[Senate Hearing 114-913]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 114-913
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED FOURTEENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
__________
Serial No. J-114-1
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
www.judiciary.senate.gov
www.govinfo.gov
_______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
53-712 WASHINGTON : 2025
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Ranking
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama Member
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TED CRUZ, Texas SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island
JEFF FLAKE, Arizona AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota
DAVID VITTER, Louisiana AL FRANKEN, Minnesota
DAVID PERDUE, Georgia CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware
THOM TILLIS, North Carolina RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut
Kolan L. Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Kristine Lucius, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
OPENING STATEMENTS
Page
Tillis, Hon. Thom................................................ 1
VISITING INTRODUCERS
Fischer, Hon. Deb, U.S. Senator from Nebraska.................... 3
Corker, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from Tennessee.................... 4
Booker, Hon. Cory A., U.S. Senator from New Jersey............... 5
Alexander, Hon. Lamar, U.S. Senator from Tennessee............... 7
Menendez, Hon. Robert, U.S. Senator from New Jersey.............. 1
NOMINEES
Martinotti, Brian R.............................................. 8
Responses to written questions............................... 20
Neals, Julien Xavier............................................. 9
Responses to written questions............................... 26
Rossiter, Robert F., Jr.......................................... 10
Responses to written questions............................... 32
Stanton, Edward L., III.......................................... 11
Responses to written questions............................... 37
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON
FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 30, 2015
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:17 a.m., in
Room 226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Chairman Thom Tillis,
presiding.
Present: Senators Tillis [presiding], Grassley, and Durbin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. THOM TILLIS
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Chairman Tillis. Welcome, everybody, to the eighth
nominations hearing this year. Today we will hear from four
nominees for Federal district courts: Brian Martinotti, for the
District of New Jersey; Julien Neals, for the District of New
Jersey; Bob Rossiter, Jr., for the District of Nebraska; and
Edward Stanton III, for the Western District of Tennessee. I
want to welcome you all and your families, and I am sure they
are all very proud of you.
I see that we have two Members we are going to go ahead and
start with. We will start with Senator Menendez. And, Senator
Menendez, if you will try to keep your remarks within the
allotted time, I am hoping that the other Members will get here
so that we can quickly get to the nominees. But welcome, and I
have called on you first in the spirit of the early bird rule
that Senator Grassley so consistently upholds. So welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT MENENDEZ
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Menendez. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I work
hard to get at the early bird rule, so I want to dispel any
ideas that Hispanics are late.
It is a pleasure to introduce two outstanding nominees to
the United States District Court for the District of New
Jersey: Brian Martinotti and Julien Neals. And I know Senator
Booker, who will be here shortly, joins me in that view.
Both nominees would provide the necessary wisdom,
experience, and judicial temperament that the district court
deserves, and considering the rapidly increasing vacancy rate
on the district court, both nominees deserve swift
consideration by the Committee and the full Senate.
I wholeheartedly endorse the nomination of Judge Brian
Martinotti. For well over a decade, about 13 years or so, he
has served as a superior court judge in Bergen County, the most
populous county of our State. He works in the Civil Division
now handling a diverse caseload from complex mass tort
litigation, to environmental lawsuits, housing issues, and so
many others. And he is exceptionally well regarded by those who
appear before him and by other jurists. His tenure on the bench
has repeatedly shown judicial temperament, judgment, observance
of precedent, and intellect.
But beyond his leadership on the bench, Judge Martinotti
has been a member of the Bergen County Law and Public Safety
Institute, the Palisades Medical Center, the March of Dimes,
the Bergen County Community College Foundation, the Italian
American Police Society of New Jersey, just to mention a few.
He has been honored by countless other community organizations,
so he has been an excellent jurist, someone who gives back to
the community, and he will continue to be an excellent jurist
on the Federal bench.
Let me turn to another impressive nominee: Julien Neals. He
is presently serving as the county counsel for Bergen County
since January. He was previously a partner at Chasan, Leyner &
Lamparello specializing in civil rights, employment
discrimination, and intellectual property, an issue that I know
the Committee is in the midst of looking at. He has been the
business administrator for the city of Newark. From June 2010
to 2014--when I think Senator Booker who was the mayor of
Newark will speak to his extraordinary service there, the
highest appointed administrator in the city. But he also led
the city's law department, and he also has judicial experience
as the chief judge of the municipal court of the State's
largest city, which has--that is not a typical municipal court.
It has vast, expansive jurisdiction that comes before it.
He is a graduate of Morehouse College and Emory University
School of Law. He has been a leader in the legal community from
the Supreme Court Committee on Character and Fitness, the
District VI Ethics Committee, to Volunteer Lawyers for Justice,
Reentry Legal Services, and the New Jersey Law and Education
Empowerment Project. He also has given back to the people of
the State.
This diverse experience from which I have perceived
firsthand, his even-keeled temperament even under fire, his
great judgment, and incredible breadth of knowledge makes Mr.
Neals an excellent nominee.
So, Mr. Chairman, let me close by saying New Jersey's
District Court has seen four vacancies since February alone,
all of which have been declared ``judicial emergencies'' by the
Judicial Conference of the United States. These open vacancies
are putting tremendous stress on the system of justice in my
State, where we believe, as we do nationally, that justice
delayed is truly justice denied.
I strongly urge the Committee's unanimous support and hope
that we can have a speedy confirmation process on these
qualified nominees. And, Mr. Chairman, I hope you realize that
I am yielding back a significant balance of my time.
Chairman Tillis. Senator Menendez, I would observe that you
are actually yielding back about 7 minutes because you
introduced two nominees.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tillis. So, well done.
Senator Fischer, welcome to the Committee. You may now
introduce the nominee for the District of Nebraska, Robert
Rossiter, Jr.
STATEMENT OF HON. DEB FISCHER
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA
Senator Fischer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to
be here today to speak in support of Bob Rossiter, who has been
nominated by the President to fill the vacancy on Nebraska's
Federal District Court.
