[Senate Report 109-369]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
109th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
109-369
_______________________________________________________________________
Activities Report
of the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
2005-2006
December 22, 2006.--Ordered to be printed
Filed, under authority of the order of the Senate of December 9
(legislative day December 8), 2006
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania, Chairman
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont
CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts
JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California
LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin
JOHN CORNYN, Texas CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
INTRODUCTION.....................................................
I. MAJOR BILLS AND HEARINGS.........................................5
A. CIVIL LAW ISSUES.................................... 5
B. CRIMINAL LAW ISSUES................................. 20
C. IMMIGRATION LAW..................................... 30
D. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.................................. 37
E. ANTI-TERRORISM MEASURES............................. 46
F. COURTS & THE JUDICIARY.............................. 52
II. OVERSIGHT MATTERS...............................................58
III. NOMINATIONS.....................................................69
A. NOTABLE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS........................ 69
1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT..................... 69
2. UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS................. 73
3. DISTRICT COURTS................................. 93
4. OTHER COURTS.................................... 94
B. NOTABLE EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS....................... 94
IV. APPENDICES REGARDING NOMINATIONS...............................108
A. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL
NOMINATIONS--GANG OF FOURTEEN AGREEMENT............ 108
B. LETTER: CHAIRMAN SPECTER TO AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(MICHAEL S. GRECO AND STEPHEN L. TOBER); JUNE 22,
2006............................................... 109
C. LETTER: STEPHEN L. TOBER TO CHAIRMAN SPECTER; JUNE
30, 2006........................................... 110
D. LETTER: CHAIRMAN SPECTER TO AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION
(MICHAEL S. GRECO AND STEPHEN L. TOBER); AUGUST 7,
2006............................................... 111
E. LETTER: THEODORE B. OLSON (ON BEHALF OF ABA) TO
CHAIRMAN SPECTER; SEPTEMBER 14, 2006............... 114
V. SUMMARY MATERIALS REGARDING NOMINATIONS........................117
A. ARTICLE III JUDGES CONFIRMED........................ 117
B. NOMINATIONS HEARINGS BY DATE........................ 118
C. DAYS ON THE SENATE FLOOR............................ 119
D. HISTORICAL VACANCY RATES 1977-PRESENT............... 120
E. HISTORICAL VACANCY RATES BY CONGRESS................ 121
F. DISPOSITION OF ARTICLE III JUDGES................... 123
G. RELEVANT DATES FOR 109TH CONGRESS NOMINEES.......... 125
VI. SUMMARY MATERIALS REGARDING COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES...............136
A. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW................................ 136
B. HEARINGS OF THE 109TH CONGRESS...................... 136
C. EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETINGS WITH AGENDAS............ 140
D. BILLS, NOMINATIONS, AND MATTERS REPORTED............ 171
E. SUCCESSFUL LEGISLATION.............................. 174
F. PUBLICATIONS........................................ 181
VII. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE..............................186
A. FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP........................... 186
B. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP............................. 186
C. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE....................... 187
D. RULES OF THE COMMITTEE.............................. 194
INTRODUCTION
Staff of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary under the
direction of Chairman Arlen Specter prepared the following
report detailing the Committee's activities during the 109th
Congress. One of the Senate's original standing committees, the
Committee on the Judiciary was first authorized on December 10,
1816. The Committee enjoys one of the broadest jurisdictions in
the Senate, ranging from constitutional law and criminal
justice issues to antitrust and intellectual property concerns.
The Committee actively pursued hearings and legislative
initiatives in a broad variety of areas, achieving notable
successes in the enactment of bankruptcy and class action
reform and in re-authorizing the Department of Justice's many
important programs. The Committee also fulfilled its obligation
in reporting numerous Article III judges and executive branch
officials to the Senate floor. Of particular significance, the
Committee held hearings for, and favorably reported out, John
G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States and Samuel
A. Alito to be an Associate Justice of the United States.
I. MAJOR BILLS AND HEARINGS
A. CIVIL LAW ISSUES
s. 852, fairness in asbestos injury resolution act of 2005
Asbestos reform legislation played a prominent role on the
Judiciary Committee's agenda during the 109th Congress. The
Committee confronted enormous challenges in seeking to
resolving one of the nation's worst litigation crises.
Tens of thousands of Americans have developed debilitating
or deadly asbestos-related diseases, and more will become ill
in the coming years. The existing tort system has been unable
to resolve claims adequately and efficiently, or ensure that
current and future victims of asbestos are fairly compensated
for their injuries. The sheer number of claims has clogged both
state and federal courts. Contingency fees have significantly
reduced the real value of payments to victims. Claims by
unimpaired individuals have delayed payments and reduced the
amount available for the truly sick. Asbestos claims have
driven many defendants into bankruptcy, leaving some victims
without payments altogether and other victims diverted to
bankruptcy trusts that offer miniscule payments. Furthermore,
these corporate bankruptcies endanger the jobs and pensions of
many American workers.
Indeed, the Supreme Court has implored Congress to address
the asbestos litigation crisis, noting on more than one
occasion that the current flawed system ``defies customary
judicial administration.'' Ortiz v. Fibreboard Corp., 527 U.S.
815 (1999). The Court has suggested that ``a nationwide
administrative claims processing regime would provide the most
secure, fair, and efficient means of compensating victims of
asbestos exposure.'' Amchem Products Inc. v. George Windsor,
521 U.S. 591 (1997).
The 108th Congress sought to address asbestos reform with
S. 1125, a bill introduced by Senator Hatch and favorably
reported from the Committee. Although that bill was never
considered by the full Senate, it served as the starting point
for negotiations initiated by Chairman Specter in the 109th
Congress and led by the late Honorable Edward R. Becker, Senior
Judge and Former Chief Judge of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. Judge Becker hosted 47 meetings
with asbestos defendants, insurers, labor unions, victims'
groups, the trial bar and other interested parties. Many
important compromises were reached during these negotiations,
which secured support from a broad spectrum of stakeholders,
including such labor groups as the International Union of Heat
and Frost Insulators and Asbestos Workers and the United Auto
Workers, which previously opposed asbestos reform.
The Becker negotiations resulted in several proposed
changes to S. 1125 as reported in the 108th Congress. These
included modifications strengthening the medical criteria to be
applied to persons with lung cancer and a history of smoking,
increasing scheduled payments to claimants with malignant
diseases, and eliminating insurers' rights of subrogation with
respect to fund payments. These changes ensured that
compensation would go to those truly injured by asbestos
exposure--not to the unimpaired--while at the same time
maximizing compensation for victims.
Early in the 109th Congress, as a product of these
negotiations, Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy
introduced comprehensive legislation to resolve the asbestos
litigation crisis. S. 852, the ``Fairness in Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act'' (``FAIR''), was cosponsored by Committee
Members Senators DeWine, Feinstein, Grassley and Graham. The
legislation was designed to unclog the courts and simplify
recovery for victims by establishing a privately funded, ``no-
fault'' compensatory trust fund. Under the FAIR Act, businesses
with asbestos liability would be required to make contributions
to the fund, but would spread those contributions out over the
life of the fund, preventing further bankruptcies and thereby
protecting jobs and worker pensions. The fund, in turn, would
provide victims with greater certainty by offering fixed awards
and ensuring compensation to individuals, including veterans,
who are currently unable to pursue their claims in the tort
system.
The Committee held hearings contemporaneous to the Becker-
mediated stakeholder sessions, taking testimony from 28
witnesses over three days. At the conclusion of these hearings,
the Committee considered the legislation over the course of six
executive business meetings. During consideration of the bill,
Committee Members circulated over 160 amendments.
The Committee considered 89 of these amendments, ultimately
approving 75. For example, the Committee adopted a proposal by
Senator Feinstein to revise the procedure for the fund's start-
up, a new mechanism for sunsetting the fund drafted by Senators
Feinstein and Kyl, provisions proposed by Senator Coburn to
strengthen medical scrutiny for claims brought by smokers, a
requirement for a study on the effectiveness of CT scans
advocated by Senators Coburn and Kohl, and additional
protections for small businesses championed by Senators
Brownback and Cornyn. The Committee also adopted, by voice
vote, an amendment introduced by Senator Durbin that
accelerated payments to the families of deceased victims and an
expedited judicial review provision advanced by Senator
Feinstein.
The Committee rejected 14 amendments, including some that
would have expanded narrow exceptions in the bill. For example,
the FAIR Act exempted the residents of Libby, Montana--home to
a mine contaminated with asbestos and the site of a massive EPA
cleanup effort--from the exposure requirements contained in the
bill. The Committee voted down amendments offered by Senators
Kennedy and Graham that would have extended this exemption to
communities where no evidence of widespread contamination
exists. Accepting these amendments would have lost the support
of key Senators and would have jeopardized the health of the
national trust by opening the door to claims from individuals
whose illnesses are not asbestos-related.
The Committee favorably reported S. 852, as amended, on
June 16, 2005. The Majority Leader subsequently moved to
proceed to consideration of the legislation. Cloture on the
motion to proceed was successfully invoked by a vote of 98 to
1. At the same time, the Senate voted to table a complete
substitute offered by Senator Cornyn by a vote of 70 to 27. The
Cornyn substitute would have tightened the medical criteria
used by courts when deciding asbestos cases rather than
providing a comprehensive trust fund.
Despite the invocation of cloture, Senator John Ensign
raised a budget point of order against the FAIR Act, pursuant
to Section 407(b) of the previous year's budget resolution.
Under the resolution, the Senate may not consider legislation
that would increase long term spending by more than $5 billion
during any ten-year period. Sixty votes are required to waive
this restriction. Proponents of the FAIR Act argued that the
budget point of order should not apply because the fund's
operations would be capitalized solely by private
contributions. They observed the Congressional Budget Office
had concluded that ``the government's general funds would not
be used to pay asbestos claims'' and that the FAIR Act would be
``deficit-neutral over the life of the fund.'' \1\ These
proponents fell short by one vote: the Senate voted 59 to 40 to
waive the budget point of order.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Congressional Budget Office letter to Senator Judd Gregg,
February 14, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with Senate procedure, S. 852 was recommitted to
the Committee. After this action, Chairman Specter met with
other Senators to discuss their concerns with asbestos
litigation reform legislation. On May 26, 2006 the Chairman and
Ranking Member introduced the Fairness in Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act of 2006, a further refinement of the FAIR Act of
2005.
The legislation incorporated several amendments filed
during the floor debate of S. 852, including an alternative
allocation system for small and medium-sized businesses
proposed by Senator Kyl and filing procedures for individuals
exposed to asbestos as the result of a natural disaster
authored by Senator Mary Landrieu. In addition, the legislation
contained protections for defendant companies with large
insurance reserves, which may otherwise have been forced to pay
more to the national trust than they would in the tort system.
Pursuant to the provisions of rule XIV, S. 3274 was placed
directly on the Senate Legislative Calendar. The Committee held
a hearing on the legislation on June 7, 2006, taking the
testimony of eight witnesses representing the business
community, labor organizations, veterans and victims groups.
The legislation, however, was not considered by the full
Senate.
S. 5, CLASS ACTION FAIRNESS ACT OF 2005
The Judiciary Committee played a vital role during the
109th Congress in enacting class action reform, an issue that
had been considered by Congress for nearly a decade. On January
25, 2005, Senators Grassley, Kohl and Hatch introduced S. 5,
the ``Class Action Fairness Act of 2005.'' Committee Members
who cosponsored the bill included Senators Cornyn, DeWine, Kyl,
Schumer, Feinstein and Sessions. The bipartisan legislation was
aimed at keeping large interstate class actions in federal
courts rather than in a handful of state court jurisdictions
favored by the plaintiffs' bar.
The bill expands federal diversity jurisdiction to cover
class actions in which the aggregate amount in controversy
exceeds $5,000,000, and where any member of a plaintiff class
is a citizen of a state different from any defendant. Prior to
this legislation, federal courts interpreted the diversity
jurisdiction statute as requiring complete diversity between
all plaintiffs and all defendants. Accordingly, plaintiffs'
attorneys could keep large nationwide class action lawsuits in
state court by simply suing an insignificant local defendant
(e.g., a local pharmacy which may have distributed a drug that
allegedly caused harm to the plaintiffs' class).
The Act balances state concerns to adjudicate local class
action disputes by creating specific exceptions to federal
jurisdiction. Under the Act's home state exception, state
courts maintain jurisdiction of class actions in which the
defendant is sued in its home state and where at least two-
thirds of the plaintiff class are citizens of the defendant's
home state. If less than one-third of the class members are
citizens of the defendant's home state, the case is removable
to federal court. For class actions where 33%-66% of the class
members share state citizenship with all defendants, the
federal judge must decide whether to exercise jurisdiction
based on six specified factors that analyze the relationship
between the lawsuit and the state where it is brought.
Additionally, under the Act's local controversy exception,
state courts maintain jurisdiction of class actions in which
(1) at least two-thirds of the proposed class members are
citizens of the forum state, (2) the plaintiffs have sued at
least one in-state defendant whose conduct forms a significant
basis of their claims, (3) the principal injuries occurred in
the state where the suit is brought, and (4) no class action
has been filed alleging the same claims against any of the
defendants in the last three years.
Finally, the Act protects consumers by giving federal
courts enhanced oversight of class action settlements. The Act
requires federal courts to issue written fairness decisions
before approving coupon settlements or ``net loss'' settlements
and to value attorneys' fees in coupon settlements based on
those coupons that are actually redeemed by the class members
plus, where applicable, the value of any injunctive relief. The
legislation also prohibits the district court from approving a
settlement that disproportionately awards payments to class
members based on geographic proximity to the court.
The Committee met on February 3, 2005 to consider S. 5.
During this session, Ranking Member Leahy offered an amendment
authorizing the increase of federal judge salaries, which was
defeated by a vote of 13-5. The bill was then reported
favorably out of Committee by a 13-5 vote. On February 10,
2005, S. 5 passed the full Senate without amendment on a roll
call vote of 72-26. The House followed suit a day later by
passing the Senate bill on a roll call vote of 279-149. On
February 18, 2005, President George W. Bush signed the measure
into law (PL 109-2).
S. 256, BANKRUPTCY ABUSE PREVENTION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
After passing class action reform, the Committee turned
immediately to enacting long-awaited bankruptcy reform
legislation, an issue considered by the Congress since 1997. On
February 1, 2005, Senator Grassley introduced S. 256, the
``Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of
2005,'' cosponsored by Committee Members Senators Hatch and
Sessions. This bipartisan legislation addressed significant
consumer bankruptcy abuses by implementing a ``means test'' to
prevent debtors with the ability to repay their debts from
using bankruptcy law as a financial planning tool.
The means test is a needs-based formula applied by a
trustee to determine whether Chapter 7 debtors whose incomes
exceed the state median income are able to repay a significant
portion of their debts. To determine whether a debtor can
repay, the trustee takes the debtor's monthly income and
subtracts applicable expenses as specified by the IRS,\2\
including ``other necessary expenses'' (e.g. medical care), as
well as monthly payments toward secured debts and priority
claims (e.g. child support). After applying this formula, if a
Chapter 7 debtor is left with at least $100 in disposable
income per month, a presumption arises that the filing is
abusive. Unless the debtor rebuts the presumption by showing
``special circumstances'' that warrant additional expenses or
income adjustment, the court must either dismiss the petition
or convert the matter into a Chapter 13 bankruptcy, which
requires debtors to adopt a plan for partially repaying their
debts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These include expenses for food, clothing, housing, and
transportation as well as certain educational expenses for the debtor's
children.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other major components of the Act include provisions that:
prioritize the collection and payment of spousal and child
support in bankruptcy cases by giving these claims the highest
payment priority; require debtors to receive a minimum amount
of credit counseling from a nonprofit credit counseling agency
within 180 days prior to filing bankruptcy to determine if they
might be able to work out their debt problems with some
additional help; allow the court to reduce an unsecured
creditor's claim by up to 20% if a debtor can prove that the
creditor unreasonably refused to negotiate a reasonable
repayment plan; require debtors who do file for bankruptcy to
attend a course on financial management to avoid financial
difficulties in the future; require credit card statements to
include late payment disclosures and minimum payment warnings
with estimates as to how long it would take customers to pay
their existing balance making only the minimum payment; and
strike at the most prominent abuses concerning the unlimited
homestead exemption (known by some as the ``mansion loophole'')
to address debtors who move to a state with an unlimited
homestead exemption immediately prior to filing bankruptcy.
On February 10, 2005, the Committee convened a hearing to
revisit the issues surrounding bankruptcy reform. On February
17, 2005, the Committee reported out S. 256. One note of
significance is that, at this time, Chairman Specter had been
diagnosed with Stage IVB Hodgkin's disease. Nevertheless, at
the request of Chairman Specter and under the guidance of
Senator Hatch, the Committee reported the legislation for full
Senate consideration. Despite the diagnosis and subsequent
treatment for his cancer, Chairman Specter was able to manage
the bill on the Senate floor and to steer it to final passage.
During the Committee's executive business meeting, the
Committee accepted the following amendments: (1) an amendment
offered by Senator Kennedy to add health and disability
insurance and health savings account expenses for the debtor
and dependents as allowable monthly expenses under the means
test; (2) an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy imposing
standards and limitations for court approval of executive
retention bonuses and severance pay; (3) an amendment offered
by Ranking Member Leahy to make non-dischargeable any liability
for violation of a federal securities law regardless of whether
the liability arises before, during, or after the bankruptcy
filing; (4) an amendment offered by Senator Kennedy to direct
the U.S. Trustee to move for appointment of a Chapter 11
bankruptcy trustee when there are reasonable grounds to suspect
members of the debtor's governing body have participated in
fraud, dishonesty, or criminal conduct in the management of the
debtor or its public financial reporting; and (5) an amendment
offered by Senator Feingold to provide for an inflation
adjustment regarding venue.
During the amendment process on the floor, the Senate
adopted the following amendments: (1) an amendment offered by
Senator Sessions to ensure that the Act's safe harbor provision
applies to debtors who have serious medical conditions, those
who have been called or ordered to active duty in the Armed
Forces, or those who are low income veterans; (2) an amendment
offered by Ranking Member Leahy to restrict access to certain
personal information in bankruptcy documents; (3) an amendment
offered by Senator Feingold to include certain provisions in
the triennial inflation adjustment of dollar amounts; (4) an
amendment offered by Senator Feingold to authorize the sealing
and expunging of court records relating to fraudulent
involuntary bankruptcy petitions; (5) an amendment offered by
Senator Feingold to improve the credit counseling provision;
(6) an amendment offered by Senator Durbin to protect disabled
veterans from means testing in bankruptcy under certain
circumstances; (7) an amendment offered by Senator Talent to
deter corporate fraud and prevent the abuse of State self-
settled trust law; and (8) an amendment offered by Chairman
Specter to increase bankruptcy filing fees to pay for the
additional duties of United States trustees and the new
bankruptcy judges added by the Act. Chairman Specter's
amendment addressed an issue brought to the Committee's
attention: the Act was subject to a potential budget point of
order because the Act created $45 million in direct spending
for 26 new judgeships and created a federal net loss to the
Treasury due to an increase in the allocation percentages for
the disbursement on bankruptcy filing fees in the amount of
$226 million over five years. The amendment offset the amount
in direct spending for the new judges and the net revenue loss
to the Treasury by increasing Chapter 7 and 11 bankruptcy
filing fees.
The Senate passed S. 256 on March 10, 2005 by a vote of 74-
25, and the House passed it with no amendments on April 14,
2005 by a vote of 302-126. President Bush signed the bill into
law on April 20, 2005 (PL 109-8).
S. 167, FAMILY ENTERTAINMENT AND COPYRIGHT ACT OF 2005
On January 25, 2005, Senator Hatch introduced S. 167, the
``Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005,'' which
served as a small omnibus of intellectual property bills
related to protecting the copyright and trademarks of movies.
Original cosponsors included Ranking Member Leahy and Senators
Cornyn and Feinstein.
The Act contains four separate titles: the Family
Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, the Family Movie Act
of 2005, the National Film Preservation Act (which contained
the text of the National Film Preservation Act of 2005 and the
National Film Preservation Foundation Reauthorization Act of
2005), and the Preservation of Orphan Works Act. Title I of the
Act criminalizes and provides penalties for the unauthorized,
knowing use or attempted use of a recording device to transmit
or make a copy of a copyrighted movie in a movie theater. Title
II exempts from copyright infringement the making of certain
private home copies of copyrighted works and the providing of
technology to enable such copies as long as they are purely for
private home entertainment. Title III contains several
provisions related to the National Film Preservation Act of
1996, including an expanded use of the National Film Registry
seal and language directing the Librarian of Congress to
properly store and record preserved films. It also reauthorizes
the National Film Preservation Foundation and authorizes the
appropriation of funds for the Foundation. Finally, Title IV
provides that the limitation on rights of reproduction and
distribution of copyrighted works does not apply to the
authority of libraries or archives to reproduce, distribute,
display, or perform a copy or phono-record of such work for
purposes of preservation, scholarship, or research when certain
conditions apply. The lifting of this limitation only applies,
though, in the last twenty years of the term of a copyright.
On February 1, 2005, the Senate discharged S. 167 from the
Judiciary Committee and passed the bill by unanimous consent.
The bill passed the House by voice vote on April 19, 2005, and
President Bush signed S. 167 into law on April 27, 2005 (PL
109-9).
S. 1699 AND H.R. 32, STOP COUNTERFEITING IN MANUFACTURED GOODS ACT OF
2005
On September 14, 2005, Chairman Specter introduced S. 1699,
the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005,''
amending provisions of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 2320)
prohibiting trafficking in goods and services bearing a
counterfeit mark and making it illegal to traffic in labels,
patches, or stickers bearing a counterfeit mark, or any item to
which such items have been applied. The bill's Committee
cosponsors included Ranking Member Leahy and Senators
Brownback, Cornyn, DeWine, Feingold, Hatch, Coburn, Durbin,
Feinstein, and Kyl.
The bill responded to a Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals
decision that overturned the conviction of a business operator
who supplied counterfeit labels that were later attached to
generic products by a third party. United States v. Giles, 213
F.3d 1247 (10th Cir. 2000) (defendant manufactured counterfeit
Dooney & Bourke labels that were later affixed to generic
purses by a third party). The Tenth Circuit ruled that persons
who sell counterfeited trademarks that are not actually
attached to any ``goods or services'' do not violate the
federal criminal trademark infringement statute. Since the
defendant simply manufactured and distributed a counterfeit
label that was unattached to any goods (here the generic
purses), the defendant did not run afoul of the criminal
statute as a matter of law.
The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection estimates that
counterfeit trafficking costs U.S. businesses as much as $200
billion a year. The Act effectively strengthens U.S. trademark
law by closing the loophole in federal anti-counterfeiting law
apparently made by the Giles decision and by prohibiting the
trafficking in any item bearing a counterfeit mark, including
items that could later be attached to ``goods or services.''
The legislation also enables trade negotiators to demand
greater protections for U.S. trademarks in international trade
agreements by providing for mandatory pre- conviction
forfeiture and destruction of items bearing or consisting of a
counterfeit mark, such as the goods themselves or castes and
moldings used to produce such counterfeit marks. Finally, the
bill ensures that counterfeit businesses cannot restart their
business in another location by providing for the forfeiture
and destruction of any property derived from or used to engage
in a counterfeiting business.
On November 3, 2005, the Committee reported S. 1699 with an
amendment negotiated by Chairman Specter and Ranking Member
Leahy making technical and clarifying changes to the bill. The
bill passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 10,
2005. Although the House took no final action on S. 1699, it
took action on a companion bill H.R. 32, the ``Stop
Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of 2005,'' sending it
to the Senate on May 23, 2005.
After Senate-House negotiations, the Senate discharged H.R.
32 from the Judiciary Committee and sought to pass it by
unanimous consent, as long as the House agreed to take amended
language passed by the Senate. On February 15, 2006, the Senate
passed H.R. 32 including the previously Senate-passed language
of S. 1699 as well as S. 1095, the ``Protecting American Goods
and Services Act of 2005,'' introduced by Senator Cornyn and
Ranking Member Leahy. On March 7, 2006, the House took up and
passed the modified version of H.R. 32. President Bush signed
H.R. 32 into law on March 16, 2006 (PL 109-181).
S. 1095, PROTECTING AMERICAN GOODS AND SERVICES ACT OF 2005
On May 20, 2005, Senator Cornyn and Ranking Member Leahy
introduced S. 1095, the ``Protecting American Goods and
Services Act of 2005,'' which strengthened criminal provisions
of the U.S. Code (18 U.S.C. 2320) for trafficking in
counterfeit trademarked goods. The legislation addresses gaps
in U.S. anti-counterfeiting laws in the federal trademark code.
Specifically, it sought to alleviate the difficulty U.S.
prosecutors have had when determining what actions constitute
criminal counterfeiting activity.
The Act makes it a crime to possess counterfeit goods with
the intent to distribute, to take compensation other than money
in exchange for counterfeit goods, or to import or export
unauthorized copies of copyrighted works or counterfeit goods
to or from the United States. The bill was a natural complement
to S. 1699, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
of 2005.'' Taken together, the two bills have effectively
closed most of the outstanding gaps in the anti-counterfeiting
provisions of the criminal code.
The Committee reported the bill on November 3, 2005, and S.
1095 passed the Senate by unanimous consent on November 10,
2005. Although the House did not act on S. 1095 as a stand-
alone bill, the text of the legislation was incorporated into
H.R. 32, the ``Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act of
2005,'' on the Senate floor and passed the Senate on February
15, 2006. On March 7, 2006, the House took up and passed the
text of the bill as part of H.R. 32. President Bush signed H.R.
32, and the incorporated language of S. 1095, into law on March
16, 2006 (PL 109-181).
S. 2557, OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY ANTITRUST ACT OF 2006
In the wake of sharply rising gasoline prices and record
oil industry profits, the Committee undertook to scrutinize the
practices of the domestic oil industry. On April 6, 2006,
Chairman Specter and Ranking Member Leahy introduced S. 2557,
the ``Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006,'' which
sought to strengthen antitrust enforcement with respect to the
petroleum and natural gas industry. Senators DeWine and Kohl
cosponsored the legislation along with Committee Members
Senators Feinstein and Durbin.
The bill proposed to amend the Clayton Act to make it
unlawful for any person to refuse to sell, or to export or
divert, existing supplies of petroleum, gasoline, or other fuel
derived from petroleum, or natural gas, with the primary
intention of increasing prices or creating a shortage in a
geographic market. If enacted, the bill would require the
Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade
Commission (FTC) to study, and report to Congress on, whether
section 7 of the Clayton Act should be modified with respect to
its application to persons engaged in the business of exploring
for, producing, refining, or otherwise processing, storing,
marketing or selling petroleum, gasoline or other fuel derived
from petroleum or natural gas.
In addition, the bill included provisions directing the
Comptroller General to study and report upon the effectiveness
of divestitures required by the government as a condition of
approving prior oil and gas industry mergers. The FTC and
Justice Department would be required to review the resulting
report and determine whether any additional divestitures or
conditions should be imposed retroactively on the parties to
past oil and gas industry mergers. The FTC and Justice
Department would also be required to establish a joint federal-
state task force to investigate information sharing among
competitors in the oil and gas industry.
Finally, the bill incorporated S. 555, the ``No Oil
Producing and Exporting Cartels Act (NOPEC),'' introduced by
Senators DeWine and Kohl. The NOPEC Act, discussed further
below, sought to amend the Sherman Act to make it illegal for
any foreign state to act collectively with any other foreign
state to limit oil production or distribution, to set or
maintain the price of oil, or to take any other action in
restraint of trade for oil, natural gas, or any petroleum
product.
The Committee held two hearings to examine increased
concentration and anticompetitive practices in the oil and gas
industry. The hearings involved testimony by industry leaders,
academics in the field of antitrust law, consumer advocates,
state attorneys general, antitrust practitioners, economists,
an FTC Commissioner and Members of Congress.
The Committee reported the bill on April 27, 2006 by voice
vote. The full Senate, however, did not take further action on
the bill.
S. 555, NO OIL PRODUCING AND EXPORTING CARTELS ACT OF 2005
On March 8, 2005, Senators DeWine and Kohl introduced S.
555, the ``No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005''
(NOPEC), cosponsored by Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy,
and Senators Durbin, Grassley, Coburn, Feingold, and Schumer.
Courts have held that OPEC's cartel activities are immune from
prosecution under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(``FSIA'') and the so-called ``act of state'' doctrine, which
prevents federal courts from considering cases that would
require them to judge the legality of sovereign acts taken by a
foreign nation. The NOPEC Act sought to amend the Sherman
Antitrust Act by making it illegal for foreign states to engage
in collusive behavior with any other foreign state or person to
limit the production or distribution, set or maintain the
price, or otherwise act in restraint of trade, with regard to
oil or petroleum products. The change would allow both the
Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission to
enforce the U.S. antitrust laws against OPEC member nations.
Specifically, the NOPEC Act would amend FSIA so that OPEC
nations would be subject to U.S. jurisdiction. Currently, FSIA
arguably provides immunity to foreign states from actions that
are governmental as opposed to commercial activities. In 1979,
a federal district court held that OPEC's cartel activity was
governmental activity and therefore immune from prosecution.
Further, the NOPEC Act expressly states that the ``act of
state'' doctrine does not bar suits against nations
participating in an oil cartel, thus permitting U.S. federal
courts to consider lawsuits against OPEC members. This language
would reverse a 1981 federal court of appeals decision
declining to hear a case against OPEC based on the ``act of
state'' doctrine.
Senators DeWine and Kohl first introduced the NOPEC Act on
June 21, 2000, during another period of rapidly increasing
gasoline prices. During the 109th Congress, the Committee
reported the NOPEC Act by voice vote on April 14, 2005. On June
21, 2005, in the wake of spiking oil prices, the Senate agreed
by voice vote to amend H.R. 6, the ``Energy Policy Act of
2006,'' with the NOPEC Act. Subsequently, however, the
legislation was stripped from H.R. 6 during conference and no
further action was taken.
S. 1789, PERSONAL DATA PRIVACY AND SECURITY ACT OF 2005
Early in 2005, reports surfaced that dozens of companies
and government agencies had experienced data breaches involving
the loss of personal information of hundreds of thousands of
individuals across the nation. In particular, in early February
2005, data broker ChoicePoint Inc. reported that hackers had
accessed its databases, which contained the personal data of
145,000 individuals. The breaches only came to light after
California became the first state to pass legislation requiring
companies to give individuals notice in the event of a data
breach involving their personal data.
The Committee held a hearing to consider the problem of
data breaches and data security. During the hearing, the
Committee heard testimony from data broker industry executives,
privacy advocates, law enforcement and a state attorney
general. On June 29, 2005, Chairman Specter and Ranking Member
Leahy introduced S. 1332, the original version of the
``Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005,'' cosponsored
by Senator Feingold.
The bill contained provisions increasing criminal penalties
for identity theft that involves electronic personal data. In
addition, to encourage companies to provide notice to
individuals and law enforcement in the event of a breach, the
bill would make it a crime for a person who knows of a security
breach and of the obligation to give notice to intentionally
and willfully conceal the fact of the breach if such
concealment causes economic damages. To enhance individual
privacy and security awareness, data brokers would be required
to give individuals access to their own sensitive personal
information. If individuals came forward with evidence that
their personal information is incorrect, the data broker would
be compelled either to correct the information or to notify the
individual of the source of the information.
The bill placed special emphasis on encouraging companies
and government agencies to maintain good security practices
with respect to personal data. Entities maintaining large
amounts of electronic personal data were required to assess any
risks to personal data and to establish internal policies to
protect it. The FTC would have authority to impose requirements
modeled after the Gramm-Leach-Bliley implementing regulations
that apply to personal data kept by financial institutions.
The centerpiece of the bill would require entities that
experience a breach involving electronic personal data give
notice to affected individuals. To trigger notice, there must
be reason to believe that an unauthorized person has accessed
the personal data. In addition, if a company or government
agency concluded that there is no significant risk of harm as a
result of a breach, the bill only required that notice be given
to the Secret Service. If the Secret Service similarly
concludes that there is no significant risk of harm, the entity
does not have to give notice to individuals. Finally, federal
agencies would be required to establish procedures for
evaluating and auditing the personal data security practices of
data brokers with whom they have contracts.
After introduction, the Finance Committee expressed
interest in taking up the issue of protecting social security
numbers. As a result, provisions restricting the use of social
security numbers for identification purposes were removed from
the bill for further consideration by the Finance Committee. On
September 29, 2005, the bill's supporters reintroduced the
``Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005'' as S. 1789,
which gained the additional cosponsorship of Senator Feinstein.
The Committee reported S. 1789 by voice vote on November
17, 2005, but the full Senate took no action. At least two
other Senate Committees also considered data security
legislation during the 109th Congress.
S. 443, ANTITRUST CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE IMPROVEMENTS ACT OF 2005
On February 17, 2005, Senator DeWine, Ranking Member Leahy,
and Senator Kohl introduced S. 443, the ``Antitrust Criminal
Investigative Improvements Act of 2005.'' The Act amends the
federal criminal code to make violation of the Sherman Act a
predicate offense for purposes of obtaining an order
authorizing the interception of wire or oral communications.
The legislation permits the Department of Justice, upon a
showing of probable cause, to obtain a wiretap order allowing
the Department to monitor communications between conspirators.
In criminal antitrust investigations, it is critical that
prosecutors gain access to evidence on the inner workings of
the alleged conspiracy. To meet their burden of proof,
prosecutors must marshal strong evidence regarding the
participants in the conspiracy, the nature of their
participation, and the terms of the illegal agreement. The Act
permits the Justice Department to obtain such evidence during
the investigation of criminal antitrust violations.
Prior to passage of the legislation, the Department of
Justice had two primary techniques for investigating criminal
antitrust conspiracies. First, it could enlist the cooperation
of a witness who would testify about the details of the
conspiracy or consensually record conversations. Second,
through the Antitrust Division's ``corporate leniency
program,'' an otherwise guilty corporation could receive
lenient treatment in exchange for fully cooperating with the
investigation. However, both of these techniques depended upon
the cooperation of someone inside the conspiracy, which was too
often unavailable.
There are over 150 predicate offenses for wiretaps within
Title 18 and dozens of other predicate offenses from other
parts of the U.S. Criminal Code. Offenses such as wire fraud,
mail fraud, and bank fraud are predicate offenses, but until
now, criminal antitrust offenses have not been on the list,
despite the fact that penalties for such offenses are similar.
Criminal antitrust offenses are essentially white-collar fraud
offenses and often do much more harm to consumers than other
types of fraud offenses. The Committee concluded that, given
the gravity of the crime, antitrust needed to be added as a
predicate offense.
The Committee reported the bill by voice vote with no
amendments on October 20, 2005. Five days later, the Senate
passed the bill as reported by unanimous consent. The bill was
subsequently included in the Conference Report for H.R. 3199,
the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005.'' The House passed H.R. 3199 on December 14, 2005. The
Senate passed the legislation on March 3, 2006. President Bush
signed the bill, including the ``Antitrust Criminal
Investigative Improvements Act of 2005,'' into law on March 9,
2006 (PL 109-177).
H.R. 683, TRADEMARK DILUTION REVISION ACT OF 2006
On February 15, 2005, Congressman Lamar Smith introduced
H.R. 683, the ``Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006,''
amending section 43 of the Trademark Act of 1946 (15 U.S.C.
1125) to revise outdated provisions relating to trademark
dilution.
The legislation responds to Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue,
Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003), in which the Supreme Court addressed
the standard of proof for a dilution claim. The Supreme Court
stated that a dilution action can only be sustained upon a
showing of ``actual dilution'' of a mark. Although this term
was not defined explicitly by the Court, it appeared to require
a showing that the mark has been measurably diluted. Trademark
owners argue that this interpretation of the Federal Trademark
Act of 1946 is at odds with congressional intent to stop
dilution of a mark before measurable harm has occurred. They
argue that by the time ``actual dilution'' has been done to the
mark, measurable harm has already occurred.
The legislation represents the culmination of two years of
negotiations between interested parties to clarify the meaning
of trademark dilution. The legislation addresses a split in the
circuit courts as to what constitutes a ``famous mark'' that
has resulted from the failure to define the term in the Lanham
Act.
H.R. 683 addresses the Moseley decision by entitling the
owner of a ``famous mark'' to injunctive relief against another
person who uses the mark in a manner that is likely to cause
the mark to be diluted by blurring or tarnishing. The owner of
the mark may obtain injunctive relief regardless of whether
there is actual or likely confusion, competition, or actual
economic injury. The Act addresses existing circuit splits by
defining the term ``famous mark.'' It requires courts to
consider a number of factors when determining whether a mark is
famous or whether a mark is likely to cause dilution by
blurring. In addition, the Act allows the owner of a mark to
seek remedies in addition to injunctive relief if the person
against whom injunctive relief is sought did not use the mark
prior to the date of the bill's enactment and if the person
willfully intended to trade on the famous mark or dilute the
mark by blurring or tarnishing.
The House passed H.R. 683 on April 19, 2005. Once the bill
was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Committee
Members' offices received objections to the bill from a variety
of outside groups, including Internet search engines, the
American Civil Liberties Union, and retailers of low cost
goods. To address these concerns, Chairman Specter along with
Ranking Member Leahy and Senator Hatch sought a compromise
agreement between the trademark owners and concerned outside
groups. This agreement was reached and embodied in a substitute
amendment reported out of the Committee on February 16, 2006.
The Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent on March 8,
2006. Once received, the House accepted the Senate amendment
and passed the bill on September 25, 2006. President Bush
signed H.R. 683 into law on October 6, 2006 (PL 109-312).
H.R. 1036, COPYRIGHT ROYALTY JUDGES PROGRAM TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS ACT
On March 2, 2005, Congressman Lamar Smith introduced H.R.
1036, the ``Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act,'' amending portions of the Copyright Royalty
and Distribution Reform Act of 2004. The bill responded to a
call by the copyright community and Copyright Office to clarify
the Copyright Royalty Judges Program. In addition to making
purely technical corrections such as spelling errors, the Act
clarifies timelines for actions taken by the Copyright Royalty
Judges; provides the authorization needed by the Copyright
Royalty Judges or the Library of Congress for certain
regulatory actions; and requires the Copyright Royalty Judges
to act in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act.
The statutory changes adhere to the original intent of the Act
and enjoyed the wide support of the Copyright Office, the
Copyright Royalty Judges, and copyright holders. The House
passed the bill on November 16, 2005.
Once referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Committee
Members' offices received requests to amend H.R. 1036 in order
to incorporate language governing when the Copyright Royalty
Judges can distribute royalties prior to the commencement of
royalty proceedings. In response to concerns expressed by
content holders, Chairman Specter along with Senator Hatch and
Ranking Member Leahy negotiated an amendment with the Members
of the House, content holders, and the Copyright Royalty
Judges. The amendment allows the Copyright Royalty Judges to
make a partial distribution of royalties prior to the
institution of a proceeding. The amendment: (1) retained the
discretion of the Copyright Royalty Judges in current law to
decide whether to make a partial distribution; (2) provided all
claimants and the general public with a thirty-day notice
period to respond to a motion to institute a partial
distribution, guaranteeing due process; and (3) required the
Copyright Royalty Judges to consider only the responses filed
in a timely manner and to base their decisions on the arguments
and evidence included within the responses. The language did
not require that there be unanimity among all the respondents
or even all the claimants to institute a partial distribution
of fees. The unanimity requirement, present in earlier drafts
of the amendment, was taken out at the request of the copyright
holders in response to their voiced concerns that it would
effectively prohibit them from ever instituting a partial
distribution.
On July 13, 2006, the Committee reported out H.R. 1036 as
amended. The Senate passed the Act on July 19, 2006 by
unanimous consent. The House agreed to the Senate amendment on
September 25, 2006, and President Bush signed H.R. 1036 into
law on October 6, 2006 (PL 109-303).
H.R. 866, TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS BILL TO THE UNITED STATES CODE
H.R. 866 and H.R. 1442 were prepared by the Office of the
Law Revision Counsel of the House of Representatives, an
independent, non-political office, required by law to maintain
impartiality as to issues of legislative policy. See 2 U.S.C.
285a. The office is responsible for maintaining and improving
the United States Code, especially positive law titles of the
Code. These bills did not propose any substantive change in
existing law. Because positive law titles of the United States
Code are actually federal statutes, legislation is required to
correct even the smallest technical errors in text.
The changes made by H.R. 866 are purely technical in nature
and relate to cross references, typographical, and stylistic
matters (e.g. capitalization) in titles 10 (Armed Forces), 23
(Highways), 28 (Judiciary and Judicial Procedure), 36
(Patriotic and National Observances, Ceremonies and
Organizations), and 40 (Public Buildings, Property, and Works)
of the United States Code. On September 7, 2006 the Committee
reported House-passed H.R. 866 without amendment. The Senate
passed it by unanimous consent on September 12, 2006, and
President Bush signed the bill into law on September 27, 2006
(PL 109-284).
Title 46 of the United States Code had been partially
enacted as positive law, but Title 46 included an appendix of
laws that have not been enacted as positive law. H.R. 1442
reorganized and rewrote the provisions in the appendix for
enactment as part of the title. Specifically, the bill made
technical and conforming amendments and set forth requirements
with respect to: (1) documentation of vessels; (2) maritime
liability; (3) regulation of ocean shipping, including shipping
in foreign trade; (4) the Merchant Marine and the Merchant
Marine Service; (5) clearance of, and tonnage taxes and duties
levied against, vessels; (6) maritime security and drug
enforcement; (7) vessel wrecks and salvage; (8) ice patrol and
the destruction or removal of vessel derelicts; (9) safe
containers for international cargo; and (10) the Maritime
Administration in the Department of Transportation. The bill
was strongly supported by the Department of Transportation
(which includes the Maritime Administration), the Federal
Maritime Commission, and the Maritime Law Association of the
United States, which represents much of the private maritime
bar.
On September 7, 2006 the Committee reported the House-
passed H.R. 1442 without amendment. The Senate passed it by
unanimous consent on September 13, 2006, and the President
signed it into law on October 6, 2006 (PL 109-304).
B. CRIMINAL LAW ISSUES
S. 1086 AND H.R. 4472, SEX OFFENDER AND INTERNET SAFETY LEGISLATION
The Committee considered a number of bills that addressed
sex offenders, child safety, and Internet safety. Many of these
bills were ultimately combined, in whole or in part, with other
child safety provisions to form H.R. 4472, the ``Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,'' which ultimately
became law. Among the component bills referred to the Committee
were S. 1086, the ``Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and
Pam Lychner Sex Offender Registration and Notification Grant
Act,'' S. 3499, the ``Internet Safety (Stop Adults Facilitating
the Exploitation of Youth) Act of 2006,'' and S. 3432, the
``Project Safe Childhood Act.''
The core of the Adam Walsh Act was the National Sex
Offender Registry, which was initially referred to the
Committee in the form of S. 1086 introduced by Senator Hatch
and cosponsored by Committee Members Biden, Grassley, Schumer,
Brownback, Cornyn, DeWine, Feinstein, Graham, Kyl, and
Sessions. The Registry provisions were designed to establish
uniform standards for the registration of sex offenders,
including a lifetime registration requirement for the most
serious offenders. Prior to passage of the Adam Walsh Act, a
gap existed in the law governing how different states track
convicted sex offenders. For example, in the period leading up
to passage of the Act, the National Center for Missing and
Exploited Children estimated that at least 100,000 sex
offenders were not accounted for by law enforcement.
Just as the original congressional attempt to create a sex
offender registry on a state-by-state basis was influenced by
the disappearance of Jacob Wetterling, and just as the 1996
creation of a sex offender notification program was influenced
by the murder of Megan Kanka, efforts in the 109th Congress
were influenced by high-profile and disturbing cases involving
murder and rape by convicted sex offenders. Among the cases
that influenced debate were those of a murdered Florida nine-
year old, named Jessica Lundsford; a kidnapped and murdered
North Dakota college student, Dru Sjodin; and an Idaho family
murdered by a sex offender who intended to kidnap and abuse the
family's children.
In its original form, S. 1086 (the Senate antecedent to the
Adam Walsh Act) was regarded by some Senate critics as too
harsh in its requirements that states implement the provisions
of a sex offender registry or face the loss of federal program
funds. A similar concern was voiced regarding the bill's
treatment of lower level offenders. Consequently, Senator Hatch
offered a pre-negotiated substitute amendment to address these
concerns but also to maintain the core of the bill, namely a
national sex offender registry that could be searchable by zip
code as well as a program of sex offender registration and
monitoring. The Committee reported S. 1086 with the substitute
amendment on October 25, 2005, and S. 1086 passed the Senate by
unanimous consent on May 4, 2006.
During Senate consideration of S. 1086, the House passed an
omnibus crime bill with a sex offender title mirroring the
Senate bill, albeit with stronger penalties and tighter
restrictions on convicted sex offenders. The original House
bill, H.R. 4472, contained enhanced penalties for sex
offenders, a national sex offender registry, a court security
title, a set of provisions addressing juvenile and gang crime,
and a series of miscellaneous provisions dealing with habeas
corpus rights and the labeling of indecent materials.
With the passage of two national sex offender registry
bills, Committee staff negotiated a compromise bill that
addressed the gaps in the current registry and enforcement
system, while blending the two products together to form a
single bill.
Through these negotiations, a substitute bill was generated
that focused on sex offender and child safety issues without
including the court security and gang crimes provisions that
were in the House bill. The substitute bill contained seven
titles. The first title focused on the creation of a National
Sex Offender Registry designed to keep track of all sex
offender identification, address, employment, vehicle, and
other information, as well as a recent photo and information on
the offender's criminal history. This title created the Dru
Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Website, available to the
public to search for sex offender information by geographic
radius and zip code.
The second title of the substitute bill focused on
enhancing criminal penalties, including increasing mandatory
minimum penalties for a number of existing crimes. Such
enhancements included mandatory assured penalties for crimes of
violence against children, including the possibility of the
death penalty for the murder of a child in a federal offense; a
mandatory 30 year penalty for anyone who commits aggravated
sexual abuse against a child; a mandatory 10 year penalty for
sex trafficking offenses involving children and for criminal
coercion for child prostitution; and expansion of the federal
``two-strikes and you're out'' life sentence for repeat sex
offenders to apply to offenders who commit sex trafficking
offenses.
The third title created civil commitment procedures for sex
offenders who, while incarcerated, show that they cannot change
their behavior once they are released from prison. The fourth
title created immigration limitations on known sex offenders,
while the fifth title prevented children from being exploited
in pornography, including in simulated sexual activity.
The sixth title of the bill contained grants to address a
wide range of problems, including a number of pilot programs
and studies to address child and community safety. These
provisions ranged from a pilot program for the electronic
monitoring of sex offenders, to funding for Big Brothers and
Big Sisters, to grants to allow parents to obtain fingerprint
records for their children.
The seventh title of the substitute bill focused on
Internet safety and included many of the provisions from other
pending legislation, including components from S. 3499, the
``Internet Safety (Stop Adults Facilitating the Exploitation of
Youth) Act of 2006,'' introduced by Senator Kyl along with
Senators Grassley, Cornyn, Brownback and DeWine. The
legislation also included S. 3432, the ``Project Safe Childhood
Act.''
On July 20, 2006, the negotiated bill was offered as a
substitute amendment to H.R. 4472. As part of the substitute,
the short title of the bill was changed to the ``Adam Walsh
Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006'' to honor the memory
John and Reve Walsh's son, who was kidnapped and murdered in
1981 when he was 6 years old. President Bush signed the bill
into law on July 27, 2006 (PL 109-248).
S. 1197, VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2005
On June 8, 2005, Chairman Specter and Senators Biden, along
with Ranking Member Leahy and Committee Members Feinstein,
Cornyn, DeWine, Durbin, Grassley, Kennedy, Kohl, and Schumer,
introduced S. 1197, the ``Violence Against Women
Reauthorization Act of 2005'' (VAWA 2005). VAWA 2005 sought to
combat domestic violence through federal and state law
enforcement and victims' services grants. The reauthorization
was necessary to improve and extend the Violence Against Women
Act of 1994, which was scheduled to expire on September 30,
2005.
Between 1993 and 2001, non-fatal violent victimizations
committed by intimate partners declined 49 percent for women as
reported by the National Crime Victimization Survey. A greater
percentage of female rape and sexual assault victims now report
these crimes to law enforcement, up from 31 percent in 1995 to
53 percent in 2002. Despite this progress, nearly 25 percent of
American women have been raped or physically assaulted by an
intimate partner at some point in their lives, and the economic
cost of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault, and
stalking exceeds $5.89 billion each year. VAWA 2005 capitalized
on the past decade's success in the battle against domestic
violence while taking the next steps to address the continuing
threat of all forms of violence against women in a
comprehensive manner.
VAWA 2005 provided funding to federal and state law
enforcement officers, who are often the first responders in
cases of domestic violence, and to victims' services providers
who deliver essential services to victims and their children.
VAWA 2005 also focused on prevention, enabling courts to better
handle domestic violence cases, bolstering the effectiveness of
criminal stalking laws, and enhancing criminal penalties for
repeat offenders. Further, VAWA 2005 broadened the traditional
focus on domestic violence to address the problems of dating
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. In consideration of
budgetary constraints, VAWA 2005 made modest increases in
funding-increasing authorizations by 17.3 percent above the
levels authorized in VAWA 2000, a modest increase when compared
to the 77 percent increase in the VAWA 2000 authorization bill.
On July 19, 2005, the full Committee held a hearing on the
proposed Violence Against Women Act at which representatives
from local law enforcement, victims' service providers and the
Director of the Office of Violence Against Women testified.
On September 8, 2005, the Committee approved by voice vote
a substitute amendment to VAWA 2005 that responded to comments
from the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, the
Banking Committee, the Indian Affairs Committee, the Department
of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and
Members of the Judiciary Committee. The substitute amendment
decreased authorization levels throughout the bill and
addressed concerns regarding public housing programs,
immigration provisions, and programs designed to aid Native
American women. At the request of Senator Brownback, the
substitute amendment also contained language from S. 1618, the
``International Marriage Broker Act,'' to protect women seeking
to come to the United States as wives of U.S. citizens by
imposing limits on the age and number of women who can be
advertised to U.S. clients seeking a foreign wife and by
requiring international marriage brokers to inform those women
of their future spouse's background and of available resources.
In addition, the Committee accepted an amendment by Senator
Cornyn that embodied Senator Kyl's DNA Fingerprinting Act, S.
1606. The ``DNA Fingerprinting Act of 2005'' allowed the
Attorney General to collect DNA from criminal suspects at the
time of their arrest and made additional grants available to
States to reduce the backlog of rape kits and other crime scene
evidence awaiting DNA examination.
To prepare the bill for Senate passage, Chairman Specter
along with Senators Biden and Hatch worked with Committee
Members to prepare a substitute amendment narrowing language
regarding immigration and making additional technical changes.
On October 4, 2006, the Senate passed S. 1197 with the
substitute amendment by unanimous consent.
On September 28, 2005, the House passed its companion bill,
H.R. 3402, which included language to authorize the Department
of Justice. Subsequently, the Senate VAWA provisions from S.
1197 were appended to a negotiated version of H.R. 3402 in
place of the House VAWA provisions. As a corollary, the House
provisions reauthorizing the Department of Justice were
retained with only minimal modifications to accommodate
Senators' requests.
On December 16, 2005, the Senate discharged H.R. 3402 from
the Judiciary Committee and passed the negotiated version by
unanimous consent. The Department of Justice Reauthorization
provisions in the bill represent only the second time since
1980 that the Department's programs and activities have been
reauthorized. The reauthorization package contains a number of
provisions that will enable the Congress to exercise oversight
over the Department of Justice in order to ensure that its
programs meet the evolving needs of the country. It also alters
grant programs to enhance the ability of States and local
governments to use Department of Justice grants effectively and
appropriately.
The Department of Justice provisions streamline the grant
application process for state and local governments by merging
the Byrne Grant and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program;
extend the matching program for law enforcement bulletproof
vests to FY 2009; create a new Office of Weed and Seed
Strategies to replace the current Executive Office of Weed and
Seed; require that at least 50 percent of the grant be used for
Weeding activities under the program; create a new Office of
Audit, Assessment, and Management within the Office of Justice
Programs to track grant programs; permit States to use Juvenile
Justice Accountability Block Grant funds to establish, improve,
and coordinate pre- and post-release programs to facilitate
successful juvenile re-entry into the local community and
reauthorize the program through 2009; and make technical
corrections important to the implementation of Aimee's Law,
which redirects federal crime fighting dollars from any State
that releases a violent criminal prior to the termination of
his sentence to any State in which that prisoner goes on to
commit a similar crime.
Following Senate passage, the House passed the negotiated
version of H.R. 3402 on December 17, 2006, and on January 5,
2006, President Bush signed it into law (PL 109-162).
EXAMINATION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE'S ``THOMPSON MEMORANDUM''
The Committee examined the impact of a January 2003
Department of Justice memorandum issued by former Deputy
Attorney General Larry Thompson, which set forth the principles
that federal prosecutors should consider when deciding whether
to charge a corporation along with its employees. The
memorandum, which is commonly referred to as the ``Thompson
Memorandum,'' contains two provisions relating to the right to
counsel: (1) provisions that have been criticized as
effectively forcing corporations under investigation to waive
the attorney-client privilege as a condition of avoiding a
criminal charge; and (2) provisions that discourage
corporations from paying the legal expenses of employees,
officers, and directors who are investigated for, or charged
with, crimes in connection with their work with the
corporation. These provisions have been criticized by the
American Bar Association, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American
Civil Liberties Union, Association of Corporate Counsel,
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, National
Association of Manufacturers, American Chemistry Council, and
numerous former Justice Department officials, including former
Attorneys General Richard Thornburgh and Edwin Meese, III.
On September 12, 2006, the Committee held a hearing titled,
``The Thompson Memorandum's Effect on the Right to Counsel in
Corporate Investigations.'' The hearing included witness
testimony from Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty, former
Attorney General Edwin Meese, and Thomas J. Donohue of the U.S.
