[Senate Hearing 117-556]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                                                        S. Hrg. 117-556

                             NOMINATIONS OF
                   COLLEEN J. SHOGAN, VIJAY SHANKER,
                   LAURA E. CRANE, LESLIE A. MEEK, AND 
                            VERONICA M. SANCHEZ

=======================================================================

                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                              COMMITTEE ON
               HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS


                             SECOND SESSION

                               __________

        NOMINATIONS OF COLLEEN J. SHOGAN TO BE ARCHIVIST OF THE
      UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS ADMINISTRATION,
          VIJAY SHANKER TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, DISTRICT OF
             COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, AND LAURA E. CRANE,
    LESLIE A. MEEK, AND VERONICA M. SANCHEZ TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, 
               SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

                               __________

                           SEPTEMBER 21, 2022

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                       Printed for the use of the
        Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs
        
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                              __________

                                
                    U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
49-378 PDF                WASHINGTON : 2023                    
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------     
       

        COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS

                   GARY C. PETERS, Michigan, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           ROB PORTMAN, Ohio
MAGGIE HASSAN, New Hampshire         RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin
KYRSTEN SINEMA, Arizona              RAND PAUL, Kentucky
JACKY ROSEN, Nevada                  JAMES LANKFORD, Oklahoma
ALEX PADILLA, California             MITT ROMNEY, Utah
JON OSSOFF, Georgia                  RICK SCOTT, Florida
                                     JOSH HAWLEY, Missouri

                   David M. Weinberg, Staff Director
                    Zachary I. Schram, Chief Counsel
         Matthew T. Cornelius, Senior Professional Staff Member
               Emily I., Manna, Professional Staff Member
                    Nikta Khani, Research Assistant
                Pamela Thiessen, Minority Staff Director
    Andrew Dockham, Minority Chief Counsel and Deputy Staff Director
       Cara G. Mumford, Minority Director of Governmental Affairs
                    Allen L. Huang, Minority Counsel
                     Laura W. Kilbride, Chief Clerk
                    Ashley A. Howard, Hearing Clerk

                            C O N T E N T S

                                 ------                                
Opening statements:
                                                                   Page
    Senator Peters...............................................     1
    Senator Lankford.............................................     3
    Senator Portman..............................................    16
    Senator Hawley...............................................    21
    Senator Ossoff...............................................    24
Prepared statements:
    Senator Peters...............................................    29
    Senator Lankford.............................................    31

                               WITNESSES
                     Wednesday, September 21, 2022

Hon. Shelley Capito, A United States Senator from the State of 
  West Virginia..................................................
Vijay Shanker to be an Associate Judge, District of Columbia 
  Court of Appeals
    Testimony....................................................     5
    Prepared statement...........................................    34
    Biographical and professional information....................    35
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    57
    Letters of support...........................................    66
Laura E. Crane to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................     7
    Prepared statement...........................................    75
    Biographical and professional information....................    77
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................    95
Colleen J. Shogan to be Archivist of the United States, National 
  Archives and Records Administration
    Testimony....................................................     9
    Prepared statement...........................................   102
    Biographical and professional information....................   104
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   123
Leslie A. Meek to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................    11
    Prepared statement...........................................   131
    Biographical and professional information....................   133
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   151
Veronica M. Sanchez to be Associate Judge, Superior Court of the 
  District of Columbia
    Testimony....................................................    13
    Prepared statement...........................................   157
    Biographical and professional information....................   159
    Responses to post-hearing questions..........................   177

                                APPENDIX

American Political Science Association Article submitted by 
  Senator Hawley.................................................   183
Letter of support from Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton................   193

 
                             NOMINATIONS OF
                   COLLEEN J. SHOGAN, VIJAY SHANKER,
          LAURA E. CRANE, LESLIE A. MEEK, AND VERONICA SANCHEZ

                              ----------                              


                     WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 21, 2022

                                     U.S. Senate,  
                           Committee on Homeland Security  
                                  and Governmental Affairs,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in 
room 342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Gary C. Peters, 
Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
    Present: Senators Peters, Hassan, Sinema, Ossoff, Portman, 
Johnson, Lankford, Scott, and Hawley.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF CHAIRMAN PETERS\1\

    Chairman Peters. The Committee will come to order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Peters appear in the Appendix 
on page 29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), 
often shortened to the National Archives, is responsible for 
adequately maintaining and preserving Presidential and Federal 
records. These records are not just essential to keeping an 
accurate account of government activities or holding the 
Executive Branch accountable; they are critical to ensuring 
that our nation's history is fully and accurately preserved for 
future generations.
    The National Archives preserves some of our nation's most 
fundamental documents, like the U.S. Constitution and the 
Declaration of Independence, as well as letters, photographs, 
newspapers, and congressional papers that tell the story of the 
United States from its earliest days until today. The National 
Archives also protects and provides access to critical records 
and documents for the public to use, from historical documents 
to educational resources and, most importantly, for veterans 
and for servicemembers, who need military personnel records to 
access the benefits that they have earned and deserve through 
their services.
    Preserving all of these important records is a significant 
undertaking, and it requires qualified, independent, 
nonpartisan leadership that is committed to serving in the best 
interest of the American people.
    Dr. Shogan, if confirmed, you will not only oversee the 
National Archives's responsibility to preserve these essential 
documents; you will also face several challenges including 
antiquated resources and technology, the rapid proliferation of 
electronic records, extensive backlogs from veterans' requests, 
and the need to ensure that all records from every President 
and Federal agency are completely and adequately preserved.
    I am confident that Congress can take the necessary steps 
to help address these challenges, modernize the government's 
recordkeeping processes, and restore transparency and access 
for all Americans. As Chairman of this Committee, I am working 
to build support for legislation that I am drafting that will 
strengthen existing laws, update regulations, and modernize 
recordkeeping processes to incorporate emerging technologies. 
We held a hearing on this issue earlier this year as well, and 
I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to 
build on these efforts to protect the public record.
    Dr. Shogan, I am pleased to welcome you here today to 
discuss your nomination to serve in this very important role 
and how we can better work together to achieve these vital 
goals. Not only are you extremely well qualified for this 
position, in our meetings about your nomination, you have 
demonstrated keen judgment, nonpartisan independence, and the 
necessary capabilities to succeed in this challenging role. 
Your nomination is also historic, and once confirmed, you will 
be the first woman to serve as the Archivist of the United 
States.
    Congratulations on your nomination, and I look forward to 
hearing more from you today.
    Today, we are also considering four nominees to serve as 
judges for the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and D.C. 
Superior Court. These nominees are Vijay Shanker to be the 
Associate Judge (AJ) on the D.C. Court of Appeals, and Laura 
Crane, Leslie Meek, and Veronica Sanchez to be Associate Judges 
on the D.C. Superior Court. I am pleased to have these highly 
qualified nominees before us here today, each with a 
longstanding commitment to public service.
    The D.C. Superior Court and D.C. Court of Appeals function 
as the State-level trial and appellate courts within the unique 
justice system here in the Nation's Capital. Both courts are 
responsible for large volumes of cases each year, and the 
National Center for State Courts (NCSC) reports the D.C. 
Superior Court files approximately 83,000 new cases across its 
five divisions each year, one of the highest per capita rates 
in the entire country. Despite this enormous caseload, both 
courts are suffering from extensive judicial vacancies which 
have delayed resources for parties before the courts and has 
increased the workload for judges.
    If confirmed, you will not only take on these caseloads but 
determine matters that impact the freedom, livelihoods, and 
families of many people who will come before you. Today's 
hearing is an important opportunity for this Committee to learn 
more about your qualifications and how you plan to serve.
    So, welcome to each of you, as well as your family members 
who are joining you here today, and thank you for your 
willingness to serve. We look forward to hearing from all of 
you today.
    Our Acting Ranking Member, James Lankford, you are now 
recognized for your opening comments.

            OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR LANKFORD\1\

    Senator Lankford. Chairman Peters, thank you very much. 
Thanks for holding this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Senator Lankford appears in the 
Appendix on page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    You all have extensive backgrounds, extensive amount of 
experience. This is not a fun process to be able to go through 
for anyone and for your families, so thanks for stepping up to 
be able to engage. Agree or disagree on this, it is a difficult 
process for any American to go through, and it is very real 
public service. Thanks for your engagement at this point and 
the questions you have already answered and the process that 
you have already walked through on this.
    Traditionally, a nomination hearing for an Archivist and 
positions in D.C. judicial nominations is, quite frankly, a 
pretty sleepy hearing as we walk through all the different 
issues and just a basic process because they have gone through. 
Obviously, there are some new issues that have arisen of late 
on this.
    The position of the Archivist--and by the way, Dr. Shogan 
and I have had this conversation as recently as yesterday, on 
the proper pronunciation, if it is ``Ar-chi-vist'' or ``Arch I 
vist''. Since she prefers the term ``Arch I vist'' and she is 
being nominated for the position, we will stick with her 
pronunciation of it as well.
    But the position of the Archivist, typically, is one that 
is a nonpartisan position that there is not a lot of attention 
to, but there are two new issues that are fairly recent that 
have drawn a lot of attention to the National Archives on this, 
and I want to be able to mention both those.
    The Federal Courts and the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) at 
Department of Justice (DOJ) have both been very clear on the 
Equal Rights Amendment (ERA). That amendment went through the 
process constitutionally and had an expiration on that, but for 
whatever reason there are some activists that have risen up and 
declared that the Archivist can just unilaterally declare that 
part of the Constitution.
    The former Archivist stated that the National Archives 
refers to the Department of Justice on this issue and will 
abide by the Office of Legal Counsel opinion unless otherwise 
directed by a final court order. Over this past year, that has 
still put the National Archives at the center of that 
controversy on that, and so today is the day we need to be able 
to clarify as well where the National Archives will continue to 
be able to move forward with the statutes in the law and how 
the constitutional process works.
    There has also obviously been an issue on the return of 
Presidential records, which escalated to the point that the 
personal residence of former President Donald Trump was 
searched by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in an 
absolutely unprecedented step. That was an initial request from 
the National Archives for records; then a search was carried 
out by the FBI.
    There has been a lot of questions about how that happened, 
what were the requests, what requests were accepted or denied. 
This is something that Senator Scott and I have both written a 
letter to the Chairman to try to get some sort of briefing on 
this.
    There was a briefing that then happened on what happened 
since the Mar-a-Lago raid, but there still has not been 
information from the National Archives on what has actually 
occurred, what led to that moment. It is a very unprecedented 
moment.
    Obviously, the current nominee was not the Archivist at 
that point and cannot answer the questions from before, but 
there will still be a lot of questions about transparency and 
what occurs for an agency and an entity that is responsible for 
holding records and making those records publically available. 
One of the questions we will have is: What was the process 
leading up to this search, and are those records going to be 
publically available like every other record is publically 
available through the National Archives?
    Turning to the District of Columbia, thank you again for 
engaging in this. All of you have extensive background in the 
law, and I look forward to the questions and the issues on 
this. You are walking into a time where we absolutely need 
additional judges in the District of Columbia and we need folks 
that are going to just simply follow the law in this.
    There is also an ongoing conversation the Chairman and I 
have had on this as well, working with the Mayor of D.C., 
because months ago five preborn children were--their remains 
were taken in by Metropolitan Police. They were recovered. They 
were very late term, and they were identified to be connected 
to a Washington surgery clinic.
    In the District of Columbia, partial-birth abortions are 
illegal like they are everywhere else in the country. These 
children had every appearance of being victims of a partial 
birth abortion, and so we have had some very careful questions 
of the District of Columbia, saying: How are you investigating 
this? What is the process when you discover this kind of action 
is actually taking place in the District of Columbia?
    We have engaged with the Mayor to try to get answers to the 
questions on this and what they are actually doing to be able 
to follow through, but instead, the Mayor's Office has simply 
responded that they are going after the whistleblower in this 
case and that they are turning the whistleblower in instead of 
actually investigating the death of these children.
    We are asking some very straightforward questions, and we 
will continue to be able to ask those straightforward 
questions, and we plan to be able to get answers from the 
Mayor's Office. What is the plan in the days ahead when you 
discover the possibility that there is a crime being committed 
in the District of Columbia?
    Obviously, all of you will one day be hearing cases that 
will be very difficult, emotional cases like that in the days 
ahead.
    I am going to continue to be able to press this issue and 
continue to be able to press the Mayor's Office to be able to 
be engaged. In the meantime, I am going to continue to be able 
to work on our nominees and the process there to be able to get 
through, assuming that the Mayor is going to be responsive at 
some point, and continue to use the only leverage that I have 
in the meantime to be able to have a responsive nature.
    In the District of Columbia, the law has to be enforced as 
it does everywhere else in the country. We just want 
consistency in enforcement of the law, and I think that is a 
fairly reasonable request to be able to work through. We will 
continue to be able to have that dialog.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. These are 
important people to be able to engage with, and I look forward 
to the dialog and answering questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
    It is the practice of the Homeland Security and 
Governmental Affairs Committee (HSGAC) to swear in witnesses, 
so if each of you would please stand and raise your right hand.
    Do you swear the testimony you will give before this 
Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 
the truth, so help you, God?
    Ms. Shogan. I do.
    Mr. Shanker. I do.
    Ms. Crane. I do.
    Ms. Meek. I do.
    Ms. Sanchez. I do.
    Chairman Peters. You may be seated. We will have an 
introduction for Dr. Shogan, but we are waiting for one of our 
colleagues to show up here. She is in a hearing right now.
    I will start with our D.C. judges. Our first nominee is 
Vijay Shanker, Deputy Chief of the Appellate Section of the 
Criminal Division at the United States Department of Justice 
and Senior Litigation Counsel Detail in the Criminal Division's 
Fraud Section. In his role, he investigates and prosecutes 
violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and advises 
attorneys and leadership on a range of legal issues and 
litigation matters.
    Previously, Mr. Shanker served in the Office of Assistant 
Attorney General (OAGG) for the Criminal Division, first as 
Senior Counsel and then as Acting Deputy Chief of Staff and 
Counselor to the Assistant Attorney General (AAG).
    Mr. Shanker has been awarded the Attorney General's (AGs) 
John Marshall Award, the Assistant Attorney General's Award for 
Exceptional Service, and the Assistant Attorney General's Award 
for Distinguished Service.
    Mr. Shanker, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF VIJAY SHANKER,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGE, 
             DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS

    Mr. Shanker. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Peters, 
Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committee. I am 
honored and humbled to appear before you today as you consider 
my nomination to be an Associate Judge of the District of 
Columbia Court of Appeals. I thank you and your tireless staff 
for holding this hearing.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Shanker appears in the Appendix 
on page 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Thank you to the Judicial Nomination Commission (JNC) and 
its Chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the 
White House.
    I thank President Joseph Biden for nominating me. I was 
extremely grateful when I was first nominated in 2020, and I am 
honored to have been nominated again this year.
    Of course, I am grateful to Chief Judge Blackburne Rigsby 
and the Associate Judges of the D.C. Court of Appeals. I would 
be honored to join them in their service to the people of the 
District.
    I can go no further without recognizing my true partner in 
life, Dee Martin. Dee has been such a support to me throughout 
this process and also happens to be a phenomenal attorney in 
her own right. For over 20 years, Dee and I have supported each 
other in all of our endeavors, perhaps none of which is more 
important than the raising of our amazing daughter, who has 
made us proud every day of her 14 years.
    Thank you to my wonderful parents, who, unfortunately, 
could not travel to be here today. They came to this country 
with little money and no support, settled in Ohio, and worked 
tirelessly with the single goal of providing my sisters and me 
with every opportunity they could.
    Thank you also to my sisters, brother-in-law, and niece, 
and to my wife's family, who welcomed me into their lives the 
very first day I met them.
    There is not enough time today to thank all the people who 
have supported me in my professional life, but I must name two: 
the Honorable Chester J. Straub, for whom I had the privilege 
to serve as a law clerk, and Patty Merkamp Stemler, my boss for 
most of the past 17 years, who is here today. They both truly 
epitomize public service.
    For almost two decades, it has been my privilege to serve 
the Nation as a career attorney in the Department of Justice. 
In that time, I have gained a deep understanding of appellate 
law and practice, having argued almost 60 cases and having 
appeared in every Federal Court of Appeals with criminal 
jurisdiction. I have been trusted with some of the Department's 
most challenging cases across subject matter areas and have 
been honored with the Department's John Marshall Award for the 
handling of appeals.
    Before joining the Department, I had a broad-based 
litigation practice at two national law firms where I gained 
valuable experience in civil, administrative, antitrust, and 
criminal law. As I mentioned, I also had the great fortunate to 
begin my legal career as a law clerk to Judge Chester Straub on 
the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 
where I learned about the value of preparation, meticulousness, 
civility, and collegiality.
    Public service is a passion to me, and if I am fortunate 
enough to be confirmed, I commit to ensuring that every party 
appearing before me is heard, respected, and given the 
opportunity to meaningfully participate in the judicial 
process, to applying the law impartially, and to striving every 
day to earn the respect of my colleagues and my community.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you 
today. I look forward to your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Mr. Shanker.
    Our next nominee is Laura Crane. Ms. Crane has served as 
the Assistant United States Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's 
Office for the District of Columbia since 2014 and is a Deputy 
Chief in the Violent Crimes and Narcotics Trafficking Section. 
Ms. Crane supervises handling the investigation and prosecution 
of complex Federal cases targeting violence and narcotics 
trafficking in the District. She also prosecuted violent 
criminal matters in the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia.
    Prior to joining the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms. Crane 
served as the Senior Associate and Litigation Associate in 
private practice, where she received an award in recognition 
for our outstanding pro bono service from the Legal Aid 
Society.
    Ms. Crane, welcome to our Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

