the panel for being here. according to mr. hall, we have the privilege of listening to with his direct test money. drink a meeting of july 2011, ms. lerner instructed her subordinates to -- is that right? >> what she did is she changed the criteria to no longer include tea party names, if that is what you are referring to. this is when it was changed from tea party. >> that is correct. >> that is what is in the document. >> just to be clear, the test cases he was working in washington on were both filed by groups affiliated with the tea party movement, right? >> only one.

>> correct. >> do you think it was pretextual to learn these as advocacy cases when they were really tea party cases. recognized that these were inappropriate to use any names. she was trying to fix it. teaas better than using party, 912 and patriots. political advocacy. these were transfers from him in august of 2011 with no explanation and decide to hillary. does that reflect in your findings as well?

>> yes. as weis interesting extensivethis service, 48 years in fact, do you have any sense of whether they have anywhere near the practical experience -- mark >> we do not have that. >> she had four months. before the input in this job. she told the committee staff that prior to july 2011, she in no experiencing with the groups applying for tax exempt status.

>> the time we had issued the delays. >> given the fiscal constraints of facing the entire nation, especially those with the internal revenue service i am not surprised they would make a decision. >> we can only hope it was and man power. >> they assert that you found no example of political bias. i apologize for not being here for your opening comments to to the fact of being on the floor. during the course of your audience, you said that you hid this fact from the general public about the political bias.

i recall reading the audit and find you stating exactly that, that you do not find any evidence. it seems they did not thoroughly read your report or pay attention when you testified .his affect >> thank you for helping me. both statements in terms of the audit report we issued and previous committees in the house and senate, i made it clear we had not found such motivation. this was under an audit, not under another review. >> i yield back. gentlemanded to the from tennessee. >> i do appreciate you the

doingnt you have been this for about a decade. have you ever been in a case quite like this? >> this is the most unprecedented i've ever experienced not only as an inspector general but as a former member of this very committee staff. i have never experienced anything like this. >> what type of things have ate it more challenging? >> the fact that people are trying to misinterpret the findings of career employees over the existence of our organization that have uncovered billions and billions of dollars that the irs has misspent. of changes that

they have agreed to in terms of making changes to better serve i am arican people political appointee. i expect this seat even though i do not think i deserve it. >> we have our earlier witnesses. it was apparent that they were willing to come here and testify. they were doing their jobs. somebody higher up the food chain shows to invoke a nuclear strike. they felt thrown under the bus. do you have any sense as to why they would want to cover something up or blame someone that we have room and are not responsible?

>> i do not have the information to justify that. >> i hate to say we're almost getting used to that. it was propagated for three weeks. jay we hear from mr. carney and other folks blaming rogue agent in cincinnati. you think they would want to change their storyteller. those are not the case. the american people are getting very frustrated. they are anxious to hear what we find and where this goes. what continues to make this so difficult for sites being attacked by members of this entity? >> i have to press my thoughts

were in the scope of the assistant therapy for policy. it has been years since the nixon administration. it prevents me and other sewing information that i have that i know would help clarify the matter but the potential for violating federal law i am unable to so. >> elizabeth testified that she could not testify this because she was looking for this because she was looking for guidance. i assume mean -- i assume they would be question more in the

future. >> we do not interview them as part of the audit. they were as one of the reason for one of the delays. other plans to interview? >> we are working with the department of justice and the fbi component of that in a continual review. >> some are saying the republicans are trying to implicate the white house. there were groups that have different groups. there was a political force in the state in the cases that have been sent up the food chain. it is only fair that we continue to look and dig. this happened only 40 years ago.

i do not think it is that outrageous considering that people are trying to put out misleading story -- stories that there's nothing more. there are not be employees asking for the fifth when they came to testify. more to come.e's >> thank you. >> the gentleman from pennsylvania is recognized. i wasis is true, implying that what you said was story. i do don't imply something that is not true. the chairman asked you some clarifying questions to my line of questioning. i would like to ask you some questions about be clarifying

questions. to refresh her memory, what you i said, wereman there any boat lows issued for progressive liberal groups? refer cases for political reviews were the ones we described with in the report. there were others use for other purposes. there were others to refer to the group. to refer states and local chapters. as we continue our review, we have recently identified some others that raise concerns about political fact jurors. give more information. it is still incomplete. chairman issa said it so it is

fair to say that there is a bow bolo for a tea party but not for a aggressive. i'm not prepared to give you definitive response. are you aware of at least one as a 501(c)geted four in which they were targeted political? >> you said the purposes of the audit we conducted which was determined to whether they will politicalfor intervention, there were no others. they were described within the report.

there were others that were outside your report. asked ifpressed you, there was one group that was tagged for political reasons but was not included in the port. you said there were no others. did i read that correctly? >> you read it correctly. >> i just went to give you the benefit of a doubt. is it true when you said that the only one was for political review were the ones described within the report? >> that is correct. >> that is in the document he submitted for the record. we were given them by the irs that showed for political advocacy cases what they were.

directwould have a bearing on this testimony and the order report. >> are you aware there were once out about progressive or liberal groups? >> there were. >> when does you first find out? >> when did you first find out their ones? >> it was the night before it was testifying before the senate finance committee at around 6:30 p.m.. >> was that before your testimony? >> that was before. >> you were here testifying about the tea party groups and when mr. issa question to specifically about other groups you said there were no others but you did not say another you knew were about

progressive or liberal organizations even though you just admitted you were aware of that. am i correct? >> i need to clarify something. names on, the bolo group was on "occupied." that is generic. we have no information whatsoever, if at all, that information was use or misuse. >> it does not matter. you knew there were bolos and you didn't say a word about it in this last word. you need people heads would explode if you talk about tea party bolos and he did not mention any other one spirit what you think we're doing here? ? >> if you look at page -- any other ones. what you think we're are doing here? >> if you look at page 16, it mentions the other use of bolos

and that the charge of the audit was not on how they were utilized. >> you knew there were bolos about liberal groups. >> i will yield back. >> you can only yield back when you have time. from to the gentleman south carolina. >> how long have you been the inspector general? novemberconcerned in 2004. >> how do you view your role? >> i consider it one of the most important inspector general responsibilities in the federal government given the role that the irs plays in the lives of every single american and anyone that has the tax obligation. >> i always thought of them as having no friends to reward and no foes to punish. they just go where the facts take them. >> that is exactly how i have

comported myself. bees,, rather than discuss the facts of your backgrounds or your reputation, they just want to see -- say this. this is someone that is donated and worked from this. i think one of your colleagues, a man by the name of michael borowitz. he had a connection to lanny brewer. he was the ported by this administration. to do something novel. i decided to allow the person to do their job. before you judge them based on connections. i let him do his job. guess what? he was fantastic.

straight down the middle. he called balls and strikes. you cannot tell yet any political connection. what is your reaction when you have questions like the ones you just had from our colleagues on the other side of the site or when your integrity is attacked? what is your reaction? >> i am not being flip. paiddo not know that i was at the 1980 democratic convention. they do not know i was a founder of the howard university college democrats. joined bob dole's staff during college. anyone who has worked with me on either side of the political spec trim will agree that i call it as i see it. i have never allowed personal and political views to affect decisions.

we worked with the democrats. we work to get legislation passed. i continue to do so. again. i have been in washington now for two decades. i know sometimes politics is played and how it works. it is unfortunate. due julys doing my jens by talking some of the first that were appointed by jimmy carter and by ronald reagan and rehired by him, they said do not take this job. they say if you are perceived as being too aggressive, the administration is angry at you. if you are not aggressive enough, congress is angry at you. while i love this job and i had the greatest app that work with it.i am willing to do i have made sacrifices personally and in many other ways. i am serving the greatest

nation on earth. i have no regrets. >> i have to be honest with you. you are a lot more magnanimous than i am. i think it is disgraceful. i think when you attack people because you have a political opportunity and you find some tangential connection to a republican and democrat and then want to disparage the work because of that, if someone has a problem with your audit, this was not in an investigation. your work is ongoing. you have republican and democrat sheriffs. you have republican and democratic prosecutors. i cannot tell a difference in this. cases.not prosecute thereferred them to department of justice.

>> i will remind my colleague one of the reef for roles -- one of the referrals for the willful disclosure of confidential information was declined by the department of justice. work.ppreciate your keep going. keep at it. do not let the detractors keep you down. >> thank you. >> real quick. in your former job you were deputy staff director at this committee. is that correct? towns.ved under mr. as i correct? >> yes. ,> in your three years working have you ever seen him function in a political manner, being biased one way or another? >> i had been there for about 18 months. have you ever seen that? thing.s not a political >> i've not seen any political the hager.

-- affiliation. >> i asked staff to get out what was the charge. you were to look at inconsistent treatment. word i want to focus on, inconsistent treatment of applications. testified earlier today that of the handling of progressive groups. some ofnot know that them had a two or three-year wait. , my question really

goes to the methodology that you were using. you have used words deviously like targeted. that one has to look at the entire universe in order to know whether any specific groups have been targeted or kicked out even though you were not told about progressive groups. was to lookarge for inconsistent treatment of applications, doesn't that necessarily drive you to look at applications from progressive groups and applications from conservative groups? that is my question. >> we were not labeling anybody.

not my question about whether you were labeling. my question goes to methodology. you were focused on the way in which tea party groups were treated. >> all groups. 298. >> if you are focused on all groups, how could you not have in the ordinary course of doing your work discovered the treatment of the progressive groups and why would you not have reported the treatment of both groups to this committee? that you do not even know of some of the progressive groups. that goes to a flawed methodology. if all of the groups are on the one concludes targeting

only after comparing the groups. of anot see evidence reasonable comparison. this is a progressive group. this is a conservative group. >> how can you find that there was targeting of a tea party group? what that would have to be content -- compared to something else. you cannot possibly target everybody else. if you are targeting a means you are picking them out run the universe. or else you were wrong to use the word "target" at all. >> it is because the groups that were highlighted had the name tea party. , if you were born

even yesterday would mean you would have to look at the occupied groups. >> it is the same category. a historical type. on the political advocacy group tab that we were charged with looking at. >> you were charged with looking at what? inconsistencies among groups. >> are looking at whether or not the internal revenue service was applying treasury regulations as its applied to the applicants. it is this realm which they provided us. what theyt know

provided you. you are justeve honest. i do not believe that you are political. i do believe that your testimony demonstrates that you were not using the appropriate methodology in order to meet your charge, which was to find whether there was inconsistent treatment. you would have happened the -- could the universe before you could answer that question. >> we looked at over 600 cases. only 70% of them were tea party cases. we sampled some outside of these. we found that 175 statistically should have been included in the political review. we did not label them as any sort of political thing. we said based on the substance and the case there was evidence that they should have been

actually looked at as political cases. 31% of them had no evidence in the file a political campaign intervention and perhaps should not have been looked up. we looked at over 600 cases total. a process tens of thousands. you've narrowed your focus. that is correct. we narrowed it to political advocacy cases. >> thank you. >> i am going to apologize.

you are the messengers. you are getting beat up in the metal of this only are throwing out red herrings. we are talking about bolo lists. these are red herrings. even though there may have been two different ones, we do know the tea parties were singled out because 100% of these were detained for a long time. it is potentially abusive. lists we said very clearly that we did not look at them. that does not mean something is

wrong with what they were doing. >> they were not treated in the same ways as this list. let that message be clear today. >> we do not know if they got delays in letters. somewhere actually approved. how many were approved? >> i have read your report five times. i feel like i know you. i want to go on a little bit further. lois lerner, it has been reported widely that she fine -- found out about this in july of 2011. there was a sensitive case report that actually started back as early as april 2010. is that not correct? >> is that correct? >> that report actually went to

ms. lois lerner. it was meant to be reported. we know that this went up. could it have gone to her desk? she would get a summary. she would not get the actual report. like she would get a summary. do this indicate this was tea party places? >> why will we not call these progressive cases? >> i do not understand your question. >> do we call them tea party cases? .> we call them tea party cases

>> why would the irs called them tea party cases? would we have referred to them as progressive cases? nine or 12. i think this is a frequent combination. >> using these were liberal groups. will we not have come up with a different name? >> of the cases, we know that 96 were tea party. we do not make a judgment about what the other 200 were. i do not think we can make a judgment based upon certain

words. exceed that have actual presence of political activity. -- if wehave god's have got, as he start to look at these particular cases, knowing that you cannot classify conservative or liberal, or to cartee 12 -- two-party groups treated differently than the occupied or progressive groups that we have? >> we do not know. we do not occupy -- audit occupy or the other groups. they were treated differently. the average time in our report was well over 500 days that they were sitting and waiting. we know there were 96. that is what we know. >> we have been told by and pulleys that the case names actually appeared -- by

employees that the casings action appeared on the report. is that accurate? they were actually on there? that is what we have been told. indicate she knew about it as early as april 2010, 14 months before she changed it. we will check on the question. we now go to the gentleman from massachusetts. few would allow me 10 seconds before he begins. wish you also -- if you would allow me 10 seconds before he begins. a short, quick analysis to see if you can find one or more of these nearly 300 files. it is clearly not conservative.

if you file -- find one or more can you inform the ranking member or myself? i know an exhaustive search might take time but it is there. i think we would love to no antidote to leave that at least -- and then it will go would like to know at least one and then it will go to the other committee. we show that there are seven that have the name "progressive." >> yes. there may be more than one. notrogressives likely are conservative groups. >> we do not look below the name. there were three with the word progressive and there were no occupy. >> i'm taking too much time. i will come back to it. i think all of us here are going ofwant to know how many them, if you dig down into them, whether deliberately or accidentally, or set aside --

were set aside. i think we may argue about a lot of things. we do not want to argue about s.e fact people got abuse for a myriad of reasons. we would like to know. there's one thing we will all know at the end of this hearing, groups got sectioned out and they got abused in the process. that is the undeniable part. now we want to dumpster dive a why.e bit in to find out i do not think you or any of us think this behavior was acceptable. >> i do not know whether you were in the room. i indicated that i requested that my staff to take a look to see how these other groups were treated. during the course of this additional review beer doing with ef ei and the justice department, some of this has to be held in advance until that aspect of the work is done. we will try to comply -- comply

with your request. i should speakd off-line. it would be our opinion that the committee can receive knowledge which cannot be made public so at least we can understand it whether or not it was there even if it has to be withheld. we want to be held public. we want to say if you find something in this investigation we would like it to be consistent with the seven role. at least we know how -- that we have a plan going forward. >> we can comply with that. we will yield as much time as the ranking member wants. >> i want to get this straight. put some kind of timeline on that for us? do you have any idea? we may be here next year. >> give me a date.