Chamber of Commerce among others. The hearing detailed the
Thompson Memorandum's effect on the principles of the attorney-
client privilege and the right to counsel. In his written
testimony, Mr. Meese criticized the Thompson Memorandum as
``result[ing] in the dilution of essential rights encompassed
by the attorney-client relationship.'' Such a dilution would,
Mr. Meese testified at the hearing, ``would be a threat to
constitutional rights, would be bad policy, unwise practice and
would be counter-productive to both compliance with the law and
with just criminal proceedings.''
The Former Attorney General concluded by recommending that
the Thompson Memorandum be amended ``to eliminate any reference
to the waiver of attorney-client privilege or work-product
protections in the context of determining whether to indict a
business organization'' and to permit a company to pay the
legal expenses of its employees. Mr. Meese's recommendations
were deemed particularly important given his former role as
Attorney General of the United States. In that capacity, he
supervised federal prosecutors and was intimately aware of the
necessity of defendants to obtain counsel and the government to
uncover evidence of wrong-doing.
Following its September hearing, the Committee worked on
crafting legislation to reform the Department of Justice's
policy regarding waiver of attorney-client privilege and
payment of employee legal fees. The bill, the ``Attorney-Client
Privilege Protection Act of 2006,'' was introduced on December
7, 2006, as S. 30. Immediately prior to its introduction,
representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, American
Civil Liberties Union, and the American Bar Association,
including former Attorney General Richard Thornburgh, joined
the Chairman at a press conference to endorse the bill.
The Attorney-Client Privilege Protection Act sought to
prohibit federal lawyers and investigators from requesting that
an organization waive its right to assert the attorney-client
privilege or work product doctrine for communications with
counsel, internal investigations, and other purposes, or from
conditioning any charging decision or cooperation credit on
waiver or non-waiver of privilege, the payment of an employee's
legal fees, the continued employment of a person under
investigation, or the signing of a joint defense agreement. The
bill was crafted to recognize the legitimate needs of
prosecutors. For example, it would allow organizations to
continue offering internal investigation materials to
prosecutors, but only if such an offer were entirely voluntary
and unsolicited by the prosecutors. The bill would allow
prosecutors to seek materials that they reasonably believe are
not privileged.
Although the bill was not taken up by the Committee or full
Senate, it was highly effective. Just days after the
introduction of S. 30, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty
unveiled a replacement to the Thompson Memorandum in the form
of new set of corporate prosecution guidelines. The new
memorandum, which was immediatey labeled the McNulty
Memorandum, eliminated almost all of the Thompson Memorandum's
controversial language regarding attorneys' fees. The McNulty
Memorandum also addressed requests for waiver of the attorney-
client privilege and work product protections, albeit in a less
comprehensive way. Committee staff continued to examine the
McNulty Memorandum through the conclusion of the 109th Congress
to determine if further legislative or oversight action will be
necessary.
S. 1088, STREAMLINED PROCEDURES ACT
The Committee considered how best to clarify, modify, and
improve the habeas corpus reforms enacted in the Antiterrorism
and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). Although AEDPA
was designed to prevent unnecessary delays in habeas corpus
petitions, according to the Judicial Conference, the median
time from filing to the disposition of state capital habeas
cases rose from 13 months in 1998 to 25.3 months in 2005. S.
1088, the ``Streamlined Procedures Act,'' was introduced by
Senator Kyl along with Senators Grassley, Cornyn, and Hatch. It
was crafted to reduce delays created by state prisoners' habeas
corpus petitions and to enforce the one-year statute of
limitations for federal habeas petitions by, for example,
barring amendments to petitions unless they contain meaningful
evidence to support innocence. The bill also proposed time
limits on the Court of Appeals' review of federal habeas
petitions.
The Committee held two hearings on habeas corpus reform,
which examined options to improve efficiency of habeas cases
without limiting the availability of habeas corpus for claims
of actual innocence. S. 1088 appeared on the agenda
continuously from June 20, 2005 until November 17, 2005. On
July 28, 2005, Chairman Specter offered a substitute amendment
to allow federal judges to hear claims of procedural flaws,
notwithstanding the state court's determination that the
procedural flaws constituted harmless error. The substitute was
accepted by a vote of 10-1, with Senator Feinstein voting nay
and all other Democrats abstaining. Habeas legislation was
considered again on October 6, 2005, when Senator Feinstein
offered a new substitute amendment that would have replaced the
entire bill with a requirement that the Judicial Conference
study habeas corpus procedures and practice. The Feinstein
amendment was rejected by a 10-8 party line vote.
The Senate took no further action on either proposal for
habeas corpus reform in the 109th Congress.
S. 2560, H.R. 2829 & H.R. 6344, OFFICE OF NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF 2006
On April 6, 2006, Chairman Specter, along with Senators
Biden, Grassley and Hatch, introduced S. 2560, the ``Office of
National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006.'' The
Office of National Drug Control Policy (``ONDCP'') was most
recently reauthorized in 1998 but has been without
Congressional authorization since 2003 despite having received
funding in 2004 and 2005.
ONDCP, a component of the Executive Office of the
President, was established by the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
ONDCP sets policies, priorities, and objectives for the
nation's drug control program. The key goals of the program are
to reduce illicit drug use, manufacturing, trafficking, drug-
related crime and violence, and drug-related health
consequences. To achieve these goals, the Director of ONDCP,
commonly referred to as the nation's ``Drug Czar,'' is charged
with producing the National Drug Control Strategy, which
directs the nation's anti-drug efforts and establishes a
program, budget, and guidelines for cooperation among federal,
state, and local entities. The Director of ONDCP also
evaluates, coordinates, and oversees international and domestic
anti-drug efforts of Executive branch agencies and ensures that
such efforts sustain and complement State and local anti-drug
activities. The Director advises the President regarding
changes in the organization, management, budget, and personnel
of federal drug control agencies.
S. 2560 authorized funding for ONDCP through 2010 and
sought to: (1) better organize ONDCP and define its roles and
responsibilities including the preparation of the National Drug
Control Strategy; (2) ensure the High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas Program remains within ONDCP instead of being
transferred to the Justice Department as recently proposed; (3)
improve the Counterdrug Technology Assessment Center; (4)
improve the National Youth Anti-Drug Media Campaign; (5) create
a United States Anti-Doping Agency; (6) reauthorize the Drug
Free Communities grant program; (7) create National Guard
Counterdrug Schools; (8) create a National Methamphetamine
Information Clearinghouse within the Justice Department; and
(9) require Congressional reporting and studies on a variety of
subjects.
On May 25, 2006, the Committee reported S. 2560 by
unanimous consent. The House overwhelmingly passed its ONDCP
reauthorization bill, H.R. 2829, in March 2006. In the weeks
prior to the October recess, efforts were made between Senate
and House staff to negotiate a compromise version, containing
portions of S. 2560 and the House-passed version H.R. 2829.
The result of these negotiations was H.R. 6344, a
compromise version of the Office of National Drug Control
Policy Reauthorization Act of 2006. H.R. 6344 was passed by the
House of Representatives on December 7, 2006, and was passed by
the Senate the following day, December 8, 2006. The White House
received the bill on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 and as of the
submission of this report, the bill awaits President Bush's
signature.
S. 1934, SECOND CHANCE ACT OF 2005
Chairman Specter, along with Senators Brownback, Biden,
DeWine, Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, Hatch, and Kyl, introduced
S. 1934, the ``Second Chance Act,'' on October 27, 2005. Nearly
two-thirds of the 7,000,000 State and local prisoners and
650,000 federal prisoners who are released from prison every
year will be rearrested for a felony or a serious misdemeanor
within three years after release. Programs aimed at providing
these offenders with the basic literacy, educational, job
training and life skills needed to succeed in society have
proven highly effective at decreasing recidivism rates by as
much as 33 percent.
The Second Chance Act would increase authorizations for
existing federal prisoner reentry programs, provide additional
grants for non-profit organizations that work with ex-offenders
who are reentering society, and require the Bureau of Prisons
to enhance its efforts to encourage successful transitions for
federal offenders. The bill sought to address the problems that
frequently lead to recidivism by increasing access to jobs,
ensuring better educational opportunities for adult and youth
offenders, and providing support for families of ex-offenders.
These grant programs focus on measurable results, requiring at
least a 10% reduction in recidivism among program participants
in order for a program to continue receiving funding. The
Second Chance Act would also authorize grants for non-profit
organizations that provide mentoring and reentry services. Such
mentoring services, which often begin in prison and continue as
the offender transitions from prison to the community, have
proven highly successful in encouraging employment and
abstinence from drugs and alcohol, and in decreasing recidivism
rates.
In July 2006, the House Judiciary Committee reported a
prisoner reentry bill by voice vote. Subsequently, the Senate
and House Judiciary Committees worked together to negotiate a
compromise version of the Second Chance Act. In addition to the
reentry provisions contained in the Senate bill, the compromise
version contained grant programs from the House bill designed
to provide ex-offenders with effective drug and alcohol
treatment. Like education and job training programs, drug
treatment programs have proven highly effective in discouraging
ex-offenders from becoming re-involved in crime upon their
release from prison.
The Judiciary Committee held a hearing on September 19,
2006, titled the ``Cost of Crime'' at which the Director of the
Bureau of Prisons testified. The hearing focused on the
pecuniary and non-pecuniary costs of crime (estimated by one
witness to be on the order of $3 trillion annually) and on the
ability of reentry programs to decrease this cost by reducing
recidivism rates. The Subcommittee on Corrections and
Rehabilitation, chaired by Senator Coburn, also held a hearing
on September 21, 2006, titled ``Oversight of Federal Assistance
for Prisoner Rehabilitation and Reentry in Our States.''
Chairman Specter sought several unanimous consent
agreements on negotiated versions of Second Chance Act, but no
agreement was reached, and the full Senate did not act on the
legislation.
H.R. 6338, THE GENEVA DISTINCTIVE EMBLEMS PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
On December 5, 2006, Representative Jeff Flake and thirty-
four co-sponsors introduced H.R. 6338, the Geneva Distinctive
Emblems Protection Act of 2006, which criminalizes the
fraudulent use of the Red Crescent or Red Crystal symbols.
In December of 2005, the Diplomatic Conference adopted the
Third Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions,
creating a new emblem (the Red Crystal) associated with the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. The creation
of the Red Crystal cleared the path for acceptance of Magen
David Adom (Israel's ``red Shield of David'') into the Red
Cross and Red Crescent Movement after fifty-seven years of
attempting to gain membership. On September 29, 2006, the
Senate approved for ratification the Third Additional Protocol
to the Geneva Conventions.
H.R. 6338 authorizes and implements the Third Additional
Protocol to the Geneva Convention by amending the federal
criminal code to prohibit the wearing or displaying of the Red
Crescent or Red Crystal for the fraudulent purpose of claiming
membership in an authorized national society. It authorizes the
use of the Red Crescent or Red Crystal solely by the
International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent
Societies, and the medical facilities of the armed forces of
members to the Geneva Conventions.
H.R. 6338 passed the House under a suspension of the rules
on December 5, 2006. The bill was then received in the Senate
where it was held at the desk and passed by unanimous consent
on December 8, 2006. As of the submission of this report, the
bill awaits President Bush's signature.
H.R. 4709, TELEPHONE RECORDS AND PRIVACY PROTECTION ACT OF 2006
On January 18, 2006, Chairman Specter and Senator Schumer
introduced S. 2178, the Telephone Records and Privacy
Protection Act of 2006. Introduction of the bill was prompted
by revelations in the press that consumer cellular telephone
records, including phone numbers dialed, calls received and
call location, were being bought and sold on the Internet, and
much of the information was being obtained through fraud.
Criminals can use phone records to commit identity theft and
other financial fraud, domestic violence, as well as to hinder
law enforcement operations. Fraudulent methods used to obtain
telephone records include: (1) ``pretexting,'' whereby a person
misrepresents his identity in order to obtain the phone records
of others from a telephone company employee; (2) the
unauthorized sale or transfer by dishonest phone company
employees; and (3) ``hacking,'' whereby an individual gains
unauthorized access to electronic phone company records.
The legislation would amend Title 18 of the United States
Code by providing significant criminal penalties for the
fraudulent acquisition, unauthorized disclosure, or transfer of
telephone records. The bill included three separate criminal
provisions, each of which would result in imprisonment for up
to 10 years and/or a fine. First, the bill would make it a
crime to make a false statement, or to provide a false
document, to a phone company employee in order to obtain phone
records. This provision also would prohibit obtaining
unauthorized access to phone company customer accounts via the
internet. The second provision would make it a crime to
knowingly sell or transfer confidential phone records without
authorization. Finally, the bill would make it a crime to
knowingly purchase or receive confidential phone records
without authorization.
The legislation was met with overwhelming bipartisan
support. The bill had thirty-seven Senate co-sponsors,
including eighteen Republicans and nineteen Democrats. The
Senate Judiciary Committee approved the legislation by voice
vote on March 2, 2006. Meanwhile, Congressman Lamar Smith
introduced almost identical legislation in the House. The House
Judiciary Committee favorably reported H.R. 4709, the Telephone
Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006, by voice vote, also
on March 2, 2006. On April 25, 2006, the House passed H.R. 4709
under suspension of the rules by a vote of 409 to 0.
Shortly thereafter, both the House Energy and Commerce
Committee and the Senate Commerce Committee introduced bills
also addressing the issue of phone record confidentiality. In
the House, Chairman Joe Barton introduced H.R. 4943, the
Prevention of Fraudulent Access to Phone Records Act, on March
14, 2006. Senator George Allen introduced S. 2389, Protecting
Consumer Phone Records Act, in the Senate on March 8, 2006. As
with the Judiciary Committee bills, the House Commerce
Committee bill would make it unlawful to obtain or disclose
confidential phone records of another person by making a false
statement, or providing a false document, to a phone company
employee. The bill would prohibit solicitation of another
person to obtain confidential phone records fraudulently and
would bar the sale or disclosure of phone records obtained
under false pretenses. However, instead of amending the
Criminal Code, the bill would make such conduct an ``unfair or
deceptive act or practice'' in violation of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. The bill also proposed amendments to the
Communications Act of 1934 imposing obligations on phone
companies to protect the confidentiality of consumer phone
records. The bill would prohibit phone companies from using
phone records for purposes other than increasing business or
publishing directories without permission of their customers.
The bill also would direct the Federal Communications
Commission to issue regulations imposing more stringent
security standards on phone companies.
The Senate Commerce Committee bill would prohibit a person
from acquiring or using an individual's phone records without
the individual's written consent. It also would make it
unlawful to misrepresent that the individual has consented to
the acquisition of his or her phone records. As with both
Judiciary Committee bills, the Senate Commerce Committee bill
would prohibit any person from obtaining unauthorized access to
electronic phone records kept by phone companies via the
Internet. In addition, the bill would prohibit the sale of
phone records. As with the House Commerce Committee bill, the
Senate Commerce bill would make violations of the Act an unfair
or deceptive act or practice in violation of the Federal Trade
Commission Act. Additionally, the Senate bill would provide
phone companies and consumers with a private right of action
against those who violate the Act. The Senate Commerce
Committee bill also would direct the FCC to issue regulations
requiring phone companies to protect the confidentiality of
customers. The bill would require that phone companies notify
customers when their phone records are disclosed without
authorization. The bill includes an express preemption of
contrary state law.
An effort was made to combine the Senate Judiciary
Committee and Commerce Committee bills, but this effort
foundered in the wake of opposition to the Commerce Committee
bills from Members, industry, and consumer groups. Issues of
contention included the provision preempting state law, an
exception for law enforcement and intelligence gathering, the
private right of action and application of the Act to Voice
over Internet Protocol providers. Differences between the House
and Senate Commerce Committee bills also complicated
negotiations.
Ultimately, on December 8, 2006, the Senate took up and
approved by voice vote the House Judiciary Committee bill, H.R.
4709, the Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of 2006.
The bill, which was virtually identical to S. 2178, the Senate
Judiciary Committee bill, had already passed the House
unanimously.
C. IMMIGRATION LAW
CHAIRMAN'S MARK ON COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM & S. 2611, THE
COMPREHENSIVE IMMIGRATION REFORM ACT OF 2006
Approximately twenty years ago, Congress took a
comprehensive approach to examining and thoroughly revising our
immigration laws. Today, however, Congress is confronted with a
demand for visas that far exceeds current numerical
limitations; employers in some sectors of the economy are faced
with a decreasing supply of U.S. workers; and more than 11
million undocumented immigrants live in the shadows within the
United States. Congress is also confronted with the fact that,
for a number of years, there has been a laxity of enforcement
at the borders and at worksites, thus necessitating the need to
take another comprehensive look at our immigration laws, which
are seen by many as broken and ineffective.
Subcommittee Hearings
During the first session of the 109th Congress, Judiciary
Subcommittees held hearings to examine ways the government
could begin to strengthen the rule of law and establish
effective and sensible immigration laws that would be
vigorously enforced. The subcommittees held a series of
hearings in March and April devoted exclusively to the topic of
strengthening enforcement at the border and within the interior
of the U.S.
The Subcommittee on Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship (``Immigration Subcommittee'') and the Subcommittee
on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security (``Terrorism
Subcommittee'') held a hearing titled ``The Need for
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Strengthening our National
Security'' on May 17, 2005. It was the first in a series of
hearings on the issue of comprehensive reform of our
immigration system. Senators Cornyn and Kyl jointly chaired the
hearing and heard testimony from expert witnesses, including
the Honorable Asa Hutchison, former Under Secretary for Border
and Transportation Security. The witnesses' statements outlined
the elements necessary to strengthen enforcement of our
immigration system at the border, taking into consideration
national security concerns. Secretary Hutchison testified that,
to tackle this enormous problem, the United States must
effectively: (1) increase the funding of technology and
security personnel along the border; (2) make it more difficult
for illegal aliens to get jobs in this country; and (3) provide
a workable and practical means for migrant workers to have
access to job opportunities in this country when those jobs
cannot otherwise be filled.
On May 26, 2006, the Immigration Subcommittee held a
hearing titled ``The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform:
Serving Our National Economy.'' Senator Cornyn heard testimony
from various expert witnesses, including the Honorable Steven
J. Law, Deputy Secretary of Labor, and Thomas J. Donohue,
President and Chief Executive Officer of the U.S. Chamber of
Commerce.
On June 7, 2005, the Terrorism Subcommittee and the
Immigration Subcommittee jointly held a hearing titled ``The
Southern Border in Crisis: Resources and Strategies to Improve
National Security.'' Senators Kyl and Cornyn presided over the
hearing, which included testimony of David Aguilar, Chief of
the Border Patrol. His testimony, as well as that of other
experts, outlined the national security threat posed by aliens
from countries other than Mexico who illegally cross the
border. He stated that securing the southern border is crucial
because ``illegal human smuggling routes may be exploited by
terrorists to conduct attacks against the U.S. homeland.'' The
hearing further highlighted the fact that any comprehensive
solution dealing with the immigration crisis must effectively
identify and solve this national security threat. A later
Immigration Subcommittee hearing focused on the level of
cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico, as well as the
relationship between the two countries and the implications for
both countries in dealing with comprehensive immigration
reform.
Full Committee Hearings
The full Committee held a hearing on July 26, 2005, titled
``Comprehensive Immigration Reform'' and heard from the
sponsors of two pending bills in the Senate: S. 1438, the
``Comprehensive Enforcement and Immigration Reform Act of
2005,'' introduced by Senators Cornyn and Kyl; and S. 1033, the
``Secure America and Orderly Immigration Act,'' introduced by
Senator John McCain and Senator Kennedy.
The Committee followed up the July hearing with a hearing
on October 18, 2005 titled ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform
II.'' The Honorable Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the
Department of Homeland Security, and the Honorable Elaine Chao,
Secretary of the Department of Labor, testified that both
increased enforcement and a new temporary guest worker program
were needed to stop illegal immigration. Secretary Chertoff
outlined the Administration's three-pillar approach: gain
control of the border, provide a workable interior enforcement
program, and establish a Temporary Worker Program. Secretary
Chao stressed that any piece of legislation must contain these
three elements, but must not allow amnesty. Secretaries Chao
and Chertoff acknowledged that current systems are overloaded
and require updating. They stressed the need to place willing
workers with willing employers, while also bringing legality
and responsibility to the hiring process. Secretary Chao's
testimony emphasized that American workers would come first,
and employers would carry the burden of proving that no
American is available before offering a position to a guest
worker. The hearing provided important insight and gave the
Committee an opportunity to hear from the Administration.
Legislation
On November 8, 2005, Chairman Specter circulated among
Committee Members a Chairman's Mark on Comprehensive
Immigration Reform. Recommendations from previous hearings
proved to be fruitful, and many of the suggestions were
included in the border enforcement title of the Chairman's
Mark. The Chairman's Mark contained several key provisions
taken from bills that were pending before the Judiciary
Committee. Those provisions included: (1) tougher border and
interior enforcement drawn from S. 1438; (2) increased
penalties for employers who hire undocumented individuals and
revised worksite enforcement practices adopted from S. 1917,
the ``Employment Verification Act of 2005;'' and (3) a modified
temporary guest worker program to pair willing foreign workers
with willing employers when no United States citizen can be
found to take the job modeled after S. 1033. The proposal was
intended to move the debate forward in anticipation of the
Senate taking up immigration reform in the second session of
the 109th Congress.
On February 23, 2006, during the 2nd session of the 109th
Congress, an amended Chairman's Mark on immigration reform was
circulated. This Mark significantly revised and expanded the
previous draft and served as a framework for building a
consensus within the Committee on comprehensive reform. The new
Chairman's Mark prioritized border security and enforcement
measures. The legislation also included measures to consolidate
all administrative and civil immigration appeals into a single
court and to enhance the ability of certain highly-skilled
professionals to work in the United States. It also introduced
the ``Gold Card'' visa for the current undocumented population,
allowing them to come out of the shadows and receive legal
status without granting amnesty. Chairman Specter circulated a
final draft of the Chairman's Mark on March 6, 2006, which
included technical changes.
The first executive business meeting discussing the
Chairman's Mark was held on March 2, 2006. It was followed by
five additional Committee mark-ups, with a final mark-up held
on March 27, 2006. A total of 357 amendments were circulated
and over 60 votes taken, resulting in the addition of 54 first
and second degree amendments accepted by the Committee. A
significant amendment offered by Senator Graham provided a new
mechanism to allow undocumented immigrants in the United States
to legalize their status. On a 12-6 vote, the bill was reported
out of the Judiciary Committee on March 27, 2006--the very day
that the Majority Leader had set to begin Senate debate on
immigration reform.
The Senate began debate on the immigration issue by
considering S. 2454, the ``Securing America's Borders Act,''
introduced by the Majority Leader. On March 30, 2006, Chairman
Specter offered the Committee bill as a complete substitute to
S. 2454, and this substitute became the vehicle for the floor
debate. Although over 234 amendments were filed, only three
received votes in two weeks of debate before action stalled
when a motion to invoke cloture on the substitute amendment
failed on April 6, 2006.
On April 7, 2006, after intense bipartisan negotiations,
Chairman Specter and Senator Kennedy, along with Committee
cosponsors Senators Graham and Brownback, introduced S. 2611,
the ``Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006.'' The new
bill incorporated provisions advanced by Senators Chuck Hagel
and Mel Martinez, which would make a distinction among
undocumented immigrants who have resided in the country longer
than five years, those who have been continually present two to
five years, and those present for less than two years (or more
specifically from January 7, 2004, the date of President Bush's
speech calling for comprehensive immigration reform). Under
these provisions, the illegal immigrant population residing in
the U.S. for more than five years would be able to stay and
work in the United States and must continue to work for an
additional six years to be eligible for a green card. By
contrast, those in the U.S. for less than five years but more
than two years would be required to leave the United States and
permitted to return quickly in a new temporary worker status.
Finally, those illegal immigrants in the U.S. for less than two
years would be required to return home and apply for entry
through existing legal channels.
On May 15, 2006, the Senate proceeded to consideration of
S. 2611. 228 amendments were filed and 40 roll call votes held,
with 27 amendments accepted. The Senate passed S. 2611 on a 62-
36 vote on May 25, 2006. To date, however, the Senate and House
have been unable to resolve their legislative differences on
immigration reform.
Post-Passage Hearings
On April 3, 2006, the full Committee held a hearing titled
``Immigration Litigation Reform'' to address proposals
including (1) consolidating immigration appeals in the U.S.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; (2) proposed reforms
of administrative review of immigration cases; and (3) other
provisions designed to improve civil and administrative
immigration litigation.
On April 25, 2006, the full Committee held a hearing titled
``Immigration: Economic Impacts,'' where Professor Richard
Freeman of Harvard University commented on the relationship
between immigration and globalization: ``[Immigration] is
intimately connected to increased trade, free mobility of
capital, and transmission of knowledge across national lines .
. . the immigrant may bring capital, particularly human
capital, with them, so that both capital and labor move
together.'' The net conclusion of the scholars who testified
was that there would not be a significant loss of American jobs
due to comprehensive immigration reform--something that had
been a concern of both parties.
On June 19, 2006, the Immigration Subcommittee held a
hearing titled ``Immigration Enforcement at the Workplace:
Learning from the Mistakes of 1986.'' Expert witnesses included
Stewart Baker, Assistant Secretary for Policy at the Department
of Homeland Security, who spoke about the problems of the 1986
legislation and reiterated the Department's recommendations for
a successful system. He explained that the Immigration Reform
and Control Act of 1986 had created a market for fraudulent
identification cards and social security numbers, because
employers did not possess reliable means of verifying such
identification. Baker testified that ``the federal government
must be permitted to share data that can assist in determining
if unauthorized individuals are gaming the system to work. The
key repository of that data is the Social Security
Administration. Every employer is required to obtain the Social
Security number of every employee as part of the process of
determining employment eligibility.'' Baker opined that
employers currently have little obligation to verify an
immigrant's status and the penalties for violating employment
laws are minimal. He suggested that Congress establish a
secure, nationwide, and mandatory verification program for
employers to quickly and accurately verify the status of a
prospective or current employee.
On July 5, 2006, the Committee held a field hearing in
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania titled ``Comprehensive Immigration
Reform: Examining the Need for a Guest Worker Program.''
Chairman Specter and Senator Kennedy heard the testimony of New
York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who discussed the impact
immigrants have on New York. Mayor Bloomberg described
immigration laws as ``fundamentally broken'' and estimated that
immigrants make up nearly 40% of New York City's population. He
predicted that the City's economy would crumble if these
immigrants were deported. Mr. Dan Eichenlaub, a landscape
contracting owner, reiterated the Mayor's point and testified
``that there are not enough native-born, available American
workers to fully staff and grow my business.'' Mayor Bloomberg
and Mr. Eichenlaub echoed views similar to those of President
Bush, who has made numerous speeches, including his annual
State of the Union address, urging Congress to adopt a guest
worker plan.
In summary, the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act was
the product of 18 hearings, extensive Committee action, and
four weeks on the Senate floor. Nevertheless, the Senate and
House failed to resolve their differences on a reform package.
IMMIGRATION PROVISIONS OF THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION ACT
On October 20, 2005, the Committee considered the Budget
Reconciliation legislation. The legislation sought to promote
real deficit reduction through direct funding from application
fees. Among other things, the legislation would require
employers to pay additional fees in exchange for increased visa
numbers. The plan, as amended through the committee process,
would increase the number of employment-based green cards for
foreign workers while exempting those workers' accompanying
family members from the 140,000 visa cap, which in previous
years accounted for more than half the employment-based visas
issued. It also would recapture the ``unused'' professional
visas already authorized in past fiscal years and would allow
businesses to access up to 90,000 visas per year. The proposal
aimed to reduce the immigrant processing backlog that otherwise
would cause employers to face serious disruptions and delays
regarding highly skilled workers who are certified to be in
short supply. The motion to report the budget to the full
Senate was passed by a vote of 14-2.
On October 27, 2006, Senator Gregg introduced S. 1932, ``An
original bill to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section
202(a) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal
year 2006.'' The language reported by the Judiciary Committee
was included in S. 1932. The language, however, was removed in
House-Senate negotiations and S. 1932 (without budget
reconciliation language) became Public Law 109-171.
H.R. 1268, REAL ID ACT OF 2005
Although H.R. 1268, the ``Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief,'' was not referred to the Judiciary Committee,
the Committee's staff played an integral role in negotiating
one component of the bill, the ``REAL ID Act of 2005.''
The provisions of the REAL ID Act were first proposed in
the House, where they were amended to H.R. 1268. The Act
granted the Secretary of Homeland Security additional tools to
prevent terrorists from entering our country and remove those
that may have already entered illegally. If the Secretary
determines that the alien is a representative of an
organization that engages in or espouses terrorist activity, is
a member of a designated terrorist organization or organization
that engages in terrorism, has persuaded others to commit acts
of terror, or has received military training from or a
terrorist organization, the Secretary may deny the alien
admission or begin removal proceedings. The provisions also
sought to limit identity fraud by prohibiting federal agencies
from accepting State issued driver's licenses or identification
cards unless such documents meet minimum security requirements.
Additionally, the REAL ID Act opened our borders to more
immigrants seeking refuge from hostile governments, repealing a
provision of federal law that placed caps on how many
immigrants could seek asylum on the grounds that they were
subject to forced abortions or other coercive population-
control methods.
After the House attached these provisions to H.R. 1268,
staff for Chairman Specter successfully negotiated with their
House counterparts to moderate several provisions that
threatened to jeopardize Senate support. For example, the House
sought to grant the Secretary of Homeland Security unreviewable
power to waive all legal requirements as needed in order to
ensure that certain border barriers, such as the San Diego
border fence, are constructed expeditiously. Chairman Specter's
staff negotiated a provision allowing judicial review of
constitutional claims, such as claims by property owners that
the government had seized their land in violation of the Fifth
Amendment.
The negotiations resulted in final, compromise language
that was included in H.R. 1268, which was signed into law on
May 11, 2005 (PL 109-13).
S. 119, UNACCOMPANIED ALIEN CHILD PROTECTION ACT OF 2005
On January 24, 2005, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 119,
the ``Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005'' to
reform the federal government's treatment of unaccompanied
alien children apprehended by federal immigration officials.
The bill was considered at a Committee executive session, where
Senator Coburn offered an amendment to modify the bill to
include language that would state that the United States is not
required ``to pay for or provide'' counsel. The committee
adopted the amendment by a voice vote after Senator Feinstein
persuaded Senator Coburn to strike the words ``or provide''
from his amendment.
The Judiciary Committee approved the bill by voice vote and
sent the measure to the full Senate on April 14, 2005. S. 119
passed the Senate by unanimous consent on December 22, 2006,
and was sent to the House of Representatives which took no
further action.
S. 188, STATE CRIMINAL ALIEN ASSISTANCE PROGRAM REAUTHORIZATION ACT OF
2005
On January 26, 2005, Senator Feinstein introduced S. 188,
the ``State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization
Act of 2005.'' The legislation would authorize monies for the
State Criminal Alien Assistance Program. Funding has been
appropriated by Congress annually since 1995, and the program
is administered by the Office of Justice Programs' Bureau of
Justice Assistance at the Department of Justice.
The Committee approved S. 188 by a voice vote and sent to
the full Senate on March 17, 2005. The Senate passed S. 188 by
unanimous consent on May 23, 2005. The House of
Representatives, however, took no action on this legislation.
S. 3821, COMPETE ACT OF 2006
On August 3, 2006, Senator Susan Collins introduced S.
3821, ``Creating Opportunities for Minor League Professionals,
Entertainers, and Teams through Legal Entry Act of 2006,
COMPETE Act.'' This legislation permits minor league athletes
and other qualified individuals to apply for a P-1 visa
(currently only available to major league athletes and other
qualified entertainers).
On December 6, 2006, the COMPETE Act (modified by Senator
Collins) was discharged from the Judiciary Committee and passed
the full Senate by unanimous consent. Three days later, on
December 9, 2006, the House of Representatives passed S. 3821
by voice vote, sending it to the President to sign into law. On
Friday, December 15, 2006, the White House received S. 3821 and
the bill now awaits President Bush's signature.
H.R. 1285, NURSING RELIEF FOR DISADVANTAGED AREAS REAUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2005
Representatives Bobby Rush and Henry Hyde introduced H.R.
1285, the ``Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas
Reauthorization Act of 2005.'' H.R. 1285 amends the Nursing
Relief for Disadvantaged Areas Act of 1999 to reauthorize and
extend for three years the H-1C visa program providing
nonimmigrant nurses in health professional shortage areas. The
measure passed the House by a voice vote on June 20, 2006 and
was referred to the Judiciary Committee. The legislation was
discharged from committee and subsequently passed the Senate by
unanimous consent on December 6, 2006. H.R. 1285 was presented
to the President for signature on December 11, 2006.
S. 2425, REAUTHORIZATION OF THE CONRAD 30 VISA WAIVER PROGRAM
On March 15, 2006, Senator Kent Conrad and Senator
Brownback introduced S. 2425, a proposal to permanently
reauthorize the Conrad 30 visa waiver program. The program
waives the foreign country residence requirement for certain
international medical graduates who have completed their
training in the United States. Under the program, these
graduates may remain in the United States without first
returning home if they agree to spend three years providing
medical care to rural areas experiencing a shortage of doctors.
The House of Representatives passed a companion bill, H.R.
4997, ``Physicians for Underserved Areas Act'' (which modified
the original bill and only extended the visa waiver program for
2 years) on December 6, 2006. The bill passed by unanimous
consent (without amendment) on December 9, 2006 and was sent to
the President for signature.
D. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW
S. 2703, THE FANNIE LOU HAMER, ROSA PARKS, CORETTA SCOTT KING, AND
CESAR E. CHAVEZ VOTING RIGHTS ACT REAUTHORIZATION AND AMENDMENTS ACT OF
2006
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to remedy
pervasive racial discrimination in voting, which resulted in
the almost complete disenfranchisement of minority citizens in
certain areas of the country. The Act created permanent,
nationwide protection for every American citizen, protections
that remain vital to voters today. It also created certain
temporary provisions, which were reauthorized and expanded in
1970, 1975, 1982, and (with respect to language assistance)
1992.
Prior to the enactment of the Voting Rights Act, African-
Americans and other minorities were prevented from exercising
their constitutional rights through violence, intimidation, and
systematic and deliberate State action. Through the enactment
of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, Congress sought to end that
discrimination.
The Act had a concrete impact on America's political
landscape. The covered jurisdictions that once sponsored
violence against minority voters now elect substantial numbers
of minorities to elected office. In Georgia, for example, the
voting age population is 27.2% African-American, and African-
Americans comprise 30.7% of its delegation to the U.S. House of
Representatives and 26.5% of the officials elected statewide.
U.S. Census Bureau Report on 2004 Election; The Bullock-Gaddie
Voting Rights Studies: An Analysis of Section 5 of the Voting
Rights Act (2006). Black candidates in Mississippi have
achieved similar success. The State's voting age population is
34.1% African-American, and 29.5% of its representatives in the
State House and 25% of its delegation to the U.S. House of
Representatives is African-American. Id.
In light of these significant gains, the Voting Rights Act
is rightly lauded as the crown jewel of our civil rights laws.
The Act has enabled racial minorities to participate fully in
the political life of the nation. Even with this important
progress, however, Congress recognized the need to secure
minority voters' hard-won rights. The work of achieving full
and equal access to the ballot box remains unfinished business.
With an often painful history in mind, on July 19, 2006, the
Senate Judiciary Committee voted unanimously to report S. 2703,
the ``Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and
Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act.'' S. 2703 extended for twenty-five years
certain provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 that are
set to expire in 2007, and it amended several provisions of the
Act to ensure that it can continue to serve its historic
purpose.
In addition to renewing most of the expiring provisions of
the Voting Rights Act, S. 2703 updates certain sections to more
efficiently and effectively deal with discrimination in voting.
For example, Section 3 eliminates the provisions for federal
election examiners, who, in the past, were used to ensure that
voters were not excluded from voter registration lists. These
examiners had not been used for that purpose in over 20 years.
Section 3 also eliminates the provisions for terminating
federal examiner certifications.
In addition, Section 3 alters one of the standards for
certifying jurisdictions for federal observer coverage. Prior
to the Voting Rights Act's reauthorization, the Attorney
General could appoint federal observers to monitor polling
places in covered jurisdictions if the Attorney General had
received written complaints from at least twenty residents who
have been denied the right to vote by the government. Section 3
amends the Voting Rights Act to allow the Attorney General to
do so provided that at least two ``residents, elected
officials, or civic participation organizations'' have
complained in writing that voting rights violations ``are
likely to occur.''
Section 4 of the reauthorized Act grants a 25-year renewal
of the coverage formula stated in section 4 of the Voting
Rights Act of 1965. It also requires Congress to reconsider
these provisions in 15 years.
Section 5 responds, in part, to two Supreme Court decisions
that interpreted the criteria for preclearance of voting
changes under section 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965: Reno
v. Bossier Parish School Board, 528 U.S. 320 (2000) (Bossier
Parish II), and Georgia v. Ashcroft, 539 U.S. 461 (2003).
Section 6 amends the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to allow
certain prevailing plaintiffs to collect reasonable expert
fees, and other reasonable litigation expenses. Section 7
extends the requirements of section 203 of the VRA, which forms
the basis for protecting language minority voters, through
2032. Finally, Section 8 allows use of American Community
Survey census data under the Act.
The Committee sought to create a full and complete
legislative record to support this update and 25-year renewal.
To that end, the full Committee and the Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights held a combined
total of ten hearings over the course of four months and heard
from more than forty witnesses, including scholars, civil
rights advocates, as well as current and former government
officials.
On July 19, 2006, the Committee held a markup to consider
the bill S. 2703. Ranking Member Leahy offered a technical
amendment to expand the short title of the bill, S. 2703, to
include the name of Cesar E. Chavez. The technical amendment
was agreed to by voice vote. An amendment was offered by Dr.
Coburn to provide that persons who state that they speak
English ``well'' in response to the Census Bureau's inquiry
would not be considered limited-English proficient under
section 203(b)(3) of the Voting Rights Act. The amendment was
defeated by voice vote. The motion to report favorably the
bill, S. 2703, was agreed by a roll call vote of 18-0.
On July 20, 2006, the House passed H.R. 9, identical in
language to S. 2703, was passed by the Senate by a vote of 98-
0. On July 26, 2006, Chairman Specter filed a written report on
the bill, Report No. 109-295. Other Members of the Committee
also submitted additional views. President Bush signed H.R. 9
into law on July 27, 2006 (PL 109-246).
S.J. RES. 1, MARRIAGE PROTECTION AMENDMENT
On May 18, 2006, the Committee reported S.J. Res. 1, a
proposal to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as
the union of one man and one woman. The resolution further
provided that neither the federal constitution nor the
constitution of any state should be construed to require that
same-sex couples be granted a right to marry.
Federal law provides statutory protection for traditional
marriage in the Defense of Marriage Act, which was signed into
law by President Clinton on September 21, 1996. The Defense of
Marriage Act provides that (1) in interpreting Acts of
Congress, federal courts should interpret ``marriage'' to
include only a union between a man and a woman, and (2) no
state shall be required to give effect to any law or judicial
proceeding of any other state defining marriage to include
persons of the same sex. The Act, however, does not prevent a
state or federal court from mandating that a State recognize
same-sex marriage on constitutional grounds.
The push for a federal constitutional amendment defining
marriage as the union of one man and one woman was spurred in
large part by the decision of the Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts in Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, 798
N.E.2d 941 (Mass. 2003). The Massachusetts high court ruled
that the state constitution's guarantee of equal protection
required that same-sex couples be allowed to marry. In response
to the Goodridge decision and other legal challenges to state
marriage laws, 19 states have passed constitutional amendments
defining marriage only as the union of a man and a woman, and
another 26 states have enacted statutory protections.
The Committee held a markup on May 18 and approved S.J.
Res. 1 by a vote of 10-8. Senator Brownback and Senator Wayne
Allard managed the floor debate in favor of the amendment.
Proponents raised concerns that federal and state courts would
invalidate statutory marriage protections or protections found
in state constitutions, ruling that they violated state
constitutions or the federal constitution. Opponents put forth
a range of arguments. Some believed that federal constitutional
protection was premature, and that Congress should allow the
issue to make its way through the federal court system before
amending the Constitution. Others believed that the amendment
would constitute unfair treatment and discrimination against
homosexual citizens.
On June 7, 2006, by a 49-48 vote, cloture on the motion to
proceed to S.J. Res. 1 was not invoked.
S.J. RES. 12, FLAG DESECRATION AMENDMENT
On June 20, 2006, the Committee reported S.J. Res. 12,
which sought to amend the U.S. Constitution to allow Congress
to prohibit the physical desecration of the American flag.
The amendment sought to restore to Congress the power it
held prior to the Supreme Court's decisions in Texas v. Johnson
and United States v. Eichman. In Texas v. Johnson, the Court
held that a Texas state statute prohibiting defilement of the
U.S. flag violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom
of speech. In response to this decision, Congress passed the
Flag Protection Act of 1989, which made it a crime to knowingly
mutilate, deface, physically defile, burn, keep on the ground
or floor, or trample upon the United States flag. However, the
following year, the Court struck down this statutory solution
in United States v. Eichman. As a result of these two Supreme
Court decisions, Congress may not offer protection for the
American flag except through a new constitutional grant of
power. S.J. Res. 12 sought to give Congress this power.
The Committee held a markup on June 15 and approved S.J.
Res. 12 by a vote of 11-7.
Chairman Specter and Senator Hatch led floor debate for
proponents of S.J. Res. 12, while Ranking Member Leahy led
debate for the measure's opponents. Proponents emphasized the
flag's special status as a symbol of America and likened
desecration of the flag to the defacing of national buildings
and monuments. They noted that our nation consistently offered
protection for the U.S. flag, ending only after the Johnson and
Eichman decisions in 1989 and 1990. Proponents also explained
that the proposed amendment did not itself limit expressive
conduct in any way; rather, the amendment would have restored
to Congress the power it possessed to protect the American
flag.
Opponents of the amendment asserted that the amendment
would rewrite the First Amendment to allow Congress to prohibit
one unpopular form of speech. They argued that the Constitution
itself is more worthy of protection than the flag, and stated
that the proposed amendment was an affront to the freedoms the
Bill of Rights provides. Some also raised concerns that the
term ``desecration'' was vague, and that it did not define with
sufficient clarity those actions Congress could prohibit.
Senator Durbin proposed a substitute resolution on the
Senate floor. The substitute proposed statutory flag protection
in lieu of a constitutional amendment. The Durbin substitute
was defeated on June 27, 2006 in a 36-64 vote. The flag
protection amendment, S.J. Res. 12, was defeated on June 27,
2006, by a vote of 66-34, one vote short of passage.
S. 2831, FREE FLOW OF INFORMATION ACT OF 2006
During the 109th Congress, the headlines included several
high profile cases of federal prosecutors subpoenaing
journalists threatening them with imprisonment unless they
disclosed confidential sources. Indeed, the cases of New York
Times reporter Judith Miller and Time Magazine reporter Matthew
Cooper were to extend for years. In response to First Amendment
concerns, on February 9, 2005, Senator Richard Lugar introduced
S. 340, the ``Free Flow of Information Act of 2005,'' which
gained the support of a bipartisan group of ten Senators.
The bill would establish a federal journalists' privilege
to protect the free flow of information between journalists and
confidential sources. The bill sought to reconcile reporters'
need to maintain confidentiality, in order to ensure that
sources will speak openly and freely, with the public's right
to effective law enforcement and fair trials. Additionally, the
bill sought to create a clear, uniform rule for deciding claims
of journalist privilege, instead of the varying standards the
federal courts currently apply. Indeed, the different circuits
currently observe at least three different standards.
With respect to federal criminal cases, five circuits--the
First, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits--do not
shield journalists unless the governmental has acted in bad
faith. Four other circuits--the Second, Third, Ninth, and
Eleventh Circuits--recognize a qualified privilege, which
requires courts to balance the freedom of the press against the
obligation to provide testimony on a case-by-case basis. The
law in the District of Columbia Circuit is unsettled.
With respect to federal civil cases, nine of the twelve
circuits apply a balancing test when deciding whether
journalists must disclose confidential sources. One circuit
affords journalists no privilege in any context. Two other
circuits have yet to decide whether journalists have any
privilege in civil cases.
Meanwhile, 49 states plus the District of Columbia have
recognized a privilege within their own jurisdictions. Thirty-
one states plus the District of Columbia have passed some form
of reporter's shield statute, and 18 states have recognized a
privilege at common law.
The Committee held four hearings to investigate how best to
balance the needs of journalists and law enforcement. On July
20, 2005, the Committee heard from Senator Lugar; Senator
Christopher Dodd; Representative Mike Pence; Matthew Cooper,
White House Correspondent for Time Magazine Inc.; Norman
Pearlstine, Editor-in-Chief for Time Inc.; William Safire,
political columnist for the New York Times Company; Floyd
Abrams, partner at Cahill, Gordon & Reindel LLP; Lee Levine, of
Levine, Sullivan, Koch & Schulz, LLP; and Professor Geoffrey
Stone, Harry Kalven, Jr. Distinguished Service Professor of Law
at the University of Chicago Law School.
On October 19, 2005, the Committee held a hearing that
included Chuck Rosenberg, United States Attorney for the
Southern District of Texas, testifying on behalf of the United
States Department of Justice; Judith Miller, Investigative
Reporter and Senior Writer for The New York Times; David
Westin, President of ABC News; Joseph E. diGenova, founding
partner of diGenova & Toensing LLP; Anne Gordon, Managing
Editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer; Dale Davenport, Editorial
Page Editor for The Patriot-News of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;
and Steven D. Clymer, Professor of Law at Cornell Law School.
Prompted by concerns raised at these hearings and expressed
by Committee Members, the Department of Justice, numerous news
organizations, and concerned groups such as the Chamber of
Commerce, Chairman Specter led a series or negotiations to
forge a compromise bill that would garner wider support. After
several months, the result was S. 2831, the ``Free Flow of
Information Act of 2006,'' introduced by Senator Richard Lugar
and Chairman Specter and co-sponsored by a bipartisan group of
nine Senators. The compromise bill clarified that journalists
must disclose information in certain exigent circumstances--for
example, when the information is needed to prevent a terror
attack, to protect the national security, to prevent death or
serious bodily harm, and to provide a criminal defendant with
information needed to establish his or her innocence. At the
same time, the bill would protect journalists from government
harassment and intimidation. Indeed, S. 2831 was endorsed by 39
news organizations, including the Washington Post, the Hearst
Corporation, Time Warner, ABC Inc., CBS, CNN, the New York
Times Company, and National Public Radio.
On September 20, 2006, the Committee held a hearing to
evaluate S. 2831 and its potential effects on criminal
investigations, criminal prosecutions, and national security.
Witnesses included the Honorable Paul J. McNulty, Deputy
Attorney General of the United States; Steven D. Clymer,
Professor at Cornell Law School; Theodore B. Olson, former
Solicitor General of the United States and a partner at Gibson,
Dunn & Crutcher LLP; Victor E. Schwartz, partner at Shook,
Hardy & Bacon LLP; and Bruce A. Baird, partner at Covington &
Burling LLP.
No further action was taken by the Committee or the full
Senate.
S. 3731, PRESIDENTIAL SIGNING STATEMENTS ACT OF 2006
Since the presidency of James Monroe, Presidents have
issued signing statements for such generally uncontroversial
purposes as explaining to the public the likely effect of a
law, instructing executive branch officials on how to
administer a law, and declining to execute a statute in a
manner the President deems unconstitutional. During the 109th
Congress, debate arose over two types of signing statements:
signing statements that challenged what the President believes
to be an unconstitutional encroachment on his power and signing
statements that attempted to create legislative history for
courts to use in interpreting statutes.
On June 27, 2006, the Committee held a hearing to explore
the separation of powers issues surrounding presidential
signing statements. The Committee received testimony from the
Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel, as well as four
renowned academics. Critics asserted that President Bush had
broken with tradition by issuing signing statements intended to
expand Presidential authority at the expense of Congress. They
pointed to the signing statements accompanying the USA PATRIOT
Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006 and Senator
McCain's ``anti-torture amendment'' to the Department of
Defense, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations to Address
Hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico, and Pandemic Influenza Act of
2006. Other witnesses, however, argued that President Bush was
rightfully challenging unconstitutional encroachments on his
power, a course followed by Presidents Jackson, Tyler, Lincoln,
Andrew Johnson, Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Truman, Eisenhower,
Lyndon Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter. Critics also argued
that courts act improperly when treating signing statements as
a form of ``legislative history'' relevant to construing an Act
of Congress. Supporters pointed out that examples of federal
courts using signing statements as evidence of legislative
intent date back to at least 1946.
On July 26, 2006, Chairman Specter introduced S. 3731, the
``Presidential Signing Statements Act of 2006.'' The bill would
instruct courts not to rely on presidential signing statements
in construing an Act of Congress. The bill would permit
Congress to seek a declaratory judgment on the legality of a
presidential signing statement. Additionally, the bill would
grant Congress the power to submit argument to the Supreme
Court in any case where the construction or constitutionality
of any Act of Congress is in question and a presidential
signing statement for that Act was issued.
No further action was taken on the bill in the 109th
Congress.
S. 1313, THE PROTECTION OF HOMES, SMALL BUSINESSES, AND PRIVATE
PROPERTY ACT OF 2005
On June 23, 2005, the Supreme Court issued its decision in
Kelo v. City of New London, ruling that the Constitution
allowed the City of New London, Connecticut to seize the home
of school teacher Suzette Kelo and transfer it to the Pfizer
Corporation to build a research facility and parking lot. The
Court held that taking land from one private owner and
transferring it to a private corporation for its own, private
use constituted a ``public use'' of the land, because the
transfer would promote ``economic development'' and increase
tax revenues for the City of New London.
Critics contended that Kelo was a radical departure from
prior eminent domain decisions. In the past, the Supreme Court
had interpreted ``public use'' to include use by common
carriers such as railroads or public utilities; publicly owned
real property such as highways and parks; and elimination of
blight conditions that endanger public health and welfare.
Justice O'Conner pointed out in her dissent that the Court's
decision to broaden the definition of ``public use'' meant that
now, ``[t]he specter of condemnation hangs over all property.
Nothing is to prevent the State from replacing any Motel 6 with
a Ritz-Carlton, any home with a shopping mall, or any farm with
a factory.''
On June 27, 2005, Senator Cornyn introduced S. 1313, the
``Protection of Homes, Small Businesses, and Private Property
Act of 2005,'' with Committee cosponsors Senators Coburn and
Kyl. The bill would limit the power of eminent domain to public
uses, which would not be construed to include economic
development. The bill would apply to all exercises of eminent
domain by the federal government and those exercises of eminent
domain by state and local governments that used federal funds.
The Committee held a hearing on September 20, 2005 to
explore the effects of the Kelo ruling and to consider whether
Congress should address the decision. With Suzette Kelo
testifying, the hearing highlighted the importance of two
competing interests. On the one hand, citizens must not be
forced to live in fear that they will be compelled to surrender
their homes if a potentially more wealthy or more powerful user
comes along. On the other hand, the citizenry must recognize
that the use of eminent domain has benefited our country,
making way for highways, bridges, roads, and eliminating blight
conditions.
Staff for Chairman Specter spent several months meeting
with staff for other Senators, city officials, and concerned
citizens. The result was draft legislation that would allow
eminent domain for the uses recognized by the Supreme Court
prior to the Kelo decision, including: (1) use by the general
public with full government ownership; (2) use by government
employees for official government business; (3) use for common-
carrier functions that serve the general public and are subject
to regulation and oversight by the government, such as mass
transit, railroad, seaport, or highway projects; (4) use for
arenas or stadiums that serve the general public; (5) use for
public utility functions, such as generation, transmission, or
distribution of electric energy, and provision of
telecommunications, water, and wastewater services; and (6)
alleviating blight conditions that are dangerous to public
health or safety. In addition, the bill would create a private
cause of action in the federal courts.
No further action was taken on the proposals by Senator
Cornyn and Chairman Specter during the 109th Congress
On September 7, 2006, Senator Inhofe introduced S. 3873,
the Private Property Rights Protection Act of 2006. S. 3873 is
identical to H.R. 4128, the Private Property Rights Protection
Act of 2005, which passed the House on November 3, 2005.
The full Senate did not act on any of these measures.
S. 403, THE CHILD CUSTODY PROTECTION ACT
In January and February 2005, Senator John Ensign
introduced three identical versions of the Child Custody
Protection Act. The bills sought to address the concern that
some adults were helping children evade state laws requiring a
child to obtain a parent's consent or notification before
having an abortion. Specifically, reports surfaced that adults
had transported minor girls from states with parental consent
or notification laws to states that lack such provisions. The
bills were cosponsored by 40 Republican Senators and one
Democratic Senator, Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska. Two of the
bills, S. 8 and S. 396, were referred to the Judiciary
Committee; the third, S. 403, was placed on the calendar under
Senate Rule XIV.
The full Committee held a hearing on an identical bill
during the 108th Congress on June 3, 2004. At the hearing, the
Committee heard testimony from Teresa Stanton Collett,
Professor of Law at the University of Saint Thomas School of
Law; Senator Ensign, sponsor of the bills; Joyce Farley, mother
of a twelve-year old daughter who was transported across state
lines, without parental consent, for an abortion; John C.
Harrison, Professor of Law at the University of Virginia School
of Law; Crystal Lane, who at age 13 was transported across
state lines for an abortion; The Rev. Dr. Katherine Hancock
Ragsdale, on behalf of NARAL and the Religious Coalition for
Reproductive Choice; and Peter J. Rubin, Professor of Law at
Georgetown University School of Law. The hearing focused on the
experience of girls who face unplanned pregnancies in states
with parental consent or notification laws; the problems that
can arise when parents lack information about their daughters'
medical care; and whether or not the bills were constitutional.
The bills would prevent parties from circumventing state
parental-notification laws by making it a crime, punishable by
up to one year's imprisonment and/or fine to ``knowingly''
transport a child outside her home state ``with the intent''
that the child obtain an abortion that would have abridged a
parental notification law in the child's home state. They
included an exception if the abortion was necessary to save the
minor's life and clarified that lawsuits could not be brought
against the pregnant minor or a parent of the pregnant minor.
