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) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–064 PDF 2012

S. Hrg. 112–565 

NOMINATIONS OF WALTER M. SHAUB JR., 

KIMBERLEY S. KNOWLES, AND RAINEY R. BRANDT 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON 

HOMELAND SECURITY AND 

GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

NOMINATIONS OF WALTER M. SHAUB JR. TO BE DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

GOVERNMENT ETHICS; KIMBERLEY S. KNOWLES AND RAINEY R. 

BRANDT TO BE ASSOCIATE JUDGES, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

JULY 20, 2012 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov/ 

Printed for the use of the 

Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs 

( 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman 

CARL LEVIN, Michigan 

DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas 

MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana 

CLAIRE MCCASKILL, Missouri 

JON TESTER, Montana 

MARK BEGICH, Alaska 

SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine 

TOM COBURN, Oklahoma 

SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts 

JOHN MCCAIN, Arizona 

RON JOHNSON, Wisconsin 

ROB PORTMAN, Ohio 

RAND PAUL, Kentucky 

JERRY MORAN, Kansas 

MICHAEL L. ALEXANDER, Staff Director 

KRISTINE V. LAM, Professional Staff Member 

NICHOLAS O. TRAGER, Staff Assistant 

CHRISTINE K. WEST, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

BRYAN G. POLISUK, Counsel, Subcommittee on Oversight of Government 

Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia 

NICHOLAS A. ROSSI, Minority Staff Director 

JENNIFER L. TARR, Minority Counsel 

TRINA DRIESSNACK TYRER, Chief Clerk 

PATRICIA R. HOGAN, Publications Clerk 

LAURA W. KILBRIDE, Hearing Clerk 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Opening statement: Page 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 1 

Prepared statement: 

Senator Akaka .................................................................................................. 19 

WITNESSES 

FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2012 

Hon. Eleanor Holmes Norton, a Delegate in Congress from the District of 

Columbia ............................................................................................................... 1 

Hon. James P. Moran, a Representative in Congress from the State of Virginia ....................................................................................................................... 3 

Walter M. Shaub Jr. to be Director, Office of Government Ethics: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 20 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 23 

Letter from the Office of Government Ethics ................................................. 32 

Responses to pre-hearing questions ................................................................ 33 

Kimberley S. Knowles to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 12 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 53 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 54 

Rainey R. Brandt to be an Associate Judge, Superior Court of the District 

of Columbia: 

Testimony .......................................................................................................... 13 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 70 

Biographical and financial information .......................................................... 71 

Letters of Support ............................................................................................. 85 

(1) 

NOMINATIONS OF WALTER M. SHAUB JR., 

KIMBERLEY S. KNOWLES, AND 

RAINEY R. BRANDT 

FRIDAY, JULY 20, 2012 

U.S. SENATE,

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS, 

Washington, DC. 

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:30 a.m., in room 

SD–342, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Daniel K. Akaka, 

presiding. 

Present: Senator Akaka. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF SENATOR AKAKA 

Senator AKAKA. This hearing will come to order. Aloha and good 

morning to everyone. Thank you for your interest in this hearing. 

I believe this hearing will really make a difference for the District 

of Columbia. 

Today, the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs meets to consider the nomination of Walter M. Shaub to be 

the Director of the U.S. Office of Government Ethics (OGE). 

On the second panel of today’s hearing, we will consider the 

nominations of Rainey R. Brandt and Kimberley S. Knowles to be 

Associate Judges on the D.C. Superior Court. 

I would like to extend a warm welcome to our nominees and 

their families and their friends, and I look forward to their testimony today. 

Here to introduce the witnesses are two well known Congresspeople. We know they always have a busy schedule, so we certainly 

appreciate their presence here and their remarks about our nominees. 

I am glad to see and be able to introduce Congresswoman Norton, who always makes time to join us to introduce the D.C. judicial nominees. I appreciate her being here today. I am glad to see 

Representative Moran is here also. 

At this time, I would like to call Congresswoman Norton to 

please proceed with her remarks. 

STATEMENT OF HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, A 

DELEGATE IN CONGRESS FROM THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. NORTON. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka. 

I want to introduce two well-qualified candidates for our Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. 

2 

Before I do so, may I thank you, Senator, for the work you have 

done this year that has been of great assistance to the District of 

Columbia on our Superior Court bill, our Special Elections bill, and 

most recently the Budget Autonomy bill. 

You have always been indispensable to the city and you have certainly shown that this year. We very much appreciate it. 

The first of the two candidates is Kimberly Knowles, who is now 

a Magistrate Judge in the D.C. Superior Court. She came to that 

post after being Deputy Chief of the Sex Offense and Domestic Violence Section in the Office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of 

Columbia where she served in virtually all of its sections—appellate, general felony, community prosecution, major crimes, fraud 

and public corruption, and sex offense and domestic violence, 

where, of course, she became Deputy Chief. 

She began her career in Washington by clerking for Judge Eric 

Washington, who was then an Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior 

Court, the post for which she has been recommended, and is now 

the Chief Judge of the D.C. Court of Appeals. 

She prepared at Cornell University where she got her Bachelor’s 

Degree and at Howard University School of Law where she got her 

law degree. 

Senator, the second nominee is Rainey Brandt. Ms. Brandt has 

a Ph.D. in sociology with a focus on criminal justice, in addition to 

her law degree from Catholic University. 

Dr. Rainey is now Special Counsel to the Chief Judge of the court 

for which she has been recommended, Judge Lee Satterfield of the 

D.C. Superior Court; and I believe he is here today. 

She has served in this role for each of the last three Chief Judges 

of our Superior Court and she clerked for two judges on our Superior Court. 

