objectives at the same time. waye any stumbles along the could have ripple effects in the $10 trillion housing finance stake, there is a lot at in getting this right. as a result, our decision has been to de-risk this project. moving forward, we will focus our efforts on creating a common securitization platform that can undertake fannie and freddie's current securitization outcomens. a successful would be a seamless transition from the current in-house systems that issue new securities for each enterprise to a future joint venture owned

by fannie and freddie and operates one system with updated technology. defining the scope in this way building a cspat for a future housing finance system that is not yet defined is extremely risky and could add needless cost. this scope does not mean that oddssp effort would be at with the future -- future housing finance system or that our process will take place in a vacuum. to the contrary, we are requiring that the csp leverage the systems, software, and standards used in the private sector whenever possible.

this will ensure that the csp will be adaptable for use by other secondary market actors including private label securities issuers when the future state is more defined. our second objective for the common securitization form is to singleterprises toward a common security which we believe will improve the quiddity in the housing finance markets. it would also reduce costs to the enterprises gingerly freddie security hasddie's historically drew -- traded at a this is compared to fannie mae. adding a common single security willnent to the csp scope

and the enterprises partners security along with shared contractual and disclosure acquirements. along with fannie and freddie have made great progress on developing the common securitization platform. but all the components of the cst including the common single security will require a multiyear effort before final and -- implementation. defined the parameters of -- as i have described today we are well-positioned to move forward. throughout this process we will provide opportunities for decisionsr input our

along the way. and releasing the 2014 strategic plan my goal today has been to provide a clear sense of direction for the enterprises ongoing conservatorships. implementing these objectives will require ongoing analysis, evaluation, and input. will proceed with these steps in a transparent way that correlates the feedback of the public and stakeholder groups wherever possible. one example of this approach is our upcoming request for input on the guarantee peace -- fees charged by fannie and freddie which we will release very soon.

as many of you know on my second day as director, i issued a directive to fannie and freddie that they delay the increase announced in december of last year. in our quest for input we will pose a number of questions the agency is considering and we solicit and encourage your feedback. we will review your responses and we will announce a decision later this year that is consistent with the goals that we have outlined in our strategic plan. .e this concludes my remarks i want to thank you for your time today. i look forward to working with all of you as we implement our strategic plan and is fannie and

freddie and fhfa implement the 2014 scorecard. thank you. [applause] >> thank you again. that was a true fix each and -- there.ots in their

by, you do not want to talk about housing finance legislation which i can understand. there is something that intrigued me after that. conservatorship should never be it is permanent. i guess my question is i think increasingly likely we might not have a housing legislation or at least not for a number of years and so then my question is, what happens to conservatorship where we are approaching six years, you say it should not be permanent. do you have the authority to and conservatorship and if so what does that look like, at what point do we say it is over and what conditions have to be met? >> we have the authority to and the conservatorship. the statute gave us the authority to start it. and i think it goes with that. the authority to end it but the

alternatives would not be will --e so i think i our role and the reason we worked so hard is to make sure we have a solid plan for continuing the operations of fannie and freddie and the soeral home loan mortgage that there will be liquidity and efficiency in the housing market we continue to operate as we have operated without interrupting housing finance in this country because housing finance is such a critical part or standonomy to stop in place is simply not an option. we will continue it and our

goals are consistent with continuing the operation of fannie and freddie in the here and the now. we will do that until there is legislation passed. be have answered this. the end of conservatorship, you can see the different things being debated on the hill. is they getomes wound down and the other is they get -- exist as they currently are. that final outcome, you do not do you?he end of, >> all of my focus for the last four months has been in the

present and doing what we are doing in the short term letting theress run its course and we will see what happens after that. >> there is a lot in your speech. there is one thing you did not mention. that is principal reduction in principal reductions, the benefit was too small. is stillomething that considering. this past. know we have evaluated in the short term and found other things that we need to focus on at the present. we continue to study not only that issue but a number of other issues that i did not talk about

in today's speech. i told one of their reporters earlier that it would be interesting if all of the things we talked about today, the focus would be on the things we did not talk about. i keep this running list of issues that i call my water hose issues. they started out coming at me as one big fire hose and we have separated them into individual water hoses. there are a bunch of them on a list that i did not talk about today. principled rejection is one of those. that doesn't mean that we are not considering it. it means that we are not ready this point.t it at and that is the same category that a lot of other issues fall into. chris lovett -- let me take this

back to the multifamily caps. i would like to get your sense of it seems to me like you started your speech by acknowledging your predecessor and mentioning a shift in focus or maybe priorities. does this substitute one of the shifts in focus? lowering the cap and giving additional flexibility, if so, what is your thinking on the role that fannie and freddie play in affordable housing? >> i have not thought about this whole focus issue. good,e tried to make reasoned decisions create we tried to understand the history of how every decision was made and why it was made. i'm not focusing on whether we did not shift focus. everything that has taken place in the past has created the foundation that allows us the flexibility to make good

decisions in the present. we actually think that competition in the multifamily sector will decrease the role of fannie and freddie. mean they willl not reach the caps this year. the more important part of it is there seems to be a lot less competition in the affordable incentivize want to fannie and freddie to continue to play that role in the affordable space because people need housing and they have played the role successfully and with minimal risk through a very difficult time in the economy.

it is not as if there increasing risk but for us to arbitrarily decrease your footprint without knowing that somebody is stepping into this space was not we thought was a prudent thing to do. >> in your strategic land newly out a lot of your statutory responsibilities and there are many. so do not envy the task. one of them is you are responsible to insure that fannie and freddie maintain adequate capital. that is a little bit of a challenge. i am curious what your thoughts on that is, is that something you spoke to treasury about or will this be current policy and how do they build their capital space? >> i cannot control that i do is think. the taxpayer

providing significant capital. so capital has not been an issue that we have had to focus on for some time. it was a major issue because fannie and freddie were making draws. their financial conditions have stabilized and while a lot of their income in the last two or aree years has been recoveries, financial recoveries, tax adjustments that will not be sustainable in the future to my we want them to continue to operate in a sound that.d we are focused on

we do not spend time fixing .bout things we cannot control i am sure i would think that treasury would feel the same way but i have not had any discussions about that. me, ither thing intrigued will get the quote correct or close enough. you said that your goal is to reduce taxpayer risk through increasing the role of private capital. but after that you rejected the goal of contracting the enterprise's market presence. to increase the role of capital. i am figuring out how you square those two. and then you said this is a decision to come so i know that you're are not going to announce it now. in my view you can look at an increase in the guarantees fees

as either of those, contracting of the market presence or entering private capital. how does that fit in those criteria? >> we are balancing in a number of instances sometimes what appeared to be contradictory mandates. think it is the role to contract the footprint of fannie and freddie. maintain anto efficient credit market. as private capital demonstrates it will come into this market and it will be clear that fannie and freddie will step out. that thearily say footprint should be reduced

without assuring that there is a responsible way to make the to private capital stepping in for the space. it would do serious damage potentially to the housing finance part of our economy. i think that would be irresponsible. doing something that is irresponsible. i hope everybody picked that up from my comments this morning. market presence contracts in a revitalized private sector that is fine. said.ctly what i we did not arbitrarily contract them but we think this year the private sector will step into the multifamily space at least none affordable

