.. rights of privacy, fundamental rights, and use a constitutional interpretation model that is based on precedents of the 11th circuit. >> so you would now allow -- not allow your view of the constitution would interfere with any way with the right to private individuals that would come before you? >> absolutely not, senator. >> let me ask you about another part of your record. he supported legislation that would require doctors to report the number of abortions they perform. would you tell us why you supported that legislation? dot you k it would you tell us why you supported that legislation? don't you think it was ella devised? >> let me respond this way. the legislation you refer to was

and dynamic made on the floor of the house of representatives. it was not an amendment i drafted, not an imminent i was familiar with. it came up on the floor of the house in the routine of handling this is of legislature for that day. i supported the measures like that and including that because those issues were important to the people that i represented. my constituents as a state legislator were 38,000 citizens in one county in southeast georgia for the first two years i served. the district grew larger than that but that district is a very conservative and a very pro-life constituency. i believed it was the obligation of the legislator to vote, listen to and vote the will of the constituency. those issues were important to my constituents and that's why i supported that full amendment. >> that amendment came within a few years after and before a tax on doctors who provide abortion

services. would you agreed with me it was a mistake to support that kind of an animate? >> in light of what i've subsequently learned, yes, sir i don't think would be appropriate to be listing the names of doctors who perform abortions within what was then the georgia patient right to know act which dealt with predominately with litigation that doctors have been involved with and the ability of patients to see that information. >> thank you. my time has expired, and i would turn to ranking member grassley. >> it might surprise you bottom going to ask you a lot of questions and i going to ask each summer questions to what you did. by no offense with your approach. and i hope the rest of you don't feel left out. usurped the past 10 years as again, to judge boggs, you served the past 10 years as an elected state court judge and, i

think you verified that already. in this election did you run under any particular party? >> no, sir george is george is our elected nonpartisan at the levels iran. >> okay. so your role as a judge has been nonpolitical nonpartisan position, correct? >> entirely. >> in 2001 as you already said you were elected as a democrat to the georgia general assembly? >> that's correct. >> you've been criticized by some groups for some of the policy positions you took as a legislator. for instance, as a legislator to a pro-life voting record. you supported traditional marriage. i've ask you a couple of questions. if i'm going to read something that you said -- first i'm going to read something you said during senate resolution 595. this resolution recognizes marriage as a union between a man and a woman.

and the state on the resolution you said quote, it's my opinion both as a christian and as a lawyer, as a member of this house and as a member of this house is our opportunity stand up in support of this resolution, and, of course. please explain what you meant by this statement. >> i clearly meant, senator, that my personal opinion was that at the time, over a decade ago, that i was in support of a proposed constitutional animate that would've banned same-sex marriage. my position on that may or may not have changed since that time. as many peoples have over the last decade. moreover, my position on that as reflected by those personal comments in 2004 have never had any import whatsoever in how i decide cases or how i analyze issues both as a troll gorgeous and an appellate court judge. >> is it fair to say that your christian faith informed her policy positions as a legislator?

>> yes, sir. >> by contrast how does your christian faith affect you in your decision making process as a judge? >> it never has interfered with my decision-making process whatsoever, senator. >> is there anything in your personal views, religious or otherwise, the would make it impossible for you to apply the law as a federal judge even if you personally disagreed? >> no, sir. >> you've also said quote while serving you at the georgia house of representatives, i was proud to represent you, i tried to base all my decisions on commonsense conservative values that are based on the fact that i was raised in a christian home and that has given me true family values, end of quote. again be holding it personal or religious views that would make it impossible for you to apply the laws of a federal judge even if you personally disagreed with that? >> absolutely not, senator. >> further as i mentioned you've

been criticized for your legislative record with respect to abortion during her time in the legislature. you cosponsored bills that would help encourage women to consider adoption and details the rate required minors to be accompanied by a parent or a guardian before getting an abortion. three questions in regard to the. there may be some concern that your personal views on abortion may influence your ability to follow precedent as a judge. what is your commitment to following precedent? i think you made it very clear. i don't think you need to answer that. please describe what you see to be the differences in responsibility as a policymaker and a judge regarding the topic of abortion. i think you've made that very clear in your answer to senator blumenthal. the old images regarding abortion, religion or otherwise that would make you unable to discharge your duties faithfully as a u.s. district judge? >> no, sir i do not.

>> you have many years of experience as a judge. has there been any kind where you decided a case based on your policy preferences or desired out, rather than following the law or applicable precedent? >> that has never happened and yet my commitment that if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed that would never happen. >> mr. cohen, you have been involved in litigation in georgia, voter id law. three questions in regard to that. can you describe who you are representing in these cases and how you came to be involved in the? >> yes, senator. based on my experience in the georgia attorney general's office, which is over 13 years, when i went into private practice then attorney general thurber baker hired me to represent the state and its agencies in a variety of high profile litigation. that's varie buried from defende university of georgia's affirmative action program to

defending redistricting plan passed by predominately democratic general assembly to defending georgia's photo id law. in all of those cases i was never involved in the enactment of any of those policies or legislation. i never was a lobbyist for any group either advocating for or against the legislation. i was hired just like any other lawyer is hired, and that is to represent their client and advocate their position in court. >> if you were confirmed how would your experience with voter id laws influence your decision-making process as a judge if a voter id case would, before you? >> it wouldn't make any -- it wouldn't implicate my decision-making at all. i would be bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court which in this case is the crawford versus marion county case and the 11th circuit court of appeals in resolving that issue. >> some have claimed that voter id laws generally, and these

would be like lodger defended, exist quote for no other reason than to deny african-americans the right to vote, end of quote. do you agree with that statement? >> i think the case law in this area has come down t depend on e state it was brought in in different ways. in georgia, the evidence was presented in the case did not leave the court to conclude that there was a right to vote. i'm aware that in other states because of different factual circumstances that were present in those states and sometimes different statutes and different state constitutional provisions the decision came out differently. so i think in any case involving a challenge to a photo id law, it depends on the facts that are presented and the specific statute that is being reviewed. >> you already made reference to an affirmative action case that you've been involved in. in johnson versus board of

regents, a class of students were denied admission challenge the university system of awarding points to applicants based on diversity. you defended the university's point system. the 11th circuit found that the university system was not a narrowly tailored and a constitution. tells about the case and the role in a. who were you representing? >> i was represent the board of regents of the university of fortunate, get hired by attorney general thurber baker. at the time that was before the supreme court's decisions in crocker and grass comes of university of georgia was implementing a point program for much like university of michigan was in its undergraduate institution. institution. both cases can't afford appealed at the same time. the michigan case got to be a supreme court. our case was settled before that time. >> if confirmed this ruling will be binding precedent over your

court. what assurances can you give this committee that you will fall it in any other president, even if you may not personally agree with it? >> senator, as a district judge, and article iii judge, i am bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court and an issue of affirmative action, higher education, that would truly be the fisher case, the grass case, and any other decision that might be issued. ms. abrams i'm going to quote as often do judge scalia on living constitution theory, said quote, the risk of assessing evolving standards is that it's all too easy to believe that evolution has culminated in one's own view, end of quote. you will believe that -- forget that scalia said that. just think of the concept. [laughter] well, i respect judge scalia but i don't want him to be the focal

point you to the belief that judges should consider evolving standards when interpreting the constitution? >> thank you, senator. i believe that a judge and particularly district court judge is bound by the rule of law, bound by precedent, in my case it would become if i'm so fortunate as to be confirmed it would be the precedent of the supreme court and the president of the 11th circuit. and that nothing else would guide my decision. >> do you believe it is ever appropriate for a federal judge to incorporate his or her own views when interpreting the constitution? >> no your honor -- know, senator. >> because there was a split in the rating of view, while a majority of the standing committee on the judiciary rager as qualified, a minority column in the opposite and attachments you provided in response to questions to your senate questionnaire provided very little in the way of examples of

