[Senate Hearing 107-496]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 107-496
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 24, 2001
__________
Serial No. J-107-32
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
77-881 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2002
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpr.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware STROM THURMOND, South Carolina
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
MARIA CANTWELL, Washington SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
Bruce A. Cohen, Majority Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Sharon Prost, Minority Chief Counsel
Makan Delrahim, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Wisconsin...................................................... 1
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 8
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 4
Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama.... 9
PRESENTERS
Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska
presenting William Jay Riley, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court
Judge for the Eighth Circuit................................... 3
Lugar, Hon. Richard G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana
presenting Deborah J. Daniels, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs..................... 1
Nelson, Hon. Ben, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska
presenting William Jay Riley, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court
Judge for the Eighth Circuit................................... 6
Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Pennsylvania presenting Sarah V. Hart, Nominee to be Director
of the National Institute of Justice........................... 5
STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES
Daniels, Deborah J., of Indiana, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice..... 45
Questionnaire................................................ 46
Hart, Sarah V., of Pennsylvania, Nominee to be Director of the
National Institute of Justice.................................. 98
Questionnaire................................................ 100
Riley, William Jay, of Nebraska, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Court
Judge for the Eighth Circuit................................... 9
Questionnaire................................................ 11
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Bayh, Hon. Evan, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana,
statement in support of Deborah J. Daniels, Nominee to be
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Justice Programs,
Department of Justice.......................................... 150
Daniels, Deborah J., Attorney, Krieg, Devault, Alexander &
Capehart, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, letter........................ 151
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
TUESDAY, JULY 24, 2001
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, D.C.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:02 p.m., in
Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Russell
Feingold, presiding.
Present: Senators Feingold, Leahy, Hatch, Specter, and
Sessions.
STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF WISCONSIN
Senator Feingold. The hearing will come to order, and I
would like to welcome everyone to this Senate Judiciary
Committee nominations hearing.
Today we will hear from one of President Bush's nominees to
the United States Court of Appeals, William Jay Riley, of
Nebraska, and from two nominees for important positions at the
Department of Justice: Deborah J. Daniels, of Indiana, to be
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs;
and Sarah V. Hart, of Pennsylvania, to be Director of the
National Institute of Justice.
I would like to congratulate all of you on your
nominations, and it is an honor to have you here today.
Before we begin the hearing, the confirmation of Mr. Riley,
I would like to first recognize Senator Lugar, who is here to
speak on behalf of one of the nominees, I assume Deborah
Daniels. Is that correct? Senator, you may begin.
PRESENTATION OF DEBORAH J. DANIELS, OF INDIANA, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS
BY HON. RICHARD G. LUGAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
INDIANA
Senator Lugar. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a
pleasure and honor to introduce Deborah Daniels to the
Judiciary Committee as an outstanding nominee to be Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs.
I was privileged to have Debbie as a talented colleague in
my office nearly 30 years ago when I was mayor of Indianapolis.
Throughout her career, she has demonstrated an extraordinary
commitment to public and community service, and she has
achieved great success in each of her endeavors.
Debbie is well prepared to lead the Office of Justice
Programs. From 1988 until 1993, she served as United States
Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana.
She served as Vice Chair of the Attorney General's Advisory
Committee of the United States Attorneys. In recognition of her
aptitude in organizing efforts with state and local law
enforcement, she earned the Attorney General's Award for
Excellence in Law Enforcement Coordination.
While serving as U.S. Attorney, Debbie was called upon to
become the first Director of the Executive Office for Weed and
Seed within the Deputy Attorney General's office. As you all
know, the Weed and Seed program is an integral component of the
Office of Justice Programs. Under her guidance, the Weed and
Seed program was enormously successful in reducing violent
crime and drug activity in high-crime neighborhoods and in
helping revitalize those neighborhoods.
As Director of the Executive Office, Debbie became
accomplished in working with the Justice Department's Programs
sub-agencies and several Cabinet agencies. For these efforts,
she received the Attorney General's Award for Excellence in
Management.
Back in Indiana, Debbie implemented the Weed and Seed
effort in Indianapolis, and the program remains a model of
success today.
Her experience as U.S. Attorney and with Weed and Seed led
her to the position of Executive Director of the Greater
Indianapolis Progress Committee. This coalition of corporate
and not-for-profit leaders worked with the public sector to
advance neighborhood and regional economic development and to
enhance public safety. As Executive Director, she helped
coordinate Coburn Place, which provides transitional housing
for victims of violence and their children.
In addition to her public service record, Debbie's
community activities exemplify her commitment to justice. She
has led efforts to provide pro bono legal services to
neighborhood and community-based organizations and to residents
of central-city neighborhoods in Indianapolis. She has worked
as an advocate for those with mental illnesses and
developmental disabilities and has helped lead the Children's
Bureau of Indianapolis as it provides services to children and
their families.
Debbie has worked diligently and successfully in each of
her positions. I am confident she will continue her exemplary
service as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for this opportunity to
introduce an outstanding candidate, Deborah Daniels, to the
committee.
Senator Feingold. I thank you, Senator Lugar, very much for
that very strong endorsement. It is good to have you here.
[The prepared statement of Senator Lugar follows:]
Statement of Hon. Richard G. Lugar, a U.S. Senator from the State of
Indiana on the Nominee of Deborah J. Daniels to the U.S. Department of
Justice
I am pleased to introduce Deborah Daniels to the Judiciary
Committee as an outstanding nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
for the Office of Justice Programs.
I was privileged to have Debbie as a talented colleague in my
office nearly 30 years ago when I was Mayor of Indianapolis. Throughout
her career she has demonstrated an extraordinary commitment to public
and community service. She has achieved great success in each of her
endeavors.
Debbie is well prepared to lead the Office of Justice Programs.
From 1988 until 1993, she served as United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Indiana.
Debbie served as vice chair of the Attorney General's Advisory
Committee of United States Attorneys. In recognition of her aptitude in
organizing efforts with state and local law enforcement, she earned the
Attorney General's Award for Excellence in Law Enforcement
Coordination.
While serving as U.S. Attorney, Debbie was called upon to become
the first Director of the Executive Office for Weed and Seed within the
Deputy Attorney General's office. As you all know, the Weed and Seed
program is an integral component of the Office of Justice Programs.
Under her guidance, the Weed and Seed program was enormously successful
in reducing violent crime and drug activity in high crime neighborhoods
and in helping revitalize those neighborhoods.
As Director of the Executive Office, Debbie became accomplished in
working with the Justice Department's Programs sub-agencies and several
Cabinet agencies. For these efforts, Debbie received the Attorney
General's Award for Excellence in Management.
Back in Indiana, Debbie implemented the Weed and Seed effort in
Indianapolis, and the program remains a model of success today.
Debbie's experience as U.S. Attorney and with Weed and Seed led her
to the position of Executive Director of the Greater Indianapolis
Progress Committee. This coalition of corporate and not-for-profit
leaders worked with the public sector to advance neighborhood and
regional economic development and to enhance public safety. As
Executive Director, she helped create Coburn Place, which provides
transitional housing for victims of violence and their children.
In addition to her public service record, Debbie's community
activities exemplify her commitment to justice. She has led efforts to
provide pro bono legal services to neighborhood and community-based
organizations and to residents of central-city neighborhoods in
Indianapolis. She has worked as an advocate for those with mental
illnesses and developmental disabilities, and she has helped lead the
Children's Bureau of Indianapolis as it provides services to children
and their families.
Debbie has worked diligently and successfully in each of her
positions, and I am confident that she will continue her exemplary
service as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for this opportunity to introduce Deborah
Daniels to the Committee on the Judiciary.
Senator Feingold. Now we will turn to our two distinguished
Senators from Nebraska, who will be speaking on behalf of Mr.
Riley. First, I would like to recognize Senator Chuck Hagel.
PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM JAY RILEY, OF NEBRASKA, NOMINEE TO BE
U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHT CIRCUIT BY HON. CHUCK
HAGEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I appreciate the
committee's attention in scheduling this hearing on the
nomination of William Jay Riley to the Eighth U.S. Circuit
Court of Appeals.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend Bill Riley without reservation.
If approved by this committee and confirmed by the United
States Senate, I know that he will be an excellent addition to
the Eighth Circuit and will serve with distinction. He will
bring to the bench the knowledge, experience, and temperament
he has acquired throughout his distinguished career.
Bill Riley received his undergraduate degree from the
University of Nebraska in 1969 and graduated with distinction
in 1972 from the University of Nebraska College of Law.
