[Congressional Record Volume 155, Number 43 (Wednesday, March 11, 2009)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2995-S3002]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]


       NOMINATION OF DAVID W. OGDEN TO BE DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL

  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. Casey). Under the previous order, the 
Senate will proceed to executive session to consider the following 
nomination, which the clerk will report.
  The assistant legislative clerk read the nomination of David W. 
Ogden, of Virginia, to be Deputy Attorney General.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Under the previous order, the time until 4:30 
p.m. will be equally divided and controlled between the leaders or 
their designees.
  The Senator from Vermont.
  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am opening this debate in my capacity not 
only as a Senator from Vermont but as chairman of the Judiciary 
Committee.
  We are here today to consider President Obama's nomination of David 
Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the number two position at the 
Department of Justice. This is a picture, incidentally, of David Ogden. 
I had hoped we could vote on this nomination soon--although apparently, 
because of objections on the other side, we will not be able to vote 
until tomorrow. This is unfortunate. Every day we delay the appointment 
of the Deputy Attorney General is a day we are not enhancing the 
security of the United States.
  In this case, we have a nominee who I had hoped to have confirmed 
weeks ago. Mr. Ogden is a highly qualified nominee who has chosen to 
leave a very successful career in private practice--one I might say 
parenthetically pays considerably more than the Department of Justice 
does--to return to the Department, where he served with great 
distinction. His path in many ways reflects that of the Attorney 
General, Eric Holder, who, of course, also was a highly successful and 
respected partner in one of the major law firms in Washington. And he 
left to become Attorney General of the United States at the request of 
President Obama to serve his Nation. Mr. Ogden is doing the same thing.
  Interestingly enough, once Mr. Ogden's nomination was announced, the 
letters of support started to come

[[Page S2996]]

in from leading law enforcement organizations across the country. Let 
me put a few of these up on this chart. As you can see, Mr. Ogden's 
nomination received support from leading law enforcement organizations; 
children's advocates; civil rights organizations; and former Government 
officials from both Republican and Democratic administrations.
  Indeed, Larry Thompson, the former Deputy Attorney General under 
President George W. Bush, a highly respected former public official, 
has endorsed David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General.
  The Boys and Girls Clubs of America, an organization I have spent a 
lot of time with and one I highly respect. This organization provides 
alternative programs and a great mentoring system for children in many 
cities to keep them out of trouble. And this fine organization has 
endorsed David Ogden.
  A dozen retired military officers who serve as Judge Advocates 
General have endorsed Mr. Ogden's nomination.
  The Fraternal Order of Police and the Federal Law Enforcement 
Officers Association, two major law enforcement organizations, have 
endorsed him.
  The Major Cities Chiefs Association have endorsed him.
  The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, another 
organization I have worked a great deal with, and one that has done 
such wonderful things to help in the case of missing and exploited 
children, has also endorsed him.
  The National Association of Police Organizations has endorsed David 
Ogden.
  The National District Attorneys Association has endorsed him, which I 
was particularly pleased to see. I once served as vice president of the 
National District Attorneys Association. As an aside, I should note 
that I gave up the honor and glory of becoming president of the 
National District Attorneys Association for the anonymity of the 
Senate.
  The National Narcotics Officers' Associations' Coalition has endorsed 
David Ogden.
  The National Sheriffs' Association has endorsed David Ogden.
  The Police Executive Research Forum has endorsed David Ogden.
  The National Center for Victims of Crime has endorsed David Ogden.
  Why have they endorsed him? Because he is an immensely qualified 
nominee, and he has the obvious priorities that we want in a Deputy 
Attorney General. His priorities will be the safety and security of the 
American people and to reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice 
Department in protecting the rights of all Americans. That is why he 
will be a critical asset to the Attorney General. He will help us 
remember it is the Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and it 
is the Department of Justice for all Americans.
  With all of these endorsements, including all of the major law 
enforcement groups endorsing him, and all the endorsements from both 
Republicans and Democrats, what is astonishing for all these law 
enforcement organizations wanting him there is that Republicans 
threatened to filibuster this nomination. They refused to agree to this 
debate and a vote on the nomination, and they required the majority 
leader to file a cloture motion, which he did on Monday. For more than 
a week we were told that Republicans would not agree to a debate and 
vote and would insist on filibustering this nomination.
  It is amazing. I don't know if Republicans are aware of what is going 
on in this country--the rising crime rates which began rising in the 
last year or so and the critical nature working families are facing. 
And yet they want to filibuster a nominee, one of the best I have seen 
for this position in my 35 years in the Senate.
  I noted that development and the threat of a filibuster at a 
Judiciary Committee business meeting last Thursday, after a week of 
fruitless efforts to try to move this nomination forward by agreement 
and obviate the need for a filibuster. I noted my disappointment that, 
despite the bipartisan majority vote in favor of the nomination by 
Republicans and Democrats on the committee, despite the support from 
law enforcement groups, despite the support from children's advocates, 
and despite the support from former Government officials for Republican 
and Democratic administrations, we have been stalled in our ability to 
move forward to consider this nomination. And, of course, the Justice 
Department, which is there to represent all Americans--Republicans and 
Democrats, Independents, and everybody--is left without a deputy for 
another week.