multifamily space. they're already doing it. there is no reason for us to think that they will stop. there are some things that we could do arbitrarily that i we are not intending to do. i will take questions from the crowd. i will take questions from the crowd. what about in the back corner. wait for the mike. state your name and affiliation and keep it to a question. >> following up a little on the fhfa.sion of the role of how does the fact that fannie mae and freddie mac are posting record profits factor into your

thinking about how much they should be helping troubled borrowers undertaking initiatives to stabilize the mortgage market, is that something that is getting some of your policy decisions now? >> i have not looked on -- a lot at profits as the -- a driving force in any of our decisions think as i have indicated already, the record level of profits that you have seen are not sustainable. they made substantial tax adjustments and releasing those now and we have had substantial litigationeries and that will not be repeated over time. nearing the end of

those kinds of recoveries, i do not think we should let profits drive decisions that we make. we are trying to make responsible decisions. we are trying to increase the availability of credit to credit worthy bars. we are trying to do it in a safe and sound way and not be and i do not think looking at the bottom line is a productive way to try to evaluate how we proceed. back here.the wait for the mike again. rex thank you so much for the small rental properties

because that is the 90% of the market that fannie and freddie have not been present in. i wanted to follow-up on one thing you did not talk about. 2008 thataws in enabled the conservatorship also tried to focus fannie and freddie on affordable rental housing in a meaningful way. that has not happened whether it is fannie mae trying to count the blanket loan on the dakota west,ty on central park the ago no property as affordable housing or other devices they have developed. i would like you to speak to how you better enforce the mission related part of how the -- of the economic recovery act. >> the first step i just heard this morning is changing our focus to pay some more attention to it. the affordable housing goals

we're looking at aggressively. they are in place for 2014. issuingbeen issuing -- new goals for 2015. there is a lot of focus on that and it is part of the statutory mandate and the charter mandates in fannie and freddie. seriouslyose mandates and obviously we think that congress took them seriously. otherwise they would not have written them into the law. we're going to treat them as seriously as we treat every other aspect of fannie and fhfa's's and statutory mandates.

i had a question about servicing, one of the issues we hear a lot about contraction of credit is not only on ortiz when you sell the loan but also when you service the loan. ceo jimmypmorgan's dimon said he would not want to serve -- service a defaulted loan. we have seen a lot of servicing transfers, out of any and freddie over to non-bank servicers and in recent months we have seen a lot of scrutiny on those servicers. i was wondering if you could comment on some of those transfers. what we might be able to expect in terms of regulation on those non-bank servicers and what can be done to give originators and servicers some certainty that if the loan to faults they will properly serve that nonprofit. issues has been a topical

because there are multiple things that are at play here. jamie dimon is right when he says it is difficult to service a defaulted mortgage. to -- all it is is collecting and remitting. when somebody defaults a gets to be a lot more complicated and there is a growing industry that some of whomround have more expertise in this area than the lenders themselves who tend to focus more on the lending side than on the servicing side. and basel three has taken a lot of the capital requirements that may be led to some of the lenders wanting to get out of

this space. servicers are not regulated by fhfa. fpby are regulated by c but not on the capital basis so there is a shortcoming there. we can control their relationships with fannie and freddie, right? that is the space in which we operate. we have looked very carefully, in some cases much longer and more carefully than a lot of people would like for us to look at evaluating when these are madefor transfers to see if -- are these people

responsible, to whom are the companies responsible, to whom the transferring servicing rights are being transferred. what is their expertise, what is their history in the space. what kind of capital do they bad,if things start going what kind of backup will the lender provide to take the servicing back if necessary if the service does not. all those factors and we look at them very carefully in making our evaluations. and then sometimes there are short-term versus long-term competing considerations. the service or might do the servicing better. the longer-term concerns you are worried about, can they sustain

it over a long time and we have to balance those. we have been responsible in that space and we are doing a lot of standardsy to develop so it is clear to fannie and when itwhat we expect comes to transferring servicing and they can communicate that to the lenders that they are dealing with so that they to expect when you are transferring. i think you will find that we will be doing a lot of work going forward in that area. trying to refine what the expectations and standards are. to piggyback a quick question off of that. seems -- and these seem like significant changes.

what impact will it have on credit overlays? >> i hope that it will substantially reduce credit overlays and that lenders will start operating more inside the credit box that fannie and freddie have said they will purchase loans in or guaranteed loans in that space. and based on conversations that we have had with industry participants emma my hope is a positive hope. i do not know when you transfer from hope to an expectation. some of them have assured me that if we can smooth out some of these uncertainties that exist in their space, it would translate into reduction and

overlays and it would translate into more availability of credit to people who can afford to repay the loans. and that is what we are very much interested in having happened. haveth me and the crown lot more questions we would like to ask we are past their limit. have everyone join in thanking you want again for coming to join us today. [applause] everyone to remain in their seat while the director exit the auditorium, we will have the other panel set up while he is doing so. >> thank you all so much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2014] [captioning performed by national captioning institute]

>> a medal of honor ceremony for army surgeon keio democratic senators critical of the judicial nominee because of statements on abortion, gay rights, and the confederate flag . we will have that in about 15 minutes. whoory about a girl survived being kidnapped by bo boko haram. john conyers does not have enough signatures to appear on the ballot. validity for the incumbent signatures and the county clerk ruled that they were nonregistered voters in michigan as required under state law the signatures he obtained does not count.

after the challenges, 592. representative conyers has held the seat for five decades and as campaign chairman, they said that they plan a lawsuit to get ballot.ressman on the president obama awarded the nation's highest decoration to army sergeant kyle white. he was honored during a firefight with taliban and inces enough in a stand 2007. this white house ceremony is 20 minutes. >> almighty god whom our words may cradle but never contain. the wisdom of profits past echoing in our ears. to be devoted to one another in

brotherly love and honor one another above ourselves. we are blessed to honor and american soldier, actions were witnessed to the depth of his love and depth of his honor. medal of honor is bestowed on kyle white. we know god, it is dearness that gives everything its value. by honoring sergeant white we honor the men who fought that day. we may live worthy of honor, devotion and courage that we recognize today. pray all of this in your holy name, amen. >> good afternoon everybody. welcome to the white house.

it has been said that true courage is a perfect sense -- sensibility and measure of danger and willingness to incur it. for more than 12 years, the men and women of armed forces know the dangers comes. but, year after year, tour after tour, they have displayed a selfless willingness to incur it by stepping forward, by volunteering by serving and sacrificing greatly to keep us all safe. today our troops are coming home. by the end of this year our war in afghanistan will be over. we'll welcome home this generation. the 9/11 generation that proven itself to be one of america's greatest generation.

today we pay tribute to a soldier who encourage that generation. the man when the twin towers felt and who became an elite paratrooper with 173rd airborne. the sky of soldiers. today we present our nation's highest military decoration, medal of honor to sergeant kyle j. white. kyle is the second sky soldier to be recognized with the medal of honor for service above and beyond for the call of duty in afghanistan. today he joins a proud brotherhood of previous nominees and members of the medal of honor society. and ie a lot of vips here like to ignores the most important.