The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska has a
tradition of fairness and justice. This court owes its
reputation to the well-respected judges who have served on it.
With only three judgeships, Nebraska's Federal district bench
is relatively small. For this reason, judges serving in this
court have always understood the important role that respect
plays in responsible adjudication.
Nebraska's Federal bench is an example of efficiency and
integrity. It also has one of the busiest dockets. During the
12-month period preceding September 2014, Nebraska had the most
per judgeship weighted filings among the eight States that have
only three authorized judgeships and a single Federal district.
With a small bench and a full docket, it is important that
this Federal district court is operating at its full capacity.
Despite this fact, however, the judgeship that Bob has been
nominated for has been vacant for over a year. Because this
court must be provided with the necessary resources to work
efficiently, I was pleased to work with Senator Mike Johanns to
select a highly qualified candidate for this very important
position.
Through an open process, we considered many applicants with
excellent credentials. Approximately 20 individuals asked to be
considered for this position, and we had each person fill out
your Committee's lengthy questionnaire. The questionnaire and
the binders of supplementary materials were then carefully
reviewed, and having reviewed the qualifications and materials
of these applicants, I can tell you that Nebraska has no
shortage of principled and sharp legal minds.
Narrowing the list was challenging. Senator Johanns and I
consulted, and we decided then to interview about half a dozen
finalists. After weeks of consideration, we both agreed one
person for this job, and that is Bob Rossiter, and we
recommended him to President Obama for the judgeship. As I am
sure that Senator Johanns would agree, even among many fine
candidates, Bob's accomplishments truly stand out.
Bob has an impressive list of professional accomplishments.
After graduating cum laude from law school, Bob clerked for
U.S. District Court Judge C. Arlen Beam. Currently Bob is a
partner at Fraser Stryker in Nebraska. Whether it be working on
Federal and State employment litigation or administrative
agency investigations, Bob has always demonstrated an admirable
commitment to integrity and the rule of law.
Over the years, he has gained the respect of his clients by
handling a variety of important issues with excellence. He is
listed in the Best Lawyers in America and in Chambers USA:
America's Leading Business Lawyers.
Perhaps the strongest testament to Bob's aptitude and his
integrity, as well as the admiration of his colleagues, is the
fact that he has been selected to serve as president of the
Nebraska Bar Association. This honor, which is not bestowed
lightly, is a reflection of the trust placed in Bob by those
who know and work with him. For these reasons, I am very
confident that we have found a truly remarkable and qualified
person to fill the vacancy on Nebraska's Federal District
Court.
I urge my colleagues to support Bob Rossiter's nomination
quickly so that he can put his outstanding intellect, his
skill, his judgment to work for the American people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Senator Fischer. I know you
have got a busy schedule, so please leave as you need to, to
meet other obligations.
Senator Fischer. Thank you.
Chairman Tillis. Good morning, Senator Corker.
Senator Corker. Good morning, sir.
Chairman Tillis. You may now provide an introduction to
Edward Stanton III for the Western District of Tennessee.
STATEMENT OF HON. BOB CORKER
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Corker. Well, thank you for allowing me to be here.
And to our people in the audience, we have a vote that just
took place. That is why we are meandering in the way that we
are. I know Senator Alexander is chairing a Committee hearing
and hopes to step down at some point, if you will let him do
so.
But I want to thank you for allowing this hearing to take
place today. It is my pleasure to introduce Edward Stanton III,
nominee to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Western
District of Tennessee. I am very pleased to welcome him and
those who are supporting him. I know he has his family. A young
daughter and son, a wife, his parents, and others are here, and
I welcome them. I know many people back home are very proud of
this nomination and are also looking on.
He is a lifelong member of the Memphis community. Mr.
Stanton attended the University of Memphis, where he received
his law degree. In 2010, the Senate unanimously confirmed Mr.
Stanton to serve as U.S. attorney for the Western District of
Tennessee, where he is currently serving today. He has done
that in a very distinguished manner.
I was very proud to support him then. I want to recognize
his particular interest as U.S. attorney in dealing with human
trafficking, something that I know all of us care deeply about,
and ending modern-day slavery, which affects more than 27
million people worldwide. He has thrown himself into that,
among other issues, and I deeply appreciate that.
Throughout his legal career, Mr. Stanton has distinguished
himself not only as a talented attorney but for his leadership
in the Memphis community, and I know all of us look for that.
We look for a lifetime of service. We know these are lifetime
commitments that are made, and we appreciate--I appreciate his
service to the community.
He has assured me that he will be impartially enforce the
rule of law as a Federal judge and will continue to give his
best to the people of Tennessee. I want to congratulate him,
his family, and the administration for nominating such a
qualified person. I hope that he will not only--I hope he will
be confirmed very, very soon, and I thank you for this time
today to talk about him.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Senator Corker. Senator Booker,
welcome. I have to tell you that the senior Senator from New
Jersey set a high bar. He yielded back 6 of the 10 minutes that
he could have had to introduce two candidates. But there is no
pressure. You may now introduce the nominees from New Jersey.
STATEMENT OF HON. CORY A. BOOKER
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Booker. Well, first of all, I hate to correct
Senator Corker, but in the South, they may meander in late. In
the North, we dash with conviction.
[Laughter.]
Senator Booker. But I want to thank Chairman Grassley in
particular for him and his staff doing so much work to allow me
to have this opportunity to speak before you today. I want to
thank the Ranking Member Leahy and Senator Durbin also for
their work.
I am very pleased right now to introduce two distinguished
Americans, Judge Julien Neals and Judge Brian Martinotti, for
your consideration as the next United States District Judges
for the District of New Jersey. I join my colleague Senator
Menendez in supporting these well-qualified nominees, and I
urge the Committee to recommend their confirmation to the
Federal bench.
I again want to thank Chairman Grassley. His team has been
extraordinary in helping my team prepare for this moment, and,
of course, Ranking Member Leahy and his staff for moving
quickly on scheduling this hearing along with the Chairman. I
deeply appreciate my good friend Senator Durbin for his work as
well. This has been truly a team effort.
