/11 backlash in this. among other things dean acosta such a new position a special counsel for religious discrimination and he selected erica remains with me and is one of my most trusted members of my staff on these issues, along with other super continue to post regular interagency meetings with representatives of the arab american muslim seek and south asian civic organization so that we can learn more and do the best job possible. we've also made it a priority to expand our outreach. in my travels across the country i've met with leaders from the various communities not just in dearborn and l.a. or chicago, but also in the twin cities. muslim leaders in new haven, roanoke, murfreesboro, tennessee, and just look at

these meetings allow us that want to learn about civil rights violations were that are occurring but also to build bridges to the community, to build trust and understanding. regrettably, nearly a decade has passed since 9/11, we continue to see a steady stream of violence and discrimination targeting muslims, arabs and south asian communicate in each city and downright met with leaders i have been struck by the sense of fear that pervades their lives, fear of violence, bigotry, hate, discrimination. this headwind of intolerance manifests itself in many different ways. last month we secured a -- of post 9/11 backlash violence. last year three men were sentenced for vandalizing and firebombing a mosque in columbia tennessee. in my outreach i consistently hear complaints that children face harassment in schools, difficult tears, told to go home, even though this is their

home. america is indeed where they were born. we have a regrettably robust docket of cases in the school systems involving harassment of muslim, arab, sikh students. in fact, the source of harassment cases are the largest category of religious discrimination cases that our education section handles. we continued to follow the leadership in republican and democratic administrations, bipartisan leadership, to combat religious intolerance in the workplace. we have a number of cases involving individuals discriminations outward. with the eeoc reporting 150% increase in complaints of discrimination against muslims since 9/11. many cases involve blatant intentional discrimination such as an eeoc case filed during the bush administration on behalf of to every muslim employees of a car dealership who were repeatedly harassed by management, called unspeakable words, terrorists, camel jockey and other habitats. similar cases have been brought

during the obama administration. we also continue the bipartisan tradition of pursuing religious accommodation cases. we found the case on behalf of a muslim teacher in illinois to a survey and to take an unpaid leave for a pilgrimage to mecca, requirement of her face. this case is very similar to the one filed by the eeoc in the bush administration against a tennessee hospital that refused to grant a muslim medical technician a three-week leave of absence for the pilgrimage. no person should have to choose between their faith and the work. publican and democratic administrations alike have fought hard to vindicate this principle. we continue to work hard to enforce up. and 14 have been open in the last 10 months. last year we filed a brief in a state court case involving a proposed mosque, the construction of a committee

center that included a mosque, and they were neighbors who challenged that and argued that islam is not a religion and, therefore, the county was wrong to treat the mosque in the same way it would treat a church. our brief argued only one thing. islam is a religion. we had to file that brief, and the court agreed and dismissed the case. these issues are and will continue to be nonpartisan. i applaud again as i mentioned earlier the efforts of my friends on religious freedom. our efforts are a reflection of our values in society. as a nation we believe strongly and unequivocally in religious freedom. this belief is embodied in the laws that we enforce. headwinds of intolerance in so many of the committees were here to discuss today are facing as you of all pointed out are no different from the bigotry confronted by groups throughout our nation's history. the good news is that with each

wave of intolerance our nation has indeed responded passing new civil rights laws, striking out old laws that sanctioned discrimination. and eventually recognizing the value of diversity and embracing those previously shunned. today we're simply using the long-standing tools in our arsenal to address an emerging challenge that threatens the freedom of individuals who want nothing more than for the families to be accepted in the communities, to live their lives, practice their faith, and realize the american dream. we will continue to use every available tool in our law enforcement arsenal to transform this headwind of intolerance and to a tailwind of opportunity. thank you for the opportunity to participate, and i look forward to answering any questions you may have, thank you. >> yesterday the chairman of the house homeland security committee criticized this hearing who said quote it reinforces the false premise that muslims are having their civil rights violated, end of

quote. your testimony of course reflects the reality of discrimination facing muslim-americans today. i like to look at the justice department's own statistics. muslims comprise less than 1% of the american population, but 14% of the department of justice's cases of discrimination against religious institutions involve muslims. mr. perez, according to your testimony over 50% of the department of justice mosque cases have been open since may 2010. you testified you believe that reflected an increase of anti-muslim sentiment. can you elaborate? >> i've had the privilege in the job of traveling to probably half of the u.s. attorneys offices across the country, and as part of our visit to make sure that we are aggressively enforcing civil rights laws and listening. we are coming thank you listening and learning as i did in chicago from various stakeholders in the muslim see care of and south asian community.