Interestingly enough, Mr. Chairman, Bill began his career by
clerking for an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals judge, the
Honorable Donald P. Lay. Who would have guessed that a few
years ago--30, to be exact--that 30 years later Bill would be
nominated to serve that same court, only this time as a judge
on the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Since 1973, Bill has practiced law with the firm of
Fitzgerald, Schorr, Barmettler & Brennan of Omaha, where he is
now chairman of the firm's litigation department. Bill has had
a varied trial practice including business litigation, Federal
securities law, U.S. copyright, trademark, and patent suits,
ERISA claims, corporate environmental pollution claims, and
various contract disputes.
I will add for the record, Mr. Chairman, an additional
amount of his background and qualifications and experience. In
addition to his active trial practice, Bill also teaches trial
practice as an adjunct professor at Creighton University School
of Law. He is married to Norma J. Riley, who I will ask Mr.
Riley in a moment to introduce his family, who is here with us.
They have three children: Brian, who also is with us, Kevin,
and Erin. And, in particular, I would like to recognize Bill's
mother, Marian Riley. We never overlook mothers, do we, Mr.
Chairman?
So, with that, with the permission of the committee, Mr.
Chairman, I would ask Mr. Riley to ask his family to stand and
say hello.
Mr. Riley. Mr. Chairman, this is my wife, Norma; my son,
Brian; my mother, Marian; also two very good friends from
Omaha, Chuck Kluver and Mary Kluver.
Senator Feingold. We welcome all of you, and you look proud
and you should be proud. Thank you very much for being here.
Senator Hagel. I would like to make an additional note, Mr.
Chairman, about Norma Riley. Norma is highly successful in her
own regard, where she has been involved in the Omaha community
over many years. She is currently executive director of the
Omaha Public Library Foundation. She has also been on the board
of trustees for the Omaha Community Playhouse, executive
committee at the Omaha Symphony Guild, and many, many other
good causes.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, Bill Riley is
fully prepared for the challenges that lay ahead for the Eighth
Circuit. He possesses the integrity, the experience, the
intellect, and temperament to be an exceptional Federal judge.
If confirmed, Bill will be replacing retired senior Judge C.
Arlen Beam. Judge Beam's dedication to the rule of law and
faithfulness to the bench is an inspiration to all of us, and
Judge Beam will be missed. We thank him for his distinguished
service to our judicial system.
Mr. Chairman, I recommend William Jay Riley without
reservation to this committee. If given the opportunity, I know
he will excel with this high responsibility as he has done with
every responsibility he has accepted in his life.
Thank you.
Senator Feingold. Thank you very much, Senator Hagel.
I note the arrival of the chairman of the full committee,
Senator Leahy.
Senator Leahy?
STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF VERMONT
Chairman Leahy. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. One, I want to
thank you for juggling everybody's time to be able to hold this
hearing, and I would just say to Mr. Riley, when you have
Senator Hagel and Senator Nelson on your side, you are already
a long way towards being home. And if for no other reason, I
can then stop them from bugging me on the floor.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. But Senator Hagel and Senator Nelson are
two very good friends, and they have spoken so well of you that
I wanted to get this as another one of the ones on the calendar
before we recess.
I would say to Deborah Daniels, you couldn't have a better
mentor or better recommendation than from Dick Lugar. Senator
Lugar is well respected on both sides of the aisle. He is a
senior member of the U.S. Senate, and, again, his
recommendation carries enormous weight.
So that is all I had to say. You can tell, Mr. Chairman,
they are moving me out of the undecided category.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Leahy. I would also say that with Senator Specter
as one of the people speaking on her behalf that that certainly
doesn't hurt either.
What I was saying, Arlen, is that with you, Dick Lugar,
Chuck Hagel, and Ben Nelson being those recommending a couple
of the different nominees here, it is easy to move me out of
the undecided category.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Now I will turn to Senator Specter, a distinguished member
of this committee, and also, I suspect, somebody who wants to
speak on behalf of Sarah Hart. Senator Specter?
PRESENTATION OF SARAH V. HART, OF PENNSYLVANIA, NOMINEE TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE BY HON. ARLEN
SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is
my pleasure to introduce a very distinguished Pennsylvanian,
Sarah Vandenbraak Hart, who has been nominated for the position
of Director of the National Institute of Justice. Ms. Hart
graduated with a bachelor of science degree in criminal justice
from the University of Delaware and her J.D. degree from
Rutgers-Camden and has had really quite a remarkable career.
She served for 7 years in the Philadelphia District Attorney's
office as an assistant DA, and that is a job I once held.
People have asked me what my favorite job has been, and it is
assistant DA, not DA or Senator, if I may be pardoned in this
august chamber.
She handled some very important litigation involving the
oversight of the Philadelphia prisons, one of the landmark
cases, and more recently, she has been chief counsel for the
Pennsylvania Department of Corrections since 1995. Her detailed
curriculum vitae will be made a part of the record officially,
and I think one of the most remarkable things about Ms. Hart is
that while she has pursued this very, very impressive
professional career, she has raised four children, the oldest
of whom is 12 and the youngest is--5?
Ms. Hart. It seems like only yesterday, 12 to 22.
Senator Specter. Twelve to 22. Well, as you can see, I
judge more by appearance than by resume.
[Laughter.]
Senator Specter. Ms. Hart has her family with her today. I
know her husband is here. Would you introduce them to the
committee, please?
Ms. Hart. With your permission and with the permission of
the Chair, thank you. This is my husband of 17 years, Henry
Hart, who also served as a prosecutor in Philadelphia's DA's
office; our oldest daughter, Jackie Vandenbraak; my youngest
daughter, Tessa Hart; my son, Richard Hart, who is 16; my son,
Alexander Hart, who is 14; and also here with me today are my
parents, Gerald and Margaret Baseden. And I am delighted for
this, and thank you.
Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Ms. Hart.
Senator Feingold. We welcome all of you and thank you all
for being here today.
Senator Specter. Mr. Chairman, just one other comment. Ms.
Hart told me that her husband worked while I was DA as a clerk
in the office, and that gives me an opportunity at this time to
ask him whatever happened to that last memorandum you were
supposed to do?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Hart. It is in the mail, Senator.
Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for
taking me at this time.
Senator Feingold. Senator Specter is very thorough, as we
all know.
I want to thank Senator Nelson for his patience. I now turn
to the junior Senator from Nebraska, and then we will turn to
the Senators who arrived on the panel as well after that.
Senator Nelson?
PRESENTATION OF WILLIAM JAY RILEY, OF NEBRASKA, NOMINEE TO BE
U.S. CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT BY HON. BEN
NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. It is a real pleasure for me to be here with my
colleague from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, in a very strong
bipartisan way to appear before this committee in support of
the nomination of William Jay Riley to the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals.
I also want to thank the committee for acting on this
nomination quickly. I certainly believe that Mr. Riley
exemplifies the kind of nominee that we would like to see put
forth for these very important judgeships. He is not only a
highly qualified person for this position, but he has earned
broad bipartisan support and respect in Nebraska as well. And I
believe he will be an excellent judge, and it is my pleasure to
be able to support his nomination.
I have known Bill Riley since our law school days at the
University of Nebraska College of Law. Even then, early in his
career, he displayed the intellect and the leadership qualities
that he has carried with him throughout his professional life.
During law school, he served as editor-in-chief of the
Nebraska Law Review and graduated with distinction in 1972.
Senator Hagel has also pointed out the irony of his first job
being in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals as a clerk. Since
then, he has established himself as a respected trial lawyer
specializing in civil litigation. He began practicing at a
prestigious law firm in Nebraska where he now serves as Chair
of the litigation department.
Mr. Riley is a member of the Nebraska and Omaha Bar
Associations. He is a fellow of the Nebraska State Bar
Foundation, and he has served as Chair of the Federal Practice
Committee for the U.S. District Court in Nebraska.
In addition to serving on these professional organizations,
he has also been chosen by his peers as a leader in the legal
community. He has served in a variety of capacities on the
American Board of Trial Advocates, whose membership is
determined on a peer-selection process based on participation
in civil jury trials and upon reputation as an advocate. He was
also selected in 1992 to be a fellow on the American College of
Trial Lawyers. Selection for the college is made by State and
national trial lawyers and is limited to 1 percent of the
lawyers in the State who are deemed to be outstanding in their
profession and who have high ethical and moral standards and
excellent character.