legal writing, is there anything further that you can share with the committee defeats any doubts that may exist about whether your experience has prepared you for a lifetime appointment? >> thank you again, senator. i have practice both in federal court, civil law as well as criminal law. in that capacity i've had a strong motions practice both written and oral, and appellate practice. in my last almost four years at his attorney's office i have handled criminal cases from the very inception for sentencing including trial, both jury trials and the civil and defense drones but i also handle my own habeas emotions and to argue before the 11th circuit court of appeals. in addition, after graduating from yale law school i served as a clerk registered judge and the belief that firsthand experience has made me, helped me understand what the day-to-day obligations of a district court judge. while i understand the will, in fact, be a steep learning curve,

i have spoken to all of the judges of the middle district of georgia who i will work with if i am so fortunate as to be confirmed and i know that they will support me in getting up to speed. and i think my ability to study, and i have studied all of the rules and the beige book, and the hard work, my hard work ethic, will help me do my duty as a ditch court judge, if i am confirmed. >> i'm going to yield. >> thank you, senator grassley. just for the information of my colleagues, we are scheduled to devote i think at 11:10. i'm going to turn the gavel over to senator franken when that happens any and i will trade places and we will continue the hearing. i'm going to turn to senator durbin now. before i do, judge boggs, you mentioned a case that was decided while you were a judge perhaps on the circuit court

dealing with parental notification. i'm not aware that. could you provide the name and the opinion if there was one to the committee? >> to the committee? >> i may have been spoken to what i was referring to was the parental notification law, the long georgi georgia since 19 a l before i became a legislator. my actions in the general assembly, i'm not sure of the year but between 2001-2004, to amend a bill in two specific ways, was to amend current statute i don't know of any cases. the case that you're going to be the one that was on my panel of the court of appeals? >> yes. >> absolutely, certainly. >> if you could provide an independent if there was one. >> certainly. >> appreciated. >> thank you, senator. and we will have -- the record will stay open for all of us for a week after this hearing. dissident questions in writing.

but that one in particular if you could respond to i would appreciate it. thank you. senator durbin. >> thank you, mr. chairman. at the outset let me say to all nominees, thank you for being here today. and special thanks to be given to your two senators, senator isakson and senator chambliss who have worked very hard for this moment and have buttonholed each and everyone of us about your nominations. they think very highly of you. recommends to all of our consideration, positive consideration. i have a few questions, and judge boggs, i would like to ask you because you appear to have served in the georgia general assembly and a very controversial moment when your state was debating its state flag. the question was whether or not the flag would be changed and no longer display the confederate ask battle symbol. you were embroiled in a debate and ask you this question. do you believe that confederate flag issue had anything to do with the issue of race?

>> when that flag was passed in 1956, there was no legislative history. i wasn't a flag historian ben, nor am i now. but in looking back on that issue and preparing for today i know that some argue that race, particularly, it was passed in reaction to the brown decision from the u.s. supreme court in 1956. i have no reason to dispute that although there are arguments on the other side as well as to what the motivation was for the bill originally. >> beyond theory ovation for the original form of the flag, when you are serving in the general assembly and the debate was underway, and i believe overwhelmingly the african-american legislators oppose that symbol of the flag, did that lead you to believe that that debate had anything to do with the issue of race in your time? >> yes, sir. >> what was your feeling? >> i was offended by the flag.

at the time that i made that vote in 2001 i was a freshman legislator. i was in my 17th day of service. i was very respectful of the opinions that a majority of the african-american community in my state had towards that flag. it was not only a symbol of every mind of the civil war and the horrific tragedy and horrible time in american history, a reminder of the institution of slavery but it was also i think even more predominant, the more contemporary uses of the flag by organizations that espouse state, oppression, espouse over racism. i found one of those challenging things of being a legislator was deciding when to vote the will of my constituents and went to vote the will of myself and my own conscious. it was something i don't other legislators to struggle with. i struggle with it regularly. on the issue particularly. the overwhelming majority of the constituents in my one county that i represented, which

likewise contain a minority population, that i was not a good of, overwhelmingly though those constituents decide that george's be permitted an opportunity to vote on whether georgia change the flag. that's what i cast the vote the way i did. however, i'm glad the flag was changed. it reflected something i thought george yin could do better with, quite frankly, senator. >> said you understood the debate in your time dealt with issues that lease brought up echoes of race problems and slavery, let me ask you this. when a new compromise design was proposed in 2003 that removed the confederate x, this design was supported by african-american democrats and you voted against it. why? >> yes or. for the same reasons. the oval majority of my constituents wanted a choice between the 56 flag and the

current flight. intervening between the vote you just mentioned and my original vote was yet another opportunity to vote for a referendum on the flight. i voted for that. i would've afforded georgians an opportunity to vote. however, i reiterate common with the utmost respect, looking back on that vote out anytime i cast that vote, it was a very difficult decision to decide whether to vote my conscious, which was reflective of the will of the people in mike nealy -- i'm sorry, the will of the constituents in the committee or vote my own conscious. table agonizing. i could not a more respectful of the opinions of people that decide that flag change. i'm glad the flag did change. >> judge boggs, each year for over 10 years a congressman from the state, john lewis, organizes a civil rights -- to come down

and to personally witness some of the scenes of the civil rights struggles of the 1960s. i was honored to be invited one year. as fate would have it, i walked over the bridge at selma with congressman lewis in the early morning sunday hours and to point out the spot where he was beaten unconscious and clubbed down by troopers on that march to selma, alabama. and he said -- from selma, alabama. and he said to me there are many people who are acknowledged as heroes. i shouldn't be one of them. he said i was just here doing what i felt was right. there was one in particular toward advocates credit and his name is frank johnson. frank johnson was a u.s. federal was a u.s. federal district court judge, position that you find a spider to come in the middle bishop of alabama. he not only ruled that the statute that allowed putting rosa parks on the back of the bus was wrong, he went on to rule that that selma march would be allowed.

for that, his mother's home was firebombed. he was basically invited away from polite society in his part of alabama, but became an icon to many of us in terms of courage on the bench. i understand the role of a legislator and a politician trying to measure your constituents and what they want against what you believe is right. and sometimes, sadly, they come in conflict. obviously, judge johnson decided sitting on the federal court that even though he would be ostracized by many of his friends he would do what he felt was right. i've asked you a lot of questions about when your state representative. he basically said i reflected the way my people felt. so now how do you do that issue of race? when you have an opportune to the district court here. >> thank you, senator, for the question. first let me set have the utmost

respect for congressman lewis. i know him. i respect his career. while i know he might have been critical of me during this process, i don't take any a front to the. i deserve the criticism based on that vote. i have nothing but the utmost respect for congressman lewis and for all of those, including my colleague who sits behind me, judge phipps, who fought through years and decades of racism and oppression and became the second juvenile court, african immigrant juvenile court judge in our state. my butt wasn't intended to be disrespectful. it was never intended to fail to acknowledge the sacrifices that an enormous number of people made from dr. king to others for the struggle that ultimately succeeded in equality. my vote was never intended to reflect that. i believe as a judge that everyone who comes before me should be treated equally. i believe that my record as both

the trial court judge and as an appellate court judge reflects my faithfulness to the. i don't think anyone can disprove if someone is accusing someone of being a racist, how do you just proved that? i think the best evidence i would have is the people who know me best to believe that in me is that after that vote i had a primary challenge and the democratic primary, and every african-american elected official in my community supported, including the mayor, city and county commissioners. they grew up with me. i went to school with him or the children in the public school systems. they know me. they know that that vote was not indicative of any bias on hold toward anyone. in that election i received 90% of the vote to be returned to the general assembly for a second term. these same groups and these same people overwhelmingly supported me with 80% of the vote when i ran for superior court judge. i think that's the best evidence i hold. >> thank you, judge boggs.

thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator lee. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thanks to all of you for your willingness to be here and to willingness to serve. ms. abrams, let's start with you. you have most of your practice torture great has been in civil litigation, right? >> yes. >> less so in the u.s. attorney's office. >> definitely. >> that's giving a good flavor for both which will be important components -- components for your caseload should you be confront. when you approach a civil case and, you know, a lot of civil cases are decided on dispositive motions and when not decide on dispositive motions, there still is usually a deposit of motion that is made at some point or another. when you review a deposit of -- dispositive motion, whether

motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, do you think, is it appropriate for a judge to air on the side of granting or denying a dispositive motion? in other words, there some judges but occasionally that will say at least privately i'd rather err on the side of giving the plaintiff his or her day in court. a trial. do you lean in either direction? in other words, is it just as bad to grant the dispositive motion where it's not warranted as it is to deny one where it is? is either one worse than the other? >> thank you said it. i don't believe that one is either worse than the other or that it would be appropriate for me to hold a belief as to the. i think that every case that comes before me, if i am confirmed, should get the same treatment. and that is a fair and impartial application of the law to the facts of that particular case.

>> so you wouldn't have any predilection toward granting or denying them come you will call them as you see them based on the issues brought before you? >> yes, senator. >> i sometimes see a dangerous tendency in the courts in that sometimes we can end up with trial by attrition where those, it's easier to deny a motion for summary judgment than it is to grant one in some ways, and in some ways it involves less risk. you don't have to write a lengthy opinion in denying what. it's often easier to write the opinion. it's not immediately a peelable in those circumstances so it's often easier to say i'll deny this one and see what happens on appeal. would you tend to agree with that? >> i think that certainly does happen. eyed for joy was trained by a judge who believed that we had to get it right, and when i was a clerk, i did inject -- in fact

deny a number of motions that was because the law, the applicable law they dated that that was the case should be handled. and i hope that i learned enough from jeff jarvis that it would, in fact, fairly and impartially apply the law to the fact of each case to come before me spent judge garth is still on the bench so we still avail if you ever need -- >> he most certainly is. >> judge ross, you're already a judge. do you agree with what ms. abrams has said? to you disagree with any of that? >> i agree that i would have no predilection either way and also i can say that having served as a state court judge i have never ruled on a motion for summary judgment just as the point of being cautious. i have taken longer to rule on some of them, on other issues because like ms. abrams said, i

wanted to get it right. i'm fortunate enough to say that none of the rulings that i've rendered on motions for summary judgment have gotten reversed with the exception of one portion of one ruling raised on attorneys fees. i did agree with the court of appeals that it should have analyzed it slightly different differently. >> ms. may, do you have any particular judicial philosophy? how would you describe and would you define your judicial philosophy? >> thank you, senator lee. my judicial philosophy would be to apply the law fairly and equally to all people that, if i'm confirmed as a district court judge that would appear in front of me. i think it's very important for judges, as ms. abrams said, is to get it right. that means following the applicable supreme court in the fifth circuit precedent to the letter and not allowing own personal opinions to get in the way of applying the applicable law. i also think it's important for judges to treat both the parties

and attorneys with respect and to listen to all sides to an argument to make sure that as a judge i would understand the arguments of the parties, and also when issuing orders or ruling on specific issues, also believe it's important for a judge to declare and let the parties know exactly what the ruling is so that they can apply that to the rest of the case and move forward. >> thank you. judge boggs, you commented a few minutes ago about your inclination as a legislator to try to figure out what your constituents would prefer and that can sometimes put a legislator in a difficult position. does any of that apply to you as a judge, either as a state judge or what isn't like you as a federal judge, if you are confront? >> nono, it doesn't apply and that's a very comforting part about being a judge. i think i am more suited to judge that it was a legislator,

quite awesome. there's a lot of comfort in the rule of law. >> are you saying you look good in a robe? >> i'm confident not. they gauging the public sentiment on any issue as a legislator is always difficult. the political implications of votes are difficult. the considerations that partisan politicians have to make day in and day out are difficult decisions. the decisions of judges make are likewise difficult, but the fortunate part about faithfulness to the rule of law is you don't stick your finger in the wind every time you decide a case to decide what is popular, what is public will and what is the general direction of the public on this issue. i'm very comforted in knowing that if you're faithful to the rule of all, if your faithful to apply precedent to every case, and you don't interject your personal opinions and wants to you may make some unpopular decisions, popularity is not the test of what is done.

>> with that apply when you're making a ruling that is going to be a strong against the public will? it might not be the most popular ruling that rulings that in the ayes of the public might seem harsh, might seem unfair and might go against a very popular party before you, perhaps a very sympathetic plaintiff or defendant? >> yes, senator. i think indeed judges that are faithful to the law or going to make unpopular decisions on a regular basis. the comforting part about being a judge is that the law should prevail in each and every case. sympathy for the party, empathy for the party has no role, gender, role or sexual orientation of the party, and how you issue decision. it's much more difficult when you're i think that partisan legislator to deal with those issues because quite frankly i think most of you all have districts in your state, your entire states, i did as a

legislator, where the entirety of the constituency don't always agree around the agree on everything. fortune as a judge you're not concerned with those issues. >> thank you but i see my time has expired. thank you, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator lee. senator klobuchar. >> thank you very much. thank you to all of the nominees, and this is a very special day and i can see a lot of happy family members back there. i was going to ask some questions of mr. boggs. i know, mr. boggs, you were a judge for how long? >> ten years. >> obviously there's a lot of understandable questions about the positions that he took as a candidate and in the legislature on joyce and civil rights and marriage equality. did you rule on any of those cases when you were a judge? cases involving those issues. >> as a tall court judge in georgia's highest level of trial courts, i didn't have

jurisdiction to rule on constitutional questions if that's your question. as a judge on eating meat appellate court in georgia for the last two and half years with limited constitutional jurisdiction, specifically only deal with the constitution as applied and what it was applied in an unconstitutional fashion. jurisdiction in constitutional cases by side with our superior supreme court. >> could you talk about your judicial philosophy, how your personal views have shaped that philosophy? >> i don't know my personal views have shaped my philosophy. my experiential views as having been a judge for 10 years has shaped my philosophy. i try to emulate characteristics that i see another judges that i value. my general judicial philosophy is that judges should be faithful to the law, faithful to the doctrine of stare decisis. they should understand the limited role of the judiciary and they should not be policymakers. in addition i think it's imperative that judges are continually treating every party

that appears in front of them equally before the law. that build public confidence and a fair and impartial judicial system which i think is very important. >> in your opinion how strong she judges bind themselves to the doctrine of stare decisis? >> i think the doctrine of stare decisis should bind all judges but it bound as a troppo judge. i was bound by the decisions of the court announcer want and also the supreme court of georgia. i think as an appellate court judge now i am bound by the decision of the supreme court of georgia. if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed i would be bound to follow all the decisions of the supreme court, even on those issues that you discuss. >> the supreme court ruled in nearly 50 years ago in the griswold case about privacy rights and access to contraception. do you view these cases as settled law of? >> i do. i would follow that president it was fortunate enough to be confirmed. >> i'm concerned about this amendment. there's a lot of background here and i've read it all but one of the things that stuck out to me

as someone who is a former prosecutor dealing with public safety issues was the ending but you support in the georgia state legislature, i think senator blumenthal asked about this. i had to leave for another ring but i had more questions on it. at would've record posted on the internet about the number of medical procedures that doctors have performed having to do with terminating a pregnancy. i think that the clearly be public safety implications for these doctors if you put all this detailed information about them online. i think you could see it in other areas as well and i think we have certainly seen lives being taken from these doctors that terminate pregnancies. we don't put this kind of information online for other procedures, and other medical areas. my first question is, if your views on this issue are still the same? >> i would be hesitant to give you m my views on the issue as much as that may come before me as a judge but i will take as i did senator blumenthal that that was a floor amendment.