Mr. Chairman, I humbly acknowledge my gratitude to you and
your staff again for their substantial amount of time and
energy devoted to making this hearing possible. You, sir, Mr.
Grassley, are an honorable man, and I greatly admire your
integrity and sense of decency. My grandmother, who is also
from Iowa, would be proud of you and your team. And I look
forward to working with you in the coming months on many
critical issues, some of which we were just talking about on
the floor.
But today is a very special day for the nominees and their
families. I am very happy to see some of their family members
here as well. Both of these nominees have friends and families
here, and I welcome them all to this hearing. It is not every
day that you sit in the United States Senate for such a
momentous occasion. These are incredible men, and I am happy to
see that they are dedicated to public service. They have
extraordinary integrity and incredible commitment to community.
The President nominated Julien Neals and Judge Martinotti
to fill vacant seats on the Federal District Court of New
Jersey which were recently declared ``judicial emergencies''
due to a very heavy caseload. Both of these nominees, who were
recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial selection committee,
stand ready and able to fill these vacancies.
I want to thank President Obama for acting on my
recommendation to nominate Judge Neals, a superbly qualified
jurist, to the Federal bench. My experience with Judge Neals
has shown him to be a fair-minded man with extraordinary
integrity. His legal career as a judge, an attorney, and a
community leader has earned him the respect of his colleagues
throughout the State of New Jersey. His body of work
demonstrates his qualifications to serve on the Federal bench.
Judge Neals has ample judicial experience. He served as chief
judge of the Newark Municipal Court, a position that I had the
honor of appointing him to during my tenure as mayor. Early in
his career, he served as a law clerk to a New Jersey Superior
Court judge, and he is a graduate of Morehouse College and the
Emory University School of Law.
When I was mayor of Newark, Judge Neals' obvious legal
talent led me to appoint him to positions in my administration
not once, not twice, but three times. From chief judge of the
municipal court, to corporation counsel, to business
administrator, Judge Neals has proved to be an extraordinary
leader.
He currently served as the Bergen County counsel, the top
attorney for the county. He is a former partner of a
prestigious law firm, and in addition to his professional work,
Judge Neals has shown an enduring commitment to the community.
He recently served as chairman of the board of trustees for the
Volunteer Lawyers for Justice, a nonprofit he has served for
almost a decade, which provides free legal services to the
poor. There is no question that Judge Neals is well suited to
serve on the Federal bench. That is why he rightly earned the
American Bar Association's highest rating of unanimously well
qualified Federal judge.
I am also proud to introduce and support Judge Martinotti,
and I thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation to
nominate him to the Federal bench. Based on his almost 30 years
of legal experience, I am confident that Judge Martinotti will
serve with distinction on our Federal bench. Judge Martinotti
brings to the Federal bench an unusually broad pectrum of
experience. He has been a public defender, a prosecutor, a
State trial judge. He served as a judge on the New Jersey
Superior Court for over a decade and has the distinction of
being one of the State's three multi-county litigation judges.
He has proved to be a talented judge and legal scholar whose
consistent commitment to thoughtful, sound, and fair reasoning
is impressive. He has served as both a municipal prosecutor and
a public defender, which shows both his ample trial experience
and the value of public service to him.
Judge Martinotti graduated from Fordham University and
Seton Hall Law School, and he clerked for a judge on the New
Jersey Tax Court. In his distinguished legal career, he has
acted consistently with integrity and fairness. He has
exemplary legal skills, proper temperament, excellent judgment,
a strong work ethic, an unwavering belief in our judicial
system--qualities that will make him a first-rate Federal
judge.
Judge Martinotti has been rated unanimously ``well
qualified'' by the American Bar Association, which is the gold
standard of ABA ratings, reflecting the highest level of
intellect, character, and judicial temperament.
Again, my home State's Federal bench has four judicial
emergencies. These nominees are the right people for two of
these vacancies. Both are brilliant, have acute legal minds,
and have terrific records of service, not to mention tremendous
family and friends who are with them today.
Again, I appreciate the Committee's time and consideration
of these highly qualified nominees. Thank you all, and thank
you especially, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Senator Booker. Again, I know
you have got a busy schedule, so please leave as you need to
fulfill other obligations.
Senator Alexander, welcome to the Committee. We appreciate
you being here. I understand you are chairing another
committee, so we would be happy to have your introduction of
Edward Stanton III for the Western District of Tennessee.
STATEMENT OF HON. LAMAR ALEXANDER
A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TENNESSEE
Senator Alexander. Thank you, Chairman Tillis, Senator
Grassley, Senator Durbin, ladies and gentlemen. It is a real
pleasure to introduce Ed Stanton to the Committee. I support
his confirmation. I am sure he is well qualified to serve. His
background is well known to the Committee. You have looked it
over and reviewed it carefully, so I will not go into the
details except to say this: He is a lifelong Memphian,
graduated from Central High School there. His bachelor degree
is from the University of Memphis, law degree from the
University of Memphis School of Law, practiced law in Memphis,
joined FedEx's legal team as a senior counsel.
We have already confirmed him once by voice vote as U.S.
attorney for the Western District of Tennessee. People who know
Memphis know that for some time now Edward Stanton has been
considered to be a rising star. I would say that with this
confirmation, he will be onsidered risen, and we look forward
to a long and productive career in public service by Ed.
He has a number of Memphians here today in his support,
including members of his family. This includes children,
parents, wife and parents, sisters, along with several friends.
We welcome all of those Tennesseeans.
Mr. Chairman, Ed Stanton will be an asset to the Federal
bench. He is a distinguished Tennessean, and we are fortunate
to have such a well-qualified nominee. I urge the Committee to
support his confirmation and speedily confirm him.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Senator Alexander.
Senator Sasse was here just a moment ago. He wanted to make
a statement in person, but he has another commitment, so he
will be submitting his statement for the record for Robert
Rossiter, Jr., for the District of Nebraska.