He has been listed for several years in ``Who's Who in
American Law'' as well as in ``Best Lawyers in America'' and
has received an AV rating from Martindale-Hubbell, which is the
highest rating a lawyer can receive.
In addition to these professional accomplishments, he has
taken time to pass on his experience and legal expertise to
aspiring young lawyers. For the past 10 years, he has served as
an adjunct professor at Creighton University College of Law in
Omaha teaching trial practice. He is a master and charter
member of the Robert M. Spires Inns of Court, which is a
program involving judges and experienced lawyers who mentor
young trial lawyers and students.
As State Chair of the American College of Trial Lawyers, he
established the first Nebraska State mock trial competition
between Nebraska's two law schools--the University of Nebraska
College of Law and Creighton Law School. In addition, he has
coached students and judged high school mock trial
competitions. It is clear that his dedication to the education
of young lawyers shows the extent of his commitment to
fostering excellence and respect for the legal profession.
In addition to his professional accomplishments, he has
been actively involved in the community. He has participated
for more than 25 years in the Boy Scouts of America, including
serving as a Scout Master for 10 years. He has served as a
juvenile diversion leader for young boys and girls who have
been charged with non-felony crimes, and he has offered legal
services at reduced rates or free of charge to financially
disadvantaged members of the community.
Not only does Bill Riley possess the legal intellect,
experience, and expertise to be an excellent judge, he has also
displayed throughout his career the highest of ethical
standards to which our judges must be held. His qualifications,
his reputation, and the bipartisan support that his nomination
has generated make him an ideal candidate for the Eighth
Circuit judgeship.
I hope the committee will continue to act expeditiously on
this nomination. I have a great deal of respect for Bill Riley,
and I am honored to be here to speak on his behalf today.
I should also point out that Norma Riley is in an
investment club with my wife, Diane, not one of their most
successful ventures, but we enjoy a good personal relationship.
And from my own personal knowledge and my own personal
experience, over 30 years-plus, I can tell you that Bill Riley
is the kind of judge we want to have in America.
Thank you very much.
Senator Feingold. Let me thank both the Senators from
Nebraska for their strong statements on behalf of the nominee
and for their attendance.
Senator Feingold. Now I would like to turn to our
distinguished ranking member, Senator Hatch.
STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF UTAH
Senator Hatch. Well, I would like to thank both Senators
from Nebraska for the excellent statements that they have made,
and, Mr. Riley, you are very fortunate to have both of them
supporting you as strongly as they have, and I have no doubt
you deserve everything they have said about you. So I
appreciate you both.
It is both an honor and a pleasure to be here this
afternoon with three extremely well-qualified nominees, and I
would like to congratulate all three of you for being selected
by President Bush to serve in these three important positions.
All of you have distinguished yourselves with hard work and
great intellect, and I think you will do a great service to the
citizens of our country and will do a great service upon
confirmation.
As has been stated, our sole judicial nominee today is
William Jay Riley, who has been nominated for the Eighth
Circuit Court of Appeals. Mr. Riley graduated in 1972 from
Nebraska Law School where he was editor-in-chief of the
Nebraska Law Review and was Order of the Coif, very high honors
for any law school. And after graduation, he served as a law
clerk for the court to which he has now been nominated before
entering private practice. Mr. Riley has been an active member
of the legal profession and with his outstanding legal
credentials, he will be a fine addition to the Eighth Circuit
Court of Appeals, and we are very proud to support your
nomination.
Turning to our Department of Justice nominees, Deborah J.
Daniels is President Bush's nominee to be the Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs. The Office
of Justice Programs is in charge of developing the Nation's
capacity to prevent crime, improving the criminal and juvenile
justice systems, increasing knowledge about crime, and, of
course, assisting crime victims. Ms. Daniels will be a superb
leader of OJP. She graduated with honors from Indiana
University School of Law and has served as the U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of Indiana. In 1992, she became the
first executive director of the Executive Office for Weed and
Seed, which is part of OJP.
Our final nominee, Sarah Hart, is a similarly outstanding
choice to serve as Director of the National Institute of
Justice. The NIJ is the research and development agency of the
U.S. Department of Justice, and it is dedicated to researching
crime control and justice issues. Sarah Hart has plenty of
experience in this area. She spent 7 years prosecuting criminal
cases in Philadelphia and 9 years litigating over consent
decrees governing the management of Philadelphia prisons.
Throughout her career, Ms. Hart has worked extensively to
expand the rights of crime victims.
So, again, it is a great pleasure to welcome the three of
you to the committee. I look forward to working with Chairman
Leahy, Chairman Feingold here, and others to make sure the
committee and the full Senate hold timely votes on your
nominations.
I am happy to have Senator Sessions here, and I appreciate
his diligence on the committee.
Senator Feingold. Well, I thank the ranking member for his
attendance and his statement, and I am wondering if the Senator
from Alabama would like to make a statement. Senator Sessions?
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF ALABAMA
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was
particularly here because of Deborah Daniels, who I served with
as United States Attorney for a number of years. Her fellow
United States Attorney members from around the country elected
her Vice Chairman of the Attorney General's Advisory Committee.
She served in that position with great skill and demonstrated
extraordinary people skills. No one of the whole group was
better liked than Deborah, and I am delighted to see her take
on the position that she will be assuming.
I think the position she will be assuming will call on her
experience in a great way, and she will do a great job.
Thank you.
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Senator Sessions.
In addition, Senator Santorum of Pennsylvania contacted us
this morning and informed us that, while he is unable to be
here todAy, he will submit a statement for the record on behalf
of Ms. Hart.
Finally, without objection, we will place in the record a
statement on behalf of Ms. Daniels from the other Senator from
Indiana, Senator Evan Bayh, who was also unable to attend.
Now we will hear from Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley, will you please stand and raise your right hand
to be sworn? Do you swear or affirm that the testimony you are
about to give before this committee will be the truth, the
whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Mr. Riley. I do.
Senator Feingold. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM JAY RILEY, OF NEBRASKA, NOMINEE TO BE U.S.
CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT
Mr. Riley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I may introduce not
only the people who are here, I would like to make mention of
my other two children who could not be here today: Erin Riley,
my daughter, who is at the University of Nebraska Medical
School in the physician's assistant program and is studying at
the present time; my son, Kevin Riley, who is also working and
unable to come; as well as my daughter-in-law, Kris Riley, and
two grandchildren, Michael and Jacob. So thank you.
I also want to thank both Senators Hagel and Nelson for
their support, their kind words, and also I want to thank the
committee for holding a prompt hearing. I know that you all
have busy schedules, and I thank you for that.
Thank you.
[The biographical information of Mr. Riley follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.030
Senator Feingold. All right. Any other comments you would
like to make at this point?
Mr. Riley. No other comments. Thank you.
Senator Feingold. Let me begin, then, by just asking you a
few questions, and then, Senator Sessions, if you wish to
follow.
You have had a very distinguished career as a lawyer in
private practice in Omaha. I do note that virtually all of your
work has been on the civil side. Could you discuss a little bit
your experience with and familiarity with criminal law and
procedure?
Mr. Riley. As you well know, Mr. Chairman, my practice has
been primarily in the civil area. I have done a little bit of
criminal work over the years. I have had one State court jury
trial, an arson case, defending the accused. I have also had a
Federal court case under the Environmental Protection Act where
I defended a corporation in a criminal proceeding. I have also
handled on a pro bono court appointment over the years
revocation of parole of a gentleman. And that, other than some
advice of clients over the years on criminal matters, those are
my only court appearances and trials in the criminal area.
Senator Feingold. Let me ask you now what you think are the
most significant matters that you have handled as a private
lawyer.
Mr. Riley. Well, I have been very fortunate to have some
outstanding cases and clients to represent. I would have to say
probably one of the most intriguing cases that I ever had was
to represent an elderly woman who in my--my side of the case
was her three brothers had defrauded her out of her inheritance
from their common parents. I tried that to a jury trial. It
raised real issues of women's rights because the issue was that
the brothers didn't think that their sister could handle the
business. And so it became a very challenging case that way.
At the end, we obtained a judgment of $3.766 million
against the three brothers. They immediately filed bankruptcy
with their corporation, so then we ended--that was in State
court, the original trial, and then it ended up in Federal
court, in the bankruptcy court in Nebraska, where I learned how
to try a case in a bankruptcy court, and handled that matter
through there, were successful, and then the appeal in the
State court, the Nebraska Supreme Court took away the majority
of our judgment, leaving us--leaving her with not much left.
