<DOC>
[108 Senate Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:91833.wais]
S. Hrg. 108-335
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DANIEL J. BRYANT TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
JULY 23, 2003
__________
Serial No. J-108-28
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary
91-833 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2003
____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
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
----------
STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Page
Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah...... 5
Kennedy, Hon. Edward M., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Massachusetts.................................................. 68
prepared statement........................................... 117
Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Vermont, prepared statement................................ 118
PRESENTERS
Ros-Lehtinen, Hon. Ileana, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Florida presenting Rene Alexander Acosta, Nominee to
be Assistant Attorney General, Civil Rights Division,
Department of Justice.......................................... 2
Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia
presenting Daniel J. Bryant, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney
General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice and Rene
Alexander Acosta, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice................... 3
Biden, Hon. Joseph R., Jr., a U.S. Senator from the State of
Delaware presenting Daniel J. Bryant, Nominee to be Assistant
Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice 7
STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES
Acosta, Rene Alexander, Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General
Civil Rights Division, Department of Justice................... 32
Questionnaire................................................ 33
Bryant, Daniel J., Nominee to be Assistant Attorney General,
Office of Legal Policy, Department of Justice.................. 9
Questionnaire................................................ 10
QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS
Response of Rene Alexander Acosta to a question submitted by
Senator Hatch.................................................. 86
Responses of Rene Alexander Acosta to questions submitted by
Senator Leahy.................................................. 89
Responses of Rene Alexander Acosta to questions submitted by
Senator Biden.................................................. 104
Responses of Rene Alexander Acosta to questions submitted by
Senator Feingold............................................... 107
SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD
American Association of People with Disabilities, Andrew J.
Imparato, President and CEO, Washington, D.C., letter.......... 111
Arab American Institute, press release, June 24, 2003............ 113
Fraternal Order of Police, Chuck Canterbury, National President,
Washington, D.C., letter....................................... 126
International Association of Fire Fighters, Harold A.
Schaitberger, General President, Washington, D.C., letter...... 115
International Union of Operating Engineers, Frank Hanley, General
President, Washington, D.C., letter............................ 116
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, Andrew Rice,
Washington, D.C., press release................................ 122
National Council of La Raza, Washington, D.C., news release...... 123
Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia,
statement in support of Daniel J. Bryant, Nominee to be
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Legal Policy, Department
of Justice..................................................... 124
United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, Douglas
J. McCarron, General President, Washington, D.C., letter....... 127
CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATIONS OF DANIEL J. BRYANT TO BE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE AND RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL,
CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2003
United States Senate,
Committee on the Judiciary,
Washington, DC.
The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:14 p.m., in
room SD-226, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G.
Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, presiding.
Present: Senators Hatch, Sessions, Leahy, Kennedy, Biden,
and Feingold.
Chairman Hatch. I apologize for being late. We had a fairly
contentious markup this morning in the Judiciary Committee, and
I have been trying to catch up ever since. But we are delighted
to have all of you here.
I am going to defer my remarks, since I have held up these
two wonderful Members of Congress, until after they make their
remarks. And so we welcome you, Senator Allen, and we
appreciate the leadership you are providing in the Senate. We
look forward to hearing your testimony, and then we will listen
to Ileana Ros-Lehtinen and go from there.
Ileana, you are an old friend, and we really appreciate
having you here and walking all the way over from the other
side of the Hill. So we appreciate having you here.
Senator Allen?
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I appreciate
the courtesy. I am going to extend courtesy to Congresswoman
Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. They actually have votes going on now, and
I will defer to her. And I know we have a vote coming up
ourselves, but I am going to let Ileana go first because I
don't want her to miss votes. This introduction is important,
but votes are, too.
Chairman Hatch. That would be great.
Ileana?
PRESENTATION OF RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE,
BY HON. ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM
THE STATE OF FLORIDA
Representative Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you for the Western
hospitality as well as the Southern gentlemanliness, so thank
you very much to both Senators.
It is a pleasure to be with all of you today, and I am
especially proud to introduce to you Alex Acosta, the
Presidential nominee to the position of Assistant Attorney
General for Civil Rights. Alex is a dynamic and dedicated
member of our community. I consider him a South Floridian.
Senator Allen considers him a proud Virginian. But he has been
an exemplary public servant for many years. His background as a
Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General in Civil Rights and
his appointment by the President to the National Labor
Relations Board have afforded him the opportunity to fully
appreciate and comprehend civil rights issues, and he would
make a tremendous asset to the Department of Justice.
Alex's careful and deliberate approach to law enforcement
assisted in the successful prosecution of violations of civil
rights and laws that help set the tone for the constructive
dialogue on civil rights issues. If confirmed as Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights, Alex would be the first
Hispanic Assistant Attorney General to lead the Civil Rights
Division at the Department of Justice. As a Hispanic who was
raised in Miami, Florida, Alex fully understands the
difficulties faced by minorities. He is known by his colleagues
for being fair-minded and committed to protecting the civil
rights of all Americans. He has consistently embraced not only
the members of our Latino community, but has also endeavored to
foster a spirit of mutual respect and understanding among all
members of society.
Alex has been praised for his ability to bring together
diverse groups of people and has been endorsed by such groups
as the National Council of La Raza, the National Asian Pacific
American Legal Consortium, the Arab American Institute, and the
American Association of People with Disabilities, to name a
few.
He has been recognized by Attorney General Ashcroft for his
outstanding contributions to the Justice Department. He is a
dedicated public servant who works tirelessly to ensure that
our Nation's civil rights laws are enforced and that the civil
liberties of all Americans are protected. His honesty,
integrity, and commitment are indeed impressive, and I would
like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Rene Alex Acosta. Estamos
muy orgulloso, Alex. We are so very proud of you and your
lovely family.
Thank you so much, Senator Hatch, and thank you, Senator
Allen, for this time and your courtesy.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Congresswoman Ros-
Lehtinen. We really appreciate you coming over and giving us
the benefit of your wisdom and your recommendation. Thanks so
much.
Representative Ros-Lehtinen. Thank you.
Chairman Hatch. We know you have to get back, so we will
excuse you. Thank you.
Senator Allen?
PRESENTATION OF DANIEL J. BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
AND RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, BY HON.
GEORGE ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am going to
introduce two wonderful individuals to you: Mr. Daniel J.
Bryant, to be Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal
Policy at the United States Department of Justice, and Mr. Rene
Alexander Acosta, otherwise known as Alex Acosta, to be
Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division at the
Department of Justice.
I will first start with Mr. Bryant, who is well known to
you all in this Committee in his current position with the
Office of Legal Policy. It was about 2 years ago that I came
before this Committee to introduce Mr. Bryant when he was
nominated for the position of Assistant Attorney General for
Legislative Affairs at the U.S. Department of Justice. Since
then he has served with great clarity and effort.
In his new position, opposed to serving as a liaison, he is
going to be developing and planning and coordinating major
legal policy initiatives of high priority to the Administration
and the Department, and they do have a very ambitious agenda,
including such issues as class action reform, which I know is
something of great interest to you, Mr. Chairman, as well as
other legal reforms and justice in our country.
As you well know, Mr. Chairman, from May of 2001 to January
of this year, Mr. Bryant carried out the duties as liaison
between Justice and Congress. In January of 2003, Mr. Bryant
was named counselor and senior adviser to the Attorney General,
and since June of this year, Mr. Bryant has served as Acting
Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Policy.
He is highly qualified. He has proven his ability over the
years to serve as Assistant Attorney General in the Office of
Legal Policy. He has served not just in the Department of
Justice, but as majority chief counsel to the House Judiciary
Committee, Subcommittee on Crime. He served as policy director
for the First Freedom Coalition, which is a non-profit
organization advocating for responsible changes in the criminal
justice system. While at the First Freedom Coalition, Mr.
Bryant worked closely with former United States Attorney
General Bill Barr, who is a good friend of mine and helped me
as Governor abolish parole in Virginia following the lead of
folks such as yourself, Senator Hatch, during the Reagan
Administration.
Mr. Bryant also has worked with the Senate's Governmental
Affairs Committee, Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations,
where he focused on domestic and international organized crime,
as well as a law clerk and special assistant at the Department
of Justice. He is eminently qualified. I know you all moved
very quickly back in the spring of 2001, and I hope you will as
well in this position. I would like to take a moment to
recognize a few of Mr. Bryant's family members who are here
today: first and foremost, his bride, Aerin, who is holding
little Noah, and Dan is holding Peter, and Caroline, the
daughter, has moved back to the back row. His brother Paul, is
back there, I call him ``Bear'' Bryant. And his father, Pop-
Pop, I said you can call him ``Papa Bear'' Bryant, but it is
Pop-Pop, and Carolyn, his wonderful mother, are all here with
him.
