[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 108 (Monday, July 9, 2007)]
[Senate]
[Pages S8776-S8781]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


                          Executive Privilege

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have a very serious matter that I will 
discuss at this time in my capacity as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee. The Presiding Officer is one of the most distinguished 
members of the Judiciary Committee.
  Today, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Conyers and I received 
another letter from White House Counsel Fred Fielding responding to 
duly authorized subpoenas with a blanket assertion of executive 
privilege.
  I had hoped that the Judiciary Committee subpoenas would be met with 
compliance, not with confrontation. But instead they have been met, yet 
again, with Nixonian stonewalling that shows this White House's disdain 
for

[[Page S8778]]

our system of checks and balances. This is more stonewalling for a 
White House that believes it can unilaterally control the other coequal 
branches of Government. It raises this question: What is the White 
House trying to hide by refusing to turn over this evidence?
  From the outset of this scandal, the President spoke about the firing 
of U.S. attorneys as if it were a matter handled and decided by the 
Attorney General, and something Mr. Gonzales would have to explain to 
Congress and the American people. The President was hands off and arms' 
length. He had to ask others whether anything was improperly done and 
relied on a review by White House lawyers for his assertion that 
nothing improper was done.
  This President and the Attorney General have both from time to time 
expressed confidence that the Congress would get to the bottom of this 
as if they themselves had no idea what had transpired.
  Are we now to understand from the White House claims of executive 
privilege that, contrary to what the President said, these were 
decisions made by the President? Is he taking responsibility for this 
scandal, for the firing of such well-regarded and well-performing U.S. 
attorneys?
  When we had the Attorney General testify under oath, he didn't know 
who added U.S. attorneys to the list of those to be fired, or the 
reasons they were added. Somehow they mysteriously arrived on the 
Attorney General's list. You know, it occurred to me when I flew down 
from Vermont today and I was looking in the paper, the latest Harry 
Potter movie is coming out. These mysterious lists sound like something 
would you see in that movie, not in the White House or the Attorney 
General's Office.
  Indeed, the bottom line of the sworn testimony from the Attorney 
General, the Deputy Attorney General, the Attorney General's former 
Chief of Staff, the White House liaison, and other senior Justice 
Department officials was that while the President was not involved in 
the decisionmaking that led to the unprecedented firings of several 
well-performing prosecutors, these people were not responsible either. 
So I ask, who made these decisions? Was it the political operatives at 
the White House who set out to severely damage the careers of well-
performing U.S. attorneys?
  Even this White House cannot dispute the evidence we have gathered to 
date showing that White House officials were heavily involved in these 
firings--not only heavily involved in these firings and in the Justice 
Department's responses to inquiries that I made, the distinguished 
Presiding Officer made, and others, Republicans and Democrats alike 
made, about them.
  The White House continues to try to have it both ways, but at the end 
of the day it cannot. The White House cannot block Congress from 
obtaining the relevant evidence and credibly assert that nothing 
improper occurred. They are just saying: Trust us, we did nothing 
wrong.
  Trust us? With the revelations that come out almost every single day 
of things that tell the American people they should not trust them. 
What is the White House hiding? Was the President involved, were his 
earlier statements to the American people therefore misleading and 
inaccurate? Is this an effort by the White House legal team to protect 
the White House political operatives whose partisan machinations have 
been discovered in a new set of White House horrors?
  Several weeks ago, after Mr. Fielding first conveyed the President's 
blank executive claim--and I have yet to hear directly from the 
President--Chairman Conyers and I sent a letter to the White House 
asking for a specific factual basis regarding each document withheld 
and the normal privilege log that would be shown at the time. I asked 
the White House to provide this information so that it could 
substantiate its claim.
  For months--and I have not done so precipitously but carefully--I 
have been giving the White House every opportunity to provide 
voluntarily the information we have sought. For months the only answer 
we have received is the same unacceptable ``take it or leave it'' 
offer. I have tried to give the White House every opportunity to 
explain its claims. A serious assertion of privilege--one they honestly 
believed in--would include an effort to demonstrate to the committee 
which documents and which parts of those documents are covered by any 
privilege that is asserted and why. But it is apparent this White House 
is contemptuous of the Congress and believes it doesn't have to explain 
itself to anyone--not to the people's Representatives in Congress, but 
worse yet not to the American people.
  The White House's refusal to provide a listing of those documents on 
which it asserts privilege, and a specific factual and legal basis for 
the assertion of executive privilege claims, raises even more 
questions. What is the White House so intent on hiding? What is it they 
are so afraid of becoming public that they cannot even identify the 
documents or the dates, authors, and recipients? Would we see the early 
and consistent involvement of the White House political operatives in 
what should be independent and neutral law enforcement decisions? Would 
we see early and consistent involvement of White House political 
operatives who are trying to manipulate law enforcement?