>> i am told they could take is almost as long as a month. we have the information but it is voluminous. >> a month is not as bad as a year. that is lightning time when we are going to be gone all of august. >> we look forward to hearing that. >> we may work with your staff just to ensure we're there. >> we work together with your folks. >> >> thank you for your patience. >> in your testimony e-mail to a somement that there was concern. your statement was the ranking men there -- the ranking member states that i failed to disclose to congress that we found no evidence of political motivation. i figure when i read the letter that is not what it says. let me read you what it says. it says he did not disclose to the committee in his report or during his testimony that he met

personally with his investigator to conduct the review of 5000 e-mails of ira s -- irs employees. there is no indication that this was politically motivated. this was very important. it is quite a distinction for what you were saying and your testimony. i want to make sure we're on the same page. the fact of the matter is that you never told this committee. you never disclosed about your meeting with the top top investigators. >> for two reasons. room when in the explained this earlier. i was told by my staff that there was a smoking gun e-mail in which and i are rest that the knowledge that he or she was noticed with targeting tea party people. i know that there is one that my

colleague can address in the moment. there were roughly 5000 e-mails that they had not a chance to review. >> you never told us that you to look through 5500 e- mails. >> this is very important. this was an audit. it was no more than an audit. >> he reported to you that the e-mail showed no indication of political indication. >> i do not know whether there was an e-mail that was destroyed. this was done very quickly. 5500is was not among the that were reviewed. it was very important that he found nothing that was politically motivated. that was his opinion. if under oath when people are potential a lot more

penalties regarding their behavior and responses to questions and additional information available, who knows whether or not this e-mail will surface? i do not know. >> i am asking you about 5500 that you asterisk best to get her to look through. the e-mail has indicated the organization needed to be whole because they were not sure how to process them. there is no indication of pulling bees -- and that these were clinically motivated. they wanted to make sure they had guidance on processing the information so they pulled them. this is a very important new laws. your investigators are at 5500. that is what i found. you had an earlier draft report

and you scrubbed it. what is that about? what investigators said our reports were supported. they said there is no political motivation clarified. >> you do not think it is had a reportt you that said the words i just quoted? you do not think it is important for us to know that? >> we thought it was important. >> why don't you put it in there? >> it confirms your report as well. this made us stop some of these allegations that are running rampant. editionstaking these that do not make any sense. these are that that support your report. >> this is an ongoing matter if at the conclusion of this if you were to make the same .llegations, i would join you

this is an ongoing review. we're working with the the department of justice. we are doing substance when -- subsequent work and looking at other treatment. >> it would have been helpful to have that at the appropriate time. it opened the door to a lot of people going off in directions that are helter-skelter. >> i did not suggest that. >> if you have left it in your , you do have an investigator involved. they are pulling these. it would have been important. the gentleman yield back his -24 seconds. thank you.

would you like me to yield? >> i know some of our this in theave level that was audited. only conservatives were targeted. is that true? >> his assertions? >> no. facts theyany uncovered that were left out? >> there are always decisions made as to what information should or should not be included. others might be in hindsight. majority invast between.

there are integrations of it. it is included in every step of the audit process. if they deem something that is of importance. we are in a position to include it. >> we were told that what they reports.dates the it shows what it finds. this is what we did. nothing has been alleged here at all. conclusion that

they engaged in inappropriate behavior and shows gross mismanagement in the process of operating this program. >> what was your reaction that the ranking member sent? did you have a chance to read that? but in passing. operating this program. >> what was your reaction that the ranking member sent? did you have a chance to read that? but in passing. this is a highly contentious issue. i understand that it is not perfect what we have done. contentious issue. i understand that it is not perfect what we have done. being human beings i am from the old school. we are imperfect. i cannot say anything that a human does is perfect.

he did not do that. >> this is washington after all. inc. you. we yield the balance of the time. >> we think the gentleman for yielding. if you are such a political i have been a little critical of a couple of things. if you are in favor of the republicans have been a little critical of a couple of things. if you are in favor of the republicans, they are testifying in this. you shared with the commissioner initial findings of this. four days later you shared this with the council at the treasury. put this in context. this is this. this is important information for people to get. andare calling the balls strikes here. you're going to play fair. you choose to show this. you ask or the audit. we are the committee that has jurisdiction.

you say i'm not going to do it. it is baloney. i wish he would have shared it. i made this clear. here is the other thing. i know media report said they experienced the road. they get approved. i know a dozen. dozens of conservative groups can not only delayed and have not been delayed. it prompted them to request this in the first place. they can say what they want. i got fired up again. look. frankly, i would love to have had that information. dozens and dozens of conservatives chose not to give it. that is fine. that is your role.

you're favoring republicans i do not get. >> there was never a consideration of politics at all. >> if it had been the case, releasing this would have been dynamite for the republican side. if you want to pay politics, he could have had an impact saying they were going after tea party people systematically at a time they were up for this. important factor that i took in consideration is that the audit was not complete. if it had not been completed would not have been released. the gentleman from illinois is recognized. >> he can certainly yield. >> thank you for being here. that when youd

have appeared before this committee before i specifically asked you how self role -- how several progressive groups have listed here. neither your testimony nor your report reveals you have limited tor investigation solely political campaign ideology. wrote congressman levin, you stated that you were nonpartisan. when i asked you how this starches, you stated that you met with staffers from the oversight subcommittee. both?hese busey before this opportunity. -- thank you for these

opportunities. they inquired about the first time i said down with mr. i said. i was informed that at a staff level two of my staffers met with a staffer of the government majority staff on march 8. this was prior to the audit. i wanted to clarify that now. >> there were no democratic ?taffers present >> that is my understanding. ever raised any concerns that there may not have been any democratic staffers present? raised concerns to me about that. >> was not there. >> you are responding to

staff inquiry. they requested this consultation. it led to this. ones this received the information, you actually initiated it. >> if the gentleman wants to be involved in protecting these groups, we are happy to help -- or have you help us with the complaints. in the senate, the leaders were constantly sending letters to the others asking that they go after these groups.

these are all in the record. will help you. to seal for a second. the letter that the chairman sent out. we do get a copy of that. we do not get a copy of the response to that letter. >> thank you very much for yielding. >> i will enter his response into the records. >> without objection. >> thank you. has been a great deal of discussion about whether you found any white house involvement or political motivation in your investigation in your report. i believe the statement on page nine make clear that you found nothing of the kind, no documents, no witnesses,

nothing. is that correct? >> that is correct at the time of that audit. you suggesting that at some other time you found something else? >> this is an ongoing review. i'm not going to make any conclusions beyond what we have artie done with the report that has been concluded. this is an ongoing matter. i will not prejudge the findings. of this moment nothing has been found that would suggest any kind of political motivation or involvement coming from the white house? >> that is correct. >> thank you very much. >> i want you to understand something.

i am in to the other side. -- i have been listening to the other side. i have gone on numerous television shows and they have asked me, do i trust you and things of that nature. i said i have questions. . will reserve judgment i want to make that very clear. for us to inquire about things that may have been left out of report, and even you said in may have been a little different. that is my job to ask question. i will ask them like i expected the chairman to ask. i think it is good that you came in here to clarify that. i expected the chairman to ask. i think it is good that you came in here to clarify that. i said i do not understand this. his people and explain. i just want to make that clear to you. >> thank you. fromw go to the gentleman north carolina. he has been pushed off to the

gentleman from tennessee. >> if you're going to argue, i will take the time. >> thank you. mr. george, i want to make sure they get a couple of innings straight. earlier he was inquiring about these e-mails that came up as hits based on keywords, searches, on a number of irs employees. these. talked about ofs lerner made a series denials and statements and attempted to take the fifth before this committee. aso not see her listed someone who you did a search on in this group. it is on the board. tell me acquire -- inquire as

to whether a similar search has been done? -- y deputy who authorized >> these are all cincinnati people. again, this committee, not insuming there is intent -- 10, we are looking to find out thesomething even president has said was wrong went on. >> this was done during the course of the audit. it was a limited search. >> then i will use the time briefly to say certainly when someone comes before this committee and refuses to answer questions, we would hope that you have preserved those records additionally. with the intent to work justice and you're so make sure that individuals who take the fifth before this committee not

only appropriately have their official mail checked but because there is a record of a number of individuals using private mail to circumvent auditability that you would make efforts with the justice department it appropriate to determine whether or not they may have used such a technique since that has been repeatedly seen. auditability that you wouldi realize there are ong .nvestigations >> i would say they have utilize different tha once. confirm oring to deny an investigation. it is a review. , if ir best effort understand correctly, you are andg to have your people,

i know we will work on it, it to make every effort on a keyword basis, 96 groups come out of the patriots. seven come up as progressive. you do not have any specific knowledge of time delays that occurred. we have a lot of knowledge that these were 500 days. these may not have been may not havebut been liberal groups. you're going to make every effort to make that information. if i could, one of the questions i came up was that we have a lot of questions about this. we do not want to be in a position of trying to characterize things as liberal or conservative. one of the things we have done is when we received the reek --

the request from the senate finance committee. we provided the list to then. they have this list. whether they are liberal or conservative. do not know if that will satisfy what you are looking for. to try to find a way find a way. you have been a federal employee for what, 20 years or so? >> 25. >> compared to the first panel, you are a newcomer. >> about 13 years, sir. >> mr. mccarthy, you served your under a democratic chairman, so i am not going to ask you a question for a moment, nor do i assume your politics. dealing, bothr

yourselves and the people you deal with through treasury at irs, you routinely tell people what your politics are? you routinely ask them what their politics are? >> with the exception of this gentleman in the committee, where i could guess. >> he liked him a lot. >> he is a good professional. >> i have no idea whatsoever the political persuasion of any other member of my 800 person staff. never once did i have a conversation with them about their political persuasion. >> i have not either with my staff or irs officials, that is not the kind of thing would feel comfortable talking about. >> nor with the irs. >> good, that is the way we want it to be. i thank you.

>> the gentleman from massachusetts, mr. lynch, is recognized. >> thank you. sometimes in cases like this that are controversial, there is collateral damage among the innocent. i want to ask you a line of questioning here about the irs chief counsel. it is my understanding that the irs office of chief counsel periodically provides the unit toh guidance regarding how process applications of 5014c status, correct? >> yes. >> in the past the chairman has described that involvement by the irs office of chief counsel as unusual, a typical, and a break from ordinary procedure.

now, contrary to those descriptions, several of those irs employees who have been interviewed by the committee have basically said that the decision to consult with the counsel's office is consistent with their usual practice. the direct successor of the tax , by the way self- --cribed republicans, stated an extra pair of eyes' is needed to weigh in on this area of the law. to reviewn and says the kind of hazards of litigation, whether there could be a strong argument made down the line on the decision that we whether this was worth

it going forward. similarly there is another technical unit group manager who as well described the office of -- excuse me, the office of chief counsel for the irs as offering similar services. is itr investigations, ordinary practice for different units on specialized questions to seek guidance on the office of chief counsel from the irs? >> what we do know is that in our time line on the appendix to the report there is a reference to some meetings that happened as part of the chief criteria with respect to the audit. we can only speak to that limited piece of information. points, get to those then. there have been a legend

considerable delays that were to stopd by a desire the granting of status of some of these groups by going to chief counsel. has your investigation shown that any of the attempts of conferring with the office of chief counsel were done for the purpose of deliberate delay? >> we do not have any details on the intent. we do know that it was part of the confusion and the delay. of course we concluded that management overall was the cause of what happened here, it was part of that but we have no indications of intent. we did not interview anyone directly. >> i have been told that the answer is no. >> ok. wet may ask you, last time

talked about three categories that were given extra scrutiny by the irs, progressive groups that were listed, there was also a category that was described as individuals critical of the way the government is being run. that came out of a hearing. recollection of facts behind that category? people critical of the way the government was being run? >> they did not categorize anyone as progressive nor conservative. something that the internal revenue service itself advised when away from the tea party.

>> the gentleman has an additional 15 seconds. >> thank you, sir. like the irs can up with this term. individuals who were critical of the way the government was being run. >> it was not the look out, it was a memo from june of 2011. the only thing in the bungalow was the tea party. you mentioned the statements in the case file. those were being used by the screeners with cases for political advocacy, looking for

the cases they were following into the political advocacy file. >> we now recognize the gentleman from north carolina. today, parthearing of the ongoing investigation is we have millions of americans live in fear of the government. whether you are liberal, conservative, democrat, you do not care of all about politics. you do not want to live in fear of your government. that is what is frightening about this. more we hear that in the house, the more refined that is disturbing, deeply disturbing. when we talk about this question, these cases being shipped from cincinnati to washington, some want to believe that these were hard or complex cases, but what we found in our

investigation was cases sent from cincinnati to washington based on news reports about a clash of tea party folks. from hull about cases taken from him and given to someone with very little experience with these cases. the idea that there was complexity that drove this does not appear to be the case. what we find is that it was the politics that mattered. that led us to be more feet -- fearful of what the irs is doing. have you found anything counter to what i have said? >> counter to what you have said delano. the irs has one of the most important roles in the federal government. it is one of these organizations that most americans at one. in their lives or another will have to interact with. it has to have the trust of the

american people, we live within a voluntary compliance system and as people do not trust it it can undermine the nation. >> i appreciate your testimony and the work the to do on a daily basis to be that the inspector general that is there for the purpose. there needs to be a check on this. going back to the first panels sudden he all of a testified the she said to be on the lookout for washington personnel. have you found that in your investigation? >> we did not see that, no. >> she testified to it in the first panel. , if she to a question accidentally sent this to

washington leadership, should they not have known that this was happening? >> all the beano is that according to the briefing, lois started the briefing based on 2011, june. >> with that i would like to yield the balance of my time. gentleman like to yield 15 seconds over year? >> high-ranking. >> there has been a lot of debate here. i know you are not tax experts, but if i understand the letter 501c4 gentleman like to 's, they must have the majority of their activity not political, not advocacy. social welfare. and theut this audit

targeting, did you find that they were using that standard, and other words looking for less than 49%? or did you find they were looking for nuances? know, 2010, they started asking which you did in the last cycle. as though they had granted something that had not yet granted. the reason i ask is -- is there any semblance of information that they were not using, if they will, existing law looking havedvocacy that could been less than 50%? >> it must be an unwritten rule, we have not seen it in writing as far as i know, but our issue of was that it was the mall -- the wrong thing to do in the subject of the case, which is what we look at, significant

campaign intervention in the file going forward. >> thank you, yield back. your. george, the fact that referred this case to the department of justice regarding , did03 political donors that cause you concern about the department of justice investigation on this issue? it does not, sir, just because of the various standards. have you been in contact with the fbi? >> yes. >> how many consultations have you had? >> two. >> just two meetings? >> thank the gentleman. we now go to mrs. spear, the gentle lady from california. >> i have the highest regard

for inspector general. we cannot do a job in this committee if we do not have someone to show us where the website star, but we need that are not in any way going to spend something one where the other. last week, eight weeks after you published, the committee received an e-mail from a third new had passed the office to run a search of irs employee e-mails. and the purpose was to determine if it directed the staff to target key party or other political organizations. you were looking for evidence that staff was directed to target key party groups or any other political organization.