and it really tears my heart out to listen to the store that i will never forget my trip to tennessee where an imam talk about how his son doesn't want to go to school because he is so scared every day. they were telling and go home, you terrorists. and this is his home. and we see that across the country. that is something my own anecdote, but in our work across a wide array of areas, the criminal context, the religious zone context and education context. >> let's spee-2 employment discrimination for him on. according to data from equal thl employment opportunity commission, muslims account for about 25% of religious discrimination cases although as i mentioned earlier comprised less than 1% of the american population. mary jo o'neill of the eeoc said and ago, there's a level of hatred and animosity that a shocking. i've been doing this for 31 years, i've never seen such antipathy towards muslim workers, close call.

another example, the eeoc filed suit against a meatpacking company, swift, alleging discrimination against 160 somali muslim employees. no, and other things, the suit said that quote managers and supervisors and other employees regularly through blood, meat and bones at the somali and muslim employees. so i would ask you, in the area of employment discrimination, this notion that was expounded by someone in the other body of lack of evidence, discrimination against muslims, had he found and employment discrimination similar cases? >> we have. and again these cases did not start in 2000. these cases, and again i want to applaud the administration for aggressively pursuing these cases in a post-9/11 universe. 150% increase post-9/11 is a rather eye-popping figure. >> can i ask you, i would, i want to put a chance, there are

quite a few members here today, which i am honored that is the case, but in her testimony, farhana khera is going to follow this bill, recommends that the civil rights division creates a centralized hotline to receive, refer and track all civil rights complaints, not just those related to muslim-americans. she argues that current decentralized system is confusing for victims who want to contact the civil rights division which also notes the lack of a centralized hotline make its it difficult to track and collect data like a breakout of complaints by race, national origin and religion. so for example, we don't know how many american jews, christians, muslims, have filed complaints in the civil rights division and how many have led to prosecution. what is your reaction to the suggestion? is there a mechanism for tracking complaints by race and national origin and religion? >> yes. we've had this discussion, and i appreciate the suggestion when

is brought to our attention a number of months ago. we now have an 800 number for number for addressing these issues. but the 800 number is not the only mortal, and the -- we want to make sure that people could file complaints and whatever mechanism was most comfortable. if you're working or living in phoenix, you may have a relationship with your local u.s. attorney's office. we didn't want to preclude that. so the collaboration, coordination we are done with u.s. attorneys offices is to make sure we are speaking with one voice, is a critically important part of our effort to make sure that we're tracking these but as it relates to your question, the hate crimes statistics act under that reporting is voluntary. and there are many communities where there is no reporting at all. and so while those statistics under the hate crimes statistics act are useful, i think everyone

agrees that they understate the amount of violence that we're seeing across the country because of the voluntary nature of the reporting. that's the law. and as a result of that, those are the weaknesses in that data. >> i hate to preempt farhana khera's testimony, but since you hear i'm looking for reaction. she noted that under title six of the civil rights act of 1964, which prohibit discrimination by federally funded entities, it covers discrimination on the basis of race or national origin, but not religious discrimination. so discriminate against a person of a jewish faith, muslim, sikh, a student perhaps because of the religion is not prohibited under title vi. and would note that her former colleague, senator specter, who once chaired this, introduced legislation to expand title vi to cover religious discrimination. what is your opinion of this

loophole in the law? doesn't make it more difficult to protect children from discrimination in school? >> we have a number of tools to attack religious discrimination. in his own contacts we have title ii which we use in the civil rights act which is a public accommodation provisions which have a religious reference, title iv is education so we do have tools there. title vii is employment. the equal credit opportunity act gives us that opportunity there as well as the fair housing act. and in addition, under title vi, although title vi does not have the word religion in it, discrimination against jews, arab muslims, sikhs and other members of religious groups can violate the statute if it is based on their actual perceived shared or ethnic characteristics, rather than the religious practices. that would be a very specific -- >> why would we not want to

