expired. >> thank you for calling this hearing and for inviting the witness i appreciate you making the trip today. the drinking water systems in the district i represent and i think every district across the country are facing significant challenges as they work to ensure that everyone including people in the small and rural communities have access to state water which is why introduced to the aqua activist congress to improve all of the tools that epa has to assist the systems. i appreciate the work that my colleagues for mississippi have done on these issues and i look forward to working with him to get some of the changes into the wall. it seems every week in my district there's another water main break played treated water into the money we've invested is being wasted so it's dollars and water flowing out of the pipes. can you describe some of the issues you have had in your town with water main breaks and the obstacles you face in preventing

these ruptures clacks. >> well when we have a water main break it doesn't always just pop up through the because the ground is soaked frozen so we don't often over the break is and we don't have the tools or equipment to locate the break so we have to either call the consulting firm that could be $1500 a day to come with special tools or we call the water association and if they are available they will come. it's very difficult and we don't always know where the breaks are located. >> it's such a serious issue and one that will require more significant financing including that investment in technology not just technical assistance. mr. gomez the gal studied the range of government programs that provide assistance to rural and small water systems as well as the systems face.

what is the funding gap for water infrastructure back sino earlier you gave a combined total for the water into drinking water and sewer. what is the funding for the infrastructure and how much money does it entail quick. >> the epa estimated the funding gap and they estimated to be $662 billion. that's an estimate from 2002 and the estimate is based on the next 20 years. >> thank you. and obviously the water systems represented on the panel i would agree more resources are required. do you support legislation to reauthorize and increase the funding available clicks you mentioned in her testimony the need for the grants not just loans and i think many of you mentioned is it fair to say that your village has reached the limit of its ability to borrow

more for the needed funds to >> absolutely. we can't even entertain him in a subtle bond at this time and right now we are spending our budget items on repairs. we don't have enough money in the budget for the replacement of old infrastructure. we are looking for funding but it's been a struggle to find any. >> we encourage the funding of that. >> do you also support efforts to expand the technical assistance like the aqua act quick. >> we call any technical assistance that can be provided to us is really of value. >> to the other gentleman on the panel any responses in terms of technical assistance cocks in the relevant role that it might play clicks technical assistance

is the central income is playing with various rules and regulations of the epa particularly because many of the rules are often complex and require innovative approaches to the training and technical assistance but provided is indeed an essential compliance. >> in terms of the technical assistance funding it's very essential. we get the mayors and the water board of managers and whatever and they need all the training they can get. the secretary is put on the training for them. they certified them. every bit of assistance we can get is very well needed. >> technical assistance is important because we didn't

ensure the investment making for the epa and the rural development and technical assistance allows people to work with the communities to make sure that the loans will be repaid and also implement asset management programs so the infrastructure and the materials the utility has is good to be maintained in the top operating positions so they don't have to go back repeatedly to repeat replace things that could have been maintained. >> the act i appreciate your comments andcomment and with that i will yield back. >> the vice chair mr. harper for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and i can think of few topics more important across the country and every district and the one we are on today so thanks to each of the guests giving testimony today and also welcome to the mayor and each of you here is something that we greatly appreciate and my dear friend kirby mayfield who is the ceo of

the mississippi rural water association who's been a great contact and person sharing information with us so we are thankful for that. if i could, in your testimony you talked about the trust relationship small communities have with circuit writers. as we continue discussing the issue on how the epa could and should help the communities comply with federal regulations among other things would you take a minute he elaborate the trust relationship that our water systems have with our circuit writers? >> the relationships that have been established over the years between the water association and the utility manager is to certified water operators and mayors to small town council has been well established over many years. primack sample just last evening

a small community in mississippi the water well was down due to snow and they lost power for a significant period of time and the mayor of course the customs were calling and was developing and it took the mayor contacting me and i immediately contacted the mississippi rural water association and they immediately began locating a generous part of time -- generator for the time and they were able to get the generator debugger to resolve the situation. so in essence the experience is if you've got a problem and you don't know what to do then you caller mississippi rural water association and they are there every time to provide the needed assistance. >> i'm also glad you explained to some of the folks, some of the members we have snow in mississippi. there wasthat was a surprise to some.

>> and thank you so much for your kind words in your testimony. i look forward to visiting with the water association folks next month in dc. you talked about hurricane katrina which impacted our state and louisiana greatly. it was the greatest most costly natural disaster ever in our state's history and you mentioned it to him by district and the assistance they received after katrina. but you talk for a minute about some of the tools they have at their disposal that small water systems often don't have or have access to i. think you mentioned the radar equipment. how important are these tools to the survival of the smaller water systems? >> before katrina we had a disaster in south mississippi like that in 1969 but we were

without power about 120 miles from the coast and without power about 20 days, 19 or 20 days and at that time some of the water systems have started putting in generators very few but some had. and you know, like i said in the testimony you can make it that powerful for a while and write it up to get the tv on or something but without water you can't make it. we immediately called the circuit writers and they found generators in arkansas, north mississippi, wherever they could get them helped us get them hooked up and we got the water going again. same with wastewater. we have some stations you have to put wastewater. we hooked into the wastewater stations and got water to the laguna or the treatment plant. the ground radar you mentioned thethey keep one of those and any anytimeanytime we need to locate the

line they were put in and you don't know exactly where the line is. they come out there with this machine and locate the line and help us tap it and help us do whatever we need. and it's about $35000. most of these bubble systems don't have the money for that so what we do is be called rural water and they help us. >> thanks to each of you and it's great to have all of you here. also want to specifically think that ranking member for his assistance as we try to work through these important issues. >> the chair recognizes the gentleman from texas for five minutes. >> thank you for both you and the ranking member for holding the hearing on the drinking water needs. i represent a very urban district in houston texas and we have some of the same problems in our suburban areas that will not be annexed by the city's

because the property tax could never cover the cost and yet the airport in houston and the areas in a the district and over the years in texas league received money from the state revolving fund in fact partnered with using it and some in some of the communities to provide fresh water but also partnering with the county because for the sewer service it bothered me that last year texas received the lowest amount of money from the state revolving fund of the 53 million that goes back to 1997 and that isn't anywhere near accounting for inflation. the fact is deeply troubling because the significant and growing infrastructure needs in texas in general and like i said a very urban district. if it's in the city they will do it but this area is not attractive to be annexed. that's where we need to help. there are septic tanks and again in the very shallow water wells.