Chairman Hatch. I have to say, Noah looks like he could be
a linebacker for the Green Bay Packers.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. He is still too sweet. If you hang around
here--
Chairman Hatch. It takes the sweetness away. Listen, I lost
all of mine this morning, I tell you.
[Laughter.]
Senator Allen. Or maybe we will get him on the Raiders or
the Redskins.
Now I would like to speak on behalf of Mr. Alex Acosta, who
has been nominated to the position of Assistant Attorney
General in the Civil Rights Division of the Department of
Justice. And I very much commend President Bush for selecting
such a well-qualified nominee to fill this very important
position. Mr. Acosta is known by his colleagues and all as
being committed to protecting the civil rights of all
Americans. And what you hear most and read most about Mr.
Acosta is that he is fair-minded. You hear about his careful,
deliberative approach to law enforcement, helping in the
prosecution of violations of civil rights laws, as well as
setting the tone for constructive dialogue on civil rights
issues.
He is the son of Cuban immigrants. Mr. Acosta's parents are
here with us. His first language was Spanish, but he is a true
American success story. We have seen such qualified individuals
for all sorts of positions, including the D.C. Court of
Appeals, before this Committee. And I feel that you will be
making history, clearly, with Alex Acosta being the first
Hispanic Attorney General to lead the Civil Rights Division, as
Ileana said earlier. But he has a long list of endorsements. It
is impressive and indicative of his strong qualifications and
his fair nature.
The list of groups supporting Mr. Acosta's nomination
include the following: the National Council of La Raza, the
National Asian Pacific American Legal Consortium, the Hispanic
Bar Association, the Arab American Institute, the American
Association of People with Disabilities, the Hispanic Bar
Association of the District of Columbia, the National Asian
Pacific American Bar Association, the National Fraternal Order
of Police, and the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners
of America. That is a diverse group of entities and
organizations, and indeed Mr. Acosta was recently awarded the
Mexican American Legal Defense Fund 2003 Excellence in
Government Award.
The National Council of La Raza, one of the groups
endorsing Mr. Acosta, calls him ``a bridge-builder, not only
with the Latino community but with other ethnic and racial
groups.'' The endorsement goes on to say, ``We may not agree
with everything that Mr. Acosta has done or will do, but we are
certain that he is someone who will listen and act in a fair
manner.''
Mr. Acosta has already been nominated and confirmed to
serve on the National Labor Relations Board where he currently
serves. Prior to this appointment, he served as a Principal
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Civil Rights Division
at the Department. He has clerked for the U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Third Circuit. He has taught classes in civil rights
law, disability-based discrimination law, and employment law at
George Mason University's School of Law. And he is outstanding.
Both of these are exceptional nominees, Mr. Chairman, and I
know that you will be fair and expeditious in their
consideration and action. I again thank you for your time, your
courtesy, and your commitment to fairness, equity, and greater
justice in this country. These two gentlemen will help us all
in our cause.
Finally, I would like to ask that the statement of my
colleague, Senator John Warner, in support of both Mr. Bryant
and Mr. Acosta be entered into the record.
Chairman Hatch. Without objection.
I really personally appreciate your coming and taking the
time and giving this excellent statement on behalf of these two
terrific people. So I appreciate you doing it. Thanks, Senator
Allen.
Senator Allen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Well, if we could have the two nominees
come forward, if you will raise your right hands. Do you
solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing
but the truth, so help you God?
Mr. Bryant. I do.
Mr. Acosta. I do.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. ORRIN G. HATCH, A U.S. SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF UTAH
Chairman Hatch. Thank you.
Let me make a few comments before I turn the time over to
you for any statements you care to make. I want to welcome both
of you here. I have really high opinions of both of you. I have
followed your careers, I know you both, and I am just very,
very enthusiastic about your appointments.
Alex Acosta has been nominated to serve as Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights, and in this capacity, he
will lead the enforcement of Federal statutes prohibiting
discrimination on the basis of race, sex, handicap, religion,
and national origin. Of course, Mr. Acosta is already familiar
with the responsibilities this position entails since he served
in the Civil Rights Division in 2001 as a Deputy Assistant
Attorney General and then as the Principal Deputy Assistant
Attorney General. He has also taught civil rights law as a
professor at George Mason Law School. He is widely recognized
as an expert in the civil rights arena, and I have no doubt
that you, Alex, will serve the Justice Department and the
country with distinction upon your confirmation.
I am not alone in my endorsement of Mr. Acosta, as has
already been said. He has received accolades from a host of
civil rights organizations who extol his many contributions.
For example, the Arab-American Institute stated, ``At one of
the most difficult times in our Nation, Alex reached out to the
Arab and Muslim Americans to ensure that we were part of a
system and that our rights were protected. His immediate
response to our community's concerns provided an important
indication of his sensitivity and helped pave the way for
regular meetings with various branches of the Department of
Justice.''
Similarly, the National Council of La Raza has stated,
``Mr. Acosta has proven himself to be a bridge-builder, not
only with the Latino community but with other ethnic and racial
groups.'' That has been said before, but I thought it needed to
be re-emphasized.
The truth of that statement is reflected by the disparity
of the groups that are supportive of you. Maybe they are not as
disparate as they are diverse. And these are very important
groups that we all respect, and I won't go through all of those
again since Senator Allen did.
Your accomplishments are very impressive. You recently
received the Excellence in Government Award from the Mexican
American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, which is a
wonderful award.
Mr. Acosta attended Harvard College and Harvard Law School
and clerked for Judge Samuel Alito on the Third Circuit. He has
worked as an appellate attorney at Kirkland and Ellis and as
project director at the Ethics and Public Policy Center. Most
recently, he has been serving as a board member on the National
Labor Relations Board.
Given Mr. Acosta's executive experience, I am confident
that he is well equipped to handle the challenges of this
crucial post. I am hopeful that the Committee and the Senate as
a whole will move quickly to confirm you in this position. And
I will do everything in my power to see that that happens as
soon as I can. This position needs to be filled, and we need to
have an aggressive, hard-working person in that area who is
sensitive to the needs of minorities in this country.
Now, we will also consider this afternoon the nomination of
a good friend of mine, Dan Bryant--and I shouldn't have said
that; that will probably be an ``x'' against you with some
people--to be Assistant Attorney General for the Office of
Legal Policy. Now, this position plays a crucial role in
planning, developing, and coordinating implementation of major
policy initiatives of high priority to the Justice Department
and to the administration. The Office of Legal Policy also
provides important legal advice and assistance to the Attorney
General and to Department components.
Mr. Bryant comes before the Committee with a very
impressive track record of public service. He was unanimously
confirmed in 2001 as Assistant Attorney General for the Office
of Legislative Affairs, where he was responsible for devising
and implementing the Justice Department's legislative strategy
and coordinating all Congressional oversight of the Department.
Mr. Bryant performed these duties impeccably and has earned the
trust and respect, I think, of many if not all of the Senators
during the process.
Even before he assumed his leadership role at the
Department of Justice in the Department's Office of Legislative
Affairs, Mr. Bryant was no stranger to Capitol Hill. Prior to
joining the Justice Department, he served as chief counsel of
the Crime Subcommittee of the House Judiciary Committee. He
also served on the staff of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee
on Investigations. Mr. Bryant's experience in Congress, along
with his significant experience at the Justice Department,
makes him an ideal choice to take the helm at the helm at the
Office of Legal Policy. And I have to say that I am a person
who has been very impressed with the way that you have handled
yourself over in the House, down there, and elsewhere. You are
a terrific person, a terrific nominee, and I look forward to
getting you through as quickly as I can, along with Alex
Acosta.
Let me again close by expressing my pleasure in having such
well-qualified nominees come before the Committee. I look
forward to hearing your testimony and, of course, look forward
to any questions that may be raised here in the hearing.
Do either of you have any statements you would care to
make? We could start with whoever wants to--
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, may I be so rude as to ask--I
apologize for being late and ask the Chairman's indulgence to
make a very short comment? I had hoped to be here earlier.
Chairman Hatch. I would be happy to do that.
Senator Biden. Because I want to, as they say in the
Southern part of my State, brag on a Delawarean for a second
here. It is no reflection on the other nominee, if you would
give me just a second.
Chairman Hatch. I am very happy to do that, Senator.
PRESENTATION OF DANIEL J. BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, BY HON. JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF DELAWARE
Senator Biden. I want to apologize to Dan and his parents
for being late. As Delawareans, you will understand. I was with
Senator Carper and Congressman Castle trying to save the VA
hospital in Elsmere, Delaware. And you are important, Dan, but
the VA hospital is even more important.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and it is a pleasure for
me, I was going to say, to introduce Dan but I understand our
colleague from Virginia did, since technically he is a Virginia
resident. But once a Delawarean, we don't let them go, and I am
flattered that Dan would indicate earlier that he would like to
have me introduce him as well.
