[Senate Hearing 106-399] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 106-399, Pt. 1 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION on CONFIRMATION OF APPOINTEES TO THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY __________ JUNE 16; JULY 13; JULY 29; SEPTEMBER 14; OCTOBER 7; OCTOBER 26, NOVEMBER 10, 1999 __________ Part 1 __________ Serial No. J-106-33 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary [[Page 2]] COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman STROM THURMOND, South Carolina PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware JON KYL, Arizona HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin MIKE DeWINE, Ohio DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California JOHN ASHCROFT, Missouri RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin SPENCER ABRAHAM, Michigan ROBERT G. TORRICELLI, New Jersey JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York BOB SMITH, New Hampshire Manus Cooney, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Minority Chief Counsel (ii) [[Page (iii)]] C O N T E N T S ---------- HEARING DATES Page Wednesday, June 16, 1999......................................... 1 Tuesday, July 13, 1999........................................... 79 Thursday, July 29, 1999.......................................... 145 Tuesday, September 14, 1999...................................... 215 Thursday, October 7, 1999........................................ 247 Tuesday, October 26, 1999........................................ 365 Wednesday, November 10, 1999..................................... 431 WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.............................................. 1 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M........................................... 2 Schumer, Hon. Charles E.......................................... 7 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 10 Feingold, Hon. Russell D. (prepared statements).................. 18 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. (prepared statement)...................... 19 Introduction of Nominees Lott, Hon. Trent................................................. 3 Cochran, Hon. Thad............................................... 5 Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick.................................... 6 Prepared statement........................................... 12 Dodd, Hon. Christopher J......................................... 8 Lieberman, Hon. Joseph I......................................... 10 Daschle, Hon. Tom................................................ 13 Boxer, Hon. Barbara.............................................. 13 Prepared statement........................................... 14 Johnson, Hon. Tim................................................ 15 Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey....................................... 16 Testimony of Nominees Marsha S. Berzon, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 21 Questioning by: Senator Sessions......................................... 22 Senator Leahy............................................ 25 Senator Hatch............................................ 27 Senator Smith............................................ 29 Robert A. Katzmann, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 22 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 26 Senator Smith............................................ 30 Keith P. Ellison, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas..................................... 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 39 Gary Allen Feess, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California............................. 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 38 [[Page iv]] William Allen Pepper, Jr., of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi................. 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 39 Karen E. Schreier, of South Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Dakota................................... 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 38 Stefan R. Underhill, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut................................ 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 39 T. John Ward, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.............................................. 37 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 39 Alphabetical List and Materials Submitted Berzon, Marsha S.: Testimony.................................................... 21 Letters in support of Marsha S. Berzon's nomination.......... 52 Ellison, Keith P.: Testimony..................................... 37 Feess, Gary Allen: Testimony..................................... 37 Katzmann, Robert A.: Testimony................................... 22 Pepper, William Allen, Jr.: Testimony............................ 37 Schreier, Karen E.: Testimony.................................... 37 Underhill, Stefan R.: Testimony.................................. 37 Ward, T. John: Testimony......................................... 37 Questions and Answers Responses of Marsha S. Berzon to questions from Senators: Abraham......................................................41, 44 Ashcroft..................................................... 45 Thurmond..................................................... 49 Responses of Robert A. Katzmann to questions from Senators: Thurmond..................................................... 56 Sessions..................................................... 56 Ashcroft..................................................... 57 Responses of Keith P. Ellison to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 59 Smith........................................................ 60 Sessions..................................................... 60 Responses of Gary Feess to questions from Senators: Smith........................................................ 62 Sessions..................................................... 63 Responses of W. Allen Pepper, Jr., to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 64 Sessions.....................................................64, 65 Smith........................................................ 66 Responses of Karen Schreier to questions from Senators: Smith........................................................ 67 Hatch........................................................ 68 Sessions..................................................... 68 Responses of Stefan R. Underhill to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 70 Sessions..................................................... 70 Smith........................................................ 72 Responses of T. John Ward to questions from Senators: Sessions.....................................................73, 76 Smith........................................................ 77 Hatch........................................................ 78 TUESDAY, JULY 13, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.............................................. 79 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. (prepared statement)...................... 90 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 96 [[Page v]] Introduction of Nominees Roberts, Hon. Pat................................................ 80 Graham, Hon. Bob................................................. 81 Article: An editorial on Mr. Wilson's behalf from the Tampa Tribune entitled ``The Strong Case for Charles Wilson,'' dated April 15, 1999....................................... 84 Prepared statement........................................... 86 Mack, Hon. Connie................................................ 88 Prepared statement........................................... 89 Gorton, Hon. Slade............................................... 92 Murray, Hon. Patty............................................... 92 Boxer, Hon. Barbara.............................................. 94 Prepared statement........................................... 95 Brownback, Hon. Sam.............................................. 96 Prepared statement........................................... 97 Testimony of Nominees Marsha J. Pechman, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington............................. 98 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 102 Senator Sessions......................................... 107 Carlos Murguia, of Kansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington................................. 98 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 101 Senator Sessions......................................... 107 Adalberto Jose Jordan, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida............................... 99 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 101 Senator Sessions......................................... 108 William Haskell Alsup, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida........................... 99 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 100 Senator Sessions......................................... 109 Charles P. Wilson, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit............................................... 99 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 99 Questions and Answers Responses of Marsha J. Pechman to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 111 Ashcroft..................................................... 112 Sessions..................................................... 114 Smith........................................................ 114 Responses of Carlos Murguia to questions from Senators: Smith........................................................ 115 Sessions..................................................... 116 Ashcroft..................................................... 117 Hatch........................................................ 119 Responses of Adalberto Jordan to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 121 Sessions..................................................... 124 Smith........................................................ 126 Ashcroft..................................................... 127 Responses of William Alsup to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 128 Sessions..................................................... 131 Ashcroft..................................................... 133 Thurmond..................................................... 135 Smith........................................................ 135 Responses of Charles Wilson to questions from Senators: Sessions..................................................... 136 Ashcroft..................................................... 138 [[Page vi]] Hatch........................................................ 140 Smith........................................................ 143 THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Hatch, Hon. Orrin G............................................145, 153 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 145 Prepared statement.........................................147, 148 Torricelli, Hon. Robert G........................................ 155 Schumer, Hon. Charles E.......................................... 156 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. (prepared statement)...................... 162 Introduction of Nominees Boxer, Hon. Barbara.............................................. 149 Prepared statement........................................... 151 Campbell, Hon. Tom............................................... 152 Bennett, Hon. Robert F........................................... 154 Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R......................................... 159 Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick (prepared statements).............. 161 Testimony of Nominees Maryanne Trump Barry, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.............................................. 163 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 164 Senator Smith............................................ 167 Senator Sessions......................................... 170 Raymond C. Fisher, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.............................................. 163 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 165 Senator Smith............................................ 167 Senator Sessions......................................... 171 Naomi Reice Buchwald, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.............................. 175 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 177 David N. Hurd, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York.................................. 175 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 177 M. James Lorenz, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California................................ 176 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 177 Victor Marrero, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.................................. 176 Questioning by Senator Hatch................................. 178 Brian Theadore Stewart, of Utah, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah........................................... 176 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 178 Senator Feingold......................................... 182 Questions and Answers Responses of Theadore Stewart to questions from Senator Feingold. 187 Theadore Stewart's positive environmental record............. 189 Various letters in support of Theadore Stewart's nomination.. 190 TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 14, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Kyl, Hon. Jon.................................................... 215 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. (prepared statement)...................... 220 [[Page vii]] Schumer, Hon. Charles F. (prepared statement).................... 221 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 225 Introduction of Nominees Boehlert, Hon. Sherwood L........................................ 216 Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick.................................... 216 Gorton, Hon. Slade............................................... 216 Murray, Hon. Patty............................................... 217 Wyden. Hon. Ron.................................................. 219 Cleland, Hon. Max................................................ 222 Coverdell, Hon. Paul D. (prepared statement)..................... 223 Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes...................................... 224 Smith, Hon. Gordon............................................... 227 Prepared statement........................................... 227 Boxer, Hon. Barbara (prepared statement)......................... 228 Testimony of Nominees Ronald M. Gould, of Washington, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 228 Questioning by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 228 Senator Kohl............................................. 229 Anna J. Brown, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon............................................. 231 Questioning by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 234 Senator Kohl............................................. 235 Florence Marie Cooper, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California......................... 232 Questiong by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 233 Senator Kohl............................................. 235 Richard K. Eaton, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade.......................... 232 Questioning by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 234 Senator Kohl............................................. 236 Ellen Segal Huvelle, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia.................... 232 Questioning by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 234 Senator Kohl............................................. 236 Charles A. Pannell, Jr., of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia........................... 233 Questioning by: Senator Kyl.............................................. 234 Senator Kohl............................................. 237 Alphabetical List and Materials Submitted Brown, Anna J.: Testimony........................................ 231 Cooper, Florence Marie: Testimony................................ 232 Eaton, Richard K.: Testimony..................................... 232 Gould, Ronald M.: Testimony...................................... 228 Huvelle, Ellen Segal: Testimony.................................. 232 Pannell, Charles A., Jr.: Testimony.............................. 233 Questions and Answers Responese of Ronald M. Gould to questions from Senator Smith..... 239 Responses of Anna J. Brown to questions from Senator Smith....... 240 Responses of Florence Marie Cooper to questions from Senator Smith.......................................................... 241 Responses of Richard K. Eaton to questions from Senators: Smith........................................................ 242 Kohl......................................................... 243 Responses of Ellen Segal Huvelle to questions from Senator Smith. 243 [[Page viii]] Responses of Charles A. Pannell, Jr., to questions from Senator Smith.......................................................... 244 THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Hatch, Hon. Orrin G............................................247, 249 Thurmond, Hon. Strom............................................. 