  Nor is the White House content with blanket assertions of privilege 
regarding matters in its control. It has now reached outside the White 
House to direct the Republican National Committee not to provide 
information it has to Congress and has today instructed a former White 
House official, Sara Taylor, not to cooperate with the investigation by 
testifying to the best of her knowledge.
  Mr. President, let me explain our attempts to procure the e-mails 
that White House officials sent using Republican National Committee 
accounts. At first, they gave the impression that we would be happy to 
give you those 60,000 of her e-mails, or 130,000 of Karl Rove's but, of 
course, they were all erased, so we cannot give them to you. When I and 
others suggested that you cannot erase e-mails like that and that they 
are in a backup system somewhere else, they sent somebody who works in 
the White House Press Secretary's Office out to tell the American 
people that this is a ridiculous claim and that we now have Senators 
pretending to be computer experts. Actually, no, that is an answer any 
12-year-old could have given. What happened? Suddenly, they found, yes, 
they do have the e-mails. And as we had said, and as any 12-year-old 
would have said, they weren't erased.
  Ms. Taylor is scheduled to testify on Wednesday to comply with a 
subpoena authorized by the committee. It is unfortunate that the White 
House is trying to interfere with Ms. Taylor's testimony before the 
Senate, and they are trying to interfere with Congress's responsibility 
to get to the truth behind the unprecedented firings of several U.S. 
attorneys.
  Let's review the facts. Sometimes it is good to get outside the 
hyperbole of politics and just talk about the facts. There is clear 
evidence that Sara Taylor is one of several White House officials who 
played a key role in these firings and the administration's response to 
cover up the reasons behind them when questions first arose. The 
question I have is this: Why were they so eager to cover up what they 
did?
  There is also clear evidence that Ms. Taylor was part of 66,000 RNC 
e-mails being kept from the public as part of a White House effort to 
avoid oversight by ignoring the laws meant to ensure a public record of 
official Government business. Basically, they are saying the law 
applies to everybody else, but they are above the law.
  I am willing to discuss the matter in good faith with the White 
House. I have been trying to engage the White House for months in 
discussions to come to some sort of accommodation. I hope we can do 
that. I am reluctant to agree to anything, though, that prevents 
Congress from doing our oversight job effectively. I have been here 
with six administrations, with Republicans and Democrats alike, and we 
found ways to work with Congress. Ultimately, even the Nixon 
administration--the administration that was here before I arrived--
found ways.
  This administration, unlike all those others, wants to obstruct and 
obfuscate. We should not lose sight of the fact that this is a serious 
matter. This is about improper political influence on our justice 
system. It is about the White House manipulating the Justice

[[Page S8779]]