  Quite frankly, I found the news of an imminent Republican filibuster 
incomprehensible. I could not think of any precedent for this during my 
35 years in the Senate. A bipartisan majority--14 to 5--voted to report 
this nomination from the Judiciary Committee to the Senate. The ranking 
Republican member of the committee, Senator Specter, voted to support 
this nomination. The assistant Senate Republican leader, Senator Kyl, 
and the senior Senator from South Carolina, Mr. Graham, voted in favor 
of Mr. Ogden. And yet, in spite of this bipartisan support, someone or 
a group of Senators on the Republican side of the aisle were intent on 
filibustering this nominee to stop us from having a Deputy Attorney 
General who might actually be there to help fight crime in America.
  Why there was this attempt of filibustering President Obama's 
nomination for Deputy Attorney General of the United States, and 
depriving law enforcement in this country of his support, I cannot not 
understand.
  Two weeks ago, we debated and voted on the nomination in the 
Judiciary Committee. Those who opposed the nomination had the 
opportunity to explain their negative vote. I urge all Senators to 
reject these false and scurrilous attacks that have been made against 
Mr. Ogden. I also held out hope that they would reject applying an 
obvious double standard when it comes to President Obama's nominees. 
Remember, these are the same people who voted unanimously for one of 
the worst attorneys general in this Nation's history, former Attorney 
General Gonzales.
  I am glad some semblance of common sense has finally prevailed on the 
Republican side of the aisle. I guess somebody looked at the facts and 
said: ``This makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, and there is no way 
of justifying this to Americans, other than to the most partisan of 
Americans,'' and they reversed their position. They now say they will 
not filibuster this nomination.
  It was disturbing to see the President's nomination of Mr. Ogden to 
this critical national security post being held up this long by Senate 
Republicans apparently on some kind of a partisan whim.
  I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and 
President Bush nominated to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during 
the course of his Presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed 
by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them and 
some may not have been the people we would have chosen had it been a 
Democratic President. But we respected the fact the American people 
elected a Republican President and he deserved a certain amount of 
leeway in picking his nominees.
  Of course, we heard the same preaching from the Republican side. 
Suddenly their position has now changed since the American people, by a 
landslide, elected a Democratic President. What Republicans are 
essentially saying is President Obama does not get the same kind of 
credit that President Bush did. That amounts to a double standard, 
especially after every Republican Senator supported each of President 
Bush's nominees, as they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales.
  Today, however, there will be no more secret and anonymous Republican 
holds. Any effort to oppose the President's nominees--executive or 
judicial--will have to withstand public scrutiny. There can be no more 
anonymous holds. We can turn at last to consideration of President 
Obama's nomination of David Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General, the 
No. 2 position at the Department.
  Let me tell you a little bit about David Ogden. As a former high-
ranking official at both the Defense Department and the Justice 
Department, he is the kind of serious lawyer and experienced Government 
servant who understands the special role the Department of Justice must 
fulfill in our democracy. It is no surprise that his

[[Page S2997]]

nomination has received strong support from leading law enforcement 
organizations, children's advocates, civil rights organizations, and 
former Government officials from Republican and Democratic 
administrations.
  The confirmation of Mr. Ogden to this critical national security post 
should not be further delayed. The Deputy Attorney General is too 
important a position to be made into a partisan talking point for 
special interest politics.

  Now, I understand some people want to do fundraising as they talk 
about their ability to block nominations of President Obama. I wonder 
if they know how critical the situation is in this country. This is not 
the time for partisan political games. This is a time where all of us 
have a stake in the country getting back on track and we ought to be 
working to do that. Stop the partisan games. The Deputy Attorney 
General is needed to manage the Justice Department with its many 
divisions, sections, and offices and tens of thousands of employees. As 
Deputy Attorney General, Mr. Ogden would be responsible for the day-to-
day management of the Justice Department, including the Department's 
critical role of keeping our Nation safe from the threat of terrorism.
  I want to thank Mark Filip, the most recent Deputy Attorney General 
and a Republican. Judge Filip came from Chicago last year motivated by 
public service. He had a lifetime appointment as a Federal judge where 
he served with distinction as a conservative Republican. He gave up his 
lifetime appointment after the scandals of the Gonzalez Justice 
Department, where not only did the Attorney General resign but 
virtually everybody at the top echelon of the Department of Justice 
resigned because of the outrageous scandals at that time. I urged his 
fast and complete confirmation and he was confirmed just over one year 
ago, unanimously, by voice vote.
  Now, are Judge Filip and I different politically? Yes, of course we 
are. We differ in many areas. Yet, I saw a man dedicated to public 
service. He gave up his dream of a lifetime position on the Federal 
bench. He saw the scandals of the former Attorney General and all the 
people who had to be replaced by President Bush because of the 
scandalous conduct, and he came in for the good of the country to help 
right it. I admire him for that. I was chairman of the committee that 
unanimously endorsed his nomination. As chairman of the committee, I 
came to the floor of the Senate and urged his support.
  On February 4, after 11 months of dedicated and commendable service 
to us all he left the Justice Department. It is time, over a month 
later, that his replacement be confirmed by the Senate.
  The Senate's quick consideration of Mr. Filip's nomination was 
reflective of how Senate Democrats approached the confirmations of 
nominees for this critical position. President Bush's first nominee to 
serve as Deputy Attorney General, Larry Thompson, received similar 
treatment. At the beginning of a new President's term, it is common 
practice to expedite consideration of Cabinet and high level nominees. 
I remember that nomination very well. I was the ranking Democrat on the 
committee at that time. His hearing was just 2 weeks after his 
nomination. He was reported by the Judiciary Committee unanimously. 
Every Democratic Senator voted in favor of reporting his nomination. 
And he was confirmed that same day by voice vote by the Senate. No 
shenanigans. No partisanship. No posturing for special interests.
  His replacement was James Comey. He, like Mr. Ogden, was a veteran of 
the Department of Justice. The Democratic Senators in the Senate 
minority did not filibuster, obstruct or delay that nomination. We knew 
how important it was. We cooperated in a hearing less than 2 weeks 
after he was nominated. He was reported from the committee unanimously 
in a 19-0 vote, and he was confirmed by the Senate in voice vote.
  Even when President Bush nominated a more contentious choice, a 
nominee with a partisan political background, Senate Democrats did not 
filibuster. Paul McNulty was confirmed to serve as the Deputy Attorney 
General in 2006 in a voice vote by the Senate. While there were 
concerns, there was no filibuster. As it turned out, Mr. McNulty 
resigned in the wake of the U.S. attorney firing scandal, along with 
Attorney General Gonzales and so many others in leadership positions at 
the Department of Justice.
  I voted for all four of the nominees that the Senate confirmed and 
President Bush appointed to serve as the Deputy Attorney General during 
the course of his presidency. In fact, each of the four was confirmed 
by voice vote. Not a single Democratic Senator voted against them. And, 
of course, every Republican Senator supported each of those nominees as 
they did the nomination of Alberto Gonzales and the other nominations 
of President Bush to high ranking positions at the Justice Department.
  I bring up this history to say let us stop playing partisan games. 
Mr. Ogden's nomination to be Deputy Attorney General, a major law 
enforcement position, is supported by Republicans and Democrats, at a 
time when we need the best in our law enforcement in this country.
  The Justice Department is without a confirmed deputy at a time when 
we face great threats and challenges. Indeed, one of the 
recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was that after 
Presidential transitions, nominees for national security appointments, 
such as Mr. Ogden, be accelerated. In particular, the 9/11 Commission 
recommended:

       A president-elect should submit the nominations of the 
     entire new national security team, through the level of 
     undersecretary of cabinet departments, not later than January 
     20.