249 Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 257 Prepared statement........................................... 258 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J............................................ 265 Prepared statement........................................... 261 Schumer, Hon. Charles E. (prepared statement).................... 268 Kennedy, Hon. Edward M. (prepared statement)..................... 268 Introduction of Nominees Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey....................................... 250 Gramm, Hon. Phil................................................. 251 Frost, Hon. Martin............................................... 252 Wellstone, Hon. Paul............................................. 252 Prepared statement........................................... 252 Grams, Hon. Rod.................................................. 253 Warner, Hon. John (prepared statement)........................... 254 Thompson, Hon. Fred.............................................. 255 Frist, Hon. Bill................................................. 256 Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter G. (prepared statements).................. 259 Testimony of Nominees Richard Linn, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit................................................ 263 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 265 Senator Leahy............................................ 266 Ronald A. Guzman, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.................................. 264 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 265 Senator Leahy............................................ 266 William J. Haynes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee........................... 264 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 265 Senator Leahy............................................ 267 Barbara M. Lynn, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas..................................... 264 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 265 Senator Leahy............................................ 267 Diana E. Murphy, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member and Chair............................................... 271 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 273 Senator Abraham.......................................... 276 Ruben Castillo, of Illinois, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 271 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 274 Senator Abraham.......................................... 279 Sterling R. Johnson, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member.............................................. 271 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 275 Senator Abraham.......................................... 278 Elton J. Kendall, of Texas, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 271 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 274 Senator Abraham.......................................... 278 Michael E. O'Neill, of Maryland, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 272 [[Page ix]] Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 273 Senator Abraham.......................................... 278 William K. Sessions, III, of Vermont, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member.............................................. 272 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 273 Senator Abraham.......................................... 277 John R. Steer, of Virginia, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 272 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 273 Senator Abraham.......................................... 277 Alphabetical List and Materials Submitted Castillo, Ruben: Testimony....................................... 271 Guzman, Ronald A.: Testimony..................................... 264 Haynes, William J., Jr.: Testimony............................... 264 Johnson, Sterling R., Jr.: Testimony............................. 271 Kendall, Elton J.: Testimony..................................... 271 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J.: Letter from Judge William W. Wilkins, Jr., to Senators Hatch and Leahy in support of the nominees for the Sentencing Commission, dated Oct. 4, 1999.................. 290 Linn, Richard: Testimony......................................... 263 Lynn, Barbara M.: Testimony...................................... 264 Murphy, Diana E.: Testimony...................................... 271 O'Neill, Michael E.: Testimony................................... 272 Sessions, William K., III: Testimony............................. 272 Steer, John R.: Testimony........................................ 272 Questions and Answers Responses of Richard Linn to questions from Senators: Smith........................................................ 293 Grassley..................................................... 295 Responses of Ronald A. Guzman to questions from Senator Smith.... 296 Responses of William J. Haynes to questions from Senator Smith... 298 Responses of Barbara M. Lynn to questions from Senator Smith..... 299 Responses of Diana E. Murphy to questions from Senators: Abraham...................................................... 301 Hatch........................................................ 304 Grassley..................................................... 305 Responses of Ruben Castillo to questions from Senators: Abraham...................................................... 308 Hatch........................................................ 309 Grassley..................................................... 310 Responses of Sterling R. Johnson Jr. to questions from Senators: Abraham...................................................... 312 Hatch........................................................ 313 Grassley..................................................... 314 Responses of Elton J. Kendall to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 320 Grassley..................................................... 321 Abraham...................................................... 322 Responses of Michael E. O'Neill to questions from Senators: Hatch........................................................ 338 Grassley..................................................... 339 Abraham...................................................... 340 Responses of William K. Sessions, III to questions from Senators: Abraham...................................................... 342 Hatch........................................................ 345 Grassley..................................................... 346 Responses of John R. Steer to questions from Senators: Abraham...................................................... 352 Hatch........................................................ 363 Grassley..................................................... 364 [[Page x]] TUESDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Thurmond, Hon. Strom............................................. 365 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 368 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J. (prepared statement)...................... 369 Torricelli, Hon. Robert G........................................ 373 Durbin, Hon. Richard J........................................... 374 Abraham, Hon. Spencer............................................ 380 Introduction of Nominees Nickles, Hon. Don................................................ 366 Lautenberg, Hon. Frank........................................... 367 Inhofe, Hon. James M............................................. 368 Boxer, Hon. Barbara.............................................. 371 Prepared statement........................................... 372 Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter........................................... 376 Prepared statement........................................... 376 Calvert, Hon. Ken................................................ 377 Prepared statement........................................... 377 Testimony of Nominees Anne Claire Williams, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Circuit........................................ 379 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 382 Senator Feinstein........................................ 384 Senator Torricelli....................................... 389 Faith S. Hochberg, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey................................. 380 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 383 Senator Feinstein........................................ 385 Senator Torricelli....................................... 387 Frank H. McCarthy, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.......................... 381 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 383 Senator Feinstein........................................ 386 Senator Torricelli....................................... 389 Virginia A. Phillips, of California, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California................... 381 Questioning by: Senator Thurmond......................................... 383 Senator Feinstein........................................ 386 Senator Torricelli....................................... 389 Alphabetical List and Materials Submitted Durbin, Hon. Richard J.: Prepared statement from Congressman Bobby L. Rush in support of nominee, Judge Anne Claire Williams 374 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne: Letter from Judge Terrance J. Hatter, Jr., to Senators Hatch and Leahy in support of nominee, Virginia Phillips, dated Sept. 17, 1999........................ 370 Hochberg, Faith S.: Testimony.................................... 380 McCarthy, Frank H.: Testimony.................................... 381 Phillips, Virginia A.: Testimony................................. 381 Williams, Anne Claire: Testimony................................. 379 Questions and Answers Responses of Anne C. Williams to questions from Senator Smith.... 391 Responses of Faith S. Hochberg to questions from Senator Smith... 395 Responses of Frank H. McCarthy to questions from Senators: Thurmond..................................................... 399 [[Page xi]] Ashcroft..................................................... 399 Smith........................................................ 399 Responses of Virginia A. Phillips to questions from Senator Smith 403 Submissions for the Record Numerous letters in support of nominee, Virginia A. Phillips..... 407 WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 10, 1999 Statements of Committee Members Hatch, Hon. Orrin G.............................................. 431 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne........................................... 438 Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr........................................ 441 Schumer, Hon. Charles E.......................................... 444 Introduction of Nominees Smith, Hon. Gordon............................................... 432 Rangel, Hon. Charles B........................................... 433 Moynihan, Hon. Daniel Patrick.................................... 434 Conrad, Hon. Kent................................................ 434 Dorgan, Hon. Byron L............................................. 436 Pomeroy, Hon. Earl............................................... 436 Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R......................................... 437 Boxer, Hon. Barbara (prepared statement)......................... 439 Roth, Hon. William V., Jr........................................ 448 Testimony of Nominees Thomas L. Ambro, of Delaware, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.................................................. 445 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 447 Senator Biden............................................ 458 Kermit E. Bye, of North Dakota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit................................................. 445 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 447 Senator Biden............................................ 457 George B. Daniels, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.................................. 446 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 448 Senator Biden............................................ 457 Joel A. Pisano, of New Jersey, to be U. S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey......................................... 446 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 449 Senator Biden............................................ 457 Fredric D. Woocher, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California............................. 446 Questioning by: Senator Hatch............................................ 451 Senator Biden............................................ 456 Alphabetical List and Materials Submitted Ambro, Thomas L.: Testimony...................................... 445 Bye, Kermit E.: Testimony........................................ 445 Daniels, George B.: Testimony.................................... 446 Pisano, Joel A.: Testimony....................................... 446 Woocher, Fredric D.: Testimony................................... 446 [[Page xii]] Questions and Answers Responses of Thomas L. Ambro to questions from Senators: Hatch.................................................... 462 Thurmond................................................. 465 Smith.................................................... 465 Responses of Kermit E. Bye to questions from Senators: Hatch.................................................... 468 Thurmond................................................. 471 Smith.................................................... 471 Responses of George B. Daniels to questions from Senators: Hatch.................................................... 474 Smith.................................................... 476 Thurmond................................................. 479 Responses of Joel A. Pisano to questions from Senators: Hatch.................................................... 479 Thurmond................................................. 483 Smith.................................................... 484 Responses of Fredric D. Woocher to questions from Senators: Hatch.................................................... 486 Thurmond................................................. 493 Smith.................................................... 494 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES FOR FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS William Haskell Alsup, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Florida........................... 99 Thomas L. Ambro, of Delaware, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.................................................. 445 Maryanne Trump Barry, of New Jersey, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.............................................. 163 Marsha S. Berzon, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 21 Anna J. Brown, of Oregon, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Oregon............................................. 231 Naomi Reice Buchwald, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.............................. 175 Kermit E. Bye, of North Dakota, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit................................................. 445 Ruben Castillo, of Illinois, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 271 Florence Marie Cooper, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California......................... 232 George B. Daniels, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.................................. 446 Richard K. Eaton, of the District of Columbia, to be a Judge of the U.S. Court of International Trade.......................... 232 Keith P. Ellison, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Texas..................................... 37 Gary Allen Feess, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California............................. 37 Raymond C. Fisher, of California, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.............................................. 163 Ronald M. Gould, of Washington, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 228 Ronald A. Guzman, of Illinois, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois.................................. 264 William J. Haynes, Jr., of Tennessee, to be U.S. District Judge for the Middle District of Tennessee........................... 264 Faith S. Hochberg, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the District of New Jersey................................. 380 David N. Hurd, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of New York.................................. 175 Ellen Segal Huvelle, of the District of Columbia, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia.................... 232 Sterling R. Johnson, Jr., of New York, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member.............................................. 271 Adalberto Jose Jordan, of Florida, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of Florida............................... 99 [[Page xiii]] Robert A. Katzmann, of New York, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 22 Elton J. Kendall, of Texas, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 271 Richard Linn, of Virginia, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit................................................ 263 M. James Lorenz, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California................................ 