DOCSLIB.ORG

An Investigation Into the Removal of Nine U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
An Investigation Into the Removal of Nine U.S U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation into the Removal of Nine U.S. Attorneys in 2006 U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General Office of Professional Responsibility September 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 1 I. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 II. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 4 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 7 I. U.S. Attorneys .................................................................................. 7 II. Selection of U.S. Attorneys................................................................ 8 III. Department Evaluation and Interaction with U.S. Attorneys ............. 9 IV. Backgrounds of Department Officials.............................................. 10 A. Alberto Gonzales ................................................................... 11 B. Kyle Sampson ....................................................................... 11 C. Monica Goodling ................................................................... 11 D. Paul McNulty ........................................................................ 12 E. Michael Elston ...................................................................... 12 F. David Margolis ...................................................................... 13 G. William Mercer ...................................................................... 13 CHAPTER THREE FACTUAL OVERVIEW.................................................. 15 I. Development of U.S. Attorney Removal Lists ................................... 15 A. Genesis of Plan to Remove U.S. Attorneys.............................. 16 B. Process to Identify U.S. Attorneys for Removal....................... 16 C. The First List – March 2, 2005............................................... 18 1. Input from Comey and Margolis ................................... 21 2. Reaction to the List from the Office of the White House Counsel................................................... 22 3. Fall 2005 – Further Consultations about the Removal of U.S. Attorneys.......................................................... 23 a. Battle ................................................................. 23 b. Mercer................................................................ 23 c. Comey ................................................................ 24 d. Buchanan .......................................................... 24 D. The Second List – January 2006............................................ 25 i 1. Sampson’s January 1, 2006, Draft List ........................ 25 2. The January 9, 2006, Memorandum from Sampson to the White House ...................................................... 27 3. The First Removal: Todd Graves.................................. 29 E. The Third List – April 14, 2006 .............................................. 30 1. Heffelfinger .................................................................. 31 2. Ryan............................................................................ 32 3. The Plan to Replace Cummins with Griffin ................... 33 a. Miers’s Request Regarding Griffin ....................... 33 b. Battle Tells Cummins to Resign .......................... 34 4. Sampson Suggests that Patrick Fitzgerald Be Removed 34 F. The Fourth List – September 13, 2006................................... 35 1. Sampson’s “Consensus” Process in Compiling the List . 37 2. The Removal Plan Takes Shape.................................... 39 G. Elston’s List – November 1, 2006........................................... 40 H. The Fifth List – November 7, 2006 ......................................... 42 1. Iglesias is Added to the List.......................................... 42 2. The Removal Plan ........................................................ 43 3. Reaction to the November 7 List and Plan .................... 44 I. The Sixth List – November 15, 2006 ...................................... 46 1. The Revised Plan.......................................................... 46 2. Execution of the Plan is Postponed............................... 47 3. The November 27, 2006, Meeting in the Attorney General’s Office.............................................. 48 a. Gonzales’s Recollection of the November 27 Meeting ......................................... 49 b. McNulty Asks to Add Ryan to the List ................. 49 c. White House Approval of the Removal Plan ......... 50 J. The Seventh and Final List – December 4, 2006 .................... 50 1. The White House Approves the Plan ............................. 50 2. The Implementation of the Removal Plan...................... 51 II. The Aftermath of the Removals ....................................................... 52 A. The U.S. Attorneys’ Initial Reactions...................................... 53 B. Concern that the Department Intended to Bypass Senate Confirmation for Replacement U.S. Attorneys ........................ 54 C. The Department Begins to Publicly Respond to Concerns About the Removals .............................................................. 55 ii 1. Articles About Cummins’s Removal.............................. 55 2. Senators Express Concern About the Removals............ 57 3. Sampson’s January 2007 Briefing of Senate Judiciary Committee Staff ........................................................... 58 D. Elston’s Telephone Calls to Charlton and McKay on January 17, 2007.................................................................. 61 1. Telephone Call to McKay.............................................. 62 2. Telephone Call to Charlton........................................... 