U.S. Congress
U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate
News releases, reports, statements and associated documents from all members of the U.S. House and the U.S. Senate as well as the House and Senate leadership and House and Senate committees.
Featured Stories
Senate Judiciary Subcommittee Issues Testimony From Senior Massachusetts District Judge Wolf (Part 2 of 3)
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights issued the following written testimony by Senior Massachusetts District Judge Mark L. Wolf involving a hearing on May 17, 2023, entitled "Review of Federal Judicial Ethics Processes at the Judicial Conference of the United States":* * *
(Continued from Part 1 of 3)
* * *
V. REQUESTS TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE IN 2011 TO REFER JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RELATED MATTERS
The Judicial Conference is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Federal Courts, Oversight, Agency Action and Federal Rights issued the following written testimony by Senior Massachusetts District Judge Mark L. Wolf involving a hearing on May 17, 2023, entitled "Review of Federal Judicial Ethics Processes at the Judicial Conference of the United States": * * * (Continued from Part 1 of 3) * * * V. REQUESTS TO THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE IN 2011 TO REFER JUSTICE CLARENCE THOMAS TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND RELATED MATTERS The Judicial Conference is comprised of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court,the Chief Judges of each Circuit, and a District Judge from each Circuit, who serves a three year term. As indicated earlier, from 2010 through 2012, I was the representative of the First Circuit District Judges on the Judicial Conference.
I now know that in 2011, many members of Congress and two public interest organizations - Common Cause and Alliance for Justice - sent letters to the Judicial Conference, Chief Justice John Roberts, and the Supreme Court describing specific ways in which Justice Clarence Thomas had allegedly committed willful violations of the Financial Disclosure statutes, and in some instances, expressly urging the Judicial Conference to find reasonable cause and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General. There were also media reports relating to the issues raised by the 17 letters. The public record now includes the following information concerning the letters, which are included in Exhibits 2 and 3.
On January 21, 2011, Common Cause emailed a letter to James Duff, the Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts and as such, the Secretary of the Judicial Conference. It stated the following: Justice Thomas' wife, Virginia Thomas, was employed by the Heritage Foundation from 2003 to 2007 and at Liberty Central in 2009.48 Both organizations compensated Mrs. Thomas for her work.49 Justices are required to disclose their spouse's sources of income in excess of $1,000 pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 13104.50 However, on his Financial Disclosure Reports from 2003 to 2009 "Justice Thomas checked the box for 'None' for 'Spouse's Non-Investment Income.'"51 Common Cause requested that the Judicial Conference consider the omission, make a determination under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 13106, and, if it found reasonable...
48 Letter from Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause, to James C. Duff, Sec'y to the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Jan. 21, 2011), https://www.commoncause.org/resource/letter-to-james-duff-onvirginia-thomas-income/, included in Exhibit 3.
49 Id.
50 See 5 U.S.C. Sec. 13106.
51 Letter from Bob Edgar to James C. Duff, supra n. 48.
* * *
...cause, "refer the matter to the Attorney General."52 Mr. Duff brought the matter to Justice Thomas' attention.53
On January 22, 2011, the Financial Disclosure Office of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts received seven letters from Justice Thomas, each dated January 21, 2011, amending his reports to include information concerning Mrs. Thomas' employment.54 The letters stated that he had "inadvertently omitted" his wife's employment "due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."55 He amended his reports by adding the following employment for Mrs. Thomas: (a) for 2009, he added Hillsdale College; (b) for 2008, he added The Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College; and (c) for 1998 to 2007, he added The Heritage Foundation.56
On January 24, 2011, Mr. Duff wrote to Common Cause that the matter had been brought "to Justice Thomas' attention and he immediately amended his reports."57 Mr. Duff further advised that...
52 Id.
53 See Exhibit 2.A, Letter from James C. Duff, Dir. of the Admin.Off. of the U.S. Cts., to Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause (Jan. 24, 2011).
54 Exhibit 2.B, Letters from Justice Clarence Thomas to Comm. on Fin. Disclosure (Jan. 21, 2011), https://fixthecourt.com/wp-cont ent/uploads/2023/04/thomas-clarence-amendments.pdf.
55 Id.
56 Id.
57 Exhibit 2.A, Letter from James C. Duff to Bob Edgar, supra n.53.
* * *
...he had "forwarded [Common Cause's January 21, 2011 letter] to the appropriate Judicial Conference committee."58 That was the Committee on Financial Disclosure (the "Committee"), which was then chaired by Judge Bobby Baldock.
On February 14, 2011, Common Cause sent a letter to William Suter, Clerk of the Supreme Court, questioning a reimbursement Justice Thomas reported on his 2008 Financial Disclosure Report.59 It stated that Justice Thomas reported reimbursement from the Federalist Society "for four days in Palm Springs, January 26-29, 2008."60 Common Cause questioned whether Justice Thomas properly characterized this as a reimbursement or whether the payment to him was instead a gift.61 It also questioned whether Justice Thomas was actually in Palm Springs for a Koch Industries event and if some organization or individual other than the Federalist Society had paid his expenses.62 A Supreme Court spokesperson had previously said that Justice Thomas spoke at a Federalist Society event and "then dropped by one of the separate Koch meeting...
58 Id.
59 Exhibit 2.C, Letter from Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause, to William Suter, Clerk of the U.S. Sup. Ct. (Feb. 14, 2011), https://www.commoncause.org/resource/letter-to-the-clerkof-the-supreme-court/.