Now, if we can have the nominees, we will make a quick
transition with the name tags, and we will have the nominees
step forward. And please remain standing. We will first
administer the oath.
[Pause.]
Chairman Tillis. If you will please raise your right hand.
Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to receive--give
before this Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and
nothing but the truth, so help you God?
Judge Martinotti. I do.
Judge Neals. I do.
Mr. Rossiter. I do.
Mr. Stanton. I do.
[Witnesses are sworn in.]
Chairman Tillis. Thank you. You may be seated. Now, before
we get started with questions, this is an opportunity for you
all to make opening statements. If you have friends and family
in the audience, please feel free to recognize them. We will
begin with Mr. Martinotti.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI,
NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Judge Martinotti. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, thank you,
Senator Grassley and the Ranking Member, for scheduling this
hearing and for providing me the privilege to appear before
this Committee.
I would like to thank Senator Booker for recommending me to
the White House, President Obama for this nomination, Senators
Menendez and Booker for their very kind words of introduction
this morning, as well as their staffs' unwavering support and
guidance throughout this process.
I would also like to congratulate my fellow nominees. I am
humbled to be here this morning with them before this
Committee.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank my Chief Justice,
Stuart Rabner; former Chief Justice James Zazzali; Assignment
Judge Bonnie Mizdol; former Assignment Judge Peter Doyne; my
civil presiding judge, Robert Polifroni; all my colleagues on
the Bergen bench, past and present; Brenda and everyone in
chambers; Kelly Gibson, the mass tort team, and the entire
Civil Division for all their help during my 13 years on the
bench.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce first and foremost
my wife, Dana. We will be celebrating our 25th anniversary this
March. Whether it was when I was a young associate trying to
become a partner, a partner in a law firm aspiring to become a
judge, a new judge learning the ropes, or during this very
daunting process, Dana has been there supporting me and our
children. She has also managed to serve for almost 14 years on
our borough council and recently became a principal in an
elementary school. I understand that this is going to be their
civics lesson watching this hearing.
Next to Dana is our son, Christian. He is presently a
second lieutenant in the Air Force, and we are so proud of him
and his accomplishments for serving our country.
Unfortunately, Mr. Chairman, our daughter, Brianna, could
not be with us here. She is in the middle of a rigorous course
and, over her objection, we thought she should concentrate on
her studies. We are so proud of her. She is really our family's
inspiration, and I know she is watching on the internet.
Sadly, Mr. Chairman, my mother passed last November, but I
know she and my mother-in-law, affectionately known as
``Nonny,'' are watching this hearing. One can only imagine
their reaction when they saw President Obama nominating me to
the Federal bench.
I am happy that my father, Ray, is here, along with my
father-in-law, August.
As an only child, Mr. Chairman, I did not have any brothers
or sisters growing up, but Dana was 1 of 5, and they and their
spouses became my siblings. I know they along with my many good
friends, who I consider siblings, are watching this proceeding.
I am happy to have someone here with me, Mr. Chairman, who
I consider an older brother. My cousin Raymond was here and
orchestrated the trek from New Jersey down to DC this morning.
Also here is someone I consider a younger brother. I met
Gregg 30 years ago when he was working in the mail room. This
past February, he became Judge Padovano, and I have the
privilege of serving with him on the New Jersey Superior Court.
Also here, Mr. Chairman, is my nephew, Justin, as well as
representing my 22 law clerks, Phil Danziger.
Mr. Chairman, my apologies for taking so much of the
Committee's time, and I thank you for the opportunity to appear
here today.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Martinotti. You were very
efficient with your use of time. Mr. Neals.
STATEMENT OF JULIEN XAVIER NEALS,
NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Judge Neals. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor to be
here with such distinguished nominees, and I just want to
express my heartfelt appreciation for that. I would like to
thank Senator Booker for the recommendation to President Obama
and extend my sincere thanks to President Obama for his
nomination. I would like to thank the White House staff and the
Senate Judiciary Committee for this opportunity to be
considered and the Senate Judiciary Committee staff for their
thorough work and research that I know is required as part of
this process.
I would be remiss if I did not take just a moment to thank
those who have been part of my professional career without whom
I would not have made it thus far in this process. I spent 14
years as a litigator with the wonderful firm of Chasan, Leyner
& Lamparello, who always offered their undying support for me
in all my endeavors. My first foray into public service was
with the Newark Municipal Court where an entire staff gave me
dedication and helped me succeed as the chief judge there.
I would like to thank the Office of the Corporation Counsel
for Newark where some hard-working professionals, attorneys,
tried to do their best to protect the interests of a large
urban city. I would like to thank the Department of
Administration where I served as business administrator and all
the employees and city officials, elected officials in the city
of Newark, where it was a true proving ground as far as the
needs in public service.
I would like to thank the County of Bergen, the Department
of Law, the administration there, and all my colleagues there
who welcomed me with open arms since my time there since
January. And I would like to mention those educational
institutions who have been part of my history that I owe a debt
of gratitude as well: Seton Hall Prep, Morehouse College, and
Emory University School of Law.
I am very fortunate to have some wonderful people with me
here today who I would like to introduce, and I will start with
my parents. My father, Felix Neals, a retired administrative
law judge of years, is here with me. My mother, Betty Neals, a
retired schoolteacher and poet, who actually still gigs around
the country, is here with me as well.
I am very honored to have a very strong woman who has kept
me grounded throughout this process and throughout my career,
my wife, Lauren Jones-Neals. My son, Julien K. Neals, who is
donning his Seton Hall Prep blazer to show proof that he was
here today, and I thank his school for giving him the time off.
[Laughter.]
Judge Neals. I have other colleagues and friends who are
here as well: Anna Pereira, who served with me on the Newark
Municipal bench and in Corporation Counsel with the city of
Newark; Arvelise Gonzalez-Murrel, who has been with me for 18
years as my assistant, although looking at her you would think
they violated child labor laws.
