U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

94–083 PDF 2004

S. HRG. 108–492

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION

OF CLAUDE A. ALLEN, OF VIRGINIA, TO BE

CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT;

AND MARK R. FILIP, OF ILLINOIS, TO BE

DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

UNITED STATES SENATE

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 28, 2003

Serial No. J–108–48

Printed for the use of the Committee on the Judiciary

(

(II)

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY 

ORRIN G. HATCH, Utah, Chairman 

CHARLES E. GRASSLEY, Iowa 

ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania 

JON KYL, Arizona 

MIKE DEWINE, Ohio 

JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama 

LINDSEY O. GRAHAM, South Carolina 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia 

JOHN CORNYN, Texas 

PATRICK J. LEAHY, Vermont 

EDWARD M. KENNEDY, Massachusetts 

JOSEPH R. BIDEN, JR., Delaware 

HERBERT KOHL, Wisconsin 

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California 

RUSSELL D. FEINGOLD, Wisconsin 

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York 

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

JOHN EDWARDS, North Carolina 

BRUCE ARTIM, Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

BRUCE A. COHEN, Democratic Chief Counsel and Staff Director 

(III)

C O N T E N T S 

STATEMENTS OF COMMITTEE MEMBERS 

Page

Cornyn, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Texas ............................... 1

Craig, Hon. Larry E., a U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho ............................ 67

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois, prepared 

statement and attachment .................................................................................. 143

Hatch, Hon. Orrin G., a U.S. Senator from the State of Utah ............................ 156

Leahy, Hon. Patrick J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Vermont .................... 2

prepared statement .......................................................................................... 166

Sessions, Hon. Jeff, a U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama .......................... 62

PRESENTERS 

Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting 

Claude A. Allen, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ............ 12

Durbin, Hon. Richard J., a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois presenting 

Mark R. Filip, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 15

Fitzgerald, Hon. Peter, a U.S. Senator from the State of Illinois presenting 

Mark R. Filip, Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District 

of Illinois ............................................................................................................... 14

Warner, Hon. John, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia presenting 

Claude A. Allen, Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit ............ 10

WITNESSES 

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara, a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................ 8

Sarbanes, Hon. Paul S., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland ................. 5

STATEMENTS OF THE NOMINEES 

Allen, Claude A., Nominee to be Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit .............. 52

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 70

Filip, Mark R., Nominee to be District Judge for the Northern District of 

Illinois ................................................................................................................... 17

Questionnaire .................................................................................................... 18

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS 

Responses of Claude A. Allen to questions submitted by Senators Durbin, 

Kennedy, and Leahy ............................................................................................ 99

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD 

Allen, Hon. George, a U.S. Senator from the State of Virginia, prepared 

statement .............................................................................................................. 131

Baltimore Sun, October 28, 2003, article ............................................................... 136

Beales, Randolph A., Former Attorney General of Virginia, Christian Barton, 

LLP, Attorneys at Law, Richmond, Virginia, letter .......................................... 137

Black Women’s Bar Association of Suburban Maryland, Dolores Dorsainvil, 

Esq., President, Silver Spring, Maryland, letter ............................................... 139

Cullen, Richard, McGuire Woods LLP, Richmond, Virginia, letter ..................... 140

Doliver, Marenann, Gilbert, Arizona, letter .......................................................... 142

Finn, Michele P., Fisherville, Kentucky, letter and attachment ......................... 149

Page

IV

Gillis, Paul C., former State President, Virginia State Conference NAACP, 

Hampton, VA, letter ............................................................................................. 155

Kemp, John D., Esq., Washington, D.C., letter ..................................................... 157

Lawyers and professors of law in States within the jurisdiction of the Fourth 

Circuit, joint letter ............................................................................................... 159

Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, Wade J. Henderson, Executive Director, and Nancy Zirkin Deputy Director, Washington, D.C., letter ................... 163

McCallie, Thomas H., III, Maclellan Foundation, Inc., Chattanooga, Tennessee, letter ......................................................................................................... 171

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., a U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland, 

letter and news release ........................................................................................ 172

Mikulski, Hon. Barbara A., and Hon. Paul S. Sarbanes, U.S. Senators from 

the State of Maryland, joint letter and attachments ........................................ 176

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Washington, 

D.C., resolution ..................................................................................................... 182

National Bar Association, Clyde E. Bailey, Sr., President, Rochester, New 

York, letter ............................................................................................................ 185

National Council of Jewish Women, Marsha Atkind, National President, 

Washington, D.C., letter ...................................................................................... 187

North Carolina National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 

Melvin Skip Alston, President, Greensboro, North Carolina, letter ................ 189

Organizations concerned with public health and welfare, joint letter ................ 192

People for the American Way, Ralph G. Neas, President, Washington, D.C., 

letter ...................................................................................................................... 196

Tetreault, Mary Ann, Newport Vermont, letter .................................................... 199

Women’s, civil, and human rights groups, joint letter ......................................... 200

(1)

CONFIRMATION HEARING ON THE NOMINATION OF CLAUDE A. ALLEN, OF VIRGINIA, 

TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH 

CIRCUIT; AND MARK R. FILIP, OF ILLINOIS, 

TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

TUESDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2003 

UNITED STATES SENATE, 

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARY, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:43 a.m., in room 

SR–325, Russell Senate Office Building, Hon. Orrin G. Hatch, 

Chairman of the Committee, presiding. 

Present: Senators Hatch, Sessions, Craig, Cornyn, Leahy, Kennedy, Feingold, and Durbin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN CORNYN, A U.S. 

SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Senator CORNYN. This hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee will now come to order. Senator Hatch, the Chairman of the 

Committee, will be here shortly, but has asked me to convene the 

hearing until he is able to arrive here. And, of course, I will make 

a short statement and then turn the floor over to Senator Leahy, 

the ranking member, before we then go to our two distinguished 

colleagues from the State of Maryland. 

Today the Committee has the privilege of considering the nominations of two outstanding lawyers for the Federal bench. Claude 

Allen is the nominee for the U.S. Circuit Judge for the Fourth Circuit, and Mark R. Filip is nominee for the Northern District of Illinois. I commend President Bush for nominating each of these 

nominees and look forward to hearing their testimony. 

Now, just so everyone is aware, the Senate is scheduled to take 

a vote at 10:30. Accordingly, we will have to take a short break in 

the hearing at that time, and we will resume immediately following 

that vote. 

The first nominee from whom we will hear is Claude Allen, who 

currently serves as Deputy Secretary at the U.S. Department of 

Health and Human Services. As you know, the Fourth Circuit covers the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Maryland, and West Virginia. Virginia’s two distinguished Senators, 

Senator Warner and Senator Allen, will be here with us shortly to 

introduce Secretary Allen, a fellow Virginian. Also here before us 

2

today are the two distinguished Senators from Maryland, Senator 

Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski. 

Let me explain briefly why I believe we are here in this posture 

and why we are proceeding in this manner with this hearing. 

On April 23, 2003, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales wrote 

to the Senators from Virginia, North Carolina, and Maryland about 

the status of the then four vacancies on the Fourth Circuit. He 

noted that while geographic balance is not established in the law 

or binding on the President or Senate, a State’s percentage of overall population in a circuit or the percentage of a circuit’s caseload 

arising from a State within a circuit is generally a rough baseline 

for assessing the geographic allocation of seats within a circuit. 

Based on these rough baseline criteria, Judge Gonzales explained 

that, as of the date of his letter, of the 15 authorized seats on the 

Fourth Circuit, the rough baseline criteria would allocate North 

Carolina four or five judges, when it, in fact, had zero judges; Virginia had three judges when it ought to have had four or five; and 

Maryland had two judges, roughly in line with its allocation of two 

or three. 

Judge Gonzales’ letter went on to say that President Bush intended to nominate two judges to the Fourth Circuit, one each from 

the two States that remain underrepresented—North Carolina and 

Virginia. I am happy to report that the Senate confirmed one of 

these nominees, Judge Allyson Duncan from North Carolina, so 

that North Carolina’s Fourth Circuit now stands at three, not four. 

President Bush nominated Secretary Allen to this Fourth Circuit 

judgeship on April 28, 2003, and Secretary Allen, when confirmed, 

will properly increase Virginia’s representation to four on the 

Fourth Circuit, in line with its percentage of population and caseload within the circuit. 

So while the concerns of my colleagues from Maryland are honest 

and no doubt will be clearly articulated here today, the President 

did not act, in my opinion, improperly in nominating Secretary 

Allen. I think it would be inappropriate to hold up Secretary Allen’s nomination any further, especially given that he has the full 

support of his home State Senators, our colleagues from Virginia. 

I expect we will hear more about Secretary Allen’s qualifications 

from his two home State Senators, so I will not go into any more 

detail at this time about his experience in both State and Federal 

Government and his excellent academic credentials. 

At this time I would like to turn the floor over to the ranking 

member, Senator Leahy, for any statement he would care to make. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PATRICK J. LEAHY, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF VERMONT 

Senator LEAHY. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am not used to having hearings in this room. I do appreciate 

the convenience insofar as my office is just a few feet from here. 

For over 200 years, advice and consent has helped to temper partisan politics in the judicial nomination process. It has protected 

the courts and the American people from single-party domination, 

and it has helped ensure that those who become Federal judges are 

fair judges who reflect mainstream legal thought. The result has 

3

been a Federal bench that has served us extraordinarily well over 

the course of our Republic. 

I am concerned that the history of the 108th Congress is a history of changed practices and broken rules. During the past 9 

months, we have seen the systemic and systematic dismantling of 

the rules that have been followed by both Democratic and Republican majorities to protect us all. I am afraid my friends on the 

other side of the aisle are rushing to confirm ideological nominees 

that do not reflect the mainstream values of the American people. 

To do this, they have had to discard many of the protections that 

have historically helped to ensure a fair judiciary. 

The Chairman has changed, for example, the blue slip policy so 

that even a negative blue slip from home State Senators is not 

enough to stop a nominee. The rule used to be, of course, that no 

judge would move out of this Committee if the Chair knew that the 

nomination was opposed by both home State Senators. And when 

this rule was used to block President Clinton’s nominees, it was followed very stringently by the Republicans. It was always, always 

respected if the home State Senators said they did not want one 

of President Clinton’s nominees. 

Indeed, it was extended even so that if a single Republican Senator from a circuit, not even from the State of the Senator, objected, it was sufficient to make sure there was no hearing and no 

vote. 

Now, this was the tradition followed for 6 years by my friends 

on the other side of the aisle during the Clinton administration. In 

fact, it was used so that they blocked 60 of President Clinton’s 

nominees, blocked them if even one Republican Senator objected. 

Now, of course, that was dropped immediately when President 

Bush took office. So I worry that the rules have been changed, and 

I am concerned that we are not following the practice which has 

served this country very well. 

Today, we are dismantling another critical part of the judicial 

nomination process, and that is having a hearing on Claude Allen 

of Virginia. Virginia is currently represented by two Republican 

Senators, both of whom support this nominee. I should say at the 

beginning both of whom are close friends of mine, and both are 

Senators I respect greatly. I refer to them as my Senators away 

from home during those few days of the week that I live in Northern Virginia when we are in session. I respect their views. When 

I was Chairman of this Committee, I worked with them to expedite 

and actually move their recommended nominees quickly, sometimes ahead of others. Roger Gregory was confirmed to the U.S. 

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, Henry Hudson was confirmed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, and Timothy Stanceau to the Court of International Trade, 

all supported by Senator Warner and Senator Allen. And this year 

we cooperated in filling a second vacancy in the district courts of 

Virginia with the confirmation of Glen Conrad to the Western District. So we have worked very hard to make sure there are no current vacancies at all on the Federal courts in Virginia—none—even 

though when there had been nominees of President Clinton’s held 

up for some of those vacancies. 