   TESTIMONY OF LAURA E. CRANE,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE ASSOCIATE 
       JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Crane. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 
Committee, it is an honor and privilege to be here today. I am 
grateful for the opportunity to appear before you as you 
consider my nomination for Associate Judge of the Superior 
Court for the District of Columbia.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Crane appears in the Appendix on 
page 75.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    There are many people I would like to thank today. First, I 
extend my thanks to each of the Members of the Committee and to 
the committee staff for considering my application. I further 
extend my appreciation to the Judicial Nomination Commission 
and its Chair, Emmet G. Sullivan, for their service on the 
Commission.
    I extend my humble thank you to President Biden for 
nominating me to serve the people of the District of Columbia 
in this capacity.
    I struggle to find words to express my deep appreciation 
for the support of my colleagues, family, and friends, many of 
whom are here today, who have been supporting me throughout 
this journey.
    In particular, I want to thank the current and former 
leadership of the United States Attorney's Office for the 
District of Columbia, where I have had the privilege of working 
for the past eight years. This includes the current U.S. 
Attorney, Matt Graves, as well as former U.S. Attorneys, Ron 
Machen, Vince Cohen, Channing Phillips, and Jessie Liu. I also 
thank my colleagues from the U.S. Attorney's Office, who I have 
learned so much from.
    I reserve special thanks for my friends and family, who 
have supported me throughout this process and in the many years 
leading up to this. My parents, Pat and Carol, are here today. 
They traveled here from Upstate New York to extend their 
unfaltering support that they have provided me throughout my 
life. Without that support, I have no doubt I would not be 
sitting here before you today. My parents worked tirelessly to 
support their children and have served as an example of hard 
work, kindness, respect, and humility.
    My brother, Andrew Crane, and my sister-in-law, Yaara, are 
also here today, both of whom have dedicated their careers to 
public service as an attorney and as an educator.
    I moved to the District of Columbia after graduating from 
Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. I had an 
opportunity to begin my legal career alongside the dedicated 
and accomplished public servants at the Department of Justice 
where I worked on cases seeking to ensure that individuals with 
disabilities were receiving services in integrated settings.
    After briefly moving to New York City to work in private 
practice, I returned to the District for a clerkship with Judge 
James E. Boasberg of the U.S. District Court for the District 
of Columbia. During my clerkship, I spent countless hours 
observing court proceedings and hoped that one day I would have 
an opportunity to practice like the advocates who appeared 
before Judge Boasberg.
    That dream became a reality when I joined the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, where I have had the privilege of serving 
the citizens of the District of Columbia in both Superior Court 
and District Court for the past eight years, trying 60 cases 
and working on over 100 investigations. Since joining the U.S. 
Attorney's Office, I have appeared in court on a daily or near 
daily basis and observed firsthand the qualities that make for 
an exceptional judge: humility, hard work, and the application 
of the law to the facts without favor or bias. If given the 
opportunity to serve on the bench, I will honor these 
principles.
    Thank you again for considering my nomination, and I look 
forward to answering any questions you might have.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Crane.
    We will take a break from hearing from our wonderful 
nominees for the Court to hear from our colleague, Shelley 
Capito from West Virginia.
    Senator Capito, you may introduce one of our nominees.

  OPENING STATEMENT OF THE HONORABLE SHELLEY CAPITO, A UNITED 
         STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA

    Senator Capito. Yes, this is a real pleasure for me, and I 
want to thank the Chairman and Ranking Member Lankford for 
allowing me to be here to talk about somebody I have great 
admiration for.
    The National Archives is a treasured institution because it 
houses so many of our nation's treasures. The Archives and the 
men and women there are the caretakers not just of the objects 
and the documents but of the ideas and the inspirations that 
emanate from them. The mission of the Archives is not just to 
preserve our history but to educate and inform our future.
    I am here today to introduce to you a friend of mine, Dr. 
Colleen Shogan. She is the nominee to be the Archivist of the 
United States, and I believe her to be a person who will honor 
that past while leading the institution into the future. I have 
known Colleen in a personal and professional way for several 
years, and I am here to speak of her qualifications and 
background to fulfill the role to which she has been nominated.
    She has a long career of public service, working in the 
Senate, at the Congressional Research Service (CRS), at the 
Library of Congress, and now the White House Historical 
Society. In addition to her professional experience, she is a 
published author. I would recommend her books. She is a mystery 
murder author. Very good, and very exciting to read because 
they are all on Capitol Hill.
    But to me, her most notable accomplishment is that she is 
married to a West Virginian and a very good friend of mine, Rob 
Raffety, and that is actually how I got to meet Colleen.
    I worked closely with Dr. Shogan a few years ago on an 
issue that is close to so many people's hearts here in 
Congress, and that is making reports written by the 
Congressional Research Service public to the American people. 
Transparency is something she is very dedicated to. The 
procedural and technological challenges of pulling this off 
were greater than folks really imagined, and it was the right 
thing to do. Now these reports that are paid for by the 
taxpayers are available to the taxpayers thanks to her hard 
work.
    She has the knowledge, experience, energy, and depth of 
dedication to serve in this role. I believe she would serve it 
very well, and I am very happy today to introduce her to this 
Committee.
    I did not see the Ranking Member down there, Senator 
Portman. We have talked about this, and I certainly am planning 
to vote for her when I get the chance. I thank all of you for 
the opportunity to have her here before you today.
    Congratulations.
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Capito. Thank you for 
joining us. Thank you for a wonderful introduction.
    Senator Capito. Now I have to leave.
    Chairman Peters. We are glad we were able to have you come 
by and make the introduction.
    Senator Capito. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Have a wonderful day.
    Dr. Shogan, thank you for being here, and you may proceed 
with your opening remarks.

   TESTIMONY OF COLLEEN J. SHOGAN, PH.D.,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE 
 ARCHIVIST OF THE UNITED STATES, NATIONAL ARCHIVES AND RECORDS 
                         ADMINISTRATION

    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Chairman Peters, Ranking Member 
Portman, and distinguished Members of the Committee. Good 
morning. My name is Dr. Colleen Shogan, and my nomination to 
serve as the 11th Archivist of the United States is indeed the 
honor of a lifetime. I am likewise humbled by the opportunity 
to serve as the first woman nominated in the role.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Shogan appears in the Appendix on 
page 102.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Before I continue, I would like to thank my husband, Rob, 
for being here today. He has consistently supported my career, 
and I know this will continue if I am confirmed as the 
Archivist.
    My family, including my 89-year-old father watching today 
from western Pennsylvania and my brother watching from Texas, 
has been instrumental in my success.
    I must admit, this committee room is quite familiar to me. 
Over 15 years ago, I attended meetings here as a congressional 
staffer. I never imagined that I would be sitting on this side 
of the dais for a confirmation hearing.
    My passion for the American story started in the public 
high school I attended outside Pittsburg, with engaging 
teachers who taught United States history and government. As a 
first generation college student in my family, I was fortunate 
enough to receive a first-class education which allowed me to 
explore the development and evolution of American ideas and 
institutions.
    My reverence for democratic principles, ideals, and 
governance led me to a career that included positions in 
academia, Federal Government service, and nonprofit management. 
Following my service in the Senate, I spent over a decade 
directly supporting Congress as a senior leader at the 
Congressional Research Service and the Library of Congress. I 
also served as the Vice Chair of the Women's Suffrage 
Centennial Commission, which commemorated the anniversary of 
the 19th Amendment without partisanship.
    These positions, including the one I hold today at the 
White House Historical Association, have instilled in me the 
tremendous value of nonpartisanship and access to trusted 
sources. I am confident that my years of experience in these 
unique roles have prepared me well to serve as the Archivist of 
the United States.
    The National Archives and Records Administration, preserves 
the building blocks of our nation's democracy. NARA does this 
by enabling access to the government records which tell our 
national story in the words and images of the people who made 
history.
    This is critical for several reasons. First, it provides 
citizens with answers about family heritage, military service, 
and governmental decisions. Citizen engagement with the 
Archives materials, online and in person, through our 
nationwide system of archival research rooms and Presidential 
libraries is a top priority for NARA.
    The National Archives also provides researchers, 
historians, genealogists, educators, students, and other 
stakeholders with trusted information about our shared past. In 
my own research, I have benefited from examining NARA's 
records. As a political scientist, I strongly believe that we 
cannot understand our nation's present condition without a 
comprehensive understanding of the past that brought us here. 
Along with our other Federal cultural institutions, NARA 
secures the repository of knowledge that enables such 
understanding for scholars and citizens alike.
    Additionally, the National Archives provides vital records 
management services and guidance to all three branches of 
government and is leading the governmentwide transition to 
electronic recordkeeping.
    Most importantly, NARA safeguards government records in 
public trust to enable citizens, such as veterans, to claim 
their rights to hold their government accountable and to 
participate in the civic process.
    If confirmed, I will have many hills to climb in this 
position. I do not assume these challenges lightly. To succeed, 
we will need to find creative ways to become more efficient, to 
capitalize upon public-private partnerships, and to engage 
previously underserved communities in meaningful ways.
    Of course, NARA must do this as technologies improve at a 
lightning speed. Government is not always considered nimble 
when it comes to innovation, but the National Archives can 
serve as a leader in its transition to its primarily digital 
future. This will require investing in the Archives talented 
workforce and making smart business decisions that will propel 
NARA forward.
    In a private meditation, Abraham Lincoln likened the 
principles of the Declaration of Independence to the ``apple of 
gold,'' a phrase contained in the Book of Proverbs. Lincoln 
knew it was his task to move the Nation toward a ``more 
perfect'' realization of these principles. As the 250th 
anniversary of our country approaches, this hard work 
continues.
    If confirmed, I look forward to sharing the treasured 
collection of the National Archives with all Americans. Thank 
you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Dr. Shogan.
    Our next nominee is Leslie Meek. Ms. Meek received her 
appointment as an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) with the 
District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings in June 
2014. Ms. Meek presides over cases involving rental housing, 
unemployment compensation, tax and revenue, D.C. Public 
Schools, the D.C. Taxicab Commission, and the Department of 
Consumer and Regulatory Affairs.
    Before joining the Office of Administrative Hearings, Ms. 
Meek served as an Administrative Law Judge, an Appellate and 
Administrative Law Judge, with the District of Columbia 
Department of Employment Services Administrative Hearings 
Division. There, she adjudicated worker's compensation cases 
for over eight years.
    Ms. Meek, welcome to our Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