During consideration of S. 403 by the Senate, two
amendments were offered on the floor. Senator Frank Lautenberg
offered an amendment to authorize grants to local schools,
public health authorities, and private non-profit groups for
the purpose of providing federal sex education programs to
children. Under the amendment, no grants could go to groups
that teach only abstinence, and all grant recipients would be
required to teach children about ``all contraceptives.'' The
amendment was defeated by a vote of 48-51. Senator Barbara
Boxer offered an amendment to create an exception to the Act
for pregnancy caused by incest, which was approved by a vote of
98-0.
The Child Custody Protection Act passed the Senate, by a
vote of 65-34, and the bill was submitted to the House.
The House amended the bill to add parental notification
requirements on physicians in non-parental consent and non-
notification states. The amendment would require any physician
in these states who performs an abortion on a minor girl to
notify the girl's parents of the abortion within 24 hours, if
the girl is a resident of a state other than the state where
the abortion was performed. The amendment included exceptions
where the girl's life or health is in danger, or where the girl
has obtained permission for parental bypass in her home state.
On September 26, 2006, the House passed the bill, as amended,
by a vote of 264-153.
On September 29, the Senate voted by a margin of 57-42 not
to invoke cloture on the motion to concur to the House passed
bill.
S. 394, OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2005
On February 16, 2005, Senator Cornyn introduced S. 394, the
OPEN Government Act. Cosponsors included two Republican
Senators and three Democratic Senators. On March 15, 2005, the
Subcommittee on Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security
held a hearing on the bill.
This bipartisan bill sought to remedy government agencies'
frequent failure to timely comply with Freedom of Information
Act (``FOIA'') requests by increasing reporting requirements
and creating incentives for timely compliance. The bill would
require the Attorney General to report to Congress on any court
order finding that an agency improperly withheld information
and assessing attorneys' fees. It also would require each
agency to submit to the Attorney General data on the agency's
average time for responding to FOIA requests. The bill proposed
several penalties for noncompliance with FOIA's deadlines. For
example, if an agency failed to meet FOIA's deadlines, the
government would lose the right to assert any privileges over
the information unless (1) the government had good cause for
the failure, (2) disclosure would endanger national security,
(3) disclosure would reveal personal private information
protected by FOIA (e.g., home phone numbers), or (4) disclosure
is otherwise illegal. Additionally, the bill also proposed
updating FOIA to grant bloggers and other non-traditional media
outlets the same reduced fees for FOIA requests that are
available to traditional media outlets. Finally, to reduce
litigation over whether FOIA applies to certain information,
the bill proposed that any future statute which intends to
create an exception to FOIA must explicitly state this
intention.
On September 21, 2006, the Committee reported S. 394 by
voice vote. Nor further action was taken on S. 394 in the 109th
Congress.
E. ANTI-TERRORISM MEASURES
S. 1389 & H.R.3199, THE USA PATRIOT IMPROVEMENT AND REAUTHORIZATION ACT
OF 2005
Following the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, the
107th Congress passed the Uniting and Strengthening America by
Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct
Terrorism Act of 2001 (the ``USA PATRIOT Act'' or ``PATRIOT
Act''). The PATRIOT Act amended the criminal code and the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (``FISA'') to
enhance the ability of federal authorities to conduct criminal
and intelligence investigations, promote information sharing,
strengthen criminal punishments for acts of terrorism, and
provide the tools needed to sever terrorists' access to sources
of material support. Sixteen provisions of the original PATRIOT
Act, however, were scheduled to expire or ``sunset'' on
December 31, 2005, unless reauthorized by Congress.
During the 107th and 108th Congresses, the Committee held
more than a dozen hearings related to various provisions of the
PATRIOT Act. At the start of the 109th Congress, the Committee
focused especially on the provisions scheduled to sunset. These
included section 206, governing multipoint FISA wiretaps, and
section 215, the so- called ``library'' provision, governing
FISA orders for business records or tangible things. The
Committee also focused on some controversial provisions that
were not scheduled to sunset, including sections governing the
delayed notice of search warrants (section 213, the so-called
``sneak and peak'' provision) and the use of National Security
Letters (section 505).
On April 5, 2005, the Committee held a hearing on
``Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act,'' and heard testimony from
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales and FBI Director Robert S.
Mueller, III. At the hearing, the Attorney General announced
publicly, for the first time, that section 215 of the Act--the
provision governing FISA orders for business records--had been
used only 35 times, and had never been used to obtain library
or bookstore records, medical records, or gun sale records. The
Attorney General also expressed a willingness to support
amendments to section 215 to clarify the right of a recipient
of an order to consult with an attorney and challenge the order
in court. Through testimony at the hearing and subsequent
correspondence with the Department of Justice, the Committee
also learned that the Department had used section 213 of the
Act to request approximately 155 delayed-notice search
warrants. The Department estimated this number to be ``less
than one-fifth of 1 percent of all search warrants'' executed
during the relevant time period.
On April 12, 2005, the Committee held a closed session,
during which the head of the Justice Department's Office of
Intelligence Policy and Review, James Baker, and the FBI's
General Counsel, Valerie Caproni, testified about
implementation of the PATRIOT Act. While the details of the
session were classified, the witnesses testified that several
of the foreign intelligence authorities granted by the PATRIOT
Act had been used to target international terrorists.
On May 10, 2005, the Committee held another hearing to
elicit the opinions of scholars and critics of the PATRIOT Act,
including the testimony of Senator Larry Craig and Senator
Durbin, the principal cosponsors of the ``Security and Freedom
Enhancement Act of 2005'' (the ``SAFE Act'').
On July 13, 2005, Chairman Specter and Senators Kyl and
Feinstein introduced S. 1389, the ``USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005,'' a bipartisan reauthorization
bill to continue most of the PATRIOT Act's provisions, while
adding new safeguards designed to protect civil liberties. The
bill made 14 of the 16 provisions scheduled to sunset
permanent, but extended the sunset for another four years for
section 206 (multipoint FISA wiretaps) and section 215 (FISA
business records). Additionally, for section 215 orders, the
bill required the government to submit ``a statement of facts''
showing ``reasonable grounds to believe'' the records or other
things sought are relevant to an authorized investigation. The
bill also proposed an explicit right to consult counsel, and
provided for judicial review. Further, the bill required
approval of the FBI Director or Deputy Director for orders
concerning library records and other sensitive materials. With
respect to delayed-notice search warrants under section 213,
the bill would require the issuing court to set a ``date
certain'' for notice to be provided, eliminating the
possibility of indefinite delays. The bill also would mandate
that extensions be granted only ``upon an updated showing of
the need for further delay,'' and limited such extensions to 90
days each. The bill incorporated new public and Congressional
reporting requirements for several PATRIOT Act authorities.
In the days following the introduction of S. 1389,
Committee Members and staff engaged in intensive, bipartisan
negotiations about the substance of the bill. After several
informal sessions, Chairman Specter presented a complete
substitute bill at the Committee's Executive Business Meeting
on July 21, 2005. The substitute was adopted by the Committee
on a roll call vote of 18 to 0. As passed by the Committee, S.
1398 included several new provisions to strengthen anti-
terrorism tools and enhance civil liberties protections.
For example the bill proposed extending the duration of
surveillance orders targeting foreign spies and terrorists and
enhancing the efficiency of pen registers by allowing
investigators to obtain contemporaneous subscriber information
and related data (like the name and address of someone called
by the investigative subject). Additionally, the bill
eliminated the sunset on the material support provisions that
had been included in the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism
Prevention Act of 2004. The Department of Justice had testified
that ``repealing the sunset on those amendments to the material
support statutes contained in the Intelligence reform Act would
represent a significant step forward, ending uncertainty in
this area of the law and ensuring that prosecutors will not
lose a critical tool.''
The civil liberties protections in S. 1389, as reported by
the Committee, included several changes to section 206
(multipoint or ``roving'' FISA wiretaps), section 215 (FISA
orders for business records), and section 213 (delayed-notice
search warrants). For all multipoint or ``roving'' wiretaps,
the bill would require the FBI to notify the court within 10
days after beginning surveillance of any new phone, to include
the ``facts and circumstances'' to believe the new phone is
``being used, or is about to be used,'' by the target. For
delayed notice, or ``sneak and peek'' search warrants, the bill
would require notice of the search to be given within 7 days of
its execution, unless the facts justified a later date. For
section 215 orders, the bill would require applications for
orders to include ``a statement of facts'' showing ``reasonable
grounds to believe that the records or other things sought are
relevant to an authorized investigation.'' The bill further
defined ``relevant'' records as those that (1) pertain to a
foreign power or an agent of a foreign power; (2) are relevant
to the activities of a suspected agent of a foreign power; or
(3) pertain to an individual in contact with, or known to, a
suspected agent of a foreign power.
While S. 1389 was being negotiated, other congressional
actions were also being taken to reauthorize the PATRIOT Act.
On June 16, 2005, the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
reported S. 1266, its own PATRIOT Act reauthorization bill. S.
1266 differed from S. 1389 in several respects; most notably,
it included a provision to permit the FBI to issue
administrative subpoenas for information in counterterrorism
and counterintelligence cases. In addition, on July 21, 2005,
the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3199, the ``USA
PATRIOT and Terrorism Prevention Reauthorization Act of 2005,''
by a vote of 257 to 171. Unlike S. 1389, which largely
consisted of amendments to the original PATRIOT Act, H.R. 3199
included several new anti-terrorism and criminal law
provisions.
On July 29, the Senate took up H.R. 3199 and substituted
the text of S. 1389 as reported by the Judiciary Committee for
the language passed by the House. As modified, the Senate
passed H.R. 3199 by unanimous consent. Although the Senate
appointed conferees upon passage of the bill, the House did not
appoint its conferees until November 9, 2005.
The conference report to accompany H.R. 3199 represented a
compromise between the Senate and House bills. For example, the
conference report included 7-year sunsets for section 206 and
section 215--a compromise between the Senate bill's 4-year
sunsets and the House bill's 10-year sunsets. Similarly, for
delayed-notice search warrants, the conference report required
notice to be given within 30 days--a compromise between the
Senate's 7-day time limit and the 180 days permitted under the
House bill. The conference report also retained the Senate
bill's three-part relevance test for section 215 orders, but
did so in the form of a legal presumption, rather than an
absolute requirement.
The House adopted the conference report by a vote of 251 to
174 on December 14, 2004. But, on December 16, efforts to
invoke cloture on the conference report in the Senate failed.
These efforts were complicated by the revelation of the
National Security Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program,
which first appeared in the New York Times on the same day as
the cloture vote. Ultimately, after two temporary extensions of
the PATRIOT Act, the Senate adopted the conference report for
H.R. 3199 on March 2, 2006 by a vote of 89 to 10. At the same
time, the Senate adopted a companion bill sponsored by Senator
John Sununu, S. 2271 the ``USA PATRIOT Act Additional
Reauthorizing Amendments Act of 2006.'' Among other things, S.
2271 provided a mechanism for recipients of section 215 orders
to challenge the accompanying ``gag'' order, and clarified that
recipients of National Security Letters are not required to
disclose the name of their attorneys to the FBI. On March 9,
2005, President Bush signed both measures into law (PL 109-177
and 109-178).
S. 2453, NATIONAL SECURITY SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 2006
S. 2455, TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE ACT OF 2006
Following the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Executive
branch took several actions and instituted programs to detect
and prevent future terror attacks. Among these measures,
President Bush signed a highly classified directive that
authorized the national Security Agency to conduct an
electronic surveillance program known as the Terrorist
Surveillance Program. According to Administration officials,
the program targets communications between terror suspects
overseas and people inside the United States.
On December 16, 2005, the New York Times revealed the
existence of the program, sparking a national debate on the
President's power to authorize the Terrorist Surveillance
Program without congressional authorization. Critics argued
that the President's directive violated the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the Fourth Amendment.
These critics emphasized that Congress has declared that FISA
is the ``exclusive means'' by which foreign intelligence
surveillance may be conducted. Supporters argued that the
President has inherent power under Article II of the
Constitution to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance that
cannot be restricted by FISA. Moreover, these supporters
argued, Congress had authorized the President to carry out
programs such as the Terrorist Surveillance Program when it
passed the Authorization for Use of Military Force in September
2001.
To consider these legal issues, the Committee held four
hearings, in which it heard from a total of 21 witnesses,
including the Attorney General, the Director of the CIA, the
Director of the NSA, 5 former FISA judges, and numerous other
government officials, law professors, and private attorneys.
On February 6th Attorney General Alberto Gonzales testified
before the Committee for the entire day about the Terrorist
Surveillance Program. On February 28th the Committee held a
hearing to investigate whether the President had the inherent
constitutional authority to implement the Terrorist
Surveillance Program, featuring a number of distinguished
professors and practitioners as well as the Honorable James
Woolsey, former director of the CIA. On March 28th the
Committee held its third hearing, in which five former judges
of the Foreign Intelligence Court of Review discussed the need
for and feasibility of judicial review of the Terrorist
Surveillance Program. On July 26th the Committee held a hearing
explored the need to update FISA to reflect recent
technological changes. Witnesses included the Director of the
CIA, the Director of the NSA, and the Acting Assistant Attorney
General for the Office of Legal Counsel.
Meanwhile, on March 16, 2006, Chairman Specter introduced
S. 2453, the ``National Security Surveillance Act of 2006.''
The bill sought to provide a mechanism for prior judicial
approval of the Terrorist Surveillance Program and grant the
Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court jurisdiction to review
the constitutionality of such programs. Additionally, the bill
required the Executive branch to keep the Senate and House
Intelligence Committees informed regarding electronic
surveillance programs.
That same day, Senator DeWine introduced S. 2455, the
``Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006,'' cosponsored by Senator
Graham. S. 2455 would authorize the Terrorist Surveillance
Program without judicial review, and would provide for enhanced
congressional oversight of the program. In addition, S. 2455
provided that once the Attorney General determined that the
facts relating to any target within the United States satisfied
the criteria for an individualized court order under FISA, he
would be required to stop surveillance until he obtained such a
court order.
Subsequently, on May 24th, Chairman Specter and Senator
Feinstein introduced S. 3001, the ``Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Improvement and Enhancement Act of 2006.'' S. 3001
provided that no law shall be construed to repeal or modify
FISA unless it expressly amends FISA. The bill required the
President to brief each Member of the congressional
intelligence committees on the Terrorist Surveillance Program
and any other electronic surveillance programs conducted
without an order from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court. It also proposed updating FISA provisions concerning
emergency electronic surveillance.
Staff for Chairman Specter met with Executive branch and
other interested groups over the course of several months to
discuss legislation to address the Terrorist Surveillance
Program. Proposals regarding the bill were considered and
debated and the bill was revised and redrafted several times.
The negotiations culminated in a meeting between Chairman
Specter and President Bush in the Oval Office. During this
meeting, the President agreed to submit the Terrorist
Surveillance Program to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance
Court for a determination of the program's constitutionality,
so long as the Senate also acted to modernize FISA. The result
was a compromise, substitute version of S. 2453.
S. 2453 was on the Committee's mark-up agenda continuously
from April 6th through September 13, when the Committee adopted
Chairman Specter's compromise, substitute amendment and
reported it out on a 10-8, party-line vote. That day, the
Committee also reported S. 2455 on a 10-8, party-line vote, and
S. 3001 by a 10-8 vote.
In the following weeks, Chairman Specter further revised S.
2453 to incorporate additional civil liberty protections, such
as language similar to the provision of S. 2455 requiring the
Attorney General to seek individualized FISA orders when
appropriate. On September 22, Senator Mitch McConnell
introduced a revised version of the bill that incorporated
these protections--S. 3931, the ``Terrorist Surveillance Act of
2006.'' The bill was cosponsored by Chairman Specter, Majority
Leader Frist, and Senator DeWine.
On November 14, 2006, Chairman Specter introduced S. 4051,
the ``Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Oversight and Resource
Enhancement Act of 2006.'' Chairman Specter explained that
changed circumstances warranted a changed approach: Now that
numerous federal courts were considering challenges to the
Terrorist Surveillance Program, Congress need not create a
mechanism for judicial review. At the same time, Chairman
Specter explained, the Nation needs a definitive answer as soon
as possible. Accordingly, this bill would require the United
States Supreme Court to provide expedited review of legal
challenges to the Terrorist Surveillance Program. It would also
increase congressional oversight of electronic surveillance
programs and would grant additional resources to the Executive
Branch to ensure prompt, efficient evaluation of surveillance
requests. The bill would provide additional protections for
civil liberties by ensuring that individualized FISA warrants
will be sought for communications originating inside the United
States. Finally, the bill would ensure that Executive Branch
officials have sufficient flexibility by allowing the Executive
Branch to conduct emergency surveillance for 7 days, instead of
only 72 hours, and clarifying that foreign-to-foreign
communications that are incidentally routed through the United
States may be intercepted without a court order.
The 109th Congress took no further action on S. 4051, S.
3001, S. 2455, or S. 2453.
ANIMAL ENTERPRISE TERRORISM ACT, S. 3880
On September 8, 2006, Senator James Inhofe introduced the
Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act. Committee cosponsors included
Senators Brownback, Cornyn, DeWine, Hatch, Coburn and
Feinstein. After introduction, Committee Members and staff
worked with the bill's sponsors and the sponsors of companion
legislation in the House of Representatives to craft a
compromise version of the bill incorporating additional civil
liberties protections. Following these negotiations, a
substitute amendment (S.AMDT. 5115) was introduced by Senator
Feinstein, supported by the original cosponsors. The Senate
passed the substitute amendment on September 30, 2006 by
unanimous consent. On suspension, the House of Representative
passed the bill by voice vote on November 13, 2006. This bill
responds to the growing threat of animal rights extremists who
violently target, threaten, intimidate, and harass employees of
medical research institutions and their families.
The Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act revises title 18,
United States Code, section 43. The Act requires prosecutors to
prove a ``course of conduct'' (defined as two or more acts)
including threats, acts of vandalism, property damage, criminal
trespass, harassment, or intimidation, along with the intent to
cause damage. Notably, the Act permits prosecutions against
individuals who engage in secondary or ``tertiary'' targeting.
Prior to the passage of this law, prosecutors were required to
prove ``physical'' disruption of the actual animal enterprise.
Armed with a knowledge of existing law, extremists have often
avoided direct involvement with the animal enterprise and opted
instead to attack secondary or ``tertiary targets''--such as
employees, family members, and their private residences. The
Act allows prosecutors to reach this conduct, yet it
specifically excludes the prosecution of individuals for lawful
activity protected under the First Amendment. The Act sets
forth strong penalties for damage occurring to any person or
property, but does not include mandatory minimum penalties or
the death penalty.
President Bush signed the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act
into law on Monday, November 27, 2006 (PL 109-374).
F. COURTS & THE JUDICIARY
S. 2039, PROSECUTORS AND DEFENDERS INCENTIVE ACT OF 2005
On November 17, 2005, Senator Durbin introduced S. 2039,
the ``Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005,'' along
with Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, and Senators
Feingold, Biden, DeWine, Kennedy, Feinstein and Schumer. The
legislation sought to make legal careers in public service as
prosecutors or public defenders more financially viable and
attractive to law school graduates by providing relief from
student loan debt.
The bill was closely modeled after the existing federal
Executive branch student loan repayment program. Specifically,
the bill would amend the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets
Act of 1968 to direct the Attorney General to establish a
program of student loan repayment for borrowers who agree to
remain employed for at least three years as public attorneys,
either as state or local criminal prosecutors or state, local,
or federal public defenders in criminal cases. The bill would
limit the amount of loans covered by the program to $10,000 for
any borrower in any calendar year, or an aggregate total of
$60,000 for any borrower. Borrowers involuntarily separated
from employment due to misconduct or who voluntarily left
employment before the required three-year period would be
required to repay any benefits received.
The Committee reported this measure by voice vote on May
25, 2006, but no further action was taken by the full Senate.
S. 2292, A BILL TO PROVIDE RELIEF FOR THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY FROM
EXCESSIVE RENT CHARGES
Chairman Specter introduced S. 2292, ``a bill to provide
relief for the federal judiciary from excessive rent charges,''
on February 15, 2006. The measure was cosponsored by Ranking
Member Leahy and Senators Biden, Feinstein, and Cornyn. The
bill sought to require the General Services Administration
(GSA) to charge courts only the actual costs incurred by GSA in
connection with the Judiciary's use of federal buildings or
GSA's leasing of space on the Judiciary's behalf. The bill
would also require any costs incurred by GSA for repair and
alteration projects performed on judicial branch accommodations
to be recovered in a manner agreed upon by the Director of the
Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts and the Administrator
of GSA.
The Judiciary paid $926 million to GSA in fiscal year 2005,
but GSA's actual cost of providing space to the Judiciary was
only $426 million. Unlike the other branches of the federal
government, the Judiciary is required to pay a large portion of
its budget as rent to another branch of government. The federal
courts' rental payments to GSA increased from $133 million to
$926 million between 1986 and 2005, contributing to a budget
crisis in the Judiciary and resulting in the reduction of
staff.
On April 27, 2006, the Committee reported S. 2292 by voice
vote. No further action was taken on the bill.
S. 1845, CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS RESTRUCTURING AND MODERNIZATION ACT
OF 2005
On October 6, 2005, Senator John Ensign and Senator Kyl
introduced S. 1845, the ``Circuit Court of Appeals
Restructuring and Modernization Act of 2005.'' The bill would
amend the federal judicial code to divide the Ninth Judicial
Circuit into two circuits: a new Ninth Circuit composed of
California, Guam, Hawaii, and the Northern Mariana Islands and
a Twelfth Circuit, composed of Alaska, Arizona, Idaho, Montana,
Nevada, Oregon, and Washington. It would require the President
to appoint five additional circuit judges for the new Ninth
Circuit and two temporary judges for the former Ninth Circuit
to be stationed in California. The legislation sought to reduce
the size of the disproportionately large Ninth Circuit, which
encompasses 40% of the nation's land mass and 20% of its
population. The Ninth Circuit is not only large by those
metrics, but it also has 28 authorized judgeships--11 more than
the next largest circuit--and has a pending caseload that is
nearly double that of the next busiest circuit.
On October 26, 2005, the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts, chaired by Senator Sessions, held a
hearing titled, ``Revisiting Proposals to Split the Ninth
Circuit: An Inevitable Solution to a Growing Problem.'' The
Honorable Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain, U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit, testified that ``restructuring the circuit is
the best way to cure the administrative ills affecting my
court, an institution that has already exceeded reasonably
manageable proportions.'' Judge O'Scannlain further opined,
``Nine states, almost sixteen thousand annual case filings,
forty-seven judges, and fifty-eight million people are too much
for any non-discretionary appeals court to handle
satisfactorily. The sheer magnitude of our court and its
responsibilities negatively affects all aspects of our
business, including our celerity, our consistency, our clarity,
and even our collegiality. Simply put, the Ninth Circuit is too
big. It is time now to take the prudent, well-established
course and restructure this circuit. Restructuring large
circuits is the natural evolution of judicial organization.
Restructuring has worked in the past.''
A second hearing on the subject was held on September 20,
2006, titled ``Examining the Proposal to Restructure the Ninth
Circuit.'' Rachel L. Brand, Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Policy, reiterated the Justice Department's
support for additional federal judgeships and the split of the
Ninth Circuit. She noted that ``the Ninth Circuit's size has
led to administrative difficulties that have adversely affected
its ability to operate effectively. As of September 2005, the
Ninth Circuit was the slowest circuit in resolving cases.
Additionally, the Ninth Circuit had the most cases pending for
more than three months and for more than six months in
September 2005. This inefficiency impacts negatively on both
the Department of Justice, as a frequent litigant in the Ninth
Circuit, and other parties waiting for their cases to be
resolved.''
These hearings laid the groundwork for consideration of the
Ninth Circuit's future, but no further action was taken on the
legislation.
S. 1968, COURT SECURITY IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2005
The murder of the family of U.S. District Judge Joan
Lefkow, the shooting rampage at the Fulton County Courthouse in
Atlanta, Georgia, and the courthouse shooting in Reno, Nevada
have served as tragic reminders of the urgent need to protect
members of the Judiciary. On May 18, 2005, Chairman Specter
held a full Committee hearing titled ``Protecting the Judiciary
at Home and in the Courthouse,'' which included powerful
testimony by Judge Lefkow demonstrating the need to enhance
court security. On November 7, 2005, Chairman Specter and
Ranking Member Leahy introduced S. 1968, the ``Court Security
Improvement Act of 2005.'' Other Committee cosponsors included
Senators Cornyn and Durbin.
S. 1968 would augment the current measures protecting the
judiciary by extending the Judicial Conference's authority to
redact sensitive and personal information from financial
disclosure reports. The bill would also give members of the
Judicial Conference a larger role in determining the security
required for their protection. Moreover, the bill would create
a new criminal offense for filing a false lien or encumbrance
against the property of a federal judge or other federal
official, and the legislation would criminalize knowingly
making restricted personal information about a covered official
publicly available with the intent that the information be used
to commit, or threaten to commit, a crime of violence against
that official or her family.
On December 6, 2006, Chairman Specter offered and the
Senate passed by unanimous consent an amendment in the nature
of a substitute containing much of the substance of S. 1968.
The House of Representatives, however, failed to act upon the
substitute language before adjourning for the Congress.
S. 489, FEDERAL CONSENT DECREE FAIRNESS ACT
On March 1, 2005, Senator Lamar Alexander introduced S.
489, the ``Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act.'' The bill
would authorize State or local governments and related
officials sued in their official capacity to file a motion to
modify or vacate a consent decree upon the earlier of: (1) four
years after the consent decree is originally entered; or (2) in
the case of a civil action in which a State is a party or in
which a local government is a party and the surrounding State
is not a party, the expiration of the term of office of the
highest elected State or local government official authorizing
the consent decree. It would also place the burden of proof
with respect to such motions on the party originally filing the
action to demonstrate that continued enforcement is necessary
to uphold a federal right.
On July 19, 2005, the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts held a hearing titled, ``A Review of
Federal Consent Decrees,'' at which Senator Sessions presided.
Members heard testimony from expert witnesses, including
Alabama Attorney General Troy King. Attorney General King
testified in favor of S. 489, stating that the bill would
``make it easier for state governments to end oppressive
consent decrees, by taking the policy-making discretion away
from federal judges and returning it to those who have been
elected or appointed to make those decisions.''
The Committee did not take further action on S. 489.
S. 829, THE SUNSHINE IN THE COURTROOM ACT OF 2005
On April 18, 2005, Senator Grassley introduced S. 829, the
``Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005.'' The bill was
cosponsored by Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Leahy, and
Committee Members Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Schumer, Feingold,
and Durbin. The bill would authorize any presiding judge of any
district or appellate court of the United States (including the
Supreme Court) to permit the photographing, electronic
recording, broadcasting, or televising of court proceedings
over which that judge presides. The bill also would require, in
district courts, obscuring the faces and voices of witnesses
(other than a party to the case) upon their request, and would
require that the presiding district judge inform each witness
of his right to request that his image and voice be obscured
during testimony. S. 829 would also authorize the Judicial
Conference of the United States to promulgate advisory
guidelines to which a Presiding judge might refer in making
decisions regarding the management and administration of
photographing, recording, broadcasting, or televising
proceedings. The authorization of electronic media in district
courts would sunset three years after the bill's enactment.
On September 26, 2005, Chairman Specter introduced S. 1768,
``A Bill to Permit the Televising of Open Supreme Court
Proceedings.'' The bill was cosponsored by Ranking Member Leahy
and Committee Members Grassley, Cornyn, Durbin, Schumer, and
Feingold. The bill states that the Supreme Court ``shall
permit'' televising of all open sessions of the court, unless
the court decides by a majority vote of Justices that such
coverage in a particular case would violate the due process
rights of one or more of the parties before the Court.
On November 9, 2005, the full Committee held a hearing on
S. 829 and S. 1768. Among those who testified at the hearing
were scholars and representatives of C-SPAN, Court TV, the
National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, and the
Radio-Television News Directors Association. Two judges who
participated in a three-year Judicial Conference pilot program
on electronic media coverage of civil proceedings in selected
federal courts also testified.
The Committee considered S. 829 during its executive
business meeting on March 30, 2006. Senator Sessions' amendment
to exclude district courts from televising their proceedings
was rejected by a vote of 9-7. The Committee reported S. 829 by
a vote of 10-6, with two Senators voting ``pass.'' That same
day, the Committee considered S. 1768 and voted 12-6 to report
it out. The bills were placed on the Senate Legislative
Calendar, but no further action was taken by the full Senate.
S. 3734, MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION RESTORATION ACT OF 2005
On July 26, 2006, Senator Hatch introduced S. 3734, the
``Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act of 2005.'' The bill
would amend the federal judicial code to allow a civil action
transferred for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings also to be transferred to the transferee or other
district for trial purposes in the interest of justice and for
the convenience of the parties and witnesses. It would require,
however, that any such action transferred for trial purposes be
remanded to the district court from which it was transferred
for the determination of compensatory damages, unless the court
determined that the same justification applied to retaining the
action for a damages determination. S. 3724 would authorize the
transferee court to retain actions transferred for the
determination of liability and punitive damages when
jurisdiction was or could have been based on the Multiparty,
Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002. (The Multiparty,
Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act of 2002 grants district
courts original jurisdiction of any civil action involving
minimal diversity between adverse parties that arises from a
single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in
the accident at a discrete location.)
On June 29, 2006, the Subcommittee on Administrative
Oversight and the Courts held a hearing to examine the
legislation, which included testimony from Senior United States
District Judge Wm. Terrell Hodges and United States District
Judge Thomas W. Thrash, Jr., but no further action was taken on
the legislation.
II. OVERSIGHT MATTERS
The Committee pursued an active oversight agenda during
both sessions of the 109th Congress, conducting investigations,
holding hearings, and producing legislation and reports.
Chairman Specter led oversight hearings on multiple topics,
including: (1) youth violence and school violence; (2)
detainees and military tribunals; (3) the operations of the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Department of
Justice (DOJ); (4) the ``Able Danger'' scandal; (5) possible
Saudi funding of Islamic fundamentalism within the U.S.; (6)
the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and the
Terrorist Surveillance Program; (7) hedge funds and the
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC); and (8) the exercise
of market power by the National Football League. The
Committee's oversight activities directly informed legislation
on topics ranging from military tribunals to the
reauthorization of the Department of Justice. The Committee
also launched investigations of major league baseball and
steroids, nuclear plant security, and Chinese espionage.
PREVENTION OF YOUTH VIOLENCE
On June 13, 2005, the full Committee held a field hearing
at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania titled ``Prevention of Youth and Gang Violence.''
The hearing investigated the epidemic of youth and gang
violence in the city and the nation. Although youth violence
has decreased nationally in recent years, homicide is the
second leading cause of death for people ages 15 to 24. Given
the persistence of this problem, Chairman Specter stated that
federally funded programs intended to curtail youth violence
need to be reviewed to identify effective programs. Witness
Sarah Hart, Director of the National Institute of Justice,
testified that research indicates that boot camps, gun buyback
programs, and group therapy are not effective. She opined that
the most effective programs are city-specific ones where
researchers work with practitioners to target local `hot
spots.' Ms. Hart promoted the approach of Project Safe
Neighborhoods, which focuses resources on the most crime ridden
areas.
At the hearing, Senator Feinstein discussed her bill to
increase criminal penalties for gang members who recruit
children. The Committee also heard testimony from Philadelphia
Police Commissioner Sylvester Johnson and U.S. Attorney Patrick
Meehan. Johnson said the police department would continue to
work with community groups and other government agencies to
find solutions. He noted that the city has developed a
``Blueprint for a Safer Philadelphia'' to reduce crime in the
city.
DETAINEES AND MILITARY TRIBUNALS
On June 15, 2005, the Committee held a hearing to examine
the procedural protections being afforded to detainees held at
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. Witnesses included Brigadier General
Thomas Hemingway of the Department of Defense Office of
Military Commissions; Rear Admiral James McGarrah, the Director
of Administrative Review of the Detention of Enemy Combatants;
Deputy Associate Attorney General Michael Wiggins; Inspector
General of the Justice Department Glenn Fine; former Attorney
General William Barr; and Lieutenant Commander Charles Swift,
the lawyer for detainee Salid Hamdan.
The government witnesses claimed that significant steps had
been taken to protect the Guantanamo detainees' rights. For
example, General Hemingway testified that the proposed military
trials by a specially created commission, the first held by the
United States since World War II, would have rules of evidence
and trial procedures that compare favorably with those in use
by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia.
Admiral McGarrah, who monitors the enemy combatant detention
program for the Navy, testified that of 558 detainees given
hearings before the Combatant Status Review Tribunal at
Guantanamo, 520 had been classified as enemy combatants, and 23
of the remaining 38 had been released. Mr. Wiggins emphasized
that the detainees were being held for military purposes, not
criminal justice purposes, and thus were outside of the purview
of the U.S. criminal justice system. Former Attorney General
Barr argued that the Congress should not grant legal rights to
these enemy combatants.
Shortly thereafter, the Supreme Court decided the case of
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, holding that the military commissions
established to try detainees at Guantanamo Bay violated ``both
the UCMJ and the four Geneva Conventions.'' Chairman Specter
responded by introducing S. 3614, the ``Unprivileged Combatants
Act of 2006.'' The bill attempted to balance the need for
national security (including interrogation and detention of
combatants) with the need to afford detainees with sufficient
due process. The bill addressed only those combatants held at
Guantanamo Bay. The legislation sought to clarify the
procedures to be used in Combatant Status Review Tribunals and
establish procedures for the trial of detainees. These
procedures were constructed to constitute ``a meaningful
opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention
before a neutral decision-maker.'' Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S.
507 (2004) (O'Connor, J.).
On July 11, 2006, the full Committee held a hearing titled
``Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional Process.''
Witnesses explained Hamdan's impact on future operations in the
War on Terror and offered suggestions for future legislation.
The witnesses included former Solicitor General Theodore Olson,
Dean of Yale Law School Harold Koh, and Lieutenant Commander
Swift.
On August 2, 2006, the Committee held a hearing titled
``The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists under the War Crime
Provisions of Title 18.'' The hearing focused on the
government's authority to prosecute terrorists for war crimes
under Title 18 and on the efforts to establish military
commissions to try terrorists detained by the United States. A
draft of the Administration's bill to establish military
commissions and the procedural process by which detainees
should be tried was compared with S. 3614. Among the witnesses
were Office of Legal Counsel Acting Assistant Attorney General
Steven Bradbury, General Richard Myers, the former Chairman of
the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and all four of the Judge Advocates
General of the military services.
On September 25, 2006, the Committee held a hearing titled
``Examining Proposals to Limit Guantanamo Detainees'' Access to
Habeas Corpus Review.'' Draft legislation by the Administration
and the Senate Armed Services Committee precluded detainees
from filing habeas corpus petitions in federal court. The
hearing focused on Chairman Specter's efforts to retain habeas
corpus rights for detainees held at Guantanamo.
OVERSIGHT OF THE FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
In addition to legislative hearings that involved FBI
witnesses, the Committee held several hearings on general
oversight of the FBI.
The Committee held an FBI oversight hearing on July 20,
2005 to investigate whether the FBI was implementing the
recommendations of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks
upon the United States (the ``9/11 Commission'') and the
Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United
States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction (the ``WMD
Commission''), as well as recommendations made by the
Department of Justice (``DOJ'') Inspector General in numerous
reports. Witnesses included FBI Director Robert Mueller, DOJ
Inspector General Glenn Fine, Vice Chairman of the 9/11
Commission and former Congressman Lee Hamilton, former FBI and
CIA Director William Webster, and John Russack, the Program
Manager of the Information Sharing Environment at the Office of
the Director of National Intelligence.
Much of the hearing focused on problems with the FBI's
technology upgrades, information sharing, and the backlog in
translation of communications intercepted through electronic
surveillance. Members of the Committee expressed their concerns
about the lack of progress made since 9/11, particularly in
regard to the failed attempt to develop a Virtual Case File
system to allow for easier searching and organizing of
investigative files on terrorism and other matters. Director
Mueller responded by acknowledging the failure of the $170
million project but extolling the replacement Sentinel Project,
which will be completed in four phases by 2009. He also stated
that, although the FBI's backlog of untranslated terrorism
intelligence had doubled to 8,300 hours in the previous year,
none of the backlogged material involved the FBI's highest-
priority investigations. He further stated that much of the
backlog was attributable to ``white noise'' in the background
from microphone recordings and the difficulty of translating
obscure languages and dialects in which the bureau's linguists
might not be well versed. Inspector General Fine reported that
the FBI had made progress in hiring more linguists, expanding
its ranks from 1,214 in April 2004 to 1,338 in March 2005, but
continued to face problems. He noted, for example, that the FBI
had met its hiring targets in fewer than half of 52 languages
examined.
The FBI was not the only counterterrorism agency that was
addressed in the Judiciary Committee hearing. John Russack, a
program manager who runs the information sharing environment
office for the Director of National Intelligence and who is
responsible for linking federal, state, and local offices to
combat terrorism, told the Committee that he had only one full-
time employee and two contractors some seven months after the
directorate was created. Chairman Specter commented that he was
troubled by the deficient staffing at such a critical office.
The Committee held a second FBI oversight hearing on May 2,
2006, focusing on the progress of the Sentinel System and a
March 2006 report by the Government Accountability Office (GAO)
documenting failures of FBI intelligence collectors to share
information with other members of the intelligence community.
Witnesses included FBI Director Robert Mueller, Director Linda
Calbom of the GAO, and DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine.
Committee Members questioned Director Mueller on progress
in intelligence sharing, FBI interrogation practices, and
ongoing concerns about translations and the hiring of
linguists. The hearing also focused on contemporaneous news
accounts about the FBI's efforts to search the files of the
late newspaper columnist Jack Anderson, and the related topic
of media leaks.
Ranking Member Leahy cited what he said was more than 100
instances in which FBI agents had improperly conducted
surveillance of antiwar groups. Director Mueller responded that
such accounts were an apparent outgrowth of legitimate
investigations to identify an individual, and he underscored
that the FBI was not concerned with suppressing political
dissent. Senator Grassley asked Director Mueller about reports
that FBI agents had tried to trick Jack Anderson's widow into
allowing a search of his files after her son and the family's
lawyer refused. Director Mueller said the effort resulted from
a recent discovery of information indicating that there might
be classified national security documents within Mr. Anderson's
collection.
The Committee held a third FBI oversight hearing on
December 6, 2006, in which the sole witness was FBI Director
Robert Mueller. This hearing focused primarily on post-911
federal counter-terrorism and information sharing efforts, but
also touched upon (1) efforts to reform the FBI in the mold of
Britain's MI5, (2) the FBI's utilization of information gleaned
from the Terrorist Surveillance Program, (3) the FBI's role in
the practice of so-called ``extraordinary rendition,'' (4) the
FBI's technology upgrades, and (5) the recent refusal by the
FBI and the Department of Justice to brief Congress on the
progress of the investigation into the Anthrax attacks that
occurred in 2001.
Chairman Specter pressed Director Mueller to provide
concrete examples of benefits yielded by the National Security
Agency's Terrorist Surveillance Program. Senator Grassley
likewise pressed for specifics on the FBI's investigation of
the 2001 anthrax attacks. Director Mueller demurred on the
grounds that the questions implicated classified information
and an ongoing grand jury investigation. Chairman Specter
asserted that Congress was entitled to information regarding
such pending investigations in order to carry out its oversight
function and promised to pursue the issue with the Attorney
General. Senator Grassley responded with a letter, signed by
Chairman Specter, Ranking Member Grassley, and numerous other
Senators and representatives, demanding information.
Director Mueller also responded to Senators' questions
regarding the Office of Inspector General's (OIG) December 2006
report indicating that the Sentinel project might cost
significantly more than the FBI had estimated. Director Mueller
expressed confidence in the total cost estimate of $425 million
over the life of the program. Director Mueller also dismissed
the OIG's concern that the Sentinel project would experience a
$57 million budget shortfall in 2007. He explained that
although the Bush Administration had only allocated $100
million of the $157 million needed to run the program in 2007,
the FBI had found another $57 million to cover the 2007 costs,
and there was no danger of the FBI being forced to cut
necessary programs. Director Mueller did, however, express
concern about Congress' failure to pass an appropriations bill
at the close of the 109th Congress, which might jeopardize the
$100 million budgeted for Sentinel for 2007. He explained that
if Congress did not address the situation, the FBI might be
prevented from entering into a contract with Lockheed Martin to
pursue phase two of the Sentinel project.
``ABLE DANGER'' AND THE SHARING OF INTELLIGENCE INFORMATION
The Committee held a hearing on September 21, 2005, titled
``Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing.'' The
purpose of the hearing was to probe whether there was a
breakdown between the military and law enforcement in the
sharing of information that might have helped to prevent the
events of 9/11 or another terrorist attack. The hearing was on
Able Danger, a classified military intelligence program
undertaken by the U.S. Special Operations Command. According to
statements from various Able Danger participants, including
Lieutenant Colonel Tony Shaffer, prior to the 9/11 attacks, the
program had identified the attack leader Mohammed Atta and
three of the other hijackers as possible members of an al Qaeda
cell linked to the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. A Defense
Department investigation into Able Danger, however, strongly
disputed this allegation.
Witnesses included Congressman Curt Weldon, who heavily
promoted the claims of Lt. Col. Shaffer; Gary Bald, the
Executive Assistant Director of the FBI's National Security
Branch; the Acting Assistant to the Secretary of Defense for
Intelligence Oversight William Dugan; Former Army Major Erik
Kleinsmith, former head of the Pentagon's Land Warfare Analysis
Department; and Mark Zaid, the attorney for Lt. Col. Tony
Shaffer.
The hearing explored the facts behind the Able Danger story
and whether or not the government was over-aggressively
interpreting the Posse Comitatus Act and other bodies of law
that applied to information collection, thereby preventing any
interaction between the military and the FBI. Congressman
Weldon and Mr. Zaid argued that the members of the Able Danger
program had identified Mohammed Atta prior to 9/11 and that
they were blocked from distributing that information to the
FBI. They testified that Able Danger had used data mining
techniques to identify four of the terrorists who struck on
September 11, 2001. Former Army Major Eric Kleinsmith testified
that he was instructed to destroy data and documents related to
Able Danger in May and June of 2000, in accordance with Army
regulations that limited the collection and holding of
information concerning U.S. persons. Kleinsmith said the order
to destroy the data was not hostile or aggressive, but was only
a matter of policy. When he was asked if this information could
have prevented the September 11 attacks, the major said he
could not speculate but believed it would have been significant
and useful.
The Committee produced a final report which stated that the
various statutes, executive orders, directives, and regulations
that applied to information collected in the course of the Able
Danger Program did not compel destruction of such information
or prevent it from being shared with law enforcement.
SAUDI ARABIA AND THE WAR ON TERRORISM
The Committee held a hearing on November 8, 2005, titled
``Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?'' The
hearing examined Saudi Arabia's possible propagation and
funding of hate ideology within American mosques and American
Islamic schools. The hearing was largely prompted by a report
by the group Freedom House, which was released in January 2005.
More specifically, the purpose of the hearing was to determine
what efforts the Saudi Government had made to prevent the
dissemination of extremist ideology. The hearing also attempted
to publicize S. 1171, the ``Saudi Arabian Accountability Act of
2005.''
Though the Saudi government has rejected any claims that it
is spreading hateful rhetoric, the Committee was provided with
significant evidence to the contrary from various groups. These
included the Middle East Media Research Institute's (MEMRI) TV
Monitoring Project, Freedom House's Center for Religious
Freedom, and the Investigative Project on Terrorism. Most
powerfully, MEMRI provided clips from Saudi television shows
aired by the government-controlled Iqraa television network in
the U.S. from 2004 and 2005, which included calls for the
annihilation of Christians and Jews, rampant anti-Americanism
and anti-Semitism, support for Jihad, incitement against U.S.
troops in Iraq, and discussion of the coming Islamic conquest
of the U.S.
FISA AND THE TERRORIST SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM
During the second session of the 109th Congress, the
Committee held a series of hearings on the National Security
Agency's (NSA) Terrorist Surveillance Program. On February 6,
2006, the Committee held a hearing on ``Wartime Executive Power
and the NSA's Surveillance Authority.'' The sole witness was
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. Committee Members pressed
the Attorney General to set forth the legal justification for
the Administration's Terrorist Surveillance Program (TSP),
which had first been reported on December 16, 2005 by the New
York Times. At the hearing, Committee Members raised questions
about how to balance the defense of American civil liberties
with wartime Executive authority to fight terrorists. The
hearing also focused on legal interpretation of the Foreign
Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 (FISA).
On February 28, the Committee held a hearing on ``Wartime
Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance Authority II.'' The
hearing focused on whether the President had authority to
institute the electronic surveillance program and the scope of
his inherent power under Article II of the United States
Constitution. The hearing also examined whether the
Authorization for Use of Military Force adopted by Congress in
September 2001 modified the FISA statute to allow for the
surveillance program.
On March 28, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing on
``NSA III: War Time Executive Power and the FISA Court.'' The
witnesses included federal district court judges who had served
on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court. Specifically,
the Committee solicited the judges' views on S. 2453, Chairman
Specter's legislation the National Security Surveillance Act
(NSSA).
On July 26, the Committee held another hearing on the NSSA.
Government witnesses at the hearing included Lt. General Keith
B. Alexander, the Director of the National Security Agency; Lt.
General Michael V. Hayden, a former Director of the National
Security Agency and the current Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency; and Steven Bradbury, the Acting Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel. These
witnesses argued that FISA should be updated to reflect major
advances in technology. Some witnesses on the hearing's second
panel, such as Jim Dempsey, Policy Director at the Center for
Democracy and Technology, countered that the changes sought by
the Administration were too far reaching.
THE PROBLEM OF SCHOOL VIOLENCE
On May 19, 2006, the Committee held a field hearing in
Philadelphia to discuss enforcement of the Clery Act by
Philadelphia area colleges and universities. The Jeanne Clery
Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime
Statistics Act (``Clery Act'') is a federal law requiring
colleges and universities to disclose certain annual and timely
information about campus crime and security policies. The
hearing was titled ``Campus Crime: Compliance and Enforcement
under the Clery Act, `` and was attended by Connie Clery and
Ben Clery, the mother and brother of Jeanne Clery, the murdered
Lehigh University student for whom the Clery Act is named.
Witnesses included U.S. Attorney Patrick Meehan; Robert
Baker, the Secretary of Education's Regional Representative;
seven Philadelphia area college/university representatives; and
Daniel Carter, the Senior Vice President of Security On Campus,
Inc., the national non-profit organization set up by the Clery
family that is devoted to assisting the victims of violence on
college campuses and to improving campus security. Among the
problems discussed were a lack of strong enforcement by the
Justice Department and the Department of Education, the
disparities in reporting statistics through the Clery Act and
the Pennsylvania state law on this subject, and the
incompleteness of the list of reportable crimes under the Clery
Act.
HEDGE FUND AND SEC OVERSIGHT
As part of its oversight responsibilities to address and
prevent corporate fraud, the Committee examined the enforcement
of insider trading and corporate fraud regulations by the
Department of Justice and Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC) against the hedge fund industry. Over the past few years,
public attention has focused on the activities of hedge funds--
largely unregulated, private investment pools of exclusive
investors that buy and sell stocks, bonds, derivatives, and
other investment assets. Frequently characterized as offering
high risk and high returns, hedge funds have evolved into a
dominant force in today's marketplace. Indeed, the Department
of Treasury estimates that some 9,000 hedge funds manage
approximately $1 trillion in assets, an amount equal to about
7% of total U.S. financial net worth.
The Committee scheduled a series of three hearings to
assess whether federal enforcement was effective in fighting
possible illegal insider trading and market manipulation by
hedge funds. In its first hearing on June 28, 2006, the
Committee examined whether hedge funds had conspired with so-
called independent research analysts in disseminating negative
information about companies targeted as part of an elaborate
``short-selling'' scheme. At this hearing, the Committee also
received testimony from a former SEC employee, Gary Aguirre,
who alleged that his attempts to investigate one of the
nation's largest hedge funds was thwarted by his supervisors at
SEC when he focused his inquiry on a high-profile Wall Street
executive with powerful political ties. The Committee's second
hearing on September 26, 2006 examined alarming reports that
possible criminal insider trading was on the rise. This hearing
came on the heels of a study showing increased trading activity
in the days and weeks before major corporate mergers (over $1
billion or more in value) became public over the past year.
After hearing testimony from federal enforcement officials and
industry experts about existing challenges facing the
prosecution of insider trading cases, Chairman Specter began
drafting legislation aimed at strengthening criminal
enforcement actions in these matters and to protect investors
from fraud.
At the third and final hearing, the Committee heard
testimony from the Department of Justice and State Attorney
General Richard Blumenthal regarding the Chairman's proposed
draft legislation, titled the ``Criminal Misuse of Material
Non-Public Information and Investor Protection Act of 2006.''
During the hearing, the Committee also heard follow-up
testimony on the allegations raised by former SEC employee Gary
Aguirre during the Committee's first hearing in June 2006.
Following that hearing, the Committee had conducted an
extensive joint investigation with the Senate Finance Committee
concerning Mr. Aguirre's allegations. The Committee intends to
submit more detailed findings regarding this matter at a later
time.
THE NATIONAL FOOTBALL LEAGUE AND THE SPORTS BROADCASTING ACT
The Committee examined the joint sale of the rights to
televise games by the members of professional sports leagues,
in particular the member teams of the National Football League
(NFL). On November 14, 2006, the Committee held a hearing on
two recent examples of the exercise of market power by the NFL.
In November 2004, the NFL accepted $3.5 billion from DirecTV, a
satellite television provider, for the exclusive right to carry
the ``NFL Sunday Ticket,'' a package of all NFL games played on
Sunday afternoons, for five years. The NFL member teams
authorized the NFL to contract on their behalf for the sale of
rights to DirecTV. Each NFL member team has agreed with the
other NFL teams not to compete in the sale of such rights.
DirecTV's ``Sunday Ticket'' is the only way viewers are
guaranteed to see the Sunday afternoon game of their choice
regardless of where they reside. Critics have argued that the
exclusive nature of the NFL's deal with DirecTV makes the cost
of viewing games included in the ``Sunday Ticket'' package more
expensive.
The joint sale of television rights by the member teams of
the NFL has previously been found to violate Section 1 of the
Sherman Act. In United States v. NFL,\3\ the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania concluded that an agreement among NFL member
teams to jointly sell the rights to broadcast their games to
CBS violated the antitrust laws. Prior to 1961 when the NFL
member teams entered the joint agreement, each member team
individually negotiated and sold the television rights to its
games. The court concluded that, ``by agreement, the member
clubs of the League have eliminated competition among
themselves in the sale of television rights to their games.''
\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ 196 F. Supp. 445 (E.D. Pa. 1961).
\4\ Id. at 447.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Congress reversed the decision in United States v. NFL when
it enacted the Sports Broadcasting Act, legislation that was
reported by the Judiciary Committee. The Act provides that the
antitrust laws shall not apply to any agreement among the
member teams of a professional sports league to jointly sell
``sponsored telecasting'' of their games.\5\ Over the years,
the NFL and other sports leagues have argued that the antitrust
exemption contained in the Sports Broadcasting Act protects
their dealings with subscription television service providers,
including satellite and cable providers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1291 (2004).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The legislative history, however, indicates that Congress
did not intend for this legislation to apply to subscription
television. The Antitrust Subcommittee of the House Judiciary
Committee issued a report on the legislation specifically
stating that ``[t]he bill does not apply to closed circuit or
subscription television.'' \6\ In addition, at the
Subcommittee's hearing on the bill, then-NFL Commissioner Pete
Rozelle conceded on the record that the bill ``cover[ed] only
the free telecasting of professional sports contests, and does
not cover pay T.V.'' \7\ Thus, the Sports Broadcasting Act does
not exempt the NFL's deal with DirecTV from antitrust scrutiny.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Telecasting of Professional Sports Contests: Hearing Before the
Antitrust Committee of the House Committee on the Judiciary on H.R.
8757, 87th Cong. 1st Sess. At 4 (Sept. 13, 1961).
\7\ Id. At 36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The hearing also examined the NFL's conduct with respect to
the NFL Network. The National Football League founded and owns
the NFL Network, which provides in-depth coverage of the NFL.
Beginning Thanksgiving Day, the NFL Network offered a package
of eight high-profile football games. Viewers were able to see
their local teams play, but had to turn to the NFL Network to
see any of the eight games in which no local team was playing.
The NFL reportedly asked for a 250 percent increase in monthly
license fees for the eight games. In addition, the NFL insisted
that programming distributors carry the NFL Network games as
part of their ``basic'' service tier, not just premium tiers.
Since programming distributors pay for programming on a per
subscriber basis, this requirement significantly increases the
cost of carrying the NFL Network.
A number of cable television providers, including Time
Warner and Cablevision, have refused to pay the increased price
and have decided not to carry the NFL Network. Another major
provider, Comcast, agreed to carry the network for one year,
but then reportedly plans to carry it on a premium sports tier
only. \8\ Because either Time Warner or Comcast dominates the
cable television market in many areas of the country, cable
subscribers nationwide may not be able to view the NFL Network
games either now or in the future. But two major satellite
providers, DISH Network and DirecTV, and numerous smaller cable
providers have decided to carry the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ It is unclear, however, whether Comcast is allowed to do that
under its contract with the network.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The agreement by the member teams of the NFL to sell
jointly the opportunity to carry the NFL Network implicates the
antitrust laws in the same way that the NFL's ``Sunday Ticket''
deal with DirecTV does. The NFL member teams appear to have
agreed to restrict output and increase the price of NFL
football telecasts by jointly selling the NFL Network games as
a package.
At the hearing, the NFL and DirecTV both testified that
consumers had benefited from Sunday Ticket and the NFL Network.