identity maybe it was coming. i didn't have anything to do with the drafting of it, the author of that dynamic representative, did not discuss with me ahead of time. in retrospect, and particularly in light of what i learned subsequently concerning the public safety issue, i should not have voted for that amendment. >> so do you consider that at the time when you vote on it, the public safety risk? >> i wasn't aware as i am now at the time of the public safety risk. again, in the back and throw of bring up a bill, floor and amendments coming up, i should have. and in hindsight it was regretful that i didn't. >> last year the supreme court issued an important ruling on marriage equality in the windsor case. how would your personal views impact your decisions as a judge? >> they would not. i'm faithful to the obligation to follow stare decisis and i would follow windsor and any of

the cases out of the supreme court, including rome or and the lord's. >> when you commit to following supreme court precedent in this area when it comes to marriage equality? >> absolutely. >> all right. i know that there've also been some -- while running to be a state court judge. it confirmed what role do you think your personal opinions about women's reproductive rights should have on the cases before you? >> my personal opinion on women's reproductive rights has no role as to how we decide legal issues or decide cases or analyze issues were i to be confirmed as a dish court judge. >> one of the things that has been brought to my attention, i think what concern a lot of people but not as much as the amendment on the doctors boasting, but you cosponsored a bill that took some pictures with license plate and took pictures with a license plate i

think and it said choose life, the license plate. what do you think about that and how would influence any decisions that you would make going forward to? >> thank you, senator. the choose life adoption support program was a bill presented to the general assembly. i cosponsored it along with probably a majority of the members of the 180 member house of the general assembly in georgia because it was important to the constituents that i represented. it would have no impact, my person police on reproductive rights, as with a person police on any issues. not only would have no impact if i were fortunate enough to be confirmed but i think the record demonstrates over the last 10 years i'm faithful to never interject my personal opinion into decisions i make. >> with any questions that you inject your personal opinion into decisions that you made? i'm sure your case is appealed whatever else does as a state court judge, or the basis of any appeals that you thought injected her personal views on

any subjects because i'm proud to say no, senator, not one dime. >> thank you very much. i appreciate your answers. [inaudible] [laughter] >> well, thank you. i hate to keep this going, but judge boggs, just quickly. in 2013, you received a grassroots justice toward which is given by the georgia justice project on behalf of the on behalf of the criminal justice reform council. according to judges of the georgia justice project, grassroots award was created in 2000 as a way to up the work of people in organizations is efforts give voice or lend aid to the poorest in the community. and in doing so confident the work that they do at the georgia justice project. can you tell about the role you played in the criminal justice reform council, the work you did to receive that award?

>> thank you, senator. that award was received by me on behalf of criminal justice reform comfort was not an award specific to me that anecdote of the work of the entire council which i co-chaired. i have had the pleasure since i've been both a trial court judge and an appellate court judge to work to improve the judicial system for the very people that are most legally involved in it, particularly in the criminal justice arena. that's a tall court judge i developed and presided over our circuits first felony court judge -- drug program the public is appropriate to try to assist people with no to health issues or substance abuse issues were driving on the criminal conduct. i'm proud to say the program still exists. it has expanded into the mental health court program which i aspire to do had i stayed on that bench. in 2011, the chief justice of the georgia supreme court appointed me as a matter of the georgia criminal justice reform council and as a member we addressed adult felony criminal justice reform i doing a lot of things quite honestly that this

body is considering, both in the smart sense in fact, recidivism reduction act in chairman leahy is safety valve act of 2013 where we've looked at mandatory minimums and provided a couple of safety valves. we've looked at programs that would assist people with substance abuse issues that were involved in felony criminal conduct so we can assist them in the community. we found those programs that are evidence-based programs are very successful in reducing recidivism. they are much better at saving taxpayer money and a poorly they put people back with their families. they restore people to a productive life. later, the governor of the state of georgia appointed me for the last two years to co-chaired criminal justice reform in 2013 we address juvenile justice reform, developed a fiscal incentive grant program to incentivize local communities to treat juveniles in their community as opposed to very

costly and unproductive we think out of home placement. than last year i co-chaired the council again and we addressed the concept of reentry. what do we do with the approximate 18,000 inmates that are being released a yearbook suck we better equip them to be successful? how do we ensure public safety at a better rate than what we've been achieving? our recidivism rates are roughly 30%. that's unacceptable, particularly with respect to cost to taxpayers in our state. with the charge we were given i've been very fortunate to be part of developing a program, an evidence-based program in a state that will help these inmates while they'r they are in prison, learn job training skills are transferable. help inmates with substance abuse programs while in the system. provide a seamless transition from prison to the community and then provide resources to the community to ensure that these citizens are productive, lawful and compliant with the law, but

also productive citizens that can get their lives back. i've been proud to be a part of that and appreciate your questions. >> thank you. that's all. >> senator feinstein? >> thank you very much, madam chairman. i would like to ask a couple questions if i can, again. i regret that i wasn't here, judge boggs, to hear your answer to the question on essentially the bill that had online profiles to the number of abortions performed by a doctor over the prior 10 years but and i think you said it was a mistake. what exactly did you mean by it was a mistake? >> i don't think you would be appropriate to post that information online. it would be a huge public safety risk for the physicians better

performing, lawfully performing abortions pursuant to the authority they have from the supreme court. that's what i meant. >> so you are saying essentially the bill was wrong? >> the amendment that was proposed, it was not my enemy but yes, ma'am, the minute was ill-conceived i believe in hindsight. >> i trust you're aware of the kind of violence that takes place around this issue, and there is a question i think among many of my colleagues of whether an activist conservative judge, or an activist conservative can become a judge that is not an activist judge. i happen to believe that's possible. in a couple of cases i voted for an 11th circuit and the fifth circuit judge that a thinker done very well when they said they wouldn't continue to be activists. i think when you come to a federal court, it's really very important that the questions of

constitutionality on issue are acted -- acted by someone who, as judge abrams has said, will follow precedent. and this committee, i sat on it for 22 years. we have been acutely disappointed by the fact that people pledge themselves to start decisive, a and then you leave here and they take the oath as a judge and you just watch and to say, where has it all gone? i don't want to cast a vote for someone where that happens. so i want to ask you a couple of questions. the issue of choice is extraordinarily important to me. i represent a state which is dominantly pro-choice. what would be your position on issues revolving around a woman's right to choose? now, this is purposefully an

open question. >> yes, ma'am. thank you, senator. my position on matters that might appear before me regarding a woman's right to choose would be faithfulness to the rule of law. faithfulness to stare decisis. while i respect that there have been some bad expenses may be by members of this committee, i think the best example i can give you is not what i say that i will do, the evidence of what i have been as both a trial judge and a public court judge in my state disposing of roughly 14,000 cases. i think my record is the best evidence that i can separate any political or partisan or public policy decision -- position i may have for my ability to be and impartial decision-maker. you have my commitment if i'm fortunate enough to be confirmed i will follow the president of the u.s. supreme court on women's reproductive rights issues as it will on any other issue that they decide. >> well, i listened to a couple of supreme court justices say just that, and senator hirono