63 3. Elston’s Description of the Telephone Calls .................. 63 E. Attorney General Gonzales’s January 18, 2007, Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee ................................. 64 F. Cummins Seeks Advice from Elston ...................................... 65 G. McNulty’s February 6, 2007, Testimony Before the Senate Judiciary Committee ............................................................. 65 1. McNulty’s Use of the Term “Performance-Related” to Describe the Removals ................................................. 65 2. Attorney General Gonzales’s Reaction to McNulty’s Testimony.................................................................... 67 3. U.S. Attorneys’ Reaction to McNulty’s Testimony.......... 68 H. The February 8 Letter from Several Senators ......................... 68 I. McNulty’s February 14 Closed Briefing for the Senate Judiciary Committee.................................................. 69 1. Preparation for the Briefing.......................................... 69 2. McNulty’s Briefing for the Senate Judiciary Committee 71 J. Elston’s Alleged Threat to Cummins ...................................... 73 1. Cummins’s Quote in The Washington Post................... 73 2. Elston’s Telephone Call to Cummins ............................ 74 a. Cummins’s Account of the Telephone Call .......... 74 b. Cummins’s E-mail to Bogden, Charlton, Iglesias, Lam, and McKay about the Telephone Call ......... 75 c. Elston’s Account of the Telephone Call ............... 76 K. The Department’s Response to the Senators’ Letter ............... 77 L. Events in March 2007 ........................................................... 78 1. March 3 Washington Post Article ................................. 78 2. House and Senate Hearings ......................................... 78 3. Cummins’s February 20 E-mail Surfaces ..................... 79 4. Moschella’s Testimony Before the House Judiciary Subcommittee.............................................................. 82 a. Preparation Sessions .......................................... 82 iii b. Discussion in Preparation Sessions About White House Involvement ............................................. 82 c. March 5 Meeting at the White House to Discuss Moschella’s Testimony ........................................ 84 d. Moschella’s Testimony ........................................ 85 M. Attorney General Gonzales’s March 7 Op-Ed Article............... 87 N. Additional Documents Come to Light..................................... 89 O. Sampson’s Resignation.......................................................... 93 P. The Scudder Memorandum ................................................... 93 Q. Attorney General Gonzales’s March 13 Press Conference ....... 94 R. Attorney General Gonzales Directs an Investigation ............... 95 S. Attorney General Gonzales’s Conversation with Goodling....... 95 T. Goodling Resigns from the Department ................................. 97 U. Subsequent Events ............................................................... 97 CHAPTER FOUR TODD GRAVES ............................................................. 99 I. Introduction ................................................................................... 99 A. Graves’s Background............................................................. 99 1. The EARS Evaluation of Graves’s Office.......................100 2. Graves’s Status on the Removal lists...........................100 B. Reasons Proffered for Graves’s Removal................................101 II. Chronology of Events Related to Graves’s Removal........................ 102 A. The Misconduct
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Appendix File Anes 1988‐1992 Merged Senate File
    Version 03 Codebook ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ CODEBOOK APPENDIX FILE ANES 1988‐1992 MERGED SENATE FILE USER NOTE: Much of his file has been converted to electronic format via OCR scanning. As a result, the user is advised that some errors in character recognition may have resulted within the text. MASTER CODES: The following master codes follow in this order: PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE CAMPAIGN ISSUES MASTER CODES CONGRESSIONAL LEADERSHIP CODE ELECTIVE OFFICE CODE RELIGIOUS PREFERENCE MASTER CODE SENATOR NAMES CODES CAMPAIGN MANAGERS AND POLLSTERS CAMPAIGN CONTENT CODES HOUSE CANDIDATES CANDIDATE CODES >> VII. MASTER CODES ‐ Survey Variables >> VII.A. Party/Candidate ('Likes/Dislikes') ? PARTY‐CANDIDATE MASTER CODE PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PEOPLE WITHIN PARTY 0001 Johnson 0002 Kennedy, John; JFK 0003 Kennedy, Robert; RFK 0004 Kennedy, Edward; "Ted" 0005 Kennedy, NA which 0006 Truman 0007 Roosevelt; "FDR" 0008 McGovern 0009 Carter 0010 Mondale 0011 McCarthy, Eugene 0012 Humphrey 0013 Muskie 0014 Dukakis, Michael 0015 Wallace 0016 Jackson, Jesse 0017 Clinton, Bill 0031 Eisenhower; Ike 0032 Nixon 0034 Rockefeller 0035 Reagan 0036 Ford 0037 Bush 0038 Connally 0039 Kissinger 0040 McCarthy, Joseph 0041 Buchanan, Pat 0051 Other national party figures (Senators, Congressman, etc.) 0052 Local party figures (city, state, etc.) 0053 Good/Young/Experienced leaders; like whole ticket 0054 Bad/Old/Inexperienced leaders; dislike whole ticket 0055 Reference to vice‐presidential candidate ? Make 0097 Other people within party reasons Card PARTY ONLY ‐‐ PARTY CHARACTERISTICS 0101 Traditional Democratic voter: always been a Democrat; just a Democrat; never been a Republican; just couldn't vote Republican 0102 Traditional Republican voter: always been a Republican; just a Republican; never been a Democrat; just couldn't vote Democratic 0111 Positive, personal, affective terms applied to party‐‐good/nice people; patriotic; etc.