  The commission also recommended that the Senate:

     should adopt special rules requiring hearings and votes to 
     confirm or reject national security nominees within 30 days 
     of their submission.

  President Obama did his part when he designated Mr. Ogden to be the 
Deputy Attorney General on January 5, more than 2 months ago. We now 
are at March 11. It is time for the Senate to act. Stop the partisan 
games, stop the holding up, stop the holds and the threats of 
filibusters and all the rest. The problems and threats confronting the 
country are too serious to continue to delay and to play partisan 
games, no matter which fundraising letter somebody wants to send out. 
Forget the fundraising letters for a moment; let us deal with the needs 
of our Nation.
  Scurrilous attacks against Mr. Ogden have been launched by some on 
the extreme right. David Ogden is a good lawyer and a good man. He is a 
husband and a father. The chants that David Ogden is somehow a 
pedophile and a pornographer are not only false, they are so wrong. 
Senators know better than that. Forget the fundraising letters, let us 
talk about a decent family man, an exceptional lawyer. Let us talk 
about somebody who answered every question at his confirmation hearing, 
not only about those he represented legally but about his personal 
views.
  I questioned Mr. Ogden at his hearing and he gave his commitment to 
vigorously enforce Federal law, regardless of the positions he may have 
taken on behalf of his clients in private practice. I asked him if he 
had the right experience to be Deputy Attorney General and he pointed 
out his extensive experience managing criminal matters at the 
Department and in private practice. I asked him to thoroughly review 
the practice of prosecutors investigating and filing law suits on the 
eve of elections, and he said he would. I asked him to work with me on 
a mortgage and financial fraud law, and he was agreeable. I asked about 
his experience in the type of national security matters that have 
become more than ever before central to the mission of the Justice 
Department, and he highlighted his extensive national security 
experience and lessons he learned as General Counsel for the Department 
of Defense. On all these matters he was candid and reassuring.
  That is why Mr. Ogden's nomination has received dozens of letters of 
support, including strong endorsements from Republican and Democratic 
former public officials and high-ranking veterans of the Justice 
Department, from the National Center for Missing and Exploited 
Children, the Boys and Girls Clubs of America, and from nearly every 
major law enforcement organization.

  As one who began his public career in law enforcement, I would not 
stand

[[Page S2998]]

here and endorse somebody for such a major law enforcement position if 
I did not feel it was a person who should do this. Larry Thompson, a 
former Deputy Attorney General himself, and somebody I worked with on 
law enforcement matters when he was here as a Republican nominee, 
described Mr. Ogden as

       A brilliant and thoughtful lawyer who has the complete 
     confidence and respect of career attorneys at Main Justice. 
     David will be a superb Deputy Attorney General.

  Chuck Canterbury, who is the national president of the Fraternal 
Order of Police, wrote that Mr. Ogden

       . . . possesses the leadership and experience the Justice 
     Department will need to meet the challenges which lay before 
     us.

  A dozen retired military officers who served as judge advocates 
general have endorsed Mr. Odgen's nomination, calling him

       . . . a person of wisdom, fairness, and integrity, a public 
     servant vigilant to protect the national security of the 
     United States, and a civilian official who values the 
     perspective of uniformed lawyers in matters within their 
     particular expertise.

  I know something about law enforcement, not only from my past career 
but the 35 years I have served in this body, most of that time on the 
Senate Judiciary Committee dealing with law enforcement matters. I know 
that David Ogden is an immensely qualified nominee whose priorities 
would be the safety and security of the American people, but also to 
reinvigorate the traditional work of the Justice Department in 
protecting the rights of Americans--all Americans. We do not want to go 
back to the scandalous time of a former Attorney General, where the 
rights of only certain Americans were protected, and political and 
partisan decisions were made about whose rights would be protected. 
This is the Department of Justice. It is the Deputy Attorney General of 
the United States. It is not the Deputy Attorney General of the 
Republican Party or the Democratic Party, but the Deputy Attorney 
General for all of us. That is why he is going to be a critical asset 
to the Attorney General.
  I urge all Senators to support him. Give the same kind of support to 
Mr. Ogden as Democrats did to Judge Filip when he came in to try to 
clean up the mess created by a former Attorney General.
  One of the joys of being chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee 
are the people I get to serve with. Over the years, I have served with 
numerous Senators, including the father of one of our current Senators. 
For a lawyer, it is an intellectually exhilarating committee to serve 
on, but again because of some of the great people who serve here.
  The Senator from Delaware is the newest member of the committee 
because the former Senator from Delaware--whom I served with for well 
over 30 years on that committee. Part of the time he was chairman and 
part of the time he was ranking member; part of the time I was chairman 
and part of the time he was ranking member--has left the Senate to be 
involved in the Senate now only as the presiding officer, because he 
went on to become Vice President of the United States. His replacement, 
Senator Kaufman of Delaware, moved into that seat on the Senate 
Judiciary Committee as though he had served there for all those 
decades. In a way, he did, as a key person working for former Senator 
Biden.
  I have often joked that Senators are merely constitutional 
impediments or constitutional necessities to the staff, who do all the 
work. Now we have somebody who has both the expertise of having been 
one of the finest staff people I have ever served with and now one of 
the best Senators I have served with, and a great addition to the 
Senate Judiciary Committee.
  So as not to embarrass him further, I will yield to the distinguished 
Senator from Delaware.
  I reserve the remainder of my time.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Delaware.
  Mr. KAUFMAN. Mr. President, people have asked me what it is like to 
be a Senator as opposed to being chief of staff, and one of the great 
things is getting to work with a chairman such as Chairman Leahy on the 
Judiciary Committee; someone who knows what he is about, knows the 
Senate, and is a former prosecutor. We are truly fortunate to have him 
as chair and also to have a truly great staff on the Senate Judiciary 
Committee, led by Bruce Cohen. So it is a great and a genuine pleasure. 
Pleasure is used a lot of times on the floor. Sometimes it is not too 
pleasurable. But this is truly pleasurable, to work with the chairman 
and the staff of the Judiciary Committee, but especially the chairman. 
So I thank the chairman for his kind remarks.
  I do agree with so much of what he has to say about David Ogden for 
Deputy Attorney General. I, along with him, am deeply disappointed that 
the nomination of David Ogden for Deputy Attorney General has been so 
needlessly delayed. This has real consequences for the administration 
of law in our country during a challenging time. Depriving the 
Department of Justice of senior leadership at this critical juncture is 
much more than unfortunate.
  As we saw from his confirmation hearings in the Judiciary Committee 
more than a month ago, David Ogden has excellent academic credentials 
and broad experience in law and government. He fully understands the 
special role of the Department of Justice and is deeply committed to 
the rule of law. He has broad support from lawyers of all political and 
judicial philosophies.
  President Obama designated Mr. Ogden be Deputy Attorney General on 
January 5, which seems like an eternity ago--over 2 months ago. We held 
his confirmation hearing in the Judiciary Committee over a month ago 
and, on February 26, after thorough consideration, a bipartisan 
majority of the committee, 14 to 5, voted to report his nomination. The 
ranking member, the Senate minority whip and the well-respected senior 
Senator from South Carolina, voted in favor of his nomination.

