as your primary source for campaign 2018, we brought you candidate debates in the most competitive races, only on c-span. over 160 races from across the country. voters have now decided on a new congress with new leaders. watch the process unfold on c-span. >> congress returns for a lame duck session next week, beginning tuesday, november 13th. the house will work on legislation funding the federal government past the december 7th deadline, when current government funding expires. and the senate will take up legislation on coast guard programs, also a nomination for the federal reserve board. see it live on c-span and c-span2. late last month, the senate

judiciary committee held a confirmation hearing to consider four of president trump's judicial nominees. because the senate was in recess ahead of the midterm elections, only two senators attended the hearing. >> good morning. this hearing will come to order. this morning we will receive testimony from two panels of judicial nominees, and welcome to the nominees and their families. first i will submit statements for the record from senator flake of introductions for the record from senators kyl and flake in support of judge bade. so, i didn't go right. there's going to be a statement from judge kyl and a statement from judge -- and from -- excuse me, from senator flake and from

senator kyl in support of judge bade. return those for the record. bridget bade, could ms. bade and mr. miller please come forward and take your seats? you will comprise our first panel. bridget bade received her ba in 1987 and her jd in 1990, both from arizona state university. after law school, judge bade clerked for judge edith jones of the fifth circuit court of appeals. after her clerkship, judge bade worked as a trial attorney for the civil division of the department of justice for four years. judge bade then went on to have a successful career in private practice before returning to public service in 2006 as an assistant u.s. attorney for the district of arizona. in 2012, she was appointed as a

magistrate judge for the district of arizona, where she still currently serves. judge bade is an experienced jurist who has issued over 14,000 orders, reports, and recommendations during her time as a magistrate. eric miller graduated from harvard university in 1996 and went on to attend law school at the university of chicago. he then spent two years as a clerk, first for judge silberman of the united states court of appeals, for the district of columbia, and next for justice thomas on the united states supreme court. after these clerkships, mr. miller served as the office of legal counsel in the department of justice before joining the appellate staff section of the civil division. mr. miller also spent time with the federal communications commission as the deputy general counsel, and then five years at

the department of justice as assistant to the solicitor general. most recently, mr. miller has been working as a partner at perk kins coe in seattle, washington. through all of these positions, he's argued more than 60 appeals, including 16 in the supreme court of the united states and over 30 in the federal courts of appeals. i welcome both of you and your families. at this point, i'd like to administer the oath, so would you please rise? please raise your rights hands. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? thank you. you may be seated. judge bade, we'll have you go first, and i welcome you and give you the chance to give the remarks you wish to give at this time and recognize your family and friends, if you wish to, those who are in attendance today. so, judge, you may proceed. >> thank you.

thank you, senator crapo, for chairing this hearing. i'd also like to thank chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein for scheduling the hearing and the judicial committee for considering my nomination. i thank president trump for nominating me to serve on the court of appeals for the ninth district. it is a great honor to be nominated to fill the seat that became available after now senior circuit judge barry silberman took senior status. he is a great jurist and friend, and he has served country honorably for many years. i also thank senators flake and kyl and the late senator mccain for their support of my nomination, and i thank the senators judicial selection committee for their work in evaluating judicial nominees. i do not have an opening statement, but i would like to introduce my family. first, my husband, tom bade. tom and i met in law school, and we have been married for 27

years. tom is a dedicated husband and father. he is a talented and respected tax attorney, and he is my greatest supporter and advocate, and it is the blessing of my life that i am married to him. i'd also like to introduce our two children, our son, matthew is a junior at the barrett honors college at arizona state university. he is a physics major with an english minor, and he enjoys writing science fiction. he's also an eagle scout. our daughter, madeleine, is a junior at chandler preparatory academy. she's an excellent student and enjoys singing in the school choir, and she has spent her last three summers working as a volunteer at a program for children with special needs. i'm very proud of matthew and madeleine for their accomplishments, but more importantly, i'm proud of them because they are kind and compassionate and they care about other people. my parents, marlon and mary shelton have been the most important influences in my life. they were children of the great depression and my father was a veteran of world war ii and the