that's why this hearing is important. my first question due to be leave the congress should reauthorize the drinking water state revolving fund to steer? >> it seems like an easy one. yes sirguess where it's one of the most important. >> for the other three gentlemen do all of you agree we ought to reauthorize this click. >> yes or. >> do you believe congress should increase the funding provided through the drinking water state revolving fund click. >> raise the authorization box i explained we have that you could raise the authorization as high as you want to still have to go back and pick the appropriations committee for the money. >> he's saying do you think the authorization amount should be

raised across the country. >> that we get asked for appropriations. >> not only your states of others. >> yes or. >> my opinion is it is a capitalized revolving fund the state house so it isn't just money going away. this is to capitalize money that can be revolved again and again for use in the communities large and small. >> should it be raised so we can cover more communities? >> absolutely. >> i would also like to add that in addition to raising the funding to cover more communities, take a look at the process and make sure that the money is being utilized by the community that it was intended to be beneficial for. >> you think there's something in the authorizing law that we need to change that would make that happen click. >> i'm not so sure about the process of the authorization in the law as i am concerned about

just the implementation of the fund and those things that discourage the communities in mississippi that i'm familiar with pursuing those funds because they were intended to benefit the small communities and there is a gap and i think we just all need to figure out how to bridge the gap. >> the biggest problem in my area these are very poor communities and they have a revolving fund and have it paid back. they could hardly afford the monthly water bill and sewer bill to be able to pay it back so that's the issue again in my area and i assume it's in north mississippi just like other parts of portal texas. you indicated you work two decades on the drinking water issues. the last few years i stopped at the louisiana border from beaumont texas all the way out west it's been not just in the

last year that we've had good rain in the houston area southeast texas all the way to the rio grande valley that we still have problems of cost san antonio because it's still in a drought area. how would you describe the current state of drinking water infrastructure in texas? >> i would say for the most perfect for the strong but i think there's a certain disadvantaged community like you are talking about but i think really needs additional resources and there is some hard-hit drought areas in north central texas. in my area i think it needs additional support and in texas it's benefited because we have river authority's come a progressive water development board and people looking at the issue from a lot of different angles. >> texas data provider recently the voters for the constitutional amendment to provide for it because of the problems we had. in 2011 harris county as much of the state was in the grips of

the drought during the height due to aging water lines, hardening slagle, hundreds of waterline breakage resulting in billions of countless lost. if you have an economic impact of the 2011 drought on the state click. >> that's something that the gal might be better able to answer but i know it's been severe economic impact because if you don't have the water sources you're not going to be able to support the businesses the growth that's occurring all over texas. water is the foundation of all in the country. >> i am over time. >> i now recognize the gentleman from pennsylvania for five minutes. >> thank you all i will liable test and see what i can get a. >> thank you for being here. engineers who serve in some of these rural water systems in the district for example green

county in southwestern pennsylvania area they tell me states often times impose their own drinking water requirements which are more strict than the epa standards set forth in the drinking water act. can you please provide examples for me where the state imposed requirements you see in your community or other communities go beyond the different epa standards? >> in mississippi and he can elaborate on this correct me if i'm wrong but i believe in mississippi that our state regulations are exactly the same as the federal guidelines being no more or no less stringent than the language in the federal act. >> the same for you click. >> does anyone else see differences? >> no i don't think the regulations could be more stringent than what the the federal act has written.

>> the epa regulates water quality they don't rigidly to capacity and some require you have a certain wealth production surface water treatment plant storage and pumping capacity and a lot of cases does those adversely affected small communities because they are not justified on the basis of how much water is being used. >> so for example where they are dealing with things like the waterline extension is that not necessarily water quality that water delivery is that what you are saying click. >> the capacity requirements whether it is pumping more storage elevated, sometimes those capacity requirements are higher than what is needed to protect public health. >> what this gets into and let me come back to that how much could the heightened standards cost the drinking water systems if we make some changes will affect -- you were even adding to the cost issues here and you

talked about consulting and engineering what the costs are. what is this worth of rural communities come anybody have an estimate? of the cost that you would their? senate probably save on the consulting fees that he's been he spent looking for the funding. >> anybody else have any thoughts about this? >> it depends on the requirement. requirements. if you are talking up up to doubling or troubling the water bill for the small community. it just depends on what kind of treatment, what kind of constituent. >> so the question is how do the systems get the funds they need to deal with this issue. if you have any thoughts on this on what we do i. heard one

comment can they i save my money answer coming for the increase or change the standards i sometimes think it's unfair to say you must do all these things into their costs but it comes down to the question of what else, how are they've often times when you have someone that lives a mile from the next person and there's a huge cost associated. anyone have a comment how -- if that should set up? they passed the bonds in the past that preys on to taxpayers. anyone else have any thoughts click. >> raising the rate is the only way the only option they have in

the 20% range sometimes. >> and we have these grand systems. i know some of my communities asked for some changes in the way that the loans are established. any comments on those? stack of paperwork is quite cumbersome. >> can you collaborate with that adds to the cost? >> we just don't have the staff who can understand what is required in the paper. we give them the data and how much water we use every day and that kind of thing. >> is it safe to say simplifying paperwork and if you're going to be required to have lots of people that also provide assistance in filling that out. >> absolutely. >> i'm going to try to be quick

so everyone gets a chance. you are recognized for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman and to the panel thank you for being here. this strikes home to me because as the a county commissioner and from ohio for six years handling a lot of water and sewer issues and also the created a district to put things together because my home county was over 600 square miles we had all a part of fight cities, 21 villages, 19 townships and a lot of unincorporated area. and it's important in hearing all of you brings back memories of over 20 years ago that i used to sit in a lot of meetings and hear people talk about very important issues and in ohio about we got about $21 billion right now we are looking at the needed infrastructure improvements from water to wastewater and storm water. so what you're saying here today

is very important and we appreciate you being here because i can commiserate with what people said and i've also been working on legislation for at least one session to try to help on the wastewater site to help the communities but if i could you all have very good testimony and i appreciate you being here and if i could start with mr. gomez i think it's important because one of the things we've been hearing is a shortage of dollars out there that we have especially when you're talking about the rural area. could you discuss the relationship of the epa and the usda programs and whether they are overlapped out there and what about the efficient seas and the synergies that could occur if we were really looking at the programs to make sure we didn't have duplications out there or anything like that. >> thank you.