>> i do not know what it said, but i do know what i instructed them for. , not flown by an auditor sure which division. >> we are looking for an e-mail that the irs was told existed. >> it goes on to explain how the search was to go on to work. list ofded with a employees in question, a time frame for the e-mails. we pulled the available e-mails that resulted in 5500 response e-mails. they used keywords to search, to identify the e-mails the wanted, right? they used key search words? earlier this week the ranking matter -- ranking member of our committee wrote to you to request the specific search terms that your staff used. late last night i received a

document from your office that listed them out. it was a short list. according to the document your staff used only four terms. tea,is what they were, patriots, 9/12, and c4. that seems completely skewed if you are indeed an unbiased, impartial watchdog. it is as if you only want to find e-mails about tea party cases. these search terms do not include any progressive, liberal, or left-leaning terms at all. why did you not search for the term progressive? it was specifically mentioned in the same as the tea party group? like my colleague did not complete his answer. i was told that there was a specific female that identified

t party, 9/12, and or patriot. this e-mail was the smoking gun. >> you have testified to that before. we know that. doing this search you are an impartial third party with a number of other groups. like it is costing you more to search for these other terms when you're searching 5500 e- mails, correct? >> the list that we were focused on was on political activity. again, unless i am mistaken, the progressives would have been indifferent. >> i have a training workshop with power points that list both progressive groups that you have redacted. we do not know the second bullet. you have the training program on this. did you not?

why not search for occupy? [indiscernible] >> e-mails of we were looking for ones that the irs was told existed but could not find, with a limited search to support the we were looking for. i think you're talking about the document from july 9, 2013. >> that is when the one shot was. >> my point is this, if you are really impartial the we were, iy are the third party, unbiased, you would be searching for all the terms, not just to party, not just patriot. in a letter to the ways and means committee ranking member you describe the scope of your audit as follows -- all cases that the irs identified as potential political cases and did not limit the audit allegations related to the tea party. how can you make that statement

when the only entities being searched for were tea party, 9/12, patriots. >> because most of the complaints that we received were arefrom t party, 9/12, and patriots were being targeted. >> with the gentleman yield for a question? i will not be the devil's advocate but perhaps help you here, if they had searched a broader group and found what they were looking for, someone talking about targeting people for their politics, i believe that would have gone against what has been said all day repeatedly, there was no evidence of people being targeted for their politics or by their politics. if we look through every e-mail of every employee we might find someone talking about republican democratic activity. >> is this not what we are talking about? we do not want them target one

group or the other. >> it was not about targeting groups. his search, if i understand, was looking for political intent. if they look further it would fly into the face of what they have been saying. although they could have done more, i will tell you from my personal observation that when we went to the irs and they were talking about search terms, they use these same four. >> my point is that in his letter to mr. levin, he said that we reviewed all cases that the irs identified as potential political cases without damaging the audit to allegations related to the two-party. this would suggest that he in fact is. ladyagree with the gentle that a more exhaustive search might find more. it might find nothing.

>> i understand, but one of our inspector is that the general works for at the irs. they were given these terms when we were looking for things. to the extent that you are unhappy with the search, and you are welcome to be unhappy, the irs suggested these terms as the right terms. the inspector general is here, but when danny was here yesterday it would have been his employees that suggested these words. >> the resumption of these hearings has been that the president is trying to take down his political enemies. i mean, that has been said over and over. >> over and your side of the aisle. >> mr. mcconnell -- >> he is not on this committee. >> references have been made by any number of members of your

committee on this side of the aisle -- the point is we do not want to see the irs targeting any group. correct? >> and we saw the targeting based on the key words, t party. >> they are targeting because they received an influx of 501c 4's and as a result they were trying to find a way to streamline the process and as it turned out, it wound up taking more time. the question for us is whether or not these entities are exclusively for social welfare purposes, which they are not, which goes to the fact that the law says exclusively for " -- social welfare purposes. now we are looking at these agents and expecting them to determine if something is primary or not. unless you do a specific audit

of every organization, you will not know whether it was primarily for social welfare. >> i completely agree the you would never know, but will be find interesting is the number of 501c4's that went down and the number of tea party groups that went to application no. 1. by the time there was an influx, they were well along their targeting. targeting began at no. 1. last time i checked, going back my mathematics, fact isold, but the that one is such a lonely number influxd not be called an

or large group, it just seems to be the loneliest number. that is when this began, as the first one. then people realize that they began targeting and sending to washington before there were one dozen applications. so, one of the challenges we face is we may find other misconduct and we are asking resources,se those if he can find them and if they exist, but these predominantly began early on with influx or large group, it just seems to be the loneliest number. that is when this began, as the first one. this tea party question. the gentle lady, many of us questioned what the right amount the actingther as commissioner said, 60% of you can self-declared. 40% politics and self-declare, that is fine, over and above the current law, which would still be 50 + 1. i will work with the gentle lady on all kinds of reforms and we are trying to stay focused, once again i will tell you that we do not intend on going anywhere except where the fax lead. currently there are no

allegations from many of the witnesses about the president be involved. we are at the point of lowest lerner and the office of the council -- lois lerner and the office of the council. you are welcome to come to the interviews. >> i would love to. thank you. >> mr. george submitted at the end of the hearing something called the bolo advocacy cases iterations, given to us may 17, 2012, represented by the irs to be the entire set their used for political advocacy. if the irs was doing something beyond that, they never made it apparent to us in the whole year of doing an audit. clear, ifmake that others were misused, we are concerned about that, but in this e-mail submitted for the record, the entire population a on theed for advocacy is

docket of tea party until lois lerner changed it to advocacy of july, 2011. that is a key piece of evidence and they never change their story for a year. did not apologize for anything else except the evidence they gave us. >> we now go to the gentle lady from new york. to follow up on the gentle lady's mention of the screening workshop on july 28, which clearly states in their training manual terms like republican, democrat, a bulky, elephant, t party, progressive. according toining their own manuals progressives

when they look for this political activity. i think it is clear in their training manual that they were saying look for political activities. did you have this training metal -- training manual? did you ever see it? >> we received that document last tuesday. over a year conducting an audit. know why you never received it? look that, according to testimony, 5500 e-mails. did they not come across any claims relating in any way, shape, or form, to the training session of what they should be looking for? not one of the search

terms used to reveal the 5000 e- mails. >> would you agree that now that we have that the irs was training their employees to look at progressives? >> we will have to review and make that determination. unfortunately that would require us to amend the audit, which is a possibility, or as indicated before you are right, i have instructed my staff to conduct an audit to see how they could be on the lookout to be utilized. unfortunately most of this test to wait until after we have completed our work with the fbi and the barman of justice division for fear of interfering with that matter. >> is it clear that they were asking them to look at progressives as well? >> i am not sure. >> you should look at it and study it, it's as progressive

really big and say whether or not it included progressive. george, you have been in politics and longtime. you know that democrats and republicans out there, liberals and conservatives. it is hard for me to believe -- it is beyond belief that you would conduct an audit that only looks at the tea party. that makes the sense whatsoever. i know i wrote a letter of recommendation in support of you because you were a republican. i respected your work. believead -- i cannot you called for an audit that only look at the two-party when you know there is a whole a ray of political entity. that is called going after people. have tried to smear the this ort, saying he did

, try to blame someone by excluding a flock of the political establishment. i think an eighth grade class asked to do an audit of what was for peopleolitically asking for status would look at both sides. that is common sense. how in the world did you get to the point where you only looked at tea party when it is liberals and progressives, occupy wall street, where can -- liberals are just as active and possibly more active. that is just common, plain sense. i think that some of your statements have not been -- it defies logic and it defies belief that you would sew limit your statements and right to mr. levin, mr. conley, but no one

,as looking at any of the area i do not think there should be any exemption with politically activity, but you know there is political life of the above sides, right? why would you not look at those side? that would be the fair thing to do, the common-sense thing to do. that would be inappropriate audit. it is like saying look for wrongdoing in the bank but only overdraft fees. everyone knows there are a whole swath of areas you could look at. limiting it, i am mystified that as a distinguished professional you would put forward an audit that looks only at a thin sliver of the training documents when playing common sense dictates an entire array. >> i know that there was not a

question there, but i think there is an answer? >> we have received allegations from members of the congress and from media reports about the particular activity that occurred. it was not just the two-party, it was the patriots and 9/12, so through therge process to look at how tax- exempt organizations would be treated. never once did i ever indicate that we would liver -- live in our review to these particular groups. >> but you did. >> it takes a year. a year. we can, but it does not serve the american people or the irs

well. examples ofny and thatiate behavior the irs can take collective action. where they might be appropriately targeted and, with a better word, by the internal revenue service. i would expect that they would this was a then probe that was wrong. i do not care of the political party or group. i do not care. does not dothe irs any of the relief.

odds ared say that the mismanaged. dits are mismanaged. i would like to make a request of information to the committee to help us get to the bottom of this. >> gentleman from california? >> earlier you testified that your approach was to call balls and strikes. i would like to ask the you do that now. there has been discussion about whether you found white house or making it clear that and given not have

your clear statements i would whetherdeath throughout you have identified any evidence to support their claims. this was thea keen deepest targeting of the president's political enemies .uring the election year during the course of your audit did you identify any information that they were targeting the president's political enemies? >> we do not have access to the information the committee might have. it was an audit, nothing beyond that. hours did not find anything. so far you have not found any

evidence? >> correct. >> this is an ongoing matter that we're working with the justice department on. that is why i clarify my question. what you are privy to. >> this far i have not been informed of anything. >> the house appropriations committee chairman stated "it's the enemies list from the white house, shutting down or try to shut down the conservative political viewpoint across the analystsand will -- list that rivals that of another president some time ago. have you identified a evidence that came out of the white house? >> no. >> senator ted cruz said this --

president obama needs to tell the truth. use richard nixon tried to the irs to target his bulova enemies, it was wrong, and when the obama administration does it, it is still wrong. have you identified any evidence of new administration trying to use the irs against the president's political enemies. >> we have not found anything to that effect. wide senator mitch mcconnell recently released a video from his campaign that said -- i do not know about you, but i think the leader of the free world and his advisers have better things to do than dig through other people's tax returns. what they are trying to do is intimidate donors to outside groups that are critical of the administration. question is this, during the course of your investigation have you identified anything the

president or his of biters were digging through other people's tax returns? >> as for his other advisers, i am not in a position to give you a definitive answer. and not from the president. >> my point is clear, the republicans are engaged in a sustained campaign to attack the white house and your report contradicts their accusations so far. i would also like to point out for the public, this is a public of the of a committee u.s. congress. it appears that 298 applications 72e investigated and only were tea party applications. as a member of this committee i would like to refer to ask witnesses about all 298 applications, not just the tea party applications. the systematic the

leg and scrutiny of tea party applications. therefore i stayed for the record that the only organization but clearly and plainly focused on the obligation is this committee. the title of this hearing is, i will say again, to investigate t party applications, not all 298. with all due respect, when you look at 72 out of 298 it is a small subset compared to the entire number of applications. that i amrtunate called to this committee to participate in some biased to what we should be asking. >> mr. george, do you want to respond to the numbers or characterization's? with all due respect -- >> please stay above the partisan portion, if you do not mind. >> being inspector general was one of the most difficult jobs in the federal government.

believe me, when you walk into the deputy secretaries office, or whomever, you are normally not coming in with good news. you are coming in with bad news. identifying ways that the organization is not operating well, or if you are lucky coming in with ways that they can operate in a better manner. admit that i am a bit concerned that this type of forum could have a chilling effect on the operations of inspectors general. again, i have been around for a while. i have seen this before. but not to this extent. believe me, we shall be issuing that will show not so good behavior on the parts of the internal revenue service.

things that we of recent reported about. both reports will be coming out. uphold a loth to and i intend to do so in this position. -- of whole the law and i intend to do so in this position -- but hold -- of told -- uphold the and i intend to do so in this position. i know the role of the ig and we have never treated their office like this. in terms of my behalf for my organization, that is one thing, but to suggest that it could have been done differently, you know, this is unprecedented, sir. >> thank you. i remember serving with him.

and i intend to dono one workede facts. frankly, a professor horn came to congress will almost no politics. on the republican side we always ask if he could be more republican and the answer was that he could not be more honest. i missed steve. ranking members opportunity to close. to your last statement, i want you to be very clear, mr. george. you call balls and strikes, we call balls and strikes to. the 7000 people who sent me to this congress did not send me here just to sit and listen. they did not do that. questions, i am going to ask him. the chairman, when he has

questions, he asks. , whetheras questions it is a question or whether we can get a documents, he asks. people?sents 700,000 i represent 700,000 people. when i put up my hand to andect the american people uphold the constitution, every two years, i mean it. i do not care whether the person is republican, democrat, whatever. that is my job. that is my duty. so, the mere fact that you were ,sking questions in my report you say that looking at it in

donespect you might have things different. you know, hello, welcome one. -- welcome to the club. i am glad you came. i think that you all have done a very good job of answering the questions. but give us some credit too. every single show i have been on, they have asked me, do you trust the ig? you can go back and check, every single time i say i want to get information. i am a lawyer. i am trained to do this. not necessarily to attack anyone, but to get answers. any ig, if they presented me with something and i wonder if i missed something or if anything was not here, i am going to ask

the question. as i said, i do not have a monopoly on this one. would do the same thing. folks coming in and saying that we should never ask, the ig, you know, do not ask him, though questions -- no, no, no, no, no. that is how they operate. piece to this.r i believe that this committee must be about not only oversight, but report -- reform. in order to reform, you have to have information. it has got to be transparent. it has to be complete. the whole truth, nothing but the truth, so help me god. the mere fact that a question as asked? please, do not get insulted.

i think you should be grateful that we ask you to come back to clarify and we did it. mr. chairman ask you a minute ago about your role? i guess what, you give a great answer and i was pleased to hear it, i expect the young lady who , i believe they are the same way. it seems that people came in as hard-working americans, giving their blood, sweat, and tears. asy tried to obey the law best they could, meaning that if a law was not ripe, maybe they

need to do that. no one is trying to tag you or anyone else, just get to the facts. is it. i said it over and over again. we do not know how long we're going to be here. it is this time, this time to be the best we can be. be better than where we are so far. these words a few moments ago. to get to that more better world, the perfect irs. that is what this is about. nothing less, nothing more. it is simply more. the best they be can be.