It seems only like yesterday that I was introducing Dan for
a nomination for a different office, the one he now holds, the
Office of Legislative Affairs. And as a consequence of that
office, all of our staff behind us and all of my colleagues
have gotten to know a little bit about Dan, so what I am about
to say about him is not going to surprise anybody.
He is a first-rate lawyer, and he is universally recognized
as that. And I think he is well poised and well positioned to
take on what is an even more important job, and that is the
Office of Legal Policy. A lot of very controversial issues are
going to be coming out of the Justice Department and relating
to Justice decisions relating to policy, and I feel--I always
like it, as you do, Mr. Chairman, when you can be supporting
strongly the nominee of another party before us. And I do that
not just because Dan is a Delawarean, but I do it because I
know his work and I know a lot about him. I have had the
occasion to work with him over the years in his capacity, as
you will remember, Mr. Chairman, since you and I have served
almost the same amount of time on this Committee, when he was
counsel to the House Subcommittee on Crime. And there he served
Representative McCollum and Henry Hyde, Chairman Hyde, and
Congressman Conyers. And I personally worked with Dan, and we
worked with him, on our Violence Against Women Act that you and
I pushed, the Violence Against Women Act of 2000, the Foreign
Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act, and the DNA Backlog
Elimination Act, which I am going to want to come back to in
your new position and talk more about additional legislation we
have on DNA.
Dan is an able lawyer. He is a straight shooter, and I am
confident he is going to serve this Department well in this new
position, in large part because he has good judgment. Dan was
born in Port Jefferson, New York, but he grew up in Wilmington,
Delaware, where he attended the Tower Hills School, the second
best school in Delaware. I went to the other one. His parents,
Gary and Carolyn, are both here today, I believe, sitting back
there, and I welcome them, as I am sure they have been
recognized already, as well as his older brother and sister and
their families, all still living in Wilmington. And he is
joined today by his wife, Aerin, and Caroline and Peter and
Noah. And as my mother would say, God bless you, dear, having
the nerve to take all three out. You are pretty good. They are
awful good kids.
While I have been impressed with his work on the juvenile
justice bill and my Violence Against Women Act and the great
work he has done at the Department, what really brings me here
today is his accomplishments in Delaware. I just want to brag
on him just a little bit, and I will stop, Mr. Chairman.
He was both an academic and an athletic star back in our
home State. He placed first in Delaware's State Spanish oral
exam. He was a member of the all-State soccer team. He was a
recipient of the DeSabatino Leadership Award, named after a
personal friend and a great, great guy at that other school.
And, in fact, were it not for his appearance here today, I
would be tempted to say Dan peaked a little early in life. He
has done so much already.
The fact that he is down here is of great pride to us in
Delaware. He has served the Justice Department well thus far,
just as he served the House Judiciary Committee well, and I am
confident that he will serve the Attorney General well in this
new position. And I am also confident he is going to have the
obligation of coming forward with some fairly controversial
things that are going to be up here. But the one thing I can
assure all my colleagues of, and my Democratic colleagues, even
if you end up disagreeing with the policy that comes out of the
Justice Department, Dan will be straight with you. He will give
it to you straight. And that is all that we can ask for in the
opposition here.
So I thank you for indulging me and allowing me to talk a
little bit about him, but we are proud of him at home, and I am
proud that he is about to take on this new job. And I apologize
to our other nominee, whom I do not know personally, but I am
sure is very well qualified.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Senator Biden. We really
appreciate your kind remarks. I know the Bryant family does in
particular.
I am going to put Senator Warner's statement in the record,
and also I would like to introduce into the record several
letters and press releases endorsing the nomination of Mr.
Acosta for Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights.
Senator Biden. Mr. Chairman, one more indulgence, if I may.
Chairman Hatch. Sure.
Senator Biden. We are about to have a vote, and then I am--
I was going to say co-chairing. I am not co-chairing. I am the
Ranking Member on the Foreign Relations Committee, and we are
having a very important hearing on Iraq that is supposed to
start at 2:30. So if I am not back, that is the reason why. We
will have started that hearing. And I have a similar
responsibility on the fourth floor beginning very shortly.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you, Senator Biden. We know how
busy you are, and we know what a great job you do on that
committee.
Well, we do have a vote, but I am going to take a few
minutes here and allow you folks to--why don't we, since we
introduced Alex first, why don't we go with you, Mr. Bryant,
and take any statement you would care to make, and then we will
take Mr. Acosta's statement.
STATEMENT OF DANIEL J. BRYANT, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL, OFFICE OF LEGAL POLICY, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I don't have a
statement that I would plan to make at this time. I would ask
to submit one for the record, if I might.
And my family has been graciously introduced a number of
times already, so I won't repeat that. But thank you for those
courtesies, all of you.
I would just note that I have family up from North Carolina
as well. My mother's brother, Edward, and his wife, Sylvia, and
daughter, Lynn, and her son, they are all up here.
Further, we are joined by friends from Delaware.
Chairman Hatch. Well, we want to welcome all of you here,
and it is good to see you again, Mrs. Bryant, and your father,
Mr. Bryant. We are grateful to have all of you here. And I have
to admit, those kids, I remember them from the last time. They
are great.
Mr. Bryant. Thank you. I would just repeat, Mr. Chairman,
my gratitude for the consideration of this Committee, your
courtesies today and over past years. And I would also like to
thank the President and the Attorney General for the privilege
of being asked to serve in this capacity. So thank you.
[The biographical information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.005
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.007
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.009
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.019
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.022
Chairman Hatch. Thank you.
Mr. Acosta?
STATEMENT OF RENE ALEXANDER ACOSTA, NOMINEE TO BE ASSISTANT
ATTORNEY GENERAL, CIVIL RIGHTS DIVISION, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, do not have an
opening statement and would like to submit one for the record,
if I may, but I have some brief introductions.
Chairman Hatch. Without objection.
Mr. Acosta. I would like to introduce my parents, Rene and
Delia.
Chairman Hatch. So happy to have you here. You must be
proud of your son.
Mr. Acosta. I want to acknowledge--we had tried to fly my
grandmother up for the hearing today. She's 94, and that was a
little bit too much to ask for. We did try, but I want to
acknowledge her and her sister, Delia and Rosalia. Rosalia is
99, both living in Miami.
Chairman Hatch. We expect you to serve a long time.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Acosta. That is quite a while.
I also want to acknowledge, I know that several senior
members of the Civil Rights Division staff are here, and I want
to acknowledge them. They are experienced, dedicated litigators
who have dedicated a good part of their life to serving the
Division and to enforcing the civil rights laws. I think it's
important that they're here, and I want to thank them for
coming.
Chairman Hatch. Happy to have them.
Mr. Acosta. Finally, I want to thank this Committee for
taking the time to hold this hearing, the Attorney General and
the President for their confidence in this nomination.
[The biographical information follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.030
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.032
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.053
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.056
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you so much. We will begin with
some questions. There will be some Senators coming, and we will
in just a few minutes leave for a vote. But let me start with
you, Mr. Bryant.
We have heard about the importance of the PATRIOT Act tools
in conducting anti-terrorism investigations. I want to ask you
about one specific tool, and that is the ability to delay
giving notice of the execution of a search warrant.
Specifically, the PATRIOT Act added a new subsection (b) to
Section 3103(a) of Title 18 to authorize the court to delay
giving notice of the execution of a search warrant where there
is reasonable cause that such notice would endanger the life or
physical safety of an individual, create a risk of flight,
destruction of evidence, witness intimidation, or compromise an
ongoing investigation.
Now, it is important to keep in mind that this provision
authorized only a delay, not elimination of the notice
requirement, and specifically requires court approval in order
to enforce this provision.
Can you explain how this authorization is used and how it
assists in conducting terrorism investigations?
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As this Committee well
knows, having carefully crafted Section 213 of the USA PATRIOT
Act, which, of course, would be very substantially affected,
rescinded, in effect, by the amendment that the Chairman refers
to, the authority to delay notice of a search warrant already
existed prior to the USA PATRIOT Act. That wasn't a new
authority put in place by the Act.
All that Section 213 did--and it did it very carefully--is
it established a uniform statutory standard that applied around
the country. It had previously been left to circuits and to
districts to prescribe the precise standards that would apply
before an agent could seek from a judge a search warrant. This
created a uniform national statutory standard.
Importantly, this authority can only be used upon the
issuance of a court order by a judge. And even then, it
requires reasonable cause to believe that immediate notice of
the warrant could result in death or physical harm, flight from
prosecution, evidence tampering, or witness intimidation. That
is the standard that this Committee took the lead in putting
into place in Section 213.
The Department has used this a number of times since 9/11.