kyle's parents. and his girlfriend helen. home ind that back washington when kyle wanted to enlist, at first he set his sights on the marines. so i am told that there was a difference of opinion. as commander-in-chief, i cannot take sides in this debate. bottom line is, kyle joined the army. and he carried on his family's trout -- proud tradition of service. across afghanistan, base commanders were glued to radios listening as american forces fought back and ambushed in the rugged mountains. one commander remembered all of afghanistan was listening was a

soldier on the ground, describe what was happening. they knew him by his call sign. charlie 16 romeo. we know it was kyle who at the time was just 20 years old and only 21 months into his military service. earlier that afternoon, kyle and the 13 members of his team along with a squad of afghan soldiers left an afghan village after meting -- the americans made their way back up to a steep hill, cliff rising to their right. they knew not to stop but they had to keep moving. they're headed to an area known as ambush alley. that's when a single shot rang out, then another, then an entire canyon erupted with bullets coming from every direction. it was as if kyle said the whole valley lit up.

platoon returned fire. kyle quickly emptied a full magazine but has and went to load a second, an enemy grenade exploded and knocked him unconscious. he came to with his face pressed against the rocks. he moved to get up and rocks entered from his head. most of the unit had been forced to slide down the cliff to the valley below. kyle saw teammate trying to treat his own senatered arm -- shattered arm using a tree as cover. kyle sprinted through enemy fire and began flying a tourniquet. then kyle saw another man down, sergeant phillip box, 30 feet behind him too injured to reach cover. kyle remember thinking it's just a matter of time before i'm

dead. if that's going to happen, i might as well help someone while i can. kyle ran to box and began to pull the injured marine to cover. worried that he exposed more to gunfire, kyle retreated. the enemy rounds followed him. he ran out again. once more he retreated to distract the enemy fire. once more he went out thinking to himself i'm not going to make it. kyle could feel the pressure of the rounds going by him. somehow miraculously, they never hit him, not once. one of his teammates say the as if kyle was moving faster than a speeding bullet. finally kyle succeeded in pulling his conrad to cover. in his final moments, this american marine found some solace in kyle white, the american soldier until the end

was there by his side. now that other injured soldier, was still out there. he sustained another injury to his knee. kyle ran out once more, kyle ripped out his own belt for a tourniquet and soon got his hands on a working radio. crouching behind that lone tree, kyle began kyle in air -- calling in air strikes to take at out enemy position. kyle was starting to feel the fog on his own concussion set in. he knew he was cain's best chance to get out alive. so kyle took charge. he called in a metal to make sure cain and the other injured were safely only board. as a helicopter pulled away, kyle looked out the window.

when you're deployed, he later said, those people become your family. what you really care about is, i want to get this guy left and to the right home. this family was tested that day. not a single one of them escaped without injury and americans gave their lives, their last full measure of devotion. we remember them today, sergeant phillip box, specialist joseph m. -- sergeant jeffrey s., corporal lester g., and kyle's best friend, corporal sean k.a. some of their families are here today. i ask them to please stand so we can recognize their extraordinary sacrifice.

>> [applause] >> the legacy of their fallen heroes, 14 men for every brothers in arms. we're proud to welcome those who fought that day. specialist cain shilling the soldier kyle saved and members of the second battalion of the airborne brigade. would you please stand.

we honor kyle white for his extraordinary actions on that november day. his journey from day to this speaks to the story of his we honor kyle white for his extraordinary actions on that november day. his journey from day to this speaks to the story of his generation. kyle completed the rest of a 15 month deployment in afghanistan. he came back home and trained other paratroopers. he went to college, graduated and today works for a bank in charlotte, north carolina. people see a man in a suit headed to work.

a proud veteran walking into his community, contributing his talents and skills to the progress of our nation. but kyle will tell you that the transition to civilian life and dealing with the post-traumatic stress hasn't been easy. more than six years later, he can still see the image and hear the sounds of that battle. everyday we wakes up thinking about his battle buddies. if you look closely at that man in a suit, you'll note the piece of war he carries with him tucked under his shirt sleeve. they are sacrifice motivates me, he says to be best i can be. everything i do in my life is to make them proud. kyle, members of chosen company, you did your duty and now it's

time for america to do ours. after more than decade of war to welcome you home to the support and benefit and opportunities you've earned. you make us proud and you motivate all of us to be the best we can be as americans and as a nation. to uphold air sacred obligation. may god bless you and may your courage inspire and sustain us always. may god continue to bless the united states of america. with that, i like to have the citation read. >> the president of the united

states of america authorized by act of congress march 3, has awarded the medal of honor to specialist kyle j. white united states army. kyle j. white distinguished himself at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of truth while serving as a radio telephone operator with company seed, second battalion airborne infantry, 173rd airborne. specialist wait and his comrades were returning with village as the soldiers traversed a narrow path surrounded by rocky terrain. pinned against a steep mountain face, specialist white and his

fellow soldiers were completely exposed to enemy fire. shaking off his wound, specialist white noticed one of his comrades lying wounded nearby. without hesitation, specialist white exposed himself to enemy fire in order to reach the soldier and provide medical aid. after applying a tourniquet, specialist white moved to the marine providing aid and comfort. specialest white returned to the soldier and discovered he had been wounded again. applying his own belt, specialist white was able to stem the blow of blood and save the soldier's life. notice his and other soldier's radios were inoperative. he then provided information and

updates to friendly forces allowing prevision air strikes to stifle the enemy's attack and ultimately permitting medical evacuation aircraft to rescue him, marines and afghan army soldiers. specialist kyle j. white, extraordinary heroism and selflessness above and beyond the call of dewton keeping -- duty on keeping with the highest regimen. [applause]

[applause] >> let us pray. god's gracious mercy and protection we commit ourselves inspired by the actions of sergeant kyle white, we go our

way in peace. it will be a good courage, we hold fast to that which is good. under to no evil, no one evil for evil, rather than to be strengthened and support the weak. we help the wounded and honor all persons. god be with us to this day. we pray in his holy name, amen. >> that concludes the ceremony. but not the celebration. i hear the food here is pretty good. and the drinks are free. i hope all of you enjoy the hospitality of the white house. i hope we all remember once again those who are fallen. we are grateful to the families

who are here and to kyle and all of who serve in america's armed forces. we want you to know that we will always be grateful for your extraordinary service to our country. thank you very much. have a great afternoon. picture there of senator marco rubio in "the washington post." with knowledge and today that the climate is changing but bill on no legislative

the table to put a stop to it. he made headlines over the reagan when he told abc news that the impact of man-made climate change have been overstated. here are a few minutes of what he said today. week, you this rejected scientist assertions that human activity is causing climate change or the that actions taken to curtail such activity will destroy our economy. downward you propose that the country whether any shift or the impact such shifts could have on the quality of life? >> headlines notwithstanding, of course the climate is changing. it's always changing and that is measurable that you can see. the issue is not whether or not it is changing but whether or not there are legislative proposals that could do anything about it. what i have said and what i we pass with is if