we have looked at those two programs in particular and also at the other agencies that have programs that hope the rural communities with respect to the usda service and the epa drinking water they do have some similar programs. we didn't find any areas that were duplicating the effort meaning they were funding the same project for the same purpose. projects can get funding from both programs but they are usually focusing on different areas. the other thing that we've reported on is the importance for those two agencies to work together to collaborate and also to encourage the state programs to work closely with the usda utility services so that they can't get efficient seas. one of the recommendations we made is that they needed to come up with a uniform preliminary engineering reports to the communities are not filing multiple engineering reports

that cost money. so those are things we are tracking and we were happy to hear they've come up with a uniform preliminary engineering report and that some states have already adopted so we think those are places where if i working together they can better target the money. >> thank you. this is for esther stewart and mr. newman because he both kind of touched on this in your testimony you mentioned about bringing the tools back to the community and the cost of the technical assistance. what do you find are the tools there that are readily available because i know we heard from other vendors asking the panel about the cost. but do you find you have that assistance out there to be able to get that as soon as you can get it? >> both have a variety of tools

we bring to bear. we are already working on different tools and i think i touched on them in my testimony. i think it's the access to the tools they need the technical assistance to bring them in whether it is an asset management program, finance or management program, whether it is whatever the tools might be come at the expense isn't just creating the tools it is bringing it up in the small communities that can't access them unless you have a technical assistance provider working with them. >> would you like to touch on that click. >> to reiterate the comments on the perspective of the water system manager the resources, the assistance is invaluable because they are varied issues

that occur across the water system or wastewater systems that may be on the scope of that particular committee and financial capabilities so utilizing the services of the association is absolutely essential. >> the time is expired. >> the gentleman from west virginia. >> thank you mr. chairman. going in several directions with this. i've got -- we all heard a lot of horror stories and i've got mine in my district. i have a little town in west virginia. i think we have a slide perhaps of a water line that they've been facing. it shows how corroded the lion line is. they have applied knowingness they've applied ten times to try to get money and they've been rejected ten times in 2002. it just isn't -- we just don't

have the money. and what i was particularly pleased about is the president is here actually maintained it for the most part the funding from the previous year as compared to what we've seen in the past where the year before he made a 40% reduction because they set the priority with climate change. we've heard that mentioned on the other side. if climate change was a higher priority than funding the water problems. i'm confused about about the regulatory burden because a lot of you have been talking this hearing is about rural america and not the concern about the big cities. i'm worried that this hearing if we stay focused on rural america because here is a listing of some of the rules.

i've decided sewer and water lines. i'm quite familiar with this but we have things that a small city has asked the chemical who covered the uranium the backwater pool, surface water, to disinfect number one and two, the surface water. i could go on and on. today's debate who they are ones that small cities have to deal with as large communities of 100 or 200000. and i have three other communities that are just trying to find money for operations was alone installing community working on as one of you said in 19th century system trying to replace it with waterline writer. how can we get money for operations? we have one community dumping

raw sewage into the potomac river because they don't have money to be able to do the maintenance work they have to do. we have others getting their water through water buffaloes put into the sister city of water. this is 2015 but until this year every year the last three years have been reducing money in the srf. what are we failing the country when we don't put enough money into the srf because that's what i've heard many of you say we need to put money in. what do we need to do how much more money can you suggest where we have to go with that and i would actually be prioritizing the money for the rural communities so that we are waiting them more then more heavily than the big cities? >> you are preaching to the choir. all of us would agree that significantly greater percentage

goes to the smaller communities and they should be able to access it easier. you can't even have a chance to get in the money unless you get on the intended use plan and for the small community helped you get on the intended use plan flex all of us can talk you that's difficult to do. to submit the paperwork do you even have a chance to get on the money and that is a problem i said in my testimony we need some assistance to get on the use they did to prioritize the srf. ..

thank you very much for bringing this up. this is for small cities. the big cities have their own issues but they have the resources in the critical mass to be able to take care of it. our small town of four or 500 people are struggling. >> i thank my colleague and the chair recognizes the gentleman from ohio for five minutes. >> thank you mr. chairman could ever-present appalacian of ohio and i don't have to tell you folks probably how rural that is. i hear the horror stories many of which you have just heard. i could cite similar cases that my colleague from west virginia mr. mckinley did. long before i was elected to congress i served 26 years in

the air force and i was stationed in columbus mississippi. you know how rural that area is so i have seen this for a long time. mr. gomez, does the gao track and can you tell us in regards to all urban and rural systems how many municipalities have their systems charge the true cost of providing water to their customers? in other words how many are operating in the red? >> that's a really good question and it's always one area that is debatable whether people are actually paying the true price of what the water cause. i don't believe that we have done work on that but if we have i would have to get back to him that. >> would you take a look at that please? i think the american people would be interested to know how these small rural communities are struggling and mamie -- many of them are operating in the red

as it stands right now because their residents can even afford the cost of providing water. >> what i can also say his epa has for these rural communities they have to undertake water and wastewater infrastructure products their rates would likely be four times what the urban ratepayer would be paying. >> absolutely. i have got rural areas that are under that exact pressure. they don't have the money because of the economy. they don't have the money to comply with the epa's clean water mandate and system mandates today and on top of that they will be leveled with these finds that they also can't pay so it's like trying to get blood out of a turnip and i know you guys know what a turnip is. so it's tough. it's tough. let me ask you a question.

your testimony mentions that the town of cuomo mississippi has 2 million wastewater needs than 1 million drinking water upgrades that it needs to undertake. what was the annual operating budget of cumberland? >> the annual operating budget in the town of como is approximately 150,000 annually. >> all right and what is the average income of como residents? >> per-capita about 21,000. >> okay. is raising local water rates a realistic possibility? >> it's a realistic possibility from the standpoint of operations and maintenance but not from the standpoint -- >> making upgrades. even if you raise the rates operationally and maintenance wise would it be enough to cover the cost of providing the service? >> no. >> okay.

>> what is their access to or are there limits on funding sources like commercial lending? that is a double-edged question because the question itself says why don't you go in debt to provide water and that's certainly not a principle that i subscribe to. are you considering other sources? >> by and large the primary source is rural development primarily because of the grant component. other options as we have discussed include state revolving fund even commercial lending however as is the case with sr f. commercial lending is 100% loan and interest rates on the commercial loan is typically going to be higher than the srf. but in either case because of the low economies of scale of a community like como you can't afford to borrow the money necessary to make these improvements. they just don't have enough customers over which to spread

costs. see that all right. for mr. newman and mr. king and mr. salmond what challenges do you have in assessing the drinking water lobbying funds and how does that compare with accessing rural utility service funding? >> i will allow these gentlemen to elaborate the one of the issues they think you touched on as well, you have got more help with our u.s. as opposed to srf. the -- cost you may have to utilize services from a consultant which adds to the cost and that's typically not the case with the rural development process. >> mr. salman? >> we have been able to use the srf money. our engineers take whatever they allow, whatever they allow for an engineer or whatever he does

the paperwork for whatever that is. they have that specified in the long. we have been able to, i know certain regions have been able to take advantage of our funding. we were having trouble getting money through rural development. >> my time has expired but mr. keegan? >> we have had trouble accessing funds for me to program. in new york state a lot of funding goes to communities that have some sort of citation some problem with their system. we work hard to keep our system smooth running so we are at the bottom of the pile. >> thank you very much. mr. chairman a rural america knows how hard it is to get blood out of a turnip -- term it it -- turn up. >> i think my ranking member in my vice chair who is trying to lead this charge. last but not least mr. cramer