4

We worked well to fill vacancies all over the Fourth Circuit, not 

just in Virginia. Of the five circuit court nominees President Bush 

has sent to the Senate, three have been confirmed to date: Roger 

Gregory, Dennis Shedd from South Carolina, and Allyson Duncan 

from North Carolina. Now, I mention those three because when 

President Clinton nominated three African-Americans for that 

same circuit, because one Republican Senator objected they were 

never given a hearing. Two, Judge James Beaty and Judge James 

Wynn, were never even given a hearing. The third, Judge Andre 

Davis, a Marylander, was given the same treatment. And I was 

proud that we did a lot better for the Fourth Circuit when I was 

Chairman. 

Now, working with this administration has not been so simple 

for the Maryland Senators. Senator Sarbanes and Senator Mikulski 

are two of the most respected members of the Senate. They are 

known nationally for their hard work and the enormous respect not 

only the people of Maryland have for them but around the country. 

The seat for which Mr. Allen has been nominated is a Maryland 

seat. All the history shows that. It was last held by Judge Francis 

Murnaghan of Baltimore. He was a brilliant and compassionate jurist, and I will leave it to my colleagues from Maryland to say more 

about them. 

Now, in the year 2000, President Clinton nominated another 

Marylander, Andre Davis, an African-American district court judge 

from Baltimore, to fill Judge Murnaghan’s seat. The Republicans, 

because apparently one Republican somewhere, not even from 

Maryland, objected, they did not act on the nomination. Actually, 

they claimed the Fourth Circuit did not need any more judges, 

even though there were five vacancies on the 15-judge circuit. Of 

course, as soon as President Bush was elected, they suddenly decided they needed those five judges. 

Now, the White House did originally recognize that Judge 

Murnaghan’s seat was rightfully a Maryland seat. After the name 

of a non–Marylander was floated and rejected by the Maryland 

Senators, they then decided, well, let’s switch it and do it—I believe they nominated somebody that wasn’t even a member of the 

bar in Mary, and they switched it to a Virginia seat. So now we 

have a Virginian who works in D.C., who used to be a member of 

the staff of a Republican Senator from North Carolina, being nominated to fill a circuit seat from Maryland. 

I think he could not be more different than the predecessor. 

Claude Allen is a conservative political operative with little litigation experience. He has practiced law for a total of six and one-half 

years. That is a lot less than the 12 years recommended as an absolute minimum by the American Bar Association. In fact, he is 

among the more than two dozen judicial nominees from this administration with ‘‘not qualified’’ or partially ‘‘not qualified’’ ratings. 

I have more I will say about him later which I will put in the 

record, but when you look at the record of people nominated by 

both Republican and Democratic Presidents for this seat, they have 

been among the most outstanding people. But to have somebody 

who has had virtually no litigation experience, virtually not experience practicing law, to a court one step below the U.S. Supreme 

5

Court to fill a Maryland seat and somebody who has absolutely no 

connection with Maryland I think is a bridge too far. 

I will put my whole statement in the record. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Leahy appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

Just perhaps because my statement really did not anticipate necessarily some of the remarks that you made, let me just point out 

for context and completeness: In a letter of July 17, 2003, by Judge 

Gonzales, the White House Counsel, to Senators Sarbanes and Mikulski, the most recent Census Bureau information as of July 2002 

put Maryland’s population at 20 percent of the Fourth Circuit, 

whereas Virginia’s population was 27 percent. Moreover, September 2002 data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts 

indicated that Maryland’s caseload made up 16.7 percent of the circuit’s cases, whereas Virginia’s caseload was 34.8 percent of the circuit’s cases. 

So according to the White House perspective, it is entirely appropriate for four or five seats to be allocated to Virginia and two or 

three seats to be allocated to Maryland. 

When President Clinton nominated, then recess-appointed Judge 

Gregory of Virginia to fill a North Carolina vacancy, he did not attempt to justify either action on the basis of objective criteria. He 

simply did what he believed he had the political muscle to do, and 

he did it. And the record from that time lacks any statements by 

our colleagues on the other side of the aisle of concern or outrage 

over what was obviously a shifting of a seat from a severely underrepresented State, North Carolina, to a slightly better represented 

State. Maybe even more important, despite all of these procedural 

concerns, President Bush renominated Judge Gregory. He was not 

filibustered, and he today sits on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

We are holding this hearing today to get views with respect to 

this nomination. That is the purpose of the hearing. We know what 

the White House’s view is. The concerns of my colleagues from 

Maryland, both of whom I respect, we all respect, no doubt will be 

clearly expressed here today as well. On the other hand, Secretary 

Allen has the full support of his home State Senators, our colleagues from Virginia. 

At this time we will turn to the senior Senator from Maryland 

for any comments he would care to make. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes, for being here with us. 

STATEMENT OF HON. PAUL S. SARBANES, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator SARBANES. I appreciate this opportunity to appear before 

the Committee. At the outset I want to say that the year I finished 

law school, I clerked in the Fourth Circuit for Judge Morris Soper. 

That experience has had a lasting impact upon me, and I regard 

it as one of my most serious responsibilities to provide the best advice I can with respect to nominees to sit on the Federal bench. 

Judge Soper was nominated by President Harding to be a Federal district judge and then nominated by President Hoover to go 

on the Fourth Circuit. He served for 40 years on the Federal bench. 

6

I went to be his law clerk near the end of his service to the Nation. 

He was one of the most distinguished and respected judges in the 

Federal court system, and he had a profound effect upon me. His 

portrait, in fact, sits on a table in my office and has been there ever 

since I was his law clerk. 

Judge Soper was a fierce believer in ‘‘Equal Rights Under Law,’’ 

the motto chiseled above the Supreme Court, and was a leader in 

the Fourth Circuit in seeking to implement that principle. The library at Morgan State University, a historic black college and university, is named after Judge Soper, who for many years was Vice 

Chairman of its Board of Trustees. So I want the Committee to understand, I come today with very deeply felt feelings about the importance of the Federal bench and about our responsibilities as 

Members of the United States Senate, with an advise and consent 

constitutional obligation, to carry out that responsibility in a way 

that will sustain and enhance the excellence and integrity of our 

Federal bench. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I have distributed a memorandum of the 

Maryland judges who have served on the U.S. Court of Appeals for 

the Fourth Circuit ever since the nine judicial circuits were established in 1891. It is a very distinguished list, and I want to mention a couple of these judges just to underscore the quality of the 

people that Maryland has sent to the Fourth Circuit to sit on this 

bench. Consider, for example, Judge Simon Sobeloff, nominated by 

President Eisenhower. Judge Sobeloff had been the City Solicitor 

of Baltimore, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Maryland. He 

had been Chief Judge of the Maryland Court of Appeals. He had 

been Solicitor General of the United States and was nominated to 

go on the Fourth Circuit. 

I have already mentioned Judge Soper. Judge Murnaghan, the 

empty seat for which this nomination has been made, was a leading practitioner at the bar for many years, President of the Baltimore City School System, Chairman of the Charter Revision Commission for the City of Baltimore, and a Chairman of numerous 

civic and cultural organizations, the Walters Art Museum, the Baltimore Museum of Art, the Johns Hopkins University, on and on. 

In fact, when Judge Murnaghan was nominated, the Baltimore 

Sun in an editorial about him said, and I quote, ‘‘Frank 

Murnaghan is acknowledged by judges and fellow lawyers alike as 

the foremost of this generation at the bar and is among the finest 

two or three lawyers Maryland has lately produced.’’ 

Upon his death, the Sun noted, ‘‘Judge Murnaghan was one of 

the most admired figures in the legal establishment for his urbane 

scholarship, legal knowledge, and public spirit.’’ And I could go 

through the rest of the list of these fine Maryland Judges. 

Again and again, Maryland has sent to the Fourth Circuit people 

of outstanding merit and outstanding quality. We have done well 

by the Fourth Circuit, and we are proud of those who have served 

on that court from our State. 

Now, we come before you today because the administration is 

seeking to shift a seat that should be a Maryland seat to another 

State. Plain and simple. Maryland has 20 percent of the population 

of this circuit. There are 15 authorized judges. Twenty percent of 

15 is three. Right on the mark. 

7

Furthermore, the seat that came vacant, for which this nominee 

has been placed before you, was held by a Marylander. A Marylander had those three seats. And, obviously, we feel very keenly 

that Maryland should continue to have three seats on the Fourth 

Circuit. We have a great legal tradition in our State. Some of the 

outstanding lawyers going back to colonial America were Marylanders. And that tradition has been sustained down through the 

years. 

The Maryland State Bar wrote to President Bush after this nomination was made in opposition to it on the grounds that a Maryland lawyer should be nominated to fill this judicial vacancy. 

Now, we have had a back-and-forth with White House Counsel 

Gonzales, and I think it probably serves a purpose if I take just a 

moment or two to enlighten the Committee about that, because I 

think it bears on the situation we find ourselves in here this morning. 

When this nomination was made, we wrote to Counsel Gonzales, 

and we also sent a copy to Chairman Hatch and Senator Leahy. 

And we noted that in making this nomination, the administration 

was shifting a seat that has been traditionally allocated to Maryland to Virginia, that this ran directly counter to the principles for 

the allocation of seats that Counsel Gonzales had enunciated in a 

recent memorandum. In fact, the administration claimed that it 

would seek geographical balance so that the State has a number 

of judges sitting in that State corresponding to the State’s percentage of the overall population of the circuit, and they pointed out 

that in the Fourth Circuit we were significantly out of balance. And 

he indicated that President Bush intended to nominate individuals 

to Fourth Circuit vacancies in a manner that will bring the circuit 

closer to geographic balance. 

Traditionally, the standard has been population. Now they are 

trying to introduce the standard of the number of appeals that 

come up from the State. I don’t understand that standard. It, in effect, says if there is more reason to think there are mistakes on the 

part of the Federal district bench so more appeals are taken, or if 

you have a more litigious bar—something I know this Committee 

has some concern about—that, therefore, you ought to get more 

judges on the appeals court. If one starts thinking about it, I think 

there are serious flaws in that criteria. 

In any event, the traditional criteria has been population. On 

that criteria, Maryland would have three seats. The vacancy that 

exists here was held by a Marylander. The appointment of a Marylander would keep us at three. 

Now, one final point which underscores the seriousness of this. 

We have tried to work with the administration on their nominees 

to the Federal bench. We have had some success. Senator Mikulski 

and I have appeared before you to speak in favor and endorse all 

three of the nominees that President Bush has made to the Federal 

district court in Maryland: William Quarles, Richard Bennett, and 

Roger Titus. This Committee reported all three out unanimously. 

Two were confirmed by the Senate and are now sitting, and the 

third is pending on the Senate calendar, and we expect his confirmation in the near future. So we have shown, I think, an ability 

8

to work with the administration to try to move the process forward 

and place people on the Federal bench. 

We encountered a difficulty on the Fourth Circuit. The administration at one point approached us and wanted to nominate ‘‘for the 

Maryland seat’’ someone who was not even a member of the Maryland Bar—38 years old, very bright, but not the sort of stature, 

both professionally and in the community, that I think is a prerequisite to go on the Federal bench. And these names we have put 

before you, if you look through them and what they have done, 

clearly demonstrate that we have succeeded time after time in 

drawing to the Federal bench men and women of stature, men and 

women of seasoned experience, men and women who have handled 

important, responsible positions in public life. 

We want to maintain that standard and that tradition, and we 

do not think that the White House Counsel, when they encounter 

resistance to someone they want to place on the bench who falls 

short of that standard, should then take the seat and move it to 

some other State. And we intend, I certainly intend, to oppose this 

effort with all the strength that I can muster. And I urge the Committee not to allow this gross departure from practice to take effect. 

Thank you very much. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Sarbanes. 

Senator Mikulski, we will be pleased to hear from you next. 

STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA MIKULSKI, A U.S. SENATOR 

FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND 

Senator MIKULSKI. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the Committee. I want to thank the Committee for the opportunity 

to testify today on the nomination of Mr. Claude Allen. I will not 

repeat the arguments made by Senator Sarbanes, but to really 

though affirm the need to advocate very strongly that this seat 

should be a Maryland seat. 