wasn't here then, but never long discussions. and then bingo, it all changed. and it makes us feel very foolish to believe what we hear. for me, i have to make a judgment. whether you mean what you say or whether it will be just like the supreme court justices who pledged to us diligent pursuance of stare decisis. it just didn't happen. now, let me ask you another issue and senator klobuchar begin and i would like to just do it in a slightly different way. and that's u.s. versus winter. on where a lawsuit is pending in the court to which your nominee so want to be very careful. i'm the main author on repealing

the defense of marriage act. i was one of 14 to vote against it in the '90s and where 42 cosponsors. we lost baucus but we are getting close. as you know, 17 states and the addition of columbia have essentially approved the right of marriage to same-sex partners. what doe did was family law, divorce, senator is generally to preserve of state law. but in that case they made it the preserve of federal law. and in so doing, removed some 1100 federal rights from couples that are duly married in their state. this involves a state tax rights, social security rights, and on and on and on. so the question i have would be

if your state were to approve same-sex marriage, or the supreme court on the windsor case, i guess would repeal delmar -- doma. how would you feel and how would you act as a judge? >> my personal feelings would be irrelevant to how i would act as a judge. you have my commitment that i would follow the decision in windsor. i would follow any president from 11th circuit or the supreme court on marriage equality issues as i would any issues. my personal opinion expressed over 10 years ago on that issue may or may not have changed. whatever might issue, my personal bullies are on that or any other issue, they've never been relevant to how i decided cases. with respect to your earlier question, senator, my fundamental philosophy is judges have an obligation to follow the law. you don't hav have to believe ie "usa today" under oath, i hope

you would, that i would follow president but how could also look to what i have done for the last 10 years that demonstrates a faithfulness to follow president in over 14,000 cases and to understand the three opinions i've offered on the georgia court of appeals that have all been made of able to the committee. i think it's a fundamental obligation of judges to follow stare decisis. i recognize maybe that is not always followed through by some nominees. >> well, at least my vote depends on whether i believe that or not, and for how long i can continue to believe it. i think this is a very hard one. the third issue of course is raise. i think you are eloquent on the subject of the confederate flag and what it means. it really means much more than just the material of that flag.

it's a whole history, it's a whole set of beliefs. which are rather counter to america of today. so my hope is, and i don't know, i hope to have a chance to talk with you more after this, but what i want you to know is for my vote, i have to have certainty. and i don't know quite how to get it in view of this record. so i want to just put that on the table publicly. >> thank you, senator. i respect the position. >> thank you. my time is up. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator feinstein. let me just close by going back to a line of questioning that i begin. i know that some of my colleagues have pursued it. the amendment dealing with publicizing doctors performances

of abortion, and i know that you said that it wasn't your amendment, that you may have been, well, maybe i should just ask you. were you unaware about the violence that was linked to performing abortions at that time? a doctor was killed in 1998. the statute in europe was passed in 1994. your amendment was voted on in 2001. it was clearly a very powerful history of violence linked to doctors providing these services. and i find, frankly, incredible

the idea that you would not understand that this amendment would put doctors at risk. >> well, thank you for the question, senator. indeed, it was not my amendment. however, i did support it on the floor. i've stated earlier in this hearing probably the amendment was ill-conceived. i regret that i voted for it. i recognize the public safety risk now much more so than i did at that time. ultimately, i think as a legislator casting thousands of votes for amendments and bills, making decisions in committee, it's not i think entirely unexpected that there may be votes that i cast throughout my judicial career that in hindsight looking back on as a legislator trying my best to represent the people that have represented in a very staunchly pro-life district, i might have made some mistakes. i wasn't a perfect legislator. i'm not a perfect judge.

but looking back on it i regret that vote and to recognize fully the public safety risk. >> i appreciate your disavowal of the. i think it is more than just another vote. this one was significant. we all cast votes here. we are all responsible for every one of them, and some are more significant. this one strikes me as profoundly significant insofar as it involves not just a matter of constitutional rights, not just the rule of law, but physical safety for medical care providers, doctors who were providing constitutionally indeed rights to women, vulnerable to the same kind of violence. so i appreciate your comments on it. and i think it's something that we will have to take into account. senator franken. >> thank you, mr. chairman.

i do, too, have some questions for judge boggs, and i don't -- i know that mainly -- the rest of you should feel good about that is what i'm saying. you should feel very happy about that. judge boggs, i had the opportunity to meet you a couple of weeks ago, and i enjoyed that meeting. and i believe that judges can decide things i, you know, in the proper way even if they've had a record before of votes winner in the legislature that are contrary to constitutional -- what's been decided constitutionally. i mean, and i don't want a situation where we can't ever have people confirmed because they have some public record on something.

i think that's a bad tendency. i think that's a bad tendency to do that. so i think that because a judge's role is to make decisions based on what the law is and not take their personal opinions, although personal opinions or experience i think do shape how a judge invariably has to. in oliver wendell holmes said that, you know, that experience is the law in many ways for judges. so i think it's important but we can't establish a system here where we are just looking at things in the past, either votes as a legislator or just opinions expressed by a professor you

know, who is writing scholarship. i think that's a dangerous thing that we are doing. i do think that we, i think it's good that we get to question your edit think it's good we get to actually meet you before and in private, and i did that. when i talked to you about this, the confederate flag or the confederate war symbol, or battle emblem rather i guess on the flag, you told me that you voted against changing the flag because your constituents wanted to write to vote on it on referendum, isn't that right? >> i did tell you that, yes or. >> then i looked back and return that you voted twice on this. and that the first time in 2001, there was no referendum. so i felt kind of a little odd

about that because i went like, okay, that when there was no referendum. so give me a chance, or i'd like to give you a chance to explain that. because what i got out of our meeting was that you had, that your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum on this. and yet there was no referendum attached the first time. so could you explain both votes speak was the first vote, senator, indeed there was no nonbinding referendum present in that legislation. by constituents overwhelmingly believe that a vote against that bill might subsequently result in a referendum that would offer them an opportunity to choose between the old black and would subsequently we had changed too. you know, i've explained -- old flag. i've expressed my opinion on the. i don't know how to explain it any further.

i will tell you, senator, that it was an agonizing opportunity 17 days into my legislative career to make this balance between to address the challenge between voting the will of my constituents and voting what i believe conscientiously was the correct thing to do. .. do. subsequently, there was an opportunity to choose to present to the public in georgia nonbinding referendum that including the post-1956 flag and the flag we change to, i voted for that. it provided my constituents with what i thought they wanted. however, that didn't pass and there was another referendum to the one you refer to. voted the same way i did the same time -- the first time. >> did you present a resolution to provide a referendum?