60 Id.
61 Id.
62 Id.
* * *
...sessions" but "was not a participant."63 Common Cause stated that, when asked, Federalist Society staff could not recall an event that corresponded with the dates on Justice Thomas' Financial Disclosure Report.64 Common Cause noted that Koch Industries had a history of holding its semi-annual strategy and fundraising session in Palm Springs.65
On March 15, 2011, the Judicial Conference met.66 Its Report of the meeting concerning the Committee's activities did not include any reference to the allegations concerning Justice Thomas in Common Cause's letters.67 The Committee made no reference to any matters concerning Justice Thomas in its Report to the Judicial Conference.68 On June 18, 2011, the New York Times published an article regarding Justice Thomas' association with Harlan Crow.69 The...
63 Id.
64 Id.
65 Id.
66 See JUD. CONF. OF THE U.S., REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES (Mar. 15, 2011), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2011-03.pdf.
67 See id. at 16.
68 See COMM. ON FIN. DISCLOSURE, REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE (Mar. 2011), which is now available to the public upon request to the Administrative Office of the United States Courts.
69 Mike McIntire, Friendship of Justice and Magnate Puts Focus on Ethics, N.Y. TIMES (June 18, 2011), https://www.nytimes.com/ 2011/06/19/us/politics/19thomas.html.
* * *
...article noted that Mr. Crow had recently financed a museum in Pin Point, Georgia Justice Thomas' birthplace.70 It also stated that "[t]ravel records for Mr. Crow's planes and yacht . . . suggest[ed] that Justice Thomas may have used them in recent years."71 However, there were not corresponding reports of any travel on Mr. Crow's plane or yacht in Justice Thomas' Financial Disclosure Reports.72
On September 13, 2011, Common Cause and Alliance for Justice sent a letter to Mr. Duff noting the allegations in the June 18, 2011 New York Times article.73 They also referenced Common Cause's January 21, 2011 letter on Justice Thomas' failure to report properly his wife's sources of income.74 Common Cause "request[ed] that the Judicial Conference make a public determination as to whether Justice Thomas' failure to report his wife's income, and or failing to disclose travel reimbursements" established "'reasonable cause' under [Sec. 13106]" to "refer the matter to the Department of Justice."75
70 Id.
71 Id.
72 Id.
73 Letter from Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause and Nan Aron, President of All. for Just., to James Duff, Dir. of Admin. Off. of the U.S. Cts. (Sept. 13, 2011), https: //web.archive.org/web/20130128054142/https://www.commoncause.org /site/apps/nlnet/content2.aspx?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=4773617&ct=112164 45, included in Exhibit 3.
74 Id.
75 Id.
* * *
The Judicial Conference met on September 13, 2011.76 Its report of the meeting did not include any reference to: (1) the allegations raised in Common Cause's January 21, 2011 letter, Common Cause's February 14, 2011 letter to the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Common Cause and Alliance for Justice's September 13, 2011 letter, or the June 2011 New York Times article; or (2) any Committee or Conference activity related to those allegations.77 The Committee made no reference to matters concerning Justice Thomas in its report to the Judicial Conference for the September 13, 2011 meeting.78
On September 29, 2011, members of the House of Representatives sent Mr. Duff a letter regarding Justice Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's employment with the Heritage Foundation and the allegations in the June 18, 2011 New York Times article.79 The letter urged the Judicial Conference to "refer the matter . . . to the Department of Justice."80
76 See JUD. CONF. OF THE U.S., REPORT OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE OF THE UNITED STATES (Sept. 13, 2011), https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/2011-09.pdf.
77 See id.
78 See COMM. ON FIN. DISCLOSURE, REPORT OF THE JUDICIAL CONFERENCE COMMITTEE ON FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE (Sept. 2011).
79 Letter from Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. to James C. Duff, Sec'y to the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Sept. 29, 2011), https://justfacts.votesmart.org/public-statement/643438/letterto-james-c-duff-secretary-to-the-judicial-conference-of-the-uni ted-states, included in Exhibit 3.
80 Id.
* * *
On October 5, 2011, Common Cause and Alliance for Justice sent another letter to Mr. Duff and George Reynolds, counsel for the Committee.81 They stated that after sending their September 13, 2011 letter they had learned two new facts.82 First, "Justice Thomas correctly disclosed his wife's income for as many as ten years before he began to file inaccurate disclosure forms."83 They expressed their view that this information "call[ed] into question Justice Thomas' explanation that his omissions were due to a misunderstanding of the filing instructions."84 Second, they had discovered that Mrs. Thomas' income for the years that Justice Thomas failed to report her employment exceed $1.6 million.85 Once again, they asked that the Judicial Conference make a public determination of whether there was reasonable cause to "refer the matter to the Department of Justice."86
On October 14, 2011, Jill Sayenga, Acting Director of the Administrative Office of the United States Courts, responded to...
81 Letter from Nan Aron, President of All. for Just., and Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause, to James Duff, Dir. of Admin. Off. of the U.S. Cts., and George Reynolds, Counsel for Comm. on Fin. Disclosure (Oct. 5, 2011), https://www.commoncause.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/thomas-non-disclosure.pdf, included in Exhibit 3.
82 Id.
83 Id.
84 Id.
85 Id.
86 Id.
* * *
...the September 29, 2011 letter from the members of Congress, stating that she had "forwarded [their] letter to the [Committee]."87 On October 14, 2011, Ms. Sayenga also responded to Common Cause and Alliance for Justice's October 5, 2011 letter, writing that she had "forwarded [their] letter to the [Committee]."88
On November 18, 2011, 52 Members of the House of Representatives wrote to Chief Justice Roberts, as Presiding Officer of the Judicial Conference.89 They advised him that since sending their September 29, 2011 letter they had learned from Common Cause and Alliance for Justice that Justice Thomas accurately included his wife's income on his Financial Disclosure Reports "for as many as 10 years" before he stopped reporting it.90 This, they asserted, made it "very difficult for Justice Thomas to make a credible argument that he understood the filing instructions for ten years but then misunderstood them for the next thirteen years."91 The members of Congress reiterated their...