We feel that an injustice has been done to the State of Maryland 

in selecting a Virginian to occupy a Maryland seat on the Fourth 

Circuit Court of Appeals. So I am here today to oppose the nomination of Mr. Claude Allen. This is a Maryland seat, and a Maryland 

lawyer should be nominated for it. I have very serious concerns 

about Mr. Claude Allen’s qualifications to represent Maryland. Mr. 

Allen does not and cannot adequately represent Marylanders. 

This injustice hurt Maryland’s representation on the Court of Appeals. Thousands of cases are going to be decided by this court, 

cases that affect the very lives of every Marylander. They impact 

Maryland business, Maryland education, workers’ rights, our Bay, 

our environment. Our Federal Court of Appeals are so often the 

court of last resort. If Maryland loses this seat, they lose a voice. 

Mr. Allen’s nomination penalizes by taking one of its three seats 

away. There is no justification for taking this seat, especially when 

balance dictates that the State with 20 percent of the population 

should have 20 percent of the seats. That is common sense. That 

is fairness. That means three of the 15 judges. 

This particular Maryland seat is no ordinary seat. It was occupied Judge Francis Murnaghan since its creation in 1979. Our Senate tradition is for a vacancy to be filled by a person of the same 

State. The Murnaghan seat brings with it an incredible legacy of 

9

distinguished scholarship and legal experience to that seat. The 

Clinton White House recognized it as a Maryland seat when they 

nominated Judge Andre Davis, a distinguished lawyer who clerked 

for Judge Murnaghan. The Bush administration recognized it as a 

Maryland seat when they sent us two previous candidates, but they 

had little or no connection to Maryland. One was not even a member of the Maryland Bar. In both cases Senator Sarbanes and I had 

to object to such an important position going to someone with little 

or no ties to Maryland including not even being a member of the 

Maryland Bar. 

Now we feel that the administration is playing bait and switch, 

trying to switch the seat to Virginia because Senator Sarbanes and 

I have raised concerns about the people that President Bush has 

tried to nominate for this seat. The administration claims that it 

needs to move the seat to geographically balance the Court of Appeals. That is unfounded. It is not Maryland’s representation that 

needs adjustment. If the administration truly wants geographical 

balance they would look for opportunities to ensure that Maryland, 

which is possibly the only State in balance on the Fourth Circuit, 

stays in balance. They should nominate a Maryland lawyer because 

we are entitled to fair and balanced representation. If Mr. Allen 

were confirmed, then Virginia could have five seats, dwarfing the 

representation of Maryland, which has the third largest population 

in the Fourth Circuit, and push us down to two seats. 

I would like to bring to the Committee’s attention that the Maryland Bar opposes the Allen nomination on the grounds that I have 

stated. There are 30,000 practicing lawyers in our home State of 

Maryland. It is unacceptable that this administration could not 

find one well-qualified lawyer to appoint to this prestigious court. 

They found three well-qualified lawyers for the District Court, 

Judge Quarles, Judge Bennett, and hopefully soon, Judge Titus, all 

exceptional nominees who represent the type of nominees the administration could have chosen to fill the Murnaghan seat. Any one 

of those nominees has more legal experience than the current 

nominee before you. Why did the administration not look to one of 

those? 

We understand that the administration has consulted, because of 

the significant Democratic representation in Congress, we understand the administration has consulted with Governor Ehrlich on 

the three District Court nominations. We have no objection to that, 

and in fact, Governor Ehrlich and his adviser, Mr. Jervis Finney, 

an outstanding lawyer, a rock-rib Republican, a former U.S. Attorney, is the advisor to Governor Ehrlich on these matters. That is 

how we got Quarles, Bennett and Titus. We have the people. Why 

not give us the opportunity? Because we believe that we could support this. 

Our opposition here is not based on party. It is based on representing our State and seeing that our State is represented on the 

Court of Appeals. I repeat, this is not about party. We have voted 

for Republican nominations at the District Court, at the Fourth 

Circuit. I voted for Judge Niemyer, an outstanding member of the 

Fourth Circuit. When I voted for Judge Diana Mott, I was not even 

sure what her political party affiliation was. We go for the best, but 

10

when we go for the best, we go for a Marylander, and this is why 

we are so adamant today. 

When I review the nominees for Federal courts, I consider legal 

competency, the highest integrity, a dedication to protecting core 

constitutional values, and in this case being from my own State. 

What causes me concern about this nomination is other qualifications about this nominee. I will not go into my flashing yellow 

lights about other qualifications to this nominee. Suffice to say that 

these are raised in the Sun paper editorial today, and I ask unanimous consent that this be placed into the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection. 

Senator MIKULSKI. But dear Committee members, I really urge 

you to request that the administration withdraw the nomination of 

Mr. Allen. He is here today with his family. They seem like a wonderful family. I believe there are other places in this administration 

that Mr. Allen could serve his President and serve the Nation. I 

ask the withdrawal of this nomination before the Committee, or 

then to oppose it. 

Senator CORNYN. I would like to thank both of our colleagues 

from Maryland for forcefully stating their views on this difficult 

subject. We are also honored to have the two Senators from the 

Commonwealth of Virginia here, who perhaps have a different perspective on this. 

I would like to at this time recognize the senior Senator, Senator 

Warner. 

PRESENTATION OF CLAUDE A. ALLEN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. JOHN 

WARNER, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator WARNER. Members of the Committee, first may I say to 

my two distinguished colleagues that we have served here a long 

time together, and you fully recognize that there are really two 

boxing rings. The Executive Branch is where this decision was 

made with respect to the nomination, and I would hope that you 

would take the same vigor and ardor that both of you have expressed here and box it out there. Do not bring it to the boxing ring 

in the Senate where the match is over purely this man’s qualifications, not the allocation between the several States for the seats on 

a Circuit, whether it is the Fourth Circuit or wherever it may be. 

It seems to me that this great Nation was set up with three coequal branches of the Government. The Executive Branch made 

this decision to send this nominee here, not the Senate. Now it is 

up to us to examine him purely on the basis of his qualification and 

give him a fair chance to be judged by the full Senate. So I say that 

most respectfully. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Would the Senator yield for a minute? 

Senator WARNER. Certainly. 

Senator MIKULSKI. Senator, we understand that there are several 

boxing weights or boxing areas. We have tried to work with the administration. We have stated this case forcibly to them. We have 

asked them to consult with the Maryland Bar. We have asked 

them to follow the same process that gave us Judges Bennett and 

Quarles and hopefully Titus. 

11

Senator WARNER. I do not question that you fought a strong battle there, but my point is you lost, and now we are in another 

arena, and this gentleman should be judge purely on the basis of 

his potential and the suitability to take on a judicial position. 

Senator SARBANES. We do not intend to lose in this arena. 

Senator WARNER. I do not doubt that you can place obstacles. Is 

it a sense of fairness to an individual person though? That is my 

concern. 

Senator SARBANES. We have a deep concern about a sense of fairness to the State of Maryland and to the legal profession in our 

State, and in holding White House counsel to his own criteria. His 

own criteria was that he was going to try to seek greater geographical balance in the Fourth Circuit, and he is violating that in 

the most flagrant way. The administration has not only reduced 

Maryland’s representation, but of course, Virginia has now gotten 

a fifth nominee to the Fourth Circuit, so significantly raising Virginia’s seats. I like Virginia and I have had a wonderful working 

relationship with the Senator from Virginia, and I want to underscore that. Over the years there is no question about that, and we 

seek to have mutual respect, but we think that the White House 

has very badly treated our State. 

Senator WARNER. Do what you can with respect to the White 

House but not to this innocent individual who comes up here with 

a distinguished record to offer himself for further public service. 

The whole procedure about the judicial nominations, I think all of 

us are of the opinion that somehow we have got to improve it, because we have to think about the human dignity of the people who 

are willing to come forward, whether it is a Republican nominee 

from a Republican President or a future nominee from another 

President. 

You fight this out in the Executive Branch, the allocation among 

the several circuits of the seats. I will not take further time. I will 

try and deliver my statement here, and ask that the entire statement be put into the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection. 

Senator WARNER. This is a fine individual. I have known him for 

some time. The interesting thing is he has served all three 

branches, speaking of branches, of the Federal Government, and 

held key positions in Virginia State Government as well, eminently 

qualified. His first experience with the Federal Government came 

with the Legislative Branch. After he graduated with a B.A. in political science from the University of North Carolina, he worked on 

the United States Foreign Relations Committee right here in the 

U.S. Senate, as deputy director of the Minority Staff and as Press 

Secretary. After leaving the Senate he went on to earn a law degree from Duke University. Upon graduation he was a law clerk for 

Hon. David Sentelle of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals 

for the District of Columbia. I might add that this humble Senator 

likewise was a law clerk on that Court before this gentleman was 

born, but I know the Court very well. 

Subsequent to completing his Federal clerkship, Mr. Allen practiced law for 4 years with the firm of Baker and Botts, an internationally known firm. In 1995 he departed and went into the Attorney General’s Office in the Commonwealth of Virginia and was 

12

promoted to the Deputy Attorney General. I say that, Mr. Sessions, 

you are familiar with that office, and to rise to the post of deputy 

you have to have some sound credentials. Then in 1998 he was selected by our Governor to serve as the Secretary of Health and 

Human Resouces in the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Secretary Allen served as Virginia’s Secretary of Health and 

Human Resources until 2001 when he was nominated by President 

Bush to serve as Deputy Secretary of Health in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The Senate confirmed, I repeat, confirmed this eminent American for Secretary by voice vote 

on May 26, 2001. 

It is important to note that this was not the first time Secretary 

Allen had received Senate confirmation. Earlier he was nominated 

by President Clinton and confirmed by the Senate for a position on 

the African Development Foundation. Twice the Senate has rendered advice and consent favorably. 

So I suggest, most respectfully to my colleagues, to my good 

friends of Maryland, let us judge him on his merits and go into the 

arena of the Executive Branch if we wish to slug out the number 

of seats on the various circuits. 

I thank my colleagues. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Warner appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Warner. 

Senator Allen, we would be pleased to hear from you. 

PRESENTATION OF CLAUDE A. ALLEN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT, BY HON. GEORGE 

ALLEN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Senator ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am very pleased to 

join with my colleague, Senator Warner, in support of Claude Allen 

to this position on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Since I am going second with my introduction Senator Warner 

has already covered some of the remarks I wished to make. I will 

not tread on them again, and will ask that my full statement be 

made part of the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Without objection. 

Senator ALLEN. Let me share with you all on the Committee my 

views. I will not get into a running debate other than to say I was 

listening to my colleagues from Maryland, and in issues like the 

Chesapeake Bay and the laws of the Fourth Circuit, federal laws 

apply in Virginia as well as Maryland. Virginia cares a great deal 

about the Chesapeake Bay, and it is actually one of the great partnerships with Virginia and Maryland in trying to upgrade the 

aquatic quality of the Chesapeake Bay. 

But on the criteria of competence integrity, and the proper judicial philosophy, I find that Claude Allen, from my experiences 

working with him, is eminently qualified to serve in this position 

on the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. As Senator Warner said, 

he has served in every branch of Government, including various 

Executive Branch positions. 

Let me share with you my views when I was serving as Governor 

of the Commonwealth of Virginia. As you know, Mr. Chairman, 

being Attorney General, and Senator Sessions, having served in a 

13

similar position, states are constantly getting challenged on a variety of areas from people who do not like the changes you are making. I was very honored and fortunate as Governor to have Claude 

Allen serving most capably in a position of leadership as Deputy 

Attorney General. In that position, he was specifically working 

with members of my Cabinet, namely the Secretary of Health and 

Human Resources. In this position, he was vitally instrumental in 

warding off a lot of lawsuits and challenges in the implementation 

of Virginia’s very ambitious and comprehensive welfare reform law. 