   TESTIMONY OF LESLIE A. MEEK,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE ASSOCIATE 
       JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Meek. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Chairman 
Peters, Ranking Member Portman, and Members of the Committee. 
Thank you for your time and consideration of my nomination to 
serve as Associate Judge on the District of Columbia Superior 
Court. I am honored to be here.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Meek appears in the Appendix on 
page 131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I am also honored by President Joseph Biden's nomination of 
me for the District of Columbia Superior Court, and I thank him 
for it.
    I am thankful to the members of District of Columbia 
Judicial Nomination Commission and its Chair, Judge Emmet 
Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House.
    I am thankful for the support of my family and friends and 
all of the love they share with me as I journey toward this 
endeavor. I am the proud mother of two wonderful adults, Lauren 
Meek, a burgeoning artist in New York City, and Kendrick Meek, 
Jr., a third-year law student at the University of Miami, 
Florida. Throughout this process, they have been tremendous 
motivators, with kind and generous encouragement. I could not 
have asked for better children or cheerleaders.
    I am a first-generation American born to parents who 
immigrated to the United States from Jamaica. It was their 
intention to come to this country and live the American Dream, 
and I am the personification of those dreams.
    My mother, Lois Eccleston-Capp, always gave me the space to 
aim high and the support to accomplish my goals. She is my 
heart, and I thank her for her enduring support, her prayers, 
and her faith in me.
    I am thankful to my late grandmother, Lucille Butler-James, 
who did not have the privilege of attending college herself but 
seemingly every day of my young life impressed upon me the 
importance of an education.
    I am thankful to my late father, Harold Dixon, who taught 
me by example how determination, focus, and industry can 
overcome obstacles.
    I thank my late mother-in-law, former Congresswoman Carrie 
Meek, for all that she taught me, her friendship, and her love. 
Carrie frequently shared her philosophy, ``To be a true public 
servant, you have to love people.'' Recalling this mantra 
reminds me that I am right on track.
    I thank my dear friend, Oscar Wright, who has stood by me 
and supported me through this process.
    I am currently an Administrative Law Judge with the 
District of Columbia Government. During the last 16 years, I 
have successfully served the District as both an Administrative 
Law Judge and Administrative Appeals Judge. In that time, I 
have adjudicated over 7,000 cases concerning a number of 
entities including the Department of Employment Services, 
Department of Health, Department of Public Works, Department of 
Energy and Environment, Department of Consumer and Regulatory 
Affairs, Office of Tax and Revenue, and the Department of 
Transportation.
    My 16 years of adjudicatory experience has taught me the 
importance of maintaining a respectful and courteous judicial 
temperament, and should I be fortunate enough to be confirmed, 
I remain committed to humbly serving the District's residents 
with unbiased, sound, and efficient judicial review of the 
cases that come before me.
    My legal career began when I was hired out of law school to 
serve as the prosecutor for the Miami-Dade State Attorney's 
Office. During that time, I prosecuted criminal cases in the 
county court. I then served as General Counsel to the United 
Teachers of Dade and served as a prosecuting attorney for the 
city of Miami and the State of Florida Comptroller's Office. In 
these positions, I litigated civil, and labor and employment 
law cases before administrative courts. These experiences honed 
my litigation skills and prepared me well for my position as a 
judge.
    My professional experiences have given me a solid 
understanding of the role of adjudicator and the importance of 
ensuring that justice is applied fairly and impartially. I am 
eager to use my skills to serve the District of Columbia as a 
Superior Court Associate Judge, and I stand ready to answer any 
of your questions as you consider entrusting me with this very 
important position. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Meek.
    Today's final nominee is Veronica Sanchez. Ms. Sanchez is a 
Senior Assistant United States Attorney who has served for the 
past 11 years at the United States Attorney's Office in the 
District of Columbia. Currently, she is the Chief of the Major 
Crimes Section in the Superior Court of the District of 
Columbia. In her role, she oversees attorneys responsible for 
investigating and prosecuting felony violent crimes in the 
Superior Court, including economic crimes.
    Before serving as Chief of the Major Crimes Section, Ms. 
Sanchez investigated and prosecuted cases ranging from simple 
assault to homicides in the Superior Court. She also served as 
a Senior Assistant United States Attorney in the Fraud Section, 
focused on handling financial fraud matters in the U.S. 
District Court for the District of Columbia.
    Ms. Sanchez, welcome to our Committee. You may proceed with 
your opening remarks.

TESTIMONY OF VERONICA M. SANCHEZ,\1\ NOMINATED TO BE ASSOCIATE 
       JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