from the rural state of north dakota you are recognized for five minutes barry thank you mr. chairman from illinois and ranking member from new york for balloting rural america and for reminding us their other rural places that are known for their urban centers. it's good to have them in alliance. my constituents with the north dakota water systems would be proud of all of you. you have done a great job today and i have felt right at home even with the unusual accents. it's a reminder that there are some things that we work together on that are very important. i won't delay except to tell you i hear a lot about the program fund folks and i think you raise a very important issue. it's incumbent upon us now as

policymakers and eventually appropriators to look for opportunities to prioritize some of the things you talked about within the context of the entire act and given the constraints -- financial constraints we have we do have to be created but certainly we can prioritize. i want to ask for a little bit of elaboration one point. i thought the gao report was fantastic and i think it's nice to see the alphabet soup is my constituents often referred to it and see that there is recommendation bindings and then response, multiple agencies that have but have a tendency to create an extra burden by virtue of requiring uniform processes but not in a uniform way so the preliminary engineering is a great tool. and i think at a time when

constituents are looking for efficient and effective government this is a good example. i raise it because i wonder how many more times we can duplicate this throughout the system. one of the frustrations i have seen in the last two years here is not just with the epa and usda but certainly there are many more but i hope we could as a house, as a congress and public officials look for more of these types of opportunities where the public can go wow that makes perfect sense. right now they look at it and i'm sure you'll do and say to and say you mean i have to hire the engineering firm to do the same thing all over again for another agency? so i guess mainly what i wanted to say is thanks for that. i will be monitoring that carefully to see how it works out and i know you will as well and mr. gomez i think there are nuggets of opportunity to demonstrate functionality of

government in a way that people expect of us and we probably haven't done so well. >> is part of our tracking we do every year because we want to make sure those agencies are making progress and it's helping the communities that are in need. >> thank you for that and thanks to all of you. i will leave some time on the clock and just thank you for being so patient to hang around with me this long. i yield back. >> the gentleman yields back is time. it looks like we are about done. is there anything else you want to say? >> thank you mr. chair. i just want to commend the entire panel. what you shared with us is not only great insight but advocacy for what is a very high priority and you have done it through that front-line experience. it provides an extra bit of impact i think on the decisions that are made here.

but thank you for reinforcing what we have understood to be a problem that this is a high priority problem for the country. so thank you very much and i was impressed by all the statements you have made and the responses you have provided. >> i want to thank the ranking member for the comments and for being here. it's just going to energize us to try to and i've met asked mr. tonko in mr. harper to get together and try to see where there are similarities and agreements that we can move forward together. you can see where there is a lot of areas in our country that are behind just because they are small. it's not a political statement, it's just the nature of our country. i really appreciate the involvement of my colleagues too so thank you. i have some business to to do and i ask unanimous can -- consent of all subcommittees

have five legislative days to submit opening statements for the record. also unanimous consent and inserting the letter from dr. roe jones and her report from the environmental working group. without objection so ordered and members of the committee have 10 days to submit written questions for the witnesses to be included and its follow-up we ask that you would return us if you can and without objection so ordered. with that this meeting is adjourned. [inaudible conversations]

>> would the opening of the suez canal in 1869 sailing ships were almost dealt a death blow. without opening the canal coal-fired ships had a shorter route to the far east and to india to all of those markets of sailing ships really made it -- needed to find a way to make their own clipping so instead of high-value cargo they started caring lower valued cargoes, coal oil cotton etc. so alyssa found her niche in carrying any kind of cargo that did not require getting to market at a fast pace. alyssa's connection to galveston is really unique in that she sailed and arrived here in galveston probably 100 yards from where we are standing right now back in 1883 with a cargo full of bananas. she came again a second time

later on in the 1880s, 1886 and it was real important for the galveston historical foundation to find a vessel that had a connection in the back as she was a sailing vessel was all the more important. >> and emotional president obama spoke about outgoing attorney general eric holder and his portrait unveiling. the justice department event

included a surprise appearance in singing by a aretha franklin. this is about 40 minutes. ♪ ♪ ♪ >> please be seated. good afternoon everyone. i am sally yates the acting deputy attorney general and i want to thank you for joining us here this afternoon for this special ceremony celebrating our attorney general eric holder. first, please join me in thanking the joint armed forces color guard and the president's own marine corps brass quintet

for the beautiful music in the presentation of the colors. [applause] i want to welcome all of you here today that senior administration officials including one person who made hope will soon be a senior administration official, loretta lynch. [applause] members of congress, members of the judiciary, friends, colleagues and most importantly attorney general holder's family. his wife dr. sharon malone. [applause] his daughters maya and broke. [applause]

his son, eric. [applause] his brother william holder. [applause] his sister-in-law deborah holder. [applause] nieces ashley and amanda holder. [applause] and his sister and brother-in-law margie and read. [applause] welcome everyone to this place that has been attorney general holder's home for much of his professional life. this place where as a line attorney as united states attorney, as deputy attorney general and now as attorney general of the united states, he has dedicated himself to seeking

justice, to keeping our country safe and ensuring that the law is enforced equally and fairly for all. now all of you here today know our attorney general so it probably won't be a surprise to you to hear that he didn't really want to have a big farewell to do. and he in fact resisted having this event. we knew that the only way we were going to be able to strong-arm him into this was to go to a higher authority. but given that he is the attorney general of the united states that's pretty much limited to the president and dr. malone. [laughter] mr. attorney general we are glad that you did because we couldn't let you walk out the doors of this department without recognizing in thanking you for all that you have given to the department of justice and all that you have given to our country.

[applause] the attorney general's commitment to our mission our singular mission to seek justice has guided his entire tenure at the department of justice. as attorney general he has had the courage and resolve not just to manage the department but to leave it. he has chosen what is right over what is popular what is just over what is easy and others over himself. he has said what needs to be said even when some didn't want to hear it and he has stood his ground when they didn't. eric holder loves the department of justice. and on behalf of the career man and women of this department i want to tell you we love you back.