Mr. Jeffrey Pash, the Executive Vice President and General
Counsel of the NFL argued that, by operating jointly, the
league produces a product--professional football--that its
members could not produce acting independently. Mr. Pash also
pointed out that DirecTV had expanded the number of games
available to viewers. Daniel M. Fawcett, Executive Vice
President, Business and Legal Affairs and Programming
Acquisition at DirecTV testified that having the exclusive
rights to ``Sunday Ticket'' had enabled DirecTV to compete, and
thereby increase competition and consumer choice, in the market
for subscription television. However, Time Warner Cable and
Professor Roger Noll of Stanford University testified regarding
the negative impact of arrangements such as the Sunday Ticket
and NFL Network on consumers. Mr. Landel Hobbs, the Chief
Operating Officer of Time Warner testified that the NFL had
used their market power to significantly increase the cost of
carrying professional football games. Mr. Hobbs urged the
Committee to consider repealing the Sports Broadcasting Act to
prevent the NFL and other professional sports leagues from
abusing their market power. Professor Noll characterized the
NFL's decision to air eight professional football games
exclusively on the NFL Network as a ``profit-enhancing
reduction in output.'' Professor Noll urged the Committee to
consider sunsetting the Sports Broadcasting Act over a period
of five years.
At an additional hearing on December 7, 2006, David Cohen,
the Executive Vice President of Comcast urged the Committee to
consider conditioning the antitrust exemption in the Sports
Broadcasting Act on leagues making their television rights
available on a non-exclusive basis. At the conclusion of this
hearing, Chairman Specter committed to introducing legislation
amending the Sports Broadcasting Act in a way that would
prevent the NFL and other professional sports leagues from
exercising excessive market power in the market for television
rights.
OVERSIGHT OF THE JUSTICE DEPARTMENT'S CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
The Committee held an oversight hearing regarding the
Justice Department's Civil Rights Division on November 16,
2006. Wan Kim, the Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights,
was the primary witness. The Committee also heard from several
outside experts and former Division officials, including
Michael Carvin, Partner, Jones Day; Theodore Shaw, Director-
Counsel and President of the NAACP Legal Defense and
Educational Fund, Inc.; Robert Driscoll, Partner, Alston &
Bird; and Joseph Rich, Director, Fair Housing and Community
Development at the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under
Law.
The hearing explored several media reports questioning
whether, since 1999, the Division had been pursuing fewer cases
of discrimination against African Americans, whether the
division's hiring process had become more partisan, and whether
the recommendations of the career staff have been ignored and
overruled by the political appointees in the ``front office''
of the CRD.
In his testimony, Assistant Attorney General Wan Kim stated
that he welcomed congressional involvement. He sought to refute
the media criticisms by praising the work of the Division and
detailing its successes. He acknowledged that the Division had
changed some hiring practices, but he clarified that the
changes applied only to the honors program, through which the
Division recruits attorneys fresh from law school. Kim
explained that the Division had not significantly altered its
hiring process for established attorneys and emphasized,
``[I]deology is not a factor in my hiring process.'' He assured
the Committee that the Justice Department's Civil Rights
Division hired only ``talented lawyers'' who ``share a
commitment for the work that we do in the division.''
Chairman Specter challenged Kim concerning several voting-
rights decisions, in which the Civil Rights Division declined
to object to a Georgia voter ID law that was later ruled
unconstitutional by a federal court. Kim explained that
Congress had not granted the Division the power to object to
Georgia's voter ID law and emphasized that partisanship was not
involved in the decision. Ranking Member Leahy and Senator
Schumer criticized Kim for failing to investigate various
election scandals. When Kim responded that prosecuting election
fraud had been vested in the Criminal Division, not the Civil
Rights Division, Ranking Member Leahy and Senator Schumer
encouraged the Civil Rights Division to become involved.
III. NOMINATIONS
The Committee on the Judiciary conducted 35 nominations
hearings during the 109th Congress, including hearings for two
Supreme Court nominees and one for the Attorney General
nominee. The Committee reported out two Supreme Court nominees,
19 court of appeals nominees, and 48 district court nominees,
as well as a number of executive branch nominees. With respect
to Article III judges, the 109th Congress confirmed two Supreme
Court Justices, 16 court of appeals judges, 35 district court
judges and one judge for the Court of International Trade. As
of the filing of this report, the vacancy rate for court of
appeals judges stands at 8.4%, that of district court judges is
5.5%, and the overall vacancy rate for Article III judges is
6.0%.
A. NOTABLE JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS
1. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
NOMINATION OF JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., TO BE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES
Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's announcement, on July 1,
2005, that she would retire from the Supreme Court upon the
confirmation of her replacement ended the Court's longest
period of continuity since 1823. The Supreme Court's membership
had not changed since 1994, when Justice Breyer was confirmed.
Eighteen days after Justice O'Connor's announcement,
President Bush nominated John G. Roberts Jr., a judge on the
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, to fill her
seat. Chief Justice Roberts had a stellar resume, having
graduated Harvard College summa cum laude and Harvard Law
School magna cum laude and clerking for Judge Friendly of the
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and next then-Associate
Justice William Rehnquist.
Following his clerkships, Chief Justice Roberts served as a
Special Assistant to the Attorney General and then as an
Associate White House Counsel from 1982 to 1986. He moved to
private practice in 1986, becoming an associate at the
Washington, DC law firm of Hogan & Hartson. Three years later,
he returned to public service as Deputy Solicitor General in
President George H.W. Bush's administration.
In 1992, President George H.W. Bush nominated Chief Justice
Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The Senate, however, did not act on the nomination,
and he returned to Hogan & Hartson where he headed the firm's
appellate practice, arguing 39 cases before the U.S. Supreme
Court and establishing himself as one the nation's leading
appellate advocates.
In 2001, President George W. Bush nominated Chief Justice
Roberts to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia. The Democratic-controlled Senate did not vote on the
confirmation. On January 7, 2003, President Bush re-nominated
Chief Justice Roberts for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. He was approved by the Senate under
unanimous consent on May 8, 2003. He was serving in this
capacity when President Bush nominated him to the Supreme
Court.
Just days before John Roberts's confirmation hearings were
to begin, Chief Justice Rehnquist passed away, leaving two
vacancies on the Court. On September 6, 2005, President Bush
withdrew Judge Roberts' nomination to be Associate Justice and
nominated him to be Chief Justice of the United States.
Confirmation hearings began on September 12, 2005 and
lasted 4 days. Senators and the Chief Justice made opening
statements on the first day in the historic Russell Caucus
Room. The hearing then moved to the Senate Central Hearing Room
for questioning. Two rounds of questioning ensued, consuming
the second and third day of the hearing. Following the second
round, six Democratic Senators asked for an additional round of
questioning, and the Chairman granted their request. Once the
third round of questioning was completed, the Committee
followed established precedent and moved under Senate rule XXVI
into closed session to review the FBI's report on Judge
Roberts. Both the Chairman and Ranking Member agreed that there
was nothing disqualifying in the report. The fourth day
concluded with the testimony of the American Bar Association,
as well as 30 other witnesses. The ABA found Judge Roberts to
be ``unanimously well-qualified'' for the position of Chief
Justice of the United States. The remaining witnesses were
split between those who supported the nomination, and those who
opposed it. These witnesses ranged from former colleagues of
Chief Justice Roberts to the heads of prominent interest
groups.
Over the course of the hearing, Senators asked Chief
Justice Roberts 673 questions. He was asked 490 questions on
the first two days alone. This is well beyond the number of
questions posed to either Justice Ginsburg (384) or Justice
Breyer (355) during the entirety of their respective
confirmation hearings. These questions focused primarily on
Roberts' view of the role of the federal government, his
thoughts on the right to privacy and his commitment to stare
decisis. The Committee exhaustively reviewed the Chief
Justice's writings--everything from articles he wrote for his
high school newspaper to his most recent opinions as a judge on
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. The
Committee also examined past confirmation hearings for a number
of prior Supreme Court nominations and discussed the acceptable
scope for both questions and responses.
During the two and a half months between his original
nomination and his confirmation as Chief Justice, the Committee
received over 100,000 pages of documents. Many news agencies
warned of a ``circus-like atmosphere'' because this was the
first Supreme Court nomination since the rise of the Internet
and around-the-clock news. However, the hearings went very
smoothly with no disturbances.
One week after the conclusion of the confirmation hearings,
the Committee favorably reported Judge Roberts' nomination to
the Senate floor by a vote of 13-5, with the Committee's 10
Republicans, Ranking Member Leahy, and Senators Kohl and
Feingold supporting Judge Roberts. The nomination was debated
on the Senate floor for four days, and on September 29, 2005,
Chief Justice Roberts was confirmed by a vote of 78-22.
NOMINATION OF HARRIET E. MIERS, TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE UNITED
STATES SUPREME COURT
On October 3, 2005, President Bush nominated White House
Counsel Harriet Miers to fill the vacancy left by Justice
O'Connor's retirement from the Court.
Following the nomination, the Committee began preparation
for her confirmation hearing, reviewing thousands of pages of
government documents, articles, cases, and speeches written by
or involving Ms. Miers. Later that month, before hearings could
commence, the President withdrew the nomination.
NOMINATION OF SAMUEL A. ALITO, JR., TO BE ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT
On October 31, 2005, the President announced the nomination
of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit, to fill Justice Sandra Day O'Connor's
seat.
Justice Alito had devoted nearly the entirety of his career
to serving the public. After graduating from Princeton
University, where he participated in the ROTC program, and Yale
Law School, where he won awards for best moot court argument
and best contribution to the Yale Law Journal, Justice Alito
served active duty in the U.S. Army in Fort Gordon, Georgia.
From 1976 to 1977, Justice Alito served as a law clerk to the
Honorable Judge Leonard I. Garth of the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. He then served for four years as an
Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of New Jersey, four
years as Assistant to the United States Solicitor General, and
two years as a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office
of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice.
In his roles in both the Office of Legal Counsel and the
Office of the Solicitor General, Justice Alito was exposed to
and provided legal advice on virtually every type of case on
the Supreme Court's docket. In 1987, after his service in the
Office of Legal Counsel, he returned to New Jersey, where he
served for three years as the U.S. Attorney for the District of
New Jersey.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush nominated Alito to
serve as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit. On April 27, 1990, the Senate unanimously confirmed
his nomination. Justice Alito's fifteen-year tenure on the
Third Circuit was longer than that of any of the current
members of the Supreme Court prior to nomination. He was
serving in this capacity in 2005 when the President nominated
him to be an Associate Justice on the Supreme Court.
The Judiciary Committee reviewed tens of thousands of pages
of documents from Justice Alito's extensive career, including
the 4800 cases in which Justice Alito participated as an
appellate judge; government documents from Alito's service in
the Office of Legal Counsel and the Solicitor General's Office,
46 briefs and petitions from cases Alito handled before the
Supreme Court; 34 briefs from cases that Alito handled before
the Courts of Appeals, and 43 articles and speeches Alito had
authored.
The hearings on Justice Alito's nomination were held over
five days beginning January 9, 2006. On the first day, Senators
each had approximately ten minutes to give opening statements.
The nominee was then introduced by Senator Frank Lautenburg and
former Governor of New Jersey Christie Todd Whitman. Senator
Jon Corzine also sent a letter of introduction. Justice Alito
offered a brief opening statement.
Over the course of the hearings, the nominee was questioned
for nearly 18 hours, and answered more than 650 questions--over
97% of the questions asked. By comparison, Chief Justice
Roberts, Justice Breyer, and Justice Ginsburg, each answered a
smaller percentage of the questions posed to them during their
confirmation hearings-89%, 82%, and 80%, respectively. Also, on
January 12, 2006, Justice Alito appeared before the Committee
in a closed session, pursuant to rule XXVI of the Standing
Rules of the Senate.
Throughout the hearings, the Committee carefully and
thoroughly questioned Justice Alito on his background,
qualifications, integrity, and judicial temperament. The
Committee investigated concerns raised about Justice Alito's
recusal practices in cases involving mutual funds and his
apparent past membership in a group known as the Concerned
Alumni of Princeton. The Committee scrutinized Justice Alito's
commitment to the separation of powers, equal justice under the
law, due process, judicial restraint, and stare decisis.
Justice Alito explained that he approaches every legal issue
with a fair and open mind.
In addition to Justice Alito's testimony, the Committee
heard the testimony of an additional 32 witnesses. Among these
witnesses were a representative of the American Bar
Association, which unanimously awarded Justice Alito's its
highest rating of well qualified, fellow judges on the Third
Circuit, former law clerks, distinguished academics, and
representatives from outside interest groups.
Written questions to the nominee were submitted within 24
hours of the hearings' close by Ranking Member Leahy and
Senators Kennedy, Biden, Schumer, Durbin, and Coburn. Ranking
Member Leahy also submitted questions on behalf of Senator
Levin. An Executive Business Meeting scheduled for January 17
was delayed by one week when Committee Democrats exercised
their right to hold over the nomination by one week. On January
20, Justice Alito returned answers to the post-hearing written
questions.
On January 24, the Committee voted 10-8 to report the
nomination with a favorable recommendation. Voting in favor of
the nomination were Chairman Specter and Senators Hatch,
Grassley, Kyl, DeWine, Sessions, Graham, Cornyn, Brownback, and
Coburn. Voting against the nomination were Ranking Member Leahy
and Senators Kennedy, Biden, Kohl, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer, and Durbin. On January 31, 2006, Justice Alito was
confirmed by a vote of 58-42 by the United States Senate. He
was sworn in on the same day by President Bush.
2. UNITED STATES COURTS OF APPEALS
TERRENCE W. BOYLE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated Terrence W. Boyle of North
Carolina to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth
Circuit September 5, 2006. This was the sixth time he was so
nominated.
Judge Boyle received a B.A. with honors from Brown
University in 1967 and a J.D. from the American University
Washington College of Law in 1970. Following law school, Judge
Boyle began his legal career working as Minority Counsel to the
House Subcommittee on Housing, Banking, and Currency. He later
served as Legislative Assistant to United States Senator Jesse
Helms before entering private practice in 1974. From 1974-1976,
Judge Boyle was an associate at LeRoy, Wells, Shaw, Hornthal &
Riley before being promoted to partner at the firm.
In 1984, President Reagan nominated Judge Boyle to the
United States District Court for the Eastern District of North
Carolina. Judge Boyle was unanimously confirmed on April 24,
1984. Judge Boyle has served on the federal bench for over 20
years, including serving as chief judge for seven years and
frequently sitting by designation on the Fourth Circuit.
Judge Boyle's nomination to the Fourth Circuit was strongly
opposed by the Minority, whose leadership threatened to
filibuster the nomination on the floor. In May 2006, after the
nomination had been reported out of Committee, ethics
allegations arose concerning Judge Boyle's participation in
cases involving corporations in which he owned stock. Committee
staff investigated the allegation by extensively interviewing
Judge Boyle about the matter, and the judge wrote a letter to
Chairman Specter and Majority Leader Frist explaining his
involvement. While Judge Boyle did admit to having participated
in cases in which he held an interest in one of the litigants,
there was no evidence of self-enrichment. During his hearing,
some Committee Members suggested that Judge Boyle had a high
reversal rate, but upon further examination by Committee staff,
it was determined that his reversal rate was below average for
federal judges. His nomination was also opposed by some outside
groups including disability groups, minority groups, women's
groups, and several law enforcement organizations. Most of
these groups questioned the soundness of his rulings in a
number of cases of particular interest to their constituencies.
Judge Boyle was first nominated to the Court of Appeals for
the Fourth Circuit in 1991, during the 102nd Congress. No
action was taken on his nomination at that time. On May 9,
2001, during the 107th Congress, Judge Boyle was again
nominated to the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, and
he has been re-nominated in every subsequent Congress. Because
former Senator John Edwards refused to return a blue slip \9\
on the nomination, a hearing was not held on the nomination
until March 3, 2005, during the 108th Congress. Judge Boyle's
nomination was later reported out of Committee by a party line
vote on June 16, 2005. No floor action was taken on his
nomination on the floor. His nomination was returned to the
President on August 3, 2006, and he was re- nominated on
September 5, 2006 without Committee action being taken before
being returned again by the Senate on September 29, 2006. The
nomination was resubmitted on November 15, 2006 and returned on
December 9 at the end of the Congress.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ When the Senate receives a judicial nomination, the Chairman
issues so-called ``blue slips'' to the nominee's home state Senators.
These documents solicit the views of the Senators on the nomination.
When Senators return a blue slip to the Chairman, they may indicate
their support or opposition to the nomination. The weight afforded
negative or unreturned blue slips has always been significant, though
the precise impact has varied over the years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
JANICE ROGERS BROWN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
President Bush re-nominated Janice Rogers Brown of
California to the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia on February 14, 2005. This was the second
time she was nominated to that court.
Judge Brown received her B.A. from California State
University in 1974. In 1977, she received her J.D. from the
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law. In 2004,
she received an LL.M. from the University of Virginia School of
Law. Following her graduation from U.C.L.A. law school, Judge
Brown began her legal career as a deputy legislative counsel in
the State of California Legislative Counsel Bureau, where for
two years she assisted the legislature with bill drafting and
provided legal advice on questions relating to proposed
legislation. She then became a deputy attorney general in the
California Attorney General's office, first in the criminal
division, then in the civil division. While in the Civil
Division, Government Section, of the Attorney General's Office,
Judge Brown represented constitutional officers and other high
ranking state officials. Her responsibilities included
administrative hearings and general civil litigation ranging
from contract disputes to political law violations to major
class action suits.
In 1987, Judge Brown left the Attorney General's office to
become the Deputy Secretary and General Counsel for the State
of California Business, Transportation and Housing Agency,
where she supervised state business and regulatory departments.
She also chaired the White Collar Crime Task Force, an informal
working group designed to improve investigation and prosecution
of major fraud cases. Judge Brown entered private practice in
1990 when she joined the law firm of Nielsen, Merksamer,
Parinello, Mueller & Naylor as a senior associate. She
practiced in the government law section, specializing in areas
related to energy, environment, and managed health care. She
returned to public service in 1991, when she accepted a
position as Legal Affairs Secretary to Governor Pete Wilson of
California. In that capacity, she provided the governor and
members of his cabinet and senior staff with advice concerning
litigation, legislation, and the legal implications of proposed
policies. In 1994, Governor Wilson appointed Judge Brown to the
California Court of Appeal, Third District, as an associate
justice.
Two years later, Governor Wilson elevated her to the
California State Supreme Court. Judge Brown's nomination was
surrounded by considerable controversy. Opponents of the
nomination objected to rulings she made in certain cases and
strongly objected to colorful statements she had made in public
speeches. Her critics argued that some of these speeches
reflected views ``out of the mainstream'' of legal thought.
Judge Brown noted that, especially when speaking to students,
she often took provocative positions to spark debate. Later, at
her hearing, she stated, ``in making a speech to that kind of
audience, I'm really trying to stir the pot a little bit, to
get people to think, to challenge them a little bit, and so
that's what that speech is designed to do.'' Although the
nomination was not for a position in the circuit of her home
state of California, both Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer
opposed the nomination.
Judge Brown was first nominated for this seat in the 108th
Congress on July 25, 2003, but her nomination was filibustered
when a motion to invoke cloture failed on November 14, 2003.
Because a hearing had already been conducted during the 108th
Congress (on October 22, 2003), no hearing was scheduled during
the 109th Congress. The nomination was favorably reported out
of Committee by a vote of 10 to 8 on April 21, 2005, but was
expected to be filibustered again when it came to the floor.
The so-called ``Gang of 14'' agreement concerning judicial
filibusters was announced on May 23, 2005. The document,
appended to this report, ensured that cloture would be invoked
on this nomination and Judge Brown was confirmed by the Senate
by a vote of 56 to 43 on June 8, 2005.
MICHAEL A. CHAGARES, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Michael A. Chagares of New Jersey
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on January 25, 2006.
Judge Chagares received his B.A. from Gettysburg College in
1984 and his J.D. with honors from Seton Hall School of Law in
1987. While at Seton Hall, he served as an editor of the law
review. After law school, Judge Chagares clerked for the
Honorable Morton I. Greenberg on the United States Court of
Appeals for the Third Circuit. After his clerkship, he entered
private practice as an associate with McCarter & English in
1988.
In 1990, Judge Chagares joined the United States Attorney's
Office for the District of New Jersey. As an assistant United
States attorney, he mainly practiced civil litigation, handling
discrimination, civil rights, regulatory, and constitutional
cases. In 1999, Judge Chagares became Chief of the Civil
Division of the United States Attorney's Office. A significant
portion of his practice was at the appellate level. During this
stage of his career, he argued over 100 cases before the Third
Circuit. In 2004, he returned to private practice when he
became a partner at Cole, Schotz, Meisel, Forman & Leonard.
On March 14, 2006, the Committee held a hearing on Judge
Chagares' nomination. On March 30, 2006, the Committee reported
Judge Chagares' nomination favorably by voice vote. The Senate
confirmed him on April 4, 2006 by a unanimous vote of 98-0.
NEIL M. GORSUCH, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Neil M. Gorsuch of Colorado to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit on May 10,
2006.
Judge Gorsuch received his B.A., with honors, from Columbia
University in 1988 and his J.D., with honors, from Harvard Law
School in 1991. He received a doctorate in legal philosophy
from Oxford University in 2004. Following his 1991 graduation
from law school, Judge Gorsuch served as a law clerk to Judge
David B. Sentelle of the United States Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia. Between 1993 and 1994, he served as a law
clerk to Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy. In 1995,
Judge Gorsuch joined the law firm of Kellogg, Huber, Hansen,
Todd, Evans & Figel, P.L.L.C. as an associate. He joined the
partnership in 1998. In 2005, Judge Gorsuch joined the United
States Department of Justice as Principal Deputy Associate
Attorney General. A hearing was held on the nomination on June
21, 2006 and it was favorably reported out of Committee by
voice vote on July 13, 2006. Judge Gorsuch was confirmed by the
Senate by voice vote on July 20, 2006.
RICHARD A. GRIFFIN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated Richard A. Griffin of Michigan
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Sixth Circuit on January 7, 2003. This was the third time he
was nominated to that court.
Judge Griffin received a B.A., magna cum laude, from
Western Michigan University Honors College in 1973 and a J.D.
from University of Michigan Law School in 1977. Following law
school, Judge Griffin spent eleven years in the private
practice of law, first as an associate at Williams, Coulter,
Cunningham, Davison & Read from 1977-1981, then as a partner
from 1981-1985. In 1985, Judge Griffin founded the firm Read &
Griffin, in Traverse City, Michigan. While in private practice,
Judge Griffin specialized in automobile negligence, premises
liability, products liability, and employment law. In 1988,
Judge Griffin was elected to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Judge Griffin was elected to retain his seat in 1996 and again
in 2002.
Judge Griffin was first nominated to the Sixth Circuit on
June 26, 2002 during the 107th Congress. At that point, no
action was taken. Judge Griffin was re-nominated on January 7,
2003. He had a hearing on June 16, 2004. The nomination was
reported out of Committee on July 20, 2004, by a vote of 10-9.
On the floor, the nomination was filibustered when a motion to
invoke cloture failed on July 22, 2004. Although no substantive
objections were raised with respect to Judge Griffin's
nomination, it did encounter opposition stemming from a long
running dispute between the Administration and home state
senators with respect to the staffing of the federal bench in
Michigan.
President Bush again re-nominated Judge Griffin on February
14, 2005. Because a hearing had already been held in the
previous Congress (on June 16, 2004), the Committee did not
hold a second hearing on the nomination. On May 26, 2005, the
Committee reported Judge Griffin's nomination favorably by
voice vote. The Senate confirmed his nomination by a vote of
95-0 on June 9, 2005.
THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
President Bush re-nominated Thomas Griffith of Utah to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit on February 14, 2005. This was the second time
the was nominated to that position.
Judge Griffith graduated summa cum laude from Brigham Young
University in 1978 and earned his J.D. from the University of
Virginia School of Law in 1985. Following graduation from law
school, Mr. Griffith became an associate with the law firm of
Robinson, Bradshaw, and Hinson in Charlotte, North Carolina. In
1989, he joined the Washington, D.C. law firm of Wiley, Rein,
and Fielding as an associate. He was elected to the partnership
of that firm in 1993.
In 1995, the United States Senate, by a unanimous
resolution sponsored by the Republican and Democratic Leaders,
appointed Mr. Griffith to the non-partisan position of Senate
Legal Counsel of the United States, an office he held until
1999. As the chief legal officer of the United States Senate,
Mr. Griffith represented the Senate, its committees, Members,
officers, and employees in litigation relating to
constitutional powers and privileges and advised committees
about investigatory powers and procedures. Mr. Griffith
represented the institutional interests of the Senate in
numerous investigations, during the impeachment trial of
President Clinton, and in the litigation concerning the line-
item veto, which resulted in two landmark decisions by the
United States Supreme Court. Following his service as Senate
Legal Counsel, Mr. Griffith returned to Wiley, Rein, and
Fielding in 1999. In 2000, Mr. Griffith left Washington, D.C.
to serve as Assistant to the President and General Counsel of
Brigham Young University (BYU).
Three issues emerged during pendency of the Griffith
nomination for which he was attacked: (1) his failure to pay
his DC bar dues during his service as Counsel to the United
States Senate; (2) whether he was engaged in the unauthorized
practice of law by working as Bringham Young University's
General Counsel without being admitted to the Utah bar; and (3)
his views on Title IX. Many Members of the Senate recalled
Judge Griffith's exemplary service as Counsel to the United
States Senate during the impeachment proceedings for President
Clinton. Five past presidents of the Utah bar wrote to the
Judiciary Committee explaining that in their opinion, Judge
Griffith had conducted himself appropriately during his service
as General Counsel to BYU.
Judge Griffith was first nominated during the 108th
Congress, on May 10, 2004. A hearing was held on the Griffith
nomination on November 16, 2004. The Committee did not convene
any executive business meetings after the hearing, so the
nomination was not reported to the floor during the 108th
Congress. The nomination was returned to the President on
December 8, 2004. When Judge Griffith was re-nominated in the
109th Congress, a second hearing was held on March 8, 2005. The
nomination was reported out of Committee on April 14, 2005 by a
vote of 14 to 4, and he was confirmed by the Senate on June 14,
2005 by a vote of 73 to 24.
THOMAS MICHAEL HARDIMAN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Thomas Michael Hardiman to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Third
Circuit on September 13, 2006.
Judge Hardiman received his B.A. from the University of
Notre Dame in 1987, where he was a Notre Dame Scholar, and his
J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1990. At
Georgetown, he was an Associate Editor and the Notes & Comment
Editor of the Georgetown Law Journal. After law school, Judge
Hardiman joined the Washington, D.C. office of Skadden, Arps,
Slate, Meagher & Flom as a litigation associate. In 1992, Judge
Hardiman joined the litigation group of Cindrich & Titus in
Pittsburgh, which later became Titus & McConomy. In 1996, he
was elected partner. As a partner, Judge Hardiman had an active
civil and criminal litigation practice in federal and state
courts. His diverse practice included cases involving real
estate, injunctions, civil rights, securities, constitutional
law, taxation, and non-competitive agreements. In 1999, Judge
Hardiman joined the law firm of Reed Smith as a partner.
In 2003, President Bush nominated Judge Hardiman to be a
U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Pennsylvania.
The Senate confirmed Judge Hardiman by voice vote on October
22, 2003.
A hearing was held on Judge Hardiman's nomination to the
Third Circuit on November 14, 2006. No further action was taken
on his nomination in the 109th Congress.
WILLIAM JAMES HAYNES, II, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated William Haynes of Virginia to
be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for Fourth
Circuit on September 5, 2006. This was the third time he was
nominated to that position.
Mr. Haynes graduated Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa
from Davidson College in 1980. He received a J.D. from Harvard
Law School in 1983. After law school, Mr. Haynes clerked for
the Honorable James B. McMillan, United States District Judge
for the Western District of North Carolina. He then spent four
years as an officer in the United States Army. Following his
honorable discharge from the Army, Mr. Haynes served as Counsel
to the Transition at the Department of Defense from January
through April of 1989 before becoming an associate in the
Washington, D.C. firm of Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan, where
he handled antitrust regulation matters.
In November of 1989, Mr. Haynes returned to government
service, becoming the Special Assistant to the General Counsel
of the Department of Defense. In March of 1990, he was
nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed
unanimously by the United States Senate to serve as the General
Counsel of the Department of the Army. Subsequent to this
service, Mr. Haynes returned to private practice as a partner
in the Washington, D.C. law firm of Jenner & Block where he
worked from 1993 through 1996.
From July of 1996 through January of 1999, Mr. Haynes was
Associate General Counsel and Staff Vice President for General
Dynamics Corporation, and from 1997 through 1998 he also served
as General Counsel of General Dynamics Corporation's Marine
Group. In May of 1999, he returned to the firm of Jenner &
Block, again as a partner. In 2001, he returned to government
service when he was nominated by President Bush and unanimously
confirmed by the Senate to serve as General Counsel of the
Department of Defense.
A great deal of controversy surrounded the nomination,
chiefly connected with policies adopted by the Department of
Defense during its conduct of the Global War on Terror.
Specifically, opponents of the nomination questioned the role
Mr. Haynes played in developing detainee and interrogation
policy and whether he sufficiently consulted with uniformed
military Judge Advocates General (``JAG'') during this process.
Several former JAG officers were signatories to a letter
opposing the nomination. Supporters of the nomination, however,
lauded Mr. Haynes's service during challenging times and the
Committee received letters from senior retired military
officers in support of the nomination.
Mr. Haynes was first nominated on September 29, 2003 during
the 108th Congress. A hearing was held on Mr. Haynes'
nomination on November 11 of that year. He was reported out of
committee favorably but returned to the President at the end of
the Congress. During the 109th Congress, a second hearing on
the nomination was held on July 11, 2006. His nomination was
returned to the President on August 3, 2006. Mr. Haynes was re-
nominated on September 5, 2006, but the nomination was again
returned to the President on September 29, 2006. The nomination
was resubmitted on November 15, 2006 and returned on December 9
at the end of the Congress.
JEROME A. HOLMES, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Jerome Holmes of Oklahoma to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth
Circuit on May 4, 2006. (He had previously been nominated to
the District Court, but that nomination was withdrawn in favor
of the Circuit Court nomination before the Committee could
consider the nomination.)
Judge Holmes graduated from Wake Forest University in 1983
and Georgetown University Law Center in 1988. In 2000, he
earned a Masters of Public Administration from Harvard's
Kennedy School of Government. Between college and law school,
he worked briefly as a Social Services Assistant with the D.C.
Department of Corrections. Following law school, he clerked for
the Honorable Wayne E. Alley on the United States District
Court for the Western District of Oklahoma and the Honorable
William J. Holloway on the United States Court of Appeals for
the Tenth Circuit. Following his clerkships, Judge Holmes spent
three years in private practice as an associate with Steptoe &
Johnson. In 1994, he became a federal prosecutor, serving as an
Assistant United States Attorney in the Western District of
Oklahoma. In 2005 he returned to private practice as a director
of the Oklahoma law firm Crowe & Dunlevy, where he focused on
white collar criminal defense and complex civil litigation.
Despite strong bipartisan support in Oklahoma and
elsewhere, his nomination was opposed by the Leadership Council
on Civil Rights and some Senators, chiefly based on positions
Judge Holmes had taken in op-eds and other writings. The first
African-American nominated to the Tenth Circuit, Mr. Holmes had
written and spoken often on issues concerning race, publicly
questioning affirmative action, strongly criticizing leaders
such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, and endorsing school
choice. Supporters of the nomination lauded Judge Holmes's
commitment to public service and his willingness, as a citizen,
to speak out on challenging public issues of the day.
A hearing on the Holmes nomination was held on June 15,
2006 and the nomination was reported out of Committee on July
13, 2006 by a voice vote. The Senate confirmed Judge Holmes by
a 67 to 30 vote on July 25, 2006.
SANDRA SEGAL IKUTA, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Sandra Segal Ikuta to be a judge
on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on February 8, 2006.
Judge Ikuta received a B.A. from University of California-
Berkeley, Phi Beta Kappa, in 1976, a M.S. from the Columbia
University School of Journalism in 1978, and a J.D. from
University of California-Los Angeles in 1988. She began her
legal career as a law clerk to the Honorable Alex Kozinski,
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following
her clerkship, Judge Ikuta served as a law clerk to United
States Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
In 1990, Judge Ikuta joined the law firm of O'Melveny &
Myers as an associate. During the early part of her career,
Judge Ikuta specialized in environmental legal issues for
litigation purposes, as well as real estate and natural
resource transactions. In 1994, Judge Ikuta's focus slightly
changed to include environmental compliance and pre-litigation
matters, including assisting clients with environmental audits
and property contamination issues.
In 1997, Judge Ikuta was promoted to partner at O'Melveny,
and she became the Co-Chair of the Environmental Law practice
group. In this capacity, she continued to focus on
environmental litigation, transactions, and compliance. Judge
Ikuta left the law firm in 2004 to become Deputy Secretary and
General Counsel for the California Resources Agency.
A hearing on the Ikuta nomination was held on May 2, 2006,
and the nomination was reported out of Committee on May 25,
2006 by a voice vote. The Senate confirmed Judge Ikuta by a 81
to 0 vote on June 19, 2006.
KENT A. JORDAN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE THIRD CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Judge Kent A. Jordan of Delaware
to be a Judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Third Circuit on June 28, 2006.
Judge Jordan earned his B.A., with honors, from Brigham
Young University in 1981. He received his J.D., cum laude, from
the Georgetown University Law Center in 1984. Following law
school, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable James L.
Latchum, United States District Judge for the District of
Delaware, from 1984 to 1985. From 1985 to 1987, he served as an
associate at Potter, Anderson & Corroon LLP. In 1987, he
entered public service as an Assistant United States Attorney
in the United States Attorney's Office for the District of
Delaware. He returned to private practice in 1992 when he
joined Morris, James, Hitchens & Williams as an associate. Two
years later, he was elected to the partnership. In 1998 Judge
Jordan left the firm to become Vice-President and General
Counsel for the Corporation Service Company in Wilmington,
Delaware. He remained in that position until 2002, when he was
nominated and confirmed by a voice vote to be United States
District Judge for the District of Delaware.
A hearing on Judge Jordan's nomination was held on
September 6, 2006. This nomination had the support of both home
state Democrats and was not considered controversial. The
nomination was favorably reported out of Committee by voice
vote on September 26, 2006. The Senate confirmed Judge Jordan
by a 91-0 vote on December 8, 2006.
BRETT KAVANAUGH, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
President Bush re-nominated Brett Kavanaugh to be a judge
on the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on
January 25, 2006. This was the third time he was nominated to
that position.
Judge Kavanaugh received his B.A. from Yale College in 1987
and his J.D. from Yale Law School in 1990, where he served as
the Notes Editor on the Yale Law Journal. After graduating from
law school, he served three prestigious clerkships. First, he
clerked for the Honorable Walter K. Stapleton on the United
States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. Then he clerked
for the Honorable Alex Kozinski on the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Following these two appellate
clerkships, Judge Kavanaugh served for one year as an attorney
in the Office of the Solicitor General, before beginning a
clerkship with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the United States
Supreme Court.
Following his Supreme Court clerkship, Judge Kavanaugh
served in the Office of Independent Counsel under Judge Kenneth
Starr. He was responsible for briefs and arguments regarding
privilege and other legal matters that arose during
investigations conducted by the Office. Judge Kavanaugh was
part of the team that prepared the 1998 report to Congress
regarding possible grounds for impeachment of the President of
the United States. Later, in private practice as a partner with
Kirkland & Ellis, Judge Kavanaugh worked primarily on appellate
and pre-trial briefs in commercial and constitutional
litigation. Beginning in 2001, Judge Kavanaugh served in the
White House, first as an Associate White House Counsel, then as
Senior Associate White House Counsel, and beginning in 2003 as
Staff Secretary.
This nomination drew strong opposition from Members of the
Minority who claimed Judge Kavanaugh's experience was
excessively partisan and provided insufficient preparation for
a seat on the D.C. Circuit. Additionally, some critics raised
questions about whether Judge Kavanaugh had any role in
authorizing the NSA wiretapping program, though there is no
reason to believe he did.
After he was first nominated in 2003, Judge Kavanaugh
received a Majority Well Qualified, Minority Qualified rating
from the American Bar Association. After his re-nomination in
the 109th Congress, Judge Kavanaugh received a Majority
Qualified, Minority Well Qualified rating. The curious
downgrade in his rating, which was accompanied by some
anonymous criticisms of the nominee's fairness and courtroom
performance, was highlighted by critics of the nomination as
cause for additional opposition and a new round of hearings.
Others pointedly criticized the American Bar Association for
downgrading a nominee's rating without apparent cause. The
Committee held a for-the-record conference call with the ABA on
May 8, 2006 but did not invite the organization to formally
appear before the Committee.
Judge Kavanaugh was first nominated during the 108th
Congress on July 25, 2003. A hearing was held on the nomination
on April 27, 2004. At that time, no further action was taken on
the nomination. A second hearing on the nomination was held
during the 109th Congress, on May 9, 2006. The nominee was
reported out of Committee by a 10-8 party line vote on May 11,
2006. On the floor of the Senate, cloture was invoked on the
nomination on May 25 by a vote of 67-30, and on May 26, Judge
Kavanaugh was confirmed by a vote of 57-36.
PETER KEISLER, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF
COLUMBIA
On June 29, 2006, President Bush nominated Peter Keisler of
Maryland to be a Judge of the United States Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia.
Peter Keisler received a B.A., magna cum laude, from Yale
University in 1981 and a J.D. from Yale Law School in 1985.
Following law school, he clerked for Judge Robert H. Bork of
the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In
1986, Mr. Keisler joined the Office of the Counsel to President
George H.W. Bush as an Assistant Counsel, and in 1987 was
promoted to Associate Counsel to the President. In 1988, Mr.
Keisler accepted a clerkship with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of
the United States Supreme Court.
Following his Supreme Court clerkship, Mr. Keisler joined
the Washington, D.C. office of Sidley & Austin as an associate,
becoming a partner in 1993. Mr. Keisler's practice focused
primarily on litigation and regulatory matters, specializing in
general appellate litigation, telecommunications regulation,
and professional liability.
In 2002, Mr. Keisler left private practice to join the
United States Department of Justice as Principal Deputy
Associate Attorney General. From October 2002 to March 2003, he
served as Acting Associate Attorney General, and in April of
2003, he was nominated by President Bush to serve as Assistant
Attorney General for the Civil Division. He was confirmed by
the Senate in June of 2003 by a voice vote.
A hearing was held on the Keisler nomination on August 1,
2006. Nevertheless, Mr. Keisler's nomination was not reported
to the floor by the Committee during the 109th Congress. The
nomination was resubmitted on November 15, 2006 and returned on
December 9 at the end of the Congress.
RAYMOND M. KETHLEDGE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Raymond M. Kethledge to be a Judge
on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on
June 28, 2006.
Mr. Kethledge received a B.A. from the University of
Michigan in 1989 and a J.D., magna cum laude, from the
University of Michigan Law School in 1993. After graduating
from law school, Mr. Kethledge served as a law clerk to the
Honorable Ralph B. Guy, Jr. of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Following his clerkship, he
worked briefly as an associate with Sidley & Austin before
leaving the firm to serve as judiciary counsel to Senator
Spencer Abraham. Mr. Kethledge worked for Senator Abraham for
two years as counsel until he became a law clerk to Justice
Anthony Kennedy of the United States Supreme Court in 1997.
After his Supreme Court clerkship, Mr. Kethledge returned
to private practice as an associate with the Michigan law firm
of Honigman, Miller, Schwartz & Cohn before becoming a partner
at that firm in 2001. Mr. Kethledge focused on commercial
litigation for a variety of different clients. In 2001, Mr.
Kethledge accepted a position as in-house counsel for the Ford
Motor Company, handling product liability matters.
In 2002, Mr. Kethledge left Ford to return to an active
court practice and joined Feeney, Kellett, Weinner & Bush as a
partner. While at the firm, Mr. Kethledge primarily briefed and
argued appellate cases, class actions, and complex motions. In
2003, Mr. Kethledge left Feeney, Kellett, Weinner & Bush to
create his own firm, which was initially known as Bush,
Seyferth & Kethledge, until becoming Bush, Seyferth, Kethledge
& Paige. Mr. Kethledge's current practice focuses on briefing
and arguing appeals, class action cases, and commercial
litigation at the trial court level.
Mr. Kethledge did not receive a hearing during the 109th
Congress because the Michigan Senators declined to return blue
slips.
DEBRA A. LIVINGSTON, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND
CIRCUIT
On June 28, 2006, President Bush nominated Professor Debra
Livingston to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit.
Professor Livingston graduated magna cum laude from
Princeton University in 1980 and magna cum laude from Harvard
Law School in 1984. Upon graduating from law school, Professor
Livingston worked as a law clerk to the Honorable J. Edward
Lumbard of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second
Circuit. After her clerkship, she joined the firm of Paul,
Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison as an associate in 1985. The
following year, she became an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the
Office of the U.S. Attorney of the Southern District of New
York. Professor Livingston returned to Paul, Weiss in 1991 and
left the firm the following year to become a law professor. She
worked as an assistant professor at the University of Michigan
Law School until 1994, when she joined the faculty of Columbia
Law School as an associate professor. She became a full
professor in 2000 and in 2004 became the Paul J. Kellner
Professor of Law.
Neither New York senator returned a blue slip on this
nomination, and no hearing was held in the 109th Congress.
DAVID W. MCKEAGUE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated David W. McKeague to be a Judge
on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit on
February 14, 2005. This was the third time he was nominated to
that position.
Judge McKeague received a B.A. from the University of
Michigan in 1968 and a J.D. from the University of Michigan Law
School in 1971. Upon graduation from law school, he joined the
law firm of Foster, Swift, Collins & Smith in Lansing,
Michigan. He was later elected a shareholder and director of
the firm. Judge McKeague served on the firm's Executive
Committee in various offices and was chairman of the firm's
Government and Commerce Department. In 1992, Judge McKeague was
confirmed to be a judge on the United States District Court for
the Western District of Michigan.
Judge McKeague was first nominated to the Court of Appeals
during the 107th Congress on November 8, 2001. Although there
were no substantive objections to this nomination, a long
running dispute between home state Senators and the White House
delayed action. He was re-nominated during the 108th Congress
on January 7, 2003. A hearing was held June 16, 2004. Judge
McKeague was reported favorably out of Committee, but on the
floor, the nomination was filibustered when a motion to invoke
cloture failed on July 22, 2004. He was re-nominated during the
109th congress, but an additional hearing was not held.
Instead, Judge McKeague was placed on the agenda and reported
out of Committee on a voice vote on May 26, 2005. The Senate
confirmed his nomination by a vote of 96 to 0 on June 9, 2005.
KIMBERLY ANN MOORE, U.S COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Kimberly Ann Moore to be a Judge
on the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal
Circuit on May 18, 2006.
Judge Moore received a B.S. from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1990, a M.S. from the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology in 1991, and a J.D. from Georgetown
University Law Center in 1994. She began her legal career as an
associate at Kirkland & Ellis working on intellectual property
matters. In 1995, Judge Moore accepted a clerkship with the
Honorable Glenn L. Archer, Jr., Chief Judge of the United
States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Following her
two-year clerkship, Professor Moore entered academia as an
Assistant Professor of Law at Chicago-Kent College of Law. From
1998 to 1999, she was Associate Director of the Intellectual
Property Law Program at Chicago-Kent. In 1999, Professor Moore
joined the faculty at the University of Maryland School of Law
before joining the faculty at George Mason University School of
Law in 2000. At the time of her nomination, Judge Moore was a
Professor of Law at George Mason University School of Law.
As an academic, Judge Moore focused on patent law and
patent litigation. She was retained as an expert witness in
numerous patent cases in the district courts and as a
consultant on many Federal Circuit appeals.
A hearing on the Moore nomination was held on June 28, 2006
and the nomination was reported out of Committee by voice vote
on July 27, 2006. The Senate confirmed her nomination by a vote
of 92 to 0 on September 5, 2006.
STEPHEN J. MURPHY III, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Stephen J. Murphy, III, of
Michigan, to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals
for the Sixth Circuit on June 28, 2006.
Mr. Murphy received a B.S. degree from Marquette University
in 1984 and received his J.D. from St. Louis University in
1987. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Murphy was accepted
into the Department of Justice's prestigious honors program and
served as a trial attorney in the Civil Division's Federal
Programs Branch until 1990, when he transferred to the Tax
Division. In 1992, he joined the U.S Attorney's office for the
Eastern District of Michigan, as an Assistant United States
Attorney. As a federal prosecutor, he prosecuted almost all
categories of federal offenses, with emphasis on criminal tax
matters and white collar fraud, including securities, banking,
foreign currency trading, high tech computer crimes, and
intellectual property.
In 2000, Mr. Murphy left the United States Attorney's
office to work as in-house counsel to General Motors, a
position which enabled him to handle ``white collar'' criminal
and civil matters involving GM. In 2005, Mr. Murphy became the
U.S Attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan.
Blue slips were not returned on the nomination during the
109th Congress, and no hearing was held on his nomination.
WILLIAM MYERS, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated William Myers of Idaho to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on September 5, 2006. This was the third time he was
nominated for that position.
Mr. Myers received his B.A. from the College of William &
Mary in 1977 and his J.D. from the University of Denver College
of Law in 1981. His legal career began in 1981, when he joined
the firm of Davis & Cannon as an associate attorney and
practiced general civil litigation and appellate advocacy. Four
years later, he joined the staff of Senator Alan Simpson as a
legislative counsel, where he served as the principal advisor
to the senator on public land issues and Judiciary Committee
matters. In 1989, Mr. Myers joined the Department of Justice as
the Assistant to the Attorney General. From 1992 to 1993 he
served as Deputy Counsel for Programs at the Department of
Energy, where he advised on matters pertaining to international
energy, government contracting, civilian nuclear programs, and
power marketing. Mr. Myers joined the National Cattleman's Beef
Association (NCBA) in 1993 and served as both the Director,
Federal Lands for NCBA, and Executive Director, Public Lands
Council, until 1997, when he joined the law firm of Holland &
Hart, LLP. Two years later, he was confirmed by the United
States Senate to serve as Solicitor for the United States
Department of the Interior. Mr. Myers held that position until
the fall of 2003, when he returned to Holland & Hart.
The nomination drew opposition from some environmental and
Native American groups that objected to Mr. Myers's perceived
ties to mining interests. They also objected to some of the
legal positions he argued as Solicitor at the Department of the
Interior. In particular, his involvement in a settlement
entered into during his tenure at Interior has been the subject
of controversy. The Justice Department's Office of Public
Integrity conducted an investigation and concluded that there
was no evidence Mr. Myers intentionally misled the Committee
when he testified that he did not know about the problematic
settlement. Nevertheless, the Myers nomination was specifically
excluded from the agreement not to filibuster judicial nominees
executed by the so-called Gang of 14 in the spring of 2005.
Mr. Myers was first nominated during the 108th Congress, on
May 15, 2003. The first nomination hearing for Mr. Myers was
held on February 5, 2004. The nomination was reported out of
Committee on April 1, 2004 but encountered a successful
filibuster on the floor when a motion to invoke cloture failed
by a vote of 53 to 44 on July 20, 2004. The nomination was
returned to the President on December 8 of that same year. Mr.
Myers was re-nominated in the 109th Congress and a second
hearing on his nomination was held on March 1, 2005. The
nomination was again reported out of Committee on March 17,
2005 and remained on the executive calendar until the
nomination was returned on August 3, 2006. The President re-
submitted Mr. Myers' nomination on September 5, 2006. It was
again returned on the 29th of that month. The nomination was
again submitted on November 15, 2006 and returned on December 9
at the end of the Congress.
SUSAN B. NEILSON, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated Susan B. Neilson of Michigan to
be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit on February 14, 2005. This was the third time she was
nominated for that position.
Judge Neilson earned her A.B. in 1977 from the University
of Michigan, where she graduated Phi Beta Kappa. She earned her
J.D., cum laude, in 1980 from Wayne State University Law
School. Following law school, Judge Neilson worked as an
associate and then a partner with Dickinson, Wright in Detroit.
In 1991, Judge Neilson was appointed to serve as a judge on
Michigan's Third Judicial Circuit. She was re-elected in 1996
and 2002.
Judge Neilson was first nominated during the 107th
Congress, on November 8, 2001. No action was taken on the
nomination during that Congress, due to a longstanding dispute
between the White House and Michigan Senators. She was re-
nominated during the 108th Congress, on January 7, 2003.
Although the nomination did receive a hearing on September 8,
2004 and was reported favorably out of Committee, it was
returned to the president at the end of the congress following
no action on the senate floor. During the 109th Congress, the
nomination was reported out of Committee on October 20, 2005.
The Senate unanimously confirmed Judge Neilson on October 27,
2005.
PRISCILLA R. OWEN, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated Priscilla Richman Owen of Texas
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit on February 14, 2005. This was the fourth time
she was nominated to that position.
Judge Owen received her B.A., cum laude, from Baylor
University and received her J.D., cum laude, from Baylor Law
School in 1977. After law school, Baylor honored Judge Owen as
the Baylor Young Lawyer of the Year and as a Baylor University
Outstanding Young Alumna. She received the highest score on the
Texas Bar Examination. Judge Owen began her legal practice with
the Houston law firm of Andrews & Kurth L.L.P. first as an
associate, later she became a partner. In 1994, Judge Owen was
elected to be a Justice on the Supreme Court of Texas, and she
was reelected in 2000.
During her tenure on the Texas Supreme Court, Judge Owen
served as the liaison to the Supreme Court of Texas' Court-
Annexed Mediation Task Force and to statewide committees
promoting legal services to the poor and pro bono legal
services. She was part of a committee that successfully
encouraged the Texas Legislature to enact legislation that
resulted in millions of dollars per year in additional funds
for providers of legal services to the poor. Judge Owen also
served as a member of the board of the A.A. White Dispute
Resolution Institute.
Judge Owen was first nominated to the Fifth Circuit during
the 107th Congress, on May 9, 2001. Opponents of the nomination
focused on a series of opinions she wrote as a Justice on the
Texas Supreme Court interpreting the Texas Parental
Notification Act. That statute required a minor seeking an
abortion to first notify one of her parents, or else secure a
judicial bypass.
No action was taken on her nomination prior to the August
recess of that year and, on August 3, 2001, Judge Owen's
nomination was returned to the White House. On September 4,
2001, President Bush re-nominated Judge Owen. A hearing was
held on the nomination on July 23, 2002. The Committee rejected
a motion to favorably report the nomination to the floor by a
vote of 9 to 10 on September 5, 2002. Her nomination was
returned to the White House on November 20, 2002.
President Bush re-nominated Judge Owen in the 108th
Congress, on January 7, 2003. On March 13, 2003, the Committee
held another hearing on Judge Owen's nomination. On March 27,
2003, the Committee favorably reported Judge Owen's nomination
by a party-line vote of 10 to 9 and placed it on the Senate
calendar. The Senate considered Judge Owen's nomination, but
the minority mounted a successful filibuster when a motion to
invoke cloture failed on May 1, 2003, by a vote of 52 to 44. On
May 8, 2003, a second motion to invoke cloture failed by a vote
of 52 to 45. A third motion failed 53 to 43 on July 29, 2003,
and a fourth failed on November 14, 2003 by a vote of 53 to 43.
On December 8, 2004, Judge Owen's nomination was returned to
the White House.
President Bush re-nominated Judge Owen in the 109th
Congress. No additional hearing was held on the nomination and
the Committee again reported Judge Owen's nomination favorably
by a party-line vote of 10 to 8 on April 21, 2005. A motion to
invoke cloture on the nomination was presented in the Senate on
May 20, 2005. At that time, it was uncertain whether the Senate
would invoke cloture on her nomination. The ``Gang of 14''
agreement announced on May 23, 2005, ensured that cloture would
be invoked. The Senate invoked cloture on Judge Owen's
nomination by a vote of 81 to 18 on May 24, 2005. The Senate
confirmed the nomination by a vote of 55-43 on May 25, 2005.
WILLIAM PRYOR, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated William Pryor of Alabama to be
a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh
Circuit on February 14, 2005. This was the third time he was
nominated to that position.
Judge Pryor earned his B.A. from Northeast Louisiana
University in 1984 and his J.D. from Tulane University School
of Law in 1987, where he served as Editor in Chief of the
Tulane Law Review. Following law school, he served as a law
clerk to the Honorable John Minor Wisdom of the United States
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. He entered private
practice in 1988 when he joined the firm of Cabaniss, Johnston,
Gardner, Dumas & O'Neal as an associate. While in private
practice he also worked as an adjunct professor at the
Cumberland School of Law. In 1995, Judge Pryor entered public
service as the Deputy Attorney General for Alabama. Two years
later, he became the state's Attorney General.
Judge Pryor was first nominated during the 108th Congress
on April 9, 2003. Critics of the nomination focused on some
comments Judge Pryor had made regarding social policy issues,
particularly those related to homosexuality and abortion. They
also objected to his reputation as a political conservative. A
hearing was held on the nomination on June 11, 2003, and it was
reported out of Committee by a vote of 10 to 9 on July 23,
2003. Opponents of the nomination mounted a successful
filibuster when two attempts to invoke cloture failed, the
first, on July 31, 2003, by a vote of 53 to 44, the second on
November 6, 2003, by a vote of 51 to 43. On February 20, 2004,
President Bush recess appointed Judge Pryor to serve on the
bench. The nomination was returned to the President on December
8, 2004.
Following the re-nomination in the 109th Congress, no
additional hearing was held on the nomination. It was favorably
reported out of Committee on May 12, 2005. On June 8, 2005,
following the so-called ``Gang of Fourteen'' agreement, cloture
was successfully invoked on the nomination by a vote of 67 to
32, and the nomination was confirmed by the Senate one day
later by a vote of 53 to 45.
HENRY SAAD, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
President Bush re-nominated Henry Saad of Michigan to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit on February 14, 2005. This was the third time he was
nominated to that position.
Judge Saad earned his B.S. and B.A., with distinction, from
Wayne State University in 1971. He graduated from Wayne State
University Law School magna cum laude in 1974. After law
school, he spent 20 years in private practice with one of
Michigan's leading firms, Dickinson, Wright PLLC, first as an
associate from 1974-1981, then as a partner from 1981-1994. In
addition, he was an Adjunct Professor at both the University of
Detroit Mercy School of Law and at Wayne State University Law
School.