  Despite that bipartisan vote and broad support from law enforcement 
groups, children's advocates, civil rights organizations, former 
Democratic and Republican officials, his nomination has faced 
unwarranted delay. This delay is unfortunate in itself, particularly 
when the nominee has impeccable credentials and broad support. However, 
as important, this delay has come at a critical time for the Department 
of Justice. Without a Deputy Attorney General, the Department is forced 
to deal with some of the most important issues facing this Nation with 
one hand tied behind its back.
  The Deputy Attorney General holds the No. 2 position at the 
Department of Justice and, as we all know, is responsible for the day-
to-day management of the Department, including critical national 
security responsibilities. The Deputy Attorney General, for example, 
signs FISA applications. These are essential to ensuring that our 
intelligence services get the information they need to protect us from 
terrorism and other national security threats. The Deputy Attorney 
General will also play an important role in overseeing the Guantanamo 
Bay detainee review, to make sure we assess each of the remaining 
detainees and make sure they are safely and appropriately transferred--
I know an issue that everyone in this body shares a concern about.
  One of the recommendations of the bipartisan 9/11 Commission was that 
after Presidential transitions, nominations for national security 
appointments, such as Mr. Ogden's, be accelerated. The delay we are 
seeing now, to put it mildly, is not helping those who are sworn to 
protect our country. The Deputy Attorney General manages the criminal 
division of the FBI, which helps keep Americans safe, not only from 
violent crime but also from financial fraud. In the aftermath of the 
financial fraud meltdown that has thrown the American economy into a 
serious recession, we must ensure that lawbreakers will be identified 
and prosecuted for financial fraud. Punishing complex financial crimes 
and deterring future fraud are vital in restoring confidence in our 
decimated financial markets. How can people be expected to go back in 
the market again when they do not know or cannot have confidence that 
the people who perpetrated these crimes are not still there but are in 
jail? This is important. As we know in dealing with crime, the sooner 
you deal with it after the crime happens the better your chance of 
catching the people involved. Getting the Deputy Attorney General 
involved as soon as possible is essential for our financial well-being.

[[Page S2999]]

  The Deputy Attorney General also oversees efforts to fight waste and 
corruption in Federal programs by means of the False Claims Act. As we 
expend vast sums in two wars and work to stimulate the economic 
recovery, we must do everything we can to make sure the taxpayer 
dollars are well spent. Along the same line, the Deputy Attorney 
General oversees the distribution of billions of dollars in economic 
recovery funds in support of critical State and local law enforcement 
initiatives. Everyone agrees that to fulfill the promise of the 
economic recovery package, we need to get the funds out the door 
quickly. Again, depriving the Department of Justice of senior 
leadership at this critical time is bad policy.
  The American people need a Deputy Attorney General in place now, to 
meet all these critical efforts. The problems and threats confronting 
the country are too serious to delay.
  We know David Ogden is extraordinarily well qualified. We know the 
Judiciary Committee fully vetted his background, experience and 
judgment and reported out his nomination with a bipartisan majority. We 
know the Attorney General needs his second in command as well as other 
members of his leadership team in place and working as soon as 
possible. We know further delay in this crucial nomination is 
inexcusable.
  I hope on this nomination, and going forward, we do better.
  I yield the floor, suggest the absence of a quorum, and ask the time 
be charged equally.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The clerk 
will call the roll.
  The bill clerk proceeded to call the roll.
  Mr. SPECTER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order 
for the quorum call be rescinded.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mrs. Hagan). Without objection, it is so 
ordered.
  Mr. SPECTER. Madam President, at the outset in addressing the Chair, 
may I note that it is my distinguished colleague, Senator Casey from 
Pennsylvania. Nice to see you acting as Vice President, Senator Casey.
  May I just say that in the 2 years plus that you have been here, I 
have admired your work and found it very gratifying to be your 
colleague in promoting the interests of our State and our Nation.
  I have sought recognition to comment on the nomination of David W. 
Ogden to be Deputy Attorney General. In reviewing the pending 
nomination, I have noted Mr. Ogden's academic and professional 
qualifications. I have also noted certain objections that have been 
raised by a number of organizations. As a matter of fact, some 11,000 
contacts in opposition to the nomination have been received by our 
Judiciary Committee offices.
  As to Mr. Ogden's background, his resume, his education, and his 
professional qualifications--he received his undergraduate degree from 
the University of Pennsylvania in 1976, Phi Beta Kappa, and his law 
degree from Harvard, magna cum laude, where he was an editor of the Law 
Review.
  I know it is difficult to get a Phi Beta Kappa key at the University 
of Pennsylvania. I know that being on the Law Review at a school like 
Harvard is an accomplishment. He then clerked for Judge Sofaer on the 
United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. I 
came to know Judge Sofaer when he was counsel to the New York 
Department of State. I have a very high regard for him.
  Mr. Ogden then clerked for Harry Blackmun on the Supreme Court. That 
is a distinguished achievement. Then he worked for Ennis Friedman 
Bersoff & Ewing and became a partner there. Then he was a partner at 
Jenner & Block and was an adjunct professor at Georgetown University 
Law Center from 1992 to 1995. He then had a string of prestigious 
positions in the Department of Justice: Associate Deputy Attorney 
General, Counselor to the Attorney General, Chief of Staff to the 
Attorney General, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil 
Division, and Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division--all 
during the administration of President Clinton.