    Ms. Sanchez. Good morning. Chairman Peters, Ranking Member 
Portman, and Members of the Committee, it is an honor and a 
privilege to appear before you as an nominee to be an Associate 
Judge for the Superior Court for the District of Columbia. I 
extend my thanks to each of you and your dedicated committee 
staff for all of the hard work that has gone into considering 
my nomination.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The prepared statement of Ms. Sanchez appears in the Appendix 
on page 157.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I would also like to thank the District of Columbia 
Judicial Nomination Commission and its Chair, the Honorable 
Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House, and I 
am thankful to President Joseph Biden for nominating me to this 
position.
    I must also thank the current U.S. Attorney for the 
District of Columbia, Matthew Graves, and former U.S. 
Attorneys, Channing Phillips, Jessie Liu, Ronald Machen, and 
Vincent Cohen, for their support and guidance throughout my 
career as a prosecutor.
    I also thank my current and former colleagues from the 
United States Attorney's Office. It is an honor to work with 
all of you.
    I reserve special thanks for the people in my life who are 
here because they love and support me in my home, my work, and 
my community. My husband is here today. He is my best friend, 
my partner in life, and my biggest advocate. Thank you for your 
encouragement and support of all my personal and professional 
endeavors.
    I want to take a moment to thank my two children for their 
patience and support during the times when they have had to 
share their time with me due to the demands of my job. I love 
you both.
    My father is here today while my mother and my brother 
watch and support me from South Florida and Texas.
    I was born in Nicaragua and was fortunate to come to the 
United States a few months before my eighth birthday. My 
parents came to this country seeking a better future for their 
children. I would not be here today without the many sacrifices 
made by my parents, who taught me through their words and their 
actions the values of hard work, integrity, fairness, and 
service.
    I also want to thank the rest of my family and friends from 
all over the country for their support and prayers throughout 
this process.
    I have dedicated my career to public service, hoping to 
give back to the country that has afforded me and so many 
others the opportunity to turn dreams into reality. I began my 
legal career by clerking for the Honorable Edward C. Reed of 
the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. I 
also had the honor of clerking for the Honorable Melvin 
Brunetti for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
    I moved to the District of Columbia in 2002 after joining 
the Department of Justice Honors Program with the Antitrust 
Division. I spent six years as a trial attorney in the 
Antitrust Division, handling civil antitrust matters, prior to 
joining the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Columbia.
    Since 2009, I have served as an Assistant United States 
Attorney at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of 
Columbia, where I have handled a wide range of criminal cases 
on behalf of the United States. I have handled over 20 trials 
in the Superior Court and have investigated and prosecuted 
misdemeanors, felonies, homicides, and fraud matters.
    Throughout my legal career, I have sought to uphold the law 
and the values of fairness and justice. If I am confirmed, it 
will be both an honor and a privilege to continue to serve the 
residents of the District of Columbia as an Associate Judge on 
the Superior Court.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to appear before you. I 
look forward to answering your questions.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ms. Sanchez.
    There are three questions that the Committee asks of every 
nominee, and I am going to ask each of you to respond briefly 
with just a yes or no. Dr. Shogan, we will start with you, and 
then we will work down the table for each of these questions.
    First, is there anything you are aware of in your 
background that might present a conflict of interest with the 
duties of the office to which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Shogan. No.
    Mr. Shanker. No.
    Ms. Crane. No.
    Ms. Meek. No.
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    Chairman Peters. Second, do you know of anything personal 
or otherwise that would in any way prevent you from fully and 
honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to 
which you have been nominated?
    Ms. Shogan. No.
    Mr. Shanker. No.
    Ms. Crane. No.
    Ms. Meek. No.
    Ms. Sanchez. No.
    Chairman Peters. Lastly, do you agree, without reservation, 
to comply with any request or summons to appear and testify 
before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are 
confirmed?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes.
    Mr. Shanker. Yes.
    Ms. Crane. Yes.
    Ms. Meek. Yes.
    Ms. Sanchez. Yes.
    Chairman Peters. Great. Thank you.
    Dr. Shogan, you have a big job ahead of you, and I think it 
is important for the Committee to hear from you. How do you 
view the role of NARA in ensuring compliance with records laws, 
the several records laws that we have across the Federal 
Government?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. The 
National Archives leads the Federal Government in the records 
retention, policies, and procedures, and in particular, relies 
upon Federal agencies that supply those records to provide the 
National Archives with paper records at this point in time and, 
in the future, digital records so that the repository of our 
nation's story can be complete.
    Chairman Peters. As Archivist, what specifically do you 
plan to do to improve the Federal records preservation process 
that we currently have?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 
question. I think the major challenge for the National Archives 
going forward will be the transition from a primarily analog or 
paper repository to a primarily digital repository. When that 
does happen, when the records start to come from Federal 
agencies in that digital format, not the analog format, there 
is going to have to be a lot of work and communication with 
Federal agencies so that those records come to the National 
Archives in the right format and with the right information and 
descriptive data so that the records can be useful and 
available to the American people.
    Chairman Peters. Clearly, a big undertaking to make those 
kinds of changes, plus to go back and digitize an awful lot of 
records that have already been placed there in a paper format. 
Do you believe that NARA has the resources it needs to meet 
this challenge, and specifically, what sort of technological 
needs do you anticipate requesting in the future?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that question. I 
think the resources at the National Archives can be a 
challenge. Of course, all Federal agencies have to work 
efficiently and effectively. Given the big tasks that are ahead 
for the National Archives, if I am confirmed as Archivist of 
the United States, I plan to support a set of very common-sense 
proposals that will enable the National Archives to transition 
into its digital future.
    As I understand it, right now, Mr. Chairman, there is the 
development of a new technology system that will enable the 
receipt of all digital records. That is both born digital 
records and records that have been digitized. That technology 
system, I can say, is being built in an iterative way, called 
``Agile development,'' and I was very happy when I heard that 
because that means that it can be built in a step-by-step 
process. Of course, if I am confirmed as Archivist of the 
United States, I look forward to working with the development 
of that information technology (IT) system so it can be really 
the guidepost for NARA's future.
    Chairman Peters. As I mentioned in my opening comments, 
veterans' record requests are high. There is a huge backlog, 
and we certainly owe the men and women who have served us with 
honor and distinction the ability to get those records in a 
timely way to access benefits that they have earned and other 
needs for those records. As Archivist, how do you plan to work 
to reduce this considerable backlog? Tell the Committee how you 
view this as a priority if confirmed.
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for that 
question. I view this as the most important discrete problem 
facing me if I am confirmed as Archivist of the United States. 
The backlog has been reduced considerably, down from 600,000 
requests down to about 440,000 requests. This issue is very 
personal for me. I have many veterans in my family, so I 
understand its importance.
    I also know that the staff at the National Personnel Record 
Center (NPRC) in St. Louis has been working tirelessly since 
March to reduce this backlog. If I am confirmed as Archivist of 
the United States, it will be my priority after confirmation to 
make a trip to St. Louis. It would be my first trip as 
Archivist of the United States. I want to get there, on the 
ground, meet the leadership, of course, of the NPRC, meet the 
talented staff of the NPRC, and come up with a sensible plan of 
how we can reduce this backlog at a faster pace.
    Chairman Peters. Great. Dr. Shogan, do you believe that 
NARA has a role in promoting government transparency and public 
access of records?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman. Yes, 
I do.
    Chairman Peters. What will you do as an Archivist to 
improve public access?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you for that question. I think that 
transparency and access is really intertwined with digital. You 
can access the records at the National Archives in a number of 
ways. First, you can come and visit the National Archives here 
in Washington, DC. to view our founding documents and see some 
of the records in person. If you are a researcher, you can 
visit one of the over 30 archival research rooms all across the 
United States and engage the records in a very meaningful way. 
But most Americans are probably going to interact with the 
records of the National Archives through digital means, online 
through the Archives catalog, and so that is why the digital 
future is extraordinarily important for the National Archives.
    Right now, there is about 200 million digitized copies of 
records in the catalog, which makes it the largest digital 
archive in the world. As I understand it, the Archives is 
planning to go to 500 million digital copies by 2026, and if I 
am confirmed, I want to make sure we hit that mark and 
hopefully exceed it.
    Chairman Peters. Right. Thank you, Dr. Shogan, for your 
responses.
    Ranking Member Portman, you are recognized for your 
questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR PORTMAN