176 Barbara M. Lynn, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Texas..................................... 264 Victor Marrero, of New York, to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of New York.................................. 176 Frank H. McCarthy, of Oklahoma, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Northern District of Oklahoma.......................... 381 Carlos Murguia, of Kansas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington................................. 98 Diana E. Murphy, of Minnesota, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member and Chair............................................... 271 Michael E. O'Neill, of Maryland, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 272 Charles A. Pannell, Jr., of Georgia, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia........................... 233 Marsha J. Pechman, of Washington, to be U.S. District Judge for the Western District of Washington............................. 98 William Allen Pepper, Jr., of Mississippi, to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Mississippi................. 37 Virginia A. Phillips, of California, to be U.S. District Court Judge for the Central District of California................... 381 Joel A. Pisano, of New Jersey, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of New Jersey......................................... 446 William K. Sessions, III, of Vermont, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member.............................................. 272 Karen E. Schreier, of South Dakota, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of South Dakota................................... 37 John R. Steer, of Virginia, to be U.S. Sentencing Commission Member......................................................... 272 Brian Theadore Stewart, of Utah, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Utah........................................... 176 Stefan R. Underhill, of Connecticut, to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Connecticut................................ 37 T. John Ward, of Texas, to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Texas.............................................. 37 Anne Claire Williams, of Illinois, to be U.S. Circuit Court Judge for the Seventh Circuit........................................ 379 Charles P. Wilson, of Florida, to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit............................................... 99 Fredric D. Woocher, of California, to be U.S. District Judge for the Central District of California............................. 446 [[Page (1)]] JUDICIAL NOMINATIONS ---------- - WEDNESDAY, JUNE 16, 1999 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, D.C. The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:59 p.m., in Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, chairman of the committee, presiding. Present: Senators Hatch, Thurmond, Sessions, Smith, Leahy, Kennedy, Feinstein, and Schumer. The Chairman. We are just a minute early, but I think we will start, anyway. How is that? Today we are holding a judicial nominations hearing for eight nominees--that is rather rare--two circuit nominees and six district court nominees. Now, this hearing follows the committee's approval of two judges earlier this year, and I note this hearing is approximately 3 months earlier in the year than the first hearing for circuit and district court nominees in 1993, when I was in the minority on this committee. Also, I note that there was only one hearing for circuit and district court nominees in all of 1993. It is my expectation that the work of the committee will continue at a reasonable pace throughout this year. This is important work and I take it seriously, and we will continue to do our best. Of course, the committee cannot approve nominees that have not been sent to us by the President. As the Chief Justice noted in his most recent report on the judicial branch: The entire Sentencing Commission is vacant. We have seven seats that are still vacant, and not a single nomination has been made. Without any commissioners, no Sentencing Guidelines can be passed for new criminal statutes, no modifications can be made to existing guidelines to address issues raised by the courts. So I look forward to working with the President and others to ensure that this important Commission can obtain a slate of Commissioners and get back to work this year. Together, Senator Leahy and I have ensured that the President's nominees receive a fair hearing and that Federal courts are adequately staffed to perform their constitutional function. This committee has been instrumental in the Senate's confirmation of 306 judicial nominees and over 200 other nominees by President Clinton. By conducting thorough but expeditious reviews of nominees and by holding hearings, we should be able to keep the number of vacancies from inhibiting the work of the Federal courts and other bodies. I am confident that by the end of this session the committee will have done a fair and even-handed job of evaluating and approving [[Page 2]] judicial nominees just as it has done in previous years. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the committee to accomplish this. Now, today we have three panels. The first panel will consist of the sponsors of the nominees who will make short statements on behalf of their nominees. The second panel will consist of the two circuit court nominees, and the third panel will consist of the six district court nominees. So if I could call those who are going to speak for the judges forward. Senator Lott and others, if you will take your seats here, we would appreciate it. Excuse me. Senator Kennedy is here. We will be glad to turn to him. Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to express my appreciation for scheduling the hearing, and we look forward to our pending nominees. I am particularly pleased that the nominations of Marsha Berzon and John Ward and Karen Schreier are among those we will be reviewing today. Ms. Berzon is an outstanding attorney with an impressive record. She has written more than 100 briefs and petitions to Supreme Court, argued several cases there. When she was first nominated last year, she received strong recommendations and had a bipartisan list of supporters, including our former colleague, Senator Jim McClure. Fred Alvarez, a Commissioner on the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Assistant Secretary of Labor under President Reagan, supports here. I hope we can move expeditiously on her nomination. It was first received in the committee in January 1998, and she has answered numerous questions on a wide range of topics during a previous hearing and in writing. John Ward has over 30 years of legal experience, 20 years as a founding and managing partner of his own law firms. He has conducted 150 full trials in Federal and State courts. He has extensive experience in civil jury trials and also as a county prosecutor. Karen Schreier is a distinguished United States Attorney for the District of South Dakota, confirmed to that position by the Senate. She has served for 6 years representing the United States as both plaintiff and defendant in Federal court in South Dakota. She manages the U.S. Attorney's Office, supervises a staff of over 20 Federal prosecutors. She has also assisted Congress on numerous occasions, testifying in House and Senate hearings on important issues involving juvenile crime. We know the magnitude of the task before us. There are currently 65 vacant judgeships in the Federal judiciary; 12 additional vacancies are likely to open up in the coming months when more and more judges retire from the Federal bench. Of the 65 current vacancies, 28 have now been classified as judicial emergencies by the Judicial Conference of the United States, which means they have been vacant for 18 months or more. In the District of Western Pennsylvania, one position has been vacant since November 1994, four and a half years, inexcusably long by any standard. So I want to commend you, Mr. Chairman, for having the hearing. I look forward to working with you so we deal effectively with the backlog and meet our constitutional responsibilities in the confirmation process. [[Page 3]] I thank the Chair. The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Kennedy. I think we will turn to the distinguished Majority Leader first and then Senator Cochran and then, if I could, I will turn to the distinguished Senator from New York. I will try and do this, if I can, on a seniority basis. If Senator Daschle arrives, we will interrupt and allow him to make his speech because we know our Leaders have a lot to do in addition to all of us, but we will show that kind of deference. So, Senator Lott, we are happy to hear from you. STATEMENT OF HON. TRENT LOTT, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Lott. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Kennedy, Senator Leahy, and my colleagues here in the panel. I was just noting to Senator Lieberman and Senator Dodd-- The Chairman. Senator Lott, if I can interrupt you, the ranking member is here and he wants to make his statement. Senator Leahy. No, no. That is all right. I am just so excited to be at the first confirmation hearing this year, the longest the Senate has ever gone in history, at least in the 25 years I have been here. I am so excited that I really wanted to be here and see this. I will give a statement. I don't want to hold up this distinguished panel, all of whom are good friends. Senator Lott. Thank you, Senator Leahy. And, Mr. Chairman, again, I was just saying with this panel, if we could do a little legislative business while we were here, there is no telling what we could get done right here at this table. [Laughter.] The Chairman. This is a good bunch to do it with. Senator Lott. I appreciate my senior colleague from Mississippi for allowing me to go ahead and get started. It is a great honor for me today to be here and introduce to the committee the President's nominee to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of Mississippi, Mr. William Allen Pepper, Jr. He has his wife, Ginger, here with him; his son, William Allen Pepper III; his sister, who is one of his greatest assets, Lou Anne Cossar, and her husband. I don't know what your protocol is here, but I am very proud of this family, and I would like to ask them if they would to stand and be recognized. Here they are right here. The men may not look like much, but the ladies compensate. [Laughter.] Senator Lott. Let me just say, I would ask, Mr. Chairman, that my statement be put in the record. The Chairman. Without objection, we will do that. Senator Lott. I have known Allen Pepper since 1959. I remember the night we met. We were at the same place as freshmen, and we wound up around the piano singing. And we sang together for the next four years in a quartet--a quartet I might say, to your great relief, I am sure, one that was better than the singing Senators that we now sing with. He became my roommate for 3 years at the University of Mississippi. I have known him then and over the years to be one of the most honorable men I have ever met in my life. That is the life he lived even in the college days, and that is [[Page 4]] the one he continues to live in an exemplary way in Cleveland, Mississippi. He has had quite a distinguished career. After he graduated, he did go off and serve 2 years in the 101st Airborne in the Army. He returned and got his law degree from the University of Mississippi Law School. He has had a very active practice. In fact, he calls me quite regularly and says, well, I am representing another one of your criminal relatives, wanting to know what he should do with them, and I say, Well, just get them out of jail and do the best you can. But he was one of those sole practitioners that you don't have a lot of anymore in a small town. He was in this solo practice for 26 years. He had a significant solo litigation practice. Yes, Senator Kennedy, he was a trial lawyer. As a matter of fact, he was president of the Mississippi Trials Lawyers Association, but he worked with the Bar Association as a whole, served in a number of positions there, was actually nominated to be president of the Bar Association. He was the director of the Young Lawyers Group, president of the Mississippi Bar Foundation. He was a leader in the Mississippi pro bono project. He was very active with the university there at Cleveland, Delta State University. He served as an elected official. He was elected as a Democrat to be an elections commissioner in Bolivar County. He also served for a number of years, maybe as many as 12 years, as the attorney for the Board of Education in that county. He has all the usual civic activities and Lions Club to Junior Auxiliary activities, but he is the kind of person that we need to have serve on the bench. He has had a diversity of practice. He has been very much involved in his community and his State, and he is a man of the highest possible integrity. And so even though he has this one blot on his record of being my former roommate and closest friend probably I have had in my life, I am very proud that President Clinton has selected him as his nominee for this vacancy and on the U.S. court in the Northern District of Mississippi. Thank you for allowing me to be here with my colleague, Senator Cochran. [The prepared statement of Senator Lott follows:] The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Leader. We will certainly turn to Senator Cochran. That is very high praise for Mr. Pepper, and we really appreciate having your testimony here today. Senator Cochran? STATEMENT OF HON. THAD COCHRAN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI Senator Cochran. Mr. Chairman, it is a pleasure to join my colleague in presenting and recommending to this committee Allen Pepper to be a United States district judge. He is very well qualified. As a lawyer, he has earned the highest rating that Martindale-Hubbell gives a practicing attorney. He is a person who has shown that he has the respect of the fellow members of the bar with whom he has practiced and worked. He has been chairman of the Lamar Order of the University of Mississippi Law Alumni Association, one of the most prestigious positions in our State. [[Page 5]] Senator Lott has also pointed out already that he has been president of the Mississippi Bar Foundation, another position for which he was selected by his fellow lawyers. He has been one of the most civic-minded attorneys in his home town of Cleveland, Mississippi. He has served in positions of responsibility, as director of a leading bank in Cleveland. He has headed up charitable fund-raising activities. He is looked to for leadership in a number of important activities. In education locally and in local political life of his community, he has been a leader and an influence for good and stable government in that part of our State. So it is a pleasure for me to recommend him. I can't match the close relationship that my colleague has had. I am glad that Allen has overcome those early relationships that he had at the University of Mississippi. [Laughter.] Senator Cochran. Frankly, I did meet him when he was a student there in 1961. I recall meeting him, and he was introduced to me as the brother of Lou Anne Pepper. Well, I knew right away he had to be a person of intelligence and ability because she was at that time one of the most popular and visible television stars in Mississippi, a person of great charm and intelligence and great talent. So I knew that Allen Pepper had to be somebody you had to take very seriously, and he turned out to be just that. So it is a pleasure for us to recommend him to the committee, and we hope that the committee will report him favorably to the Senate for confirmation. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Cochran. You both have things to do. We will be happy to release you at this time, but we will certainly move ahead with this nominee. Senator Leahy. We can't ask him a whole lot of questions? The Chairman. No, no. Senator Cochran. Ask about the rule in Shelley's case. [Laughter.] The Chairman. I said the rule against perpetuities. Senator Lott. Let me just say one final point I left out. I have never known a nominee for the Federal court system that had broader breadth of support than I have heard exhibited on behalf of this nominee. It comes from leaders of the Democratic Party, elected officials across the State, across the spectrum, Republican leaders, leaders in the African American community. His selection was met with universal approval and a feeling that he would make an excellent judge. So I just wanted to add that one additional point. The Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Leader. Senator Thurmond. You both favor him. Senator Lott. Yes, sir. Senator Thurmond. We can't turn him down, then. Senator Lott. Thank you, Supreme Commander. The Chairman. I think that is something-- Senator Leahy. Don't argue with that, Trent. The Chairman. We are proud to have both of you here speaking. We will turn to Senator Moynihan and then Senator Schumer, and then we will turn to Senator Dodd after that. [[Page 6]] STATEMENT OF HON. DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Moynihan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Senator Leahy, and distinguished members of the committee. I have the honor and great personal pleasure to introduce to this committee a brilliant lawyer and scholar, Professor Robert A. Katzmann, the Walsh Professor of Government and Professor of Law at Georgetown University. He comes to you as the nominee for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Upon his nomination, I stated that ``Robert Katzmann is the finest lawyer/scholar of his generation. He will serve the court of Learned Hand with honor and distinction.'' His distinctions began early, sir. He graduated summa cum laude from Columbia, took his master's and Ph.D. at Harvard in government, and has his juris doctor from Yale Law School, where he was article editor of the Law Journal. After clerking in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, he joined the Brookings Institution and has been there at Georgetown since. He is the author of many books. A citation from the University of Oregon captures the spirit of his work. It says: ``He has committed himself to interdisciplinary research that is often applied rather than pure academic scholarship. That work seeks to make a `real world' difference.'' A principal thrust in his career has been a concern with the practical aspects of the legal system. An example of his involvement over the past decades, the Federal Judicial Center asked him to bring to fruition a project on managing appeals in Federal court. The result was ``Managing Appeals in Federal Court,'' the leading study of its kind, as I believe. A major focus of his career has been a project to enhance the understanding between the judicial and the legislative branches, as explained in his recent book, ``Courts and Congress.'' Judge Diarmuid O'Scannlain of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit described this book as ``most timely and insightful'', indeed, ``must reading.'' I believe, sir, you would recall that more than a year ago we met with you and your staff to discuss one of his projects, an effort whereby court opinions identifying perceived problems in statutes are sent from the courts of appeal to Congress for its review. The project holds the promise of enhancing mutual understanding of how the judiciary interprets legislation. May I finally say, sir, apart from his professional accomplishments, on a personal note, I can attest to his unquestioned integrity and fairness. I thank you for your great courtesy. [The prepared statement of Senator Moynihan follows:] The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Moynihan. I appreciate the high praise that you have given. Senator Schumer, on this nominee? STATEMENT OF HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I would like to take this opportunity to commend you for holding this hearing and add to the introductions and praise for Professor Katzmann as well as Marsha Berzon. [[Page 7]] I can hardly hope to match the eloquence of my colleague or the erudition from New York's Senator Moynihan, so I shall not try. I simply want to commend him for recommending the nomination of such a fine candidate for the Second Circuit as Robert Katzmann, and I look forward to working with you, Mr. Chairman, to bring Dr. Katzmann's nomination to the floor and for his eventual confirmation. Dr. Katzmann's extensive research and writing and works on matters relating to the Federal judiciary are indeed impressive. Senator Moynihan has catalogued some of the works of Dr. Katzmann, although in all modesty he left out my favorite, which was his recent book entitled ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan: The Intellectual in Public Life.'' [Laughter.] Senator Schumer. I would also like to join Senators Feinstein and Moynihan in reintroducing you to Marsha Siegel Berzon. Although she is now a Californian and has been nominated to serve on the Ninth Circuit, Ms. Berzon grew up in a place I know pretty well, Brooklyn, New York, my home town, and then she moved to Long Island and East Meadow, ultimately graduating from East Meadow High School, and her affiliation with New York also includes study at Columbia University and service as a distinguished practitioner in residence at Cornell University Law School in Ithaca. And we New Yorkers are glad to be able to claim Ms. Berzon as one of our own as well as a Californian because she is an extremely well regarded appellate litigator and scholar. And we also like the idea of putting native New Yorkers on the bench outside our great State. It stands to improve the quality of justice in the country. Anyway, in the interest of time-- The Chairman. Don't make it rougher than it is. Okay? [Laughter.] Senator Schumer. In the interest of time, I will say no more except to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify at this hearing. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Schumer. Senator Moynihan. Mr. Chairman, may I say I last year introduced Ms. Berzon to the committee, and Senator Feinstein will add a statement I have made at the conclusion of her statement. The Chairman. Thank you, and we recognize your strong support. This has been good praise for your nominee, Mr. Katzmann, and for Ms. Berzon. We appreciate it. We would be glad to release you from the table. We appreciate you taking time from your busy schedules to be here. Senator Dodd, Senator Lieberman, and then I think we will go to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer, and then we will wind up with you, Senator Hutchison. STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER J. DODD, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator Dodd. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Leahy and other members of the committee. I want to thank you for scheduling this important set of confirmation hearings. It is a very distinct pleasure to join my colleague, Senator Lieberman, in [[Page 8]] support of the nomination of Stefan Underhill to be a district judge for the District of Connecticut. Stefan Underhill, Mr. Chairman, is a distinguished scholar, a superb attorney, and, most importantly, a truly fine human being. I have never been more impressed, Mr. Chairman, with the personal and professional qualifications of a candidate for the bench in Connecticut. Stefan Underhill is joined today by his wife, Mary Pat, and their four children: Mariah, Mark, Devin, and Kerry. Maybe they would stand up as well and be recognized if that is appropriate, Mr. Chairman, the Underhill family. The Chairman. We welcome you all. Senator Dodd. You may not see Kerry. She is 4 years old. There she is. She is recording history by dozing through all of this. Senator Leahy. You have some grandfathers up here. We see her. Senator Dodd. Mr. Chairman, I know that our colleague and resident historian, Senator Byrd, is fond of extolling the unique contributions that the United States Senate has made to civilization, and I would not presume to disagree with him on that point. I would, however, add one item to his list of great American contributions to the civilized world, and that is an independent judiciary. Yesterday, Mr. Chairman, I noted a lead editorial in the New York Times that compared the American with the British legal systems. I found it ironic that the nation that in many ways spawned our common law system two and a quarter centuries ago is now struggling with whether to create a truly independent judiciary that is modeled, ironically, on our very own. The British judicial system is in many respects unfamiliar to us. Its high court consists of 12 law lords. They are members of the House of Lords where they sit on the Judicial Committee. The chairman of that committee is known as Lord Chancellor. He also serves as Speaker of the House of Lords and is a member of the Prime Minister's Cabinet. Mr. Chairman, were such a person to exist in the United States Senate, he or she would simultaneously hold the position of chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Majority Leader of the United States Senate, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and the Attorney General. I leave it to you, Mr. Chairman, to meditate on that possibility. I am sure that it is not without some appeal to you as well. [Laughter.] The Chairman. I am sure that it would be very unappealing to many others. Senator Dodd. I can see you already taking notes on this. My point, Mr. Chairman, is simply this: Our judiciary is revered throughout the world for the high caliber of justice it has dispensed over time. It is a beacon light of fairness not only because of its independence from the legislative and executive branches, but also because of the qualities of mind and heart possessed by those we confirm to be Article III judges. Mr. Chairman, in my experience as a member of this body, there is no responsibility that we Senators hold more dear than that of advising and consenting to the nominees to our Article III courts. [[Page 9]] History will record that it is a responsibility that the United States Senate throughout time has discharged remarkably well. Of some 2,792 judges confirmed by this body, only 7 have been removed from office throughout the history of our Nation. That reflects the extraordinary level of care that this committee and the Senate as a whole has always taken in considering judicial nominees. Stefan Underhill, Mr. Chairman, represents the very best that the Senate and our legal profession has to offer to the quality of justice in America. He holds outstanding academic credentials: a graduate of the Yale Law School, a Rhodes Scholar, a graduate of the University of Virginia. He clerked for one of the Nation's outstanding appellate court judges, Jon Newman of the Second Circuit, and since then he has distinguished himself among his peers as an associate and then partner of the Connecticut law firm of Day, Berry & Howard. It has been said that if you want to know what kind of a judge a person will make, look to what kind of a person he or she is. Stefan Underhill has all the blue-chip credentials a brilliant lawyer can attain. But far more importantly, or as importantly, Mr. Chairman, he is committed to his community and devoted to his family. He is, simply put, a very good and decent man. He provides legal guidance to local non-profit child-care organizations. He sits on the board of directors of the Connecticut Legal Services Corporation. He is a Cub master of the local Cub Scout pack in his community. Colleagues and friends described him, and I quote, as ``a true family man, bright, insightful, and principled, with a deep respect for the rule of law.'' Stefan Underhill's experience as a clerk for Judge Newman kindled his desire to become a judge. He admires Judge Newman not just for his intellect but because he strives to do what is right and because he brings his life experiences to bear when making judicial decisions. Stefan believes in judicial restraint and having an open mind. In Judge Newman, Stefan found a role model. He has revealed himself to be someone committed to applying the law not creating it, to opening his mind not closing it, and doing justice not ignoring it. In closing, Mr. Chairman, I note that a few days ago Stefan's 4-year-old daughter, Kerry, who you just met, who is dozing in the back here, was on line with her mother at the post office in Connecticut. She tugged on the skirt of a strange woman standing next to them and asked the woman, ``Do you think my daddy should be a judge?'' To 4-year-old Kerry, I believe the answer to that question is yes, and I hope that the committee will agree with you as well in their consideration of this fine nominee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Well, thank you, Senator Dodd. Senator Lieberman, we will turn to you. STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CONNECTICUT Senator Lieberman. Thank you. Thank you, Lord Hatch. [Laughter.] [[Page 10]] Senator Leahy. Joe, don't do that. It is hard enough living with him on this committee as it is. Don't make it any worse. Senator Dodd. Lord Chancellor Hatch. The Chairman. It has taken a long time to get that recognition, is all I can say. Senator Lieberman. Thanks, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing and for moving some of these judicial nominations along and including Mr. Underhill on this list. I am very proud to be joining with Senator Dodd in introducing Stefan Underhill to you as the nominee for the U.S. district court judgeship. I was moved when Senator Lott described his college roommate. Actually, if I may assume for a moment the role of pro bono counsel, I want to advise Mr. Pepper that he is under no obligation to answer the committee's questions about Senator Lott's conduct while at Ole Miss. [Laughter.] Senator Lieberman. That is off limits. But as close as I can get to the same relationship is that Mr. Underhill and I were privileged to go to the same law school, but it ends about there. He was there much more recently and did much better than I did, I assure you, at the law school. He was Articles and Book Reviews editor, one of five members of the Articles Committee, a finalist in the coveted Harlan Fiske Stone Prize Argument, and as Senator Dodd has indicated, has just a first-rate record, clerking for Judge Newman, being one of our State's premier litigators, one of our State's premier law firms, an outstanding lawyer, a person of genuine judicial temperament, a great citizen of this State. In every regard, I think this is a superb nominee, and I guess I would add that I was particularly struck that he listed on his CV the fact that he is Cub master of Pack 197 in Fairfield, Connecticut, which experience I think will come in handy in dealing with many of the lawyers and litigants who will come before his bench. [Laughter.] Senator Lieberman. I am very honored to join in Senator Dodd's support of this nominee, and thank you for scheduling him today. The Chairman. Well, thank you very much, Senator Lieberman. We appreciate both of you Connecticut Senators being here. Kay, we are going to hold you until last, if that is all right. You have two nominees, and we will turn to Senator Feinstein next and then Senator Boxer. STATEMENT OF HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I would like to speak on behalf of two people. One is Marsha Berzon and the other is Gary Feess. Mr. Chairman, I believe it was last July 30th, and I believe Senator Sessions and I were the committee that heard Marsha Berzon. I want to pay special tribute to Senator Sessions. He was thorough, he was probing, he was intrepid. I think the hearing went on for just about 2 hours, and virtually I felt at the end of it that this was equal to a hearing that the full committee had for an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. Virtually every ques [[Page 11]] tion I have ever heard at one of those hearings had been asked of Mrs. Berzon, and I want the committee to know how very well she acquitted herself, and I think Senator Sessions would agree with that. I also want the committee to know, Mr. Chairman, that Marsha Berzon, believe it or not, had a life after Brooklyn, New York. She went West where the major portion of her career began to unfold in California. And she is a highly skilled attorney. She has appeared numerous times before United States circuit courts, district courts, and every level of California State courts. She has argued four cases before the United States Supreme Court. She has filed dozens of briefs on a wide variety of cases before the Supreme Court. She was a distinguished student at Boalt Hall, the University of California. She was Order of the Coif, and she was Articles editor for the California Law Review. Prior to entering private practice, she clerked for United States Court of Appeals Judge James Browning and for United States Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan. She has practiced law with the San Francisco law firm of Altshuler, Berzon, Nussbaum, and Rubin since 1978. She has been a partner of the firm since 1990. She has won, in fact, impressive support from Democrats and from Republicans as well as virtually a wide panoply of law enforcement agencies. Let me read just a couple of samples. Former Republican- appointed Deputy Attorney General and Administrator of the EPA, William Ruckelshaus, says, and I quote, ``Her intelligence and genuine good judgment allow her to transcend partisanship. She would make an excellent addition to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.'' J. Dennis McQuaid, an active Republican and partner at the San Francisco law firm of McQuaid, McQuaid, Metzler, McCormick & Van Zandt, writes, and I quote, ``I can recommend Marsha for confirmation without reservation. She enjoys a reputation that is devoid of any remotely partisan agenda and that her service on the court will be marked by decisions demonstrating great legal acumen, fairness, and equanimity.'' The National Association of Police Organizations states, ``Mrs. Berzon would be fair and impartial to law enforcement officers and open-minded to their concerns. She apparently understands the myriad of problems and difficult situations facing the line patrol officer every day.'' Mr. Chairman, I strongly support Marsha Berzon's candidacy, and I am very pleased to be here today to help with my colleague, Senator Boxer, and others introduce her to you. And if might also on behalf of Senator Moynihan submit a statement to the record? The Chairman. Without objection, we will place the statement in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Moynihan follows:] Senator Feinstein. Now, Mr. Chairman, I would also like to just quickly introduce Judge Gary Feess, who with his wife is sitting directly behind me, with their two children, David and Tim. Judge Feess is the nominee to the District Court for the Central District of California, the Los Angeles area. Judge Feess has a vast experience as a private attorney and Government service. He has earned [[Page 12]] distinction as a litigator, an interim U.S. attorney, and a superior court judge in Los Angeles. Again, he earned his law degree from the University of California at Los Angeles. He also was selected for the Order of the Coif, and in private practice, he joined the U.S. Attorney's Office where he quickly rose up through