87 Letter from Jill C. Sayenga, Acting Dir. of Admin. Off. of the U.S. Cts., to Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. (Oct. 14, 2011), included in Exhibit 3.
88 Exhibit 2.D, Letter from Jill C. Sayenga, Acting Dir. of Admin. Off. of the U.S. Cts., to Bob Edgar, President & CEO of Common Cause, and Nan Aron, President of All. for Just. (Oct. 14, 2011).
89 Letter from Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. to Chief Just.
John Roberts, Presiding Officer of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Nov.18, 2011), included in Exhibit 3.
90 Id.
91 Id.
* * *
...request that the Conference review the facts and refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General.92
On December 22, 2011, Judge Thomas Hogan, who had recently become the Acting Director of the Administrative Office and Secretary of the Judicial Conference, responded to the members of Congress' November 18, 2011 letter, advising that their letter had been "referred" to him.93 Judge Hogan stated that he had "forwarded [their] letter to the [Committee]."94
In the Fall of 2011, I saw an article in the media reporting that a letter had recently been sent to the Judicial Conference alleging that Justice Thomas had failed to include for several years in his Financial Disclosure Reports the required information that his wife had been employed by the Heritage Foundation. Not then knowing of the Judicial Conference's statutory duty to refer matters to the Attorney General in certain circumstances, I wondered why the letter was sent to the Conference.
On about January 1, 2012, I read an article about Chief Justice Roberts' 2011 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary.95
92 Id.
93 Exhibit 2.E, Letter from Hon. Thomas F. Hogan, Sec'y of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S., to Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. (Dec.22, 2011).
94 Id.
95 See generally CHIEF JUST. JOHN G. ROBERTS, JR., 2011 YEAR-END REPORT ON THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY (2011) https://www.supremecourt.gov/public info/year-end/2011year-endreport.pdf.
* * *
In that Report, the Chief Justice explained his view that a Code of Conduct for Supreme Court Justices was not necessary or appropriate in part because the Justices, as well as other federal judges, file a statutorily required Financial Disclosure Report annually.96 He also noted that Justices are subject to 28 U.S.C.Sec. 455, the statute requiring a Justice or Judge's recusal in certain circumstances, but asserted that the principles of recusal "can differ due to the unique circumstances of the Supreme Court."97 The Chief Justice concluded that his colleagues were "jurists of exceptional integrity and experience" and, therefore, a Code of Conduct applicable to them was not needed.98
In February 2012, I found on the internet some, but not all, of the series of letters, beginning in January 2011, to the Judicial Conference from members of Congress, Common Cause, and Alliance for Justice that raised questions concerning whether Justice Thomas had repeatedly, knowingly, and willfully failed to disclose, or misrepresented information required to be included in, his Financial Disclosure Reports. As indicated earlier, some of the letters urged the Conference to refer the matter to the Attorney General pursuant to 5 U.S.C. Sec. 13106. I then realized that I had not received the letters, or seen any reference to them...
96 Id. at 5-7.
97 Id. at 7.
98 Id. at 10.
* * *
...or the issues that they raised, in the materials for the March 13, 2012 meeting of the Judicial Conference.
This concerned me because the issues raised by the letters were serious. Pursuant to established Conference policies and procedures, if the Committee had considered the letters, my colleagues on the Judicial Conference and I should have been informed of them in its Reports to the Conference, even if the Committee was not recommending any action by the Conference. Such information would have afforded me and the other members of the Conference the opportunity to discuss and decide whether there was reasonable cause to believe Justice Thomas had willfully violated the Act and, if so, to make the required referral to the Attorney General.
Therefore, on February 15, 2012, I spoke to Judge Hogan, the Acting Director of the Administrative Office of United States Courts and as such Secretary to the Judicial Conference.99 I inquired about the status of the letters. I also expressed concern that the members of the Conference had not been given notice of the letters and the opportunity to have the issues they raised put on the agenda for discussion and decision. I indicated that I might ask that the matter be discussed at the Conference's March 13,...
99 The date of this discussion and many of the following facts are included in August 29, 2012 letters I sent to Judge Hogan and Judge David Sentelle, the Chair of the Executive Committee of the Judicial Conference, included in Exhibit 3.
* * *
...2012 meeting. Judge Hogan thanked me for reminding him of this issue, told me that the matter was not ripe for possible discussion at the March 13, 2012 meeting of the Conference because he had not received a response to the reference of the September 29, 2011 letter from members of Congress to the Committee. He said he would speak to the new Chair of the Committee, Judge Joseph McKinley,100 and then to me again.
Judge Hogan subsequently told me that the Committee had decided that referring Justice Thomas to the Attorney General was not justified. He said that he had received a February 23, 2012 letter from Judge McKinley explaining the Committee's process and reasoning, which he would send me. He encouraged me to consider the letter and to speak to Judge McKinley as well.
I read the letter and spoke to Judge McKinley. I expressed to him my concern that the members of the Conference had not been informed of the issues concerning Justice Thomas and provided an opportunity to discuss the matter. I thought an opportunity was warranted because these issues were serious and important. Judge McKinley told me that the Committee's staff had not included the matters in the March 2011, September 2011, or March 2012 Committee reports to the Conference because the staff felt they were "routine." He also informed me, however, that issues of whether...
