[Senate Hearing 107-584] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] S. Hrg. 107-584, Pt. 1 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ JULY 11, AUGUST 22, AUGUST 27, SEPTEMBER 13, AND OCTOBER 4, 2001 __________ PART 1 __________ Serial No. J-107-23 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary 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 ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois....................................................... 156 Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin...................................................... 157 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 131 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 1 PRESENTERS Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting Roger L. Gregory, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit............................................. 4 Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana presenting Richard F. Cebull and Sam E. Haddon, Nominees to be District Judges for the District of Montana.................... 7 Burns, Hon. Conrad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana presenting Richard F. Cebull and Sam E. Haddon, Nominees to be District Judges for the District of Montana.................... 9 Morella, Hon. Constance A., a Representative in Congress from the State of Maryland presenting Eileen J. O'Connor, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, Department of Justice........................................................ 11 Scott, Hon. Robert C., a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia presenting Roger L. Gregory, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit........................... 6 Warner, Hon. John W., a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting Roger L. Gregory, Nominee to be Circuit Court Judge for the Fourth Circuit......................................... 2 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Cebull, Richard F., of Montana, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Montana........................................ 44 Questionnaire................................................ 49 Gregory, Roger L., of Virginia, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit............................................. 13 Questionnaire................................................ 14 Haddon, Sam E., of Montana, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Montana............................................ 44 Questionnaire................................................ 83 O'Connor, Eileen J., of Maryland, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, Department of Justice... 131 Questionnaire................................................ 134 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Molloy, Hon. Donald W., Chief Judge, United States District Court, District of Montana, July 9, 2001, letter and attachments.................................................... 158 WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2001 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 260 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 163 PRESENTER Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia........................................... 168 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Nedelkoff, Richard R., of Texas, Nominee to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice............ 221 Questionnaire................................................ 223 Walton, Hon. Reggie, of the District of Columbia, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Columbia.................... 171 Questionnaire................................................ 174 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Richard R. Nedelkoff to questions submitted by Senator Grassley............................................... 259 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, statement in support of the nomination of Richard R. Nedelkoff to be Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Department of Justice.......................................... 261 MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio......... 268 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 338 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 263 PRESENTERS Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Delegate in Congress from the District of Columbia presenting Sharon Prost, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit.......................... 270 Thurmond, Hon. Strom, a U.S. Senator from the State of South Carolina presenting Terry L. Wooten, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of South Carolina....................... 270 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Prost, Sharon, of the District of Columbia, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit.................................. 271 Questionnaire................................................ 272 Wooten, Terry L., of South Carolina, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of South Carolina............................. 297 Questionnaire................................................ 298 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Terry L. Wooten to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 336 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware, statement in support of the nomination of Sharon Prost to be Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit.............. 339 THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 STATEMENT OF COMMITTEE MEMBER Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 341 PRESENTERS Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting Michael P. Mills, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi........................... 342 Lieberman, Hon. Joseph, a U.S. Senator from the State of Connecticut presenting Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit........................... 346 McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky presenting John W. Gillis, Nominee to be Director, Office for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice........................ 347 Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting Michael P. Mills, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi........................... 344 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Gillis, John W., of Kentucky, Nominee to be Director, Office for Victims of Crime, Department of Justice........................ 435 Questionnaire................................................ 441 Mills, Michael P., of Mississippi, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi....................... 397 Questionnaire................................................ 400 Parker, Barrington D., Jr., of Connecticut, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................... 349 Questionnaire................................................ 352 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Michael P. Mills to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 462 Responses of Michael P. Mills to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 463 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York, statement in support of the nomination of Barrington D. Parker, Jr., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit 464 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2001 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 750 Kohl, Hon. Herb, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin...... 465 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 469 PRESENTERS Breaux, Hon. John B., a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana presenting Edith Brown Clement, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.............................................. 471 Bunning, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky presenting Karen K. Caldwell, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky............................... 474 Ensign, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada presenting Jay S. Bybee, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice........ 475 Hagel, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska presenting Laurie Smith Camp, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska....................................... 472 Inhofe, Hon. James M., a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma presenting Claire V. Eagen, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma and James H. Payne, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.......................................... 467 Landrieu, Hon. Mary, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana presenting Edith Brown Clement, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.............................................. 694 McConnell, Hon. Mitch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Kentucky presenting Karen K. Caldwell, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky............................... 468 Nelson, Hon. E. Benjamin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska presenting Laurie Smith Camp, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska............................. 472 Nickles, Hon. Don, a U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma presenting Claire V. Eagen, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma and James H. Payne, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky.......................................... 466 Reid, Hon. Harry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada presenting Jay S. Bybee, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice........ 467 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Bybee, Jay S., of Nevada, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Counsel, Department of Justice........ 701 Questionnaire................................................ 703 Caldwell, Karen K., of Kentucky, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky............................... 524 Questionnaire................................................ 525 Camp, Laurie Smith, of Nebraska, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska....................................... 657 Questionnaire................................................ 658 Clement, Edith Brown, of Louisiana, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit.......................................... 476 Questionnaire................................................ 477 Eagen, Claire V., of Oklahoma, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.............................. 576 Questionnaire................................................ 577 Payne, James H., of Oklahoma, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky........ 621 Questionnaire................................................ 622 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Karen K. Caldwell to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 735 Responses of Laurie Smith Camp to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 739 Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.................................................. 741 Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy................................................ 743 Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Kohl................................................... 744 Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Feingold............................................... 745 Responses of Claire V. Eagen to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 747 Responses of James H. Payne to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 748 NOMINATION OF ROGER L. GREGORY, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT; RICHARD F. CEBULL, OF MONTANA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA; SAM E. HADDON, OF MONTANA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA; AND EILEEN J. O'CONNOR, OF MARYLAND, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 11, 2001 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:05 p.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Leahy, Cantwell, and Edwards. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. I do want to welcome Judge Gregory and Judge Cebull and Mr. Haddon and Ms. O'Connor and their families and friends. Just so you know, we are starting this hearing without my good friend from Utah, the senior Senator from Utah, Mr. Hatch, because he is at a swearing-in at the Justice Department. He wanted us to be able to go ahead because we never know with the Senate schedule whether we will finish. Obviously any questions that he has, there will be time for any other Senators. We set this hearing, as many of you know, after the Senate reorganized. We wanted to start nomination hearings as soon as possible, so I noticed this hearing 10 minutes after we reorganized the Senate. Only yesterday Committee assignments were completed, so now the Committee can proceed with nomination hearings. Judge Gregory is here, of course, for the Fourth Circuit, and I will speak more about that. But knowing also that all my colleagues have remarkable schedules of their own, I see the senior Senator from Virginia, my old friend, John Warner, here; his distinguished colleague, the former Governor, now Senator, George Allen; and our friend, Congressman Robert Scott. I will call on you in that order to speak about Judge Gregory and then, of course, turn to the senior Senator from Montana, Senator Baucus, and his colleague, my friend, Senator Burns, to speak on behalf of and introduce the judicial nominees from their States. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows.] Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont It is my privilege to call these hearings to order. On behalf of the Committee, I welcome Judge Gregory, Judge Cebull, Mr. Haddon and Ms. O'Connor and their families and friends. This hearing was set on the schedule within 10 minutes of the reorganization of the Senate. I regret that reorganization was delayed through the entire month of June. Just yesterday afternoon, the Committee assignments were completed, and we are now in position to proceed. I know that Judge Roger Gregory, his family, and indeed, all of the people who live in the area covered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, have been waiting a long time for this day. Judge Gregory was first nominated for this position on June 30, 2000, over a year ago. He had the bipartisan support of both his home-state Senators, John Warner and Chuck Robb. Unfortunately, no hearing was scheduled on his nomination and it was returned to the President without Senate action last December. Judge Gregory's nomination is especially meaningful and historic in several ways. Last December, President Clinton named Roger Gregory the first African-American judge ever to sit on the Fourth Circuit by means of a recess appointment, and he resubmitted his nomination in January of this year. President Bush chose to withdraw Judge Gregory's nomination in March. Then on May 9, with the continued strong support of Senator Warner and Senator Allen, President Bush renominated Judge Gregory. This makes Judge Gregory on of the few nominees in our history ever to be nominated by Presidents of different parties. In addition, Judge Gregory is in the unique position of serving by means of an appointment whose term expires at the end of this session of the Senate unless his nomination to a full lifetime appointment is acted upon before that time. His life and career have been exemplary, and his qualifications for this position are stellar. His service on the bench since his appointment has been uniformly praised, and he has proven himself to be fair and collegial. Based on all of these considerations, it seems appropriate that Judge Gregory's nomination be the first considered by the Senate this year. The two nominees to the District Court for Montana both appear qualified and well respected. United States Magistrate Judge Richard Cebull and Attorney Sam Haddon are both strongly supported by their home-state Senators, Max Baucus and Conrad Burns. I have heard from both of them about their enthusiasm for these nominations. I know that Chief Judge Donald Molloy of the Montana District Court will be glad to see them. Judge Molloy is the only active District Judge serving full time in Montana and is anxious to get some help. I thank Judge Molloy for all of his good and hard work, and I am hopeful that we will be able to send him some assistance shortly. Our final nominee of the afternoon, Eileen O'Connor, is nominated to serve at the Department of Justice as Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. This is one of the nominations the Attorney General feels is very important to have considered promptly. So, Senator Warner, it is good to have you here, sir. PRESENTATION OF ROGER L. GREGORY, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BY HON. JOHN W. WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Senator Warner. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will submit for the record basically my statement because that will enable you to proceed expeditiously. And we have a number of colleagues and distinguished nominees, and, of course, Judge Gregory now sitting as a circuit court judge. I remember very well, Mr. Chairman, when his name came to the United States Senate. I had not known of this gentleman directly, and shortly after he was nominated, I quickly made arrangements to meet him. And that was a meeting at which time we established a close professional bond and friendship, and I have stood by his side ever since through a rather challenging and unusual process of confirmation. Nevertheless, we are here today for the purpose of culminating that process, and I am confident that this Committee and, indeed, the Senate as a whole will respect the President's wishes and that this confirmation of a sitting circuit judge will be done. And I say that with all due respect to colleagues and the process itself. As I say, I will put this into the record. My colleague Senator Allen, and I am privileged to be here with Congressman Scott. We stand united behind this distinguished nominee. And I would also say in fairness, as we do in the Senate, that my former colleague, Senator Robb, was very instrumental in seeing that this nomination came forward. I also wish to acknowledge the efforts of Elaine Jones, Legal Defense Fund for the NAACP, and Dr. Frank Royal. Dr. Frank Royal is a family physician. He and I have been associated as personal friends for many, many years--as a matter of fact, throughout my career in the Senate. And he came to me early on. He happened to be the family practitioner that serves the Gregory family, and I want to acknowledge his valuable contribution to my efforts and that of others to see that this nomination came forward. And, lastly, our former Governor of Virginia, Governor Douglas Wilder, who addressed a letter to me, my colleague Senator Allen, and Congressman Scott, and I would like to read that into the record. Chairman Leahy. Please. Senator Warner. ``Gentlemen: I first want to thank you for the strong and unwavering support relative to the nomination of Roger L. Gregory for a position on the United States Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. It has been invaluable in the process. ``I also want to thank the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Senator Leahy, for scheduling the hearing, as well as former chairman, Senator Hatch, for the courtesies extended the nominee. I also commend Senator Charles S. Robb for starting the process by recommending Judge Gregory to President Bill Clinton for the bench. Needless to say, there are a number of persons who have played a pivotal role in bringing the nomination to this point, but none more outstanding the record of the nominee himself. I have long felt confident that once a hearing was in place, others would more widely see the sterling qualification of the individual. ``I regret very much that due to a previously scheduled vacation starting last Saturday I will not be in the country to witness and attest to this regard.'' The three of us invited him to join us today. ``I have known the judge since his college days at Virginia State University through the present. I have known him as a student, a law partner, and a friend. I know that he enjoys a splendid reputation with bench and bar, as well as being an integral part of the community at State and local events. His devotion to family and civic responsibilities is outstanding, and his character is beyond reproach. Impartiality, integrity, and resourcefulness will guide him in his decision making. I am confident he will make a very lasting contribution in his State and country.'' And, again, my very thanks to each of you for endeavoring to make this happen. I thank you. Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator Warner. Senator Allen? PRESENTATION OF ROGER L. GREGORY, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BY HON. GEORGE ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this hearing. And I very much appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee and you with my good colleague, Senator Warner, and my good friend and colleague, I suppose, on the other side of the Capitol, Bobby Scott. And we are all here united and honored and pleased to introduce Judge Roger Gregory to you and to your committee. It is my belief that in Roger Gregory the Fourth Circuit and, indeed, all of the United States will have somebody who obviously has a background. Governor Wilder's statements speak for themselves, and I endorse those and concur. But he is a person who will serve with integrity and dignity. He is also here, though, with his family. You have mentioned his family. His wife, Carla, is here, and his children, Adriene, Rachel, and Christina. If you all would stand up. I know you care a great deal about your family. It is good to have you all here. In my judgment, not only does he have a wonderful family, a great record, which I am going to share with you a little bit about, but what matters is judicial philosophy. And I think from my interviews and discussions with Judge Gregory, he understands the importance of adherence to duly adopted laws and respect for the Constitution. But I would like to share with you some of the things that may be missed in some of the statements from even Governor Wilder, who he was a law partner with, because I think Judge Gregory is an embodiment and a testament to what people can do in America with hard work and personal determination. Judge Gregory is the first person in his family to finish high school. He went on to graduate summa cum laude from Virginia State University, a university where his mother once had worked as a maid. He received his juris doctor degree, his law degree, from the University of Michigan and later taught at Virginia State University as an adjunct professor. That is a wonderful story of success. Before being a judge, his investiture as a judge, he was a founding partner of the firm of Wilder and Gregory. He was a highly respected litigator, representing many corporate and municipal clients in his hometown area of Richmond, Virginia. He has been active in many civic and community affairs. He and I both served together on the Board of the Historic Riverfront Foundation in Richmond. He has served for many years on the Board of Directors of the Christian Children's Fund, the Richmond Renaissance Foundation, and the Black History Museum, among others. In 1983, Commonwealth magazine named Roger Gregory one of Virginia's top 25 best and brightest. In 1997, he was the recipient of the National Conference of Christians and Jews Award. He has an AV rating in Martindale-Hubbell, which is the highest combined legal ability and general recommendation rating given to lawyers. He has been a leader of the Old Dominion Bar Association, having served as president from 1990 to 1992. And I am truly impressed and comfortable with his philosophy of what the proper role of a judge should be. He understands, in my judgment, that the judicial branch is not the legislative branch. I think he is one, in talking with him, that judges should not be results-oriented but law is a process, and judicial activism can be--an activist court can be very dangerous. But he also had a respect and I think does have a respect for duly adopted laws by elected legislatures and elected Congresses as well, and that is very important. I am very happy that we are at this stage, because throughout these processes and some of the aggravations and annoyances, not necessarily for your part, Mr. Chairman, but from folks who are in my party, through it all I also want to commend President Bush for listening to Senator Warner and myself and also for all the members of this Committee who are going to put the character and the quality and the competence of this man, Roger Gregory, ahead of any personal piques or aggravations with process. I think that the Senate soon will be acting as statesmen, and I feel, Mr. Chairman, that you and your fellow members of your committee, once you have had an opportunity to closely focus on Roger Gregory's record and then also ask him questions, you will be as impressed as Senator Warner, myself, and Congressman Scott are and will be very pleased to nominate him for a lifetime appointment to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for having this prompt hearing. Chairman Leahy. I thank you, too, Senator Allen. I should note that we have had these kinds of questions about blue slips or no blue slips. Both you and Senator Warner made very strong public statements in support of Judge Gregory, and under our new rules I can say this also reflects what was in your private correspondence with this committee, strong words of support. I well remember Senator Warner coming to me early on in this process, and he said that we are going to work this out, Senator Allen and I will be together on this, and if you will just give us some space, we will work it out. Senator Warner being an extremely effective Senator, and I am sure you have had, Senator, the same thing with him, and in all the years we have served together, he has always kept his word. He has always maintained his word. And he has always followed through on his commitments. John, if I might make a personal comment, this is just one more time that you did that, and you are absolutely right in the fact that you and Senator Allen were so straightforward with the new President. Had you not been, we probably would not be at this point. I commend and compliment both of you for that. Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Warner. Mr. Chairman, that is a rare moment in a career of 23 years in this institution, but I assure you, the three individuals appearing here on his behalf were the Three Musketeers from day one. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. I understand, and I was not going to ignore the other side of the Capitol. I know both of you have to leave for other Committee meetings. Feel free to go any time you want. Congressman Scott, you and I have had a number of discussions about this nominee. You have been unfailingly consistent in your support of him, and you and I have a long and personal relationship of working together on significant issues. Again, I stand behind no one in my admiration of you and your abilities, and so I yield to you, sir. PRESENTATION OF ROGER L. GREGORY, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT BY HON. ROBERT C. SCOTT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA Representative Scott. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is certainly a pleasure to appear before you, and it is an honor and a pleasure for me to join my two Virginia Senators in introducing Judge Roger Gregory to the committee. Judge Gregory is from Richmond, Virginia, part of which is in the 3rd Congressional District, which I represent, and his nomination to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals is a source of pride for all Virginians. I have known the judge for over 20 years. He is a stellar professional. He has stellar professional and legal credentials. He is a summa cum laude graduate of Virginia State University and a graduate of the University of Michigan Law School. After practicing law with two large firms, he became the founding member and managing partner of the law firm of Wilder and Gregory in Richmond. He is a truly consensus candidate for a permanent appointment to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. He has bipartisan support from the congressional delegation, the Governor, and other political leaders from Virginia. He also has the support of many organizations and individuals from Virginia and beyond. As a judge sitting on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals for the past several months, he has earned the respect of his colleagues on the bench. I hope you will give Judge Gregory's nomination strong consideration. I believe that if he is confirmed, he will be a fine permanent addition to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Congressman Scott, thank you for taking the time to come over. As I said, I knew of your strong support before, and I am delighted to have it reiterated here. Now, in Montana, I know Chief Judge Donald Molloy has been very worried because he has been somewhat home alone. He is the only United States District Judge serving full-time in Montana, and resolved we are going to be bringing up Richard Cebull and Attorney Sam Haddon this afternoon. Now, this is not just because I want to help out Chief Judge Donald Molloy, but I cannot walk in the doors of either the Republican or Democratic side of the Senate without being cornered by either Senator Baucus or Senator Burns saying, ``Where are our judges?'' So here we go. You are going to have the first two district judge nominees this year before you. Senator Baucus, we will start with you as the senior Senator from Montana, and then go to Senator Burns. PRESENTATION OF RICHARD F. CEBULL AND SAM E. HADDON, NOMINEES TO BE DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BY HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator Baucus. Well, thank you very, very much, Mr. Chairman. You are correct in capturing the urgency of this matter. We begin, Senator Burns and I, on behalf of Sam Haddon and Rick Cebull in thanking you very, very much and thanking the Committee for holding this hearing in a very expeditious fashion. We have been in a tough spot in Montana the last few months. As you undoubtedly know, currently only one of our three judgeships is filled, one out of three, and that has placed an enormous strain on our remaining judge, Don Molloy. You have alluded to that. And we are here just to restate how difficult it has been for Judge Molloy. He has traveled day and night throughout Montana doing his duty as one of the Federal judges of Montana, but filling in for two others. We are on the brink of a judicial crisis, and we again thank you. To fill these positions, to ensure that we maintain in Montana swift and certain justice, we thank you again for holding these hearings so we can have all three of our judgeships filled. We are very grateful for it. Second, I am very grateful to my colleague, Senator Burns. He and I are working together in recommending both Richard Cebull and Sam Haddon. I might say that this is a bit unique. It is not too often that two Senators from different political parties are working so closely together, but we are doing so because it is the right thing to do. And I very much thank Senator Burns for even asking me if I want to participate in this process, something he did not have to do, but something that he thought was right for Montana. And I commend him for doing it. Chairman Leahy. If the Senator would yield on that point, I wish more States where you have Senators of opposite parties would do the same thing. It would certainly make my life a lot, lot easier. Senator Baucus. Well, we aim to please, Mr. Chairman, whatever you wish. Richard Cebull has served as a Billings attorney for close to 30 years, Mr. Chairman, specializing in medical malpractice. And since 1998, he has been the U.S. magistrate in Great Falls, Montana. I know he is eager to get back to Billings and fill the shoes of Judge Jack Shanstrom, who has recently retired. Rick is a Montana native. He was born and raised in Roundup, Montana, and has earned the respect of our State, and I am very proud to introduce him and recommend him to you today. Sam Haddon graduated from the University of Montana Law School in 1965 after serving with the U.S. Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the late 1950s and 1960s. He has worked very hard. He has been in private practice in Billings, Montana, and Missoula and is currently a partner with Boone, Karlberg and Haddon, one of the more respected firms in our State. I know that the opportunity to serve as a Federal district judge is a goal that Sam has strived towards for years. This is a culmination of a wonderful dream for him, and in that respect, in addition to his qualifications, I know he will be a first-class judge. And as the first member of his family to go to college, this is certainly an accomplishment for him and for his family to be very proud of. I know both Rick and Sam personally. We in Montana tend to know each other, or if we do not, we tend to know each other at least by reputation. We know a lot about each other. They will be an excellent addition to the Federal bench, and I give them my highest recommendation. I might say, Mr. Chairman, that we are here today witnessing a procedure under one of the most durable agreements that people have put together freely in constituting how they govern themselves, that is, our United States Constitution. Sometimes I think we do not reflect enough on the genius of our Founding Fathers in writing this document, particularly a Constitution with three separate, co-equal branches of Government. And it is unique here today that we are seeing the three branches come together, that is, the President, the executive branch, has nominated two people from our State of Montana to be on the Federal bench, to participate in the judicial branch, and here we are in the legislative branch giving our advice and consent. It is a wonderful document. It is a wonderful procedure. And I know that both Rick and Sam will not only dispense justice fairly in Montana, but they are two people who have a deep respect and reverence for the special quality of our Constitution, and, in particular, a high regard for the third branch of Government, the Federal judiciary. I think it is important for us to remember, too, Mr. Chairman, that the most distinguishing factor that determines whether a country is durable or viable is whether it has an independent judiciary. We in America do. It is something that we should remember and be very proud of and continue to keep thriving and alive. Rick Cebull and Sam Haddon are certainly two people who will help maintain that tradition and that very important part of America. And so it is for all those reasons I recommend them very highly. [The prepared statement of Senator Baucus follows.] Statement of Hon. Max Baucus, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana, on the Nomination of Richard Cebull and Sam Haddon Good Afternoon. I'd like to begin by sincerely thanking the Senate Judiciary Committee for taking up the federal district court judgeship nominations for Montana today. We've been in a tough spot over the last few months. Currently, only one of three of our judgeships is filled, which is placing an enormous strain on our remaining judge, Donald Molloy. We're on the brink of a judicial crisis. To ensure that we maintain swift and certain justice, Montana must have all three federal judgeships filled as soon as possible. The nominations of Richard Cebull and Sam Haddon are among the first the Committee is considering and all of us in Montana are very grateful. Senator Conrad Burns and I were happy to join together in recommending Richard Cebull and Sam Haddon to President Bush last February. Conrad and I have continued to work together and do everything possible to more the nomination process along as quickly as possible. Both men are deserving of our support and will fill the federal district judgeship positions admirably. Richard Cebull served as a Billings attorney for close to 30 years specializing in medical malpractice work. Since 1998, he's been the U.S. magistrate in Great Falls. I know he's eager to move back to Billings and to fill the shoes of Judge Jack Shanstrom is on senior status. Rick is a Montana native, born and raised in Roundup, and has earned the respect of our state. I'm proud to introduce and recommend him to you today. Sam Haddon graduated from the University of Montana Law School in 1965 after serving with the U.S. Border Patrol and the Federal Bureau of Narcotics in the late 1950s and early 1960s. He's worked in private practice in Billings and Missoula and is currently a partner with Boone, Karlberg and Haddon. I know that the opportunity to serve as a federal district judge is a goal Sam has strived towards for years. As the first member of his family to go to college, this is certainly an accomplishment to be proud of. I've had the chance to meet and talk with both Rick and Sam and know the type of work they do. They will be an excellent addition to the bench and I give you my highest recommendation for them today. I'd like to thank the Committee again for holding this hearing today and urge you to continue to move the process forward as quickly as possible. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, and I agree with you. No democracy can exist without an independent judiciary. Senator, and my good friend, Senator Burns, who again can now leave me alone, we are having the hearing. I am delighted to have you here. More importantly, Mrs. Burns is here. You, like many of us, Senator Burns, married way above yourself. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. But we are delighted to have both of you here. As you have often said to me. PRESENTATION OF RICHARD F. CEBULL AND SAM E. HADDON, NOMINEES TO BE DISTRICT JUDGES FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BY HON. CONRAD BURNS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator Burns. As you know, Mr. Chairman, there are a lot of us in that same category. [Laughter.] Senator Burns. I will not pick them out today. I am spending your money today. We have Interior Appropriations on the floor and a vote coming up soon, so I will make this kind of quick. I have a letter from the Honorable Don Molloy and his appeal to this Committee to act responsibly and quickly about these nominations and I will make that part of the record. Mr. Chairman, we do have a crisis in Montana. We have now only Judge Molloy as an Article III Judge. If he would just go on for the rest of the year without help, he would handle around 1,200 cases. We do not even work mules that hard. But he has done an admirable job. In fact, he has almost reached the point where he is contemplating emergency procedures in Montana, including the suspension of the Speedy Trial Act, if he does not receive some much needed assistance. I have attached a copy of his letter and want to make it part of the record. Mr. Chairman, when we looked at this situation, it did not take Senator Baucus and I very long to recognize that we did have this crisis, that we had to come up with men of great integrity and someone we could agree on very quickly and move them through the process. And I appreciate Senator Baucus and his efforts and attitude toward this. We worked together very well on this, and I think we have two of Montana's finest. President Bush made Sam Haddon and Richard Cebull his first district court judge nominees and did so on an expedited basis. I am hopeful that Sam and Richard will also be the first district court judges confirmed by this Committee and by the entire Senate. Finally, Mr. Chairman and members of this committee, I want to say a few words about the nominees before you today. I have known Sam Haddon and Richard Cebull for many years. Richard comes from Roundup, Montana, where another famous Montanan made his mark in the Gulf War, General Paul Funk, who commanded the armored division in that operation. So Ric understands and we understand public service. I think you will agree that their respective resumes speak for themselves. Their colleagues have rated them the highest ratings possible. The American Bar Association has given them the highest rating, and done so unanimously. And, finally, between them they have over a half- century of experience in law. But all of these ratings and accomplishments may not tell the entire story. The rest of the story is that Sam Haddon and Richard Cebull are of the kind of character that makes anybody who lives in the State of Montana very, very proud and me very honored to present them to you today. We have heard a lot of things said about Sam and Ric, but one that really matters today is that their hand shake is their word; there are some folks that you would rather have their handshake than a contract. And you are looking at two of those men today. Their integrity is without question. They are fair, decent, and honest men who bring respect and professionalism to the Federal judiciary. Most importantly, I know that Sam and Richard will never forget, when they sit on the bench, that they were appointed and not anointed. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the members of this committee. I look forward to working with you to expedite the confirmation of these two men as our next judges in the court judges of Montana. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, and also please let Judge Molloy know that help is on the way. You hear the trumpets coming across the mountains. Help will be on the way thanks to both you and Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must tell you that the jungle drums in the Federal bench are the best I have ever seen. Judge Molloy knows everything that is happening. Chairman Leahy. I will bet he does. He will know ahead of us. Thank you very much. I know both of you have to go to the floor, and I appreciate your coming being here. Senator Burns. Thank you. Senator Baucus. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. I do not want anybody to think that I am forgetting my good friend, Congresswoman Morella, of Maryland. Congresswoman Morella and I have been friends for a long, long time. I know she is here to speak for Eileen O'Connor, who is nominated to be Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. While Ms. O'Connor and I both have Irish names, Ms. Morella knows the real secret of my ancestry. And so, Congresswoman, I am delighted to have you here. Please feel free to proceed. PRESENTATION OF EILEEN J. O'CONNOR, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY HON. CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND Representative Morella. Thank you very much. Thank you, Chairman Leahy. And I will let the world know that you are part of the Italian-American Congressional Caucus. We are very proud of that, too. I want to thank you very much for the opportunity to allow me to introduce a very distinguished constituent of mine, Eileen J. O'Connor, nominated by President Bush to serve as Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division of the Department of Justice. I note--and you will agree, I trust--that Eileen O'Connor's career, both public and private, is impressive. Her ability to represent the interests of the United States Government is unquestionable. Just to point out a few of the items from Eileen's distinguished career, she is a graduate of Columbus State University and Catholic University of America's Columbus School of Law. Professionally, her career has been highlighted with positions as corporate tax law specialist with the Internal Revenue Service, tax manager with Arthur Andersen, senior manager and associate partner at Grant Thornton, and the Office of Federal Tax Services, an officer for tax services with Aronson, Fetridge and Weigle. Most recently, Mrs. O'Connor serves as counselor to the Attorney General. Academically, Mrs. O'Connor has served as adjunct professor at both Georgetown University Law Center and George Mason University School of Law. She also serves on the editorial board of the Tax Advisor, a monthly tax journal. Additionally, she holds memberships with the Federal Bar Association, the Bar Association of the District of Columbia, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Federalist Society, and the American Bar Association. So her professional associations and memberships are pretty impressive and extensive. As a respected national tax expert, Eileen O'Connor has authored numerous articles and publications. She has made presentations at many conferences and seminars, focusing on a broad scope of tax issues, such as limited liability companies, women and tax, tax accounting, practitioner-client confidentiality, tax reform, and, last but not least, how to cope with an IRS tax audit. When Eileen is not sifting through the Tax Code and fulfilling the demands of a wife and mother, she works with many committees seeking to improve the tax profession and the tax system. She donates time to her church, and of particular interest, Eileen has drafted a booklet devoted to helping women better understand the Federal income tax system. That is probably something that men could well gain from, also, since we contribute to making this tax system one that does require experts to help them understand it and weave their way through the travails. I believe that after examining the credentials of Eileen O'Connor, you will agree that her education and as an educator, her experience both in the public and the private sector, her proven ability and commitment and her integrity render her worthy of your confirmation. And, you know, I noted also that some time ago I had the honor of introducing her husband, Circuit Judge A. Raymond Randolph, and I was reminded of the fact that behind every successful man is a surprised mother-in- law. Behind every successful woman is a mother-in-law who knew it all the time, and a very proud family. And so I would say, as you consider recommending Eileen O'Connor as Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division, that in the words of Shakespeare, the force of her own merit makes her way. Thank you, sir. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much, Congresswoman. As always, it is good to have you here. I also know that you have a very busy schedule on the other side of the Capitol, so please feel free to leave. Representative Morella. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. I am going to ask the staff if they would just clean up the bench here just a little bit, and then we will call Judge Gregory. And I am going to take one minute to respond to one phone call out here. So we will recess for just one minute, and it will literally be one minute. [Recess at 2:37 to 2:39 p.m.] Chairman Leahy. I would note that last December President Clinton named Roger Gregory to be the first African-American judge ever to sit on the Fourth Circuit by means of a recess appointment. He resubmitted his nomination January of this year. President Bush originally had withdrawn Judge Gregory's nomination, but then with the continued strong support of Senator Warner and Senator Allen, the same support that Senator Warner and Senator Robb had shown earlier, the President renominated Judge Gregory. This makes the judge one of the few nominees in our history ever to be nominated by Presidents of different parties for the same judgeship. He is in the unique position of serving by means of an appointment whose term would expire at the end of this session of the Senate unless we acted on it before then, which we will. His life and career have been exemplary. His qualifications for the position are stellar. His service on the bench since his appointment has been uniformly praised. He has proven himself to be fair and collegial. And based on all these considerations, I think it is appropriate that Judge Gregory's nomination will be the first one to the Federal judiciary considered by the Senate this year. Judge Gregory, please come forward, sir, and take--oh, first, introduce your family, please, Judge. I want to make sure their names are in the record. Judge Gregory. Thank you very much. I will introduce my wife, Carla, of 21 years, and my three lovely daughters, Adriene, Rachel, and Christina, and my sister-in-law, Merley Lewis is present. I also have a chamber family here: my secretary/administrative assistant, can't do anything without her, Tammie Hicks; and my three clerks, who have just been wonderful, Maya Eckstein, Gretchen Speidel, and Damon Jones. Chairman Leahy. Why don't you all stand up so we can all see you here. Thank you all for being here, and please take a seat. Judge Gregory, please take a seat. I want to make sure their names--you will be a little bit a part of history because you will be in the record. And also, we have our newest member of the committee, Senator Edwards, who has joined us. Senator Edwards is also, as you know, in the Fourth Circuit, and Senator Edwards spoke eloquently and often on your behalf last year, Judge Gregory. And this year one of the very first things he said to me when we came back in January, he said, ``What are we going to do to get Judge Gregory confirmed?'' So I am pleased to have him here. Judge if you would stand and raise your right hand, please. Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Gregory. I do. Chairman Leahy. Judge, this is your day. Feel free to start with any statement you might have before we begin with questions. STATEMENT OF ROGER L. GREGORY, OF VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Judge Gregory. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost, I would like to thank you for scheduling this hearing. It is indeed an honor to be considered by this Committee to consider my nomination. I consider it to be one of the highest points of my life. You have met my family, and for the record I would like to put in the names of my late parents, George and Fannie Gregory. Without their unwavering support and their love, this day would not be possible, and I certainly want to recognize them. Also, for the record, we would like to thank Senator John Warner and Senator Allen and Congressman Scott for appearing here and speaking so generously about me and their unwavering support through this process. I thank them very much with their busy schedules to be here today, as well as to recognize former Governor Wilder, whose letter was in the record. His unwavering support and friendship have been wonderful. I thank you. That is all I have for an opening statement or I will begin to reiterate. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for scheduling this hearing. I am very pleased to be here to answer your questions. [The biographical information of Judge Gregory follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.020 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.027 Chairman Leahy. Well, I thank you very much. I was also pleased with what you said when you mentioned your parents. I was fortunate my parents were still with us when I was sworn in the first couple times in office, and the only two reprints I have of the Congressional Record in my office are the eulogies I gave both of them on the Senate floor. And, like you, I have always felt that whatever I accomplished, it never would have happened without their initial upbringing. Judge let's go into a question that really gets asked of everybody but we need to ask, and that is the question of stare decisis. How do you see stare decisis? Who do you see it binding? And to what extent must it bind all courts at all levels? Judge Gregory. Well, first, stare decisis gives the consistency and the stability in our law, particularly in our constitutional law. And if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed by this Committee and by the Senate, I will follow it and I will consider it, and not only just a task, but it is a duty and a charge that I should follow the precedent of the constitutional rule of law and the precedents set down by the Supreme Court and the precedent of the Fourth Circuit. So I consider as a judge I am bound by that, and as an intermediate appellate court, those are my marching orders, if you will, the rule of law and the precedents set down by the Supreme Court, and I follow that. Chairman Leahy. Well, suppose you have a case where you have a Supreme Court precedent, and you look at it and you do not personally agree with it, but it is a Supreme Court precedent. I am not talking about the Fourth Circuit or any other circuit, but a Supreme Court precedent and you do not agree with it. Do you have to follow it? Judge Gregory. I have to follow it and I will follow it. Chairman Leahy. A more difficult course is when you have to do a statutory interpretation. How do you determine--I mean, I suppose you have a case of first impression, but it involves basically interpretation of a statute. How do you determine congressional intent? Because sometimes our statutes up here are drawn just because of the nature of going through the legislative process of compromise and all, and it may not be quite as clear as you or other judges might like. Do you go into legislative history? How do you determine that? Judge Gregory. Well, first of all, Mr. Chairman, in the rare case that it really is a case of first impression, I think the first response is to my clerks: Go back and look again. Are you sure? Because it is rare. But if, in fact, it is a case of first impression and there is no precedent, I would look for analogous precedent, other cases that speak to guidance in that regard. So I would look for analogous law. And if it is statutory law, I follow the plain language, because Article I, Section 1 of the Constitution says all legislative powers granted herein is in the Congress. Therefore, it is not to make the law. So, therefore, I would look to analogous precedent and the letter of Congress, because I believe what Congress meant, Congress said in the statute. So that is what I would do, analogous precedent and look at the plain language of the statute or the Constitution itself if it is an constitutional question. Chairman Leahy. I agree with you that an issue of first impression is probably not too apt to happen, but it is more apt to happen if we pass something really controversial and your circuit is the lucky one that gets the first test case on it. Senator Edwards? Senator Edwards. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you, I look forward very much to serving on this Committee and working with the chairman and the ranking member, this Committee that does so much important work. Judge Gregory, I appreciate your introducing all your family members and your law clerks, and I particularly appreciate your reference to your parents. I know they were proud of you. I know they would be very proud of you if they were here today. And I want to tell you that I have spoken to many lawyers and judges who know you well, and not just recently but also in the past when you were originally under consideration by the President. And you are held in uniform high regard with every single lawyer, every single judge that I spoke to about you. And you are well respected, hard-working, knowledgeable in the law, somebody who, as you said a moment earlier, does not make law but applies the law in a very fair, evenhanded fashion. I heard the same thing from every single person I talked to about you. No one could have come to this Committee with higher marks than you, I can tell you that. And it goes without saying that both your Senators have shown up and Congressman Scott also showed up to speak on your behalf. So we are proud to have you here. I also might add from my perspective, and I hope the perspective of many others, that this is a historic moment. And your confirmation, which I am satisfied will occur, will also be a historic moment. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals that serves your State and my State has, I think, the largest African-American population of any circuit court in the country, and it is such a positive thing in our Nation's history that we now have a well-qualified, well-respected African-American judge sitting on the Fourth Circuit. So I think it is an important moment for you, an important moment for your family, but I also think it is an important moment for our country. I cannot tell you how pleased I am. I was pleased when the President did the recess appointment of you. I am pleased that you have been renominated by President Bush, and I congratulate him for doing that and having the wisdom and good judgment to do it. And I know you are going to serve this court and the people of this circuit, not just your State but all of the States of the circuit, well. I can tell you without qualification I will feel very good about any of my 8 million people in the State of North Carolina who appear before you on any matter that they have in that court. So we are very pleased, very, very pleased to have you here, and I think it is an important moment for you, for your family, and also for the country. I also want to add just for my colleagues' benefit that we have had some difficulty over the past several years in getting judges from the State of North Carolina a hearing and confirmation votes on the floor of the Senate for the Fourth Circuit. As a result, our State, which--as much as I love Virginia, our State, which is the largest State in the circuit, has no representation on the court. And I have been having constructive conversations with the White House about working together to find a way to fill those vacancies. As recently as yesterday, I had a conversation with the White House Counsel about that issue. I will continue to talk with them. We want very much for our State to be represented on the Fourth Circuit and to be represented with the kind of quality that you bring to the bench. Hopefully we will be able to get some folks from North Carolina nominated that will be able to serve alongside you and provide you with the support and help that you need. And I feel optimistic about that based on the conversations that we have had. But, more importantly today, I just want to congratulate you. I do not have any questions for you. I already know you are ready for this job. You have been doing it, and you are ready to go on to confirmation. We are proud for you and proud for the country. Thank you, Judge. Judge Gregory. Thank you very much, Senator Edwards. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. To continnue this tough adversarial cross-examination you are receiving, Judge, we will now go to Senator Cantwell of Washington State. Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do also want to welcome Judge Gregory here today. I am pleased that President Bush took a look at your qualifications and decided to renominate you to the Fourth Circuit. I was not here earlier, but I am glad to see that the Senators from Virginia were also here on your behalf. I do believe that it is important to have diversity on the circuit courts, not just in philosophy but in background, and I believe that you will add a lot of diversity and experience to the Fourth Circuit. So, like my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, I do not have questions for Mr. Gregory, but I very much appreciate this nomination and our ability to move forward on it quickly. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Judge Gregory, normally with the last question, that would be the last question of this afternoon. I do, though, because of the close working relationship and friendship that Senator Hatch and I have, I know that it was an official duty that took him off the Hill connected with his former role as chairman. And I am going to ask at this point, sir, if you could step down but stay here until Senator Hatch comes back should he have further questions. Obviously, the record will stay open for a couple days for any member, but if you would not mind doing that, sir, I would ask if you might rejoin your family, and I would bring Richard Cebull up for his hearing. Judge Gregory. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would be pleased to. Chairman Leahy. Why don't we have both Mr. Haddon and Judge Cebull come on up here? Judge Cebull and Mr. Haddon, come and join us, and why don't I swear you both at the same time. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth? Judge Cebull. I do. Mr. Haddon. I do. Chairman Leahy. Please be seated. Judge Cebull, you might want first to introduce your family so that we have them in the record. STATEMENT OF RICHARD F. CEBULL, OF MONTANA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Judge Cebull. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I too married above and beyond myself, and that is fortunate. Unfortunately, she was not able to be here, but she is supporting me. Chairman Leahy. I am sure she is. Judge Cebull. Thank you, as are my children and my grandchildren. Chairman Leahy. But I wanted you to at least be able to refer to them so someday they will see that in the record, sir. Judge Cebull. All right. My son Brian and daughter Katie-- Katie lives in Denver with her children and husband, and Brian lives in Billings. And I would have had to rent a van, I think, to get them all here. But they are here. Chairman Leahy. I am glad you are here, sir. Thank you. Judge Cebull. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Haddon? STATEMENT OF SAM E. HADDON, OF MONTANA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Mr. Haddon. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do have one person with me today, my wife Betty, who has been the cornerstone of my life for the last 42 1/2 years. Our three children--Elizabeth, Steven and Allison--and their spouses and families are occupied elsewhere, but they have all assured us that they are here in spirit. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Haddon, you were fortunate enough to marry a registered nurse, I understand. Mr. Haddon. That is correct. Chairman Leahy. Not a bad thing to do. It has worked in the Leahy family for 39 years. Mr. Haddon. It has certainly worked in our family, and one of our daughters has followed in her mother's steps and is also a nurse practitioner. Chairman Leahy. That is wonderful. Please take a seat, sir. I will start with you, Judge Cebull. In a case last year, called Lozeau v. Lake County, Montana, you ruled that inmates bringing a lawsuit to affect prison conditions under the Prison Litigation Reform Act were entitled to attorney's fees, even though the suit settled out of court rather than proceeding to judgment. This term--and it was a controversial 5-4 decision--the Supreme Court made the opposite ruling, holding that the party that has failed to secure a judgment on the merits or a court- ordered consent decree is not the prevailing party and may not receive attorney's fees. A very strong dissent in that case took basically the position you did. Your opinion tracks Judge Ginsburg's dissent in this West Virginia case, an opinion you had issued earlier. So have you changed your view of what the law requires on what it means to be a prevailing party when you petition for attorney's fees? Judge Cebull. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I followed Ninth Circuit precedent in my ruling, and I think it was back in April of 2000. And I did hold, pursuant to Ninth Circuit authority, that the prevailing party included the catalyst theory. And I am aware of that May 29, 2001, U.S. Supreme Court decision that says, no, it doesn't. Chairman Leahy. So you would take the same position that Judge Gregory took earlier that the Supreme Court gets the final word? Judge Cebull. Absolutely, and the Ninth Circuit, who is my intermediate appellate court, yes, sir. Chairman Leahy. But you must take some satisfaction in knowing a very strong dissent took the same position you did. You don't have to answer that, Judge. [Laughter.] Judge Cebull. It offers little solace. Chairman Leahy. You have had quite a bit of experience already has a factfinder and a decisionmaker. You were a trial judge in the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court. You were a settlement master. You have been a U.S. Magistrate for the last three years. Those of us who have practiced law know that we have a system that would totally collapse in the Federal court system if we didn't have the magistrates. But how do you anticipate it is going to be different sitting as an Article III judge? Judge Cebull. The main difference, Mr. Chairman, will be the volume and type of criminal cases. Now, I handle only misdemeanor, up through a Class A misdemeanor, and as an Article III judge I will be handling all of the Federal felony criminal cases in my district, if I am honored by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Haddon, I look at your background and you have been in a lot of different bar activities that have improved the profession. You have been active, and I will probably leave some of these out, but the American College of Trial Lawyers, the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, the ABA, the American Judicature Society, the American Law Institute, the American Bar Foundation. You were on an advisory commission making recommendations to your State supreme court about the standards for admission to practice in Montana. You were Chair of a commission to study and suggest revision to the State's laws of evidence. You have served on the Montana Supreme Court's Commission on Practice, which I understand has ethic complaints and others that go before that. Now, a judge, of course, has some restrictions, obviously, both time but also professionally. But would you see, though, that it would be possible also as a sitting Federal judge to still take part in appropriate bar associations or professional legal associations? Mr. Haddon. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would, of course, be guided by whatever the constraints are that would apply to any sitting judge, but it would certainly be my hope to continue to be active, where appropriate, in matters related to the advancement of our profession. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Haddon, you have a lot of litigation experience, but I notice that it is virtually all civil. Mr. Haddon. That is correct. Chairman Leahy. And yet the criminal jurisdiction of the Federal courts expands all the time. In fact, in some places it overwhelms it almost to the extent that you can't get a civil case heard. So it would be safe to assume you are going to be handling a lot of criminal cases. Do you anticipate any difficulty in getting prepared for that type of law? Mr. Haddon. Mr. Chairman, I would not anticipate difficulty. I would certainly anticipate a challenge and an obligation to work diligently with the other judges who would be available, to take advantage of the materials that the Administrative Office of the United States Courts has available, and to, as necessary, go back to school to learn what it means to handle a significant criminal caseload. Chairman Leahy. In fact, you know, Mr. Haddon, you said something there that kind of makes me think of this. This could be the same in any profession, but in one way or another every judge can go back to school all the time. I mean, obviously when a case comes before you, you are going to have the advantage of having superb law clerks, but to read that, to go back to reeducate yourself, to take advantage of the various publications; both of you, for that matter. I have always thought in the job that I have, in some ways it is like going back to school all the time, and that is really one of the most exciting parts about it. All the best judges I know look forward to that part of it, to basically reeducate themselves on new points of law all the time. Mr. Haddon. I certainly consider it an exciting challenge. Chairman Leahy. I can imagine it will be. Senator Cantwell? Senator Cantwell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have questions for Mr. Haddon. You mentioned in your paperwork about pro bono work that you did representing members of the Flathead Nation. Could you elaborate on that? Mr. Haddon. Yes, Ms. Cantwell. I have not done a great deal of that. That is a relatively new program that was set up on the Flathead Reservation. I was asked to become a member of the bar of that court, and solicited by, or at least given the opportunity to make myself available to do pro bono work for the disadvantaged folks up on the reservation, and I have done that on a limited basis. I have been asked on perhaps four or five occasions to give advice to tribal members who have had difficulties at one level or another with some matter, very little court work. Most of it has been private consultations with clients. Senator Cantwell. So it was advice in four or five different cases? Mr. Haddon. Yes. Senator Cantwell. Do you believe in tribal sovereignty, Mr. Haddon? Mr. Haddon. I beg your pardon? Senator Cantwell. Do you believe in tribal sovereignty? Mr. Haddon. I'm sorry. I missed the last-- Senator Cantwell. Do you believe in tribal sovereignty? Mr. Haddon. Well, certainly the United States Supreme Court and our treaty system have recognized a substantial measure of tribal sovereignty. I believe that what the Court has said and what the treaties that have been written and are a part of our history say about the role and responsibility of tribal law and the status of Native Americans is a part of our history. It is a part of the body of law that we observe, and it is as significant in its way as any other part of our legal system. Senator Cantwell. I know that you were active in the 1970s, I believe, on behalf of the State at that time, a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court. You represented the State of Montana in Moe v. Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes. That was an issue of challenging tribal immunity on, I think, an issue of State taxes maybe related to cigarettes. Mr. Haddon. That is correct. Senator Cantwell. Could you expand in your involvement? Mr. Haddon. I was asked to participate in that case as a special assistant attorney general on behalf of the State. The case was tried before a three-judge panel, a three-judge court. The basic position of the Confederated Tribe was that the State of Montana had no authority to tax the sale of cigarettes that were sold by tribal members on the reservation. The position of the State of Montana was just the opposite. The tribes also took the position that the State of Montana could not prosecute individuals who purchased such non-tax-paid cigarettes and took them off the reservation. The three-judge court ruled in favor of the tribes on the issue of taxation, ruled in favor of the State of Montana on the capacity of the State to impose its criminal laws upon individual who purchase such cigarettes and removed them from the reservation. And the United States Supreme Court, following hearing and argument, affirmed the decision of the three-judge panel. Senator Cantwell. Is that the only case that you were involved in representing the State against a tribal nation? Mr. Haddon. Yes, it is. Senator Cantwell. And that was in what capacity? Mr. Haddon. I was designated as a special assistant attorney general for the State. Senator Cantwell. Thank you. That is all the questions I have, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Well, gentlemen, again this has been an exercise in rigorous cross-examination of both of you. I suspect you will survive. Again, I will ask you, while we call Ms. O'Connor up, for the same reason as I did for Judge Gregory if you might sit back. I hope we will wrap this up fairly soon, but if you could still stay and be available for other members of the committee. Judge Cebull. Thank you. May I thank you on behalf of us both for providing this hearing and the honor of being here. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Judge Cebull. I appreciate that. As I said, I noticed these hearings less than 10 minutes after we finally got the Senate reorganized. I intend to move forward vigorously, as much as the Senate schedule will allow us, on these. But I also know the situation you have with Judge Molloy kind of feeling home alone. Judge Cebull. Right. Chairman Leahy. You can call him once we finish this and tell him that help is on its way. Judge Cebull. Thank you. Mr. Haddon. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. [The biographical information of Judge Cebull and Mr. Haddon follow:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.048 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.098 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.109 Chairman Leahy. Ms. O'Connor, your husband is a judge and he has done this a lot, but bear with me. Would 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. O'Connor. I do. Chairman Leahy. I would also give you an opportunity to introduce your husband. STATEMENT OF EILEEN J. O'CONNOR, OF MARYLAND, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE TAX DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Ms. O'Connor. Thank you, with pleasure. I am accompanied today by my best friend, whom I have the great good fortune to be married to, the Honorable A. Raymond Randolph, of the District of Columbia Circuit. Chairman Leahy. Judge, it is good to have you here with us. I am going to put a statement from Senator Feingold in the record. As I mentioned earlier, Senator Hatch was involved downtown on another matter that actually related to his membership and former chairmanship of this committee. That is why I have asked each of you to stand by until he might come back. Why don't you hold, Ms. O'Connor, and let me yield to Senator Hatch? STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Hatch. I will put my statement in the record. Let me just congratulate all of you. I am very pleased that all of you are being put through the committee, hopefully, in the immediate future and that we have this hearing today. I want to thank Senator Leahy for moving ahead and doing this. I am very pleased with this group of nominees, and I will just tell you in advance, so don't worry about me, I will submit my questions in writing. I have looked over all of your backgrounds rather carefully. I want to compliment the President of the United States for making these excellent choices. I am pleased, Judge Gregory, to be able to get this matter resolved and am pleased to be a strong supporter of yours, as well as all the rest of you. This is a real privilege to have you all here. It is going to be a privilege for you to serve in your respective callings, and I believe that you will all act with distinction. So with that, I will just turn the time back to my chairman. [The prepared statement of Senator Hatch follows.] Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah Thank you, Chairman Leahy. It is both an honor and a pleasure to be here this afternoon with these extremely well-qualified nominees for the federal courts and the Department of Justice. I would like to congratulate all of the nominees for their selection by President Bush to serve in these important positions. All of you have distinguished yourselves with hard work and great intellect, and I think you will do great service to the citizens of this country upon your confirmations. Judge Gregory's legal experience, character, and good judgment make him an excellent choice for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. A graduate of Michigan Law School, he has handled just about every kind of litigation. He spent his first four years in practice at two large and prestigious law firms before co-founding a small law firm with the Honorable Douglas Wilder, the former Governor of Virginia. At first, their practice included criminal defense, personal injury, domestic relations, wills, real estate closings, bankruptcy and civil litigation. Eventually the firm began representing large corporate and municipal clients, and Judge Gregory has tremendous experience trying numerous cases in the areas of insurance defense, criminal defense, employment law and commercial law. Since the beginning of this year, Judge Gregory has been doing an excellent job as a judge on the Fourth Circuit. There are a number of vacancies on the Fourth Circuit and we currently have three nominees for that court, all of whom I hope we confirm as soon as possible. President Bush has found Judge Gregory to be well qualified to continue in that position and I believe he should be confirmed. President Bush, in a very significant gesture aimed at changing the tone in Washington, focused on Judge Gregory's qualifications and, with the support of Senators Warner and Allen, nominated Judge Gregory to a lifetime appointment. Judge Gregory's re-nomination is an unmistakable gesture of bipartisanship by President Bush, which I must add is unprecedented in modern times. Today's hearing--along with what I hope will be timely confirmation votes in Committee and on the Senate floor--will be significant, concrete proof of President Bush's good- faith effort to move forward toward a constructive spirit of cooperation with the Senate. The two nominees for the District of Montana also demonstrate the rewards of bipartisanship. Both are highly qualified and are supported by both Senators from Montana one Republican and one Democrat. Judge Cebull has an outstanding record as a lawyer and a judge. He spent 28 years in private practice--both in general practice as well as specializing in the defense of personal injury, product liability, and professional liability cases. From 1970 to 1972, Judge Cebull served as Trial Judge for the Northern Cheyenne Tribal Court. His jurisdiction covered criminal trials of tribe members charged with violating tribal ordinances. In 1998, Judge Cebull began serving his appointment as United States Magistrate Judge for the District of Montana, Great Falls Division, where he continues to serve at the present time. During his three years as Magistrate Judge, he has assembled a near-perfect record of having his decisions adopted and affirmed. Mr. Haddon's career is similarly outstanding. As a private practitioner since 1966, Mr. Haddon has developed considerable expertise in a broad range of litigation topics--both at the trial and appellate levels. Mr. Haddon has represented clients before state courts, Indian tribal courts, federal district court, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. His cases have included the areas commercial litigation, taxpayer suits, personal injury claims, civil rights, Indian law and constitutional law--to name a few. Mr. Haddon has also unselfishly donated his superior legal talents by performing pro bono work for members of the Flathead Nation Indian tribe--as well as for charitable, religious and philanthropic organizations. Switching now to the Department of Justice, I would like to welcome Ms. Eileen O'Connor, the nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division. That is the Division that supervises all federal criminal tax prosecutions. It also defends the United States in tax refund lawsuits, institutes collection actions, defends the IRS in all tort claims, and represents the federal government in bankruptcy actions. In addition, the Tax Division represents federal departments and agencies in cases concerning the federal government's immunity from state and local taxation. Ms. O'Connor has proven to be a highly qualified expert on federal taxation issues. Over the course of her career, she has worked extensively as a partner for national accounting firms, as a corporate tax law specialist for the Internal Revenue Service, and as a sole practitioner. She has also applied her expertise in her role as an adjunct law professor at George Mason University and Georgetown University. In all of these roles, Ms. O'Connor has demonstrated impeccable skill and judgment--exactly the qualifications needed for the important position of Assistant Attorney General for the Justice Department's Tax Division. As with the earlier nominees, I commend the president for nominating her. Again, it is a great pleasure to welcome these nominees to this Committee. Chairman Leahy. Well, I would point out, Senator Hatch, that all of the nominees here have undergone strenuous, arduous cross-examination, but none more arduous than what you just put them through there, which gives you some idea, Orrin, of what it has been like this afternoon. Senator Hatch. Well, I appreciate you being so fair to these good nominees. Chairman Leahy. Do you have any objection, then, to all of them, except Ms. O'Connor, leaving? Senator Hatch. I think you ought to be released. I will just submit questions in writing, and if you can get those answers right back, it would help us. Chairman Leahy. Ms. O'Connor, you stay, but Judge Gregory, you and your family, and Judge Cebull and Mr. Haddon, please feel free to leave. I mean, you are welcome to stay, but feel free to leave if you would like. Senator Hatch. I will really doubt your judgment if you stay. Chairman Leahy. Yes, I think you are probably right. That is that Western ``cut to the quick.'' [Laughter.] Senator Hatch. I will just welcome you, Ms. O'Connor. I am very proud of your nomination and look forward to supporting you all the way. Ms. O'Connor. Thank you very much, Senator. I see there are a few hardy people remaining for this exciting section of this hearing. Chairman Leahy. We all love taxes, let me tell you. Ms. O'Connor. Mr. Chairman, Senator Hatch, members of the committee, thank you so much for setting this hearing today. I am very honored and privileged to be before you today as President Bush's nominee to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Tax Division of the Department of Justice. I apologize for my laryngitis, but you don't know how grateful I am to have any voice at all today after what I have been through. I thank Senator Hatch for the time that he spent with me a few weeks ago to get to know me a little bit, and I am very grateful to my Representative, Congresswoman Morella, for making the time to be here today and putting together from what I know not that glowing introduction of me. I very much appreciate the committee's consideration of my nomination and I hope that you will recommend my confirmation to the Senate. I look forward to responding to any questions you have. [The biograhpical information of Ms. O'Connor follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.129 Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Ms. O'Connor, you have a pamphlet, ``Women and Taxes: Understanding Where Your Money Goes,'' that you authored as part of a series. You wrote, ``Public debate over tax reform almost always produces complaints about tax breaks for the rich, but this is deliberately misleading.'' Who is being deliberately misleading in that regard? Ms. O'Connor. I guess anyone who hears it. I don't recall. It has been over a year since I finished that and if you could read me a little more of the context, I might recall what I was referring to. Chairman Leahy. We will get the context, and I will, if you would hold with us. President Bush's original tax cut plan would have provided the top 1 percent of taxpayers, those with incomes over $319,000 a year, with 43 percent of the benefits of his tax plan, according to the Congressional Budget Office. That same 1 percent, of course, contributes 21 percent of all revenue collected, so they would get about double the percent of revenue they pay the Federal Government. Would that have been a tax break for the rich? Ms. O'Connor. I am not sure I followed all of that. Oh, thank you. I am being handed--I think what I was probably referring to there is the point that President Bush has made in many of his remarks on tax reform, and that is that if you are going to cut taxes, if you are going to cut income taxes, the people who pay them are going to be the ones who get the breaks, and the more taxes you pay, the bigger a break you are probably going to get. I could assure the Senator, though--and I thank him for the question--that any views I have on tax policy have no interference with and do not override my overarching respect for the rule of law, which is what, as Assistant Attorney General of the Tax Division, I will be called upon to enforce. Chairman Leahy. Yes, and let me just back up a little bit. The pamphlet reads well and is well-written. I disagree with some of the conclusions, but I also assume that sometimes we have what has to be enforcing the statutes; other times what is being either an advocate or using the best case to make one's point. I would have to assume with this confirmation that you well understand the difference. Ms. O'Connor. Absolutely, Senator. Chairman Leahy. Let me give you an example on that, then, on some of the differences. The New York Times reported on a growing number of small business owners who are refusing to withhold Federal income taxes on their workers. I have actually gotten some calls on call-in shows in my State of Vermont about that. The small business owners who call themselves the Tax Honesty Movement believe that the Federal Government has no jurisdiction to collect income taxes from most Americans. The IRS has put these small business owners on notice that if they refuse to withhold taxes from workers' paychecks, they might be prosecuted. Is the IRS right on that? Ms. O'Connor. This is a very important issue today, Senator, and it relates also to the point which I just mentioned, which is that the rule of law must be respected. Some people pay taxes because it is the right thing to do, to obey the law. Some people will pay their taxes only if they are afraid not to. We owe it to all of those who pay taxes to make sure that everyone who is supposed to pay taxes does. The protester movements that you mention are a source of some attention both at the Internal Revenue Service and at the Justice Department's Tax Division these days. It is very important that in order for our self-assessment to work, people have to respect the law, and for the law to be respected, it must be enforced. Chairman Leahy. So you believe in this case if enforcement is called for, you see no reason why the Justice Department should not go forward with that enforcement? Ms. O'Connor. I am not familiar with all the particulars of the case you mention, but generally speaking, absolutely the tax laws should be enforced. Chairman Leahy. Now, you also wrote in the same pamphlet we gave you, ``It is not too much to ask that our Tax Code be simple, fair and understandable enough that the average person could do her own taxes in a reasonable amount of time. Simplifying the Tax Code simply makes sense for employers, employees, families and the Government.'' I will tell you, every spring when I am doing my taxes, I couldn't agree with you more. How would you simplify the Tax Code? Ms. O'Connor. Well, first, Senator, I would run for office. Senator Hatch. That is throwing it back down to him. [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. We have all thought that, too, and we still seem to get more complicated every year. When I first came here, I was told that they have an arrangement for the IRS to any Member of Congress; if you want, they will come up and do your taxes for you. It was also a time when we had free haircuts. Obviously, with my hairline, I did not avail myself of the latter, and decided very quickly not to avail myself of the former. I said I have got to sit down here and go through this myself to see what most Vermonters are going through. Are there any magic bullets in simplifying the Tax Code? Ms. O'Connor. If there were, Senator, I am sure that you and your colleagues would have found it by now. There is constantly a tension between complexity and fairness, and I am sure that the Department of the Treasury will make proposals to you--at least I am thinking that they probably will make proposals to you toward simplification. Chairman Leahy. Well, Secretary O'Neill and I had also talked about that, but your role now will be that of enforcing the laws, if confirmed, not worrying how the Tax Code would be. Ms. O'Connor. That is right, Senator. Chairman Leahy. Well, I thank you very much. I am sorry you have had to stay here so long, but-- Ms. O'Connor. The only problem with that, Senator, is it was so humbling to be in the company of those very excellent judge nominees. Chairman Leahy. You are being very kind to them, but you live in the company of an excellent judge. Ms. O'Connor. I do, indeed. Chairman Leahy. Senator Hatch? Senator Hatch. Well, I just want to congratulate you. I know your reputation very well, I know how outstanding you are, and I expect you to be one of the best people who has ever served in this position. Ms. O'Connor. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Hatch. So I am very proud to support you, and I appreciated the conversation we had in my office where we discussed a few of these matters. I just want you to know that we will try and put you through as soon as we possibly can. Ms. O'Connor. Thank you very much. Senator Hatch. Judge, we are so happy to have you here. We are honored to have you supporting your wife here in this hearing. It means a lot to us. Chairman Leahy. Just one more of the President's nominees who survived a grueling grilling. Thank you, Ms. O'Connor for being here. Ms. O'Connor. Thank you very much. Senator Hatch. There may be hope yet for these other nominees. Chairman Leahy. He has been working on me. Ms. O'Connor. Thank you very much for your time and your consideration. Chairman Leahy. We will keep the record open for other Senators to have a chance to submit questions, if they have them. With that, we stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the record follow.] SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Statement of Hon. Richard J. Durbin, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois Today, this Committee is holding its first hearing on individuals who have been nominated by President Bush to fill vacancies on the federal bench. I want to thank Chairman Leahy for scheduling this hearing so quickly--within moments after the Senate reorganized on the last day before recess. I think it speaks to the level of commitment to fairness and efficiency that Chairman Leahy has always exhibited in these matters, and I look forward to working with him and my other colleagues on this Committee as we act upon judicial vacancies during this term. As we do so, we need to be mindful of our heavy responsibility. There are few duties more important to a United States Senator than to advise and consent on judicial nominations. Unlike executive branch nominees, a judicial appointment serves for life. Unlike political appointees, judges make decisions that have far- reaching and long-term consequences that can impact the lives of Americans for generations. And unlike term appointees who serve at the pleasure of a President, a judge's decision cannot be overturned easily by the next President, or even by Congress. Therefore, I take my duty in reviewing judicial nominations extremely seriously, and I know my colleagues do as well. I am also mindful of the fact that a vast majority of the vacancies have been pending since the last administration. This, of course, means that those vacancies should have been filled by President Clinton's nominees with advise and consent of the previous Senate. But they were not, and instead, they will now be filled by President Bush. I don't need to go into details about the remarkable delays and rejections that the Clinton nominees suffered, as the record speaks for itself. Names like Helene White, Richard Paez, Marsha Berzon, and Ronnie White became famous not simply because they are great lawyers, but because they had to endure some of the longest delays and procedural obstacles that any successful or unsuccessful judicial nominee ever had to face. I want to emphasize a simple point that I believe the American people recognize: Under the previous Administration, an overwhelming majority of nominees were individuals of integrity and conscience who had distinguished careers in the law, who held moderate views that are in step with the mainstream, and who held the best interests of our nation and its people at the core of their jurisprudence. We should expect no less from this Republican Administration. In other words, dozens of President Clinton's nominees were denied their chances to serve on the bench by the Republican Senate even though they were clearly qualified, and held centrist, moderate, and mainstream views. The people of our nation spoke last November, and the message was clear. The country is evenly split. The President was not given a mandate by the people to change the course of our nation. This is not the time to put forward ideologues or people with extreme views, and the Senate has a duty to see that the third branch of our government reflects the same balance and moderation that the American people chose when they sent us here to represent them 50-50. In looking at the backgrounds of the judicial nominees before us today, I believe these individuals are great examples of the type of jurists American people deserve. They are all highly qualified and moderate, and have strong support from their peers and others who have reviewed their records. I also appreciate the fact that the two nominees for the Montana District Courts were strongly recommended by both Senators Baucus and Burns working together in a model bipartisan approach. I commend President Bush for including Mr. Gregory, Mr. Cebull, and Mr. Haddon among his first batch of nominees sent to the Senate, and I look forward to supporting them. Thank you.
Statement of Hon. Russell D. Feingold, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin I first would like to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. As I said during the Courts Subcommittee hearing on the judicial nominations process two weeks ago, I believe it is time to end the accusations and recriminations, if we can. I believe that you are showing your good faith by holding this hearing and moving forward on the President's nominees. I look forward to working with you to give these nominations thorough but fair consideration, which I don't think always was given to President Clinton's nominees. As I have said before, I believe President Bush should take a bold step toward ``changing the tone'' of the judicial nominations process by acknowledging the part that his party played in creating the tensions that currently exist. He can do that by re-nominating some of President Clinton's nominees who received the most reprehensible treatment. If he does that, it would truly be a historic step and I think he would find many Senators willing to follow his lead. I was very pleased that President Bush decided to re-nominate at least one of those Clinton nominees who received unfair treatment by the Senate, Judge Roger Gregory, who is before us today. But I would like to remind my colleagues that President Clinton was roundly criticized for making Judge Gregory a recess appointment to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. President Clinton had sought throughout his Presidency to put an African-American on the Fourth Circuit. He recognized that the Fourth Circuit does not reflect the diversity of the residents of the states within its boundaries. He recognized that it was a great injustice for the Circuit with the highest percentage of African-Americans in the nation to have never had an African-American jurist on its court. But time and again, President Clinton's efforts were blocked by Senate Republicans. So he took the unusual step of naming a judge as a recess appointment. He took a lot of political heat for that. But let's be honest. But for the courageous act of President Clinton in making Judge Gregory a recess appointment to the court after the Senate had refused to act on his nomination, Judge Gregory almost certainly would not have been re-nominated by President Bush and would not be before us today. Roger Gregory has had a distinguished career, which includes an adjunct professorship at Virginia State University and partnership with former Virginia Governor Doug Wilder at the law firm of Wilder & Gregory. In addition, Roger Gregory is the recipient of numerous professional awards and distinctions and has been actively involved in community and civic affairs in Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I also note that the two Republicans Senators of his home state, Virginia, have also given their enthusiastic support to his nomination. Both Senator Allen and Senator Warner have urged that Roger Gregory be confirmed despite the controversy surrounding his recess appointment. The two Virginia senators have spoken of Roger Gregory's profound respect for Fourth Circuit precedents, his disdain for what he calls ``result-oriented'' justice, and his deep appreciation of the rights and powers of states. Mr. Chairman, it is indeed time for an eminently well-qualified African-American to have a permanent appointment to the Fourth Circuit. It is time for the confirmation of Judge Roger Gregory. I salute the President for renominating Judge Gregory, I applaud you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing promptly. And I urge this Committee and the Senate to give his nomination speedy consideration. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Russell Smith Courthouse Missoula, Montana 59807-7309 July 9, 2001 Senator Conrad Burns 187 Dirksen Senate Office Building Washington, D.C. 20510 Dear Senator Burns: I am delighted that the Senate has elected to make Sam Haddon and judge Richard Cebull the first district court nominees to be considered by the Judiciary Committee, I spoke to Senator Leahy's staff and advised that I would be providing you information to reflect the problems that having only one Article III Judge in Montana's vast geographic area. I am providing the same information to Senator Baucus by separate cover. The most immediate and pressing concern is the inability of one judge to handle the enormous work load. The average case load in the United States in 1999 for a single Article III judge was 402 civil. cases and 93 criminal cases. In Montana, the 1999 average was 209 civil cases and 78 criminal cases. In the year 2000, the average changed. The U.S. average that year for an Article III judge was 396 civil cases and 96 criminal cases, while in Montana the average jumped to 310 civil cases and 101 criminal cases. During this year, at the current rate, I will be handling 802 civil cases and 332 Criminal cases unless we get help. That amounts to twice the U.S. average for civil cases and over three times the average for criminal cases. That would mean I would have to dispose of three to four cases a day to even stay up with the filings. Bringing in outside judges has been. a help, but it's been a logistical nightmare. The outside judges have helped clear up some of the backlog in Helena and are helping out with the criminal cases in Billings and in Helena. However, the help comes primarily in trying cases, not in other dispositions. As you can see from my attached memo, far more than trials occupies each day. We are in dire need of the services of judge Cebull and Sam Haddon. The judiciary committee's hearings on judge Cebull and Sam Haddon. mitigate the need that I have felt to suspend the Criminal Speedy Trial Act under the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3174. Though I could not do this on my own, it would be my responsibility as the Chief Judge of the District to apply under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3174(a) to the Circuit's judicial Council to suspend the Act's time limits ``for a period of time not to exceed one year for the trial of cases for which Indictments or Information are filed within such one year period.'' 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3174(b). I am grateful to the Senate and to the President for moving to get us immediate help. Quick action means we do not have to ask to suspend the Speedy Trial law and its attendant consequences. The shortage of judges has caused critical problems with the United States Probation Office as well as the United States Marshals Service. As you know, the United States Marshals Service in Montana. must deal with the geography and limited federal facilities available to house federal prisoners. We have had an enormous number of pretrial detainees by virtue of the methamphetamine problem that is rampant in Montana, particularly on our Reservations. The complications for the Marshals are reflected in the Memorandum prepared for me by Acting United States Marshal Don Combs. Clearly, the shortage of judges is impacting the abilities of public servants to accomplish their required tasks. The same holds true with respect to the United States Probation Office. Chief Probation Officer Frank Fleming prepared a letter at my request which reflects the pressing difficulties that have been created for the probation office in preparing presentence reports particularly when we have out of state judges or, which has been more frequent, when everyone has to come to Missoula, or Great Falls, or where I happen to be that particular day. Chief Fleming is concerned that the quality of the work is being impeded by the shortage of judges and that is explained in his letter. Again, his staff is ``jumping'' to meet the needs of the judiciary in fashioning appropriate sentences for the numbers of defendants that we are processing. The quick help will alleviate this concern when the new judges are confirmed and sworn in. In short, I consider the situation a dire emergency and am very grateful to you and to Senator Baucus for moving these nominations jointly and expeditiously. Too often there is sense of cynicism about anything public officials do. I am confident that each of our senators has worked in the State's best interest in agreeing on these two extraordinarily accomplished nominees. I am also very impressed with Jeff Forbes and Will Brook and their ability to work together in resolving this crisis and their willingness to keep me advised. Please extend my deep appreciation to Senator Leahy and to Senator Hatch as well as the President. If there is any question, please feel free to call me. Very truly yours, Donald W. Molloy Chief Judge MEMO To: Senator Max Baucus and Senator Conrad Burns From: Chief Judge Molloy Subject: Confirmation hearings: Magistrate Judge Cebull and Mr. Sam Haddon Date: July 9, 2001 Senators Baucus and Bums: The following information is an indication of the pending cases: ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Civil Criminal Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Missoula 206 39 245 Butte 123 17 140 Great Falls 145 66 211 Helena 79 18 97 Billings 244 117 341 District 777 257 1034 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ I am also including for your information what this week is for me. This morning I begin a 32 Count Indictment and trial involving mail fraud and EPA Clean Water Act violations. The case is expected to last the entire week. A typical trial day goes from 8:15 a.m. until 5:00 p.m. with an hour off for lunch. As you can see, there is going to be a conflict Wednesday, Thursday and Friday because of the schedule. At the same time, Judge Tom Zi1ly of the Western District of Washington is in Billings trying a criminal case and will be there the balance of the week. The following is the schedule for the week of July 9-13, 2001: 1Monday: July 9, 2001 8:15 CR 01-07 BU USA v. David Phillips jury trial in Missoula 3(Scheduled to last all week) Tuesday, July 10, 2001 8:15 Continuation of CR 01-07-BU jury trial Wednesday, July 11, 2001 9:00 CR 01-05-BU USA v. Dale Bowser change of plea in Missoula 9:30 CR 01-12-BU USA v. Ochoa-Valdovinos change of plea in Missoula 10:00 CR 01-09-BU USA v. Jay Condo change of plea in Missoula 10:30 CR 01-03-M USA v. Karen Rogina change of plea 11:00 Continuation of CR 01-07-BU Jury trial Thursday, July 12, 2001 9:00 CR 00-47-M USA v. James Stoker sentencing 10:00 CR 01-02 M USA v. Penny Spencer sentencing 10:30 CR 01-OZ M USA v. J a Spencer sentencing 1:80 CR 00-77-BU McQuillan v. Westphal preliminary pretrial conference in Missoula 2:15CV 00-81-BU Burroughs v. Golden Sunlight preliminary pretual conference in Missoula 3:00CV 00-224-M Gage v. preliminary pretrial conference Friday, July 13, 2001 9:00 CR 01-18-CTF USA v. Deborah Gee revocation hearing in Missoula 10:00 CR 00-24-GF Holland v. Jefferson final pretrial conference in Missoula 11:00 CV 00-231-M Great Western v. State Farm preliminary pretrial conference 1:00 CV 00-159-GF Young v. BN preliminary pretrial conference in Nissoula 2:00 CV 01-32-GF Kafka v. Hagener oral argument in Missoula 3:00 CR 01-07-H USA v. Brandon Hernandez oral argument in Missoula This is a typical week and has been since January. Chief Judge Molloy U.S. District Court Chief U.S. Probation Officer District of Montant July 3, 2001 Hon. Donald W. Molloy Chief U.S. District Court Judge P. O. Box 7309 Missoula, MT 59807-7309 Dear Chief Judge Molloy; I am writing to inform you of the impact realized by the U.S. Probation Office and clients under supervision due to the existing shortage of Article Three Judicial Office within Montana. Several areas of our duties including our ability to provide quality sentencing information to the court and our ability to effectively intervence in the lives of offenders has been sigificantly impacted. I have received input from United States Probation staff and I am providing you the following information as it relates to the impact the present judicial shortfall has created in our areas of statutory responsibility. As you are aware, Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure directs in part that; ``a probation officer must make a presentence investigation and submit a report to the court before sentence can be imposed.'' The rule then goes on to prescribe time frames in which the investigation is to be completed, disclosed, and any disputed issues should be resolved. Additionally, due to the number(s) of juveniles that appear before our bench, due to the provisions of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1153, Offense committed within Indian Country, the time frame for the completion of the presentence investigation and the previously noted bench marks is significantly abbreviated. Due to the shortage of judicial officers, we have noted the following trends: Shorter time frames to complete the presentence report due to having to send it to visiting judges to comply with a time parameters of Rule 32. Due to shorter time frames the ability to provide the most current and accurate information regarding the defendant and offense of conviction may also be negatively impacted. Due to the abbreviated time frames for the preparation of juvenile presentence reports the information utilized by the Court to assist in sentencing may be negatively impacted. The different styles and requirements of visiting judges have created a lack of understanding of what the Court will require from staff. (i.e. staffing the case with the Judge, appearance at the sentencing hearing, special conditions, etc.) This in turn creates scheduling difficulties and travel requirements that are unable to be planned for until the visiting judge arrives in the district. Your Honor, as well as the visiting Judges, have been attempting to hold Court in each of the divisions; therefore, probation staff have been required to travel more frequently throughout the district to hearings that had been previously conducted at the location of their duty station. This has had negative impact on our travel budget. Due to the varying availability of the visiting Judges, often numerous sentencing will be scheduled to occur on one or consecutive days. This negatively impacts the quality of the presentence reports due to the volume of reports our officer(s) are required to prepare for a single day of sentencing proceedings. This also has a negative impact on our support staff who prepare the final reports due to the volume of reports they must produce for a single date. Due to the scheduling, volume and location; staff that have been assigned to supervise offenders have had to be utilized to assist in the preparation of presentence reports. This has negatively impacted the quality of supervision these officers have been previously providing, due tot he time required to prepare reports, and may pose some risk to the community where the offender resides. In accordance with provision of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 3603(2) a probation officer shall; ``keep informed to the degree required by the conditions specified by the sentencing court, as to the conduct and condition of a probationer or a person on supervised release who is under supervision, and to bring about improvements in his conduct and condition.'' Due to our need to utilize officer who are generally assigned supervision cases, I am concerned that our ability to carry out this statutory mandate may be compromised. I believe the present judicial crisis has negatively impacted the supervision are in the impacted the supervision and the following manner: Due to a shortage of judicial officers, warrants for violations of the conditions of supervision are not being issued as promptly as when the district had a full compliment of Article Three Judicial Officers. This delay places members of the community at risk and may simultaneously limit the Court's ability to utilize alternatives to imprisonment. This is due to the concept that the offender's behavior will continue to deteriorate between the time the violation is filed and the time they appear before the Court. We have noticed that expedient implementation of modifications of conditions has been negatively impacted by the shortage of full time Judicial Officers. A modification conditions often used to address non-compliance or risk they pose to the community. Due to the shortage of Judges, these modifications are not addressed in expedient modification, an offender's behavior my continue to deteriorate to a point where few alternatives to imprisonment exist. During the downward spiral, the community may become victim to potential crime by the defendant. An additional area of concern exists regarding offenders who commit violations supervision conditions when an offenders is arrested on a warrant issued by the Court. Due to the fact that all violations of probation or supervised release must be heard by a District Court Judge, the revocation process has become delayed because of the unavailability of the regular sitting Judges. This negatively impacts the offender who is required to remain in custody until the matter can be disposed of. Also, the U.S. Marshal Service must hold this client for a longer period of time. The present configuration of Judicial Officers has had a negative impact on the probation department, as well as, the sentencing and supervision process. The existing situation of having a shortage of Judges is difficult; however, I thank you for all the considerations you have afforded the probation office staff. I believe unless the number of District Court Judges is increased to the appropriate level, the quality of information afforded to the Court for sentencing, the supervision of offenders in the community, and the speedy access to the Court by offenders will be jeopardized. Sincerely, Frank R. Fleming Chief U.S. Probation Officer U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Marshals Service District of Montana June 29, 2001 Memorandum To: Chief Judge Molloy, District of Montana From: Donald D. Combs, Acting United States Marshal Subject: District Judge Shortage Per our conversation this morning attached is a brief list of issues that having only one District Judge has caused the U.S. Marshals Service already shorthanded, the continued shortage of District Judges has compounded our problems for the following reasons: 1. Same court cities do not have adequate bed space at the county jail so the U.S. Marshals Service has to house some defendants where bed space is available. An example would be housing a prisoner in Great falls that has court appearances in Butte. (300 miles round-trip) 2. Great Falls case defendants sometimes have to be transported to Missoula for court because of a change in the court calender. (320 miles round-trip) 3. Visiting Judges sometimes come into the district to assist with the severe backlog of cases and this also requires moving defendants long distances to Court. Because the U.S. Marshals Service does not have adequate staff to accomplish the required prisoner productions, we have to hire contract guards to assist us thus causing budget-issues. Statistically, any increase in Court activity will generate more work for the U.S. Marshals Service and from fiscal year 1999 to fiscal year 2000 the District of Montana saw an increase in all of the following U.S. Marshals Service Programs: Criminal Cases Commenced, Criminal Bench Tours, Prisoner Received, Prisoner Productions to Court and Average Daily Prisoner Population. NOMINATION OF HON. REGGIE WALTON, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND RICHARD R. NEDELKOFF, OF TEXAS, TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ---------- WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 22, 2001 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:14 a.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senator Leahy. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. Good morning. It seems to me I am home alone here, but certainly if anyone wishes to come in and join us, they are more than welcome. Especially if there are any members who have asked for us to have more hearings, if they would want to show up for them, I would be delighted to have them here. But I am glad to schedule this nominations hearing to consider one of President Bush's nominees to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as his nominee to be Director for the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice. Now, the Senate has been in session for only 4 weeks since an agreement on reorganization was reached and I was able to schedule nominations beginning in July. But despite the short time period of 4 weeks of session, I have nevertheless been able to make progress on moving nominations for both the Department of Justice and the judiciary. I am somewhat concerned--and I don't necessarily have to say this--about some on the other side of the aisle who continue to make public comments about the nominations process because these comments are designed to continue the rough partisan politics that plagued this Committee and the process for the last 6 years. Now, political cheap shots are easy to make, and maybe those of us who have been in public office a long time should expect them. But while harsh political rhetoric over nominations may be a habit that the White House and some Republicans--and I exclude my good friend Orrin Hatch from this--may find hard to break, a review of the facts about the progress we have made should help set the record straight. So I will. This is the sixth hearing I have held to consider Presidential nominations, the third hearing I have held to consider judicial nominations since July, the first month as Chairman of the Committee, and including the short period in January when I was privileged to serve as chairman. Today actually marks a total of seven nomination hearings that I have held as chairman over the same total number of weeks for five judicial nominations and eight executive branch nominations. I want to contrast this. From January 20th, when the other side controlled the Senate, until the reorganization of the Senate, a period of about five and a half months, the Committee on the Judiciary held only four hearings for eight executive branch nominations. They held no judicial nominations. And if I was interested in some kind of political payback, as one Member of the Senate suggested a couple of weeks ago, then the pace of moving nominations under my chairmanship would be worse, not better--in fact, much better--than the prior leadership of the Committee. In fact, I have noticed a hearing next week for nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. And while I attempted to schedule additional district court nominees for the July 24th hearing, none of the files for nominees to the district courts pending before this Committee were here as complete. I would remind the White House--I don't know if there is anybody here from the White House, but I would remind them that it is hard to hold hearings if you won't send us the files. They kind of have to work together. Now, a lot of us are trying to restore dignity and regularity to the nominations process. It has been lacking. We are trying to bring it back. We are trying to make the process move smoothly. And so when bumps in the road are created on the other side, it is somewhat frustrating. For example, President Bush's decision to delay the American Bar Association's evaluation of a judicial nominee's qualifications until the nominee is made public has forced delay in the process as well. And that is a break with precedent. Just so that people understand, the Presidents who have used the ABA process before sending the nomination up, President Eisenhower did, President Kennedy did, President Johnson did, President Nixon did, President Ford did, President Carter did, President Reagan did, former President Bush did, President Clinton did. So this is the first time in over 50 years that a President hasn't done that, and so obviously both Republicans and Democrats as Senators have asked to have the ABA background done so the nomination comes up here, and then we have to wait another several weeks to get the background. But we are doing the best we can, and as soon as the files get here, we will move more district court candidates. Unfortunately, we had to wait over a month and a half before we could reorganize the Senate and be able to move on these nominations, and then we finally reorganized it in a way that could have been done the first day of the change in the Senate. But then the Minority Leader objected on August 3rd to Senator Reid's unanimous consent request to avoid returning all pending nominations. Again, this may sound like inside baseball, and I apologize, Judge, for delaying all this, but I just want to put this on the record. It has always been the way when the August recess comes up--and Congresswoman Norton knows this--that there will be a lot of nominations pending. Technically, under our rules, they have to be returned to the White House. We always ask unanimous consent to waive the rule and keep them here so that the staff and Senators, if they want to, can continue to work on those nominations. Senator Lott objected to that. So many judges--in fact, a number had just arrived about the day before--were all sent back to the White House. Now, maybe it is coincidence, but as soon as they were sent back and we couldn't work on them, a group connected with the White House issued a condemnation saying we weren't moving on all of these nominations. Of course, none was even here anymore. I have never known that to happen before, never known of nominations being sent back en masse to the President, ever, under either Republican or Democratic leadership. So we didn't have pending nominations. We didn't have the standing to either seek, receive, or continue review of sensitive FBI background checks about these nominees. A letter I just received a few days ago from Judge Gonzales, the White House counsel, he asked that the Committee continue its work, notwithstanding our lack of standing due to the Republican Leader's action. Some might think that we are getting caught in a ``good cop/bad cop'' routine, but I want to keep the process moving, and I agreed to that request even though I realized I was kind of setting myself up, because if any Republican objects to us moving forward to help the President's process go, I am actually not following the rules. By helping the President, I am having to assume that none of my Republican brethren will object to me not following the rules because of the kind of catch-22 that they set up when they went out. Actually, it thwarted plans to hold nomination hearings over the August recess since the Committee virtually never holds hearings on nominees that are not before us. Technically, yours is not, Judge, but we will do it. I did this same thing for Attorney General Ashcroft. I held hearings for him even though his nomination wasn't here, and we voted on the Attorney General's nomination I think something like 48 hours after the nomination actually reached the Senate. I also understand that no hearings have been held during the August recess. I am holding these, and let me tell you, much as I love the District of Columbia--and I really do. As Congresswoman Norton knows, I have always been one of the biggest fans of D.C. I went to school here at Georgetown. I think the world of this city. But much as I love the city, my house in Vermont during August was a more appealing place. And so I am trying to go the extra mile in coming back for hearings today and hearings next week, and I hope that at least some of the Republicans who complain why don't we have more hearings will also get on an airplane and come back and join us. But to move on to happier moments, we will consider the nomination of Judge Reggie Walton to serve on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and then we will hear from Richard Nedelkoff to serve as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice, both distinguished attorneys. Judge Walton currently serves on the Superior Court for the District of Columbia, a graduate of the American University's Washington College of Law, who began his legal career in Philadelphia as a staff attorney with the Defender Association of Philadelphia. He has seen both sides. He moved from public defender to become a Federal prosecutor. As I told the judge before we started, I always thought that being a prosecutor was the best job in the world. Why I ever gave it up for this, I don't know, but somehow they haven't been able to attract me to go back. Judge Walton was named by President Reagan to serve on the D.C. Superior Court. After 8 years, he served the first President Bush as the Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and senior White House adviser for crime. In 1991, he was reappointed to the D.C. Superior Court. Richard Nedelkoff is President Bush's choice to serve as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, a component of the Office of Justice Programs at DOJ, to provide leadership and assistance in support of local criminal justice strategies, achieving safe communities. Mr. Nedelkoff has a 21-year public service career focused on the administration of juvenile justice, criminal justice and victim services in five different States. He has worked directly with clients as a Child Protective Services caseworker, a foster care coordinator, a guardian ad litem, juvenile probation officer, detention care worker, executive director of the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, and most recently in Texas, he worked on the development of nationally recognized programs including the Texas School Safety Center and others. And I think the President is to be commended for sending such a well-qualified person here, and I will put the rest of may statement in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows.] Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont I am pleased to have been able to schedule this nominations hearing to consider one of President Bush's nominees to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, as well as his nominee to be Director for the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice. The Senate has been in session only four weeks since an agreement on reorganization was reached and I was able to schedule nominations hearings beginning in July. Despite this short time period, I have nevertheless been able to make progress on moving nominations for both the Department of Justice and the Judiciary. Unfortunately, there are those on the other side of the aisle who continue to make public comments about the nominations process that are designed to continue the rough partisan politics that plagued the last six years. Political cheap-shots are easy to make and are therefore, I suppose, to be expected. While harsh political rhetoric over nominations may be a habit that the White House and Republicans find hard to break, a review of the facts about the progress we have made should help set the record straight. This is the sixth hearing I have held to consider Presidential nominations and the third hearing I have I have held to consider judicial nominations since July, the first month that as Chairman of this Committee I was able to do so. Including the short period in January when I was privileged to serve as Chairman, today actually marks a total of seven nominations hearings that I have held as Chairman over the same total number of weeks--for five judicial nominations and eight executive branch nominations. By contrast, from January 20th until the reorganization of the Senate, or a period of almost five and one-half months, the Committee on the Judiciary held only four hearings for eight executive branch nominations and no judicial nominations. If this Chairman were interested in political payback, as some Republicans have suggested, the pace of moving nominations under my Chairmanship would be worse, not better, than the prior leadership of this Committee. In fact, I have noticed a hearing next week for nominations to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and to the U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina. While I attempted to schedule additional District Court nominees for the July 24th hearing, none of the files for nominees to the District Courts pending before the committee were then complete. For those of us trying to restore dignity and regularity to the nominations process by making the process move smoothly, the bumps in the road created by the other side is especially frustrating. For example, President Bush's decision to delay the American Bar Association's evaluation of a judicial nominee's qualifications until the nomination is made public, has forced delays in the rest of the process as well. As a result of this break with precedent, the nominations of even the least controversial and most qualified candidates are now delayed by weeks. But we are doing the best we can, and we hope to move even more District Court candidates at nominations hearing in the near future. The delay in processing nominations was only compounded by the Minority Leader's objection on August 3, 2001, to Senator Reid's unanimous consent request to avoid returning all pending nominations to the White House. As a consequence, all the pending nominations have been returned to the White House. Never before the Minority Leader's objection, have all pending nominations been returned to the President en masse during the August recess nor has the President been forced to resubmit all the nominations that were before the Committee. This break in precedent had the result that our Committee was without pending nominations and therefore without standing to either seek, receive or continue review of sensitive FBI background reports or confidential information about nominees. By letter of August 9, Judge Gonzales, the White House counsel, requested that the Committee continue its work, notwithstanding our lack of standing due to the Minority Leader's action. In an effort to keep the process moving, I agreed to that request. The Minority Leader's action also initially thwarted my plans to hold nominations hearings over the August recess since the Committee virtually never holds hearings on nominees whose nominations have not yet been forwarded by the White House. Yet, just as I did for Attorney General Ashcroft, for whom I held hearings before his nomination had been sent to the Senate, I decided to move ahead with hearings. Furthermore, I understand that no hearings have been held by the Senate Judiciary Committee during the August recess since at least 1980. At today's hearing we will consider the nomination of Judge Reggie Walton to serve on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and Richard Nedelkoff to serve as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice. They are both distinguished attorneys. Judge Walton currently serves on the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. He is a graduate of the American University's Washington College of Law and began his legal career in Philadelphia as a staff attorney with the Defender Association of Philadelphia. He has seen both sides of the criminal practice, moving from the Public Defender's office to become a federal prosecutor from 1976 to 1981. Mr. Walton was named by President Reagan to serve on the D.C. superior Court and, after eight years, he served the first President Bush as the Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and Senior White House Advisor for Crime. In 1991, he was re-appointed to the D.C. Superior Court where he has served since. Richard Nedelkoff is President Bush's choice to serve as Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, which is a component of the Office of Justice Programs at the Department of Justice. The Bureau's mission is to provide leadership and assistance in support of local criminal justice strategies to achieve safe communities. Mr. Nedelkoff's 21-year public service career has focused on the administration of juvenile justice, criminal justice, and victim services in five different states. As a practitioner, he has worked directly with clients as a child protective services caseworker, a foster care coordinator, a guardian ad litem, a juvenile probation officer, and a detention care worker. As an administrator, he has served as the Executive Director of the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services, an association of non-profit and government entities providing prevention services to troubled youth and families. More recently, in Texas, Mr. Nedelkoff worked in the development of nationally recognized programs including: the Texas School Safety Center, a statewide training and technical assistance resource for schools; Project Spotlight, a community-based police-probation partnership in the seven largest counties in Texas; Texas Exile, a collaborative gun prosecution project with the Texas AG's Office, District Attorneys, and U.S. Attorneys; Project ChildSafe, a gun lock giveaway program; and Right Choices, initiatives to promote responsible fatherhood, mentoring, and character development. In 1998, Mr. Nedelkoff was appointed to his current position by then-Governor Bush to direct the Texas Criminal Justice Division (CJD) which funds criminal justice, juvenile justice, delinquency prevention, and victim services projects. As head of CJD, he directed the state's administering agency for federal funds from the Office of Justice Programs, including Byrne Formula Grants and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, Victims Against Women Act and all of the funds from the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Program. BJA's mission is to reduce and prevent crime, violence, and drug abuse and to improve the functioning of the criminal justice system in all of America's communities. BJA emphasizes enhanced coordination and cooperation of federal, state, and local efforts at all stages of the development and implementation of comprehensive strategies to reduce and prevent crime. BJA has four primary components: (1) the State and Local Assistance Division, which administers formula grant programs, such as Byrne Formula Grants and Local Law Enforcement Block Grants; (2) the Program Development Division, which administers Byrne Discretionary Programs including the Open Solicitation and a number of targeted funding programs; (3) the Office of Benefits, which administers the Public Safety Officer's Benefits, Denial of Federal Benefits and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership programs; and (4) the Office of Program Analysis and Communication which supports the evaluation and effectiveness of funded programs and disseminates program results. My home state of Vermont has benefitted from grant programs administered by BJA, including the Byrne Formula Grant program and the Bulletproof Vest Partnership program. We still have a way to go in assisting our communities and I will be interested in hearing from Mr. Nedelkoff about his priorities if he is confirmed for this position. Chairman Leahy. Congresswoman Norton, I appreciate, as always, having you come over here. We have worked closely together for all these many years, and I also appreciate your taking the time to come by the other day so we could talk about how we will move forward on the needs of the justice system in the District. So, please, I am delighted to have you here, and go ahead. PRESENTATION OF HON. REGGIE WALTON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BY HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Delegate Norton. Well, thank you very much, Senator Leahy. I must say that if I had been asked, I would have freely said I was the only Member of Congress in the entire District of Columbia. But anybody who knows Pat Leahy is not surprised that he is here beyond the call of duty, and we are particularly grateful that you are, Senator. I am grateful to be able to introduce an especially distinguished nominee, President Bush's first nominee for a justice position in the District of Columbia to come before the Committee, and I am pleased that he is the first. May I, Senator, express my appreciation for your courtesy in consulting with me on this nominee and your intention to consult with me on future nominees. Far more than a personal courtesy to me, it is an important courtesy to the almost 600,000 residents of the District of Columbia who have no representation in this body, and it is typical of the generosity and the professionalism of Pat Leahy that he would reach out to the only Federal representative District of Columbia residents have. I have spoken to Judge Gonzales, the White House counsel who has come to visit me. I have informed him of our conversation, and he has indicated that he would also consult with me in light of your intention to do so. Chairman Leahy. If I might interrupt, Congresswoman, I have taken the same position, whether there has been a Republican or Democratic administration, that the elected representative of the District of Columbia must be consulted on judicial nominations. The people of the District of Columbia--there are slightly more people in the District of Columbia than there are in my State of Vermont--they look to you to protect their interests, and I can assure you as chairman of this Committee that it will be absolutely essential that they consult with you. And I want to be satisfied they have consulted with you before any nominees go on the agenda here, because you have such a responsibility to the District. And I think that, as I have told both Republican and Democratic Presidents--and they have all realized that--that they are supposed to consult with the representative of the District. I am sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to make that very clear. Delegate Norton. Thank you very much, Senator. Certainly the White House now realizes it because of your own action. I am not surprised that President Bush's first judicial nominee for the district court would be Reggie Walton, who is a most distinguished judge of our own D.C. Superior Court. Many have considered him a Federal judge in waiting. He is considered so highly qualified for the work he has done, both in an administration preceding this one and on the bench. His prior service, I think, prepares Judge Walton abundantly to serve as a district court judge. He has been the chief of the career criminal unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office here in the District of Columbia and has served as executive assistant to the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia. But, interestingly, and perhaps it is unusual that a man who has had such service on the U.S. Attorney side has also been a public defender. He was with the Public Defender Association of Philadelphia before coming here. Judge Walton was first appointed to the Superior Court in 1981. He took 2 years out to serve as Associate Director of the very important Office of National Drug Control Policy and then as senior adviser to the White House on crime. He returned to the Superior Court in January 2000. His experience on that court has been both wide and deep. Not only does Judge Walton bring rich experience at the trial bar and traditional experience as a trial judge, Judge Walton has played a very special role on our court here and done a very special service in two divisions that are of utmost importance to the District of Columbia: the Family Division and the Domestic Violence Unit, where he headed both. Senator we now have before the Congress--and expect it will be passed because we have gotten such good bipartisan, bicameral support--a bill to revise our Family Division for the first time in 30 years, and Judge Walton has played a leadership role in bringing us to a watershed moment for this special division of our court. He is a graduate of the American University Washington College here in the District of Columbia and West Virginia State. He is the son of a steelworker from a steel town, Donora, Pennsylvania. His awards and services to the bar and to teaching and to the profession are so numerous I won't even try to pick out representative ones. But they range all the way from a full-out Governor's Proclamation in April of 1991, I think when he was serving in the White House, for declaring the State of--the State of Louisiana declared a Reggie B. Walton Day, so from something that might be considered lofty and statewide, especially to someone who doesn't even live in the State, to the service that Judge Walton has done to our own community at the most grass-roots level, from Big Brothers to the Hillcrest Children's Center. It is a very proud service that I render in introducing and highly recommending to you Judge Reggie B. Walton to be a United States district court judge. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, and, Judge, you should know that she says these nice things about you when you are not here and the TV cameras are not running and you have all your family here. Congresswoman Norton, I know you have got a million things to do. Unlike the rest of us, you can't kind of escape when there is a recess. You are on 24/7. But I appreciate your coming over and, again, I really want to thank you for taking the time you did a couple weeks ago to meet with me and talk about the judges here. It is very helpful, and I do appreciate it. Delegate Norton. Thanks really go to you, Senator. Thank you very much. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Judge, before I swear you in, I--and I have met some of them already, some of your family members, and someday in the Walton Library in your archives you will probably have a copy of all this because you won't get anybody to say these many nice things about you until you are unfortunately not going to be available to hear it. So their names will thus become part of the permanent records of the U.S. Senate. Would you be kind enough to introduce whoever is here with you? Judge Walton. Thank you very much, Senator Leahy. I welcome the opportunity to introduce my family, some of my family and some of my friends who have been gracious enough to come here today. Before I do that, however, I would like to acknowledge my mother, who, unfortunately, could not travel here from western Pennsylvania, and my deceased father. Without the two of them, I would have never been able to achieve anything in life. So I do want to recognize them. I do have with me my wife, Dr. Debra Coats-Walton, and my daughter, Danon Walton. Also, I have with me a cousin, who really is like a big sister because we grew up together in Donora, Pennsylvania, Ms. Helen Jenkins; and also an aunt, who is my father's sister, Ester Fisher. Also, she is like family because she has been my secretary now for over 20 years, Ms. Auntalene Queen. Also, I have with me a cousin, Elmer Barksdale, from Baltimore. And also, I have with me my current law clerk, Mr. Aubrey Burton, Jr., and I have a special guest here, Chief Judge Rufus King, my current chief judge of the Superior Court. Also, Judge Lee Satterfield, one of my colleagues and a friend; also, Judge Anita Josey- Herring, a colleague and a friend; also, Judge Mary Terrell, also a colleague and a friend; a former judicial intern, Mr. James Beane; a former law clerk, Mr. James Towns; also, a former law clerk, Ms. Kathleen Brandon; and Mr. John Robinson, who is also a very good friend. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Judge King and the other judges, you do us honor in being here. I don't think we have ever had a nominee with so many other judges here. And, Ms. Fisher, I suspect it would be safe to say, if your brother were still with us, he would be very proud of his son being here. Every day when something happens here, I think of my parents and realize I wouldn't be here without them. I just wish they were still here to share it. Judge would you please stand and take the oath? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Walton. I do. Chairman Leahy. Judge, did you wish to make an opening statement? STATEMENT OF HON. REGGIE WALTON, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Judge Walton. No, Chairman. I would just like to thank you for giving me the opportunity to have this hearing today. I know it was an imposition for you to come back from Vermont, but I do appreciate your conducting these hearings. Chairman Leahy. Well, I was glad to do it. I have read your review, and actually the people who deserve a lot of credit are the staff on the Judiciary Committee. I have often joked that Senators are merely constitutional impediments to their staffs, but a lot of them took time from their vacations to help prepare for these, and one of the reasons why I made the comment I did before with the files going back and forth, we have been a little--it has been very difficult on them being jerked around the way they have, and I hope that the White House and the leadership of the other party in the Senate will correct that. I think sometimes it is probably easy for those of us who--I suppose that policymakers sometimes forget that the staff is down here until midnight and on weekends trying to make up for us. Judge let me ask you this, and I am sure you anticipate this question, the question of stare decisis. Do you feel, if you are sworn in as a judge, if you are confirmed by the Senate and sworn in, do you feel that you must bind yourself to the doctrine of stare decisis? Judge Walton. Mr. Chairman, I do. I honor that principle of law, which is the fundamental foundation of our American system of government. I had the opportunity several years ago to travel to Russia to do some instruction in Siberia. When I told people I was going to Siberia, they said, ``What did you do?'' [Laughter.] Chairman Leahy. I was going to ask. Judge Walton. But the one thing that I learned is that they don't have that process, and I think it's important for any governmental system to have a system of laws that people can rely upon so that there's some reasonable degree of certainty that certain actions will result in certain results. So I think it's imperative for judges to apply the rule of law, and I think it's crucial that stare decisis be an integral part of our judicial system. Chairman Leahy. Incidentally, your trip to Russia, I appreciate that, too. Some of the judges from my own State of Vermont, both in the Vermont Supreme Court and State courts and then one of our Federal judges, Judge Sessions, former U.S. Attorney, and others, Charlie Tetzlaff, have gone to Russia on some of these programs. And I have met with a lot of people from the judiciary and the legal system in Russia, especially when the old Soviet Union first broke up. And I am still struck by a question asked by one, who said--this was a number of years ago, who said: We have heard that here in the United States there are cases where somebody would come in, would actually bring a suit against the Government in a State or Federal, a Government court, of course, and the Government could still lose? I mean, how is that possible? You suddenly realize the enormous gap, and I think your equating the need to follow stare decisis with your experience there is so good because if you don't follow it, how can any litigant come forward? But you might also, though, in your court be faced, for example, with a Supreme Court decision that you personally disagree with. And I think every one of us, if we searched from the time we left law school on, could find some cases we may disagree with the Supreme Court on. But now you have got a case on all fours before your court. You disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. Do you believe you would have any difficulty in following the Supreme Court decision even though you might disagree with it? Judge Walton. I would not, and I have done that throughout my judicial career. Chairman Leahy. Now, in your experience in the Superior Court and all the other experience that has been talked about, how will you prepare for the move over--well, physically not moving very far, but how would you prepare for the move over to the Federal court? Judge Walton. Well, I appreciate that I will be embarking on a new venture and that there will be a lot of new statutes that I will have to familiarize myself with. I pride myself on being an extremely hard worker, and I will embark upon the obligation of familiarizing myself with appropriate Federal statutes as diligently as possible to make sure that whenever a case appears before me that I will be prepared to make the appropriate decision. And, obviously, as a judge, you know that you're never going to know all of the law that comes before you, so at that point, you have to be willing to take the time to go back to the books and do the research and do the hard work in order to familiarize yourself with the law so that you can make the appropriate decisions. Chairman Leahy. You know, it is interesting you say that, too. I have a lot of friends who have gone on the court, one a neighbor of mine, on various courts, from the district court level to the courts of appeals, and they have told me--they didn't expect this, but even with all the help of law clerks and all, when they have gone back in the library and started pulling the books out and really wrestling with something, it has turned out to be one of the most satisfying parts of the job. We all went through law school, and we know how hard we worked and the professors scared the devil out of us and everything else. But, with me, every so often I say I just want to look at that law a little bit more and go back. I like nothing better than going into courts and watching cases. Well, Judge Walton, we have no questions. Nobody has submitted any. Notwithstanding the big Powerball day, I am not a big betting man, but I have a guess that you are probably not going to have an awful lot of trouble with the U.S. Senate, and I will make a preliminary congratulations. Your nomination will be before our Committee at our first executive meeting when we come back after Labor Day and be voted out of the Committee, because we are not in--as we are in recess, counsel has reminded me we have to leave the record open until Friday, August 31st, and I will. But I will urge the Committee to move your nomination to the floor as quickly as possible after we come back in. Thank you very much. Judge Walton. Well, thank you for having me, Senator. Chairman Leahy. If you and your family and friends want to leave, you are welcome to, or stay, whatever works best for you. [The biographical information of Judge Walton follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.154 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.155 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.156 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.157 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.158 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.159 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.160 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.161 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.162 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.163 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.164 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.165 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.166 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.167 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.168 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.169 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.170 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.171 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.172 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.173 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.174 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.175 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.176 Chairman Leahy. We will take a 1-minute recess. [Recess 10:44 a.m. to 10:47 a.m.] Chairman Leahy. You understand, Mr. Nedelkoff, the parliamentary reason for the 1- or 2-minute recess, besides rearranging the table. It allowed me to go out and get another cup of coffee, in case anybody wondered. Mr. Nedelkoff, before we start, you had mentioned that there are members of your family here. In fact, I got a chance to meet them. Also for that same thing, for the Nedelkoff Library someday, would you, please? Mr. Nedelkoff. Yes, I would. I am so happy that my immediate family was able to be here today. I would like to introduce my wife, Kristen Nedelkoff, and my daughter, Brett Elaina Nedelkoff, and my son, Geoffrey Aaron Nedelkoff. Chairman Leahy. Good to have you. And I will bet you kids were just delighted at the chance to be here in a dark Committee room for the morning. But you should be very, very proud of your father because the President of the United States has nominated him for this position, so it is a pretty important thing. Mr. Nedelkoff, why don't you stand and raise your right hand. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Nedelkoff. Yes. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. And did you have an opening statement? Mr. Nedelkoff. Just a brief statement. Chairman Leahy. Please. STATEMENT OF RICHARD R. NEDELKOFF, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Nedelkoff. I am humbled by the President's nomination of me for this position and also very appreciative of the Attorney General for his support of my nomination. But I'd also like to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for agreeing to conduct this hearing during the Senate's recess. For the last 21 years, I have been a public servant and have felt very strongly that there was nothing more important or rewarding or sometimes challenging that one could do with their lives than to serve the public. So, consequently, I've dedicated my professional career to the administration of justice, working in criminal justice, juvenile justice, and victim services in five different States. Most recently, I served as executive director of the Governor's Criminal Justice Division in Texas. That is the criminal justice planning and grant-making entity and the entity that administers many funds from the Office of Justice Programs and the Bureau of Justice Assistance. My career, I believe, has been characterized by the ability to produce results quickly, to form critical and important partnerships and coalitions, and continually move forward in innovative strategies to combat crime and delinquency. I would consider it no greater honor than to continue to serve the public by becoming the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. So I appreciate your consideration of my nomination and will entertain any questions that you have. [The biographical information of Mr. Nedelkoff follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.177 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.178 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.179 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.180 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.181 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.182 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.183 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.184 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.185 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.186 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.187 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.188 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.189 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.190 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.191 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.192 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.193 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.194 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.195 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.196 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.197 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.198 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.199 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.200 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.201 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.202 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.203 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.204 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.205 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.206 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.207 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.208 Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Mr. Nedelkoff, first off, I must say I appreciate your statement of pride in your career in public service. As the people understand, I don't consider that in any way bragging. I mean, it is not bragging when you talk about things you have done. But we have too often in this country--people seem to almost denigrate those who go into public service. And yet I have to think that there are an awful lot of children today who have a chance to grow up and be adults where they can be productive members of society because of some of the programs you have worked on. I have to think that there are some people who are already productive members of society who might not have been had you not been there. And I would say the same thing of your colleagues you have worked with. I wish more people would adopt that attitude. Obviously it is not financially the most rewarding area to go to. I have read all your financial statements, and they look despairingly a lot like mine. But it is what you accomplish in life. Look at your two children. They have got this whole century ahead of them, and look at the number of young children who look not at the kind of bright future they look to but look to the worst and most dismal future. And yet it has got to be people like you that can change that around. Now, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, their open solicitation program has generated I think something like 150 grants, and one of the things I like about it as a Vermonter, it lets communities propose programs to address their problems instead of Washington designing them. And that is why I have strongly supported it over the years. The application process I find pretty simple and straightforward. It seems fair. Researchers working with these communities try to say, look, this is what worked best or this is what didn't work so that other communities can go to it and follow it. Do you intend to maintain this program? Mr. Nedelkoff. Yes. I think it's very crucial that we continue to administer our grant programs in a very consistent and equitable manner. As you know, I was head of the State administering agency in Texas for the funds that flow from the Bureau of Justice Assistance, and I look forward to the opportunity to work with the rest of the executive management team of the Office of Justice Programs. And, again, the bottom line for me will be to serve the public and to be responsive to the needs of local communities. I think the communities, as you implied, know best potentially how to solve the problems, and I think it's an important role of Government to facilitate that. Chairman Leahy. Well, I agree. As a former prosecutor and Vermonter, I have a pretty good idea of some of the programs-- and as a lifelong Vermonter, I have some idea of the programs that might or might not work in Vermont. I would have no ability to go down and suggest in Harris County, Texas, for example, what is the best way to carry out similar programs. I know last year's appropriations bill had some language proposing to reorganize the Office of Justice Programs in a way that would have eliminated the BJA. Actually, it would have eliminated the job to which you have been nominated, as well as the Senate-confirmed status of the Presidential appointees who direct these other Bureaus. I think that is a mistake. I think Senators gets a chance to get to know through the confirmation process your philosophy and where you are going. After all, you are going to be responsible for a lot of the Federal resources going into the community. Do you think these Bureau Directors should be Senate-confirmed appointees? Mr. Nedelkoff. Well, I am aware of, as a spectator, the last several-- Chairman Leahy. I am not trying to put you on the spot, but I am just curious of your idea. Mr. Nedelkoff. Well, I am aware of the efforts of Congress to reorganize the Office of Justice Programs. Its initial goals of reducing duplication and avoiding fragmented service delivery are very good. I look forward to working, with the Senate's consent, with the next Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, and with the rest of the executive management team to move forward in that arena and determine how best to organize that office that has a huge amount of responsibility in administering almost $4 billion of funds. Chairman Leahy. Well, let me talk to you about some of the specific things that have been done there. This is one I am well familiar with in my home State of Vermont. I actually went and visited it a couple times, and the former Attorney General came and visited this program, in fact, got so interested in it that it completely ruined her schedule for the afternoon because she just wanted to stay and ask more questions. It is a statewide restorative justice program. You have non-violent offenders come before a board of local citizens, and they work out arrangements where they can pay back the community for their offense. And if they successfully work out this agreement and successfully do what they are obliged to do under the agreement, they can avoid regular probation. It lets the community say here is what we think is the penalty that fits it. It also makes the offender learn as a consequence for their actions. I mean, they sometimes sit there and the people are there and say, but, I mean, you did this much damage to this person's business or to this individual, you know, what you thought was a lot of fun made them lose work, or whatever it might be. And so citizens become more involved, but the person who perpetrated it said, ``oops,'' there is a consequence to this. Now, others are using similar innovative measures. I think in Wichita, Kansas, they have a problem-solving court, the neighborhood environmental court. They work on environmental violations. They have got a lot of drug courts in Ohio and other States. In fact, Senator DeWine on this Committee has told me about those. You have got the community courts in parts of New York City, which I understand, as well as in other cities, are working very well. You have collective problem-solving work involving churches, community organizations, police and prosecutors to address juvenile homicide in Boston with Operate Ceasefire. It used to be every time you would pick up a Boston newspaper, some kid had been killed. They finally came together, designed a program that worked best for them, and these homicides stopped. But it gets the community involved in the system, and it is not just somebody in the court, the prosecutor. Now, some of them were establishing funds for these programs, but most of them had technical assistance from BJA. I would hope that, one, you could continue this kind of technical assistance and that you will look at and have your Department look at these that work. This one in Boston is an amazing thing because people were dying, youngsters, 15-year-olds in gang warfare and things like this. And they stopped that. And in a lot of other places around the country they have done that. So please look at them and please continue them. Mr. Nedelkoff. Well, Mr. Chairman, you have, I think, highlighted two of the fundamental roles of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. When you speak of, number one, technical assistance, I think that's hugely important. One of our main goals should be to provide leadership in that area, provide local communities with resources to do their jobs better. The other thing was highlighting model programs. We're looking at the big picture in BJA, and it's important for us to be cognizant of the programs that work, share those programs, and the designs and the implementation of those programs with other communities. So I do wholeheartedly agree with your statement. Chairman Leahy. I have introduced a thing called the Innocence Protection Act, which speaks to a whole lot of things, everything from making available to both sides all the evidence that is there, whether it is fingerprint evidence, DNA evidence, or anything else. It is bipartisan. We have 24 cosponsors in the Senate and 211 in the House. But among the other things it would do is to establish a commission to develop standards for appointing qualified legal representation for defendants facing a death sentence. And it would establish a grant program to help States implement standards at the State level and improve their quality of legal representation. Now, there has been a lot in the press in the past few years about the system in Texas, but now I see recent legislation in Texas would revamp the indigent defense system there. A number of Texas legislators in both parties have expressed concern. BJA has done a lot of work trying to help local governments improve the quality of representation that they give to indigents in criminal cases. Can you continue this work? Will you encourage the Attorney General and others in the Department to work with State courts and bars and prosecutors and defense attorneys to improve the quality? Mr. Nedelkoff. I am not familiar with a lot of the specifics of the initiatives regarding indigent defense in BJA. But I can tell you that it is an important principle of mine to ensure, no matter what position I am holding, the fair administration of justice. And in your Innocent Protection Act, for instance, the primary goal of ensuring that no innocent person is sentenced to death is so important. And however we can, whether it is in the courts, prosecution, defense, judiciary, however we can ensure that fundamental due process is applied and the rights of appeals are always upheld, I think, again, looking at the big picture, anything that our office and the bureau can do to continue that, I want to continue that. Chairman Leahy. Actually, I think it would make a lot of sense. I have prosecuted a lot of murder cases, and the thing that I was most terrified about was having incompetent counsel on the other side, because I knew eventually if that happened, I might get a conviction where 6, 7, 8 years down the road it is going to be overturned and we have to be trying the case again. And no prosecutor wants to try a case a second time, certainly not 6 or 7 years later. It is virtually impossible. And so what we tried to do is make sure it was done right in the first place. Now, the BJA has done some pioneering work on community prosecution. In the administration's budget request, part of the money previously allotted to community prosecution is now slated for gun prosecutions. Does that mean we are cutting back on community prosecutions, or is this considered to be part of community prosecutions? Mr. Nedelkoff. Well, at this point in the process, in deference to the selection process, I haven't been involved in discussions with the administration or the Justice Department regarding the specifics. Chairman Leahy. Well, I have to ask the question. I know you are going to take a look at it when you get back there. Mr. Nedelkoff. I sure will. But community justice, as you mentioned earlier, including prosecution, again, as you can see by my background and resume, is something that has been important to me. And I realize the importance of communities being part of the solution. So, for that reason, I want to continue to work to provide that kind of leadership. Chairman Leahy. The State Criminal Alien Assistance Program, SCAAP, reimburses the States for some of their costs for incarcerating illegal aliens. That is a big part of your budget. Is this an appropriate Federal role? Is it the best way to--is it a good use of Federal dollars to continue to fund SCAAP on an almost indeterminate basis? Mr. Nedelkoff. Well, I think whatever level, whether it's Federal or State or local community level, I think when you're in the business of administering money, it's important to continually reassess priorities. And I do believe that the SCAAP program has served a very good purpose, filled a gap in services in some communities where certain criminal aliens were incarcerated. So I think it's a matter of continually on an annual basis assessing needs and determining the level of support and determining which priorities in which areas these limited funds should be directed. Chairman Leahy. Well, I want to submit a couple other questions for the record because we will keep the record open until the end of the month. We are not in session, anyway. They are more technical and I would like you to take a look at them. Let me ask you this: You have had a long and, I want to note, very respected career in State and local criminal justice. So in some ways, you were a consumer of State and Federal programs during that time. Are you going to be able to kind of bring your views as a consumer here? And I think you know what I am leading up to. You must have had some times when you said this program doesn't make any sense or I am really going to have to massage it to fit in this. Are you going to bring some of those experiences to us? Mr. Nedelkoff. Most definitely. I think that's a strength I would bring to the office, that experience at the local--at virtually every level, the local and the State level. And I have worked with Federal Government all my life, and I have to admit there were times when I shook my head and said this doesn't seem right, this could be perhaps less complicated. I think that was one of the important things I tried to do in Texas, was to really streamline and simplify the process. I think a fundamental goal and principle during my tenure in Texas was to try to make--or an important role of Government was to make things easier for communities, not harder. And we did a lot of things like streamlined our rules and simplified our grant application process and created a pocket guide to grants for grantees to learn important rules and so forth. And I think I can bring some of those things and ideas to this position. Chairman Leahy. Well, don't hesitate to drop me a line if you think there are some programs that we are designing here that could be made to work better. I really would love to have the input. Senator Ben Nighthorse Campbell of Colorado and I put together a program a few years ago to provide money for bulletproof vests for State and local police. And as you know, in a lot of the small police departments, they don't have any money for them. These things cost $500 or $600 apiece, and they wear out. And so we put together a pretty straightforward program to do that. Senator Campbell and I both began our careers in law enforcement. We understand some of the needs. Then I started--I would get home to Vermont on the weekends, and I had police officers come up and say, hey, you know, I really like that program, but you ought to see some of the paperwork. And so we got it down, really streamlined it down, so you could do applications online, you could get it down--because everybody knew what we wanted. There was never any question there. We just wanted to make sure that it was done, and as you do the usual tracking, that is where the money went. But it brings some of those practical things to us. We are always looking for it, and I know the Attorney General is. With that, Mr. Nedelkoff, I again--I don't always want to be able to predict things. I have a feeling that you are not going to have a very difficult time before our Committee, and I will, unless there are objections on the other side--and I hope there would not be--I would put your name on our next executive meeting, and I wish you and your wife and those two lovely children all the best. Mr. Nedelkoff. Thank you very much. Chairman Leahy. With that, we stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 11:09 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the record and questions and answers follow.] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Richard R. Nedelkoff to questions submitted by Senator Charles Grassley Question 1: Last month, several Iowa enforcement agencies had tremendous difficulty in submitting applications for State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP) grants. These problems were due to technical incompatibilities with computer systems. The staff at the Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA) and the Office of Congressional Affairs were very helpful in working through thus problem, but we need to make sure something like this does not happen again. Could you please tell us, if you are confirmed as the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, how you plan to snake it easier for rural law enforcement to learn of and apply for BJA grants? Response 1: I plan to address thus issue immediately. Communication and simplifying our processes will be a top priority for BJA. I take pride in what we accomplished in Texas, developing better more streamlined computer systems, publishing user friendly guides and informational documents, and increasing training. If confirmed by the Senate, one of my first actions will be to work with the Office of Justice Programs, Office of Budget and Management Services to thoroughly analyze and revise our online systems with a focus on simplification and consistency across programs. In the meantime, we will recognize the shortcomings of our online system and allow for paper submission for programs that have trouble accessing our systems. Once our system is perfected, we will offer waivers to allow for paper submission by those rural jurisdictions that may not have access to the Internet. Additionally, if I air confirmed, we will work to revise our information mailers and our website to make them easier to understand. Question 2: As I understand it, the Bureau of Justice Assistance conducts some oversight for the Byrne grants BJA awards. Could we get a commitment from you to increase the program monitoring conducted on grants awarded by this program? Response 2: I strongly believe that we must administer the taxpayers' dollars with care and we must hold those to whom we pass the money accountable for it. In Texas, we completely changed the quality assurance program to a risk-based model that allowed us to monitor virtually all of our 1,500 grants each year. If confirmed, I plan to explore thus model at BJA. Thus type of program will allow BJA to find problems early on and to focus technical assistance and training where it is needed. I commit to focusing significant attention on this issue to not only ensure fiscal responsibility and stop any abuses but to give will-meaning programs the help they need to flourish and to show positive results. Question 3: Because the Bureau of Justice Assistance plays a principle role in conducting program monitoring for Byrne grants, what is the relationship between the Office of Justice Programs and BJA? Also, how much interaction should there be? Response 3: The Bureau of Justice Assistance is a component of the Office of Justice Programs. Our missions and operations are inextricably linked and as a result, the only effective way to manage BJA is to coordinate with OJP closely and to work under their auspices. I commit to strong coordination and communication with OJP and to doing my level best to ensure a positive working relationship. Currently, BJA staff monitor the grants in coordination with OJP's Office of the Comptroller (OC). If confirmed by the Senate, I plan to quickly meet with those involved and to work with the Assistant Attorney General to ensure appropriate coordination and to make sure that we come to agreement on the purpose, tone, and manner of monitoring reviews. SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah First, I would like to thank the Chairman, Senator Leahy, for holding this hearing during the Senate's August recess to consider two outstanding nominees. Our only judicial nominee today is the Honorable Reggie Walton, who has been nominated for a seat on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Judge Walton has devoted his life to public service and to improving the criminal justice system. He began his career as a public defender in Philadelphia and then became an Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia, eventually rising to hold the position of Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney. From 1981 to 1989, Judge Walton served as a judge of the District of Columbia Superior Court. He then spent more than two years serving in the Administration of President George H.W. Bush, first as Associate Director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy and then as Senior Advisor to the President for Crime. In 1991, he resumed his service on the D.C. Superior Court bench. His eighteen years of judicial experience have demonstrated that he has the capacity, integrity, and temperament to serve with distinction as a federal district court judge. I would be remiss if I did not take a moment to note that, in addition to his exceptional judicial qualifications, Judge Walton has rendered invaluable service to the community. He has been instrumental in helping at-risk youth in Washington, D.C., through his service as a Director of Big Brothers of the National Capital Area. He has also received numerous- awards, including the William H. Hastie Award from the Judicial Council of the National Bar Association, the Shuker Memorial Award from the Assistant United States Attorneys Association, and the H. Carl Moultrie Award from the NAACP's District of Columbia branch. I applaud Judge Walton's admirable record of service, and commend President Bush for nominating him to the federal bench. Our Department of Justice nominee is Richard Nedelkoff, whom we have the pleasure of considering for the position of Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance helps deliver grants for initiatives and partnership programs across the country that help improve adjudication components of the justice system, aid state and local police agencies in fighting crime, modernize the technology and information sharing capabilities of law enforcement, and assist communities in reducing crime. By his 21 year career in public service, Mr. Nedelkoff has proven himself more than equal to the task of leading the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Over the course of his career, Mr. Nedelkoff has served in both management and direct service positions in the fields of juvenile justice, criminal justice, and victim services. Most recently, he has served as the Executive Director of the Criminal Justice Division in the Office of the Governor of the State of Texas. His work has been marked by innovation and creativity, particularly in his leadership of local juvenile justice programs such as Texas's Project Spotlight, a new program geared towards reducing juvenile delinquency and recidivism rates by providing enhanced supervision to juvenile probationers living in high-crime areas. Mr. Nedelkoff has proven himself to be a credit to the state of Texas and the other state and local jurisdictions that have been fortunate enough to benefit from his leadership. I anticipate that he will do just as well at the Department of Justice. Again, it is a pleasure to welcome both Mr. Nedelkoff and Judge Walton to the Committee. I look forward to working with Chairman Leahy and others to ensure that the Committee and the full Senate hold timely votes on your nominations. Statement of Hon. Kay Bailey Hutchison, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the Committee: I am pleased to offer my support for the nomination of my fellow Texan, Mr. Richard R. Nedelkoff, to be the Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. The Bureau of Justice Assistance's main mission is to combat violent and drug-related crime and to help improve the criminal justice system. Mr. Nedelkoff's experience as an administrator in five different states, where he created juvenile justice and criminal justice programs that serve as models for agencies across the country, clearly illustrates why he is very well qualified to be the Justice Department's next Director of the Bureau of Justice Assistance. With degrees in Criminal Justice from Bowling Green State University, the University of Louisville, and the Capital University Law School, he not only has a wealth of knowledge concerning the administration of justice, but as his stellar resume proves, he also has the experience. Prior to his present position in the Criminal Justice Office of Texas, Nedelkoff served as the Executive Director of the Florida Network of Youth and Family Services from 1996 to 1998 and was a District Juvenile Justice Manager with the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice from 1993 to 1996. Previous to his efforts in Florida, he gained useful experience working with the court systems in Virginia, Texas, Ohio and Kentucky to improve the administration of justice, as well as working in the child protective services and foster care areas. He also taught criminal justice and juvenile justice classes at Capital University. Clearly he knows the criminal justice system, and has a reputation for being an effective, savvy and hard worker. Throughout his career he gained the respect of others by consistently producing quick results, implementing innovative programs, reducing bureaucracy, and finding solutions to problem situations. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to reiterate my strong support for Mr. Nedelkoff's nomination, and I urge its swift approval by this distinguished committee and by the full Senate. NOMINATION OF SHARON PROST, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT AND TERRY L. WOOTEN, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA ---------- MONDAY, AUGUST 27, 2001 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick Leahy, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Leahy, Thurmond, and DeWine. