[Senate Hearing 108-135] [From the U.S. Government Printing Office] S. Hrg. 108-135, Pt. 6 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION ---------- JANUARY 22, JANUARY 28, FEBRUARY 5, FEBRUARY 11, FEBRUARY 25, AND MARCH 10, 2004 ---------- Serial No. J-108-1 ---------- PART 6 ---------- Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 95-617 WASHINGTON : DC ____________________________________________________________________________ For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800 Fax: (202) 512�092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402�090001 S. Hrg. 108-135, Pt. 6 CONFIRMATION HEARINGS ON FEDERAL APPOINTMENTS ======================================================================= HEARINGS before the COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY UNITED STATES SENATE ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS SECOND SESSION __________ JANUARY 22, JANUARY 28, FEBRUARY 5, FEBRUARY 11, FEBRUARY 25, AND MARCH 10, 2004 __________ Serial No. J-108-1 __________ PART 6 __________ Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts JON KYL, Arizona JOSEPH R. BIDEN, Jr., Delaware MIKE DeWINE, Ohio HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois JOHN CORNYN, Texas JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina Bruce Artim, Chief Counsel and Staff Director Bruce A. Cohen, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director C O N T E N T S ---------- THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 219 Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona.......... 1 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 221 PRESENTERS Bond, Hon. Christopher, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri presenting Raymond W. Gruender, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit............................................. 6 Kyl, Hon. Jon, a U.S. Senator from the State of Arizona presenting Neil Vincent Wake, Mominee to be District Judge for the District of Arizona........................................ 5 Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington presenting Ricardo S. Martinez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington......................... 4 Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Gene E.K. Pratter, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania........ 2 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Gene E.K. Pratter, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania........ 3 Talent, Hon. James, a U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri presenting Raymond W. Gruender, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit............................................. 58 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Gruender, Raymond W., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit........................................................ 8 Questionnaire................................................ 9 Martinez, Ricardo S., Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington................................. 29 Questionnaire................................................ 30 Pratter, Gene E.K., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania....................................... 59 Questionnaire................................................ 60 Wake, Neil Vincent, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Arizona..................................................... 110 Questionnaire................................................ 111 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Raymond W. Gruender to questions submitted by Senators Leahy and Durbin...................................... 180 Responses of Ricardo S. Martinez to questions submitted by Senator Durbin................................................. 200 Responses of Gene E.K. Pratter to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 203 Responses of Gene E.K. Pratter to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 206 Responses of Neil Vincent Wake to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 211 Responses of Neil Vincent Wake to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 215 SUBMISSION FOR THE RECORD Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington, statement in support of Richardo S. Martinez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington..................................................... 218 ---------- WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 28, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 265 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 266 PRESENTERS Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit......................... 228 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Franklin S. Van Antwerpen, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit......................... 227 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE Van Antwerpen, Franklin S., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.................................................. 229 Questionnaire................................................ 230 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Franklin S. Van Antwerpen to questions submitted by Senator Durbin................................................. 262 ---------- THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 269 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 532 Leahy, Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont...... 275 prepared statement and attachment............................ 548 PRESENTERS Chambliss, Hon. Saxby, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia presenting William S. Duffey, Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia........................... 272 Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho presenting William Gerry Myers III, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.......................................... 278 Crapo, Hon. Michael, a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho presenting William Gerry Myers III, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.......................................... 274 Miller, Hon. Zell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Georgia presenting William S. Duffey, Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia........................... 273 Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Lawrence F. Stengel, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania........ 271 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Lawrence F. Stengel, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania........ 270 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Duffey, William S., Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia................................... 364 Questionnaire................................................ 365 Myers, William Gerry, III, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 280 Questionnaire................................................ 281 Stengel, Hon. Lawrence F., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania............................... 405 Questionnaire................................................ 406 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of William S. Duffey, Jr. to questions submitted by Senator Durbin................................................. 443 Responses of Lawrence F. Stengel to questions submitted by Senator Durbin................................................. 447 Responses of William S. Duffey, Jr. to questions submitted by Senators Leahy and Kennedy..................................... 451 Responses of William Gerry Myers III to questions submitted by Senator Feinstein.............................................. 460 Responses of William Gerry Myers III to questions submitted by Senators Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold and Durbin................... 468 Responses of William Gerry Myers III to questions submitted by Senator Kennedy................................................ 502 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Advocates for the West, American Rivers, Americans for Democratic Action, Alliance for Justice, Clean Water Action, Committee for Judicial Independence, Community Rights Counsel, Defenders of Wildlife, Earthjustice, Endgagered Species Coalition, Friends of the Earth, Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Mineral Policy Center, Naral Pro-Choice American, National Abortion Federation, National Environmental Trust, National Organization for Women, Natural Resources Defense Council, The Ocean Conservancy, Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, People for the American Way, Sierra Club, The Wilderness Society, joint letter.......................................... 506 Alliance for Justice, American Association of University Women, Catholics for a Free Choice, Feminist Majority, Human Rights Campaign, Naral Pro-Choice American, National Abortion Federation, National Council of Jewish Women, National Family Planning and Reproductive Health Association, Now Legal Defense and Education Fund, National Partnership for Women and Families, National Women's Law Center, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, joint letter.................................... 511 Bear River Band of Rohnerville Rancheria Tribe, Janice McGinnis, Vice-Chairperson, Loleta, California, letter................... 514 Cabazon Band of Mission Indians, John A. James, Tribal Chairman, Indio, California, letter...................................... 516 Cachil DeHe Band of Wintun Indians, Wayne R. Mitchum, Colusa, California, letter............................................. 518 California Nations Indian Gaming Association, Sacramento, California, letter............................................. 520 Civil rights, disability rights, senior citizens, women's rights, human rights, Native American, planning and environmental organizations, joint letter.................................... 523 Elko Band Council, Hugh Stevens, Vice Chairman, Elko, Nevada, letter......................................................... 530 Hopland Band of Pomo Indians, Sandra C. Sigala, Tribal Chairperson, Hopland, California, letter....................... 535 Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Nora McDowell, President, Phoenix, Arizona, letter....................................... 537 Justice for All Project, Susan Learner, Los Angeles, California, letter......................................................... 539 Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Glen Nenema, Chairman, Usk, Washington, letter............................................. 544 Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade Henderson, Executive Director and Nancy Zirkin, Deputy Director, Washington, D.C., letter......................................................... 546 Mooretown Rancheria, Melvin Jackson, Vice Chairman, Oroville, California, letter............................................. 554 National Congress of American Indians, Tex G. Hall, President, Washington, D.C., letter and attachments....................... 556 Paskenta Band of Nomlaki Indians, Everett Freeman, Tribal Chairperson, Orland, California, letter........................ 561 Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, Jeffrey Ruch, Executive Director, Washington, D.C., letter................... 563 Pueblo of Laguna, Roland E. Johnson, Governor, Laguna, New Mexico, letter................................................. 565 Quechan Indian Tribe, Mike Jackson Sr., President, Yuma, Arizona, letter......................................................... 567 Redding Rancheria, Tracy Edwards, Tribal Chair, Redding, California, letter............................................. 569 San Pasqual Band of Mission Indians, Allen E. Lawson, Tribal Chairman, Valley Center, California, letter.................... 571 Santa Ysabel Band of Diegueno Indians, Johnny M. Hernandez, Spokesman, Santa Ysabel, California, letter.................... 573 Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, Ken Chambers, Principal Chief, Wewoka, Oklahoma, letter....................................... 575 Winnebago Tribe of Nebraska, John Blackhawk, Chairman, Winnebago, Nebraska, letter............................................... 577 Van Hyning & Associates, Inc., Dyrek Van Hying, Great Falls, Montana, letter................................................ 578 ---------- WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 11, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Feingold, Hon. Russell D., a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin, prepared statement.................................. 