I join with the Chairman in welcoming the nominees and their families and friends to the fourth confirmation hearing of this Congress. Again, this morning we proceed on two important nominations. This morning we consider the nominees to be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Criminal Division and the Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Justice.

Early this year we proceeded with hearings on the nomination of Attorney General Ashcroft even before the nomination was received from the President. We debated and voted on that nomination in Committee within a day of its receipt by the Senate from the President in late January. Working together, Democrats and Republicans on this Committee expedited consideration of that matter so that Senate action was completed after less than two days of debate on February 2. By contrast, Attorney General Reno was not confirmed until March of the first year of the Clinton Administration.

I have spoken to Attorney General Ashcroft about the staffing needs of the Department of Justice and assured him that I will do my part. For those with short memories, let us recall that the Deputy Attorney General and the Solicitor General for the last Administration, Phillip Heymann and Drew Days, were not confirmed until May 28th that year. President Clinton’s outstanding nominee to head the Antitrust Division, Anne Bingaman, was not confirmed until June 16, and his first Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legislative Affairs, Sheila Anthony, was not confirmed until June 30.

President Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General heading the Office of Policy Development was not confirmed until August 2, 95 days after her nomination, and President Clinton’s Assistant Attorney General to head the Criminal Division was not confirmed until November 20, 74 days after her nomination. Chairman Biden worked hard with Senator Hatch, who then served as the Ranking Member, to reach those dates in the late spring, summer and fall of 1993.

I also recall that the1993 nomination of the distinguished professor and scholar Walter Dellinger to serve as an Assistant Attorney General heading the Office of Legal Counsel took six months to confirm and that we had to overcome a filibuster in the Senate before we were able to get to a vote. The nomination of Lois Schiffer to serve as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Environment and Natural Resources Division took eight months before she was confirmed.

Ray Fischer’s nomination to be the number three position at the Department, the Associate Attorney General, was not confirmed for five months. By the way, I do not believe that President Bush has yet nominated anyone to serve as the Associate Attorney General, the third highest ranking position in the Department.

More recently, under the Chairmanship of Senator Hatch, President Clinton’s nomination to head the Civil Division, David Ogden, was held up for 18 months before he was finally confirmed. Randy Moss, the last Assistant Attorney General to head the Office of Legal Counsel took 13 months before he was finally confirmed. Glenn Fine, the Inspector General for the Department took seven months to confirm. Robert Raben, a House Judiciary Committee staffer who was endorsed by Chairman Hyde, took five months to confirm as the most recent Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Nor do these names include the many fine nominees who never were accorded a vote and those who never even received a hearing. In particular, I deeply regret this Committee’s and the Senate’s treatment of the nomination of Bill Lann Lee. He was nominated by the President to serve as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division in July 1997 and renominated in 1998 and 2000. He never received a Senate vote in three and one-half years, although he served admirably in an acting capacity and then as the Assistant Attorney General pursuant to a recess appointment of the President.

I note this recent history not to urge Democrats to repeat the tactics and excesses engaged in by Republicans over the course of the most recent Democratic Administration, but to add context and time frames against which to consider the progress we are making in staffing the appointed positions at the Department of Justice.

While we consider the current nominations, the many dedicated employees at the Department of Justice continue to work, to do their jobs and to serve the public. I also note that it is the Administration, and not the Senate, that has called upon United States Attorneys, who serve as the front line of our federal law enforcement efforts, to resign in advance of a single nomination to head those important offices around the country even being received.

I commend the Chairman for his ambitious schedule and his weekly proceedings on Justice Department nominations. We continue to proceed within days of our receiving materials on these nominations. Take for example today’s hearing. The Committee is proceeding with a nomination today even though the usual file of background materials on the nominee continued to be supplemented through yesterday.

We have had Professor Dinh’s questionnaire for less than two weeks. In the meantime it has been supplemented by a correction letter and a large binder supplementing the five binders of materials that accompanied his questionnaire. Then we were informed of a number of missing amicus briefs written by the nominee, including one in the well-known case of Bush v. Gore that had inadvertently been omitted from the materials provided the Committee.

And, only yesterday, yet another supplement to his questionnaire arrived, listing additional overlooked media appearances by the nominee. As eager as I am to help the Administration staff the Justice Department, I do not think that this Committee ought to be scheduling hearings for nominees whose papers are only just being received and whose papers Senators have not had an opportunity to review.

I also recall, by way of contrast, the recriminations and delay that accompanied the slightest perceived problem with the timely production of materials by a Clinton nominee. Take for example the delays and opposition that attended the nomination of Margaret Morrow when she failed to provide materials from a bar magazine column.

I thank all Members of the Committee for their cooperation and the effort they are making to proceed with this hearing today. I trust the Chairman will take these matters into account and accord Senators more than the normal week we have usually allowed for the submission of written questions after the conclusion of the hearing testimony.

Turning now to the nominees, I note that Michael Chertoff is a well-known figure here on Capitol Hill. Many will recognize Mr. Chertoff from his time serving as chief counsel for Senator D’Amato’s Whitewater investigation. Through this hearing we will get the opportunity to learn of his academic record, his clerkship for Supreme Court Justice William Brennan, his service as a federal prosecutor in New Jersey and his private practice of law. We welcome you, Mr. Chertoff.

Professor Viet Dinh teaches at Georgetown University Law Center. He, too, spent time on Capitol Hill, serving as an associate counsel to the Whitewater investigation and giving advice to Republicans on the impeachment of President Clinton.

One of the major responsibilities of the Office of Policy Development at the Department of Justice, which Professor Dinh has been nominated to head, is the evaluation of the qualifications and fitness of candidates for the federal judiciary. That is a subject on which many Senators and many American have great interest. I look forward to inquiring about plans for judicial nominations and your own qualifications for that position, Professor Dinh.

####