the ranks, becoming division chief of the major frauds unit in 1984 and assistant chief of the criminal division. In 1998, he served six months as interim U.S. attorney. He returned to the private sector as a litigation partner for Jones, Day, Reavis & Pogue, and later Quinn, Emanuel, Urquhart & Oliver. In 1997, Governor Pete Wilson appointed him to the Los Angeles County Supreme Court where he has earned rave reviews. He has also done some things in the private sector, the civic sector. He was deputy consul general for the Christopher Commission, which explored alleged abuses by the Los Angeles Police Department. He also served on the attorney general's Economic Crime Council and the Los Angeles Coordinating Crime Committee. He has received a flood of endorsements from the Los Angeles District Attorney, former U.S. Attorney Robert Bonner, Lane R. Phillips, former U.S. Attorney and Federal judge appointed by Ronald Reagan, and the American Bar Association's Judicial Nominations Committee has determined that he is well qualified for the position of district judge. He was my nominee to the President, and I am very proud to present him to this committee. The Chairman. Thank you so much, Senator Feinstein. I notice the distinguished Minority Leader is here, and I want to accommodate him and his heavy schedule at this time. So if we could, and then I also notice--I think Tim is here. Maybe we should move on your judge then at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. TOM DASCHLE, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Senator Daschle. Well, Mr. Chairman, I thank you very much for your indulgence and that of my colleagues. I will be very brief. With you and members of the committee, I am extraordinarily pleased to introduce to the committee someone that I am very proud to have known for a long time. Karen Schreier and her husband, Tim Dougherty, are both here, and I would like them to stand, if they would. I have known both of their families for a long, long time. I have known Karen's father, know her family, know Tim's family quite well. And I must say they are South Dakota's finest. Karen has been the U.S. Attorney in the State of South Dakota now for about 6 years and has just done an extraordinary job. She has been recognized as one who has worked very effectively with law enforcement agencies, especially on the drug issue. She has reached out to the Native American community as effectively as anybody I know. I honestly believe that she has been the finest U.S. Attorney the State of South Dakota has ever had. So when it came to the opportunity to nominate a new district judge, it was an easy choice for us. We are delighted that she has been willing to take on this addi [[Page 13]] tional responsibility. We highly recommend her to you, Mr. Chairman, and to the members of the committee. We know that she will do an outstanding job as our next district judge. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. That is high praise. I think all of the nominees have been very well praised here today by excellent Senators, and so we are grateful to have you here. We will be glad to excuse you at this time because I know how busy you are. Senator Daschle. Thank you. The Chairman. Tim, if we could go to Senator Boxer first since we can finish those two judges, and then we will come back to you, and then we are going to wind up with Senator Hutchison. STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I will be very brief, and I would ask unanimous consent that my entire statement be placed in the record. The Chairman. Without objection. Senator Boxer. And I will summarize. First, I want to associate myself with the comments of Senator Feinstein as it pertains to Judge Feess. I am very proud that he has been recommended. I see that the younger one has dozed off, which is interesting. The kids seem to get to the heart of the matter sometimes. So the rest of us are awake, and we are here for a purpose, and that is to convince you of the value of our nominees. I have been asked by Marsha Berzon to say a few words about her, and rather than going through my statement, I thought I would just pick out some highlights and first ask if Marsha would stand. She is here with Stephen, her husband, and their daughter, Allie, and son, Jeremy, who happens to be a newspaper reporter in Riverside, California. You have heard about Marsha's qualifications, a woman who has argued cases before so many of the courts, including the Supreme Court. All of her accolades are in my statement, so I thought I would actually close with just a few brief statements from Republicans because I think it is important that we show the broad support that Marsha brings. Former Republican--well, let me start off with Senator Specter, a longstanding member of this committee, who wrote that he was impressed with Ms. Berzon's ``intellect, accomplishments, and the respect she has earned from labor lawyers representing both management and unions.'' And I thank Senator Specter for those comments. Former Republican Senator James McClure wrote, ``What becomes clear is that Ms. Berzon's intellect, experience, and unquestioned integrity have led to strong bipartisan support for her appointment.'' And Dennis McQuaid, who was mentioned by Senator Feinstein, I wanted to share with you, he ran against me the first time I ran for the Congress. So we finally found something we agree on, Marsha, Dennis and I. And he wrote wonderful words about Marsha. And W. I. Usery, former Republican Secretary of Labor, said of Marsha, ``She has all the qualifications needed, as [[Page 14]] well as the honest and integrity that we need and deserve in the court system. I know she will be dedicated to the principles of fairness and impartiality.'' Charles Curtis, who opposed Marsha in a case, United Auto Workers v. Johnson Controls, her opposing lawyer, said, ``All who have worked with or against her know she is fair, reasonable, respectful toward opposing views.'' And, finally, corporate secretary for Chevron, Lydia Beebe, has written that Marsha ``has a reputation of being a brilliant attorney and of imposing an extremely high intellectual standard to whatever she does. She has the support of many in the employment and labor law community, both on plaintiff and management side.'' So, with that, Mr. Chairman, I hope you will look kindly on these two people. They are good people. They are strong people. They will make great judges. Thank you very much. [The prepared statement of Senator Boxer follows:] The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Boxer. Senator Johnson, if you could finish up on your judge. STATEMENT OF HON. TIM JOHNSON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA Senator Johnson. Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will be very brief. I want to associate myself with the remarks of the Minority Leader, Senator Daschle, relative to Karen Schreier and her husband, Tim. Karen has been a friend and a colleague for many, many years. She was born in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, educated at St. Louis University and St. Louis University School of Law. Her intellect, character, legal skills, and her integrity are all highly regarded by everyone who has known her. She has strong support from my fellow members of the South Dakota Bar. She went on to distinguish herself with a clerkship with the South Dakota Supreme Court, quickly became an associate and partner in Hagen, Wilka, Schreier and Archer law firm in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, then moved on to become U.S. Attorney for South Dakota in 1993, where her performance has been absolutely extraordinary. Karen has been a leader on issues of juvenile crime and youth violence for a number of years, has worked closely with me and with my office on methamphetamine problems and drug problems we have in the State of South Dakota. She has been an aggressive U.S. Attorney on the side of aggressive enforcement of the law. And for that she has widespread bipartisan respect and admiration from people throughout our State. I would hope again that your committee will look favorably and with an expeditious manner on the handling of this important nomination. This is a woman who will serve America and South Dakota well as U.S. district judge, the kind of person that we need in public service, the kind of person that we need on the bench. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Johnson. We are happy to excuse you and appreciate the good comments you made. Senator Hutchison, sorry that you have to be the last one here, but we know that you have two nominees, and I would like to men [[Page 15]] tion that Congressmen Ralph Hall and Max Sandlin have been here in the past. I was hoping they could get back. That is one reason why we delayed until now. But they have been here in support of these two Texas nominees. So we will turn to you at this point, and if the two Congressmen come, I will certainly introduce them. STATEMENT OF HON. KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS Senator Hutchison. Good. I would like to ask that Congressman Hall and Congressman Sandlin be allowed to be introduced if they are able to come back. But they did tell me they were here in support, and I would like to introduce first T. John Ward, who is here with his wife, Elizabeth Ward, and I would like to ask them to stand. The Chairman. We are happy to welcome you all to the committee. I apologize. If you see the two Congressmen, I apologize. I should have introduced them before, but I thought they would be here. Senator Hutchinson. I will tell them. The Chairman. They apparently had a vote, and I apologize to them. Senator Hutchison. I will mention to them that you did recognize them. John is a native of Bonham, Texas, and he practices in Longview with the Austin law firm of Brown, McCarroll & Oaks Hartline. He is a graduate of Texas Tech University and Baylor University Law School. Early in his career, he was an assistant district attorney, and he has extensive civil litigation practice both in the State and Federal courts. I believe John Ward is going to be a common-sense Federal judge. When he was nominated in January, a constituent of mine, one of many who wrote on his behalf, said, ``John Ward brings complete preparation, a studied atmosphere, and a balance. He will be a great judge.'' He is a member of the Board of Governors of the Fifth Circuit Bar Association, and I just urge that you confirm Mr. Ward to the bench in East Texas. The second nominee I have is Keith Ellison, who is a resident of Houston, and we are looking at the Southern District bench there. Mr. Ellison is a graduate of Harvard University where he was a Phi Beta Kappa and graduated summa cum laude. He is a Rhodes Scholar. He is a graduate of Yale Law School and was editor of the Yale Law Journal. He was a law clerk to Supreme Court Justice Harry Blackmun and Judge Skelly Wright of the U.S. Court of Appeals in the D.C. Circuit. He has also been 20 years in civil litigation. He was a partner in Baker & Botts, and then went out on his own. He serves on the Yale Law School Association Executive Committee, and he wrote to the committee that Senator Gramm and I have that interview all of the judicial candidates that, ``By not applying the law, a judge introduces an element of unpredictability that breeds more litigation.'' I think that is a pretty common-sense approach, too, and I can't think of anyone more qualified and intellectually qualified for the bench than Keith Ellison. [[Page 16]] Keith is here with his wife, Kathleen, and I would like to ask them to stand as well. So, Mr. Chairman, I appreciate your having this hearing. Both of these nominees have been in the pipeline for quite a while, and it is my hope that we can have an early confirmation. I recommend them. Senator Gramm recommends them. They passed with flying colors our bipartisan judicial selection committee that screens all the nominees, and I think you have two very highly qualified individuals and two benches that are in dire need of some help. So I would urge you to confirm. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator Hutchison. That is high praise indeed, and we appreciate your taking time to be here. Sorry we had you be last. Senator Hutchison. That is fine. The Chairman. Okay. The Chairman. If I could have all the judgeship nominees stand and be sworn, we will swear you all in. If you could just stand, raise your right hands. Do we have all of you up there? Okay. Do you swear the testimony you shall give in this hearing shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ms. Berzon. I do. Mr. Katzmann. I do. Mr. Ellison. I do. Judge Feess. I do. Mr. Pepper. I do. Ms. Schreier. I do. Mr. Underhill. I do. Mr. Ward. I do. The Chairman. Thank you very much. I think what we will do, I think we will start with the two circuit nominees: Marsha S. Berzon and Robert A. Katzmann. And then we will go to the district court nominees in the second panel--third panel, rather. Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, at an appropriate point, I have two statements from Senator Feingold that I want placed in the record. The Chairman. Without objection, we will place them in the record. Please take your seats. [The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:] Senator Leahy. Mr. Chairman, while I did not give an opening statement, I would put my statement in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Leahy follows:] Senator Leahy. I do want to point out again on the hearings that we should not compare this to 1993, the first year, as compared to the seventh year of a President's term in office. The first few months of that administration we had a confirmation of a new Attorney General that took four hearings over 3 months. We had 6 days of hearings in May and June of other top Justice Department nominations and a Supreme Court nomination. This year we have not had a hearing on executive branch nominations, and the average time for Senate action on the judges confirmed was about 200 days. The Chairman. Let's be glad we are having a hearing now. Senator Leahy. I am delighted, and I compliment you on that. I really do. And I mean that most sincerely. [[Page 17]] The Chairman. We are happy to welcome both of you here. We hope you will introduce your family members of friends that you have with you, and if you have any statement you would care to make, we will start with you, Ms. Berzon, and then with you, Mr. Katzmann. TESTIMONY OF MARSHA S. BERZON, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT Ms. Berzon. I do not have any statement. I would like very much to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing. I would like to introduce, in addition to my husband and my children, who were already introduced, my parents, Jack and Sylvia Siegel, who are here from New York. My mother was not able to join us last year at the hearing. I am very pleased that she is here this year. Also, my sister, Mary Berzon, who is from Virginia; my brother, Arthur Siegel, who is an accountant in New York; and my long-time law partner and friend, Fred Altshuler, who is here as well. Finally, I would like to see that my sister, Beth Siegel, from Massachusetts was not able to be here today, and my mother-in-law, Ethel Spitzen, from Boca Raton, Florida, was also not able to be here today because of her health. The Chairman. We are happy to welcome your family and your friends and relatives here, and we are grateful we finally have you here for this second hearing, really, and we are going to try and move ahead as quickly as we can. Do you have any further statement to make, Ms. Berzon? Ms. Berzon. No, I don't. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Mr. Katzmann, we will turn to you. Introduce your family and friends or whoever you have with you. TESTIMONY OF ROBERT A. KATZMANN, OF NEW YORK, TO BE UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT Mr. Katzmann. Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank you for your great courtesy and the courtesy of your staff over these past several months, and also Senator Leahy. I would like to introduce my parents, John and Sylvia Katzmann; my brothers, Gary Katzmann, who is a career--my identical twin brother, Gary Katzmann, who is a career prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office; my brother Martin Katzmann; and my many friends who are here as well. My sister, Susan, unfortunately, could not make it, and her family as well. Finally, I would like to say a special word of thanks to Senator Schumer and Senator Moynihan for their very generous introductory remarks. Nearly a quarter century ago, Professor Moynihan prepared me for my generals in American Government at Harvard, and in the ensuing years, there is no one who has had a greater impact on my life in his role as teacher, mentor, and friend. And I am so grateful to him and to Liz Moynihan and to Michael Patrick for coming here today. They are really friends for hard winters. Thank you. The Chairman. We are happy to welcome your family and, of course, we are very proud of Senator Moynihan ourselves. He has [[Page 18]] been a great Senator. He came to the Senate at the same time I did, and so we have been good friends all through these years. We are happy to have both of you here. Now, we have a roll call vote, so I hope that some will go vote now and then come back so you can ask questions. Senator Sessions. Mr. Chairman, I am supposed to preside at 4:00. I don't know if others have a pressing need, but if you could allow me a few questions at the beginning. If not, I will understand. The Chairman. I will be happy to yield my time to you, Senator, and we will let you take the time, and then if others could go vote and then come right back, then Senator Leahy and I can go. Go ahead, Senator. Senator Sessions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think both of these are extraordinarily skilled lawyers, and I appreciate your abilities, and I did enjoy very much, Ms. Berzon, our conversations. Maybe we did take too long, but it was almost-- it was a very interesting discussion, and I enjoyed it very much. And I thought I would ask a couple of follow-up questions. And you know--and I think I made it clear, and I have made it clear to others--that I am concerned about the Ninth Circuit. The New York Times has said the Supreme Court considers it a rogue circuit. It was reversed, I believe, 27 out of 28 times last year. And in evaluating a nomination for the Ninth Circuit, I have publicly said I want to be sure that nominee is going to bring it back into the mainstream of American law as set by the Supreme Court. And so any questions I make, maybe in a different circumstance at a different time I wouldn't be as persnickety about it. But I think it is important. And I don't intend to support nominees unless I really believe that it has a possibility of improving that court. I remember I asked you about Justice Brennan's decision on the unconstitutionality of the death penalty. He believed that the death penalty was unconstitutional. And I told you I thought that that was unfounded because there are multiple references to the death penalty and capital crimes in the Constitution. And I asked you whether or not you shared my view and how you felt about Mr. Justice Brennan's view, and you said you did not like to say what you agree with and what you do not agree with when you haven't had time to think about it. Fair enough. Have you had time now and would you like to comment now? Ms. Berzon. I would like to say first that I also very much enjoyed our discussion last year, and I certainly have had a chance to think about it and to go back and look at the Constitution. And having done so, I would certainly agree that the indications of that document are that the Framers of the Constitution understood that capital punishment would be permitted under that Constitution. There are, as you note and as the Supreme Court noted in Gregg v. Georgia, many references in the Constitution which indicate that the Framers certainly understood that there would be capital punishment under the Constitution. Senator Sessions. And as a justice, do you feel it would be your duty to ratify in your opinions the understanding of the Framers when they adopted that Constitution and carry out its intent? [[Page 19]] Ms. Berzon. As a judge of the Ninth Circuit, my primary duty and initial duty will be to follow the direction of the United States Supreme Court. The United States Supreme Court on this question has been quit clear about its conclusion that the death penalty is constitutional, and I will, of course, faithfully and completely apply that conclusion. Senator Sessions. How do you feel about Justice Brennan's view that somehow despite these references and clear, explicit statements of approval of the death penalty in the Constitution explicitly written that he still would find it unconstitutional? Do you affirm or reject that view? Ms. Berzon. I was a law clerk to Justice Brennan, as you know. I admire him enormously as a man and as a mentor. I do not agree with everything that he said, and I think in particular that I intend to take a more literal view to statutes and to constitutional provisions than he does. It makes me more comfortable, and it is the way I tend to think. The Chairman. Could I interrupt for just a second? I notice our two Congressmen from Texas are here in support of the two Texas nominees, and we just want to recognize both of you. Congressman Hall, you have been a friend for a long time, and we are really glad to have you here. And also you, Congressman Sandlin, we are very appreciative that you would come over and lend support to these two Texas nominees. Mr. Hall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members. The Chairman. I apologize for not introducing you first. I should have done that. Mr. Hall. We had to vote. The Chairman. That is what I figured. You went to vote, and I certainly wanted to-- Senator Leahy. We understand that. The Chairman. I recognized you in absentia. We will put it that way. But we are happy to have you back. Go ahead, Senator. I am sorry. Senator Sessions. All right. Briefly, I asked you previously about--I followed up in writing with a question I raised at our initial hearing, and to refresh your recollection, you responded in August of 1998, and I had asked you that if when you were vice president of the ACLU in Northern California you approved the ACLU's filing of a lawsuit in Michele AG v. Nancy S. case. In that case, the ACLU's argument was that a homosexual partner who is neither an adopted or biological parent could be deemed a ``parent in fact,'' and that was rejected by the California--that position- -the ACLU did take that position, and it was rejected by the California Court of Appeals. And I was conferring a little bit with your answer and would like to follow up. In your written answers, when I asked you about your connection with this lawsuit, you replied that you ``had no recollection of this case until asked about it in connection with the hearing.'' Then you later in those written answers said you ``checked with the ACLU NC''--Northern California--and learned that you were ``not present at the meeting at which the case was considered,'' even though you were Chair of that legal committee that set them--approved the filings. And then next you stated that you ``learned on inquiry'' that [[Page 20]] a close vote by the board as to whether or not to file that had occurred. It had been proposed by the staff, but that you ``do not recall'' how you voted or whether you voted and that the ACLU had no records specifying how you voted. However, in your testimony before the committee, it indicates that voting on cases is not a routine proceeding by the ACLU, and it only occurs if ``there is a dispute in the legal committee,'' which you chaired, or if someone specifically asked for a vote. In fact, you written answer indicated that it was a close vote by the over 30-member staff. Given the controversial nature of that case and as evidenced by the fact that the board you chaired was closely divided over the issue and the fact that the votes of this kind appear to be an exception rather than the norm for the committee, would you share with us how it is that we ought to understand you don't remember that? And did you take a position that--have you been able to recall any position you took, and can you tell us more about your participation in that? Ms. Berzon. The case, just to clarify for some of the other members who were not at the hearing and may not have read the questions, was one that dealt, as I understand it from reading the reported opinion--and I want to make clear that I have never seen the brief that the ACLU filed in this brief--in this case. I don't ordinarily see them. I would not have ordinarily seen them. And in this particular case, it was under seal, so I couldn't see it even after I was asked. Not having seen it, I can only react based on the written opinion that resulted, and that opinion indicates that while the particular individuals who were having a visitation dispute here were homosexual partners who had been parenting this child, the issue in the case really had nothing to do with them being homosexual partners--that is, one could have been a grandparent who was rearing the child or a step-parent who was rearing the child or a foster parent who had been with the child for a long time. And the issue was one of whether people of that kind who the child will be severed from have some interest in visitation. The issue is a very complicated one, as the justice who wrote the opinion for the California Supreme Court noted, on a policy basis and one he concluded was properly for the legislature, and I would agree with that conclusion. I have no specific recollection of the debate, although I did learn, as I said in my answers, that it was a closely divided vote. I suspect--and I very much hesitate to say how I might have voted because I don't have a clear recollection, but I suspect that in a circumstance like that I would probably abstain. And the reason I suspect that is I tend in my participation in the ACLU to be most interested in issues and most concerned about issues having to do with the First Amendment, with the rights of free speech and religion, and with discrimination, gender discrimination in particular. And issues of this kind are very far from my expertise or concern, and when it became as contentious as it did, apparently, from the vote, I would probably feel that I had little to add to the debate and probably would not have contributed. But I really don't remember. [[Page 21]] Senator Sessions. So you don't remember how you voted on that. Ms. Berzon. I don't remember. The Chairman. Senator, your time is up. Now, Senator Leahy would like to just ask a question or two before we go and vote. Senator Leahy. Ms. Berzon, you are familiar with the doctrine of stare decisis, I am sure. Ms. Berzon. I certainly am. Senator Leahy. And do you accept that doctrine? Ms. Berzon. I absolutely do. Senator Leahy. And so I can assume from that answer that the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court you would feel would be compelling on your circuit? Ms. Berzon. Absolutely, and if confirmed as a judge, I will follow them faithfully and carefully. Senator Leahy. And you would give great weight to prior decisions of your circuit? Ms. Berzon. I will definitely do that. Senator Leahy. So it is safe to say that on decisions of the Supreme Court you feel your circuit is bound by that, and you as a judge would be bound by that. Ms. Berzon. Definitely the Ninth Circuit is bound by the decisions of the Supreme Court, and I as a judge would be bound by them as well. Senator Leahy. But you as a judge are not bound in any way by past decisions of any organization, whether it is the ACLU or a social organization or any other organization. Those are not decisions that bind you. Am I correct? Ms. Berzon. To the contrary, as a judge I will, of course, be bound only by precedent, by the language of any statutes, by the language of the Constitution, by precedents in other circuits to the degree that they are relevant and convincing, and I absolutely will give no credence whatever to the views of any organization, including the ACLU. Indeed, I would expect that I would rule against the position of the ACLU as often as that of any other organization. Senator Leahy. Looking at your background, I would not have expected any different answer. I am extremely impressed with your background. I hope that you will soon be sitting on that court. Thank you. The Chairman. Thank you, Senator. We are going to have to go vote. As soon as Senator Smith gets back, he will ask some further questions, but we will recess until he gets back or until another Senator gets here and proceed as soon as I can get back. [Recess from 4:02 p.m. to 4:30 p.m..] The Chairman. If we could begin, I apologize for the delay. I am going to put the written questions of Senator Thurmond into the record, and I would hope that you would answer them as quickly as possible. He directs questions to both you, Ms. Berzon, and you, Mr. Katzmann, and then he sends questions to the other judges as well. So I would hope that you would answer any and all written questions as quickly as possible. We will keep the record open to have written questions to the nominees until Friday, the end of business on Friday, if that is all right. [The questions of Senator Thurmond follow:) [[Page 22]] The Chairman. Now, Senator Smith, would you like to ask some questions or would you like me to go ahead? Senator Smith. Go ahead, Mr. Chairman. I will be ready in a minute. Why don't you go ahead? The Chairman. Thank you. Okay. Now, you have heard the questions, Mr. Katzmann, of Senator Sessions. Do you have anything to say about those particular questions? Mr. Katzmann. No, I don't. The Chairman. Okay. How would you answer them? Mr. Katzmann. The questions that were asked were in a sense--most of the questions seemed to be particular to various cases. The Chairman. Right, that involve California, so you really don't have anything to say about that. Mr. Katzmann. Right. The Chairman. Let me ask you, Ms. Berzon, you certainly have an extensive record in the area of labor law, something that I take a great deal of interest in as well, representing various labor organizations and some very renowned cases. Now, when many people hear labor law, they generally think of cases between unions and employers. Your experience, as I understand it, however, includes instances in which you have been an advocate for unions in litigation against the employees they represent on issues ranging from the right of employees who choose not to follow the union's lead in striking to the right of employees not to pay a portion of union dues used for purposes with which they disagree. Now, Ms. Berzon, given your experience, can you assure this committee that you can be fair and impartial in adjudicating the rights of employees vis-a-vis their unions? Ms. Berzon. Yes, absolutely. In all of those cases, I was, of course, representing a client as an advocate. I am keenly aware of the difference between an advocacy position and the position of a judge on the Ninth Circuit or any other court of appeals. In that position, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, I am certain that I will be able and I commit that I will leave behind all positions of all of my clients and look with an open mind at the statutes at hand, at the precedents that are relevant, and at any constitutional provisions that are pertinent and so on. The Chairman. So you will be abide by the precedents as established by the Supreme Court? Ms. Berzon. I am sorry? The Chairman. You will abide by the precedents established? Ms. Berzon. I absolutely will. The Chairman. Okay. I presume you will, too, Mr. Katzmann. Mr. Katzmann. Absolutely. The Chairman. Now, Ms. Berzon, in correspondence to this committee last July, you identified Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District--that is a recent Ninth Circuit court case--as one in which the ACLU of Northern California participated while you were a board member. Now, I have looked at the amicus brief the ACLU of Northern California filed in that case and was interested to note that the principal argument advanced in that brief is that the court ``should apply intermediate scrutiny'' not strict scrutiny as the appropriate [[Page 23]] level of review n a challenge to a racial quota that had the effect of limiting the percentage of Chinese school children who could attend San Francisco's public schools. Now, do you agree with the position advanced by the ACLU of Northern California that the quota at issue was constitutional even though there had never been a judicial finding that segregation existed in San Francisco's school system? Ms. Berzon. I am at something of a disadvantage because I first saw a part of this brief, and only a part of it, last evening and I read the opinion of the Ninth Circuit as well. I was actually under the impression--and I could be wrong--that there was a judicial finding or at least that there was a consent decree that served as a--that was confirmed by the court and, therefore, served as a judicial finding. But I am not sure it is relevant to the issues that were addressed in the amicus brief. I know, as you do, Mr. Chairman, that the Supreme Court in Adarand v. Pena held that racial classifications are subject to the strictest of scrutiny, meaning that there has to be a compelling interest, and that any classification of that kind has to be extremely narrowly tailored. The Ninth Circuit held that the issues in that case as to meeting those standards were sufficiently undecided, that there should be a trial on the question, and actually I know only from the newspapers that the case was settled before trial. In my role on the board of the ACLU, as Senator Sessions noted, there are only votes held by the board in rare instances, and in this instance there was no vote held by the board and I was not on the legal committee. I did have a chance to check that much. The Chairman. Okay. And--did I interrupt you? Ms. Berzon. I am sorry. The Chairman. I thought I had interrupted you. Ms. Berzon. Okay. The Chairman. You have mentioned the Adarand v. Pena case. Do you agree that the quota at issue in this matter should have been tested under only an intermediate scrutiny rather than strict scrutiny? Ms. Berzon. It seemed to me that the Ninth Circuit opinion holding that it was subject to strict scrutiny was fully consistent with Adarand, and I would have no problem in applying that standard at all. The Chairman. They indicated that it would be subject to only intermediate scrutiny not strict scrutiny. Ms. Berzon. I am sorry? The Chairman. They indicated that it would be subject to only intermediate scrutiny not strict scrutiny. Ms. Berzon. They so argued, and it is not a position that I advocated. And as I say, I didn't vote on it either. The Chairman. So you would be for strict scrutiny. Ms. Berzon. I was fully comfortable with Judge Newman's opinion in the Ninth Circuit. The Chairman. Now, Mr. Katzmann, the Founding Fathers believed that the separation of powers in a government was critical to protecting the liberty of people. Thus, they separated the legislative, executive, and judicial branches into three different supposedly co-equal branches of government, the legislative power [[Page 24]] being the power to balance moral, economic, and political