She has served also as an ombudsman to the justice community 

for prisoner and correctional issues. Dr. Brandt, in her roles in the 

Superior Court, has taken leadership for a decade on improving access to justice and to the administration of justice in our city. 

Among her many achievements were two successful fugitive safe 

surrender initiatives, which significantly reduced outstanding warrants. For her work in the administration of justice, she received 

an award given annually, the Council for Court Excellence Justice 

Potter Stewart Award. 

Dr. Brandt continues as an Adjunct Professor in the Department 

of Justice, Law, and Society at American University, where she 

was a full-time professor before coming to the Superior Court. 

She has engaged in many activities that have been of great assistance to our residents here in the District of Columbia. 

It gives me great pleasure to strongly recommend both of these 

nominees to you, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Congresswoman, for your 

remarks. We really do appreciate it. I want to wish you well in 

your work here. Thank you. 

Now, I am delighted to welcome Congressman Moran to this 

hearing. I know he is a busy person as well so we do appreciate 

his remarks. 

Will you please proceed, Congressman. 

3 

STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES P. MORAN, A REPRESENTATIVE 

IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIRGINIA 

Mr. MORAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is an honor 

to testify before you, Senator Akaka, and it is a delight to be on 

the panel with my good friend Mrs. Norton, and to have the opportunity to introduce Walter Shaub. 

I know that Mrs. Norton and you and I have had an opportunity 

to travel around the world and observe the consequences of failed 

states and rampant corruption and how infectious, cancerous that 

can be on the entire body of the population. 

I know that all of us have reflected at times that Americans take 

for granted what they should be much more appreciative about, 

which is their own government, and that we have the most professional and the least corruptible large civil service in the world, and 

it is a civil service that should be highly respected and appreciated. 

Even though we read about all of them, it is, nevertheless, rare 

when we find corruption, fraud, and abuse in our Federal Government. But we cannot take it for granted. It may not be a unique 

feature of the American character. 

I wish it were so, but I think a lot of this is because of the vigilance and investment of people and resources to direct and oversee 

and demand accountability. 

The U.S. Office of Government Ethics’ mission is ‘‘to foster high 

ethical standards for Executive Branch employees and to strengthen the public’s confidence.’’ The government’s business is conducted 

with impartiality and integrity, and I cannot think of anyone more 

qualified to oversee that mission than Walter Shaub. 

He has the experience, the integrity, and the confidence to fulfill 

the high expectations invested in the office. I will just briefly give 

you a quick summary of what he has been doing for just about the 

last 5 years. 

He has been Deputy General Counsel for the Senior Executive 

Service. He advanced the President’s transition effort in 2008 and 

2009 by accomplishing the review of nearly 800 financial disclosure 

packages of candidates to appointments requiring Senate confirmation and senior White House staff. 

As a senior executive of the Office of Government Ethics, he 

drove the legal interpretation and policy for government ethics in 

the Federal Executive Branch. 

He coordinated with the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal 

Counsel on presidential legal questions. He supported the Office of 

the Counsel to the President and the staffs of the Senate and 

House committees by providing guidance and technical assistance 

on a wide range of legal issues. 

He has negotiated a number of agreements with our staffs to prevent conflicts of interest. He has conducted training, advising agency ethics officials, supporting Inspector General investigations, and 

reviewing legal memoranda and letters for publication. 

He has been recognized for providing outstanding executive level 

leadership to the decentralized Executive Branch ethics programs. 

So, I am not going to use any more of my time other than to offer 

my heartfelt congratulations and to wish Mr. Shaub a true and 

steady course in his new responsibilities. 

4 

I thank you for the honor of being able to testify before you, Senator Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Congressman Moran, for 

your service to our country and particularly the State of Virginia. 

I know you care deeply about these issues and our Federal workforce. I am happy that you were able to join us here today. 

Mr. MORAN. Well, thank you for all you have done for the Federal workforce, incidentally. Invariably, the things that matter to 

the quality of life and the compensation of our Federal employees 

originate with you more often than not, Senator Akaka, and you 

have been kind. I want to thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I want to wish you well in your continued service to the State of Virginia and this great country. So, 

thank you very much. And Congresswoman Norton, thank you. 

Mr. Shaub, we will be hearing from you soon. You spent most of 

your professional career in the Federal workforce, and I want to 

thank you for your service to our country. 

You have been employed for nearly 9 years at the Office of Government Ethics where you are currently the Deputy General Counsel. Prior to joining OGE, you worked as an attorney in the Offices 

of General Counsel at the Departments of Veterans’ Affairs and 

Health and Human Services, and you practiced law in the private 

sector. 

So that is a quick summary of your background. 

Mr. Shaub, I understand that your wife and parents are here 

today, as well as your supporters and friends. I would like to give 

you an opportunity to acknowledge them at this time. 

Mr. SHAUB. Thank you, Senator. My wife, Sheila, is sitting on my 

right. 

Senator AKAKA. Welcome. 

Mr. SHAUB. And my mother, JoAnn Shaub, and my father, Walter Shaub Sr., are next to her. 

Senator AKAKA. You should be proud. 

Mr. SHAUB. I am very glad they are here. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Aloha again and welcome. I am 

happy to see you here today in support of Mr. Shaub. 

In 1978, Congress passed the Ethics in Government Act, which 

established the Office of Government Ethics to foster high ethical 

standards and strengthen the public’s confidence in government. 

OGE oversees Federal employee financial disclosures, trains 

thousands of Federal ethics officials governmentwide, sets enforceable ethics standards for employees, and reviews presidential nominees’ financial disclosure reports. 

Mr. Shaub, this important position allows you to show the American people that ethical leadership begins at the top. It is crucial 

that you ensure that ethics regulations are followed and appropriate standards upheld. 