korean conflict. together they raised a very large family and they made many sacrifices for all of their children, and they worked particularly hard to provide the opportunities for me to pursue an education. my parents are role models for integrity, hard work, and service to your country and community. my father passed away several years ago and my mom will be celebrating her 90th birthday in december, so she was not able to be here today, but i know she's watching from arizona. i'd also like to thank my father and mother-in-law, richard and patricia bade. they've been incredibly kind and supportive. they were not able to be here today, but i know they are watching as well from wisconsin. finally, i am joined by some dear friends here today, but in particular, i would like to thank patrick glen for being here. pat is the director of the environmental tort section in the civil division of the department of justice. he was my supervisor and mentor and friend when i was a trial attorney at the department of justice. he's faithfully represented the united states through a long and distinguished career, including

48 years at the department of justice, and he has trained and mentored many young trial attorneys, and i had the great, good fortune to be one of them. also, i know watching from arizona are my wonderful staff, judicial assistant ellen webber, law clerk susan stewart and courtroom deputy elaine leon, and they make my job possible, and i thank them for all that they have done for their friendship and support. thank you, senator, for your consideration of my nomination, and thank you also, senator hatch, and i look forward to answering your questions. >> thank you very much. and we not only welcome you and your family members present but those who are watching carefully. i'm sure they are all proud and have smiles on their face right now. mr. miller, you may proceed. >> good morning, and thank you very much, senator crapo, for chairing this hearing. it is an honor to appear before you today. i'd also like to thank the president for this nomination,

chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein for scheduling today's hearing and senators murray and cantwell, who represent my home state of washington. i am pleased to have many family members and friends and current and former colleagues from perkins cooey and the office of the solicitor general here with me today. i'll introduce just a few, starting with my wife, teal. teal and i met as classmates at the university of chicago law school. we've been married for 15 years. i consider our marriage to be the great blessing of my life, and i cannot adequately describe how grateful i am to her. teal is a fourth-generation washingtonian. she's a practicing attorney who has devoted her career to public service. she is currently an assistant united states attorney in the western district of washington. she is also the mother of our two children, motts, age 11, and greta, age 8. they are both kind-hearted, thoughtful people who love to learn, to laugh, to ask why, and

also why not. motts loves skiing and building things out of pretty much any object at hand. greta can always be found with a book or two and says that she likes everything about our family backpacking trips, except for the hiking. i should add at this point that both of my children have made very clear to me that in their view, i would be remiss if i did not mention that our family also includes a cat. the cat was not able to be present today. i'm also joined by my parents, dale and roberta miller. my father grew up on a dairy farm in colorado. my mother in the suburbs of chicago. when i was very young, they moved to san rafael, california, where i grew up and where they live today. by their example, they taught me the value of hard work, integrity, and a deep love for our country and its institutions. they made many sacrifices to give me the opportunities that i had, and i am very grateful for their love and their support. finally, i'd like to acknowledge

the honorable laurence silberman of the court of appeals for the d.c. circuit. i had a privilege of serving as a law clerk for judge silberman after graduating from law school. he taught me a great deal about the law and the judicial process and has remained a mentor and friend ever since. i am honored to have him here today. once again, thank you, senator crapo. i look forward to answering your questions. >> well, thank you very much, mr. miller. and we also welcome your family members who are here and/or watching, and the cat. is it watching? >> probably not, sir. >> judge bade, i'll start out with you. i just have a couple questions. an issue that has come up recently in a number of different contexts is a u.s. district court judge issuing a nationwide injunction. could you describe a circumstance or when you think it would be appropriate for a

district court judge to issue a nationwide injunction? >> senator, rule 65 is silent as to the scope of an injunction and whether it could be applied nationwide, and i do not believe the supreme court has yet spoken on that issue. i understand the competing views with respect to the issuance of such an injunction to have uniformity of the law on one hand, on the other hand to have the ability for matters to percolate through the courts and reach more recent decision when perhaps a conflict is presented to the supreme court. i believe that issue is in pending litigation or very likely to be in pending litigation, so i don't believe it'd be appropriate for me to say more on that issue. >> all right. thank you. just tell me, if you would briefly, what do you believe is the proper role of a judge? >> i believe that a judge must understand their role, and that means understanding that you are no longer an advocate. you no longer have a client or a cause or a preferred outcome.