traded. this from happening when in fact half of the new omissions are coming from developing countries and half of that humming from one country, china, that will not follow any law we passed. i'm all in favor of advances in technology and innovation to make us cleaner and more efficient but in a way through a cost-benefit analysis to determine which results are good for our economy. i don't think they are incompatible but it must be part of the cost-benefit analysis. i agree that we need to spend time and energy on mitigation because there are actions that need to be taking place whether it is how we store water or how we prepare to address storm occurrences in the southeast where i live where we build very expensive structures near the coastline that are susceptible to weather occurrences and all sorts of weather events of this nature. i have no problem with mitigation events and i have no

problem with advances in technology but by no means am i going to go out and tell people that by changing these laws in the way became that our energy policy that it would have any measurable impact on our weather , it's not accurate to say that. >> what information, reports, studies, or otherwise are you relying on to inform and reach your conclusion that human eye to the is not to blame for climate change? >> headlines notwithstanding, i've never disputed that the climate is changing and i pointed out that it is always changing and it is never static. that's not the question before me as a policy maker. if we ban all: the u.s., all carbon emissions, will it change the dramatic changes in climate and the thematic weather impact we are now reading about. anyone who says that we will is not being truthful.

the united states is a country, not a planet. there are things that we can do to become more efficient in our use of energies, develop alternative sources of energy, betterwe can become stewards of the energy that we have but for them to say that if you pass this bill i am proposing that it will somehow create less tornadoes and hurricanes, that's just not an accurate statement. on the next "washington journal," the council on foreign relations which was founded in 1921. we are joined by the senior fellow of the council. see vince astana was ambassador at large for the former soviet tanovich onephen ses the u.s.-russian relations. one year after publishing the he metnew book on how

edward snowden. "no place to hide." "washington journal" is live every morning on 7:00 a.m. eastern. you can join the conversation on facebook and twitter. the senate judiciary committee held a hearing today for u.s. the street court michael boggs who is currently a judge at the georgia appeals court. he has been criticized for his work while serving in the georgia legislature, including a vote to reinstate the confederate flag. this part of the hearing is two hours. >> please raise your right hand. do you are from the testimony you are about to give is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth so help you god? please be seated. i invite you to provide an

opening statement. blumenthal,, chair ranking member grassley, senator durbin, senator franken. thank you all for being here and calling this hearing and hearing from us today. i would also like to thank president obama for this nomination and for the faith he has put in may. now i would like to recognize several people who are here with me, both family and friends. my parents are seated right behind me. ordained elders and the united methodist church. also with me, one of my college roommates from brown university, tiffany, and her mother whom i

lovingly refer to as my fairy godmother. two of my best friends and study group members from yale law school who are part of a group of friends you still get together every year and we call ourselves the law school ladies, becky and christie. two of my compatriots from my time here in bc. i also have watching my five brothers and sisters, dr. andrea abrams, the honorable stacy abrams, richard lewis abrams, walter abrams, and dr. jeanine abrams, as well as my grandmother. i would like to thank my u.s. attorney's office family, and my family from central united methodist church as well as the judge i clerk for.

thank you. >> judge boggs? >> thank you, members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here today. i would like to thank chairman lay he or arranging for this meeting. i'm very proud and appreciative to the president for nominating me. i also want to thank senator chambliss and senator isaacson for the warm introduction and for the support throughout this process. i have with me today my wife of 15 years on thursday, although i'm not sure a trip to d.c. is what she had in mind for a gift. she was the teacher of the year last year for our school district, and i get a quite a it of encouragement from her. i am honored to have two special

guests from the judiciary from georgia to me. seated from behind me is hugh thompson and the chief judge of the court of appeals, the court on which i serve, and i am honored. these are both mentors of mine and very astute members of the judiciary and well-respected members of the judiciary in our state. i am honored to have two very good friends, richard hyde is here with me today, as well as a friend of now probably 30 years, from when i was first a legislative aide to congressman from georgia, my good friend pete robinson. my parents passed when my -- my father, when i was 21. my mother passed a couple years ago. everything i have ever coverage to his because of things they taught me in the time i had with

them. i have two wonderful in-laws, my wife's parents, and i know they are proud and very excited for me on this occasion. i am honored to be here, mr. chairman, and i want to thank the many people who have helped me. i know many of them, including my staff, are whopping highway of webcast. i am appreciative of their support, and with that, i appreciate the opportunity to introduce my friends and family and welcome any questions. >> thank you, senator blumenthal, senator grassley, and also thanks to chairman leahy and the rest of the members of committee for making this georgia today at the senate judiciary we really appreciate it. want to thank president obama for giving me the greatest honor that i have ever had in my 34 years of practicing law, this nomination. i want to thank senators chambliss and isaacson for their warm remarks and for their

support throughout this process. there are several people i would like introduce today. first and foremost, sitting behind me, is my wife, my best friend, and the love of my life, bonnie cohen. she was a legal secretary for over 35 years from and despite working for lawyers, she agreed to marry me, and for that i will be forever grateful. i would not be sitting here today without her love and support, and we celebrate her 70th wedding anniversary next week. also here to date are two people who are like family members to bonnie and me, judge stephanie and bob. we worked at the georgia attorney general's office for many years preachy as been a mentor, friend, and a role model. the one whose career has been inspirational to me throughout my career. here today also with me are two young partners from a law firm. jamie and kevin have worked with me on every major piece of

litigation i've handled at the firm. they are two of the finest young lawyers it is been my privilege to work with during my legal career, and i would not be sitting here without support. also here, also for me, as well as judge boggs, is pete robinson, managing partner of our atlanta office, a former democratic majority leader in the state senate, and a longtime friend. and two former colleagues of mine who worked in washington are also here, and i appreciate your attendance. there are a lot of people watching on the web who are friends and colleagues of mine. i want to particularly mention one very special one. one of the most beloved georgia attorneys, norman underwood. he became my mentor and took me under his wing and he may need a better lawyer, and if i am fortunate enough to be confirmed by this august body, i will be

privileged to say i got to practice law with norman underwood. finally, i would like to recognize my parents, didion and irving cohenn. they were born in brooklyn, children of immigrants, and children of the great depression, because of their family situation, they were unable to achieve the education that they provided for their only son. my father enlisted in the united states army during world war two. he was a disabled veteran, and he ran a small business. my mom was the secretary and worked in the home. together, because of their support and sacrifice, i was able to go to college and law school and lead a life that led me to this moment before you today. i know if they were here they would be very proud. and with that, i welcome any of your questions. >> thank you, mr. cohen. >> thank you for holding this hearing and i'm honored to be

here today answer your questions i also want to thank senators chambliss and isaacson for their kind introductions and their support throughout this process. i would like to thank president obama for the great honor that he has given me in this nomination. it is something that i am very proud of and it is the highest honor that i can think of achieving. i have quite a crowd of family here today, and i will try to get through it quickly. my husband is here. he is an architect, the love of my life, and the person that is been there for me every day throughout this process. i also have with me my seven-year-old son. he is the first grader at a school in atlanta and has thoroughly enjoyed his trip to d.c., especially the chance to discover the washington money but yesterday as it reopened. it has been a special trip for him. my mother is here.