100 In 2012, Judge McKinley succeeded Judge Bobby Baldock as the Chair of the Financial Disclosure Committee.
* * *
...there had been a willful failure to include required information in a Financial Disclosure Report were very rare, and the matter involving Justice Thomas was evidently the first and only time that members of Congress or anyone else had requested that the Conference refer a matter to the Attorney General pursuant to the statute.
I subsequently told Judge Hogan that while I appreciated the opportunity to speak to with Judge McKinley, our talk had not eliminated my concerns and that I might ask that the matter be placed on the Discussion Calendar for the September 2012 meeting of the Conference. Judge Hogan told me that he would be requesting a revised letter from the Committee.
In reviewing the materials for the September 11, 2012 meeting of the Conference, I saw that again no reference was made to issues concerning Justice Thomas in the Committee's report or elsewhere. I spoke again to Judge Hogan, who informed me that he had received an April 17, 2012 letter from Judge McKinley and, on April 30, 2012,101 written to members of Congress that the Committee had determined that a reference to the Attorney General was not justified. Judge Hogan also told me that he had received no response to his letter to Congress.
101 Letter from Hon. Thomas F. Hogan, Sec'y of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S., to Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. (Apr. 30, 2012), included in Exhibit 3.
* * *
...Nevertheless, I believed that the Conference should discuss at its September 12, 2012 meeting whether there was reasonable cause to refer Justice Thomas to the Attorney General. I communicated this to Judge Hogan.
The proposed agenda for Conference meetings was developed by the Conference Executive Committee. Chief Justice Roberts had appointed as Chair of the Executive Committee David Sentelle, the Chief Judge of the District of Columbia Circuit. The Executive Committee developed and distributed proposed Consent and Discussion Calendars concerning committee reports. Reports on the Consent Calendar could and would not be discussed by the Conference. Committee reports were almost always on the proposed Consent Calendar. The Committee Report for the September 2012 meeting was placed on the Consent Calendar on the Executive Committee's proposed agenda for the September 11, 2012 meeting of the Conference.
I still wanted the Conference to discuss the range of issues raised by the letters sent to it concerning Justice Thomas, including the fact that, contrary to Conference requirements, members were not informed of those letters in the Reports of the Committee. I also hoped for an opportunity to discuss with my colleagues the merits of whether there was reasonable cause to believe Justice Thomas had repeatedly willfully failed to disclose 31 that his wife was employed by the Heritage Foundation, and falsified or omitted other information required to be disclosed.
I spoke to Judge Sentelle about this and, on August 8, 2012, sent him a letter stating:
As we discussed, I am writing to request that the Executive Committee put on the Discussion Calendar for the September 11, 2012 meeting of the Judicial Conference of the United States the process by which the Conference should discharge its duty, under 5 U.S.C. [Sec. 13106(b)], to determine whether there is reasonable cause to believe that a judge or justice has willfully failed to disclose, or willfully misrepresented, information required to be included in an Annual Financial Disclosure Report and, therefore, whether to refer the matter to the Attorney General. My concerns about the present process for discharging the Conference's statutory duties are prompted by the manner in which issues have been addressed on behalf of the Conference in response to a series of letters, beginning in January, 2011, from more than 50 members of Congress and several organizations, regarding Financial Disclosure Reports filed by Justice Clarence Thomas.
The letters allege primarily that the Justice willfully omitted certain information from his Financial Disclosure Reports for many years and request that the Conference refer the matter to the Attorney General pursuant to [Sec. 13106(b)]. The letters were referred to the Committee on Financial Disclosure. The members of the Conference, however, have not been informed of the letters or of the issues that they raise which require resolution under the statute. Nor have any of the four reports to the Conference of the Committee on Financial Disclosure since January, 2011 mentioned the letters, the issues they raise, or the Committee's position on whether a reference to the Attorney General is required under the statute.
I understand that the Conference often acts through its Committees. However, their reports are regularly relied upon to inform members of the Conference of the 32 material activities of a Committee in order to provide an opportunity for members of the Conference to put a matter on the Discussion Calendar and to request a decision concerning it by the full Conference. It is particularly important that this practice be followed where the matter at issue involves a statutory duty of the Conference.
I believe that the matter involving Justice Thomas raises issues that the Judicial Conference should discuss promptly. These issues include, but may not be limited to, whether the rare questions that arise under [Sec. 13106(b)] should continue to be delegated to the Committee on Financial Disclosure and, if so, whether that Committee should be required to report the existence of the issue and the proposed resolution of it to the full Conference so there can be an opportunity for discussion and possibly decision by the full Conference before the duty imposed by [Sec. 13106(b)] is considered discharged. I, therefore, request that this matter be put on the Discussion Calendar for the September 11, 2012 meeting.
I will, of course, be pleased to speak to your colleagues on the Executive Committee and you about this request.102 Judge Sentelle subsequently told me that the Executive Committee had decided to deny my request to add the matters concerning Justice Thomas to the agenda for the September 2012 Conference meeting. He also sent me a copy of an August 21, 2012 letter he had sent to Judge McKinley requesting the views of the Committee on the issues raised in my August 8, 2012 letter.103 I...
102 Letter from Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Hon. David Bryan Sentelle, Chair of the Exec. Comm. of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Aug. 8, 2012), included in Exhibit 3.
103 Letter from Hon. David Bryan Sentelle, Chair of the Exec.Comm. of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S., to Hon. Joseph H. McKinley, Chair of the Comm. on Fin. Disclosure (Aug. 21, 2012), included in Exhibit 3.