    He has deferred; our Acting Ranking Member has deferred to 
the Ranking Member because we understand you are on a tight 
schedule, so Senator Lankford is being very gracious.
    Senator Portman. First, I want to thank you, Chairman, and 
thank you, Senator Lankford, for agreeing to be Ranking Member 
today. It has been my practice because Senator Lankford is the 
Chair of the Subcommittee on D.C. so I defer to him with regard 
to these D.C. judge confirmation hearings. I do think these 
roles need to be filled, and I thank the four distinguished 
lawyers before us this morning who have stepped forward to fill 
those roles.
    I normally ask questions about the criminal justice system 
in D.C. because the crime wave is a huge concern of all of 
ours, and I will not have time to get into that today but just 
assume that all four of you agree that part of your role is to 
assure that cases are brought and handled and backlogs are 
dealt with so that we can have a safer D.C. community.
    Dr. Shogan, I want to give you a chance to explain some of 
your previous statements and some of your record. The law, as 
you know, requires the Archivist to be appointed without regard 
to political affiliation. In 2007, you wrote an article 
entitled ``Anti-intellectualism in the Modern Presidency: A 
Republican Populism,'' which focuses on Presidents Eisenhower, 
Reagan, and George W. Bush. In it, you state that ``Republicans 
tend to exhibit anti-intellectual qualities, and Democrats 
coalesce on the intellectual tail of the continuum.'' Would you 
please explain your views on this and what you meant by that?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman, for that 
question. As you stated, that article was written 16, 17 years 
ago. It was an academic article, and in that article I was 
trying to explain how certain Presidents, very effectively, 
through their rhetoric, were able to communicate with everyday 
Americans.
    Senator Portman. Again, you are being nominated as a 
nonpartisan national Archivist. Among other roles, the National 
Archives and Records Administration administers the 
Presidential Library System for Republican and Democrat 
Presidents alike. Given that you have written about some of 
these Republican Presidents in a negative way, for example, 
saying that Ronald Reagan had ``less than impressive 
intellectual capabilities'' and that ``it was widely accepted 
that George W. Bush was less intelligent than his challenger, 
Al Gore,'' how can we be assured that you will serve 
effectively in this nonpartisan role?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman, for that 
question. I stand strongly on my 15 years of nonpartisan 
government service at the Congressional Research Service, at 
the Library of Congress, and at the White House Historical 
Association, which I joined in 2019 when President Trump was 
President of the United States, worked very effectively with 
President Trump's White House as he served as President of the 
United States and continue to do so under President Biden's 
administration. Also, at the White House Historical 
Association, we have members of the board who are 
representatives from both Republican and Democratic 
administrations, and I work very effectively with that board of 
directors.
    Senator Portman. With regard to January 6th, in response to 
a tweet from a political science professor, which stated 
``Political science said this would happen. We are not smug 
about it either,'' you tweeted back, and I quote, ``I wrote 
about it in 2007. I do believe what I observed was the 
precursor,'' and you included a link to the Republican anti-
intellectualism article that we talked about a moment ago.
    I want to give you a chance to explain this. It would 
appear to me that you are saying that because you believe 
Republican Presidents, like George W. Bush, for whom I worked, 
as you know, tended to exhibit anti-intellectual qualities and/
or because you believe he was less intelligent than his 
opponent, Al Gore, that these were the precursor somehow to the 
events of January 6th, which of course George W. Bush condemned 
in the strongest terms possible.
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman, for that 
question. In no way, shape, or possible, do I think that 
President Bush is inferior intellectually or less intelligent. 
That was not the purpose of the article. It is not stated in 
the article. I was very clear that he was well suited for the 
presidency, and that is stated in the article.
    Senator Portman. OK. The quote that I have that says it was 
widely accepted that Bush was less intelligent than his 
challenger, Al Gore, was not your quote?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you for the question, Ranking Member 
Portman. That was a characterization, but once again I want to 
say that I stand by my statement that this was an article about 
President Bush and his rhetorical abilities to be able to 
communicate common-sense principles to everyday Americans.
    Senator Portman. OK. You do have a lot of tweets about 
President Trump. You mentioned that you served under him, 
essentially, when you were at the Historical Association. Here 
is one on January 5, 2020, which says, ``Isn't the next move a 
self-pardon?'' Self-pardon would imply criminality. If 
confirmed, you would have to work with the former President's 
staff, and how can you be confident that you would be able to 
work effectively with former President Trump's staff?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you for that question, Ranking Member 
Portman. I am confident that I would be able to work with 
President Trump and his staff. I have worked with him in the 
past, as you noted, at the White House Historical Association, 
also in my capacity as the Vice Chair of the Women's Suffrage 
Centennial Commission, which was entirely conducted during the 
Trump presidency, and we worked very effectively with President 
Trump, Mrs. Trump, and the White House during that celebration 
to, I think, really benefit the American people.
    Senator Portman. Dr. Shogan, there was a January 2020 memo 
from the Trump Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel, 
which concluded that the Equal Rights Amendment's adoption 
could not be certified because not enough States had ratified 
the amendment prior to the relevant deadline set by Congress. 
Shortly thereafter, a National Archives press release stated 
that the Archivist defers to the OLC on this issue and would 
abide by the opinion unless otherwise directed by a final court 
order.
    A January 2022 OLC memo by the Biden Justice Department 
stated that Congress was entitled to take a different view on 
that but did not modify the conclusion of the January 2020 
memo.
    If confirmed, would you continue to abide by the January 
2020 OLC opinion as your predecessor did?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator. Yes, 
I would.
    Senator Portman. As the National Archives press release 
stated, would a court order ordering you to certify the 
amendment be the only circumstances under which you would 
certify the amendment?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you for that question. Who will 
decide the fate of the ERA is the Federal Judiciary and/or 
Congress.
    Senator Portman. There are Members of Congress and interest 
groups who believe the Archivist has the authority to certify 
the Equal Rights Amendment. I am sure you are well aware of 
that. How would you respond to their calls to certify the 
amendment?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you for that question. The Archivist 
serves in the capacity in a nonpartisan, apolitical capacity, 
and I vow, if I am confirmed as Archivist, to serve in that 
fashion.
    Senator Portman. Thank you, Dr. Shogan.
    Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Ranking Member Portman.
    Acting Ranking Member, Senator Lankford, you are recognized 
for your questions.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you. Just the fill-in guy today on 
this one as well.
    Ranking Member Portman, thank you for your leadership on 
the Committee as well.
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for the hearing, and again thank 
you to all the witnesses today for the process.
    I do want to follow up what Ranking Member Portman was 
talking about on the Equal Rights Amendment. Dr. Shogan, during 
your process in your consideration as a nominee, did anyone 
from the Biden administration ask you about your stand on the 
ERA, what your position was on that, in the approval process, 
and if so, what was that conversation?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I was 
not asked that question during the process.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. Thank you for your very 
clear statements, both to our staff in writing and to Senator 
Portman, that the issue with ERA is settled by the Federal 
Courts or by Congress, not by the ``Arch I vist,'' or the ``Ar-
chi-vist'' as you say, either way. We want to make that very 
clear because obviously there are Members of Congress that I 
have disagreed with on that.
    The previous Archivist disagreed and said, no, this is not 
the role of the Archivist to unilaterally make that decision. 
You have obviously agreed with that publically, and I 
appreciate your engagement on that.
    You and I have spoken before about a warning label that is 
currently on our founding documents, that is actually on every 
document that is digitized in the National Archives, and the 
consideration. It warns Americans or anyone reading our 
documents that there is potentially harmful content, that this 
content could be offensive to individuals. Whether it is the 
United States Constitution or whether it is autopsy photos from 
World War II, it does not matter. Everything has that warning 
piece on that banner, on it.
    My question to you in our conversation was I do not want it 
to be misunderstood in any way that the National Archives could 
consider the United States Constitution a potentially offensive 
document, which clearly it is a founding document. It is not 
offensive. There are bits of our history that all of us as 
Americans look back on and are embarrassed who we were as 
Americans and decisions that we have made. We do not always get 
it right over our history, but we are working to make a more 
perfect union. But, all of our history is our history.
    The important thing to me is there is never a warning on a 
single document and that we reconsider labeling some of our 
documents offensive when they are just our history on this.
    As you and I have spoken about this before, my challenge is 
to be able to review that warning, to be able to determine what 
is the best way to be able to do it, what is appropriate to be 
able to get to parents, to say if your children are looking at 
all these things, there are photos that are gruesome photos 
from World War II, for instance, or the battlefield in the 
Civil War, that are painful to be able to view, especially as a 
child, but there is also important national documents that are 
here.
    How do you plan to be able to handle this offensive label 
and this warning?
    Ms. Shogan. Senator, thank you for that question. You are 
correct. When there is a search done in the Archives, the 
online Archives catalog, there is language that makes users 
aware that they may inadvertently come across content that 
could be difficult to view.
    As we talked about yesterday in your office, I am primarily 
concerned about if I am confirmed as Archivist I want more 
teachers and students to use the National Archives. If you have 
to do a history project on World War II or World War I, we want 
you to come to the National Archives and use that catalog to 
find those primary sources.
    As you know, kids are excellent searchers today. They are 
better searchers than we are. When they look for those relevant 
documents, they could easily jump to something else 
inadvertently, and so that is why that language is there.
    But as we talked about yesterday, I am absolutely willing 
to come and talk to you about that language, and we can review 
it together and move forward.
    Senator Lankford. OK. Thank you. As you and I both know, 
being around teenagers, all you have to do is put a warning 
that this could be offensive and that makes them search it 
more, as you also know. That is another issue we need to 
evaluate and just evaluate what the effectiveness of this is, 
to have a warning label on it, if that is really accomplishing 
anything on it other than just being a distraction.
    You and I also spoke about the raid that happened in Mar a 
Lago, former President Trump's private residence, and going 
through those documents. In an unusual situation, it was not 
just the FBI carrying out the raid, but it was the request of 
the National Archives to be able to engage with these records 
that then triggered something with the FBI.
    Typically, this would be a voluntary conversation. It is my 
understanding that you had dialog with our staff, to say, all 
your preference is if any disagreements on this document this 
should be a voluntary conversation rather than a legal 
conversation or a raid. A raid of a former President's house is 
unprecedented, and it puts the entire process on full display 
to be able to say, how does this happen, why does this happen. 
Everyone gets questions on it.
    My first question is: Should this be a voluntary 
cooperation rather than a legal raid with a search warrant, 
coming into a private residence?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I want 
to be clear that as the nominee for this position I have not 
been briefed on any of the details of what has happened, so I 
have no information about those decisions or the sequence of 
events.
    But as I understand it, when there is some concern about 
missing or damaged records in general at the National Archives, 
at that point in time, to retrieve the records, there is a 
voluntary exchange of communication with those individuals. As 
I understand it--once again, I do not have any past knowledge 
of this--the vast majority of the time the records are 
recovered and retrieved.
    Senator Lankford. All right. This is unprecedented for a 
former President, obviously, to be able to go through this. The 
reason I ask you is because that has now set a new precedent 
that going forward this is going to be the new standard for 
every President after this, and so this starts a very process 
that we are trying to evaluate.
    The second part of my question on this is the National 
Archives, the keeper of all records on this. Now the e-mail 
chains, the conversations, any notes that were done for the 
National Archives in their communication with the FBI about 
this now become national historical records and are not only 
important to be able to maintain and to be able to protect but 
also for the visibility of this Committee as well.
    It is the reason that Senator Scott and I both reached out 
to this Committee, to be able to say we need to be able to talk 
about this because there was something entirely new that was 
just created by the National Archives and the FBI in searching 
a former President's house.
    Will you agree to, in the future, making records available 
at the National Archives to be able to show what the process 
was and the decisionmaking was, to be able to reach the point 
to have greater transparency for the American people?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 
Yes, I believe that transparency with this Committee. I want to 
be responsive to requests if I am confirmed as Archivist of the 
United States. Once again, I do want to state I do not know----
    Senator Lankford. Right.
    Ms. Shogan [continuing]. Where we are in this Department of 
Justice law enforcement process, but as a general statement, 
Senator, you have my commitment that I will work with you and 
Members of this Committee to be as transparent as possible. 
Thank you.
    Senator Lankford. Thank you.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Lankford.
    Senator Hawley, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR HAWLEY