John Libretti is here, who serves as a deputy county
counsel in Bergen County, and his son, who is also a Seton Hall
Prep graduate, Nick Libretti, is here. I would like to
acknowledge my brother, Felix Neals, and his family, who could
not make it from the great State of Washington where he lives.
The Neals family, my aunt, Antoinette; my cousin, Huerta, and
his family; my cousin Neal and his family; and other family and
friends. Thank you for the time.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Neals. Mr. Rossiter.
STATEMENT OF ROBERT F. ROSSITER, JR.,
NOMINEE TO SERVE AS DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA
Mr. Rossiter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee for giving me this opportunity. It truly was a
pleasure to meet my fellow nominees. They are an impressive
bunch of people, and it has been great visiting with them over
the last day.
I want to start out by thanking President Obama, of course,
for the nomination to this important position, and I want to
give special thanks to Senator Fischer and Senator Johanns, who
started this process--it seems like a long time ago--when
Senator Johanns was still in the Senate. You heard Senator
Fischer describe the process. I think it was a good and open
process, and I appreciate her continuing support upon the
retirement of Senator Johanns. And I appreciate the support of
Senator Sasse, who came into the Senate after this
recommendation had been made and had continued to support me.
I want to thank--and I will introduce family, but I want to
thank some important people in my life. First and foremost is
Judge C. Arlen Beam, who is a judge on the Eighth Circuit Court
of Appeals, who I had the honor to clerk for when he was first
nominated--or first named as a United States district court
judge. That clerkship really gave me a view of the United
States district court system and a love of that system that I
have practiced in since that time.
Also, following from what Senator Fischer said, we are a
small but mighty district in the District of Nebraska, and we
have had fantastic judges over the years that I hope to, if
confirmed, emulate. If confirmed, I look forward to serving the
District of Nebraska.
I want to do some brief introductions as well, if I may.
Behind me is my wife of 31 years--hopefully I got that right--
Mary Beth, who is also an attorney in Omaha, who was a law
school classmate of mine, and who is my best friend, and who
has endured going through this process with me and has been a
great support.
My four children, who I am very proud of, three of them are
here: Robert III. Rob is in finance for Ford Motor Company in
the Detroit area, came in for this. Daughter Katherine is an
elementary art teacher in a Title I school in the Kansas City
area. And daughter Erin, who is doing her year of rotations as
a physician's assistant student.
Our other child, Maggie, is hopefully getting the
connection to this from Madrid, Spain. She is--she graduated
last year from college and is teaching English in Madrid for a
year, so we wish she was here.
I also have one of my best friends over life is, along with
my other siblings, but my youngest brother, Bill, is here with
us today. He runs a business in Sylvania, Ohio. And, last, a
law school classmate of Mary Beth and mine, who is a good
friend of mine and happens to be my cousin--I did not know that
until we got to the Creighton Law School, Tom McGivern, who has
been in DC virtually since graduating from law school, and he
is now an attorney with Homeland Security. So, I am very happy,
very proud of my family, and very happy those guests could join
me.
My father passed away a little over a year ago. He was an
attorney in Philadelphia and then in the Omaha area in his
later years. He knew of the process. He knew that I was going
through this process and was very proud. I very much wish he
could be here. But I know he is happy about this process. And
my mother, who is still alive but was not able to make the
trip, I think also would have been happy to be here. But thank
you for the opportunity to do that introduction, and thank you
for scheduling this hearing.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Rossiter. Mr. Stanton.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD L. STANTON III,
NOMINEE TO SERVE ASine DISTRICT JUDGE FOR
THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you to the
Committee Members for this opportunity. I want to first thank
Senator Alexander for the very gracious words of support, along
with Senator Corker; also to Congressman Steve Cohen for his
support and the judicial selection committee that the
Congressman put together for this nomination; and certainly to
President Obama for the confidence in nominating me to this
distinguished post. I am very appreciative and grateful.
I want to recognize individuals that are here with me that
have traveled from across the country, but particularly from
Memphis. First and foremost, my lovely wife, Mae Stanton, who
is here. She is the rock of our family. She is a best friend
and someone I have known practically all of my life. And,
again, it is an honor to have her here with my two kids,
Mackenzie Zora, who keeps reminding me that she will turn 11
next week, and while this is very important to her, she is more
concerned about what is going to happen next week for her 11th
birthday. My son, Edward Stanton IV, he is here and sitting
behind me. And, again, just a tremendous honor to have my
family with me on today.
I am also very blessed and fortunate to have my parents,
Edward L. Stanton, Jr., who is a lifelong public servant and
serves currently as the duly elected general session's court
clerk in Shelby County in Memphis, Tennessee. My mother is
retired from the local public school system as a counselor,
and, again, they are the people that pretty much raised me--
obviously raised me. They gave me my learning, and, Senators,
when I got out of line, my burning to get me back in line. And,
again, it is just an honor to have them with me on today from
Memphis.
Also with me are my sisters: Arnetta Stanton Macklin, who
works for a very distinguished nonprofit organization in the
city of Memphis; my other sister, Tameka Stanton-Riley, is also
here, and she is also a public servant in the city of Memphis
as well. They always remind me that I am their favorite
brother, and it took me years to realize that I am their only
brother. But, again, I am happy to have them with me.
Also with me on today is my mother-in-love--instead of
saying ``mother-in-law,'' we affectionately term them as
``mother-in-loves''--and that is Carolyn Mason who is here
today; and her husband, I am sure he is watching the Webcast,
Ronnie Mason. And also my father-in-law, Artie Smith, is here
today as well with his wife, Maria Smith.
I have some friends that are here from Memphis and actually
from across the country, and a very close and best friend,
Isaac Forjure, who is here with me. We began our public service
careers back at Central High School in the student council
homeroom together. We served there and have remained very best
of friends ever since. I also want to acknowledge the great men
and women who I know are watching right now in the U.S.
