Hearing of the House Judiciary Committee - Oversight Hearing on the Employment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice

Interview

Oversight Hearing on the Employment Section of the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.

REP. DARRELL ISSA (R-CA): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I'll be brief.

I want to associate myself with the ranking member, particularly on the issue of the most basic of all the enforcements that we need done by our government, and that is support of the First Amendment, where Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In fact, we often hear the First Amendment talked about in terms of freedom of the press and not, in fact, freedom of people to practice their religions and to be free from employment discrimination for practicing those religions.

So as we go through this process, I'd like to, one, associate myself with the ranking member, and two, distance myself from the chairman of the subcommittee, who clearly has an agenda at a time in which the full committee chairman says we're not doing enough about Latinos and African-Americans, meaning we're not doing enough about those groups that may be discriminated based on race, who wants to add sexual persuasion, orientation and the like, those which are by no means spoken of in the Constitution or by current law.

So I would encourage this committee to focus on ensuring that those which there is uniform agreement on must be enforced -- race, religion, national origin -- be strictly enforced. And until we can get to where this committee, in a bipartisan basis, believes a good job is being done, we should not tread onto territory that is, by definition, filled with new opportunities to fail in enforcement.

And I thank the chairman for yielding the time, and I yield back.

REP. ISSA: Mr. Chairman?

I'm sorry. I came back for just this opportunity.

REP. NADLER: The gentleman is recognized for five minutes.

REP. ISSA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'll be brief.

I do find it interesting that the gentleman on the other side of the aisle who wanted, in fact, everyone in your department to have less than two years' -- roughly two years' experience because they would have had the entire administration change all of you out two years ago. So I don't think there's any question that the continuity --

REP. WATT: Will the gentleman yield on that point?

REP. ISSA: Why, sure. What the heck? I've got all the time --

REP. WATT: How many of these people are political appointees versus career people?

MR. AGARWAL: Two political appointees.

REP. WATT: You see, we're -- this -- we're talking about -- we're talking about --

REP. ISSA: Thank you, and reclaiming --

REP. WATT: We're talking about drawing down the number of career --

REP. ISSA: And reclaiming my time --

REP. WATT: -- career lawyers, not political --

REP. NADLER: The --

REP. ISSA: Thank you, and --

REP. NADLER: (Gavel sound.) The gentleman from California controls the time.

REP. ISSA: Thank you.

Reclaiming my time -- you know, I recognize that opportunities exist for attorneys for a lot higher money outside of what we pay in government. If -- in fairness to the record, I think if we were asked to have people behind us raise their hands and say how long we were able to hold the best and the brightest attorneys, what a surprise -- it's very difficult to hold them for a long time because, in fact, every one of them's making a financial sacrifice by working for the federal government rather than private practice every day.

I do have one area that -- even though I talked about not expanding what we do, but rather doing well what your charter is, I do have one question for you which has to do with non-military private sector discrimination. As I understand it, you currently -- that's the one area that you -- you're limited. That falls to the states that you can investigate public employees, but you're limited as to private companies' discrimination.

MR. AGARWAL: The EEOC has jurisdiction over private employers under Title VII.

REP. ISSA: Right.

And the question I have for you is when we're looking at the most efficient way to broaden the amount of investigations, the quality of them and so on, do you think the present makeup is correct, knowing that the EEOC essentially is an organization that historically gives people the right to sue but does very few actual enforcements?

MR. AGARWAL: That's a very good question, Congressman. With respect, I actually haven't given that much thought. We have a very good working relationship with the EEOC, but I think that's something that we would have to -- that's the best allocation. I think that's something we'd have to take back and really think about.

REP. ISSA: Okay.

And I would appreciate it -- and I'd appreciate, if you don't mind, responding both to this committee and with the indulgence of the chairman to the Government Reform Committee -- Government Reform and Oversight -- because that is a critical question I think that is at the heart of today's hearing. I appreciate your telling us what you have accomplished while the majority is telling us what may not have been accomplished to their satisfaction. But we do have an obligation, both on this committee and next door on the Government Oversight and Reform, to look for efficiencies. What are the organizations and the utilization of personnel that are going to give us the highest enforcement of that which we have agreed on a bipartisan basis with the signature of at least one president at some time to do? And I would appreciate to the extent that you can -- and take it back and try to get us full writings.

And with that, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the indulgence and yield back the remaining time.

REP. NADLER: I thank you, and I thank the witness. You're excused.

Source