[applause] [applause] [applause] thank you for devoting your life to the cause of justice that we all hold so dear. history can sometimes be hard to grasp that i have no doubt that for years to come young lawyers will walk by your portrait in the halls of the department of justice and feel a special pride for this chapter of history that you have written for this great institution. and speaking of your portrait i

would like to now invite dr. malone and the artist who painted the attorney general's portrait to the stage iv the unveiling of the portrait. sammy knox has been called upon to capture the essence of our nations leaders. his work includes the official portraits of president bill clinton and first lady hillary clinton governor mario cuomo and supreme court justice thurgood marshall. dr. malone and mr. knoxville you do the honors? [applause] [applause]

[applause] it's not often that i get to boss the attorney general around. it's a tradition at the department that when an attorney general steps down he or she is presented with the actual cabinet chair in which they sat during cabinet meetings at the white house. so on behalf of your friends and colleagues here at the department we are presenting in now with your very own cabinet chair. maybe a little worn around the edges after six years of use but we hope that you won't mind. [applause] [applause]

and now it is my privilege to welcome to the stage the president of the united states. [applause] [applause] [applause] >> hello everybody. thank you. please everybody have a seat. i think it's important to point out first of all that eric has more gray hair than me. [laughter] clearly he posed early in his tenure but it's a remarkable likeness, a wonderful portrait.

i'm thrilled to be here despite the fact that eric is really just milking this departure thing. [laughter] for everything that is worth. i mean golly. i am thrilled to be at doj with all of you today. to celebrate a great friend and a great public servant. somebody who has led this department with integrity and along with all of you made our nation more free and more just. our attorney general eric holder. [applause] in september when eric and i stood together at the white house announced he would be

leaving the justice department he thanked all of you for joining him on the journey that in his words will always be guided by the pursuit of justice and aimed at the northstar. and that sums up eric's career. a life guided by justice and at his northstar. his bedrock belief in the fundamental rights and equality of all people. it's the principle that has shaped his career. it in his early days as a federal prosecutor. here federal prosecutor through his years on the bench, his previous terms at the justice department as a deputy attorney general and acting attorney general and finally his exemplary service as 82nd attorney general of the united states. eric is america's third longest serving attorney general. [applause]

i know it felt even longer. and i will just come out and say it, he has been one of our finest. [applause] hundreds of terrorism convictions, the largest mafia take down in history billion-dollar financial fraud cases long overdue reforms to our criminal justice system. thanks in part to eric's leadership the overall crime rate and incarceration rate declined together for the first time in 40 years last week. and then there's all that eric is done to restore what he calls the conscious of the nation are

civil rights division and as many of you know eric has a personal connection to that office. when nicholas coxon bach was deputy attorney general during the kennedy mr. schnee escorted to african-american students to the door at the university of alabama after the court's order that school to be desegregated and one of those students happen to be a woman named vivian malone. her sister sharon became an announced -- an accomplished and renowned doctor and married a promising young lawyer somewhat below her standards. [laughter] named eric holder. so if you ever wonder why eric has his portrait hanging in his office that is why. under eric's watch this department has relentlessly

defended the voting rights act and the right to vote pushback against attempts to undermine that right. he has challenged discriminatory immigration laws that are not only harassed legal immigrants but made it harder for law enforcement to do their job. he has brought a record number of prosecutions for human trafficking, hate crimes and resolution of legal disputes disputes with native americans that have languished for years. several years ago eric recommended our government stop defending the defense of marriage act because he wants her country to be a place where love is love in same-sex marriages recognized on the federal level and same-sex couples can receive the same federal benefits as anybody else. [applause]

with eric holder holder is his lawyer america has become a better country. which means saying goodbye is bittersweet. you have done a remarkable job. hard to let you go. i try to talk him out of it. but he has earned a break and sharon brooke and maya have waited a pretty long time to get you back. eric promised to stay on until the senate confirms his successor and just yesterday the senate judiciary committee approved loretta lynch to be the next attorney general. [applause] once the entire senate confirms her and she is allowed to get to work i know she is going to do a superb job and eric that means

you are leaving the justice department and outstanding hands. let me close by saying that you don't have to take my word that eric has made a difference in the life of this country. we collected just a few samples of the letters that were written during the course of the presidency or after the announcement that eric was leaving. never in my lifetime read one letter from an american in michigan cannot remember any attorney general the united states that is done so much for our country and all of its citizens. a woman in california wrote, eric holder was the best u.s. attorney general ever. when people complain about you that means you are doing something right. you will truly be missed.

a kentucky man wrote to say we thank you mr. holder for your unwavering passion and pursuit of your honorable vision. you made a difference. you are much more than simply a public official. you are a servant possessing a heart with the audacity to care. and i will provide one last testimony from today not in written form. working with eric in the wake of the trayvon martin case we initiated something called my brother's keeper and we are trying to reach out to the young people across the country who may not have all the advantages that subject to stereotypes, trying to get them pathways for success and as part of this we have a group of young men

african-american and latino who are white house mentees drawn from this local area and today we had dinner or lunch. broderick was there and we sat down and i explain to them that they don't have to be that tense about which fork to use. you kind of work your way in and when i had dinner with the queen of england i seem to do okay with just that basic rule and not eating with my mouth open. then we went around the room and they talked about their hopes and their aspirations and what colleges they had gone to and what they were doing and there were a couple of outstanding football players in the group and a track star and a number of future neurobiologist and several who were planning to

join our armed forces and this one young man who had at the moment a disqualifying haircut. [laughter] he said i want to be the attorney general of the united states. he didn't say he wanted to be governor or senator or congressman or even president. he said i want to be the attorney general of the united states. and i think about all the young people out there who have seen him work and have been able to get just an innate sense without knowing him personally that you are a good man and having good men in positions of power and authority who are willing to fight for what is right that's

a rare thing. that's a powerful thing. it's something that shapes our future in ways we don't even understand. it made me very proud. so eric, your country thanks you for your honorable vision and your unwavering passion and as the gentleman from kentucky said your audacity to care. michelle and i thank you for being a friend and partner throughout this incredible journey until the men and women of the department of justice thank you for your extraordinary service on behalf of the american people. but that is my pressure pleasure to introduce my friend attorney general eric holder. [applause] [applause]

>> thank you. thank you. thank you. [applause] >> before i begin my remarks i wanted to do something that is pretty risky which is to recognize somebody at the risk of not recognizing a whole bunch of other people to whom i owe so much. senator patrick leahy is here. [applause]

[applause] in tough times both professional and personal this is a man who has been there for me. he is a patriot in the truest sense of the word. this country is better for the work that you have done as a senator generally and more specifically when you chaired the judiciary committee. i learned a lot from you. the relationship that we have will continue beyond my time here at the justice department and at least for today and he will understand what i mean by this, at least for today you are the real patrick. ask them about that. i came to this department as an unformed 25-year-old graduate from law school. i will leave grayer and wiser

but still struck by the wonderful that -- this great organization and its people have exposed me to. i have made friends during my time here and lost some of them to the vagaries of life but each of those people has left an indelible mark on who i am and who i still aspire to be. the beauty of this department is that at its best is like our country at its best, always growing, always changing, always being vigilant in the defense of those values that have distinguished this nation and made it truly exceptional. this quality is derived from that deals that serve as the foundation for all that we love about america. as it is our nation is not yet perfect perfect. the fact that we can acknowledge this is what truly distinguishes us as a people. we have always examined ourselves and determined that

things need to be pursued, that which needs to be maintained and that's that to which we should aspire. this is the essence and the beauty of the united states of america. unlike other countries complacent in the sclerotic system we are still young and dynamic and unafraid to question ourselves. the spirit led to revolution and then to the removal of the sin of slavery, the right of women to vote great civil rights movement that truly transformed the nation and now a recognition of the rights of all americans regardless of their sexual orientation could make no mistake, we still have unfinished business and work to do. reform of our criminal justice system must continue and under loretta and sally i am sure that will be the case. the horse toric -- historic wrongs visited upon our people must be righted.