    Senator Hawley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
    Let me start with you, Ms. Shogan, if I could. You have 
talked throughout today's hearing so far and in your prehearing 
Q&A about how much it is important to be a nonpartisan leader. 
Is that correct?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. If you are confirmed, you will attempt to 
stay politically neutral in your decisionmaking. Is that fair 
to say?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes, Senator.
    Senator Hawley. Or a characterization of your views, I 
should say.
    Ms. Shogan. Yes.
    Senator Hawley. I was troubled, I have to say, by this 
article that you wrote that Senator Portman asked you about a 
minute ago, published by the American Political Science 
Association. I have it here: ``Anti-intellectualism in the 
Modern Presidency: Republican Populism,'' published in June 
2007. Do you consider this piece to be nonpartisan?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. I 
consider it to be an academic article, a publication of 16, 17 
years ago, a scholarly piece.
    Senator Hawley. Yes, let us dig into it a little bit. You 
write in your paper that to combat allegations of elitism, 
recent Republican Presidents have adopted anti-intellectualism. 
How would you define intellectualism?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. The 
ability to speak in very plain, common-sense terms to 
Americans.
    Senator Hawley. So you say recent Republican Presidents, 
but your case studies are Dwight Eisenhower and Ronald Reagan 
and then coming up, I think, to George W. Bush. What is the 
point here?
    I mean, you say at one point, ``Republicans tend to exhibit 
anti-intellectual qualities . . . Democrats,'' on the other 
hand, ``coalesce on the intellectual tail of the continuum.'' 
So is the point that Republicans are stupid and Democrats are 
intellectual?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 
Absolutely not. The point of the article that the Presidents 
that I featured in it have a rhetorical connection with the 
American people.
    Senator Hawley. A rhetorical connection that you say is 
anti-intellectual, and you feature every two-term Republican 
President going back to Dwight Eisenhower.
    Ms. Shogan. Yes, Senator. I think it is a piece on 
rhetoric, and it is really looking at how these Presidents have 
been successful rhetorically in their arguments.
    Senator Hawley. Interesting. It is a piece on rhetoric, but 
you attribute part of the anti-intellectualism of the 
Republican Party to, in your words, the rise of the religious 
right. Tell me about that. Is it because those voters are 
stupid?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. 
Absolutely not. If I am confirmed as Archivist of the United 
States, I look forward to welcoming all Americans to the 
National Archives.
    Senator Hawley. Do you think that people who voted for 
Donald Trump are anti-intellectual?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. I would not make any 
judgment on the people who voted for President Trump or any 
other President.
    Senator Hawley. So you do not think the people who voted 
for Dwight Eisenhower, Ronald Reagan, or George W. Bush, they 
were not anti-intellectual. The anti-intellectual rhetoric just 
appealed to them because what? What is your theory?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator, for that question. As I 
said, Presidents are able to speak in common-sense, plain terms 
to Americans that they understand.
    Senator Hawley. You characterize President Reagan as 
having, quote, ``less than impressive intellectual 
capacities.'' You said Presidents Eisenhower and Bush were 
decidedly intellectual. You said Reagan engaged in intellectual 
posturing.
    Let us just start with the first one, less than impressive 
intellectual capacities. In other words, is dumb?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. Absolutely not. That was a 
perception, and it was cited.
    Senator Hawley. I am sorry. It is a perception by whom? By 
you? You wrote about it.
    Ms. Shogan. No, Senator. As I said, in the article, that is 
a perception. But actually, in the article, because----
    Senator Hawley. You say Reagan is less than impressive 
intellectual capacities have been widely discussed. That is 
presented as a factual statement. You do not even cite for it. 
This is on page 298. I have your article. Do not dissemble in 
front of me.
    So, Reagan's less than impressive intellectual capacities 
have been widely discussed. You are not saying that he had less 
than--that is not your view?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. It is not my view.
    Senator Hawley. Why did you write it?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. That is not my view. My 
view was focused on his rhetorical capabilities.
    Senator Hawley. That is not what your sentence says. 
Listen, you wrote an article saying, basically, that Republican 
voters are stupid, that Republican Presidents deliberately 
appeal to anti-intellectualism. You roll it all up in this 
thing called Republican populism, yet you are trying to present 
yourself here as a nonpartisan.
    In fact, you are an extreme partisan, and your record shows 
that. You are someone who has denigrated Republican Presidents, 
every two-term Republican President, I think. I hope I am not 
leaving anybody out--since the Second World War and their 
voters in this lengthy article.
    I do not understand. If you wrote it, why won't you stand 
behind it?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. I will stand by my long 
experience, over 15 years, of nonpartisan service.
    Senator Hawley. This is not just a theoretical set of 
questions because, as you know, we have seen what happens when 
you have political activists in the position that you are up 
for confirmation for and we are living through that as a nation 
right now. We are living through the political weaponization, 
of the National Archives, the political weaponization of the 
Department of Justice, the political weaponization of the FBI, 
such that half of the people of this country cannot trust those 
institutions.
    We are living with a President who calls half the voters of 
this country semi fascist, who have said that they are a threat 
to democracy. This is an elected American President who makes 
these outrageous statements.
    In that environment, frankly, to have you up for 
confirmation for this position, which has become very 
politically charged in a way I lament--it should not have been, 
but unfortunately, the past Archivists have done what they have 
done. The FBI has done what it is has done. DOJ has done what 
they have done.
    Here you are talking about the anti intellectualism and, 
frankly, stupidity of American voters. I mean, if that is not 
playing to type, I do not know what the world is. It is 
basically a self-parody.
    How can you assure me or anybody watching this hearing, the 
millions of Americans, 75 million Americans who voted for a 
Republican in the last election, how can you assure them that 
you will be truly nonpartisan given what you have said over a 
period of years?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you, Senator. I stand by my record of 
nonpartisan service at the Congressional Research Service, the 
Library of Congress, and at the White House Historical 
Association, and I invite anybody to talk to the people that I 
have worked with for years in my nonpartisan government 
service.
    Senator Hawley. Mr. Chairman, without objection, I would 
like to enter this article,\1\ ``Anti-intellectualism in the 
Modern Presidency: Republican Populism.'' I would like to enter 
it in the record.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The article submitted by Senator Hawley appears in the Appendix 
on page 183.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Chairman Peters. Without objection.
    Senator Hawley. I would invite everybody to read this. You 
can read the words for yourselves. You can read the entire 
article for yourselves, and folks can make up their own minds. 
I think when they do, they will be really disappointed. I am 
deeply disappointed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Hawley.
    Senator Ossoff, you are recognized for your questions.

              OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR OSSOFF

    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I 
know you touched on this issue a moment ago.
    I want to raise it again with you, Dr. Shogan. That is the 
backlog in military service records. Veterans across Georgia, 
across the country are deeply frustrated by the interminable 
delays accessing their military records. They need these 
records for their VA health care benefits. They need these 
records for their employment and educational benefits.
    I introduced last week the bipartisan Access for Veterans 
to Records Act to try to address this backlog so that veterans 
in Georgia and across the country can access their records.
    If confirmed, will you commit to working with me to 
eliminate the backlog of military service records requests at 
NPRC and not just to working with me but to putting it at the 
very top of your agenda?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Senator, for that question. It 
is at the very top of my agenda if I am confirmed as Archivist 
of the United States. In fact, if I am confirmed as Archivist 
of the United States, I will make my first trip as Archivist of 
the United States to St. Louis to the NPRC so I can meet once 
again with the leadership there and the hardworking staff that 
are attempting to reduce the backlog. There has been great 
progress made thus far, and I look forward to finding creative 
solutions within Federal law and regulations in order to reduce 
that backlog at a faster pace.
    Senator Ossoff. I appreciate that commitment, Dr. Shogan, 
and making that commitment here today will mean a lot to 
veterans in Georgia, who, frankly, are skeptical after years of 
dealing with this that there can be a change. But there must be 
a change. Veterans deserve timely access to their records.
    I am going to ask for a further commitment, which is that 
once you have had the opportunity to meet again with the folks 
at the NPRC and to get your bearings in your first four or five 
weeks in office, should you be confirmed, that you will timely 
submit to this Committee your assessment of the drivers of this 
backlog and a specific plan to eliminate it. Will you make that 
commitment?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I am willing to make 
that commitment. I will make myself available, what I have 
learned.
    And a further comment on that, I mean, obviously, the first 
thing that has to be done, if I am confirmed as Archivist, is 
removing the backlog. But there has to be a second step, which 
is to make sure that backlog is not created in future 
circumstances. We hope that the pandemic is over, but we can 
never predict what is coming down the road in the future.
    I believe there has been great progress by the Department 
of Veterans Affairs in moving to digitize those records in a 
timely fashion and in a reasonable priority. Once those records 
are digitized and placed in the Cloud, then NPRC staff will be 
able to access them, and I think the requests will be processed 
much faster in the future. I think there is a good end to this 
story if we can get there.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Dr. Shogan. I understand there 
is also a backlog of immigration-related record requests known 
as A-Files managed by NARA. Are you familiar with this?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes, Senator, I am, in a briefing document. I 
am not intimately familiar, but I am aware of it.
    Senator Ossoff. OK. I am going to ask as well that--and we 
can have our teams work together to define a specific deadline 
for this, but that should you be confirmed, similarly, once you 
have had the opportunity to assess in detail the nature of that 
challenge, that you will submit to the Committee a proposal for 
addressing that backlog. Will you make that commitment?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes. Thank you, Senator. I am willing to follow 
up and make that commitment.
    Senator Ossoff. I appreciate that. You, of course, are 
familiar with this from some of your past work, but you will 
have some cybersecurity challenges to manage, should you be 
confirmed, particularly as more records are digitized. How are 
you thinking about handling the threats to cybersecurity that 
will present themselves at the National Archives?
    Ms. Shogan. Thank you for that question. I am aware that 
there has been an Inspector General report for the National 
Archives concerning cybersecurity, and I would plan to review 
that report and find out firsthand what is being done to 
address those issues or concerns in a timely fashion.
    Senator Ossoff. OK. I know that the Chairman and Members of 
this Committee are deeply concerned with cybersecurity for 
Federal agencies. Please let us know what resources or 
authorities may be helpful, should you be confirmed, for that 
mission.
    Finally, I want to bring to your attention something that 
is of deep and particular concern to my constituents in Georgia 
and of particular concern across the American South, and that 
is the disposition of civil rights cold cases: the lynchings, 
the murders, the abductions that took place in the Jim Crow era 
and before in the State of Georgia and across the South, for 
which there has never been justice, and the descendants of 
those who were murdered who are still crying out for justice.
    I have introduced the bipartisan Civil Rights Cold Case 
Records Investigations Support Act, and I would like your 
commitment to work with my office, to work with that Cold Case 
Records Review Board, to make every resource at NARA available 
to pursue the truth and to pursue justice for those who were 
lynched, for those who were abducted, for those who were 
assaulted in the State of Georgia, across the South, and across 
the country, and ensure that our quest for justice is not 
abandoned. Will you make that commitment?
    Ms. Shogan. Yes, Senator, I look forward to working with 
you and your staff on this issue if I am confirmed.
    Senator Ossoff. Thank you, Dr. Shogan. It is really 
important.
    I appreciate your testimony today. I appreciate the rest of 
the panel. Congratulations for the nominations.
    I yield.
    Chairman Peters. Thank you, Senator Ossoff.
    This question is for all of our judicial candidates. I 
think we will start at--our nominees, I should say. We will 
start with Ms. Sanchez, and then we will work down to Mr. 
Shanker.
    The D.C. Courts handle a very high volume of cases, and 
vacancies on both the Superior Court and Court of Appeals have, 
without question, increased this backlog considerably. So my 
question for each of you is: If confirmed, how will you manage 
your caseload efficiently while also ensuring that everybody 
who comes before you has a meaningful opportunity to be heard?
    Ms. Sanchez, we will start with you.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you for the question, Senator. As an 
Assistant United States Attorney, I have had a lot of 
experience handling large-volume caseload. If I am confirmed as 
a judge, I would ensure that the parties know the expectations 
at each status hearing, I would ensure that I am prepared, and 
I would ensure that I am listening to everything that the 
parties are saying and reading what they file and also ensure 
that I reach reasoned decisions with diligence.
    Chairman Peters. Very good.
    Ms. Meek. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my co nominee. I 
would also like to add that having been an Administrative Law 
Judge for the past 16 years I have learned that efficiency is 
greatly important to adjudicating cases. It is important to 
make sure that all parties are aware of what is expected of 
them at the beginning of the hearing and that they expect to be 
held to those expectations and requirements. Once we have those 
clear goals set, we are able to facilitate the case efficiently 
and effectively. Thank you.
    Ms. Crane. I agree with both my co-nominees, and I would 
add that as a judge I would put in all the necessary time and 
effort to make sure that I am ready and prepared in court each 
day, so that my calendar is managed efficiently. I have had the 
privilege of working for a District Court judge who managed his 
calendar in that way, and I think that with my experience 
having practiced in Superior Court, my familiarity with the 
D.C. code, I would be able to quickly resolve matters that were 
presented in front of me.
    Mr. Shanker. Thank you, Chairman Peters. I am acutely aware 
of the need to work through the backlog in the D.C. Courts 
system as well as move cases with dispatch without sacrificing 
due care and attention. I have a heavy caseload at the 
Department of Justice. I have always prioritized preparation 
and responsiveness and efficiency.
    I think if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed as a 
judge I would work to be prepared, to apply strict standards 
for extensions, to circulate my draft opinions promptly, and to 
quickly look at my colleagues' draft opinions.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. This next question will be for 
all of you as well, and I will start with you, Ms. Meek, and 
then work down that way and then end at Ms. Sanchez.
    In your view, what is the proper temperament of a judge, 
and if you could think back through your career, how have you 
developed the elements that are going to be necessary to have 
the appropriate judicial temperament that you will need to 
exhibit if confirmed?
    Ms. Meek. I believe that components of the proper 
temperament for a judge: patience, understanding, respect, 
respect for the parties is very important, fairness. If all of 
these are applied, then it makes for a very good process for 
the parties, it makes for good due process for the parties, and 
it makes the job easier for the judge, actually. Thank you.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. Ms. Crane.
    Ms. Crane. I agree with my co-nominee and would add that 
being open-minded is extremely important, and giving both 
parties an opportunity to raise the issues before me and then 
evaluate those carefully by listening closely to the parties 
would be an important trait as well.
    Mr. Shanker. Thank you. I agree with co-nominees as well. I 
generally consider respect, humility, collegiality, and 
impartiality as the hallmarks of a judicial temperament.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. I concur as well. I would add that 
I think a dedication to the rule of law is also particularly 
necessary for a judge.
    Chairman Peters. The next question, the last question, will 
be for Mr. Shanker, Ms. Crane, and Ms. Sanchez, the three of 
you. As you shift from the role of an advocate to the role of 
an impartial adjudicator, how are you preparing to make this 
transition if confirmed? Mr. Shanker.
    Mr. Shanker. Thank you, Chairman Peters. I am acutely aware 
of the critical differences between an advocate and an 
impartial arbiter. If I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I 
commit to addressing all of my cases and the parties before me 
with impartiality, without bias, without prejudgment, and 
putting in the work in terms of reading the briefs, reading the 
cases, and listening to the arguments fairly and impartially.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Crane.
    Ms. Crane. As an Assistant United States Attorney for the 
past eight years, I have often been required to anticipate the 
arguments of the opposing side, and I think that skill of 
constantly thinking about the flaws in my case as an advocate 
will prepare me well to be able to clearly see both sides and 
be prepared to listen fairly to both sides before me.
    Chairman Peters. Ms. Sanchez.
    Ms. Sanchez. Thank you. I agree with my fellow nominees. I 
think that as an Assistant United States Attorney I have had 
the experience of also working with victims and working with 
witnesses and so also recognize the important quality that a 
judge would have to ensure that individuals that come before 
are heard and listened to. Also, I have also had the experience 
of having to assess cases and being able to step back and see 
whether the facts apply to the law.
    Chairman Peters. Very good. I would like to thank once 
again each of our nominees for joining us here today and for 
your willingness to serve in these very important positions 
that you have been nominated for.
    The nominees have filed responses to biographical and 
financial questionnaires,\1\ and without objection,\2\ this 
information will be made a part of the hearing record\3\ with 
the exception of the financial data,\4\ which is on file and 
available for public inspection in the committee offices.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The information of Mr. Shanker appear in the Appendix on page 
35.
    \2\ The information of Ms. Crane appear in the Appendix on page 77.
    \3\ The information of Ms. Shogan appear in the Appendix on page 
104.
    \4\ The information of Ms. Meek appear in the Appendix on page 133.
    \5\ The information of Ms. Sanchez appear in the Appendix on page 
159.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The hearing record will remain open until 12 p.m. tomorrow, 
September 22nd, for the submission of statements and questions 
for the record.
    This hearing is now adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 11:28 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.]

                            A P P E N D I X

                              ----------                              

[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

                                 [all]