that. accomplish thank you, mr. chairman. >> mr. cummings is right, we do not know how long we will be here. i lost one of my friends the day after only 80 years on this earth and 50 good years of marriage. without further lamenting some parts of the day, i have a closing question for you, mr. george. with what you and your organization know today, is there special scrutiny on the organization's lunch together under two-party? do you know that there was special scrutiny under those organizations? it was in your opinion inappropriate in the time of the lay? with what you know today, with what you have been able to

ascertain, do you know of similar treatment of scrutiny because of their team name and delay for groups -- he named -- key name and delay for groups? that.use of we do not know the 202 names, we do not know who was what. >> as this committee continues to look, we will close today knowing that she party, patriot, 9/12 groups were held up for special scrutiny here in -- delayed the laid by lois lerner, causing an , and we knowdelay no significant alternative among groups, progressive and so on. that is what we have learned today. certainly, we charge you that.

as our representatives with eyes and ears where we cannot look to continue looking to use all of the resources and leverage irs to find. many have characterized what i believe and what i say. in closing, i believe that in fact mr. george you and your team have done an excellent job. when i look at the speed of your work, i wish it was faster. when i look at the quality of your work, i certainly want to send you back to do more in many areas. i know this, the irs is an agency in crisis. they cannot get their procurement right. we have seen that. they cannot get their conference spending in the past anywhere under control in the used funds that were appropriate.

this special scrutiny raises major concerns about whether or not they even understand the criteria under the law of 501c4 's in how they asked and where they ask, including asking for the specifics of political activity rather than the balance. in other areas if you, you three and others here today were given a huge jog, for one i have confidence that you will do it, as all of our ig's work to do. we will continue to leverage heavily the hard work, the 12,000 or so women who work for ig's. make one thank you and closing statement, the hopefully we will stop abusing in public what their political persuasion is unless we're speaking to the

activities that they did. that those activities may compromise their objectivity. otherwise every american has the right to belong to or not belong to any party and believe what they want to believe. we want them to be able to do that and exercise that. i will be the first to say, everyone of you, i would like to get more out of view. i encourage you to work both jointly and, frankly, to meet with the ranking members staff anytime that you want. listen to their concerns and do the same. from oneittee charges side or the other, but we charge knowing that your work is nonpartisan, your results are given to both of us on a consistent basis and, by the way, to other committees of jurisdiction without us asking. you make the decision of who needs to know and we appreciate

that. your staff always asks the party affiliation, can we even stop with the interviews asking that? >> i believe that they asked routinely about political contributions and volunteering. i have instructed my people not to use that as criteria for decision process. people whosome campaigned and made contributions for a particular candidate, but we have not and did not use it today. i do not believe i heard it one time. i believe that interviews need to ask all the questions extensively. it is appropriate. we did do that candidly. it is a reason not to be asked by the other side of the aisle today.

with that, i think the ranking members. it has been a long before you, for the first panel. i know you could have accomplished what you were today, and with that we stand adjourned. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2013] >> that was a hearing held by

the house oversight of government reform committee. members heard over five hours of testimony from treasury department officials about the irs review process. members of the house returned tomorrow at noon. items included a 2014 defense spending bill with separate environmental bills, the other on epa rules. the senate returned on tuesday at 10:00 a.m. eastern. on aare expected to return bill for fiscal 2014 spending on transportation and housing. you can watch gavel-to-gavel coverage of the house live on c- span and the senate on c-span 2. >> live programming to tell you about on c-span 2, a panel discussion on immigration policy with local and

metropolitan areas. later in the day, the alliance loweringh reform on medicare spending. also on c-span 2. as a newink of area way of getting television in the future. live broadcast television, along with other funding devices, just using the internet. the key piece of the technology is the micro antenna and you as beingut it miniature rise over the years with a desire to create competition and choice.

>> streaming broadcast television signals to any web enabled device, monday on "to communicators." monday on "the communicators ." >> this is two hours. >> we welcome back to the senate

judiciary committee one of my harold's, john lewis, and my dear, dear friend from so many battles over the years, drawing together with jim, i welcome everyone to this important hearing. this affects all americans rights. hearing, we today's will get together to restore the protections of the voting rights act. to speak to the historic effort to protect voting rights to for the work together

voting rights act. from its inception to reauthorization, it has always been a bipartisan and for now it is going to continue. that part of that tradition is right here, with john lewis and jim [indiscernible] thely respected members of house of representatives, a democrat and republican, hailing from different states, both sharing a commitment to voting rights. i look forward to working with both. to see if we can restore the protections of the voting rights act after the shelby county case. the historic struggle for individual voting rights meets a turning point on the bridge in march 7, 1965. i had just gotten out of law school. a group of peaceful marchers led by john lewis, young john lewis , an earlier attack by state troopers, called bloody sunday from the graphic photographs,

became a catalyst for the voting rights act. your precious and sacred vote is one of the most powerful tools we have to create a more perfect union. to millions of others he, he is a hero. thank you for being here today. in 2006 republicans and democrats joined together to pass the reauthorization of the voting we were able to do it, one reason we were able to do it, is a courageous chairman of the how judiciary committee congressman sensenbrenner, a true leader of that effort. having video at that time as a ranking member and watching what went on, i could say we would not have been able to reauthorize that without his leadership in the house judiciary committee.

i was proud to work with him back then and i thank him for coming here to testify today. i think that he and i and congressman lewis were very happy when we saw the president sign that in the rose garden. shelby county versus holder held that it was outdate and the five justices who struck down the coverage formula in section four have acknowledged discrimination in voting continues to be a problem. chief justice roberts said voting discrimination still exists. no one doubts that. that is why we are here today. the supreme court has called on congress to update the voting rights act. we have to work together as americans. people die in other parts of the

world trying to obtain the right to have a free country with a free right to vote. americans should not be denied by just the application of electrical laws. when the architects of the republic wrote the words of the constitution and declaration much independence they were signing a promissory note for every american. when we vote for our children or grandchildren to restore the voting rights act to uphold the constitution. no one's right to vote in this nation should be suppressed or denied, yet we continue to see that discriminatory practice today. everyone of us, i don't care what our political alliance, we should be totally opposed to suppressing votes.

so, let's work together on that. senator grassley, with me and i know congressman lewis has something to say. >> it is very right for you to hold this hearing, mr. chairman, after a significant decision by the supreme court and extent of which congress has a duty to do it in our checks and balances of government. the voting rights act guarantees the fundamental right to vote for all voters regardless of race or language. it guarantees protection of other rights. the law is necessary to address a shameful history. i have voted to reauthorize the act. i appreciate the testimony of our congressional colleagues and i welcome both of them here and point out specifically for representative lewis your participation in the bloody sunday helped to lead to

enacting the law and creating your enduring place in history. thank you for being here today. we should be pleased that our country has made advances in race relations since the voting rights act was passed. the act contributed to the progress no doubt more progress must be maintained and should be made. a hearing such as this will help that. we last voted to reauthorize in 2006. much has changed since then. the voter turnout rate was higher last year among registered african-american voters than for other classes of people. more african-american and hispanic candidates than ever are winning elections. i say that because the supreme court has found these facts of constitutional significance. we are here today largely because congress failed to heed the supreme court's 2009 warning that the differing treatments of

states and preclearance coverage formula raised serious constitutional questions. eight justices said so. the ninth would have struck the will you down at that time. congress could address today new coverage formula to address toes concerns. we could have created a formula based on 21st century realities not the dramatically different conditions that existed in the 1960 and 1970's. the court then ruled as it did many people believe that section two is the heart of the voting rights act. unlike section five, it prohibits voter discrimination nationwide. unlike section five, section two can be used to challenge procedures before they take effect through injunctions. over the years the preclearance process led to many fewer objections to proposed election law changes. since the last reauthorization only 31 objections have been made. in have been no objections

raised to any changes in seven of the 16 states that are covered in whole or in part and in three of the states that are fully covered. 99.86% of summations have been approved. additionally, the racial gap in voter registration and turnout is her in the states originally covered in section five than is the case nationwide. the court has given congress the opportunity to draft a new constitutional coverage formula. i disagreed with a member of this committee who said as long as republicans have a majority in the house democrats don't have 60 votes in the senate there will be no preclearance. cynicism and defeatism have never before characterized reauthorization of the voting rights act. rather than blaming republics for blocking a bill that doesn't exist the majority should bring forth a proposal to update the coverage formula in a constitutional way.

we should cover the whole country. we could identify jurisdictions engages in discrimination in the 21st century and where section two is inadequate. there may be other options. i look forward to seeing what is brought before the committee. for any new bill to pass we must respect the constitution's pronouncements. the court based the ruling in part on the 10th amendment saying the constitution provides that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government are reserved to the states or citizens thereof. i would point out the word "specifically". this is a formulation of the 10th amendment i have never seen before. it means that congress can only enact laws that fall win the power of the constitution specifically gives it such as the enumerated powers of article one and 15ed amendment which is

a constitutional basis for the voting rights act. the ruling requires congress to show greater respect for the limitations of its power as against state authority. it is language that must be kept in mind if congress considers legislation amending the voting rights act. the court last month also ruled under the constitution's election clause congress may regulate "how federal elections are held but not who may vote in them." those decisions are left to the states. this shouldn't threaten the integrity of voting such as constitutional voter identification laws. overwhelming majorities support these requirements and know the right to vote is denied when a valid vote is canceled by the vote of somebody ineligible to vote as when an eligible voter is blocked. the supreme court has just ruled

that "it would raise serious constitutional doubts if a federal statute precluded a state from obtaining the information necessary to enforce its voter qualifications." this hearing is very important and i commend you, mr. chairman, for holding it as soon as you are after shelby hearing. >> we will start with john lewis. i'm also at a personal point i remember with great fondness your introduction when i received the civil rights award, the humphrey award. i thought it was one of the culminations of my career in the senate to be introduced by you. we have seen recently so many times on television the scenes of 50 years ago.

i'm glad your here, congressman lewis. >> i want to thank you mr. ranking member and members of the committee for holding this important hearing and inviting me to testify today. mr. chairman, i ask unanimous consent my full statement be included in the record. since first being elected to congress congressman sensenbrenner has been a tireless champion of the voting rights act. i'm proud and pleased to be with him today, my friend, my brother. i said it before and i say again that section four and five are the heart and soul of the voting rights act. today of the supreme court decision broke my heart. it made me want to x-ray. i felt like saying come, come and walk in the shoes of people who try to register, try to vote

but did not live to see the passage of the voting rights act. i know you know that history but it is important for the record to note what life was like before the voting rights act of 1965. when i first came to washington, d.c. in 1961, the same year president barack obama was born, blacks and whites couldn't sit beside each other on a bus traveling through virginia, through north carolina, through georgia, alabama, mississippi into new orleans. we saw signs that said white only, colored only. in many parts of this country people were denied the right to register to vote simply because of the color of their skin. they were harassed, intimidated and fired from their jobs and forced off of farms and plantations.

those who tried to assist were beaten, arrested, jailed and even murdered. before the voting rights act people stood an immovable line. on occasion a person of color would be asked to count the number of bubbles in a bar of soap or the number of jelly beans in a jar. in 1964 the state of mississippi had a black voting age population of more than 450,000 but only about 16,000 were registered to vote. one county in my state of alabama was 80% african-american and not a single one was able to register to vote. not one. selma is located in dallas county, alabama. during this period only 2% of african-americans were registered to vote in this county. you could only attempt to register on the first and third mondays of each month.

occasionally people had to pass a so-called literacy test. before the voting rights act three young men i knew -- james chaney, andy goodman and mike schwerner -- were working to register african-americans to vote. they were arrested, released from jail to members of the clan in the middle of the night and they were beaten, shot and killed. on march 7, 1961, jose williams, a staff person of dr. martin luther king, and i attempted to leave a peaceful nonviolent march from selma to montgomery. as we marched for the right to vote more than 500 men, women and children were chased, beaten, bloodied and trampled by state troopers, some riding

horseback. the terrible day became known as bloody sunday. a little over a week later president lyndon johnson came before a joint session of the congress and spoke to the nation. he said, i speak tonight for the dignity of man and for the destiny of democracy. and he presented the voting rights act to congress. after months of hard work, congress posted the bill and on august 6, 1965, president lyndon johnson signed the voting rights act in law and gave me one of the pens he used to sign that bill. i remember this period and these struggles like it was just only yesterday. to this day i truly believe that we are a better country, a better people because of the voting rights act. we have made progress. we have come a great distance. but the deliberate systematic

attempt to make it harder and more difficult for many to participate in the democratic process still exists to this very day. only hours after the decision was announced by the supreme court, before the ink was even dry, states began to put into force efforts to suppress people's voting rights. as i said, and, mr. chairman, as you quoted, in a democracy such as ours the vote is precious. it is almost sacred. it is the most powerful nonviolent tool we have. it is my belief the voting rights act is needed now more than ever before. a bipartisan congress and republican president worked to reauthorize this law four times. the burden cannot be on those citizens whose rights were or will be violated.