It has always been granted by a judge when this authority to
delay notice of a search warrant has been asked for. Put
simply, the amendment offered yesterday in the House would not
simply undo Section 213, it would take us back well before
where we stood in terms of the law on September 11th, and it
would prevent law enforcement from being able to do what they
had long been able to do, and that is to seek a search warrant
from a judge, and additionally, upon the showing, to be able to
delay the notice of the service of that warrant. To not allow
in certain circumstances a delayed notice of a warrant would be
to require that the Federal agents involved tip off the
terrorists that they are conducting the search. It would
deprive law enforcement of this historic power that they had,
and I would note, Section 213, which the Senate crafted, with
the leadership of this Committee, actually raised the
safeguards by including the specific requirements of showing in
Section 213 as compared to the ad hoc safeguards which have
been developed in a variety of districts prior to September
11th. So it would take away those safeguards as well.
Just consider, if you had to give notice to a recipient of
a search warrant at the time of the warrant, if a terrorist
immediately learned that his property has been searched, he
could flee or escape prosecution. A terrorist, upon receiving
notice of a contemporaneous search may well destroy computer
equipment containing information about which targets he plans
to strike. A terrorist might alert his associates that an
investigation is under way, enabling them to go into hiding. A
terrorist may stop communicating with other members of his
cell, preventing law enforcement from learning who else is
participating in a plot to kill Americans.
So it doesn't take much thought to identify some
potentially very serious consequences of vitiating Section 213,
which the Senate passed by a vote of 98 to 1, following the
leadership of this Committee, which crafted, in the judgement
of the Department, a well-balanced provision that law
enforcement continues to need.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. That, I think, should answer a
lot of the critics, who have not quite realized how important
the PATRIOT Act is, at least in that one respect and in so many
others, that the FBI Director talked about this morning in
enforcing the laws against terrorism in our country and
otherwise.
I think we had better go vote, and we have about 3 minutes
left. So with that, we will just recess for the time until I
can get over there and get back, and then we will have some
more questions for you.
With that, we will recess until we can get back from the
vote.
[Recess from 2:47 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.]
STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD M. KENNEDY, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MASSACHUSETTS
Senator Kennedy. I have a brief opening comment and a
privilege to welcome Mr. Acosta to the Committee and commend
him for his nomination to be assistant attorney general of the
Civil Rights Division.
That position is one of the most important positions in our
Government, since it was created 45 years ago. It has been at
the forefront of our continuing struggle to guarantee equal
justice for all Americans. Much of the progress we have made in
recent decades has come because of the genuine and sustained
commitment of the division to vigorously enforce our civil
rights laws.
We are proud of the progress we have made, but civil rights
is still the unfinished business of the Nation. It is extremely
important that the leader of the division have strong
credentials, strong commitment to equal opportunity.
Many of us have been concerned about the recent direction
of the Division in the past 2 years. It has changed its
position on a significant discrimination case, adversely
affecting the interests of large numbers of women, African
Americans, Hispanics and Asians. It has sought to release
politically connected defendants from important consent
decrees, it has transferred long-time managers and changed
hiring practices in the division. It has significantly reduced
its litigation in a number of areas, sometimes ignoring the
recommendations of career managers.
So these are serious challenges, and I hope we can deal
with them effectively, and I look forward to hearing from Mr.
Acosta today, and I congratulate him and look forward to
inquiring of him.
I am concerned, and this is in the area of employment,
employment cases, concerned that the Civil Rights Division over
the last 2 years has not been vigorously enforcing the Nation's
civil rights laws. I am particularly concerned about the work
of the Department to enforce the Nation's equal employment laws
in the past few years. The Justice Department's employment
case, and particularly its pattern and practice cases, have
been important in remedying discrimination, particularly in
State and local civil service employment.
Through Republican and Democratic administrations, the
Division has brought an average of about 12 to 14 cases a year.
In the last two-and-a-half years, however, the Division has
only brought seven Title VII cases. That is an average of only
three a year, and only one of these cases was a pattern and
practice suit.
The Department has withdrawn from a number of longstanding
pattern and practice employment cases affecting interests of
Latinos, African Americans, and women, and high-level officials
of the Employment Section have been involuntarily transferred.
All of the Department's actions raise serious doubt about the
strength of its commitment to end the forms of discriminatory
employment practices.
You were number two in the Civil Rights Division until
December of last year. In that role, you oversaw all 10 of the
Division's litigating sections. Why do you think that more
cases have not been filed, and what more do you think should be
done to strengthen the enforcement of our Nation's employment
laws?
Mr. Acosta. Thank you for the question, Senator.
As an initial matter, let me say pattern and practice cases
are important. When the Department is determining how to
allocate its resources, when the Division is determining that,
we should think not only about the impact on the particular
case, but also the deterrent value of pursuing that litigation.
To that extent, pattern and practice cases, high-profile cases,
cases that will serve to not only remedy wrongs in that
particular instance, but as a deterrence to others who would
discriminate are important and are critical.
It is my understanding, I believe this came up in a recent
House oversight hearing, and it is my understanding that the
Division has several investigations underway in this area. If
confirmed as assistant attorney general, I do want to assure
the Senator, number one, the employment cases will be pursued,
and they will be pursued vigorously. That includes pattern and
practice cases, that includes disparate impact cases.
This Congress has made clear that those cases or those
situations are unlawful. For those of us who believe in the
rule of law, that means we have to believe in vigorous
enforcement. The rule part of the rule of law requires that we
enforce the laws vigorously, and it would be my intent to use
all of the resources at our disposal in the employment area to
enforce those cases.
Senator Kennedy. Well, that is a very positive response, in
terms of looking prospectively. Can you help me out about what
conclusions you have drawn, if any, about the reduced numbers
and cases in the more recent years. You were involved in those
cases. How would you explain the fact that there has been an
important drop in just the numbers of cases. I mean, you can
fiddle with the statistics, and we are all familiar with that,
but if you looked over the recent numbers of cases in these
pattern and practice, you would see a Side A decline in the
number of cases.
You indicate there are a number that are under
consideration at the present time. Perhaps that explains some
of it. Can you help me understand why there was a slackening
off in terms of the numbers of the other years?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator.
I do not have the full information or up-to-date
information on that matter, but it is my understanding from
what I have heard that there were several cases that were
settled, and as a result of the settlement, litigation need not
or was not filed.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I might just submit additional
questions on that to try and get a better understanding about
what the status is of some of those cases that you have
mentioned here and some further explanations of the reductions
in the numbers.
This is on a different area on the questions of personnel.
There have been troubling changes in personnel practices at the
Division. Several high-level managers have been involuntarily
transferred. In May, the chief of the Housing Enforcement was
demoted and involuntary transferred last year. While you were
the number two at the division, three career managers,
including the chief of the Employment Litigation Section, Kay
Baldwin, and the high-level deputies, Richard Ugelow--was that
the right pronunciation?
Mr. Acosta. Ugelow.
Senator Kennedy. Ugelow. --and Robert Libman were
involuntary transferred from the Employment Section. I realize
you were at the NRLB when the chief of the Housing Section was
demoted, but what was your role in the involuntary transfers in
the employment section and what did you recommend about any of
these transfers?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. I had discussions with Mr.
Boyd regarding his personnel decision with respect to the
section chief of the Employment Section. I did not have
discussions in detail regarding the other decisions. Those
discussions were between myself and Mr. Boyd. He made the
decision on how to best allocate the Division's resources.
If I could say, I think the career staff is important to
the division. We political appointees come and go. They are the
ones that have devoted a good part of their life to the work of
the Division. There are several career, senior members of the
career staff here today. I mentioned earlier that I thought it
was important for them to be here because this nomination
concerns them.
During the transition, I got to know most, if not all, of
the senior members of the career staff. I think, and hope, that
we have a good working relationship, a relationship that I look
forward to continuing. We do not always agree, but it is
important to have mutual respect. It is important to listen,
and it is important to work together.
Senator Kennedy. Well, I think that is certainly an
appropriate recognition of the career staff and their
commitment and dedication. I am trying to get at the point
about the reason for the transfers of the employees, whether it
was a result of their actions in various cases and, if not, why
were they transferred?
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Senator. I believe this came up at a
hearing where Mr. Boyd testified. And as he indicated, he
thought that Ms. Baldwin's expertise and knowledge could be
well used in a task force that was being put together to try
the harmonize the Civil Division and the Civil Rights
Division's litigating strategies on employment matters.
Senator Kennedy. Is it your understanding, then, that they
were not transferred because of their positions with regards to
any of the cases they were involved in?
Mr. Acosta. It is my understanding that they were
transferred in order to staff this task force, yes.
Senator Kennedy. The current administration eliminated the
decades old Attorney General Honors programs, which new
attorneys are hired to work at the Civil Rights Division. Under
the former system career attorneys played a central role in
determining which applicants should be hired with the Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights having final approval. Under
the new system all hiring of career attorneys is done directly
by the Assistant Attorney General in the front office, and
career employees are shut out.