* * *
...had discussed those issues with Judge McKinley in February 2012, knew he had discussed them with Judge Hogan, and assumed he had discussed them with his colleagues on the Committee. Therefore, I assumed he would be prepared to discuss the issues fully at the September 11, 2012 Conference meeting.
As the Executive Committee did not grant my request to place matters relating to Justice Thomas on the agenda for that meeting, I exercised my right to move the Committee Report from the Consent Calendar to the Discussion Calendar in an August 29, 2012 letter to Judge Hogan.104 In addition, I reiterated and amplified the concerns I expressed in my August 8, 2012 letter to Judge Sentelle in an August 29, 2012 letter to Judge Sentelle.105
On September 8, 2012, I sent a memorandum to the members of the Judicial Conference.106 Attached to this memorandum, among other things, were my August 8, 2012 letter to Judge Sentelle, my...
104 Letter from Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Hon. Thomas F. Hogan, Sec'y of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Aug. 29, 2012), included in Exhibit 3.
105 Letter from Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Hon. David Bryan Sentelle, Chair of the Exec. Comm. of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Aug. 29, 2012), included in Exhibit 3.
106 Exhibit 3, Memorandum of Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Members of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S. (Sept. 8, 2012) (all attachments are public documents or written by me, and the non-public Judicial Conference documents attached to the original are omitted).
* * *
...August 29, 2012 letters to Judge Sentelle and Judge Hogan,107 and the November 18, 2011 letter to Chief Justice Roberts as Chair of the Judicial Conference, from 52 members of Congress. As described earlier, the November 18, 2011 letter referenced prior letters recounting Justice Thomas' failure to disclose his wife's employment for many years, including by the Heritage Foundation and Hillsdale College, after having disclosed her employment in prior reports.108 As also explained earlier, in that letter, the members of Congress asserted that the Judicial Conference was required to refer the matter to the Attorney General.109
I wrote in my memorandum that my concerns arose out of the manner in which the series of letters from many members of Congress and others concerning Justice Thomas, involving a statutory duty to refer a Justice or judge to the Attorney General if there was reasonable cause to believe that he or she had willfully falsified or failed to report information required to be included in his Financial Disclosure Reports, had evidently been decided by the Committee without any notice of the issues to members of the Conference. I noted that members of the Conference might not know,...
107 Letter from Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Hon. David Bryan Sentelle, supra n. 102, included in Exhibit 3; Letter from Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Hon. David Bryan Sentelle, supra n. 105, included in Exhibit 3.
108 Letter from Rep. Louise M. Slaughter et al. to Chief Justice John Roberts, supra n. 89, included in Exhibit 3.
109 Id.
* * *
...as I did not know until I became involved in this matter, of that duty. I expressed my view that "[b]ecause of the series of material omissions [in the Committee Reports], members of the Conference have been deprived of the opportunity to decide whether to exercise their right to have the matter [of whether a referral to the Attorney General was required] placed on the Conference agenda for discussion and possible decision by the full Conference."110
I acknowledged that the Executive Committee had solicited the views of the Committee on the issues raised in my August 8, 2012 letter to Judge Sentelle.111 As indicated earlier, I expected the Committee's views would be explained and discussed at the September 11, 2012 Conference meeting. I concluded my memorandum by saying that "I appreciate your consideration of this matter and will look forward to discussing it with you."112
The September 11, 2012 meeting of the Judicial Conference was not open to the public. Judge McKinley presented the Committee Report, which like the other three since the January 2011 letter from Common Cause made no reference to the information the Judicial Conference had been provided concerning Justice Thomas or the multiple requests that the Judicial Conference refer him to the..
110 Exhibit 3, Memorandum of Hon. Mark L. Wolf to Members of the Jud. Conf. of the U.S., supra n. 106.
111 Id.
112 Id.
* * *
Attorney General. I do not recall Judge McKinley mentioning matters concerning Justice Thomas in his oral remarks concerning the Report.
I then moved to disapprove the Committee Report and the motion was seconded. After I had spoken for a few minutes to explain my concerns in the hope of generating a discussion of what I believed - and still believe - were serious issues, the Chief Justice asked if I was finished. I said I was not, but would be soon. I concluded a few minutes later. The Chief Justice immediately called on Judge Sentelle, who moved to postpone consideration of my motion until the Committee reported back to the Conference on the issues I raised. Judge Sentelle's motion was seconded, promptly voted upon, and passed. That ended the opportunity to have any discussion of the issues I had raised at the September 2012 meeting, which, as at least Judge Sentelle and Judge Hogan knew, would be my last because my three-year term as a member of the Conference was ending.
* * *
(Continues with Part 2 of 3)
* * *
Original text here: https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/2023-05-17%20PM%20-%20Testimony%20-%20Wolf.pdf
Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee Chair Warren Issues Statement at Hearing on Strengthening Accountability at Fed
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy, issued the following statement at a hearing on May 17, 2023, entitled "Strengthening Accountability at the Federal Reserve: Lessons and Opportunities for Reform":* * *
The rapid collapse of three banks--Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank--was a shock. These three bank failures together put more assets at risk than the 25 bank failures in the 2008 crash.
Silicon Valley Bank's failure was another symptom in what has become ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Massachusetts, chair of the Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Subcommittee on Economic Policy, issued the following statement at a hearing on May 17, 2023, entitled "Strengthening Accountability at the Federal Reserve: Lessons and Opportunities for Reform": * * * The rapid collapse of three banks--Silicon Valley Bank, Signature Bank and First Republic Bank--was a shock. These three bank failures together put more assets at risk than the 25 bank failures in the 2008 crash. Silicon Valley Bank's failure was another symptom in what has becomea predictable string of failures in the governance of the Federal Reserve. SVB's collapse and the other bank failures it triggered forced the FDIC, the Treasury Department, and other regulators to rush to the rescue to avoid implosion of our banking system. So far, the FDIC Insurance Fund has suffered billions of dollars of losses, and, as a result of the bailouts, America's biggest too-big-to-fail bank got even bigger.