it is a duty and a responsibility of congress to restore the life and soul of the voting rights act and we must do it and we must do it now. we must act and we must act now. we must do it on our watch at this time. again, thank you, mr. chairman, mr. ranking member, and members of this committee for the opportunity to testify today. thank you so much. >> you bring us a sense of history and i thank you for the book that you signed to me "march" that you have. it will be seen by all five of my grandchildren. i mentioned earlier congressman sensenbrenner's a dear friend. we have been friends for years

and he's a civil rights icon in his own right and chairman of the house judiciary committee 26th and reintroduced the reauthorization of the voting rights act in the house and built a strong record indicating the need for reauthorization of section five. we discussed it many times. but his steadfast leadership and commitment to protecting civil rights for all americans assured the bill would become law. i think as someone from the other body i can say -- and i was in the minority at the time, you were in the majority in your party -- i can say we would not have gotten through had it not been for the work you put in in the house. so, i will continue to work with

him and keep this a bipartisan issue and be a nonpartisan effort. congressman sensenbrenner, please go ahead. >> thank you mr. chairman, ranking member and distinguished members of the committee. let me express my appreciation not only for your statement and senator grassley's statement, but also the statements that have been made by my colleague in the house john lewis of georgia. i'm not a civil rights icon. i try to be a mechanic to put together legislation that will work. i thought we did it in 2006. we are going to have to repair a few parts this year. i'm certainly on board to try to put something that will last for a long period of time. i also deeply appreciate the comments that mr. lewis has made because he is truly a civil rights icon for what he did to

emphasize the need for voting rights and the voting rights act that congress successfully passed in 1965 and has reauthorized since. in 2006 i was proud to have served as chairman of the house judiciary committee when the voting rights act was last reauthorized including the coverage formula of section five. i thank you for the invitation to participate in this hearing and to provide my perspective on the continued importance of the voting rights act. in 1965 the voting rights act was signed into law. the law was passed at the height of america's civil rights movement when citizens of part of the countries were fighting each other and sometimes authorities over how skin color impacts upon a person's place in democracy. historic in nature, the voting rights act sought to end decades of racial discrimination that prevented minorities from fully exercising their constitutional

right to vote. it ensured that states and local governments do not pass policies to deny equal vote to right based on race. the united states should work to keep voting free, fair and accessible. that is why the voting rights act is so important. it makes sure that every citizen regardless of our race has an equal opportunity to have a say and to participate in our great democracy. in 1982, i was pleased to help lead negotiations to reauthorize the voting rights act then. the legislation cleared the house by a vote of 389-24. that was signed into law by president reagan. on signing the reauthorization, president reagan stated there are differences over how to attain the quality we seek for

all of our people and sometimes amidst all the overblown rhetoric the differences tend to seem bigger than they are. but actions speak louder than words. this legislation proves our unbending commitment to voting rights that also proves that differences can be settled in a spirit of good will and good faith. as i said before the right to vote is the crown jewel of american liberties and we will not see its luster diminished. "one of my most cherished keepsakes is one of the pens president reagan used to sign the 1982 extension. anyone visiting my office will notice that this pen is proudly displayed. a duty to support the constitution once again led me to shepherd the 2006 reauthorization of the voting rights act. while i was chairman of the how

judiciary committee we had dozens of hearings examining the effectiveness of the voting rights act. whether it should be extended and if so what the extension should encompass. the committee assembled more than 12,000 pages of testimony, documentary evidence and the legislative record accompanying the consideration of the voting rights act extension in 2006 is among the most extensive in congressional history. the bipartisan conclusion while we made dramatic progress in ensuring no american is denied his or her right to vote based upon the color of his or her skin the work remains incomplete. again in a bipartisan fashion the house passed a 25-year extension. as we are here today because of the supreme court's ruling in shelby county versus holder,

which severely weakens the election protections that both republicans and democrats have fought so hard to maintain over the years, the court essentially disregarded years and years of the extensive work of the legislative branch and substituted their own judgment. they voted to eliminate the law's existing formula for selecting which places are allowed to make changes to their election laws or procedure without clearance from the u.s. department of justice. although the court left in place section five, a provision that requires states or parts of states to ask permission from the federal government before making changes to their elections, that part of the law has little or no effect without the formula in section four which was struck down. by striking down section four of the 1965 voting rights act, and

thereby gutting the act's section five congress is presented with a challenge and historic opportunity. we are again called together to restore the critical protections of the act by designing a new formula that will cover jurisdictions with recent and egregious voting records. our constitution guarantees an american citizen cannot be kept from exercising his or her god given right to vote because of race or color. though the voting rights act has been enormously successful, we know our work is not yet complete. eight years ago we had 12,000 pages of a record to prove it. discrimination in the electoral process continues to exist and threatens to undermine the progress that has been made the last 50 years. i'm committed to working to pass a constitutional response to the

shelby county versus holder decision. i look forward to working with anybody who wants to approach this effort in good faith. i believe that the voting rights act is the most successful of all of our important civil rights acts that have been pass since the mid 1950's in eliminating discrimination. we cannot afford to lose it now and it is our obligation as senators and representatives to continue it. thank you. >> gentlemen, i thank you both very much. i wanted to hold this hearing before the august break because i want to be able to use the august break to work the phones a lot and talk to a lot of people from vermont and people around the country to use that as a base to do it.

i'm hoping that the two of you and anybody else in the house can join with those of us in the senate when we come back in the fall and see what we can do. i know you both have a tight schedule. you are welcome to stay for parts in you like. but i would be happy to have the next panel up if you want to leave. >> we are due for votes pretty soon in the house. >> i had better let you go. it is a long way over there. >> sometimes differences between the house and senate are the difference between here and the moon. hopefully not on this one. >> i hope not. i have an office that is just a couple of feet from the so-called dividing lin between the house and senate and i like the fact that we are able to walk back and forth across that line often as the three of us have done on many different issues.

i hope that both parties, both bodies, will on this issue, because if you protect the right to vote for everybody, one of the greatest steps you can take to protect the democracy. i thank you both for being here. as we set up the next panel, senator durbin, who is the chair of the civil rights subcommittee has held hearings on this. before we start, did you wish to say something? >> i want to thank you and senator grassley for the hearing and congratulate my friend congressman john lewis for coming over and producing

testimony that no one else can produce because of his singular role in the history of civil rights in america. a special thanks to congressman jim sensenbrenner who showed thrust is true bipartisan alive and well when it comes to preserving civil rights. thank you for being here, congressman sensenbrenner. it was seven years ago 98 senators and 390 house members reauthorized the voting rights act by an overwhelming bipartisan vote. after 21 hearings and 90 witnesses testified a 15,000 page record was produced and congress passed the bill and president george w. bush signed the reauthorization because we all recognized that despite real progress in america unlawful and unfair discrimination in voting remained. i urge some of those discriminatory practices first hand in a series of hearings last congress and on the hill i chaired the first congressional hearing to examine new state

voting laws that limited early voting, tightened registration requirements and riders photo i.d.'s. we then took the committee on the road. we went to tampa, florida and at the invitation of senator brown away went to cleveland, ohio. in those places we invited election officials from both political parties to testify as to the changes in state law that were being contemplated and implemented in those two states of florida and texas. mr. chairman, before there was any testimony taken, at great length we asked the election officials a basic question. what were the instances of voter fraud in states of florida and ohio that led to change the laws relating to how the people would register to vote and when they could vote and how they can vote. in both states testimony was the same from election officials of both political parties.

there was no evidence of voter fraud. none. these changes took place in the context of reducing opportunity for people to vote, period. i'm not going to defend one person who tries to vote illegally or fraudulently. none of us would. but in those two states from election officials of both parties there was no basis for the new state laws. when the time came to challenge the laws in federal court they turned to the voting rights act. that asked the basic question that goes back to the 15th amendment as to whether we are keeping our promise to make voting racially free and free for all americans. that is why this hearing is so important and this testimony is so important. i'm just going to give three quick examples and yield. do we still need this? is this something that belongs in a museum this voting rights act, in a civil rights museum

somewhere? we still need it. listen to what we faced recently. in 2001, in the city of kilmichael, mississippi, an election was canceled because of unprecedented number of african-american candidates decided to run for office. after the department of justice used the voting rights act to require the election move forward the town elected its first black mayor and first majority black city council. that was 2001. in 2004, officials in walker county, texas, threatened to prosecute two black students after they announced their candidacy for county office. when that threaten didn't keep them off the ballot officials tried to limit african-american turnout by reducing early voting and only at polling places near a historically black college with a large number of black voters. 2004, walker county, texas. in 2012 after the 2010 census

showed african-american voting population had grown significantly in the consolidated municipal government of augusta, richmond, georgia, the georgia legislature passed bill to change the date of municipal elections but only in augusta richmond georgia county. it would have changed the date from november when african-american turnout was known to be high to july when it was substantially lower. 2012, state of georgia. do we still need the voting rights act? yes, we do. that is why this hearing is so important. i'm glad you brought the two opening witnesses and i'm glad the panel will follow and we will have a chance to raise these questions. i think you are right to make this issue an issue to be considered by the full committee rather than just the subcommittee. i thank you for the opportunity. >> i can assure your subcommittee will have a great deal of working to do this. our first witness is luz weinberg.

>> luz urbaez weinberg. city commissioner in florida since 2005 and youngest person, first person of hispanic decent. please go ahead. your microphone is on. there is a little button on the front there. >> thank you. members of the committee thank you for the opportunity and invitation to submit my testimony on the need to restore the protection of the voting rights act. mr. chairman, as you mentioned i'm a republican elected to serve in my city and nonpartisan

in northeast miami-dade. i'm the first and only hispanic to hold that office. i have taken statewide and national leadership positions. the governor appointed me to serve on the expressway authority and president of national association of latino elected officials. i'm here to share my account of the critical impact of the voting rights act in guaranteeing access to the ballot box. as a result of the recent supreme court case i urge the committee to demonstrate your principle to equal voting regardless of race, language and act swiftly to restore the protections. whether to maintain the voting rights act is not a partisan issue. it is a nonpartisan issue. it is an issue for all americans whether republican or democrat. all americans strongly believe in fair and equal electoral opportunities.

my experience serving as an elected official in south florida has afforded me the privilege of being personally acquainted with how election policies affect the franchise of ethnic and language minority communities. since i moved to florida from puerto rico in 1986 i had a front row seat to observe the unfortunate repeated attempts to adopt policies that continue the history of putting racial ethic and language minority voters at a disadvantage. osceola county has an at-large system. only when the voter can switch to single member could the first hispanic commissioner elected. in reviewing the election law change the department of justice identified that the commissioner favored a return to an at-large election system because they recognized the growth of latino population would lead to their electing candidates of their

choice. since 2002 osceola county has twice faced charges that its electoral methods would reduce or eliminate latino voting rights. latinos are more likely to be registered to vote through third party registers. they became subject to strict reporting requirement deadlines to return registration to at-large requirements in 2011. these requirements were later withdrawn but the change left several organizations like the women league of voters suspending their voter registration operations in florida which meant a drop of 39% registration. in the 1975 v.r.a. five florida counties were singled out for discrimination against latino voters and low participation rights made them subject to the preclearance process. it protects not just latinos but all voters statewide.

for example, through the 1980's and 1990's preclearance was used in florida to ensure absentee about thing procedures didn't put unrepresented voters at disadvantage. the preclearance process forced reconsideration of the disproportionate impact latino voters might experience because of decisions to reduce our state's early voting period and rescrutinize the citizen of floridians already registered to vote. the successful application of section five has occurred not only in florida in formal requests of preclearance the very fact that the state policy makers had to anticipate full preclearance requirements influenced them to voluntarily reconsider and reshape proposed new election laws. for us in n. the preclearance process has not only been effective by critical in ensuring the prevention of equal electoral opportunities.

it has no peer. it is uniquely tailored to prevent irreparable harm to voters and candidates by requiring review for discriminatory effect before a new law may be implemented. it is very much necessary in our 21st century america. on a personal note i arrived in there country as native born immigrant one of millions of puerto rico who leaf the island for the mainland for a better life. i registered to vote as a young adult who had not spoken a word of english. i have three children. i was proud of my oldest son john now registered to vote and voted for the first time two years ago. last year my daughter jessica turned 18. two weeks after the election cycle she was filed and ready to vote. jonathan registered a democrat. jessica registered independent. their elected official mother is

a republican. so, in my household we are latino, white latino, speak english, spanish, but first and foremost we are americans and we take our electoral process, exercising our right to vote and ensuring that the voting rights act are preserve and it is nonpartisan, nonracial and nonpolitical issue. we want you to show equal voting rights for all americans and act swiftly to restore these actions through the voting rights act. thank you. >> thank you very much. the next witness is mr. michael carvin from the law firm of jones day in washington, d.c. where he focuses on constitutional and appellate litigation. he's testified before the committee a number of times at the invitation of our republican colleagues and welcome again, mr. carvin.

>> thank you, mr. chairman, senator grassley. the committee is facing a serious question as is the entire congress. does shelby county's invalidation of section five create a gap in the civil rights law that might expose minority voters to unconstitutional discrimination. my comments today is that there is no gap. because section five is no longer needed to ensure equal opportunity for minority voters for one simple reason. you have section two of the voting rights act which has always been viewed as the heart of the act. it is very muscular and was amended by the body in 1982 to eliminate anything that could be characterized as purposeful discrimination because it prohibits anything with a discriminatory result. it was ballyhooed then and hailed as a extraordinarily successful piece of legislation that has done much more than section five to eliminate

unconstitutional voting discrimination. section five on the other hand was limited. it was limited in terms of the kinds of voting practices it got at. only changes in terms of the states it was addressing and in terms of time. it was always a temporary supplement to section two. the question congress has is not whether discrimination persists in the jurisdictions covered by section five but whether it is the kind of discrimination that can't be remedied by section two of the voting rights act. i submit there is not much argument that section two is inadequate to the task. a couple of logical intuitive points. we don't have preclearance requirements. it doesn't seem to be necessary for two reasons. one is we don't have it in most states. we don't have section five on top of section two in most states with respect to voting discrimination. we don't have any kind of analogous preclearance for other types of discrimination. employment, housing, educational

discrimination is dealt with through section two that prohibit certain actions not supplemented by preclearance requirement even though for example employment discrimination is more difficult to prove than voting discrimination because it is done in private without the ready access you have in the voting context. i think that congress actually -- with respect to first generation ballot access issues i think that was the finding of congress in 2006, that those problems had been dressed as well in the cover jurisdictions and noncovered jurisdictions so there was really no reason to extend section five just to get at those ballot access issues. there was no argument even though section two is more than adequate in oklahoma and arkansas, to eliminate their kind of voting discrimination, no one in congress in 2006 found what was ok in arkansas was inadequate in brooklyn, manhattan or mississippi in part

because congress found mississippi had the highest participation of black voters of any states but remained a covered jurisdiction. in terms of second generation issues that was the principal focus in 2006 they said the covered jurisdictions have done a better job than the noncovered jurisdictions in fostering minority participation and turnout but they are diluting the vote through at-large electoral systems and dark at large racial decisions and gerrymandering. section two is more effective dealing with second generation vote dilution than section five. section five can't attack at large voting systems because it is only tricked if there is a voting change. if the at large system is in place he can't be got at by section five but can be by section two.