At its core, ethics in government requires that government decisions are determined by the public interest rather than any personal interest. 

Again, I look forward to your testimony here today. Mr. Shaub 

has filed responses to biographical and financial questionnaires 

and answered prehearing questions submitted by the Committee. 

5 

1The prepared statement of Mr. Shaub appears in the Appendix on page 20. 

Without objection, this information will be made part of the hearing record, with the exception of the financial information, which 

is on file and available for public inspection in the Committee office. 

Our Committee rules require that witnesses at nomination hearings give their testimony under oath. So, therefore, I ask you to 

please stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony that you are about to give to 

the Committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but 

the truth, so help you, God. 

Mr. SHAUB. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Let it be noted in the record that the witness answered in the 

affirmative. 

Mr. Shaub, will you please proceed with your testimony. 

TESTIMONY OF WALTER M. SHAUB JR.1 TO BE DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF GOVERNMENT ETHICS 

Mr. SHAUB. Chairman Akaka, I thank you for the opportunity to 

appear before you today. 

I am deeply honored that President Obama has nominated me to 

be the Director of the Office of Government Ethics. I have been 

part of OGE’s leadership team for the past 6 years. OGE is a small 

agency with the big mission of making sure the public can have 

confidence in the government’s impartiality. 

I have been asked why I want to take on the responsibility of 

leading this agency. My answer is that I am committed to the solid 

ethics program that sets America apart in preserving the integrity 

of government operations. 

I am an ardent believer in OGE’s mission, and I want to expand 

my contribution to public service. I am a career civil servant who 

has come up through the ranks and knows the ethics program. I 

have worked collaboratively with agency ethics officials. I believe 

I know how to build consensus among them to make the ethics program even stronger and more efficient than it is now. 

In my current and past roles at OGE, I have worked to help the 

ethics program meet the challenges of increased transparency, accountability, and access that Americans expect from their government. 

I have worked with OGE’s staff and agency ethics officials to 

make government ethics not merely an aspiration but concrete in 

terms of its effect on the government. 

Every day, some part of the ethics program that OGE oversees 

is at work in every agency in the Executive Branch. It is ensuring 

that ethics is a top priority for appointees as they begin government service. It is ensuring that public servants at all levels remain free from conflicts of interest, and even the appearance of 

conflicts of interest, as they do their jobs. 

It is ensuring that employees who are seeking to leave the government remain impartial in their government work, and after 

they leave, it is ensuring that they do not have undue access to 

6 

their former agencies on behalf of others. Above all, it is working 

to protect the public’s trust in government. 

I seek to lead OGE because I believe so strongly in all of these 

things. When I come to work each day at OGE, I know I am supporting a mission that cuts across the government and is part of 

the very bedrock foundation of public service. If confirmed as Director, I would welcome the opportunity to lead OGE in meeting the 

challenges that lie ahead. 

Mr. Chairman, I thank you again for your consideration of my 

nomination. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your statement and 

your intentions as well. I will begin with the standard questions 

that this Committee asks of all nominees. 

Is there anything you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Mr. SHAUB. No, there is not. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you know of anything, personal or otherwise, 

that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Mr. SHAUB. No. 

Senator AKAKA. Finally, do you agree, without reservation, to respond to any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any 

duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Mr. SHAUB. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for your responses. 

Mr. Shaub, please discuss how your experience in Federal service 

and in particular your time at OGE have prepared you to serve as 

director, if confirmed? 

Mr. SHAUB. To begin with, I would reflect on the Federal employees I have worked with over the 15 years I have been in Federal 

Government, and I believe I really know these individuals. 

I think I have worked with them in so many different capacities 

both while I was in the private sector and in the public sector, and 

I know these are people who want to do the right thing and who 

are hard-working. 

I also know that we need a strong ethics program to help them 

make the right choices and know what the rules are. Having 

worked at OGE for nearly a decade total, I have had an opportunity to work with OGE in its formulation of policy, its interpretation of laws, and its establishment of regulations. 

I have helped provide direct assistance to agency ethics officials 

in individual cases that they found challenging and sought OGE’s 

assistance with. 

I have helped develop training tools and conduct training to assist them in doing their jobs and even reached out directly to the 

workforce of Federal employees with training products and guidance documents that were directed at them rather than just ethics 

officials. 

So, I believe this is a subject matter I know but also a community that I understand. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Mr. Shaub, I believe that the most 

important role of the Office of Government Ethics is to maintain 

7 

the public’s trust, as you have mentioned, in the Federal Government and the government employees. 

What can be done to improve the public’s perception of the manner in which the Federal Government serves the American people? 

Mr. SHAUB. Reaching out to the public is something that I would 

like to do. I think we need to publicize our successes as well as the 

things that make the news because the system broke down in individual cases. I think that there are a great many times when Federal employees are doing the right thing and working hard, and it 

goes unnoticed. 

I think also we can highlight that there are consequences when 

people do break the rules, and I think if we establish a habit of 

communicating both these successes and these enforcement actions, 

we can help the public understand what it is OGE does as an agency but also what it is that the broader Federal workforce does 

every single day they come to work. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for mentioning communication because it is so important to realize that very often people 

do things because they do not understand the rules. Federal agencies need to communicate in such a way that people understand 

what is expected. 

Mr. Shaub, please discuss what you consider to be the greatest 

challenges facing OGE, and in particular, I would like to hear 

about how you will address challenges associated with the recent 

passage of the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge (STOCK) 

Act. 

Mr. SHAUB. The STOCK Act right now is the immediate challenge that has been presented to us. It was passed just recently on 

April 4 and then signed by the President. 