clarify that but i'm not sure why we are stopping short in making it clear that religious discrimination is included. do you see a policy reason why we should not? >> again, in certain circumstances title vi can apply in these situations, and that happened to a further conversation with you to explain how it can apply to these. >> senator gramm? >> thank you, mr. prez, for your service to the country. i guess my opinion about such matters is that one case is to me. anytime you have an example in america where someone is being abused because of their faith, i think all of us should join in and push back and the bush administration did as you are doing. so that's my baseline here. i don't know what the numbers are, but one for me is too many. and to those who have freedom of speech, as a gift given to you by a lot of people are risking their own lives, so when you say things to come and you things here at home, that create

tension based on religious differences, particularly when the muslim community is involved, they are putting our soldiers at risk. soldiers all over the world, a variety of religions fighting in the name of america, trying to help moderate muslims defeat radical islam. and my view is that are plenty of modern muslims out there that need a help and we should be helping because it's better to fight this war over there than it is here. by the end of the day we're all in this together. so let's talk about the school case in berkeley, illinois. it's passing. you gave some examples of conduct that i think every american would find offensive. and i'm sorry that the child is having a bad experience in school. we should all speak out against that. there's plenty of muslims wearing our uniform. and we need to understand that

again, we're all in this together. the administration made a curious decision but as i understand the fact that a berkeley on the, you had a math teacher, who basically wanted to go for a three-week pilgrimage to participate, is a great? >> yes or spent she was the only math lab instructor in a school district. and it was during the school year, and the school district said we don't want you to take three weeks off because we need you to finish out the school year. as i extend civil rights law, it requires the employer to recently accommodate the workers religious beliefs or practices, as long as they don't imposing minimum burden on the employer's operation. accommodation click preventing employees to weller -- to wear religious headgear or arrange

voluntary shift swap with coworkers on the sabbath. white frankly, mr. perez, i think as former attorney general mickey z. said, that this is a stretch of the concept. can chico during the summer? is any requirement that she go during the three weeks that she chose in the middle of a school year? >> center, the law says that an employer has an obligation to recently accommodate -- >> migration is could a lady in question have met her religious obligations by going in the summer when school was out of session? >> no, sir. >> she could not have? >> no. i can get into the specific facts of the? case -- >> i'm no authority, but i mean, is it just these three weeks in this one year that this lady could go? >> it is as i understand it on a the calendar. this particular year it was during this three-week period. >> that's not my question to put

yourself in the school district position. if you're a christian this is i want to go to rome for three weeks i want to go to jerusalem for three weeks in the middle of the school year, i would say no. you know, i'm a christian. i don't believe there's anything in my faith this as i get three weeks off to observe easter on any particular year. and my point is that it's my understanding that she could have met her religious obligation without creating this burden of being the only math and lab instructor in school disappear i think that's going to far quite frankly. the fact that you took this case that is going to do more damage than good. that's my 2 cents worth about it. but my question is, it's simple. is this the only three weeks in her life where she could do this? >> i can get into the specific facts of this particular case, but what i can tell you is that -- >> the answer to my question, i know you may not be an expert on when you take a pilgrimage, but

my point is i don't think so. i think she could have accommodated her religious beliefs without leaving the school district in a lurch. it is nothing about her religion. i would say that about any religion. and i just think you're doing more harm than good on that front. the case as you described i stand with the. you fight back, you push back. you bring these cases to court where people are being mistreated and abused, but my 2 cents worth is that this is the wrong case to take a. >> i want to point out because i know you want to make sure the record is complete. this is strikingly similar to a case brought by the bush administration in 2007 where an individual requested a three-week leave of absence for a pilgrimage to mecca, and again, the employer had -- >> well they were wrong, too.