    [Show full text]
  • An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General
    U.S. Department of Justice An Investigation of Allegations of Politicized Hiring by Monica Goodling and Other Staff in the Office of the Attorney General U.S. Department of Justice U.S. Department of Justice Office of Professional Responsibility Office of the Inspector General July 28, 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ................................................................................ i CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION................................................................. 1 I. Scope of the Investigation.................................................................. 1 II. Methodology of the Investigation ....................................................... 2 III. Organization of this Report ............................................................... 3 CHAPTER TWO BACKGROUND.................................................................. 5 I. Monica Goodling ............................................................................... 5 II. Kyle Sampson ................................................................................... 6 III. Susan Richmond and Jan Williams................................................... 7 IV. Department Components and Personnel ........................................... 7 V. Hiring Standards ............................................................................ 11 A. Department Career and Political Attorney Positions ............... 11 B. Legal Standards..................................................................... 12 CHAPTER THREE GOODLING’S ROLE
    [Show full text]
  • Congressional Record United States Th of America PROCEEDINGS and DEBATES of the 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION
    E PL UR UM IB N U U S Congressional Record United States th of America PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 110 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION Vol. 153 WASHINGTON, MONDAY, MARCH 19, 2007 No. 47 Senate The Senate met at 2 p.m. and was appoint the Honorable MARK L. PRYOR, a After all, this was a President who called to order by the Honorable MARK Senator from the State of Arkansas, to per- won two elections by the barest of mar- L. PRYOR, a Senator from the State of form the duties of the Chair. gins, first by the Supreme Court. Yet Arkansas. ROBERT C. BYRD, after 9/11, instead of uniting the coun- President pro tempore. try, he has chosen to push the envelope PRAYER Mr. PRYOR thereupon assumed the of his authority. On everything from The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- chair as Acting President pro tempore. the runup to the war in Iraq, to the fered the following prayer: f plan to destroy Social Security, to the Let us pray: RECOGNITION OF THE MAJORITY use of warrantless wiretapping, this ad- Lord, You have promised to work for LEADER ministration has governed without the good of those who love You. Work compromise. in the lives of our lawmakers, The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- The political purge of U.S. attorneys strengthening them for every problem, pore. The majority leader is recog- is only the latest example of this Presi- trial, and temptation they face. Open nized. dent’s unhealthy disregard for checks their eyes to see Your hand at work f and balances.
    [Show full text]
  • \\Crewserver05\Data\Research & Investigations\Most Ethical Public
    Stephen Abraham Exhibits EXHIBIT 1 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings - New York Times http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/23/us/23gitmo.html?pagewanted=print July 23, 2007 Unlikely Adversary Arises to Criticize Detainee Hearings By WILLIAM GLABERSON NEWPORT BEACH, Calif. — Stephen E. Abraham’s assignment to the Pentagon unit that runs the hearings at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, seemed a perfect fit. A lawyer in civilian life, he had been decorated for counterespionage and counterterrorism work during 22 years as a reserve Army intelligence officer in which he rose to the rank of lieutenant colonel. His posting, just as the Guantánamo hearings were accelerating in 2004, gave him a close-up view of the government’s detention policies. It also turned him into one of the Bush administration’s most unlikely adversaries. In June, Colonel Abraham became the first military insider to criticize publicly the Guantánamo hearings, which determine whether detainees should be held indefinitely as enemy combatants. Just days after detainees’ lawyers submitted an affidavit containing his criticisms, the United States Supreme Court reversed itself and agreed to hear an appeal arguing that the hearings are unjust and that detainees have a right to contest their detentions in federal court. Some lawyers say Colonel Abraham’s account — of a hearing procedure that he described as deeply flawed and largely a tool for commanders to rubber-stamp decisions they had already made — may have played an important role in the justices’ highly unusual reversal. That decision once again brought the administration face to face with the vexing legal, political and diplomatic questions about the fate of Guantánamo and the roughly 360 men still held there.