And then our process after that was to--in effect pro bono, was
to try to get her services on Medicare and so forth to take
care of her after that.
I have had others representing a woman who was rear-ended
in North Omaha in a police pursuit, and I am proud about that
for this reason: that we not only got at that time the highest
judgment against the City of Omaha at the time, but the woman,
who became quadriplegic from the neck down, had enough money to
reorient her life, to have a home where she could live, and
became active in Omaha matters, is now the president or the
outgoing president of MADD, and is serving on the Police
Commission in Omaha, and has a very active life because she has
the wherewithal to live that life and to do the things that are
quite challenging to somebody that is as disabled as she is.
Senator Feingold. I thank you for those examples. I enjoyed
hearing them.
One of the traits that I am looking for--and I think most
Senators are looking for in judges--is open-mindedness and
fair-mindedness. I would like judges to be willing to listen to
arguments and change their minds about an issue if the law and
the facts warrant it.
Could you give me an example from your legal career where
you have changed or reversed position based on the arguments
that you have heard in court on the information that a client
or another lawyer has presented to you?
Mr. Riley. Well, as an advocate, you are usually not
changing your mind. You are restructuring your argument to
answer the question that maybe you didn't anticipate. But you
are correct, Mr. Chairman, that sometimes you have to turn to
your client and say, you know, we have assessed it this way and
we are not--that isn't what the facts show.
I can't pick out any single case, but I can tell you that's
happened over the years, and I've been certainly willing to see
the need to change a position.
Senator Feingold. How about an example in your career where
you have had to take an unpopular stand or represented, let's
say, an unpopular client and stood by it under pressure?
Mr. Riley. I don't know--probably some people would say one
of the most unpopular people to defend is a lawyer. And I
defended a lawyer in a suit in State court in Nebraska to the
court. At the time, every night--it took 13 days of trial, and
every night there was a story in the paper that was very
critical of him and very critical of what he had done. We ended
up winning part of the case at trial. We appealed it to the
Nebraska Supreme Court, and we--``we'' meaning he and I--ended
up with a total victory at the end.
But that case was really defending the rights of a lawyer
as against the community that was lined up against him.
Senator Feingold. Fair enough. I do have a few more
questions, but I would now turn to Senator Sessions to see if
he has any questions.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would just note that Mr. Riley was editor-in-chief of the
Law Review at Nebraska. That is quite an accomplishment and
probably the highest honor a graduating law student can
achieve, is to be editor of the school's Law Review. And I
think that is something of note.
Clerking on the circuit with Judge Lay, quite a respected
member of the court, and being selected to clerk on a court of
appeals I think, after you graduate from law school, is an
indication of the academic skill and integrity that you have
shown during your time in law school. So I think both of those
are indicators of great potential for your service. Your
background as being a litigator I think will add to the bench
also.
You talked about the Supreme Court reversing your judgment.
I know how heart-breaking that must have been for the lawyer
who was going to receive a part of that, as well as your
client. Are you willing to reverse or reduce a judgment that
doesn't comply with the law?
Mr. Riley. Well, having been there before, I'll tell you, I
will look very closely before I would do something like. But I
would certainly do that. If the facts and the law, one or the
other or both, do not support it, I would reverse it. But I
think a lot of deference needs to be paid to the trial court.
Senator Sessions. Well, how much deference to the trial
court? What if the trial court has not followed the law in a
significant respect?
Mr. Riley. When it comes--my understanding, if I am
confirmed, that the--when it comes to the legal issues, that's
something that the circuit court, the appellate court looks at
very carefully and will re-examine. When it comes, obviously,
as I think, Senator Sessions, you know from your experience, if
it's a factual issue on the credibility of witnesses, who do
you believe, that's something that the appellate court needs to
pay deference to the trial court.
Senator Sessions. You are familiar with the BMW case, where
the Supreme Court held that an excessive punitive damages award
violates the Constitution where there was no standards for the
assessment of those damages whatsoever and where the lower
court could not articulate a basis for the amount of the award.
How would you feel about that?
Mr. Riley. Senator, I would have to tell you that I am not
familiar with the BMW case other than excerpts or discussions
on it. I really don't--haven't analyzed it to tell you one way
or another what I feel about it.
Senator Sessions. I would just say this: I think a good
litigator, a good trial lawyer, has every potential of making a
great judge. And your academic background is just
extraordinary. I can see why the President and the Senators
from Nebraska support your nomination. I will support your
nomination.
I do also ask that you realize that you no longer are
charging out as an advocate, but you will be a judge who will
have to make some tough decisions to maintain the level of
consistency in courts and verdicts throughout the system.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Feingold. I thank you, Senator.
Let me ask just a few more questions. Mr. Riley, during
your screening by the administration prior to your nomination,
who did you meet with to discuss the possibility of being
nominated?
Mr. Riley. Are you talking about from the--not from the
Senators, but from--
Senator Feingold. For example, the President, the Attorney
General, the White House Counsel.
Mr. Riley. I met with the White House Counsel's Office,
with Courtney Elwood and with--his name escapes me--Tim
Flanigan. I also was interviewed by Bill Howard of the Justice
Department, and, of course, the FBI background check that I was
interviewed, and I can't remember the FBI agent that was there.
And, of course, the American Bar Association.
Senator Feingold. Do you consider yourself to have a
judicial philosophy? And if you do, what is it?
Mr. Riley. I'm not certain what you mean by that. Do I have
a political agenda? No, I do not have a political agenda. I'm
not looking to go to the Eighth Circuit, if I'm confirmed, to
change any law, to push any political agenda.
As a judicial philosophy, my philosophy is that an
appellate court, having been there on the other side of the
bar, that the appellate judges need to be very cautious and
review the facts and the law, apply them, the applicable law to
those facts, and not create some new ruling from that--from my
case or whoever's case is there.
Senator Feingold. Finally, just give me a sense of who are
some of the judges you have appeared before as a lawyer that
you have admired and why.
Mr. Riley. I have appeared between a lot of--before a lot
of judges, and I would preface it by saying I've had a lot of
them, and I don't mean to exclude anybody. But, obviously, our
senior Federal judges, Warren Urbom and Lyle Strom, in
Nebraska, our trial court judges, are just outstanding. And I
could tell you many reasons why. Our chief judge in Nebraska,
Rich Kopf, who I've also tried cases in front of, is an
outstanding judge.
I have tried cases, because of my age, with some
outstanding judges that are now retired in the State court
system as well as the Federal court system.
As you may know from background you have, our senior
Federal judge in Nebraska, Lyle Strom, is my former partner and
my mentor. I carried his briefcase for several years and
obviously have a tremendous amount of respect for him.
Senator Feingold. Well, I thank you and I congratulate you
and your family. Unless Senator Sessions has further questions,
thank you so much, Mr. Riley.
Mr. Riley. Thank you.
Senator Sessions. Congratulations.
Mr. Riley. Thank you.
Senator Feingold. Now I would like to invite our second
panel to come forward: Ms. Daniels and Ms. Hart. We will start
with Ms. Daniels.
Deborah Daniels is currently a partner in the firm of Krieg
DeVault LLP in Indianapolis, Indiana. She is a native of
Atlanta, Georgia, and a graduate of DePauw University and
Indiana University School of Law at Indianapolis. She was
United States Attorney for the Southern District of Indiana
from 1988 to 1993. She has been nominated to be Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, sometimes
known as OJP.
OJP was formed in the Department in 1984. Its mission is to
provide leadership in developing the Nation's capacity to
prevent and control crime, improve the criminal and juvenile
justice systems, increase knowledge about crime and related
issues, and assist crime victims. OJP has five bureaus and
offices: the Bureau of Justice Assistance, the Bureau of
Justice Statistics, the National Institute of Justice, the
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and the
Office of Victims of Crime.
Ms. Daniels, welcome. Congratulations. Would you please
stand and raise your right hand to be sworn? Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give before this
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
Ms. Daniels. I do.
Senator Feingold. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF DEBORAH J. DANIELS, OF INDIANA, NOMINEE TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE PROGRAMS,
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Sessions.
With the chairman's indulgence, I do have a brief opening
statement to tell you a little about myself. I, of course, am
honored and humbled to be appearing before you today. I want to
thank the committee for convening this hearing and including me
in the group of nominees being considered.
I want to express my gratitude to President Bush and the
Attorney General, Attorney General Ashcroft, for having brought
me thus far to you and placing their confidence in me.