considerations and make law, the judicial power being the power only to interpret laws made by the Congress and by the people. Now, in your view, is it the proper role of a Federal judge when interpreting a statute or the Constitution to accept the balance struck by Congress or the people or to rebalance the competing moral, economic, and political considerations? Mr. Katzmann. I firmly believe that it is the role of the judge to accept the balance struck by the Congress and the people. It is inappropriate for a judge to reorient the calculus. The Chairman. Making of law to me is a very serious matter. To make constitutional law, two-thirds of each House of Congress and three-quarters of the States must formally approve the words of an amendment. To make statutory law, only a majority of each House is necessary, and usually the President must formally approve the words of a statute. This formal approval embodies the expressed will of the people through their elected representatives and thus raises the particular words of a statute or constitutional provision to the status of binding law. Words, theories, and principles that lack this formal approval are not backed by the will of the people and thus do not rise to the level of legitimate law. Would you agree that the further a judicial opinion varies from the text and the original intent of a statute or constitutional provision, the less legitimacy it has? Mr. Katzmann. I certainly do agree with that. I think in an article, which I, frankly, quoted in my book, ``Courts and Congress,'' which you wrote in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, you talk about the slippage that can occur the further one gets away from the text of the statute. And I believe that clearly that is a problem if a judge inserts his or her own views about what a statute should mean by moving away from the words of the statute. The Chairman. Let me ask both of you this question: Under what circumstances do you believe it appropriate for a Federal court to declare a statute enacted by Congress unconstitutional? Let's start with you, Ms. Berzon. Ms. Berzon. The circumstances in which it is appropriate for a court to declare a congressional statute unconstitutional are, of course, quite rare. Such statutes come to the Court with a strong presumption of constitutionality, and in looking at such constitutional arguments, if I were confirmed, I would look carefully at any precedents of the Supreme Court or of the Ninth Circuit. But absent a compulsion by them to declare a statute unconstitutional, I would do so only when it appeared to be compelled by the constitutional language or by the clear intent and the meaning of the Constitution. Mr. Katzmann. I think, Mr. Chairman, that a court should be very wary about declaring unconstitutional an act of Congress. When you look at the constitutional structure, there is Article I, the legislative article, Article II, the executive, and Article III, the judiciary. I would submit that the order suggests that there should be caution on the part of the judiciary in terms of upsetting the law that Congress has made. So I believe that only in the rarest of circumstances would it be appropriate to declare an act of Congress [[Page 25]] unconstitutional. There would have to be clearly a very compelling reason to do so. It would have the presumption--an act of Congress has the presumption of constitutionality. The Chairman. Thank you. My time is up. Senator Smith, do you have questions? Senator Smith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon to both of you. I missed Senator Leahy's questioning, but I understand, Ms. Berzon, that Senator Leahy asked you if you felt that the death penalty was unconstitutional, and you replied that it was constitutional. Is that correct? Ms. Berzon. Yes. The United States Supreme Court has so held. Senator Smith. I am sorry. Senator Sessions' question. Ms. Berzon. Senator Sessions did ask me that, and, yes, I agreed with him that-- Senator Smith. Is that your view as well, Mr. Katzmann? Mr. Katzmann. Yes. The Supreme Court has firmly spoken on that issue, making note of a number of clauses in the Constitution which suggest that there is room for capital punishment. Senator Smith. Do either of you have any moral or religious or any other personal convictions that would keep you from voting to apply the death penalty in an appellate case? Ms. Berzon. I do not. Mr. Katzmann. Neither do I. Senator Smith. On the issue of judicial precedent, what is your view on judicial precedent? I think Senator Leahy asked you about judicial precedent, and I missed that. I think you replied that you supported judicial precedent. Is that correct? Ms. Berzon. I certainly do. I would be constrained as a Ninth Circuit judge to follow the precedent of both the Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit, and I would do so. Senator Smith. Even if you viewed the decision to be wrong? Ms. Berzon. Yes, even if I viewed the decision to be wrong, with the minor caveat that in the Ninth Circuit there are times when there are votes as to whether to hear a case en banc, and in that case I would vote in accordance with the guidelines of the Ninth Circuit whether to hear the case en banc. Senator Smith. Is that your view as well, Mr. Katzmann? Mr. Katzmann. Yes. I think that if you don't follow precedent, you are inviting judicial activism, which I would deplore. Senator Smith. Well, let me ask you a tough question on judicial precedent. Were you to have been on the Supreme Court in 1867 when the Dred Scott case came down, Judge Tawney indicated in that decision, the majority decision, that Dred Scott was a personal property and, therefore, could not sue in Federal court. We now had precedent that was never overturned by the courts, but it was overturned by some amendments to the Constitution. So if you had had the chance to vote to reverse that judicial precedent, how would each of you have voted? Ms. Berzon. If you would like me to begin, it is a provocative question, and I note that there is also a set of precedents from the Supreme Court regarding the very rare circumstances in which overturning precedent is appropriate. And one of those circumstances is that it is more appropriate in constitutional than in [[Page 26]] statutory cases because, with regard to statutory cases, Congress can alter the statute much more easily than it can alter the Constitution. Now, you have actually pointed to one instance in which Congress did alter the Constitution, or Congress and the people altered the Constitution, but that is relatively rare. So there is slightly more room in a constitutional case, but, again, as a Ninth Circuit judge, it would be quite rare because that prerogative is primarily that of the Supreme Court. Senator Smith. Same question, sir. Mr. Katzmann. I would emphasize, too, that in terms of the position for which I am being considered as an appellate judge, I am bound to follow precedent. The issue as to what I would do if I were a Supreme Court Justice is not something that I have actually fully considered at this moment. But in the case of Dred Scott, when we think about precedent, there are a lot of different questions that one might think about. One issue might be how long has the precedent been in existence, how long has it stood in existence. That might be of some use. But, on the other hand, if you always stick to precedent at the Supreme Court level, then you would never have had a reversal of Plessy v. Ferguson. Senator Smith. That was my next question. Mr. Katzmann. So that there are circumstances in which at the Supreme Court level, where because there is a recognition that a decision was clearly wrong, that there may be some basis for a change in precedent. But at the appellate level, I think the obligation of the judge is to follow the precedent regardless of whether the appellate judge agrees with it or not. Senator Smith. Do you have the same view on Plessy v. Ferguson, Ms. Berzon? Ms. Berzon. Yes, I do. And as I said, the considerations here with regard to the Supreme Court and appellate courts are really quite different. Senator Smith. No, I understand, but the issue in a generic sense was judicial precedent, and I think you both admittedly stated that you didn't feel that would necessarily be the case at the appellate level. You did give a qualifier on both your answers. I just want to make sure the record is straight. You both gave me a qualifier on judicial precedent on both Plessy v. Ferguson, which was overturning segregated schools, and Dred Scott, which was not allowing a black man who was considered property to sue in Federal court. So you did give two qualifiers. I don't want to misrepresent what you said, but that is the way I read what you said. So now I am going to get you to the least controversial of all the questions I have asked so far, but that is why I wanted to hear your answers to these questions first, which is--I was being funny--the issue of abortion, which is obviously one of the most controversial issues of the day. So if we use the issue of judicial precedent in Roe v. Wade, what is your view on Roe v. Wade, each of you? Ms. Berzon. The Supreme Court, as you know, spoke to that precedent in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, both with respect to its continuation as precedent and with respect to the precise standard [[Page 27]] that is applicable under Roe v. Wade as modified by Casey. Casey fully explored the stare decisis considerations, and, again, as a circuit court judge, I am bound by Casey in that regard. Casey held that balancing the women's--the State's concern for fetal life beginning at conception against women's constitutional right that the applicable standard is whether there is an undue burden on that right, and in applying that standard has held certain regulations of abortion, including parental consent, waiting periods, and others, valid. Again, as a Ninth Circuit judge, I would apply both the general standard and the particular precedents carefully and faithfully, and I would have no opportunity really to consider whether it should be changed, and I would not do so. Senator Smith. Mr. Katzmann? Mr. Katzmann. As an appellate judge, I am bound to follow the precedent of the Supreme Court. Casey is, in a sense, the defining case as it modifies Roe v. Wade, suggesting that restrictions on abortion would be upheld so long as there is not an undue burden. As an appellate judge, I am bound to follow that regardless of my own personal preferences. Senator Smith. In a personal sense, if both of you could answer this, do you believe that an unborn child is a human being? Ms. Berzon. As I said, Senator, my role as a judge is not to further anything that I personally believe or don't believe, and I think that is the strength of our system and the strength of our appellate system. The Supreme Court has been quite definitive quite recently about the applicable standard, and I absolutely pledge to you that I will follow that standard as it exists now, and if it is changed, I will follow that standard. And my personal views in this area, as in any other, will have absolutely no effect. Mr. Katzmann. My concern, Senator, is that when judges enact their personal preferences, whether for or against a particular issue, there is a danger of judicial activism. It is a recipe for judicial activism because it then means that judges pick and choose what they want to enforce in the law according to their own personal preferences. What I can say to you is that I will faithfully apply the law as the Supreme Court has laid it down, whatever the precedent of the Supreme Court might be in that area at any time. Senator Smith. Well, look, and I want to say to both of you I appreciate the fact that you are answering my questions. That is not always the case here, and you are, I think, making an honest attempt to answer the questions, and I appreciate it. But I think what we have in the case of--I agree with you on judicial activism on either side of the political spectrum. I am not in favor of judicial activism. I think that judges and Justices should support the Constitution pretty much in a constructionist way as it is written. The difficulty for me, and I think for many, on Roe v. Wade is that by making abortion the law of the land, many would say there is nothing in the Constitution that would provide for that kind of decision to be made. There is no mention of abortion in the Constitution. There is mention of life and the protection of life, but there is no mention of abortion. [[Page 28]] And so I think what we have here is an opportunity to say that a life could be taken at any stage; although it is not frequently done in the third stage, there is no restriction on that. And that is the reason I am asking the question. Does the unborn child have a right to life at any point during the 9 months of pregnancy? And if so, at what point? And I think that is a fundamental question that I don't think is an unfair question for a person who, although it is the appellate court, could very well at some point be considered at a higher court, and also very well could face a decision dealing with that issue on the appellate court. So that is the question that I would like to ask. Does the unborn child have a right to life at any point during the pregnancy? And if so, when, in your view? Ms. Berzon. My understanding of what the Supreme Court ruled in Casey, which is the case that I would be constrained to apply if I am confirmed to the Ninth Circuit, is that the State does have an interest in the life of the child from the time of conception, but that there is a competing interest as well in the women's medical rights and otherwise, and that the result of balancing those competing rights, the Supreme Court has instructed us is that the right to abortion is upheld as long as--only if there is no undue burden on the right to abortion. I have no choice but to answer you that that is what I would apply if I was on the Ninth--if I was confirmed to the Ninth Circuit. And if I answered anything else, I would not be faithful to the role that I will have as an appellate judge. Mr. Katzmann. I think that the Court recognizes that the State has an interest in the protection of the child, but there are these competing interests and concerns. One is bound to follow the precedent of Casey, and I think that in a sense, if I might say, that when there are nominees to the Supreme Court, that is where one can really change, if one wants to, influence the direction of policy because at the appellate level you are supposed to follow the precedent regardless of how one personally would come out on a particular issue. I know that is an answer of judicial restraint, but I firmly believe it. Senator Smith. Well, let me move it all the way to the end to the most dramatic of all abortions, which is the so-called partial-birth abortion. There is a possibility, although not likely, that we will overturn the President's veto on this. Were that to happen, it would be in the courts, and the constitutionality would have to be determined of that act. Is the partial-birth abortion ban, as we now know it, the law, the bill that has been passed that has not become law, is that in your view constitutional or unconstitutional as you interpret the Constitution? Mr. Katzmann, why don't you start? Mr. Katzmann. I would say that that is an issue that-- Senator, that is a very important issue, and that as a judge, I would really have to evaluate that issue in the context of a law that is actually passed, and then in terms of a case or a controversy. In terms of adjudication, there are restrictions on judges rendering advisory opinions on particular pieces of legislation in the advance of pas [[Page 29]] sage. And then even after passage, I think what a judge has to do is to evaluate the case in the context of a real case or controversy. I think the questions that you raise are very important ones and serious ones, and you can be sure that if I ever had a chance to rule on that kind of an issue, I would really be as faithful as I could to the Constitution, recognizing the presumption of legislation to be constitutional. Ms. Berzon. And I essentially agree with that answer. I note again that the Casey standard would be the applicable one, and that the answer might turn on the details of the particular statute. I understand that there have been some partial-birth or late-term abortion statutes that have been held unconstitutional, but apparently for reasons having to do with the particular scheme at hand. Again, the standard would be whether there was an undue burden on the right to abortion, taking into account the State's interest in life from the time of conception, and that is the standard I would apply. It would be obviously inappropriate to say anything further than that precisely because the issue might come before a court on which I or Mr. Katzmann could be sitting. Senator Smith. Your term ``competing interests,'' though, is an interesting one because you are viewing the term competing interests between the mother and the unborn child. Would you take that competing interest to two individuals, one of whom tried to kill the other one? You don't carry it that far, do you? Ms. Berzon. Again, I am simply repeating the standard that the Supreme Court has articulated, and it is not my standard. Senator Smith. But we indicated twice now in two different examples, by your own admission, that the Supreme Court was wrong at least twice in American history, once in Dred Scott and once in Ferguson, very dramatic and important cases. And I would say just for the record--and I am not looking to argue; I have learned after many years of this that arguing doesn't do any good, but discussing sometimes does. I would argue that in the case