>> will begin -- >> i will agree with the bush administration. a lot of people have been doing it. so they were wrong also. i'm just saying this is a good case study that went too far. i totally agree with you that the other case as you described, all of us should stand up against someone being treated and material thrown at them and the kid feel like you can't go to school, taunting us, that's not american. i just think the obama administration has made a mistake here. the bush administration believe that this was right, i don't. one final question, i'm running out of time here, is radicalization of american muslims on the rise? >> i'm a civil rights expert so it's hard for me to say that -- >> fair enough. i just want -- here's what secretary napolitano said. weaves an increased number of risks of supporting terrorist

groups, such as al qaeda. home-based terrorism is here. it will be part of the threat that we must now confront. she was absolutely right. so i want to do two things. i want to stand by you to make sure the american muslim community has the right to practice their religion. free of bigotry and hate because the first amendment to me, mr. chairman, means one thing. that's not subject to compromise. it means someone can practice a religion i do not agree with. and if we ever get into the fact that that is not true, then who's to say your religion is not next? so i am with you there, but i do understand the concerns that a lot of americans have, that what's going on in europe is now coming to our shores. so i wish the obama administration would be more forceful in their approach to fighting homegrown terrorists because i think that is a

weakness. not reading a terrorist suspect memoranda rights which has been caught trying to blow up again in times square is not productive. it is not helpful. so i wish the administration would look at the practice insisting that miranda rights be read because we need to know what's coming next, not abuse anyone, not torture them, but not to say they have a live right after you tried to blow up a van or anything exciting build the obama administration quite frankly needs to change some of its policies when it comes to fighting terrorism here at home. and i will stand with you as you try to push back against legitimate cases of discrimination. that there are two sides to the story and send a cow said and i want to talk about those more this morning. thank you very much. >> senator leahy. >> i don't have question. i just note the obama administration is, with the

directives on use of miranda warnings, which would make very clear you've got somebody who looks, you can question them about the bomb and not have to stop because, there's a need for a miranda warning. and i only mention that because sometimes we hear the path to around by commentators you are misstating what is the rule with the administration. i would be interested in seeing your response to senator graham's question on the transcendent issue. i know that has -- we are talking about u.s. person in berkely, illinois, i assume? >> that's correct. >> i would be interested in hearing your response that i have no questions, mr. chairman. spent i am very proud of the

work we're doing in that case. >> senator kyl? >> thank you. one of the cases that have been brought to our attention is the case of abdullah. a great kind of a firestorm of criticism about fbi tactics. it's been one of the examples to accuse law enforcement agencies of overstepping their bounds and unlawfully targeting the muslim-american community. i understand your office investigated the abdullah case, it determined that no criminal investigation was wanted, is that direct? >> we determine no criminal prosecution. >> and i assume your office hazard similar allegations of misconduct. could you just generally characterized with the committee here today your overall impression of our law enforcement agencies, procedures and tactics in the situation? >> our review in the particular case and our review generally is

to ensure that in the course of carrying out their duties, that there was not any violation of federal law. and in this particular case it would be the law that says that anyone who is willfully deprive someone of a right guaranteed by the constitution, and in this case it would be the right to be free from the intentional use of excessive force, that was what we were examining. and to our review focused and get folks to jenin whether it's a federal law enforcement agent or a state or role coal law agent, our review focuses on whether there's evidence of an intentional deprivation of constitutional rights. and now predicted? after a very thorough review, we concluded that the case did not present -- that the constitutional rights of the individual that you referenced were not violated. ..

>> making sure that we're building a blueprint for sustainable reform so that we can reduce crime. we can ensure respect for the constitution and we can enjoy public confidence in law enforcement. those are the real benchmarks for our work and whether it's the federal, the state or local

law enforcement, those are the real benchmarks of, i think, success in our policing. and we certainly work with our colleagues and federal lawsuit -- i personally participated in training at the border colombia academies on police integrity issues and civil rights issues and our colleagues in federal law enforcement across-the-board actively want our participation because we must again succeed in reducing crime and respecting the constitution. >> sure. i appreciate that. last friday i attended a dinner of american muslims who complained to me about being intimidated and even threatened by other muslims because these folks believed in separation of mosque and state and people who

threatened and intimidated them -- well, intimidated them because of those particular beliefs. i'm sure that your office would be just as willing to investigate and where appropriate prosecute those kinds of cases as in a situation where it's others doing the threatening and intim addition. >> if we have potential allegation of federal and civil rights we will investigate i believe it's the first prosecution under our new hate crimes law we are again aggressively applying that new law that senators leahy and did your by that referenced before and we'll follow the facts and make an appropriate judgment of the application of the facts to the law. >> thank you. one young woman specifically asked me, why after she had reported this -- and i will not indicate which city it was in, but after reporting it to the