the wide gap of income inequality must be reversed. in the defense of our nation we must always sit here, always adhere to the values that define us. and at all costs, all cost the right to vote must be protected. [applause] [applause] that list may seem daunting but if we are true to who we are as americans know problem is too big, no issue insurmountable. beware of those who would take us back to a past that has really never existed or that was imbued with a forgotten inequity inequity. our destiny as americans is always ahead of us. our gaze is always focused on the horizon. those who have loved this nation must have dared greatly to have

sought to change the status quo for the better. the founding fathers who never let it be forgotten. they chose revolution than accept an unjust status quo. lincoln, frederick douglass teddy roosevelt, fdr garvey susan b. anthony, margaret sanger, jackie robinson, john lewis and dr. king, jfk and lbj harvey milk barack obama. [applause] [applause] we should not fear change. it is part of who we are as

americans. it is what distinguishes us. it is what makes us unique. i leave this place proud of all we have accomplished over the last six years am grateful for all that doj has given me this past 39 years. this has been my home and you will always be my family. i think the parents who raised me in the sensibility that they instilled in me. the new york city public school system that educated me columbia university that nurtured and tolerated me the woman who has loved me for so long the kids who have been the joy and i hope they really understand the true pride and true pride of my life. a brother who has been more than a sibling. he has been a dear friend. beautiful sisters-in-law a

brilliant brother-in-law the guys at the colombo, you know who you are and my crew from 24th avenue and 120 first-rate first street. more recently a president and colleagues in this administration who stuck by me when i didn't always make it the easiest thing to do. i'm grateful to this great nation who gave a black kid from east palm hearst queens new york city the most important opportunities that any individual could have hoped for. thank you america. to the wonderful dedicated accomplishment and women of this great apartment i realize i have asked for so much for me to view over the last six years but let me make one final request keep going, keep fighting keep believing in your ability to improve our country and our world. and know this know this.

now attorney general, no a.g. has ever loved this institution or you more not one. now i lack the words to fully convey what this place and all of you mean to me so let me end this way and paraphrase duke ellington. i will miss you as i have loved you all madly. i love you madly. thank you and goodbye. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] >> mr. attorney general i know we promised you it would only be one speaker for today's event and there's only going to be one speaker but we do have a special musical guests for you today. it's someone who has the utmost respect for you and when i say respect, i mean respect. [applause] ladies and gentlemen miss aretha

franklin. [applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> thank you. [applause]

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪

♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ >> mr. attorney general, eric holder speaking for we the people we appreciate you and god bless you as you go forward

in all of your endeavors. ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ ♪ [applause] ♪ ♪ thank you. [applause] [applause]

[applause] [applause] [applause] [applause] >> wow. thank you ms. franklin for that incredible rendition of america the beautiful beautiful and thank you for joining us here today as we celebrate our attorney general air colder. since there's really no way to top having president obama speak

and aretha franklin sang i think that's going to conclude our ceremony here today. but we would like to invite everyone up to the fifth floor to join the attorney general and his family. thank you again for coming today. if you could wake and let the attorney general's family exit the room first so they can take some pictures, please come up to the fifth floor and have an opportunity to see the attorney general and his family then. thank you for coming. [applause] [inaudible conversations]

>> it was clear to me that i still have an issue with public trust in people believing things that were said and regardless of the fact that i stand in front like they did for you today and say use of force is down 46% and lawsuits are down that officer involved shootings are dramatically down and we are moving in all the positive ways people in the community say they don't believe it.

>> your argument first this morning in case 1486 the equal employment opportunity commission versus abercrombie and fitch stores. >> the tenth circuit imposed to requirements on religious accommodation claims that limited liability from respondent's refusal to accommodate ms. elauf. first the applicant herself verbally requested accommodations and second the employer know rather than just correctly understand the need for an accommodation. neither requirement -- the. >> what is the difference between knowing and correctly understanding? >> the testimony it's a fair question. the tenth circuit perceived difference. ms. cook assumed that ms. elauf

needed to wear the headscarf because she was religious and she figured the headscarf signified it was a religious headscarf and she figured it was a religious headscarf. what the tenth circuit said was that was insufficient. what was needed was actual knowledge. our position is when you assume when it signifies to you that a religious accommodation is needed that a sufficient notice for an employer to be on notice. >> does that's subjective used relevant meaning the issue is whether they fail to hire her because of her religious practice? >> whether the person thinks it is is the issue. and that is why it happened. >> we think that is what makes this a straightforward case. what the employer did here was act upon the assumption that ms. elauf needed to wear the headscarf for religious reasons

and later claimed refuge that it didn't have sufficient knowledge or certainty that it initiated the accommodation process that congress wanted in section 2000. .. this is that what is needed is

something approaching certainty. >> if yours is less uncertainty how much less than certainty is that? i say that i don't honestly know. you know it's two out of three. is that sufficient? >> i think the best way to answer this question, the answer in a situation like this in which the employer suspects that there is a religious conflict they can assume that there is no conflict in which case they make the hiring decision on the merits. alternatively if the employer feels like they are not concerned about how they will be

able to perform, they can start a dialogue. what they can't do is assume that there was going to be a mutual accommodation and then say having assumed that i don't have any obligation to actually accommodate that. >> is that true if it is under 50% in a [inaudible] >> even if a person has a religious -- that this practice is religious. i don't feel like getting into all of this accommodation stuff so i'm not going to hire this person. >> i would think -- i would think that that is the present it could be less uncertain, as

long as the employer says that there's some chance and that i'm not going to hire or promote or fire. >> your honor i would like to try to separate out two different situations that could arise. one is that the employer has a work rule and is concerned that the applicant before it won't be able to complain the future after being hired, because they perceive that the person is religious. i think that the dilemma that you are posing is really a false one there. if the employer really has a very small understanding that it's very unlikely that they will be religious the right thing for the employer to do is to assume that there is not a religious problem and to not engage in the stereotyping. as they would with someone who was wearing a headscarf.