We passed it in 1995, well over a year and a half before the Federal law was passed, and there were challenges in a variety of Federal Courts. Fortunately we had Claude Allen, not just as a leader 

in the Attorney General’s office, but as a leader making sure that 

our laws, which have been very successful over the years, were 

kept in place. Obviously these laws reflect the will of the people of 

Virginia. This gets also to my philosophy that judges ought to be 

interpreting and administering the law, not inventing or writing 

the law. 

After that great work and leadership as Deputy Attorney General, then Governor Gilmore, my successor, came in and appointed 

him to be in his Cabinet as Secretary of Health and Human Resources. In this position, he continued the implementation of welfare reform as well as many other aspects of Virginia Government. 

The Secretary of Health and Human Resources in Virginia has 

very diverse responsibilities and is in charge of 13 agencies and 

15,000 employees. Claude Allen showed great management in this 

position, and therefore, President Bush ultimately, when he came 

into office, wanted to bring him to the Federal level. 

Another matter arose toward the end of my term as Governor of 

Virginia. There was a despicable and deplorable rash of church 

burnings focused on African-American churches. These were truly 

deplorable actions. During this time, Claude Allen worked with 

former Virginia Governor, Doug Wilder, to bring about a dialogue 

in our Commonwealth of Virginia to combat these hateful acts. 

As Senator Warner mentioned, Claude Allen has been confirmed 

twice by the Senate, one nomination under President Clinton when 

served on the Board of Directors for the African Development 

Foundation. In that role he worked on various issues including the 

development of micro businesses for women in Africa, the care for 

orphans affected by HIV/AIDS, and adding an economic focus on 

the HIV crisis in Africa. He was, as Senator Warner mentioned, 

alos confirmed in May 2001 as Deputy Secretary for Health and 

Human Services, a position he currently holds. 

Claude Allen has worked on issues dealing with health disparities in minority communities as well as the issues of bioterrorism, 

homelessness and HIV/AIDS, both in our Nation and abroad. He 

has, in my view, an outstanding record of commitment to positive 

youth development in our Commonwealth of Virginia, as well as 

across the Nation. He has been active in Virginia’s Right Choices 

for Youth Program, which promotes healthy behaviors among 

young people in an effort to have them live up to their fullest potential. 

He does have with him family members, and I would like for you 

all to recognize his family members who are here with him today. 

14

His wife, Jan; his son Alexander, who is 11-years-old; Mildred, Secretary Allen’s sister; Tom, his brother-in-law who is Mildred’s husband; Karla Ballard, his niece; and Carolyn Ballard, his sister-inlaw. Also here is a good friend and a supporter of Claude Allen, a 

man who has his own independent way of looking at matters, and 

that is Paul Gillis, who is a former State President of the Virginia 

State Conference of the NAACP. 

Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee, Secretary Allen is an 

outstanding nominee. I am confident that he will honorably and 

fairly adjudicate cases on appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Members of 

this Committee, it is my sincere pleasure to present and to support 

this well-qualified nominee and outstanding person. He is a true 

Virginian. We are proud of that as well. I respectfully request you 

all to move as expeditiously as possible in bringing his nomination 

to the floor for a vote. 

I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and all the members of the Committee. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Allen appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much, Senator Allen. I would 

like to express our appreciation on behalf of the Committee to all 

our colleagues from Maryland Virginia for your introduction. 

To remind the Committee, we have a vote posted at 10:30 on the 

confirmation of Governor Leavitt to be Administrator of the EPA, 

and my hope is that we can go ahead and ask Senator Durbin and 

Senator Fitzgerald to make any introductory comments they would 

care to make on the third panel member, Mark R. Filip, to be the 

U.S. District Judge for the Northern District of Illinois, so that 

when we come back we can proceed first with Mr. Allen and then 

with Mr. Filip. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, if you would not mind, I would 

like to ask my colleague, Senator Fitzgerald to go first since he 

nominated Mr. Filip, a nomination I totally support, but I would 

like him to introduce him. 

Senator CORNYN. Very well. Senator Fitzgerald, we would be delighted to hear from you. 

PRESENTATION OF MARK R. FILIP, TO BE DISTRICT JUDGE 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, BY HON. PETER 

FITZGERALD, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of 

the Committee. I appreciate the opportunity to be here today and 

introduce to the Committee a very fine, young, but already very experienced and sharp lawyer from Chicago named Mark R. Filip. 

Mark is current a partner at Skadden Arps, specializing in complex commercial litigation in Chicago. He also does some criminal 

defense work. He is a graduate of the Harvard Law School, magna 

cum laude, and he also served on the Harvard Law Review. Before 

going to Harvard he had a scholarship, a Marshall Scholarship to 

study law at Oxford University. He has had two judicial clerkships. 

He clerked for Stephen F. Williams of the D.C. Circuit, and then 

clerked for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. 

15

Before going to Skadden Arps he was an Assistant U.S. Attorney 

in the Northern District of Illinois, and while he was an Assistant 

U.S. Attorney he won the Justice Department’s award for superior 

performance as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. 

He is currently involved teaching at the University of Chicago 

Law School. He is currently lecturing there, and previously he was 

an adjunct professor at Northwestern School of Law. The American 

Bar Association has rated Mark Filip ‘‘well qualified.’’ 

I have to say that I appreciate Senator Durbin’s support for the 

nominee. I know that Senator Durbin interviewed Mr. Filip for a 

long time and had a good meeting with him. 

We are pleased to have Mark Filip here today, and Mark just 

nodded his head. He is sitting between his parents who have made 

it all the way from Park Ridge, Illinois, Rose and Robert Filip. If 

you want to stand up and just be recognized. Thank you. 

I understand that Mark’s wife, Beth, along with her parents are 

on their way from Chicago, and they will be in town a little bit 

later today. They have four boys, Matthew, Charlie, Tommy and 

Joseph, and I guess they are growing up like my son is, and the 

way I grew up and the way Mark grew up, very disappointed Chicago Cubs fans. 

[Laughter.] 

Senator FITZGERALD. They had a great disappointment the other 

day when the Cubs failed to make it into the World Series. 

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate their being here. I appreciate your 

attention. Mark is a superior lawyer who has already made a significant mark in the legal community in Chicago and really around 

the Nation, and I expect that he will provide distinguished service 

to the Northern District of Illinois. 

Again, I would like to thank my colleague, Senator Durbin. 

With your consent, Mr. Chairman, I would like to be able to introduce a full statement of my remarks into the record. 

Senator CORNYN. Certainly, without objection. 

Senator FITZGERALD. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Fitzgerald appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much, Senator Fitzgerald. 

Senator Durbin, would you care to make any remarks at this 

time? 

Senator DURBIN. Very briefly. 

PRESENTATION OF MARK R. FILIP, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS, BY 

HON. RICHARD J. DURBIN, A U.S. SENATOR FROM THE 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Chairman Cornyn, and I want to 

thank my colleague, Senator Fitzgerald. 

I think what we have been able to achieve in Illinois despite our 

obvious political differences may be a benchmark or guide for some 

other States. We really have come up with bipartisan nominees. 

We have a process where the Senator from the President’s party 

appoints three, and then the other Senator appoints the fourth, 

and we have not run into any difficulties with this all the way 

through, and we have I think come up with some outstanding 

16

nominees who have not had any problem once they have arrived 

in the Senate. Circuit level, District Court Level. It can be done, 

ladies and gentlemen, despite all of the things that you hear to the 

contrary. And Mark Filip is a good illustration of how it can be 

done. I commend Senator Fitzgerald for nominating him. 

I had a chance to meet with Mark in my office in Chicago. We 

sat down and talked about his background. I was nervous about 

some of his background and wondered is this person going to be 

moderate, centrist and the like, and I came away with a very positive impression. 

Mr. Chairman, I think one of the most important things that I 

read was from an attorney who had been a defense counsel when 

Mark was a prosecutor, and we asked him what he thought about 

Mark Filip as a judge. He said as follows: ‘‘One of the fairest, most 

even-keeled, thoughtful prosecutors I’ve gone up against. Would 

make a wonderful judge because he understands the human condition and the principle that everyone deserves their day in court. 

Could you ask for more?’’ 

I think that is the kind of fitting testimony from the other side 

in a case from a counsel who really understands that you can be 

fair and balanced, and Mark Filip has been. 

I only found one question mark in his entire background, and it 

was a Law Review article that he had written back in law school 

in his callow youth relative to legislative history and how it was 

to be used, and we talked about it at length and Mark Filip sent 

me a letter explaining his thoughts on that issue. I would like to 

ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman, if that letter that Mr. Filip 

sent me might be made part of this permanent record. 

Senator CORNYN. Certainly, without objection. 

Senator DURBIN. I stand in full support of his nomination, and 

he is going to be a great District Court Judge. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Durbin appears as a submission for the record.] 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you very much, Senator Durbin, and I 

would like to congratulate you and Senator Fitzgerald for working 

together, and hopefully we can see more of that happen in the future, but we know that these nominations are sometimes contentious, but we can always hope. 

We have a vote posted on the confirmation of Governor Leavitt 

for Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, so we 

are going to recess briefly so we can go vote, and we will come immediately back here. Senator Hatch, Chairman of the Committee, 

will then take the helm at that time. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman? 

Senator CORNYN. Senator Leahy. 

Senator LEAHY. Mr. Chairman, before we leave I should note, so 

there is no confusion, the Roger Gregory seat, that was one of the 

unallocated seats and it did go to Virginia. It was after President 

Clinton had tried for years to nominate people from North Carolina, and one Senator objected so they did not get hearings. He 

then nominated Roger Gregory for the unallocated seat, and he was 

strongly supported by both Senator Allen and Senator Warner. 

Senator CORNYN. Thank you, Senator Leahy. 

17

We will stand in recess temporarily until after the vote, and Senator Hatch will then bring us back into session. 

[Recess 10:40 a.m. to 11:17 a.m.] 

Chairman HATCH. As I understand it, we may be able to resolve 

the Filip matter in a short period of time, so why do we not do 

that? 

Do either of you have any questions for Mr. Filip? Mr. Filip, why 

do you not take the chair and let us—anybody have any questions? 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I know that you were detained 

with other Committee hearings, but Senator Fitzgerald and I have 

both expressed our strong support of this nominee. He has an extraordinary background. One of the things we were hoping, that his 

wife and father-in-law would be able to join the rest of his family 

here at this moment for the hearing. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, 

for allowing him to be considered at this moment. I do not know 

if he would like to introduce his family and perhaps make a short 

statement, but that would be appropriate I think at this moment. 

STATEMENT OF MARK R. FILIP, NOMINEE TO BE DISTRICT 

JUDGE FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS 

Mr. FILIP. Thank you very much, Senator, and thank you, Mr. 

Chairman. It is my great honor and pleasure to appear before you 

this morning, and I want to thank Senator Fitzgerald for initially 

recommending me, and the President for nominating me, and in 

particular thank both Senator Fitzgerald and Senator Durbin for 

the courtesy and thorough job that they did in evaluating my background, and the great sense of fairness that they showed toward 

me, and I am very grateful. 

I would like to also introduce if I might, please, my family. First 

my wife Beth. 

Chairman HATCH. Happy to have you here. 

Mr. FILIP. Who I had the good fortune to meet when we were 

both back in college age, and it has definitely been the best thing 

that has ever happened to me, and has been a great partner in—

for my in my life, and has done a wonderful job with our four sons. 

I would like to also, please, introduce my mother and father, 

Rose Filip and Bob Filip. 

Chairman HATCH. We are delighted to have you here. You have 

to be very proud of your son. 

Mr. FILIP. And also my father-in-law, Terry Moritz. 

Chairman HATCH. We are glad to have you here as well. 

Mr. FILIP. We are very blessed all four grandparents living right 

in the area where we live, and our kids spend an awful lot of time 

with each of them, and it is really a great fortune for them and for 

everyone. 

So thank you all very much. I’m happy to answer any questions 

if there are any, and if not, I am very, very grateful for all the 

kindness and courtesy everyone has shown all of us. 