>> no. i didn't author any of his bills. >> you understand from my point of view where when asked about this, you said it was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted a referendum. but, there was no referendum on that vote and you didn't introduce anything about a referendum. did you say anything? was there anything in the public record about you saying there should be a referendum? >> i never spoke been about my position on the flag. >> ok. but you talk to me about it and what you said to me was the way you voted was because your constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on it. it doesn't seem like that vote had anything to do with a referendum. >> i understand the question. i don't see the inconsistency that your question presumes. my constituents wanted to vote. we were not presented with an opportunity and that therefore

represents an inconsistency. my position was my constituents'position was was to vote against any flag change that didn't present them with an opportunity to vote. 17 days into my career would not have been the time for me to introduce a binding -- a nonbinding resolution on that matter. >> what you told me was that you voted because you wanted to have a chance to vote. nevertheless, there is no record of you saying that. actually, there was a record of you telling in local newspaper that you voted to keep the flag -- this is in 2001 -- you voted to keep it because you constituents overwhelmingly supported the flag. >> i did say that. i think that is consistent with what i have said today. and when we met. >> it seems like that when you -- when we met. you said that -- you didn't say it was because your constituents

overwhelmingly supported the flag, it was because her constituents overwhelmingly wanted to vote on it. i think those are two different things. it gave me -- it led me to the understanding whether you intended it or not, was that your only vote was a vote on whether to put that flag up for a vote. that is what you wanted. that you voted against changing the confederate flag on the georgia state flag. it is like a big part of the flag, like half the flag or something. that was passed in 1956. that was because of brown. so, it really was about -- this wasn't something that was part of the georgia state flag after reconstruction.

it happened in 1956, 2 years after brown. to me, this is a very important thing. as i said, i don't think that we should be judging or we should be confirming people based on public stuff they have said before unless it is so an pedicle to being a judge. i know you've been a judge for 10 years now. i hear wonderful things about you. the thing that upsets me or that gave me some pause is that we have this meeting. in the meeting, i felt that you gave me a little slightly misrepresentation of your record on this by saying that the reason you voted against the changing the confederate flag being on the state flag was that your constituents wanted a referendum on it. but, there was a referendum tied to it.

the confederate flag p. on the go, was that your constituents wanted a referendum that there was no referendum tied. you didn't raise anything that a referendum. you didn't say anything publicly about a referendum and you told the paper the reason you voted against it is that your constituents want to keep that flag into those are different explanations to me i'm very disturbed about this tendency to vote against it because they were brave enough or they acted out of conviction before hand.

i do judge by my meetings with people how forthright they are. the chair and voted to put online the number of procedures, abortion procedures that doctors had performed. there were these files they put the names of doctors. there've been doctors murdered for this and yet you say that your a state legislature and theyouwere not aware of that at.

they would have listed 20 other things and the physicians. >> is a list of other procedures but i have indicated here today, and i would have indicated previously. >> you were a state legislature at the time but were not aware of the issues around this whole issue. >> that is attributable to the fact this came as an amendment and not something i had an opportunity to study or speak to other legislators about. >> there's always news around the doctors and the bombings of clinics.

how old were you at the time? >> 37. >> in a state legislature. and we are not aware of any of that? >> thank you mr. chairman. i think all of the panel members for being here. you explained the georgia flag into the online posting of abortion instances if i understand correctly as reflecting your constituents views and not your own conscience. is that accurate? >> yes that is correct with respect at the time my position on the reproductive rights issues i was respecting also the well of my constituents.

>> we certainly know the challenges so as you think back can you give an example of when you went against and voted with your conscience? are supported to those in the general assembly during my term in the legislature. they were not supported by the majority of the people in my district. >> so many of the questions have to do with the area of reproductive rights. have you voted on matters that are related to the questions

we've been asking? >> i would be happy to answer the question in writing after being given the opportunity. >> you voted a number of times as a legislature for bills and amendments that raise the question on abortion so you said that they wouldn't be appropriate to let us know but do you agree with the decision of roe v. wade that granted the rights to a woman to have an abortion? >> absolutely and in the casey decision as well. i would faithfully follow that. >> until the supreme court changes its decision on roe v. wade, you would apply it in the way that iaway that it should b?

>> yes senator. >> you are also a proponent under the constitutional amendment and you raised questions about judicial activism and had concerns about judges issuing decisions that venture into policymaking. when they venture into policymaking that should be left up to the legislature. >> so that you do know that the amendment is being challenged. so if it is struck down by the federal court would you consider them to be engaged in judicial activism? >> to go back to my comments i did believe that at that time.

my comments were the judges that were to determine what have been engaged in that and looking back now with ten years being a judge and being faithful, ten years of looking back as a legislator and noting the differences between both roles that's what i was referring to in 2004 but i do not believe that now. the judge might decide and otherwise that the constitutional amendment. >> whawould you consider judicil activism in the context of the lower court that were doing things with what the supreme court held that would be judicial activism? in the decision decided citizens

united, but do consider those judicial activism because they did take a lot of people by surprise. >> know and i would say my difference has a legislator versus my view of judicial activism as a judge i have grown in my job as a judge to respect to decide the cases based on the facts presented. when i was a legislator i wasn't a judge. i wasn't making decisions in that capacity into so i think the distinction is determining what i was at the time but certainly you are correct they were reflective of the sentiment that you expressed. >> for the decisions that you

make could be described by state legislators engaging in activism. >> judges at all of the levels or routinely criticized for making unpopular decisions that legislators do not believe are appropriate. i've been in hearings when that happens. the difference is that they are going to apply precedent faithfully and while that = issues haven't come before me as an appellate judge the jurisdiction i have is a broad and i've been faithful to follow the rule of law.

>> so you could engage in what legislators may consider to be judicial activism. >> i can't presume that a legislator might think about any. one may very well criticize me that's what i would say to that is i have shown and dedicated to the code and never decided the case on criticism and i commend to you i will continue to be faithful to those obligations. >> have you had cases dealing with marriage a quality an thati think you did note you had a case of a minor seeking an abortion so have you had any cases in those areas?

i have one that i wouldn't want to jeopardize the rights of the mother but i will tell you i had a case as a trial court judge wherein a woman identified herself and her partner before me in chambers requested that i approve her adoption of a child from foster care. the georgia law in juvenile court vendors and with these two adoptions that is sacred that we maintain the fidelity of the law and that the records are sealed. i don't know she may have told others in the community and it's irrelevant to me but i do know i was presented with this case by a lawyer that's told me he presented the case to the circuit chief judge and he

refused to hear that case so they came to me and i heard the case congress and to her evidence and fitness to be an adoptive parent and by the department of children and family services and i approved the adoption and as i said routinely i follow the law. that was the appropriate decision to make in that case was because of orientation but the fact is warranted she was able to take care of this child. defects indicated when they conducted an evaluation her home was clean and she was capable of taking care of the child. i handled that case the same way about anyone concerning adoptions. >> my time is up.

athis i would like to thank all who are before us today to what i understand has been vigorous exchange and i would like to thank the senator. i would like to ask each of you what role he would have been ensuring equal access to justice and fair and that god's treatment and whether it brings a confidence. welcome. >> thank you mr. senator. as i believed it then judge may the fact of each case and that doesn't necessitate either to be

fair and impartial to every person that comes before me. throughout the process people i've talked to lawyers and my interaction with them to be fair even as a prosecutor to see the full picture for the government and to the consider it. they say i do attempt to be fair and balanced and i would carry that into being a district court judge if i am concerned. >> equal access is kind of a broad topic. the judge has an obligation to move through the system's stability gains have an opportunity to bring closure to

the cases. the efficiency is bent on that and incorporate it against the clock settings a lot of things. it means the judge should remain active in the case at sets theme match reasonable deadlines but also move the court enters the system that is more efficient to move off of the original document it also may be i supported the programs in supporitsupported mandatory medn and a civil trials. all models built on allowing equal access by improving how quickly people could get to court with respect to ensure everyone is treated fairly the best evidence i would guess

would be my record that everybody is treated with an unbiased application to the law and that has repaired me to move on the district court. >> v. 05 would take is in the ministers justice to eat the rights and i would take that very seriously. i think that is a cardinal fact any judge has to consider when he or she is presiding. i've certainly done some with respect working to the atlanta