I am concerned that the new system unduly politicizes the
hiring practice. Indeed the new system bears a disturbing
resemblance to changes called for in a National Review article
published last year, which stated that Republican political
appointees should seize control of the division's hiring
process in order to ensure that attorneys from progressive
civil rights organizations are not hired.
Did you have any involvement in the decision to end the
honors program?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, the honors program, the Attorney
General's Honors program, those decisions were made at a
Department-wide level. They were made by the leadership
offices. I was not consulted on that issue.
Senator Kennedy. Do you have any opinion about the honors
program itself? Had you formed any opinion about it?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I was not involved in the decisions at
the time. I think the honors program, however, is an important
program. It is how the division gets many, if not most, of its
young energetic litigators.
Let me say more broadly, more generally if I could,
referring to the hiring process. The Assistant Attorney General
had and always has had a final say over the hiring process. I
was involved in the lateral hiring process. The lateral hiring
process includes, I believe currently, and if confirmed as
Assistant Attorney General, will include consultation by both
career and noncareer staff. It's important that individuals be
interviewed by several members at various levels of the
division to ensure that they have good exposure to the work of
the division to ensure that staff feels comfortable with and
can work with new hires, and to ensure we get the best
qualified individuals. So with respect to the lateral hiring
process, which is within the division, I was involved in that,
and I do think it is important to consult both career and
noncareer staff in the lateral hiring process.
Senator Kennedy. What is your sense about how you can avoid
the hiring process becoming over politicized? Are you concerned
about that, worried about it?
Mr. Acosta. I would hope that the hiring process looks for
the best qualified individuals. The way to avoid that, I would
think, is by ensuring that those who are participating in the
process, those who do the interviewing understand what the role
is and what the role is not. That's something that I think
should be emphasized to all participants in the hiring process,
and certainly if confirmed I would do that.
Senator Kennedy. You know, there been concerns raised about
declining morale in the division. For instance, half of the
Employment Litigation Section career attorneys have left or
have been detailed elsewhere. Do you consider the decline in
career attorneys a problem, and why do you think that is
happening, and what would you do to try and address this?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I'm not familiar with the numbers that
you're referring to. Let me say this if I could. I think that
the career attorneys are the bedrock of the division. They do
the work. As with any organization that involves several
hundred people, morale is important, morale is critical.
The job of Assistant Attorney General is at heart to
provide leadership, to provide leadership on issues, to provide
leadership for the division, to provide leadership to the
country on the civil rights front. To the extent that a morale
problem arises, any Assistant Attorney General should address
that, should investigate it and should work with section chiefs
and career staff to address that.
Senator Kennedy. There are large numbers of, as I
understand it, career attorney vacancies in the division at the
present time. So that is going to the be a major challenge for
you when you assume the position. This will be enormously
important that we get the kind of quality people in those
positions which have sort of marked and have been the character
of the division over a period of many years with Republicans
and Democrats alike, and I hope you will give that a good deal
of focus and attention.
I just have one more, if I could, and I thank my
colleagues.
As you know, there has been this issue of hate crimes.
There has been a dramatic rise in hate crimes since September
11th. Muslim and Arab-American leaders remain very concerned
about the growing tie to violence directed at their
communities. As I understand, the Civil Rights Division has
looked into the number of backlash cases across the Nation. Yet
when it comes to investigating and prosecuting hate crimes
under the current law, the Division has one hand tied behind
its back because of the outdated Federal Protected Activity
requirements. I have been asking the Department to give me its
position on our bipartisan hate crimes bill, but it steadfastly
refused to say anything. We have strong bipartisan legislation
that is before the Senate. As a matter of fact, it is pending
amendment on the State Department Reauthorization bill, and the
Chairman is knowledgeable and interested in this as well. We
have been working with him, but we have been unable to get any
kind of comment from the Justice Department, against the
background where we have seen significant escalation of hate
crimes against gays and lesbians, and a good deal of increase
against Muslims and a good deal of increase against Jews as
well.
Do you think that we need to strengthen the existing hate
crimes law? Have you discussed the issue with the prosecutors
that handle any of the hate crimes cases?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. After 9/11, as the Senator
alluded to, I was involved in the Department's efforts to work
to reduce backlash, to reduce hate directed against the Arab-
Americans, the Muslim-Americans, the Sikh-Americans; met
several leaders in that community during that time; traveled to
and did community fora; and I think that is an important and a
critical issue. I'm aware of the Senator's interest and
leadership in this issue. I know that there are discussion in
the Department on this. I have not participated in them.
Senator Kennedy. I suppose I could ask your opinion about
expanding your own view about it, but I think I know what the
answer is going to be, but let me give it a try anyway.
Mr. Acosta. Certainly. As you guessed, I think that is
something that I would have to discuss with the Department.
Senator Kennedy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We have had a
good opportunity to inquire, and I appreciate your courtesy in
letting me question, and the Senator here for letting me run
past my time.
Chairman Hatch. Very happy to do it. You can see what all
that seniority does. He picked just the right time so he can
not be limited by a 5-minute or 10-minute rule.
[Laughter.]
Chairman Hatch. I have learned a lot from Senator Kennedy,
I want you to know, and it has all been good.
Let me just ask one question and then I will turn to
Senator Feingold.
Some of our colleagues have relied upon media reports that
have criticized the current Assistant Attorney General of the
Civil Rights Division as having politicized the unit. They have
second-guessed his personnel decisions as well as his
investigative actions. I realize you have not worked at the
Department of Justice for over a year and that you were not in
charge of the unit while these events occurred. Nevertheless, I
am concerned that some might want to turn your nomination
hearing into an oversight hearing concerning current Civil
Rights Division practices, and I do not think this is the time
or place for that, but at this time there is only one relevant
question, as I see it, for you, and that is, will you keep
these allegations in mind as you execute the responsibilities
of this post?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. As I mentioned, I believe
that the rule of law requires vigorous enforcement of the law,
that is, fair-minded enforcement, that is enforcement with an
eye to doing what is right, what the law requires. When I
received the nomination Mr. Boyd warned me that it is a tough
job, and that often criticism arises from all sides, and I
think Mr. Boyd was careful to do what he thought was right
throughout his tenure. I think that is a model that is
admirable and a model that I would try to follow. When you take
that oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United
States, it is a serious oath and it obligates you to enforce
the law as a member of the Executive Branch.
Chairman Hatch. Well, thank you. I am going to turn to
Senator Feingold at this time and then to Senator Sessions.
Senator Feingold. Thank you and Senator Sessions for your
courtesy. I was looking forward to referring to Senator Kennedy
as Mr. Chairman again, but did not quite make it.
[Laughter.]
Senator Feingold. Welcome back though, Mr. Chairman.
Welcome to the hearing, Mr. Acosta and Mr. Bryant. I want
to thank the Chairman in particular for postponing this hearing
from its originally scheduled time to give the Committee
members adequate time to prepare and make sure the Democratic
Senators could attend and question the nominees, and, Mr.
Chairman, I do sincerely appreciate that.
Mr. Acosta, you have been nominated to a very important
position. The Civil Rights Division at the Department of
Justice of course has a long and important history. I believe
it is a part of the Department that serves our country in a way
quite unlike any other Government agency or Department. The
protection of civil rights for all Americans, and you will
carry out your duties in a way that will bring great credit to
you and to the Department.
Mr. Bryant, I thoroughly enjoyed working with you during
your tenure in the Office of Legislative Affairs. While you may
not have responded to all of my questions as quickly as I would
have liked, which is an ongoing issue at the Department, I
think you did carry out your duties of the position very well,
and I congratulate you on your nomination.
I have a few questions. Mr. Acosta, last month in response
to the President's February 2001 directive to the Attorney
General to review and provide recommendations on ending racial
profiling, the Department issued its guidelines regarding the
use of race by Federal law enforcement agencies. I am pleased
that the administration has taken this important step and that
the Department's definition of racial profiling is actually
similar to that in the bill that Representative Conyers and I
have sponsored to ban racial profiling. I do, however, have
some concerns, including the fact that the guidelines are not
binding and do not apply to State and local law enforcement.
If you are confirmed, what steps will you take to ensure
that this policy is understood and implemented by Federal law
enforcement officers and agencies?
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Senator. My understanding is that
the guidelines were issued at the directive, as the Senator
mentioned, of the President. The President is the Chief
Executive Officer. These guidelines were issued at his
directive. Federal agencies should and must follow them. They
are not guidelines to be treated as best practices. They are
guidelines that should and must be followed.
Senator Feingold. All right. I appreciate that answer. In
light of the fact that you said that they have to follow them,
I understand that, but what other enforcement mechanisms would
you provide to victims of racial profiling by Federal law
enforcement officers?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. The guidelines, as the
Senator mentioned, were the result of well over a year of
study, of consideration by Department officials. I assume that
part of that consideration was careful consideration of the
degree to which this was a problem at the Federal level, the
degree to which remedies were required, and these guidelines
embodied the conclusions of the various individuals at the
Department who studied this matter. I think that before sort of
shooting from the hip, so to speak, it would be important for
me to speak with those officials, to become privy to the
expertise that has been developed in the Department on this
matter.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to talking with you after
you have done that, because I do think, although obviously
having the officials themselves follow these guidelines is
important, but I do believe there needs to be other ways in
which citizens can seek redress in situations of inappropriate
racial profiling.