police in this city she said she got no satisfaction at all and i didn't have much of an answer. what i'm going to do get back with her and tell us about our conversation and tell the u.s. attorney in arizona and that's one of the ways you suggested there could be done. and there's some relief -- >> i'm happy to answer any questions you might have or your constituent might have. >> i thank you very much. i appreciate it. >> thank you, mr. chairman and thank you mr. perez for your very distinguished work and the work of the department of justice in this area. i want to go back to the question that senator durbin was pursuing. should the laws be strengthened, federal laws be enhanced in this area to provide more effective tools for federal enforcement and if so, in what areas? >> well, i feel like we have an ample number of tools right now and we're using them in a very

robust fashion. the biggest challenge is to make sure you have the budget to carry out the laws. and i really appreciated the leadership of the president and the senate and the house in enabling us to get additional resources in the fiscal year 2010 budget because with those additional resources, that was the largest infusion of resources in our division's history. we were able to expand the work in this and other critical areas so that we could again do the work in that context because we do see this head wind of intolerance rearing its ugly head in the zoning context. we had a case in suburban chicago, for instance. the education setting, that's one of the two or three most frequently heard comments i get when i do outreach is about bullying in schools. and it's -- if you are in a learning environment where you can't learn for whatever reason

and in this particular reason because you're muslim or arab or south asian and you're told to go home and this is your home, that is an emerging growth area for us that we must address. so for me, i guess my biggest wish list is to make sure that we continue to have the resources to enforce these laws. >> your challenge is primarily in the area of enforcement, not so much the substantive authority that you would see the congress improving on? >> we feel at the moment like we have a large number of tools to do the work we need to do. we're always listen to work -- >> sort of let me ask you then, wouldn't it make sense to engage or involve the states and local governments more actively in this effort? >> we actually have -- that's an excellent question and we have a very active program of engagement. for instance, our committee relations service has provided training to over 750 law enforcement agencies across the

country on precisely these issues of muslim arab south asian engagement. through the -- after the passage of the matthews shepherd/james byrd, jr., act we used that new hate crimes law as an opportunity to engage state and local law enforcement and so we've trained literally thousands of officers across the country. law enforcement and civil rights enforcement is a joint venture between federal, state and local law enforcement, and i completely agreeing. >> i like connecticut have laws that specifically prohibit -- >> correct. >> crimes. >> and i had the privilege of spending the day in new haven a week or two ago and we had a wonderful conference with the u.s. attorney, mr. fein, and we had a lot of state and local officials there where we sent a very strong message to the residents of connecticut that civil rights is indeed this joint venture among federal,

state and local partners, and so your point is very well taken. >> and i'm wondering if you have some guidance that we can take back to our states, to our enforcers at the state and local level as to how they can be more active partners in this effort? >> communication is key. and we have set up a number of critical coalitions. i was in detroit recently, for instance, with the u.s. attorney, and she has a very wide-ranging coalition of community people, federal, local, state authorities who come together on a monthly basis to discuss issues. and sometimes those meetings can be tense but they have built trust through that coalition. and when you have that trust established, then when an incident occurs that tests that trust, you at least have that reservoir that you can build from. if you wait until the train

wreck to come together for the first time, you're seldom going to be able to forge the necessary consensus. so that coalition-building that we have spent a lot of time doing has really born fruit for us and i think for the communities as well. >> is there a written protocol or procedure that you follow in determining whether the enforcement of a hate crime prosecution and it is a criminal matter that obviously is a violation of state law, it could be prosecuted by state authorities or by federal law and that issue frequently arises as to state, federal choices of jurisdiction or venue or -- >> i spent the better part of the decade as a federal prosecutor doing hate crimes cases and the short answer is,

yes, we do have protocols in the u.s. attorney manual. the most important protocol, though, that we have followed and we will continue to follow is what's in the personally in the case and we've worked them up and then it was in the best interest of the case for the state to take it. the murder of the siek american in the aftermath of 9/11, that was a state prosecution. the federal government didn't prosecute that case. it was in the best interest of the case for the state of arizona to take on that prosecution. i did a hate crime case in lubbock, texas, involving nazi youth, neo-nazi white supremacist who started a race war targeted at african-americans in that case. the d.a. came to us and said i really want you to take the case. he had just been elected. he was just building his staff, and we deputized one of his

