[Senate Hearing 112-72, Part 4] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] S. Hrg. 112-72, Pt.4 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION ---------- SEPTEMBER 7, SEPTEMBER 20, AND OCTOBER 4, 2011 ---------- Serial No. J-112-4 ---------- PART 4 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS S. Hrg. 112-72, Pt.4 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION __________ SEPTEMBER 7, SEPTEMBER 20, AND OCTOBER 4, 2011 __________ Serial No. J-112-4 __________ PART 4 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary ---------- U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 74-979 PDF WASHINGTON : 2012 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001 COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont, Chairman HERB KOHL, Wisconsin CHUCK GRASSLEY, Iowa DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah CHUCK SCHUMER, New York JON KYL, Arizona DICK DURBIN, Illinois JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota JOHN CORNYN, Texas AL FRANKEN, Minnesota MICHAEL S. LEE, Utah CHRISTOPHER A. COONS, Delaware TOM COBURN, Oklahoma RICHARD BLUMENTHAL, Connecticut Bruce A. Cohen, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Kolan Davis, Republican Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- September 7, 2011 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Whitehouse, Hon. Sheldon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island......................................................... 1 Grassley, Hon. Chuck, a U.S. Senator from the State of Iowa...... 9 prepared statement........................................... 306 PRESENTERS Baucus, Hon. Max, a U.S. Senator from Montana presenting Dana Christensen Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana..................................................... 2 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from California presenting Cathy Bencivengo Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California................................ 3 Manchin, Hon. Joe, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia presenting Gina Marie Groh Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia..................... 7 Reid, Hon. Harry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada presenting Evan Wallach Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit............................................ 6 Schumer, Hon. Charles E., U.S. Senator from the State of New York presenting Margo Brodie Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York............................... 4 Tester, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Montana presenting Dana Christensen Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana.................................... 5 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Bencivengo, Cathy Ann, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California................................ 129 Questionnaire................................................ 130 Brodie, Margo, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York........................................... 221 Questionnaire................................................ 223 Christensen, Dana, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana............................................ 95 Questionnaire................................................ 96 Groh, Gina Marie, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia............................. 177 Questionnaire................................................ 178 Wallach, Evan, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit........................................................ 9 Questionnaire................................................ 16 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Cathy Bencivengo to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 271 Responses of Margo Brodie to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 275 Responses of Dana Christensen to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 279 Responses of Gina Groh to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 284 Responses of Evan Wallach to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 289 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Bar Association, Benjamin H. Hill, III, Chair, Washington, DC: Cathy Bencivengo, May 12, 2011, letter....................... 296 Margo Brodie, June 13, 2011, letter.......................... 298 Dana Christensen, May 6, 2011, letter........................ 300 Gina Groh, May 20, 2011, letter.............................. 302 Evan Wallach, July 29, 2011, letter.......................... 304 New York City Bar, Elizabeth Donoghue, Chair, Committee on the Judiciary, New York, New York, July 13, 2011, letter........... 312 Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia, prepared statement.............................. 313 Tuesday, September 20, 2011 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 322 Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, a U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.. 315 PRESENTERS Hatch Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah presenting David Nuffer Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Utah............................................... 320 Johanns, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska presenting John M. Gerrand Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska........................................... 316 Lee, Hon. Mike, a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah presenting David Nuffer Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Utah........................................................... 321 McCaskill, Hon. Claire, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri presenting Mary Elizabeth Phillips Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Missouri........................... 317 Nelson, Hon. Ben, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska presenting John M. Gerrand Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska........................................... 315 Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida presenting Adalberto Jose Jordan Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit....................................... 318 Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida presenting Adalberto Jose Jordan Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit....................................... 319 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEES Jordan, Adalberto Jose, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit............................................... 323 Questionnaire................................................ 324 Gerrard, John M., Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska.................................................... 418 Questionnaire................................................ 420 Nuffer, David, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Utah........................................................... 579 Questionnaire................................................ 580 Phillips, Mary Elizabeth, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Missouri................................... 480 Questionnaire................................................ 481 Rice, Thomas Owen, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington......................................... 522 Questionnaire................................................ 523 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of John M. Gerrard to questions submitted by Senator Grassley....................................................... 650 Responses of Adalberto Jose Jordan to questions submitted by Senator Grassley............................................... 655 Responses of David Nuffer to questions submitted by Senator Grassley....................................................... 664 Responses of Mary Elizabeth Phillips to questions submitted by Senator Grassley............................................... 667 Responses of Thomas Owen Rice to questions submitted by Senator Grassley....................................................... 670 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD American Bar Association, Benjamin H. Hill, III, Washington, DC: John M. Gerrard, May 6, 2011, letter......................... 673 Adalberto Jordan, August 11, 2011, letter.................... 675 David Nuffer, July 6, 2011, letter........................... 677 Mary Elizabeth Phillips, June 8, 2011, letter................ 679 Thomas O. Rice, June 30, 2011, letter........................ 681 Campbell, Walter G., Law Office, Krupnick Campbell Malone Buser Slama Hancock Liberman & McKee, Fort Lauderdale, Florida, September 15, 2011, letter..................................... 683 Hispanic National Bar Association (HNBA), Diana S. Sen, National President, August 1, 2011, letter.............................. 684 Moore, Marty E., Attorney, Peck Hadfield Baxter & Moore, LLC, Logan, Utah, July 13, 2011, letter............................. 686 Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, prepared statement............................................. 687 Rubio, Hon. Marco, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, prepared statement............................................. 689 Tuesday, October 4, 2011 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Coons, Hon. Christopher A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Delaware....................................................... 703 Durbin, Hon. Dick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois..... 693 Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared statement................................. 957 Lee, Hon. Michael S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 694 PRESENTERS Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of California presenting Michael Walter Fitzgerald Nomine to be District Judge for the Central District of California................... 697 Gillibrand, Hon. Kirsten E., a U.S. Senator from the State of New York presenting Ronnie Abrams, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York.............................. 702 Heller, Hon. Dean, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada presenting Miranda Du Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nevada............................................. 700 Manchin, Hon. Joe, III, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia presenting Stephanie Dawn Thacker Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit........................... 696 Norton, Hon. Eleanor Holmes, a Representatives in Congress from the District of Columbia presenting Rudolph Contreras, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Columbia.............. 703 Reid, Hon. Harry, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada presenting Miranda Du Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nevada............................................. 699 Rockefeller, Hon. John D., IV, a U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia presenting Stephanie Dawn Thacker Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit........................... 695 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEES Abrams, Ronnie, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........................................... 792 Questionnaire................................................ 793 Contreras, Rudolph, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Columbia.................................................... 832 Questionnaire................................................ 833 Du, Miranda, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nevada......................................................... 862 Questionnaire................................................ 863 Fitzgerald, Michael Walter, Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District of California................................. 750 Questionnaire................................................ 751 Thacker, Stephanie Dawn, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit................................................. 714 Questionnaire................................................ 706 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Ronnie Abrams to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 907 Responses of Rudolph Contreras to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 910 Responses of Miranda Du to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar......................................... 914 Responses of Michael Walter Fitzgerald to questions submitted by Senators Grassley and Klobuchar................................ 922 Responses of Stephanie Dawn Thacker to questions submitted by Senators Coburn, Grassley, Klobuchar and Sessions.............. 925 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD American Bar Association, Benjamin H. Hill, III, Chair, Washington, DC: Ronnie Abrams, July 29, 2011, letter......................... 942 Miranda Du, August 6, 2001, letter........................... 944 Michael W. Fitzgerald, July 21, 2011, letter................. 946 Stephanie Thacker, September 8, 2011, letter................. 948 Baird, Lourdes G., retired, U.S. District Court, Pasadena, California, September 27, 2011, letter......................... 949 Bonner, Robert, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, California, September 12, 2011, letter......................... 951 Boxer, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of California, prepared statement............................................. 953 Cashell, Robert A., Sr., Mayor, Reno, Nevada, August 12, 2011, letter......................................................... 956 Heller, Hon. Dean, a U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada, prepared statement............................................. 960 Gibbons, Sharon, Chairperson, CAAW, Las Vegas, Nevada, August 15, 2011, letter................................................... 961 Krolicki, Brian K, Nevada Lieutenant Governor, Carson City, Nevada, August 23, 2011, letter................................ 962 National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Paul O. Hirose, President, and Tina R. Matsuoka, Executive Director, Washington, DC, October 3, 2011, letter........................ 963 Nevada Association of Mechanical Contractors (NAM), Rusty Humes, President, Reno Nevada: Hon. Patrick Leahy, August 22, 2011, letter.................. 965 Hon. Chuck Grassley, August 22, 2011, letter................. 966 Nevada Chapter, Associated General Contractors, Dave Backman, President, Reno, Nevada, August 22, 2011, letter............... 967 New York, City Bar, Committee on the Judiciary, Elizabeth Donoghue, Chair, New York, New York, September 27, 2011, letter 968 Quinzio, John Michael, retired Police Lieutenant, Anaheim Police Department, Westminster, California, letter.................... 969 Sandoval, Brian, Governor, Las Vegas, Nevada, August 22, 2011, letter......................................................... 970 Schiff, Hon. Adam B., a Representative in Congress from the State of Calfornia................................................... 971 Tevrizian, Dickran M., retired U.S. District Judge, September 21, 2011, letter................................................... 972 U.S. Congress, Congressional Hispanic Caucus, Charles A. Gonzalez, Chair and Ruben Hinojosa, First Vice Chair, Washington, DC, October 18, 2011, letter....................... 974 Women's Bar Association, Karen Richardson, President, New York, New York, October 4, 2011...................................... 975 Yang, Debra Wong, Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, LLP, Los Angeles, California, October 3, 2011, letter............................ 977 Yoxsimer, Denise, President & CEO, Nevada Women's Fund, Reno, Nevada: Hon. Chuck Grassley, August 9, 2011, letter.................. 979 Hon. Patrick Leahy, August 9, 2011, letter................... 980 ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES Abrams, Ronnie, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of New York........................................... 792 Bencivengo, Cathy Ann, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Southern District of California................................ 129 Brodie, Margo, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of New York........................................... 221 Christensen, Dana, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana............................................ 95 Contreras, Rudolph, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Columbia.................................................... 832 Du, Miranda, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nevada......................................................... 862 Fitzgerald, Michael Walter, Nominee to be District Judge for the Central District of California................................. 750 Gerrard, John M., Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Nebraska.................................................... 418 Groh, Gina Marie, Nominee to be U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of West Virginia............................. 177 Jordan, Adalberto Jose, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eleventh Circuit............................................... 323 Nuffer, David, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Utah........................................................... 579 Phillips, Mary Elizabeth, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Missouri................................... 480 Rice, Thomas Owen, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Washington......................................... 522 Thacker, Stephanie Dawn, Noinee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit................................................. 714 Wallach, Evan, Nominee to be U.S. Circuit Judge for the Federal Circuit........................................................ 9 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE MEETING TO CONSIDER THE NOMINATIONS OF EVAN WALLACH, TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT; DANA CHRISTENSEN, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA; CATHY BENCIVENGO, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; GINA MARIE GROH, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA; AND MARGO BRODIE, TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ---------- WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 7, 2011 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:33 p.m., Room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Sheldon Whitehouse presiding. Present: Senators Franken, Schumer, Feinstein, and Grassley. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND Senator Whitehouse. This hearing will come to order. We have a number of nominees for Federal court to consider today and we have a number of colleagues who are here to make introductions, and I will call on my colleagues in the following order. I'll start with Senator Baucus and Senator Feinstein, and then Senator Tester, then Senator Manchin, unless the Majority Leader comes, in which case he will be next. [Laughter.] Senator Whitehouse. Senator Baucus, would you care to proceed? PRESENATATION OF DANA CHRISTENSEN, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BY HON. MAX BAUCUS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM MONTANA Senator Baucus. Thank you very much, Senator. I appreciate it very much. I am very please here today to introduce Dana Christiansen as a nominee to serve as U.S. District Judge for the District of Montana. President Dwight D. Eisenhower once said, ``The qualities of a great man are vision, integrity, courage, understanding, the power of articulation, and a profundity of character. One might also say these are qualities of a great Federal judge. These, too, are the qualities I consider when speaking of Dana Christiansen. It is a personal pleasure to be able to introduce Dana to this Committee. Dana will be introducing his family later in his testimony, but I would like to personally congratulate Dana and his wife Stephanie on this momentous occasion. Dana is a fourth-generation Montanan. He was raised in Missoula, Montana. He graduated from Stanford University in 1973, and then received his law degree from the University of Montana School of Law in 1976. Since graduating from law school, Dana has commended the respect of other bar members throughout the State of Montana. In 1998, Dana and two of his partners formed a new firm in Kalispell, Montana which specializes in civil defense, business law, real estate, and estate planning. Dana has tried more than 50 trials in State and Federal courts. He has an active mediation and arbitration practice and has represented many clients on a pro-bono basis. Both Dana and his firm have received the highest rankings from Chambers USA, and Dana has been ranked as one of the top 75 lawyers in the northwestern United States by Super Lawyers over the last decade. Dana is also a member of the American Board of Trial Advocates and American College of Trial Lawyers. I cannot say enough about Dana's ability and commitment to justice. Outside of the office, Dana is very active in his community. He has been a member of the board of directors of his local Chamber of Commerce, president of the Montana Defense Trial Lawyers Association, a member of the University of Montana School of Law Board of Visitors, and a member of the faculty of the University of Montana Advanced Trial Advocacy Program. To ensure that the most ethical and qualified attorney is appointed as District Judge, I created an advisory selection panel made up of five members with diverse legal backgrounds from across our State and across party lines. My colleague, Senator Tester, very aggressively helped me in that endeavor. The panel was charged with recommending an individual with a breath of legal experience, ethics above reproach, sharp analytical skills, superior writing skills, and respect for precedent. The panel unanimously and enthusiastically recommended the nomination of Dana Christiansen. Clearly, Dana has earned respect from all segments of the Montana legal community and I am certain that his experience, leadership, and prudent will serve Montana as well. Dana embodies those qualities President Eisenhower articulated and the qualities that Montana, and America, need on the Federal bench: intellect, extensive experience in the courtroom, commitment to public service, integrity, and respect for precedent and the rule of law. I must say as an aside, Mr. Chairman, I can think of nobody in the State of Montana, or anybody else I have ever had the pleasure to meet, who will do a better job in serving our country, especially as a Federal judge, than Dana Christiansen. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Baucus. That is high praise, indeed, and of particular weight coming from you. I will now turn to Senator Feinstein. PRESENATION OF CATHY BENCIVENCO, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY HON. DIANNE FEINSTEIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Feinstein. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased today to indicate my strong support for Judge Cathy Ann Bencivengo, whom I recommended to the President for nomination to become a District Judge in the Southern District of California. Judge Bencivengo has been a U.S. Magistrate Judge in San Diego for the last 6 years. In that time she has earned an outstanding reputation among her colleagues on the bench and among the lawyers who appear in her courtroom. She was recommended to me by a bipartisan judicial screening Committee which I have established in California, and this Committee reviews judicial candidates based on their legal skill, reputation, experience, temperament, and overall commitment to excellence. Throughout the Committee process Judge Bencivengo set herself apart as a person who would be a truly exceptional addition to the District Court. She is a descendant of immigrants who came to California through Ellis Island at the turn of the 20th century. She was born in Teaneck, New Jersey. She wanted to be in public service from an early age. Her father was involved in local politics and her upbringing instilled in her a desire to serve the public. She began her undergraduate career at Rutgers in New Jersey, where she earned her Bachelor's degree in Journalism and Political Science in 1980. The following year she earned her Master's degree from Rutgers. From 1981 to 1984, she worked for a major American corporation, Johnson & Johnson, in New Brunswick, New Jersey. She then attended the University of Michigan Law School, where she excelled, graduated magna cum laude, and was inducted into the Order of the Coif. After law school she moved to San Diego, where she joined the San Diego-based firm, Grey Carey, which later became part of a major international law firm, DLA Piper, LLP. Soon after starting work as an associate, she became a founding member of the firm's Patent Litigation Group. Her knowledge of patent law, which she honed in law school and private practice, makes her a valued resource for colleagues and clients. She quickly rose through the ranks of her firm. In 2005 she was selected as the national co-chair of her firm's Patent Litigation Group, a role for which she managed a group of 70 patent attorneys--which, if you know patent attorneys, is a job in itself--around the country. Judge Bencivengo also worked to protect one of the mainstays of American children's literature, Dr. Seuss, as the lead partner on trademark and copyright issues for Dr. Seuss Enterprises. In 2005, she became a Magistrate Judge, where she served as a thoughtful jurist. Since her appointment, she has issued roughly 178 published opinions, over 190 reports and recommendations, and over 1,800 orders on non-dispositive motions. Nearly 800 of those orders involved felony criminal cases. A premier San Diego criminal defense attorney described her as ``seasoned, bright, responsive, fair, hardworking, and reflective''. I think that pretty much does it. In addition, her substantial expertise in patent law will be welcomed in the Southern District, which is part of a new Federal judicial program designed to assign more patent cases to judges who are experts in the field of patent law. In short, Judge Bencivengo will make a fine addition to the U.S. District Court, and I urge my colleagues to support her nomination. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, if I might be excused. I have a matter I must urgently attend to. Senator Whitehouse. Of course. Of course. Senator Baucus. But I urge you to report out---- Senator Whitehouse. You were here with all of your--Senator Baucus. Senator Baucus [continuing]. Dana Christiansen very quickly. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Since we're going by seniority and since Senator Schumer has now arrived, let me call on Senator Schumer. Of course, everyone is free to go on about their business once they've concluded their statements. PRESENTATION OF MARGO BRODIE, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK BY HON. CHARLES E. SCHUMER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Schumer. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be very brief. I want to thank you for the opportunity to introduce yet another gifted New Yorker to this Committee. Margo Brodie has been nominated by the President to serve on the Eastern District of New York. I was pleased and proud to recommend her for this position as someone who has chosen to make her home in this country, and specifically in the neighborhood served by this court, and who has already graced her community with outstanding and dedicated service. Ms. Brodie was born in St. John's Antigua. She and her brother Euan were raised by a single mother with the help of her mother's parents and siblings. After graduating from high school at the age of 16, she attended St. Francis College in Brooklyn. She worked full-time, graduated magna cum laude, went on to the University of Pennsylvania Law School, where, in addition to work and her academic achievements, she dedicated herself to improving Pen's minority student recruitment. After graduating from law school, Ms. Brodie worked for the New York City Law Department for 3 years, where she learned how to litigate cases. She spent 5 years at Carter, Ledyard & Milburn, founded in 1854 and known for alums who include Franklin D. Roosevelt. Ms. Brodie returned to public service in 1999 by joining the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Eastern District, one of the preeminent U.S. Attorney's Offices in the Nation and one of the largest. She rose to become Deputy Chief and then Chief of the General Crimes Unit, where she trained more than half of the current AUSAs in the Eastern District. Since July 2010, she's been the Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division, supervision all 100-plus criminal AUSAs in cases involving public corruption, civil rights, business and security fraud, terrorism, or organized crime, narcotics, and many other areas. She has also lent her considerable talents to training prosecutors and law enforcement officers on the rule of law in developing countries, and spent 10 years in Nigeria as a legal advisor on behalf of DOJ's Overseas Training Program. There is one other part of her lift story, perhaps the most important, that I wanted to highlight in conclusion. In 1996, Ms. Brodie became a citizen of the United States in the very courthouse where she would serve as a judge. I can't think of a more fitting candidate to serve the people in Brooklyn, Queens and Long Island and all the communities in between than someone who pledged her allegiance to this country just footsteps from where she will decide cases. I look forward to Ms. Brodie's hearing and her continued service to this country and welcome her mother, her brother, as well as the Antiguan ambassador, Ms. Lovell, who is here to endorse her candidacy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank my colleagues. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Schumer. The Chair now recognizes Senator Jon Tester. PRESENTATION OF DANA CHRISTIANSEN, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BY HON. JON TESTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MONTANA Senator Tester. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I very much appreciate the opportunity to turn our focus back on a fellow by the name of Dana Christiansen, whom Max talked to eloquently about. Max covered most of the bases on Dana, and I guess-- doesn't it make you feel uncomfortable when people are saying nice things about you, Dana? But when I came in here, Senator Manchin says, gee, it takes two of you? I said, here's my point: this guy has got such a great resume, yes, it does take two of us. The fact is, Dana is a great guy. You know, you guys on the Judiciary Committee have to sit down and make a decision on somebody that you probably don't know a large portion of the time, and that's unfortunate in this particular case because Dana Christiansen is such a quality human being. Senator Grassley will appreciate this. This guy was an Eagle Scout and a millworker. He knows how to work with his hands. You've got to appreciate somebody who's going to be in a Federal judge position that not only has integrity and knows fairness, but knows how to work hard, and not only work with his head, but work with his hands. It will help a lot. Plus, he exhibits a level of common sense that, quite frankly, we can all be proud of. I hope Dana comes out of here and moves forward and we can get it through the Senate, because quite frankly he deserves Senate confirmation. This is a quality man who has got an impeccable record on what he's done in his life. He deserves our report. He is right for this job and good people deserve good things to happen to them. He is the right man for this job. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Reid, would you like to be recognized and introduce your nominee? I'm sure Senator Manchin will be happy to allow you priority. PRESENTATION OF EVAN WALLACH, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT BY HON. HARRY REID, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator Reid. We just had our caucus, as you know. I have to always do my once-a-week press event. Evan Wallach is really a good man and has been a tremendous judge. I think he's a perfect nominee for the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is also a scholar, and I don't use that term flippantly. He's graduated from the University of Arizona and got his law degree from Berkeley, but that one law degree obviously wasn't enough. He went and got a graduate degree at Cambridge in England. By the way, he was a partner in a law firm when he did that, took a leave of absence to go get that degree. He is also a patriot. Again, I don't use that term loosely. As a boy, guided by the patriotism taught to him by his mom, dad, and his two older brothers, he is a 115-pound man--nothing wrong with small people. I have lots of them in my family--he volunteered for the military and went to Vietnam, carried a rifle, and did all the other things that happened during that brutal war. He and his two older brothers, as I indicated, volunteered to serve in Vietnam. He was awarded a Bronze Star. Evan Wallach served his country in Vietnam. When he was a partner in a law firm, very, very busy, the first Iraq war broke out. He quite his job on a temporary basis, came back, and again reentered the military, served in the Pentagon for many months. Took a leave of absence from his law practice and served as an active-duty attorney. He served in the office of the Judge Advocate General of the Army at the Pentagon station at the Pentagon. He really is a patriot. He served his country bravely in war, he has served his country well as a judge in the U.S. Court of International Trade. He has written hundreds of opinions as a judge on the Court of International Trade. He has also served as a circuit judge in the second, third, and ninth circuits, and a district court judge in Nevada, New York, and the District of Columbia. Because so much of his responsibility will be what we do with the new patent law, one of the cases he heard in Nevada is a patent case. I introduce my friend to all of you, but also say that--and I don't want to be overly rambunctious here and I hope this doesn't hurt him, but he's my friend. He is one of the best friends I've ever had. I think the world of this man. I recommended him to President Clinton to leave this lucrative law practice to go into public service, and he did that. He is someone who I admire do greatly. He is a poet. He writes poetry. His mom was a wonderful artist, who just died. I have some of her paintings and etchings in my home in Nevada. I wish I had the ability to convey to this Committee what a wonderful human being he is and how fortunate we are as a country that he would be willing to not see how much money he can make, but he's decided instead to see what a difference he can make in public service. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Leader Reid. Senator Reid. Could I be excused? Senator Whitehouse. You certainly may. Senator Reid. Thank you all very much. Senator Whitehouse. Senator Manchin? The patient Senator Manchin. PRESENTATION OF GINA MARIE GROH, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA BY HON. JOE MANCHIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thanks to all the members of the Judiciary Committee. I am greatly honored to be able to join you today to introduce an exemplary candidate for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, and someone who has become truly a dear friend of mine, Judge Gina Marie Groh. I want you to know that I really appreciate the opportunity to be here to speak to Judge Groh's exemplary experience and contributions to public service. First, I would like to thank Senator Jay Rockefeller for recommending Judge Groh for this prestigious position, and for his stead fast support of her nomination. I know that he has been instrumental in promoting Judge Groh's impressive background here in Washington, and I am truly grateful for his efforts. I would also like to recognize Judge Groh's husband, Steve Groh. Steve is with us today and her sons, 12-year-old Stephen and 6-year-old Michael--raise your hands, boys--and other members of our family who are also here. Now, I'm delighted that all of them were able to attend. Judge Groh is a well-respected and recognized member of her community in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. As I have known her for many years, as West Virginia's Governor I had the privilege of appointing Judge Groh to her current position as the Circuit Judge of the Twenty-third Judicial Circuit in 2006. Judge Groh was recommended to me by a bipartisan merit selection Committee made up of the most notable figures in West Virginia, legal and business community, including the president of the West Virginia State bar, the dean of the WVU's law school, former Senator Carr Goodwin, and other distinguished representatives in the State. Judge Groh's in-depth knowledge of the courtroom and excellent reputation with the State bar made her a stand-out candidate, and she was selected as the committee's overwhelming consensus choice for the Circuit Court appointment. Judge Groh was also the first female Circuit judge to serve in the eastern panhandle, and one of only six female Circuit Court judges in the entire State of West Virginia. Prior to her Circuit Court appointment, Judge Groh served as an Assistant Prosecuting Attorney at the Prosecuting Attorney's Office in Berkley County and Jefferson County, West Virginia. During her 8 years as prosecutor, she established a strong record of protecting her fellow West Virginians by tirelessly pursuing convictions for such crimes as murder, robbery, rape, child abuse, drunk driving, and drug-related offenses. Judge Groh has not only excelled professionally, but she has also risen to become a true pillar of her community in the eastern panhandle of West Virginia. She dedicates her time to countless charitable foundations and serves on a number of boards. For many years she has worked for such programs as Robes to School and the Mills with Love Ministry, and has been very involved with her alma mater, Shepherd University, serving both with the Wellness Center and as a member of the Alumni Board. These are really only a few examples of her extensive contribution to the area for which I am personally very grateful. Judge Groh graduated summa cum laude from Shepherd University in 1986 with a Bachelor of Science degree. She earned the university's highest academic honor as a McMurran Scholar. In addition to serving as editor-in-chief of the newspaper and vice president of her graduating class, Judge Groh went on to earn her J.D. from the West Virginia University College of Law in Morgantown, West Virginia. I believe that Judge Groh's experience, intellect, leadership, and impartiality and deep roots in the community make her a prudent choice for the vacancy in the Northern District of West Virginia. If appointed, she will be the first resident of the eastern panhandle to sit as a U.S. District judge in Martinsburg. Her extensive legal experience and dedication to public service demonstrate that she exemplifies not only the qualities of a talented jurist, but also the high moral character and sense of justice necessary to make a great judge. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today on Judge Groh's nomination and allowing me the opportunity to speak to her abilities. Along with Senator Rockefeller, I wholeheartedly support Judge Groh's nomination and I look forward to working with you to confirm her to the Federal bench as swiftly as possible. Thank you, sir. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Manchin. I know you have important business elsewhere and you may also be excused. We do have a statement from your senior Senator, Senator Rockefeller, who could not be here today. I will not read the entire statement, but he does say that ``this is a very important nomination for the people of West Virginia and deeply personal to me'', and describes the candidate as a ``supremely talented lawyer, a meticulous student of the law, a proven leader in her community, and a West Virginian through and through.'' So without objection his entire statement will be added to the record of these proceedings. [The prepared statement of Senator Rockefeller appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Whitehouse. I will now have the privilege of yielding to the Ranking Member to make a brief opening statement, and after that we will have Judge Wallach as the first panel, then the four District nominees as the second panel. STATEMENT OF CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IOWA Senator Grassley. And it will be very brief. I'll put the entirety of my statement in the record. But I want to welcome all the nominees and their families and friends, and to say that we're moving along on confirmation of nominees. This week we confirmed another nominee on the Senate floor for the Federal Judiciary. We have now confirmed 34 nominees this Congress. We have taken positive action in one way or another on 78 percent of the judicial nominees that have been submitted by the President during this Congress, so we continue to move forward as I indicated I would do on the consensus nominees. It looks to me like we have a group that fall into that category this time. I'll put the rest of the statement in the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Grassley appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Whitehouse. Very well. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Could Judge Wallach please come forward and remain standing? [Whereupon, the witness was duly sworn.] Senator Whitehouse. Please be seated. Welcome. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse. It is the custom of the Committee to allow for a brief statement by the nominee, and in particular for the nominee to take the occasion to recognize family and friends whom he or she may wish to recognize at this point in these proceedings. STATEMENT OF EVAN WALLACH, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. I'd like to introduce my wife, Dr. Katherine Tobin, who's sitting behind me, who has her Ph.D from Stanford University. She's a very smart person, but her distinction to me is she's the nicest person I've ever met. I've also got my friend David Olive here, a former client. My friends, Frank and Judy Stearns, I did their wedding. Frank just came back from Afghanistan a couple of weeks ago. I'd like to thank some folks, if I may, please, Senator. Senator Whitehouse. Please. Judge Wallach. I'd like to thank, first off, the members of this Committee and the staff who I know work very hard preparing for these kinds of hearings, and all the folks who helped me in this process, the people from the DOJ, the FBI, and the ABA, and the AO. All of them do an awful lot of work and I think they don't get recognized for what they do. Of course, some of my family is watching this from one place or another. I never met KT's dad. He was a career Naval aviator who died when she was a little girl. But he obviously influenced her. And I met her mom, whom I love dearly. Both her parents passed, and both mine have passed. As Senator Reid said, my mom was an artist and she just passed in May. My dad was an engineer. You know, on my birth certificate-- the Senator mentioned millwork on my birth certificate. It says my dad's occupation is millworker, and that was true, he was. But he was also working the graveyard shift while he attended the university at night. He went on to get an honorary doctorate from the University of Arizona. But that wasn't what he was about. He taught me a large thing in life--he taught all three of us boys--and that was to try and figure out what the right thing to do was, and then to do it. My oldest brother was, I think if you know the term, 4F. He was physically unqualified to serve in the Armed Forces. In Vietnam, a lot of people considered that a blessing. He went as a civilian employee and served 4 years over there. His wife Susan went as well and worked for the army. My middle brother enlisted in the U.S. Marine Corps and he did a full tour where he was the sole survivor from his unit once, came back, served 30 days in the United States, and went back to Vietnam, where he stepped on a mine and he was one of two survivors the second time. He came back here and got his Ph.D in Engineering, despite the fact that he is 100 percent disabled. He held several patents in the space industry. I'm very proud of them and I know they're watching, as I said, from one place or another. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Judge Wallach. Could you just briefly describe the nature of your work on the Court of International Trade and how you think that prepares you and compares to the work you'll be asked to do as a U.S. Court of Appeals judge? Judge Wallach. Sure. We sit, Senator, as both trial judges in matters like Customs and in administrative appeals, in effect, in trade matters. One is regulated by the Chevron doctrine, the other is heard as a new case, sometimes with juries. And it's obviously specialized work, but the essence of it is the same as any law. That is, a judge should look at it, try to know the background, read what record you have in front of you, and learn the law and be prepared for a hearing. I think I've sat on some appellate benches and I think it's the same on an appellate bench as it is a trial bench. Senator Whitehouse. Well, I'm very impressed at the legacy of service that you bring to this appointment, and I wish you a speedy confirmation. I will turn over to our Ranking Member, Senator Grassley, then to Senator Franken. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. Senator Grassley. Let me say something before I ask some questions. It may sound like I'm trying to get you or something on an issue that is very personal to me from a policy standpoint, and I'm not trying to do that at all. But I'm trying to bring attention to your court and you'll probably be a member of that court, and maybe you can help this court be a little more reasonable in an area where I don't think they've been very reasonable. So, I've got some questions along that line. Congress has consistently recognized the value of whistleblowers in government and private sector. I was an original co-sponsor of the Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, and I've always pushed for strong whistleblower protections for Federal employees. I think that most of my oversight work comes from one or two areas, either good, substantial evidence that I get from whistleblowers or from enterprising investigative journalism. So whistleblowers, I think, are a very important part in, is government going to be responsible and transparent and accountable and all that? The Federal Circuit has issued a number of decisions that have substantially limited the type of disclosures that are protected under the Whistleblower Protection Act, and I wouldn't expect you to be acquainted with these statistics, but up until February 2011 only 3 out of 219 cases that whistleblowers have brought for appeal has a whistleblower won. Three out of 219. Last year, the court was zero for nine against whistleblowers. Perhaps the most egregious example of the Federal Circuit placing hurdles in front of the Federal Government whisteblowers is a 1999 decision, LaChance v. White. In that case the Federal Circuit held that a whistleblower had to present ``irrefragable'' proof that wronging actually occurred in order to provide a claim. So my questions are kind of along the lines of what maybe you think about or we can think about bringing some reasoning to these figures that I just gave you. I mean, I would expect that not every whistleblower appeal would be in favor of the whistleblower. In fact, maybe a minority would be in favor of the whistleblower. But in the case of these statistics I gave you, you can see how overwhelmingly it is against it. Now, maybe you can blame those of us that wrote the 1989 law for not giving enough protection or enough direction to the court. So my first question is, considering that the Federal Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over these cases, so you're the only one that's going to hear them. What, if any, experience do you have with the Whistleblower Protection Act? If you say none that's OK, but I just have to ask the question. Judge Wallach. Senator, thank you. Thank you for that question. I know about your work with whistleblowers and NIGs. I can't say I have any direct experience at all. I just say that in journalism, I used to argue a lot that the phrase ``consent of the governed'' always had to mean informed consent when I argued to a court. It's vital that government and the people be kept informed, and obviously whistleblowers have something to do with that. Senator Grassley. Yes. Have you ever heard of the irrefragable proof standard? If so, what's your understanding of that standard? Judge Wallach. My understanding of it is, Senator, that it means that it cannot be refuted, that it's irrefutable proof. It's a very high standard. Senator Grassley. OK. So then I suppose the next question is, what does a whistleblower need to prove under that standard to meet it? Judge Wallach. Senator, I don't know the answer to that. Obviously I'd look at the case authority and the statute to try to determine it in each case. Senator Grassley. OK. Can I ask you whether or not you believe that the irrefragable proof standard or a substantial evidence standard should apply to whistleblower cases? Because, you know, the irrefragable one is a judicial standard, not in the law. Judge Wallach. Like everything, Senator, I would be bound by stare decisis. I'd have to look at it, but principle decisionmaking requires me to say that. Senator Grassley. Wouldn't stare decisis, though, make it almost impossible under that standard to ever improve these statistics I just gave you? Judge Wallach. It might be, Senator, that the Supreme Court or obviously the national legislature might be taking a look at it if the courts are wrong. That happens. Senator Grassley. Well, I would give you this opportunity. Would you be willing to put in writing your understanding of the irrefragable proof standard and whether or not you agree with this standard for reviewing decisions of the Merit System Protection Board? Judge Wallach. Sure. I'd be delighted to, Senator. Senator Grassley. I would like to have you--since this is a very unique body you're going to, I'd like to ask you any experience you've had, if any--and emphasis upon if any, because maybe you haven't where you have served in the past-- but would you please identify what experiences you have had that would come before this court in these four areas: patent law, trade law, government contracts, and claims against the government. Judge Wallach. Well, in trade, Senator--thank you. Obviously I've sat for 16 years and so I've learned something in that time, and I like to think I know a bit about it. In patent, as Senator Reid said, I sat on a case. I did some IP, intellectual property, work for my press clients, but it was more along the lines of trademark. I've taught overseas for the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, teaching foreign judges intellectual property. Senator Grassley. OK. Then beyond what you just said that you've had, if confirmed would you feel a need to prepare yourself in any way to handle these cases, and how would you do that? Judge Wallach. Absolutely I'd feel the need, Senator. I would obviously--I'd try to educate myself, so I'd read the law first, the governing authorities from my superior court, the Supreme Court, and from the prior cases of the Court of Appeals, as well as any other cases coming up from other courts that might inform me. Senator Grassley. I'd like to--the last series of questions would deal with any political activity you've had, and they aren't asked to denigrate any activity or say it's wrong, or that it would have undue influence. But I feel it necessary to ask, because prior to being appointed as a judge on the International Trade Court, you were actively involved in Nevada politics. You worked on Democratic campaigns as the counsel for the State's Democratic party. There's certainly nothing wrong with that, but your political history may concern future litigants after you're confirmed. Could you provide the Committee an example of a case you decided as a judge on the Court of International Trade where you put your political views aside to make an independent, sound legal judgment? And I'm not insinuating that politics would enter into your decision, but if there's any case where there was conflict, that maybe you could show where you put it aside. Judge Wallach. Senator, thank you for asking that, but I never saw anything where I thought there was a political aspect to it. There were probably some cases where I walked into it feeling one way and the lawyers convinced me the other way, but that was a question of how the law was going, not politics. Senator Grassley. Well, then I think you'll satisfy me with one last question. I think the answer is probably very obvious, how you've held your demeanor here at this meeting. I'm sure you can assure the Committee then, if confirmed, your decisions will remain grounded in precedent and the text of the law. You said that in the case of the whistleblower cases, but in addition to all other cases rather than any underlying political ideology or motivation. Judge Wallach. Yes, sir. Absolutely. Senator Grassley. Thank you. Judge Wallach. Thank you, sir. Senator Grassley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Senator Grassley. Senator Franken. Senator Franken. Thank you, Judge, for testifying. Congratulations on your nomination. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. Senator Franken. Thank you for your service and for your family's service. I'm interested actually in the International Court of Trade because I don't know much about it. What kind of stuff comes before you? In other words, are you judging whether a country is violating trade laws or a segment of an industry and the country that's doing that? What kind of stuff? Can you give me some examples? Judge Wallach. Yes, sir. It's not so much a country, although once in a while you have a national entity appear in front of you. But it's several things. First, we do antidumping and countervailing duty cases. We are a National Geographic court with limited subject matter jurisdiction. Senator Franken. I don't know what that means, a National Geographic court. What does that mean? Judge Wallach. So we hear any case in the United States that comes from anywhere in the U.S., as long as it falls within our limited area of jurisdiction of law. So that, for example, a claim by the U.S. industry that a foreign company is selling goods for less than the fair market value, in effect antitrust law, that foreign company is trying to capture the market in the United States by undercutting, will be investigated by U.S. Government entities. They're going to rule one way or the other for somebody, and somebody is not going to like it. Whoever it is who doesn't like that ruling takes it up to us. That's why I said before we sit in that area, in effect, in an administrative appellate review. Senator Franken. I see. Judge Wallach. We also do Customs cases. Those are brand- new ones where somebody imports something into the country and they're saying one of two things, either Customs said it was one thing and it's really something different so we should pay a different tariff, or we agree what it is, but Customs says it's worth a whole bunch more money than we think it's worth, so you're imposing a much higher value on it and, as a consequence, a higher duty. And so they come in and they actually have trials about that. Senator Franken. OK. So you're an appellate court on trade matters. Judge Wallach. Yes, sir. Senator Franken. And what happens? Can they appeal higher than you? Judge Wallach. Yes, sir. Senator Franken. Where do they go then? Judge Wallach. They come to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. It's our appellate court. Senator Franken. OK. So if some--China, say, is dumping a certain kind of finished paper product, that might be something that you would hear? Judge Wallach. We would hear a case involving a Chinese company. I have heard such cases. Senator Franken. OK. Then you decide and then it goes to an appellate court. Judge Wallach. If a party doesn't like it, they take it up to the court for which I'm nominated. Senator Franken. OK. And then if they don't like that, where do they go? Judge Wallach. The Supreme Court, sir. Senator Franken. OK. And how often do those kind of things go to the Supreme Court? Judge Wallach. Not often that they actually grant a writ of certiorari, but it happens occasionally. Senator Franken. OK. And so China has to abide by it since it's shipping into the United States? Judge Wallach. That's correct. In effect, what happens is, there's a tariff imposed. So as the goods come in, that money is going to have to be paid. Senator Franken. So there's no international trade adjudicator on trade agreements? Judge Wallach. Well, there's the World Trade Organization. Senator Franken. Yes. Where does that fit into this process? Judge Wallach. We pay no homage to the WTO. We are purely a U.S. court and we follow the U.S. law and what the Congress tells us to do. Senator Franken. So you don't have to pay homage to them? Judge Wallach. We don't have to. Senator Franken. I think that's good. Judge Wallach. We don't kiss rings or anything. Senator Franken. But I meant, it seems to me then--I just want to get this clear. Are there--who has jurisdiction sometimes? Is there a question whether you have jurisdiction or the World Trade Organization has jurisdiction? Judge Wallach. No, sir. We would have jurisdiction over a case. It might well be that they're hearing the same issue over in their appellate panels and they might decide it totally differently. Senator Franken. Well, who wins, then? Judge Wallach. Well, as far as we're concerned, as far as the U.S. courts are concerned and the U.S. Government, our rulings are rulings in the United States and they apply. If a WTO decision is contrary, it might be that they give the litigants the ability to enter sanctions on an international basis, apply tariffs or something along those lines. But it really has nothing to do with us as a court. Senator Franken. I'm just trying to think of who has the ultimate authority. Judge Wallach. As far as we're concerned, the Supreme Court of the United States, and that's it. Senator Franken. OK. But if you're in conflict with the WTO it's not like you're calling Ban Ki-moon or something. Judge Wallach. No, sir. Senator Franken. OK. OK. Well, that's good. I just wanted to learn a little bit. It's not that often in these things that I learn about something in this way. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. That's very kind of you say. Senator Franken. I'd like to learn more sometime. Thank you. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. Senator Whitehouse. Judge Wallach, I wish you well as you go through the confirmation process under the leadership of Chairman Leahy and Ranking Member Grassley. We have moved fairly smoothly through the nominees here at the Committee level; the floor is a different question. There tends to be a considerable back-up there, so don't be discouraged that you get through the Committee and then there are delays on the floor. But I think you've been a very impressive nominee and I hope that you can see to rapid progress for your nomination through both of the obstacles that are ahead of you in the Senate. I wish you well, and thank you for being here. I appreciate that your family and friends have attended. Judge Wallach. Thank you, Senator. Thank you, Senator Grassley, as well. Senator Grassley. You bet. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Can we now call up Dana Christiansen, Cathy Bencivengo, Gina Groh, and Margo Brodie? We'll take a 2- minute break while everybody gets to chairs and signs sorted out. [Pause] [The biographical information follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Whitehouse. All right. I welcome each of the nominees who are here today. I congratulate you on the recommendation by my colleagues and your selection by the President of the United States as a candidate for a lifetime appointment on the U.S. Judiciary. I'm delighted that you have brought family and friends with you. I think we'll just go right across the table, from my left to my right. We'll start with Dana Christensen. If you would care to make any kind of an opening statement, Mr. Christensen, and recognize any family or friends or any expressions of appreciation you'd care to make, now is the time. STATEMENT OF DANA CHRISTENSEN, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA Mr. Christensen. Thank you, Senator. I want to thank this Committee for the privilege of this hearing. I would like to thank Senators Baucus and Tester for those very kind introductions. Obviously I'd like to thank the President for the honor of this nomination. If I am confirmed by this Senate and sworn in, I understand that I will be the 17th Article 3 Federal judge in the history of the State of Montana, which is a very significant privilege and honor. I have a small family, but a very close one. With me here today is my wife Stephanie. I met her 41 years ago when we were sophomores at Stanford University, and we spent last weekend celebrating our 37th wedding anniversary backpacking for three days and two nights along the Highline Trail in Glacier National Park. If Senators Baucus and Tester were still here, they could attest to the fact that that's one of the most beautiful places in the world. I also have with me here today my brother-in-law, Jack Adalaar, who is a lawyer in Vancouver, British Columbia and an avid and very well-informed student of American government and American politics. Watching on webcast either live or this evening is my 32- year-old daughter, who is a special education teacher in Seattle. She and her fiance Josh live there, and she's currently with her 5th grade students. My 29-year-old son and his wife Anya live in San Francisco and he works for a small venture capital company in Palo Alto. I have obviously a number of other family members and very close friends: my law partners for many years, the wonderful folks that work in my office that are all watching this, presumably live, and I want to thank you again for this opportunity. [The biographical information follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Mr. Christensen. Judge Bencivengo, welcome. STATEMENT OF CATHY ANN BENCIVENGO, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Judge Bencivengo Thank you, Senator. I'd like to thank the Committee for the opportunity to be here today. I'd like to thank Senator Feinstein and her judicial selection committee for sponsoring my nomination, and I'd certainly like to thank the President for my nomination. I have with me here today my husband, and I thank him for his unfailing support for our now going on 28 years of marriage. My children were unable to be here; they're both attending classes in college. But I would like to recognize them--I believe they're watching on the webcast: my daughter Dana, who is a senior at Colorado State, and my daughter Lauren, who is a freshman at Miami University of Ohio. With me I do have here today some friends. One of my dearest and oldest friends, Tracy Horner Bird, who I've known since first grade, and her husband Maitland, her daughter Skye and her friend Ian Faulk, and a friend and former colleague from my old law firm, DLA, Kathryn Riley Grasso. I'd like to thank all my friends and family who are, I hope, watching on the webcast, and particularly my colleagues back at the Southern District of California, my fellow Magistrate judges, and for all the support they've given me, and my wonderful staff, chambers, and my courtroom deputy who I know are watching. Thank you. [The biographical information follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much. Judge Groh. STATEMENT OF GINA MARIE GROH, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF WEST VIRGINIA Judge. Groh. Thank you. Good afternoon, Senators. Thank you for inviting me here to answer your questions this afternoon. I'd like to thank the President for this nomination. I'd also like to thank Senator Rockefeller for recommending me to the Federal District Court, and thank Senator Manchin for heartily seconding that recommendation. Also, thank both of our Senators from West Virginia for their kind words here today. I have some folks with me. As Senator Manchin mentioned, I have my husband Steve, who is a great support to me, and my high school sweetheart; my sons Stephen and Michael. And I have some friends and colleagues here to offer support as well: my good friend Dr. Diana Noon, Magistrate Gail Boober, Ken Martin or Clarence Martin, who also served on that Merit Selection Committee that recommended me to then-Governor Manchin for appointment to the State bench, and Stephen Skinner. Back home watching on webcast that my court reporter, law clerk and secretary set up in my courtroom, we have my little 84-year-old mother, Elizabeth Householder, my sister Linda Gildersly, my brother, who's also a Vietnam vet, is watching from his home State up in New Jersey today. Thank you. [The biographical information follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Whitehouse. Thank you very much, Judge Groh. Finally, Ms. Brodie. STATEMENT OF MARGO BRODIE, NOMINEE TO BE U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Ms. Brodie. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Thank you to the Committee, also to Senator Schumer for his kind words today, and also for recommending me to the President. Thank you to the President for nominating me for this position. I have with me today my mother Nina Brodie, my brother Euan Brown, my cousin Jan Edwards, my aunt and uncle Barbara and Charles Brodie, and several friends and colleagues, both here in DC and who are watching on the webcast from New York. Also, friends who are watching from Antigua and from Nigeria. Thank you. [The biographical information follows.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Whitehouse. I have the privilege now of turning to our Ranking Member, Senator Grassley, if you have any questions. Senator Grassley. I have one question for each and will probably submit some questions for answer in writing. Mr. Christiansen, according to your Senate questionnaire, nearly all of your litigation experience has involved civil matters with a focus on defending medical malpractice cases. Given your expertise in health care litigation, I'm interested in your view on one aspect of health care. It's not so much to get your opinion of what you might do as a judge, but from your practice. What impact would caps on damages have in our health care costs? Mr. Christiansen. Thank you, Senator Grassley. In Montana we have implemented over the years a number of things that would probably fairly be described as reform in the area of medical malpractice litigation. For instance, we have a $250,000 general damage cap in Montana. It's been on the books for a considerable period of time, since the mid-80s, I believe. We have a screening panel in Montana that requires parties, before they can file a lawsuit against a health care provider, to present a claim. It's non-binding, it's confidential. We also have a number of other statutes we've implemented in this area. Obviously I think it's important that the rights of parties to present their claims and to have access to the courts is essential. We haven't found that any of the things that we've done in Montana have severely limited those rights, and it's been my belief that all of these things have facilitated resolution, quite frankly, of claims against health care providers, particularly the medical/legal panel proceeding. I would estimate that probably 60, 70 percent of claims against health care providers get resolved as a result of that process. Senator Grassley. So it sounds to me like your conclusion is that the caps on damages would impact positively health care costs? Mr. Christiansen. Senator, I think I probably need to be careful in terms of how I respond to the issue of caps. Obviously I've lived with them. I will tell you that the constitutionality of that statute has never been addressed by the Montana Supreme Court and is an issue that very well could end up, if I am confirmed and sworn in, in my court, so I probably need to be careful and stay between the ditches on that one. Senator Grassley. And if I call you Kathy instead of trying to pronounce your last name, would you forgive me? Judge Bencivengo. That's fine. It's Bencivengo. Senator Grassley. In your Senate questionnaire you listed cases in which you were sometimes reversed in whole or in part by reviewing courts. Would you care to comment on those reversals and share with the Committee--in fact, the second part of this question is the most important one. Share with the Committee what you learned from those experiences. Judge Bencivengo. Yes, Senator. Thank you for the question. I believe that most of the cases involved reports and recommendations that I made to District judges where generally parties are then given an opportunity to file further paper and make further argument, and consequently the modifications and reversals may result from a better record in front of the District judge on review of the report and recommendations. There certainly were instances where there might have been either a change or a misinterpretation of the law on my end, and therefore the lesson always for me is to be as diligent as I can in interpretation and application of the law. Senator Grassley. Judge Groh, I'm going to ask you a question from one of your cases, but it doesn't involve just your case. But it's kind of to get your feeling about sentencing guidelines/recommendations that you might be asking the Federal court. They're voluntary, but how you might respond to them. As a West Virginia Circuit Court judge you presided over a case involving an eighth grade female teacher sending sexually explicit messages to, and engaging in, inappropriate conduct with a 14-year-old male student. According to press accounts, the prosecutor and the defendant reached a plea agreement in which the teacher agreed to plead guilty to one count of sexual abuse by a person in trust, and in return the prosecutor would seek that she serve 10 years probation and no more than 4 months jail sentence in lieu of a 10- to 20-year prison sentence. Did you have any concerns about this plea agreement given the seriousness of the conduct at hand? More importantly, at sentencing, you sentenced the teacher to only 3 months in jail instead of the 4 months permitted in the plea agreement. What factors led you to that decision? Judge Groh. Thank you for that question, Senator. While going into the sentencing phase of that proceeding I wondered myself if the plea should be accepted, but a number of components go into sentencing an individual in State court, and also in Federal court as well. I learned more about the defendant as an individual. I considered the position of the victim or the victim's mother, the position of the investigating officer, the position of the State, the defendant's criminal history, which really she didn't have any criminal history to my recollection, and the specifics of the crime or offense in and of itself that she was pleading to. That's how I reached my conclusion, as I do in every case, on what the appropriate sentence is. Now, bringing it forward, if I were so fortunate to be serving on the Federal bench, I know that we have the guideline--or would have the guidelines there and the guidelines are no longer mandatory. However, I would give deference to the guidelines. I believe it's important to have uniformity in sentencing. That's also another issue I look at, not between defendants if they're involved in different offenses in State court, but if the defendants--or for my court a co-defendant--they also have to make sure that there's no disparity in sentencing. Senator Grassley. You answered my follow-up question, so I'll move on to Ms. Brodie. Just one question for you. I might have some in writing for all of the judges. From May of 2005 to March of 2006, you served as a legal advisor to the Independent Core Practices and Other Related Offices Commission in Nigeria. In this role I understand you advised and trained over 100 prosecutors and investigators on all aspects of prosecution. So I'd like to have you comment on how this experience will affect you as a Federal judge, when confirmed. Ms. Brodie. Well, thank you for that question, Senator Grassley. I think I've learned quite a few things from working overseas, and particularly in that detail in Nigeria. It has made me realize and recognize that we are very blessed here in the United States to have a very functional judicial system, which is something that most countries don't have. It has taught me the appreciation of knowing that the system that we have here in the United States can be recognized, relied on by the litigants who appear in court. In Nigeria, part of the problem with the judicial system-- the criminal justice system as a whole, in fact, which is something they're working on--is the fact that when matters are brought before the court they could take years to be concluded, because on every single matter that a judge rules on it can be appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. That delays all the proceedings. It's especially bad for criminal proceedings where defendants are either incarcerated or not, but could spend years before a matter can be resolved simply because of the way in which the system is set up for that matter. So it does make me appreciate the fact that it's important that matters be litigated promptly, and if I were lucky enough to be confirmed to the position for which I've been nominated, one of the things that I would make sure that I do is to make decisions very quickly so that litigants, whether they be civil or criminal, who appear before the court, can know what the outcome is, and I will do so fairly and impartially. Thank you, Senator. Senator Grassley. I would say for all of you, just to caution. Even though your nominations appear to be non- controversial, sometimes for things unrelated to your qualifications or anything personal or ideological, nominees are held up because questions aren't answered fully. So I would encourage you all, if you have questions from the two of us or any of the 18 members of the Committee, I hope you will understand that we don't usually move ahead until all are satisfactorily answered. Mr. Christiansen. Thank you. Judge Bencivengo. Thank you, Senator. Judge Groh. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Let me ask each of you one final question before we adjourn the hearing. Who would you seek to emulate as a U.S. District judge? Somebody from history, or fiction, or from your personal experience in the law. Who would you think the model would be for your service as a judge, and why? Mr. Christiansen? Mr. Christiansen. Senator, that's a wonderful question. I was inspired to become a lawyer at a very early age by a practitioner in Missoula, Montana named Sherm Lawn. He's now deceased. The Kiwanis Club in Missoula had a program where you could spend a day shadowing someone in a profession, and I shadowed Sherm Lawn. He was a wonderful old-school trial lawyer. He had the finest ethics, he was collegial, and my parents, who unfortunately are now both deceased, would probably recall that I came home in about the 7th or 8th grade and said, I've decided this is what I want to do, I want to be a lawyer. So that person--he also gave me my first job while I was in law school. He meant a lot to me and he inspired me. Senator Whitehouse. Judge Bencivengo. Judge Bencivengo. Thank you, Senator. I wouldn't have to look far for examples of judges I would want to emulate. My District Court, I believe, has one of the best benches in the country. If I were to choose one of those judges, the position I'm being considered for, the judge who went senior and made that position available, Jeffrey Miller, I think, is an exemplary person to look to for judicial demeanor for his ability to make everyone in his courtroom feel comfortable, and yet still sustain the formality and the importance of the judiciary, his respect amongst the bar, and jurors who appear in front of him. I think he is just an extraordinary example of a fine judicial person and someone I would certainly wish to emulate. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Judge Groh. Judge Groh. The person who I wish to emulate, and would if I were so fortunate to find myself on the Federal bench, is Judge Irene Berger. Judge Berger was a Circuit Court when I became a Circuit Court judge. She was one of two, and Senator Manchin added me as the third. Judge Berger was confirmed toward the end of 2009 as a Federal judge. She serves in the Southern District of our State. The very first time I met her at my initial judicial conference, she gave me all her numbers and she held my hand, figuratively, and she has been doing that ever since, even throughout this process through the DOJ vetting and all the questionnaires, and phases and hoops that we've been going through. Our careers parallel. She was a former prosecutor, as was I, before she became a Circuit judge. She progressed and now is in what she tells me is the best job she's ever had on the Federal bench. She is well-respected. She's kind and compassionate, yet has control of her courtroom. She's even- tempered, smart, and hardworking, well-respected, as I said, among the bar. I was honored for the Supreme Court to replace her with me on our Judicial Ethics Hearing Board when she was elevated to the Federal bench. Thank you. Senator Whitehouse. Thank you. Ms. Brodie. Ms. Brodie. Thank you, Senator Whitehouse. Well, I can't decide on one judge because there are so many judges in the Eastern District of New York who I would love to emulate. There are many of them who I believe possess the right qualities that make for a wonderful judge. They're extremely decisive, they are smart, they have the right temperament. I love my job, and the reason I do is because it's a great job when you have to go to the courtroom of these judges every day and know that it's going to be a wonderful experience, regardless of whether or not the outcome, the ruling is what you want it to be. The experience is going to be enjoyable. That is what I hope to do, if I become confirmed to this position, to emulate all of those judges who have all of the fine qualities that I believe are important in a District Court judge. Senator Whitehouse. Good. Well, I wish you all well. I know that this process can be a bit of an ordeal as you go through repeated blockades of paperwork, but you're through all that now and you've had the happiest possible thing happen, which is to have the Ranking Member of the party other than the President who appointed you deem your nominations uncontroversial. [Laughter.] Senator Whitehouse. So I wish you well as you proceed through the Committee, and as we take up your nominations on the floor and in your service to our country to what I hope are long and productive lives on the bench. The hearing will remain open for an additional week if anybody wishes to add anything to the record, but we are, today, adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:44 p.m. the meeting was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NOMINATION OF ADALBERTO JOSE JORDAN, OF FLORIDA, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT; JOHN M. GERRARD, OF NEBRASKA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA; MARY ELIZABETH PHILLIPS, OF MISSOURI, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI; THOMAS OWEN RICE, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; AND DAVID NUFFER, OF UTAH, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH ---------- TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 2011 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:32 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Amy Klobuchar, presiding. Present: Senators Klobuchar, Hatch, and Lee. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA Senator Klobuchar. I am pleased to call this nominations hearing of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to order. Our Ranking Member today is Senator Hatch, and I know we have several members here to speak, to introduce. We have five judicial nominees today, so I would like to call upon my colleagues to introduce the nominees from their home State. We will start with Senator Nelson of Nebraska. PRESENTATION OF JOHN M. GERRARD, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA, BY HON. BEN NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator Nelson of Nebraska. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is truly my honor to join with my colleague, Senator Johanns, and introduce Nebraska's Supreme Court Justice John Gerrard, who has been nominated by the President for the U.S. District Court for Nebraska. I have known John and Nancy Gerrard and their family for nearly 20 years. I saw in him the experience, intellect, and temperament needed to serve on the Nebraska Supreme Court bench. So as Governor, I appointed John Gerrard to the Nebraska Supreme Court in 1995. The people of Nebraska have approved of his service and voted to retain Judge Gerrard on our State's highest court three times. He has consistently received top ratings by the Nebraska Bar Association in its biennial judicial evaluations. In 2006, Judge Gerrard received the Distinguished Judge for Improvement of the Judicial System Award for leading initiatives promoting racial and ethnic fairness under the law. In 2008, Judge Gerrard received the Legal Pioneer Award for utilizing technology to improve Nebraska citizens' understanding and participation in our courts. On the Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge Gerrard has authored more than 400 opinions. Other opinions written by Judge Gerrard have helped refine protocol for how many different types of cases are handled, including evidence requirements in homicide cases, how expert testimony is received, and clarifying duty analysis in negligence cases. Prior to his service on the Nebraska Supreme Court, Judge Gerrard was senior partner in the law firm of Gerrard, Stratton & Ptak in Norfolk, where he was in private practice for 14 years. He also served as the Battle Creek city attorney, as counsel to Northeast Community College, Norfolk Public Schools, and other northeast Nebraska school districts. I thank the members of the Senate, Madam Chair, Ranking Member Hatch, and Senator Lee, for considering this extremely well qualified nominee for the Federal bench. It is my hope the Committee will report out Judge Gerrard's nomination soon and that the full Senate will have the opportunity to swiftly approve this good man. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Now Senator Johanns from Nebraska. PRESENTATION OF JOHN M. GERRARD, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA, BY HON. MIKE JOHANNS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEBRASKA Senator Johanns. Madam Chair, thank you very much. It is an honor for me to appear before this Committee. Let me, if I might, start this afternoon by saying thank you to my colleague from Nebraska, Senator Ben Nelson, and I definitely want to associate myself with the comments that he has just made. As we all know, Senator Nelson and I occupy different sides of the aisle, but I will tell you we both agree that the exceptional record and the experience of Judge Gerrard makes him an excellent candidate for the Federal Bench. Madam Chair, this is exactly as a nomination should occur. Before the nomination was even announced, Senator Nelson called me and he said, ``Here is what I am thinking about. I am thinking about Judge Gerrard for this U.S. district court position. Would you take the time to sit down and visit with him? '' So I did. So before any nomination was talked about publicly, I had an opportunity to go to the judge's Supreme Court office, and we talked. Of course, I have known him also for many, many years. I have always been impressed with his temperament, his background, his judicial philosophy, his record, and I could not more enthusiastically support this nomination. In fact, I was saying to my colleague as we were preparing to come into the hearing room, if I were king for a day, this is the kind of person I would nominate to the U.S. district court. So I appreciate being a part of this process. Judge Gerrard embodies integrity, judicial restraint, thoughtful fairness. He is a class act in every way, and he is absolutely the right person for this job. During his 16 years on the Nebraska Supreme Court, he has conducted himself in every way with great distinction. And every time his colleagues in the legal profession had an opportunity to rate him, they gave him the highest ratings. So I am very pleased to be here today. It is my hope that the Committee will agree with our assessment, vote him to the floor, and I want to assure the Chair and the Ranking Member I will do everything I possibly can to try to bring his nomination to a vote. It is critical that we fill this district court position. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Senator McCaskill of Missouri. PRESENTATION OF MARY ELIZABETH PHILLIPS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI, BY HON. CLAIRE MCCASKILL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator McCaskill. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I am honored today to be here to introduce Beth Phillips as a nominee for the Western District Court of Missouri. I had the pleasure of hiring Beth Phillips as a young assistant prosecutor many years ago, back in the 1990s, and I have watched her career, as has the rest of the bench and bar in Missouri, with a great deal of pride. When I used to be in the courtroom--and I know I probably can get some ``me, too's'' on this from the members of this Committee--nothing was more frustrating than having a judge presiding over a trial that it was fairly clear they had never been in a trial. And those people who do work in a courtroom know how great it is to have someone on the bench that understands exactly what it is like to be at the bar and to be arguing for your case and all of the challenges and frustrations that go with that. This is a woman who has tried over 40 cases in the courtroom; 90 percent of those were jury trials. She has tried those cases both as a prosecutor and as a civil litigant. She was appointed to be the U.S. Attorney for the Western District 2 years ago and was unanimously confirmed by the Senate 2 years ago. And since that time, she has overseen a staff of 126 employees, including 67 lawyers, in the Western District of Missouri as the U.S. Attorney. You know, whenever you have been involved in trying to help someone in their career, many times you get calls from--and I have got a lot of former friends and colleagues that practice law in the Kansas City area, and I will be honest with you. There have been times that I have gotten calls about this person or that person that were not always positive, like, you know, ``That person you hired is an idiot,'' or, ``I am really irritated at that person.'' And it is unbelievable to me the way that this woman's leadership has been greeted by both the judiciary and the litigants in the greater Kansas City area and in the Western District of Missouri. She is an undergraduate from the University of Chicago and a master's from the University of Chicago, and then she got some sense and came home and got her law degree in Missouri. She is a native Missourian, and I do not know how many generations of her family have been in Missouri, but she was born in a very small town in rural Missouri. And so when we went to the swearing-in as U.S. Attorney, I think half of her hometown was there. It was a moment of great pride for this very small community that she had reached this zenith. I think she is ready to take this lifetime appointment for so many reasons. It will be a two-judge family. Her husband is here with her today, Brent Powell, who was appointed to the State bench by my colleague's son, Governor Matt Blunt, when he was Governor. And I do not get into politics at these things. I do not think you should. But I think it tells you the kind of people these are that I am pushing for the appointment of Beth Phillips as a Federal judge when the man who defeated me for Governor appointed her husband as a State judge. I think that is the kind of bipartisanship we all long for in this body and certainly that we hope to get on the Federal judiciary. And I think that she will call balls and strikes. She will let people try their cases. She will not impose her judgment in terms of any bias she has on any matter of policy into the courtroom, and she will be the kind of Federal judge that will make us proud as the U.S. Senate and will do justice to our great Constitution and the system of checks and balances that it embraces. I would ask for favorable consideration from the Committee today for her appointment. Thank you, Madam Chairman. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator McCaskill, and that is a lot of good information for us to have. We enjoyed that. Now we will turn from the Midwest to Florida. I think Senator Rubio was here first, and--you want Senator Nelson? Very nice. Senator Nelson, oh, my goodness, Senator Nelson will go first, and we are pleased to have both of you here on behalf of the Florida nominee. PRESENTATION OF ADALBERTO JOSE JORDAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. BILL NELSON, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Senator Nelson of Florida. Well, this reminds me who is the senior Senator and who is the junior Senator. When Bob Graham was my senior Senator, he always expected me to serve him coffee. [Laughter.] Senator Rubio. I will be right back. [Laughter.] Senator Nelson of Florida. Well, the two of us are here unanimous because this is an excellent appointee by the President, and we urge upon the Committee for quick confirmation for the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Madam Chairman, Judge Jordan will end up being the first Cuban American to sit on the court of appeals. That is significant in itself, but when you look at his life, all the way from being magna cum laude, the fact that he was a walk-on at the University of Miami baseball team and made the team, the fact that he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney and served with distinction there and then was picked by President Clinton to be a Federal district judge, so he has been a judge now for well over a decade. And among all of his peers have had nothing but glowing comments once the President made his decision. And so this is a great day, and I want to just shorten my comments so that my colleague--and you are very kind--can say something about the historical significance of judge Jordan's nomination. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. Senator Rubio. PRESENTATION OF ADALBERTO JOSE JORDAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. MARCO RUBIO, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA Senator Rubio. Thank you, and I will also be brief because I think his experience and his resume will speak for itself. I just want to echo a few things. First of all, obviously as a community we are very proud of Judge Jordan's nomination and look forward to his appointment. I would add a couple things. He is, as I am, a law school graduate from the University of Miami. He is a double Hurricane, I should say, because also his bachelor's degree was from there. He has been serving for 12 years on the bench in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. At the time of his appointment, he was only 37 years old. He remains very active in our community. He is involved in teaching both at the University of Miami School of Law and at a newer place that is really growing rapidly, the Florida National University College of Law as well. I think his knowledge of the law is demonstrated further in part by his work as the chief of the Appellate Division in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Florida, which is a very active district in his time there practicing as an attorney. He spent time as a clerk at the U.S. Supreme Court for Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, and he has served as a clerk to Judge Thomas Clark of the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. So I am obviously honored and proud to be here introducing him to the Committee, and I look forward to your full consideration of his nomination. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. Thank you both for coming, and we look forward to hearing from your nominee. Now we turn to the State of Utah with my colleague here, Senator Hatch, for an introduction. PRESENTATION OF DAVID NUFFER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, BY HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Hatch. Well, thank you, Madam Chairman. We are very happy, and I was very pleased to sit here with you and I am honored to be with you on this panel today. I am very pleased to introduce to the Committee Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge David Nuffer, and I want to congratulate President Obama for choosing him as the nominee to the U.S. District Court in Utah. After receiving his undergraduate and law degrees from Brigham Young University, Judge Nuffer spent 24 years in private legal practice. He has served for 16 years as the U.S. magistrate judge, half of those years part-time and half full- time. He has been the chief U.S. magistrate judge for the District of Utah since 2009, and as a lawyer, he practiced both in the criminal prosecution area and criminal defense, and he has tried more than 150 cases to verdict, which is more than most people who come before this body. I am not surprised that the American Bar Association unanimously gave him its highest well-qualified rating. In fact, I would have been upset if they had not. Judge Nuffer is widely known in Utah's legal community, and he is just as widely respected. I have talked to numerous lawyers in Utah, lawyers that I have tremendous respect for, and to a person, they all believe that he will be one of the great judges in this country. He has not only practiced law, but he has served the law as well as both a commissioner and as president of the Utah State Bar. He has served on various committees and task forces of the Utah Supreme Court and is Chairman of the Utah Judicial Conduct Commission. And for more than a decade, Judge Nuffer has been an adjunct professor at his law school alma mater. But his service to the law extends beyond our borders. Judge Nuffer has lectured to judges, lawyers, and law students in countries as far afield as Brazil, Egypt, and Ukraine, and serves on the board of the Leavitt Institute for International Development. As my colleagues know, I chair the Senate Republican High- Tech Task Force and have for many years been involved in efforts to reform the patent system. I therefore took particular notice of Judge Nuffer's love of technology and the promise that it holds for the legal system. In one of his many articles and blog postings, he wrote, ``Technology is a leveler that puts us all in touch, reduces the distance from the courthouse, and leverages our abilities.'' I cannot agree more. When he is confirmed, as I know he will be, Judge Nuffer will help make the law and the court system more accessible to all of our citizens. This well-rounded picture of dedication, service, and excellence has really impressed me, as it has, I am sure, many others in Utah and around the country. As I usually do when we have a judicial vacancy, I talk to lawyers and leaders in the legal community of both parties throughout Utah, and in Judge Nuffer's case, the response was strong and unanimous, and we are very proud of you and we are looking forward to you serving a nice long time on the Federal bench. And we are very happy to have your lovely wife with you as well. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Senator Lee. PRESENTATION OF DAVID NUFFER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH, BY HON. MIKE LEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Lee. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is my pleasure to say a few words to support the nomination of Magistrate Judge Nuffer. I will be brief. I will also be personal. I am one of those lawyers who has appeared in front of him, and I have found him to be a judge who is unusually well informed, well prepared, and exercises exceptionally good judgment. And I commend President Obama for his excellent choice in this nomination. As Senator Hatch noted, over the course of his career Judge Nuffer has worked tirelessly and with distinction to serve the bar and the bench in Utah and beyond. For example, he has served as president of the Utah State Bar Association, as a member of the Utah District Court's Civil Procedure Rules Committee, the Utah District Court Arbitration and Mediation Panel, and the National U.S. Court IT Advisory Committee. Judge Nuffer has also written or presented extensively on a variety of legal and law-related issues, especially those involving the use of technology by litigants and in the courts. The many attorneys and judges that have read his publications and attended his lectures and other seminars have benefited greatly from his expertise. Judge Nuffer has also served as an adjunct professor at BYU's law school for the past decade, where he helped to prepare the next generation of attorneys. Finally, let me add that Judge Nuffer is well known and highly regarded throughout the Utah bench and bar. His knowledge, his temperament, his expertise, including those 16 years that he served first as a part-time magistrate judge and then as a full-time magistrate judge, are among the many qualities for which he is rightly admired. I am pleased enthusiastically to recommend him to my fellow colleagues on this Committee, and I ask for your full consideration of this outstanding nominee. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much, Senator Lee. There is one other nominee that I am going to introduce: Thomas Rice. He has been nominated to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington. Mr. Rice has spent his entire legal career working for the United States Department of Justice, where he started as an Honors Program trial attorney in 1986 and now serves as the first Assistant United States Attorney in the Eastern District of Washington. A Washington native, we welcome you, Mr. Rice, and we thank you for being here. I picked out the right person. He looked like he was a U.S. Attorney, so that was pretty good. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. I mean, that is not a generalization. I just picked you out. We do know that Senator Murray from Mr. Rice's home State has submitted a statement that will be entered for the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Murray appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Klobuchar. I would now like to turn to Senator Hatch for any additional remarks he would like to make. STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Hatch. Well, I might mention that Senator Murray is in that super committee, so that is just dominating all their time, so I hope folks will realize that and realize why she is not here today. We are just really happy to have all of you here. The Federal judiciary is absolutely critical to this country. It is the third branch of Government. It is a co-equal branch of Government. Many feel maybe it is more than co-equal in some respects. I had extensive experience before the Federal courts, both in Pennsylvania and in Utah, and all I can say is that I never met a Federal judge that I did not like. And that includes Willis Ritter out in Utah, who is quite a curmudgeon, and we got along very well. I will never forget one time a fellow cut down one of our-- families, pioneer families had always cut down Christmas trees on Federal property, and so they just thought it was a matter that they could easily do. And one day this fellow, one of the successors, cut down a Christmas tree, and he was indicted for destroying Federal property. And he appeared before Judge Ritter for sentencing. I was there. And Judge Ritter sentenced him to 8 years in the Federal penitentiary. That made everybody aghast. Fortunately, there were other judges there who later commuted the sentence. [Laughter.] Senator Hatch. But I caution you judges and judges-to-be that it is really important that our Federal bench has always set the highest standards. Now, Judge Ritter was one of the brightest people I have ever met. He was a law professor and a very great student of the law. But he occasionally had those aberrations that were very interesting. One other time--in fact, it was the same time. A fellow showed up with this--an attorney was with this woman, and he said, ``What did you do? '' And she said, ``I stole a Federal bond and cashed it.'' This is right after he sentenced this fellow to 8 years. He said, ``Well, what did you do with the money? '' And she says, ``I gave it to my attorney for legal fees.'' [Laughter.] Senator Hatch. And Ritter then said, ``Well, you overpaid him.'' And he gave her 6 months' probation. So it shows the difference between--all I can say is that I do not expect any of you judges-to-be or judges to do that type of work on the bench. Our Federal bench in this country is really very, very great and highly qualified, and we are just happy to have all of you here. I might add that I think we are doing a good job on this Committee keeping this administration's judges moving as fast as we can, and we should do even better, as far as I am concerned. So we are grateful to all of you for being willing to serve. We know there are advantages and disadvantages, but without the Federal judiciary, this country cannot survive in its current form. So we are very proud of all of you and very pleased to have you here. Senator Klobuchar. Well, that was very nice, Senator Hatch, and I know that now all the nominees can expect a question about what sentence they thought the guy that took the Christmas tree should get. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. That was just his little tip to all of you. Senator Hatch. It just shows how tough we are there in Utah. Senator Klobuchar. We will start with Judge Jordan, if he wants to come up. Do you say ``JOR-din'' or ``Jor-DAN'' ? No, really, tell me. Tell me. ``JOR-din,'' good. It sounded like your Florida Senators had a little bit of an accent, but they always have an accent anyway. We are going to swear you in first. Do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Judge Jordan. I do. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Would you like to introduce family members or friends that are here with you, Judge Jordan? STATEMENT OF ADALBERTO JOSE JORDAN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT Judge Jordan. I would. Thank you very much. Senator Klobuchar, Senator Hatch, Senator Lee, I am honored to be here. I am also deeply grateful to the President for nominating me, and I would like to thank the Committee for scheduling the hearing and Senators Nelson and Rubio for their kind words and support. I do not have any remarks, but I would like to recognize family members and friends. My wife, Esther, and our daughters, Diana and Elizabeth, are here; as are my brother George and one of our nephews, Carlos. Several family members could not make it, but they are watching through the Committee's webcast in Miami and elsewhere: my mother, Elena; my mother-in-law, Flor; my sister- in-law, Connie; my brother-in-law, Domingo, and his girlfriend, Grace; and our nephews, George, Matthew, and Dominic; our nieces, Emma and Amanda; and my step-brother and step-sisters and their families. Some of our chamber staff have flown here for the hearing. The rest are watching back home. Also here are a number of former clerks and friends. I am very fortunate for their friendship and for their support. Thank you. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you so much. I am just going to ask you a few questions here at the beginning. I am a former prosecutor myself, and I know you served in the Appellate Division, the chief of the Appellate Division of the United States Attorney's Office. How has that experience shaped your work as a judge? Judge Jordan. Well, it certainly helped me to figure out how to read records and learn hopefully what mistakes can be made and which ones can be avoided. I also argued and wrote a fair number of briefs while I was there at the office and was able to practice before the Eleventh Circuit for the majority of my time at the U.S. Attorney's Office. So it was certainly a different type of work than the one that I am doing now, but it certainly helped me to learn the law of the circuit, the traditions of the circuit, how things operate. And I think that that certainly helped prepare me, at least in part, for the job that I currently hold. Senator Klobuchar. And then you served for 12 years as a judge, and what surprised you about that job? And have you changed over the years in your philosophy as a judge? Judge Jordan. I do not think I have changed in my philosophy. Some judges who gave me advice when I came on told me it would take about 2 to 3 years to get your sea legs in a district like Miami, and I think they were basically right. I was surprised at the speed of cases in a district like Miami where the criminal workload is pretty heavy, and we are in trial all of the time. I think last year we ended up maybe second or third in the country in trials, and for the past 4 or 5 years before that No. 1. So we are in trial a lot, and that is not something you get used to right away. It also took me a little bit of time to get used to making calls on the spot, off the cuff, during a trial. That is not something you do on a normal, everyday basis as an appellate attorney. But you learn quickly that you better do it, or else things are going to get clogged up mighty fast. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. You are now going to be serving on a panel of judges on the circuit court, and talk about how you think you are going to handle that and trying to seek agreement. You have clearly gotten agreement between your two Senators that support you, so that is a good beginning. It is not that easy to do around here. So tell me about how you think you will handle the job differently than yours now and how you think you would go into that consensus building. Judge Jordan. It certainly is a different job. I think I am going to be helped in part by the fact that I have sat a number of times by designation on the circuit, and I have sat with I think half or a little bit over half of the judges on the circuit already. The job of sitting by designation is certainly not the job of sitting as a full-time appellate judge. As a district judge in the Eleventh Circuit, you sit for just 2 days out of the 4, so you are able to fly in, hear 2 days' worth of cases, and then get your assignments and go back home. So the work will certainly be different in terms of volume. But I think I understand what the process is like and what consensus building is about and how to be civil to your colleagues even when you might disagree with a position and how to try to reach middle ground on cases where that middle ground can be reached. So I hope that those experiences have prepared me well for the job that I will hopefully have. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I really appreciate your answers. They were good ones. I am going to turn it over to Senator Hatch. Judge Jordan. Thank you. Senator Hatch. Welcome back to the Judiciary Committee. We are happy to have you here. Judge Jordan. Thank you, Senator. Senator Hatch. I appreciate your comments on the issue of judicial impartiality. Some have argued that the judicial branch ought to be very much like the legislative branch where substantive interests are actually represented. On the other hand, the judicial oath requires impartiality without regard to the identity of the parties. You know that because you have, of course--you have to take the oath and you understand that. Each individual certainly brings his own background and experiences with him or her to the bench, but please comment on a judge's obligation to step back from that and to judge cases impartially, if you will. Judge Jordan. I think that is one of the paramount goals of a judge in our system. We are supposed to be the neutral arbiters and judge and decide cases without regard to who it is who is before us or what their views are. I have certainly strived to try to do that in my almost 12 years on the district court bench in Miami. I do not think that our personal views have any place in what we do on a day-to-day basis as judges. We are all human beings, of course, but I think as a judge you need to try and strive very, very hard to make sure you are deciding the case on something other than your own preferences and views, whatever those might be. So I have strived and I hope I have achieved impartiality in my years on the bench in Miami. Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. You have been a Federal trial judge for a dozen years. If confirmed, you will instead review the decisions of Federal trial court judges. Appeals are not supposed to be simply do-overs, just another bite at the apple. Please comment on the difference between these two roles of the trial court and appeals court judges in our judicial system. Judge Jordan. Well, there certainly are differences, and you do not get to have complete do-overs in the court of appeals on a whole range of cases. Obviously, questions of law get reviewed de novo, without any deference being given. But when you are talking about a judge's findings of fact or an evidentiary ruling which is subject to an abuse of discretion standard or things like that, I think appellate judges need to keep in mind that the trial judge is usually in the best vantage point and the best position to be able to make those calls, knows the litigants, knows the history of a case, knows what lawyers have argued, what might be missing, what might be going on in a case. I think as district judges we hope that those calls are given deference when appropriate when our cases go up to the court of appeals, and I think and I hope that I will be able to do that if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed. I am confident that I can. Senator Hatch. Thank you. I am certainly going to support your confirmation, and we congratulate you for being willing to serve in this very important position. Judge Jordan. Thank you very much, Senator. Senator Klobuchar. He did not even ask you the Christmas tree question, so you are really in good shape. Judge Jordan. Christmas trees do not grow in Miami. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. OK. Senator Lee. Senator Lee. I have got one question I am just dying to ask you. As someone who has argued 36 appellate cases, briefed over 125 others, you made the transition when you became a district judge to that status, having probably had to jettison most of your appellate standards of review to one far corner of your brain. Which transition do you think will prove to be the more difficult one: the transition from appellate litigator to district judge or district judge to appellate judge--subject, again, to all the deferential standards of review? Judge Jordan. I think the first transition was more difficult. You know, as an appellate lawyer you get to sometimes sit in an ivory tower and pontificate about what might have happened or what theories might have been argued or what might be the best result in a world where everything else might be equal. And that is not the world of a district judge, not in a district like ours. So it takes a while to get used to that transition. I did try some cases when I was an Assistant U.S. Attorney, so the trial courtroom was not foreign to me, but it certainly was not my specialty. So I think that transition was more difficult. I have sat with the Eleventh Circuit a number of times over the years and authored a number of opinions, so I think going back into that mind-set of what the appropriate standards of review are and working with colleagues and panels instead of being a lone judge making decisions at the trial level will not be as difficult. It will be a transition, but I do not think it will be as difficult as the first one that I made. Senator Lee. I have got just one follow-up to that question, which is: Since the time when you were an appellate attorney, we have had the Blakely v. Washington era begin and sort of run its course. How substantial do you think the shift is now in the role of the appellate courts when you were an appellate attorney often handling criminal cases up on appeal and how it is now in the wake of Blakely v. Washington and its progeny? Judge Jordan. On sentencing issues, you mean? Senator Lee. Yes. Judge Jordan. You know, I think at least I can comment on our circuit. I am certainly less familiar with the law in the other circuits. In our circuit I think that the Eleventh Circuit gives a fair amount of deference to district judges when they are applying Blakely, Booker, et cetera, as long as judges are reasoned and explain why it is that they might be imposing a sentence outside of the guidelines in a given case. But the Eleventh Circuit is also not shy about reversing judges when they think they have gone too far, and they have done so on a number of occasions in pretty celebrated cases. So I think at least in our circuit, district judges know that if they have a reason to vary from the guidelines and express it and cogently explain why they are doing it and do not go crazy, there is a good chance that the circuit is going to give deference to that decision. So I think---- Senator Lee. But probably more reversals than you had in criminal sentencing prior to Blakely. Judge Jordan. Well, you know, I do not know the statistical number, but they would be different reversals because before Blakely and Booker, the majority of sentencing appeals--we did them from the U.S. Attorney's Office when I was appellate chief--were basically guideline interpretations. There were not many departure appeals. Most of them were about whether or not the district judge correctly interpreted or applied a given guideline. So I think with regards to guideline application, the reversal rate probably has stayed about the same, which is relatively low. But now, of course, there is sentencing where the guidelines are not mandatory, and that is a new sort of deference that did not exist before. So they are two sort of target groups that you probably could not compare very well. Senator Lee. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Do my colleagues have any additional questions? [No response.] Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much, Judge Jordan. We enjoyed your appearance here, and we wish you luck, and we will see you again. Thank you. Judge Jordan. Thank you very much. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Could the other nominees please come up and stand to be sworn? Do you affirm that the testimony that you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Justice Gerrard. I do. Ms. Phillips. I do. Mr. Rice. I do. Judge Nuffer. I do. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Well, thank you very much. Welcome, and we will start with Judge Gerrard, if you would like to introduce anyone that is here with you today. STATEMENT OF JOHN M. GERRARD, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKA Justice Gerrard. I would be happy to, Senator, and thank you. I want to thank the President for the honor of the nomination and for both of my home State Senators, obviously, for their consistent support both beginning and through the process. With me today is my wife and full partner in life, Nancy, and also with me is my daughter, Erin Ching, and my grandson, Joshua, but I think they might be in the cry room, appropriately. But she is here. Senator Klobuchar. We have a lot of crying rooms around here. I am sure you found one. [Laughter.] Justice Gerrard. He has got a good reason, though. He is 11 months old. I also want to acknowledge my other three children: Michaela is in Lincoln, Nebraska, with her son, Jack, and husband, Brandon. My son Eric is a third-year law student and is hopefully in class or watching this broadcast at the University of San Diego. His wife, Esther, and daughter, Jayla, are also with us. And then my youngest son, Mitchell, is a senior at Pomona College out in Claremont, California. I also want to acknowledge my sisters, Mary and Ann, and my brother Bill from various parts of the country who may be watching this webcast, and, of course, all of my judicial colleagues and staff and good friends back in Nebraska and throughout various parts of the country. Thank you, Senator. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Well, thank you. Judge Phillips, we enjoyed the story of you and your husband, so we hope to see him out there, and I will note that I also went to the University of Chicago. Ms. Phillips. Good. Senator Klobuchar. So I am pleased to hear that part of your resume. Please go ahead. STATEMENT OF MARY ELIZABETH PHILLIPS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI Ms. Phillips. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I appreciate the opportunity to address the Committee, and I first want to thank members of the Committee for holding this hearing today and considering these nominations. I do have some family members present. In addition to my husband, who has already been referenced, I would like to acknowledge he is not only a judge but a former State court prosecutor and a former Assistant United States Attorney, and he does have that look of Assistant United States Attorneys. [Laughter.] In addition, with me today is my sister, Jennifer Phillips, who follows in the footsteps of Senator McCaskill and is currently an assistant Jackson County prosecutor; her husband, Buck Williams, who is a homicide detective with the Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department. My parents, who still live in the small town in north Missouri that I grew up in: My father, Bill Phillips, who is a former prosecutor and currently still practices in Milan; and my mother, who not only puts up with living in a family full of lawyers, but holds her own quite well. In addition, I have some family here from McAllen, Texas: my sister, Ann Valarde. Unfortunately, her husband is a high school football coach in Texas and could not--this is not a good time of year for him to get away, but he is watching on the webcast. Also with me today are my two nieces, Katie and Chloe Slusher, who are having the time of their lives watching what is going on here in the Senate. Senator Klobuchar. They are back there. They waved. Very nice. I hope they get on the webcam. Kind of like being at a sporting event. Ms. Phillips. Yes. I also have some people who are watching on the webcam, namely, my 101-year-old grandmother, Jane Pratt. She is, with some assistance today, watching. And I have a number of family and friends and supporters, some of whom are in my office, hopefully still working, but also watching on the webcam there in the Western District of Missouri. In addition to those supporters, I have to thank Senator McCaskill who not only gave me my first job out of law school, but who has continued to support me, and through her support and confidence has provided me unbelievable opportunities. In addition, I need to thank the President, President Obama, for once again nominating me for a Senate-confirmed position. Thank you. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Thank you. Mr. Rice from Washington State. STATEMENT OF THOMAS OWEN RICE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Mr. Rice. Thank you, Senator. I want to thank you as well as the entire Committee for having me here today. It is an honor and a privilege to appear here. I want to thank the Senators, Senator Maria Cantwell as well as Senator Murray, for their support in this nomination process. Additionally, I want to thank the President for nominating me to this honorable position. Today in the audience I have my parents, Carly and Laramie Rice from Spokane. They were able to travel from Washington State. Senator Klobuchar. Where are they? Oh, there they are. Good to see you. Mr. Rice. Back there waving. As well, I want to thank and acknowledge my wife, my loving wife and supportive wife, Heather Rice. Thank you very much. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Klobuchar. Well, thank you very much. And last but not least, Judge Nuffer, with your support crew right up here on the dais. STATEMENT OF DAVID NUFFER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF UTAH Judge Nuffer. Thank you very much, and I am very grateful to the Committee for this opportunity, and I have been watching your work and webcasts and how you schedule these judicial nominations, and you have a remarkable number of nominees coming through, and you are getting them to the floor. And I think all the courts in the United States appreciate that. I am very grateful to Senator Hatch and Senator Lee for their continued support, for the great courtesies they have extended to my family today to make this a very memorable day, and for their continued interest in and support of our court. I am very grateful and honored by the President's nomination and for the staff, the executive staff who have helped me so far in this process. Attending here today, I was seated just until a moment ago very comfortably next to my wife, Lori. Our daughter, Jessica, and her boyfriend, James Raftery, are here. Lori's brother, Ken Lyons, and our nephew, David Lyons, are here. Friends from the judiciary, Lori Murphy, Jim Buchanan, and Tom Natowski are here with us. In the webcast audience--and, again, I thank the Committee for having this webcast. It made it possible for my mother, who is watching today with friends Dixie Lyman and Paul Lyman in Richfield, Utah, to see these proceedings, and I hope she is approving so far of what I have said. Our other children, Pete, Chris, Paul, Lisa, Laura, Michael, and their families and friends, are watching as are other friends in Utah, Oregon, and other States and family there. I believe also our court colleagues are watching, including my chamber staff and judges who are very anxious to get this vacancy filled so they can give me special cases; and their colleagues from the judiciary in other courts as well in other States; as well as colleagues from courts, law schools, and the practice of law, and from the Rule of Law Projects in the U.S., Turkey, and Ukraine, who I am informed are watching. And, finally, my students at the J. Reuben Clark Law School. We all appreciate this opportunity. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Klobuchar. You are reminding me of when we had a Minnesota nominee, and the next group that was the happiest next to her family were those other Federal judges. They kept calling to say, ``When is the hearing? '' Judge Nuffer. Exactly. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I am going to have Senator Hatch go first here, and please go ahead. Senator Hatch. Let me just ask all of you this question. We will start with you, Justice Gerrard. I would just like your thoughts on the issue of impartiality. I know that in your particular case you have written and you have spoken about diversity and related issues, and I think that we can all agree that each of us individually is affected by our personal background and our personal experiences. And it is certainly true that every judicial decision impacts somebody, impacts people. So I am very interested in--and let me just say, judges do take an oath to be impartial, to decide cases without regard for the identity of the parties. If you would, please comment on the obligation of judges to be impartial. And do you believe that race, gender, or the impact of a decision may play a role in how judges decide cases or must judges apply the law impartially? Justice Gerrard. Thank you for the question, Senator. It is a good question, a crucial one. I would say this about impartiality. I did take that oath over 16 years ago for the Nebraska Supreme Court, and I hope I have lived up to that oath every day. I think it is absolutely crucial that both sides be heard fully, that the arguments of both sides, whoever that might be, whether it be two individuals, whether it be the State, whether it be two corporations, that their arguments be considered fully and that decisions are based solely on the law. As to the second part of your question, as far as whether race or gender or any other outside factor should impact a decision of a judge, the answer to that is no. I think it is important for judges to understand that real people are impacted by decisions, just as you have stated before. But it is the law and the evidence that judges must consider, and that is the only thing that judges should consider. And I hope I have done that for all of my years on the bench, and I would plan to continue to do that. Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. Ms. Phillips. Ms. Phillips. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my fellow nominee that the confidence in our system requires that judges approach all decisions from an impartial perspective, and that it is not appropriate for a judge to consider personal views or any biases that he or she may hold when making any decisions from the perspective of the bench. I also agree with my fellow nominee that any decisions that are made must be made free of any regard for the person's race, gender, or any other factor, and I liken it to the approach that I have taken as a prosecutor. As a prosecutor, it is very important that you make decisions that are irrespective of the potential suspect or defendant's race, gender, or national origin, for example, and I would fully expect to use that same approach if I was fortunate enough to be confirmed to the district court bench. Senator Hatch. Well, thank you. Mr. Rice. Mr. Rice. Thank you, Senator. I agree with my colleagues wholeheartedly that bias, prejudice, and sympathy have no room in the courtroom in making a final decision. It is as simple as that. Thank you. Senator Hatch. Thank you. Judge Nuffer. Judge Nuffer. I recall the first time I took the judicial oath and I was a little surprised to hear that we took an oath to do justice regardless to the rich and to the poor. And I have thought of that to the powerful and the powerless as well. And I think I do try to reflect on that, as my colleagues have stated, and I appreciate the statements they make. We need to be careful that we are making the decisions based on the case, not on the personalities involved. Senator Hatch. Well, you know, I might have some other questions, but I think that is one I was very concerned about. I am happy to finish with that. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. Senator Lee. Senator Lee. Judge Nuffer, is there anything about having raised seven children that makes you exceptionally well qualified to be a judge? [Laughter.] Judge Nuffer. I would say not only having raised seven children, but having learned from my wife as I raised those children. I was in a family of two children, and it seemed very busy sometimes in our family of seven children. And I think that the management skills, being able to listen to everyone and pay attention to everyone and their needs is something that she is very good at that I have tried to learn from and exercise in the courtroom to make sure people are fully heard. Senator Lee. Now, it has been quite a while in Utah since we have had a magistrate judge become a Federal district judge. In fact, as I think about it, I cannot think of another example where it has happened. Is there any thought you have about how we ought to use Federal magistrates differently? Are we overutilizing them or underutilizing them? Judge Nuffer. We have a wonderful environment in Utah, a great camaraderie between our district judges and our magistrate judges, and so that is pretty much the scope of my experience. And I think that we are moving in Utah to having district and magistrate judges share the civil caseload more. I think that is going to be helpful for everyone concerned. We are very fortunate to have that camaraderie and that sharing of the load and frank discussions in our management meetings where all judges are present about that. As you have noted, we have never had a magistrate judge become a district judge. I think that is a good thing. I do not think it is just because it is me, but I think it is a good thing. I think courts have more depth when they have that transition happen. Senator Lee. Great. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. Very good. I was thinking all of you have had Federal experience-- well, you, Judge Gerrard, have been in the State system but have certainly seen the Federal system. And I just wondered what you see as the biggest challenges facing the Federal bench right now. I was just over speaking at Justice Roberts' invitation to the Judicial Conference on some of the work that we are doing on the Committee, and I just was struck by some of the issues that they raised there with resources and certain districts having higher caseloads than others and just what your opinion is. I appreciate that I have been calling you ``Judge''--sort of, you know, giving away what we think might happen--``Phillips.'' But it said ``Honorable,'' and so I asked our staff how you get ``Honorable.'' Poor Mr. Rice here does not have that on there. If you are Senate-confirmed, I guess, for any position, you are forever ``Honorable.'' So this is a very interesting fact, and I do not know if it is true. But I guess we could start with you, Ms. Phillips, about just what you see as a U.S. Attorney. Ms. Phillips. Thank you, and, yes, I do not know who created that rule, but I am a definite fan of it. [Laughter.] Ms. Phillips. I do think that you have hit on one of the most pressing issues that is confronting the judiciary in the near future, and that is--and probably all of Federal Government--the lack of resources that will be available to address what is inevitably going to be a growing caseload. And I think when you look at resources, it is important to not only look at the resources that the judges themselves have, but also probation and parole and other entities that work within the courts because those entities play a very important role in assisting the judges to perform their responsibilities. I also think a second issue that we need to be mindful of which has been alluded to earlier today is the impact of the fact that the guidelines are no longer mandatory and ensuring that the judges take approaches which work to ensure that defendants who are similarly situated are sentenced in a similar manner regardless of what courtroom they are in or regardless of what region of the country they are in. So I see those as two issues that the judiciary needs to be mindful of and needs to continue working on as we work toward the future. Senator Klobuchar. I think that is interesting, just your second part. I did not expect that answer, and I think that is true, having done the prosecutor job for 8 years. I know that we would always--we had guidelines, State guidelines, but there were always some deviations, and I just remember us trying to make--be so hard that we were asking for sentences that were in a certain box, looking at all the factors. So thank you for bringing that up. Mr. Rice, do you want to add anything? Mr. Rice. Senator, I think the challenge, the largest challenge from the Federal bench now, if I am not presumptuous, would be the technology, technology in the courtroom, both in trying cases and discovery. I think technology is the biggest challenge, and with that could come some more efficiency in the courtroom, hopefully, that we would be more efficient with our resources and better able to process the cases more quickly and timely. Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I have had a number of lawyers and judges bring up the discovery issue and this need to do things more online. So thank you for that. You know, in the U.S. Senate we can only show charts right now, so maybe we need to change, too. I did not really mean that, to the senior Senators. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. Judge Nuffer. Judge Nuffer. I have always seen our rising caseloads, at least in our district, as one of the big issues, and I appreciate the chance to address this here with this group because you actually have the ability to do some things about it. But in Utah, from 2009 to 2010, we had a 20-percent caseload increase in civil and criminal cases, and that is a lot of cases for a five-judge court. And we are not really sure what is driving that. It appears to be continuing. But I think it is something that needs to be watched so that we can still devote the resources that we need to adequately consider and resolve cases in a timely manner. I think that that is true in many districts, especially border districts, that these increases occur, but I think with some issues in the economy we have actually seen more litigation rather than less. And the courts need to be able to respond to those things. It has certainly been a challenge for us, so I relay that on to you. Senator Klobuchar. Yes, I have started to see that. I saw a story that there was more child abuse cases, and just so you know, the districts with the highest caseload average right now are, as you said, some of the border States--California and Arizona, and then the other ones are--what was the--Texas, another border--and guess what the fourth one is, Judge Nuffer? Minnesota, also a border State with Canada. It is true. We have a lot of Fortune 500 companies, a lot of civil litigation going on, and some very good judges. I do not know. But we have a high caseload, and they do incredibly well with a difficult job. Judge Gerrard, did you want to add anything? Justice Gerrard. The first thing, Senator Klobuchar, is that I hesitate to give advice to my Federal colleagues before I ever walk across the street. But I must say I have talked with them in some detail. To answer your question, I think caseload management is one of the--and managing our dockets is one of the crucial issues not only in Nebraska but in the Federal courts. And one of the things that has not been mentioned is how that affects the access to justice. I think as cases are managed properly, obviously not only the criminal cases but the civil cases are able to get through on an efficient basis. So that would be one of my concerns. But I think Nebraska, quite frankly, has done an admirable job with their caseload at this point in time. I know Nebraska is also participating in--they are one of the first district courts to participate in televising some of their proceedings, and that also, I think, is an improvement in the Federal courts for access to justice and to allow others to see how justice does work in their State. Senator Klobuchar. We actually opened up all our child protection hearings that had been closed--not to media. There are some very strict rules about that. I mean, they can come in, but they cannot report on certain things. And it really had an effect on justice, I think, making things go faster because people were watching what was happening, and they had been closed off before that. They are not filmed, but they are open. Justice Gerrard. It does make a difference. Senator Klobuchar. It does. Does anyone want to add anything else? Senator Hatch, do you want to ask---- Senator Hatch. Let me just ask Judge Nuffer, I noted in my introduction of you that you have a real interest in technology and its impact on the law. I would just like you to take a minute or two and talk about that, because perhaps you could expand on the quote that I used from one of your articles about how technology can reduce the distance to the courthouse and leverage our abilities. Judge Nuffer. You know, Utah is a very interesting population, Senator. As the other people in the room may not realize, we are so urban but we are so rural. Senator Hatch. Yes. Judge Nuffer. All of our urban population is within 100 miles, and I appreciate the chance to address this because I think that the ability to file electronically has made a huge difference for our rural lawyers and party litigants and the ability to see the file online at any time from any location through the Internet. And I think, if I remember the quote right, leveling the lawyer in Blanding is at the same disadvantage or advantage as the lawyer in Salt Lake now. They do not have to walk to the courthouse to see the court file. They can simply see it online. One of the great protections of the judicial process is it is open to the public. Now all those dockets are open in a much larger way than they were when they were theoretically open for view. I think it is also leveling--I think at the time I wrote that, I was in a fairly small firm in a rural city, and I felt like technology gave us the ability to create just as good a work product with electronic research and word processing and high-quality printing as a large Salt Lake City law firm. So I looked at it as a real advantage in a real changing era, and I think it has proven to be that way in business. We have seen in Utah small businesses thrive and grow into large businesses because of the technical leverages they have. Senator Hatch. Well, I am very proud of you and your service and pleased with what you have done. I know you well, and I have a very high regard for you. And I can say I must have a high regard for all of you others as well. I want to commend you all for being willing to serve. In this day and age, there are lots of difficulties, and we all know that. But we are very pleased to have all four of you here. I intend to support all four of you and make sure that we get you confirmed as soon as we possibly can. I want to personally thank the President for the work that he and his staff and the Justice Department have done to bring you all here. Thank you, Madam Chair. Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Senator Lee, did you have any additional questions. Senator Lee. No. Thank you. Senator Klobuchar. OK, very good. Well, I want to thank all of you for being here. We were just noting, Judge Gerrard, that it is too bad Senator Grassley is not here. He is a big supporter of televising hearings, so he would be very happy to hear that and would have probably seized on that answer for a good 5 to 10 minutes of questions. [Laughter.] Senator Klobuchar. But we will pass that on, and I really did appreciate that you were willing to give us some ideas on the court system. To be honest, I have asked that question before, and this is the most interesting discussion we have had about it compared to other panels. I want to thank you for being here today, for your service. We look forward to your confirmation, and we have been speeding up the confirmation of judges, just so you know. I was just doing the statistics for the Judicial Conference. We had 60 judges confirmed in the first 2 years of this administration, which would average 30 and 30 each year, right? And so far this year we have already done 36, and since many of them come at the end of the year, I would say that we are going at a much faster pace this year, something that this Committee was very interested in having happen. A lot of the nominees were coming through this Committee, but then they got stuck on the floor. So I am hopeful that this will be much speedier so that your families will know what you are doing for your jobs and so that Mr. Nuffer's potential fellow colleagues will be much happier. Thank you so much. We are going to keep the record open for a week, and the hearing is now adjourned. [Whereupon, at 3:34 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] NOMINATION OF STEPHANIE DAWN THACKER, OF WEST VIRGINIA, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT; MICHAEL WALTER FITZGERALD, OF CALIFORNIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA; RONNIE ABRAMS, OF NEW YORK, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK; RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA; AND MIRANDA DU, OF NEVADA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA ---------- TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 U.S. Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:03 p.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Richard J. Durbin, presiding. Present: Senators Durbin, Leahy, Coons, and Lee. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS Senator Durbin. Good afternoon. This hearing of the Judiciary Committee will come to order. Today we will consider five outstanding judicial nominees for the Federal bench: Stephanie Thacker, nominated to serve on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit; Ronnie Abrams, nominated to the Southern District of New York; Rudolph Contreras, nominated to the U.S. District Court Judge for the District of Columbia; Miranda Du, nominated to the District of Nevada; and Michael Fitzgerald, nominated to the Central District of California. Each of these nominees has the support of their home State Senators or, in the case of the District of Columbia nominee, the support of D.C. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton. I commend President Obama for sending these nominees to the Senate, and I thank my colleague Senator Lee for joining me. At these hearings it is traditional for nominees to be introduced to the Committee by Senators from their home States, and unless the Ranking Member has opening remarks, which I would invite him to make at this point, I am going to recognize our colleagues. So if you want to stay on their good side, please proceed. STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE LEE, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF UTAH Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I join you in welcoming our nominees before us today. Yesterday the Senate confirmed six Article III judicial nominees. This included the confirmation of Judge Jennifer Zipps, who will fill the seat held by the late Judge John Roll. The tragic and horrific events that took Judge Roll's life on January 8th of this year shook the judicial community and our Nation. I am pleased that Republicans and Democrats were able to come together to confirm her in an orderly and expeditious manner. The Senate has confirmed 42 judicial nominees in this Congress alone so far. We have entered into a unanimous consent agreement to vote on four more judges next week. I applaud this progress, which I think demonstrates Ranking Member Grassley's commitment as well as that of the Republican members on this Committee to work with our Democratic colleagues in moving forward with consensus nominees. Today marks the 15th nominations hearing held in the Judiciary Committee this year at which we have had the opportunity to speak with 65 judicial nominees. In total, 85 percent of President Obama's judicial nominees have received a hearing in this Congress. I think this speaks well both to President Obama's nomination process and to the ability of this Committee to work together on a bipartisan basis. Today we will hear, among others, from Stephanie Thacker, who has been nominated by President Obama to the Fourth Circuit. Her hearing comes only 26 days after her nomination. I would note that none of President Bush's circuit court nominees were afforded a hearing that quickly, particularly those to the Fourth Circuit, where we had some issues with delay. Yesterday marked the confirmation of President Obama's fifth nominee to serve on the Fourth Circuit. In 8 years only four of President Bush's Fourth Circuit nominees were confirmed. I hope my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are aware of the comparatively generous treatment afforded to President Obama's nominees, particularly those for the Fourth Circuit. I welcome the nominees and their families to this Committee, and I realize that this is a very important day for all of them and look forward to hearing their testimony and responses to our questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. For the record, I believe that Senator Reid has filed cloture on 25 of President Obama's nominees that were on the calendar just a few days ago, but there has been remarkable signs of progress since, and I hope that spirit continues with these nominees and those that are pending. I was going to recognize Senator Reid first, and when he arrives, of course, he will be given precedence. But we will start in seniority, and I recognize my colleague and friend, Senator Jay Rockefeller. PRESENTATION OF STEPHANIE DAWN THACKER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. JOHN D. ROCKEFELLER IV, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Senator Durbin and Senator Lee and Chairman Leahy, who was here, and all members of this Committee for having this very important hearing today. My purpose is that I am deeply honored to put before you and introduce Stephanie Dawn Thacker, one of the finest judicial nominees I have ever known. I pay a lot of attention to this process. I am not a lawyer, but I pay a lot of attention. She is joined by her husband, John Carr, also an esteemed lawyer; her sister, Samantha Sullivan, a teacher; and her nephew, Wade Sullivan, who has not picked his professional career yet. Not present but I think watching very closely on television in West Virginia and surely beaming with pride is her mother, Katie Thacker, and her father, Rod Young. Stephanie's family has many reasons to be proud of her, and she of them, and we are all fortunate for their dedication to their country and to Senator Manchin's and my home State. For myself, I am impressed by Stephanie Thacker's superior intellect, her passion for the law, her unquestioned integrity, and her strong character. Another such person was my very dear friend, Judge M. Blane Michael, who served for more than 17 years in the very judicial seat on the Fourth Circuit to which Stephanie Thacker has been nominated. Like Judge Michael, Ms. Thacker will be a strong voice on the court, one who follows the law, defies pigeonholing; one who knows how to build consensus, often with a quick wit; always one who can couple deep legal analysis with an understanding of real-world impact. Ms. Thacker graduated at the top of her undergraduate and law school classes, spent 12 years as a Federal prosecutor in working for the Department of Justice, fighting the most horrific crimes imaginable, and is now a top lawyer at one of West Virginia's most respected firms. While at the Department of Justice, Ms. Thacker developed a unique expertise in the investigation and prosecution of child exploitation cases, winning difficult cases, helping to develop policy and initiatives, and as it turns out, training attorneys and law enforcement professionals around this country on that subject, and, indeed, around the world so as to prevent these terrible crimes. One of her more lasting successes was working with the FBI and the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to develop a nationwide initiative to combat child sex trafficking. As a result of this program, more than 1,600 children have been rescued, and more than 700 sex offenders have been convicted. Ms. Thacker's accomplishments have earned her national recognition, including the very prestigious Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award. I have also brought copies of letters of commendation that she has received from Attorney General Gonzales, FBI Director Mueller, Senators Byrd, Chambliss, and Zell Miller, among others. Ms. Thacker is striking to me for her groundedness. I am not sure if that is a word, but it has meaning to me. It is. Senator Durbin. When a Senator says it, it is a word. Senator Rockefeller. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. [Laughter.] Senator Rockefeller. She has never forgotten who she is or where she came from, and she calls upon that life experience every day. It is perhaps Ms. Thacker's upbringing--and I really believe this totally--that drove her to fight for justice every day and created in her an understanding that decisions that she made as a prosecutor and decisions, I hope, that she will make from the bench have a lasting impact on people's lives. Like so many in our State, Ms. Thacker came from humble beginnings and went on by force of will, by force of intellectual heft, to chart a course of accomplishment for herself, her State, and her country. Stephanie Thacker is without doubt the perfect person for this vacancy on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, and she has my unwavering support. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. I would like to recognize your colleague, Senator Manchin, regarding the same nominee. PRESENTATION OF STEPHANIE DAWN THACKER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. JOE MANCHIN III, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA Senator Manchin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Lee, and the Committee for inviting me here today. It is my privilege to join my senior Senator, Senator Rockefeller, in support of the nomination of Stephanie Dawn Thacker, a native of Hamlin, West Virginia, to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. I would first like to take a moment to recognize her husband, John Carr; her sister, Samantha; and her nephew, Wade. I am pleased that all of you were able to join us today for the very important hearing and also her family watching on television. Stephanie Thacker's impressive background and extensive list of accomplishments in both the public and private sectors make her an exceptional candidate for the Fourth Circuit. She is renowned in our State for her mastery of the law and of the courtroom, and I have no doubt that she will make a highly successful Federal judge. Ms. Thacker has dedicated much of her career to fighting some of the most reprehensible offenses, which Senator Rockefeller just mentioned, in our society. As a trial attorney, deputy chief of litigation, and principal deputy chief, she spent several years prosecuting cases on child exploitation and obscenity at the Department of Justice. Her outstanding work and leadership earned her a number of honors at DOJ, including four Meritorious Awards and two Special Achievement Awards. Her impressive performance in prosecuting the case of United States v. Dwight York earned her the Attorney General's Distinguished Service Award, one of the Department's highest honors, and she was also a recipient of the Assistant Attorney General's Awards for Special Initiative and Outstanding Victim/Witness Service. Prior to her service at the Department of Justice, Ms. Thacker worked with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of West Virginia where she prosecuted a diversity of criminal cases, including money laundering and fraud. While at the U.S. Attorney's Office, Ms. Thacker also participated on the trial team prosecuting United States v. Bailey, the first case ever brought under the Violence Against Women Act. Since 2006, Ms. Thacker has been a partner at the prestigious law firm of Guthrie & Thomas in Charleston. While at the firm, she has concentrated on cases involving product liability, environmental and toxic torts, complex commercial defense, and criminal defense. Ms. Thacker was a model student in both her undergraduate and legal studies. She earned her Bachelor's degree in business administration magna cum laude from Marshall University and her J.D. Order of the Coif from West Virginia University College of Law. While at WVU, she was the recipient of the Robert L. Griffin Memorial Scholarship and editor of West Virginia Law Review's Coal Issue. She has also recently been named Outstanding Female Attorney by WVU Law's Women's Caucus. I believe that Ms. Thacker's wide-ranging expertise in civil and criminal matters, her impressive track record in the courtroom as both a prosecutor and a defense attorney, and her outstanding academic accomplishments will make her a first-rate addition to the Fourth Circuit. I am proud to call her a fellow West Virginian, and I hope that the Committee will move to confirm her for the vacancy quickly. Along with Senator Rockefeller, I want to thank the Chairman and members of the Committee. I welcome the opportunity to work with all of you to confirm Ms. Thacker in a timely manner. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Manchin and Senator Rockefeller. You are welcome to stay. I know you have busy schedules. The nominees certainly do appreciate the presence and testimony of each Senator, but if you would like to leave at this moment, you are certainly welcome to. Thank you again for coming to this Judiciary Committee hearing. I now will recognize Senator Barbara Boxer, and she will address the nominee, Michael Fitzgerald, nominated to the Central District of California. PRESENTATION OF MICHAEL WALTER FITZGERALD, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, BY HON. BARBARA BOXER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator Durbin, Senator Lee. It is an honor to appear before you, and it is an honor to support the nomination of Michael Fitzgerald. I would ask him to stand, if he would. And I want to also welcome his family. I believe they are here. His dad, if he could stand. James, would you stand? James Fitzgerald, an army combat veteran of the Korean War and a retired mathematics teacher. His mom, Vivianne, a retired registered nurse. His twin brother, Patrick--let us see; yes, I see that--a Federal prosecutor who lives in Los Angeles. But before they sit down, I want to say that James and Vivianne recently celebrated their 57th wedding anniversary. Senator Durbin. Congratulations. Senator Boxer. So we are thrilled that you are here so soon after that. I had the privilege of recommending Michael to President Obama to serve on the Central District Court. A respected member of the Los Angeles legal community, he will make an excellent addition to the bench. He has deep roots in the city of Los Angeles. He and his brother are the fourth generation of their family to live in Los Angeles. Fourth generation to live in Los Angeles. Michael received his Bachelor's degree from Harvard, graduating magna cum laude while working his way through school as a bus boy. He went on to receive a law degree from the University of California at Berkeley, where he also graduated with honors. After clerking on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in New York, Michael worked for a year with a private law firm in L.A. before becoming a Federal prosecutor. As a Federal prosecutor, he served on the Organized Crime and Drug Enforcement Task Force within the Central District U.S. Attorney's Office where he prosecuted international drug rings and money laundering, including what was at the time the second largest cocaine seizure in California history. After leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office in 1991, Michael has been in private practice where he handled complex criminal and civil cases as well as investigations by Federal agencies. Michael has remained committed to public service during his time in private practice. He has maintained an active pro bono practice. He served as counsel to the Board of Police Commissioners, which sets policy and oversees operations for the Los Angeles Police Department. He also served as deputy general counsel for the Rampart Independent Task Force which reviewed the operations of a section of the LAPD. Now, during his career Michael has tried 26 cases to verdict, the overwhelming majority of them before a jury. Currently 60 percent of his practice is in Federal court, so he is very familiar with the Central District practices and procedures. His rating? He received a rating of unanimously well qualified by the ABA. Listen to what some respected members of the law enforcement and legal community say about him. Veteran Anaheim police lieutenant John Quisano, who worked with Michael in prosecuting cocaine traffickers and money launderers, said the following: ``Michael's knowledge of the law, his courtroom demeanor, his interpersonal skills, and his sense of fairness played a major role in the successful prosecution of our cases. He will be an outstanding Federal judge.'' Former Republican-appointed U.S. Attorney and Federal Judge Robert Bonner said: ``If confirmed, Mike would bring a background, experience, and understanding of both the civil and criminal side of the work of a U.S. district judge. I believe Mike will make an outstanding Federal judge.'' And the last reference I would read a bit of is from Representative Adam Schiff, who served with Michael as a Federal prosecutor, who said: ``I believe he has the background, experience, integrity, intellect, and reputation in the community that will serve him well as a U.S. district court judge and reflect well on the judiciary.'' And with your permission, Senator Durbin, would it be all right to include letters from those three outstanding citizens into the record at this time? Senator Durbin. Without objection. [The letters appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Boxer. So, in closing, it is clear--and I hope it is clear to you both and will be to the Committee as a whole-- that Michael's record in the public and private sector demonstrates that he is a brilliant lawyer. He is a distinguished member of the legal community, and I am very confident he will make an excellent judge. I close by congratulating Michael for everything he has done up to now. I congratulate his family for obviously bringing up two sons very well. And I urge my colleagues in the Senate to move quickly to confirm Michael to the Federal bench. I thank you very much. Senator Durbin. Thank you for joining us. Senator Boxer. And I would ask to be excused at this time. Senator Durbin. Of course. I just want for the record to note that Senator Feinstein has also submitted a positive blue slip, which is the process used in this Committee, supporting this nominee, Michael Fitzgerald. Thank you very much, Senator Boxer. Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator. Senator Durbin. Senator Feinstein will be submitting a statement for the record. [The prepared statement of Senator Feinstein appears as a submission for the record.] Senator Durbin. At this point I would like to recognize the Majority Leader of the U.S. Senate, Senator Harry Reid of Nevada. PRESENTATION OF MIRANDA DU, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, BY HON. HARRY REID, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator Reid. I apologize to you and Senator Lee for being tardy, but I had a little debate with the Republican Leader on the floor that took quite a while on the legislation that is now before the Senate, so I apologize for not being here when I was supposed to be. I am really happy to be able to introduce Miranda Du to the Judiciary Committee and to the U.S. Senate. I received her name from one of my boys who is a lawyer in Reno, Nevada. He is a trial lawyer. I am very proud of the work that he has done. And he said, ``Dad, if you have an opening on the Federal bench of any kind, you should look at this woman called Miranda Du.'' He said, ``She has a reputation that is really terrific.'' She comes from a law firm--we have a Federal judge, by the way, a Republican, who has done an outstanding job on the bench, Larry Hicks, who came from the same law firm, a prestigious law firm, McDonald & Carano. It is a wonderful law firm. She has been with that law firm for the time basically that she has been out of law school. I want to, before I give a little background of Miranda Du, introduce her, Miranda Du; her dad, Peter; her mom, Tina; her sister, Victoria; her brother-in-law, Andy; her nephew, Ethan; her brother, Joe; and the senior partner--well, nearly that way, the other people have all retired--John Frankovich, who is an outstanding lawyer who runs that law firm from which she comes, a very fine prominent lawyer, and it is wonderful that she brought these people with her, her family and John Frankovich. Miranda Du's story is that is an American success story. This woman, who is going to become a fine judge, is an experienced litigator. She has a love and appreciation for the State of Nevada and a dedication to public service. This woman was born in Vietnam. She was a boat child. She and her family left Vietnam by boat when she was 8 years old. She spent a year in refugee camps in Malaysia before she came to America. They sent her and her family to Alabama. When she arrived and started school as a third grader, she did not speak a word of English. She speaks fluent English, certainly better than mine. She is such a brilliant woman that overcoming this language barrier was child's play for her. After arriving in Alabama, her dad worked on a dairy farm. Her family later moved to California. She received a Bachelor's degree with honors in history and economics from the University of California at David and then her law degree from the University of California at Berkeley, the famous Boalt Hall. I am so happy that I was able to find this woman to become a Federal judge. And, by the way, my son who recommended her name is one of Dean Heller's very close personal friends, and it is a good thing Heller likes her or I would sic my son on him. [Laughter.] Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Majority Leader, Reid, and I know you have a busy schedule, but we thank you for being here. Senator Reid. I do not want to leave until I hear Heller. [Laughter.] Senator Durbin. Senator Dean Heller. PRESENTATION OF MIRANDA DU, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA, BY HON. DEAN HELLER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEVADA Senator Heller. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and to the Ranking Member and the members of the Committee, it is an honor to be here. Actually today is my first opportunity I have had to address the Committee, and it is a privilege to introduce a fellow Nevadan, Miranda Du, to you this afternoon. And it is an honor also to be here with Senator Reid and to be able to promote this candidate for judgeship, which I believe will work very well with this Committee. I want to welcome her husband. I want to thank John Frankovich for his support of her over the years. We are very privileged to have her with us today. The Senate has a solemn responsibility to make sure that judicial vacancies and nominations are addressed in a timely manner. Having spoken to Federal judges in Nevada, I understand the significant workload facing our understaffed Federal judiciary and the need to fill vacancies with qualified candidates who will uphold America's principles of equal justice under the law. And I believe Miranda Du will make an outstanding district court judge in the great State of Nevada. Ms. Du earned her B.A. of economics and history from UC- Davis in 1991, graduated from UC-Berkeley's law school in 1994, and she is currently employed as a partner at McDonald Carano Wilson, as Senator Reid mentioned, where she has chaired the firm's employment and labor law group since 2003. Her experience covers every phase of litigation from discovery, motion practice, and trial through appeal before the Nevada Supreme Court and the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Ms. Du has earned the respect of her colleagues within the legal community, particularly for involvement in employment law, and has successfully tried a number of jury trial cases to completion. Her work has been featured in numerous professional publications, including Northern Nevada Business Weekly and educational materials for Lorman Education and the National Business Institute. In addition to her professional background, Ms. Du is an active member of the broader northern Nevada community. She serves as a commissioner of the Nevada Commission on Economic Development, which focuses on developing and maintaining a diverse, healthy economic base in our State. Ms. Du is a board member of the Nevada's Women's Fund and has been recognized by Super Lawyers Magazine as a rising star and was featured as one of the Top 20 Under 40 Young Professionals in the Reno-Tahoe area. Ms. Du comes before the Committee not just with the support of Nevada's Senators, myself and Senator Reid, but Governor Brian Sandoval, Lieutenant Governor Brian Krolicki, numerous mayors, as well as State and local organizations ranging from the Nevada Chapter of AGC to Nevada Committee to Aid Abused Women. Again, I want to thank you for the chance to introduce this exceptional Nevadan to the Committee, and I look forward to her testimony as well as the Committee's consideration of her nomination. And, again, I am honored for the opportunity to present her before you with Senator Reid. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Heller. And I might note that the Judiciary Committee has received six letters in support of Ms. Du's nomination, including from the Republican Governor of Nevada, Brian Sandoval; the Republican Lieutenant Governor, Brian Krolicki; and the Republican mayor of Reno, Robert Cashell--each of whom has personally worked with her. Thank you again, Senator Heller. I would like to turn to Senator Gillibrand and let her proceed. PRESENTATION OF RONNIE ABRAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BY HON. KIRSTEN E. GILLIBRAND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK Senator Gillibrand. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Senator Lee. I am very honored to be here today to introduce Ronnie Abrams, and I am very pleased to offer my strong support for her nomination to the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Ronnie was born to a family with a heart of service, advocacy, and dedication to human rights. I want to recognize her parents who are here and her brother. I also want to recognize her husband, Greg Andres, who is also a prosecutor at the Department of Justice, and her three beautiful daughters who are accompanying her here today. I want to thank President Obama for acting on my recommendation and nominating another superbly qualified female jurist to the Federal bench. I have had the privilege of knowing Ms. Abrams for many years. I know her as a fair-minded, brilliant attorney of great integrity. Throughout her distinguished legal career, she has proven herself as an exceptional, well-respected attorney. As Deputy Chief of the Criminal Division at the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Southern District of New York, she supervised 160 prosecutions of violent crime, organized crime, white-collar crime, public corruption, drug trafficking, and computer crime. She helped shape the policy and management of the U.S. Attorney's Office, guiding its success in a broad range of high-level, high-stakes cases. Her record shows her commitment to justice, and I can tell you she has a deep and sincere commitment to public service. There is no question that Ms. Abrams is extremely well qualified and well suited to serve as a Federal court judge. But beyond all her superb and outstanding legal qualifications, she also brings the unique perspective as a daughter, a wife, and a mother. I strongly believe this country needs more women like her serving in the Federal judiciary, an institution that I believe needs more exceptional and extraordinary women. Over the last several years, the number of women in the Federal judiciary has stagnated, hovering at roughly 500, less than a third of the Federal bench. And while it is true that women have come a very long way in filling the ranks in the legal world, we still have a long way to go. I believe it is incredibly important that we do, because when we reach parity on the Federal bench, I believe that we will achieve greater fairness and justice throughout our legal system. I have no doubt that having Ms. Abrams serving in the Federal judiciary will bring us closer to that goal. I was extraordinarily honored to recommend her for this position, and I urge a swift approval of her nomination. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Senator Gillibrand. Let me note for the record that your colleague, Senator Charles Schumer, has also indicated his positive support of her nomination, and I understand that our colleague on the Committee, Senator Coons, would like to make a statement at this time. STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER COONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF DELAWARE Senator Coons. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for the opportunity to add, if I can briefly, to Senator Gillibrand's eloquent advocacy on behalf of Ms. Abrams, whom I have known from our days together at law school and whom I also view as someone who is from a family with a heart for service, someone with the sort of stunning intellect that could have qualified her for service of any kind, but who instead chose to dedicate her adult life to public service, both as a prosecutor and as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, and then ultimately in a decade of service as chief of the crimes unit, as you heard Senator Gillibrand mention, but now in her current role with Davis Polk as someone leading pro bono cases and who has had really signal success in bringing a wide range of actions that did everything from ensuring that men and women of our armed forces received the benefits to which they were entitled, to making sure that working men and women received the pay to which they were entitled by virtue of having earned it. I think her career at the bar suggests that we continue to have in this Nation women, and men--but in this case I think it is particularly important that we add to the women of the bar-- who have an outstanding education, a great grounding in values and in a family tradition of service, and who are willing to step up and take on the very real challenges of serving on the bench in a way that respects our law and our Nation. So I am grateful, Senator Durbin, for a chance to briefly add my voice to those who speak in strong support of the nominee from the State of New York. Thank you, sir. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Coons, and thank you again, Senator Gillibrand. I would now like to recognize the Delegate from the District of Columbia, Eleanor Holmes Norton, who is here to speak on behalf of Rudolph Contreras. Delegate Norton. PRESENTATION OF RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, BY HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Delegate Norton. First, Senator Durbin, I want to thank you once again for the invaluable assistance you have been to the District of Columbia over the years. As you are aware, President Obama gave me the courtesy to recommend Federal district court judges, and it is a very special experience and honor to recommend to you today Rudolph Contreras, a very accomplished lawyer of great intellect. Mr. Contreras is another of these remarkable American success stories of first-generation Americans who become Federal judges. Mr. Contreras is the son of Cuban immigrants. He was born in New York and raised in Miami. I am pleased that his family is here: his mother, Amparo Contreras; his wife, Karen McSweeney; his two children, Brian Contreras and Claire Contreras. Mr. Contreras went to the University of Pennsylvania Law School where he was cum laude Order of the Coif and a member of the Law Review. He began his career as a corporate litigator at Jones Day. He was hired out of Jones Day by then-U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia Eric Holder, now Attorney General of the United States, who calls Mr. Contreras one of his ``best hires.'' Mr. Contreras now heads the Civil Division of the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, and I know that two judges on our district court also headed the Civil Division before becoming judges on that court, and I am pleased that one of them is here, the chief judge, Royce Lamberth. I don't know if this is a stepping stone to becoming a district court judge or not, but Mr. Contreras will be the third in this group. After serving a number of years in a senior position at the U.S. Attorney's Office of the District of Columbia, Mr. Contreras was stolen away by the U.S. Attorney for the District of Delaware, and after serving there with accolades for 3 years, we were fortunate to attract him back to the District of Columbia, where he has been chief of the Civil Division. Mr. Contreras has earned universal praise from all who have worked for him about his qualifications to sit on the court. I believe his confirmation will be assured should this Committee determine to approve him. I am pleased to recommend that you, in fact, approve Rudolph Contreras to be a judge on the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, and I thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Senator Durbin. Delegate Norton, thank you for joining us again today, and thank you for your fine work for the people of the District of Columbia. My thanks as well to my colleagues Senator Rockefeller and Senator Gillibrand for being here with our other colleagues who had to step away. We are going to bring the nominees before us, first the nominee for the circuit court, and ask a few questions of them for the record, and these introductions have certainly prepared the Committee to look in a positive way toward the backgrounds of each of the nominees. As is the custom in the Committee, the first nominee will be the Fourth Circuit nominee, Stephanie Thacker, if she would please come to the witness table. As is the custom of the Committee, I ask you to please raise your right hand. Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Ms. Thacker. I do. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that the witness answered in the affirmative. Ms. Thacker, I now give you the floor for an opening statement or introduction of family and friends, whatever you would like to put before the Committee. STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE DAWN THACKER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT Ms. Thacker. Thank you, Senator Durbin. First I want to express my appreciation to the President of the United States, President Obama, for nominating me to this important position. I also want to thank Senator Rockefeller for his heartfelt recommendation and Senator Manchin for his strong support. In addition to those members of my family that are here today and those that were recognized by Senator Manchin and Senator Rockefeller, I would also like to acknowledge my brother and sister back in West Virginia: my brother, Dr. Alan Young, and my sister, Stacey Young Issa. Also, although she passed away several years ago now, I want to specifically recognize today my grandmother, Ruth Thacker, who was and remains an important force in my life, and I know she is with me in spirit today. Senator, I am truly humbled to sit before you today, and I look forward to answering any questions you may have of me. [The biographical information of Ms. Thacker follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. When you were introduced by Senators Rockefeller and Manchin, they pointed to one of the key developments in your legal career, and that was your work in the Justice Department's Innocence Lost Initiative which targeted those who exploited children and provided support services for the child victims. Can you give this Committee a little insight into the work that you put into this initiative and how it came from your practice of the law? Ms. Thacker. That initiative was a part of my work with the Department of Justice, Child Exploitation and Obscenity Section. That section is tasked with pursuing crimes against children, exploitation, and obscenity. At the time sex trafficking was an emerging and important issue that needed to be addressed. I worked together with the FBI's Crimes Against Children Unit as well as the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children to develop a nationwide initiative that would provide training, support services for victims, and also increase awareness of the issue and implement prosecutions and convictions through working groups around the country. And I understand there are now 43 working groups in the country today, and as the Senators mentioned, there have been over 700 convictions to date since it was implemented in June of 2003. Thank you for your question. Senator Durbin. It is certainly good work, and it certainly speaks to your role as a prosecutor that developed into a special effort to help victims. I would like to then move to a different part of your legal background, and that is your work in private practice where you took a slightly different role, and I would like you, if you could, to tell the Committee a little bit about the case involving Dupont, involving your class action medical monitoring case in West Virginia. It was brought on behalf of plaintiffs who alleged that they were exposed to arsenic, cadmium, and lead from Dupont's zinc smelting plant. You represented Dupont, I believe, in that action, and I would like for you to tell me how that case was tried, appealed, and the ultimate outcome. Ms. Thacker. Thank you, Senator Durbin, for that question. Yes, I and my colleagues represented Dupont in a class action lawsuit in West Virginia that was one of the first of its kind there. First, with respect to your question about my role in the case, I want to state first and foremost that I understand clearly the distinction between my role as an advocate currently and the role of a judge in which impartiality is critical. I recognize that. With respect to the Dupont case, that case went to trial and resulted in a jury verdict against Dupont. The case was appealed to the West Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals, which did two things: They reduced the damages verdict with respect to the medical monitoring punitive damages, given that there was no present personal injury alleged or proven. They also provided a remittitur of the punitive damages due to Dupont's remediation of the site in issue. And they remanded the case back for retrial on the issue of Dupont's statute of limitations defense. The decision of the West Virginia Supreme Court put the case then in a position where the parties were able to resolve the case prior to retrial and were able to achieve settlement. Currently I serve as part of a three-person finance Committee together with the claims administrator and class counsel for the plaintiffs in that case, helping to carry out the settlement, which does include remediation and medical monitoring. And I am glad to be a part of that resolution and moving forward with the community in the spirit of reconciliation on behalf of the client. Senator Durbin. I am glad you made the point right near the end about the continued medical monitoring, which I thought was an interesting aspect of that case. You also have the distinction of prosecuting the first case in the country under the Violence Against Women Act. That must have been a daunting undertaking since you were the first. Can you tell us what led you to the decision to try that case or to prosecute that case? Ms. Thacker. Well, thank you, Senator Durbin, for the opportunity to address that case. Certainly I did not do it alone, so while it was daunting being the first case, I was part of a team of prosecutors. The Violence Against Women Act had been passed in October, I believe, of 1994, and this case, the assault on the victim in the case, occurred in November 1994. Our U.S. Attorney at the time, and now my law partner, had been to a U.S. Attorneys conference in which that statute was discussed, so she recognized that the Violence Against Women Act may apply here. That case proceeded to trial, and the jury convicted the defendant and he was sentenced to life imprisonment. He was also charged with kidnapping, which provided a statutory maximum of life in prison. A little bit about the facts underlying that life imprisonment---- Senator Durbin. If I might, since I have gone over a bit in time. Ms. Thacker. Certainly. Senator Durbin. I was particularly interested as to whether there was a challenge to the constitutionality of the law brought in that first case. Ms. Thacker. There was a challenge to the Bailey case that was affirmed by the Fourth Circuit. The Violence Against Women Act, the criminal provisions in that part of the Violence Against Women Act specifically include a jurisdictional nexus; that is, there must be some crossing of State lines. And so contrary to or different from the Morrison section of the Violence Against Women Act that the Supreme Court held unconstitutional, the criminal provisions include enumerated jurisdictional elements. Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Ms. Thacker. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Senator Lee. Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Ms. Thacker, for joining us. I welcome you and your family to the Committee. You published a Law Review article years ago in the West Virginia Law Review in which you advocate a fairly aggressive view of vicarious liability for churches and priests, under which churches and priests would be held liable for the improper actions of other priests within the same church. Based on that article, I feel the need to ask: Do you disagree with laws or the need for laws and legal doctrines that offer special protections to religious institutions? Ms. Thacker. I do not disagree with that. Senator Lee. OK. One of the reasons I asked that is that in that article you refer to at one point--you suggest that many charitable organizations, including religious institutions, are ``big business.'' Tell me what you meant by that and whether that means that charitable organizations, including religious institutions, should not be--whether that means they should not be offered some kind of special protections? Ms. Thacker. Thank you, Senator Lee. I appreciate the opportunity to address that issue. The Law Review article was meant to address the emerging and novel legal issues at the time rather than to aggressively advocate. The term ``big business'' in the Law Review article was actually in reference to another article or case that I was citing for a particular principle in that. I don't recall what, but that was not my view but, rather, something I was referencing. And I certainly would recognize, were I fortunate enough to be confirmed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, the constitutional protections and would follow the law of the United States Supreme Court and the Constitution. Senator Lee. OK. In that same article, you noted a case in which a court did not hold a bishop liable for the actions of one of his fellow clergy members because the non-offending bishop did not participate in or ratify or approve of the conduct. And you argue in that article, with disapproval, I think, that the result of the court's decision is that ``heads of religious societies are not expected to be their brother's keeper.'' So do you view the law as mandating a certain code of ecclesiastical conduct? Ms. Thacker. I do not. My goal in that article was merely to assess the state of the law at that time on respondent superior and employer liability, and each of those cases, including the one you mentioned, turn of the specific facts, and I would, if such cases would come before me, review them on a case-by-case basis with a view toward controlling legal precedent. I was merely attempting to set forth the state of the law at the time. Senator Lee. OK, and not to make a normative judgment as to the state of the law or what it should require. Ms. Thacker. Absolutely not. Senator Lee. So if I got that impression, that was not consistent with your intentions. Now, in the conclusion of the article, you state that due to the ``reprehensible factual situations involved in most of the sexual molestation cases,'' you easily reached the conclusion that, ``The church should be thy priest's keeper in terms of civil liability.'' That does sound like a normative statement to me, a normative judgment of sorts. Tell us what you meant by that. Ms. Thacker. Well, the goal of the Law Review article, which I wrote as a law student 22 years ago, was simply to make a statement or a review of the areas of the law and to address how that may evolve, a sort of best guesstimate as to how that may evolve. Frankly, I have not looked at the state of the law in that area since, but I would follow the law and controlling legal precedent, depending on the facts of the cases that came before me. I certainly did not intend to make any overarching statement in that Law Review article. Senator Lee. And you did not intend to make any statement to the effect that the legal standard to be applied when evaluating the liability vel non of a religious institution might be determined or influenced or altered in any way by the nature of the factual situation before it? Ms. Thacker. Absolutely no, Senator. Senator Lee. OK. Thank you. Senator Durbin. Thank you, Senator Lee. I have no further questions to ask of this nominee. I thank you very much for being with us today. There may be additional questions sent to you by some other members of the Committee, and I hope you can answer them in a timely fashion, and we look forward to working with you after this hearing. Thank you again for joining us. Ms. Thacker. Thank you. Senator Durbin. We now welcome the second panel of district court nominees, all four: Ronnie Abrams of New York, Rudolph Contreras of the District of Columbia, Miranda Du of Nevada, and Michael Fitzgerald of California. When you reach your chair, please remain standing because I have a little work to do before you sit down. If each of the district court nominees would please raise your right hand. Do you affirm the testimony you are about to give before the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Fitzgerald. I do. Ms. Abrams. I do. Mr. Contreras. I do. Ms. Du. I do. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Let the record reflect that all four of the witnesses have answered in the affirmative. And for the record, I wanted to let Senator Lee know that a recent movie that came out called ``Contagion'' originally contained a scene where I did just that, but it was lost on the cutting room floor. [Laughter.] Senator Durbin. So Senator Leahy is the only movie star on the Senate Judiciary Committee to date, unless you have something to report. Senator Lee. I saw that movie recently, and I agree, that would have been a much more compelling movie. I think I would have cried hot tears of joy and emotion had I seen that and you had been in it as well. I am going to write the producer a letter. Senator Durbin. It was one of my finest moments. Thank you to the nominees for joining us today, and we are going to proceed with questions after you have an opportunity to say a few words in advance. We will start with Michael Fitzgerald of California. If you would like to make a statement or introduce those who are with you, it is your floor. Take it away. STATEMENT OF MICHAEL WALTER FITZGERALD, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank you, Senator Durbin and Senator Lee, on behalf of the Committee for giving me the chance to testify today. I would like to thank the President for nominating me for the Central District of California. I would like to thank Senator Boxer for her recommendation to the President, and in turn the bipartisan Judicial Advisory Committee of Senator Boxer which forwarded my name to her for her consideration. As you have heard, present with me today are my parents, Vivianne and Jim Fitzgerald, like my brother and I native born Angelenos. Also here is my twin brother, Patrick Fitzgerald, who serves as a Federal prosecutor in the Central District of California. Joining us through the Committee's webcast are numerous colleagues and friends. I would particularly like to acknowledge my colleagues and staff at Corbin, Fitzgerald & Athey in Los Angeles. Thank you. [The biographical information of Mr. Fitzgerald follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. I imagine there are occasionally times when your brother's name is confused with another Patrick Fitzgerald. [Laughter.] Mr. Fitzgerald. Senator, I am told that the e-mails cross with an alarming degree of frequency. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Ronnie Abrams, thank you for being here, and not only having the support of both of your Senators but also Senator Coons. Please proceed. STATEMENT OF RONNIE ABRAMS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK Ms. Abrams. Thank you. I would like to thank first and foremost Senator Gillibrand for her support and encouragement throughout this process and her kind words today. I would like to thank Senator Coons as well for his generous words. I would like to thank the Committee for its consideration and the President for the tremendous honor of this nomination. As you heard, I do have with me my family. I would love to introduce them myself. First is my husband, Greg Andres, and my best friend. We have been married for over 10 years. He is a long-time Federal prosecutor, now a Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice. My three daughters are here. I am hoping no one is sleeping, but that may be. This is Dylan, who is 8; Teddi, who is 6; and Finley, my 2-year-old. We are very proud of all three of them. My parents, Floyd and Efrat Abrams, are here. I owe so much to both of them, but I would be remiss if I did not note in particular that my father has been my inspiration for my life and love of the law. My brother, Dan Abrams, with whom I am very close, is also here, as well as a few very close friends. Thanks very much. [The biographical information of Ms. Abrams follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Rudolph Contreras from the District of Columbia, the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Mr. Contreras. Thank you. I would like to thank the Committee for considering my nomination and scheduling this hearing. I would also like to thank the President for nominating me and giving me this great honor. I would like to thank Congresswoman Norton for recommending me to the President and her selection Committee for recommending me to her. And I would like to acknowledge the folks that came with me here today: my mother, Amparo, who flew up from Miami for this hearing; my wife, Karen McSweeney, who is a joint partner in everything I do; my children, Brian and Claire; and also here with me today are two of my long-time mentors and hopefully future colleagues: Chief Judge Royce Lamberth and Judge Ricardo Urbina, who, after taking senior status, is the slot for whom I have been nominated. Thank you. [The biographical information of Mr. Contreras follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Durbin. Thank you very much. Ms. Miranda Du, thank you for joining us from Nevada. You have been introduced by the Majority Leader and the other Senator from your State, and the floor is yours. STATEMENT OF MIRANDA DU, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEVADA Ms. Du. Thank you, Senator, and I too would like to thank the Committee for giving me the opportunity to appear before you today. I want to also thank Senator Reid for recommending me to the President. I want to express my appreciation to the President for nominating me, and, of course, I want to also thank both the Senators from my State, Senators Reid and Heller, for introducing me earlier today. This is an incredibly proud moment for my family. They wanted to come here. I have a large group of family members, 16, in fact, from California and Arizona, and I would briefly like to introduce them. My parents, Tina and Peter, and my brother, Joe, flew in from Orange County, California. My sister, Vicki, and her husband, Andy, and their 8-year-old son, Ethan, came in from Scottsdale, Arizona. I have two uncles, two aunts, five cousins, and another relative who all flew in from the Bay Area of California. The managing partner of my firm, John Frankovich, also joined us here today. He is probably a little stressed out about the length of the hearing because work at my firm has stopped while everyone is convening in the conference room to watch this webcast. Laughter.] Ms. Du. I also wanted to acknowledge many family members and friends and colleagues who are also watching on the webcast. Thank you. [The biographical information of Ms. Du follows:] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT] Senator Durbin. Thank you. I would like to ask a general question based on my shadowy memories of the days when I appeared before Federal court judges in Springfield, Illinois, and in Chicago. And I had my favorites based not so much on their intelligence but on their temperament. This is a lifetime appointment, and it has been my observation that it goes straight to the head of some of the nominees once they put the robe on and they forget that they are still human beings with a background in the law and have before them attorneys who are doing their best for their clients. I would like each of you, if you would, to just spend a brief moment talking about that issue of judicial temperament and what you have learned appearing before judges and what you would bring to the bench given that opportunity. Ms. Du, would you start? Ms. Du. Thank you, Your Honor. Your Honor? Thank you, Senator. I think that is a very good question. I am used to appearing before the court. One of the judges I admire the most on our Federal bench is somebody who exudes civility in the courtroom, and he conducts his courtroom with dignity and respect and is very humble. That is one of the qualities I admire. I think that the judges should exemplify our judicial system and should exhibit great temperament and in that way command respect. Senator Durbin. Mr. Contreras. Mr. Contreras. Yes, thank you for the question. I have practiced in the very court for which I have been nominated for the better part of 17 years, and I have appeared before many, many of the judges, and it makes a huge difference, the temperament of the judge. There were a number of judges--no longer on the bench--who even when I won it was less than a pleasant experience to appear. So I will make it a center point of my tenure, if I am so fortunate to be confirmed, to make sure that every party that appears is treated with respect and also is given the opportunity to have their claims heard fairly, regardless of walk of life or position in life. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Abrams. Ms. Abrams. I think judicial temperament is critically important. It is important for a judge to be patient and to be a good listener and to be humble and to be courteous to all those before him or her, no matter if they are rich or poor, no matter where they come from. I think it is important for a judge to remember that the courtroom can be an intimidating place for people, and it is important to treat everyone with respect and courtesy. I recall that at a prior hearing one nominee said that people remember being mistreated much longer than they remember if they won or lost. And I think that that is true, and I think that a calm and decent and respectful temperament is critical for just confidence in the system overall. Senator Durbin. Mr. Fitzgerald. Mr. Fitzgerald. As Ms. Abrams said, I think that being a calm and patient and good listener is very much a part of the judicial temperament. It is very important that the parties feel not only that their case was not prejudged, but that they were treated with respect and that their case was seen as important to them. And I would certainly endeavor to project that and to display that to everyone who came into my courtroom. Senator Durbin. Thank you. It seems like a very obvious question, I know, and the answers are anticipated. But I believe it is one of the most important elements in being a successful Federal judge, and I hope that--and I know that each of you feel as I do, that temperament is a critical element. Let me ask you, Ms. Abrams, you served on a task force that the chief judge of New York State created to propose reforms to help safeguard against wrongful convictions. That topic is always in the news: eyewitnesses that get it all wrong, people in jail for decades when it turns out they did not commit the crime. What did you learn in this process that you would bring to the bench? Ms. Abrams. Well, a wrongful conviction is just a grave failure of our criminal justice system. It destroys the life of the person convicted. It lets the actual perpetrator go free. It should never happen, and yet on occasion it does. And I think that it is important for judges to understand the causes of wrongful convictions and be vigilant in every case in ensuring that the case is handled properly and that such a grave injustice does not happen in that judge's courtroom. Senator Durbin. Ms. Du, you have an amazing, compelling life story of how you made it to the United States despite great adversity, and your family stuck together and I think virtually all of them are here today, which is a good thing for you. What has that experience being first-generation American meant to you in terms of your work as an attorney? And what would it mean on the bench? Ms. Du. Having been born and raised initially in a country where the rule of law is not respected helped give me the appreciation for the rule of law and our judicial system. And that was one of the reasons why I decided to go into the law. I wanted to show my family that in this country we can be a part of the system and do well, because they did not get a sense of trust from the Government having lived in Vietnam. Senator Durbin. Mr. Contreras, there are so many things I can ask you about. You have an amazing background in the law, working in the U.S. Attorney's Office and the like. But the one thing I have noticed that just jumped off the page was your mentoring of disadvantaged Hispanic students in the District of Columbia as well as Hispanic law students. Tell me why you felt the need to do that and what you have brought from that experience. Mr. Contreras. Thank you for that question, Senator. It is something as a first-generation attorney--I did not have a lot of guidance, through no fault of my parents. They just had never gone to college themselves or gone to law school, and knowing how to maneuver the very difficult paperwork or financial aid and all those things that are involved, it is a very complicated process nowadays. I have just felt that having been through it myself and hopefully learned something from those events, that it is my duty to help others that are in the position I was and hopefully can get some help going through the process. Senator Durbin. Thanks. Mr. Fitzgerald, at one point in your career, you represented an FBI special agent named Frank Buttino in a matter in the early 1990's. Mr. Buttino was gay. He had his security clearance revoked and was fired after his superiors at the FBI learned of his sexual orientation. Mr. Buttino filed a lawsuit and was joined by a certified class of gay and lesbian FBI employees. I understand there was a settlement of this case that contained some important FBI policy changes regarding the treatment of gay and lesbian employees and applicants. Can you discuss the outcome of this matter and your role in the case? Mr. Fitzgerald. Thank you, Senator. I was approached by Heller Ehrman, the former law firm in San Francisco--I was then working in its Los Angeles office--to work on that case as a pro bono matter, and because of my trial background in the U.S. Attorney's Office and my familiarity with the FBI, I was asked to work on it, which, again, because of that background I was pleased to do so. Mr. Buttino was the named representative. We brought the case to trial. During trial we, I am pleased to say, reached a mutually agreeable accommodation with the administration and with the FBI. The FBI agreed to no longer use security concerns as a means to keep gays and lesbians from being hired as special agents, and Mr. Buttino's pension was restored. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Senator Lee. Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fitzgerald, as the father of twin boys, I am worried about Patrick. You are not going to use this, are you, in order to generate the perception that you are the favorite of your parents? [Laughter.] Mr. Fitzgerald. No, Senator, though I did ask him to hold my BlackBerry while I was here in the hearing room, and he told me that he would, but it would not become a habit. Senator Lee. And I am sure you will return the favor for him at some point whenever he needs you to hold his BlackBerry. Like some other nominees that we have before our Committee from time to time, you have worked personally and professionally as an activist in various political and legal causes. I do not subscribe to the view that having been an activist in one area or another ought to disqualify anyone from ascending to the bench, and I certainly do not think that is the case in any instance where I have seen someone come before this Committee. It is our duty, of course, as Senators, especially those of us who were privileged enough to serve on this Committee, to make sure that individuals who have been nominated to a lifetime tenured vacancy in the U.S. court system will uphold the rule of law and make sure that they understand the difference between advocacy and jurisprudence and that they will not engage in any kind of political activism while on the bench. So I feel it is my responsibility to just ask a couple of questions about that. How would your prior political activities as an advocate and as an activist influence the work that you might do as a Federal judge? Mr. Fitzgerald. Sir, I do not believe that it would have any influence on my service as a Federal judge. The great bulk of my time since leaving the U.S. Attorney's Office has been as a businessman in Los Angeles representing clients, hoping my firm would do well, and while we have done pro bono work--and I think that is important for lawyers, and I have served on a number of committees dealing with the Federal court system--as I said, the bulk of my practice has been very much as a litigator for clients who have retained us for our expertise. And as a judge, then I would respect the rule of law; I would respect the court system as a system which is trying to do justice for the litigants in front of it pursuant to the facts as they were found, without any reference to the background of the litigants--that is what is required by the judicial oath-- and, of course, pursuant to the binding precedent of the Supreme Court and of our circuit court. And that is what the job requires, and it is what I would do. And I would not bring any personal or political views to bear on any of the cases that I determined as a United States district judge. Senator Lee. And I suppose there are recusal standards that apply to Federal judges that also provide some protection in that regard. You are familiar with those, and you are comfortable with them? Mr. Fitzgerald. I am, sir, and I certainly would recuse myself from any case where I felt that was required and would certainly give a strong examination of conscience to make sure that my views would not influence any decision I would make as a judge. And I would also be cognizant of the fact that recusal is required not only when I felt that it might be necessary, but when a reasonable onlooker would believe it was necessary as well. Senator Lee. Thank you. Thank you very much. Ms. Du, I have a couple questions for you as well. First of all, let me say you have apparently garnered the support of Leif Reid, who I have known for years, and if you can impress Leif, you must be very good. So that is a credential worth having. Now, you were the lead counsel for the defendant in a civil case years ago, Truckee Meadows Water Authority, in a case that was ultimately dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada. You filed a motion to dismiss that did not argue the issue of subject matter jurisdiction, notwithstanding the fact that there was no subject matter jurisdiction in that case. So I thought I would ask, Why did you not raise the defense of lack of subject matter jurisdiction in that dispute? Ms. Du. We did not realize that that was a matter that we could raise. We raised the subject matter jurisdiction that the district court disagreed with, but we did not raise that particular issue. Senator Lee. OK. In that case you filed a third-party complaint against the TMWA's union, the Truckee Meadows Water Authority union. The union notified you in a letter that the Federal subject matter jurisdiction was lacking in that case over either it or your client. You agreed that there was no subject matter jurisdiction, but you, nonetheless, elected to proceed against the union, and the case was dismissed by the court only after the union moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Did you consider filing a second motion to dismiss on that basis? Ms. Du. I did not. What happened was the union filed a motion to dismiss that the court had not decided, and the plaintiff then dismissed the entire lawsuit. Senator Lee. The district court, as I understand it in that case, characterized your position to proceed with your third- party complaint against the union as reckless and imposed sanctions for attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Section 1927 of 28 U.S.C. I was wondering: Do you agree with the district court's assessment in that case that your conduct was reckless? Ms. Du. I agree with the district judge's analysis in that case that the more prudent course would have been for us to either approach the plaintiff's attorney and ask them to dismiss a second time or file a second motion on our own. And in hindsight, that probably was the course of conduct we should have taken instead of bringing the union. Senator Lee. You do not agree with the recklessness conclusion? Ms. Du. I do not believe that I was reckless in that case. We certainly made a mistake and did not pick the best course of action, but I do not believe it was reckless. Senator Lee. As a judge, you would be careful to look out for subject matter jurisdiction defects in any case, keeping in mind the importance of our limited Federal judiciary? Ms. Du. Absolutely. Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Durbin. Thanks a lot. Let me ask you, Ms. Du, in 17 years with this McDonald Carano Wilson law firm, it appears that most of your work has been civil litigation and most of it has been in a defense capacity, civil defense. Is that a fair summary of most of your practice? Ms. Du. Most of my practice has been on the defense side. That is correct. Senator Durbin. So the question that usually arises when nominees are considered is whether there is a bias based on life experience or legal experience. What could you point to in terms of your own legal career where you were on the other side of the table, perhaps representing a plaintiff or a petitioner in a case against a major corporation or a major interest? Ms. Du. I believe that a good litigator should be able to look at both sides, both the plaintiff and the defendant sides, to assess each side's strengths and weaknesses. I do not believe I have that bias for one side or the other, and if I was fortunate to be nominated, I believe that a judge's role is to be impartial and to look at both sides. Senator Durbin. So if I were a criminal defendant coming before you on the bench, the obvious question, and I think I know the answer, but for the record: What would your feelings be toward a prosecution? Would you take a look at it from the viewpoint of the facts and the law without any bias based on your own personal experience? Ms. Du. I would. I believe a judge's role is to look at the facts and apply the law and be fair and open to everyone who appeared before the court. Senator Durbin. And tell me about your pro bono work as an attorney. Ms. Du. I have represented several nonprofit organizations in helping them through some of their employment issues, both from the defense and the plaintiff side. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Contreras, a similar question. Most of your background has been representing the U.S. Government either prosecuting cases against individuals or representing the Government's interest in contractual relationships. And so the same question: What would a criminal defense lawyer think if he drew Judge Contreras in an important case? Mr. Contreras. Thank you for that question. I do not think anyone would feel like they were not getting a fair shot because, despite the fact that I have defended the Government for the better part of my career, a large part of my job is not just to serve justice with a capital ``J'' but also served justice with a small ``J.'' And a large part of my job is convincing agencies to do what the law requires, and a lot of that is behind the scenes. Neither the parties nor the court ever see it. But my job is to enforce the law, and regardless of who I represented before assuming the bench, I will have no problem if the Government has not acted according to the law, that it will be held accountable the same way. Senator Durbin. Tell me about your own pro bono experience. Mr. Contreras. Given that I represent--before I worked for U.S. Attorney's Office, I did a lot of pro bono helping folks with Social Security matters and with immigration matters. Representing the United States, I am conflicted now from doing all that sort of work. So I have focused, as you mentioned earlier, on mentoring and dealing with individuals more so than pro bono work in my current tenure. Before I joined the U.S. Attorney's Office, I did a lot of work helping immigration, asylum cases, Social Security cases. I helped someone that was getting evicted from a D.C. housing unit. I helped a grandmother who was trying to adopt their grandchild because of problems with the child's mother. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Ms. Abrams, I know you are sitting there saying, ``I hope he asks me about the pro bono part.'' [Laughter.] Senator Durbin. Please proceed and tell me about your experience. Ms. Abrams. Well, I think I have been on all sides of the aisle, to a certain extent. I was a prosecutor for a long time, for 9\1/2\ years at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York. But I have also represented criminal defendants in Federal and State actions. I am on the Criminal Justice Act Panel now in the Southern District of New York. On the civil side, I have represented both plaintiffs and defendants ranging from very large corporations to individuals seeking to enforce their rights. So I think in terms of impartiality, I do not think it would be questioned because I have been on all sides. In terms of pro bono work, thank you for the question. Virtually all of the work I do not, is designed to serve the disadvantaged. I am special counsel for pro bono at my law firm now. I litigate cases. I supervise cases. I represent battered women and veterans and criminal defendants and unpaid workers. And then I oversee the program as a whole. So I have done a good deal of pro bono work. I do it now and I did it before I was a prosecutor as well, and I think it is critically important for all lawyers to do. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Mr. Fitzgerald, same question in terms of your balance as you would approach the bench based on your own personal experience, and then, again, any pro bono work that you have done. I cited a case. I believe you already have, but if you could expand on that a bit. Mr. Fitzgerald. Yes, Senator, I am pleased that my legal career has given me the opportunity to handle both criminal and civil cases and to be on the criminal side and represent both the United States of America and defendants, on the civil side to represent plaintiffs and defendants, individuals and corporations. Certainly most of the cases I have handled have settled and not gone to trial, and that obviously requires a certain ability to see things from the opposing party's point of view to reach a mutually agreeable settlement. In terms of pro bono, in addition to the case that you mentioned, I have handled other court-appointed work in both the district court and the court of appeals. I have served, as Senator Boxer mentioned, as a volunteer counsel to two commissions that were investigating the Los Angeles Police Department. And I have also volunteered to be a moot court coach for a local law school that is in partnership with the California Institute of Technology for a high-tech new court program. Senator Durbin. Thank you. Senator Lee. Senator Lee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since I have spent my first 5 minutes talking to Mr. Fitzgerald and Ms. Du, I will direct my next question to Ms. Abrams and Mr. Contreras. I would like to ask both of you the same question in that order, starting with you, Ms. Abrams. If you are confirmed as Federal judges, you will be called on constantly to interpret, to offer up a judicial construction of various provisions of Federal law and of the U.S. Constitution. So what I would like to know is: What sources would you consult, would you draw upon in arriving at your construction of a particular provision? Ms. Abrams. Well, the first thing you would do is look at the text of the provision at issue and the structure of that. You would look to the precedent of the Supreme Court and of the court of appeals in the circuit in which you sit, and that is the first two and most important things you do. If it is a case of first impression and there is no precedent on point, you would look to precedent of the Supreme Court and the relevant court of appeals for analogous provisions. You would look at precedent from other circuits as well as legislative history. Senator Lee. What ought to drive it? What the legislative body intended or what the language actually says? Ms. Abrams. I think the first thing and most important thing you want to look at is what the language says, and that is your starting point always. Senator Lee. Mr. Contreras. Mr. Contreras. Thank you for that question. This issue is actually something I practice on a nearly daily basis in my current capacity as interpreting statutes and defending statutes on behalf of the United States. I follow Chevron from the Supreme Court very clearly. If the statute is clear on its face, that is the end of the story. If it is not, if there is ambiguity, you go to Chevron step two and you see what the administrative agency's reasonable interpretation is of the statute, filling in the gaps. There is no step three about what I think about the statute, and that is where it is. If the agency's interpretation is arbitrary and capricious, then the plaintiff wins. But using the teachings of the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit, which has a myriad of cases on this issue, I would have lots of sources of guidance. Senator Lee. Sure. Well, and on your court Chevron will be of enormous importance. You will, of course, be called upon from time to time to construe statutory provisions outside the unique context of Chevron and its progeny. What about there? What do you do there? And what specifically do you think about, for instance, legislative history and what role it ought to play? Mr. Contreras. Well, if the statute is unclear--again, I go to the clear face of the statute. If the language of the statute is clear, even if legislative history is contrary to the clear language of the statute, you do what the statute says. In the end that is the statute that Congress issued. If it is not, depending on the circumstances, one can look to see if the legislative history is clear, but that is treacherous work. You know, what various folks got into the legislative history may not be why the statute was voted into place. So if the legislative history is very clear and it seems that it clearly was the reason for the statute, I would give it some weight. But it is very hard to do, to decipher legislative history, especially long afterwards. Senator Lee. Thank you very much to all of you. Thanks for coming today. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Durbin. Thanks, Senator Lee, for being here today, and I want to thank all of our nominees who have appeared before us, and certainly the Senators and Delegate who came to speak on your behalf. We will keep the record open for a week. If there are questions that come in either from us or other members of the Committee, I hope you will respond to them on a very timely basis. And I want to thank everyone for being here today. This Committee will stand adjourned. [Whereupon, at 4:25 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] [Questions and answers and submissions follow.] [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]