Department into its own political arm. It is about manipulating our 
justice system to pursue a partisan political agenda. It is about 
pressuring prosecutors to bring cases of voter fraud to try to 
influence elections--of sending a partisan operative like Bradley 
Schlozman to Missouri to file charges on the eve of an election, in 
direct violation of their own Justice Department guidelines.
  It is about high-ranking officials misleading Congress and misleading 
the American people about their political manipulation of justice. It 
is about the unprecedented and improper reach of politics into the 
Department's professional ranks, such as the admission by the 
Department's White House Liaison, Monica Goodling, that she improperly 
screened career employees for political loyalty and wielded undue 
political influence over key law enforcement decisions and policies.
  It is about political operatives pressuring prosecutors to bring 
partisan cases and seeking retribution against those who refused to 
bend to their political will, such as the example of New Mexico's U.S. 
attorney, David Iglesias, who was fired a few weeks after Karl Rove 
complained to the Attorney General about the lack of purported ``voter 
fraud'' enforcement cases in Mr. Iglesias's jurisdiction.
  Along the way, this subversion of the justice system has included 
lying, misleading, stonewalling, and ignoring the Congress in our 
attempts to find out what happened. We know White House officials are 
involved, but it is difficult to get the facts when the White House, 
even as of today, refuses to provide even a single witness or a single 
document.
  This administration has instituted an abusive policy of secrecy aimed 
at protecting themselves from embarrassment and accountability. 
Apparently, the President and Vice President think they are above the 
law. In America, nobody is above the law, not even George Bush or Dick 
Cheney.
  The President has sought to make the Vice President's former Chief of 
Staff above the law when he granted him a form of amnesty last week. 
The President chose to override a prosecution, jury trial, conviction, 
and prison sentence and to excuse his lying to Federal investigators 
and a grand jury and his perjury, and to reward his silence by giving 
Mr. Libby what commentators have called a ``get out of jail free'' 
card.
  The lack of accountability for anyone in the Bush administration has 
reached new heights--or lows. It is not often that the New York Times 
and the Washington Times editorial boards agree, but they did about 
this President's abrupt commutation of Mr. Libby's 30-month prison term 
for perjury and obstruction of justice. The Washington Times opined 
that President Bush's action is ``neither wise nor just,'' and it 
continued in its Independence Day editorial by saying:

       Perjury is a serious crime. . . . The integrity of the 
     judicial process depends on fact-finding and truth-telling. A 
     jury found Libby guilty of not only perjury but also 
     obstruction of justice and lying to a grand jury.

  I would add that the widely respected trial judge, who was nominated 
by President Bush and confirmed by the Senate at the time I chaired the 
committee in 2001, imposed a reasonable sentence which was actually at 
the lower end of what the prosecutor recommended, and the DC Circuit 
refused to stay the sentence pending appeal in accordance with the law.
  The New York Times in a July 3 editorial entitled ``Soft on Crime'' 
called the President's action a ``baldly political act,'' noting that 
``[a]s president, he has repeatedly put himself and those on his team, 
especially Mr. Cheney, above the law.'' They noted that the President 
``sounded like a man worried about what a former loyalist might say 
when actually staring into a prison cell.''
  That Presidential act sent the message that silence, bad memory, and 
abject loyalty would be rewarded, just as the mass firings of U.S. 
attorneys sent the message that all remaining Federal prosecutors and 
law enforcement had better knuckle under to the political agenda of the 
administration.
  Untoward White House interference with Federal law enforcement is a 
serious matter. It corrupts Federal law enforcement, threatens our 
elections, and has seriously undercut the American people's confidence 
in the independence and evenhandedness of law enforcement.
  Despite the attitude of the current administration, our Constitution 
does not include the phrase ``executive privilege'' or ``unitary 
executive.'' What the U.S. Constitution does provide in the oath of 
office is that the President has to swear to ``faithfully execute the 
Office of President of the United States'' and ``preserve, protect and 
defend the Constitution of the United States.'' His essential duties 
require him to ``take care that the Laws be faithfully executed.'' I 
have grave concern with regard to how this administration is fulfilling 
these sworn and essential duties. The political intrusion into the law 
enforcement functions of the Government through the scheme to fire and 
replace our U.S. attorneys is a key part of that concern.
  Congress will continue to pursue the truth behind this matter not 
only because it is our constitutional responsibility but because it is 
the right thing to do.
  I hope the White House stops the stonewalling. I hope they accept my 
offer to negotiate a workable solution to the committee's oversight 
needs so we can effectively get to the bottom of what was done wrong 
and what has gone wrong.
  I yield the floor, and I suggest the absence of a quorum.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Ms. Stabenow). The clerk will call the roll.
  The assistant legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  The Senator from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, the existing order is to have 
consideration of four nominees for the U.S. district court. I urge my 
colleagues to confirm all of them.
  The first is Liam O'Grady for the Eastern District of Virginia. I am 
pleased to see that there are substantial Pennsylvania connections with 
these nominees. Liam O'Grady received a bachelor's degree from Franklin 
& Marshall College in Lancaster. I am interested to see his 
diversification of employment. He was a pension examiner for the United 
Mine Workers of America, Welfare and Retirement Fund, as well as other 
outstanding credentials, and was rated unanimously ``well qualified'' 
by the American Bar Association.
  I ask unanimous consent to have the full records of these nominees 
printed in the Record following my remarks.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
  (See exhibit 1.)
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, I think it is unnecessary to speak at 
length about any of these nominees because they all passed unanimously 
from the Judiciary Committee, and it would be my expectation, based on 
prior practices, that they would all be confirmed. I would be surprised 
if there were any negative votes at all. It may be even possible to 
abbreviate the proceedings today with some voice votes. That is the 
decision for the distinguished chairman. We will come to that later.
  Mr. LEAHY. I am sorry, what was the question?
  Mr. SPECTER. I was commenting that all were passed out unanimously by 
the Judiciary Committee. I said it was my expectation from prior 
practice that they would probably be confirmed unanimously. I would be 
surprised if we have a dissenting vote among the four. And I said I am 
not going to speak long. I am putting their records into the Record. I 
said it might even be possible to abbreviate the rollcalls. That is the 
chairman's call.
  Mr. LEAHY. Madam President, I will be very happy to do that. I think 
there are a lot of people who have stacks of paper since we have been 
gone who would probably be happy to have one or two rollcalls.
  Mr. SPECTER. I am sorry, I didn't understand.
  Mr. LEAHY. Some may be happy to have one or two rollcall votes and 
get out of here.
  Mr. SPECTER. In accordance with the practice Chairman Leahy and I 
adopted in the good old days.
  The second nominee, Janet Neff, in the court of the Western District 
of