people as a special susa and that enabled us to secure the conviction of the three defendants in this case. there are u.s. attorney guidelines but i think the most important guideline will always be what's in the best interest of the case. >> thank you very much. >> mr. president, two questions i'd like to ask. one is brief. the staff research memo on the issue raised by senator graham relative to the teacher asking for three weeks for a visit to mecca for the hajj. i don't know what arizona keeps popping up in all these. there are other cases that have been considered in one united states versus the board of trustees of southern illinois university in 1995. it was about the employer's failure to accommodate an employee who requested leave to attend an eight-day religious festival, the worldwide church of god's feast of tabernacles and i see there have been other

cases involving that particular christian religion in this eight-day leave, 14-day leave that has been requested. i also find cases here involving discrimination against those who have asked to be spared -- being scheduled on the sabbath. >> correct. >> so there are cases involving jews, christians and in this case muslim. am i not correct, and i hope my staff is correct, i believe they are, that these cases are very fact-specific with regard to evaluating the impact on the employees' religion and the hardship on the employer so it really is a case -- a fact case to be determined -- >> absolutely. >> a three-week absence or an eight-day absence causes a hardship in either/or both directions. >> that's absolutely correct. and it's important to note that it is the employer that has the burden of demonstrating -- of providing the reasonable accommodation or demonstrating

the undue hardship. and there were cases brought by for decades he is by the eeoc or doj. they are related to christian denomination, seventh day adventist cases involving accommodation one day a week of people who are working the sabbath. so if you work in that particular facility, and if you don't observe the sabbath you will work more saturdays and fridays than that person and again, that was upheld in the jurisprudence. i'm very proud of the work we're doing in this case and again it's part of a long line of cases brought by republican and democratic administrations alike. >> so let me move into one area we haven't touched on that i think is timely and controversial and perhaps still being debated within the administration. a number of states around the country are considering laws prohibiting the use of islamic law also known as shari'a. for example, oklahoma adopted a ballot initiative prohibiting courts from using international

law or shari'a. we are all familiar with the way shari'a is interpreted in iran and saudi arabia. hardly a day goes by there isn't a report in the press of some abuse of this shari'a law by western standards. but for american muslims, shari'a includes rules dealing with personal matters. like prayer, fasting, marriage, and inheritance. so there's a fear among some muslim americans that a strict ban on shari'a would, in fact, inhibit their freedom of religion. an american muslim in oklahoma challenged the anti-shari'a ballot initiative on first amendment grounds arguing that the law would prevent courts from carrying out his will, which was drafted in accordance with islamic law. a federal court agreed and has enjoined the oklahoma ballot initiative. is the civil rights division which you represent monitoring anti-shari'a laws like the one in oklahoma to determine if

they, in fact, do violate the rights of americans? >> i'm aware of this conversation in other states. i've certainly heard it in my visit to tennessee, for instance, where this issue was discussed and raised by one of the litigants in the local litigation where we filed our brief. and so we will continue to review these laws to see if there's a potential federal civil rights violation. and again, i'm aware of oklahoma and other settings. >> so at this point, there's no case pending or any opinion on your part as -- >> we did not intervene -- we have not filed a brief in the oklahoma matter or any other matter where this issue may be raised. >> thank you. senator kyl, do you have any other questions? okay, good. mr. perez, thank you for your time. >> thank you for your courtesy. >> i'd like to invite the second panel to come up if they would, please. and i'm going to read their bios as they approach the table to

save a few moments here. first thanking all of them for being here. our first witness who will testify is farhana khera, the president executive of muslim advocates, prior to joining muslim advocates in 2005, ms. khera was counseled to the subcommittee on the constitution worked for six years with our colleagues and friends of senator roughly feingold when he chaired this very same subcommittee. prior to the senator ms. khera was an associate with the law firm of ross and hogan. ms. khera received her ba from wellesley and her jd from cornell law school and we're glad to have her back before the committee and before i administer the oath to all three i will just go through the biographies. the next witness is a dear friend, cardinal theodore mccarrick. he's currently serving as a distinguished visiting -- he