In 1994 Judge Saad was appointed to the Michigan Court of
Appeals and was elected to retain his seat in 1996 and again in
2002. In October 1992, he was nominated by President George
H.W. Bush to be United States District Judge for the Eastern
District of Michigan. No action was taken on his nomination
prior to the adjournment of the 102nd Congress later that
month.
Judge Saad was first nominated to the Sixth Circuit during
the 107th Congress, on November 8, 2001, but no hearing was
held because both Michigan senators refused to turn in blue
slips. During the 108th Congress, both Michigan senators
returned negative blue slips on the nomination. A hearing was
held on the nomination during the 108th Congress on July 30,
2003, and his nomination was reported out of Committee by a
vote of 10 to 9 on June 17, 2004. Opponents of the nomination
mounted a successful filibuster when a motion to invoke cloture
on the nomination failed by a vote of 52 to 46 on July 22,
2004. The nomination was returned to the President on December
8, 2004. In the 109th, the Michigan senators again refused to
return blue slips. No action was taken on the nomination. A
message of withdrawal from the President was received on March
29, 2006.
BOBBY E. SHEPHERD, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Bobby E. Shepherd of Arkansas to
the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on
May 18, 2006.
Judge Shepherd received his B.A., cum laude, from Ouachita
Baptist University in 1973 and his J.D., with high honors, from
the University of Arkansas School of Law in 1976. Upon
graduating from law school, he embarked on a career as a
general practitioner in western Arkansas. He practiced either
as a solo practitioner or in small partnerships until 1991,
when he was elected Circuit-Chancery Court Judge in Arkansas's
13th Judicial District. Beginning in 1993, he served as a
United States Magistrate Judge in the Western District of
Arkansas.
A hearing was held on the nomination on June 28, 2006 and
it was favorably reported out of Committee by voice vote on
July 13, 2006. Judge Shepherd was confirmed by the Senate by
voice vote on July 20, 2006.
MILAN D. SMITH, JR., UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Milan D. Smith, Jr. of California
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit on February 14, 2006.
Judge Smith graduated from Brigham Young University cum
laude with a B.A. in 1966 and received his J.D. from the
University of Chicago Law School in 1969. Following law school,
Judge Smith joined the Los Angeles office of O'Melveny & Myers
where he specialized in corporate and real estate law. In 1972,
Judge Smith left O'Melveny to form his own firm, and continued
to focus on complex transactional matters. In 1988, Judge Smith
was appointed to serve as a Commissioner of the California Fair
Employment and Housing Commission. He remained on the
Commission until 1991.
A hearing on the nomination was held on April 25, 2006 and
it was reported out of Committee by a voice vote on May 4,
2006. Judge Smith was confirmed unanimously on May 16, 2006.
N. RANDY SMITH, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated N. Randy Smith of Idaho to be a
judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit on December 16, 2005.
Judge Smith received his B.S. from Brigham Young University
in 1974 and his J.D. from the same school in 1977 where he
wrote for the Idaho Law Review. For the first four years of his
legal practice, he worked in house as a corporate attorney for
a private company. In 1981, he joined the Idaho law firm of
Merrill & Merrill as an associate handling corporate and
insurance defense litigation. He later became a partner at the
firm and remained there until his election to the Idaho
District Court in 1996. In 2002, he became Administrative Judge
for his district.
The nomination drew sharp opposition from California's
senators. Although they had no substantive objections to the
nominee, they argued that the seat to which he had been
nominated was traditionally a California seat and that the
nomination should have been given to a nominee from their
state. One of the senators from California threatened to
filibuster the nomination on the Senate floor. Idaho's senators
strongly argued to the contrary, maintaining that the seat was
properly considered an Idaho seat because that's where its most
recent occupant holds his chambers.
A hearing on the nomination was held on March 1, 2006 and
it was reported out of Committee by a voice vote on April 4,
2006. The nomination was returned to the President on August 3,
2006. The nomination was re-submitted by the President on
September 5, 2006 and was reported out of Committee again on
September 21, 2006. The nomination was returned to the
President on September 29, 2006. The nomination was resubmitted
on November 15, 2006 and returned on December 9 at the end of
the Congress.
MICHAEL B. WALLACE, UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH
CIRCUIT
President Bush nominated Michael B. Wallace of Mississippi
to be a judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the
Fifth Circuit on February 8, 2006.
Mr. Wallace received his B.A., cum laude, from Harvard
University in 1973 and his J.D. from the University of Virginia
Law School in 1976 where he was elected Order of the Coif.
After law school, he clerked for Justice Harry G. Walker of the
Mississippi Supreme Court and for then-Associate Justice
William H. Rehnquist on the United States Supreme Court.
Following his clerkship, he returned to Mississippi and
replaced his father in a small Biloxi legal partnership, Sekul,
Hornsby, Wallace & Teel.
From 1980 to 1983, Mr. Wallace worked for then-Congressman
Trent Lott, first as a research assistant for the Republican
Research Committee and then, following Lott's election as
Republican Whip, as counsel in the Whip's office. Before
returning to Mississippi, he worked briefly as a legislative
consultant for the Administrative Conference of the United
States. In 1983, he became an associate with the Mississippi
firm of Jones, Mockbee & Bass and became a partner after the
firm merged with Phelps Dunbar. He quickly developed a
reputation as one of the finest appellate litigators in the
nation.
Mr. Wallace received a unanimous ``not qualified'' rating
from the American Bar Association. After reviewing the ABA's
rating, Chairman Specter exchanged a series of letters with ABA
President Michael Greco and the then-Chairman of the Standing
Committee on the Federal Judiciary (``SCFJ''), Stephen Tober.
In those letters, Chairman Specter invited the ABA to testify
at a hearing concerning Mr. Wallace's nomination and asked the
ABA to provide the Senate Judiciary Committee with the reports
and materials supporting Wallace's ``not qualified'' rating. He
also raised serious questions about the ABA's ratings
procedures, most particularly its reliance on anonymous sources
and unattributed quotes. Finally, he asked that the ABA conduct
a new investigation of Mr. Wallace and that certain individuals
who were perceived to have a personal bias against the nominee
be exclude from that review.
After the Chairman's second letter requesting the reports
and materials, the ABA retained former Solicitor General Ted
Olson to respond to the Chairman's concerns with the ABA rating
process. Mr. Olson's letter claimed that the ABA was making
``certain modifications'' to its policies and procedures to
satisfy Chairman Specter's concerns. These modifications
included: (1) a strengthening of recusal procedures; (2)
clarification of existing policies to give the nominee and the
Committee greater context of adverse information; and (3) no
publication of unattributed, negative quotations in the ABA's
public testimony when a nominee receives a ``not qualified''
rating. After agreeing to these modifications, the ABA
performed a supplemental review of Mr. Wallace's nomination in
accordance with the ABA's standard procedure of doing so in the
wake of a re-nomination. The ABA's review, however, was only
``supplemental'', it was not the de novo review the Chairman
requested. Again, the ABA rated Mr. Wallace ``not qualified.''
On September 26, 2006, the Committee held a hearing on Mr.
Wallace's nomination, which included testimony from members of
the ABA's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary who
participated in the evaluation of Mr. Wallace. The ABA
witnesses testified that the ``not qualified'' rating was based
solely on allegations that Mr. Wallace did not have the
requisite judicial temperament to be a judge. In both written
and delivered testimony, the ABA members asserted that the ABA
followed the proper procedures during Mr. Wallace's rating
process and that Mr. Wallace was given the opportunity to rebut
specific allegations as required by the ABA's own stated
policies. However, Mr. Wallace testified that he was not given
the opportunity to rebut these allegations because he was not
provided with the specific basis for the allegations, and the
allegations came from anonymous sources.
During questioning by one senator, the Chair of the SCFJ
admitted that the ABA had not made changes to its procedures.
During the hearing, Mr. Wallace also discussed his prior
relationship with Stephen Tober, the former Chair of the SCFJ,
and the well-known public conflicts he had with Mr. Tober in
the past. Despite knowing of these conflicts prior to rating
Wallace, the ABA members insisted that Mr. Tober should not
have recused himself from the rating process. However, under
questioning the current Chair of the SCFJ agreed that there was
at least an appearance of impropriety of the kind that would
argue for recusal in a judicial proceeding.
In addition, senators questioned the ABA panel about the
apparent institutional bias against Mr. Wallace. Senators also
questioned the ABA about the rating process and its reliance on
anonymous sources to be used against a nominee without giving
them an opportunity to rebut the allegations. Further, the
hearing revealed significant evidence, which suggests that the
ABA rating did not fairly represent Mr. Wallace's civility and
temperament in its report. While the ABA's testimony alluded to
anonymous comments calling into question Mr. Wallace's civility
and demeanor, the outside witnesses, both Democrats and
Republicans who know Mr. Wallace personally, all spoke to the
contrary at the hearing.
The nomination was returned to the White House on August 3,
2006. President Bush re-nominated him on September 5, 2006. On
September 29, 2006, Mr. Wallace's nomination was returned to
the White House for the second time. The nomination was
resubmitted on November 15, 2006 and returned on December 9 at
the end of the Congress.
COURT OF APPEALS JUDGES CONFIRMED
During the course of the 109th Congress, the following
court of appeals judges were confirmed:
Janice R. Brown (DC Circuit)
Michael A. Chagares (3rd Circuit)
Neil M. Gorsuch (10th Circuit)
Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit)
Thomas B. Griffith (DC Circuit)
Jerome A. Holmes (10th Circuit)
Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Circuit)
Kent A. Jordan (3rd Circuit)
Brett M. Kavanaugh (DC Circuit)
David W. McKeague (6th Circuit)
Kimberly Ann Moore (Federal Circuit)
Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit)
Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit)
William H. Pryor (11th Circuit)
Bobby E. Shepherd (8th Circuit)
Milan D. Smith, Jr. (9th Circuit)
3. DISTRICT COURTS
During the course of the 109th Congress, the Committee on
the Judiciary reported out 48 district court judges, 35 of whom
were confirmed by the Senate:
Michael Ryan Barrett (Southern District of Ohio)
Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (Northern District of Georgia)
Francisco Augusto Besosa (District of Puerto Rico)
Joseph Frank Bianco (Eastern District of New York)
Rene Marie Bumb (District of New Jersey)
Timothy Mark Burgess (District of Alaska)
Brian M. Cogan (Eastern District of New York)
Robert J. Conrad (Western District of North Carolina)
Sean F. Cox (Eastern District of Michigan)
Paul A. Crotty (Southern District of New York)
Aida M. Delgado-Colon (District of Puerto Rico)
James C. Dever, III (Eastern District of North Carolina)
Kristi DuBose (Southern District of Alabama)
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi (District of Puerto Rico)
Thomas M. Golden (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Andrew J. Builford (Central District of California)
Noel Lawrence Hillman (District of New Jersey)
Thomas E. Johnston (Southern District of West Virginia)
Daniel Porter Jordan, III (Southern District of Mississippi)
Virginia Mary Kendall (Northern District of Illinois)
Stephen G. Larson (Central District of California)
Thomas L. Ludington (Eastern District of Michigan)
Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr. (Eastern District of Tennessee)
Gray Hampton Miller (Southern District of Texas)
Brian Edward Sandoval (District of Nevada)
Patrick Joseph Schiltz (District of Minnesota)
J. Michael Seabright (District of Hawaii)
Peter G. Sheridan (District of New Jersey)
John Richard Smoak (Northern District of Florida)
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove (Eastern District of Kentucky)
Eric Nicholas Vitaliano (Eastern District of New York)
W. Keith Watkins (Middle District of Alabama)
Frank D. Whitney (Western District of North Carolina)
Susan Davis Wigenton (District of New Jersey)
Jack Zouhary (Northern District of Ohio)
4. OTHER COURTS
LEO MAURY GORDON, UNITED STATES COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
President Bush nominated Leo M. Gordon of New Jersey to be
a judge on the United States Court of International Trade on
November 10, 2005.
Judge Gordon received his A.B. from the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1973 and a J.D. from Emory University
School of Law in 1977. Following law school, Judge Gordon
served as an Assistant Counsel on the House Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law.
While with the Committee, Judge Gordon focused on antitrust and
other commercial legislation. He was the lead counsel in the
drafting of the Customs Courts Act of 1980, which established
the United States Court of International Trade.
In 1981, Judge Gordon accepted a position with the United
States Court of International Trade as an Assistant Clerk. He
was later promoted to Clerk of the Court. In these positions,
Judge Gordon advised the judges of the court on substantive and
procedural issues in litigation pending before the court, as
well as on matters pertaining to the operation of the court.
Judge Gordon was also charged with the responsibility of
developing special procedures for handling complex, multi-
party, multi-case litigation and analyzing and implementing
changes in federal statutes affecting the jurisprudence of the
court. Judge Gordon also worked with the United States Court of
International Trade's Advisory Committee on Rules and Practice.
A hearing was held on February 7, 2006, and the nomination
was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on February 16,
2006, by a voice vote. Judge Gordon was confirmed by the Senate
on March 13, 2006, by a unanimous vote of 82 to 0.
B. NOTABLE EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS
THOMAS O. BARNETT, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ANTITRUST DIVISION
President Bush nominated Thomas O. Barnett of Virginia to
be Assistant Attorney General for the Antitrust Division at the
Department of Justice on September 6, 2005.
Mr. Barnett received his B.A. from Yale University, his
Master's degree in economics from the London School of
Economics where he was a Fulbright Scholar, and his J.D. from
Harvard Law School. Following law school, Mr. Barnett clerked
for the Honorable Harrison Winter of the United States Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
After his clerkship, Mr. Barnett joined the law firm of
Covington & Burling, as an associate. In 1997, Mr. Barnett
became a partner at Covington. During his time at the firm, Mr.
Barnett was Vice Chair of its Antitrust and Consumer Protection
Practice Group. He also provided counsel on corporate
transactions and licensing arrangements for several Fortune 500
companies. Mr. Barnett left Covington in 2004 to serve as
Deputy Assistant Attorney General for civil enforcement for the
Antitrust Division.
The Committee held a hearing on Mr. Barnett's nomination on
October 6, 2005. The nomination was favorably reported by voice
vote on November 3, 2005. The Senate confirmed him, also by
voice vote, on February 10, 2006.
STEVEN BRADBURY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR THE OFFICE OF LEGAL
COUNSEL
President Bush nominated Steven Bradbury of Maryland to be
Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel on
June 23, 2005.
Mr. Bradbury graduated from Stanford University in 1980 and
the University of Michigan School of Law in 1988. After
graduating from law school, he spent one year in the Department
of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel before leaving to clerk
for the Honorable James Buckley of the United States Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, and later for Justice Thomas on
the Supreme Court. Beginning in 1993, Mr. Bradbury spent 11
years working in the Washington D.C. offices of Kirkland &
Ellis, ten of which were as partner. In 2004, Mr. Bradbury was
appointed to serve as Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney
General for Office of Legal Counsel.
Critics of this nomination seized on his role in defending
the legal framework for the Terrorist Surveillance Program,
although he played no role in its development. He is credited
as having authored the Department of Justice's white paper that
set forth the legal basis for the program after the program
came to light. Some Members of the Minority requested that no
action be taken on the nomination during the pendency of an
investigation by the Justice Department's Office of
Professional Responsibility into whether or not lawyers who
worked on the terrorism surveillance program acted within their
professional and ethical responsibilities when giving legal
advice. On May 10, 2006, investigators at OPR were denied
security clearance to investigate the matter further. Later, in
July, 2006, Attorney General Gonzalez testified to the
Committee that the investigation was closed on direct authority
of President Bush. Shortly after Gonzalez's testimony, the
minority senators on the Committee wrote a letter to President
Bush requesting that the investigation be resumed and expressed
unwillingness to allow the Bradbury nomination to move forward.
The Committee held a hearing on the nomination on October
6, 2005, and it was reported out of Committee by voice vote on
November 3, 2005. No floor action was taken on the nomination,
and it was returned to the President on December 22, 2005. On
January 25, 2006, Mr. Bradbury was re-nominated and the
nomination was again placed on the agenda for Committee action
on March 29, 2006. Action on the nomination was deferred until
July 27, 2006, when it was voted out of Committee by a voice
vote. On September 29, 2006, the nomination was returned to the
President. The nomination was resubmitted on November 15, 2006
and returned on December 9 at the end of the Congress.
JOHN F. CLARK, DIRECTOR, UNITED STATES MARSHALS SERVICE, DOJ
President Bush nominated John F. Clark of Virginia to be
Director for the United States Marshals Service on October 21,
2005.
Mr. Clark received his B.S. from Syracuse University in
1997. He began his law enforcement career as a patrol agent
with the United States Border Patrol before joining the United
States Capitol Police in 1981. In 1983, Mr. Clark joined the
United States Marshals Service as a Deputy United States
Marshal in the Northern District of California. In 1986, Mr.
Clark became an Inspector in the Fugitive Squad of the United
States Marshals Service in the Eastern District of Virginia.
From 1990 to 1997, Mr. Clark held various positions at the
United States Marshals Service Headquarters, including
Supervisory Inspector (Office of Internal Affairs) and Chief
Inspector (International Fugitive Operations and Office of
Internal Affairs).
In 1997, Mr. Clark returned to the Eastern District of
Virginia as the Chief Deputy United States Marshal. From 1999
until 2002, Mr. Clark was the Acting United States Marshal for
the Eastern District of Virginia before being appointed by
President Bush as United States Marshal for the Eastern
District of Virginia in 2002. Since August of 2005, Mr. Clark
had been the Acting Director of the United States Marshals
Service.
On February 15, 2006, the Senate Judiciary Committee held a
hearing on Mr. Clark's nomination. On March 16, 2006, the
Committee reported Mr. Clark's nomination favorably by voice
vote, and the Senate confirmed his nomination later that same
day by voice vote.
PAUL D. CLEMENT, SOLICITOR GENERAL
President Bush nominated Mr. Paul Clement of Virginia to be
Solicitor General of the United States on March 14, 2005. Mr.
Clement graduated summa cum laude from Georgetown University,
received a Masters in Philosophy with distinction from
Cambridge, and received his law degree, magna cum laude, from
Harvard Law School. After law school, he clerked for the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit and then clerked
for Justice Antonin Scalia on the United States Supreme Court.
Following his clerkships, Mr. Clement went into private
practice as an associate at Kirkland & Ellis. Subsequently, Mr.
Clement served for two years as Chief Counsel for the United
States Senate Committee on the Judiciary's Subcommittee on the
Constitution, Federalism and Property Rights. While serving on
the Subcommittee, Mr. Clement worked with then-Senator John
Ashcroft to enact the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. After
working for the Senate Judiciary Committee, Mr. Clement
returned to private practice, eventually becoming a partner and
the head of King & Spalding's appellate practice group.
Since 2001, Mr. Clement has worked for the United States
Department of Justice in the Office of Solicitor General. He
first served as Principal Deputy and then became Acting
Solicitor General in 2004 when Solicitor General Theodore Olson
retired. In his capacity as Deputy and Acting Solicitor
General, Mr. Clement represented the United States government
in a wide variety of appellate matters, including arguing
before the Supreme Court 26 times. Some of his most notable
cases include McConnell v. Federal Election Commission
(defending the constitutionality of the Bipartisan Campaign
Reform Act), Tennessee v. Lane (defending the constitutionality
of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act), and Hamdi
v. Rumsefeld (representing the federal government in a
challenge to the President's authority to detain citizens as
enemy combatants). Mr. Clement also has taught at Georgetown
University Law Center as an adjunct professor since 1998.
A hearing on the Clement nomination was held on April 27,
2005, and it was reported favorably by voice vote on May 26,
2005. The Senate confirmed Mr. Clement, also by voice vote, on
June 8, 2005.
CAROL E. DINKINS, CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES OVERSIGHT
BOARD
President Bush nominated Carol E. Dinkins of Texas to be
the first Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board on September 28, 2005.
The creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and was
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush as
part of the National Intelligence Reform Act. The Board advises
the President and the heads of executive departments and
agencies and reports to Congress to ensure that privacy and
civil liberties are appropriately considered in the development
and implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch
policies related to efforts to protect the United States
against terrorism.
This legislation mandated the board be located within the
Executive Office of the President. The board consists of a
chair, vice chair, and three additional members, all appointed
by, and serving at the pleasure of the President. Nominees for
the chair and vice chair positions are subject to Senate
approval.
Ms. Dinkins received her B.S. from the University of Texas-
Austin in 1968 and her J.D. from the University of Houston in
1971. Following her graduation from law school, Ms. Dinkins
served as Principal Associate of the Texas Law Institute of
Coastal & Marine Resources. Ms. Dinkins also taught research
and writing courses as an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Law at
University of Houston School of Law.
From 1973 until 1981, Ms. Dinkins was an attorney in
private practice with Vinson & Elkins. She represented clients
in obtaining governmental authorizations of projects and
counseled them on compliance activities. In 1981, Ms. Dinkins
returned to public service as Assistant Attorney General of the
Environment and Natural Resources Division at the Department of
Justice. In this position, Ms. Dinkins supervised the
government's litigation in federal environmental, natural
resources, and public land matters.
In 1984, Ms. Dinkins was appointed Deputy Attorney General.
Ms. Dinkins returned to private practice in 1985 as a partner
at Vinson & Elkins where she is currently co-section head of
the Administrative/Environmental Law Practice. She assists
clients with compliance matters, including counseling, internal
investigations, and negotiation of judicial and administrative
settlements.
A hearing on the Dinkins nomination was held on November 8,
2005 and it was reported out of Committee on a voice vote on
February 16, 2006. The Senate confirmed the nomination by voice
vote on February 17, 2006.
ALICE S. FISHER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CRIMINAL DIVISION
President Bush nominated Alice S. Fisher of Virginia to be
the Assistant Attorney General of the Criminal Division of the
Department of Justice on September 20, 2005.
Ms. Fisher received her B.A. from Vanderbilt University in
1989 and her J.D. from the Catholic University of America's
Columbus School of Law in 1992.After graduating from law
school, Ms. Fisher accepted a position as an associate at the
law firm of Sullivan & Cromwell in Washington, D.C.
In 1995 and 1996, Ms. Fisher served as Deputy Special
Counsel to the United States Senate Committee Investigating
Whitewater Development Corporation and Related Matters. In that
role, she assisted with the Senate's investigation and helped
draft the final report. In 1996, Ms. Fisher accepted a position
as an associate with the D.C. firm of Latham & Watkins. In
2001, she became a partner.
From 2001 until 2003, Ms. Fisher served as Deputy Assistant
Attorney General in the Criminal Division. In that capacity,
she supervised the Division's Counter-Terrorism Section, Fraud
Section, Appellate Section, Capital Case Unit, and Alien
Smuggling Task Force. In 2003, she returned to Latham & Watkins
as a partner.
A hearing on the Fisher nomination was held on May 12,
2005. At the June 16, 2005 meeting of the Committee, a
Democratic senator raised concerns about Ms. Fisher's
nomination. He asserted that a partially redacted email
memorandum written by an unnamed FBI agent indicated that Ms.
Fisher was present during meetings where concerns were raised
regarding the interrogation techniques at Guantanamo. This
senator asked the Committee to request additional information
from the Department of Justice. The Committee favorably
reported Ms. Fisher's nomination by voice vote at the business
meeting, but several Democratic senators passed on the vote. On
August 31, 2005, President Bush recess appointed Ms. Fisher as
Assistant Attorney General.
On July 26, 2006, a Democratic senator was afforded the
opportunity to meet with the unnamed FBI agent who wrote the
email memorandum. The agent confirmed Ms. Fisher's statements
that she only attended one meeting and that the meeting
concerned cases and prosecutions, not allegations of abuse at
Guantanamo. This senator then requested to meet with other
officials mentioned in the memorandum. These requests were not
met prior to Ms. Fisher's nomination being brought to the floor
for a vote. The Senate confirmed Ms. Fisher on September 19,
2006 by a vote of 61 to 35.
SHAREE M. FREEMAN, DIRECTOR, COMMUNITY RELATIONS SERVICES, DOJ
President Bush nominated Sharee M. Freeman of Virginia to
be the Director of Community Relations Services (CRS), United
States Department of Justice on December 20, 2005.
Ms. Freeman received her B.A. from St. Lawrence University
and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center. She began
her legal career as a law clerk with Judge Norma Holloway
Johnson of the United States District Court for the District of
Columbia. In 1982, Ms. Freeman accepted a position to serve as
an Assistant District Attorney with the Philadelphia District
Attorney's Office. In 1984, Ms. Freeman became Acting Assistant
Solicitor and Attorney/Advisor with the United States
Department of Interior.
In 1997, Ms. Freeman accepted a counsel position with the
House Judiciary Committee and Congressman Henry Hyde. She also
served as counsel to Congressman Hyde on the House
International Relations Committee. In 2001, President Bush
appointed Ms. Freeman to be the Director of CRS for a term of
four years, and the Senate unanimously confirmed her. Following
the expiration of her four year term as director, Ms. Freeman
served as Acting Director of CRS.
A hearing on Ms. Freeman's nomination was held on March 14,
2006 and the nomination was reported out of Committee by voice
vote on March 30, 2006. The Senate confirmed Ms. Freeman by
voice vote on March 31, 2006.
ALBERTO GONZALES, UNITED STATES ATTORNEY GENERAL
President Bush nominated Alberto R. Gonzales of Texas to be
United States Attorney General on January 4, 2005. (He had
previously been nominated late in the 108th Congress, on
November 16, 2004, but no action was taken on the nomination
during that Congress.)
Attorney General Gonzales served in the United States Air
Force from 1973 to 1975 and attended the Air Force Academy from
1975 to 1977. After two years at the Academy, Attorney General
Gonzales transferred to Rice University, from which he
graduated in 1979. He later earned his J.D. from Harvard Law
School in 1982. Upon graduation from law school, Attorney
General Gonzales entered private practice with the Houston law
firm Vinson & Elkins as an Associate and eventually was
elevated to Partner in the firm. In 1994, Attorney General
Gonzales was named General Counsel to then-Texas Governor
George W. Bush, until he was named Secretary of State for Texas
in 1997. In 1999, he was appointed to serve on the Texas
Supreme Court. In 2001, he stepped down from the court to serve
as White House Counsel.
The Gonzales nomination faced substantial opposition from
Members of the Minority who questioned him about his views on
various legal conclusions incident to the Global War on Terror.
In particular, critics of the nomination focused on
extraordinary interrogation techniques and the applicability of
the Geneva Conventions. Nominee Gonzales was emphatic in his
answer to questions about torture during his hearing. When
asked by a Senator whether United States personnel can legally
engage in torture under any circumstances, Attorney General
Gonzales answered: ``Absolutely no. Our policy is we do not
engage in torture.'' Some editorials and opponents in the
Senate cited a repudiated Justice Department memorandum
defining torture narrowly, so as to limit it to severe or
serious physical condition or injury. The memorandum was
addressed to then-White House Counsel Gonzales as evidence of
his approval of such techniques. However, it was pointed out in
the hearings and Senate debate that Gonzales was not the author
of the offending language, and he had rejected this narrow
view.
At his hearing, Attorney General Gonzales also reasserted
his commitment to the Geneva Conventions. He told the
Committee: ``I consider the Geneva Conventions neither quaint
nor obsolete.'' And he stressed that ``[t]he President has
repeatedly condemned torture and made clear that the United
States will not condone torture.''
Another issue that was presented during the hearing and
debate on the Gonzales nomination was his stance with respect
to another portion of the controversial DOJ memorandum that
involved an expansive view of Executive authority. Attorney
General Gonzales testified in both his testimony before the
Committee and in written responses that the expansive positions
on Executive authority had been rejected, ``including that
section regarding the Commander-in-Chief's authority to ignore
the criminal statutes.''
Some opponents of the nomination also asserted that
Gonzales was unresponsive and that the Committee had not been
thorough enough in its oversight of the Department of Justice's
top position. But at his hearing, Attorney General Gonzales
testified for nearly six hours, answering multiple rounds of
questions. Gonzales' answers to the Committee's written
questions, contained in 221 single-spaced pages, provided
nearly 450 often detailed responses on issues ranging from the
war on terrorism to intellectual property.
The hearing on this nomination was held on January 6, 2005.
The nomination was favorably reported out of Committee by a
vote of 10 to 8 on January 26, 2005, and the Senate confirmed
the Attorney General on February 2, 2005 by a vote of 60 to 36.
According to press accounts, Attorney General Gonzales was
confirmed by the full Senate with fewer minority-party votes
than any nominee for attorney general in 80 years.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Senate Confirms Gonzales, 60 to 36, Washington Post, 2/4/2005,
at A01.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EMILIO T. GONZALEZ, DIRECTOR OF THE BUREAU OF CITIZENSHIP AND
IMMIGRATION SERVICES
President Bush nominated Emilio T. Gonzalez of Florida to
be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship and Immigration
Services on September 8, 2005.
Dr. Gonzalez earned his B.A. from the University of South
Florida in 1977. He also earned an M.A. from Tulane University
in 1986, an M.A. from the United States Naval War College in
1994, and a Ph.D. from the University of Miami in 1997.
Dr. Gonzalez had a distinguished military career that
spanned nearly three decades. During this time, he served at
the United States Embassies in El Salvador and Mexico, taught
at the United States Military Academy at West Point, and headed
the Office of Special Assistants for the Commander-in-Chief of
the United States Southern Command. In 2003, Dr. Gonzalez
received an honorable discharge. He was awarded numerous medals
while serving in the Army, including the Superior Service
Medal, the Defense Meritorious Service Medal, and the Joint
Service Commendation Medal. Following his military service, Dr.
Gonzalez served as Senior Managing Director of Tew Cardenas'
Global and Government Affairs practice in Miami and Washington,
D.C., focusing on international strategic planning and
government affairs.
A nomination hearing was held for Dr. Gonzalez on October
6, 2005. Dr. Gonzalez was reported out of Committee on November
11, 2005, by a voice vote and was confirmed by a voice vote on
December 21, 2005.
WAN J. KIM, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION
President Bush nominated Mr. Wan J. Kim of Maryland to be
an Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights Division of
the Department of Justice on June 16, 2005.
Born in Seoul, Republic of Korea, Mr. Kim immigrated to the
United States at nearly five years old. He entered the United
States Army in 1985 and served as a Second Lieutenant from 1989
until 2000, when he was honorably discharged.
Mr. Kim received his B.A. with general and departmental
honors from Johns Hopkins University in 1990. He attended
University of Chicago Law School, from which he also graduated
with honors in 1993. Mr. Kim then clerked for Judge James L.
Buckley of the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C.
Circuit. Following his clerkship, Mr. Kim joined the Department
of Justice. He was hired through the Attorney General's Honors
program and became a trial attorney in the Criminal Division's
Terrorism and Violent Crime Section. In that post, Mr. Kim
worked on a number of high profile prosecutions, including the
prosecution of the perpetrators of the Oklahoma City bombing.
Mr. Kim spent two years in the private sector, as a
litigation associate at Kellogg, Huber, Hansen, Todd & Evans in
Washington, D.C. He then returned to the Department of Justice
as an Assistant United States Attorney in the United States
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. While employed
as an Assistant United States Attorney, Mr. Kim was detailed to
the Senate Judiciary Committee for one year, where he worked on
the drafting of the Hatch-Leahy PROTECT Act. In 2003, he joined
the Civil Rights Division as a Deputy Assistant Attorney
General; there he supervised the Criminal, Educational
Opportunities, and Housing and Civil Enforcement Sections.
A hearing was held on the Kim nomination on October 6,
2006, and it was reported out of Committee by a voice vote on
November 3, 2005. The Senate confirmed Mr. Kim by voice vote on
November 4, 2005.
PAUL J. MC NULTY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
President Bush nominated Paul J. McNulty of Virginia to be
Deputy Attorney General on November 9, 2005.
Mr. McNulty received his B.A. from Grove City College in
1980 and his J.D. from Capital University Law School in 1983.
Upon graduating law school, he served as a Democratic staffer,
serving as a counsel to the House Committee on Standards of
Official Conduct. In 1985, he became the Director of Government
Affairs for the Legal Services Corporation, a position he held
for two years before returning to government service in 1987,
when he became the minority counsel to the House Judiciary
Committee's Subcommittee on Crime. In 1990, he joined the
Justice Department as Director of Policy and Communications, a
post he held for over two years. After a two-year stint with
the Washington law firm of Shaw, Pittman, Potts and Trowbridge,
Mr. McNulty returned to the House Subcommittee on Crime, this
time as Chief Counsel. He also served as an adjunct professor
at Grove City College between 1994 and 2000.
In 1999, Mr. McNulty became Chief Counsel to then-House
Majority Leader Dick Armey and served in that capacity until
2001. After the 2000 election, Mr. McNulty headed President
Bush's transition effort for the Justice Department and then
served as Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General before
being appointed United States Attorney for the Eastern District
of Virginia in September of 2001. At the time of his
nomination, he had been serving as Acting Deputy Attorney
General since November 1, 2005, and had continued to serve as
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia.
At his hearing, Senator Schumer stated for the record his
strong support of the nomination.
A hearing on the McNulty nomination was held on February 2,
2006. He was reported out of committee by voice vote on
February 16, 2006, and confirmed by the Senate by voice vote on
March 16, 2006.
JULIE L. MYERS, ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF HOMELAND SECURITY
President Bush nominated Julie L. Myers of Kansas to be an
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security on October 7, 2005.
Ms. Myers received her B.A. from Baylor University in 1991.
She then attended Cornell University Law School, from which she
graduated in 1994. Ms. Myers then served as a Law Clerk to the
Honorable C. Arlen Beam of the United States Court of Appeals
for the Eighth Circuit. Following her clerkship, she joined the
law firm of Mayer, Brown & Platt in Chicago, Illinois, where
she was an associate in the firm's commercial litigation group
for approximately two years.
From 1998 until 1999, Ms. Myers served as an Associate
Independent Counsel in the Office of the Independent Counsel,
Kenneth W. Starr. In that role, Ms. Myers's principal work
included drafting briefs and other documents, questioning
witnesses in the grand jury, and writing memoranda analyzing
legal questions. In 1999, Ms. Myers joined the Office of the
United States Attorney for the Eastern District of New York as
an Assistant United States Attorney where her work ranged from
simple drug and other import fraud cases to more complex
smuggling investigations.
In 2001, Ms. Myers became a Deputy Assistant Secretary
(Money Laundering and Financial Crimes) at the Department of
the Treasury. In this capacity, Ms. Myers directly supervised
two sections of the Office of Enforcement: the Counternarcotics
Section and the International Money Laundering Section.
In 2002, Ms. Myers became Chief of Staff for the Criminal
Division at the Department of Justice. In 2003, the President
nominated and the Senate confirmed Ms. Myers to be the
Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement at the
Department of Commerce. In this position, Ms. Myers directly
supervised nine field offices and five foreign attaches. She
was responsible for a budget of $25 million and supervised
approximately 170 employees. Then, in 2004, Ms. Myers accepted
the position of Special Assistant to the President for
Presidential Personnel in the Executive Office of the
President.
Some critics of the nomination expressed concern that Ms.
Myers's professional experience did not satisfy the statutory
requirement that a nominee for this position have a minimum of
five years professional experience in law enforcement and a
minimum of five years management experience. However,
supporters of her nomination emphasized her law enforcement and
management experience in her previous positions, including as
an Associate in the Office of Independent Counsel, Assistant
United States Attorney, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Money
Laundering and Financial Crimes at the Department of Treasury,
Chief of Staff for the Criminal Division at the Department of
Justice, Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Export Enforcement
at the Department of Commerce, and as Special Assistant to the
President for Presidential Personnel.
The Senate first referred Ms. Myers' nomination to the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee.
That committee held a hearing on her nomination, and then the
nomination was referred sequentially to the Senate Judiciary
Committee for no more than thirty days by unanimous consent
agreement. The Committee held a hearing on the Myers nomination
on October 18, 2005, and then the nomination was discharged
from Committee by unanimous consent. The Senate did not act on
the nomination prior to recessing for the holidays. On January
4, 2006, President Bush recess appointed Ms. Myers as an
Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security. On February 10, 2006,
President Bush resubmitted her nomination to the Committee on
Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. The Senate did not
take any further action on her nomination during the 109th
Congress.
JAMES O'GARA, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SUPPLY REDUCTION AT THE OFFICE OF
NATIONAL DRUG CONTROL POLICY
President Bush nominated James O'Gara to be the Deputy
Director for Supply Reduction at the Office of National Drug
Control Policy (ONDCP) on July 28, 2005.
Mr. O'Gara received his Bachelor of Arts degree from St.
John's College in 1988, and began working as a Fellow at the
Claremont Institute. In 1990, he began his service as the
Coordinator for South American Affairs at ONDCP from 1990 to
1993, where he monitored development of President H.W. Bush's
Andean Strategy, and served as Executive Secretary to National
Security Council's Policy Coordinating Committee on Overseas
Counter-narcotics. In 1993, Mr. O'Gara then joined the Drug
Enforcement Agency (EPA) as a Foreign Policy Advisor. In 1995,
he worked as a Policy Analyst on the Senate Judiciary Committee
for then-Chairman Orrin Hatch, where he advised the Chairman on
federal narcotics policy, legislation on crack penalties,
military interdiction operations, electronic surveillance, and
drug treatment and prevention. In 1996, he left the Committee
to become the Director of Research for the New Citizenship
Project. Shortly thereafter he began working for the
Philanthropy Roundtable. In 2001, he began his service as
Special Assistant to the Director at ONDCP.
The O'Gara nomination faced opposition from some law
enforcement and narcotics officers who questioned his
willingness to ensure that ONDCP fully fund and support the
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Several
state and local law enforcement groups expressed concerns that
the nominee had disregarded their input in his position as
Special Assistant to the Director at ONDCP.
A hearing on the O'Gara nomination was held on October 18,
2005, and no further action was taken in Committee on the
nomination until it was returned to the President on August 3,
2006. The nomination was subsequently re-submitted to the
Senate on September 5, 2006.
ALAN C. RAUL, VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES
OVERSIGHT BOARD
President Bush nominated, Alan C. Raul to be the first Vice
Chairman of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board on
September 28, 2005.
The creation of the Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight
Board was a recommendation of the 9/11 Commission and was
passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush as
part of the National Intelligence Reform Act. The Board advises
the President and the heads of executive departments and
agencies, and reports to Congress to ensure that privacy and
civil liberties are appropriately considered in the development
and implementation of laws, regulations, and executive branch
policies related to efforts to protect the United States
against terrorism.
This legislation mandated the board be located within the
Executive Office of the President. The board consists of a
chair, vice chair, and three additional members, all appointed
by, and serving at the pleasure of, the President. Nominees for
the chair and vice chair positions are subject to Senate
approval.
Mr. Raul received his A.B. from Harvard College in 1975,
magna cum laude, his M.P.A. from Harvard University's Kennedy
School of Government in 1977, and his J.D. from Yale Law School
in 1980.
After graduating from Yale Law School, Mr. Raul served as a
law clerk to the Honorable Malcolm R. Wilkey on the United
States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Following his
clerkship, Mr. Raul joined the law firm of Debevoise &
Plimpton.
In 1986, Mr. Raul left private practice to serve as
Associate Counsel to the President in the Executive Office of
the President. In 1988, Mr. Raul became the General Counsel of
the Office of Management & Budget. One year later, he was
nominated by President George H.W. Bush and confirmed by the
Senate as General Counsel to the United States Department of
Agriculture. Mr. Raul returned to private practice in 1993,
joining the law firm of Beveridge & Diamond PC, where he served
as the Managing Director until 1997. In 1997, Mr. Raul moved to
the law firm of Sidley & Austin, where he is a partner and
coordinates Sidley & Austin's Information Law and Privacy
Practice.
A hearing on the Raul nomination was held on November 8,
2005, and it was reported out of Committee by a voice vote on
February 16, 2006. The Senate confirmed the nomination on
February 17, 2006 by voice vote.
REGINA B. SCHOFIELD, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF JUSTICE
PROGRAMS
President Bush nominated Regina B. Schofield of Virginia to
be the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice
Programs on April 4, 2005.
Ms. Schofield received her B.A. from Mississippi College in
1982 and her M.B.A from Jackson State University in 1990.
Following graduate school, she worked as a sales representative
for Philip Morris USA. From 1991 to 1993, she served in the
Department of Education first as a Confidential Assistant and
then as Deputy Director for the Office of White House Liaison.
She left the DOE in 1993 to become a Manager on environmental
issues for the International Council of Shopping Centers. In
1991, Ms. Schofield moved to the United States Postal Service
where she worked as a manager on governmental relations.
From 2003 until her nomination, she served as Director of
Intergovernmental Affairs and White House Liaison at the
Department of Health and Human Services. As Director of
Intergovernmental Relations, Ms. Schofield was instrumental in
advancing intergovernmental relations with over 562 federally
recognized Tribal Governments. She developed the Department's
first comprehensive tribal consultation policy and has worked
to establish formal mechanisms to create an ``open door'' for
tribes regarding the Department's policy and budget process.
She has also worked to streamline the grants process thereby
increasing public awareness of government-funded programs and
services.
A hearing was held on Ms. Schofield's nomination on May 12,
2005. Following her hearing, questions were raised regarding
her lack of legal experience. Also, she was questioned
regarding funding for the Office of Justice Programs and her
plans in this area as Assistant Attorney General. She was voted
out of Committee on May 26, 2005, by a voice vote. She was
confirmed on June 8, 2005, also by a voice vote.
KENNETH L. WAINSTEIN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR NATIONAL SECURITY
President Bush nominated Kenneth L. Wainstein of Virginia
to be the first Assistant Attorney General for National
Security on March 13, 2006.
This is a new position, created by the USA PATRIOT
Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005. The Assistant
Attorney General for National Security oversees the new
National Security Division of the Justice Department. That
Division consolidates the Justice Department's national
security, counterterrorism, counterintelligence, and foreign
intelligence surveillance operations under a single authority.
Mr. Wainstein earned his B.A. from the University of
Virginia in 1984 and his J.D. from the University of
California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall) in 1988. Following law
school, he clerked for United States District Court Judge
Thomas Penfield Jackson before beginning a long and
distinguished career as a prosecutor. In 1989, he joined the
United States Attorney's Office for the Southern District of
New York. After three years with that office, he became an
Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Columbia.
He became Deputy Chief of the office's Homicide Section in
1998, then Deputy Chief of its Superior Court Division in 1999,
and Principal Assistant United States Attorney in 2000.
Attorney General John Ashcroft named Mr. Wainstein Interim
United States Attorney for the District of Columbia in 2001.
Following the nomination and confirmation of a permanent United
States Attorney, Mr. Wainstein became the Director of the
Executive Office for United States Attorneys. From 2002 to
2004, he worked in the front office of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation, first as General Counsel and then as Chief of
Staff. Since 2004, he has been the United States Attorney for
the District of Columbia.
A nomination hearing was held for Mr. Wainstein on May 2,
2006. He was reported out of the Judiciary Committee by voice
vote on June 15, 2006, and was then referred to the
Intelligence Committee, which reported the nomination out
favorably on June 22. He was confirmed by the Senate by voice
vote on September 21, 2006.
SUE ELLEN WOOLDRIDGE, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, ENVIRONMENT AND
NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION
President Bush nominated Ms. Sue Ellen Wooldridge of
Virginia to be the Assistant Attorney General for the
Environment and Natural Resources Division of the Department of
Justice on June 20, 2005.
Ms. Wooldridge earned her undergraduate degree from
University of California Davis in 1983 and her law degree from
Harvard School of Law in 1987. She went on to work for seven
years as an associate for the law firm Diepenbrock, Wulff,
Plant & Hanegan in Sacramento, California. At the firm, Ms.
Wooldridge handled commercial, insurance, and employment
litigation matters in both the state and federal courts.
In 1994, Ms. Wooldridge served as a Special Assistant
Attorney General for the California Department of Justice. Ms.
Wooldridge acted as a legal and policy advisor to the attorney
general with duties including litigation management,
governmental relations, and legislation advocacy. In 1999, Ms.
Wooldridge left the office to become a partner with the civil
litigation firm, Riegels, Campos & Kenyond. She next served as
General Counsel to the California Fair Political Practices
Commission for two years, and her responsibilities included
interpreting, implementing, and defending the state's campaign
finance and disclosure laws.
In 2001, Ms. Wooldridge left California to become the
Deputy Chief of Staff and Counselor to the Secretary of the
United States Department of Interior. In this capacity, Ms.
Wooldridge provided legal and policy direction to the
Department. In 2004, President Bush appointed and the Senate
confirmed Ms. Wooldridge as Solicitor of the Department of
Interior. As the Department's chief legal officer, Ms.
Wooldridge is responsible for managing nearly 400 lawyers and
eighteen offices nationwide and provides counsel on a variety
of substantive legal issues.
A hearing on the Wooldridge nomination was held on November
3, 2005, and it was reported out of Committee by voice vote on
November 3, 2005. The Senate confirmed the nomination by voice
vote on November 10, 2005.
IV. APPENDICES REGARDING NOMINATIONS
A. MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ON JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS--GANG OF
FOURTEEN AGREEMENT
We respect the diligent, conscientious efforts, to date,
rendered to the Senate by Majority Leader Frist and Democratic
Leader Reid. This memorandum confirms an understanding among
the signatories, based upon mutual trust and confidence,
related to pending and future judicial nominations in the 109th
Congress.
This memorandum is in two parts. Part I relates to the
currently pending judicial nominees; Part II relates to
subsequent individual nominations to be made by the President
and to be acted upon by the Senate's Judiciary Committee.
We have agreed to the following:
Part I: Commitments on Pending Judicial Nominations
A. Votes for Certain Nominees. We will vote to invoke
cloture on the following judicial nominees: Janice Rogers Brown
(D.C. Circuit), William Pryor (11th Circuit), and Priscilla
Owen (5th Circuit).
B. Status of Other Nominees. Signatories make no commitment
to vote for or against cloture on the following judicial
nominees: William Myers (9th Circuit) and Henry Saad (6th
Circuit).
Part II: Commitments for Future Nominations
A. Future Nominations. Signatories will exercise their
responsibilities under the Advice and Consent Clause of the
United States Constitution in good faith. Nominees should only
be filibustered under extraordinary circumstances, and each
signatory must use his or her own discretion and judgment in
determining whether rush circumstances exist.
B. Rules Changes. In light of the spirit and continuing
commitments made in this agreement, we commit to oppose the
rules changes in the 109th Congress, which we understand to be
any amendment to or interpretation of the Rules of the Senate
that would force a vote on a judicial nomination by means other
than unanimous consent or Rule XXII.
We believe that, under Article II, Section 2, of the United
States Constitution, the word ``Advice'' speaks to consultation
between the Senate and the President with regard to the use of
the President's power to make nominations. We encourage the
Executive branch of government to consult with members of the
Senate, both Democratic and Republican, prior to submitting a
judicial nomination to the Senate for consideration.
Such a return to the early practice of our government may
well serve to reduce the rancor that unfortunately accompanies
the advice and consent process in the Senate.
We firmly believe this agreement is consistent with the
traditions of the United States Senate that we as Senators seek
to uphold.
E. Benjamin Nelson.
Mike DeWine.
Joe Lieberman.
Susan Collins.
Mark Pryor.
Lindsay Graham.
Lincoln Chafee.
John McCain.
John Warner.
Robert C. Byrd.
Mary Landrieu.
Olympia Snowe.
Ken Salazar.
Daniel Inouye.
B. LETTER: CHAIRMAN SPECTER TO AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (MICHAEL S.
GRECO AND STEPHEN L. TOBER)
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 22, 2006.
Michael S. Greco,
President, American Bar Association.
Stephen L. Tober,
Chairman, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary,
American Bar Association.
Dear Sirs: The American Bar Association has recently issued
a ``Not Qualified'' rating for two nominees currently pending
before the Senate Judiciary Committee: Michael Wallace, of
Mississippi, who has been nominated to the U.S. Court of
Appeals for Fifth Circuit and Judge Vanessa Bryant, of
Connecticut, who has been nominated to the U.S. District Court
for the District of Connecticut. Mr. Wallace is a well regarded
appellate litigator and a former U.S. Supreme Court clerk with
excellent academic credentials. Judge Bryant would be the first
African-American woman nominated to district court in New
England. Public accounts suggest that she has been an effective
judge on the Connecticut Superior Court.
In accordance with the past practice of the Judiciary
Committee, I intend to invite the American Bar Association to
provide testimony at the hearings for each of these nominees.
Considering their impressive resumes, your ``Not Qualified''
ratings have left many observers curious as to the basis for
your conclusions. I write to request that you provide the
Committee with the materials supporting your ratings of these
nominees as soon as possible.
As a matter of fundamental fairness, the nominees deserve
time to prepare a response to whatever allegations you may
raise in your testimony. Waiting until twenty-four hours before
the hearings neither gives the nominees the opportunity to
respond, nor does it give Members of the Judiciary Committee
adequate time to prepare. Promptly delivering the substance of
these allegations to the Committee will allow the nominees
fully to respond to them in an open hearing. Similarly, a well
developed record will allow members of the Committee to make a
considered judgment.
One of your predecessors once testified before the
Committee that a ``Not Qualified'' rating is ``only as good as
the reasons which support it.'' I agree, and accordingly
request that the ABA share with the Committee without delay the
report on which is rating is based. If the ABA is concerned
about maintaining the confidentiality of those it has
interviewed during its assessment, I am prepared to instruct
Committee members and staff to treat the report on a
confidential basis, much as is currently done with FBI
background investigation files.
I thank you for your attention to this matter and for your
continued service to the profession.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
C. LETTER: STEPHEN L. TOBER TO CHAIRMAN SPECTER
American Bar Association,
Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary,
Washington, DC, June 30, 2006.
Hon. Arlen Specter,
Chair, Committee on the Judiciary,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: This will acknowledge receipt of your
recent correspondence regarding the ``not qualified'' ratings
of judicial nominees, Michael Wallace and Judge Vanessa Bryant,
issued recently by the ABA Standing Committee on Federal
Judiciary. The Standing Committee is, as always, willing to
provide your Committee with detailed explanations of the bases
for these two ``not qualified'' ratings and is looking forward
to the opportunity to testify at the nominees' confirmation
hearings.
I want to assure you that, in accordance with our long-
established practices, the circuit member or members assigned
to conduct the investigation of the professional qualifications
of each nominee met personally and at length with the nominee
and discussed any adverse information uncovered during the
investigation. Our explanatory booklet, which is provided to
every nominee at the start of the investigation, specifically
states:
``During the interview, the circuit member discusses with
the nominee his or her qualifications for a judgeship and
raises any adverse information discovered during the
investigation. The nominee is given a full opportunity to rebut
the adverse information and provide any additional information
bearing on it.''
During the course of our investigations, Judge Bryant was
interviewed once and Mr. Wallace was interviewed twice. The
circuit investigators adhered to the Standing Committee's
straightforward procedures during all of the interviews.
Consequently, at the conclusion of the interviews, both
nominees were fully appraised of any negative information the
Standing Committee relied upon to support its evaluations.
We also appreciate your Committee's need to thoroughly
understand the basis for our ``not qualified'' rating of a
nominee's professional qualifications from the Standing
Committee as you deliberate the fitness of each nominee for a
lifetime appointment to the Federal bench. Once the hearing
dates are announced and we are invited to testify we will
certainly comply with the Judiciary Committee's rules and
provide you with copies of our written statements, detailing
the bases for our ratings, 48 hours in advance of each hearing.
Furthermore, in light of your request, please know that we will
do our best to complete and submit our written statements to
the Committee so that you will hopefully have them more than 48
hours in advance.
We fully understand the desire of the Senate Judiciary
Committee to have a explanation for a ``not qualified'' rating.
We will continue to strive to present those explanations to you
in a timely manner as part of our independent peer review for
consideration by your Committee in performing its critical role
in the confirmation process.
Sincerely,
Stephen L. Tober,
Chair.
D. LETTER: CHAIRMAN SPECTER TO AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION (MICHAEL S.
GRECO AND STEPHEN L. TOBER)
U.S. Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC, August 7, 2006.
Mr. Michael S. Greco,
President, American Bar Association.
Mr. Stephen L. Tober,
Chairman, Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary,
American Bar Association.
Dear Sirs: This is the second time I have had occasion to
write you in connection with the nominations of Michael Wallace
of Mississippi and Vanessa Bryant of Connecticut. Both nominees
have distinguished resumes. Both, however, have been rated
``Not Qualified'' by the American Bar Association (``ABA''). In
the first letter, you were asked to provide the Committee with
your testimony on these nominations as soon as possible. You
were also asked to share with the Committee the reports on
which these ratings are based. Furthermore, you were assured
that the Committee would treat such reports on a confidential
basis, as we currently handle reports we receive from the
Federal Bureau of Investigation (``FBI'').
Your reply letter did not address the request that you
provide the Committee with your reports. You did, however,
provide assurances that your testimony would be provided as
quickly as practicable, and hoped you could deliver the
testimony at least 48 hours before the hearing scheduled on the
Wallace and Bryant nominations. On the afternoon of July 18,
some 24 hours before the scheduled hearing, the Committee
received your testimony. I have since prepared that hearing.
I have had the opportunity to review the testimony with
regard to both nominees, and I am troubled by your submission.
Your testimony raises serious charges, but only supports those
allegations with anonymous quotations, presented without
context. Testimony of this sort is impossible to verify or to
otherwise further investigate. Worse, it can give some the
unfortunate impression of a smear campaign conducted against
the nominees. The nominees, publicly branded ``Not Qualified''
and--in your testimony--worse, do not have the opportunity to
confront their accusers.
There also exist concerns with respect to the appearance of
bias in the ratings process with regard to the Wallace
nomination. During the 1980s, Mr. Wallace was appointed by
President Ronald Reagan to serve as Director and Chairman of
the Legal Services Corporation (``LSC''). At that time, the ABA
took strong and vocal positions against President Reagan's
agenda for the LSC and took issue with Mr. Wallace's leadership
of its board. There is nothing wrong with the ABA taking such
positions, but when an institution has strongly held views on a
policy question and when it has a history of passionately
opposing a nominee's work on that question, some may reasonably
question the capacity of that institution to provide an
objective review of that nominee.