723 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 579 prepared statement........................................... 727 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 729 PRESENTERS Cantwell, Hon. Maria, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington presenting James L. Robart, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington............................. 586 Feingold, Hon. Russell, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin presenting Diane S. Sykes, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit.................................. 582 Kohl, Hon. Herbert, a U.S. Senator from the State of Wisconsin presenting Diane S. Sykes, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit................................................ 581 Murray, Hon. Patty, a U.S. Senator from the State of Washington presenting James L. Robart, Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington............................. 585 Santorum, Hon. Rick, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Juan R. Sanchez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania................. 580 Sensenbrenner, Hon. F. James, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin presenting Diane S. Sykes, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit.......................... 584 Specter, Hon. Arlen, a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania presenting Juan R. Sanchez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania................. 580 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Robart, James L., Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington......................................... 617 Questionnaire................................................ 618 Sanchez, Juan R., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania....................................... 657 Questionnaire................................................ 658 Sykes, Diane S., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit........................................................ 587 Questionnaire................................................ 589 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Diane S. Sykes to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 694 Responses of James L. Robart to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 717 Responses of Juan R. Sanchez to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 720 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Fiedler, Patrick J., Judge, Dane County Circuit Court, Branch 8, Madison, Wisconsin, letter..................................... 725 Lundsten, Paul, Judge, Wisconsin Court of Appeals, Madison, Wisconsin, letter.............................................. 731 Santorum, Hon. Rick , a U.S. Senator from the State of Pennsylvania, letter in support of Juan R. Sanchez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania..... 732 ---------- WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 25, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 735 prepared statement........................................... 796 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 817 PRESENTER Feinstein, Hon. Dianne, a U.S. Senator from the State of California presenting Roger T. Benitez, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of California.................. 733 WITNESSES Hayward, Thomas Z., Jr., Chair, American Bar Association Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, and Richard M. Macias, Circuit Investigator, Washington, D.C.................................. 765 Huff, Marilyn L., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California................................ 773 STATEMENT OF THE NOMINEE Benitez, Roger T., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of California......................................... 738 Questionnaire................................................ 739 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Roger T. Benitez to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 777 Responses of Richard Macias to questions submitted by Senator Durbin......................................................... 783 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Carter, Harold D., Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal, El Centro, California, statement.......................................... 787 Contreras, Matias R., Judge of the Superior Court, California, statement...................................................... 788 Cortez, Ezekiel E., Federal Criminal Defense Attorney, San Diego, California, statement.......................................... 789 Cota, Raymond Ayala, Presiding Judge of the Superior Court, Imperial, California, statement................................ 791 Donnelly, Donal B., Judge of the Superior Court, Imperial, California, statement.......................................... 793 Flores, Poli, Jr., Attorney at Law, El Centro, California, statement...................................................... 794 Fox, Oren R., Reitred Sheriff-Coroner-Marshal, Brawley, California, statement.......................................... 795 Hayward, Thomas A., Jr., and Richard M. Macias, on behalf of the Standing Committee on Federal Judiciary, American Bar Association, Washington, D.C., prepared statement.............. 799 Houston, John A., District Judge, Southern District of California, statement.......................................... 810 Huff, Marilyn L., Chief Judge, U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California................................ 811 Jones, Jeffrey B., Judge of the Superior Court of the State of California, El Centro, California, statement................... 816 Keesal, Samuel A., Jr., Keesal, Young & Logan, Long Beach, California, letter............................................. 820 McDonough, Gregg L., Chief Public Defender, County of Imperial, El Centro, California, letter.................................. 821 Porter, Louisa S., Magistrate Judge, Southern District, California, statement.......................................... 823 Rivera, Eduardo A., Attorney at Law, California, statement....... 826 Rutten, Randy J., President, Imperial County Bar Association, El Centro, California, letter and attachment...................... 828 Terrazas, Jack, Mayor, City of El Centro, California, letter..... 830 Walker, Steven M., Attorney at Law, El Centro, California, letter 832 Wyatt, Gary, Chairman, Board of Supervisors, El Centro, California, statement and resolution........................... 833 Yeager, Christopher W., Judge, Superior Court of California, El Centro, California, letter..................................... 837 ---------- THURSDAY, MARCH 10, 2004 STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS Page Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas........ 839 Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah, prepared statement............................................. 1044 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 1050 PRESENTERS Allen Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia........................... 841 Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting Jane J. Boyle, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Texas..................................... 847 Hutchison, Hon. Kay Bailey, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas presenting Jane J. Boyle, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Texas............................. 846 Jeffords, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont presenting Peter W. Hall, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 843 Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont presenting Peter W. Hall, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 844 Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida presenting Marcia G. Cooke, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Florida............................... 846 Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting Walter D. Kelley, Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia........................... 840 STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES Boyle, Jane J., of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Texas..................................... 985 Questionnaire................................................ 986 Cooke, Marcia G., of Florida, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Florida............................... 935 Questionnaire................................................ 936 Hall, Peter W., of Vermont, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 848 Questionnaire................................................ 850 Kelley, Walter D., Jr., of Virginia, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia........................... 887 Questionnaire................................................ 888 QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS Responses of Jane J. Boyle to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 1036 Responses of Walter D. Kelley to questions submitted by Senator Leahy.......................................................... 1039 SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD Burlington Free Press, March 10, 2004, article................... 1042 Douglas, James H., Governor, State of Vermont, Montpelier, Vermont, letter................................................ 1043 Hays, Susan, Chair, Dallas County Democratic Party, Appellate Lawyer, Waters & Kraus, LLP, and Marc Stanley, Dallas, Texas, letter......................................................... 1047 Jeffords, Hon. Jim, a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont, prepared statement............................................. 1049 Molberg, Kenneth H., Wilson, Williams & Molberg, P.C., Dallas, Texas, letter.................................................. 1052 National Employment Lawyers Association, Terisa E. Chaw, Executive Director, San Francisco, California, letter.......... 1054 Nelson, Hon. Bill, a U.S. Senator from the State of Florida, statement in support of Marcia Cooke, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Florida..................... 1055 Texas Employment Lawyers Association, Katherine L. Butler, Chair of the Judicial Oversight Committee, Dallas, Texas, letter..... 1057 Tillou, Kenneth B., Parr Waddoups Brown, Gee & Loveless, Salt Lake City, Utah, letter........................................ 1058 United States Senate, August 1, 2003, news release and attachments.................................................... 1059 Walton, Kenneth E., II, President, Wilkie D. Ferguson, Jr., Bar Association, Miami, Florida, letter............................ 1071 ---------- ALPHABETICAL LIST OF NOMINEES Benitez, Roger T., Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of California......................................... 738 Boyle, Jane J., of Texas, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Texas..................................... 985 Cooke, Marcia G., of Florida, Nominee to be District Judge for the Southern District of Florida............................... 935 Duffey, William S., Jr., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of Georgia................................... 364 Gruender, Raymond W., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit........................................................ 8 Hall, Peter W., of Vermont, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Second Circuit................................................. 848 Kelley, Walter D., Jr., of Virginia, Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Virginia........................... 887 Martinez, Ricardo S., Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington................................. 29 Myers, William Gerry, III, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Ninth Circuit.................................................. 280 Pratter, Gene E.K., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania....................................... 59 Robart, James L., Nominee to be District Judge for the Western District of Washington......................................... 617 Sanchez, Juan R., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania....................................... 657 Stengel, Hon. Lawrence F., Nominee to be District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania............................... 405 Sykes, Diane S., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Seventh Circuit........................................................ 