served as archbishop of the archdiocese in washington from 2001 to 2006. on february 21st, 2001, seven weeks after his installation as archbishop, mccarrick was el gaited to the college of cardinals by pope john, ii. that may be a record. as archbishop of washington mccarrick served as chancellor of the chancellor of america in washington, d.c. president of the board of trustees of the basilica of the national shrine of the immaculate conception. he served as the fourth archbishop of newark. in 1981 pope john paul ii appointed him to be the first bishop and i'm going to mispronounce mctuchen. cardinal mccarrick earned a bachelor and master in yonkers new york after he was ordained in the priesthood he earned a second master degree in soccer so long and from sociology from the catholic university of america. it is indeed an honor to have

you with us here. i'm going to feel a little bit nervous administering an oath to a cardinal. our next witness is r. alexander acosta, the dean of the college of law in florida international university. did i pronounce that right? >> you did. >> good. previously mr. acosta was u.s. attorney for the southern district where he handled the prosecutions for jack before or after for hard, jose padilla for terrorism and george taylor, jr. for torture. prior to that, mr. acosta served as assistant attorney general of the civil rights division where he led the justice department's efforts to combat the post-9/11 lack bash against the arab muslim americans. he served on the national labor relations board and worked at the law firm of kirkland and ellis. he received his b.a. from happy birthday college his law degree from happy birthday law school. he was an intern for samuel alito. i would ask all witnesses if you

don't mind, to please stand and i will administer the oath. you affirmly the testimony you are about to give will be the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you god. >> i do. >> let the record reflect that all three witnesses have answered in the affirmative. ms. khera please proceed with your opening statement. >> great. good morning, mr. chairman, members of the subcommittee, on behalf of muslim advocates thank you for the opportunity to testify on the civil rights of american muslims today and mr. chairman and senator graham, i want to especially thank you for your leadership in holding this hearing and bringing much-needed attention to rising anti-muslim bigotry. you know, we've been hearing from americans from all faiths, backgrounds and all walks of life who recognize that it's really become a growing menace to the safety and, frankly, the social fabric of our nation so it's especially heartening to see bipartisan support on this issue. i was born and raised in painted

post, a small town in rural upstate new york. at the start of school day like school children across the america i stood and recited the pledge of allegiance. the last line of the pledge says that we are one nation, under god, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. there's no qualifier. it's just simply that we are one nation with liberty and justice for all. as the subcommittee knows well, our nation has a unique, long cherished commitment to freedom, particularly, religious freedom. in fact, muslims have been a part of america for centuries. since the first slave ships arrived at its shores. today america reflects every race and ethnicity. that's why recent rhetoric demonizing islam and muslims, brutal attacks, harassment, and discrimination and in some cases

even threatening to kill americans including children based on their faith is so vile. it is not who we are as americans and it has no place in the schoolhouse, in the workplace or in our communities. nearly 10 years after 9/11, hate crimes motivated by anti-muslim bias targeting muslim, arab, sikh and asian-americans were before 9/11. some are deadly. late last summer a new york taxi driver was stabbed and almost died after a passenger asked him whether he was a muslim. just earlier this year, two elderly sikh men were gunned down while taking an afternoon stroll in their neighborhood in northern california. killing one and critically injuring the other. employment discrimination complaints are at an all time high with muslim bias based complaints comprising 25%. 25% of complaints received by the eeoc from 2008 to 2009 while

muslims comprise only 1 to 2% of the entire population. opposition to mosque construction is also on the rise and getting uglier. in muslim americans, sikh and south asian parents are more concerned than ever about their children. and one especially egregious case, a muslim high school student in stanton island was subjected to a harrowing ordeal in which he was frequently labeled a terrorist, punched in the groin, and spat on by fellow teenagers. sometimes his mother would catch him rocking back and forth saying, why me? what did i ever do to them? one day, he was beaten so severely that his mother took him to a doctor. there was blood in his urine and he suffered from headaches and memory loss. the assailants were later arrested and charged with a hate

crime. this is just one vile example of how anti-muslim bigotry is playing out ferociously across america today. parents worry, will my child be next? and they worry about the future. will america be hospitable to minority faiths? will its better angels prevail or will the values of freedom and respect become a relic of the anti-muslim bigotry has been growing since the tragic events on september 11. a terrorist attack that was an attack on all americans, muslims included. in the last several months, anti-muslim rhetoric has reached a disturbing new level prominent religious, military and even political leaders have joined the fray feeding fear and hysteria with some going so far as to say islam is a cult, not a religion. now, one just might want to dismiss such statements as silly and absurd if not for the fact