she is in her final year as a first grade teacher indicator, -- teacher in decatur, county georgia. my in-laws are here. they also have both retired from public education, and i'm happy to have them here today. i have my brother, sister-in-law, niece and nephews, stephen julie, here from alabama. i also have my law partner and a daughter of one of my other law partners here for me today. i really have appreciated the support of my law firm and the partners and the other staff have given me. i am happy to have troll here today. thank you very much. >> thanks very much, ms. may. >> thank you, chairman, ranking member, i would like to thank the entire committee. thank you to senators champus and isaacson for the warm

introduction as well as the by partisan efforts for this process. thank you also, president barack obama, for the honor of dissemination. i do have some special people with me. first, my husband of 13 years, fellow attorney brian ross, seated behind me. he is my rock and source of inspiration in all of my professional and personal endeavors. our two daughters, brianna and leighann. they made the sacrifice to miss a day of school to attend. i thank them and their teachers for allowing them to do so with the understanding that they will be making up missed school work. also my siblings are present, my sister valerie and george otis. my father george cornwell also

was a teacher. he passed away when i was eight. he is with me here in spirit as he had always has been, and today i have with me a person who has served as a father figure for my entire life. that is my uncle jim clark. i also have my two beautiful teenage nieces. i also would like to acknowledge my mother-in-law, shirley covington, who is also a retired public school teacher as well as principal. she could not make the trip to d.c. today, but supports me from her home in columbus. finally, i would like to much my colleague and my exceptional staff at the state court. they're keeping things running through the while i am in washington. thank you. i welcome your questions.

>> thank you very much to all of you for your opening statements and most important for your records of public service. i want to say again how important these hearings and this process is. i want to welcome chief justice thompson, chief judge -- you honor us by your presence today. we are sorry you had difficulty getting here, but you weren't mentioned in absentia by senators isakson and chambliss. like you, these individuals have performed a great deal of public service over the course of your careers are ready. the decisions we make here really will be to put you in a place where for many people seeking justice you will be the last person making a decision, even though there may be a right of appeal to the court of appeals, you will be the source of justice for them.

and so this decision for us is immensely important, and we will approach it i think with a close scrutiny that it deserves in every instance. i would like to begin, judge boggs, with some questions. if i look to the responses to the committee's questionnaire, i noted that there were no texts of remarks from a no speech drafts, notes, anything in writing of that kind. over the course of your very long career in public life, and you never deliver a prepared speech? did you never submit for example to the judiciary committee when you served in the state legislature in prepared remarks? >> thank you. it was not the practice of myself while i was serving for the four years in the general simply to speak regularly before committees. in fact the only occasions i had

to do that were on those that i had authored. i never spoke to any committee of the house or senate on any bill that i did not offer other than a bill that meant i had to testify before the senate on a matter pretty if it is not the practice of the general assembly then and now that witnesses submit any written comments are testimony, and indeed that was not my practice. i typically spoke extraneous lee -- extemporaneously. >> on some of the videos i think that our of your service in the legislature, you seem to be reading from something. did you keep none of those texts? >> i was reading from the text of the bills i was presenting. i was not speaking about support, but asking legislators to support the bill. what i was reading from and what i always took to the well on this occasion was the text of the bill. >> and on the issue for example of women's reproductive rights, i know that you spoke passionately about your views on the topic, on the rights of women to seek reproductive health care. you have stated her opposition to abortion. you repaired no remarks on any occasion that you delivered?

>> senator, to my knowledge, i never given any public comments on my position on reproductive rights. i cosponsored some bills in the general assembly. to my knowledge i also voted on a couple of amendments on the floor of the house that i did not author. to my knowledge i've never given any speeches concerning reproductive rights. i never authored any of those bills. i had no role in drafting that legislation. >> and i notice also, as you well know, that on april 10, you supplemented your response is to the questionnaire to this committee with additional material. some of them dealing with the controversial issues that may be of interest my colleagues. can you assure us there are no

additional materials that are relevant to particular questions 12c and 12d of the questionnaire? >> i can assure that. i respectfully suggest that the effort that i went to to supply the information in my original questionnaire was quite exhaustive. i did all of the notable searches on the internet searches that were available. the newspapers that covered the area i served as a legislator are not searchable to the public in any form other than by review of the hard copies. in addition, computer applications and questionnaires of nominees who had prior legislative service and

attempted to mirror what they had done with respect to their submissions. i did not note that any of those nominations had ever submitted a listing of bills and cosponsored. as a matter of public record, and i could have easily provided it. with respect to question 12c, which asked for my public statements on matters of public policy, i do not view that bills that i did not author, and i had nothing to draft with as be a part of my public status. with respect to question 12c, that the public speeches. i have been a judge on the trial court bench and appellate court for 10 years on advice of the state bar of georgia. i destroyed my files for my old

law office which would've possibly contained references of when i spoke to certain civic organizations, dates to mind to whom i spoke, but because of information and media coverage of that was not, took five days, i traveled to under 50 miles to my hometown, and i reviewed 515 newspapers, roughly a thousand pages personally, and then hired somebody to review on the internal programming system of our daily newspaper their data in order to provide the additional submissions. i am appreciative for the opportunity to have done that. >> i appreciate that explanation. i do not need to remind you that some of my colleagues, particularly on the side of the aisle, have found the failure to be completely forthcoming and frank with this committee in terms of providing materials as a reason to disqualify, and in fact, put in jeopardy denomination of a judicial nomination. i would urge you if there are

any materials that are discernible and anyway that you provide them as quickly as possible. >> absolutely. >> let me go to some remarks and actions that you made in the course of your career, if i may. when you were a candidate for the georgia superior court, who spoke at a candidate forum. you told the audience at that time, "i am proud of my record, you do not have to guess where i stand. i oppose same-sex marriage," and you went on, " i have a record that tells you exactly what i stand for." when you're coauthorship be indicative of how you will serve as a judge on the district court georgia, if you're confirmed? >> thank you, senator for the questions. i made the comment you refer to. later in that speech i refer to my respect for the separation of powers and the lawmaking

authority that is vested in the legislature, and that judges should not be policy makers. i have maintained that position for the entirety of my career. i agree that comments that i made probably gave the wrong impression to the audience to whom i was speaking, particularly additional to the job i was seeking. i should have done a better job of delineating the roles of the different roles and a markedly different roles between a legislator and a judge. i was a legislator at the time, but i was seeking the office of judge. however, i think my record, my 10-year record of disposing of roughly 14,000 cases demonstrate unequivocally that i have never allow personal views i may have on any issue to affect how i analyze issues or how i decide cases. >> have any of those cases doubled reproductive rights or a woman's right to choose? >> i think on my time on the

georgia court of appeals i've dealt with one case on my panel. it was not the case i offered, but one case that dealt with georgia's current statute on a minor having to receive parental consent in order to receive an abortion. it was on appeal to a petition to a juvenile court. other than that, it is true that i have rarely dealt with issues of those constitutional magnitudes. >> so other than that one case, to know where you stand on the issue of reproductive rights or a woman's rights to choose from a yet to go back to your actions in the georgia state legislature? >> i do not necessarily agree. i think the best evidence of the type of judge i will be is the record of the type of judge i have been. i don't think my legislative record is over a decade old is indicative of what type of judge

i might be on the federal district court. i would point my record as a trial judge disposing of 14,000 cases dealing with civil cases and criminal cases, rolling for plaintiffs, defendants, running for the state,, ruling against the state. >> where do you stand on reproductive rights or a woman's right to choose? >> my personal opinion would be inappropriate and a violation of the code of judicial conduct of georgia that i currently am bound by the state in a position on this matters. but i can state unequivocally that my personal position on that matter or any other issue is irrelevant to how i have decided cases for the past 10 years, how i have analyzed issues, and i committed to following the rule of law, the doctor and of stare decisis. >> and the constitutional right to privacy, included? >> absolutely. >> you said that you are a strict constructionist.