  We have seen quite a series of nominees come forward when the current 
administration selects people from a prior administration. There have 
been quite a few people who served in President Reagan's administration 
who later served in President George H.W. Bush's administration. Then 
some of those individuals served in the administration of President 
George W. Bush. Similarly, individuals from President Carter's 
administration came back with President Clinton, and the people from 
President Clinton are now serving in President Obama's administration. 
So it is a usual occurrence.
  Contrasted to the resume Mr. Ogden has, I have noted the objections 
raised by the Family Research Council headed by Mr. Tony Perkins, who 
wrote the committee expressing his concerns about Mr. Ogden's 
nomination because, as Mr. Perkins puts it:

       Mr. Ogden has built a career on representing views and 
     companies that most Americans find repulsive . . . Mr. Ogden 
     has also profited from representing pornographers and in 
     attacking legislation designed to ban child pornography.

  It was also noted by those opposing his nomination that a brief filed 
by Mr. Ogden in Planned Parenthood v. Casey argued that ``women who 
have had abortions suffer no detrimental consequences and instead 
should feel `relief and happiness' after aborting a child.'' Fidelis, a 
Catholic-based organization, Concerned Women of America, Eagle Forum, 
and the Alliance Defense Fund have also written the committee in 
opposition to Mr. Ogden's nomination based on similar concerns; 
specifically, his representation of several entities in the pornography 
industry and organizations that oppose restrictions on abortions.
  As I noted earlier, the committee has received an unprecedented 
number of opposition phone calls and letters for a Department of 
Justice nominee. In total, the committee has received over 11,000 
contacts in opposition to the nomination.
  The objections raised call into focus the issue as to whether an 
attorney ought to be judged on the basis of arguments he has made in 
the representation of a client. I believe it is accurate to say that 
the prevailing view is not to bind someone to those arguments. I note 
an article published by David Rivkin and Lee Casey, who served in the 
Justice Department under President Reagan and President George H.W. 
Bush, that advances the thesis that a lawyer is not necessarily 
expressing his own views when he represents a client. They point out 
how Chief Justice Roberts' nomination to serve on the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit was vociferously opposed 
by pro-choice groups based upon briefs he had filed when he served as 
Deputy Solicitor General under President George H.W. Bush and the 
arguments for restrictions of abortion rights contained in those 
briefs. I recollect that NARAL had a commercial opposing then-Judge 
Roberts. I spoke out at that time on the concern I had about their 
inference that those were necessarily his own views. As I recollect, 
NARAL withdrew the commercial.
  The article by Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey notes the objections of the 
Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and Concerned Women for 
America, and comes to the conclusion that a persons's representation of 
a client does not necessarily state what a person's views are on an 
issue.
  I further note that Mr. Ogden has been endorsed by very prominent 
people from Republican administrations: Deputy Attorney General Larry 
Thompson, former Assistant Attorney General Peter Keisler, former 
Assistant Attorney General Rachel Brand, and former Acting Assistant 
Attorney General Daniel Levin.
  Professor of law Orin Kerr at George Washington University Law School 
noted that he disagreed with arguments that Mr. Ogden had made, but 
despite his disagreement with Mr. Ogden's arguments, he believed those 
arguments should not be held against him.
  In the consideration of nominees who are now pending before the 
Judiciary Committee, we are taking a very close look at all of them. I 
think it appropriate to note at this point that the nomination of 
Harvard Law School dean Elena Kagan is being analyzed very carefully. 
Without going into great detail at this time because her nomination, 
which has been voted out of committee, will be on the floor at a later 
date, I and others voted to pass

[[Page S3000]]

on Ms. Kagan because we are not satisfied with answers to questions 
that she has given.
  I ask unanimous consent to put in the Record a letter that I wrote to 
Dean Kagan, February 25, 2009, and her reply to me on March 2, 2009.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                                                      U.S. Senate,


                                   Committee on the Judiciary,

                                Washington, DC, February 25, 2009.
     Dean Elena Kagan,
     Harvard Law School,
     Cambridge, MA.
       Dear Dean Kagan: I write to express my dissatisfaction with 
     many of the answers you provided to the Committee in response 
     to my written questions following your confirmation hearing. 
     I believe these answers are inadequate for confirmation 
     purposes.
       In a 1995 review of a book entitled The Confirmation Mess, 
     you made a compelling case for senatorial inquiry into a 
     nominee's judicial philosophy and her views on specific 
     issues. You stated, ``when the Senate ceases to engage 
     nominees in meaningful discussion of legal issues, the 
     confirmation process takes on an air of vacuity and farce, 
     and the Senate becomes incapable of either properly 
     evaluating nominees or appropriately educating the public.'' 
     You further asserted that the Senate's inquiry into the views 
     of executive nominees, as compared to Supreme Court nominees, 
     should be even more thorough, stating, ``the Senate ought to 
     inquire into the views and policies of nominees to the 
     executive branch, for whom `independence' is no virtue.'' I 
     agree with the foregoing assessment, and, therefore, am 
     puzzled by your responses, which do not provide clear answers 
     concerning important constitutional and legal issues.
       For example, in response to several questions related to 
     the constitutionality of the imposition of the death penalty, 
     you offer only the following: ``I do not think it comports 
     with the responsibilities and role of the Solicitor General 
     for me to say whether I view particular decisions as wrongly 
     decided or whether I agree with criticisms of those 
     decisions. The Solicitor General must show respect for the 
     Court's precedents and for the general principle of stare 
     decisis. If I am confirmed as Solicitor General, I could not 
     frequently or lightly ask the Court to reverse one of its 
     precedents, and I certainly would not do so because I thought 
     the case wrongly decided.'' You repeatedly provide this 
     answer verbatim, or a similarly unresponsive answer, to 
     numerous questions regarding the First and Second Amendments, 
     property rights, executive power, habeas corpus rights of 
     detainees, the use of foreign law in constitutional and 
     statutory analysis, and the Independent Counsel statute, 
     among others. I think you would agree that, given the gravity 
     of these issues and the significance of the post for which 
     you are nominated, this Committee is entitled to a full and 
     detailed explanation of your views on these matters.
       Please provide the Committee with adequate answers to these 
     questions so that I may properly evaluate your nomination and 
     determine whether any supplemental questions are necessary.
           Sincerely,
     Arlen Specter.
                                  ____