587 Van Antwerpen, Franklin S., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Third Circuit.................................................. 229 Wake, Neil Vincent, Nominee to be District Judge for the District of Arizona..................................................... 110 NOMINATIONS OF RAYMOND W. GRUENDER, OF MISSOURI, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT; RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, OF WASHINGTON, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON; GENE E.K. PRATTER, OF PENNSYLVANIA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA; AND NEIL VINCENT WAKE, OF ARIZONA, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA ---------- THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 2004 United States Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Washington, DC. The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:00 a.m., in room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Jon Kyl, presiding. Present: Senators Kyl, Specter, Craig, and Durbin. OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator Kyl. Let me call this meeting of the Senate Judiciary Committee to order just one or two minutes early, and if there are members of the dais here who come at 10 o'clock, then I will afford each of them an opportunity to speak. But let me just tell you generally that I am very pleased to have all of you here. We are going to consider the nominations of three candidates nominated by the President for Federal district court and one for the Circuit Court of Appeals. We will begin with introductory statements from Senators or Representatives who wish to introduce candidates from their State. Following all of those introductions, we will then call the panelists en banc, if there is no objection, to the table for their opening statements and then questioning from members. We will also, I want to make clear, afford everyone an opportunity to introduce friends and family who may be here today. This is an important event, and I think that every one of the nominees here should be very, very proud to be here, and the family and friends who are here I am sure are equally proud to be here today in support of their family or friend who has the important distinction of being nominated by the President of the United States to serve on the Federal judiciary. And that is why I think it is especially appropriate and it is the custom of the Committee to recognize those who are here in the audience to share in the hearing today. I want to make one preliminary comment, too. The hearing for nominees almost always is not the kind of formal affairs that you sometimes see on television or you perhaps have seen in a case of a very controversial nominee. And that is because most of the nominees are not very controversial. The reason for that is that there is an extensive vetting process, and those of you who have been nominated know exactly of what I speak. You have got to fill out so many forms. You have got to have so many interviews. You have got to be considered by the White House Office of Legal Counsel, the Attorney General, the American Bar Association. This Committee and its staff have already engaged in an extensive investigation, and basically when the Committee staff and Committee members conclude that the nominee is well qualified and does not need to undergo a great deal of public scrutiny in this hearing, then the hearing can go very well. But I do not want you in the audience to assume that because this hearing is likely to fall into that category that members do not care, or that the fact that there are not other Senators here is a sign that they do not care. What you should be appreciative of is the fact that there has been a great deal of preliminary work that has gone into the vetting of these nominees, all of whom have been found very qualified. And that is the reason why you are not likely to see a lot of fireworks here today and it may seem to be a little bit more pro forma. But you should not take from that a lack of interest but, rather, be very proud of the people who have been nominated because they have been found to be very qualified and without significant controversy. At least I hope that is the way the hearing here will go today. Now, let me begin by calling on those Senators or Representatives who are here to make introductions, and our colleague, a member of the Senate leadership, Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, is the first to arrive. Therefore, Senator Santorum, the floor is yours. PRESENTATION OF GENE E.K. PRATTER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BY HON. RICK SANTORUM, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Santorum. Thank you, Senator Kyl, and I want to echo your remarks about the fine work that this Committee does in reviewing candidates and making recommendations, and I am confident that the person I am going to introduce will be one such non-controversial nominee. Gene Pratter is a lawyer's lawyer. She is someone who has come with the highest recommendations from all of the bar associations in southeastern Pennsylvania and from lawyers from the left to the right. She is someone who has really invested her career in the law and has contributed greatly to it and to the bar in Philadelphia. She has also done, as you would expect of someone who is very proficient, she has lent her abilities to numerous non- profit organizations and has contributed greatly to the community, greatly to her law school, which is the University of Pennsylvania, one of the finest law schools in the country, which we are very proud of. This is the first chance, I just want you to know, to be able to introduce a nominee from Pennsylvania first, and I want to thank you for starting early because this is truly an honor for me, because Senator Specter, as my senior Senator, always goes first, as he should. But it is a pleasure for me to be the first to comment on Gene Pratter, and she is an exceptional individual. She will be an exceptional judge and someone who I have gotten to know over the years from the outstanding work that she has done, not just legally but for the community. And I am honored to be here today to recommend her to the Committee. With that, I will defer to my colleague to give all the particulars, which he is very good at doing, and to make whatever comments that he would like to make. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Senator Santorum, and let me call on Senator Specter, a member of this Committee, in just one moment. I was remiss in not doing one thing, and then I would also like to do another. The scorecard, since we do not pass it out, I will give to you now, and that is that, again, without objection, we will consider all of the nominees on one panel. First on the panel will be Raymond W. Gruender, to be United States Circuit Judge for the Eighth Circuit. And then the other three nominees for Federal district courts are: Ricardo S. Martinez, to be United States District Judge for the Western District of Washington; Gene E.K. Pratter, to be United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania--just introduced by Senator Santorum; and Neil Vincent Wake, to be United States District Judge for the District of Arizona. And I will have some comments about Neil Wake in just a moment. Secondly, I would like to, without objection, submit a statement by the Ranking Member of the Committee, Senator Leahy, for the record. Without objection, it is submitted. Senator Specter, the floor is yours. PRESENTATION OF GENE E.K. PRATTER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA, BY HON. ARLEN SPECTER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA Senator Specter. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I am delighted to be here with my distinguished colleague, Senator Santorum, to formally introduce Ms. Gene Pratter to this Committee. I regret being a trifle late. I compliment you, Mr. Chairman, on opening on time--practically a violation of the rule of the Committee on the Judiciary to open on time. But I am chairing a hearing of the Subcommittee on Labor, Health, Human Services, and Education, so I will be brief. Gene Pratter brings very extraordinary credentials to this position. She is a graduate of Stanford University with honors, 1971; a J.D., University of Pennsylvania, 1975. She practices as a general partner with the distinguished law firm of Duane, Morris and Heckscher in Philadelphia, where she has taken on the role of being a lawyer's lawyer in handling matters of unique complexity. She is a member of all the appropriate bar associations. She has very extensive contributions to the community and brings really extraordinary qualifications to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Senator Santorum and I have continued the tradition which Senator Heinz had begun many years ago of a bipartisan nominating panel so that the people who come forward have credentials over and above what may customarily be involved in the selection of a Federal judge. I see Senator Murray waiting, so I will be brief so that I can return to my other commitments. But I think it is a bright day for the Federal bench to have someone of Ms. Pratter's qualifications ascend to this position. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Specter. And it should be obvious that we are on multiple assignments this morning, and I appreciate, Senator Specter, your ability to be here to make that introduction. Since Senator Murray is here, Senator Murray, let me call upon you next for the purpose of an introduction. PRESENTATION OF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, BY HON. PATTY MURRAY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WASHINGTON Senator Murray. Well, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I really appreciate your willingness to do that and your accommodation this morning, and also to the other members of the Committee. Mr. Chairman, 48 years ago, a young boy was picking strawberries on a Washington State farm for 75 cents an hour. Today, that man stands before the United States Senate after more than 20 years of distinguished legal service, ready to be confirmed as the next U.S. District Court Judge for the Western District of Washington State. His name is Ricardo Martinez, and I am here today to offer my full support for his speedy confirmation. He will be the first Latino to serve as a district court judge in Washington State's history. Senator Cantwell and I worked with President Bush to select Judge Martinez from a list of very qualified candidates, and today I am proud to be here to introduce him before the Senate Judiciary Committee. I want to especially welcome his family to the Senate today: his wife, Margaret, and their three daughters, Lela, Jessica, and Gabriela. I know they are very proud of their dad today. And I know that back in Washington State there are many people who have worked with him over the years who share their pride. Mr. Chairman, I have met with Judge Martinez, and I have been very impressed by his professionalism, his decency, and his experience. It is no wonder that he has the strong support of a wide group of attorneys and community leaders throughout Washington State. There are many things I could say today about Judge Martinez. I could tell you about his education, that he was first in his family to go to high school, and that he earned undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Washington. I could tell you about his distinguished legal career, his 10 years as a prosecutor for King County or more than 8 years as King County superior court judge. And I could tell you about his current work as magistrate judge for the Western District of Washington, a position he has held for 5 years. Or I could tell you about his innovative and thoughtful work helping people break their addiction to drugs and crime. Judge Martinez, in fact, helped create the first drug diversion court in the State of Washington and served as one of its first judges. This innovative court gives drug-addicted defendants an alternative to incarceration and has helped graduates kick their habits and lead productive lives. For years, Judge Martinez worked tirelessly to ensure the success of this treatment option. Or I could tell you about his generous sense of community service, from his work on the Washington State Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Minority and Justice Commission, to coaching soccer and basketball for the Redmond-Kirkland Boys and Girls Club. I could tell you all of those things, but instead I would like to share with you and this Committee something that Judge Martinez himself said to the Seattle Times in August. He told the newspaper, ``I've always considered myself extremely lucky. I was driving through Snohomish County the other day, and I saw some migrant farm workers along the road. And I said to myself, `You know, I'm not far removed from them.''' Judge Martinez has been lucky, but he has also made his own luck by working hard and giving back to our State. He has earned everything that has come his way, and I believe he has earned a seat as our next district court judge. His fairness, thoughtfulness, and compassion set a great example for so many people in our State, and I am proud to support his confirmation before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Mr. Chairman, Senator Cantwell could not be with us this morning. She asked that I submit her statement for the record as well. Thank you very much. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Senator Murray. It will be submitted, and thank you for that excellent opening statement. Senator Larry Craig has joined us. If you do not have an opening statement, I will-- Senator Craig. I do not. PRESENTATION OF NEIL VINCENT WAKE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA, BY HON. JON KYL, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARIZONA Senator Kyl. Okay. Senator Bond from Missouri is allegedly on his way, and I think he has an introduction. So in the meantime, to keep the hearing moving, let me give you an introduction, which is of one of the nominees from the State of Arizona, which I represent. And Senator McCain joins me in expressing appreciation to President Bush for nominating Neil Wake for the Federal District Court in Arizona. Neil is an Arizona native. He practiced law for 29 years in Phoenix as a partner in several law firms and recently a sole proprietor of his firm. He received a bachelor's degree with honors from Arizona State University and a law degree cum laude from Harvard University, where he was a member of the Harvard Civil Rights and Civil Liberties Law Review. His practice has focused primarily on civil matters and appellate work. He practiced exclusively in Federal and State courts, including the United States Supreme Court, and has been involved in a variety of continuing legal education programs and publications, including articles in the fields of administrative law and appellate procedure. He has received a great deal of recognition from his peers. Since 1989, he has been listed in the Best Lawyers of America for Business and Appellate Litigation. That is from recommendation of other lawyers, and about 1 percent of the lawyers are recognized in that fashion. Since 1993, he has been a fellow of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, a society of fewer than 300 members nationwide who are admitted by invitation only and after careful investigation. Senator Bond, please take the dais, and I will call on your in just a moment. I was just completing the introduction of a candidate from Arizona. Neil Vincent Wake was honored by the American Bar Association's Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary by unanimously giving him the highest evaluation of well qualified for the appointment as judge of the United States District Court. He has a variety of civic activities and bar associations achievements, including being a founding member and current Chairman of the State Bar's Indian Law Section and Appellate Practice Section, served five times as judge pro tem of the Arizona Court of Appeals. He and his wife, Shari, and other parents founded the ICU Care Parents, a support group for parents of critically ill newborns. And knowing Neil and Shari very well, I can attest to a variety of other important community contributions that they have made. They are the parents of three sons, and I know that Neil Wake will be proud to introduce his family in a moment as well. As I said, Senator McCain joins me in expressing appreciation to the President for his nomination of Neil Vincent Wake. Now we are joined by Senator Chris Bond of the State of Missouri. Senator Bond, the floor is yours. PRESENTATION OF RAYMOND W. GRUENDER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. CHRISTOPHER BOND, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, Senator Craig, members of the Committee. It is a real pleasure for me to be here today to introduce to you and present to you a good friend, fellow Missourian, Ray Gruender, who has been nominated to serve on the Eighth United States Circuit Court of Appeals. I have known Ray both personally and professionally for many years. He is an excellent lawyer. I am just delighted that the President nominated him for this position. I am confident that the Committee, after you review his credentials and listen to his responses, will conclude that Ray is not only well qualified for the bench but he will be a tremendous addition to the Federal judiciary. I do not need to tell you the United States Courts of Appeals are extremely important, and the decisions that come before these courts have impacts on every aspect of society. And I think that we should have only the finest, most qualified jurists serving on these bodies. And certainly Ray fits that qualification. Ray enjoys the respect of the Missouri legal community. Many have told me, in recommending his nomination, that Ray's demeanor, his willingness to listen, and his very clear intellect are great qualifications. He has an abundance of many other qualities that elevate him as one who is not only qualified through experience, but his work ethic and humility. I believe, as I think most Missouri lawyers do, that Ray will be a judge who is thoughtful, careful, approachable, and one who will respect the role of a judge and the restraint imposed upon the judiciary by the Constitution. Ray currently serves as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District. He has been there since May of 2001. He supervises 60 attorneys in a jurisdiction that is both urban, suburban, and rural, with all the challenges that come with such a demographic makeup. As U.S. Attorney, he has embarked on a campaign of aggressive prosecution of Federal gun violations. The largest city in his jurisdiction, St. Louis, has an unfortunate legacy of violent crime. But I believe in no small part due to the aggressive efforts of the U.S. Attorney's Office under Ray Gruender's jurisdiction, there has been a tremendous reduction in the number of murders, the number of homicides in St. Louis. Ray is taking the gun-toting felons off of the street, and it is a very clear remedy, and he has applied it very well. But Ray has also practiced law for 17 years. He has great experience as a private attorney. He worked as a partner in a well-respected Missouri firm, spent many hours in Federal court and State court representing clients on criminal and civil matters, including admiralty, antitrust, contracts, employment, securities fraud, banking, and a number of tort claims. But just to give you a snapshot of his personal qualities, as a graduate of Washington University in St. Louis, Ray earned his degree and an MBA and a law degree in only 6 years, finishing strongly in all, while working and putting his way through school. He rose from humble beginnings to become U.S. Attorney, and I think that he would make a great addition to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, for scheduling this hearing. I hope that you will be able to move this nomination quickly and that we can get him confirmed yet this year. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Bond. I think it is important that we have had people introduce these candidates who know them personally, and that is a very important contribution to the hearing record. So thank you very, very much, Senator Bond. Now, unless there are any other introductory statements-- and I know all of the Senators who have made introductory statements will have to go to other duties here, so we will allow Senator Bond to exit, and then I will call each of the nominees forward. And, again, without objection, we will consider all of the nominees as one panel. Hearing none, then let me ask the following people to come to the dais, and would the staff please get the proper name tags here for us? Raymond Gruender, Ricardo Martinez, Gene E.K. Pratter, and Neil Vincent Wake. Actually, before you sit, would you all stand and let me swear you in, if I could. Do you all swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God? Mr. Gruender. Yes. Judge Martinez. Yes. Ms. Pratter. Yes. Mr. Wake. Yes. Senator Kyl. Thank you. Now, that includes with regard to your family members here. [Laughter.] Senator Kyl. I am going to ask each of you to take an opportunity to make an opening statement, if you would like, and certainly to introduce friends and family who are here. And, Raymond Gruender, let me begin with you and welcome you to this hearing. I would ask you to make any statement you would like to make, and make those introductions at this time, if you would like. STATEMENT OF RAYMOND W. GRUENDER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT Mr. Gruender. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Very briefly, I'd like to thank the Committee for arranging this hearing today. I'd also like to thank President Bush, both for allowing me to serve and nominating me to serve as the United States Attorney for the Eastern District of Missouri, as well as this nomination pending today. I'd also like to thank Senator Bond for his kind remarks on my behalf, and, finally, I'd like to introduce my family members that have come. Senator Kyl. Please. Mr. Gruender. My wonderful wife, Judy, is behind me to my left. Senator Kyl. Please stand as he introduces you. That is good, and remain standing so we can give you a round of applause here at the end. Mr. Gruender. And her mother, Jeannette Calhoun; and to my right is my mother, Sharon Gruender; and my good friend, Sharon Lentin, who recently got married. Thank you. Senator Kyl. Well, thank you all very much, and I would like to give these people who are obviously good supporters of Mr. Gruender a round of applause for your being here today. Thank you. [Applause.] Senator Kyl. The role of those in support of the nominees is appreciated by us all, I can assure you. [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.001 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.002 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.003 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.004 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.005 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.006 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.007 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.008 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.009 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.010 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.011 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.012 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.013 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.014 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.015 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.016 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.017 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.018 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.019 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.020 Senator Kyl. Judge Martinez, we are delighted to have you here. It was a wonderful introduction that you received, and now is your opportunity to make any opening statement you would like and introduce members of your family or friends who are here today. STATEMENT OF RICARDO S. MARTINEZ, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON Judge Martinez. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much. I have no opening statement. However, I would love to introduce my family. Senator Murray already told you about my wife and children, but let me have you meet them. First of all, my wife, Margaret; my oldest daughter, Lela, who is a student at Howard University right here in D.C.; my daughter, Jessica, graduating from high school this year and getting ready to play Division I soccer next year for Washington State University. Senator Kyl. Getting a plug in there for you, I can see. [Laughter.] Judge Martinez. And my youngest daughter, Gabriela. Also present today, my brother and sister-in-law, Walter and Cynthia Morris; their son, Walter Morris III; my other sister-in-law who flew in this morning from San Francisco, Alice Morris; and a friend and classmate of my daughter here at Howard University, Mr. Omar Raheem. And, finally, in the back, the woman who makes my presence here possible because she is a friend, a colleague, and one of my mentors from out of my court. When she took the job as Director of the Federal Judicial Center, that is when this vacancy opened up. Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein. Senator Kyl. Great. Well, thank you all very much for being here in support of Judge Martinez. [Applause.] [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.021 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.022 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.023 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.024 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.025 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.026 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.027 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.028 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.029 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.030 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.031 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.032 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.033 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.034 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.035 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.036 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.037 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.038 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.039 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.040 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.041 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.042 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.043 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.044 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.045 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.046 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.047 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.048 Senator Kyl. I am going to interrupt just briefly, if we could, because Senator Jim Talent from Missouri is here, and I think he will want to follow the kind introduction that Senator Bond made for Mr. Gruender. And then I am going to turn the gavel over to Larry Craig for just a moment here while I have to take a call. So if we could just interrupt the process here and, Senator Talent, the floor is yours. PRESENTATION OF RAYMOND W. GRUENDER, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. JAMES TALENT, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI Senator Talent. Well, I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I am grateful to the witnesses for allowing me to--well, let's just say it--interrupt here for a minute or two and to have an opportunity to say a few words about a good friend and a good man whom the President has nominated to the court of appeals. I know Senator Bond wanted to--he and I kind of fought over who would get to say the most about Ray, and he went on, I know, at some length in going through Mr. Gruender's qualifications and his background, his beginnings, the way he worked his way through Washington University, through the law school there, his outstanding performance as a private attorney, his work as the United States Attorney, his faithful adherence to the law, and his faithful enforcement of the law for a number of years. I do not know a person who is more honest and who has more integrity in his private dealings as well as his public dealings. He is a man of great compassion. One of the reasons I got to know Ray was his involvement in an issue that I have also been involved with over the years, at least marginally, in private life but also in public life, his work as the board president of ALIVE, which is a group that promotes alternatives to living in violent environments for people who have been the victims of domestic abuse. He is a well-rounded person, a great lawyer, a person who I am convinced, Mr. Chairman, and I hope the Committee and the Senate come to believe will render unbiased and unprejudiced judgments in the cases that come before him, according to his lights, who will be consistent in application of his jurisprudence without regard to outcome, and who will be faithful in interpreting the Constitution and the laws. I just think he is a great nomination, and I hope that the Committee will proceed expeditiously to approve him. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much, Senator Talent. Incidentally, Judge Martinez, you had indicated you had a statement, and you introduced your family first. If you want to make any other remarks, you are certainly welcome to do so at this time. Judge Martinez. No, thank you, Mr. Chairman. What I said was I had no opening statement. Senator Kyl. Oh, I am sorry. Judge Martinez. And it is a tremendous honor and privilege to be here today. Senator Kyl. Okay. Thank you. Gene Pratter, welcome, and likewise you can make an opening statement and introduce friends and family, if you would like. STATEMENT OF GENE E.K. PRATTER, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA Ms. Pratter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I do not have an opening statement, I would like to take the opportunity to thank you for having the hearing. I am thrilled to be here, and I am even more thrilled to introduce to you my family and two of my colleagues. First, my husband, Bob Pratter, Robert Pratter; our daughter, Paige Pratter, who works here in Washington, D.C., clerking for a district court judge on the Federal court here; and our son, Matthew Pratter, a freshman at Duquesne University. He is particularly happy to be here in his brand- new shoes. My partner, Sheila Hollis, who practices at Duane Morris' Washington, D.C., office. Sheila, will you stand? There she is. And my long-time legal assistant, Rose Barber, who took the train early this morning to be here, and I can't tell you how important Rose has been to me and to my family over the last decade. Senator Kyl. We thank you all for being here. [Applause.] [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.049 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.050 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.051 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.052 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.053 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.054 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.055 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.056 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.057 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.058 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.059 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.060 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.061 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.062 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.063 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.064 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.065 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.066 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.067 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.068 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.069 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.070 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.071 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.072 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.073 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.074 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.075 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.076 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.077 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.078 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.079 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.080 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.081 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.082 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.083 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.084 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.085 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.086 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.087 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.088 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.089 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.090 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.091 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.092 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.093 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.094 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.095 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.096 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.097 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.098 Senator Kyl. As I said, that is a testament. We understand that none of us are here without the support of a lot of other folks, and it is nice to be able to recognize them. Neil Vincent Wake, opening statement and/or introduce members of your contingent here. STATEMENT OF NEIL VINCENT WAKE, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA Mr. Wake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have no opening statement, but I, too, want to thank President Bush for submitting my name, and I want to thank this Committee and the Senate for their consideration of my nomination. I also want to express my thanks to Senator McCain and to you, Mr. Chairman, for your support as well. I'd like to introduce my family. I've got a pretty good contingency here because I have eight brothers and sisters, and a fair number of them are here. First let me start with my wife, Shari Capra. And my brother, Dan Wake. Dan is the other lawyer in the family, from Denver. And my sister, Joy Wake. And another brother, Ward Wake. And also Ward's family, his wife, Syllvette Wake, and-- she may have stepped out. She stepped out. Oh, well. The reason she probably stepped out is because of the children that she brought: Chantall, who is perhaps not here either, and Aiden, who is only 1 year old. So that probably-- Senator Kyl. She is excused. [Laughter.] Mr. Wake. And I also have some very dear friends that I'd like to introduce: Dr. Karen Rigamonti and her daughter, Eva Rigamonti. They are very dear friends of ours from Phoenix, who have lived in Baltimore for quite a while, and they have come down. I want to express my thanks to all of them for being here. Senator Kyl. Thank you all very much for your attendance here today. [Applause.] [The biographical information follows:] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.099 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.100 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.101 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.102 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.103 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.104 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.105 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.106 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.107 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.108 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.109 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.110 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.111 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.112 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.113 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.114 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.115 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.116 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.117 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.118 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.119 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.120 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.121 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.122 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.123 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.124 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.125 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.126 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.127 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.128 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.129 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.130 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.131 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.132 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.133 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.134 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.135 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.136 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.137 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.138 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.139 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.140 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.141 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.142 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.143 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.144 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.145 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.146 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.147 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.148 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.149 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.150 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.151 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.152 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.153 [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5617.154 Senator Kyl. Now, before we begin questioning, I note the presence of Senator Durbin of Illinois. And, Senator Durbin, if you have any statement to make, you are certainly welcome to do so. Senator Durbin. No, Mr. Chairman. I will waive an opening statement. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much. Well, then, the floor is open for questions, and I will begin by calling on Senator Craig. Senator Craig. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Let me ask this question of all of you, and you can, obviously, we will start over here with you and move across. If the Supreme Court reached a decision that you believe was fundamentally erroneous, would you follow that precedent or apply your own judgment to the issues of the law placed before you? Mr. Gruender. Senator, thank you for the question. The answer to that is crystal clear. Despite any beliefs that I might have, I would be required, as an inferior court judge, to apply the precedent of the Supreme Court, and I would in fact do so. Judge Martinez. Thank you, Senator. As a judge now for the last 14.5 years or so, I have always done exactly that. My own personal beliefs play no part in how I apply the law that has been decided by the superior courts. Ms. Pratter. Senator, if I am fortunate enough to be confirmed, it would be my obligation, and an obligation I would follow, to follow the Supreme Court precedent. Mr. Wake. Senator, thank you for the question. It is essential to the system that lower court judges following the controlling authority from higher courts. So, of course, if I were confirmed as a judge, I would follow the letter and the spirit of the precedents that are laid down, regardless of my own views. Senator Craig. Well, thank you all. There are some on this Committee who struggle with the idea that you must give the exact, correct answer to their philosophy or attitude on a given issue to be, by their decision, a judge. I do not approach reviewing nominees that way and never have. I have always felt what is important is the intellect, the experience and the temperament. So let me ask one more question of all of you. What do you think is the most important attribute of a judge? Mr. Gruender. Senator, I believe there are several attributes that are very important. I think a level of academic ability and integrity are very important, a broad exposure to the law and an understanding of the law and, probably even more importantly, a willingness to do the hard work that is required to understand the facts underlying a case and then to get a clear understanding of the applicable law and apply it, and then, in addition, demeanor, the willingness to come into it with an open mind, to listen to both sides, and to fairly and honestly assess and apply the law. Senator Craig. Thank you. Judge Martinez? Judge Martinez. Thank you, Senator. It is very difficult for me to add anything to the list of attributes that he has just indicated. I would say that, in my experience, both as a litigator and as a judge, I have always believed, sir, that it is absolutely critical that anyone who puts on a black robe understand how important their demeanor is. Courteousness is critical. You must listen. You must be patient, never embarrass anyone; that is, is the lawyers, the litigants, witnesses, jurors, court staff, anybody else in there. I have always tried to live my life exactly in that fashion. I can promise you I would do the very same thing in the future if I was lucky enough to be confirmed. Ms. Pratter. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to add to that fine list of attributes we have listened to so far, to which I would only add the importance, I believe, of the role of having a good sense of humility that a judge, I believe, should have. Senator Craig. Thank you. Mr. Wake. Thank you, Senator. I must accept and agree with everything that has been said by the others, and it is a little difficult to add to what has been said so well. Let me say only two things: Obviously, there are a group of essential qualities, and the failure of any one of those qualities can diminish the quality of justice. If I were to point to one in particular, it would be patience and open-mindedness in one's work and private and in one's dealings with litigants and lawyers before the Court, and that patience and open-mindedness is what can leave people with the sense that whether they won or lost, they were treated fairly and that the system works, and that is very much within the control of the judge, more than anyone else. Thank you. Senator Craig. Well, I thank you all very much. One last comment, and it is to you, Judge Martinez. To have a daughter at Washington State University is a bit of a frustration to me. I am a Vandal from the University of Idaho, eight miles away. [Laughter.] Senator Craig. Mr. Chairman, there is a tradition between those two schools that has frustrated me for some time, and as a result of that I just do not care for cougars. [Laughter.] Senator Craig. And that is that when those two universities played, the losing university student body president had to walk the eight miles and wash the feet of the victor. I have walked that eight miles. [Laughter.] Senator Craig. Good luck on your soccer program at Washington State. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Senator Craig. Senator Durbin? Senator Durbin. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, and thanks to all who have gathered here today. Senator Craig has asked a number of questions which I think are very important, having been a lowly attorney practicing before Federal judges in my life, I like to, at least I hope that the plea for humility is one that is felt on that side of the table, as well as on this side of the table. I think it is very important in public service. Mr. Gruender, I would like to ask you a few questions, if I can, about an incident which occurred after you were designated as the United States Attorney, involving a resolution passed by the University City, Missouri, City Council concerning the PATRIOT Act. You responded, if I am not mistaken, in an open letter critical of this City Council action. It is my understanding that about 200 communities in 34 different States have expressed their concern and take an exception to the PATRIOT Act. I have had conversations with my U.S. Attorney in Chicago, Pat Fitzgerald, about this act, and he has testified before this Committee. But I am concerned about some of the rhetoric which was contained in your letter, and I would like you to explain it. You were quoted as saying in that letter that ``resolutions that are grounded in misinformation, such as the one adopted by the University City Council, accomplish little to protect civil liberties and can jeopardize public safety.'' You went on to say, ``The Council's action, which appears to have been made without the benefit of facts,'' has potentially grave consequences. And you wrote that the resolution put ``lives in jeopardy, puts all citizens at risk and might cause a `catastrophic' loss of life.'' These were your words. We have really jealously guarded the right of dissent and disagreement in America. And even when popular Presidents have said and done things, we have said that it is the right of American citizens to disagree publicly with that policy. Not that long ago Attorney General Ashcroft came and testified before this Committee relative to his critics, and basically said, and I quote from the Judiciary Committee testimony as follows. This is Attorney General Ashcroft. ``To those who scare peace-loving people with phantoms of lost liberty, my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists, for they erode our National unity and diminish our resolve. They give ammunition to America's enemies and pause to America's friends. They encourage people of good will to remain silent in the face of evil.'' The tenor of your letter, seems to me, to be very close to the message of General Ashcroft, which is that the critics of this Government, and the critics of the PATRIOT Act, are, in fact, aiding and abetting terrorism. Do you believe that? Mr. Gruender. Senator, with respect to the University City resolution, I felt the need to respond to that, based on the fact that the University City Council never sought any input from any other sources, apparently--no one on behalf of the Government. My office, the U.S. Attorney's Office, was never contacted to provide information about the PATRIOT Act. The resolution, on its face, was based upon what I believe to be wrong statements about the PATRIOT Act that, as you know, was overwhelmingly passed. I do not mean to suggest, by any means, that people are not allowed to criticize the Government or the PATRIOT Act or anything else. But as an example, the sort of statements that were made during that debate were that the Government now had the right to obtain a search warrant without judicial approval, which is simply untrue; that we had the right to or the ability to obtain wiretaps without court approval, again, simply not true. It was based on those sort of statements that I thought needed to be corrected. And then the University City Council went the additional step of telling its Police Department not to cooperate with Federal authorities, and they did qualify that by saying, if they thought that there were constitutional violations happening as a result. That troubled me because, clearly, the preamble, the sections above that were inaccurate about the PATRIOT Act would lead a police chief or a line officer, perhaps, to believe that we were violating constitutional rights, which simply was not true or that the PATRIOT Act, on its face, did that. So I felt the need to correct that, and had the additional concern, as, Senator, I am sure you remember the hearings with respect to September 11th and the issues of connecting the dots, after September 11th the U.S. Attorneys, amongst others, were given the tremendous responsibility of preventing and disrupting terrorism. And I thought it was very important that we have a coordinated effort at all levels of law enforcement-- State, local and Federal--work together to share information. You may also know that a part of the letter that I wrote acknowledged the importance of civil rights and civil liberties and, indeed, I think I pointed out in that letter that, as Federal law enforcement officers, we were sworn to uphold and protect civil rights and civil liberties and, in fact, took that very seriously. Senator Durbin. Mr. Gruender, I could understand if your public comment was that the University City, City Council was wrong and did not understand the PATRIOT Act and misinterpreted it, but your language went a step beyond that and said that their action put lives in jeopardy. That, to me, suggests that you have gone beyond disagreeing with them. Do you really believe that that City Council ordinance was in any way aiding or abetting terrorism, putting lives in jeopardy in Missouri or any other place? Mr. Gruender. Senator, by no means do I mean to suggest that it purposefully was done with that purpose, absolutely not. However, I do think that if a police officer in University City obtained information about a potential cell that was operating in its jurisdiction, and for some reason hesitated to share that information with the FBI, with the Joint Terrorism Task Force, I think there are some potential dangers there, and I do believe that it could result in catastrophic, I mean, hopefully not along the lines of what we saw on September 11th, but I certainly do not want to be the U.S. Attorney in Eastern Missouri and have something like that happen in St. Louis, for instance. Senator Durbin. Would you feel that, if your nomination is approved to the Circuit Bench, that it would be appropriate for you to recuse yourself in cases involving interpretation of the PATRIOT Act? Senator Durbin. Senator, I do not think that I have reached any opinions or conclusions about the constitutionality of any particular provision of the PATRIOT Act. Of course, what I would do is look at the statute applicable. I believe it is 28 U.S.C. 455. I would also look at the Code of Judicial Ethics and see if there are any grounds upon which I should recuse myself, but as I sit here today, I do not think that there would be. Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I do not want to go--I have a few other questions relative to the PATRIOT Act, but I want to certainly give other members or yourself a chance to question, and I can do it in a second round, if it would be appropriate. Senator Kyl. I appreciate that. We have tried to proceed here a little bit in variance with our traditional procedures, simply to give everybody a chance to introduce folks and move forward. I have just some general questions, and therefore I would be pleased if you want to just continue and not be concerned about the time constraints, at least at this point. Senator Durbin. Thank you. I do not want to abuse the Committee, and I thank you for your kindness in allowing me. Mr. Gruender, let me go a little bit further then in these questions involving the PATRIOT Act. In a commentary submitted to the St. Louis Post Dispatch on February 14th last year, you asserted that the U.S. PATRIOT Act did not permit new, warrantless searches, seizures and wiretaps, and I think you have said as much this morning. Further, you stated that ``judicially issued independent determinations of probable cause remain the necessary legal standard.'' Under Section 505 of the USA PATRIOT Act, national security letters, which are issued by FBI officials without a court order, can now be used to compel production of business records if the Court certifies they are ``sought for a terrorism or national security investigation. Records demanded can include any record pertaining to the customer's relationship with the institution.'' Now, before the PATRIOT Act, the FBI had to have reason to believe that the records being sought pertained to a suspected spy or terrorist. Further, under the fiscal year 2004 intelligence authorization bill, signed by the President, the list of entities to whom NSLs can be issued now include nearly all types of businesses. In addition, under Section 215 of the PATRIOT Act, if the Federal Government seeks an order to obtain any tangible thing from any business, including book-borrowing records from a library, there is no evidentiary showing required. The judge shall, under the words of the PATRIOT Act, shall issue the order if the Government simply states that the records are sought for an authorized investigation Further, the Government need not show that the person targeted by the order is himself or herself engaged in anything illegal. Now, how do you reconcile this clear statement of the law, of the PATRIOT Act, with the statement that you made to the St. Louis Post Dispatch, in which you said, ``Judicially issued independent determinations of probable cause remain the necessary legal standard''? Mr. Gruender. Well, Senator, I believe I was referring to-- and I do not have a copy of what I wrote back in February in front of me--but I believe what I was referring to were wiretaps, and it did not refer--oh, and search warrants--it did not refer to the issuance of national security letters. However, from what you have just read, both require, I believe, judicial approval. And also, if I may, it has always been the case that in a criminal investigation, which generally are not opened unless the FBI or the U.S. Attorney's Office has reason to believe that a crime has been committed, that those sort of records were obtainable, initially, without judicial review through the use of grand jury subpoenas. Senator Durbin. I put you at a disadvantage because you do not have your letter in front of you. And I want to be fair, and I am going to send you written questions so you can give me a full explanation. But I would suggest to you that our reading of the PATRIOT Act is the opposite of what you just said, that there is no Court approval necessary for national security letters. In fact, it is mandatory. It says, ``The judge shall issue the order.'' And, frankly, I think that what you have just said is inconsistent with the language of the act, which has caused many, on both sides of the aisle here in the Senate and the House, to raise questions about whether we went too far with the PATRIOT Act. I am not going to dwell on this, Mr. Chairman, because I do not want to put the witness at a disadvantage, having raised this line of questioning when he did not have a chance to review his letter beforehand. But if you would not mind, I would like to send you some specific questions. I would like to ask all of the witnesses here about the concern expressed to me by Federal judges who have been in contact with me since action by Congress last year, and it relates to mandatory minimum sentences. There are many judges who believe that we have gone too far; that we have taken away the discretionary authority of judges to mete out sentences which they think are fair to individual criminal defendants, that we have created a formula for judges to impose sentences which is inconsistent with common sense and inconsistent with the goal of justice, in many instances. One anecdotal case which I can relate to you is, in Pekin, Illinois, where we have a Federal correctional institution for women who have been convicted of felonies, I have visited this institution to find many middle-aged and elderly women who are knitting afghans in prison for 10 to 20 years because a drug- dealing boyfriend ratted them out in an effort to win favor with the prosecutor. And the judge, with no recourse, other than the mandatory minimum sentence, had to send many of these now older ladies to prison for lengthy periods of time. I would like to have your response, and this will be my last question, Mr. Chairman, of each of the panel members about this concept of mandatory minimum sentences and the concern expressed by many Federal judges that Congress should re- examine whether we have gone too far. Mr. Wake, would you like to start? Mr. Wake. Certainly, Senator. Thank you very much for the question. Senator that certainly is a very important question and issue. In my practice, which I have been favored to have a wide-ranging civil litigation practice over the years, I have not had occasion to practice at all in the field of criminal law. Therefore, I lack the hands-on experience on how things really work to make refined judgments about that subject. Now, I look forward, if I am confirmed, and if I am given the opportunity to serve as a judge, to learning that field of law, just as I have, over the years, learned other fields of law. And when that time comes, and if I should come to judgments that are considered and worth sharing with the Congress, I think it would be appropriate for judges to do that. But at this moment, I am at a disadvantage from that lack of hands-on experience, and I would just give my commitment that, as in all things, I would study everything carefully and take advantage of my opportunity to share with the Congress my observations on the improvement of the justice system. Senator Durbin. Ms. Pratter? Ms. Pratter. Thank you, Senator. Obviously, I am aware of the professional and popular subject, that this is a subject of some discussion and concern. Because my practice has been primarily in the civil area, I have not had the opportunity or need to work with the minimum sentencing legislation directly. It is something that I will have to learn about. I think that what you have described, in terms of your visit to the prison, is part of the legislative process that is so important, in terms of evaluating what is appropriate for our country, and that is where, at the legislative level, where I think, in the first instance, the citizens have to look. In terms of the role of the judiciary in meting out and using the minimum sentencing legislation, it is very important for judges to commit to following the legislative pronouncements that they are presented with, and that is what I would do, if confirmed. But beyond that, having no personal or professional information to add to your wealth of knowledge, there is nothing more I could really say at this time. Senator Durbin. Judge Martinez? Judge Martinez. Thank you, Senator. Senator unlike my fellow nominees over here for the District Court, I have had years of experience with sentencing guidelines. I worked on the Sentencing Guideline Commission for the State of Washington as a judge. I can tell you, from personal knowledge, that, in my opinion, sentencing is one of the most difficult things for any judge to engage in, no matter what the case, no matter who the individual is. It has always been, for me, one of the hardest aspects of my job. I have lived under sentencing guidelines for most of my career. Washington State passed the Sentencing Reform Act in 1984, I believe, the same time the Federal guidelines went into effect. As a magistrate judge, one of the few cases that we are not allowed to handle are, of course, felony sentences. We cannot do that aspect of it, so I have not had very much experience with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. I think the concern you mentioned of Federal judges--and not just Federal judges, but also State judges--when it comes to the issue of mandatory minimums has merit. Many judges have raised that particular concern. And I believe, Senator, that it is always important to continue to review what is occurring, and I know there are many commissions, the United States Sentencing Commission, for example, and many committees that will not only gather information, but continually look and see if there is a better mechanism that we can use, if there are other things that we can do. I can tell you this; that I think the vast majority of sentences fall within the range, within the guidelines, and it is those rare ones that stand out, but sometimes those are the ones that are the most troubling. Senator Durbin. Mr. Gruender? Mr. Gruender. Like Judge Martinez, I have had some experience, as the U.S. Attorney, and want to note that I am here as a candidate for the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals and not really as a representative of the Department of Justice. It is certainly a matter of significant debate amongst many judges, and it is something that I believe is, without passing on the constitutionality of guidelines, which I think has been dealt with in the Mistretta case, or of mandatory minimums, I think that the definition of a crime, as well as the appropriate sentencing, has always been a function of Congress, not really of the judiciary. That having been said, there are, in mandatory minimums, there are certainly provisions that do allow, in appropriate cases, for those to be gone around, the so-called relief values and cooperation-type matters. But, primarily, I would be reluctant to advise you, from this particular role. I think it is a matter that Congress should take up, not a judicial matter. Senator Durbin. Mr. Chairman, I would just add I think Mr. Gruender is correct. I think it is our responsibility, but I believe, in all honesty, that the passage of the Feeney amendment has restricted a lot of judges who, when they deviate from certain minimum mandatory sentences, have to make reports to the Department of Justice, so it creates more pressure for them not to make exceptions, where even they legally can. So that is our responsibility, and I thank the panel for their replies. Senator Kyl. Thank you, Senator Durbin. I would just note one opportunity, though, that those reports afford is for the judge to explain why it is necessary to do this and perhaps better inform us to even possibly get us to change some of the laws. So it can have that salutary effect, too, I would just offer. I have a different question to ask each of you, and one is somewhat along the lines that Senator Durbin asked Mr. Gruender. You have been United States Attorney, and obviously you had a role to play there. You had to act as the Government's lawyer and to prosecute people when that was called for, and so on. And one of the questions I think is, obviously, that is very good experience for being a judge, but the other question is will that experience, in any way, detract from your ability to perform your functions properly? And I would just like to get your comment, generally, on how you view your experience as the Government's lawyer prior to now going on the bench, if you are confirmed. Mr. Gruender. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That is a very good question. On the positive side, being the United States Attorney gave me a broad exposure to many issues. Every significant issue within the office usually bubbles up to the United States Attorney. So every day my day is filled with a series of legal issues and problems to respond to and to try to answer as best I can. Therefore, it gives me the ability to look at the law practice almost from a management standpoint. It also gives me a broad range--all sorts of criminal exposure of every type, from violent crime to white collar crime, to major corporate crime, to civil rights prosecutions--but also exposure to the civil practice. We have about a dozen lawyers who represent the Government in civil practice. That having been said, I can see where someone might say, ``Well, is that the only viewpoint that he has?'' No, to the contrary. I have also spent almost an equal amount of time as a defense lawyer. I have represented criminal defendants, I have represented targets who were never charged, I have represented witnesses in criminal cases and victims, and also, in private practice, I have had a broad exposure to civil matters, both representing plaintiffs, claimants and defendants. Senator Kyl. Well, thank you. I think that is helpful. The general question I want to ask each of the District Court nominees has to do with the qualifications that some of you alluded to that give confidence to our citizenry that the judges understand life and understand their problems and will mete out justice not just in strict accordance with the law-- obviously, you will do it in strict accordance with the law-- but informed also by your life experiences. And in that regard, I was impressed by several of the things in your resumes about things you have done. Gene Pratter, I just happened to turn to the note that I made about your Nurturing Network program, which I understand assists pregnant women. And I just wonder if each of you would discuss, briefly, something that you have done either in association with law activities or perhaps even totally outside the law that you think will help make you a better judge because it is a life experience that you have had. And if any of you would like to mention one of my primary interests--victims' rights--I would like you to do that. Because one thing we have found, and one reason that many of us here are proponents of a constitutional amendment to guarantee victims' rights, is that notwithstanding the fact that we have State law, statutory and even constitutional provisions allegedly guaranteeing rights of crime victims, that, as a Justice Department report noted, they are more honored in the breach than the observance, that, for one reason or another, prosecutors, other lawyers, judges sometimes are lax in enforcing these crime victims' rights. We are not only dealing with the interests of the State and the Government and the defendant who may be on trial or the parties in civil litigation, but also, of course, we are interested in ensuring that victims do not suffer a second time when they have to go through the judicial process. So I certainly do not limit my question to that, but anything that might bear on making them more comfortable, that if you are a trial judge you will consider their views as well, I think is an important one. Let me start with you, Ms. Pratter, and then go to Judge Martinez and then finish with Neil Wake. Ms. Pratter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I'm sure the folks at Nurturing network would thank you for your reference to them. It is a national program that assists pregnant women, unmarried pregnant women who need to perhaps relocate to other parts of the country, and the network assists them in finding jobs and places to live and health care. And the folks in my firm have played a small role in providing employment opportunities for women who avail themselves of that. And it's been a pleasure to participate in that and many other programs such as assisting in the gathering of business clothing for women re-entering the workforce. And goodness knows those of us in law firms have been very fortunate in terms of both the work opportunities we've had and the compensation, and we've gathered a number of clothes and shared them with others who want to meet the challenges of their present lives by going back to work, and they may need some help in that respect. So I thank you for the reference to those kinds of programs. With respect to the experiences I've had for 28, almost 29 years as an active lawyer, certainly in civil work sometimes lawyers are given to think of clients as being a faceless corporation, when, in fact, our clients are real people. They're worried about many things. They may, in fact, be most worried about the court procedures. It's sad to hear a client say when the worst thing that could happen to them is to have to go to court. Being sensitive to that and the sensitivity to the delays that can often occur in the litigation process I believe will be with me always. I believe that it's part of--an important part of a judge's job to move matters expeditiously and as economically as possible for all of the people involved in the process. With respect to the criminal side, I think that a judge's role and job is to treat with great respect and sensitivity the role of the jurors, for example. The victims, absolutely, their fears and concerns and their families need to be given the opportunity to be heard, to be respected, to show that the system is concerned for them. And, without question, the defendants, of course, their rights and concerns need to be protected, and we need to be mindful of that. And, frankly, the advocates for the government and for the defendant, the lawyers need to be respected. I have unbelievable respect for the hard work that lawyers put in day in and day out and carrying the mantle of their clients with them. All of those people, all of those folks in the role of the legal system need to be respected. Senator Kyl. Judge Martinez? Judge Martinez. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to address this issue regarding victims' rights. I spent 10 years as a prosecutor. One of the things that drove me to do the absolute best job that I could in every single case was knowing that in a majority of cases that I was handling, there was usually a victim, a family member, someone that was completely devastated by what had occurred to them or their family. In every sentencing hearing where I stood, I made sure that they were there and that the court allowed them the opportunity to speak and to be heard. When I became a superior court judge in 1990, having that sensitivity made me very aware of how critical that is to allow that to occur. As you know full well, victims feel re- victimized again by the system. They feel that they have no constitutional rights at all, that everything goes towards the defendant's side. And I think our understanding as a judge of that, that pain, that grief, that frustration, can go a long ways towards making the process, if not better--because I don't think it ever goes away for them--at least more understandable and they feel they've had a part to play in that entire process. There was a second part to your question, and that had to do about our involvement with the community. I've always believed--and I think you can tell by looking at my background--that a judge can't cloister himself or herself away from the rest of society. You have to stay involved. That's really the only way people understand that you do understand what is going on in everybody else's lives. And that's why it is important to be involved with feeding the homeless or, in my case, one of the things that I'm very dedicated to is coaching young children at many different levels. And since I'm here before this Committee and under oath, I have to confess to you that I think I've received more fun and joy out of coaching than all the kids that I ever coached put together. Thank you. Senator Kyl. Thank you very much. As I said, I think it is important for people to have confidence in our system, and one way they can have confidence in our system is to know that the judges up there are real people and not just automatons. And that is why I kind of ask this question, so that if anybody is paying attention, they will know that we have people who are not only highly qualified in the law, greatly experienced, but also real people who have actually helped in their local bar associations or community in some capacity. Neil Wake? Mr. Wake. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's a big question for which we could give long answers, but let me focus on a few things that strike me personally. The process of judging requires many skills, technical skills, education, academic skills, administrative skills, but one of the qualities that I think is most important here is a wisdom about life and people--the wisdom that can only come from experiencing the hardships or the difficulties that people have in life and in the litigation system. You had asked about some activities that we might have been through, and let me point out two for me and my wife. Long ago, my wife became involved--more than me, but I was also involved--in an organization in Phoenix called the Sojourner Center, which is a shelter for battered women and children. Shari was one of the first directors, founding directors, and I did legal work for them, including defending them in a lawsuit over a construction matter without compensation, which, if we had lost the case, it would have been put out of business. Sojourner Center now is a great success. It is one of the largest private shelters for battered women and children in the country. But we had an enriching experience dealing with other volunteers setting that up, getting it going, working with the people who benefited from that. We also had another experience some 20 years ago where Shari and other parents founded a group, ICU Care Parents, which is a parents' support group for parents of critically ill newborns. And we made arrangements with the three tertiary- care-level hospitals in the Phoenix area that dealt with critically ill newborns for referrals, and we organized a network of parents who could be called upon to talk and provide other support for parents experiencing that. That group was a self-sustaining group that people participated and other people came in for about 10 years, and then it merged with another group in Phoenix, the group called Pilot Parents, which is a broader organization for handicapped children and the parents of handicapped children. Through those activities, we have been able to share many things with many people in our community that I hope would give me, if I am given the opportunity to serve as a judge, to bring that wisdom to bear. Like Ms. Pratter, I have a particular sensitivity to the effect on litigants of the cost of litigation. As an attorney representing everyone from individuals to business entities, I've seen too many cases where my clients simply elected not to pursue a just claim or not to defend against what I thought was an unjust claim because of the ability of opposing parties to make the costs of that increase. Judges cannot prevent that entirely, but they can play a major role in administration of cases and getting them to a quick and economical resolution. So that is a second area of particular concern to me. And, lastly, I would note a concern about the fear that regular folks have about being involved in the court system. This can often be witnesses and often litigants, and a judge has a particular ability to be sensitive to that, to make that easier and less stressful for people. So I think all of those respond in one way or another to the very important values that you are pointing to. Senator Kyl. Well, I thank all of you for your answers. It shows a breadth of expe