instead, you are neutral. and that means you must impartially and fairly apply the law to the facts of the cases that are presented to you. a judge, of course, must also be respectful of the judicial process and everyone involved, including colleagues and staff, and of course, the litigants that appear before the court, and a judge must be del jeanette, be knowledgeable of the law, conscientious, and even-tempered. >> well, thank you. and you know, we get into this issue a lot because of concern about whether judges will just call the balls and strikes or whether they will try to influence the outcome of legislation. i understood you to say you were one who believes you should be calling the baullls and strikes >> judges are not legislators or policy advocates. judges are tasked with deciding the issues that are presented to them. >> thank you. and one last question. in terms of interpreting a statute, is it appropriate at times, and if so, when, to consider legislative history?

determining what the meaning of a statute is? >> well, again, that is, of course, an issue of great discussion and interest. and i do have some concerns and reservations with respect to legislative history, depending on the nature of that history and whether that history really could be viewed as an exlacation at the meaning of the statute. so, i believe the first thing a judge should do is look at the text of the statute and apply its meaning as commonly understood. >> all right, thank you. and mr. miller, my questions to you are going to primarily focus on tribal issues. idaho has a number of tribes, and a number of them have contacted me with some concern. as i'm sure you are aware, there has been concern raised about what your approach to tribal sovereignty and tribal rights

is. could you just generally discuss that? i could tell you -- in fact, i think i should tell you. a number of cases have been brought to our attention, like the united states v. washington, upper skagit indian tribe versus land again, lewis v. clark and a number of others. and i think you know what the issues are, correct? >> yes, sir, senator. >> could you discuss with me the issues raised in your perspective on them? the point is there is a belief that you don't have the appropriate view of tribal sovereignty. >> yes, senator. so, the cases that have been mentioned do not include one very significant case that i handled in this area, and that is the band of pottowamie indians that i argued as assistant to the solicitor general in the supreme court of the united states on behalf of the government in a case where the government was defending trust-titled tribal land. so we were aligned with the tribe in that case and defending its interest in land when i left

the government, i joined perkins cooey, which is the largest law firm in the state of washington. at that firm, my role is to be an appellate lawyer. i'm now chair of the appellate practice. so, when the firm's clients have appellate litigation, i am one of the people who sometimes is brought in to help with that. before i joined the firm, perkins cooey had a very strong practice in the area of native american law, so there have been a number of matters that i've handled, including the cases that you mentioned on behalf of firm clients. though the firm's clients have tended to be adverse to tribes in litigation. but in any of those cases, whether in government on the side of tribes or in private practice on a number of cases opposed to tribes, my role has been that of as advocate, not to advance my own views, but to advance the clients' views and to do the most that i can within the bounds of the law to zealously achieve the client's

interests, and that's what i've done on behalf of the clients, not on behalf of my own personal views. i understand were i to become a judge, my job would be not to advocate for either side but to neutrally apply the law, and in particular, to apply the principles that tribes are independent sovereigns, that treaties with tribes must be respected and must be understood as the tribes would have understood them, and those were principles that were sadly not always honored throughout our history, but they're important principles that the supreme court has emphasized and that i would apply if i were to become a judge. >> thank you. and if senator hatch will let me ask one more question before i turn to him. i have one quick follow-up there. you know, many times when an attorney comes before us to be -- as a nominee to become a judge, they are taken to task for cases that they have litigated. and the answer is always given