of Ferguson, segregation was a horrible situation, as was the situation of determining that a black person was property and therefore had no legal right to sue. Those were both dramatic departures from the norm from what is right and wrong in America. And I would venture to say I would add number three to that, and that is the taking of a life of an innocent unborn child, 35 million of which, 35 million of which, have been lost since the Roe v. Wade decision in 1973. They will never have a chance to be a judge. They will never have a chance to be a mother or a father because of a law that was passed--a Court decision that was made, excuse me, which denied them that opportunity. And neither one of you are willing to sit here and tell me that you think that is wrong. Is that correct? I mean, I haven't heard anybody say it yet. So 35 million children never have a chance to be here or to be up here or to be out there and have the opportunity to live their dream because of a Court decision. And had it not been for the guts of somebody in Ferguson and the guts of somebody who wrote those 13th, 14th, 15th Amendments, we may still have slaves in this country that would never be able to sue. And we may very well have segregation in this country. [[Page 30]] The Chairman. Senator, if I could-- Senator Smith. A last point, Mr. Chairman. You have been very patient. The Chairman. Yes. Senator Smith. And I think in this particular case, I would add abortion to that list, and I would say that 35 million children lost is a terrible comment on American society. And I deeply regret, really, with all due respect to both of you, that neither one of you can say that. The Chairman. Well, Senator, if I could interrupt, you have asked some very appropriate and good questions. I interpret it a little bit differently. Both of them, in my opinion, have said that they are not sure how they would decide that case, and that they wouldn't want to give the opinion that they have now anyway without hearing all the facts and the evidence. Senator Smith. Well, I didn't ask about a specific case, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. No, but I mean-- Senator Smith. I asked about their point of view, whether or not life was-- The Chairman. But they both say that that could likely come before them and they are going to have to decide it at that time. And that is a little different from saying that they would not find that process unconstitutional. And I don't know how they can say much more than that at this point in this meeting. But I share the distinguished Senator's feelings and I share his point of view that it is a tragedy that we have had this issue go as far as it has in our American way of life. And I just hope that both of you will look at the precedents, and also look at what is right and wrong, if that case ever comes before you. Senator Smith. Well, I would just make a final point. The Chairman. Sure. Senator Smith. In the case of the Missouri case where you represented the ADA in your amicus brief in the Webster case, I mean I assume you agree with the ADA's position on that case. Ms. Berzon. Actually, in the--you are referring to me? Senator Smith. Yes, ma'am. Ms. Berzon. In my brief, which was an extremely limited one, I did not address any of the abortion issues in that case as such. The only issue that I addressed was a First Amendment issue regarding the communication between doctor and patients and that is all. The Chairman. I think the question I would like to ask is will you set aside your own personal views and feelings in order to decide the case on the law rather on what your personal views are? Ms. Berzon. Absolutely, and I believe that I have so indicated. The Chairman. I will be honest with you, Ms. Berzon. On the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, we have people there that could care less what the law says. I mean, I hate to say it, and that is what causes me all kinds of problems here on the committee with putting Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals judges through because they are so afraid that we will just have more of the same. And I have had very liberal judges come up to me and say it is a disgrace what they are doing out there, and they are hurting all [[Page 31]] of us who are sincere liberals who really want to abide by the law and implement the law as it is written. Senator Smith. Mr. Chairman, could I just make a point on that? I understand what both of the nominees have said here, and as far as judicial activism is concerned, I agree with what Mr. Katzmann said about judicial activism. But what I am saying is if you apply the standard of judicial precedent strictly that you never overturn the law, the you never make a decision, then you would never have overturned-- The Chairman. Nobody is going to-- Senator Smith. Excuse me. You would never have overturned the Ferguson case of segregation and you never would have overturned the Dred Scott decision if there had been such a vote before the Court. And that is my only point and I am just saying that I believe abortion belongs in the same league with those other two cases. That is my point. The Chairman. Well, it is a good point, no question. Let me just say this, that I have seldom seen better qualified nominees for circuit court positions than the two of you. While we may differ on certain philosophical points, the fact of the matter is you are both highly qualified. You both have extensive experience in the law. And in your case, Ms. Berzon, you have been here--this is your second time, and it was an extensive, extensive hearing before that went on for hours and there is an extensive record with regard your nomination. There is another vote, so let me just say this. We are honored to have you here. The President has submitted both of you and we will see what we can do to move your nominations ahead. And we appreciate the forbearance that you have had, in particular, Ms. Berzon. And, Mr. Katzmann, I have known you for quite a period of time. I have great regard for you, as well as Ms. Berzon. There are many other questions we probably could ask, but I think in your case, Ms. Berzon, an awful lot of them have been asked. In your case, Mr. Katzmann, I am reasonably satisfied as to your qualifications and will do what I can to see that you both have an opportunity to serve on your respective circuits. I would just ask that when you get there, don't be activist judges; be judges who really abide by the law and set a standard for judges that help us so that it doesn't come down to an issue of liberal or conservative, but it comes down to an issue of understanding the role of judges in our society so that we don't hurt our society. But in any event, unless you have any further questions, Senator Smith, I think we will release both of you for today. We congratulate your families. I am going to do my best to have all of these judges who are up today on next week's markup. I can't do it by tomorrow because we do have written questions, and so forth. But by next week's markup, I will try and have you on the--and some of you may be put over for a week, so just understand the process. Anybody can put any item that appears first on the list over for one week, but then it has to be voted upon at the next markup. So we will move as expeditiously as we can. Ms. Berzon. Thank you very much, Senator Hatch. Mr. Katzmann. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Senator Smith. [[Page 32]] The Chairman. Thank you both for being willing to serve. [The questionnaires of Ms. Berzon and Mr. Katzmann follow:] The Chairman. Now, we have got about 15 minutes before I have to--we have got less than 15 minutes before I have to leave. I wonder if I can get the rest of you judgeship nominees to come take your seats. We have six chairs, so that ought to be all right. Now, let me say at the outset that I believe this is an excellent panel of judgeship nominees. We have extensively looked at your backgrounds and your service to your communities and to the legal profession at large. So I come at this from a position of wanting to support each and every one of you. But let me quickly go through some questions so that we won't keep you too long here today, and then I think what we will do is just start with you Mr. Ellison and go right across. Now, in general, Supreme Court precedents are binding on all lower Federal courts, and circuit court precedents are binding on all district courts within that particular circuit, as you all know. Now, is each of you committed to following the precedents of the higher courts faithfully and giving them full force and effect even if you personally disagree with such precedents? Mr. Ellison? TESTIMONY OF KEITH P. ELLISON, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Mr. Ellison. Yes, I am, Mr. Chairman. TESTIMONY OF GARY ALLEN FEESS, OF CALIFORNIA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Judge Feess. Yes, Mr. Chairman, without question. TESTIMONY WILLIAM ALLEN PEPPER, JR., OF MISSISSIPPI, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI Mr. Allen. Yes, sir, I am. The Chairman. Ms. Schreier? TESTIMONY OF KAREN E. SCHREIER, OF SOUTH DAKOTA, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH DAKOTA Ms. Schreier. Yes, Mr. Chairman, I definitely am. TESTIMONY OF STEFAN R. UNDERHILL, OF CONNECTICUT, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT Mr. Underhill. Absolutely, sir. TESTIMONY OF T. JOHN WARD, OF TEXAS, TO BE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS Mr. Ward. Absolutely, Mr. Chairman. The Chairman. Thank you. [[Page 33]] What would you do if you believed the Supreme Court or the court of appeals had seriously erred in rendering a particular decision? Would you nevertheless apply the decision on your own best judgment of the merits? Take, for example, the Supreme Court's recent decision in City of Boerne v. Flores, where the Court struck down the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Mr. Ellison. Whether I agree with the decision or not, it is my obligation to apply it. The only option for a judge who bitterly disagrees with the decision of a higher court is to tender his resignation, never to disregard a higher court's authority. Judge Feess. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pepper. I agree with that, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Schreier. I, too, Your Honor, would feel bound by the decision of the Supreme Court and would apply it. Mr. Underhill. I would feel compelled, Mr. Chairman, to apply the decision regardless of my personal views. The Chairman. No matter how lame-brained it may be? Mr. Underhill. Absolutely. Mr. Ward. That is correct. I agree one hundred percent. The Chairman. Well, I would be looking for some way of finding a way around the lame-brained decision, but the fact is you have all answered that the way I would like you to answer it. [Laughter.] The Chairman. You have stated that you would be bound by Supreme Court precedent and, where applicable, the rulings of the Federal circuit court of appeals for your district. There may be times, however, when you will be faced with cases of first impression. Now, I am tired of picking on you, Mr. Ellison, so I am going to start with you, Mr. Feess, because everybody agrees with you all the time. I get tired of that. [Laughter.] The Chairman. What principles will guide you, or what methods will you employ in deciding cases of first impression, Mr. Feess? Judge Feess. Mr. Chairman, I think that the first question that the judge should ask himself is, is it really first impression, because lawyers are always trying to convince you that they have got the new case, the different case, the case of first impression. So I think the first job is to determine is it truly a case of first impression. If so, the next step is to find out whether or not there is analogous precedent; is there something in another field or related field, something similar that the court can go to. If you are talking about a novel interpretation of a statute, of course, you have to go to the words of the statute and try to determine from the text what was contemplated in this unusual situation, as you posit it. But I think first determine is it truly novel; second, if it is really novel, find analogous precedent and then try to determine what--based upon recent Supreme Court jurisprudence where the Supreme Court might go with it if they had the question. The Chairman. I presume most all of you would agree with that. Anybody care to add anything to that? [No response.] [[Page 34]] The Chairman. All right. Let's start with you, Ms. Schreier. Please state in detail your best independent legal judgment, irrespective of existing judicial precedent, on the lawfulness under the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment and Federal civil rights laws, of the use of race, gender or national origin preferences in such areas as employment decisions, hiring, promotion or layoffs, college admission and scholarship awards, and the awarding of government contracts. In other words, what would be your best independent legal judgment? Ms. Schreier. Mr. Chairman, under the Adarand decision, if race were to be used in giving a preference in hiring decisions or any other decisions, the court would have to apply a standard of strict scrutiny to determine whether or not that preference met a very narrow limit to address the reason for using that racial preference. Under that strict scrutiny standard, it would be a very difficult standard to meet. It is a very high standard. And, in addition to that, the remedy would have to be tailored to address the reason why the preference was being used. The Chairman. Okay. Does anybody differ with that answer? [No response.] The Chairman. Now, you have heard the questions asked of the prior two panelists on capital punishment. Would any of you have any difficulty personally or otherwise in enforcing capital punishment? Mr. Underhill. Mr. Underhill. No, Your Honor--excuse me-- The Chairman. That is all right. Mr. Underhill. No, Mr. Chairman, I would not. The Chairman. Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward. No, Mr. Chairman, I would not. The Chairman. Ms. Schreier? Ms. Schreier. No, Your Honor. Mr. Pepper. No, Mr. Chairman, I would not. Judge Feess. No, and, in fact, Mr. Chairman, I have presided over death penalty cases in my current position. The Chairman. Mr. Ellison? Mr. Ellison. I would be able to preside over such a case, Your Honor. The Chairman. I would have difficulty enforcing the death penalty. Even though I am for the death penalty, I would want it used very sparingly. But the fact is it is the law and you would be sworn to uphold that law and you are going to have to do it. Do you have any moral beliefs or legal beliefs which would inhibit you from applying the law in that area, any of you? Mr. Ellison. No. Mr. Ward. No, sir. The Chairman. Do you believe that 10-, 15-, or even 20-year delays between conviction of a capital offender and execution is too long? Do you believe that once Congress or a State legislature has made the policy decision that capital punishment is appropriate and that the Federal courts should focus their resources on resolving capital cases fairly and expeditiously--and I am talking about my own habeas corpus reform that the Supreme Court has upheld- [[Page 35]] -do you believe that we should have 15- and 20-year delays in enforcing capital punishment, Mr. Ward? Mr. Ward. Well, I would follow the reforms that you sponsored without question, Mr. Chairman, and I certainly think that 15 or 20 years is too long. The Chairman. Well, we found through the years that innovative lawyers just bring up appeal after appeal after appeal. And what we have done is we have provided for very extensive appeals rights, both up through the State courts and the Federal courts, but ultimately a finality to it that literally stops it from being much more than 3 years. Does anybody find any difficulty with that? Mr. Ward. No, sir. The Chairman. Doggone, there is no controversy in this group at all. [Laughter.] The Chairman. It is starting to bother me just a wee bit here. There are a lot of other questions that I have for you. I think what I am going to do is submit Senator Thurmond's questions and some of mine in writing. [The questions of Senator Thurmond follow:] [The questions of Senator Hatch follow:] The Chairman. I have confidence that all six of you--that each of you will make tremendous district court judges. I think you are good selections. I am proud to preside over your hearing, and I want to congratulate each of you and the President for having picked you. Now, I am going to keep the record open for additional questions until the close of business on Friday, and I would suggest that you immediately answer those questions because if you don't, I can't put you on next week's markup. So we will need those answers right back and I want to process you as quickly as I can. So I just want to congratulate each and every one of you and the President himself. You are all outstanding people, and we have had terrific Senators come and speak for you today and I have been very impressed with the remarks that they have had for each of you. So you ought to thank them because that plays a very significant role in this process, believe it or not. So with that, I think we will just recess until further notice and we will try to put you all on next Thursday's markup, the Thursday after tomorrow. Thank you so much. Mr. Ellison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Judge Feess. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [The questionnaires of Mr. Ellison, Judge Feess, Mr. Pepper, Ms. Schreier, Mr. Underhill, and Mr. Ward follow:] [Whereupon, at 5:16 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]