                                               Harvard Law School,


                                           Office of the Dean,

                                     Cambridge, MA, March 2, 2009.
     Senator Arlen Specter
     U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Dirksen Senate 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Senator Specter: I am writing in response to your 
     letter of February 25. I am sorry that you believe some of my 
     answers to written questions to be inadequate. I wish to 
     respond to your request for additional information as fully 
     as possible while still meeting the obligations attendant to 
     a nominee for the Solicitor General's office.
       Let me first say how much I respect the Senate and its 
     institutional role in the nominations process. As the members 
     of a co-equal branch of government charged with the ``advice 
     and consent'' function, you and your colleagues have a right 
     and, indeed, a duty to seek necessary information about how a 
     nominee will perform in her office. By the same token, each 
     nominee has a responsibility to address senatorial inquiries 
     as fully and candidly as possible. But some questions--and 
     these questions will be different for different positions--
     cannot be answered consistently with the responsible 
     performance of the job the nominee hopes to undertake. For 
     that reason, some balance is appropriate, as I remarked to 
     Senator Hatch at my nomination hearing and as you quoted 
     approvingly in the introduction to your written questions.
       I endeavored to strike that proper balance in responding to 
     your and other senators' written questions. I answered in 
     full every question relating to the Solicitor General's role 
     and responsibilities, including how I would approach specific 
     statutes and areas of law. I also answered in detail every 
     question relating to my own professional career, including my 
     relatively extensive writings and speeches. Finally, I 
     answered many questions relating to general legal issues. In 
     short, I did my best to provide you and the rest of the 
     Committee with a good sense of who I am and of how I would 
     approach the role of Solicitor General. The only matters I 
     did not address substantively were my personal views (if any) 
     regarding specific Supreme Court cases and constitutional 
     doctrines. These personal views would play no role in my 
     performance of the job, which is to represent the interests 
     of the United States; and expressing them (whether as a 
     nominee or, if I am confirmed, as Solicitor General) might 
     undermine my and the Office's effectiveness in a variety of 
     ways.
       In answering these questions as I did, I was cognizant of 
     the way other nominees to the position of Solicitor General 
     have replied to inquiries from senators. For example, in 
     answering a question about his views of the use of foreign 
     law in legal analysis, Paul Clement wrote: ``As Solicitor 
     General, my role would be to advance the interests of the 
     United States, and previous statements of my personal views 
     might be used against the United States' interests, either to 
     seek my recusal, to skew my consideration of what position 
     the United States should take, or to impeach the arguments 
     eventually advanced by the United States.'' Similarly, Seth 
     Waxman stressed in responding to questions about his 
     understanding of a statute that ``[i]t is the established 
     practice of the Solicitor General not to express views or 
     take positions in advance of presentation of a concrete 
     case'' and prior to engaging in extensive consultation within 
     and outside the office. The advice I received from former 
     Solicitors General of both parties prior to my nomination 
     hearing was consistent with what the transcripts of their 
     hearings reveal: all stressed the need to be honest and 
     forthcoming, but also the responsibility to protect the 
     interests of the office and of the United States. In my 
     hearing and in my responses to written questions, I believe I 
     have provided at least as much information to the Committee 
     as any recent nominee.
       As you noted to me when we met, I have lived my 
     professional life largely in the public eye. I have written 
     and spoken widely, so the Committee had the opportunity to 
     review many pages of my law review articles and many hours of 
     my remarks. I tried to answer every question put to me at my 
     hearing completely and forthrightly. I met with every member 
     of the Committee who wished to do so in order to give all of 
     you a more personal sense of the kind of person and lawyer I 
     am. I submitted letters from numerous lawyers, who themselves 
     hold views traversing the political and legal spectrum, 
     indicating how I approach legal issues. And as noted above, I 
     answered many written questions from you and other members of 
     the Committee.
       In all, I did my best to provide you and the other members 
     of the Committee with a complete picture of who I am and how 
     I would approach the role of Solicitor General, consistently 
     with the responsibilities of that office and the interests of 
     the client it serves. But I am certainly willing to do 
     anything else I can to satisfy your concerns, including 
     meeting with you again.
       Thank you for your consideration of this letter.
           Sincerely,
                                                      Elena Kagan.

  Mr. SPECTER. The comments that are in Ms. Kagan's letter require 
further analysis. She has, as a generalization, stated that she does 
not think it appropriate to answer certain questions about her views 
because she has the ability as an advocate to disregard her own 
personal views and to advocate with total responsibility to the law, 
even though she may have some different point of view. I think as a 
generalization, that is valid. However, as I discussed at her hearing, 
some of her points of view raise a question as to whether, given the 
very strongly held views she has expressed, she can totally put those 
views aside. When her nomination was before the committee for a vote, I 
passed. I agreed it ought to go to the floor, and we ought not to 
delay; but I wanted to have another talk with her. I have scheduled a 
meeting for tomorrow to go over Dean Kagan's record because I think it 
is important to take a very close look at it.
  I also think it is relevant to comment about the pending nomination 
of Dawn Johnsen for Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office 
of Legal Counsel. That is the Assistant Attorney General who passes on 
legal questions, a very important position. They all are important, 
whether it is Deputy Attorney General or Solicitor General or Assistant 
Attorney General for the various divisions. But the Office of Legal 
Counsel, OLC as it is called, is especially important. We now have 
challenges in dealing with opinions on the torture issue by people who 
held leadership positions in the Office of Legal Counsel under 
President George W. Bush--whether they were given in good faith and 
whether they went far beyond the law as to what interrogation tactics 
were appropriate.