[The biographical information of Mr. Filip follows:]

18


94083.001
19


94083.002
20


94083.003
21


94083.004
22


94083.005
23


94083.006
24


94083.007
25


94083.008
26


94083.009
27


94083.010
28


94083.011
29


94083.012
30


94083.013
31


94083.014
32


94083.015
33


94083.016
34


94083.017
35


94083.018
36


94083.019
37


94083.020
38


94083.021
39


94083.022
40


94083.023
41


94083.024
42


94083.025
43


94083.026
44


94083.027
45


94083.028
46


94083.029
47


94083.030
48


94083.031
49


94083.032
50


94083.033
51


94083.034
52

Chairman HATCH. I know quite a bit about you, Mr. Filip, and 

I have no questions. 

Does anybody have any questions? 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Chairman, I was fortunate enough to have 

a lengthy conversation with Mr. Filip in my office. We had gone 

through a number of questions, and I am totally satisfied he is 

going to be an excellent Federal judge, and I support his nomination. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, that is an excellent tribute to you, Mr. 

Filip. So with that, we will excuse you and your family, and we will 

put you on the next markup we can get you on, and hopefully we 

will put you out and get you confirmed before the end of this year. 

I am sure with the help of both of your Senators we will have a 

good opportunity to do that. 

Mr. FILIP. Thank you, sir, very much. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you all for being here. Glad to meet all 

of you. 

Mr. Allen, we will put you in the chair. I apologize for not being 

able to be here right at the beginning because I had my Governor 

Leavitt up for the EPA Administrator on the floor, and I had to 

make a set of remarks and also watch the final remarks of others 

today. So I apologize to you. 

I have known you for a long time, think a great deal of you. 

We will turn to Senator Feingold. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you. Congratulations on your appointment. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Allen, you have been quite involved in 

setting our Government— 

Chairman HATCH. Excuse me, Senator. We need to swear Mr. 

Allen in. 

Do you solemnly swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and 

nothing but the truth, so help you God? 

STATEMENT OF CLAUDE A. ALLEN, NOMINEE TO BE CIRCUIT 

JUDGE FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT 

Mr. ALLEN. I do. 

Chairman HATCH. Go ahead. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Mr. Allen, you have been quite involved in 

setting our Government’s HIV/AIDS policy, as I understand it. Is 

that right? 

Mr. ALLEN. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. In January of this year you were quoted in 

a story on National Public Radio saying the following about Uganda, a country in sub–Saharan Africa that has been, as we all know, 

hit very hard by this terrible disease. You said, quote, ‘‘It’s the only 

country in Africa that has had a positive increase in its life expectancy, and that’s because they focused on young people remaining 

abstinent until they were married. And that in itself translated 

into a reduce infection rate that allowed that country to have its 

HIV rate drop dramatically over the course of 5 or 6 years.’’ End 

of quote. 

I certainly agree that there is a lot to be learned from the Ugandan example, but I also want to quote you something that Sophia 

53

Mukasa Monico, a leading Ugandan AIDS activist, formerly of 

TASO, the ground-breaking AIDS support organization, what she 

told me at a Foreign Relations Committee hearing in May. She 

said, quote, ‘‘As a Ugandan I am deeply concerned when I hear people taking a single element of our successful national program like 

abstinence out of context and ascribe all achievements to that one 

element. All three elements must be implemented together for prevention to work,’’ unquote. 

By all three we obviously know she was talking about the ABCs 

of AIDS prevention: abstinence, being faithful to one partner, and 

using a condom. In fact, she went on to talk about elements of 

Ugandan effort even beyond the ABCs, such as empowering girls 

and women in Ugandan society as additional important elements 

of a program to prevent the spread of HIV/AIDS. 

So let me ask you this: why did you suggest that only one intervention, abstinence until marriage programs for youth, was responsible for Uganda’s prevention success? And do you agree that if the 

government’s focus is solely on abstinence it would be less effective 

in preventing HIV/AIDS than if it implements a more comprehensive prevention strategy that includes but is not limited to abstinence? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, thank you for your interest in the area of 

HIV/AIDS. It is something that I have spent much of my career focusing on, and specifically the efforts in Uganda. 

Sir, I believe that the NPR interview you’re referring to, I have 

always mentioned in my discussions of Uganda their complete 

model, which includes A, B and C, the A clearly focusing on abstinence for young people, which has actually reduced their HIV infection rate among young women by more than 50 percent. I focus on 

the B, which means being faithful to one’s companions, one’s relationships, and that also has produced in Uganda a very unique situation, in fact showing the HIV infection rate reduced among men 

because it reduced their partners. And also the importance of the 

C, sir, and the C being the use of condoms for the prevention of 

HIV/AIDS, recognizing that they’re highly effective in preventing 

the transmission of HIV, but must less effective in terms of preventing the transmission of other sexually-transmitted diseases. 

I sort of stick with what President Museveni and First Lady 

Museveni have always talked about in terms of the Ugandan experience, and it is one that is comprehensive. It is one that recognizes 

the importance of using traditional and important cultural aspects 

of society to address the growing need, and try to stem the tide of 

HIV in Africa and elsewhere. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I appreciate your recognition of all these elements, and so let me just continue. One of the concerns about this 

issue is whether there would be an attempt by some to manipulate 

or politicize the issue, and I think we would all agree, given how 

awful this epidemic is, the stakes are too high to let that happen. 

So I am concerned about your comments on this subject that could 

appear to misrepresent the facts, and I want to ask you about another quote. 

You testified at a House hearing in March on the administration’s AIDS’ policy in Africa as follows. Quote: ‘‘I know you’ll be 

hearing later this morning about Uganda and their successful use 

54

of the ABC program of prevention. The A is for abstinence for 

young people. The B is for being faithful in mutually monogamous 

relationships, and the C is for condom use in high-risk populations 

with the knowledge that condoms are highly effective in preventing 

HIV infection and gonorrhea in men, but not as effective with all 

sexually-transmitted diseases, which is related to what you just 

said.’’ End of quote. 

I know you have traveled to Uganda and you have significant experience in this area, so I assume you did choose these words carefully. Is it your view that the C in Uganda’s ABC program refers 

to condom use by high-risk populations but not by the general population of sexually active adults and teens? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I believe the statement you’re referring to 

in which—certainly I have focused on the ABCs in the Uganda 

model. The Uganda model is much more comprehensive. It focuses 

on condom use across a broad spectrum, but their focus has been 

on high-risk populations, namely populations in which you have 

transients along the borders where there are wars that are taking 

place. You find that soldiers will come back. In areas where there 

is poverty and drought, you find that oftentimes women, in seeking 

to provide for themselves and their families, will resort to commercial sex work. And so the C, it focuses not just on the high-risk population, but that is where the concentration has been. It focuses 

across the board for those who engage in sexual activity with not 

having a partner that they have been faithful to, and without 

knowing the status of the other individual. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Fair enough. But with regard to Uganda and 

then in general, you would not limit the use of condom use in AIDS 

prevention just to the high-risk population? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, that’s correct. I would not limit the use to 

high-risk populations, but I would also add the information to understand the effectiveness of condoms in those populations. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Fair enough, and I do think the quote that 

I read could lead to the misleading impression that it was more 

narrow, and I appreciate the fact that you have clarified that and 

conceded the greater significance of the C part of the ABC, that it 

is not just limited to one population. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Let me move to another question related to 

HIV/AIDS. When HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson spoke at the 

Global AIDS Conference in Barcelona in 2002, he was met with 

protest over the U.S. policy on AIDS from both U.S. and foreign 

groups. Reportedly, as a result of those protests, Indiana Congressman Mark Souder demanded an audit of several well-respected federally funded AIDS service organizations, including AIDS Project 

Los Angeles, New York Gay Men’s Health Crisis on the grounds 

that some of their members had participated in the demonstration. 

When you were asked about the audit, it was reported that you 

stated that the audits were routine, but you also said that 

protestors should, quote, ‘‘think twice before preventing a cabinetlevel official from bringing a message of hope to an international 

forum,’’ unquote. 

55

Sir, did you have any role at all in ordering these audits, and 

were the audits actually routine, or were they initiated as a result 

of the protests and Representative Souder’s request? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, let me thank you for the question again 

about what happened in Barcelona at the International AIDS Conference. It was a conference that brought the world together to talk 

about trying to find solutions to a disease that is devastating the 

world. And I was there. I was present at that time. And, sir, I 

think the context in which you’re referring to—there have been 

several aspects of audits. There have been several aspects of department review of programs. What I was referring to specifically 

there are several things, and I want to kind of unpack your question because it covers a number of issues. 

First, the Department, as a routine basis, reviews the funds from 

various programs. We have conducted a review of funds in terms 

of bioterrorism. We do that across the board in terms of the Ryan 

White program, HIV programs, as a part of our responsibility. 

Those audits were ongoing. They were activities the Inspector General had been undertaking in their annual plan for reviewing programs and how they use funds. That is one aspect of it. 

In terms specifically of audits that were requested, we received 

a letter indeed at the Department, the Inspector General received 

a letter requesting that specific audits be done. That letter requested that—the Inspector General undertook those reviews consistent with her obligations and responding to Congressional inquiries. 

And lastly, in terms of my statement at the Barcelona conference, what I was referring to there was very specific. When you 

have a high-ranking U.S. official at an international conference, it 

is very inappropriate to prevent the individual from bringing what 

we believe is a true message of hope. This administration has provided millions of dollars, in fact the largest contributor of any nation, to try to address and redress HIV and its impact around the 

world, and to prevent Secretary Thompson, a man of great compassion and great passion about this issue from speaking at an international conference, certainly brought the wrong attention to this 

country and our efforts. My thoughts, however, and my comments 

were not means as a threat. I did not order anything in terms of 

an audit and did not participate in any audit activities. 

Senator FEINGOLD. So you did not order the audit as requested 

by Representative Souder; is that right? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, sir. That was a request that was made directly 

to, I believe, the Secretary and the Inspector General. 

Senator FEINGOLD. I certainly agree with your characterization of 

Secretary Thompson. We are very proud of him in the State of Wisconsin. But let me just ask you generally, do you think it is appropriate for a Government official to threaten Government action 

against critics who are exercising their right to free speech? 

Mr. ALLEN. Not at all. I think threats of any kind—I think a 

Government official should deal with all individuals, organizations, 

with the utmost respect, allowing them to express their views. And 

in fact, in that very situation, Senator, not only even after these 

groups prevented the Secretary from speaking at an international 

forum, we met with them. We pulled them into a room together to 

56

discuss ways that we could work together, both internationally, 

and most importantly domestically, because HIV/AIDS is devastating our country as well. There are women, children and men 

throughout this country who are dying of this disease, particularly 

in the African–American community. We know that black women, 

Latino women, are 82 percent of the cases of HIV/AIDS in this 

country. 72 percent of the cases of children with HIV/AIDS are African–American and Latinos. And so when we speak, we must 

speak together. 

But we will have differences, and we need to resolve those differences in an amicable way. So I in no way believe that Government officials should threaten, but rather we should use the power 

of our office to persuade and to win over friends, and that’s what 

I’ve tried to do throughout my career, and that’s what I would try 

to do should this Committee and the Senate afford me the opportunity to be a judge on the Fourth Circuit, United States Court of 

Appeals. 

Senator FEINGOLD. Thank you, Mr. Allen. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the extra time. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate it. We had 

set that clock at 7 minutes so I gave you until 10 minutes. We will 

give the same amount of time to Senator Durbin. 

Senator Durbin. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. Allen, thank you for joining us today. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like at this point, with your permission, 

to insert into the record letters that have been received in relation 

to the nomination of Mr. Allen to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

Chairman HATCH. Without objection, they will be put in the 

record. 

Senator DURBIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I would like to ask Mr. Allen about one in particular. I believe 

that Mrs. Michele Finn is in the audience today, is she? Yes. 

Mr. Allen, we all read the headlines today in Florida about the 

Schiavo case, and it brings to mind the terrible situation which 

faces families when it comes to the last—the end of life, the last 

moments of life. We try to construct ways to deal with this humanely and sensibly, and it is my understanding that in Mrs. 