We have been working very hard since the enactment of that 

statute. We have issued some guidance documents that are very 

thorough and address all of the issues that we could possibly think 

of coming up in the near future. We have worked with agency ethics officials to help identify areas where they may have questions 

or concerns; and we have tried to make our legal guidance comprehensive so that they will be able to then understand the statute 

well enough to translate it to all of the employees who are covered 

by it, particularly the 28,000 people who file public financial disclosure reports who are going to be covered by some new reporting requirements. 

One of the biggest challenges the Federal Government’s ethics 

program faces is translating some very complex legal requirements 

for employees on the front line of work of the Federal Government, 

and I think we do a very good job of that. 

We need to focus even more on this theme of communication and 

trying to find ways to speak to the front-line employees in ways 

that they can understand because I, again, believe that they want 

to do the right thing, but they need guidance they can understand 

to do it. 

We are continuing to work on developing the additional guidance 

and the technological capacity to do the additional requirements of 

the STOCK Act involving the development of a financial disclosure 

system that will be electronic and available to the public online so 

8 

that they can see what the disclosures of the government officials 

are. 

In terms of other challenges, we face on a cyclical basis the challenge of processing presidential nominee reports, which involve the 

most senior level officials in the Federal Government, and it is just 

a simple matter of risk management. 

It is very important that we commit our resources to make sure 

that these individuals who have the most authority and power and 

responsibility in the government are acting ethically and we have 

resolved their conflicts of interest going into the job before they 

even begin. 

That job, in terms of the volume of work, increases every time 

there is an election, regardless of who wins. And so, we are gearing 

up to be able to handle an increased volume in the near future. 

We also face the same challenge that the Federal Government as 

a whole faces, which is succession planning as more and more of 

the workforce in the Federal Government is reaching retirement 

age. 

That affects the ethics program in the sense that ethics officials 

are going to be retiring and we have to have a workforce of trained 

ethics officials who can replace them and truly understand the laws 

and to capture as much institutional knowledge from the senior 

knowledgeable ethics officials who are going to be leaving. 

But it also affects us in terms of working with the Federal workforce that will soon see significant turnover, and we have to again 

communicate the ethics rules in terms that these new employees 

will be able to understand, as well. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much for that response. As 

you know, we have many different types of Federal workers, including those who are overseas; and sometimes those who are overseas wonder where they are within the system. But that is another 

kind of challenge. 

Mr. Shaub, as you know, the STOCK Act requires OGE to allow 

the general public to search Federal employees’ financial disclosure 

reports online via an electronic filing system by October 2013. 

Recently, we have heard concerns that criminals and foreign intelligence services could take advantage of this information for 

other purposes. This may be a particular worry for Federal officials 

working in dangerous countries. 

What are your views on these concerns and do you believe Congress should consider modifying this requirement? 

Mr. SHAUB. In the immediate term while we are working with 

the STOCK Act as drafted, we have been looking for ways to comply literally with the law and with the spirit of the law as well and 

to implement it fully, and at the same time we have been hearing 

these concerns, and we are listening to them. They are coming from 

a very broad range of Federal employee groups and outside groups 

who are concerned about this issue that the privacy of these individuals has been limited and information revealed on the Internet 

so that anybody can see it on a much larger scale than ever before. 

These have always been public reports, but it is an issue of magnitude. They are now going to be on the Internet broadly, and typically lower-level officials’ reports do not actually get requested. 

9 

Now they will be so freely available that there is thought that 

some people will be viewing them. The concern that we have been 

hearing is anything from identity theft to embarrassment to people 

fearing for the safety of their children to the extent that it reveals 

where they are at any point if they have certain assets that disclose things that would lead you to conclude where they are. But 

also overseas, we have been hearing serious concerns about safety. 

I know from international meetings that we have had that there 

are countries out there who are very concerned about even having 

public financial disclosure at all because of the conditions where 

they are, and we have employees who are over there in those countries. 

So, we do take that very seriously, and we are studying all of our 

authorities to see how we can comply with the law and also provide 

some basic protections for the employees whose forms are being 

accessed. 

If the STOCK Act were changed to provide additional protections 

for these employees, I would definitely be in favor of that revision 

because I think we can strike a balance between privacy and safety 

and make things publicly available enough to help the public understand the financial motivations and interests of its leaders. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. I was happy to see 

in your answers to the Committee’s pre-hearing questions that one 

of your priorities, if confirmed, will be to increase OGE’s direct engagement with the agencies, particularly those overseas. 

I would like to hear more about how you intend to accomplish 

this and why you believe that a greater level of engagement would 

improve agency ethics programs governmentwide. 

Mr. SHAUB. I think that it is very important that the Federal 

Government has a decentralized ethics program, and this was a 

very well thought-out decision by Congress way back in 1978, as 

you mentioned, at the beginning of the current ethics program. 

This enables agency ethics officials to really understand the operations of their agency, know their missions, and actually know 

what is really going on out at those agencies. 

A check on each agency operating completely independently, 

though, is the Office of Government Ethics, which exists partly to 

provide uniformity to the ethics program and a consistent level of 

quality. 

I do not think we can achieve that if we are not spending time 

with these agency ethics officials and really understanding the 

challenges that they face, the issues that they face and maybe 

identifying areas where they are confused or their procedures could 

be improved if we have not made the issues clear enough to them 

with our legal analysis. 

I think that by targeting agency ethics officials for increased 

numbers of meetings and forming working groups on issues, we can 

roll up our sleeves and actually work together on things, some of 

which we have begun doing more recently, and I would like to continue in that direction. 

Along the same lines, I feel that if we make an appearance by 

interacting with the leadership of the agencies and helping agency 

ethics officials forge connections where they can have access to the 

leadership and make sure that their concerns are being listened to 

10 

and maybe they are involved even before decisions are made to prevent conflicts of interest in advance, we can achieve an effect far 

broader than if we simply targeted only individual employees. 