Attorney's Office, which I have the great opportunity to serve
as U.S. attorney now. And I know they are watching, and I
appreciate all of their support that they have given over the
past 5\1/2\ years and the great work that they do.
Also a number of members of the Bar Association back home
and fellow colleagues from the Department of Justice and fellow
U.S. attorneys that have sent well wishes. Certainly to my
former colleagues in the FedEx Express legal and litigation
department, I want to thank them for the opportunities and
their well wishes.
I also want to thank a gentleman by the name of Charles
Carpenter, and he is the person that gave me my first
opportunity, my first job--he saw something in me--out of law
school nearly 20 years ago, and I want to thank him and
acknowledge him for the opportunities that he provided. I look
forward, Senators, to answering any questions that you have,
and, again, I want to say thank you so much for this
opportunity.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Stanton, and to all of you.
We will now start a series of questions, 5-minute rounds. We
will begin with Chairman Grassley.
Chairman Grassley. First of all, congratulations to all
four of you and to the families and friends that support you. I
have three questions for every one of you, but I am only going
to ask one now and then submit the others for answer in
writing, if you understand how that system works.
I am going to start with you, Mr. Stanton, and this is a
very general question, not pinpointed toward any one policy
that you may have been involved in as a candidate for Congress.
You tend to be different than other people that come here. We
ask them if they have been politically active. Then, you know,
this question comes. So, it comes to you except from a little
different standpoint than just making contributions.
Could you--since you did run for office, could you comment
on your ability to show fairness and impartiality to litigants
who may have different political views who come before you?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you, Senator, Chairman, for the
question. And to answer your question, absolutely I would
unequivocally serve and honor the oath that I would take to
serve in a fair and impartial manner as a member of the
judiciary. I think my track record demonstrates that. And even
over the past 5, 5\1/2\ years, the oath that I have taken to
serve as the United States attorney to always follow the rule
of law in a very fair and impartial manner.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Rossiter, I am going to ask you something that you may
or may not have been involved with, but it is something that
stands out in your work. While you were on the board of
directors of Catholic Charities Omaha, your organization
published a position paper on immigration reform which stated
in part, quote, ``Undocumented immigrants may bring social
problems with them, and they need to avail themselves of
benefits to which they have or have not been able to
contribute,'' unquote. It goes on to say that the organization,
quote, ``will support immigration reform legislation which
provides a path to lawful permanent residency for undocumented
persons in the United States,'' end of quote.
So, it follows with a very simple question to you. What
role, if any--and I emphasize ``if any''--did you play in the
development of the paper?
Mr. Rossiter. Thank you, Senator. I was on the board of
directors of Catholic Charities and was also on the legislation
committee for a few years, and we reviewed legislation. Those
white papers were put together from staff following the
directives of Catholic Charities of America. And I really did
not--other than reviewing that paper and being part of the
legislative committee, I did not have any hand that I can
recall in writing that.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. Thank you. Now, Mr. Neal, during
your time working for the mayor of Newark, the city established
two alternative courts. It is my understanding they were called
``community courts'' and ``youth courts.'' What impact did the
establishment of these courts have on your judicial philosophy,
if any?
Judge Neals. Thank you for the question, Senator. The
establishment of the courts did not have any impact on my
judicial philosophy. More so the purpose was to try and see how
we could create additional programs to avoid juvenile
delinquency, truancy, and to treat any particular problem such
as substance abuse or other things that a particular defendant
may have. But as far as my judicial philosophy was concerned,
it did not impact that.
Chairman Grassley. Okay. And for you, Mr. Martinotti, in
your capacity as a multi-county litigation judge, you have on
occasion implemented a series of, quote unquote, ``bellwether
settlements'' in order to facilitate settlements in mass torts.
This technique has been critiqued for diminishing transparency
and judicial oversight of mass torts. How would you respond to
those critics?
Judge Martinotti. Thank you for that question, Mr.
Chairman. Mr. Chairman, that policy was implemented in a
litigation early on to have the parties engage in mediation on
several cases early on in the litigation to get ranges of
values that they felt warranted resolving their case. We
utilized that to set up a matrix, and within that matrix, if
parties wanted to participate in the settlement, they could
participate in the settlement. We in no way ever shut the door
to any litigants or litigants could have opted out of those
settlements. It was a way to resolve the cases early,
inexpensively, without going through a long and protracted
litigation.
I might add, Mr. Chairman, I coordinated that with Judge
Frank from Minnesota as well. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Grassley. Thank you, and I will yield the floor
now.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Durbin.
Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Thank
you all for being here, and your families as well, and everyone
here should know, and probably does, that all of the nominees
have gone through extensive investigation and questioning
before they arrived. So, if we only ask a few questions, it is
no indication of our lack of interest. They have been through
it already. So, for the record, they will be asked several
questions.
One that I ask and I already know the answer to but I will
just say for the record, a lifetime appointment is a good thing
for a judge because it gives you the independence to make the
right decision, even if it is not a popular decision. A
lifetime appointment is also an invitation for judges to become
imperial and to believe that black robe gives them some special
status.
As a former practicing attorney, I did not appreciate
imperial judges. I wanted them to be competent and, of course,
have the highest integrity. But I also wanted them to be able
to identify with the reality of the courtroom and the people
who were there seeking justice.
I will not ask if each of you agrees with me, because I
will bet you do. If there is one who does not, please raise
your hand.
[Laughter.]
Senator Durbin. Okay. Let me proceed. Let me ask specific
questions, if I can. Judge Martinotti, to go back to the
question asked by Senator Grassley, you also in this mass tort
litigation involving a birth control pill were involved with
Judge David Herndon of the Southern District of Illinois, whom
I appointed--or the President appointed, I nominated, and he
has very high regard for his experience with you in that case.
How did that cooperation between your State judge judicial
position and the Federal judicial position work? And how does
it help you as you seek this Federal spot?