I am particularly delighted that Senator Lugar was able to
be here today, and I express my gratitude to him. I also
appreciated Senator Hatch's comments and the very kind comments
of Senator Sessions, my former colleague.
I have spent a great deal of my personal life as well as my
professional career serving my community's more vulnerable
members. Specifically, I've concentrated my professional and my
private volunteer efforts on assisting victims of crime, in
particular, women and children, persons with mental illness and
developmental disabilities, and the poor. I've used my role as
a law enforcement professional not as an end in itself, but as
a means to a greater good, that is, an improved quality of life
for individuals and families.
I am a strong believer in the principles that research
should inform public policy and that Government should be
accountable and a good steward of the funds entrusted to its
care.
I further believe that it's essential to measure outcomes
in order to determine whether what we do is working; if it's
working, to replicate it around the country; and if it's not
working, to take appropriate action.
I can think of no better opportunity to put these
principles into practice, and in doing so to benefit society at
large, than to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Justice Programs. I greatly appreciate the
committee's consideration of me for that critical position, and
I'd be delighted to answer any questions that you have.
[The biographical information of Ms. Daniels follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.083
Senator Feingold. Thank you, Ms. Daniels. We will turn to
the questions after we have heard from Ms. Hart. She is our
final nominee for the Office of Director of the National
Institute of Justice, which is one of the five offices that I
mentioned within the OJP.
So I take it you have had an opportunity to meet your new
boss sitting next to you?
Ms. Hart. Yes, I have, Senator.
Senator Feingold. NIJ's role is to provide objective,
independent, non-partisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools
to meet the challenges of fighting crime and dispensing
justice, particularly at the State and local levels. The NIJ
uses the social and physical sciences to research the impact of
crime, develop technologies and standards for fighting and
preventing crime, evaluate existing strategies and programs,
and assist policymakers. NIJ often works through the panels of
scientists, researchers, and practitioners who review
applications and make recommendations to the Director about
funding decisions.
Ms. Hart is a native of Birmingham, England, and currently
serves as chief counsel of the Pennsylvania Department of
Corrections. She is a 1976 graduate of the University of
Delaware and a 1979 graduate of the Rutgers-Camden School of
Law. She worked for many years for the Philadelphia District
Attorney's office, as Senator Specter mentioned, so it is also
a pleasure to have you here, Ms. Hart, and if you would rise,
stand, raise your right hand to be sworn. Do you swear or
affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the
committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but
the truth?
Ms. Hart. I do.
Senator Feingold. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF SARAH V. HART, OF PENNSYLVANIA, NOMINEE TO BE
DIRECTOR OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF JUSTICE
Ms. Hart. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold. With your
permission, I would like to give a brief opening statement.
Senator Feingold. Please.
Ms. Hart. I would like to thank President Bush and Attorney
General Ashcroft for their confidence in me. I am extremely
grateful to be nominated to be the Director of the National
Institute of Justice, and I'd also like to thank you, Senator
Feingold, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing today.
As this committee knows, the National Institute of Justice
is greatly respected in the criminal justice community. NIJ
earned this respect because of its integrity, objectivity, and
quality work. If confirmed, I will be committed to ensuring
that NIJ continues with this proud tradition.
If confirmed, I intend to make sure that the public derives
the greatest possible benefit from NIJ and its work. NIJ's role
in the evaluation of Federal criminal justice programs helps
ensure that the public gets the maximum return on tax dollars
spent. It also promotes public safety and public confidence.
If confirmed, I will make sure that NIJ objectively reports
when programs work, when they don't, and whether we can do
something to fix them.
As a criminal justice professional, I have long been
familiar with NIJ's work. It has promoted constructive
improvements and encouraged innovative approaches to reducing
crime. And much of its current efforts hold tremendous promise
for the future. For example, if confirmed, I look forward to
working to maximize the benefits of DNA technology. As I see
this, DNA technology is a complete win-win situation. It helps
solve some of our most serious crimes. It ensures reliable
verdicts. It often leads to guilty pleas that spare our fragile
victims the trauma of trial. And it helps ensure that repeat
offenders, some of our most serious offenders, are
incapacitated and unable to commit further crimes in the
community.
I want to work with this administration and this committee
to improve our criminal justice system, and I hope this
committee will do me the honor of recommending my confirmation.
Thank you very much, Senator Feingold.
[The biographical information of Ms. Hart follows.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.110
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.111
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.112
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.113
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.114
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.115
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.116
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.117
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.118
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.119
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.120
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.121
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.122
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.123
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0212.124
Senator Feingold. I thank you as well, Ms. Hart. Normally I
would proceed with the questions now, but I know that Senator
Sessions has an important engagement coming up shortly, so I
would ask that he begin the questioning of the two.
Senator Sessions. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
thank you for having these hearings. We can see, I think, from
both of these nominees just how important their positions are,
and it is great that they will be able to be on board soon. We
need to be doing, in my view, a better job of moving
nominations, but I think at least we are getting forward here
on these two. And each of you have important staffs and
important roles to play.
Debbie, I was just looking at your background. Of course,
you have been a Federal prosecutor for quite a number of years
and were so successful in that, but your civic activities
indicate, as you said, a tremendous interest in solving the
problems, as some say, the root cause of crime, whatever,
however we want to say it, such as the United Way of Central
Indian, a board member, the Indiana Mental Health Memorial
Foundation, the Children's Bureau of Indianapolis, the
Neighborhood Christian Legal Clinic; Noble, Inc., that
advocates for the developmentally disabled; the Mental Health
Association of Indiana, the Greater Indianapolis Progress
Committee, Community Organizations Legal Assistance Program,
Safe Haven Foundation Advisory Board, providing relief services
for victims of domestic violence; the Julian Center Advisory
Board, providing services to domestic violence victims; the
American Health Lawyers Association; and the Indianapolis/
Marion County Coalition for Human Services,. and the Marion
County Child Protection Team, all of which you have been a
board member or leader in those organizations.
I think that goes well with the Office of Justice Programs,
which is a tremendous bureaucracy or governmental agency. We
have gone in the last 8 years from about a $600,000 budget to a
$4 billion budget. That is a tremendous increase, and we need
to ensure that every dollar that is spent is furthering our
ability to protect innocent victims and to drive down crime in
an effective and logical way.
First, let me ask you, are you willing to make some tough
decisions to make sure that the agency utilizes all those
dollars well?
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Senator Sessions, for the question.
I have been asked that sort of question on previous occasions,
for example, when I was to become U.S. Attorney, in fact,
possibly because of my stature. Some might wonder about the
degree of my resolve, but I think, as you may know, I have
demonstrated that resolve time and time again.
I think it is essential that--first, we have a wonderful
opportunity here to do a great deal of good in this country,
and the Office of Justice Programs has a lengthy tradition of
doing exactly that. You are right that the size of the
organization, both in terms of personnel and budget, has grown
tremendously as a result of crime legislation in the 1990s. I
see that as an exciting opportunity as well and a welcome
challenge.
We need to make sure, as I indicated in my opening
comments, that we're doing everything we can to be good
stewards of the taxpayers' dollars, and to me that means a
number of things, including, as you indicated, maximizing the
number of dollars that are getting out to actually serve people
in the communities. So we need to minimize our bureaucracy as
we do that, and that would, I'd consider, be part of my charge.
Senator Sessions. Your predecessor, President Clinton's
nominee, expressed some strong convictions that some
reorganization and efficiencies could be achieved in the
organization. Mr. Chairman, I was chairman of the subcommittee
at that time. We did not achieve that. It is not that any group
would have their mission diminished, but after a period of
years, you really have to make sure that the system is working
effectively to deliver on the goals that it has. And the goal
is not to further a bureaucracy, but the goal is to serve
people who are victims of crimes and help people who have
involved themselves in crime to get out of crime and clean up
their lives.
So I think you have great skill in that, and I can't think
of a better person to do it. But it will take some of that
strength that you mentioned because anytime there is a little
change, people will resist. I would just say to you, if you
propose a good program for reform, I would be supportive of it,
and I think others will, too.
I will ask one more question before I run. You were chosen
to head the Weed and Seed program, which I personally spent
many hours on as United States Attorney, and I know you did. Do
you think that has some potential for expansion? And to what
extent does your office have supervision of that?