The failure of those banks was a first-order management disaster. Same old story: their executives took too much risk, got too greedy, and blew up their banks. Those executives need to be held accountable - and I'm working on bipartisan legislation to claw back money when executives take big bonuses for blowing up their banks.
But look deeper. The implosion of all three banks are rooted in the failure of those banks' regulators and supervisors - most notably, the Federal Reserve.
The Fed's own report on the SVB failure identified problems high and low, finding that as SVB got bigger and bigger, the Fed's Board of Governors, under the direct leadership of Jerome Powell, weakened banking regulations. This is exactly the kind of deregulatory shift I warned about in 2018 when I opposed Powell's nomination as Fed Chair and again in 2021 when I said that he was a dangerous man to keep at the Fed.
Notably, the Fed's report also laid blame at the feet of Congress for passing legislation to weaken bank rules - an agenda that Chair Powell eagerly embraced.
The Fed's report also found that bank examiners at the San Francisco Fed, which was SVB's regulator on the ground, followed orders from the Fed and backed off, allowing SVB's executives to pile on more and more risk. Now the San Francisco Fed and the Board of Governors are pointing fingers at each other, playing a pathetic game of "not it" while they each try to duck any accountability.
The Fed is independent within the government and needs to maintain that independence when it comes to doing its primary job of setting interest rates. Independence should not be conflated with a total lack of accountability when the Fed and its leadership make serious mistakes.
Unfortunately, the Fed has faced little accountability. In recent years, a growing list of scandals has tarnished the Fed's reputation and its credibility.
In 2021, high-level Fed officials were embroiled in a scandal involving stock and other financial trades made even as the Fed took extraordinary action to right the economy during the COVID pandemic. The Fed responded with a sham investigation by the Fed's own Inspector General--an official hired and fired by the Fed itself. This investigation failed to look into key aspects of the scandal. Even when the Fed IG found that there was improper trading in Chair Powell's accounts, it imposed no consequences.
And when Congress tried to get information from the Fed Board and from the regional Reserve Banks on the scope of this scandal and the response, we got the cold shoulder. The Fed simply refused to turn over key documents and information to Congress and stopped any outside investigation in its tracks.
That's not all. Reports have surfaced about Fed leadership giving secret speeches and sensitive information to bankers and bankers' wealthy clients. We learned that - unbelievably - the President of SVB sat on the Board of the San Francisco Fed up until the day the bank failed.
The culture of corruption at the Fed has already undermined the Fed's credibility with the American public.
The hearing today will discuss proposals that would make the Fed more transparent and accountable to help restore some of that credibility.
I've got an idea - a bipartisan idea that I'm introducing with Sen. Rick Scott today: get the big bankers off the Reserve Banks boards of directors.
And there's more. Senator Scott and I also introduced a bill, which was included in a separate bill with Sen. Tillis, to give the Fed a true, Senate-confirmed independent Inspector General to serve as an agency watchdog.
Mark Bee-all-ick, the current Fed IG, is here today. Mr. Bee-all-ick, I appreciate your joining us, because I know you have a busy schedule. And I want you to know that my concern about your current role is not personal. My concern is institutional. You were chosen by then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke in 2011, and you serve today at the discretion of Chair Powell and the Board. In other words, you are supposed to be the watchdog of exactly the people who hired you and who have the power to fire you. That dynamic tends to create watchdogs that don't bark.
At best, you are in an impossible, compromised position when it comes to investigating wrongdoing at the Fed. To restore confidence in the Fed, we need a strong, Senate-confirmed Inspector General to conduct rigorous, independent oversight.
I appreciate your joining us, and I look forward to discussing these and other matters today.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.banking.senate.gov/download/warren-statement-5-17-23
Rep. Kathy Castor Statement on Bipartisan Budget Agreement
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023:* * *
U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14) voted yes on a bipartisan budget agreement that, among many things, will raise the debt ceiling, protect critical initiatives millions of Americans rely on and avert a catastrophic default.
"Extremist Republicans in Congress never should have risked the American economy, jobs and retirement accounts to press their partisan budget that shields the wealthy and well-connected. Millionaires and corporations should pay their fair share to reduce the deficit rather ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Kathy Castor, D-Florida, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023: * * * U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor (FL-14) voted yes on a bipartisan budget agreement that, among many things, will raise the debt ceiling, protect critical initiatives millions of Americans rely on and avert a catastrophic default. "Extremist Republicans in Congress never should have risked the American economy, jobs and retirement accounts to press their partisan budget that shields the wealthy and well-connected. Millionaires and corporations should pay their fair share to reduce the deficit ratherthan target veterans, students and seniors for harsh cuts," said Rep. Castor.
"Thankfully, President Biden stood steadfast to protect Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and toxic-exposed veterans. Biden also protected historic investments in local communities in the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law and the cost-saving provisions in the Inflation Reduction Act.
"Fortunately, the reckless brinkmanship of extreme MAGA Republicans was rejected by a large bipartisan majority. Now, it's time to do the hard work together to lower costs, create good-paying jobs and build safer communities. It is time to put people over politics for a change."