Finn’s case that in 1996, if I am not mistaken, her husband was 

involved in a very serious automobile accident, and as a result was 

left in a permanent vegetative state. He had left express instructions with Mrs. Finn that his life was not to be continued by extraordinary means. It is my understanding that beyond the treating physician, Mrs. Finn found two other doctors who gave her the 

sad news that there was no hope that her husband would recover. 

Under Virginia law she was given the authority, as the legal 

guardian of her husband, to make this sad and painful decision 

about withdrawing artificial means of life support. It is true that 

there were some members of her family who did not agree with 

that decision, but she felt that she was abiding by her husband’s 

wishes, complying with the law, and making this painful decision 

that had to be made. 

57

Her letter tells a very troubling story about your role in this 

emotional family decision. It tells of your resistance to her making 

this decision. It tells of actions taken by you in your capacity with 

the State of Virginia to send investigators to the nursing home 

where her husband was being cared for in an effort to try to discredit some of the things that she had said publicly about his treatment and his prospects of recovery. This dragged on, if I am not 

mistaken, for almost a full month, when it had reached a point 

where everyone had agreed there was no place to turn. 

Mr. Allen, I read this, and I am curious as to what was motivating you to inject yourself personally into this painful family decision. Ultimately the Virginia Supreme Court stopped your efforts 

and said, no, she has the right under the law to make this family 

decisions. Some have suggested it was part of some political agenda, and I hope that was not the case. But Mrs. Finn has come forward with the letter today and really questions whether, based on 

her experience with you under that most painful situation, that you 

have what it takes to take on this critical Federal Circuit judgeship. 

Why did you not follow Virginia law, allow Mrs. Finn to make 

this family decision, stand by the doctors who were treating her 

poor husband? Why did you feel obligated to drag this out with 

your own investigations and your own personal involvement? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I thank you for the question. I believe that 

end-of-life decisions are often very difficult to make for families, are 

very painful to make. My role in Virginia as Secretary of Health 

and Human Resources, my obligation under the laws of Virginia 

and under the U.S. laws in terms of our dealings with the Centers 

for Medicare and Medicaid Services as it dealt with patients who 

were in nursing home facilities was simply ministerial. My role in 

this situation was very minimal. In fact, I received a phone call, 

as I would normally do in my Department, that said that there was 

a patient who was in a nursing home, considered in a persistent 

vegetative state, and there was a concern that this patient’s rights 

were being denied. I took the steps that were required by me to instruct the agency that oversees our nursing homes to handle it in 

a routine manner. 

That was about the extent of my involvement until I got a call 

1 day from Mrs. Finn, Michele Finn, who requested that I instruct 

the Governor and requested of the Governor that he not get involved in the case. My role in the Hugh Finn situation in Virginia 

was very minimal. In fact, sir, I do not know the basis upon which 

Mrs. Finn forms her opinions of me, but I will assure you that in 

this situation my role was very minimal, in simply passing information to the Governor for his consideration. At that point my role 

ended. I was not involved in the litigation. I was not involved in 

any of the proceedings that took place in this matter. 

And with regards to the Supreme Court, Senator, I want to draw 

your attention to—it was a unanimous decision of the Supreme 

Court that held that Mrs. Finn had the right under the Health 

Care Decisions Act to make the decision that she did. That Supreme Court also noted, however, that it was important and it was 

right for the Governor to seek redress in the courts because the 

Health Care Decisions Act of Virginia as unclear in the matter. 

58

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you— 

Mr. ALLEN. If I may continue? 

Senator DURBIN. Sure. 

Mr. ALLEN. As a result of that, the Supreme Court of Virginia 

said that the Governor took the right steps that he felt his obligation was to the citizens of the Commonwealth, to protect them regardless of their circumstances, and that’s what the Governor did. 

So not withstanding that the Court concluded that indeed the 

Health Care Decisions Act allowed Mrs. Finn to take the action she 

did, it noted that the Governor acted rightfully in executing his responsibilities as the Chief Executive Officer of the State. 

Senator DURBIN. If I might ask you this. You have described your 

role as ministerial. My understanding of that word is that it suggests relatively little involvement on your part, merely following 

the administrative procedures as set down. So you were saying that 

you had no personal role in the decision by the Commonwealth of 

Virginia to intervene in this case to block Michele Finn from deciding to take her husband off life support? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, Senator, That is correct. 

Senator DURBIN. You had no role in that. Did you have any role 

in sending nurses to investigate false claims about her late husband’s treatment at the nursing home? 

Mr. ALLEN. I did not, sir. That would be the role of the Director 

for the Medical Assistance Services Department of the Commonwealth of Virginia, which was an agency that reported to me, but 

their activities were routine in sending out—when a patient in Virginia, whether it be in a nursing home, an adult care facility, a facility under which the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services 

expends funds, we have an obligation to investigate, and that agency did that. 

Senator DURBIN. And you never personally contacted any family 

members of the Finn family to persuade them to keep their appeal 

open on this case? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, sir. My contact with family members came as a 

result of family members contacting my office, the Governor’s office, could not reach the Governor’s office— 

Senator DURBIN. You never tried to persuade them to keep their 

appeal open when Michele Finn had made her decision? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I did not, no. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you a couple other questions if I 

might. You worked for Senator Helms and were involved in a controversial campaign of his in 1984. You made some statements during the course of that campaign that I would like for you to explain 

to me if you might. One of them related to homosexuals. Less than 

a month before the election you were quoted by the Greensboro 

News Record that Senator Helms’ opponent, Governor Hunt, was 

vulnerable because of his links, quote, ‘‘with the queers,’’ close 

quote. You went on to say, quote, ‘‘We could expound’’—referring 

to the Hunt campaign—quote, ‘‘We could expound on and undertake a campaign against Jim Hunt’s connections with the homosexuals, the labor union connection, the radical feminist connection, the socialist connection.’’ And then you went on to say, ‘‘We 

could go back and do the same thing with the queers.’’ 

Could you explain to me what you meant by that remark? 

59

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I do. I remember that very distinctly, that 

situation, because I believe if you read in that same article, you 

will read further, my response to that when the reporter stated 

that I used that term, used the word ‘‘queers.’’ Again, 20 years ago, 

when I was the press secretary in the Helms campaign, that reported called and was asking questions about, and actually was 

making statements about what was being said about Senator 

Helms and his supporters throughout the campaign. I think there 

were words used like ‘‘fanatic,’’ ‘‘radical,’’ any kind of pejorative 

words that could be used. My statement at that time was, ‘‘This is 

ridiculous. We should not be engaging in any ad hominem attacks.’’ 

And because I had a relationship with this reporter throughout 

that time, I shared with him that this is silly. I said, I have been 

on the campaign for 2 years and I have seen a lot of very strange, 

abnormal, out-of-the-ordinary individuals and groups working 

across the campaign, sir. And in fact I did use the word ‘‘queer.’’ 

I used the word ‘‘queer’’ in my mind, I think at the time in the dictionary it was described as odd, out-of-the-ordinary, unusual. I did 

not use the word as a pejorative. I did not use the word to denigrate any individual or any group. Again, 20 years ago that was 

a statement that I made. 

Senator DURBIN. Let me ask you this question. In a follow-up 

interview with the Dome, you stated that the remark was quote, 

‘‘an indiscretion,’’ close quote. Now, that seems inconsistent with 

what you have just said, that you just were referring to odd people. 

So what is it? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, if you go back again and look at the exact 

article that you’re referring to that you have before you, in that article you will find that when the reporter called me back to say, 

‘‘Did you know that you used the word ‘queer’?’’ I was shocked by 

it and in fact— 

Senator DURBIN. Why were— 

Mr. ALLEN. Sir, if I may— 

Senator DURBIN. Why were you shocked if it just meant an odd 

person? 

Mr. ALLEN. Because he interpreted it a different way, and when 

he came back to me he said, ‘‘Did you know you used this word?’’ 

And in fact, in the article that sits before you that you’re reading 

from, you will see in that exact article, before it even went to press, 

I extended an apology if anybody was offended by the word that I 

used. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you think Federal Judges today should use 

the word ‘‘queer’’ in normal conversation in relation to a group of 

people in America? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, again, I did not use the word ‘‘queer’’ in relation to a group of American—and America. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you think Federal Judges should use the 

word ‘‘queers’’ just— 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I don’t believe that we should use words 

that are pejorative in nature, that denigrate any individual. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you think that is pejorative and denigrates 

a person, the word ‘‘queer?’’ 

Mr. ALLEN. In the terms that you’re—the connotation that you’re 

giving to it, Senator, I believe that is a pejorative, and it’s a word 

60

that should not be used. It’s a word that I do not use. It’s a word 

that as a judge I think would be inappropriate to use to characterize an individual or group. 

Senator DURBIN. Mr. Allen, what should we teach our children 

about those who are homosexual and lesbian, people of different 

sexual orientation? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I don’t know how to answer that question, 

but I can tell you what I teach my children. 

Senator DURBIN. That is all I am asking. 

Mr. ALLEN. And my son is sitting here with me today. I brought 

him here for the very reason that I believe that we should be teaching our children that they should be part of a society that has 

treated me with great kindness, that has afforded me tremendous 

opportunities to sit here before you today to be considered to be a 

judge. I think I teach my children, my wife and I, to have respect 

and treat people with the very same dignity that they want to be 

treated with. 

You see, my son knows his heritage. He knows that his greatgrandfather was one of 25 children, lived to be 114 years old, the 

first child in his family not to be born a slave. My son knows his 

heritage, and that is what we teach our children, is how to respect 

and afford every person the equal dignity that they deserve. 

Senator DURBIN. Do you understand how some people in America 

might take your use of this word ‘‘queers’’ as being negative to 

denigrate them and not respectful? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, absolutely, and that is the exact reason why 

the time that I used the word, I sought to correct the record so that 

it would not be understood to denigrate any individual or any 

group. 

Senator DURBIN. So then let’s talk about another, if I might, Mr. 

Chairman, if I might ask you about the Martin Luther King holiday. Senator Helms, whom you worked for at the time, initiated a 

filibuster to stop the Martin Luther King holiday. What was your 

opinion of that filibuster and Dr. Martin Luther King’s contribution 

to America? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I appreciate your question regarding Dr. 

Martin Luther King. He has been a hero for me and my family, my 

generation. In fact, I believe that, again, if you look back at the 

record, you will see during the time that that holiday was being decided and voted on, it was the most difficult day for me in my life, 

because here was someone that I had grown up respecting, deeply 

respecting for his contribution to American society, for fighting for 

the civil rights not just of black people in this country but of all 

people in this country, and, in fact, it was such a difficult time that 

I left. I left the campaign that day because I was deeply impacted 

by what was going on here in Washington. 

And so, sir, my view of that day, my view of what was going on 

was one that was deeply conflicting for me because at the time that 

I was working there, I had a great respect for Dr. Martin Luther 

King and continue to have an abiding respect for him and his work 

and look forward to always have the opportunity to teach my children about what he has taught America and the world about peace, 

about resolving conflict peacefully, and about the importance of the 

dignity of individuals. 

61

Senator DURBIN. May I call your attention to the News and Observer, Raleigh, North Carolina, December 25th—it is hard to read, 

but it appears to be 1983. And here is what the reporter said. The 

reporter’s name, Rob Christiansen. This is an article about your relationship with Senator Helms and his agenda. ‘‘Allen said he 

shared those reservations about the King holiday and believes 

Helms was unfairly criticized. Allen said there is ample documentation that key King advisers were members of the American 

Communist Party. Allen said there are other prominent blacks 

more deserving of a national holiday, such as track star Jesse 

Owens, educator George Washington Carver, and abolitionist Frederick Douglass.’’ 

Did you say those things? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I do not see—I don’t have the article before 

me that you’re referring to, but I’d note that particularly in the article that you’re referring, I don’t think it’s quoting me as saying 

anything to that effect. But let me make sure that I clarify for the 

record what my view was and is about the Martin Luther King holiday and about the other individuals that you mention there. 

I believe that Dr. King deserved a holiday. I believe that Dr. 