that i was an advocate for a client rather than advocating my perform points of view, which is i think an honest and appropriate answer. that being said, i would like to ask you to say, if you were leaving aside your role as a litigator, and you've already done this little bit, but i'd just like you to elaborate briefly, if you can, or if you'd like to. with regard to what are your feelings about the sovereignty of tribes and the importance of honoring the treaties that our nation has with various tribes across the country? >> senator, those -- it's a foundational principle of indian law that tribes have an independent sovereignty that preexists the constitution. it's not derived from that of the united states or of the states. they are separate and independent sovereigns, and that when the united states signed treaties with them as an agreement between one sovereign and another, those treaties have to be honored and indeed have to be interpreted as the tribes

would have understood them. so, those are fundamental principles that i agree with and accept and would apply. >> all right. thank you. senator hatch? >> well, i want to compliment both of you. i think you're excellent choices. i commend the president for picking you. i support you fully, and we're going to do everything we can to get you through before the end of this year. so, thanks so much. it's great to have good people like you willing to serve in the court system. so, thank you for your willingness. >> thank you, senator hatch. >> mr. chairman. >> and i want to share senator hatch's comments before i excuse this panel. these days, when people are willing to step up to virtually any position of service in our government, whether it be the judiciary or for an agency or in some other capacity, there is a significant amount of -- that

they are giving from their own personal lives and that their families have to deal with because of this kind of public service. and there's also these days a lot of pushback and a lot of turmoil. i appreciate you being willing to accept these nominations and to step up and to be willing to let yourself be put before a panel like this and before the country as a nominee to very critical positions in our nation. and i also join with senator hatch's comments that i support you in your efforts to help make america stronger and help to make sure that our judiciary is fair and treats all people equally. and with that, i don't have any further questions. >> i don't either. i'm just happy to see good people like you nominated. so, we appreciate your willingness to serve. >> well, thank you. and we will excuse this panel. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> i will next call up our

second panel, karin immergut, nominated to be the united states district judge for the district of oregon, and richard hertling to be a judge of the united states court of federal claims. senator hatch would like to introduce mr. hertling, but why don't i do the swearing-in first, and then you can do your introduction? so, if you would please stand and raise your right hands. do you affirm that the testimony you are about to give before the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you god? >> i do. >> i do. >> thank you. please take your seats. and senator hatch, you may proceed. >> well, thank you. mr. chairman and colleagues, it's a real pleasure for me to be here today to introduce richard hertling, the president's nominee to the court of federal claims to this committee. of course, as a longtime former staff member to four of our colleagues and a former counsel

on this committee, richard needs very little introduction to the judiciary committee. he attended brown university and the university of chicago law school. after clerking for a judge on the fifth circuit, he was hired through the attorney general's honor program as a trial attorney in the civil division of the justice department where he served for more than three years before coming up here to the senate. i first got to know richard when he joined the judiciary committee staff of our former colleague, arlen specter, at the beginning of 1990, almost 29 years ago. before i met richard, i knew and really was friends with his father. richard's father, julius, was a member of the greatest generation himself, the son of an immigrant who arrived in our country alone at age 14. julius enlisted in the army at age 17 and fought in europe, where he was wounded twice and helped to relieve the besieged

town of bastone during the battle of the bulge. julius died last year just before his 92nd birthday. he was one of my heroes and a great man. having known the father, i had high expectations for the son, and i certainly have not been disappointed. for many years, my staff and i worked closely with richard as he served senator specter, senator fred thompson, senator peter fitzgerald, and our current colleague, senator lamar alexander. my staff continued to work with richard when he was at the justice department and on the staff of the house judiciary committ committee. most recently in private practice, richard worked with my staff to enact the defend trade secrets act, a bill on which i was the lead senate sponsor. through the years, i have known richard. i have found him to be smart,