>> i'm not sure that i understand why you are fighting the question of justice elena kagan. >> they refuse to hire someone because they have a 1% believe it that they wouldn't accommodate. >> i don't intend to separate us. but the reason that i tried to separate the two is because the situation here is easy. i will get to the hard case and why i am fighting this. >> would you tell me what it is you want? >> that doesn't do anything for me. he understands knows and believes and what other verbs do

you need? this is the test that they ask us to adopt that the employer needs sufficient information from any source about the applicants religious need to permit the employer to understand the existence. >> that doesn't make any sense to me. >> the reason i think it makes sense in this case is because if that sufficient knowledge for you to actually act upon it if the critical point here -- if the employer had not assumed that this was religious they would not have hired her. the default rule is higher than she -- the person responsible

for hiring, i think that she is wearing his headscarf for religious reasons and that is why i am checking it out with you. the answer she got back is that it doesn't matter we don't accommodate people who wear headscarves and so it seems that this is that his point of view is that headscarves are out. and this particular woman was wearing one. >> i think that that is exactly what congress said when it enacted this. >> any employer can say we don't allow headscarves, until someone

applies for a job who for religious reasons wants to wear a headscarf and a notice for religious reasons and suspects and believes or what whatever verbs you want to use, there is a violation of the law. we do not allow our employees to wear headscarves. >> that is correct, your honor. >> so the mere fact that this supervisor said this does not prove a violation by the employer. >> i don't agree with that. i think that once it's clear that the employee needs and accommodation on that rule that is exactly what the court addressed, it was a mutual rule that you had to work on the sabbath. >> that supervisor did not have that knowledge? >> oh, that is not correct. i took a question that what we believe to be the case that they

conveyed it to the supervisor that it was for a religious reason. there is a dispute in testimony about this. so the evidence right in our favor. but what they said is that i told johnson that was for religious reason and johnson said that if we allow this someone could paint themselves green and call it religion and we can't allow it. so the court decides the question on the assumption that the decision-makers knew in your solution they suggested is that if there is doubt the employer's should begin a dialogue. but i think that that could promote stereotypes to far greater degree. and the employer, like abercrombie and fitch didn't like beards, they didn't like their models having beards and so if you think it's better for him to sit there and start

asking this applicant questions he would not ask without any religion, why are you wearing a beard is there a religious reason for that. it seems that there's more problems. >> there are two responses i would like to say and the first is that i don't think it's right that the solution causes more problems because i don't think what congress would have preferred is that the person not get hired than the dialogue had begun. those are the two options, it's clear that congress wanted and accommodation is religious practice. but i think that the hypothetical points out that the somewhat artificial situation and what they are saying is that i don't want a beard when the person is on the floor, but that's not a reason not to hire someone who walks in the door with a beard. the yankees have for decades had a no facial hair policy. but they don't not pursue free agents they assume that they can shave them.

>> i'm going to say can you shave see that, they're going to say no i mean i don't care if it's religious for religious reason or not, the guy shows up with a beard and i'm not going to hire him. >> that is a hard question that i think that justice kagan was asking. if the policy is that i have a work rule that i'm concerned you won't be able to apply in the future, then i think that that's upsetting. so if the question is and i just think that it's unkempt i'm not going to hire them regardless of whether they could comply, that is the situation that presents it and i think that that's a hard question and quite candidly it's not the kind of cases that we actually see. they are much more at the work rule the. >> you could avoid those hard questions whether it's to understand, believe respect, by adopting the court of appeals. and that is if you want to deny

this for religious reasons, the burden is on you to say that i am wearing a headscarf or religious reasons or i'm wearing a beard for religious reasons. that avoids all problems, want to notify the employer for religious reasons, you got them. >> how could you ask them for something in this way? >> that is exactly the problem in this question. the reason that that is insufficient is that it's simply not the case as suggested, that the superior knowledge is what the applicant in that situation and indeed in the situation that testimony was that they did not know that there was a policy that prohibited the headscarf. >> this is not the place to get into the facts, but i thought that her friend told her to

where lisa colored scarf, so the subject came up. >> it is important because actually that supports our position because what her friend said is that there's no problem with a headscarf, it just shouldn't be black. so if anything she was on notice that there was no problem with the headscarf and i think it cuts the other way. to pick up on your point, what makes it particularly inappropriate to put the burden on the applicant is that it is the employer that structure is the interview and the employer read some version of this policy but did not mention the headscarves. so actually this is a situation in which the employer itself could have been put on notice and then it's a different situation, if they say that we do not allow headscarves and in the employer doesn't say

anything, that's a different situation. >> if it is someone with a middle eastern appearance with a beard we want them to begin some kind of a dialogue. if it's someone who's not middle eastern and has a beard and they say that's not for religious reasons, in other words they are going to be asking religious questions on the stereotype. >> could you answer my question? >> part of the answer is that i don't think that the employer does. as i said earlier the right response is to assume that the person of middle eastern dissent just like the person of non-middle eastern dissent has a beard for personal preference and would be happy to shave if he got the job in order to comply with the work rules. that is what is critical. >> why can't they just say we have a policy that doesn't permit beards.

>> absolutely. whether its it's reasons, no reasons, it doesn't really matter why. >> one is the one that i gave to the chief justice, which is that you can assume the person doesn't for religious reasons and hire them or if you are concerned you can ask a specific question that the eeoc has made clear. >> the question is supposed to be why are you wearing a beard? >> the question is we have a work rule that prohibits facial hair on the floor. >> that doesn't cover anything that is not immediately apparent. they can have a code of conduct going through different stages. >> so i actually think that this is -- the employer is at no risk of liability if he asks no questions but makes no assumptions and stereotypes. that is why i don't think that

this turns out to be a problem in practice. what is going on is that the things we see in these cases is we are talking about work rule, you must wear pants at work the employer thinks that women should wear skirts, you are talking about no long hair, you are talking about garber. the concern is to comply in the future. the employer doesn't have to run on those questions, but they can avoid the stereotype. however if they wish what they said is a bilateral dialogue is what title vii will accomplish comments so picking up on the points you could raise the policy. this is not a crazy idea. >> can you do it? that the only religious preference that has to be

honored? you know really i would like not to for religious reasons, i guess that i could take off my headscarf or whatnot, but it would be very inappropriate and religiously uncomfortable so are you acknowledging that the only accommodation has to be made is an accommodation for somebody who actually cannot do this? >> no, no, that is not what this case is that all. >> you are telling them to ask can you do it. >> that is the exact dialogue that is supposed to happen. that's the bilateral dialogue. what they wanted when they passed reasonable accommodation is where the employee -- so she says yes but i could, in and then later she said i could, but