King has worked tirelessly in his lifetime for this country. I believe 

that the Martin Luther King, Jr., Center for Creative Non–Violence 

continues that work today. That’s why I’ve worked with them in 

many areas. 

In terms of Jesse Owens and others, I assume—I believe that my 

comment would be that there are many African Americans, including Jesse Owens, including others, who have contributed not just 

to African-American culture, sir, but to American culture, and that 

those individuals would be deserving of attention as well. So, sir, 

I do not have the ability because I don’t have the context before 

me— 

Senator DURBIN. If I could ask one last question, Mr. Chairman, 

this will be the last in this round. 

Do you still believe that key advisers to Dr. Martin Luther King 

were members of the American Communist Party? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I believe that the factual record indicates 

that there were associates of Dr. Martin Luther King who were 

members of the American Communist Party. However, notwithstanding that, that says nothing about the contribution that Dr. 

King has made to our society. We know that during that time there 

were people on all sides and many people in this country who were 

members of the American Communist Party. But that does not necessarily mean that Dr. King was. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you, Mr. Allen. Just one question, and 

I want to turn to Senator Sessions because he has to preside over 

the floor and would like to say a few things or ask a few questions. 

With regard to the use of that term, if I interpreted you correctly, 

you are saying by today’s standards that is a bad term under all 

circumstances. 

Mr. ALLEN. I would say that, yes, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. Twenty years ago, you did not mean it that 

way. 

Mr. ALLEN. That’s correct, Senator. I did not. 

Chairman HATCH. You clarified that in the article— 

62

Mr. ALLEN. I clarified that. 

Chairman HATCH. —or the interview whether it was—whether 

he put all of your remarks in the article or not, you clarified it? 

Mr. ALLEN. That’s correct, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. That is what I got out of all that, and I agree, 

today it would be a very pejorative term. And to many back then 

it would be. But that is not the way you meant it. 

Mr. ALLEN. That’s correct, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. Let me turn to Senator Sessions, and then I 

would like to ask some questions. 

STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF SESSIONS, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF ALABAMA 

Senator SESSIONS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I got to know Secretary Allen when we had a problem in Alabama with health care 

in the rural areas of the State, African-American majority in many 

of the counties, and the health care system that was working there 

was not working. And there was concern over the quality of health 

care and financial management and some decisions had to be 

made. And we were concerned as to whether or not in making some 

changes we would have periods of time in which there would be no 

health care in the region, that people who were depending on those 

clinics wouldn’t get health care. 

Now, I asked you to help. You said you would. You said you 

would come to Alabama. You came and spent 2 days, and we traveled through towns of 100 and 250 and small towns, and we visited 

clinics and we talked to people. And you made a commitment that 

we would not see a degradation of health care, and I want to thank 

you for that personal commitment to poor people in Alabama who 

had no, I guess, power to claim or demand anything, but you responded. Thank you for that. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator. It was a privilege to travel with 

you during that time. 

Senator SESSIONS. And we fixed the problem, I think. 

Mr. ALLEN. Indeed we did, and that’s part of what I’ve tried to 

make my career in the executive branch, sir, doing, is trying to 

solve problems, ensure that people of all backgrounds, regardless of 

race, regardless of ability to pay, receive quality health care. And, 

Senator, your leadership in that and partnership with the executive branch to accomplish that was a tremendous opportunity and 

I thank you for it. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, thank you. I don’t usually have the Principal Deputy Secretary, Tommy Thompson’s right-hand man, saying, ‘‘I will leave Washington and come down and travel with you 

and see firsthand this problem,’’ and that was something I really 

appreciated and will not forget. 

I just want to say, with regard to your background, I think it is 

extraordinary. You have State, local, and Federal experience. You 

have served on the Foreign Relations Committee staff here, as a 

press secretary in one of the most contentious, toughest campaigns 

America has seen, and you were young and a press secretary then. 

That was before you went to law school, was it not? 

Mr. ALLEN. That is indeed correct, Senator. 

63

Senator SESSIONS. I guess they teach you to be more careful with 

your language when you go to law school. As a matter of fact, I had 

a little meeting with my staff yesterday about—I said getting 

speeches and remarks past me is difficult because I have been to 

law school and they teach you to be so persnickety about what you 

say. 

But I am looking at your background. Here you went to the University of North Carolina, one of the great universities in America, 

and got your B.A. there. You went on in 1990, later, after working 

in Washington, and got your law degree at Duke, one of the great 

law schools in America, got your LL.M. in international and comparative law at Duke University. And I think that is a tremendous 

academic background. You clerked on a court of appeals, which is—

would you explain to us, please, Mr. Allen, how when you clerk on 

a court of appeals, what kind of experience that gives you and insight that gives you to be a court of appeals judge? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator, for the opportunity to do so. The 

D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals is the U.S. Federal court of appeals 

that sits under the Supreme Court that handles the D.C. Circuit. 

The cases that come before that court are some of the most complex 

in the country, in large part because it is largely the administrative 

docket. It handles the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, all 

the agency appeals that would come there, and so it has a heavy 

administrative docket that I had worked on for Hon. David B. 

Sentelle. 

We also would handle your civil cases, your criminal cases, and 

so it was a broad exposure to the many opportunities addressing 

complex litigation questions that came before the court. 

Senator SESSIONS. And that judge you worked for was a court of 

appeals judge, the same position you are being nominated for. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is correct. 

Senator SESSIONS. And you sat basically at his right hand, heard 

the arguments, helped prepare briefs, do research, and were familiar with the entire panoply of issues that would come before you 

as a circuit judge. 

Mr. ALLEN. That is correct, Senator. 

Senator SESSIONS. And also let me point out for the record—and 

I think most lawyers know—being selected as a clerk for a court 

of appeals judge is a great honor. It is hard enough to be a clerk 

for a Federal district judge, but to be selected as a clerk for a court 

of appeals judge says a great deal about your legal ability, your law 

school record, your integrity and work ethic, or you wouldn’t have 

been selected. Maybe you don’t want to comment on that, but very, 

very few lawyers are selected to be clerks for the courts of appeals 

in the United States and even fewer for the Supreme Court. And 

not many get selected as clerks for Federal district judges because 

all of those are premier legal appointments for top graduates of top 

law schools. 

Then you went on with Baker and Botts, an attorney for them, 

which is one of the great law firms, I guess, in the world. You were 

counsel to the Office of Attorney General in Virginia, a Deputy Attorney General. When I was Attorney General of Alabama, my deputies were the key people that I depended on. They did the legal 

64

work in the office. They briefed me, and I didn’t put somebody in 

as a deputy that I didn’t trust. 

What kind of matters did you have under your portfolio there, 

Mr. Allen? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Senator. In the Attorney General’s Office, 

as the deputy I headed the civil litigation division, which meant 

that I had a staff of 75 attorneys and staff who handled all the civil 

matters for the Commonwealth of Virginia. We handled real estate 

cases, employment cases. We handled the energy utility cases, consumer protection issues, and other civil litigation issues. And so it 

was the largest division of the Office of the Attorney General that 

I was charged with overseeing and working in those cases. 

We also handled a lot of elections law issues and reapportionment cases, cases that would impact the rights and obligations of 

the Commonwealth of Virginia. 

Senator SESSIONS. Well, I think that is an important position. 

There is no doubt about it. The civil litigation involved millions and 

millions of dollars, and the experience you get as an Attorney General is important for a court of appeals judge, in my view, because 

so many of the issues that bubble up to the courts of appeal that 

have such impact involve the States and governmental agencies. So 

that is a good background. In addition to your private practice, you 

were Secretary of Health and Human Resources in the Office of 

Governor of Virginia, in his Cabinet, and Deputy Secretary, really 

the principal senior deputy, for the U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services serving at the right hand of former Governor and 

now Secretary Tommy Thompson. 

I would just say one thing about—and I have got to run and preside in the Senate. I wish I could be with you longer because I really respect you and I appreciate your leadership. When Mr. Gregory 

was appointed by President Clinton to the Fourth Circuit, Senator 

Helms was not happy about that. He thought it was a North Carolina seat. They had gone to zero judges from North Carolina, as I 

recall. It is zero now, maybe, unless they count you. You could 

claim two States, perhaps. So we went all through that. But everybody knew that the President had no legal requirement to appoint 

anybody from a State, and judges on circuit courts of appeals do 

not represent States. They represent the United States of America, 

is who they represent. They speak for the Constitution and the 

Federal laws, and, in fact, we have created Federal courts, as the 

Constitution did, to try to make sure that you do not have home 

cooking, that they represent a fair group of referees that are not 

part of the local milieu that wouldn’t give people from different 

States an unfair ruling—to give a fair ruling. 

So it is not as if you are there to represent a State, but as part 

of history and tradition, usually judges come from each State on a 

proportional basis, and that is how that goes. The fact is we are 

out of sync in the Fourth Circuit. Virginia is underrepresented in 

the court, and so is North Carolina. And I think this is not an extreme thing by the President. He discussed that. He wrote letters 

about it explaining what he was doing, Mr. Gonzales did, and I 

hope that our Senators from Maryland will understand that this is 

not an affront to Maryland, but it is a situation in which the President has some leeway to appoint from what States he wants, and 

65

he tries to respect the interest of various States, but ultimately his 

appointment, other than that one has to be from each State—that 

is by law. I just think that we need to work our way through this. 

I respect their concerns, but I really do believe Maryland is not 

going to get shortchanged in it. They were certainly supportive, as 

I recall, of Mr. Gregory when President Clinton nominated him in 

what was perceived to be a North Carolina seat and supported him 

when President Bush nominated him. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I hate to run back to the floor, but 

I am due to preside. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you, Senator. We appreciate it. 

Before I turn to Senator Craig, let me just ask you a couple of 

questions. The Hugh Finn situation was raised, and I think we 

ought to set that record as clear as we can. You received a complaint from the State representatives and from some of Hugh 

Finn’s family members about the care he was receiving at the nursing home at which he was hospitalized, and you referred those 

complaints to the Governor, as I understand it. Is that right? 

Mr. ALLEN. I referred to the Department of Medical Assistance 

Service, which was the agency that was required to undertake any 

investigation, but also forwarded it to the Governor because of the 

significance of the case. 

Chairman HATCH. Did you draft any of the Governor’s briefs in 

the case? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Were you named as a defendant in Michele 

Finn’s motion for sanctions against the Governor’s office for its role 

in the case? 

Mr. ALLEN. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Did the Virginia Supreme Court decide that 

sanctions were warranted against the Governor’s office for conduct 

in the case? 

Mr. ALLEN. It did not, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay. In fact, didn’t the Virginia Supreme 

Court specifically say that the Governor’s interpretation of the Virginia Health Care Decisions Act, which was the controlling statute 

in this case, was reasonable at the time because the court itself 

had not authoritatively construed the relevant provisions of the 

statute? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Entirely apart from the legal issue in this 

case, let me just note that the material this Committee has received indicate to me that there were serious disputes amongst 

Hugh Finn’s family members about how terminal his condition was 

and whether his feeding tube should be removed. I understand that 

the State introduced evidence that 43 percent of patients diagnosed 

as being in a persistent vegetative state are diagnosed wrongly. Is 

that right? 

Mr. ALLEN. I understand that is correct, Senator. 

Chairman HATCH. Is it also true that it was a serious dispute 

among various family members? 

Mr. ALLEN. That was very clear, yes, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. And, further, didn’t Michele Finn’s sister and 

mother in addition to Hugh Finn’s brothers, mother, and father 

66

plead with the Governor to get involved in this case to save Hugh’s 

life even after they had agreed to drop their personal legal actions 

against Michele? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Ed Finn, one of Hugh’s brothers, wrote a letter to the editor of the Washington Post after that newspaper had 

editorialized in favor of his wife’s decision to remove Hugh’s feeding 

tubes. Let me quote briefly from that letter, which I think is very 

powerful: ‘‘The Post said that reason as well as the law prevailed 

when the courts turned away Virginia Governor James Gilmore’s 

attempts to block removal of my brother’s feeding tube. I often wish 

I had the omniscience of the press so I could pass such judgments 

and know all things. I don’t. But I, nonetheless, applauded the actions of Governor Gilmore because I believe he acted out of human 

compassion. The part of my family that capitulated to the will of 

Hugh’s legal guardian, his wife, Michele, still does not agree with 

her. We feel that she unnecessarily took a life and took it by a 

method that was far from merciful.’’ 