What steps would you take to ensure that a ban on racial
profiling applies to State and local law enforcement? I would
hope you would agree that racial profiling has been and
continues to be an issue for State and local law enforcement,
and that Federal leadership is critically needed?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. I certainly agree that
racial profiling is immoral, it is wrong, it should be ended.
The President has said so. He said so when issuing his
directive. Again, I think that this issue is being look ed at
the Department. There are several experts that have considered
this issue, and before opining as to what additional steps
would or should be taken. I think it would be important to
speak with them, to learn what they have concluded over at the
Department.
Senator Feingold. I look forward to ongoing conversations
with you about this. Let me switch to a different subject.
As you know, last month the Inspector General released a
report in the treatment of individuals detained on immigration
violations in connection with the investigation into the
terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. While I commend
everyone in law enforcement who has been involved in this and
related investigations. I believe we need to remain committed
to understanding what occurred, address abuses of power and
ensure that they do not occur again in the future. As important
as uncovering what happened is the assurance that it will not
happen again, or if such abuses occur, that there is a clear,
swift process to which the individuals responsible be held
accountable for their actions.
According to the IG's report, I understand that a number of
complaints of physical and verbal abuse were determined to be
insufficient to be the basis of criminal prosecutions. Other
investigations are ongoing, and perhaps some cases would be
ripe for civil or administrative action. What steps will you
take to ensure that the Civil Rights Division will investigate
those individuals who mistreat detainees and hold them
responsible for their actions? And what can the Division do
above and beyond adhering to the recommendations in the
Inspector General's report to ensure that the rights of
individuals detained in future terrorism investigations are
protected?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. As an initial matter I want
to emphasize the Department of Justice should not and does not
tolerate abuse. It does not tolerate unlawful action by its
officials or by Federal officials. If confirmed as Assistant
Attorney General for Civil Rights, certainly if any
allegations, if we receive credible information that
individuals' civil rights have been violated, if there are
statutory violations, we will pursue those and we will
investigate those.
Senator Feingold. I thank you.
Now I am going to ask some questions of Mr. Bryant. in a
December 23rd, 2003 to Senator Leahy in response to his inquiry
regarding DOJ monitoring of individuals' library records, you
wrote, quote, ``Any right of privacy possessed by library and
bookstore patrons and such information is necessarily and
inherently limited, since by the nature of these transactions
the patron is reposing that information in the library or
bookstore and assumes the risk that the entity may disclose it
to another. Whatever privacy interests may have are outweighed
by the Government's interest in obtaining information in cases
where the FBI can show the patron's relevance to an authorized
full investigation to protect against international terrorism
or clandestine and intelligence activities, provided that such
investigation of a United States person is not conducted solely
upon the basis of activities protected by the First Amendment
to the Constitution.'' End of quote.
Mr. Bryant, do you really believe that Americans who go to
libraries or bookstores assume the risk that their private
reading information will be disclosed to law enforcement or
anyone else? How do you think the balance should be struck
between personal privacy and law enforcement in the case of
libraries and bookstores?
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Senator. You refer of course to
Section 215 of the USA PATRIOT Act, which gave the authority
for the FISA Court to order the production of any tangible
things, business records, or as you say, library records. That
authority exists only in the limited category of investigations
into international terrorism or espionage. So Section 215
authority is limited accordingly.
As you well know, the same ability to obtain such records
has always been available on the criminal side of the ledger
through a grand jury subpoena, and it is not limited to the
category of international terrorism or espionage, and unlike
the criminal side where the Court is not involved, because it's
a grand jury subpoena, with Section 215 the order has to
granted by the FISA Court. A court actually has to issue the
order.
In addition to the narrow scope of 215 only applying in
connection with international terrorism or espionage, there is
specific guarding of First Amendment rights by providing that
no investigations of U.S. persons can occur solely on the basis
of First Amendment protected activities. Further, Congress
wisely provided, in connection with Section 215, that there be
Congressional oversight, regular ongoing required Congressional
oversight of how Section 215 is implemented, specifically
through a reporting requirement that the Department provide to
the Congress every 6 months a report on the usage of that
section. And as you know, the House Judiciary Committee
recently, in reviewing that submission by Congress, put out a
press statement indicating that it believed there was no
concern that the Department has been abusing its Section 215
authority.
Senator Feingold. Before my time expires I just want to
make a point and see if you agree. You mentioned the grand jury
standard, the criminal standard. Is it not a fact that that is
a higher standard, a standard of relevance, and that Section
215 has a lower standard which is simply that information is,
quote, ``sought'' in connection with investigation? Is that not
a distinction of some significance?
Mr. Bryant. It is, although on the criminal side, as
previously noted, the standard is evaluated only by the grand
jury and not by a judge. In the FISA context the relevant
showing has to be established before a judge will issue the
order.
Senator Feingold. My time is up, and I just want to
indicate that a number of members of both houses are looking at
revisions to Section 215. Some simply suggest eliminating the
ability to access the library records. What I am looking at is
a piece of legislation that would try to have a somewhat higher
standard but still provide for the kind of situations you are
talking about, and over time, I would be interested in your
reaction, and see if we can get the Department to come together
on a bipartisan agreement that perhaps 215 is too loose, but
that we recognize the unique circumstances that 9/11 has led
to.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Hatch. Thank you. I am proud of both of you, and I
have to go to the White House, so Senator Sessions is going to
complete this hearing, and I am very grateful to him for being
willing to do this on such short notice. He has always been
willing to assist on this Committee, and I am very, very
grateful to have him on the Committee.
I just want to personally congratulate both of you. You
have my support. We will do everything in our power to get you
through as quickly as we can, and I think the country is going
to be greatly benefited by having both of you in these very
important positions down at Justice. I just want to commend you
and tell you how proud I am of both of you.
So I understand Senator Leahy is coming, and there may be
one or two others, so I would wait for a little while longer,
and we ask any other members of the Committee who want to
question, to please get over here. So it is in your hands.
Senator Sessions. [Presiding] Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and
I would join with you, Mr. Chairman, in my expression of
confidence in these two nominees. You have, one, our support
and affection over the years as members of this body from
previous positions that you have held. I know, Mr. Acosta, you
were Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General for Civil
Rights, and Mr. Bryant, in your Legislative Affairs and Senate
Affairs, you are well known and respected here too. I think
that is important.
I just wanted to ask a couple of things. I will start with
you, Mr. Acosta. Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act was raised
this morning in the confirmation markup for Bill Pryor, the
Attorney General of Alabama, who had made some comments about
certain parts of Section 5 as needing reform. He was criticized
for that. I notice no one mentioned that the Democratic
Attorney General in Georgia himself, an African-American, had
made some of the same comments. Back in the 1960's when the
Voting Rights Act was passed, there was indeed blatant
discrimination against African-American voters. They were
denied the right to vote in many parts of the country
systematically through legal and other manipulations. But at
this point we have an extraordinary burden on the State and
local communities, and we might as well talk about it. I am not
afraid to mention it, and I do not think it means that anyone
could suggest discussing this issue rationally would be any
attempt to undermine voting rights.
For example, in a county in Alabama, that may be, let us
say, all white, if a voting precinct, there is a desire to move
a voting precinct across the street from where it is today,
they have to get approval from a person in the Department of
Justice, and sometimes they do not know this and they do not do
this, and they forget, and then they get challenged and it
causes legal confusions and that sort of thing.
Have you had the occasion to look at it--and I am just
asking this generally--do you think we could improve that act
and make it more rational without in any way undermining the
protections it provides to every American for their right to
vote?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly, Senator. Thank you for the question.
As Assistant Attorney General if confirmed, I would be
responsible for approving or objecting to, on behalf of the
Attorney General, redistricting plans. Certainly, one step that
is within the authority of the Civil Rights Division to do to
improve and to ease the delays that you speak about, is to
ensure that that submissions to the Division receive priority,
that they are looked at promptly and immediately, that we try
to use the resources at our disposal to move them quickly, so
that when subdivisions submit changes in voting procedure or do
submit redistricting plans or other matters that do need
Section 5 approval, that we can respond promptly and
efficiently so we do not hold up local elections.
Senator Sessions. A redistricting proposal is a serious
thing, and it is worthy of review and consideration. But I am
talking about a circumstance in which the voting place had been
on one side of the road, and they simply wanted to move it to
another building on the other side of the road. They have to
get approval for that also. Not changing a district's line,
just the physical location of the voting place 50 feet is just
one example of the things that States covered by the Voting
Rights Act have to beg your permission for.