bar association and representing people who were being unjustly thrown out of their apartments and i serve on the board of a wilderness group that provided alternative groups sentencing for juveniles but shouldn't have gone into any facility that deserved to go to a program where they can get education and work. also as a district judge we have the defender program in georgia and of course with the rules in the northern district, whenever the defendant came before me made sure they have the opportunity for counsel and to notify the program if they could represent that person. >> thank you. >> thank you senator. in terms of my experience, i i

oftentimes represent people that are not familiar with the court system and have to take them through whateve whatever's goino happen and educate about the the system so from that standpoint i have the most area. along with my colleagues i do believe the most important part of equal access is not a lot there are some concrete activities that the judges can do to make this mor that more l. for example on the website they can provide links to different resources that people can utilize. the judges can provide more detail for folks representing and i also believe the judge has a responsibility to encourage the work and to be out on the community speaking of equal access to the court and i have

been very active on the activities. thank you. it's bee >> asked a state court judge first we have a lot of good against so it's important to make sure they know all of the e resource iresources available to them including legal aid and the state judge i'm very respectful to the litigants that appear before me whether they are pro that begins or the well versed and well-known attorneys and defined fortunate enough to be confirmed i would continue that. i have a few questions i need to

get finite. you cast a member of the legislature to approve posting profiles of abortion dot us online and there is the exchange. what motivated your vote for the measure and how can i understand it as being anything other than the burden to a one's right to choose? >> i was that amendment that i didn't have very not kind to consider and which i have expressed regret for not having being more considerate at the end of the day it was motivated by my desire to represent my constituents. >> you completed a questionnaire

which you served and used it to the judiciary and versus criticism in some case aggregating issuing decisions that venture into policymaking this is a question of the judiciary. if you could help me understand that you berate the court was being inappropriate when they struck down the law and power versus state or were they being inappropriately activist in the way that you detailed? can you name three or four cases the judiciary has earned the criticism for anchor getting the constitution created a foray but did you find? >> as a legislator i had in mind the judges that were declaring same-sex marriages as the cases

i was referring to where they had declared that constitution constitutional. looking back on that with the benefit of having a judge for ten years, the concept of the activist judge i had as a legislature is no longer prevalent. with senator blumenthal is with the appropriate under the judicial aspect or perhaps under the federal. the same would have applied as a judicial candidate in 2004 when you made a public announcement about where you stood on issues like same-sex marriage. >> i would leave that to the qualifications addition in florida. looking back while i was a legislature but also seeking the job of the judge i regret that i

wasn't more articulated in our toy and crafting an explanation that reflected my understanding of the judge. >> baystate the candidate to the judicial office shall not make a counter petition to the political organization. that is defined as a political party or group to further the election of a candidate to office. what you consider them in action to be a political organization under the definition? i'm familiar but not enough in the tax bias. >> they made a contribution in 2012 and my understanding is that conservatives in action and

arrest. that is an issue of concern to me i think a line that is fairly clear. they judicial ethics also says a candidate shall not publicly endorse a candidate. >> it would have been sometime in 2004. >> at this point were you embarrassed the bush-cheney? spinnaker i've never been a member of the committee. it was in thi the process i discovered i had been listed and without my permission or even my knowledge was by virtue having attended a meeting president to president bush is i did go back and having seen that this committee 13 years later and

realized that everybody that attended that with the exception of one member it was done without my authority and i had no knowledge of it and as to your comments on the conservatives in action at the time i made a contribution from my judicial campaign to the conservative faction. i had no knowledge of their sponsorship or endorsement of any candidates for elected office. to the rest of the panel thank you for your testimony as well. one last question and i promise they will be brief. on the topic of the judicial activism entry to privacy.

in 2004 you spoke on the floor of the georgia house of representatives in favor of the resolution calling for the proposal constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage and in support of the resolution you said to your colleagues both the dangers posed by the activist judges and mayors operating in the irrigation in the current state law, and you cited as an example that activism and the deregulation a decision by the court of georgia in the case

they struck down the sentences of the people that engage in the privacy of their own homes and do you think they decided in striking down those walls? >> my views have changed that was remarkably different than what i believe now. >> you wouldn't believe now that constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage i take it.

you cited his dissent as evidence of the potential danger of the judicial activism, and i wonder whether you would agree who wrote and not to dissent the constitutional right to privacy cannot include to n. gage and the private conduct which was condemned as the criminal at the time the constitution was ratified. the private conduct was as a criminal at the very time the constitution was ratified with

approval in support of the view of how it was wrongly decided and i would point out that georgia had many statutes including criminalizing relationships and marriages between people of different races at the time and they would indicate that it would cover not in of those kinds of private acts. my personal views are irrelevant but i could say to the extent his opinion is conflicted by decisions from the supreme court i would follow the decisions of the court and while i have respect for the justice

>> i want to close by thanking all of you as potential and likely district court judges because you are going to serve as the protectors and guardians of the nations legal conscience and i'm reminded of the fact thinking judge frank johnson whose memory was invoked by senator durbin. you know judge johnson's history she was really a hero and i think that he is the reason many

of us chose to be prosecutors because of his conscience and conviction and courage so i hope you'll take this responsibility because you are going to be the face of justice are thank you for your willingness to serve and to families who are here coming your friends that have supported you and to the senators of your state for their leadership in making your nominations possible and to the president of the united states for his faith and with that i will adjourn the hearing into the record will be kept open for one week

there's been a lot going on. there is a bill moving through the senate to overhaul fannie mae and freddie mac and the senate banking committee had a vote and they passed it but it's probably not going anywhere. while the other majority they didn't get the central liberal core of the banking committee that they needed to push those to the senate floor. so everyone thinks it is stalled for now but it's going to come up over and over. >> what would it have done to fannie and freddie? >> guest: is what dismantles

over a five-year period and the major point was to shift the risk of the mortgage lending from the tax payers to the private sector because of course fannie and friday were taken over by the government and had a financial crisis and they've been in the government controlled since then. part of the problem is that even though they were profitable during the housing bust, the loss overwhelmed them. they've been under government control ever since. >> also joining its air and who is vice president of the group called reality track. what is reality track clicks >> guest: we are a company that collects real estate data. a lot of people know us for collecting the foreclosure data

in the counties across the country but we also collect other types of data from tax and mortgage data as well as what we call the home fact data >> so how would you describe the health of the u.s. housing market? we are kind of been a bit o in a jekyll and hyde housing market. there's a lot of good science when you look at th the price is puprices butunder the surface, l enduring distress left over from the crisis that hasn't been fully dealt with yet and i think that is what everybody is so concerned about is the somewhat anemic economic growth equal are concerned that this isn't for real.

so the home prices had a big jump in 2013 that we are starting to see those numbers come down. for closures are down. there were 115,000 with foreclosure filings in the month of april down from a peak of 367,000 in march of 2010 and we are getting back closer to that level. that piece has largely gone from the market. housing prices are going up but there's there is a hole in the g recovery that consists mostly of the first-time homebuyers.