there's been an argument made which in my view is false and counter factual which is section two challenges to racial gerrymandering are too slow or not effective. that is untrue. in every state outside of section five people don't sit around before they bring the section two lawsuits and say let's have two or three elections to see how things go. they do exactly what they do in the section five jurisdictions. they go to court before the redistricting plan and seek an injunction. the section two court had vote dilution work in november of 2011 before the elections in 2012 and the section five court never issued a decision until late august in 2012. so, the point is that section two courts can act and do act as speedily and effectively. the only thing the demise of section five will help

elimination is the compelled racial gerrymandering the justice department imposed to create the districts that were struck down as unconstitutional and be used in texas to protect even though there was no large minority population and end the partisan use by the republicans of the voting rights act. some of the strongest supporters of the vote being rights act have been republicans because it is politically advantageous governor the majority minority districts because the adjacent districts present political opportunities. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you very much. our next witness is justin levitt, associate professor of law at loyola law school. expert on constitutional law and

voting rights. before he joined the faculty of loyola he was counsel at new york university school of law and worked on cases promoting equal access to voting and all of you, your statement or any addition to it will be put in the record. professor levitt, i hope i don't think it is anything you have said that i turn it over the senator whitehouse but i'll required back on the floor. but please go ahead, sir. >> not all, mr. chairman. thank you very much. mr. chairman, distinguished members of the committee thank you for the invitation to testify. our constitution expressly gives congress the specific enumerated power and obligation to ensure that there is no electoral

discrimination anywhere in the country based on race or ethnicity. congress has repeatedly attempted to step up to this responsibility, not perfectly programs but pragmatically. shelby county ripped a sizable hole in congress's work. that decision has refused americans less sure that discrimination won't taint their elections. we have to correct that damage. sweeping nationals statistics hide the fact that unfortunately there are still public officials who try to limit electoral opportunity based on race or ethnicity. sometimes because of contempt. sometimes because of perceived political advantage. it is disgusting and it is illegal. and even with armies of lawyers it is very hard to fix using existing tools like section two. normally we in the legal system depend on responsive lawsuits the tools mr. carvin was talking

about. if there is a legal problem you saw, prove harm and it gets fixed. that is the way the employment system, housing system, education works. vote being and election laws are different. these normal lawsuits attack one practice at a time. officials looking to limit political power based on race just switch tactics. x draws a lawsuit, shift to w or z. the official doesn't bear the cause of this. the taxpayers do. and taxpayers get sick of it. it is hard for them to toss them out of office because the tactic is affecting the structure of how the elections work. election laws are different. normal lawsuits are a little like ocean liners. they are complicated, expensive and slow to get going. they can take years. and frankly i'm not sure which texas case mr. carvin is talking

about. the court in texas still hasn't delivered a decision on the merits years after the original districts were put in place. there is no decision based on these lawsuits. in the meantime, when normal lawsuits are taking all of this time to get going elections infected with discrimination are taking place. even when the contest is unjustice they become incumbent and make policy and we are waiting to get the election structure right it doesn't fix the policy that has already been passed. election laws are different. the 2006 congress will 15,000 pages of examples. i have plenty more from 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011. including prominent statewide

problems but local jurisdictions where most at risk have the least resources to fight back. the examples are not just old news. in 2009, two months after the president's inauguration, chief justice roberts, justice kennedy and said racial discrimination and polarized voting are not ancient. much needs to be done so that people of all races have an equal opportunity to share and participate. congress has understood that much remains to be done. repeatedly it has recognized the exist tool kit of tools like section two are powerful but for the most pernicious electoral discrimination they are also inadequate. in 2006 congress stepped up to meat the continuing need which brings to us shelby county. the ruling of the supreme court had an enormous impact but leaves congress with plenty to do. the court said the formula congress used in 2006 to cover

some states and not others for preclearance purposes was not sufficiently tied to current conditions. it did not rule out a different formula. it did not rule out the ideas of preclearance at all. it did not rule out safeguards other than preclearance above and beyond the normal responsive litigation tool kit that exists today. it didn't say we fix the problem of discrimination in voting. it didn't change the truth that the 15th amendment empowers congress, not the court, to determine in the first instance what legislation is needed to enforce it. now it is up to congress again. polls show american people understand that this extraordinary right still needs more than just ordinary protection. whatever that may look like. in the last 50 years republicans and democrats in overwhelming bipartisan majorities including every member of this committee who was able to cast a congressional vote in 2006, has stepped up to offer on a

bipartisan basis that extra protection these rights demands. i'm delighted to over whatever assistance i can. thank you very much. >> thank you very much, professor levitt. we will begin the questioning with senator durbin. >> when i read the decision shelby county and noted the logic and argument used by the chief justice it seemed to suggest absent congress showing new evidence on a regular basis that we are dealing with some old problem in america that has virtually again away, that seems to be the majority argument in the case. i think back to the last election cycle, there was an organization known as the american legislative exchange council that was financed by major corporations and major political players that went state by state to change the electoral laws to restrict the right to vote. i visited two of those states. i was in the state of florida

and as i mentioned had electoral officials from both parties who couldn't point to a single instance of voter fraud that led to the changes. it clearly will some other design. many of these changes in state law were challenged under the voting rights act under section five. for example, voter i.d. as to whether it was discriminatory toward minority populations, disabled or elderly and the like. so, i would ask you if you are familiar with there background and believe it is evidence that voting rights act and its protection of that basic right to vote still is a vibrant and timely issue. >> thank you, senator. i am. i have had the opportunity to speak with you on your committee about exactly these issues that you have been highlighting. they are of concern and very much present. they exist not only at the statewide level but county level, city level, municipal level at all levels of

government there are profound challenges. the existing tools we have now help. but i do not believe they are in any way sufficient. i believe that election laws are special and demand more. >> i might ask for unanimous consent to enter an exhibit that demonstrates the financial supporters of the american legislative exchange council. many corporations once they learned the agenda of the council have withdrawn their membership and support but many continued and i would like to put this in the record. >> without objection. >> it is their right understood our constitutional, their right of speech, assembly, whatever they want to exercise to spends their money for this pursuant to change laws. it is legal and constitutional but i think everyone should see whether the companies they are doing business with are using

their profits to restrict the right to vote through the american legislative exchange council. mr. carvin, professor carvin, you talked about section two and the fact that it is there as the last bulwark of protection we should not be so distressed by the court's decision as it related to section four. your argument was considered by justice ginsberg in the shelby county decision and she noted on page 14 congress produced evidence that litigation under section two of the v.r.a. was an inadequate substitute for preclearance. in other words, we addressed that directly when we reauthorized the act. she gave two specific areas. litigation occurs under section two only after the fact when the illegal voting scheme has been put in place and individuals have been elected pursuant to

it. thereby gaining the advantages of incumbency. an illegal scheme might be in place several election cycles before section two plaintiffs can gather sufficient evidence to change it. she goes on to say litigation under section two place as heavy financial burden on minority voters. congress already also received evidence that preclearance lessened the litigation burden on covered jurisdictions because preclearance process is far less costly than defending against a section two claim. so your argument that section two is a good alternative seems to have been addressed by justice ginsberg. would you like to respond? >> sure. quit factual and accurate the assertion you wait in section two cases until elections have occurred to challenge it. your state is a good example of this. there's never been a congressional redistricting in illinois that was not adjudicated prior to the first election and some were struck down on section two grounds.

the texas case they entered interim remedial order a year in advance of the elections. section five and section two litigation on redistricted is indistinguishable. you bring in experts and -- >> it is dramatically different in my state because when we put in a redistrict and reapportion night map together we know it will be challenged. republicans an democrats do that for a living. it is not a situation of gathering plaintiffs and trying to get the money and evidence together. we are prepared for this. it is a regular ritual in my state and most others. >> it is not an under-lawyered operation. the notion that these plans are sneaking through justice ginsberg said you have to wait for four electoral cycles. >> that is a lot different than some remote rural jurisdiction that might be faced with the

same allegation of discrimination and have to bring together the lawyers, money and evidence to challenge it understood section two. >> your argument with respect is not you have to wait for elections, you have to find a lawyer. we can both agree that justice ginsberg was flat wrong in suggesting you have to wait for elections to go by. as your experience in illinois shows the lawyers get together right after the map is passed and run to court. that is not true. does it happen less frequently in rural counties? that may be true but that is the way we enforce every civil rights law from title seven to title eight. in all of them if you have a meritorious claim all the expenses are paid for by the other side under the fee shifting provision. we have political parties involved in redistricting. there is not a civil rights group -- we have a lot of lawyers -- >> professor levitt, i will close by allowing you a chance to respond. >> it is odd to hear mr. carvin which is pure theory.

i will say i have also been an election practitioner and i can tell you the facts on the ground look different. ask the voters of charleston county, south carolina, whether a case was brought where they got relief before the election and they will tell you no. the case was brought in 2001. plaintiff asked for preliminary relief. they were denied. elections happened. elections happened again. it was not until 2004 that the court was able to actually provide relief. the existing responsive litigation system we have is not only slow, it is expensive. i'm delighted mr. carvin will front money for civil lawsuits all over the countries. there are lawsuits i would love to bring now but i'm not independently wealthy and can't wait the four years to elect fees.

there are in my home jurisdiction places that desperately need section two lawsuits brought where they are not being brought, in part because the data is hard to get because the experts are hard to find and expensive to gather and particularly as you mentioned in the most rural jurisdictions there are not armies of last .aiting to sweep in. . you mentioned, there aren't armies of lawyer sweeping in. it would be wonderful if it were true. but there are lots of jurisdictions that need this extra protection. something other than the ability to file a responsive lawsuit after a law goes into effect. in order to fight it. >> senator. >> thank you very much, chairman. i think a lot of this, being a prosecutor for four years. in the state of minnesota, we are incredibly proud of our

state. we have the number one turn-out in the country. we have same-day registration and people enforcing the laws and finding that when something does go wrong we have an enforcement mechanism in place, which i think you all know is incredibly pofrnt important. i was able to go to congressman lewis just this last year, and something happened this year, which was incredible and that is that 48 years after the march across the bridge in selma, the white police chief in montgomery took his badge off and handed it to congressman lewis and apologized to lewis that the police had not protected them on that bridge that day. it made me think a lot about how progress can take a long time. and i think we know that. and that's the acknowledgement that's made and the need to reauj recognize this act and how incredibly important it is to do that. so i want to go to the practical questions with you, mr. levitt. i think we have seen new

barriers to voting. with some of the states, things like very strict voter id requirements. things like shortening time periods where people can register to vote or can vote early. can you talk about that and how hear and now, not just 50 years ago, we are starting to see major problems? >> so that's absolutely right. there are new threats to the ability for every eligible american to vote and have that vote counted and have it counted meaningfully in a way that leads to meaningful representation. there is a lot congress should do to remedy that. in particular addressing these new laws, new practices, and even the local versions there of, that discrimination on the basis of race and ethnicity is a special point of urgency for

congress. >> can you elaborate on that? >> sure. so some practices that have gotten the most attention aren't necessarily the ones causing the most damage based on race or ethnicity in local jurisdictions. changing lines for a county commissioner for justice of the peace election. changing the language access materials that are sent out in a particular election. moving an election date it a date as senator durbin mentioned, that you know will have less turnout and move that date as soon as the voting age population of african-americans hits 50% in a relevant jurisdiction. that is changing rules in response it a new perceived threat from minority citizens when really they are exercising their rights as americans. that is a particular problem. it is a reason there is constitutional amendments devoted entirely to the subject and it is particular important for congress to focus on issues

here and now in response to shelby county. >> ms. wineberg, i appreciate you coming because we want to focus on this bipartisan solution here. what do you think of what professor levitt just said and do you see things that can be helpful on the local level? >> thank you for that opportunity. i want it touch on that from an actual practical on the ground perspective of section 2 versus section 5 and what stays, what remains. absent section 5 what transpired in the state of florida last year with citizenship clerk would have continued. would have proceeded and we would have stood to lose over 100,000 votes. a large number of that having been from miami-dade county. section 2 alone is not sufficient. section 5 has no peer. section 2 alone is not sufficient. i can't stress that enough. it is an after the fact policy. it is cost prohibitive after the fact policy. and evidence exhaustive after the fact policy.

not to mention the fact that preclearance -- well, the section 2 cases, and i noted only two in my written testimony. but i can bore you with a whole lot of different cases, as i'm sure mr. levitt is very familiar with, that have failed. section 2 alone is not sufficient. if this hearing could end up with a slogan with my communications background, it would be that without preclearance, without section 5 and only section 2 is hunt saeg zon for discriminatory voting practices. >> okay, that's a good line. >> thank you. >> last thing i want to ask about is same-day registration. they don't have that in florida, i ne that. but a number of states have it. including states with republican governors. one of the goals here is to just make it easier for people to vote. five of the six top states for voting percentages have same-day

registration. iowa, new hampshire, states like maine. and i don't see this as a partisan issue. i see, how do we make it easier to vote. representative elson in the house and i along with senator hester have a bill for same day registration across the country. can you talk about how that could help, professor levitt. >> sure. and you are right, minnesota has been a leader in the means that it takes in order to make sure that eligible americans are able to participate. it is really -- it has leapt to a national leadership level. same day registration is one of the very important tools for this. this affects all-americans. not just those unregistered but those who have moved and we need to update registration. not just those who are unregistered bb those who find there is a problem, there is a typo and they can't be found on the records. not just those who are unregistered, but when they get

to the polls that for some reason something has gone wrong. election day registration provides a fail safe mechanism to make sure that those who are truly eligible can participate on the same terms as everyone else tp it is an immensely important safety net. and it is used, as you say, in states both republicanes a democratic administrators. republican and democratic voters have consistn'tly restored election day registration where there are threats to it in states that have had it. voters like it and it is obvious why. >> thank you. i would add to that and move on to colleagues, that bottom states with voter turnout, none of the 18 states with lowest voter turnout have same day registration. does that surprise you at all? >> it doesn't. it is a great safety net. and those who want to and are eligible to vote can do so securely. >> thank you. >> senator franken. >> thank you. thank you all.

i was disappointed in the supreme court decision in shelby county and particularly troubled by the suggest that the oral argument that congress passed the voting rights act only because it has a nice name. and not because of the mountains of evidence before congress or bodies long standing bipartisan commitment to the promise of the 15th amendment. voting rights act is one of the greatest and most consequential achievements of the civil rights movement as representative said. so for the democratic process tremendously and i believe that the law remains necessary today. the shelby county decision was a setback. justice ginsburg put it well in her descent when she wrote and

i'm quoting, throwing out preclearance when it is worked and continuing to work to stop discriminatory changes, is like throwing away your umbrella in a rainstorm because you are not getting wet. end quote. so i was disappointed with the decision. but i'm also optimistic that we can fix this because nobody really disputes that the voting rights act is still needed. writing for the majority in shelby and shelby county, justice roberts, credited the votie rights act with quote gret strides. voting still exist, no one doubts that, end quote. so it seems to me that question here isn't whether we need the voting rights act at all. the question is, what form should the law take.