it's really uncomfortable for me to do that for religious reasons. would she still have a lawsuit? >> she wouldn't have a lawsuit. >> welcome if she could when she was hired, she says actually it's quite uncomfortable, she and the employer need to go into a discussion to psyche dislike you would if you said that i need this time off to attend a religious conversion ceremony which was at issue. that is the back-and-forth of this. >> couldn't they say that we have a policy, no beards or whatever. do you have a problem with that? why does it have to be phrased could you do it? you have a problem and are you willing to do it? >> what this is about and certainly what we are recognizing as the actual accommodation back-and-forth is quite a actual process that is designed to be collaborative. there is not a fixed rule that you have to phrase it this way

or that way. i think that the point is to initiate a dialogue and i think to have that in the process, about whether there was a combination accommodation that could be done without hardship that dialogue never happened here and that is the problem with the case as we see it. >> he switched theories that you started out with being able to accommodate this and then you abandon that. >> that is not correct. from the very beginning our theory has been that the respondent violated title vii by refusing to accommodate this. that was the theory presented in its the theory that we defended in the court of appeals and it is the theory that we have under all of our cases here, it

appears 14 times. >> so they have seized on this work, i would like to talk about as common a phrase used was that failure to accommodate is the kind of treatment that title vii was designed to prevent. we think that that is correct and accurate. what congress meant to do was to put people who needed an accommodation like this ahead on the same footing as people who did not need to wear headgear and that is a sense in which summers the disparate treatment. but we recognize this in another way, which is to say that there is a disparate treatment way to do this we did not and to highlight the difference, the disparate treatment would be that you allow all have to but

not religious house. this is that you don't allow any, but we want to wear religious hats. we did not at any point in this case abandon or change our theory. what the other side has done is assert not only that we did it but that we did it for a motive because we wish to avoid the 1981 question in which the courts have ever adopted the theory and at no point have they ever done this, even though it was the only theory on which we could get damages and the district court and we had the damages trial in 1981 and it was the only source of damages. the pretrial reason that we were proceeding,. >> again i'm a little confused. i read your complaints and said the respondent refused to hire

her because she wears a scarf and failed to accommodate her religious belief. i looked at this and it seems like the two of them are always tied. >> that has been the theory from the very beginning. the theory that magically became part of this case when we mentioned this in our brief is just not credible. that has been the theory, that is where the damages were done they never raised it on the appeals. >> suppose they had. >> no court has ever addressed that, but our position is that this is under 1981 a. the reason for that is that it

distinguishes between. >> i'm sorry your honor it is on the brief on page one a. it distinguishes between unlawful intentional discrimination not an employment practice that is unlawful because of its impact. failure to accommodate this is neither disparate and it is intentional discrimination for exactly the reason that the justice has said the refusal to hire because of religious practice that you could reasonably accommodate. and this is not as was suggested >> i don't know why you don't concede that this is a form of disparate treatment. i don't accommodate you because of your religion. disparate treatment.

>> i just want to distinguish the different theories because under this approach you would have to show that because of the religious nature of the practice that you did not accommodate. so i allow for everyone, but not if you had a religious had, that would be as the lower courts called this. if i could reserve the balance of my time. >> thank you, counsel. >> mr. chief justice the premise of the argument today as i understand it is that abercrombie and fitch reacted from a religious basis. the theory in its brief is that any time an employer suspects in a possible conflict were

correctly understands this conflict, at that point it is something that should result in a religious accommodation. >> follow the statute. you only have to do this if it's not a bird and spirit that is true, they always have the undue burden defense. but they must accommodate and they must depart from a religion neutral policy. based on the mere suspicion. >> going back to this, it's very simple because you are mischaracterizing it. if you believe that someone -- that someone will need a religious accommodation and will not comply with your policy

just ask them. just the way the justice said. you know we do not permit facial hair on the floor. do you have a problem with that. >> as an initial matter, their theory in brief does not depend on any sort of assumption about whether the applicant would be able to comply with the work rule or not. even if an employer like this had a policy in which the policy applied at the interview, you are being assessed based on this compliance. >> do you think the employee has to say that i'm just the way that i am for religious reasons? >> not necessarily, but the employer's knowledge has to be traced to the employee in some way and in the typical case that's going to come directly from the employee because of the individualized nature of religion. >> let's say that for people show up for a job interview.

this is going to sound like a joke, but it's not. so first is a man wearing a turban, then there's a man wearing a hat and the third is a muslim woman and the fourth is a catholic man in a habit. do you think that the employer -- of those people say that we just have to tell you that were dressed this way for religious reasons and not trying to make a fashion statement. >> one aspect of the hypothetical is not a joke and that is that many of these interviews that are group interview is where there are multiple applicants at a time, i think the reality is that it's a lot more difficult than the government imagines to have these individualized dialogs. going to your point with these religious outfits, one can imagine cases in which it is

more obvious than others that this is a warrant for religious purposes. but i would direct the court if i could to join the appendix 130 and 131 which contains pictures that they were actually wearing in this case. those situations whether it's far more ambiguous, religious in nature or not will be far more common. >> whether the employee says that i'm wearing this for religious reasons or you're willing to admit that there are some circumstances in which the employer is charged with that knowledge based on what they observe. >> i think that there are some circumstances that are more likely than others and the question before the court is to devise a rule that is going to apply across the board. >> i thought of the question

presented was that the 10th circuit has said that unless you know from the applicant and unless he received direct explicit notice that what she wants to wear is based on religion and she wants and accommodation, and lets you receive direct explicit notice from her, you're home free to do what you want. so in the question presented they say in the last few words in describing it that we think that that is wrong. and i agree that we have to say whether that's wrong and if it is wrong it would be helpful to say what they have to do. so they say here is what it is. if they infer correctly understands or correctly believes that a practice is religious and accommodation is necessary that is it.

then they have to accommodate unless they have an excuse under the statute. so what is wrong with that? >> justice i think what you described is a rule that is entirely administer bulk. >> it is to say that if the employer believes and thinks this woman is religious and needs and accommodation and that's right. unless you have an excuse. >> bse did not explain. >> though, you have to prove that he has a belief. probably in 250 federal thousand cases a year 80000 go to trial, proving that someone has to believe is probably at issue

with 90% of them. nonetheless, i don't think that it's uncommon that you have to prove that somebody believes something. so the standard of approval is like in any other case. >> i don't think that this is like any other case because you're dealing with something that is a religious belief that is inherently personal to the individual. the charge employers with this title vii liability and require them to come to an understanding of whether a particular practice is religious or not. >> suppose an employer just doesn't want to hire any jews and someone watson and let's say a guy walks in with a name and they have no certainty that he's jewish. certainly mr. goldberg doesn't say anything about being jewish. but the employer operates on an assumption. so no, he doesn't get the job.