[[Page S8780]]

Michigan, was born in Wilkinsburg, PA, is a University of Pittsburgh 
graduate, and is rated ``majority qualified'' and others rated ``well 
qualified.'' She has an outstanding academic and professional record.
  The third nominee is Paul Lewis Maloney, again for the Western 
District of Michigan, again a Pennsylvania connection. He received a 
bachelor's degree from Lehigh University. His ABA rating was 
unanimously ``well qualified.''
  The fourth nominee is Robert James Jonker, again from the Western 
District of Michigan. I am not distressed, but I note no Pennsylvania 
connection here. But I know the distinguished presiding Senator from 
Michigan will be relieved to have these three nominees confirmed 
because there has been a judicial emergency, and on occasion the 
Congressman from the area has been on the Senate floor urging us to 
confirm these nominees. I think we will get there today.

                               Exhibit 1

                              Liam O'Grady


   United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia

     Birth
       September 24, 1950; Newark, New Jersey.
     Legal Residence
       Virginia.
     Education
       B.A., Franklin & Marshall College, 1973.
       J.D., George Mason University School of Law, 1977.
     Employment
       Pension Examiner, United Mine Workers of America, Welfare & 
     Retirement Fund, 1973-1975.
       Attorney Advisor and Law Clerk, Administrative Law Judge 
     George Koutras, Departments of Interior and Labor, 1976-1979.
       Sole Practitioner, Private Practice, 1979-1982.
       Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney, Office of the Virginia 
     Commonwealth's Attorney, 1982-1986.
       Assistant U.S. Attorney, Department of Justice, 1986-1992--
     Chief of the Narcotics Section (four years); Acting Chief of 
     the Criminal Division (one year).
       Adjunct Professor, George Washington University, Columbia 
     Graduate School for Forensic Sciences, 1986-1994.
       Partner, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett, & Dunner, 
     LLP, 1992-2003.
       U.S. Magistrate Judge, U.S. District Court, Eastern 
     District of Virginia, 2003-Present.
     Selected Activities
       Member, Virginia State Bar.
       Member, American Bar Association.
       Member, George Mason Inns of Court.
       Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association.
       Member, Arlington County Bar Association.
       Coach, McLean Youth Soccer.
     ABA Rating
       Unanimous ``well qualified.''