That being said, I think we also have to have some interaction 

with the individual employees by creating training products that 

they can use. An example of that is, we created a 6-minute video 

in July for the 28,000 public filers to help them understand the 

new requirements of the 30-day transaction reports under the 

STOCK Act. 

Senator AKAKA. Well, thank you very much. 

We have discussed a number of issues here today, and it is clear 

from your answers that this is a subject that you care about very 

deeply. 

I would like to know what you hope your legacy will be after 

your service as the OGE director? Stated a little differently, what 

is it that you would like people to remember about your tenure as 

the Director? 

Mr. SHAUB. The end result that I would like to achieve is an increased awareness and appreciation of an ethnical culture in all of 

the agencies, which is always difficult to measure but I think we 

can look at the concrete aspects of agency programs and the qualitative analysis of their commitment to ethics and the types of 

things they have done in support of ethics. 

On a personal level, if I am confirmed, I would like to be remembered as somebody who is deeply and personally engaged with the 

agencies in their work and not standing separate as an independent force just identifying legal issues and analyzing them in 

a vacuum without working closely with the ethics community. 

I think the ethics community right now is comprised of some absolutely fantastic individuals who do incredible work on a daily 

basis and really have made a strong impact on their agencies, and 

by working very closely with them, I am hoping I can even increase 

their impact on their agencies in building an ethical culture. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you for reflecting on that. 

Let me add that things have changed. When you look back at the 

laws and administrative policies, some of them are outdated. We 

need to update them as we go along. 

This Committee would appreciate any recommendations about 

what can be done to help you make sure that the rules are more 

understandable and clear. Large-scale reforms would require a 

huge effort, but we need to think about it. 

I want to thank you for your testimony and your responses, Mr. 

Shaub. 

At this time, I have no further questions. The hearing record will 

remain open until the close of business on Monday, July 23, for 

Members of this Committee to submit additional statements or 

questions. Any additional questions will be submitted to you in 

writing. 

So again, I thank you very much for being here today and for 

helping us know you better. I hope we can work rapidly on your 

confirmation. 

Mr. SHAUB. Thank you, Chairman Akaka. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much and thank you for having 

your family here with us. 

11 

1The letters of support for Ms. Brandt appear in the Appendix on page 85. 

I want to welcome the second panel of today’s hearing. We will 

consider the nominations of Rainey Brandt and Kimberley Knowles 

to be Associate Judges of the District of Columbia Superior Court. 

The Committee consistently receives excellent judicial candidates, nominated by the President from those recommended by 

the nonpartisan Judicial Nomination Commission. 

Judge Knowles is a Magistrate Judge at D.C. Superior Court. Before that, she spent a number of years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney. 

Ms. Brandt is Special Counsel to the Chief Judge of D.C. Superior Court, a position she has held since 1998. She also is an adjunct professor at American University. 

I want to note that the Committee received letters of support for 

Ms. Brandt’s nomination from the following D.C. Superior Court 

judges: 

Chief Judge Lee Satterfield, Retired Chief Judge Rufus King, 

Senior Judge Stephanie Duncan-Peters, Associate Judge Anthony 

Epstein, and Associate Judge Lynn Leibovitz. 

Letters of support were also submitted by the D.C. Court of Appeals Associate Judge Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, John Clark, Kenneth Wainstein, Bradley Weinsheimer, and the Bar Association of 

the District of Columbia. 

Each of these letters will be included in the hearing record.1

I believe the nominees have much to offer to the D.C. Superior 

Court and, if confirmed, will join others who have appeared before 

us in making valuable contributions to the District’s judicial system. 

Judge Knowles, I understand that this hearing conflicts with 

your family’s vacation so they could not be here with us today. Although they are not here, I would like to give you an opportunity 

to acknowledge them and your friends if you would like to do so. 

Ms. KNOWLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

My family is watching from Disney World, but I am happy to be 

here and to interrupt my vacation for this purpose. 

I have a number of colleagues from D.C. Superior Court and 

former colleagues from the U.S. Attorney’s Office, as well as friends 

who are here acting as my family today. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Well, give my Aloha to the family. 

Ms. Brandt you have family and friends here as well. I would like 

to give you an opportunity to introduce them. So, please feel free 

to do so at this time. 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you, Senator. 

I am proud to have my mother, Eloise Ransom, here. My husband, Deputy Chief U.S. Marshal Robert Brandt; and my sister, 

Nona Ann Ransom, who we all affectionately call Cricket. 

There are also a number of Superior Court judges here to support my nomination, too many to name, but I would like to take 

this opportunity to acknowledge Chief Judge Lee Satterfield; 

former Chief Judge Rufus King; Judge Russell Canan, who is the 

present Presiding Judge of the Criminal Division; Judge Melvin 

Wright, who is the current presiding judge of the Civil Division; 

12 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Knowles appears in the Appendix on page 53. 

and Judge Stephanie Duncan-Peters, who is the former Presiding 

Judge of the Civil Division. 

Also there are a number of friends, former students, and colleagues from the Department of Justice and American University 

here, among them U.S. Marshal for the District of Columbia Superior Court Michael Hughes and Assistant D.C. Chief of Police Michael Anzallo. 

I am grateful for all the support, guidance, and love that they 

have given me. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much and I want to welcome 

your family as well, especially your mother. We are always glad to 

see the loved ones as well as the supporters who are here. 

Each nominee has filed responses to a biographical and financial 

questionnaire submitted by the Committee. So, without objection, 

this information will be made a part of the hearing record, with the 

exception of financial data, which will be kept on file and made 

available for public inspection in the Committee office. 

