[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]