 Liam O'Grady--U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia

       Magistrate Judge Liam O'Grady was initially nominated to be 
     a U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia on 
     August 2, 2006. No further action was taken on his nomination 
     in the 109th Congress. Judge O'Grady was re-nominated on 
     January 9, 2007. He received a committee hearing on May 10, 
     2007, and was favorably reported on May 24, 2007.
       He comes before the committee with an impressive resume.
       He received a B.A. from Franklin & Marshall College in 1973 
     and a J.D. from George Mason University School of Law in 
     1977.
       After graduating from law school, Judge O'Grady briefly 
     worked as an attorney advisor to Administrative Law Judge 
     George Koutras in the Departments of Interior and Labor.
       In 1979, Judge O'Grady entered private practice as a sole 
     practitioner. His focus was on domestic relations cases, real 
     estate closings, bankruptcy proceedings, criminal cases, and 
     general civil disputes.
       After three years of private practice, Judge O'Grady became 
     an Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney for the Commonwealth of 
     Virginia. He was the liaison to robbery homicide squad at the 
     police department, and handled many of the homicide cases.
       From 1986 to 1992, Judge O'Grady served as an Assistant 
     United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia. 
     In that capacity, he focused on drug conspiracies, drug 
     related homicides, and organized crime. For a one-year stint, 
     as Acting Chief of the Criminal Division, he supervised the 
     criminal cases for the whole district.
       Meanwhile, from 1986 to 1994, Judge O'Grady was an adjunct 
     professor at George Washington University's forensic sciences 
     graduate school, teaching courses in criminal law, evidence, 
     and trial advocacy.
       In 1992, Judge O'Grady returned to private practice as a 
     partner for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner 
     LLP. As chief litigator, he handled patent, trademark, 
     copyright, and trade secret cases for Fortune 500 clients in 
     courts around the country and the world.
       In 2003, Judge O'Grady became a Magistrate Judge for the 
     United States District Court for the Eastern District of 
     Virginia.
       The ABA has unanimously rated Judge O'Grady ``well 
     qualified.''
                                  ____


                             Janet T. Neff


   United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan

     Birth
       April 8, 1945, Wilkinsburg, Pennsylvania.
     Legal residence
       Michigan.
     Education
       B.A., cum laude, University of Pittsburgh, 1967.
       Omicron Delta Epsilon, National Economics Honor Society.
       J.D., Wayne State University Law School, 1970.
     Employment
       Tax Examiner, Internal Revenue Service, 1970.
       Research Attorney, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1970-1971.
       Assistant City Attorney, City of Grand Rapids, 1971-1973.
       Associate/Partner, VanderVeen, Freihofer & Cook, 1973-1978.
       Commissioner, Michigan Supreme Court, 1978-1980.
       Assistant United States Attorney, Western District of 
     Michigan, 1980.
       Associate, William G. Reamon, P.C., 1980-1988.
       Judge, Michigan Court of Appeals, 1989-Present.
     Selected Activities
       Member, U.S. District Court Professional Review Committee.
       Member, Michigan Bar Association.
       Member, Grand Rapids Bar Association.
       Member, Michigan Trial Lawyers Association.
       Member, Women Lawyers Association of Michigan.
       Member, Association of Trial Lawyers of America.
       Member, American Bar Association.
     ABA Rating
       Majority ``qualified''/minority ``well qualified.''