Do you think there could be any improvement of that? And I
will just ask it this way: Would you be willing to give a fair
evaluation to concerns in that regard and be willing to
consider change if change makes sense?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, as Assistant Attorney General, if
confirmed, my job would be to enforce whatever law this
Congress adopted. I would be more than--I would not only be
willing, but I would readily enforce whatever changes this
Congress chose to adopt.
Senator Sessions. You don't see any role for the Division
in suggesting improvements?
Mr. Acosta. The Department and the administration speak
with one voice. Any changes on legislation on that matter I
think would be a policy judgment that would be made department-
wide or administration-wide.
Senator Sessions. Do you think, Mr. Acosta, that Adarand
remains good law?
Mr. Acosta. The Supreme Court has not overruled Adarand.
Senator Sessions. And so far as you know, that represents
the final decision of the Supreme Court on the issues contained
therein?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly.
Senator Sessions. And would we expect you to enforce that
decision as written?
Mr. Acosta. Certainly.
Senator Sessions. Mr. Bryant, I would just raise one thing
to you. Senator Leahy has been around here a long time, and
counting my tenure in the Department of Justice, I have
observed a lot also. I think your position is a pretty tough
position at times. You will have some tough calls to make. And
I remember discussing privately and then on the record with a
nominee of the Clinton administration to your position, and I
warned them that sometimes you have to say no to the executive
branch. You know, executives get things in their minds, and
they are convinced it is right, and they don't like sometimes
lawyers telling them no. Sometimes lawyers tell them no when
they shouldn't, and they really are too cautious. But then,
again, sometimes lawyers really have to say no and even be
strongly committed to saying no out of ultimate loyalty to the
administration to keep them from making a mistake that could
prove costly or embarrassing.
I think later, the person I talked about, I think some
things got by that embarrassed both that person and the
administration; whereas, a real strong, absolute refusal to
countenance the action may have avoided that.
Are you prepared to tell the President of the United States
or the Attorney General or anyone else no if you think it needs
to be no?
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Senator. If the faithful discharge
of my duties requires me to counsel no to people in higher pay
grades than mine, I hope I'll be prepared to do that.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think you should for their sake
as well as your own.
Senator Leahy?
Senator Leahy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will put most of
my statement in the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a
submission for the record.]
Senator Leahy. Mr. Acosta, I appreciate seeing you here.
The fact that you have had just 2 years of legal experience in
civil rights issues and comparing that with the significance of
the position to which you are nominated is one of the reasons
why we are probably going to ask more questions than usual, and
especially since that 2 years has been in a division and an
administration has been criticized for failing to pursue civil
rights violations vigorously and for actually marginalizing
staff attorneys with a lot of experience. But you have said a
great deal about this, and let me just go into a little bit of
that.
As head of the Project on the Judiciary at the Ethics and
Public Policy Center, you campaigned against judicial activism.
You urged the Senate to challenge on ideological grounds
judicial nominees. That puts you somewhat at odds with the
administration today. Of course, you were telling us to
challenge President Clinton's nominees on ideology. The
administration you are now serving with says we shouldn't do
that.
In 1997, again, during President Clinton's term, you
praised Senator Hatch for ``strengthening the advise and
consent process.'' You criticized the Clinton White House for
refusing to inform the Senate Judiciary Committee of whom it is
considering for nomination. Today, of course, it is the
position of the administration there is no need to tell us
anything until we read it in the paper on nominees.
In 2000, you co-authored an op-ed with a man named C.
Boyden Gray. You praised the Republican Senate's refusal to
approve President Clinton's nominees. About 60 of President
Clinton's nominees were never approved, never even brought up
for a vote. And you wrote, ``The Senate's power of advise and
consent, after all, is not a rubber stamp.'' So you and Mr.
Gray were strongly praising the Senate for refusing to approve
President Clinton's nominees, actually failing to approve them
by just not allowing them ever to come to a vote. Sixty of them
were not allowed to ever come to a vote.
I am not sure how that puts you at odds with the
administration that is complaining about two now not being
allowed to come to a vote versus the 60 that you praised for
not coming to a vote.
So I hope if you are confirmed that you will be an advocate
within the administration for greater consultation with this
Committee and the members and that you will actually show at
least some consistency with the positions you took when it was
the Clinton administration. I don't expect Mr. Gray to, but he
is not up for a nomination.
In the course of your campaign against what you call
judicial activism, you criticized the use of consent decrees.
You said they should be entered only to remedy constitutional
violations, even then for a limited time. Of course, consent
decrees have been used a great deal. There was a major one to
address violations of civil rights statutes. That has been done
for decades.
You said in 1997 that it would have been far better for
modern women's rights to be gained through the democratic
process that brought about suffrage, not by judicial grace or
fiat.
So I would like to know, are you going to authorize lawyers
in the Civil Rights Division, if you are confirmed, to seek
consent decrees?
Mr. Acosta. Thank you for the question, Senator. Consent
decrees are an important tool within the Civil Rights Division.
The Civil Rights Division should and, if confirmed, will
continue to use consent decrees. I believe I wrote that consent
decrees should be limited in time. The Division has always had
the policy of limiting consent decrees in time. Depending on
the issue, there are standard lengths that we use for consent
decrees. I would authorize consent decrees. I would authorize
our litigators to pursue consent decrees as they have.
Senator Leahy. You said that you believe that the major
court decision that cemented women's rights over the past
decades were, in fact, further examples of judicial activism.
Do you still feel strongly that way?
Mr. Acosta. Thank you, Senator. I don't recall the exact
phrasing. I believe what I wrote about and what I was referring
to is that in our system of Government, in the ideal, the
democratic process brings about reform and that it would have
been far better and far superior for the democratic process to
bring about some of the reforms rather than for courts to do
that. That doesn't mean that when the democratic process does
not respond that judges do not have an obligation to respond to
fill the gap, so to speak.
Senator Leahy. I notice on your resume--and I first should
say that there are many people who admire your work at the
Civil Rights Division and enforcing Section 203 of the Voting
Rights Act and addressing discrimination against persons with
limited English proficiency. So far as my mother and all her
family came here to this country speaking no English, and my
wife didn't speak English until she was in school, I know how
sometimes that can be difficult until you get able to do it.
And so I applaud you for that.
I was worried, though, on your resume you state you worked
on the Florida recount issues for the Bush-Cheney campaign, did
campaign work in Pennsylvania. But on the questionnaire we sent
you, where we asked whether you ever played a role in a
political campaign, you stated only that you advised
Indianapolis Mayor Stephen Goldsmith on civil justice issues to
aid in his work in the Bush 2000 campaign.
Normally these discrepancies really wouldn't bother me, but
the 2000 Florida election gave rise to a number of allegations
of civil rights violations, some of which were investigated by
the Civil Rights Division. Am I seeing a discrepancy here where
there isn't any? Or did you leave something out in the
questionnaire?
Mr. Acosta. No, I do not think you're seeing a discrepancy,
Senator. If I could expand on both answers?
Senator Leahy. Sure.
Mr. Acosta. I did not participate in the Florida recount. I
did not participate in the Florida litigation. I did help
obtain names of individuals who could be contacted to
participate in the recount and the litigation. I compiled a
list of individuals and passed them along to the campaign who I
thought would be useful to contact to see if they had the time
to participate.
Senator Leahy. So your resume reference and your
questionnaire are not in conflict at all?
Mr. Acosta. I do not think they're in conflict. I think one
might have been--my resume might have been a broad statement of
participated in a recount. I don't know which version of my
resume you have. I believe there is one on the Internet that
appeared there, and I sort of loosely referred to the Florida
recount, but I will tell the Senator now, and I signed my
questionnaire, my participation in the campaign was through
Mayor Goldsmith's committee. I was contacted, I was asked for
names. I did not go to Florida. I did not participate in the
litigation. I did provide names to the campaign to call to see
if they could go to Florida.
With respect to Pennsylvania, I traveled to Pennsylvania
and spent, I believe, 2 or 3 days doing grass-roots campaigning
in Pennsylvania. That probably should have been in my
questionnaire. I apologize to the Senator for that omission.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Bryant, of course, we know from his days
in the House Judiciary Committee. We know him well. Of course,
once he became Assistant Attorney General for the office of
Legislative Affairs, he became more of a stranger, which is
unfortunate because he is very knowledgeable about these
issues. We sometimes had a hard time finding him. He is getting
a very fast hearing. I think he was nominated--what was it,
Dan? Two weeks ago? Am I correct? Two, three weeks ago?
Mr. Bryant. That seems about right.
Senator Leahy. It is a lot different than nominations
coming from the Clinton administration when Republicans were in
charge. They sometimes waited weeks, years, sometimes never get
a hearing.