honest, honorable, and with a fine temperament. he's always exhibited good judgment and insight. he has all of the qualities we look for in a judge, and i have no doubt that he will make an excellent one. i've had several former staff members pointed to the court of federal claims. i appreciate how important that court is in holding our government accountable to the people for its actions. the court has 11 vacationies among its 16 judgeships. i hope we can move richard through expeditiously and affirm him promptly. i am confident he will be an outstanding addition to that court, and i'm just very proud of you, richard, and wish you the very best as you proceed. through this process. i'll be supporting you. >> thank you, senator hatch, and i will introduce judge immergut. i got the pronunciation right, right? judge karin immergut graduated from amherst college in 1982 and

the university of california bolthall school of law in 1987. after law school, judge immergut briefly worked in a private practice before joining the united states attorneys' office for the central district of california as an assistant u.s. attorney. since then, the majority of her career has been dedicated to public service. she held various positions in the united states attorneys' office, including deputy chief of the narcotics section and chief of the training section. in 2009, judge immergut was appointed to be a circuit court judge in multnomah county, a position she still holds. congratulations to both of you on the high honor of being nominated. and with that, judge immergut, you'll be first. would you like to proceed? and of course, you can introduce anyone you want, friends and family, if you'd like. >> thank you. thank you, senator -- >> push that button on the machine in front of you. >> thank you, senator crapo, for

chairing this committee, and senator hatch for being here as well. and i do appreciate the committee considering my nomination. i'd also like to thank chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein for convening this hearing. i'd also like to thank the president for nominating me to this position and senators ron wyden and jeff merkley, along with congressman greg walden from oregon for convening a bipartisan selection committee and thank that committee for its tremendous work in screening applicants for this position and making recommendations to the white house. i'd also like to thank former oregon governor ted goligoski who appointed me to the state court bench nine years ago and also former president george w. bush, who appointed me to serve as oregon's u.s. attorney, actually, in 2003, a position that i held for six years. before i went on to the bench. both of those jobs have prepared me well for the federal bench. i'd like to introduce some of my family members who are here

today and just mention some of those who could not be here. first, my husband, jim mcdermott, who i believe is seated behind me, has always supported me and had confidence in me and my career. he's a fantastic trial trial lan his own right and now a first-time novelist. he is my biggest cheerleader and the love of my life, and i'm happy that he can be here. i also have my two daughters here, jessica and elsa, and they are also seated behind me. both of my daughters inspire me every day to be a better person. jessica is now a sophomore at dartmouth college where she's thinking of majoring in neuroscience and government, and elsa is in eighth grade and she is a committed student and friend and an awesome volleyball player. and although i am very proud of their various accomplishments, what makes me most proud is that they are growing up to be kind and giving people. i want to also mention some of

my family who are not here. my sisters, ellen and eva, are watching over the internet. they both live in europe along with their families, and my in-laws, don and alice pierce who have always showed me support. unfortunately, the people who could not be here who had the most influence in my life, my parents, have both passed away. they were immigrants as adults. my mother grew up in sweden and austria before coming to the states. my dad got his phd in polymer chemistry. he died at the age of 90 just five days after my nomination. my parents taught me to be honest, work hard and treat others with dignity and respect. during my almost 20 years as a

state and federal prosecutor, i learned to try complex cases and also learned the importance of being measured and thoughtful and always having justice as my goal. during the past nine years as a state court judge, i've learned to manage large caseloads in the state court, but more importantly, i've become keenly aware that judges and our staff are the face of our judicial system. and how we treat people has a tremendous impact on how the public or the public's confidence in our democracy and the rule of law. every day i work hard to learn the law and the facts in my cases, to listen to the litigants, to keep an open mind and to treat people fairly and with dignity. and if i'm confirmed to the senate, i commit to following those values every day. so thank you so much and i look forward to your questions. >> thank you, judge.