    [Show full text]
  • SENATE—Tuesday, March 7, 2006
    March 7, 2006 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD—SENATE 2723 SENATE—Tuesday, March 7, 2006 The Senate met at 9:45 a.m. and was We will be returning to the lobbying side our borders, burning the American called to order by the PRESIDENT pro reform bill today. We will begin consid- flag is intended to intimidate, not to tempore (Mr. STEVENS). ering amendments. Therefore, in addi- engage in constructive speech. tion to the LIHEAP bill, we will have I believe the amendment process is PRAYER votes in relation to the amendments to the appropriate remedy to the Court’s The Chaplain, Dr. Barry C. Black, of- the lobbying reform bill. 1989 decision. As Harvard law professor fered the following prayer. I also expect the Senate to recess Richard Parker explains: Let us pray. from 12:30 until 2:15 for the weekly The amendment process is essential to the Our Father in heaven, today we party luncheons. Constitution’s deepest foundation—the prin- praise You because Your loving kind- I say again to all colleagues who ciple of popular sovereignty affirmed in its ness endures forever. You have blessed want to finish the lobbying bill this first words, ‘‘We the people.’’ Making use of week that we certainly want to allow this process reaffirms and thus preserves this land with freedom and abundance. that foundation. Thank You for spacious skies and adequate time for Members to offer amber waves of grain. amendments. I urge Members to come Since I first came to the Senate in Teach us to be thankful even when forward early.
    [Show full text]
  • White House Compliance with Committee Subpoenas Hearings
    WHITE HOUSE COMPLIANCE WITH COMMITTEE SUBPOENAS HEARINGS BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ONE HUNDRED FIFTH CONGRESS FIRST SESSION NOVEMBER 6 AND 7, 1997 Serial No. 105–61 Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform and Oversight ( U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 45–405 CC WASHINGTON : 1998 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 VerDate Jan 31 2003 08:13 May 28, 2003 Jkt 085679 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 5011 Sfmt 5011 E:\HEARINGS\45405 45405 COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM AND OVERSIGHT DAN BURTON, Indiana, Chairman BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York HENRY A. WAXMAN, California J. DENNIS HASTERT, Illinois TOM LANTOS, California CONSTANCE A. MORELLA, Maryland ROBERT E. WISE, JR., West Virginia CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut MAJOR R. OWENS, New York STEVEN SCHIFF, New Mexico EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York CHRISTOPHER COX, California PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida GARY A. CONDIT, California JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York STEPHEN HORN, California THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin JOHN L. MICA, Florida ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, Washington, THOMAS M. DAVIS, Virginia DC DAVID M. MCINTOSH, Indiana CHAKA FATTAH, Pennsylvania MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOE SCARBOROUGH, Florida DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ROD R. BLAGOJEVICH, Illinois STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts Carolina JIM TURNER, Texas JOHN E.
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Political Corporate Contributions 2-19-2015.Xlsx
    2014 POLITICAL CORPORATE CONTRIBUTIONS Last Name First Name Committee Name State Office District Party 2014 Total ($) Alabama 2014 PAC AL Republican 10,000 Free Enterprise PAC AL 10,000 Mainstream PAC AL 10,000 Collins Charles Charlie Collins Campaign Committee AR Representative AR084 Republican 750 Collins‐Smith Linda Linda Collins‐Smith Campaign Committee AR Senator AR019 Democratic 1,050 Davis Andy Andy Davis Campaign Committee AR Representative AR031 Republican 750 Dotson Jim Jim Dotson Campaign Committee AR Representative AR093 Republican 750 Griffin Tim Tim Griffin Campaign Committee AR Lt. Governor AR Republican 2,000 Rapert Jason Jason Rapert Campaign Committee AR Senator AR035 Republican 1,000 Rutledge Leslie Leslie Rutledge Campaign Committee AR Attorney General AR Republican 2,000 Sorvillo Jim Jim Sorvillo Campaign Committee AR Representative AR032 Republican 750 Williams Eddie Joe GoEddieJoePAC AR Senator AR029 Republican 5,000 Growing Arkansas AR Republican 5,000 Senate Victory PAC AZ Republican 2,500 Building Arizona's Future AZ Democratic 5,000 House Victory PAC AZ Republican 2,500 Allen Travis Re‐Elect Travis Allen for Assembly 2014 CA Representative CA072 Republican 1,500 Anderson Joel Tax Fighters for Joel Anderson, Senate 2014 CA Senator CA038 Republican 2,500 Berryhill Tom Tom Berryhill for Senate 2014 CA Senator CA008 Republican 2,500 Bigelow Frank Friends of Frank Bigelow for Assembly 2014 CA Representative CA005 Republican 2,500 Bonin Mike Mike Bonin for City Council 2013 Officeholder Account CA LA City Council
    [Show full text]
  • Institutional Report to the University Senate of the United Methodist Church Volume II: Self-Study Report to the Higher Learning Commission NCA, 2014