* * *
Original text here: https://castor.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=404177
House Science, Space and Technology Committee Sets June 7 Hearing on Advancing American Leadership in Quantum Technology
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Committee issued the following information for a hearing entitled "Advancing American Leadership in Quantum Technology" at 10 a.m. on June 7, 2023, at 2318 Rayburn House Office Building:Opening Statements:
* Chairman Frank Lucas
Witnesses:
* The Honorable Mr. Paul Dabbar, Former Undersecretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy
* Dr. Eleanor G. Rieffel, Senior Researcher for Advanced Computing and Data Analytics, NASA/Ames Research Center
* Dr. Celia Merzbacher, Executive Director, Quantum Economic Development Consortium ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- The House Science, Space and Technology Committee issued the following information for a hearing entitled "Advancing American Leadership in Quantum Technology" at 10 a.m. on June 7, 2023, at 2318 Rayburn House Office Building: Opening Statements: * Chairman Frank Lucas Witnesses: * The Honorable Mr. Paul Dabbar, Former Undersecretary for Science, U.S. Department of Energy * Dr. Eleanor G. Rieffel, Senior Researcher for Advanced Computing and Data Analytics, NASA/Ames Research Center * Dr. Celia Merzbacher, Executive Director, Quantum Economic Development Consortium
* Dr. Emily Edwards, Executive Director, IQUIST, University of Illinois
* * *
Original text here: https://science.house.gov/2023/6/full-committee-hearing
House Majority Leader Scalise: It's Time to Restore Fiscal Responsibility In Washington
WASHINGTON, June 1 (Rep.) -- House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release on May 30, 2023:Leader Scalise highlighted the bill as an important step in House Republicans' efforts to restore fiscal sanity in Washington and reduce inflationary spending. Leader Scalise also highlighted how the Fiscal Responsibility Act creates greater accountability for unelected bureaucrats looking to push expensive regulations as Americans battle high prices triggered by the Biden Administration's inflation agenda.
On passing H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act:
"I share ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 (Rep.) -- House Majority Leader Steve Scalise, R-Louisiana, issued the following news release on May 30, 2023: Leader Scalise highlighted the bill as an important step in House Republicans' efforts to restore fiscal sanity in Washington and reduce inflationary spending. Leader Scalise also highlighted how the Fiscal Responsibility Act creates greater accountability for unelected bureaucrats looking to push expensive regulations as Americans battle high prices triggered by the Biden Administration's inflation agenda. On passing H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act: "I sharethe points you make and this is a really important first step. Just the fact that we're here in Washington, with [President] Biden as President, talking about how much money Washington is cutting in spending. That's the first time that's happened in over two years. Every single week of [President] Biden's presidency, under [Congresswoman] Pelosi as Speaker, they were talking about how much more to spend and they spent trillions more. Catastrophically.
"So what we finally did is started reversing that trend. And look, we've got to keep fighting for more cuts in the appropriations process, which starts in literally just a few weeks, so there's going to be additional abilities to go and get other things, but let's bank these wins. Let's get these cuts [and] get the reforms. You know, over a billion dollars in cuts to the [Internal Revenue Service] at a time they're going after not only small businesses, they're going after working families - families making under 100,000 [dollars] a year. We've been saying for a long time, 'We've got to reverse that trend,' and in this bill we do.
"The environmental reviews as you pointed out, [the National Environmental Policy Act], the things that environmentalists use to kill projects - not just energy projects, by the way, but any kind of road and bridge project - you want to build. If you want to build a development in America, they go and game multiple federal agencies. We finally put a shot-clock on federal agencies to get real projects done - including energy projects. Those are big wins, too.
"Work requirements - just getting additional work requirements in place - that's something we haven't seen in decades. So look: a lot more that we want to go fight for, but the first thing you do when you get victories is you bank them. You bank them, and then you go fight for the next one. And there are a lot of those kinds of victories in this bill."
On spending reforms:
"A lot of times what you see is, at the end of the fiscal year, September 30, you know there's always these big fights: will there be a government shutdown? And then they always drag it out until Christmas. For some reason, you got Democrats and Republicans that want to be here during Christmas instead of home with their families, but they usually caught a bad deal and they use Christmas as the excuse. And so by having this forced - in essence - sequester as you point out, You know starting January 1, if there's no agreement by October 1, Congress is going to have to grapple through this and ultimately come to an agreement on spending or else you get additional cuts, which I think a lot of us would applaud, but it forces everybody to the table with real cuts as a backstop."
On PAYGO:
"Well, what it says is [that] any administrative action has to be paid for. This is something we've been pushing for separately in a bill called the REINS Act. This isn't quite the REINS Act, but you've been familiar with that before and that basically says that, if a regulatory agency comes up with a rule or regulation that has an impact on the economy, then it has to come back to Congress first. This doesn't go that far, but at least it says that they would have to show how to pay for it if they're going to administer it.
"You see with the student loan debacle - where the President thinks he can just wave a wand and do something like waiving hundreds of billions of dollars worth of payments - again, we're fixing that we're making those payments come back. That's going to be 60 billion dollars in savings, just in the first year, by restarting those loans again, and I think the Supreme Court will take care of that, ultimately, when they finally make a ruling on the President's legality of whether he can waive student loan debt. I think we're going to win that in the courts but, in the meantime, it forces them to start making those payments again."
On how the Fiscal Responsibility Act delivers on promises to rein in out-of-control spending:
"Yeah and again Larry, point to the last time Congress actually passed a major deal on a debt ceiling that included real spending cuts Day One. You know, if you look at what you just showed - that chart [of] President Biden's proposed increases - that's what spending in Washington would look like if Republicans had not won the majority last November. That would have been [Congresswoman] Pelosi's spending bill. It would have started at a much higher level.