that the vitriol has real life and death consequences. the message is clear skies you are not welcomed. words that were graffitied last year for a sign on a mosque in murfreesboro, tennessee. what gives me hope mr. chairman is that more and more americans from all walks of life are coming together to reject fear and divisiveness because they recognize that it's not american. as former secretary of state colin powell poignantly said, quote, is there something wrong with being a muslim in this country? the answer is no. that's not america, unquote. i commend the stepped-up enforcement of the nation's civil rights laws under the attorney general's leadership but challenges remain and more must be done. i refer the subcommittee to my written testimony for specific recommendations of steps congress and the administration should take and ask that my full written testimony be entered for the record. i would be happy to discuss those recommendations later in

the hearing. thank you. >> thank you very much. i can tell as a former staffer, you knew you had five minutes. [laughter] >> cardinal mccarrick, please proceed. your written testimony will be made part of the record. >> senator. allow me to thank you for the invitation and opportunity to be with you to offer testimony today. as archbishop emeritus i'm here to for the catholic bishops. i hope you accept my full testimony be written in the record. the treatment of muslim americans in the broader context of religious liberty and of our catholic position experienced. as a community that has been the target of religious discrimination, even as was mentioned earlier, we understand the need today to bring attention to protecting the civil rights of our muslim brothers and sisters. we see religious freedom as an

essential foundation for our life together in our own nation across the globe. over time we've made much progress together but we fear the shared foundation is being weakened and undermined by religious prejudice, unwise policies and polarizing words and tactics which divide us. most appalling is attacks on some people in countries by their religion and by the terrible misuse of their religion to incite hatred and even justify violence. sadly, this fundamental betrayal of religious belief affecting those of different religions of different perspectives and they can be used to promote suspicion and fear of all people associated with the particular religious position. this kind of generalized religious prejudice is wrong and unjust and a clear violation of religious freedom. a justified concern for security and the appropriate pursuit of those who pervert religion to attack others cannot be allowed to turn into a new form of

religious discrimination and intolerance. this is why we stand with our muslim brothers and sisters in defense of their dignity and rights just as we welcome and expect their reciprocity and solidarity with the rights of christians and other religious groups are violated around the world. in our pluralistic society, religious values and commitments are assets for the common good, not sources of division on conflict. today we note with particular sadness that muslim americans with whom we have had a positive dialog for over the decades have had their loyalty and beliefs questioned publicly in sweeping and uninformed ways. this compels us to reach out in solidarity in support of their dignity and rights as americans and believers. we worry about the rhetoric and actions that target our muslim neighbors and friends like our own historical experience, their very loyalties as americans and their traditions of values are being threatened. we remain firmly committed to

the defense of religious liberty for all, not just for catholics, because our commitment is to the dignity of each and every human person. at the same time, we recognize that not every charge of wrongdoing against people or groups within a religious community amounts to religious discrimination, bias or bigotry. religious beliefs are no excuse for threatening others or carrying out acts of violence. at this particular moment in our nation's history we face a real threat to our national security from one kind of terrorism that has its origins in a particular form of extremist ideology which holds itself out falsely as authentic islam. the legitimate concern for the public order, however, must be pursued with effectiveness, skill, and respect for religious liberty. in particular, we need to avoid generalizing about any religion especially about islam based solely on the extreme views and conduct of a small group of radical extremists. those unfounded generalizations

and efforts to fan the flames of fear are wrong and unjustified. but are especially inappropriate and hurtful when expressed by leaders in public life. these attacks are a grave injustice against the vast majority of muslims in the united states who are loyal and productive members of our american society. for the catholic bishop's religious freedom and its absence of any expressions, our own history as an immigrant people and a religious minority has its own stories of suspicion, discrimination and intolerance. and, unfortunately, these revenue merely a thing of the mast one of the very right of conscience is sometimes attacked to exercise religious belief is subverted. there are well-known contemporary examples where the state would force religious groups and individuals to choose between following their religious beliefs and practices and following the dictates of law. whereas, the respect for religious freedom we ask in co