Ms. Daniels. Well, Senator, as you know, the Weed and Seed
office, which was originally in the Deputy's office, has been
for some years within the Office of Justice Programs as a
program office. As you might expect, I do think it has
tremendous potential, hopefully not just for provincial reasons
because of my prior involvement, but because it provides a
process for neighborhood residents literally to take back the
reins of their destiny as opposed to having Government and
criminals and everyone else acting upon them.
Weed and Seed has provided people with an opportunity to
actually take leadership. It has been a wonderful experience in
Indianapolis, to use my own back yard as an example, in which
people who had not previously been involved in their
neighborhood leadership bubbled to the top out of nowhere and
suddenly they're the leaders in the entire community now. And
they're speaking around the country, and they're teaching other
people their formula for success.
So I think it has great potential for that reason. I also
think that it has great potential, if approached properly, to
cut across agency lines as well. There are a number of programs
in other agencies besides the Justice Department which perform
similar tasks to some of the things that the Justice Department
does, drug elimination grants at HUD and a lot of programs at
HHS. And there's a great opportunity to maximize Government
resources through working with these other agencies as well.
Senator Sessions. Well said, and I spoke to a Weed and Seed
national group a couple years ago, and I know that the Clinton
administration found that it did work. And I think it has
potential for further expansion.
You were involved in the very beginning and the spreading
of it, and I think we can do a better job. In our community in
Mobile, every time I feel discouraged about public service, I
ride through the area that was designated Weed and Seed and see
the park, the new school, the safe streets, the clean streets,
compared to really the zone it was before that, and how, as you
said, we had a town meeting and several hundred or more people
came, and they just talked so passionately about what that
neighborhood had been 10, 15 years before. And they took charge
of it, and the Federal Government, utilizing all the agencies
that it already has out there in a coordinated way, along with
the city and the county and the local police departments,
really helped change the quality of life for an awful lot of
people. It was just a thrill. I know that you will take a lead
on that.
Ms. Hart, let me just mention to you that maintaining the
integrity and quality of NIJ research is critical. Fred
Thompson, who before me chaired the Juvenile Justice Committee,
said he wasn't sure the Federal Government's role should be
anything other than doing good research and providing the best
information possible to our local communities on so many issues
that we can't run from Washington but that are being run from
the States and counties. And I agree with that. At least, I
agree that that is a primary responsibility for us. The good
information that is provided can help counties, cities judges,
police, prosecutors, and sheriffs who are trying to do
something about their community to fight crime, it can help
them make good information.
I believe NIJ's research is high quality, meets the best
academic standards, and if studied hard, is very valuable to
decisionmakers. I think perhaps it could be more practical,
could be geared more directly to a specific problem that you
know that is being considered by sheriffs, DAs, and judges. It
would help them in a practical way.
I think there are some gaps, Ms. Hart, with regard to
statistics and evaluations. I believe in the drug court system,
but we found that OJP had not completed effective peer-reviewed
scientific evaluations of drug courts to find out what it is
that works, what it is that does not work, what kind of drugs
courts are most effective, because they are spreading all over
the country. If we could have the best information possible,
then these communities could make fewer mistakes.
So I think that is the kind of thing we are talking about.
Your decisions on research can impact so positively around the
entire country in ways that go beyond even Federal dollars that
are being spent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am sorry to have to run.
Senator Feingold. Thank you for your attendance and
involvement, Senator Sessions, and now I will ask some
questions of Ms. Daniels.
Ms. Daniels, as Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Justice Programs, you will be responsible for the management
and oversight of an organization that seeks to aid in the
prevention and control of crime. As you are aware, drug-related
crime comprises a significant part of all crime. An increasing
number of conservatives, including my colleague, Senator Hatch,
and DEA Administrator Nominee Asa Hutchinson, have indicated
that they are committed to a balanced approach to the fight
against drugs, which includes interdiction, prevention,
education, and treatment.
OJP already incorporates this philosophy in some of its
programs, such as the drug courts program and the Office of
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention's drug abuse
prevention program.
Now, you have expressed in the past strong support for
rigorous prosecution and also mandatory minimum sentences for
drug offenders. In an article in the Atlantic Monthly in
September 1994, you were quoted as saying that, despite prison
overcrowding, life sentences may be appropriate even where
``only marijuana'' is involved because drug abuse is a serious
problem.
Do you agree that a comprehensive approach to combating
drug abuse that includes prevention, treatment, and enforcement
is needed?
Ms. Daniels. Thank you for the question, Senator Feingold.
I have spent, as I indicated, a number of years working with
law enforcement as more of a means to a greater good. And when
I said that, what I meant was that what we are working toward
is a better place for people to live. In fact, back when I was
a U.S. Attorney, I was in contact with Professor Mark Kleiman,
who I think is kind of the father of drug courts, in the hope
of developing drug courts in Indianapolis. Over the years, we
actually have been able to do that, and I'm very pleased that
we have.
I did jot down and make a note of Senator Sessions' comment
that we need to make sure that we're evaluating the success of
those efforts. But I strongly believe that we need to help
people who have a problem to resolve that problem and become
productive members of society. In the same way, I'm very
interested in the prisoner re-entry program that is being
funded by the Office of Justice Programs Correction Office. I
have read about that. I know that there is a solicitation out
now. I think it is essential that, while we take firm action in
the law enforcement side, that we also provide treatment for
people who have a problem, that when people are coming out of
prison they have a means of re-entering the system in a
productive way as opposed to the traditional $75 and a bus
ticket that tends to lead them right back into the problems
they faced when they got there.
So, yes, sir, I do agree with you on that.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate that answer, and I am
wondering if we could just clarify whether you believe juvenile
justice prevention efforts and alternatives to incarceration
like the drug courts program are actually priorities for the
OJP and if you could give me a sense of what relative weight
you would give to the various components of the comprehensive
approach.
Ms. Daniels. Senator, I have followed with interest the
work of this committee with regard to juvenile justice over the
years, in fact, as well as, as you indicated, a growing perhaps
realization on the part of many that we may not have done
enough in the rehabilitation area in some prior years. And I'm
gratified to see that as well for the reasons I stated.
I've done a lot of work with abused children, as you can
tell from some of the things in my background materials, and I
know as well as anyone, I think, that the same children may
enter the door of the juvenile system as children in need of
services one day and may enter that door as delinquents another
day. And I have actually been engaged in collaborating on
research that, while we all thought there was a cycle of
violence and we all thought that child abuse was a risk factor
for delinquency, future violence or other criminal activity, in
fact, this research showed that that was actually true. And so
our instincts were correct in that case.
I am very committed to an approach to juvenile justice that
involves--while it should involve an understanding on the part
of young people who I think need this kind of understanding
that there are consequences for their acts, at the same time
one of the most important things I think we can do for youth
who are at risk of criminal activity is mentoring and some of
these other activities that I know that OJP and the OJJDP
portion of that office are engaged in.
I am eager, if confirmed, to get more involved in learning
about the JUMP program, seeing how effective that is, what else
we can do in those kinds of areas.
Senator Feingold. Thank you.
Switching to another topic, last week Senator Murray of
Washington and I were joined by a number of other Senators in
sending a letter to the Attorney General, Attorney General
Ashcroft, describing the critical need for support for tribal
law enforcement in justice programs and inviting him to visit a
reservation.
You probably have not had a chance to see this letter, but
as the office you will hold oversees a number of programs
presently used by tribal governments and since you are
listening to a Senator who has 11 federally recognized tribes
in my State, I would like to just ask you a couple of
questions.
Have you ever traveled to reservations and viewed the
status of law enforcement? And if so, which ones have you
visited? And have any of them been in the upper Midwest?
Ms. Daniels. Senator, with regard to tribal matters, I
actually had quite a bit of exposure to the issues related to
those matters while a U.S. Attorney because, as Vice Chair of
the Attorney General's Advisory Committee, I was the liaison to
the subcommittee which dealt with Indian affairs, as they
called it. And I traveled to South Dakota for that purpose on
one occasion. I had a lot of meetings with the folks from the
upper Midwest, from the Dakotas, from Oklahoma, from Arizona,
to talk about the differing kinds of issues that arise. In some
cases, there are reservations where there is Federal
jurisdiction, and then in some cases--I distinctly remember
this being in Oklahoma--there is not necessarily a reservation,
but actually Indian lands that were identified at different
times. And it becomes very difficult to determine
jurisdictional issues.
I have not visited any of the specific reservations you
speak of in the upper Midwest, but I recognize that to be an
issue that perhaps over the years did not enjoy as much
attention as it needs to. And I'd be happy to work with you and
other members of the committee with regard to that matter.