Compounding the concerns about institutional bias, some
have raised issues of personal bias on the part of individuals
directly involved in this process. I understand that Mr. Tober
had a heated public exchange with Mr. Wallace at a December
1987 LSC meeting. The Committee has also been informed that Mr.
Greco had a similar public exchange with Mr. Wallace at a panel
discussion on legal services at the ABA's annual meeting in
1989. Furthermore, Ms. Marna Tucker, now the D.C. Circuit
representative on the Federal Judiciary, served as organizer of
that contentious panel discussion. While ours is an adversarial
profession, and we expect advocates to argue vigorously on
behalf of the issues they represent, it becomes problematic
when those advocates are then placed in a role passing judgment
on their opponents.
On page 12 of your ``Backgrounder,'' formally titled
``Standing Committee on the Federal Judicary--What it is and
How it Works,'' it is stated that ``No member of the Committee
shall participate in the work of the Committee if such
participation would give rise to the appearance of impropriety
or would otherwise be incompatible with the purposes served and
functions performed by the Committee.'' During this Congress
alone, members of the ABA's Standing Committee have recused
themselves from the ratings of no fewer than six nominees. It
would appear that Mr. Tober would have been well advised to
consider recusing himself from the rating of Mr. Wallace, given
their personal history. As Chairman, Mr. Tober has an
opportunity to influence members of the ABA's Standing
Committee, to filter the information that is available to it,
and to shape its final report. I understand that in the case of
a tie vote, Mr. Tober would also be in the position of casting
the deciding ballot. As a consequence, it would seem that he
would have an even higher duty to recuse himself. I
nevertheless appreciate Mr. Tober's excellent work on behalf of
the Standing Committee and am aware that this is not an easy
job, nor are these easy calls to make.
Given these concerns, however, I would request that the ABA
promptly take the following steps:
First, the ABA should immediately revoke its ``Not
Qualified'' rating of Mr. Wallace and begin a new review
process. Although there is little that can be done about the
appearance of institutional bias, the ABA can certainly take
steps to alleviate the concerns of personal bias. Mr. Tober
should recuse himself, as should anyone else who has a personal
history with this nominee or whose impartiality may reasonably
be questioned on any other ground. Ideally, the ABA should
convene an entirely new, ``special'' committee for this
purpose. Mr. Greco, given his history with the nominee, should
recuse himself from the selection of the committee's members.
Second, I request that the ABA provide the Senate Judiciary
Committee with the reports upon which its ratings of Mr.
Wallace and Judge Bryant are based--this includes both the
``informal report'' and ``formal written report'' discussed on
page 7 of the ``Backgrounder.'' The Committee will treat these
reports in the same manner in which we treat FBI background
investigation reports. Under the protocols adopted for use with
FBI reports, your reports would be kept in a safe located in a
secure room. There would be no duplicate copies made. Only
Senators and specified staff with security clearances
(approximately three majority and three majority staffers)
would have access to the reports.
When the FBI uncovers adverse information about a nominee,
it provides considerable context, even in the case of anonymous
sources. For example, in the circumstances in which an
anonymous source is included in the background report, the FBI
provides us with a detailed description of the interview,
explaining the nature and substance of the allegations against
the nominee. Even without a specific name, this allows
Committee staff to investigate further and fully brief the
Committee. Moreover, unlike the ABA's practice, anonymous
sources in FBI reports are the exception, not the rule. If a
specific source of your requests that his or her name be
redacted from the reports you make available to the Committee,
as with the FBI reports, we would consider making such an
accommodation. It must be remembered, however, that the FBI
report is not made public, so only Committee Members have
access to the information, while the ABA provides a written
public statement accompanying the testimony it makes available
to the Committee. Oftentimes, these statements may include the
comments of anonymous sources. I am not asking that the ABA
provide anything that the FBI does not. Committee staff have
worked together to conduct investigation in a bipartisan and
discrete manner. I can assure you that if they can do so with
materials assembled by the FBI, they can do the same with
materials assembled by the ABA.
In fact, it is the Committee's Constitutional duty, and a
matter of fundamental fairness of the nominees, that we discern
the basis for the public rebukes the ABA lodges against
individuals who have been nominated to the bench. Without
giving either the nominees or the members of this Committee the
opportunity to review the materials supporting the rating, a
full and fair hearing is not possible.
Thank you for your prompt attention to this letter and for
your continued service to the profession.
Sincerely,
Arlen Specter.
E. LETTER: THEODORE B. OLSON (ON BEHALF OF ABA) TO CHAIRMAN SPECTER
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP,
Washington, DC, September 14, 2006.
Re American Bar Association, Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary
Senator Arlen Specter,
Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Specter: This letter responds to your letter
of August 7, 2006, addressed to then-ABA President Michael S.
Greco and Stephen L. Tober, then Chairman of the ABA's Standing
Committee on Federal Judiciary (``SCFJ''). As I have informed
Committee Chief Counsel and Staff Director Michael O'Neill, the
ABA and the SCFJ have retained me to assist them in responding
to and addressing the concerns you raise in that letter.
Mr. O'Neill and I have had several conversations and one
meeting since the date of your letter. The SCFJ has taken
seriously the matters you have raised and has carefully
reviewed its policies, procedures and practices for the
evaluation of nominees for the federal judiciary. As a result,
it has determined to make certain modifications that we believe
are responsive to your concerns, while retaining the degree of
confidentiality that is absolutely necessary for the SCFJ to
gather the very sensitive information and candid input
necessary for it to perform its valuable function of providing
peer-based evaluations of the qualifications of nominees for
federal judicial positions.
First, with respect to Mr. Wallace, a supplemental
evaluation will be conducted to re-evaluate his professional
qualifications. This will be conducted by Tim Hopkins of
Hopkins Roden Crockett Hansen & Hoopes, PLLC of Idaho Falls,
Idaho, and Pamela A. Bresnahan of Vorys, Sater, Seymour and
Pease, of Washington, D.C. Neither Ms. Bresnahan nor Mr.
Hopkins has any prior personal or professional relationship
with Mr. Wallace. Neither Mr. Greco nor Mr. Tober will be
involved int he supplemental evaluation. The Standing Committee
has several new members, and is now chaired by Roberta
Liebenberg of the Philadelphia firm of Fine, Kaplan and Black.
Thus, while the SCFJ and the new investigators will, of course,
have access to all of the previous materials pertaining to the
extensive evaluations of Mr. Wallace's qualifications, a
supplemental evaluation will take place with new investigators,
a new Chair and a changed membership. This supplemental
evaluation is being performed in accordance with the SCFJ's
normal procedures, which provide for supplemental evaluations
of individuals whose nominations have been returned or
withdrawn, and then resubmitted by the President.
Second, the Standong Committee has strengthened its recusal
procedures, a point you mention in your letter. From this point
forward, no SCFJ Member, including the Chair, will participate
in the evaluation or vote on the rating of a nominee ``in any
instance in which such member's impartiality might reasonably
be questioned.'' The Standing Committee's procedure already
provides for recusal if participation ``would give rise to the
appearance of impropreity or would otherwise be incompatible
with the purposes served and functions performed by the
Committee.'' The SCFJ will make other changes to strengthen the
recusal procedures and additionally make it clear that a
recused member will not have access to the Committee's report
or ``participate in any deliberation . . . concerning the
nominee.''
Third, existing procedures will also be revised to require
the appointment of a second investigator ``in every instance in
which a Committee Member has submitted an Informal Report which
recommends a `Not Qualified' rating. The second investigator
shall independently evaluate the professional qualifications of
the nominee and make his or her own recommended rating.''
(Emphasis added.) This assures that a nominee faced with a
``Not Qualified'' rating will receive of a second independent
evaluation and recommendation to the SCFJ.
Fourth, the Standing Committee will also make public its
procedures regarding any supplemental evaluation that occurs
when a nomination has been withdrawn or returned and
resubmitted by the President. That process will focus on new
information developed after a prior rating or any additional
information that the Chair of the SCFJ may deem appropriate to
ensure a thorough review of the nominee's professional
qualifications. And, during any such supplemental evaluation,
``the nominee will be given a full opportunity to rebut any
adverse information and the investigator will follow-up on any
information provided by the nominee.''
Fifth, with respect to adverse information, the Standing
Committee's practices will be clarified to provide that the
nominee and the Judiciary Committee be given as much context as
reasonably possible in order to provide the nominee the
greatest opportunity to rebut the information. At the same
time, the Committee will continue to honor its promises of
confidentiality to sources of information in order to ensure
candid and complete assessments of the professional
qualifications of nominees.
Sixth, as suggested by Mr. O'Neill in my communications
with him, the report by the SCFJ submitted to the Judiciary
Committee for public disclosure will not contain unattributed
quotations of adverse comments concerning the nominee. Instead,
the substance of such adverse comments will be summarized,
while providing as much specificity as possible. If requested
by the Judiciary Committee, as non-public version of the report
containing such quotations, but not including the identity of
the source or information that would compromise the
confidentiality promised to the interviewee, will be submitted
to the Judiciary Committee Members and cleared staff, but will
not be released publicly.
Seventh, if the SCFJ has had the customary 35 days to
conduct its evaluation, vote and submit its rating to the
Judiciary Committee and receives at least seven days' advance
notice of a scheduled hearing on a nominee, it will submit a
written statement explaining its ``Not Qualified'' rating 48
hours in advance of the scheduled hearing on a confidential
basis for dissemination only to the Judiciary Committee Members
and staff and the nominee, but not for disclosure to the public
or any other person.
Eight, the Standing Committee's evaluation begins when it
receives the nominee's response to the public portion of the
Judiciary Committee questionnaire (``PDQ'') from the Department
of Justice and the signed Waiver of Confidentiality. The
Standing Committee will use its best efforts to complete its
evaluation, vote and submit its rating to the Senate Judiciary
Committee within 35 days. The SCFJ Chair will notify the
Judiciary Committee if, for any reason, the evaluation is
expected to take appreciably longer.
I believe that these modifications to the Standing
Committee's policies and procedures are responsive to your
concerns, while preserving the Standing Committee's ability to
promise that it will respect a request for confidentiality by
judges, lawyers and other who provide important information
concerning a nominee only on such a condition. Without the
continued ability to make those commitments, the Standing
Committee will simply be unable to make a fully informed
assessment and evaluation of the professional qualifications of
a prospective member of the federal judiciary.
I am grateful for Mr. O'Neill's assistance in discussing
your concerns and formulating clarifications to the SCFJ's
policies, processes and practices to respond to those concerns.
Roberta Liebenberg and I are available to meet with you to
answer any questions or provide any further assistance.
Very truly yours,
Theodore B. Olson.
V. SUMMARY MATERIALS REGARDING NOMINATIONS
A. ARTICLE III JUDGES CONFIRMED
Supreme Court
John G. Roberts (Chief Justice of the United States)
Samuel A. Alito (Associate Justice)
Circuit Court
Janice R. Brown (DC Circuit)
Michael A. Chagares (3rd Circuit)
Neil M. Gorsuch (10th Circuit)
Richard A. Griffin (6th Circuit)
Thomas B. Griffith (DC Circuit)
Jerome A. Holmes (10th Circuit)
Sandra Segal Ikuta (9th Circuit)
Kent A. Jordan (3rd Circuit)
Brett M. Kavanaugh (DC Circuit)
David W. McKeague (6th Circuit)
Kimberly Ann Moore (Federal Circuit)
Susan Bieke Neilson (6th Circuit)
Priscilla Richman Owen (5th Circuit)
William H. Pryor (11th Circuit)
Bobby E. Shepherd (8th Circuit)
Milan D. Smith, Jr. (9th Circuit)
District Court
Michael Ryan Barrett (Southern District of Ohio)
Timothy C. Batten, Sr. (Northern District of Georgia)
Francisco Augusto Besosa (District of Puerto Rico)
Joseph Frank Bianco (Eastern District of New York)
Rene Marie Bumb (District of New Jersey)
Timothy Mark Burgess (District of Alaska)
Brian M. Cogan (Eastern District of New York)
Robert J. Conrad (Western District of North Carolina)
Sean F. Cox (Eastern District of Michigan)
Paul A. Crotty (Southern District of New York)
Aida M. Delgado-Colon (District of Puerto Rico)
James C. Dever, III (Eastern District of North Carolina)
Kristi DuBose (Southern District of Alabama)
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi (District of Puerto Rico)
Thomas M. Golden (Eastern District of Pennsylvania)
Andrew J. Builford (Central District of California)
Noel Lawrence Hillman (District of New Jersey)
Thomas E. Johnston (Southern District of West Virginia)
Daniel Porter Jordan, III (Southern District of Mississippi)
Virginia Mary Kendall (Northern District of Illinois)
Stephen G. Larson (Central District of California)
Thomas L. Ludington (Eastern District of Michigan)
Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr. (Eastern District of Tennessee)
Gray Hampton Miller (Southern District of Texas)
Brian Edward Sandoval (District of Nevada)
Patrick Joseph Schiltz (District of Minnesota)
J. Michael Seabright (District of Hawaii)
Peter G. Sheridan (District of New Jersey)
John Richard Smoak (Northern District of Florida)
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove (Eastern District of Kentucky)
Eric Nicholas Vitaliano (Eastern District of New York)
W. Keith Watkins (Middle District of Alabama)
Frank D. Whitney (Western District of North Carolina)
Susan Davis Wigenton (District of New Jersey)
Jack Zouhary (Northern District of Ohio)
Court of International Trade
Leo Maury Gordon
B. NOMINATIONS HEARINGS BY DATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date Chair Nominee Position
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 6, 2005...................... Specter................ Alberto Gonzales....... Attorney General
March 1, 2005........................ Specter................ William G. Myers, III.. Ninth Circuit
March 3, 2005........................ Graham................. Terrence W. Boyle...... Fourth Circuit
March 8, 2005........................ Specter................ Thomas B. Griffith..... District of Columbia
Circuit
April 27, 2005....................... Specter................ Paul Clement........... Solicitor General
May 12, 2005......................... Brownback.............. Rachel Brand........... Assistant Attorney
General
Alice S. Fisher........ Assistant Attorney
General
Regina B. Schofield.... Assistant Attorney
General
July 18, 2005........................ Specter................ Timothy E. Flanigan.... Deputy Attorney General
September 12-15, 2005................ Specter................ John G. Roberts........ Chief Justice of the
United States
September 29, 2006................... Hatch.................. Margaret M. Sweeney.... Court of Federal Claims
Thomas Craig Wheeler... Court of Federal Claims
John Richard Smoak..... Northern District of
Florida
Brian Edward Sandoval.. District of Nevada
Harry S. Mattice, Jr... Eastern District of
Tennessee
October 6, 2005...................... Cornyn................. Wan Kim................ Assistant Attorney
General
Steven G. Bradbury..... Assistant Attorney
General
Sue Ellen Wooldridge... Assistant Attorney
General
Thomas O. Barnett...... Assistant Attorney
General
October 18, 2005..................... Cornyn................. James F.X. O'Gara...... Deputy Director for
Supply Reduction
Julie Myers............ Assistant Secretary for
Immigration & Customs
Enforcement
Emilio Gonzalez........ Director of Bureau of
Citizenship and
Immigration Services
November 1, 2005..................... Schumer................ Eric Nicholas Vitaliano Eastern District of New
York
Gregory Van Tatenhove.. Eastern District of
Kentucky
Joseph Frank Bianco.... Eastern District of New
York
Timothy Mark Burgess... District of Alaska
November 8, 2005..................... Cornyn................. Carol E. Dinkins....... Chairman, Privacy and
Civil Liberties
Oversight Board
Alan Charles Raul...... Vice Chairman, Privacy
and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board
November 15, 2005.................... Sessions............... Virginia Mary Kendall.. Northern District of
Illinois
Kristi DuBose.......... Southern District of
Alabama
W. Keith Watkins....... Middle District of
Alabama
January 9-13, 2005................... Specter................ Samuel A. Alito........ Supreme Court Justice
February 2, 2006..................... Specter................ Paul J. McNulty........ Deputy Attorney General
February 7, 2006..................... Cornyn................. Timothy C. Batten, Sr.. Northern District of
Georgia
Thomas E. Johnston..... Southern District of
West Virginia
Leo Maury Gordon....... Court of International
Trade
Aida M. Delgado-Colon.. District of Puerto Rico
February 15, 2006.................... DeWine................. Stephen G. Larson...... Central District of
California
Jack Zouhary........... Northern District of
Ohio
John F. Clark.......... Director, United States
Marshal Service
March 1, 2006........................ Coburn................. N. Randy Smith......... Ninth Circuit
Patrick Joseph Schiltz. District of Minnesota
March 14, 2006....................... Sessions............... Michael A. Chagares.... Third Circuit
Gray Hampton Miller.... Southern District of
Texas
Jeffrey L. Sedgwick.... Director, Bureau of
Justice Statistics
Sharee M. Freeman...... Director, Community
Relations Service
March 29, 2006....................... Specter................ Brian M. Cogan......... Eastern District of New
York
Michael Ryan Barrett... Southern District of
Ohio
Thomas M. Golden....... Eastern District of
Pennsylvania
April 25, 2006....................... Hatch.................. Milan D. Smith, Jr..... Ninth Circuit
Renee Marie Bumb....... District of New Jersey
Noel Lawrence Hillman.. District of New Jersey
Peter G. Sheridan...... District of New Jersey
Susan Davis Wigenton... District of New Jersey
May 2, 2006.......................... Brownback.............. Sandra Segal Ikuta..... Ninth Circuit
Sean F. Cox............ Eastern District of
Michigan
Thomas L. Ludington.... Eastern District of
Michigan
Kenneth L. Wainstein... Assistant Attorney
General
May 9, 2006.......................... Specter................ Brett Kavanaugh........ Ninth Circuit
May 24, 2006......................... Graham................. Andrew J. Guilford..... Central District of
California
Frank D. Whitney....... Western District of
North Carolina
June 15, 2006........................ Coburn................. Jerome A. Holmes....... Tenth Circuit
Daniel P. Jordan, III.. Southern District of
Mississippi
Gustavo A. Gelpi....... District of Puerto Rico
June 21, 2006........................ Graham................. Neil M. Gorsuch........ Tenth Circuit
June 28, 2006........................ Hatch.................. Kimberly Ann Moore..... Federal Circuit
Bobby E. Shepherd...... Eight Circuit
July 11, 2006........................ Specter................ William J. Haynes, II.. Fourth Circuit
Frances Tydingco- District of Guam
Gatewood.
August 1, 2006....................... Cornyn................. Peter D. Keisler....... District of Columbia
Circuit
Valerie L. Baker....... Central District of
California
Francisco Besosa....... District of Puerto Rico
Philip S. Gutierrez.... Central District of
California
September 6, 2006.................... DeWine................. Kent A. Jordan......... Third Circuit
Marcia Morales Howard.. Middle District of
Florida
John Alfred Jarvey..... Southern District of
Iowa
Sara Elizabeth Lioi.... Northern District of
Ohio
September 12, 2006................... Coburn................. Nora Barry Fischer..... Western District of
Pennsylvania
Gregory K. Frizzell.... Northern District of
Oklahoma
Lawrence Joseph O'Neill Eastern District of
California
Lisa G. Wood........... Southern District of
Georgia
September 19, 2006................... Brownback.............. Robert James Jonker.... Western District of
Michigan
Paul Lewis Maloney..... Western District of
Michigan
Janet T. Neff.......... Western District of
Michigan
Leslie Southwick....... Southern District of
Mississippi
September 26, 2006................... Specter................ Michael B. Wallace..... Fifth Circuit
Vanessa L. Bryant...... District of Connecticut
November 14, 2006.................... Specter................ Thomas Hardiman........ Third Circuit
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. DAYS ON THE SENATE FLOOR
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Days
Nominee Office Nominated Confirmed on
floor
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alito, Samuel A.............................. Supreme Court Justice.......... 11/10/2005 1/31/2006 5
Barrett, Michael Ryan........................ Southern District of Ohio Judge 12/16/2005 5/1/2006 1
Batten, Sr., Timothy......................... Northern District of Georgia 9/28/2005 3/6/2006 1
Judge.
Besosa, Francisco Augusto.................... District of Puerto Rico Judge.. 5/16/2006 9/25/2006 1
Brown, Janice R.............................. D.C. Circuit Judge............. 2/14/2005 6/8/2006 3
Bumb, Renee Marie............................ District of New Jersey Judge... 1/25/2006 6/6/2006 1
Chagares, Michael A.......................... Third Circuit Judge............ 1/25/2006 5/4/2006 1
Cogan, Brian M............................... Eastern District of New York 1/25/2006 5/4/2006 1
Judge.
Conrad, Robert J............................. Eastern District of New York 2/14/2005 4/28/2005 1
Judge.
Cox, Sean F.................................. Eastern District of Michigan 2/14/2005 6/8/2006 1
Judge.
Crotty, Paul A............................... Southern District of New York 2/14/2005 4/11/2005 1
Judge.
DeGabrielle, Donald J., Jr................... Southern District of Texas U.S. 2/13/2006 3/13/2006 1
Attorney.
Delgado-Colon, Aida M........................ District of Puerto Rico Judge.. 10/25/2005 3/6/2006 1
Dever, III, James C.......................... Eastern District of North 2/14/2005 4/28/2005 1
Carolina Judge.
Dinkins, Carol E............................. Chairman Privacy and Civil 9/28/2005 2/17/2006 1
Liberties Oversight Board.
Fisher, Alice S.............................. Assistant Attorney General..... 4/4/2005 9/19/2005 1
Gelpi, Gustavo Antonio....................... District of Puerto Rico Judge.. 4/24/2006 7/20/2006 1
Golden, Thomas M............................. Eastern District of 1/25/2006 5/4/2006 1
Pennsylvania Judge.
Gonzales, Alberto............................ Attorney General............... 1/4/2005 2/3/2005 3
Gordon, Leo Maury............................ Court of International Trade... 11/10/2005 3/13/2006 1
Gorsuch, Neil M.............................. Tenth Circuit Judge............ 5/10/2006 7/20/2006 1
Griffith, Thomas B........................... D.C. Circuit Judge............. 2/14/2005 6/14/2005 2
Guilford, Andrew J........................... Central District of California 1/25/2006 6/22/2006 1
Judge.
Hillman, Noel Lawrence....................... District of New Jersey Judge... 1/25/2006 6/8/2006 1
Holmes, Jerome A............................. Tenth Circuit Judge............ 5/4/2006 7/25/2006 2
Ikuta, Sandra Segal.......................... Ninth Circuit Judge............ 2/8/2006 6/19/2006 1
Johnston, Thomas E........................... Southern District of West 9/28/2005 3/6/2006 1
Virginia.
Jordan, III, Daniel Porter................... Southern District of 4/24/2006 7/20/2006 1
Mississippi Judge.
Jordan, Kent A............................... Third Circuit Judge............ 6/28/2006 12/8/2006 1
Kavanaugh, Brett M........................... D.C. Circuit Judge............. 1/25/2006 5/26/2006 3
Kim, Wan J................................... Assistant Attorney General..... 6/16/2005 11/4/2005 1
Larson, Stephen G............................ Central District of California 12/15/2005 3/16/2006 1
Judge.
Ludington, Thomas L.......................... Eastern District of Michigan 2/14/2005 6/8/2006 1
Judge.
Mattice, Harry Sandlin, Jr................... Eastern District of Tennessee 7/28/2005 10/24/2005 1
Judge.
McKeague, David W............................ Sixth Circuit Judge............ 2/14/2005 6/9/2005 1
Miller, Gray Hampton......................... Southern District of Texas 1/25/2006 4/25/2006 1
Judge.
Moore, Kimberly Ann.......................... Federal Circuit Judge.......... 5/18/2006 9/5/2006 1
Neilson, Susan Bieke......................... Sixth Circuit Judge............ 2/14/2005 10/27/2005 1
Owen, Priscilla Richman...................... Fifth Circuit Judge............ 2/14/2005 5/25/2005 6
Pryor, William H., Jr........................ Eleventh Circuit Judge......... 2/14/2005 6/9/2006 2
Roberts, John G.............................. Chief Justice of the United 9/6/2006 9/29/2006 4
States.
Sandoval, Brian Edward....................... District of Nevada Judge....... 3/1/2005 10/24/2005 1
Schiltz, Patrick Joseph...................... District of Minnesota Judge.... 12/14/2005 4/26/2006 1
Seabright, Michael J......................... District of Hawaii Judge....... 2/14/2005 4/27/2005 1
Shappert, Gretchen........................... Western District of North 2/14/2005 6/8/2005 1
Carolina U.S. Attorney.
Shepherd, Bobby E............................ Eight Circuit Judge............ 5/18/2006 7/20/2006 1
Sheridan, Peter G............................ District of New Jersey Judge... 2/14/2005 6/8/2005 1
Smith, Milan D., Jr.......................... Ninth Circuit Judge............ 2/14/2006 5/16/2006 1
Smoak, John Richard.......................... Northern District of Florida 6/8/2005 10/27/2005 1
Judge.
Thapar, Annul R.............................. Eastern District of Kentucky 2/17/2006 3/13/2006 1
U.S. Attorney.
Wainstein, Kenneth L......................... Assistant Attorney General..... 3/13/2006 9/21/2006 1
Whitney, Frank D............................. Western District of North 2/14/2006 6/22/2006 1
Carolina Judge.
Zouhary, Jack................................ Northern District of Ohio Judge 12/14/2005 3/16/2006 1
Total.................................... ............................... ........... ........... 74
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. HISTORICAL VACANCY RATES 1977-PRESENT
VACANCIES 1977-PRESENT
------------------------------------------------------------------------
District
District Circuit and Circuit
Year * (percent) (percent) **
(percent)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1977............................. 6.3 10.3 7.1
1978............................. 3.8 2.1 3.4
1979............................. 23.1 28.8 24.2
1980............................. 6.2 4.5 5.9
1981............................. 7.9 6.8 7.7
1982............................. 3.9 5.3 4.2
1983............................. 4.9 2.8 4.4
1984............................. 3.1 1.4 2.7
1985............................. 13.0 13.1 13.1
1986............................. 7.0 6.5 6.9
1987............................. 7.5 7.7 7.5
1988............................. 4.9 6.0 5.1
1989............................. 6.3 7.1 6.5
1990............................. 5.9 6.0 5.9
1991............................. 17.3 13.4 16.4
1992............................. 12.9 9.5 12.2
1993............................. 16.5 11.2 15.3
1994............................. 9.2 10.1 9.4
1995............................. 7.1 6.1 6.9
1996............................. 6.8 10.1 7.5
1997............................. 10.7 13.4 11.3
1998............................. 8.5 9.5 8.7
1999............................. 5.9 13.4 7.5
2000............................. 6.6 12.8 7.9
2001............................. 11.3 17.9 12.7
2002............................. 7.7 15.1 9.2
2003............................. 4.1 10.1 5.4
2004............................. 2.2 7.3 3.3
2005............................. 5.3 6.7 5.6
2006............................. 4.7 8.4 5.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Vacancy rates for 1977-1992 are as of June 30th. Rates from 1993 to
present are as of September 30th.
** Does not include U.S. Supreme Court or U.S. Court of International
Trade.
E. HISTORICAL VACANCY RATES BY CONGRESS
101ST CONGRESS
Republican President (Bush)--Democrat Senate (Biden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 3, 1989 End of Congress October 28, 1990
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacanies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 1 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 168 10 6.0 168 22 7 4.2
District Court.............. 575 26 4.5 575 48 25 4.3
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 0 1 11.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 761 37 4.9 761 71 33 4.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
102ND CONGRESS
Republican President (Bush)--Democrat Senate (Biden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 3, 1991 End of Congress October 8, 1992
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 1 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 18 10.1 179 20 16 8.9
District Court *............ 649 107 16.5 649 100 79 12.2
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 1 2 22.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 846 126 14.9 846 122 97 11.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
103RD CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Democrat Senate (Biden)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 5, 1993 End of Congress December 1, 1994
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacany
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 2 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 17 9.5 179 19 15 8.4
District Court *............ 649 90 13.9 649 107 46 7.1
Court of International Trade 9 2 22.2 9 0 2 22.2
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 846 109 12.9 846 128 63 7.4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104TH CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Republican Senate (Hatch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 3, 1995 End of Congress October 3, 1996
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 0 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 16 8.9 179 11 18 10.1
District Court *............ 649 52 8.0 647 62 46 7.1
Court of International Trade 9 2 22.2 9 2 1 11.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 846 70 8.3 844 75 65 7.7
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
105TH CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Republican Senate (Hatch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 7, 1997 End of Congress October 21, 1998
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 0 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 22 12.3 179 20 14 7.8
District Court *............ 646 62 9.6 646 79 35 5.4
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 2 1 11.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 843 85 10.1 843 101 50 5.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
106TH CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Republican Senate (Hatch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 4, 1999 End of Congress December 15, 2000
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 0 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 17 9.5 179 15 25 14.0
District Court *............ 642 41 6.4 651 57 42 6.5
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 1 0 0.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 839 59 7.0 848 73 67 7.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
107TH CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Republican Senate (Leahy)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 3, 2001 End of Congress November 20, 2002
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 0 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 26 14.5 179 17 25 14.0
District Court*............. 661 58 8.8 661 83 34 5.1
Court of International Trade 9 0 0.0 9 0 1 11.1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 858 84 9.8 858 100 60 7.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
108TH CONGRESS
Democrat President (Clinton)--Republican Senate (Hatch)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 7, 2003 End of Congress December 9, 2004
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 0 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 25 14.0 179 18 13 7.3
District Court *............ 661 34 5.1 674 85 16 2.4
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 1 0 0.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 858 60 7.0 871 104 29 3.3
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
109TH CONGRESS
Republican President (Bush)--Republican Senate (Specter)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Start of Congress January 4, 2005 End of Congress December 9, 2006
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vacancy Vacancy
Judgeships Vacancies rate Judgeships Confirmed Vacancies rate
(percent) (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Supreme Court............... 9 0 0.0 9 2 0 0.0
Court of Appeals............ 179 15 8.4 179 16 15 8.4
District Court *............ 674 21 3.1 674 35 36 5.3
Court of International Trade 9 1 11.1 9 1 0 0.0
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................... 871 37 4.2 871 54 51 5.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
F. DISPOSITION OF ARTICLE III JUDGES
UNITED STATES COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
DISPOSITION OF ARTICLE III COURTS \1\, 101ST-109TH CONGRESS
[As of December 9, 2006]
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judges confirmed
Presidential term Congress Total --------------------------------------- Judges Returned Withdrawn Pending Total
confirmed District Circuit Other \2\ rejected unconfirmed
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
G.H.W. Bush................................................... 101 71 48 22 1 ........... 2 ........... ........... 2
102 122 100 20 2 ........... \3\ 54 1 ........... 55
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Total............................................ ........... 193 148 42 3 ........... 56 1 ........... 57
Clinton 1..................................................... 103 128 107 19 2 ........... 5 0 ........... 5
104 75 62 11 2 ........... 3 4 ........... 7
Sub-total................................................. ........... 203 169 30 4 ........... 8 4 ........... 12
Clinton 2..................................................... 105 101 79 20 2 ........... 8 5 ........... 13
106 73 57 15 1 1 \4\ 41 3 ........... 45
Sub-total................................................. ........... 174 136 35 3 1 49 8 ........... 58
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clinton Total......................................... ........... 377 305 65 7 1 57 12 ........... 70
G. W. Bush 1.................................................. 107 100 83 17 0 ........... ........... ........... ........... ...........
108 104 85 18 1 ........... 23 2 ........... 25
Sub-total................................................. ........... 204 168 35 1 ........... 23 2 ........... 25
G. W. Bush 2.................................................. 109 54 35 16 3 ........... 39 \5\ 5 ........... 44
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bush Total............................................ ........... 258 203 51 4 ........... 62 7 ........... 69
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes the U.S. Supreme Court, U.S. Circuit Courts, U.S. District Courts and U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT). Excludes territorial District Courts (Virgin Islands, Guam, Northern
Mariana Islands) and the Court of Federal Claims.
\2\ One Supreme Court Justice was confirmed in the 101st Congress, and another in the 102nd Congress. Two U.S. Supreme Court Justices were confirmed in the 103rd Congress. Two were confirmed
in the 109th. The remaining judges in this category are CIT judges.
\3\ Seventeen of these were later confirmed by the Senate (two in the 103rd Congress, one in the 104th Congress, two in the 105th Congress, eight in the 107th Congress, and four in the 108th
Congress).
\4\ Two of these nominees, Legrome Davis (ED-PA) and Roger Gregory (CCA-4) were later confirmed during the 107th Congress.
\5\ The nomination of John Roberts to be Associate Justice was withdrawn and he was renominated to be Chief Justice. The nomination of Harriet Miers to be Associate Justice is the second. The
remaining nominees in this category are Henry Saad (CCA-6), James Payne (CCA-10), and Daniel P. Ryan (E.D. MI).
G. RELEVANT DATES FOR 109TH CONGRESS NOMINEES
SUPREME COURT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported
Name State Status Office Title Nom date Prior nom Hearing out Confirmed Returned Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alito, Jr. Samuel A.......... NJ.............. Confirmed....... Supreme Court of US Supreme Court 11/10/2005 ........... 1/9/2006 1/24/2006 1/31/2006 ........... ...........
the United Justice. 10-8 58-42
States.
Miers, Harriet Ellan......... TX.............. Withdrawn....... Supreme Court of US Supreme Court 10/7/2005 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 10/28/2005
the United Justice.
States.
Roberts, Jr., John G......... MD.............. Confirmed....... Supreme Court of Chief Justice of 9/6/2005 ........... 9/12/2005 9/22/2005 9/29/2005 ........... ...........
the United the United 13-5 78-22
States. States.
Roberts, Jr., John G......... MD.............. Withdrawn....... Supreme Court of US Supreme Court 7/29/2005 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 9/6/2005
the United Justice.
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COURT OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported
Name State Status Office Title Nom date Prior nom Hearing out Confirmed Returned Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon, Leo Maury............ NJ.............. Confirmed....... US Court of US Court of 11/10/2005 ........... 2/7/2006 2/16/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
International International Voice Vote 82-0
Trade. Trade Judge.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CIRCUIT COURT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported
Name State Status Office Title Nom date Prior nom Hearing out Confirmed Returned Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Boyle, Terrence W............ NC.............. Returned........ Fourth Circuit.. US Circuit Court 11/15/2006 2/14/2005 3/3/2005 6/16/2005 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge. 10-8
9/5/2006 9/29/2006
8/3/2006
Brown, Janice R.............. CA.............. Confirmed....... District of US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 7/25/2003 10/22/2003 4/21/2005 6/8/2005 10/8/2004 ...........
Columbia. Judge. (108th) 10-8 56-43 (108th)
Chagares, Michael A.......... NJ.............. Confirmed....... Third Circuit... US Circuit Court 1/25/2006 ........... 3/14/2006 3/30/2006 4/4/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 98-0
Gorsuch, Neil M.............. CO.............. Confirmed....... Tenth Circuit... US Circuit Court 5/11/2006 ........... 6/21/2006 7/13/2006 7/20/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Griffin, Richard A........... MI.............. Confirmed....... Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 6/16/2004 5/26/2005 6/9/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Judge. (108th) Voice Vote 95-0 (108th)
Griffith, Thomas B........... UT.............. Confirmed....... District of US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 5/10/2004 10/16/2004 4/14/2005 6/14/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Columbia. Judge. 14-4 73-24 (108th)
3/8/2005
Hardiman, Thomas M........... PA.............. Returned........ Third Circuit... US Circuit Court 9/13/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
Haynes, II, William James.... VA.............. Returned........ Fourth Circuit.. US Circuit Court 11/15/2006 2/14/2005 7/11/2006 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
9/5/2006 11/19/2003 9/29/2006
8/3/2006
Holmes, Jerome A............. OK.............. Confirmed....... Tenth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2006 ........... 6/15/2006 7/13/2006 7/25/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 67-30
Ikuta, Sandra Segal.......... CA.............. Confirmed....... Ninth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/8/2006 ........... 5/2/2006 5/25/2006 6/19/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 81-0
Jordan, Kent A............... DE.............. Confirmed....... Third Circuit... US Circuit Court 6/29/2006 ........... 9/6/2006 9/26/2006 12/8/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. 91-0
Kavanaugh, Brett M........... MD.............. Confirmed....... District of US Circuit Court 1/25/2006 2/14/2005 5/9/2006 5/11/2006 5/26/2006 12/21/2005 ...........
Columbia Judge. 10-8 57-36
Circuit.
7/25/2003 4/27/2004 12/8/2004 ...........
Keisler, Peter D............. MD.............. Returned........ District of US Circuit Court 11/15/2006 ........... 8/1/2006 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Columbia Judge.
Circuit.
6/29/2006 9/29/2006 ...........
Kethledge, Raymond M......... MI.............. Returned........ Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 6/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
Livingston, Debra Ann........ NY.............. Returned........ Second Circuit.. US Circuit Court 6/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
McKeague, David W............ MI.............. Confirmed....... Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 6/16/2004 5/26/2005 6/9/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 96-0 (108th)
Moore, Kimberly Ann.......... VA.............. Confirmed....... Federal Circuit. US Circuit Court 5/18/2006 ........... 6/28/2006 7/27/2006 9/5/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 92-0
Murphy, III, Stephen Joseph.. MI.............. Returned........ Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 6/26/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
Myers, III, William Gerry.... ID.............. Returned........ Ninth Circuit... US Circuit Court 9/5/2006 2/14/2005 3/1/2005 3/17/2005 ........... 9/29/2006 ...........
Judge. 10-8
2/5/2004 4/1/2004 8/3/2006
12/8/2004
Neilson, Susan Bieke......... MI.............. Confirmed....... Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 9/8/2004 10/20/2005 10/27/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Judge. 18-0 97-0 (108th)
Owen, Priscilla Richman...... TX.............. Confirmed....... Fifth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 3/13/2003 4/21/2005 5/25/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Judge. 10-8 55-43 (108th)
Payne, James Hardy........... OK.............. Withdrawn....... Tenth Circuit... US Circuit Court 9/29/2005 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 3/8/2006
Judge.
Pryor, William H............. AL.............. Confirmed....... Eleventh Circuit US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 3/12/2004 6/11/2003 5/12/2005 6/9/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Judge. (108th) 10-8 53-45 (108th)
Saad, Henry W................ MI.............. Withdrawn....... Sixth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 ........... ........... ........... ........... 3/29/2006
Judge.
Shepherd, Bobby E............ AR.............. Confirmed....... Eighth Circuit.. US Circuit Court 5/18/2006 ........... 6/28/2006 7/13/2006 7/20/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Smith, Milan D............... CA.............. Confirmed....... Ninth Circuit... US Circuit Court 2/14/2006 ........... 4/25/2006 5/4/2006 5/16/2006 ........... ...........
Judge. Voice Vote 94-0
Smith, Norman Randy.......... ID.............. Returned........ Ninth Circuit... US Circuit Court 11/15/2006 1/3/2006 3/1/2006 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
9/5/2006 9/21/2006 9/29/2006
10-8
4/4/2006 8/3/2006
Voice Vote
Wallace, Michael B........... MS.............. Returned........ Fifth Circuit... US Circuit Court 11/15/2006 2/8/2006 9/26/2006 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Judge.
9/5/2006 9/29/2006
8/3/2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISTRICT COURT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported
Name State Status Office Title Nom date Prior nom Hearing out Confirmed Returned Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bailey, John Preston......... WV.............. Returned........ Northern US District 6/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge.
West Virginia.
Baker, Valerie K............. CA.............. Floor........... Central District US District 5/4/2006 ........... 8/1/2006 9/21/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of California. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Barrett, Michael Ryan........ OH.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 12/16/2005 ........... 3/29/2006 4/27/2006 5/1/2006 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 90-0
Ohio.
Batten, Sr., Timothy C....... GA.............. Confirmed....... Northern US District 9/28/2005 ........... 2/7/2006 2/16/2006 3/6/2006 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 88-0
Georgia.
Besosa, Francisco Augusto.... PR.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 5/16/2006 ........... 8/1/2006 9/21/2006 9/25/2006 ........... ...........
Puerto Rico. Court Judge. Voice Vote 87-0
Bianco, Joseph Frank......... NY.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 7/28/2005 ........... 11/1/2005 11/17/2006 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
of New York. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Bryant, Vanessa Lynne........ CT.............. Returned........ District of US District 1/25/2006 ........... 9/26/2006 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Connecticut. Court Judge.
Bumb, Renee Marie............ NJ.............. Confirmed....... District of New US District 1/25/2006 ........... 4/25/2006 5/4/2006 6/6/2006 ........... ...........
Jersey. Court Judge. Voice Vote 89-0
Burgess, Timothy Mark........ AK.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 7/28/2005 ........... 11/1/2005 11/17/200 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
Alaska. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Cogan, Brian M............... NY.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 1/25/2006 ........... 3/29/2006 4/27/2006 5/4/2006 ........... ...........
of New York. Court Judge. Voice Vote 95-0
Conrad, Robert J............. NC.............. Confirmed....... Western District US District 2/14/2005 4/28/2003 3/3/2005 4/14/2005 4/28/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
of North Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote (108th)
Carolina.
Cox, Sean F.................. MI.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 2/14/2005 9/10/2004 5/2/2006 5/11/2006 6/6/2006 12/8/2004 ...........
of Michigan. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote (108th)
Crotty, Paul A............... NY.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 2/14/2005 9/7/2004 11/16/2004 3/17/2005 4/11/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
District of New Court Judge. Voice Vote 95-0 (108th)
York.
Delgado-Colon, Aida M........ PR.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 10/26/2005 ........... 2/7/2006 2/16/2006 3/6/2006 ........... ...........
Puerto Rico. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Dever, III, James C.......... NC.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 3/3/2005 4/14/2005 4/28/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
of North Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote (108th)
Carolina.
Donohue, Mary O.............. NY.............. Returned........ Northern US District 6/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of New Court Judge.
York.
DuBose, Kristi............... AL.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 9/28/2005 ........... 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Alabama.
Fischer, Nora Barry.......... PA.............. Floor........... Western District US District 7/14/2006 ........... 9/12/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Pennsylvania. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Frizzell, Gregory Kent....... OK.............. Floor........... Northern US District 6/7/2006 ........... 9/12/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote
Oklahoma.
Gelpi, Gustavo Antonio....... PR.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 4/25/2006 ........... 6/15/2006 7/13/2006 7/20/2006 ........... ...........
Puerto Rico. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Golden, Thomas M............. PA.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 1/25/2006 ........... 3/29/2006 4/27/2006 5/4/2006 ........... ...........
of Pennsylvania. Court Judge. Voice Vote 96-0
Guilford, Andrew J........... CA.............. Confirmed....... Central District US District 1/25/2006 ........... 5/24/2006 6/8/2006 6/22/2006 ........... ...........
of California. Court Judge. Voice Vote 93-0
Gutierrez, Philip S.......... CA.............. Floor........... Central District US District 4/24/2006 ........... 8/1/2006 9/21/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of California. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Hillman, Noel Lawrence....... NJ.............. Confirmed....... District of New US District 1/25/2006 ........... 4/25/2006 5/4/2006 6/8/2006 ........... ...........
Jersey. Court Judge. Voice Vote 98-0
Holmes, Jerome A............. OK.............. Withdrawn....... Northern US District 2/14/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... 5/4/2006
District of Court Judge.
Oklahoma.
Howard, Marcia Morales....... FL.............. Floor........... Middle District US District 6/6/2006 ........... 9/6/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Florida. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Jarvey, John Alfred.......... IA.............. Floor........... Southern US District 6/29/2006 ........... 9/6/2006 9/26/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote
Iowa.
Johnston, Thomas E........... WV.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 9/28/2005 ........... 2/7/2006 2/16/2006 3/6/2006 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 89-0
West Virginia.
Jonker, Robert James......... MI.............. Floor........... Western District US District 6/29/2006 ........... 9/19/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Michigan. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Jordan, III, Daniel Porter... MS.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 4/24/2006 ........... 6/15/2006 7/13/2006 7/20/2006 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Mississippi.
Kendall, Virginia Mary....... IL.............. Confirmed....... Northern US District 9/28/2005 ........... 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Illinois.
Larson, Stephen G............ CA.............. Confirmed....... Central District US District 12/15/2005 ........... 2/15/2006 3/2/2006 3/16/2006 ........... ...........
of California. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Lioi, Sara Elizabeth......... OH.............. Floor........... District of Ohio US District 7/14/2006 ........... 9/6/2006 9/26/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Court Judge. Voice Vote
Ludington, Thomas L.......... MI.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 2/14/2005 1/7/2003 5/2/2006 5/11/2006 6/8/2006 12/8/2004 ...........
of Michigan. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote (108th)
Maloney, Paul Lewis.......... MI.............. Floor........... Western District US District 6/29/2006 ........... 9/19/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Michigan. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Mattice, Jr., Harry Sandlin.. TN.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 7/28/2005 ........... 9/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/24/2005 ........... ...........
of Tennessee. Court Judge. Voice Vote 91-0
Mauskopf, Roslynn Renee...... NY.............. Returned........ Eastern District US District 8/2/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of New York. Court Judge.
Miller, Gray Hampton......... TX.............. Confirmed....... Southern US District 1/25/2006 ........... 3/14/2006 3/30/2006 4/25/2006 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 93-0
Texas.
Neff, Janet T................ MI.............. Floor........... Western District US District 6/29/2006 ........... 9/19/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Michigan. Court Judge. Voice Vote
O'Grady...................... VA.............. Returned........ Eastern District US District 8/2/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Virginia. Court Judge.
O'Neill, Lawrence Joseph..... CA.............. Floor........... Eastern District US District 8/2/2006 ........... 9/12/2006 9/21/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of California. Court Judge. Voice Vote
Osteen, Jr., William Lindsay. NC.............. Returned........ Middle District US District 9/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of North Court Judge.
Carolina.
Ozerden, Halil Suleyman...... MS.............. Returned........ Southern US District 9/5/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge.
Mississippi.
Reidinger, Martin Karl....... NC.............. Returned........ Western District US District 9/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of North Court Judge.
Carolina.
Ryan, Daniel P............... MI.............. Withdrawn....... Eastern District US District 2/14/2005 4/28/2003 ........... ........... ........... ........... 3/31/2006
of Michigan. Court Judge.
Sandoval, Brian Edward....... NV.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 3/1/2005 ........... 9/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/24/2005 ........... ...........
Nevada. Court Judge. Voice Vote 89-0
Schiltz, Patrick Joseph...... MN.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 12/14/2005 ........... 3/1/2006 3/30/2006 4/26/2006 ........... ...........
Minnesota. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Schroeder, Thomas D.......... NC.............. Returned........ Middle District US District 9/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of North Court Judge.
Carolina.
Seabright, J. Michael........ HI.............. Confirmed....... District of US District 2/14/2005 9/15/2004 11/16/2004 3/17/2005 4/27/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Hawaii. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote (108th)
Sheridan, Peter G............ NJ.............. Confirmed....... District of New US District 2/14/2005 11/5/2003 4/25/2006 5/4/2006 6/8/2006 12/8/2004 ...........
Jersey. Court Judge. Voice Vote 98-0 (108th)
Smoak, John Richard.......... FL.............. Confirmed....... Northern US District 6/8/2005 ........... 9/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/27/2005 ........... ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 97-0
Florida.
Southwick, Leslie............ MS.............. Floor........... Southern US District 6/6/2006 ........... 9/19/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote
Mississippi.
VanTatenhove, Gregory F...... KY.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 9/13/2005 ........... 11/1/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
of Kentucky. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Vitaliano, Eric Nicholas..... NY.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US District 10/7/2005 ........... 11/1/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
of New York. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Watkins, W. Keith............ AL.............. Confirmed....... Middle District US District 9/28/2005 ........... 11/15/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
of Alabama. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Whitney, Frank D............. NC.............. Confirmed....... Western District US District 2/14/2006 ........... 5/24/2006 6/15/2006 6/22/2006 ........... ...........
of North Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Carolina.
Wigenton, Susan Davis........ NJ.............. Confirmed....... District of New US District 1/25/2006 ........... 4/25/2006 5/4/2006 5/26/2006 ........... ...........
Jersey. Court Judge. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Wood, Lisa Godbey............ GA.............. Floor........... Southern US District 6/12/2006 ........... 9/12/2006 9/29/2006 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote
Georgia.
Wright, II, Otis D........... CA.............. Returned........ Central District US District 9/5/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of California. Court Judge.
Wu, George H................. CA.............. Returned........ Central District US District 9/5/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of California. Court Judge.
Zouhary, Jack................ OH.............. Confirmed....... Northern US District 12/14/2005 ........... 2/15/2006 3/2/2006 3/16/2006
District of Court Judge. Voice Vote 96-0
Ohio.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EXECUTIVE NOMINATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reported
Name State Status Office Title Nom date Prior nom Hearing out Confirmed Returned Withdrawn
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Acosta, R. Alexander......... FL.............. Confirmed....... Southern US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA 7/27/2006 8/3/2006 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote
Florida.
Aguigui, Earl C.............. GU.............. Returned........ District of US Marshal...... 2/14/2005 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Northern
Mariana Islands
and Guam.
Anderson, Thomas D........... VT.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 5/11/2006 ........... NA 6/15/2006 6/22/2006 ........... ...........
Vermont. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Barnett, Thomas O............ VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 9/6/2005 ........... 10/6/2005 11/3/2005 2/10/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
General.
Bradbury, Steven G........... MD.............. Returned........ Department of Assistant 11/14/2006 6/23/2005 10/6/2005 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Justice. Attorney
General.
1/25/2006 7/27/2006 9/29/2006 ...........
Voice Vote
11/3/2005 12/22/2005 ...........
Voice Vote
Brand, Rachel................ IA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 4/4/2005 ........... 5/12/2006 6/16/2005 7/28/2005 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
General.
Clark, John F................ VA.............. Confirmed....... United States Director, US 3/31/2006 ........... 2/15/2006 3/16/2006 3/16/2006 ........... ...........
Marshal Service. Marshal Service. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Clement, Paul D.............. VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Solicitor 3/14/2005 ........... 4/27/2005 5/26/2005 6/8/2005 ........... ...........
Justice. General. Voice Vote Voice Vote
DeGabrielle, Jr., Donald J... TX.............. Confirmed....... Southern US Attorney..... 2/13/2006 ........... NA 3/9/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote Voice Vote
Texas.
Dinkins, Carol E............. TX.............. Confirmed....... Executive Office Chairman, 9/28/2005 ........... 11/8/2005 2/16/2006 2/17/2006 ........... ...........
of the Privacy and Voice Vote Voice Vote
President. Civil Liberties
Oversight Board.
Eid, Troy A.................. CO.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA 8/3/2006 8/3/2006 ........... ...........
Colorado. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Fisher, Alice S.............. VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 9/20/2006 4/4/2006 5/12/2005 6/16/2005 9/19/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote 61-35
General.
Flanigan, Timothy Elliott.... VA.............. Withdrawn....... Department of Deputy Attorney 6/20/2005 ........... 7/18/2005 ........... ........... ........... 10/7/2005
Justice. General.
Flynn, Terrance P............ NY.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Attorney..... 12/16/2005 ........... NA 3/2/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
of New York. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Freeman, Sharee M............ VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Director, 12/20/2005 ........... 3/14/2006 3/30/2006 3/31/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Community Voice Vote Voice Vote
Relations
Service.
Friedrich, Dabney Langhorne.. VA.............. Returned........ United States Commissioner.... 8/2/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Sentencing
Commission.
Garcia, Michael J............ NY.............. Confirmed....... Southern US Attorney..... 6/30/2005 ........... NA 7/28/2005 7/30/2005 ........... ...........
District of New Voice Vote Voice Vote
York.
Gonzales, Alberto............ TX.............. Confirmed....... Department of Attorney General 1/4/2005 11/16/2004 1/6/2005 1/26/2005 2/3/2005 12/8/2004 ...........
Justice. 10-8 60-36
Gonzalez, Emilio T........... FL.............. Confirmed....... Department of Director, Bureau 9/6/2006 ........... 10/18/2005 11/17/2005 12/21/2005 ........... ...........
Homeland of Citizenship Voice Vote Voice Vote
Security. and Immigration
Services.
Green, Phillip J............. IL.............. Returned........ Southern US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
District of
Illinois.
Hackman, John Roberts........ VA.............. Returned........ Eastern District US Marshal...... 9/29/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
of Virginia.
Hanaway, Catherine Lucille... MO.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 4/29/2005 ........... NA 11/17/2005 12/17/2005 ........... ...........
of Missouri. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Heaton, Rodger A............. IL.............. Confirmed....... Central District US Attorney..... 7/28/2006 ........... NA 9/21/2006 9/29/2006 ........... ...........
of Illinois. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Holding, George E.B.......... NC.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA 9/7/2006 9/13/2006 ........... ...........
of North Voice Vote Voice Vote
Carolina.
Jackley, Martin J............ SD.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 5/18/2006 ........... NA 7/13/2006 7/21/2006 ........... ...........
South Dakota. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Jenkins, Anthony Jerome...... VI.............. Confirmed....... District of the US Attorney..... 2/17/2005 ........... NA 5/26/2005 6/8/2005 ........... ...........
Virgin Islands. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Junker, Timothy Anthony...... IA.............. Confirmed....... Northern US Marshal...... 2/27/2006 ........... NA 4/27/2006 5/12/2006 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote Voice Vote
Iowa.
Kim, Wan J................... MD.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 6/16/2005 ........... 10/6/2005 11/3/2005 11/4/2005 ........... ...........
Justice, Civil Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
Rights Division. General.
King, Stephen S.............. NY.............. Confirmed....... Department of Member, Foreign 11/10/2005 ........... NA 2/16/2006 2/17/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Claims Voice Vote Voice Vote
Settlement
Commission.
Kustoff, David F............. TN.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Attorney..... 2/17/2006 ........... NA 3/16/2006 3/16/2006 ........... ...........
of Tennessee. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Letten, James B.............. LA.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 5/13/2005 ........... NA 6/30/2005 7/1/2005 ........... ...........
of Louisiana. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Lloyd, Reginald I............ SC.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 12/16/2005 ........... NA 2/16/2006 2/17/2006 ........... ...........
