[Senate Hearing 108-135] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 108-135, Pt. 8 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JULY 7, SEPTEMBER 8, SEPTEMBER 22, AND NOVEMBER 16, 2004 __________ Serial No. J-108-1 __________ PART 8 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 32-198 PDF WASHINGTON : 2007 ------------------------------------------------------------------ For sale by Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250. Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 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 O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 1 prepared statement........................................... 49 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 51 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 53 PRESENTER Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting Michael H. Schneider, Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas............... 3 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE Schneider, Michael H., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas...................................... 4 Questionnaire................................................ 6 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Michael H. Schneider to questions submitted by Senator Hatch.................................................. 41 Responses of Michael H. Schneider to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.................................................. 44 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Dallas County Democratic Party, Susan Hays, Chair, Dallas, Texas, letter......................................................... 52 ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, prepared statement............................................. 246 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 64 prepared statement........................................... 248 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont. 66 prepared statement........................................... 250 PRESENTERS Christensen, Hon. Donna, a Delegate in Congress from the Territory of the Virgin Islands presenting Raymond L. Finch, Nominee to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for the term of ten years [Reappointment].............. 61 Cochran, Hon. Thad, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting Keith Starrett, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi............................... 57 Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, presenting Micaela Alvarez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas................................. 60 Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas, presenting Micaela Alvarez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas............................. 59 Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi presenting Keith Starrett, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi............................... 58 McCotter, Hon. Thaddeus, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan presenting Susan B. Neilson, Nominee to be a District Judge for the Sixth Circuit........................... 63 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Alvarez, Micaela, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.............................................. 116 Questionnaire................................................ 117 Finch, Raymond L., Nominee to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands............................................. 204 Questionnaire................................................ 205 Neilson, Susan B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit........................................................ 73 Questionnaire................................................ 74 Starrett, Keith, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi........................................ 147 Questionnaire................................................ 148 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Micaela Alvarez to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 237 Responses of Raymond Finch to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 240 Responses of Susan Neilson to questions submitted by Senators Feingold and Durbin............................................ 243 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Levin, Hon. Carl, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, letter......................................................... 253 Lott, Hon. Trent, a U.S. Senator from the State of Mississippi, prepared statement............................................. 255 Martin, Crystal Wise, President, Magnolia Bar Association, Inc., Jackson, Mississippi, letter................................... 260 Neilson, Susan Bieke, Circuit Court Judge, Detroit, Michigan, letter......................................................... 263 Stabenow, Hon. Debbie, a U.S. Senator from the State of Michigan, prepared statement............................................. 264 ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared statement............................................. 414 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 420 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 451 PRESENTERS DeWine, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio presenting Christopher Boyko, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio.................................. 270 Latourette, Hon. Steven, a Representative in Congress from the State of Ohio presenting Christopher Boyko, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio............... 267 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont presenting Beryl Alaine Howell, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission............................ 268 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Boyko, Christopher, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio............................................... 272 Questionnaire................................................ 273 Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission.......................................... 318 Questionnaire................................................ 319 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Christopher Allen Boyko to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.................................................. 363 Responses of Beryl Alaine Howell to questions submitted by Senators Chambliss and Sessions................................ 406 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the Sentencing Commission, articles........................................... 423 Stroz Friedberg, LLC, March 3, 2003, article..................... 455 Voinovich, Hon. George V., a U.S. Senator from the State of Ohio, prepared statement............................................. 457 ---------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin...................................................... 463 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 656 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 674 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania................................................... 470 PRESENTERS Akaka, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii presenting J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii...................... 464 Bennett, Hon. Robert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, presenting Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia............................. 465 Clinton, Hon. Hillary Rodham, a U.S. Senator from the State of New York presenting Paul A. Crotty, of New York, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........... 556 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, presenting Thomas B. Griffith, of Utah, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia............................. 467 Inouye, Hon. Daniel, a U.S. Senator from the State of Hawaii presenting J. Michael Seabright, of Hawaii, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii...................... 460 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York presenting Paul A. Crotty, of New York, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........... 461 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Griffith, Thomas B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.................................................... 471 Questionnaire................................................ 473 Crotty, Paul A., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........................................... 502 Questionnaire................................................ 503 Seabright, J. Michael, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii............................................. 515 Questionnaire................................................ 516 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Biden.......................................................... 562 Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 566 Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Feingold....................................................... 571 Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein...................................................... 584 Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy........................................................ 595 Responses of Thomas B. Griffith to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 601 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Albright, G. Mark, Esq., Albright, Stoddard, Warnick & Palmer, Las Vegas, Nevada, letter...................................... 615 Andrews, Walter J., Partner, Shaw Pittman L.L.P., McLean, Virginia, letter............................................... 617 Augustine-Adams, Kif, Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter.......... 618 Baldwin, John C., Executive Director, Utah State Bar, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter............................................. 620 Bertelsen, Delora P., Managing Director, Employee Relations and Equal Opportunity, Brigham Young University, letter............ 621 Bledsoe, Louis A., III, Robin L. Hinson, Haynes P. Lea, Edwin F. Lucas, III, Jane S. Ratteree, Patrick S. Bryant, Edward F. Hennessey, IV, Allen K. Robertson, Robert W. Bradswhaw, Jr., John R. Wester, Brent A. Torstrick, Richard L. Mack, Robert G. Griffin, Henry H. Ralston, Stokley G. Caldwell, Jr., Christopher W. Loeb, Benjamin W. Baldwin, Robert M. Bryan, Robert W. Fuller, D. Blaine Sanders, David C. Wright, III, Allain C. Andry, IV, Mark W. Merritt, Robinson, Bradsaw & Hinson, Charlotte, North Carolina, letter...................... 622 Bowlsby, Robert A., Director, Iowa Hawkeyes, University of Iowa, Carver-Hawkeye Arena, Iowa City, Iowa, letter.................. 625 Brunner, Thomas W., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter................................................... 626 Clark, Robert S., Parr Waddoups Brown Gee & Loveless, Attorneys at Law, Salt Lake City, Utah, letters.......................... 628 Cobb, John H., Helms Mulliss & Wicker, PLLC, Charlotte, North Carolina, letter............................................... 631 Ellis, Mark S., Executive Director, International Bar Association, London, United Kingdom, letter.................... 633 Fielding, Fred F., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter................................................... 635 Foggan, Laura A., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter......................................................... 637 Freedman, Monroe H., Professor of Law, Hofstra University, Hempstead, New York, letters and attachment.................... 638 Grames, Conan P., Chairman, International Section, Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter......................... 644 Griffith, Thomas B., Assistant to the President and General Counsel, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter and attachments.................................................... 646 Guynn, Randall D., Davis Polk & Wardwell, New York, New York, letter......................................................... 651 Hansen, H. Reese, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter................................ 653 Huefner, Steven F., Assistant Professor of Law, Legislation Clinic Director, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio, letter. 660 Ivey, Glenn F., Upper Marlboro, Maryland, letter................. 662 Jacopy, Wade, Director, Center for the Study of Europe, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter.......................... 663 Jardino, James S., Ray, Quinney & Nebeker, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter......................................................... 664 Jones, Brian W., General Counsel, Department of Education, Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 666 Keegan, Lisa Graham, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., letter.............................. 668 Khoury, Paul F., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter......................................................... 670 Lawson, Rodney H., Carrington, Coleman Sloman & Blumental L.L.P, Dallas Texas, letter........................................... 672 Leland, Ted, Director of Athletics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, letter................................... 676 Lundberg, Constance, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter......................................................... 677 McConkie, Oscar W., Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter......................................................... 678 Members of the Utah Bar, John A. Adams, Charles R. Brown, Scott Daniels, Randy L. Dryer, Dennis V. Haslam, letter.............. 679 Michaelis, Elaine, Executive Director, Brigham Young University Women's Athletics, Provo, Utah, letter......................... 680 Mikva, Abner J., former Chief Judge, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois, letters........................................................ 682 Morgan, Thomas D., Oppenheim Professor of Antitrust and Trade Regulation Law, George Washington University Law School, Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 684 Moyer, Homer E., Jr., Miller & Chevalier, Washington, D.C., letter......................................................... 687 Olson, Eric, C., Kirton & McConkie, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter. 688 Pullins, Kathy D., Associate Dean, Constance K. Lundberg, Associate Dean and Professor of Law, Mary H. Hoagland, Assistant Dean, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter................................ 690 Robinson, Russell M., II, Robinson, Bradshaw & Hinson, Charlotte, North Carolina, letter......................................... 692 Togers, Sandra, International Vice President, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter................................ 693 Scharman, Janet S., Student Life Vice President, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter................................ 695 Siegfried, B.R., letter.......................................... 696 Simon, Rita J., University Professor, Title IX Commissioner, American University, Washington, D.C., letter.................. 697 Spanier, Graham B., President, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, letter.......................... 698 Stroup, Sally L., Assistant Secretary, Department of Education, Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 700 Stuntz, William J., Professor of Law, Harvard Law School, Cambridge, Massachusetts, letter............................... 702 Tolbert, David, Deputy Registrar, United Nations, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, Netherlands, letter............................................ 704 Umin, Steven M., Williams & Connolly L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter and attachment.......................................... 705 Walker, Samuel D., Esq., Chief Legal Officer and Public Affairs Vice President, Coors Brewing Company, Littleton, Colorado, letter......................................................... 710 Wardle, Lynn D., Professor of Law, J. Reuben Clark Law School, Brigham Young University, Provo, Utah, letter.................. 712 Waxman, Seth P., letter.......................................... 714 Wiley, Richard E., Wiley Rein & Fielding L.L.P., Washington, D.C., letter................................................... 715 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES Alvarez, Micaela, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Texas.............................................. 116 Boyko, Christopher, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Ohio............................................... 272 Crotty, Paul A., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........................................... 502 Finch, Raymond L., Nominee to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands............................................. 204 Griffith, Thomas B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia.................................................... 471 Howell, Beryl Alaine, Nominee to be a Member of the United States Sentencing Commission.......................................... 318 Neilson, Susan B., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit........................................................ 73 Schneider, Michael H., Sr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas...................................... 4 Seabright, J. Michael, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Hawaii............................................. 515 Starrett, Keith, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi........................................ 147 NOMINATION OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, SR., OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ---------- WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, 2004 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:03 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. John Cornyn, presiding. Present: Senator Cornyn. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Cornyn. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee will come to order. Today, we have the privilege of considering the nomination of an exceptional Texas jurist to serve on the Federal district bench for the Eastern District of Texas. I want to start by thanking the Chairman of the Committee, Senator Hatch, for scheduling today's hearing and giving me the honor of chairing it. I look forward to moving this nomination through the Committee and through the Senate over the next few weeks. I also want to thank the Ranking Member, Senator Leahy, and his staff for working so cooperatively to make today's hearing possible. One thing you learn in the United States Senate is cooperation is critical to getting anything done, and that is true in this case as well. After a few brief introductory remarks, I will turn the floor over to Senator Leahy, if he is able to attend, for any remarks he might wish to make; if not, then certainly any written statements any Senator would like to be made part of the record will be made part of the record, without objection. And I know that Senator Hutchison, the senior Senator from Texas, will be here, who knows the nominee and his family quite well, is on her way and would like to make some remarks. The vacancy we hope to fill with the nomination before us today was created by the untimely passing of Judge John H. Hannah, Jr. Judge Hannah was a good man and a distinguished jurist. His family's loss was also a great loss to the State of Texas and to the Federal judiciary. I had the chance to work with Judge Hannah when he was Secretary of State for Texas and also when he was on the Federal bench. Also, in a brief interim between the time I left public service and was a private practitioner, I also actually appeared before him as a practicing lawyer. And I can tell you that he unerringly treated everyone with respect and dignity. Senator Hutchison and I worked with Judge Hannah closely just last year on legislation to authorize the Eastern District of Texas to hold court in the city of Plano. That bill was important to Judge Hannah, who always worked hard to serve the citizens of the Eastern District. He passed away the day after the President signed that legislation into law. The death of Judge Hannah leaves some big shoes to fill, but President Bush could not have filled them better than with the nomination of Texas Supreme Court Justice Michael Haygood Schneider. Justice Schneider will bring to the Federal district court the wisdom, judgment, and experience of over a quarter of a century's service on the bench. He understands, as any good judge must, that the duty of a judge is to interpret the law, not to legislate from the bench. Justice Schneider has held virtually every position in the State court system that Texas has to offer. From 1978 to 1990, he served on the West University Place Municipal Court. Then he served on the 157th District Court of Texas, located in Houston, until 1996. Next, he became Chief Justice of the First Court of Appeals in Houston. He served there until 2002, when he was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of Texas, where I once had the honor of serving. He has been honored both as Trial Judge of the Year and Appellate Judge of the Year by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists. In addition to this extraordinary record of judicial service, Justice Schneider also served the people of Texas in the role of assistant district attorney for Harris County. Justice Schneider is a graduate of Stephen F. Austin State University in Nacogdoches in East Texas, the University of Houston Law School, and more recently the LL.M. program of the University of Virginia Law School. And he has a distinguished record of civic involvement. Justice Schneider's reputation as an exceptional jurist and a true gentleman is well known throughout the State of Texas. It is also well known by the American Bar Association, which recently gave him its highest ranking, when its Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary unanimously certified him as ``Well Qualified'' for the Federal bench. His nomination enjoys broad bipartisan support throughout the State of Texas. For example, Susan Hayes, who chairs the Dallas County Democratic Party, has written a strong letter of support, and without objection, I would like to submit that letter for the record. I will break my remarks there, and since Senator Hutchison has been able to join us, I know she has some remarks she would like to make about this exceptionally well qualified nominee, and I would be pleased to recognize her for that purpose at this time. Senator Hutchison. You may finish your comments if you want to. Senator Cornyn. I would be happy for you to proceed, Senator Hutchison, because I am going to be here for a while, and I know you have a number of other assignments that are going to take you away. So, please, go ahead. PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, SR., NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Hutchison. Thank you very much. I appreciate that, and I apologize for being late. But it is not because I am not really excited about the support of a friend for a Federal bench, Mike Schneider. I cannot think of anyone who has had all of the right qualifications--well, except for you, Mr. Chairman--but other than you, for this type of bench. He has been a judge for 25 years and has performed in an excellent way in all of his positions. This is an East Texas judgeship, so the cities would be Beaumont, Texarkana, Tyler, and Sherman. He has served as a Justice on our Supreme Court since 2002, elected statewide for that position. Prior to that, he was Chief Justice of the First Court of Appeals for Texas, and prior to that, a district judge in Houston, as well as a municipal judge in West University Place. So he has truly known all the levels of our court system, which I think really speaks well for him. He earned his bachelor's degree from Stephen F. Austin State University in 1965, a law degree from the University of Houston in 1971, and a master of law degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 2001. He has been honored as Judge of the Year twice by the Texas Association of Civil Trial and Appellate Specialists. I cannot think of anyone who has the respect that he does who is seeking a permanent position on the court. As you and I know, Mr. Chairman, these lifetime appointments are very carefully regarded because once someone has a lifetime appointment, we know that they no longer face the people. But it really gives me pleasure to nominate someone who has gone to the people, who has won elections, who has shown judicial temperament, as well as the ability to excel and be totally, overwhelmingly supported by the people of our State at every level--district, civil, and Supreme Court, all of which are elective in the State of Texas. So I recommend him highly. We all know that this is late in an election year, so my question will be to the Committee: Will you move as swiftly as possible to try to get this nomination ready for the floor? There should not be a controversy, and this East Texas bench needs the seats filled. So it would be helpful if you can move expeditiously. And, with that, I will--well, before I leave, let me also introduce his wife, who is here, Mary Schneider. I have known Mary also for at least 25 years. She has been a family friend. She is wonderful. And his son also, Michael, Jr., is here. So we welcome all of them from Texas and look forward to having a swift confirmation, if possible. Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. Knowing that usually when you and I have the honor of introducing a Texan who has been nominated for public office like the Federal bench, I know we sometimes go over the same credentials, and that makes sense. But in an effort to try to come up with something new and different, I went to the website of the Supreme Court, and we know that Justice Schneider is humble not because he has to be--that is just the kind of person he is-- but he points out he held a variety of jobs during college and law school, including searching titles at a major oil company, managing apartments, driving ambulances, operating a school bus for disabled children, working at a funeral home, teaching at school, delivering milk, clerking for a law firm, managing a college cafeteria, serving as a waiter, bell-hopping at a hotel, and serving as an intern at the U.S. Attorney's Office. I may ask him which of those has best prepared him to serve on the Federal bench in the questioning. Senator Hutchison. Well, Mr. Chairman, I would just respond to that saying that when you are giving this lifetime appointment and having met many Federal judges who do not seem to have the common touch, we can be assured with that addition to his background that he is a man of the people. Senator Cornyn. I agree. Thank you very much, Senator Hutchison, for joining us and for those fine remarks. I will just conclude my remarks by saying I am pleased that the President has nominated Justice Schneider to serve on the Eastern District of Texas, and I am honored to chair today's hearing. I look forward to hearing from him today, and I look forward to what I, too, will hope will be a swift confirmation process. As I mentioned earlier, other Senators may come during the course of the hearing. Those who are unable to attend because of conflicting hearings, or for any other reason, of course, their statements will be made part of the record, without objection. But now I would like to invite Justice Schneider to take a seat at the table, but first, if you will raise your right hand and take the oath, please, Judge? You can just do it from there. If you will just raise your right hand, do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Schneider. I do. Senator Cornyn. Thank you. Please have a seat. I know Senator Hutchison acknowledged members of your family, but I wonder if you would like to just have them maybe stand so we can all get a good look at them. And I know they are relishing this day as much as you are, and we want them to share in the attention and the congratulations, too. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER, SR., NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Judge Schneider. Well, my wife, Mary, of course; and my son, Michael, Jr. And I am going to introduce a surprise visitor here today. A young man that was my briefing attorney at the Court of Appeals in Houston found out about this and showed up: John Murdoch. Senator Cornyn. Very good. Judge Schneider. And then we have three other daughters that are not able to be here, and just to acknowledge them: My daughter, Dr. Heidi Schneider, who is an internal medicine doctor in San Antonio. We have got Shelley, who is going to be finishing--Shelley Toomey, who will be finishing or actually has started teaching in the Houston Independent School District. And then last, and certainly not least, Christine, who is in her last year as an education major at Texas State University. Senator Cornyn. Well, I know they all must be very proud of you and your accomplishment and share in your sense of accomplishment and also gratitude at being nominated for this position. I wonder if, Judge Schneider, since it looks like it is just you and me for the time being, I would be glad to recognize you for any opening remarks you would like to make at this time. Judge Schneider. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to continue and say, in introducing people, to express my thanks to the Senate, the Judiciary Committee, Senators Hatch and Leahy, especially the Chairman, Senator Cornyn, and Senator Hutchison who came over this morning. I also want to thank the President for having confidence in me to make this nomination. [The biographical information of Judge Schneider follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Cornyn. Well, thank you very much, Justice Schneider. Since you and I know each other very well, I think we are going to--I am going to ask a few questions for the record, and I think I already know what your responses in a general fashion are likely to be. But you, as we have heard, have served at all levels of the Texas judiciary, starting at the municipal court level and now serving on the Texas Supreme Court. Your job as a Federal district judge, a trial judge in the Eastern District of Texas will be somewhat different from what you have been doing, at least lately. Have you had a chance to look into the docket of that court to which you will be confirmed to see sort of the nature of the caseload? And give us your ideas and thoughts about how you would expect to manage that docket. Judge Schneider. Well, Mr. Chairman, I'm glad you asked that question. Actually, I had a chance back in January to look at their docket, and anything I would tell you now would relate back to that. But at that time, it appeared that this docket was almost evenly split between civil and criminal work. A number of those in the civil cases are those cases that are routine type cases. So that most of the docket, though, most of the time, as I understand, in trial is spent in civil cases. Moving to this bench is one of, I guess, the parts of life that you see as serendipity. My good friend, John Hannah, whom all of you heard a while ago, he and I were of different political parties. We met in law school, and we became close friends. And we found that we agreed on more things than we disagreed. And on those things we did disagree, we had good conversations. When John Hannah passed away, I had some Republican and Democrat judges come to me and ask me if I would consider applying, and I had never done--given it any thought before. I had never had an opportunity to file, really. I have been so busy in my judicial career. But I did it. I look forward. I think that this particular judicial Federal district bench is a perfect fit for someone who has had not only trial experience but also has experience writing opinions. I've written over 400 opinions, and as we all know, district courts publish opinions. They go in law books that are published that people have to buy. Also, another thing I think that uniquely qualifies me for this job is that I've had experience in the law in so many different places--criminal and civil. I started out as a district attorney, and then civil, and further went to the court of appeals. We had criminal and civil cases. In addition to that, I've had litigation experience, tried hundreds of cases. And then, of course, last, not least--it's not even last. As a trial attorney, I've tried well into 100 cases. I know what it's like to try a case, and so that won't be new to me. And that's part of the reason--I know that was a long answer, but you seem to want to hear it, so there you go. Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Judge. You answered part of my next question, and that is about criminal law. Of course, you are going to have a docket of criminal cases, and we all know that in your current job, you hear only civil cases on the Texas Supreme Court. But you have had extensive experience both as a judge and a lawyer handling criminal cases as well, haven't you? Judge Schneider. Yes, sir. Our docket was about 60 percent criminal cases. Senator Cornyn. And this court, of course, Judge Hannah sat in Tyler, but we know the Eastern District covers a large section of the State. Could you talk a little bit about your roots in that part of the State? I think members of the Committee and others listening might be interested in that since you are currently working in Austin, wondering how you were plucked out of Austin and are going to be put in a court over in the Eastern District. Judge Schneider. Well, I'm glad you asked that. I have to put it in context. My father was a Methodist minister, and years ago, in places like Texas--they may well have changed this, but the young ministers moved from community to community about every 2 years. If you were really good, you might stay 2- 1/2 years someplace. What happened to me was that by the time I finished school, I'd attended eight different schools in East Texas, and in this particular district we're talking about here, I have physically lived in ten of the counties that are there. In addition to that, my grandfather and all my distant relatives on my mother's side settled in Smith County in the 1860's. My mother lives in Lufkin, and that is a very big reason for me even being more excited about the possibility, if I'm fortunate enough to be confirmed to this position. Senator Cornyn. Could you talk a little bit about your judicial approach, judicial philosophy? In particular, I would be interested to hear you discuss briefly your approach to interpreting statutes written by the legislative branch and how you approach that responsibility as a judge. Judge Schneider. That is another good question, Senator, Chairman Cornyn. Let me say that I think the very first rule I always start out with when I look at a statute is to start out with the presumption that it's going to be constitutional. I think once you start there, sometimes your battle is--you have moved the ball a good distance. So if you start with that premise and then go to the next, look to the literal meaning, the words of the document, if it happens to be a contract or a statute itself. And you look and you interpret them and use and apply their ordinary meaning, not something absurd. You do that only, of course, if the words are not clear that you would go to any other sources. I know that some judges who are into legislative history that that is a matter that has to be--you have to set the standards on those things, and usually when I interpret cases, we do it basically on what the four corners of the documents are and what the legislature said they wanted. Because we have to keep in mind the laws are drafted by a law-making group that has more practice and more experience as to what the law should be. And keeping that in mind, I try to apply what the legislature intended. Senator Cornyn. Well, I know from your long experience as a judge that you have done that a lot. You recognize the role of the legislature as the representative branch of Government to say what the law is, and it is your job, if it is called into doubt or if there are conflicting provisions or statutes raised, to interpret what the legislature's true intent was. I would like to ask you, though, there are some people who think that Federal judges' main job is to do justice. And I would agree with that myself, but I would also say that you are tethered by laws that have been written, whether it is the Constitution or by statutes that have been written by the legislature. How do you approach a case where your sense of justice is that maybe a case ought to come out in a particular way--in other words, a result ought to attach--but there is a statute or a constitutional provision that would appear to prevent you from reaching that particular result? How do you see the role of a judge relative to the legislature and relative to other branches of Government in determining that just results occur? Judge Schneider. Well, Mr. Chairman, the system we have doesn't always produce a perfect result, and that's why we have all our systems built in to make sure that the procedures that to some people seem ridiculous, but the purpose of it is to make sure that people get a fair trial. Judges faced with an issue as you described must first apply the law, and there are areas in equity, so to speak, that you can take that into account. And I see it done every day, both from being an appellate judge and watching trial judges, and you will do that because I guess I'll get over in the area of judicial discretion, because there are so many rulings that would be incidental to other people, but it's very important to the people in the courtroom. In that particular situation, you do get to use your judgment on a lot of cases, and you can give some flexibility. The thing we have to watch out about, justice is a fine word, and we're all for justice. But it has to be--we have to know that justice also means that we have a fair trial and that everyone was heard that needed to be heard. Senator Cornyn. Well, I agree with your response. I would say that, you know, one of the things that I think some people have a difficult time comprehending is the importance that everyone's conduct be judged by the same rules, by the same laws, regardless of whether they are a sympathetic party to a lawsuit or an unsympathetic party. Sometimes we hear people talk about how corporations maybe should not be judged the same way an individual is. But, of course, under our laws, they are both judged by exactly the same rules, with some minor exception in terms of the way corporations are formed and that sort of thing. And, of course, the rules by which evidence is admitted and the like apply the same to everybody, and indeed, I am reminded of the phrase over the Supreme Court of the United States building that says, ``Equal justice under law.'' And that is, of course, what we strive for. We strive for justice, but we also strive to make sure that that justice is equal and applied across the board regardless of how much money you have or where you came from or whether you are popular or unpopular. And I know your record of judicial service and your long experience has well prepared you to do justice, but to make sure that you do your job, and that is to apply the law as the legislature has written and not just substitute your own personal sense of justice for what the law actually is. But it is, as you know, a struggle that every judge goes through in any given case, but certainly there is no greater position from the standpoint of seeing that justice is done in each individual case than that of a Federal district judge. Some have said that the most powerful public official in America is a single Federal district judge because of the great discretion and authority that you do have in a given case to see that the correct result is reached consistent with the law. I know we could talk for much longer, but as I say, I know you well as a friend and somebody whom I respect and admire professionally. And I know, as I said, that other Senators may have questions for you, but were not able to attend here today. And we will leave the record open until 5 o'clock next Wednesday for any other Senators who may have additional questions they would like to ask you in writing to submit those to you. And I would, of course, urge you to respond as promptly as you can. It is my hope that your nomination will be promptly marked up before the full Committee and then will be voted out onto the floor. And because you do enjoy support from both sides of the docket, from both major political parties, as we have seen, because of your record of fairness and distinguished service as a judge, it is my hope and certainly my expectation that your nomination will not be controversial and that you will be quickly confirmed. That is my hope and certainly my expectation. But I want to say finally, thanks to you for being here today, for making yourself available to serve in this important position. It is not everyone who is willing to make the changes in their life, whether it is to move from place to place or changes in salary, or whatever it may be, to serve in public office. And you are to be commended for this logical conclusion to the service you have already provided in our judicial branch of Government. And we are better for having that service and people like you willing to serve in these important positions. But, with that, this hearing will be concluded, and as I said, the record will remain open until 5 o'clock next Wednesday for any other materials, any other statements, any other questions to be submitted for the record. Thank you very much. Judge Schneider. Senator, may I say just one thing? Senator Cornyn. Certainly. Judge Schneider. You know, when you get to these things, all the work of what you see here is 5 minutes of the work, and I know that I have a staff at home at the Supreme Court, and I just want to tell the staff people here, give you some credit for your hard work that you do. I know how hard you do it, and I know it is for the big bucks you are doing it. But--that was a joke, folks. [Laughter.] Judge Schneider. But just to tell you that--and I'm saying this word from my clerks back home, too, how much that is appreciated in putting these things together. Thank you. Senator Cornyn. Well, I think those are very appropriate remarks. We know the staff works very hard to make sure that when we come to these hearings that things move very quickly and expeditiously, and we appreciate their efforts to make sure that this hearing could occur promptly, and hopefully your nomination will be marked up and then voted out of the Senate as soon as possible. With that, this hearing is concluded. [Whereupon, at 10:35 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NOMINATIONS OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT; MICAELA ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS; KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI; AND RAYMOND L. FINCH, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS [REAPPOINTMENT] ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 2004 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Hatch, Cornyn, and Leahy. Chairman Hatch. We are happy that you are all here. I will reserve my remarks until after my colleagues make theirs, but I will make some remarks in the end. So we will begin with Senator Lott--oh, excuse me. I guess Senator Cochran first. I didn't notice you there. Senator Cochran, we will take you first and then Senator Lott. PRESENTATION OF KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, BY HON. THAD COCHRAN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. It is a great pleasure for me to be before the Judiciary Committee today to endorse and recommend to the Committee the confirmation of Keith Starrett, a circuit court judge in our State who has distinguished himself by his excellence, in terms of professional competence and innovation as a trial judge dealing with first offenders, establishment of drug courts, and in general elevating the quality of judicial administration in our State over a period of 15 years, during which he has served as a circuit court judge. He has experience as a prosecuting attorney, an assistant district attorney, as the office is called in our State. He has bene in private practice as a lawyer in our State. He graduated from the University of Mississippi Law School, Mississippi State University undergraduate school. He has a lovely family, a wife and three grown children. They have been a credit to their community, and it is really, with a sense of pride and expectation of his excellence of service as a United States district judge that I recommend him to the Committee. I hope the Committee can act expeditiously to report the nomination to the Senate, and we will be glad to work as hard as we can with the distinguished Chairman and other members of the Committee to get this nomination approved by the full Senate. Thank you very much. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator Cochran. That is great praise for Judge Starrett, and we have nothing but high regard for him, and we will do everything we can to get him through following this hearing. We appreciate you appearing here. We know how busy you are. So, whenever you need to leave, that would be fine. Senator Lott, we will turn to you now. PRESENTATION OF KEITH STARRETT, OF MISSISSIPPI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI, BY HON. TRENT LOTT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, Senator Cochran, Senator Cornyn. I must say, Mr. Chairman, we appreciate you moving forward with these hearings and continuing to act confirm judges as we did just yesterday in the full Senate. I think it is very important that we continue that effort. I do not want to repeat everything my colleague from Mississippi has said. I just want to heartily endorse the nomination and hopefully the confirmation of Judge Keith Starrett to the Southern District of Mississippi. He is truly one of the most respected and experienced trial court judges in the State court system in Mississippi, and I want to take just a moment before going any further to recognize the fact that his lovely wife Barbara is here with him today. And we all know that the spouses have to put up with a lot of things to support our careers in Congress and the Federal judiciary, also. Senator Cochran noted his educational background. he has got the type of educational experience obviously he needs. He has completed a number of courses at the National Judicial College. He has been very active and understanding in doing his job on the circuit court there in Southwest Mississippi. He practiced law for 17 years, was an assistant D.A. and has been on the bench for 12 years. The most impressive thing though that I have seen, he has not been content just to be a presiding circuit court judge, he has been an innovator, an activist in trying to deal with some of the serious problems that we have in our State and across this country. He established the first felony level drug court in Mississippi in his State judicial district. The court has been used as a model for the creation of other drug courts in the State. Judge Starrett's experience and involvement in this area has been critical and a driving force as Mississippi works to implement the drug court system for the entire State, and he has been recognized for that effort throughout the State and in the profession. He is active in his church and his community. He helped found the Mission Pike County, which is a racial and denominational reconciliation organization and the Southwest Mississippi Child Protection, a child advocacy group in two counties in his circuit district. He also received the 2003 Judicial Excellence Award given by the Mississippi Bar Association, which is a great honor. I do want to note one additional thing, and that is that this position is considered to be one of the 14 judicial emergencies in the country, and this one has the highest rating in terms of case load. It is weighted/adjusted filings per judge of all of the 14 judicial emergencies. There is a lot of activity here, and they are sinking under the volume. They need the help of a judge being a confirmed and an active judge sitting in the Southern District of Mississippi. I hope that will weigh on the consideration of the Committee and the full Senate. When we have what is identified as judicial emergencies, and then we recognize that this is the tops of that list of 14 emergencies, I hope we could move this nomination expeditiously and before the Senate finishes for the year. So I heartily endorse this nomination. He is a good man, a good judge. He will make an excellent Federal judge. And I thank the Committee for this opportunity to be here today. [The prepared statement of Senator Lott appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you both. He has the highest rating from the American Bar Association as well-- Senator Lott. Yes. Chairman Hatch. --which is much to his credit, and we appreciate both of you showing up here today. We will let you go so you do not have to sit around and listen to me, but we are going to turn to Senator Hutchison at this time and then to Senator Cornyn, and then we will go to our delegates. PRESENTATION OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BY HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Hutchison. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am here today to introduce a fellow Texan, Micaela Alvarez, who is being nominated for the Southern District of Texas, and it is most certainly one of the emergency districts as well. It has one of the highest caseloads. It is one of the areas where we have added judges because of the high caseload on the border with Mexico. So we are very hopeful that we can get Micaela Alvarez approved expeditiously, so that we can get the help that we greatly need on the border. She has a number of her family with her today--Evencio Alvarez, her father. Chairman Hatch. I am so happy to welcome you here. Senator Hutchison. And Gloria Johnson, her sister. Chairman Hatch. Gloria, nice to have you with us. Senator Hutchison. Michael Johnson, her nephew. Chairman Hatch. Michael, good to see you. Senator Hutchison. First Sergeant Maria Marty, her sister. Chairman Hatch. We are really proud to have you here. Senator Hutchison. Miranda Marty, her niece. Chairman Hatch. Miranda. Senator Hutchison. And Olivia Olmos, her niece. Chairman Hatch. Olivia, nice to have you. Senator Hutchison. And she also has three children who were not able to make it, but Senator Cornyn and I were very pleased to nominate Micaela for this vacancy. Her familiarity with the region and her years of experience in public and private sector are very impressive. Since 1997, she has been in private practice in McAllen, Texas. Prior to serving as a partner in her own firm, she was appointed by then-Governor Bush to serve as the presiding judge for the 139th District Court in Hidalgo County from 1995 to 1996. In addition to her distinguished legal career, she has been a case manager for a State school in Gonzalez, Texas, and a social worker in Lockhart. She has served as a board member of the State Office of Risk Management, as a member of the Presidential Commission of Educational Excellence for Hispanic Americans appointed by President Bush in 2001. She earned her bachelor's degree from the University of Texas at Austin in social work in 1980 and her law degree from the University of Texas in 1989. Her qualifications, her knowledge of and commitment to South Texas and her experience combine to make her a fine candidate for the Federal bench, and we hope that we can have an expeditious hearing and confirmation so that she can go down to the Southern District, which is just overloaded right now by its position on the boarder, and we definitely need to give that area help, which they deserve to have justice and their area served. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am very pleased to be here for Micaela. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. I think it is terrific that you can take the time to show up and speak for Micaela. We are grateful to have you here. We know how busy you are, so we will let you go, if you would like, but we will turn to Senator Cornyn for his remarks. PRESENTATION OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, OF TEXAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, BY HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Cornyn. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to join in the remarks of Senator Hutchison in saying how delighted we are that you have seen fit to schedule this important appointment for a hearing. Senator Hutchison has already covered much of what I would like to have said, but what I would like to do is ask that my complete remarks be made part of the record. Chairman Hatch. Without objection, we will put all of the remarks in as fully delivered. Senator Cornyn. Let me just briefly read an excerpt from a book that was written by Governor Bush in 1999 before he became President of the United States, where he spoke specifically about the appointment that Senator Hutchison alluded to earlier when he appointed Micaela as judge of the 139th Judicial District in Hidalgo County. He wrote, ``Micaela's parents were migrant farmworkers who traveled from job to job on farms throughout Texas and the Southern United States. For them, Micaela was not just a success story. She was living proof of what they had lived for and promised their children; that in Texas and America, if you work hard, get a good education, make good choices in life, you can be whatever you want to be.'' And I can assure you that when her mother held the Bible for Micaela to take the oath of office to serve the State of Texas as a district judge there was not a dry eye in the packed house. So the appearance of Judge Alvarez before this Committee today is just another inspiring example of the American Dream becoming a reality, and she deserves this Committee's support. And I am pleased that the President has seen fit to nominate her for this important bench and that Senator Hutchison and I have had the opportunity to recommend her for this important position. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Senator Cornyn appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Senator. We are very happy to have our two Senators from Texas appear on behalf of this nominee. I think it weighs very, very heavily in your behalf, Ms. Alvarez. I do not know if Representative McCotter is here, but if he is not, we are going to turn to you, Delegate Donna Christensen. PRESENTATION OF RAYMOND L. FINCH, OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS FOR A TERM OF TEN YEARS [REAPPOINTMENT], BY HON. DONNA CHRISTENSEN, A DELEGATE TO CONGRESS FROM THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Delegate Christensen. Thank you. Good morning, Chairman Hatch, Senator Cornyn, Senator Durbin. It is a pleasure to be before the Committee today. Chairman Hatch. We are happy to have you here. Delegate Christensen. And it is a very special privilege and honor for me to present a friend, a son of my home island of St. Croix and also the son of a very distinguished Virgin Islands' family, the matriarch of which is one of my dearest former patients and role models, the son of Wilfred and Merrill Finch, Hon. Raymond L. Finch, has been a judge of the District Court of the U.S. Virgin Islands since September 1st, 1994. He is currently serving as the Chief Judge of our district, having assumed that position in August of 2000. We are pleased at this outstanding individual, who has served the law and the bench so faithfully and so well, Judge Raymond Finch, is again before the Committee today having been nominated to serve a second 10-year term by President George W. Bush. Today, harkens back to one of my very first efforts as a community activist when I returned home in the late seventies, a coalition I spearheaded to have a local lawyer fill a vacancy in the District Court. Judge Finch was one of those we sought to have seated at that time. Indeed, the road to his actually being confirmed was a relatively long and circuitous one. President Jimmy Carter first nominated him in 1990, but that nomination expired when the Senate adjourned without taking action and President Carter was not reelected. His second nomination by President George Herbert Walker Bush in 1992 suffered a similar fate. Finally, Judge Finch's third nomination by President William Jefferson Clinton succeeded, and he began his active service on the Federal bench in 1994. The fact that both Republican and Democratic Presidents have nominated Judge Finch speaks volumes to his character and his testament to his sterling judicial qualifications. Let me also use this opportunity and digress somewhat from my presentation of the nominee for a brief moment to say, on behalf of my constituents and both Judge Finches before us today, and Attorney Curtis Gomez, who was reported out of the Committee several months ago, that I would not only ask for a timely vote on this nominee, but also respectfully request that the Committee use its influence to have both of our outstanding nominees confirmed by this body before it adjourns so that the history that I have shared with you does not repeat itself and in order that the District Court of the Virgin Islands can have the stability and the continuity it needs to optimally serve both our territory and our Nation. Ray is a product of the Virgin Islands public school system, where my grandmother found him one of her best students. And he is a graduate of the distinguished Howard University, where he received both his undergraduate degree in political science and economics and his juris doctorate. Judge Finch's notable written legacy is contained in a prolific collection of memoranda, opinions and decisions which eloquently blend interpretations of law with relevant Virgin Islands' cultural nuances, likely found their origins during his tenure as the assistant editor of the famous Hilltop campus newspaper at Howard. Judge Finch is a Vietnam veteran, who served this Nation with distinction in the U.S. Army, attaining the rank of captain. He was awarded the Army Commendation Medal, the Bronze Star, and a Certificate of Appreciation from then-Army Chief of Staff General Westmoreland. Prior to his appointment to the Federal judiciary, Judge Finch served in the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands and distinguished himself there for his reliable impartiality, his consistent judicial temperament, and as one of the few judges who could explain the complexities of juris prudence in a manner that could be easily understood by anyone who came before him. He is also known for well for his wry sense of humor that often catches one by surprise. Judge Finch has not only lent his judicial experience and expertise as an instructor at our own University of the Virgin Islands, but has furthered and expanded his own knowledge and judicial acumen through seminars and short courses taken through his legal and judicial career. He is a member of a Virgin Islands family that has made impressive and outstanding generational contributions in various capacities through their exemplary and impeccable service to the local Virgin Islands Government, the Federal Government and in the private sector. He is the father of five, and he is married to Anne Marie, who, with his daughter Jennifer, joins him this morning. He is also accompanied by former Senator Malloy and two young attorneys whom he mentored, Robert Malloy and Jeffrey Moorehead, also from the Virgin Islands. On behalf of the people of the Virgin Islands, I am exceptionally proud to reintroduce to the Senate Committee on the Judiciary one of our brightest and one of our best, our chief district court judge, Hon. Raymond L. Finch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you so much. We are exceptionally proud to have you here today. Delegate Christensen. Thank you. Good morning, Senator Leahy. Chairman Hatch. I think that speaks well for the judge that you would appear, and thank you for being here. Unless Congressman McCotter is here--is Congressman McCotter? We would love to take your statement at this time. Thank you. Glad to have you here. Welcome. PRESENTATION OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. THADDEUS MCCOTTER, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN Representative McCotter. Thank you. I am new to this, so the first time is always the most painful is what I am told. Chairman Hatch. Just take it easy. You will be just fine. We are glad to have you here. Representative McCotter. Mr. Chairman, distinguished Committee members,thank you for holding this hearing and for allowing me the privilege of introducing Susan B. Neilson. Judge Neilson is a graduate of the University of Michigan, the Wayne State University School of Law, and was formerly a partner at Dickinson Wright. She was appointed to the Third Judicial Circuit Court of Michigan in June 1991 and was reelected three more times in 1992, 1996 and 2002. Now, she will stand before you today for your esteemed consideration for a seat on the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Here are a few words from those who have looked at her qualifications and have held her in high regard. Mark Corrigan, the chief justice of the Michigan Supreme Court has said, ``Judge Susan B. Neilson has earned the reputation of being one of the most dedicated and knowledgeable trial court jurists in the State of Michigan. I believe her experience as a trial court judge, coupled with her legal writing abilities, will make her an outstanding addition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.'' Mr. Roger Winkelman, treasurer of the Michigan Democratic Party, ``I have known Judge Neilson for many years. She is well deserved of her reputation as a fair-minded judge who treats all parties who appear before her with a high degree of respect and dignity. Her knowledge of the law and dedication to rendering rulings in conformity with controlling legal authority will make her an excellent addition to the Court of Appeals.'' Finally, from Thomas G. Kienbaum, past president of the State Bar of Michigan, ``I know Judge Neilson as a fellow lawyer, a law partner, and more recently as a trial judge when I appeared before her. She brought unique qualities to the bench, a quick, perceptive mind, and a tremendous work ethic which she applies evenly to all matters that come before her, when appropriate, with a degree of good humor. She has an unbridled enthusiasm for the law, even with respect to the most tedious aspects of the work required of judicial officers.'' Mr. Chairman, Judge Susan Neilson is an exceedingly learned, profoundly fair, morally fit, and professionally qualified person who would make an excellent addition to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all of the members of your Committee for holding this hearing. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Representative McCotter. We are grateful that you would take time to come over from the House to give us this understanding. And of course the ABA agrees with you. She is unanimously Well Qualified--the highest rating they can have or they can give anybody. So thank you, and thank you both for appearing. We appreciate all who have appeared here today. So we will release you and move from here. I think we will make our statements, and then we will turn to Judge Neilson. OPENING STATEMENT OF ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Chairman Hatch. I want to welcome members of the Committee and express my, and all of the folks in the audience, and the nominees and their friends and families, express my appreciation for the cooperation we had yesterday in confirming three additional judges. I know there may be some resistance to continuing the work of the Committee, but we simply must do our duty to advice and consent on judicial nominations. I would repeat what I have stated on earlier occasions--our constitutional duty is not on a mythical time line or time clock. The judicial nominations process does not shut down during presidential election years. For example, when Senator Thurmond chaired this Committee during a presidential election year, the Senate confirmed six circuit judges after August 1st--one in August and five in October. In addition, 12 district judges were confirmed in September and October of that year as well. I will follow that approach and continue to bring the President's nominees to the Committee for action and to the Senate for consideration. On today's agenda are four nominees to various positions with the Federal judiciary. I welcome each one of you, your family members, your guests and friends. We are also privileged, as we have noticed, to have had members of the Senate and House welcome each of you as well. The nominees we will hear from today are Susan B. Neilson, nominated to be United States Circuit Judge for the Sixth Circuit; Micaela Alvarez, to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas; Keith Starrett, to e United States District Judge for the Southern District of Mississippi; and Raymond L. Finch, to be Judge for the District Court of the Virgin Islands for a term of 10 years. It would be a reappointment. Judge Neilson is an outstanding candidate who received a unanimous Well Qualified rating, the highest rating, from the American Bar Association. She graduated with high distinction from the University of Michigan Honors College in 1977 and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Judge Neilson received her J.D. degree cum laude from Wayne State University School of Law in 1980 and was a member of its law review. Following her graduation, Judge Neilson began her legal career in 1980 as an associate at the Detroit law firm of Dickinson Wright PLLC, one of the oldest and most prestigious law firms in Michigan. She became a partner in the firm in 1986 and continued to practice there until 1991. While in private practice, Judge Neilson appeared in court on a regular basis and handled hundreds of cases at both the trial and the appellate levels. She was appointed to her current judgeship on the Third Judicial Circuit, the trial court bench in Michigan's State court system, in 1991 by Governor John M. Engler, and was reelected in 1992, and 1996 and 2002. She presently is assigned to the Criminal Division of the Court. And during her tenure on the Court, she has served in the Civil and Family Divisions and on several Court administrative committees. Micaela Alvarez, nominated to be United States District Judge for the Southern District of Texas, is an experienced attorney and trial judge. She began her legal career in 1989 as an associate litigation attorney at the law firm of Atlas & Hall, L.L.P., in McAllen, Texas, where she handled all types of litigation, but primarily insurance defense, employment defense and wrongful discharge defense. Four years later, Judge Alvarez joined the law offices of Ronald G. Hole, where she maintained her initial practice and expanded it to include medical malpractice defense and products liability. In 1995, Judge Alvarez served as the presiding judge to the 139th Judicial District Court, Hidalgo County, Texas. After a little more than a year on that court of general jurisdiction, Judge Alvarez rejoined the law offices of Ronald G. Hole and was promptly made a partner. She has remained at the firm since 1997. A majority of the ABA Committee has recognized this seasoned nominee with a Qualified rating, and I look forward to hearing from her today. Judge Alvarez brings a wealth of experience to the Federal bench and will make an excellent addition to the Southern District of Texas. Keith Starrett is our nominee for the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Judge Starrett is an experienced and accomplished jurist, having served as a Circuit Court Judge for the State of Mississippi since 1992. Since 1995, he has retained his seat on the bench via election. The American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest rating of Well Qualified. The Mississippi Bar Association awarded him with the Judicial Excellence Award in 2003. Undoubtedly, he will be a wonderful addition to the Federal bench, so welcome him as well this morning. Raymond Finch has been renominated to a second term as United States District Court for the Virgin Islands. This Committee has seen few nominees with as much experience as Judge Finch. As an attorney, he tried approximately 200 cases to verdict or judgment. In addition to his litigation experience, he has been a judge for nearly 30 years, having first been appointed to the Territorial Court of the Virgin Islands in 1976. He was confirmed as a U.S. District Judge for the Virgin Islands in 1994 and was promoted to Chief Judge of that District in 1998. The ABA has recognized the extensive experience of this fine nominee by awarding him a Majority Qualified/Minority Well-Qualified rating. So it is our privilege to welcome all of these distinguished nominees to the Committee, and I do look forward to their testimony and appreciate those who have testified for them up to now. With that, we will turn to our distinguished Democratic leader on the Committee, Senator Leahy. [The prepared statement of Chairman Hatch appears as a submission for the record.] STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Leahy. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, as I have expressed to you privately and I will express publicly, I am concerned about the Republican majority's disregard for the rules and the traditions and precedents of the United States Senate and of the Judiciary Committee. It really is something to behold, and I think this hearing marks yet another milestone in Republicans' break from their adherence to the so-called Thurmond rule and their own prior practices. In many ways--and the reason I came by this hearing is to point out in many ways this hearing joins a long list of double standards imposed by the Senate Republicans--the double standard from the way that home-State Senators are treated, to the way hearings are scheduled, to the way the Committee questionnaire was unilaterally altered, to the way our Committee's historic protection of Committee Rule IV has been violated. In all these areas, Senate Republicans have destroyed virtually every custom and courtesy that used to help create and enforce cooperation and civility in the confirmation process. In addition to holding yet another hearing for a Sixth Circuit nominee without the approval of her home-State Senators, the majority is openly ignoring another longstanding practice by holding a nominations hearing after Labor Day in a Presidential election year. Now, this was a Republican-imposed rule not to hold such hearings after Labor Day in a Presidential election year. It was enforced very rigidly when Democratic Presidents occupied the White House, that certainly after the political parties' Presidential nominating conventions, they would not proceed with judicial nominations hearings or votes, unless there was consent of both sides. Now, as long as the Democrats were in the White House, the Republicans insisted this had to be the rule. It always had been the rule, always will be the rule. Oops, all of a sudden there is a Republican President with the Republicans in charge in the Senate, and the rule that they followed for 50 years or more is out the window. Now, we have done a lot by consent. Earlier this year we proceeded with consideration of 25 judicial appointments to lifetime nominations. Many, many of them were people that Democrats would not have nominated. But in trying to help the President and the Republicans in the Senate, we agreed to that and fulfilled our understanding. Now, these hearings and these nominees are not part of the agreement we made with the White House and with the Republican leadership. It has long been acknowledged that absent the consent of the minority, the Senate awaits the results of the election and the inauguration of a new President before acting on additional judicial lifetime appointments. The Thurmond rule, as I said, always applied when there was a Democratic President. It was waived during a Republican President, as Senator Hatch has referred to, but that was done with the consent of the Democrats. The Thurmond rule was waived by the Republicans for a Republican President, but with the consent of the Democrats. It was not waived for a Democratic President. Now, certainly with vacancies at an historic low level, that practice, insisted upon by Republicans with Democratic Presidents, would be followed. If President Bush is re-elected, he can always renominate these people. But this hearing is clear indication that Senate Republicans have no such intention of maintaining a consistent practice. In another blatant double standard, they have demonstrated their efforts to breach that practice as well. In 1996, when we had a Democratic President, President Clinton, seeking re-election, the Republican-controlled Senate Committee held only one hearing to consider one district court nominee after the August recess. Of course, they then never allowed that nominee to have a Committee vote. Indeed, that nominee, Judge Ann Aiken of Oregon, was obstructed so severely by the Republican majority that she was not confirmed to her position until nearly a year and a half later, and then after President Clinton had been overwhelmingly re-elected. In 2000, a Presidential election year, the Republican- controlled Committee followed the Thurmond rule to the letter. After the August recess, work on judicial nominations came to a halt. At that time, there were over 30 nominees pending after July 25, 2000, but they were told, Tough, no more hearings, we have always followed the Thurmond rule, we will always follow the Thurmond rule, and so we are going to follow the Thurmond rule. Well, that was then. After all, it was 4 years ago. But now we have the ``by any means necessary'' approach that has characterized this Republican leadership. Their approach to our rules and precedents continues to follow their own partisan version of the golden rule that he with the gold rules. Today, after July 4th, after the Presidential nominating conventions, and after Labor Day, the Republican majority has scheduled a hearing for four judicial nominees, including one to a circuit court opposed by both home-State Senators and done so in a Presidential election year. In contrast to the stalling that dominated Republican treatment of President Clinton's nominees, now the Senate Republicans want to proceed to fill judicial vacancies that have not even yet occurred. They want to start nominating and putting through people for vacancies not yet there and actually aren't going to occur until after the election. Apparently they are somewhat concerned how the Presidential elections may turn out. Now, when you had a Democratic President's judicial nominees, if one Republican home-State Senator objected, that was it. The Committee would taken them no further. And as we have seen so many times over the last 3 and a half years, the Republican Senate perspective is far different when Democratic home-State Senators object to a nomination. Before, if one Republican objected, President Clinton's nominations would go no further. Now, as we saw with the line that was crossed, a line that Chairman Hatch said he would never cross, we held a hearing for Henry Saad, a Michigan nominee to the Sixth Circuit who was opposed by both his home-State Senators. I think it may have been the first time that any Chairman, Republican or Democratic, and any Senate Judiciary Committee proceeded with a hearing on a judicial nominee over the objection of both home- State Senators. It was certainly the only time in the last 50 years, and I know it has been the only time in the 30 years I have been here. And having broken that longstanding practice with Henry Saad, it has now been repeated again and again. The Michigan Senators have come to the Committee time and again to articulate their very real grievances with the White House and their honest desire to work toward a bipartisan solution to filling vacancies in the Sixth Circuit. Bipartisan solutions have worked all the way around the country, but not here. We should respect their views, as the views of home-State Senators have been respected for decades. I have urged the White House to work with them. I have proposed reasonable solutions to the impasse with the White House, reasonable solutions supported by many of the leading Republicans in Michigan. The Michigan Senators have proposed reasonable solutions, including a bipartisan--Republican and Democratic-- commission, which the White House continues to reject. This is not the time to press ahead with yet another Sixth Circuit nomination without a resolution to this impasse. At that point, I would like, Mr. Chairman, to put in the record letters from Senator Levin, the senior Senator from Michigan. Chairman Hatch. Without objection. Senator Leahy. Also at the appropriate place, one from the Magnolia Bar Association. Chairman Hatch. Without objection. Senator Leahy. I have also heard concerns about the President's decision to nominate Keith Starrett to the vacancy created when this President bypassed the Senate to appoint Charles Pickering to the Fifth Circuit without seeking the consent of the Senate. The letter that I have just put in the record from the Magnolia Bar Association, a primarily African- American bar association in Mississippi, is now part of the record. The Magnolia Bar's president, Crystal Wise Martin, expresses the group's strong opposition to proceeding with Judge Starrett's nomination, not only because it is so late in the session, but also because, as she writes: ``[I]t fails to remedy the egregious problem concerning the lack of diversity on Mississippi's Federal bench.'' She points out that Mississippi has the highest percentage of African-Americans of any State, but so far has had only one African-American Federal judge. She explains that the Magnolia Bar and the National Bar Association have both made direct requests of the President that he appoint at least one African-American to this seat. During the consideration of Charles Pickering's nomination, his son, Congressman Chip Pickering, reportedly expressed his willingness to advocate for an African-American nominee if his father received support from the Magnolia Bar. But the administration did not honor that intention of proceeding with a qualified African-American nominee for this judgeship. As I said before, on the agenda we have a nominee for a vacancy that does not occur until after President Bush's election. One has to think that perhaps people are concerned that the President is not going to be re-elected. Now, it could be argued that for purposes of efficiency nominees can and should be confirmed shortly in advance of the time the vacancy they are filling actually arises, it is amazing that we are going to start appointing people before there even is a vacancy. It is astounding that the partisans who assiduously followed the Thurmond rule and shut down consideration of judicial nominees in the last 6 months of Presidential terms-- President Carter's, President Clinton's, for example--have now reversed themselves to insist that vacancies, which will not even arise until after the Presidential election, be filled now. You know, I think about 10 years from now we are going to have a couple other vacancies then. Maybe we ought to just fill those, too, while we are at it. We could actually fill for the next 30 years, go through all the things, just fill everybody right now, and we would not have to do any more work. Now, this President has seen more than 200 of his nominees confirmed. There are more active judges sitting on the bench than at any time in the Nation's history. Democrats have voted for 98 percent of those judges. And I contrast that to what happened when the Republicans were in charge and President Clinton was President. They blocked so many nominees that we ended up having vacancies exceeding 100 across this country. In the 1996 session, when he was up for re-election, they blocked 17 judges from going forward. Now, under our Constitution, the Senate does have an important role in the selection of our judiciary. The brilliant design of our Founders established that the first two branches of Government would work together to equip the third branch to serve as an independent arbiter of justice. They never said we would be rubber stamps. I use two examples. The most popular President in this Nation's history, George Washington, had the Senate reject some of his judges. Franklin Roosevelt, when he had an overwhelming Democratic majority in the Senate, the Senate rejected his court-packing plan. We are supposed to be independent, not a rubber stamp of the White House. Conservative Republican columnist George Will recently wrote: ``A proper constitution distributed power among legislative, executive, and judicial institutions so that the will of the majority can be measured, expressed in policy and, for the protection of minorities, somewhat limited.'' The structure of our Constitution and our own Senate rules of self- governance are designed to protect minority rights and to encourage consensus. Despite the razor-thin margins of recent elections, Senate Republicans are not acting in a measured way, but in complete disregard for the traditions of bipartisanship that are the hallmark of the Senate. We were able to have a variant on the Thurmond rule when President Reagan was here because we worked on consensus, and Democrats agreed to that. Now nobody even seeks consensus. I think it is because Senate Republicans have acted to ignore precedents, reinterpret longstanding rules to their advantage, and when they cannot reinterpret them, they simply break them. This practice of might makes right is wrong. It is also unfair to the nominees who are here because, of course, it signals what their chances are. Mr. Chairman, I will put my full statement in the record. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. We will put it in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] Chairman Hatch. But I feel like I have to take just a few seconds to answer. I hate to take time from this hearing, but I think it is important to set a few things straight in the record. There are grievances on both sides of this Committee. No question through the years this is a hard-fought Committee. We have lots of disagreements. There is a lot of partisanship on the Committee, which I wish did not exist but it does from time to time. Both sides have felt aggrieved from time to time, and both sides have been right from time to time. Not always, but from time to time. But just to make sure the record is straight, there have been approximately 78 judges confirmed--78--in the late summer and fall of Presidential election years since 1980. That fact alone demonstrates the illusory nature of what some call the ``Thurmond rule.'' I do not believe there is a Thurmond rule and it never has been followed, as far as I am concerned, and should not be followed now. But be that as it may, Senator Thurmond did think he had a rule. But he himself broke it continuously. In 1980, this body confirmed one circuit judge currently and nine district judges in the months of September and beyond. I helped facilitate the confirmation of Stephen Breyer, currently of the U.S. Supreme Court, to the First Circuit Court of Appeals. That would not have happened had I not been on this Committee as a Republican facilitating the nomination of Stephen Breyer after President Reagan was elected. That confirmation took place after the November 1980 Presidential election. Now, that nomination was made by President Carter, who had just been defeated by President Reagan, and yet we acted on it. I have a note that Senator Thurmond was the Ranking Member of the Committee at that time. Now, 4 years later--and, by the way, the others were Carter appointees, the other nine district judges that were confirmed in September and beyond. Four years later, when Senator Thurmond chaired the Judiciary Committee, the Senate confirmed six circuit judges after August 1st--one in August and five in October. Twelve district judges were confirmed in September and October of that year. Of course, President Reagan was the President, and the Republicans had control of the Committee. In 1988, when Senator Thurmond was the Ranking Member, two circuit judges were confirmed in October and 12 district judges were confirmed between the period of July 26th through October 14th of that year. In 1992, the last year Senator Thurmond was Ranking Member, the Judiciary Committee held a hearing for two circuit judges on July 29th; two more hearings on circuit judges in August; and another one in September. Five circuit judges were confirmed between July 29, 1992, and October 8, 1992. Let me reiterate that point: five circuit judges were confirmed after July 29th. There were three in August, one in September, and one in October. That is in addition to the 18 district judges who were confirmed in that same 3-month span. So in 1992 alone, there were 18 district judges and five circuit judges who were confirmed in the months of August, September, and October. Now, that is a total of 23 judges who were confirmed in the days and months leading up to a Presidential election. Indeed, one of my Democratic colleagues on the Judiciary Committee acknowledged on the record a few years ago that, ``We were confirming them''--that is, judicial nominees--``right up almost to the last week we were in session.'' Well, my Democratic colleague was absolutely correct. In 1996, four district judges were confirmed in late July. In 2000, nine judges, including one circuit judge, were confirmed between July 21st and October 3rd. In all, since 1980 approximately 78 judges have been confirmed in the closing weeks of the Congress during a Presidential election year. The numbers speak for themselves. There is no Thurmond rule. Again, when Senator Thurmond was Chairman of the Judiciary Committee in 1984, there were 18 judges confirmed between August 9th and October 11th. I think that Senator Thurmond's record of confirming judges carries more weight and is more convincing than some imaginary rule that has been attributed to him. Now, I reject the notion of this purported rule and would hope that the service of the longest-serving and oldest member to have served in this body would have been used in the manner that I have heard repeated over and over in the Committee and the Senate floor would not have been used in that way. But be that as it may, even if there was a Thurmond rule set by one person who did not control the whole Committee--and with which many of the Committee would have disagreed, anyway, and still do--our job is to confirm judges on this Committee, and we ought to do that unless there is a reason not to. And that means whether it is a Republican President or a Democrat President. And I have always tried to do that. Now, I have to say that the people who are nominees here today are exceptional people. They deserve our efforts as a Committee, our honest efforts to not only hold this hearing but to have a markup for them and to have votes on the floor up and down. I hope we can do that, and I intend to do that. And I suspect that should the Democrats take over this Committee next year or in the future, they will do the same for their President, whenever he comes in. I certainly did what I could for President Clinton. He was the second all-time champion in confirmed judges, second only to Reagan, who has 6 years of how own party to help him. Clinton only had 2 years. But he had me as Chairman of the Committee, and I helped him. And he knows it and I know it. You can talk statistics both ways all day long, and I have to say both sides of this Committee have been right many times and both sides have been wrong many times. I would like to see us do a better job on judges than we have done in the past, and so far we are. And I want to thank my colleague Senator Leahy for his cooperation throughout at least my chairmanship of this Committee in helping us to confirm good people like the one we have here today. Now, with that, we will call on Judge Neilson-- Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, if I might, I will be very brief. Chairman Hatch. Sure. Senator Leahy. An easy statistic to remember is that over 60 of President Clinton's nominations were blocked by the Republicans, usually if only one Republican objected. It made no difference what the other 99 might feel, but if one Republican objected, they were blocked. The Thurmond rule, of course--you know, Senator Strom Thurmond said, ``Today, Ronald Reagan has agreed to ask Republican Members of the Senate to block Presidential appointments to Federal posts until after the November 4th election.'' That was on July 17th of 1980. The fact of the matter is everybody in the Senate who served during that time knows when exceptions were made to that, it was made because both sides agreed, because the Democratic and the Republican leadership agreed. And there were exceptional cases where such agreements were made with both Republican Presidents and Democratic Presidents--but only with the consent of both sides. Now we are told that consent is immaterial, past precedents are immaterial, the fact that we blocked President Clinton's nominations if just one of us objected, that is immaterial, we are going to go forward with these. It is not the best way to fulfill our advise and consent. Instead of being advise and consent, the Senate turns into advise and rubber stamp. Chairman Hatch. Well, it certainly is not the best way, and I hope we can have some cooperation from your side so we can do exactly what you have been saying. I remember your remarks made a while back. Here there are: ``There is a myth that judges are not traditionally confirmed in Presidential election years. That is not true.'' You are right. That is not true. Senator Leahy. That was in February-- Chairman Hatch. I think I made the case, 78--and, look, the greatest case really was the confirmation of Judge Breyer, and I was the one who helped bring that to pass, after President Reagan was elected. Well, so much for this argument. We are going to argue it, I guess, forever. But to make a long story short, there are two sides to it, I am sure. But I think the record speaks for itself. And I just hope we will have some cooperation because what we are trying to do is fill these positions with good people. And some of these positions are absolute emergencies as well. And what I am trying to do as Chairman of this Committee is my job. And I would appreciate cooperation from the other side if they care to give it. So, with that, we are going to turn to Judge Neilson at this point. Judge, we welcome you to the Committee. We know you have waited a long time to have this hearing. We also know you have gone through some very difficult times, and we are very grateful to have you here. If you could raise your right arm, do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before this Committee shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Neilson. I do. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Judge. Senator Leahy. I know you are not interested in what I have to say, so I am going to leave. Chairman Hatch. Judge, you can--I am interested in what you have to say. Judge I am happy to welcome you here. If you have family or friends here you would like to introduce, we would certainly like you to do that. STATEMENT OF SUSAN B. NEILSON, OF MICHIGAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT Judge Neilson. I would like to introduce my husband, Jeff, who is with me. Our two daughters-- Chairman Hatch. Please stand as you are-- Judge Neilson. Oh, I'm so sorry. Chairman Hatch. We are so happy to have you with us. No, not you. Them. No, no, I want you to relax as much as you can. Judge Neilson. Our two daughters started school today, so they are not with us. Chairman Hatch. We understand. Judge Neilson. But I would like to thank and recognize in absentia my wonderful parents and especially my sister, who has been an incredible support for me over the past year. And I want to thank you and, in his absence, Senator Leahy for coming here today and allowing me to speak. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. Would you care to make any other statement? Would you care to make any other statement? Judge Neilson. I am happy to answer any questions that you may have, Senator. [The biographical information of Judge Neilson follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Well, we are grateful to have you here. I will put into the record a letter that I have received from Senators Levin and Stabenow, or Senator Levin in this particular case, and keep the record open for Senator Stabenow if she cares to submit a letter or any other statement for the record. As you know, we have had a very difficult time here because of a mix-up caused by both sides in many respects that did not allow two of the Clinton judges to take their seats. In the process, the Democrats basically said we are not going to allow any Republicans, even though this circuit is in real dire straits and does need judges. I have been trying to work that out. I offered yesterday to the distinguished Senators from Michigan to try and get two additional judges, a circuit and a district court judge, in the judgeship bill that should come over from the House if they would allow an up-and-down vote for the four nominees. They could argue against any one of you. They could make whatever case they wanted to against Judge Saad in this particular case that they are opposed to. I don't think they are opposed to the other three circuit judges, except for this situation--I am trying to resolve it--and the two district court judges. For that, we would put one of the two who did not make it, Democrats, on a district court seat if we could get those two seats done; in other words, the House would pass a bill with those two seats, and one would take a district court and the other would take a circuit court of appeals. It would be up to the White House to make that determination which one would get which seat. But that would mean votes up and down for all eight of the judgeship nominees. It would help Michigan, help the circuit court of appeals in grand ways to be able to get this done. I have been told by the Senators that they would not allow a vote up or down on Judge Saad, for whatever reasons, that I am sure are sincere reasons on their part. And I am not sure they would allow votes up and down on the others, but we are going to proceed anyway. If they do not agree to that, then I am not going to argue for two extra seats for Michigan, and whoever wins the election will have the privilege of putting these people through unless we can, between now and the election, find a way to put the four of you through and the two district court nominees through, because I presume that you should have an easy time going through with a well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association, the highest rating they can possibly give, with absolutely stunning recommendations from Democrats and Republicans in the State for really all four of you who are nominated for the circuit court of appeals, and because of the tremendous abilities that you have. I think it is a shame that we are in this mess because I think Michigan suffers, I think the country suffers; certainly the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals is suffering; but most of all, the litigants and the people who want justice in the courts are suffering because that court simply cannot do its job as well or as expeditiously as it should be done. So your nomination here is very important. And as you can see, we have little piques on the Committee, and they are cheap little piques, it seems to me--p-i-q-u-e-s, I guess I spelled that right--over nothing, when we ought to be--when we see fine people like yourself, we ought to be doing everything we can to make sure that you folks are given the privilege of serving. And that is regardless of party, and I have always tried to do that. And so I particularly resent the implication that while I am Chairman, we are not trying to do what I have always tried to do I helping the Democrats when they have been in charge accomplish what they would like to accomplish for their particular Presidents. But let me ask you a few questions, Judge Neilson. I hope that explains it a little bit. Judge Neilson. Yes. Chairman Hatch. I could get this done. I think the House is bringing up that bill tomorrow or the next day. I could have those two judgeships, I believe, in the House and then it would have to come over here because there are additions to our judgeship bill. It would have to come over here and be passed by the Senate. I would hope that if we did that, the Democrats not only would allow it to be passed by the Senate, because many Democrats are getting judges in that bill. We have been very fair in the bill. But not only that, we would be able to resolve a lot of problems with that bill. And if we could do that, then we would have votes up and down for all four Republican nominees or President Bush nominees to the circuit court. We would have votes up and down for the two district court nominees, and I do not think there are any objections to them either. And we would have votes up and down, and I would recommend positive votes up and down for the two Clinton nominees in the fourth year of the Bush administration. Now, that is how far I have tried to lean over backwards to try and resolve this problem for our Senators from Michigan. And I do not think they will go for that because they do not want Judge Saad to be able to serve on the circuit court of appeals. I think they are tremendously mistaken in that, and I think it is not the right thing for them to do. But I cannot-- you know, they are both good people, and they have their own thoughts on this matter, and I just want the record to be straight so that everybody understands I am doing my very best to try and resolve this problem. But be that as it may, if we do not have those two judges added and there is any way we can get the four of you votes up and down, I am going to do it before the end of this year. And if not--and I hope with all my heart President Bush is re- elected--then we are certainly going to put you four up and pass you through in the next-- Judge Neilson. Well, on behalf of myself and all the nominees, Mr. Chairman, we thank you for your efforts. Chairman Hatch. Judge Neilson, as a Third Judicial Circuit Court Judge, you do have a firsthand knowledge on how our judicial system works. Everybody says that. Now, how have these experiences shaped your views on the proper role of a Federal judge within our political system? Judge Neilson. A trial judge in Michigan sees a broad variety of cases. I think that being a trial judge assists you in looking at the law and in determining what law applies. You see that in such a broad variety of context on the trial bench. Chairman Hatch. What would you say has been your most challenging case on your current court, and could you please tell us on the Committee how you address that challenge and what lessons you learned from it? Judge Neilson. Mr. Chairman, it is hard to think of the most challenging case. It probably depends on what day you ask me. They all present somewhat of a challenge. I think that some simple cases become very complex in the middle of trial. I think that lengthy trials are challenging because you want to make sure that everyone's rights are preserved, and it is difficult when you have a lengthy trial. I cannot really make any generalizations. I could not say to you products liability cases are the hardest or medical malpractice, those are the most complex, because I have had some very interesting cases that some people would consider stem from very mundane facts. Chairman Hatch. That is great. Your ability to constructively interact with your fellow judges on the Sixth Circuit will be, as far as I can see, an important element of your work. Could you speak for the moment about the role and significance of collegiality on the bench, and please indicate how you would intend to contribute to collegiality once you join the Federal bench? Judge Neilson. I believe that a judge has a duty to set an example of politeness, or listening to what colleagues have to say. This does not mean that in any way you should change your true values and true opinions for the sake of congeniality. But there is no excuse for a judge not to be polite and respectful to her colleagues. Chairman Hatch. I note that you have done a great deal of work with the Soroptimist International of Grosse Pointe, which is the local branch of an international organization devoted to improving the lives of women and children. Could you tell the Committee about that experience and how that prepares you to be a judge? Judge Neilson. Well, Soroptimist International is a service organization which attempts to better the lives of women and children. Our local chapter focuses mostly on domestic violence shelters and assisting them in providing for the women and children who come there. There are many domestic violence shelters that do not allow children to come with the mothers, or there is no facilities for the children, and we attempt to fill that gap. Chairman Hatch. I really appreciate that because every year I hold a charitable golf tournament to raise money basically for women in jeopardy programs or domestic violence programs or battered women programs, and this year we were able to contribute to some 37 different programs in Utah, without which, without that money they probably would not be able to function anywhere near, but some of them are trying to do what you have been trying to do. I appreciate your work in that area. If there were no controlling precedent dispositively concluding an issue with which you were presented, to what sources would you turn for persuasive authority? Judge Neilson. Well, Senator, the first place a judge looks, assuming a statute is involved, is the plain language of the statute, and often even when there is no case authority under the statute the language of the statute is clear and the judge can rule based on the language of the statute. Legislative history can be helpful. I like to use the word ``helpful'' not ``persuasive'' because the judge has to again look at the plain language of the statute, and if it--if the legislative history seems to say something different than the plain language, I believe that the plain language is controlling. Chairman Hatch. And if you do not have a statute, what would you turn to? Judge Neilson. You mean if the decision is based simply on case law? Chairman Hatch. If you were on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, yes. Judge Neilson. There are certainly cases of first impression. Sometimes I look at cases from other jurisdictions. Again, I would call them helpful because every State is different, but there are certain general principles of law that apply in most cases, and I apply them. Chairman Hatch. As a Circuit Judge you would be looking to the Supreme Court, I take it, for finding precedent. Judge Neilson. Oh, of course. Chairman Hatch. That goes without saying. Judge Neilson. Correct. Chairman Hatch. Can you please explain for the Committee your views on the difference between binding legal precedent and policy choices determined by elected officials and their staffs? In other words, put differently, what is the proper role for a judge to follow? Should the judge follow binding legal precedent, or to shape the law to achieve a desired result? Judge Neilson. The judge should never change the law to achieve a desired result. The judge's role is not to impose his or her personal beliefs on the law. Our duty is to follow the law as it was written by the legislature, and that is how I perceive that I would conduct myself if I were fortunate enough to be confirmed. Chairman Hatch. Let me just say this. I do not want to put you through any more because I know darn well you can answer every question. I know that your background is extensive. I know that you have the well-qualified rating from the American Bar Association. I believe that this hearing has been too long delayed, mainly as I have tried to resolve these difficulties between the two Senators from Michigan and the Committee, and so far have not been very successful, although I have done my very best, and have offered a final offer. All I can say is that I am going to support you very strongly, and I believe everybody on this Committee ought to support you very strongly. I do not think there is an excuse for this to be delayed any longer. By the way, how long have you been delayed? Judge Neilson. I believe that I was first nominated in November of 2000, 2001? Chairman Hatch. 2001 you mean? Judge Neilson. Yes. Chairman Hatch. It has been about 3 years. Judge Neilson. I have tried not to count the days, Mr. Chairman. I apologize. Chairman Hatch. That is okay, but it has been a long time. Judge Neilson. It has. Chairman Hatch. A lot longer than it should have been. That does happen on this Committee from time to time, but I think in this particular case it is not right, and we are going to have to try and solve that. I will do my best to do that, and I have been trying, but I just want to compliment you for being willing to serve in this position, knowing that you would so faithfully, that you would execute the law faithfully, that you would be impartial, and that you would have the intelligence and the capacity to be able to do this job well. I know well your record, and I am going to very strongly support you. With that, we will just let you go, and thank you and your family, your husband in particular, for being here. Judge Neilson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Thank you so much. If I can have the other three please take their seats. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Alvarez. I do. Judge Starrett. I do. Judge Finch. I do. Chairman Hatch. Thanks so much. We are happy to have all three of you here. You are three excellent people, three excellent nominees. We know how important, Judge Finch, your job is there, and you need that reappointment, and that is what you are being honored with here today. Judge Starrett, your reputation is a sterling reputation. Everybody knows that and there is no excuse for holding you back in any way. Judge Alvarez, you have had a lot of experience. You have tried a lot of cases. You have also been a judge, so you understand the law and how it should be applied and so forth. Let me just say this. Let me ask all three of you these questions, and you can give--would any of--let us start with you, Judge Alvarez and go across the table. Would you care to make any statements? I forgot that you should be able to introduce--your family has been introduced, but if you would care to do that again, I would appreciate it, and friends. STATEMENT OF MICAELA ALVAREZ, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Judge Alvarez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to be before this Committee. Senator Hutchison has been gracious enough to introduce my family. I would like to recognize my children, who because of school commitments could not be here today. They are my son, Javier, my two daughters, Cecilia and Victoria. I would also like to, just for the record, mention my mother, Macaria Alvarez, who also could not be here today. [The biographical information of Judge Alvarez follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Thank you, and we welcome all the rest of your family who have all been introduced. We appreciate having you with us and we are honored by your presence. Judge Starrett. STATEMENT OF KEITH STARRETT, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Judge Starrett. Thank you, Senator Hatch, and thank you so much for having this hearing today. I would like to recognize my wife, Barbara, who is here. Chairman Hatch. Barbara, if you would stand. Delighted to have you here. Judge Starrett. I also have my children who were not able to be here today. My son Josh and his wife Melissa, my daughter Leah Claire and her husband Grant Bennett, and my son Whit, are not able to be here today. I also have two special friends, Judge Joe Pigott and his wife Lorraine are here today, if you would stand. Judge Pigott was my predecessor in office. He served our State and district very well as circuit judge for 17\1/2\ years before I took the bench upon his retirement. Chairman Hatch. We welcome both of you here. It is nice of you to come all this way. Judge Starrett. I would also like to point out, Senator, that their son was approved by this Committee about 10 years ago as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi. Thank you. [The biographical information of Judge Starrett follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Judge Finch. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND L. FINCH, NOMINEE TO BE JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS Judge Finch. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to be here today. I will take this opportunity to introduce my wife, Anne Marie. Chairman Hatch. So happy to have you with us. Judge Finch. And my daughter, Jennifer, who is here, and a very good friend of mine, former Senator Claude Malloy. Chairman Hatch. We are honored to have you all here. Judge Finch. Thank you very much. [The biographical information of Judge Finch follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Thank you so much. Let me just say that I know your reputations, and I have carefully reviewed your records. I think all three of you are very well qualified to serve on your respective benches. Let me just ask a few cases though as we go through this. Let us say that you have a case where you believe one way but the law is the other, or at least there is a strong argument that the law is the other way. How are you going to handle that, Judge Alvarez? Judge Alvarez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that as a judge I am bound to uphold the law like any other citizen, and my personal beliefs are not what I should base my decisions on. My decisions would be based on the law. Chairman Hatch. What if they are really strongly held beliefs? Judge Alvarez. I believe that my decisions should nonetheless still be based on the law. As a judge my oath is to uphold the law, not to impose my personal views. Chairman Hatch. Judge Starrett? Judge Starrett. I would like to agree with my colleague, Senator, and thank you for the question. I would always follow the law. I hope that I have tried to do that. I have tried to do that through my career and would continue doing it. Chairman Hatch. Judge Finch? Judge Finch. Thank you, Senator. I have, throughout my career, followed the law, and I will continue to do so. I think as a trial judge that it is my primary task in decision making simply to follow the law. Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Judge Starrett, you have given numerous speeches and written at least two articles on drug courts. You have also been instrumental in establishing GED and drug treatment programs in the local jails, and you have spent the last six or 7 years working to establish a drug court system in Mississippi. Would you please express to the Committee how effective these efforts have been in combatting the drug problems in your State? Judge Starrett. The drug courts are--I do not want to say in their infancy because I have had one for over 6 years, and I would like to thank the Senate and the House for supporting drug courts on a national level. But by the end of next year there should be 18 active drug courts working in Mississippi. Chairman Hatch. You were the first to start this? Judge Starrett. Yes, sir, in Mississippi. And they are--a law that I worked to draft, we have one of the most progressive, if not the most progressive, drug court statute in the Nation. We also have one of the best, if not the best, funded drug court programs in the Nation. This has all come about in the last 2 years in difficult budget times. Chairman Hatch. In these respective positions that you have, you have tremendous caseloads. How do you plan on managing those caseloads once you get there? As I understand in your case, Judge Starrett, this caseload will be--this is an emergency position. Let us start with you, Judge Alvarez. How do you plan on handling a caseload? I understand you have a tremendous caseload in the position that you would be assuming that you are nominated for down in Texas. Judge Alvarez. Thank you for expressing that concern. That is also my understanding, that there is a very heavy caseload in the Laredo Division. I would do what I have always done in my life, and that is I am a very hard worker, so I would certainly do that. I believe that the role of a judge is not limited to 8 to 5, so I would commit myself to the time that is required to move the docket, of course, with the assistance of the magistrates and the other court staff. Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Judge Starrett? Judge Starrett. Thank you, Senator. Having a large caseload is not something new to me. When I took over as circuit judge from Judge Pigott, there was the highest caseload of any judge in the State at that time. When I take over, if I am so fortunate as to be confirmed, the district in Hattiesburg, where the seat will be, has the highest caseload of any U.S. District Court. The way to work it is just to work. You do the things that you have to do to manage the docket and to reduce the caseload. Chairman Hatch. Judge Finch. Judge Finch. Senator, thank you for expressing your concern in this area. I have, since being on the Federal bench, used the expertise of the magistrate judges in our court to assist in moving our cases, and that has been very effective and I will continue to do so. In addition to that, of course, I will continue to work as hard as I can and as hard as my health will allow. Chairman Hatch. Thank you so much. One thing I like to ask, especially District Court nominees, how important do you think temperament is? I tried cases in the Western District of Pennsylvania before going to Utah, and then tried cases before the fabled--well, in both cases, the fabled Judge Wallace Gorley there in the Western District of Pennsylvania, who was kind of a law unto himself, but a very fine judge in many respects; and Willis Ritter, who has a very interesting reputation in the District Court there in Utah. How important is temperament? We will start with you, Judge Alvarez. Judge Alvarez. I think the temperament is very important for any judge, especially I think a trial judge is seen by the public as the administrator of justice, and so for that reason a judge should always remember to treat those who come before that judge with dignity and respect. Chairman Hatch. Judge Starrett. Judge Starrett. Thank you, Senator. The temperament of a judge is crucial to the perception of the fairness by the litigants and the attorneys. A judge should have a temperament that is courteous and respectful, but it also should be firm. It should be one that would run a courtroom in a way that gives respect to litigants, jurors, attorneys and all participants. Chairman Hatch. And gets the job done. Judge Starrett. And gets the job done, yes, sir. Chairman Hatch. Judge Finch. Judge Finch. It is my opinion that temperament is of utmost importance in conducting court proceedings. It is especially so in situations where one has to face non-lawyer litigants, and of course also with lawyers. Courtesy is of utmost importance, and I have exercised courtesy and respect to all lawyers who come into my court, and I will continue to do so. Chairman Hatch. That is great. How are you going to treat young lawyers who may not have the practical experience, may not even be as well versed in the rules of evidence, may not be able to ask the questions, you know, listen to responses from witnesses as well as they should. Let us start with you, Judge Finch. Judge Finch. The short answer is great patience. Chairman Hatch. Okay. Judge Finch. Great patience, and of course, courtesy. I have in some situations expressed from the bench my particular interest in an issue, and although the young lawyer may have completely missed the issue, having expressed my interest in it, I have given that lawyer time to submit additional memoranda on the subject and request a hearing if he so desires. Chairman Hatch. Judge Starrett. Judge Starrett. Thank you, Senator. I have not forgotten when I was a young lawyer and needed some help from judges, but I would do the same thing that Judge Finch has said. Chairman Hatch. Judge Alvarez. Judge Alvarez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that a judge can offer some guidance to a young lawyer, but of course should be careful not to become the advocate for either side, but as my colleagues have said, I believe great patience would be the strength that the judge could offer to the young lawyer. Chairman Hatch. That is great. I have seen judges who try to try the cases for lawyers or who interject their own feelings or their own personal views all the time, and that should not happen. But there are times when a young lawyer is having a difficult time asking the question a way that is unobjectionable, where a judge might say, ``You might want to ask it this way, counselor,'' just to help them. I have seen great judges lose their tempers because sometimes the courtroom can be a very, very volatile place, but for the most part you pretty well should not, and I just believe that all three of you will make excellent judges, trial court judges from what I know about your backgrounds. I am very honored to have you all here today. I know that you can answer any other question that I even could think of, and I have a lot that I might have asked you if you were other than the great people that you are. I am going to do my best to get you through between now and the end of this Congress, and hopefully will be able to do that. I would hope that in your cases that there will not be objections by the other side, and I am hopeful that we might be able to find some way that both sides will quit being so ridiculous at the end of presidential years, or at the end of any particular year, but especially presidential years. Both sides have been wrong from time to time, and the irritations continue to carry over, and I am trying to bridge that if I can. As you can see, it is very difficult, but in any event, I will do my very best to get you through. I want to thank each of you for being here, your family members, your friends, and I will keep the record open for one week till September 15th for any further questions or statements that might be put into the record, and then we will probably put you on the markup for next week, next week or the week thereafter. Thank you all. With that, we will end this hearing and recess until further notice. [Whereupon, at 11:24 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NOMINATIONS OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO; AND BERYL ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22, 2004 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:45 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Mike DeWine presiding. Present: Senators DeWine and Leahy. Senator DeWine. The hearing will come to order. First let me apologize. There is a briefing going on in regard to Iraq and I apologize for being late. That briefing started at three; it is still going on. We have today a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on judicial nominations. Christopher Boyko will be the first. Before we start, let me call up the Honorable Steven LaTourette, who is here, and we will hear Congressman LaTourette's testimony. Congressman, thank you very much for joining us. PRESENTATION OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, BY HON. STEVEN LATOURETTE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Representative LaTourette. Senator DeWine and Senator Leahy, thank you very much for letting me come over and spend a few minutes before you inquire of my long-time friend, Judge Boyko. And first of all, I want to indicate that, Senator DeWine, in putting his name forward, you have made an incredibly wise choice, and I am grateful to the President of the United States for sending his nomination for your consideration and hopefully consent. I have had the pleasure of knowing Chris Boyko since 1976. We were first year law students together at Cleveland-Marshall College of Law, and I know Senator DeWine knows a little bit about Cleveland-Marshall, but it is the kind of law school where when you do not have a lot of money, you work a day job, you go at night. It is the only way we were able to become lawyers. And Chris Boyko, you will find he looks today the same way he looked in 1976. He was clean-cut, he worked hard, he was a health nut before that was in vogue, and we did not have all those fancy gyms you can go to. He eats well. He used to make fun of me for eating Twinkies and drinking coke for lunch, and you know that when you go into that first year of law school, the professor comes back from Paper Chase, the professor always says take a look to your left, take a look at your right, and at the end of the semester, one out of the three of you is not going to be here. Well, as I said, Chris looks exactly as he does now. I had just graduated from the University of Michigan. I had long hair, a beard, I wore a lot of flannel, and Chris told me years later, he was sure after looking at me he was in, and he was going to be the one that would be around at the end, and I have had the pleasure of being associated with him ever since. Chris has served honorably as the elected Law Director in the City of Parma, a large and thriving suburb of the City of Cleveland. He then became the Parma Municipal Judge and distinguished himself as well. He was appointed to the Common Pleas Bench by then Governor Voinovich, now Senator Voinovich, and he has been twice elected, and not to be partisan at all, but Cuyahoga County, Senator DeWine knows well, I think the Democratic registration beats the Republican registration by four to one, and you only get elected and reelected as a Republican jurist if you do what people want you to do, you do it fairly, you do it honestly, you do it with integrity, and Chris Boyko has been twice elected. So while he may be surprised that I am a member of the United States Congress after meeting me for the first time in 1976, I am not surprised at all that he sits before you today with a nomination by the President of the United States to become a judge of the Northern District of Ohio, and again I appreciate you giving me the opportunity to say a few words about my friend and hopefully our next Federal judge in Cleveland. Senator DeWine. Congressman, thank you very much, very eloquent. We appreciate your being here very much. Senator Leahy. We are not going to ask the Congressman searching, tough questions about those college days? [Laughter.] Senator DeWine. I will leave that up to you, Senator. Senator Leahy. I am assuming we will not on the hopes that nobody would ever do that to us. [Laughter.] Senator Leahy. Thank you, Congressman. Representative LaTourette. Thank you both. Senator DeWine. I am going to now defer to my colleague Senator Leahy for the introduction of Beryl Howell to be a member of the United States Sentencing Commission. PRESENTATION OF BERYL ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION, BY HON. PATRICK LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT Senator Leahy. Why I thank you for the courtesy, Mr. Chairman, and I am delighted, of course, that she is here. We have tried to make the U.S. Sentencing Commission bipartisan, thus nonpartisan, with balanced and experienced commissioners that stick to the merits, command the respect of both Congress and the Judiciary. Beryl Howell is certainly in that category. I like the fact that when she first came here that she had been a prosecutor, in fact, a very tough Federal prosecutor. She earned a number of commendations for her actions. She was the Deputy Chief of the Narcotics Section, Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of New York, though she consented to join the staff of the Senate Judiciary Committee in 1993. She served with great distinction, earned the respect of both Republicans and Democrats alike. As my general counsel, she devoted herself to resolving issues on the merits. Probably the biggest challenge was the one we faced following September 11, when she led the negotiating team with the administration. She has gone on to become highly successful as the Managing Director and General Counsel of the Washington, D.C. office of Stroz Friedberg, one of the leading cybersecurity and forensic firms in the country. She is here with her husband Michael Rosenfeld, a well- known cinema journalist, if I can use that term. I, like you, have had times on Air Force One. He helped produce the definitive documentary on Air Force One. I felt like I was right back on it in watching it. But Jared, Alina, and Calla are all here, and Mrs. Rosenfeld is here. Other friends who Beryl will mention when she comes up are also here, but I have to tell you how extremely impressed I am that you are here. Could I mention one other thing, too, Mr. Chairman? And I am glad Beryl is here, because she knows how hard we worked on this technological milestone for the Senate. Today the Senate Judiciary Committee will officially begin broadcasting live on the Senate television system with closed captioning, using advanced technology of voice recognition software. We have been eagerly awaiting this. We have worked for it, planned for it for years. We have worked with the Office of the Secretary of the Senate--Madam Secretary, I appreciate you coming over here; you honor us all by being here--with the Committee on Rules. We developed a pilot project that would allow us to study the captioning of committee hearings, offering real time captioning as a demonstration for the use of Senators and their staff. We are very, very proud of this and have worked very closely with Senator Hatch, and I am glad we are able to do this. I should also mention Clara Kircher, my Deputy Chief of Staff, who has devoted well over a year of her own life to this project, and she is sitting here today as well. She has truly brought us through the peaks and valleys of the closed captioning. We have tried different systems. Some held promise, but not reality. This one does, and Clara, everybody, everybody owes you thanks. I think too of Rachel Arfa who worked for this Committee with great distinction, first as an intern, then as the Nominations Clerk, and then went on to law school. The amazing thing is she cannot hear, but she also worked with us on this and encouraged me throughout the time, even times when we tended to give up and wonder if we could possibly do it. Because of the events following September 11, we find many, many barriers around Washington that were not there when I was a law student, a time when you could just walk in this building and just about any other building easily. They show the realities of today. But this is one way to break down barriers. The people, whether they can hear or are hard of hearing, or for whatever reason, can follow it, and I think, Mr. Chairman, we open the Senate up more by doing it. I will put my full statement in the record, but I just did want to mention that. If I could also mention, as one who has been here for nearly 30 years, the great public service of Sheila Joy. I will put a full statement in here. But she is retiring from the Department of Justice after 26 years working on nominations, 37 years in public service. She has assisted people through their confirmation, every judicial nomination, the Ford, Carter, Reagan, former Bush, Clinton and the current administration. She knows everybody better than all the rest of us and we will miss her. It will seem strange to look down and not see her at the back of the room. The only difference is all the rest of us have aged and Ms. Joy has not. So thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put the rest in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] PRESENTATION OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO, BY HON. MIKE DEWINE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OHIO Senator DeWine. Before I ask our two nominees to come up, let me just make a few introductory comments about Judge Boyko. The judge currently serves on the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas which in Ohio is our highest trial court, where all the major civil and crimina matters are tried. During his time on the bench, Judge Boyko has really seen virtually every type of case that you can imagine. He is an excellent judge and his reputation reflects that. Consensus among lawyers in the Cleveland area is that Judge Boyko is intelligent, fast, fair and has a terrific temperament, so much so that lawyers really want their cases to be assigned to Judge Boyko. And I would say the only objection I have heard, that I have received, at least, so far to Judge Boyko's nomination is that the Court of Common Pleas will be losing one of its best judges. Let me also note that the ABA has also given him a rating of ``unanimous well qualified.'' Before serving on the Court of Common Pleas, Judge Boyko served as a judge on the Parma Municipal Court in 1993. From 1981 until 1993, Judge Boyko was assistant prosecutor and then prosecutor for the City of Parma, prosecuting a variety of criminal matters for the city. During much of that time, Judge Boyko was the Director of Law for Parma, overseeing the civil litigation which the city was involved, and also during that time period Judge Boyko was engaged in private practice with his father and brother. There are only a few attorneys in Ohio who are willing to tackle this kind of a diverse practice engaging in private practice, acting as a prosecutor and representing a local Government all at the same time. I think this is a real testament to Judge Boyko's work ethic, not to mention the vast legal experience he gained from this type of practice early in his career. Let me finally just mention the broad bipartisan support that the judge has in Ohio. I have a number of letters that we have received from prominent people in Ohio, including a number of prominent Democrats, which I will submit for the record without objection. But let me just read a couple excerpts. Jimmy Dimora, the Chairman of the Cuyahoga County Democratic Party, has written: ``I am recommending that Judge Chris Boyko be confirmed for appointment as Federal District Judge. He is fair and open- minded with a commitment and dedication to the law. His high ethical standards and judicial temperament will be useful on the Federal bench with experience and a background to match. If any Republican deserved Democratic support, Judge Boyko does.'' George Forbes, President of the Cleveland Chapter of the NAACP, wrote to Senator Daschle: ``Judge Boyko has not only served with distinction on the Court of Common Pleas, but is a parson of fairness, integrity, keen knowledge of the law, and possesses the judicial temperament to execute the duties of a Federal judge in a fair and impartial manner. I can say without reservation that Judge Boyko would make an excellent judge.'' Russell Tye, President of the Norman S. Minor Bar Association, the largest African-American Bar Association in the state of Ohio, has written: ``Judge Boyko has always been honest, fair and a man of great integrity. Judge Boyko is a very learned judge who has certainly mastered the art of always following the law and carefully applying it with judicial discretion and fairness.'' Tony George, who describes himself as ``a Kerry delegate, life-long Democrat, teamster member, and Ohio businessman,'' has written: ``I have known Judge Boyko for over 15 years and he has built a reputation for integrity, fairness and professional competence. Although he is a Republican nominee of President Bush, he finds as much favor among Democrats as he does Republicans. His nonpartisan approach to judging and politics has earned him an extensive bipartisan support.'' [The prepared statement of Senator DeWine appears as a submission for the record.] Senator DeWine. I would ask that our two nominees come forward and please continue to stand. Please state your name. Judge Boyko. I, Christopher Boyko. Senator DeWine. Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Boyko. I do. Ms. Howell. I do. Senator DeWine. Please be seated. Judge Boyko, we will start with you. If you have any opening statement, we will be more than happy to hear it at this time. STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER BOYKO, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO Judge Boyko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Although I will decline a formal opening statement, I do want to thank you, first of all, Mr. Chairman, for having this hearing, for all your support, the same thing with Senator Voinovich for all his support, of course, for President Bush, for nominating me to this coveted position. Although my wife of 23 years, Robbie, could not be here because of her own job obligations, I do want to acknowledge that she is with me here in spirit, as well as my children Philip and Ashley, our teenagers, studying hard for their exams, I hope, to get good grades and keep my insurance rates low for a good student discount. Senator Leahy, good afternoon, sir. It is a pleasure to have you here also. I do want to thank Congressman LaTourette for those very generous and kind words that he mentioned. Steve has been a great life-long friend and I cherish his support. Also I do want to acknowledge a very good and dear friend of mine that is with me here today, Tary Szmagala from Cleveland. He has known me since I have been in diapers and knows everything about me. He is has been a great mentor of mine and a close personal friend. Senator DeWine. We may call him as a witness later. [Laughter.] Senator Leahy. Closed session. [Laughter.] Judge Boyko. But I do want to acknowledge Mr. Szmagala and thank you, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me those thanks. [The biographical information of Judge Boyko follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator DeWine. Judge, thank you very much. Ms. Howell. STATEMENT OF BERYL ALAINE HOWELL, NOMINEE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE UNITED STATES SENTENCING COMMISSION Ms. Howell. Good afternoon, Chairman DeWine and Senator Leahy. It is a pleasure to be here, although it is a new experience for me to be sitting on this side of the table rather than behind you members up on the podium, and a little bit of a frightening experience, one that is a little bit surprising to me. And I just want to reiterate what Judge Boyko said, which is I am very grateful to the President for considering me and giving me this nomination and also very grateful to Senator Leahy, in particular, and Chairman Hatch and the other members for their assistance and support during this process. I really look forward to the opportunity to work with the distinguished members of the Sentencing Commission and the excellent staff there, with whom I had many dealings when I was on the Judiciary Committee staff, and I know that they are just great. And I do not have a written statement, but I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. [The biographical information of Ms. Howell follows:] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. I do not want to make you nervous, but the family is enjoying watching you on the big screen there. [Laughter.] Ms. Howell. Yes, well, if I could just take a moment to acknowledge my family who is here. My husband, Michael Rosenfeld, and my three children who got to get out of school a little early today, Alina, Jared and Calla, and my mother-in- law, Judy Rosenfeld, is here. My parents unfortunately are out of the country. And my children's babysitter, Amanda DeBock, is here, and a good friend from my prosecutor days, Kirby Heller, is also here. Senator DeWine. Good. We welcome them all. Ms. Howell. As well as all of my friends on the Committee staff. Senator DeWine. We welcome you back. Thank you very much. Senator Leahy. Senator Leahy. Thank you. Senator DeWine. You start and I will follow you. Senator Leahy. As I say, Ms. Howell is up for the Sentencing Commission, the fairness and sentencing. I almost wonder whether we should ask her children how is she at meting out any sentences? You do not have to answer that. [Laughter.] Senator Leahy. Bad question. I really do not have any questions of Ms. Howell. I know her so well. I just think how fortunate the country would be to have her there. I have been very pleased, and if I can only just put one bit of a suggestion, I have been extremely pleased with the way the Sentencing Commission has worked in the last few years. As you look at their results of the various things, you cannot really tell whether this was pushed by the Republican side or the Democratic side. The fact that they have reached some consensus, I think, has been helpful to judges. We obviously have the recent Supreme Court case which raises whole questions, but that is something the Congress is going to try to work out. In the meantime, I think the Commission must continue to work as it has done, and I know the efforts you have made to reach consensus, so I know that will continue. But I just, I would only emphasize to you as I have to other members of the Commission how important that consensus is. And I realize it is not always possible, but to the extent that it has been, I think it makes the life of judges much, much easier. And Judge Boyko, as I understand, there is not a vacancy at the moment. You have been nominated for a seat that is still filled; is that right? Judge Boyko. Yes, Senator, that is correct. Senator Leahy. But if you are confirmed, you do not want the President to immediately nominate somebody for your seat in anticipation of your leaving? Judge Boyko. Yes, sir. Senator Leahy. Most of your work was in State courts. I think you said 90 percent or so. How do you expect to get up or what do you plan to do to get up to speed for Federal court, keeping in mind that they have increasingly large criminal dockets that are sometimes very complex issues, as well as, of course, civil cases? I do not know exactly what type of procedures they use in Ohio, how closely they track either the Federal Criminal Procedures or the Federal Civil Procedures, but I assume that there are some differences. Does this concern you and what do you plan to do about it? Judge Boyko. Thank you for that question, Senator. We carry a very heavy caseload in Cuyahoga County State Court, and, as Mr. Chairman alluded to, we hear all different types of cases. So we have to keep cases moving while giving them due deference. Ohio does track the Federal Rules of Civil and Criminal Procedure. There is very little difference really between the two. So I am used to handling a heavy caseload. I do get complicated cases in State Court at the Common Pleas level, and I am very familiar with the rules of evidence, and they do track very closely between State and Federal, Senator. Senator Leahy. I know it makes life easier in those States where they do. I know a lot of States try to. Senator DeWine mentioned the letters of support for you from the President of Norman Minor Association, the NAACP's Cleveland Chapter, I went back in the history in the City of Parma. During the 1990s, you were their Director of Law. The NAACP filed suit against Parma alleging discriminatory practices in the hiring practices. They had also filed suit against three cities in Ohio. The other two cities, and correct me if I am wrong in my facts on this, but I understood they fairly quickly settled. Parma chose to fight the suit for over a decade opening it to a lot of criticism. What was your position there? Obviously, the NAACP is supporting you now, but what was your position during this time when Parma would not settle, the others did? Were you urging a settlement? What did you do? Judge Boyko. Thank you again for that question, Senator, and it is a good one because as Director of Law, I was lawyer for the city. I was not involved in any of the policy decisions that the Mayor and Council made with regard to how to handle that case. I was in a supervisory capacity. I did my best to work with the opposition in resolving the matter, but there were some internal disagreements on how that should be handled from a policy level. Again, it was my obligation to represent the city to the best that I could, at the same time trying to push for a resolution of that case. It was very difficult at that time. Senator Leahy. And am I right that it took nearly ten years to resolve? Judge Boyko. Yes, it did, Senator. I had left and it was still going on. Senator Leahy. With what you know about the final resolution, are you happy with that? Judge Boyko. I am, Senator, because it was a consent decree and both sides got together and finally resolved it and came to an agreement to finally bring it to an end. Senator Leahy. I just find it interesting. We do not have these situations in Vermont because of our, not from any great purity on our part, but because of racial makeup in our State, and I know it can sometimes be difficult, but I was stuck on the fact that it had taken longer there than the others, and I appreciate your answer. I think it is very candid. Judge Boyko. Thank you, Senator. Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, I have no other questions. I am sure you are going to submit Ms. Howell to withering cross- examination. Senator DeWine. I have about two hours' worth. Ms. Howell. Thank you for that invitation. Senator Leahy. Yeah, but knowing that, having seen her cross-examining and knowing the reputation she had, the brilliant reputation she had as a prosecutor, I think she will be safe. Senator DeWine. I think she can survive. Senator Leahy. Actually, you know, you got a lot of prosecutors here. Senator DeWine-- Senator DeWine. That is right. Senator Leahy.