is that your general philosophy? >> i think at the time i made those comments, which was upon my transferring from the superior court to the court of appeals, i made those comments to a reporter. what i intended to convey was my fidelity to the rule of law and my fidelity to the limited role of a judge in our democracy and intended to contain my respect for the limited role of a judge. and that is to not decide cases based on public opinion, to not decide cases based on public clamor, but to decide cases based on the faithfulness to the rule of law and the doctor and -- doctrine of stare decisis. >> normally a strict constructionist is one looks very specifically and judges would say faithfully to the text of the constitution and the philosophy is to avoid going beyond what is actually written in the text of the constitution. is that a fair description? >> as my understanding, yes, sir, it is a form of constitutional interpretation and analysis. >> 2004 use of privacy is not "in the context or in the text of the constitution."

>> i'm not familiar with having said that, senator. i'm happy to respond later if i can find out where that quotation might've come from. i am not familiar with having said that. >> well, you stated it in 2004. limited your chance to explain now. if the right of privacy is not specifically dial-in needed were described in the text of the constitution, is it still equally valid as a rule of law? >> yes, sir, i believe the easy answer to that question is that i would ace every decision on 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? don't you think it was ill-advised? >> senator, let me respond this way. the legislation you refer to was an amendment eight on the for the house of representatives. it was not an amendment that i drafted. it was not an amendment i was familiar with. it came up on the floor of the house in the routine of handling the business of legislature for

that day. i supported measures like that and including that because those issues were very important to the people that i represented. my constituents as a state that is later were 38,000 citizens in one county in southeast georgia for the first two years i served. the district grew a little larger than that. but that district is a very conservative and a very conservative and very pro-life constituency. i believed it was the obligation of a legislator to vote come listen to, and for the will of the constituency. those issues were very important to my constituents, and that is why supported that amendment. >> that amendment came within a few years after and before attacks on doctors who provided abortions or visits. would you agree with me that it was a mistake to support the kind of amendment? >> in light of what i subsequently learned, yes, sir, i do not think it would be appropriate to be listing the names of doctors that perform abortions within what was then the georgia patient right to know act, which dealt predominantly 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 the ranking member grassley. >> it might surprise you, but i'm going to ask you a lot of questions, and i am going to ask similar questions to what you did. and i hope the rest of you do not feel let out. [laughter] you surf the past 10 years as -- again, to judge boggs -- as an elected state court judge. in this election could you run under any particular party? >> no, sir. georgia's judges are elected nonpartisan at the level i ran. >> so your role has been -- >> and charlie. >> 2001, and you said you were elected as a democrat to the georgia general assembly, right? >> that is right. >> you been criticized by some groups were some of the policy

positions you took as a legislator. for instance, as a legislator united pro-life voting record, you supported traditional marriage. i have asked you a couple questions. if i'm going to read something that you said -- first i will read something you said during senate resolution 595. this resolution recognizes marriage as the union between a man and a woman in a statement on the resolution you said it is my opinion both as a christian and as a lawyer and as a member of this house, and as a member of this house is our opportunity to stand up in support of this resolution." so please explain what you meant by the statement. >> i have clearly meant that my

personal opinion was at the time over a decade ago that i was in support of the proposed constitutional amendment that would have banned same-sex marriage. my position on that, senator, 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 decided raises or how i analyze issues, both as a trial court judge and as an appellate court judge. >> is it fair to say that your christian faith informs her policy positions as a legislator? >> yes, sir. >> by contrast, how does your christian faith affect you in your decision-making assistance as a judge -- decision-making processes as a judge? >> it has never, senator. >> is there anything in your personal views that would make it impossible for you to apply the laws of a federal judge even if you disagree with it?

>> no, sir. >> you've also said i was proud to represent you, i tried to base all my decisions on common sense conservative values that are based on the fact that i was raised in a christian home and that has given me true family values. again, do you hold any personal or religious views that make it impossible for you to apply the law as a federal judge even if you personally disagreed with it? >> absolutely not, senator. >> further, as i mentioned, you been criticized for your legislative record with respect to a portion during her time in the legislature. cosponsored bills that would help encourage women to encourage adoption and a bill that required minors to accompany -- to be accompanied by parent or guardian before getting an abortion.

three questions in regard to that -- there may be some concern that your views on per have many years experience as a .udge were there any times and decided based on your applicable precedent? >> if fortunate enough to be confirmed, that would never happen. >> mr. cohen, you have been

litigation with the voter id law. i have three questions in regards to that. can you describe who you were representing in these cases and how you became to be involved in them? >> when i went into private it was a variety of high-profile litigation. there was the affirmative-action program and that passed by a predominantly democratic georgia assembly. involved in the enactment of those policies or legislation.

i was hired just like any other lawyer is fired and that is to represent the client and advocate their position in court . >> >> if you were confirmed, how would your experience with voter id laws influenced your decision-making process as a judge if the voter id case were to come before you? >> it wouldn't influence 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, these would be like laws you defended, exist "for no other reason than to deny african-americans the right to vote." do you agree with that statement? >> i think the case law in this area has come down depending on the state it was brought in in different ways. in georgia, the evidence that

was presented in our case do not leave the court to conclude that it was against the right to vote. because of different factual circumstances, in other states they were presented in different statutes and different state constitutional provisions. the decision came out differently. 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. johnson versus board of regents, a class of students that were denied the challenge of university system awarding points to africans based on diversity. you defended that an 11th circuit found that the system was not narrowly tailored and hence unconstitutional. tell us about your case and who you representing.