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. Good morning, and I welcome everybody to the committee. I thank my good friend, Senator DeWine of Ohio, for coming back, and we are, of course, honored by having the presence of not only the senior member of this committee, but the senior member of the Senate, Senator Thurmond, who is here with us. While we are holding another hearing today on people the President has indicated he intends to nominate to be federal judges next month, we are doing this notwithstanding the fact that the nominations are not presently before the Senate, and I think the only precedent for this hearing that we were able to find was one of last week, and seeing Congresswoman Norton here, she was at that hearing. Otherwise, I think hearings in August are unprecedented, but I am trying to show I am trying to go the extra mile to fill the vacancies in the federal courts with qualified consensus nominees. This is the fourth hearing involving judicial nominations we have held since the Senate reorganized the Judiciary Committee's membership seven weeks ago. There were no members of the Republican Party able to join us last week, but I am glad that Senator DeWine, who is the former chairman of the Antitrust Committee, is here to be the ranking member today. We had set this hearing date to accommodate Senator Hatch's schedule. I understand it is a date we had worked out with the staff. Unfortunately, I learned from the Senator on Friday that he could not be here. However, I know that he will have a statement for the record and I know the very, very high regard he has for both of the nominees. Sharon Prost has been on Senator Hatch's staff for a number of years. She is the highest-ranking member of the Republican staff of this committee. She is our Republican chief counsel. Ms. Prost is highly respected by Senators on both sides of the aisle, and it is a delight to have her here today with her two sons. They probably hate to hear comments like this, but I have seen them from the time they were little boys, and now they have grown up to be handsome young men. The strong and loving relationship they share with their mother is especially impressive in light of the challenges that people face when they are raising children and pursuing a public career. Sharon Prost has done both very well, and the proof is in those two beautiful children. Now there is one disappointment that perhaps Jeffrey and Matthew will have, and that is the fact that had we not expedited this, we would be doing it fully into the school year and they would have a real excuse to cut school. So it is like, what do you mean I am sick on a snow day? Of course, Judge Terry Wooten was on Senator Thurmond's staff before becoming a federal magistrate in South Carolina, and Senator Thurmond has made it very clear to me, Judge, from the day you were nominated that I can kind of move along here, and when Senator Thurmond tells you to move along, you move along. Even though your nomination is not technically before the committee, we are doing this to accommodate Senator Thurmond. I say ``not technically before'' because we had a strange thing happen before the August recess. I have been here with Republican leaders, Senator Scott, Senator Baker, Senator Dole and Senator Lott, Democratic Leaders, Senator Mansfield, Senator Byrd, Senator Mitchell and now Senator Daschle, and it has always been that, even though Rule 31 of the Senate requires all nominations not acted upon to be returned to the President before a recess, all the leaders, Republican or Democrat, no matter who the President was, Republican or Democrat, especially at the beginning of his term, have always made a unanimous consent request to keep those nominations before the Senate. The reason for that is so that staff and Senators, during the recess, could actually work on them, go through the paperwork and so on. For some reason, in a totally unprecedented move, Senator Lott required every single nomination to go back. I think there were two that were originally supposed to go back because they probably were not going to be acted upon, but he required all to go back, including all of the judicial nominations. This created a bit of a problem for the Judiciary Committee, because we were put in the difficult situation of not being able to work on the FBI reports. We actually had to start boxing up everything to send it back to the White House. Staff members who could handle classified material had to take time to start doing that. At some point during the August recess, Judge Gonzalez wrote to me and said that all of these nominations were going to come back up, so would we please keep working on it. I felt in a way caught between a rock and a hard place, because a Republican organization associated with the White House had sent out a big broad-side saying why were we out, why weren't we working on all the judicial nominations before the Senate, knowing full well, of course, there were none there. I want to work on them, and I am getting sort of a good cop/bad cop thing here: one blasting us for not working on them, while others saying please work on them even though they are not there. Be that as it may, I am taking Judge Gonzalez at his word, that we will not hear further criticism for going forward on these hearings, even though they are not here, and we are doing that. We have been held up a bit, of course, because this administration, instead of following the procedure followed by President Eisenhower, President Kennedy, President Johnson, President Nixon, President Ford, President Carter, President Reagan, and the first President Bush, is not sending the nominations first to the ABA, where we have to wait till the nominations come up, then delay them for another couple of months to go to the ABA. In any event, we are doing it. There is one thing I should point out, though. We are also trying to follow normal Senate procedures. The distinguished senior Senator from Nebraska, Senator Hagel, and his colleague, Senator Nelson, who has had a distinguished reputation as Governor of Nebraska, came to me and told me they had a Nebraskan nominated by President Bush for the Court of Appeals, needed to move him quickly because of a problem. I said, ``Of course,'' and we accommodated them. I think we moved them within a couple of days of the time the paperwork was ready. Similarly in Montana, the distinguished senior Senator, Senator Baucus, and his Republican colleague, Conrad Burns, came to me and told me they had a real problem in Montana. They did not have any judges. They were all on senior status. So we quickly moved forward on those. In fact, when we report another nominee to a Court of Appeals vacancy, we are going to report as many Court of Appeals nominees since July of this year, just in the last two months, as this committee did all of last year on Court of Appeals judges, when, as you recall, President Clinton had quite a few before us. So we are moving. We announced the first hearing 10 minutes after our reorganization. What I am urging Senators to do--and I will put the rest of my statement on the record--I am urging Senators who have situations in their State to contact me, and we will try to move them forward first. Senator DeWine has contacted me about a situation in his state, and we are trying to work out something with him on the Court of Appeals with the White House and Democratic Senators within that circuit. In that regard, of course, I am following the precedent established by former members like Senator Gorton and Senator Ashcroft and Senator Abraham and others with the Clinton administration, and we are trying to follow the same rule here, and that is that the White House should consult with the Senators, because ultimately the Senators in the area are the ones who know best who is going to serve best in those areas, and they are the ones I am going to refer to first. [The prepared statement of Chairman Leahy follows:] Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont Today, during the Senate's August recess, the Judiciary Committee is holding another hearing regarding people the President has indicated he intends to nominate to be federal judges next month. The only precedent for this hearing of which I am aware is the hearing I convened last Wednesday. A judicial confirmation hearing during the August recess is otherwise, as far as I am aware or can recall, unprecedented. This is another indication that I am attempting to go the extra mile to help fill the vacancies on the federal courts with qualified, consensus nominees. This is the second hearing involving judicial nominations we have held during this recess and the fourth hearing involving judicial nominations since the Senate reorganized and the Judiciary Committee's membership was set on July 10, barely seven weeks ago. I regret that no Republican Senators were available to participate at the hearing last week. I welcome the participation of Senator DeWine, the Ranking Republican on the Antitrust Subcommittee and its former Chairman, who I understand will be serving as the Republican representative at this hearing today. I am sorry that Senator Hatch is not with us today. This hearing was scheduled for this day after extensive consultation with his staff in which they indicated this was a day that he would be able to attend. Apparently, circumstances changed. Both of the prospective nominees that we will hear from today served as part of the Republican staff of this Committee. Sharon Prost has been on Senator Hatch's staff for a number of years and currently serves as the highest ranking member of the Republican staff of this Committee. She is our Republican Chief Counsel. I am happy to be able to welcome Ms. Prost in another capacity today. I know that if Senator Hatch were here he would acknowledge her young sons, as well. We have seen them grow up before our eyes. Their strong and loving relationship shows how well Ms. Prost has met the challenge so many must face as they pursue public service careers while also raising their children. I hope Jeffrey and Matthew are not too disappointed that by proceeding in this expedited fashion before school resumes next week, we have cost them what would have been a pretty good excuse to be absent from class. Judge Terry Wooten was on Senator Thurmond's staff before becoming a federal magistrate in South Carolina. I know that Senator Thurmond will have a statement in support of Judge Wooten. Senator Thurmond has pressed for this day since President Bush first indicated that he would be nominating Judge Wooten. As a courtesy to our former Chairman and a valued Member of this Committee and the Senate, we are proceeding even though the nomination is not technically before the Committee. This points up another way in which this hearing is without precedent. Besides taking place during the August recess, a hearing on a judicial nomination would not normally be scheduled in advance of the Senate receiving the nomination and its pendency before the Committee. Just before the Senate recessed in early August, the Senate leadership requested that nominations, including the nominations of Ms. Prost and Judge Wooten, be retained through this August recess notwithstanding the Senate rule that nominations be returned to the President when the Senate recesses for a period of more than 30 days. In the wake of the objection of the Republican Leader to the unanimous consent request, Rule 31, paragraph 6 of the Standing Rules of the Senate required that all pending nominations on which final action was not taken before the recess be returned to the President. That objection by the Republican Leader, like the month-long delay in reorganizing the Senate, serves to complicate and delay consideration of nominations. I commented last week that for those of us trying to restore dignity and regularity to the nomination and confirmation, the bumps in the road created by the other side are especially frustrating. For example, President Bush's decision to delay the American Bar Association's evaluation of a judicial nominee's qualifications until the nomination is made public, has forced delays in the rest of the process, as well. As a result of this Administration's break with the 50-year-old precedent established under President Eisenhower, the confirmation process of even the least controversial and most qualified candidates is necessarily delayed by several weeks. Likewise this Administration's failures early on to consult with Senators from both parties and to seek nominees who would enjoy broad bipartisan support is a source of concern. I have alluded to another example--the Republican Leader's objection on August 3, 2001, to Senator Reid's unanimous consent request to avoid returning all pending nominations to the White House. This Republican objection has resulted in the strict application of the Senate rules contributing to needless paperwork and more unnecessary delay. In order to proceed last week and today we are doing so in a highly unusual manner, without a nomination pending before this Committee. I do so with a high level of concern about this unusual procedure. I do not think that these exceptional hearings should be viewed as precedent. We proceed as a courtesy to our Senate colleagues, Senator Thurmond and Senator Hatch, who so strongly support the nominees here today. In addition I am responding to the request from the White House counsel that the Committee staff continue reviewing files on nominees, even though the Republican Leader's objection had resulted in all those nominations being returned to the President. This is the seventh hearing I have held since July 11 to consider presidential nominations and the fourth that includes judicial nominations. Our first hearing was noticed within 10 minutes of the adoption of the reorganization resolution and held the day after the Committee membership was set. When this Committee reports another nominee to a Court of Appeals vacancy, it will have reported as many Court of Appeals nominees since July of this year as this Committee did under Republican control during all of last year. When the Senate next confirms a Court of Appeals nominee, it will have confirmed as many as were confirmed in the entire first year of the Clinton Administration. When we confirmed Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit on July 20 we had confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than a Republican- controlled Senate was willing to confirm in all of 1996--a year in which not a single nominee to the Courts of Appeals was confirmed. Although until I became Chairman and began holding hearings last month, no judicial nominations had hearings or were confirmed by the Senate, we are now ahead of the pace of confirmations for judicial nominees in the first year of the Clinton Administration and the pace in the first year of the first Bush Administration. In the first year of the Clinton Administration, 1993, without all the disruptions, distractions and shifts in Senate majority that we have experienced this year, the first Court of Appeals judge was not confirmed until September 30. In the entire first year of the first Bush Administration, 1989, without all the disruptions, distractions and shifts of Senate majority that we have experienced this year, the third Court of Appeals nominee was not confirmed until October 24. For that matter, the record shows that during recent years under a Republican Senate majority, there were no Court of Appeals nominees confirmed at any time during the entire 1996 session, and the first Court of Appeals nominee was not confirmed in 1997 until September 26. During the more than six years in which the Senate Republican majority scheduled confirmation hearings, there were 34 months with no hearing at all, 30 months with only one hearing and only 12 times in almost six and one-half years did the Judiciary Committee hold as many as two hearings involving judicial nominations during a month. I held two hearings in July involving judicial nominations and this is our second hearing involving judicial nominees in August, during the traditional recess. A fair assessment of the circumstances of this year would suggest that the work we have done since July, in this shortened time frame of only a few weeks in session should be commended, not criticized. In light of the bipartisan support for Judge Roger Gregory and the strong interest of Senator Warner and Senator Allen, the two Republican Senators from Virginia, in seeing that nomination proceed to confirmation, I included him in our hearing on July 11. We proceeded with the nominations of Judge Cebull and Judge Haddon to be District Court Judges in Montana in light of the strong bipartisan support they had from Senator Baucus and Senator Burns, one a Democrat and the other a Republican, and having heard from the Chief Judge of that District that he was ``home alone''--the only active Judge left in that Court. At our July 24 hearing we included the nomination of Judge William Riley to the Eighth Circuit. He, too, had strong bipartisan support that included the endorsements of Senator Hagel and Senator Nelson, one a Republican and the other a Democrat. In addition, as I noted at that hearing, the Eighth Circuit is one of those with multiple vacancies. Working with Representative Norton, we scheduled for last week the hearing involving Judge Reggie Walton, who President Bush has indicated he will nominate to the District Court for the District of Columbia. Representative Norton was gracious in her endorsement of Judge Walton at his hearing, a Democrat endorsing a Republican President's nomination. Before recognizing Senator DeWine for any opening remarks he may choose to make, I want to note that Senator DeWine has talked with me about certain nominations that he supports. I invite all Senators, Republicans and Democrats, who have a strong interest in a particular nomination pending before this Committee to contact me. To the extent I can accommodate those Senators whose courts have pressing needs or who have other concerns, I will endeavor to do so. Those are important factors to me in determining the schedule of confirmation hearings. In spite of unfair and unfounded criticism, I will endeavor as best I can to proceed with additional hearings and press ahead as best I can to have the Committee work to fulfill its role in the confirmation process. Senator DeWine? STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Senator DeWine. Mr. Chairman, let me thank you first for holding this hearing. It is a pleasure to be here with two such really extremely well-qualified candidates. Let me congratulate both of you on your selection by the President. You have both distinguished yourselves with hard work and great skill and great intellect, and it is clear to me that you will be of great service to the citizens of this country upon confirmation. Of course, all the Senators who serve on the Judiciary Committee know Sharon, but before I say anything specific about her background, I want to relate just how strongly Senator Hatch feels about her, her intellect and her suitability for the bench. Senator Hatch wanted very much, as Senator Leahy said, to be here today, but he is in Utah and simply could not find any way around his other obligations there in his home State. But he personally asked me to publicly convey to Chairman Leahy his sincere appreciation for scheduling this hearing. Mr. Chairman, we do appreciate that. Senator Hatch also made a point of telling me just how much he admires and appreciates the great work that Sharon has done through many, many years. He has known her since 1989 and has worked with her on a variety of legislative battles, both big and small. They have worked together on labor issues and on judiciary matters in the minority, the majority, and now back again on the minority side once again. Through it all, Senator Hatch always has trusted her work, her judgment, her fairness. He told me that he was quite emotional about Sharon's nomination, certainly had mixed feelings about it, very happy for her, but also very sad to see her leave our committee. As I said, everyone on the committee knows her great work and how hard she has worked for this committee, but they might not know much about her background, how hard she worked to get where she has been here in the Senate. Sharon was born in Massachusetts. She is the daughter of two refugees from Europe. Both of her parents survived incarceration in Hitler's concentration camps. They were taken there at such young ages that they were unable to complete high school because of the war. They were both devout Orthodox Jews. When Sharon was six years-old, the family moved to Hartford, Connecticut. Tragically, her father died of cancer in 1965, when Sharon was only 13. Sharon worked her way through high school and college as a waitress. Sharon earned her undergraduate degree from Cornell in 1973 and moved here to Washington because of her interest in government and in public policy. She began her government career that year, but that did not end her education. In fact, she went on to earn three additional advanced degrees--a J.D.; an MBA; and an LM in tax law--in the evenings. Sharon's work experience is varied and impressive. She has spent 15 years in the executive branch in five different federal agencies, including the IRS and the GAO, which eventually led to her appointment as Acting Solicitor of the National Labor Relations Board. She began her career on Capitol Hill in 1989 as chief labor counsel for the minority of the then-Labor and Human Resources Committee, where she handled labor, employment and pension legislation. In 1993, she moved to the Senate Judiciary Committee, where she has since served as both deputy chief counsel and minority and majority chief counsel. She was the first woman chief counsel for the Republicans on this committee. As the members of this committee know well, her wide experience on the committee ranges from immigration to religious liberty, to patent law and numerous other matters that cover the broad reach of our jurisdiction. Sharon's proudest accomplishment, however, is being the mother of the two wonderful sons who we see in the audience today, Matthew, 14, and Jeffrey, 10. Jeffrey is a graduate of our local Senate day-care facility, and both children attend D.C. public schools. Matthew and Jeffrey are avid sports players and fans, just like their mother. Sharon, in fact, has served as the coach of Jeffrey's soccer team for six seasons. I know I speak for all of the Judiciary Committee members when I thank you, Sharon, for your service to this committee and congratulate you on your nomination to the federal circuit. Terry Wooten also has made his career in public service, including service to this committee as minority chief counsel. His distinguished career began at the University of South Carolina, where he earned a bachelor of arts degree in 1976 and a law degree in 1980. His scholastic achievements there include being a magna cum laude graduate and a member of Phi Beta Kappa. From 1980 to 1982, the judge was an associate and partner in the law firm of Mann, Wooten, a two-person firm focusing on criminal defense and personal injury cases. From there, he became assistant solicitor in the Richland County Solicitor's Office in Columbia, South Carolina, where he handled hundreds of felony criminal cases. In 1986, Judge Wooten left that office and moved to Washington to serve as minority chief counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. In 1992, the judge returned to South Carolina and joined the U.S. Department of Justice as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of South Carolina. There, he prosecuted white-collar offenders, drug offenders and violent offenders. He rose in the ranks to become deputy chief of the General Criminal Section and he also served as lead task force attorney of the Major Drug and Violent Crime Division. Since 1999, Judge Wooten has served as a U.S. magistrate judge in Florence, South Carolina, a position he was selected for by the judges of the Federal District Court in South Carolina. Again, it is a great pleasure to welcome both of you to the committee and to this hearing today, and I look forward to this hearing and to working with Chairman Leahy and others to make sure the committee and the full Senate hold timely votes on your nominations. Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator DeWine. Again, I appreciate you coming back and joining us, and I know Senator Thurmond wishes to introduce Judge Wooten, and Congresswoman Norton, if you do not mind, we would go first to Senator Thurmond. You wanted to introduce Terry Wooten. Go ahead, Senator. PRESENTATION OF TERRY L. WOOTEN, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA BY HON. STROM THURMOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA Senator Thurmond. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased that we are holding this hearing today on two of President Bush's fine nominees for the federal court. It is with great pleasure that I introduce to the committee one of the candidates, Judge Terry Wooten--would you stand up, Judge? Thank you--who I recommended to President Bush for the district court in South Carolina. Judge Wooten is well-qualified for this important position. He has served ably and diligently as a U.S. magistrate judge since 1999. Prior to that, he worked as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for seven years, where he was the lead task force attorney for major drug and violent crime prosecutions. Moreover, he has personal experience with this committee. He worked on the Judiciary Committee for about six years, four of which as minority chief counsel while I was ranking member. This provides him in-depth knowledge of the legislative process, which is important for judges to understand. In fact, both of our outstanding nominees today, Judge Wooten and Sharon Prost, have extensive legislative experience. Judge Wooten is a man of high character and integrity. I am confident he will make an excellent addition to the District Court. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you, and I think I could almost predict how the votes are going to go by both Senator DeWine and Senator Thurmond. Congresswoman Norton, I almost think we should give you an office over here. You seem to be having to spend so much time, but as I said last week when you were here, I do appreciate it. You do us a great honor in coming by, and I appreciate your thoughts. Please go ahead. PRESENTATION OF SHARON PROST, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUITY JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BY HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Delegate Norton. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure once again to appear in August before the hardest- working committee of the Senate. It is a particular pleasure to introduce Sharon Prost, a Washingtonian, but if I may say so, it is no cliche to say that this nominee needs no introduction to this committee or its staff. Sharon Prost has spent the better part of her legal career serving the Senate itself, and therefore the American people, in this very body and, indeed, most of it in this very committee. By all rights, I know Senator Hatch would be competing with me to introduce Ms. Prost, even though Ms. Prost has the good sense to live in the District of Columbia. But the fact is that she has served him, first as his minority chief labor counsel and then as the chief counsel to this committee, since 1993. So the rights really do belong to him, and I know that he feels deeply about this nomination. However, Ms. Prost got her legal education and her MBA and her masters in tax law all here in the District of Columbia, all at night; her law degree at American University, her MBA and her masters in tax law at George Washington Law School. She has lived here most of the last three years, is a member of the local bar. Her involvement in the life of the city is the kind we admire most, promoting and strengthening activities for children and the public schools of the District of Columbia, where her two boys attend. Sharon Prost has spent her entire career in the federal service. She is deeply familiar with the full panoply of federal law. She is particularly well- qualified, in my judgment, to serve as a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. I am privileged to recommend her to you. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Congresswoman Norton, and I appreciate what you have said and I thank you for coming by. I know that, unlike those of us who are in Washington and our constituents are not knocking on the door, you do not have that luxury, and I know you have other places you are supposed to be. But thank you very much for being with us. Delegate Norton. Thank you, Senator. Chairman Leahy. We will bring Ms. Prost up first, please. Before we begin this, before we swear you in, did you have any opening statement you wished to make? STATEMENT OF SHARON PROST, OF WASHINGTON, D.C., NOMINEE TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Ms. Prost. Just to thank you so much, Mr. Chairman, for this extraordinary act in scheduling this hearing during recess, and also to thank Senator DeWine, Senator Thurmond, and, of course, Senator Hatch, who has been my teacher and mentor for all of these many years. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. [The biographical information of Ms. Prost follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.209 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.210 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.211 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.212 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.213 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.214 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.215 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.216 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.217 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.218 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.219 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.220 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.221 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.222 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.223 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.224 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.225 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.226 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.227 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.228 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.229 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.230 Chairman Leahy. So that someday, in what I call the ``Prost Library,'' that your family will be able to see this, did you want to introduce for the record--it has already been done by both Senator DeWine and myself--your two sons and anybody else who is here with you? Ms. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Yes, the joys of my life--I would like to introduce Matthew, my 14-year-old, who is, as Congresswoman Norton stated, an honor student at Deal Junior High School, and my youngest, Jeffrey, who is at Lafayette Elementary School. You were correct, Mr. Chairman, that I am owing them big-time for not giving them a day of school off and your having scheduled the hearing during this summer break. Chairman Leahy. Well, probably the day of the swearing in, assuming all goes as one might expect, they will get a chance to come down. It is a nice place. Would you please stand to be sworn? Do you swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Mr. Prost. Yes. Chairman Leahy. First off, I should note, as just a personal note, in the years that I have been here, both in the minority and the majority, I have always enjoyed working with you. I have respected very much both your legal ability, but also your sense of what the Senate is, and that means a lot. Going, from the legislative side to the judicial side requires the obvious changes from a legislative to a judicial life. Let me ask you the question that you have heard so many times. How strongly should judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis and does that adherence to stare decisis change from court to court? Ms. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you well know, the rule of law has as its core the doctrine of stare decisis. It is a doctrine that judges are bound by and ought to be bound by. It provides the necessary stability and order to our system of justice and it is absolutely pivotal. Chairman Leahy. You obviously have the flexibility of being on the Court of Appeals, and the district courts are looking at something that might come within your jurisdiction, of course-- are bound by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. In that court, though, you have some flexibility if you have a case of first impression, which still happens, especially in the high- tech area. But if you have a case where it comes down on all fours from something from the Supreme Court, you have no question that the Supreme Court, being the higher court, you are going to have to follow their decisions; is that correct? Ms. Prost. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Let me ask you this. We have all looked at a lot of Supreme Court decisions since you have come out of law school. I am sure there are some you have seen, like I have, where you say you really disagree with that ruling. It is the Supreme Court. I disagree with it. Suppose you had a case where you personally disagree with the decision of the Supreme Court. Would you have any difficulty, though, as a Court of Appeals judge, in following that decision? Ms. Prost. No, Mr. Chairman. I understand that my personal views are not relevant and I would follow the Supreme Court's precedent. Chairman Leahy. Do you have any difficulty, at least philosophically, understanding that as the Court of Appeals, especially the very specialized area as that the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals is, that there may be cases where you are going to have to establish a precedent, where your decisions, whether it is done with a three-judge panel or done en banc, your decisions may up being precedental in themselves. Does that create any problem for you? Ms. Prost. No, Mr. Chairman. If that is the necessary course to take, I would, of course, look at the statutes. This Congress has been very involved in the patent law area and I would go into the statutes, as well as to the precedents of the Supreme Court and the precedent of the circuit. Chairman Leahy. Well, I am asking about that, too. You look at what we have been here--and a lot of what goes before that court really does ultimately fall on the interpretation of statutes that we have passed, and some you may find even that you helped write. But your experience has been as a government lawyer; a lot of it has been here in the Senate--as I have said, and as Senator DeWine and certainly Senator Hatch have said, very valuable experience, very helpful experience to the Senate. There are those who might say you have had that experience here and not out as a litigator for a law firm or whatever else. Do you feel that this experience, the base of your experience, hampers you or helps you in going before that court? Ms. Prost. I think my experience helps me tremendously. It has been an honor to serve in the executive branch and it has been an honor to serve in the Senate. I have had the opportunity to understand the legislative process and to work through the legislative process. I think that gives me a special appreciation, in fact, for the separation of powers and for the judicial branch and what its role is in contrast to the legislative branch. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator DeWine? Senator DeWine. If I could just follow up on that, you are in a unique position. You spent about 15 years in the executive branch now, about 15 years in the legislative, and if you are confirmed, you will spend 15 years, maybe a lot more than that, in our third branch of government, the judicial branch. Let me ask you this. As you leave one branch and get ready to go to another branch, how do you think the system of checks and balances that have been established by our Constitution is really functioning today? Is it working pretty well, or not? Ms. Prost. I think it works extraordinarily well. I think that there is an understanding--this body understands, certainly, its role as a legislative body, and I think the judicial branch understands its roles, and I hope to, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, to adhere to the role of the judiciary under the separation of powers doctrine. Senator DeWine. What is it about this position that from a personal and a professional point of view appeals to you? It is going to be different. In a sense, you have been an advocate in the past. Why do you want to do this? Ms. Prost. Well, Senator DeWine-- Senator DeWine. Lifetime employment is good, but besides that, what appeals to you about this? Ms. Prost. Well, you mentioned in your opening statement a little about my background, and I think that despite my parents' lack of education, based on the circumstances of their life, they taught me every day of my life the love of country and the love of God and the love of family. This country means a great deal to me because of their experiences, and that is why it has been my commitment and my goal to serve the public and to work towards the administration of justice, and while I have had a wonderful experience in the executive branch and certainly in the legislative branch, I think being in the judicial branch gives me a wonderfully unique opportunity to serve the public and the administration of justice, which has been one of my long-term, life-long goals. Senator DeWine. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Thurmond, did you have any questions? Senator Thurmond. I do not have any questions of Ms. Prost, but I think she will make an excellent addition to the Federal Circuit. Chairman Leahy. Ms. Prost, in answer to one of your questions, one of the questions by Senator DeWine, you spoke of the love of country that your parents instilled in you, and after all they went through in coming to this country. I am sure they could never have imagined that you would be where you are now, but what a sense of pride that would have if they could see you now. I think of my maternal grandparents. They came to this country not speaking any English, and yet the love of country was obvious to those around them. I did not know my maternal grandparents, who died before my parents met. My father, who had to go to work as a teenager to support the rest of the family after my grandfather died as a stone cutter, shared the sense of the love of country that began with my grandparents. I know you have instilled this in your two sons, but we sometimes forget, those of us who are born here take it for granted, may have everything handed to us, and you certainly have not. We take this country almost for granted. You are a demonstration of those who do not, and I applaud your sense of this country, and we will, of course, keep the record open until the end of the week, but I intend to have your nomination before the committee on our first exec. Thank you very much. Ms. Prost. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Now, Judge Wooten, if you might join us, and if you would--I know earlier you introduced me to some who were with you, and also for the Wooten legal libraries, if you can introduce who is here. I should also mention, Ms. Prost, do not feel you and your sons have to stay. They have been so good, I do not want to impose further on them. If you want to leave, please feel free, because the school doors are beginning to open. Ms. Prost. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Wooten? Judge Wooten. Thank you, Senator. Behind me, on the second row, I have my father, John Wooten; my mother, Lisa Wooten; my friend, Susan Crawford; and my nephew, Will Wooten. Chairman Leahy. Well, we are glad to have all of you here, and before I swear you in, do you have an opening statement? STATEMENT OF TERRY L. WOOTEN, OF SOUTH CAROLINA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA Judge Wooten. Senator, let me first say that I am most appreciative that you would hold this recess hearing. I certainly know that is an unusual procedure. I would also thank you very much for having me here today, because there is no guarantee as to who gets here, and I certainly do appreciate that very much. Let me also thank Senator Thurmond for his kind remarks. Senator Thurmond gave me the opportunity to work for this committee for some six years. I would say it was a most rewarding experience and I appreciate Senator Thurmond for giving me that opportunity. I also want to thank Senator DeWine for being here, for his very kind remarks that he made on my behalf. [The biographical information of Judge Wooten follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.231 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.232 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.233 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.234 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.235 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.236 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.237 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.238 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.239 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.240 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.241 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.242 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.243 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.244 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.245 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.246 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.247 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.248 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.249 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.250 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.251 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.252 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.253 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.254 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.255 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.256 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.257 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.258 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.259 Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. Now, will you please stand to be sworn? Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you, God? Judge Wooten. I do. Chairman Leahy. Judge Wooten, you are aware over the weekend that there was an article in the Los Angeles Times that raised some questions about your role in this committee's investigation and consideration of Clarence Thomas to be a member of the United States Supreme Court. Now, after the article came up in the Los Angeles Times, both the Democratic and Republican counsels, following our usual procedure in this committee, spoke to you about this. You and I had a brief conversation prior to the hearing, and because this matter is before us and knowing that other Senators would also want answers to it, let me ask you first, what was your role in the committee's consideration of the Thomas nomination? Judge Wooten. At that time, Senator, I was the chief counsel of the committee, I think maybe I had the title as well of staff director, minority chief counsel or staff director, and I simply proceeded with that as we did with other nominations and other matters, and had a role of representing the committee, being a part of the committee. I actually worked for Senator Thurmond on the committee at that time. Chairman Leahy. Now, in that role, you would have access to confidential material obtained by the committee, would you not, as part of the overall background investigation of the nominee? Judge Wooten. Yes, sir, I would have access to material. Chairman Leahy. Not only have access, but you would have seen a lot of the confidential material; would you not? Judge Wooten. Senator, I cannot say that I really remember ever seeing any FBI files. There were two investigators. There was actually an investigator on the committee that worked for Senator Thurmond, and she would have seen the files in the process you went through to see them. She would have seen those files and she would maybe have briefed me on those files. There was another individual who worked on the committee for a number years as chief investigator, Mr. Short, and he may have talked to me about matters in those files. But as a matter of routine, I did not see the FBI files, and I frankly do not remember ever seeing an FBI file unless somebody had one in their possession maybe when they came to talk to me. But I did not, as a matter of routine, review FBI files. I left that to the investigators. Chairman Leahy. Well, let me ask you this. During the years you were there--if you were to go into the FBI file, if you had reason to go into it, and assuming appropriate access and so on, would you be apt to discuss that with anybody other than Senator Thurmond or Mr. Short, who was the chief investigator at the time? Judge Wooten. Absolutely not. Those files were confidential. I would absolutely not discuss that information with anybody, other than Senator Thurmond or Mr. Short. Chairman Leahy. The committee rules were pretty tough at that time on releasing any confidential material? Judge Wooten. Yes, sir. Chairman Leahy. But the rules would allow you to discuss them with Senator Thurmond or Mr. Short, within the context of any nomination? Judge Wooten. Yes, sir, and I would only discuss it as chief counsel with them. Chairman Leahy. Do you recall the committee rules at that time governing the confidentiality of materials obtained by the FBI or any FBI materials? Judge Wooten. Senator, in terms of rules, those were tightly controlled, the files were. I believe they had to be signed out. They were tightly controlled and there was no question that those who had access to those files knew that the information in those files was not to be discussed beyond with members and appropriate staff who may be working on a nomination. But the rules were that these files were carefully controlled and clearly confidential. Chairman Leahy. You have actually two sets of files. You have the FBI file, which come under one particular set of rules, and we also have confidential files within the committee that go beyond the FBI file; do we not? Judge Wooten. Yes, sir. Chairman Leahy. Sometimes they may overlap, but sometimes they might be entirely different; is that correct? Judge Wooten. Yes, sir. Chairman Leahy. Do you recall the rules about the confidential materials? Would they be similar? Judge Wooten. They were similar rules, and again, confidential information was treated just as that. It was confidential information and none of that information was to be released to anybody other than those who had access to it, and again, staffers who had access to it may discuss it with their members or the investigators on the committee. Chairman Leahy. Let me go down through the specific allegations made in the L.A. Times story. One is an allegation you had access to FBI information regarding one of the potential witnesses during the time of the Clarence Thomas hearing, an Angela Wright, and that you shared that information with a writer. Is that a factual allegation? Well, it is factual that the allegation was made, but is that something you did? Judge Wooten. No, sir. Senator, I want to say that that allegation is absolutely, 100-percent untrue. There is not one scintilla or one iota of truth to that allegation. Chairman Leahy. Did you ever have any communication with David Brock regarding the Thomas nomination? Judge Wooten. Mr. Brock, at some point, called me after Justice Thomas had been confirmed and asked me if I would talk to him. He was writing a book. Out of a courtesy to him, I talked to him. At that time, he did not mean anything to me. I did not know who Mr. Brock was. I knew very little about him, but as a courtesy to him I had a very brief conversation with him. If others wanted to ask me something about the process, if they were writing a book, I would have talked to them. It was a very brief conversation, a very brief conversation and meeting with him. Chairman Leahy. For the record, did you ever disclose to Mr. Brock committee confidential materials? Judge Wooten. Senator, I did not. Again, any allegation that I did so is 100-percent untrue. Chairman Leahy. And did you ever disclose to Mr. Brock information obtained by the FBI regarding the nomination? Judge Wooten. No, sir. Senator, I never released any information to him from any FBI file. That would be 100-percent untrue. Chairman Leahy. Did you ever have communications with Mr. Brock about Angela Wright? Judge Wooten. Senator, when he came by to talk to me about his book--that was some 10 years ago. It would have been in late 1991. I cannot remember the details of the conversation I had with him. It was very brief, again, as a courtesy to him. Whether or not her name came up, I cannot say it did or did not. It may have, but I can assure you that any information, any discussion or mention of her name, there was no confidential information that was released or made available to him. There was nothing out of an FBI file that was made available to him. Chairman Leahy. Did you give him any written material regarding Ms. Wright? Judge Wooten. Senator, I do not remember giving him any written material. I would not give him any written material. I cannot imagine why there would be any reason to do that. My answer to that would be I do not remember giving him any written material. It just would not have been the procedure I followed. There was no reason for me to give him anything in writing. Chairman Leahy. You would not have given him any materials obtained from FBI interviews with Ms. Wright or interviews about Ms. Wright? Judge Wooten. Absolutely not. Chairman Leahy. And you would not have given Mr. Brock any copies of committee reports regarding Ms. Wright or interviews about Ms. Wright? Judge Wooten. Absolutely not. Chairman Leahy. On pages 260 and 261 of his book, ``The Real Anita Hill,'' and I believe you have--I will make sure you have seen this. Judge Wooten. Senator, I have reviewed that very quickly. Chairman Leahy. And I realize it is quickly--and, obviously, feel free to look at it more, but, basically, I thought in light of your questions you probably would not need a long review of it. Brock quotes at length from--he describes information derived from an interview conducted by the FBI with regard to Ms. Wright. Now, without going into whether his quoting of the FBI report is accurate or not, did you play any role in providing this quoted information to Mr. Brock? Judge Wooten. Absolutely not. I do not know if this is out of an FBI file or not. I do not know. I am sure-- Chairman Leahy. No, and I am not--I certainly have no intention of confirming whether it is or not, but is anything in that material--was it provided by you? Judge Wooten. Absolutely not, Senator. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Now, to go to the more traditional questions, let's go to the question of stare decisis. Does the commitment to stare decisis vary depending upon the court or is the doctrine of stare decisis the same whatever court you are in? Judge Wooten. Senator, I would think it was the same, whatever court that you are in. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed for this position--as a trial judge, as a district judge, I am bound by Supreme Court precedent and I am bound by the Fourth Circuit precedent. The doctrine of stare decisis binds me and I am bound by those decisions and I believe strongly in the doctrine of stare decisis. Chairman Leahy. Let's assume that you have got a case and it comes in as basically on all fours with a decision of the Fourth Circuit or a decision of the Supreme Court; you do not like that decision; you happen to disagree with it or you have a personal problem with it. Are you going to have any trouble following it, however, in your trial court? Judge Wooten. Senator, I would have no problem following a decision of the Supreme Court or the Fourth Circuit. My personal views do not enter into it. It is my responsibility to apply the law as it is written, and to apply the cases that interpret the law as written. Chairman Leahy. Now, Judge Wooten, you have had a chance to serve in all three branches. You have been here in the Senate, and I recall your service here, as an Assistant U.S. Attorney-- as some of us think of the days of being prosecutors as the best part of one's life--and now in the judicial branch as a U.S. magistrate. Any thoughts on that, having had a chance to be in all three? Judge Wooten. Well, let me say that I think most of the times since I have been out of law school, I have been a public servant. The opportunities that I have had are opportunities that very few people ever have the opportunity to get. Every experience that I have had in public service has been most rewarding. I think after being in all three branches of government, there is no question that there is a true majesty to our system of government. I have had the opportunity to read cases that are many, many years old, 100 years old, 150 years old, and it is amazing the majesty of the system that we have. I am truly blessed to have had the opportunity to serve in all three branches and to be a part of public service in all three branches. Chairman Leahy. During your years here with Senator Thurmond, you heard him ask a question, and I have many, many times complimented Senator Thurmond for asking this question, because I think it is critical for somebody who may soon take a lifetime position as a judge, and that goes to judicial temperament. The judge is by nature the most powerful person in the court room, and I am sure you have seen judges that can abuse the power and those who use it right. I believe a judge, of course, should run his or her court room, but I do not hold any brief for a judge who would unnecessarily berate litigants or counsel or use their position other than in the ends of justice. So this is not really a question, but sort of the admonition that Senator Thurmond and others have given other judges. You are going to be in a tremendous position, assuming you do go through this committee, but never forget, those are human beings, plaintiff and defendant, before you. Know that even if you are exasperated or having a bad day, just a word from you can hurt or hinder their life for years. Judges have to exercise restraint, even though sometimes it could try the patience of a saint, and none of us are--well, you may be, but none of us up here are. So I just pass on that. Remember the people there. It is also part of that majesty and glory of our system that you talk about. When somebody walks into a federal court, there is automatically this aura of the majesty of our government, and people many times are going to make up their mind about what our government is. They are not going to meet the President, they are not going to meet members of Congress, but in their litigation they are going to see the federal judge. And for the rest of their life, whether they win or lose, their whole few of our government is going to be based on that. So that is an added responsibility you will carry. Judge Wooten. Thank you, Senator. I think that is a very important responsibility. I have had the great luxury to spend two years as a federal magistrate judge and I have had many parties in front of me. I have had many lawyers in front of me. I have had many defendants in front of me. I believe it is important for a judge to show respect for the parties, to show respect for the issues that are before that court. Many people come to court and it is not something they do routinely. So it is a very important experience for them and I believe it is important that they get a fair hearing, that they get their issues fairly considered and that they get a fair result. I will say I have spent some 14 years in the court room and there have been times where I have been on the end of a judge who maybe was not having a very good day. I know that I remember the few times that that happened, and I have subsequently had contact with some of those judges, just in passing, and I do not think they ever remembered they said something harsh to me at all. It is not something that they remember, but it is something that I remember. I know the parties who would be before me, assuming I am confirmed, if I have that luxury, they would remember anything that a judge does that is temperamental or shows an improper temperament toward them. So I appreciate those remarks. Chairman Leahy. Well, you and I have the same view on that and I appreciate that. Senator DeWine? Senator DeWine. Judge, I noticed in your answer to our committee questionnaire on page five, that you have written approximately 500 reports and recommendations since becoming a magistrate judge in 1999. I wonder if you could just comment on the relationship between the magistrate judge and how you think the district judge should use the magistrate judge? Judge Wooten. Well, it has been my experience in South Carolina--there are currently nine district judges and they are very busy. From time to time, I hear about the moderate case load of federal judges. I have not seen that in South Carolina. They are very busy. There are three areas that magistrate judges work in, in South Carolina: prisoner litigation; pro se litigation; Social Security appeals; and employment litigation. The reports and recommendations that I prepared--they are roughly some 20 to 30 pages usually--that sets out the issues in a case and it makes a recommendation on contested issues in a case to the district court. I believe magistrate judges can provide a great service to the district court and help them with the issues in a case and the law in a case. I see the position of magistrate judge as somebody who provides that support for the district court and I think it is very helpful. I think magistrate judges maybe have taken on a greater load in the recent past, and that makes it a little bit easier for the district court to deal with the case loads that they have. I think it is an important relationship. In South Carolina, it has worked well. Senator DeWine. You do not see a problem with the magistrate judges taking on a greater load--has not posed a problem, you think, in the administration of justice? You are going to have an opportunity of being on both sides of the issue, of seeing it is a magistrate judge; now you will see it as the district court judge. Judge Wooten. Well, if you are talking about a greater case load in terms of the types of issues that magistrate judges deal with, the reports and recommendations that I have done simply make a recommendation to the district court. We all hope, as magistrate judges, that those recommendations are accepted by the district court, but the ultimate decision as to how a matter will be resolved is up to the district court, and it should be left to the district court to make the ultimate decision in a case. Senator DeWine. And your job as a magistrate judge is to set it up so that that judge can make that rational decision. You make a recommendation, but you supply the facts, you supply the pertinent law. Basically, you are teeing it up. You are making a recommendation, and if things work right, in most cases, your recommendation is going to be followed. Judge Wooten. That is correct. I have tried very, very hard to analyze the issues in detail in all of the reports and recommendations that I have done, in cases--the major cases-- and all cases are major cases. It is just a question of how you prioritize. Senator DeWine. If it is your case, it is major; right? Judge Wooten. Sir? Senator DeWine. If you are the litigant, it is major. Judge Wooten. If you are the litigant, every case is major. Every case is major for every litigant. It is a question of how you prioritize all that is major, and I have tried, in certainly as many cases as I can, to read every case cited in the briefs. Now, some briefs cite hundreds of cases, but I certainly read all the major cases, and I try to outline the major cases in these reports and recommendations. On every contested issue in the reports and recommendations, if at all possible, I try to find a case that has somehow dealt with that issue, again, for the benefit of the district court and also for the benefit of the litigants. If lawyers are going to take time to submit briefs--and I see some very, very fine briefs in my court--I am going to read those cases and I am going to look at them, and I am going to analyze them for the district court, for the benefit of the court, but also for the benefit of the lawyers and the litigants in those cases. Senator DeWine. You and Senator Leahy have already explored the whole issue of judicial temperament, which is certainly something that is difficult to define. But it is certainly something that those of us who have practiced much law certainly have observed in judges, whether it be a trial court judge in a State court or whether it be a district court judge in a federal court, very, very important. But I would like to ask about another issue, and that is the whole question of how you keep your docket moving, how you manage that docket, what have you observed and what have you learned as a magistrate judge about that, that would be of assistance to you as you take on that task? Judge Wooten. Well, the most important thing in terms of moving the docket is working hard. That is the number one place to start. When I started as a federal magistrate judge, there was a big backlog of cases that I had to deal with, not because judges in South Carolina were not working. They were all working very hard. Both Senator Thurmond's recommended judges and Senator Hollings' recommended judges worked very hard. But you come in with an immediate case load. There were times when I worked seven days a week to deal with that case load. You simply have to continue to do the work. Again, it was important to me in doing the reports and recommendations and dealing with motions, was to get it right, to be sure the decision I made was the best decision that could be made. It is simply hard work. It is good to have some support staff, some good support staff, if you can get that, but it is hard work. I had come out of the U.S. Attorney's Office and I had the great luxury of being the supervisor of one of the major divisions in that office, and you simply have to work hard as a supervisor, and you have to expect hard work from those people who work with you. But it is primarily hard work, and that is just it. I felt like I worked very hard. The Civil Justice Reform Act has certain time frames in it, and this was legislation that this committee dealt with, I believe. I focused on it some when I was here. I think Senator Biden may have introduced the bill--I think it was Senator Biden. I am not absolutely sure. But those time frames are good, because it ensures that cases, as much as humanly possible, can move through the system. But it is simply hard work, and the time and the hours that it takes--if it is seven days a week, then it ought to be seven days a week. But it is primarily hard work. Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Senator Thurmond, did you have any questions? Senator Thurmond. Judge Wooten, how has your experience as a magistrate judge helped prepare you for the district court? Judge Wooten. Senator, I have had a little over two years now as a federal magistrate judge, and I have been a judge for two years, and I have learned very quickly that, as a judge, you have to have a sense of fairness, you have to have some ability, and you have to have a unquestioned integrity. It is important, as well, that you have respect for the parties that come before you and respect for the issues. I have had criminal defendants who have been before me. I had detention hearings in many cases. I have motions in civil cases. I have hearings in civil cases. So it has been a good chance for me to do the things as a magistrate judge, a number of the same type things that I would do as a district judge. I have also sentenced people in misdemeanor cases and taken pleas in a number of cases, as well. So it is just doing the things that a judge would have to do, a number of things that a district judge would have to do to analyze issues, to make decisions, and to move cases forward. Senator Thurmond. I do not have any further questions. I am pleased to note that Judge Wooten received a unanimous rating of well-qualified from the American Bar Association. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, and I, again, will keep the record open for the appropriate time for further questions. I frankly do not expect any, and will move this as quickly as we can. In fact, I would note, and I have no further questions, Judge Wooten, of you. I was going to make a couple closing remarks, and you are welcome to stay and be subjected to them, if you would like. I do want to point out the Committee's first hearing was noticed within 10 minutes of the adoption of the reorganization resolution. It was held the day after the committee membership was set. So we tried to move quickly. When this committee reports another nominee to a Court of Appeals vacancy, it will have reported as many Court of Appeals nominees since just July of this year as this committee did under the control of the other party in all of last year. When we next confirm a Court of Appeals nominee, as I expect soon, we will have confirmed as many as were confirmed in the entire first year of the Clinton administration. I mention this for those who keep score of such things to point out what we are accomplishing. When we confirmed Judge Roger Gregory to the Fourth Circuit on July 20th, we confirmed more Court of Appeals judges than a Republican-controlled Senate was willing to confirm in all of 1996. When I became chairman and began holding hearings, no judicial nominations had hearings or were confirmed by the Senate, but we are now ahead of the pace of confirmations for judicial nominees of either the first year of the Clinton administration or the first year of the first Bush administration. In the first year of the Clinton administration, which did not have all of the disruptions and distractions that we have had this year, the first Court of Appeals judge was not confirmed till September 30th. In the entire first year of the first Bush administration, without all of the distractions that we have had, the third Court of Appeals judge was not confirmed until October 24th. The record shows that during recent years, the last six years, under a Republican Senate majority, there were no Court of Appeals nominees confirmed at any time during the entire 1996 session. The first Court of Appeals nominee was not confirmed in 1997 until September 26th. During the six years in which my friends on the other side held the majority, there were 34 months that we had no hearings at all, 30 months with only one hearing, and only 12 times in almost six-and-a-half years that the Judiciary Committee held as many as two hearings involving judicial nominations within a month, something we have done during a recess month. I just mention that for those who are interested. I know sometimes some at the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue and elsewhere seem to have overlooked some of these. I was happy to come back--well, no. I cannot say that. I am never happy to come back from Vermont, certainly not during August, but I had heard from the Senators and, in one case, from the Congresswoman, about the need to move forward on nominations, including yours, Judge Wooten, and so I was willing to do this. And I might indicate, just as a personal matter, I suspect you are going to be confirmed and I expect your experience as a magistrate is going to allow you to come in with really a leg-up. I was glad to hear what you said to both Senator DeWine and Senator Thurmond. I think a lot of people forget how extraordinarily important the magistrate judges are to the whole system. I can think of a lot of areas around the country where it would literately break down without the magistrate. I know how important Judge Nedermeyer is to the courts in Vermont, and I hear over and over again from lawyers, plaintiffs, defendants, prosecution, defense, how extremely important it is to get the justice system moving because of the magistrate. So I think you have had a great experience and you do come there with a leg-up in the whole system. Senator DeWine, did you have anything? Senator DeWine. Just briefly, Mr. Chairman. I again thank you very much for holding this hearing. Thank you for holding the other hearing. I am not going to get into a statistics battle. I will leave that up to Senator Hatch, when he gets here. Chairman Leahy. And he will willingly take on the challenge, let me tell you. Senator DeWine. You and Senator Hatch have a mastery of these statistics, which is certainly far beyond my experience, and I will let the two of you hassle over that, and we can all watch that. Let me just make one comment in regard to your earlier statement about sending all names back to the White House. It is my understanding that what you said was true, but one additional fact, and that is that the Democrats would only agree to the unanimous consent to keep all the nominations up here if two of the names, two of the nominations, were excluded. So you would have had the situation of two names being sent back to the White House and the other ones kept here, which I think was just certainly an unacceptable situation. Again, I want to thank you for holding this hearing. We do have some issues that we have to resolve, and you mentioned earlier today about the Sixth Circuit. We have several nominations which are pending and which we certainly would like to get moving on, and I know that you and I will have further discussion about this, and hopefully we can get things worked out, and I thank you very much. Chairman Leahy. I thank you. I would note, for what it is worth, that it is not unprecedented to send back one or two, but I think it was unprecedented to send them all back. But, be that as it may, the White House assures us they are all coming back up in another week, and we will move forward. Senator Thurmond, I thank you for coming here. Judge Wooten, I thank you and your friends and family, and I know your parents are extremely proud, as you should be. With that, we stand in recess. [Whereupon, at 11:14 a.m., the committee was adjourned.] [Submissions for the record and questions and answers follow.] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Judge Terry L. Wooten to questions submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin The FBI recently completed an investigation into allegations that you leaked confidential files following the 1991 hearings on. Justice Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court. I was briefed on the FBI's findings. I have a series of questions about your conduct at an earlier stage, when Justice Thomas was still before the Judiciary Committee. Question 1: According to Jane Mayer, a senior reporter for The Wall Street Journal, you ``played a key but almost entirely behind-the- scenes role'' in the Thomas hearings. At the time, you served as the chief counsel to Senator Strom Thurmond, the Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee. (a) When and under what circumstances did you first learn of accusations, from Anita Hill, or others, that Justice Thomas had sexually harassed his employees or had engaged in crude sexual, behavior at the work place? (b) Did you pass along this information to anyone, prior to the public revelation of these accusations by the news media? If so, to whom? (c) At that time, did you discuss with anyone what to do about these accusations? If so, with whom? What opinion (if any) did you express? (d) What steps did you or other aides to Senator Thurmond, to your knowledge, take to investigate or verify the accusations? Please be as specific as possible. Response: 1. (a) It is difficult for me to say exactly when I was made aware of Ms. Hill's accusations. My memory is that either Duke Short (Former Judiciary Committee Chief Investigator and Staff Director, and current Chief-of-Staff to Senator Thurmond) or Melissa Riley, investigator for the Committee, informed me that the accusations had been made. I do not recall when I learned of the allegation. As best I can recall, I did not focus on this allegation until after the nomination of Thomas was returned to the Judiciary Committee for additional hearings': The nomination was returned from the floor to the Committee for additional hearings after Ms. Hill's allegation became public. I would note that Ms. Mayer's comments reflect a lack of understanding as to how the Judiciary Committee operated. Each staffer on the Committee reported to his or her individual member and was responsible to that member. (b) I did not pass this information along to anyone other than Senator Thurmond. It would have been a violation of Committee rules to provide it to anyone else not authorized to receive it. I am certain Senator Thurmond was briefed on these allegations. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Short initially briefed Senator Thurmond regarding these accusations. At some point, I am certain I had conversations with Senator Thurmond about this issue. (c) Once the allegations were made public, the issue arose regarding how the Senate would then proceed with the nomination. That matter was left to the Senate leadership and the Judiciary Committee members. The Thomas nomination was referred back to the Committee for additional testimony. I am certain there were discussions among staff as to how the process would work after the nomination came back to Committee. I am certain I discussed the procedures with Chairman Biden's staff and with the staff of other Judiciary Committee members. Chairman Biden and other Committee members decided to hear testimony from Justice Thomas and Ms. Hill and then take testimony from additional witnesses. The decision about how to proceed in light of the allegations was left to Chairman Biden, Senator Thurmond, and the Committee members. It was clear to everyone that the allegations had to be treated seriously and addressed by the Committee. (d) The investigation of the allegations was left to the FBI. Senator Thurmond's staff did not conduct an independent investigation. Question 2. In an article published this summer in the American prospect, Jane Mayer offered the following account of events: [W]hen staffers for Delaware Senator Joseph Biden, the Democratic chairman of the committee, first alerted Thurmond's office of [Anita] Hill's explosive allegations, Wooten and another Thurmond aide decided on their own not to share the specifics of her statement with their boss. Equally surprising, they also decided on their own not to inform the other Republican's on the committee of Hill's charges. (a) Is the first sentence accurate? If not, please explain how it differs from your recollection. If it is accurate, please explain the reasoning behind the decision. For example, did you have, reason to believe that Anita Hill was not credible? (b) If not the specifics, did you discuss the nature of Anita Mill's allegations with Senator Thurmond? Did other aides, to your knowledge? Why or why not? (c) Is the second sentence above accurate? If not, please explain how it differs from your recollection. If it is accurate, please explain the reasoning behind the decision. Response: 2. (a) The first sentence is inaccurate. I am certain that Senator Thunnond was fully briefed on Ms. Hill's allegations. He was the ranking minority member on the Committee and was made aware of Ms, Hill's allegations. It is nor realistic to suggest that the specifics of Ms. Hill's allegations were not shared with Senator Thurmond by his own staff. (b) At some point during the reconsideration of the Thomas nomination, I fully expect that I had discussions with Senator Thurmond about Ms. Hill's allegations. Mr. Short also briefed Senator Thurmond about Ms. Hill's statements. Again, it was certainly important that Senator Thurmond be fully briefed on Ms. Hill's allegations. He was briefed on the allegations so he could consult with Chairman Biden and other members about how Ms. Hill's allegations would he handled by the Judiciary Committee. (c) The second statement is not accurate. As chief minority counsel reporting to Senator Thurmond, my obligation and the obligation of Mr. Short was to be sure that he was aware of the Thomas-Hill matter. It was up to Senator Thurmond to decide how and when other Senators would be briefed. It would be beyond the authority of a staff person and a violation of Committee rules to decide to convey FBI or confidential information to anyone not authorized to receive it. Question 3. Mayer's account continues: As time ticked by and ,agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation formally interviewed both Hill and Thomas about the allegations, Wooten kept the other Republican members completely in the dark. A Judiciary Committee rule required that all members to be informed within 24 hours of any matter involving the FBI, but it was inexplicably ignored. (a) Is her statement accurate? If not, please explain how it differs from your recollection. (b) To your knowledge, was there a Committee rule that required all members to be informed with 24 hours of any matter involving the FBI? Were your aware of such a rule at the time? (c) If there was such a rule, slid you take steps or direct others to take steps to notify Committee members that the FBI was conducting an investigation? Did you circulate Hill's affidavit to Republican Committee members? Why or why not? Response: 3. (a) Again, the statement is not accurate and shows a misunderstanding of the role of the Committee staff. It would be inappropriate for a staff person to convey FBI or confidential information to anyone not authorized to receive it. To the best of my knowledge, there was no ``24 hour rule.'' I am aware that Committee rules prohibited conveying FBI or confidential information to anyone not authorized, which was the practice of the Committee. (b) No. (c) To my knowledge, there was no ``24 hour rule.'' Question 4. According to Mayer, at least two Republican senators voted for Justice Thomas in Committee without any knowledge of Anita Hill or her allegations. Reportedly, Senator Hank Brown, a Committee member from Colorado, was furious that he learned about Hill after casting his vote. Others learned of Hill by happenstance, and voted for Thomas without having seen Hill's affidavit. (a) Is this account accurate' 1f not, please explain how it differs from your recollection, (b) In your judgment, did members of the Judiciary Committee have sufficient information about Justice Thomas to cast a vote on the nomination at the time of the Committee vote? Please explain your reasoning. Response 4: (a) I do not know what Senator Brown knew at the time lie voted in the Committee. (b) That is a difficult question for me to answer. However, to the best of my knowledge, yes they did. Question 5: In Strange Justice, a book about the Thomas-Hill hearings, Moyer and her co-author characterize the reasoning of Senator Thurmond's staff at the time when Anita Hill's, allegations first surfaced; ``the more people who are told about Hill's statement, the more likely it was that her charge would leak out and damage Thomas.'' You ate quoted in the book as explaining, ``Washington is the rumor mill of the world. It didn't look like it was going to develop into a big deal. There was an effort to control the damage.'' (a) Are the quotations above a fair characterization of your own reasoning at the time? Why or why not? (b) Assuming the direct quotation attributed to you is accurate, why did you think Anita Hill's allegations were not going to develop into a ``big deal''? Did you consider her allegations to be serious? Did you believe then and do you believe now that her allegations, if true, call into question Justice Thomas's suitability to serve on the Supreme Court? Response 5: (a) I think those quotations are a fair characterization of my reasoning at the time. However, these quotations simply state the obvious. (b) To the best of my recollection, when Ms. Hill made her allegations, there was a question as to whether or not she was willing to appear before the Committee and to proceed further with her allegations. At that time, there was uncertainty as to how this matter would develop, I considered Ms. Hill's allegations to be serious. If true, I do believe Ms. Hill's allegations would raise questions about Justice Thomas' nomination. Question 6: After Anita Hill's charges against Justice Thomas became public, the Judiciary Committee learned of Angela Wright--a second woman who allegedly witnessed crude sexual behavior by Thomas in the workplace. Wright was deposed by you and other Committee staff members, but she was never called to testify during the televised Committee hearing. Regarding Wright, you are quoted in Strange Justice as saying: ``Any time you had a second allegation, it was going to be a big problem.'' (a) Did you play any. role in the Committee's's decision not to call Wright as a witness? If so, please describe the role you played and the reasoning behind your conduct. (b) Is the direct quotation attributed to your in Strange justice accurate? If so, please explain what you meant by that statement. Why would a second allegation create a big problem? Did you view Angela Wright as a big problem four Justice Thomas's nomination? (c) During the deposition, you asked several questions about Wright' s troubled employment history. Did you pursue this line of questioning, in whole or in part, to discourage Wright from testifying at the hearing? At: the outset of the deposition, was it your intention to discredit Wright? Response: 6. (a) I played no role in the Committee's decision not to call. Ms. Wright as a witness. That was a decision made by Chairman Biden and Members of the Committee, not staff. (b) To the best of my recollection, that quotation is accurate. A second credible allegation of misconduct by Justice Thomas would have been a problem for his nomination. A second credible allegation of misconduct by Justice Thomas would constitute additional evidence from which Senators could conclude improper behavior had occurred. (c) Let me assure you that no questions were asked by me to discourage Ms. Wright from testifying or to discredit her. My questions and questions by other staffers were asked in an effort to get to the truth whether it helped Justice Thomas or not. I would also note that the telephone interview was set up by Chairman Biden's staff and my questions were primarily follow-lip questions asked by Senator Biden's staff. SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah I would like to take just a moment to talk about an extraordinary woman who is before us today as a nominee for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, who also happens to serve as the Republican Chief Counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee: Sharon Prost. Let me first thank the Chairman, Senator Leahy, for taking the extraordinary step of calling a hearing during the August recess for Sharon and a few other nominees. Thank you. Sharon grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, where the values of faith, family, and country were instilled in her. Simply put, Sharon embodies the American dream. Her parents were concentration camp survivors who arrived in this country from Poland in 1948. The pursuit of their own educations was derailed by the war, but they nonetheless emphasized to Sharon the importance of education and hard work in achieving success--advice Sharon has followed throughout her life. Tragically, Sharon's father died when she was only 13 years old. Upon his death, she had to support herself, and worked her way through high school and college. But despite the obstacles life placed before her, Sharon persevered. She became the first in her family to graduate from high school, and went on to attend an Ivy League University. Perhaps one of the best-educated individuals ever to have worked in the Senate, Sharon holds four degrees, including a bachelor of science, a law degree, an LLM in tax, and an MBA. She got three of her degrees at night while working full-time. A labor lawyer at heart, Sharon first came to work for me twelve years ago, after serving as Acting Solicitor of the NLRB. I sought Sharon out to work for me on the Senate Labor Committee and handle ERISA issues, because I learned of her intellect, her exceptional combination of legal skills, her knowledge of tax law, and her background in finance. In her role as my Chief Counsel on the Judiciary Committee, she has been responsible for everything on the Committee agenda, including matters of antitrust and patent law. Sharon truly is something of a modern Renaissance woman, with a breadth and depth of knowledge in a variety of areas. Her background and education make her uniquely suited for service on the Federal Circuit, which, as you know, handles myriad issues ranging from veterans matters to patent cases to employment cases. It has been said that ``[t]he value of government to the people it serves is in direct relationship to the interest citizens themselves display in the affairs of state.'' Sharon has proved herself to be a valuable asset to our nation, having devoted much of her life to public service. I know that Sharon holds the other members of this Committee in the highest regard, and that those who have worked with her have the utmost respect for her as well. Sharon has been the primary counsel working for me on a number of bipartisan initiatives, including the Violence Against Women Act, as well as the Religious Liberty bill that was passed last year. And, Sharon has worked closely with Senator Kennedy's staff over the years on Labor Committee and Immigration issues. I would be remiss in talking about Sharon Prost and her many accomplishments without mentioning the role she considers most important of all: that of being the mother of her terrific sons, Matthew and Jeffrey. And if we have been in Sharon's office, we have seen the pictures of Matthew with President Clinton and Senator Kennedy, and know that Sharon heads a bipartisan household. Yes, Matthew is a Democrat, despite my best efforts. But more seriously, let me close by noting that Sharon is not only an able counsel and wonderful mother, but she is a person with a good heart. As Robert Traver wrote more than four decades ago, ``Judges, like people, may be divided roughly into four classes: judges with neither head nor heart--they are to be avoided at all costs; judges with head but no heart--they are almost as bad; then judges with heart but no head--risky but better than the first two; and finally, those rare judges who possess both head and a heart.'' Thankfully for all of us, we know that Sharon will serve this country as a judge with head and a heart. Thank you Sharon for your service to this me, to this Committee and to this nation. I look forward to your confirmation. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Statement of Hon. Joseph R. Biden, Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware Mr. Chairman, I want to commend you for holding this judicial hearing today. In particular, it is a great honor for me to express my support for the nomination of Sharon Prost to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Sharon is a dedicated public servant of the highest order. She has devoted herself to serving our government for almost 30 years and we will be fortunate to see her continue to do so from the bench. Her vast experience in government will undoubtedly serve her well as a judge. It is one of the qualities that makes her a superior candidate. She has mastered the workings of our government at the Civil Service Commission, the General Accounting Office, the Federal Labor Relations Authority, the Internal Revenue Service, the National Labor Relations Board and finally here on Capitol Hill in the Senate. I have had the pleasure and the privilege of getting to know Sharon well in her time working for the Judiciary Committee. Although we have been on opposite sides of the aisle, I have always enjoyed working with Sharon. In particular, Sharon played a critical role in crafting legislation in the area of violence against women. I am personally grateful for her contributions in this area, and the entire country owes her a debt of gratitude for the instrumental role she has played in working to protect victims of domestic abuse. Sharon is also a dedicated mother of two wonderful young sons. She has always been devoted to seeking the best for them. I have had the pleasure of meeting Matthew and Jeffrey, and I can say without reservation that Sharon has raised children that would make any parent extremely proud. Sharon has a keen legal mind, superior personal character, and an admirable devotion to public service. She has proven her abilities as a lawyer time and again and she will be an outstanding addition to the Federal Circuit. NOMINATION OF BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR. TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT; MICHAEL P. MILLS TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI; AND JOHN W. GILLIS TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ---------- THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 13, 2001 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:15 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Leahy and McConnell. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. Thank you all for being here. The Judiciary held a business meeting this morning. We expedited consideration of a dozen U.S. Attorney nominees for districts around the country, and we will expedite others as they come up here from the White House. We are holding the fifth nominations hearing, including judicial nominees, since the Judiciary Committee's membership was set back on July 5th. It is the fifth one--I think the most active record certainly in recent years of this Committee. I will put my full statement in the record, but I would note that among those who are today will be Michael Mills, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, and, of course, John Gillis, to be Director of the Office for Victims of Crime. Mr. Gillis, Attorney General Ashcroft called me at home last night and talked about this. I told him we would go forward. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:] Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont This afternoon the Committee is resuming its hearing schedule. Having postponed hearings on Tuesday and Wednesday, the Senate Judiciary Committee is back at work. We held a business meeting this morning and expedited consideration of a dozen U.S. Attorney nominees for districts around the country. This afternoon, we are holding the fifth nominations hearing including judicial nominees since the Senate reorganized and the Judiciary Committee's membership was set on July 10. The work of the Committee and of the Senate is continuing and I hope by being here and proceeding with this hearing we are helping to establish that reality. I want to commend the nominees for the extraordinary efforts they made to be available here today. I was able to proceed with judicial nominations as soon as the Committee membership was set following reorganization and we have continued to hold hearings at a record pace, including two that I chaired during the August recess. Just as we expedited Committee consideration of a dozen U.S. Attorney nominees to those Federal law enforcement positions and pressed for the necessary paperwork so that we could proceed with those nominations today. Similarly, we are pressing forward with this hearing today on important nominations to the judicial branch, which is so important to our democratic system, and with the President's nominee to head the Office for Victims of Crime at the Department of Justice. Until today witnesses have been unable to fly to Washington. I commend Judge Parker and Justice Mills for making the efforts they have made over the last difficult days to be here with us. I understand that Justice Mills drove all night to get here from Mississippi and that Judge Parker drove down from the New York-Connecticut area. I regret that another nominee, Laurie Smith Camp of Nebraska, could not be with us today. We will reschedule her hearing and work with both Senators from Nebraska to have her nomination considered by the Committee as soon as possible. Mr. Gillis came from California, but fortunately arrived here before Tuesday's tragic events. The Senior Senator from New York, a respected Member of this Committee, cannot be with us. I will make his strong statement in support of Judge Parker a part of the record. Senator Schumer has volunteered to chair this hearing and had planned to do so until the tragic events of Tuesday required him to redirect his attention to the immediate needs of the people of New York. Likewise, other Senators who had planned to be with us to introduce these nominees and endorse their nominations are attending to important business in the aftermath of the attacks on Tuesday morning. I will include their statements in the record, thank them for their support of these nominees and for bringing that support to my attention so that we could proceed by consensus this afternoon. Chairman Leahy. We are first going to hear from the senior Senator from Mississippi, Senator Cochran. Senator Cochran and I are friends of well over 20 years, and Senator Cochran has talked to me about the need for a judge in the Northern District and mentioned his strong support for Mr. Mills. I suspect that Senator Cochran has strong support for you is why the President has strong support for you. There is a coincidence there, but this worked out well. Senator Cochran and I, like Senator Lott, who will be here later, and others, have just come from a really unprecedented joint caucus luncheon of the Republicans and Democrats. Senator Schumer and Senator Clinton are still there talking to the appropriators, for obvious reasons. I know Senator Cochran, as one of the senior appropriators, has to go back to it. So, Senator Cochran, let me yield to you. PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL P. MILLS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI BY HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for convening this hearing, and thank you for scheduling the confirmation hearing of Judge Mike Mills, from Mississippi, who has been nominated by the President to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi. Mike Mills is someone who is well-known in our State for his intelligence, his integrity, his ability as a lawyer, first, and then as a member of the Mississippi Supreme Court in the State of Mississippi. He is well-educated. He earned bachelor's and law degrees at the University of Mississippi, then went on to the University of Virginia, where he earned a master's of law degree. He had a successful private practice of law in the State of Mississippi. He was elected to the Mississippi Legislature and served with distinction for 12 years. He chaired the Judiciary Committees in the House. He was the author of some very important and major reform acts relating to criminal law issues and the procedures of our judiciary system, both the circuit and chancery courts. He was then selected for membership on the Mississippi Supreme Court. He was appointed and then elected to a full term in a popular election in our State. He is well-known for his volunteer work in support of education programs. He has been involved in a number of efforts to improve our public education system in Mississippi. As a lawyer, he was respected and asked to serve as a commissioner on the National Conference of Commissioners of Uniform State Laws. He was also invited to be a founding member of the Board of Directors of the University of Mississippi Institute for Racial Reconciliation. I am pleased to say that I have known Mike personally for a number of years and have come to respect him not only for his political skills, but his legal acumen and his good judgment, sense of fairness, and integrity. He is an intellectual with a common touch. He is a person that I can recommend to this Committee without any qualification at all, to my recommendation that he be confirmed, because I am confident he will serve our State with great distinction and will be a credit to the Federal judiciary. One of the newspapers that commented on his nomination, I think, said it best when they concluded--this is the Northeast Mississippi Daily Journal; it covers all of north Mississippi. It says, ``Mills' education, experience and intellect equip him well for a Federal judgeship. His sharp analytical mind, keen knowledge of history and precedent, and innate sense of fairness and justice, demonstrated as a legislator and jurist throughout his 18-year career in public life, make him a good fit for the job.'' Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much your inviting us to be here today, and I would like for Judge Mills to know that we appreciate the attendance of his wife, Mona. They have four children, too, who couldn't come up here; they have got other responsibilities. You might expect that getting a flight up here was kind of difficult, like impossible, today. When they heard the hearing was scheduled and they couldn't get a flight, they got in their car--or maybe it is a truck; I have heard them refer to it as a truck--and they drove all night last night. They got in this morning, into Washington, at five o'clock. I am real proud of Mike. That is an indication of his dedication and his commitment to this new job and new challenge in his life, and I hope the Committee will be able to act promptly on his confirmation. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, Senator. I might say to Justice Mills he has two things going for him. One, of course, is the endorsement of Senator Cochran, his Senator, who is enormously respected on both the Republican and Democratic side of the aisle; and, secondly, your perseverance and driving through this. Please understand, we have actually had another nominee scheduled today who was so far away out in the country they couldn't get here by driving. I apologize that you had to do that. None of us knows when the session is going to end this year, and I appreciate that you did drive the 15 hours to get here because we would have had reschedule things to do it. I would hope you would spend some time here and get some rest before you go back, although I have a feeling that unless something we don't understand happens, you will probably have a lifetime to rest up from this. But that is a long trip, even with both of you driving. It is a terrible situation our Nation finds itself in and I am sure you understand that. I see that while the Senator from Connecticut is here, the other Senator from Mississippi is here, the Republican Leader. Following our normal protocol, of course, we will go to him. As I mentioned before you came in, Trent, you and Senator Daschle and the appropriators have been meeting throughout this time trying to figure out how we put together the money for this. I would just make also a personal comment about Senator Lott. As the Republican Leader, he has been meeting very closely with the Democratic Leader, Senator Daschle. Senator Lott and Senator Daschle are showing the country comes first in a situation like this. The two of them have worked extremely hard and in a way that brings credit on not just their States, but on the whole United States for the way they have been doing this to rally Senators together in a grief-stricken Nation. Senator Lott? PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL P. MILLS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI BY HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Lott. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for your comments just then, and also for going forward with scheduling this hearing, as you had indicated you would do. It would have been very easy to have delayed it or deferred it. At the same time, these are very important nominees, and so I appreciate it. I am glad to see Senator McConnell, from Kentucky, is here as well. I want to thank Justice Mills for being here. It wasn't easy to get here today. He drove from Mississippi, and I know from firsthand experience that is probably about 15 hours, isn't it, Thad, from where he started off. We are glad to have him and his wife here today. I know that my senior colleague has already outlined the tremendous credentials of Justice Michael Mills to be confirmed to be District Court Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi. I have known him for many years. I have always been impressed with his abilities, his character; in fact, his sheer intellect. It is a little scary sometimes. I have always thought he was maybe a little too smart for the things he was doing, like when he was in the State legislature. He was an active leader there on the Judiciary Committee--I am sure Thad noted that--Judiciary ``A'' and Judiciary En Banc Committees. He has outstanding educational qualifications, having gone to Ole Miss both for his undergraduate degree and his law degree. Then, wanting to give others an opportunity to experience his brilliance, he also went to the University of Virginia School of Law, Joe, where he got his LLM. Of course, he was an outstanding leader in the legislature and that is where I really got to know him, and now he has been a member of the supreme court. He was appointed first in 1995 and then elected to a full 8-year term in his own right in 1996. He has been willing to take on the tough issues that are not easy sometimes in Mississippi. He has shown leadership in some of his judicial rulings. He also has been a member of the board of directors of the University of Mississippi Institute for Racial Reconciliation. He was awarded the 2001 Award for Distinguished Service presented by Chief Justice Pittman of the Mississippi Supreme Court. In short, Mr. Chairman, he will be a credit to the Federal judiciary. He has broad support in north Mississippi. He is from a part of the State where there is a real desire to have a Federal judge. The other one, recently confirmed, is from the other part of the State and then there is one from the Tupelo area that Senator Cochran shepherded through years ago. His support includes a lot of Democrats and Republicans, and even leaders of the Mississippi Trial Lawyers Association. I know of not a single person that has raised the slightest question about his nomination, and it is a pleasure for me to be here and to support his nomination and ask for his expeditious consideration by the full Committee and the Senate. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much. Justice Mills, you come here with two highly respected and powerful members of the Senate on your behalf. I know that Senator Lott, who is continually working to craft legislation responsive to the terrible incidents of this week, has other things to do. And Senator Cochran, of course, who is one of the most senior members of the Appropriations Committee and the one who is carrying most of the burden on his shoulders does, too. I know both of you gentlemen have to go. Thank you for taking the time to come over here. Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Cochran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. I would also note that Judge Parker drove down here, too. While not as far to go, he had to drive. Lori Smith Camp, from Nebraska, was the one who was too far away, and I have assured both Senator Hagel and Senator Nelson that we will try to find time to reschedule her. Senator Lieberman, of course, is another who carries a powerful and respected voice in the Senate. If I might just, though it has nothing to do with this hearing, make one comment, this Committee deals with hate crimes and deals with the rights of all Americans. Senator Lieberman made a very powerful and good statement that in these terrible times Americans not turn against Americans, whatever their nationality or background might be. If evidence points to some in the Arab world, Senator Lieberman noted correctly and positively that we should not respond against somebody because of their Arab-American background. I concur with him so much in that. I remind everybody of the terrible mistake we made in World War II when we interned Japanese-Americans whose only crime was their nationality, and a very political Supreme Court upheld what was an egregious breach of our Constitution. It didn't help us win that war and it didn't make us any stronger. It actually weakened our democracy. Senator Lieberman is absolutely right and all the Senators who say this are absolutely right. We are all Americans here, 260 million of us, and we don't fight this terrorism from abroad and we don't bring back people who have died and we do not repair our Nation by turning against each other, whatever religion, whatever faith, whatever nationality. We are a Nation of immigrants and we should remember that and we should hold together. Senator Lieberman? PRESENTATION OF BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT BY HON. JOSEPH LIEBERMAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator Lieberman. Mr. Chairman, thanks very much for that statement. I couldn't agree with you more, and coming from you as the chairman of the Judiciary Committee it is particularly powerful because there could be nothing more unjust in this country where the law rules than to impose what is collective guilt and to blame, if you will, all of our fellow Americans who may be either Arab or Muslim, if that is the direction that this investigation takes, for the sins of a very few. So I appreciate your statement. I think if we yielded to those emotions, we would make the terrorist attack even more effective, dreadfully effective than it has already painfully been because they would divide American from American. This has been a very sad, difficult week and so I must say I appreciate your holding this hearing because it gives me great personal pleasure to introduce to you and this Committee Judge Barrington Parker as a nominee for the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. I have known Judge Parker for longer than either of us cares to remember, nearly four decades, since we met at an institution that Senator Lott might refer to as ``Ole Yale.'' Judge Parker and I have agreed that anything that either of us did at college or law school is privileged. Therefore, we will not answer questions. Chairman Leahy. Claiming the statute of limitations, are you? [Laughter.] Senator Lieberman. But I want to state quickly in the interest of full disclosure, though, I have generally said that we were at college and law school together, but you can see obviously by looking at the two of us that he is much younger than I am, at least by a year or a couple of years. From all this personal knowledge--and we have really kept in touch, fortunately, over the years since then--I can attest not only to Judge Parker's impeccable professional credentials as a lawyer, a litigator with three distinguished firms in New York, but also his outstanding service as a jurist since he was appointed to the district court in 1994. Probably, and perhaps most important, I can testify from personal knowledge to his extraordinary character and quality as a human being. He has been a credit to the district court and I have no doubt he will be a wonderful addition to the Second Circuit. Judge Parker is, in fact, exactly the kind of person who should be serving on the Federal bench. He is thoughtful, he is intelligent, he is wise, he is honorable, and he is hard- working. You will see from his resume and biography that he has devoted himself not only to the law, but to community service in a broad array of institutions and organizations, from serving on the corporation which is the trustees of our alma mater, to working for the Harlem School for the Arts, the Central Park Conservancy and the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, among others. You will have a sense when you hear him, and you would feel it even more deeply if you knew him as long as I have, that if anyone--fortunately, there are many people who do, but if anyone has what can be described as a judicial temperament, it is Judge Barrington Parker. He is someone who we all can take pride in because he is, in his own conduct and carriage, the embodiment of what we want our system of justice to be. Perhaps that comes to him genetically because his father was a distinguished member of the Federal judiciary here in the District of Columbia. So I both congratulate and thank President Bush for nominating Judge Parker. Back at Yale, we used to call him ``Danny.'' As a member of the circuit court, he is going to be just plain ``Judge Barrington Parker.'' I thank the Committee, Mr. Chairman, Senator McConnell and all the members for holding this hearing on the nomination and, of course, I would ask the Committee and hopefully the full Senate to confirm Judge Parker as soon as possible. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Thank you very much. I neglected to mention Senator McConnell, of Kentucky, who is here, another member of the Appropriations Committee who has enormous other obligations and I appreciate him taking the time to come and help with these hearings. PRESENTATION OF JOHN W. GILLIS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR OF OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME BY HON. MITCH MCCONNELL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't know the two judicial nominees. I do wish them well and intend to support them both. But I did want to say a word about John Gillis, who is before us also today to be Director of the Office for Victims of Crime. His mother had the good judgment to be in Kentucky when he was born and he started off his career in the Commonwealth, and it has been a distinguished one at that. John Gillis, as you all know, is the President's nominee to be the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime. He has worked in law enforcement for most of his life and has focused on victims' rights by founding and participating in a variety of victims' rights organizations. He began his career in the Los Angeles Police Department in 1962, and he worked up the ranks and served in many different capacities. From 1990 to 1999, he served as the Commissioner for the California Board of Prison Terms, and he served as chairman of the board for several years. Mr. Gillis has been very involved with a variety of non-profit boards relating to victims of crime. He is a founder of Justice for Homicide Victims, Victims and Friends United, and the Coalition on Victims' Equal Rights. He also serves on the boards of Parents of Murdered Children and the Fight Crime Invest in Kids organization. He was awarded the presidential Victims Services Award in 1991. Also worthy of note, even though he spent his professional career in California, I was proud to learn during our meeting that not only was he originally from the Commonwealth of Kentucky, but he and a handful of fellow students were among the first African American Kentuckians admitted to the University of Kentucky at a time when that institution was at last being integrated. I want to congratulate him for the good judgment to be among that group and suggest that I wish you had stayed there to graduate rather than moving on, but I know you then went in the military and then after that ended up in California. California's gain was certainly our loss, but for purposes of today's hearing I intend to adopt you as a Kentuckian and am very pleased to have had the opportunity to be here today for your hearing. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Senator McConnell. I appreciate you being here. I also should note that Mr. Gillis arrived here in D.C. prior to the terrible tragedy, so was here, and another reason why I wanted to move forward with these hearings. So, Judge Parker, you and I have talked. Judge Walker has called me about you, Judge Cabrenas has called me about you. Please come forward, sir, and take the witness table. I wonder before we start if you might want to note--I know you have members of the family here, and someday when they have the Parker library they will want to have the transcript of this hearing. So I want to have in there the names of whoever is here with you. Would you mind, Judge, telling us who is here? Judge Parker. Certainly. My wife, Toni Parker; my three daughters, Christine, Kathleen and Jennifer Parker; and my two aunts, Carolyn Troupe and Grace Davis. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Judge Parker. And also my former and present clerks, John Cronin and Vesper Mai. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Would you please raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Parker. I do. Chairman Leahy. I appreciate all of you being here. Of course, Judge, you probably remember when your distinguished late father was a judge and also went through this, and you have to imagine how very proud he would have to be today. Did you have any opening statement you wished to make? STATEMENT OF BARRINGTON D. PARKER, JR., NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Judge Parker. I didn't, Senator. I would be pleased to answer any questions that you or Senator McConnell might have. Chairman Leahy. Well, you know, I told Judge Walker, of course, you are going to have a lot of fun now as chief judge when something comes up and you say get Judge Parker for me, and they will say, of course, which one, because there is already a Judge Parker on there, Fred Parker, from Vermont, whom I think the world of, a longtime friend. We had actually been schoolmates at Georgetown. I am thinking about the court you are going to be coming from, Judge. That has to be one of the busiest trial courts anywhere. It has got to have one of the most interesting dockets in the country. Are you going to miss the excitement? I mean, this is going from a very, very active trial court to what is really a different type of court as an appellate judge. Judge Parker. I don't think. I hope not. I have enjoyed my years on the district court immensely. I have been fortunate to have a group of wonderful colleagues, many of whom you and your colleagues had the responsibility of reviewing and ultimately sending to our court. We have a wonderful U.S. Attorney's office up there with many just extraordinarily capable lawyers doing the people's work, doing the Government's work, and a fine, fine bar. I believe, and I hope that my new responsibilities, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, will be equally as exciting, perhaps, in different ways. The Second Circuit is a wonderful institution. I am immensely proud to even be considered for a position on that court. The work will be different; it will be somewhat more cloistered, but I anticipate and hope that the constellation of intellectual and professional challenges that I face will give me the same sense of deep personal satisfaction that I have gained through the 7 years of judicial service I have been privileged to render. Chairman Leahy. Judge, as a district judge you are making decisions that are fairly easy on this part anyway of legal decisions, stare decisis. You look at the Second Circuit, you look at the Supreme Court. Now, you will be a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. What is your commitment then to stare decisis? I would assume it is easy on the Supreme Court level. I mean, the Second Circuit would be bound by any decision if you have a case on all fours from the Supreme Court. Would you agree me that is an easy question? You have to follow the Supreme Court. Judge Parker. Yes. Chairman Leahy. How do you make decisions, though, one maybe a case of first impression to the Second Circuit or it is a legal principle already decided by the Second Circuit? Judge Parker. Well, I firmly believe that my main function and primary responsibility as an Article III judge is to identify and apply rules of law. In the first instance, as a member of the Second Circuit, unless, of course, there is an en banc matter which raises slightly different types of considerations, I am bound by prior precedent in our circuit. Three-judge panels, of course, are not at liberty, nor should they rewrite the law of the circuit. We are bound by that. I think the vast majority of the matters we face-- guidance from other opinions in the circuit will be the major source of what we look at in crafting new decisions. Chairman Leahy. The Supreme Court, though, has struck down a number of Federal statutes, several of them designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives, I believe, of our most vulnerable citizens. They said that is beyond Congress' power under section 5 of the 14th Amendment. They actually have struck down statutes as being outside the authority granted Congress by the Commerce Clause, and some of these cases have been described as creating a new power for State governments because Federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental area, that grant States significant new authority over the use of land and water, even though we have had Federal regulatory authority in place for decades. Some of the cases they have raised questions about the limitations imposed on congressional authority. I believe, taken collectively, they show some kind of a new federalism crafted by the Supreme Court that could dramatically change our structure of Government. Without going into particular cases, as a principle, do you have any views on this? Judge Parker. Well, as a court of appeals judge, my obligation is to understand and faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent, and if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed that is what I would hope I would do, and I can assure you that I would do that to the best of my ability Chairman Leahy. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. Just one question, Judge. Do you believe that a 10, 15, or even 20-year delay between conviction of a capital offender and an execution is too long? Judge Parker. I firmly believe that justice delayed is justice denied. We are greatly aided by the Speedy Trial Act that Congress passed a number of years ago. We are obligated to, and we do move criminal matters to the top of our docket. I believe that any type of lengthy delay in criminal proceedings, especially in capital matters where the interest of the litigants, the victim and the public is paramount, are inappropriate. This should not occur. I believe that our court, like other Federal courts around the country, is mindful of the instructions that Congress has given us in that regard that these delays are wrong and they should be eliminated. Senator McConnell. Thank you. I don't have any other questions, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Judge Parker, thank you very much and you are excused. I don't know whatever time you want to spend with family here or you have to drive back, but it is a gorgeous day outside. Please enjoy it. I know you have gone through the rigors of this searching and difficult hearing with aplomb, and I thank you for being here. We will keep the record open for one week to accommodate the Jewish holidays. Senator Schumer, who had asked me to have this hearing and have you here, again sends his apologies. I will put his full statement in the record. I think you especially, coming from such a tragic area, know why neither the Senators from New York are here. Judge Parker. I certainly do. I thank you, Senator Leahy and Senator McConnell, for affording me this opportunity, and I thank your colleagues for making this opportunity possible for me. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Judge Parker. Thank you. Senator McConnell. Congratulations, Judge. Judge Parker. Thank you very much. Thank you. [The biographical information of Judge Parker follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.260 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.261 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.262 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.263 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.264 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.267 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.268 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.269 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.270 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.271 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.272 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.273 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.274 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.275 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.276 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.277 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.278 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.279 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.280 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.281 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.282 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.283 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.284 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.285 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.286 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.287 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.288 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.289 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.290 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.291 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.292 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.293 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.294 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.295 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.296 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.297 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.298 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.299 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.300 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.301 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.302 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.303 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.304 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.305 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.306 Chairman Leahy. Justice Mills, please come forward. Before we start, for the same reason, for the archives, I know you have already introduced to me your wife, but do you want to introduce her for the record? Justice Mills. Thank you, Senator. This is my wife, Mona, who came up with me. We had planned to have our four children here--Alysson, Chip, Rebekah and Penn--but due to the inability to fly, they were unable to attend, as were other friends and relatives from Mississippi. But we are very grateful to be here, and thank you for having this hearing. Chairman Leahy. Would you raise your right hand? Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give in this matter will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Justice Mills. I do. Chairman Leahy. Please be seated. In mentioning your children, when you get back--I don't need to tell you this, but this can go for all parents here-- spend a lot of time with your children these days. It is a terrible, terrible time. Did you have an opening statement you wished to make, Justice Mills? STATEMENT OF MICHAEL P. MILLS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Justice Mills. I do not, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. I know both Senator Cochran and Senator Lott have said some very positive things about you, obviously, here today on the record, but also previous to this time in their discussions with me. In the State Supreme Court, you have a great deal of flexibility on issues of stare decisis, assuming there is not a U.S. Supreme Court case or a previous case of our court. But as a district judge for the Northern District of Mississippi, how do you feel about the doctrine of stare decisis? Justice Mills. Mr. Chairman, I think I will have less conflict with that doctrine on the Federal court at a trial court level than I have had on the Mississippi Supreme Court. I have deep respect for the doctrine of stare decisis. I have a profound respect for the United States Constitution. I think my record on the Mississippi Supreme Court shows that I have been anxious to support prior rulings of the United States Supreme Court even when a decision otherwise might have been more popular. And I think stare decisis is a very important part of the independence of the judiciary envisioned by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, particularly Federalist Paper 78, when he talked about the independence of the judiciary. It is important to have an independent judiciary, but it must discipline itself, and one way the judiciary disciplines itself is through the doctrine of stare decisis. Chairman Leahy. Well, Justice Mills, you could also have a decision of your circuit which I think we would both agree would be controlling, especially if it is on all fours in the district court of something with your circuit. That is controlling, or a Supreme Court case is. But let's say that you have a strong personal disagreement with that decision. Are you still bound by that decision? Justice Mills. I think I am if it is a decision of my circuit and/or the United States Supreme Court. I think part of the separation of the wheat from the chaff among trial court judges particularly is the ability to separate your personal opinions. We simply should have none when ruling from the bench. I think trial court judges, more so than appellate court judges, are there to resolve disputes, and we should not be policy-oriented to the extent that appellate courts are. And I hope to set aside my own personal views and limit my rulings to the parties and the dispute before me. Chairman Leahy. But you can accept, can you not, the fact that there may well be a case, even today when you think all the law has been written, where you may have to make a legal decision on a factual situation where there may not be stare decisis either in the Supreme Court or your circuit? Justice Mills. I think that is not only likely, but I think it is very likely it will occur. I continue to be amazed at the new issues that can develop quite frequently in the legal field. Chairman Leahy. Just give people long enough and they will think up a novel legal theory. But you have had experience. Do you feel you would have any difficulty, then, based on your past experience, if you do have such a novel issue to sit down and decisively make a decision? Justice Mills. I don't think I would have any problem. I think my experience in life has been to have a profound respect for the individual. I think that any good that comes in society comes ultimately not from institutions, but individuals, and I think I would keep that uppermost in my mind. And if it were a novel, new issue and there were not reliable precedents to follow, I would then look to what impact my ruling would have on the rights of individuals and whether or not it would limit individual freedom, and that would be the pole star consideration for me. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. I have one other question similar to what I asked Judge Parker, but I am going to submit that in writing to you only because I know what the time schedule is from the floor. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, I want to say as a native of north Alabama who was taken to Kentucky as a teenager by his father-- Chairman Leahy. By force? Senator McConnell. By force, and his grandfather was disturbed that we were moving to Yankee territory. It is a pleasure to have someone before the Committee who speaks without an accent. Justice Mills. Well, thank you. [Laughter.] Senator McConnell. Obviously, I intend to support your nomination. Both of your Senators have mentioned your background to me and your qualifications. I really would just ask you the same question I asked Judge Parker. Do you believe that a 10-, 15- or 20-year delay between conviction of a capital offender and execution is too long? Justice Mills. I frankly do, and on the Mississippi Supreme Court we have had continued delays. Some of those delays are self-inflicted. By that I mean we only recently created an office of counsel for death row inmates, and I think 10 to 15 years is much too long. I also think that people on death row making appeals, post-conviction appeals, should also have counsel. I think we need to work not only from the judicial standpoint, but also from the executive and legislative branches to ensure that we protect rights in order to speed up the process. I don't know of any death row inmates on a Federal level from Mississippi, but I think anything over maybe one or two appeals all the way to the highest court in the land is more than sufficient, and that a period of time of 15 to 20 years is far too long. Senator McConnell. Thank you, Justice Mills. As I said, I look forward to supporting your nomination, and congratulations. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. [The biographical information of Justice Mills follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.307 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.308 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.309 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.310 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.311 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.312 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.313 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.314 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.315 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.316 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.317 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.318 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.319 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.320 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.321 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.322 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.323 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.324 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.325 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.326 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.327 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.328 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.329 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.330 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.331 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.332 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.333 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.334 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.335 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.336 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.337 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.338 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.339 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.340 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.341 Chairman Leahy. We will take a one-minute recess before we go to Mr. Gillis. [The Committee stood in recess from 3:00 p.m. to 3:02 p.m.] Chairman Leahy. Mr. Gillis, do you solemnly swear that the testimony you shall give before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Gillis. I do. Chairman Leahy. Please sit down. Mr. Gillis, do you have an opening statement you wish to make? STATEMENT OF JOHN W. GILLIS, NOMINEE TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE FOR VICTIMS OF CRIME, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Gillis. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Leahy. Please go ahead. Mr. Gillis. Mr. Chairman and Senator McConnell, good afternoon. It is indeed an honor to appear before you here today as you consider my nomination for the position of Director of the Office for Victims of Crime. First of all, I would like to thank Senator McConnell for those remarks and I appreciate that. Thank you. In light of the far-reaching tragedies that have taken place within the past two days, a lot of responsibility will rest upon the shoulders of the Director. However, my varied experience, of which I will give an overview, has fully prepared me to lead this Office at such a critical time in our Nation's history. I would like to begin by introducing my wife, Patsy. She has been by my side for 22 years. She supports my seeking this position and she has always given me encouragement in all of my endeavors. My wife's cousins were due to be here today and I think maybe the traffic may have prohibited that. One of her cousins, who is Hillard Haynes, works at the Pentagon and he was there Tuesday morning when the attack occurred. Just two months ago, his office was moved from the impacted area and the Navy and Marine Corps personnel took over his office. Our god-daughter, Marine Corps First Lieutenant Wendy Holmes, was just transferred to the Pentagon from California. Her first day of duty was to be Tuesday, but she took an extra day off to take care of some personal business. I talked with her this morning as she prepared for her first day of work and she was a bit uneasy. Her first day of work will be identifying bodies and tagging bodies. I promised her I would be available for her when she finishes her first day of duty this evening. Other family members who could not be here and who could not make arrangements are my son, John, Jr., who is in California; my daughter, Felicia, and her husband, Don, and my two grandsons, 15-year-old Craig and 11-year-old Keifer, who are in Orlando. My brother, Stan, who will be 80 on his next birthday, and my sisters and brothers also could not make it here today. I am deeply honored and humbled that the President has nominated me and that Attorney General Ashcroft has the confidence that I will be a capable and effective Director of the Office for Victims of Crime. On a personal level, I was born and raised on a farm in Lexington, Kentucky, and I am the youngest of nine siblings. My father, John, was a sharecropper and my mother, Mamie, was a homemaker. During my early years, I learned the importance of family, education and hard work. When I graduated from Douglas High School in 1954, I accepted the challenge and became one of the proud six black students who integrated the University of Kentucky. After a year at the University of Kentucky, I went into the military, where I proudly served for 3 years. After leaving the military, I moved to New York, where I worked odd jobs. I worked for the U.S. Postal Service and later became a police officer for the New York Port Authority. I still feel that I am a part of the New York Port Authority Police family and I grieve for each of the hundreds of Port Authority Police families that lost loved ones in the recent attack on America. I also want to send my heartfelt condolences to each and every family that has suffered a loss in that attack. After leaving New York, I moved to California, where I continued my education and earned a bachelor's degree in political science and also a master's degree in public administration. I studied law and also received a community college teaching credential. I also taught criminal law and criminal justice at the Los Angeles community college system. My career in criminal justice has spanned more than four decades, and I have been in both law enforcement and corrections. I served 26 years with the Los Angeles Police Department and I worked in various supervisory, management, intelligence and patrol assignments. I have also supervised more than 200 homicide scenes, and my experience and training in law enforcement has prepared me well for the kind of event that was thrust upon our country in the past week. I have supervised disaster areas, including floods, fires and earthquakes, and I was the assistant commanding officer of the Los Angeles Police Department's 911 emergency command control center and responsible for the management of over 400 sworn and civilian employees. I was responsible for activating the emergency command control center whenever the need arose. I served 9 years with the California Board of Prison Terms and served 2 years as chairman. As chairman of the board, I was responsible for 140 employees and a $21 million budget. Commissioners are responsible for determining parole suitability for prisoners sentenced to life, and conduct clemency hearings. I became a crime victim in 1979, when my 23-year-old daughter, Luanna, was targeted and murdered by a gang member who wanted to move up in the gang hierarchy. Since her murder, I have worked with other crime victims, victim organizations, service providers, judges, legislators, district attorneys in an effort to resolve many of the issues that I observed and experienced firsthand. Today, after working with many leaders in these fields and after assessing the progress that has taken place over the past 20 years in California and around the Nation to improve victims' rights and services, we can collectively be proud of the changes that have occurred, and I look forward to being a part of the changes on the horizon in the 21st century. Because of my strong background in management and supervision and over 20 years of related experience in crime victim issues both on a personal and professional level, I can assure you that I will continue to be a passionate advocate for the rights of crime victims and to the ever-expanding responsibilities of the Office for Victims of Crime. If confirmed, I will continue to be sensitive to victim issues and needs. I will continue to work with consultants in the field and help to expand training for those who provide much-needed services. I am a crime victim who has spent nearly four decades in criminal justice and thoroughly understand the needs of both victims and the criminal justice system. If confirmed as the Director of the Office for Victims of Crime, I will be committed to carry out the duties of the Office and to uphold the oath for which I am sworn. Thank you for considering my nomination and I will be happy to answer any questions. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Gillis. As I mentioned earlier, Attorney General Ashcroft had called me at home last evening and urged that we move forward as quickly as we could with your nomination. All of us, and I am one, who have served in law enforcement know the very special bond that those who have been in law enforcement have had in your work in L.A. or at the New York Port Authority. But there is one bond that, as much as we see crime and crime victims, most of never have and, of course, that is what you suffered with the loss of your daughter. I suspect, sir, that that is something one never, ever gets over, and I think you understand probably more than anybody else here what the police and fire and EMS and reserve personnel have gone through in New York. I am sure you know what they faced when those people rushed in, including a friend of mine who rushed into that building to help others and they lost their lives doing it. This year, we finally passed a bill that Senator Stevens had that established a medal of valor for law enforcement. I suspect you are going to see that medal awarded there, even though all of us wish that it wasn't necessary. I couldn't help but think those of us who have been in law enforcement have been at funerals for fallen comrades, or sometimes a tragedy where three or four or even five have fallen. You know what that is like; it brings people from departments all over the area, in my part of the United States from all over New England and New York because three or four fell. We don't even know how many hundreds have died here and how many children went home from school and there was nobody there. I think the acting director and the staff of the Office for Victims of Crime are doing a tremendous job today. I think you would concur with this, would you not, that everybody from the Justice Department, the various executive branch agencies, the military, and everybody else is doing a tremendous job coping with this? You mentioned your god-daughter is in the Marines. My son is a former Marine and I can imagine what this must be like. I think you would agree with me none of us have ever had any experience that could begin to match what we are seeing in just the past 48 hours. Would you agree with that, sir? Mr. Gillis. Yes, Senator, I would agree with that, and I also would agree that the staff at OVC are doing a good job. These are career people who are doing an outstanding job. I can't begin to compliment them enough. Chairman Leahy. You are going to come into a job where you are going to have responsibilities that you couldn't have expected, the Attorney General couldn't have expected when he recommended you, the President couldn't have expected when he nominated you. But be thankful you have those people in place. I think about two months after the Oklahoma City tragedy I proposed a bill, and the Senate approved it, the Victims of Terrorism Act of 1995. It was ultimately put in a larger anti- terrorism package, and it provided authority for OVC to respond to the consequences of violent extremism, whether it was abroad or here at home. It established an emergency reserve as part of the Crime Victims Fund. It authorized OVC to make grants from the reserve to provide compensation and assistance to victims of terrorism or mass violence. Now, as I mentioned at the beginning of this meeting, Senator McConnell, myself and Senator Cochran are all members of the Appropriations Committee. We are trying to figure out how much money we can get, when and where and how quickly to help. Money won't bring anybody back, but it can at least help put together what pieces are remaining in those families that suddenly are totally devastated. Do you have recommendations for improvements to the Victims of Terrorism Act or other legislative initiatives that might help in a case like this, or would you like to see how this plays out and come back with recommendations? Mr. Gillis. I would love to come back with recommendations, if I am confirmed, and it is something that I would love to take a look at and work with Congress and those people who are in the business and put something together. That would be acceptable and would work to the benefit of crime victims across the country. Chairman Leahy. Well, thank you, and I think this might be a very good time to do that to just make sure that people look very objectively at what worked best in our system and what didn't work. We know there are a lot of things that are working very well, but feel very frank in coming back and talking to us and telling us if there are improvements we could make. We have another bill by Senator Kennedy and I and Senator Schumer and others to help crime victims. We introduced S. 783, the Crime Victims Assistance Act, and we worked closely with OVC and a number of victims organizations to provide rights and protections for victims of Federal crimes, to establish innovative new programs that might help promote compliance with State victims rights laws, several significant amendments to the Victims of Crime Act. I am not going to ask you to go down through--we have more important things right now--line by line with it, but can I ask for your commitment, if you are confirmed, after the immediate tragedies are being addressed that you and your staff will work with our staff to see if there are improvements and if there are things that are needed or things that we could do to make that law better? Mr. Gillis. Yes, I could make that commitment. I will always be committed to looking at legislation or anything that will be an improvement for crime victims, and that would include your legislation, sir. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. I will have other questions on funding that may actually change as a result of what we might do in the next 24 hours. I would yield to the Senator from Kentucky. Senator McConnell. I think the chairman has got it right that this event of Tuesday makes your job potentially quite different from what you anticipated because there has never been a tragedy quite like this, nor this many victims. It seems to me, as well as Senator Leahy, that it will provide an opportunity for innovative thinking on the part of you and your office. We wish you well and we look forward to seeing what recommendations you may end up arriving at. Do you have any thoughts you would like to share with us just in general about the events of Tuesday and your reaction to it and what the victims may be going through? Mr. Gillis. No, except that like all Americans, we look at it and we don't think that those kinds of things happen here. Yet, we always knew there was the possibility, and it just means that we have to be a little more vigilant. I know that Congress will do whatever it can do to help the victims of these tragedies. I am sure that Congress will be looking at other ways to avert this kind of tragedy in the future. But like most Americans, it is just hard to fathom. Senator McConnell. Well, I wish you well, Mr. Gillis. I think you are an outstanding choice for this position and I am enthusiastically behind you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Gillis. Thank you. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Gillis, normally your nomination would not have come before our Committee for a couple of weeks. I am going to confer in this case--and this is really for me, anyway, an unprecedented thing--I am going to confer with the Majority Leader and the Republican Leader. We have a little- used expedited parliamentary procedure. If we can get people to agree, then I am going to try in an expedited fashion to move your nomination through before this week is out. That is because I want you there, I want you with a hand in the till, I want you working with the very, very good people, most of whom probably haven't slept in the last 48 hours. I want you on the front line with your background and your abilities. With that-- Senator McConnell. Mr. Chairman, could I just quickly mention to you that Deborah Daniels, who is the nominee for Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, of which this office which Mr. Gillis is going to head is component, is still pending on the floor. Maybe the chairman might be willing to consider moving her nomination as well. I just suggest that. Chairman Leahy. This has gone a little bit above my pay grade. It is in the hands of your leader and my leader on that. I did my part in getting her out of the Committee. I suspect that will not be long. I assume that the Senator from Kentucky would not have any objection if we were able to poll Mr. Gillis out on the floor. Senator McConnell. No. I think that would be a great idea. Chairman Leahy. Thank you. Mr. Gillis. Thank you, sir. Chairman Leahy. Mr. Gillis, thank you very much. [The biographical information of Mr. Gillis follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.342 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.343 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.344 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.345 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.346 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.347 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.348 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.349 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.350 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.351 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.352 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.353 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.354 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.355 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.356 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.357 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.358 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.359 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.360 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.361 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.362 [Whereupon, at 3:22 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and a submission for the record follow.] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Justice Michael P. Mills to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. As the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, granting states' significant new authority over the use of land and water, despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment. Taken individually, these cases have raised cancers about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism" crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government. What is your view of these developments? Response: The question you have presented describing the trend toward a ``new federalism'' seems to identify the balancing of authority in two different settings within our federal system. The first balance is between the Federal Courts and Congress. The second balances the sovereignty of the States and the authority of the Federal government. As to the balance between the Federal Courts and Congress, I think it is important to note that I served 12 years in the Mississippi House of Representatives. I was a Judiciary Committee Chairman for four of those years. As both a former member of the legislature and my more recent service on the Mississippi Supreme Court, I have developed a profound respect for both the role of the Legislature and the powers of the courts, both federal and state. If confirmed as a federal trial court judge, I will respect the independence favored my office by the U.S. Constitution and proceed with a profound regard for the limited powers placed in the U.S. District Courts. I believe my record establishes that I possess sufficient judicial restraint, respect for the Constitution, and adherence to precedent to avoid the temptation to view my office as unaccountable. My life experiences have given me respect for the voices of the people through their elected representatives, and also respect for the law. I will try to be ever aware of the delicate balance among these competing, yet oddly consistent, tensions in our constitutional structure. Are there Supreme Court precedents with which you strongly disagree that you would not follow or apply? If so, which ones? Response: I have great respect for the doctrine of stare decisis. I do not know of any Supreme Court precedents with which I so strongly disagree that I could not follow or apply them. Question 2: In McMillan v. City of Jackson, you concluded that a protester convicted of trespassing at an abortion clinic should have been permitted to present a defense of ``necessity''--i.e., that the protester acted out of a reasonable belief that her actions were necessary to prevent a significant evil. The majority and the dissent differed over whether the defendant had proffered sufficient evidence that the clinic was performing abortions beyond the point of fetal viability, in violation of state law. a) Assuming that the defendant convicted of trespass did establish that she had actual knowledge of a specific legal harm and that she had no alternatives to avert the harm, what would have been a proportionate response under the law? For example, should a jury be allowed to consider a necessity defense when a protestor blocks access to a health care clinic? Or when a protester bombs the clinic or shoots a doctor in order to halt activities with the clinic? Response: McMillan presents a classic issue of the due process rights of a defendant balanced against the rights of others, abortion patients and doctors in that case. I joined Justice Smith's dissent in this case because Mississippi law requires courts to give defendants broad leeway in criminal cases to present his or her ``theory of the case.'' I do not believe the necessity defense should extend to those who block access or commit acts of violence. The facts in McMillan do not establish any acts of violence or blocking of access by the defendant. Question 3: In Hollon v. Hollon, you voted in dissent to affirm a lower court ruling that awarded child custody to a father primarily because the mother was alleged to be having a lesbian affair. The father, who rarely exercised visitation rights and regularly failed to make child support payments, had testified that his only concern with the mother's fitness to care for the child was the ``homosexual environment'' in her home. a) In your view, when is evidence of a parent's homosexual relationship a sufficient basis for denying that parent child custody? When assessing the moral fitness of two parents, does one parent's homosexuality automatically weigh against him or her? Response: Both heterosexual and homosexual relationships should be matters of privacy and discretion. However, when either is practiced so openly as to become a familial concern, then I think such practices are a factor, though not the controlling factor, in determining the best interests of the child. I do not believe that one parent's homosexuality automatically weighs against him or her, as the chancellor correctly stated in his opinion in Hollon. However, I do believe it is not in the best interests of a child for a parent to practice either heterosexual or homosexual acts openly in front of the child and then to lie about it. b) The dissent in Hollon relied principally on the lower court's conclusion that the mother had been dishonest in denying the alleged affair. Under what circumstances is it proper for a lower court to admit allegations that a parent has engaged in same-sex sexual conduct? Should a lower court custody decision be affirmed if the court makes a credibility determination against the gay or lesbian parent, regardless of how much hostility the court expresses towards the parent's sexual orientation? Response: The dissent in this case was authored by Justice McRae. I joined this dissent because it was obvious from reading the record that the mother had not only given dishonest testimony, but had encouraged another witness to commit perjury. The lack of honesty exhibited by the mother tainted her testimony, and in a close case such as this one, I thought it appropriate to defer to the trial court's judgment since the judge was in a better position than I to view the demeanor and credibility of the witnesses. As to when such ``allegations'' of same- sex sexual conduct should be admitted, I do not believe allegations should ever be admitted into a trial. The question is when should evidence be admitted. Such evidence, like all other evidence, should be admitted into court when it is relevant to prove the truth or falsity of an issue in dispute. In Hollon there was relevant, admissible evidence of the adulterous homosexual affair and of the mother's lack of candor. Child support determinations in Mississippi must be based on Allbright v. Allbright, 437 So.2d 1003 (Miss. 1983), which require consideration of many factors, including the age and health of the child; available educational opportunities; the income and means of the parents; housing arrangements; whether other family relationships meaningful to the child have been established, or will be disrupted, etc. A custody order that properly considers and balances these concerns should be affirmed when supported by evidence in the record. Proper application of these factors tends to minimize the lower court's ability to translate its ``hostility'' toward any particular circumstance into a decision on the case. I might add, however, that if a court's hostility toward any party, regardless of the reason, is so obvious as to affect the appellate court's confidence in the impartiality of the lower court, then the appellate court should review such decision with heightened scrutiny and reverse where appropriate. Responses of Justice Michael P. Mills to questions submitted by Senator Richard J. Durbin Question 1: In a challenge to various state restrictions on abortion, your colleague Justice Smith wrote a concurring/dissenting opinion that concluded, ``I find no authority in the Mississippi Constitution which would permit an abortion.'' Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice. 716 So. 2d 645, 668 (Miss. 1998). You signed on to this opinion, notwithstanding that the Mississippi Supreme Court previously had recognized in the state constitution ``a right to the inviolability and integrity of our persons, a freedom to choose or a right of bodily self-determination.'' In Re Brown. 478 A. 2d 1033, 1039 (Miss. 1985). a) In your view, does a woman's right of bodily self-determination not include the right to terminate an unwanted pregnancy? Response: The Supreme Court has clearly stated in Roe v. Wade and its progeny that a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy, and I respect the law articulated in that line of cases. Should I be confirmed as a federal judge, I would follow Supreme Court precedents. b) How do you reconcile your conclusion in Pro-Choice Mississippi with the Court's holding in In Re Brown? Do you think that Brown was wrongly decided? Is it your belief that Brown should not have been followed by the Court? Response: I joined Justice Smith's dissent, which concurred in most parts with the majority, as an act of collegial deference to a view that most closely reflected my own. I believe that In Re Brown, 478 So. 2d 1033 (Miss. 1985), was correctly decided. In Re Brown concerned the right of a member of the Jehovah's Witness faith to refuse a life- continuing blood transfusion so that the State could preserve her as a witness in a criminal case. That case dealt with the free exercise of religion and the right to privacy. I have carefully read the case again in order to respond to your question and it is absolutely right on point in finding that a person's religious beliefs control, unless the State can prove compelling interests ``of the highest order.'' The issue before the court in Pro-Choice Mississippi was not the same issue before the court in In Re Brown. I find no inconsistency between In Re Brown and Pro-Choice Mississippi v. Fordice. The former dealt with the rights of mature, alert, consenting adults to make decisions with as little state interference as possible. Pro-Choice Mississippi dealt with the constitutionality, vel non, of certain statutory enactments regulating abortions in Mississippi. As to Pro-Choice Mississippi, I believe that the United States Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade is the final word on this issue. c) As a district court judge, would you apply the legal doctrine of stare decisis? SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Statement of Hon. Charles E. Schumer, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York I want to express my profound disappointment that I am unable to be with you hear today as the Senate Judiciary Committee takes up the nomination of Judge Barrington Parker, Jr. As you know, I had accepted the privilege of chairing this hearing and was looking forward to spending this afternoon with you. The horrific events of this week require that my attention remain focused on the immediate needs of New York as it begins to cope with the immense tragedy that has befallen the city, state, and country. Chairman Leahy and his staff have been exceptionally gracious and accommodating in stepping in for me here. The Chairman was not only willing, but volunteered to chair this hearing notwithstanding the important matters to which he would otherwise be attending. I am grateful for all of his kindness during this very difficult week. I would ask that before we proceed with the orderly business of this hearing and of the Senate, we all take a moment for personal reflection on the tremendous losses we have suffered this week. Were I able to be with you today, I would tell you personally that I am proud to have before the Committee Judge Parker who has been nominated for a seat on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. A graduate of Yale College and Yale Law School, Judge Parker went on to clerk for Judge Aubrey Robinson, embarking on a distinguished legal career. His impressive achievements in private practice are, remarkably, exceeded by his record of public service. This nomination and, hopefully, confirmation, will serve both to reward and enhance Judge Parker's already remarkable career as a public servant. Judge Parker embodies all that I look for in federal judicial nominees. He is a moderate, non-partisan jurist who was chosen for his overwhelming legal attitude. He is a model judge and his elevation to the appellate bench is well-deserved. Judge Parker, I look forward to congratulating you personally when we next see one another. I apologize again for not being with you today, but I am confident you appreciate the compelling reasons for my absence. Good luck and God bless. NOMINATION OF EDITH BROWN CLEMENT TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT; KAREN K. CALDWELL TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY; CLAIRE V. EAGAN TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHEN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA; JAMES H. PAYNE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN, EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY; LAURIE SMITH CAMP TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA; AND JAY S. BYBEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE ---------- THURSDAY, OCTOBER 4, 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. Herb Kohl presiding. Present: Senators Kohl, Leahy, and McConnell. STATEMENT OF HON. HERB KOHL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator Kohl. This committee will come to order. We welcome the distinguished members of the Senate who are here today to introduce particular nominees. And, of course, we welcome the nominees and their families. Judicial nomination hearings are among the most important duties of the Judiciary Committee. A Federal judgeship is a lifetime appointment and a job that affects the lives of innumerable people throughout the course of the judge's tenure. The job is a great responsibility entrusted to just a very few people. All that we ask is that you administer impartial justice and obey the Constitution. So we congratulate all the nominees on their selection. I would like to proceed in the following manner. After opening statements from committee members, we would like for the Senators to introduce their nominees. Then we will invite all of the nominees forward together to appear on the second panel. This will include Judge Edith Brown Clement, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Fifth Circuit; Karen Caldwell, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky; Laurie Smith Camp, to be United States District Judge for the District of Nebraska; Claire Eagan, to be United States District Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma; and James Payne, to be United States District Judge for the Northern, Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. After that, on the second panel, we will hear from Jay Bybee, who is nominated to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Now, I would like to ask Senator Nickles to make his opening statement. PRESENTATION OF CLAIRE V. EAGAN, NOMINEE FOR DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA AND JAMES H. PAYNE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN, EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY BY HON. DON NICKLES, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Nickles. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. I appreciate your holding this hearing on behalf of several outstanding judicial nominees. On behalf of Senator Inhofe and myself, I want to make a few comments concerning the two nominees from Oklahoma. First is Judge Claire Eagan; she is a U.S. Magistrate. She has been a Magistrate in the Northern District of Oklahoma for the last three years. She has done an outstanding job. She has been an attorney in private practice with Hall, Estill, one of the more prominent firms in Tulsa. For 20 years, as an attorney, she has had a lot of appearances before Federal courts. As U.S. Magistrate for the last several years, she has done an outstanding job. She is well thought of in the Oklahoma community. In the legal community, she has been rated outstanding by all the judicial rating groups, ABA and Hubbell as well. So it is with great pleasure that I strongly recommend to the committee that Judge Claire Eagan as a Federal District Court Judge for the Northern District. Also, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce to the committee Judge James Payne, who is also a U.S. Magistrate. He is a Magistrate Judge in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, and has been for 13 years. He has done a fantastic job in that capacity. He has also had private practice in Muskogee, the eastern part of Oklahoma, and as well he served as Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of Oklahoma. In addition to that, he served several years as a Judge Advocate in the military. Both nominees are well-qualified. Both nominees will do an outstanding job. I have every confidence that this Senate, our President and the country will be very pleased with both Judge Payne and Judge Eagan as Federal District Court Judges from the State of Oklahoma. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Nickles. I would like to ask Senator Reid to make his statement, because he has to go back to the floor. PRESENTATION OF JAY BYBEE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, BY HON. HARRY REID, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator Reid. Senator Kohl, I really do appreciate that. We are in recess until two o'clock. I would ask unanimous consent that my full statement be made part of the record. Senator Kohl. It will be so done. Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, in my statement I talk about all the legal qualifications for Jay Bybee and how proud we are of him. He is from the University of Nevada at Las Vegas, a new law school, and he is going to be representing the State of Nevada here in Washington with Attorney General Ashcroft. He has all kinds of qualifications as an academic, but his greatest qualification, in my opinion, is his family. He is an outstanding person based upon his family. Without reservation, without qualification, I support his nomination. I am very happy that my colleague and friend, Senator Ensign, recommended to the President Jay Bybee. When Senator Ensign brought this name to me, I was elated. He couldn't have made a better choice. Thank you very much. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Reid. Senator Inhofe? PRESENTATION OF CLAIRE V. EAGAN, NOMINEE FOR DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA AND JAMES H. PAYNE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN, EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY BY HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA Senator Inhofe. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. First of all, let me just say that Senator Nickles covered quite a few things about our two outstanding candidates from Oklahoma. I would elaborate a little bit on Judge Eagan. She received her bachelor's degree from Trinity College, here in Washington, D.C., and has studied abroad, and it gives her quite an insight into things. She studied at both the University of Paris and the University of Fribourg. She received her law degree from Fordham University, in New York City. She has had some significant cases. As a judge, she wrote Fitzgerald v. Caldera, which was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit. As a lawyer, she argued Atlantic Richfield Company v. American Airlines, a case we are familiar with. I would say about Judge Payne, he is an Oklahoma man. And since there are several on this panel up here who are very impressed with the University of Oklahoma football team, I would say that Judge Payne was on a football scholarship at the University of Oklahoma. The thing I found about both of these is that Senator Nickles and I talked to a number of people from Oklahoma and interviewed a lot of different people. In each case, they said if there is going to be someone from Muskogee, it has got to be Judge Payne, or someone from Tulsa, it has got to be Judge Eagan. So they were just number one among their peers and everyone else we talked to. They are outstanding people and Don and I are both very proud to encourage you to confirm these two candidates. Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator Inhofe. We have with us a distinguished member of the Judiciary Committee, Senator McConnell, here, if he would like to make a statement. PRESENTATION OF KAREN K. CALDWELL, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BY HON. MITCH MCCONNELL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Bunning and I are both here today to enthusiastically support the President's nominee for the Eastern District of Kentucky, Karen Caldwell. Karen served beginning in 1991 as U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Kentucky and earned the distinction of being the first female U.S. Attorney in Kentucky history. During her tenure, she successfully directed the high-profile public corruption case known as Operation BOPTROT which led to the conviction of 17 lobbyists and State legislators, including the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives. Karen achieved universal acclaim for her service as U.S. Attorney. Upon her departure from office, the Lexington Herald Leader said she ``has been an outstanding U.S. Attorney. We are sorry to see her go.'' An opposing attorney stated that Karen ``is a person of high integrity,'' and that, in particular, ``she did a very good job in the high-profile cases involving politicians.'' But Karen was not just an outstanding manager. She has paid her dues in the legal trenches. Prior to being U.S. Attorney, she served as Assistant U.S. Attorney for four years, where she litigated both civil and criminal cases. In this capacity, she distinguished herself, receiving the Attorney General's Outstanding Performance Award and rising to the position of Deputy Chief of the Civil Division. She increased her knowledge of the issues that come up in Federal practice by serving on the Joint Local Rules Committee for the Federal Courts in both the Eastern and Western Districts of Kentucky. In addition to her notable achievements as a public servant, Karen has also had a brilliant career in private practice, gaining experience in several legal fields. For the past three years, she has been a partner at Dinsmore and Shohl, a large regional law firm in Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. There, she has specialized in complex commercial, environmental and white-collar criminal litigation. She has also had experience in contract, public corruption, antitrust, fraud, and RICO cases, as well as other areas of business litigation. Karen's peers in the legal community have recognized her many accomplishments and talents. In 1995, the Kentucky Bar Association honored her with its Outstanding Lawyer Award. So, Mr. Chairman, she is widely respected for integrity and character, two qualities that are essential in public office and for the effective administration of justice. For the last four years, she has served as a member of the Character and Fitness Committee of the Kentucky Supreme Court's Office of Bar Admissions. The trust in, and respect for Karen's advice on important ethical issues by our Commonwealth's highest court is a testament to her knowledge, integrity and judgment. Finally, Karen has repeatedly demonstrated a commitment to her fellow citizens and her community. She has served on the board of directors of Prevent Child Abuse Kentucky and is its immediate past president. She has served as a trustee of Midway College, a member of the Transylvania Alumni Executive Board, and the Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Ethics Commission. In recognition of her civic service, she has been honored with the National College Administrators' Philanthropy Award and the Distinguished Service Award from Transylvania University. So, Mr. Chairman, I really think the President has made an outstanding selection here and I am pleased to be here on her behalf. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator McConnell. We are joined at this time by the chairman of the committee, Senator Patrick Leahy. STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Chairman Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to actually thank you for helping these committee meetings. Earlier today, we voted out about 18 different nominations, literally 18 different nominations, from U.S. Attorneys to a Circuit Court of Appeals judge. But it is only because people like yourself are willing to help and keep these going, even in light of all the terrible things of the 11th. We have confirmed, I think, since July, when we took over this committee, mid-July, as many courts of appeals nominees as were confirmed during the first year of the Clinton administration, which I think shows some strong bipartisanship. In fact, in the last three months we have done as many as were reported by this committee all of last year. So I thank you for doing this. I am delighted to see Judge Edith Brown Clement, from Louisiana, here. Senator Breaux has talked to me a great deal about her. I know she was one of the first nominees, sent to the committee, I believe, in May. Is that correct, John? Senator Breaux. Yes. Chairman Leahy. Unfortunately, her name was sent back at the beginning of the August recess, which the Republican Leader had a right to do, but had it not been done, we probably could have had her hearing in August. But I am delighted we are having it here. I want to thank you for doing that. I concur with what Senator McConnell was saying earlier. I just ran into Senator Reid out in the hall, who has urged us to move along. So I am just going to put my whole statement in the record, if that is okay with you, Mr. Chairman, and turn it back to you. Thank you again. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:] Statement of Hon. Patrick J. Leahy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont I am pleased that the Committee is able to continue holding confirmation hearings on Executive Branch and Judicial Branch nominees in spite of the fact that we have focused our attention on our response to the terrorist attacks and threat of terrorism since September 11. In particular, I thank Senator Kohl for agreeing to chair this hearing on short notice. The last few weeks have been incredibly difficult for everybody, and I would again like to thank the staff of the Judiciary Committee for working overtime to get the paperwork on these nominees in sufficient shape that we could proceed with this hearing today. Judge Edith Brown Clement from Louisiana was among the first nominees sent to this Committee by the President in May. Unfortunately, in the wake of a Republican objection to keeping that nomination and many others pending over the August recess, Senate rules required that her nomination be returned to the President without action on August 3. She was re-nominated last month. She is nominated to serve on the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which encompasses the States of Texas, Louisiana and Mississippi. This is one of the many Circuits that were left with multiple vacancies through the end of the Clinton Administration. Since April 7, 1999, the seat previously occupied by Judge Duhe of the 5th Circuit has been vacant. Although former President Clinton nominated Alston Johnson to fill that vacancy only 15 days later, on April 22, 1999, Mr. Johnson was never granted a hearing by the Judiciary Committee, then chaired by Senator Hatch. Since January 23, 1997, Judge Garwood's seat on the 5th Circuit has been vacant. Despite the fact that former President Clinton nominated Jorge Rangel to fill this vacancy in July of 1997, Mr. Rangel never received a hearing and his nomination was returned on October 21, 1998. On September 16, 1999, former President Clinton nominated Enrique Moreno to fill the same vacancy. Once again, the nominee did not receive a hearing. Over the last several years I have commented on those vacancies as I urged action on the nominations of Jorge Rangel, Enrique Moreno and Alston Johnson to fill those vacancies on the 5th Circuit. None of those nominees were ever provided a hearing before this Committee or acted upon by the Senate. After 15 months without action, Mr. Rangel asked not to be re-nominated. After 15 months and two nominations, Enrique Moreno's nomination was returned to the President without action. After nearly 23 months and two nominations without action, Mr. Johnson's nomination was withdrawn by President Bush in March of 2001. Indeed this is the first nominations hearing on a nominee to the 5th Circuit in seven years--not since September 14, 1994. Since 1999, Chief Judge King of the 5th Circuit has declared her Circuit in a state of emergency such that the hearing and determination of cases and controversies could be conducted by panels of three judges selected without regard to the qualification in 28 U.S.C. Sec. 46(b) that a majority of each panel be composed of judges of the 5th Circuit. I recall when delays in the confirmation process threw the 2nd Circuit into a similar emergency in March of 1998, and how hard I worked to get those vacancies filled to end that emergency in my Circuit. I am glad that we are proceeding with Judge Clement today in order to try to help the 5th Circuit. Since the Senate was allowed to reorganize and the Committee membership was set, we have maintained a sustained effort to consider judicial and executive nominees. Today, at our Executive Session, the agenda contained the names of 14 nominees for United States Attorneys, the Director of the United States Marshals Service, the Associate Attorney General, and two more judicial nominees, including another for a Court of Appeals. We have already confirmed since July as many Court of Appeals nominees as were reported during the first year of the Clinton Administration and we have reported as many such nominees as were reported by this Committee all last year. At this hearing we consider five more judicial nominees and an Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice. Despite the upheaval we have experienced this year with the shifts in chairmanship and, more importantly, the need to focus our attention on responsible action in the fight against international terrorism, we are ahead of the pace for hearings and confirmations of judges during the first year of the Clinton and the first Bush Administrations. The nominees before us today will play important roles in the days, months, and years to come. The recent vicious attacks on our people have given all of us a heightened awareness of the critical importance of our civil liberties, of the many possible threats to those freedoms, and of the necessity of responding to the challenge of international terrorism without sacrificing what is best about America. The Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel is in charge of drafting the legal opinions of the Attorney General, assisting the Attorney General in his function as legal advisor to the President and all executive branch agencies, and of providing his own written opinions and oral advice in response to requests from the Counsel to the President. The Office of Legal Counsel is also responsible for providing legal advice to the executive branch on all constitutional questions as well as for reviewing legislation for constitutionality. This is serious and important work. As federal judges, the nominees before us today will have a vital role to play in protecting and preserving our civil liberties in the days ahead. Our system of checks and balances requires that the judicial branch review the acts of the political branches. I know that the nominees before us today will take this responsibility seriously and will rely on their experience and on our rich history of judicial precedent to make wise decisions in the challenging times ahead. Senator Kohl. Senator John Breaux? PRESENTATION OF EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BY HON. JOHN B. BREAUX, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Senator Breaux. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, both Senator Leahy, Senator Kohl, and Senator McConnell. A little over 10 years ago, I came before this committee to speak for a nominee named Edith Brown Clement, known to us in Louisiana as Joy Clement. We are back again today, a little over 10 years later, the same Senator speaking for the same nominee. Eleven years ago, it was a President Bush that nominated her and 11 years later it is a President Bush that nominated her again. The only difference is that the President is a little different, with a different middle initial. What I am saying is that 11 years ago, Joy Clement was nominated for the Federal district bench in Louisiana, in New Orleans, by President Bush at that time. It was a good choice then and it is a good choice today. She has distinguished herself as an outstanding member of the Federal judiciary as a district court judge for almost 11 years and has had time to serve on the Fifth Circuit in ad hoc positions. When you are on a circuit court, I think it is obviously a little special, and sometimes people will advocate people who are esoteric and law professors and people who study the law. But rarely do you get someone who has studied the law and who has taught the law and who has practiced the law, and has also served in the judicial system as a judge. I think the good thing about Judge Clement being elevated to the Fifth Circuit is she has done all of these, and she has done all of these with great distinction. Both Senator Landrieu and I enthusiastically support her and recommend her to you and the rest of the committee members. Thank you. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Breaux. Senator Ben Nelson? PRESENTATION OF LAURIE SMITH CAMP, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BY HON. E. BENJAMIN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator Nelson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Together with my colleague and friend, Senator Hagel, it is a pleasure for me to be here today in support of the nomination of Laurie Smith Camp to the Federal District Court for the District of Nebraska. I would like to first, through, thank the committee for acting quickly on both of the nominations for vacant judgeships in Nebraska, first for the Eighth Circuit and now for the Federal District Court. Moving Ms. Camp's nomination is of particular importance to our State because of the urgent need for an additional judge to reduce the workload on our existing district court judges, and so I appreciate very much the committee taking that need into consideration and choosing to act expeditiously. Ms. Camp exemplifies the kind of nominee that I think we would all like to see put forth for every important judgeship. She is not only highly qualified for this position, but she has also earned broad bipartisan support and respect in Nebraska in all of her many years of service. I am of the opinion, and I think others share it widely, that she will be an excellent judge, and so it is my pleasure to join Senator Hagel here today. As a matter of personal note, I can speak personally about her qualities and capabilities as an attorney. In her capacity in the attorney general's office, she had the occasion, hopefully not too often, to represent my office while I was Governor of the State of Nebraska, and I can attest to the quality of her work and to the keenness of her intellect. She brings that diverse background that I think is important to the bench, and that is both civil and criminal legal experience. I think it will serve her well, as well as the people of Nebraska and all who come before her. She has shown throughout her career a deep respect for the judiciary and the legal profession. I think she has that experience and expertise and the balance that is so important to be a member of the judiciary. So it is my pleasure and I am truly honored to have the opportunity to be here today to speak on her behalf, and to join my colleague from Nebraska in urging that the committee act quickly and favorably on her nomination. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. I thank you, Senator Nelson. Senator Hagel, I apologize for the lapse in protocol. Would you like to make your statement? PRESENTATION OF LAURIE SMITH CAMP, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA BY HON. CHUCK HAGEL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator Hagel. I am just pleased to be included, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. I join my friend and colleague, Senator Nelson, in strongly supporting the nomination of Laurie Smith Camp. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement which I will ask to be included for the record, but I would like to highlight a couple of points here about her qualifications and embroider a bit on what Senator Nelson said because this is a unique candidate, a well- qualified candidate, a candidate who has committed herself not just to the bar and justice and what we believe is most fundamental and important in this country, but also to her community. She has two children, a son and a daughter, so she has found time to be a very good mother and that probably rates her higher than most as to qualifications. I have always believed that, as Senator Breaux stated, we can take all the education and the experience, and we should take those into consideration, but it is the fundamentals of the individuals, I think, that we always have held most dear and important as we think about who we want to stand in judgment of each of us. I start with that fundamental at the baseline. She certainly has the rest of the package when you go through her curriculum vitae and where she has studied: valedictorian, editor-in-chief, Stanford University, Nebraska Law School, although she did not play for the University of Nebraska football team. She might have done very well if she had. A 24-year legal career serving the people of Nebraska, 11 years as general counsel for the State Department of Correctional Services. Before going to work for Nebraska's Attorney General, as Senator Nelson mentioned, she served as the deputy attorney general in charge of criminal matters, one of the two highest-ranking deputies in the State attorney general's office. And it goes on and on with her awards and recognitions. I would summarize my thoughts, Mr. Chairman, by saying that she possesses the character, the credentials, the experience and knowledge, and maybe as important as anything the temperament to be an excellent district court judge. We are all very proud of us, all of us, as Senator Nelson said, Democrats and Republicans in the State of Nebraska, for her accomplishments, and look forward to a long and distinguished career on the bench, if this committee so decides that she is the kind of individual that this country wants and needs to represent our citizens on the bench, and if the full Senate would be then so inclined. I suspect Senator Nelson and I will do everything we can to help that along. So, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much, and Senator McConnell and Senator Hatch and the distinguished chairman, Senator Leahy, for your expeditious handling of this nomination. Thank you. [The prepared statement of Senator Hagel follows:] Statement of Hon. Chuck Hagel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska Mr. Hagel. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the Committee's attention to re-scheduling this hearing on the nomination of Laurie Smith Camp to be a United States District Court Judge for the District of Nebraska. I recommend Laurie Smith Camp without reservation. If approved by this Committee and confirmed by the Senate, she will be an excellent addition to the District Court of Nebraska and will serve with distinction. Laurie has strong bipartisan support from the Nebraska delegation. Laurie Smith Camp graduated as valedictorian from Burke High School in Omaha in 1971 and studied British legal aid and civil liberties in Northern Ireland in 1973. She is a graduate of Stanford University and the University of Nebraska College of Law, where she was Editor-in- Chief of the Nebraska Law Review. She has spent the majority of her 24-year legal career serving the people of Nebraska. For 11 years she was general counsel for the Department of Correctional Services before going to work for Nebraska's Attorney General in 1991. From 1991 to 1995, she was chief of the civil-rights section of the Nebraska Department of Justice. In 1995 she was promoted to Deputy Attorney General in charge of Criminal Matters, one of the two highest-ranking deputies in the Attorney General's office. Laurie not only professionally represents and serves the people of Nebraska in her professional capacity, but she has found time to share her knowledge with others in Nebraska and throughout the country. She is a member of the Committee on Legislation for the Nebraska Bar Association and a lifetime Fellow of the Nebraska Bar Foundation. Over the years, Laurie has written numerous legal articles and lectured extensively on criminal justice matters. In Many of this year Laurie received the top award from the Nebraska Law Enforcement Coordinating Committee. Since 1982Laurie has been involved in the development of Lincoln's Haymarkert Square warehouse area into a shopping, restaurant and business district. Laurie is also on the board of the Nebraska Shakespeare Festival and is a director of the Nebraska Conference United Church of Christ. Laurie has two children--Janathan, 18, and Abby, 13. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, Laurie Smith Camp is fully prepared for the challenges that lay ahead for her as a District Court Judge. She possesses the character, credentials, experience, knowledge and temperament to be an excellent District Court judge. If confirmed, Laurie will be replacing U.S. District Judge William Cambridge of Omaha, who has retired. Judge Cambridge's dedication to the rule of law and faithfulness to the bench is an inspiration to us all. We thank him for his service. Mr. Chairman, I recommend Laurie Smith Camp without reservation. If given the opportunity, I know that she will excel in the position as she has with every responsibility in her life. Thank you. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Hagel. Senator Bunning? PRESENTATION OF KAREN K. CALDWELL, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY BY HON. JIM BUNNING, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY Senator Bunning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am pleased to have the opportunity to say a few words this afternoon in support of the nomination of Karen Caldwell to be judge for the Eastern District of Kentucky. I won't plow all the same ground that Senator McConnell just covered. I think it is enough to say that Karen is an excellent nominee and will be a fine judge. We are very proud of her. She is a Kentucky native, born, bred and educated. Her professional history is excellent. Her performance, first as assistant and then U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District, won universal acclaim in Kentucky. In fact, in 1989, she received that office's Outstanding Achievement Award. Senator McConnell mentioned her fine work in directing prosecutions as part of Operation BOPTROT, and I can't emphasize enough how instrumental this was in restoring confidence in our public officials in Kentucky. Karen's office is acknowledged by Republicans and Democrats alike to have superbly handled a politically delicate and legally complicated matter. Since leaving the U.S. Attorney's post, Karen has specialized in complex litigation for a prominent Kentucky firm. Again, she has excelled. She has also continued her commitment to public service, serving on the boards of numerous charities and non-profits in Kentucky, and having taught at several of our universities. From a personal perspective, I can tell you that I have known Karen for years and I can attest to her ability and her character. She has a temperament and intellect that will serve her well on the bench. In nominating Karen, the President made an excellent decision for Kentucky and the Nation. Finally, Mr. Chairman, I would like to put a plug in for asking for a speedy vote on Karen's nomination. There are three vacancies in the Eastern District of Kentucky right now, and the chief judge has written to Senator McConnell and myself about the judicial emergency that we are facing in the Eastern District. The sooner you can get Karen confirmed, the better it will be for justice in our Commonwealth. I thank you very much for the time. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Bunning, and we will do everything we can to act on your recommendation for a speedy decision. Senator Bunning. Thank you. Senator Kohl. Senator Ensign? PRESENTATION OF JAY BYBEE, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE BY HON. JOHN ENSIGN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator Ensign. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor for me to be here today before the Senate Judiciary Committee to introduce an esteemed legal scholar and public servant, my friend, Professor Jay Bybee, and I join Senator Reid in supporting his nomination. While a native of the ranking member's home State of Utah, Nevada is proud to claim Jay as one of its own. Mr. Bybee currently serves as a professor of law at the William Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, where he was named Professor of the Year in 2000. The William Boyd School has recently graduated its inaugural maiden class and is rapidly becoming recognized throughout the country as a legal center of the highest quality. Having worked in the Justice Department for half a decade as an attorney in the Office of Legal Policy, as well as a member of the appellate staff in the Civil Division, Jay is all too familiar with the rigors that can accompany a Justice Department tenure. Additionally, through his service as Associate White House Counsel, Mr. Bybee has proven his ability to navigate the mechanisms unique to public service in Washington, D.C. Jay Bybee's service will be a valuable asset to the Justice Department and to the people of this Nation. He expertise and focus reside in constitutional and religious freedom matters, and makes him exceptionally qualified to serve as Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel, where constitutional proficiency is put to daily use. Jay has embodied the best in public service and legal aptitude and is admired throughout his field as a leader and a gentleman. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to present to you a man who has committed much of his career to the search for truth, the preservation of justice, and protecting the rights and ideals upon which this Nation was founded. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Ensign. Now, I would like to ask the nominees to the Federal bench to step forward. Would you please stand and raise your right hand as I administer the oath? Do you swear that the testimony you shall give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Clement. I do. Ms. Caldwell. I do. Judge Eagan. I do. Judge Payne. I do. Ms. Camp. I do. Senator Kohl. Thank you. You may be seated. I would like at this time to give each of you an opportunity to make any comment, introduce your family, your friends, say anything you would like before we begin the questions. I will start with you, Judge Clement. STATEMENT OF EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, OF LOUISIANA, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Judge Clement. I want to thank you very much for scheduling the hearing, but more importantly I want to thank you for inviting me. I would like to introduce my family. My husband has come from New Orleans, Rutledge Clement; my mother, Edith Brown. My sister-in-law lives here, Alice Coles. Mr. Ambassador, Donald Ensenat, is a good friend from New Orleans. My son, Carter Clement, has come down from Princeton. My niece, Elizabeth Riddle, is a school teacher here in Washington. My good friends, Sue Anna and Dando Cellini, are from New Orleans, but they live here. My first law clerk, Matt Miller, is here. He is practicing law here now. And another law clerk who just had a baby, Mary Coyne, is here. My very dear friends who live here, Stevie and Gardner Gillespie--I clerked with Gardner. He clerked for the Fifth Circuit and I clerked for a district judge about a hundred years ago. Thank you all for being here. Senator Kohl. We thank you. [The biographical information of Ms. Clement follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.363 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.364 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.365 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.366 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.367 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.368 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.369 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.370 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.371 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.372 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.373 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.374 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.375 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.376 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.377 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.378 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.379 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.380 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.381 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.382 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.383 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.384 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.385 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.386 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.387 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.388 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.389 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.390 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.391 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.392 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.393 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.394 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.395 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.396 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.397 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.398 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.399 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.400 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.401 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.402 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.403 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.404 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.405 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.406 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.407 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.408 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.409 Ms. Caldwell? STATEMENT OF KAREN K. CALDWELL, OF KENTUCKY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF KENTUCKY Ms. Caldwell. Please excuse me for not standing, Senator. I don't have room, but I would like to thank you for having us here today. And I would also like to take the opportunity to introduce my friend and Congressman, Representative Ernie Fletcher, who is here, from Kentucky's 6th District. I would also like to introduce my husband, Lloyd Cress, who is accompanying me here today. Also with me is my friend and partner, Barbara Edelman. With her is my friend and colleague, Frances Catron, and her husband, Jim Malone. Also, I have friends and colleagues from here in Washington. Lou DeFalaise is here, Troy Reynolds, and my friend, Lane Tucker, who is an attorney with the Department of Justice. Senator Kohl. We welcome your family and your friends. [The biographical information of Ms. Caldwell follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.410 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.411 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.412 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.413 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.414 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.415 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.416 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.417 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.418 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.419 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.420 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.421 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.422 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.423 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.424 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.425 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.426 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.427 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.428 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.429 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.430 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.431 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.432 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.433 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.434 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.435 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.436 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.437 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.438 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.439 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.440 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.441 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.442 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.443 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.444 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.445 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.446 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.447 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.448 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.449 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.450 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.451 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.452 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.453 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.454 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.455 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.456 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.457 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.458 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.459 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.460 Claire Eagan? STATEMENT OF CLAIRE V. EAGAN, OF OKLAHOMA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA Judge Eagan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I want to thank you for inviting me to this hearing. While I have many friends and family with me in spirit, I have no one with me in person. Senator Kohl. Thank you so much. [The biographical information of Ms. Eagen follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.496 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.497 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.498 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.499 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.500 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.501 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.502 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.503 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.504 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.505 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.506 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.507 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.508 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.509 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.510 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.511 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.512 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.513 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.514 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.515 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.516 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.517 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.518 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.519 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.520 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.521 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.522 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.523 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.524 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.525 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.526 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.527 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.528 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.529 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.529 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.530 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.531 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.532 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.533 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.534 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.535 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.536 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.537 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.538 Mr. Payne? STATEMENT OF JAMES H. PAYNE, OF OKLAHOMA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN, EASTERN AND WESTERN DISTRICTS OF KENTUCKY Judge Payne. Senator, I want to thank you and the committee for holding this prompt. I will have no further statement than that. I am in the same position as Claire. I have a wife, Judith Mills Payne, who is very strongly behind me, but she is not here. And a son, Jon Michael Payne, an active, practicing attorney in Oklahoma, and my daughter, Julie Payne Woolslayer, mother of my three proudest grandchildren, Matthew, Jack and Phillip, are all with me in spirit, but not here today. Senator Kohl. We thank you. [The biographical information of Mr. Payne follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.539 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.540 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.541 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.542 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.543 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.544 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.545 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.546 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.547 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.548 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.549 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.550 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.551 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.552 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.553 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.554 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.555 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.556 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.557 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.558 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.559 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.560 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.561 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.562 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.563 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.564 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.565 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.566 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.567 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.568 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.569 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.570 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.571 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.572 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.573 Ms. Camp? STATEMENT OF LAURIE SMITH CAMP, OF NEBRASKA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Ms. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for scheduling the hearing today. My son, Jonathan Camp, who just retired as Governor of Nebraska's Boy's State and began college, is not able to join me today. And my daughter, Abby Camp, who has just begun high school, is also in classes today and is not able to join me. But thank you for letting me mention their names for the record. Senator Kohl. We thank you. [The biographical information of Ms. Camp follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.461 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.462 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.463 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.464 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.465 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.466 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.467 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.468 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.469 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.470 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.471 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.472 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.473 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.474 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.475 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.476 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.477 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.478 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.479 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.480 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.481 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.482 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.483 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.484 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.485 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.486 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.487 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.488 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.489 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.490 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.491 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.492 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.493 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.494 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.495 We will start with Judge Clement. In your responses to the committee's questionnaire, your answers to a question about judicial activism interested us. You said, ``Certainly, once a judge concludes that the legislature has acted within its constitutional powers, the court's role is to uphold the law. However,'' you said, ``in determining whether or not the legislative or the executive branch has acted within its constitutional powers, the court should be activist in its consideration of constitutional definitions, granting of powers, and guarantees of liberties in determining the meaning of the text.'' Judge Clement, could you explain what you meant when you said a court should be activist? Judge Clement. Well, I certainly didn't mean it in a negative sense. Judicial activism has been criticized as when a jurist oversteps the bounds of the Constitution or recognized constitutional statutes and attempts to inflict the will of the jurist on either the legislative or the executive branch or the people. What I believe is that when legislation is proposed and passed and becomes statutory that there is a presumption of constitutionality. And to the extent, the statute should be upheld and the Constitution should be enforced. Senator Kohl. Okay, a follow-up. When the Congress decides that an issue is a matter of national concern and that it significantly affects interstate commerce, do you then think that the courts should defer to Congress' findings? Judge Clement. Well, of course, if the law is passed, there is a presumption, as I said, of constitutionality. So I would like to have the opportunity, of course, to review the statute, review the language of the statute, make a factual determination as to what was attempted to be accomplished by the passage of the statute, and then evaluate whether it is within the confines of the Commerce Clause, if it is permissible. Senator Kohl. All right. Judge Clement, would you describe what you think are the key elements of the Federal right to privacy, if, in fact, you believe there is such a right? Judge Clement. Well, the Constitution guarantees the right of privacy and the due process protection must be enforced. A statute should be considered constitutional, but, of course, if it does not guarantee due process, then it should be studied very seriously. Senator Kohl. I would like to turn briefly to the topic of privately-funded judicial seminars, or what some have called junkets for judges. Your financial disclosure forms indicate that you have attended a significant number of these seminars in recent years, including a seminar on environmental law hosted by the Foundation for Research on Economics and the Environment. As you are probably aware, such seminars have come under intense scrutiny based on evidence that the seminars are one- sided and that they are being funded by corporations and special interest groups that have an interest in Federal court litigation. Senator Kerry and Senator Feingold have introduced legislation that would ban these kinds of trips. Do you think that those Senators are correct to be concerned about these trips, and might you support their kind of legislation? Judge Clement. Well, as you know, judicial officers are frequently invited to participate as speakers or participants in programs dealing with judicial education, as well as continuing legal education for lawyers, as well as participate in lectures to law students. My experience has shown that the panels and the speakers are from a widely diverse group, that there is a representation from private industry as well as from government and public officials, as well as from the law schools, including the deans of the law schools and the faculty members. So to that extent, my participation in programs, either as a speaker or as a participant, has reflected that there is a wide variety of opinions expressed. I think it is a very broad- based presentation of issues dealing with constitutional law, as well as antitrust and economics, as well as environmental issues. So to that extent, I don't see a problem with the educational opportunities afforded to the judiciary. Senator Kohl. Do you plan to continue these types of seminars in terms of your attendance in the event that you are confirmed to the Fifth Circuit? Judge Clement. Well, some of the seminars are basic economics which, of course, I have completed. And then there is an advanced economics, which I have completed. Some of the seminars are focused on the Constitution, some are focused on environmental issues. So to the extent that I haven't already been exposed to that information and to the extent that I am impressed with the faculty that is being presented, I would evaluate the opportunity at that time when presented with the invitation. Senator Kohl. Thank you so much. Judge Clement. Thank you. Senator Kohl. Senator Landrieu, would you like to make a statement? PRESENTATION OF EDITH BROWN CLEMENT, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT BY HON. MARY LANDRIEU, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA Senator Landrieu. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and let me just apologize for being a few minutes late. I was actually in Louisiana and came back a little bit later than scheduled, Mr. Chairman. So I appreciate it because I wanted to be here and just very briefly, because I do not want to interrupt your line of questioning--and I know the committee has a lot of work to do, but I wanted to just appear this afternoon to give my strong support to Judge Clement and to say that I have known her for many years and feel that her qualifications are excellent, that she has served our community well. I believe she will serve this Nation well, and I will be submitting this testimony in full to the record. I would also want to welcome her children, her husband Rutledge, and her mother, who is here, to welcome them from Louisiana and to say congratulations to all the nominees. You have got my full support. [The prepared statement of Senator Landrieu follows:] Statement of Hon. Mary L. Landrieu, a U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee: I am very pleased to offer my support to the nomination of Edith Joy Brown Clement, of New Orleans, Louisiana, nominee to the United States Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. It is most fitting that an individual of Judge Edith Brown Clement's high standards and eminent qualifications be nominated for this very important position. Edith Brown Clement comes tot he Committee with impressive credentials, having served since 1991 as a United States District Court Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana. During this period, she has personified judicial excellence while handling a Diverse caseload. Her distinguished ten years as a federal judge will serve her well on the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. In addition, Judge Edith Brown Clement received a Stellar Legal Education as a 1972 graduate of Tulane University School of Law. Judge Edith Brown Clement has a distinguished career in law and public service. Among the professional organizations to which Judge Edith Brown Clement holds membership are the New Orleans chapter of the Federal Bar Association, of which she was president from 1990 to 1991, and the American Bar Association, where she served as chair of the Admiralty & Maritime Law Committee, Torts and Insurance practice section. Furthermore, Judge Edith Brown Clement has been admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, as well as the United States Fifth and Eleventh Circuits. It is important to note that during her career, Judge Edith Brown Clement has also served with distinction in a number of responsible positions outside the legal profession. She has been very active in her community. She was a founding board member of the New Orleans Child Advocacy Program. Currently, she also serves on the Sugar Bowl Committee. Prior to her appointment as a United States District Court Judge, Judge Edith Brown Clement was an Associate and Partner in the Venerable Law Firm of Jones, Walker, Waechter, Poitevent, Carrere & Denegre from 1975-1991. She also served as a Law Clerk to the Honorable H.W. Christenberry, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Louisiana, from 1973 to 1975. Judge Edith Brown Clement is married to Rutledge Clement, and has two children: Her son Carter and her daughter Lanier. of course, I would be remiss if I did not mention that her mother, Edith Brown, as well as Rutledge and Carter are in attendance this afternoon. I have found Edith Brown Clement to be very professional and competent as a Judge and Community Leader. Moreover, I am confident she possesses the necessary Judicial temperament to serve on the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals. In sum, I believe that Judge Edith Brown Clement possesses the integrity, appropriate demeanor, and aptitude for legal scholarship that will enable her to serve well and with distinction if she is confirmed. Mr. Chairman, Edith Brown Clement is imminently qualified to serve as a Judge to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and I strongly urge the Committee to act favorably on her nomination. Senator Kohl. We thank you, Senator Landrieu. Senator McConnell, do you have a question of Judge Clement? Senator McConnell. I really had not intended to ask a question of Judge Clement. Listening to her answer, I just want to commend you for attending these seminars. I think they are an excellent idea. I also want to commend you for not ruling out attending them in the future, and to suggest to you that there will be vigorous opposition to the bill to which Senator Kohl referred which would prevent judges from attending such seminars. I congratulate you on your nomination and look forward to supporting it. Judge Clement. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kohl. Thank you. Ms. Caldwell, I would like to ask you the following question. What do you believe are the three most important Supreme Court cases of the 20th century, and why? Ms. Caldwell. That is a very difficult question, in that there are so many important Supreme Court cases in the 20th century. Of course, Supreme Court decisions are important to different attorneys and to different members of the public for different reasons. I can cite a case that was very important to me back in 1989. I had joined the United States Attorney's office in 1987 as a novice prosecutor. At that time, the Federal Sentencing Guidelines had been promulgated by the Sentencing Commission. There was a question as to the constitutionality, or questions had been raised as to the constitutionality of those Sentencing Guidelines. So when Mistrada v. United States was heard by the Supreme Court which found that the judicial commission had the authority promulgate the Sentencing Guidelines, that cleared the issue for those of us in law enforcement, for members of the defense bar, and for the judges on the court. Regardless of what anyone's opinion is with respect to the Sentencing Guidelines, that was a very important case and one that had personal significance to me. Another case that had personal significance to me was a case that was decided by the Supreme Court in about 1989, Mary Alice Wolfe v. United States. That case was heard by the Supreme Court and her conviction for a conspiracy to commit murder for hire was thrown out by the Supreme Court because it had been illegally obtained without the presence of her counsel. Needless to say, in my second trial I was confronted with trying that case on the retrial, on remand, from the United States Supreme Court. There are many other cases that I am sure have greater significance and more importance to the public at large, but those are ones that come to mind that had great significance to me and had an impact on my career. Senator Kohl. I thank you. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. Ms. Caldwell, you were, of course, in Kentucky known principally for your leadership in pursuing the public corruption cases in Operation BOPTROT, which both Senator Bunning and I alluded to. I am wondering how that experience, which I would repeat led to the conviction and incarceration of the Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives, may have impacted your insight as to the importance of integrity in public servants. Ms. Caldwell. Well, obviously, as a citizen one is entitled to expect integrity from our public officials. As a prosecutor, of course, those cases presented particularly difficult and complex legal issues in terms of identifying specific statutory wrong, setting about using what some would term as invasive measures for conducting an undercover investigation and being sure to protect the reputations of innocent people. But I was glad that law enforcement worked in terms of protecting public confidence in our system of government when called upon. However, I think the most important mechanism for protecting our system of government is for the public to be involved in knowingly electing, supporting and monitoring the behavior of people of integrity in our government. Senator McConnell. Well, obviously, Senator Bunning and I are enthusiastic about your selection and both of us intend to support you. We are pleased that you are here today. Ms. Caldwell. Thank you, Senator McConnell. Senator McConnell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. Thank you, Senator McConnell. Judge Camp, would you describe for us what you understand to be the key principles of the Federal right to privacy? Judge Eagan. Are you speaking to me? Senator Kohl. I am sorry. I meant to ask Ms. Camp that. Ms. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think that there is a Federal right of privacy and I think it is found in several provisions of the United States Constitution. Certainly, the United States Supreme Court has recognized a right of privacy under the penumbra of the Constitution, noting that there are references throughout several of the amendments to the citizen's right of privacy. And if I am confirmed to the district court bench, I will do my best to uphold the Constitution, as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. Senator Kohl. I thank you. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. I don't have any questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. Judge Eagan, in the past few years, beginning with the Lopez decision, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of Federal statutes, including several designed to protect the civil rights of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress' power. Taken individually, these cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on congressional authority. Taken collectively, they appear to reflect a new federalism crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our Government. What advice would you give Senators who are drafting legislation to comply with the new federalism? Judge Eagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do believe that Lopez was a watershed decision in putting limits on the power of Congress under the Commerce Clause, and I would recommend that the Senators follow the opinion in Lopez and other opinions that followed it and find out what exactly the Supreme Court found lacking in the passage of those statutes and try to make findings and having hearings to determine if indeed it is an area that can be governed under the Commerce Clause and to follow that precedent. Senator Kohl. I thank you. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. Judge Payne, there has been a great deal of attention paid to Federal courts' increased caseloads and the resulting problem of docket backlogs. This backlog has an adverse effect on the people before the court who have suffered at least some delay in the resolution of their claims. If confirmed, what steps do you intend to take to ensure that your docket proceeds at a quick pace, as quick a pace as is fair and reasonable? Judge Payne. Thank you, Senator. I would say that maybe a recent place for us to start would be the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990. I think that was a starting place and it has been a starting place in our court, and as a magistrate judge, I have had an opportunity to help to implement that Act. I think it has to do with the judge assigned to the case being active at the very beginning, from the discovery process to the planning of the scheduling of the case, having a meeting for a Rule 16 conference where the parties know where they are, what the schedule is. I think perhaps the most important thing is to get the case scheduled and stick with the schedule. I think it is important to add the ingredient of alternative dispute resolution to give the parties an opportunity to settle the case before going to trial, if necessary. I think that saves time, money, and perhaps some stress for the litigants. Senator Kohl. Senator McConnell? Senator McConnell. No questions, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. I would like to ask this question of all the members of the panel and give each of you a chance to respond. In the past few years, there has been a growth in the use of so-called protective orders in product liability cases. We can see this happening in the recent settlements arising, for example, from the Bridgestone/Firestone lawsuits. Critics like myself argue that these protective orders sometimes prevent the public from learning about the health and safety hazards in the products that they use. Should you be confirmed, what would be your opinion on a litigant's right to privacy when the information sought to be sealed could keep secret a public health and safety hazard? Judge Clement. For the past 10 years when I have been on the bench reviewing in camera requests or motions to have documents sealed or testimony sealed, I have been very cautious not to do that with a broad brush. It is easier for the litigants to submit a pretty comprehensive document and ask that it all be sealed, but if you have a conference, sit down, you can readily narrow the issues and determine is there a patent involved, is there a particular privacy issue involved. If you sit down with a conference, work with the lawyers-- you should even get the parties in to make sure that the parties are understanding what the lawyers have submitted. And I would just encourage a very narrow reading of any request to put anything outside of the public view. Senator Kohl. I thank you. Ms. Caldwell? Ms. Caldwell. I would echo Judge Clement's sentiment and also say that by their very nature court proceedings are public proceedings. So there is a constant importance, I think, for judges to be mindful of the public's right to know and to participate in public proceedings, versus the needs for privacy of particular parties or litigants with respect to particular information. Senator Kohl. Judge Eagan? Judge Eagan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think your question raises a very important issue in two areas that we deal with on the bench. One is proceedings generally and the public right to have access to those proceedings, and, second, in the settlement context. First, in proceedings generally, in our district we are firm believers in the public's right of access and we are very reluctant to seal pleadings and seal orders, and there is a strong burden for litigants to have anything sealed. With regard to settlements, there is the competing interest of wanting to encourage parties to settle versus when you have an issue that implicates public health and safety. And I think in the latter instance, there are interim steps that can be taken where you can advance the interests of public health and safety but still encourage settlement, such as, for example, sealing the amount of the settlement, but if there is an issue as to a defective product, use your discretion to perhaps make a problem known. Senator Kohl. Judge Payne? Judge Payne. Senator, I think you have identified some tension. Looking back at the Civil Justice Reform Act and later legislation that has encouraged ADR in the Federal courts, I think that is one of the places we see it. And I agree with a lot of what Judge Eagan had to say that there is a tension there. I think the public interest and need to know about dangerous products is of the highest importance to the people of this country. I think they have a right to know, and I agree with Judge Eagan's suggestion that perhaps you can accomplish both. But I think the public safety probably would weigh heaviest on my mind. Senator Kohl. I thank you. Ms. Camp? Ms. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, there should be a strong presumption of public access to any documents that are filed with the court or introduced into evidence in a trial proceeding. I recognize that there is some need for balancing when there are trade secrets involved, but I agree with Judge Eagan that there should be a very strong burden, a very heavy burden on the party who is trying to maintain those documents as secret. Thank you. Senator Kohl. Okay, one more question for the panel. I am sure that you have followed the debate here on Capitol Hill and, in fact, across the country, about the need to address the risk of more terrorist attacks. Without getting into any specific proposals, what do you think the tradeoff needs to be between liberty and security? Judge Clement? Judge Clement. Well, the very recent ruling by the Supreme Court in the Zatadis case addressed the terrorist concern, and they called it, I believe, a special problem that the legislature would address if there was a situation, in which case the legislative ability should be respected by the judiciary. And to that extent, I think we need to see what the legislation puts forward, and to the extent that we need to protect civil liberties I am sure the Senate and the Congress will address those issues, as they are examining them now. So that extent, I think that need was recognized by the Supreme Court and we have to just trust the legislators to enact a law that is safeguarding for the citizens of this country, since we are under terrorist attack, but also recognizes that people do have civil liberties to protect, whether they are foreigners or not, or whether they are protection and their right to be in this country has been brought under question. There are certainly statutes protecting them and providing for hearings and examination and presentation of issues. If there is a preventive detention, which I believe the Supreme Court discussed in the Zatadis case, I believe that the preventive detention should be set forth with some particularity, and to that extent I think that would resolve the issue. Senator Kohl. Thank you. Ms. Caldwell? Ms. Caldwell. I appreciate the delicate task that you members of Congress are confronted with and the members of this body are confronted with in terms of safeguarding national security versus protecting the important civil liberties of our citizens and those who come to this country. With respect to that legislation, I will have to trust that to this body in terms of making certain that it meets constitutional muster. However, I encourage and believe that it is important for judges to look at the laws currently on the books, to be familiar in terms of Supreme Court precedent, superior court precedent, and also statutory law which does provide protections for civil liberties and also provides some tools to those who would safeguard our national security. Senator Kohl. Good. Judge Eagan? Judge Eagan. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I believe the Supreme Court has suggested that there might be an exception when dealing with civil liberties and the different procedural safeguards for those liberties if there is an issue of terrorism. And I trust the Congress, and I trust that they will be conscious of the delicate balance between the civil liberties, but the fear of the American people of terrorist attacks. And I believe any statute will have a presumption of constitutionality. Senator McConnell. If I might interject, hopefully we have gotten it right. As you may have read in the paper, we have reached a bipartisan agreement on a terrorism package that the Justice Department believes is constitutional and we believe is constitutional. Happily, we are going to go forward with that. I guess some court at some point will tell us whether we got it right, but at least we seem to have reached an agreement on this very important and timely subject. Judge Eagan. Thank you, Senator. Senator Kohl. Judge Payne? Judge Payne. Senator, not to be trite, but these are times that try our souls. I think it is heartwarming that you bring that issue up here today. I know it is one that troubles us all. The hallmark of this country is our personal freedoms. I know that the Senate and the Congress has a very difficult balancing act to keep us free and keep us secure. I know the role of the court is not to interfere with your process. It is not an enviable job, but the job of the Congress and the Senate to pass that law, and perhaps for some of us to look at it for constitutional scrutiny in the future. I have confidence in your judgment. Senator Kohl. Thank you. Ms. Camp? Ms. Camp. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Certainly, any legislation passed by Congress would be given a very strong presumption of constitutionality, and I know that Congress, working with the Justice Department and others, is taking into consideration the issue of civil liberties in preparing the legislation. I am not aware of any United States Supreme Court decisions which say that someone has to be released into society who poses a clear threat to society. There are due process considerations involved, but the Supreme Court has been looking at a number of issues lately where the Court has found that individuals may be detained even though they are not convicted of a criminal offense if they pose a clear threat to society. Thank you. Senator Kohl. Thank you. Before I dismiss you, I would like to advise you all that you may receive some follow-up questions from members of our panel. We will keep the record open for a week and if you get questions, I would hope that you would respond expeditiously. I think you have done a great job and I can assure you that we will work very hard to get your confirmations down as quickly as possible. Thank you so much. [The biographical informations of Judge Clement, Ms. Caldwell, Judge Eagan, Judge Payne and Ms. Camp follow:] Senator Kohl. We now have before us Professor Jay Bybee, to be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Will you please stand and raise your right hand as I administer the oath? Do you swear that the testimony you shall give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Bybee. I do. Senator Kohl. We thank you. Mr. Bybee, if you have any opening statement or you would like to introduce any family or friends who are with you today, please proceed. STATEMENT OF JAY S. BYBEE OF NEVADA, NOMINEE, TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL COUNSEL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Mr. Bybee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In light of the increased responsibilities that have been placed on the Senate, I appreciate you conducting this hearing and proceeding with this in light of other responsibilities that have been placed upon you. I would like to introduce my family that are here with me today. I have my wife, Diana, my wife of 15 years; my sister, Karen Bybee; my niece, Kelly Frasier; my brother, David Bybee, and his wife, Renee, and their daughter, Morgan Letelier. Our children, Scott, who is 14, and David, who is 11, and Alyssa, who is 9, and Ryan, who is 7, remain at home in Las Vegas. We trust that they are in school, and if they are watching these proceedings, boys, no Nintendo. My mother, Joanne Bybee, cannot be with us today. I have another brother, Lynn, who is not able to be here as well. But my mother, Joanne, I would like to pay special recognition to today, Senator. She is serving at her own expense as a missionary in Mexico teaching English as a second language, and will return to the United States after more than a year-and-a- half in Mexico in December. [The biographical information of Mr. Bybee follows.] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.574 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.575 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.576 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.577 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.578 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.579 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.580 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.581 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.582 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.583 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.584 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.585 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.586 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.587 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.588 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.589 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.590 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.591 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.592 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.593 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.594 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.595 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.596 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.597 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.598 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.599 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.600 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.601 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0915.602 Senator Kohl. I thank you. Professor Bybee, the events of September 11 have given us all a heightened awareness of the critical importance of our civil liberties, of the many possible threats to those freedoms, and of the necessity of an effective response to terrorism. You appear before this committee today as a nominee to head the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel. As you well know, the Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel is the constitutional adviser to the administration, the key lawyer examining both legislative and executive actions, and a central participant in the ongoing effort to win the battle against terrorism without sacrificing American freedom. How do you think we can best strike this balance? And be as specific as you would like. Mr. Bybee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. There is probably no question that is more timely than the question of how do we address terrorist activities consistent with maintaining our civil liberties. Let me first note, Mr. Chairman, there are a couple of points I would like to make. First, let me note that I understand that both the Attorney General and the President have committed themselves to protecting our civil liberties while addressing this problem, and I think that that is a very, very important commitment. I was very pleased, in the wake of the events of September 11, to see how many members of this body, how many other public servants, members of the executive branch and people generally had heartfelt expressions of outrage, quite understandable, against these terrorist actions, desires to move quickly against those perpetrators--people within our borders, people who might be outside of our borders--but at the same time cautioned that we must be very careful that in the process we don't trample the very liberties that have made our country great and that have made it a target of foreign terrorism. If I can be forgiven for a personal note, Mr. Chairman, when I was a young lawyer and had recently joined the Justice Department's appellate staff, one of my first assignments was a civil suit by the 120,000 Japanese-Americans who were interned during World War II. This was a suit seeking reparations for their belongings that had been lost by the War Relocation Authority, among others, during their internment. They were seeking about $24 billion in reparations. I worked with the Justice Department for a couple of years on cases before the District of Columbia Circuit, before the U.S. Supreme Court, and finally before the Federal Circuit, and through my work on those cases became very aware or very much-- I became a student of the Supreme Court's decisions in Hirobayashi and Korematsu. I learned a lot more history about World War II than I had ever known before and I have since taken quite an interest in that period. And it became clear to me that even though I had to defend the Justice Department in that case until Congress could award reparations to Japanese-Americans that the United States had made a terrible mistake under very difficult decisions. And I believe that the Supreme Court made a very difficult--made a very bad decision under very difficult circumstances. I would hope, Mr. Chairman, that if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed to this position that I would bring an additional sensitivity to the rights of all Americans and a resolution not to trample their civil rights in the pursuit of terrorism. Senator Kohl. Good. Professor Bybee, what specific qualifications and experience do you bring to this job on constitutional issues, especially those surrounding terrorism, Federal crimes and civil liberties? Mr. Bybee. Mr. Chairman, last week as I met on Friday with my classes in civil procedure and constitutional law and told that I would not be here this week in class because I would be appearing before this committee, I told them what a humbling experience this was and that this was the opportunity to do everything that I have been trained to do for the last 20 years since I graduated from law school. It is daunting to be in this position. It is very humbling to be in this position. Mr. Chairman, I have been fortunate in my career, and I can't always explain why, but I have been very fortunate in the opportunities that have been presented before me. I have had opportunities in private practice. I have had five years with the Department of Justice. I have litigated many cases before the courts of appeals and I have worked on cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. I served for two years as Associate White House Counsel during the Bush administration. I was there during the Gulf War, the invasion of the Panama, and the fall of the Berlin Wall. In 1991, I decided to leave government service and to enter a different kind of government service and became a professor at Louisiana State University. And I am pleased that for the last 10 years that both the State of Louisiana and the State of Nevada, through its new law school at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas, have given me the opportunity to teach law students about the Constitution and to learn about the Constitution from my students. I don't think that I have ever taught a class in civil procedure, administrative law or constitutional law that I have failed to learn something new. And I welcome this opportunity, Mr. Chairman, again, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, to learn more about the Constitution. What do I bring to the questions of terrorism, civil liberties and crime? I have authored pieces on Congress' powers to address crime. I have not done quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, a lot in the area of terrorism. Most of my work has been on the civil side rather than on the criminal side, with the exception of discussing Congress' jurisdiction over crime. I have done some work in the area of civil liberties, although much of my writing has been in the area of federalism and separation of powers. Senator Kohl. Thank you. Professor Bybee, what will be your primary goals in your role as Assistant Attorney General? Mr. Bybee. Mr. Chairman, I think that the first goal for anyone appointed to this office is to maintain the tremendous tradition of the Office of Legal Counsel. Ever since the Office of Legal Counsel was established, it has been the purpose of that office to provide objective legal advice, free from other political constraints or influence. And it would be my objective to continue to hire the best lawyers that the Justice Department can find to come and afford the Attorney General, the President of the United States and other executive agencies the best objective legal advice that we can give them. Senator Kohl. In connection with that, do you consider your job primarily, not exclusively, to be the people's attorney, the Attorney General's attorney, or the President's attorney? Mr. Bybee. Mr. Chairman, I will try and be very, very specific. You have given me sort of an A, B and C, and I will try and be very specific. As Assistant Attorney General, it is clear that I report to the Attorney General. In that capacity, the Attorney General has opened the channels of communication between White House Counsel's Office and the Office of Legal Counsel. But my principal responsibility is to report to the Attorney General, who in turn serves at the pleasure of the President. We all serve at the pleasure of the President, but I serve at the pleasure of both the President and the Attorney General, and it is the Attorney General's responsibility to advise the President. I will advise the Attorney General and, at this direction, will advise other executive agencies and the White House. Senator Kohl. But where you have a conflict in your own mind--if you are deeply troubled with the direction of the Attorney General and/or the President in any particular matter, do you feel it is your responsibility to voice those objections very strongly, even if the Attorney General is very unhappy with some of the things you might be saying? Mr. Bybee. Mr. Chairman, it is a very good question, and particularly for any nominee in this position. In my conversation with members in White House Counsel's Office and in my conversations with the Attorney General, both of those offices have made it very clear to me that if I am confirmed for this position that what they want is my objective, frank and honest legal opinion. We let the chips fall where they do after that. And I would pledge to the committee that if I am confirmed for this position that I would continue the tradition of that office to offer my best legal advice. And I will leave to others to figure out the policy that conforms with the law. Senator Kohl. All right. Finally, perhaps in line with the questions that I have been asking you, when you are finished, what will make you happiest in terms of how you have conducted yourself in this position? How will you judge yourself at the end of your term of office? Mr. Bybee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for giving me the opportunity to answer that question. I wish that I had the quotation in front of me, but there is a wonderful quotation from George Bernard Shaw. I think it is in an introduction or a letter that he wrote that accompanies his play ``Man and Superman,'' in which George Bernard Shaw says that the real joy in life is being thoroughly worn out. It is being thrown on the dust heap, knowing that you have engaged in a purpose recognized by yourself as a mighty one, and that you have devoted yourself to causes that are above yourself instead of-- I am trying to remember the phrase that George Bernard Shaw uses because it is such a wonderful phrase--instead of complaining because the world will not devote itself to making you happy. I hope that at the end of my time, Senator, if I have this position, that I will be thoroughly worn out in a cause recognized by all of us as a mighty one. Senator Kohl. Very good. I think you have done a great job and we will make every effort to expedite your confirmation. Mr. Bybee. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kohl. Thank you, and this hearing is closed. [Whereupon, at 3:11 p.m., the committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and a submission for the record follow.] QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Karen Caldwell to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: In your opinion, how strongly should judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis? Does the commitment to stare decisis vary depending on the court? Response: Federal district judges are bound by the doctrine of stare decisis and, therefore, are committed to following precedent established by superior courts. If confirmed as a district judge, I would be bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court and the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Question 2: I'm sure that you have followed debate here on Capitol Hill, and in fact across the country, about the need for legislation to address the risk of more terrorist attacks. Without getting into any specific proposals, what do you think the trade-off needs to be between liberty and security? Response: In these difficult times of national grief and uncertainty, I have closely followed debates in both houses of Congress regarding legislation proposed to address terrorism in our country. In my observation, it is clear that members of Congress are struggling to adopt measures that will secure the safety of our citizens without sacrificing their important civil liberties. I commend the Congress for its work and am confident that every effort has and will be made to pass constitutional legislation that secures our free society. Question 3: Ms. Caldwell, you have been involved in a number of pro bono activities throughout your career-you are a life fellow of the Kentucky Bar Foundation, you have represented individuals free of charge, and your firm supports pro bono projects taken on by its members. Recent reports suggest that the number of hours devoted to pro bono work recently have fallen in some areas, and if the economic situation worsens any they may fall further. Given your experience, what do you think can be done to continue to encourage young attorneys to take on more pro bono work? Response: Pro bono service is one of the most gratifying components of my personal and professional life. Therefore, I am surprised and saddened to learn that lawyers are devoting less time to this important work. Some measures that might encourage young attorneys to take on more pro bono work would include, but not be limited to the following: 1. Experienced attorneys should involve associates or other young attorneys in volunteer activities not only for the purpose of providing training, support and expertise, but also for the purpose of leading by example. 2. Local bar associations might establish and fund pro bono programs that promote volunteerism and provide a network for volunteers. For example, in my home county, our pro bono program supports a small professional staff, which works with social service organizations and other volunteer organizations to identify individuals in need of pro bono representation. The organization also recruits attorney volunteers who might not otherwise be cognizant of the potential client's needs. In addition, the staff coordinates assignments so that volunteers are not over-utilized and that matters are assigned to attorneys who possess the requisite skills and experience in specific practice areas. For lawyers who may not be skilled in specific areas of need, the pro bono office provides opportunities for lawyers to contribute financially in support of the services provided by other volunteers. For example, a corporate attorney, who might be uncomfortable representing an individual in a domestic matter, might make a financial contribution, which could be applied to expert witness or filing fees. 3. State and local bar associations might provide special recognition for lawyers who provide pro bono services. In addition, the state and local bar associations might provide discounts on association dues for those who volunteer to help those in need. 4. Large law firms might consider community service, including pro bono activities, as a factor in awarding bonuses or other forms of recognition within the organization. 5. Retired attorneys might organize either to represent indigent clients or to serve as mentors to younger or inexperienced attorneys in assuming responsibility for cases. Question 4: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause: These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, grating states's significant new authority over the use of land and water, despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment. Taken individually, these cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism'' crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government. What is your view of these developments? Response: Although the fundamental relationship between federal and state governments is established by the Constitution, there has historically been a tension between federal and state power. Over the course of American history, the Supreme Court's interpretation of Constitutional limitations on the power of the central government has shifted. From the 1890's until the mid1930's, federalism was vigorously used to narrow Congressional power and to maintain state sovereignty. From the mid1930's until recently, the Court adopted a more expansive concept of federal authority. Recent Supreme Court decisions, including United States v. Lope, 514 U.S. 549 (1995), have recognized certain limits on Congress' legislative powers, which may reflect a ``new federalism.'' While the political and theoretical ramifications of the decisions are important and of interest to many in the larger community, if confirmed as a district judge, I will be bound by the doctrine of stare decisis, which requires the application of superior court precedent. As a cornerstone of our American common law method, stare decisis provides legal stability and assists in preserving the fundamental structure of our government. Question 5: Can Congress can ever subject states to private suits for damages for discrimination based on classification to which the Supreme Court does not give heightened or strict scrutiny? Response: Congress can subject nonconsenting states to private suits for damages pursuant to Section Five of the Fourteenth Amendment. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). However, legislation that reaches beyond the precise scope of the protections embodied in Section One of the Fourteenth Amendment must exhibit congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented and the means adopted to that end. City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997). Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001). In Alabama v. Garrett, a case which involved a classification requiring a lower level of scrutiny known as a ``rational-basis review'', the Supreme Court found among other things that the rights and remedies created by the ADA against the states would raise concerns regarding congruence and proportionality. While the Court in Alabama v. Garrett did not find that the standard had been met in that particular case, Congress could define a history or pattern of irrational behavior in some other context. This is an evolving issue and if confirmed as a district judge, I will be especially mindful of any higher court decisions, which may clarify the matter in the future. Question 6: If Congress provides money to a state on the condition that it use the money in certain ways, can Congress constitutionally require a state that accepts such funding to waive its sovereign immunity to private actions for money damages if the state is misusing such funds? Response: The United States Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot override the Eleventh Amendment simply by mandating state action pursuant to one of its enumerated powers. Seminole Tribe of Florida v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996). However, the Court has also held that Congress may encourage states to consent to suit by offering them federal funding in exchange for the states' waiver of sovereign immunity. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Post secondary Education Expense Board, 527 U.S. 666 (1999). Question 7: Does Congress have the Constitutional authority to pass laws that regulate air quality and water quality or other environmental protections? Response: Congress has the Constitutional authority to pass laws that regulate air quality, water quality and to enact other environmental protections. Question 8: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that violate the state sovereign immunity doctrine under the U.S. Constitution? Response: It would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule on the constitutionality of any particular statute or section thereof. However, a federal statute is presumed to be constitutional in the absence of a binding judicial determination that it is unconstitutional. Question 9: Are there any federal statutes or sections there of that go beyond Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution? Response: As noted above in my response to Question #8, it would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule with respect to the constitutionality of any federal statute or sections thereof. However, a federal statute is presumed to be constitutional in the absence of a binding judicial determination that it is unconstitutional. Question 10: You state in your questionnaire: ``I routinely assist small and large companies, including Fortune 500 companies, in developing corporate plans for environmental . . . compliance. Additionally, I have assisted many of those same clients in developing environmental auditing and reporting programs. The identify of my clients is protected by the attorney-client privilege.'' A: Without divulging any privileged information, can you describe what type of environmental plans you developed? Response: Businesses must comply with a myriad of federal, state and local environmental rules and regulations. Toward that end, I have assisted clients in identifying applicable regulatory requirements and in implementing specific plans for achieving, maintaining and/or improving environmental compliance. Depending on the specific circumstances, I have assisted clients in developing plans that have included the following components: (1) written policies integrated into the daily work environment; (2) training programs for managers and employees; (3) commitment of funds for monitoring systems along with equipment to insure employee safety and health; (4) independent review of compliance monitoring systems; (5) employee incentive programs designed to elevate employee commitment to compliance with environmental policies and procedures; (6) mechanisms for internal enforcement of environmental compliance policies; and (7) self- evaluation and reporting procedures. B: How did the plans you developed improve the environment? Response: Environmental laws and regulatory programs are intended to protect the environment. To the extent that I have assisted my clients in identifying and complying with relevant laws and regulations, the environment has been protected. In some instances, however, the process of developing an environmental compliance plan has inspired clients to adopt more stringent compliance measures than those imposed by law. In those cases, the plans have not only protected, but also possibly improved the environment. C. As a federal judge, how would your experience in developing these plans assist you in deciding environmental cases? Response: While my experience in developing environmental compliance plans would be of limited assistance in deciding environmental cases, my general familiarity with federal environmental laws could be helpful in applying the law to the facts presented in specific cases. D: Are there any environmental statutes that cause constitutional concerns? (i) Under the commerce clause? It would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule with respect to the constitutionality of any particular statute or body of statutes. However, all federal environmental statutes are presumed to be constitutional and I am not aware of any such statute, which on its face, causes constitutional concerns under the commerce clause. Concerns could arise, however, from the application of any statute in specific factual circumstances. (ii) Under the non-delegation doctrine? As stated above, it would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule with respect to the constitutionality of any particular statute or body of statutes. However, federal environmental statutes, like all federal statutes, are presumed to be constitutional. I am not aware of any environmental statutes that cause concern under the anti delegation doctrine in view of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Whitman v. American Trucking Association, 531 U.S. 457 (2001). (iii) Under the takings clause? As stated above, it would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule regarding the constitutionality of any particular statute or body of statutes. However, all federal environmental statutes are presumed to be constitutional and I am not aware of any such statutes, which on a facial basis, cause constitutional concerns. Application of such statutes to specific factual circumstances could, however, trigger an obligation to provide just compensation. E. Are there any environmental agency regulations that cause constitutional concerns? Do any regulations go beyond the scope of agency authority? Response: It would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule regarding the constitutionality of any particular agency regulation or body of agency regulations. However, agency regulations, like statutes are presumed to be valid and/or promulgated within the agency's delegated authority. Presently, I am unaware of any such regulations, which on a facial basis, cause constitutional concerns. Question 11: In your questionnaire, you also stated that you also helped to develop corporate plans for safety and health compliance. A. Again, without divulging any privileged information, can you described the types of health and safety plans you developed? Response: Generally, I assisted companies in developing employee health and safety measures as a component of an overall environmental compliance plan. While compliance with occupational safety and health laws was clearly an element of the process, my primary assignment was to develop strategies for educating and enlisting workers not only to protect themselves from injury or illness, but also to assist the employer in achieving environmental compliance goals. Toward that end, safety and health objectives were integrated into the daily work environment through additional provisions in employee handbooks, human resources programs, targeted safety training and employee incentive programs. In many safety and health plans, I suggested the use of ``worker help lines,'' which enabled employees to report environmental, safety and health violations anonymously, without fear of retribution from management or fellow employees. B. How did the plans you developed improve worker health and safety? Response: As occupational safety and health laws were developed to protect workers, promoting compliance with those laws protects worker health and safety. However, educating employees, involving them in the company's overall compliance strategy, and providing incentives for compliance with environmental safety and health programs provide employees with an investment in the process, which should not only serve to protect worker safety and health but also to improve it. C. As a federal judge, how would your experience assist you in deciding worker health and safety claims? Response: While my experience in developing worker safety and health plans would be of limited assistance to me in deciding worker health and safety claims, my general knowledge of statutory and regulatory provisions may be of some assistance in applying the law to the specific cases presented. D. Do you believe that there are any current health and safety administrative regulations that are unconstitutional or go beyond the scope of agency authority? Response: It would be inappropriate for me to indicate how I might rule regarding the constitutionality of any particular agency regulation or body of agency regulations. However, agency regulations, like statutes are presumed to be constitutional and/or validly promulgated within the agency's delegated authority. While I do not profess to be familiar with all federal regulations related to worker safety and health, I am presently unaware of any such regulations that cause concerns on a facial basis. Question 12: You state in your questionnaire that you are a member of the Federalist Society. A. Describe the Federalist Society activities that you have attended. Response: To the best of my knowledge, I have attended the following events: a.Local event sponsored by the University of Kentucky Student Chapter featuring Hon. Diarmuid O'Scannlain, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, (2000). b. Three or four local luncheons, (2000-2001). c. Local event featuring Hon. Danny Boggs, Judge, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, (2001). d. Annual lawyers convention, (2000). e. Southern conference, (2001). B. Describe the Federalist Society events in which you have participated as a guest or as a speaker. Response: I have not participated at a Federalist Society event as a guest or speaker. C. Do you share a judicial philosophy with the Federalist Society? Response: I am not aware that the Federalist society has a judicial philosophy. However, in its promotional material, the Federalist Society asserts, ``. . . that it is a emphatically the province and duty of the judiciary to say what the law is, not what it should be.'' To the extent that the Federalist Society's promotional statement suggests that judges should not legislate from the bench, I agree with that interpretation. D. With what (if any) Federalist Society positions do you disagree? (including positions that are shared by a large majority of its members, but may not be formal positions of the organization.) Response: I am unaware of any positions held by the Federalist Society or a large majority of its members. It is my understanding that the Federalist Society promotes debate regarding issues of law and public policy without taking positions on such issues. The programs I have attended have included spirited debate and discourse. Generally speaking, however, I am an independent thinker who is not bound by the thoughts or positions of those with whom I am affiliated. E. Are there any cases or categories of cases in which your membership in the Federalist Society would cause you to recuse yourself? Response: None that I am aware of at this time. F Will you continue your membership in the Federalist Society if you are confirmed? Response: If confirmed, I intend to evaluate all of my civic and professional affiliations in the context of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, federal law and my personal work schedule. Moreover, I will attempt to avoid even the appearance of an impropriety. Responses of Laurie Smith Camp to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: In your opinion, how strongly should judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis? Does the commitment to stare decisis vary depending on the court? Answer: Judges of the United States District Courts are bound to follow precedent of the United States Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Circuit in which the district lies. U.S. District Court judges should also give serious consideration to opinions issued by other U.S. Courts of Appeals and by other U.S. District Court judges. District Court judges may have some cases of first impression, and may distinguish cases from prior decisions based upon fact. They should bear in mind, however, that consistent application of the law helps citizens to guide their conduct, and helps to curb litigation which would proliferate if precedent were not considered binding. Question 2: A review of your background shows that you have bud some trial experience, but it was lien in your career. What in your background has prepared you to conduct trials, as a judge, on both criminal and civil matters? Answer: Throughout the 1980's, I served as an administrative law judge, issuing findings of fact and conclusions of law in over 300 cases per year. I received training through the National Judicial College of Reno, Nevada. As an Assistant Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. I have served as lead counsel in over 550 cases, not including administrative actions. Sixty-four of those cases have been in federal court. I have second chaired many other trials as a supervisory attorney, and have advised the 22 lawyers under my supervision regarding their civil and criminal caseloads. I have served on Nebraska's Federal Practice Committee longer than any other attorney, and currently serve as its Chair. If confirmed, I will augment my experience through the programs offered by the Administrative Office of the Courts and the National Judicial Center, as well as the advice and counsel of Nebraska's current U.S. District Court Judges which have very generously been offered to me. Question 3: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed tee protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment, The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, granting states significant new authority over the use of land and water. despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment. Taken individually, these cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism'' crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government. What is your view of these developments? Answer: If confirmed to be a United States District Court Judge, I would uphold the United States Constitution as interpreted by the United States Supreme Court. If the constitutionality of a federal statute were challenged in a case presented to me as a matter of first impression. I would give the statute a strong presumption of constitutionality. I respect the constitutional Separation of Powers and, if confirmed, I will not intrude in my decisions on the prerogatives of the legislative branch except as required by the Constitution. Question 4: Can Congress ever subject states to private suits for damages for discrimination based on classifications; to which the Supreme Court does not give heightened or strict scrutiny? Answer: Earlier this year, the Supreme Court noted that Congress can abrogate the states' Eleventh Amendment immunity when it both unequivocally intends to do so and acts pursuant to a valid grant of constitutional authority. While the Supreme Court found that Congress may not base abrogation of state immunity upon Article I powers, it may subject states to federal court suit when it does so pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Question 5: Congress provides money to a state on the condition that it use the money in certain ways, can Congress constitutionally require a state that accepts such funding to waive its sovereign immunity to private actions for money damages if the state is misusing such funds? Answer: This issue has not yet been clearly resolved. There are cases containing dicta indicating that if the state is dependent on the federal funding for the continuation of the program, the threat of removal of the funding might be considered ``coercive'' and the forfeiture of sovereign immunity invalid. Again, I would give a strong presumption of constitutionality to any statute so challenged. Question 6: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that violate the state sovereign immunity doctrine under the U.S. Constitution? Answer: I am not aware of any which constitute a f4cial violation of the doctrine. If a federal statute were challenged in a case before me as a matter of first impression, I would give the statute a strong presumption of constitutionality. Question 7: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof that go beyond Congress's enumerated powers under the Constitution? Answer: I am not aware of any which exceed the enumerated powers of Congress. Again, if a federal statute were challenged in a case before me as a matter of first impression, I would give the statute a strong presumption of constitutionality. Question 8: Deputy Attorney General of Nebraska, you have been in charge of matters relating to criminal enforcement. In that capacity, you supported several bills that many would consider controversial. One of them, a 1996 anti-crime bill that was never passed but was, at the time, endorsed by Attorney General Stenberg and Omaha Mayor Daub. The bill required that juveniles accused of violent crimes be tried and sentenced us adults. It would have replaced existing law that permitted but did not compel such action. (A) Did your support of this bill reflect your personal views as well as the views of the Attorney General? If not, how are your personal views different? Answer: Whenever I have testified before the Nebraska Legislature's Judiciary Committee, it has been at the request of the Nebraska Attorney General. My testimony has been prepared in writing and has been reviewed, edited and approved by the Attorney General before the hearing. If confirmed, I will decide cases before me based upon principles of stare decisis and without regard to my personal views. (B) As a federal judge, how would you rule in a habeas case in which a juvenile who had committed a violent crime was sentenced to a life term in an adult prison? Answer: I would give careful consideration to the issues raised in the briefs for both the juvenile and the government, and would research applicable constitutional law, statutory law, and case law. I would give due deference to the legislature which enacted the law under which the juvenile was sentenced, and due deference to the court or jury which sentenced the offender. (C) Would you advise the Judicial Conference to support such a bill for federal crimes? Answer: I have no intention of advising the Judicial Conference to support any legislation related to sentencing or any other issue. (D) Do you believe that it is constitutional for minors to be sentenced to death? If so, under what circumstances? What would be the age limit? Answer: The term ``minor'' is defined differently among states, and even within states. In Nebraska, the age of majority is 19, but a person is considered to be a minor for certain other purposes until attaining the age of 21. In Nebraska, the death penalty is not available for offenders under the age of 18 at the time of the offense, and youth is a mitigating factor in the sentencing process. Whether a sentence of death would be unconstitutional because of the defendant's a youth can only be answered in proper context. (E) Would this practice raise constitutional concerns under the 8th, 14th Amendment or other provisions? Answer: The sentencing of a youthful offender to death could give rise to constitutional challenges under the Eighth Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment. Question 9: Another issue currently under debate among federal judges and also of issue in Nebraska is that for standards for those sentenced to death for crimes. As deputy attorney general, you testified against a bill that would have banned the execution of mentally retarded people. (A) Did this testimony reflect your personal views on this subject as well as the views of the Attorney General? If not, how are your views different? Answer: All my testimony before the Nebraska Judiciary Committee was at the request of the Nebraska Attorney General. My testimony was prepared in writing, reviewed, edited approved by the Attorney General prior to each hearing. It was the position of the Attorney General that existing statutes provided protection for mentally retarded criminal defendants, Specifically, before a criminal defendant stands trial, it is determined whether he or she has the capacity to understand the charges and to assist in the preparation of a defense. During trial, the judge or jury considers the defendant's mental capacity when terming whether sufficient intent was present for each element of the offense. If the defendant was unable to understand the nature of his or her actions, or unable to control those actions, a ``not guilty'' verdict should result. A diminished mental capacity is also a mitigating factor under Nebraska's death penalty statutes. During my testimony, I described the Nebraska statutes on each of those issues. I recognize the merits of arguments on both sides of this subject. (B) You stated that such a bill would be an insult to retarded people, since they know right from wrong and IQ has nothing to do with that ability. Do you believe that IQ is irrelevant in evaluating a person culpability? Answer: Intelligence is relevant in evaluating a person's culpability. Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: There is a lot of work being done by this committee right now on the question of balancing civil liberties and national security interests. What is the constitutional test of whether the government can deprive an individual of his or her constitutional rights on a plea of military necessity? Answer: As with any other statute that affects constitutional rights, military orders must afford adequate due process protections, but such orders must be judged in the context in which they arise. It is important to balance individual civil liberties against the government's interest in national security. The government, of course, cannot violate constitutional rights, but the specific answer to your question depends on the particular legal and factual context. Question 2: Are all measures deemed expedient from a national security viewpoint necessarily constitutional? Answer: No. Although it is settled law that courts should defer to Congress and the executive branch in matters of national security, such deference does not extend to automatic validation of governmental action. Question 3: Is the case of Korematsu v. U.S., 323 U.S. 214 (1944), still good law? Do you believe, as Justice Rehnquist has written, that on matters like Korematsu, ``[t]here is no reason to think. . .that future Justices of the Supreme Court will decide questions differently from their predecessors''? Answer: While the Supreme Court has not specifically overruled Korematsu and, to that extent, it remains good law, it has been interpreted in subsequent decisions to which courts must adhere. How such decisions apply to a future case will depend on the specific facts and circumstances presented in that controversy. Question 4: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress' power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment.' The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, granting states significant new authority over the use of land and water, despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment. Taken individually, these cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism'' crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government. What is your view of these developments? Answer: As a trial judge and, if confirmed as an appellate judge, I am bound to follow the precedent established by the Supreme Court. Question 5: Can Congress ever subject states to private suits for damages for discrimination based on classification to which the Supreme Court does not give heightened or strict scrutiny? Answer: Under existing Supreme Court precedent, Congress has the authority to subject nonconsenting states to suit pursuant to a valid exercise of its power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. Private individuals may recover damages from a state, provided there is a pattern of discrimination by a state in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Question 6: If Congress provides money to a state on the condition that it use the money in certain ways, can Congress constitutionally require a state that accepts such funding to waive its sovereign immunity to private actions for money damages if the state is misusing such funds? In exercising its power under the spending clause, Congress may place restrictions or obligations on states that choose to accept federal funding, including the waiver of immunity to private actions, if the restrictions comply with the constitutional tests established by Supreme Court precedent. Question 7: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that violate the state sovereign immunity doctrine under the U.S. Constitution? Answer: As I said in my confirmation hearing, statutes passed by Congress are presumed to be constitutional. It is difficult to address, in the absence of specific facts, whether or not a statute violates the doctrine of sovereign immunity. As a jurist, I will faithfully follow Supreme Court precedent. Question 8: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof that go beyond Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution? Answer: Similar to challenges based on sovereign immunity grounds, challenges based on Congress' constitutional power must be examined on a fact-specific basis. While statutes are presumed to be constitutional, I will be bound by Supreme Court precedent in evaluating whether federal statutes violate the Constitution. Question 10A: Describe the Federalist Society's Advisory Council and your role as a member of it. Answer: The Advisory Council for the Louisiana Lawyers Chapter of the Federalist Society provides support from the legal community for selection of appropriate Programs, including to Pits for debate and speakers to be presented at Louisiana law schools. Question 10B: Describe the Federalist Society activities (including activities of the Advisory Council) in which you have participated as a federal judge. Answer: The Federalist Society presents panel discussions of issues focused on constitutional law. I have participated as a panelist with government officials, law school professors, practitioners and members of the state and federal judiciary. I have also participated in the activities of the advisory council discussed above. Question 1OC: Describe the ways in which your membership in the Federalist Society and/or its Advisory Council has influenced your decisions as a judge. Answer: My membership in the Federalist Society and/or its Advisory Council has not had any influence on my decision malting as a judge. Question 10D: Are there any cases or categories of cases in which your membership in the Federalist Society would cause you to recuse yourself? Answer: If the Federalist Society were party to litigation in a case before me, recusal may be required under the Canons of Ethics or statutes defining reasons for recusal. Question 10E: What does it mean to be a member of the Federalist Society as a judge? Answer: Membership in the Federalist Society has no particular or general meaning to being a judge. Question 1OF: Do you share a judicial philosophy with the Federalist Society? Answer: I am unaware of any judicial philosophy articulated by the Federalist Society. Question 1OG: With what (if any) Federalist Society positions do you disagree? Answer: I am unaware of any positions announced by the Federalist Society. Question 11A: Describe the Federalist Society activities in which you participated as an attorney. Answer: I attended and participated in panel discussions and debates at law schools. Question 11B: Did you consider resigning from the Federalist Society when you became a judge? If not, why not? Answer: Because the Federalist Society does not take positions on political issues, I did not consider resigning. However, were the Federalist Society to alter the manner in which it functions, I would reassess my membership. Question 12: Could you please clarify your answer (to Senator Kohl), end in particular, the relationship between the federal right to privacy and the Due Process clause? Answer: The Supreme Court has recognized the right of privacy in a number of different constitutional provisions, and the due process protection attendant to that right varies according to the particular constitutional provision and factual context. In light of the varied contexts in which privacy rights arise, the boundaries of a right and the due process protections afforded to that right should be determined on the facts of a specific case. Responses of Edith Brown Clement to an additional question submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: Please state whether you have ever been arrested for, charged with or convicted of a crime, within twenty years of your nomination, other than a minor traffic violation, that is reflected in a record available to the public. If your answer is ``yes,'' please provide the relevant dates of arrest, charge, and disposition and then describe the particulars of the offense. Answer: I am informed that background investigation reports on nominees prepared by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) routinely address the type of information called for by this question. Without waiving the confidentiality of the FBI background investigation report prepared on me, I respectfully direct your attention to that report for a response to this question. Responses of Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Edward Kennedy Question 1: Please explain the basis of your decision in Cholak, including why your conclusion on the question of the constitutionality of indefinite detention differed from the ultimate conclusion of the U.S. Supreme Court. Answer: Kestutis Zadvydas and Majid Cholak faced materially different factual scenarios. Although Zadvydas represented that he was a German citizen, the German government informed the INS that he was not deportable to that country. As a result, Zadvydas faced a strong likelihood of permanent confinement because there was no country to which he could be released. Unlike Zadvydas, Cholak was an Iraqi citizen whose deportation was actively pursued by the INS. Accordingly, Cholak's case did not present the factual scenario of an alien who faced probable permanent confinement. In addition, the Cholak decision was ultimately based on procedural, and not substantive, due process grounds. Specifically, the INS violated Cholak's procedural due process rights by failing to adequately consider the factors enumerated in 8 C.F.R. Sec. 242.2(h) in its six month periodic evaluation of Cholak's status. Therefore, Cholak's case was remanded to the INS for reconsideration of his request for release, with the recommendation that it consider his probation officer's recommendation that Cholak was not a danger to the community or a flight risk. Question 2A: What is your approach to constitutional interpretation where the text of the constitution is ambiguous? Answer: I would, of course, be bound by Supreme Court precedent and would evaluate the decisions of other courts. The history, text, and purpose of the provisions should be studied as well as considerations of how the text should be applied to the specific facts and circumstances. Question 2B: Do you believe the constitution contemplates a ``right to privacy''? Answer: Yes, as I stated in my responses to the follow-up questions asked by Senator Kohl, I do believe that the Constitution contemplates a right to privacy. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that the Constitution encompasses a right to privacy. Question 2C: Do you believe the constitutional right to privacy encompasses a woman's right to have an abortion? Answer: The Supreme Court has clearly held that the right to privacy guaranteed by the Constitution includes the right to have an abortion. The cases handed down by the Supreme Court on the right to abortion have reaffirmed and redefined this right, and the law is settled in that regard. If confirmed, I will faithfully apply Supreme Court precedent. Responses of Judge Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Herb Kohl Question 1: Do you believe there is a guaranteed right to privacy in the Constitution? Answer: The Supreme Court has made clear that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy. Question 2: What are the elements of that right? Answer: The elements of the right to privacy depend on the aspect of that right at issue in a particular case. Different factual situations call for different definitions of privacy. The Supreme Court has made it clear that the right to privacy exists in multiple facets of a person's life. For example, the right to privacy found in the First Amendment focuses on a person's right to make certain personal decisions without government interference. The right found in the Fourth Amendment gives heightened protection to what a person does in the sanctity of the home. Question 3: Which Supreme Court Cases do you consider the most important in defining the right to privacy? I believe that one of the most important decisions with respect to the right of privacy was actually Justice Brandeis' dissent in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (1928), in. which he analyzed the concept of the right to privacy. He wrote: Answer: The makers of our constitution. . .recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect. They knew that only a part of the pain, pleasure and satisfactions of life are to be found is material things. They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the government, the right to be let alone the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. Courts have expanded on Brandeis' language and held that zones of privacy exist within several constitutional guarantees, and that an individual's right to privacy needs to be balanced with the government's interest in enforcing the laws. Question 4: Do limits exist on the right to privacy? If so, what are they? Answer:Limits on the right to privacy will vary based on the aspect of the right at issue in a given case, just as the elements of that right will vary in the same way. The Supreme Court has set forth certain standards regarding the limits of this right that guide courts in making determinations in specific cases and context involving the right to privacy. For example, the Court has held that a person must have a legitimate expectation of privacy in that which is sought to be protected. Question 5: Please explain the relationship between the right to privacy and due process protections. Answer: The Supreme Court has carefully delineated the due process protections accorded to a particular privacy right within the background of the right itself. In light of the varied contexts in which privacy rights arise, the boundaries of a right and the due process protections afforded to that right should be determined on the facts of a specific case. Question 6: When Congress defines by statute, Congressional findings, and legislative history, some aspect of the right to privacy, what amount of deference to these findings of fact do the federal courts need to afford to Congress? Answer:As I stated at my confirmation bearing, statutes passed by Congress are presumed to be constitutional. Courts should uphold statutes based on rational legislative judgments because courts must defer to Congress' intent when it has exercised discretion within its constitutional powers. Although Congress has never been required to support its statutes with formal factual findings, legislative findings of fact have great value in creating a realistic background for a particular statute and in pointing out the specific applications Congress intended. Responses of Judge Edith Brown Clement to questions submitted by Senator Russell Feingold Question 1: Sen. Kohl asked you questions at your confirmation hearing concerning the private judicial education seminars you have attended in recent years, including seminars hosted by the Foundation for Research in Economics and the Environment (FREE), George Mason's Law & Economics Center (LEC) and the Liberty Fund. You testified as follows: ``My experience has shown that the panels end the speakers are from a widely'' diverse group, that there is a representation from private industry as well as from government and public officials, as well as from the law schools, including the deans of the law schools and the faculty members. ``So to that extent, my participation in programs, either as a speaks or as a participant, has reflected that there is a wide variety of opinions expressed. I think it is a very broad-based presentation of issues dealing with constitutional law, as well as antitrust and economics, as well as environmental issues. So to that extent, I don't see a problem with the educational opportunities ,afforded to the judiciary.'' A recent article published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review examines a September 1996 FREE seminar you attended is considerable detail and concludes that the seminar offered ``no views contrary to the seminar's principle themes'' (25 Hare. Env. L. Rev. 405, 447 (2001)). a. Do you wish to revise or elaborate on your answer to San. Kohl's question? b. Attached is a list of privately trips funded tripe that you reported an you financial disclosure forms since 1992. To the extend that you remember or can locate is your files information concerning these trips, please provide the following information on the private educational seminars you attended: i. The subject matters covered; ii. The identities of the lecturers or presenters of information; iii. Copies of the seminar schedules and other written material you received. c. Do you contend that each of the educational seminars you attended were diverse and broad based? Answer 1a: After having evaluated the article, ``Nothing for Free: How Private Judicial Seminars are Undermining Environmental Protections and Breaking the Public's Trust'' recently published in the Harvard Environmental Law Review, I remain of the opinion that the seminars presented by FREE, LEC and the Liberty Fund focused on problems and solutions from varied perspectives. The opinions of private industry, as well as public governmental regulatory bodies were presented. The views of academics were supportive of industry in some instances, and of governmental officials in others. b. Attached are the seminar schedules which identify the following: i. Subject matter ii. Lecturer iii. Materials for assigned reading c. The educational seminars were focused on particular environmental, economic or constitutional issues end problems. I felt that the presentations of the competing solutions represented a variety of interesting and important viewpoints. Question 2: I am concerned about the appearance that corporate litigants fund groups such as FREE in order to get an audience before judicial decision make. I note, for example, that the September 1996 FREE seminar you attended, Texaco's retired CEO, Alfred DeCrane gave a lecture entitled ``The Environment--A CEO's perspective'' and Michael Harboldt of Temple-Inland lectured on ``Temple-Inland's Environmental Program.'' Texaco and Temple-Inland are both Fenders of FREE. Judicial Conference Committee on Codes of Conduct Advisory Opinion 67 considers the issue of a judge's participation in a privately funded education seminar. It states in part: ``It would be improper to participate in such a seminar if the sponsor, or source of funding, is involved litigation, or likely to be so involved, and the topics covered in the seminar are likely to be in some manner related to the subject matter of such litigation. If there is a reasonable question concerning the propriety of participation, the judge should take such measures as may be necessary to satisfy himself or herself that there is no impropriety. To the extent that this involves obtaining further information from the sponsors of the seminar, the judge should make clear an intent to make the information public if any questions should arise concerning the propriety of the judge's attendance.'' a. Did you inquire into FREE's and other the seminar hosts' sources of funding before attending these privately funded seminars? If so, how did this information affect your decision of whether to attend the seminars? If not, how did you comply with your obligations under Advisory Opinion 67? b. Having attended the 1996 FREE seminar, would you participate in an environmental case involving Texaco or Temple-Inland? How would you analyze a recusal motion based on your attendance at one of these seminars? c. Does it concern you that corporations appear to befunding judicial seminars in part to secure access to the federal judiciary and advance their own view of the law? d. Do you understand the perception problem created by judges attending these types of seminars? What have you done to address that perception problem in your own court, and what would you do to address the problem if you are confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals? e. If you are confirmed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, would you continue to attend judicial seminars sponsored by organizations such as FREE, LEC, and the Liberty Fund? Answer 2a: The letter of invitation stated that the conferences were sponsored by FREE and the Lewis and Clark Law School, supported by the M.J. Murdock Charitable Trust and John M. Olin Foundation. The Liberty Fund letter of invitation identified its sponsors as a foundation to encourage study of the ideal of a society of free and responsible industries and the Center for Judicial Studies, a non- profit educational organization for advanced study of the Constitution. Corporate sponsors were never identified and to this day I do not know who they were. Several judges had attended prior seminars and recommended them highly. The issue of sponsorship never seemed relevant to the discussions, and no judicial opinion I have rendered was the result of information provided at an educational seminar. b. The disclosure requirement imposes on the judge the obligation to provide public information regarding reimbursement of expenses. Perhaps a more appropriate disclosure would include listing the- sponsors. More generally, a motion for recusal would be considered by evaluating any actual bias as well as any perception of bias, which must be avoided. c.It is always an appropriate concern if an interest group has unfairly sought to influence judicial decision making. At the same time, is i5 important that different perspectives be aired and heard. I do not feel that I was misinformed yr persuaded to evaluate the law inappropriately in that varied views of issues were consistently presented. The identity of corporate sponsorship would assist a judge in evaluating whether attendance was appropriate. d. Depending upon the circumstances, a judge's participation in certain events could create the perception of bias which must be avoided. A judge should recuse from any case where there is a perception of bias. As I stated in response to sub paragraph a, I have not ever rendered an opinion which resulted from views presented at any seminar attended nor has any patty before me suggested that they perceived any bias as a result of my participation is the seminars. e. I would evaluate the faculty and topics to determine if the seminars would grove helpful. I would also be attuned to the need to identify any appearance of impropriety from my attendance. Responses of Claire V. Eagan to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: In your opinion, how strongly should judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis? Does the commitment to stare decisis vary depending on the court? Answer: Adherence to precedent is the cornerstone of the rule of law. Trial judges, in particular, should commit themselves absolutely to the doctrine of stare decisis and should not overrule a case based solely on a belief that it was wrongly decided. The only exception may be an instance where, such as in Brown v. Bd. of Education of Topeka, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), exceptional conditions dictate that a careful reexamination of a prior decision by the Supreme Court is not only justified but required. History, however, makes clear how rare such an occasion would be. Question 2: Judge Eagan, among the classes you have taught as an adjunct professor is one on alternative dispute resolution. Could you tell us how you will use ADR tools to manage the docket in your courtroom if you are confirmed to the District Court? Answer: As a magistrate judge and administrator of the settlement program for the Northern District of Oklahoma, I have gained experience and insight into the use of ADR in docket control. Historically, over 90 percent of civil cases are resolved before trial. An integral reason for this in our district is a mandatory settlement program under the auspices of the Court. If confirmed as a district judge, I will continue to use and support this process. In addition, I will be actively involved in the scheduling process, which allows for consideration of the timing and type of ADR process to achieve maximum benefit. I am committed to using all ADR tools available to encourage case resolution short of trial. Question 3: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress's power under Section 5 of the fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause. These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Court has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, granting states' significant new authority over the use of land and water, despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment. Taken individually, these cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism'' crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government. What is your view of these developments? Answer: In the last six years, the Supreme Court has significantly altered jurisprudence in the areas of state power and Congressional authority. Among other cases, Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U.S. 44 (1996), City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507 (1997), and United States v. Lopez, 517 U.S. 549 (1995), articulate the fundamental principles of this jurisprudence. The application of these principles, however, is not yet clear. The Supreme Court has recently applied these principles to individual statutes, such as the ADEA (Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 528 U.S. 62 (2000)) and the ADA (Bd. of Trustees of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356 (2001)); yet, these principles may not be applied in future cases. It is not for a trial court to expand these principles in the absence of clear Supreme Court precedent. Question 4: Can Congress ever subject states to private suits for damages for discrimination based on classification to which the Supreme Court does not give heightened or strict scrutiny? Answer: The Supreme Court set forth the test of ``congruence and proportionality'' in City of Boerne, supra. Since then, the Supreme Court has applied this test to the ADEA (Kimel, supra) and the ADA (Garrett, supra). Each of these cases turned on an exhaustive examination of the legislative history of the statute at issue to determine if the congruence and proportionality test had been satisfied. In Garrett, the Court addressed the specific role of equal protection jurisprudence in this analysis by stating that the first step in the analysis is to identify with precision the scope of the constitutional right at issue. Clearly, this language contemplates that the more fundamental the right and the stricter the scrutiny required by equal protection jurisprudence, the more likely the abrogation of sovereign immunity will be upheld. The language also leaves open the question of whether a strict scrutiny classification is always required. Whether the Supreme Court will so hold depends on the facts of a case yet to come before it. Question 5: If Congress provides money to a state on the condition that it use the money in certain ways, can Congress constitutionally require a state that accepts such funding to waive its sovereign immunity to private actions for money damages if the state is misusing such funds? Answer: It is settled law that, as part of the Congressional exercise of the spending power, Congress may attach conditions to the receipt of federal funds. Exercise of the spending power is not unlimited, however, and must be in pursuit of the general welfare, with unambiguous conditions, and related to the federal interest in a particular program. Other constitutional provisions may also provide an independent bar to the conditional grant of federal funds. South Dakota v. Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987). This precedent establishes the constitutionality of a Congressional requirement of sovereign immunity waiver. However, the state must be fully aware of the waiver requirement when it accepts the subject funds. In the event of such a waiver, sovereign immunity would not bar a private action. Question 6: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that violate the state sovereign immunity doctrine under the U.S. Constitution? Answer: All federal statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. Thus, for those statutes concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, there is a presumption that they do not violate the Eleventh Amendment or any other constitutional provision. To answer more specifically could appear to be giving an advisory opinion on an issue which might come before me if I am confirmed. I would emphasize, however, as stated above, trial judges in particular should commit themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis. Question 7: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof that go beyond Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution? Answer: All federal statutes enjoy a presumption of constitutionality. Thus, for those statutes concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled, there is a presumption that they do not go beyond Congress' enumerated powers. To answer more specifically could appear to be giving an advisory opinion on an issue which might come before me if I am confirmed. I would emphasize, however, as stated above, trial judges in particular should commit themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis. Responses of James Payne to questions submitted by Senator Patrick Leahy Question 1: In your opinion, how strongly should judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis? Does the commitment to stare decisis vary depending on the court? Answer: The doctrine of stare decisis, which requires adherence to judicial precedents, is at the very core of our American system of jurisprudence and is equally applicable to trial and appellate courts. Question 2: Judge Payne, you've done quite a bit of work on Civil Justice Reform, Could you tell us what you think are the three most important reforms to the civil justice system in our country? Answer: Modern civil justice reform emanates from the Civil Justice Reform Act of 1990 (28 U.S.C. Sec. Sec. 471-482) which required all federal district courts to implement a plan to reduce expense and delay. As a result of developing and working with our plan in the Eastern District of Oklahoma, the following arc the three prominent reforms that were achieved: (1) Reduction in discovery cost through the court's early involvement at Rule 16 conferences encourages parties to participate in voluntary discovery, thus avoiding costly time consuming court hearings. (2) Consistent disposition of Rule 16 cases in loss than 12 months. (3) Implementation of an active alternative dispute resolution program that has not only led to settlement of more than 500 cases since 1993, but has also given litigants the opportunity to be intimately involved in the dispute resolution process. Question 3: In the past few years, the Supreme Court has struck down a number of federal statutes, most notably several designed to protect the civil rights and prerogatives of our more vulnerable citizens, as beyond Congress's power under Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court has also struck down a statute as being outside the authority granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause, These cases have been described as creating new power for state governments, as federal authority is being diminished. At the same time, the Coup has issued several decisions, most notably in the environmental arena, granting states' significant new authority over the use of land and water, despite long-standing federal regulatory protection of the environment, Taken individually, those cases have raised concerns about the limitations imposed on Congressional authority; taken collectively, they appear to reflect a ``new federalism,'' crafted by the Supreme Court that threatens to alter fundamentally the structure of our government, What is your view of these developments? Answer: Congress has authority to gather evidence demonstrating that federal legislation is needed to remedy certain problems. See Kimel v. Florida Rd. Of Regents, 528 U.S. 62, 89-91 (2000). After Congress enacts statutes in response to its fact gathering. the Supreme Court decides the constitutionality of the laws. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, district judges are obligated to follow precedent as set forth by the Supreme Court Question 4: Can Congress can ever subject states to private suits for damages for discrimination based on classification to which the Supreme Court does not give heightened or strict scrutiny? Answer: The Supreme Court has held that, ``Congress's power to enforce the [Fourteenth] Amendment includes the authority both to remedy and to deter violation of rights guaranteed thereunder by prohibiting a somewhat broader swath of conduct, including that which is not itself forbidden by the Amendment's text.'' Kimel v. Florida Bd. of Regents, 578 U.S. 507, 536 (1997). See also Bd of Trusties of the Univ. of Alabama v. Garrett. 531 U.S. 356,----, 121 S.Ct. 955, 963 (2001); City of Boerne v. Florae, 521 U.S. 507, 536 (1997). However, the Court has also held that Sec. 5 [of the Founecnth Amendment] legislation reaching beyond the scope of Sec. 1's actual guarantees must exhibit ``congruence and proportionality between the injury to be prevented or remedied and the means adopted to that and.'' City of Boerne, 521 U.S. at 520. As a district court judge, I would be obliged to follow these decisions, as well as any future decisions, that tray further clarify the matter. Question 5: If Congress provides money to a state on the condition that it use the money in certain ways, can Congress constitutionally require a state that accepts such funding to waive its sovereign immunity to private actions for money damages If the state is misusing such funds? Answer: The Supreme Court has held that Congress may encourage a state that accepts funding to waive its sovereign immunity. However. the funding legislation must comply with the ``coercion'' limitation to Congress's Spending Clause power articulated in Dakota v. Dole, 493 U.S. 203, 211 (1997) (the financial Inducement offered by Congress may not be so coercive as to pass the point at which encouragement turns into compulsion). Further, Congress must ``manifest a clear intent to condition participation in the programs funded on a state's consent to waive its constitulional immunity'' Alascadero State Hosp.v. Seanlon, 473 U.S. 234, 247 (1935). Question 6: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof concerning which the Supreme Court has not yet ruled that violate the state sovereign Immunity doctrine under the U.S. Constitution? Answer: All federal statutes are presumed to be a ``constitutional exercise of legislative power.'' Reno v. Condon, 528 U.S. 141, 148 (2000) (quoting Close v. Glenwood Cemetery, 107 U.S. 466, 475 (1883)). Consequently, all federal statutes concerning state sovereign immunity are constitutional until arid unless there is a binding judicial determination to the contrary. Question 7: Are there any federal statutes or sections thereof that go beyond Congress' enumerated powers under the Constitution? Answer: As mentioned in the answer to question 6, all federal statutes are presumed to be constitutional. Therefore, all federal statutes arc deemed constitutional until there is a binding judicial determination to the contrary. Question 8: A 1985 case you handled, United Sates v. Claire Spencer, involved questions of eminent domain, and recovery by a landowner against the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. You were also active in the Greater Muskogee Development Corporation, part of whose mission was the, ``procurement of real estate through the eminent domain process.'' (A) In what type of case is it appropriate for the government to exercise its powers of eminent domain to take private property? Answer: The power of eminent domain is properly invoked when a federal, state or local government, acting pursuant to a properly enacted statute in conformance with the Constitution, condemns private property for legitimate public use. (B) Did the Spencer case fulfill those standards? Answer: In the Spencer case, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, acting on behalf of the federal government pursuant to a duly enacted statute, fulfilled the public use standard by condemning privately owned agricultural land for the purpose of constructing the Arcadia Reservoir. The Arcadia Reservoir was built to increase the water supply for nearby communities and provide additional public recreational facilities. (C) What standards did the Greater Muskogee Development Corporation use to determine when it would procure real estate through the eminent domain process? Answer: The Greater Muskogee Development Corporation, acting with other city and state entitles, including but not limited to the Muskogee Urban Renewal Authority, complied with the public use standard mentioned above in condemning private property for the public's benefit (i.e. acquiring right-of-way easements and developing blighted areas of the City of Muskogee). SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Statement of Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah It is both an honor and a pleasure to be here this afternoon with six extremely well-qualified nominees for important positions in the Federal Judiciary and the Department of Justice. I congratulate all of you on being selected by President Bush to serve in high office. After reviewing your distinguished records, I have no doubt that you will do great service for the citizens of this country upon confirmation. Edith Brown Clement, our nominee for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, has distinguished herself--among many other ways--as a prolific writer of opinions as a Judge on the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. During the past decade in that position, Judge Clement has authored over 1,300 opinions--and only 17-- a minute fraction--of those were reversed, partially reversed, remanded, or vacated. That's an astonishing record. Judge Clement is particularly known for her expertise in the fields of admiralty and maritime law. She will make an excellent addition to the Fifth Circuit Court. Karen Caldwell, the nominee for the Eastern District of Kentucky, also has a background of distinguished federal government service. She spent six years in the United States Attorney's Office for the Eastern District of Kentucky--working her way up from Assistant U.S. Attorney, then Chief of Financial Litigation, then Chief of General Civil Litigation, and was then appointed by former President Bush to be the United States Attorney for that District. She is well prepared for her new role as a District Judge. Our next nominee, Laurie Smith Camp, will also make a superb judge--for the District of Nebraska. Ms. Camp's 24-year legal career has included private practice, government service, and a great deal of community service as well. Since graduating from Stanford University and the University of Nebraska College of Law--where she served as editor-in-chief of the Nebraska Law Review--she has personally handled over 500 cases in state and federal courts, and thousands of administrative proceedings, in her roles as private practitioner, as General Counsel to Nebraska's Department of Corrections, and as the Nebraska Attorney General's chief for both civil rights and for criminal matters. Judge Claire V. Eagan, our nominee for the Northern District of Oklahoma, is another law review editor--this time for the Fordham Law Review at Fordham University. Since that auspicious beginning to her legal career, Judge Eagan has served as a law clerk to the Chief Judge for the court to which she now has been nominated, has worked in private practice, and has earned an outstanding reputation as a Magistrate Judge. Judge Eagan's activities in the bar and the community are just as impressive as her career. It appears that our final judicial nominee, Judge James H. Payne, is someone who transcends the typical lines--that must be why he's been nominated to be a judge for three federal districts: the Northern, Eastern, and Western Districts of Oklahoma. That is also why, as U.S. Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of Oklahoma since October 1988, Judge Payne has--by consent of the parties--made final dispositions of more than 800 cases. Judge Payne has clearly earned the trust of Oklahomans as a judge and as a leader in Alternative Dispute Resolution, and I am pleased that he--like the rest of our judicial nominees here today--will be able to take his experience and skills into a new forum for serving the citizens of the United States. Last but certainly not least, we have the nomination of Jay S. Bybee to serve as the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. Professor Bybee graduated cum laude from the J. Reuben Clark Law School at Brigham Young University (which is a sufficient credential by itself in my opinion), and then went on to a prestigious clerkship and a prominent law firm. He then served in the Department of Justice as an attorney-advisor in the Office of Legal Policy and worked on the appellate staff in the civil division. He also worked as an associate White House counsel before becoming a professor of law. He will be a great addition to the Department. Again, it is a great pleasure to welcome all of you to the Committee. I look forward to this hearing, and to working with Chairman Leahy and others to make sure the Committee and the full Senate hold timely votes on your nominations.