mr. hurdling. >> thank you, mr. chairman. sitting in this room is a homecoming for me. i spent many hours over many years in this hearing room, but i have to admit it was more comfortable sitting on the staff bench behind you than it is sitting here at the witness table. i would like to start by thanking chairman grassley and ranking member feinstein and their staff, especially mike davis, the chief nomination council, and a friend for nominating me. i would like to thank senator crapo for overseeing this hearing. i am especially grateful to chairman hatch, a long-time friend of my father's, as he noted, and with someone whose staff i worked closely over many years for taking time from his schedule to introduce me today. i would note that i think

personally the -- i know we're not supposed to express personal opinions, but i would express a personal opinion that the senate will be far poorer as an institution after senator hatch retires at the end of his congress. no one gets to this stage of a career without many people to thank, and there are far too many to single out. more than a handful. but i would like to note with particular thanks the role of my four senate bosses played in my senate career. special thanks to senator arlen specter who gave me my first opportunity to work in the senate, staffing on his committee for seven years. i also want to thank the late senator fred thompson, former senator peter fitzgerald and your current colleague senator alexander for their conference in turn for hiring me as well. i would also like to thank representative lamar smith for whom i worked when he was ranking member and chairman of the house judiciary committee

helping him run the judiciary committee in the other body. i am sorry that the judge for whom i clerked, henry potie in the fourth circuit, is no longer alive. he passed away in 2002 of pancreatic cancer. he was aymen to mentor to me an his former clerks. here in the senate, in the almost 14 years i worked here at the house and covington and burlen for their support over the years. many of them are here and i am grateful for their presence. finally, i would like to thank my family for their love and support. my father who is watching in new york on c-span, and my father,

who was mentioned in my kind introduction, and he passed away last year just before his 92nd birthday. i would also like to note my brother overseas in london. f finally i need to recognize my partner and wife of almost 25 years, tracy webb, who is here with me. i would not be seeking public service today without tracy's support. i owe far more than i can ever give back to her and i'm grateful for her presence. with that, i welcome your questions. thank you. >> thank you very much, mr. hurdling. i'll start with you, judge immergut. same question i'll probably ask both of you and you can get ready, mr. hurdling, and that is the question i asked earlier. what is the appropriate role of a judge? >> i thought that question was

answered well. i know it has been compared to calling the balls and strikes. i think that is an appropriate analogy. a judge is not to create the law but rather to apply the law as it is written, so that means applying precedent from the superior courts. for me, of course, it would be the u.s. supreme court, the ninth circuit, and then applying the text as written. >> thank you very much. and also, i guess, another similar question, and that is in terms of interpreting a statute, when, if ever, is it appropriate to take into account the legislative history? >> legislative history is sometimes used as a secondary vehicle, if you will, for statutory interpretation. obviously there are a lot of difficulties with relying on legislative history because it's unclear whether it represents a particular person's view, and if those views are not necessarily explicit in the text, it's hard to know what to make of it.

so under oregon law, that is the third tier that we look at, so it depends a little bit on the law of the jurisdiction, but i think it is problematic and it's only when it is very clear on a particular point that one might consider it, it seems to me. >> and if the language of the statute is clear, we don't need to question it. >> that's correct. >> i also asked this previously and i want to ask it of you, about a nationwide junction. at the district court level where you would sit, that's where they have them often. and i got to tell you, i've been happy about some and not happy about some that i've seen. but the question is intriguing to me. and i would just -- i know that it's in litigation, and the ultimate answer isn't out there. i would just like you, if you have any thoughts or comments

about it, i would love to hear what they are. >> certainly federal district courts are courts of limited jurisdiction, and ordinarily we make determinations or make rulings based on the parties and litigants who are before us in our districts. i know nationwide injunctions are now a subject of some controversy, and i think there is -- there is pending litigation about what the legal authority for nationwide injunctions is, so i can't comment on that specifically. obviously, i'm going to follow the law, but i do recognize the pros and cons that have been debated on nationwide injunctions, both that they might provide for malformality issue and uniformity, but the judge is deciding issues for the country and their parties before them in their individual district. i don't think i can render an opinion, but i'm aware of the competing issues. >> thank you.