Senator Feingold. Would you support and encourage the
Attorney General on a visit to Indian country?
Ms. Daniels. I would love to have an invitation myself and
would be happy to share with the Attorney General any
information that I developed and certainly would be happy to
talk to you about that further.
Senator Feingold. I believe the question was whether you
would encourage the Attorney General himself to do this.
Ms. Daniels. I see no reason why I wouldn't be perfectly
happy to encourage the Attorney General to pay attention to
these particular issues. I don't think it will require any
convincing on my part. I think he understands that those are
issues of concern as well. I have no particular control over
his schedule, so I am not sure that I would be able to assure
you of a visit by someone other than myself.
Senator Feingold. I am just asking for encouragement.
A program that I and many of my colleagues have long
supported is the Boys and Girls Clubs of America. Over the
years, many of us have worked in partnership with the Office of
Justice Programs to ensure the expansion of the Boys and Girls
Clubs in rural and inner-city Native American and suburban
areas. In fact, over the past 8 years, I think that this
partnership has resulted in over 1,000 new clubs being opened
across America.
Have you had any direct experience with the Boys and Girls
Club? And give us your opinion of this program.
Ms. Daniels. Thank you, Senator. I have over the years, in
fact, particularly with regard to my work with the Weed and
Seed program, but also just in my private capacity, had fairly
ample exposure to the work of the Boys and Girls Clubs. I think
that in my back yard, the Boys and Girls Clubs have done a
great job, and they have contributed to a broader approach to
some of the things that we talked about a few minutes ago with
regard to keeping juveniles on a path away from delinquent
activity and toward productive activity. And so I strongly
believe that the Boys and Girls Clubs, as well as other similar
organizations, are important contributors to the opportunities
for young people around the country.
Senator Feingold. I am glad to hear that because I was
troubled to see that initially the administration sought to cut
funding for this program in their first budget submission. I am
told that the Attorney General himself argued against this
recommended budget cut, and I am wondering what your position
on cutting funds is with regard to the Boys and Girls Clubs.
Ms. Daniels. My position, Senator, is that Government needs
to do everything it can to serve the citizens of the country in
a way that is most going to benefit them. We also need to
measure results of the programs we are funding. Senator
Sessions made reference to drug courts. That is only one of
many areas.
I firmly believe that any program that proves it is working
should be encouraged through funding, should be replicated
around the country, and that is my commitment to you.
Senator Feingold. And it sounds to me from your previous
remarks that Boys and Girls Clubs would be in that category. Is
that fair to say?
Ms. Daniels. They have ever capability of being in that
category.
Senator Feingold. Okay. I am not going to take that as a
yes, but I will take it for what it is. Thank you very much for
your remarks and your answers, and we look forward to moving
your nomination forward.
Ms. Daniels. Thank you.
Senator Feingold. Now I would like to turn to Ms. Hart. The
National Institute of Justice, as we have said, is the research
and development arm of the Justice Department. Its mission is
to prevent and reduce crime, improve law enforcement of the
administrative justice, and promote public safety. As I
understand it, the NIJ is the only Federal agency solely
dedicated to researching crime control and justice issues.
According to the NIJ Web site, the NIJ provides objective,
independent, non-partisan, evidence-based knowledge and tools
to meet the challenges of crime and justice, particularly at
the State and local levels.
You have had a distinguished career not as a social
scientist or in research but in the practice of law, first for
the Philadelphia District Attorney's office and later as
counsel for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. The
Federal law creating the NIJ requires that the Director have
justice research experience, but it appears that you do not
have such experience.
Could you just tell the committee how your legal experience
has prepared you to undertake the responsibilities of the NIJ
Director?
Ms. Hart. Thank you very much, Senator Feingold, for that
question. The one thing that I learned very quickly as a
lawyer, both as a prosecutor and with the State, is that when
you are making criminal justice policy or recommending criminal
justice policy, you need to know the facts, and that research
and correct information needs to inform public policy.
During the course of my career, I have worked repeatedly on
projects that have involved the use of research. I am one of
these people who actually reads NIJ reports, keeps the source
book from BJS in my house, and relies on them heavily in making
recommendations.
For example, when I worked as a prosecutor, Mayor Rendell
appointed me to be on an Alternatives to Incarceration Task
Force. The idea was to come up with ways to help reduce the
prison population in a manner that was safe for the members of
the community.
We worked with two nationally respected experts, John
Goldkamp and Kay Harris, who often worked with various agencies
through OJP. They did an extensive analysis of the various bail
release projects and were able to make recommendations about
how we in Philadelphia could structure our bail release program
in a way that not only maximized the public safety interests
but also helped reduce the prison population, given that
Philadelphia was financially strapped and did not have endless
money to keep building prisons. It was, frankly, in my view,
the only responsible way to go about making this sort of
policy.
So I am a firm believer in the importance of research, the
integrity of research, and that you need to listen to the
answers that it gives you, whether you like them or you don't.
You need to listen to them and act accordingly. You owe the
public that.
Senator Feingold. I thank you for that answer, and you have
just been talking about the importance of the independence of
the NIJ. I believe that independence includes independence from
the policymaking goals of the Justice Department. What would
you do if the research conclusions were not to the liking of
your superiors in the Department or were at odds with the
policy positions taken by the Department?
Ms. Hart. The bottom line, to me, with that is that you
publish the research. I don't expect that anybody would ask me
not to. Everything I know from the Attorney General in this
administration is that they respect the need for objective,
reliable research and they support it.
Senator Feingold. Well, that is great and I appreciate what
you are saying, because I have a very strong interest in one
NIJ study that is already underway or at least the solicitation
for the project is underway. And so I want to emphasize, as you
have already indicated, the need for objectivity and the need
for it at all stages of the process for conducting research,
drafting solicitations, reviewing and awarding the research
proposals, reviewing the results of the research, and
publishing the final product.
Let me make this more concrete by asking you some questions
about the study that I am following very closely. Just last
Friday, the NIJ released a solicitation for research into the
investigation and prosecution of homicide, examining the
Federal death penalty system. I realize that you probably have
not had a lot of input into this solicitation because you have
not yet been confirmed. But I do think it is important to
review some concerns as this is a study that you will oversee
once you are confirmed. In fact, I held my first hearing as
chairman of the Constitution Subcommittee on the subject of
this study just a few weeks ago.
As you may know, after the release of the DOJ September
2000 report, Attorney General Reno expressed her concern about
glaring racial or ethnic and geographic disparities in the
Federal death penalty system. She said, ``An even broader
analysis must, therefore, be undertaken to determine if bias
does, in fact, play any role in the Federal death penalty
system.'' And then she directed the NIJ to conduct such an in-
depth study.
During Attorney General Ashcroft's confirmation hearing, I
directly asked him whether he would support the NIJ study of
racial and geographic disparities. He answered unequivocally
yes. The Justice Department, however, then released a report in
early June with additional data about Federal capital cases and
concluded, without the in-depth analysis ordered by Reno and
agreed to by Attorney General Ashcroft, that racial bias does
not exist.
Then on June 13th, I held the hearing that I referred to.
It was a hearing on the issue and called on the Justice
Department to recommit to the in-depth study initiated by
Attorney General Reno, and at that hearing, Deputy Attorney
General Thompson said that the Attorney General had ordered the
NIJ to conduct a study and that the primary purpose of the
study is the same as that which was contemplated by the Clinton
administration.
Yet I find on page 3 of the solicitation which we just
reviewed, the NIJ states that the June supplemental report
``concluded that racial and ethnic proportions found in the
pool of potential Federal capital cases and differences among
the racial and ethnic proportions in different districts
resulted from non-invidious causes.''
So the solicitation repeats the statement from the June
report but does not comment on it. In fact, in the discussion
of issues to be researched and criteria for deciding on
research proposals, the solicitation does not, in my view,
reiterate the explicit purpose of the study as outlined by
Attorney General Reno whether bias does, in fact, play any role
in the Federal death penalty system.
So I am concerned about by the way the NIJ appears to have
now framed the study, and I hope this does not mean that the
NIJ has accepted the June report's premature conclusion that
racial bias does not exist in the Federal system. I hope this
does not mean that the focus of the NIJ study has now again
changed since Attorney General Reno first directed the NIJ to
do the study.
Let me ask you a few follow-up questions about that. Do you
accept Attorney General Ashcroft's conclusion in his June
supplemental report that racial bias does not exist in the
Federal death penalty system and believe that the NIJ study
should not address this issue?