South Carolina. Voice Vote Voice Vote
McNulty, Paul J.............. VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Deputy Attorney 11/9/2005 ........... 2/2/2006 2/16/2006 3/16/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. General. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Mercer, William W............ MT.............. Returned........ Department of Associate 9/5/2006 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Justice. Attorney
General.
Murphy, III, Stephen Joseph.. MI.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 2/17/2005 ........... NA 5/26/2005 6/8/2005 ........... ...........
of Michigan. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Myers, Julie L............... KS.............. Floor........... Department of Secretary of 2/10/2006 ........... 10/18/2005 11/7/2005 ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Homeland Homeland 10/7/2005 Voice Vote
Security. Security.
O'Gara, James F.X............ PA.............. Returned........ Office of Deputy Director 9/5/2006 7/28/2006 10/18/2005 ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
National Drug for Supply
Control Policy. Reduction.
8/3/2006 ...........
Orton, Gary D................ NV.............. Confirmed....... District of US Marshal...... 3/31/2006 ........... NA 5/25/2006 5/26/2006 ........... ...........
Nevada. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Paulose, Rachel K............ MN.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 8/2/2006 ........... NA 12/9/2006 12/9/2006 ........... ...........
Minnesota. Discharged Voice Vote
by UC
Peterson, Erik C............. WI.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Attorney..... 4/24/2006 ........... NA 5/25/2006 5/26/2006 ........... ...........
of Wisconsin. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Potter, Sharon Lynn.......... WV.............. Confirmed....... Northern US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA 9/29/2006 9/29/2006 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote Voice Vote
West Virginia.
Raul, Charles Alan........... DC.............. Confirmed....... Executive Office Vice Chairman, 9/28/2005 ........... 11/8/2005 2/16/2006 2/17/2006 ........... ...........
of the Privacy and Voice Vote Voice Vote
President. Civil Liberties
Oversight Board.
Rhodes, Deborah Jean Johnson. AL.............. Confirmed....... Southern US Attorney..... 7/28/2006 ........... NA 9/29/2006 9/29/2006 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote Voice Vote
Alabama.
Richter, John Charles........ OK.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Attorney..... 2/17/2006 ........... NA 3/9/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
of Oklahoma. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Rivkin, David B.............. VA.............. Returned........ Foreign Claims Member.......... 1/24/2005 ........... ........... ........... ........... 12/9/2006 ...........
Settlement
Commission.
Rosenberg, Charles P......... VA.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 5/4/2006 ........... NA 6/8/2006 6/13/2006 ........... ...........
of Virginia. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Rosenstein, Rod J............ MD.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 5/24/2005 ........... NA 6/30/2005 7/1/2005 ........... ...........
Maryland. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Schofield, Regina B.......... VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 4/4/2005 ........... 5/12/2005 5/26/2005 6/8/2005 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
General.
Sedgwick, Jeffrey L.......... MA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Director, Bureau 1/31/2006 ........... 3/14/2006 3/30/2006 3/31/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. of Justice Voice Vote Voice Vote
Statistics.
Shappert, Gretchen C.F....... NC.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Attorney..... 2/14/2005 ........... NA 5/26/2005 6/8/2005 ........... ...........
of North Voice Vote Voice Vote
Carolina.
Smith, Sr., Patrick Carroll.. NC.............. Confirmed....... Western District US Marshal...... 2/27/2006 ........... NA 4/27/2006 5/12/2006 ........... ...........
of North Voice Vote Voice Vote
Carolina.
Swaim, Peter Manson.......... IN.............. Confirmed....... Southern US Marshal...... 6/23/2005 ........... NA 7/28/2005 7/29/2005 ........... ...........
District of Voice Vote
Indiana.
Sweeney, Margaret Mary....... VA.............. Confirmed....... US Court of US Court of 6/14/2005 ........... 9/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/21/2005 ........... ...........
Federal Claims. Federal Claims Voice Vote Voice Vote
Judge.
Tamargo, Mauricio J.......... FL.............. Confirmed....... Department of Chairman, 2/6/2006 ........... NA 3/9/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Foreign Claims Voice Vote Voice Vote
Settlement
Commission.
Thapar, Annul R.............. KY.............. Confirmed....... Eastern District US Attorney..... 2/17/2006 ........... NA 3/9/2006 3/13/2006 ........... ...........
of Kentucky. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Tolman, Brett L.............. UT.............. Confirmed....... District of Utah US Attorney..... 6/9/2006 ........... NA 7/13/2006 7/21/2006 ........... ...........
Voice Vote Voice Vote
Tydingco-Gatewood, Frances Guam............ Confirmed....... District of Guam Judge for 4/25/2006 ........... 7/11/2006 8/3/2006 8/3/2006 ........... ...........
Marie. District Court Voice Vote Voice Vote
of Guam.
Wainstein, Kenneth L......... VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 3/13/2006 ........... 5/2/2006 6/15/2006 9/21/2006 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
General.
Wainstein, Kenneth L......... VA.............. Confirmed....... District of US Attorney..... 6/8/2005 ........... NA 9/8/2005 10/7/2005 ........... ...........
Columbia. Voice Vote Voice Vote
Wheeler, Thomas Craig........ MD.............. Confirmed....... US Court of US Court of 6/14/2005 ........... 9/29/2005 10/20/2005 10/21/2005 ........... ...........
Federal Claims. Federal Claims Voice Vote Voice Vote
Judge.
Wooldridge, Sue Ellen........ VA.............. Confirmed....... Department of Assistant 6/20/2005 ........... 10/6/2005 11/3/2005 11/10/2005 ........... ...........
Justice. Attorney Voice Vote Voice Vote
General.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
VI. SUMMARY MATERIALS REGARDING COMMITTEE ACTIVITIES
A. STATISTICAL OVERVIEW
Referred to Committee:
Bills referred to Committee (S. and H.R.)..................... 420
Resolutions referred to Committee............................. 182
Joint Resolutions......................................... 19
Concurrent Resolutions.................................... 46
Resolutions............................................... 117
Nominations referred to Committee............................. 177
Hearing Tally:
Total number of Judiciary Committee Hearings.................. 164
Full Committee Hearings (Includes 5 field hearings)........... 116
Subcommittee Hearings......................................... 48
Hearing Breakdown by Subcommittee:
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights................ 10
Administrative Oversight and the Courts....................... 5
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights............. 4
Crime and Drugs............................................... 2
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.................. 9
Intellectual Property......................................... 4
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security................... 6
Corrections and Rehabilitation................................ 1
Joint Hearings: Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
joined with Terrorism Technology and Homeland Security...... 3
Markup Tally:
Full Committee Executive Business Meetings: No Quorum reached
at 15....................................................... 62
Subcommittee Executive Business Meetings...................... 2
Reported out of Committee:
Bills reported by Committee................................... 43
Nominations reported by Committee............................. 124
Floor Action:
Days on Floor: \1\ Legislation and Nominations under Committee
Jurisdiction................................................ 107
Days in Session............................................... 296
Percentage.................................................... 36.1
Legislation Receiving Floor Consideration..................... 19
Days of Legislation on Floor.................................. 65
Nominations Receiving Floor Consideration..................... 44
Days of Nominations on Floor.................................. 51
Nominations Confirmed......................................... 104
Bills Signed into Law \2\..................................... 22
Bills Passed by Congress Pending President's Signature........ 7
Bills Passed by Senate \3\.................................... 47
Resolutions Passed by Senate.................................. 71
\1\ This number reflects the days in which Senators made substantial
statements, formally debated, or voted on a pending issue under the
jurisdiction of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
\2\ This number reflects laws passed that formally went through the
Senate Judiciary Committee and laws passed that included language
adopted from legislation handled by the Senate Judiciary Committee.
\3\ This number reflects passage of legislation handled by the Senate
Judiciary Committee, including larger omnibus legislation that
incorporates Judiciary Committee language. In a few instances
legislation passed independently, and then passed a second time as part
of a larger legislative package this count includes each time
legislation was passed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. HEARINGS OF THE 109TH CONGRESS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
January 2005:
Executive Nomination--Full Committee................ 1/6/2005
The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution Act--Full 1/11/2005
Committee..........................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 1/26/2005
February 2005:
Asbestos: Mixed Dust and FELA Issues--Full Committee 2/2/2005
Bankruptcy Reform--Full Committee................... 2/10/2005
March 2005:
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 3/1/2005
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 3/8/2005
Terrorism and the EMP Threat to Homeland Security-- 3/8/2005
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security........
Strengthening Enforcement and Border Security: The 9/ 3/14/2005
11 Commission Staff Report on Terrorist Travel--
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.......
SBC/ATT and Verizon/MCI Mergers--Remaking the 3/15/2005
Telecommunications Industry--Full Committee........
Openness in Government and Freedom of Information: 3/15/2005
Examining the OPEN Government Act of 2005--
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security........
Obscenity Prosecution and the Constitution-- 3/16/2005
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.....
April 2005:
Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act--Full Committee.... 4/5/2005
Securing Electronic Personal Data: Striking a 4/13/2005
Balance Between Privacy and Commercial and
Governmental Use--Full Committee...................
Less Faith in Judicial Credit: Are Federal and State 4/13/2005
Marriage Protection Initiatives Vulnerable to
Judicial Activism?--Constitution, Civil Rights and
Property Rights....................................
Strengthening Interior Enforcement: Deportation and 4/14/2005
Related Issues--Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship........................................
SBC/ATT and Verizon/MCI Mergers: Remaking the 4/19/2005
Telecommunications Industry, Part II--Another View--
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights..
A Review of the Material Support to Terrorism 4/20/2005
Prohibition--Terrorism, Technology and Homeland
Security...........................................
Perspectives on Patents--Intellectual Property...... 4/25/2005
A Fair and Efficient System to Resolve Claims of 4/26/2005
Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos, and
for Other Purposes--Full Committee.................
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 4/27/2005
Strengthening Border Security Between Ports of 4/28/2005
Entry: The Use of Technology to Protect the Borders
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship --
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security........
May 2005:
Continued Oversight of the USA PATRIOT Act--Full 5/10/2005
Committee..........................................
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 5/12/2005
The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: 5/17/2005
Strengthening Our National Security--Immigration,
Border Security and Citizenship....................
Protecting the Judiciary at Home and in the 5/18/2005
Courthouse--Full Committee.........................
The National Consensus to Protect Marriage: Why a 5/19/2005
Constitutional Amendment is Needed--Constitution,
Civil Rights and Property Rights...................
Piracy of Intellectual Property--Intellectual 5/25/2005
Property...........................................
The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform 5/26/2005
Serving Our National Economy--Immigration, Border
Security and Citizenship...........................
June 2005:
The Southern Border Crisis: Resources and Strategies 6/7/2005
to Improve National Security Immigration, Border
Security and Citizenship--Terrorism, Technology and
Homeland Security..................................
Prevention of Youth and Gang Violence--Full 6/13/2005
Committee..........................................
Patent Law Reform: Injunctions and Damages-- 6/14/2005
Intellectual Property..............................
Detainees--Full Committee........................... 6/15/2005
The Consequences of Roe v. Wade and Doe v. Bolton-- 6/23/2005
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.....
The Need for Comprehensive Immigration Reform: 6/30/2005
Securing the Cooperation of Participating
Countries--Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship........................................
July 2005:
Music Licensing Reform--Intellectual Property....... 7/12/2005
Habeas Corpus Proceedings and Issues of Actual 7/13/2005
Innocence--Full Committee..........................
Reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act-- 7/19/2005
Full Committee.....................................
A Review of Federal Consent Decrees--Administrative 7/19/2005
Oversight and the Courts...........................
Reporters' Shield Legislation: Issues and 7/20/2005
Implications--Full Committee.......................
Perspectives on Patents: Harmonization and Other 7/26/2005
Matters--Full Committee............................
Comprehensive Immigration Reform--Full Committee.... 7/26/2005
Executive Nomination--Full Committee................ 7/26/2005
FBI Oversight--Full Committee....................... 7/27/2005
September 2005:
Nomination of John G. Roberts--Full Committee....... 9/12/2005
The Kelo Decision: Investigation Takings of Homes 9/20/2005
and other Private Property--Full Committee.........
Able Danger and Intelligence Information Sharing-- 9/21/2005
Full Committee.....................................
Protecting Copy Right and Innovation in Post- 9/28/2005
Grokster World--Full Committee.....................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 9/29/2005
October 2005:
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 10/6/2005
Comprehensive Immigration Reform II--Full Committee. 10/18/2005
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 10/18/2005
Video Competition in 2005--More Consolidation, or 10/19/2005
New Choices for Consumer?--Antitrust, Competition
Policy and Consumer Rights.........................
Reporters' Privilege Legislation: An Additional 10/19/2005
Investigation of Issues and Implications--Full
Committee..........................................
An Examination of the Constitutional Amendment on 10/20/2005
Marriage--Full Committee...........................
Revisiting Proposals to Split the Ninth Circuit: An 10/26/2005
Inevitable Solution to a Growing Problem--
Administrative Oversight and the Courts............
Terrorism: Emergency Preparedness--Terrorism, 10/26/2005
Technology and Homeland Security...................
November 2005:
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 11/1/2005
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 11/8/2005
Saudi Arabia: Friend or Foe in the War on Terror?-- 11/8/2005
Full Committee.....................................
Executive Nominations--Full Committee............... 11/8/2005
Cameras in the Courtroom--Full Committee............ 11/9/2005
Why the Government Should Care about Pornography-- 11/10/2005
Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights.....
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 11/15/2005
Habeas Reform: The Stream Line Procedures Act--Full 11/16/2005
Committee..........................................
Creating New Federal Judgeships: The Systematic or 11/16/2005
Piecemeal Approach--Administrative Oversight and
the Courts.........................................
Recent Developments in Assessing Future Asbestos 11/17/2005
Claims Under the FAIR Act--Full Committee..........
December 2005:
Proposed Western Hemisphere Passport Rules: Impact 12/2/2005
on Trade and Tourism--Immigration, Border Security
and Citizenship....................................
January 2006:
Nomination of Samuel Alito, Jr. to be Associate 1/9/2006
Justice of the Supreme Courtq--Full Committee......
February 2006:
Consolidation in the Energy Industry: Raising Prices 2/1/2006
at the Pump?--Full Committee.......................
An Examination of the Death Penalty in the United 2/1/2006
States--Constitution, Civil Rights and Property
Rights.............................................
Executive Nomination--Full Committee................ 2/2/2006
Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance 2/6/2006
Authority--Full Committee..........................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 2/7/2006
Judicial and Executive Nominations--Full Committee.. 2/15/2006
Wartime Executive Power and the NSA's Surveillance 2/28/2006
Authority II--Full Committee.......................
March 2006:
Federal Strategies to End Border Violence-- 3/1/2006
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security........
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 3/1/2006
Defective Products: Will Criminal Penalties Ensure 3/10/2006
Corporate Accountability?--Full Committee..........
Judicial and Executive Nominations--Full Committee.. 3/14/2006
Consolidation in the Oil and Gas Industry: Raising 3/14/2006
Prices?--Full Committee............................
Hospital Group Purchasing: Are the Industry's 3/15/2006
Reforms Sufficient to Ensure Competition?--
Antitrust, Competition Policy and Consumer Rights..
NSA III: Wartime Executive Powers and the FISA 3/28/2006
Court--Full Committee..............................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 3/29/2006
What's in a Game? State Regulation of Violent Video 3/29/2006
Games and the First Amendment--Constitution, Civil
Rights and Property Rights.........................
An Examination of the Call to Censure the President-- 3/31/2006
Full Committee.....................................
April 2006:
Immigration Litigation Reduction--Full Committee.... 4/3/2006
Orphan Works: Proposals for a Legislative Solution-- 4/6/2006
Full Committee.....................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 4/25/2006
Immigration: Economic Impacts--Full Committee....... 4/25/2006
Parity, Platforms, and Protection: The Future of the 4/26/2006
Music Industry in the Digital Radio Revolution--
Full Committee.....................................
Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting 4/27/2006
Rights Act: An Introduction to the Evidence--Full
Committee..........................................
May 2006:
FBI Oversight--Full Committee....................... 5/2/2006
Judicial and Executive Nominations--Full Committee.. 5/2/2006
An Introduction to the Expiring Provisions of the 5/9/2006
Voting Rights Act and Legal Issues Relating to
Reauthorization--Full Committee....................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 5/9/2006
Modern Enforcement of the Voting Rights Act--Full 5/10/2006
Committee..........................................
The Continuing Need for Section 5 Pre-Clearance-- 5/16/2006
Full Committee.....................................
Understanding the Benefits and Costs of Section 5 5/17/2006
Pre-Clearance--Full Committee......................
Campus Crime: Compliance and Enforcement under the 5/19/2006
Clery Act--Full Committee..........................
Perspectives on Patents: Post-Grant Review 5/23/2006
Procedures and Other Litigation Reforms--Full
Committee..........................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 5/24/2006
The Consequences of Legalized Assisted Suicide and 5/25/2006
Euthanasia--Constitution, Civil Rights and Property
Rights.............................................
June 2006:
Examining DOJ's Investigation of Journalists Who 6/6/2006
Publish Classified Information--Lessons from the
Jack Anderson Case; Full Committee.................
S. 3274: The Fairness in Asbestos Injury Resolution 6/7/2006
Act of 2006--Full Committee........................
The Findings and Recommendations of the Commission 6/8/2006
on Safety and Abuse in America's Prisons--
Corrections and Rehabilitation.....................
Continuing Need for Section's 203 Provisions for 6/13/2006
Limited English Proficient Voters--Full Committee..
Reconsidering Our Communications Laws: Ensuring 6/14/2006
Competition and Innovation--Full Committee.........
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 6/15/2006
Immigration Enforcement at the Workplace Learning 6/19/2006
from the Mistakes of 1986--Immigration, Border
Security and Citizenship...........................
The McCarran-Ferguson Act: Implications of Repealing 6/20/2006
the Insurers' Antitrust Exemption--Full Committee..
Reauthorization of the Voting Rights Act: Policy 6/21/2006
Perspectives and Views from the Field--Full
Committee..........................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 6/21/2006
The Analog Hole: Can Congress Protect Copyright and 6/21/2006
Promote Innovation?--Full Committee................
AT&T and BellSouth Merger: What Does it Mean for 6/22/2006
Consumers?--Antitrust, Competition Policy and
Consumer Rights....................................
Presidential Signing Statements--Full Committee..... 6/27/2006
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 6/28/2006
Hedge Funds and Independent Analysts: How 6/28/2006
Independent are Their Relationships?--Full
Committee..........................................
The Multidistrict Litigation Restoration Act-- 6/29/2006
Administrative Oversight and the Courts............
July 2006:
Comprehensive Immigration Reform: Examining the Need 7/5/2006
for a Guest Worker Program--Full Committee.........
Hamdan v. Rumsfeld: Establishing a Constitutional 7/11/2006
Process--Full Committee............................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 7/11/2006
Examining the Need for Comprehensive Immigration 7/12/2006
Reform, Part II--Full Committee....................
Renewing the Temporary Provisions of the Voting 7/13/2006
Rights Act: Legislative Options after LULAC v.
Perry--Constitution, Civil Rights and Property
Rights.............................................
Department of Justice Oversight--Full Committee..... 7/18/2006
Credit Card Interchange Rates: Antitrust Concerns?-- 7/19/2006
Full Committee.....................................
FISA for the 21st Century--Full Committee........... 7/26/2006
Detecting Smuggled Nuclear Weapons--Terrorism, 7/27/2006
Technology and Homeland Security...................
August 2006:
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 8/1/2006
Paying Your Own Way: Creating a Fair Standard for 8/2/2006
Attorney's Fee Awards in Establishment Clause
Cases--Constitution, Civil Rights and Property
Rights.............................................
The Authority to Prosecute Terrorists Under the War 8/2/2006
Crimes Provisions of Title 18--Full Committee......
U.S. Visa Policy: Competition for International 8/31/2006
Scholars, Scientists and Skilled Workers--
Immigration, Border Security and Citizenship.......
September 2006:
Examining Competition in Group Health Care--Full 9/6/2006
Committee..........................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 9/6/2006
Keeping Terrorists Off the Plane: Strategies for Pre- 9/7/2006
Screening International Passengers Before Takeoff--
Terrorism, Technology and Homeland Security........
The Thompson Memorandum's Effect on the Right to 9/12/2006
Counsel in Corporate Investigations--Full Committee
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 9/12/2006
Challenges Facing Today's Federal Prosecutors--Crime 9/13/2006
and Drugs..........................................
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 9/19/2006
The Cost of Crime: Understanding the Financial and 9/19/2006
Human Impact of Criminal Activity--Full Committee..
Examining the Proposal to Restructure the Ninth 9/20/2006
Circuit--Full Committee............................
Reporters' Privilege Legislation: Preserving 9/20/2006
Effective Federal Law Enforcement--Full Committee..
Oversight of Federal Assistance for Prisoner 9/21/2006
Rehabilitation and Reentry in Our States--Crime and
Drugs..............................................
Fighting Crime: The Challenges Facing Local Law 9/22/2006
Enforcement and the Federal Role--Full Committee...
Examining Proposals to Limit Guantanamo Detainees' 9/25/2006
Access to Habeas Corpus Review--Full Committee.....
Illegal Insider Trading: How Widespread is the 9/26/2006
Problem and is there Ad--Full Committee............
Judicial Nominations--Full Committee................ 9/26/2006
Oversight Hearing: U.S. Refugee Admissions and 9/27/2006
Policy--Immigration, Border Security and
Citizenship........................................
November 2006:
Judicial Nomination--Full Committee................. 11/14/2006
Competition in Sports Programming and Broadcasting: 11/14/2006
Are Consumers Winning--Full Committee..............
Oversight of the Civil Rights Division--Full 11/16/2006
Committee..........................................
December 2006:
Examining Enforcement of Criminal Insider Trading 12/5/2006
and Hedge Fund Activity--Full Committee............
Oversight of the Implementation of the Bankruptcy 12/6/2006
Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act--
Administrative Oversight and the Courts............
FBI Oversight--Full Committee....................... 12/6/2006
Vertically Integrated Sports Programming: Are Cable 12/7/2006
Companies Excluding Competition?--Full Committee...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETINGS WITH AGENDAS
FIRST SESSION
January 19, 2005
I. Nominations
Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United
States
January 26, 2005
I. Nominations
Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney General of the United
States
II. Legislation
S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Feinstein, Hatch, Kohl, Kyl, Schumer, Sessions]
February 3, 2005
I. Committee Business
Committee Funding Resolution
II. Legislation
S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Feinstein, Hatch, Kohl, Kyl, Schumer, Sessions]
S. 256, A bill to Amend Title 11 of the United States Code,
and for Other Purposes Act of 2005 [Grassley, Hatch, Sessions]
February 17, 2005
I. Legislation
S. 256, A bill to Amend Title 11 of the United States Code,
and for Other Purposes Act of 2005 [Grassley, Hatch, Sessions]
March 10, 2005
I. Nominations
William G. Myers, III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
March 17, 2005
I. Nominations
William G. Myers, III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Thomas B. Griffith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of North Carolina
James C. Dever, III to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of North Carolina
Paul A. Crotty to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of New York
J. Michael Seabright to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Hawaii
II. Bills
Asbestos
S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports
Act of 2005 [Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 188, State Criminal Alien Assistance Program
Reauthorization Act of 2005 [Feinstein, Kyl, Schumer, Cornyn,
Durbin, Specter]
S. 119, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005
[Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy,
Brownback, Specter]
S. 589, a bill to establish the Commission on Freedom of
Information Act Processing Delays [Cornyn, Leahy, Grassley]
III. Committee Business
Subcommittee Approval
April 7, 2005
I. Nominations
Thomas B. Griffith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Priscilla R. Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of North Carolina
James C. Dever, III to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of North Carolina
II. Bills
S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports
Act of 2005 [Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 119, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005
[Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy,
Brownback, Specter, Leahy]
S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of
2005 [Sessions, Kyl]
III. Matters
Asbestos
April 14, 2005
I. Nominations
Thomas B. Griffith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Priscilla R. Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit
Janice Rogers Brown to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of North Carolina
James C. Dever, III to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of North Carolina
II. Bills
S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports
Act of 2005 [Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 119, Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005
[Feinstein, Schumer, Durbin, DeWine, Feingold, Kennedy,
Brownback, Specter, Kohl, Leahy]
S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of
2005 [Sessions, Kyl]
S. 555, No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act of 2005
[DeWine, Kohl, Leahy, Grassley, Feingold, Schumer, Durbin,
Specter]
III. Matters
Asbestos
April 21, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Priscilla R. Owen to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fifth
Circuit
Janice Rogers Brown to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia Circuit
William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Eleventh Circuit.
II. Bills
S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism at America's Seaports
Act of 2005 [Biden, Specter, Feinstein, Kyl, Cornyn, Hatch]
S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass Transportation Act of
2005 [Sessions, Kyl, Hatch]
S. 339, Reaffirmation of State Regulation of Resident and
Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act of 2005 [Reid, Hatch, Kyl]
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
April 28, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Eleventh Circuit
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia
II. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
May 11, 2005.
I. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]
May 12, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Eleventh Circuit.
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia
II. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
May 19, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia
Paul Clement to be Solicitor General of the United States
Stephen Joseph Murphy III to be U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Michigan
Anthony Jerome Jenkins to be U.S. Attorney for the District
of the Virgin Islands
Gretchen C.F. Shappert to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of North Carolina
II. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
May 25, 2005
I. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]
May 26, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia
Richard Griffin to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the
Sixth Circuit
David McKeague to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Sixth
Circuit
Paul Clement to be Solicitor General of the United States
Anthony Jerome Jenkins to be U.S. Attorney for the District
of the Virgin Islands
Stephen Joseph Murphy III to be U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Michigan
Gretchen C.F. Shappert to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of North Carolina
Rachel Brand to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Policy
Alice S. Fisher to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division
Regina B. Schofield to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Justice Programs
II. Bills
S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and Efficient System to
Resolve Claims of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused by Asbestos
Exposure, and for Other Purposes. [Specter, Leahy, Hatch,
Feinstein, Grassley, DeWine, Graham]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
June 9, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Brett M. Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
District of Columbia
Rachel Brand to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Policy
Alice S. Fisher to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division
II. Bills
S. 491, Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice
Act [Specter, Leahy]
S. 1181, Which is Section 8 of Openness Promotes
Effectiveness in our National Government Act of 2005 [Cornyn,
Leahy, Feingold]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
June 16, 2005
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Rachel Brand to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Policy
Alice S. Fisher to be an Assistant Attorney General for the
Criminal Division
II. Bills
S. 491, Christopher Kangas Fallen Firefighter Apprentice
Act [Specter, Leahy]
III. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
June 23, 2005
I. Nominations
James B. Letten to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Louisiana
Rod J. Rosenstein to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Maryland
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein]
II. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
June 30, 2005
I. Nominations
James B. Letten to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Louisiana
Rod J. Rosenstein to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Maryland
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005 [Talent, Feinstein, Kohl]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
II. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
Discussion of Subpoena for Asbestos
July 14, 2005
I. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005 [Talent, Feinstein, Kohl,
Schumer]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. ------, To reauthorize and improve the USA PATRIOT Act
[Specter, Feinstein, Kyl]
II. Matters
Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
July 21, 2005
I. Bills
S. 1389, To reauthorize and improve the USA PATRIOT Act
[Specter, Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005 [Talent, Feinstein, Kohl,
Schumer, Feingold]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act of 2005 [Biden, Hatch,
Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Grassley, Kennedy, Schumer,
Durbin, Feinstein]
July 28, 2005
I. Nominations
Michael J. Garcia to U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of New York
Peter Swaim to U.S. Marshall for the Southern District of
Indiana
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005 [Talent, Feinstein, Kohl,
Schumer, Feingold]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act of 2005 [Biden, Hatch,
Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Grassley, Kennedy, Schumer,
Durbin, Feinstein]
III. Matters
Asbestos Subpoenas
September 8, 2005
I. Nominations
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be United States Attorney for the
District of Columbia
Timothy Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act of 2005 [Biden, Hatch,
Specter, Leahy, DeWine, Kohl, Grassley, Kennedy, Schumer,
Durbin, Feinstein]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
III. Matters
Asbestos Subpoenas
September 22, 2005
I. Nominations
John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice of the United States
Timothy Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. ------, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
September 29, 2005
I. Nominations
Timothy Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General
Susan Neilson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth
Circuit
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
[Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold]
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005
[Cornyn, Leahy]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 443, Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act
of 2005 [DeWine, Kohl, Leahy]
S. 1787, Bankruptcy Relief for victims of Natural Disasters
[Vitter]
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community
Protection Act of 2005 [Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy,
Feinstein]
October 6, 2005
I. Nominations
Timothy Flanigan to be Deputy Attorney General
Susan Neilson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth
Circuit
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer]
S. 956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes
Against Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
[Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold]
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005
[Cornyn, Leahy]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 443, Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act
of 2005 [DeWine, Kohl, Leahy]
S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other
Natural Disasters Act of 2005 [Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn,
DeWine]
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community
Protection Act of 2005 [Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy,
Feinstein]
S. --------, Budget Reconciliation [Chairman's Mark]
October 20, 2005
I. Nominations
Susan Neilson to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Sixth
Circuit
John Richard Smoak to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Florida
Brian Edward Sandoval to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Nevada
Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr. to be U.S. District Judge for
the Eastern District of Tennessee
Margaret Mary Sweeney to be a Judge of the United States
Court of Federal Claims
Thomas Craig Wheeler to be a Judge of the United States
Court of Federal Claims
Wan Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Sue Ellen Wooldridge to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Thomas O. Barnett to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Sessions]
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the National Program to Register
and Monitor Individuals Who Commit Crimes Against Children or
Sex Offenses [Hatch, Biden, Schumer, DeWine, Kyl, Grassley] S.
956, Jetseta Gage Prevention and Deterrence of Crimes Against
Children Act of 2005 [Grassley, Kyl, Cornyn]
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
[Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold,
Durbin]
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005
[Cornyn, Leahy]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 443, Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act
of 2005 [DeWine, Kohl, Leahy]
S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other
Natural Disasters Act of 2005 [Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn,
DeWine]
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community
Protection Act of 2005 [Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy,
Feinstein]
S. --------, Budget Reconciliation [Chairman's Mark]
October 27, 2005
I. Nominations
Wan Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Sue Ellen Wooldridge to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Thomas O. Barnett to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division
James O'Gara to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction,
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Emilio Gonzalez to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
[Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold,
Durbin]
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005
[Cornyn, Leahy]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other
Natural Disasters Act of 2005 [Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn,
DeWine]
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community
Protection Act of 2005 [Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy,
Feinstein]
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn]
November 3, 2005
I. Nominations
Wan Kim to be an Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights
Division
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Sue Ellen Wooldridge to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources Division
Thomas O. Barnett to be an Assistant Attorney General,
Antitrust Division
James O'Gara to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction,
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Emilio Gonzalez to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
Julie L. Myers to be an Assistant Secretary of Homeland
Security
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act
[Specter, Leahy, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Feingold,
Durbin, Kyl]
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005
[Cornyn, Leahy]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 1787, Relief to Victims of Hurricane Katrina and Other
Natural Disasters Act of 2005 [Vitter, Grassley, Cornyn,
DeWine]
S. 1647, Hurricane Katrina Bankruptcy Relief and Community
Protection Act of 2005 [Feingold, Leahy, Durbin, Kennedy,
Feinstein]
November 10, 2005
I. Nominations
Joseph Frank Bianco to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York
Timothy Mark Burgess to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Alaska
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of Kentucky
Eric Nicholas Vitaliano to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York
James O'Gara to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction,
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Emilio Gonzalez to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
Catherine Lucille Hanaway to be U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Missouri
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 1967, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with
respect to certain activities of the Secret Service, and for
other purposes [Specter]
S. 1961, Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of
2005 [Biden, Hatch, Cornyn]
S. 1354, Wartime Treatment Study Act [Feingold, Grassley,
Kennedy]
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
November 17, 2005
I. Nominations
Joseph Frank Bianco to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York
Timothy Mark Burgess to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Alaska
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of Kentucky
Eric Nicholas Vitaliano to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York
James O'Gara to be Deputy Director for Supply Reduction,
Office of National Drug Control Policy
Emilio Gonzalez to be Director of the Bureau of Citizenship
and Immigration Services, Department of Homeland Security
Catherine Lucille Hanaway to be U.S. Attorney for the
Eastern District of Missouri
Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board
Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board
II. Bills
S. 1088, Streamlined Procedures Act of 2005 [Kyl, Cornyn,
Grassley, Hatch]
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and Security Act of 2005
[Specter, Leahy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 751, Notification of Risk to Personal Data Act
[Feinstein, Kyl]
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 1967, A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, with
respect to certain activities of the Secret Service, and for
other purposes [Specter]
S. 1961, Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of
2005 [Biden, Hatch, Cornyn]
S. 1354, Wartime Treatment Study Act [Feingold, Grassley,
Kennedy]
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
SECOND SESSION
January 24, 2006
I. Nominations
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an Associate Justice of the
Supreme Court of the United States
February 16, 2006
I. Nominations
Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Georgia
Thomas E. Johnston to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of West Virginia
Aida M. Delgado-Colon to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of the United States Court
of International Trade
Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board
Alan Charles Raul to be Vice Chairman of the Privacy and
Civil Liberties Oversight Board
Paul J. McNulty to be Deputy Attorney General
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Reginald Lloyd to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
South Carolina
Stephen King to be a Member of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission of the United States
II. Bills
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2005 [Smith--
TX]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2178, Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006
[Schumer, Specter, Cornyn, DeWine, Feinstein, Feingold, Kyl]
S. 2177, Phone Records Protection Act of 2006 [Durbin]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
March 2, 2006
I. Nominations
Jack Zouhary to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio
Stephen G. Larson to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals
Service
Terrance P. Flynn to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of New York
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2178, Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006
[Schumer, Specter, Cornyn, DeWine, Feinstein, Feingold, Kyl,
Kohl, Durbin]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
March 8, 2006
I. Nominations
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals
Service
Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr. to be U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Texas
John Charles Richter to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma
Amul R. Thapar to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
of Kentucky
Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission of the United States
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
March 9, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals
Service
Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr. to be U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Texas
John Charles Richter to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Oklahoma
Amul R. Thapar to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District
of Kentucky
Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chairman of the Foreign Claims
Settlement Commission of the United States
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
March 15, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota
Steven G. Bradburyto be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals
Service
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
March 16, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
John F. Clark to be Director of the United States Marshals
Service
David F. Kustoff to be United States Attorney for the
Western District of Tennessee
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
S. Res. 398, A resolution relating to the censure of George
W. Bush [Feingold]
March 27, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
II. Bills
S. ----------, Comprehensive Immigration Reform [Chairman's
Mark]
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
S. Res. 398, A resolution relating to the censure of George
W. Bush [Feingold]
March 30, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Michael A. Chagares to be United States Circuit Judge for
the Third Circuit
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S. District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota
Gray Hampton Miller to be United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Texas
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Sharee M. Freeman to be Director, Community Relations
Service, U.S. Department of Justice
Jeffrey L. Sedgwick to be Director of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice
II. Bills
S. 1768, A bill to permit the televising of Supreme Court
proceedings [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Grassley, Schumer,
Feingold, Durbin]
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom Act of 2005 [Grassley,
Schumer, Cornyn, Leahy, Feingold, Durbin, Graham, DeWine,
Specter]
S. 489, Federal Consent Decree Fairness Act [Alexander,
Kyl, Cornyn, Graham, Hatch]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback]
S. Res. 398, A resolution relating to the censure of George
W. Bush [Feingold]
April 27, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C.
Circuit
Michael Ryan Barrett to be United States District Judge for
the Southern District of Ohio
Brian M. Cogan to be United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of New York
Thomas M. Golden to be United States District Judge for the
Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Timothy Anthony Junker to be United States Marshal for the
Northern District of Iowa
Patrick Smith to be United States Marshal for the Western
District of North Carolina
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 2557, Oil and Gas Industry Antitrust Act of 2006
[Specter, Kohl, DeWine, Leahy, Feinstein, Durbin]
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief for the Federal judiciary
from excessive rent charges [Specter, Leahy, Cornyn, Feinstein,
Biden]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine]
May 4, 2006
I. Nominations
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C.
Circuit
Milan D. Smith, Jr. to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Renee Marie Bumb to be U.S. District Judge for the District
of New Jersey
Noel Lawrence Hillman to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of New Jersey
Peter G. Sheridan to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of New Jersey
Susan Davis Wigenton to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of New Jersey
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine]
May 11, 2006
I. Nominations
Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the D.C.
Circuit
Sean F. Cox to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern
District of Michigan
Thomas L. Ludington to be U.S. District judge for the
Eastern District of Michigan
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine]
May 18, 2006
I. Nominations
Sandra Segal Ikuta to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be an Assistant Attorney General
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection Amendment [Allard,
Sessions, Kyl, Hatch, Cornyn, Coburn, Brownback, DeWine]
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution [Hatch,
Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley,
Kyl, Sessions, Specter]
May 25, 2006
I. Nominations
Sandra Segal Ikuta to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be an Assistant Attorney General
Erik C. Peterson to be U.S. Attorney for the Western
District of Wisconsin
Charles P. Rosenberg to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia
Gary D. Orton to be United States Marshal for the District
of Nevada
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders Incentive Act of 2005
[Durbin, Specter, DeWine, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, Feingold,
Schumer, Biden]
S. 2560, Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006 [Specter, Biden, Hatch, Grassley]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution [Hatch,
Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley,
Kyl, Sessions, Specter]
Subpoenas for Telecom Companies
June 6, 2006
I. Matters
Discussion of the possibility of subpoenas and a closed
session for a Telecom/NSA Information Sharing hearing
June 8, 2006
I. Nominations
Andrew J. Guilford to be U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California
Frank D. Whitney to be U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of North Carolina
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be an Assistant Attorney General
Charles P. Rosenberg to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of Virginia
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution [Hatch,
Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley,
Kyl, Sessions, Specter]
June 15, 2006
I. Nominations
Frank D. Whitney to be U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of North Carolina
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be an Assistant Attorney General
Thomas D. Anderson to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Vermont
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden]
H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act [Smith--TX]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
III. Matters
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration resolution [Hatch,
Feinstein, Brownback, Coburn, Cornyn, DeWine, Graham, Grassley,
Kyl, Sessions, Specter]
Subpoenas Relating to OPR Investigation
June 22, 2006
I. Nominations
Brett L. Tolman to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Utah
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act [Smith--TX]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein,
Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
June 29, 2006
I. Nominations
Neil M. Gorsuch to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth
Circuit
Jerome A. Holmes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth
Circuit
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Daniel Porter Jordan, III to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Mississippi
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
Martin J. Jackley to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
South Dakota
Brett L. Tolman to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Utah
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act [Smith--TX]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein,
Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 2679, Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act [Talent, DeWine,
Cornyn]
III. Matters
Subpoenas Relating to OPR Investigation
July 13, 2006
I. Nominations
Neil M. Gorsuch to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth
Circuit
Jerome A. Holmes to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Tenth
Circuit
Kimberly Ann Moore to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal
Circuit
Bobby E. Shepherd to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth
Circuit
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Daniel Porter Jordan, III to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Mississippi
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
R. Alexander Acosta to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida
Martin J. Jackley to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
South Dakota
Brett L. Tolman to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Utah
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act [Smith--TX]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein,
Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 2679, Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act [Talent, DeWine,
Cornyn]
III. Matters
Subpoenas Relating to ABA Reports
July 19, 2006
I. Bills
S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott
King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments Act of
2006 [Specter, Leahy, Grassley, Kennedy, DeWine, Feinstein,
Brownback, Durbin, Schumer, Kohl, Biden, Feingold]
July 27, 2006
I. Nominations
Kimberly Ann Moore to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal
Circuit
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood to be Judge for the District
Court of Guam
Steven G. Bradbury to be an Assistant Attorney General for
the Office of Legal Counsel
R. Alexander Acosta to be U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Florida
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 2679, Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act [Talent, DeWine,
Cornyn]
H.R. 1442, Complete the Codification of Title 46, United
States Code
H.R. 866, Technical Corrections to the United States Code
III. Matters
Subpoenas Relating to ABA Reports
August 3, 2006
I. Nominations
Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood to be Judge for the District
Court of Guam
Troy A. Eid to be U.S. Attorney for the District of
Colorado
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 2679, Unsolved Civil Rights Crime Act [Talent, DeWine,
Cornyn]
H.R. 1442, Complete the Codification of Title 46, United
States Code
H.R. 866, Technical Corrections to the United States Code
III. Matters
Subpoenas Relating to ABA Reports
September 7, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California
Francisco Augusto Besosa to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California
George E.B. Holding to be U.S. Attorney for the Eastern
District of North Carolina
Sharon Lynn Potter to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of West Virginia
II. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Graham, Schumer, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
H.R. 1442, Complete the Codification of Title 46, United
States Code
H.R. 866, Technical Corrections to the United States Code
September 13, 2006
I. Bills
S. 2453, National Security Surveillance Act of 2006
[Specter]
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act of 2006 [DeWine,
Graham]
S. 2468, A bill to provide standing for civil actions for
declaratory and injunctive relief to persons who refrain from
electronic communications through fear of being subject to
warrantless electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence
purposes, and for other purposes. [Schumer]
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006 [Specter, Feinstein]
September 14, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Kent A. Jordan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third
Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California
Francisco Augusto Besosa to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
John Alfred Jarvey to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa
Sara Elizabeth Lioi to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio
II. Bills
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 394, OPEN Government Act of 2005 [Cornyn, Leahy,
Feingold]
S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act [Inhofe,
Feinstein]
S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006 [Feinstein, Graham, Biden]
III. Other Matters
Changes to 18 U.S.C. 2441 (War Crimes)
September 19, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Kent A. Jordan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third
Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California
Francisco Augusto Besosa to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
John Alfred Jarvey to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa
Sara Elizabeth Lioi to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio
September 21, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Kent A. Jordan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third
Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Norman Randy Smith to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit
Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District Judge for the Central
District of California
Francisco Augusto Besosa to be U.S. District Judge for the
District of Puerto Rico
Nora Barry Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Oklahoma
Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S. District Judge for the
Central District of California
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
John Alfred Jarvey to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa
Sara Elizabeth Lioi to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio
Lawrence Joseph O'Neill to be U.S. District Judge for the
Eastern District of California
Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia
Rodger A. Heaton to be U.S. Attorney for the Central
District of Illinois
II. Bills
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 394, OPEN Government Act of 2005 [Cornyn, Leahy,
Feingold]
S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act [Inhofe,
Feinstein]
S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006 [Feinstein, Graham, Biden]
S. 3818, Patent Reform Act of 2006 [Hatch, Leahy]
September 26, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Kent A. Jordan to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third
Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Nora Barry Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Oklahoma
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
John Alfred Jarvey to be U.S. District Judge for the
Southern District of Iowa
Sara Elizabeth Lioi to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Ohio
Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia
September 28, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Nora Barry Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Oklahoma
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
Robert James Jonker to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan
Paul Lewis Maloney to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan
Janet T. Neff to be U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Michigan
Leslie Southwick to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Mississippi
Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia
II. Bills
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act [Inhofe,
Feinstein, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn]
S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006 [Feinstein, Graham, Biden]
S. 3818, Patent Reform Act of 2006 [Hatch, Leahy]
September 29, 2006
I. Nominations
Terrence W. Boyle to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit
William James Haynes II to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Fourth Circuit
Peter D. Keisler to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the District
of Columbia Circuit
William Gerry Myers III to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the
Ninth Circuit
Nora Barry Fischer to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Pennsylvania
Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S. District Judge for the
Northern District of Oklahoma
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S. District Judge for the
Middle District of Florida
Robert James Jonker to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan
Paul Lewis Maloney to be U.S. District Judge for the
Western District of Michigan
Janet T. Neff to be U.S. District Judge for the Western
District of Michigan
Leslie Southwick to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Mississippi
Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern
District of Georgia
Sharon Lynn Potter to be U.S. Attorney for the Northern
District of West Virginia
Deborah Jean Johnson Rhodes to be U.S. Attorney for the
Southern District of Alabama
II. Bills
S. 2831, Free Flow of Information Act of 2006 [Lugar,
Specter, Schumer, Graham, Biden, Grassley]
S. 155, Gang Prevention and Effective Deterrence Act of
2005 [Feinstein, Hatch, Grassley, Cornyn, Kyl, Specter]
S. 1845, Circuit Court of Appeals Restructuring and
Modernization Act of 2005 [Ensign, Kyl]
S. 3880, Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act [Inhofe,
Feinstein, Hatch, DeWine, Cornyn, Brownback, Coburn]
S. 2644, Perform Act of 2006 [Feinstein, Graham, Biden]
S. 3818, Patent Reform Act of 2006 [Hatch, Leahy]
SUBCOMMITTEE EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETINGS
November 2, 2005
I. Bill
S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment
November 9, 2005
I. Bills
S.J. Res. 1, the Marriage Protection Amendment
S.J. Res. 12, the Flag Desecration Resolution
D. BILLS, NOMINATIONS, AND MATTERS REPORTED
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bills, Nominations, and Matters
Date of Executive Business Meeting Reported
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1/26/05........................... Alberto Gonzales to be the Attorney
General of the United States.
2/3/05............................ Committee Funding Resolution.
S. 5, Class Action Fairness Act of
2005.
2/17/05........................... S. 256, A bill to Amend Title 11 of
the United States Code, and for
Other Purposes Act of 2005.
3/17/05........................... William G. Myers, III to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit.
Paul A. Crotty to be U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of
New York.
J. Michael Seabright to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Hawaii.
S. 188, State Criminal Alien
Assistance Program Reauthorization
Act of 2005.
S. 589, a bill to establish the
Commission on Freedom of
Information Act Processing Delays.
Subcommittee Approval.
4/14/05........................... Thomas B. Griffith to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
Robert J. Conrad, Jr. to be U.S.
District Judge for the Western
District of North Carolina.
James C. Dever, III to be U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern
District of North Carolina.
S. 119, Unaccompanied Alien Child
Protection Act of 2005.
S. 555, No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act of 2005.
4/21/05........................... S. 339, Reaffirmation of State
Regulation of Resident and
Nonresident Hunting and Fishing Act
of 2005.
S. 378, Reducing Crime and Terrorism
at America's Seaports Act of 2005.
S. 629, Railroad Carriers and Mass
Transportation Act of 2005.
Priscilla R. Owen to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Fifth Circuit.
Janice Rogers Brown to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the District of
Columbia Circuit.
5/12/05........................... William H. Pryor, Jr. to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Eleventh
Circuit.
5/26/05........................... S. 852, A bill to Create a Fair and
Efficient System to Resolve Claims
of Victims for Bodily Injury Caused
by Asbestos Exposure, and for Other
Purposes.
Richard Griffin to be U.S. Circuit
Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
David McKeague to be U.S. Circuit
Court Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
Paul Clement to be Solicitor General
of the United States.
Anthony Jerome Jenkins to be U.S.
Attorney for the District of the
Virgin Islands.
Stephen Joseph Murphy III to be U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District
of Michigan.
Gretchen C. F. Shappert to be U.S.
Attorney for the Western District
of North Carolina.
Regina B. Schofield to be an
Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Justice Programs.
6/9/05............................ S. 1181, Which is Section 8 of
Openness Promotes Effectiveness in
our National Government Act of
2005.
6/16/05........................... Terrence W. Boyle, II to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Fourth
Circuit.
Rachel Brand to be an Assistant
Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Policy.
Alice S. Fisher to be an Assistant
Attorney General for the Criminal
Division.
S. 491, Christopher Kangas Fallen
Firefighter Apprentice Act.
6/23/05........................... No Quorum.
6/30/05........................... James B. Letten to be U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of
Louisiana.
Rod J. Rosenstein to be U.S.
Attorney for the District of
Maryland.
7/14/05........................... Senate Judiciary Committee Rules
Approved.
7/21/05........................... S. 1389, To reauthorize and improve
the USA PATRIOT Act.
7/28/05........................... Michael J. Garcia to U.S. Attorney
for the Southern District of New
York.
Peter Swaim to U.S. Marshall for the
Southern District of Indiana.
S. 103, Combat Meth Act of 2005.
9/8/05............................ Kenneth L. Wainstein to be United
States Attorney for the District of
Columbia.
S. 1197, Violence Against Women Act
of 2005.
Asbestos Subpoenas.
9/22/05........................... John G. Roberts to be Chief Justice
of the United States.
10/20/05.......................... Susan Neilson to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Sixth Circuit.
John Richard Smoak to be U.S.
District Judge for the Northern
District of Florida.
Brian Edward Sandoval to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Nevada.
Harry Sandlin Mattice, Jr. to be
U.S. District Judge for the Eastern
District of Tennessee.
Margaret Mary Sweeney to be a Judge
of the United States Court of
Federal Claims.
Thomas Craig Wheeler to be a Judge
of the United States Court of
Federal Claims.
S. 1326, Notification of Risk to
Personal Data Act.
S. 1086, A Bill to Improve the
National Program to Register and
Monitor Individuals Who Commit
Crimes Against Children or Sex
Offenses.
S. 443, Antitrust Criminal
Investigative Improvements Act of
2005.
Budget Reconciliation.
11/3/05........................... Wan Kim to be an Assistant Attorney
General, Civil Rights Division.
Steven G. Bradbury to be an
Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Counsel.
Sue Ellen Wooldridge to be an
Assistant Attorney General,
Environment and Natural Resources
Division.
Thomas O. Barnett to be an Assistant
Attorney General, Antitrust
Division.
S. 1699, Stop Counterfeiting in
Manufactured Goods Act.
S. 1095, Protecting American Goods
and Services Act of 2005.
11/9/05........................... S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection
Amendment reported by Subcommittee
on the Constitution, Civil Rights
and Property Rights.
11/17/05.......................... Joseph Frank Bianco to be U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern
District of New York.
Timothy Mark Burgess to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Alaska.
Gregory F. Van Tatenhove to be U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern
District of Kentucky.
Eric Nicholas Vitaliano to be U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern
District of New York.
Kristi Dubose to be United States
District Judge for the Southern
District of Alabama.
W. Keith Watkins to be United States
District Judge for the Middle
District of Alabama.
Virginia Mary Kendall to be United
States District Judge for the
Northern District of Illinois.
Emilio Gonzalez to be Director of
the Bureau of Citizenship and
Immigration Services, Department of
Homeland Security.
Catherine Lucille Hanaway to be U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District
of Missouri.
S. 1789, Personal Data Privacy and
Security Act of 2005.
S. 1961, Extending the Child Safety
Pilot Program Act of 2005.
S. 1354, Wartime Treatment Study
Act.
1/24/06........................... Samuel A. Alito, Jr. to be an
Associate Justice of the Supreme
Court of the United States.
2/16/06........................... Timothy C. Batten, Sr. to be U.S.
District Judge for the Northern
District of Georgia.
Thomas E. Johnston to be U.S.
District Judge for the Southern
District of West Virginia.
Aida M. Delgado-Colon to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Puerto Rico.
Leo Maury Gordon to be a Judge of
the United States Court of
International Trade.
Carol E. Dinkins to be Chairman of
the Privacy and Civil Liberties
Oversight Board.
Alan Charles Raul to be Vice
Chairman of the Privacy and Civil
Liberties Oversight Board.
Paul J. McNulty to be Deputy
Attorney General.
Reginald Lloyd to be U.S. Attorney
for the District of South Carolina.
Stephen King to be a Member of the
Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission of the United States.
H.R. 683, Trademark Dilution
Revision Act of 2005.
3/2/06............................ Jack Zouhary to be U.S. District
Judge for the Northern District of
Ohio.
Stephen G. Larsonto be U.S. District
Judge for the Central District of
California.
Terrance P. Flynn to be U.S.
Attorney for the Western District
of New York.
S. 2178, Consumer Telephone Records
Protection Act of 2006.
3/9/06............................ Donald J. DeGabrielle, Jr. to be
U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Texas.
John Charles Richter to be U.S.
Attorney for the Western District
of Oklahoma.
Amul R. Thapar to be U.S. Attorney
for the Eastern District of
Kentucky.
Mauricio J. Tamargo to be Chairman
of the Foreign Claims Settlement
Commission of the United States.
3/16/06........................... John F. Clark to be Director of the
United States Marshals Service.
David F. Kustoff to be United States
Attorney for the Western District
of Tennessee.
3/30/06........................... Michael A. Chagares to be United
States Circuit Judge for the Third
Circuit.
Patrick J. Schiltz to be U.S.
District Court Judge for the
District of Minnesota.
Gray Hampton Miller to be United
States District Judge for the
Southern District of Texas.
Sharee M. Freeman to be Director,
Community Relations Service, U.S.
Department of Justice.
Jeffrey L. Sedgwick to be Director
of the Bureau of Justice
Statistics, U.S. Department of
Justice.
S. 1768, A bill to permit the
televising of Supreme Court
proceedings.
S. 829, Sunshine in the Courtroom
Act of 2005.
4/27/06........................... Michael Ryan Barrett to be United
States District Judge for the
Southern District of Ohio.
Brian M. Cogan to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern
District of New York.
Thomas M. Golden to be United States
District Judge for the Eastern
District of Pennsylvania.
Timothy Anthony Junker to be United
States Marshal for the Northern
District of Iowa.
Patrick Smith to be United States
Marshal for the Western District of
North Carolina.
S. 2292, A bill to provide relief
for the Federal judiciary from
excessive rent charges.
S. 2557, Oil and Gas Industry
Antitrust Act of 2006.
5/4/06............................ Norman Randy Smith to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit.
Milan D. Smith, Jr. to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit.
Renee Marie Bumb to be U.S. District
Judge for the District of New
Jersey.
Noel Lawrence Hillman to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
New Jersey.
Peter G. Sheridan to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
New Jersey.
Susan Davis Wigenton to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
New Jersey.
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration
resolution reported by Subcommittee
on the Constitution, Civil Rights
and Property Rights.
5/11/06........................... Brett Kavanaugh to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the DC Circuit.
Sean F. Cox to be U.S. District
Judge for the Eastern District of
Michigan.
Thomas L. Ludington to be U.S.
District judge for the Eastern
District of Michigan.