Our Committee rules require that all witnesses at nomination 

hearings give their testimony under oath. 

So, will you please at this time stand and raise your right hand. 

Do you swear that the testimony you are about to give the Committee is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so 

help you, God? 

Ms. KNOWLES. I do. 

Ms. BRANDT. I do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Please note in the record that the 

witnesses answered in the affirmative. 

Judge Knowles, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF KIMBERLEY S. KNOWLES 1 TO BE AN ASSOCIATE JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. KNOWLES. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I 

am grateful for and honored by the opportunity to appear before 

you today as a nominee to be an Associate Judge of the Superior 

Court of the District of Columbia. 

I would like to thank the District of Columbia Judicial Nomination Commission, chaired by the Hon. Emmet G. Sullivan, for recommending me to the White House, and I am also thankful to 

President Barack Obama for his nomination for this position. 

I would also like to thank Congresswoman Norton for taking the 

time to introduce me at this hearing today. I also am appreciative 

of this Committee for considering my nomination so expeditiously. 

Unfortunately, as I noted earlier, my family is unable to attend 

today’s hearing, as they are away on a vacation, and I will rejoin 

them immediately after this hearing. They are my greatest supporters, and I would like to acknowledge them: My son, Cameron 

Knowles; my brothers, Alex and Nigel Knowles; my sister-in-law, 

Arlene Knowles; and my nephews, Devin and Sean Knowles. 

I would also like to recognize my late parents, Philmore and Ita 

Knowles, whose hard work and many sacrifices put me in a position to be able to sit before you today. 

13 

1The prepared statement of Ms. Brandt appears in the Appendix on page 70. 

I also wish to acknowledge Chief Judge Eric T. Washington of 

the District of Columbia Court of Appeals and Chief Judge Lee F. 

Satterfield of the District of Columbia Superior Court for their 

leadership, guidance, and support. 

Finally, I would like to thank my many friends and current and 

former colleagues who have supported me over the years, some of 

whom are present today. 

I was born and raised in Bronx, New York. I moved to Washington, DC, to attend Howard University School of Law and never 

left because I fell in love with the city and the community. 

My entire legal career has been dedicated to serving the District 

of Columbia community—first as a judicial law clerk in the D.C. 

Superior Court; then for 121⁄2 years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office 

for the District of Columbia; and now as a Magistrate Judge in the 

D.C. Superior Court. 

I hope to continue my service to the District of Columbia as an 

Associate Judge of the D.C. Superior Court. I am honored to be 

considered for this esteemed position, especially in the court where 

I have practiced my entire career. 

I thank you for your consideration of my nomination, and I look 

forward to answering your questions. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Knowles, for your 

statement. 

Ms. Brandt, will you please proceed with your statement. 

TESTIMONY OF RAINEY R. BRANDT 1 TO BE AN ASSOCIATE 

JUDGE, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and Members of the 

Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear here today at 

this confirmation hearing for my nomination to be an Associate 

Judge of the Superior Court of the District of Columbia. It is indeed an honor and a privilege. 

I would like to thank the Judicial Nomination Commission, particularly its chair, Judge Emmet Sullivan, for recommending me to 

the White House and President Barack Obama for nominating me. 

I also wish to express my appreciation to the Committee Members and staff who have been most courteous and professional 

throughout this process. 

Finally, special thanks to Congresswoman Eleanor Holmes Norton for taking the time out of her busy schedule to introduce me. 

My entire career has been devoted to public service, the law, and 

improving the administration of justice. It began 21 years ago as 

a professor teaching justice and law to the students of American 

University where I have taught ever since. It is one of my great 

satisfactions in life that my students still reach out to let me know 

how my classes inspired them to enter public service and make a 

difference. 

As a judge, I hope to continue to be a role model for others while 

ensuring that the rights of all who come before me are respected 

and protected. 

For 14 years at the D.C. Superior Court as Special Counsel to 

the Chief Judge, I have provided counsel, advice, and training to 

14 

nearly all of our judges and countless attorneys on a broad range 

of legal issues from bond reviews to trial logistics to sentencing options. 

My job puts me in day-to-day contact with judges seeking my advice on how to work through practical realities facing them in the 

courtroom from issues of substantive law, to procedural issues, to 

managing challenging and unexpected courtroom situations. 

I have also worked diligently within the Court to make sure that 

its processes and rules are fair and understandable for those persons who appear before the court: Lawyers and their parties, selfrepresented persons, the accused, victims, and their families. 

I believe that my hard work, creativity, and commitment to the 

Court, along with that of so many of my dedicated colleagues, have 

helped to improve access to justice for all who come to the court 

daily seeking to be heard and to solve the difficulties that brought 

them to us. 

I have been fortunate to experience the justice system from a variety of perspectives, and if confirmed, I will bring those skills and 

experience to the bench in order to continue furthering the court’s 

mission of being open to all, and trusted by all, while providing justice for all. Thank you. 

I will be pleased to respond to any questions you or other Committee Members might have. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much, Ms. Brandt. 

I will begin with the standard questions that this Committee 

asks of all nominees. I would like both of you to answer each question. 

Is there anything that you are aware of in your background that 

might present a conflict of interest with the duties of the office to 

which you have been nominated? 

Ms. KNOWLES. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BRANDT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you know of anything personal or otherwise 

that would in any way prevent you from fully and honorably discharging the responsibilities of the office to which you have been 

nominated? 

Ms. KNOWLES. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BRANDT. No, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Do you agree without reservation to respond to 

any reasonable summons to appear and testify before any duly constituted committee of Congress if you are confirmed? 

Ms. KNOWLES. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Ms. BRANDT. Yes, Mr. Chairman. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much for those answers. 