[[Page S3001]]

  With respect to Ms. Johnsen's nomination, she has equated limiting a 
woman's right to choose with slavery in violation of the 13th 
amendment. While I personally believe, as did Senator Goldwater, that 
we ought to keep the Government out of our pocketbooks, off our backs, 
and out of our bedrooms, I am not going to raise the contention that 
abortion restrictions are a violation of the 13th amendment and that it 
constitutes slavery. Her nomination is being subjected to very careful 
analysis, especially the part of her testimony where she disclaimed 
making that the connection between abortion restrictions and the 13th 
amendment because the records and a footnote suggest the contrary.
  I talk about the nominations of Dean Kagan and Ms. Johnsen briefly, 
when considering the nomination of Mr. Ogden, to point out that there 
is very careful scrutiny given to these very important positions. I am 
looking forward to meeting Dean Kagan tomorrow to examine further her 
capabilities to be the Solicitor General and advance arguments with the 
appropriate adversarial zeal. We have an adversarial system. We put 
lawyers on opposite sides of the issue and we postulate that, from the 
adversarial system, the truth is more likely to emerge. An advocate has 
to pursue the cause within the range of advocacy. With Ms. Johnsen, we 
are going to be considering further her qualifications in light of her 
statements to which I have referred.
  But coming back to Mr. Ogden, my net conclusion is that he ought to 
be confirmed. I say that based upon a resume that is very strong, both 
academically and professionally. I think it is important to note that 
when questioned about some of his positions, Mr. Ogden has, one might 
say, backed off some of his earlier views. When asked about some of the 
things he had written, he criticized a 1983 memo he wrote when he was a 
law clerk to Justice Blackmun that referred to the defenders of a 
challenged law in a way that disparagingly suggested their insincerity. 
He told the committee that after maturing, he had some different views.
  In a 1990 tribute to Justice Blackmun, he expressed agreement with 
the Justice's endorsement of affirmative action programs that entailed 
set-asides or quotas. At his hearing, he said he now believes that such 
an approach was inappropriate and instead believes that consideration 
of race, as he put it, ``in limited circumstances'' should be one of 
many factors in affirmative action programs.
  Mr. Ogden also stated he no longer agrees with the position he took 
in a 1980 case comment that ``state expansion of speech rights at the 
expense of property rights does not constitute a taking.'' That case 
comment involved the issue of whether there was an unlimited right of 
speech on private property. So he has maintained a little different 
position. It is fair to raise a question about whether statements made 
in the confirmation amount to a confirmation conversion. That has been 
an expression used from time to time that you have to take statements 
at a confirmation with a grain of salt because of the motivation to be 
confirmed. That has to be taken into account. But I listened to what 
Mr. Ogden had to say, and I think he is entitled to modify his views 
over a substantial period of time from what he did in 1983 and 1990, 
with a maturation process.
  Then there is the consideration that the President is entitled to 
select his appointees within broad limits. The Deputy Attorney General, 
while important, is not a lifetime appointment as a judge. I had a call 
from the Attorney General who raised the issue that he does not have 
any deputies and the Department of Justice has now been functioning for 
more than a month and a half. It is a big, important department, and we 
ought to give appropriate latitude to President Obama and appropriate 
latitude to Attorney General Holder and move ahead with Mr. Ogden's 
confirmation.
  For all of those factors, I intend to vote in favor of Mr. Ogden. I 
think those who have raised objections have done so, obviously, in good 
faith. They are entitled to have their objections considered and to 
know that the Judiciary Committee is giving very careful analysis to 
their facts and will do so, as I have outlined, on the consideration of 
other nominees.
  Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that the full text of an 
article I referred to from Mr. Rivkin and Mr. Casey be printed in the 
Congressional Record, along with the resume of Mr. Ogden.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                         Don't Blame the Lawyer

               (By David B. Rivkin Jr. and Lee A. Casey)

       President Barack Obama's selection of David Ogden as deputy 
     attorney general has drawn fire from conservative family 
     values groups, including the influential Family Research 
     Council, Focus on the Family, and Concerned Women for 
     America. Conservative talk show hosts including Fox News' 
     Bill O'Reilly, have highlighted the story, and there appears 
     to be a real effort under way to derail the nomination.
       This effort undoubtedly has not escaped notice on Capitol 
     Hill, and several Republican senators on the Judiciary 
     Committee--including Orrin Hatch (Utah), Jon Kyl (Ariz.), and 
     Jeff Sessions (Ala.)--have pressed Ogden on some of the 
     issues raised by these groups.
       Unfortunately, much of this opposition from the family 
     values groups is based upon Ogden's representation of 
     controversial clients and the positions he has argued on 
     their behalf. This tactic has been used against conservatives 
     in the past, including Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. 
     Punishing lawyers for who they represent and what they argue 
     before the courts is not in the interest of justice and makes 
     for bad public policy.


                           ``FROM PLAYBOY''?

       Among the principal objections to Ogden's nomination is 
     that he has represented adult magazine, book, and film 
     producers, including Playboy and Penthouse, on whose behalf 
     he has argued for a broad interpretation of First Amendment 
     protections.
       Ogden also represented a number of library directors who 
     filed an amicus brief supporting the American Library 
     Association's challenge to the Children's Internet Protection 
     Act of 2000, which among other things required the use of 
     Internet filtering software by public libraries.
       In addition, as noted by the Family Research Council, 
     ``Ogden worked for the ACLU and filed a brief in the landmark 
     abortion case Planned Parenthood v. Casey that denied the 
     existence of adverse mental health effects of abortion on 
     women:''
       His participation and arguments in cases involving parental 
     notification, the Pentagon's ``don't ask, don't tell'' 
     policy, and gay rights has also raised conservative hackles. 
     According to the president of an important Catholic values 
     organization, ``David Ogden is a hired gun from Playboy and 
     the ACLU. He can't run from his long record of opposing 
     common-sense laws protecting families, women, and children.''