Ms. Hart. Senator Feingold, although I have--I am familiar
with the reports, I have reviewed them, I have not reviewed
them in depth, nor have I reviewed the background research for
them. But my understanding is based on the information that was
contained in those reports that they were fully supported and
they were consistent with Attorney General Reno's view of how
the death penalty was being applied or implemented in the
Federal system.
Both of them have--both Attorney General Reno and Attorney
General Ashcroft recognized that there were further issues
still to be reviewed. Obviously, the NIJ study is going
forward. It is a comprehensive analysis, and although I have
had no input whatsoever into the formation of this
solicitation, out of deference to the Senate and its
confirmation process, this is a matter of extreme urgency to
the Department, as I understand it, and to me personally. And I
can tell you that as a prosecutor, as a public servant, and as
someone who has spent their life working in the criminal
justice field, that there is nothing more important than for us
to be administering justice fairly. And I intend to make sure
that this solicitation goes forward, that it is objective, and
that it answers the questions that need to be answered and that
we can answer.
Senator Feingold. Well, I appreciate your specific remarks
and the spirit of those remarks. And so I would ask you, do you
agree that the issue, whether bias exists, is the focus of the
NIJ study?
Ms. Hart. I think the study, the solicitation speaks for
itself, and it specifically talks about looking into issues
such as ethnic and racial disparities and geographic
disparities. So it obviously involves a number of issues. It's
a complex undertaking. But it's--those are the areas that
appear to be addressed by the solicitation.
Senator Feingold. So would you agree that if a research
proposal is submitted that includes a review of the question of
whether bias exists, that that proposal would be entirely
proper and within the scope of the research contemplated by the
NIJ?
Ms. Hart. Senator, as you know, the NIJ has a very, very
well-tested means of evaluating proposals and whether they
comply with the solicitation requests. It also has an external
peer review process for analyzing those proposals. I think it
would be premature for me to in any way try to make opinions
about this. I think that this process of using external peer
review, relying on the staff of NIJ, who are research
professionals, and relying on their recommendations is the way
that this needs to be reviewed. And I intend to follow that
process objectively and fairly.
Senator Feingold. I am not suggesting that you would tell
me that you would accept such a proposal or that is the one
that should be chosen. I am just--as a person that is trying to
do oversight on this issue and this study, it seems to me that
if a proposal is about the question of whether bias exists,
that it certainly would not be disqualified from being reviewed
as a possible contender.
Ms. Hart. Senator, I think that looking at this
solicitation, I was particularly impressed by the lengths to
which the solicitation discusses the peer-review process, this
external process, and also requires that persons who were
soliciting--or responding to the solicitation make very frank
disclosures about their viewpoints or past history both for or
against the death penalty. I think that a lot of thought has
obviously gone into this in order to ensure that the process is
fair and that we get the best answers that we can.
I think that looking at this, it requires looking at the
entire proposal, not just simply what's one line and what one
word is used, whether one wants to call it bias or disparities
or whatever. I think obviously looking at the entire proposal
and seeing if it fits what the solicitation has asked for and
relying on the external review and the experts at NIJ will
allow for a fair process and answer the questions that need to
be answered.
Senator Feingold. Well, I understand that. Let me just
comment in response, before I ask you one more question, that
given what you have said about Attorney General Reno's study
and your feeling that the other comments made by Attorney
General Ashcroft and others were consistent with that, I can
tell you this: If what comes out of this is not basically about
the issues of racial and geographic disparities, it has nothing
to do with the original Reno proposal was, and I am going to
meticulously watch to make sure that what comes out of this is
consistent with the very core purpose that started this whole
thing.
Ms. Hart. I'd welcome that, Senator Feingold. If confirmed,
I welcome having--working with this committee on issues,
obviously. And it's clear. Attorney General Ashcroft has
committed to looking at the question of racial and ethnic and
geographical disparities. That's what the solicitation--the
language that is used in it, and that's what will certainly be
looked at.
Senator Feingold. Well, that just leads to my final
question. What would you do if the research conducted by the
outside experts concluded that racial bias exists, a conclusion
that is clearly at odds with the conclusion of the June
supplemental report? Would this conclusion dissuade you from
publishing the results of this study?
Ms. Hart. Obviously there is a normal review process once a
draft comes in through the--all of these draft research reports
are subject to rigorous analysis and review by experts and
peers. And that normal process is applied to any solicitation
and research that NIJ does.
I expect that process to proceed with this case, to proceed
fairly and objectively, and to make sure that any findings or
conclusions are amply supported by the evidence. I think that
we owe the public a rigorous, objective, reliable report. This
is an important issue to the American public, and we need to
make sure that it is correct.
Senator Feingold. But assuming all those tests are met--
Ms. Hart. Assuming all those--
Senator Feingold. --the conclusion, of course, that the
racial bias exists would not dissuade you from publishing the
results of the study. Is that fair?
Ms. Hart. Senator, if a study has bad news to give to us or
the American people about how we administer our criminal
justice system, whether there are questions of racial and
ethnic bias, those are important things that we need to know,
and we should not shy away from them. And I would not shy away
from them.
Senator Feingold. I appreciate that answer. I recognize
that you were not involved in this process. This is prospective
with regard to you. But I do have to reiterate on the record
that if this NIJ study does not deal with the issue of racial
and geographic bias in the death penalty, it would be in
violation of the specific commitments made under oath by
Attorney General Ashcroft and the commitments made to me
personally by Deputy Attorney General Thompson in front of this
committee. And I certainly take seriously your commitment to
the objectivity in the role of your agency, and I expect you
will do a very good job at it.
I want to thank both of you very much. I expect that these
nominations will be expedited and that you will be in your
positions shortly, and I look forward to working with you.
The hearing is concluded.
[Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Submissions for the record follow.]
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
Statement of Hon. Evan Bayh, a U.S. Senator from the State of Indiana
on the Nomination of Deborah J. Daniels to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs, Department of Justice
Mr. Chairman, unfortunately due to prior commitments, I cannot be
with you today to introduce this fine Hoosier, Deborah Daniels to the
Judiciary Committee. However, I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate Ms. Daniels on her nomination to be Assistant Attorney
General for the Department of Justice.
Ms. Daniels has dedicated her life to serving the people of
Indiana. She started her career working as an assistant to the senior
Senator from Indiana while he was Mayor of Indianapolis. After earning
her law degree, she worked as a prosecutor for Marion County and then
as U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Indiana. In addition to
her dedication to the criminal justice system, Ms. Daniels has donated
her time and service to many community organizations, including the
United Way, the Community Organizations Legal Assistance Program, the
Greater Indianapolis Progress Committee, and the Children's Bureau of
Indianapolis.
Ms. Daniels is an outstanding Hoosier. I am sure will serve the
United States as ably as she has served Indiana. I urge the Committee
to favorably send this nomination to the full Senate for confirmation.
Thank you.
KRIEG DEVAULT ALEXANDER & CAPEHART, LLP
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2079
August 30, 2001
The Hon. Charles E. Schumer
United States Senate
Washington, DC 20510
Re: Question Regarding HUD Gun Buy-Back Program
Dear Senator Schumer:
Shortly after my confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary
Committee, you posed two questions to me in writing. I understand that
you found my answer to one particular question insufficiently
responsive, and I apologize for that. With your indulgence, I would
like to respond more completely and specifically to the question, which
read as follows:
The Department of Housing and Urban Development recently
eliminated a gun buyback program that was responsible for
removing thousands of handguns from impoverished and crime-
ridden communities across America. HUD eliminated the program
not because it was ineffective but because it does not fit
within the Department's "core mission". As Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Justice Programs, would you reinstate
the gun buy-back program as a DOJ-funded project?
Senator Schumer, I share your concerns regarding the use of guns to
victimize residents of the neighborhoods you describe, and I share your
desire to reduce gun violence throughout America. If confirmed as
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, I will
be eager to work with you to identify and implement initiatives which
will achieve that goal. I am not familiar with the details of the
specific gun buy-back program to, which you refer, or with the findings
of any research which may have been done to analyze its effectiveness
in removing guns from the hands of criminals, or in reducing gun
violence generally. However, I would be pleased to examine this
initiative, as well as others, and to seek to fund such initiatives as
hold promise for the achievement of these outcomes.
I hope that this letter will help to clarify my earlier response,
and I look forward to working with you to prevent future incidents of
violence committed with firearms.
Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to expand on my previous
response.
Sincerely,
Deborah J. Daniels