I commend both of you for making a decision to continue public 

service to District residents. Please elaborate on why you are seeking appointment to become an Associate Judge at this point in your 

career? 

Judge Knowles, I would like for you to begin, followed by Ms. 

Brandt. 

Ms. KNOWLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Well, I decided very early in my legal career that public interest 

and public service was what was best for me. 

15 

I realized that waking up in the morning to go to work I needed 

to feel like I was going to be affecting and helping somebody 

whether they knew that I was helping them or not. 

The other strong interest that I have always had has been in the 

courtroom and trial work. I decided that a very long time ago before I even went to law school, before I went to college. 

So, combining those two things, that is the reason why I went 

to the U.S. Attorney’s Office to be able to be in the courtroom, to 

see trial work, and to serve the public. That is why I spent 121⁄2

years at the U.S. Attorney’s Office. That is also why I sought a position as a Magistrate Judge. 

I believe that seeking a position now as an Associate Judge will 

allow me to continue my public service, continue my love of being 

in the courtroom and the trial work, but give me more variety. 

As a Magistrate Judge, there is a limited jurisdiction. Associate 

Judges have an opportunity to handle many more cases, more 

issues; and so, that would expand my horizons while still meeting 

the needs that I have by waking up every morning and serving the 

public. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Ms. Brandt. 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you for the question, Senator. 

For me, the answer is quite simple. My whole life has been dedicated to public service, and joining the bench as a judge would simply allow me to continue providing service to the public. A judge 

gets to play a different role in public service, protecting the public, 

vulnerable children, and victims. 

So, it would be a great way for me to remain at D.C. Superior 

Court and continue the public service that I have given to that 

court and its citizens over the past 14 years. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you very much. 

Ms. Brandt, although you have spent your entire legal career at 

the D.C. Superior Court and no doubt understand its rules and procedures very well, some may have concerns that you do not have 

litigation experience. 

Please discuss how your knowledge and experience qualify you to 

be an Associate Judge. 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you for the question, Senator Akaka. 

For the past 14 years, I have advised, counseled, and trained 

judges in my current position as Special Counsel to the Chief 

Judge. Daily, judges come to me seeking advice and counsel on how 

to handle a variety of issues at a fast pace. 

My years of experience at the court and exposure have allowed 

me to do a number of things that have put me in a good position 

to understand up close and personal what the job of a judge actually entails. 

It should be noted that I have, in my capacity at the courthouse, 

trained over 100 judges and magistrate judges during that time on 

both practical situations and substantive law. 

Additionally, the 21 years that I have spent teaching law at 

American University have given me the foundation from which I 

have been able to educate others. 

On a personal note, because my job at D.C. Superior Court is a 

unique one, I can understand that the title, Special Counsel to the 

Chief Judge, does not necessarily say what all I do every day. But, 

16 

on a personal level, the support that I have from the number of 

judges who are here and the ones who are back at the court dealing with the everyday press of business means the world to me because those judges know what I do on a daily basis and can speak 

as well as I can to the types of issues that make me qualified to 

be an Associate Judge at D.C. Superior Court. 

I could go on and on, but I will stop rambling now. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Judge Knowles, you have extensive criminal law experience as 

an attorney and Magistrate Judge. If confirmed, you may preside 

over cases arising under many different areas of the law. 

How has your career prepared you to handle the wide range of 

legal issues you will confront? 

Ms. KNOWLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

It is accurate that I have spent most of my career working on 

criminal law issues. However, I have done many different things 

within criminal law. 

I primarily worked in sex offense and domestic violence, but I 

prosecuted narcotics offenses. I did fraud and public corruption. I 

did a number of different kinds of cases. 

Currently, in my position now, I am handling traffic matters, 

which I have never done before. Although it is criminal, it is different. 

And so, the way that I envision being prepared for any other assignment, for example in civil or in family law, if I am confirmed 

and then assigned to those divisions, is to immerse myself in the 

law, which is what I learn how to do as a prosecutor. 

As I told many attorneys who I supervised, when in doubt, refer 

to the law. So, I will read the law. I will study. I will research the 

case law and get a fundamental knowledge. 

Also, I am lucky to be at the D.C. Superior Court where they 

have an excellent training committee, so I will consult with the 

training committee, and I am sure I would get base knowledge 

from the training committee. And then, there is a wealth of knowledge through all of the judges who are already on the court. 

So, as a prosecutor, I learned you have to find the answer, and 

I am not afraid of the fact that I do not know all of the answers 

as long as I am willing to find the answer, which is what I learned 

how to do as a prosecutor. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you, very much. 

Ms. Brandt, as a judge, you may have litigants appear before you 

who do not have attorneys and may not fully understand the law 

and procedure. 

What do you believe the proper role is for a judge in helping litigants access information they may need to present their cases? 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you for the question, Senator Akaka. 

I would like to start by saying in January of this year, our Canons of Judicial Ethics were revised to address just this issue in 

specificity whereby now the judges have a responsibility of making 

sure that people who come before them who are self-represented 

have reasonable access and understanding of the process. 

And, to that end, while the Canon dictates and gives a number 

of examples from which a judge can use to make sure that a person 

clearly understands the procedures, I believe it is also incumbent 

17 

on a judge to make sure that he or she speaks effectively, looks the 

individual in the eye, and explains the entire process, no matter 

how small a detail is, to that individual so that he or she has full 

understanding of what is happening and how it will affect him or 

her. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

Judge Knowles, as you know from your time at the D.C. Superior 

Court, judges must often handle heavy caseloads. Please describe 

how you would balance the need to move efficiently through cases 

while ensuring that all cases receive thoughtful consideration. 