                         ZEALOUS REPRESENTATION

       The premise of this opposition is a familiar one--that 
     lawyers must be presumed to agree with, or be sympathetic to, 
     the clients they represent or, at a minimum, that they should 
     be held accountable for the arguments they advance on a 
     client's behalf. In fact, of course, lawyers represent 
     clients for many and varied reasons--for money or fame, out 
     of a sense of duty, an interest in a particular subject 
     matter, or for professional growth and development. Sometimes 
     lawyers are motivated by all of the above, and more.
       It is simply inaccuracy to attribute to a lawyer his or her 
     client's beliefs. That is just not the way our legal system 
     works--at least not all the time.
       Sometimes, of course, lawyers do personally agree with the 
     client's substantive views and the legal positions they 
     advance. There is no doubt that lawyers are often drawn to a 
     pardcular area of practice, or undertake to represent 
     particular clients--especially on a pro bono basis--because 
     they do believe in the client's cause. It is possible, 
     however, to believe in a client's cause--a broad application 
     of free speech rights, for example--and not to approve of the 
     client's personal behavior or business model.
       And, just as a lawyer's character cannot be judged based on 
     a client list, neither can a lawyer's policy preferences 
     easily be divined by reading his or her briefs. Lawyers must 
     represent their clients zealously, and this means they often 
     must deploy legal arguments with which they personally 
     disagree.


                         SUBVERTING THE SYSTEM

       Moreover, even in cases where a lawyer does share the 
     client's opinions, or where he or she personally believes 
     that the law means, or should mean, what the briefs say, 
     there are very good reasons why this should not disqualify 
     such individuals from high government office.
       Lawyers are human beings, and punishing them in this way 
     would result in many avoiding controversial clients and 
     causes. Indeed, this is often the purpose and intent of such 
     opposition, but it also is subversive of our legal system. 
     That system is adversarial and works only if both sides of an 
     issue are adequately represented. If there are clients or 
     causes, be they the adult entertainment industry, tobacco 
     companies, or Guantanamo detainees, that are classified as 
     being so disreputable or radioactive that their lawyers are 
     later personally held to account for representing them, the 
     quality of justice will suffer.
       Conservatives and Republicans who are tempted in that 
     direction now that a liberal

[[Page S3002]]

     Democrat is in office should recall that similar arguments 
     about supposedly disreputable clients and unacceptable 
     arguments have been raised against their own nominees in the 
     past. For example, now-Chief Justice Roberts' nomination to 
     serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit was 
     vociferously opposed by pro-choice groups based upon briefs 
     he had filed--and the arguments for restriction of abortion 
     rights they contained--when he served as deputy solicitor 
     general under President George H.W. Bush.


                           CLEARLY QUALIFIED

       Although there are many issues on which conservatives can 
     and should disagree with Ogden as ideological matters, those 
     disagreements are not good reasons why he should not be 
     confirmed as deputy attorney general. His views of the law 
     and legal policy are certainly legitimate topics of inquiry 
     and debate, both for the Senate and the public in general, 
     but only in the context of what they may mean about Obama's 
     own beliefs and plans.
       Like his presidential predecessors, Obama is entitled to 
     select the men and women who will run the federal government, 
     including the Justice Department, exercising the executive 
     authority vested in him as president by the Constitution.
       It is entirely appropriate that Obama's appointees share 
     his policy preferences and ideological inclinations. If their 
     legal views are considered by some to be out of the 
     ``mainstream,'' that is the president's problem. If they push 
     for extreme policies, it will be up to Obama to curtail them. 
     If not, there will be another election in 2012, at which time 
     the country can call him to account.
       In the meantime, so long as the individuals Obama chooses 
     to serve in the executive branch have sufficient integrity, 
     credentials, and experience to perform the tasks they will be 
     assigned, they should be confirmed.
       This is the case with Ogden. He is clearly qualified for 
     the job. His training and experience are outstanding, 
     including a Harvard law degree and a Supreme Court clerkship. 
     Ogden has practiced at one of the country's premier law 
     firms. He served as Attorney General Janet Reno's chief of 
     staff and as assistant attorney general in charge of the 
     Justice Department's Civil Division--its largest litigating 
     unit--in the Clinton administration. This service is 
     important. The deputy attorney general is, in large part, a 
     manager, and Ogden clearly understands the Justice 
     Department, its role in government, its career lawyers, and 
     its foibles.
       Significantly, his nomination has been endorsed by a number 
     of lawyers who served in the Reagan and two Bush 
     administrations, including one who preceded, and one who 
     succeeded, Ogden as head of the Civil Division. They are 
     right; he should be confirmed.
                                  ____


                             David W. Ogden


                        Deputy Attorney General

       Birth: 1953; Washington, DC.
       Legal Residence: Virginia.
       Education: B.A., summa cum laude, University of 
     Pennsylvania, 1976, Phi Beta Kappa; J.D., magna cum laude, 
     Harvard Law School, 1981, Editor, Harvard Law Review.
       Employment: Law Clerk, Hon. Abraham D. Sofaer, U.S. 
     District Court Judge for the Southern District of New York, 
     1981-1982; Law Clerk, Hon. Harry A. Blackmun, U.S. Supreme 
     Court, 1982-1983; Associate, Ennis, Friedman, Bersoff & 
     Ewing, 1983-1985, Partner and Attorney, 1986-1988; Partner 
     and Attorney Jenner & Block, 1988-1994; Adjunct Professor, 
     Georgetown University Law Center, 1992-1995; Deputy General 
     Counsel and Legal Counsel, Department of Defense, 1994-1995; 
     Department of Justice, 1995-2001, Associate Deputy Attorney 
     General, 1995-1997, Counselor to the Attorney General, 1997-
     1998, Chief of Staff to the Attorney General, 1998-1999, 
     Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 
     1999-2000, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 
     2000-2001; Partner and Attorney, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale 
     and Dorr LLP, 2001-present; Agency Liaison for the Department 
     of Justice, Presidential Transition Team, 2008-2009.
       Selected Activities: Member, American Bar Association, 
     1983-present, Ex officio member and governmental 
     representative, Council of the Section of Litigation, 1998-
     2001; Member, First Amendment Lawyers Association, 1991-1994; 
     Fellow, American Bar Foundation, 2002-present; Member of 
     Advisory Board, Bruce J. Ennis Foundation, 2002-2009; Member 
     of Advisory Board, Washington Project for the Arts, 2004-
     2007; Member, Senior Legal Coordinating Committee, Barack 
     Obama's Presidential Campaign, 2007-2008.

  Mr. SPECTER. I thank the Chair and yield the floor to my 
distinguished colleague from Montana.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Montana.
  Mr. BAUCUS. Madam President, I ask unanimous consent that I be 
allowed to speak as in morning business and that the time be charged 
against the time under the control of the majority on the nomination.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.