i'm looking forward to working with all of my colleagues on the judiciary committee to address that question in months ahead. we have enacted an authorized voting rights act on a truly bipartisan basis. hopefully we can do it again in 2013. professor levitt, we have touched on this already. preclearance. but i just want to get your response to this quote. this is from the house judiciary committee report from the 1965 act regarding preclearance. the burden is too heavy? the damage to our national conscience is too great not to adopt measures that exist today. end quote. do you believe that statement is still true? >> i do. i think it was right then, and i

think although unquestionably matters have improved all over the country, i think there are still problems where that existing tools don't adequately address and for those problems the burden is still too heavy. for existing tools to do the work that they need to do to make sure that there is no discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity and the right to vote or have that meaningful participation counted anywhere in the country. justice should never be too expensive. justice should never be too slow. justice should never depend on an army to sweep in and help. and we are dependent on the ability to find help whenever we can. congress has in the past always recognized that that, for our most fundamental right is not enough. i take it that congress is here today, this committee is here

today in order to start the process of another bipartisan effort to restore the recognition that leading for help is not enough. >> that's exactly why we're here. >> professor, from a constitutional law standpoint, i think that one of the most important point made in justice ginsburg's -- is that gathering with respect to the standard of review under the 15th amendment, the court said that quote congress may use any rational means to effectuate the congressional prohibition of racial discrimination in voting end quote. in other word to end quote a statute enfacted under congress's 15th amendment powers, the court must find that statute is irrational. that seems like a really differential standard and i agree with justice ginsburg that

court didn't apply it in shelby county. what are your thoughts on this and in particular what standard of review should we expect the court to use when it analyzes potential amendments to the voting rights act? >> you're right. it is difficult to know what standard the court used in shelby county. only because it didn't tell us. the prevailing standard had been very deferential to congress and the court tossed out more or less with the back of its hand all of the oh congress had done. 15,000 pages of record. prevailing standard had been that a recognition that congress is the body empowered in the first instance to enforce the 15th amendment. and that the legislation they passed should be viewed rationally. and in rational basis would suffice and the court seemed not to apply that standard. seemed to depart from

catsenback. they didn't tell us what standard they were applying. what they did say was that any step that congress takes has to reflect current conditions and although i think the old standard met that test, they did not. i think that congress has the ability to compile a record of current conditions that would more than authorize steps to supplement the very important protections that exist today with more protections designed to ensure that there is no discrimination on the basis of race or ethnicity. i think congress has plenty of latitude to establish a record supporting whatever steps congress takes to provide the protection we still desperately need. >> thank you. and i'm sorry i went over time. but maybe we can get 16,000 pages, if we go a little longer this time. thank you, i yield. >> senator cruz.

>> thank you. i would like it thank all three witnesses for being here and testifying today. i want it ato ask a couple quess of mr. carvin. let me say at the outset, we have known each other a long, long time. my first job practicing a. >> a lawyer was for you in a very small firm. i commit two things. number one, tell no tales from those days. number two, hold you harmless for any mistakes i may make in this committee or elsewhere in the senate. i would like it ask your legal judgment on what is required in response to the shelby county decision and the supreme court in shelby county noted that congress had before in 2006 thousands of pages of record, as the last exchange just highlighted, and the court went on to say, regardless of how to look at the record, however, no one can fairly say that it shows anything approaching the

pervasive flagrant widespread and rampant discrimination that faced congress in 1965 and that clearly distinguish the covered jurisdictions from the rest of the nations at that time. the question i want to start off with is what record would congress need to create in order to come up with a new coverage formula that would be constitutional? >> i think that congress made two basic mistakes in 2006. and i don't know if they're remedial in terms of real imper cal evidence. the first is they gathered 15,000 pages of evidence against which jurisdictions are bad but didn't use any of that evidence to designate the jurisdictions that are covered by section 5. they relied on electoral information from 1968 and 1972. which would be a kin to the 1965 congress looking back at calvin coolidge election to figure out

who should be covered in 1965. so the first thing you need to do is look at what current information you have and get rid of the outdated formula. the second finding they never made, and this is the thrust of my basic commentary, is what part of section 5 clearing that section 2 is not a remedy for? i doubt seriously can you make that argument. the one argument made today that again is demonstratable untrue, is you know from private practice, this theory that section 2 litigation has it wait three or four electoral cycles before anyone brings a lawsuit when we know they are brought before the first election as your home state of texas vividly illustrates. in fact, professor levitt makes any point, how he talks about the challenge of an at large system. the county can't get at large system because it deals with voting changes. it had nothing to do with getting rid of the principal vote dilution tech nick deployed

in the deep south. this was a challenge for the city of charleston they could have brought at any time. they brought the case in january of '01 and didn't move for preliminary injunction until april of '02. they waited 15 months. they don't take advantage of it. what congress would have to do and what frankly i don't think they can show, is that there is such a difference between the jurisdictions that are being covered, that they need justice department oversight 24/7, and the districts that are not being overcome, there may be a handful of districts out there that need that kind of extra supplement for section two but congress hasn't come close to identifying what those would be particularly since the jurisdictions are actually doing better today in terms of minority vote participation than noncovered jurisdictions. >> thank you. let me ask a follow-up on that. you rightly noted that the section 2 of the voting rights act remains in full force.

and its protections are entirely in place. section 5, what i would like to ask is your practical experience. have you lit getted a number of voting rights cases, you have worked with, along side, and after the fact, elected officials dealing with section 5. and what i wanted to ask is while section 5 was in place, while the department of justice had the authority to preclear or not preclear the decisions of elected officials and states, to what extent did section 5 effectively require elected officials to make decisions based upon race? >> there was no question. it's been well documented in the 1990s that the justice department had what they quite candidly labelled a black max policy. which is you have to maximize the number of black and majority

districts regardless of traditional districting princip principals. which is why you have district in north carolina down i-95 and struck down as constitutional racial jerry manneders. which i hasten to add, i was involved with in the 90s and greatly aided the republican party. no bones about that. everything i'm telling you today is contrary to the republican parties partisan interest. in the latest round of redistricting, texas is another good example. they injected more politics into the discussion because they say the ability to elect standard enacted by congress in 2006 protects white democrats like lloyd doiget. so what section 5 has done is taken a guarantee of equal racial opportunities and converted it into a partisan

preference scheme. so one of the beneficial results of shelby county is that you will be a decreasing the amount of politically motivated racial jer j jerry manneders and where there is 90% minority population to 60% minority population which is clearly redistricting over the last 30 years. >> thank you, mr. carvin. >> senator blumenthal. >> thank you, mr. chairman. i want to sort of follow senator cruz's questions, which i think real really elicited something very telling about the supreme court's opinion, when i heard you describing what would be irreimmediate yabl. i was struck by the observation

of congress, which the chief justice gave for striking down the formula, and i'm quoting. congress did not use the record it compiled to shape a coverage formula grounded in current conditions. isn't that a legislative judgment? how to use a record, whether it is 15,000 pages or 30,000 pages. we are not talking about the absence after record. we are talking about the evidence from which congress could draw conclusion or perhaps draw conclusion as justice ginsburg said that maybe things have improved but one of the purposes of congress is to prevent only and i will quote, is guard against back sliding. my view is the court was

legislating in the most inappropriate and worst way. put aside whether you agree or disagree with the result, don't you agree, professionor carvin, i know you have thought a lot about this issue. >> i respectfully disagree for this reason. if they reweighted the evidence congress looked at, no, it shouldn't be this or that state, then no -- >> the chief justice said they didn't use the evidence. >> and that is -- >> how can he reach that conclusion? they had evidence. if you were to say about a jury coming out with a verdict, they had evidence. but they didn't use it. courts don't do that. they say there wasn't elements of the kroim so no jury could have concluded reasonably. >> you need to have reasonable ground for distinguishing between the states you're covering and states you're not. you can't pass a lot that saw

everybody east of the mississippi is a covered jurisdiction. and when the coverage formula was criticized does not reflect current realities, the answer is we locked at 15,000 pages of testimony. justice roberts, i think using purely legal analysis said, we will defer like crazy if you were relying on that evidence for the coverage at issue. but since you didn't rely on that, there is literally nothing to defer to -- >> and a judge to usurp a jury or congress and say you didn't rely on it without having so voidire, i will look at that efd,ef evidence, i don't see enough of it for the law and i don't see enough for your decision to we will strike it down. >> courts look at everyday. and you're arguing that similar

deference should be done here. let's assume the epa looked at co2 which it should have looked at h2o. it wouldn't do any good to say, we looked at co2 -- >> you could say the absence of h2o and the presence of co2 is what justifies this decision. i know we could go back and forth, i'm limit et in time. i want to ask the other two witnesses, beginning with professor levitt, if i may and perhaps will be limited to you, unless the chairman gives you additional time, how do we fix this formula? the court did not strike down the preclearance procedure. it simply struck down the formula, which may be, in fact,

irremediable, if we can't get a bipartisan decision together, which the court counted on congress failing to do, striking down only that part of the law and upholding the preclearance procedure. but really, the task ahead of this committee and the senate, is to try to arrive at a bipartisan substitute. >> and i think there are lots of paths ahead. part of why i'm so very excited this this committee is convening this hearing now in order to start down that path. i think -- and there are lots of different potential things that will help. the basic premise is the existing tools don't do the job. but there are lots of ways to modify the existing tools or return the tools that did exist and ways that will do the job or at least further the job. vigilance have to continue. some of that involves different ways to get information about where discrimination is actually occurring. sorts of things that you don't get with having to go out into the world to file a lawsuit but

you did get from the preclearance process. some of what i'm sure will be discussed are different ways to identify where there is the most risk. whether that's based on current violations. whether that's based on political polarization, you have to look at where the most risk currently is. other ways to make this available section 2 process less cumbersome, less burdensome, less expensive, it may be some combination of all of the above is what congress will need and other creative ideas that haven't even been put forth yet. in order to make sure that congress has stopped the procedure. i look forward to months ahead when there are lots of different ideas. most may be in combination, will be sufficient to the task.

>> thank you very much. i want to thank you, mr. chairman, and thank all of our witnesses for bringing to us the very important insights and intelligence that you have given. and i apologize, mr. carvin, for cutting you off there. >> no, no, no. >> i would welcome, i think other members of the committee would as well, any answers, more specific answers you may have to that question i asked about the formula. thank you. >> i'm interested in the question of deference as well. let's just stick with the senate side that i'm familiar with. here you have a bill that passed senate 98-0. you were dealing with congress at the height of its powers. under the steel yard cases.

you are dealing with a very, very extensive legislative record. we all concede the record was abundant. the supreme court made the decision that within the halls of congress, congress had not looked at that record in the right way. and that's a point that one could argue and debate. it strikes me that the people who actually get elected around here knew and demonstrated by their vote that this bill was necessary. including the senators from all of the state that were subject to the preclearance procedure. do you think it should not be

relevant to the court, even if you're looking at kind of an admission against interest theory, as long as you're trying to -- once the court starts second-guessing how congress makes decisions, it opens a whole arena of new areas. but you would think that one might be that you could follow kind of an admission against interest theory and say, look, if both senators from every state that are subject to this voted for this, they must know something about elections in their states. these are not stupid people. these are not familiar who are not familiar with the elective process in their state. and they have not suggested by their vote that this is necessary. why would that vote by those home state senators not be entitled to discussion or weight by the court. . >> i fully agree with you. it is up to congress to be the way of conflicting evidence. i don't think the court ever suggested that strong bipartisan

support effects the constitutional c constitution constitutional calculus. it wasn't because it was signed by president clinton and inferred -- >> that was different. >> was it? >> that was different. that was different because the challenge is more or less on the face of the law. here, you had a congressional record and the courts decision was that congress, in reviewing its record, didn't review it in the right way. they are actually not looking at the the statute, they are looking at the behavior of congress. if you lock at the behavior of congress, why not look at the behavior of congress from the actual state that actually conceded that the bill is necessary. >> fair enough. if they had second-guessed the efd that congress was looking at, they would have skoeded the judicial role.

but they knew what congress was looking at because they told them. that is whether or not you are a jurisdiction subject to the extraordinary preclearance requirement or not and no one, i don't think anyone pretended that the situation that existed in 1968 in mississippi was reflective of the situation that existed in all of the jurisdictions. so they defer to that judgment. they just thought that the judgment -- >> except that one could argue that senators from the state that are involved in election answers know more about elections in those states, than a supreme court judge who has never been elected to anything, particularly not in that state, does, they appear to agree. >> but i think we agreed psycho analyzing for a vote for doma or anything else is not how courts -- >> that's exactly what the court did in this case. they tried to sort of psycho analyze congress as a body and i think they failed dramatically. and the other point i would

make, i ask ms. wineberg to respond to, when we hear in congress hear about elections concerns, one we hear an enormous amount about is voter fraud. and we have had voter id laws and all sort of discussions about the problem of voter fraud. you're the one elected official on this panel. at my experience of voter fraud is that it is a problem that is so dimin muss, it has to be imaginary. it almost never comes up. it requires someone to not vote. then smp someone has to come in, pretend to be them, and there is harm in in the infessty mall. it is a such a tiny amount. here on the other hand you have people who shot up to vote. they want to.

and they are told, sorry, wrong day. because they changed the day. devices are used that actually prevent people who want to vote from having that opportunity. and when you weigh the two of them side by side, it strikes me that the level of concern relative to the rarity of somebody actually having their vote taken away by fraudulent person coming in an trying to be them, compared to the kind of wholesale discriminatory election practice, disenfranchise, hundreds of thousands of people, and the court didn't seem to be as concerned about that aspect of it. in your electoral experience, how would you balance the risk to the electoral process of voter fraud versus disenfranchisement through laws designed to manipulate and deter voting? >> i have trouble saying disenfranchisement too. i'm glad to see that you did

too. you're correct. and to echo earlier comment on voter fraud and how often that is we have experienced, this is earlier last year in florida with the citizens and all the voter i.d. issues, and i love to hear the fact that people recognize that there are those who love to come out to vote and don't get to. voter fraud is not as significant an issue as the larger picture, and here's the deal with the decision hasn't been passed. it's already a done deal. congress now has an incredible opportunity to review what the coverage formula should be. i've given you examples briefly in my testimony and many others in my written testimony about how we are personally on the ground at local elections dealing with our voters in our inner cities. i'm very scared as an elected official for my constituents and the millions of folks in florida

and the millions of residents in the united states, and i'll tell you why. the discriminatory practices of the 1960s when -- which gave birth to the voting right act have gotten what i call my three ss. they've gotten extremely sneaky, extremely sophisticated and extremely smarter. so it really behooves congress at this time to take all that into consideration, all the histories of not only my five counties in florida that are under preclearance coverage, the noncovered counties that have tried to change some election laws that are of question and i'm sure my state of florida is not alone with the other 49 ways to come up with these discriminatory practices. i think it's a great time for congress to revisit because we might not end up with what we had in the preclearance formula. i hope that there will be a whole lot of better legal protections for voters all

across the state and all across the country for those specific instances where people have been thinking about it. >> while senator grassly is settling in, let me ask one more question. senator cruz asked mr. carvan the question about what lessons congress should take from the court's discussion of the role of congress in all of this and how we should improve our record on a going forward basis. we have another scholar here who's interested and expert in this particular field of law. professor levitt, let me ask you to provide an answer to that same question. what lessons should we take from the shelby county decision and how when we go about this can we meet the test that the court has imposed upon us? >> the only real clarity that the court has offered is that what congress does has to be justified by current conditions.