>> host: there was an article in usa today. it was talking about the fact that the middle class cannot afford to be a home owner today. >> we see the median incomes are stagnant versus home prices and the average rental rates across the country and i'm not sure if that references the data but only about 20% are unaffordable in that the average mortgage

payment is more than 30% of the income but when you look at it on a population basis it's about 34% of the population that lives in those markets where it is more than 30% of the median income so it's like one in three americans technically unaffordable to rent and then it's a little bit better. it's less expensive to buy them to rent but still, 15% of the population is living in the markets where the median income or excuse me, the based on the median price of a home you would have to spend more than 30% of your income to make the mortgage payment. one of the things we notice is these unaffordable markets are

in areas where the younger generation lives and so this is a problem because they are the potential renters and buyers we would expect to be the foundation of the housing market growth. so yes there is on affordability that's kind of snuck up and is surprising because of such a dramatic rise. we looked at 47 markets across the country where it is unaffordable to buy and rent. many of those are in coastal california. many of the markets are unaffordable although slightly

it's more affordable to rent than to buy. >> host: are we going to -- we will put the numbers up on the screen divided by region. >> caller: there's been a lot of talk for the lower and middle income people and the bill from yesterday one of the reasons that stalled is the liberal democrats on the committee didn't think there was enough protection for the lower and middle income people and they have had goals and had to buy mortgages from underserved are areas. they would set aside a bunch of money for that purpose so that was major stumbling block is that they didn't think the access was fair.

what is the fhfa? >> spinnake >> that was the agency created after fannie and freddie and it oversees fannie and freddie and there is a lot of attention focused on this now because it has a new director and he is basically saying until congress comes up with a plan he doesn't want to reduce the footprint that is a huge reversal from his predecessor who said these institutions have to be wound down and dirty thing i can and he was reducing the footprint so that was a major policy shift.

we are sitting here in a city designed by a frenchman of the engineer and architect, the great symbolic work of the sculpture in the gateway. countless rivers and universities and colleges followed for the country.

we don't pronounce them the way they do but if this country is greater than most americans appreciate. >> we've read the interview along with other noted the storytellers from 25 years with the booknotes and conversations on sunday at eight published by public affairs books and available at your favorite bookseller. spin it earlier today former secretary of state hillary clinton spoke to the new america foundation and a part of her remarks focused on single mothers struggling with low wages. here's what she had to say imagine a young single mother trying to raise a family today. there are some 10 million single mothers working hard to make it on their own in america today are from just 3.4 rally in 1970.

mothers are now the primary or the sole breadwinner said 40% of all families. this single mom lives somewhere in the natural traveling long distance everyday to work a low low-wage job that she's lucky to have. many other people in her neighborhood are still working. she worked hard but it she knows her male coworkers make more than she does. it's demeaning and that changes her short family. she lives in dread of her baby getting sick or some other emergency because nine out of ten most of them women -. forget the six days are flexible but your predictability which is just as important for caregivers so she realized th network of

friends and families to help kids for -- care for her kids. the university is not equipped with a very heard carew up in. the schools of nursing good enough. there are quality options. she certainly has dreams for her kids but she doesn't just face feelings on her aspiration. sometimes it feels that the floor has collapsed. these are the kind of daily struggles of millions of americans. those fighting to get into the middle class and fighting to stay there. >> you can watch all of the remarks to the new america foundation on our website, c-span.org history senate

veterans affairs committee hearing with the va secretary eric shinseki on the state of health care for veterans. he hopes to have a provide a report in three weeks regarding allegations of personal now misconduct at the facilities around the country. there are reports up to 40 veterans may have died while waiting for treatment of the phoenix va center. leading officials from the organizations from the acting inspector general and health care director at the government accountability office also testified. robert, the veterans department undersecretary of health who testifies along with secretary shin seki resigned today thank you all for coming and i want to thank the panelists for what is going to be a very important

hearing and i will make opening remarks in defending statements. vendors will have three minutes because it is good to be a long hearing and then we will go to secretary shin seki. we have an excellent second panel and we look forward to hearing from them. it's going to be a long hearing and where india through it. let me begin by making a few basic points. serious allegations have been made in phoenix and other locations. i take these very seriously as i know every member of the committee does, which is why i supportei've supported an indept investigation by the va

inspector general. as we speak right now the office is in phoenix doing a thorough examination of the allegations. and i hope the report will be done as soon as possible and what i stated and repeat right now is that report is done, this committee will hold hearings to see what we learned from that report. and after the investigation is completed. i think that there is no member of the committee that disagrees or nobody in the united states but this country has a moral obligation to provide the best quality care possible to those that have put their lives on the line to defend the nation and ipv6 remember to do everything

we can to get such a but if we are going to do our job in a proper and responsible way, we need to get the facts and not rush to judgment. there's been a little bit of a rush to judgment. what happened in phoenix? the truth is we don't know but we are going to find out. now let me say a word about the health care in general which is what the hearing is about. we want to know about the healthcare as what is going well and what is not going well. today we must understand that when we talk about the va health care, we are talking about the largest integrated healthcare system in the united states of

america. the va has 150 medical centers and has over 800 community-based outreach. every year they are serving 6.5 million veterans. today, tomorrow and next week every single day the va serves more than 200,000 veterans. what does that mean and here is my point. if we want to run around the country and visit every medical center this is what i suspect we would find. if people come out and say i got pretty good healthcare. i was treated courteously and then he pulls say i had a bad experience. i didn't like my dr.. the point i want to make is that when you are dealing with 200,000 people, if you did better than any other health institution in the world, there

were thwould be thousands of pee every single day but say i don't like what i'm getting it have to put that in of the size. it is the va provide good quality care is a question. they rank the customer satisfaction among the veteran stations among the best in the country. and if you go out and talk to the veterans generally speaking, not 100%, people say we get pretty good healthcare. are there problems come absolutely and we are going to talk about them. the commander and these are dealing with people with service-connected injuries who were hurt in the war said this, and i quote. across the nation we are able

provider that has led the way in various areas of biomedical research, specialized services education and training for health professions and the use of technology to improve health care. they went on to say such quality and expertise cannot be replicated in the center. the paralyzed veterans of america today will testify and i quote the truth is the va. in fact the specialized services are incomparable but often cannot be duplicated in the private sector. today the president of the association of state directors of veterans affairs. they will tell us the stat statf the healthcare is in our nation. further and here is another point that has to be made and i know that it doesn't fit within a 122nd sound bite.

there is no question in my mind that va healthcare has problems. but that's not the case that the rest of health care is wonderful. everybody gets a great care at no cost that's not affordable. let me give you one example of that because it is important to put the healthcare in context. a scientific american article september 20 < a. year ago states how many died from medical mistakes in u.s. hospitals? and updatean updated estimate tt could be at least 210,000 patients a year more than twice the number in the medicine report. hospital errors are the third

leading cause behind cancer and heart disease. what does that mean? have they been reported through medical errors? the answer is yes and every one of those is a shame and a something that we have to address but it's not just the va. ithat is an issue that we have o address. having said that, trying to put this in a context there is no doubt in my mind that there are serious problems facing healthcare and we have got to do everything we can to address those problems. it does the va have adequate staffing? when we talk about the patient wait times which is a major concern in certain parts of the country and this just came up in phoenix the issue of the wait

times came up. we have enough doctors and nurses in the country? i don't know the answer to that and two that i want to find out. further, is the va doing a good job in allocating the resources where the staff is needed the most? there are places where the va has gone down. fewer people are coming and and other places it is increasing. are we allocating resources appropriately? and let's remember in the midst of all of that, we are dealing with 200,000 men and women who've come back from iraq and afghanistan but ptsd. ..

to get the root of some of the health care problems facing the va, and with that i want to give the mic to ranking member burr. >> thank you, mr. chairman. thank you for calling this hearing. secretary shinseki, welcome, and to all the other witnesses today, thank you for your willingness to be here with us. the issue before the committee today is the state of the va healthcare system. we have a sacred obligation to ensure those who have fought for this nation receive the highest quality of services from the department of veterans' affairs.