>> i was representing the board of regents at the university of georgia. at that time, that was before the supreme court's decision so the university of georgia was implementing a points program very much like the university of michigan did in their undergraduate institution. both cases were appealed at the same time. the michigan case got to the u.s. supreme court. our case was settled before that time. >> if confirmed, this ruling will be binding precedent. what assurances can you give this committee that you will follow it and any other precedent? >> as a district judge, in article three judge, i am bound by the decisions of the united states supreme court. on the issue of affirmative action, that would be the fisher case and any other decision that

might be issued. >> ms. abrams. -- >> i am going to quote scalia -- "the risk of assessing standards is that it is all too easy to believe that evolution has come and they did in one's own views." do you believe that -- forget that he said that. think of the concept. >> i respect judge scalia, but i don't want him to be the focal point. do believe judges should consider overhauling standards when interpreting the constitution? >> thank you, senator.

i believe that a judge, particularly a district court judge, is bound by the court of law, down by precedent. in my case if i were to be fortunate to be confirmed, it would be the precedent of the supreme court and that would guide my decision. >> you think it is ever appropriate for federal judge to incorporate his or her own views when interpreting the constitution? >> no, senator. >> because there was a split in the rating of you, a majority of the standing committee on the judiciary rated u.s. qualified. a minority found the opposite. the attachments you provided in response to questions to your senate questionnaire provided very well of examples of legal writing. is there anything further you could share with the committee to easily doubt that may exist about whether your experiences after paired you for a lifetime appointment? >> thank you. i have practiced both in federal court civil law as well as criminal law. in that capacity, i have had a strong motion to practice both

written and oral. and appellate practice. almost four years of the u.s. attorney office, i have handled criminal cases from their inception including trial both jury trials and the equivalent of bench trials. i also handle my own habeas motions and have argued before the 11th circuit court of appeals. after graduating from yield law school, i served as a clerk to district judge and i believe that first-hand experience has made me help me understand what the day-to-day obligations of a district court judge. wallace understand there 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 to be confirmed. i know they will support me in getting up to speed and i think my ability to study -- i have studied all the rules and my hard work ethic will help me do

my duty as a district court judge if i am confirmed. >> i am going to yield. i will assume you two will not -- >> thank you, senator grassley. just for the information of my colleagues, we are scheduled to have a vote at 11:10 a.m. i will turn the gavel over to senator franken when that happens and he and i will trade places and will continue the hearing. i am going to turn to senator durbin. before i do, judge boggs, you mentioned a case that was decided while you were a judge, perhaps on the georgia appellate court. i am not aware that case. can you provide the name in the opinion if there was one to the committee? >> i may have misspoken but when i was referring to was the political notification law has been the law in georgia since 1987, before i became a

legislator. my actions in the general assembly between 2001 and 2004, to amend that bill in two specific ways was to amend current statute. the case you are referring to would be the one that was on my panel of the court of appeals. absolutely. >> he could provide the name in the opinion if there was one and any other details of that case. >> certainly. >> i'm going to submit questions in writing. >> we will have the record -- the record will stay open for all of us for a week after this hearing to submit questions in writing but that one in particular, if you could respond i would appreciate it. senator durbin. >> thank you. let me say to all nominees -- thank you for being here today and a special thanks should be given to your two senators who have worked very hard for this moment and have told each and every one of us about your nominations.

they think very highly of you. that commands all of you to our positive consideration. i do have a few questions. judge boggs, i would like to ask you because you appear to have served in the georgia general assembly in 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 battle symbol. you were embroiled in that debate. i 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 was in a flag historian nor am i now. 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. there are arguments on the other side as to what the motivation was for the bill originally. >> beyond the motivation for the original form of the flag, when you were serving in the general simply end the debate was underway and i believe overwhelmingly the african-american legislators opposed that symbol in the flag, did that lead you to believe that debate had anything to do with the issue of race? >> yes, sir. >> what was your feeling? >> i was offended by the flag. at the time that i made that a vote in 2001, i was a freshman legislator. i was in my 17th day of service. i was very respectful of the opinions of the majority of the african-american community in my state had towards that flag. it was not only a symbol of a reminder of the civil war and

the horrific tragedy in a horrible time in american history. a reminder of the institution of slavery. it was also more predominately than more contemporary uses of that flag by organizations that a spout over racism. i found that one of the most challenging things of being a legislator was deciding when to vote with my constituents and went to vote the will of myself. it was something i know other legislators struggled with. the overwhelming majority of the constituents in my one county that i represented which likewise contain a minority population that was not ignorant of, overwhelmingly, those constituents wanted georgians the opportunity to vote on whether to change the flag. that is why i cast the vote the way i did. i'm glad the flag was changed. it reflected something that i thought georgia could be better with. >> since you understood that the

debate in your time dealt with issues that at least brought up echoes of race problems and slavery, let me ask you this. when you compromise design was proposed in 2003 that remove the confederate x that echoed the confederate stars and bars flag, this design was supported by african-american democrats and you voted against it. why? >> yes, sir. for the same reasons. the overwhelming majority of my constituents wanted a choice between the 1956 flag and the current flag. intervening between the vote in my original vote was another opportunity to vote for a referendum on the flag and i voted for that. that would've afforded georgians an opportunity to vote. however, i reiterate, looking back on that vote at the time i cast that vote, it was a very

difficult decision to decide whether to vote my conscience which was reflective of the will of the constituents in my community or vote my own conscience. i couldn't be more respectful of the people that wanted that flag changed and i am glad it did change. >> judge boggs, each year for over 10 years, congressman from your state john lewis organizes a civil rights pilgrimage inviting members of both political parties to come down and personally witness some of the scenes of civil rights struggles of the 1960's. i was honored to be invited one year and as fate would have it walked over the bridge with congressman lewis in the early morning sunday hours. he pointed out the spot where he

was beaten unconscious and club down by troopers on that march. he said to me there are many people that are knowledged as heroes and i should not be one of them. there was one in particular who hardly ever gets credit and his name was frank johnson. frank johnson was a u.s. federal district court judge, and position that you five aspire to. the middle district 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 march would be allowed. for that, his mother's home was firebombed. he was invited away from polite society but became an icon to many of us in terms of courage on the bench. i understand the role of the

legislator and politician trying to measure your constituents and what they want against what you believe is right. sometimes sadly they come in conflict. obviously, and judge johnson decided sitting on the federal court that even though he would be ostracized, he would do what he thought was right. i have asked you a lot of questions about when you were state representative and you said you reflected how your people felt. now, how do you view the issue of race when you have an opportunity to serve on the district court here? >> thank you for the question. first, let me say of the utmost respect for congress and lewis. i know him and i respect his career. while i know he might be critical of me during this process, i don't take any

affront to that. 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 that sits behind me, who fought for three years of decades of racism and oppression and became the second african-american juvenile court judge in my state. my boat was never meant to be disrespectful. it was never intended to fail to acknowledge the struggle that succeeded in the quality. my vote was never intended to reflect that. i believe everyone that comes before me should be treated equally. i believe my record as a judge reflects my faithfulness to that. i don't think anyone can disprove if someone is accusing someone of being a racist. how do you disprove that? i think the best evidence i would have that the people that know me best don't believe that any is that after that vote, had

a challenge in the democratic primary in every african-american elected official in my city supported me. they grew up with me and i went to school with them or their children. they know me. they know that a vote was not indicative. in that election, i received 90% of the vote to be returned to the general assembly for second term. the same people overwhelm only the supported me with 80% of the vote when i ran for superior court judge. i think that is the best evidence. >> thank you. >> thank you, senator durbin. senator lee. >> thank you for all of you. ms. abrams, let's start with you. i see most of your practice has been in civil litigation, is that right? >> yes. >> that is giving you a good