--myself. Senator DeWine. Judge. Senator Leahy. Boyko and Ms. Howell. So old home week. But if you do not mind, I am going on to other things. I did want to be here, of course, for Ms. Howell and her family, who I will freely admit so everybody knows where my prejudices are, are close friends of my wife's and mine, and greatly admired by us, but also I just want again to compliment everybody who worked so hard to get the closed captioning going. If this works here, I suspect the day will soon come where this will be the norm in all committees. Senator DeWine. It is a great thing to see. It is good. Thanks, Pat. Thank you, Senator. Ms. Howell, I wonder if you could kind of give us your just general philosophy how you will approach this new position, a very general question, but I think I would just kind of like to hear a little bit about how you look at this job? Ms. Howell. Well, I have had experience with the sentencing guidelines since 1987 when I first became a prosecutor, and that is when the sentencing guidelines first became effective, and spent I think the first couple years of my life as a young prosecutor learning how to use the guidelines and working with the judges in the Eastern District of New York and other practitioners there on how to effectively implement them. And I think, through that process, I have gained an enormous respect for the guidelines although they are not perfect and critics, you know, have points that they can make about them that may be accurate, but generally I think that the guidelines have, you know, certainly reached some of the statutory goals that Congress laid out for them, and I look forward to working as an integral part of the Commission to help, you know, ensure that the guidelines continue to reflect congressional intent and the statutory goals to reduce unwarranted sentencing disparities and promote transparency, accountability in the sentencing process. Senator DeWine. If you look back in the history of the guidelines and the history of the Sentencing Commission, is there anything that you have learned from that history that would help guide you in the decisions in the future? We always look back at either mistakes or successes or trends. What have we learned, collectively about the history of the Sentencing Commission that would help us in the future? Ms. Howell. Well, I know that there were times when even during my tenure on the Senate Judiciary Committee staff when there were--it is not a full slate of Commissioners on the Sentencing Commission--and people, I think within the Senate and within the Congress, perhaps both houses, questioned sort of the role of the Sentencing Commission. I think one of the, you know, important jobs of the Sentencing Commission I think is to also maintain good communications with certainly members of the House and Senate Judiciary Committees that have jurisdiction over criminal justice issues and sentencing guidelines, in particular, to, you know, make sure that there are open lines of communication there, and that when the Sentencing Commission makes proposed rule changes that the reasoning behind those proposals are, you know, fully understood by members of Congress, and that there can be a dialogue, and I think that one of the things that I may be able to bring to the job is an ability to assist in that dialogue. Senator DeWine. What about the other side of that coin which is the judges? There is the natural, I do not want to overgeneralize here, but, you know, natural inclination of many judges not to like the whole idea of the Sentencing Commission anyway. So how do you get input from judges or do you? Is that part of the role of the Sentencing Commission or not? Ms. Howell. I think that the--I mean and that is one of the things that I am going to learn, Senator. I mean I am certainly, you know, I am much more familiar from my past experience with the communications between the Hill and the Sentencing Commission. I mean I do know that the Sentencing Commission has regular meetings with the Criminal Law Committee of the Judicial Conference, and that they have probably much more regular, you know, contact with the judges and certainly, you know, but I am not--I will be honest with you. I am not fully apprised yet of all of the communications with the judiciary. Senator DeWine. Okay. Judge Boyko, every judge has a different style. Describe your style for us. How do you deal with lawyers, for example? Judge Boyko. Mr. Chairman, I would like to think of myself as user friendly. The cases and the clients are tough enough; the court does not have to add to that. I want to make sure that everybody believes that their case was fully heard before me before they leave that courtroom and that is important because of their clients, not just the attorneys. The client's first question, did the judge listen to you; did he hear our side of the argument, he or she; was he fair; what did he think? Those are the questions that the clients ask of the attorneys. So it is my job, my duty, to make sure that the attorney is able to answer that question by saying yes, we were given full and fair consideration even if he did not rule in our favor. It is the perception of what went on that drives me to think that way and act accordingly. Senator DeWine. A complaint you hear sometimes from lawyers is the judge did not allow me to try my case. How do you react to that? Judge Boyko. I have heard the complaint before. In my courtroom, the lawyers are allowed to try their cases, and you have to strike the balance and the key to that is setting parameters before the trial starts, sitting down with counsel, going over what you expect of them, ask their opinion on things, how long certain phases of the trial they think will last, and allow them to be heard during trial, because again the only way a client can be heard, a litigant can be heard, is through their attorney, and if you do not give the attorney the opportunity to be heard during trial, the client is not heard during trial. Senator DeWine. You have been on the bench for a number of years now. What has that experience taught you? I will not ask you the questions of what mistakes you have made, but what have you learned from that experience that will help you be a better Federal judge, understanding that Common Pleas is a trial court bench in Ohio and is frankly very similar to the Federal bench with difference in jurisdiction obviously? Judge Boyko. Yes. Thank you for that question, Senator, and what I have learned is that even though we have a great amount of cases that we have heard, and I have heard probably in the neighborhood of 8,600 cases since I have been there eight years, that each case is important to that person who comes in front of you, and you cannot forget that, that it may be, quote, ``run of the mill,'' or you have seen this type of case a thousand times, but it is important to that person. So I stick with that and remind myself daily that every case is important and I should not shirk my responsibility just because I have seen this before. I take that same attitude, enthusiasm, energy, and hopefully we all learn from our mistakes, and we do make them, and I think the best thing anyone can do, including a judge, is admit that you have made a mistake, learn from it and move on. Do not be bigger than the job. No one is every bigger than the job. Senator DeWine. Why do you want to be on the Federal bench? Judge Boyko. Mr. Chairman, I love being a trial judge. I love the dynamics of trial. I love the interaction with the attorneys, the litigants, and I have dedicated most of my professional life to public service. To serve on this nation's premier trial bench would be not only the epitome of my career, but allow me to fulfil my dream of public service for a lifetime. Senator DeWine. Docket management is always a challenge on the Federal court. What have you learned in your current position? How do you do it? How do you move cases? How are you going to move cases expeditiously and keep things rolling, make sure people have their day in court on time? Judge Boyko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, as I mentioned before, we do have a heavy caseload so I am used to moving cases. In Cuyahoga County alone last year, we had upwards of 17,000 criminal indictments and 35,000 civil cases filed each year. So we are used to moving a great number of cases. You meet with the attorneys. First off you set deadlines. You give them realistic deadlines, enough time to prepare their cases, but with the expectation that those time frames will only be moved if necessary, and sometimes it is. Sometimes there are emergencies; sometimes there is illnesses, and you have to accommodate them and be reasonable with that. Set a trial date; stick with it. I found very helpful if the attorneys are having discovery problems, for instance, instead of having them paper the case to death, call me, call my staff attorney, we will get you in, sit you down for 15 minutes, resolve it and move on. That not only saves time for the case itself but saves the litigants extra money. Senator DeWine. Talk to me a minute about your view of judicial temperament. What kind of judicial temperament would you say you have? And what is the proper judicial temperament? Judge Boyko. Proper judicial temperament is treat everybody the way you want to be treated. When I was practicing law, I only asked two things of a judge: to give me a fair hearing and treat me with respect. I have kept that in mind ever since I have walked onto the bench, and I believe I have conducted myself accordingly. Again, the perception of our system is huge. You want the public to believe that the judges are fair, open-minded, non-emotional, and that they give the attorneys the time of the day and henceforth the litigants the time of the day. And I would carry that temperament with me if I am fortunate enough to be on the federal bench. Senator DeWine. Judge, what do you think has been your most challenging case while serving as a judge, and can you tell us about that? Judge Boyko. Certainly, Mr. Chairman, and thank you. My most challenging case was probably about five or six years ago when I had the capital murder trial of a defendant who had shot a Cleveland police officer to death on the streets of Cleveland. It was a very challenging case, not because of the complexity of the issue itself, which was the aggravated murder, but because of the extreme emotionalism and heavy media coverage of that trial. Had officer after officer come in and break down on the stand. The jury would break down in tears listening to the testimony. I had the jurors after the case crying when the verdict was being read. Some of them had to actually seek psychological counseling as a result of this case. There was turmoil within the jury deliberations themselves such that it was an 11 to one decision that was turned around by that one person, and many of the jurors could not forgive themselves for that. That was the most challenging case I have ever had. Senator DeWine. And how did you deal with that then? Judge Boyko. You have to be the eye of the storm in the sense that when everybody else is breaking down or things are running amok, you have got to be stable, pull everybody together. If breaks are necessary, give them breaks. Take time so that everybody can collect themselves. Remind them that we are here in trial, but you have got to be compassionate when you do that because this is a very tumultuous experience for everybody that was involved including myself. I will never forget the case. But you have got to be stable enough. Remember it is your courtroom, you are in control, but give the people time to collect themselves and move on. Senator DeWine. Judge, you serve on a trial court bench that at least by Ohio standards is a big bench. How many judges, Common Pleas judges, are there in Cuyahoga County? Judge Boyko. We have in the General Trial Division 34 that sit in my division. Of course, there are other divisions. There is a Probate, Juvenile and Domestic, and so there are many other Common Pleas judges, but in the General Trial Division, we have 34 judges. Senator DeWine. And how do you all interact? You all have, obviously, your own docket, but-- Judge Boyko. We have regular judges' meetings. We also have committee meetings. I sit on the Criminal Rules Committee, the Jury Committee. I head the Veterans Service Committee. So we are constantly meeting on different issues, and I think that it is important to have collegiality. It is important for judges to talk to find out what the issues are in their own courtrooms, how attorneys are acting, how the cases are being tried. We help one another with suggestions after going through different experiences so that, again, the collegiality is extremely important when you sit on a bench as large as the one I serve on. Senator DeWine. Judge, under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate for a Federal court to declare a statute enacted by Congress unconstitutional? Judge Boyko. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you for that difficult question, and it is a difficult one, because I think, first of all, probably it would be a rare circumstance if that happened, but you have to do a step-by-step analysis. There is a strong presumption of constitutionality for any legislative act. And you have to look at every facet. When I say that, you have to start from beginning, get the facts, get all the facts that you possibly can, distill the operative facts from what you have, then start looking above, above at Supreme Court decisions, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Let us see what they have done, what their decisions have been in that issue, on that issue and area of law. It is not for me to impose my will on a case. It is for me to look at Supreme Court decisions, Sixth Circuit decisions, and impose what I believe their will is, and if I am convinced, if I am convinced after giving all due deference, because I am a strong believer in the separation of powers, that it is right to rule it unconstitutional, I would do that. But again, it would only be in very rare circumstance, Mr. Chairman. Senator DeWine. Well, let me follow up with that, and I think you have certainly, at least partially if not completely, already answered this, but in general Supreme Court precedents are, of course, binding on all lower courts and the circuit court precedents are binding on the district courts within that particular circuit. I have to ask you as we all ask all nominees whether you are committed to following the precedents of higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect even if you personally disagree with such precedents? Judge Boyko. Unequivocally, yes, Senator. There is no question that is my duty under oath to follow those decisions and to inject my personal views or opinions would be highly improper. Senator DeWine. You stated--I appreciate your answer--there may be times, however, when you will be faced with cases of first impression. If there were no controlling precedent concluding an issue with which you were presented in your circuit, to what sources would you turn for persuasive authority? What principles will guide you or what method will you employ in deciding cases on first impression? Judge Boyko. Thank you for that question, Mr. Chairman, because I had to face it actually in State court. So we have to start with again gathering the facts, looking at Supreme Court cases. If there are none there, moving on to the Court of Appeals level. If there are none there, look at the trial level, but you have to start from the beginning. Statutory construction means you look at the plain language. Then you look at the statutory and case law that surrounds that. I had an issue of attorney-client privilege surviving a death that I had to address in Ohio for the first time, and there were no cases on all fours that I could point to to guide my decision. So I had to carefully analyze what was available in other districts, other counties in Ohio, and there were none. So I literally had to go out of State to find persuasive authority to render my decision. So it is a painstaking step- by-step logical analysis using statutory rules of construction that you employ to reach that decision. I would do the same on the Federal bench. You have to again give all due deference to whatever persuasive authority is out there, but it just be logical, cogent, and reasonable. Senator DeWine. Well, I want to thank both of you very much for your testimony here today. As Ms. Howell knows, the record will remain open, and members of the Committee may be submitting written questions. We would encourage both of you, of course, to respond to those questions if you receive them as soon as possible. The record will remain open. We appreciate your testimony. Before we conclude the hearing today, though, I want to take a minute to recognize someone who is here in the audience as she has been here for literally hundreds of Senate Judiciary Committee nominations hearings over the years. Sheila Joy is retiring from the Department of Justice on October 1. This is her last, we believe at least, her last Judiciary Committee hearing. Sheila, will you stand up, please, so we can recognize you, please? [Applause.] Senator DeWine. Sheila has been with the department since 1968, has served under 14 attorney generals. She has been facilitating judicial nominations for 26 years in both Democratic and Republican administrations. She has played a role in confirming over 1,400 judges to our Federal court including eight of the nine current Supreme Court justices. She has patiently worked with all the nomination staff on this Committee and the entire Senate including the various members of my Judiciary Committee staff, and let me just say that she will certainly be missed. Sheila, on behalf of Chairman Hatch, Senator Leahy, and all the current and certainly former members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I would like to thank you for your hard work and your dedication and your service and for contributing to one of the most important roles that this Committee plays or that this Senate plays, and we just thank you very much for your great work. And we certainly wish you the best in your retirement. Thank you very much. Ms. Joy. Thank you for your very kind words. Senator DeWine. Thank you very much. The hearing will be adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:30 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NOMINATIONS OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF UTAH, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; PAUL A. CROTTY, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; AND J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII ---------- TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 16, 2004 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:02 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding. Present: Senators Hatch, Specter, Chambliss, Feingold and Schumer. Chairman Hatch. We are ready to begin. We are anxious to proceed on these three nominees here this morning. It is late in the session, and so we are trying to do the best we can. We are particularly honored to have two of our great Senators here this morning--Senator Inouye, who has been here almost from the beginning of this institution. He has been here so long, but we all respect Senator Inouye and know what a great man he is. We congratulate you on this last year. We also have my dear colleague, Senator Bennett, who has more than distinguished himself here in the United States Senate. We are grateful to have both of you here. We have Senator Schumer, who is here as well to testify for his nominee as well. Senator Inouye, we will begin with you, and then I am going to turn, with your permission, Bob, to Senator Schumer, and then I will-- Senator Schumer. That is all right. Bob can go. Chairman Hatch. I want you to be able to get your remarks over with. Senator Inouye, we will take you first. PRESENTATION OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, OF HAWAII, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII, BY HON. DANIEL INOUYE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much, and I believe I speak for all when I say thank you for accommodating us. We realize that these are the last days of the session. This morning, I have the great honor of presenting to the Committee Mr. J. Michael Seabright, of Honolulu, Hawaii, who was recently nominated by the President of the United States to serve as Federal district judge for the District of Hawaii. Before proceeding, Mr. Chairman, I would like to present his First Lady, Margaret, and his children, Kate and Nick, and his mother, his sister and brother-in-law. They are all sitting in the back. Chairman Hatch. If you would all stand, we surely welcome all of you here this morning. We are grateful to have you here and you must be very proud. Senator Inouye. Mr. Seabright is a graduate of Tulane University, where he received his degree magna cum laude. before going on to attend the National Law Center at G.W. University, where he received his juris doctor, graduated with high honors, and was a member of the Order of the Coif. At G.W., he further distinguished himself by serving as the Editor of the George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics. Mr. Chairman, I have had the pleasure of knowing Mr. Seabright since he arrived in Hawaii 20 years ago, having watched him as he successfully became a member of the Hawaii State Bar and became involved in our community. Now, Mr. Seabright stands out as a leader in the legal side of law enforcement, where he developed the District of Hawaii plan for implementing Operation Triggerlock-Hawaii, a Federal-local effort aimed at the prosecution of violent, armed career criminals in the Federal courts. His broad experience in prosecution, from violent crimes to government corruption, have provided him a balanced perspective of the criminal justice system that will continue to serve him well as he prepares for this most recent development in his career of public service. Mr. Seabright's work for Hawaii goes beyond his professional commitments as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. He has served on the Hawaii Supreme Court's disciplinary board since 1995 and holds the chairmanship of its rules committee, which is charged with the drafting of proposed rules for the Hawaii Rules of Professional Conduct. He was also a member of the Hawaii State Bar Examiners and has been an adjunct professor at the University of Hawaii William Richardson School of Law. Mr. Chairman, this extraordinary record of achievement has now culminated with his nomination to the Federal bench and amply supports the favorable reports he received from the Hawaii State Bar, the American Bar Association and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Mr. Chairman, I am confident that his record will prove equally impressive to this Committee. Naturally, I hope for a successful hearing this morning and I hope it will be expeditiously taken up and passed by the full Senate during these waning days of this Congress. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator Inouye. That means a lot to us and it is certainly high praise for Mr. Seabright. We think you are very fortunate to have the Senator from Hawaii come here and speak for you. We have heard about you and we have every reason to want to support you. Senator Inouye. Mr. Chairman, may I be excused now? Chairman Hatch. Without question. Senator Inouye. Thank you. Chairman Hatch. We know our place here. We are happy to have you here, Senator Inouye. The Democrats do have a caucus at 9:30, so that is why the convoluted approach here this morning. We are going to go until about 9:25 and then we will recess until eleven or shortly thereafter to allow our colleagues to come to finish the hearing. We are trying to be very accommodating here. So that is one reason why I am going to Senator Schumer at this point so that he can certainly make that caucus meeting. PRESENTATION OF PAUL A. CROTTY, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BY HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Schumer. I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for holding this hearing and bringing these nominees to the fore. Chairman Hatch. Senator, let me just say congratulations on your close encounter up there in New York. Senator Schumer. Thank you. It was a nail-biter, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Chairman Hatch. Well, frankly, we knew you were going to win and we are very proud of you for doing so. Senator Schumer. Thank you very much. I am so proud to nominate Paul Crotty to join the Southern District as a judge. I get to know, as we all do, people who are nominated. With Paul, it is one of those rare instances where I knew him long before he was nominated, and he is just an outstanding person. Before I talk a little about Paul, I would just once again like to say that we have done a very good job filling New York's Federal bench. We have worked closely with the White House and Judge Gonzales and Governor Pataki. It is an example, when we all come together, that we can make this work judiciarily, if you will. I have always had three criteria for nominating judges-- excellence. It is a very important job. People should be legally excellent, not someone's brother-in-law or some political hack. Moderation. I don't like judges too far right; I also don't like judges too far left. Judges at the extremes tend to make law. They feel so passionately that they feel they know better than the long-established traditions of the law. They don't make good judges. They might make good other things. And, finally, diversity. I try, at least in New York, to fill the bench with more women and people of color. We have done a very good job in New York, and I would just wish and hope and pray that in the upcoming session we can have the same kind of comity nationally that we have had with New York. And I have to say, Mr. Chairman, without your help, we wouldn't have been as successful in New York, and your guiding hand, as well, for that. I also want to thank, as I mentioned, Governor Pataki, my colleague, Senator Clinton, and the White House for that. As for our nominee, Paul Crotty, Mr. Chairman, is as good a nominee as this Committee ever sees, whether he is from New York or anywhere else. His legal credentials are outstanding. He has had a long and distinguished career in both the public and private sectors. I like to nominate judges with practical experience because one of the things that bothers me is when judges are just legally-oriented, they sort of from on high impose all kinds of rules that just don't work. Paul has had a wealth of public experience, but he has been a great lawyer as well. He graduated from Cornell Law School in 1967. He clerked for 2 years for Judge MacMahon, of the Southern District, the court to which he is now nominated. He served two of our mayors very, very well--Mayor Koch, where he was Commissioner of Finance, and Commissioner of Housing and Preservation. He then went to the private sector, where he was a partner in one of the most prestigious firms not only in New York, but in America--Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine--and then served Mayor Giuliani as his Corporate Counsel, head of the city's Law Department. And that could be, Mr. Chairman, the most difficult legal job in municipal government anywhere in America. He is now Group Vice President for New York and Connecticut for Verizon, and maybe I will ask him to make sure Verizon keeps its headquarters in New York before finally letting go of this nomination. In any case, he has done a great job there as well. He is also very civic-minded. While he was at Verizon, he donated his time to the Lower Manhattan Development Corporation. That was the group, after 9/11, in charge of revitalizing lower Manhattan. Let me just submit for the record letters sent by both Mayor Koch and Mayor Giuliani--both are friends of mine whom I work closely with, one a Democrat, one a Republican--showing the bipartisan support that Paul has. Chairman Hatch. Without objection. Senator Schumer. Mayor Giuliani said--I am just going to read an excerpt--``Paul Crotty is one of the finest men I know. He possesses all the qualities of an excellent judge--wisdom, compassion, toughness, curiosity, common sense, unwavering integrity and an abiding love of the law. Many possess knowledge of the law and knowledge of government. Paul Crotty is the rare individual who possesses mastery of both. He has set and achieved the highest standard at every stage of his career. Our Nation will be fortunate to have him join the Federal bench.'' And from Mayor Koch's letter: ``Paul is a man of high intelligence, total integrity and great courage. He has a delightful sense of humor and is a husband and father to a marvelous family.'' Since he wrote this letter to me, he says, ``You know Paul so well, what I am stating is not unknown to you.'' We can leave that out. Mayor Koch says, ``I believe he would be a superb appointment.'' Well, I couldn't agree more. I was proud to recommend him to the President. I am proud the President agreed that Paul is a great choice for the bench. He will introduce his large family. The Crotty family is a legendary family in New York from one end of the State to the other, from Buffalo to New York. He is a great choice and I hope the Senate moves expeditiously to confirm him because he will make a great judge. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator. I appreciate that. Let me just note for the record that Senator Clinton has notified me that she wants to be here, but might not be able to be here until eleven. But either way, she is going to have a very good statement put in the record. So we will keep the record open for her statement, whichever way it may delivered. Senator Bennett, if I could turn to Senator Feingold, also, because they need to leave. I am taking liberties with my dear colleague, but he understands. Then we will go to Senator Akaka, and then you will wrap up. Senator Feingold, we also congratulate you. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. It was a big win up there. Senator Feingold. It is good to be back. Chairman Hatch. I personally expected you to win and I am proud to have you back on the Committee. STATEMENT OF HON. RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN Senator Feingold. It is good to be back on the Committee, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make a brief statement. I would like to welcome the nominees and their families and those who are here to introduce them. Mr. Chairman, I know that the nomination of Mr. Griffith means a lot to you personally, and that is why you have scheduled this hearing during this lame duck session. But I am a little concerned about the time chosen and allotted for this hearing. It has the potential of leaving members without a meaningful opportunity to question the nominee, given the day and the various scheduling conflicts today. I, like others on the Democratic side, will have to leave shortly, and I know you are sensitive to that. Chairman Hatch. Well, we will back at eleven. Senator Feingold. I understand that you have announced this at this point. We, of course, didn't know that when we were making our plans for the day, so it is not clear that some of us could get back to continue. But I recognize that accommodation. On its face, this is a controversial nomination. Since Mr. Griffith's nomination in May, there has been significant public discussion of the nominee's failures to follow the rules of two different bars. The ABA took an unusually long time to examine the nominee's record, and finally in October gave him its lowest possible ``qualified'' rating. An examination of the Utah Bar documents on which he waived confidentiality pose a real question about whether he was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law. Other than the Supreme Court, the D.C. Circuit is considered the most important court in this country. Senators need to be able to fully examine Mr. Griffith before being asked to vote on his nomination. Because the brief window of time that will be left this morning after the introductions is not a substitute for a meaningful chance to question the nominee about his communications with the Utah Bar, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask that all the material sent to the Committee by the Utah Bar that has to do with Mr. Griffith's application and admission to the Utah Bar be admitted into the record. Chairman Hatch. Part of that is confidential, but we will admit whatever we can. Senator Feingold. Well, Mr. Chairman, let me say that I understand-- Chairman Hatch. It can be admitted into the record. It is just that some of it is confidential. Senator Feingold. I understand you are probably referring to his bar application. At least with regard to that document, let me say that we do have an interest particularly in questions 46 and 52. So I would ask simply that those pages of the application be admitted, along with a cover page and his signature. Chairman Hatch. Without objection. Senator Feingold. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. Chairman Hatch. Well, I appreciate that, and I hope the Senator will accommodate me on this one because of a wide variety of reasons and I think high qualifications. Senator Akaka, we will turn to you. PRESENTATION OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, OF HAWAII, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII, BY HON. DANIEL AKAKA, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF HAWAII Senator Akaka. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for moving this hearing so expeditiously. I also want to add my welcome to Mr. Seabright and his lovely family, to Margaret and Kate and Nick. It is so good to see you here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Chairman, it is with great pleasure that I join Senator Inouye Mr. Michael Seabright for this morning's hearing. The Hawaii State Bar Association has found Mr. Seabright to be highly, highly qualified for the position of U.S. District Court Judge in Hawaii. This is of significant importance to me, as I value the opinion of Hawaii's legal community in evaluating those nominated to serve as judges. Mr. Seabright has practiced law in the State of Hawaii for the past 20 years in a number of capacities, including both private practice and public service. Mr. Seabright has been employed by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Hawaii for the past 15 years, and he has headed the White- Collar and Organized Crime Section since 2002. I am very pleased that this position, after being vacant for so many years, will now be filled with an individual as qualified as Mr. Michael Seabright. For the past few years, I have heard from jurists and a number of attorneys in Hawaii about the need to fill this judicial vacancy. Together with Senator Inouye, I have tried to address the strains on the court's current judges as they work to manage an increasingly overcrowded docket. In fact, Mr. Chairman, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales, in a letter dated July 21, 2004, recognized the judicial emergency in Hawaii. It is our hope that the Senate will once and for all address this situation by enacting legislation to make Hawaii's fourth judgeship permanent during this session. I look forward to that, Mr. Chairman. I thank my colleagues for their favorable consideration of Mr. Seabright and look forward to expedited action on his nomination. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Senator Akaka. That is a good statement and we appreciate your taking time to come and support Mr. Seabright for this position. We appreciate it and we are glad we are able to accommodate you here today. Thank you so much. It is high praise for this great nominee and we will do our best to get him through between now and the end of this session of Congress. I will, of course, reserve my remarks until after my dear colleague and friend, Senator Bennett, makes his. All of these gentlemen are so busy. Then I will make my remarks and then we will go from there. Senator Bennett. PRESENTATION OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF UTAH, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY HON. ROBERT BENNETT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Bennett. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity of-- Chairman Hatch. Senator Akaka, we will excuse you. We know you have a caucus meeting and we understand. Senator Bennett.--for the opportunity of talking about Tom Griffith. As I listened to my colleagues go through he appropriate list of accomplishments of the other nominees, I have decided not to do that with respect to Tom Griffith, for the simple reason that the Committee already has all of the information about his performance educationally, his practice of law, his experience in the standard resume fashion. Rather than repeat that which is already in the record, I would like to talk about Tom Griffith, the individual, and what I think he brings to this particular assignment. First, let me introduce to the Committee the people he has with him from his family. He is accompanied, of course, by his wife and her father, and by his two daughters and their husbands. Maybe you would like to greet them and have them perhaps stand. Chairman Hatch. We are so happy to have all of you here. Thanks for coming and we appreciate you supporting Tom Griffith. Senator Bennett. Now, Mr. Chairman, Tom Griffith really needs no introduction to the Senate because he served as Legal Counsel to the Senate in what is perhaps the Senate's most difficult experience, at least the most difficult experience in the time that I have been here. Tom Griffith was Counsel to the Senate when we went through the historic impeachment experience of holding an impeachment trial on President Clinton--only the second time in our Republic's history where the Senate has had this kind of challenge. I was involved in that, as were members of this Committee. The primary burden of dealing with that challenge fell upon the two leaders, Senator Lott as the Majority Leader and Senator Daschle as the Minority Leader. I watched with interest and then admiration as Tom Griffith negotiated through that particular mine field, giving very sound, calm, carefully researched and reasoned advice to both sides. He was not a partisan counsel. From my observation, Senator Daschle was as reliant upon Tom Griffith's legal expertise as was Senator Lott. If I can take us back to the memory of that experience, virtually everyone around us in Washington predicted a melt- down. The comment was made that this case was toxic. It had soiled the presidency, it had soiled the House of Representatives, and it was going to soil the United States Senate. After it was over, the two leaders embraced in the well of the Senate. I can't remember which one it was that began it, but one said to the other, ``we did it,'' and the other responded, ``yes, we did.'' And the Senate came out of that experience with its reputation enhanced rather than soiled, and to no small degree that fact that we had that result is due to Tom Griffith. There are very few nominees for the Federal bench who have had the experience of going through that kind of fire, who have had their judicial temperament tested in that kind of an atmosphere. Tom Griffith therefore comes before this Committee unique in terms of his experience with the Committee and with the Senate as a whole, and indeed in the national spotlight. I would urge every member of the Committee, regardless of party, as they sift through the various controversial statements that have been made, in my view improperly, about Tom Griffith, to set those aside and think back over their personal experience with him in that time of great challenge and great trial in the Senate's history. I am sure if they do, the members of the Committee will recognize that the President has nominated an extraordinary man with an extraordinary background to this very important position. Upon reflecting on those personal qualities that he has, the members of the Committee will endorse and support him for this assignment. I am happy to have had the opportunity and the honor of introducing him and his family to the Committee here this morning. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Senator Bennett. Those remarks are very, very well received by me, as you know, and I think should be received well by everybody. So thank you for being here and we appreciate your strong support of Mr. Griffith. Perhaps I can make my remarks at this point and then I will turn to Senator Specter, if he has any he would care to make. PRESENTATION OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, OF UTAH, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Chairman Hatch. I am pleased to introduce and welcome to the Committee a member of the Senate family, Thomas B. Griffith. Many of us know Tom from his distinguished service, as Senator Bennett has said, as Senate Legal Counsel. That is no small position. It is one of the most important legal positions in the country. As the chief legal officer of the Senate, Tom represented the Senate, its committees, members, officers and employees in litigation relating to their constitutional powers and privileges. He advised committees about their investigatory powers and procedures, represented the institutional interests of the Senate in the impeachment trial of President Clinton, in the Line Item Veto Act litigation, and in numerous Committee investigations, and handled them all with aplomb, decency, fairness, balance and integrity. My friends on the other side have acknowledged that. Despite the difficult and often divisive issues that Tom encountered in his role as Senate Legal Counsel, he consistently exercised sound judgment, objectivity and fairness--qualities that all of us up here know are essential for any Federal judge. Tom's possession of these qualities earned him the respect and admiration of members on both sides of the aisle. Along these lines, I would like to take a couple of moments to share just a few excerpts from the many letters we received in support of his nomination. Richard Wiley, of the firm Wiley, Rein and Fielding, one of the great firms in this town, and former law partner of Tom Griffith's, wrote that, quote, ``Tom is an outstanding lawyer with keen judgment, congenial temperament and impeccable personal integrity,'' unquote. Seth Waxman, former Solicitor General of the United States, a leading Democrat in this town and one of the attorneys I most respect in this town, said, quote, ``I have known Tom since he was Senate Legal Counsel and I was Solicitor General, and I have the highest regard for his integrity. For my own part, I would stake most everything on his word alone. Litigants would be in good hands with a person of Tom Griffith's character as their judge,'' unquote. Glen Ivey, former counsel to Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, wrote to this Committee stating, quote, ``I believe Mr. Griffith is an exceptional nominee and would make an excellent judge. Although Mr. Griffith and I have different part affiliations and do not agree on all political matters, I learned during the Senate's Whitewater and campaign finance reform investigations that Mr. Griffith took seriously his oath of office. Even when we were handling sensitive and politically-charged issues, he acted in a non-partisan and objective manner. I believe Mr. Griffith has the intellect and the temperament to make an outstanding jurist,'' unquote. Fred Fielding was White House Counsel for President Reagan. Fred helped found the reputable firm Wiley, Rein and Fielding. Mr. Fielding has described Tom as, quote, ``a very special individual and a man possessed of the highest integrity. He is a fine professional who demands of himself the very best of his intellect and energies,'' unquote. According to David Kendall, one of the leading attorneys in the country, certainly in this area, personal counsel to President and Senator Clinton, quote, ``For years, Tom has been a leader in the bar and has shown dedication to its principles. The Federal bench needs judges like Tom, an excellent lawyer who is supported across the political spectrum. We support Tom and believe he has the intellect and judgment to be an excellent judge,'' unquote. Harvard Law Professor William Stuntz has known Tom for over 20 years. He wrote, quote, ``Few people I know deserve to be called wise; very few deserve to be called both wise and good. Tom is a wise and good man. I believe he will be one of the Nation's finest judges,'' unquote. Tom's nomination is also wholeheartedly supported by a man who is uniquely qualified to say who would be a good fit for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Abner Mikva, former White House Counsel for President Clinton and a former judge of that very court, wrote, quote, ``I have known Tom Griffith in the public sector and in the private sector, and I have never heard a whisper against his integrity or responsibility,'' unquote. Finally, there are so many others I could read, but let me just say Senator Dodd, of Connecticut, our esteemed colleague, noted that ``Tom handled his difficult responsibilities as Senate Legal Counsel with great confidence and skill...impressing all who knew him with his knowledge of the law and never succumbing to the temptation to bend the law to partisan ends,'' unquote. Now, I could go on and on reading the comments received by the Judiciary Committee in praise of Tom Griffith. In all my years in the Senate, and they now comprise 28 years, I have rarely seen such a broad outpouring of support for a nominee from so many distinguished individuals on both sides of the aisle. Tom has been a dedicated public servant and has demonstrated the sound judgment and temperament necessary to be an outstanding Federal circuit court of appeals judge. It is no wonder that the President chose to nominate Tom Griffith for the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. Prior to coming to work for the Senate, Tom also earned an impressive record of achievement. He distinguished himself academically, graduating summa cum laude from Brigham Young University and valedictorian of his college. Tom earned his law degree from the University of Virginia, a great law school, where he was a member of the law review. He also has extensive experience in the private sector, working at the North Carolina law firm of Robinson, Bradshaw and Hinson, and subsequently as a partner in the litigation and government affairs practice areas in the Washington firm of Wiley, Rein and Fielding. Tom has also given back to the community throughout his legal career. While in private practice, he undertook the significant pro bono representation of a death row inmate, which led to the commutation of the inmate's sentence by the Governor of Virginia. He has also frequently volunteered his time to pro bono and public service groups. Today, Tom serves as Assistant to the President and General Counsel of the largest private university in America, his alma mater, and mine, Brigham Young University. I understand that some have raised questions about whether he was required to take the Utah bar exam to serve in his current position as BYU General Counsel. This criticism can be put to rest by a letter I received from five former Utah Bar presidents. They stated that, quote, ``a general counsel working in the State of Utah need not be a member of the Utah Bar provided that when giving legal advice to his or her employer that he or she does so in conjunction with an associated attorney who is an active member of the Utah Bar and that said general counsel makes no Utah court appearances and signs no Utah pleadings, motions or briefs,'' unquote. In addition, the ABA has thoroughly examined Mr. Griffith's record and made the determination that he is qualified to serve on this bench. A prominent Salt Lake City attorney, James Jardine, has described what Mr. Griffith would bring to the court, quote, ``He is a skilled, thoughtful, experienced lawyer...He is extraordinarily thoughtful. His intelligence is tempered by his judgment. He engenders trust and confidence among colleagues. His integrity, balance and patience are genuine virtues. He will in every way enhance the court,'' unquote. Mr. Jardine concluded, quote, ``I think in a time of divisiveness, his appointment can be a point of agreement,'' unquote. Mr. Jardine served in the Justice Department under then-Attorney General Griffin Bell. I could not agree than with Jim Jardine. This important court needs this good man to serve, and I hope that the Senate will treat a member of the Senate family with all due respect and move quickly to confirm the President's nominee, Tom Griffith, to this long vacant seat. I personally know Tom. He is a personal friend. I watched him when he served in the Senate. I saw a man of inestimable abilities who did the job here and did it fairly, and I know my colleagues on the other side know that. So I don't think you could get a person for this particular position. We will chat more about Tom later, but let me talk about Paul Crotty. He is our distinguished district nominee for the Southern District of New York. He has impeccable credentials which include an LL.B. from Cornell Law School with the highest honors and a 2-year clerkship with Hon. Lloyd MacMahon in the Southern District of New York. He has practiced law with the renowned firm of Donovan, Leisure, Newton and Irvine, in which he became a partner--a great law firm. He has had an illustrious career in the public sector, as well, serving as New York City Commissioner of various offices in two mayoral administrations. He is currently the Group President for New York and Connecticut of Verizon Communications. We welcome you this morning. John Seabright is our nominee for the District of Hawaii. A distinguished graduate of George Washington University Law School, Mr. Seabright has had an equally distinguished legal career and brings 20 years of experience to the Federal bench. After a short tenure in private practice, he entered the public sector first as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, then as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for Hawaii. Since 2001, he has served as the Supervisory Assistant U.S. Attorney in Hawaii. So the Committee welcomes him this morning. We are grateful to have both of you here as district court nominees, and, Mr. Griffith, you as a circuit court of appeals nominee. We welcome your families and your friends, as well. We are grateful to have all of them here. You have all had tremendous testimony by various Senators from your respective States and we are very happy to have you all here. With that, I will turn to our distinguished friend, Senator Specter. STATEMENT OF HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Specter. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and I commend you for scheduling a hearing on judges on the one day which we are back in session. No sooner are we here than we have a judicial hearing. I join my colleagues in welcoming the distinguished nominees who are before us today. Mr. Griffith comes highly recommended by his two home State Senators, who know him very well, and backed up by a very impressive record on the Virginia Law Review, a mark of distinction, summa cum laude at Brigham Young University, valedictorian in the College of Humanities-- that is first in his class--and has been noted with some specificity, served as counsel for the very complex hearings on the impeachment proceeding. Mr. Crotty comes well recommended, a special call by former Senator Alfonse D'Amato, no longer in the Senate, but still heard with some gusto and emphasis in these chambers. J. Michael Seabright was recommended by Senator Inouye, which carries enormous weight with this Committee and in the Senate. So I am pleased to see these distinguished nominees here, Mr. Chairman, and look forward to participating in the confirmation process. Chairman Hatch. Thank you so much, Senator. What we are going to do now is recess until about five after eleven and allow our colleagues time to come back. In fact, we will recess until eleven. I can start my questions at eleven. Maybe we will delay it just a little bit, but I hope all of the three judgeship nominees will be here promptly at eleven. We apologize for this intervening time, but we want to accommodate our colleagues on the other side. These caucus meetings are very important at this time and it is the only way I know that we can conclude this matter. So we will do our very, very best to conclude this after we begin again at eleven. So I would appreciate it if all of you would come back at that time. With that, we will recess until 11:00 a.m. [The Committee stood in recess from 9:39 a.m. to 11:20 a.m.] Chairman Hatch. We will call the Committee to order, and let me just say this. We are not sure whether any Democrats are going to come to the hearing, and my personal belief is that they like all three of you and that we have a real chance of maybe putting some judges through before the end of this session. Now, it is miraculous if we do, but I think that with the help of my fellow Committee members, we may be able to do that. But I still want to ask some questions of the three of you, so I am going to ask all three of you to come up to the table. Usually, we would start with the circuit court of appeals nominee first, but I am going to have all three of you in the interest of time. Would you please raise your right hands? Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give will be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Griffith. Yes. Mr. Crotty. Yes. Mr. Seabright. Yes. Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Please be seated. Without objection, I will put a statement of Senator Leahy into the record immediately following my statement, if you will. Senator Leahy sends his regrets that he cannot be here. I think what we will do is start with you, Mr. Griffith, and have you make any statement you care to make. I would like you during your statement to introduce your wife and family members who are here, and friends, if you care to go that far. Then we will do the same with you, Mr. Crotty, and then with you, Mr. Seabright. STATEMENT OF THOMAS B. GRIFFITH, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Senator. It is an honor to be here. It is an honor to be nominated by President Bush for this position, and I want to publicly thank the President and express my gratitude to him for his confidence in me. I am also mindful of the Senate schedule and how busy you all are, and appreciate a great deal giving the three of us an opportunity to appear before the Senate. I would like to introduce my family, if that is okay. Behind me is my wife of 28 years, Susan Stell Griffith. Chairman Hatch. We are so happy to have you here, Susan. Mr. Griffith. And her father, my father-in-law, the best father-in-law in the world, William Stell. Chairman Hatch. That is a good sign, when the father-in- law-- Mr. Griffith. That is right. Chairman Hatch. We are happy to have you here. Mr. Griffith. My wife and I have six children, two of whom still live in the Washington, D.C., area, our two married daughters, and I would like to introduce them and their husbands, if that is all right. Chairman Hatch. That would be great. Mr. Griffith. Eric Watts and Chelsea Griffith Watts. Chairman Hatch. So happy to have you here. Mr. Griffith. My daughter Chelsea is not feeling too well today because she is expecting and suffering from morning sickness. Chairman Hatch. Some of us know how to deliver babies. Mr. Griffith. Fortunately, we are not at that point just yet. Then I would also like to introduce my son-in-law Ryan Clegg and his wife, my daughter, Megan Griffith Clegg. Chairman Hatch. So happy to have you both here. Mr. Griffith. Our children are home in Utah and I have a son-- Chairman Hatch. I know you had a number of friends in the audience both this morning and now. Mr. Griffith. I am grateful for their presence. If I might just say one further expression of gratitude, I am very grateful to be back here in the Senate. This is an institution that I love and for which I have profound admiration and respect. I counted among the greatest honors of my life that I was able to serve as Senate Legal Counsel. Some nice things were said about that this morning. I want to acknowledge that earlier today, my predecessor as Senate Legal Counsel, Michael Davidson, one of the finest lawyers I have ever worked with or known, was here, and I want to say publicly that much of the credit that you and others gave me for my performance as Senate Legal Counsel was because I was trained by Mike Davidson. But I am honored to be here before the Committee, and I am willing and anxious to answer any questions that you may have. [The biographical information of Mr. Griffith follows.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you so much, Mr. Griffith. Mr. Crotty. STATEMENT OF PAUL A. CROTTY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Mr. Crotty. Senator, good morning. Thank you very much. Like Mr. Griffith, I would like to join in his thanks to you for convening this hearing and the many courtesies your staff has extended to us building up to the hearing today. I, too, am honored by the nomination of the President of the United States and very thankful to the President for the honor he has conferred upon me in nominating me. I know that my nomination takes place because of the strong support I have received from Senator Schumer over the last 2 years. I am very appreciative of that, along with the support of Governor Pataki, who joins with the Senator, as he indicated in his opening remarks about how things work together to produce acceptable candidates for nomination to the district courts in New York State. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to introduce my family who is with me today. First of all, my wife Jane of 37 years. Chairman Hatch. Jane, we are happy to have you here. Mr. Crotty. And my son John. John is the Executive Vice President of the Housing Development Corporation of New York City, the leading multi-family bond issuer in the United States, and his wife Kate. Chairman Hatch. John and Kate, we are happy to have you here. Mr. Crotty. My daughter Elizabeth, who is in her fourth year with Mr. Morgenthau. She is a member of Trial Bureau 70. She just moved over to the Special Investigations Unit. Chairman Hatch. Very happy to have you here. Mr. Crotty. And my son David, who is with Verizon and works in the area of strategic development and works on mergers and acquisition. I am also joined by two of my brothers--my brother Bob, who is a partner at Kelley, Drye and Warren in New York City, and my brother Jerry, who was Secretary to Governor Cuomo, who is now working in New Jersey. Chairman Hatch. Happy to have you here. Mr. Crotty. And two colleagues from Verizon--Roger Mott, who is in our legislative office here in Washington, and Tom Dunne. Tom Dunne and I worked together very closely on repairing the telephone networks after the terrorist attack on 9/11, and Tom is one of the great unheralded heroes of Verizon's efforts in restoring telephone communications. So thank you very much, Senator. Chairman Hatch. Well, we are honored to have all of you here. Mr. Crotty. Thank you. Chairman Hatch. Thank you, Mr. Crotty. [The biographical information of Mr. Crotty follows.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Mr. Seabright, we will hear from you now. STATEMENT OF J. MICHAEL SEABRIGHT, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII Mr. Seabright. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. I appreciate the opportunity to come here today and appear before you. I, too, want to begin by thanking the President for the honor of nominating me for this position for District Court Judge for the District of Hawaii. I also want to thank and recognize the two Senators, my home State Senators, Senators Inouye and Akaka, for their support for my nomination, and their help in getting me through this process and understanding the process and really walking me through the process. I also would like to reintroduce, behind me, my wife Margaret Ahn. Chairman Hatch. Margaret, happy to have you with us. Mr. Seabright. My daughter, who is a sophomore in high school and getting a few days off high school coming to Washington, Kate. Chairman Hatch. That is great. Good to have you here. Mr. Seabright. And my son Nick, who likewise--he is in the sixth grade and gets a few days off school, but gets a real nice lesson in civics. Chairman Hatch. A wonderful family. Mr. Seabright. And then my mother Joan is here. Chairman Hatch. Happy to have you here, Mom. Mr. Seabright. My sister Leslie. Chairman Hatch. Leslie. Mr. Seabright. And my brother-in-law Adam. Chairman Hatch. It is great to have you all here. Mr. Seabright. Thank you. [The biographical information of Mr. Seabright follows.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Chairman Hatch. Well, we are delighted to have all of you here. These positions are, to me, some of the most important positions in our country. One-third of the separated powers of this country happen to be the judiciary, so we take this very seriously. Everybody on this Committee takes it seriously. We have had all kinds of experiences over the last 28 years with regard to judicial nominees. I think it is important that we ask a few questions here. I believe that all three of you should be able to be confirmed. Let me start with you, Mr. Griffith, since there has been some controversy with regard to some of the experiences that you have gone through. If you are confirmed, Mr. Griffith, your ability to work with other judges on the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia will be an important element of your effectiveness. Can you please tell us what you believe the role of a judge should be--well, the role and significance of collegiality is and how you will contribute to it once you become a judge? Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I think that is a critical question. I think it is a critical attribute that judges need to find ways to work with their colleagues. What they are about is administering laws fairly and justly. They are about a process that ought to be collaborative to get the benefit of colleagues' thoughts on nettlesome issues that have great impact on the lives of the parties. So I think collegiality is an indispensable requirement of an appeals court judge, and I believe that I have demonstrated through my life that I have found ways to reach out to others, to collaborate, to come up with shared solutions. Chairman Hatch. That has been my experience with you. Mr. Crotty, how do you feel about that? Mr. Crotty. Well, Senator, thank you for the question. Collegiality, of course, is very important, but on a district court it is a little bit different. The importance there, I think, is collegiality between the bench and bar and having a district court judge being able to treat the litigants before him with courtesy and respect, while running a courtroom which is based on decorum and order so that the interests of justice are fairly served. The role of collegiality in a district court is also supported by the collegiality that exists among the district court judges and it is an important attribute of the Southern District of New York. They have always gotten along well with one another. I know many of the judges based on my own personal experience and appearances in the courthouse, and I hope I would be able to contribute to that in a very positive vein so that there is collegiality not only among the district court judges, but more importantly collegiality between the judge and those appearing before the judge on matters of great importance to the litigants. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. Mr. Seabright. Mr. Seabright. Thank you, Senator. Coming from Hawaii, we have a small district. We only have right now three full-time district court judges. If confirmed, I would be the fourth, and I know all three of the judges very well. I have tried many cases before them as a career Assistant United States Attorney in the District of Hawaii. I get along well with all three of them and respect them greatly. And I have no question that the collegiality among the four of us, if I was confirmed, would work greatly towards the benefit of the court in making it run smoothly and having the judges be able to work cooperatively to implement the various rules and procedures that are necessary in the court. And I agree with Mr. Crotty, as well, that it is vitally important that a district court judge show civility towards the litigants that appear before that court. And I can assure you, Senator, and the Committee as a whole that in my practice of law I have always done that in the past and I will continue to do that as a district court judge. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. Now, Mr. Griffith, could you please speak about the importance of judicial temperament and indicate what elements of judicial temperament that you consider to be the most important? Mr. Griffith. Thank you. I think judicial temperament is critically important. A litigant ought to be able to have confidence that when he or she brings a dispute before a court and a judge is involved that that judge is thoughtful, is fair, is scrupulous in attention to fact, is diligent in identifying the principles of law that govern, and then is fair and impartial in applying that law to the dispute. Litigants deserve that when they come into the courts of the United States. And so I think all of those elements are critical to judicial temperament. I think perhaps the most important is the willingness to withhold judgment until all arguments are heard, until all facts are explored, so that the decision the judge makes can be the most considered and most accurate. Chairman Hatch. Thank you. Do you agree with that, Mr. Crotty? Mr. Crotty. Yes, I do, Senator. I was going to quote Finley Peter Dunne, who was a great commentator around the time of Teddy Roosevelt, who, through is character, Mr. Dooley, said with regard to judicial temperament he has the judicial temperament; he hates work. But I think today we have to be at the opposite end of that spectrum, and I think that temperament--to be a good district court judge, a good circuit court judge, you have to be willing to work, and work hard. And I think important in that is the willingness to listen and to learn from the advocates who appear before you, to give them an opportunity to make their case, and do that against the background of respecting the role of advocate, extending them courtesy and trying to be responsive. And many of the values that Mr. Griffith cites, of course, I agree with. That would be my answer. Chairman Hatch. Thank you. I think you agree with both of those, don't you? Mr. Seabright. I do, Senator. Chairman Hatch. That is great. [Laughter.] Mr. Griffith. Maybe we could start at the other end and come down. [Laughter.] Chairman Hatch. It would have been the end of you if you didn't agree. [Laughter.] Chairman Hatch. All three of you, I take it, agree that it is important for lawyers to do pro bono work. Mr. Crotty. Yes, Senator. Mr. Griffith. Yes. Mr. Seabright. Yes. Chairman Hatch. Let me go to Mr. Griffith. Now, I don't want you two to feel excluded here, but there have been some issues raised about Mr. Griffith that I would like to clarify and resolve for the benefit of my colleagues. I have no doubt that all three of you are worthy of becoming Federal judges. Let me just go to you, Mr. Griffith, and ask you these. Some have attempted to make much of the lapse of your bar license here in Washington, D.C. In fact, you have had some pretty vicious articles written about that. Mr. Griffith. I have noticed. Chairman Hatch. Let me just read to you an excerpt of a letter sent to me and my good friend from Vermont, Senator Leahy, from Stephen Umin, of the law firm of Williams and Connolly, one of the most prestigious firms in this town. Mr. Griffith. Mr. Umin was here earlier today and had to leave. Chairman Hatch. He was here to support you. Mr. Griffith. Yes. Chairman Hatch. I won't read the whole letter. I will put it in the record, without objection. But he said, ``Dear Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy, we write in support of the nomination of Thomas B. Griffith to the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. We have worked with Tom in a variety of contexts and can attest to his outstanding character and legal ability. Recently, Tom was unfairly portrayed in the Washington Post for late payment of his D.C. Bar dues. The Post improperly equated Tom's situation to `disciplinary suspension,' a rare sanction imposed only when a lawyer knowingly refuses to pay bar dues. It was nothing of the kind. When advised of the problem, Tom promptly paid his dues in full. Tom is an outstanding attorney who takes his responsibilities as a member...'' But more specifically, he says in this letter, ``Each year, the D.C. Bar sends its members a reminder to renew their bar memberships. In this process, there is always potential for inadvertent oversight. As a result, the D.C. Bar Council notes that every year over 3,000 D.C. lawyers and a number of sitting judges are `administratively suspended' for late payment of dues. This is what happened to Tom. By immediately paying his dues when he became aware of the oversight, Tom took the proper course of action. According to the D.C. Bar Council, such an oversight is entirely common and of no major concern, particularly where no reminder notice is sent.'' Now, this letter from Mr. Umin is endorsed by over a dozen prominent District of Columbia lawyers. I have other letters from the likes of former Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, Abner Mikva, Hofstra Professor of Law Monroe Freedman, and George Washington Professor of Law Thomas Morgan, experts in ethics, which I will make a part of this record, without objection. Each of these individuals point out the distinction between a technical administrative suspension and disciplinary suspensions. Now, can you shed some light on this issue for us? Tell us what happened so that everybody knows and we get this put behind you, because you have been very unfairly treated on this issue. Mr. Griffith. I would be happy to, Senator Hatch, and thank you for the opportunity to respond to that question. First of all, it was an oversight on my part and I take full responsibility for it. I deeply regret that my bar dues were not paid in 1998 and for 2 years thereafter. If you will allow me, maybe I can provide some context to explain what happened. Chairman Hatch. Go ahead. Mr. Griffith. I graduated from law school in 1985, from the University of Virginia, and went to work in Charlotte, North Carolina, at a fine firm that you mentioned earlier today, Robinson, Bradshaw and Hinson. As an associate there, I learned that one of the things that law firms typically do for their lawyers is keep track of their bar membership dues. And in 1985, 1986, 1987, all the way through 1989, my law firm in Charlotte paid my bar dues. I can tell you right now, I did not give a single thought to that. They did it automatically and I was grateful for it. Chairman Hatch. And you relied on it? Mr. Griffith. And I relied on them to do that. When I came to Washington, D.C., in 1989, I was first associated and then became a partner at the law firm of Wiley, Rein and Fielding. I found out they did the same thing, as well. And so from 1989 to 1994, I relied on them and I really never gave a thought to whether my bar dues were going to be paid. I just delegated that to them and relied on that. When I became Senate Legal Counsel in 1995, much to my chagrin I learned that the Senate does not pay one's bar dues. It is not an excessive amount. So that wasn't a major burden. I think at the time it was $120, $130, $140 or so. But when I learned that the Senate wouldn't pay, I notified the D.C. Bar to send the bar notices to my home, where I pay personal bills. They did so in `95, `96 and `97, and every time they sent a notice, I paid. In 1998, Senator, I don't know what happened. I have no recall of ever receiving a notice from the D.C. Bar in 1998 that my bar dues were due or that they were past due or that they were about to, you know, cause my membership to lapse. I have no memory of receiving any such notice. And to my knowledge, I have been told that neither does the D.C. Bar have any record that they sent out any of those notices. And so in 1998, my bar membership lapsed due to my inadvertent failure to pay my bar dues. In 1999, I left the Senate. After the impeachment trial, I left the Senate and returned to my law firm, at Wiley, Rein and Fielding, and expected that they again would pay my bar dues and keep me-- Chairman Hatch. As they had always done. Mr. Griffith. As they had always done, and keep me up to date. They did not, and they have acknowledged their error in it. When I returned to my firm, I had no idea that my membership had been suspended on a temporary basis for this lapse and was oblivious to the fact, assuming that my law firm was going to continue, as they had done before, to pay my bar dues. I left Wiley, Rein and Fielding in 2000 to become Assistant to the President and General Counsel at Brigham Young University. I first learned that my bar dues had not been paid and that my membership had lapsed in 2001. I remember the day well. Chairman Hatch. How did you remedy that? Mr. Griffith. My secretary came into the office and said she had just spoken with the D.C. Bar. We were inquiring about getting a certificate of good standing, and she said the D.C. Bar says it is fine; they will give you the certificate of good standing; you just got to pay the back dues you owe. And I said, what? And she said, but don't worry; they said that you have 5 years to pay them. And I said, well, no, I don't have 5 years to pay them; I have got a week. Let's cut the check and get this done, upon which I immediately paid. The D.C. Bar immediately sent me a certificate of good standing. They treated it, as Mr. Umin's letters suggest, as an administrative matter. It was certainly not a disciplinary matter. Now, having said all that, I bear responsibility for the fact that my bar dues weren't paid. I relied on others and I should not have. I should not have relied on others to do it. And let me assure you today--it may not come as any surprise--I don't rely on anybody to pay my bar dues now. I know that D.C. Bar dues are due July 1st of each year, and if you talk to my current secretary, I think it is about beginning in April when I start hectoring her to say has it come in yet, has it come in yet? I take my membership in the bar and the obligations of the bar seriously. I deeply regret that through my oversight that this problem happened. But I can assure you, Senator, that had I known in 1998 that my bar membership lapsed for an inadvertent failure to pay my bar dues, I would have immediately rectified it. In fact, when I did learn it, I immediately rectified it. Chairman Hatch. I have no doubt about that. Now, I notice the distinguished Senator from New York is here. We are grateful that you came, and I am going to interrupt this hearing. I appreciate that explanation because that should wipe away any concerns, because that could happen to any of us, especially if you don't get a notice. I think we all rely on those notices. Mr. Griffith. I don't anymore. Chairman Hatch. I can see that. Well, that is a good practice. I am going to have to start thinking about my own notices from here on in. We are going to turn to the distinguished Senator from New York and show deference here. We are grateful that you would take time out of what we know is a really busy schedule to come and chat with us here today. If you would care to, you could do it from up here. PRESENTATION OF PAUL A. CROTTY, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BY HON. HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Clinton. That is fine, Mr. Chairman. I am very appreciative of this opportunity to come and saw a few words on behalf of an excellent nominee, Paul Austin Crotty, who has been nominated to serve on the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. It is a great pleasure for both Senator Schumer and myself to be such enthusiastic supporters of this nomination. I know that there are a number of family members. I don't know if they have been introduced yet, Paul, but I think you can see by the strong support of the family who is here, as well as Paul's mother, who lives in Buffalo, New York, that this is a family of great distinction and service in New York. There are few individuals who I believe the Senate could confirm or the President nominate who could bring such a breadth and depth of relevant professional and public community experiences. He has been, of course, a distinguished lawyer in the private sector. He has a great deal of experience also in the business world, having served as a very important executive for Verizon. But in the business of his work, he has always found time to serve his community. He took time to serve on the Lower Manhattan Development Board, created after the September 11th terrorist attacks, to help Manhattan and New York recover from the devastation of those attacks. He has been active in a number of important organizations, like the New York Urban League and the City Bar Fund, the United Way. You couldn't really do justice to his involvements without also mentioning that he has served both Republican and Democratic administrations in New York City. He certainly served with distinction both former Mayor Ed Koch and former Mayor Giuliani. So without question, he has the intellect, demeanor, maturity and commitment to serve with distinction on the Federal bench. We are very fortunate to have a nominee of his standing that I am sure will be confirmed to begin service in New York. And he will not only make people from New York very proud, but I believe this Committee, the Senate and our country proud as well. So I thank you for letting me come by and make a few brief remarks. I didn't want the moment to pass, Mr. Chairman, because it is not always the case that we have such enthusiastic support on both sides of the aisle for a nominee. This is one that I am very proud to be here to lend my voice to, and I thank you for the courtesy of this time. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. It isn't always the case, so it is really wonderful to be able to see this kind of bipartisanship. Mr. Crotty. Mr. Chairman, could I express my thanks to the Senator for her encouragement and her endorsement this morning, which I am very appreciative of, and also for the many courtesies that she has extended to my family, especially my mother? The Senator was good enough to send her a nice note and give her a copy of her book when my mother turned 90. And I must say to the Senator that she is a fan for life, and many more fans in the Crotty family. So thank you very much, Senator. Chairman Hatch. Yes. I want one of those autographed books, too. [Laughter.] Chairman Hatch. Remember that, Senator. We are honored to have you here. Mr. Crotty, I think it is a real tribute to you to have both of these New York Senators of another party come and testify so graciously and so strongly for you. Mr. Crotty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. If Schumer and Clinton are for you, then I am certainly for, is all I can say. Mr. Crotty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. I want to go back to our questions to clarify some of these problems with which I think you have been unfairly treated, Mr. Griffith. When you filled out your application to the Utah State Bar, question 52 asks whether you have previously been disbarred, suspended, censured, sanctioned, disciplined, or otherwise reprimanded or disqualified, whether publicly or privately, as an attorney. You answered no to this question. Now, let me ask you, have you ever been disciplined in any way by any bar, including in D.C. or Utah? Mr. Griffith. No, Senator, I have not. Chairman Hatch. Now, some have criticized you for answering no on that, since you did have this administrative suspension that 3,000 lawyers in D.C. commonly have from time to time. How would you answer that? Mr. Griffith. When I filled that out, the thought never crossed my mind that that question might relate to a temporary lapse due to an inadvertent failure to pay bar dues. The question-- Chairman Hatch. Some would say, well, it wasn't temporary, it was 3 years. But the fact is that you have explained it adequately that the only year really where you were personally responsible for it, or at least where you had the sole obligation to take care of it was 1998, when you didn't receive a notice. Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir, that is correct. Chairman Hatch. And the bar admits they probably didn't send you a notice. Mr. Griffith. Yes, sir, that is correct. Chairman Hatch. The other two, you had relied on your firm, which you had always done before. But go ahead. Mr. Griffith. I was just saying the thought never occurred to me that that might cover--that someone might argue that that had something to do with this administrative action that was taken. And if I might add, this issue came to light when I filled out my Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire, which we all labored over, a great labor of love. The question there I was asked--I don't remember the exact wording; I think it is question number 11. List your bar memberships and any dates in which your membership has lapsed. And I said my membership in D.C. had lapsed during this period of time and that is how the issue came to light. But I never thought that what happened to me was in any way the gravamen of that question, which is clearly--I thought clearly having to do with a disciplinary matter. Chairman Hatch. Okay, I think that is a good explanation that anybody should accept. Have you ever been disciplined in any way by any bar association? Mr. Griffith. No, sir. Chairman Hatch. As many have pointed out and as the letter from Mr. Umin pointed out, the D.C. Bar administratively suspends over 3,000 D.C. lawyers, including many sitting judges, for late payment of dues, and these are not considered disciplinary actions. Is that right? Mr. Griffith. That is my understanding. Chairman Hatch. Now, you have been criticized by some for not being a member of the Utah Bar while assuming the position of Assistant to the President and General Counsel of Brigham Young University, the largest private university in the country. Please tell us what efforts you made to ensure compliance with the Utah Rules of Professional Conduct and to avoid the unlawful practice of law. Mr. Griffith. Certainly, I would be glad to, Senator. I have never engaged in the unlawful practice of law. When I accepted the position to be Assistant to the President and General Counsel at Brigham Young University, it was my understanding that in Utah in-house counsel need not be licensed in Utah, provided that when legally advice is given, it is done so in close association with active members of the Utah Bar. I was taking a position at a large institution that had a multi-jurisdictional presence. I knew that most of my legal work was going to be involved with Federal statutes, with Federal regulations, and so I organized my office accordingly. When I am involved in legal matters--not all of the work that I do is legal work, but when I am involved in legal matters, I am very careful to closely associate myself with active members of the Utah Bar. I supervise an office that includes four other attorneys, each of whom is an active member of the Utah Bar. I frequently hire outside counsel on matters, and so I am always closely associated with an active member of the Utah Bar. And I do that whenever I am anywhere close to doing legal work, and especially so on those rare instances when I have to get involved with a matter of distinctly Utah law. But that was my understanding. That is the way I have organized my office and that is the way I have organized my work. That understanding was confirmed when I arrived in Utah and began to work at the university in conversations with other Utah lawyers, and that is still my understanding today. I believe you made reference earlier to a letter to the Committee from five past presidents of the Utah Bar and the current executive director of the Utah Bar that say an in-house counsel in Utah need not be licensed in Utah, provided that he or she is closely associated with active members of the Utah Bar and makes no appearances in Utah courts or signs no Utah pleadings. And I haven't done either of those either. So I have tried to be as careful as I can to--and I have been meticulous about making certain that when I am involved in legal matters, I only do so with active members of the Utah Bar. Chairman Hatch. So you had four Utah lawyers who advised you on Utah Bar matters? Mr. Griffith. Yes. Chairman Hatch. Utah legal matters? Mr. Griffith. Yes. I actually use--we use them for more than just Utah matters, but for any legal matter we work collaboratively. Chairman Hatch. Yes, I am sure you use them for a variety of things. So you are asserting here, and I think properly so, that you did not unlawfully practice law in Utah? Mr. Griffith. Absolutely not. And, Senator, let me tell you another reason why I wouldn't do that. I care too much about my clients to do anything consciously that would put them at risk, and if I thought for a moment that what I was doing for my client--and now my client is Brigham Young University--was in any way jeopardizing them, I wouldn't do it, I wouldn't do it. I have tried to be very careful about that throughout my career and I have been careful about that here. Chairman Hatch. This position you held was also an administrative position, as well, where you particularly advised the president of the university on legal matters and other matters as well. Mr. Griffith. That is right. Not all of what I do is legal work. I am an officer of the university and there is a fair amount of non-legal work, but there is a lot of legal work as well. I am the general counsel as well. Chairman Hatch. And you understand the distinctions here? Mr. Griffith. Yes. Chairman Hatch. In fact, I don't think he would be offended, but one of the former presidents of the Utah Bar is here today, Randy Dreier. Mr. Griffith. That is my understanding. Chairman Hatch. I said hello to Randy as I came into the meeting and he has been a very strong supporter of your nomination. Mr. Griffith. As you know, Mr. Dreier was one of the five past presidents of the Utah Bar who signed the letter I referred to. I had never met Mr. Dreier before today and so I was pleased to make his acquaintance. Chairman Hatch. Well, it is my understanding that although there is no special exemption for general counsels, the Utah Bar advised you of what you could do in order to avoid the unlawful practice of law while remaining in your current position as General Counsel to Brigham Young University. Now, have you adhered to those recommendations? Mr. Griffith. Absolutely. They were recommendations that I had been adhering to before the letter came and that I have since. They describe precisely what I have been doing since arriving in Utah. Chairman Hatch. I have been here during all those years when you were counsel to the Senate, the Senate Legal Counsel, and some of those years were difficult years. Mr. Griffith. They were. Chairman Hatch. One of the most important trials in the history of the country was held during your tenure as Senate Legal Counsel, and that was, of course, the impeachment trial of President Clinton. And I happen to know that both sides felt that you acted not only honorably, but effectively and professionally in every way during that very difficult time for all of us. I don't know of very many attorneys that have had-- in fact, I don't know of any attorneys other than those that were here at the time that have had that experience. My experience with you has been that you are a person of the highest ethical, moral and legal status. So, naturally, not just because of our friendship, I would support you for any court in this land, and I personally believe that you would add a great dimension to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. And I think our colleagues understand that, as well. At least I am quite sure of that and I hope that is true. They should-- let's put it that way--because many of them have had the experience of knowing you. As far as I am concerned, you are a member of this Senate family and you deserve to be confirmed. So I am going to do everything in my power to see that you are, and I believe I will have help from others as well. Mr. Griffith. Thank you. Chairman Hatch. Frankly, those were the major questions that I think had been raised about you, and I am sure you are pleased to have had an opportunity to explain them in public-- Mr. Griffith. Very pleased, at long last. Chairman Hatch.--since I think you haven't been treated fairly, perhaps because those who wrote about these just didn't have the information that we are bringing out here today. I would put in the record at this point a wide variety of letters from Democrats and Republicans, who are top leaders of the bar and otherwise here in the District of Columbia and elsewhere, who are strong supporters of this nominee and who believe he will be an excellent addition to the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. I also want to compliment you, Mr. Crotty, and you, Mr. Seabright. You come with the best of recommendations. I think the comments of your Senators have been very, very good. Frankly, I know a lot about both of you and I think that the President deserves great commendation for all three of you. We will do everything we can to try and get you through before the end of this session. We only have a week and so we will have to do that in the best way we can, and I will see what can be done to get this done. We are appreciative that you are all here today. I believe that our colleagues should be comforted by the answers to the questions that we have asked. With that, I don't see any reason to continue this hearing. We are going to do our very best to get all three of you through, and hopefully we can do that before the end of this session of Congress. I will do my best to do that and I hope my colleagues will honor me with the respect of being able to do that. Mr. Crotty. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Griffith. Thank you very much, Senator. Mr. Seabright. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, and we thank your families for being here. We appreciate all of you sitting through this and we are sorry we had to have this interruption in between, but I will always try and accommodate my colleagues, if I can. As much as it was an interruption, I think it has turned out to be a pretty good day. Thanks so much. Great to be with you. Mr. Seabright. Thank you. Mr. Griffith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Hatch. We will recess until further notice. [Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]