and mr. hurtling, before i ask you the same type of question, you've had a tremendous record in both the legislative and executive branch of governments. now you're looking at the judiciary, which, as i see it, is distinctly different in the sense that it is there that you do not advocate for a position. so would you answer the question i asked about what is the proper role of a judge? >> happily, senator. i think judge beatty and judge immergut have answered that well. i think the role of a judge, particularly a trial judge to which -- trial court to which i've been nominated is to decide actual disputes for the litigants before them that satisfy the constitutional prerequisites for maintaining a suit in federal court. as judge immergut noted, federal

courts are courts of limited jurisdiction and particularly the court of federal claims which has discreet jurisdiction has confirmed by congress. trial judges are to find the facts in particular to validate the defendant's credibility and to hand down to the court of appeals or apply the statutory law as created by congress or the rules implemented in the statutes. judges should treat witnesses fairly and show no favoritism to them, and they should decide promptly because the litigant may have personal stakes, financial stakes, pending, and time is money for people and judges should be cognizant of that. >> thank you very much. my time has run out, but i do want to tell you i appreciate your adding in the notion of promptness in issuing rulings. i think that's something that we often kind of overlook up here

as we evaluate these issues. senator hatch? >> thank you. i just want you to know that i tried cases in front of two very curmudgeon-like judges, the judge in pennsylvania and judge ritter out there in utah. i did very well in front of both of them, but all i can say is that i'm really pleased to see the quality of you judges, you judgeship nominees that this president has brought forth. because your role is not to interfere with the cases or to inject yourselves into these cases except under certain circumstances, but to really preside over having a fair and decent set of trials and procedures before you. so i have every confidence in the two of you. i'm proud of both of you and support both of you, and i hope we can get you through before the end of this year. thanks, mr. chairman. >> thank you, senator hatch, and

i again join with senator hatch in those sentiments. the judiciary is one of the three equal branches of our government. it is so critical, and we badly need to adequately staff it and to move forward with the backlog that we have here in terms of making sure that we fill the necessary seats around this country. and i again thank you for being willing to step forward and be in public service and serve in these critically important positions. i also want to say something about senator hatch. your kind comments, mr. hertling, i want to mirror. the senate will truly miss senator hatch at the end of this congress when we move to a new congress as he retires. he's been a great friend of mine even before i got elected to the senate and throughout the senate has been aymen to mentor, frien

supporter in every way. you just prompted me to say, mr. hertling, to publicly say. i've said it to senator hatch but i want to say it to the entire world. what a great senator we have sitting here. with that we are concluded with your testimony as well, and you may be excused. i will simply make the announcement -- and you should all hear this. all of the candidates today, or the nominees today, that are record of committee will stay open for one week, so you should expect to get some questions from senators who were not able to be here, or maybe even from senator hatch or myself if we decide to ask you another couple of questions. and so the record will stay open for one week. that's mostly a notice to our colleagues, but you should expect to receive those questions and we ask you to respond to them promptly when you do. with that, this hearing is adjourned.

tonight on c-span3, american history in tv prime time looks at african-americans in world war i. historians reflect on the discrimination black people held during the war and the racial violence that existed on the home front. this is the study of african-american life and history. american history tv is tonight on c-span3 starting at 8:00 eastern.

i thought about forgotten presidents even before i began the book, and then it occurred to me there might be something all these presidents had in common. that they were forgotten but also probably significant in some way. >> this week on q & a, constitutional law professor michael gerhart talks about two books, "the forgotten presidents" and "impeachment." >> i think bill clinton did a lot to merit his own impeachment. i think that he knew members of congress were looking for him to make mistakes, and when he made those mistakes and later testified under oath in a way that was false and for which he was later held in contempt by a judge for perjury, bill clinton made his impeachment almost inevitable. >> sunday night at 8:00 eastern on c-span's q & a. the council on american

islamic relations