flavor for both of them which will be important components of your caseload should you be confirmed. when you approach a civil case and -- as you know, a lot of civil cases are decided on motions and when they are not decided on those, it is still usually a motion that is made at some point or another. when you review a dispositive motion whether it is a motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment, do you think -- it is appropriate for a judge to defer on the side of granting or denying a dispositive motion? there are some judges that occasionally will say, at least privately, i would rather err on the side of giving the plaintiff his or her day in court, a trial. do you lean in either direction? is it just as bad to grant a dispositive motion where it is

not wanted as it is to deny one where it is? is either one worse than the other? >> i don't believe that one is either worse than the other or that it would be appropriate for me to hold a belief. 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. >> ok. you wouldn't have any predilection any way or another? based on the issues brought before you? >> yes. >> i sometimes see a dangerous tendency in the courts in that sometimes we could end up with trial by attrition where it is

easier to deny a motion for summary judgment than it is to grant one in some ways. some ways it involves less risk. you don't have to write a lengthy opinion or deny one. it is not immediately appealable so it is easier to say i will deny this one and see what happens on appeal. would you tend to agree? >> i think that certainly does happen. i fortunately was trained by a judge who believed that we had to get it right. when i was a clerk, i did in fact deny a number of motions that ended cases but that was because the applicable law dictated that that was how a case should be handled. i hope that i learned enough from the judge and that i would in fact fairly and impartially apply the law to the fact of each case as a comes up warming. >> he is still on the bench right?

he is still available? >> he certainly is. >> judge ross, you are already a judge. do you agree with what ms. abrams has said or disagree? >> i agree with ms. abrams that i would have no predilection either way. also, i can say by having served as a state court judge, i have never ruled on a motion for summary judgment just at the point of being cautious. i have taken longer to rule on some of them than 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 i have rendered on motions of summary judgment have gotten reversed with the exception of one portion of one ruling based on attorneys fees and i'd agreed that i should have analyzed it slightly differently. >> do you have any particular judicial philosophy? how would you describe how you describe your philosophy? >> my philosophy would be to

apply the law fairly and equally to all people that would -- if i am confirmed as a district court judge -- that would appear before me. i think it is very important for judges to get it right. that means following the applicable supreme court and 11th circuit precedent to the letter and not allowing my own personal opinions to get in the way of fair, decisive and applying applicable law. i think it is important for judges to treat both the parties and the attorneys with respect and listen to all sides to an argument to make sure that as a judge i would understand the arguments of the parties. also, when issuing orders or ruling on specific issues, i believe it is very important for a judge to be clear and let the parties know exactly what the ruling is so they can imply that to the rest of the case. >> 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 it sometimes but legislator in a difficult position. does any of that apply to you as a judge either as a state judge or would it apply to you as a federal judge if you were confirmed? >> no, it doesn't apply. that is a very comforting part about being a judge. i think i'm more suited to be a judge that i was a legislator. there was a lot of comfort in the rule of law. you can look good in the rope. i am confident not. the gauging of 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 a in and day out are difficult decisions. the decisions judges make are likewise difficult, but the fortunate part about the rule of law is that 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 am very comforted in knowing if you are faithful to the rule of law, if you are faithful to applying precedent to every case, and you don't interject your personal opinions, while it is true you may make -- you might make unpopular decisions, popularity is not what the justice system will do. >> will not apply even if you're asked to make a ruling that is going to be strongly against the

public will? it is not just that it might not be the most popular ruling but a ruling that may seem unfair and harsh? perhaps a very sympathetic plaintiff or defendant? >> i think judges that are faithful to law will 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. sexual orientation of the party has no role in deciding how you can issue a decision. it is much more difficult when you are a partisan legislator to do with those issues because i think most of you all have the districts in your states and i did as a legislator where your entirety of your constituency rarely agree on everything. fortunately as a judge, do not concerned with those issues. >> thank you, mr. chairman. >> senator klobuchar? >> thank you to all the nominees. this is a very special day and i

see you have a lot of happy family members. i was going to ask some questions to mr. boggs. i know you were a judge for how long? >> 10 years now. >> obviously, there is a lot of understandable questions about the positions that you took as a candidate and in the legislature on choice and civil rights and marriage equality. did you rule in any those cases when you were a judge? cases involving those issues? >> as a trial court judge in georgia's highest level of trial court, didn't have jurisdiction to rule on constitutional questions. as a judge in the intermediate appellate court for the last two and half years, we of limited constitutional jurisdiction specifically we only deal with constitution is applied and

whether it was applied in an unconstitutional fashion. jurisdiction and confidential cases present with the supreme court. >> can you talk about your overall judicial philosophy? how your personal views have shaped that philosophy? >> i don't know if my personal views have shaved my philosophy. my experiential views has shaped my philosophy. i try to emulate characteristics that i see in other judges that i value. my general judicial philosophy is that judges should be faithful to the law. they should understand the limited role of the judiciary and they should not be policymakers. in addition, i think it is 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 judiciary system which i think is very important. >> in your opinion, how strongly should judges themselves to the doctrine? >> i think the doctrine should bind all judges. inbound me as a trial court judge.

inbound me to the supreme court of georgia. i think as an appellate court judge, i am bound by the decisions of the supreme court of georgia. i would be bound and follow the decisions of the supreme court, even on those issues that you discussed. >> the supreme court rule of nearly 50 years ago is about privacy rights and access to contraception. do you view these cases as federal law? >> i do and i would follow that precedent. >> i am concerned about this amendment. i know there is a lot of background and have read it all but one of the things that really stuck out to me as someone who was a former prosecutor dealing with public safety issues was the amendment you supported in the georgia state legislature. i think senator blumenthal asked about this. i have some or questions. it would've required posting on the internet about the number of medical procedures that doctors have performed having to do with

terminating a pregnancy. there can clearly be public safety implications for these doctors if you put all this detailed information about them online. i think you can see 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 my views on that issue. as much as that may come before me as a judge, but i will tell you that was a floor amendment. i didn't have any idea it it was coming. i didn't have any thing to do with the altering of that amendment. in retrospect, it particularly in light of what i have learned subsequently concerning the public safety issue, i should not have voted for that amendment.

>> you consider that at the time you voted on it a public safety risk? >> i was not aware as i am now of the public safety risk. again, the back of throat of bringing up a bill, i should have. in hindsight, it was regretful i did not. >> last year, the supreme court issued an important ruling on marriage equality in the windsor case. how would your personal views on marriage equality impact of decisions as a judge? >> they would not. i would follow windsor and any other cases out of the supreme court. >> would you commit to following supreme court precedent in this area when it comes to marriage equality? >> absolutely. >> i know that there have also been some attention around comments you made while running to be a state court judge. what role do you think about your personal opinions on women's reproductive rights would be?

>> it has no role on how i would decide legal issues or decide cases or analyze issues where i could be confirmed as a district court judge. >> one of the things that has been brought to my attention -- i think would concerning a lot of people, but not as much as the amendment on the doctors posting. there was a bill that took some pictures of license plates and you took pictures with a license plate, i think. what do you think about that and how would that influence any decision that you would make going forward? >> the choose life adoptions program was a bill i cosponsored with the majority of the members of the house of the general assembly in georgia because it was important to the constituents. it would have no impact,