 Janet T. Neff--U.S District Judge for the Western District of Michigan

       Janet T. Neff was nominated to be a U.S. District Judge for 
     the Western District of Michigan on June 28, 2006. A hearing 
     was held on her nomination on September 19, 2006, and it was 
     reported out of Committee on September 29 by voice vote. The 
     Senate was unable to act on her nomination before the end of 
     the 109th Congress.
       President Bush re-nominated Judge Neff on March 19, 2007. A 
     second hearing was held on her nomination on May 10, 2007, 
     and she was favorably reported on May 24, 2007.
       She comes before this Committee with a distinguished record 
     of public service.
       Judge Neff received a B.A., cum laude, from the University 
     of Pittsburgh in 1967 and a J.D. from Wayne State University 
     Law School in 1970.
       Following law school, Judge Neff worked briefly as an 
     estate and gift tax examiner for the Internal Revenue Service 
     (IRS). This position involved review and audit of Federal 
     estate and gift tax returns.
       In 1970, Judge Neff accepted a position as a research 
     attorney for the Michigan Court of Appeals, where she 
     reviewed briefs and lower court records.
       Beginning in 1971, Judge Neff served as an Assistant City 
     Attorney for the City of Grand Rapids. As Assistant City 
     Attorney, she prosecuted offenses ranging from drunk driving 
     to assaults.
       Judge Neff entered private practice in 1973, when she 
     worked as an associate and then a partner at Vander Veen, 
     Freifoher & Cook. She had a broad and varied practice that 
     included insurance, products liability, criminal defense, 
     domestic relations, commercial litigation, bankruptcies, and 
     the representation of numerous municipal governments.
       In 1978, Judge Neff became a Commissioner of the Michigan 
     Supreme Court. In that capacity she worked as a staff 
     attorney to the court, conducting research and reviewing 
     applications for leave to appeal, motions, and other matters.
       She served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Western 
     District of Michigan in 1980.
       From 1980 until 1988, Judge Neff was as an associate with 
     William G. Reamon, P.C., where she handled personal injury 
     cases.
       In 1988, Judge Neff was elected as a Judge of the Michigan 
     Court of Appeals where she continues to serve today.
       A substantial majority of the American Bar Association 
     Standing Committee rated Judge Neff ``qualified,'' and a 
     minority rated her ``well qualified'' for service on the 
     Federal bench.
       The seat to which Judge Neff is nominated has been 
     designated a ``judicial emergency'' by the nonpartisan 
     Administrative Office of the Courts.
       The Chief Judge of the U.S. District Court for the Western 
     District of Michigan, Judge Robert Bell, has written the 
     Committee to impress upon us the need to provide his court 
     with another judge. According to the Chief Judge, ``with the 
     present three vacancies [he] is the sole active judge.'' The 
     Western District of Michigan has the weightiest docket per 
     authorized judgeship in the Sixth Circuit.

[[Page S8781]]

     
                                  ____
                           Paul Lewis Maloney


   United States District Judge for the Western District of Michigan

     Birth
       December 15, 1949; Cleveland, Ohio.
     Legal Residence
       Michigan.
     Education
       B.A., Lehigh University, 1972.
       J.D., University of Detroit School of Law, 1975.
     Employment
       Assistant Prosecutor, Berrien County Prosecutor's Office, 
     1975-1981; Prosecuting Attorney, 1981-1989.
       Deputy Assistant Attorney General, Criminal Division, 
     United States Department of Justice, 1989-1993.
       Special Assistant to the Director, State of Michigan, 
     Department of Corrections, 1993-1995.
       District Judge, Berrien County, Michigan, 1995-1996.
       Circuit Judge, Berrien County, Michigan, 1996-Present.
     Selected Activities
       Member, Michigan Prosecuting Attorneys Association.
       Member, Michigan District Judges Association.
       Member, Michigan Judges Association (Board of Directors 
     Member for one year).
       Member, Michigan Bar Association.
       Member, American Bar Association.
       Member, Berrien County Bar Association.
       Member, Knights of Columbus.
       President, Catholic Community Education Commission.
     ABA Rating
       Unanimous ``well qualified''.
                                  ____


  Paul Lewis Maloney--U.S. District Judge for the Western District of 
                                Michigan

       Paul Lewis Maloney was initially nominated to be a U.S. 
     District Court Judge for the Western District of Michigan on 
     June 28, 2006. A hearing was held on his nomination on 
     September 19, 2006, and he was reported out favorably on 
     September 29, 2006, by a voice vote. No further action was 
     taken on the nomination before the 109th Congress adjourned.
       Judge Maloney was re-nominated by the President on March 
     19, 2007, and reported favorably by the Committee on May 24, 
     2007.
       Judge Maloney has an impressive resume reflecting a 
     devotion to public service.
       He received a B.A. from Lehigh University in 1972 and a 
     J.D. from the University of Detroit School of Law in 1975.
       Following law school, Judge Maloney began working as an 
     assistant prosecutor for the Berrien County Prosecutor's 
     Office. In 1981, he was appointed the county's Prosecuting 
     Attorney and was re-elected in 1982, 1984, and 1988.
       In 1989, Judge Maloney left the Berrien County Prosecutor's 
     Office to serve as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General for 
     the Criminal Division of the United States Department of 
     Justice.
       Following his work at the Department of Justice, Judge 
     Maloney returned to Michigan to serve as Special Assistant to 
     the Director of Michigan's Department of Corrections.
       In 1995, Judge Maloney was appointed District Judge for 
     Berrien County. He held this position for a year, before he 
     was appointed to be Circuit Judge of Berrien County, where he 
     continues to serve.
       The American Bar Association rated Judge Maloney 
     unanimously well-qualified, its highest rating.
       This vacancy has been designated a ``judicial emergency,'' 
     and, indeed, the Western District of Michigan is in dire need 
     of judges. Currently, there is only one active judge--Chief 
     Judge Bell--out of the four judgeships authorized for the 
     district. Chief Judge Bell wrote letters on December 28, 
     2006, and April 18, 2007, explaining that he and the senior 
     judges are ``exhausted.''
                                  ____