"Instead, we're going backward. We're cutting spending and getting spending under control. It's going to take a lot more. We're going to have an appropriations process that starts right after this, but you've got to start with the first step and that is to actually cut spending instead of increasing spending. People in this town aren't used to that. This bill finally does that."
On whether the bill will pass the House Rules Committee:
"I'm confident it'll come out of Rules Committee today, and then tomorrow we'll start the process of voting. We have got the previous question and rule tomorrow around 3:30 [P.M.] and then by 7: 30 [P.M.] we will have a full debate and vote on the package itself."
On the number of Republicans who will vote for the Fiscal Responsibility Act:
"Well you know, you saw the Wall Street Journal editorial today on why this is important for us to pass this bill and I think you're seeing - in a lot of different parts of our conference - you've got some for [H.R. 3746] and some against but ultimately, a lot of members are for this because they know you're finally banking some spending cuts. Let's go get more. I want a lot more, but I surely want to bank the first round of cuts and that's what you do by passing this bill, but also do it for the reforms. You know, real cuts to the IRS. Actually having a real shot-clock on federal agencies to get permits again so we can build things in America including energy projects. Getting the student loans paid again - starting those payments against 60 billion [dollars] in savings just right there. Reclaiming the unspent COVID money. 28 billion [dollars] right there. Those are all real savings that you only get if you pass this bill."
* * *
View video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzNOobis9Xk
* * *
Original text here: https://www.majorityleader.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1780
House Financial Services Committee Chair McHenry: Fiscal Responsibility Act Will Fundamentally Change Spending Trajectory in Washington
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, R-North Carolina, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023:* * *
The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), issued the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, a bipartisan agreement to cut spending, limit the expansion of the federal government, and grow the economy--while raising the debt ceiling.
"This is the most conservative spending package during my time in Congress and I was proud ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Patrick T. McHenry, R-North Carolina, chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023: * * * The Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Patrick McHenry (NC-10), issued the following statement after the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3746, the Fiscal Responsibility Act, a bipartisan agreement to cut spending, limit the expansion of the federal government, and grow the economy--while raising the debt ceiling. "This is the most conservative spending package during my time in Congress and I was proudto support it on the House floor," said Chairman McHenry. "The Fiscal Responsibility Act is the largest deficit-reduction bill in at least a decade and will fundamentally change the spending trajectory in Washington.
"For the first time in a debt-limit negotiation, the U.S. government will spend less money than it did the year before. We achieved historic spending cuts that will help bring down inflation, consequential reforms to help Americans get out of poverty and back into the workforce, claw backs of billions of dollars of COVID money, and transformational permitting reforms that cut red tape for energy and infrastructure projects. This bill will block the Administration from imposing new taxes during a time of economic uncertainty and rein in Biden's executive overreach through a statutory administrative pay-go rule. This agreement will also change the way Washington operates by compelling a workable appropriations process.
"Throughout this process, it has been Speaker McCarthy and House Republicans leading. We passed a plan, and it was that plan and the Speaker's leadership that enabled negotiations and this agreement."
Read the full text of the legislation here (https://financialservices.house.gov/uploadedfiles/fra_text.pdf).
Read a one-pager of key highlights here (https://financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Top10-ResourceDoc.pdf).
Read a section-by-section of the bill here (https://financialservices.house.gov/UploadedFiles/FRA_Section_by_Section.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://financialservices.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=408833
Congresswoman Escobar Votes to Pass Bipartisan Budget Agreement
WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023:* * *
Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) voted to pass the Bipartisan Budget Agreement which protects Americans' healthcare and retirements, rejects extreme cuts to vital programs, fully funds veteran medical care, and avoids a catastrophic default on our nation's debt.
"Today I voted to pass the Bipartisan Budget Agreement to put an end to the dangerous political games Republicans are playing with our economy and the livelihood of millions of American households.
"This bill is a compromise ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, June 1 -- Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, issued the following statement on May 31, 2023: * * * Congresswoman Veronica Escobar (TX-16) voted to pass the Bipartisan Budget Agreement which protects Americans' healthcare and retirements, rejects extreme cuts to vital programs, fully funds veteran medical care, and avoids a catastrophic default on our nation's debt. "Today I voted to pass the Bipartisan Budget Agreement to put an end to the dangerous political games Republicans are playing with our economy and the livelihood of millions of American households. "This bill is a compromisethat Democrats sought in place of the devastating H.R. 2811, the Default on America Act, that House Republicans passed last month to address the debt limit by cutting federal spending on Social Security, health care, housing, our veterans, student loans, and more, while adding punitive restrictions to Medicaid, SNAP and TANF. Today's Bipartisan Budget Agreement is a reflection of the realities of a divided government through which Republicans lay bare their cruel priorities for America - a refusal to close tax loopholes for the ultra-wealthy paid for on the backs of working families, a commitment to make Federal assistance programs like SNAP and TANF inaccessible to those who need them most, and an urgency to provide fossil fuel handouts to Big Oil while clawing back the hard-fought environmental protections Democrats have secured over the years.
"House Republicans manufactured a crisis and used the full faith and credit of the United States as a bargaining chip. These priorities and precedents are deeply troubling to me.
"Once again, it's Democrats saving our economy from House Republicans, who are falsely touting themselves as the heroes in this situation. You can't call yourself a firefighter when you started the blaze.
"I'm proud of the President's steadfast leadership in avoiding a Republican default, protecting critical benefits Americans have earned like Social Security and Medicaid, and safeguarding the historic investments of the Inflation Reduction Act and Bipartisan Infrastructure Law."
A section by section of the bill can be found here (https://escobar.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Section_by_Section_Bipartisan_Budget_Agreement.pdf).
* * *
Original text here: https://escobar.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=1264