    1 Institutional Report to The University Senate of The United Methodist Church Volume II: Self-Study Report to the Higher Learning Commission NCA, 2014 Submitted by Dr. Roderick L. Smothers, President Philander Smith College Little Rock, Arkansas 72202 August 2015 2 2014 Self-Study Report PREPARED FOR THE HIGHER LEARNING COMMISSION OF NCA Submitted by Dr. Lloyd E. Hervey Interim President September 2014 3 2014 Self-Study Report Developed for the Higher Learning Commission Of the North Central Association by the 2012-2014 PSC HLC Self-Study Committee Mission Statement Philander Smith College’s mission is to graduate academically accomplished students, grounded as advocates for social justice, determined to change the world for the better 4 President’s Welcome Philander Smith College (PSC) welcomes the team from the Higher Learning Commission (HLC) to our campus in Little Rock, Arkansas. It is our pleasure to provide the HLC with our Self-Study Report for 2007 -2014. This report is the work of the Philander Smith College community of learners who are ―moving forward‖ with an emphasis on ―creating a measurable and sustainable academic culture on our campus.‖ The College‘s mission is to ―graduate academically accomplished students, grounded as advocates for social justice, determined to change the world for the better.‖ As a four-year liberal arts institution with a strong Christian heritage and strong ties to the United Methodist Church, Philander Smith College is committed to offer our students the highest quality education in collaboration with the Higher Learning Commission because we believe that higher education is the key to economic, social, political, and personal empowerment.
    [Show full text]
  • Senator Feinstein Accuses Attorney General of Playing Politics with Nation’S Top Prosecutors
    The Imbalance of Justice Senator Feinstein Accuses Attorney General of Playing Politics with Nation’s Top Prosecutors Although prosecutors appoint- Eight U.S. Attor- ed by the West Wing normally require confirmation from the neys have been Senate, somehow a G.O.P. staffer fired for no reason. slipped new language into the Pa- triot Act renewal legislation at the Or maybe there was end of 2005, effectively changing the law. Now interim appointees a reason. By this can serve indefinitely. “No member has stepped time next year, can- forward and said they knew it didate Hillary Clin- was in the bill,” said Scott Gerber, The former U.S. Attorney for Southern a spokesman for Senator Dianne ton may find herself California, Carol Lam. Feinstein. Feinstein sits on the the subject of an ments are in jeopardy with Lam Senate Judiciary Committee, out of the picture. whose former chairman, Arlen indictment. Although Cunningham went to Specter of Pennsylvania, said his prison on a plea deal that requires chief counsel Michael O’Neill inserted the language into the bill March 20, 2007 him to cooperate with prosecutors by naming names, if the White at the request of someone at the Justice Department. O’Neill is a iven the bevy of House has its way, he may get to keep his secrets after all. past law clerk for Supreme Court scandal investiga- Justice Clarence Thomas. tions engulfing Capi- Karen Hewitt was named as Lam’s interim replacement. A San Although the change was tol Hill, it shouldn’t never debated or voted on, no one be surprising to hear Diego native and a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, in Congress has challenged the le- that the President wants to make gality of the provision or demand- a few personnel changes in the Hewitt was third-in-command G under Lam prior to the dismissal.
    [Show full text]
  • Newsmaker Interview: Lt. Gov. Tim Griffin on Efficiency, Transformation & Tax Cuts
    NEWSMAKER INTERVIEW: LT. GOV. TIM GRIFFIN ON EFFICIENCY, TRANSFORMATION & TAX CUTS (April 2020) A 5th generation Arkansan, Tim Griffin was raised in Magnolia and has served as Arkansas lieutenant governor since 2015.1 A fiscal conservative, Lt. Gov. Griffin spoke at the Policy Foundation's 20th anniversary event in 2015 with Gov. Asa Hutchinson. Lt. Gov. Griffin served on the Transformation Advisory Board, a 15-member citizens panel (2017-18) that emerged from the Policy Foundation's Efficiency Project (2015-16). The Board's work led to the reorganization of Arkansas state government in 2019. The Policy Foundation recently interviewed Lt. Gov. Griffin, a graduate of Hendrix College and Tulane Law School, about his work to transform Arkansas state government and make Arkansas' economy more competitive with other states. Policy Foundation: How did your background inform your public service on the Transformation Advisory Board? Lt. Gov. Griffin: I was able to draw up on my varied education and work experience, especially my work in the private sector as a small businessman, as an officer in the U.S. Army Reserve, and my experiences in the executive and legislative branches of government. Specifically, this broad experience allows me to understand government culture and how it differs from the private sector in terms of managing processes, programs, and people. That knowledge helped me identify where state government could be more efficient, provide better services to Arkansas taxpayers, and save taxpayers money. Policy Foundation: More than half of the Board members were citizen- volunteers from the private sector. What does that say about citizens' ability to make a difference in Arkansas? 1 Lt.