                          Robert James Jonker


   united states district court for the western district of michigan

     Birth
       March 9, 1960, Holland, Michigan.
     Legal Residence
       Michigan.
     Education
       B.A., with honors, Calvin College, 1982.
       J.D., summa cum laude, University of Michigan Law School, 
     1985; Order of the Coif; Robert S. Feldman Labor Law Award.
     Employment
       Law Clerk, Honorable John F. Feikens, U.S. District Court 
     for the Eastern District of Michigan, 1985-1987.
       Associate, Warner Norcross & Judd LLP, 1987-1993; Partner, 
     1994-Present.
     Selected Activities
       Fellow, Michigan State Bar Foundation.
       Member, Federal Bar Association, Western District Chapter; 
     President-Elect, October 2006; Vice President--Operations, 2 
     years; Treasurer, 2 years; Executive Board Member, 1999-2006.
       Chairperson, Judicial Code Committee of the Christian 
     Reformed Church.
       Listed in Best Lawyers in America for Business Litigation.
       Member, Grand Rapids Bar Association.
       Member, Michigan Bar Association.
       Member, American Bar Association.
     ABA Rating
       Unanimous ``well qualified''.

 Robert James Jonker--U.S. District Judge for the Western District of 
                                Michigan

       Robert James Jonker was nominated to be a United States 
     District Judge on June 29, 2006. A hearing was held on his 
     nomination on September 19, 2006. His nomination was 
     favorably reported out of the Judiciary Committee on 
     September 29, 2006; however, the Senate failed to act on his 
     nomination prior to the adjournment of the 109th Congress. 
     President Bush renominated Mr. Jonker on March 19, 2007, and 
     the committee favorably reported him on June 7, 2007.
       Mr. Jonker received his B.A., with honors, from Calvin 
     College in 1982 and his J.D., summa cum laude, from the 
     University of Michigan Law School in 1985, where he was 
     elected Order of the Coif.
       Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Jonker served as a law 
     clerk to the Honorable John F. Feikens of the U.S. District 
     Court for the Eastern District of Michigan. His clerkship 
     lasted from 1985 to 1987.
       Following his clerkship, Mr. Jonker accepted an associate 
     position with the Michigan law firm, Warner Norcross & Judd, 
     where he focuses on complex business and environmental 
     litigation.
       In 1994, Warner Norcross made him a partner, a position he 
     holds today.
       For 6 years, Mr. Jonker has served as chair of the 
     professional staff committee of Warner Norcross, which is 
     responsible for the recruitment, development, retention and 
     review of associate attorneys.
       Mr. Jonker was recognized in the Best Lawyers in America 
     for his business litigation expertise.
       The American Bar Association has unanimously rated Mr. 
     Jonker ``Well Qualified'' to serve as a Federal district 
     court judge.
       This vacancy has been designated a ``judicial emergency.'' 
     In fact, the Western District of Michigan has the highest 
     weighted case filings in the Sixth Circuit. Currently, there 
     is only one active judge--Chief Judge Bell--out of the four 
     judgeships authorized for the district. Chief Judge Bell 
     wrote letters on December 28, 2006, and again on April 18, 
     2007, explaining the dire need for judges in the Western 
     District and that he and the senior judges are ``exhausted.''