I would note that many of us in Congress, actually from
both sides of the aisle, both Republicans and Democrats, have
expressed serious frustration with delays, refusals, and
inadequate information provided by OLA. So I want to know just
where we are going to go now.
Mr. Bryant articulated the legal and historical
departmental justification of the administration's refusal to
give us papers in the Miguel Estrada matter. I thought his
correspondence with me disregarded crucial case law and
historical facts, departmental precedents, the clearly
established precedent for Senators to review this. I was
concerned that this may have been what he was required to do,
but that Mr. Bryant continued to choose secrecy over openness
in this regard.
I must say, I realize that he had to vet a lot of these. I
have never seen such a consistent pattern of ideologically
oriented nominees, many lacking a strong commitment to protect
our basic civil rights, even though a lot of these I voted for
to give the President the benefit of the doubt. But I will have
a number of questions on that whenever you--I see the red light
on, Mr. Chairman. I don't want to--
Senator Sessions. Well, I will just take a minute, and then
I will give it back to you, Senator Leahy.
You know, on the question of handling of judges during the
Clinton years, several hundred were confirmed. I forget the
number at this moment. One was voted down. There were 41, I
believe, pending confirmations when President Clinton left
office.
Senator Leahy. Several withdrew their names because after 3
or 4 years of waiting they got tired of waiting for a hearing.
Senator Sessions. A few may have. A few were objected to by
home State Senators in ways that delayed their nomination. But
when former President Bush left office and the Democrats
controlled this Committee, there were 60 people left pending
during that time, and so I don't think the record has been bad.
Nominees are--
Senator Leahy. If the Senator would yield, a lot of former
President Bush's were sent, of course, at a time when he fully
expected to be re-elected, were sent in during the prohibition
of the Thurmond rule, the Strom Thurmond rule, a rule
established by the Republicans saying that in the last 6 months
of a President's term, no nominees would go through unless by a
concurrence of both the Chairman and Ranking Member and the
Majority and Minority Leader. So a whole lot of names were sent
up, I think, in late summer or just before the recess, I guess
with the assumption, looking at the polls, that the President
was going to get re-elected easily and they would be first on
the agenda in January.
Senator Sessions. We can talk about it a good bit. I don't
agree. I believe that the Republican Senate under Chairman
Hatch treated Clinton judges fairly and objectively and moved
them in a fair and objective way. And it was at least as good,
really better, than was done to President Bush's judges. And
when the Senate was for that brief period under the hands of
the majority Democrats in this body, 9 out of the 11 original
appointees that President Bush submitted had not had a hearing
in nearly 2 years. And until the Republicans took back control
and started moving the nominees, they were not moving.
So we can debate that a lot, and I am prepared to do so
right here. We don't have a quorum problem, and so we can just
talk about it.
Now, Mr. Acosta, I think I heard you say that it would be
better if the legislature acts, but sometimes the courts have
the right to fill in the gaps. Did I understand that correctly?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, it is--if I may, it is better if the
democratic process acts. Where the democratic process is silent
and where the Constitution requires that injustices be
corrected, courts do have an obligation to act pursuant to the
Constitution and pursuant to the laws to ensure that injustice
is not done.
Senator Sessions. Well, I think that is a better answer.
Otherwise, I was going to ask Mr. Bryant to introduce you to
John Ashcroft because I have heard him, as Senator Leahy has,
on a number of occasions says that it is an ill thought to say
that because the legislature didn't act, the courts should.
Because when legislators don't act, they have acted. They have
decided not to act. And that is a democratic act also. I have
heard him say that a number of times. I think that is
fundamentally correct.
So I think you articulate it better that if there is a
fundamental constitutional right unaddressed, the court has to
act in proper interpretation of the Constitution, but they
don't have the right to fix everything they don't think is
perfectly proper according to their feelings at that time.
Are we okay on that somewhat?
Mr. Acosta. Absolutely.
Senator Sessions. All right. Senator Leahy?
Senator Leahy. Thank you.
Mr. Acosta, as head of the Project on the Judiciary, what
work did you do in any way related to the nomination of Ronnie
White to serve as a U.S. district court judge?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I was aware of that nomination. I was
not involved in work on that nomination.
Senator Leahy. In no way whatsoever?
Mr. Acosta. Other than I was aware of it, I might have
mentioned it to someone in passing, but there was no--there was
no official work.
Senator Leahy. Did you consider Judge White a judicial
activist?
Mr. Acosta. Senator, I didn't look at Judge White.
Senator Leahy. Mr. Bryant, as Assistant Attorney General at
the Office of Legislative Affairs, we have a lot of letters to
you. I know we sent one, Senator Feingold, Senator Cantwell,
and I to someone on January 10th regarding the data-mining
practices and policies of the Department of Justice. We have
never gotten an answer. It was sent as part of our oversight
responsibilities. Do Members of Congress have any right to
expect answers when they are carrying out their oversight
responsibility?
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, sir. Absolutely, I do. If I could
say just more generally, in reflecting on the 107th Congress, I
needed to do better. I need to do better, OLP needs to do
better, the Department needs to do better. I think we are
improving in terms of getting timely and accurate responses
back to Members of Congress. Congress needs timely and accurate
information in the course of conducting its oversight.
The challenge is to be as timely as possible, while being
completely accurate. And while I was in OLA, there were some
7,000 letters back to Congress and the challenge for us was to
balance timeliness and accuracy at the same time that we tried
to have a care for how we burdened attorneys in the Department
with operational responsibilities, especially in the post-9/11
environment.
Senator Leahy. Well, I understand it was a concern, but I
was thinking this morning, for example, Director Mueller
testified, and in anticipation perhaps of his testimony about a
week ago a number of questions asked by Senator Grassley, a
couple of other Republicans and myself were answered.
They were requested, and I would note it sort of falls in a
regular pattern. We asked the questions in July and we got the
answers in July. Unfortunately, we asked them in July 2002 and
got the answers in July 2003, and I think some were asked in
2001. But we at least got the answers to our July questions in
July.
You do a lot of the vetting on judges. Do you see any
problem with the fact that 20 of President Bush's judicial
nominees, 14 percent of them, including 6 circuit court
nominees and 14 district court nominees, have received at least
partial ``not qualified'' ratings from the American Bar
Association?
Mr. Bryant. Thank you, Senator. Let me just say, if I
might, that I have been, as you know, in the Office of Legal
Policy only now about a month-and-a-half. OLP is, as you
indicate, involved in helping do lawyering in connection with
possible candidates to be nominees and it plays a support role
to the Attorney General and the White House in connection with
candidates. So I would need to review further the specifics in
terms of those candidates before I could respond.
Senator Leahy. Thank you. I have other questions, but one
of the great things about the air pollution and what not is it
seems to--you know, I have a sort of asthmatic reaction to it,
and lucky for you, Mr. Bryant and Mr. Acosta, my voice is
practically gone.
I will, however, submit some questions for the record. I
also will put Mr. Acosta's resume, Mr. Chairman, if there is no
objection, in the record.
Senator Sessions. That will be made a part of the record.
Senator Leahy. I will submit the others for the records and
would urge you to respond as quickly as you can. If you have
any questions--these are not ``gotcha'' questions by any means.
If you have any questions about what I want, just pick up the
phone and call me directly. I will be glad to fill you in.
Good to see you both, gentlemen. Thank you. I am sorry I
wasn't here when I assume you introduced your families earlier.
Is that correct?
Mr. Bryant. Yes.
Senator Leahy. I have often urged--and I have done this
maybe about four or times in the majority and four or five
times in the minority. I have been Chairman of different
committees and what not and I have always urged nominees to
have their families here and introduce them, if for no other
reason the fact that someday in the old archives of the family,
you pull those out and say, my God, I was there, because their
names are in there.
Of course, Mr. Bryant is familiar with this. You should
always check with the transcript afterwards to make sure that
family names are correctly spelled, so you can get copies of
all that to the family members who were there.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Sessions. Thank you, Senator Leahy.
We will keep the record open for questions for one week,
follow-up questions. I don't think I have anything else to add
to these two fine nominees. They both have broad support within
this body on both sides of the aisle, and I look forward to
your prompt confirmation. It is important that the President
have good people in these positions.
You have a management challenge. There are some people who
think that these positions are all policy and don't have
management requirements, but I submit to you that we need to
watch spending around here. You have probably got some dead
wood around and you probably need some reorganization and you
may not need as many people as you have. If you do, you should
say so and let's let the taxpayers keep some of their money.
Is there anything else that you two feel obligated to share
with the group?
Mr. Bryant. No, sir.
Senator Sessions. All right. If there is nothing else, we
will stand adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:54 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Questions and answers and submissions for the record
follow.]
[Additional material is being retained in the Committee
files.]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.057
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.066
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.070
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.077
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.095
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.096
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.097
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.098
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.099
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.100
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.101
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.102
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.103
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.104
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.105
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.106
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.107
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.108
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.109
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T1833.110