    [Show full text]
  • New Faces in the Senate
    NEW FACES IN THE SENATE Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) Mark Kirk (R-IL) Replaces retiring Senator Judd Gregg (R) Replaces retiring Senator Roland Burris (D) Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) Mike Lee (R-UT) Replaces retiring Senator Christopher Dodd (D) Defeated Senator Bob Bennett (R) in the primary Roy Blunt (R-MO) Jerry Moran (R-KS) Replaces retiring Senator Kit Bond (R) Replaces retiring Senator Sam Brownback (R) John Boozman (R-AR) Rand Paul (R-KY) Replaces defeated Senator Blanche Lincoln (D) Replaces retiring Senator Jim Bunning (R) Dan Coats (R-IN) Rob Portman (R-OH) Replaces retiring Senator Evan Bayh (D) Replaces retiring Senator George Voinovich (R) Chris Coons (D-DE) Marco Rubio (R-FL) Replaces retiring Senator Ted Kaufman (D) Replaces retiring Senator George LeMieux (R) John Hoeven (R-ND) Pat Toomey (R-PA) Replaces retiring Senator Byron Dorgan (D) Replaces Senator Arlen Specter (D), who was defeated in the primary Ron Johnson (R-WI) Defeated Senator Russ Feingold (D) ARKANSAS – John Boozman (R) Defeated incumbent Senator Blanche Lincoln (D). Senator-elect John Boozman comes to the U.S. Senate after serving 5 terms in the U.S. House of Representatives from the Third District of Arkansas. Boozman served as Assistant Whip to Eric Cantor and on the Foreign Affairs Committee, including the Africa and Global Health subcommittee. Prior to his political career, Dr. Boozman ran an optometry clinic in Arkansas. Senator-elect Boozman has been a strong leader on many issues related to International Affairs programs, particularly on global health. He is the founder of the Congressional Malaria and Neglected Tropical Disease Caucus and was awarded the Congressional Leadership Award by the “The goal is to Global Health Council for his work in 2010.
    [Show full text]
  • CHAIRMEN of SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–Present
    CHAIRMEN OF SENATE STANDING COMMITTEES [Table 5-3] 1789–present INTRODUCTION The following is a list of chairmen of all standing Senate committees, as well as the chairmen of select and joint committees that were precursors to Senate committees. (Other special and select committees of the twentieth century appear in Table 5-4.) Current standing committees are highlighted in yellow. The names of chairmen were taken from the Congressional Directory from 1816–1991. Four standing committees were founded before 1816. They were the Joint Committee on ENROLLED BILLS (established 1789), the joint Committee on the LIBRARY (established 1806), the Committee to AUDIT AND CONTROL THE CONTINGENT EXPENSES OF THE SENATE (established 1807), and the Committee on ENGROSSED BILLS (established 1810). The names of the chairmen of these committees for the years before 1816 were taken from the Annals of Congress. This list also enumerates the dates of establishment and termination of each committee. These dates were taken from Walter Stubbs, Congressional Committees, 1789–1982: A Checklist (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1985). There were eleven committees for which the dates of existence listed in Congressional Committees, 1789–1982 did not match the dates the committees were listed in the Congressional Directory. The committees are: ENGROSSED BILLS, ENROLLED BILLS, EXAMINE THE SEVERAL BRANCHES OF THE CIVIL SERVICE, Joint Committee on the LIBRARY OF CONGRESS, LIBRARY, PENSIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS, RETRENCHMENT, REVOLUTIONARY CLAIMS, ROADS AND CANALS, and the Select Committee to Revise the RULES of the Senate. For these committees, the dates are listed according to Congressional Committees, 1789– 1982, with a note next to the dates detailing the discrepancy.
    [Show full text]