Finally, Governor Gilmore received the following handwritten letter from Hugh’s mother after Hugh’s death by starvation, which 

took 10 days, as I understand. ‘‘I am writing to thank you for coming forward and trying to save my son’s life. I realize it took courage on your part, and you were always subject to ridicule. We know 

you did not do this for political purposes, but only to help save a 

life and to help our family. We are very grateful to you and are 

sorry for any problems that this has caused you.’’ 

Were you aware of that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Yes, I was, sir. 

Chairman HATCH. Okay. Well, I don’t think it is fair to try and 

find some fault on your part with regard to this very, very sensitive 

and difficult set of problems. 

Now, Secretary Allen, you have served in all three branches of 

the Federal Government, as well as the executive branch of the 

State Government. You now manage a budget of over $400 billion 

as Deputy Secretary of HHS. Your academic credentials include a 

law degree as well as a Master of Law degree from a very good law 

school, Duke University, one of the finest law schools in the Nation. 

Now, let me ask you, what would your grandfather—Grandpa 

Ray you referred to—who I understand died when he was 114 

years of age and was the first in his family who was not born a 

slave. What would he tell us about you if he were here today and 

we asked him whether you were prepared to be a Federal appellate 

judge? 

Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for that comment 

and thank you for acknowledging my family and its heritage. My 

grandfather had a significant impact on my life. Because of the 

hardships that he grew up in—he was a sharecropper, he raised 13 

children, and he didn’t harbor a hateful bone in his life, in his 

body. He cared about people. He reached out to people. And my 

grandfather would say, ‘‘A job well done, my grandson.’’ He would 

say to continue serving our Nation and serving and giving back to 

those who I’ve received from. And so I am very honored to be nominated by the President, to lay my credentials for this Committee 

67

and this body, and to have an opportunity to bring some pride to 

my family, for them to be pleased to know that a young man who 

grew up in this city in a two-bedroom apartment could 1 day sit 

before the people of this country and serve them in a public office 

and be entrusted with the opportunity to do justice for others, I 

think my Granddad would be very honored and very proud. 

Chairman HATCH. I think he is, between you and me. 

Now, Secretary Allen, among the many important issues you 

have dealt with directly during your tenure at HHS is Project Bio–

Shield, which I understand you are working to implement. Can you 

explain what that program is and the progress you and HHS are 

making towards it completion? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Project Bio–Shield is a result of the events of post–9/11/2001, a date that we’ll all remember 

in this country. As we surveyed the role of the public health community, we surveyed and understood the preparation that this Nation has, we realized there were some significant gaps—significant 

gaps in preparing us to respond to not only bioterrorist events but 

other events that impact our society that can have a public health 

impact. And so Project Bio–Shield is a multimillion-dollar initiative 

sponsored by the President and supported by the Congress that is 

calling for the Department to advance the research necessary to 

produce antidotes, to produce vaccines, for example, to produce a 

next-generation smallpox vaccine, to produce a vaccine to fight anthrax, botulinum toxin, many agents that we don’t know, or to 

produce a vaccine to combat the plague, a 14th century disease 

that we often think is not one that anybody would relish contracting, but can be weaponized and used against this country. 

And, indeed, as a part of the Department, it is a privilege to uphold the oath that I took as the Deputy Secretary, and that was 

to defend the Constitution of the United States against enemies, 

foreign and domestic, and that’s what we believe Project Bio–Shield 

would give us an opportunity to do. And so we are grateful for the 

support of the Congress, the appropriations to do that, and the National Institutes of Health, the Food and Drug Administration, the 

Centers for Disease Control, the Defense Department, and many 

other partners are working on this together to try to make America 

a safer place. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, thank you. I will reserve and submit 

questions in writing, further questions. 

Senator Craig from Idaho. 

STATEMENT OF HON. LARRY E. CRAIG, A U.S. SENATOR FROM 

THE STATE OF IDAHO 

Senator CRAIG. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. 

Secretary Allen, it is enjoyable for me to sit here and get to know 

you better simply by listening, because while I knew of you, I had 

not had an opportunity to review your background and your experience, your education, your training. It is broad, extensive; for your 

age it is phenomenal. And I congratulate you on your successes. 

Senator Sessions a few moments ago talked about circuit courts 

and why they were established. He used a unique phrase, basically 

to disallow ‘‘home cooking.’’ In other words, the guardians of the 

Constitution, to make sure that State courts, in essence, or even 

68

district courts did not necessarily misinterpret or misuse the Constitution or interpret it in a way that it was not intended to be. 

So your job is an important one. It is a critical one to our country, 

and I congratulate you on your nomination. 

Let me for just a few moments probe your thought processes, 

your thinking, and how you might function as judge. What do you 

think the most important attributes of a judge are, and in this 

case, a circuit judge? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator Craig, thank you for the question. I believe 

that it is very clear that a candidate for whether it be the circuit 

court or the district court needs to be an individual, man or 

woman, who has the academic preparation, has the professional 

preparation to undertake a seat on the court to which he or she 

was nominated, but also, must also possess the integrity, possess 

the ability to listen carefully and intently, to empathize with those 

who come before him or her in the court on which they sit, but also 

should have a commitment to upholding the Constitution of the 

United States and the laws interpreting that Constitution by the 

Supreme Court or a superior court in that case for the district 

court. And so those would be some of the characteristics that I believe that a judge for any court should possess before taking that 

office. 

Senator CRAIG. Do you possess them? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I would lay my credentials before you and 

allow you to be the judge of that. But I do believe that I have prepared for such an opportunity to serve and would be honored to do 

so. 

Senator CRAIG. Probably all of us in our growing up, if you will, 

look at others, use them as examples of people we would like to be 

like, or certainly those within our profession that we would like to 

achieve to equally. Is there a member of the bench, living or dead, 

whom you admire? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, I would do great injustice if I didn’t mention 

the judge for whom I clerked. The Honorable David B. Sentelle, 

who sits on the D.C. Circuit, would be one. 

I have great respect for all of the Justices of the Supreme Court 

and members who serve in the judiciary. 

Senator CRAIG. All of them? 

Mr. ALLEN. All of them, because each— 

Senator CRAIG. All right. 

Mr. ALLEN. Because each individual there— 

Senator CRAIG. I don’t necessarily agree with all of them. I might 

respect them, but I have got a lot of trouble with some of them. 

Mr. ALLEN. Exactly. I believe that while you can disagree with 

them, I think we should all have a respect, a healthy respect for 

the authorities over us. And those would includes our Justices and 

judges who serve in this land because each of them have had to 

work to come to a place where this body has deemed them ready 

to serve and give back in public service. And so, yes, I have many 

that I would say that I look to, but I respect all of them for the 

work that they’ve undertaken to achieve where they are. 

Senator CRAIG. Say there is no clear precedent in a case that you 

are reviewing and listening. To what source, then, do you turn for 

69

guidance in rendering a decision that you may ultimately have to 

make? 

Mr. ALLEN. Senator, you would turn to the Constitution first and 

foremost. That is the oath that we would take, is to uphold and defend the Constitution. But we would also look to the precedents of 

the United States Supreme Court, and in this case would also, as 

I would be considered for the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals, I 

would like to circuit precedents in that regard as well. 

Senator CRAIG. If the Supreme Court reached a decision that you 

believed was fundamentally erroneous, would you follow that precedent or apply your own judgment to the issues of law placed before 

you? 

Mr. ALLEN. As a judge who would be serving on an intermediary 

court, it would be my obligation to follow the precedents set by the 

United States Supreme Court. 

Senator CRAIG. You view that as your compass? 

Mr. ALLEN. Absolutely. 

Senator CRAIG. Well, we hope that the bit of a squabble that is 

going on at this moment between the States of Virginia and Maryland can be resolved. I understand how important positions like 

that which you have been nominated to are to all of us. And we 

are constantly reminded—I am in my State—of the importance of 

the circuit and the decisions made. I am disadvantaged, though. I 

reside in the Ninth Circuit, the most dysfunctional circuit in the 

Nation. So our Supreme Court Justices speak to that, and we feel 

very handicapped there and are trying to resolve that and reshape 

it a bit. I think you will be serving in a different circuit, but you 

would serve us well in the Ninth with your background and experience. 

Mr. Chairman, let me return to the questioning to you. And I 

look forward to supporting you. 

Chairman HATCH. Thank you so much, Senator. 

Mr. Allen, I have known you for a long time. I have a lot of respect for you and I am very proud of you and your family and your 

friends who are here. I hope we can resolve these problems. I am 

certainly trying, because I would like to see you serve in this position. You are doing a great job down there at HHS, and I respect 

and appreciate that you job you are doing. I thought you did a good 

job in the State as well, in the State of Virginia. So you qualify for 

this position, and I will do everything I can to see that you get into 

this position. 

But right now, it is bollixed up because of the problems that have 

been raised, but I will be working hard to try and resolve it. How 

is that? 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Well, since nobody else is here and everybody 

has had an opportunity who wanted to ask questions, we will recess until further notice. Thank you for being here, and I will do 

my very best to get you through. 

Mr. ALLEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Chairman HATCH. Thanks so much. 

[Whereupon, at 12:17 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

[The biographical information of Mr. Allen follows:] 

[Questions and answers and submissions for the record follow.]

70


94083.035
71


94083.036
72


94083.037
73


94083.038
74


94083.039
75


94083.040
76


94083.041
77


94083.042
78


94083.043
79


94083.044
80


94083.045
81


94083.046
82


94083.047
83


94083.048
84


94083.049
85


94083.050
86


94083.051
87


94083.052
88


94083.053
89


94083.054
90


94083.055
91


94083.056
92


94083.057
93


94083.058
94


94083.059
95


94083.060
96


94083.061
97


94083.062
98


94083.063
99


94083.064
100


94083.065
101


94083.066
102


94083.067
103


94083.068
104


94083.069
105


94083.070
106


94083.071
107


94083.072
108


94083.073
109


94083.074
110


94083.075
111


94083.076
112


94083.077
113


94083.078
114


94083.079
115


94083.080
116


94083.081
117


94083.082
118


94083.083
119


94083.084
120


94083.085
121


94083.086
122


94083.087
123


94083.088
124


94083.089
125


94083.090
126


94083.091
127


94083.092
128


94083.093
129


94083.094
130


94083.095
131


94083.096
132


94083.097
133


94083.098
134


94083.099
135


94083.100
136


94083.101
137


94083.102
138


94083.103
139


94083.104
140


94083.105
141


94083.106
142


94083.107
143


94083.108
144


94083.109
145


94083.110
146


94083.111
147


94083.112
148


94083.113
149


94083.114
150


94083.115
151


94083.116
152


94083.117
153


94083.118
154


94083.119
155


94083.120
156


94083.169
157


94083.121
158


94083.122
159


94083.123
160


94083.124
161


94083.125
162


94083.126
163


94083.127
164


94083.128
165


94083.129
166


94083.130
167


94083.131
168


94083.132
169


94083.133
170


94083.134
171


94083.135
172


94083.136
173


94083.137
174


94083.138
175


94083.139
176


94083.140
177


94083.141
178


94083.142
179


94083.143
180


94083.144
181


94083.145
182


94083.146
183


94083.147
184


94083.148
185


94083.149
186


94083.150
187


94083.151
188


94083.152
189


94083.153
190


94083.154
191


94083.155
192


94083.156
193


94083.157
194


94083.158
195


94083.159
196


94083.160
197


94083.161
198


94083.162
199


94083.163
200


94083.164
201


94083.165
202


94083.166
203


94083.167
204

Æ


94083.168