Ms. KNOWLES. Well, I am lucky in that I am in the unique position where I handle that now. I have a large case load each day, 

and some days I handle issues that take a little bit more time. 

If confirmed as an Associate Judge, I would endeavor to handle 

each case one at a time. When I realize there is an issue that has 

come up in a case that may need a little bit more time, that I need 

the time to research, I will take the time to tell the parties I need 

them to come back later in the afternoon, but not rush the case because that will not be good for anybody’s case. 

So, I think it is a great challenge that all judges have whether 

they are seasoned judges or new judges. It is a great challenge to 

have to balance looking at the cases and taking the time to spend 

on all the issues. 

First, is moving a crowded docket, but I think it just has to be 

done. I cannot articulate how that is done. It is a matter of going 

case by case, and when there is an issue that has to be looked at, 

if there is an issue that I do not know the answer to, it is taking 

the moment to say, I have to pass this case, and looking at the 

issue. 

So, not rushing through the case because that is not fair to the 

litigants. It is not fair to the other litigants and parties who are 

sitting in the courtroom. 

So, taking the time that I need is what I would do. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. 

What do you think is the biggest challenge you will have in becoming an Associate Judge and how do you plan to address that 

challenge? 

Ms. Brandt, I would like you to answer first, followed by Judge 

Knowles. 

Ms. BRANDT. Thank you very much, Senator Akaka, for that 

question. 

For me, that is a two-fold answer. The first is that I will have 

to learn how to let go of the current responsibilities associated with 

my current role so that I can focus on the responsibilities that come 

with being a judge. 

Unlike other nominees who are coming to the bench from outside 

agencies, I will remain in close proximity with people to whom I 

have provided advice and assistance for many years. 

The second thing that comes to mind is the fact that there are 

certain areas of the law that I am less familiar with than others. 

While I have a significant foundation in criminal law, matters dealing with civil and family court are less familiar to me. 

So, like any new judge who moves into a new division, along with 

reading and learning the law, I will take part in the judicial trainVerDate Nov 24 2008 11:50 Nov 14, 2012 Jkt 076064 PO 00000 Frm 00021 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 P:\DOCS\76064.TXT SAFFAIRS PsN: PAT
18 

ing program, which is rigorous and focused on getting judges very 

familiar with the areas of the law that they might be less familiar 

with. 

So, a combination of those two things. That hopefully addresses 

your question. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. Judge Knowles. 

Ms. KNOWLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I think I started to answer that question in my last response. 

One of the great challenges I think is, in fact, balancing the need 

to move a heavy docket and caseload and giving each case or issue 

the time that it deserves. 

I think also another important issue and challenge will be being 

an efficient Associate Judge, if, in fact, I am confirmed. 

I want to be respectful. I would want to be respectful of everyone’s time—the litigants, attorneys, parties, and court personnel— 

understanding that there are, on a daily basis, pleadings, requests, 

and administrative procedures that are presented to a judge each 

day in chambers, and that means that there are attorneys, parties, 

and court personnel who are all waiting for that decision so that 

they can progress with whatever it is they need to do. 

And so, I want to learn to balance all of those things so that I 

can keep the process moving. There is a lot that has to happen for 

the court house to work efficiently. So, making sure that I am efficient so that everybody else can continue on and being respectful 

of everybody’s time and efforts is something that I think will also 

be a challenge but one that I believe that I can meet. Thank you. 

Senator AKAKA. Thank you. I want to thank you both for your 

testimonies. There are no further questions from me at this time. 

I want to thank all of our witnesses for appearing before the Committee today. 

The hearing record will remain open until the close of business 

Monday, July 23, for Members of this Committee to submit additional statements or questions. Any additional questions will be 

submitted to the appropriate nominee in writing. 

I also want to thank Congressman Moran and Congresswoman 

Norton for taking their time to be with us this morning and adding 

to the record of our witnesses. 

It is my hope that the Senate can act quickly to confirm all three 

of the nominees we have heard today. 

This hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:40 a.m., the Committee was adjourned.] 

(19) 

A P P E N D I X 


76064.001
20 


76064.002
21 


76064.003
22 


76064.004
23 


76064.005
24 


76064.006
25 


76064.007
26 


76064.008
27 


76064.009
28 


76064.010
29 


76064.011
30 


76064.012
31 


76064.013
32 


76064.034
33 


76064.014
34 


76064.015
35 


76064.016
36 


76064.017
37 


76064.018
38 


76064.019
39 


76064.020
40 


76064.021
41 


76064.022
42 


76064.023
43 


76064.024
44 


76064.025
45 


76064.026
46 


76064.027
47 


76064.028
48 


76064.029
49 


76064.030
50 


76064.031
51 


76064.032
52 


76064.033
53 


76064.035
54 


76064.036
55 


76064.037
56 


76064.038
57 


76064.039
58 


76064.040
59 


76064.041
60 


76064.042
61 


76064.043
62 


76064.044
63 


76064.045
64 


76064.046
65 


76064.047
66 


76064.048
67 


76064.049
68 


76064.050
69 


76064.051
70 


76064.052
71 


76064.053
72 


76064.054
73 


76064.055
74 


76064.056
75 


76064.057
76 


76064.058
77 


76064.059
78 


76064.060
79 


76064.061
80 


76064.062
81 


76064.063
82 


76064.064
83 


76064.065
84 


76064.066
85 


76064.067
86 


76064.068
87 


76064.069
88 


76064.070
89 


76064.071
90 


76064.072
91 


76064.073
92 


76064.074
93 


76064.075
94 


76064.076
95 


76064.077
96 


76064.078
97 


76064.079
98 


76064.080
99 


76064.081
100 


76064.082
101 


76064.083
102 


76064.084
103 

Æ 


76064.085