i think there is ample evidence that was before congress, i think there's ample evidence that congress can now compile about current conditions requiring more than the tools that presently exist, that the fact that the existing responsive reactive expensive cumbersome tools are powerful but not good enough and that there is ample room for congress to legislate to respond to the fact that the existing tools, while powerful, are not good enough. to have pro active and far more nimble protections to make sure that the most discriminatory laws are stopped before they ever go into effect. i think that's what congress is going to have to focus on in the hearings to come, and there are many ways to achieve that, but that's the primary task that congress has before it now. and i'll add that this has always been a task that congress has embraced on a bipartisan

basis in the past, and i think there's great hope that congress will do so again in the future. every single reauthorization of the voting rights act came with a recognition that section 2 on its own is not enough and every single time substantial majorities of both republicans and democrats voted to confirm that, and i look forward to congress creating that record once again now. >> let me recognize our distinguished ranking member, senator grassly, but before he begins this question let me ask unanimous consent that testimony provided by a variety of groups be added to the record. without objection. >> the reason i wasn't here except for the first witness testifies is because i had to be over on the floor. i apologize. commissioner wineberg and professor levitt, other than the abstract concepts that the professor mentioned in his testimony, what specific ideas

do you have on how congress should fix the statute? i'll start with commissioner wineberg. >> specific ideas on how congress should fix the statute now, and fix it is a good word. actually, there's been a few different national organizations that have been having conversations in washington, dc, and here's what i think congress needs to consider very carefully which has just made my previous comments before you walked in, ranking member grassly, is the fact that these certain areas that, first of all, are covered counties but also the noncover counties there's been instances in situations in states and counties where there have been certain practices that have been attempted to be put in place. so congress needs to look at that overall picture on what those events have transpired. that would be my first recommendation. secondly, i wanted to take the opportunity actually to thank

the members of the committees on the recent work on comprehensive immigration reform because that ultimately, of course, leads to voters and voting rights acts. that's the only thing i can see that congress needs to do. we are happy with all of the other partnership organizations that we work with to work with congress bipartisanly not partisanly. >> professor levitt. >> thank you, ranking member grassly. i think there are a number of things that congress can and should look at, including some of those mentioned by commissioner swanberg, some of which i've spoken about, some of which are in my remarks. in addition to the big, shiny actions that mr. carbon has been focusing on that will, in fact, draw lawyers, i would urge the committee to consider very carefully how it may best prevent and remedy

discrimination in smaller jurisdictions where the ability to attract tall length of mr. carbon's level is not quite so great. some of what congress should consider will be informational, getting better information out on the impacts of new practices and what they may tell us about discrimination ongoing. some of what congress should consider may be about easing the costs and burdens of the very same responsive litigation that mr. carbon is mentioning. some of what congress should consider is i think focusing on in the jurisdictions where we have the most concern, stopping discrimination before it takes effect, and that, perhaps, the most important and the most directly targeted by the shelby county decision itself. i think all of those problem in some combination will be -- will be more adequate to fulfill congress's 15th amendment, both opportunity and obligation to

ensure that discrimination based on race and ethnicity is not found in america. sadly, we've made a lot of progress, but we're not there yet, and i don't think that the existing tools will help us get there adequately. i think that there's an awful lot that congress can do to further that goal. >> mr. carbon, a part of maximizing racial gerrymandering, are there other ways that the justice department has applied preclearance requirements that should inform our decision of whether or how we might legislate? >> yeah. i think the justice department has a very regrettable track record of not seeking to enforce nondiscrimination or equal opportunity but, as i mentioned, partisan preference. you referred to the partisan gerrymandering, which we've already discussed. as i say, the texas case, they've successfully took a very aggressive approach that would affect white democrats even in areas where no minority democrat

could be elected. ms. wineberg referenced the whole question of whether efforts to identify citizens is prohibited by section 5. i represented the state of florida which was using the federal database to identify people who would be committing a federal felony by voting, i.e.,, noncitizens but they are nonetheless on the voter roles and the justice department in my mind incredibly came in and said it would violate federal section 5 to deprive people of the ability to commit a felony by being a noncitizen that was voting. so in many ways it dilutes the voting power because every time you allow a fraudulent vote by a noncitizen or a person who's traveling under false i.d., you of course negate the votes of others. the case that i brought to challenge the constitution nalt is another example. majority black jurisdiction had made the decision that in local elections they wanted to switch

from partisan to nonpartisan elections. the justice department came in and said some reason that the black community in that area didn't know what was good for black voters and struck it down under section 5 on the theory, again, that it would hurt the election of democrats. so it's been a very -- a poor track record of distorting the equal opportunity mandate of section 5 into one of preferences, particularly preferences with a partisan result. >> professor, your testimony cites objections that the department of justice raised in the preclearance process from '82 to 2006. you also cited objections since 2000 which occurred at a lower rate and you did not cite any figures of objections since we last reauthorized the law. this year the supreme court ruled that the kinds of selective intrusions on state powers to section 5 represents can only be justified by current

conditions and must connect the coverage formula to a problem it targets so my question, in citing data from 1982, which is more than 30 years old and no specific post 2006 data, how does your testimony provide contemporary evidence of discrimination in particular jurisdiction that the supreme court has determined is necessary for a constitutional coverage formula? >> to be clear, senator grassly, the written testimony including the parts that you mentioned included objections after 2000 -- not merely limited to 2000-2006, but at any point after 2000. that is, within the last 13 years, this millennium, this century not in any way ancient history. i don't think that the current state of objections alone is the full state of the record, that there is still a significant problem that section 2 cannot alone address. that is, we've had 73 objections

since 2000. in addition to that, there have been changes that were submitted that were then withdrawn after the department of justice asked for more information. those are not always but often an indication that they were going to draw an objection. and so those requests as well add to the record. beyond that, and here we have a problem relying on section 5 alone, and that is that one of the largest impacts of the voting rights act has actually concerned changes deterred specifically because the preclearance regime exists. she mentioned it in her testimony before. the very fact that it was in place stopped us from jurisdictions from making changes they otherwise would have put in place. now despite that, i think you have ample signs that the existing problems in recent history, not ancient history, are not solvable by the tools that we have today, that there

are problems with the existing tools that congress will need to fix and that requires a record not only of objections since 2000 but also of discriminatory behaviors, some of which were in briefs submitted to the supreme court and in argument before the supreme court. we've seen some truly regrettable is not a sufficiently strong word but i don't think i'm allowed to use the strong words that i'd like to describe some behaviors not in ancient history but as recently as 2011 you had members of a state legislature referring to african-americans as aborigines. that's the environment we're in. that's the environment that still needs amply robust tools beyond the tools that currently exist to help combat the discrimination that inevitably result. i think there are lots of examples that i could give you. i'd be happy to supply further

examples, but i don't know that i have the time at the moment in counties and local jurisdictions all over the place that have practices that would not be cured by today's laws that we desperately need congress to supply us tools to combat. >> thank you. i've gone way beyond my time. >> thank you very much, mr. chairman. thank you. one thing we haven't focused on much is the wait time issue, the waiting in line of a 102-year-old woman who was at the state of the union who had waited for hours to vote. it's not just anecdotes. a recent study showed that in the 2012 election, 22% of african-americans, and 24% of hispanics had to wait more than 30 minutes or longer to vote but only 9% of white voters had to wait 30 minutes or longer. i'll start with you, comm commissioner, what do you see as

the cause of disparity and what can be done to remedy it? >> thank you. for us personally in miami dade county, i'm not smiling because it's funny, i'm smiling because it's incredibly embarrassing. half hour is a gross understatement. i personally waited over two hours. had it not been for my firm commitment to continue to vote every election, i probably would have walked away as many did, i should note. at least for my -- >> i assume you would have still won? >> huh? >> all right. >> as for us specifically in miami dade county, i can tell you there were several factors. the statistics that you quote are true and unfortunate and i'll tell you why they are. these districts that are predominantly minorities, that are predominantly african-american and latino communities are either not properly staffed. many of them, we had to deal with our early voting hours execution last year in miami dade county and an extremely

long ballot on issues that had been held off that could have been voted on earlier. so you put together an extremely long ballot, improperly staffed, improperly trained personnel to assist those language proficient needs of those communities, then you've got yourself a formula for hours and hours of wait. >> and so if someone, say, has an hour long lunch break and they show up and see that line, they can be likely to -- >> extremely awful. i'll tell you why. these are communities that work early morning jobs. an hour lunch is very generous. most of these communities have half hour lunches if you're lucky. if you have a half hour lunch and you have to wait in line, are you going back to work so you make sure you have a full paycheck to feed your family? >> professor, thank you.

professor levity, is this the kind of information you're talking about? >> yes. i completely agree. it's actually the 30-minute average is only an average and the tail of that swing goes way, way, way, way up. 8 hours in 2004, seven hours in 2012. that's a system that does not accommodate its own citizens choosing their own representative and that system is a system that's broken. in some ways lines are like fevers. they're caused by a lot of different factors and the factors vary from place to place. she's absolutely right that those were the factors that were primarily at issue in florida. i'll add to that, a reduction in the opportunities to vote early in florida contributed to the damage. i know that's something that members of this committee have investigated before. these are not unsolvable problems so starbucks has figured out how not to make you wait in line seven hours. it may be a long wait, but it's

not seven hours. that's because they paid a lot of attention. i'm going to speak on saturday to the national association of state election directors about exactly this issue. they paid a lot of attention to what's known in the academic literature as cuing theory. how many people are arriving, how many points of service you have to serve all of them and how long each one takes and all of those are things that laws or practices can help alleviate the burdens of citizens waiting online to cast their ballot. if i had one silver bullet to try to get at much of this problem, it would be a massive reform to the registration system that we have. registration problems are at the root of a lot of this fever and you find it in various ways, whether it's people arriving at the wrong place, people not finding themselves on the rolls when they arrive, whether it's staffs dealing with registration problems on the ground and don't know how to combat it.

whether you have problems over provisional ballots. a lot of things that lead to lines have their root in the registration system. there are other problems besides and lots of things that can be done, but if i had one change that i could make in order to relief some of that fever, it would be changes to the registration system. >> we've already talked about the same-day registration happens in other states. >> just to make the point that long lines are bad but they don't have anything to do with racial discrimination or section 5. dade county, for example, where all those long lines were is not a coverage jurisdiction. the absence of presentation of section 5 -- >> but as we look at potentially the reauthorization, we're looking at new problems that have been created over the years or gotten worse over the years, this is certainly something we could look at. we don't just have to be stuck in the old wads which clearly there are many of us that like to see the preclearance and do some more work with that, but we also could look at other things

that we could do and it seems like these long lines are something that mitt romney and barack obama's downed together to form commissions to look at what we can do and we could incorporate that work into this. >> fair enough. i would suggest that you may want to look at romney and obama counsel's decisions because it's much less of a civil rights issue than a voting administration issue. i note, for example, that the lines were longest in the areas run by predominantly minority cities. to turn this into a minority issue is sort of backwards. >> i was looking at how we can get more people to vote. you can call it whatever you want, but i think when people are waiting in these lines we have problems. so we're trying to come up with practical solutions after the court decisions to solve some of these problems. >> fair enough, and i certainly didn't mean to disagree. the topic of this hearing is section 5 and the damage done by shelby county. congress should always be looking at long lines, whether

it has anything to do with shelby county or section 5. i just wanted to make the point that any such good government regulation of that sort would have nothing to do with any problem caused by shelby county or resurrecting section 5. >> just the last thing i wanted to focus on is i think both professor levitt i'd like to know why you think section 2 isn't enough and why we need to look deeper into that? one of the main things i see as an issue here is deterrence. that is if people think it's going to take four years to litigate a case or hundreds of thousands of dollars to hire a law firm, that's not really deterrence. could you talk a little bit about that, professor? >> sure. and you're right, there are jurisdictions, as i mentioned before, that have discriminatory laws in place right now that are not being challenged under section 2 because the people in

those jurisdictions can't get the data sufficiently, can't get the money together to hire a lawyer sufficiently, don't have the resources or the time to do what's necessary. there are other jurisdictions that are locked in current litigation that have not seen a resolution to their problems as time passes and as the individuals elected under those unjust systems continue to make policy. mr. carbon talked before about the opportunity for swarms of lawyers to descend to get preliminary injukttive relief. i wish it were as simple, straightforward and easy as he describes. sometimes it works. that's great. sometimes it does not and in part that's because the supreme court has told courts in 2006, don't jump to conclusions. we don't want you offering preliminary relief, particularly right before an election if the facts are still disputed. and often in these cases, as you can imagine, the facts are quite

disputed, which is why preliminary relief like mr. carbon's talking about isn't actually offered that often. i believe at the supreme court solicitor general borelli mentioned that fewer than 1/4 of cases end up in a preliminary injunction. i believe other attorneys at the department of justice have said that figure is closer to 5% or less. all of that means that when discriminatory laws are passed, jurisdictions aren't deterred from passing those laws by the potential prospect maybe of a cumbersome/burdensome lawsuit that they're not paying for coming down the line. >> got t. commissioner just as a republican, local elected official, you can see we have strong support here from republican congressmen since we're moving forward. you want to move forward on reauthorizing this. how do you think we should build this given the push back. what arguments do you think are

going to work with our republican colleagues to move forward? >> i think the focus is to remain on the fact that this is an american issue. i think the moment we start cutting it down into the prevalent fact that in some areas in a lot of parts of this country it is a racial issue unfortunately, but we need to keep in mind that it is an all-american issue. i think if you reach out to the members of my party from that perspective and in an ideal world that should be sufficient. looking at a lot of the overall picture of why are we doing this, not for whom are we doing this. >> very well put. thank you. >> the note of an ideal world being a good one to end this particular hearing on, perhaps even an ironic note, we will adjourn the record of the hearing will stay open for one additional week. if anybody wishes to add any material.