Judge Martinotti. Thank you for that question, Senator
Durbin. Judge Herndon and I worked on a birth control case, as
you indicated, and I am a proponent of State and Federal
cooperation. I work with my Federal counterparts on a daily
basis, but I will not cede my jurisdiction or my rules to the
other jurisdiction. It is a cooperative effort. It helps keep
the costs down of the litigation. It coordinates schedules by
and between the lawyers and the litigants. It is a way to move
the case, to manage the case in an efficient way to receive a
just result.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Neals, it was about 10 years
ago, while you were representing the municipality of Paterson,
that you were involved in the Federal case of Rossmori v. City
of Paterson, in which you represented the city in a suit in
which the plaintiffs claimed that there were unlawful arrests
and use of excessive force by the police during a riot that
occurred at a festival. The case was in 2006. The issues are
still here today. What lessons do you bring from that case to
your view of the law?
Judge Neals. Thank you for that question, Senator Durbin.
The lessons that it brings is it is important--and if
confirmed, I will continue, but it is important to recognize
the rule of law and recognize the law as it has to be applied
to particular facts. I think that experience helped just from a
diversity standpoint in terms of things that I have been
exposed to in my legal career which will help me in terms of a
certain degree of understanding with the types of cases that
would come before me and understanding the various positions of
the parties in particularly excessive force cases.
It also helped me understand that you have to delve into
the facts of those cases in a very discerning and specific
manner in order to be able to come out with the appropriate
conclusion. And if confirmed, that conclusion would take the
form of potential rulings that I would make, but that is how
that case has impacted me.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Rossiter, it was 20 years
ago when you were involved in a significant case, Wilson v.
U.S. West Communications, involving a workplace accommodation
of religious views. The case was brought by a Catholic employee
of U.S. West who wanted to wear a button at work calling for an
end to abortion. The question in litigation was whether U.S.
West offered the employee reasonable alternatives to
accommodate her religious views. You represented U.S. West,
which prevailed.
Can you please discuss the facts of the case in light of
our continuing debate in America about religious freedom?
Mr. Rossiter. Thank you, Senator. Yes, that case involved a
plaintiff who chose to wear a button that had a graphic of an
aborted fetus on the front of it and stated, I believe, ``Stop
Abortion Now.'' The employer in that case actually did, I
believe, what they should have under Title VII and took steps
to discuss reasonable accommodations. There were workplace
issues that arose out of it because of co-employees and some of
the history that those co-employees had. The issue really came
down to, as I remember it, the graphic of the fetus.
What the employer had offered as reasonable alternatives
was to wear it while she was in the cubicle, to wear it with a
sweater over it, to change the button with the same message
that said ``Stop Abortion Now'' but to take the graphic off.
Judge Shanahan, I believe it was, that handled the case found
that U.S. West had reasonably accommodated in that
circumstance.
Senator Durbin. Thank you. I see I have run out of time
here.
Chairman Tillis. Go ahead.
Senator Durbin. One last question? Mr. Stanton, you have
served as U.S. attorney now, and we have talked about in many
different levels of the judiciary, particularly the State level
in my home State, alternatives like drug courts, veterans
courts, which are trying to solve problems and divert people
from 16 incarceration.
What is your impression as a prosecutor or your experience
as an attorney when it comes to that concept?
Mr. Stanton. I agree with the concept, and it is in
practice something that we are doing in the Western District of
Tennessee. Shortly after assuming the U.S. attorney post,
working closely with the court system, probation, the clerk's
office, we launched a reentry and drug court, which is very
effective and having a huge impact on the recidivism rate.
We are also looking at, even on the front end, Senator-and,
again, thank you for the question--the charging decisions and
working closely with our State counterparts. We have special
assistant U.S. attorneys and State and Federal prosecutors
working side by side to determine which cases should be taken
federally. Certainly when you have limited resources, which
cases actually should have be--there is an opportunity for
diversion, and a number of I guess one size does not fit all,
we have learned in the criminal justice system and are proud of
the efforts that we have made in making a difference not only
on the end with reentry but on the front end with outreach and
out-of-the-box initiatives.
Senator Durbin. I am glad to hear that. I might just add
parenthetically that during the vote this morning on the floor
at 10 o'clock, we had a gathering of several Senators,
including Senator Grassley, the Chairman of this Committee. And
I think we made significant progress this morning in moving
forward on legislation, bipartisan legislation, to deal with
not only sentencing but incarceration. I am hoping that we can
announce it soon, but it would be a big breakthrough. And for
each of you, serving on the Federal bench would make your jobs,
I think--I do not want to say ``easier.'' It is a hard job no
matter what, but at least give you a more reasonable basis for
seeking justice. So thank you all.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Senator Durbin. Unless we have
another Member come forward, I will ask a few questions. We
will leave the record open for a week, which will provide the
Senators who may not have been able to be here to submit their
questions and have you all have an opportunity to respond.
Mr. Stanton, I think I will start with you. As U.S.
attorney, you chose not to seek the death penalty against the
defendant who murdered an African-American policeman and
dismembered him and subsequently confessed to killing an
individual by beating him to death with a hammer. I know it is
a complicated process to proceed with the death penalty. Can
you give me some sense about what elements went into the
decision to pursue a life sentence in that particular case?
Mr. Stanton. Thank you for the question, Senator. That
particular case--and it is one actually that I worked on after
assuming the U.S. attorney post. The decision that you
referenced, not seeking the death penalty, was one that was
made by my predecessor. It was months before I assumed the
post. But with any potential capital case, it is something that
we look at the facts and circumstances and certainly the
evidence and the rule of law in making a decision. Ultimately,
that decision is made by the United States Attorney General.
Chairman Tillis. In that particular case, do you agree with
the ultimate decision that was made to go forward?
Mr. Stanton. I do, Senator.
Chairman Tillis. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you.
Chairman Tillis. I am going to go ahead and ask you one
other question. I was glad to hear Senator Durbin say that we
are making progress on this. Some supporters of mandatory
minimums claim that removing the mandatory minimums reduces
some of the negotiating leverage for prosecutors. Do you
believe this assertion is true?