5/18/06........................... S.J. Res. 1, Marriage Protection
Amendment.
5/25/06........................... Sandra Segal Ikuta to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit.
Erik C. Peterson to be U.S. Attorney
for the Western District of
Wisconsin.
Gary D. Orton to be United States
Marshal for the District of Nevada.
S. 2039, Prosecutors and Defenders
Incentive Act of 2005.
S. 2560, Office of National Drug
Control Policy Reauthorization Act
of 2006.
6/8/06............................ Andrew J. Guilford to be U.S.
District Judge for the Central
District of California.
Charles P. Rosenberg to be U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District
of Virginia.
6/15/06........................... Frank D. Whitney to be U.S. District
Judge for the Western District of
North Carolina.
Kenneth L. Wainstein to be an
Assistant Attorney General.
Thomas D. Anderson to be U.S.
Attorney for the District of
Vermont.
S.J. Res. 12, Flag Desecration
resolution.
7/13/06........................... Neil M. Gorsuch to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
Jerome A. Holmes to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Tenth Circuit.
Bobby E. Shepherd to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Eighth Circuit.
Gustavo Antonio Gelpi to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Puerto Rico.
Daniel Porter Jordan, III to be U.S.
District Judge for the Southern
District of Mississippi.
Martin J. Jackley to be U.S.
Attorney for the District of South
Dakota.
Brett L. Tolman to be U.S. Attorney
for the District of Utah.
H.R. 1036, Copyright Royalty Judges
Program Technical Corrections Act.
7/19/06........................... S. 2703, Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa
Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization
and Amendments Act of 2006.
7/27/06........................... Kimberly Ann Moore to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Federal
Circuit.
Steven G. Bradbury to be an
Assistant Attorney General for the
Office of Legal Counsel.
R. Alexander Acosta to be U.S.
Attorney for the Southern District
of Florida.
8/3/06............................ Frances M. Tydingco-Gatewood to be
Judge for the District Court of
Guam.
Troy A. Eid to be U.S. Attorney for
the District of Colorado.
S. 2679, Unsolved Civil Rights Crime
Act.
9/7/06............................ George E.B. Holding to be U.S.
Attorney for the Eastern District
of North Carolina
H.R. 1442, Complete the Codification
of Title 46, United States Code.
H.R. 866, Technical Corrections to
the United States Code.
9/13/06........................... S. 2453, National Security
Surveillance Act of 2006.
S. 2455, Terrorist Surveillance Act
of 2006.
S. 3001, Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Improvement and
Enhancement Act of 2006.
9/21/06........................... Norman Randy Smith to be U.S.
Circuit Judge for the Ninth
Circuit.
Valerie L. Baker to be U.S. District
Judge for the Central District of
California.
Francisco Augusto Besosa to be U.S.
District Judge for the District of
Puerto Rico.
Philip S. Gutierrez to be U.S.
District Judge for the Central
District of California.
Lawrence Joseph O'Neill to be U.S.
District Judge for the Eastern
District of California.
Rodger A. Heaton to be U.S. Attorney
for the Central District of
Illinois.
S. 394, OPEN Government Act of 2005.
9/26/06........................... Kent A. Jordan to be U.S. Circuit
Judge for the Third Circuit.
Sara Elizabeth Lioi to be U.S.
District Judge for the Northern
District of Ohio.
Alfred Jarvey to be U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of
Iowa.
9/29/06........................... Nora Barry Fischer to be U.S.
District Judge for the Western
District of Pennsylvania.
Gregory Kent Frizzell to be U.S.
District Judge for the Northern
District of Oklahoma.
Marcia Morales Howard to be U.S.
District Judge for the Middle
District of Florida.
Robert James Jonker to be U.S.
District Judge for the Western
District of Michigan.
Paul Lewis Maloney to be U.S.
District Judge for the Western
District of Michigan.
Janet T. Neff to be U.S. District
Judge for the Western District of
Michigan.
Leslie Southwick to be U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of
Mississippi.
Lisa Godbey Wood to be U.S. District
Judge for the Southern District of
Georgia.
Sharon Lynn Potter to be U.S.
Attorney for the Northern District
of West Virginia.
Deborah Jean Johnson Rhodes to be
U.S. Attorney for the Southern
District of Alabama.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. SUCCESSFUL LEGISLATION
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LAWS PASSED DURING THE 109TH CONGRESS
Public Law 109-2 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 2/18/2005
Public Law 109-8 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005, 4/20/2005
Public Law 109-9 Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of
2005, 4/27/2005
Public Law 109-13 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005, 5/11/2006 \1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Includes Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005 and
REAL ID Act of 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-56 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to
lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug
addiction treatments by medical practitioners in
group practices, and for other purposes, 8/2/2005
Public Law 109-160 Extension of Sunset of Certain Provisions of
the USA PATRIOT ACT and the Lone Wolf Provision of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004
Public Law 109-162 Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 1/5/2006 \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Includes Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-170 To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the
sunset of certain provisions of such Act, 2/3/2006
Public Law 109-171 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 2/8/2006 \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Includes Budget Reconciliation
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-177 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 3/9/2006 \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Includes Combat Meth Act of 2005 and Secret Service
Authorization and Technical Modification Act of 2005
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-178 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing
Amendments Act of 2006, 3/9/2006
Public Law 109-181 Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods
Act, 3/16/2006
Public Law 109-246 Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006, 7/27/2006
Public Law 109-248 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006, 7/27/2006 \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Includes Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act
of 2005 and Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and Pam Lychner Sex
Offender Registration and Notification Grant Act
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-284 To make technical corrections to the United
States Code, 9/27/2006
Public Law 109-303 Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act, 10/6/2006
Public Law 109-304 To complete the codification of title 46,
United States Code, `Shipping', as positive law,
10/6/2006
Public Law 109-312 Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 10/6/2006
Public Law 109-314 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, 10/6/2006
Public Law 109-364 John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 10/17/2006 \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Includes Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2006
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 109-367 Secure Fence Act of 2006, 10/26/2006
Public Law 109-374 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 11/27/2006
CLEARED FOR WHITE HOUSE, PENDING PRESIDENT'S SIGNATURE
Public Law 109-___ Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas
Reauthorization Act
Public Law 109-___ A bill to amend title 18, United States
Code, to prohibit disruptions of funerals of
members or former members of the Armed Forces
Public Law 109-___ Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization
Public Law 109-___ A bill to apply amendments to the
Immigration and Nationality Act related to
providing medical services in underserved areas,
and for other purposes
Public Law 109-___ Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act
Public Law 109-___ Stolen Valor Act of 2005
Public Law 109-___ Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of
2006
SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE LEGISLATION PASSED BY THE SENATE DURING THE
109TH CONGRESS
S. 5--Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Sen Grassley [R-IA],
referred and reported
S. 5--Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 2/10/2005 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-2 Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 2/18/2005
S. 8--Child Custody Protection Act, Sen Ensign [R-NV], referred
S. 396--Child Custody Protection Act, referred
S. 403--Child Custody Protection Act, 7/25/2006 passed Senate
S. 45--A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift
the patient limitation on prescribing drug
addiction treatments by medical practitioners in
group practices, and for other purposes, Sen Levin
[D-MI], referred and discharged
S. 45--A bill to amend the Controlled Substances Act to lift
the patient limitation on prescribing drug
addiction treatments by medical practitioners in
group practices, and for other purposes, 7/19/2005
passed Senate
Public Law 109-56 To amend the Controlled Substances Act to
lift the patient limitation on prescribing drug
addiction treatments by medical practitioners in
group practices, and for other purposes, 8/2/2005
S. 103--Combat Meth Act of 2005, Sen Talent [R-MO], referred
and reported
Conference Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/8/2005 incorporated
and passed Senate
Public Law 109-177 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 3/9/2006
S. 119--Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005, Sen
Feinstein [D-CA], referred and reported
S. 119--Unaccompanied Alien Child Protection Act of 2005, 12/
22/2005 passed Senate
S. 167--Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, Sen
Hatch [R-UT], referred and discharged
S. 167--Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of 2005, 2/1/
2005 passed Senate
Public Law 109-9 Family Entertainment and Copyright Act of
2005, 4/27/2005
S. 188--State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization
Act of 2005, Sen Feinstein [D-CA], referred and
reported
S. 188--State Criminal Alien Assistance Program Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 5/23/05 passed Senate
S. 256--Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
of 2005, Sen Grassley [R-IA], referred and reported
S. 256--Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act
of 2005, 3/11/2005 passed Senate
Public Law 109-8 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer
Protection Act of 2005, 4/20/2005
S. 289--A bill to authorize an annual appropriation of
$10,000,000 for mental health courts through fiscal
year 2011. Sen DeWine [R-OH], referred and
discharged
S. 289--A bill to authorize an annual appropriation of
$10,000,000 for mental health courts through fiscal
year 2011. 4/18/2005 passed Senate
S. 352--Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2005, Sen
Mikulski [D-MD], referred
Conference Report 109-72 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief Act, 2005, 5/10/2005 incorporated
and passed Senate
Public Law 109-13 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005, 5/11/2006
S. 382--Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005,
Sen Ensign [R-NV], referred and discharged
S. 382--Animal Fighting Prohibition Enforcement Act of 2005, 4/
29/2005 passed Senate
S. 443--Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of
2005, Sen DeWine [R-OH], referred and reported
S. 443--Antitrust Criminal Investigative Improvements Act of
2005, 10/25/2005 passed Senate
S. 792--Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act of
2005, Sen Dorgan [D-ND], referred and discharged
S. 792--Dru Sjodin National Sex Offender Public Database Act of
2005, 7/28/2005 passed Senate
H.R. 4472--Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,
7/20/2006 incorporated and passed Senate
Public Law 109-248 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006, 7/27/2006
S. 959--Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commission Act, Sen Sarbanes [D-MD], referred and
discharged
S. 959--Star-Spangled Banner and War of 1812 Bicentennial
Commission Act, 12/16/2005 passed Senate
S. 1086--Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and Pam Lychner
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Grant
Act, Sen Hatch [R-UT]
S. 1086--Jacob Wetterling, Megan Nicole Kanka, and Pam Lychner
Sex Offender Registration and Notification Grant
Act, 5/4/2006 passed Senate
H.R. 4472--Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006,
7/20/2006 incorporated and passed Senate
Public Law 109-248 Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act
of 2006, 7/27/2006
S. 1095--Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005,
Sen Cornyn [R-TX], referred and reported
S. 1095--Protecting American Goods and Services Act of 2005,
11/10/2005 passed Senate
S. 1181--A bill to ensure an open and deliberate process in
Congress by providing that any future legislation
to establish a new exemption to section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to
as the Freedom of Information Act) be stated
explicitly within the text of the bill. Sen Cornyn
[R-TX], referred and reported
S. 1181--A bill to ensure an open and deliberate process in
Congress by providing that any future legislation
to establish a new exemption to section 552 of
title 5, United States Code (commonly referred to
as the Freedom of Information Act) be stated
explicitly within the text of the bill. 6/24/05
passed Senate
S. 1197--Violence Against Women Act of 2005, Sen Biden [D-DE],
referred and reported
S. 1197--Violence Against Women Act of 2005, 10/4/2005 passed
Senate
H.R. 3402--Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005, referred and reported
H.R. 3402--Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/16/2005 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-162 Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 1/5/2006
S. 1389--USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005, Sen Specter [R-PA], referred and reported
H.R. 3199--USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of
2005, 7/29/2005 passed Senate
S. 2167--A bill to amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the
sunset of certain provisions of that Act and the
lone wolf provision of the Intelligence Reform and
Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 to July 1, 2006.
12/22/2005 passed Senate
Public Law 109-160 Extension of Sunset of Certain Provisions of
the USA PATRIOT ACT and the Lone Wolf Provision of
the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004
H.R. 4659--To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the sunset of
certain provisions of such Act, 2/2/2006 passed
Senate
Conference Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/8/2005, includes:
Combat Methamphetamine Epidemic Act of 2005; Secret
Service Authorization and Technical Modification
Act of 2005
Public Law 109-170 To amend the USA PATRIOT ACT to extend the
sunset of certain provisions of such Act, 2/3/2006
S. 2271--USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments
Act of 2006, Sen Sununu [R-NH], 3/1/2006 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-177 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 3/9/2006
Public Law 109-178 USA PATRIOT Act Additional Reauthorizing
Amendments Act of 2006, 3/9/2006
S. 1699--Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, Sen
Specter [R-PA], referred and reported
S. 1699--Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, Sen
Specter [R-PA], passed Senate 11/10/2005
H.R. 32--Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act,
referred and discharged
H.R. 32--Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods Act, 2/15/
2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-181 Stop Counterfeiting in Manufactured Goods
Act, 3/16/2006
S.1 785--Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2005, Sen
Cornyn [R-TX], referred and discharged
S. 1785--Vessel Hull Design Protection Amendments of 2005, 11/
18/2005 passed Senate
S. ___--Budget Reconciliation, [Chairman's Mark], 10/20/2005
reported
S. 1932--Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 11/3/2005 passed Senate
Public Law 109-171 Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, 2/8/2006
S. 1961--Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005,
Sen Biden [D-DE], referred and reported
S. 1961--Extending the Child Safety Pilot Program Act of 2005,
11/18/2005 passed Senate
H.R. 3402--Violence Against Women and Department of Justice
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/16/2005
incorporated and passed Senate
Public Law 109-162 Violence Against Women and Department of
Justice Reauthorization Act of 2005, 1/5/2006
S. 1967--Secret Service Authorization and Technical
Modification Act of 2005, Sen Specter [R-PA],
referred
Conference Report 109-333 USA PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/8/2005 incorporated
and passed Senate
Public Law 109-177 USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005, 3/9/2006
S. 1968--Court Security Improvement Act of 2005, Sen Specter
[R-PA], referred
H.R. 1751--Court Security Improvement Act of 2006, referred and
discharged
H.R. 1751--Court Security Improvement Act of 2006, 12/6/2006
passed Senate
S. 1998--Stolen Valor Act of 2005, Sen Conrad [D-ND], referred
and discharged
S. 1998--Stolen Valor Act of 2005, 9/8/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-___
S. 2178--Consumer Telephone Records Protection Act of 2006, Sen
Schumer, [D-NY], referred and reported
H.R. 4709--Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of
2006, referred and discharged
H.R. 4709--Telephone Records and Privacy Protection Act of
2006, 12/8/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-___
S. 2284--Save Our Small and Seasonal Businesses Act of 2006,
Sen Mikulski [D-MD], referred
H.R. 5122--John Warner National Defense Authorization Act for
Fiscal Year 2007, 6/22/2006 incorporated and passed
Senate
Conference Report 109-702, 9/29/2006
Public Law 109-364 John Warner National Defense Authorization
Act for Fiscal Year 2007, 10/17/2006
S. 2425--A bill to apply amendments to the Immigration and
Nationality Act related to providing medical
services in underserved areas, and for other
purposes, Sen Conrad [D-ND], referred
H.R. 4997--Physicians for Underserved Areas Act, 12/9/2006
passed Senate
Public Law 109-___
S. 2560--Office of National Drug Control Policy Reauthorization
Act of 2006, Sen Specter [R-PA], referred and
reported
H.R. 6344--Office of National Drug Control Policy
Reauthorization Act of 2006, 12/8/2006 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-___
S. ___--Comprehensive Immigration Reform, [Chairman's Mark]
S. 2454--Securing America's Borders Act, Sen Frist [R-TN]
S. 2611--Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2006, Sen
Specter [R-PA], 5/25/2006 passed Senate
S. 2703--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, Coretta Scott King, and
Cesar E. Chavez Voting Rights Act
Reauthorization and Amendments Act of 2006, Sen Specter [R-PA],
referred and reported
H.R. 9--Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott King
Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and Amendments
Act of 2006, 7/20/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-246 Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta
Scott King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and
Amendments Act of 2006, 7/27/2006
S. 3880--Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, Sen Inhofe [R-OK],
referred and discharged
S. 3880--Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 9/30/2006 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-374 Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act, 11/27/06
S. 4042--A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or
former members of the Armed Forces, Sen Durbin [D-
IL], referred and discharged
S. 4042--A bill to amend title 18, United States Code, to
prohibit disruptions of funerals of members or
former members of the Armed Forces, 12/7/2006
passed Senate
Public Law 109-___
S. 4055--Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006, Sen
Feinstein [D-CA], referred and discharged
S. 4055--Preserving Crime Victims' Restitution Act of 2006, 12/
9/2006 passed Senate
H.R. 418--REAL ID Act of 2005, Rep Sensenbrenner [R-WI-5],
referred
Conference Report 109-72 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations
Act for Defense, the Global War on Terror, and
Tsunami Relief Act, 2005, 5/10/2005 incorporated
and passed Senate
Public Law 109-13 Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for
Defense, the Global War on Terror, and Tsunami
Relief, 2005, 5/11/2006
H.R. 683--Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, Rep Smith
[R-TX-15], referred and reported
H.R. 683--Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 3/8/2006
passed Senate
Public Law 109-312 Dilution Revision Act of 2006, 10/6/2006
H.R. 866--To make technical corrections to the United States
Code, Rep Sensenbrenner [R-WI-5], referred and
reported
H.R. 866--To make technical corrections to the United States
Code, 9/12/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-284 To make technical corrections to the United
States Code, 9/27/2006
H.R. 1036--Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act, Rep Smith [R-TX-15], referred and
reported
H.R. 1036--Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act, 7/19/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-303 Copyright Royalty Judges Program Technical
Corrections Act, 10/6/2006
H.R. 1285--Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas
Reauthorization Act of 2005, Rep Rush [D-IL-1],
referred and discharged
H.R. 1285--Nursing Relief for Disadvantaged Areas
Reauthorization Act of 2005, 12/6/2006 passed
Senate
Public Law 109-___
H.R. 1442--To complete the codification of title 46, United
States Code, `Shipping', as positive law, Rep.
Sensenbrenner [R-WI-5], referred and reported
H.R. 1442--To complete the codification of title 46, United
States Code, `Shipping', as positive law, 9/13/2006
passed Senate
Public Law 109-304 To complete the codification of title 46,
United States Code, `Shipping', as positive law,
10/6/2006
H.R. 2107 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, Rep Saxton [R-NJ-3],
referred and discharged
H.R. 2107 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, 9/29/06 passed Senate
Public Law 109-314 National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial
Maintenance Fund Act of 2005, 10/6/2006
H.R. 6061--Secure Fence Act of 2006, Rep King [R-NY-3]
H.R. 6061--Secure Fence Act of 2006, 9/29/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-367 Secure Fence Act of 2006, 10/26/2006
H.R. 6338--Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006,
Rep Flake [R-AZ-6]
H.R. 6338--Geneva Distinctive Emblems Protection Act of 2006,
12/8/2006 passed Senate
Public Law 109-___
F. PUBLICATIONS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Printed Hearings:
Serial No. J-109-1.......... Full.............. Nomination of Hon.
Alberto R.
Gonzales, to be
Attorney General
of the United
States.
Serial No. J-109-2A......... Full.............. The Fairness In
Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act.
Serial No. J-109-2B......... Full.............. Asbestos: The
Mixed Dust and
FELA Issues.
Serial No. J-109-2C......... Full.............. A Bill to create a
fair and
efficient system
to resolve claims
of victims for
bodily injury
caused by
asbestos
exposure, and for
other purposes.
Serial No. J-109-3.......... Full.............. Bankruptcy Reform.
Serial No. J-109-4.......... Full.............. Confirmation
Hearings on
Federal
Appointments-
Multiple Parts.
Serial No. J-109-5.......... T&T............... Terrorism and the
EMP Threat to
Homeland
Security.
Serial No. J-109-6.......... Imm/T&T........... Strengthening
Enforcement and
Border Security:
The 9/11
Commission Staff
Report on
Terrorist Travel.
Serial No. J-109-7.......... Imm/T&T........... Openness in
Government and
Freedom of
Information:
Examining the
Open Government
Act of 2005.
Serial No. J-109-8.......... Full.............. SBC/AT&T and
Verizon/MCI
Mergers-Remaking
the
Telecommunication
s Industry.
Serial No. J-109-8A......... AT................ SBC/AT&T and
Verizon/MCI
Mergers-Remaking
the
Telecommunication
s Industry, Part
2-Another View.
Serial No. J-109-9.......... Con............... Obscenity
Prosecution and
the Constitution.
Serial No. J-109-10......... Full.............. Oversight of the
USA Patriot Act.
Oversight to
Examine the
Implementation of
the USA Patriot
Act.
Serial No. J-109-11......... Full.............. Securing
Electronic
Personal Data:
Striking a
Balance Between
Privacy and
Commercial and
Governmental Use.
Serial No. J-109-12......... Con............... Less Faith in
Judicial Credit:
Are Federal and
State Defense of
Marriage
Initiatives
Vulnerable to
Judicial
Activism?
Serial No. J-109-13......... Imm............... Strengthening
Interior
Enforcement:
Deportation and
Related Issues.
Serial No. J-109-14......... T&T............... A Review of the
Material Support
to Terrorism
Prohibition
Improvements Act.
Serial No. J-109-15......... Full.............. Protecting the
Judiciary at Home
and in the
Courthouse.
Serial No. J-109-16......... Full.............. Nomination of Paul
D. Clement to be
Solicitor General
of United States.
Serial No. J-109-17......... IP................ Perspectives on
Patents.
Serial No. J-109-18......... Imm............... Strengthening
Border Security
Between the Ports
of Entry: The Use
of Technology to
Protect the
Borders.
Serial No. J-109-19......... Full.............. Nominations of
Rachel Brand, of
Iowa, Regina B.
Schofield, of
Virginia, each to
be an Assistant
Attorney General,
Department of
Justice.
Serial No. J-109-20......... Full.............. The Need for
Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform:
Strengthening our
National
Security.
Serial No. J-109-21......... Full.............. Nomination of
William G. Myers
III, of Idaho, to
be Circuit Judge
for the Ninth
Circuit Court of
Appeals.
Serial No. J-109-22......... IP................ Piracy of
Intellectual
Property.
Serial No. J-109-23......... Imm............... The Need for
Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform: Serving
Our National
Economy.
Serial No. J-109-23A........ Imm............... The Need for
Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform: Securing
the Cooperation
of Participating
Countries.
Serial No. J-109-24......... Imm/T&T........... The Southern
Border in Crisis:
Resources and
Strategies to T&T
Improve National
Security.
Serial No. J-109-25......... Full.............. Detainees.
Serial No. J-109-26......... Full.............. Prevention of
Youth and Gang
Violence.
Serial No. J-109-27......... IP................ Patent Law Reform:
Injunctions and
Damages.
Serial No. J-109-28......... Con............... The Consequences
of Roe v. Wade
and Doe v.
Bolton.
Serial No. J-109-29......... Full.............. Habeas Corpus
Proceedings and
Issues of Actual
Innocence.
Serial No. J-109-30......... IP................ Music Licensing
Reform.
Serial No. J-109-31......... Full.............. Reporters'
Privilege
Legislation:
Issues and
Implications.
Serial No. J-109-32......... Admn.............. A Review of
Federal Consent
Decrees.
Serial No. J-109-33......... Full.............. Reauthorization of
the Violence
Against Women
Act.
Serial No. J-109-34......... Full.............. Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform.
Serial No. J-109-35......... IP................ Perspective on
Patents:
Harmonization and
Other Matters.
Serial No. J-109-36......... Full.............. Federal Bureau of
Investigation
Oversight.
Serial No. J-109-37......... Full.............. Nomination of John
G. Roberts, Jr.,
of Maryland, to
be Chief Justice
of the United
States.
Serial No. J-109-38......... Full.............. The Kelo Decision:
Investigating
Takings of Homes
and Other Private
Property.
Serial No. J-109-39......... Full.............. Able Danger and
Intelligence
Information
Sharing.
Serial No. J-109-40......... Full.............. Protecting
Copyright and
Innovation in a
Post-Grokster
World.
Serial No. J-109-41......... Full.............. Confirmation
Hearings on
Federal
Appointments.
Serial No. J-109-42......... Full.............. Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform II.
Serial No. J-109-43......... AT................ Video Competition
in 2005--More
Consolidation, or
New Choices for
Consumers?
Serial No. J-109-44......... Full.............. Reporters'
Privilege
Legislation: An
Additional
Investigation of
Issues and
Implications.
Serial No. J-109-45......... Con............... An Examination of
the
Constitutional
Amendment on
Marriage.
Serial No. J-109-46......... T&T............... Emergency
Preparedness.
Serial No. J-109-47......... Admn.............. Revisiting
Proposals to
Split the Ninth
Circuit: An
Inevitable
Solution to a
Growing Problem.
Serial No. J-109-48......... Full.............. Confirmation
Hearings on
Federal
Appointments.
Serial No. J-109-49......... Full.............. Saudi Arabia:
Friend or Foe in
the War on
Terror?
Serial No. J-109-50......... Full.............. Cameras in the
Courtroom.
Serial No. J-109-51......... Con............... Why the Government
Should Care about
Pornography: The
State Interest in
Protecting
Children and
Families.
Serial No. J-109-52......... Full.............. Habeas Reform: The
Streamlined
Procedures Act.
Serial No. J-109-53......... Admn.............. Creating New
Federal
Judgeships: The
Systematic or
Piecemeal
Approach.
Serial No. J-109-54......... Full.............. Recent
Developments in
Assessing Future
Asbestos Claims
Under the FAIR
Act.
Serial No. J-109-55......... Imm............... Proposed Western
Hemisphere
Passport Rules:
Impact on Trade
and Tourism.
Serial No. J-109-56......... Full.............. Nomination of
Samuel Alito,
Jr., to be
Associate Justice
of The Supreme
Court of the
United States.
Serial No. J-109-58......... Full.............. An Examination of
the Death Penalty
in the United
States.
Serial No. J-109-59......... Full.............. Wartime Executive
Power and the
National Security
Agency's
Surveillance
Authority.
Serial No. J-109-60......... Imm/T&T........... Federal Strategies
to end Border
Violence.
Serial No. J-109-61......... Full.............. Nomination of
Thomas B.
Griffith to be
Circuit Judge for
DC Circuit.
Serial No. J-109-62......... Full.............. Nomination of
Timothy Elliott
Flanigan to be
Deputy Attorney
General,
Department of
Justice.
Serial No. J-109-63......... Full.............. Defective
Products: Will
Criminal
Penalties Ensure
Corporate
Accountability.
Serial No. J-109-64......... Con............... What's in a Game?
Regulation of
Violent Video
Games And the
First Amendment.
Serial No. J-109-65......... AT................ Hospital Group
Purchasing: Are
the Industry's
Reforms
Sufficient to
Ensure
Competition?
Serial No. J-109-66......... Full.............. An Examination of
the Call to
Censure the
President.
Serial No. J-109-67......... Full.............. Immigration
Litigation
Reduction.
Serial No. J-109-68......... IP................ Orphan Works:
Proposals for a
Legislative
Solution.
Serial No. J-109-69......... Full.............. Immigration:
Economic Impacts.
Serial No. J-109-70......... Full.............. Renewing the
Temporary
Provisions of the
Voting Rights
Act: An
Introduction to
the Evidence.
Serial No. J-109-71......... Full.............. Parity, Flatforms
and Protection:
The Future of the
Music Industry in
the Digital Radio
Revolution.
Serial No. J-109-72......... Full.............. FBI Oversight.
Serial No. J-109-73......... Full.............. Nomination of
Brett Kavanaugh
to be Circuit
Judge for the DC
Circuit.
Serial No. J-109-74......... Full.............. An Introduction to
the Expiring
Provisions of the
Voting Rights Act
and Legal Issues
Relating to
Reauthorization.
Serial No. J-109-75......... Full.............. Modern Enforcement
of the Voting
Rights Act.
Serial No. J-109-76......... Full.............. Voting Rights Act:
Understanding the
Benefits and
Costs of Section
5 Pre-Clearance.
Serial No. J-109-77......... Full.............. Voting Rights Act:
The Continuing
Need for Section
5 Pre-Clearance.
Serial No. J-109-78......... Full.............. Perspectives on
Patents: Post-
Grant Review
Procedures and
other Litigation
Reforms.
Serial No. J-109-79......... Full/Field........ Campus Crime:
Compliance and
Enforcement Under
the Field Clery
Act.
Serial No. J-109-80......... Con............... The Consequences
of Legalized
Assisted Suicide
and Euthanasia.
Serial No. J-109-81......... Full.............. Examining DOJ's
Investigation of
Journalists who
Publish
Classified
Information:
Lessons from the
Jack Anderson
Case.
Serial No. J-109-82......... Full.............. S.3274: the
Fairness in
Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act of
2006.
Serial No. J-109-83......... Corr.............. The Findings and
Recommendations
of the Commission
on Safety and
Abuse in
America's
Prisons.
Serial No. J-109-84......... Full.............. Examining the
continuing Need
for Voting Rights
Act Section 203's
Provisions
Regarding
Bilingual
Election
Materials.
Serial No. J-109-85......... Full.............. Reconsidering our
Communications
Laws: Ensuring
Competition and
Innovation.
Serial No. J-109-86......... Full.............. The Analog Hole:
can Congress
Protect Copyright
and Promote
Innovation.
Serial No. J-109-87......... Imm............... Immigration
Enforcement at
the Workplace:
Learning From the
Mistakes of 1986.
Serial No. J-109-88......... Con............... Reauthorizing the
Voting Rights
Act's Temporary
Provisions Policy
Perspectives and
Views from the
Field.
Serial No. J-109-89......... Full.............. The McCarran-
Ferguson Act:
Implications of
Repealing The
Insurers'
Antitrust
Exemption.
Serial No. J-109-90......... AT................ The AT&T and
Bellsouth Merger:
What does it mean
for Consumers?
Serial No. J-109-91......... Admn.............. The Multidistrict
Litigation
Restoration Act.
Serial No. J-109-92......... Full.............. The Use of
Presidential
Signing
Statements.
Serial No. J-109-93......... Full.............. Hedge Funds and
Independent
Analysts: How
Independent Are
their
Relationships?
Serial No. J-109-94......... Full.............. Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform: Examining
the Need For a
Guest Worker
Program.
Serial No. J-109-95......... Full.............. Humdan v.
Rumsfeld:
Establishing a
Constitution
Process.
Serial No. J-109-96......... Full.............. Nominations of
William James
Haynes II to be
U.S. Circuit
Judge for the
Fourth Circuit;
Serial No. J-109-97......... Full.............. Examining the need
for Comprehensive
Immigration
Reform.
Serial No. J-109-98......... Con............... Renewing the
Temporary
Provisions of the
Voting Rights
Act: Legislative
Options After.
Serial No. J-109-99......... Full.............. Department of
Justice
Overisght.
Serial No. J-109-100........ Full.............. Credit Card
Interchange Fees:
Anti-trust
Concerns.
Serial No. J-109-101........ Full.............. FISA for the 21st
Century.
Serial No. J-109-102........ T&T............... Detecting Smuggled
Nuclear Weapons.
Serial No. J-109-103........ Full.............. The Authority to
Prosecute
Terrorists Under
the War Crime
Provisions of
Title 18.
Serial No. J-109-104........ Con............... Paying Your Own
Way: Creating a
Fair Standard for
Attorney's Fees
Awards in
Establishment
Clause.
Serial No. J-109-105........ Imm............... U.S. VISA Policy:
Competition for
International
Scholars,
Scientists, and
Skilled Workers.
Serial No. J-109-106........ Full.............. Examining
Competition in
Group Health
Care.
Serial No. J-109-107........ T&T............... ``Keeping
Terrorists Off
the Plane''.
Serial No. J-109-108........ Full.............. The Thompson
Memorandum's
Effect on the
Right to Counsel
in Corporate
Investigations.
Serial No. J-109-109........ Crime............. Challenges Facing
Today's Federal
Prosecutors.
Serial No. J-109-110........ Full.............. The Cost of Crime:
Understanding the
Financial and
Human Impact of
Criminal
Activity.
Serial No. J-109-111........ Full.............. Reporters'
Privilege
Legislation:
Preserving
Effective Federal
Law Enforcement.
Serial No. J-109-112........ Full.............. Examining the
Proposal to
Restructure the
Ninth Circuit.
Serial No. J-109-113........ Full.............. Examining
Proposals to
Limit Guantanamo
Detainees' Access
to Habeas Corpus
Review.
Serial No. J-109-114........ Cor............... Oversight of
Federal
Assistance for
Prisoner
Rehabilitation
And Reentry in
our States.
Serial No. J-109-115........ Full.............. Nomination of
Michael Brunson
Wallace, to be
U.S. Circuit
Judge for the
Fifth Circuit.
Serial No. J-109-116........ Full.............. Fighting Crime:
The Challenges
facing local Law
Enforcement and
the Federal Role.
Serial No. J-109-117........ Full.............. Illegal Insider
Trading: How
Widespread is the
Problem And is
there Adequate
Criminal
Enforcement?
Serial No. J-109-118........ Imm............... Oversight Hearing:
U.S. Refugee
Admissions and
Policy.
Serial No. J-109-119........ Full.............. Competition in
Sports
Programming and
Broadcasting: Are
Consumers
Winning?
Serial No. J-109-120........ Full.............. Oversight of the
Civil Rights
Division.
Serial No. J-109-121........ Full.............. Examining
Enforcement of
Criminal Insider
Trading and Hedge
Fund Activity.
Serial No. J-109-122........ Full.............. FBI Oversight.
Serial No. J-109-123........ Admn.............. Oversight of the
Implementation of
the Bankruptcy
Abuse Prevention
and Consumer
Protection Act.
Serial No. J-109-124........ Full.............. Vertically
Integrated Sports
Programming: Are
Cable Companies
Excluding
Competition?
Serial No. J-109-125........ Full.............. Nomination of Paul
J. McNulty, of
Virginia, to be
Deputy Attorney
General, U.S.
Department of
Justice.
Senate Reports:
Senate Report 109-014....... .................. The Class Action
Fairness Act of
2005.
Senate Report 109-097....... .................. The Fairness in
Asbestos Injury
Resolution Act of
2005.
Senate Report 109-295....... .................. Fannie Lou Hamer,
Rosa Parks,
Coretta Scott
King, and Cesar
E. Chavez Voting
Rights Act
Reauthoization
and Amendments
Act of 2006.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
VII. COMMITTEE STRUCTURE AND PROCEDURE
A. FULL COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
Michael O'Neill, Chief Counsel and
Staff Director
Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief
Counsel and Staff Director
B. SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP
ADMINISTRATIVE OVERSIGHT AND THE COURTS
JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama, Chairman
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
SUBCOMMITTEE ON IMMIGRATION, BORDER SECURITY, AND CITIZENSHIP
JOHN CORNYN, Texas, Chairman
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JON KYL, Arizona
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE CONSTITUTION, CIVIL RIGHTS AND PROPERTY RIGHTS
SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas, Chairman
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ANTITRUST, COMPETITION POLICY, AND CONSUMER RIGHTS
MIKE DeWINE, Ohio, Chairman
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ORRIN G. HATHER, Utah
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION
TOM COBURN, Oklahoma, Chairman
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SAM BROWNBACK, Kansas
SUBCOMMITTEE ON CRIME AND DRUGS
LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, Pennsylvania,
Chairman
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JON KYL, Arizona
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
SUBCOMMITTEE ON TERRORISM, TECHNOLOGY, AND HOMELAND SECURITY
JOHN KYL, Arizona, Chairman
DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah
EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa
JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JOHN CORNYN, Texas
HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DeWINE, Ohio
RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
C. JURISDICTION OF THE COMMITTEE
(To include S. Res. 445 from the 108th Congress)
Senate Rule XXVI
(l) Committee on the Judiciary, to which committee shall be
referred all proposed legislation, messages, petitions,
memorials, and other matters relating to the following
subjects:
1. Apportionment of Representatives.
2. Bankruptcy, mutiny, espionage, and counterfeiting.
3. Civil liberties.
4. Constitutional amendments.
5. Federal courts and judges.
6. Government information.
7. Holidays and celebrations.
8. Immigration and naturalization.
9. Interstate compacts generally.
10. Judicial proceedings, civil and criminal,
generally.
11. Local courts in the territories and possessions.
12. Measures relating to claims against the United
States.
13. National penitentiaries.
14. Patent Office.
15. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks.
16. Protection of trade and commerce against unlawful
restraints and monopolies.
17. Revision and codification of the statutes of the
United States.
18. State and territorial boundary lines.
S. RES. 445
108th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. RES. 445
To eliminate certain restrictions on service of a Senator
on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
October 1, 2004
Mr. LOTT submitted the following resolution; which was
referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration
October 5, 2004
Reported by Mr. LOTT, without amendment
October 9, 2004
Considered, amended, and agreed to
RESOLUTION
To eliminate certain restrictions on service of a Senator
on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence.
Resolved,
SEC. 100. PURPOSE.
It is the purpose of titles I through V of this resolution
to improve the effectiveness of the Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence, especially with regard to its oversight of the
Intelligence Community of the United States Government, and to
improve the Senate's oversight of homeland security.
TITLE I--HOMELAND SECURITY OVERSIGHT REFORM
SEC. 101. HOMELAND SECURITY.
(a) Committee on Homeland Security and Government
Affairs.--The Committee on Governmental Affairs is renamed as
the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
(b) Jurisdiction.--There shall be referred to the committee
all proposed legislation, messages, petitions, memorials, and
other matters relating to the following subjects:
(1) Department of Homeland Security, except matters
relating to--
(A) the Coast Guard, the Transportation
Security Administration, the Federal Law
Enforcement Training Center or the Secret
Service; and
(B)(i) the United States Citizenship and
Immigration Service; or
(ii) the immigration functions of the United
States Customs and Border Protection or the
United States Immigration and Custom
Enforcement or the Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security; and
(C) the following functions performed by any
employee of the Department of Homeland
Security--
(i) any customs revenue function
including any function provided for in
section 415 of the Homeland Security
Act of 2002 (Public Law 107-296);
(ii) any commercial function or
commercial operation of the Bureau of
Customs and Border Protection or Bureau
of Immigration and Customs Enforcement,
including matters relating to trade
facilitation and trade regulation; or
(iii) any other function related to
clause (i) or (ii) that was exercised
by the United States Customs Service on
the day before the effective date of
the Homeland Security Act of 2002
(Public Law 107-296).
The jurisdiction of the Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs in this paragraph shall
supersede the jurisdiction of any other committee of
the Senate provided in the rules of the Senate:
Provided, That the jurisdiction provided under section
101(b)(1) shall not include the National Flood
Insurance Act of 1968, or functions of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency related thereto.
(2) Archives of the United States.
(3) Budget and accounting measures, other than
appropriations, except as provided in the Congressional
Budget Act of 1974.
(4) Census and collection of statistics, including
economic and social statistics.
(5) Congressional organization, except for any part
of the matter that amends the rules or orders of the
Senate.
(6) Federal Civil Service.
(7) Government information.
(8) Intergovernmental relations.
(9) Municipal affairs of the District of Columbia,
except appropriations therefor.
(10) Organization and management of United States
nuclear export policy.
(11) Organization and reorganization of the executive
branch of the Government.
(12) Postal Service.
(13) Status of officers and employees of the United
States, including their classification, compensation,
and benefits.
(c) Additional Duties.--The committee shall have the duty
of--
(1) receiving and examining reports of the
Comptroller General of the United States and of
submitting such recommendations to the Senate as it
deems necessary or desirable in connection with the
subject matter of such reports;
(2) studying the efficiency, economy, and
effectiveness of all agencies and departments of the
Government;
(3) evaluating the effects of laws enacted to
reorganize the legislative and executive branches of
the Government; and
(4) studying the intergovernmental relationships
between the United States and the States and
municipalities, and between the United States and
international organizations of which the United States
is a member.
(d) Jurisdiction of Budget Committee.--Notwithstanding
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, and except as otherwise
provided in the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, the Committee
on the Budget shall have exclusive jurisdiction over measures
affecting the congressional budget process, which are--
(1) the functions, duties, and powers of the Budget
Committee;
(2) the functions, duties, and powers of the
Congressional Budget Office;
(3) the process by which Congress annually
establishes the appropriate levels of budget authority,
outlays, revenues, deficits or surpluses, and public
debt--including subdivisions thereof--and including the
establishment of mandatory ceilings on spending and
appropriations, a floor on revenues, timetables for
congressional action on concurrent resolutions, on the
reporting of authorization bills, and on the enactment
of appropriation bills, and enforcement mechanisms for
budgetary limits and timetables;
(4) the limiting of backdoor spending devices;
(5) the timetables for Presidential submission of
appropriations and authorization requests;
(6) the definitions of what constitutes impoundment--
such as ``rescissions'' and ``deferrals'';
(7) the process and determination by which
impoundments must be reported to and considered by
Congress;
(8) the mechanisms to insure Executive compliance
with the provisions of the Impoundment Control Act,
title X--such as GAO review and lawsuits; and
(9) the provisions which affect the content or
determination of amounts included in or excluded from
the congressional budget or the calculation of such
amounts, including the definition of terms provided by
the Budget Act.
(e) OMB Nominees.--The Committee on the Budget and the
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs shall
have joint jurisdiction over the nominations of persons
nominated by the President to fill the positions of Director
and Deputy Director for Budget within the Office of Management
and Budget, and if one committee votes to order reported such a
nomination, the other must report within 30 calendar days
session, or be automatically discharged.
TITLE II--INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT REFORM
SEC. 201. INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT.
(a) Committee on Armed Services Membership.--Section
2(a)(3) of Senate Resolution 400, agreed to May 19, 1976 (94th
Congress) (referred to in this section as ``S. Res. 400'') is
amended by--
(1) inserting ``(A)'' after ``(3)''; and
(2) inserting at the end the following:
``(B) The Chairman and Ranking Member of the
Committee on Armed Services (if not already a
member of the select Committee) shall be ex
officio members of the select Committee but
shall have no vote in the Committee and shall
not be counted for purposes of determining a
quorum.'.
(b) Number of Members.--Section 2(a) of S. Res. 400 is
amended--
(1) in paragraph (1), by inserting ``not to exceed''
before ``fifteen members'';
(2) in paragraph (1)(E), by inserting ``not to
exceed'' before ``seven''; and
(3) in paragraph (2), by striking the second sentence
and inserting ``Of any members appointed under
paragraph (1)(E), the majority leader shall appoint the
majority members and the minority leader shall appoint
the minority members, with the majority having a one
vote margin.''.
(c) Elimination of Term Limits.--Section 2 of Senate
Resolution 400, 94th Congress, agreed to May 19, 1976, is
amended by striking subsection (b) and by redesignating
subsection (c) as subsection (b).
(d) Appointment of Chairman and Vice Chairman.--Section
2(b) of S. Res. 400, as redesignated by subsection (c) of this
section, is amended by striking the first sentence and
inserting the following: ``At the beginning of each Congress,
the Majority Leader of the Senate shall select a chairman of
the select Committee and the Minority Leader shall select a
vice chairman for the select Committee.''.
(e) Subcommittees.--Section 2 of S. Res. 400, as amended by
subsections (a) through (d), is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``(c) The select Committee may be organized into
subcommittees. Each subcommittee shall have a chairman and a
vice chairman who are selected by the Chairman and Vice
Chairman of the select Committee, respectively.''.
(f) Reports.--Section 4(a) of S. Res. 400 is amended by
inserting ``, but not less than quarterly,'' after
``periodic''.
(g) Staff.--Section 15 of S. Res. 400 is amended to read as
follows:
``Sec. 15. (a) In addition to other committee staff
selected by the select Committee, the select Committee shall
hire or appoint one employee for each member of the select
Committee to serve as such Member's designated representative
on the select Committee. The select Committee shall only hire
or appoint an employee chosen by the respective Member of the
select Committee for whom the employee will serve as the
designated representative on the select Committee.
``(b) The select Committee shall be afforded a supplement
to its budget, to be determined by the Committee on Rules and
Administration, to allow for the hire of each employee who
fills the position of designated representative to the select
Committee. The designated representative shall have office
space and appropriate office equipment in the select Committee
spaces. Designated personal representatives shall have the same
access to Committee staff, information, records, and databases
as select Committee staff, as determined by the Chairman and
Vice Chairman.
``(c) The designated employee shall meet all the
requirements of relevant statutes, Senate rules, and committee
security clearance requirements for employment by the select
Committee.
``(d) Of the funds made available to the select Committee
for personnel--
``(1) not more than 60 percent shall be under the
control of the Chairman; and
``(2) not less than 40 percent shall be under the
control of the Vice Chairman.''.
(h) Nominees.--S. Res. 400 is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``Sec. 17. (a) The select Committee shall have
jurisdiction for reviewing, holding hearings, and reporting the
nominations of civilian persons nominated by the President to
fill all positions within the intelligence community requiring
the advice and consent of the Senate.
``(b) Other committees with jurisdiction over the nominees'
executive branch department may hold hearings and interviews
with such persons, but only the select Committee shall report
such nominations.''.
(i) Jurisdiction.--Section 3(b) of S. Res. 400 is amended
to read as follows:
``(b)(1) Any proposed legislation reported by the select
Committee except any legislation involving matters specified in
clause (1) or (4)(A) of subsection (a), containing any matter
otherwise within the jurisdiction of any standing committee
shall, at the request of the chairman of such standing
committee, be referred to such standing committee for its
consideration of such matter and be reported to the Senate by
such standing committee within 10 days after the day on which
such proposed legislation, in its entirety and including
annexes, is referred to such standing committee; and any
proposed legislation reported by any committee, other than the
select Committee, which contains any matter within the
jurisdiction of the select Committee shall, at the request of
the chairman of the select Committee, be referred to the select
Committee for its consideration of such matter and be reported
to the Senate by the select Committee within 10 days after the
day on which such proposed legislation, in its entirety and
including annexes, is referred to such committee.
``(2) In any case in which a committee fails to report any
proposed legislation referred to it within the time limit
prescribed in this subsection, such Committee shall be
automatically discharged from further consideration of such
proposed legislation on the 10th day following the day on which
such proposed legislation is referred to such committee unless
the Senate provides otherwise, or the Majority Leader or
Minority Leader request, prior to that date, an additional 5
days on behalf of the Committee to which the proposed
legislation was sequentially referred. At the end of that
additional 5 day period, if the Committee fails to report the
proposed legislation within that 5 day period, the Committee
shall be automatically discharged from further consideration of
such proposed legislation unless the Senate provides otherwise.
``(3) In computing any 10 or 5 day period under this
subsection there shall be excluded from such computation any
days on which the Senate is not the session.
``(4) The reporting and referral processes outlined in this
subsection shall be conducted in strict accordance with the
Standing Rules of the Senate. In accordance with such rules,
committees to which legislation is referred are not permitted
to make changes or alterations to the text of the referred bill
and its annexes, but may propose changes or alterations to the
same in the form of amendments.''.
(j) Public Disclosure.--Section 8 of S. Res. 400 is
amended--
(1) in subsection (b)--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``shall
notify the President of such vote'' and
inserting ``shall--
``(A) first, notify the Majority Leader and
Minority Leader of the Senate of such vote; and
``(B) second, consult with the Majority
Leader and Minority Leader before notifying the
President of such vote.'';
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking
``transmitted to the President'' and inserting
``transmitted to the Majority Leader and the
Minority Leader and the President''; and
(C) by amending paragraph (3) to read as
follows:
``(3) If the President, personally, in writing,
notifies the Majority Leader and Minority Leader of the
Senate and the select Committee of his objections to
the disclosure of such information as provided in
paragraph (2), the Majority Leader and Minority Leader
jointly or the select Committee, by majority vote, may
refer the question of the disclosure of such
information to the Senate for consideration.''.
TITLE III--COMMITTEE STATUS
SEC. 301. COMMITTEE STATUS.
(a) Homeland Security.--The Committee on Homeland Security
and Governmental Affairs shall be treated as the Committee on
Governmental Affairs listed under paragraph 2 of rule XXV of
the Standing Rules of the Senate for purposes of the Standing
Rules of the Senate.
(b) Intelligence.--The Select Committee on Intelligence
shall be treated as a committee listed under paragraph 2 of
rule XXV of the Standing Rules of the Senate for purposes of
the Standing Rules of the Senate.
TITLE IV--INTELLIGENCE-RELATED SUBCOMMITTEES
SEC. 401. SUBCOMMITTEE RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE OVERSIGHT.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Select
Committee on Intelligence a Subcommittee on Oversight which
shall be in addition to any other subcommittee established by
the select Committee.
(b) Responsibility.--The Subcommittee on Oversight shall be
responsible for ongoing oversight of intelligence activities.
SEC. 402. SUBCOMMITTEE RELATED TO INTELLIGENCE APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) Establishment.--There is established in the Committee
on Appropriations a Subcommittee on Intelligence. The Committee
on Appropriations shall reorganize into 13 subcommittees as
soon as possible after the convening of the 109th Congress.
(b) Jurisdiction.--The Subcommittee on Intelligence of the
Committee on Appropriations shall have jurisdiction over
funding for intelligence matters, as determined by the Senate
Committee on Appropriations.
TITLE V--EFFECTIVE DATE
SEC. 501. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This resolution shall take effect on the convening of the
109th Congress.
D. RULES OF THE COMMITTEE
(Adopted July 14, 2005)
I. MEETINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
1. Meetings of the Committee may be called by the Chairman
as he may deem necessary on three days' notice of the date,
time, place and subject matter of the meeting, or in the
alternative with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member, or
pursuant to the provision of the Standing Rules of the Senate,
as amended.
2. Unless otherwise called pursuant to (1) of this section,
Committee meetings shall take place promptly at 9:30 AM each
Thursday the Senate is in session.
3. At the request of any Member, or by action of the
Chairman, a bill, matter, or nomination on the agenda of the
Committee may be held over until the next meeting of the
Committee or for one week, whichever occurs later.
II. HEARINGS OF THE COMMITTEE
1. The Committee shall provide a public announcement of the
date, time, place and subject matter of any hearing to be
conducted by the Committee or any Subcommittee at least seven
calendar days prior to the commencement of that hearing, unless
the Chairman with the consent of the Ranking Minority Member
determines that good cause exists to begin such hearing at an
earlier date. Witnesses shall provide a written statement of
their testimony and curriculum vitae to the Committee at least
24 hours preceding the hearing testimony in as many copies as
the Chairman of the Committee or Subcommittee prescribes.
2. In the event 14 calendar days' notice of a hearing has
been made, any witness appearing before the Committee,
including any witness representing a Government agency, must
file with the Committee at least 48 hours preceding her
appearance a written statement of her testimony and curriculum
vitae in as many copies as the Chairman of the Committee or
Subcommittee prescribes. In the event the witness fails to file
a written statement in accordance with this rule, the Chairman
may permit the witness to testify, or deny the witness the
privilege of testifying before the Committee, or permit the
witness to testify in response to questions from Senators
without the benefit of giving an opening statement.
III. QUORUMS
1. One-third of the membership of the Committee, actually
present, shall constitute a quorum for the purpose of
discussing business. Eight members of the Committee, including
at least two members of the minority, must be present to
transact business. No bill, matter, or nomination shall be
ordered reported from the Committee, however, unless a majority
of the Committee is actually present at the time such action is
taken and a majority of those present support the action taken.
2. For the purpose of taking sworn testimony, a quorum of
the Committee and each Subcommittee thereof, now or hereafter
appointed, shall consist of one Senator.
IV. BRINGING A MATTER TO A VOTE
1. The Chairman shall entertain a non-debatable motion to
bring a matter before the Committee to a vote. If there is
objection to bring the matter to a vote without further debate,
a roll call vote of the Committee shall be taken, and debate
shall be terminated if the motion to bring the matter to a vote
without further debate passes with ten votes in the
affirmative, one of which must be cast by the minority.
V. AMENDMENTS
1. Provided at least seven calendar days' notice of the
agenda is given, and the text of the proposed bill or
resolution has been made available at least seven calendar days
in advance, it shall not be in order for the Committee to
consider any amendment in the first degree proposed to any
measure under consideration by the Committee unless such
amendment has been delivered to the office of the Committee and
circulated via e-mail to each of the offices by at least 5:00
PM the day prior to the scheduled start of the meeting.
2. It shall be in order, without prior notice, for a Member
to offer a motion to strike a single section of any bill,
resolution, or amendment under consideration.
3. The time limit imposed on the filing of amendments shall
apply to no more than three bills identified by the Chairman
and included on the Committee's legislative agenda.
4. This section of the rule may be waived by agreement of
the Chairman and the Ranking Minority Member.
VI. PROXY VOTING
1. When a recorded vote is taken in the Committee on any
bill, resolution, amendment, or any other question, a quorum
being present, a Member who is unable to attend the meeting may
submit her vote by proxy, in writing or by telephone, or
through personal instructions. A proxy must be specific with
respect to the matters it addresses and may not be counted
either in reporting a matter, bill, or nomination to the floor,
or in preventing any of the same from being reported to the
floor.
VII. SUBCOMMITTEES
1. Any Member of the Committee may sit with any
Subcommittee during its hearings or any other meeting, but
shall not have the authority to vote on any matter before the
Subcommittee unless she is a Member of such Subcommittee.
2. Subcommittees shall be considered de novo whenever there
is a change in the Subcommittee chairmanship and seniority on
the particular Subcommittee shall not necessarily apply.
3. Except for matters retained at the full Committee,
matters shall be referred to the appropriate Subcommittee or
Subcommittees by the Chairman, except as agreed by a majority
vote of the Committee or by the agreement of the Chairman and
the Ranking Minority Member.
4. Provided all Members of the Subcommittee consent, a bill
or other matter may be polled out of the Subcommittee. In order
to be polled out of a Subcommittee, a majority of the Members
of the Subcommittee who vote, must vote in favor of reporting
the bill or matter to the Committee.
VIII. ATTENDANCE RULES
1. Official attendance at all Committee markups and
executive sessions of the Committee shall be kept by the
Committee Clerk. Official attendance at all Subcommittee
markups and executive sessions shall be kept by the
Subcommittee Clerk.
2. Official attendance at all hearings shall be kept,
provided that Senators are notified by the Committee Chairman
and Ranking Minority Member, in the case of Committee hearings,
and by the Subcommittee Chairman and Ranking Minority Member,
in the case of Subcommittee hearings, 48 hours in advance of
the hearing that attendance will be taken; otherwise, no
attendance will be taken. Attendance at all hearings is
encouraged.