Mr. Stanton. Well, at this point I would follow the rule of
law, and one of the things that we are doing in addressing
mandatory minimum sentences is looking at the charging
decisions that we make on the front end. Certainly that is an
act of Congress and a legislative body to determine the laws,
and as a Federal judge, I would uphold the oath to uphold those
laws until otherwise the legislation is changed.
But, again, when we look at the charging decisions and
particularly those that trigger mandatory minimums, I believe
it is important--what we look for is the worst of the worst,
and we look at factors, Senator, such as: Are they low-level,
nonviolent drug offenders? Are they individuals who have
committed crimes against children, high-level drug traffickers,
crimes of violence? And certainly in those very egregious
cases, mandatory minimums have proven to be very effective.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Stanton. And an early happy
birthday to your soon to be 11-year-old daughter.
Mr. Stanton. Thank you. She will be happy to solicit any
gifts that you want to leave as well.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tillis. Mr. Rossiter, you are before us never
having served as a judge before, so you come with business
experience and obviously deep law experience. How do you
envision that experience being applied to your job on the bench
in terms of efficiency, things that you may consider doing
differently today--or doing differently than the status quo?
Mr. Rossiter. Well, the status quo--thank you. The status
quo involves keeping time sheets, which I will not miss one
bit--I will tell you that--if I am lucky enough to get this
confirmation. I have spent a lot of time, as I said earlier in
my opening remarks, with the court as a law clerk on our
Federal Practice Committee working closely with our Federal
judges, tried a number of cases, many cases in Federal court
and the District of Nebraska. It will--it will be different. I
have practiced for 30-plus years at the Fraser Stryker law firm
after clerking, and I will go from being an advocate to
following the oath that I would take, were I to be confirmed.
But I think with the background and experience and knowing
that court, I think I know that court and the judges and their
support that I can be successful.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Rossiter. I, too, happen to
have a best friend who is a younger brother. It is a great
thing to have, and I am sure he is proud of you.
Judge Neals, you have been a proponent of alternative
courts, such as the youth courts in New Jersey that allow
Newark youth to participate in the judicial process as jurors
and judges. When imposing sentences on young defendants, what
types of mitigating factors do you feel necessitate a defendant
serving a sentence other than jail time?
Judge Neals. Thank you for the question, Senator Tillis. In
particular, one of the main ideas that went behind the youth
court was trying to create an alternative that would address
some of the outside factors that may be steering youth toward
criminal or delinquent type behavior. So, with regard to the
ability to examine mitigating factors such as home situation or
mental illness or some type of substance abuse, I think it is
constructive in the judicial system and for the system as a
whole--A, it is efficient so you do not necessarily have a
revolving door type circumstance, and it has been very public,
the amount of funds that are required as far as housing
individuals, as far as detention is concerned. So, I think
those are important mitigating factors that should be
considered for judicial efficiency and also for efficiency for
the entire system.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you. Judge Neals, I have one other
question. I know you were chief judge of the Newark Municipal
Court, and I believe you probably supervised some 11 other
judges. Oftentimes--and I am not an attorney, so oftentimes I
kind of look at the business of the judiciary and was kind of
curious what kinds of things do you think we could do to more
efficiently run our courtrooms so that we provide the resources
for better--not take them away, but put them to better and
higher purposes, if you have any thoughts on that.
Judge Neals. Yes, thank you, Senator. The Newark Municipal
Court did have 11 full-time judges and heard about half a
million cases a year. So, as far as New Jersey standards are
concerned, it was probably larger than the majority of the
superior court systems there. And one thing that has been an
adage in the judicial system is, ``Justice delayed is justice
denied.'' And when you have such a significant caseload as
that, it is important that there is a discerning effort for the
overall efficiency of the system. And with the case management,
with the case analysis, with the caseloads, analyzing the
particular types of cases and seeing what is the most efficient
process implementations that can be done particular to those
cases. But I think that is something that can serve any court
system, whether it is the Federal system, State system, or the
municipality.
So, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, hopefully I
can bring some of that experience forward as well.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Judge. I hope all the nominees
have the opportunity to do that. In my time in North Carolina
in the legislature as speaker, we were constantly trying to
find ways just to get more efficiency so that we can have the
resources put to a better use. And we hope that you will keep
that in mind and always call on this Committee when there are
things that we can do here to facilitate the process.
I might also add that your son may be able to go on C-SPAN
and get a legitimate photo bomb picture of him in the
background.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Tillis. Mr. Martinotti, Chairman Grassley touched
on the one question--or touched on a subject that I am only
going to ask you question on, that is: What would you say to
folks who claim that the use of multidistrict litigation causes
the plaintiff to lose autonomy over their claims?
Judge Martinotti. Thank you for that question, Mr.
Chairman. I would say that the use of an MDL or stated MCL
actually benefits the plaintiffs. They can participate in
litigation with a group of plaintiffs. They can use what is
called a ``common benefit fund'' to share information among
each other, with each other. They do not have to travel to
depositions because they would have the use of a deposition
done by somebody on a coordinating committee or a liaison
counsel. So, I think it helps the plaintiffs manage the
litigation, keeps costs down, and ultimately in the Federal
system it goes back to the State or the district from which it
came. In my State, it stays with me through trial.
Chairman Tillis. Thank you, Mr. Martinotti. I will also
add, I know that you lost a Nonny in your family. Well, we lost
a Nonny in our family. My wife is an Italian from Boston, and
we had Nonnys and Nanas and Gumpies and Poppananos. I learned a
lot about the Italian life in my 28 years of marriage. I also
want to thank your son for your service. Thank you for your
service to the country.
This concludes the questions here. I for one look forward
to supporting your nominations. We will leave the record open
for a week so that other members may be able to submit
questions for the record, and we will call on your to respond
to them.
But, again, on behalf of Chairman Grassley and all the
Members of the Judiciary Committee, we want to congratulate you
for this huge milestone in your life and also your family's,
and thank you for being here today. The meeting is now
adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:17 a.m., the hearing was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]